English Chess Forum

Are the last couple of posts:
A. Not very funny
B. A bit offensive to LGBT+ people
C. Irrelevant to the preceding thread
D. All of the above

Many thanks but could you make an exception and add a fifth option?

E: Yet more evidence that someone has a tendency to be subversive, thinks he's funnier than he really is, likes to present chess as form of recreation for the working-class man and not an intellectual pursuit which is predominated by the middle and upper classes.

re Señor Bryant´s reference to Matt Fletcher of July 2020, Matt Fletcher lost a bet to me regarding my assertion that Charles Ingram is a man of Graduate status.
When I, after we had agreed to a one hundred pounds wager re that, sent him gen to prove that Ingram WAS a qualified Civil Engineer, (but some days before the agreed time by which such a demonstration was to be made) he retorted, "You shouldn´t have sent me this", arguing that because I got it to him so EARLY, that invalidated the bet.

Hmmm ...

Here though, and in the more general context of coincidences upon which Sñr Bryant´s post of July 2020 also touches, is a less condemnatory reference to him from my Coincidence Blog -
https://james-plasketts-coincidence-dia ... unter.html

Are you sure you have the right person?

This doesn't sound like the guy I know at all.

James - we've never met in person, though from memory we've had a couple of friendly interactions on Twitter relating to my handle (wmiltti) and the coincidence that Jon mentioned up-thread.

On your latest post, I don't really gamble, I certainly don't recall ever having a £100 bet with anyone about anything. Of course, if you can produce the evidence that we had this bet, I will more than happily apologise and make the payment either to you or to a charity of your choice. If not, I'd appreciate if you could correct the post. Thanks.

EDIT: I also don't think I told you about the minor piece ending mentioned in your blog - suspect it must be someone else with either the same or a very similar name. There are a couple of inactive Matthew Fletchers on the grading list, one from Hull the other from Gloucester. Neither are me.

Matt Fletcher wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:56 pm

There are a couple of inactive Matthew Fletchers on the grading list, one from Hull the other from Gloucester. Neither are me.

I will remove a couple of posts if James does not clarify soon.

Thanks Carl

Oh dear.
Just seemed a bit too coincidental that a chessplayer called Matt Fletcher also expressed an interest in the Major Ingram case.
In fact, rather a coincidence in itself!
(Not that I attach any weight, ever, to coincidences, you appreciate...)
My apologies...

No trouble James, thanks for clearing it up.

Something going to be happening as part of a series at a Podcast called CHEAT!, they´re now telling me.

Stay tuned...

It´ll be the Episode posted on Tuesday June 29th at
https://open.spotify.com/show/2EgRhbKJYTf9yW2KZfoMRS

Ach!
Bloody ZOOM recording meant my contribution was unusable.
Annoying.

HOWEVER, the guys who ran the big racket that took Millionaire? to the cleaners have gone public!
Crikey!

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-ra ... ontestants

On the 20th anniversary of Charles´ win this may intrigue!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbBSDREP6f8

Listen to the guy presenting this Podcast (he´s in conversation with James Graham who, influenced by our book Bad Show, wrote the TV series QUIZ) at 40:25 on tell of how it was "the most watched TV drama of the year" and how he could now call t ten different friends who would all disagree as to whether Ingram was guilty or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXAd0Vwl3_w
Nice to see that the essay which I wrote in 2004 has now, at long last, morphed into having just such influence.

Such JUST influence.

If we live in a world where Russian propagandists can convince Ukrainians that the people shelling them are their fellow Ukrainians, then I'm sure some people can be convinced that Charles Ingram didn't cheat.