On Nov 15, 9:15 pm, help bot wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:41 pm, wrote:

Rev, you have just received an rgcp "baptism of flaming," and come
out of it in good form. Long-time observers of our Phil know that he
has definite problems involving disagreement and anger-management, not
to mention other serious issues. Along with Parr and Sloan, he forms a
sort of Unholy Trinity here, though that's not quite the right way to
put it, since it gives the impression they are important. The Bard put
it better when he spoke of "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Does that make Sloan the Unholy Goat? I'm sorry, the Devil made me do
it.

Among those three, Mr. Sloan is the only one with
any real accomplishments in chess: defender of
Damiano's Defense, proponent of the mighty Grob,
Mr. Sloan slays all comers who dare to challenge
him (including Bill Brock, among others). Only
Randy Bauer or perhaps Taylor Kingston can stop
him -- but alas, they are afraid to even try!

By comparison, even Neil Brennen or TK could
probably take on either of the other two without
breaking a sweat; only SS has real, not imaginary,
chess talent. This is probably why LP /always/
suggests that our grudge matches include him.

-- help bot

I disagree. Larry Parr was, in his prime, a better chess player than I
ever was. He may still be a better chess player. But Innes is pretty
much a fish.

Also, I wouldn't consider Parr as lacking "real accomplishments." I
own a couple of his books.