XYLOTHIST

Taylor Kingston attacked his enemies and praised
himself under several bogus screen names which he still
hasn't denied. Here is the meaning of Xylothist which is
certainly apt in the case of Mr. 2300+ Elo.

Xylothism is a disease and psychological disorder
derived from the Greek words "xylon" for wood and "othism"
for pushing. A xylothist is a derogatory description of a
chessplayer gone wrong.

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb...g.chess.htm l

wrote:
XYLOTHIST

Taylor Kingston attacked his enemies and praised
himself under several bogus screen names which he still
hasn't denied.

SNIP

Liarry, you and everyone who's had the displeasure of following your
ridiculous stalking of Taylor Kingston *KNOWS* that Taylor has flatly
denied posting as "Xylothist" several times. The fact that you keep
regurgitating the same tired, played-out routine in a feeble attempt to
discredit him serves as proof-positive that you have *earned* the
moniker "Liarry."

Toodles.

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
XYLOTHIST

Taylor Kingston attacked his enemies and praised
himself under several bogus screen names which he still
hasn't denied.

SNIP

Liarry, you and everyone who's had the displeasure of following your
ridiculous stalking of Taylor Kingston *KNOWS* that Taylor has flatly
denied posting as "Xylothist" several times.

I admit that I never read any clear statement where Kingston denied Kingston
was Xylothist - I only read 'prove it' statements - which is a rather odd
set of affairs no?

Consider it a moment - here is an issue where an anon appears to support
Taylor Kingston on one issue, who never wrote before, and not since. Who
could this person be, and why obscure your own identity?

At least we would have to say that it is a very curious state of affairs,
that is, if we have any curiosity at all.

The fact that you keep
regurgitating the same tired, played-out routine in a feeble attempt to
discredit him serves as proof-positive that you have *earned* the
moniker "Liarry."

It is a problem, Matt, when people insist on presenting themselves as they
would wish to be seen, rather than allow others to assess them on the basis
of how they actually behave, and when it causes other people to be
disadvantaged.

I have a different problem with Kingston - that what he says in public does
not represent what he says in private - the inner and outer persons are
quite different people, as it were.

Anyone ever squeeze a hot round at you? You think you could describe it to
anyone who was never under fire? Maybe Arab people shot at you already -
with me it was the IRA. I would have no idea of how to speak about it to a
civvy.

If this material under consideration is too difficult for you, do not call
it nonsense or lying, since you don't even know which way is up in the
scenario we discuss - do you? - which is the same problem as with Taylor
Kingston's opinions on Russian matters.

If you only care to look good in public, don't take that attitude with you
to Kuwait, kiddo. And never mention where the hell you are going again!

Heuch! Boys!

Phil Innes

Toodles.

Chess One wrote:

Consider it a moment - here is an issue where an anon appears to support
Taylor Kingston on one issue, who never wrote before, and not since. Who
could this person be, and why obscure your own identity?

Do you consider the identity of "jr" to be an issue? Or, for that
matter, the identity of "Xganon"?

Chess One wrote:
"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
XYLOTHIST

Taylor Kingston attacked his enemies and praised
himself under several bogus screen names which he still
hasn't denied.

SNIP

Liarry, you and everyone who's had the displeasure of following your
ridiculous stalking of Taylor Kingston *KNOWS* that Taylor has flatly
denied posting as "Xylothist" several times.

I admit that I never read any clear statement where Kingston denied Kingston
was Xylothist - I only read 'prove it' statements - which is a rather odd
set of affairs no?

Not really. A "flat denial" only means you will shout "LIAR" - I've
seen that often enough. Asking you to prove your statements puts the
ball back in your court. It also has the happy side effect of causing
you to produce reams of semi-literate postings; your rgcp word-salads
are some of the funniest items on the Internet.

Chess One wrote:

I admit that I never read any clear statement where Kingston denied Kingston
was Xylothist -

On Wed, Jul 20 2005 8:16 am, in Liarry's own thread "Polygraph grudge
match," Taylor Kingston wrote:

"Larry, Xylothist is as much a mystery to me as Wmiketwo is to you..."

I found that after a 15-second Google search using the words "Kingston
Xylothist never." Not too awful difficult to see the clear meaning
behind Taylor's words, especially considering the vehemence Liarry has
denied posting as Wmiketwo. I do seem to recall Taylor coming out and
flatly denying that he posted as Xylothist, I just lack the interest in
this ridiculous argument.

Maybe the good Dr. Louis "Columbo" Blair would be of assistance.

I only read 'prove it' statements - which is a rather odd
set of affairs no?

Now you know.

Consider it a moment - here is an issue where an anon appears to support
Taylor Kingston on one issue, who never wrote before, and not since. Who
could this person be, and why obscure your own identity?

At least we would have to say that it is a very curious state of affairs,
that is, if we have any curiosity at all.

Yes, yes. It's all very "entertaining." But sadly, I lack the
curiosity.

It is a problem, Matt, when people insist on presenting themselves as they
would wish to be seen, rather than allow others to assess them on the basis
of how they actually behave, and when it causes other people to be
disadvantaged.

I have a different problem with Kingston - that what he says in public does
not represent what he says in private - the inner and outer persons are
quite different people, as it were.

You have misunderstood (misrepresented?) my own posts in the past,
Phil. And even after having explained the meaning of them to you --
the meaning that should've been crystal clear in the first place -- you
still insisted on seeing things your way. That's fine; to each his
own. This is, after all, Usenet. However, your penchant to "see
things your way" doesn't give me confidence enough in your
comprehension abilities to say that you're right and Taylor's wrong --
since I haven't seen the correspondence between the two of you and
thus, couldn't vouch for the context when presented with snippets and
paraphrasing.

Simply put, given our past, I would take Taylor's word over yours.
Nothing personal.

If this material under consideration is too difficult for you, do not call
it nonsense or lying, since you don't even know which way is up in the
scenario we discuss - do you? - which is the same problem as with Taylor
Kingston's opinions on Russian matters.

I can and I do, with regards to Liarry's accusations against Taylor
Xylothist.

If you only care to look good in public, don't take that attitude with you
to Kuwait, kiddo. And never mention where the hell you are going again!

You misunderstand: I don't give a **** how I look in public here.
Awww...a bunch of chess geeks think I'm a big meanie?? Please. OH!
They think I'm *stupid*?? Psssshhh....sticks and stones. Call me
whatever you want, just don't call me late for dinner.

As I said, this is Usenet. Anything goes. I just calls 'em like I
sees 'em.

And why not mention Kuwait? Big Internet Toughguy Jason Repa gonna fly
over and beat me up?? Scary. Really, really scary.

LOL

It's interesting, once Larry starts to lose an argument in the ng, and
can only scrape up jr to help him, he quits that topic and re-starts an
old one. Its as if he thinks he can just keep looping from argument to
argument, never losing. "Um, let's go back to the Xylothist deal. They
only made me look like a total fool the last time, but I can still
claim, even if unwarranted, that my assertions are true."

I've heard this happens very often when an otherwise intelligent child
cannot progress from concrete to higher levels of thinking, and plagues
them throughout their adulthood. The inferiority complex produced by
only being able to show a patina of reasoning skills must indeed plague
them throughout their entire lives. One of the adult diagnoses is use
of overly flowery prose that has no relevant meaning except to the
writer. They know the words mean something important, so they hope they
will be seen as important too.

I certainly hope this isn't poor Larry's problem; I am sure the other
readers of rgcp have noticed that his grasp on reality is less firm
than ever. Perhaps the model intellect of Phil Innes has its usual
Brainiac-style solution to the problem.

Nomen Nescio wrote:
On 4 Aug 2006 14:48:45 -0700 in
ups.com "Matt Nemmers"
wrote :
wrote:
XYLOTHIST

Taylor Kingston attacked his enemies and praised
himself under several bogus screen names which he still
hasn't denied.

SNIP

Liarry, you and everyone who's had the displeasure of following your
ridiculous stalking of Taylor Kingston *KNOWS* that Taylor has flatly
denied posting as "Xylothist" several times. The fact that you keep
regurgitating the same tired, played-out routine in a feeble attempt to
discredit him serves as proof-positive that you have *earned* the
moniker "Liarry."

Toodles.

*I* posted as "xylothist".


Knowing Larry Parr, he will now simply add the handle
"Nomen Nescio" to his list of alter egos of Taylor Kingston,
claiming that Matt Nemmers is just trying to help another
ratpacker out of a jam.

----------

I have noticed several times that otherwise rational posters
seem to deal with Larry Parr in a very irrational way. That is,
they seem to overlook the idiotic posturing evident in his many
postings which begin by accusing TK of having "lied" about his
rating, while at the same time deliberately ignoring his old pal,
Phil Innes, having been caught red-handed *actually doing this*.

This kind of gigantic hypocrisy, committed in plain sight, would
normally result in a poster being branded a fool, and subsequently
ignored as a moronic troll. Yet posters like Louis Blair and TK
for example, continue to act as though Larry Parr were worthy
of meeting -- as equals -- in the ring of debate. Perhaps they
simply dismiss this sort of thing as a mere character flaw, and
nothing more. At any rate, it seems very odd to me to grant
such a person any credibility whatever, except out of charity.


-- help bot



"*I* am Spartacus!"

Matt Nemmers wrote:

You have misunderstood (misrepresented?) my own posts in the past,
Phil. And even after having explained the meaning of them to you --
the meaning that should've been crystal clear in the first place -- you
still insisted on seeing things your way.

Philsy is STILL convinced that I was posting under the screen name
"Matt Nemmers" during an exchange on Henry Miller a couple of years
ago.

wrote:
Matt Nemmers wrote:

You have misunderstood (misrepresented?) my own posts in the past,
Phil. And even after having explained the meaning of them to you --
the meaning that should've been crystal clear in the first place -- you
still insisted on seeing things your way.

Philsy is STILL convinced that I was posting under the screen name
"Matt Nemmers" during an exchange on Henry Miller a couple of years
ago.


Well, at least that assumption, even if wrongheaded,
had *some* rational basis behind it. After all, the odds
are decent that someone posting under "Matt Nemmers"
might very well be Matt Nemmers -- or someone obsessed
with him, a stalker.

Phil Innes is a strange bird. He willingly follows his
master right through the poo, being led on a leash as
it were. Of all people, he must know that Taylor
Kingston is no 1600 USCF, yet he is quite happy to
walk at his master's side, singing the same old song:
that it was TK -- not near-IM Innes -- who misrepresented
ratings, posing as a titled player of some sort. I could
also note that Larry Parr's parrot, Jr, also mindlessly
follows the Pied Piper right through the poo. Between the
three of them, the poo buildup on their claws/paws/shoes
must drive the maid crazy.

In a real sense, these personal attacks on critics can
serve but one purpose: to change the subject from the
real issue, to the newly created issue, to the latest ad
hominem accusations. Hence, if we have, say, a critc
named Flatulant, who says he never liked Larry Evans'
column in Chess Life which he otherwise enjoyed for
fifty years, Larry Parr's first instinct is to attack Mr.
Flatulant by any means necessary. If it so happens
that LP is unfamiliar with any "dirt" on Mr. F, he will
either invent some or else accuse him of being
somebody else, on which he has already invented the
required dirt. Mr. Parr will then continue kicking up
dirt until Mr. Flatulant either shuts up or else goes away
in disgust. If/when that ever happens, Larry Parr will
then imagine himself victorious on the original issue,
without ever having had to face it head on, like a man.

(That last part was me kicking some dirt on LP!) LOL


What is truly pathetic is the fact that one poster, using
the handle Xylothist, somehow hurt Mr. Parr so deeply
that he seems destined to whine about it for *years*,
possibly even decades.
Whether it was Taylor Kingston or whether it was some-
body else who just happened to agree with him, LP is
desperately in need of some pain-killer meds.

So, what about "Philsy"? Just make sure he has cool,
fresh water available, and feed him once a day. And no
table scraps! They shorten a dog's life. Oh, and if you
get time, could you also change the paper in the bottom
of Jr's birdcage? Thanks! Sam is coming by and we're
all going off to -- where did you say -- was it Hungary,
Brasil, the Phillipines, or China, which had the lowest age
limit? Yes, yes, we'll bring you back some you-know-what.
Just don't try entering any of those tournaments where they
do random drug testing. Besides, have you ever tried to
hold an inferior Knight & pawn ending without a clear mind
(or even with one, for that matter)?


-- the Real Xylothist