KANGAROO COURT IN THE LAND OF OZ


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..

Does Larry Parr actually /believe/ that the quality of
writing of Mr. Laurie is relevant here? It would appear
so, given his wording above.


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,

Is Larry Parr so ignorant that he /believes/ being
a "produced playwright" somehow lends weight to
a man's opinion on other matters? It would appear
so, given his wording above.


who at
the time was largely uninvolved in chess disputes

Except, of course, the one in question; the very
one that matters here. LOL


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.

Where is the proof of this charge? We see the
same accusations, again and again, but Mr. Parr
seems incapable of producing substantive evidence
to support it. This reminds me of Mr. Sloan's many
assertions that he can hold Damiano's2. ...f6,
except that at least Mr. Sloan presents a few
examples where he got lucky against weak
opposition and did just that. By comparison to
this, Mr. Parr is just blowing hot air.


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.

Thank you very much.

I believe intelligent readers here will note the typical
lack of substance in these accusations, the error in
logic of concluding that it is "disparaging" to GM Evans
to note that GM Nunn was the stronger player at the
time he wrote his article. Mr. Kingston has stated here
that he *agrees* with GM Evans' chess analysis, so if
anything, that must be the disparaging or damning
evidence Mr. Parr seeks. After all, by Parr-logic,
agreeing with "NM-not Taylor Kingston" is equivalent to
being wrong, by definition.

-------

As I wrote before, the idea of ad hominizing TK as
opposed to defending (or rather, embarrassing) LE
was mine. I have repeatedly advised Mr. Parr to forgo
his futile attempts at "defense" (at which he is, quite
frankly, incompetent) in favor of unsound counter-
attacks. Now he has taken my good advice, but I
apparently must claim the credit for myself. The
point is, /any fool/ can conduct some sort of unsound
counter-attack, so this is right up Mr. Parr's alley.


-- help bot