"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 9:32 am, The Historian wrote:

Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
determined to be heard.

After careful consideration by the board, your
5-year contract for "annoying Phil Innes" has
been renewed. Payment is in the mail; it's the
same amount as last time-- two boxes of used
chess trophies, and some "Trends" books from
the 1980s. (Hey, we run a tight ship here.)


-- the bored

the "I cudda bin a C player" lashes out!
----

And the issue was? [since it was from the Histyrian, what does it matter,
lashing is the all of it]

I don't suppose it can be resentment for those who know things because
people explain about it, or those who are better players at chess like that
commonly cited patzer Fischer, or those who think public issues of chess
management should we public, as another patzer, Lincoln, proposed for the
basis of the nation, and not Pentagon-level Secrets about the idiotic clown
Sloan, invoking Hoover, and maybe even the Hoover Dam... in his law suit

10,000 posts can't be wrong - and they all complain the same. Doesn't matter
if Sloan wrote them, or Cornfed, they are so obviously resentful of those
who actually push the margins of things, in chess or its management, that
comment is /almost /superfluous. They both devolve to Brennan's level, which
is to rubbish everyone who does anything.

The comment that is necessary is that such clowns make so much noise, on
chess topics or its managent, as to drown out any real signal. USCF seems
unable to distinguish noise from single, so sucks noise.

Sam Sloan cudda bin a useful board member in exposing all the in-dealing.
Cornfed cudda been a contendah!

Both need to apply less attention to self than and to proclamations to do
either. Both are cloth-eared. Both failed.

Phil Innes, February 2008.

On Feb 7, 5:34 pm, help bot wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:32 am, The Historian wrote:

Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
determined to be heard.

After careful consideration by the board, your
5-year contract for "annoying Phil Innes" has
been renewed. Payment is in the mail; it's the
same amount as last time-- two boxes of used
chess trophies, and some "Trends" books from
the 1980s. (Hey, we run a tight ship here.)

-- the bored

It's a non-exclusive contract. Anyone who disagrees with P Innes can
enjoy the 'benefits' the Brattleboro Bedlam offers.

Fake Guy Macon wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:

I know of no anonymizing remailer that will allow someone
to post with a From line of "Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/".
Only a limited number of Usenet servers will allow a from line that
has no "@" in the email address field.

OK, now I found one that does.

No you didn't. From your headers:

From: Guy Macon

....which, of course, has a "@" in the email address field and
is a valid RFC 2822 email address.

I am a strong supporter of anonomous remailers, and I would be
most interesed if any of them accepts an email address without
a "@" in the From field so I can send in a bug report.

BTW, your Message-ID ended in instead of .

References:
http://www.ilovejackdaniels.com/php/...ss-validation/
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://haacked.com/archive/2007/08/2...s-until-i.aspx
http://haacked.com/archive/2007/08/2...tion-nazi.aspx

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Rob wrote:

In defense of Phil, I believe he simply hit "reply" to something
already posted by Sloan and that resulted in the posting. It's
something that I fear many of us are guilty of doing, not through
malice or purpose, but simply in a quick and expediant attempt to
respond to an online provocation.

I find it difficult to reconcile the above theory with Phil Innes
clearly stating "I am aware that this is a massive cross-posting"
in the post in question.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/