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.

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. 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.' It might not even
seem to be an unfriendly announcement!

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.

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 - 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.

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

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

No, they don't. But it's your definitions of "continuous provocation,"
"malicious stalking" etc. that are suspect.

There is a lot of ungrounded hyperbole on this board. Sam Sloan spent a
troubled week screaming that I hated Susan Polgar and that I posted
anti-Polgar tirades on a daily basis. I asked him repeatedly to cite any
instance that supported such accusations. His silence spoke volumes.

Like Sam, many people very often mistake opposition to issues or positions
as personal attack. There are a few on this board who do resort to
name-calling and obscenity, but the rest of us see that for what it is...the
last flailings of a drowning argument. But even epithets and swear words are
hardly slanderous.

If you are going to make a case that posters here are libelous, you need to
do better than just rattle off some buzz-phrases.

TMB