Not to gloss over this issue as Stan Booz = None has done for //
interesting// reasons - what part did Brian Lafferty play in all this?
He simply won't answer a straight question.

==

When I asked you about the hot saucing speculations you promoted
here,
you did not answer. You never said if you understood the issue to
have
been ALREADY dismissed by a court, and you sucked in other [innocent,
if only in knowledge] speculators like Spinrad. You then said that to
answer would be 'disingenuous', which is an ususal use of that term,
and no denial! And when I put the same to you about your own part in
that event, you cut it. Why did you contact Susan's ex? On what basis
was it?

That is the issue which Stan Booz eg, can't handle so has to change
the name of a thread. Laugherty is more subtle, and just cuts the
issue.

He is rather keen to suppose upon other people, but cannot come clear
about his own relationships. Still, he wants back into USCF Forums,
and I wonder if making or avoiding an honest statement here will
encourage those who must chose to allow him to do so?

I have little interest in minding other people's business, but since
the gent is content to call me a liar for matters resolvable in 20
seconds, I think its time for an orientation check about his own
interests.

Naturally he can duck this challenge or have someone else change the
issue for him. I cannot think either way could recommend his candor to
others. They have heretofore not done so for me.

Phil Innes

ChessFire wrote:
Not to gloss over this issue as Stan Booz = None has done for //
interesting// reasons - what part did Brian Lafferty play in all this?
He simply won't answer a straight question.

[snip]

You must think I'm really stuuuuupid like you, Philsy. Think again,
****head.

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:05:21 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
wrote:

Still, he [Lafferty] wants back into USCF Forums,
and I wonder if making or avoiding an honest statement here will
encourage those who must chose to allow him to do so?


Phil, what the hell are you writing about? Lafferty's been posting
regularly on the USCF forum for years now. I think he got
"sanctioned" once, which meant he went into the review queue, but
that's been over for ages, AFAIK.

On Feb 3, 4:05*pm, ChessFire wrote:
you did not answer. You never said if you understood the issue to
have
been ALREADY dismissed by a court, and you sucked in other [innocent,


I'll ask a direct question about this, because everything I have seen
does *not*, repeat, not indicate it was "dismissed" by a court.

Do you have evidence that would show this?

SBD

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:49:24 -0800 (PST), sd
wrote:

On Feb 3, 4:05*pm, ChessFire wrote:
you did not answer. You never said if you understood the issue to
have
been ALREADY dismissed by a court, and you sucked in other [innocent,


I'll ask a direct question about this, because everything I have seen
does *not*, repeat, not indicate it was "dismissed" by a court.

Do you have evidence that would show this?

SBD

I predict Phil will now demonstrate umbrage, claiming all proof is
your responsibility, and he will only accept as such proof, certified
copies of court records, documenting conviction, sentencing and
exhaustion of all appeals. If you are somehow able to produce this
stuff, he'll claim he has no idea what you're talking about.

Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:05:21 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
wrote:

Still, he [Lafferty] wants back into USCF Forums,
and I wonder if making or avoiding an honest statement here will
encourage those who must chose to allow him to do so?


Phil, what the hell are you writing about? Lafferty's been posting
regularly on the USCF forum for years now. I think he got
"sanctioned" once, which meant he went into the review queue, but
that's been over for ages, AFAIK.

As usual, Philsy does not know what he's talking about. I post daily
over in the USCF forums and have never been banned from the USCF forums.
I was in the moderator's queue, rather unjustly IMO, but that is long
over with. While in the queue, I continued to post almost daily.

On Feb 3, 5:49*pm, sd wrote:
On Feb 3, 4:05*pm, ChessFire wrote:

you did not answer. You never said if you understood the issue to
have
been ALREADY dismissed by a court, and you sucked in other [innocent,

I'll ask a direct question about this, because everything I have seen
does *not*, repeat, not indicate it was "dismissed" by a court.

Do you have evidence that would show this?

SBD

Keep in mind this is the same fellow who claims the Mottershead Report
"never made it to a court", when it did so.

On Feb 3, 5:25*pm, MrVidmar wrote:
ChessFire wrote:
Not to gloss over this issue as Stan Booz = None has done for //
interesting// reasons - what part did Brian Lafferty play in all this?
He simply won't answer a straight question.

[snip]

You must think I'm really stuuuuupid like you, Philsy. *Think again,
****head.

Well, I think you refuse to answer the question, and others don't
really understand the question, but ice fishing season is about over
here, [see elsewhere] and thank you for playing. Phil

On Feb 4, 5:00*am, MrVidmar wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:05:21 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
wrote:

Still, he [Lafferty] wants back into USCF Forums,
and I wonder if making or avoiding an honest statement here will
encourage those who must chose to allow him to do so?

Phil, what the hell are you writing about? *Lafferty's been posting
regularly on the USCF forum for years now. *I think he got
"sanctioned" once, which meant he went into the review queue, but
that's been over for ages, AFAIK.

As usual, Philsy does not know what he's talking about. *I post daily
over in the USCF forums and have never been banned from the USCF forums.
* I was in the moderator's queue, rather unjustly IMO, but that is long
over with. While in the queue, I continued to post almost daily.

I always wonder why despite all the hammering, humiliation, mockery he
is subjected to for his weak arguments and obfuscation in defense of
the Trollgars, Phil keeps coming back for more. And if this is not
driven by business association, as he claims, then he is the most
selfless person I have seen since Gregory "crushed under the bus"
Alexander.

On Feb 4, 1:03*pm, Kalyan wrote:
On Feb 4, 5:00*am, MrVidmar wrote:





Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:05:21 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
wrote:

Still, he [Lafferty] wants back into USCF Forums,
and I wonder if making or avoiding an honest statement here will
encourage those who must chose to allow him to do so?

Phil, what the hell are you writing about? *Lafferty's been posting
regularly on the USCF forum for years now. *I think he got
"sanctioned" once, which meant he went into the review queue, but
that's been over for ages, AFAIK.

As usual, Philsy does not know what he's talking about. *I post daily
over in the USCF forums and have never been banned from the USCF forums..
* I was in the moderator's queue, rather unjustly IMO, but that is long
over with. While in the queue, I continued to post almost daily.

I always wonder why despite all the hammering, humiliation, mockery he
is subjected to for his weak arguments and obfuscation in defense of
the Trollgars, Phil keeps coming back for more. And if this is not
driven by business association, as he claims, then he is the most
selfless person I have seen since Gregory "crushed under the bus"
Alexander.

Many people want to promote chess, some can sign their name to it,
unconditionally. It is only typical of those who can't to write of
'Trollgar' and so on without signing their own name. That is not
exactly brave is it? In fact it is trite. I wonder why the current
writer [laugh - who is so obviously identifiable] doesn't say anything
of his own opinion - but I only wonder rhetorically, since such
persons who think they have been on the attack are the very ones to be
hunted.

As for abuse, these are usually children's remarks intending to wound
where the abuser themselves feel vulnerable, and assuming others have
the same 'standards' and weaknesses as their own. It is hardly even
Psyche-101.



Of course, I think my actions are now clear enough, and did we flush
the FSS? In person in incorparare?

But 'discussion' of that is now almost at an end.

Thanks for sharing.

Phil Innes