On Dec 22, 12:22*pm, None wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:27*am, The Historian
wrote:



He's trolling. What's the payoff in trolling? Attention. Just as James
Eade pegged him back in 2001.

So you're saying Phil ochrestrated 911 just for the attention?

are you the person who says 'faggot' about discussing Morphy?

how brave the marines now are, they can't own their own names, but
they can trash everyone else's

that's a syndrome isn't it Stan? home of the free to own your own
opinion, or scared to? as another vet i would not settle for what you
have

phil innes

On Dec 22, 3:57*pm, ChessFire wrote:
On Dec 22, 9:56*am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

* If you wanted to say "I had never heard of algebraic notation until
I was umpteen years old," then you should have written that. Not

But that is NOT my point, numbskull! It is that chess books did not
use algebraic notation in my youth.

Utter nonsense, Phil. Algebraic notation has been used by most of
the chess world for centuries. The fact that you were ignorant of it
does not change that fact.

Well, I'm off now for a week in sunny San Diego. Happy Christmas to
all!

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Phil stammered:

Then you yourself talk of 1850, but Stamma in 1745.

Eh? I have not mentioned 1850, 1745 or Stamma at all in this thread.
..
Phil's referencing wot you wrote he

[You are saying there were no books using algebraic notation until
late in the 20th century? Nonsense! I have the 1843 edition of
Bilguer's "Handbuch des Schachspiels."] - tk...

m.

ChessFire wrote:
..
are you the person who says 'faggot' about discussing Morphy?

how brave the marines now are, they can't own their own names, but
they can trash everyone else's

"Wouldn't you want to see a low-budget Canadian film wherein ex-marine
Steiger .... Rod Steiger stars as Master Sergeant Albert Callan, a hero
of WWII who is ..."

Well, y'know... a POOFTAH !

www.fandango.com/rodsteiger/filmography/p67882 - Cached - Similar -
The Sergeant (1968)

m.

Sam,

I am *still* interested in learning how it is that your opinion of the
Claude Bloodgood matter changed so dramatically. Twice I have asked
this question:

question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered

Sam, your most recent comment on Bloodgood is as follows:

"Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious"

But earlier, in another thread, you advanced a different opinion:

"Claude Bloodgood...through hard work and diligent study
of chess, achieved a USCF rating or 2702, only to have it taken away
from him through a vile conspiracy by USCF insiders jealous of his
achievements."

What caused you to change your opinion? And do you think that maybe
the accusation of a vile conspiracy was a bit hasty?

/question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered

There is nothing inherently wrong with changing an opinion, Sam. We
come across new facts, or new perspectives, so we change our minds.
The change evinced by your differing rhetoric seemed so remarkable
that I was wondering what was going on. I was hoping to learn
something by asking this question.

Thanks!

Chris Falter

On Dec 23, 10:32*am, Chris Falter wrote:
Sam,

I am *still* interested in learning how it is that your opinion of the
Claude Bloodgood matter changed so dramatically. *Twice I have asked
this question:

question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered

*Sam, your most recent comment on Bloodgood is as follows:

*"Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious"

*But earlier, in another thread, you advanced a different opinion:

*"Claude Bloodgood...through hard work and diligent study
*of chess, achieved a USCF rating or 2702, only to have it taken away
*from him through a vile conspiracy by USCF insiders jealous of his
*achievements."

*What caused you to change your opinion? *And do you think that maybe
*the accusation of a vile conspiracy was a bit hasty?

/question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered

There is nothing inherently wrong with changing an opinion, Sam. *We
come across new facts, or new perspectives, so we change our minds.
The change evinced by your differing rhetoric seemed so remarkable
that I was wondering what was going on. *I was hoping to learn
something by asking this question.

Thanks!

Chris Falter

This is no mystery Chris, Sam is of two minds and they are in the
middle of a family argument and have reached an impasse so are
ignoring each other, which leaves Sam out of his mind (hehwehehehe).

On Dec 23, 12:32*pm, Chris Falter wrote:
Sam,

I am *still* interested in learning how it is that your opinion of the
Claude Bloodgood matter changed so dramatically. *Twice I have asked
this question:

question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered

*Sam, your most recent comment on Bloodgood is as follows:

*"Bloodgood's weakness as a player is obvious"

*But earlier, in another thread, you advanced a different opinion:

*"Claude Bloodgood...through hard work and diligent study
*of chess, achieved a USCF rating or 2702, only to have it taken away
*from him through a vile conspiracy by USCF insiders jealous of his
*achievements."

*What caused you to change your opinion? *And do you think that maybe
*the accusation of a vile conspiracy was a bit hasty?

/question from a few days ago that Sam has not yet answered

There is nothing inherently wrong with changing an opinion, Sam. *We
come across new facts, or new perspectives, so we change our minds.
The change evinced by your differing rhetoric seemed so remarkable
that I was wondering what was going on. *I was hoping to learn
something by asking this question.

Thanks!

Chris Falter

Sloan seldom if ever answers inconvenient questions.

On Friday, December 11, 2009 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-8, samsloan wrote:
I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood.

The Grob is the name of the chess opening that begins with 1.g4.

Claude Bloodgood wrote the book while on Death Row in Virginia due to
an unfortunate butcher knife accident.

He was not executed however because, later on, the US Supreme Court
declared the death penalty unconstitutional.

This book has been almost impossible to obtain. For years I have been
dying to get it.

The ISBN Number will be 4-87187-866-X.

I selected that number because he was X-rated. Also, he was 86ed from
society. Also, the 66 in the number is part of 666.

When the book is printed in a week or so, it will be available at the
following addresses.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...SBN=487187866X
http://www.amazon.com/dp/487187866X

Sam Sloan

I did not change my opinion. I played Bloodgood a tournament game in the Virginia Open in about 1958 when I was 13. Although Bloodgood won, he was a 1600 player. The remark about "hard work" was a sarcastic reference to rating manipulation.