wrote:

LOVIN' IT

You always know when you have pushed the
rave button. I love it when these guys go zoiko.

Well, lookee here. Our man in Zabroska has introduced a "zoika".
Chuckle, & speaking of 'button-pushing' since we're not _all_ fervently
tongue-lapping round dirty Malasian billionaire ****ty plugholes. Make
sure you don't miss any flaky, cereal bits Liarry..

A Nearly a C player fails to ask a Never Even Nearly a Master about multiple
identities [MI] which is the outward form of unintegrated Self.

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

The usual divertimenti twitterings of the Never Been There Nor Done Much
Neither, Nor Likely Too.

To return on topic - at least Louis Blair doesn't use multiple identities,
or any much self-identity. Proving all over again, you can't have nothing or
everything either.

Rather than condemn all such nonsense, while the rest of us struggle with
issues around Identity Theft [IT] its pitiable when MI's steal their own.

Phil Innes

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

HOLY MACKEREL

"You will discover that most of the attacks against Parr come
from a trio of Edward Winter followers...". -- Jr

I get the impression that Jr is deliberately trying to mislead
readers by tossing out a Red Herring; what on Earth could Edward Winter
have to do with "most of" the criticism of Larry Parr?

An interesting question, and...

For example, take the last post of Louis Blair, in which he complains
about the "logic" of LP as apllied back upon himself and his loyal
"supporters".

The swinish Parr does not accept saint-Blair's context, therefore Parr is
evasive, dishonest...

This would seem to originate, not with Edward Winter,

[word to the wise - you are not privvy to the e-mails Taylor Kingston never
sent]

but with the concept of self-contradiction (which, for those who may
not know, long existed prior to EW).

One would expect this sort of thing to be self-evident to Jr, as he
recently posted a complaint about Taylor Kingston not answering LP's
"questions"; such questions as relate to decency, honesty, integrity --
that sort of thing.

The subject was when completely bust [as usual] to invent a character to
talk with who supports one's point of view, even a little admiringly.

I am unclear if extreme-bot is saying that this should not be pointed out,
or if his complaint is that jr is a hypocrit since he does same? therefore
the suppositional aspect of the above writing can't be answered since
whatever the issue is resolved to be [that is, independent of who speaks it]
is not sufficiently well written to be intelligible


THE PARRIAN BROTHERHOOD


OTOH, as Jr is a staunch supporter of Larry Parr, and as LP has
repeatedly attacked anons like himself as somehow lacking in integrity,
it comes as no surprise when Jr takes off on a wrong track, apparently
wanting to portray LP critics as being under the control of some
sinister mastermind.
Failure to notice the attack on his own kind, on the entire anon
species, while continuing to mindlessly support the attacker, is
further evidence of Jr's general lack of... what is the word?
It reminds me of near-IM Phil Innes, who staunchly supports Larry
Parr despite his repeated attacks on those who claim ratings or titles
which are not officially theirs to claim. What is the word I'm looking
for?

a) You are jealous?
b) Possibly 'artichokes'?
c) Your own name?

e) Does the extreme-anon think that the subject of the Duras games worth
mentioning at all? Or what Soltis' made of it?

OR

f) is it vastly more important for him to read about what Blair thinks he
thinks about what Parr said of the missing positional notation from
Kingston's review of the Soltis commentary on the Duras game zzzzzz



FINDING THE COMMONALITY

These two, along with several others, definitely share some common
trait, something which binds them all together as kindred spirits, as
brothers.

How sparingly granted! though there are at least 2 common meanings to
common, both exhibited equally - which can be meant? Let's presume it to be
'shared'.

Not failure -- although each of them fails in some way to comprehend
vital facts and self-contradictions which are as plain as day to
others.

....as plain as any abstract day, in a typical week, most any month... will
this vaguery ever end? zzzzz

Not idiocy -- although a very strong case could be made for
each of them pertaining to various postings they have made. No, the
word I am searching for is... integrity. Yes, that's it. As J. R.
Ewing on the TV show Dallas so astutely put it: "Once you give up
integrity, the rest is a piece of cake."

We should thank extreme-anon for pointing to a fantasy TV villain-figure
making an abstract and non-original generic comment, and indeed for speaking
on behalf of other people.

Speaking for himself is not his forte, to the extent of being able to write
his own name - for shame!

Rub a galled horse, he will kick. /Proverb

Phil Innes


-- help bot

Chess One wrote:
A Nearly a C player fails to ask a Never Even Nearly a Master about multiple
identities [MI] which is the outward form of unintegrated Self.

Since you post as both Chess One and Xganon, you would know.

jr wrote:
Dear Mr. Cerebrus,

Welcome to someone who is outspoken with common sense.

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.

When Blair gets an answer, he either ignores it or says it
was not the question he asked and repeats it ad infinitum.

If he fails to post the same boilerplate at least 50 times, even
though it has no relevance to the thread in question in order to
top-post Parr, then he has failed in his sacred duty to obfuscate,
snip, and arrange quotations out of context in order to discredit
his "foes." He seldom poses tough questions to his "allies."

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 wrote:
Dear Mr. Cerebrus,

Welcome to someone who is outspoken with common sense.

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.

When Blair gets an answer, he either ignores it or says it
was not the question he asked and repeats it ad infinitum.

If he fails to post the same boilerplate at least 50 times, even
though it has no relevance to the thread in question in order to
top-post Parr, then he has failed in his sacred duty to obfuscate,
snip, and arrange quotations out of context in order to discredit
his "foes." He seldom poses tough questions to his "allies."

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 (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

When Blair gets an answer, he either ignores it or says it
was not the question he asked and repeats it ad infinitum.

_
Not only does jr fail to provide any specific examples, but, by
his own testimony, he does not read my notes.
_
"I plonked the nutty professor a long time ago"
- jr (17 Apr 2006 06:36:05 -0700)
_
Of course, that leaves us wondering how this could have
happened:
_
From: "Louis Blair"
Date: 30 Apr 2006 19:47:25 -0700
Message-ID: .com
_
From: "jr"
Date: 1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: .com

_
jr wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

If he fails to post the same boilerplate at least 50 times,
even though it has no relevance to the thread in question
in order to top-post Parr, then he has failed in his sacred
duty to obfuscate, snip, and arrange quotations out of
context in order to discredit his "foes."

_
I do not think that the rest of us are obliged to forget
about a subject just because Larry Parr chooses to
avoid it. Indeed, when Larry Parr starts going on about
how much he is "LOVIN' IT", it strikes me as a particularly
good time to remind him about some of the subjects that
he does not seem to love.
_
As for Larry Parr's habits, google finds about 70 of
his notes that mention Xylothist and many more
that contain that 2300 number.

_
jr wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

Blair ... seldom poses tough questions to his "allies."

_
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?

_
jr wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

You will find life far more pleasant on these forums if
you simply plonk that pathetic loser who has no life
apart from Google.

_
This time, jr refrains from explicitly asserting that he
himself plonked me. Also amidst all this criticism, jr
chooses not to mention his previous exclamation:
_
"LOUIS BLAIR IS A DOCUMENTED LIAR."
- jr (8 May 2006 11:33:49 -0700)
_
Does anyone believe that jr knows of such documents
and is keeping the matter to himself?

jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

When Blair gets an answer, he either ignores it or says it
was not the question he asked and repeats it ad infinitum.

_
Not only does jr fail to provide any specific examples, but, by
his own testimony, he does not read my notes.
_
"I plonked the nutty professor a long time ago"
- jr (17 Apr 2006 06:36:05 -0700)
_
Of course, that leaves us wondering how this could have
happened:
_
From: "Louis Blair"
Date: 30 Apr 2006 19:47:25 -0700
Message-ID: .com
_
From: "jr"
Date: 1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: .com

_
jr wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

If he fails to post the same boilerplate at least 50 times,
even though it has no relevance to the thread in question
in order to top-post Parr, then he has failed in his sacred
duty to obfuscate, snip, and arrange quotations out of
context in order to discredit his "foes."

_
I do not think that the rest of us are obliged to forget
about a subject just because Larry Parr chooses to
avoid it. Indeed, when Larry Parr starts going on about
how much he is "LOVIN' IT", it strikes me as a particularly
good time to remind him about some of the subjects that
he does not seem to love.
_
As for Larry Parr's habits, google finds about 70 of
his notes that mention Xylothist and many more
that contain that 2300 number.

_
jr wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

Blair ... seldom poses tough questions to his "allies."

_
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?

_
jr wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

You will find life far more pleasant on these forums if
you simply plonk that pathetic loser who has no life
apart from Google.

_
This time, jr refrains from explicitly asserting that he
himself plonked me. Also amidst all this criticism, jr
chooses not to mention his previous exclamation:
_
"LOUIS BLAIR IS A DOCUMENTED LIAR."
- jr (8 May 2006 11:33:49 -0700)
_
Does anyone believe that jr knows of such documents
and is keeping the matter to himself?

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

When Blair gets an answer, he either ignores it or says it
was not the question he asked and repeats it ad infinitum.

_
Not only does jr fail to provide any specific examples, but, by
his own testimony, he does not read my notes.
_
"I plonked the nutty professor a long time ago"
- jr (17 Apr 2006 06:36:05 -0700)
_
Of course, that leaves us wondering how this could have
happened:

Does it?

Did someone else NOT SNIP your message horror but include it in their own,
and so they writer read it that way? Isn't that an obvious answer - and why
this should seem so strange is unknown. I have thought of writing this so
many times - but since it was hard to believe that it didn't occur to Louis,
or that it would have any effect anyway yikes I resisted until now.


Phil Innes

From: "Louis Blair"
Date: 30 Apr 2006 19:47:25 -0700
Message-ID: .com
_
From: "jr"
Date: 1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: .com

_
jr wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

If he fails to post the same boilerplate at least 50 times,
even though it has no relevance to the thread in question
in order to top-post Parr, then he has failed in his sacred
duty to obfuscate, snip, and arrange quotations out of
context in order to discredit his "foes."

_
I do not think that the rest of us are obliged to forget
about a subject just because Larry Parr chooses to
avoid it. Indeed, when Larry Parr starts going on about
how much he is "LOVIN' IT", it strikes me as a particularly
good time to remind him about some of the subjects that
he does not seem to love.
_
As for Larry Parr's habits, google finds about 70 of
his notes that mention Xylothist and many more
that contain that 2300 number.

_
jr wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

Blair ... seldom poses tough questions to his "allies."

_
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?

_
jr wrote (27 May 2006 17:29:35 -0700):

You will find life far more pleasant on these forums if
you simply plonk that pathetic loser who has no life
apart from Google.

_
This time, jr refrains from explicitly asserting that he
himself plonked me. Also amidst all this criticism, jr
chooses not to mention his previous exclamation:
_
"LOUIS BLAIR IS A DOCUMENTED LIAR."
- jr (8 May 2006 11:33:49 -0700)
_
Does anyone believe that jr knows of such documents
and is keeping the matter to himself?

I wrote (30 May 2006 19:22:42 -0700):
by [jr's] own testimony, he does not read my notes.
_
"I plonked the nutty professor a long time ago"
- jr (17 Apr 2006 06:36:05 -0700)
_
Of course, that leaves us wondering how this could
have happened:
_
From: "Louis Blair"
Date: 30 Apr 2006 19:47:25 -0700
Message-ID: .com
_
From: "jr"
Date: 1 May 2006 00:41:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: .com

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 31 May 2006 11:02:53 GMT):

Does it?

Did someone else NOT SNIP your message horror
but include it in their own, and so they writer read it that
way? Isn't that an obvious answer -

_
Right now, I am replying to the Wed, 31 May 2006
11:02:53 GMT Phil Innes note with Message-ID:
_
xJefg.77$Cw3.65@trndny01
_
I am NOT replying to the Tue, 30 May 2006 15:40:02 +1000
note of michael adams, with Message-ID:
_

_
Just to see if I can fool google, I will quote a nice big chunk of
the michael adams note. Here goes:
_
... when I was banged up for a time in a French prison. It was
quite informative & he btw got out before me though his
_crime_ was much more serious. In short & @ the urging of
my French cohort I read him the riot act in our three man
cellule. Y'know what? - this yank 'poet' @ large on the Paris
streets conceeded a 2.5hr. grace period before continuing his
ceaseless babble. Me & the Frenchie were glad to see him
given his own cellule & shortly thereafter he exited the prison.
My retained impression of this American was & still is one of
a complete & irredeemable ...

_
Now, I will submit this note, and we can all see if google records
it as
_
"In-Reply-To: xJefg.77$Cw3.65@trndny01
_
(I am submitting it in reply to Phil Innes) or as:
_
"In-Reply-To: "
_
(the michael adams note that was the source for my big quote).
Nobody has to trust me on this. Anyone can devise a test and
see for themelves what is recorded by the google "In-Reply-To"
feature.