On Apr 24, 2:29*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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.

Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss) Just
remember the "Prozac" incident. Some folks can be led to attack
anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss)

Sorry, I don't buy that. Those of us who are USCF members have an
interest in activities that impact the organization and its
governance, and no business puts important questions into suspension
while a myriad of lawsuits and other procedures wend their way to
resolution. To wait, possibly years on such process, before entering
into discussion would be irresponsible.

Mottershead made his report public for open critique and evaluation,
as well as subjecting himself to personal attack.

If the PT/SP have exculpatory information, they should open it up and
put this thing to rest. IMO, this is a responsibility they accepted
when they became public figures and took a position in USCF
governance.

Just remember the "Prozac" incident.

Not really comparable. You had the real information and made it
public after a fairly short interval, corroborating data was out there
in the public sphere for any open-minded person to find, and, most
importantly, the whole thing was a rather clever joke on your part.

Some folks can be led to attack
anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.

People make decisions based on the information that's available to
them.

If PT/SP want to keep the information private and depend on other
people to trust that it implies certain things, well, that's their
business. But they have no right to demand pure faith on the part of
the general public. PT/SP's various websites, publicity acts, blogs
AND past history contain enough exaggerations, evasions, half-truths,
and undocumented claims that it seems unrealistic of them to demand
the members just believe, contrary to the implications of the
Mottershead Report, that PT is not the FSS and that it will all come
out right in the end.

On Apr 24, 2:29*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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.

Yes, I think that the PT/SP camp deserves much of the blame for the
level of acrimony. From the very first reaction, attacking Motterhead
and all people who regarded the evidence against them as serious
vehemently, their choices were poor and seemed to indicate guilt. Many
red herrings have been brought up by their supporters, which wasted
everyone's time and did not help cooperation. The main guilt on the
other side relates to bringing up issues involving Susan's children;
those who did so only helped feed a sense of persecution on an issue
which is both extremely sensitive and completely irrelevant to the
case. You, Mike, are of course not part of this.

I still believe that the likelihood is that Truong is guilty, but the
information given to me produced an alternative hypothesis which is
within the range of reasonable doubt, and deserves investigation.

I have not yet found whether such an investigation has already been
conducted. I have now heard from the PT/SP side, and I am trying to
find out from the other side what their perspective is. I will try as
much as possible to let people know what views I feel are reasonable,
without breaking any confidences.

Jerry Spinrad


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, 3:58 pm, Rob wrote:
On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, Mike Murray wrote:



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.

Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss) Just
remember the "Prozac" incident. Some folks can be led to attack
anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.

Ah yes, that day when Rob Mitchell posted to
alt.support.depression.medication to mock the posters there. The
posting is copied below. Please note that he's never returned to ASDM
to apologize to the group for posting a statement he's now admitted
was false.

****************************
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From:
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication
Subject: SSRIs as Performance Enhancers?
Date: 24 Feb 2006 11:01:19 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 20
Message-ID: .com
References:
wQuJf.1471$dO2.992@trnddc07
. com

NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.156.13.155
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1140807686 13257 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2006
19:01:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=70.156.13.155;
posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f


Black Sheep wrote:
On 2006-02-18, radiohead wrote:
ssri's are performance inhancers in the sense that you cant have any
kind of a sex life on them so you have more time to work.

I take Nefazodone (Serzone) and have had no sexual side effects, unlike Paxil
and zoloft. I understand that Nefazodone normally does not produce sexual
side effects.

However, there are other things it does do....

I have been using this: http://tinyurl.com/mldau

It has improved my desire and ability even though I am on Prozac. It
may or may not work for you.
********************

On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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.

I'm sorry, but this appears to be more of the typical Trollgar/Innes/
Mitchell claque and dagger stuff. I don't see any reason to buy it
this time.

On Apr 24, 4:42 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss)

Sorry, I don't buy that. Those of us who are USCF members have an
interest in activities that impact the organization and its
governance, and no business puts important questions into suspension
while a myriad of lawsuits and other procedures wend their way to
resolution. To wait, possibly years on such process, before entering
into discussion would be irresponsible.

Mottershead made his report public for open critique and evaluation,
as well as subjecting himself to personal attack.

If the PT/SP have exculpatory information, they should open it up and
put this thing to rest. IMO, this is a responsibility they accepted
when they became public figures and took a position in USCF
governance.

Just remember the "Prozac" incident.

Not really comparable. You had the real information and made it
public after a fairly short interval, corroborating data was out there
in the public sphere for any open-minded person to find, and, most
importantly, the whole thing was a rather clever joke on your part.

It was a rather poor "joke" if it lied to innocent third parties. Rob
Mitchell posted an endorsement of a mail-order 'drug' to a newsgroup.
In fact he did to several newsgroups. Someone might use one of those
questionable products after reading Mitchell's praise of them. As for
"corroborating data", why would someone who read one of Mitchell's
posts praising some sexual enhancement drug want to look up a
sailboat?

I'm not sure which is more disturbing, that Mitchell thinks nothing of
harming third parties, or that some posters here ignore what he did.

Some folks can be led to attack
anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.

People make decisions based on the information that's available to
them.

If PT/SP want to keep the information private and depend on other
people to trust that it implies certain things, well, that's their
business. But they have no right to demand pure faith on the part of
the general public. PT/SP's various websites, publicity acts, blogs
AND past history contain enough exaggerations, evasions, half-truths,
and undocumented claims that it seems unrealistic of them to demand
the members just believe, contrary to the implications of the
Mottershead Report, that PT is not the FSS and that it will all come
out right in the end.

Yes, the weight of evidence is rather against the Trollgars, isn't it?

On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, The Historian wrote:
On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Rob wrote:



On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

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.

Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss) Just
remember the "Prozac" incident. Some folks can be led to attack
anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.

Ah yes, that day when Rob Mitchell posted to
alt.support.depression.medication to mock the posters there. The
posting is copied below. Please note that he's never returned to ASDM
to apologize to the group for posting a statement he's now admitted
was false.

****************************
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From:
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication
Subject: SSRIs as Performance Enhancers?
Date: 24 Feb 2006 11:01:19 -0800
Organization:http://groups.google.com
Lines: 20
Message-ID: .com
References:
wQuJf.1471$dO2.992@trnddc07
. com

NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.156.13.155
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1140807686 13257 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2006
19:01:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=70.156.13.155;
posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f

Black Sheep wrote:
On 2006-02-18, radiohead wrote:
ssri's are performance inhancers in the sense that you cant have any
kind of a sex life on them so you have more time to work.

I take Nefazodone (Serzone) and have had no sexual side effects, unlike Paxil
and zoloft. I understand that Nefazodone normally does not produce sexual
side effects.

However, there are other things it does do....

I have been using this:http://tinyurl.com/mldau

It has improved my desire and ability even though I am on Prozac. It
may or may not work for you.
********************

I set a trap for you Neil because I knew your reputation as a cyber
stalker. That is the one you found most quickly. And your belief of it
made you the fool. Yes, My whole family has been on Prozac. But.. I
sold Prozac and Prozac was transported to Illinois. Eventually you
will find my other crumbs I scattered over the internet. I can hardly
wait :-)

On Apr 24, 9:51 pm, Rob wrote:
On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, The Historian wrote:



On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Rob wrote:

On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

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.

Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss) Just
remember the "Prozac" incident. Some folks can be led to attack
anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.

Ah yes, that day when Rob Mitchell posted to
alt.support.depression.medication to mock the posters there. The
posting is copied below. Please note that he's never returned to ASDM
to apologize to the group for posting a statement he's now admitted
was false.

****************************
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From:
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication
Subject: SSRIs as Performance Enhancers?
Date: 24 Feb 2006 11:01:19 -0800
Organization:http://groups.google.com
Lines: 20
Message-ID: .com
References:
wQuJf.1471$dO2.992@trnddc07
. com

NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.156.13.155
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1140807686 13257 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2006
19:01:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=70.156.13.155;
posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f

Black Sheep wrote:
On 2006-02-18, radiohead wrote:
ssri's are performance inhancers in the sense that you cant have any
kind of a sex life on them so you have more time to work.

I take Nefazodone (Serzone) and have had no sexual side effects, unlike Paxil
and zoloft. I understand that Nefazodone normally does not produce sexual
side effects.

However, there are other things it does do....

I have been using this:http://tinyurl.com/mldau

It has improved my desire and ability even though I am on Prozac. It
may or may not work for you.
********************

I set a trap for you Neil because I knew your reputation as a cyber
stalker. That is the one you found most quickly. And your belief of it
made you the fool. Yes, My whole family has been on Prozac. But.. I
sold Prozac and Prozac was transported to Illinois. Eventually you
will find my other crumbs I scattered over the internet. I can hardly
wait :-)

I don't think your posting phony recommendations of unlicensed drugs
to newsgroups makes me a fool. Rather, it makes you something
loathsome.

On Apr 25, 5:22 am, The Historian wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:51 pm, Rob wrote:



On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, The Historian wrote:

On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Rob wrote:

On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

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.

Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss) Just
remember the "Prozac" incident. Some folks can be led to attack
anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.

Ah yes, that day when Rob Mitchell posted to
alt.support.depression.medication to mock the posters there. The
posting is copied below. Please note that he's never returned to ASDM
to apologize to the group for posting a statement he's now admitted
was false.

****************************
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From:
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication
Subject: SSRIs as Performance Enhancers?
Date: 24 Feb 2006 11:01:19 -0800
Organization:http://groups.google.com
Lines: 20
Message-ID: .com
References:
wQuJf.1471$dO2.992@trnddc07
. com

NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.156.13.155
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1140807686 13257 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2006
19:01:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=70.156.13.155;
posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f

Black Sheep wrote:
On 2006-02-18, radiohead wrote:
ssri's are performance inhancers in the sense that you cant have any
kind of a sex life on them so you have more time to work.

I take Nefazodone (Serzone) and have had no sexual side effects, unlike Paxil
and zoloft. I understand that Nefazodone normally does not produce sexual
side effects.

However, there are other things it does do....

I have been using this:http://tinyurl.com/mldau

It has improved my desire and ability even though I am on Prozac. It
may or may not work for you.
********************

I set a trap for you Neil because I knew your reputation as a cyber
stalker. That is the one you found most quickly. And your belief of it
made you the fool. Yes, My whole family has been on Prozac. But.. I
sold Prozac and Prozac was transported to Illinois. Eventually you
will find my other crumbs I scattered over the internet. I can hardly
wait :-)

I don't think your posting phony recommendations of unlicensed drugs
to newsgroups makes me a fool. Rather, it makes you something
loathsome.

You got caught. You fell for it. You proved to everyone you are an
internet troll. But thats okay.

On Apr 24, 1:04 pm, Rob wrote:
"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.

Looks as if Neil is going to deny some more. He can't even own his own
words. SO Are we to suppose he does not deny?