On Apr 25, 8:28 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Just in passing; as a Netizen I would request that posters use Usenet
protocols in identifying their own posts [not Google] - or at least not
complain about innocent mistakes - this would avoid missatribution of their
own remarks, but as a European there are a few things to say on what follows
about 'the other war'.

Good job Mr. IMnes. You're always "right there"
when needed, like a good apologist. The transfer-
the-blame ploy may be worn out and tattered, but
it's about the best anyone could do, under the
circumstances.

Too bad Mr. Kingston noticed that the posting by
Sam Sloan had his name right at the bottom! That
sort of lets the air out of the balloon, doesn't it. As
I recall, Mr. Parr went on quite a rant, correcting
"jackanapes" Sloan/Kingston over several pages of
rantificationals, as Mr. Bush might say. The poor
fellow can't seem to keep who's who straight in his
mind-- not even his syntax checker could save him.
It reminds me of an old article by Edward Winter on
on Larry Evans.

But let me just say this: I found the off-topic
rantings of *Nick Bourbaki* to be far more interes-
ting, even though he did have severe issues with
paranoia and delusions of grandeur. The trouble
with Mr. Parr's rants is that he is always -- and I do
mean always -- too busy with his ad hominem ploys
to write truly captivating stories. This stuff about
WWI for instance, is rather boring, except perhaps
when LP pontificates on what the world might be
like if the Great War had ended differently.

I long for the good old days, back when LP and
NB would argue about which interpretation of war
was more ludicrous. In one of those discussions,
NB said he had done a comprehensive survey --
a secret one, I suppose, since nobody but him
knew about it -- in which all the world's many
academics agreed with NB (shocking) and LP's
favorite writer was wrong. But that was the one
time where I liked Larry Parr's story better... .


-- help bot