Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Main

Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:27:52
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

I have a question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes AKA Chess One.

In the following post he claims to have "worked for some time with
robotics." Is there any independent evidence that he has ever
worked in robotics or any other engineering discipline?

He also relates an anecdote supposedly about some unnamed cosmologists
at Princeton. Does anyone have any evidence that the described events
actually happened?

Date: 16 Dec 2006 15:23:11
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Rob Mitchell wrote:

> Guy Macon wrote:
> > "Rob" (who is, I believe, Phil Innes posing under an alias) wrote:
> >
> > >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Chess One wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>...a Turing Engine was...
> > >>
> > >> Please define the non-standard term "Turing Engine"
> > >> Why do you refuse to define your term?
> >
> > (irrelivant material that faied to define the difference between
> > the non-standard term "Turing Engine" and the standard term
> > "Turing Machine" snipped.)
> >
> > You posted a reply that failed to define the non-standard term
> > "Turing Engine." If you reply to a direct question, why now
> > answer that question? Again I ask, what is the definition of
> > the non-standard term "Turing Engine", and how does it differ
> > from the standard term "Turing Machine?"
>
>
> Guy,
> I am not Phil Innes anymore that you are Neil Brennen. ALtought some
> may suspect that they all may be the same person. See: MPD
>
> Rob

Mr. Mitchell.

I note your having found the time to post the message to which this is
a reply.

Do you think that you might find the time to reply to the message
which, with this message in place, will have become number 41 in this
thread?

Here, again, is the link to it:

http://masl.to/?N2441216E

TIA

Mr. Houlsby

Date: 16 Dec 2006 11:27:13
From: Rob Mitchell
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Guy Macon wrote:
> "Rob" (who is, I believe, Phil Innes posing under an alias) wrote:
>
> >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> >
> >> Chess One wrote:
> >>
> >>>...a Turing Engine was...
> >>
> >> Please define the non-standard term "Turing Engine"
> >> Why do you refuse to define your term?
>
> (irrelivant material that faied to define the difference between
> the non-standard term "Turing Engine" and the standard term
> "Turing Machine" snipped.)
>
> You posted a reply that failed to define the non-standard term
> "Turing Engine." If you reply to a direct question, why now
> answer that question? Again I ask, what is the definition of
> the non-standard term "Turing Engine", and how does it differ
> from the standard term "Turing Machine?"

Guy,
I am not Phil Innes anymore that you are Neil Brennen. ALtought some
may suspect that they all may be the same person. See: MPD

Rob

Date: 16 Dec 2006 09:35:22
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Just to keep you up-to-date, upon the appearance of this post, it will
have moved down to 39.

Again, here's the link to it:

http://masl.to/?N2441216E

Do reply, there's a good chap.

k

Date: 16 Dec 2006 09:28:28
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

The Historian wrote:

> k Houlsby wrote:
> > The Historian wrote:
> >
> > > k Houlsby wrote:
> > > > Rob wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > k,
> > > > > I fooled you. I am dumb as a stump.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe it.
> > >
> > > It's true. And he's hardly a newbie. Robtroll comes out whenever Innes,
> > > a business associate, runs into problems online.
> >
> > Sssshhhhhhh Neil. Keep this under your hat, in case Phil or Rob finds
> > out: I already knew this. Whenever I write to someone that I am giving
> > them the benefit of the doubt, that means that they're basically dead
> > meat. I'm adopting the stealth approach. Sssshhhhhhh.
> >
> > Thanks for your post.
>
> You are welcome. I've enjoyed your skewering of the Brattleboro Bedlam.
> Keep up the good work!

If I'm making any progress (and that, as you know all-too-well, is
always doubtful with our Phil) then certainly it should have been
impossible if it were not a team effort.

It's really heartening to note that far from being alone in thinking
that Phil is *less useful* than a piece of shit, messrs. Macon, K.
Sloan, Kennedy, Kingston, Blair, Dowd, Murray, and, last but by no
means least, your good self, have all voiced their tacit support of the
motion, after their various inimitable fashions.

Therefore, under the circumstances, I feel constrained to answer your
entreaty: "Keep up the good work!" with an equally enthusiastic: Right
back atcha!

Phil, if you are reading this, to help you to understand something
about what it begins to represent, look up the word:

opprobrium

That, I think, is all for now.

k

Date: 16 Dec 2006 09:18:15
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Guy Macon wrote:

> "Rob" (who is, I believe, Phil Innes posing under an alias) wrote:
>

Don't think so, Guy, Rob seems to write more coherently than Phil can
manage. Still gibberish, of course, but not as bad as Phil. I may be
wrong, but I suspect not.

Best regards,
k

<snip >

Date: 16 Dec 2006 06:50:56
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

k Houlsby wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
>
> > k Houlsby wrote:
> > > Rob wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > k,
> > > > I fooled you. I am dumb as a stump.
> > >
> > > I don't believe it.
> >
> > It's true. And he's hardly a newbie. Robtroll comes out whenever Innes,
> > a business associate, runs into problems online.
>
> Sssshhhhhhh Neil. Keep this under your hat, in case Phil or Rob finds
> out: I already knew this. Whenever I write to someone that I am giving
> them the benefit of the doubt, that means that they're basically dead
> meat. I'm adopting the stealth approach. Sssshhhhhhh.
>
> Thanks for your post.

You are welcome. I've enjoyed your skewering of the Brattleboro Bedlam.
Keep up the good work!

Date: 16 Dec 2006 05:19:27
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Rob wrote:

<an attack on Guy Macon >

It's interesting that you have had time to post such an attack.

You may remember that earlier in this thread, in this post:

http://masl.to/?X1142116E

...you wrote:

"I will own all of my mistakes and correct them as they happen."

This is very good news. In writing this, you placed yourself under a
specific and far-reaching obligation.

In my reply, here:

http://masl.to/?N2441216E

...I entreated you to fulfil the obligation which you volunteered to
meet.

When I post this, my post http://masl.to/?N2441216E should be number 34
in the list, directly underneath this post by "help bot" (Greg
Kennedy):

http://masl.to/?A2541116E

...(unless, of course, someone has replied to Kennedy's post [or
another post above it in the thread] by the time you read it.)

Anyhoo, unless you *fulfil* the obligation which you voluntarily placed
upon yourself, one may be forced to draw certain conclusions about your
having omitted so to do.

Which is it to be?

k

Date: 15 Dec 2006 22:47:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Guy Macon wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> >Liar
>
> Nice to see you at last admitting that you are a liar.

?

> Not that there was any doubt after I posted the mesaage-ID
> of your post that you claimed I made up.
>
> - you posted 500 words of abuse
>
> *after* I posted some perfectly polite material in a purely
> technical discussion, and *after* you becaame aggressive and
> rude for no apparent reason other than my asking you to define
> some non-standard terms you were using.
>
> I can provide the messaage-IDs of your posts if needed.
>
> >...a Turing Engine was...
>
> Please define the non-standard term "Turing Engine" I can find no
> examples of Turing using the term.

Nonsense. Here is one I found using only one hand:

"This is Turing. I'm in Bletchley Park, and my Ford
Model A won't start. It's the bloody engine, again.
I hope the bloody Yanks lose the damned war, so
we can all drive reliable, German-made cars."

Naturally, only the intellectual elite are aware of this
quote, as it was heavily encrypted, and cleverly
disguised as a mere recording of a Winston Churchill
speech. I decoded it while waiting for Sanny's chess
engine to come up with a move on Easy level, while
Mr. Innes independently decoded the message in a
dream about Shakespeare.

> Why do you refuse to define your term?
>
> >or to look it up
>
> A google search on "Turing Engine" returns 371 hits 73 of which
> also contain "chess one" or "Innes." Most of the rest appear
> to be people who misrember the proper term or are speakers of
> foreign languages. None contain a definition that differs from
> the definition of a uring Machine. A google search on "Turing
> Machine" returns 644,000 hits...

That is because you are searching for this term in the
*English*. Try searching for "Turing Engine" in Andean,
which is a local variation of Spanish/Mongolian/Old Indian
languages -- in particular, those where the Bishops are
both hyper-fianchettoed to a3/h3 or a6/h6. Google
is useless here, as it cannot possibly grok the subtle
differences among all these lines; it takes a near-IM to
do that!

-- help bot

Date: 15 Dec 2006 21:34:14
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Guy Macon wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> >Liar
>
> Nice to see you at last admitting that you are a liar.
> Not that there was any doubt after I posted the mesaage-ID
> of your post that you claimed I made up.
>
> - you posted 500 words of abuse
>
> *after* I posted some perfectly polite material in a purely
> technical discussion, and *after* you becaame aggressive and
> rude for no apparent reason other than my asking you to define
> some non-standard terms you were using.
>
> I can provide the messaage-IDs of your posts if needed.
>
> >...a Turing Engine was...
>
> Please define the non-standard term "Turing Engine" I can find no
> examples of Turing using the term. Why do you refuse to define
> your term?

Alan Turing's Automatic Computing Engine: The Master Codebreaker's
Struggle to Build the Modern Computer (Hardcover)
by B. Jack Copeland (Editor)
List Price: $129.95
Price: $129.95 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping.
Details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

> >or to look it up
>
> A google search on "Turing Engine" returns 371 hits 73 of which
> also contain "chess one" or "Innes." Most of the rest appear
> to be people who misrember the proper term or are speakers of
> foreign languages. None contain a definition that differs from
> the definition of a uring Machine. A google search on "Turing
> Machine" returns 644,000 hits...

Date: 16 Dec 2006 15:01:23
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

"Rob" (who is, I believe, Phil Innes posing under an alias) wrote:

>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> Chess One wrote:
>>
>>>...a Turing Engine was...
>>
>> Please define the non-standard term "Turing Engine"
>> Why do you refuse to define your term?

(irrelivant material that faied to define the difference between
the non-standard term "Turing Engine" and the standard term
"Turing Machine" snipped.)

You posted a reply that failed to define the non-standard term
"Turing Engine." If you reply to a direct question, why now
answer that question? Again I ask, what is the definition of
the non-standard term "Turing Engine", and how does it differ
from the standard term "Turing Machine?"

Date: 15 Dec 2006 08:59:06
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Mike Murray wrote:

> On 15 Dec 2006 07:38:22 -0800, "k Houlsby"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Chess One wrote:
>
> >>What a bunch of wankers!
>
> >I must admit that wanking may be an area in which you are an expert.
>
> Now, let's be even-handed about this.

LOL!! Good one!

Date: 15 Dec 2006 08:49:05
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

> Liar

No, he isn't, and this is a prime example of WHY you get your very own
thread. In EVERY CASE he has posted EVIDENCE whereas you have AVOIDED
or IGNORED the evidence as is your habitual wont.

> - you posted 500 words of abuse,

Oh yes? Point EXACTLY to the whereabouts of these "500 words of abuse"
as you describe them. I promise you this: if, indeed, it proves true
that Mr. Macon has posted 500 or even 50 words of abuse then I shall
personally reprimand him much as a great many of us frequently have to
reprimand you... Deal?

> since you are presumably too proud to
> admit you didn't understand what a Turing Engine was, or to look it up -
> then you changed the subject from method to machine.
>

Seems that you are alone in this, as in many things, Phil. You use
non-standard definitions, and then get angry even when (as in Mr.
Macon's case) someone politely asks you what on earth you mean.

> You merely attract applause from Kingston and Kennedy because they don't
> know either, and like you they both have written perfectly polite technical
> discursive material.
>

Not so. He attracts applause not only from Kingston and Kennedy, but
from Brennen, Dowd, K. Sloan, and, last but not least, from me. Also
the reason he attracts applause is not, as you mistakenly surmise
"...because they don't know either" but rather because YOU, Phil Innes,
are the topic of this thread, a fact which is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of
your being immature, ignorant, stupid, evasive, obscure, facetious and
vindictive. Oh, and moronic. How could I forget that one?

> Are you all really nutz!@?

No, but I know someone who is, and his name is in the subject heading
which Mr. Macon chose....

> Maybe if you tell each other you aren't then it
> will be true, and then you can all pretend together and it will be lovely!
>

Maybe if you went away instead of habitually inflicting your immature,
ignorant, stupid, evasive, obscure, facetious, vindictive and moronic
personality upon us all, that will be lovlier still!

Just a thought.

Put it in the background, there, and throw it the occasional glance.

> Meantime, do you think its fair to play chess by the rules or not?

What's this? More diversionary tactics? Why introduce this here? BTW
spelling "its" that way is the possessive variety. In this case, it
should be "it's". You must do really well at HLAS.

> That is
> the 'technical basis' of the discussion to which, and I excuse you
> personally for not answering it since no one else is honest enough to do so
> either, we certainly have not disagreed since there is no one here I can
> respond to.
>

I'm sorry, but the above "sentence" seems to be another prime example
of authentic Innes gibberish. It makes no sense at all.

k Houlsby

Date: 15 Dec 2006 08:37:44
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

> "k Houlsby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Guy Macon wrote:
> >
> >> help bot wrote:
> >>
> >> >It is true that people seem to gang up on Mr. Innes here,
> >>
> >> My experience was as follows; I posted some perfectly polite
> >> material in a purely technical discussion, and Mr. Innes
> >> becaame aggressive and rude for no apparent reason other than
> >> my asking him to define some non-standard terms he was using.
> >
> > Yes, that sounds like our Phil...
>
> Another 'technical discussion' by someone who thinks this sort of sly
> commentary isn't avoidance of the topic - and presumably where they are is
> called 'discussion'.

FYI the subject heading of this thread reads: "Question about Philip
Innes AKA Phil Innes"

So YOU, Phil Innes, ARE "the topic", in this case. We're discussing
YOU. We're discussing what a waste of space YOU ARE. We're discussing
YOUR having a mental age of three. We're discussing YOU.

>What a bunch of wankers!

I must admit that wanking may well be a subject in which you are an
expert.

If you wish to avoid what you describe as "sly commentary" then you
really need to GROW UP. Take responsibility for your actions. Admit
your mistakes. Most of all, when you are wrong (and the evidence
suggests that you are wrong more often than you are right) learn just
to SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Got it?

k Houlsby

Date: 15 Dec 2006 07:38:22
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

> "k Houlsby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Guy Macon wrote:
> >
> >> help bot wrote:
> >>
> >> >It is true that people seem to gang up on Mr. Innes here,
> >>
> >> My experience was as follows; I posted some perfectly polite
> >> material in a purely technical discussion, and Mr. Innes
> >> becaame aggressive and rude for no apparent reason other than
> >> my asking him to define some non-standard terms he was using.
> >
> > Yes, that sounds like our Phil...
>
> Another 'technical discussion' by someone who thinks this sort of sly
> commentary isn't avoidance of the topic - and presumably where they are is
> called 'discussion'.

FYI the subject heading of this thread is: "Question about Philip Innes
AKA Phil Innes". This means that:

a) it's NOT a "'technical discussion'".

b) it's *clearly* NOT "avoidance of the topic" since in this thread
YOU, Phil Innes, ARE the topic.

We're discussing YOU. We're discussing what a waste of space YOU ARE.
We're discussing YOUR having a mental age of three. We're discussing
YOUR tendency to resort to ad hom, often against the WRONG poster.

We're discussing YOU--the TOPIC of this thread.

How can that be: "avoidance of the topic"?

>What a bunch of wankers!

I must admit that wanking may be an area in which you are an expert.

k Houlsby

Date: 15 Dec 2006 08:09:41
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

On 15 Dec 2006 07:38:22 -0800, "k Houlsby"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Chess One wrote:

>>What a bunch of wankers!

>I must admit that wanking may be an area in which you are an expert.

Now, let's be even-handed about this.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 03:00:34
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Guy Macon wrote:

> help bot wrote:
>
> >It is true that people seem to gang up on Mr. Innes here,
>
> My experience was as follows; I posted some perfectly polite
> material in a purely technical discussion, and Mr. Innes
> becaame aggressive and rude for no apparent reason other than
> my asking him to define some non-standard terms he was using.

Yes, that sounds like our Phil...

Date: 15 Dec 2006 15:18:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

"k Houlsby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> help bot wrote:
>>
>> >It is true that people seem to gang up on Mr. Innes here,
>>
>> My experience was as follows; I posted some perfectly polite
>> material in a purely technical discussion, and Mr. Innes
>> becaame aggressive and rude for no apparent reason other than
>> my asking him to define some non-standard terms he was using.
>
> Yes, that sounds like our Phil...

Another 'technical discussion' by someone who thinks this sort of sly
commentary isn't avoidance of the topic - and presumably where they are is
called 'discussion'. What a bunch of wankers!

Phil Innes

Date: 14 Dec 2006 04:45:14
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Rob wrote:

> help bot wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> >
> > > Now my feelings are hurt k. See, whenever I post something I have
> > > this person who wants to attack me. He just did it again. I never
> > > mentioned him, I never attacked him, yet he feels the need to inject
> > > himself into any thread in which Mr. Innes or myself are discussing a
> > > topic.
> >
> >
> > It sounds as if "Rob" has carefully monitored not only
> > the threads in which he posts, but also the threads in
> > which Phil Innes posts as well. Interesting. I am
> > beginning to wonder if "Rob" is to IM Innes, as those
> > posters Larry Parr is always complaining about are to
> > Taylor Kingston. Except of course that instead of
> > "praising" (or simply agreeing with) TK, Rob's main
> > function would be to defend PI by accompanying him
> > everywhere he posts.
>
> Dear Flame-bot,
>
> LOL
>
> two years ago when I began reading and postin in the news group Mr.
> Innes was the only person to honestly and without a selh righteous air,
> answer my "newb" questions. The attacks on me began then simply because
> I began a dialog with Mr. Innes.
>

Which tells you what...?

> He does not need me to defend him.

That's true. He needs a really good psychiatrist.

> I do not need anyone to defend me as
> I have done NOTHING to require being defended .

I beg to differ. In this post:

http://masl.to/?V3E212E5E

...you wrote:

"Givin (sic) certain contitions (sic), a man can out perform (sic) a
motorcycle and some
automobiles. ..."

Oh yes? All at once, or separately? Precisely to *what* "contitions"
(sic) do you refer? Putting the man in an airplane? Removing the motor
from the motorcycle and/or automobiles?

What the deuce do you mean?

You continued:

"I suspect the same set of rigid controls could be applied and designed

to level they (sic) playing field."

Upon what is your suspicion based? Is suspicion reason enough to post?

Then there was this post of yours earlier in this thread:

http://masl.to/?E16332E5E

...which was challenged by me in this post:

http://masl.to/?Z69321E5E

...but my challenge, as yet, remains unanswered. In it, you may recall,
I explained to you that *because of Phil's history in this group*
anyone who defends him is putting himself/herself on the line, whether
they wish it or not, whether they know it or not. If you don't like
being attacked all the time, don't whine about it.... LEAVE THE GROUP.

If you're not prepared to leave the group, then either take your
punishment (for punishment it is) or defend yourself vigorously. If you
attempt to adopt a "middle way" you'll find yourself being
steamrollered right and left, like here, for example.

Then there was this post:

http://masl.to/?U3B326E5E

...which appears to be nothing more (and, alas, nothing less) than a
verbatim reproduction of a spamming post by the troll Sanny. Were you
trying to drum up business for his pathetic little website? Were you
being paid? What was the deal there?

Then there was this post:

http://masl.to/?L3E325E5E

...which appears to be an unsupported, speculative attack upon the
impeccable Dr. Louis Blair (evidently he had just blown you out of the
water, which left you feeling constrained to lash out). Explain
yourself.

There are many more examples. Do you want me to cite them?

Anyways, for now, back to the post in this thread, to which this post
of mine is a reply...

> I read most of these
> posts in this chess newsgroup and in the other. So I am aware, as are
> you, when Phil posts something and when the all too predictable attacks
> begin.
>

Given that these attacks are all-too-predictable, no doubt you saw this
one coming, and have a comprehensive refutation prepared in advance...
Let's have it...

>
>
> > At any rate, this might explain why it is that "Rob"
> > never seems to mind certain things, *except* when
> > they inconvenience Phil Innes. To clairify: PI "defends"
> > LP, while "Rob" defends PI. But wait -- who is going
> > to defend "Rob"? That leaves him wide open! Someone
> > is not holding up his end on this "team", or rather,
> > confederacy of dunces.
>
> I reserve the right to defend whoever I wish.

I shall defend to the death your right to do that, but if you keep
talking out of the wrong end of your alimentary canal..... well....

> If someone is being
> attacked without being provoked,

Ah, but there's the rub: IT'S NOT WITHOUT PROVOCATION, as I have now
explained to you...twice. Must I do it a third time?

> I may defend them as well and I have
> done so. I also do so under my real name and with my real email as I
> have nothing to hide and no dishonor is associated with my actions.

That rather depends upon how you reply to *this* post. Without
question, there is a number of your posts which I have cited above
which are dishonourable. *If* you now make a good account of yourself,
*then* you might be able to claim that "...no dishonor is associated
with [your] actions.". Until then, the jury is out.

> I
> will own all of my mistakes and correct them as they happen.
>

Good to hear. Set to it, then...

> No anger is in this post from me.

Good to hear.

> It is just a matter of fact
> statement.

That is false.

k

Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:51:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Rob wrote:

> > It sounds as if "Rob" has carefully monitored not only
> > the threads in which he posts, but also the threads in
> > which Phil Innes posts as well. Interesting. I am
> > beginning to wonder if "Rob" is to IM Innes, as those
> > posters Larry Parr is always complaining about are to
> > Taylor Kingston. Except of course that instead of
> > "praising" (or simply agreeing with) TK, Rob's main
> > function would be to defend PI by accompanying him
> > everywhere he posts.
>
> Dear Flame-bot,
>
> LOL
>
> two years ago when I began reading and postin in the news group Mr.
> Innes was the only person to honestly and without a selh righteous air,
> answer my "newb" questions. The attacks on me began then simply because
> I began a dialog with Mr. Innes.

Really? You were attacked simply for beginning a dialog
with Phil Innes, and nothing else?

> He does not need me to defend him.

That sounds right; so then why do you?
Constantly defend Mr. Innes, I mean. I have
read many threads in which you *leap* on someone
for attacking Mr. Innes, but in that same thread
IM Innes or someone else has done precisely what
you criticize the attacker for, yet that never seems to
matter. It's always a matter of taking sides for you,
not a matter of principle.

> I do not need anyone to defend me as
> I have done NOTHING to require being defended .

Not true! Just now, you put a space before the
period at the end of a sentence, which simply isn't
done. Suppose everyone did it? Do you know how
many spaces would just get wasted, thrown away
for nothing? Bazillions! : >D

It is true that people seem to gang up on Mr. Innes
here, and if you feel the need to root for the underdog,
you picked the right man to constantly defend, right
or wrong.

> I read most of these
> posts in this chess newsgroup and in the other. So I am aware, as are
> you, when Phil posts something and when the all too predictable attacks
> begin.

I believe that over the course of many years, Mr. Innes
has managed to accumulate many "enemies" here, and
yes, the attacks are predictable. Even some of his few
allies more often than not, shoot their pal in the foot
while attempting to defend him from the frequent attacks.
One example is Larry Parr, who continually dredges up
the subject of (supposedly Taylor Kingston's) making
false claims to high status in chess -- a crime of which
"IM" Innes has been caught red-handed. This is where
the term "confederacy of dunces" comes in, for you see,
none of these guys "gets" the fact that they are shooting
each other or being shot. They are simply in a mental
fog so thick you can swim in it.

> > At any rate, this might explain why it is that "Rob"
> > never seems to mind certain things, *except* when
> > they inconvenience Phil Innes. To clairify: PI "defends"
> > LP, while "Rob" defends PI. But wait -- who is going
> > to defend "Rob"? That leaves him wide open! Someone
> > is not holding up his end on this "team", or rather,
> > confederacy of dunces.
>
> I reserve the right to defend whoever I wish. If someone is being
> attacked without being provoked, I may defend them as well and I have
> done so.

No one is trying to stop you. All I've done here is
observe and comment.

> I also do so under my real name

You mean part of your real name, I think. Or are
you one of those people with just one name, like
say, Cher or Raffi? : >D

> and with my real email as I
> have nothing to hide and no dishonor is associated with my actions.

Once again, you are sounding exactly like a
clone of Phil Innes! Did you miss my subtle
insinuation of this before? If so, please note
that I am suggesting that whether or not you
really are PI, your behavior closely resembles
that of someone who creates an alter-ego in
order to "defend" himself under a fake name.

But then, I have only stumbled across some
of your postings at random, and have no clue
as to the big picture of "Rob".

> I will own all of my mistakes

(They're not worth all that much!)

> and correct them as they happen.
>
> No anger is in this post from me. It is just a matter of fact
> statement.

Same here. I have actually attempted to help Mr.
Innes, but he is as stubborn as he is thickheaded!
I'm not sure he even comprehends how destroying
his own credibility can be detrimental to himself.
A lot of people I have known are like that.

-- help bot

Date: 15 Dec 2006 03:36:40
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

help bot wrote:

>It is true that people seem to gang up on Mr. Innes here,

My experience was as follows; I posted some perfectly polite
material in a purely technical discussion, and Mr. Innes
becaame aggressive and rude for no apparent reason other than
my asking him to define some non-standard terms he was using.

Date: 15 Dec 2006 15:15:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Liar - you posted 500 words of abuse, since you are presumably too proud to
admit you didn't understand what a Turing Engine was, or to look it up -
then you changed the subject from method to machine.

You merely attract applause from Kingston and Kennedy because they don't
know either, and like you they both have written perfectly polite technical
discursive material.

Are you all really nutz!@? Maybe if you tell each other you aren't then it
will be true, and then you can all pretend together and it will be lovely!

Meantime, do you think its fair to play chess by the rules or not? That is
the 'technical basis' of the discussion to which, and I excuse you
personally for not answering it since no one else is honest enough to do so
either, we certainly have not disagreed since there is no one here I can
respond to.

Phil Innes

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> help bot wrote:
>
>>It is true that people seem to gang up on Mr. Innes here,
>
> My experience was as follows; I posted some perfectly polite
> material in a purely technical discussion, and Mr. Innes
> becaame aggressive and rude for no apparent reason other than
> my asking him to define some non-standard terms he was using.
>
>
>
>

Date: 16 Dec 2006 03:23:40
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

>Liar

Nice to see you at last admitting that you are a liar.
Not that there was any doubt after I posted the mesaage-ID
of your post that you claimed I made up.

- you posted 500 words of abuse

*after* I posted some perfectly polite material in a purely
technical discussion, and *after* you becaame aggressive and
rude for no apparent reason other than my asking you to define
some non-standard terms you were using.

I can provide the messaage-IDs of your posts if needed.

>...a Turing Engine was...

Please define the non-standard term "Turing Engine" I can find no
examples of Turing using the term. Why do you refuse to define
your term?

>or to look it up

A google search on "Turing Engine" returns 371 hits 73 of which
also contain "chess one" or "Innes." Most of the rest appear
to be people who misrember the proper term or are speakers of
foreign languages. None contain a definition that differs from
the definition of a uring Machine. A google search on "Turing
Machine" returns 644,000 hits...

Date: 16 Dec 2006 06:32:54
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:23:40 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:

>A google search on "Turing Engine" returns 371 hits 73 of which
>also contain "chess one" or "Innes." Most of the rest appear
>to be people who misrember the proper term or are speakers of
>foreign languages. None contain a definition that differs from
>the definition of a uring Machine. A google search on "Turing
>Machine" returns 644,000 hits...

In this context, how does one define "machine" and "engine" ?

Date: 16 Dec 2006 14:54:26
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Mike Murray wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>>A google search on "Turing Engine" returns 371 hits 73 of which
>>also contain "chess one" or "Innes." Most of the rest appear
>>to be people who misrember the proper term or are speakers of
>>foreign languages. None contain a definition that differs from
>>the definition of a uring Machine. A google search on "Turing
>>Machine" returns 644,000 hits...
>
>In this context, how does one define "machine" and "engine" ?

"Turing Machine" is defined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

"Turing Engine" is sometimes used to mean the same thing
as "Turing Machine" -- except by Phil Innes, who claims
that there is a difference but refuses to tell anyone
what that difference is.

Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >

Date: 13 Dec 2006 17:08:08
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

help bot wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> > Now my feelings are hurt k. See, whenever I post something I have
> > this person who wants to attack me. He just did it again. I never
> > mentioned him, I never attacked him, yet he feels the need to inject
> > himself into any thread in which Mr. Innes or myself are discussing a
> > topic.
>
>
> It sounds as if "Rob" has carefully monitored not only
> the threads in which he posts, but also the threads in
> which Phil Innes posts as well. Interesting. I am
> beginning to wonder if "Rob" is to IM Innes, as those
> posters Larry Parr is always complaining about are to
> Taylor Kingston. Except of course that instead of
> "praising" (or simply agreeing with) TK, Rob's main
> function would be to defend PI by accompanying him
> everywhere he posts.

Dear Flame-bot,

LOL

two years ago when I began reading and postin in the news group Mr.
Innes was the only person to honestly and without a selh righteous air,
answer my "newb" questions. The attacks on me began then simply because
I began a dialog with Mr. Innes.

He does not need me to defend him. I do not need anyone to defend me as
I have done NOTHING to require being defended . I read most of these
posts in this chess newsgroup and in the other. So I am aware, as are
you, when Phil posts something and when the all too predictable attacks
begin.

> At any rate, this might explain why it is that "Rob"
> never seems to mind certain things, *except* when
> they inconvenience Phil Innes. To clairify: PI "defends"
> LP, while "Rob" defends PI. But wait -- who is going
> to defend "Rob"? That leaves him wide open! Someone
> is not holding up his end on this "team", or rather,
> confederacy of dunces.

I reserve the right to defend whoever I wish. If someone is being
attacked without being provoked, I may defend them as well and I have
done so. I also do so under my real name and with my real email as I
have nothing to hide and no dishonor is associated with my actions. I
will own all of my mistakes and correct them as they happen.

No anger is in this post from me. It is just a matter of fact
statement.
Rob

> -- help bot

Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:22:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Rob wrote:

> Now my feelings are hurt k. See, whenever I post something I have
> this person who wants to attack me. He just did it again. I never
> mentioned him, I never attacked him, yet he feels the need to inject
> himself into any thread in which Mr. Innes or myself are discussing a
> topic.

It sounds as if "Rob" has carefully monitored not only
the threads in which he posts, but also the threads in
which Phil Innes posts as well. Interesting. I am
beginning to wonder if "Rob" is to IM Innes, as those
posters Larry Parr is always complaining about are to
Taylor Kingston. Except of course that instead of
"praising" (or simply agreeing with) TK, Rob's main
function would be to defend PI by accompanying him
everywhere he posts.

At any rate, this might explain why it is that "Rob"
never seems to mind certain things, *except* when
they inconvenience Phil Innes. To clairify: PI "defends"
LP, while "Rob" defends PI. But wait -- who is going
to defend "Rob"? That leaves him wide open! Someone
is not holding up his end on this "team", or rather,
confederacy of dunces.

-- help bot

Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:24:25
From: Rob Mitchell
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:53:16
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:23:13
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Rob wrote:

> > The Historian wrote:
> < snipped personal attack>
>
>
> >
> > Sssshhhhhhh Neil. Keep this under your hat, in case Phil or Rob finds
> > out: I already knew this. Whenever I write to someone that I am giving
> > them the benefit of the doubt, that means that they're basically dead
> > meat. I'm adopting the stealth approach. Sssshhhhhhh.
> >
> > Thanks for your post.
> >
> > k
>
> Now my feelings are hurt k.

Usenet is not for everybody. If you intend to leap into flame wars, an
asbestos skin is a prerequisite, since becoming involved in flame wars
necessarily involves being completely engulfed in flame from the
get-go.

Don't tell me you didn't know that.

> See, whenever I post something I have
> this person who wants to attack me. He just did it again. I never
> mentioned him, I never attacked him, yet he feels the need to inject
> himself into any thread in which Mr. Innes or myself are discussing a
> topic.

Yeah, sure.

That's kinda like saying:

"All I did was walk up to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, and say that
Adolf Hitler was a good guy who had some forward-looking policies on
population control.

Next thing I know, all these guys I never met before set upon me for no
good reason...".

> Guess my olive branch wasn't wanted.
> Merry Christmas just the same.
> Rob

Holly works better at Christmas. Or mistletoe. Olive branches are for
Easter. Get with the program.

If you associate yourself with Phil, if you ever post anything in his
support, this sorta shit will happen. Phil is a deranged troll with a
mental age of three. If you wanna be his buddy, go right ahead.

Happy holidays to you and yours.
k

Date: 13 Dec 2006 08:16:07
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

> The Historian wrote:
< snipped personal attack >

>
> Sssshhhhhhh Neil. Keep this under your hat, in case Phil or Rob finds
> out: I already knew this. Whenever I write to someone that I am giving
> them the benefit of the doubt, that means that they're basically dead
> meat. I'm adopting the stealth approach. Sssshhhhhhh.
>
> Thanks for your post.
>
> k

Now my feelings are hurt k. See, whenever I post something I have
this person who wants to attack me. He just did it again. I never
mentioned him, I never attacked him, yet he feels the need to inject
himself into any thread in which Mr. Innes or myself are discussing a
topic.
Guess my olive branch wasn't wanted.
Merry Christmas just the same.
Rob

Date: 13 Dec 2006 07:28:41
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

The Historian wrote:

> k Houlsby wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > k,
> > > I fooled you. I am dumb as a stump.
> >
> > I don't believe it.
>
> It's true. And he's hardly a newbie. Robtroll comes out whenever Innes,
> a business associate, runs into problems online.

Sssshhhhhhh Neil. Keep this under your hat, in case Phil or Rob finds
out: I already knew this. Whenever I write to someone that I am giving
them the benefit of the doubt, that means that they're basically dead
meat. I'm adopting the stealth approach. Sssshhhhhhh.

Thanks for your post.

k

Date: 13 Dec 2006 06:00:03
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Guy Macon wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> >
> >k Houlsby wrote:
> >
> >> Newsflash: The reason that Mr. Macon started this thread, is that he
> >> has noticed this tendency. More and more people are noticing that you
> >> are a jerk with no redeeming qualities.
> >
> >He used a posting from five years agoto begin a thread? It is obviously
> >nothing more than an attempt to begin a flame war with Mr. Innes.
>
> Not true. The reason I started this thread was that in researching
> Philip Innes' claims about universal turing machines, I saw him
> make some claims about certain computers at NASA that, if true,
> would be important for the engineering community to know about.
> I was not aware at the time of Innes various other unbelievable
> claims.

Guy, Rob Mitchell, the poster you are responding to, has worked with
Innes. It's best to consider him an Innes meat puppet.

Meanwhile, a search of the Internet turns up another bit of Innes
puffery:

"Phil Innes created program for qualitative assessment of on-line arts
education, which appeared before Senate Technology Committee,
Washington D.C. Synchronously with business activities, worked with the
inventor of chess broadcasting technologies in St. Petersburg, Russia,
since 1996, to promote greater world-wide interactions and audiences
for chess."

This is taken from a 2005 press release, distributed by Rob Mitchell.
The "program for qualitative assessment of on-line arts education" has
never been identified. His connection to Shahcom, the Russian company
mentioned in the press release, is well-known; the nature of that
connection is something Mr. Innes refuses to disclose. But it's hard to
imagine someone would campaign for a product so agressively without
money changing hands.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 20:27:57
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

k Houlsby wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > k,
> > I fooled you. I am dumb as a stump.
>
> I don't believe it.

It's true. And he's hardly a newbie. Robtroll comes out whenever Innes,
a business associate, runs into problems online.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:39:27
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Rob wrote:
<snip >
>
> k,
> I fooled you. I am dumb as a stump.

I don't believe it. A fencepost maybe (kidding: hear "The Piano Has
Been Drinking" by Tom Waits [on the LP "Small Change"]).

<snip >

> Happy Holidays!
> Rob

Right back atcha!
k

Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:19:21
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

k Houlsby wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> > k Houlsby wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Newsflash: The reason that Mr. Macon started this thread, is that he
> > > has noticed this tendency. More and more people are noticing that you
> > > are a jerk with no redeeming qualities.
> >
> > He used a posting from five years agoto begin a thread? It is obviously
> > nothing more than an attempt to begin a flame war with Mr. Innes. It
> > also seems to me that this behaivor by Mr. Macon, who I know nothing
> > about, or you Mr. Houlsby is not unlike that of the character Joe in
> > the children's movie"How to Eat Fried Worms"
> >
> > Talk to Zed instead:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> My guess is that you're pretty new here, so I shall give you
> the benefit of the doubt, and bring you up-to-speed.
>
> I trust that you have already read all of the posts in this
> thread, relating how reality and Innes are total strangers.
>
> If you haven't you should do that now.
>
> Concerning Mr. Macon's having started what is, strictly speaking,
> a troll thread (as you accurately described it) well... Innes
> kinda has that effect on people, I guess.
>
> You appear to have read the messages in the Turing Machine thread.
>
> If that has not given you a sense of how frustratingly immature our
> Phil is, then I suggest that lecturing people (as you appear to be
> doing to me) may not be your strong suit.
>
> The small number of your posts which I have been able to find have
> conveyed the impression of your being winningly intelligent.
>
> I suggest that there is no need to spoil this impression by your
> conveying the appearance of taking the side of an illiterate, immature
> troll like Phil Innes.
>
> Glad to meet you, I feel sure that we shall exchange a number of
> interesting posts in the future.
>
> k

k,
I fooled you. I am dumb as a stump. Even so, I find that even a stump
can be useful.(See "The Giving Tree" by Silverstein)
I don't post much in rgcc, I don't really have that type of skill. I
have been in rgcm for awhile.
I don't think alot of the anger directed at Mr. Innes is waranted.
There are bound to be disagreements between people and the best way to
settle those I feel is privatly. Unfortunatly online you have several
people piling onto another person and it tends to esclate things.( I
have been sucked into more than a few of these but thankfully things
have been peaceful for me lately.) I am posting this message to the
group but know that my email address is a real one and feel free to
write directly.
Happy Holidays!
Rob

Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:05:20
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Kenneth Sloan wrote:

> k Houlsby wrote:
>
> >
> > You appear to have read the messages in the Turing Machine thread.
> >
>
> I thought that thread was about Turing Engines.
>

LOL! Indeed Kenneth, I was merely conveying to Rob the wording in the
subject heading.

You're in sparkling form today, if I may say so, sir.

More than usual, even.

k Houlsby

Date: 12 Dec 2006 11:57:10
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Rob wrote:

> k Houlsby wrote:
>
> >
> > Newsflash: The reason that Mr. Macon started this thread, is that he
> > has noticed this tendency. More and more people are noticing that you
> > are a jerk with no redeeming qualities.
>
> He used a posting from five years agoto begin a thread? It is obviously
> nothing more than an attempt to begin a flame war with Mr. Innes. It
> also seems to me that this behaivor by Mr. Macon, who I know nothing
> about, or you Mr. Houlsby is not unlike that of the character Joe in
> the children's movie"How to Eat Fried Worms"
>
> Talk to Zed instead:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3
>
>
>

Hello Rob,

My guess is that you're pretty new here, so I shall give you
the benefit of the doubt, and bring you up-to-speed.

I trust that you have already read all of the posts in this
thread, relating how reality and Innes are total strangers.

If you haven't you should do that now.

Concerning Mr. Macon's having started what is, strictly speaking,
a troll thread (as you accurately described it) well... Innes
kinda has that effect on people, I guess.

You appear to have read the messages in the Turing Machine thread.

If that has not given you a sense of how frustratingly immature our
Phil is, then I suggest that lecturing people (as you appear to be
doing to me) may not be your strong suit.

The small number of your posts which I have been able to find have
conveyed the impression of your being winningly intelligent.

I suggest that there is no need to spoil this impression by your
conveying the appearance of taking the side of an illiterate, immature
troll like Phil Innes.

Glad to meet you, I feel sure that we shall exchange a number of
interesting posts in the future.

k

Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:01:23
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

k Houlsby wrote:

>
> You appear to have read the messages in the Turing Machine thread.
>

I thought that thread was about Turing Engines.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 13 Dec 2006 12:39:09
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
>k Houlsby wrote:
>
>> You appear to have read the messages in the Turing Machine thread.
>
>I thought that thread was about Turing Engines.

Now I hve to wipe the coffee of my screen and keyboard...

Date: 12 Dec 2006 11:24:33
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

k Houlsby wrote:

>
> Newsflash: The reason that Mr. Macon started this thread, is that he
> has noticed this tendency. More and more people are noticing that you
> are a jerk with no redeeming qualities.

He used a posting from five years agoto begin a thread? It is obviously
nothing more than an attempt to begin a flame war with Mr. Innes. It
also seems to me that this behaivor by Mr. Macon, who I know nothing
about, or you Mr. Houlsby is not unlike that of the character Joe in
the children's movie"How to Eat Fried Worms"

Talk to Zed instead:

http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3

> You deserve opprobrium, but before you achieve that lofty goal, my
> advice, FWIW, is that you might serve yourself well to leave the group.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Put it in the background there, and throw it the occasional glance.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> k
>
> <snippety-snip>

Date: 13 Dec 2006 12:35:55
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Rob wrote:
>
>k Houlsby wrote:
>
>> Newsflash: The reason that Mr. Macon started this thread, is that he
>> has noticed this tendency. More and more people are noticing that you
>> are a jerk with no redeeming qualities.
>
>He used a posting from five years agoto begin a thread? It is obviously
>nothing more than an attempt to begin a flame war with Mr. Innes.

Not true. The reason I started this thread was that in researching
Philip Innes' claims about universal turing machines, I saw him
make some claims about certain computers at NASA that, if true,
would be important for the engineering community to know about.
I was not aware at the time of Innes various other unbelievable
claims.

Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >

Date: 12 Dec 2006 10:49:10
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Kenneth Sloan wrote:

> Chess One wrote:
>
> > I am actually INTERESTED in chess computing, and want to know the effect or
> > worth of the opening book. By weight of response I appear to be in the
> > minority of those here who wants to know that by the scientific method of
> > actually testing it! rather than talking about it. ROFL!
>
>
> In that case, please *stop* talking about it until you have actually
> done some testing and have some data to present.
>
> Do you *have* any data to present?
>
> Or, are you just "talking about it"?
>
>

The st money is on the second option, methinks.

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

Diane: "Methinks he doth protest too much."

Woody: Ah! Miss Chambers... shouldn't that be: 'I think...'?

Diane: No, you see, Woody, there was this........
............yes, it should.

--Cheers (Paramount TV) Shelley Long as Diane, Woody Harrelson as Woody

Date: 12 Dec 2006 06:06:12
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Guy Macon wrote:
> I have a question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes AKA Chess One.
>
> In the following post he claims to have "worked for some time with
> robotics." Is there any independent evidence that he has ever
> worked in robotics or any other engineering discipline?
>
> He also relates an anecdote supposedly about some unnamed cosmologists
> at Princeton. Does anyone have any evidence that the described events
> actually happened?

Innes believes that everyone should accept all his assertions on faith.
If they don't... well, you'll see what happens.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 06:00:25
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

<his idiosyncratic brand of shit, as usual >

> I am actually INTERESTED in chess computing, and want to know the effect or
> worth of the opening book. By weight of response I appear to be in the
> minority of those here who wants to know that by the scientific method of
> actually testing it! rather than talking about it. ROFL!
>

On the contrary, the evidence suggests that you are the only one
AVOIDING a scientific investigation, as is your wont. When scientific
evidence is presented to you and, for whatever reason, your little
wormy brain tells you it's bad, you conveniently IGNORE it, and keep
banging the same drum.

Newsflash: The reason that Mr. Macon started this thread, is that he
has noticed this tendency. More and more people are noticing that you
are a jerk with no redeeming qualities.

You deserve opprobrium, but before you achieve that lofty goal, my
advice, FWIW, is that you might serve yourself well to leave the group.

Just a thought.

Put it in the background there, and throw it the occasional glance.

Have a nice day.

k

<snippety-snip >

Date: 11 Dec 2006 21:54:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Macon, you seem like a clueless technologist - why did you invent some
supposed conversation with Robt Hyatt? Why did you start this thread? Your
ego is bruised because you didn't know something and bullshitted about it,
and several people have now called you. The questions were VERY simple
philosophy of science items.

Why do you doubt so much when you know little theory, when a moment's
attention to google would inform you of the terms you cannot admit? How come
you ask questions about commonplaces, and don't say why?

If you want to do some character assassination, then why even pretend it has
to do with anything other than your ego?

If the gentleman thinks such material below is openly avowable as to source,
then this is mere naivete. But why does he contest the issue at all? The
fact is that he does not like what I said about chess computers, and so
decides to deprecate the messenger. How novel on usenet! And how obvious a
strategm!

What I really doubt is that if he found out about any of these items - the
speed of a non digital computer, or a real-time optical robot - most of them
are googable, or even try scientific american's archive, but that there
would be the slightest change in his opinion of anything.

After all, you can challenge anything as long as nothing depends on it, and
some of the material below is not exactly undergraduate stuff.

Phil Innes

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> I have a question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes AKA Chess One.
>
> In the following post he claims to have "worked for some time with
> robotics." Is there any independent evidence that he has ever
> worked in robotics or any other engineering discipline?
>
> He also relates an anecdote supposedly about some unnamed cosmologists
> at Princeton. Does anyone have any evidence that the described events
> actually happened?
>
>

Date: 11 Dec 2006 03:36:18
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Guy Macon wrote:

> I have a question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes AKA Chess One.
>
> In the following post he claims to have "worked for some time with
> robotics." Is there any independent evidence that he has ever
> worked in robotics or any other engineering discipline?
>

Here's a handy hint: reality and Innes rarely pass each other at less
than a distance of a light year. On top of that, he is given to
behaving like a three-year-old. Don't waste your time.

That's free advice.

<snip >

k