HOW EDWARD WINTER FABRICATED "ERRORS"

NMnot Taylor Kingston regurgitated a ChessCafe
piece in which Edward Winter attacked Larry Evans'
writing. He accused Evans' of making numerous errors.
To prove his point, he offered about 25 mistakes in
an oeuvre of some 10 million words. Several of those
mistakes already had been acknowledged and corrected
by GM Evans himself..

In the following essay, which was part of a
larger work, I examined how Edward Winter actually
fabricated an error that GM Evans never made. The
fabrication was clever, and its point was to permit
Winter to heap abuse beyond making a simple
correction. The error concerns a game played between
Harry Borochow and Reuben Fine, and the fabrication
involved Winter quoting from an Evans newspaper column
without telling the readers when said column appeared.
As you will see the chronology was very important.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Winter wrote his
column attacking GM Evans under no time constraint
whatsoever. He had no necessary deadline to meet --
as do those in the hard copy branch of journalism.
Yet as the reader will discover, I found an incidence
of error in Winter's article that was higher than that
alleged by Winter against GM Evans! True, the errors
were minor and piddling and unimportant -- just as
most of the errors alleged against GM Evans also were.
But they were errors nonetheless. And even when
writing at leisure, Mr. Winter committed a higher
incidence of errors than he alleged against GM Evans,
who was writing, in most instances, under deadline.



FAST EDDIE, PART II


By Larry Parr


"'Larry Evans' column in Chess Life continues to be
unspeakable,' writes Winter on another occasion.
About the unspeakable one should not speak, but in
fact this is not true at all, the column is
interesting and informative, and it must be quite
popular among readers, otherwise the USCF, with which
Evans has been on bad terms most of the time, would
have stopped it long ago."-GM Hans Ree, New in Chess
(No. 3, 1999)


"Mr. Evans' latest attack on me is similar to
countless previous ones, i.e. grossly
deceitful."-Edward Winter, ChessCafe bulletin board
(May 31, 2001)


Has Larry Evans launched "countless" attacks on
Edward Winter's person ("on me")? Is this claim
literally true? Or is this claim an example of
permissible hyperbole? Or is it an example of
mendacious hyperbole?

Mr. Winter suggests his own answer in the first
paragraph of his "The Facts About Larry Evans" that
appeared at the ChessCafe on June 6. Writes Mr.
Winter in a short paragraph in which he manages to
misquote GM Evans twice:


Over the years, I have become quite
accustomed to Larry Evans' base and baseless attacks
on me, which have featured such choice abuse as (in
alphabetical order) 'absurd', 'bilious fibber',
'cranky and boring' [an example of Mr. Winter's
slatternly inattention to detail, given that the gent
later quotes GM Evans in "The Facts" as writing
"boring and cranky" -hey, it's amusing to play Mr.
Winter's preposterous proofreading games], 'crude',
'false', 'sly' [more sloppy failure to quote GM Evans
accurately: "slyly," is correct], 'unscrupulous' and
'vile.'


For the record, "boring and cranky" is what GM
Evans actually wrote. But what about Mr. Winter's
charge of "base and baseless attacks" on his person?
Sounds damning, doesn't it? If one were to believe
Mr. Winter, then GM Larry Evans has engaged in
"countless" attacks employing puerile abuse.

Unfortunately for Mr. Winter, there is far more
hysteria than history in his account of GM Evans'
dealings with him. Let us begin with Mr. Winter's BIG
LIE that there have been "countless" attacks.

Given Mr. Winter's claims, one would never guess
that GM Evans has had virtually no contact with the
man over the years, though Mr. Winter has written
often about GM Evans' work and, less often, about his
person.

GM Evans wrote once to Chess Notes (item No.
1457) back in 1987 in response to justified criticism
in item No. 1385 re the Quesada game at Havana 1952;
he replied to criticism from Mr. Winter in the March
31, 1997 Inside Chess in an exchange of letters; he
answered readers' questions about Mr. Winter in the
May 2000 and July 2001 issues of Chess Life and
responded to an attack by Mr. Winter in a
letter-to-the-editor in the February 2000 Chess Life.
After Mr. Winter wrote his ChessCafe article, GM Evans
answered a question about Mr. Winter in the August
2001 Chess Life. And he REPLIED to yet another attack
on him by Mr. Winter in the September 2001 Chess Life.

So far, we have seven instances over nearly 15
years of contact in which GM Evans has written about
Mr. Winter's work - of which four were in the nature
of answering Mr. Winter's criticisms or addressing the
criticisms of others that appeared in the man's
published materials.

There were other instances, but these were
neutral exchanges in Chess Life involving Mr. Winter's
materials in Chess Notes. To the extent that they
involved short plugs for Mr. Winter's vanity
publication, they could be construed as favorable to
the man. For example, in the May 1995 CL, GM Evans
quoted from Chess Notes, giving due credit and citing
items No. 1025 and 1474. On another occasion, GM
Evans and this writer mentioned Mr. Winter in our
award-winning CL article, "Everything You Always
Wanted to Know About Alekhine - But Didn't Know Enough
to Ask," of May 1993. "Here is a little-known list,"
we wrote, "of the Alekhine oeuvre compiled by Edward
Winter in Chess Notes." The list followed.

Mr. Winter claims that GM Evans and he had
exchanges over the old Leisure Linc forum. One would
enjoy reading them again, though my recollection,
which could be mistaken, is that Mr. Winter and I had
those exchanges.

By my count, the number of times in which GM
Evans has addressed Mr. Winter substantively is less
than 10. "[C]ountless," indeed!

But, but, but: perhaps in each of those half
dozen or so instances, GM Evans heaped numerous
attacks, as Mr. Winter put the matter, "on me." Let
us take the list of personal attacks that Mr. Winter
provides above in the extract from his "The Facts."
Four of the phrases listed come from GM Evans' answer
to a reader's question in the July 2001 Chess Life.
As the reader can see, none of the words ("bilious
fibber," "crude," "sly" [sic - as noted above],
"vile") referred to Mr. Winter's person:


Alas, Mr. Winter undermines his own
credibility with this CRUDE [my emphasis] effort to
mislead readers of Kingpin. If he doesn't clean up
his act, his strikingly original legacy will be that
of a BILIOUS FIBBER [my emphasis] who adored only the
"historical truth" of raw dates. ... Needless to say,
Mr. Winter did not quarrel with any part of my answer
or address himself to the nub of the question - only
to a trivial error in the question itself that he ever
so SLYLY [my emphasis] misdirected to me. How
amusing, how VILE [my emphasis].


In, ah, "alphabetical order": "bilious fibber" was a
conditional description of Mr. Winter's future
reputation if, if, if, etc.; "crude" was an adjective
modifying "effort"; "slyly" was an adverb telling how
Mr. Winter "misdirected" a "trivial error"; and "vile"
was an adjective modifying the understood subject of
Mr. Winter's tactics in Kingpin.

Okay, two phrases are left on Mr. Winter's list
that he so clearly relished giving in "alphabetical
order." They are "cranky and boring," which actually
appeared as "boring and cranky" in the February 2000
CL, a phrase that Mr. Winter himself described as "a
wholesale condemnation of my chess writing"; and
"unscrupulous," which appeared in Chess Notes item No.
1457. Wrote GM Evans about what he mistakenly
perceived to be Mr. Winter's views, "But you are
unscrupulous to deduce that I am defaming the
character of Capa, Alekhine and Euwe merely because I
made the perfectly banal observation that dragging out
hopeless positions does 'not endear a master to his
colleagues.'" The predicate adjective,
"unscrupulous," though technically modifying "you,"
clearly refers to Mr. Winter's supposed act of
deduction.

The truth is that GM Evans has not issued
countless "attacks" on Mr. Winter. Indeed, he has
seldom ever written about the man and his doings. The
truth is that Mr. Winter's "alphabetical" list of
supposed "attacks on me" contained attacks on Mr.
Winter's work. The truth is that Mr. Winter fobbed
off a rhetorical lie when speaking of "countless"
attacks and compounded it with a substantive lie when
alleging that his "alphabetical" list contained
attacks on his person. Indeed, he himself refers to
one of the attacks as being on his writing.

Let us compare GM Evans' scrupulous regard, as
shown above, for keeping a discussion at a
professional rather than a personal level with Mr.
Winter's failure to separate the polemical from the
personal. Mr. Winter mentioned the word "crude,"
which we have seen that GM Evans employed to describe
a particular "effort" made by Mr. Winter in Kingpin.
Mr. Winter, too, has employed a noun form of the word
"crude" in his Chess Notes (item No. 1457).

GM Evans wrote with obvious initial friendliness
in No. 1457, "Meanwhile I hope you [Mr. Winter] keep
your curmudgeonly watch on the chess world. C.N. is
unique and lively. Incidentally, one of the reasons
Seattle lost out to Seville is that a lot of prize
money was structured as 'best game prizes' so Campo
could not get his greedy hands on it." Responded Mr.
Winter, "His 'Incidentally ...' sentence in the
penultimate paragraph is not relevant to anything that
has appeared in C.N. though it serves as a further
example of his crudity."

"His crudity." The reference is NOT to the
"sentence in the penultimate paragraph" but to how the
sentence testifies to GM Evans' quality of condition,
which is one of "crudity." That, in truth, is a
personal attack.

In his ChessCafe piece, Mr. Winter went still
further, evidently losing control for a moment:


And if, after somebody else pointed out such an
error, I published a huffy "correction" which also
turned out to be wrong, I would feel deeply ashamed.
Evans, in contrast, shows by his own words that he is
shameless.


"[H]e is shameless." Mr. Winter is not claiming that
GM Evans conducted himself shamelessly when writing as
he did but rather that what he wrote indicated that
"he is shameless." That, too, is a personal attack.

Am I arguing that Mr. Winter has launched
"countless" attacks on GM Evans' person? Not at all.
One need not flaunt prevaricating, mendacious
hyperbole a la Mr. Winter. My point is merely that
Mr. Winter has attacked GM Evans personally, whereas
the American grandmaster in the instances cited by Mr.
Winter confined his attacks to the latter's written
doings.

Mr. Winter claims in "The Facts" that GM Evans
"never subscribed" to Chess Notes, though "often
criticizing the magazine." He fails to mention that
GM Evans purchased a complete run of the magazine or
to adduce the asserted numerous criticisms of Chess
Notes. The truth, once again, is that GM Evans
virtually never talked about Chess Notes. The word
"often" is a substantive lie. If Mr. Winter would
care to trot out all of these criticisms of his
magazine, then I am prepared to retract my charge.
But such criticisms were actually quite rare. Yet
another puddle of dishonest slop deposited by Mr.
Winter.

When Mr. Winter wrote of "countless" attacks by
GM Evans on his person ("on me"), he lied
rhetorically. When Mr. Winter claimed that six
phrases, so absurdly paraded as being placed in
"alphabetical order," were attacks on his person ("on
me"), he lied substantively.


CONTRADICTORY PRAISE AND CONDEMNATION

In "The Facts," Mr. Winter childishly states that GM
Evans both praised and criticized his work. We all
understand that points of view change over the years,
and we all understand that such changes are related to
the condition of personal relations or simply passing
mood. In adult polemics of the real world, not a lot
is made of such contradictions. Instead, issues are
debated.

Mr. Winter quotes from GM Evans' CL
letter-to-the-editor of February 2000 - a response to
a criticism from Mr. Winter . Wrote GM Evans, "In his
pedantic eagerness to find flaws, he makes a false
charge by claiming I 'lifted' the Borochow and Junge
items from his work (which I find boring and cranky
[earlier in "The Facts," Mr. Winter quotes this phrase
as "cranky and boring"] on the rare occasions when I
glance at it)." In "Fast Eddie, Part I," I dealt with
the episode of GM Evans answering a letter from a
reader in the Philippines, who quoted from "our local
magazine Chess Asia," without mentioning that the
material came from Mr. Winter's column, which was
appearing in that little-known publication. GM Evans
answered the reader accurately, and Mr. Winter then
accused him of "[l]ifting" the material, which
mendaciously connotes a conscious intent to filch
without giving due credit. That, too, was an obvious
lie in rhetoric. But the point raised by Mr. Winter
is that GM Evans later praised him in Chess Life:


In passing, that remark ["boring and cranky"
or "cranky and boring," depending on which page one
reads of Mr. Winter's rant] may be contrasted with
Evans' words in the July 2001 Chess Life: "Mr. Winter
is a prolific writer on chess history who fully
deserves the very highest praise for keeping chess
authors on their toes by pointing out their boners."
The idea that any mortal being could keep Evans on his
toes is pie in the sky, but I quote that passage
merely to highlight yet another inconsistency in his
remarks about me. Of course, given his track-record
of inaccuracy, guile and self-contradiction, his
praise is as worthless as his censure.


Fair or unfair enough. This typically arch
Winterian putdown directed at a bit of praise may be
viewed as tartly just or as mean-spirited. But one
must also note Mr. Winter's own contradictions when
evaluating GM Evans' work.

In Chess Notes (item No. 323), Mr. Winter
reviewed GM Evans' The Chess Beat, which he described
as "a reproduction of 300 newspaper columns." The
fact that Mr. Winter understood that this volume was a
photographic "reproduction" is important when we nail
yet another of his sly lies a bit later. But, for the
moment, the subject is Mr. Winter's judgments in this
review that "[i]n some ways Larry Evans' journalism is
of a superior quality" and that his "best is very
good," though he stipulates that Evans is "not very
often at it," Elsewhere, he opines that "the contents
are mostly of some interest" and that Evans "is at
his best when recounting contemporary events, whether
it be a World Championship match or one more instance
of USCF mismanagement."

Later in CN item No. 1143, Mr. Winter prefaces a
criticism of GM Evans' views on Anatoly Karpov with
the sentence, "One would, however, have expected
better of Larry Evans, normally one of the sanest and
acutest of commentators."

Then, in a ChessCafe bulletin board entry of June
20, 2001, Mr. Winter wrote:


335-22 Mr. Evans' Skittles Room "article" quotes me as
calling him "normally one of the sanest and acutest of
commentators". The passage in question comes from
C.N. 1143 (Chess Notes, May-June 1986, page 51), and
in a separate Bulletin Board item I shall cite my full
comments about him on that occasion. They began, "One
would, however, have expected better of Larry Evans,
normally one of the sanest and acutest of
commentators", after which I gave chapter and verse on
how he had bungled matters relating to Fischer and
Karpov.
I had also criticized his inaccuracy and
slovenliness well before then, but I was certainly too
slow in recognizing the extent of the Evans problem
(which, in any case, has clearly worsened since then).
Other writers may have been slower still, but, yes,
my praise of him was unjustified.


The above simply will not do. Mr. Winter tells
us that he earlier read through hundreds of chess
columns by GM Evans and much of his magazine
commentary. Otherwise, the word "normally," which is
an adverb suggesting a regnant condition observed over
a period of years in this case, makes no sense. Mr.
Winter was not writing that GM Evans had his lucid
moments; he was claiming in CN item No. 1143 that this
future bete noire had met his requirements for being
"one of the sanest and acutest of commentators."

What changed?

GM Evans began to speak out against FIDE
outrages and started writing about the saurian
slithering of Anatoly Karpov while enthusing about
Garry Kasparov. That's what changed. Or, as Mr.
Winter put the matter in a telling Chess Explorations
footnote, "Larry Evans' subsequent handling of topical
issues matched his treatment of history."

So Mr. Winter's judgment of GM Evans' work and
person transmogrified. Yet in "The Facts" Mr. Winter
would chide GM Evans for publishing inconsistent views
of the former's work and person. A flip-flop that Mr.
Winter performed, he would deny to GM Evans.


BEAT GENERATION

In "The Facts" Mr. Winter spends more than a page on
GM Evans' treatment of the Borochow-Fine game, which
was an 11-move win for White and which Irving Chernev
once published as a seven-mover with the winner being
unclear in his book, The 1000 Best Short Games of
Chess (1955). Writes Mr. Winter, "The famous
miniature between Borochow and Fine at Pasadena, 1932
is yet another example of how facts in Evans' hands
stand no chance." But the truth is that Mr. Winter's
exposition is yet another example how the truth in his
hands stands no chance.

In Chess Life &Review (October 1977), GM Evans
wrote that Reuben Fine as Black won the game. He was
corrected in the August 1978 issue by G. S. G.
Patterson, the president of the Pasadena congress, who
provided the 11-move game ending with Black's
resignation.

Now, here comes Mr. Winter's authentically low
and scabrous zinger: "Even so, in a book published
several years later - The Chess Beat - Mr. Evans
repeated, in large bold letters, his claim that 'Black
won' (after 7. f4 e6), adding 'But Chernev says Black
resigned!' (page 24)."

What is missing from the above? What piece of
information would any honest broker of fact provide?
Why did Mr. Winter use the phrase, "in a book
published several years later"?

Mr. Winter "forgot" - if that is quite the word
- to mention that The Chess Beat was a photocopied
collection of GM Evans' newspaper columns in a large
eight by twelve format. One may argue that such
compilations of articles should be annotated with
footnotes and corrections, but purchasers know what
they are getting: reproductions of articles that have
already appeared. The column in question "Five Easy
Pieces," was published in 1976 (!!), though it
appeared in a book published in 1982. It was NOT
fresh work by GM Evans in which he contradicted his
recognition of Patterson's point made in 1978.

Did Mr. Winter know that the column was
published in 1976? Probably not, because the columns
are undated. As GM Evans wrote in the preface, "These
300 essays first appeared in my syndicated newspaper
column from 1973 - 1981." However, one thing is
certain: Mr. Winter was far too lazy to do the
elementary research to find out when the column was
written.

Please note: Mr. Winter accused GM Evans of
"lifting" copy from Chess Notes because the
grandmaster did not realize that a reader of a local
Filipino chess magazine had incorporated CN material
appearing there in a letter sent to GM Evans'Chess
Life column. The idea was that GM Evans was expected
to have on hand every chess publication in the world
or to have divined that Mr. Winter's material was used
by the Filipino correspondent even though there was no
reason to believe that anything was amiss. HOWEVER:
Mr. Winter did not research the date when "Five Easy
Pieces" appeared, though virtually any major library
would have on microfilm such important American
newspapers as the Chicago Tribune or Denver Post in
which the column in question appeared. Moreover, Mr.
Winter understood perfectly well that the date when
"Five Easy Pieces" appeared was absolutely crucial in
sustaining or subverting his contention that GM Evans
later contradicted a correction that he published in
1978.

Hence, Mr. Winter's lying phrase: "in a book
published several years later." Yes: Mr. Winter's
"fact" is true. Yes: the book was published in 1982.
Yes: the book contained a column contradicting a
correction that GM Evans made in 1978 of an earlier
error that he made. But: the book contained
reproductions of earlier newspaper columns. But: the
newspaper article in question was published in 1976.
But: Mr. Winter understood full well that he could
not place the date of that article. But: Mr. Winter
decided to hide this point by declining to inform
ChessCafe readers that the article might easily have
appeared BEFORE 1978.

Why couldn't this man have simply confined
himself to noting that GM Evans incorrectly reported
on Borochow-Fine in a newspaper column of 1976 and in
Chess Life &Review in 1977, which he then corrected
with a letter that he published in 1978? Why couldn't
this man have used the opportunity to inveigh against
unannotated collections of newspaper columns in chess
and in other fields?

Two reasons. First, the whole brouhaha over
Borochow-Fine was fundamentally over a small matter -
a misunderstanding about an 11-move game. Secondly,
for this man to wax wickedly about GM Evans' error
(which was followed by a correction), he had to
mislead readers into believing that GM Evans later
rescinded his correction in The Chess Beat (1982),
even though he did not know when the newspaper column
was written and, given the period covered, had a fair
idea that in all probability, it appeared before 1978.

What would an honest broker of fact have written
about GM Evans' treatment of Borochow-Fine? Probably
very little, given that GM Evans made an error and
then corrected it. But assuming that an honest broker
did feel impelled to write something, it might read as
follows (in summary): "In a Chess Life &Review
column of 1977, Larry Evans erred when claiming that
Black won the Borochow-Fine miniature (Pasadena,
1932). But in 1978, he published a letter that
corrected this mistake. Still, one must mention that
the initial error appears again in GM Evans' The Chess
Beat (1982), a book containing photo reproductions of
300 undated newspaper columns. Without research, it
is impossible to tell whether the column in which the
error appears was written before or after GM Evans'
correction of 1978."

What can one make of Mr. Winter's refusal to
mention that The Chess Beat was a photocopied
collection of old newspaper columns? Did he not
realize this fact? As noted earlier, he himself
refers to the work as "a reproduction of 300 newspaper
columns" in a review of the volume. In T. S. Eliot's
words, "The ways deep and the weather sharp,/The very
dead of winter."

"The very dead of [W]inter," indeed. For there
is nothing living in the mannered writing of this
hideous liar.

Mr. Winter's deliberate omission of vital
information - a structural and substantive lie of the
most malicious sort - is unspeakable and, in the
phrase of Professor Henry Higgins, "so deliciously
low." How this man's soul must freeze with chancrous
envy of GM Evans' fame and success.


SMEAR BY NON-ACCUSATION

One of Mr. Winter's more interesting rhetorical tricks
in "The Facts" is to level a smear at GM Evans without
providing an explicit accusation. Neat.

Mr. Winter quotes from a reader's letter to GM
Evans that appeared in Chess Life (July 2001). Wrote
the reader, "He [Mr. Winter] calls this column a
'monthly dumping ground' for your 'fantasies' and
concluded: 'Plain facts seldom stand a chance'." Mr.
Winter then claims that what he wrote in Kingpin was
"rather more explicit" (meaning: more elaborated): "
.... Mr. Larry Evans, whose Chess Life column is a
monthly dumping ground for his obsessions, fantasies,
distortions and solecisms. Chess itself has been more
or less dropped, and plain facts seldom stand a
chance."

So far, nothing overtly dishonest. Now comes
the smear without an accusation:


It is naturally impossible for us to know why only
my word "fantasies" appeared in Evans' column, and not
"obsessions", "distortions" and "solecisms", i. e.
whether they were omitted by the correspondent or by
Evans himself. This further illustrates why it is
preferable, in the interests of both accuracy and
safety, to refer to all matters as having "appeared in
Evans' column", or a similar formulation, rather than,
at the risk of being mistaken, pointing an accusing
finger direct [sic] at Evans' correspondents. In any
case ....


The truth: it is naturally POSSIBLE to know why
portions of Mr. Winter's attack on GM Evans' column
did not appear. Letters from readers are kept on
file. GM Evans states that the letter was published
as provided by the author. Mr. Winter's smear is NOT
that GM Evans cuts portions of letters for reasons of
length or linguistical sanitation (which every Q &A
columnist must do); his smear is that GM Evans cuts
portions of letters to affect tone and meaning.

Writes Mr. Winter, "This further illustrates" -
stop right there. "This" has no antecedent beyond the
reference that it is "naturally impossible to know"
why a portion of Mr. Winter's tirade was not contained
in a reader's letter. Mr. Winter has provided no
foundation even in an unsubstantiated accusation to
merit the smear that GM Evans might alter letters to
affect tone and meaning.

Smear by non-accusation. Ya gotta love it.


AN AGONIZING APPRAISAL

Edward Winter is "Fast Eddie" without much speed. His
intellectual hands are not quicker than the mind's
eye.

We have seen him retail structural, substantive
and rhetorical lies, while sloppily misquoting GM
Evans on at least three occasions in an essay of 5,000
words - a rate of error by Mr. Winter, which were it
extrapolated to the 10 million or so words written by
GM Evans, would come to 6,000 misquotations. Still,
give the man some credit. He did find three games
that GM Evans muffed to varying degrees.

Mr. Winter's central structural lie was to argue
that the 25 mistakes he found defined the oeuvre of GM
Evans - a lie that he compounded when endeavoring to
make errors appear worse than they were. For example,
his failure to inform readers that The Chess Beat was
a photocopied collection of newspaper articles was a
dandy of a doozy. But what can one expect from a man
who lied about GM Evans mismatching authors and book
titles as a norm and who trumpeted errors on page 45
in one printing of GM Evans' The 10 Most Common Chess
Mistakes without mentioning that these errors were
corrected in a second printing?

What can one expect?

One can expect that Mr. Winter would and did
misattribute errors made by a reader to GM Evans
himself. One can expect that Mr. Winter would allege
"countless" personal attacks without finding one
example. One can expect that Mr. Winter would adduce
a list of attacks "on me" that were actually
criticisms of his published work. One can expect that
Mr. Winter would childishly attack GM Evans for
contradictory statements about himself, while
"forgetting" - if that is quite the word - that he
changed his views about GM Evans after this celebrated
grandmaster began to attack FIDE in earnest. One can
expect that Mr. Winter would level a smear against GM
Evans concerning his treatment of letters to his
column without grounding it even in an unsubstantiated
accusation.

One can expect, in short, that Mr. Winter would
live up to the monicker, "Fast Eddie." Fast with the
lies. Fast with the errors. And fast with his
beloved "facts."