"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...

"Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
just a few days ago. Due to the recent
expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
Enterprises' activities, the company recently
moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
ear a bit on Evans."
_
(Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)

The original is from 2002.

"... [Taylor Kingston] should tell us again about
why the only reason, in his own words, he would
have attend the ChessCafe event was to bend the
ear of the new USCF Executive Director about
Larry Evans. ..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 08 Aug 2006
13:11:02 GMT)
_
"Where [in the 3/17/2002 quote] is there an
assertion about 'the only reason' that Taylor
Kingston would have [attended the ChessCafe
event]? ..." - Louis Blair (8 Aug 2006
16:29:49 -0700)

By virtue of this being the only reason he mentioned in a looooong message,
and indeed by the same theme appearing on the next 20 occassions to the
exclusion of virtually all else, except to also air the reprehensible
subjects; Schiller, Parr, Keene, Laurie.

That's where.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... The issue is book banning by the most popular authors
7 in the US and whatever his and chesscafe's role is in that.
7 ...

_
"... I have never been involved in any 'book-banning
campaign.' ..." - Taylor Kingston (4 Aug 2006
11:09:06 -0700)

We would have to wonder what 'involved' means to Kingston.

Does Phil Innes have any specific facts that contradict this
assertion? If so, what are they?

I have Kingston's own testament in his own words - would those be 'specific
facts'?

If not, why doesn't Phil
Innes clearly admit that he has no specific facts that
contradict the above assertion?

And if so, what then? [ROFL]

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... I think goody-two-shoes needs to be exposed for the
7 failed and bitter wannabe author he is, along with all his
7 spite against those who have achieved something in
7 chess.

_
I have done some writing. I have criticized some of these
achievers. Does that make me a "wannabe author" involved
in book banning?

Does it? Let's say it does not for louis Blair. Therefore, does logician
Blair exempt other people on the basis of his own orientation? But logician
Blair has also changed what I wrote since I mentioned the [unremitting]
spite that is entirely evident for at least 4 years against these authors by
someone who says he has naught to do with it -- as if that /in itself/ was
not a contributing factor, nevermind the 20,000 words of e-mail /in one
month/.

Nothing to do with?

It is Blair who now associates this with book banning. Or is that also some
phantasm of the imagination? An entire co-incidence of factors?

The facts of the matter can only be somewhat known, butin the event certain
authors /were/ banned, and for no apparent commercial reason, since their
titles sold elsewhere. And after significant pressure was applied in these
newsgroups and elsewhere, some tokenism appeared to relieve the pressure,
allowing a title or two to appear, yet proportionately out of wack with
author titles sold elesewhere, so that they are still not commercially
adjusted in proportion compared with the rest of the market.

PI

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
_
"... If it were private then it would break a confidence
to speak about it publicly, right? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
15 Aug 2002 20:28:26 -0500)
_
"... I said I will not make private conversation public. ..."
- Phil Innes (Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500)

Unless it is indecent, conspiratorial, breaks the law, or actively causes
mischief and harm.

Let us suppose that Louis Blair would let you die in your burning house,
rather than rescue you, since to cross the threshold would be trespassing,
which he would not do anymore than he would honour the context of anything.

Blair of course has cut the final quote, because honest-Louis didn't like to
report the condition attached to it - since he would rather try to stop this
investigation by his usual means of combining any old contexts to embarrass
a poster, than actually address the issue.

PI

On Nov 1, 9:26 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Louis Blair" wrote in oglegroups.com...

"Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
just a few days ago. Due to the recent
expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
Enterprises' activities, the company recently
moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
ear a bit on Evans."
_
(Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)The original is from 2002.

"... [Taylor Kingston] should tell us again about
why the only reason, in his own words, he would
have attend the ChessCafe event was to bend the
ear of the new USCF Executive Director about
Larry Evans. ..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 08 Aug 2006
13:11:02 GMT)
_
"Where [in the 3/17/2002 quote] is there an
assertion about 'the only reason' that Taylor
Kingston would have [attended the ChessCafe
event]? ..." - Louis Blair (8 Aug 2006
16:29:49 -0700)

By virtue of this being the only reason he mentioned in a looooong message,

Our Phil's skill in logic is comparable to his knowledge of such
languages as Andean and Swabian. Here, his inference is completely
baseless. I suppose if I said "I was invited to join Bill at the ball
game yesterday, but couldn't go. Too bad -- Schilling pitched a
no-hitter," then our Phil would conclude that the _only_ reason I
attend baseball games is to see no-hitters.

and indeed by the same theme appearing on the next 20 occassions to the
exclusion of virtually all else, except to also air the reprehensible
subjects; Schiller, Parr, Keene, Laurie.

That's where.


If Phil's logic were a building, it would collapse the first time a
bird landed on it.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... The issue is book banning by the most popular authors
7 in the US and whatever his and chesscafe's role is in that.
7 ...

_
"... I have never been involved in any 'book-banning
campaign.' ..." - Taylor Kingston (4 Aug 2006
11:09:06 -0700)

We would have to wonder what 'involved' means to Kingston.

Our Phil always has problems understanding plain English. "I have
never been involved" means:

I have had no part whatsoever in any book-banning.
I have never recommended that any book be banned.
I have never been asked to take part in any book-banning.
I know of no book-banning by any associate of mine.
I have never had any part in deciding what books any book-seller
would or should stock.
I have no power to ban any books, even if I wanted to.

When it comes to books, Phil, I mainly just read them. Sometimes I
review them. I have edited about a dozen, translated one, and
co-authored two. Never banned a single one.

Does Phil Innes have any specific facts that contradict this
assertion? If so, what are they?

I have Kingston's own testament in his own words -

No, you have Innes' totally weird interpretation and distortion of
Kingston's words.

would those be 'specific facts'?


No, they would be Innes' malevolent fantasies.

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

Louis Blair wrote:
_
"... If it were private then it would break a confidence
to speak about it publicly, right? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
15 Aug 2002 20:28:26 -0500)
_
"... I said I will not make private conversation public. ..."
- Phil Innes (Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500)


A good piece of research, Mr. Blair.

O dear, Greg Kennedy's attention to detail [the elipsis ... ] and
attachment to personality politics has rendered him indifferent to any
conditions at all [snipped]. He, like Blair, has decided that writing-off
the poster is far superior to discusssing if what is said is true. But these
guys don't even pretend any justice in their critiques - Just snip what you
complain about right out, then complain its not there!

But what about IM Innes' comments regarding ad
hominem?
Does not his comment about TK being
a "wannabe", and "full of spite" amount to the same
thing -- ad hominem?

BraveMouth criticises real names [part 98], here he doesn't indicate any
care if the statement is true or false, nevermind actually look at such
evidence as there is.

I believe it does, and this
means if our Dr. Phil ever took the hyppocritical oath,
he is upholding it nicely.

IMO, IM Innes is just doing his "job" (harrying any
and all critics of the Evans ratpack),

Such self-importance. I would say that there is a /critical/ difference in
those who abuse others from a personality basis with a degree of absolutism
that would dismiss other views, and those who merely dissagree about the
nature of things, but who can still write to each other despite such
different perspectives.

Perhaps this is too subtle, though it seemed to me that the Constitution
recognises this as perhaps its most significant element.

and as such, he
is not responsible; his handler is most likely the real
problem. If only IM Innes had a mind of his very own....

At least I do not have to hide my name, nevermind my mind. What would
someone who commits so many atrocities of conversation know about having a
mind of their own which is not propped up by a dependence on reducing
others?

Psychologically, this is the weakest of all orientations.

Phil Innes

-- help bot

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

Like I said a while back: Put up or shut up, Phil.

Okay Sailor, I'll tell you straight. If something in this matters to you,
say what it is. Nothing matters to Kingston. And as for me, I'll do what I
want for my reasons, not yours. Don't like it? Go pound sand.

If you want to know about the e-mails exist and what's in them, ask
Kingston. If he won't tell you, ask why not. Then we could have a
conversation if there is still something in doubt.

PI

On Nov 1, 10:42 am, "Chess One" wrote:

If you want to know about the e-mails exist and what's in them, ask
Kingston.

Translation: Phil ain't got doodley-squat, and he knows it.

If he won't tell you, ask why not. Then we could have a
conversation if there is still something in doubt.

Matt, feel free to contact me any time. Send to
taylor("dot")kingston("at")adelphia("dot")net.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Nov 1, 9:26 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Louis Blair" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

"Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
just a few days ago. Due to the recent
expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
Enterprises' activities, the company recently
moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
ear a bit on Evans."
_
(Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)The original
is from 2002.

"... [Taylor Kingston] should tell us again about
why the only reason, in his own words, he would
have attend the ChessCafe event was to bend the
ear of the new USCF Executive Director about
Larry Evans. ..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 08 Aug 2006
13:11:02 GMT)
_
"Where [in the 3/17/2002 quote] is there an
assertion about 'the only reason' that Taylor
Kingston would have [attended the ChessCafe
event]? ..." - Louis Blair (8 Aug 2006
16:29:49 -0700)

By virtue of this being the only reason he mentioned in a looooong
message,

Our Phil's skill in logic is comparable to his knowledge of such
languages as Andean and Swabian. Here, his inference is completely
baseless. I suppose if I said


ROFL! He supposes IF he said ))

What about what he ACTUALLY said?

At the bottom of the message Blair acts for 'specific facts' and I answer if
Kingston's own words would do.

Kingston now decribes his own words as 'malevolent fantasies'.

That is as close as we will get to any truth out of him. Other people
challenge this issue too, but they don't say why, or what they would do
about it. They just want more 'malevolent fantasies', in order to dismiss
them.

Phil Innes


"I was invited to join Bill at the ball
game yesterday, but couldn't go. Too bad -- Schilling pitched a
no-hitter," then our Phil would conclude that the _only_ reason I
attend baseball games is to see no-hitters.

and indeed by the same theme appearing on the next 20 occassions to the
exclusion of virtually all else, except to also air the reprehensible
subjects; Schiller, Parr, Keene, Laurie.

That's where.


If Phil's logic were a building, it would collapse the first time a
bird landed on it.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... The issue is book banning by the most popular authors
7 in the US and whatever his and chesscafe's role is in that.
7 ...

_
"... I have never been involved in any 'book-banning
campaign.' ..." - Taylor Kingston (4 Aug 2006
11:09:06 -0700)

We would have to wonder what 'involved' means to Kingston.

Our Phil always has problems understanding plain English. "I have
never been involved" means:

I have had no part whatsoever in any book-banning.
I have never recommended that any book be banned.
I have never been asked to take part in any book-banning.
I know of no book-banning by any associate of mine.
I have never had any part in deciding what books any book-seller
would or should stock.
I have no power to ban any books, even if I wanted to.

When it comes to books, Phil, I mainly just read them. Sometimes I
review them. I have edited about a dozen, translated one, and
co-authored two. Never banned a single one.

Does Phil Innes have any specific facts that contradict this
assertion? If so, what are they?

I have Kingston's own testament in his own words -

No, you have Innes' totally weird interpretation and distortion of
Kingston's words.

would those be 'specific facts'?


No, they would be Innes' malevolent fantasies.

On Nov 1, 11:01 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
Our Phil's skill in logic is comparable to his knowledge of such
languages as Andean and Swabian. Here, his inference is completely
baseless. I suppose if I said "I was invited to join Bill at the ball
game yesterday, but couldn't go. Too bad -- Schilling pitched a
no-hitter," then our Phil would conclude that the _only_ reason I
attend baseball games is to see no-hitters.

ROFL! He supposes IF he said ))
What about what he ACTUALLY said?

Along with his many other shortcomings, our Phil seems unable to
understand analogies, or even the concept of analogy.

At the bottom of the message Blair acts for 'specific facts' and I answer if
Kingston's own words would do.
Kingston now decribes his own words as 'malevolent fantasies'.

Even more serious than his inability to grasp analogies, is Phil's
tendency to misunderstand, or even distort, what others write. Had he
read properly, he would understand that "malevolent fantasies" refers
not to my words, but to the absurd interpretation he insists on giving
them. These interpretations are not "specific facts," they are
malignant distortions. But malignant distortion is Phil's modus
operandi.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Nov 1, 10:42 am, "Chess One" wrote:

If you want to know about the e-mails exist and what's in them, ask
Kingston.

Translation: Phil ain't got doodley-squat, and he knows it.

At last! My last reservation is removed. l
Let Kingston now deal with his own 'doodley-squat' for the next year, in
handy installments.

Since he says there is nothing actionable in them, then this seems like a
direct permission to me, especialy since he can remember that, but in public
is 'under-researched' on other things he can't quite remember.

If he won't tell you, ask why not. Then we could have a
conversation if there is still something in doubt.

Kingston intercepted this message to Matt, -of course he did! - since its
not that he says he didn't send 'em, instead he now means his own messages
mean nothing.

Whereas I say they are mean indeed! And these sweet nothings can now be
revealed.

Matt, feel free to contact me any time. Send to
taylor("dot")kingston("at")adelphia("dot")net.

Or ask in public? Why not - King Kingston gives Matt permission to ask - so
ask! Let Matt determine for himself if Kingston's explanation06 actually
matches what he said02.

PI

Matt Nemmers wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chess One wrote:
Recently I wrote of Taylor Kingston's activities in reference to
Chesscafe.
He replied without any contradiction to what I wrote. His choice of reply
was the typical ad hominem means he has adopted.

I felt compelled to contradict him for an earlier message on his intent
re
Larry Evans, according to what he wrote me, which he now /changes/ when
writing in public.

I have 20-some of his e-mails from the same period, and I intend to
publish
them if this lying continues. Kingston is already caught in the lie of
his
messages re Evans, that he would ONLY go to put a word in the ear of the
new
Ex Dir, and simply changes what he wants us to understand from his public
writing, in complete and utter contrast to what he wrote in his private
campaign.

The issue is book banning by the most popular authors in the US and
whatever
his and chesscafe's role is in that.

I understand he denies that what I say is true, so perhaps he should
consider the proofs of his own words, and continue to contradict me, or
sue.
I would certainly consider a counter-suit.

I have had enough of this culture of lying, and I think goody-two-shoes
needs to be exposed for the failed and bitter wannabe author he is, along
with all his spite against those who have achieved something in chess.

Phil Innes

I thought you'd already decided to publish "The Kingston Files," Phil.

I offered to.

No, you said, and I quote, "[Matt]...you have convinced me that the
Kingston files are necessary." You said that less than three months
ago. Not an "offering;" a necessity.

Didn't you agree that after all the hemming and hawing they were
necessary in order to prove your case?

I don't care to make 'any case' other than contrast the record of Kingstons
public/private views - which are the real ones?

Phil, we went over this already, too. Of COURSE you care to make a
case. If you didn't you'd just clam up about it and let this dead
horse rot.

I would even allow him much
more room for self-interpretation if he didn't actually seem to absolutely
deny there is any difference public/private.

But he does do so, and pointely, at other people's expense.

So prove it already! You said you were going to publish them almost
100 days ago and now, with the argument still the mass conflaguration
it was when I left, you're singing the same exact tune.



What do you expect? That Kingston's just going to roll over and say
"you win" without your giving up the goods (e.g. proof) you claim to
have? He's not gonna do it. Obviously. And nobody in the history of
RGCP has EVER done it before, either. Even WITH facts in cold, hard
black and white people don't 'fess up to their transgressions (e.g. Sam
Sloan). I really don't understand why you're stalling on this, as
important as this issue seems to you.

Does my getting Dr. Blair to "give up" count here? :-)



SNIP

Like I said a while back: Put up or shut up, Phil.