wrote in message
...


On Apr 15, 10:17 am, The Historian
wrote:
On Apr 15, 8:28 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Now, if you people don't care about children....

The standard rant of the Brattleboro Bedlam, that he is the only
person to "care" about something or another. Witness the USCF press
release below:

INNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"

CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
that it had hired internationally known Nearly an IM Philip Keith
Innes
to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
Executive Board Member Don Schultz.

Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
US
chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
deal between Innes and USCF are
not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
will
be required to stop posting to newsgroups. "We were concerned that
Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
Channing,
"since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
screeds."

This is really well done. I find it amusing that Innes' textual
analysis has seemed to imply that Neil Brennen is the most likely FSS,

** Do you? I simply said it is the most like the FSS, and you Spinrad said
'most likely', but maybe not getting things right amuses you, especially if
you can make a nice strawman out it, for the 'boys'

and this is satire. However, Neil is the one person for whom we have
seen actual satire of Sam Sloan on a regular basis; it sure doesn't
look like the FSS postings to me!

**Who does it look like to you? Brennan isn't daft, just malicious. Sound
like the FSS 'to you'?

Among other things, like this post,
Neil's satires were attempts (good ones in my opinion) to be clever,
not to be simply repulsive.

** Try writing 'amusingly' about how funny you think getting the kids is.
Then maybe someone will satire you, because cheap shots are funny to some
people, who let other people make the jokes for them in case they get
themselves dirty.

Phil Innes


Jerry Spinrad

Chess One wrote:


** Try writing 'amusingly' about how funny you think getting the kids is.


What specifically does "getting the kids" refer to?

Then maybe someone will satire you, because cheap shots are funny to some
people, who let other people make the jokes for them in case they get
themselves dirty.

Phil Innes


Jerry Spinrad

wrote in message
...


This is really well done. I find it amusing that Innes' textual
analysis has seemed to imply that Neil Brennen is the most likely FSS,
and this is satire. However, Neil is the one person for whom we have
seen actual satire of Sam Sloan on a regular basis; it sure doesn't
look like the FSS postings to me! Among other things, like this post,
Neil's satires were attempts (good ones in my opinion) to be clever,
not to be simply repulsive.

Jerry Spinrad

------------

And since you have now truly come out to support the main abusenik of the
newsgroup whose public writings for 5 years are on a certain theme, one you
haven't noticed, so to speak, and while not admitting of course, you could
tell the FSS from the Sloan, Brennan's utterarances are so clear to you.

Why don't you tell people about what you yourself are accused of Jerry - I
wonder if you will find that as amusing? It is poetically apt after all, the
proxy attacks, and here you use Brennan for the same purpose yourself.

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week I'm
going to tell everybody.

Phil Innes

On Apr 16, 1:53 pm, "Chess One" wrote:


If Dowd wants to know anything at all, which he don't, then he'll mouth off
like Kingston, and you will enjoy it, and two other people will chip in,
making 5.


No Phil, its simply that you claimed to serve on a state board
responsible for the welfare of children.

You've claimed this several times and I simply want to know when and
on what board.

If you don't want people to be dismissive of your views, you should be
willing to provide this information. If not, fine. It then becomes
just another Innes lie/misrepresentation.

On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week I'm
going to tell everybody.

Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
either.

You're big on threats and weak on execution. After a point, no one
believes the little boy crying wolf, Phil.

wrote:

I find it amusing that Innes' textual analysis

Alleged textual analysis. There is no evidence supporting
his assertion that he actually did it, and good reason to
believe that he didn't.

Although I am violating my policy of not responding to Phil, I have
absolutely no clue what I am supposed to be accused of.

Jerry Spinrad

On Apr 16, 4:23*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...

This is really well done. I find it amusing that Innes' textual
analysis has seemed to imply that Neil Brennen is the most likely FSS,
and this is satire. However, Neil is the one person for whom we have
seen actual satire of Sam Sloan on a regular basis; it sure doesn't
look like the FSS postings to me! Among other things, like this post,
Neil's satires were attempts (good ones in my opinion) to be clever,
not to be simply repulsive.

Jerry Spinrad

------------

And since you have now truly come out to support the main abusenik of the
newsgroup whose public writings for 5 years are on a certain theme, one you
haven't noticed, so to speak, and while not admitting of course, you could
tell the FSS from the Sloan, Brennan's utterarances are so clear to you.

Why don't you tell people about what you yourself are accused of Jerry - I
wonder if you will find that as amusing? It is poetically apt after all, the
proxy attacks, and here you use Brennan for the same purpose yourself.

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week I'm
going to tell everybody.

Phil Innes

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

Although I am violating my policy of not responding to Phil, I have
absolutely no clue what I am supposed to be accused of.

Jerry Spinrad

Ever read Kafka?

On Apr 16, 7:48*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

Although I am violating my policy of not responding to Phil, I have
absolutely no clue what I am supposed to be accused of.
Jerry Spinrad

Ever read Kafka?

I haven't reread The Trial for quite some time, but discussion with
Phil certainly puts me in the mood.

I was going to confess that I played some very bad moves in my most
recent tournament, but bringing those up is really too painful for me.

Here is what Phil said

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

I am, actually, very curious as to what this is talking about. I had
an interest in what happened? My interests are in common with Jerry
Hanken, who I have never met? Any clues?

I really cannot see my connection. Everything I have said about the
FSS has been on this newsgroup. I write a column on chess history at
chesscafe, for which I receive a small amount of money.

I have no idea what the board received recently. Maybe someone else
can tell me what the board received, or what my interest was?

Jerry Spinrad

On Apr 16, 6:57 pm, "
wrote:
Although I am violating my policy of not responding to Phil, I have
absolutely no clue what I am supposed to be accused of.

Jerry Spinrad

I warned you, Jerry, to ignore the Innes Idiot. Tsk, tsk...