On Apr 24, 11:55 am, Rob wrote:

Let me make this REALLY easy for you :

I, Neil Brennen, do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr.
Truong, or Mr. Phil
Innes. I admit to and recant my use or variation of the term
"Trollgar"


Wait a second. How does Mr. Phil Innes enter into it?
(Is *he* the real FSS?)

I think maybe the PT apologists are getting themselves
even more confused than usual. The accusation did not
involve nearly-IMnes at all; it stated that ChessCafe
writers were beating up on the dynamic duo (i.e. SP/PT).
Now, if that was mistaken, it seems that dragging a
famous nearly-an-IM into it is mere desperation. (Why
not also "tack on" a requirement to smell Sam Sloan's
underarms, just to be sure?)


Well, it looks as though somebody is not going to
admit his error, no matter what the facts might be.


-- help bot

On Apr 24, 12:47 pm, SBD wrote:

Recant?

Are you serious?

What-- retreat? In our moment of triumph? That boy,
Skywalker, is no real threat. You may fire when ready.
What silly nonsense-- all of Vader's talk about the
power to destroy an entire planet being NOTHING next
to the power of The Force. Poppycock... .


-- Jedi bot

On Apr 24, 12:13 pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 24, 11:19 am, Rob wrote:

I don't know why so many people keep trying
-- in vain -- to prove Rob Mitchell wrong. It can't
be done, for as we all know, he has never erred.
Thanks "Bot" . I am human and do err. Since you have destroyed me in
chess you can attest to this. But, and it's a big butt,

Wait a second. I read somewhere that it now rides
around on a tiny bicycle seat, and is shrinking by
the day.

P Innes and his nut Rob always reach for fat jokes when they get
desperate.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), SBD
wrote:

Recant?

Are you serious?

Of course. These are burning issues and there's a lot at stake.

wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 24, 6:53 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Dear Jerry Spinrad,

Thank you for your replies. I think perhaps you accept that not everything
was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and
what
is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
known to yourself.

Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.

** Very good Jerry. Let us now park this conversation, pending
developments...

I still believe that it is
important for Paul to make a legally binding declaration of innocence,
and make this public. If he is innocent, it would seem to be
enormously in his self-interest, and would oppose the claims that he
refused to cooperate in such a statement with a positive step rather
than a counter-accusation.

** To conclude on it? P'raps. Though I am of another mind, it is not my
call: That will be his choice, weighing the one thing 'gainst the other.

Jerry Spinrad

Consequently some indirection was indicated.

Zrávstvuite! Phil Innes

Hae nugae in seria ducent mala: consilio et animis non impetu et
prudentia.

** Horace is quite often, cool, no? Though only half that is his. The
balance of it is indeed, in the balance.

Cordially, Phil Innes

On Apr 24, 12:22Â*pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 24, 11:55 am, Rob wrote:

Let me make this REALLY easy for you :

I, Neil Brennen, do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr.
Truong, or Mr. Phil
Â*Innes. I admit to and recant my use or variation of the term
"Trollgar"

Â* Wait a second. Â*How does Mr. Phil Innes enter into it?
Â*(Is *he* the real FSS?)

Â*I think maybe the PT apologists are getting themselves
even more confused than usual. Â*The accusation did not
involve nearly-IMnes at all; it stated that ChessCafe
writers were beating up on the dynamic duo (i.e. SP/PT).
Now, if that was mistaken, it seems that dragging a
famous nearly-an-IM into it is mere desperation. Â*(Why
not also "tack on" a requirement to smell Sam Sloan's
underarms, just to be sure?)

Â* Well, it looks as though somebody is not going to
admit his error, no matter what the facts might be.

Â* -- help bot

Neil Brennen first included Phil. Ask him about it.

And for the record:
recant
One entry found.

recant



Main Entry: re·cant
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈkant\
Function: verb
Etymology: Latin recantare, from re- + cantare to sing — more at
chant
Date: 1535
transitive verb
1 : to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and
publicly : renounce
2 : revoke
intransitive verb
: to make an open confession of error

All Neil has to do is approve the statement and my apology is given.
Ball's in his court.

"I do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, or Mr. P
Innes. Nor do I consider myself to have done so. We await you
withdrawing your 'charges' and your admission of error.

Neil the Chess Cafe writer. "




Neil Brennen first included Phil. Ask him about it.

==============================
recant
One entry found.

recant

Main Entry: re·cant
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈkant\
Function: verb
Etymology: Latin recantare, from re- + cantare to sing — more at
chant
Date: 1535
transitive verb
1 : to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and
publicly : renounce
2 : revoke
intransitive verb
: to make an open confession of error
==========================
All Neil has to do is approve the statement and my apology is given.
Ball's in his court.

I, Neil Brennen, do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr.
Truong, or Mr. Phil
Innes. I admit to and recant my use or variation of the term
"Trollgar"


If Mr. Brennen aproves this statement, He has my apology.

"Rob" wrote in message
...

Well, it looks as though somebody is not going to
admit his error, no matter what the facts might be.

-- help bot

Neil Brennen first included Phil. Ask him about it.

**Ask me or him? Personally I am terrified of making a fat-bloke joke
inadvertently - what's so funny about an obese "Chesscafe Author" abusenik
chess hysterian wobbling around the countryside on his bike for charity? I
don't get it.

All Neil has to do is approve the statement and my apology is given.
Ball's in his court.

** No sex please, we're British!

**Anyway, thank you for your attentions to public hygiene, which is
sometimes indicated, no? All it takes is for good people to do nothing, as
some wag opined. Another tried;-

Uni aequus virtuti, atque ejus amicis

** said old 'Orace, and what the bloke was trying to get at was this;

friendly to virtue alone and to the friends of virtue

** Now and again that idea comes up in society, as if we thought we could do
without it. Which is to say, as if we thought very much at all about our own
life and times and our role in it.

Phil Innes

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Apr 24, 12:02*pm, "Chess One" wrote:

I think perhaps you accept that not everything
was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and what
is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
known to yourself.

Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.

The Mottershead Report came out some eight months ago, and its
implications have been semi-paralyzing the USCF EB ever since. The
idea that there's a whole layer of alternative explanation for the FSS
identity, an explanation relatively plausible, not publicly discussed,
but disclosed by e-mail to selected private parties -- this is strange
stuff. Its strangeness is compounded by the plethora of half-baked
explanations put forth by PT/SP supporters, and vigorously debunked in
this and other forums.

Jeremy, your postings reveal general level-headedness and goodwill,
and I'll respect your judgment that there's secret stuff out there
that needs "some serious evaluation", but the PT/SP strategy of
keeping it semi-secret for the better part of a year leaves me
baffled. Usually, the desire to keep things safely under wraps is not
a major flag of innocence. I'm at a loss to understand how this could
be good either for the USCF or for PT/SP.

On Apr 24, 2:35 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Neil Brennen first included Phil. Ask him about it.

Okay. Mr. Brennen, can you make out where the
damned pieces are in the photo of Karel Van Mander?
All I see is blur, and it seems like before we discuss
the relative playing strengths of different commentators,
we should agree on the chess position itself, and who
is on move.


**Ask me or him? Personally I am terrified of making a fat-bloke joke
inadvertently - what's so funny about an obese "Chesscafe Author" abusenik
chess hysterian wobbling around the countryside on his bike for charity? I
don't get it.

He's a threat to public safety; suppose somebody
comes along, jabbering on their cellphone and not
paying attention, and there's an accident? The guy
on the bicycle always loses. (Well, there was /one/
case where the driver of a Yugo car was killed, and
the cyclist just got his bike smashed up a bit....)


All Neil has to do is approve the statement and my apology is given.
Ball's in his court.

** No sex please, we're British!

Impostor! You're from Vermont, which is way in
Canada or someplace like that. They have trees
there, and everything.

A famous IM once wrote that the courts would
settle this in good time. O' course, that was what?
maybe five or six years ago, when I was much
younger. Now they say they're coming out with a
new model, which is even more "helpful" they say,
more efficient, they say. Probably better lookin',
too. But I bet it can't play chess half as good as
I kin.


-- help bot