| |
Main
Date: 07 Jul 2008 17:29:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Dear Brian Lafferty
|
You have written your comment after mine:
>>>
>>> as you must know, a court will separate the perps from the experts - and
>>> if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
>>> activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, since
>>> if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?
>> As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
>> life, especially in politics.
>
> You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
> determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do they?
Translation, please.
---
Brian Lafferty volunteered the fact that he considerers the issue
'political' whatever he may mean by that term, rather than legal, which is
of a certain independent and objective perspective to 'politics'.
Our Brian then asks for a 'translation', of what he volunteered.
R
O
F
L
!
!
!
--
There are several moments here; the poignant parts relate to Lafferty's' own
reporting of the hot-sauce episode, where he volunteered that he was in
contact with the proposer of this abuse. He is not a judge, but he [proposes
himself as a witness - albeit an active one who sought out information not
previously known to him personally.
After he read[surely] that a court threw out this accusation, as proposed by
SP's ex, the person he engaged to form his own opinion, and that opinion
written here in public by Lafferty himself representing that ex, to whom he
had spoken - various questions remain. Most of them to do with the honesty
of the reporter.
1) Did Lafferty write his opinion of ex-Sp's husband /after/ a court decided
there was nothing to it?
2) Did Laffety ever admit the above circumstance? Which would be to indicate
that it was entirely unfounded?
3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above, that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
If the gentlemen should pretend to need a translation of this message, then
he should contact his 5th grade English teacher, beg her help, and hurry to
his own defense.
'Not understanding' what is written by others is sometimes pertinent to
usenet as a convenience to not addressing what they say, in this instance it
is an impertinent response, and unless the gent is a clod,. he needs address
it here, and wherever else he is commanded to appear!
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2008 18:11:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dear Brian Lafferty
|
On Jul 9, 8:59 am, [email protected] wrote:
> I have been informed by another poster that it was actually Lafferty
> who wrote "Translation, please." Yesterday I could not find any post
> anywhere in which Lafferty said that, hence my belief that Innes was
> arguing with himself, as he has done in the past.
The fact remains that no matter who wrote that
phrase, our nearly-an-IMposter was indeed
"arguing with himself". Anyone who is not new
to rgc should easily recall that it was none other
than the imbecile-duet -- consisting of Mr. Parr
and nearly-IMnes -- who argued *in favor of*
indicting, trying and convicting the head honcho
of FIDE on a charge of murder, on the basis of
purely circumstantial evidence. Now, as we
have seen, the toad-eater half of this famed duo
is arguing the other way; now, he insists that
any such approach (as that which he and LP
took) is un-American, unfair, pro-Stalin, pro-
Hitler and pro-all-things-evil. If this titanic
hypocrisy does not amount to arguing with
himself, I honestly cannot imagine what does.
The mind boggles... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2008 17:44:50
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Dear Brian Lafferty
|
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/6fdbe74fe12b04de?hl=en&
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2008 05:59:04
From:
Subject: Re: Dear Brian Lafferty
|
I have been informed by another poster that it was actually Lafferty
who wrote "Translation, please." Yesterday I could not find any post
anywhere in which Lafferty said that, hence my belief that Innes was
arguing with himself, as he has done in the past. Frankly, I _still_
can't find any such Lafferty post, and a search of rgcm for the phrase
"Translation, please" turns up only Innes' post.
However, Google _was_ behaving strangely yesterday, with posts not
appearing until at least 12 to 16 hours after they were sent, so I
suppose it's possible that such a Lafferty post was made but remains
invisible, at least to me. If so, my apologies to Phil for ridiculing
him unfairly.
On Jul 8, 9:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 7, 5:29=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You have written your comment after mine:
>
> > >>> as you must know, a court will separate the perps from the experts =
- and
> > >>> if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support t=
hat
> > >>> activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, s=
ince
> > >>> if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?
>
> > >> As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations i=
n
> > >> life, especially in politics.
>
> > > You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
> > > determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do th=
ey?
>
> > Translation, please.
>
> =A0 Our Phil seems to be arguing with himself again. The second
> paragraph, which Phil attributes to Brian Lafferty ("You have written
> your comment after mine"), and for which Phil is asking "Translation,
> please," was actually written by ... Phil Innes! Here is the exchange,
> verbatim, with identifiers added, from the thread "Polgar Resignation
> Offer," 4 July 2008, 6:11 PM:
>
> INNES:
>
> >> Dear Brian Lafferty,
> >> as you must know, a court will seperate the perps from the experts - a=
nd
> >> if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
> >> activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, sinc=
e
> >> if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?
>
> LAFFERTY:
>
> > As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
> > life, especially in politics.
>
> INNES:
>
> You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
> determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do
> they?
>
> *** end excerpt ***
>
> =A0 Our Phil once again disagrees with himself. It's "I am not your boy"
> all over again. In case anyone wonders why I hang around this
> otherwise seldom interesting ng, it is due in no small part to such
> moments of great amusement it affords.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2008 12:15:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Dear Brian Lafferty
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:521bea0d-6de1-4b0e-9a3f-5b91f43829d3@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I have been informed by another poster that it was actually Lafferty
who wrote "Translation, please." Yesterday I could not find any post
anywhere in which Lafferty said that, hence my belief that Innes was
arguing with himself, as he has done in the past. Frankly, I _still_
can't find any such Lafferty post, and a search of rgcm for the phrase
"Translation, please" turns up only Innes' post.
However, Google _was_ behaving strangely yesterday, with posts not
appearing until at least 12 to 16 hours after they were sent, so I
suppose it's possible that such a Lafferty post was made but remains
invisible, at least to me. If so, my apologies to Phil for ridiculing
him unfairly.
**Thank you, but that is so symptomatic of a certain hysteria here, so that
who wrote what is often obscured, since writers frequently don't bother us
with their names, and intercede on that basis when others are asked direct
questions about the meaning of their texts. ((This is hardly innocent
neither!))
**More seriously, Our Brian seems not to be noticing the main substance of
my inquiries to him, the one with 3 aspects to it of what he knew and when.
Its hardly worth repeating, since there is no likely answer forthcoming, and
surely there will be a new scandal to believe very soon?
Of course, it is confusing when headers read like this, but the date of the
post is 7/4/2008, 7:10pm.
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:gHsbk.79$0V1.21@trndny01...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:DDqbk.258$9W.103@trndny04...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:mC7bk.202$qW.157@trndny03...
>>>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
And here follow the comment, with the non-indented one in its center being
from the latest contributor, named at top:
> You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
> determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do they?
Translation, please.
>
>> If Mr. Truong had any real evidence or a real expert's report debunking
>> the Mottershead Report and the other experts verifying Mottershead's
>> methodology and findings, I suspect he would have given you an exclusive
>> as his semi-official mouthpiece/apologist.
**Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2008 03:15:52
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Dear Brian Lafferty
|
On Jul 8, 8:37 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 7, 5:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You have written your comment after mine:
>
> > >>> as you must know, a court will separate the perps from the experts - and
> > >>> if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
> > >>> activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, since
> > >>> if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?
>
> > >> As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
> > >> life, especially in politics.
>
> > > You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
> > > determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do they?
>
> > Translation, please.
>
> Our Phil seems to be arguing with himself again. The second
> paragraph, which Phil attributes to Brian Lafferty ("You have written
> your comment after mine"), and for which Phil is asking "Translation,
> please," was actually written by ... Phil Innes! Here is the exchange,
> verbatim, with identifiers added, from the thread "Polgar Resignation
> Offer," 4 July 2008, 6:11 PM:
>
> INNES:
>
> >> Dear Brian Lafferty,
> >> as you must know, a court will seperate the perps from the experts - and
> >> if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
> >> activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, since
> >> if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?
>
> LAFFERTY:
>
> > As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
> > life, especially in politics.
>
> INNES:
>
> You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
> determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do
> they?
>
> *** end excerpt ***
>
> Our Phil once again disagrees with himself. It's "I am not your boy"
> all over again. In case anyone wonders why I hang around this
> otherwise seldom interesting ng, it is due in no small part to such
> moments of great amusement it affords.
It's also amusing that Our Phil posted this thread to a newsgroup that
Mr. Lafferty doesn't read. Of course that might have been intentional.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jul 2008 06:37:22
From:
Subject: Re: Dear Brian Lafferty
|
On Jul 7, 5:29=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You have written your comment after mine:
>
> >>> as you must know, a court will separate the perps from the experts - =
and
> >>> if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support tha=
t
> >>> activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, sin=
ce
> >>> if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?
>
> >> As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
> >> life, especially in politics.
>
> > You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
> > determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do they=
?
>
> Translation, please.
Our Phil seems to be arguing with himself again. The second
paragraph, which Phil attributes to Brian Lafferty ("You have written
your comment after mine"), and for which Phil is asking "Translation,
please," was actually written by ... Phil Innes! Here is the exchange,
verbatim, with identifiers added, from the thread "Polgar Resignation
Offer," 4 July 2008, 6:11 PM:
INNES:
>> Dear Brian Lafferty,
>> as you must know, a court will seperate the perps from the experts - and
>> if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
>> activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, since
>> if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?
LAFFERTY:
> As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
> life, especially in politics.
INNES:
You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do
they?
*** end excerpt ***
Our Phil once again disagrees with himself. It's "I am not your boy"
all over again. In case anyone wonders why I hang around this
otherwise seldom interesting ng, it is due in no small part to such
moments of great amusement it affords.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jul 2008 15:50:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Dear Brian Lafferty
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:7a8cb659-373c-42ba-84a6-ed74c3af717e@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 7, 5:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You have written your comment after mine:
>
> >>> as you must know, a court will separate the perps from the experts -
> >>> and
> >>> if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
> >>> activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable,
> >>> since
> >>> if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?
>
> >> As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
> >> life, especially in politics.
>
> > You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
> > determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do they?
>
> Translation, please.
Our Phil seems to be arguing with himself again. The second
paragraph, which Phil attributes to Brian Lafferty ("You have written
your comment after mine"), and for which Phil is asking "Translation,
please," was actually written by ... Phil Innes! Here is the exchange,
verbatim, with identifiers added, from the thread "Polgar Resignation
Offer," 4 July 2008, 6:11 PM:
INNES:
>> Dear Brian Lafferty,
>> as you must know, a court will seperate the perps from the experts - and
>> if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
>> activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, since
>> if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?
LAFFERTY:
> As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
> life, especially in politics.
INNES:
You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do
they?
*** end excerpt ***
Our Phil once again disagrees with himself. It's "I am not your boy"
all over again. In case anyone wonders why I hang around this
otherwise seldom interesting ng, it is due in no small part to such
moments of great amusement it affords.
---------
**Vaguer Kingston the computer expert who can't figure out usenet protocol,
weighs in to obscure the issue to his utmost - and in the best tradition of
Louis Blair, cuts and pastes and snips any order of things to his own
purpose.
ABUSE, SO AMUSING....
**The issue is why a group of people on usenet prefer to prosecute, judge
and then adjudicate an issue never brought before a court. Vaguer neglects
this context, which he says he finds amusing, and actually adds that this is
why he is here.
CHEATING BOGART
**He also neglected what is written below <by snipping it > since anyone
reading that would not be confused to any context. Our Taylor does not allow
the serious context to stand, preferring to hiss a bit and be 'amused' as
his own preference.
**The topic is accusations leveled against parents of prominent chess
players about their children. Our Taylor deliberately omitted this, since
maybe he /does/ find it amusing too? - for sure, he can cut the context -
and that is why he admits writing here - and from this deliberately mocking
distortion, who should disbelieve him? I take him at his word. //
Phil Innes
1) Did Lafferty write his opinion of ex-Sp's husband /after/ a court decided
there was nothing to it?
2) Did Laffety ever admit the above circumstance? Which would be to indicate
that it was entirely unfounded?
3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above, that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.
|
|
