"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chess One wrote:
Recently I wrote of Taylor Kingston's activities in reference to
Chesscafe.
He replied without any contradiction to what I wrote. His choice of reply
was the typical ad hominem means he has adopted.

I felt compelled to contradict him for an earlier message on his intent
re
Larry Evans, according to what he wrote me, which he now /changes/ when
writing in public.

I have 20-some of his e-mails from the same period, and I intend to
publish
them if this lying continues. Kingston is already caught in the lie of
his
messages re Evans, that he would ONLY go to put a word in the ear of the
new
Ex Dir, and simply changes what he wants us to understand from his public
writing, in complete and utter contrast to what he wrote in his private
campaign.

The issue is book banning by the most popular authors in the US and
whatever
his and chesscafe's role is in that.

I understand he denies that what I say is true, so perhaps he should
consider the proofs of his own words, and continue to contradict me, or
sue.
I would certainly consider a counter-suit.

I have had enough of this culture of lying, and I think goody-two-shoes
needs to be exposed for the failed and bitter wannabe author he is, along
with all his spite against those who have achieved something in chess.

Phil Innes

I thought you'd already decided to publish "The Kingston Files," Phil.

I offered to.

Didn't you agree that after all the hemming and hawing they were
necessary in order to prove your case?

I don't care to make 'any case' other than contrast the record of Kingstons
public/private views - which are the real ones? I would even allow him much
more room for self-interpretation if he didn't actually seem to absolutely
deny there is any difference public/private.

But he does do so, and pointely, at other people's expense.

And now you've reverted back to
*threatening* to publish them??

Because
You'll excuse me -- and probably several others -- if I doubt the
existence of such emails after three months of no evidence.

You too, wanna bet? Ask Kingston himself if he sent me the material. He even
asked me himself, and I returned a few to him. But knock yourself out and
ask him. Otherwise such doubts are just whistling, Matt.

There is no particular value in putting /all/ his material in public if he
can't get over the /first/ one.

If there is any 'case' here, it is the already established suit between the
two Kingstons, '02/private and '06/public variants.

And if he could actually DISCUSS these issues, rather than deny them so
absolutely, then, if he will excuse us, we would not be discussing
his --massive ego-- at all, but chess writing, and its history, and how we
know what we know.

I simply don't know if he is interested or even able to discuss something
beyond himself [which is a topic I personally would engage] or if he prefers
the former [his reputable self-projection and such]

Phil Innes