LOOK WHO'S TALKING!

If Cerebus will carefully examine the newsgroup record
via Google or some such search engine, he will find that
Blair asks "the same questions again and again" only when
the person asked gives no satifactory answer, or no answer
at all. Notorious repeat offenders would be Parr and Innes, who
virtually never answer "inconvenient" questions. -- Taylor Kingston


From: - view profile
Date: Wed, May 24 2006 6:40 am
Email: "
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc

QUESTIONS KINGSTON WON'T ANSWER

They were posted here on Tuesday, May 23 2006 6:42 pm
Since then NM Kingston has made two postings in this
thread while completely ignoring them.

Now If my name were Louis Blair, I would repeat them
at least 50 more more times in order to create a diversion
in every other unrelated thread. Speaking of the parser, he
demands answers to "questions" while ignoring the ones
I put to him in "Louie's Mental Mush."

Here, once again, are the questions NM Kingston ignores.

PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE

Instead of practicing medicine without a license,
this guy might try addressing the actual issues raised
by Keene and Parr. -- jr

Parr spits out a string of lies, innuendo and
insults like some bar-room loudmouth and his
sock-puppet calls it "raising issues." If Parr could
keep a civil tongue in his head, he might get some
civil answers now and then -- even though he
scarcely gives any himself. -- Taylor Kingston

What can be more civil? We ask Taylor Kingston,
who has described himself as a man with "standards,"
the following questions:

1A: Did you vote as Xylothist in the Evans poll?

1B: Did you post on rgcp as Xylothist in praise
of your own positions and to attack your enemies?

2A: Did you vote as Paulie Graf in the Evans poll?

2B: Did you post Paulie Graf in praise of your own
positions and to attack your enemies?

3A: Did you vote as Niemand in the Evans poll?

3B: Did you post on as Niemand in praise
of your own positions?

We endeavour to be scrupulously fair with NM
Kingston, our self-described 2300+ ELO time bomb
who is actually rated about 1800.

We have stipulated repeatedly that his overall
work as a book reviewer is better than 90% of the stuff
in chess publications. Even NM Kingston's review of the Soltis
volume, which GM Ray Keene has so effectively savaged,
was an earnest, elaborate effort well beyond what most
chess-book reviewers are willing to make.

What we will not do is to pretend that NM
Kingston did not lie through his teeth when claiming
to be a strong chess master.

What we will not do is to let up on the withering
criticism when NM Kingston employs pseudonyms to
praise himself and his own arguments.

We do not consider his character weakness as
consonant with having those "standards" he boasts about.

We hope that NM Kingston will one day own up to
his lies and his impersonations. There might then be
a fresh beginning for the man on this newsgroup.

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 in message
oups.com...
Dear Mr. Cerebrus,
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."


The last statement coming from a no-name who has yet to ask tough
questions from her allies. And ditto for larry parr.


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 coming from a no-name who has often claimed that she plonked
the nutty professor, only to be caught directly answering at least one
of his subsequent posts. jr has been questioned on numerous occasions,
but she has yet to respond with any type of defense.

wrote:

Now If my name were Louis Blair, I would repeat them
at least 50 more more times in order to create a diversion
in every other unrelated thread.

While we are repeating questions, Liarry, when are you going to post
the email in
which I allegedly called Larry Evans a "hack", or used the plural
"hacks"? I give you permission to post it, complete with headers. Your
failure to do so might give some people the impression you are less
than truthful, Liarry.

*While we are repeating questions, Liarry, when are you
going to post the email in which I allegedly called Larry
Evans a "hack", or used the plural "hacks"? I give you
permission to post it, complete with headers. Your failure
to do so might give some people the impression you are
less than truthful, Liarry.* (Neil Brennen)

This is what The Historian posted. Nothing about chess,
just his usual urgly pettiness. Brennen snarls and reverts
to type, and his animosity towards Evans and Parr is
sickenly obvious. Now he claims that he didn't call Evans
a hack, just someone who employs a pet hack -- a novel
form of character assassination!

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

*Again, I'd suggest ignoring all email from chesstours
AKA Larry Evans. And please be prepared for all of your
correspondence to appear on message boards and
newsgroups, courtesy Evans and his pet hack Larry
Parr.* Best wishes, Neil Brennen

Just two quick points:

1. Did anyone besides myself notice the irony of g4 (an anon)
attacking jr (another anon)?

2. It's unethical for Brennen to change the header from "of Mr.
Louis Blair" to of "Mr. Liarry Parr, the hack" merely to vent his
spleen once more against two people who have done more for
chess than anything Brennen will ever accomplish.

THE HEART OF DARKNESS

I consider Blair an asset to this newsgroup. -- g4

jr wrote: Q. How do you know when Larry Parr is telling the truth?

A. Each time someone calls him Liarry.

Q. How do we know when jr is supporting Larry Parr?

A. Each time he posts. -- Wick Deer

My heavens, the Wickster is back, the former
chairman of the USCF Ethics Committee. He arrives,
sticks out his weak intellectual chin, takes a
chopping right, and then subsides.

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

The Wickster and g4 consider Louie an asset in
their sense, and I think of him as an asset in my
sense. He is evidently aliterate and manages the
e-trick of reflecting his kind of light from the heart
of ratpacker darkness. A feat. I give him that much.

Thank heavens. I knew that Jerry Bibuld would never
have taken so many years to come up with "the two
Liarries." Louie's incomplete finding gave us a few
desperate moments, but my faith in the name-calling
of the attackers was renewed by Neil Brennen who
changed the name of this to "of Mr. Liarry Parr, the hack."

Rob, no one in his right mind takes either Sam or
his imitators at all seriously. -- Taylor Kingston

Finally, we come to Mr. 2300+ Elo. His invention of
bogus personalities to praise his arguments is at the
heart of what the man calls his "standards."

Sam Sloan, on the other hand, is constantly attacked
because ... he is so often proven correct.

The actual cost of the move to Crossville and the tiny, new
wooden building zoned en permanence is about what Sam
predicted: $750,000. Yet we have to say that if the new
building is ever expanded, this cost will increase.

Beatriz Marinello and her wrecking crew pushed this deal
through even though the newly elected board requested a
delay while they examined all the details.

Yes, even Sam underrated the arrant dishonesty
and incompetence involved in Beatriz's hasty move from
New Windsor to Cross-to-Bear.

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.

And so it goes.

Uzytkownik "jr" napisal w wiadomosci
ups.com...

1. Did anyone besides myself notice the irony of g4 (an anon)
attacking jr (another anon)?

Don`t bother yourself with anonymous cowards who attack others using their
anonymity.


2. It's unethical for Brennen to change the header from "of Mr.
Louis Blair" to of "Mr. Liarry Parr, the hack" merely to vent his
spleen once more against two people who have done more for
chess than anything Brennen will ever accomplish.

I can see that Neil and his supporters are over-zealous at doing such tricks
to attack e.g. Phil or Larry.

HOWL

It's unethical for Brennen to change the header
from "of Mr. Louis Blair" to of "Mr. Liarry Parr, the hack"
merely to vent his spleen once more against two people
who have done more for chess than anything Brennen
will ever accomplish. -- jr

I can see that Neil and his supporters are
over-zealous at doing such tricks to attack
e.g. Phil or Larry. -- Jerzy

But the sheer canker and depth of The Historian's
envy and hatred: that is what I find so inspiriting.

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.
I should not enjoy his howl.

I hereby confess: "Confitemur Deo omnipotenti, beatae
Mariae semper Virgini, sanctis Apostolis Evanso et
jr-o, quia peccavimus, nostra culpa, nostra culpa,
nostra maxima culpa."

Thus, we do penance, if we cannot quite summon penitence.

"jr" wrote in message ups.com...
This is what The Historian posted. Nothing about chess,
just his usual urgly pettiness. Brennen snarls and reverts

This coming from a no-nome who attacked Louis Blair with her
customary "urgly pettiness" in a recent posting while providing zero
chess content.



to type, and his animosity towards Evans and Parr is
sickenly obvious. Now he claims that he didn't call Evans
a hack, just someone who employs a pet hack -- a novel
form of character assassination!



jr's fawning and matriachal stance for the 2 larry's is more nauseating
than a vomiting vulture.




1. Did anyone besides myself notice the irony of g4 (an anon)
attacking jr (another anon)?


I was not attacking you for being an anonymous. I was attacking you
for being an anonymous JERK.

wrote:
LOOK WHO'S TALKING!

If Cerebus will carefully examine the newsgroup record
via Google or some such search engine, he will find that
Blair asks "the same questions again and again" only when
the person asked gives no satifactory answer, or no answer
at all. Notorious repeat offenders would be Parr and Innes, who
virtually never answer "inconvenient" questions. -- Taylor Kingston


From: - view profile
Date: Wed, May 24 2006 6:40 am
Email: "
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc

QUESTIONS KINGSTON WON'T ANSWER

They were posted here on Tuesday, May 23 2006 6:42 pm
Since then NM Kingston has made two postings in this
thread while completely ignoring them.

Now If my name were Louis Blair, I would repeat them
at least 50 more more times in order to create a diversion
in every other unrelated thread. Speaking of the parser, he
demands answers to "questions" while ignoring the ones
I put to him in "Louie's Mental Mush."

Here, once again, are the questions NM Kingston ignores.

PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE

Instead of practicing medicine without a license,
this guy might try addressing the actual issues raised
by Keene and Parr. -- jr

Parr spits out a string of lies, innuendo and
insults like some bar-room loudmouth and his
sock-puppet calls it "raising issues." If Parr could
keep a civil tongue in his head, he might get some
civil answers now and then -- even though he
scarcely gives any himself. -- Taylor Kingston

What can be more civil? We ask Taylor Kingston,
who has described himself as a man with "standards,"
the following questions:

1A: Did you vote as Xylothist in the Evans poll?

1B: Did you post on rgcp as Xylothist in praise
of your own positions and to attack your enemies?

2A: Did you vote as Paulie Graf in the Evans poll?

2B: Did you post Paulie Graf in praise of your own
positions and to attack your enemies?

3A: Did you vote as Niemand in the Evans poll?

3B: Did you post on as Niemand in praise
of your own positions?

We endeavour to be scrupulously fair with NM
Kingston, our self-described 2300+ ELO time bomb
who is actually rated about 1800.

We have stipulated repeatedly that his overall
work as a book reviewer is better than 90% of the stuff
in chess publications. Even NM Kingston's review of the Soltis
volume, which GM Ray Keene has so effectively savaged,
was an earnest, elaborate effort well beyond what most
chess-book reviewers are willing to make.

What we will not do is to pretend that NM
Kingston did not lie through his teeth when claiming
to be a strong chess master.

What we will not do is to let up on the withering
criticism when NM Kingston employs pseudonyms to
praise himself and his own arguments.

We do not consider his character weakness as
consonant with having those "standards" he boasts about.

We hope that NM Kingston will one day own up to
his lies and his impersonations. There might then be
a fresh beginning for the man on this newsgroup.

Larry, if you want the truth, you have to be willing to give the
truth. You are no more in a position to demand the truth than Hitler
was to complain about anti-Semitism. But I'll give you a chance.
Larry, I will be happy to answer your questions once you meet several
conditions, by admitting various lies by you and certain of your allies
that long antedate the Kingpin matter. The questions below have all
been posed to you well before this, some years ago, some many times.
You've been ducking them ever since:

We have stipulated repeatedly that his overall
work as a book reviewer is better than 90% of the stuff
in chess publications. Even NM Kingston's review of the Soltis
volume, which GM Ray Keene has so effectively savaged ...


1. You will admit that your and Keene's "savaging" of that review was
based on nothing but a lie, and you will agree that the various ways
your lie has been proven by Dr. Blair and myself are entirely accurate.
I will list those ways, and you will admit to each.

2. You will acknowledge that your claims of multiple voting in the
recent Chessville poll are completely without basis, and are motivated
by malice, and you will apologize contritely to all whom you accused.

3. Concerning your 2002 claim that "One of the sillier things stated
by Taylor Kingston in a ChessCafe piece was that no one dared to defy
Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp." -- You will admit
that I never wrote any such thing, but that you and Larry Evans both
did. You will admit that it was very silly of you to do this.

4. You will acknowledge the lie "jr" made when he pretended ignorance
of my correspondence with Richard Laurie, and you will reprimand him
for it.

5. Concerning Sam Sloan's 2005 claim that "Taylor Kingston is
involved with USCF Sales and is the perpetrator of the blacklist," you
will admit that Sam was completely wrong, that you were wrong not
reprimand him immediately, and you will reprimand him for it now.

6. You will admit that it was highly misleading to claim that you won
an "international Swiss tournament" in 1970, since the event was merely
a typical local tournament involving no titled players.

Of course, I'm letting you off easy, since this is only a tiny
portion of the many lies you have told here. But life is too short to
deal with them all.
Anyway, as the police captain said in LA Confidential, "Reciprocity
is the basis of any good relationship." You want some truth, you gotta
give some truth.