| Chess One 2006-11-19, 8:44 pm |
|
"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163834280.289088.10730@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> I should point out that Mr. Innes made his claim to
> IM-dom in such a way as to plainly suggest that he
> believed Neil Brennen was no longer reading (and thus,
Come on, come on! After 5 years of being stalked everywhere by Brennan [not
just me, he will stalk, then distort anyone! he will voluntarily cast
whatever he finds in the most negative light as his way to get attention]
its pretty boring to read this shit constantly of what one's motive is,
suggested by people who are OBSESSED about other people's lives.
There really is no other motive at all for putting others down so
obsessively, than one's own low self-esteem. It is a mechanism by which
others are reduced below one's self, as a means to accept what is otherwise
emotionally desperate. Both this reduction of others and personal
agrandisement are MARKED factors of a syndrome - and more unhealthy than
eating yourself to death at McDonalds.
You will have to pardon me if I don't offer OBSESSIVE ABUSERS more personal
detail to distort - but if you don't like this, Kennedy, write your own
name, then fall out with Brennan, then write elsewhere, and see for yourself
what happens.
If you don't like this suggestion - tough! But don't whine that I should
like it, while you lack the balls to do so. Is that a clear statement?
Why is it that people like you WHINE that they lack even more personal
information about others that they can then further abuse! Do you really
think that can be at all healthy? Living so vicariously through other people
is not to sufficiently examine your own existance, which, for most of us,
requires most of our effort if we are to do it with any integrity and
candor.
To continuously obsess is not 'mentally' unbalanced as Kingston would say
when others have a different perspective, but it is definitely -emotionally
out of focus- to an extent that it can be said that the person is unaware of
what they are doing - they are not aware of their own motives. I have no
particular desire to encourage that state of affairs.
quote:
> potentially checking) such a claim. Refering to him as
> "Nil" (or was it "nil"?), Mr. Innes boldly lied about his
> numerical rating and then threw in a near-title for good
> measure.
For heaven's sake Kennedy! These people don't know a master from a
grandmaster and don't know if high ELO is better than low -ROFL-
Such a claim to magnificence is entirely wasted on that audience! The entire
exchange was to refute the nothing-commentary offered about a painting by
Brennan - and simply to say what could or could not be determined about it,
in my opinion.
I do not apologise for being a strong player, for blitzing at about 2400,
and if that offends you, then what is that to me? Did I not write well
enough for you to understand the intent - I simply don't believe you - or
would you like to celebrate your aversion to strong chess players by whining
for another half-decade?
Most of the strong chess players have departed these groups, for lack of
conversation about chess! Some who remain want to contest histories based on
what they /insist/ other people /must/ mean - very often utilising straw-man
arguments, and lack any ability to actually discuss anything, since these
folks do not know how to ask an honest or open question.
Kennedy himself can't answer the straightest question - which is not a
personal one about his life - He can't answer how many games it is
respectable to play through in a collection of best games, or if someone
says 2300ELO does that suggest to him OTB or CC?
But he can determine what other people intended as a deceit. When he can own
his own emotions then he can ask.
Yet these interrogations and speculations on others seem to fascinate tiny
minds - to the degree that there is constant suggestion of the sanity of
others - this said without any irony at all! - by people who cannot be said
to possess even their own opinion in their own name.
Phil Innes
quote:
> To me, this is precisely the sort of behavior
> which "fits" the complaint of Mr. Parr, while Taylor
> Kingston's claim, quite obviously, was simply not an
> over-the-board chess rating, but something closely
> related. The more Mr. Parr continues to repeat this
> baldfaced lie, the less sane he looks.
>
> -- help bot
>
|