 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics ChessKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Chess Forum / General Topics / February 2005father Sam 6 : 0 Nickson Boobaki
Father Sam 6 : 0 Nick-son Boobaki ================================= Nick-son Boobaki (phony pseudoBourbaki) likes personal questions and hypothetical Sam's statements. Thus he can't decline to answer the following two: A. Nick, would you be hurt by a statement from Sam Sloan in which he would deny being your biological father? B. Would you support Sam from the bottom of your stinking heart if Sam claimed that at the time when he had his way with your mother, your mother had sex with many people of every **conceivable** sex, and that your mixed ethnic background is the result of her rather than his sexual craving for many different races? Comparing you, Boobaki Nick-son, with other Sam's children, it is hard to believe that indeed you are one of them. They are artists, they play chess well, and a coward like you would never face a danger, not to mention going to war. You, Nick-son, like to stick around chessplayers; you try hard to impress people; you make funny claims about your ha-ha-penmanship... so that Sam's fatherhood cannot be excluded, while you do everything sooo poorly, when comapred to your pop: Sam 1 : 0 Nick -- chess Sam 1 : 0 Nick -- mathematics, logical thinking Sam 1 : 0 Nick -- English, History, writing skills Sam 1 : 0 Nick -- humor (that's another big one :-) Sam 1 : 0 Nick -- honesty Sam 1 : 0 Nick -- creativity ============================================ Sam 6 : 0 Nick -- intelligence + humaneness How was it possible for Sam to sire such a low creature with inferior brain, like Nick-son Boobaki? We know that Sam, while sexually experienced, has difficulties to make the ends meet. So, out of his concern for environment, Sam was recycling or reusing his condoms. One of them popped and here you are, Boobaki Nickson, and Sam once more became pop. In short, Nicky, you're a victim of Sam's popped condom. This explains Nick's inferiority among Sam's many known and unknown children, hence Nick's inferiority complex, while it still doesn't make father Sam responsible for Nick Boobaki's sick dishonesty, for Nick's racial and ethnic Stalinist- Goebbelsian prejudice, for Nick's propaganda style manipulations and obsessive lies. Wlod Everything snipped. It is time that this flaming between Nick and Wlod stopped. I was once involved in a bitter flame war. It was resolved by both parties agreeing never to respond to each other's posts, and never to mention or allude to each other again. I suggest the same here. Regards, Simon.  SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. Please, Simon, it is highly unfair to me to treat this case like there was any symmetry. The guilt and shame, the lowest manipulations of text, continuous harrasing, lies, getting into other people's private domain, spying on people etc--it is all Nick, it is of Nick's doing. He is 100% the guilty party, so please, if you're trying to bring peace, do it fairly. Otherwise it is counterproductive. Justice doesn't mean that if someone has stolen a $100 from you then you are suppose to give him $50 to make it fifty-fity. Don't treat the parties equally but as they deserve it. We had many degenerates, sick racists and weirdos on rgc[mp], while Nick Bourbaki is by far the most digusting of them all. Wlod > Please, Simon, it is highly unfair to me > to treat this case like there was any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > private domain, spying on people etc--it is > all Nick, it is of Nick's doing. Nick has not been using foul and abusive language. I have not seen any evidence of Nick twisting the meaning of what has been written. > He is 100% the guilty party, so please, if you're > trying to bring peace, do it fairly. Otherwise > it is counterproductive. I disagree. > Justice doesn't mean that if someone has stolen > a $100 from you then you are suppose to give > him $50 to make it fifty-fity. Don't treat the parties > equally but as they deserve it. We had many degenerates, > sick racists and weirdos on rgc[mp], while Nick Bourbaki > is by far the most digusting of them all. Nick is not the one making vulgar jokes about parentage. Regards Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. > Nick is not the one making vulgar jokes about parentage. "Nick" has done so many vulgar personal attacks that he deserves to be laughed at. Regards, Jerzy > "Nick" has done so many vulgar personal attacks that he deserves to be > laughed at. Do I understand this correctly: Nick is vulgar, so it is fine, laudable, excellent that you and Wlod are vulgar too? HansJ > > "Nick" has done so many vulgar personal attacks that he deserves to be > > laughed at. > > Do I understand this correctly: Nick is vulgar, so it is fine, laudable, > excellent that you and Wlod are vulgar too? I can see a small difference : Vlod is a real person and takes full responsibility for what he writes here even if I disagree with him but "Nick" is simply an anonymous coward. Regards, Jerzy Hans Jørgen Lassen wrote (to Jerzy Ciruk): > > "Nick" has done so many vulgar personal attacks That's another lie by Jerzy Ciruk (who, of course, cannot cite any such evidence). > > that he deserves to be laughed at. As I have stated before, the chess newsgroups are full of 1) pathological liars and 2) 'readers' who seem too stupid to recognise those liars. Hans, I believe that you do not belong to (1), and I hope that you are not foolish enough to belong to (2). In particular, I hope that you are not as gullible as Jerzy Ciruk and Wlodzimierz Holsztynski hope that you are. > Do I understand this correctly: Nick is vulgar, "Nick has not been using foul and abusive language." --Simon ('chapman billy', 4 February 2005) Please note that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has *created* this baseless *troll thread* with my handle intentionally misspelled in its heading in order to attack me personally. In contrast, I never have created any thread with the name of any writer here in its heading. Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's original post was full of lies (It has 'none (no truth) whatsoever', according to Simon.) and vulgar insults against my mother. While Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has often used the most abusive epithets that he apparently knows in the English language (I have been waiting for him to call me 'Satanic') to mischaracterise me, I have consistently referred to him *correctly* by his full name, 'Wlodzimierz Holsztynski', or as 'Mr Holsztynski'. On a rather fine point of etiquette, for a long time I have avoided using the common abbreviation 'Wlod' because that diminutive *might* imply to an ignorant reader that Holsztynski and I could be on terms of intimacy. Given his recent vulgar insults against my mother, I shall henceforth refer to him as 'Holsztynski'. I have no doubt that Jerzy Ciruk will consider me 'vulgar' for doing so. When Jerzy Ciruk and Wlodzimierz Holsztynski have written their countless lies in order to attack me personally, *sometimes* (I lack the time to respond to every lie) I have *cited evidence to prove* that they are lying. I have no regret whatsoever for characterising both Jerzy Ciruk and Wlodzimierz Holsztynski as 'liars'. > so it is fine, laudable, excellent that you and Wlod > are vulgar too? "So, I am virtually spitting in his (Nick's) face. It is as good as for real, and even better. I don't need any violence. Spitting virtually in his (Nick's) cowardish face is good enough." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (30 January 2004) As I recall, some other troll(s) here have apparently expressed their approval of that 'spitting' comment. It's clear enough that Holsztynski has a cherished fantasy of spitting in my face, which would be a criminal offence. I note with disdain that Holsztynski has included a token legal disclaimer, "I don't need any violence." "Anatoly Karpov is the SHAME of world chess." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (4 December 2003) "I have never insulted anyone, and certainly it is hardly possible to insult Karpov." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (5 December 2003) "I have never insulted anyone" is a characteristic lie by Wlodzimierz Holsztynski, a pathological liar. "Yes, Karpov is a very strong chess player, while he is a very low creature, a poor excuse for a human being. That's how he will always be remembered by the chess history." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (6 December 2003) As far as I can tell, Holsztynski does *not* believe what he wrote (above) about Anatoly Karpov was 'insulting'. Any reader with any sense should believe otherwise. Likewise, any reader with any sense should *never* believe anything written about me by Jerzy Ciruk or Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. veritas odium parit (Terence) --Nick veritas odium parit (Terence) ------- Small point, it ain't Terence, its Ausonius Larger point: Favete linguis. [Horace] Phil --Nick > Nick quoted: > > veritas odium parit (Terence) > > Small point, it ain't Terence, its Ausonius As in the case when he wrote of the 'grandchild' of Virginia Woolf (who had no children), 'Chess One' seems mistaken in his Latin citation as well as in his English prose ("its (sic) Ausonius"). Hoc tempore obsequium amicos, *veritas odium parit*. --Terence (Andria 68) --Nick O Nick, smaller point is just petty, no? As petty as a (sic) after its. And nomatter who wrote the tag first ;) Larger point was why you posted here in tongues, so to speak. Let's revert to this language and also this newsgroup, which is about chess things, and not about guessing what *not* means, that is different from not. Or such spectacular and continuous emphasis on inflections and inferences, or other's misapprehensions of them, when that is all that is left to a respondent, since you scarcely mention our erstwhile subject. Phil >> Nick quoted: >> > veritas odium parit (Terence) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > --Nick >>Nick has not been using foul and abusive language. I have not seen any evidence of Nick twisting the meaning of what has been written.<< Nick calls anybody that disagrees with him an illiterate or inveterate troll. What do you call that? Google it and the truth will set you free. He even sought the help of some "green bastard from parts unknown" to be his cohort in disparaging posters here in RGC. > >>Nick has not been using foul and abusive language. I have not > seen any evidence of Nick twisting the meaning of what has been [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > He even sought the help of some "green bastard from parts unknown" to > be his cohort in disparaging posters here in RGC. He tried to recruit even me but I`d rather serve in the marines than in "Nick"`s flame wars. Maybe Simon is his new recruit ? :-) Regards, Jerzy > He tried to recruit even me but I`d rather serve in the marines > than in "Nick"`s flame wars. Maybe Simon is his new recruit ? :-) > > Regards, > > Jerzy I know that's true. As for Simon, he is not a new recruit anymore. He replaced Mark Houslby as Nick's sidekick and has been for a long time now. Regards, Lance > > He tried to recruit even me but I`d rather serve in the marines > > than in "Nick"`s flame wars. Maybe Simon is his new recruit ? :-) > I know that's true. As for Simon, he is not a new recruit anymore. He > replaced Mark Houslby as Nick's sidekick and has been for a long time > now. Yes, and now they are both on their flame war with all real people with real names here :-) Regards, Jerzy >>>Nick has not been using foul and abusive language. I have not > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > troll. What do you call that? Google it and the truth will set you > free. Like a moth "Liam Too", aka "Lance Smith", flies towards a flame, always the same one: "He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) 'an illiterate troll'. He called you a '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you illiterate troll." --Mark Houlsby (6 October 2003, writing to Lance Smith) This was examined forensically in the RGCM thread "message for Goran Tomic". The excellent Louis Blair asked Lance Smith: "My whole point is about the practice of putting quotation marks around things that are not quotes. Is Lance Smith the sort of person who considers that to be acceptable?" The conclusions reached were that Lance Smith did consider this sort of behaviour acceptable; moreover, the illiterate troll dig, while unpalatable, possessed a large measure of truth. Lance Smith's posts are designed to provoke and do contain errors, ergo, Lance Smith frequently trolls. For instance Lance Smith considers the anti-Semitic neo-Nazi Tueschen a "nice guy": "I know that Rolf is a very nice guy. I just came upon his discussion with Nick and see if I can judge the case. I just wanted to find out more info. "What doyathink?" This can be found on: http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6CA24578 Tueschen is not a nice guy, he is a neo-Nazi, therefore Lance Smith's post contains an error. Furthermore, Lance Smith lives in North America, while Tueschen is from Germany, how likely is he to know Tueschen? These errors, and their provocative nature, constitute a troll post. Jerzy Ciruk seems to wear his philo-Semitic credentials on his sleeve, does he wish to be judged by the quality of his allies? Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. > Jerzy Ciruk seems to wear his philo-Semitic credentials on his sleeve, > does he wish to be judged by the quality of his allies? Note that being pro-semitic means pro-Arabic too :-) Yes, I am pro-Semitic As usual my kind regards to Simon the supporter of an anonymous coward and pathological insulter "Nick" :-) Jerzy >>Like a moth "Liam Too", aka "Lance Smith", flies towards a flame, always the same one: "He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) 'an illiterate troll'. He called you a '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you illiterate troll." --Mark Houlsby (6 October 2003, writing to Lance Smith) This was examined forensically in the RGCM thread "message for Goran Tomic". The excellent Louis Blair asked Lance Smith: "My whole point is about the practice of putting quotation marks around things that are not quotes. Is Lance Smith the sort of person who considers that to be acceptable?"<< Very lame arguments indeed! I left out the word "nearly" and you condone your fellow anonymouse's behavior, basically approving every words that he said. Others call him a "coward!" I believe that that would make you a coward as well. > This was examined forensically in the RGCM thread "message for Goran > Tomic". The excellent Louis Blair asked Lance Smith: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > your fellow anonymouse's behavior, basically approving every words that > he said. In the interests of brevity I shall refer to Lance Smith, or Liam Too or whatever his name is as Smith Too. Can this friend of neo-Nazis Smith Too really have such trouble remembering his exposure? In the thread "message for Goran Tomic" Smith Too falsely attributed a series of "quotes" to various RGCM participants. Hence Louis Blair's question. Here is a link to the posts: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/90ab1abb4b83cefb?dm ode=source or http://tinyurl.com/59f3d . The thread is on: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_frm/thread/e107f c0a2d76b530/155c0597bd035425?tvc=1&q=%22message+for+Goran+Tomic%22&_done=%2Fgrou p%2Frec.games.chess.misc%2Fsearch%3Fgroup%3Drec.games.chess.misc%26q%3D%22messag e+for+Goran+Tomic%22%26qt_g%3D1%26searchnow%3DSearch+this+group%26&_doneTitle=Ba ck+to+Search&scrollSave=&&d#155c0597bd035425 or http://tinyurl.com/6g4xj Those who read further in those posts will see that Smith Too lied, he pretended that there was no intention to deceive. He quite clearly can see nothing wrong with false and malicious misattributions. What is clear is that Smith Too does have difficulty with the English language, a difficulty compounded by his seeming inability to get through twenty-four hours without his fix of lies. > Others call him a "coward!" I believe that that would make you a coward > as well. This infantile remark is partly caused by Smith Too's difficulties with English, and his convenient problem with remembering things. My real name has been mentioned many times on RGCM. And, unlike Smith Too, it is easy to confirm. One has to wonder about the googling skills of ace internet detective Smith Too if he can't manage even that. Smith Too seems to regard it as good form to publish private addresses on the net without approval. Can he tell us, convincingly, which of the three Lance Smiths he is pretending to be? Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. > Can this friend of neo-Nazis Smith Too really have such trouble > remembering his exposure?<< A friend of neo-Nazi? What are you talking about? If you can provide a link to this, then you can prove to the world that you are not THE liar. It's your only chance, don't blow it! > In the thread "message for Goran Tomic" Smith Too falsely attributed a > series of "quotes" to various RGCM participants. Hence Louis Blair's > question. Here is a link to the posts: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/90ab1abb4b83cefb?dm ode=source > or http://tinyurl.com/59f3d . > > The thread is on: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_frm/thread/e107f c0a2d76b530/155c0597bd035425?tvc=1&q=%22message+for+Goran+Tomic%22&_done=%2Fgrou p%2Frec.games.chess.misc%2Fsearch%3Fgroup%3Drec.games.chess.misc%26q%3D%22messag e+for+Goran+Tomic%22%26qt_g%3D1%26searchnow%3DSearch+this+group%26&_doneTitle=Ba ck+to+Search&scrollSave=&&d#155c0597bd035425 > or http://tinyurl.com/6g4xj > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > language, a difficulty compounded by his seeming inability to get > through twenty-four hours without his fix of lies. Pretended that there was no intention to deceive? LOL! What are you talking about? > This infantile remark is partly caused by Smith Too's difficulties with > English, and his convenient problem with remembering things. My real > name has been mentioned many times on RGCM. And, unlike Smith Too, it is > easy to confirm. One has to wonder about the googling skills of ace > internet detective Smith Too if he can't manage even that. How can a remark, bu using a simple term like coward, have anything to do with an English language difficulty? Let me re-phrase it, how does making a remark related to an English language difficulty? > Smith Too seems to regard it as good form to publish private addresses > on the net without approval. DUH, those email addresses are on the net, all has access to them. If you're talking about Jason Repa, then you must be a fan of his. His address was published by somebody in RGCC days before I wrote it on RGCP, for the simple reason that he's been harassing posters in RGCP. > Can he tell us, convincingly, which of the three Lance Smiths > he is pretending to be? Not one of them. Read further. I already told Richard Peterson that I'm not one of the 3 Lance Smiths in the USCF website, which is similar to his situation in regards to the 8 Richard Petersons there. Do you understand? Maybe you're the one with an English language difficulty and you're blaiming it on me? I didn't have an English major or minor, and never did I claim to have one. What do you have Burns? >>Can this friend of neo-Nazis Smith Too really have such trouble >>remembering his exposure?<< > A friend of neo-Nazi? What are you talking about? If you can provide > a link to this, then you can prove to the world that you are not THE > liar. It's your only chance, don't blow it! Can Smith Too really have such trouble recalling a post made only a few days ago? Here is the germane part of that post of 5 February: 'For instance Lance Smith considers the anti-Semitic neo-Nazi Tueschen a "nice guy": '"I know that Rolf is a very nice guy. I just came upon his discussion with Nick and see if I can judge the case. I just wanted to find out more info. '"What doyathink?" 'This can be found on: http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6CA24578' One of the meanings of the noun "friend", of which Smith Too may be blissfully unaware, is someone who acts as an ally in battle. It is obvious to anyone who has read the previous posts in this thread that that was my intended meaning. It is also obvious that Smith Too was an ally of the neo-Nazi Tueschen in the anti-Semitic thread "Being a Jew and a Liar". Can Smith Too cite any post where he has withdrawn his support for Tueschen? >>In the thread "message for Goran Tomic" Smith Too falsely attributed > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Pretended that there was no intention to deceive? LOL! What are you > talking about? Smith Too really should try harder. Below is a link to the series of posts. Louis Blair rightly challenged the original from Smith Too, which appears to have been conveniently cancelled, but it is easy to infer what is missing. Starting from http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_frm/thread/e107f c0a2d76b530/155c0597bd035425?tvc=1&q=%22message+for+Goran+Tomic%22&_done=%2Fgrou p%2Frec.games.chess.misc%2Fsearch%3Fgroup%3Drec.games.chess.misc%26q%3D%22messag e+for+Goran+Tomic%22%26qt_g%3D1%26searchnow%3DSearch+this+group%26&_doneTitle=Ba ck+to+Search&scrollSave=&&d#155c0597bd035425 or equivalently: http://tinyurl.com/6g4xj . Look at the posts made on and after 26 May 2004. The number to start with is 159. The original post contained several false quotations, I took the liberty of noting them down in my post of 2 June 2004. One can see it on http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/73506a99029a2f50 or http://tinyurl.com/48m83 . This post makes it abundantly clear that Smith Too was attempting to deceive readers. Smith Too's defence was that these quotes constituted a joke, hence he was pretending that there was no intention to deceive. >>This infantile remark is partly caused by Smith Too's difficulties > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > do > with an English language difficulty? There is ample evidence that Smith Too is nearly illiterate. > Let me re-phrase it, how does making a remark related to an English > language difficulty? And here is an instance. Suppose one is charitable and assume that Smith Too meant "relate" instead of "related". There is still Smith Too's inability to observe that a remark can be caused by a difficulty with the English language. >>Smith Too seems to regard it as good form to publish private > addresses > >>on the net without approval. > > DUH, those email addresses are on the net, all has access to them. A further instance of Smith Too's problems with the English language, where did I write *email* address? > If you're talking about Jason Repa, then you must be a fan of his. I am most certainly not a fan of Repa's, he has been kill-filed by me, I have written posts condemning him, does Too Smith want a link? > His address was published by somebody in RGCC days before I wrote it > on RGCP, for the simple reason that he's been harassing posters in > RGCP. Even someone like Repa should not have his home address posted, claiming that someone else did it first is no excuse. I don't subscribe to RGCP, does Smith Too not know which group he is currently posting on? >>Can he tell us, convincingly, which of the three Lance Smiths >>he is pretending to be? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which is similar to his situation in regards to the 8 Richard > Petersons there. Does Smith Too have a link? I do not recall any such post in *RGCM*. Smith Too's answer still does not reveal his identity. If Smith Too could read, he would know that I captained club teams for twenty-seven years, and was a club secretary for a dozen. I have also been the treasurer of my county chess association; additionally I have captained county teams. I was also once a reluctant organizer of a team tournament, chasing after people to get them to play. All unpaid and without claiming expenses. I can walk into any chess club in London and almost certainly recognize at least one person, as well as being recognized by at least one individual. Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. > >>Can this friend of neo-Nazis Smith Too really have such trouble > >>remembering his exposure?<< [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 'This can be found on: http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6CA24578' You gave an incorrect link. The correct one is http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6CA24578 However it doesn`t mean that Lance is a supporter of neo-nazi Rolf Tueschen because it wasn`t proved that Rolf is a neo-nazi without any doubt. However without any doubt "Nick" is a shameless anonymous coward who attacks many decent people here and you are his supporter and of course you are anonymous too. Jerzy > You gave an incorrect link. The correct one is > http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6CA24578 > > However it doesn`t mean that Lance is a supporter of neo-nazi Rolf > Tueschen because it wasn`t proved that Rolf is a neo-nazi without > any doubt. And it doesn't mean also that I'm a friend of Rolf just by saying he's a very nice guy (at least to me in RGC), because I've never meet the guy. Billy is lying to his bones again. > However without any doubt "Nick" is a shameless anonymous coward > who attacks many decent people here and you are his supporter and > of course you are anonymous too. > > Jerzy Beyond reasonable doubt, both of them are shameless cowards. Regards, Lance >>>>Can this friend of neo-Nazis Smith Too really have such trouble >>>>remembering his exposure?<< [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You gave an incorrect link. The correct one is > http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6CA24578 Anyone with reasonable eyesight or a search function will see that the links are identical. Perhaps in Polish no one uses quotation marks when quoting from a text? > However it doesn`t mean that Lance is a supporter of neo-nazi Rolf Tueschen > because it wasn`t proved that Rolf is a neo-nazi without any doubt. Tueschen started the RGCM troll thread "Being a Jew and a Liar" in November 2003. Many people concluded on the strength of this title alone that he was an anti-Semite. Tueschen also admitted to being banned from an internet forum because of his anti-Semitism. See http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/9d5c038749e7ad6d?dm ode=source or http://tinyurl.com/6a7u8 Also see http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/c7e5fca98c4bcfd4?dm ode=source or http://tinyurl.com/3mavr Tueschen used expressions such as "Jew officials" and "evil Jewish hatred", he also repeated Irving's filth. See for instance: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/7c02f866ad10d9c4 or http://tinyurl.com/6pmzm Thus only a troll or an anti-Semite could possibly deny that Tueschen is an anti-Semite. Tueschen also expressed support for German far right wing views. Thus he is a neo-Nazi even if he doesn't formally belong to such a grouping. "Lance Smith" lent support to Tueschen in the thread "Being a Jew and a Liar", hence "Lance Smith" was a friend of Tueschen in that thread. > However without any doubt "Nick" is a shameless anonymous coward who attacks > many decent people Such as "Lance Smith", Tueschen, and Sloan? Now that Jerzy has reopened this particular subject, I will continue questioning him. To recapitulate: 1) Jerzy can see nothing wrong in a cartoon in which Sloan falsely states that the Pope, who is very frail and subjected to press coverage that hints he is dying, trawls the internet for porn. 2) Jerzy can see nothing wrong in Sloan describing a woman as a lesbian and broadcasting her contact details. 3) Jerzy believes that only a priest could object to Sloan boasting about his visits to South-East Asian brothels where the girls in question are very young. Jerzy refuses to entertain the belief that these girls could possibly be underage. 4) Jerzy considers Sloan's web site a valuable resource and can see nothing wrong with it. Continuing: Does Jerzy believe that a man who has shown a reckless disregard for establishing the truth or falsity of a claim warrants censure? Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. >> However it doesn`t mean that Lance is a supporter of neo-nazi Rolf >> Tueschen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that he was an anti-Semite. Tueschen also admitted to being banned from an > internet forum because of his anti-Semitism. See "Chapman", you really are on a roll here, no? Another excuse to mention the N word? You excuse this Tueschen fellow of his context! Which was that one can certainly be a Jew and a liar! This was a reference to reactionism to words/label associations, and of purported processes of 'logic'. From a logical basis, one could in fact indeed be a Jew and a liar, and a ... [insert epithets] <right?>. Do you react to the words themselves [with Jew?], as if it is not okay to make these associations? Or will you duck this question too, and pretend, at great length, you have not understood the original intent of the person you criticise? Elsewhere in your posts to Liam you wrote about English usage, and about 'borrowing a dictionary' which is a patent diversion from his offer to you. Liam does not engage you at this level of verbal bean-counting. He requests of you to engage him man-to-man, in open statements, not screeds nor rants, nor any hysteric form, and not as any form of competition neither, except perhaps to how honest a man may be. You shuck this manly initiative. But I tell you, I admire it. It is as much as anyone could do. I am not someone who suffers word-games intended to distort this aspect of manliness with overmuch patience to those who only pretend to it. Sometimes a man is great by reserving his opinion, but not feeling compelled to fight other men, but to understand himself as another fighter. It is honorable to carry pain. All men do it, admittedly or not. Shall we despise each other, therefore? Phil > It is honorable to carry pain. All men do it, admittedly or not. Shall we > despise each other, therefore? I`m afraid that anonymous persons like "Nick" have no dignity and therefore no honour. And yes, they despise other people who are of different opinions. BTW "Nick" repeatedly attacks other non-anonymous people with real names. I can see that "chapman" is his new recruit and I can see that he has overtaken his "style" i.e. lengthy elaborations usually about one`s alleged illiteracy or trolling :-) Jerzy > It is honorable to carry pain. All men do it, admittedly > or not. Shall we despise each other, therefore? > > Phil Chapman Billy is the kind of person who's always looking for a fight by a flaming others. Here's a testimonial, Mark Houlsby talking to Chapman: "...you may have prompted many an uncharitable onlooker to remark that *this* assertion, coupled with your having invoked the spirit of Dan Smith in my general direction, would suugest, rather, that *you* might be the one "looking for a fight". For someone who professes not to have an interest in being involved in flame wars, you seem determined to fan the flames..." -- Mark Houlsby Jun 3 2003 Lance >Here's a testimonial, Mark Houlsby >talking to Chapman: Lance, what's happening to you, invoking Trollsby ? This is like conjuring up a demon to settle a dispute about who has to wash dishes. :-) > Lance, what's happening to you, invoking Trollsby ? > > This is like conjuring up a demon to settle a dispute about > who has to wash dishes. :-) Yep, but I thought that Trollsby is the best person to quote in this instance because he was a ally of Nick. And Nick of course, is a friend of Chapman. >>>However it doesn`t mean that Lance is a supporter of neo-nazi Rolf >>>Tueschen [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "Chapman", you really are on a roll here, no? Another excuse to mention the > N word? > You excuse this Tueschen fellow of his context! Which was that one can > certainly be a Jew and a liar! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > great length, you have not understood the original intent of the person you > criticise? I wrote as Phil Innes records: "Many people concluded on the strength of this title alone that he was an anti-Semite." I did not write that *I* concluded I thought so, too, on the strength just of this title. I provided many other reasons which the self-serving Innes has snipped. When I first saw this title, my belief was merely that it was likely Tueschen was an anti-Semite. Does Innes want links to posts of those who thought so? It is a point so obvious that any ethnic group has its share of liars that no one in his right mind can dispute that some Jews are liars. The point is that this title served as a platform for Tueschen to spew his anti-Semitic filth. It is a fact that the expression "lying Jew" is used by anti-Semites. I now repeat what Innes has cut: Tueschen admitted to being banned from an internet forum because of his anti-Semitism. See http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/9d5c038749e7ad6d?dm ode=source or http://tinyurl.com/6a7u8 Also see http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/c7e5fca98c4bcfd4?dm ode=source or http://tinyurl.com/3mavr Tueschen used expressions such as "Jew officials" and "evil Jewish hatred", he also repeated Irving's filth. See for instance: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/7c02f866ad10d9c4 or http://tinyurl.com/6pmzm Thus not only is it obvious that Tueschen is an anti-Semite. One can add that Innes is possibly one too. Neil Brennen ("Spam Scone") has also been subjected to more than one Innes display. IMV Neil Brennen has shown remarkable forbearance given the provocations he has endured. On 12 February Neil Brennen wrote: 'Except that the arguments do relate to the reliability of Phil Innes' statements, so they apply to disputes in the chess groups. For instance, Phil Innes has shown a history of making physical threats against posters he disagrees with. Should he deny this is so here on rgcm, why should I be denied access to his threatening posts on misc.writing or HLAS? If Phil provides a "quotation", isn't it proper that rgcm readers be aware of his habit of crediting his words to others?' I agree with Neil Brennen. On 8 February Neil Brennen wrote: 'Actually, Phil has been corrected on this point so often that we can safely assume he is lying instead of mistaken' Given Innes's behaviour towards me, I will believe Neil Brennen unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary. In the same post Neil Brennen comments to Innes: 'What you said was that Frank Niro posted your phone number. The archives at google.com do not contain such a post by Frank Niro, which would seem to contradict your statement.' Posts can be cancelled which I presume was why Neil Brennen was careful to qualify his statement. This should be contrasted with Innes's reckless and unproven allegation. 'That's only because Phil goes into his rants when someone corrects his many (and perhaps deliberate) errors. In my gentle way, I try to help Phil understand that his nonsense remains nonsense, despite his repeated posting of it. Unfortunately, Phil insists on posting lots of nonsense, ranging from recounting details of his conversation with the grandchild of Virginia Woolf to manufactured quotations by George Orwell. Phil also doesn't take correction well, ...' Neil Brennen seems to have Innes well summed up, if anything he is being generous. It was a good day when Innes left this sceptred isle. Although perhaps a gaunt one for America. Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. > Thus not only is it obvious that Tueschen is an anti-Semite. One can add > that Innes is possibly one too. This would partly explain his Fischer-fixation. Phil has claimed Fischer is a "victim." > Neil Brennen ("Spam Scone") has also been subjected to more than one > Innes display. IMV Neil Brennen has shown remarkable forbearance given > the provocations he has endured. What choice do I have? I'm a public figure, and he is a nothing. > On 12 February Neil Brennen wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I agree with Neil Brennen. There have been several instances of Innes claiming I've written things I haven't. He's even claimed I've posted under the name "Matt Nemmers". > On 8 February Neil Brennen wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Given Innes's behaviour towards me, I will believe Neil Brennen unless > there is convincing evidence to the contrary. As you should. :-) > In the same post Neil Brennen comments to Innes: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to qualify his statement. This should be contrasted with Innes's > reckless and unproven allegation. That was a quotation from Mike Nolan. Innes shortly afterward threatened Mr. Nolan. > 'That's only because Phil goes into his rants when someone corrects his > many (and perhaps deliberate) errors. In my gentle way, I try to help [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Neil Brennen seems to have Innes well summed up, if anything he is being > generous. Thank you. > It was a good day when Innes left this sceptred isle. Although perhaps a > gaunt one for America. He's probably a "Made in USA" kook who enjoys passing himself off as a snootnosed European. >>In the same post Neil Brennen comments to Innes: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That was a quotation from Mike Nolan. Innes shortly afterward > threatened Mr. Nolan. My apologies to both Mike Nolan and Neil Brennen for this mis-attribution. > Thank you. You're welcome. In the past Phil Innes wrote an inaccurate post, which I corrected, this has led to his trolling of me. Phil Innes should note that when Neil Brennen tripped him up on his tortuously worded claim to "master" strength in Cornwall, I chose not to intervene, even though I knew the worth of Phil Innes's claim. Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. The quality of trolling is in great decline. Here is a sad example! >>>In the same post Neil Brennen comments to Innes: >>> >>>'What you said was that Frank Niro posted your phone number. The >>>archives at google.com do not contain such a post by Frank Niro, Neil Brennan? or Brennen? Or do you mean the poster "xganon"? The one who posts licentious speculations concerning a person's female family members? Or did you mean Neal Brennan who regularly writes speculating on the sexual proclivities of other posters? Are there really no records of this person "xganon" following the posts of NB, [is this a real person?] How odd! I wonder if this Nil Brnnn person can be researching the matter and reporting to you with any diligence? Now... this material excites certain posters who like to resurrect these subjects presumably because it excites them [in your case, BTW, sexually?] - and of course, would like to pretend that nothing at all happened, and therefore they themselves had no part in it! A schizoid orientation certainly. And so... who are you 'Simon'? ------ > In the past Phil Innes wrote an inaccurate post, which I corrected, this > has led to his trolling of me. You like to abuse other people - but what is utterly pathetic is your abuse of your self. > Phil Innes should note that when Neil Brennen tripped him up on his > tortuously worded claim to "master" strength in Cornwall, I chose not to > intervene, even though I knew the worth of Phil Innes's claim. If you wanted to write like a man then you fail again. You only get a response which says that for such cowardly anonymous slaggings of real people, their family members, their histories and so on, ~ as if you did not understand that you deliberately corrupted a record of real people ~ it is well noted by almost every poster here that you encounter that you are full of it. You do not really do any harm, so why do you write to us? Absolution? Advice? I would write to you or anyone on any of these subejcts, but... you are not sincere, you make nervous adolescent approaches to the subject, and these will never do! You are rather sad people among us, but sad by your own making. Those who willingly associate with you are also of such worth that decent people will respond to these obsessions with this sort of response. Phil Innes > Regards, > > Simon. > A schizoid orientation certainly. And so... who are you 'Simon'? He's nothing. If Paul Gait or Paul McKeown would say that Chapman was just an arrogant good for nothing chessplayer, I'll believe them. He's a member of a literary group called, "Chapman Billies." I wonder if he's been posting at HLAS too? > He's a member of a literary group called, "Chapman Billies." I wonder > if he's been posting at HLAS too? Which part of the following does "Lance Smith" fail to understand in the post at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/89ec731f68cb87f6?dm ode=source or http://tinyurl.com/6ml3f "> By any chance, are you a member of the Chapman Billies? :-) "No ... " Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. > You only get a response which says that for such cowardly anonymous > slaggings of real people, their family members, their histories and so on, ~ > as if you did not understand that you deliberately corrupted a record of > real people ~ it is well noted by almost every poster here that you > encounter that you are full of it. Innes should ask his fellow troll "Lance Smith" for my name. Even "Lance Smith" has managed this not particularly difficult task. Can Innes provide any links to posts where I have abused the relatives of any posters or revealed their family histories? His tactics are typical of a troll, i.e. make a series of unproven, because untrue, accusations. If Innes can produce even one post where this has happened, then I am willing to apologise, even though I consider Innes a possible anti-Semite. > Those who willingly associate with you are also of such worth that decent > people will respond to these obsessions with this sort of response. Deciphering Philly bluster can be hard work; how does he know whom I associate with? It occasions no surprise that Innes affects to regard the anti-Semite Tueschen as "decent". One of the reasons I gave up organising, which I first did in 1975, was because of the likes of Innes. Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. >> You only get a response which says that for such cowardly anonymous >> slaggings of real people, their family members, their histories and so [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Can Innes provide any links to posts where I have abused the relatives Stop! This is a chess newsgroup. Its not all about you! You think you are clever to make it so by intrigues, entanglements, in a restless downward spiral of personal defamations. Do you not understand your own mechanisms? To hate people is a defence. You have a low opinion of yourself, and the defensive mechanism is to relegate other people lower than yourself; then you may momentarily appear somewhat tenable, but tenable only to yourself, understand, and it is a very fragile mechanism, requiring non-stop work finding lesser beings and behaviors in order to achieve some personal sense of stasis and of worth. There really is no other psychological possibility why people abuse other people ;) Two alternatives are available to everyone, to achieve a patchwork semblance of stability by these means, a frantic lowest-denominator method. Or the other one, to still note the same faults in others, much as one finds faults in oneself, but judge not, not them, nor you! Phil Innes > of any posters or revealed their family histories? His tactics are typical > of a troll, i.e. make a series of unproven, because untrue, accusations. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Simon. > "chapman Billy" <Burnschapman1759billy17962001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > Stop! > > This is a chess newsgroup. Its not all about you! But, Your I-ness, you regularly treat the newsgroups to details of your personal life, your "tired name-dropping", your pretentious claims to be 'nearly an IM' and to 'know people in chess', your personal 'thoughts' on a variety of subjects you clearly know nothing about, and your cyber-war against your perceived enemies. Evidence is available on request, and unlike you, I DO provide it. Who is this numbskull stalker who won't sign his posts, but blathers on 2,000 times with his deliberate distortions of the people who do? >> "chapman Billy" <Burnschapman1759billy17962001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > message >> >> Stop! >> >> This is a chess newsgroup. Its not all about you! And its not about your very strange and OBSESSIVE speculations either! > But, Your I-ness, you regularly treat the newsgroups to details of your > personal life, your "tired name-dropping", your pretentious claims to > be 'nearly an IM' and to 'know people in chess', your personal > 'thoughts' on a variety of subjects you clearly know nothing about, and > your cyber-war against your perceived enemies. If you can't write about chess, at least get your trollery together! How can someone namedrop and also not know anyone? Its such nonsense! This can be, BTW, only a rhetorical question, since one cannot ask another for their judgement of things with any confidence if they have never demonstrated any. If we assume that I 'know people in chess' why shouldn't it be mentioned? Who has a hang-up about it? If there is no represenation of a fair spectrum of chess life as credibly reported by real people, then indeed, all writing is of personal 'thoughts', which was a crime in the old Soviet Union. Since this stalker never makes substantive contributions to chess without becoming abusively hysterical after three posts [max], what sort of validity does he have for any level of critique? What can it matter if some 1300 player can't determine master play? If some 400lb person wants to speculate about my sex life? If some resident of PA wants to speculate on the English language, old or new, or Cornish speech? Or anything at all :) And now! I note I have become an anti-semite, and worse! As evidenced by another anon writer of similar qualities, I appear to be a secret nazi, and probably even not English, but French? or even Moravian. Some of these people attempt a level of credability by claiming to be writers and historians and so on. Caveat Lector! One assumes they are self-published, and appeal to others with a similar cache of indolent opinions. ROFL! > Evidence is available on request, and unlike you, I DO provide it. You know very little, and understand less. Phil Innes > > You only get a response which says that for such cowardly anonymous > > slaggings of real people, their family members, their histories and so on, ~ > > as if you did not understand that you deliberately corrupted a record of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Innes should ask his fellow troll "Lance Smith" for my name. Even "Lance > Smith" has managed this not particularly difficult task. His I-ness has problems in many areas. > Can Innes provide any links to posts where I have abused the relatives > of any posters or revealed their family histories? His tactics are > typical of a troll, i.e. make a series of unproven, because untrue, > accusations. If Innes can produce even one post where this has happened, > then I am willing to apologise, even though I consider Innes a possible > anti-Semite. Why the "possible?" > > Those who willingly associate with you are also of such worth that decent > > people will respond to these obsessions with this sort of response. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > One of the reasons I gave up organising, which I first did in 1975, was > because of the likes of Innes. >From my correspondence with Vermont chessplayers, it seems they hold Mr. Innes in the same high regard you do. > >>In the same post Neil Brennen comments to Innes: > >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > tortuously worded claim to "master" strength in Cornwall, I chose not to > intervene, even though I knew the worth of Phil Innes's claim. Speaking of inflated claims, your RGCM Quiz question for today: What RGCM poster has posted to the newsgroups the following nonsense about his playing ability? "My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international master, with a rating of 2450..." A. Liam Too B. Ray Gordon C. Phil Innes D. Sam Sloan E. Matt Nemmers The big hint is the lovely "qualifications....is" train-wreck in the sentence fragment. Also, the poster didn't dare post it to a chess newsgroup, but instead picked an audience unfamiliar with chess and the meaning of the IM title. Who might this be? > >>>However it doesn`t mean that Lance is a supporter of neo-nazi Rolf > >>>Tueschen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >>that he was an anti-Semite. Tueschen also admitted to being banned from an > >>internet forum because of his anti-Semitism. See <snipe whatever> Probably you allude to 'ccc' a moderated & fetid little internet gruppe, avidly 'policed' by assorted academic bully-boy types & stupidly hostile to any 'real' intelligence. I too was ejected from this rather 'precious' club & wear the badge with some amusement.. > Can Smith Too really have such trouble recalling a post made only a few > days ago? Here is the germane part of that post of 5 February: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and a Liar". Can Smith Too cite any post where he has withdrawn his > support for Tueschen? I didn't write that 5 days ago, door knob! Support for Tueschen? What in the world are talking about now? Let me repeat, by calling Rolf a nice guy (at least to me in RGC) does not make him my friend. The real definition of a friend is a person whom you meet person to person. > Look at the posts made on and after 26 May 2004. The number to start > This post makes it abundantly clear that Smith Too was attempting to > deceive readers. Smith Too's defence was that these quotes constituted a > joke, hence he was pretending that there was no intention to deceive. That was not a defense at all, that's what I was saying. Others got it, but I'll understand that you'll never get it as you are living in a different world. Your lie is a lie though, wherever you are. > There is ample evidence that Smith Too is nearly illiterate. Then cite them. You nitpick posts in RGC and decide for yourself that these are illiterate posts? Can't you hear, everyone is laughing at you. There are idiomatic expressions that can never be grammatically correct and you can see a whole lot of them in newsgroups. Do you even know what am I talking about? > Let me re-phrase it, how does making a remark related to an English > language difficulty? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inability to observe that a remark can be caused by a difficulty with > the English language. LOL! Ask your english professor, using a past participle is also correct. Can't you hear, everyone is laughing at you. "How does making a remark related to an English language difficulty?" You call the above statement nearly illiterate? What you don't know is that there are a lot meanings of related. Try this: 1. Being connected; associated. 2. Connected by kinship, common origin, or marriage. 3. Music. Having a close harmonic connection. > Even someone like Repa should not have his home address posted, claiming > that someone else did it first is no excuse. I don't subscribe to RGCP, > does Smith Too not know which group he is currently posting on? If it's no excuse to you, then that's fine, I'll leave it that way. That does not make me a liar nor having an "English language difficulty." LOL! > Does Smith Too have a link? I do not recall any such post in *RGCM*. > Smith Too's answer still does not reveal his identity. I specifically stated that I posted in RGCP. Now, your stupidity is showing. Expand your horizon my dear burns, you'll learn a lot more than just nitpicking the postings in newsgroups and calling people illiterate. Can't you hear, everyone is laughing at you. > If Smith Too could read, he would know that I captained club teams for > twenty-seven years, and was a club secretary for a dozen. I have also [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > almost certainly recognize at least one person, as well as being > recognized by at least one individual. Show off! Everyone is really laughing now! If I tell you my accomplishments, you'll realize that you are just a mental dwarf. But, I'll never do that here. Let me make this clear to you, when I post here in the newsgroups, I don't proofread. Here's an insight: The newsgroups are not the place to review the writings of others. >>Can Smith Too really have such trouble recalling a post made only a > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > I didn't write that 5 days ago, door knob! "Lance Smith" seems to have a reading age of about nine. I did not state that the post of 5 February was written by "Lance Smith". That post was written by me, moreover "Lance Smith" responded to it, in his usual boorish way, he must therefore have been aware of this fact. Given that I also provided a link to the post of "Lance Smith" that I was quoting from, it is obvious I did not claim that "Lance Smith" wrote on 5 February 2005 "I know that Rolf is a very nice guy. ...", he wrote it much earlier . As Louis Blair once observed of part of a post of "Lance Smith's": "Another false statement from Lance Smith.". See http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/a76627e3ae8d69f3?dm ode=source or http://tinyurl.com/3ulhm > Support for Tueschen? What in the world are talking about now? > Let me repeat, by calling Rolf a nice guy (at least to me in > RGC) does not make him my friend. The real definition of a > friend is a person whom you meet person to person. "Lance Smith", to judge from his rant further down, appears to have borrowed a dictionary. I suggest he consults it, he will see that there are nuances, one of which is that friend can mean ally. Has "Lance Smith" never heard of the challenge: "friend or foe"? >>Look at the posts made on and after 26 May 2004. The number to start >>This post makes it abundantly clear that Smith Too was attempting to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it as you are living in a different world. Your lie is a > lie though, wherever you are. For instance "Lance Smith" claimed that David Richerby "got it". Here is a link to David Richerby's post in which he denounces "Lance Smith" for this falsehood: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/e799a2f5209e0824?dm ode=source or http://tinyurl.com/4o34q "Lance Smith" still has not provided an explanation as to why his original troll post of May 2004 seems to have been cancelled. >>There is ample evidence that Smith Too is nearly illiterate. > > Then cite them. You nitpick posts in RGC and decide for > yourself that these are illiterate posts? Can't you hear, > everyone is laughing at you. Can "Lance Smith" not recall any of the posts in which this assertion was made? sometimes in stronger terms. And not just by me. It is rather time consuming noting "Lance Smith's" many solecisms, but I have noted a few in the past, and some in this thread. Ordinarily I can't be bothered with this sort of thing, I make plenty of mistakes myself, but not down to the depths that "Lance Smith" falls to; however, "Lance Smith" chooses to troll me, his near-illiteracy adding to his confusion. If "Lance Smith" would cease trolling, then I would not underline what he finds so embarrassing. > There are idiomatic expressions that can never be > grammatically correct and you can see a whole lot of them > in newsgroups. Do you even know what am I talking about? Yes, but I doubt that "Lance Smith" does. >>Let me re-phrase it, how does making a remark related to an English >>language difficulty? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > LOL! Ask your english professor, using a past participle is > also correct. Can't you hear, everyone is laughing at you. Oh dear, oh dear. While "Lance Smith" is to be congratulated upon reading a dictionary. He fails to observe that his interpretation requires an additional clause or phrase. Or is this some form of patois? "Lance Smith" at school must have been very much like Prince Eugène's mule; which mule, having been present at every battle of that great marshal, remained but a mule. > "How does making a remark related to an English language > difficulty?" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 2. Connected by kinship, common origin, or marriage. > 3. Music. Having a close harmonic connection. "Lance Smith's" rant doesn't address the point that his sentence: "Let me re-phrase it, how does making a remark related to an English language difficulty?" is the stuff of nonsense. He makes no attempt to explain what he means. >>Even someone like Repa should not have his home address posted, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Can't you hear, everyone is laughing at you. Characteristically, "Lance Smith" has been editing to his advantage. He mentioned RGCP in a paragraph very much earlier: "His address was published by somebody in RGCC days before I wrote it on RGCP, for the simple reason that he's been harassing posters in RGCP." This quite clearly relates to Repa. "Lance Smith" did not state which group he supposedly revealed his own identity to. "Lance Smith" wrote: "Not one of them. Read further. I already told Richard Peterson that I'm not one of the 3 Lance Smiths in the USCF website, which is similar to his situation in regards to the 8 Richard Petersons there." I have no desire to google through many posts to locate something that may not exist. "Lance Smith" could easily provide a link, or even an indication of the title, if he so wished. >>If Smith Too could read, he would know that I captained club teams > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Show off! Everyone is really laughing now! This is a chess group, I was giving an indication of some of the chess related organisation that I have done. If "Lance Smith" knew anything about chess organisation he would know that these are thankless, time consuming, tasks. I mentioned them as a further clue in his quest to find out my name, which has been mentioned many times on RGCM. Those that are interested would already know it. > If I tell you my accomplishments, you'll realize that you are just > a mental dwarf. But, I'll never do that here. In other words "Lance Smith" has never done anything in an organisational way for US chess. Perhaps he has been banned? The activities I mentioned do not require much in the way of acumen, merely timely application. > Let me make this clear to you, when I post here in the newsgroups, > I don't proofread. Nor do I. But given what "Lance Smith" writes, he wouldn't know how to proofread. > Here's an insight: The newsgroups are not the place to review the > writings of others. Nor are they a suitable place for trolling. But sadly the trolls are always with us, so I sometimes make life difficult for them. "He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) 'an illiterate troll'. He called you a '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you illiterate troll." --Mark Houlsby (6 October 2003, writing to Lance Smith) Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. "For instance "Lance Smith" claimed that David Richerby "got it." --Chapman Billy The above post just got to my attention and I was going to let it go. Since it's a blatant lie, I might as well pursue it and issue a challenge to Billy again. My dear burns, show the world that I claimed David Richerby "got it." What I said was, "others got it." If you can read, then you'll be able to discern that I never claimed that Richerby "got it." This is your second chance to show the world that you're not THE liar. You failed miserably in your first attempt, this is your chance for redemption, don't blow it. > "For instance "Lance Smith" claimed that David Richerby "got it." > --Chapman Billy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > then you'll be able to discern that I never claimed that > Richerby "got it." From http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/fcda0cdfd8c970bd?dm ode=source or http://tinyurl.com/45nap "I never passed them off as authentic. How can others like Mike Murray, Dave Richerby, and Nomorechess understood what I meant if I was trying to falsify things." David Richerby is the second name in that list. "Lance Smith" really should try harder to improve his reading and writing skills. ""He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) 'an illiterate troll'. He called you a '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you illiterate troll." --Mark Houlsby (6 October 2003, writing to Lance Smith) Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. > Even someone like Repa should not have his home address > posted, claiming that someone else did it first is no excuse. If you expand your horizon my dear burns, the chapman billies would tell you that everyone has access to anything. The truth is out there! Here's a sample: 36 Endall Street, Convent Garden, London 0181-455-5382 I take it that you played on the above address before and used that phone number? >>Even someone like Repa should not have his home address >>posted, claiming that someone else did it first is no excuse. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I take it that you played on the above address before and used that > phone number? Finally "Lance Smith" has managed what should only have been a five minute job. When I was a club secretary, I had to post contact details on the net. Not something I should otherwise have done. "Lance Smith" has found an old web page. "Lance Smith" does not have my permission to broadcast my private address. Although he can give my name. Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. > Please, Simon, it is highly unfair to me > to treat this case like there was any [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Wlod Dear Chess Friends, My history on the chess news groups is new. I have created many mistakes and errors as I tried to ad to the context of discussions. I was embroiled shortly with minor verbal scuffles with individuals mostly through error and misunderstandings.(All of with were rectified in private emails to the satisfaction of all involved.) As adults we are expected to maintain a certain level of civility. Manners is the grease which keeps society from grinding to a halt. Chess has been used for generations as a means of futhering cooperation and understaing amoungst peoples and individuals. How sad it is to me to read what we are becomming through the seires of "hate posts". We may disagree. We may not like one person or another. But we must not allow the base natures of our humanity to gain majority in our discourses. Should you be so inclined, sign below your agreement to act in a civil manner. Act in a way that best displays your character and gives tribute to the long generations of families who raised you to this point to be an example of what may be the best in mankind. STATEMENT OF CIVIL CONDUCT "Henceforth we the undersigned to promise and affirm our commitment to conduct all of our discourse and posting in the utmost respect and considerations of our fellow posters. We will keep any personal attacks due to differences of opinion out of the newsgroup and will address any personal attacks with personal emails. Signed: Rob Mitchell 02/21/2005 Please feel free to sign and repost. Rob Reply > Everything snipped Simon, I would appreciate it if you could say here whether or not you believe that there's *any* truth whatsoever about me in Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's latest disgusting personal attack against me (and now including my family members). Yes, Simon, I believe that I already know what you really think of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's nonsense personally attacking me, which may explain why you completely snipped his latest attack against me. It may be true that no other reader here could be so extremely gullible as to believe Mr Holsztynski's rubbish. Simon, then why not be ready to say so? Simon, when you recently were misrepresented by 'Green Bastard from Parts Unknown', I did point out those misrepresentations, and I did charge GBFPU (with whom I once had been on friendly terms) with having committed some 'dishonest distortions'. As I recall, Simon, to your credit you have previously urged Wlodzimierz Holsztynski to treat me with respect, and he always has ignored you. "So, I am virtually spitting in his (Nick's) face. It is as good as for real, and even better. I don't need any violence. Spitting virtually in his (Nick's) cowardish face is good enough." --Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (30 January 2004) Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's countless public insults, malicious lies, and threats against me (or my family members) have been archived and will be forwarded to the proper authorities if necessary. Simon, may I remind you that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has again expressed his great admiration of Sam Sloan and in every way compared Sam Sloan favourably to me? Simon, may I remind you that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has defended Sam Sloan's 'notorious lebsian' allegation against a woman here as 'harmless' (to quote Mr Holsztynski) and that Mr Holsztynski has denounced that real woman for allegedly having been offensive to Sam Sloan? > It is time that this flaming between Nick and Wlod stopped. Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has a long record of writing appalling insults and lies in order to attack me personally. I have sometimes (I don't have as much 'free time' as Holsztynski) *responded* by citing evidence to prove that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has been lying about me, which then justifies my characterising Wlodzimierz Holsztynski as an liar. After Wlodzimierz Holsztynski savagely personally attacked me in the RGCM thread 'Spassky' (February 2004), and I took the time to point out Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's distortions and lies, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski apparently became embarrassed enough to stop writing for a while in the chess newsgroups. So there was a de facto ceasefire between Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and me, which Mr Holsztynski then violated by *initiating* an unprovoked personal attack against me some months ago. Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (who seems to be retired) evidently has far more time to write his abusive personal attacks against me than I have time to respond to them. > I was once involved in a bitter flame war. > It was resolved by both parties agreeing never to respond > to each other's posts, and never to mention or allude > to each other again. I remember it. > I suggest the same here. It seems to me that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's latest raving about me (and my family members) may indicate that he needs some psychiatric care immediately. Given his long record of *initiating* abusive personal attacks against me, what reason have I to expect that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski would respect *any* agreement with me, whom he has mischaracterised as being absolutely 'evil'? arma virumque cano (Virgil) --Nick >>Everything snipped > > Simon, I would appreciate it if you could say here whether or > not you believe that there's *any* truth whatsoever about me > in Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's latest disgusting personal attack > against me (and now including my family members). None whatsoever. > Yes, Simon, I believe that I already know what you really think > of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's nonsense personally attacking me, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and I did charge GBFPU (with whom I once had been on friendly > terms) with having committed some 'dishonest distortions'. We have a different approach to RGCM. > As I recall, Simon, to your credit you have previously > urged Wlodzimierz Holsztynski to treat me with respect, > and he always has ignored you. Which has been to everyone's loss. Political differences are not an excuse for bad manners. > "So, I am virtually spitting in his (Nick's) face. > It is as good as for real, and even better. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > again expressed his great admiration of Sam Sloan and in > every way compared Sam Sloan favourably to me? Which dismays me. > Simon, may I remind you that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has > defended Sam Sloan's 'notorious lebsian' allegation against > a woman here as 'harmless' (to quote Mr Holsztynski) and > that Mr Holsztynski has denounced that real woman for > allegedly having been offensive to Sam Sloan? >>It is time that this flaming between Nick and Wlod stopped. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > abusive personal attacks against me than I have time to > respond to them. It is a pity that the de facto ceasefire could not become the status quo again. Regards, Simon. SignatureExcise Burns and his dates to email me. > Father Sam 6 : 0 Nick-son Boobaki > ================================= [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ============================================ > Sam 6 : 0 Nick -- intelligence + humaneness Vlod, although it`s not a chess competition I like your comparison between Sam Sloan and "Nick". It reminds me of the matches won by Fischer with Taimanov and Larsen :-) One of my strong beliefs is that we are all expression of the same reality call it God or two combined forces called by Chinese "jang" and "jing" so your hypothesis is quite probable that "Nick" is, in fact, alter ego of Sam Sloan or his secret son :-) BTW and your hypothesis is really amusing :-) Regards, Jerzy > BTW and your hypothesis is really amusing :-) Kicking people in the a.s or in other places sure is a fine sport, but maybe not for gentlemen. HansJ Hans Jørgen Lassen: > [...] in the a.s or in other places [...] What other places? It's the Boobaki son of Sam you're talking about, and he sure has no other places. Wlod > > Father Sam 6 : 0 Nick-son Boobaki > > ================================= [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jerzy Dear Chess Friends, My history on the chess news groups is new. I have created many mistakes and errors as I tried to ad to the context of discussions. I was embroiled shortly with minor verbal scuffles with individuals mostly through error and misunderstandings.(All of with were rectified in private emails to the satisfaction of all involved.) As adults we are expected to maintain a certain level of civility. Manners is the grease which keeps society from grinding to a halt. Chess has been used for generations as a means of futhering cooperation and understaing amoungst peoples and individuals. How sad it is to me to read what we are becomming through the seires of "hate posts". We may disagree. We may not like one person or another. But we must not allow our baser natures to gain majority in our discourses. Should you be so inclined, sign below your agreement to act in a civil manner. Act in a way that best displays your character and gives tribute to the long generations of families who raised you to this point to be an example of what may be the best in mankind. STATEMENT OF CIVIL CONDUCT "Henceforth we the undersigned to promise and affirm our commintment to conduct all of our discourse and posting in the utmost respect and considerations of our fellow posters. We will keep any personal attacks and differences of opinion out of the newsgroup and will address any personal attacks with personal emails. Signed: Rob Mitchell 02/21/2005 Please feel free to sign and repost. Rob > STATEMENT OF CIVIL CONDUCT > "Henceforth we the undersigned to promise and affirm our commintment to > conduct all of our discourse and posting in the utmost respect and > considerations of our fellow posters. We will keep any personal attacks > and differences of opinion out of the newsgroup and will address any > personal attacks with personal emails. A very good idea, except for the phrase "differences of opinion." Not everything is subject to factual verification, or such verification may be beyond the means of the poster(s) to research. In such cases I see no harm, and there is often benefit, in an expression of opinions, as long as the opinions are expressed in a civil manner. > > STATEMENT OF CIVIL CONDUCT <<snipped by RM>> > A very good idea, except for the phrase "differences of opinion." Not > everything is subject to factual verification, or such verification may > be beyond the means of the poster(s) to research. In such cases I see > no harm, and there is often benefit, in an expression of opinions, as > long as the opinions are expressed in a civil manner. Taylor, I agree with the difference of opinion. People may disagree about things and should be able to do so in a civil manner. Character attacks and attempts to personally disparage someone in no way forwards a position. I think it shows a general lack of grace and good taste. I believe we agree that keeping personal attacks out of the newsgroup can do nothing but improve its quality. thaks, Rob Sam 6 : 0 Boobaki ================= Sam writes under his own name: Sam Sloan. Boobaki is an anonymous coward. ========= Sam writes like this: ***** Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: van...@aol.com (VanUpp) Date: 27 Feb 1995 00:42:43 -0500 Local: Sun, Feb 26 1995 9:42 pm Subject: Re: US Amateur Team E,W,S,MW Winners The Brooklyn College A roster was Board One Sagalchik (2538) Board Two Kalikshteyn (2492) Board Three Lapshun (2315) and Board Four Joe Valentin (1419). Remember that the average rating of the team must be under 2200, so Joe Valentin was obviously added as a "sacrifice" to enable the other players to occupy the top boards. I have the score of the decisive game between Sagalchik and Jorge Zamora, which I wrote down myself, but I am new at this and do not know how to upload it. The game ended in an exciting draw by perpetual check. Sam Sloan ***** That's why Sam, since early 1995, is among the most valuable participants of rgc*, not second to anybody. Boobaki is the lowest scum of rgc*. He writes in twisted ways to deceive. Then others react to his disgusting convolutions. Then Boobaki writes tens and hundreds of thousands of kilobytes that he didn't mean this but only this as something else, etc. Ugh! And he calls others names, and he claims that it's them who cannot comprehend. No, it's his dishonest writing that causes problems. For a contrast, read Sam and his mild and pleasing way of composing his writings, of presenting his case logically, while without any dry, formal accent. ***** Observe that Boobaki attacks rgc* participants viciously, dishonestly and obsessively. On the other hand, Sam, who himself is attacked all the time viciously and unfair -- recently Simon has joined the crowd -- never reacts harshly, hardly ever uses any epithets. He truly takes all the voluminous campain against him without even being disturbed. He reacts with texts always written in the same mild and humorous way. ***** While Boobaki is a boring coward, Sam is not afraid of anything, he even tests the boundaries of the free expression, sometimes recklessly and, yes, occasiionally without showing better judgement. His choice of words may feel occasionally offensive but he never means to offend any group of people automatically. On the other hand Boobaki is for instance prejudiced against older people. He automatically assumes that an older person must be retired, and that a retired person has "too much time". His claims are false. He himself posted in 1993, just on rgcm, over a THOUSAND garbage posts. So he is the one who has too much time and wastes time of other people. Boobaki is also in sinc with antiSemites. Furthermore, he uses and abuses the racial issue for the sake of his small, filthy games. Similarly, he uses and abuses the notion of friendship in several ways. ***** It is a pity to waste time on Boobaki, but in the next post I'll say a few words about his sleazy tricks, because exposing such dirty mechanisms may have a value to this list, in particular to Simon, who seems blind (or looking the other way?) when it comes to Boobaki-the sleaze of rgc*. ***** Boobaki of course was not able to understand that I was joking when I said that he is a Sam's son. Why was it obviously a joke? Because even if Sam and Boobaki's mother broke a thoudsand and one condom, Boobaki is more than four hundred times too stupid to be Sam's son. This 400 means that with a high probability, the biological father of Boobaki has at least twenty times less brains than Sam, ergo Sam is not likely to be the Boobaki's biological father, even if Sam had any contacts with Boobaki's mother. ***** That's all for now, Wlod |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.