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

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?

tell us what you think on topic. You are very resistant to talking on topic
instead of whatever the hell you do, its too boring to research!

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?

And the topic is, yet again, typographic design is a secret, according to
Taylor Kingston - or maybe its a columnist design which is a secret -
whichever, why is it a secret?

ROFL!! Why should anyone make a secret of something that nobody buys?
ChessLife is not ont he newsstands, and you get it with a membership. What
is the result of secrecy, except to avert attention from what you have done
until after its too late to do anything about it?

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.

i don't think firing of 3 GMs is anybody'd "imagination", and hardly common,
in either sense of the word.

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 mean you can't bother to look up if you were addressing a topic, don't
deny you did, but still demanded other people do research on their response
to your off-topic material ? what not 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.

so far no content. is this how evans felt?

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.

**** reputation. topic is lost here, and you go on and on without it, 5
years now, your personality against the Greats.

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

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

so talk chess. don't talk talking chess, talk chess.

you think firing these people is 'common' to use your own term?

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.

In any detail. Or in fact at all.

I was saying to someone the other day that the 3 new columns that USCF are
discussing are the faux marble ones that will go outside the new ChessHut.
They have to be paid for somehow.

I see nothing sinister in that, but Parr insists it is.

Firing people without any market research is not sinister?

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.

There is a bland generalism for you. I suppose it can be generally true as
long as the expertise doesn't relate to chess when the topic is chess.
zzzzzzz


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)

Better than suggesting you dislike refuseniks. But you haven't disliked
anything substantial in a while.

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."

I would like you to have a column! Maybe take Evans'? Then you can at last
say whatever was on your mind about Keres Botvinnik without being
reactionary, and get it over with. 3 Issues and you'd be out. zzzzzzzzz

People get tired of The Typo Report. Even Winter has discovered that. And
gets successively fired. Meantimes, Evans and Keene have held columns for 20
years apiece [even 27?]

It ain't by luck, Taylor.

Phil Innes