On Nov 6, 12:21 am, " wrote:
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.

Mr. Parr,

I am not leaving the forum just yet. I have other windmills to tilt
at in other threads. I believe I have learned a lesson from my
engagement in this thread. Some of the participants are likely to
have saved years of this drivel so that at the appropriate time they
can dredge it up and throw it over the fence at a pack of baying dogs
as they conceive their opponents to be. Then this goes back and
forth. As an incident involving hundreds of posts finally dies down,
the seasons pass, Someone innocently and unknowingly writes a
"trigger text" and then the whole thing comes to life once again. I
salute your ability to make the frog twitch Larry, but it is not for
me. :^)

By the way, one of the participants sent me a private email offering
to send me scads of dirt on an opponent proving that the man was a
complete scoundrel. No, thanks. Not interested.

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

On Nov 5, 10:18 am, David Richerby
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?


If you go to Wikipedia and search for "Sam Sloan", you
will find a nice full-color picture which aptly fits into your
described plan. But just remember this: beauty is only
skin deep.


-- shallow Hal

"j.d.walker" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

I see you are a /real/ gentleman, rev! I appreciate you taking the
high-ground like this, while cleverly avoiding the muddy realms of content,
as such, where the people plod.

Sadly I can't find any content in this current message to actually
obfusticate. Sorry to dissapoint, but was the objectionable material the
rule of law, possibly? Or is the objection to the metaphysic in the title
header; "will do", which contendibly argues in absentia against his record
which is as, "has been" or "not done already"?

And do these allusions mean you are a Unitarian flavored Presbyterian? I
hear the mathematical ones are worse than the romantic poet kind, but such
is to be expected out along the highway. Perhaps one shouldn't be mixing the
drinks so much, the tea and the sherry all in an afternoon, forsooth!

Cordially, Phil Innes
The Manse,
Green Pastures Road,
Republic of Vermont.

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

On Nov 6, 3:32 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"j.d.walker" wrote in message

oups.com...

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.

I see you are a /real/ gentleman, rev! I appreciate you taking the
high-ground like this, while cleverly avoiding the muddy realms of content,
as such, where the people plod.

Sadly I can't find any content in this current message to actually
obfusticate. Sorry to dissapoint, but was the objectionable material the
rule of law, possibly? Or is the objection to the metaphysic in the title
header; "will do", which contendibly argues in absentia against his record
which is as, "has been" or "not done already"?

And do these allusions mean you are a Unitarian flavored Presbyterian? I
hear the mathematical ones are worse than the romantic poet kind, but such
is to be expected out along the highway. Perhaps one shouldn't be mixing the
drinks so much, the tea and the sherry all in an afternoon, forsooth!

Cordially, Phil Innes
The Manse,
Green Pastures Road,
Republic of Vermont.

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

And do these allusions mean you are a Unitarian flavored Presbyterian? I
hear the mathematical ones are worse than the romantic poet kind, but such
is to be expected out along the highway. Perhaps one shouldn't be mixing the
drinks so much, the tea and the sherry all in an afternoon, forsooth!

Dear Mr Innes,

No, I am not a Unitarian. To be completely honest, examine this site
and form your own opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Life_Church
My credentials are in the mail...

I can say that I support the doctrine of this ministry 100% and
believe it has good application for chess players.

As for the designation U.C., it has a more mundane purpose. In this
case it is short for Under Construction.

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

On Nov 6, 3:55 am, "j.d.walker" wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:21 am, " wrote:

THE REV. STEERS CLEAR

But he wishes to steer clear. I had hoped to get
him embroiled with NMnot Kingston, who offered
unwitting provocation. Alas, no luck ... Hence
the barely disguised hostility from NMnot toward the Rev.

Larry Parr

I believe I have learned a lesson from my
engagement in this thread. Some of the participants are likely to
have saved years of this drivel so that at the appropriate time they
can dredge it up and throw it over the fence at a pack of baying dogs
as they conceive their opponents to be. Then this goes back and
forth. As an incident involving hundreds of posts finally dies down,
the seasons pass, Someone innocently and unknowingly writes a
"trigger text" and then the whole thing comes to life once again. I
salute your ability to make the frog twitch Larry, but it is not for
me. :^)

A very apt description of the process, Rev. Walker. BTW, let me
assure you that contrary to Larry's assertion, I bear you no
hostility.
Also BTW, I noticed you saying "I'd like to urge everyone to 'Do
that which is right.'" Is that still the ULC's motto? As I recall, it
was when I first heard of it back in the 1960s.

On Nov 6, 6:50 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 6, 3:55 am, "j.d.walker" wrote:



On Nov 6, 12:21 am, " wrote:

THE REV. STEERS CLEAR

But he wishes to steer clear. I had hoped to get
him embroiled with NMnot Kingston, who offered
unwitting provocation. Alas, no luck ... Hence
the barely disguised hostility from NMnot toward the Rev.

Larry Parr

I believe I have learned a lesson from my
engagement in this thread. Some of the participants are likely to
have saved years of this drivel so that at the appropriate time they
can dredge it up and throw it over the fence at a pack of baying dogs
as they conceive their opponents to be. Then this goes back and
forth. As an incident involving hundreds of posts finally dies down,
the seasons pass, Someone innocently and unknowingly writes a
"trigger text" and then the whole thing comes to life once again. I
salute your ability to make the frog twitch Larry, but it is not for
me. :^)

A very apt description of the process, Rev. Walker. BTW, let me
assure you that contrary to Larry's assertion, I bear you no
hostility.
Also BTW, I noticed you saying "I'd like to urge everyone to 'Do
that which is right.'" Is that still the ULC's motto? As I recall, it
was when I first heard of it back in the 1960s.

Mr. Kingston,

Thank you. I do not think motto is the correct word. It is more like
the Bible of the ULC. Yet it is only one sentence. The beauty of it
is that it encourages one to develop good judgment and apply it in
life. I wish that this one simple piece of advice were more widely
practiced. It would transform life for all of us.

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

On Nov 6, 10:17 am, "j.d.walker" wrote:

Mr. Kingston,

Thank you. I do not think motto is the correct word. It is more like
the Bible of the ULC. Yet it is only one sentence. The beauty of it
is that it encourages one to develop good judgment and apply it in
life. I wish that this one simple piece of advice were more widely
practiced. It would transform life for all of us.


Alas, if only it were that simple. People have widely varying
definitions of "that which is right," often including provisos to the
effect that it is right to kill those who have slightly different
definitions. In life, as in chess, general principles apply only so
far. Eventually one must get down to concrete specifics.

On Nov 6, 7:27 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:17 am, "j.d.walker" wrote:



Mr. Kingston,

Thank you. I do not think motto is the correct word. It is more like
the Bible of the ULC. Yet it is only one sentence. The beauty of it
is that it encourages one to develop good judgment and apply it in
life. I wish that this one simple piece of advice were more widely
practiced. It would transform life for all of us.

Alas, if only it were that simple. People have widely varying
definitions of "that which is right," often including provisos to the
effect that it is right to kill those who have slightly different
definitions. In life, as in chess, general principles apply only so
far. Eventually one must get down to concrete specifics.

I admit there are obstacles. Since we have a chess playing audience
here why not consider this in a chess context for the sake of
discussion.

If you try to develop good judgment in chess you must learn and think
more about "chessic" cause and effect. When you make mistakes and
lose, you must try to learn why you went wrong and how you will
improve in the future. This refines your good judgment. As you
proceed through the cycle of learning, playing, digesting results, and
reassessing your game, it gives you feedback via your results at the
board.

I believe that if you do not try to improve your good judgment that
you are headed for worse results. If some one set out with the intent
to always look for the 2nd best move, they would be following bad
judgment on the whole. I would expect their rating to plummet.

Back to the generalization...

Although various people may have directly opposite views as to what is
right, that is a different matter than trying to figure out what is
best for an individual making choices for his/her own life. Even so,
on the macro scale, if everyone decided to always pursue the 2nd best
idea, I believe the collective results would likely be a very sorry
mess making our current troubled world look like a relative paradise.

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

On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:27 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Alas, if only it were that simple. People have widely varying
definitions of "that which is right," often including provisos to the
effect that it is right to kill those who have slightly different
definitions. In life, as in chess, general principles apply only so
far. Eventually one must get down to concrete specifics.

I admit there are obstacles. Since we have a chess playing audience
here why not consider this in a chess context for the sake of
discussion.

If you try to develop good judgment in chess you must learn and think
more about "chessic" cause and effect. When you make mistakes and
lose, you must try to learn why you went wrong and how you will
improve in the future. This refines your good judgment. As you
proceed through the cycle of learning, playing, digesting results, and
reassessing your game, it gives you feedback via your results at the
board.

I believe that if you do not try to improve your good judgment that
you are headed for worse results. If some one set out with the intent
to always look for the 2nd best move, they would be following bad
judgment on the whole. I would expect their rating to plummet.

Back to the generalization...

Although various people may have directly opposite views as to what is
right, that is a different matter than trying to figure out what is
best for an individual making choices for his/her own life. Even so,
on the macro scale, if everyone decided to always pursue the 2nd best
idea, I believe the collective results would likely be a very sorry
mess making our current troubled world look like a relative paradise.

On the whole I agree with you, with a couple of caveats:

1) An important difference between chess and life is that in chess,
paranoia is an entirely valid world-view. Your opponent IS out to get
you (unless you're composing helpmates). In life, some people are out
to get other people, but it's not a good idea to assume that of every
one.
2) I respectfully disagree about your "2nd-best move" concept. In
chess, probably 99.9% of all players come nowhere near playing even
the 2nd-best move as a general rule. They are more likely to choose a
less good move, even a rather bad one. Allowing for obvious exceptions
like forced recaptures, I dare say someone who could unfailingly play
what is objectively the 2nd-best move on the board would almost
certainly be a high-ranking GM, probably even a world champion.
Likewise, in life, I'd say people on the whole often fail to make
choices anywhere near as good as 2nd-best. Just as with chess moves,
most choices in life are not either/or; one usually has multiple, even
myriad alternatives. People often make disastrous choices, which is a
major reason we have wars, crime, hatreds, and all the other self-
inflicted ills man is prone to. Rather than 2nd-best giving us "a very
sorry mess," I think most people woudl be very happy with the world
that 2nd-best would provide.

Then again, this disagreement may be purely semantic, depending on
how one defines "second best." I'm using it in the sense of, say, the
2nd-best choice among 10 or 15 alternatives. If your'e thinking of it
as a choice between only two alternatives, that's a horse of a
different color.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:56:14 -0000, "j.d.walker"
wrote:


No, I am not a Unitarian. To be completely honest, examine this site
and form your own opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Life_Church
My credentials are in the mail...

Did you opt for the holographic ID card? It adds a level of
authenticity and prestige which, at times, may come in handy. For
example, at the reception after the one wedding I conducted, a
clergyman guest of the more traditional seminary background attempted
polite conversation and asked where I'd done my training. I merely
flashed my holographic ID and had to say nothing. He too remained
silent, so I assume he was properly impressed.