The Kingston Files
Matt Nemmers wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"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.
No, you said, and I quote, "[Matt]...you have convinced me that the
Kingston files are necessary." You said that less than three months
ago. Not an "offering;" a necessity.
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?
Phil, we went over this already, too. Of COURSE you care to make a
case. If you didn't you'd just clam up about it and let this dead
horse rot.
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.
So prove it already! You said you were going to publish them almost
100 days ago and now, with the argument still the mass conflaguration
it was when I left, you're singing the same exact tune.
What do you expect? That Kingston's just going to roll over and say
"you win" without your giving up the goods (e.g. proof) you claim to
have? He's not gonna do it. Obviously. And nobody in the history of
RGCP has EVER done it before, either. Even WITH facts in cold, hard
black and white people don't 'fess up to their transgressions (e.g. Sam
Sloan). I really don't understand why you're stalling on this, as
important as this issue seems to you.
Does my getting Dr. Blair to "give up" count here? :-)
SNIP
Like I said a while back: Put up or shut up, Phil.
|