I NEVER LEFT

Will the real Larry please come back? Your family's waiting for you. -- K

Well hi, there, Bill Brock. Larry Parr here.

K writes, "Larry, Please come back."

I'm here Bill, I'm here. For you. Always.

As for Taylor Kingston's false rendition of what
Eric Schiller wrote, I drew a conclusion. My
conclusion was that NM Kingston -- hey Bill, you know
the guy, he claimed to be 2300+ ELO when his
rating was 1800-ish and avoided a match with Sam Sloan
and is always taking farewell laps and forever
ignoring me even when he replies -- lied when
asserting Eric Schiller said that Max Euwe was
never world champion.

Eric wrote that Euwe was once a legitimate title
challenger, which was correct as far as it went -- and
it did not go far enough. Still, it was not a claim
by Eric that would prompt contumacious mirth. So our
self-proclaimed, indeed self-rated-inflated, chess
master Taylor Kingston improved upon the claim.

Right now, Eric emerges as a more accurate chess
writer than NM Kingston, who has mangled the record in
the single instance so far checked, making his record
100% dead wrong.

I NEVER LEFT

Will the real Larry please come back? Your family's waiting for you. -- K

Well hi, there, Bill Brock. Larry Parr here.

K writes, "Larry, Please come back."

I'm here Bill, I'm here. For you. Always.

As for Taylor Kingston's false rendition of what
Eric Schiller wrote, I drew a conclusion. My
conclusion was that NM Kingston -- hey Bill, you know
the guy, he claimed to be 2300+ ELO when his
rating was 1800-ish and avoided a match with Sam Sloan
and is always taking farewell laps and forever
ignoring me even when he replies -- lied when
asserting Eric Schiller said that Max Euwe was
never world champion.

Eric wrote that Euwe was once a legitimate title
challenger, which was correct as far as it went -- and
it did not go far enough. Still, it was not a claim
by Eric that would prompt contumacious mirth. So our
self-proclaimed, indeed self-rated-inflated, chess
master Taylor Kingston improved upon the claim.

Right now, Eric emerges as a more accurate chess
writer than NM Kingston, who has mangled the record in
the single instance so far checked, making his record
100% dead wrong.

Larry Parr wrote (25 Oct 2005 18:35:01 -0700):

Eric wrote that Euwe was once a legitimate title
contender, which was formally true.

_
"Bobby must have taken great pleasure from
this first win over the veteran Grandmaster who
was once a legitimate contender for the World
Championship."

_
Larry Parr wrote (25 Oct 2005 18:35:01 -0700):

[Kingston] falsely claimed Eric wrote that Euwe
was never world chess champion.

_
"here are a few things I have "learned" from
Schiller:
_
Max Euwe was never chess world champion.
_
Tarrasch played a world title match with Lasker
in 1916.
_
The moves ...
...
Need I add that all of the above are untrue?"
- Taylor Kingston (25 Oct 2005 18:35:01 -0700)

_
Larry Parr wrote (25 Oct 2005 18:35:01 -0700):

-- the motive was clear enough.

_
Does Larry Parr have anything to say about his
own motives in the incidents below?
_
"The latest Louie Blair variation is he did not
know about my repeated statement that Mike
Murray reproduced what I wrote without material
difference." - Larry Parr (19 Oct 2005
18:35:36 -0700)
_
"This is false. Larry Parr should apologize
promptly." - Louis Blair (19 Oct 2005
18:53:08 -0700)
_
_
"Louis Blair's essential dishonesty has been to
quote statements by this writer in which he left
out the 'as' or 'like' words referring to similes."
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 09:00:03 -0700)
_
Of course, Larry Parr gave no evidence at all.
_
On 14 Jun 2005 12:46:41 -0700, I pointed out that
I had not contributed any quotes to the discussion
that involved 'as' or 'like' words.
_
Larry Parr came back with:
_
"So, then, Louie Blair did indeed post some
'names' that I allegedly called that included
as 'as' and 'like' similes.
_
That's called dishonest." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2005 20:07:48 -0700)
_
Still "without a shred of evidence". Still wrong.

Larry Parr wrote (25 Oct 2005 18:35:01 -0700):

Eric wrote that Euwe was once a legitimate title
contender, which was formally true.

_
"Bobby must have taken great pleasure from
this first win over the veteran Grandmaster who
was once a legitimate contender for the World
Championship."

_
Larry Parr wrote (25 Oct 2005 18:35:01 -0700):

[Kingston] falsely claimed Eric wrote that Euwe
was never world chess champion.

_
"here are a few things I have 'learned' from
Schiller:
_
Max Euwe was never chess world champion.
_
Tarrasch played a world title match with Lasker
in 1916.
_
The moves ...
...
Need I add that all of the above are untrue?"
- Taylor Kingston (25 Oct 2005 18:35:01 -0700)

_
Larry Parr wrote (25 Oct 2005 18:35:01 -0700):

-- the motive was clear enough.

_
Does Larry Parr have anything to say about his
own motives in the incidents below?
_
"The latest Louie Blair variation is he did not
know about my repeated statement that Mike
Murray reproduced what I wrote without material
difference." - Larry Parr (19 Oct 2005
18:35:36 -0700)
_
"This is false. Larry Parr should apologize
promptly." - Louis Blair (19 Oct 2005
18:53:08 -0700)
_
_
"Louis Blair's essential dishonesty has been to
quote statements by this writer in which he left
out the 'as' or 'like' words referring to similes."
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 09:00:03 -0700)
_
Of course, Larry Parr gave no evidence at all.
_
On 14 Jun 2005 12:46:41 -0700, I pointed out that
I had not contributed any quotes to the discussion
that involved 'as' or 'like' words.
_
Larry Parr came back with:
_
"So, then, Louie Blair did indeed post some
'names' that I allegedly called that included
as 'as' and 'like' similes.
_
That's called dishonest." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2005 20:07:48 -0700)
_
Still "without a shred of evidence". Still wrong.

Larry Parr wrote (25 Oct 2005 19:30:27 -0700):

Eric wrote that Euwe was once a legitimate title
challenger, which was correct as far as it went --
and it did not go far enough. Still, it was not a
claim by Eric that would prompt contumacious
mirth.

_
"Bobby must have taken great pleasure from
this first win over the veteran Grandmaster who
was once a legitimate contender for the World
Championship."

_
Larry Parr wrote (25 Oct 2005 19:30:27 -0700):

[Kingston] lied when asserting Eric Schiller said
that Max Euwe was never world champion.

_
"here are a few things I have 'learned' from
Schiller:
_
Max Euwe was never chess world champion.
_
Tarrasch played a world title match with Lasker
in 1916.
_
The moves ...
...
Need I add that all of the above are untrue?"
- Taylor Kingston (25 Oct 2005 18:35:01 -0700)

_
Larry Parr wrote (25 Oct 2005 19:30:27 -0700):

I drew a conclusion.

_
What conclusion should be drawn from Larry Parr's
behavior in the incidents below?
_
Incident #1
_
"The latest Louie Blair variation is he did not
know about my repeated statement that Mike
Murray reproduced what I wrote without material
difference." - Larry Parr (19 Oct 2005
18:35:36 -0700)
_
"This is false. Larry Parr should apologize
promptly." - Louis Blair (19 Oct 2005
18:53:08 -0700)
_
Incident #2
_
"Louis Blair's essential dishonesty has been to
quote statements by this writer in which he left
out the 'as' or 'like' words referring to similes."
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 09:00:03 -0700)
_
Of course, Larry Parr gave no evidence at all.
_
On 14 Jun 2005 12:46:41 -0700, I pointed out that
I had not contributed any quotes to the discussion
that involved 'as' or 'like' words.
_
Larry Parr came back with:
_
"So, then, Louie Blair did indeed post some
'names' that I allegedly called that included
as 'as' and 'like' similes.
_
That's called dishonest." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2005 20:07:48 -0700)
_
Still "without a shred of evidence". Still wrong.

Nick wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
Nick wrote:
Stan Booz ('Catalan') wrote:

Vince Hart has completely snipped what Stan Booz wrote.
Please read what Stan Booz and I wrote earlier in this thread.

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...
On the other hand, I have noticed that there are a few people who
find your Nick posts less than completely persuasive as well.

I suppose that Vince Hart could congratulate Stan Booz for being
more popular than I would be in an all-white private club in the
United States.

My sarcastic comment (above) alluded to what Stan Booz wrote about
Vince Hart in Stan Booz's post, which Vince Hart preferred to snip
completely.

I really have no idea what this means

It might be clearer to other readers *if Vince Hart did not
completely snip the context*, which was what Stan Booz wrote.

I really did not understand Stan's comment either. Moreover, I did not
see its relevance to the issue we were discussing. Therefore I
declined to respond to it and I did not feel that I owed Stan a
response since he had not been part of the discussion.

I responded to your comment because it seemed like the polite thing to
do since we had been exchanging thoughts on Schiller and Kingston.
Since you find me deeply dishonest, I see no point in continuing this
discussion either.

Vince Hart

wrote:
MR. TAPPER'S PRETENSE

Mr. Parr,

It is an honor as always to be featured in one of your tendentious
headers. Brief responses below.

Jeez, Larry, this is just bloody awful. I'd have thought only readers with ears far tinnier than yours could think of characterizing Kingston's sarcastic comment as a "lie". And then you berate me for "ignoring the lie"! In this case you don't even have
a teapot in which to stir up the customary tempest. Please drop me a
note when you return to form. -- Larry Tapper

Taylor Kingston's motive for trying to make Eric
Schiller's statement look worse than it was -- the
motive was clear enough. Eric wrote that Euwe was
once a legitimate title contender, which was formally
true. It did not rise to the level to merit uproarious mirth,
so NM Kingston, a gent who is rated 1800-ish yet claimed
to be 2300+ ELO, "improved" upon it. He falsely claimed
Eric wrote that Euwe was never world chess champion.

We evidently disagree on two points:

1. Unlike you, I do feel that Schiller's original statement rises to
the level of meriting contumacious mirth.

2. Also unlike you, I would characterize the sarcastic comment "We
learn from Schiller that Euwe was never World Champion" not as a
despicable lie, but as a reference to the obvious inference that any
innocent reader of Schiller would naturally draw.


Larry Tapper pretends not to understand this point, though he
understands it well enough.

As far as I can tell, you are the one missing the obvious point here.
Perhaps it would help to read up on H.P. Grice's theory of
conversational implicature. Actually I think you'd enjoy his work ---
very Oxonian.

The gent is a selective
enthusiast in his denunciations.

Odium longum, vita brevis.

Regards, Larry T.