quote:

---

>A quick review of some of the statements in this thread:
> _
> "I have been ill the last few days, so I haven't been
> in the ngs, especially since I have an article to
> translate into German by next week, a particularly
> difficult one of Grandmaster Janevski's on paradoxes
> in the #2..
> _
> At first I was very taken by what I read and your
> invitation - even though I never asked for one. It
> seemed sincere and genuine at first.
> _
> When I read this:
> _
> Since I seem to have accepted Dread Dowd's
> challenge not for a few games but a week of
> games, he himself backed off, and has never
> made any contact - which is much as I
> thought it would be. What you read here is
> just noise Randy, people who say much about
> themselves, and belittle others. These are
> hardly people to voluntarily associate with, no?
> Or has government service rendered you
> completely insensible to conducting
> conversation with other adults?
> _
> You still seem unable to understand that I never
> asked to play chess against you, that was Larry
> Tapper.
> _
> It showed me what a total jackass you were still,
> despite your faux offer of hospitality. It makes me
> very glad I didn't read the groups for a few days to
> allow your true colors to show. Here you are,
> 'dissing' not just me but someone else in the same
> paragraph. The way you lump people into categories
> it is no wonder you are such a bigot." - jamesrynd
> (12 Aug 2006 09:46:27 -0700)
> _
> _
> "... You coward! You write me e-mails full of
> paranoia from an address which cannot receive
> a response. ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 12 Aug 2006
> 21:15:03 GMT)
> _
> (Notice the plural: "emails")
> _
> "... I think you are confused. I have emailed you in
> the past months ago from the address I have
> always used for emails. That was a short
> correspondence or two. It may be 6 months to a
> year ago.
> _
> Perhaps you mean I write 'posts' from an address
> which cannot receive a response?
> _
> This is because I do not care to receive emails from
> you." - jamesrynd (12 Aug 2006 20:25:50 -0700)
> _
> _
> "6 months? Nothing like kicking off a post with a
> big whopper! Latest: Saturday, August 12, 2006
> 12:45 PM
> _
> copied two witnesses, one a friend of mine, and
> one a friend of yours.
> ...
> I meant the e-mail you sent me yesterday! ..."
> - Phil Innes (Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:53:49 GMT)
> _
> _
> "Please post a copy if you wish, as this never
> happened. Header and other information would be
> required for verification.
> _
> First you don't know who is posting and now you
> don't even know who is emailing you? ..."
> - jamesrynd (13 Aug 2006 14:29:23 -0700)
> _
> _
> "I'll let our witnesses decide - fair?
> ...
> You assert an imposter used the exact e-mail
> address you currently use, and your message
> contained a note about current illness, and so on?
> ... " - Phil Innes (Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:45:41 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... we could take the Larry Parr $5,000 bet - I'll
> be glad to put up 5 grand and answer the question
> as to whether I emailed you on the date you claim,
> or anywhere close to that. Winner walks away
> with the other's money. We can then use his
> favorite device, the Pauliegraf. Your travel
> expense to the independent lab closest to me. ..."
> - jamesrynd (13 Aug 2006 14:48:35 -0700)
> _
> _
> "Dear Dr. D.
> _
> Thank you for sending me yet another e-mail
> [actually 2 of them] with a receivable address this
> time; ...
> ...
> You seem to have denied earlier today that you
> sent me any messages at all = but let's let that
> pass, ..." - Phil Innes (Mon, 14 Aug 2006
> 00:18:06 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... The only messages I did send were today from
> my actual email address (as well as those I
> mentioned from months ago ...) ..." - jamesrynd
> (13 Aug 2006 17:59:48 -0700)
> _
> _
> "I have received two emails from you recently ...
> ...
> ... You should tell the people here if you sent me
> an email under the rynd name, and then one under
> the dowd name [initials]- or if you did not! 1 email
> or 2 emails?
> ...
> In [the case of 1 email] you should be alert to the
> fact that someone else seems to be using the
> jamesrynd@aol.com identity and referenced
> "Grandmaster Janevski's on paradoxes in the #2.."
> in their first paragraph.
> _
> In their second message from a different e-mail
> address which uses Doctor... beginning, a person
> wrote as their last paragraph,
> _
> 'Thank you for listening to this and please
> use this address as sparingly as possible
> as your presence in my mailbox is not
> wanted unless absolutely necessary.'
> _
> Are you stating that you sent me one of these
> messages and not the other? Which one did
> you send?" - Phil Innes (Tue, 15 Aug 2006
> 14:12:49 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... I have sent [the message] to [Kingston]! ..."
> - Phil Innes (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:12:04 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... What you sent was a cut-and-paste job
> from an rgcp post by Dowd in this thread,
> dated 8/12/2006, 12:46 PM. There was
> nothing to show that it was an e-mail sent
> to you from some fictitious address. You
> provided no e-mail header. You did not
> send it to me as a forwarded e-mail -- you
> merely put parts of Dowd's rgcp post into
> the body of _your_ e-mail. ..." - Taylor
> Kingston (15 Aug 2006 09:48:03 -0700)
> _
> _
> "I did not write the two emails.
> ...
> The last email I sent Phil Innes is verifiable by
> my AOL logs as having occured in November
> of 2005. That is of course, until *after* he
> accused me of sending him the emails, being
> a coward, etc.
> ...
> I have repeatedly noted that you don't seem to
> know a post from an email. I am not yet
> disabused of that notion. ..." - jamesrynd
> (15 Aug 2006 13:38:30 -0700)
> _
> _
> "... I say I received one message from the same
> address you use here, the rynd@aol, and one
> from another aol account, DoctorSBD@aol.com
> <DoctorSBD@aol.com> though actually two,
> since the first contained an attachment which I
> declined to open - then DoctorSBD@aol.com
> <DoctorSBD@aol.com> sent another message
> in plain text with no attachment.
> _
> I therefore challenge your assertion that I did
> not receive these two messages, and can
> already prove I received them by virtue of what
> verizon.net recorded to my incoming e-mail.
> _
> No more spin Dowd - put up the money and
> make it clear how the issue can be decided -
> you agree that if verison recorded what I report
> above, then I am right?
> ...
> The two e-mails I received were received by me:
> _
> (1) the first on Saturday, August 12, 2006
> 12:45 PM from jamesrynd@aol.com
> <jamesrynd@aol.com> and which began
> _
> I have been ill the last few days, so I
> haven't been in the ngs, especially
> since I have an article to translate into
> German by next week, a particularly
> difficult one of Grandmaster Janevski's
> on paradoxes in the #2..
> _
> (2) after declining to open an attachment, this
> address DoctorSBD@aol.com
> <DoctorSBD@aol.com> sent me a message
> Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:31 PM which
> began
> _
> 'Here is the message you would not open.
> _
> I believe this is his address from the
> newsgroup. If not, please excuse this
> interruption.'
> ..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:08:28 GMT)
> _
> _
> "[(1)] is the one under denial. The only one I denied.
> It is part of a newsgroup post.
> ...
> I had not emailed you since October of 2005.
> _
> On August 12th, ... you indicated I sent you a
> paranoid email.
> _
> ... I only emailed you to tell you I did not send the
> email you claim I did and I wanted to know who
> the friend was you sent the email to.
> ...
> So the short statement is: I never sent you an
> email of any kind on August 12th. I had not since
> October of 2005.
> _
> This is the statement you must refute.
> _
> Or apologize." - jamesrynd (15 Aug 2006
> 16:54:43 -0700)
> _
> _
> "GOTCHA!
> _
> In the very previous post, the same e-mail address
> jovially known as rynd/dowd wrote 'I did not write
> the two emails.'
> _
> AND NOW
> _
> 'The only one I denied'
> _
> We have changed a bit - but where's the bet? ...
> _
> What Dr. Dowd seems to say is that since it is part
> of a newgroup post, I never received a copy by e-mail.
> ...
> Is this your sophistry:-
> _
> That you did not write two of them, only one. And to
> your thinking the 'other one' was not an e-mail since
> you wrote it in a newsgroup, nevermind that you also
> sent me an e-mail copy?
> _
> But what I WROTE is that I received these two
> messages from you, as e-mails.
> ...
> ... I take it by your explanation you no longer deny
> that I received two e-mails, and that you sent both,
> and they were as I said they were, and you do not
> contest any of those items individually or severally."
> - Phil Innes (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:35:35 GMT)
> _
> _
> "... I only emailed you in response to the accusation.
> To try to clear things up. That is what I have said
> all along . There are so many posts explaining this
> to you.....
> _
> You can't keep this sophomoric debate up with any
> seriousness. My story has not changed. The debate
> always was that I did not send you a cowardly,
> parnoid email on the 12th. The emails on the 13th
> were only to respond to your accusations and find
> out who you had appointed as jury - you evidently
> being both judge and prosecutor. ..." - jamesrynd
> (15 Aug 2006 19:07:59 -0700)
>

quote:

---

> _
> I do not know where Phil Innes finds a reference to a
> "november initiative".

quote:

---

> perhaps you should select only what is specifically not intended by any
> writer, and then represent that to other people as if it was their intent,
> despite any evidence you have, as you did when forwarding false-sloan
> messages
>
> did you ever deny you did so? or did you merely excuse yourself, as if you
> thought [ROFL] that your action would have no effect
>
> did you identify to the recipients that they were false-sloans?
>
> was the result of your action the destruction of half-decent work, rather
> than allowing your own critical faculties and knowledge to supplement the
> other half, as an intelligent amendment of facts?

quote:

---

> While repeating part of his Wed, 16 Aug 2006
> 19:06:20 GMT note, Phil Innes wrote (Fri,
> 18 Aug 2006 21:41:15 GMT):
>
> 7 I see that our Louis actually eliminated the vital matter
> 7 of this, his own thread! - on his Wikipedia
> 7 scaturigeniousness:-
>
> _
> I see that Phil Innes does not use google to check his
> false claims. I replied to the Wed, 16 Aug 2006
> 19:06:20 GMT Phil Innes note on 16 Aug 2006
> 15:50:24 -0700. Here is a rerun of that note:
>
> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
> From: "Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: Blair - On
> Date: 16 Aug 2006 15:50:24 -0700
>
> Apparently in response to my 15 Aug 2006
> 20:32:36 -0700 note, Phil Innes wrote
> (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:06:20 GMT):
>
> 7 Dear Louis, since you seem to contain material only
> 7 evident to your newcaster - i will pass over the
> 7 'november initiative', and whatever contents it may
> 7 have had if indeed it existed without inviting you to
> 7 specualte, as well as other private memorandum,
> 7 since after all, ...
>
> _
> I do not know where Phil Innes finds a reference to a
> "november initiative". There was a reference to
> November in a 15 Aug 2006 13:38:30 -0700 jamesrynd
> note that I quoted. If Phil Innes has any doubts about
> the authenticity of that quote, he can use Google to
> find it for himself, or, he can use this link:
> _
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec....29bccb432?hl=en
> _
> ALL of the quotes were from this thread, and if Phil
> Innes has doubts about any of them, I can try to
> help him to find them.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:06:20 GMT):
>
> 7 why would someone with any nous at all after reading
> 7 this mess of words continue to agitate and conflate it,
> 7 as if to denigrate one party - especially if they have
> 7 read what is represented to be the truth by other
> 7 parties who 'speak' for them? but are rather implausibly
> 7 speakers of the whole truth, or of a respectful context?
>
> _
> If Phil Innes is asking why I posted the note, my answer
> is that I thought it might be helpful, and, indeed it was
> helpful shortly afterword in order to respond to the version
> of reality that Larry Parr had advocated. Phil Innes himself
> might find it helpful to note that he has been posting
> quotes from a 12 Aug 2006 09:46:27 -0700 jamesrynd
> rgcp post. Again, here is a link in case Phil Innes has
> trouble using Google to find it:
> _
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec....2c765dcde?hl=en
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:06:20 GMT):
>
> 7 perhaps you should select only what is specifically
> 7 not intended by any writer, and then represent that
> 7 to other people as if it was their intent, despite any
> 7 evidence you have, as you did when forwarding
> 7 false-sloan messages
>
> _
> Perhaps Phil Innes will be specific about which
> supposed false-sloan messages he is referring
> to. Perhaps Phil Innes will be specific about
> exactly what evidence he has for his public charge.
> Then again, perhaps not.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:06:20 GMT):
>
> 7 did you ever deny you did so?
>
> _
> "Phil Innes does not deny publicly announcing
> a charge while lacking appropriate evidence or
> even specifics such as the identity of a specific
> supposed circulated message that 'people never
> wrote'.
> _
> Also, notice that Phil Innes [previously charged
> that I 'willfully' circulate messages 'people
> never wrote'. Now, he] quietly rewrites the
> charge, leaving out the word, 'willfully'. It is, of
> course, impossible for me to rule out that
> something like this happened:
> _
> (1) Sam Sloan starts to type out a note
> to send to rgcp and then leaves the
> computer.
> _
> (2) Someone else goes to the computer
> modifies/completes the note and sends
> it.
> _
> (3) Sam Sloan chooses not to tell anyone
> that the note is a fake.
> _
> All I can do is say that it does not seem likely
> that anything like this is related to the
> Wikipedia activities that Sam Sloan has been
> complaining about.
> _
> '... My guess is that Phil Innes should
> note whether or not Sam Sloan has
> asserted that any imposters are
> involved in this matter. ...' - Louis Blair
> (20 Jul 2006 20:43:07 -0700)
> _
> If Phil Innes thinks that 'circulated material
> from imposters' is involved in the Wikipedia
> incident, why doesn't PI ask Sam Sloan to
> specifically identify the supposed 'circulated
> material from imposters'?" - Louis Blair
> (22 Jul 2006 01:27:03 -0700)
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:06:20 GMT):
>
> 7 or did you merely excuse yourself, as if you thought
> 7 [ROFL] that your action would have no effect
>
> _
> I never wrote anything to indicate that I thought my
> action would have no effect.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:06:20 GMT):
>
> 7 did you identify to the recipients that they were
> 7 false-sloans?
>
> _
> Again, Phil Innes needs to be specific about what
> messages he has in mind.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:06:20 GMT):
>
> 7 was the result of your action the destruction of
> 7 half-decent work,
>
> _
> Any so-called "destruction" was done by other
> Wikipedia participants as part of their effort to
> apply Wikipedia rules to what appears there.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:06:20 GMT):
>
> 7 rather than allowing your own critical faculties and
> 7 knowledge to supplement the other half, as an
> 7 intelligent amendment of facts?
>
> _
> Why should I be obliged to try to fix Sam Sloan material?
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:06:20 GMT):
>
> 7 these are the avoided instances of your own care
> 7 for truth telling while attempting to livie the lives of
> 7 others
> 7
> 7 in a word, nihilistic. ...
>
> _
> In reality they are instances of the Phil Innes willingness
> to make assertions without evidence or even specifics.
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>

quote:

---

> except when people lie in public to such great and persistent degree that
> greater harm is done by being silent
>
> as for you - i asked you some questions about your own deceit, Blair - you
> knowingly circulated false-sloan messages without identifying them as
> false-
> when asked why, you snipped the question
>
> i don't know how much lower you can get than that, except to join the
> lybraryun's club
>
> Phil Innes

quote:

---

> For about four weeks, I have been indicating that Phil
> Innes should be identifying the supposed "false-sloan
> messages" and his evidence. Where is the Phi Innes
> response?

quote:

---

>I wrote (18 Aug 2006 22:13:36 -0700):
> 7 ... For about four weeks, I have been indicating that
> 7 Phil Innes should be identifying the supposed
> 7 "false-sloan messages" and his evidence. Where
> 7 is the Phi Innes response? ...
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:51:32 GMT):
>
> 7 Why don't you just answer if you circulated them, you
> 7 nincompoop! 20,000 words of evasion - so far!
>
> _
> I can not be reasonably expected to answer a question
> like this unless Phil Innes is specific about what he
> means by "them". For that matter, when he writes
> "circulated", he should indicate where.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:51:32 GMT):
>
> 7 Everything else is nonsense, and I take your refusal to
> 7 make a plain answer to be equivalent to your ability to
> 7 honestly comment or ask questions of others.
>
> _
> Nobody can control how Phil Innes "take"s things, but
> if he makes public attacks without identifying specific
> evidence, this can be pointed out to others.
>