Rob wrote:
Taylor,
Open discussions are wonderful things. I appreciate your thoughtful
reply without attacking my obvious typo! :-)
There are ways to disagree. Opinions are destined to diverge from time
to time. It is the ability of a rational mind to accept that there may
be another answer to a problem than their own that works or works
better that seperats free thinkers from the "sheep" in our Orwellean
"Chess Animal Farm".

Rob, what you say applies well to matters of opinion and taste, or
unsettled matters which are in doubt and where honest disagreement is
possible. The main problem with the Innes/Parr/Sloan set is their
continual fabrication of baseless nonsense, and continual falsification
on matters which are not in doubt, matters of public record and
established fact. Accepting that "opinions are destined to diverge" and
that "there may be another answer to a problem" does not mean one must
tolerate a falsehood, especially when that falsehood is a deliberate
smear.

I will confess from time to time becoming myopic in my views. I hope
that I would never quell honest,frank and polite discourse on any
subject. I simply lament that so much time is wasted on so little.
There tends to be less and less discussion about chess and more over
personalities and personal, viscious attacks on character.

If "vicious attacks on character" are repugnant to you, then I would
encourage you to dissociate yourself from those who habitually engage
in them here.