On Apr 14, 10:43 am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
>
> >>>> I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of
children, the
> >>>> state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those
in
> >>>> trouble ho actually require tem****ary shelter of all kinds,
physical, diversion,
> >>>> legal &c.
>
> >>> Care to list any particulars ?
>
> >> Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
> >> anything -... Like the
> >> fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more
suspicious!
>
> > Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
> > about your various credentials, it tends to make me "more suspicious".
> > There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
> > about your credentials.
>
> > Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
> > credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
> > authority, you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
> > we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
> > well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.
>
> >> Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!
>
> > It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
> > board.
>
> > Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
> > you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
> > For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
> > envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
> > state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
> > of children" -- a reform school, for example).
>
> > Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
> > to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
> > litem might do, and we called you on it.
>
> > In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
> > board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
> > demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.
>
> > Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
> > bluffer. We want to see the cards.
>
> Almost sounds like the rap on Phil's friend Paul Truong. We're still
> waiting to see Truong's business cards from all those companies he
> turned around and the Fortune 500 companies he allegedly worked for.
>
> Birds of a feather do flock together.
Who the hell is Brian Lafferty, and what does he mean to Chess?
|
