Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 09:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 365
Default Innes The Flack And Polgar Business Partner

How ironic that Phil Innes, the Brattleboro Bedlam, chastises other
journalists, particularly the NY Times and its chess columnist, for a
lack of objectivity and ethical purity. ROTFALMAO!!!

See: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar38.pdf for photos of Phil
Innes and Rob Mitchell with the two miscreant USCF board members, Polgar
and Truong. The article covers, with photos of Phil, Rob and the gang,
the entire business venture they engaged in.

Question for Phil--what was your take (in $$ or in-kind) from this
venture with Polgar and Truong?
  #2   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 09:58 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Innes The Flack And Polgar Business Partner

On Feb 24, 4:32*pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
How ironic that Phil Innes, the Brattleboro Bedlam, chastises other
journalists, particularly the NY Times and its chess columnist, for a
lack of objectivity and ethical purity. *ROTFALMAO!!!

See: *http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar38.pdf*for photos of Phil
Innes and Rob Mitchell with the two miscreant USCF board members, Polgar
and Truong. *The article covers, with photos of Phil, Rob and the gang,
the entire business venture they engaged in.

Question for Phil--what was your take (in $$ or in-kind) from this
venture with Polgar and Truong?


Which of the photoed was Phil and which wast Rob?
  #3   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 10:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 365
Default Innes The Flack And Polgar Business Partner

None wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:32 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
How ironic that Phil Innes, the Brattleboro Bedlam, chastises other
journalists, particularly the NY Times and its chess columnist, for a
lack of objectivity and ethical purity. ROTFALMAO!!!

See: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar38.pdf for photos of Phil
Innes and Rob Mitchell with the two miscreant USCF board members, Polgar
and Truong. The article covers, with photos of Phil, Rob and the gang,
the entire business venture they engaged in.

Question for Phil--what was your take (in $$ or in-kind) from this
venture with Polgar and Truong?


Which of the photoed was Phil and which wast Rob?

Not certain.
  #4   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 10:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Innes The Flack And Polgar Business Partner

On Feb 24, 4:01*pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:32 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
How ironic that Phil Innes, the Brattleboro Bedlam, chastises other
journalists, particularly the NY Times and its chess columnist, for a
lack of objectivity and ethical purity. *ROTFALMAO!!!


See: *http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar38.pdffor photos of Phil
Innes and Rob Mitchell with the two miscreant USCF board members, Polgar
and Truong. *The article covers, with photos of Phil, Rob and the gang,
the entire business venture they engaged in.


Question for Phil--what was your take (in $$ or in-kind) from this
venture with Polgar and Truong?


Which of the photoed was Phil and which wast Rob?


Not certain.


I am not in these photos.

It was a nice set,wasn't it?
  #5   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 10:21 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 879
Default Innes The Flack And Polgar Business Partner

On Feb 24, 4:32*pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
How ironic that Phil Innes, the Brattleboro Bedlam, chastises other
journalists, particularly the NY Times and its chess columnist, for a
lack of objectivity and ethical purity. *ROTFALMAO!!!

See: *http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar38.pdf*for photos of Phil
Innes and Rob Mitchell with the two miscreant USCF board members, Polgar
and Truong. *The article covers, with photos of Phil, Rob and the gang,
the entire business venture they engaged in.

Question for Phil--what was your take (in $$ or in-kind) from this
venture with Polgar and Truong?


If this Vidmar fella would care to openly say his name, [how ironic
indeed!] let him take the consequences for obsessive negative
speculations at the expense of others - and be challenged to prove
some point of his own election, rather than Sloan-like, speculate on a
relationship.\\

If the poster had any balls he would own his name, no? He uses other
people's names to his own devices. What sort of psychology is this?

This Vidmar fella cannot be libeled - since how can you libel an
anon?

He merely continues the Sloan obsessive attack scenario - the farcical
behavior which on being challenged Sloan said he was not obsessed
despite 8,000 negative messages about Polgar and Truong.

I had pointed out that he attacked Susan Polgar for 2 years. To which
he replied that since 2 years ago he did not do so.

I then pointed out that this was merely his //annual// rate, after
which the dude fell silent.

Here above Vidmar speculates darkly on a business conspiracy, but that
is all it is, speculation, and all he can do! Speculate like some
paranoid creature to suggest dark going's on. But evidentially?
Nothing, not one scintilla.



If the public coward Vidmar should write his own name to these
obsessional speculations they would be worth correction to matters of
fact.

As it is he ain't worth doo-doo as a one-to-one response.

Reminds me of some clown used to write here about his political
aspiration and openness. The first question he was asked he declared
invalid. Remember?

That was about his own relationships with various parties to the
current lawsuits, and specifically, when he wrote here about the hot-
saucing scandal, did he know at the time that it has already been
dismissed by a court who investigated it? Pretty straight question,
no?

I also asked that person what relationship they had with the person
suggesting the initial abuse, since the poster himself volunteered he
had contact with the accuser [on what cicumstance, who contacted whom,
and to what result? He chose not to be transparent]

No answer from that other twerp, who declined to answer his own role
in things. That, apparently, was no part of being open or transparent,
at least, that was his own inane declaration of what transparent meant
to him. he was not interested in what transparency meant to others

Talk about putting the fat back into fatuous self promotion!

Meanwhile, the coward cannot own his own name, and definitely knows
squat about chess having never written about the game in newsgroups,
and has the nerve to speak of those who can say their own peace, and
own their names.

Fortunately, such clowns can be contradicted here to their gross
indecency and inadequacy to represent even their own secteted and sour
opinions.

Archive this sucker!

Phil Innes




  #6   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 10:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 365
Default Innes The Flack And Polgar Business Partner

wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:32 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
How ironic that Phil Innes, the Brattleboro Bedlam, chastises other
journalists, particularly the NY Times and its chess columnist, for a
lack of objectivity and ethical purity. ROTFALMAO!!!

See:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar38.pdf for photos of Phil
Innes and Rob Mitchell with the two miscreant USCF board members, Polgar
and Truong. The article covers, with photos of Phil, Rob and the gang,
the entire business venture they engaged in.

Question for Phil--what was your take (in $$ or in-kind) from this
venture with Polgar and Truong?


If this Vidmar fella would care to openly say his name, [how ironic
indeed!] let him take the consequences for obsessive negative
speculations at the expense of others - and be challenged to prove
some point of his own election, rather than Sloan-like, speculate on a
relationship.\\

If the poster had any balls he would own his name, no? He uses other
people's names to his own devices. What sort of psychology is this?

This Vidmar fella cannot be libeled - since how can you libel an
anon?

He merely continues the Sloan obsessive attack scenario - the farcical
behavior which on being challenged Sloan said he was not obsessed
despite 8,000 negative messages about Polgar and Truong.

I had pointed out that he attacked Susan Polgar for 2 years. To which
he replied that since 2 years ago he did not do so.

I then pointed out that this was merely his //annual// rate, after
which the dude fell silent.

Here above Vidmar speculates darkly on a business conspiracy, but that
is all it is, speculation, and all he can do! Speculate like some
paranoid creature to suggest dark going's on. But evidentially?
Nothing, not one scintilla.



If the public coward Vidmar should write his own name to these
obsessional speculations they would be worth correction to matters of
fact.

As it is he ain't worth doo-doo as a one-to-one response.

Reminds me of some clown used to write here about his political
aspiration and openness. The first question he was asked he declared
invalid. Remember?

That was about his own relationships with various parties to the
current lawsuits, and specifically, when he wrote here about the hot-
saucing scandal, did he know at the time that it has already been
dismissed by a court who investigated it? Pretty straight question,
no?

I also asked that person what relationship they had with the person
suggesting the initial abuse, since the poster himself volunteered he
had contact with the accuser [on what cicumstance, who contacted whom,
and to what result? He chose not to be transparent]

No answer from that other twerp, who declined to answer his own role
in things. That, apparently, was no part of being open or transparent,
at least, that was his own inane declaration of what transparent meant
to him. he was not interested in what transparency meant to others

Talk about putting the fat back into fatuous self promotion!

Meanwhile, the coward cannot own his own name, and definitely knows
squat about chess having never written about the game in newsgroups,
and has the nerve to speak of those who can say their own peace, and
own their names.

Fortunately, such clowns can be contradicted here to their gross
indecency and inadequacy to represent even their own secteted and sour
opinions.

Archive this sucker!

Phil Innes


Phil, what can one say. You are one of the stupidest people on
Usenet---and probably the only person here who doesn't know my name.
The Brattleboro Bedlam has really outdone himself.

Hint--if you go back through all of the MrVidmar postings, you might be
able vto figure it out.

Now as to the substance, BB clearly has no credibility in any matter
regarding Trolgar. How much did you make from the Russian team thing?
Tell us Phil so we can remind you of the exact amount every time you
flack for Polgar.
  #7   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 10:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Innes The Flack And Polgar Business Partner

Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:32 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
How ironic that Phil Innes, the Brattleboro Bedlam, chastises other
journalists, particularly the NY Times and its chess columnist, for a
lack of objectivity and ethical purity. ROTFALMAO!!!

See:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar38.pdf for photos of Phil
Innes and Rob Mitchell with the two miscreant USCF board members, Polgar
and Truong. The article covers, with photos of Phil, Rob and the gang,
the entire business venture they engaged in.

Question for Phil--what was your take (in $$ or in-kind) from this
venture with Polgar and Truong?


If this Vidmar fella would care to openly say his name, [how ironic
indeed!] let him take the consequences for obsessive negative
speculations at the expense of others - and be challenged to prove
some point of his own election, rather than Sloan-like, speculate on a
relationship.\\

If the poster had any balls he would own his name, no? He uses other
people's names to his own devices. What sort of psychology is this?

This Vidmar fella cannot be libeled - since how can you libel an
anon?

He merely continues the Sloan obsessive attack scenario - the farcical
behavior which on being challenged Sloan said he was not obsessed
despite 8,000 negative messages about Polgar and Truong.

I had pointed out that he attacked Susan Polgar for 2 years. To which
he replied that since 2 years ago he did not do so.

I then pointed out that this was merely his //annual// rate, after
which the dude fell silent.

Here above Vidmar speculates darkly on a business conspiracy, but that
is all it is, speculation, and all he can do! Speculate like some
paranoid creature to suggest dark going's on. But evidentially?
Nothing, not one scintilla.



If the public coward Vidmar should write his own name to these
obsessional speculations they would be worth correction to matters of
fact.

As it is he ain't worth doo-doo as a one-to-one response.

Reminds me of some clown used to write here about his political
aspiration and openness. The first question he was asked he declared
invalid. Remember?

That was about his own relationships with various parties to the
current lawsuits, and specifically, when he wrote here about the hot-
saucing scandal, did he know at the time that it has already been
dismissed by a court who investigated it? Pretty straight question,
no?

I also asked that person what relationship they had with the person
suggesting the initial abuse, since the poster himself volunteered he
had contact with the accuser [on what cicumstance, who contacted whom,
and to what result? He chose not to be transparent]

No answer from that other twerp, who declined to answer his own role
in things. That, apparently, was no part of being open or transparent,
at least, that was his own inane declaration of what transparent meant
to him. he was not interested in what transparency meant to others

Talk about putting the fat back into fatuous self promotion!

Meanwhile, the coward cannot own his own name, and definitely knows
squat about chess having never written about the game in newsgroups,
and has the nerve to speak of those who can say their own peace, and
own their names.

Fortunately, such clowns can be contradicted here to their gross
indecency and inadequacy to represent even their own secteted and sour
opinions.

Archive this sucker!

Phil Innes


Phil, what can one say. You are one of the stupidest people on
Usenet---and probably the only person here who doesn't know my name. The
Brattleboro Bedlam has really outdone himself.

Hint--if you go back through all of the MrVidmar postings, you might be
able vto figure it out.

Now as to the substance, BB clearly has no credibility in any matter
regarding Trolgar. How much did you make from the Russian team thing?
Tell us Phil so we can remind you of the exact amount every time you
flack for Polgar.


I'm not sure Phil will ever figure it out.
  #8   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 10:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Innes The Flack And Polgar Business Partner

On Feb 24, 4:27*pm, "B. Lafferty " wrote:
Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:32 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
How ironic that Phil Innes, the Brattleboro Bedlam, chastises other
journalists, particularly the NY Times and its chess columnist, for a
lack of objectivity and ethical purity. *ROTFALMAO!!!


See: *http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar38.pdffor photos of Phil
Innes and Rob Mitchell with the two miscreant USCF board members, Polgar
and Truong. *The article covers, with photos of Phil, Rob and the gang,
the entire business venture they engaged in.


Question for Phil--what was your take (in $$ or in-kind) from this
venture with Polgar and Truong?


If this Vidmar fella would care to openly say his name, [how ironic
indeed!] let him take the consequences for obsessive negative
speculations at the expense of others - and be challenged to prove
some point of his own election, rather than Sloan-like, speculate on a
relationship.\\


If the poster had any balls he would own his name, no? He uses other
people's names to his own devices. What sort of psychology is this?


This Vidmar fella cannot be libeled - since how can you libel an
anon?


He merely continues the Sloan obsessive attack scenario - the farcical
behavior which on being challenged Sloan said he was not obsessed
despite 8,000 negative messages about Polgar and Truong.


I had pointed out that he attacked Susan Polgar for 2 years. To which
he replied that since 2 years ago he did not do so.


I then pointed out that this was merely his //annual// rate, after
which the dude fell silent.


Here above Vidmar speculates darkly on a business conspiracy, but that
is all it is, speculation, and all he can do! Speculate like some
paranoid creature to suggest dark going's on. But evidentially?
Nothing, not one scintilla.




If the public coward Vidmar should write his own name to these
obsessional speculations they would be worth correction to matters of
fact.


As it is he ain't worth doo-doo as a one-to-one response.


Reminds me of some clown used to write here about his political
aspiration and openness. The first question he was asked he declared
invalid. Remember?


That was about his own relationships with various parties to the
current lawsuits, and specifically, when he wrote here about the hot-
saucing scandal, did he know at the time that it has already been
dismissed by a court who investigated it? Pretty straight question,
no?


I also asked that person what relationship they had with the person
suggesting the initial abuse, since the poster himself volunteered he
had contact with the accuser [on what cicumstance, who contacted whom,
and to what result? He chose not to be transparent]


No answer from that other twerp, who declined to answer his own role
in things. That, apparently, was no part of being open or transparent,
at least, that was his own inane declaration of what transparent meant
to him. he was not interested in what transparency meant to others *


Talk about putting the fat back into fatuous self promotion!


Meanwhile, the coward cannot own his own name, and definitely knows
squat about chess having never written about the game in newsgroups,
and has the nerve to speak of those who can say their own peace, and
own their names.


Fortunately, such clowns can be contradicted here to their gross
indecency and inadequacy to represent even their own secteted and sour
opinions.


Archive this sucker!


Phil Innes


Phil, what can one say. *You are one of the stupidest people on
Usenet---and probably the only person here who doesn't know my name. The
Brattleboro Bedlam has really outdone himself.


Hint--if you go back through all of the MrVidmar postings, you might be
able vto figure it out.


Now as to the substance, BB clearly has no credibility in any matter
regarding Trolgar. *How much did you make from the Russian team thing?
Tell us Phil so we can remind you of the exact amount every time you
flack for Polgar.


I'm not sure Phil will ever figure it out.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Brian,
What difference does it make? It was a private media venture that had
nothing to do with the USCF. No person serving in any capacity with
the USCF governance was involved. There was no money taken from the
USCF to promote the venture.
If you are going to use Vidmar as a moniker,at least sign your name at
the bottom of the post so people can determine at quick glance who is
saying what.

I think asking anyone what they earn is of very poor taste in any
arena;even on the usenet.That is something I don't believe that even
Mr. Sloan has done.

I am not here to pick a fight with anyone. Just look inside of
yourself and tell me if the tone,tenor and content of your last few
days postings is something you would present to a parent as evidence
of your ability to responsibly care for their cheld.

Rob"Which Mitch"
  #9   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 10:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 879
Default Innes The Flack And Polgar Business Partner

On Feb 24, 5:27*pm, "B. Lafferty " wrote:
Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:32 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
How ironic that Phil Innes, the Brattleboro Bedlam, chastises other
journalists, particularly the NY Times and its chess columnist, for a
lack of objectivity and ethical purity. *ROTFALMAO!!!


See: *http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar38.pdffor photos of Phil
Innes and Rob Mitchell with the two miscreant USCF board members, Polgar
and Truong. *The article covers, with photos of Phil, Rob and the gang,
the entire business venture they engaged in.


Question for Phil--what was your take (in $$ or in-kind) from this
venture with Polgar and Truong?


If this Vidmar fella would care to openly say his name, [how ironic
indeed!] let him take the consequences for obsessive negative
speculations at the expense of others - and be challenged to prove
some point of his own election, rather than Sloan-like, speculate on a
relationship.\\


If the poster had any balls he would own his name, no? He uses other
people's names to his own devices. What sort of psychology is this?


This Vidmar fella cannot be libeled - since how can you libel an
anon?


He merely continues the Sloan obsessive attack scenario - the farcical
behavior which on being challenged Sloan said he was not obsessed
despite 8,000 negative messages about Polgar and Truong.


I had pointed out that he attacked Susan Polgar for 2 years. To which
he replied that since 2 years ago he did not do so.


I then pointed out that this was merely his //annual// rate, after
which the dude fell silent.


Here above Vidmar speculates darkly on a business conspiracy, but that
is all it is, speculation, and all he can do! Speculate like some
paranoid creature to suggest dark going's on. But evidentially?
Nothing, not one scintilla.




If the public coward Vidmar should write his own name to these
obsessional speculations they would be worth correction to matters of
fact.


As it is he ain't worth doo-doo as a one-to-one response.


Reminds me of some clown used to write here about his political
aspiration and openness. The first question he was asked he declared
invalid. Remember?


That was about his own relationships with various parties to the
current lawsuits, and specifically, when he wrote here about the hot-
saucing scandal, did he know at the time that it has already been
dismissed by a court who investigated it? Pretty straight question,
no?


I also asked that person what relationship they had with the person
suggesting the initial abuse, since the poster himself volunteered he
had contact with the accuser [on what cicumstance, who contacted whom,
and to what result? He chose not to be transparent]


No answer from that other twerp, who declined to answer his own role
in things. That, apparently, was no part of being open or transparent,
at least, that was his own inane declaration of what transparent meant
to him. he was not interested in what transparency meant to others *


Talk about putting the fat back into fatuous self promotion!


Meanwhile, the coward cannot own his own name, and definitely knows
squat about chess having never written about the game in newsgroups,
and has the nerve to speak of those who can say their own peace, and
own their names.


Fortunately, such clowns can be contradicted here to their gross
indecency and inadequacy to represent even their own secteted and sour
opinions.


Archive this sucker!


Phil Innes


Phil, what can one say. *You are one of the stupidest people on
Usenet---and probably the only person here who doesn't know my name. The
Brattleboro Bedlam has really outdone himself.


Hint--if you go back through all of the MrVidmar postings, you might be
able vto figure it out.


Now as to the substance, BB clearly has no credibility in any matter
regarding Trolgar. *How much did you make from the Russian team thing?
Tell us Phil so we can remind you of the exact amount every time you
flack for Polgar.


I'm not sure Phil will ever figure it out.


Are these responses from the public coward Vidmar, a coy person who
suggest who he is, rather than beinbg able to say so [psychologists
take note] immediately followed by a post by Brian Lafferty which
purports to be taken seriously?

Mr Vidmar declares himself a sort of net-fetishist to whom we should
seek information about him, rather than the coward he is to hide his
own name while doing the dirty trick to others.


Vidmar the Vile suggests others should be able to figure him out - but
I already did that - he is a cowardy sort of bloke, who answers
nothing. His relations to Brian Lafferty who also writes incuriously
and immediaty after Vidmar here, are unknown.

What indeed can one say to an hysteric speculator? 'One' doesn't say
anything as already explained, since they get off on it!

Apparently wherever this character speculates has never been
challenged. Thank God this does not happen in any court in the United
States.

Vidmar had nothing to say about his suggestion that there was
undeclaed business relations driving the relationships refererenced in
the header. Here Brian the Brain Lafferty opts to ignore a gross
calumny by Vidmar, while proceeding to ask more questions, rather than
address those I already raised.

Odd, no? Not only odd that people so obviously opaque themselves
should have the balls to talk with real people, but odd these two
should both write to my message.



More of this would constitute free psychological consulting -
objectionable on several grounds.

Phil Innes



  #10   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 11:00 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 37
Default Innes The Flack And Polgar Business Partner

On Feb 24, 4:47*pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:27*pm, "B. Lafferty " wrote:





Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:32 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
How ironic that Phil Innes, the Brattleboro Bedlam, chastises other
journalists, particularly the NY Times and its chess columnist, for a
lack of objectivity and ethical purity. *ROTFALMAO!!!


See: *http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar38.pdfforphotos of Phil
Innes and Rob Mitchell with the two miscreant USCF board members, Polgar
and Truong. *The article covers, with photos of Phil, Rob and the gang,
the entire business venture they engaged in.


Question for Phil--what was your take (in $$ or in-kind) from this
venture with Polgar and Truong?


If this Vidmar fella would care to openly say his name, [how ironic
indeed!] let him take the consequences for obsessive negative
speculations at the expense of others - and be challenged to prove
some point of his own election, rather than Sloan-like, speculate on a
relationship.\\


If the poster had any balls he would own his name, no? He uses other
people's names to his own devices. What sort of psychology is this?


This Vidmar fella cannot be libeled - since how can you libel an
anon?


He merely continues the Sloan obsessive attack scenario - the farcical
behavior which on being challenged Sloan said he was not obsessed
despite 8,000 negative messages about Polgar and Truong.


I had pointed out that he attacked Susan Polgar for 2 years. To which
he replied that since 2 years ago he did not do so.


I then pointed out that this was merely his //annual// rate, after
which the dude fell silent.


Here above Vidmar speculates darkly on a business conspiracy, but that
is all it is, speculation, and all he can do! Speculate like some
paranoid creature to suggest dark going's on. But evidentially?
Nothing, not one scintilla.




If the public coward Vidmar should write his own name to these
obsessional speculations they would be worth correction to matters of
fact.


As it is he ain't worth doo-doo as a one-to-one response.


Reminds me of some clown used to write here about his political
aspiration and openness. The first question he was asked he declared
invalid. Remember?


That was about his own relationships with various parties to the
current lawsuits, and specifically, when he wrote here about the hot-
saucing scandal, did he know at the time that it has already been
dismissed by a court who investigated it? Pretty straight question,
no?


I also asked that person what relationship they had with the person
suggesting the initial abuse, since the poster himself volunteered he
had contact with the accuser [on what cicumstance, who contacted whom,
and to what result? He chose not to be transparent]


No answer from that other twerp, who declined to answer his own role
in things. That, apparently, was no part of being open or transparent,
at least, that was his own inane declaration of what transparent meant
to him. he was not interested in what transparency meant to others *


Talk about putting the fat back into fatuous self promotion!


Meanwhile, the coward cannot own his own name, and definitely knows
squat about chess having never written about the game in newsgroups,
and has the nerve to speak of those who can say their own peace, and
own their names.


Fortunately, such clowns can be contradicted here to their gross
indecency and inadequacy to represent even their own secteted and sour
opinions.


Archive this sucker!


Phil Innes


Phil, what can one say. *You are one of the stupidest people on
Usenet---and probably the only person here who doesn't know my name. The
Brattleboro Bedlam has really outdone himself.


Hint--if you go back through all of the MrVidmar postings, you might be
able vto figure it out.


Now as to the substance, BB clearly has no credibility in any matter
regarding Trolgar. *How much did you make from the Russian team thing?
Tell us Phil so we can remind you of the exact amount every time you
flack for Polgar.


I'm not sure Phil will ever figure it out.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Brian,
What difference does it make? It was a private media venture that had
nothing to do with the USCF. No person serving in any capacity with
the USCF governance was involved. There was no money taken from the
USCF to promote the venture.


Normally, I would agree with you. However, Innes frequently says that
other people are dishonest for not reporting some obscure business
connection which Phil contends is biasing them. If he is going to call
for these silly declarations, then he should expect to play by the
same rules he calls for in others.

Jerry Spinrad

If you are going to use Vidmar as a moniker,at least sign your name at
the bottom of the post so people can determine at quick glance who is
saying what.

I think asking anyone what they earn is of very poor taste in any
arena;even on the usenet.That is something I don't believe that even
Mr. Sloan has done.

I am not here to pick a fight with anyone. Just look inside of
yourself and tell me if the tone,tenor and content of your last few
days postings is something you would present to a parent as evidence
of your ability to responsibly care for their cheld.

Rob"Which Mitch"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


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 12:11 AM.

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