wrote in message
ups.com...
KINGSTON CALLS LAURIE A LIAR AGAIN

Richard Laurie is, alas, a thorough gentleman as
well as a produced dramatist. I would hope that he
will permit us to post some more of the stuff that he
got from Kingston (under the clock of secrecy)

I too have received information which carries that caveat - confidential! it
says, not for distribution. These are the infamous Kingston files.

. We shall see.

In any contest of veracity, between Laurie and
NMnot Taylor Kingston -- well, to believe Kingston
would be to believe Campomanes when he told the world
that he did not know what decision he would make about
cancelling KKI, even as Tass had announced the
decision some 10 minutes earlier!

Ah yes, NMnot Kingston: the man who wrote under
false names on this forum in PRAISE OF HIMSELF, for
Pete's sake.

By now, NMnot's deafening silence on the lies
and shoddy historical analysis of Edward Winter is as
evident as his failure to answer whether and why he
posted as Xylothist, Paulie Graf and other monickers.

We are a relatively tiny family here, and I
think it fair to conclude that NMnot's silence is
assent to the dirty stuff produced by Winter.

They will call you names for running to conclusions - yet the very evidence
of such stuff is denied by our Taylor. Show me my e-mails, he wrote me, and
I wil tell you which of them is true!

In return, NMnot may talk about a typo such as
"Austalia" instead of Australia or the absence of diacritical
diareses over the o's in "Book" because such were not in the
Chess Life stylebook and hence missing from an article written
by GM Evans. As for Winter misleading readers about the
Borochow-Fine game, not a peep from our NMnot in defense
of his mentor.
.
No matter what intellectual outrage Winter may
commit (short of his supporting Evans in the Keres
debate) NMnot will never cross Fast Eddie. He is
scared scheisselos.

Finally, Greg Kennedy got something right. My
reference to Kingston in a debate was indeed an
obvious, evident typo.

Yours, Larry Parr

P.S. My next post will describe in detail the item in Chess Life that
Taylor Kingston wanted playwright Richard Laurie to retract
(confidentially of course)!

Quite!@

But what is this all about? I keep asking Kingston if it is to do with
subject matter, or with a tiff with Larry Evans. Since the original issue
dated 1996 he has been unable to even notice this question.

Maybe Xylotwist should notice it for him, or the "I speak Chermen!" Paulie
Graf.

Cordially, Phil Innes


help bot wrote:
SHOOTING IN THE DARK


Taylor Kingston regurgitated a ChessCafe piece in which Edward Winter
attacked Larry Evans' writing. No, Larry, I posted a link to
it.....With friends like you, Evans hardly needs enemies....


If only Larry Parr had half a brain, he might have realized that
hidden somewhere amidst his long-winded jabberings, was the
very "defense" of Larry Evans' article he so desperately seeks:

Larry Evans wrote a[n] article in Chess Life...
... It was because of this article that the case has been
re-examined extensively.


There you have it. There is no /need/ to construct fancy
ad hominem attacks on Taylor Kingston or Edward Winter.

There is no /need/ to prattle on about whose writing style
is superior, or who is imagined to be envious of their "vast
superiors". There simply is no /need/.

Rehashing all the sordid details merely drags the good
name of Larry Evans through the muck; it brings up what
EW referred to as his "innumerable" mistakes, and this is
the sort of thing which other posters have complained
about here.


Now, then, many of you have read my evisceration of Edward
Winter's attack on GM Larry Evans in which I found an incidence of
error

Two-wrongs-make-right idiocies like the above drags the
good name of Larry Evans down, into the muck. Why, oh
why does he not /fire/ Mr. Parr and find a better PR man?


Winter's mistakes were surprising because he was not
writing under a necessary deadline as GM Evans does.

Alas, many of LE's spelling errors and wrong dates
have more to do with carelessness than any fight with
some imagined deadlines or other windmills. In fact, I
note that it is precisely because Mr. Parr is no longer
editing Chess Lies that so many of GM Evans' recent
errors have managed to "creep in". With no proofing
and no editing, an aging writer is prone to more and
more such errors, deadlines or no deadlines. Let's
cut the man some slack here -- he is what? seventy
five years old? Is it any wonder that criticisms of LE
tend to focus mainly on his more recent work?


"Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty.

It's deja vue all over again! How many times have I
had some dispute with the likes of TK or IM Innes,
only to have one of them deny what they themselves
have written or done?


"Mr. Kingston e-mailed me about half a dozen times. While I never
showed Evans any of his material, I told him I did feel perfectly free
to show Evans my own responses. All anyone has to do is read
Kingston's article in Chess Life to see that he denigrated Evans'
ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.

So much for the credibility of Richard Laurie.

For the record, Dr. Nunn /is/ the stronger player,
and he /was/ stronger at the time GM Evans wrote
the article in question. Let's just dismiss any
comparison of the two players at their respective
peaks as irrelevant, since neither applies. (I think
GM Evans may have peaked, objectively, at the
ripe old age of twenty! Was Dr. Nunn even born
yet?)



In "The Caine Mutiny" the good captain also claims that his crew is
disloyal and spread falsehoods about him as he rubs ball bearings
while on the witness stand. Yes, yes, everyone is lying except Taylor
Kingston. Even someone who has absolutely no axe to grind with him.
Yes, yes, everyone else is lying.

As I recall, in the end the lawyer agreed. He stated that
he /had to/ "torpedo" the Captain, but that each of the men
/was guilty/ of disloyalty. (This is yet another example of
Larry Parr's problem: he can't seem to get the basic facts
right.)

What Larry Evans really needs is not a poor PR-man like
Larry Parr; what he needs is someone who can compensate
where he has weaknesses (spellings, date-checking, etc.).
He might be far better off to fire LP, and replace him with a
chess historian like say, Neil Brennen.


-- help bot