| |
Main
Date: 20 Sep 2008 23:55:12
From: samsloan
Subject: Krush's crush
|
I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
distinctive birthmarks.
To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
in 2008.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2008 06:26:29
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Oct 2, 8:15=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 1, 4:48=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But Help-bog is certainly helpful in screwing up the truth, repeating t=
rash
> > about what and whom he personally does not like, so he can continue his=
10
> > year quest for equality with me and Kaparov and Fischer,
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> So, now we have it.
>
> Phil Innes is not satisfied merely to be "nearly an IM" with a 2450
> rating.
>
> He considers himself to be equal with "Kaparov" and Fischer.
>
> Sam Sloan
But according to P Innes wasn't Fischer burnt out by 1970?
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2008 06:15:21
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Oct 1, 4:48=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> But Help-bog is certainly helpful in screwing up the truth, repeating tra=
sh
> about what and whom he personally does not like, so he can continue his 1=
0
> year quest for equality with me and Kaparov and Fischer,
>
> Phil Innes
So, now we have it.
Phil Innes is not satisfied merely to be "nearly an IM" with a 2450
rating.
He considers himself to be equal with "Kaparov" and Fischer.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2008 05:58:15
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Oct 1, 3:48=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 24, 11:31 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Please note P Innes didn't deny he confused the Real Sam Sloan and the
> > Fake Sam Sloan in the message I quoted. The post is freely available
> > in Google, folks. Look it up and form your own opinion.
>
> =A0 Dr. IMnes is not being paid to deny; he is being paid
> to *bluster*.
>
> **Help-bog is not paid in money to do anything - he gets his stuff
> reimbvursed by other means - emotionally. Here he willingly colludes with
> someone - a notorious liar and stalker - =A0who deliberately messes with
> people's statements and the headers, since he, help-bog, loves what happe=
ns
> next.
How can one 'mess with the headers' in a straight copy and paste from
Google? And why would a person 'mess with the headers' when the
original posts are still available in the archives, and can be
compared to the quotation? And note folks, yet again P Innes won't,
and can't, deny that he confused the Fake Sam Sloan with the Real Sam
Sloan.
I think P Innes' over-puffed experience with computers, which
allegedly includes testifying in front of a US Senate committee, is on
the same level as his "nearly an IM, with a rating of 2450" claim, or
Paul Truong's business experience.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2008 09:25:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 1, 3:48 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 24, 11:31 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Please note P Innes didn't deny he confused the Real Sam Sloan and the
> > Fake Sam Sloan in the message I quoted. The post is freely available
> > in Google, folks. Look it up and form your own opinion.
>
> Dr. IMnes is not being paid to deny; he is being paid
> to *bluster*.
>
> **Help-bog is not paid in money to do anything - he gets his stuff
> reimbvursed by other means - emotionally. Here he willingly colludes with
> someone - a notorious liar and stalker - who deliberately messes with
> people's statements and the headers, since he, help-bog, loves what
> happens
> next.
How can one 'mess with the headers' in a straight copy and paste from
Google?
**Here we go again with more daft 'questions' - as if Brennen actually
thought that eliminating the text so as to make unclear who wrote what from
the header was some process unknown to his own practice! Meanwhile, he and
others ignore the main chance - which is to look at the FSS text. It is
somehow //very important// to the group to which he belongs to not
acknowledge what can be gleaned from that text [!] - and they all studiously
avoid any candid attention to it, and have now taken to attacking those who
represent it. While that process is merely infamous and not worth serious
discussion with so skewed a bunch of non-researchers - I repeat that the
activity of this group identifies something vital about their bent and their
intent.
And why would a person 'mess with the headers' when the
original posts are still available in the archives, and can be
compared to the quotation?
**Brennen asks more rhetorical questions about his own activity of
misrepresenting headers by eliminating texts, and messing around with google
protocols such as non-indented >, >>, contributions.
And note folks, yet again P Innes won't,
and can't, deny that he confused the Fake Sam Sloan with the Real Sam
Sloan.
I think P Innes' over-puffed experience with computers, which
allegedly includes testifying in front of a US Senate committee,
**You see how devious Brennen is? Now he introduces yet another factoror as
diversion, which he then also grossly misrepresents, to suggest that by own
misrepresentation thatI wrote is a lie, and from that lie other things are
lies. Just because some distance learning netware appeared before the Senate
/Technology/ Committee and to some acclaim, Brennan now has me 'testifying'
et cetera, and by my mention of it am 'over-puffed'.
is on
the same level as his "nearly an IM, with a rating of 2450" claim, or
Paul Truong's business experience.
**It is only Brennen's willful misunderstanding of this phrase, which could
do with another comma, which allows him to criticise it, which is to say
that I indicated IMs were 2450, and other 25 years ago I played a couple of
seasons of chess in Europe where I was scoring 2400.
**So what is revealed once again is that this person has either moronic
comprehension abilities or he /deliberately distorts/ the words and works of
other people, or both. To be fair to him, he is only less subtle than the
rest of the group, who too, have either demonstrated their indefatigable
stupidity or willful distortions in the get-Truong public kangaroo court
event of the year.
**When ever any of these people can attend to the FSS material, and after
sober reflection on it, offer their own analysis, this will (a) prove they
have even looked at direct evidence seriously, the extent of their own
evaluation [we should believe this is very great since they are so sure of
themselves on all matters], and (b) can then engage with others in
conversations about it, rather than avoidance, abuse and misrepresentations.
**They should make their own thread title to celebrate their new-found
insights, since I don't see why serious matters should be admixed with the
abusive material issued here by these clowns - who by the very manner they
engage others prove they are not in the slightest bit serious about any
objective or impartial evaluation.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 17:45:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 24, 11:31=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Please note P Innes didn't deny he confused the Real Sam Sloan and the
> Fake Sam Sloan in the message I quoted. The post is freely available
> in Google, folks. Look it up and form your own opinion.
Dr. IMnes is not being paid to deny; he is being paid
to *bluster*.
-- accounting dept.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 16:48:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 24, 11:31 am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Please note P Innes didn't deny he confused the Real Sam Sloan and the
> Fake Sam Sloan in the message I quoted. The post is freely available
> in Google, folks. Look it up and form your own opinion.
Dr. IMnes is not being paid to deny; he is being paid
to *bluster*.
**Help-bog is not paid in money to do anything - he gets his stuff
reimbvursed by other means - emotionally. Here he willingly colludes with
someone - a notorious liar and stalker - who deliberately messes with
people's statements and the headers, since he, help-bog, loves what happens
next. Help-bog is not innocent of this person's behavior, but 'goes there'
when, as usual, he has nothing much going on in his own spleen.
Help bog is merely a non-signatory to outright abuse. He can't be openly
abusive more than he can write his own name!
He likes it this way, but equivocates, since to come right out and be an
abusive idiot like Brennen would lower his self-esteem - and besides, bust
his whole cynical scene.
But Help-bog is certainly helpful in screwing up the truth, repeating trash
about what and whom he personally does not like, so he can continue his 10
year quest for equality with me and Kaparov and Fischer, without actually
playing or talking chess, or studying much of its history - while resenting
all those who do.
Help-bog adds his toxic comments here in this newsgroup more than any other
poster, and despite indications, has not understood that this is all about
HIM. Admittedly, Taylor Kingston is worse, but Kingston's is hardly any
standard.
Phil Innes
-- accounting dept.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 08:31:20
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 24, 8:36=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b37283eb-a477-4c8a-8a91-033d3f1b1a51@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 6:59 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > No but he often writes like he just stumbled out of an opium den.
>
> > Considering the incomprehensibility of much of what Phil writes
> > here, it might as well be in Chinese calligraphy. One also gets the
> > distinct impression that English is not his first language, so perhaps
> > Chinese is his first?
>
> > ---
>
> > Several other people have now written to this thread intending to hide =
the
> > fact that anyone with even ordinary wits about them can tell the FSS fr=
om
> > the Sloan.
>
> P Innes must not have "even ordinary wits", because I've posted an
> example of his confusing the Real Sam Sloan and the Fake Sam Sloan.
>
> ------
>
> Neil Brennen seeks to confuse things by (a) not using google protocols, (=
b)
> not signing his name (c) eliminating other material so that the posting
> record in the header no longer corresponds to the postings themselves, an=
d
> (d) here he voluntarily conflates his own activity with a comparison of t=
he
> FSS messages - in order, as I have said such posters will - to subjecrt t=
he
> idea that anyone with wits could detect the FSS from the real Sloan.
>
> In this very example he allows by name to continue in the header while
> excising any comment by me. Meanwhile he expects others to not note he is
> making petty idiotic diversions - and not to wonder why?
>
> Now - how interesting that Brennen, Murray and Co., deliberately do this!=
If
> it were otherwise then much of what they say would be of no interest
> whatever. Since we cannot really accept their own word that they are
> witless - from a group of 8 easy to detect aspects in a steady pattern we=
ll
> illustrated with over 2,500 posts, they can't tell.
>
> They can only tell others can't tell!
>
> Unfortunately Murray has just said he can tell. But he also says someone
> chancing in here could not, even after all the publicity given to the fal=
se
> Sloan - and infers this could have a negative effect on Sloan's reputatio=
n
> by, in his words, some soccer mom acting alone on such information in a
> public newsgroup, presumably to Sloan's disadvantage. What that action co=
uld
> possibly be is naturally unstated - as is why should such a singular chec=
k
> on Sloan be made by a parent concerned with her children?
>
> There is a REASON that Murray Brennen and Company conspire to make simple
> identification obscure - what is demonstrated here is not that reason, ju=
st
> the fact of their own actions substantiate it.
>
> Phil Innes
Please note P Innes didn't deny he confused the Real Sam Sloan and the
Fake Sam Sloan in the message I quoted. The post is freely available
in Google, folks. Look it up and form your own opinion.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 17:17:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:01b500f2-05ff-4bd2-a620-006c9d808182@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 24, 8:36 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b37283eb-a477-4c8a-8a91-033d3f1b1a51@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 6:59 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > No but he often writes like he just stumbled out of an opium den.
>
> > Considering the incomprehensibility of much of what Phil writes
> > here, it might as well be in Chinese calligraphy. One also gets the
> > distinct impression that English is not his first language, so perhaps
> > Chinese is his first?
>
> > ---
>
> > Several other people have now written to this thread intending to hide
> > the
> > fact that anyone with even ordinary wits about them can tell the FSS
> > from
> > the Sloan.
>
> P Innes must not have "even ordinary wits", because I've posted an
> example of his confusing the Real Sam Sloan and the Fake Sam Sloan.
>
> ------
>
> Neil Brennen seeks to confuse things by (a) not using google protocols,
> (b)
> not signing his name (c) eliminating other material so that the posting
> record in the header no longer corresponds to the postings themselves, and
> (d) here he voluntarily conflates his own activity with a comparison of
> the
> FSS messages - in order, as I have said such posters will - to subjecrt
> the
> idea that anyone with wits could detect the FSS from the real Sloan.
>
> In this very example he allows by name to continue in the header while
> excising any comment by me. Meanwhile he expects others to not note he is
> making petty idiotic diversions - and not to wonder why?
>
> Now - how interesting that Brennen, Murray and Co., deliberately do this!
> If
> it were otherwise then much of what they say would be of no interest
> whatever. Since we cannot really accept their own word that they are
> witless - from a group of 8 easy to detect aspects in a steady pattern
> well
> illustrated with over 2,500 posts, they can't tell.
>
> They can only tell others can't tell!
>
> Unfortunately Murray has just said he can tell. But he also says someone
> chancing in here could not, even after all the publicity given to the
> false
> Sloan - and infers this could have a negative effect on Sloan's reputation
> by, in his words, some soccer mom acting alone on such information in a
> public newsgroup, presumably to Sloan's disadvantage. What that action
> could
> possibly be is naturally unstated - as is why should such a singular check
> on Sloan be made by a parent concerned with her children?
>
> There is a REASON that Murray Brennen and Company conspire to make simple
> identification obscure - what is demonstrated here is not that reason,
> just
> the fact of their own actions substantiate it.
>
> Phil Innes
Please note P Innes didn't deny he confused the Real Sam Sloan and the
Fake Sam Sloan in the message I quoted. The post is freely available
in Google, folks. Look it up and form your own opinion.
Please note that Brennen deliberately changed the post he mentioned, and
also his recent notice - so that I for example, survive in the header, but
didn't write a word of the post he mentions. And please note my comments
that this is common among certain people very anxious to cover up the issue
of 'if you can tell'.
In fact Brennen's posts were followed a while ago by someone very like the
FSS! In fact, only his posts were.
Not only did I not deny anything, I explain who 'sophisticated it' which was
Brennen himself! - and I also said there are 2,500 instances - and let not
Brennen et co confuse the matter deliberately after this effort to refute
two-thousand five hundred messages.
But they will! They will try, because they have something they wish to
conceal! I wonder what that is? :0
PI
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 10:26:17
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Please note P Innes didn't deny he confused the Real Sam Sloan and the
>Fake Sam Sloan in the message I quoted. The post is freely available
>in Google, folks. Look it up and form your own opinion.
My best guess is that Phil thinks posting *anything*, and lots of it,
obscures the fact that he was made the fool.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 18:05:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Please note P Innes didn't deny he confused the Real Sam Sloan and the
>>Fake Sam Sloan in the message I quoted. The post is freely available
>>in Google, folks. Look it up and form your own opinion.
>
> My best guess is that Phil thinks posting *anything*, and lots of it,
> obscures the fact that he was made the fool.
Murray ignores that Brennen himself changes the post he writes in - showing
my name in the header and not quoting a word.
This is Murray's level of intelligence, and he prefers to believe the
abusenik Brennen, rather than the very instance of Brennen's deceit he
responds to.
Yet Murray is sooooo sure of who did what, and who can tell and who can't,
yet Murray is an obvious cheap-skate, an insincere bloke who can't even
admit what any public here can see is untrue from the primary evidence
posted here. Yet he vociferously persecutes others from this basis of his
own 'intelligence'.
pfft!
Murray's opinion of things is best illustrated by his own rendition of
them - and if not for the indifferent intellectual encouragement of half a
dozen other 'familiars' - would stand alone as an example of what is truly
stupid, dishonest, and about as un-American justice as you can get [unless
you like McCarthy].
I and Edward R, don't.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 15:53:23
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:05:55 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>pfft!
Now, Phil plagiarizes Bill the Cat. Have you no shame, sir? Have you
no shame.
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 21:09:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 22, 12:31=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Sep 22, 6:19=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Except this post will come up to. (sic!) =A0
A preposition is not something one should
properly end a sentence with.
> > And what people will read then are my remarks.
> I've heard of talentless and skillless
Why only three "l"s?
> authors doing anything to gain a reader, but
> this is pathetic.
Look at the competition: Mr. Sloan has
raised -- or should I say, /lowered/ -- the
bar, and how else might Dr. IMnes be
expected to compete for attention?
While he might try writing interesting
chess-related material, that would entail
real work, so there remains the primary
alternative of making numerous postings
with no substantive chess content
whatever. In a less fiercely-competitive
environment, who knows what Dr. IMnes'
postings might look like?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 18:44:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 22, 7:59=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > No but he often writes like he just stumbled out of an opium den.
Opium? A Turkish drug once foisted on the
Chinese via use of military force(!!) by the Brits,
thank you very much, you scum.
> Several other people have now written to this thread intending to hide th=
e
> fact that anyone with even ordinary wits about them can tell the FSS from
> the Sloan.
>
> Murray doesn't even need to look at primary evidence in order to tell oth=
er
> people they can't tell anything about it.
>
> They each divert in differing ways - Brennen, who doesn't sign his posts
Note /diversionary/ tactic; in what way is
this "signing of posts" relevant to the issue
Dr. IMnes seems afraid to focus on?
> and cuts without notice is content to be misunderstood as someone else.
Note again the suspicious stumbling
about like a drunken sailor, only with
words. Why? Why do Dr.IMnes' mental
engines "seize up" when addressing the
issue of the FSS?
> DR RD as usual has nothing to say at all, except of his knowledge of opiu=
m
> dens.
Jealousy? Did not the inimitable Dr. IMnes
know about this? It's all in the history books
(except where the Chinese embarrassed us
Westerners by discovering or inventing things
first; for these, one must dig a little deeper).
> Then Kingston issues his usual defamations, encourager les autres.
Dog bites man; this is hardly newsworthy.
> What is the point of their collective activities?
To ridicule the "village idiot" of rgc.
> To subvert the idea that
> you can tell the FSS from the Sloan - which I suggest is a very SIGNIFICA=
NT
> matter.
Already refuted, my boy. I think it was
Mr. Murray who carefully explained the
details of how many people who will or
have already seen the FSS postings
must lack the "expertise" or desire to
examine headers, compare styles, etc.
It saddens me to note that the good
doctor has no ability to recall even
those facts which have been patiently
explained to him, over and over again.
: >(
> "In a short time, when someone googles on "Irina Krush", this fake is gon=
na
> pop up and *that* reader will have none of the background info
> =A0available with which to evaluate the post." Mike Murray
>
> Except these posts of mine will come up too.
Um, no. Most casual Googlers will not be
reading entire histories of rgc, but rather they
will read only what they want to read... and
since rgc is so yucky, this means they will
likely not read very much before deciding to
move on to greener pastures-- and who can
blame them?
Where the critics fall down is in their failure
to realize that, without Dr. IMnes, we would
just find someone else to be the village idiot
of rgc. Either a vote would be taken, or else
the position would just be filled by /merit/...
but either way, the problem of having one
would not go away. In a sense, Dr. IMnes
is doing us all a favor by avoiding the work
of selection and all the debate about what
is the best method, etc.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 11:51:44
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 22, 2:31=A0pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 1:55 am, "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
> >> distinctive birthmarks.
>
> >> To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
> >> Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
> >> in 2008.
>
> >> Sam Sloan
>
> > The FAKE SAM SLOAN is back.
>
> > This is a direct consequence of the erroneous decision of Judge Denny
> > Chin in dismissing my complaint.
>
> > The Real Sam Sloan
>
> Perhaps you could sue?
>
> --
> Kenneth Sloan =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Ken=
[email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 +1-205-=
932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 FAX +1-205-934-54=
73
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://KennethRSloan=
.com/
You talkin' to me?
I thought that was who you were talking to and, yes, I think I will.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 09:31:46
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 22, 6:19=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Except this post will come up to. (sic!) And what people will read then =
are my
> remarks.
I've heard of talentless and skillless authors doing anything to gain
a reader, but this is pathetic.
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 08:31:13
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 22, 6:59=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > No but he often writes like he just stumbled out of an opium den.
>
> =A0 Considering the incomprehensibility of much of what Phil writes
> here, it might as well be in Chinese calligraphy. One also gets the
> distinct impression that English is not his first language, so perhaps
> Chinese is his first?
>
> ---
>
> Several other people have now written to this thread intending to hide th=
e
> fact that anyone with even ordinary wits about them can tell the FSS from
> the Sloan.
P Innes must not have "even ordinary wits", because I've posted an
example of his confusing the Real Sam Sloan and the Fake Sam Sloan.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 09:36:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b37283eb-a477-4c8a-8a91-033d3f1b1a51@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 22, 6:59 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > No but he often writes like he just stumbled out of an opium den.
>
> Considering the incomprehensibility of much of what Phil writes
> here, it might as well be in Chinese calligraphy. One also gets the
> distinct impression that English is not his first language, so perhaps
> Chinese is his first?
>
> ---
>
> Several other people have now written to this thread intending to hide the
> fact that anyone with even ordinary wits about them can tell the FSS from
> the Sloan.
P Innes must not have "even ordinary wits", because I've posted an
example of his confusing the Real Sam Sloan and the Fake Sam Sloan.
------
Neil Brennen seeks to confuse things by (a) not using google protocols, (b)
not signing his name (c) eliminating other material so that the posting
record in the header no longer corresponds to the postings themselves, and
(d) here he voluntarily conflates his own activity with a comparison of the
FSS messages - in order, as I have said such posters will - to subjecrt the
idea that anyone with wits could detect the FSS from the real Sloan.
In this very example he allows by name to continue in the header while
excising any comment by me. Meanwhile he expects others to not note he is
making petty idiotic diversions - and not to wonder why?
Now - how interesting that Brennen, Murray and Co., deliberately do this! If
it were otherwise then much of what they say would be of no interest
whatever. Since we cannot really accept their own word that they are
witless - from a group of 8 easy to detect aspects in a steady pattern well
illustrated with over 2,500 posts, they can't tell.
They can only tell others can't tell!
Unfortunately Murray has just said he can tell. But he also says someone
chancing in here could not, even after all the publicity given to the false
Sloan - and infers this could have a negative effect on Sloan's reputation
by, in his words, some soccer mom acting alone on such information in a
public newsgroup, presumably to Sloan's disadvantage. What that action could
possibly be is naturally unstated - as is why should such a singular check
on Sloan be made by a parent concerned with her children?
There is a REASON that Murray Brennen and Company conspire to make simple
identification obscure - what is demonstrated here is not that reason, just
the fact of their own actions substantiate it.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 10:15:34
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:36:11 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>They can only tell others can't tell!
>Unfortunately Murray has just said he can tell.
Another example of Phil's fundamentally dishonest approach to posting.
He presents this as if I'd just let slip some inadvertent admission.
The fact is, as Phil well knows, is that *nobody* has ever denied
that, armed with a list of known RSS addresses or with information
such as gathered by Mottershead, one could identify a likely FSS post.
And nobody denies that those who spend a lot of time on this newsgroup
could make a pretty reasonable inference, most of the time, based on
content.
> But he also says someone
>chancing in here could not,
Another misrepresentation. My main concern was with material
extracted from this newsgroup and aggregated elsewhere on the web.
> even after all the publicity given to the false
>Sloan - and infers this could have a negative effect on Sloan's reputation
Still another misrepresentation. My main concern was with damage done
to other people using a Sloan forgery as a vehicle. And, of course,
Sloan wasn't the only one whose identity was appropriated for such
purposes.
>by, in his words, some soccer mom acting alone on such information in a
>public newsgroup, presumably to Sloan's disadvantage. What that action could
>possibly be is naturally unstated - as is why should such a singular check
>on Sloan be made by a parent concerned with her children?
Another misrepresentation by Phil Innes. My main concern has always
been about the FSS posts popping up when people are investigating
various third parties. A prime example was Bogner's chess school.
>There is a REASON that Murray Brennen and Company conspire to make simple
>identification obscure - what is demonstrated here is not that reason, just
>the fact of their own actions substantiate it.
And there must be a REASON why Phil Innes seems such an inveterate
liar. What can it be?
Phil, tell us this: when making your well known spurious claim about
being of International Master strength, why did you use the precise
number "2450" as your rating? I mean, Senior Master is 2400, right?
But what significance does "2450" have for IM qualification?
When you gave a number like "2450", didn't you hope readers would
believe this to be your actual rating?
Why did you think you could get away with such outrageous
misrepresentation? Is it because you didn't understand Usenet?
Inquiring minds want to know.
>Phil Innes
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 17:42:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:36:11 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>They can only tell others can't tell!
>
>>Unfortunately Murray has just said he can tell.
>
> Another example of Phil's fundamentally dishonest approach to posting.
> He presents this as if I'd just let slip some inadvertent admission.
> The fact is, as Phil well knows, is that *nobody* has ever denied
> that, armed with a list of known RSS addresses or with information
> such as gathered by Mottershead, one could identify a likely FSS post.
Lies! And by your own words! You raised the issue of the soccer mum chancing
in here - those were your words, no?
Secondly, if anyone can tell - how come it ain't satire? The most glaring
aspect of the issue is satire. Why have so many people denied it is?
> And nobody denies that those who spend a lot of time on this newsgroup
> could make a pretty reasonable inference, most of the time, based on
> content.
Thank you for speaking for 'nobody' - though I presume you intend to utter
your own opinion? Ker-ist!~ For an abusenik, you are fucking awful! Then
again, there is something about Mike Murray which doesn't let him say "I
think..." and he always has to cite other people's opinion. Whether this is
his own poor English or faint heart, is unknown.
>> But he also says someone
>>chancing in here could not,
>
> Another misrepresentation. My main concern was with material
> extracted from this newsgroup and aggregated elsewhere on the web.
>
>> even after all the publicity given to the false
>>Sloan - and infers this could have a negative effect on Sloan's reputation
>
> Still another misrepresentation. My main concern was with damage done
> to other people using a Sloan forgery as a vehicle. And, of course,
> Sloan wasn't the only one whose identity was appropriated for such
> purposes.
I don't falsely represent you - this is gear you produced here. If you want
to say "I think" rather than speak of what other people think and how you
disparage that - you could have done so in the past 1,000 attempts.
Murray says 'no-one' could misunderstand the FSS from the Sloan and he also
says "My main concern was with material
extracted from this newsgroup and aggregated elsewhere on the web."
What? No-one is no-one, Murray! What you write about your own motivation is
constantly contradicated by what you say and do.
>>by, in his words, some soccer mom acting alone on such information in a
>>public newsgroup, presumably to Sloan's disadvantage. What that action
>>could
>>possibly be is naturally unstated - as is why should such a singular check
>>on Sloan be made by a parent concerned with her children?
>
> Another misrepresentation by Phil Innes. My main concern has always
> been about the FSS posts popping up when people are investigating
> various third parties. A prime example was Bogner's chess school.
Quare? Is this Bognor of no fixed address? Murray introduces Bognor who is
an elusive character - interesting that for Murray he is a prime witness,
but oddly doesn't actually seem to have a school or even a domicile ;(
But really! Murray brought up the soccer mom, a sort of idiot mother - who
after one look here would decide something against Sloan. Now - Murray DID
do that, and says it is a misrepresentation. But it ain't and Murray lies.
Instead he introduces Bognor, principle witness for the offence of no know
address - as if this was an answer to what I wriote abnot Murray's previous
snot about the idiotic Soccer mom!
That's the measure of our Murray - He has found 36 formal reasons to reject
his ideas - and continues here to propose nonsense issues and demonstrate
his 'straightness' with the truth.
>>There is a REASON that Murray Brennen and Company conspire to make simple
>>identification obscure - what is demonstrated here is not that reason,
>>just
>>the fact of their own actions substantiate it.
>
> And there must be a REASON why Phil Innes seems such an inveterate
> liar. What can it be?
I demonstrated your lies - you only refer to mine? :)
> Phil, tell us this: when making your well known spurious claim about
> being of International Master strength,
Mike, when issuing a challenge to something spewed forth by Brennen,
suitabluy amplified by help-corn, did you believe it from the context of
what I said or they said? If you already made up your tiny mind, please
spare me 'questions' about it. You even push it further so that I seem to
have 'claimed' not 'almost' but 'was' IM.
You get it? I am not only saying you know you lie, but you also are content
to consciously defame people based on the reporting of those who are
disturbed persons, obsessives and stalkers.
This is your measure of objectivity Mike Murray. This is! You need to get
someone, right? Hardly matters who. But you really need to get them!
>why did you use the precise
> number "2450" as your rating? I mean, Senior Master is 2400, right?
> But what significance does "2450" have for IM qualification?
>
> When you gave a number like "2450", didn't you hope readers would
> believe this to be your actual rating?
Shakespearean readers? They don't know 2450 for 1000 - eg, which is better.
And since I said an IM was that level, and I approached that level for a
season in Europe, and since I have said that 100 times - are you still not
'looking'? You never heard any of that before, right? Like the FSS material,
you daren't read the source because you maybe can't get off on that?
> Why did you think you could get away with such outrageous
> misrepresentation? Is it because you didn't understand Usenet?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
LOL - you have the least curiosity of any adult here. You are palpable
false. You also don't write anythiing about chess, patzer ;)
Get it? If you can, do it, otherwise this is a performance game not a
mouth-off event for such as thee. Don't tell me, do it. Do it a lot, then
you can criticise those who /don't/ talk chess.
Okay, patzer?
I'll see you around the campus - have to go accept an almost-nobel.
Cordially, Phil Innes
>
>>Phil Innes
>>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 15:52:20
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:42:05 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> The fact is, as Phil well knows, is that *nobody* has ever denied
>> that, armed with a list of known RSS addresses or with information
>> such as gathered by Mottershead, one could identify a likely FSS post.
>Lies! And by your own words! You raised the issue of the soccer mum chancing
>in here - those were your words, no?
No, Phil. My words were, "the soccer-mom doing a bit of googling to
check on the chess school for her kid...". The way most of us use
Google to check on things. The implication was NOT that the soccer
mom started haunting rgcp.
>Secondly, if anyone can tell - how come it ain't satire? The most glaring
>aspect of the issue is satire. Why have so many people denied it is?
Probably because it isn't, any more than a poison pen letter is just
one more work in the Swift tradition. And "if anyone can tell"?
"Anyone who spent a lot of time on rgcp" is a pretty big qualifier.
Most anyone could be trained to recognize a counterfeit twenty, but
you'll still do time for printing 'em up.
>> And nobody denies that those who spend a lot of time on this newsgroup
>> could make a pretty reasonable inference, most of the time, based on
>> content.
>Thank you for speaking for 'nobody' - though I presume you intend to utter
>your own opinion? Ker-ist!~ For an abusenik, you are fucking awful! Then
>again, there is something about Mike Murray which doesn't let him say "I
>think..." and he always has to cite other people's opinion. Whether this is
>his own poor English or faint heart, is unknown.
Phil, you are a true jackass. I said "nobody denies", which refers to
posting history, not peoples' thought processes. Find a post where
somebody denied that "those who spend a lot of time on this newsgroup.
etc.," and I'll stand corrected.
>This is your measure of objectivity Mike Murray. This is! You need to get
>someone, right? Hardly matters who. But you really need to get them!
Just trying to reference a quantifiable measure of your tendency to
prevaricate, Phil.
>>why did you use the precise
>> number "2450" as your rating? I mean, Senior Master is 2400, right?
>> But what significance does "2450" have for IM qualification?
>> When you gave a number like "2450", didn't you hope readers would
>> believe this to be your actual rating?
>Shakespearean readers? They don't know 2450 for 1000 - eg, which is better.
>And since I said an IM was that level, and I approached that level for a
>season in Europe, and since I have said that 100 times - are you still not
>'looking'? You never heard any of that before, right?
Oh, I read it before, yes. But your explanation doesn't quite fit, as
many people, not just the Historian, have pointed out.
First, your claim that an IM was 2450 seems without foundation. A
rating of 2450 would get you the IM award, and there are various other
hoops through which a candidate would have to jump.
Second, hmmm, well I realize you have trouble with analogy, Phil, but
just try. If, speaking of finances, you said you were "financially
comfortable" that could mean many things. If you said, you
"approached being a millionaire, that's $1,045,000", the reader would
think that was your actual net worth" you were bragging about.
>LOL - you have the least curiosity of any adult here. You are palpable
>false. You also don't write anythiing about chess, patzer ;)
None of this palping, Phil, we don't know each other all that well.
And, as for patzerdom, until you can cite something other than your
imaginary 2450 rating, we'll have to assume your real, actual,
published, "palpable" rating is roughly in the same range as mine.
Mike: 1966 Reg / 2019 Quick
Phil: 2044 Reg / 2005 Quick.
Nothing to crow about in either case. Now, if you want to make your
case by challenging me to some blitz over on Playchess, we can talk
proctors and stakes....
>I'll see you around the campus - have to go accept an almost-nobel.
Post a jpg of you wearing the pointed cap.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2008 19:03:56
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:42:05 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> The fact is, as Phil well knows, is that *nobody* has ever denied
>>> that, armed with a list of known RSS addresses or with information
>>> such as gathered by Mottershead, one could identify a likely FSS post.
>
>>Lies! And by your own words! You raised the issue of the soccer mum
>>chancing
>>in here - those were your words, no?
>
> No, Phil. My words were, "the soccer-mom doing a bit of googling to
> check on the chess school for her kid...". The way most of us use
> Google to check on things. The implication was NOT that the soccer
> mom started haunting rgcp.
Was not? But that it was you proposed, yet was still not the 'implication'?
Secondly, you volunteer you ['most of us] trust to google refererences for
your kids. How old are your kids, and do you really /only/ trust to google
referencing their welbeing? That is what you have so far stated.
>>Secondly, if anyone can tell - how come it ain't satire? The most glaring
>>aspect of the issue is satire. Why have so many people denied it is?
>
> Probably because it isn't, any more than a poison pen letter is just
> one more work in the Swift tradition. And "if anyone can tell"?
> "Anyone who spent a lot of time on rgcp" is a pretty big qualifier.
> Most anyone could be trained to recognize a counterfeit twenty, but
> you'll still do time for printing 'em up.
An interesting reply, if evasive. What does it say except that the falsifier
is culpable under the law?
Secondly, Mike Murray says "it isn't" which means for him he can tell the
FSS from the real [previously admitted] but thinks others cannot. Which
others?
>>> And nobody denies that those who spend a lot of time on this newsgroup
>>> could make a pretty reasonable inference, most of the time, based on
>>> content.
>
>>Thank you for speaking for 'nobody' - though I presume you intend to
>>utter
>>your own opinion? Ker-ist!~ For an abusenik, you are fucking awful! Then
>>again, there is something about Mike Murray which doesn't let him say "I
>>think..." and he always has to cite other people's opinion. Whether this
>>is
>>his own poor English or faint heart, is unknown.
>
> Phil, you are a true jackass.
Well, as an abusenik what do such sentiments mean to me? You yourself are as
thick as two planks, issuing on each side of an issue, mostly to do with
what you can answer and abusing that which you can not. pfft! Jackass,
indeed!
> I said "nobody denies", which refers to
> posting history, not peoples' thought processes.
Does it? How about a complete sentence or two on the topic of what you mean?
Especially whatever you now 'refer to'.
> Find a post where
> somebody denied that "those who spend a lot of time on this newsgroup.
> etc.," and I'll stand corrected.
What? What are is that etc? Murray? Can't you manage a whole sentence
without being vague? Seems like everyone but you and your cohorts could not
manage to identify the false Sloan from the real. Now you can, and you are
concerned about the Soccer Mom chancing by here. Is that it?
>>This is your measure of objectivity Mike Murray. This is! You need to get
>>someone, right? Hardly matters who. But you really need to get them!
>
> Just trying to reference a quantifiable measure of your tendency to
> prevaricate, Phil.
Uh! How vague and prognostic - and how bust! What issue do you promote
Murray? Is it your issue or this Soccer Mom? After all these posts, is it
clear yet - or do you still beggar who asks you to be clear?
>>>why did you use the precise
>>> number "2450" as your rating? I mean, Senior Master is 2400, right?
>>> But what significance does "2450" have for IM qualification?
>
>>> When you gave a number like "2450", didn't you hope readers would
>>> believe this to be your actual rating?
>
>>Shakespearean readers? They don't know 2450 for 1000 - eg, which is
>>better.
>>And since I said an IM was that level, and I approached that level for a
>>season in Europe, and since I have said that 100 times - are you still not
>>'looking'? You never heard any of that before, right?
>
> Oh, I read it before, yes. But your explanation doesn't quite fit, as
> many people, not just the Historian, have pointed out.
Doesn't 'quite' fit. What does fit for Murray? Anyone else care to ask? [Its
a rhetorical question.]
> First, your claim that an IM was 2450 seems without foundation.
Only seems? 2450 what? USCF or Elo? Did I ever say I was 2450 anything? Did
I say 2450 was IM status? Tell us more about your thinking processes, such
as they may be - you only tell us what you think 'without foundation' then
mysteriously pass on.
> A
> rating of 2450 would get you the IM award, and there are various other
> hoops through which a candidate would have to jump.
Candidate, hoops, awards? I just played very strong in Europe half a
life-time ago. I don't care if you and Brennen and cudda-bot don't 'believe'
stuff. What does that matter to me? What do any of you have to say about
what you believe, rather than what you know, or why you care?
> Second, hmmm, well I realize you have trouble with analogy, Phil, but
You realise I do not accept that your analogies have nothing to do with your
knowledge and that people frequently escape to analogy [like Taylor
Kingston] when they know shit, and want to appear as if they do?
For example, I could analogise that you were so idiot one issue poster who
obsesses on an issue 'challenging' things which are unprovable in this
media, while simultaneously putting down people who could not 'prove to you'
something, which you never declare as a standard of proof, and then you
would be like...
McCarthy?
Enough to challenge all those commies in Government. It worked for awhile.
And then Murrow challenged him, and McCarthy died a few months after
leaviing office and his paranoic hatred of his fellow citizens. Is that
analogy?
> just try. If, speaking of finances, you said you were "financially
> comfortable" that could mean many things. If you said, you
> "approached being a millionaire, that's $1,045,000", the reader would
> think that was your actual net worth" you were bragging about.
>
>
>>LOL - you have the least curiosity of any adult here. You are palpable
>>false. You also don't write anythiing about chess, patzer ;)
>
> None of this palping, Phil, we don't know each other all that well.
> And, as for patzerdom, until you can cite something other than your
> imaginary 2450 rating,
I never said that! Never! You chose a cheap lie by Brennen instead of your
own decent response to me. I merely continue to record how honest your are,
Murray.
> we'll have to assume your real, actual,
> published, "palpable" rating is roughly in the same range as mine.
>
> Mike: 1966 Reg / 2019 Quick
> Phil: 2044 Reg / 2005 Quick.
>
> Nothing to crow about in either case. Now, if you want to make your
> case by challenging me to some blitz over on Playchess, we can talk
> proctors and stakes....
>
>>I'll see you around the campus - have to go accept an almost-nobel.
>
> Post a jpg of you wearing the pointed cap.
You duck the entire issue - you are bust on satire for those reading here,
and your other answer about the desperate soccer mom seeking newsnet
references about Sam Sloan for no stated reason also go unanswered.
That's an endgame Murray. You have come up with nothing than conjecture,
idiotic conjecture too. And you made a fuss without any evidence at all,
ignoring evidence, about something you cannot prove, not even your own
decent attention to.
1,000 posts and you are out, you are OUT; exposed as you are, despite all
your wheedling aversions to your own sickly orientation to things - you
really have nothing whatever to say that is decent, legal, honest and
truthful.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 08:58:46
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:03:56 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>>>> The fact is, as Phil well knows, is that *nobody* has ever denied
>>>> that, armed with a list of known RSS addresses or with information
>>>> such as gathered by Mottershead, one could identify a likely FSS post.
>>>Lies! And by your own words! You raised the issue of the soccer mum
>>>chancing in here - those were your words, no?
>> No, Phil. My words were, "the soccer-mom doing a bit of googling to
>> check on the chess school for her kid...". The way most of us use
>> Google to check on things. The implication was NOT that the soccer
>> mom started haunting rgcp.
>Was not? But that it was you proposed, yet was still not the 'implication'?
Phil, for your benefit, I'm going to assume, in this one instance,
that you are merely ignorant of the way things work, and not willfully
pigheaded.
If all the posts to rgcp just stayed here, in this little esoteric
corner of Usenet, your sarcasm about the soccer-mom "chancing in here"
might be merited.
But they don't. Many websites regularly harvest, aggregate and
republish the posts. This means that a person who never frequents
Usenet, who doesn't even know rgcp exists, can read our posts,
oftentimes quite out of thread context.
When some high school student Googles "Russian History", it's quite
likely some recent posts from rgcp will pop up on her screen, since
this was discussed OT here.
So, no, it was "still not the 'implication'" that the soccer mum
"chanced in here".
You know, I think I've already told you all this. So, you probably
are just being willfully pigheaded. Oh, well.
>Secondly, you volunteer you ['most of us] trust to google refererences for
>your kids. How old are your kids, and do you really /only/ trust to google
>referencing their welbeing? That is what you have so far stated.
"Only"? Nothing I wrote indicated or implied that people "only" used
Google.
Now, here comes something that really highlights poor Phil's thought
processes. First, a quote:
>>>> And nobody denies that those who spend a lot of time on this newsgroup
>>>> could make a pretty reasonable inference, most of the time, based on
>>>> content.
A little later (in the same post) I wrote:
>> Find a post where
>> somebody denied that "those who spend a lot of time on this newsgroup.
>> etc.," and I'll stand corrected.
And now our Phil waxes indignant:
>What? What are is that etc? Murray? Can't you manage a whole sentence
>without being vague?
Gee, Phil, the "etc" seems obvious. It referred to some text just a
few lines up.
So, let's speculate on how somebody who can actually read (admittedly
with poor comprehension) and write (if not very well), can possibly
require a whole paragraph be repeated a few lines later in the same
post.
This evokes comparisons to the "I'm not your boy" incident where he
started arguing with himself.
Does the Google User Interface lead Phil astray? Google often hides
quoted material with a "-show quoted text-" note, only re-presenting
the stuff when the reader clicks on the note.
My guess is that our Phil neglects to click this note and gets
befuddled by the supposed missing references.
My recommendation to Phil is that he get a decent newreader. I use
Agent. There may be others. Try one, Phil. You'll appear less the
fool.
>Ijust played very strong in Europe half a
>life-time ago. I don't care if you and Brennen and cudda-bot don't 'believe'
>stuff. What does that matter to me? What do any of you have to say about
>what you believe, rather than what you know, or why you care?
Hmm. I believe SBD challenged you to get a bit more specific. For
example, what years, what events, who'd ya beat, etc. There are
records and game scores from regional events, even from half a century
ago. Couple years ago, Rusty Miller, John Donaldson, Tom Kalaris and
I did a long article on Peter Lapiken for "Northwest Chess". We found
all kinds of games and tournament reports going back into the 1950s.
And Lapiken's strength, at his peak, probably didn't exceed 2300. How
many more artifacts must exist for someone who played to a 2450
rating! You owe it to History, Phil, to reveal these things.
>...I could analogise that you were so idiot one issue poster who
>obsesses on an issue 'challenging' things which are unprovable in this
>media, while simultaneously putting down people who could not 'prove to you'
>something, which you never declare as a standard of proof, and then you
>would be like...
>McCarthy?
You mean, like, "I have in my hand a 2450 almost IM rating"? Is that
what you mean?
>Enough to challenge all those commies in Government. It worked for awhile.
>And then Murrow challenged him, and McCarthy died a few months after
>leaviing office and his paranoic hatred of his fellow citizens. Is that
>analogy?
"Murrow" -- see how similar that is to "Murray"? Phil, isn't
Wisconsin sorta like Vermont? I mean, they're both states...
>1,000 posts and you are out, you are OUT; exposed as you are, despite all
>your wheedling aversions to your own sickly orientation to things - you
>really have nothing whatever to say that is decent, legal, honest and
>truthful.
You forgot "truth, justice and the American Way".
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2008 10:31:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:03:56 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> The fact is, as Phil well knows, is that *nobody* has ever denied
>>>>> that, armed with a list of known RSS addresses or with information
>>>>> such as gathered by Mottershead, one could identify a likely FSS post.
>
>>>>Lies! And by your own words! You raised the issue of the soccer mum
>>>>chancing in here - those were your words, no?
>
>>> No, Phil. My words were, "the soccer-mom doing a bit of googling to
>>> check on the chess school for her kid...". The way most of us use
>>> Google to check on things. The implication was NOT that the soccer
>>> mom started haunting rgcp.
>
>>Was not? But that it was you proposed, yet was still not the
>>'implication'?
>
> Phil, for your benefit, I'm going to assume, in this one instance,
> that you are merely ignorant of the way things work, and not willfully
> pigheaded.
How very grand of Mike Murray, who previously did not credit 36 other
possibilities, mocking everyone that turned up, while still pretending he
was in some 'conversation' with other writers.
> If all the posts to rgcp just stayed here, in this little esoteric
> corner of Usenet, your sarcasm about the soccer-mom "chancing in here"
> might be merited.
>
> But they don't. Many websites regularly harvest, aggregate and
> republish the posts. This means that a person who never frequents
> Usenet, who doesn't even know rgcp exists, can read our posts,
> oftentimes quite out of thread context.
You still posit this Soccer Mum as being unusual - she only finds raw FSS
material, rather than the vastly more volumous identifications of it as
false, she never frequents usenet at all, and for an as yet unexplained
reason, then acts on this completely unprovidenced material on behalf of her
children - and furthermore, this has some negative impact on the Sloan. This
is your /own/ proposition to us here.
You now condescend to 'explain' to me and anyone else who might thinks that
any such parent is nutz!
This behavior by any parent is highly psychologically improbable to take any
single reference about entrusting their children to others, is of unknown
connection to Sloan.
> When some high school student Googles "Russian History", it's quite
> likely some recent posts from rgcp will pop up on her screen, since
> this was discussed OT here.
Presumably these are more hapless students who have also never heard of the
uncertainties of usenet - and instead take commentary on Russian History
from a chess newsgroup, without a doubt in their minds that it is other than
gospel-truth.
So far, this is all about you, and what you suppose about others - and not
suppose very well@!
What I engaged /you/ about is not your own suppositions of this type - which
are what you propose or imagine others to be like - but (a) if /you/ could
tell the FSS material from the Sloan, and (b) WHAT you could tell about the
FSS material - and I proposed a perfunctory list of 8 items, all to a
pattern. These are not even deep textual analytics - these are
on-the-surface observables.
Now - I don't care if you do not agree with that list - since I see from
your writing that you pay no serious attention to the FSS material. You
don't attempt it while continuing to suppose that those who do need to be
mocked for their effort and insights.
If you want to be taken seriously, start another thread as I suggested to
Brennen, and discuss what you can and cannot tell from the FSS material
itself. I am not the slightest interested in what you continue to guess -
except to note that that is what you have done all the time. You have
guessed whereas others have restricted themselves to what is evident.
Perhaps one can guess /after/ taking in available evidence, but that would
be the necessary premise for guessing. To guess while avoiding available
subject matter is plainly avoidance.
If you do not want to examine FSS materials, then do not criticise those who
do, since you are in some danger of appearing as an enthusiastic prosecutor
of a single point of view who deliberately ignores primary evidence. The
worth of your opinion is the same as the level of your demonstrated
attention and wit to primarly evidence of the texts themselves.
Since I dismiss what you have to say as both facetious examples of weird
Soccer Mums and Students of Russia [lol], and your inadequate attention - I
cannot pretend that we have any mutual interest in exploring the FSS
material, and therefore have no personal need to continue this
correspondance with you as if you had any.
Phil Innes
> So, no, it was "still not the 'implication'" that the soccer mum
> "chanced in here".
>
> You know, I think I've already told you all this. So, you probably
> are just being willfully pigheaded. Oh, well.
>
>>Secondly, you volunteer you ['most of us] trust to google refererences
>>for
>>your kids. How old are your kids, and do you really /only/ trust to google
>>referencing their welbeing? That is what you have so far stated.
>
> "Only"? Nothing I wrote indicated or implied that people "only" used
> Google.
>
> Now, here comes something that really highlights poor Phil's thought
> processes. First, a quote:
>
>>>>> And nobody denies that those who spend a lot of time on this newsgroup
>>>>> could make a pretty reasonable inference, most of the time, based on
>>>>> content.
>
> A little later (in the same post) I wrote:
>
>>> Find a post where
>>> somebody denied that "those who spend a lot of time on this newsgroup.
>>> etc.," and I'll stand corrected.
>
> And now our Phil waxes indignant:
>
>>What? What are is that etc? Murray? Can't you manage a whole sentence
>>without being vague?
>
> Gee, Phil, the "etc" seems obvious. It referred to some text just a
> few lines up.
>
> So, let's speculate on how somebody who can actually read (admittedly
> with poor comprehension) and write (if not very well), can possibly
> require a whole paragraph be repeated a few lines later in the same
> post.
>
> This evokes comparisons to the "I'm not your boy" incident where he
> started arguing with himself.
>
> Does the Google User Interface lead Phil astray? Google often hides
> quoted material with a "-show quoted text-" note, only re-presenting
> the stuff when the reader clicks on the note.
>
> My guess is that our Phil neglects to click this note and gets
> befuddled by the supposed missing references.
>
> My recommendation to Phil is that he get a decent newreader. I use
> Agent. There may be others. Try one, Phil. You'll appear less the
> fool.
>
>
>>Ijust played very strong in Europe half a
>>life-time ago. I don't care if you and Brennen and cudda-bot don't
>>'believe'
>>stuff. What does that matter to me? What do any of you have to say about
>>what you believe, rather than what you know, or why you care?
>
> Hmm. I believe SBD challenged you to get a bit more specific. For
> example, what years, what events, who'd ya beat, etc. There are
> records and game scores from regional events, even from half a century
> ago. Couple years ago, Rusty Miller, John Donaldson, Tom Kalaris and
> I did a long article on Peter Lapiken for "Northwest Chess". We found
> all kinds of games and tournament reports going back into the 1950s.
> And Lapiken's strength, at his peak, probably didn't exceed 2300. How
> many more artifacts must exist for someone who played to a 2450
> rating! You owe it to History, Phil, to reveal these things.
>
>>...I could analogise that you were so idiot one issue poster who
>>obsesses on an issue 'challenging' things which are unprovable in this
>>media, while simultaneously putting down people who could not 'prove to
>>you'
>>something, which you never declare as a standard of proof, and then you
>>would be like...
>
>>McCarthy?
>
> You mean, like, "I have in my hand a 2450 almost IM rating"? Is that
> what you mean?
>
>>Enough to challenge all those commies in Government. It worked for awhile.
>>And then Murrow challenged him, and McCarthy died a few months after
>>leaviing office and his paranoic hatred of his fellow citizens. Is that
>>analogy?
>
> "Murrow" -- see how similar that is to "Murray"? Phil, isn't
> Wisconsin sorta like Vermont? I mean, they're both states...
>
>>1,000 posts and you are out, you are OUT; exposed as you are, despite all
>>your wheedling aversions to your own sickly orientation to things - you
>>really have nothing whatever to say that is decent, legal, honest and
>>truthful.
>
> You forgot "truth, justice and the American Way".
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2008 09:16:19
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:31:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Phil, for your benefit, I'm going to assume, in this one instance,
>> that you are merely ignorant of the way things work, and not willfully
>> pigheaded.
>How very grand of Mike Murray, who previously did not credit 36 other
>possibilities, mocking everyone that turned up, while still pretending he
>was in some 'conversation' with other writers.
As usual for our Phil, he's wrong and out of date. At last count, the
number of invalid and downright stupid arguments caricatured in "The
List of the Blind Monkey" was 47.
>>...Many websites regularly harvest, aggregate and
>> republish the posts. This means that a person who never frequents
>> Usenet, who doesn't even know rgcp exists, can read our posts,
>> oftentimes quite out of thread context.
>You still posit this Soccer Mum as being unusual - she only finds raw FSS
>material, rather than the vastly more volumous identifications of it as
>false, she never frequents usenet at all, and for an as yet unexplained
>reason, then acts on this completely unprovidenced material on behalf of her
>children - and furthermore, this has some negative impact on the Sloan. This
>is your /own/ proposition to us here.
As I've said many times, my concern has not been for "some negative
impact on the Sloan". One wonders why Phil persists in claiming this.
Perhaps because readers will be more likely to forgive any writings
that might negatively impact only Sloan? If Phil's PR campaign fails
to convince folks that the FSS material was satire, maybe they'll
still fuggitabotit if the only victim is Sam Sloan?
Phil would blame the soccer mom for lack of due diligence in
evaluating various slanders the FSS committed against third parties --
as if this somehow makes the slanderer himself less culpable.
Sorry, Phil, it doesn't wash.
But there is consolation. You just made number 48 in the List of the
Blind Monkey.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2008 08:42:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:31:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Phil, for your benefit, I'm going to assume, in this one instance,
>>> that you are merely ignorant of the way things work, and not willfully
>>> pigheaded.
>
>>How very grand of Mike Murray, who previously did not credit 36 other
>>possibilities, mocking everyone that turned up, while still pretending he
>>was in some 'conversation' with other writers.
>
> As usual for our Phil, he's wrong and out of date. At last count, the
> number of invalid and downright stupid arguments caricatured in "The
> List of the Blind Monkey" was 47.
Mike Murray continues to say that he is not interested in 47 other opinions
than his own - which he characterises as 'invalid and downright stupid'.
Meanwhile he behaves as if he is in actual conversation with other people,
rather than attesting to his own neglect to look at what is in front of him.
I suppose that having dissed 47 opinions, what is one more? But the level of
attention he pays any subject is the same as this one, perfunctory.
This amount of effort does not embarrass his very certain opinions.
>>>...Many websites regularly harvest, aggregate and
>>> republish the posts. This means that a person who never frequents
>>> Usenet, who doesn't even know rgcp exists, can read our posts,
>>> oftentimes quite out of thread context.
>
>>You still posit this Soccer Mum as being unusual - she only finds raw FSS
>>material, rather than the vastly more volumous identifications of it as
>>false, she never frequents usenet at all, and for an as yet unexplained
>>reason, then acts on this completely unprovidenced material on behalf of
>>her
>>children - and furthermore, this has some negative impact on the Sloan.
>>This
>>is your /own/ proposition to us here.
>
> As I've said many times, my concern has not been for "some negative
> impact on the Sloan". One wonders why Phil persists in claiming this.
One wonders why Murray should wonder. After all, he only writes about what
is not evidence - perhaps he manages to clearly state somewhere below what
does concern him to such degree that he is willing to prosecute the
evidence, not yet seived by any court's rules of evidence, for an entire
year.
> Perhaps because readers will be more likely to forgive any writings
> that might negatively impact only Sloan? If Phil's PR campaign fails
> to convince folks that the FSS material was satire, maybe they'll
> still fuggitabotit if the only victim is Sam Sloan?
Maybe maybe maybe diverts Murray. But he recently admitted he COULD tell the
FSS from the Sloan - naturally he does not say how he could do that, while I
mentioned 8 ways of doing so.
But wait a minute - having recommended this soccer mum to us - Murray
castigates me for mentioning it since it is not his REAL reason. So what is
his real reason?
> Phil would blame the soccer mom for lack of due diligence in
> evaluating various slanders the FSS committed against third parties --
> as if this somehow makes the slanderer himself less culpable.
Would I? I never wrote anything of the kind about the FSS being less
'culpable'. This is a plain invention by Murray - or, less kindly, a plain
lie.
> Sorry, Phil, it doesn't wash.
>
> But there is consolation. You just made number 48 in the List of the
> Blind Monkey.
Like the other 47, Murray's idiotic 'understanding' comprises the entire
list with a few guest 'understandings' introduced by other prosecutors whose
specious 'translations' are merely infamous.
Meanwhile he really can't admit why he is writing at all, can he? Its not
the soccer mum as he previously suggested to us - and somehow he seems
confused once more in identifying satirical FSS from the real-Sloan.
Maybe this is all about Murray's own level of understanding - or rather, his
efforts to rubbish all levels of understanding - which he continues to do
here.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 12:43:18
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 21, 2:36=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 3:29=A0pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 10:06=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Ahhh. =A0 Only those who believe the superficial can understand the
> > > profound? =A0Why, Phil, were you a Chinese philosopher in a previous
> > > life?
>
> > No but he often writes like he just stumbled out of an opium den.
>
> =A0 Considering the incomprehensibility of much of what Phil writes
> here, it might as well be in Chinese calligraphy. One also gets the
> distinct impression that English is not his first language, so perhaps
> Chinese is his first?
Or perhaps Andean?
Then again, he's claimed "British" is his native tongue.
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 12:36:31
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 21, 3:29=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 10:06=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ahhh. =A0 Only those who believe the superficial can understand the
> > profound? =A0Why, Phil, were you a Chinese philosopher in a previous
> > life?
>
> No but he often writes like he just stumbled out of an opium den.
Considering the incomprehensibility of much of what Phil writes
here, it might as well be in Chinese calligraphy. One also gets the
distinct impression that English is not his first language, so perhaps
Chinese is his first?
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 09:11:08
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Oct 1, 10:58=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:03:56 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>>> The fact is, as Phil well knows, is that *nobody* has ever denied
> >>>> that, armed with a list of known RSS addresses or with information
> >>>> such as gathered by Mottershead, one could identify a likely FSS pos=
t.
> >>>Lies! And by your own words! You raised the issue of the soccer mum
> >>>chancing in here - those were your words, no?
> >> No, Phil. =A0My words were, "the soccer-mom doing a bit of googling to
> >> check on the chess school for her kid...". =A0 The way most of us use
> >> Google to check on things. =A0The implication was NOT that the soccer
> >> mom started haunting rgcp.
> >Was not? But that it was you proposed, yet was still not the 'implicatio=
n'?
>
> Phil, for your benefit, I'm going to assume, in this one instance,
> that you are merely ignorant of the way things work, and not willfully
> pigheaded.
>
> If all the posts to rgcp just stayed here, in this little esoteric
> corner of Usenet, your sarcasm about the soccer-mom "chancing in here"
> might be merited. =A0
>
> But they don't. =A0Many websites regularly harvest, aggregate and
> republish the posts. =A0This means =A0that a person who never frequents
> Usenet, who doesn't even know rgcp exists, can read our posts,
> oftentimes quite out of thread context.
>
> When some high school student Googles "Russian History", it's quite
> likely some recent posts from rgcp will pop up on her screen, since
> this was discussed OT here.
>
> So, no, it was "still not the 'implication'" that the soccer mum
> "chanced in here".
>
> You know, I think I've already told you all this. =A0So, you probably
> are just being willfully pigheaded. =A0Oh, well.
Use Google to search for "Phil Innes 2450" and note how many times it
comes up, and on how many different websites.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 07:59:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
> No but he often writes like he just stumbled out of an opium den.
Considering the incomprehensibility of much of what Phil writes
here, it might as well be in Chinese calligraphy. One also gets the
distinct impression that English is not his first language, so perhaps
Chinese is his first?
---
Several other people have now written to this thread intending to hide the
fact that anyone with even ordinary wits about them can tell the FSS from
the Sloan.
Murray doesn't even need to look at primary evidence in order to tell other
people they can't tell anything about it.
They each divert in differing ways - Brennen, who doesn't sign his posts,
and cuts without notice is content to be misunderstood as someone else.
DR RD as usual has nothing to say at all, except of his knowledge of opium
dens.
Then Kingston issues his usual defamations, encourager les autres.
What is the point of their collective activities? To subvert the idea that
you can tell the FSS from the Sloan - which I suggest is a very SIGNIFICANT
matter. Murray continues to hypothesise on some chancing by...
"In a short time, when someone googles on "Irina Krush", this fake is gonna
pop up and *that* reader will have none of the background info
available with which to evaluate the post." Mike Murray
Except these posts of mine will come up too. And what people will read then
are my
remarks. Since the FSS material is somewhat less than the commentary on the
FSS material, then at least a casual googler will have a superior chance to
contact posts which alert them to the falsity of the FSS. But I said this to
Murray before, a Murray who ignored it, but carries on as if what he says
was true <shrug > just because he says so.
After 2,500 examples, this group of subverters disappear the way I suggest
anyone COULD tell the FSS from the RSS. They then mock me for pointing it
out as if what I wrote was incomprehensible.
What is EVIDENT is their orientation to trying to shut out all ordinary
applications of intelligence - so they can conduct their agitprop campaign
which actually has the effect of ensuring that people googling innocently
would more likely encounter the FSS.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 09:48:12
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:59:32 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Murray doesn't even need to look at primary evidence in order to tell other
>people they can't tell anything about it.
Phil repeats his lie that those who refuse to play his parlour game
of *analyzing* what he calls "primary evidence" have not read or even
"looked" at the FSS posts.
>What is the point of their collective activities? To subvert the idea that
>you can tell the FSS from the Sloan - which I suggest is a very SIGNIFICANT
>matter.
Nobody argues that works of the FSS can be distinguished from that of
the RSS: by various instances of electronic signature. What we
dispute is that a superficial inspection of the textual content will
reliably alert the *casual* reader to the forgery, particularly when
the material has been aggregated and re-presented outside of Usenet.
What is a "very SIGNIFICANT matter" is how well Phil's crackpot theory
(that the FSS fakery will be obvious to a casual reader) fits his
agenda of claiming the FSS posts are obvious satire, thus clearing his
various business associates of wrongdoing.
Ahh, Phil, you may write poorly, but you toady well.
>"In a short time, when someone googles on "Irina Krush", this fake is gonna
>pop up and *that* reader will have none of the background info
> available with which to evaluate the post." Mike Murray
>Except these posts of mine will come up too. And what people will read then
>are my remarks.
Except most of *your* remarks are weirdly formatted, poorly phrased,
virtually incomprehensible, overly-long pieces of invective and
bluster -- the kind of stuff that usually gets ignored.
>After 2,500 examples, this group of subverters disappear the way I suggest
>anyone COULD tell the FSS from the RSS. They then mock me for pointing it
>out as if what I wrote was incomprehensible.
This may be a nuance, Phil, but while much of your writing *is*
incomprehensible, we have been criticizing this particular theory as
"stupid", and even the work of a competent editor would be merely
applying lipstick to a pig.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 15:19:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:59:32 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Murray doesn't even need to look at primary evidence in order to tell
>>other
>>people they can't tell anything about it.
>
> Phil repeats his lie that those who refuse to play his parlour game
> of *analyzing* what he calls "primary evidence" have not read or even
> "looked" at the FSS posts.
I believe I repeat my truth - of course, after offering you and others
plenty of chances to say if you could even determine the header, I don't
know that you haven't read the material - you could simply be lying about
it.
>>What is the point of their collective activities? To subvert the idea that
>>you can tell the FSS from the Sloan - which I suggest is a very
>>SIGNIFICANT
>>matter.
>
> Nobody argues that works of the FSS can be distinguished from that of
> the RSS:
Thank you!
> by various instances of electronic signature. What we
> dispute is that a superficial inspection of the textual content will
> reliably alert the *casual* reader to the forgery, particularly when
> the material has been aggregated and re-presented outside of Usenet.
As surely as if someone takes a picture of a dinosaur with a saddle on it
from the Museum which features such things? Does this insult all
creationists, or just some of them? But who would actually take unnatributed
and unprovenanced material, and act on it to any substantial effect? Where
is any due diligence in their actions? Mike Murray has not mentioned this -
but then again, I have never argued that there are not stupid people who
will repeat the last thing they heard without checking anything at all.
If this is the extent to his concern - so be it. But that is not what he
argues here - which is not the potential damage to reputation casually
obtained from a newsgroup, or extracted from it.
Murray has continuously argued EVERY point for those reading all the FSS
messages.
> What is a "very SIGNIFICANT matter" is how well Phil's crackpot theory
> (that the FSS fakery will be obvious to a casual reader)
Well - that is not what I wrote - and Murray knows it. It is in fact a
stupid summary of what I wrote, a falsification of it, and a plain evasion
of it.
> fits his
> agenda of claiming the FSS posts are obvious satire, thus clearing his
> various business associates of wrongdoing.
Not any quote of mine! But implicit in his writing is that Muraay says that
Murray can't tell the FSS from the real Sloan. Because he Murray can't or
won't admit he can - so is everyone else as he is ;((
> Ahh, Phil, you may write poorly, but you toady well.
>
>>"In a short time, when someone googles on "Irina Krush", this fake is
>>gonna
>>pop up and *that* reader will have none of the background info
>> available with which to evaluate the post." Mike Murray
>
>>Except these posts of mine will come up too. And what people will read
>>then
>>are my remarks.
>
> Except most of *your* remarks are weirdly formatted, poorly phrased,
> virtually incomprehensible, overly-long pieces of invective and
> bluster -- the kind of stuff that usually gets ignored.
Murray now says that I introduce this very thread - head it with 8 reasons
anyone can spot the FSS by - and this is unclear? Murray is himself either
capable or figuring it out or not - he never makes direct statements about
himself, only about other people, people who don't read here. These people,
he suggests to us are incredibly stupid - they just believe stuff because it
is written on usenet, or don't even ask for any provenance for what they
believe! :)
>>After 2,500 examples, this group of subverters disappear the way I suggest
>>anyone COULD tell the FSS from the RSS. They then mock me for pointing it
>>out as if what I wrote was incomprehensible.
>
> This may be a nuance, Phil, but while much of your writing *is*
> incomprehensible, we have been criticizing this particular theory as
> "stupid", and even the work of a competent editor would be merely
> applying lipstick to a pig.
Murray continues to prove my point - that the most obvious factors of the
FSS's writing are things he personally cannot admit, and he writes shit
about those who can.
I said that if left to him and his ilk there would be no analysis of any
form of what the FSS actually wrote, and thereby his innocent soccer mum
would be more likely to be deceived [albeit, if she was clueless].
I wonder why Murray and crew are so intent on this? Can't tell its satire?
Because they are all either (a) stupid, or (b) pretending to be?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 12:31:08
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 21, 2:29=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 10:06=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ahhh. =A0 Only those who believe the superficial can understand the
> > profound? =A0Why, Phil, were you a Chinese philosopher in a previous
> > life?
>
> No but he often writes like he just stumbled out of an opium den.
I wouldn't be surprised if such a place existed in Brattleboro.
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 12:29:16
From: SBD
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 21, 10:06=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ahhh. =A0 Only those who believe the superficial can understand the
> profound? =A0Why, Phil, were you a Chinese philosopher in a previous
> life?
No but he often writes like he just stumbled out of an opium den.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 23:44:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 25, 1:00=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think he has no sense. I'm still trying to figure out his 'defense'
> of mistaking the Real Sam Sloan for the Fake Sam Sloan back in June
> 2007. Does P Innes think
Stop right there! Do you see what I see?
You have attempted to ask a question about
what Dr. IMnes /thinks/ -- a logical absurdity.
> I control Google?
Maybe so, but once the price drops below
$400 per share, I will be right there to swoop
in with a surprise takeover coup-- one that
you'll never see coming because I can only
accumulate maybe one or two shares per
month. Just as with the Borg, resistance
will be futile.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 22:00:49
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 24, 5:53=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:05:55 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >pfft!
>
> Now, Phil plagiarizes Bill the Cat. =A0Have you no shame, sir? =A0Have yo=
u
> no shame.
I think he has no sense. I'm still trying to figure out his 'defense'
of mistaking the Real Sam Sloan for the Fake Sam Sloan back in June
2007. Does P Innes think I control Google?
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 17:38:44
From:
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 24, 6:52=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:42:05 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >Thank you =A0for speaking for 'nobody' - though I presume you intend to =
utter
> >your own opinion? Ker-ist!~ For an abusenik, you are fucking awful! Then
> >again, there is something about Mike Murray which doesn't let him say "I
> >think..." and he always has to cite other people's opinion. Whether this=
is
> >his own poor English or faint heart, is unknown.
>
> Phil, you are a true jackass.
I doubt if truer words have ever been spoken here on rgcm. I applaud
Mr. Murray's straightforward candor and perception.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2008 19:43:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5eb39cec-1d66-4c88-9eee-d8be59292ea6@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 24, 6:52 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:42:05 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >Thank you for speaking for 'nobody' - though I presume you intend to
> >utter
> >your own opinion? Ker-ist!~ For an abusenik, you are fucking awful! Then
> >again, there is something about Mike Murray which doesn't let him say "I
> >think..." and he always has to cite other people's opinion. Whether this
> >is
> >his own poor English or faint heart, is unknown.
>
> Phil, you are a true jackass.
I doubt if truer words have ever been spoken here on rgcm. I applaud
Mr. Murray's straightforward candor and perception.
==
Kingston, if we wanted to see a Jackass, we would mention your own e-mails,
no? Remember them? The ones you can't recall, which my your logic, not
server logic and records, don't exist.
Here Kingston lends his 'weight' to an opinion which is about belief, not
looking at the FSS material. Neither he nor Murray have the balls to do so
and speak their mind, they, both of them only have the balls to 'question'
those who can - question at a distance that is - neither character having
the balls to say anything face to face. Reminds me of the great Stephen
Dowd/Rynd, who cudda checked on things here, but checked out.
Such is the level of personal honestly owned by those who will condemn
others.
Since Kingston insists on his campaign, now in public, I am finding less and
less inhibition to telling all about what he conspires in private. While he
may have 'forgotten' his messages, I can prove their receipt here, and also
prove his malignity.
If he [and others] get sued thereby, pfft! What is that to me?
Meanwhile - the attentive reader will observe that the topic of this post is
completely excised by those who wish to hide any analysis of the FSS! They
do anything but actually look at the material itself.
Watchers take note!
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 12:26:16
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 21, 10:06=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:17:54 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
> >> distinctive birthmarks.
> >> To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
> >> Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
> >> in 2008.
> >> Sam Sloan
> >The FAKE SAM SLOAN is back.
> >**I noticed it immediately - as usual we have (1) a sloan-like address, =
but
> >(2) one which the real Sloan never used, and (3) the content is generall=
y
> >lubricious, plus (4) of juvenile sexist nature, and (5) idiomatically
> >correct of American speech while (6) emulating the real Sloan's syntacti=
cal
> >structures, albeit (7) not the finer points! as well as (8) the real-Slo=
ans
> >typical distribution among newsgroups.
>
> The finer points? =A0You look at these two brief paragraphs and claim
> that you can immediately recognize they weren't authored by the real
> Sam Sloan? =A0Phil, your pomposity is exceeded only by your
> overestimation of the readers' gullibility (if you're dissembling) or
> your ignorance (if you really believe this crap). =A0
>
> The address is ALL you've got.
>
> >**I also noticed about 1,500 previous examples, all to the same pattern =
-
> >this being but a casual recogning that anyone with a candid mind would
> >notice.
>
> And does a casual recogning [sic] always compare the "sloan-like
> address" with the list of addresses known to be used by the RSS?
> You've got to be deep into this stuff to have such a list readily at
> hand.
>
> In a short time, when someone googles on "Irina Krush", this fake is
> gonna pop up and *that* reader will have none of the background info
> available with which to evaluate the post.
>
> >Somewhat deeper analysis is possible, but naturally, only to those
> >who look first at these surface things, can go past the surface. A deepe=
r
> >look can establish a profile for the FSS which is harder to consistently
> >fake than these surface factors. =A0;)
Speaking of surface factors, it appears Nearly an IM 2450 P Innes the
great analyst can't tell the difference between the FSS and the RSS.
Witness the witless comment from 2007 below, in which P Innes assumes
the RSS is the fake. I'm sure if I spent more than three minutes
searching the archives, I'd find more examples. Of course this doesn't
come close to P Innes' odd belief that I posted under the name "Matt
Nemmers", but it's close!
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out01b.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!
cycny01.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!
trndny01.POSTED!02fb8435!not-for-mail
From: "Chess One" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
References: <[email protected] >
<[email protected] > <wdpki.
2702$nQ4.1426@trndny01 >
<[email protected] > <IYKki.
9361$qu4.6455@trndny06 >
<[email protected] >
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan
Lines: 23
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=3DFlowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
Message-ID: <J7Ski.4711$nQ4.3683@trndny01 >
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:39:05 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.222.92.99
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: trndny01 1184099945 64.222.92.99 (Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:39:05
EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:39:05 EDT
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 10, 8:29 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It is Sloan who can't tell the difference twixt these two =3D which
>> does not speak well for his intelligence, and is somewhat unflattering t=
o
>> his great big ego.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> I am willing to play you a chess match for money any time, even though
> you are a great nearly an IM player, and I am but a lowly 1934 player.
>
> Sam sloan
hey fake! even the fake avoids the topic! and as a relatively
perceptive
psychological bloke, would say your's is but the dark side of the same
coin
;)
pi
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 05:42:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 21, 1:55=A0am, "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
> distinctive birthmarks.
>
> To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
> Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
> in 2008.
>
> Sam Sloan
Here is the original of the above:
Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!
feeder2.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.86.MISMATCH!
news.astraweb.com!border1.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!
border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!news.wiretrip.org!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!
mail2news-x5!mail2news-x4!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Subject: Krush's crush
From: "samsloan" <[email protected] >
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.com=
puter,rec.games.go
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:55:12 -0600 (MDT)
Mail-To-News-Contact: [email protected]
Organization: [email protected]
Lines: 8
X-Original-Bytes: 953
I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
distinctive birthmarks.
To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
in 2008.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 05:38:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 21, 1:55=A0am, "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
> distinctive birthmarks.
>
> To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
> Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
> in 2008.
>
> Sam Sloan
The FAKE SAM SLOAN is back.
This is a direct consequence of the erroneous decision of Judge Denny
Chin in dismissing my complaint.
The Real Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 19:38:42
From: Javert
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 24, 6:55=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 4:42=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Shakespearean readers? They don't know 2450 for 1000 - eg, which is bet=
ter.
> > And since I said an IM was that level, and I approached that level for =
a
> > season in Europe, and since I have said that 100 times - are you still =
not
> > 'looking'? You never heard any of that before, right? Like the FSS mate=
rial,
>
> But the sheer fact of the matter is you have never been more than a
> weak USCF Expert.
>
> Any claims to such "near- fame" in Europe could be easily verified.
> There would be verifiable "scalps" in tournaments that could be found
> in tournament results, many of which are on-line these days, even back
> to the 1960s.
>
> Why not list some of the IMs you beat and we can look up the scores or
> tournament results? Maybe some of the local masters?
>
> Yeah, that's what we thought.
He may even be an 11 time national champion!
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 15:55:42
From: SBD
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 24, 4:42=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Shakespearean readers? They don't know 2450 for 1000 - eg, which is bette=
r.
> And since I said an IM was that level, and I approached that level for a
> season in Europe, and since I have said that 100 times - are you still no=
t
> 'looking'? You never heard any of that before, right? Like the FSS materi=
al,
But the sheer fact of the matter is you have never been more than a
weak USCF Expert.
Any claims to such "near- fame" in Europe could be easily verified.
There would be verifiable "scalps" in tournaments that could be found
in tournament results, many of which are on-line these days, even back
to the 1960s.
Why not list some of the IMs you beat and we can look up the scores or
tournament results? Maybe some of the local masters?
Yeah, that's what we thought.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2008 19:25:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:eae66345-12f3-408b-a039-9908c73177c1@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 24, 4:42 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Shakespearean readers? They don't know 2450 for 1000 - eg, which is
> better.
> And since I said an IM was that level, and I approached that level for a
> season in Europe, and since I have said that 100 times - are you still not
> 'looking'? You never heard any of that before, right? Like the FSS
> material,
But the sheer fact of the matter is you have never been more than a
weak USCF Expert.
Any claims to such "near- fame" in Europe could be easily verified.
There would be verifiable "scalps" in tournaments that could be found
in tournament results, many of which are on-line these days, even back
to the 1960s.
Why not list some of the IMs you beat and we can look up the scores or
tournament results? Maybe some of the local masters?
Yeah, that's what we thought.
=====
I know it is what /you/ thought DR RD here writing as 'we'.
But then again, you don't think much, long or deeply, nor based on any
facts, and it is a matter of record that I said you could show up here, play
chess or not, and thus not have to believe anything. Right?
Doesn't matter if you disclaim you sent me personal emails - do you disclaim
I offered you a week here on my tab?
You never did show up and I think it is your preference to believe things
rather than know things. Get it? I am calling you, patzer.
And when you could have known something, you prefered to doubt and whine
rather than to know. It is a wonder you can be employed on this basis, but
then again, look where you /are/ employed! ROFL
You are a cheap shit DR RD. You were called, and you prefer to piss and moan
in public. You can win the public debate since everyone understands
cynicism, and those dissapointed souls will go with you without a second
thought.
As long as you know I know you as you are. ;)
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 13:31:09
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Krush's crush
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:55 am, "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
>> distinctive birthmarks.
>>
>> To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
>> Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
>> in 2008.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
> The FAKE SAM SLOAN is back.
>
> This is a direct consequence of the erroneous decision of Judge Denny
> Chin in dismissing my complaint.
>
> The Real Sam Sloan
Perhaps you could sue?
--
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://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 10:17:54
From: Chess One
Subject: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 21, 1:55 am, "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
> distinctive birthmarks.
>
> To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
> Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
> in 2008.
>
> Sam Sloan
The FAKE SAM SLOAN is back.
**I noticed it immediately - as usual we have (1) a sloan-like address, but
(2) one which the real Sloan never used, and (3) the content is generally
lubricious, plus (4) of juvenile sexist nature, and (5) idiomatically
correct of American speech while (6) emulating the real Sloan's syntactical
structures, albeit (7) not the finer points! as well as (8) the real-Sloans
typical distribution among newsgroups.
**I also noticed about 1,500 previous examples, all to the same pattern -
this being but a casual recogning that anyone with a candid mind would
notice. Somewhat deeper analysis is possible, but naturally, only to those
who look first at these surface things, can go past the surface. A deeper
look can establish a profile for the FSS which is harder to consistently
fake than these surface factors. ;)
This is a direct consequence of the erroneous decision of Judge Denny
Chin in dismissing my complaint.
**Ah! More typical of the real-Sloan! An uncertain logical extrapolation
which contradicts & blames after due and objective process has exhausted a
line of inquiry - meanwhile suggestive of previous cause, and all in one
compact 17 word expression, containing one active verb -then a gerund - a
hi-fallutin' adjective - and one infinitive participle! Marvelous stuff!
Phil Innes
The Real Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 13:03:27
From: none
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sep 24, 1:26=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Please note P Innes didn't deny he confused the Real Sam Sloan and the
> >Fake Sam Sloan in the message I quoted. The post is freely available
> >in Google, folks. Look it up and form your own opinion.
>
> My best guess is that Phil thinks posting *anything*, and lots of it,
> obscures the fact that he was made the fool.
Phil, like Sloan and Parr, is simply intelectually dishonest.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 08:06:39
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:17:54 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>
>"samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
>> distinctive birthmarks.
>> To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
>> Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
>> in 2008.
>> Sam Sloan
>The FAKE SAM SLOAN is back.
>**I noticed it immediately - as usual we have (1) a sloan-like address, but
>(2) one which the real Sloan never used, and (3) the content is generally
>lubricious, plus (4) of juvenile sexist nature, and (5) idiomatically
>correct of American speech while (6) emulating the real Sloan's syntactical
>structures, albeit (7) not the finer points! as well as (8) the real-Sloans
>typical distribution among newsgroups.
The finer points? You look at these two brief paragraphs and claim
that you can immediately recognize they weren't authored by the real
Sam Sloan? Phil, your pomposity is exceeded only by your
overestimation of the readers' gullibility (if you're dissembling) or
your ignorance (if you really believe this crap).
The address is ALL you've got.
>**I also noticed about 1,500 previous examples, all to the same pattern -
>this being but a casual recogning that anyone with a candid mind would
>notice.
And does a casual recogning [sic] always compare the "sloan-like
address" with the list of addresses known to be used by the RSS?
You've got to be deep into this stuff to have such a list readily at
hand.
In a short time, when someone googles on "Irina Krush", this fake is
gonna pop up and *that* reader will have none of the background info
available with which to evaluate the post.
>Somewhat deeper analysis is possible, but naturally, only to those
>who look first at these surface things, can go past the surface. A deeper
>look can establish a profile for the FSS which is harder to consistently
>fake than these surface factors. ;)
Ahhh. Only those who believe the superficial can understand the
profound? Why, Phil, were you a Chinese philosopher in a previous
life?
>This is a direct consequence of the erroneous decision of Judge Denny
>Chin in dismissing my complaint.
>
>**Ah! More typical of the real-Sloan! An uncertain logical extrapolation
>which contradicts & blames after due and objective process has exhausted a
>line of inquiry - meanwhile suggestive of previous cause, and all in one
>compact 17 word expression, containing one active verb -then a gerund - a
>hi-fallutin' adjective - and one infinitive participle! Marvelous stuff!
>
>Phil Innes
>
>
>
>The Real Sam Sloan
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2008 07:19:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: FSS redux - was Re: Krush's crush
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:17:54 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
>>> distinctive birthmarks.
>
>>> To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
>>> Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
>>> in 2008.
>
>>> Sam Sloan
>
>>The FAKE SAM SLOAN is back.
>
>>**I noticed it immediately - as usual we have (1) a sloan-like address,
>>but
>>(2) one which the real Sloan never used, and (3) the content is generally
>>lubricious, plus (4) of juvenile sexist nature, and (5) idiomatically
>>correct of American speech while (6) emulating the real Sloan's
>>syntactical
>>structures, albeit (7) not the finer points! as well as (8) the
>>real-Sloans
>>typical distribution among newsgroups.
>
> The finer points? You look at these two brief paragraphs and claim
> that you can immediately recognize they weren't authored by the real
> Sam Sloan?
MURRAY PERPETUATES FSS MTYH
Yes. Actually, just the first gross point was enough. Secondary and obvious
clues are as above, and I think I mentioned this pattern is the same as
1,500 others I looked at.
What is a chess player to admit? He didn't recognise the opening after
seeing it 1,500 times? ROFL!
But Murray really asks no questions - he challenges that anyone can make
these plain observations - since apparently they are beyond his own wit and
energy - its yet another denial by someone who can't say for themselves if
they even looked at the material itself! But it does intend to rubbish
looking as a principle, and even this cursory analysis of a group of
factors.
> Phil, your pomposity is exceeded only by your
> overestimation of the readers' gullibility (if you're dissembling) or
> your ignorance (if you really believe this crap).
>
> The address is ALL you've got.
Since Mike Murray actually doesn't admit look at the messages themselves
with any attention - I wonder how he knows what other's got? He certainly
has run a program here of attacking the idea of looking at the direct
evidence. This has an interesting effect, see below.....
>>**I also noticed about 1,500 previous examples, all to the same pattern -
>>this being but a casual recogning that anyone with a candid mind would
>>notice.
>
> And does a casual recogning [sic] always compare the "sloan-like
> address" with the list of addresses known to be used by the RSS?
To whom, Santa? The answer - not that Murray is really requesting one, is
yes - from the very first posts lots of people here pointed this out.
> You've got to be deep into this stuff to have such a list readily at
> hand.
I have to? I suppose 'deep' is relative to one's attention.
> In a short time, when someone googles on "Irina Krush", this fake is
> gonna pop up and *that* reader will have none of the background info
> available with which to evaluate the post.
Except this post will come up to. And what people will read then are my
remarks. Since the FSS material is somewhat less than the commentary on the
FSS material, then at least a casual googler will have a superior chance to
contact posts which alert them to the falsity of the FSS. But I said this to
Murray before, a Murray who ignored it, but carries on as if what he says
was true <shrug > just because he says so.
In this message Murray doesn't understand anything since he avoids thinking
about what others wrote - and instead trashes ordinary yet competent
analysis. It is likely he will be followed by half a dozen other twits who
instead of saying they can tell the FSS - will instead attack this post of
mine - presumably with the intent of reducing all critical attention to the
FSS - so that what Murray says will be true!
>>Somewhat deeper analysis is possible, but naturally, only to those
>>who look first at these surface things, can go past the surface. A deeper
>>look can establish a profile for the FSS which is harder to consistently
>>fake than these surface factors. ;)
>
> Ahhh. Only those who believe the superficial can understand the
> profound? Why, Phil, were you a Chinese philosopher in a previous
> life?
You are not even a candidate to look at the surface! Why should you
challenge those who can go further than a surface?
And yes, I was a Chinese philosopher in a previous life. And philosophy
means to reflect on what you see and [love to] do! Anyone can do it who
sees!
Phil Innes
>>This is a direct consequence of the erroneous decision of Judge Denny
>>Chin in dismissing my complaint.
>>
>>**Ah! More typical of the real-Sloan! An uncertain logical extrapolation
>>which contradicts & blames after due and objective process has exhausted a
>>line of inquiry - meanwhile suggestive of previous cause, and all in one
>>compact 17 word expression, containing one active verb -then a gerund - a
>>hi-fallutin' adjective - and one infinitive participle! Marvelous stuff!
>>
>>Phil Innes
>>
>>
>>
>>The Real Sam Sloan
>>
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2008 13:50:21
From: -
Subject: Re: Krush's crush
|
samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The FAKE SAM SLOAN is back.
>
> This is a direct consequence of the erroneous decision
> of Judge Denny Chin in dismissing my complaint.
Why does the USCF (and Susan Polgar) tolerate fakery ?
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cluster�s "Magnetic Reconnection" Data and the Big Picture
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/mgmirkin.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
