On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, " wrote:
HE DOESN'T TAKE THESE DEBATES SERIOUSLY. NOT.

Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that into consideration before deciding that any

argument of his is convincing....However, he is not anyone of
importance (neither am I, really), so I don't take our debates too
seriously. -- Taylor Kingston

Taylor Kingston, Mr. 2300+ Elo, tells us that
he does not take the debates here too seriously even
as he squiggles to the occasion like that shocked frog.
He tells us that he debates to dispel the mendacity of
this and other writers who disagree with him as well as
people he respects.

To be sure, the claim that he does not take the
debates seriously is a serious lie in itself. Simply
please reread the man's evidently anguished
posting in response to the Rev. Walker. Judge for
yourself. He lies even when he says that he
reprehends lying.

My question to NMnot Kingston within the hearing
of the Rev. Walker: did you write messages under
other names on these forums in which you undertook to praise
YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS?

A yes or no will suffice.

Yours, Larry Parr
And, alas for the fate of my soul, lovin' it!

j.d.walker wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:13 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:45 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:

On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:01 am, "j.d.walker" wrote:

I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is
this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several
debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice
like myself is missing?

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware
that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name
"Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that
into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is
convincing.

Dear Mr. Kingston,

I am going to stay out of this quarrel.

I had the impression that you had just decided to involve yourself
in it, by stating that you found Parr's arguments regarding me
convincing. Parr can sound very convincing to the uninformed; to those
who know the facts he is just another dirty politician.
In any event, having been involved in these quarrels far longer, I
can only agree with your current decision. These quarrels never
resolve, because there is no ultimate authority. The smear-artists are
free to repeat their lies when and as they choose. One can only hope
to persuade the reasonable minority.

It appears that it has been going on for far longer than it should. There seems to be no real
purpose for it.

Well, I see that you include in your signature a quote from
Scripture, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Does that
mean we should do nothing to oppose wrongdoing by an individual when
it stares us in the face?

It appears that there is plenty of mendacity and
nastiness available for anyone that wants to wallow in it.

Oh, the rec.games.chess groups are absolutely full of it. That's why
it's so important to be well informed before choosing sides.

Larry admits that he is drawn by the thrill of debate. Is your motivation similar?

My motivation regarding Larry Parr has generally been to counter his
mendacity. He has unfairly maligned both myself and people I respect.
He supports people not worthy of respect, such as the egregious Sam
Sloan. Parr and I agree on some important issues (e.g. FIDE
governance), but in other areas his dishonesty is serial and
inexcusable, both in general terms and regarding myself specifically.
However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I
don't take our debates too seriously.

begin sermon
To my mind the whole idea of a rating system is an illusion of order
that doesn't exist in the real world. That people choose to
participate in it and judge each other by it, whether to honor or
berate, is a bit pathetic. Yet, I admit that I also was once a
captive of the rating gods. You can break free! I did.
end sermon

The message of your sermon is commendable. Its relevance to my
disagreements with Parr eludes me.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Mr. Kingston,

I take no stand on the merits of the facts behind the arguments. I
believe Mr. Parr when he says he is in this for kicks. I also believe
his claim that this argument keeps resurfacing as I have seen it
several times in my short sojourn here. Lastly, I believe you when
you say that you are attempting to fight something you regard as
wrong. However, consider the following story.

Once upon a time, there was a retired professor of biology named,
let's say, "Curly." He still liked to keep his hand in the trade just
a little bit. So he set up a small laboratory in his garage. He
nailed several dead frogs to an old pine board. Whenever needed, he
would go out to the garage to apply voltage to the bottoms of the
impaled frogs. It gave him secret delight tinged with a wee bit o'
shame to watch them kick furiously. He loved the sense of power it
gave him to realize he could go out and do this whenever he wanted.
He was in control.

If this little story actually has any bearing, I am left with this
question: When will the frogs no longer respond to the voltage?

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

No, no! I will not stand in judgment, playing Moe to your Curly,
Larry... Neither will I be seduced by the scent of fresh pine and the
crisp crackle of Tesla energies. I will adroitly hop aside and let
you all proceed as you will. I offer my place to Phil Innes whose
arts of obfuscation give him the tools to survive in this garage of
twitching toads and barking moon bats.. As you were gentlemen.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.