HABITUAL FALSEHOODS

Seriously, Rob, ask yourself: who here acts more like a
fascist-style propaganda ministry: Innes, Parr, Sloan et al, or
those who try here to counter their habitual falsehoods? -- Taylor
Kingston

NMnot Taylor Kingston speaks of countering
habitual falsehoods.

We await his explanation about how he uttered no
falsehoods or attempted to mislead when he praised
himself -- for Pete's sake! -- under the names of
Paulie Graf and Xylothist.

We know by now that he will merely repeat
propagandistically that he is a man with "standards,"
but he will not tell us whether those standards
include appearing here under false names in support of
arguments he advanced under his real name.

Nor, we may be sure, will he own up to his words
of June 5, 2005, posted here at 5:23 p.m. Our class
A-rated player wrote as follows: "Still, on the
subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to
be any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of
2300+, and a top ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the
country, I was a tad better than weak."

The official ratpacker defense of this
ego-driven lie is that a group of undifferentiated
players, hearing the statement, would NOT assume that
the man was talking about OTB strength.

"Oh, yeah," they tell us to imagine a conversation
among a group of players standing in the foyer of, say,
the Adams Mark at the World Open, "the guy can't be
talking about his over-the-board strength when claiming
he is 2300+ Elo. Must be talkin' about somethin' else."

But yes, that's the ratpacker defense of NMnot
Kingston's straightforward unadorned whopper, which he
then later compounded by inventing explanations (dubbed
The Horsefeathers Defense) that were not even the same
as the later defenses mounted by his apologists..

And so it goes.


Taylor Kingston wrote:
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.