LET ME AMEND MY STATEMENT

If Neil Brennen is just referring to me -- yes, I do
believe that Bobby is the greatest player of all time.
I also believe that he's a prime louse as a human being.

Let me amend my statement. Bobby is the
strongest player of all time. Kasparov was the
greatest. There is a distinction, and I have often
made it here.

LOUIS BLAIR'S LATEST FARRAGO

Another mountain of words, but we all know that
Louie Blair won't accept my polygraph challenge.

Noooo, way.

I noted here a few days back that I only
gamble on sure things, which is an idiom that does
not, strictly speaking, make much sense.

The point where Randy Bauer and the deceptive
posting is concerned: I stipulated that he enjoyed a
presumption of innocence. I made no charges
and really do not know who did it. Why bet?

For me, betting is NOT a sporting proposition. I
only bet when I am sure about a proposition. Over the
last 15 years or so, I have probably made 20 bets and
won every one except for a five pound wager with GM
Evans on the identity of the actor who played Colonel
Strasser in Casablanca. I was "sure" in the same
sense that GM Evans misremembered the Quesada game.
(Later, I wreaked revenge, winning another Casablanca
bet with GM Evans, coming out a net $3 ahead.)

I will bet with our Louie or Taylor Kingston
about whether I am or ever have used a bogus screen
name in these newsgroups. That's because I KNOW
who will win. Bad sporstmanship on my part; good payday,
if good old Louie ever lets his pride, canker and chancre
trump his frigid parsimony. I'M SURE HE WILL NOT.
Instead he will keep repeating his snide slurs.

Still, I enjoy issuing the challenge every now and
then to observe the interrogative squirms of this worm.

POLYGRAPHS ARE USED ROUTINELY

Most of us are aware that lie detector tests are
unrealiable [sic] -- that's why they are not admissible
in a court of law. -- g4

Lie detector tests are used routinely by private
companies, the CIA, the NSA and by gangsters among
their own. They may not meet a legal standard, but
the shoe fits equally for both sides of the bet.

Lie detectors may possibly fail when issues
become complicated and there may be a host of side
factors. They are highly reliable on questions about
one's identity and the like. The issue between this
writer and Louie Blair or Taylor Kingston, the
self-proclaimed 2300-+ ELO item who is actually
rated about 1800, is a consummately simple one.

1. Have I ever posted using a bogus screen name?

2. Do I know the identity of jr or others who support me?

I am the one actually taking the risk here
because I know I have not posted under false names as
NM Kingston has. I know I have about a 98% chance of
winning the bet. The 2% does indeed represent the polygraph
factor. If the result is inconclusive, I'm out the cost of my
coming stateside to take the test.

Louie and NM Kingston will not take the bet.
They would rather die than lose the money to me,
and they KNOW they would lose. Otherwise, our
Louie would grab the bet very quickly indeed. He is
that kinda guy.

For Kingston, there are complicating ego factors.

Larry Parr wrote (7 May 2006 17:49:36 -0700):

LOUIS BLAIR'S LATEST FARRAGO
_
Another mountain of words, but we all know that
Louie Blair won't accept my polygraph challenge.
_
Noooo, way.

_
It wasn't really much of a "mountain". In fact, it
was shorter than the Larry Parr note to which I
am now responding. Here are the quotes again.
_
"I hereby issue a $10,000 lie detector
challenge to gutless Larry Parr!" - Vince
Hart (26 Feb 2006 07:47:25 -0800)
_
"What will be asked?" - Larry Parr
(26 Feb 2006 18:17:37 -0800)
_
"We can start with whether or not I am 'help bot'"
- Vince Hart (27 Feb 2006 04:51:14 -0800)
_
"Let's start with whether I genuinely suspect that
Vinnie Hart is our Help Bot. I certainly do but, of
course, I can't prove it." - Larry Parr (27 Feb 2006
16:50:41 -0800)
_
(Larry Parr subsequently changed his mind about the
identity of helpbot.)

_
Larry Parr wrote (7 May 2006 17:49:36 -0700):

Louie ... will keep repeating his snide slurs.

_
Larry Parr, of course, does not quote any "snide
slur".

_
Larry Parr wrote (7 May 2006 17:49:36 -0700):

... I stipulated that [Randy Bauer] enjoyed a
presumption of innocence. ...

_
On 4 May 2006 20:53:04 -0700, Larry Parr did
indeed write something along those lines. That
was his FOURTH note on the Peter F. accusation.
This fourth LP note was AFTER Randy Bauer's
Thu, 04 May 2006 10:49:11 GMT lie detector
offer and AFTER my question:
_
"Does Larry Parr think that this offer
settles the matter? If not, why not?"
- Louis Blair (4 May 2006 19:34:54 -0700)
_
A little over an hour after my question, we saw
the Larry Parr note that indicated that he had
decided that it was appropriate to start writing
about the issue of presumption of innocence.

Larry Parr wrote (7 May 2006 19:35:43 -0700):

Louie and NM Kingston will not take the bet. They
would rather die than lose the money to me, and
they KNOW they would lose. Otherwise, our Louie
would grab the bet very quickly indeed. He is that
kinda guy.

_
"I hereby issue a $10,000 lie detector
challenge to gutless Larry Parr!" - Vince
Hart (26 Feb 2006 07:47:25 -0800)
_
"What will be asked?" - Larry Parr
(26 Feb 2006 18:17:37 -0800)
_
"We can start with whether or not I am 'help bot'"
- Vince Hart (27 Feb 2006 04:51:14 -0800)
_
"Let's start with whether I genuinely suspect that
Vinnie Hart is our Help Bot. I certainly do but, of
course, I can't prove it." - Larry Parr (27 Feb 2006
16:50:41 -0800)

Larry Parr wrote (7 May 2006 19:35:43 -0700):

Louie and NM Kingston will not take the bet. They
would rather die than lose the money to me, and
they KNOW they would lose. Otherwise, our Louie
would grab the bet very quickly indeed. He is that
kinda guy.
_
For Kingston, there are complicating ego factors.

_
"I hereby issue a $10,000 lie detector
challenge to gutless Larry Parr!" - Vince
Hart (26 Feb 2006 07:47:25 -0800)
_
"What will be asked?" - Larry Parr
(26 Feb 2006 18:17:37 -0800)
_
"We can start with whether or not I am 'help bot'"
- Vince Hart (27 Feb 2006 04:51:14 -0800)
_
"Let's start with whether I genuinely suspect that
Vinnie Hart is our Help Bot. I certainly do but, of
course, I can't prove it." - Larry Parr (27 Feb 2006
16:50:41 -0800)
_
(Larry Parr subsequently changed his mind about the
identity of helpbot.)

*I will bet with our Louie or Taylor Kingston
about whether I am or ever have used a bogus screen
name in these newsgroups. That's because I KNOW
who will win. Bad sporstmanship on my part; good payday,
if good old Louie ever lets his pride, canker and chancre
trump his frigid parsimony. I'M SURE HE WILL NOT.
Instead he will keep repeating his snide slurs.* (Parr)

I plonked the nutty professor but assume that he,
like his pal Kingston, turned down Parr's polygraph
challenge but will go on pretending (until his dying day?)
that Parr and I are the same person.

jr wrote

I plonked the nutty professor...

Since you're telling us again that you "plonked" him, you should this
time try not to reply to any of his posts that you read.

And I did miss your explanation about the Laurie-Kingston emails, where
you posted that it was all new to you after you had already posted that
you had read the exchanges. Could you provide a link for me to find
your explanation as I haven't been able to successfully google it.

- Tom Martinak

EXCUSE ME?

Since you're telling us again that you "plonked" him,
you should this time try not to reply to any of his posts
that you read. -- Tom Martinak

Maybe I missed something that Mr. Martinak saw. So
far as I can see, jr quoted only a portion of my post:

*I will bet with our Louie or Taylor Kingston
about whether I am or ever have used a bogus screen
name in these newsgroups. That's because I KNOW
who will win. Bad sporstmanship on my part; good payday,
if good old Louie ever lets his pride, canker and chancre
trump his frigid parsimony. I'M SURE HE WILL NOT.
Instead he will keep repeating his snide slurs.* (Parr)

Where is there any reference that jr replied to Louie's post?
He assumed -- correctly, as it turned out -- that Louie once
again rejected my offer to travel stateside at my own expense
to take a lie detector test after we both place the sum of
$10,000 in escrow.

parrthenon wrote:

EXCUSE ME?

Since you're telling us again that you "plonked" him,
you should this time try not to reply to any of his posts
that you read. -- Tom Martinak

Maybe I missed something that Mr. Martinak saw.

Obviously you have. And considering that Louis Blair has included it in
innumerable posts I don't see how you could have missed it. I'll just
paste it from Blair's messages so that he doesn't have to:
_
"Fortunately I plonked [the nutty professor]
long ago and don't have to suffer through it.
Why not plonk him also, Larry?" - jr
(18 Apr 2006 00:23:35 -0700)
_
"In-Reply-To: 1146451645.447571.296810
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com [a
Louis Blair note]" - heading to a jr note
(1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700)

Hopefully jr won't make the same mistake again and considerable
bandwidth will be saved by Louis not having to include two such
inconsistencies in his posts.

- Tom Martinak

ANOTHER LOST MEMBER

I just found out that Chess Life has fired Larry Evans. Larry
Parr, who frequently shares with this bunch in spite of the
abuse I dump on him, knew but was silent on this occasion.
I was within a day or two of rejoining the USCF.

No way now.

email:




snailmail:
Max Burkett
633-B Minnesota Av
East Missoula, MT
59802 (USA)

telephone:
406-728-6198 (USA)