"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...

"Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
just a few days ago. Due to the recent
expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
Enterprises' activities, the company recently
moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
ear a bit on Evans."
_
(Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)

The original is from 2002.

"... [Taylor Kingston] should tell us again about
why the only reason, in his own words, he would
have attend the ChessCafe event was to bend the
ear of the new USCF Executive Director about
Larry Evans. ..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 08 Aug 2006
13:11:02 GMT)
_
"Where [in the 3/17/2002 quote] is there an
assertion about 'the only reason' that Taylor
Kingston would have [attended the ChessCafe
event]? ..." - Louis Blair (8 Aug 2006
16:29:49 -0700)

By virtue of this being the only reason he mentioned in a looooong message,
and indeed by the same theme appearing on the next 20 occassions to the
exclusion of virtually all else, except to also air the reprehensible
subjects; Schiller, Parr, Keene, Laurie.

That's where.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... The issue is book banning by the most popular authors
7 in the US and whatever his and chesscafe's role is in that.
7 ...

_
"... I have never been involved in any 'book-banning
campaign.' ..." - Taylor Kingston (4 Aug 2006
11:09:06 -0700)

We would have to wonder what 'involved' means to Kingston.

Does Phil Innes have any specific facts that contradict this
assertion? If so, what are they?

I have Kingston's own testament in his own words - would those be 'specific
facts'?

If not, why doesn't Phil
Innes clearly admit that he has no specific facts that
contradict the above assertion?

And if so, what then? [ROFL]

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

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

_
I have done some writing. I have criticized some of these
achievers. Does that make me a "wannabe author" involved
in book banning?

Does it? Let's say it does not for louis Blair. Therefore, does logician
Blair exempt other people on the basis of his own orientation? But logician
Blair has also changed what I wrote since I mentioned the [unremitting]
spite that is entirely evident for at least 4 years against these authors by
someone who says he has naught to do with it -- as if that /in itself/ was
not a contributing factor, nevermind the 20,000 words of e-mail /in one
month/.

Nothing to do with?

It is Blair who now associates this with book banning. Or is that also some
phantasm of the imagination? An entire co-incidence of factors?

The facts of the matter can only be somewhat known, butin the event certain
authors /were/ banned, and for no apparent commercial reason, since their
titles sold elsewhere. And after significant pressure was applied in these
newsgroups and elsewhere, some tokenism appeared to relieve the pressure,
allowing a title or two to appear, yet proportionately out of wack with
author titles sold elesewhere, so that they are still not commercially
adjusted in proportion compared with the rest of the market.

PI