Louis Blair asked:

"I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
goes on in other countries. Why is there not
more from other countries?"


I have seen some chess discussion here from posters who were
obviously not Americans. The problem is, their comments and the
replies always seem to degenerate into political battles regarding
America's foreign affairs (i.e. wars). What Nick Bourbaki has called
jingoist Americans all gang up on the poor loner, and he soon tires of
fighting off the attacks.

Another issue is that many foreigners do not speak (or write) English
as a first language, if at all.

And of course, the main reason we don't see more postings here by
non-Americans is that in other countries, people actually have to
*work* for a living. That's right, forty hours is not the end of their
work week; and when they get home they don't park the Lexus in the
2-car garage, turn on their 52 inch Sony TV, and then boot up their
notebook computer to check how their Google stock is doing. Instead,
they do laundry, wash dishes (yes, by hand), and even cook their own
food! Is the floor dirty? Then grab a broom -- not a Hoover
self-propelled Super-dooper vacuum with built-in DVD player....

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:
Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
explain why the redesign report is classified?

Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?

Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote in
2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair shake
at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
more space in Chess Life.

The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's website
and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret? Is this a personality issue for
you? Is everything?

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:
Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
explain why the redesign report is classified?

Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?

Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote in
2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair shake
at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
more space in Chess Life.

Matchlessly turbid and inventive, as always, Phil. As the success of
"The Da Vinci Code" has shown, there is a big market for wildly
imaginative fiction with a veneer of plausibility. Why waste your time
making stuff up here for nothing, when you could be making big bucks?
As for the point of my above post, let me cite your own words:

" ... If you want to be critical of specific people, write your own
name, otherwise
you are much stranger than those you criticise! ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
29 Mar 2006 14:28:33 GMT) (to politikalhack)

This indicates a negative attitude on your part toward pseudonymous
posters. You were therefore asked:

"Would Phil Innes apply this sort of thinking to jr?" - Louis
Blair (29 Mar 2006
07:36:53 -0800)

You replied:

"I would apply it to anyone who talks in a deprecating manner
about people with real names. So, yes." - Phil Innes (Thu, 30 Mar 2006
13:31:13 GMT)

I am going to number the next few logical steps, for clarity.

1. The above quotes establish that you disapprove of jr posting
anonymously.
2. The fact that he often "talks in a deprecating manner about people
with real names" must only increase that disapproval.
3. It seems reasonable, then, that your disapproval should increase
*even further* if it were shown that jr had lied.
We have proof of that, provided by Dr. Blair:

"I have read Richard Laurie's exchanges with Kingston who secretly
tried to get him to retract an item Laurie submitted to Chess Life." --
jr posting 8 Jan 2006 12:21:20

"Larry, please tell us more about playwright Richard Laurie. IT'S
ALL NEW TO ME and sounds like another juicy scandal." -- jr posting, 2
Apr 2006 09:20:05 (emphasis added.)

You see? In January jr claimed to know all about my correspondence
with Laurie. Less than 3 months later, he claims NOT to know. As
amnesia seems out as an explanation, this is commonly called a lie.

Jr has made no comment on this. How about you?

The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's website
and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret?

Without real information, I can only speculate. A few guesses:
I don't take out an ad in the NY Times about where and when I'm going
on vacation.
Your wife does not post her grocery list here every week.
Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's.
Ford and Chevy do not show the chassis of next year's models before
unveiling the complete car.
Unless it's Victoria's Secret, fashion designers do not first show
models in their underwear, then later fully dressed.

None of these can reasonably be considered efforts to conceal a dark
secret. I would think USCF's reasons are similar to one or more of
them. It is Larry Parr who, as usual, wants to portray this as
something clandestine and sinister.

Is this a personality issue for you?

Um, no.

Is everything?

Um, no.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ps.com...

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:
Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
explain why the redesign report is classified?

Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?

Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote
in
2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair
shake
at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
more space in Chess Life.

Matchlessly turbid and inventive, as always, Phil. As the success of
"The Da Vinci Code" has shown, there is a big market for wildly
imaginative fiction with a veneer of plausibility. Why waste your time
making stuff up here for nothing, when you could be making big bucks?
As for the point of my above post, let me cite your own words:

The point above hoped your obsessive behavior would not continue to plague
all subject, forever, and to note that this thread was about the re-design
of Cl and the web-site.

" ... If you want to be critical of specific people, write your own
name, otherwise
you are much stranger than those you criticise! ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
29 Mar 2006 14:28:33 GMT) (to politikalhack)

This indicates a negative attitude on your part toward pseudonymous
posters. You were therefore asked:

"Would Phil Innes apply this sort of thinking to jr?" - Louis
Blair (29 Mar 2006
07:36:53 -0800)

You replied:

"I would apply it to anyone who talks in a deprecating manner
about people with real names. So, yes." - Phil Innes (Thu, 30 Mar 2006
13:31:13 GMT)

I am going to number the next few logical steps, for clarity.

Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster them
over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
words...

So while you may make comments from other threads about other people on
other issues, that is all about you.

This thread is not about you. Your writing is very odd indeed, and from a
psychological perspective, you are actually indifferent to what you read -
and you want to keep posing away in public about a subject that you know I
have no respect for your own honesty, and which contains no objectivity.

The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that. Go
and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.

Taylor Kingston denies this is a personality issue for him, but only writes
about his and other peoples personalities.

Rhetoric is saying what you do, philosophy is doing what you say. What
Taylor Kingston does is not what he says he does, its rhetorical self
promotion.

And all this to come up with an answer: 'all I can do is speculate'. The
only contribution to the subject, and then we CL as Victoria's Secret as
rationale.

Good Grief!

Phil Innes

1. The above quotes establish that you disapprove of jr posting
anonymously.
2. The fact that he often "talks in a deprecating manner about people
with real names" must only increase that disapproval.
3. It seems reasonable, then, that your disapproval should increase
*even further* if it were shown that jr had lied.
We have proof of that, provided by Dr. Blair:

"I have read Richard Laurie's exchanges with Kingston who secretly
tried to get him to retract an item Laurie submitted to Chess Life." --
jr posting 8 Jan 2006 12:21:20

"Larry, please tell us more about playwright Richard Laurie. IT'S
ALL NEW TO ME and sounds like another juicy scandal." -- jr posting, 2
Apr 2006 09:20:05 (emphasis added.)

You see? In January jr claimed to know all about my correspondence
with Laurie. Less than 3 months later, he claims NOT to know. As
amnesia seems out as an explanation, this is commonly called a lie.

Jr has made no comment on this. How about you?

The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's
website
and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret?

Without real information, I can only speculate. A few guesses:
I don't take out an ad in the NY Times about where and when I'm going
on vacation.
Your wife does not post her grocery list here every week.
Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's.
Ford and Chevy do not show the chassis of next year's models before
unveiling the complete car.
Unless it's Victoria's Secret, fashion designers do not first show
models in their underwear, then later fully dressed.

None of these can reasonably be considered efforts to conceal a dark
secret. I would think USCF's reasons are similar to one or more of
them. It is Larry Parr who, as usual, wants to portray this as
something clandestine and sinister.

Is this a personality issue for you?

Um, no.

Is everything?

Um, no.

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ps.com...

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

jr wrote:
Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
explain why the redesign report is classified?

Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?

Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote
in
2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair
shake
at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
more space in Chess Life.

Matchlessly turbid and inventive, as always, Phil. As the success of
"The Da Vinci Code" has shown, there is a big market for wildly
imaginative fiction with a veneer of plausibility. Why waste your time
making stuff up here for nothing, when you could be making big bucks?
As for the point of my above post, let me cite your own words:

The point above hoped your obsessive behavior would not continue to plague
all subject, forever, and to note that this thread was about the re-design
of Cl and the web-site.

" ... If you want to be critical of specific people, write your own
name, otherwise
you are much stranger than those you criticise! ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
29 Mar 2006 14:28:33 GMT) (to politikalhack)

This indicates a negative attitude on your part toward pseudonymous
posters. You were therefore asked:

"Would Phil Innes apply this sort of thinking to jr?" - Louis
Blair (29 Mar 2006
07:36:53 -0800)

You replied:

"I would apply it to anyone who talks in a deprecating manner
about people with real names. So, yes." - Phil Innes (Thu, 30 Mar 2006
13:31:13 GMT)

I am going to number the next few logical steps, for clarity.

Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster them
over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
words...

So, in other words, you actually did not mean it when you condemned
jr's anonymity, and you are indifferent to his mendacity?

So while you may make comments from other threads about other people on
other issues, that is all about you.

This thread is not about you. Your writing is very odd indeed, and from a
psychological perspective, you are actually indifferent to what you read -
and you want to keep posing away in public about a subject that you know I
have no respect for your own honesty, and which contains no objectivity.

The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that. Go
and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.

So then, you might comment in a thread devoted specifically to jr's
anonymity and mendacity?

Taylor Kingston denies this is a personality issue for him, but only writes
about his and other peoples personalities.

Rhetoric is saying what you do, philosophy is doing what you say. What
Taylor Kingston does is not what he says he does, its rhetorical self
promotion.

And all this to come up with an answer: 'all I can do is speculate'. The
only contribution to the subject, and then we CL as Victoria's Secret as
rationale.

Good Grief!

Phil Innes

1. The above quotes establish that you disapprove of jr posting
anonymously.
2. The fact that he often "talks in a deprecating manner about people
with real names" must only increase that disapproval.
3. It seems reasonable, then, that your disapproval should increase
*even further* if it were shown that jr had lied.
We have proof of that, provided by Dr. Blair:

"I have read Richard Laurie's exchanges with Kingston who secretly
tried to get him to retract an item Laurie submitted to Chess Life." --
jr posting 8 Jan 2006 12:21:20

"Larry, please tell us more about playwright Richard Laurie. IT'S
ALL NEW TO ME and sounds like another juicy scandal." -- jr posting, 2
Apr 2006 09:20:05 (emphasis added.)

You see? In January jr claimed to know all about my correspondence
with Laurie. Less than 3 months later, he claims NOT to know. As
amnesia seems out as an explanation, this is commonly called a lie.

Jr has made no comment on this. How about you?

The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's
website
and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret?

Without real information, I can only speculate. A few guesses:
I don't take out an ad in the NY Times about where and when I'm going
on vacation.
Your wife does not post her grocery list here every week.
Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's.
Ford and Chevy do not show the chassis of next year's models before
unveiling the complete car.
Unless it's Victoria's Secret, fashion designers do not first show
models in their underwear, then later fully dressed.

None of these can reasonably be considered efforts to conceal a dark
secret. I would think USCF's reasons are similar to one or more of
them. It is Larry Parr who, as usual, wants to portray this as
something clandestine and sinister.

Is this a personality issue for you?

Um, no.

Is everything?

Um, no.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...



Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster
them
over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
words...

So, in other words, you actually did not mean it when you condemned
jr's anonymity, and you are indifferent to his mendacity?

In the same words I refer again to Taylor Kingstons obsessional attitude to
personalities, not an approach ot objective fact.

----------

The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that.
Go
and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.

So then, you might comment in a thread devoted specifically to jr's
anonymity and mendacity?

Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is about -
and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What I
wrote about it was snipped. But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit, that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?

Phil Innes

wrote in message
oups.com...
FINALLY SOMETHING INTELLIGENT

I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
goes on in other countries. Why is there not
more from other countries? -- Louie Blair

Agree. It is a significant problem to identify, and potentially central to
our affairs.

Today on national public radio there was a discussion on national health
care from an MD family practitioner, who asked by phone-in, 'how do they
manage such things in other countries', to which the expert panel knew
nothing.

Although I have said it is central to our affairs, the ironic factor is that
foreign promoters of chess look to US as most media savvy nation on earth,
for a lead.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...



Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster
them
over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
words...

So, in other words, you actually did not mean it when you condemned
jr's anonymity, and you are indifferent to his mendacity?

In the same words I refer again to Taylor Kingstons obsessional attitude to
personalities, not an approach ot objective fact.

----------

The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that.
Go
and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.

So then, you might comment in a thread devoted specifically to jr's
anonymity and mendacity?

Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is about -
and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.

So your saying it's not OK for me to avoid charges of anonymous
mendacity, but it is OK for jr to avoid them?

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What I
wrote about it was snipped.

Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
or not? Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
"show quoted text" and voila!
Actually I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.

But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit,

Probably for very commonplace reasons, as I wrote earlier. It's only
you and Parr who seem to consider it something clandestine and
sinister. It seems Larry feels compelled continually to claim he is
uncovering malevolent conspiracies. When he doesn't have a real
conspiracy handy, he portrays an ordinary event as an evil omen.

that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?
Phil Innes

I wonder how much better USCF could serve the public if they did not
have to spend so much time dealing with bull from Parr and Innes?

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is
about -
and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.

So your saying it's not OK for me to avoid charges of anonymous
mendacity, but it is OK for jr to avoid them?

Taylor Kingston demonstrates his understanding on ordinary issues - no
wonder he should fall out with those beyond his depth.

I am addressing his own anoymous postings - some of which he retrospectively
admits. But even these ! Even these ! He addrsses to his own posts, as if in
support of them..

menwhile Taylor wants me to put down other anons. ROFlL

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What
I
wrote about it was snipped.

Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
or not?

Only when the address to the topic has been snipped.

Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
"show quoted text" and voila!

And what did you address to the toipic in question?

After awhile these non-issue posts all sem very much the same, and its too
much bother to research and correct people who make no attempt at the
nominal subject. Maybe I was wrong and you did not snip, you were did not
address the subect at all?

I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.

Don't be a smart-arse when you are losing! t=Talk about chess or your
****ing huge ego. Its a choice.

But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit,

Probably for very commonplace reasons, as I wrote earlier. It's only
you and Parr who seem to consider it something clandestine and
sinister. It seems Larry feels compelled continually to claim he is
uncovering malevolent conspiracies. When he doesn't have a real
conspiracy handy, he portrays an ordinary event as an evil omen.

So Taylor thinks this commonplace event should be secret. He does not
object. Pointing out that is secret means that one has 'sinistre' motives.

that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?
Phil Innes

I wonder how much better USCF could serve the public if they did not
have to spend so much time dealing with bull from Parr and Innes?

And attend to Victoria's Secret, al la Taylor Kingston's recommended
analogy - being a change from Hitler and Mussolini analogies [and his native
Californian peyote references - hard to obtain peyote in Vermont, unknown
where L. Parr is].

That's chess politics for you. I wonder who really, wants a column in there,
and so is brown-nosing

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is
about -
and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.

So your saying it's not OK for me to avoid charges of anonymous
mendacity, but it is OK for jr to avoid them?

Taylor Kingston demonstrates his understanding on ordinary issues - no
wonder he should fall out with those beyond his depth.

I am addressing his own anoymous postings - some of which he retrospectively
admits. But even these ! Even these ! He addrsses to his own posts, as if in
support of them..

menwhile Taylor wants me to put down other anons. ROFlL

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What
I
wrote about it was snipped.

Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
or not?

Only when the address to the topic has been snipped.

Tell us exactly what verbiage of yours I snipped?

Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
"show quoted text" and voila!

And what did you address to the toipic in question?

I said that the topic in question was largely a product of Parr's
imagination, trying to impute sinister motives to quite ordinary,
common actions.

After awhile these non-issue posts all sem very much the same, and its too
much bother to research and correct people who make no attempt at the
nominal subject. Maybe I was wrong and you did not snip,

You mean you went and charged me with snipping, perhaps the most
rank, heinous offense of all, without even bothering to see if I
actually did? What a guy.

you were did not
address the subect at all?

I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.

Don't be a smart-arse when you are losing!

I'd say the only things being lost here are your temper and
reputation, Phil.

t=Talk about chess or your
****ing huge ego. Its a choice.

I prefer chess. My ego is actually not a very big topic.

But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit,

Probably for very commonplace reasons, as I wrote earlier. It's only
you and Parr who seem to consider it something clandestine and
sinister. It seems Larry feels compelled continually to claim he is
uncovering malevolent conspiracies. When he doesn't have a real
conspiracy handy, he portrays an ordinary event as an evil omen.

So Taylor thinks this commonplace event should be secret. He does not
object. Pointing out that is secret means that one has 'sinistre' motives.

I don't think it has even been established that it is "secret." All
we have seen in this thread is that Lucas did not discuss it in detail
with Keene. I see nothing sinister in that, but Parr insists it is.
Frankly, the idea of involving all and sundry in matters requiring
expertise sounds to me like a recipe for a mess -- too many cooks etc.


that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?
Phil Innes

I wonder how much better USCF could serve the public if they did not
have to spend so much time dealing with bull from Parr and Innes?

And attend to Victoria's Secret, al la Taylor Kingston's recommended
analogy - being a change from Hitler and Mussolini analogies [and his native
Californian peyote references - hard to obtain peyote in Vermont, unknown
where L. Parr is].

That's chess politics for you. I wonder who really, wants a column in there,
and so is brown-nosing

Ah, so now Phil comes out with what he believes is *my* sinister
motive! (amused chuckle) I want a Chess Life column?? Sorry to
disappoint you, Phil, but my reaction to that idea is rather like W.T.
Sherman's when he was approached about running for President: "I will
not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected."