I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO GET SOME THERAPY (Kingston to Parr)

I join Phil Innes and, no doubt, many others
whom NMnot Taylor Kingston, the man who added 500
points to his chess rating in a famous fit of generosity
to self, would counsel to seek psychiatric therapy.

For the record, these effusions are typical of
NMnot. We are discussing his "confidential"
correspondence with Richard Laurie, a man of
accomplishment as a dramatist, who avers that NMnot
sneakily snuck. NMnot does not counsel Mr. Laurie to
seek counselling and therapy. He simply calls him a liar
without offering any proof.
..
Our NMnot, the man of proud contumely, posted on
these forums using false names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF.
He assured us that he has "standards."

We once again ask NMnot Kingston whether posting
under false names in praise of oneself, which some
people would call psychopathic generosity to self, is
the act that defines his "standards."

He won't answer. Can't answer.

Back to the point of the "confidential" correspondence with
dramatist Laurie. NMnot now tells us that we have entered the
courtroom of evidentiary admissions and their proper ordering.
Nonsense. We are having a debate on a public forum.

Will NMnot Kingston post his correspondence with
Mr. Laurie in its entirety instead of the portions that he
deems "relevant."? It will help us to discern further what
he means by the word "standards," which he claims to
possess. We wish to enlarge our knowledge of his "standards."

Meanwhile, NMnot has nothing to say about Edward
Winter's notable lies and, still worse, actual fabrication
of "evidence" to attack GM Larry Evans.

Our NMnot falls back upon the ratpacker pat
answer: in our tiny family, one cannot address all
points, not even those involving their exemplar, Fast
Eddie. Indeed, one can never address any issue
involving Eddie, except to praise him.

KINGSTON TAKES THE FIFTH

NMnot Taylor Kingston is evidently taking the 5th Amendment these
days by refusing to post his e-mails to playwright Richard Laurie in
its entirety. It is his constitutional right to do so, but we hope
to obtain them soon from Mr. Laurie, a man with no axe to grind, who
is still searching his records.
..
On the subject of ChessCafe and the Evans-Winter debate, several
defenses of Evans were quashed by the Cafe, which had financial
dealings with Winter. I
will be posting a long series of essays on that episode, including how
a defense of GM Raymond Keene was also quashed by moderator Hanon
Russell.

Yours, Larry Parr

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 14, 10:34 am, " wrote:
A SIMPLE SOLUTION

All Taylor Kingston has to do is release all his e-mails to Richard
Laurie to prove his case so that we can see who is lying.

Larry, I have no "case" to "prove." You're the one making all the
crazy accusations. If I were to post everything I've ever written in
my entire life, you would still be throwing out the same lies.

I don't know how it works over in Malaysia, but I live in the United
States of America. Over here, the burden of proof lies on the
prosecution. It's entirely up to you to produce supporting evidence.

And who has prosecuted what? Why maintain your own e-mails as private on a
public matter? Lary Parr is asking for you to say in public what you have
supposed in private - is that fair in the United States of America?

But you don't have any evidence, do you?

I do!

There is no quote of me
"denigrating Evans' analysis." There is no quote of me telling Peter
Kurzdorfer that Laurie had changed his mind. There is no quote of me
calling Laurie and Evans "evil." And why are there no such quotes?
Very simple -- I never wrote nor said any such thing.

You mean, you did not use those words, or you did not write to that effect?

You are just a worthless mud-slinger, Larry. You don't give a damn
what you say, whether there's the least truth to it. If you hate
someone, you'll say anything, and the facts be damned. It's just Josef
Goebbels all over again -- one Big Lie after another.

ROFL!

Our Californian brother,Taylor, can't help but do these Age of Dictator
references, supremely blithe to the fact that he is writing to people who
actually dealt with real dictators and the consequences of their
oppressions.

I might be tempted to call you evil, but you're just too laughably
incompetent to be taken anywhere near that seriously. But I will say
it's pretty clear you are not quite right in the head. I strongly urge
you to get some therapy.

Isn't that the third newbie abuse line on usenet, after being on drugs, a
random second....

Has Taylor Kingston addressed even one issue to do with the //topic///?

What is the topic? Is it Keres/Botvinnik? Is it Kingston/Evans?

For nine years now, we do not know which it is. And Larry Parr 'laughably'
asks the same question as I do, which is it Mr. K?

I mean, for someone who can hike their rating 500 points, and 'expect' this
to be understood as OTB, you do not start with any general credence. That
you should write under false names to substantiate your own points, is
infamous.

What is Taylor Kingston's point, anyone? What does it seem to be? Is he
contesting Soviet fixing generally, specifically, or not at all, but
congesting how Larry Evans would know?

Phil Innes