ANOTHER FAKE?

This appears to be from a Fake Chess One (Phil Innes) whose regular
login is



But this one is from



Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 10:47 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Chess friends,

I've seen the term ratpacker used frequently. I wondered what was meant

As far as I know, Rev, the term was introduced here on the rgc
groups by Larry Parr. In particular, he used the phrase "Winter
ratpackers" as a derisive way to designate anyone who tended to prefer
the work of the meticulous chess historian Edward Winter to the work
of GM Larry Evans. This group would probably include, say, Louis
Blair, Neil Brennen, Steven Dowd, myself and several others. Though we
actually post here quite independently,

** The usual weasel words of Winterites! The hereby 'Reverend' Kingston
forgets to mention the e-mail group of associates who were copied the Laurie
material. )) Phil Innes

Parr somehow imagined us to
be, or wished to portray us, as a sinister cabal acting on orders from
Winter, like minions of Professor Moriarty or mafia hit-men, the goal
being to destroy the good name of Parr's idol Evans.
In fact, I would say that most of the alleged "ratpackers" have
never had any contact with Winter, who lives in Switzerland. I have
exchanged e-mails and letters with him, but have had no contact at all
for several years.
More recently, some posters, mainly Help-bot (aka NoMoreChess),
turned the term around, and applied it to Parr and some of his
supporters, mainly Sam Sloan and Phil Innes. So the phrase has become
practically meaningless.

I wanted to answer some questions you asked in another thread; this
one seemed a more appopriate place:

On Nov 20, 7:58 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Mr. Bot,

Okay, I read the article. I am impressed with the amount of work that
Taylor put into it. As for the topic covered, my conclusion was that
there was a lot of evidence to consider, and it appeared that there was
nothing definitely conclusive. However, for the most part it was
persuasive -- the dark forces of Stalin worked against Keres' interests.

What ever became of Averbakh's memoirs?

A good question. In an interview he gave me in July 2002, Averbakh
said he was working on them, and that they would be published in
Russian, probably under a name such as "Chess and the System." meaning
the Soviet political system. I don't know if that has happened yet,
much less if plans are afoot for an English version.
In any event, and contrary to what I was told by Emanuel Sztein in
March 1998, it appears that any Averbakh memoirs will not contain any
evidence supporting any anti-Keres conspiracy theory. Averbakh himself
is on record against that hypothesis, as you can read he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles181.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles183.pdf

Sztein, a Russian, was a press attach? for GM Viktor Korchnoi, and
claimed to "know with certainty" that Keres had been coerced, and so I
thought him a source worth mentioning in my 1998 article. However, it
would appear that as far as Averbakh supporting the coercion thesis,
Mr. Sztein was mistaken. Further questioning of Sztein is not
possible, as he died several years ago. Averbakh, now 85, is still
going strong. If he does produce any memoirs, I'm sure they will be
interesting, but I'm not expecting much about a Keres-Botvinnik fix
from him.
BTW, Rev, watch for a knee-jerk reaction flame-post from Phil Innes.
He does this every time I mention Averbakh.

I see some disagreements with Evans are mentioned. I suppose these are
the seeds (at least in part) of the present controversy.

Yes, as I have explained, to Larry Parr, any disagreement with Evans
is a capital offense with no statute of limitations. The offender must
be utterly discredited and vilified, by fair means or foul (usually
the latter).

I was promised crystal clarity. I feel that that promise has not been
met.

About the Keres-Botvinnik case? I never promised that. I've done my
best with it, for what that's worth, but much remains unknown.

What remains very unclear to me: How can mature, intelligent
human beings keep a feud going for 7+ years on something like this?

A very good question, Rev. I would be quite happy to leave the whole
matter alone, but Larry Parr won't. As I said, to him, disagreement
with Evans is a capital offense with no statute of limitations. The
offender is to be discredited and vilified, by fair means or foul
(usually the latter). You've seen some of the foul means here on the
newsgroup; some others Parr and Evans employed some years ago are
described he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf

Over the past several months, maybe year, I had pretty much
disengaged from the rgc newsgroups altogether (you can verify this
with functions under the "more options" link on Google). Neither had
Parr been saying much about me.
What prompted the latest outbreak of Parrorrhea was the fact that I
made a few posts critical of Sam Sloan, a convicted felon, lifelong
ne'er-do-well, shameless attention-seeker, delusional solipsist and
long-time running joke here on rgc, whom Parr, for reasons of his own,
keeps pushing as the savior of the USCF. Parr wants Sloan on the USCF
Executive Board, I think that's a bad idea.
Parr, having no way to counter my criticisms of Sloan, launched yet
again into full-scale smear-Kingston mode, recycling mud he's been
throwing here for years. I might have ignored him, but it's rather fun
rebutting him, especially when, as we've seen here recently, it leads
Larry into all sorts of patently false and ridiculous statements.

Hasn't anyone had the thought, "This is enough, I am putting it behind
me and moving on...?"

I'd be quite happy to, but Parr seems to relish mud-slinging. Much
of the time I ignore him, but sometimes, as recently, he serves up
such fat pitches that I can't resist whacking them now and then. It's
the same sort of pleasure one gets from beating Sanny's inept chess
program.

The apparent chemistry reminds me of a particular
type of bad marriage where the weaknesses of each mate act as incendiary
catalysts on the other leading to wild arguments and fights. Get a
divorce!

If you can persuade Larry to shut up, fine by me.

On Nov 21, 7:51 am, " wrote:
ANOTHER FAKE?

This appears to be from a Fake Chess One (Phil Innes) whose regular
login is



But this one is from


(Snipped message)

More likely Innes is changing his ISP.

On Nov 20, 9:27 pm, " wrote:

MORAL COWARDICE

My reference was to those who are too cowardly to buck
Edward Winter's claims (Louie Blair and Taylor Kingston plus
several who used to infest the censored ChessCafe bulletin board)
even when Winter's claims were refuted or, yes, shown to be
fabricated.

Larry Parr complaining of "fabrication" is like Jackie Gleason
calling someone "overweight."

The Rev. Walker has recently seen how our NMnot
handles evidence that, say, Eddie Winter fabricated a
mistake that was not made by Larry Evans so as to
compound a minor error made by GM Evans re the
Borochow-Fine game from Pasadena, 1932. There is
no comment from Taylor Kingston.

I haven't the least interest at this time in arguing about Winter.
My recent concern has been to counter Parr's slew of false accusations
against myself. In that process, I have pointed out many lies and
fabrications by Parr. He has addressed none of them.
So if our Larry wants to talk about "moral cowardice," I suggest he
start with himself.

Louie Blair's technique is to ask endless questions,
many of them weakminded.

Translation: Dr. Blair is very good at finding Parr quotes that show
Larry lying, fabricating, and/or contradicting himself. They number in
the hundreds. Blair posts them here. That ticks Larry off. So, what
can Larry do but insult him?
PS -- last I checked, there were few if any "weakminded" people with
a PhD in mathematics.


The battle over Keres that the Rev. Walker is
currently following really began with a review that I
wrote of the Oxford Companion to Chess.

Our Larry's tragic and habitual chronological confusion shows again.
That review was of the 1st edition of the OC, and appeared in the
mid-1980s. Maybe Parr's battle with someone else began then, but his
with me began in 1998 when my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A
Survey of the Evidence" was published. I never even saw the OC until
the paperback 2nd edition came out in 1996, and I had never read
Parr's review of the OC 1st edition until a few years ago.

Ken Whyld,
one of the Companion's authors, told GM Larry Evans
that he had never been praised so highly (I wrote that
the Companion superseded all previous works of the
type -- which is the highest praise possible in this
kind of endeavour) and damned so heatedly (I noted a
politically scarlet thread running through the entries
on subjects Soviet) in a single review. Indeed,
several of th Soviet entries were evidently dishonest.

Translation: Larry sees Commies under his bed. He accused the OC
authors (both British) of deliberate pro-Soviet suppression and/or
falsification. I think he's full of it.

Taylor Kingston, among other ratpackers, attacked my
review. I offered to walk the gent through each such entry,
and we could then examine them line by line to discover
whether my charge was accurate.

Translation: Larry tolerates only one interpretation of anything:
his own. All others are ipso facto heretical, and are to be vilified.

One of the characteristics of ratpackers is moral cowardice.
They praise themselves under false names (other ratpackers and
semi-ratpackers have adopted false monickers) and they cannot
stand the intellectual heat in the kitchen. They beg off.

Well, Larry, let's see you demonstrate some moral courage then, and
show that you can stand up to the "intellectual heat," by answering
directly these recent questions of mine, which are only a small
sampling of the many I might post he

1. You and Richard Laurie have repeatedly claimed that I have
"maligned GM Evans' ability to analyze," yet you have never produced
anything to support it. Courage and honesty require that you either:

(a) prove your claim -- and I mean prove, not contrive some non-
existent "implication" -- or
(b) admit your lie. So please do one or the other.

2. You and Laurie have absurdly claimed that the "basis for this
assault appears to have been the book, 'Warriors of the Mind' by Keene
and Divinsky." Please tell us:

(a) Where is any quote from me supporting this absurd claim?
(b) How can a book that says nothing at all about GM Evans, either
directly or indirectly, be the basis for an attack on Evans?

3. Later you revised this claim, saying "Mr. Laurie is almost
certainly correct that Kingston's basis for the attack was Winter's
savage review of 'Warriors of the Mind.'" Please tell us:

(a) Which are you really saying is the basis: the book, or the
review?
(b) How can a review that never mentions GM Evans, either directly
or indirectly, of a book that never mentions GM Evans, either directly
or indirectly, be the basis for an attack on GM EVans?

4. You have set great store by Mr. Laurie's memory, which has been
shown to be seriously flawed. For example, referring to Evans' 1996
article, he wrote "GM Evans ... held forth the view that one or more
smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were explored."

(a) Please supply a quote from GM Evans' 1996 article that supports
Laurie's claim.
(b) Please reconcile Laurie's claim with Evan's 4/1997 statement
that "We doubt such a document will ever surface."

So go ahead, Larry. Here's your chance to prove your moral courage
and intellectual honesty right in front of God and this company. We
have every confidence that you will fail to reply, or if you do, it
will be such a marvel of evasion and doubletalk as to make an eel look
like a hedgehog, and Al Kelly sound like Hemingway.

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 6:25 am, David Richerby
wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
I've seen the term ratpacker used frequently.

It's a term that Phil Innes and Larry Parr use to mean, `a member of
the global conspiracy against me.'


It would be more accurate to say that in Larry Parr's
mind, the conspiracy centers around his idol, Larry Evans.

Nearly-an-imp Innes hardly deserves mentioning, since it
was his master who adopted the term; when asked "who
built the pyrarmids", does one answer "a bunch of lowly
slaves, who got whipped every day"? Of course not.

Ah, but this is all a fantasy, for LP is not really deluded
in that respect. His ploy is a deeply dishonest device,
and he knows full well there is no "ratpack" headed up
by phantom Ed Winter.

While we may wonder how help-bot knows what LP knows 'full well', [and how
does he?] he is presumably innocent of the e-mail circulation list at the
time of the 'affaire-Laurie', though should I produce that list, including
that of the Maitre-de-Winter... shock horror what will he do then?

Go to another cornfield under another assumed to, while not admitting to his
own name, could honestly write about dishonest people who can own their
opinions?

Ad hominem is LP's hobby, so
to speak; rhetoric and lies, his religion. Terms like
"ratpackers" can easily be replaced if other terms come
to hand, or on a whim.

Generally, then, 'ratpackers' from corn-fed's perspective can be anyone
better than himself at anything, but especially those who do not agree. They
are all dishonest conspiracy freeks, and fit for belittlement!

Its very egalitarian and has a certain charm! Trouble is, corn-dolly charms
are not really up to keeping the world out with any efficiency.

The red herring is his state fish, and it has served him
well. Like a skilled magician, Mr. Parr uses misdirection
and diversion to obscure weaknesses and refocus
attention on random other props and things.

What is the topic of this thread?

But I was
never impressed by that sort of thing. What I wanted
was for Harry Houdini to be bound, gagged, knocked
unconscious and chained, then dropped into a vat of
boiling sulfuric acid and a ton of TNT thrown in. After
this, I expect half the audience to be injured in a huge
explosion, and the the real fireworks start: Air Force
bombers fly over, dropping napalm and yet somehow,
the magician emerges from the carnage unscathed.

As we see, every person has their own world view, [which BTW, German
peasants call a Corn-Geist], and while some write from deep sources which
neverthless may be fallible ones, others chose cartoon universes designed
for 7 year olds who like to see stuff blown-up.

Next, we see him sawed in half before our very eyes,
then dropped into the mouth of an angry great white
shark, in pieces... . Okay, maybe I expect too much.

Not at all, I think channel 5 has it, immediately after Barney and Big Bird
solve all the problems in their [little] universe.

Cornflakes, Phil Innes

-- help bot

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 9:27 pm, " wrote:

MORAL COWARDICE

My reference was to those who are too cowardly to buck
Edward Winter's claims (Louie Blair and Taylor Kingston plus
several who used to infest the censored ChessCafe bulletin board)
even when Winter's claims were refuted or, yes, shown to be
fabricated.

Larry Parr complaining of "fabrication" is like Jackie Gleason
calling someone "overweight."

Or you talking straight.

BTW, here is a little e-mail list circulation of the club-de-Winter

Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and Winter,
[someone began to write to me, with a mandated secrecy, a long long time ago
in the West]

It begins...

Latter I was dropped-out for being false to the group. While I agreed with
every standard it proposed, I was in a club of one when it came to the
standards being impartially applied to everyone!

While anyone's p.o.v. may be treated with confidence in an e-mail, I was
damned if I should be pre-empted from saying anything at all, and the
presumption that I must respect something which I made clear was indecently
approached from a partisan point of view, after an intial appeal to the
fairness of us chess publishing.

The denouement was to challenge ChessCafe itself, on its own equivocal
behavior, and why it seemed to have stacked the debate on one side of the
issue, which co-incidentally was that of its columnist?

And I /did/ keep the e-mails. On a previous challenge I even returned 2 of
them to Taylor Kingston, at his own request. Then it all went quiet for a
year.

Personally, this protracted correspondance is wearisome, especially
represented here as if to win the soul of the newly arrived Vicar, the Rev.
Walker, to our little village - like something out of Thomas Hardy - but
what happens on the occassions when the issue is raised, is to actually
assess what the issue is.

And there are two of them!

a) Journalism wars, with one team being Our Taylor of the e-mails, and the
Chesscafe column [!] plus de Winter, and on the other, everyone else.

AND

b) Content! And the reader should judge here who fairly attempts content
[which is Soviet fixing, specifically in Keres Botvinnik], and who merely
alludes to some knowledge as if they actually understood it too [!] but were
too proud to speak it in public and entertain all comers with as much grace
as is possible here in our usenet hamlet, among other villeins, like
ourselves.

Phil Innes



The Rev. Walker has recently seen how our NMnot
handles evidence that, say, Eddie Winter fabricated a
mistake that was not made by Larry Evans so as to
compound a minor error made by GM Evans re the
Borochow-Fine game from Pasadena, 1932. There is
no comment from Taylor Kingston.

I haven't the least interest at this time in arguing about Winter.
My recent concern has been to counter Parr's slew of false accusations
against myself. In that process, I have pointed out many lies and
fabrications by Parr. He has addressed none of them.
So if our Larry wants to talk about "moral cowardice," I suggest he
start with himself.

Louie Blair's technique is to ask endless questions,
many of them weakminded.

Translation: Dr. Blair is very good at finding Parr quotes that show
Larry lying, fabricating, and/or contradicting himself. They number in
the hundreds. Blair posts them here. That ticks Larry off. So, what
can Larry do but insult him?
PS -- last I checked, there were few if any "weakminded" people with
a PhD in mathematics.


The battle over Keres that the Rev. Walker is
currently following really began with a review that I
wrote of the Oxford Companion to Chess.

Our Larry's tragic and habitual chronological confusion shows again.
That review was of the 1st edition of the OC, and appeared in the
mid-1980s. Maybe Parr's battle with someone else began then, but his
with me began in 1998 when my article "The Keres-Botvinnik Case: A
Survey of the Evidence" was published. I never even saw the OC until
the paperback 2nd edition came out in 1996, and I had never read
Parr's review of the OC 1st edition until a few years ago.

Ken Whyld,
one of the Companion's authors, told GM Larry Evans
that he had never been praised so highly (I wrote that
the Companion superseded all previous works of the
type -- which is the highest praise possible in this
kind of endeavour) and damned so heatedly (I noted a
politically scarlet thread running through the entries
on subjects Soviet) in a single review. Indeed,
several of th Soviet entries were evidently dishonest.

Translation: Larry sees Commies under his bed. He accused the OC
authors (both British) of deliberate pro-Soviet suppression and/or
falsification. I think he's full of it.

Taylor Kingston, among other ratpackers, attacked my
review. I offered to walk the gent through each such entry,
and we could then examine them line by line to discover
whether my charge was accurate.

Translation: Larry tolerates only one interpretation of anything:
his own. All others are ipso facto heretical, and are to be vilified.

One of the characteristics of ratpackers is moral cowardice.
They praise themselves under false names (other ratpackers and
semi-ratpackers have adopted false monickers) and they cannot
stand the intellectual heat in the kitchen. They beg off.

Well, Larry, let's see you demonstrate some moral courage then, and
show that you can stand up to the "intellectual heat," by answering
directly these recent questions of mine, which are only a small
sampling of the many I might post he

1. You and Richard Laurie have repeatedly claimed that I have
"maligned GM Evans' ability to analyze," yet you have never produced
anything to support it. Courage and honesty require that you either:

(a) prove your claim -- and I mean prove, not contrive some non-
existent "implication" -- or
(b) admit your lie. So please do one or the other.

2. You and Laurie have absurdly claimed that the "basis for this
assault appears to have been the book, 'Warriors of the Mind' by Keene
and Divinsky." Please tell us:

(a) Where is any quote from me supporting this absurd claim?
(b) How can a book that says nothing at all about GM Evans, either
directly or indirectly, be the basis for an attack on Evans?

3. Later you revised this claim, saying "Mr. Laurie is almost
certainly correct that Kingston's basis for the attack was Winter's
savage review of 'Warriors of the Mind.'" Please tell us:

(a) Which are you really saying is the basis: the book, or the
review?
(b) How can a review that never mentions GM Evans, either directly
or indirectly, of a book that never mentions GM Evans, either directly
or indirectly, be the basis for an attack on GM EVans?

4. You have set great store by Mr. Laurie's memory, which has been
shown to be seriously flawed. For example, referring to Evans' 1996
article, he wrote "GM Evans ... held forth the view that one or more
smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were explored."

(a) Please supply a quote from GM Evans' 1996 article that supports
Laurie's claim.
(b) Please reconcile Laurie's claim with Evan's 4/1997 statement
that "We doubt such a document will ever surface."

So go ahead, Larry. Here's your chance to prove your moral courage
and intellectual honesty right in front of God and this company. We
have every confidence that you will fail to reply, or if you do, it
will be such a marvel of evasion and doubletalk as to make an eel look
like a hedgehog, and Al Kelly sound like Hemingway.

On Nov 21, 10:52 am, "Chess One" wrote:

BTW, here is a little e-mail list circulation of the club-de-Winter

Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and Winter,
[someone began to write to me, with a mandated secrecy, a long long time ago
in the West]


This is an Innes oddity he's been shopping around since at least
early 2006. Now he's running it again, probably trying to run
interference for Parr. What "mandated secrets" this alleged e-mail is
supposed to contain, along with its alleged attachment (said to be of
some 2,000 words), I can't imagine, since I don't recall writing it.
Here's what one of the alleged addressees said about this back in
2006:

"I don't recall getting such an email. I would probably remember it
if I did, since I was on bad terms with both Innes and Hanke (and
probably Dr. Blair as well) and would not have thought kindly of Mr.
Kingston
adding me to their midst. So most likely this is another Philsy lie."
-- Neil Brennen, January 2006

Perhaps Dr. Blair or Larry Tapper would care to weigh in? Do either
recall receiving such an e-mail? If so, what were its contents?

Latter I was dropped-out for being false to the group.

Hmmm, a group composed of Louis Blair, Neil Brennen, Tim Hanke, Phil
Innes, Jonathan Manley (editor of Kingpin), Larry Tapper, Edward
Winter, and myself? Sounds wildly improbable at best. For what
conceivable purpose could it have been organized, and by whom?
And how was your alleged expulsion accomplished, Phil? Was there a
vote?

While I agreed with
every standard it proposed, I was in a club of one when it came to the
standards being impartially applied to everyone!

Phil, please give us a list of these alleged standards the alleged
group allegedly proposed.

Taylor Kingston writes:

Perhaps Dr. Blair or Larry Tapper would care to weigh in? Do either
recall receiving such an e-mail? If so, what were its contents?

TK,

This is truly strange even by Phil's standards.

I have never received an e-mail remotely like the one Phil Innes
describes; and I certainly have never been on any list that involved
regular correspondence with some cabal of Winterites. As I recall, I
have exchanged something like two or three private e-mails with you
over the last 10 years, maybe four or five with Neil Brennen (about
matters unrelated to Winter), none with Dr. Blair, and none with
Winter himself. Not that I would mind corresponding more regularly
with any of you --- the occasion just hasn't arisen.

What is this, some sort of literary fantasy? I can't quite figure out
what this is supposed to be about. The header "Dear Messrs...."
suggests direct quotation but I know that I never received anything
like this.

Larry T.


On Nov 21, 11:28 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:52 am, "Chess One" wrote:



BTW, here is a little e-mail list circulation of the club-de-Winter

Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and Winter,
[someone began to write to me, with a mandated secrecy, a long long time ago
in the West]

This is an Innes oddity he's been shopping around since at least
early 2006. Now he's running it again, probably trying to run
interference for Parr. What "mandated secrets" this alleged e-mail is
supposed to contain, along with its alleged attachment (said to be of
some 2,000 words), I can't imagine, since I don't recall writing it.
Here's what one of the alleged addressees said about this back in
2006:

"I don't recall getting such an email. I would probably remember it
if I did, since I was on bad terms with both Innes and Hanke (and
probably Dr. Blair as well) and would not have thought kindly of Mr.
Kingston
adding me to their midst. So most likely this is another Philsy lie."
-- Neil Brennen, January 2006

Perhaps Dr. Blair or Larry Tapper would care to weigh in? Do either
recall receiving such an e-mail? If so, what were its contents?

Latter I was dropped-out for being false to the group.

Hmmm, a group composed of Louis Blair, Neil Brennen, Tim Hanke, Phil
Innes, Jonathan Manley (editor of Kingpin), Larry Tapper, Edward
Winter, and myself? Sounds wildly improbable at best. For what
conceivable purpose could it have been organized, and by whom?
And how was your alleged expulsion accomplished, Phil? Was there a
vote?

While I agreed with
every standard it proposed, I was in a club of one when it came to the
standards being impartially applied to everyone!

Phil, please give us a list of these alleged standards the alleged
group allegedly proposed.

On Nov 21, 12:06 pm, Larry Tapper wrote:
Taylor Kingston writes:
Perhaps Dr. Blair or Larry Tapper would care to weigh in? Do either
recall receiving such an e-mail? If so, what were its contents?

TK,

This is truly strange even by Phil's standards.

I have never received an e-mail remotely like the one Phil Innes
describes; and I certainly have never been on any list that involved
regular correspondence with some cabal of Winterites. As I recall, I
have exchanged something like two or three private e-mails with you
over the last 10 years, maybe four or five with Neil Brennen (about
matters unrelated to Winter), none with Dr. Blair, and none with
Winter himself. Not that I would mind corresponding more regularly
with any of you --- the occasion just hasn't arisen.

What is this, some sort of literary fantasy? I can't quite figure out
what this is supposed to be about. The header "Dear Messrs...."
suggests direct quotation but I know that I never received anything
like this.

Larry T.

On Nov 21, 11:28 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:



On Nov 21, 10:52 am, "Chess One" wrote:

BTW, here is a little e-mail list circulation of the club-de-Winter

Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and Winter,
[someone began to write to me, with a mandated secrecy, a long long time ago
in the West]

This is an Innes oddity he's been shopping around since at least
early 2006. Now he's running it again, probably trying to run
interference for Parr. What "mandated secrets" this alleged e-mail is
supposed to contain, along with its alleged attachment (said to be of
some 2,000 words), I can't imagine, since I don't recall writing it.
Here's what one of the alleged addressees said about this back in
2006:

"I don't recall getting such an email. I would probably remember it
if I did, since I was on bad terms with both Innes and Hanke (and
probably Dr. Blair as well) and would not have thought kindly of Mr.
Kingston
adding me to their midst. So most likely this is another Philsy lie."
-- Neil Brennen, January 2006

Perhaps Dr. Blair or Larry Tapper would care to weigh in? Do either
recall receiving such an e-mail? If so, what were its contents?

Latter I was dropped-out for being false to the group.

Hmmm, a group composed of Louis Blair, Neil Brennen, Tim Hanke, Phil
Innes, Jonathan Manley (editor of Kingpin), Larry Tapper, Edward
Winter, and myself? Sounds wildly improbable at best. For what
conceivable purpose could it have been organized, and by whom?
And how was your alleged expulsion accomplished, Phil? Was there a
vote?

While I agreed with
every standard it proposed, I was in a club of one when it came to the
standards being impartially applied to everyone!

Phil, please give us a list of these alleged standards the alleged
group allegedly proposed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I thought, Larry. Thank you.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 10:52 am, "Chess One" wrote:

BTW, here is a little e-mail list circulation of the club-de-Winter

Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and
Winter,
[someone began to write to me, with a mandated secrecy, a long long time
ago
in the West]


This is an Innes oddity he's been shopping around since at least
early 2006. Now he's running it again, probably trying to run
interference for Parr.

Am I, indeed? I though I was writing all the time about chess /issues/ and
how they are sported around! But naturally, Taylor Kingston has snipped
that - while still protesting otherwise. What an odd way to proceed! Now
bloody wonder he is able to complete confuse the CL editor, Evans and
Laurie, who wind up being the villains of the piece.

And I think its 2003, not 2006. When I asked if its okay to publish this
material, you never replied with a straight yes or no, but vagued-out, as
usual.

What is annoying about you is this public private duplicity! And that you
still protest everything as if there were no shades of anything. That is not
an adult way to join conversation with anyone.

What "mandated secrets" this alleged e-mail is

alleged! they are /your/ secrets. I merely mention /your/ selected
distribution. They are not secrets to me, before I received you note, nor
now.

And if it should turn out to be your own, and if it should say
'confidential', what do you allege about yourself?

supposed to contain, along with its alleged attachment (said to be of
some 2,000 words), I can't imagine, since I don't recall writing it.

He don't recall. But I think I am called - so maybe that is a request that I
write it here?

Here's what one of the alleged addressees said about this back in
2006:

"I don't recall getting such an email. I would probably remember it
if I did, since I was on bad terms with both Innes and Hanke (and
probably Dr. Blair as well) and would not have thought kindly of Mr.
Kingston
adding me to their midst. So most likely this is another Philsy lie."
-- Neil Brennen, January 2006

Taylor Kingston quotes the biggest [no pun intended] flat-out spinneron the
ng, an abuse stalker. But he too 'don't recall'.

Perhaps Dr. Blair or Larry Tapper would care to weigh in? Do either
recall receiving such an e-mail? If so, what were its contents?

Latter I was dropped-out for being false to the group.

Hmmm, a group composed of Louis Blair, Neil Brennen, Tim Hanke, Phil
Innes, Jonathan Manley (editor of Kingpin), Larry Tapper, Edward
Winter, and myself? Sounds wildly improbable at best. For what
conceivable purpose could it have been organized, and by whom?

Well, you sent it. Why ask why?

And how was your alleged expulsion accomplished, Phil? Was there a
vote?

You cut that out of the message - nincompoop! Then immediately turn around
to ask why. What an inane correspondent.

While I agreed with
every standard it proposed, I was in a club of one when it came to the
standards being impartially applied to everyone!

Phil, please give us a list of these alleged standards the alleged
group allegedly proposed.

You cut the post to then protest the issue.

Why don't I just post all your material here, since your memory on /this/
issue is so tentative, while on very similar activities at the same time it
is resolute!

Shall I just give you the date and time of your message, on the
understanding that you can ask your service provider if indeed you sent it?
You seem, as usual, to doubt others, and suggest 'things' about them. But
what proof do you yourself think would actually suffice the issue?

Phil Innes

On Nov 21, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

Hmmm, a group composed of Louis Blair, Neil Brennen, Tim Hanke, Phil
Innes, Jonathan Manley (editor of Kingpin), Larry Tapper, Edward
Winter, and myself? Sounds wildly improbable at best. For what
conceivable purpose could it have been organized, and by whom?

Well, you sent it. Why ask why?

No, Phil, I recall sending no such e-mail. And so far two of the
alleged recipients (Tapper, Brennen) have said they never received any
such. So far, you're outnumbered 3-to-1. I'm sure if Louis Blair
weighs in, it will be 4-to-1. Perhaps I shall contact Manley and
Winter, in which case it will be 6-to-1, should they even consider
this nonsense something worth their time. Or ask them yourself. If
you know how to contact Tim Hanke, feel free to ask him too.

When I asked if its okay to publish this material, you never
replied with a straight yes or no, but vagued-out, as usual.

Well, Phil, there's a fundamental problem the I have no right to
give permission to publish something that is not mine.
Since this alleged e-mail seems to have been written by one of your
imaginary playmates, perhaps the guy to whom you said "I'm not your
boy!", I suggest you ask him for permission.

And how was your alleged expulsion accomplished, Phil? Was there a
vote?

You cut that out of the message - nincompoop!

Ah yes, as usual with our Phil, the Secrets of the Universe are
contained in what everyone snips from his posts. So sad.