Dear Phil,

Let me lay aside the invective we often throw at each other here, and
try to talk to you as a friend, which we used to be. Because I see what
looks to me like a serious problem.
Surely you understand, Phil, that everything posted to these
newsgroups is archived, and anyone can retrieve anything posted here
any time they want. That means that if Fred posts "I say X now, X
yesterday, X forever," then later claims "I never said X," it's
very easy to find Fred's quote about X and prove him wrong. Google
even provides the exact date, hour, and minute it was posted.

In light of this, let us look at these statements of yours in the
threads "Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov" and "Lasker and
Alekhine":

Phil: "**** off kingston! YOU first cut my first reference to
nottingham, then you ignore YOUR 'correction' to hastings ...I clearly
wrote nottingham the first time, then you changed it ...it was kingston
who wrote of hastings, then he wrote lasker never came 8th." -- from
"Lasker and Alekhine," 13 November 2006 (link to full post:
http://tinyurl.com/w2mjt)

You are clearly denying that you ever posted anything about Lasker at
Hastings, and claiming instead that I did it. And yet, a simple Google
search, requiring no more than 30 seconds, reveals this post from two
days earlier:

From: "Chess One" Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc

NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:36:57 EST
Subject: Lasker and Alekhine - no Hobbledehoy Histrionics!

"**what is this contention that Kingston has? He negatively protrayed
the emigree Russian Alekhine, who was WORLD CHAMPION and //dominated//
the Euro scene 1923-39, to effect this report, but also CUT my notice
that Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935," - from the thread
originally titled "Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov," 11
November 2006 (link to full post: http://tinyurl.com/ygyhs9)

In this post, besides obviously saying that you, not I, posted a
"notice that Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935," you are even angrily
claiming I cut it. This, stated with great vehemence on 11/11/2006, is
completely the opposite of your equally vehement claim of 11/13/2006.
To put them side by side:

Innes, 11/11: "Kingston ... CUT my notice that Lasker came 8th at
Hastings in 1935,"
Innes, 11/13" "you ignore YOUR 'correction' to hastings ... it
was kingston who wrote of hastings,"

I'm not going to belabor the point, already made, that Lasker didn't
play in any 1935 Hastings tournament. What really concerns me is that
you would make such an obviously false claim about which of us posted
what, under conditions where anyone can check the facts. And that you
would utterly contradict yourself, apparently in complete sincerity.
First you very vehemently post "I say X!", then you claim "I
never said X, Kingston said X."
This ties in with other incidents, such as the "I'm not your boy!"
post, where you disagreed with yourself, and the "It's not Spanish, it
is Andean" bit you later tried to deny ever posting. These are by no
means the only such incidents. Their frequency and severity seems to
have increased in recent years.

The common factor is an inability, or refusal, to recognize your own
words, and even to insist they belong to others. I cannot imagine that
you consider this a valid form of argument, or even a viable way to
deceive, since it is so easy to check what you've actually said via
Google.

Therefore, I seriously wonder if you are experiencing some sort of
psychological disturbance. I may be wrong, I am no psychiatrist, but
this behavior seems inexplicable otherwise. Your claims are so
seriously at odds with the easily verifiable facts. Your excuses are as
transparent as those of child who tries to pin his blame on an
imaginary playmate. If you behave this way in contexts outside of
newsgroups, it cannot be good, for you or anyone associated with you.
At the very least, it indicates some disorder, akin to dyslexia
perhaps, making you unable to understand the written word properly.
Therefore, I strongly urge you to look into the possibility of some
kind of therapy or counseling. You are of course free to reject this
suggestion, and will probably do so, but I felt compelled to make it.
And I do so out of sincere concern, even though you will probably not
believe me.

Taylor Kingston

Dear Taylor,

I have snipped your post in reply. Had your concerns been genuine your
might have written to Phil directly and privatly. It saddens me that
you have taken to the tactics of the HisTrollian .
Rob

On Nov 15, 2:20 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Dear Taylor,

I have snipped your post in reply. Had your concerns been genuine your
might have written to Phil directly and privatly. It saddens me that
you have taken to the tactics of the HisTrollian .

Let's have a sense of fairness and proportion here, Rob. Considering
all the abusive nonsense Phil has written at me here publicly for
years, I felt quite entitled to post a constructive suggestion for him
publicly.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 15, 2:20 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Dear Taylor,

I have snipped your post in reply. Had your concerns been genuine your
might have written to Phil directly and privatly. It saddens me that
you have taken to the tactics of the HisTrollian .

Let's have a sense of fairness and proportion here, Rob. Considering
all the abusive nonsense Phil has written at me here publicly for
years, I felt quite entitled to post a constructive suggestion for him
publicly.

Taylor, We all know what you intended. It was intended to provoke an
angry reply. Why would you want to do that?

Taylor I said I DID become confused about Hastings - but was initially right
about Nottingham. I also said why I was confused.

If you Taylor Kingston want to call people ignoramus Hitler Mussolini Stalin
a murder, peyote crazed, psychologically unbalanced - and many other
publicly stated and highly acerbic comments, then worry about 'matter of
record' - get used to the F-Word! since Gordon Ramsey has made it so popular
in UK again!

You are no more able to substantiate psychological imbalance than you are
even your own writing about chess - and you possess no irony in now
lecturing in public about your suspicions. I can certainly change how people
would regard you by posting your e-mails, since I may not quite seem such an
isolated case! We are all mad, no? All we people who did not agree with
Kingston.

----------
At the end of something I wrote to you just 10 minutes ago I left you an
invitation to conduct a civil conversation about chess writing and what I
understand to be your attitudes to them. If you don't want your private
material to be shown here, why not simply state your opinion in public -
then there is no guessing to what you or anyone else really thinks.

You do not seem to understand that your silence is damning about what
happened at chesscafe, and while you no doubt have your own perspective on
what went on, your 'suggestions' which are abusive speculations of such
things as

ignoramus Hitler Mussolini Stalin a murder, peyote crazed,
psychologically unbalanced

which you, Taylor Kingston, offer in public and for the record about other
people, might make what I say is your attitude in private about some of the
best [in market terms, at least] chess writers in the world, also a matter
of record.

Do you really havbe some severe inhibition about discussing what happened
before? I am not interested in you, or your e-mails, but in the subject of
allowable chess writing - that, I suggest is something worth discussing.

Phil Innes

KINGSTON'S MOCK CONCERN

Dear Phil,

Let me lay aside the invective we often throw at each other here, and
try to talk to you as a friend, which we used to be. Because I see
what
looks to me like a serious problem. -- Mr. 2300+ Elo

Phil Innes incorrectly identified Hastings 1935
as a tournament in which Emanuel Lasker participated.
There followed attempts by NMnot Taylor Kingston to
transmogrify a lapsus into a form of mental illness.

The latest Kingston line is that Phil Innes is
not acknowledging his own words. Hence mental
illness. Something like that.

Ha. This comes from the man who announced several
grand departures from this forum. This comes from the
man who posted under other screen names -- Paulie Graf,
Xylothist and the like -- in PRAISE OF HIMSELF. This
comes from a chappie who is rated in the 1800s but who
straightforwardly claimed that he was 2300+ Elo.

One does not argue that NMnot Kingston is
unbalanced based on his inventing false names or
raising his rating 500 points by sheer assertion.
One merely argues he is low.

Still, if one is to posit that Phil Innes is somehow
ill based on a chance error, then NMnot Kingston is
Screaming Lord Sutch on benzedrine.



Taylor Kingston wrote:
Dear Phil,

Let me lay aside the invective we often throw at each other here, and
try to talk to you as a friend, which we used to be. Because I see what
looks to me like a serious problem.
Surely you understand, Phil, that everything posted to these
newsgroups is archived, and anyone can retrieve anything posted here
any time they want. That means that if Fred posts "I say X now, X
yesterday, X forever," then later claims "I never said X," it's
very easy to find Fred's quote about X and prove him wrong. Google
even provides the exact date, hour, and minute it was posted.

In light of this, let us look at these statements of yours in the
threads "Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov" and "Lasker and
Alekhine":

Phil: "**** off kingston! YOU first cut my first reference to
nottingham, then you ignore YOUR 'correction' to hastings ...I clearly
wrote nottingham the first time, then you changed it ...it was kingston
who wrote of hastings, then he wrote lasker never came 8th." -- from
"Lasker and Alekhine," 13 November 2006 (link to full post:
http://tinyurl.com/w2mjt)

You are clearly denying that you ever posted anything about Lasker at
Hastings, and claiming instead that I did it. And yet, a simple Google
search, requiring no more than 30 seconds, reveals this post from two
days earlier:

From: "Chess One" Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc

NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:36:57 EST
Subject: Lasker and Alekhine - no Hobbledehoy Histrionics!

"**what is this contention that Kingston has? He negatively protrayed
the emigree Russian Alekhine, who was WORLD CHAMPION and //dominated//
the Euro scene 1923-39, to effect this report, but also CUT my notice
that Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935," - from the thread
originally titled "Elo on Fischer's conditions vs. Karpov," 11
November 2006 (link to full post: http://tinyurl.com/ygyhs9)

In this post, besides obviously saying that you, not I, posted a
"notice that Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935," you are even angrily
claiming I cut it. This, stated with great vehemence on 11/11/2006, is
completely the opposite of your equally vehement claim of 11/13/2006.
To put them side by side:

Innes, 11/11: "Kingston ... CUT my notice that Lasker came 8th at
Hastings in 1935,"
Innes, 11/13" "you ignore YOUR 'correction' to hastings ... it
was kingston who wrote of hastings,"

I'm not going to belabor the point, already made, that Lasker didn't
play in any 1935 Hastings tournament. What really concerns me is that
you would make such an obviously false claim about which of us posted
what, under conditions where anyone can check the facts. And that you
would utterly contradict yourself, apparently in complete sincerity.
First you very vehemently post "I say X!", then you claim "I
never said X, Kingston said X."
This ties in with other incidents, such as the "I'm not your boy!"
post, where you disagreed with yourself, and the "It's not Spanish, it
is Andean" bit you later tried to deny ever posting. These are by no
means the only such incidents. Their frequency and severity seems to
have increased in recent years.

The common factor is an inability, or refusal, to recognize your own
words, and even to insist they belong to others. I cannot imagine that
you consider this a valid form of argument, or even a viable way to
deceive, since it is so easy to check what you've actually said via
Google.

Therefore, I seriously wonder if you are experiencing some sort of
psychological disturbance. I may be wrong, I am no psychiatrist, but
this behavior seems inexplicable otherwise. Your claims are so
seriously at odds with the easily verifiable facts. Your excuses are as
transparent as those of child who tries to pin his blame on an
imaginary playmate. If you behave this way in contexts outside of
newsgroups, it cannot be good, for you or anyone associated with you.
At the very least, it indicates some disorder, akin to dyslexia
perhaps, making you unable to understand the written word properly.
Therefore, I strongly urge you to look into the possibility of some
kind of therapy or counseling. You are of course free to reject this
suggestion, and will probably do so, but I felt compelled to make it.
And I do so out of sincere concern, even though you will probably not
believe me.

Taylor Kingston

wrote:

KINGSTON'S MOCK CONCERN

Dear Phil,

Let me lay aside the invective we often throw at each other here, and
try to talk to you as a friend, which we used to be. Because I see
what
looks to me like a serious problem. -- Mr. 2300+ Elo

Phil Innes incorrectly identified Hastings 1935
as a tournament in which Emanuel Lasker participated.
There followed attempts by NMnot Taylor Kingston to
transmogrify a lapsus into a form of mental illness.

The latest Kingston line is that Phil Innes is
not acknowledging his own words. Hence mental
illness. Something like that.

Ha. This comes from the man who announced several
grand departures from this forum. This comes from the
man who posted under other screen names -- Paulie Graf,
Xylothist and the like -- in PRAISE OF HIMSELF. This
comes from a chappie who is rated in the 1800s but who
straightforwardly claimed that he was 2300+ Elo.

Although Larry Parr seems completely unaware of it,
each and every time he mentions this "fake" rating
business, he skewers -- not his intended victim, Taylor
Kingston -- but his "friend", nearly-an-IM Phil Innes.
We can only observe, and wonder: with friends like
Mr. Parr, who needs enemies? A smarter fellow would
try to figure out a way to "minimize" this embarassing
incident, not drag it out of the closet, again and again.



One does not argue that NMnot Kingston is
unbalanced based on his inventing false names or
raising his rating 500 points by sheer assertion.
One merely argues he is low.

The effect of these falsehoods is to reaffirm old
assessments of Mr. Parr as an inveterate liar, and
apparently, an incurable one at that. It would be
quite difficult to count the number of times it has
been established that Taylor Kingston was just shy
of the 2300+ mark he claimed, in sharp contrast
to the number "500" points above. Indeed, if one
wanted to belittle Mr. Kingston, and if, like Mr. Parr,
one had no scruples whatever, then the proper
number would seem to be 1300+ (taken from
GetClub.com, but of course, an unscrupulous
scoundrel like Mr. Parr would not bother mentioning
that part).


Still, if one is to posit that Phil Innes is somehow
ill based on a chance error,


"See Parr type. See Parr lie!"

Here is a perfect example of the sort of lie Mr.
Parr prefers; the subtlety gives him a thrill, I expect.
Error, as in ONE error? Nay, for Mr. Kingston was
crystal clear that there were *many* errors, and in
fact he tried to claim there was a pattern which
emerged from them (plural). My advice is to stick
to "Fun with Dick and Jane", a classic. Dull, perhaps.
But without lies and other bad stuff.



then NMnot Kingston is Screaming Lord Sutch on
benzedrine.

Is benzedrine a medication for the treatment of
severe lying syndrome, I wonder? (Note: it's not
working!)



This ties in with other incidents, such as the "I'm not your boy!"
post, where you disagreed with yourself, and the "It's not Spanish, it
is Andean" bit you later tried to deny ever posting. These are by no
means the only such incidents. Their frequency and severity seems to
have increased in recent years.

The common factor is an inability, or refusal, to recognize your own
words, and even to insist they belong to others.

Robtroll is right: if TK really posted this out of
"concern" for IM Innes' well-being, he could/would/
should have used email. Something's rotten in
Denmark.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:
Robtroll is right:
-- help bot

If you have a problem with me, feel free to write to me directly. I
don't hide who I am or how to contact me.

Rob sans troll

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

wrote:

KINGSTON'S MOCK CONCERN
--------...

Ha. This comes from the man who announced several
grand departures from this forum. This comes from the
man who posted under other screen names -- Paulie Graf,
Xylothist and the like -- in PRAISE OF HIMSELF. This
comes from a chappie who is rated in the 1800s but who
straightforwardly claimed that he was 2300+ Elo.

Although Larry Parr seems completely unaware of it,
each and every time he mentions this "fake" rating
business, he skewers -- not his intended victim, Taylor
Kingston -- but his "friend", nearly-an-IM Phil Innes.

Who says its fake? Who exaggerates it, who pretends its something current,
and who hates stronger chess players and can't write about the game?

Kingston boosted his record 500 points without a blush. Maybe I should have
said I was playing near 2850? and that would pass without further comment?


I did incorrectly indentify Hastings since I became bemused or confused
writing back and forth with Kingston, then foolishly interacted with the
pointless Blair - but what I wrote at the start was Nottingham, and there
was no intent to deceive anyone!

If this is a subject that warrants such attention as it has, you people
don't have enough work to do.

We can only observe, and wonder: with friends like
Mr. Parr, who needs enemies? A smarter fellow would
try to figure out a way to "minimize" this embarassing
incident, not drag it out of the closet, again and again.



One does not argue that NMnot Kingston is
unbalanced based on his inventing false names or
raising his rating 500 points by sheer assertion.
One merely argues he is low.

The effect of these falsehoods is to reaffirm old
assessments of Mr. Parr as an inveterate liar, and
apparently, an incurable one at that. It would be
quite difficult to count the number of times it has
been established that Taylor Kingston was just shy
of the 2300+ mark he claimed, in sharp contrast
to the number "500" points above.

I see you made this claim before - OTB he seems to have been a steady 1800
player. And that's fine, but the tell-tale 2300 'ELO' is not so fine, since
who would actually take an ELO for a correspondance rating? Of course, this
may not occur to Kennedy who thinks such things as mixing correspondance
with OTB play doesn't need any definition at all, but glossing 500 points
definitely seems strange to the rest of us.

As a matter of logic, neither can correspondance rating really be converted
to OTB rating - since they are very different forms of chess. So why does
Kennedy want to muddle these issues all together? In his writing here he
seems to absole Kingston of any deceit, while suggesting with reason why
other people suck. How boring!

Indeed, if one
wanted to belittle Mr. Kingston, and if, like Mr. Parr,
one had no scruples whatever, then the proper
number would seem to be 1300+ (taken from
GetClub.com, but of course, an unscrupulous
scoundrel like Mr. Parr would not bother mentioning
that part).


Still, if one is to posit that Phil Innes is somehow
ill based on a chance error,


"See Parr type. See Parr lie!"

Here is a perfect example of the sort of lie Mr.
Parr prefers; the subtlety gives him a thrill, I expect.

I was personally miffed at Mr. Parr for not noting that I started with
Nottingham - and always thought Nottingham, and indeed ended there.

Error, as in ONE error? Nay, for Mr. Kingston was
crystal clear that there were *many* errors, and in
fact he tried to claim there was a pattern which
emerged from them (plural). My advice is to stick
to "Fun with Dick and Jane", a classic. Dull, perhaps.
But without lies and other bad stuff.

What juvenile recommendations, indeed.


then NMnot Kingston is Screaming Lord Sutch on
benzedrine.

Is benzedrine a medication for the treatment of
severe lying syndrome, I wonder? (Note: it's not
working!)



This ties in with other incidents, such as the "I'm not your boy!"
post, where you disagreed with yourself, and the "It's not Spanish, it
is Andean" bit you later tried to deny ever posting. These are by no
means the only such incidents. Their frequency and severity seems to
have increased in recent years.

The common factor is an inability, or refusal, to recognize your own
words, and even to insist they belong to others.

Robtroll is right: if TK really posted this out of
"concern" for IM Innes' well-being, he could/would/
should have used email. Something's rotten in
Denmark.

Kingston simply abuses by another means and is transparently insincere, and
[laugh] yeah, e-mail is so much more deniable when abuse is the way you
conduct 'discussions'.

Perhaps I should take this more seriously if Kingston didn't apply it to
everyone who disagrees with Kingston.

Phil Innes

-- help bot

Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:43:12 GMT):

7 Taylor I said I DID become confused about Hastings - but
7 was initially right about Nottingham. I also said why I was
7 confused.

_
Here is the explanation that I saw Phil Innes post:
_
"... I clearly wrote nottingham the first time, then
you changed it, and i suppose i followed that
without much notice, since your posts don't
contain much of facts as such. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:25:28 GMT)
_
Taylor Kingston understandably disputed the Phil Innes
explanation:
_
"... The subject of Hastings 1935 was not
introduced in this thread until Phil Innes posted
'Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935' on
11/11/2006. ..." - Taylor Kingston (15 Nov 2006
08:11:50 -0800)
_
An inspection of Google record shows Phil Innes changing
from Nottingham to Hastings and Taylor Kingston reacting
to the Phil Innes note with the change:
_
"... By 1936 Lasker only placed 8th at
Nottingham ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 10 Nov 2006
15:48:49 GMT)
_
"... [Kingston] CUT my notice that Lasker came
8th at Hastings in 1935, ..." - Phil Innes (Sat,
11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT)
_
"... The only time [Lasker] played in any Hastings
tournament was in 1895. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(11 Nov 2006 16:54:25 -0800)