Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:1ZHSj.6$JF1.5@trndny06...
I hope this is more to your liking. It was probably too erudite for Phil.
:-)

Let's face it BRAIN, you were not hiding your lights under a cloak of
erudition, you were whining about other people as usual, and cannot seem to
do otherwise, no matter what the topic is.

When asked the simplest thing about yourself and what was journalism was to
your mind, you decided you couldn't understand English.





While saying nothing of substance to any topic you have become rightly
famous for vacuity, so that here on usenet is the only place you may utter
your sweet nothings.

While you amuse yourself and certain other misanthropic speculators by
spewing forth such nihilistic tripe, you merely succeed in identifying your
own melancholic condition, and those who are like you. From this platform
you then pronounce upon other people, as if you were not the same species as
those commented upon.

[[[Should you like to know the clinical name of your condition?
[Write publicly or in priviate.] I no longer do a lot of free consulting,
but there is no shame in a conversation, no?]]]

There are several ideas around this condition I diagnose in you, at home and
abroad there is very great consensus among psychologists that such behavior
as your own can fairly be described as being nutz@.

Though some people prefer net-nutz@, since the phenomena only works when one
cloaks oneself in anonym, much like an alien cannog admit any human
condition, in fact, who does not understand how earth-people are, nor can
say how they themselves are.

We have departed from any nominal thread topic to the only one you care for,
and while this is itself a pathology,

right?

even people who don't like me are wondering about the BRIAN's orientation
and reason for writing anything at all.

You may, by all means, respond in your usual like, which is to
enthusiasticly volunteer referernces to other men's bottoms, and this in
itself is no /necessary/ good-old-American homosexual repressed approach,
though... there is very great consensus among psychologists ...


Cordially, Phil Innes

The Hippocampus,
Vermont

Interesting psychological projection from BB. Funny also. :-)

On May 2, 1:51*pm, "Chess One" wrote:

You may, by all means, respond in your usual like, which is to
enthusiasticly volunteer referernces to other men's bottoms, and this in
itself is no /necessary/ good-old-American homosexual *repressed approach,
though... there is very great consensus among psychologists ...

Here you go, Phil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMG87axdarw

Hey BRAIN - you have run away from 3 successive issues, fled with nothing to
say for yourself - though plenty about others of course.

While pretending to think these issues funny ... though who else does, what
is funny about being a coward who can't say his own opinions about writing?
Unless that is deeply subtle self-deprecating humor, of which I do not
suspect you capable, boom-boom, you are bust, BRAIN.

If you want to post moronic nothings in public then surely those who
previously supported your 'efforts' would have now applauded their resolute
nothingness? They would have come out and sang an ode to nihilism. They
would have rejoiced in social paranoia?

But, silence!

You have nothing to say on chess issues, evidently nothing, you make a point
of not addressing anyone at all, and instead mouth off like a juvenile, as
if that was going to intimidate those who do want to discuss things. Sorry,
that is /TILT/. Game over, BRAIN.

All the while making unapologetic arse-jokes iabout other blokes. )))
GAWD!

In future, let me allow those who find your 'orientation' fascinating, reply
to you themselves however they wish to do so for whatever reasons that
themselves wish to do, since even in a public newsgroup, there is no-one now
with you, or 'us', as you call yourself, not even yourselves have anything
to say on any issue.

And you have been banned everywhere else for your journalistic genius, or is
it bully-hectoring attitude right? line-BRAIN? You tell people what's
true about your own journalism, BRAIN, and who at all takes it in, except
the pathetic NY Times.

Such as yourselves only gain any attention by disgusting speculations upon
others - since how else would you gain attention?

While skipping any human consideration which is normal in social
intercourse, as if you too were a human being. SNot even Sloan attempts to
resuce you.

With nothing to say on any issue, except to hector those who would say
something of content, you are now become a singularity, Laugherty.

You talk for no one but bottoms, so to speak.

--and since you ain't subtle, that means I am not interested, darling--


Geddit?

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

--and since you ain't subtle, that means I am not interested, darling--


Geddit?

Phil Innes

Not interested. Interesting. Is that why you respond with so much
sound and fury meaning little or nothing? :-)

Chess One wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 8:09 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Pushing the limits of the game to involve more players, eliminating
gender-bias from the inside, by actually encouraging self esteem in young
women, as if they were people too?

Ridiculous. You need to pick up a copy of
Cosmopolitan, and take a good, hard look at the
cover (any issue will do). The message is quite
clearly that women are merely sex objects... and
who is it that buys those magazines, anyway?

ha ha! you tripped yourself up! If you don't get it, then how do you know?

Besides, no waif-like creatures buy Cosmo any more, since it must weigh
about 10 pounds and they can't even pick 'em up! never mind lug em around.

People are terrified that the precious balance of the status quo will be
upset, that new criteria will apply, and a necessary transparency

Guffaw! Ha ha, good one... Susan Polgar is a
"promoter of transparency", har har.

I only speak from evidence of her actions. I note detractors from this idea
hold the completely contradictory ideas that (a) they too want to know
everthing, and (b) that they favor USCF's Official Secrets Policy. What I
find credible to /sincere/ opinion is to hold both (a) and (b) orientations
simultaneously.

I think Mr. Sloan has some very serious issues
with Susan Polgar, if you know what I mean.

He would rather actually be a woman?

PT
is a thorn-chick in his backside, and he seems
frustrated that he cannot use his apparata-chick
on Suzsa-chick. Maybe SS needs to just get
over it? Move on with his life... .

Play some chess or take up interior decoratoring? In short, get into his own
life instead of inhabiting everyone else's?

I suppose he could run for "King of Queens", with the slogan, 'every pawn a
Queen!' and introduce chess to the masses that way.

LET'S TALK TURKEY (BEFORE THANKSGIVING)

But no... the difference between real chess promoters and chess politicians
is that the both say the same stuff. laugh Its not really about what is
said, is it? Returning to the top, and 'transparency', its not about saying
what you do, its about doing what you say. And there are those who don't
want transparency since gasp there might be nothing much to look at ;(

This week in chess also saw more than a rift in English chess politics, with
3 or 4 people resigning from its board who had been elected to get on with
it, but met with intractible burocratic entrenchment. I rather doubt these
enterprising people will give up the ghost, and instead attempt their own
version of SPICE or Kentucky Fried Kasparov.

After all, people who like to dance don't often volunteer at the funeral
home.

But let me close with a refutation of Larry Parr on Kasparov - I think that
20 year old quote is no longer true:

"The small minded leaders of the Unites States Chess
Federation try to keep it an amateur game and must
be purged like entrenched Communist
Bureaucrats." -- Garry Kasparov

GK re-assessed his opinion of USCF in 1999, "dead" he said.

Karpov OTOH merely opined, "frozen."

----------

IN MY OPINION

Since I am viewed as a Truong and Polgar booster, I must make a difference
between my own stance and theirs - that I have no idea why they accepted
board seats at USCF, other than that people voted them in as agents of
change, and this must have been encouraging to them at the time.

But a candid assessment of what USCF is capable of other than maintenance
activities which it cannot well perform, plus the crew of entrenched
Goichbergists, cannot jive well with what they are both good at, which is
promoting the game.

The only argument we have witnessed here over the past 18 months is that
USCF should attempt both. Those who do not like Polgar and Truong don't
think so. They think it should stick to the knitting in Eric Johnson's small
tent, to almost mix a metaphor. And while that is not the public view, it is
the view of the entrenched G's.

I understand that point of view, and even agree with it to the extent that I
don't think USCF can even adequately take care of the ratings system, or
publish an intelligent chess mag, nevermind attempt the much more difficult
task of promotion of chess to mass media.

USCF is literally incapable of maintaining technical chess standards, good
relations with players, other standards of normal public discussion and
behavior, and cannot credibly join with those mainstream institutions which
/insist/ on those standards.

My view is that Susan and Paul should do the same as Joel has. After trying
however well to re-orient the entity to enable its growth, they should admit
that as a whole it lacks still any sufficient intergrity and will to do so,
and they themselves should act accordingly - just as the enterprising people
at the English Federation have just done.

Phil Innes

-- help bot

Phil Innes is but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets
his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by
an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

If only William had know you, Phil

BRAIN, you offer up your wit, and your borrowed cynicism in another's words
lacking even your own phrasing, except those anal references truly your own
which you now snip away as if you could escape their implication!


R



O





F








L








!





The BRIAN say's nothing to any issue it raises beyond its own invective.
That means the BRAIN is bust, even in its last stand, a public newsgroup.
And that is pathetic!

Since the BRAIN is/are a sort of leader of a pack, and what it professes is
magnificently unable to make any response thereon, it is maybe the last
element to appreciate its own plight.

Everyone here can witness your vacuity and your ill will, your completely
debauched and illogical obsessional postings on one topic, which you are
unable to discuss with any other human being whomever, who has even the
slightest demurrer. The BRAIN continues to protest its special understanding
of things as autodidact to those who like that sort of stuff.

I already made my case, 3 times on 3 issues, to which you responded nothing
of substance. That means you are bust, BRAIN, it means you are as a
Numbskull, an unresponsive ranter on this, and every forum - and your
appreciation of things is rejected by every contact you have made.

It cannot recommend you to broader subjects, nor any /assignatus utitur jure
actoris/ which you will understand, but I translate for others to mean that
you represent not the slightest principal of law. And law, I remind you, is
the /lowest/ social denominator in any culture.

Language too hard to understand, Judge?

That you neglect to mention these things is merely that you may continue to
protest to whom? Who actually rides forth with the BRAIN?

Nihil ex nihilo, quod non opus est, asse carum est.

Phil Innes

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:qpKSj.12$JF1.6@trndny06...
Chess One wrote:

--and since you ain't subtle, that means I am not interested, darling--


Geddit?

Phil Innes

Not interested. Interesting. Is that why you respond with so much sound
and fury meaning little or nothing? :-)

On Apr 30, 1:09 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and pornographic
messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
messages on her own blog athttp://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com,
Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside".

To parse that sentence, I first notice it is not an answer to anything I
wrote above, and then there is the usual Sloan-ism of relating 1,000s of
obsene messages from the FSS with 'those similar', according to Sloan
himself.

You keep saying this over and over again and I am calling your bluff.

Please provide just one example of an obscene, pornographic or
objectionable posting by me to this chess group in the 12 years that I
have been posting here that is in any way comparable to the thousands
of obscene, pornographic or objectionable postings by the Fake Sam
Sloan a/k/a Paul Truong under my name.

I can provide many examples of obscene, pornographic or objectionable
postings by "anonymous" posters that have appeared recently on
susanpolgar.blogspot.com that are virtually word-for-word identical to
postings here by the Fake Sam Sloan. It is clear that the The Fake Sam
Sloan has written them all, that the Fake Sam Sloan is Paul Truong and
that Susan Polgar allows Paul Truong to post obscene, pornographic or
objectionable postings to her own blogspot.

Sam Sloan

On May 5, 1:46*am, samsloan wrote:
On Apr 30, 1:09 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

"samsloan" wrote in message
Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and pornographic
messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
messages on her own blog athttp://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com,
Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside".

To parse that sentence, I first notice it is not an answer to anything I
wrote above, and then there is the usual Sloan-ism of relating 1,000s of
obsene messages from the FSS with 'those similar', according to Sloan
himself.

You keep saying this over and over again and I am calling your bluff.

Please provide just one example of an obscene, pornographic or
objectionable posting by me to this chess group in the 12 years that I
have been posting here that is in any way comparable to the thousands
of obscene, pornographic or objectionable postings by the Fake Sam
Sloan a/k/a Paul Truong under my name.

I can provide many examples of obscene, pornographic or objectionable
postings by "anonymous" posters that have appeared recently on
susanpolgar.blogspot.com that are virtually word-for-word identical to
postings here by the Fake Sam Sloan. It is clear that the The Fake Sam
Sloan has written them all, that the Fake Sam Sloan is Paul Truong and
that Susan Polgar allows Paul Truong to post obscene, pornographic or
objectionable postings to her own blogspot.

Sam Sloan

Sam,

All your sites are down. Just returned from Afghanistan and the people
are shocked. Is this some sort of Bush/Cheney plot?

On May 5, 6:25 am, wrote:

Sam,

All your sites are down. Just returned from Afghanistan and the people
are shocked. Is this some sort of Bush/Cheney plot?

Is it really true that the People of Afghanistan are shocked that all
my websites are down? Is that what you mean to say?

My websites are all down because Investigator Christopher R. Smith,
Deputy Sheriff of Amherst County, Virginia, threatened my ISP with
arrest if my websites were not taken down. My websites have been up
since 1996 but Deputy Smith just got involved in March. My ISP is
headquartered in Virginia.

Deputy Smith told my ISP that my websites are in violation of Virginia
law because they allege that the then Sheriff of Amherst County
Virginia was involved in the kidnapping of my daughter Shamema
Honzagool. If you have been reading my websites you will know that my
website stated that the mother of Shamema is a Pakistani of Afghan
origin and our daughter was kidnapped by a gang of Christian
Fundamentalists and taken to Amherst County Virginia for the purpose
of converting her to their fanatical brand of Chistianity known as
Jerry Falwellism.

The Sheriff of Amherst County Virginia was involved in this
kidnapping, so naturally he is not going to arrest himself. This
explains the threats the Deputy Sheriff made against my ISP.

You can see a interview of Deputy Christopher Smith on Video about how
he has been shutting down "Internet scams" at http://www.wdbj7.com/global/story.asp?s=8149193

There are good reasons why the people of Afghanistan would be
interested in this case, as it involves an Afghan Muslim child who was
kidnapped by the Jerry Falwellists and taken to America for the sole
purpose of converting her to "Christianity". I am curious to know
whether they have really been following this case over in Afghanistan,
as the last time I was there they did not even have an Internet there.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 1:09 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and pornographic
messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
messages on her own blog athttp://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com,
Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside".

To parse that sentence, I first notice it is not an answer to anything I
wrote above, and then there is the usual Sloan-ism of relating 1,000s of
obsene messages from the FSS with 'those similar', according to Sloan
himself.

You keep saying this over and over again and I am calling your bluff.

I keep saying that you state unrelated elements? In the message which you
here snip I counted 5 of them. That is no bluff!

Please provide just one example of an obscene, pornographic or
objectionable posting by me to this chess group in the 12 years that I

Wowa! big boy! That would be number 6 unrelated elements.

have been posting here that is in any way comparable to the thousands
of obscene, pornographic or objectionable postings by the Fake Sam
Sloan

There is #7.

a/k/a Paul Truong under my name.

And number #8

I can provide many examples of obscene, pornographic or objectionable
postings by "anonymous" posters that have appeared recently on
susanpolgar.blogspot.com that are virtually word-for-word identical to
postings here by the Fake Sam Sloan.

Really? [Though that is still only 8 unrelated items.]

It is clear that the The Fake Sam
Sloan has written them all,

And number #9! A statement of what is clear to... ? Or how it is clear...?

that the Fake Sam Sloan is Paul Truong and
that Susan Polgar allows Paul Truong to post obscene, pornographic or
objectionable postings to her own blogspot.

Nice finish with #10.

Now NONE of that is what I addressed. I didn't ask for yet another litany of
accusations, I wrote that the first 5 accusations you made had no connection
among them that I could detect to justify linking them together.

Now - you cut that out AS IF another point was made, and to justify adding 5
more 'points' which I tell you, are blunt.

That is the level of your own address to the issue. You speak as if you
weren't there! That these factors you speak of are somehow independent of
you, rather than entirely the result of your own intellectual comprehension.

You completely make my point for me by cutting the reference to yourself,
and then continuing to suppose and assert things AS IF there existed any
objective linkage.

Seek the rift within, Mr. Sloan.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan