On Nov 1, 9:26 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Louis Blair" wrote in oglegroups.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,

Our Phil's skill in logic is comparable to his knowledge of such
languages as Andean and Swabian. Here, his inference is completely
baseless. I suppose if I said "I was invited to join Bill at the ball
game yesterday, but couldn't go. Too bad -- Schilling pitched a
no-hitter," then our Phil would conclude that the _only_ reason I
attend baseball games is to see no-hitters.

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.


If Phil's logic were a building, it would collapse the first time a
bird landed on it.

_
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.

Our Phil always has problems understanding plain English. "I have
never been involved" means:

I have had no part whatsoever in any book-banning.
I have never recommended that any book be banned.
I have never been asked to take part in any book-banning.
I know of no book-banning by any associate of mine.
I have never had any part in deciding what books any book-seller
would or should stock.
I have no power to ban any books, even if I wanted to.

When it comes to books, Phil, I mainly just read them. Sometimes I
review them. I have edited about a dozen, translated one, and
co-authored two. Never banned a single one.

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 -

No, you have Innes' totally weird interpretation and distortion of
Kingston's words.

would those be 'specific facts'?


No, they would be Innes' malevolent fantasies.