quote:

---

> 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)
>