Larry Parr wrote (28 May 2006 00:48:52 -0700):

Louie Blair's work consists of conveniently neglecting
to discover quotations of, say, our Taylor Kingston
praising himself ...

_
I have never claimed to do any searching for such a thing.
Has Larry Parr asked Sam Sloan about the Holiday Quiz
incident? Has Larry Parr asked any questions about the
Chessville/David Kane incident? Has Larry Parr asked
jr any questions about the plonk/reply incident, the "hack"
incident, or the I-have-read/all-new-to-me incident?

_
Larry Parr wrote (28 May 2006 00:48:52 -0700):

and of taking other quotations right out of context. One
of his tricks is to take ironic or humorous statements as
though they were written seriously.

_
A habit of Larry Parr is to make complaints about context
without identifying anything specific that was left out and
should have been included.

_
Larry Parr wrote (28 May 2006 00:48:52 -0700):

... Instead of talking about any of that or the waste of
dues money on a chess retreat, or $50,000 given to a
crony of the board for a redesign without an open bidding
process, however, the ratpackers are obsessed with
such burning issues as whether Edward Winter ever
claimed that Kasparov's name was added to BCO nearly
25 years ago merely to boost sales.

_
Larry Parr neglects to mention that he was the one who
repeatedly chose to call our attention to the the GM Keene
assertion:
_
"[Edward winter] once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings
was ghosted" - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (24 Apr 2005 08:42:58 -0700)
_
Since Larry Parr often quotes GM Keene as an authority,
it seems to me to be of some interest to see whether or
not he should be trusted. Since Larry Parr himself has
chosen to list this item under the heading "EDWARD
WINTER'S TRIPE", it seems to me that the incident is,
to some degree, reflective of Larry Parr's own concern
for evidence supporting a public attack.
_
At this time, I am trying to find out whether or not Larry
Parr agrees that GM Keene has produced a quote or
quotes of Edward Winter that can be fairly described as
claiming that Kasparov's contribution to Batsford Chess
Openings was ghosted. Larry Parr seems to want to
discourage that activity. Why?

MR. KINGSTON'S SINCERITY

Well, Larry, if I am "taking the Fifth Amendment,"
it would appear you are too. My offer to answer your
questions is quite sincere, but I do ask that you meet
my conditions. For an habitual liar to insist that
only he may ask the questions is hardly fair. -- Taylor Kingston

NM Taylor Kingston, our self-claimed 2300+
ELO weighted chess piece who is actually rated about
1800, has adopted an interesting ploy.

We have twice posted answers to a series of
questions he asked, and he has twice snipped the
answers, announcing that we have not answered him.

It's a TN -- or at least a TK.

We do not understand the psychology of a Greg
Kennedy (currently our help bot) or an NM Kingston
(Xylothist, Paulie Graf, Niemand and probably others).
On the one hand, these two reckon that even those in
support of their positions know them to be men who
must, at times, seek the crutch of false identities;
on the other hand, they continue to abase themselves.

At the current time, Mr. Kennedy is the more
absurd. He will eventually subside as Help Bot, then
vanish for a couple of months as he did before and return
under his own name. Whereupon, he will make an effort
to restrain the brummagem, but he must eventually prattle on.

As for NM Kingston, his sudden reappearance as Niemand,
directly following his embarrassing charge against GM Keene
re the botched issue of Kingpin (he called them "rogue copies")
shows that pressure can build inside his cranium quite swiftly.
He reverts to another name reflexively.

But why? I'm genuinely baffled.

Why must Greg Kennedy continue the pretense as
Help Bot when even he knows that the ruse is
pointless? Why can't NM Kingston simply tell us
whether he posted in support of himself, and his own
positions under a series of invented names?

At the moment, NM Kingston states that this
writer must take his side in some recent disputes with
jr and Sam Sloan before he answers my questions. Alas, he
does not care to address why he could not answer them
during all the years BEFORE these recent disputes.

wrote:
MR. KINGSTON'S SINCERITY

Well, Larry, if I am "taking the Fifth Amendment,"
it would appear you are too. My offer to answer your
questions is quite sincere, but I do ask that you meet
my conditions. For an habitual liar to insist that
only he may ask the questions is hardly fair. -- Taylor Kingston

NM Taylor Kingston, our self-claimed 2300+
ELO weighted chess piece who is actually rated about
1800, has adopted an interesting ploy.

We have twice posted answers to a series of
questions he asked, and he has twice snipped the
answers, announcing that we have not answered him.

Checking your posts of the last week or so, Larry, I find none that
look remotely like proper answers my questions, nor any that even begin
to meet the conditions I set. I do see a post on "phantom tournaments."
Perhaps you posted phantom answers?

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Checking your posts of the last week or so, Larry, I find none that
look remotely like proper answers my questions, nor any that even begin
to meet the conditions I set. I do see a post on "phantom tournaments."
Perhaps you posted phantom answers?

I thought the phantom tournament thread was a discussion of Parr's
victory in an "International Swiss"; do you suppose Liarry Parr is a
Nearly an IM?

*Checking your posts of the last week or so, Larry,
I find none that look remotely like proper answers my
questions, nor any that even begin to meet the conditions.* (Kingston)

Kingston snipped Parr's answers twice but has not even answered
Parr's questions once because they don't meet his high standards.

Gosh, Larry, looks like you have to try harder.

Like Avis.

jr wrote:
*Checking your posts of the last week or so, Larry,
I find none that look remotely like proper answers my
questions, nor any that even begin to meet the conditions.* (Kingston)

Gosh, Larry, looks like you have to try harder.

Like Avis.

Ah, but he won't, because it Hertz too much.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
jr wrote:
*Checking your posts of the last week or so, Larry,
I find none that look remotely like proper answers my
questions, nor any that even begin to meet the conditions.* (Kingston)

Gosh, Larry, looks like you have to try harder.

Like Avis.

Ah, but he won't, because it Hertz too much.

jr. and Liarry didn't Budget on that reply.

jr wrote (29 May 2006 11:25:05 -0700):

Kingston snipped Parr's answers twice

_
One of Taylor Kingston's questions was about the
attack on his review of the Soltis book.
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf
_
To those who claim that Larry Parr has dealt with the
matter adequately, I would ask:
_
Has Larry Parr demonstrated that it was appropriate
for him to publicly declare this?
_
"... 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 ..." - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006 19:05:22 -0700)
_
If not, where is the Larry Parr apology?
_
If so, which of the meanings (listed by Larry Parr)
of "highlighted" is he using in order to justify his
statement that Taylor Kingston "highlighted" the
position when, in fact, Taylor Kingston did not mention
the position in his review?
_
"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

Larry Parr wrote (28 May 2006 01:50:37 -0700):

... When we consider the steam hissing from his ears
as he changes subject headers -- well, we know we
wrote something truthful and good that scraped bone.

_
What conclusion would we come to if we applied Parr
-logic to Larry Parr and his supporters?
_
"Louis Blair's essential dishonesty ..."
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 09:00:03 -0700)
_
"LOUIS BLAIR IS A DOCUMENTED LIAR."
- jr (8 May 2006 11:33:49 -0700)
_
"Got **** yourselves, gentlemen, You may
quote me." - Phil Innes (Sat, 13 May 2006
00:15:18 GMT)

*I have been reading the contributions of Mr Louis Blair.
He sounds like a recurring decimal asking the same
questions again and again. Then when he gets the answers
he pretends he hasn't had them and asks for them yet again.
Is he short of conversation or he just likes the look of his own
words, phrased and rephrased? * (Cerebus)

*You will discover that most of the attacks against Parr come
from a trio of Edward Winter followers: Neil Brennen (The Historian)
Taylor Kingston (when he posts under his own name) and Louis
Blair, the nutty professor, who asks questions for their own sake
without any real interest in the answers...You will find life far more
pleasant on these forums if you simply plonk that pathetic loser who
has no life apart from Google.* (jr)

Dear Mr. Cerebus,

How did my prediction turn out? I suspect it
didn't take you long to discover who the haters are.