LOW-LIFES LIKE PARR

And I can lament the fact that his association with low-lifes like
yourself has
cheated the chess world out of some good work, the truth is that he
{GM Evans]
doesn't owe me or the chess world anything. -- David Kane

So, then, David Kane charged Larry Evans with
being a USCF appaartchik, though he tells us more for
ego than for money or "lifetime employment.".

The truth, as readers here know, is that no
columnist was fired more often and rehired more
often than GM Larry Evans. And if one counts the
behind-the-scenes threats and the censoring of
articles written by Evans, then one is counting
possibly as many as 100 or more battles over the
years. Policy Boards and, no doubt, the current
Executive Board made angry discussion of Evans'
work in Chess Life at a staple at meetings. He revealed
scandalous news they didn't want readers to know.

Kanester's charge was not a lie. It was worse
than that. It was an inversion of truth.

Next came Kanester's charge that Evans wrote
unwarranted (if his charge is to have any meaning)
anti-Soviet material (e.g., mentioning that Viktor Korchnoi's
son was arrested, sent to a labor camp, and beaten on the
eve of his second match with Karpov).

I asked the Kanester for proof. What I received was
a statement that amounted to this: "I, David Kane, a
nobody in the chess world, have no proof that any such
directive was ever handed down. The absence of proof
on my part is proof in itself. I shall not retract any of the
charges and, in one instance, inversion of truth that I wrote
about Larry Evans. The fact that I invert factoids and cannot
addudice proof is proof itself that I speak the truth."

That is the current Kanester position The lovely and rather
succulent thing is that it will continue to be his position.

And so it goes.

Yours, Larry Parr





David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
...
ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE

Larry - When your argument boils down to Larry Evans' tax status as a CL writer,
and the absence of
a written directive to politicize chess, you should be grateful for any response
whatsoever.

You obviously take yourself very seriously, but you take your role as defender
of GM Evans'
honor way too seriously. So his positions changed over the years, he
misremembers things in
a way favorable to his present beliefs, and he has a tendency to exaggerate his
own
accomplishments? Really that describes just about everybody.

The irony is that the comic book story of Evans that you peddle incessantly
doesn't
really make him look that good.

And I can lament the fact that his association with low-lifes like yourself has
cheated the chess world out of some good work, the truth is that he doesn't
owe me or the chess world anything.