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..


Okay, I admit it: I have no clue who are the Knack. What a stupid
name for a music group! Why couldn't they choose something "normal",
like say The Talking Heads, BareNaked Ladies, or maybe ABBA?


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..

You can't trust that guy; he claimed he beat back a five-pound
cockroach with nothing more than a swat with a rolled-up Chess Life
magazine! Now everyone knows that a five-pounder doesn't go down for
the count *that* easily. Not unless he's throwing the bout for some
payoff from the USCF or FIDE, that is; I bet he was working for
Campomanes or Kirsan. In a *fair* match, I give the cockroach one out
of five to win or draw; do you have any idea how people tend to react
when they first see a five-pound cockroach?
First comes screaming, then the face goes white, many will freeze up,
not even defending themselves properly (grab a stick, a chair, or
anything sturdy; fend off the beast while trying to get in a few good
kicks to the legs, the head, or the lower abdomen; finish with a high
leap into the air, coming down with all one's weight dead-center on the
creature's back, crushing the exoskeleton. For a good demonstration,
see Bruce Lee's superb technique in Enter the Dragon).

From my perspective, Mr. Parr is mainly whining because Evans lost
his spot in Chess Life; but the complaints about squandering $50K are
made simply because they can be; it's his agenda to do bad things to
the USCF, to attack them at every opportunity, and by any means. I
suspect the likeliest motive is revenge.
This gives me an idea for another song: "Hey, won't you play,
another...somebody done somebody wro-ng so-ng."


-- help bot

help bot wrote:

..

You can't trust that guy; he claimed he beat back a five-pound
cockroach with nothing more than a swat with a rolled-up Chess Life
magazine! Now everyone knows that a five-pounder doesn't go down for
the count *that* easily. Not unless he's throwing the bout for some
payoff from the USCF or FIDE, that is; I bet he was working for
Campomanes or Kirsan. In a *fair* match, I give the cockroach one out
of five to win or draw; do you have any idea how people tend to react
when they first see a five-pound cockroach?
First comes screaming, then the face goes white, many will freeze up,
not even defending themselves properly (grab a stick, a chair, or
anything sturdy; fend off the beast while trying to get in a few good
kicks to the legs, the head, or the lower abdomen; finish with a high
leap into the air, coming down with all one's weight dead-center on the
creature's back, crushing the exoskeleton. For a good demonstration,
see Bruce Lee's superb technique in Enter the Dragon).

(bot)(bot) - Lee's technique was (is) superlative. Crushing a juicy
roach has the disagreeable effect of releasing noxious, sewer,
drain-smelling, odours into extant atmosphere. Phooee..

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

And you have read Gulkos MSS? I thought someone posted it to you.

I do not recall ever receiving any manuscript by Gulko. However, if
you have evidence that Gulko was "pasted by the KGB" before he applied
for emigration circa 1978, feel free to present it.

O No, now the tune Kingston is playing is the 'which edition' song, followed
by the 'I do not recall' routine. Rob Mitchell offered to send him the Gulko
Mss. But maybe Kingston does not want to know anything? Especially since
Averbakh is mentioned in no kind terms in that too!

What Kingston cut from my post is his OWN part in creating these histories -
and it is significant because he plays the same game over and over - only
this time it was about refuseniks - and Kingston was warned in advance that
his interviewee, Averbakh, was complicit in repression. After long
engagements here - at length Kingston admitted that he was 'underprepared',
to use his own term.

Which is not exactly true! He chose to ignore the subject of Jewish
refusenik repression, and he excuses himself yet again for the fact that he
was told the gent would lie. Kingston asked NO questions about this issue.

He choses to be so very highly selective in his reporting that it is the
same as partisanship or advocacy - volunteering no criticism at all about
such hero's as Winter, or Kingpin magazine - and such a patently false
glossing of their shortcomings and faults - while making continuous abstract
criticism about his villains.

Odd.

Phil Innes

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ps.com...

What Kennedy has done is suggest an indecent paraphrase
of Keene - Is this what concerns Louis Blair? Should Kennedy
distort what Keene said directly under the Blairian nose, and
all Blair does is complain about who notices it?

_
How much concern does Phil Innes have? Where does he
write anything specific about what was "indecent"? I, at least,
reproduced some of GM Keene's actual original words.

Here endeth the lesson! Dr. Blair demonstrates in his own words and in reply
to a direct question that he will repeat anything he likes without regard to
its merit - without regard to if its true, fair or accurate, and continue
his lists as if nothing happened. I suppose that if I ask him a direct
question about this he will say he is not obliged or compelled to make
sense. But I will not ask him! Instead I allow his own response to
demonstrate the fact.

I am, of course, also concerned about the Phil Innes
paraphrase habit, and it seems appropriate to me to remind
Phil Innes about his own behavior.

Casually passing over any aspect of essential truthfullness or fair
representation in people's writing, Louis returns to his massive listing of
things, and in his very next few sentences writes:-
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):

[GM Keene did not quote the supposed focus] To which
whom referred?

Perhaps this means something to Louis. It referred to a previous sentence of
his own when he mentions 2 people, then goes on to say 'he' - and when I ask
'to ... whom', this is the response
_
GM Keene did not quote the supposed focus to which
GM Keene referred.

I think there could be some meaning in that, if you struggle with it a bit,
and eliminate the word supposed. Quite possible it means that Keene cited
rather than quoted material.

When I ask Louis what his words mean, he says look in a dictionary. As
sentences structures a dictionary is as random as Blair's writing.

Phil Innes

.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

help bot wrote:
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..


Okay, I admit it: I have no clue who are the Knack.

A band of brief fame circa 1980, their main hit being "My Sharona."
Sort of self-conscious early-Beatles wannabes. On their first album,
"Get the Knack," they all dressed in suits like the Beatles wore circa
1964. That's about as far as the resemblance went.

Do you think the 'Knack' were Mormons - Taylor?. Gawd they made me sob.
They really were that _bad_ ..

michael adams wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

help bot wrote:
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..


Okay, I admit it: I have no clue who are the Knack.

A band of brief fame circa 1980, their main hit being "My Sharona."
Sort of self-conscious early-Beatles wannabes. On their first album,
"Get the Knack," they all dressed in suits like the Beatles wore circa
1964. That's about as far as the resemblance went.

Do you think the 'Knack' were Mormons - Taylor?. Gawd they made me sob.
They really were that _bad_ ..

I have no idea what (if any) religious affiliation members of the
Knack may have had. It appears they are still in business:
http://www.knack.com/html/home.html

Only two pop/rock bands come to mind when you mention Mormons. All
the Osmond Brothers were/are of that church, of course. And, IIRC, most
members of Bachman-Turner Overdrive also were/are LDS (one reason
non-Mormon Burton Cummings didn't fit in well when they were the Guess
Who; he was more pro-LSD than LDS).

STUNNING VAGUENESS


Ahem, Fill, what I quoted *_is_* the item in question,
the relevant passage from the 1st edition of the Oxford
Companion, unless Bill Hyde has misrepresented it. The
"away from chess" passage seems to be a product of your
imagination, or a misremembered paraphrase of the OC. -- Taylor
Kingston

The account on Gulko in the first edition of The Oxford
Companion To Chess is written with a stunning vagueness.

If one accepts the premise that the reference to Gulko
being away from chess pertains to the period 1968-73, then
one must assume there is NO reference whatsoever to
Gulko's plight in the Oxford Companion entry on the
man -- just as there is no mention of Korchnoi's son
being arrested and beaten, of Alburt being a defector
and so many more such omissions.

Some of us took the reference to Gulko being
away from chess as a coded allusion to his plight, but
if it were not, then the Companion's mendacity on
subjects Soviet is still more striking.

One is not surprised that NM Taylor Kingston --
the man who lied about his chess rating by advancing
himself by 500 points -- would defend such writing even
after confessing that he did not possess the first edition.

wrote:
STUNNING VAGUENESS
The account on Gulko in the first edition of The Oxford
Companion To Chess is written with a stunning vagueness.

Unlike the rgcp posts of Larry Parr, which are written with a
stultifying, tediously repetetive medacity. Larry, it's impossible
for me to take you seriously any more. And I think you've made it
impossible for just about everyone else on this group, with the
exception of your sock-puppet jr and the ludicrous Innes.

I just would like to know:

1. Do you really believe the nonsense you post here? Especially the
obviously false stuff that anyone can check inside of two minutes?
2. When you post obviously false stuff, do you think no one will
bother to check it? Are you really that oblivious?
3. When you are caught in an abject lie, as in the case of my Soltis
review, your silly excuses make you look downright stupid. Are you
really that dumb?

Referring to a helpbot note,
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 04 Jun 2006 01:46:05 GMT):
Such a pity that this is not an actual quote from Keene,
who, after all, wrote much here. Instead we have to suffer
a 'paraphrase' from Kennedy,
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 05:31:39 -0700):
How many times have we had to "suffer" with a "paraphrase"
from Phil Innes instead of an actual quote? Does Phil
Innes think it is a "pity" that GM Keene did not quote the
supposed focus to which he referred? Does Phil Innes think
it is a "pity" that Larry Parr did not quote the supposed
highlighting of a position to which he referred?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:14:28 GMT):
What Kennedy has done is suggest an indecent paraphrase
of Keene - Is this what concerns Louis Blair? Should Kennedy
distort what Keene said directly under the Blairian nose, and
all Blair does is complain about who notices it?
_
I wrote (5 Jun 2006 18:05:11 -0700):
How much concern does Phil Innes have? Where does he
write anything specific about what was "indecent"? I, at least,
reproduced some of GM Keene's actual original words.
_
I am, of course, also concerned about the Phil Innes
paraphrase habit, and it seems appropriate to me to remind
Phil Innes about his own behavior.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:36:10 GMT):

Dr. Blair demonstrates in his own words and in reply to a
direct question that he will repeat anything he likes without
regard to its merit - without regard to if its true, fair or accurate,
and continue his lists as if nothing happened.

_
I do not know what specific repetition Phil Innes is objecting
to. I quoted some of GM Keene's words, but they were words
that Phil Innes himself had posted. I quoted helpbot, but it
was the same quote that Phil Innes himself had reproduced.
I also reproduced the Phil Innes objection.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:36:10 GMT):

Casually passing over any aspect of essential truthfullness
or fair representation in people's writing, Louis returns to his
massive listing of things, and ...

_
What specifics has Phil Innes provided about the "essential
truthfullness or fair representation" in helpbot's writing? Here
is one example of something specific (about the writing of Phil
Innes) that I have provided:
_
"Since when is the selfare of children 'meaningless?'"
- Phil Innes (Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:05:11 GMT)
_
"... dismissing others' as 'meaningless,' ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:40:22 GMT)
_
"You dismissed Pehme's site and his commissioned
article as 'meaningless'." - Phil Innes (Sat, 01 Apr 2006
00:12:42 GMT)
_
"when I wrote to that subjct [of general standards
Vinny] dismissed it as 'meaningless'" - Phil Innes
(Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:52:20 GMT)
_
On 3 Apr 2006 14:55:29 -0700, I provided the actual original
quote:
_
"... The fact that you approve of your own
motives and disapprove of others' motives
is meaningless ..." - Vince Hart
(28 Mar 2006 09:47:07 -0800)
_
Vince Hart himself wrote:
_
"Please stop misrepresenting my position Phil.
As I explained, I maintain that your claim that
you are the only one who cares about certain
issues is meaningless (although 'is a load of
crap' may be a more accurate description of
my position)." - Vince Hart (29 Mar 2006
08:34:50 -0800

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...

vast snippage

"Please stop misrepresenting my position Phil.
As I explained, I maintain that your claim that
you are the only one who cares about certain
issues is meaningless (although 'is a load of
crap' may be a more accurate description of
my position)." - Vince Hart (29 Mar 2006
08:34:50 -0800

Louis, while we all love you dearly, and resist asking you questions, I hope
you note that Kane is not quoting me that I claim to be the only one who
cares about certain issues - but consider if he were to be specific and
quoting me with actual content!

Especially if I wrote about USCF standards of behavior of its board members
and employees and contractors. If I had written that I cared about
standards, he is indicating that I am the only one who does, and that it is
meaningless [to whom?], but implicitly that such standards are meaningless
to him, either because he does not care for the issues of USCF standards, or
that he doesn't care because I am the only one to write about them. shrug

Without further reference to Kane himself, it is not possible to understand
his writing, which you quote here, as if it might mean something.

NB Louis: I have asked you no questions! I simply point out how vague and
duplicitous are such commentaries.

I also note that his writing ability is not so careful in the above sentence
as to avoid accusing himself of saying "(although 'is a load of crap' may be
a more accurate description of my position)."

Thank you for writing off-topic on Keene and Kingpin to help clarify that
issue, and that of the cuckoos.

Phil Innes