"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message

...

On Nov 15, 11:05 am, " wrote:
LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

This is the best Parr has? After all that posturing?

Very sad.

No Stephen, what he has is compelling.

I really don't see it as compelling, and I really doubt anyone without
a vested interest in "proving" this would disagree. I want proof, not
rhetoric.

What? This is Laurie's own testament which was called for by Taylor
Kingston. He challenged Parr to produce it, which he did. So - what is
/your/ point here that can be illustrated by a proof that Kingston himself
denies, since it 'outs' his private opinion? If the proof is denied because
Kingston says it is unfair to quote what he say privately, compared to
public displays, is this not the very heart of the issue. to wit: what
should be made private here?


Should you not have known anyone who suffered such a system, then I
excuse
your potential response.


I know people who suffered through such systems... it doesn't make me
right or you wrong if either of us had or hadn't, it is simply a
diversion from the real debate

pardon, me, i lose the thread a bit, since my writing was interupted by a
phone call from the founder of a pioneering distance learning establishment
here in the us, professing great interest in a chess curriculum )

if i make no sense above or below, you are to understand my condition!

- not that there appears to be much of
one. It really is sad on Parr's part and just adds more evidence that
he is Eddie Haskel to Evans as Wally Cleaver.

i do not understand the cutural semiological context of that comment, so
excuse myself any response to it, other than a notice that metaphor is
sometimes apt, though as often not, and generally stands in place of actual
observation and comment thereof

that is my own orientation, and you will excuse the brevity of this address
to your subject since there is not so much I can speak to

cordially, phil innes