On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:





On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan
can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up
please?

We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original
poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up
old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby
provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine
interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he
ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now.

Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running
across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me
back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is
why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him.

- Rich

I do not recall ever receiving an email from you.

I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of
them.

Sam, you can eliminate all the porn-site come-ons and male-
enlargement ads with a good spam filter. You should then be able to
handle with ease the few remaining messages, if in fact there still
are any.

SOME LARGER PURPOSE

Larry, I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself:
"why is
this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several
debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice
like myself is missing? -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Dear Rev. Walker,

What is my purpose in examining in detail a
statement made by Taylor Kingston, who falsely
claimed to be 2300+ Elo?

Just to win a debate?

Well, yes, it is fun. I know that none of this
should afford me the least pleasure, but like everyone
else I have my flaws. I admit to being amused every
time this topic arises here because the same scenario
ensues: NMnot Kingston keeps his trap shut for a few
days; then Greg Kennedy again appears here under the
false name of help bot, finally shoots his wad geyserlike;
and NMnot Kingston reluctantly returns -- angry as
Hades with our Greg, you can bet -- and always speaks
to anyone other than this writer about how this whole
issue was "refuted" long ago.

It was never refuted, except in Mr. Kingston's own mind.
Then the discussion inevitably switches to Phil Innes' old
"nearly an IM" claim.
..

Yes, yes, there is little excuse for enjoying
this process. I know that.

Concerning the issue of what most players, when
hearing from a person they know little about, will
think when that person announces baldly, without
qualification and irony, that he is 2300+ Elo, I
am content to leave the argument as it stands.

Greg Kennedy, the botster, claims people would
not leap to the conclusion that the person is talking
about over-the-board tournament play. I mtaintain that
most would indeed make such an assumption.

Readers here will decide for themselves based on
countless conversations they themselves have had over
the years at tournaments and in clubs when people
introduce themselves by reciting their Elo rating.

David Kane makes a more intelligent argument
than the drivel offered by the resentful Greg Kennedy, and I
will deal with it in another posting later on.

Yours, Larry Parr




David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
OLD FAITHFUL

Coo! Greg Kennedy as help bot is baring his fangs.

He's predictable as Old Faithful and always spews forth his
resentment against this writer and GM Larry Evans when
intellectual heat is applied.

The subject we are discussing -- ultimately the
kind of human baggage that is the person, NMnot Taylor
Kingston -- has to do with the following sauvely
packaged, though stupid lie written by our NMnot:

"Interesting, if not really relevant to
historical issues. Still, on the subject of playing
strength, I have never claimed to be any great player,
but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top
ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a
tad better than 'weak.'"

I figure than many readers understand that such
a statement coming from a Class "A" player may be
reckoned as an outright lie.

Notice, for example, the faux self-effacement
that NMnot Kingston "never claimed to be any great
player," which he then juxtaposes with the bald
statement that he "think[s]" he had "a peak Elo of
2300+." Why would our NMnot tell us he never made
a claim of being "any great player," yet then count
himself among the upper one-half of one percent?

NMnot understood the effect of his claim. He
knew that nearly every player would assume that
a claim of having "a peak Elo of 2300+ Elo" pertains
to over-the-board play and that he was claiming to
be plenty good.

Once again, the scene is your club. Someone
whom you know little or not at all walks in and then
announces, "[O]n the subject of playing strength, I
have never claimed to be any great player,
but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+ I am a tad
better than weak."

Will those in the club, who are listening, say to
themselves, "This guy is a master at 2300+ Elo."
or will they say, "Oh, yah, he's talkin' about postal
chess because when a guy mentions his ratings,
chances are he is talking about postal chess."

I submit that the first reaction of listeners
-- the one certainly sought by NMnot when writing his
lie -- is to assume that OTB rating is being claimed.

You are confusing the reaction of stupid listeners
(like yourself) with all listeners. If Kingston were
trying to deceive, then why did he give his actual
ranking? That told any (thinking) person (i.e. people
other than Sloan, Innes, Parr etc.) that it definitely
was *not* an OTB rating.

In fact, his correspondence ranking *was* proof
that he was not too "weak" to comment on that
thread. Case closed.

On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:



On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan
can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up
please?

We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original
poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up
old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby
provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine
interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he
ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now.

Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running
across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me
back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is
why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him.

- Rich

I do not recall ever receiving an email from you.

I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of
them.

Sam Sloan

I emailed and email address at ishipress.com, which might explain it.
It was the only email address I found related to you. Ok, that is
understandable. I am not going to post it here now.

Anyhow, I posted my question so maybe you could speak out for yourself
on why you want to smack down the U.S Chess Federation, Polger and so
on, and to what end. I am curious what your motives are and so on, as
your messages are dominating a newsgroup, and all it appears to be is
a ****ing contest by an irate individual to accomplish selfish ends to
me. I don't see how the cause of chess is advanced in any way here,
which is why I ask.

- Rich

On Nov 4, 12:29 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan wrote:



On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:

On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan
can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up
please?

We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original
poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up
old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby
provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine
interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he
ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now.

Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running
across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me
back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is
why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him.

- Rich

I do not recall ever receiving an email from you.

I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of
them.

Sam Sloan

I emailed and email address at ishipress.com, which might explain it.
It was the only email address I found related to you. Ok, that is
understandable. I am not going to post it here now.

Anyhow, I posted my question so maybe you could speak out for yourself
on why you want to smack down the U.S Chess Federation, Polger and so
on, and to what end. I am curious what your motives are and so on, as
your messages are dominating a newsgroup, and all it appears to be is
a ****ing contest by an irate individual to accomplish selfish ends to
me. I don't see how the cause of chess is advanced in any way here,
which is why I ask.

- Rich

Mr. Hutnick,

Your use of the phrase "cause of chess" I find rather curious. What
is this cause? How does it relate to Mr and Mrs. Truong and the
USCF? Surely you do not mean cause in the sense of cause and effect.
It sounds more like you mean it like it was justification for some
sort of crusade? Clarify, if you will, please. What is the "cause of
chess?"

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

HE DOESN'T TAKE THESE DEBATES SERIOUSLY. NOT.

Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that into consideration before deciding that any
argument of his is convincing....However, he is not anyone of
importance (neither am I, really), so I don't take our debates too
seriously. -- Taylor Kingston

Taylor Kingston, Mr. 2300+ Elo, tells us that
he does not take the debates here too seriously even
as he squiggles to the occasion like that shocked frog.
He tells us that he debates to dispel the mendacity of
this and other writers who disagree with him as well as
people he respects.

To be sure, the claim that he does not take the
debates seriously is a serious lie in itself. Simply
please reread the man's evidently anguished
posting in response to the Rev. Walker. Judge for
yourself. He lies even when he says that he
reprehends lying.

My question to NMnot Kingston within the hearing
of the Rev. Walker: did you write messages under
other names on these forums in which you undertook to praise
YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS?

A yes or no will suffice.

Yours, Larry Parr
And, alas for the fate of my soul, lovin' it!


j.d.walker wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:13 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:45 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:



On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:01 am, "j.d.walker" wrote:

I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is
this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several
debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice
like myself is missing?

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware
that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name
"Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that
into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is
convincing.

Dear Mr. Kingston,

I am going to stay out of this quarrel.

I had the impression that you had just decided to involve yourself
in it, by stating that you found Parr's arguments regarding me
convincing. Parr can sound very convincing to the uninformed; to those
who know the facts he is just another dirty politician.
In any event, having been involved in these quarrels far longer, I
can only agree with your current decision. These quarrels never
resolve, because there is no ultimate authority. The smear-artists are
free to repeat their lies when and as they choose. One can only hope
to persuade the reasonable minority.

It appears that it has been going on for far longer than it should. There seems to be no real
purpose for it.

Well, I see that you include in your signature a quote from
Scripture, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Does that
mean we should do nothing to oppose wrongdoing by an individual when
it stares us in the face?

It appears that there is plenty of mendacity and
nastiness available for anyone that wants to wallow in it.

Oh, the rec.games.chess groups are absolutely full of it. That's why
it's so important to be well informed before choosing sides.

Larry admits that he is drawn by the thrill of debate. Is your motivation similar?

My motivation regarding Larry Parr has generally been to counter his
mendacity. He has unfairly maligned both myself and people I respect.
He supports people not worthy of respect, such as the egregious Sam
Sloan. Parr and I agree on some important issues (e.g. FIDE
governance), but in other areas his dishonesty is serial and
inexcusable, both in general terms and regarding myself specifically.
However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I
don't take our debates too seriously.

begin sermon
To my mind the whole idea of a rating system is an illusion of order
that doesn't exist in the real world. That people choose to
participate in it and judge each other by it, whether to honor or
berate, is a bit pathetic. Yet, I admit that I also was once a
captive of the rating gods. You can break free! I did.
end sermon

The message of your sermon is commendable. Its relevance to my
disagreements with Parr eludes me.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Mr. Kingston,

I take no stand on the merits of the facts behind the arguments. I
believe Mr. Parr when he says he is in this for kicks. I also believe
his claim that this argument keeps resurfacing as I have seen it
several times in my short sojourn here. Lastly, I believe you when
you say that you are attempting to fight something you regard as
wrong. However, consider the following story.

Once upon a time, there was a retired professor of biology named,
let's say, "Curly." He still liked to keep his hand in the trade just
a little bit. So he set up a small laboratory in his garage. He
nailed several dead frogs to an old pine board. Whenever needed, he
would go out to the garage to apply voltage to the bottoms of the
impaled frogs. It gave him secret delight tinged with a wee bit o'
shame to watch them kick furiously. He loved the sense of power it
gave him to realize he could go out and do this whenever he wanted.
He was in control.

If this little story actually has any bearing, I am left with this
question: When will the frogs no longer respond to the voltage?

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, " wrote:
HE DOESN'T TAKE THESE DEBATES SERIOUSLY. NOT.

Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that into consideration before deciding that any

argument of his is convincing....However, he is not anyone of
importance (neither am I, really), so I don't take our debates too
seriously. -- Taylor Kingston

Taylor Kingston, Mr. 2300+ Elo, tells us that
he does not take the debates here too seriously even
as he squiggles to the occasion like that shocked frog.
He tells us that he debates to dispel the mendacity of
this and other writers who disagree with him as well as
people he respects.

To be sure, the claim that he does not take the
debates seriously is a serious lie in itself. Simply
please reread the man's evidently anguished
posting in response to the Rev. Walker. Judge for
yourself. He lies even when he says that he
reprehends lying.

My question to NMnot Kingston within the hearing
of the Rev. Walker: did you write messages under
other names on these forums in which you undertook to praise
YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS?

A yes or no will suffice.

Yours, Larry Parr
And, alas for the fate of my soul, lovin' it!

j.d.walker wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:13 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:45 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:

On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:01 am, "j.d.walker" wrote:

I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is
this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several
debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice
like myself is missing?

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware
that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name
"Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that
into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is
convincing.

Dear Mr. Kingston,

I am going to stay out of this quarrel.

I had the impression that you had just decided to involve yourself
in it, by stating that you found Parr's arguments regarding me
convincing. Parr can sound very convincing to the uninformed; to those
who know the facts he is just another dirty politician.
In any event, having been involved in these quarrels far longer, I
can only agree with your current decision. These quarrels never
resolve, because there is no ultimate authority. The smear-artists are
free to repeat their lies when and as they choose. One can only hope
to persuade the reasonable minority.

It appears that it has been going on for far longer than it should. There seems to be no real
purpose for it.

Well, I see that you include in your signature a quote from
Scripture, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Does that
mean we should do nothing to oppose wrongdoing by an individual when
it stares us in the face?

It appears that there is plenty of mendacity and
nastiness available for anyone that wants to wallow in it.

Oh, the rec.games.chess groups are absolutely full of it. That's why
it's so important to be well informed before choosing sides.

Larry admits that he is drawn by the thrill of debate. Is your motivation similar?

My motivation regarding Larry Parr has generally been to counter his
mendacity. He has unfairly maligned both myself and people I respect.
He supports people not worthy of respect, such as the egregious Sam
Sloan. Parr and I agree on some important issues (e.g. FIDE
governance), but in other areas his dishonesty is serial and
inexcusable, both in general terms and regarding myself specifically.
However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I
don't take our debates too seriously.

begin sermon
To my mind the whole idea of a rating system is an illusion of order
that doesn't exist in the real world. That people choose to
participate in it and judge each other by it, whether to honor or
berate, is a bit pathetic. Yet, I admit that I also was once a
captive of the rating gods. You can break free! I did.
end sermon

The message of your sermon is commendable. Its relevance to my
disagreements with Parr eludes me.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Mr. Kingston,

I take no stand on the merits of the facts behind the arguments. I
believe Mr. Parr when he says he is in this for kicks. I also believe
his claim that this argument keeps resurfacing as I have seen it
several times in my short sojourn here. Lastly, I believe you when
you say that you are attempting to fight something you regard as
wrong. However, consider the following story.

Once upon a time, there was a retired professor of biology named,
let's say, "Curly." He still liked to keep his hand in the trade just
a little bit. So he set up a small laboratory in his garage. He
nailed several dead frogs to an old pine board. Whenever needed, he
would go out to the garage to apply voltage to the bottoms of the
impaled frogs. It gave him secret delight tinged with a wee bit o'
shame to watch them kick furiously. He loved the sense of power it
gave him to realize he could go out and do this whenever he wanted.
He was in control.

If this little story actually has any bearing, I am left with this
question: When will the frogs no longer respond to the voltage?

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

No, no! I will not stand in judgment, playing Moe to your Curly,
Larry... Neither will I be seduced by the scent of fresh pine and the
crisp crackle of Tesla energies. I will adroitly hop aside and let
you all proceed as you will. I offer my place to Phil Innes whose
arts of obfuscation give him the tools to survive in this garage of
twitching toads and barking moon bats.. As you were gentlemen.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:


I do not recall ever receiving an email from you.

I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of
them.

1,000? is that really credible? I get about 200, and maybe 50 of those are
e-mail notification of correspondance moves.

Sam Sloan

I emailed and email address at ishipress.com, which might explain it.
It was the only email address I found related to you. Ok, that is
understandable. I am not going to post it here now.

Anyhow, I posted my question so maybe you could speak out for yourself
on why you want to smack down the U.S Chess Federation, Polger and so
on, and to what end. I am curious what your motives are and so on, as
your messages are dominating a newsgroup, and all it appears to be is
a ****ing contest by an irate individual to accomplish selfish ends to
me. I don't see how the cause of chess is advanced in any way here,
which is why I ask.

I see even Taylor Kingston uses my Joe MacCarthy description of such
'questions'. What happens is that, to take an example, Sam Sloan will exite
the issue 2 months before the election of Polgar and Truong taking over the
federation, getting their hands on the money, and spening it on some looney
marketing idea - 2 months after the election he is miffed that they seem to
have made no resolutions at all, especially not making a grab for 'the
money'.

As many say here, whether in respect of Sloan or others, what has this to do
with chess players rather than chess politicians? And maybe it has, though
on the evidence of what is presented, not clearly anything of value is even
suggested, which survives a post or two.

Politicos are often too proud to attend to any chess public's values - even
to the extent of being able to sensibly repeat them. Exceptions are those
who do engage in interactive forums, and those people are... as far as I can
see, Polgar, Truong and Sloan. If only Sloan didn't make it all about him,
then during his board tenure he may have actually have been able to do
something other than raise a rash of alarums on his own behalf, to which he
resolved none. Randy Bauer used to write here, but relied too much on
running on his record rather than asking open questions about what aids us
or sets us back.

To return to the center of this topic, what did Sam Sloan /do/ to improve
chess that warranted his seat on the board? Of course, this might equitably
be compared with what others achieved during the same period of tenure. To
wit: did he do more than what a non-board member could do, which is /only/
to raise issues, and was he, or others! able to identify which of these
issues was critical, sufficiently to remedy them or take advantage of some
erstwhile absent opportunity?

Phil Innes

- Rich

On Nov 4, 4:38 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:
On Nov 4, 12:29 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:



On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:

On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan
can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up
please?

We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original
poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up
old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby
provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine
interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he
ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now.

Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running
across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me
back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is
why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him.

- Rich

I do not recall ever receiving an email from you.

I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of
them.

Sam Sloan

I emailed and email address at ishipress.com, which might explain it.
It was the only email address I found related to you. Ok, that is
understandable. I am not going to post it here now.

Anyhow, I posted my question so maybe you could speak out for yourself
on why you want to smack down the U.S Chess Federation, Polger and so
on, and to what end. I am curious what your motives are and so on, as
your messages are dominating a newsgroup, and all it appears to be is
a ****ing contest by an irate individual to accomplish selfish ends to
me. I don't see how the cause of chess is advanced in any way here,
which is why I ask.

- Rich

Mr. Hutnick,

Your use of the phrase "cause of chess" I find rather curious. What
is this cause? How does it relate to Mr and Mrs. Truong and the
USCF? Surely you do not mean cause in the sense of cause and effect.
It sounds more like you mean it like it was justification for some
sort of crusade? Clarify, if you will, please. What is the "cause of
chess?"

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Cause in this case means "purposes", as is seen in the expression
"just cause". What I was asking here is exactly does Mr. Sloan look
to do to improve the status of chess by his actions.

- Rich

Rich Hutnik wrote:
Cause in this case means "purposes", as is seen in the expression
"just cause". What I was asking here is exactly does Mr. Sloan look
to do to improve the status of chess by his actions.

Perhaps he's hoping that, if he looks weird and obnoxious enough,
other chess players will look normal, by comparison?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Metal Apple (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a tasty fruit that's made of steel
but it burns really easily!

THE REV. STEERS CLEAR

I will adroitly hop aside and let you all proceed as you will. --
Rev. J.D. Walker

The Rev. Walker has decided not to inhale these
forums mists and exhalations. He will be missing a
great deal. One had hoped he could have tried his
hand at one monster thread -- just to learn the joys.
Perhaps the significance of "The" in "The Historian,"
an exchange I had with one Neil Brennen, would have
significance eventually for the Rev. Walker.

But he wishes to steer clear. I had hoped to get
him embroiled with NMnot Kingston, who offered
unwitting provocation. Alas, no luck.

Yes, I understood the twitching frog story, and I
am fairly sure that the Rev. Walker understands that
our NMnot Kingston understood it all too well. Hence
the barely disguised hostility from NMnot toward the Rev.

Larry Parr



j.d.walker wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, " wrote:
HE DOESN'T TAKE THESE DEBATES SERIOUSLY. NOT.

Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that into consideration before deciding that any

argument of his is convincing....However, he is not anyone of
importance (neither am I, really), so I don't take our debates too
seriously. -- Taylor Kingston

Taylor Kingston, Mr. 2300+ Elo, tells us that
he does not take the debates here too seriously even
as he squiggles to the occasion like that shocked frog.
He tells us that he debates to dispel the mendacity of
this and other writers who disagree with him as well as
people he respects.

To be sure, the claim that he does not take the
debates seriously is a serious lie in itself. Simply
please reread the man's evidently anguished
posting in response to the Rev. Walker. Judge for
yourself. He lies even when he says that he
reprehends lying.

My question to NMnot Kingston within the hearing
of the Rev. Walker: did you write messages under
other names on these forums in which you undertook to praise
YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS?

A yes or no will suffice.

Yours, Larry Parr
And, alas for the fate of my soul, lovin' it!

j.d.walker wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:13 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:45 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:

On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:01 am, "j.d.walker" wrote:

I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is
this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several
debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice
like myself is missing?

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware
that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name
"Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that
into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is
convincing.

Dear Mr. Kingston,

I am going to stay out of this quarrel.

I had the impression that you had just decided to involve yourself
in it, by stating that you found Parr's arguments regarding me
convincing. Parr can sound very convincing to the uninformed; to those
who know the facts he is just another dirty politician.
In any event, having been involved in these quarrels far longer, I
can only agree with your current decision. These quarrels never
resolve, because there is no ultimate authority. The smear-artists are
free to repeat their lies when and as they choose. One can only hope
to persuade the reasonable minority.

It appears that it has been going on for far longer than it should. There seems to be no real
purpose for it.

Well, I see that you include in your signature a quote from
Scripture, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Does that
mean we should do nothing to oppose wrongdoing by an individual when
it stares us in the face?

It appears that there is plenty of mendacity and
nastiness available for anyone that wants to wallow in it.

Oh, the rec.games.chess groups are absolutely full of it. That's why
it's so important to be well informed before choosing sides.

Larry admits that he is drawn by the thrill of debate. Is your motivation similar?

My motivation regarding Larry Parr has generally been to counter his
mendacity. He has unfairly maligned both myself and people I respect.
He supports people not worthy of respect, such as the egregious Sam
Sloan. Parr and I agree on some important issues (e.g. FIDE
governance), but in other areas his dishonesty is serial and
inexcusable, both in general terms and regarding myself specifically.
However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I
don't take our debates too seriously.

begin sermon
To my mind the whole idea of a rating system is an illusion of order
that doesn't exist in the real world. That people choose to
participate in it and judge each other by it, whether to honor or
berate, is a bit pathetic. Yet, I admit that I also was once a
captive of the rating gods. You can break free! I did.
end sermon

The message of your sermon is commendable. Its relevance to my
disagreements with Parr eludes me.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Mr. Kingston,

I take no stand on the merits of the facts behind the arguments. I
believe Mr. Parr when he says he is in this for kicks. I also believe
his claim that this argument keeps resurfacing as I have seen it
several times in my short sojourn here. Lastly, I believe you when
you say that you are attempting to fight something you regard as
wrong. However, consider the following story.

Once upon a time, there was a retired professor of biology named,
let's say, "Curly." He still liked to keep his hand in the trade just
a little bit. So he set up a small laboratory in his garage. He
nailed several dead frogs to an old pine board. Whenever needed, he
would go out to the garage to apply voltage to the bottoms of the
impaled frogs. It gave him secret delight tinged with a wee bit o'
shame to watch them kick furiously. He loved the sense of power it
gave him to realize he could go out and do this whenever he wanted.
He was in control.

If this little story actually has any bearing, I am left with this
question: When will the frogs no longer respond to the voltage?

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

No, no! I will not stand in judgment, playing Moe to your Curly,
Larry... Neither will I be seduced by the scent of fresh pine and the
crisp crackle of Tesla energies. I will adroitly hop aside and let
you all proceed as you will. I offer my place to Phil Innes whose
arts of obfuscation give him the tools to survive in this garage of
twitching toads and barking moon bats.. As you were gentlemen.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.