On Nov 1, 3:34 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
At last! My last reservation is removed.

Yes, no reputable restaurant will give Phil a table any more.

Since he says there is nothing actionable in them, then this seems like a
direct permission to me,

Phil once again gives his own peculiar interpretation to my
statement.

And these sweet nothings can now be revealed.

Wow. This should be entertaining.

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):
7 ... Kingston is already caught in the lie of his messages
7 re Evans, that he would ONLY go to put a word in the
7 ear of the new Ex Dir, ...
_
I wrote (31 Oct 2006 21:25:50 -0800):
7 Here is the actual 3/17/2002 quote of Taylor Kingston
7 that Phil Innes reported (Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:00:50 GMT):
7
7 "Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
7 just a few days ago. Due to the recent
7 expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
7 Enterprises' activities, the company recently
7 moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
7 opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
7 including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
7 but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
7 gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
7 ear a bit on Evans."
7
7 (Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
7 that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)
7
7 "... [Taylor Kingston] should tell us again about
7 why the only reason, in his own words, he would
7 have attend the ChessCafe event was to bend the
7 ear of the new USCF Executive Director about
7 Larry Evans. ..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 08 Aug 2006
7 13:11:02 GMT)
7
7 "Where [in the 3/17/2002 quote] is there an
7 assertion about 'the only reason' that Taylor
7 Kingston would have [attended the ChessCafe
7 event]? ..." - Louis Blair (8 Aug 2006
7 16:29:49 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

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

_
Was there ANYTHING in the "looooong message" to
indicate that he was describing all of the reasons that
he would have had to attend the ChessCafe event?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

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

_
On "the next 20 occasions", was Taylor Kingston
discussing the reasons that he would have had to
attend the ChessCafe event?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

7 That's where.

_
Is Phil Innes (at last) admitting that, in the quote that
he presented, one can not find an assertion about 'the
only reason' that Taylor Kingston would have attended
the ChessCafe event?

_
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 wrote (31 Oct 2006 21:25:50 -0800):
7 "... I have never been involved in any 'book-banning
7 campaign.' ..." - Taylor Kingston (4 Aug 2006
7 11:09:06 -0700)
7
7 Does Phil Innes have any specific facts that contradict this
7 assertion? If so, what are they? If not, why doesn't Phil
7 Innes clearly admit that he has no specific facts that
7 contradict the above assertion?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

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

_
Phil Innes is the one making the public accusation. It seems
to me that he is the one who should be specific about his
charge (or admit that he has no specific charge).

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

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

_
"Testament" to what?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

7 And if so, what then? [ROFL]

_
"... If so, what are they? ..." - Louis Blair
(31 Oct 2006 21:25:50 -0800)

_
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 wrote (31 Oct 2006 21:25:50 -0800):
7 I have done some writing. I have criticized some of these
7 achievers. Does that make me a "wannabe author" involved
7 in book banning?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

7 Does it? Let's say it does not for louis Blair. Therefore,
7 does logician Blair exempt other people on the basis of
7 his own orientation?

_
I fail to see evidence to justify the charge of Phil Innes
for Taylor Kingston.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

7 But logician Blair has also changed what I wrote

_
I reproduced what Phil Innes wrote. (See above.)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

7 since I mentioned the [unremitting] spite that is entirely
7 evident for at least 4 years against these authors by
7 someone who says he has naught to do with it -- as if
7 that /in itself/ was not a contributing factor, nevermind
7 the 20,000 words of e-mail /in one month/.
7
7 Nothing to do with?

_
Unremitting spite (as perceived by Phil Innes) does not
imply involvement with book banning.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

7 It is Blair who now associates this with book banning.

_
Nonsense.
_
"... The issue is book banning ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

7 Or is that also some phantasm of the imagination? An entire
7 co-incidence of factors?
7
7 The facts of the matter can only be somewhat known, butin the
7 event certain authors /were/ banned, and for no apparent
7 commercial reason, since their titles sold elsewhere. And
7 after significant pressure was applied in these newsgroups
7 and elsewhere, some tokenism appeared to relieve the pressure,
7 allowing a title or two to appear,

_
As I remember it, this was claimed but not documented.
In any event, it indicates no connection with Taylor
Kingston.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

7 yet proportionately out of wack with author titles sold
7 elesewhere, so that they are still not commercially
7 adjusted in proportion compared with the rest of the
7 market.

_
As I remember it, we found no great difference between
ChessCafe and Chess4Less. In any event, it indicates no
connection with Taylor Kingston.

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

1,000 [!] words snipped ROFL!! I answer only things which seem
answerable rather than the 'context' that Louis supplies.

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

_
On "the next 20 occasions", was Taylor Kingston
discussing the reasons that he would have had to
attend the ChessCafe event?

No. On the next 20 occassions Kingston wrote of Evans Parr Laurie and
Schiller. I never said he wrote 20 e-mails about the event he never
attended! What a diversion!


Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):

7 That's where.

_
Is Phil Innes (at last) admitting that, in the quote that
he presented, one can not find an assertion about 'the
only reason' that Taylor Kingston would have attended
the ChessCafe event?

To the contrary - the quote I offered was the ONLY reason that would tempt
TK to go

..

7 yet proportionately out of wack with author titles sold
7 elesewhere, so that they are still not commercially
7 adjusted in proportion compared with the rest of the
7 market.

_
As I remember it, we found no great difference between
ChessCafe and Chess4Less.

NO GREAT...

True $100,000 is not matter at all - and a //guaranteed $100,000// at that.
This is important since Chesscafe actually reneaged on their promise of
money, and USCF rewarded them for it by ecxtending their contract! [This
comment only concerns grown-ups who have been around the block at least
once.]

But let us pass over what 'we' found as no 'great' difference. A hundred
grand of members money is nothing to 'we'. What happened is that Chesscafe
were given another opportunity 'to bid', and then a third opportunity! You'd
think they had some favoured status, no?

In any event, it indicates no
connection with Taylor Kingston.

It indicates a direct connection between his tiff as a private writer to CL,
and as invitee as book reviewer to Chesscafe. Louis Blair can't find any
point in anything, nevermind his own 'thinking'. Poor Louis cannot connect
this private tiff, vehement on the part of Kingston, with the objective
person who had nothing to do with the totally coincidental absence of
representation of books by the people Kingston fell out with. )

Louis is not even a tiny bit suspicious. I wonder if he bought into
fusion-in-a-test-tube? Many did!

Phil Innes

I wrote (31 Oct 2006 21:32:34 -0800):
7 "... If it were private then it would break a confidence
7 to speak about it publicly, right? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
7 15 Aug 2002 20:28:26 -0500)
7
7 "... I said I will not make private conversation public. ..."
7 - Phil Innes (Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:31:51 GMT):

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

_
Which of these does Phil Innes actually claim to be
in the private communication. Just a little while ago,
Phil Innes was referring to what he perceived as
"[unremitting] spite". Does Phil Innes claim anything
SPECIFIC other than that?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:31:51 GMT):

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

_
Is Phil Innes expecting us to believe that he is doing
something comparable to rescuing Taylor Kingston
from a burning house?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:31:51 GMT):

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

_
Would Phil Innes care to be specific about the condition
that was supposedly "attached" to the final quote? There
was no reference to the communication being decent,
nonconspiratorial, legel, and lacking mischief and harm
in the Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500 Phil Innes note.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
I wrote (31 Oct 2006 21:32:34 -0800):
7 "... If it were private then it would break a confidence
7 to speak about it publicly, right? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
7 15 Aug 2002 20:28:26 -0500)
7
7 "... I said I will not make private conversation public. ..."
7 - Phil Innes (Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:31:51 GMT):

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

_
Which of these does Phil Innes actually claim to be
in the private communication.

You will have toi wai Louis, then it will not be a 'claim' and you can make
up your own mind about it.

Just a little while ago,
Phil Innes was referring to what he perceived as
"[unremitting] spite". Does Phil Innes claim anything
SPECIFIC other than that?

Other than 'unremitting spite'? lol - Why soes Louis suggest this is
insufficient motive?


Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:31:51 GMT):

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

_
Is Phil Innes expecting us to believe that he is doing
something comparable to rescuing Taylor Kingston
from a burning house?

No Louis - I don;t expect you - or we, as you refer to yourself, to
understand anything. I am responding to your own query, by way of saying
that you would not cross a threshold under any circumstances, since you
can't yourself conceive any reason to post private messages, not even if
lives depended on it. Its satire you see, and most people will have
understood me the first time, though I know its going to take you 57,000
words of your own to come to it.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:31:51 GMT):

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

_
Would Phil Innes care to be specific about the condition

No. Would Blair care not to snip phrases from complee sentences and
contexts? NO! He does not. He likes to cheat this way, which is his own
subterannean means of getting attention by a little falsity.

that was supposedly "attached" to the final quote? There
was no reference to the communication being decent,
nonconspiratorial, legel, and lacking mischief and harm
in the Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500 Phil Innes note.

I see! So Louis now takes the recent statement and compares that with the
old one, and cannot conclude on the specific words, so decides it is...

TROLL!!

Phil Innes

I wrote (31 Oct 2006 21:32:34 -0800):
7 "... If it were private then it would break a confidence
7 to speak about it publicly, right? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
7 15 Aug 2002 20:28:26 -0500)
7
7 "... I said I will not make private conversation public. ..."
7 - Phil Innes (Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500)
_
helpbot wrote (31 Oct 2006 22:05:08 -0800):
7 A good piece of research, Mr. Blair.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:28:40 GMT):

7 O dear, Greg Kennedy's attention to detail [the
7 elipsis ... ] and attachment to personality politics has
7 rendered him indifferent to any conditions at all
7 [snipped]. ...

_
Would Phil Innes care to be specific about conditions
that were supposedly "attached" in the Thu, 15 Aug 2002
20:28:26 -0500 and Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500 notes?

I wrote (31 Oct 2006 21:32:34 -0800):
7 "... If it were private then it would break a confidence
7 to speak about it publicly, right? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
7 15 Aug 2002 20:28:26 -0500)
7
7 "... I said I will not make private conversation public. ..."
7 - Phil Innes (Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500)
_
helpbot wrote (31 Oct 2006 22:05:08 -0800):
7 A good piece of research, Mr. Blair.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:28:40 GMT):

7 O dear, Greg Kennedy's attention to detail [the
7 elipsis ... ] and attachment to personality politics has
7 rendered him indifferent to any conditions at all
7 [snipped]. ...

_
Would Phil Innes care to be specific about conditions
that were supposedly "attached" in the Thu, 15 Aug 2002
20:28:26 -0500 and/or Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500
notes?

Phil Innes wrote (to Matt Nemmers)
(Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:42:06 GMT):
7 ... If you want to know about the e-mails exist and
7 what's in them, ask Kingston. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (1 Nov 2006 07:53:28 -0800):
7 Translation: Phil ain't got doodley-squat, and he
7 knows it. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:34:39 GMT):

7 At last! My last reservation is removed. l Let Kingston
7 now deal with his own 'doodley-squat' for the next year,
7 in handy installments.
7
7 Since he says there is nothing actionable in them, then
7 this seems like a direct permission to me, especialy
7 since he can remember that, but in public is
7 'under-researched' on other things he can't quite
7 remember. ...

_
This incident (particularly the Phil Innes notion of "permission"
to publicize private communication) would be worth keeping
in mind for those who might be thinking about having a private
conversation with Phil Innes in the future.

I wrote (1 Nov 2006 13:27:57 -0800):
7 ... Is Phil Innes (at last) admitting that, in the quote that
7 he presented, one can not find an assertion about 'the
7 only reason' that Taylor Kingston would have attended
7 the ChessCafe event? ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:00:30 GMT):

7 ... To the contrary - the quote I offered was the ONLY reason
7 that would tempt TK to go

_
Assertions are not true just because Phil Innes makes them.
Here is the actual 3/17/2002 quote of Taylor Kingston that
Phil Innes reported (Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:00:50 GMT):
_
"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".)
_
"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 (5 Aug 2006 22:11:16 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:26:31 GMT):
7 ... yet proportionately out of wack with author titles sold
7 elesewhere, so that they are still not commercially
7 adjusted in proportion compared with the rest of the
7 market.
_
I wrote (1 Nov 2006 13:27:57 -0800):
7 ... As I remember it, we found no great difference between
7 ChessCafe and Chess4Less. In any event, it indicates no
7 connection with Taylor Kingston.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:00:30 GMT):

7 ... NO GREAT...
7
7 True $100,000 is not matter at all - and a //guaranteed
7 $100,000// at that. This is important since Chesscafe
7 actually reneaged on their promise of money, and USCF
7 rewarded them for it by ecxtending their contract! [This
7 comment only concerns grown-ups who have been
7 around the block at least once.]
7
7 But let us pass over what 'we' found as no 'great'
7 difference. A hundred grand of members money is
7 nothing to 'we'. What happened is that Chesscafe were
7 given another opportunity 'to bid', and then a third
7 opportunity! You'd think they had some favoured status,
7 no?

_
We were discussing ChessCafe being supposedly
"proportionately out of wack with author titles sold
elesewhere". As I remember it, we found no great
difference between ChessCafe and Chess4Less WITH
REGARD TO THE SELLING OF TITLES BY THE
AUTHORS THAT PHIL INNES WAS COMPLAINING
ABOUT.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:00:30 GMT):

7 It indicates a direct connection between his tiff as a private
7 writer to CL, and as invitee as book reviewer to Chesscafe.

_
Phil Innes chooses not to be specific about the nature
of this supposed direct connection.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:00:30 GMT):

7 Louis Blair can't find any point in anything, nevermind his
7 own 'thinking'. Poor Louis cannot connect this private tiff,
7 vehement on the part of Kingston, with the objective person
7 who had nothing to do with the totally coincidental absence
7 of representation of books by the people Kingston fell out
7 with. )
7
7 Louis is not even a tiny bit suspicious. I wonder if he
7 bought into fusion-in-a-test-tube? Many did!

_
I have had "tiff"s with some of the same authors. So what?
People can have similar opinions about certain authors
without being in on a secret conspiracy. Again, I saw no
great difference between ChessCafe and Chess4Less with
regard to the selling of titles by the authors that Phil Innes
was complaining about. Are they supposedly in on the
conspiracy, too?

Chess One wrote:

(Much ad hominem snipped.)

Phil Innes


What's this -- you dropping your near-title? And why
is there nothing left for me to reply to after I snip out all
the ad hom.?

Look, Mr. Innes: you keep harping about a threat
to publish alleged proofs of wrongdoing by TK, but
*never* deliver. In view of this (and your record), it
is only natural for disinterested observers like me
to conclude you are most likely blowing hot air.

Get a balloon and put it to good use, already. But
make certain the winds are blowing westward -- NOT
out to sea -- when you launch!

-- help bot