Mike Murray wrote:

The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
'crackpot' would be slightly better.

You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
forged material, Phil, and neither am I.

That's OK, because he never actually did the analysis. If he had,
he would have beennable to produce the file he started with and the
statistics he derived from it.

On Apr 14, 10:43 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
legal &c.

Care to list any particulars ?

Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
anything -... Like the
fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more suspicious!

Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
about your various credentials, it tends to make me "more suspicious".
There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
about your credentials.

Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
authority, you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.

Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!

It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
board.

Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
of children" -- a reform school, for example).

Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
litem might do, and we called you on it.

In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.

Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
bluffer. We want to see the cards.

Almost sounds like the rap on Phil's friend Paul Truong. We're still
waiting to see Truong's business cards from all those companies he
turned around and the Fortune 500 companies he allegedly worked for.

Birds of a feather do flock together.

Who the hell is Brian Lafferty, and what does he mean to Chess?

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical,
diversion,
legal &c.

Care to list any particulars ?

Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
anything -... Like the
fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more
suspicious!

Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
about your various credentials, it tends

Cut it out Murray - stop //pretending// you are anything other than a
get-Truong single issue poster - and since you rubbish everything people
say, and 'doubt' it, then continue to ask for more personal information -
you are a farcical person to want 'credentials'.

This thread is about me asking you if YOU could tell the FSS materials from
the Sloan, and you offered me the 'credentials' of you own intelligence
which was the single word 'some'.

ROFL

to make me "more suspicious".
There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
about your credentials.

Look, if you wanna play chess, shut up and move

Otherwise you'll wind up paranoid, like Kennedy who has no evidence I use
computer, but is still sure of it! It doesn't want to risk his virginity out
there, and would rather pout impotently from home.

Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
authority,

Now you are come over all abstract. But you can't even answer a simple
question about yourself - and go on prosecuting other people AS IF you were
someone to impress~ !!

But you are not! You Murray don't want to know anything. You are
spectacularly insincere.

you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.

Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!

It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
board.

You really don't get it Murray. I don't owe you any explanations since you
are devious! Nothing at all depends on you knowing more about any subject
whatever. You have rubbished other people here because they don't like your
fixation on Truong. And you are not a reasonable person capable of
evaluating others, nevermind discuss the welbeing of children. Do you
understand my opinion of you?

Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.

What depends on these questions for Mike Murray?

For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
of children" -- a reform school, for example).

Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
litem might do, and we called you on it.

What ********! In fact I write very freely with others who are SINCERELY
interested in the welfare of children in chess. You are not - you only want
to know things so you can reduce or neutralise them. And you demonstrate
this all the time. So stop pretending, and furthermore, stop abusing other
people night and day, for things you DEMONSTRABALE display are insincere -
and you are incapable of taking an adult and decent view of things.

In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.

Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
bluffer. We want to see the cards.

'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating with
their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



Mike Murray wrote:

The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
'crackpot' would be slightly better.

You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
forged material, Phil, and neither am I.

That's OK, because he never actually did the analysis. If he had,
he would have beennable to produce the file he started with and the
statistics he derived from it.

The Sleeze Core continue to put other people down because they DID look at
available evidence.

)

The Sleeze Core didn't look, since it might disturb them.

Now the Sleezies declare those who DID look owe them something,

OR

that they KNOW other people also didn't look either,

OR

that other people are unqualified to look.


That is the level of the prosecutions case. I think I can rest mine here.

----------

Nothing disturbs their habit, which is to rubbish other people whether they
did or did not do anything!~

The don't look at actual evidence and display their own sense of it.
They don't care to distinguish accusation from what has been investigated
and found unwarranted by a court.

All they care for is putting others down since they think that impresses
people other than themselves.
And they don't know that is untrue.

I think there is nothing left to discuss with this bunch of out-and-out
abuseniks, whose 'attention' to any matter at hand is shown to be puerile,
by the level of their own writing!

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...


Mike Murray wrote:

The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
'crackpot' would be slightly better.

You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
forged material, Phil, and neither am I.
That's OK, because he never actually did the analysis. If he had,
he would have beennable to produce the file he started with and the
statistics he derived from it.

The Sleeze Core continue to put other people down because they DID look at
available evidence.

)

The Sleeze Core didn't look, since it might disturb them.

Now the Sleezies declare those who DID look owe them something,

OR

that they KNOW other people also didn't look either,

OR

that other people are unqualified to look.


That is the level of the prosecutions case. I think I can rest mine here.

----------

Nothing disturbs their habit, which is to rubbish other people whether they
did or did not do anything!~

The don't look at actual evidence and display their own sense of it.
They don't care to distinguish accusation from what has been investigated
and found unwarranted by a court.

All they care for is putting others down since they think that impresses
people other than themselves.
And they don't know that is untrue.

I think there is nothing left to discuss with this bunch of out-and-out
abuseniks, whose 'attention' to any matter at hand is shown to be puerile,
by the level of their own writing!

Phil Innes

It must be painful living with a brain as full of **** as yours, Phil.
My condolences.

On Apr 15, 7:50 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:

It must be painful living with a brain as full of **** as yours, Phil.
My condolences.

I wonder how he manages it.

On Apr 15, 6:36 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
bluffer. We want to see the cards.

'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating with
their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?

No Phil, just people who, when you claim such things as "I was on a
state board which has to do with the welfare of children" would like
to know the name of that state board and when you served. It really is
that simple.

I think you don't understand, Phil, that your constant lying about
credentials such as your "almost an IM" title means that very few
people take seriously much that you spew forth on the keyboard. You
could start to fix that by, if you really did serve on such a board,
simply stating when and where.

Now you can start a long screed about how I am "against life" or some
other nonsense or you could simply answer the question. Not who you
"write with" (one of those, please, "Look how great I am! Grandmasters
and people who are SINCERELY are in MY court..... blah, blah, blah")
or other people's supposed faults - just name the board you served on
and your tenure.

Is that possible?

"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 6:36 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
bluffer. We want to see the cards.

'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating
with
their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?

No Phil, just people who, when you claim such things as "I was on a
state board which has to do with the welfare of children" would like
to know the name of that state board and when you served. It really is
that simple.

What do the people who 'claim' to want to know facts demonstrate about their
use of them?

Now, if you people don't care about children, and I have read not a
//single// word of concern here, you already voted with your keyboards. But
you still fatuoulsy pretend to want information about other people who do
care? pfft!

If you can't be bothered to say why you want to know anything, do you really
expect others to present to you, when you even go so far as to pre-empt what
they say by being cynical in advance.

We are addressing here a cadre who will rubbish you because they have not
looked at information. To people who will trash you for creating a thread on
the KID, and then for 5 posts and 1200 words, and then ADMIT they didn't
even play through the game.

You see S, those are also credentials.

Laughty's diction cannot possibly recommend any sincere effort to engage
others.
Murray and Macon cannot show why anyone should inform them of anything.
Brennan has never been different.

I think you don't understand, Phil, that your constant lying about
credentials such as your "almost an IM" title means that very few
people take seriously much that you spew forth on the keyboard. You
could start to fix that by, if you really did serve on such a board,
simply stating when and where.

Ker-ist! Is this the same person who didn't send me e-mails? If YOU are so
obsessed about titles, OR you want to take me seriously, then you could play
me - and I invited you here to my house, and for a week! because it seemed
like you needed a break, and to play some chess. Then you deny you don't
want to come, and you even deny sending me e-mails.

Those are your credentials. At least 2 other people in this ng know I made
you the offer

Now you can start a long screed about how I am "against life" or some
other nonsense or you could simply answer the question. Not who you
"write with" (one of those, please, "Look how great I am! Grandmasters
and people who are SINCERELY are in MY court..... blah, blah, blah")

I think you are fighting your own attitude Dowd. You have to invent by
attitude in order to mock it. If that ain't the PROOF of what you do, rather
than what you say, then you have given cyncism a make-over.

If you had any concern for accusations concerning a chess politicos
children, but you didn't want to sort out accusations from what a court
decided, after PROPER investigation by a judge, and you are too indolent to
conduct your own inquiries, but o! so ready to trash those who have
inquired, then you had better stick with making other people's quotes up for
them, and challenging those who did bother to find things out by stating
your opinion in advance of what you do not yet know.

I would say, as credentials relating to the sincerity of your inquiry, that
I do not need to say anything to you.

You are not concerned with the subject of public decency in Hanken's or
other people's expressions and neither are you concerned over spurious
accusations - you are content to create them.

When challenged to his own standards, you, like Hanken, run off - stating
that you are too precious to reply. So if you want to name a subject - stick
around and address that subject.

If you want to rubbish other people who attempt a subject, by all means
continue to establish your own 'credentials'.

Phil Innes



or other people's supposed faults - just name the board you served on
and your tenure.

Is that possible?

On Apr 15, 7:54 am, SBD wrote:
On Apr 15, 6:36 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
bluffer. We want to see the cards.

'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating with
their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?

No Phil, just people who, when you claim such things as "I was on a
state board which has to do with the welfare of children" would like
to know the name of that state board and when you served. It really is
that simple.

I think you don't understand, Phil, that your constant lying about
credentials such as your "almost an IM" title means that very few
people take seriously much that you spew forth on the keyboard. You
could start to fix that by, if you really did serve on such a board,
simply stating when and where.

Now you can start a long screed about how I am "against life" or some
other nonsense or you could simply answer the question. Not who you
"write with" (one of those, please, "Look how great I am! Grandmasters
and people who are SINCERELY are in MY court..... blah, blah, blah")
or other people's supposed faults - just name the board you served on
and your tenure.

Is that possible?

Time once again for the following classic analysis by Taylor Kingston:

"Look, Phil, this is a very simple matter, rather like asking "How
many beans make five?". I think that if you were asked that question,
you would huff and puff for many paragraphs, perhaps rejecting the
concept of "five," going off on tangents about number theory, or even
claiming that the question loses all legitimacy because it omits other
vegetables. You would claim that the questioner has a hidden Legumist
agenda, seeking to suppress dissenting Brassican and Cucurbist views.
You would insist that the beans denounce Neil Brennen. You would claim
to know more beans, and more about beans, than anyone else. You would
do anything, ANYTHING, but answer, simply: FIVE."

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."