Larry Parr wrote (Nov 11, 10:28 pm):

7 ... Kingston, who will not answer whether he posted here
7 under fake names IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF, ...
_
_
Has Larry Parr identified the "others" who supposedly agreed
with him on the "highlighted" and "singled out" controversy:
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the mark of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
_
"In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the
position. He simply selected a sentence from the
introduction to the game as an example of the
failure of GM Soltis to provide such information as
the round in which the game was played" - Louis
Blair (2 Jun 2006 01:03:30 -0700)
_
_
"This writer and others have argued that if one
references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
perforce highlighting ..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006
20:29:53 -0700)
_
_
"Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
22:44:43 -0700)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Nov 11, 10:28 pm):

7 ... What follows is an essay that I penned ...
7 ...
7 ... To my mind, Mr. Winter's lowest, in fact subterranean,
7 device is to argue that GM Evans is loath to admit mistakes.
7 ...
_
_
"Where is there a quote of Edward Winter saying
that GM Evans is loath to admit mistakes?" - Louis
Blair (4 Apr 2006 06:33:09 -0700)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Nov 11, 10:28 pm):

7 ... GM Evans was and is hungry, indeed ravenous, for such
7 corrections ...
_
_
"In the December 1999 Chess Life column, GM
Evans presented a letter from a reader that
contained these words: 'Wilhelm Steinitz was
50 when he defeated Johannes Zukertort (44) in
1892.'
_
Later, GM Evans wrote: 'obviously 1892
was a typo instead of 1872'.
_
Did GM Evans ever make it clear to his
readers that the year should have been
1886?" - Louis Blair (25 Mar 2006 17:22:26 -0800)