The Board refused ...

If you /cut/ the issues you yourself raised Laugherty, then you deserve the
same treatment society offers you. Which is to treat you like a ranting
hectoring numbskull - an obnoxious bore! I think you already exhibited your
standards sufficiently that any response to such stuff by me is no longer
necessary to comment upon. Get it yet?

Here below is what you passed on this time - just so people know. But I
can't do your thinking for you, so do not apply this way again if your are
too sly to do it for yourself.

Phil Innes

----
1. Don't flatter yourself by thinking that I care about your opinion of
me. I don't.

I never appealed to flatter the judge. I instead wondered if he had any
sense or decency whatever

2. You were clearly wrong on the rankings of Chessville and ChessCafe.

An assertion, as usual lacking any datum. Should we think Judge Lafferty is
retired or was retired?

3. I'm not a reflexive Sloan supporter as you are with Trolgar.

I am not a supporter of anyone who does not advance chess which is also
USCF's mission. I say this in my own voice, despite the massive support of
those people who thing USCF sucks.

What the Judge says is a 'not' statement, but what the judge does is not as
he says, and the judge is shy of facing up to his 'activities' which are
everywhere banned except here - where he can say how he is, about himself,
etc.

pfft!

--------

PI
\