Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:10:28 GMT):
... we get instead some comment on marital status of the
player.
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 07:18:14 -0700):
It was GM Soltis who decided to comment on marital status.
Taylor Kingston was simply pointing out that GM Soltis
presented this sort of information instead of such information
as the round in which the game was played and the relative
positions of the contestants.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:31:54 GMT):

as less trivial information?

_
It seems to me that such information (as the round in which
the game was played and the relative positions of the
contestants) is indeed less trivial than information about who
Duras married years later. As Taylor Kingston indicated in his
review, Pachman appeared to share Taylor Kingston's taste
with regard to background information.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:31:54 GMT):

and all without comparison to the chess the people played.

_
As I have pointed out before, details about specific moves of
specific games WERE discussed in the part of the Taylor
Kingston review that dealt with the annotations.

I wrote (23 May 2006 19:20:20 -0700):
All Chessville has to do is announce:
_
On 4-8-2006, Chessville asserted that a David
Kane quote was 'on the firing of GM Larry Evans'.
This was false.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 24 May 2006 12:20:34 GMT):
GRAND FINALIST: Chessville asserted that a David Kane
quote was 'on the firing of GM Larry Evans'. This was not
Kane's intended context.
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 07:23:18 -0700):
Has anything like this appeared at Chessville?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:38:46 GMT):

No, ...

_
"... but to persist when wrong, hiding in
vagueries, while still flinging epithets ..."
- Phil Innes (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:10:28 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:38:46 GMT):

... but I am considering writing a post hoc ergo propter
hoc piece on triviliasm in chess affairs, care to reassert
what you would have meant in advance?

_
"If Phil Innes has trouble with ordinary words
in English he should consult a dictionary."
- Louis Blair (14 Mar 2006 12:25:52 -0800)

Louis Blair wrote:

Larry Parr wrote (2 Jun 2006 18:30:49 -0700):

Phil Innes is a model intellect, knowledgeable in the
classics and in literature.

_
Does Larry Parr have anything to say about the behavior of
Phil Innes in the Chessville/David Kane incident?
_
Here is one incident where Larry Parr did comment on what
Phil Innes wrote, although, at the time, Larry Parr was not
aware that Phil Innes was the writer of the words that LP
was attacking:
_
"... Gilbert and Sullivan! (two English twits,
no longer celebrated in any actual
performance) ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:21:28 -0500)


Yes. I too consider G&S Two (2) 'Angleterre Twitarses' but I'm not so
sure "they" & their assorted 'ooverer are un-celebrated demain. Consider
'kabuki' theater, Chinese mandolins - the dearth of _culture_ in N.
Korea por exams.? ..

Here, Louis Blair continues 'is 'dissertatin mathamatique extrodinare'
exposition of the precluding & continuing thread - Pls. _do_ read on if
you feel so inclined - or, ah(?| .1 - the time..

















_
_
"Astonishing. Their light operas are the most
performed musical pieces in the world today.
They are easily the most performed of all time
-- by an enormous margin.
_
Decent schools routinely put on G & S musicals.
My favorites are H. M. S. Pinafore and The Mikado
and maybe The Gondoliers.
_
The sheer malevolent stupidity of The Historian's
claim, which one prays that he knows to be
untrue, can only mean that Phil Innes has once
again incommoded the man's intellectual amour
propre. There is simply no other explanation
unless we posit a lack of reading by the man
beyond what we had hitherto imagined." - Larry
Parr (10 Oct 2002 03:08:46 GMT)
_
_
"What can one make of Larry Parr's inept
reading of a newsgroup post, one in which
he attributes to me remarks posted and
written by the Cornish Hen?" - Neil Brennen
(10 Oct 2002 04:19:05 -0700)
_
_
"I have finally seen the original posting in
which Phil Innes made the claim about
Gilbert and Sullivan that I mistakenly
attributed to Neil Brennen, a.k.a. The
Historian.
_
I was 100 percent wrong.
_
I apologize to Mr. Brennen.
_
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."
- Larry Parr (15 Oct 2002 08:05:24 GMT)

RECYCLED LIES


Give it a rest, guys! -- jr

Fine by me. Now if you can just get Parr and Innes
to stop recycling their lies ... -- Taylor Kingston

I couldn't agree more that NM Taylor Kingston
needs to acknowledge lies. At which point we can
drop the Duras-Teichmann references.

Once again, NM Kingston lied through his teeth
-- baldly, arrantly, arrogantly and ever so stupidly
-- when he claimed to be 2300+ ELO, though sporting
an 1800 or so rating. That was a straightforward lie,
uttered without irony or jocosity.

This writer and others have argued that if one
references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did in his
review of the Soltis volume, then one is perforce
highlighting the single reason, the position following
move 42, for why this game has been anthologized in so
many books. Indeed, selected as one of the 100 best
games of the 20th century by GM Soltis and celebrated
by other writers as well.

Now, one can argue that this apprehension --
that one highlights perforce the single reason for
referencing a game -- is mistaken. But it is not a
lie. It is not a bald, straightforward kind of lie where
NM Kingston awarded himself 500 rating points and
then only offers excuses AFTER he has been outed
by, among others, Sam Sloan.

There is a further distinction between making
an argument that one highlights perforce the main
point of a reference when making the reference and, as
NM Kingston has done so often, praising himself while
employing pseudonyms such as Paulie Graf and
Xylothist, among others.

The latter act is a form of moral corruption in
which NM Kingston attempted to mislead readers
by inventing personae in support of his beleaguered
ego. This latter practice is not a correct or
incorrect apprehension; it is a deliberate attempt to
mislead and to prop up a frail ego structure.

Larry Parr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (4 Jun 2006 20:50:27 -0700):
[Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is] a game anthologized
in many, many volumes
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 06:53:55 -0700):
So far, Larry Parr has mentioned a 2000 GM Soltis book,
a 1989 GM Keene (and Divinsky) book, and a few other
books that were written three or more decades ago.
_
Larry Parr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (4 Jun 2006 20:50:27 -0700):
My point is that when one mentions Duras-Teichmann ...,
one mentions it because the game has a famous position.
To mention the game is perforce to highlight the position
following move 42. That may or may not be a correct
apprehension on my part, but it is not a lie even if incorrect.
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 06:53:55 -0700):
Larry Parr seems to fancy himself as an expert on what
"a vast majority of chess readers would assume" upon
reading something. What does Larry Parr imagine that
they would think after reading statements about Taylor
Kingston "highlight"ing a position and "singl"ing it "out"?
_
Would Larry Parr want us to take his 26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700 attack as representative of the degree
to which Larry Parr can be trusted to fairly describe what
happened?
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the mark of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the position.
He simply selected a sentence from the introduction to the
game as an example of the failure of GM Soltis to provide
such information as the round in which the game was played
and the relative positions of the contestants.
...
Perhaps we are making progress if Larry Parr admits that
he "may" have been incorrect, but it seems we still have a
long way to go. Is Larry Parr actually claiming that he
read the Taylor Kingston review and believed that TK had
been trying "to highlight the position following move 42"
AND "single" it "out" (without mentioning it)?
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

_
jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (5 Jun 2006 13:04:26 -0700):

If Kingston knew White's combination was refuted, he
surely would have mentioned it in his review of Soltis'
book. But Soltis didn't know it either. Nobody is to blame
for not knowing something in a subject as vast as chess.
_
Duras-Teichmann is well-known but certainly not as
famous, for example, as Fischer's "game of the century"
against Donald Byrne or Evans' "swindle of the century"
against Sammy Reshevsky.

_
Fred Wilson put the game in a book with the title:
_
Lesser Known Chess Masterpieces.
_
So far, Warriors of the Mind is the only book that is claimed
by Larry Parr/GM Keene to mention the problem with move 43.

_
jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (5 Jun 2006 13:04:26 -0700):

Neither Parr nor Kingston are wrong by their own lights.
...
Isn't it time to bury this thread? Surely there are more
important issues to discuss, such as $50,000 of our dues
money going to a consultant without any open bidding, or
Greg Shahade resigning from the board after procuring
a plum for his sister as website editor without any open
bidding, or Beatriz Marinello sucking up to Killer Kirsan
even though she and the board had endorsed Kok.
_
Give it a rest, guys!

_
Jr may be eager for us to change the subject, but Larry
Parr has had a continuing habit of attacks without
evidence. I see no reason why we should forget an
example where we can easily compare a Larry Parr
description with what he pretended to describe. An
apology from Larry Parr is long overdue.
_
How often does jr urge Larry Parr to drop one of his
attacks?

michael adams wrote:

Nyah nyah nyah, nyah nyah nyah 'anthology' nyah nyah nyah. The (bot)
alludes to the _great_ L. Parr @ some point. I don't think the sewer-rat
great at all & I've seen a photo of the swaggering twerp atop the China
Wall. Nyah nyah nyah is how 'ee goes. Nyah nyah. And King-penguin Keene.
Gawwd! - talk about mediocre 'personages' with _titles_. - Yuk yuk..


I'm writing some lyrics for a new song; here's what I have so far --
what do you think?


"Nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey he-ey, go-odbye. (repeat)"


Here's another of my better songs:

"She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah. She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah."


People say I'm much too repetitious, but suppose I got somebody realy
good to sing it, like say, The Monkeys?

--

My point was simply that, *if* (and that's a really big if) TK felt
it necessary to multiply in order to take on on Larry Parr, the man
should take that as a compliment. It smacks of paranoia to think that
another poster here has created multiple identities in order to "praise
himself" for differing with Larry Parr.

Admit it: you're jealous because you have never been atop the Great
Wall. From my perspective, Larry Parr is very brave -- suppose that
ancient wonder had begun to crumble under all that weight where he was
standing? OTOH, we were promised a photo of Mr. Parr and a Burmese
python, but apparently he chickened out.

Logic would seem to dictate that Mr. Parr & Co. admit they
misrepresented some facts (like when LP lied about TK "highlighting" a
certain position) and now shift to a new (idiotic) position;
unfortunately, Logic and Larry Parr have been at odds with each other
for decades. Every time Logic tries to dictate some action, LP
deliberately does the opposite, just for spite.


-- help bot

wrote:


Where is the sign that Wellmuth knew the refutation to the game's
"well-known" position?


Precisely. And what exactly was the original source for Lasker's
refutation to the annotations to this game? Note that Lasker (I assume
Em., not Ed.) was not only "a strong enough player" to determine that
the Rook offer was unsound, but also wise enough to doubt the
annotations and check this for himself -- something not everyone does
(GM Soltis, for example).


And, yes, the Wilson volume is yet another collection
which included the well-known or famous Duras-Teichmann game.

Why is it Parr is afraid to give the title of "the Wilson volume?"
Could it be because "the Wilson volume" is titled Lesser-Known Chess
Masterpieces? So much for supporting Parr's argument.


Larry Parr has a decided tendency to run from the truth, except when
it conveniently supports his predetermined opinions. On those rare
occasions, he will approach Truth cautiously, as most people might a
total stranger.

Refutation aside, this game is notable primarily for its offer of a
Rook in master play; it was not a great game, nor was it played for the
world championship title. The fact that some authors might classify it
as "famous" while others might place it among the "lesser known" is
hardly relevant, since both Ray Keene and Larry Parr lost their way in
a forest of falsehoods and ad hominem attacks on a particular critic.

I note that we are not currently discussing the *merits* of TK's
criticisms of Keene's books -- so the diversion is still working its
evil magic. It might have been more productive to attempt a
classification, a separation of chess books into the good, the
mediocre, and the poor. How this could be done "objectively" in the
current squalor of intense personal bias is beyond me, but an attempt
could still be made.


-- help bot

Larry Parr wrote (5 Jun 2006 20:29:53 -0700):

[The position following move 42 is the single reason] for why
[Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906)] has been anthologized in
so many books. Indeed, selected as one of the 100 best
games of the 20th century by GM Soltis and celebrated
by other writers as well.

_
Fred Wilson put the game in a book with the title:
_
Lesser Known Chess Masterpieces.
_
So far, Larry Parr has mentioned the 2000 GM Soltis book,
a 1989 GM Keene (and Divinsky) book, and a few other books
that were written three or more decades ago. Of the lot,
Warriors of the Mind is the only book that is claimed by
Larry Parr/GM Keene to mention:
_
"having been strategically crushed duras as
white played a desperation rook sac on move
43.taking the rook wd then win for black"
- GM Keene quote reported by Phil Innes
(Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT)

_
Larry Parr wrote (5 Jun 2006 20:29:53 -0700):

This writer and others have argued that ...

_
Who are these others?

_
Larry Parr wrote (5 Jun 2006 20:29:53 -0700):

... if one references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston
did in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is perforce
highlighting ... the position following move 42 ...

_
Larry Parr seems to fancy himself as an expert on what
"a vast majority of chess readers would assume" upon
reading something. What does Larry Parr imagine that
they would think after reading statements about Taylor
Kingston "highlight"ing a position and "singl"ing it "out"?
_
Would Larry Parr want us to take his 26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700 attack as representative of the degree
to which Larry Parr can be trusted to fairly describe what
happened?
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the mark of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the position.
He simply selected a sentence from the introduction to the
game as an example of the failure of GM Soltis to provide
such information as the round in which the game was played
and the relative positions of the contestants.

_
Larry Parr wrote (5 Jun 2006 20:29:53 -0700):

Now, one can argue that this apprehension -- that
one highlights perforce the single reason for referencing
a game -- is mistaken.

_
There is not just a "single reason for referencing" the game.
As I have written above, Taylor Kingston mentioned the
GM Soltis introduction to the game for a reason that had
nothing to do with "the position following move 42".
_
As for whether or not Larry Parr is mistaken, we can get a
clue by noting the way he avoids mentioning the "Lesser
Known Chess Masterpieces" title and rigidly avoids
discussing what chess readers would assume upon reading
statements about Taylor Kingston "highlight"ing a position
and "singl"ing it "out". When is Larry Parr going to even
acknowledge the "singled out" part of what he wrote? When
is he going to reproduce, in one of his own notes, the
supposed "highlight"ing that Taylor Kingston actually wrote?

_
Larry Parr wrote (5 Jun 2006 20:29:53 -0700):

But it is not a lie.

_
What conclusion can we come to as long as Larry Parr
avoids the issue of what he thought readers would be led
to believe?

_
Larry Parr wrote (5 Jun 2006 20:29:53 -0700):

... an argument that one highlights perforce the main
point of a reference when making the reference ...

_
As anyone can tell from simply reading what Taylor
Kingston wrote "the position following move 42" was not
"the main point of" the Taylor Kingston reference to
Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906):
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

Louis Blair wrote:
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:35:53 GMT):

But Kinsgston now UNDERSTANDS that the reference
is to the best known position in the book, and this was
the intention of Parr's pointing it out. But what does the
man do - he calls it a lie. He has turned this not into an
'excuse me, I didn't know that' into the lie of someone
who did.

_
Phil Innes rewrites the "intention" of the Larry Parr
"highlighted" sentence as being about the position.
There was, however, more to it than that. Larry Parr
adopted the pose of someone describing what Taylor
Kingston DID with the position:
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the mark of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the position.
He simply selected a sentence from the introduction to the
game as an example of the failure of GM Soltis to provide
such information as the round in which the game was played
and the relative positions of the contestants.
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (2 Jun 2006 13:37:30 -0700):
I highlighted *_no position_*, at all from that game, I "picked"
nothing from it, let alone its "most famous gaffe,"

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:35:53 GMT):

Nothing to boast of in public!

_
Taylor Kingston is not writing in order to boast. He is writing
in order to point out how the truth (about Taylor Kingston's
review) differs from what Larry Parr described.

_
Taylor Kingston wrote (2 Jun 2006 13:37:30 -0700):
Another recent misleading Parr post on this topic:
_
"Duras-Teichmann is one of the listed favorites in the
famous Wellmuth-Horowitz 'Golden Treasury of Chess'.
_
True, the game is in the original 1943 Wellmuth-edited
version of that book. However, it is not included in the 1969
edition supposedly edited by Horowitz.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:35:53 GMT):

The question is of what Kingston knew when he wrote the
thing. Not now and retrospectively after it has been rammed
up his nose.

_
Phil Innes does not have the authority to decide what "the
question is". It was Larry Parr who decided to mention The
Golden Treasury of Chess and make vague statements
about the number of copies that were sold. In view of this,
it is certainly reasonable to mention that Duras-Teichman
(Ostend, 1906) was, at one point, dropped from the book.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:35:53 GMT):

Another and trpical question about this Kingston's review
style is this very strange remark that the Soltis text could
have been annotated 'more' - but at no time, despite requests
has he indicated that he read more than those he 'indicated'
in his own summary - and of those, he admits he didn't read
those! At least not the game score of Duras-Teichmann.

Did the guy read any of the games to make this criticism of
Soltis? Why does he mean about needing more annotation ...

_
About five days earlier, Phil Innes was writing:
_
"[Kingston] did mention overall that more analysis
would be welcome" - Phil Innes (Mon, 29 May 2006
01:06:51 GMT)
_
I remarked:
_
"I have seen no statement by Taylor Kingston that
more analysis would have been welcome in the
Soltis book." - Louis Blair (28 May 2006
22:38:15 -0700)
_
Phil Innes ignored my comment. As we can see, he continued
to write about a supposed Taylor Kingston "criticism" that
more annotation was needed in the Soltis book. When is Phil
Innes going to show some concern about whether or not this
supposed "criticism" actually exists?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:35:53 GMT):

... when [Kingston] didn't even read the games he chose to
notice in the introduction?

_
Phil Innes writes as though he is seriously confused. Larry
Parr and GM Keene have been attacking Taylor Kingston
about a sentence that TK wrote about the GM Soltis
introduction to ONE SPECIFIC GAME. The sentence was
from a part of the Taylor Kingston review that was noting a
lack of background information. Details about specific moves
of specific games WERE discussed in the part of the review
that dealt with the annotations.


IMO, this posting qualifies Mr. Blair for yet another "Prove Parr
Lies" prize; all of the prizes we had in stock have already been given
out, except for a 24" stuffed zebra and some "Chess Makes You Smart"
bottons; surely the Nutty Professor deserves better than this, so we
should put him on backorder until the next shipment arrives from China,
in a few weeks.

I particularly liked the part where Dr. Blair restrains himself
masterfully (unlike this bot), saying only that Phil Innes "writes as
though" he were seriously confused! Ah, self restraint! Denial of
want! Discipline. Control. Most impressive.


-- help bot

help bot wrote:

michael adams wrote:

Nyah nyah nyah, nyah nyah nyah 'anthology' nyah nyah nyah. The (bot)
alludes to the _great_ L. Parr @ some point. I don't think the sewer-rat
great at all & I've seen a photo of the swaggering twerp atop the China
Wall. Nyah nyah nyah is how 'ee goes. Nyah nyah. And King-penguin Keene.
Gawwd! - talk about mediocre 'personages' with _titles_. - Yuk yuk..

I'm writing some lyrics for a new song; here's what I have so far --
what do you think?

"Nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey he-ey, go-odbye. (repeat)"

Here's another of my better songs:

"She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah. She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah."

People say I'm much too repetitious, but suppose I got somebody realy
good to sing it, like say, The Monkeys?

--

I'm no musicologist (bot) - but it does seem that in retrospect The
Monkees were'nt Sooo bad. But 'bottom-sniffing' aside (an Innism) the
"Knack" were just a bit too 'kiss of death corp.' to cop, hack or redeem
in my view. How _do_ you feel about this observation - (bot)? and I had
no idea you were a bit of a composer of tunes & melodies..




My point was simply that, *if* (and that's a really big if) TK felt
it necessary to multiply in order to take on on Larry Parr, the man
should take that as a compliment. It smacks of paranoia to think that
another poster here has created multiple identities in order to "praise
himself" for differing with Larry Parr.

Admit it: you're jealous because you have never been atop the Great
Wall. From my perspective, Larry Parr is very brave -- suppose that
ancient wonder had begun to crumble under all that weight where he was
standing? OTOH, we were promised a photo of Mr. Parr and a Burmese
python, but apparently he chickened out.

Mr. Parr could be the _bravest_ person on Earth (or most stupid) - how
should I know? What _is_ apparent is his 'hasbeen' status on rgc* as an
ex-editor of 'cl' - a mag. unfamiliar to me (but as another poster
remarked) a suitable _placemat_ to sensible folk, lunch, breakfast
or dinner..

Logic would seem to dictate that Mr. Parr & Co. admit they
misrepresented some facts (like when LP lied about TK "highlighting" a
certain position) and now shift to a new (idiotic) position;
unfortunately, Logic and Larry Parr have been at odds with each other
for decades. Every time Logic tries to dictate some action, LP
deliberately does the opposite, just for spite.

-- help bot