LAURIE'S '''CONFUSED MIND"
"All you have proven is that Mr. Laurie has definite deficiencies in
reading comprehension and factual reporting." -- Taylor Kinglston
I presented a civil letter from playwright Richard
Laurie written to NMnot Taylor Kingston. (There may
be more coming.) It was dated 2002. Obviously, the
contents of the letter, which came from Mr. Laurie's
pen, are in no sense confidential just because of
NMnot Taylor Kingston's passion for secrecy in his
sneak-communications.
Now, then, to the issue at hand. The letter is
probative, if not determinative, evidence that NMnot
Kingston denied knowledge of a dispute between GM
Larry Evans and Eddie Winter. The claim is made in a
letter dated 2002 by a good writer who had no stake at
that time in making such a claim. NMnot Kingston has
responded that Mr. Laurie was a confused liar..
For those who understand weighting of evidence
either in a courtroom or, for that matter, in writing
history, the Laurie claim carries more weight than the
Kingston denial. Readers must decide whom to
believe: an outsider and produced playwright, who at
the time was largely uninvolved in chess disputes and
who commands an understanding of nuance and the
English language; or our NMnot Kingston, who has
written on this forum under false names IN PRAISE OF
HIMSELF, for Pete's sake.
Mr. Laurie's statement regarding whether our
NMnot impugned GM Evans' analytical ability was
couched in conditionals and spoke of what seemed to be
the case and what was implied. I agree with Mr.
Laurie that the implication can be found in what NM
Kingston wrote, and the adjudication here will be made
by forum readers.
Yours, Larry Parr
wrote:
TIME FOR HONESTY
Taylor Kingston will usually answer (except
whether he posted under other names on this forum in
PRAISE OF HIMSELF -- for Pete's sake) but he may not
always choose to understand what is asked of him.
Those whose self-regard leads to preciosity must
guard against understanding points.
One could argue -- though I definitely do not --
that after all these years Taylor Kingston would be
losing credibility beyond recovery were he finally to
say: "I posted under false names during heated
debates because I needed to praise myself and to
attack Larry Parr, among others, while using an alias.
I dishonestly avoided answering the question for years."
It would have been easy enough for him to have
written the above a few years back. To write it at this
point would require moral courage; and I, for one, would
recognize that moral courage immediately. Frankly, if I
found myself in such a pickle, I can't say for sure what I'd do.
I don't think that Taylor Kingston could restore his
credibility right away with the likes of a Tapperman
or a Louie Blair or a Greg Kennedy or a Dr. Dowd
(whatever they might dribble on this frum to the contrary)
after such an admission, but as far as I am concerned,
he would instantly gain a lot of stature.
Finally, I am repeatedly on record in the past
(and I do not rescind a word of it) as having praised
his book reviews as better than 90% of the stuff written
about chess books. That may not be the very highest
of praise, but it is not meant to be ironic belittlement either.
My judgment of his written written work is, I believe, objective.
He takes care when writing, provides a lot of information
(sometimes too much) and writes in literate if mannered,
Johnny-one-note English. I don't happen to care for that style,
though adopting it myself on occasion in these debates. Still,
one must be objective. Taylor Kingston writes competently
and grammatically.
Now, he needs to write honestly.
Yours, Larry Parr
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:41 pm, wrote:
Does that make Sloan the Unholy Goat? I'm sorry, the Devil made me do
it.
Not bad!