One last try:-

In a Shakespearean newsgroup you introduced material Neil, where you claimed
that I had terrible relations with, among others, Bob Hyatt and Jim Eade.

I produced two recent anecdotes: On introducing an idea to Bob Hyatt about
what seemed to be the miniature of the year by P. Svidler with the black
bits. Bob did a consaiderable amount of work in analysis, and furthermore
was entirely modest in the back and forth communication of which I was the
conduit, about his own contribution.

Your claim for poor mutual relations with BH seemed to be somewhat over the
top.

Secondly, Jim Eade wrote several times, in private and in emails appearing
before the entire EB, to say that he appreciated an attempt I made to heal a
certain rift with Yaz. We also spoke of other matters to do with chess
organising in a civil fashion until the principal parties to this issue both
left the group.

Again, it seems plain that Jim Eade and I are not currently at sword's
length either.

I did ask that you respect both these statements, and not suggest that
matter are otherwise.

I had not understood your posting to this newsgroup from chesscafe to be
fair use, nevertheless, would still appreciate if you could manage to spell
the writer's name in a non-derogatory manner. I have neither contacted
Russel Enterprises nor Susan Polgar directly - only requesting here and in a
yahoo discussion group that copyright provision for chess writers be
respected, since some of us make a pitiful income from it!

I have not understand Polgars/Truong's resentment of previously claimed
defamation to be limited to any particular parties, however. Tom Klem also
resented what he understood to be defaming material.

Perhaps you will reconsider any misunderstanding that may have occured
between us in these matters as a means to not escalate the situation beyond
what is stated here?

Phil Innes

"Neil Brennen" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...
I am more than a little concerned with recent posts which skate very
close
to an edge in respect of copyright infringement and personal defamation.
I
do request that posters will not attempt to misrepresent other's
opinions
or
make knowingly false statements concerning others.

When do you start honoring your proposals?

This morning I discovered the following statement:-

"Neil Brennen" wrote in message
nk.net...

Phil has now advanced to the point that he can promise legal action by
third
parties.

This is untrue.

Not at all. You claimed three people were considering suing me THIS WEEK.
You ARE making claims for third parties, unless you are three people.

I have pointed out to the poster who refers to the subject
as 'Trollgar" that the chess player Susan Polgar has appointed a lawyer
to
examine defamations against her and another party,

She appointed a lawyer to contact two individuals with a letter.

which is quite different
than Phil Innes 'promising legal action by third parties.' It might not
even
seem to be an unfriendly announcement!

Phil, you foppish twit.

Since I also write for a chess publisher or two I am asking for legal
respect to be shown to copyrighted material and its author.

Fair use, you foppish moron.

I know that my US publisher would take a dim view of individuals who did
not
respect his copyright, and since this is the means of income for both
publisher and writer, rightly so. However, I have not provoked this
issue
with any publisher

Despite a threat to do so, you foppish moron.

- I have instead asked publicly that copyright be
observed by newsgroup posters.

I am also disturbed by counter claims about a statement I made
concerning
recent business with Dr. Hyatt on chess matters, as well as about other
individuals, which could not be considered in any other way than as
provocations.

What rubbish. I QUOTED you and Hyatt, you moron.

It is my understanding that continuous provocation, malicious stalking,
defamatory statements, and copyright infringements do not constitute
supported speech. I am not particularly litigious,

LOL! Bruceski for Phil.

and simply request a
sobriety in this matter is becoming of civil conversation. It is,
however,
my understanding that a request to honour 'supported speech' be first
offered, and if ignored, then it is legally proper to offer to challenge
it
elsewhere.
I hope this matter may end by suggesting these remedies, and we can
return
to discussing the merits of any idea or validity of information
pertinent
to
the topic of the newsgroup sponsoring such subjects.
Let our actions be our witnesses!
Phil Innes

Guess what Phil. Your 24 hours are up. Watch me take action.

"John W. Kennedy" wrote in message .net...
Anyone who watches old movies knows that British police were
"Mirandizing" suspects generations before police in the US were. The
biggest danger inherent in the Official Secrets Act -- that, as it
stands, it can be a bar to whistle-blowing -- is currently being
challenged in court under the Doctrine of Necessity.

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was jailed for theft because he was not
afforded his right of silence. However, in 1966 he won an appeal as
the Supreme Court reversed his conviction that became a landmark case
that established the Miranda Rights of all the accused.

What is your stand on Shakespeare being a Catholic?

All the best,

Lance Smith

Liam Too wrote:
What is your stand on Shakespeare being a Catholic?

The plays display a man not passionate on either side. The allusions to
Purgatory in "Hamlet", on the one hand, and the inexcusable behavior of
the Church in "King John", on the other, make that plain enough. (Of
course, as a player he could not have been a puritan, anyway.)

I should guess that, if pressed, he would line up with modern
(post-Oxford-Movement) high churchmen, except that I am hesitant to
identify too easily Shakespeare's stance with my own.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

"John W. Kennedy" wrote in message .net...
Liam Too wrote:
What is your stand on Shakespeare being a Catholic?

The plays display a man not passionate on either side. The allusions to
Purgatory in "Hamlet", on the one hand, and the inexcusable behavior of
the Church in "King John", on the other, make that plain enough. (Of
course, as a player he could not have been a puritan, anyway.)

I should guess that, if pressed, he would line up with modern
(post-Oxford-Movement) high churchmen, except that I am hesitant to
identify too easily Shakespeare's stance with my own.

Fair enough, thanks John!

Lance

Kevin L. Bachler wrote in message ...
LEGAL SENSE

Is this an oxymoron?

LEGAL SENSE AND NONSENSE

Or just redundant?

Kevin L. Bachler
________________________________
Neither. There are good laws, and bad laws; but far more good than
bad. There are good judicial decisions, and bad judicial decisions;
but far more good than bad. There are good judges, and bad judges;
but far more good than bad. There are good lawyers, and bad lawyers;
but far more good than bad. Most criticism of laws and legal
decisions comes from people who do not know the law and/or all of the
material facts and are critical only of the one or two line blub they
hear in the media, which is frequently, if not usually, innaccurate.

KidDon

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:30:12 GMT, "Phil Innes"
wrote:


This is untrue. I have pointed out to the poster who refers to the subject
as 'Trollgar" that the chess player Susan Polgar has appointed a lawyer to
examine defamations against her and another party, which is quite different
than Phil Innes 'promising legal action by third parties.'

I think it is interesting that Neil Brennen referrs to Susan Polgar as
"Trollgar" when Susan has never posted anything to this group.

Probably calling her an insulting name is not sufficient grounds for a
defamation suit, but I think that Neil Brennen should be careful what
else he says about her.

Sam Sloan

Or just redundant?

Kevin L. Bachler
________________________________
Neither. There are good laws, and bad laws; but far more good than
bad.

Once you get beyond the Ten Commandments, I wouldn't agree.

Want an example of a ****ed up NEW law: 47 USC §230, which lets ISPs do nothing
about people who break the law while using them.

There are good judicial decisions, and bad judicial decisions;
but far more good than bad.

Like Dredd Scott?

There are good judges, and bad judges;
but far more good than bad.

That's about 50-50. I have, however, argued that the Supreme Court should be
chosen by lottery, to eliminate political bias. I believe we'd get better
justices.

There are good lawyers, and bad lawyers;
but far more good than bad.

Now this is plain wrong. Lawyers as a whole are sickening creatures: they
discriminate in employment, sexually harass their women, whom they hire for
looks, and they blacklist whistleblowers while practicing the greediest law
they can get away with.

Most criticism of laws and legal
decisions comes from people who do not know the law and/or all of the
material facts and are critical only of the one or two line blub they
hear in the media, which is frequently, if not usually, innaccurate.

I base my opinion on 10-15 years off and on in law offices, and discrimination
and sexual harassment I've witnessed firsthand.

For example, in Philadelphia, entry-level legal-secretarial positions are given
almost exclusively to students or graduates of all-girl catholic schools (queue
up "Aqualung" at any time now). One lawyer talked about how he had a 16
year-old secretary one summer and offered her a full time job because "she was
everything I ever wanted."

I bet!

Lawyers are PURE SCUM. God will fry every last one of them in hell.

In article , Sam Sloan says...

when Susan has never posted anything to this group.

A quick search of google provided 25 postings to this group by GM Susan Polgar.

Kevin L. Bachler

On 26 Jan 2004 14:51:45 GMT, (LeModernCaveman)
wrote:


There are good judicial decisions, and bad judicial decisions;
but far more good than bad.

Like Dredd Scott?


Dredd Scott was a legally sound decision. It was just that it had an
unfortunate consequence, the American Civil War.

When I was doing legal research I was shocked to discover that Dredd
Scott was cited with approval in decisions by the US Courts well after
1880.

Dredd Scott simply said that the US is one country and each state must
respect the laws of the other states. That principle is still followed
by the US Courts today.

Sam Sloan

have pointed out to the poster who refers to the subject
as 'Trollgar"

That is a melding of the names "Truong" and "Polgar," and not a reference to
a style of Internet posting.

The alternative "Pruong" flows less trippingly off the tongue. Also, Susan
is the big name, so she gets the most letters. You could go 50/50 and say
Truongar.

None of this would be relevant if Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong had not decided
to so public join their fortunes.

TMB