Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 1st 05, 06:15 PM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stalking the Wild Asparagus with Taylor Kingston and his friend Neil

The following hardly needs comment or additional orientation, and is the
record of someone who was stalked, betrayed and rubbished. She is a Canadian
woman, a well known author, and a serious student and lecturer of
Shakespearean studies, who wrote the following in a humanities group
relating to historical evaluation of Elizabethan and Shakespeare's works,
whose acronym is HLAS, humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare //Phil Innes

-------------



"Spam Scone" wrote in message
oups.com...


LynnE wrote:
"Spam Scone" wrote in message
oups.com...


LynnE wrote:

Whether I agree with them or not, I have great respect for ... Ken
Kaplan, and many others, simply because they all have the courage to

back up
their convictions with their identities.

Gee Lynne, you have "great respect" for a liar? What must that say
about you?


People will judge my words for themselves. If you're determined to

follow me
around, making sarcastically negative remarks, they will judge your

words
also.


How have I treated you any differently from anyone else here?


First, what has that to do with anything? And second, oh yes, I can just see
you treating Terry or Dave like this.


But I would much prefer it if you would either argue reasonably with me
about authorship or leave me alone. I did everything you asked on our

site,
tried to trace your lost messages, took your address out of someone's

post
when you asked me to do so, and never treated you as anything but a good
friend. I said we could certainly have you thrown off if you were

determined
to have that happen (after you publicly asked a member to go to the

admin
and have you banned),


This is a brazen, straightforward lie.


I don't tend to lie, and to prove it...

Here's one public exchange:

You: Mouse, if you want to boot me off after repeatedly inviting me to post,
then feel free.
Me: I certainly don't want to boot you off.
You: But you would if I don't play nice with the Oxenfordians. I want to see
how closely the Forum is censored. I understand both Our Ever-Posting Poet
and Mr. Ross have been asked to leave before.

This was on the Light Blue vs. Dark Blue thread if anyone wishes to check
it.

But here's the post where you said what I suggested you said: "As for the
door swinging both ways, thanks for the reminder. Now please go complain to
the admin and get me booted before I do something radical like criticize
Price's book." This was to KC on the same thread. It's easily checkable.

My response to this and other worse nastiness was as follows in a private
message:

"If you have come on our boards with the express intention of being thrown
off, we can do that for you. We don't mind if you then report back to HLAS,
especially as I will be glad to explain the circumstances over there. But it
seems a rather negative way to behave, and I would prefer that you stay and
take an honest and non-inflammatory part in the proceedings."

And yet for some reason, after apologising and behaving much better, you
decided to come back over here and characterise what was happening thus:
"The Oxfordians are in an uproar and resorting to police-state tactics to
restore order..." and to me, "You threatened to ban 'Howard Staunton' from
the forum..."

You came to the Fellowship to try to create an uproar, Neil, and you didn't
get it. So you invented it. Shame on you.


but also said I'd prefer to have you behave and stay.
You actually apologised publicly about one of your remarks and began to

post
in a much more positive way after that.


I apologized publicly because I temporarily got sucked into your
mindset of uber-political correctness run amok.

I have no idea why you've begun this
ongoing attack, both on me and the Fellowship. If you think about it
logically, hopefully you'll have no idea either. It has cost you a close

and
very loyal friend who often championed you on HLAS and elsewhere.


I've never asked for a champion, or membership in Lynne's Ladies Club
at HLAS. I've only called it as I see it.

If you are determined to go on insulting me, I won't respond further. It

is
very bad for my health and serves no purpose.


And you've now spent 20 sentences "responding further".


That is because you keep goading me, so the only way to desist is to go
away. This is truly my last response on hlas for the time being. I have no
idea why you're hounding and vilifying me and the Fellowship, unless it's to
try to discredit my Tempest/Strachey threads. But whatever the reason, you
have got what you apparently wanted. Perhaps everyone will think you a great
hero for trying to browbeat me as well as calling me a liar. I thought I was
tough, but I am unwell, and frankly my heart isn't strong enough for this
kind of gratuitous nastiness, offered for no reason that I understand.

Goodbye everyone, at least for now. It's been really fun with most of you.
And I've enjoyed our friendships very much. You know where to find me--over
at the Fellowship, or you're welcome to email. Perhaps I'll come back at
some point.

Love,
Lynne


  #2   Report Post  
Old June 1st 05, 06:40 PM
Mark Houlsby
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So this is the stuff with which you threatened Taylor, is it?

Have you thought of putting "OT: " at the beginning of your subject
heading?

Shakespeare, like Caissa, it seems, is a cruel mistress.

  #3   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 05, 12:08 AM
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Chess One wrote:
The following hardly needs comment or additional orientation, and is the
record of someone who was stalked, betrayed and rubbished.


(Snipped rubbish from the Brattleboro Bedlam)

"He is now as valiant as Hercules that only tells a lie, and swears it."

  #4   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 05, 12:12 AM
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Mark Houlsby wrote:
So this is the stuff with which you threatened Taylor, is it?


Mark, can you tell me what this tale told by an Innesiot, full of sound
and fury, signifying nothing, has to do with Taylor Kingston?

  #5   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 05, 09:09 AM
Goran Tomic
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Neil Brennen "The Histerian" wrote in message
oups.com...


I think that we would be generally speaking more polite in discussion on
this newsgroup. If you have arguments (obviously you haven't) you could use
them instead ugly words.

Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia




  #6   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 05, 11:29 AM
Mark Houlsby
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sure Neil,

In Taylor's competition thread lampooning the idiot Sloan, Phil leapt
to Sloan's defence, claiming that Taylor's having begun the thread was
nothing more, and nothing less, than a baseless ad hominem attack. In
the same post in which he attempted to defend Sloan, he threatened
Taylor that he would post something to this effect. Phil evidently
fails to realise that Taylor and you are completely autonomous,
intelligent people, and that neither one of you does anything at the
other's beck and call.

What I am trying to do is to get to the bottom of *why* Phil feels
slighted by Taylor, such that he would start this thread, which is, in
effect, an attack upon *you* (not Taylor himself) and which, as such,
looks extremely suspect, I must say...

Mark

  #7   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 05, 11:31 AM
Mark Houlsby
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Goran Tomic wrote:
Neil Brennen "The Histerian" wrote in message
oups.com...


I think that we would be generally speaking more polite in discussion on
this newsgroup. If you have arguments (obviously you haven't) you could use
them instead ugly words.

Goran Tomic,
Yugoslavia


Goran,

I have no doubt that you are an intelligent, wellmeaning individual,
but if you allow your personal prejudices to cloud your judgement, you
will just look silly, as here.

Mark Houlsby
United Kingdom

  #8   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 05, 12:11 PM
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Mark Houlsby wrote:
Sure Neil,

In Taylor's competition thread lampooning the idiot Sloan, Phil leapt
to Sloan's defence, claiming that Taylor's having begun the thread was
nothing more, and nothing less, than a baseless ad hominem attack. In
the same post in which he attempted to defend Sloan, he threatened
Taylor that he would post something to this effect. Phil evidently
fails to realise that Taylor and you are completely autonomous,
intelligent people, and that neither one of you does anything at the
other's beck and call.


See the subject line, Mark. His I-ness has also claimed I was
associated with James Eade for a while. He even confused me with Matt
Nemmers!

What I am trying to do is to get to the bottom of *why* Phil feels
slighted by Taylor, such that he would start this thread, which is, in
effect, an attack upon *you* (not Taylor himself) and which, as such,
looks extremely suspect, I must say...

Mark


Are you a psychiatrist? If you are you have your work cut out for you
with Phil.

  #9   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 05, 12:20 PM
Mark Houlsby
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Are you a psychiatrist? If you are you have your work cut out for you
with Phil.

Alas, I am barely qualified in *any* area of expertise. I fail to
understand what Phil thinks he might gain from importing an HLAS flame
war, but I remain open to persuasion. If Phil can demonstrate clearly
how and where he has been wronged, and by whom, then maybe we shall get
to the bottom of this. For the moment, it's rather too rich for my
blood, I fear.

If, on the other hand, Phil fails to provide *any* evidence in support
of this apparently ludicrous behaviour, then I fear that your choice of
subject heading will have proved to have been worryingly apt.

We shall see.

Mark

  #10   Report Post  
Old June 2nd 05, 12:26 PM
The Historian
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Mark Houlsby wrote:
Are you a psychiatrist? If you are you have your work cut out for you

with Phil.

Alas, I am barely qualified in *any* area of expertise. I fail to
understand what Phil thinks he might gain from importing an HLAS flame
war, but I remain open to persuasion. If Phil can demonstrate clearly
how and where he has been wronged, and by whom, then maybe we shall get
to the bottom of this. For the moment, it's rather too rich for my
blood, I fear.

If, on the other hand, Phil fails to provide *any* evidence in support
of this apparently ludicrous behaviour, then I fear that your choice of
subject heading will have proved to have been worryingly apt.


"Phil Innes seems determined to prove that Neil Brennen's right about
him."

We shall see.

Mark


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017