I HAVE A REQUEST

By Larry Parr

Honest John Fernandez offers these arguments:

1. He is against drug testing though he is in favor of it if it is
necessary to get $2.2 million worldwide. For that amount, he favors empowering
politicians to destroy chess careers. Further he says WADA will not alter its
regulations for chess, and he is right. But he is nonetheless against drug
testing.

Right. In truth, his love for control defines what it means to be in
favor of drug testing.

2. Honest John writes that I am reciting regulations from 1 1/2 years
ago. That is an outright lie.

Still, does anyone notice Honest John's second lie? It's a slippery
one.

One and a half years ago, the kid who now describes a number of my
points as being accurate, was saying that those points were lies! Honest John
will write ANYTHING.

Still, as it happens, every point I have quoted from the regulations
is UP TO DATE. Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4, which taken together provide for
universal random testing and adopted by the FIDE Medical Commission as found in
Annex 46a of the FIDE Congress papers.

MAJOR REQUEST: Is anyone here able to scan the regulations and place
them here online? If possible, I will send you a photocopy of the regulations
by post or fax. Please let me know.

There appears to be no other way to deal with Honest John.

On the subject of what he wants for himself: When I mentioned the
medical commission, he responded he was aiming higher! He also stated that he
would not rule out some future appointment. Of course not.

The bottom line: Honest John will vote to destroy careers of players
who will not crawl to be tested. That is his kind of person and he fits in
perfectly with the Fidecrats.

Larry Parr wrote:

John Fernandez offers these arguments:

1. He is against drug testing

True.

though he is in favor of it if it is
necessary to get $2.2 million worldwide.

Well, it's not just that, now is it? It's at minimum $2.2M, and sometimes cool
things like the $4.5M given by the Turkish NOC for Olympiad 2000 in Istanbul.
It's also that a majority of countries are NOC recognized, which opens the door
to future support. And it is the inclusion of chess as a medal sport as high as
the continental level of the Olympic Games.

I think that the above currently outweights the negatives of the current drug
testing climate.

For that amount, he favors empowering
politicians to destroy chess careers.

Politicians don't have that power.

Further he says WADA will not alter its
regulations for chess, and he is right.

Not yet, but we can try.

But he is nonetheless against drug
testing.

Yes. I am pro-IOC though.

Right. In truth, his love for control defines what it means to be in
favor of drug testing.

I thought it was my love of money? Control has absolutely nothing to do it.

2. Honest John writes that I am reciting regulations from 1 1/2 years
ago. That is an outright lie.

I never said that. I said that practically everything you've been bitching
about with regards to what I've said is 1 1/2 years old. You really have no new
data. (Heck, you didn't have any data ever. All you showed was the ability to
attempt to tear down someone else's work. Fortunately you're not very good at
that.)

One and a half years ago, the kid who now describes a number of my
points as being accurate, was saying that those points were lies!

I think you make some valid points now, actually. However, what I think your
major mistake is is that you are attributing the "nightmare" scenario of the
Press administration (which was quite outlandish, but it DID at least jive with
what he said in Framingham), and attributing it to the commission nowadays, and
the rules nowadays.

Again, good points, and a good message, blurred by hyperbole, exaggeration, and
the never ending quest for motive.

Honest John
will write ANYTHING.

Why thank you! I'm glad to know that I have good enough command of the english
language to be able to express my thoughts on a bunch of matters.

Still, as it happens, every point I have quoted from the regulations
is UP TO DATE.

I'm looking at the WADA regs now.

http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/sta...de/code_v3.pdf

Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4, which taken together provide for
universal random testing and adopted by the FIDE Medical Commission

No they don't. Only the most paranoid read things that way.

as found in
Annex 46a of the FIDE Congress papers.

But FIDE signed up to the WADA World Anti-Doping Code.

On the subject of what he wants for himself: When I mentioned the
medical commission, he responded he was aiming higher!

It was quite sarcastic, as I quite simply don't have the resources of time and
money to go to FIDE junkets. I am, first and foremost, a player.

Secondly, you're harping that I really want a post on the Medicial Commission,
which of course is the biggest piece of, uh, "hooey", to use a term you once
used.

He also stated that he
would not rule out some future appointment.

I probably would have a hard time saying no to some cooler positions in FIDE.

Of course, Parr doesn't know that I was personally blasted by Campo back in my
ICC days. Campo wanted me to go to Morocco on a few days notice and have a deal
done for ICC. The procedure was simple - go to Morocco, wait in a hotel room,
get a phone call, come down, shake some hands, and go back to NYC. I told them
to go pick up sticks. I got blasted for my "American way of doing business".
I've already shown that I don't do business that way.

Nor do I get involved with crooks.

The bottom line: Honest John will vote to destroy careers of players

Wrong.

who will not crawl to be tested.

Wrong.

That is his kind of person

Wrong.

and he fits in
perfectly with the Fidecrats.

Already proven wrong. They don't like me one bit. While I support them in
getting IOC support and rules and ratings and titles, in practically every
other area of FIDE, they have been complete and utter disasters.

John Fernandez

Neil Brennen has become my constant stalker.

Neil has started crossposting things from newsgroup to newsgroup.

Neil thinks that stalking is amusing!

Neil loves to think of violence, and makes all sorts of associations with
it.

Neil thinks that non newsnet stalking of my family is so funny he likes to
mention it all the time.

And one more thing Neil. If you continue to stalk me and excite these
subjects, I will continue to record every occasion that you do so.



Phil Innes

"Spam Scone" wrote in message
om...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...
"JimEade" wrote in message
...
and worse, and you
are a short step away from making the sort of threats that got you
bounced
last
time.

what the **** are you talking about? i was never 'bounced' but withdrew
posting here...

Coincidentally, that was about the time I carried on an extensive and
detailed discussion with sover.net over a number of your postings. The
phrases 'This is a violation...' and 'We will speak to out client'
featured prominently in the responses I got from sover.net.

...and when i resumed i asked a certain agency to review ad
hominist postings, just in case, you know... [do you?]

Is it the FBI again, Phil?

JIM EADE'S LONG GOOD-BYE

By Larry Parr


Larry, Jim has sent me an e-mail saying that he will no longer respond.
Therefore I must defend him in his absense. It is unfortunate that he takes
time to offer so much offence to people personally, rather than taking time
to prosecute your agenda here, however....

However, I have never felt with Jim that he was lying about what he really
thought would be implemented from the regulations.

You and I and many others are not reassured by Jim's confidence, and request
greater surety. That is not the main point of my post.

I say again, it seems to me Jim Eade always spoke what he felt was true.

If any of us were to improve on this situation, we would also need to rise
above personality-clashes, and talk more objectively about these issues and
what is at stake, no?

Cordially, Phil Innes


Mr. Eade's traditional lie, both in holiday and out, is that
someone
wrote, meaning this writer or GM Evansor GM Seirawan in the context, that
universal drug testing was just around the corner. Everyone here knows we
have
consistently made the point that resistance and FIDE's weakness makes that
possibility unlikely, though the regulations themselves call unambiguously
for
universal random testing.

Honest John and Long Goodbye Eade won't address the actual FIDE
regulations because they are so deeply inconvenient.

Their argument: stop worrying, think happy, talk happy, it can't
happen here, only paranoids read the actual regulations and believe them.

And, course, SHEEESH.

I take particular note of this posting my Neil Brennan.

In a thread related to Sam Sloan, Neil Brennan continues to excite others
who, even though they found nothing illegal in the URL references to Sam's
site, still confound their private beliefs and mores on sexuality and
religion with defaming Sam Sloan.

I cannot think this is supported free speech. Furthermore, I request that
everyone witness these continued provocations if they are in any doubt about
ad hominem intent.

It is one thing to freely discuss our opinions - it is quite another to
coyly skirt issues of defamation.

Let our actions be our witnesses!

End of subject!

Phil Innes

...and when i resumed i asked a certain agency to review ad
hominist postings, just in case, you know... [do you?]

Is it the FBI again, Phil?

JIM EADE'S LONG GOOD-BYE

By Larry Parr


Jim Eade had sent me a goodbye message then blocked my e-mail response, so
couldn't receive this message which I now post publicly.

~~~~~~~~
Jim,

Nevermind this sick talk, or who wrote what or who repeated it.

I am also sorry that we cannot speak of chess development in this country
outside of the LIAR LIAR threads. I wrote something to Parr on the newsgroup
[in your absense] which says that I NEVER thought you were lying - except
your assurances were not enough for the rest of us, and surely we must get
above personality-clashes to properly pursue chess.

For me, the entire Olympic thing is a dreadful distraction to fitting out
this continent with its own chess program.

I know you also care to pursue this, have tried earlier and more so than I
have. Therefore, lets park Olympic differences and petty squabbles, and if
an opportunity occurs to have a real conversation about real developments I
fully expect you to wade into it.

You are perhaps the best resource on this continent to do so.

Cordially AND Respectfully, Phil

"Phil Innes" wrote in message .. .
Neil Brennen has become my constant stalker.

Here we go again. Do you ever stop lying, phil?

Neil has started crossposting things from newsgroup to newsgroup.

Neil reposted a list from HLAS when you complained you were left off
of Bruce Draney's list. I was responding to your complaint.

Neil thinks that stalking is amusing!
Neil loves to think of violence, and makes all sorts of associations with
it.
Neil thinks that non newsnet stalking of my family is so funny he likes to
mention it all the time.

You win the Parr award for mindreading, and the Sloan award for
accuracy.

And one more thing Neil. If you continue to stalk me and excite these
subjects, I will continue to record every occasion that you do so.

Phil Innes

It took all of two months for you to revert to form, philly. Buzz off,
you newsgroup loon.

"Phil Innes" wrote in message .. .
I take particular note of this posting my Neil Brennan.
In a thread related to Sam Sloan, Neil Brennan continues to excite others
who, even though they found nothing illegal in the URL references to Sam's
site, still confound their private beliefs and mores on sexuality and
religion with defaming Sam Sloan.
I cannot think this is supported free speech. Furthermore, I request that
everyone witness these continued provocations if they are in any doubt about
ad hominem intent.
It is one thing to freely discuss our opinions - it is quite another to
coyly skirt issues of defamation.
Let our actions be our witnesses!
End of subject!
Phil Innes

Buzz off, you newsgroup loon.

Please note that philly is getting up on his soapbox - or is it a
cross? - because I reminded him about his earlier claims that the FBI
was monitoring RGCP.

...and when i resumed i asked a certain agency to review ad
hominist postings, just in case, you know... [do you?]

Is it the FBI again, Phil?

On 14 Dec 2003 11:31:56 -0800, (Spam Scone)
wrote:

Please note that philly is getting up on his soapbox - or is it a
cross? - because I reminded him about his earlier claims that the FBI
was monitoring RGCP.

I thought everyone knew by now it was BATF (working in concert with
FIDE, of course).

TALKING TALK OR STALKING STALK

By Larry Parr

Is The Historian stalking Phil Innes?

I did not follow the postings and cross-postings, but I did follow some
of the earlier stuff when someone threatened Mr. Innes' family.

Did The Historian shine at that moment? Does The Historian refer to
the earlier stalking in the hope of prompting, perhaps, an actual attack on,
say, Mr. Innes' daughter?

My answers are a mixed bag:

1. I don't believe The Historian is stalking Mr. Innes' or his family;

2. I believe The Historian wrote squalid stuff and shone as a malignant
spirit;

3. The Parr mind-reading capacity tells me that our Historian does indeed act
in just that fashion and for just that motive. Few things would make him feel
cozier before his Christmas hearth and warm his innards with a feeling of a job
well done during this holiday season than to hear that his efforts have had
tragic issue.

So, no, The Historian is not a stalker. He is a talker who talks the
talk, but he is not a stalker who stalks the stalk. That's because he does not
walk all that well.

He waddles.