On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:54:27 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:26:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:13:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:44:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely
you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others then
move up to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there
are no more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?
Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play chess,
and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the Queen??
Another who knows nothing of succession of command.
In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one gets
killed, the other wins. Amen.

Sorry, but Vietnam proved the "war of attrition" techniques don't
work. You were there, right? We lost.
Harry, only someone with your extreme intelligence could relate my
statement about chess to Vietnam
attrition techniques.
In chess, there are two opposing teams of many players under the
command of a king, as it were.

The game isn't over when a player is killed. Further, it is possible
to replace "killed" players within the game.

Not much of a chess player, eh?

The North Vietnamese had a virtually endless supply of players ready
to take over from those who were killed. Which is why we could never
win a war of attrition there.

And which is why we are losing Iraq.
If you and I were playing chess, and you shot me with one of your new
shotguns, you would be the
winner, not me.

If the two of us were playing chess, you would lose, every time. No
shotguns would be needed. You don't think well out of the box, you don't
seem to be able to think abstractly, and all your thinking is dogmatic
and predictable.

You're be a lousy chess player.

Stick to tick-tack-toe.

You're be right. I am a lousy chess player. I can barely beat the
Belarussian kid who comes in the
summer.

But then, I've never bragged about my chess abilities,


Neither have I. I'm not that good a player, but I am sure I'd slam you.
Your thinking processes are too predictable to be any good at chess. I
lost nearly 25 games straight to a computerized chess game until I trained
myself to move in ways that wouldn't necessarily be expected. That alone
moved me up to the ranks of the mediocre live chess players.

I have yet to lose to a computerized chess game.


Me either.

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you Peace, Fellowship, and Good Humor as we celebrate the birth of OUR Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:17:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:26:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:13:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:44:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely
you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others then
move up to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there
are no more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?
Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play chess,
and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the Queen??
Another who knows nothing of succession of command.
In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one gets
killed, the other wins. Amen.

Sorry, but Vietnam proved the "war of attrition" techniques don't
work. You were there, right? We lost.
Harry, only someone with your extreme intelligence could relate my
statement about chess to Vietnam
attrition techniques.
In chess, there are two opposing teams of many players under the
command of a king, as it were.

The game isn't over when a player is killed. Further, it is possible
to replace "killed" players within the game.

Not much of a chess player, eh?

The North Vietnamese had a virtually endless supply of players ready
to take over from those who were killed. Which is why we could never
win a war of attrition there.

And which is why we are losing Iraq.
If you and I were playing chess, and you shot me with one of your new
shotguns, you would be the
winner, not me.
If the two of us were playing chess, you would lose, every time. No
shotguns would be needed. You don't think well out of the box, you
don't seem to be able to think abstractly, and all your thinking is
dogmatic and predictable.

You're be a lousy chess player.

Stick to tick-tack-toe.
You're be right. I am a lousy chess player. I can barely beat the
Belarussian kid who comes in the
summer.

But then, I've never bragged about my chess abilities,

Neither have I. I'm not that good a player, but I am sure I'd slam you.
Your thinking processes are too predictable to be any good at chess. I
lost nearly 25 games straight to a computerized chess game until I
trained myself to move in ways that wouldn't necessarily be expected.
That alone moved me up to the ranks of the mediocre live chess players.

I have yet to lose to a computerized chess game.


Let us know how you do against Hydra, or even the non-restricted Shredder.

You didn't let me finish:

I also have yet to win against a computerized chess game.



Me either. And I'm not bragging about it, either!

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you Peace, Fellowship, and Good Humor as we celebrate the birth of OUR Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

Harry,
I am very impressed, I would consider it a honor to play chess against
someone of your caliber.

My guess is I would bet your ass.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:26:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:13:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:44:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely
you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others then
move up to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there
are no more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?
Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play chess,
and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the Queen??
Another who knows nothing of succession of command.
In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one gets
killed, the other wins. Amen.

Sorry, but Vietnam proved the "war of attrition" techniques don't
work. You were there, right? We lost.
Harry, only someone with your extreme intelligence could relate my
statement about chess to Vietnam
attrition techniques.
In chess, there are two opposing teams of many players under the
command of a king, as it were.

The game isn't over when a player is killed. Further, it is possible
to replace "killed" players within the game.

Not much of a chess player, eh?

The North Vietnamese had a virtually endless supply of players ready
to take over from those who were killed. Which is why we could never
win a war of attrition there.

And which is why we are losing Iraq.
If you and I were playing chess, and you shot me with one of your new
shotguns, you would be the
winner, not me.

If the two of us were playing chess, you would lose, every time. No
shotguns would be needed. You don't think well out of the box, you don't
seem to be able to think abstractly, and all your thinking is dogmatic
and predictable.

You're be a lousy chess player.

Stick to tick-tack-toe.

You're be right. I am a lousy chess player. I can barely beat the
Belarussian kid who comes in the
summer.

But then, I've never bragged about my chess abilities,


Neither have I. I'm not that good a player, but I am sure I'd slam you.
Your thinking processes are too predictable to be any good at chess. I
lost nearly 25 games straight to a computerized chess game until I trained
myself to move in ways that wouldn't necessarily be expected. That alone
moved me up to the ranks of the mediocre live chess players.



Bush Healthcare Plan: Just don't get sick.

"Narcissistic men can be infatuated with their own looks, too,
.............. but are more likely than women to get hung up on their
intelligence or the importance of their work -- doesn't matter what the work
is, if he's doing it, by definition it's more important than anything you
could possibly do"

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
Harry,
I am very impressed, I would consider it a honor to play chess against
someone of your caliber.

My guess is I would bet your ass.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:26:20 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:13:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:44:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely
you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others then
move up to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there
are no more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?
Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play chess,
and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the Queen??
Another who knows nothing of succession of command.
In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one gets
killed, the other wins. Amen.

Sorry, but Vietnam proved the "war of attrition" techniques don't
work. You were there, right? We lost.
Harry, only someone with your extreme intelligence could relate my
statement about chess to Vietnam
attrition techniques.
In chess, there are two opposing teams of many players under the
command of a king, as it were.

The game isn't over when a player is killed. Further, it is possible
to replace "killed" players within the game.

Not much of a chess player, eh?

The North Vietnamese had a virtually endless supply of players ready
to take over from those who were killed. Which is why we could never
win a war of attrition there.

And which is why we are losing Iraq.
If you and I were playing chess, and you shot me with one of your new
shotguns, you would be the
winner, not me.

If the two of us were playing chess, you would lose, every time. No
shotguns would be needed. You don't think well out of the box, you
don't
seem to be able to think abstractly, and all your thinking is dogmatic
and predictable.

You're be a lousy chess player.

Stick to tick-tack-toe.

You're be right. I am a lousy chess player. I can barely beat the
Belarussian kid who comes in the
summer.

But then, I've never bragged about my chess abilities,


Neither have I. I'm not that good a player, but I am sure I'd slam you.
Your thinking processes are too predictable to be any good at chess. I
lost nearly 25 games straight to a computerized chess game until I
trained
myself to move in ways that wouldn't necessarily be expected. That alone
moved me up to the ranks of the mediocre live chess players.



Bush Healthcare Plan: Just don't get sick.

Paul,
If I hadn't read the article, I would think you are making this up. No
where have I ever seen anyone match their DSMV-IV description as closely as
Harry has.
Here is a shorter description of NPD. I defy anyone to find one
characteristic that doesn't fit Harry to a T.

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/di...issisticpd.htm



"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
"Narcissistic men can be infatuated with their own looks, too,
............. but are more likely than women to get hung up on their
intelligence or the importance of their work -- doesn't matter what the
work
is, if he's doing it, by definition it's more important than anything you
could possibly do"

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my
manor.
wrote in message ...
Harry,
I am very impressed, I would consider it a honor to play chess against
someone of your caliber.

My guess is I would bet your ass.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:26:20 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:13:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:44:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely
you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others
then
move up to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there
are no more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?
Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play
chess,
and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the
Queen??
Another who knows nothing of succession of command.
In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one gets
killed, the other wins. Amen.

Sorry, but Vietnam proved the "war of attrition" techniques don't
work. You were there, right? We lost.
Harry, only someone with your extreme intelligence could relate my
statement about chess to Vietnam
attrition techniques.
In chess, there are two opposing teams of many players under the
command of a king, as it were.

The game isn't over when a player is killed. Further, it is
possible
to replace "killed" players within the game.

Not much of a chess player, eh?

The North Vietnamese had a virtually endless supply of players
ready
to take over from those who were killed. Which is why we could
never
win a war of attrition there.

And which is why we are losing Iraq.
If you and I were playing chess, and you shot me with one of your
new
shotguns, you would be the
winner, not me.

If the two of us were playing chess, you would lose, every time. No
shotguns would be needed. You don't think well out of the box, you
don't
seem to be able to think abstractly, and all your thinking is
dogmatic
and predictable.

You're be a lousy chess player.

Stick to tick-tack-toe.

You're be right. I am a lousy chess player. I can barely beat the
Belarussian kid who comes in the
summer.

But then, I've never bragged about my chess abilities,


Neither have I. I'm not that good a player, but I am sure I'd slam you.
Your thinking processes are too predictable to be any good at chess. I
lost nearly 25 games straight to a computerized chess game until I
trained
myself to move in ways that wouldn't necessarily be expected. That
alone
moved me up to the ranks of the mediocre live chess players.



Bush Healthcare Plan: Just don't get sick.

Not only match, but match every possible definition....................to a
TEE.

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
Paul,
If I hadn't read the article, I would think you are making this up. No
where have I ever seen anyone match their DSMV-IV description as closely
as
Harry has.
Here is a shorter description of NPD. I defy anyone to find one
characteristic that doesn't fit Harry to a T.

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/di...issisticpd.htm



"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
"Narcissistic men can be infatuated with their own looks, too,
............. but are more likely than women to get hung up on their
intelligence or the importance of their work -- doesn't matter what the
work
is, if he's doing it, by definition it's more important than anything
you
could possibly do"

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my
manor.
wrote in message ...
Harry,
I am very impressed, I would consider it a honor to play chess against
someone of your caliber.

My guess is I would bet your ass.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:26:20 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:13:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:44:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story.
Surely
you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others
then
move up to
take their place. There will always be a top five until
there
are no more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?
Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play
chess,
and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the
Queen??
Another who knows nothing of succession of command.
In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one
gets
killed, the other wins. Amen.

Sorry, but Vietnam proved the "war of attrition" techniques
don't
work. You were there, right? We lost.
Harry, only someone with your extreme intelligence could relate
my
statement about chess to Vietnam
attrition techniques.
In chess, there are two opposing teams of many players under the
command of a king, as it were.

The game isn't over when a player is killed. Further, it is
possible
to replace "killed" players within the game.

Not much of a chess player, eh?

The North Vietnamese had a virtually endless supply of players
ready
to take over from those who were killed. Which is why we could
never
win a war of attrition there.

And which is why we are losing Iraq.
If you and I were playing chess, and you shot me with one of your
new
shotguns, you would be the
winner, not me.

If the two of us were playing chess, you would lose, every time. No
shotguns would be needed. You don't think well out of the box, you
don't
seem to be able to think abstractly, and all your thinking is
dogmatic
and predictable.

You're be a lousy chess player.

Stick to tick-tack-toe.

You're be right. I am a lousy chess player. I can barely beat the
Belarussian kid who comes in the
summer.

But then, I've never bragged about my chess abilities,


Neither have I. I'm not that good a player, but I am sure I'd slam
you.
Your thinking processes are too predictable to be any good at chess.
I
lost nearly 25 games straight to a computerized chess game until I
trained
myself to move in ways that wouldn't necessarily be expected. That
alone
moved me up to the ranks of the mediocre live chess players.



Bush Healthcare Plan: Just don't get sick.

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
JohnH,
If this NG did not have a "Kevin" we would have to invent one. He is
priceless, and in my humble opinion brings more joy to rec.boats than
anyone else. I almost spit coffee all over my monitor when I read his
post concerning "succession of command".

Kevin is one in a million. Did you know he graduated from U of Penn?

Penn State. Or was it Georgia Tech?

NOYB,
Actually it was all 3.


"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my
manor. wrote in message
...
JohnH,
If this NG did not have a "Kevin" we would have to invent one. He is
priceless, and in my humble opinion brings more joy to rec.boats than
anyone else. I almost spit coffee all over my monitor when I read his
post concerning "succession of command".

Kevin is one in a million. Did you know he graduated from U of Penn?

Penn State. Or was it Georgia Tech?

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
NOYB,
Actually it was all 3.


He should be one smart cookie. So what happened? Too much dope?

NOYB,
I think it was dope with weed killer sprayed on it.


"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my
manor. wrote in message
...
NOYB,
Actually it was all 3.


He should be one smart cookie. So what happened? Too much dope?