Chess One wrote:
"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.

Tell us exactly what verbiage of yours I 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?

I said that the topic in question was largely a product of Parr's
imagination, trying to impute sinister motives to quite ordinary,
common actions.

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 mean you went and charged me with snipping, perhaps the most
rank, heinous offense of all, without even bothering to see if I
actually did? What a guy.

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!

I'd say the only things being lost here are your temper and
reputation, Phil.

t=Talk about chess or your
****ing huge ego. Its a choice.

I prefer chess. My ego is actually not a very big topic.

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.

I don't think it has even been established that it is "secret." All
we have seen in this thread is that Lucas did not discuss it in detail
with Keene. I see nothing sinister in that, but Parr insists it is.
Frankly, the idea of involving all and sundry in matters requiring
expertise sounds to me like a recipe for a mess -- too many cooks etc.


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

Ah, so now Phil comes out with what he believes is *my* sinister
motive! (amused chuckle) I want a Chess Life column?? Sorry to
disappoint you, Phil, but my reaction to that idea is rather like W.T.
Sherman's when he was approached about running for President: "I will
not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected."