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."
LOL!

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

You know, Phil, an indignant refusal to answer directly can be
effective if done sparingly by a person with a reputation for calm
rationality. Think of "Have you no shame, sir, have you no shame?" or
"... they now include my little dog, Falla".

But when you do it all the time, you come off like a street person on
crack.

My advice: Face facts, Phil. Focus on forgetting fulminating for the
foreseeable future.

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
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?".

Why is the chief abusenik on these newsgroups, Neil Brennan, talking about
beans, when the topic is Hanken's abuse?

Look, Taylor, its not about Mussolini? Seems more apt.

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."

We ain't talking beans, we're talking abuse. How many abusive years you been
at it, five?

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.

Beans! Bugger beans Brennan!

Abuseniks once again pretend there is no issue of decent investigation, even
if it means mentioning the kids, and to them its all reducible to more
beans.

Phil Innes

Brennan ia suggesting to other abuseniks that hanken's behavior is OK - they
won't condemn him, they will wallow in it.

The point it; who asked their opinion, who in their right mind would? No
parent, that's for sure.

Phil Innes

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
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."

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,
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

Why don't you save your advice for pretty Taylor, Mike?

Who are you to prognosticate on things - you are not interested in chess,
and out to get people. You get canned every time you do it on your own, so
need allies mmmmooooooooooooooo!

You cant say more than literally one word on the matter if you have looked
at any evidence from the writing itself, which is almost as numb-brained as
Guy Macon who demands 'show me the file!'

Pity all you guys weren't here when the FSS was posting - you could have
seen what he wrote.

This thread is about the indecency of not mentioning that 'charges' were not
upheld by a court, and were not even related as charges at all, and this by
the president of the CJA, showing off his skills at writing - and on being
challenged, had nothing to say.

That's proxy wars for you. Never defend! Indeed, his utterances were
indefensible in decent society. I understand that some people find this
funny, and that is likely because they have not, and definitely should not,
have anything to do with children.

Phil Innes

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

You know, Phil, an indignant refusal to answer directly can be
effective if done sparingly by a person with a reputation for calm
rationality. Think of "Have you no shame, sir, have you no shame?" or
"... they now include my little dog, Falla".

But when you do it all the time, you come off like a street person on
crack.

My advice: Face facts, Phil. Focus on forgetting fulminating for the
foreseeable future.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:53:42 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


Why is the chief abusenik on these newsgroups, Neil Brennan, talking about
beans, when the topic is Hanken's abuse?

More problems with analogy! . Really, Phil, you'd profit from
addressing this great lacuna in your conceptual schema where analogy
is concerned.

Why talk beans? Two simple reasons:

First, Kingston's bean analogy puts into perspective your typical
response methodology (e.g., refusing to answer anything directly when
cornered, resorting to fulmination, insult and changing the subject,
etc.).

Second, the subject of beans seems appropriate in view of the
similarity of much of your discourse to flatulence.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:19:28 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Why don't you save your advice for pretty Taylor, Mike?

You have some attraction to Taylor Kingston? Hmmmm. Well, I've leave
it up to him as to whether he's flattered or frightened.

Pity all you guys weren't here when the FSS was posting - you could have
seen what he wrote.

Most of us were here. Some of us were the subject of various FSS
falsehoods. AND some of us were here when the Mottershead Report
first came out and we got some concrete inkling of the likely
perpetrator of many of the FSS posts. You must have missed it.

This thread is about the indecency of not mentioning that 'charges' were not
upheld by a court, and were not even related as charges at all, and this by
the president of the CJA, showing off his skills at writing - and on being
challenged, had nothing to say.

AFAIK, you're the only person who introduced the word "charges" in
this discussion. That's what gave us a pretty good idea that you
didn't understand much of what a guardian ad litem does. Using
phrases like "upheld by a court" is further evidence that you're still
ignorant.

So: Face facts, Phil, focus on forsaking phony fulmination for the
foreseeable future. Oh, and value the verisimilitude of verifiable
vitae.

Chess One wrote:
Brennan ia suggesting to other abuseniks that hanken's behavior is OK - they
won't condemn him, they will wallow in it.

The point it; who asked their opinion, who in their right mind would? No
parent, that's for sure.

Phil Innes

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
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."


Specifically, what behavior of Hanken are you referring to?

On Apr 16, 3:22*pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Chess One wrote:
Brennan ia suggesting to other abuseniks that hanken's behavior is OK - they
won't condemn him, they will wallow in it.

The point it; who asked their opinion, who in their right mind would? No
parent, that's for sure.

Phil Innes

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
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."

Specifically, what behavior of Hanken are you referring to?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -