"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 9:27 pm, " wrote:

MORAL COWARDICE

My reference was to those who are too cowardly to buck
Edward Winter's claims (Louie Blair and Taylor Kingston plus
several who used to infest the censored ChessCafe bulletin board)
even when Winter's claims were refuted or, yes, shown to be
fabricated.

Larry Parr complaining of "fabrication" is like Jackie Gleason
calling someone "overweight."

Or you talking straight.

BTW, here is a little e-mail list circulation of the club-de-Winter

Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and Winter,
[someone began to write to me, with a mandated secrecy, a long long time ago
in the West]

It begins...

Latter I was dropped-out for being false to the group. While I agreed with
every standard it proposed, I was in a club of one when it came to the
standards being impartially applied to everyone!

While anyone's p.o.v. may be treated with confidence in an e-mail, I was
damned if I should be pre-empted from saying anything at all, and the
presumption that I must respect something which I made clear was indecently
approached from a partisan point of view, after an intial appeal to the
fairness of us chess publishing.

The denouement was to challenge ChessCafe itself, on its own equivocal
behavior, and why it seemed to have stacked the debate on one side of the
issue, which co-incidentally was that of its columnist?

And I /did/ keep the e-mails. On a previous challenge I even returned 2 of
them to Taylor Kingston, at his own request. Then it all went quiet for a
year.

Personally, this protracted correspondance is wearisome, especially
represented here as if to win the soul of the newly arrived Vicar, the Rev.
Walker, to our little village - like something out of Thomas Hardy - but
what happens on the occassions when the issue is raised, is to actually
assess what the issue is.

And there are two of them!

a) Journalism wars, with one team being Our Taylor of the e-mails, and the
Chesscafe column [!] plus de Winter, and on the other, everyone else.

AND

b) Content! And the reader should judge here who fairly attempts content
[which is Soviet fixing, specifically in Keres Botvinnik], and who merely
alludes to some knowledge as if they actually understood it too [!] but were
too proud to speak it in public and entertain all comers with as much grace
as is possible here in our usenet hamlet, among other villeins, like
ourselves.

Phil Innes



The Rev. Walker has recently seen how our NMnot
handles evidence that, say, Eddie Winter fabricated a
mistake that was not made by Larry Evans so as to
compound a minor error made by GM Evans re the
Borochow-Fine game from Pasadena, 1932. There is
no comment from Taylor Kingston.

I haven't the least interest at this time in arguing about Winter.
My recent concern has been to counter Parr's slew of false accusations
against myself. In that process, I have pointed out many lies and
fabrications by Parr. He has addressed none of them.
So if our Larry wants to talk about "moral cowardice," I suggest he
start with himself.

Louie Blair's technique is to ask endless questions,
many of them weakminded.

Translation: Dr. Blair is very good at finding Parr quotes that show
Larry lying, fabricating, and/or contradicting himself. They number in
the hundreds. Blair posts them here. That ticks Larry off. So, what
can Larry do but insult him?
PS -- last I checked, there were few if any "weakminded" people with
a PhD in mathematics.


The battle over Keres that the Rev. Walker is
currently following really began with a review that I
wrote of the Oxford Companion to Chess.

Our Larry's tragic and habitual chronological confusion shows again.
That review was of the 1st edition of the OC, and appeared in the
mid-1980s. Maybe Parr's battle with someone else began then, but his
with me began in 1998 when my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A
Survey of the Evidence" was published. I never even saw the OC until
the paperback 2nd edition came out in 1996, and I had never read
Parr's review of the OC 1st edition until a few years ago.

Ken Whyld,
one of the Companion's authors, told GM Larry Evans
that he had never been praised so highly (I wrote that
the Companion superseded all previous works of the
type -- which is the highest praise possible in this
kind of endeavour) and damned so heatedly (I noted a
politically scarlet thread running through the entries
on subjects Soviet) in a single review. Indeed,
several of th Soviet entries were evidently dishonest.

Translation: Larry sees Commies under his bed. He accused the OC
authors (both British) of deliberate pro-Soviet suppression and/or
falsification. I think he's full of it.

Taylor Kingston, among other ratpackers, attacked my
review. I offered to walk the gent through each such entry,
and we could then examine them line by line to discover
whether my charge was accurate.

Translation: Larry tolerates only one interpretation of anything:
his own. All others are ipso facto heretical, and are to be vilified.

One of the characteristics of ratpackers is moral cowardice.
They praise themselves under false names (other ratpackers and
semi-ratpackers have adopted false monickers) and they cannot
stand the intellectual heat in the kitchen. They beg off.

Well, Larry, let's see you demonstrate some moral courage then, and
show that you can stand up to the "intellectual heat," by answering
directly these recent questions of mine, which are only a small
sampling of the many I might post he

1. You and Richard Laurie have repeatedly claimed that I have
"maligned GM Evans' ability to analyze," yet you have never produced
anything to support it. Courage and honesty require that you either:

(a) prove your claim -- and I mean prove, not contrive some non-
existent "implication" -- or
(b) admit your lie. So please do one or the other.

2. You and Laurie have absurdly claimed that the "basis for this
assault appears to have been the book, 'Warriors of the Mind' by Keene
and Divinsky." Please tell us:

(a) Where is any quote from me supporting this absurd claim?
(b) How can a book that says nothing at all about GM Evans, either
directly or indirectly, be the basis for an attack on Evans?

3. Later you revised this claim, saying "Mr. Laurie is almost
certainly correct that Kingston's basis for the attack was Winter's
savage review of 'Warriors of the Mind.'" Please tell us:

(a) Which are you really saying is the basis: the book, or the
review?
(b) How can a review that never mentions GM Evans, either directly
or indirectly, of a book that never mentions GM Evans, either directly
or indirectly, be the basis for an attack on GM EVans?

4. You have set great store by Mr. Laurie's memory, which has been
shown to be seriously flawed. For example, referring to Evans' 1996
article, he wrote "GM Evans ... held forth the view that one or more
smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were explored."

(a) Please supply a quote from GM Evans' 1996 article that supports
Laurie's claim.
(b) Please reconcile Laurie's claim with Evan's 4/1997 statement
that "We doubt such a document will ever surface."

So go ahead, Larry. Here's your chance to prove your moral courage
and intellectual honesty right in front of God and this company. We
have every confidence that you will fail to reply, or if you do, it
will be such a marvel of evasion and doubletalk as to make an eel look
like a hedgehog, and Al Kelly sound like Hemingway.