| |
Main
Date: 25 Jan 2009 04:43:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess journalist"
|
For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog.
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-against-chess-official=
s-lingers-on
January 23, 2009 8:52 am
"Its interesting to note you did not publish my message yesterday -
but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And I can note
that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
=97 Phil Innes"
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2009 11:12:34
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 28, 12:25=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 3:01=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 10:15=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 9:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behav=
ed,
> > > > > > since I have the server records about this issue, and several o=
thers.
>
> > > > > So you admit "sever records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirm=
ing
> > > > > the validity of the Mottershead Report, PInnes.
>
> > > > Well, either the server records are true, or I somehow changed them=
.
> > > > Whichever. Those are the only logical possibilities, and not partis=
an
> > > > ones.
>
> > > > So in fact I admit two things, not one. In my own case it would be
> > > > difficult to fix sover.net, and neither did I have opportunity to d=
o
> > > > so.
>
> > > > In the infamous case before the courts, who did have motive and
> > > > opportunity? =A0 ;)
>
> > > In the Illinois action to remove your feeders from the EB, it's clear
> > > the only person with "motive and opportunity" is Paul Truong. Unless
> > > you think USCF can fake a TN ISP's records.
>
> > The only question here is if Neil Brennan thinks at all?
>
> > > Well, either the server records are true, or I somehow changed them.
> > > Whichever. Those are the only logical possibilities, and not partisan
> > > ones.
>
> > And since Neil Brennen cannot admit to logic any more than can Taylor
> > Kingston, then these questions are blind to them. They see them not.
> > They see what is written, but are incurious to who writes it.
>
> > More of the same emotional stuff from them - ignoring the logical
> > possibilities entirely - and yet when just one piece of testimony is
> > presented them from the other side, as it were, they have not comment
> > at all on why USCF agents should change or suppress such testimony.
>
> Phil: I describe the extent of their interest, which does not extend
> to
> =A0conversation, but, as the GreatSpinradhas said of his own
> =A0orientation, to 'feelings'.
>
> Phil seems somewhat confused with basic reading comprehension here. He
> seemed to think I needed a lesson in logic, since I did not
> acknowledge that either Paul Truong is FSS or Paul Truong was framed.
By all means speak clearly - so far what we got is that: 'I seem...',
and what you did /not/ acknowledge.
Quote possibly you could work your way around to what you do think and
even acknowledge - and the proposition is simple as you admit
immediately:-
> I replied that I agreed with the logic, but, that since I feel Paul
But I am not asking you, Jerry Spinrad what you feel, nor stating
anything to do with your feelings, except that they seem extraneous to
resolving the issue, while quite evidently they motivate your writing
more than thinking as such. If you voluntarily introduce elements
unasked for in to a question, that is up to you.
> Truong is FSS, because there is no other plausible explanation for his
> computer being tied to the posts, that I see no logical necessity to
> look for who was framing Paul.
Laugh - what a lot hangs on that 'plausible.' An undefined term, I
note. But that is not a question, just an observation.
> Perhaps Phil does not realize that the word "feel" in this context is
> synonymous with "believe." Yes, my answer was based on my beliefs;
> this is not at all the same as the general usage of the term
> "feelings."
I think after reading these volunteered comments of what is not at all
the same, and after so many words about what certainly isn't logic,
nor anything I asked about, then I admit to a certain amount of
impatience to why this information is volunteered to me.
To admit the logic of who could have done it is not partisan, but
Jerry Spinrad is not happy with that, and wants to talk of his
feelings. While that is OK in terms of general context, or indeed, if
anyone had asked him about his feelings - what does Jerry Spinrad's
feelings have to do with rules of evidence in a court?
In this sense I am confused by Jerry Spinrad - what topic is he
addressing? Something completely subjective to his own state, or
objective virtues based on objective factors, and by others - ie, in a
court?
> Hope this clears it up! Since I know it is hard for Phil to admit to
> errors, I will simply admit that my sentence may have been hard to
> understand for someone of Phil's peculiar abilities, so please
> substitute "believe" for "feel" to get my intended meaning.
Jerry Spinrad is entirely content to believe and feel to his the
utmost limit of his ability - what that has to do with public issue of
these law suits is uncertain to me, as is why he writes about them,
and moreover, would be very uncertainly entertained by any court as
rules of evidence - which as he might know has to do with witness, not
beliefs or speculations.
That is generally what a court considers plausible.
Phil Innes
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > This, apparently, is the basis of their commentary.
>
> > PhilInnes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2009 12:34:50
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess journalist"
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:12:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>rules of evidence - which ... has to do with witness, not
>beliefs or speculations.
>That is generally what a court considers plausible.
Scenarios a court might consider plausible might not be supported by
available evidence. However, something considered as evidence must
be plausible.
If this were a graphic group, I'd draw a Venn Diagram for you.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2009 09:25:47
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 3:01=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 10:15=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 9:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved=
,
> > > > > since I have the server records about this issue, and several oth=
ers.
>
> > > > So you admit "sever records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirmin=
g
> > > > the validity of the Mottershead Report, PInnes.
>
> > > Well, either the server records are true, or I somehow changed them.
> > > Whichever. Those are the only logical possibilities, and not partisan
> > > ones.
>
> > > So in fact I admit two things, not one. In my own case it would be
> > > difficult to fix sover.net, and neither did I have opportunity to do
> > > so.
>
> > > In the infamous case before the courts, who did have motive and
> > > opportunity? =A0 ;)
>
> > In the Illinois action to remove your feeders from the EB, it's clear
> > the only person with "motive and opportunity" is Paul Truong. Unless
> > you think USCF can fake a TN ISP's records.
>
> The only question here is if Neil Brennan thinks at all?
>
> > Well, either the server records are true, or I somehow changed them.
> > Whichever. Those are the only logical possibilities, and not partisan
> > ones.
>
> And since Neil Brennen cannot admit to logic any more than can Taylor
> Kingston, then these questions are blind to them. They see them not.
> They see what is written, but are incurious to who writes it.
>
> More of the same emotional stuff from them - ignoring the logical
> possibilities entirely - and yet when just one piece of testimony is
> presented them from the other side, as it were, they have not comment
> at all on why USCF agents should change or suppress such testimony.
>
Phil: I describe the extent of their interest, which does not extend
to
conversation, but, as the GreatSpinradhas said of his own
orientation, to 'feelings'.
Phil seems somewhat confused with basic reading comprehension here. He
seemed to think I needed a lesson in logic, since I did not
acknowledge that either Paul Truong is FSS or Paul Truong was framed.
I replied that I agreed with the logic, but, that since I feel Paul
Truong is FSS, because there is no other plausible explanation for his
computer being tied to the posts, that I see no logical necessity to
look for who was framing Paul.
Perhaps Phil does not realize that the word "feel" in this context is
synonymous with "believe." Yes, my answer was based on my beliefs;
this is not at all the same as the general usage of the term
"feelings."
Hope this clears it up! Since I know it is hard for Phil to admit to
errors, I will simply admit that my sentence may have been hard to
understand for someone of Phil's peculiar abilities, so please
substitute "believe" for "feel" to get my intended meaning.
Jerry Spinrad
>
> This, apparently, is the basis of their commentary.
>
> PhilInnes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 17:15:04
From: help bot
Subject: The Kingston Files
|
On Jan 27, 7:38=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > If others should wish to consider their own harm, then I think the
> > gloves are off, since I gave you warning enough.
>
> > Look at you Kingston - you deny nothing, accept no objective means of
> > resolution, and continue to defame other people.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> =A0 "Sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I find this latest episode to be very amusing in
view of certain facts I discovered in my recent
review of a few postings relating to Dr. Blair and
his repeated skewerings of Mr. Parr (among
other rgc nitwits).
As it turns out the idle "threats", which have
inundated rgc for so long in regard to exposing
Mr. Kingston's purported crimes against
humanity, look rather silly to me now. I used
to ask /why/ Dr. IMnes refused to simply post
the emails he claims to have or to have once
had, but now I /know why/ and the reason is
quite funny, especially now that Dr. Blair has
ceased fire on rgc's most-prolific nitwits.
You see, a careful search of the archives (or,
as in my case, blind luck) reveals that once
upon a time, Dr. IMnes skewered himself by
insisting that he, as a moral man, could not in
good conscience post the information without
TK's express permission. Dr. IMnes followed
up his /posing in this moral stance/ by doing
precisely that-- and Dr. Blair took him to the
wood shed for a sound thrashing over it!
Ever since that whooping, Dr. IMnes has
remained silent on the matter or reverted
back to spewing threats and pretending he is
somehow constrained by his own pretense
to morality. It's very funny, when you think
about it. Perhaps Mr. Kingston could use
his "legendary" research skills to locate the
precise posting in which Dr. IMnes gave rgc
viewers a glimpse into the content of these
emails; or perhaps he will once again fail in
finding that which he is afraid of finding.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 16:38:47
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 7:11=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 6:23=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 6:16=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 6:06=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 27, 5:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 27, 5:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > All I want to see here is this e-mail or e-mails in which
> > > > > > you supposedly "told him [i.e. me] his KGB interviewee [i.e. Yu=
ri
> > > > > > Averbakh] would not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell =
the
> > > > > > truth."
>
> > > > > Well - that's better! OTOH, if you see it what happens?
>
> > > > =A0 Heck if I know, Phil. Show it, and we'll see.
>
> > > What do you mean? Did you send it or not - what depends on publishing
> > > your e-mails or not?
>
> > =A0 Um, Phil, in case you haven't noticed, I'm talking about something
> > YOU claim to have sent me,
>
> You are not talking about anything. I saying you DID send me
> materials, not that I claim I sent you, etc.
>
> You deny your own actions and yet want to still pose here?
>
> I think that's enough for an action on my part - after all, I asked
> you numerous times plain questions about what you did, but you cannot
> admit even the question put to you! Instead you invert the issue, as
> if I claim something I sent you.
>
> I think, considering your message does me damage, considerably and
> repeatedly that we should resolve matters. Do you say anywhere that
> the server records should prove the issue>?
>
>
>
>
>
> > not the other way around. Your dyslexia is
> > getting really bad.
>
> > > You seem to deny you even sent them, while doing your usual shit as i=
f
> > > you had not. I challenge you more formally, and legally if you want i=
n
> > > THE KINGSTON FILES.
>
> > > So, mouth - you say what next.
>
> > > But if you only equivocate, then I feel abused, you do injury to me,
> > > deny objective resolution, and I will take appropriate action.
> > > Understand?
>
> > =A0 Yes, Phil, your loud and frequent but impotent threats of legal
> > action are well known here. Personally, I find it hard to worry about
> > a guy who obviously can't even read.
>
> You do not speak about any objective means of resolution - and you
> consciously avoid that topic, so let us now see who is impotent in
> your disgusting language.
>
> OK, brave mouth? YOU do not deny you sent we any material, and you do
> not honor how we should resolve it you did.
>
> That alone should be enough for the public record, and all here to
> see.
>
> If I make public your messages to me it is therefore on the basis that
> you avoid the issue in this way, while abusing me, and thus causing
> actual harm.
>
> If others should wish to consider their own harm, then I think the
> gloves are off, since I gave you warning enough.
>
> Look at you Kingston - you deny nothing, accept no objective means of
> resolution, and continue to defame other people.
>
> Phil Innes
"Sound and fury, signifying nothing."
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 16:37:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 5:40=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Innes has claimed to be "nearly an IM" whereas Taylor Kingston claimed
> to have had a 2300+ Elo.
>
> =A0I am but a poor 1900 player, but I am willing to play them both,
> simultaneously, for cash money.
Oh, no. What the public wants to see is a match
*on equal terms*; none of that nonsense where one
side "demands" an unfair advantage, thus giving his
opponent's apologists reasons galore as to why the
loss doesn't really count.
The public wants to see single matches, one on
one, against any and all comers. Any ducking of
reasonable challenges shall be judged by the public
at face value, and rightly so. Just as when Mr.
Staunton intelligently, but cowardly, ducked Mr.
Morphy, the public will know what's what. And we
know that blowhards like the twins from Vermont
are afraid... very afraid of Mr. Sloan's demonstrated
chess skill.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 16:11:43
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 6:23=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 6:16=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 6:06=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 5:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 27, 5:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > All I want to see here is this e-mail or e-mails in which
> > > > > you supposedly "told him [i.e. me] his KGB interviewee [i.e. Yuri
> > > > > Averbakh] would not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell th=
e
> > > > > truth."
>
> > > > Well - that's better! OTOH, if you see it what happens?
>
> > > =A0 Heck if I know, Phil. Show it, and we'll see.
>
> > What do you mean? Did you send it or not - what depends on publishing
> > your e-mails or not?
>
> =A0 Um, Phil, in case you haven't noticed, I'm talking about something
> YOU claim to have sent me,
You are not talking about anything. I saying you DID send me
materials, not that I claim I sent you, etc.
You deny your own actions and yet want to still pose here?
I think that's enough for an action on my part - after all, I asked
you numerous times plain questions about what you did, but you cannot
admit even the question put to you! Instead you invert the issue, as
if I claim something I sent you.
I think, considering your message does me damage, considerably and
repeatedly that we should resolve matters. Do you say anywhere that
the server records should prove the issue >?
> not the other way around. Your dyslexia is
> getting really bad.
>
> > You seem to deny you even sent them, while doing your usual shit as if
> > you had not. I challenge you more formally, and legally if you want in
> > THE KINGSTON FILES.
>
> > So, mouth - you say what next.
>
> > But if you only equivocate, then I feel abused, you do injury to me,
> > deny objective resolution, and I will take appropriate action.
> > Understand?
>
> =A0 Yes, Phil, your loud and frequent but impotent threats of legal
> action are well known here. Personally, I find it hard to worry about
> a guy who obviously can't even read.
You do not speak about any objective means of resolution - and you
consciously avoid that topic, so let us now see who is impotent in
your disgusting language.
OK, brave mouth? YOU do not deny you sent we any material, and you do
not honor how we should resolve it you did.
That alone should be enough for the public record, and all here to
see.
If I make public your messages to me it is therefore on the basis that
you avoid the issue in this way, while abusing me, and thus causing
actual harm.
If others should wish to consider their own harm, then I think the
gloves are off, since I gave you warning enough.
Look at you Kingston - you deny nothing, accept no objective means of
resolution, and continue to defame other people.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 15:23:41
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 6:16=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 6:06=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 5:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 5:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > All I want to see here is this e-mail or e-mails in which
> > > > you supposedly "told him [i.e. me] his KGB interviewee [i.e. Yuri
> > > > Averbakh] would not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the
> > > > truth."
>
> > > Well - that's better! OTOH, if you see it what happens?
>
> > =A0 Heck if I know, Phil. Show it, and we'll see.
>
> What do you mean? Did you send it or not - what depends on publishing
> your e-mails or not?
Um, Phil, in case you haven't noticed, I'm talking about something
YOU claim to have sent me, not the other way around. Your dyslexia is
getting really bad.
> You seem to deny you even sent them, while doing your usual shit as if
> you had not. I challenge you more formally, and legally if you want in
> THE KINGSTON FILES.
>
> So, mouth - you say what next.
>
> But if you only equivocate, then I feel abused, you do injury to me,
> deny objective resolution, and I will take appropriate action.
> Understand?
Yes, Phil, your loud and frequent but impotent threats of legal
action are well known here. Personally, I find it hard to worry about
a guy who obviously can't even read.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 15:22:36
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 6:06=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 5:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > All I want to see here is this e-mail or e-mails in which
> > > you supposedly "told him [i.e. me] his KGB interviewee [i.e. Yuri
> > > Averbakh] would not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the
> > > truth."
>
> > Well - that's better! OTOH, if you see it what happens?
>
> =A0 Heck if I know, Phil. Show it, and we'll see.
Answer the whole post Kingston, and then we will all see. I am sort of
sick of your shit, so go ahead, tease me! I offered you to answer
staright, and you don't.
'We'll' see, meaning you will own it or not? But I SAY out mutual
server records will.
You skip that Kingston. But go ahead, make my tea! [as we say in
England]
I will put up all your stuff, since I am not offering to do so on YOUR
conditions but OBJECTIVE conditions such as server records.
Say you understand it, or cut the challenge as usual because you are
as you are.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 15:16:59
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 6:06=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 5:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > All I want to see here is this e-mail or e-mails in which
> > > you supposedly "told him [i.e. me] his KGB interviewee [i.e. Yuri
> > > Averbakh] would not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the
> > > truth."
>
> > Well - that's better! OTOH, if you see it what happens?
>
> =A0 Heck if I know, Phil. Show it, and we'll see.
What do you mean? Did you send it or not - what depends on publishing
your e-mails or not?
You seem to deny you even sent them, while doing your usual shit as if
you had not. I challenge you more formally, and legally if you want in
THE KINGSTON FILES.
So, mouth - you say what next.
But if you only equivocate, then I feel abused, you do injury to me,
deny objective resolution, and I will take appropriate action.
Understand?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 15:11:43
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 5:40=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 4:40=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And what could be
> > more alike than the way in which these two
> > chaps have both layed claim to /very high/ ratings
> > or titles, which are not backed in any way by
> > their actual OTB performances as recorded by
> > the USCF.
> > =A0 -- help bot
>
> Good point, thank you.
>
> Innes has claimed to be "nearly an IM" whereas Taylor Kingston claimed
> to have had a 2300+ Elo.
>
> =A0I am but a poor 1900 player, but I am willing to play them both,
> simultaneously, for cash money.
You ignore my message about how the rest of us play, any why? Seems to
me Samantha is a good term for you, the 8,000 messages a year denial
that you wanna be a Jewish Princess.
You a man Sloan? You act like an adolescent. You should not be in
charge of anything except your own dreams.
Let us known if you ever emerge from this scheme you think yourself
in, and want to play level, rather than *special*.
This message should be archived by the bullying dope who usually
writes it should be, but also note taken by even Sloan supporters here
that he is a coward, will not join in where the rest of us do, and
insists on being a *special* person.
Being *special* could be like the last President, or like Neil Brennan
on sex, or in this instance the Sloan on being a being a bloke like
the rest of us are.
:)
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 15:06:33
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 5:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > All I want to see here is this e-mail or e-mails in which
> > you supposedly "told him [i.e. me] his KGB interviewee [i.e. Yuri
> > Averbakh] would not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the
> > truth."
>
> Well - that's better! OTOH, if you see it what happens?
Heck if I know, Phil. Show it, and we'll see.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:57:31
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 5:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:15=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 4:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 4:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 27, 10:26=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > =A0 So, where's them smoking-gun e-mails you supposedly sent me i=
n
> > > > > mid-2002, dishing the dirt on Yuri Averbakh?
>
> > > > Are you asking me to publish them, or by your writing saying they d=
o
> > > > not exist?
>
> > > =A0 Heck, Phil, you're the one claiming they exist. You say you wrote
> > > them!
>
> > What I say is that you wrote them? Shall we continue, or do you deny
> > you did? Naturally you will make some equivocal further comment which
> > reflects your shame and guilt, and even fear!
>
> > So do you actually say you did not write to me on these subjects?
> > What /are/ you saying, Kingston? And to parse the rest of this, what
> > are you asking me?
>
> > > > Remember, the subject was the fucking-over of refuseniks in
> > > > the SU. If you did write them - so what? If I produce them, what th=
en?
>
> > > =A0 Phil, learn to read accurately. I'm not talking about any e-mails
> > > *_I_* wrote. I'm talking about the one or ones in which you claim you
> > > told me dirt about Yuri Averbakh.
>
> > You make it seem as if I write you - whereas you wrote me.
>
> > Of course, you do not want people to see this correspondence since
> > your posturing would be exposed, heh? So you say neither one thing nor
> > the other.
>
> > > I quote your post of two days ago,
> > > January 25: "I told him his KGB interviewee would not, in the opinion
> > > of 2 Russian soruces, tell the truth."
>
> > Yes - I did say that. But what are you saying?
>
> > a) you never wrote to me about it in the first place on your own
> > intiative, and
> > b) that the source was not told to you, then
> > c) that you ignored it, and later told the newsgroup that you were
> > 'underpreparted', a lie denying your complicity in not mentining
> > suppression of Jews in Russian chess?
>
> > Let's be specific on /all/ these points Kingston, since you challenge
> > all.
>
> > > > Come on, brave mouth, and ask not what you know you did - but say i=
f
> > > > you did write them or not -
>
> > > =A0 I say quite clearly that I did not write any e-mails that you wro=
te.
> > > That's not a very tough question, Phil.
>
> > You cannot write any e-mails that I wrote is a nonsense statement.
> > What sort of idiotic response is this? What e-mails did you write me?
>
> > Shall we review them? Are you contesting Kingston you wrote me some
> > thirty of them on Russian chess and Averbakh in particular, then on
> > Evans?
>
> > > > and if I publish them, then what will your
> > > > mouth do?
>
> > > =A0 If you publish these e-mails you claim to have written, then I wi=
ll
> > > read them, but not with my mouth.
>
> > What can this mean? Does Taylor Kingston seem to deny these e-mails?
>
> > > > That's a challenge to your mouth, Kingston.
>
> > > =A0 No, Phil. I read with my eyes. You are free to use different meth=
ods
> > > if you like.
>
> > Like server records?
>
> > Come on, brave mouth - you actually deny nothing of what I say, you
> > sort of slime around it.
>
> > I say it is as I record it here, and I also say I have kept the e-
> > mails as proof.
>
> > Does Kingston protest one thing or all things?
>
> > Let it be known this is a challenge to him, and if he disputes it - he
> > should say so clearly, and also the means of resolution - such that if
> > I show his own messages, then he will resolve the truth of them not by
> > if he wants them shown in public!!!
>
> > But by server records which show his messages to me, and my responses
> > to him.
>
> > OK Kingston? Or you prefer some means of contesting the issue
> > otherwise? =A0;)))))
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> =A0 Phil, what I've said is quite clear.
LOL 'what' you said?
> Only you could fail to
> understand it.
LOL 'It'?
Great start, Vaguer.
> You're doing your usual wild dance of obfuscatory
> nonsense.
Did you mention a topic yet? If people didn;t know what it was, would
they think you were being vague?
> All I want to see here is this e-mail or e-mails in which
> you supposedly "told him [i.e. me] his KGB interviewee [i.e. Yuri
> Averbakh] would not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the
> truth."
Well - that's better! OTOH, if you see it what happens? You write like
you deny receiving such information, and you previously wrote to the
effect that you never asked for it!!!
So if you get it, your own request, plus response, what happens?
> =A0 Since this would be something *_you_* wrote, you do not need
> anyone's permission to show it. So go ahead, if you actually have it.
I'm sorry - that is a sorry way to go about denying you asked for
information, got it, and acted nothing on it. I started anoptyher
thread which challenges you to speak true - since otherwise it seems
to me you speak false, and I also suggest the consequences for you to
continuously deny your own part in things.
Weasel words are no out. Read the challenge and respond if you wish to
- but I alert you Kingston, you chance formal and legal challenges to
what you wrote. From me, from others.
Speak plainer there, or pass - as will occur to your wit and pocket
book.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:40:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 4:40=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> And what could be
> more alike than the way in which these two
> chaps have both layed claim to /very high/ ratings
> or titles, which are not backed in any way by
> their actual OTB performances as recorded by
> the USCF.
> =A0 -- help bot
Good point, thank you.
Innes has claimed to be "nearly an IM" whereas Taylor Kingston claimed
to have had a 2300+ Elo.
I am but a poor 1900 player, but I am willing to play them both,
simultaneously, for cash money.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:38:52
From: None
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 2:14=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2:09=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 9:17=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved=
,
> > > > > since I have the server records about this issue, and several oth=
ers.
>
> > > > So you admit "server records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirmi=
ng
> > > > the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
>
> > > =A0 Oh no, for Phil no amount of factual evidence is sufficient to pr=
ove
> > > something he disagrees with. There might be eye-witnesses, videotapes=
,
> > > photographs, smoking guns and stone tablets attesting to the truth of
> > > something, but if it's not what Phil wants to believe, then it is not
> > > enough.
> > > =A0 On the other hand, if Phil wants to believe something, the least
> > > shred of evidence, the slightest residue of an evidence-like
> > > substance, or nothing like evidence at all, is quite sufficient to
> > > make it an iron-clad certainty for him.
>
> > =A0Oh no, for Phil no amount of factual evidence is sufficient to prove
> > something he disagrees with. There might be eye-witnesses,
> > videotapes,
> > photographs, smoking guns and stone tablets attesting to the truth of
> > something, but if it's not what Phil wants to believe, then it is not
> > enough. - Taylor Kingston
>
> > =A0 Whoaaa, I thought you and Phil were now bosom buddies
>
> =A0 You haven't been here long, have you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
About a dozen years on and off. My name is Edward Winters but youse
don't have to call me Edward, youse can call me Ed or youse can call
me Eddie but youse don't have to call me Edward.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:29:21
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 5:15=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 4:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 4:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 10:26=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > =A0 So, where's them smoking-gun e-mails you supposedly sent me in
> > > > mid-2002, dishing the dirt on Yuri Averbakh?
>
> > > Are you asking me to publish them, or by your writing saying they do
> > > not exist?
>
> > =A0 Heck, Phil, you're the one claiming they exist. You say you wrote
> > them!
>
> What I say is that you wrote them? Shall we continue, or do you deny
> you did? Naturally you will make some equivocal further comment which
> reflects your shame and guilt, and even fear!
>
> So do you actually say you did not write to me on these subjects?
> What /are/ you saying, Kingston? And to parse the rest of this, what
> are you asking me?
>
> > > Remember, the subject was the fucking-over of refuseniks in
> > > the SU. If you did write them - so what? If I produce them, what then=
?
>
> > =A0 Phil, learn to read accurately. I'm not talking about any e-mails
> > *_I_* wrote. I'm talking about the one or ones in which you claim you
> > told me dirt about Yuri Averbakh.
>
> You make it seem as if I write you - whereas you wrote me.
>
> Of course, you do not want people to see this correspondence since
> your posturing would be exposed, heh? So you say neither one thing nor
> the other.
>
> > I quote your post of two days ago,
> > January 25: "I told him his KGB interviewee would not, in the opinion
> > of 2 Russian soruces, tell the truth."
>
> Yes - I did say that. But what are you saying?
>
> a) you never wrote to me about it in the first place on your own
> intiative, and
> b) that the source was not told to you, then
> c) that you ignored it, and later told the newsgroup that you were
> 'underpreparted', a lie denying your complicity in not mentining
> suppression of Jews in Russian chess?
>
> Let's be specific on /all/ these points Kingston, since you challenge
> all.
>
> > > Come on, brave mouth, and ask not what you know you did - but say if
> > > you did write them or not -
>
> > =A0 I say quite clearly that I did not write any e-mails that you wrote=
.
> > That's not a very tough question, Phil.
>
> You cannot write any e-mails that I wrote is a nonsense statement.
> What sort of idiotic response is this? What e-mails did you write me?
>
> Shall we review them? Are you contesting Kingston you wrote me some
> thirty of them on Russian chess and Averbakh in particular, then on
> Evans?
>
> > > and if I publish them, then what will your
> > > mouth do?
>
> > =A0 If you publish these e-mails you claim to have written, then I will
> > read them, but not with my mouth.
>
> What can this mean? Does Taylor Kingston seem to deny these e-mails?
>
> > > That's a challenge to your mouth, Kingston.
>
> > =A0 No, Phil. I read with my eyes. You are free to use different method=
s
> > if you like.
>
> Like server records?
>
> Come on, brave mouth - you actually deny nothing of what I say, you
> sort of slime around it.
>
> I say it is as I record it here, and I also say I have kept the e-
> mails as proof.
>
> Does Kingston protest one thing or all things?
>
> Let it be known this is a challenge to him, and if he disputes it - he
> should say so clearly, and also the means of resolution - such that if
> I show his own messages, then he will resolve the truth of them not by
> if he wants them shown in public!!!
>
> But by server records which show his messages to me, and my responses
> to him.
>
> OK Kingston? Or you prefer some means of contesting the issue
> otherwise? =A0;)))))
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, what I've said is quite clear. Only you could fail to
understand it. You're doing your usual wild dance of obfuscatory
nonsense. All I want to see here is this e-mail or e-mails in which
you supposedly "told him [i.e. me] his KGB interviewee [i.e. Yuri
Averbakh] would not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the
truth."
Since this would be something *_you_* wrote, you do not need
anyone's permission to show it. So go ahead, if you actually have it.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:27:47
From: None
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 5:15=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 4:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 4:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 10:26=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > =A0 So, where's them smoking-gun e-mails you supposedly sent me in
> > > > mid-2002, dishing the dirt on Yuri Averbakh?
>
> > > Are you asking me to publish them, or by your writing saying they do
> > > not exist?
>
> > =A0 Heck, Phil, you're the one claiming they exist. You say you wrote
> > them!
>
> What I say is that you wrote them? Shall we continue, or do you deny
> you did? Naturally you will make some equivocal further comment which
> reflects your shame and guilt, and even fear!
>
> So do you actually say you did not write to me on these subjects?
> What /are/ you saying, Kingston? And to parse the rest of this, what
> are you asking me?
>
> > > Remember, the subject was the fucking-over of refuseniks in
> > > the SU. If you did write them - so what? If I produce them, what then=
?
>
> > =A0 Phil, learn to read accurately. I'm not talking about any e-mails
> > *_I_* wrote. I'm talking about the one or ones in which you claim you
> > told me dirt about Yuri Averbakh.
>
> You make it seem as if I write you - whereas you wrote me.
>
> Of course, you do not want people to see this correspondence since
> your posturing would be exposed, heh? So you say neither one thing nor
> the other.
>
> > I quote your post of two days ago,
> > January 25: "I told him his KGB interviewee would not, in the opinion
> > of 2 Russian soruces, tell the truth."
>
> Yes - I did say that. But what are you saying?
>
> a) you never wrote to me about it in the first place on your own
> intiative, and
> b) that the source was not told to you, then
> c) that you ignored it, and later told the newsgroup that you were
> 'underpreparted', a lie denying your complicity in not mentining
> suppression of Jews in Russian chess?
>
> Let's be specific on /all/ these points Kingston, since you challenge
> all.
>
> > > Come on, brave mouth, and ask not what you know you did - but say if
> > > you did write them or not -
>
> > =A0 I say quite clearly that I did not write any e-mails that you wrote=
.
> > That's not a very tough question, Phil.
>
> You cannot write any e-mails that I wrote is a nonsense statement.
> What sort of idiotic response is this? What e-mails did you write me?
>
> Shall we review them? Are you contesting Kingston you wrote me some
> thirty of them on Russian chess and Averbakh in particular, then on
> Evans?
>
> > > and if I publish them, then what will your
> > > mouth do?
>
> > =A0 If you publish these e-mails you claim to have written, then I will
> > read them, but not with my mouth.
>
> What can this mean? Does Taylor Kingston seem to deny these e-mails?
>
> > > That's a challenge to your mouth, Kingston.
>
> > =A0 No, Phil. I read with my eyes. You are free to use different method=
s
> > if you like.
>
> Like server records?
>
> Come on, brave mouth - you actually deny nothing of what I say, you
> sort of slime around it.
>
> I say it is as I record it here, and I also say I have kept the e-
> mails as proof.
>
> Does Kingston protest one thing or all things?
>
> Let it be known this is a challenge to him, and if he disputes it - he
> should say so clearly, and also the means of resolution - such that if
> I show his own messages, then he will resolve the truth of them not by
> if he wants them shown in public!!!
>
> But by server records which show his messages to me, and my responses
> to him.
>
> OK Kingston? Or you prefer some means of contesting the issue
> otherwise? =A0;)))))
>
> Phil Innes
OK Kingston? Or you prefer some means of contesting the issue
otherwise? ;))))) - Phil Innes
May I suggest a pissing match? Whoever can piss the fartherest doesn't
get wet and therefore wins.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:15:43
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 4:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 4:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 10:26=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 So, where's them smoking-gun e-mails you supposedly sent me in
> > > mid-2002, dishing the dirt on Yuri Averbakh?
>
> > Are you asking me to publish them, or by your writing saying they do
> > not exist?
>
> =A0 Heck, Phil, you're the one claiming they exist. You say you wrote
> them!
What I say is that you wrote them? Shall we continue, or do you deny
you did? Naturally you will make some equivocal further comment which
reflects your shame and guilt, and even fear!
So do you actually say you did not write to me on these subjects?
What /are/ you saying, Kingston? And to parse the rest of this, what
are you asking me?
> > Remember, the subject was the fucking-over of refuseniks in
> > the SU. If you did write them - so what? If I produce them, what then?
>
> =A0 Phil, learn to read accurately. I'm not talking about any e-mails
> *_I_* wrote. I'm talking about the one or ones in which you claim you
> told me dirt about Yuri Averbakh.
You make it seem as if I write you - whereas you wrote me.
Of course, you do not want people to see this correspondence since
your posturing would be exposed, heh? So you say neither one thing nor
the other.
> I quote your post of two days ago,
> January 25: "I told him his KGB interviewee would not, in the opinion
> of 2 Russian soruces, tell the truth."
Yes - I did say that. But what are you saying?
a) you never wrote to me about it in the first place on your own
intiative, and
b) that the source was not told to you, then
c) that you ignored it, and later told the newsgroup that you were
'underpreparted', a lie denying your complicity in not mentining
suppression of Jews in Russian chess?
Let's be specific on /all/ these points Kingston, since you challenge
all.
> > Come on, brave mouth, and ask not what you know you did - but say if
> > you did write them or not -
>
> =A0 I say quite clearly that I did not write any e-mails that you wrote.
> That's not a very tough question, Phil.
You cannot write any e-mails that I wrote is a nonsense statement.
What sort of idiotic response is this? What e-mails did you write me?
Shall we review them? Are you contesting Kingston you wrote me some
thirty of them on Russian chess and Averbakh in particular, then on
Evans?
> > and if I publish them, then what will your
> > mouth do?
>
> =A0 If you publish these e-mails you claim to have written, then I will
> read them, but not with my mouth.
What can this mean? Does Taylor Kingston seem to deny these e-mails?
> > That's a challenge to your mouth, Kingston.
>
> =A0 No, Phil. I read with my eyes. You are free to use different methods
> if you like.
Like server records?
Come on, brave mouth - you actually deny nothing of what I say, you
sort of slime around it.
I say it is as I record it here, and I also say I have kept the e-
mails as proof.
Does Kingston protest one thing or all things?
Let it be known this is a challenge to him, and if he disputes it - he
should say so clearly, and also the means of resolution - such that if
I show his own messages, then he will resolve the truth of them not by
if he wants them shown in public!!!
But by server records which show his messages to me, and my responses
to him.
OK Kingston? Or you prefer some means of contesting the issue
otherwise? ;)))))
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:44:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 4:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 So, where's them smoking-gun e-mails you supposedly sent me in
> > mid-2002, dishing the dirt on Yuri Averbakh?
>
> Are you asking me to publish them, or by your writing saying they do
> not exist? Remember, the subject was the fucking-over of refuseniks in
> the SU. If you did write them - so what? If I produce them, what then?
>
> Come on, brave mouth, and ask not what you know you did - but say if
> you did write them or not - and if I publish them, then what will your
> mouth do?
If?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:40:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 2:09=A0pm, None <[email protected] > wrote:
> Whoaaa, I thought you and Phil were now bosom buddies, even asshole
> buddies.
The fact that both are frightened of Mr. Sloan's
OTB prowess does not constitute evidence of
being bosum buddies. It may, however, indicate
that Mr. Sloan is widely feared by pretentious
Vermont chess players. Maybe they both saw
the way Mr. Brock was "manhandled", and thus
think it wise to duck rather than risk suffering a
similar fate.
The truth is, these two probably grate upon
one another because as they say, opposites
attract while *likes repel*. And what could be
more alike than the way in which these two
chaps have both layed claim to /very high/ ratings
or titles, which are not backed in any way by
their actual OTB performances as recorded by
the USCF. While Dr. IMnes apparently lifts
entire passages from the pages of books to
present here as his own -- later deflecting any
criticisms as not applying specifically to what
he wrote but to someone else -- Mr. Kingston
seems to like having stacks of books on the
table from which to find, or not find, depending
on his whims, passages or ideas.
How such pretentious men can stand them-
selves after cowering from a challenge by the
likes of Mr. Sloan, escapes me. I would
expect the opposite: overwhelming over-
confidence and recklessness, charging on to
slay the Sloan-dragon, barehanded and
without even bothering to saddle horses... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:29:39
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 4:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 10:26=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 So, where's them smoking-gun e-mails you supposedly sent me in
> > mid-2002, dishing the dirt on Yuri Averbakh?
>
> Are you asking me to publish them, or by your writing saying they do
> not exist?
Heck, Phil, you're the one claiming they exist. You say you wrote
them!
> Remember, the subject was the fucking-over of refuseniks in
> the SU. If you did write them - so what? If I produce them, what then?
Phil, learn to read accurately. I'm not talking about any e-mails
*_I_* wrote. I'm talking about the one or ones in which you claim you
told me dirt about Yuri Averbakh. I quote your post of two days ago,
January 25: "I told him his KGB interviewee would not, in the opinion
of 2 Russian soruces, tell the truth."
> Come on, brave mouth, and ask not what you know you did - but say if
> you did write them or not -
I say quite clearly that I did not write any e-mails that you wrote.
That's not a very tough question, Phil.
> and if I publish them, then what will your
> mouth do?
If you publish these e-mails you claim to have written, then I will
read them, but not with my mouth.
> That's a challenge to your mouth, Kingston.
No, Phil. I read with my eyes. You are free to use different methods
if you like.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:07:28
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 10:26=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 10:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 9:17=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved=
,
> > > > > since I have the server records about this issue, and several oth=
ers.
>
> > > > So you admit "server records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirmi=
ng
> > > > the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
>
> > > =A0 Oh no, for Phil no amount of factual evidence is sufficient to pr=
ove
> > > something he disagrees with. There might be eye-witnesses, videotapes=
,
> > > photographs, smoking guns and stone tablets attesting to the truth of
>
> > There might be metaphors too.
>
> > What 'I don't get it' Kingston argues with is logic. I merely state
> > there are 2 possibilities, that the accused did it, or the accused was
> > framed. Period! That is no partisan stance.
>
> > The rest of this missive by Kingston rests on his 'might', whereas
> > surely even he can understand that for every 'might' there is a 'might
> > not'?
>
> > > something, but if it's not what Phil wants to believe, then it is not
> > > enough.
>
> > I do not think I have mentioned my 'beliefs'. I did mention a one-
> > sided approach by Gambit, and the absence of reporting what the other
> > side say.
>
> > Is being fair in this way, 'belief'?
>
> > > =A0 On the other hand, if Phil wants to believe something, the least
> > > shred of evidence, the slightest residue of an evidence-like
>
> > Taylor Kingston here refers to testimony, some of which may actually
> > become evidence. What he intellectually cannot grasp is that this is
> > 'evidence' from one side - and in legal cases there are 2 sides, and
> > many many people like to hear both! =A0:)
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > > substance, or nothing like evidence at all, is quite sufficient to
> > > make it an iron-clad certainty for him.
>
> =A0 Um, Phil, in case you didn't understand: my post was not a comment
> on the Trolgar/FSS case, on which I retain an indifferent, agnostic
> attitude. It was a comment on your general adherence
bollocks! it was directly about a lawsuit issue, and what you
generally think about a specific is not worth entertaining, you twit!
Since we only understand from you such as Sprinrad Speaks - it is all
his feelings.
What has that to do with others?
> to a double
> standard on matters requiring factual evidence.
Taylor Kingston does not ask why NY Times blog Gambit reports only one
side of things - instead he says I do not like double standards :)))
What a dork!
> =A0 So, where's them smoking-gun e-mails you supposedly sent me in
> mid-2002, dishing the dirt on Yuri Averbakh?
Are you asking me to publish them, or by your writing saying they do
not exist? Remember, the subject was the fucking-over of refuseniks in
the SU. If you did write them - so what? If I produce them, what then?
Come on, brave mouth, and ask not what you know you did - but say if
you did write them or not - and if I publish them, then what will your
mouth do?
That's a challenge to your mouth, Kingston.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:01:25
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 10:15=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > > > since I have the server records about this issue, and several other=
s.
>
> > > So you admit "sever records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirming
> > > the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
>
> > Well, either the server records are true, or I somehow changed them.
> > Whichever. Those are the only logical possibilities, and not partisan
> > ones.
>
> > So in fact I admit two things, not one. In my own case it would be
> > difficult to fix sover.net, and neither did I have opportunity to do
> > so.
>
> > In the infamous case before the courts, who did have motive and
> > opportunity? =A0 ;)
>
> In the Illinois action to remove your feeders from the EB, it's clear
> the only person with "motive and opportunity" is Paul Truong. Unless
> you think USCF can fake a TN ISP's records.
The only question here is if Neil Brennan thinks at all?
> Well, either the server records are true, or I somehow changed them.
> Whichever. Those are the only logical possibilities, and not partisan
> ones.
And since Neil Brennen cannot admit to logic any more than can Taylor
Kingston, then these questions are blind to them. They see them not.
They see what is written, but are incurious to who writes it.
More of the same emotional stuff from them - ignoring the logical
possibilities entirely - and yet when just one piece of testimony is
presented them from the other side, as it were, they have not comment
at all on why USCF agents should change or suppress such testimony.
I describe the extent of their interest, which does not extend to
conversation, but, as the Great Spinrad has said of his own
orientation, to 'feelings'.
This, apparently, is the basis of their commentary.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 11:14:30
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 2:09=A0pm, None <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:17=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > > > since I have the server records about this issue, and several other=
s.
>
> > > So you admit "server records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirming
> > > the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
>
> > =A0 Oh no, for Phil no amount of factual evidence is sufficient to prov=
e
> > something he disagrees with. There might be eye-witnesses, videotapes,
> > photographs, smoking guns and stone tablets attesting to the truth of
> > something, but if it's not what Phil wants to believe, then it is not
> > enough.
> > =A0 On the other hand, if Phil wants to believe something, the least
> > shred of evidence, the slightest residue of an evidence-like
> > substance, or nothing like evidence at all, is quite sufficient to
> > make it an iron-clad certainty for him.
>
> =A0Oh no, for Phil no amount of factual evidence is sufficient to prove
> something he disagrees with. There might be eye-witnesses,
> videotapes,
> photographs, smoking guns and stone tablets attesting to the truth of
> something, but if it's not what Phil wants to believe, then it is not
> enough. - Taylor Kingston
>
> Whoaaa, I thought you and Phil were now bosom buddies
You haven't been here long, have you?
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 11:09:49
From: None
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 9:17=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > > since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
>
> > So you admit "server records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirming
> > the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
>
> =A0 Oh no, for Phil no amount of factual evidence is sufficient to prove
> something he disagrees with. There might be eye-witnesses, videotapes,
> photographs, smoking guns and stone tablets attesting to the truth of
> something, but if it's not what Phil wants to believe, then it is not
> enough.
> =A0 On the other hand, if Phil wants to believe something, the least
> shred of evidence, the slightest residue of an evidence-like
> substance, or nothing like evidence at all, is quite sufficient to
> make it an iron-clad certainty for him.
Oh no, for Phil no amount of factual evidence is sufficient to prove
something he disagrees with. There might be eye-witnesses,
videotapes,
photographs, smoking guns and stone tablets attesting to the truth of
something, but if it's not what Phil wants to believe, then it is not
enough. - Taylor Kingston
Whoaaa, I thought you and Phil were now bosom buddies, even asshole
buddies.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:26:29
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 10:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:17=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > > > since I have the server records about this issue, and several other=
s.
>
> > > So you admit "server records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirming
> > > the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
>
> > =A0 Oh no, for Phil no amount of factual evidence is sufficient to prov=
e
> > something he disagrees with. There might be eye-witnesses, videotapes,
> > photographs, smoking guns and stone tablets attesting to the truth of
>
> There might be metaphors too.
>
> What 'I don't get it' Kingston argues with is logic. I merely state
> there are 2 possibilities, that the accused did it, or the accused was
> framed. Period! That is no partisan stance.
>
> The rest of this missive by Kingston rests on his 'might', whereas
> surely even he can understand that for every 'might' there is a 'might
> not'?
>
> > something, but if it's not what Phil wants to believe, then it is not
> > enough.
>
> I do not think I have mentioned my 'beliefs'. I did mention a one-
> sided approach by Gambit, and the absence of reporting what the other
> side say.
>
> Is being fair in this way, 'belief'?
>
> > =A0 On the other hand, if Phil wants to believe something, the least
> > shred of evidence, the slightest residue of an evidence-like
>
> Taylor Kingston here refers to testimony, some of which may actually
> become evidence. What he intellectually cannot grasp is that this is
> 'evidence' from one side - and in legal cases there are 2 sides, and
> many many people like to hear both! =A0:)
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > substance, or nothing like evidence at all, is quite sufficient to
> > make it an iron-clad certainty for him.
Um, Phil, in case you didn't understand: my post was not a comment
on the Trolgar/FSS case, on which I retain an indifferent, agnostic
attitude. It was a comment on your general adherence to a double
standard on matters requiring factual evidence.
So, where's them smoking-gun e-mails you supposedly sent me in
mid-2002, dishing the dirt on Yuri Averbakh?
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:15:54
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 9:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > > since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
>
> > So you admit "sever records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirming
> > the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
>
> Well, either the server records are true, or I somehow changed them.
> Whichever. Those are the only logical possibilities, and not partisan
> ones.
>
> So in fact I admit two things, not one. In my own case it would be
> difficult to fix sover.net, and neither did I have opportunity to do
> so.
>
> In the infamous case before the courts, who did have motive and
> opportunity? =A0 ;)
In the Illinois action to remove your feeders from the EB, it's clear
the only person with "motive and opportunity" is Paul Truong. Unless
you think USCF can fake a TN ISP's records.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:10:03
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 9:17=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > > since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
>
> > So you admit "server records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirming
> > the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
>
> =A0 Oh no, for Phil no amount of factual evidence is sufficient to prove
> something he disagrees with. There might be eye-witnesses, videotapes,
> photographs, smoking guns and stone tablets attesting to the truth of
There might be metaphors too.
What 'I don't get it' Kingston argues with is logic. I merely state
there are 2 possibilities, that the accused did it, or the accused was
framed. Period! That is no partisan stance.
The rest of this missive by Kingston rests on his 'might', whereas
surely even he can understand that for every 'might' there is a 'might
not'?
> something, but if it's not what Phil wants to believe, then it is not
> enough.
I do not think I have mentioned my 'beliefs'. I did mention a one-
sided approach by Gambit, and the absence of reporting what the other
side say.
Is being fair in this way, 'belief'?
> =A0 On the other hand, if Phil wants to believe something, the least
> shred of evidence, the slightest residue of an evidence-like
Taylor Kingston here refers to testimony, some of which may actually
become evidence. What he intellectually cannot grasp is that this is
'evidence' from one side - and in legal cases there are 2 sides, and
many many people like to hear both! :)
Phil Innes
> substance, or nothing like evidence at all, is quite sufficient to
> make it an iron-clad certainty for him.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:21:59
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
>
> So you admit "sever records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirming
> the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
Well, either the server records are true, or I somehow changed them.
Whichever. Those are the only logical possibilities, and not partisan
ones.
So in fact I admit two things, not one. In my own case it would be
difficult to fix sover.net, and neither did I have opportunity to do
so.
In the infamous case before the courts, who did have motive and
opportunity? ;)
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:17:30
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 8:30=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
>
> So you admit "server records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirming
> the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
Oh no, for Phil no amount of factual evidence is sufficient to prove
something he disagrees with. There might be eye-witnesses, videotapes,
photographs, smoking guns and stone tablets attesting to the truth of
something, but if it's not what Phil wants to believe, then it is not
enough.
On the other hand, if Phil wants to believe something, the least
shred of evidence, the slightest residue of an evidence-like
substance, or nothing like evidence at all, is quite sufficient to
make it an iron-clad certainty for him.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:30:25
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
So you admit "sever records" constitute proof? Thanks for confirming
the validity of the Mottershead Report, P Innes.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:26:34
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 27, 5:45=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > This is a very illustrative post by Sam Sloan, and why I personally
> > could never vote for him under any circumstances:
>
> I am so saddened to learn that you will not vote for me under any
> circumstances, especially since you have not been a member for more
> than 12 years since 1996.
>
> I need your opposition to get elected.
But you already achieve 7th grade rhetoric - are you trying for higher
stuff?
> > a) the material NY TImes Blog refuses to publish is a letter with URL
> > showing doctored document accusations
>
> What the New York Times refused to publish was a link to your blog
> which contained another link to somebody else's blog, both of which
Since I don't have a blog, and since what the Sloan writes is not true
anyway - neither is the 'products' thing.
Here our 7th grade candidate seems unconcerned that fair reporting of
the lawsuits is even necessary, any more than the necessity for
telling the strict truth here on usenet.
> contained advertisements. Obviously, the New York Times is not going
> to publish ads for your products.
>
> > b) I don't have a blog
>
> > c) the chess site I write for has 60,000 readers/month which is #1
> > weekly US site
>
> The chessville.com site which sells a lot of chess material gets
> 60,000 readers a month, a pathetic total. My ishipress.com site used
> to get 50,000 readers PER DAY before the Sheriff of Amherst County
> shut it down, which is why I am suing them.
ROFL!
What a fantascist!
> Probably very few of the 60,000 readers per month that chessville.com
> gets actually read Innes'es blog which is buried deep within the
> chessville.com website.
>
> > In just a few sentences we get Sloan smearing and obscuring each
> > aspect of a simple issue.
>
> > > Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal documents
>
> > And in a few more sentences this rather insistent defamation.
>
> > > clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been publicly
> > > posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is referring prove
> > > that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield, Illinois
> > > in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR000751 and can
>
> > The documents I looked at are NOT the same as whatever the Sloan
> > cites.
>
> Yes, they are. The blacked-out portion says that Susan Polgar did not
> have an account with the ISP. While that was true,
While that was and is true? While the truth is true? But not why there
is a blacked-out section?
> her husband, Paul
Just one thing at a time - or you get confused. Besides Projection is
9th grade stuff.
Phil Innes
> Truong, did have an account and it was paid for with Susan Polgar's
> American Express credit card.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 02:45:28
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 9:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> This is a very illustrative post by Sam Sloan, and why I personally
> could never vote for him under any circumstances:
I am so saddened to learn that you will not vote for me under any
circumstances, especially since you have not been a member for more
than 12 years since 1996.
I need your opposition to get elected.
> a) the material NY TImes Blog refuses to publish is a letter with URL
> showing doctored document accusations
What the New York Times refused to publish was a link to your blog
which contained another link to somebody else's blog, both of which
contained advertisements. Obviously, the New York Times is not going
to publish ads for your products.
> b) I don't have a blog
>
> c) the chess site I write for has 60,000 readers/month which is #1
> weekly US site
The chessville.com site which sells a lot of chess material gets
60,000 readers a month, a pathetic total. My ishipress.com site used
to get 50,000 readers PER DAY before the Sheriff of Amherst County
shut it down, which is why I am suing them.
Probably very few of the 60,000 readers per month that chessville.com
gets actually read Innes'es blog which is buried deep within the
chessville.com website.
> In just a few sentences we get Sloan smearing and obscuring each
> aspect of a simple issue.
>
> > Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal documents
>
> And in a few more sentences this rather insistent defamation.
>
> > clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been publicly
> > posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is referring prove
> > that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield, Illinois
> > in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR000751 and can
>
> The documents I looked at are NOT the same as whatever the Sloan
> cites.
Yes, they are. The blacked-out portion says that Susan Polgar did not
have an account with the ISP. While that was true, her husband, Paul
Truong, did have an account and it was paid for with Susan Polgar's
American Express credit card.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2009 14:41:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 5:13 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I based nothing here on Brennen, Phil. My source for the joke was
> I.A. Horowitz. Chess Review, September 1948, page 8, to be exact.
It never ceases to fail to amaze me when clue-
less newbies like Mr. Kingston attribute things to
the wrong source.
While it is true that the anecdote regarding Mr.
Alekhine poking fun at Mr. Bogolubov appeared as
above, the story itself was quite obviously snatch-
ed from an earlier source -- modified to fit poor Mr.
Bogolubov, just as Mr. Kingston modified it again
to suit his own whims. The "thief" I have in mind
is Mr. Alekhine, the original source I do not recall
offhand.
But my main complaint here is that while the
story regarding Mr. Bogolubov was quite funny in
view of their results against one another, the
version presented here by Mr. Kingston was so
poor as to make one almost groan.
> > There is not any attention paid to
>
> > a) why NY TImes should suppress my message about fair reporting
A suggestion: they are controlled by neo-
Nazi skinheads (except they prefer Mohawk
hair-dos)?
> > b) not to notice that my message regarding fairness is suppressed at
> > all
One possibility: they mistakenly believe that
Dr. IMnes is an unimportant twit, whose idiotic
ravings ought to just be ignored.
> That's right, Phil. I'm not interested in those matters. My point
> was to puncture your pretensions of being a "chess journalist." A good
> journalist seeks impartial, factual truth. That's never been your
> strong suit.
And logic and reason has never been any part of
Mr. Kingston's wardrobe.
The fact is, there are "good" journalists and there
are "bad" ones. If one were to actually /define/ a
journalist as only those who are ideal in nature, as
described above by Mr. Kingston himself, then I'm
afraid the species would appear on endangered
species lists -- right along with incorruptible politi-
cians, unarrogant judges, and so forth. This is
elementary logic, though it hardly surprises that
Mr. Kingston somehow was unable to figure it out.
Long story short: Dr. IMnes may very well be a
/piss-poor/ journalist, but then, if Mr. Kingston
can be called a chess historian, why discriminate
based on his category? Why pick on so-called
journalists while letting all the other wannabees
slide.
> > Taylor Kingston knowingly repressed any question about jew-beating in
> > Russia.
One gets the queer impression that Dr. IMnes
only objects to beatings of Jews, and only those
which take place within the boundries of a single
country, called Russia; obviously, this cannot
be what was meant. I suspect that The Great
Dr. IMnes objects to beatings of *all* human
beings regardless of religious belief, and what's
more, that he really did not mean to imply that
beatings in Russia trump beatings elsewhere.
> Taking that brown acid again, huh, Phil? Or by now I guess you can
> hallucinate freely without it.
>
> > He asked me about it, and I told him his KGB interviewee would
> > not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces
Sadduces?
> tell the truth.
>
> > In the event Taylor Kingston did not raise the issue in his interview.
A very old horse, risen -- once again -- from the
dead, for another nasty brow-beating.
> > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
> Sheesh, Phil, whenever your pomposity is punctured you trot out this
> old dead horse to flog, like it was the missing Nixon Watergate tape.
Talk about holding a grudge... that incident
(which of course never officially happened
because Mr. Nixon was not a crook) is still
alive and kicking in the minds of a few diehard
hangers-on; who was it that recently confess-
ed in rgc to having taken illegal drugs?
> I interviewed Yuri Averbakh back in July 2002:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles181.pdfhttp://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles183.pdf
>
> I recall very little
I can personally vouch for this fact.
> if any, of any correspondence you and I may
> have had immediately prior to it. There could not have been much,
> because Hanon Russell gave me very little advance notice when he asked
> me to do the interview.
> Now, if you have saved some e-mail you wrote to me about it, and
> you're just bursting to reveal it to the world, feel free.
One wonders if this "challenge" is legitimate in
view of Dr. IMnes' repeated failures to produce
purported evidence in the past, along with some
Innesian commentaries involving "server records",
as opposed to direct references to these alleged
emails themselves. In other words, Dr. IMnes
has apparently fired both rounds (yes, two), and
now his worthy opponent feels confident in
squaring off for a "manly duel", believing the
opponent's weapon to be empty. But there is
a possibility -- however remote -- that Dr. IMnes
still has another .22 short in the chamber of his
bent-barrel, two-finger derringer mini-pistol; and
while this remote possibility might not frighten
most men, it has in the past served to keep Mr.
Kingston almost at bay.
I have replied to this particular posting in order
to celebrate the fact that after decades of eager
anticipation, we now have a clear and obvious
case of Mr. Kingston granting Dr. IMnes his
permission to present the email -- you know the
one I mean -- which proves there was a vast
conspiracy against him, against Jews, and yes,
even proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that
Mr. Kingston is now working for the KGB.
YOUR MOVE, Dr. IMnes.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2009 11:41:21
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 9:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> What a character!
>
> Phil Innes
Miles Taylor thinks you're a "colourful character" (sic, note the
extra 'u' contra to D. Webster's spelling of same). What do you think
of that, Phil Innes?
RL
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 17:01:50
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 7:46=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > There is not any attention paid to
>
> > a) why NY TImes should suppress my message about fair reporting
>
> > b) not to notice that my message regarding fairness is suppressed at
> > all
>
> You make the New York Times sound like Stalin. There are a million and
> one places to publish your 'journalism'; the New York Times choosing
> to disregard the semi-coherent rant of a Polgar flunky does not mean
> said rant is suppressed.
Here for the record is Neil Brennan's orientation to the basis ofwhat
people might decide for themselves, coupled with his own peculiar
stalking behavior, lasting 8 years, and which is rather similar
to .... which is not forgotten Brennan.
Thanks for sharing. :)
People are getting ready for a bit more investigation, and I think
your contributions are shall we say, pert?
PI
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 16:46:55
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> There is not any attention paid to
>
> a) why NY TImes should suppress my message about fair reporting
>
> b) not to notice that my message regarding fairness is suppressed at
> all
You make the New York Times sound like Stalin. There are a million and
one places to publish your 'journalism'; the New York Times choosing
to disregard the semi-coherent rant of a Polgar flunky does not mean
said rant is suppressed.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 16:41:58
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 6:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 25, 5:16=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > It even occurs to me that the NY Times Chess Blog should receive this
> > post, since they could them chose to suppress it or publish it. After
> > all, it is fair opinion based on the published record of each noted
> > person?
>
> > Someone dare me?
>
> > The people who have sought to suppress all conversation on these
> > issues should be celebrated, no? The chess reading public should have
> > opportunity to know who does what to encourage or repress such
> > conversations - and if NY Times declines to publish augtht, then at
> > the very least I can point this out to more chess players than read
> > their Gambit column.
>
> > Is that fair attention to having a fair discussion?
>
> > I think that is the next challenge, and what you write here is public,
> > on the record, and I will so report you, to where it may be repressed
> > and elsewhere where it may be said straight.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> =A0 Our Phil lives by the reverse of Teddy Roosevelt's policy. His motto
> is "Speak loudly and carry a wet noodle."
You must have been speaking with his ex-wives, Taylor.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 16:34:21
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 5:13=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let us look instead in what is before us, rather than these phantasms
> > of such as Taylor Kingston based upon the base liar Brennen's
> > testimony -
>
> =A0 I based nothing here on Brennen, Phil. My source for the joke
Joke? Once more Taylor Kinston intercedes with his own subject - and
shall we anticipate his 'joke' about basic honesty and decency in
society will be pursued to the death... ?
> was
> I.A. Horowitz. Chess Review, September 1948, page 8, to be exact.
>
> > There is not any attention paid to
>
> > a) why NY TImes should suppress my message about fair reporting
>
> > b) not to notice that my message regarding fairness is suppressed at
> > all
>
> =A0 That's right, Phil. I'm not interested in those matters. My point
If you ain't interested why yet again intecede with 'your point' ?
Pointless, no?
>
> was to puncture your pretensions of being a "chess journalist." A good
> journalist seeks impartial, factual truth. That's never been your
> strong suit.
Your point is other than you say - and besides, you illustrate it with
your usual vague aspersions, which is why you are well known to be a
light-weight pissy guy. Once again we witness the Kingston
intercession which is nothing to any point, full of opinion upon his
own subject, and nasty too.
> > Taylor Kingston knowingly repressed any question about jew-beating in
> > Russia.
>
> =A0 Taking that brown acid again, huh, Phil? Or by now I guess you can
> hallucinate freely without it.
You want me to publish your e-mails or you want to preen yourself if
public? Go ahead Kingston, mouth off, but don't be vague about your
challenge.
You DID as I said, no? Yes or No? If you say no then permit me to
report to everyone here what you did do and say in private, OK or no?
> > He asked me about it, and I told him his KGB interviewee would
> > not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the truth.
>
> > In the event Taylor Kingston did not raise the issue in his interview.
>
> > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
>
> =A0 Sheesh, Phil, whenever your pomposity is punctured you trot out this
> old dead horse to flog, like it was the missing Nixon Watergate tape.
> I interviewed Yuri Averbakh back in July 2002:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles181.pdfhttp://www.chesscafe.com/tex=
t/skittles183.pdf
>
> =A0I recall very little, if any, of any correspondence you and I may
> have had immediately prior to it.
You previously said you don't recall... then I sent you your own e-
mails at your own request, and still you don't recall?
:)))
> There could not have been much,
> because Hanon Russell gave me very little advance notice when he asked
> me to do the interview.
Not much more than 30 e-mails in a month, or you like to be vaguer
about it?
> =A0 Now, if you have saved some e-mail you wrote to me about it, and
> you're just bursting to reveal it to the world, feel free.
>
> > Taylor Kingston will respond on the record, or he will be vague. =A0
>
> =A0 Phil, one of the best talents a man can develop is the ability to
> laugh at himself. Many of us here laugh at you often. Why not join in
> the fun?
What's so funny about fucking-over Soviet Jews, Kingston?
Let us know won't you, and if you actually dare challenge me to what
you yourself wrote at the time, I will publish what you said then
here, and if you get sued then that is your business - since you
provoke it.
But I think you can't have it both ways. So which way will you?
Say something for once in your life which is unequivocal.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 15:57:10
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 5:16=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> It even occurs to me that the NY Times Chess Blog should receive this
> post, since they could them chose to suppress it or publish it. After
> all, it is fair opinion based on the published record of each noted
> person?
>
> Someone dare me?
>
> The people who have sought to suppress all conversation on these
> issues should be celebrated, no? The chess reading public should have
> opportunity to know who does what to encourage or repress such
> conversations - and if NY Times declines to publish augtht, then at
> the very least I can point this out to more chess players than read
> their Gambit column.
>
> Is that fair attention to having a fair discussion?
>
> I think that is the next challenge, and what you write here is public,
> on the record, and I will so report you, to where it may be repressed
> and elsewhere where it may be said straight.
>
> Phil Innes
Our Phil lives by the reverse of Teddy Roosevelt's policy. His motto
is "Speak loudly and carry a wet noodle."
> On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 3:01=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 11:31=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 10:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 25, 9:48=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]>=
wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 25, 9:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 25, 8:02=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 25, 7:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog=
.
>
> > > > > > > > >http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-again=
st-chess-of...
>
> > > > > > > > > January 23, 2009 8:52 am
>
> > > > > > > > > "Its interesting to note you did not publish my message y=
esterday -
> > > > > > > > > but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And =
I can note
> > > > > > > > > that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
> > > > > > > > > =97 Phil Innes"
>
> > > > > > > > None of the posters are active tournament chess players, bu=
t all of
> > > > > > > > them post a tremendous amount on the Internet.
>
> > > > > > > > Phil Innes calls himself a =93chess journalist=94 but the o=
nly place he
> > > > > > > > has ever been published is on his own Blog.
>
> > > > > > > This is a very illustrative post by Sam Sloan, and why I pers=
onally
> > > > > > > could never vote for him under any circumstances:
>
> > > > > > > a) the material NY TImes Blog refuses to publish is a letter =
with URL
> > > > > > > showing doctored document accusations
>
> > > > > > Please post the URL.
>
> > > > > I already published it in my column - and I understand it is now =
on
> > > > > view elsewhere. I wonder if Neil Brennan is bright enough to figu=
re it
> > > > > out himself?
>
> > > > > > > b) I don't have a blog
>
> > > > > > Alekhine's Parrot has Innes-scat all over it.
>
> > > > > How charming! Gratuitous nonsense, but what has Brennan ever writ=
ten
> > > > > that is not plain envy, either about chess or chess wring.
>
> > > > > > > c) the chess site I write for has 60,000 readers/month which =
is #1
> > > > > > > weekly US site
>
> > > > > > "weakly", aka the "feeble Chessvile"
>
> > > > > And here is why the group of enthusiasts should NOT be allowed to
> > > > > prosecute serious things in public. Its because they are either s=
tupid
> > > > > or liars.
>
> > > > > No one can make anyone read Chessville - here Brennen characteris=
es
> > > > > the thing people most read as 'feeble'.
>
> > > > > So what is that, stupid or untrue?
>
> > > > > > > In just a few sentences we get Sloan smearing and obscuring e=
ach
> > > > > > > aspect of a simple issue.
>
> > > > > > > > Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal docu=
ments
>
> > > > > > > And in a few more sentences this rather insistent defamation.
>
> > > > > > > > clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been pub=
licly
> > > > > > > > posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is refer=
ring prove
> > > > > > > > that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield=
, Illinois
> > > > > > > > in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR00075=
1 and can
>
> > > > > > > The documents I looked at are NOT the same as whatever the Sl=
oan
> > > > > > > cites.
>
> > > > > > When will these documents be shown to the world?
>
> > > > > I would say about a week ago. Of course, if you has any intellige=
nce,
> > > > > interest in the matter or journalistic skill you would have found=
them
> > > > > by now - but since you are as you appear, you must perforce get y=
our
> > > > > information from those of us who are 'feeble'.
>
> > > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > > My apologies to Phil Innes and the website which publishes his
> > > > 'journalism' (and which he is Business Manager for), Chessville. I'=
d
> > > > read his posting above and thought he meant he'd have a link to "le=
gal
> > > > documents clearing two of the defendants" instead of additional hot=
-
> > > > air from the Trolgar couple. I should have realized it was the latt=
er
> > > > that Mr. Innes was offering yet again. I'll try to avoid assuming M=
r.
> > > > Innes has any journalistic credibility - or, indeed, any credibilit=
y
> > > > at all - in the future.
>
> > > =A0 Andy Soltis once told me about a dream he had. He dreamed he had
>
> > Let us look instead in what is before us, rather than these phantasms
> > of such as Taylor Kingston based upon the base liar Brennen's
> > testimony - brennen is so stupid that he insults the source he applies
> > to for information - then does the Kingston trick of dissing what he
> > asked for.
>
> > There is not any attention paid to
>
> > a) why NY TImes should suppress my message about fair reporting
>
> > b) not to notice that my message regarding fairness is suppressed at
> > all
>
> > c) why those who say they investigate here, only are as Spinrad does,
> > he 'feels' he says - while he, like 'transparency' Board Candidate
> > Brain Laugherty answers nothing about himself =A0;))
>
> > d) that half a dozen twerps should seek to dominate the last place
> > they can say anything at all - being barred everywhere else
>
> > - and seek to actively hector and repress those who have other opinion
>
> > e) last of all, which is last indeed, is the Sloan, that hapless
> > distorting climber who couldn't tell anyone the time straight.
>
> > You have all had your word, and now I think it is time that people had
> > words with you.
>
> > Since you have liked to repress and intimidate others, how awful it
> > must be for you to discover that your opinions were not free at all!
> > And that responsibility was required.
>
> > > died, and was before the Pearly Gates. St. Peter met him, and said
> > > "Before we can let you into heaven, we have to know who you are."
> > > =A0 "I'm Andy Soltis." This was met with blank incomprehension. "I'm
> > > Andy Soltis," he repeated. "I was a chess grandmaster, a well-known
> > > chess journalist, and author of many books."
> > > =A0 St. Peter sadly shook his head. "I'm sorry, we don't allow chess
> > > journalists in heaven. You'll have to leave."
> > > =A0 Disappointed, Soltis asked if he could at least have a look aroun=
d
> > > before going. St. Peter agreed. And looking around, whom should Solti=
s
> > > see but our Phil. Rushing back to St. Peter, Soltis said "Look!
> > > There's Phil Innes. He's a chess journalist, and yet you let him in
> > > here!"
> > > =A0 St. Peter shook his head with a rueful smile. Lowering his voice,=
he
> > > said to Andy "He only _thinks_ he's a chess journalist."
>
> > Taylor Kingston knowingly repressed any question about jew-beating in
> > Russia. He asked me about it, and I told him his KGB interviewee would
> > not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the truth.
>
> > In the event Taylor Kingston did not raise the issue in his interview.
>
> > Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> > since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
>
> > Taylor Kingston will respond on the record, or he will be vague. =A0 :)
>
> > Phil innes
>
> > > =A0 OK, the above is actually a twist on an old story Alekhine
> > > supposedly told about himself and Bogolyubov, which I read in a 1948
> > > Chess Review. But you get the idea.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 14:16:37
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
It even occurs to me that the NY Times Chess Blog should receive this
post, since they could them chose to suppress it or publish it. After
all, it is fair opinion based on the published record of each noted
person?
Someone dare me?
The people who have sought to suppress all conversation on these
issues should be celebrated, no? The chess reading public should have
opportunity to know who does what to encourage or repress such
conversations - and if NY Times declines to publish augtht, then at
the very least I can point this out to more chess players than read
their Gambit column.
Is that fair attention to having a fair discussion?
I think that is the next challenge, and what you write here is public,
on the record, and I will so report you, to where it may be repressed
and elsewhere where it may be said straight.
Phil Innes
On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 25, 3:01=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 11:31=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 10:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 9:48=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 25, 9:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 25, 8:02=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 25, 7:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog.
>
> > > > > > > >http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-against=
-chess-of...
>
> > > > > > > > January 23, 2009 8:52 am
>
> > > > > > > > "Its interesting to note you did not publish my message yes=
terday -
> > > > > > > > but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And I =
can note
> > > > > > > > that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
> > > > > > > > =97 Phil Innes"
>
> > > > > > > None of the posters are active tournament chess players, but =
all of
> > > > > > > them post a tremendous amount on the Internet.
>
> > > > > > > Phil Innes calls himself a =93chess journalist=94 but the onl=
y place he
> > > > > > > has ever been published is on his own Blog.
>
> > > > > > This is a very illustrative post by Sam Sloan, and why I person=
ally
> > > > > > could never vote for him under any circumstances:
>
> > > > > > a) the material NY TImes Blog refuses to publish is a letter wi=
th URL
> > > > > > showing doctored document accusations
>
> > > > > Please post the URL.
>
> > > > I already published it in my column - and I understand it is now on
> > > > view elsewhere. I wonder if Neil Brennan is bright enough to figure=
it
> > > > out himself?
>
> > > > > > b) I don't have a blog
>
> > > > > Alekhine's Parrot has Innes-scat all over it.
>
> > > > How charming! Gratuitous nonsense, but what has Brennan ever writte=
n
> > > > that is not plain envy, either about chess or chess wring.
>
> > > > > > c) the chess site I write for has 60,000 readers/month which is=
#1
> > > > > > weekly US site
>
> > > > > "weakly", aka the "feeble Chessvile"
>
> > > > And here is why the group of enthusiasts should NOT be allowed to
> > > > prosecute serious things in public. Its because they are either stu=
pid
> > > > or liars.
>
> > > > No one can make anyone read Chessville - here Brennen characterises
> > > > the thing people most read as 'feeble'.
>
> > > > So what is that, stupid or untrue?
>
> > > > > > In just a few sentences we get Sloan smearing and obscuring eac=
h
> > > > > > aspect of a simple issue.
>
> > > > > > > Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal docume=
nts
>
> > > > > > And in a few more sentences this rather insistent defamation.
>
> > > > > > > clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been publi=
cly
> > > > > > > posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is referri=
ng prove
> > > > > > > that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield, =
Illinois
> > > > > > > in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR000751 =
and can
>
> > > > > > The documents I looked at are NOT the same as whatever the Sloa=
n
> > > > > > cites.
>
> > > > > When will these documents be shown to the world?
>
> > > > I would say about a week ago. Of course, if you has any intelligenc=
e,
> > > > interest in the matter or journalistic skill you would have found t=
hem
> > > > by now - but since you are as you appear, you must perforce get you=
r
> > > > information from those of us who are 'feeble'.
>
> > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > My apologies to Phil Innes and the website which publishes his
> > > 'journalism' (and which he is Business Manager for), Chessville. I'd
> > > read his posting above and thought he meant he'd have a link to "lega=
l
> > > documents clearing two of the defendants" instead of additional hot-
> > > air from the Trolgar couple. I should have realized it was the latter
> > > that Mr. Innes was offering yet again. I'll try to avoid assuming Mr.
> > > Innes has any journalistic credibility - or, indeed, any credibility
> > > at all - in the future.
>
> > =A0 Andy Soltis once told me about a dream he had. He dreamed he had
>
> Let us look instead in what is before us, rather than these phantasms
> of such as Taylor Kingston based upon the base liar Brennen's
> testimony - brennen is so stupid that he insults the source he applies
> to for information - then does the Kingston trick of dissing what he
> asked for.
>
> There is not any attention paid to
>
> a) why NY TImes should suppress my message about fair reporting
>
> b) not to notice that my message regarding fairness is suppressed at
> all
>
> c) why those who say they investigate here, only are as Spinrad does,
> he 'feels' he says - while he, like 'transparency' Board Candidate
> Brain Laugherty answers nothing about himself =A0;))
>
> d) that half a dozen twerps should seek to dominate the last place
> they can say anything at all - being barred everywhere else
>
> - and seek to actively hector and repress those who have other opinion
>
> e) last of all, which is last indeed, is the Sloan, that hapless
> distorting climber who couldn't tell anyone the time straight.
>
> You have all had your word, and now I think it is time that people had
> words with you.
>
> Since you have liked to repress and intimidate others, how awful it
> must be for you to discover that your opinions were not free at all!
> And that responsibility was required.
>
> > died, and was before the Pearly Gates. St. Peter met him, and said
> > "Before we can let you into heaven, we have to know who you are."
> > =A0 "I'm Andy Soltis." This was met with blank incomprehension. "I'm
> > Andy Soltis," he repeated. "I was a chess grandmaster, a well-known
> > chess journalist, and author of many books."
> > =A0 St. Peter sadly shook his head. "I'm sorry, we don't allow chess
> > journalists in heaven. You'll have to leave."
> > =A0 Disappointed, Soltis asked if he could at least have a look around
> > before going. St. Peter agreed. And looking around, whom should Soltis
> > see but our Phil. Rushing back to St. Peter, Soltis said "Look!
> > There's Phil Innes. He's a chess journalist, and yet you let him in
> > here!"
> > =A0 St. Peter shook his head with a rueful smile. Lowering his voice, h=
e
> > said to Andy "He only _thinks_ he's a chess journalist."
>
> Taylor Kingston knowingly repressed any question about jew-beating in
> Russia. He asked me about it, and I told him his KGB interviewee would
> not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the truth.
>
> In the event Taylor Kingston did not raise the issue in his interview.
>
> Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
>
> Taylor Kingston will respond on the record, or he will be vague. =A0 :)
>
> Phil innes
>
> > =A0 OK, the above is actually a twist on an old story Alekhine
> > supposedly told about himself and Bogolyubov, which I read in a 1948
> > Chess Review. But you get the idea.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 14:13:10
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 4:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Let us look instead in what is before us, rather than these phantasms
> of such as Taylor Kingston based upon the base liar Brennen's
> testimony -
I based nothing here on Brennen, Phil. My source for the joke was
I.A. Horowitz. Chess Review, September 1948, page 8, to be exact.
> There is not any attention paid to
>
> a) why NY TImes should suppress my message about fair reporting
>
> b) not to notice that my message regarding fairness is suppressed at
> all
That's right, Phil. I'm not interested in those matters. My point
was to puncture your pretensions of being a "chess journalist." A good
journalist seeks impartial, factual truth. That's never been your
strong suit.
> Taylor Kingston knowingly repressed any question about jew-beating in
> Russia.
Taking that brown acid again, huh, Phil? Or by now I guess you can
hallucinate freely without it.
> He asked me about it, and I told him his KGB interviewee would
> not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the truth.
>
> In the event Taylor Kingston did not raise the issue in his interview.
>
> Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
> since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
Sheesh, Phil, whenever your pomposity is punctured you trot out this
old dead horse to flog, like it was the missing Nixon Watergate tape.
I interviewed Yuri Averbakh back in July 2002:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles181.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles183.pdf
I recall very little, if any, of any correspondence you and I may
have had immediately prior to it. There could not have been much,
because Hanon Russell gave me very little advance notice when he asked
me to do the interview.
Now, if you have saved some e-mail you wrote to me about it, and
you're just bursting to reveal it to the world, feel free.
> Taylor Kingston will respond on the record, or he will be vague. =A0
Phil, one of the best talents a man can develop is the ability to
laugh at himself. Many of us here laugh at you often. Why not join in
the fun?
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 13:12:26
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 3:01=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 25, 11:31=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 10:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 9:48=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 9:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 25, 8:02=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 25, 7:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog.
>
> > > > > > >http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-against-c=
hess-of...
>
> > > > > > > January 23, 2009 8:52 am
>
> > > > > > > "Its interesting to note you did not publish my message yeste=
rday -
> > > > > > > but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And I ca=
n note
> > > > > > > that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
> > > > > > > =97 Phil Innes"
>
> > > > > > None of the posters are active tournament chess players, but al=
l of
> > > > > > them post a tremendous amount on the Internet.
>
> > > > > > Phil Innes calls himself a =93chess journalist=94 but the only =
place he
> > > > > > has ever been published is on his own Blog.
>
> > > > > This is a very illustrative post by Sam Sloan, and why I personal=
ly
> > > > > could never vote for him under any circumstances:
>
> > > > > a) the material NY TImes Blog refuses to publish is a letter with=
URL
> > > > > showing doctored document accusations
>
> > > > Please post the URL.
>
> > > I already published it in my column - and I understand it is now on
> > > view elsewhere. I wonder if Neil Brennan is bright enough to figure i=
t
> > > out himself?
>
> > > > > b) I don't have a blog
>
> > > > Alekhine's Parrot has Innes-scat all over it.
>
> > > How charming! Gratuitous nonsense, but what has Brennan ever written
> > > that is not plain envy, either about chess or chess wring.
>
> > > > > c) the chess site I write for has 60,000 readers/month which is #=
1
> > > > > weekly US site
>
> > > > "weakly", aka the "feeble Chessvile"
>
> > > And here is why the group of enthusiasts should NOT be allowed to
> > > prosecute serious things in public. Its because they are either stupi=
d
> > > or liars.
>
> > > No one can make anyone read Chessville - here Brennen characterises
> > > the thing people most read as 'feeble'.
>
> > > So what is that, stupid or untrue?
>
> > > > > In just a few sentences we get Sloan smearing and obscuring each
> > > > > aspect of a simple issue.
>
> > > > > > Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal document=
s
>
> > > > > And in a few more sentences this rather insistent defamation.
>
> > > > > > clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been publicl=
y
> > > > > > posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is referring=
prove
> > > > > > that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield, Il=
linois
> > > > > > in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR000751 an=
d can
>
> > > > > The documents I looked at are NOT the same as whatever the Sloan
> > > > > cites.
>
> > > > When will these documents be shown to the world?
>
> > > I would say about a week ago. Of course, if you has any intelligence,
> > > interest in the matter or journalistic skill you would have found the=
m
> > > by now - but since you are as you appear, you must perforce get your
> > > information from those of us who are 'feeble'.
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > My apologies to Phil Innes and the website which publishes his
> > 'journalism' (and which he is Business Manager for), Chessville. I'd
> > read his posting above and thought he meant he'd have a link to "legal
> > documents clearing two of the defendants" instead of additional hot-
> > air from the Trolgar couple. I should have realized it was the latter
> > that Mr. Innes was offering yet again. I'll try to avoid assuming Mr.
> > Innes has any journalistic credibility - or, indeed, any credibility
> > at all - in the future.
>
> =A0 Andy Soltis once told me about a dream he had. He dreamed he had
Let us look instead in what is before us, rather than these phantasms
of such as Taylor Kingston based upon the base liar Brennen's
testimony - brennen is so stupid that he insults the source he applies
to for information - then does the Kingston trick of dissing what he
asked for.
There is not any attention paid to
a) why NY TImes should suppress my message about fair reporting
b) not to notice that my message regarding fairness is suppressed at
all
c) why those who say they investigate here, only are as Spinrad does,
he 'feels' he says - while he, like 'transparency' Board Candidate
Brain Laugherty answers nothing about himself ;))
d) that half a dozen twerps should seek to dominate the last place
they can say anything at all - being barred everywhere else
- and seek to actively hector and repress those who have other opinion
e) last of all, which is last indeed, is the Sloan, that hapless
distorting climber who couldn't tell anyone the time straight.
You have all had your word, and now I think it is time that people had
words with you.
Since you have liked to repress and intimidate others, how awful it
must be for you to discover that your opinions were not free at all!
And that responsibility was required.
> died, and was before the Pearly Gates. St. Peter met him, and said
> "Before we can let you into heaven, we have to know who you are."
> =A0 "I'm Andy Soltis." This was met with blank incomprehension. "I'm
> Andy Soltis," he repeated. "I was a chess grandmaster, a well-known
> chess journalist, and author of many books."
> =A0 St. Peter sadly shook his head. "I'm sorry, we don't allow chess
> journalists in heaven. You'll have to leave."
> =A0 Disappointed, Soltis asked if he could at least have a look around
> before going. St. Peter agreed. And looking around, whom should Soltis
> see but our Phil. Rushing back to St. Peter, Soltis said "Look!
> There's Phil Innes. He's a chess journalist, and yet you let him in
> here!"
> =A0 St. Peter shook his head with a rueful smile. Lowering his voice, he
> said to Andy "He only _thinks_ he's a chess journalist."
Taylor Kingston knowingly repressed any question about jew-beating in
Russia. He asked me about it, and I told him his KGB interviewee would
not, in the opinion of 2 Russian soruces, tell the truth.
In the event Taylor Kingston did not raise the issue in his interview.
Taylor Kingston also dares not contradict me about how he behaved,
since I have the server records about this issue, and several others.
Taylor Kingston will respond on the record, or he will be vague. :)
Phil innes
> =A0 OK, the above is actually a twist on an old story Alekhine
> supposedly told about himself and Bogolyubov, which I read in a 1948
> Chess Review. But you get the idea.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 12:01:50
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 11:31=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jan 25, 10:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:48=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 9:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 8:02=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 25, 7:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog.
>
> > > > > >http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-against-che=
ss-of...
>
> > > > > > January 23, 2009 8:52 am
>
> > > > > > "Its interesting to note you did not publish my message yesterd=
ay -
> > > > > > but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And I can =
note
> > > > > > that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
> > > > > > =97 Phil Innes"
>
> > > > > None of the posters are active tournament chess players, but all =
of
> > > > > them post a tremendous amount on the Internet.
>
> > > > > Phil Innes calls himself a =93chess journalist=94 but the only pl=
ace he
> > > > > has ever been published is on his own Blog.
>
> > > > This is a very illustrative post by Sam Sloan, and why I personally
> > > > could never vote for him under any circumstances:
>
> > > > a) the material NY TImes Blog refuses to publish is a letter with U=
RL
> > > > showing doctored document accusations
>
> > > Please post the URL.
>
> > I already published it in my column - and I understand it is now on
> > view elsewhere. I wonder if Neil Brennan is bright enough to figure it
> > out himself?
>
> > > > b) I don't have a blog
>
> > > Alekhine's Parrot has Innes-scat all over it.
>
> > How charming! Gratuitous nonsense, but what has Brennan ever written
> > that is not plain envy, either about chess or chess wring.
>
> > > > c) the chess site I write for has 60,000 readers/month which is #1
> > > > weekly US site
>
> > > "weakly", aka the "feeble Chessvile"
>
> > And here is why the group of enthusiasts should NOT be allowed to
> > prosecute serious things in public. Its because they are either stupid
> > or liars.
>
> > No one can make anyone read Chessville - here Brennen characterises
> > the thing people most read as 'feeble'.
>
> > So what is that, stupid or untrue?
>
> > > > In just a few sentences we get Sloan smearing and obscuring each
> > > > aspect of a simple issue.
>
> > > > > Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal documents
>
> > > > And in a few more sentences this rather insistent defamation.
>
> > > > > clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been publicly
> > > > > posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is referring p=
rove
> > > > > that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield, Illi=
nois
> > > > > in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR000751 and =
can
>
> > > > The documents I looked at are NOT the same as whatever the Sloan
> > > > cites.
>
> > > When will these documents be shown to the world?
>
> > I would say about a week ago. Of course, if you has any intelligence,
> > interest in the matter or journalistic skill you would have found them
> > by now - but since you are as you appear, you must perforce get your
> > information from those of us who are 'feeble'.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> My apologies to Phil Innes and the website which publishes his
> 'journalism' (and which he is Business Manager for), Chessville. I'd
> read his posting above and thought he meant he'd have a link to "legal
> documents clearing two of the defendants" instead of additional hot-
> air from the Trolgar couple. I should have realized it was the latter
> that Mr. Innes was offering yet again. I'll try to avoid assuming Mr.
> Innes has any journalistic credibility - or, indeed, any credibility
> at all - in the future.
Andy Soltis once told me about a dream he had. He dreamed he had
died, and was before the Pearly Gates. St. Peter met him, and said
"Before we can let you into heaven, we have to know who you are."
"I'm Andy Soltis." This was met with blank incomprehension. "I'm
Andy Soltis," he repeated. "I was a chess grandmaster, a well-known
chess journalist, and author of many books."
St. Peter sadly shook his head. "I'm sorry, we don't allow chess
journalists in heaven. You'll have to leave."
Disappointed, Soltis asked if he could at least have a look around
before going. St. Peter agreed. And looking around, whom should Soltis
see but our Phil. Rushing back to St. Peter, Soltis said "Look!
There's Phil Innes. He's a chess journalist, and yet you let him in
here!"
St. Peter shook his head with a rueful smile. Lowering his voice, he
said to Andy "He only _thinks_ he's a chess journalist."
OK, the above is actually a twist on an old story Alekhine
supposedly told about himself and Bogolyubov, which I read in a 1948
Chess Review. But you get the idea.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 08:31:23
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 10:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:48=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 8:02=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 7:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog.
>
> > > > >http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-against-chess=
-of...
>
> > > > > January 23, 2009 8:52 am
>
> > > > > "Its interesting to note you did not publish my message yesterday=
-
> > > > > but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And I can no=
te
> > > > > that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
> > > > > =97 Phil Innes"
>
> > > > None of the posters are active tournament chess players, but all of
> > > > them post a tremendous amount on the Internet.
>
> > > > Phil Innes calls himself a =93chess journalist=94 but the only plac=
e he
> > > > has ever been published is on his own Blog.
>
> > > This is a very illustrative post by Sam Sloan, and why I personally
> > > could never vote for him under any circumstances:
>
> > > a) the material NY TImes Blog refuses to publish is a letter with URL
> > > showing doctored document accusations
>
> > Please post the URL.
>
> I already published it in my column - and I understand it is now on
> view elsewhere. I wonder if Neil Brennan is bright enough to figure it
> out himself?
>
> > > b) I don't have a blog
>
> > Alekhine's Parrot has Innes-scat all over it.
>
> How charming! Gratuitous nonsense, but what has Brennan ever written
> that is not plain envy, either about chess or chess wring.
>
> > > c) the chess site I write for has 60,000 readers/month which is #1
> > > weekly US site
>
> > "weakly", aka the "feeble Chessvile"
>
> And here is why the group of enthusiasts should NOT be allowed to
> prosecute serious things in public. Its because they are either stupid
> or liars.
>
> No one can make anyone read Chessville - here Brennen characterises
> the thing people most read as 'feeble'.
>
> So what is that, stupid or untrue?
>
>
>
> > > In just a few sentences we get Sloan smearing and obscuring each
> > > aspect of a simple issue.
>
> > > > Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal documents
>
> > > And in a few more sentences this rather insistent defamation.
>
> > > > clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been publicly
> > > > posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is referring pro=
ve
> > > > that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield, Illino=
is
> > > > in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR000751 and ca=
n
>
> > > The documents I looked at are NOT the same as whatever the Sloan
> > > cites.
>
> > When will these documents be shown to the world?
>
> I would say about a week ago. Of course, if you has any intelligence,
> interest in the matter or journalistic skill you would have found them
> by now - but since you are as you appear, you must perforce get your
> information from those of us who are 'feeble'.
>
> Phil Innes
My apologies to Phil Innes and the website which publishes his
'journalism' (and which he is Business Manager for), Chessville. I'd
read his posting above and thought he meant he'd have a link to "legal
documents clearing two of the defendants" instead of additional hot-
air from the Trolgar couple. I should have realized it was the latter
that Mr. Innes was offering yet again. I'll try to avoid assuming Mr.
Innes has any journalistic credibility - or, indeed, any credibility
at all - in the future.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 07:10:02
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 9:48=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 8:02=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 7:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog.
>
> > > >http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-against-chess-o=
f...
>
> > > > January 23, 2009 8:52 am
>
> > > > "Its interesting to note you did not publish my message yesterday -
> > > > but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And I can note
> > > > that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
> > > > =97 Phil Innes"
>
> > > None of the posters are active tournament chess players, but all of
> > > them post a tremendous amount on the Internet.
>
> > > Phil Innes calls himself a =93chess journalist=94 but the only place =
he
> > > has ever been published is on his own Blog.
>
> > This is a very illustrative post by Sam Sloan, and why I personally
> > could never vote for him under any circumstances:
>
> > a) the material NY TImes Blog refuses to publish is a letter with URL
> > showing doctored document accusations
>
> Please post the URL.
I already published it in my column - and I understand it is now on
view elsewhere. I wonder if Neil Brennan is bright enough to figure it
out himself?
> > b) I don't have a blog
>
> Alekhine's Parrot has Innes-scat all over it.
How charming! Gratuitous nonsense, but what has Brennan ever written
that is not plain envy, either about chess or chess wring.
> > c) the chess site I write for has 60,000 readers/month which is #1
> > weekly US site
>
> "weakly", aka the "feeble Chessvile"
And here is why the group of enthusiasts should NOT be allowed to
prosecute serious things in public. Its because they are either stupid
or liars.
No one can make anyone read Chessville - here Brennen characterises
the thing people most read as 'feeble'.
So what is that, stupid or untrue?
> > In just a few sentences we get Sloan smearing and obscuring each
> > aspect of a simple issue.
>
> > > Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal documents
>
> > And in a few more sentences this rather insistent defamation.
>
> > > clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been publicly
> > > posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is referring prove
> > > that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield, Illinois
> > > in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR000751 and can
>
> > The documents I looked at are NOT the same as whatever the Sloan
> > cites.
>
> When will these documents be shown to the world?
I would say about a week ago. Of course, if you has any intelligence,
interest in the matter or journalistic skill you would have found them
by now - but since you are as you appear, you must perforce get your
information from those of us who are 'feeble'.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 06:48:22
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 9:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:02=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 7:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog.
>
> > >http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-against-chess-of.=
..
>
> > > January 23, 2009 8:52 am
>
> > > "Its interesting to note you did not publish my message yesterday -
> > > but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And I can note
> > > that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
> > > =97 Phil Innes"
>
> > None of the posters are active tournament chess players, but all of
> > them post a tremendous amount on the Internet.
>
> > Phil Innes calls himself a =93chess journalist=94 but the only place he
> > has ever been published is on his own Blog.
>
> This is a very illustrative post by Sam Sloan, and why I personally
> could never vote for him under any circumstances:
>
> a) the material NY TImes Blog refuses to publish is a letter with URL
> showing doctored document accusations
Please post the URL.
> b) I don't have a blog
Alekhine's Parrot has Innes-scat all over it.
> c) the chess site I write for has 60,000 readers/month which is #1
> weekly US site
"weakly", aka the "feeble Chessvile"
> In just a few sentences we get Sloan smearing and obscuring each
> aspect of a simple issue.
>
> > Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal documents
>
> And in a few more sentences this rather insistent defamation.
>
> > clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been publicly
> > posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is referring prove
> > that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield, Illinois
> > in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR000751 and can
>
> The documents I looked at are NOT the same as whatever the Sloan
> cites.
When will these documents be shown to the world?
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 06:03:57
From:
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 8:02=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 7:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog.
>
> >http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-against-chess-of...
>
> > January 23, 2009 8:52 am
>
> > "Its interesting to note you did not publish my message yesterday -
> > but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And I can note
> > that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
> > =97 Phil Innes"
>
> None of the posters are active tournament chess players, but all of
> them post a tremendous amount on the Internet.
>
> Phil Innes calls himself a =93chess journalist=94 but the only place he
> has ever been published is on his own Blog.
This is a very illustrative post by Sam Sloan, and why I personally
could never vote for him under any circumstances:
a) the material NY TImes Blog refuses to publish is a letter with URL
showing doctored document accusations
b) I don't have a blog
c) the chess site I write for has 60,000 readers/month which is #1
weekly US site
In just a few sentences we get Sloan smearing and obscuring each
aspect of a simple issue.
> Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal documents
And in a few more sentences this rather insistent defamation.
> clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been publicly
> posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is referring prove
> that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield, Illinois
> in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR000751 and can
The documents I looked at are NOT the same as whatever the Sloan
cites.
What a character!
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 05:50:29
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 7:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog.
>
> http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-against-chess-of...
>
> January 23, 2009 8:52 am
>
> "Its interesting to note you did not publish my message yesterday -
> but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And I can note
> that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
> =97 Phil Innes"
The "chess journalist" - ah, self-described! - felt the need to
respond to his own comments. How long until he screams! "I'm not your
boy" at himself again?
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 05:02:27
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Phil Innes tells the New York Times that he is a "chess
|
On Jan 25, 7:43=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> For a hoot, take a look at the New York Times Gambit Blog.
>
> http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/a-lawsuit-against-chess-of...
>
> January 23, 2009 8:52 am
>
> "Its interesting to note you did not publish my message yesterday -
> but I can publish it, since I am a chess journalist. And I can note
> that NY Times declined. Phil Innes
> =97 Phil Innes"
None of the posters are active tournament chess players, but all of
them post a tremendous amount on the Internet.
Phil Innes calls himself a =93chess journalist=94 but the only place he
has ever been published is on his own Blog.
Then, there is Rob the Robber who claims that =93legal documents
clearing two of the defendants of wrong doing have been publicly
posted=94, but actually, the documents to which he is referring prove
that his clients are guilty. They were filed in Springfield, Illinois
in the case USCF v. Polgar and Truong, Case No. 2008MR000751 and can
be downloaded from the Internet.
Sam Sloan
|
|
