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


Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is
about -
and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.

So your saying it's not OK for me to avoid charges of anonymous
mendacity, but it is OK for jr to avoid them?

Taylor Kingston demonstrates his understanding on ordinary issues - no
wonder he should fall out with those beyond his depth.

I am addressing his own anoymous postings - some of which he retrospectively
admits. But even these ! Even these ! He addrsses to his own posts, as if in
support of them..

menwhile Taylor wants me to put down other anons. ROFlL

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What
I
wrote about it was snipped.

Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
or not?

Only when the address to the topic has been snipped.

Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
"show quoted text" and voila!

And what did you address to the toipic in question?

After awhile these non-issue posts all sem very much the same, and its too
much bother to research and correct people who make no attempt at the
nominal subject. Maybe I was wrong and you did not snip, you were did not
address the subect at all?

I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.

Don't be a smart-arse when you are losing! t=Talk about chess or your
****ing huge ego. Its a choice.

But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit,

Probably for very commonplace reasons, as I wrote earlier. It's only
you and Parr who seem to consider it something clandestine and
sinister. It seems Larry feels compelled continually to claim he is
uncovering malevolent conspiracies. When he doesn't have a real
conspiracy handy, he portrays an ordinary event as an evil omen.

So Taylor thinks this commonplace event should be secret. He does not
object. Pointing out that is secret means that one has 'sinistre' motives.

that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?
Phil Innes

I wonder how much better USCF could serve the public if they did not
have to spend so much time dealing with bull from Parr and Innes?

And attend to Victoria's Secret, al la Taylor Kingston's recommended
analogy - being a change from Hitler and Mussolini analogies [and his native
Californian peyote references - hard to obtain peyote in Vermont, unknown
where L. Parr is].

That's chess politics for you. I wonder who really, wants a column in there,
and so is brown-nosing

Phil Innes