| Louis Blair 2006-11-19, 8:31 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:55:03 GMT):
7 ... I think it will be very interesting to now look at the
7 the contents of just one of these messages - especially
7 the author-banning at chesscafe's forum, which
7 Kingston justified to me BECAUSE Larry Evans
7 wouldn't print his letter. He thought that was fair and
7 reciprocal. ...
_
Is Phil Innes willing to give us the date of this message
so that we will know if we ever see it?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:55:03 GMT):
7 ... Kingston has always induced the market away from
7 writers he doesn't like, ...
_
Can't the same be said of almost any book reviewer?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:55:03 GMT):
7 ... I say he conducted this e-mail campaign while he was
7 at chesscafe as book reviewer, ...
_
What, according to Phil Innes, is the specific goal of this
"campain" that he perceives in the emails?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:55:03 GMT):
7 ... In recording all this nonsense we have Louis convincing
7 Matt that I have a permission.
_
That is categorically false. Phil Innes should apologize promptly.
It was MATT NEMMERS who tried to convince ME that Phil
Innes had permission.
_
"Louis, TK gave him permission. ..." - Matt
Nemmers (1 Nov 2006 22:09:48 -0800)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:55:03 GMT):
7 Where did Louis get this idea? Is it, you know, a lie? Certainly
7 a strong enough impression to convince someone else. But
7 enough of a lie so that everyone thinks I am lying. ...
_
Phil Innes produces no quote of me to back up this foolishness.
Here is a quote of Phil Innes:
_
"... Since [TK] says there is nothing actionable in
them, then this seems like a direct permission to
me, especialy since he can remember that, but in
public is 'under-researched' on other things he can't
quite remember. ..." - Phil Innes (Wed, 01 Nov 2006
20:34:39 GMT)
|