Louis Blair wrote:
_
"One can criticize one wrongdoer without
being obliged to criticize all wrongdoers.
If such an obligation existed, very little
criticism would ever actually get done."
- Louis Blair (Mon, 01 Jul 2002
14:44:34 -0500)

"One must thank those who parade themselves a sage amongst sages and
quote thyselves to teach lessons to those who doth know less than thy
prejudices doth allow them to realizeth."

~ Matt Nemmers (Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:22:57 -0600)

KINGSTON'S TOO GOOD FOR THIS WORLD

Larry, what I've read this morning only reinforces my conviction not
to get within 100 yards of Sam. I am sickened now by the thought that
we once breathed the same air. Taylor Kingston

Based on what I have read here, I might make exhibit the same
contumacious disdain of Bill Brock, Stan Booz and our Mark Houlsby, who
among others things, levelled a death threat at Tim Hanke.

However, I am prepared to breathe the same air as they. Even
the same air as 2300+ Elo Taylor Kingston, their water-carrier and
ally.

Elo house of fire Kingston continues his imitation Sir Percy
Blakeney.

A HYPOCRITICAL POSEUR

I have no idea what Bill Brock or Stan Booz -- or, for that
matter, NM Taylor Kingston posing as Xylothist -- have posted on the
various soc.culture forums spread across the Internet. The discussion
was about fide-chess and rgcp.

My statements were based on what appears here and at rgcp, quite
obviously. On that basis NM Kingston is a partisan of f-word slimeballs
who have managed the seemingly impossible: sinking to new lows.

Sam's stuff about Japanese women with or without Negroes and
Arab men running after their Filipina maids is nasty in a clinical way.
His writing is sodden and not very interesting. I would note that even
this material, when placed beside Bill Brock's hideous allusions about
children and sex (with all kinds of inventive locutions) makes Sam's
stuff look relatively pedestrian.

As for Stan "Jock Sniffing" Booz and his countless other anal
crudities, I find Sam's efforts less blameworthy if only because they
were written without animus.

Still, I have no problem at all labelling Sam's contributions
herein quoted to culture.soc forums as profane junk not worth reading.


MR. KINGSTON CANNOT SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT THE UTTER
PROFANITY OF A BILL BROCK OR STAN BOOZ OR MARK HOULSBY ON THIS VERY
FORUM. That is the area of concern here.

NM Kingston regards himself as too fine in his sensibilities
to play chess with Sam Sloan, even over the Net. I have no objection
to such a posture if it is a true posture. But to be fine, you cannot
be a hypocritical poseur.

The proud man who has reason to be proud may be a stiff man,
but he is also a good man.

Readers will judge for themselves whether our 2300+ Grand
Coulee of Elo electricity, who readily makes cause with obsessive
f-word types, is not a contumacious fake offering evidently dishonest
excuses for fearing to lose to Mr. Sloan.

Based even on the examples dredged up by NM Kingston from
other forums, one can say that Sam still looks good placed beside a
Bill Brock with his f-word chanting and obsessional theatrics about sex
with children.

As for being a sportsman, there is no comparision. Sam Sloan
makes NM Kingston look like a priggish poltroon.

Bill Brock and Taylor Kingston have found each other and
make common cause. Nothing could be more fitting.

Still waiting for your spirited defense of kidnapping in custody
disputes. Why is it generally best for the chattel--er, children?

2000 words. Larry. Are you man enough to rise to the challenge?

Next week: Class C Felonies--Are They _Really_ So Bad?

It's a _nice_ felony, Larry says.

Statutory rape is pleasant recreation for soldiers on leave; kidnapping
is cool in child custody disputes.

What other conduct currently (and mistakenly) considered criminal has
received the Larry Parr Seal of Approval?

However, four-letter words calling attention to the formerly criminal
conduct (now tr=E8s cool) are a Big No-No.

Well, think about it, Larry, and get back to us... we really need the
"KIDNAPPING IS COOL" essay before the match!

It's a nice night in Chicago; I _think_ Caf=E9 Ennui is open for another
two hours....

wrote:
Statutory rape is pleasant recreation for soldiers on leave; kidnapping
is cool in child custody disputes.

What other conduct currently (and mistakenly) considered criminal has
received the Larry Parr Seal of Approval?

Larry Parr said:
"Mr. Innes and I will have to agree to disagree of G &S. Which should
be easy to do, given that we agree on so many other cultural
questions."

Philth Innes was posting a death threat in that same thread. So
obviously Parr finds nothing objectionable....

Chess None wrote:

Philth Innes, who assured us that he didn't post much here anymore,
graced us with his presence:

why are you lying down with dogs?

The irony of this phrase, coming as it does from someone who has
screwed the pooch, so to speak, on an almost daily basis, is
mind-boggling.

THE BIG LIE

NM 2300+ Elo Taylor Kingston suggests we ask why Bill Brock has been
chanting the f-word in countless effusions here and why Sam Sloan used
it elsewhere at culture.soc sites.

My answer: Bill Brock's f-isms were motivated by hate,
obsession, crudity of spirit and mendacity. Sam Sloan's use of the
f-word was motivated by a sodden jadedness, clinical interest, and
thorough lack of manners.

As we continue to read Mr. Brock's inventive f-locutions and NM
Kingston's water-carrying postings, we have to keep in mind that no
proof exists that Sam Sloan has ever had sex with a child or molested a
child. Nor has he ever been charged with this behavior. Period.

Bill Brock's smear campaign is known as The Big Lie. He hopes
that if he keeps repeating it long enough, others will believe it. His
underlying motive is political: to stop Mr. Sloan from getting elected
to the board.

Bill Brock lacks any proof but keeps accusing this writer of
excusing such acts and/or practicing them, perhaps, on my own children.
His malevolence is matched only by his mendacity.

My answer: Bill Brock's f-isms were motivated by hate, obsession,
crudity of spirit and mendacity.

I find the KF phrase incredibly distasteful myself.

It has this virtue: if a gentleman is fortunate to have $1,000 in his
hands, and he knows the person making the utterance is held credible by
many, yet the charge itself is false, then he will likely server its
utterer with a lawsuit.

If the charge is essentially true, then the man will not wish to take
the matter to court.

So when Sam Sloan wins the match, we will have a handle on his true
nature.

*******

Bill Brock lacks any proof but keeps accusing this writer of excusing
such acts and/or practicing them, perhaps, on my own children.

Good on the perhaps.

I stepped over the line in one post last week with a very crude
implication. I apologize to Larry Parr and withdraw the question.

*******

Now to the unanswered question--when am I going to see the essay, "You
Can't Spell Kidnapping without Kids"?