|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > November 2006 > Phil Innes' Bizarre Thought Processes
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Phil Innes' Bizarre Thought Processes
|
|
| Taylor Kingston 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
| On Nov 6, 8:51 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in messagenews:1162766076.968946.212270@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Which was, "I might have been able to bend Niro's ear a bit on Evans."
> I wonder how I have 'misinterpreted' that? There are no two senses to it,
> in his own words it was the only reason that would tempt Kingston from his
> northern fastness.
Our Phil yet again demonstrates his inability to read. Nowhere in or
near the above quote is there anything indicating an "only reason."
This "only reason" idea is purely a figment of his imagination.
Phil has been a broken record with his weird take on this. I think
dead horse-flogging must be the national sport of Cornwall.
quote:
> So here we have the first representation of the person who had *nothing* to
> do with book-banning, stating that his /private/ issue with Evans was a
> matter that as /public/ book reviewer for chesscafe, he would raise before
> USCF whose contract for B&E was with chesscafe.
What a bizarre, twisted misrepresentation. I offer a few facts in
refutation:
1) At the time of the quote in question, ChessCafe had no B&E
contract with USCF, and would not for about another two years. This has
been repeatedly pointed out to Innes, yet he continues to repeat his
lie.
2) I have no "private" issues with Larry Evans. All my differences
with him have been quite public. I have expressed privately no attitude
toward Evans any different from my public statements.
3) My differences with Evans have nothing to do with book reviews for
ChessCafe. They have concerned (A) my critique of Evans' Chess Life
article "The Tragedy of Paul Keres, and (B) misquotation, distortion,
and misrepresentation of my views by Evans in Chess Life and Kingpin
magazines.
quote:
> But Kingston does not feel any obligation to discuss his own attitudes then,
On the contrary, my attitudes are a frequent topic of discussion
here, with myself often a member of the discussion. Here's one of my
attitudes right now, Phil: you are a liar, a hypocrite, a windbag, an
ignoramus, and a fool.
quote:
> Its almost as if he were afraid that people would come to their own
> conclusions -
I'm not the least bit afraid of people coming to their own
conclusions. On the contrary, it seems to be you, Phil, who are afraid,
since you have failed to produce what you promised to produce.
quote:
> and he even hides his comments in the usual way, by writing
> them in abuse threads.
What a bizarre statement. I "hide" things by posting them on a public
newsgroup? That would be like trying to dry off by swimming.
quote:
> He could have, at any time, just come out in public and stated his
> opinions -
Just a moment -- I have to roll on the floor and laugh a bit ... OK,
now I can type again.
Phil, I state my opinions all the time. I've stated them here, at
chesscafe.com, on Jeremy Silman's web-site, in Chess Life, Inside
Chess, Kingpin and Chess Horizons magazines, in two books, and even on
your own Chessville site. When it comes to chess-related matters, I
have few or no unstated opinions.
< We are not reading his real opinions, only the face he puts on them.
quote:
>
Wow. Pray tell us, Phil, what are my "real opinions"? I'll give you
one right now: you are not sane.
| |
| Chess One 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1162840164.515301.131940@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Our Phil yet again demonstrates his inability to read. Nowhere in or
> near the above quote is there anything indicating an "only reason."
Kingston does a Blair! He didn't use the word only in his message, but only
mentions this reason to me that would tempt him to go. But since its not a
quote, then its not true.
I didn't quote Kingston to say "only reason" in speech marks. Its his latest
technical defence.
quote:
> This "only reason" idea is purely a figment of his imagination.
> Phil has been a broken record with his weird take on this. I think
> dead horse-flogging must be the national sport of Cornwall.
Are we changing the subject again, rather than say why the only reason
represented is not the only reason he would have gone?
quote:
>
> What a bizarre, twisted misrepresentation. I offer a few facts in
> refutation:
>
> 1) At the time of the quote in question, ChessCafe had no B&E
> contract with USCF, and would not for about another two years. This has
> been repeatedly pointed out to Innes, yet he continues to repeat his
> lie.
What lie? Is Kingston saying that something that happened earlier had no
effect on what happened later? Its cool to be vague, no? But what lie is
this specifically?
quote:
> 2) I have no "private" issues with Larry Evans. All my differences
> with him have been quite public. I have expressed privately no attitude
> toward Evans any different from my public statements.
Really? So why object to publishing your private comments on Evans?
quote:
> 3) My differences with Evans have nothing to do with book reviews for
> ChessCafe.
Nothing, again.
quote:
> They have concerned (A) my critique of Evans' Chess Life
> article "The Tragedy of Paul Keres,
Your 'critique'? Your critique was published, did you mean your demurrer
after you cahnged your mind on what you first said, the one of stupendous
and lengthy dullness without reference at all to Keres or Botvinnik
directly, which you wished published in Evan's column?
quote:
> and (B) misquotation, distortion,
> and misrepresentation of my views by Evans in Chess Life and Kingpin
> magazines.
You mean the views that you changed from your first views, and which in fact
had not substantive material in them to the prime source, Keres Botvinnik.
Ha! What I have said all along, and entirely consistent with your e-mails.
quote:
>
> On the contrary, my attitudes are a frequent topic of discussion
> here, with myself often a member of the discussion. Here's one of my
> attitudes right now, Phil: you are a liar, a hypocrite, a windbag, an
> ignoramus, and a fool.
That is not a content discussion. That is a personality reaction to someone
you don't like. Your 'frequent topic of discussion' seems to have
characterised people in this year alone as like Stalin, Hitler, a murderer,
Mussolini and to various degrees of insantity - in short, your 'discussion'
rejects points of view without address to the topic, and by these means.
That is an unusual sense of the word 'discussion'.
Your private discussion you do not reveal, and ask people to beleive is
*nothing*.
What in public or private do you demonstrate?
quote:
>
> I'm not the least bit afraid of people coming to their own
> conclusions. On the contrary, it seems to be you, Phil, who are afraid,
> since you have failed to produce what you promised to produce.
That is no matter of fear. Perhaps any other consideration is too strange
for you?
quote:
>
> What a bizarre statement. I "hide" things by posting them on a public
> newsgroup?
In abuse threads kike this one, Mr. 'Discussion'.
quote:
> That would be like trying to
Spare me the need for another evasive and fatuous analogy. You are cuagut,
bucko - how come you simply can't admit your attitude?
quote:
> dry off by swimming.
>
>
> Just a moment -- I have to roll on the floor and laugh a bit ... OK,
> now I can type again.
> Phil, I state my opinions all the time. I've stated them here, at
> chesscafe.com, on Jeremy Silman's web-site, in Chess Life, Inside
> Chess, Kingpin and Chess Horizons magazines, in two books, and even on
> your own Chessville site. When it comes to chess-related matters, I
> have few or no unstated opinions.
>
> < We are not reading his real opinions, only the face he puts on them.
>
> Wow. Pray tell us, Phil, what are my "real opinions"? I'll give you
> one right now: you are not sane.
Your opinions are not as they say they are but as you are seen to behave -
out and out abuse. You lack the courage to say them, and snip the challenges
presented you by the difference.
| |
| Chess One 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1162840164.515301.131940@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Our Phil yet again demonstrates his inability to read. Nowhere in or
> near the above quote is there anything indicating an "only reason."
Kingston does a Blair! He didn't use the word only in his message, but only
mentions this reason to me that would tempt him to go. But since its not a
quote, then its not true.
I didn't quote Kingston to say "only reason" in speech marks. Its Kingston's
latest technical defense, a-la-Blair. He only represented one reason he
would have gone, but never used the word 'only'. Therefore he can say he
never said "only reason", since as a quotation this is true, but as a fact
of what he did, not true.
quote:
> This "only reason" idea is purely a figment of his imagination.
> Phil has been a broken record with his weird take on this. I think
> dead horse-flogging must be the national sport of Cornwall.
Are we changing the subject again [to the usual spurious and insulting
analogy], rather than say why the only reason
he represented is not the only reason he would have gone?
quote:
>
> What a bizarre, twisted misrepresentation. I offer a few facts in
> refutation:
What a bizarre and twisted way to write, and correct it afterwards!
quote:
> 1) At the time of the quote in question, ChessCafe had no B&E
> contract with USCF, and would not for about another two years. This has
> been repeatedly pointed out to Innes, yet he continues to repeat his
> lie.
What lie? Is Kingston saying that something that happened earlier had no
effect on what happened later? Its cool to be vague, no? But what lie is
this specifically?
quote:
> 2) I have no "private" issues with Larry Evans. All my differences
> with him have been quite public. I have expressed privately no attitude
> toward Evans any different from my public statements.
Really? So why object to publishing your private comments on Evans?
Something tohide?
quote:
> 3) My differences with Evans have nothing to do with book reviews for
> ChessCafe.
'Nothing', again. Nothing according to Kingston, but what would other's
think equals 'nothing'.
quote:
> They have concerned (A) my critique of Evans' Chess Life
> article "The Tragedy of Paul Keres,
Your 'critique'? Your critique was published in CL, did you mean your
demurrer
after you changed your mind on what you first said, the one of stupendous
and lengthy dullness without reference at all to Keres or Botvinnik
directly, which you wished published in Evan's column? Did you mean /that/
critique? Why be vague?
quote:
> and (B) misquotation, distortion,
> and misrepresentation of my views by Evans in Chess Life and Kingpin
> magazines.
You mean the views that you changed from your first views, and which in fact
had not any substantive material in them to the prime source,
Keres/Botvinnik.
Ha! What I have said all along, and entirely consistent with your e-mails.
quote:
>
> On the contrary, my attitudes are a frequent topic of discussion
> here, with myself often a member of the discussion. Here's one of my
> attitudes right now, Phil: you are a liar, a hypocrite, a windbag, an
> ignoramus, and a fool.
That is not a content discussion. That is a personality reaction to someone
you don't like. Your 'frequent topic of discussion' seems to have
characterised people in this year alone as like Stalin, Hitler, a murderer,
Mussolini and to various degrees of insanity - and you have even justified
these things as truly equivalent in your mind, though the issue is as you
say above - or your changed critique letter that was not published in CL.
This is not so obvious a parallel to Hitler, eg, as you seem to suppose.
In short, your 'discussion' rejects points of view without address to the
topic, and by these means of calling others insane, murders, famous
fascists, et ca.
That is a highly unusual sense of the word 'discussion'.
You do not allow to be revealed your private discussion, which you ask
people to believe is *nothing* - even after these drastic over-reactions in
expression by your ego!
What in public and private do you demonstrate that has to do with
'discussion'?
quote:
>
> I'm not the least bit afraid of people coming to their own
> conclusions. On the contrary, it seems to be you, Phil, who are afraid,
> since you have failed to produce what you promised to produce.
That is no matter of fear. Perhaps any other consideration is too strange to
you?
quote:
>
> What a bizarre statement. I "hide" things by posting them on a public
> newsgroup?
In abuse threads like this one, Mr. 'Discussion'.
quote:
> That would be like trying to
Spare me the need for another evasive and fatuous analogy. You are caught,
bucko - but to invested to even know it - how come you simply can't admit
your attitude?
---
You did write, no? That you didn't think banned authors had any right to
appeal to negative criticism at chesscafe's forum - and you did directly
compare this to your own 'banning' of your secondary letter at CL - right?
---
quote:
> dry off by swimming.
>
>
> Just a moment -- I have to roll on the floor and laugh a bit ... OK,
> now I can type again.
> Phil, I state my opinions all the time. I've stated them here, at
> chesscafe.com, on Jeremy Silman's web-site, in Chess Life, Inside
> Chess, Kingpin and Chess Horizons magazines, in two books, and even on
> your own Chessville site. When it comes to chess-related matters, I
> have few or no unstated opinions.
>
> < We are not reading his real opinions, only the face he puts on them.
>
> Wow. Pray tell us, Phil, what are my "real opinions"? I'll give you
> one right now: you are not sane.
Your opinions are not as they say they are but as you are seen to behave -
by out and out and very common abuse. You lack the courage to own your real
opinions, and snip the challenges
presented you which contrast them with these public proclamations - which -
ROFL - you declare are 'discussions' while uttering atrociously on who you
write with.
Okay!
But what you don't allow is for people to compare this 'I say it like it is'
stuff with the way you actually say it in private!
I say that is not *nothing*, and you say nothing about it, Kingston.
Phil Innes
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:51:17 GMT):
7 ... [plain statement] was, "I might have been able to
7 bend Niro's ear a bit on Evans."
7
7 I wonder how I have 'misinterpreted' that? There are
7 no two senses to it, in his own words it was the only
7 reason that would tempt Kingston from his northern
7 fastness. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (6 Nov 2006 11:09:24 -0800):
7 ... Nowhere in or near the above quote is there anything
7 indicating an "only reason." This "only reason" idea is
7 purely a figment of his imagination. ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
7 Kingston does a Blair! He didn't use the word only in
7 his message, but only mentions this reason to me that
7 would tempt him to go.
_
Here is the actual 3/17/2002 quote of Taylor Kingston
that Phil Innes reported (Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:00:50 GMT).
Where is there anything to indicate that Taylor Kingston
"mention"ed all of the reasons "that would tempt him to
go"?
_
"Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
just a few days ago. Due to the recent
expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
Enterprises' activities, the company recently
moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
ear a bit on Evans."
_
(Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
7 But since its not a quote, then its not true.
_
This is the sort of thing that we have been seeing
from Phil Innes:
_
"see if you can dig out the other thing Kingston
said about going to the chesscafe party in
connecticut to meet the new ex dir of uscf, and
the statement that the only reason he /would/
go would be to put a flea in his ear about larry
evans ..." - Phil Innes (Thu, 26 Oct 2006
12:16:45 GMT)
_
As everyone can see, the TK quote (provided by
Phil Innes himself) contains no such statement.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
7 I didn't quote Kingston to say "only reason" in speech
7 marks. Its his latest technical defence.
_
Taylor Kingston referred to the "'only reason' IDEA".
(Emphasis added.) That "idea" is not present in the
TK quote provided by Phil Innes himself.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
7 Are we changing the subject again, rather than say why
7 the only reason represented is not the only reason he
7 would have gone?
_
There is nothing in the quote to indicate that Taylor
Kingston "mention"ed all of the "reason"s "he would have
gone". The quote provides no grounds for a claim that
TK had no other reasons.
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (6 Nov 2006 11:09:24 -0800):
7 ... At the time of the quote in question, ChessCafe had
7 no B&E contract with USCF, and would not for about
7 another two years. This has been repeatedly pointed
7 out to Innes, yet he continues to repeat his lie. ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
7 What lie? Is Kingston saying that something that
7 happened earlier had no effect on what happened later?
7 Its cool to be vague, no? But what lie is this specifically?
7 ...
_
I, of course, do not know what Taylor Kingston had in
mind.
_
Does Phil Innes have anything to say about this quote?
_
"... I asked you if you, at the same time as
book banning took place at chesscafe [which
is not in doubt], conducted your e-mail
campaign about the very same persons who
were banned. ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor Kingston)
(Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:27:13 GMT)
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:35 GMT):
7 ... [Kingston] only represented one reason he would have
7 gone, but never used the word 'only'. Therefore he can say
7 he never said "only reason", since as a quotation this is
7 true, but as a fact of what he did, not true. ...
_
Here is the actual 3/17/2002 quote of Taylor Kingston
that Phil Innes reported (Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:00:50 GMT).
Where is there anything to indicate that Taylor Kingston
"mention"ed all of the reasons "that would tempt him to
go"?
_
"Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
just a few days ago. Due to the recent
expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
Enterprises' activities, the company recently
moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
ear a bit on Evans."
_
(Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:35 GMT):
7 ... You did write, no? That you didn't think banned authors
7 had any right to appeal to negative criticism at chesscafe's
7 forum ...
_
"... [3/17/2002 (the date given by Phil Innes for
one of the email quotes that he has already
posted)] was about two years before the
outsourcing to Chess Cafe of USCF's book and
equipment business." - Louis Blair (4 Aug 2006
16:17:26 -0700)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:35 GMT):
7 ... But what you don't allow is for people to compare this
7 'I say it like it is' stuff with the way you actually say it in
7 private! ...
_
An assessment of Phil Innes himself:
_
"... [Kingston's] private writing is as shitty
and without factual basis as his public ones.
..." - Phil Innes (Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:09:45 GMT)
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
| Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:51:17 GMT):
> 7 ... [plain statement] was, "I might have been able to
> 7 bend Niro's ear a bit on Evans."
> 7
> 7 I wonder how I have 'misinterpreted' that? There are
> 7 no two senses to it, in his own words it was the only
> 7 reason that would tempt Kingston from his northern
> 7 fastness. ...
> _
> Taylor Kingston wrote (6 Nov 2006 11:09:24 -0800):
> 7 ... Nowhere in or near the above quote is there anything
> 7 indicating an "only reason." This "only reason" idea is
> 7 purely a figment of his imagination. ...
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
>
> 7 Kingston does a Blair! He didn't use the word only in
> 7 his message, but only mentions this reason to me that
> 7 would tempt him to go.
>
> _
> Here is the actual 3/17/2002 quote of Taylor Kingston
> that Phil Innes reported (Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:00:50 GMT).
> Where is there anything to indicate that Taylor Kingston
> "mention"ed all of the reasons "that would tempt him to
> go"?
> _
> "Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
> just a few days ago. Due to the recent
> expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
> Enterprises' activities, the company recently
> moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
> opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
> including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
> but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
> gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
> ear a bit on Evans."
> _
> (Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
> that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
>
> 7 But since its not a quote, then its not true.
>
> _
> This is the sort of thing that we have been seeing
> from Phil Innes:
> _
> "see if you can dig out the other thing Kingston
> said about going to the chesscafe party in
> connecticut to meet the new ex dir of uscf, and
> the statement that the only reason he /would/
> go would be to put a flea in his ear about larry
> evans ..." - Phil Innes (Thu, 26 Oct 2006
> 12:16:45 GMT)
> _
> As everyone can see, the TK quote (provided by
> Phil Innes himself) contains no such statement.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
>
> 7 I didn't quote Kingston to say "only reason" in speech
> 7 marks. Its his latest technical defence.
>
> _
> Taylor Kingston referred to the "'only reason' IDEA".
> (Emphasis added.) That "idea" is not present in the
> TK quote provided by Phil Innes himself.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
>
> 7 Are we changing the subject again, rather than say why
> 7 the only reason represented is not the only reason he
> 7 would have gone?
>
> _
> There is nothing in the quote to indicate that Taylor
> Kingston "mention"ed all of the "reason"s "he would have
> gone". The quote provides no grounds for a claim that
> TK had no other reasons.
>
> _
> Taylor Kingston wrote (6 Nov 2006 11:09:24 -0800):
> 7 ... At the time of the quote in question, ChessCafe had
> 7 no B&E contract with USCF, and would not for about
> 7 another two years. This has been repeatedly pointed
> 7 out to Innes, yet he continues to repeat his lie. ...
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
>
> 7 What lie? Is Kingston saying that something that
> 7 happened earlier had no effect on what happened later?
> 7 Its cool to be vague, no? But what lie is this specifically?
> 7 ...
>
> _
> I, of course, do not know what Taylor Kingston had in
> mind.
> _
> Does Phil Innes have anything to say about this quote?
> _
> "... I asked you if you, at the same time as
> book banning took place at chesscafe [which
> is not in doubt], conducted your e-mail
> campaign about the very same persons who
> were banned. ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor Kingston)
> (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:27:13 GMT)
That is about as clear as it gets, Phil. Time for some backpeddling...
"The heated mind resets the chill touch and relentless scrutiny of
logic."
~ William Gladstone
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
|
On Nov 7, 3:38 am, "Matt Nemmers" <qcch...@mchsi.com> wrote:
quote:
> Louis Blair wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That is about as clear as it gets, Phil. Time for some backpeddling...
>
> "The heated mind resets the chill touch and relentless scrutiny of
> logic."
> ~ William Gladstone
Matt, was that supposed to be "resents" rather than "resets"?
| |
| Chess One 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
|
"Matt Nemmers" <qcchess@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1162888727.582999.126880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
>
> That is about as clear as it gets, Phil. Time for some backpeddling...
I don't understand what Louis Blair is asking nor who is cupposedly
backpeddling. Its a straight question posed to Kingston.
quote:
> "The heated mind resets the chill touch and relentless scrutiny of
> logic."
> ~ William Gladstone
Pity he went nuts. A somewhat warmer mind would have been more appreciative
of what was happening in Ireland and India.
Phil
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-11-19, 8:32 pm |
| Taylor Kingston wrote (6 Nov 2006 11:09:24 -0800):
7 ... At the time of the quote in question, ChessCafe had
7 no B&E contract with USCF, and would not for about
7 another two years. This has been repeatedly pointed
7 out to Innes, yet he continues to repeat his lie. ...
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT):
7 ... What lie? Is Kingston saying that something that
7 happened earlier had no effect on what happened later?
7 Its cool to be vague, no? But what lie is this specifically?
7 ...
_
I wrote (6 Nov 2006 22:04:27 -0800):
7 ... I, of course, do not know what Taylor Kingston had
7 in mind.
7
7 Does Phil Innes have anything to say about this quote?
7
7 "... I asked you if you, at the same time as
7 book banning took place at chesscafe [which
7 is not in doubt], conducted your e-mail
7 campaign about the very same persons who
7 were banned. ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor Kingston)
7 (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:27:13 GMT)
_
Snipping the 6 Nov 2006 11:09:24 -0800 and
Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:22:34 GMT quotes above,
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:16:36 GMT):
7 I don't understand what Louis Blair is asking ...
_
Since Phil Innes posted the "at the same time" quote
again, while snipping the information about when
chesscafe started selling for USCF, I remind him again:
_
"... [3/17/2002 (the date given by Phil Innes for
one of the email quotes that he has already
posted)] was about two years before the
outsourcing to Chess Cafe of USCF's book and
equipment business." - Louis Blair (4 Aug 2006
16:17:26 -0700)
|
| |
|
|