On Dec 10, 9:18 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Didn't he get thrown of a moderated humanities group on Shakespeare
studies - was it just 18 months ago - for doing just that?

No. Phil the Fact Factory strikes (out) again!

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 9:18 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Didn't he get thrown of a moderated humanities group on Shakespeare
studies - was it just 18 months ago - for doing just that?

No. Phil the Fact Factory strikes (out) again!

That's a challenge to a fact. But what happens if Brennan receives a fact -
he continues to snip everything to the point while making strange overtures
on line.

Nothing seems to depend on anything for Brennan, since everything he doesn't
know, like or admit, is to him a lie. Lynne Kositsky says other than you
do - is she a liar too?

She even wrote that your attentions to her caused her to cease writing on
the HLAS newsgroup. Go ahead and post this there, and if it is refuted, get
back to us. But please don't quote your HLAS heroes - the women-haters
there.

This is what you cut this time - which has to do with truth and lies, and
the sort of attention this subject gets, and who writes about it he

How curious that Brennan finds it curious! Curioser and curioser!

He is attracted and fascinated to this subject of false-identity and abuse,
no? Didn't he get thrown of a moderated humanities group on Shakespeare
studies - was it just 18 months ago - for doing just that? Of course, he was
not posting here very much when the FSS was, so perhaps he is not very
expert on that person - but now 'he' is gone, Brennan returns to tell us all
about it, and what we should think.

As an abusenik, how preposterous that he has anything to say on this subject
by virtue of his own demonstrated behavior, and rather desperate
diversionary activities here.

On Dec 10, 11:41 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

...

On Dec 10, 9:18 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Didn't he get thrown of a moderated humanities group on Shakespeare
studies - was it just 18 months ago - for doing just that?

No. Phil the Fact Factory strikes (out) again!

That's a challenge to a fact. But what happens if Brennan receives a fact -
he continues to snip everything to the point while making strange overtures
on line.

Nothing seems to depend on anything for Brennan, since everything he doesn't
know, like or admit, is to him a lie. Lynne Kositsky says other than you
do - is she a liar too?

The lady in question said no such thing. And why do you insist on
posting her name here when she's requested you don't do so?

JHC

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:08:06 -0800 (PST), The Historian
wrote:

On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Snip typical Innes defense of his self-esteem meal-ticket.

Can
Mottershead not be the whistle blower, but the perp?

Mike, I think Philsy came up with a new one for the List of the Blind
Monkey!

Somehow, I suspected one of the flacks would go this route. It's
amazing after all P. Innes' self-righteous prattle about evidence that
he'd blithely toss out such garbage.

These desperate attempts to divert attention and muddy the waters have
been duplicated over in the monitored world of the USCF forums, but,
AFAIK, nobody has been dumb enough over there to claim Mottershead
might be the Fake Sam Sloan. Over there, as expert opinion more and
more supports the report and its underlying methodology, the
nay-sayers have tended to claim (1) it invaded other members' privacy
and (2) it wasn't authorized.

On Dec 10, 1:24 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:08:06 -0800 (PST), The Historian

wrote:
On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Snip typical Innes defense of his self-esteem meal-ticket.
Can
Mottershead not be the whistle blower, but the perp?
Mike, I think Philsy came up with a new one for the List of the Blind
Monkey!

Somehow, I suspected one of the flacks would go this route. It's
amazing after all P. Innes' self-righteous prattle about evidence that
he'd blithely toss out such garbage.

You must be new here. That's all Innes ever does - toss out garbage.

On Dec 11, 12:30 am, The Historian
wrote:

Somehow, I suspected one of the flacks would go this route. It's
amazing after all P. Innes' self-righteous prattle about evidence that
he'd blithely toss out such garbage.

You must be new here. That's all Innes ever does - toss out garbage.

I thought Phil Innes *was* the garbage.


-- help bot

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:22:59 -0800 (PST), The Historian
wrote:


Now we need a 'good' reason for the FMM, FNB, FLP, etc.

Anybody who got involved in the issues with which the FSS was engaged
usually became fair game for some fake posts. I think it was partly
intimidation, partly crime of opportunity. And if one of the motives
was to destroy these newsgroups, making it harder to use kill-filters
would have been a effective way to go.

And, who knows, the FSS may have had a whimsical side.

On Dec 11, 1:11 am, help bot wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:30 am, The Historian
wrote:

Somehow, I suspected one of the flacks would go this route. It's
amazing after all P. Innes' self-righteous prattle about evidence that
he'd blithely toss out such garbage.
You must be new here. That's all Innes ever does - toss out garbage.

I thought Phil Innes *was* the garbage.

-- help bot

Agreed.

On Dec 11, 8:27 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:22:59 -0800 (PST), The Historian

wrote:
Now we need a 'good' reason for the FMM, FNB, FLP, etc.

Anybody who got involved in the issues with which the FSS was engaged
usually became fair game for some fake posts. I think it was partly
intimidation, partly crime of opportunity. And if one of the motives
was to destroy these newsgroups, making it harder to use kill-filters
would have been a effective way to go.

And, who knows, the FSS may have had a whimsical side.

Agreed. I noticed the FNB posts showed up about the time I criticized
Trollgar/Chess Masterminds for distortions in a press release - they
claimed some nonsense about GM Polgar's record.

As for whimsy, I'd describe it more as obsession.