"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ps.com...

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:
Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
explain why the redesign report is classified?

Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?

Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote
in
2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair
shake
at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
more space in Chess Life.

Matchlessly turbid and inventive, as always, Phil. As the success of
"The Da Vinci Code" has shown, there is a big market for wildly
imaginative fiction with a veneer of plausibility. Why waste your time
making stuff up here for nothing, when you could be making big bucks?
As for the point of my above post, let me cite your own words:

The point above hoped your obsessive behavior would not continue to plague
all subject, forever, and to note that this thread was about the re-design
of Cl and the web-site.

" ... If you want to be critical of specific people, write your own
name, otherwise
you are much stranger than those you criticise! ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
29 Mar 2006 14:28:33 GMT) (to politikalhack)

This indicates a negative attitude on your part toward pseudonymous
posters. You were therefore asked:

"Would Phil Innes apply this sort of thinking to jr?" - Louis
Blair (29 Mar 2006
07:36:53 -0800)

You replied:

"I would apply it to anyone who talks in a deprecating manner
about people with real names. So, yes." - Phil Innes (Thu, 30 Mar 2006
13:31:13 GMT)

I am going to number the next few logical steps, for clarity.

Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster them
over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
words...

So while you may make comments from other threads about other people on
other issues, that is all about you.

This thread is not about you. Your writing is very odd indeed, and from a
psychological perspective, you are actually indifferent to what you read -
and you want to keep posing away in public about a subject that you know I
have no respect for your own honesty, and which contains no objectivity.

The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that. Go
and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.

Taylor Kingston denies this is a personality issue for him, but only writes
about his and other peoples personalities.

Rhetoric is saying what you do, philosophy is doing what you say. What
Taylor Kingston does is not what he says he does, its rhetorical self
promotion.

And all this to come up with an answer: 'all I can do is speculate'. The
only contribution to the subject, and then we CL as Victoria's Secret as
rationale.

Good Grief!

Phil Innes

1. The above quotes establish that you disapprove of jr posting
anonymously.
2. The fact that he often "talks in a deprecating manner about people
with real names" must only increase that disapproval.
3. It seems reasonable, then, that your disapproval should increase
*even further* if it were shown that jr had lied.
We have proof of that, provided by Dr. Blair:

"I have read Richard Laurie's exchanges with Kingston who secretly
tried to get him to retract an item Laurie submitted to Chess Life." --
jr posting 8 Jan 2006 12:21:20

"Larry, please tell us more about playwright Richard Laurie. IT'S
ALL NEW TO ME and sounds like another juicy scandal." -- jr posting, 2
Apr 2006 09:20:05 (emphasis added.)

You see? In January jr claimed to know all about my correspondence
with Laurie. Less than 3 months later, he claims NOT to know. As
amnesia seems out as an explanation, this is commonly called a lie.

Jr has made no comment on this. How about you?

The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's
website
and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret?

Without real information, I can only speculate. A few guesses:
I don't take out an ad in the NY Times about where and when I'm going
on vacation.
Your wife does not post her grocery list here every week.
Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's.
Ford and Chevy do not show the chassis of next year's models before
unveiling the complete car.
Unless it's Victoria's Secret, fashion designers do not first show
models in their underwear, then later fully dressed.

None of these can reasonably be considered efforts to conceal a dark
secret. I would think USCF's reasons are similar to one or more of
them. It is Larry Parr who, as usual, wants to portray this as
something clandestine and sinister.

Is this a personality issue for you?

Um, no.

Is everything?

Um, no.