Tom Martinak wrote (18 Jun 2006 03:39:30 -0700):
... The lie that I was referring to was jr's post of:
_
"If Blair did indeed write that I responded to his post it's AN
OUTRIGHT LIE.
_
I did not respond to anything he wrote for the simple reason that
I don't read him anymore. Any so-called response that he cites
(and I'm sure he'll try to try to cover his tracks) must have been in
response to someone who quoted him in some way.
_
To repeat: LOUIS BLAIR IS A DOCUMENTED LIAR."
_
That is clearly not true and I would call it a lie. The possibilities
that [helpbot raises] would mitigate that, but at the very least jr
would need to apologize and offer some such explanation. As is
often the case, the primary problem is not the original action, but
the attempted cover-up and denial. Maybe we should call him
"Tricky Dicky" jr.

_
Larry Parr wrote (18 Jun 2006 05:17:25 -0700):

LOUIE BLAIR'S ESSENTIAL DISHONESTY
_
[To repeat myself in the parser's manner] ...

_
In one important respect, Larry Parr does not adopt my manner.
His supposed dishonesty evidence is either in the past or the future,
but not in his 18 Jun 2006 05:17:25 -0700 note.

_
Larry Parr wrote (18 Jun 2006 05:17:25 -0700):

From:
Date: Mon, May 29 2006 7:38 pm
...
Phil and jr are correct. Louie Blair is a documented liar if one
includes such practices as quoting out of context, quoting
jocose statements as serious statements and deliberately
missing messages when making searches.

_
Tom Martinak wrote (18 Jun 2006 05:33:48 -0700):
But that is not what jr claimed. ...

_
It seems obvious to me that Larry Parr does not have much
enthusiasm for taking a close look at the specific 8 May 2006
11:33:49 -0700 "LIE" accusation made by jr. Indeed, LP seems
to want to get away from that subject, after trying his "who
cares" argument.

_
Larry Parr wrote (18 Jun 2006 05:17:25 -0700):

We have provided several such examples in the past and
will do so in the future as the desire strikes us.
_
Louie's searches no longer have credibility, and
his preposterous postings of statements yanked out of
context have been exampled. ...

_
Apparently, the desire to be specific does not strike Larry
Parr on 18 Jun 2006 05:17:25 -0700, any more than it did
when he first posted the note about three weeks earlier.
_
Unlike Larry Parr, the desire strikes me to provide some
specifics now:
_
"Neil Brennen went so far as to suggest that
Mr. Hoffman ignore legitimate questions from
'hacks' like Larry Evans and yours truly. Yes,
'hack' was the word he used to describe the
5-time U.S. Champion and Hall of Famer."
- Larry Parr (20 May 2006 02:04:29 -0700)
_
_
"I have [checked my] own emails. I'll even post
it he
_
**************
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
_
Again, I'd suggest ignoring all email
from chesstours AKA Larry Evans.
And please be prepared for all of your
correspondence to appear on message
boards and newsgroups, courtesy
Evans and his pet hack Larry Parr.
_
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
********************"
- Neil Brennen (24 May 2006 02:45:27 -0700)
_
I have not seen any more from Larry Parr on this matter of GM Evans
supposedly being called a "hack" by Neil Brennen.
_
Another incident:
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about ..." - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006 19:05:22 -0700)
_
In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the position. He
simply selected a sentence from the introduction to the game as
an example of the failure of GM Soltis to provide such information
as the round in which the game was played:
_
"It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906." - Taylor
Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf
_
Another incident:
_
"Our Mr. Bauer would sooner take arsenic -- a
non-fatal, temporising dose to avoid a long
disussion of GM Keene's oeuvre, which he
earlier labelled as crap." - Larry Parr (17 Apr 2006
05:31:43 -0700)
_
"Even GM Keene and Phil Innes seemed to
perceive that Randy Bauer had only attacked
'some' of GM Keene's books ... Why does Larry
Parr write as if he see things differently?" - Louis
Blair (17 Apr 2006 14:42:19 -0700)
_
Without apologizing for his previous statement, Larry
Parr gave us a revised version of reality:
_
"Randy Bauer has gone from Ray Keene writing a
'few' good books out of 130 (what is few? my
Webster's gives 'a small number of') with 'the rest'
being crap (about 120 to 125) -- well, he has gone
from that initial smear to ..." - Larry Parr
(17 Apr 2006 14:49:54 -0700)
_
After much complaining, Larry Parr tried to defend
the second claim (without mentioning the first):
_
"... statement by Mr. Bauer,:
_
'Ray Keene wrote a few good books, and he
wrote some absolute crap. I wouldn't hold him
up as a paragon of chess writing virtue. There
are some Schiller books I would buy before
some of Keene's later efforts.'
...
My argument was that Mr. Bauer divided
GM Keene's oeuvre into two parts: ..."
- Larry Parr (24 Apr 2006 00:17:45 -0700)
_
I reminded Larry Parr about his earlier statement and
pointed out that there was no reference to "GM Keene's
oeuvre" in the actual Randy Bauer quote. I have not
seen Larry Parr say anything about the matter since
then.
_
Another incident:
_
"... Here, once again, are the questions NM Kingston
ignores. ...
1A: Did you vote as Xylothist in the Evans poll?
1B: ...
2A: Did you vote as Paulie Graf in the Evans poll?
2B: ...
3A: Did you vote as Niemand in the Evans poll?
3B: ..." - Larry Parr (24 May 2006 06:40:36 -0700)
_
Larry Parr failed to mention that Taylor Kingston had
ALREADY stated:
_
"I voted once -- period -- under my real name,
and did not place any more votes under that
name or any other." - Taylor Kingston
(19 May 2006 09:47:06 -0700)
_
Another incident:
_
"The evidence for this claim [that the 1927
Capa-Alekhine match did have a draw clause
at 5-5] is murky" - Larry Parr (22 May 2004
17:22:56 GMT)
_
"It was [Fischer] who made this claim, neither
Parr nor Evans" - Larry Parr (26 May 2004
03:57:19 GMT)
_
However, anyone can use google to find some previous
comments of Larry Parr on the matter:
_
"If Alekhine were leading 5-4 in games won
and Capa won a fifth game, then Capa would
have kept the title." - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
06:34:56 GMT)
_
"The weight of evidence that exists is
overwhelmingly on the side of Capablanca
procuring a 5-5 draw clause." - Larry Parr
(08 May 2003 02:49:59 GMT)
_
Another incident:
_
"The problem right now is that we do not
know precisely what Mr. Bauer considers
to be applicable questions during a polygraph
examination." - Larry Parr (16 Jan 2006
01:53:21 -0800)
_
In reality, Randy Bauer had already stated:
_
"Dr. Blair has the questions presented in
a fair and balanced manner below.
...
(1) Did you know of an impending cash
crunch resulting from a shortfall in the
six-figure area, while publicly denying
that you had heard of such a cash
crunch?
_
(2) Did you know the cost of the new
wooden building (with a brick veneer,
about 40 percent the size of the old
structure) would reach $650,000 and
keep this information from the public
because you did not believe USCF
members needed to know those
inconvenient facts?" - Randy Bauer
(Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:51:17 GMT)
_
Another incident:
_
"[Taylor Kingston] tells us that although he
posted under one pseudonym, Niemand, that
was successfully outed, he ..." - Larry Parr
(17 Jan 2006 18:19:04 -0800)
_
"Larry, we're still waiting for you to tell us who
'successfully outed' Niemand, and on what date.
... I've already said who it was that revealed
Niemand's identity (see earlier posts in this
thread). If you disagree, then put up your $10,000,
and tell me who you say it was, and when."
- Taylor Kingston (18 Jan 2006 05:41:14 -0800)
_
"[Kingston] states that I was sure about this
or that re Niemand, but I was actually confused
as to NM Kingston's position." - Larry Parr
(18 Jan 2006 18:56:25 -0800)
_
"If Larry Parr was 'actually confused', why did
he pose as someone who was in a position to
assert that TK told us Niemand was a
'successfully outed' pseudonym" - Louis Blair
(19 Jan 2006 06:28:59 -0800)
_
Another incident:
_
"Karpov's 1975 acceptance of the title IS almost
universally considered to have been reasonable."
- Louis Blair (Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:39:45 -0500)
_
_
"Mr. Blair is an old snipper. He shifts ground and
now uses an 'is.' Earlier, he wrote utter nonsense
about the mood back in 1975." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2002 06:34:56 GMT)
_
_
"A complete falsehood from Larry Parr, and, in
order to see this we need only consult one of
Larry Parr's own previous notes.
_
From MR. BLAIR SHIFTS THE ISSUE posted
by Larry Parr on 10 Jun 2002 12:12:30 GMT:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
[[[[[Mr. Blair]]]]
(2) An action that is almost universally 'is'
considered to have been reasonable
and which, in any case, took place
2-3 years after Fischer stopped playing.
_
[[[[[What action? Stripping Fischer of the
FIDE crown in 1975? Mr. Blair is either
lying or speaking ahistorically when writing
that this action was 'almost universally 'was'
considered to have been reasonable.'
Millions of players ...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
As we can all see, LARRY PARR'S OWN
NOTE showed me using the word 'is' and
Larry Parr choosing instead to talk about
what 'was' in his response." - Louis Blair
(Tue, 18 Jun 2002 02:34:15 -0500)