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

The Historian wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:

Hang on. What's this? I'm one of the worst offenders against
historical accuracy!
I trust he's going to produce some evidence for this libel. -- GM
Raymond Keene

As far as legally actionable offenses are concerned, I do not recall
granting permission to GM Keene to reproduce my entire copyrighted
review here. Nor do I recall him even asking for such permission.

Technically, it's Larry Parr that violated your copyright, Taylor,
since Mr. Keene didn't reprint the review. In addition to any legal
line Mr. Parr crossed, he seems to have violated the Code of Ethics of
the Chess Journalists of America. Mr. Parr is a CJA member.

9. No article or other proprietary work may be published without the
necessary proprietary consents.

I note Hanon Russel is a member of CJA; he could ask them to take
action of some kind against Parr.

Thank you, Neil -- I will definitely consider it.

I was just about to say what benefit there is in writing here compared to
Nolandland.

HYSTORYLAND

But the hapless Kingston choses to take ethical advice from Brennan! g

I would say that the likely result of accepting that advice would be a
countersuit which would sink both Kingston and the CJA, since Kingston
quoted FAR more in his own review than is permissable under copyright law -
and Ray Keene is now accused of, in effect, quoting himself inhis reply.

If there is anything else of substance in this post, rahteer than 'abstract
criticism' I am sure someone will reply to it.

Phil Innes


In the meantime, I will be happy to respond to Keene's comments about
my review of his book, on one condition -- that he first acknowledge
and explain, in detail and without evasion, his many documented factual
errors that I have here pointed out, errors which he seems to claim
were never made.
I might add that Keene's errors are of much greater magnitude, on
matters far better known, common knowledge even, than anything he's
laid against me. I hardly feel threatened by an accusation of
jaywalking when it comes from a guy who's habitually DUI,
metaphorically speaking.

jr wrote:

How about answering Keene point by point for a change
instead of evading the issue, which is your putrid review?

I am always amused when an anonymouse, who dodges questions about his
own documented lies, adopts an air of moral authority. How about you,
Larry Jr., anwer us point by point on your reverse memory that knows
things in January but finds them "all new" in April? It is hardly fair
to expect to receive answers while giving none.
And speaking of "answering point by point," I repeat my statement of
yesterday: I will be happy to respond to Keene's comments about my
review of his book, on one condition -- that he first acknowledge and
explain, in detail and without evasion, his many documented factual
errors that I have here pointed out, errors which he seems to claim
were never made.

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:HJ15g.413$b77.148@trndny03...

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

The Historian wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:

Hang on. What's this? I'm one of the worst offenders against
historical accuracy!
I trust he's going to produce some evidence for this libel. -- GM
Raymond Keene

As far as legally actionable offenses are concerned, I do not recall
granting permission to GM Keene to reproduce my entire copyrighted
review here. Nor do I recall him even asking for such permission.

Technically, it's Larry Parr that violated your copyright, Taylor,
since Mr. Keene didn't reprint the review. In addition to any legal
line Mr. Parr crossed, he seems to have violated the Code of Ethics of
the Chess Journalists of America. Mr. Parr is a CJA member.

9. No article or other proprietary work may be published without the
necessary proprietary consents.

I note Hanon Russel is a member of CJA; he could ask them to take
action of some kind against Parr.

Thank you, Neil -- I will definitely consider it.

FAIR CHALLENGE?

I strongly suggest that Russel should be contacted - in fact if Taylor
Kingston doesn't I will.

What we would like to know about where Kingston wrote his
article -Chesscafe - and about the CJA Code of Ethics, that Kingston cites
as authority, is if Hanon Russel, who controls both, thinks Keene's
copyright was abridged by Kinston's review.

What could be fairer than that? )

[[When Taylor Kingston has replied to this aspect of his own behavior -
let's do the same thing with the other bloke, Winter - let him write
whatever he wants in his own words - by writing to Winter but asking him a
direct question of what he was about when referring to Kasparov and BCO. I
wonder what the CJA would think of that! At least it doesn't abridge
Kasparov's copyright, since he never wrote anything... ]]

If Taylor Kingston decline to follow the first of these, allow me! If he
would kindly let me know in this forum if he intends to contact Hanon Russel
about a CJA ethical infraction, then we might expect an answer in a timely
way, since it is a serious accusation!

Of course, if the result of the CJA findings in this matter are not as
indicated above, and Parr is found not guilty, but other parties are, then I
am sure they will be able to impartially impose penalties upon themselves
and their agents.

If he does not intend to do so - then I am very willing to contact Hanon
Russel.

Phil Innes


I was just about to say what benefit there is in writing here compared to
Nolandland.

HYSTORYLAND

But the hapless Kingston choses to take ethical advice from Brennan! g

I would say that the likely result of accepting that advice would be a
countersuit which would sink both Kingston and the CJA, since Kingston
quoted FAR more in his own review than is permissable under copyright
law - and Ray Keene is now accused of, in effect, quoting himself inhis
reply.

If there is anything else of substance in this post, rahteer than
'abstract criticism' I am sure someone will reply to it.

Phil Innes


In the meantime, I will be happy to respond to Keene's comments about
my review of his book, on one condition -- that he first acknowledge
and explain, in detail and without evasion, his many documented factual
errors that I have here pointed out, errors which he seems to claim
were never made.
I might add that Keene's errors are of much greater magnitude, on
matters far better known, common knowledge even, than anything he's
laid against me. I hardly feel threatened by an accusation of
jaywalking when it comes from a guy who's habitually DUI,
metaphorically speaking.

* This is really odd. Keene & the dunderheads have
anaged to trick the so-called ratpackers into discussing
one of Keene's better works...* (Help Bot)

Mr. Bot finally got something right.

* And speaking of "answering point by point," I repeat my statement of

yesterday: I will be happy to respond to Keene's comments about my
review of his book, on one condition -- that he first acknowledge and
explain, in detail and without evasion, his many documented factual
errors that I have here pointed out, errors which he seems to claim
were never made.* (Kingston)

Translation: This phony will never respond to Keene's devastating
critique of his putrid review because Keene is right.

Chess One wrote:
"Chess One" wrote in message
news:HJ15g.413$b77.148@trndny03...

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

The Historian wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:

Hang on. What's this? I'm one of the worst offenders against
historical accuracy!
I trust he's going to produce some evidence for this libel. -- GM
Raymond Keene

As far as legally actionable offenses are concerned, I do not recall
granting permission to GM Keene to reproduce my entire copyrighted
review here. Nor do I recall him even asking for such permission.

Technically, it's Larry Parr that violated your copyright, Taylor,
since Mr. Keene didn't reprint the review. In addition to any legal
line Mr. Parr crossed, he seems to have violated the Code of Ethics of
the Chess Journalists of America. Mr. Parr is a CJA member.

9. No article or other proprietary work may be published without the
necessary proprietary consents.

I note Hanon Russel is a member of CJA; he could ask them to take
action of some kind against Parr.

Thank you, Neil -- I will definitely consider it.

FAIR CHALLENGE?

I strongly suggest that Russel should be contacted - in fact if Taylor
Kingston doesn't I will.

I already have, Phil, but feel free to contact him yourself if you
like. However, I suggest you spell his name correctly.

What we would like to know about where Kingston wrote his
article -Chesscafe - and about the CJA Code of Ethics, that Kingston cites
as authority

I did not cite the CJA.

, is if Hanon Russel, who controls both,

You are saying that Hanon Russell controls the CJA??

thinks Keene's
copyright was abridged by Kinston's review.

Hitting the peyote again, Phil? The issue is whether Keene/Parr's
posting of a large part of *my* copyrighted review, without receiving
or asking permission, is a copyright violation.

What could be fairer than that? )

Probably any number of things, but to be sure it would first be
necessary for your position to be comprehensible.

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

The Historian wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:

Hang on. What's this? I'm one of the worst offenders against
historical accuracy!
I trust he's going to produce some evidence for this libel. -- GM
Raymond Keene

As far as legally actionable offenses are concerned, I do not recall
granting permission to GM Keene to reproduce my entire copyrighted
review here. Nor do I recall him even asking for such permission.

Technically, it's Larry Parr that violated your copyright, Taylor,
since Mr. Keene didn't reprint the review. In addition to any legal
line Mr. Parr crossed, he seems to have violated the Code of Ethics of
the Chess Journalists of America. Mr. Parr is a CJA member.

9. No article or other proprietary work may be published without the
necessary proprietary consents.

I note Hanon Russel is a member of CJA; he could ask them to take
action of some kind against Parr.

Thank you, Neil -- I will definitely consider it.

I was just about to say what benefit there is in writing here compared to
Nolandland.

HYSTORYLAND

But the hapless Kingston choses to take ethical advice from Brennan! g

I would say that the likely result of accepting that advice would be a
countersuit which would sink both Kingston and the CJA,

How can there be a "countersuit" if there is no lawsuit? DId I suggest
any legal action?

since Kingston
quoted FAR more in his own review than is permissable under copyright law -

Excuse me, but where does copyright law in the US set a limit for fair
use? (Folks, this is a trick question.) Also, the issue with the CJA
isn't over fair use guidelines, but the fact that Parr, a CJA member,
reproduced Mr. Kingston's entire article without permission. As I
pointed out, this is a violation of the CJA Code of Ethics.

and Ray Keene is now accused of, in effect, quoting himself inhis reply.

If there is anything else of substance in this post, rahteer than 'abstract
criticism' I am sure someone will reply to it.

As usual, there is next to nothing in your post aside from the errors.

Snip remaining Innes twaddle.

Chess One wrote:
"Chess One" wrote in message
news:HJ15g.413$b77.148@trndny03...

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

The Historian wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:

Hang on. What's this? I'm one of the worst offenders against
historical accuracy!
I trust he's going to produce some evidence for this libel. -- GM
Raymond Keene

As far as legally actionable offenses are concerned, I do not recall
granting permission to GM Keene to reproduce my entire copyrighted
review here. Nor do I recall him even asking for such permission.

Technically, it's Larry Parr that violated your copyright, Taylor,
since Mr. Keene didn't reprint the review. In addition to any legal
line Mr. Parr crossed, he seems to have violated the Code of Ethics of
the Chess Journalists of America. Mr. Parr is a CJA member.

9. No article or other proprietary work may be published without the
necessary proprietary consents.

I note Hanon Russel is a member of CJA; he could ask them to take
action of some kind against Parr.

Thank you, Neil -- I will definitely consider it.

FAIR CHALLENGE?

I strongly suggest that Russel should be contacted - in fact if Taylor
Kingston doesn't I will.

What we would like to know about where Kingston wrote his
article -Chesscafe - and about the CJA Code of Ethics, that Kingston cites
as authority,

Mr. Kingston does not 'cite' the CJA or the Code of Ethics.

is if Hanon Russel, who controls both,

Hanon Russell does not control the CJA. If anyone, that would be Don
Schultz.

thinks Keene's
copyright was abridged by Kinston's review.

Since Russell, a lawyer - a real one, not one of the mythical "legal
gentlemen" you often cite - published the review, most probably he,
unlike Phil Innes, understood the concept of fair use.

What could be fairer than that? )

Innes could fall down a rabbit hole somewhere. Then he can be the only
one living "Innes in Wonderland."

[[When Taylor Kingston has replied to this aspect of his own behavior -
let's do the same thing with the other bloke, Winter - let him write
whatever he wants in his own words - by writing to Winter but asking him a
direct question of what he was about when referring to Kasparov and BCO. I
wonder what the CJA would think of that!

Mr. Winter is not a CJA member.

At least it doesn't abridge
Kasparov's copyright, since he never wrote anything... ]]

If Taylor Kingston decline to follow the first of these, allow me! If he
would kindly let me know in this forum if he intends to contact Hanon Russel
about a CJA ethical infraction, then we might expect an answer in a timely
way, since it is a serious accusation!

Of course, if the result of the CJA findings in this matter are not as
indicated above, and Parr is found not guilty, but other parties are, then I
am sure they will be able to impartially impose penalties upon themselves
and their agents.

If he does not intend to do so - then I am very willing to contact Hanon
Russel.

Please do so. (Folks, now will follow a dozen posts threatening to do
so.)

Snip more Innes insanity.

jr wrote:
* And speaking of "answering point by point," I repeat my statement of
yesterday: I will be happy to respond to Keene's comments about my
review of his book, on one condition -- that he first acknowledge and
explain, in detail and without evasion, his many documented factual
errors that I have here pointed out, errors which he seems to claim
were never made.* (Kingston)

Translation: This phony will never respond to Keene's devastating
critique of his putrid review because Keene is right.

Keene is right? On all of the following?

1. The 1927 Capablanca-Alekhine match lasted 35 games?
2. Marshall, Lewitzky and Duras all lived until at least 1991?
3. Chess games were first recorded towards the end of the eighteenth
century?
4. Steinitz had an "abysmal" tournament record over the years
1886-1894?
5. Euwe dethroned Alekhine in 1937?
6. Botvinnik won the 1954 world championship match against Smyslov?
7. The 1983 Kasparov-Korchnoi match was for the World Championship?
8. New York 1927 was a de facto candidates tournament?
9. Kasparov was "the first player in more than 75 years to come
from behind to win the world chess championship"?

These are all things Keene has written, all matters of public record
on which he was quite wrong. There are many more. With the exception of
#8, he has addressed none of them. I'll be happy to discuss my alleged
errors with Keene when he responds in full to all of the above.

Hang on a moment. What are these generalisations about being
careless? I imagine he will soon be trying to produce some evidence for
this
libellous assertion.

Be my guest:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/keene.html

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/copying.html

....and many, many more examples could be given. To say that you are a
careless author is about as much as a "libel" as saying that the sun
rises in the east.

His evidence so far is that I admit to having
written a book in a few days. This is true, but it was not by choice.
Also I had been thinking and writing notes for weeks in advance.

Wow! You actually spent a few WEEKS thinking and writing notes about
the book! I'm impressed.

Of course, some fools believe that just "thinking and writing notes"
for "a few weeks" is not enough, and that a good book usually requires
months, if not years, of collecting and shifting through primary
sources. But what the hell do THEY know.

Larry Parr reported (29 Apr 2006 06:59:06 -0700)
that GM Keene wrote:
I am always ready to correct something if it can
be done.

_
Does GM Keene maintain that Taylor Kingston
decided to "concentrate" on Duras-Teichman
(Ostend, 1906)?