On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...

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,

No Taylor. I asked /him/ why you sent it, and why he can't find it? And why
he had no memory of it - but since nothing is as important to you than your
public face, you do not challenge me to present it, just continue the bluff,
sort of, that you do 'not recall'

But this is psychological nonsense! If you do not remember you are not
nearly angry enough to deny it! You are left with 'do not recall'.

I recall sending no such e-mail.

What are you doing? Conducting the Olie North Defence?

And so far two of the
alleged recipients (Tapper, Brennen) have said they never received any
such.

They would be implicit as conspitators, no?

What is a "conspitator?"

But again, these people have no
recall either - neither deny a thing!

How can a person agree with or deny an email they don't recall
receiving?

What is your stake if I post it,
refreshing your memory? This is what happened last time I returned 2 of your
e-mails .... silence zzzzz until you decide to re-defend the circumstance
yet again, and at the cost of rubbishing others, always!!

So far, you're outnumbered 3-to-1.

Ah! Your standard is unfurled! the conspirators do not admit it, or
actually, recall it, and that is that?

What am I an alleged conspit,, err, conspirator to? Somebody,
anybody?

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me. OK?
Please say, or say nothing more!

I say its from you via server records, which are provable, and I don't care
if you own them or not - since I have not seen such a public liar in an age!

So your alleged "server records" are proof of something, and the
Mottershead report, which is almost entirely server records, proves
nothing?!?

On Nov 21, 11:05 pm, The Historian
wrote:

But this is psychological nonsense! If you do not remember you are not
nearly angry enough to deny it! You are left with 'do not recall'.

I recall sending no such e-mail.

What are you doing? Conducting the Olie North Defence?

That fellow now appears regularly on TV... as if
nothing had ever happened.


And so far two of the
alleged recipients (Tapper, Brennen) have said they never received any
such.

They would be implicit as conspitators, no?

What is a "conspitator?"

Looks more like a coincidence to me.

For a real conspiracy, don't you need to have evil
scum scheming together against someone? Here
we only have a madman insisting he sent/received
emails, whereas no such claim has in fact been
substantiated by the nutter in question, ever.


But again, these people have no

recall either - neither deny a thing!

In my experience, Mr. Kingston has used the ploy
of "sort of denying" via calculated avoidance of any
actual denials, while strongly implying that if I don't
prove his near-denials wrong, he might eventually
risk a baby-step in the general direction of working
up the courage to /almost/ make a real denial. It's
really a sad thing to watch... .


refreshing your memory? This is what happened last time I returned 2 of your
e-mails .... silence zzzzz until you decide to re-defend the circumstance
yet again, and at the cost of rubbishing others, always!!

Rubbishing others? Ah, now the constipation
part becomes clear; Mr. Nearly-an-IMp Innes is
upset because of his hypocritical attacks on
/others/ for what he terms "rubbishing others",
when he knows deep down he is the worst of
the lot.


What am I an alleged conspit,, err, conspirator to? Somebody,
anybody?

Try this: think about what the nutter is saying, and
then decide whether or not you ever got any emails
from nutters in the past; if not, you can safely rule
out the possibility using logic (while avoiding the
hassle of attempting perfect recall).


Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me. OK?

Okay. Please edit out the parts where he gave
you his address and phone number. Thanks. And
don't forget -- we are waiting; it's not like that awful
boy who went 'round hollering "wolf!" until we no
longer paid any regard to his cries. We -- all of us
here -- are eagerly awaiting your posting of these
very real emails, the smoking guns. We know that
only death can stop the inevitable: the posting of
supporting evidence by nearly-an-IM Innes. It's a
done deal; a fait accompli. As sure as the sun
rises in the East, etc., etc. Now be a good boy
and run along home.


-- help bot

Larry Parr wrote (Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:13:45 -0800 (PST)):

7 ... it has become his trademark to advise those with whom
7 he disagrees to get therapy.
7
7 Or, as in the case of Richard Laurie, they have no
7 memory; or, as appears to be his tacit line right now,
7 Laurie wrote him a private note that Laurie never
7 dreamedwould ever see the light of day and then ...
7 ...
_
_
"...
... I can see no reason not to notify people of the
fact and substance of our discussions. As you
can see a copy of this is going on to Evans.
..." - Richard Laurie (March 2, 2002) as presented by
Larry Parr (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:05:37 -0800 (PST))
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:13:45 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 ... Kingston writes postings under other names IN PRAISE
7 OF HIMSELF during hese debates. ...
7 ...
_
_
What about those "others" who supposedly agreed with
Larry Parr on the "highlighted" and "singled out" controversy?
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the mark of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
_
"In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the
position. [In his review of the Soltis book, TK] simply
selected a sentence from the [Soltis] introduction to
the game as an example of the failure of GM Soltis
to provide such information as the round in which the
game was played" - Louis Blair (2 Jun 2006
01:03:30 -0700)
_
_
"This writer and others have argued that if one
references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
perforce highlighting ..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006
20:29:53 -0700)
_
_
"Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
22:44:43 -0700)

On Nov 21, 9:47 pm, help bot wrote:
On Nov 21, 5:29 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Phil, you are not well. Get help. You need it.

That advice makes the titanic assumption that PI in
fact *can* be helped. What are the odds?

-- help bot

Very slim. Many have tried.

On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me. OK?

It must be some leisure, since you've been threatening Taylor Kingston
with this disclosure for two years now, at least.

On Nov 21, 9:13 pm, " wrote:

Phil Innes makes a good point. Taylor Kingston
will refuse to answer inconvenient questions ...

Larry, you cornered the market on unanswered questions ages ago. A
goodlly chunk of Google's storage is devoted to all the ones I've
asked you over the years, that you have sidestepped, waffled on, or
simply ignored.

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.

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, 11:46 pm, help bot wrote:

What am I an alleged conspit,, err, conspirator to? Somebody,
anybody?

Try this: think about what the nutter is saying, and
then decide whether or not you ever got any emails
from nutters in the past; if not, you can safely rule
out the possibility using logic (while avoiding the
hassle of attempting perfect recall).

Do you recall every email you've ever received? Including spam?

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 5:47 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

I say you wrote to the persons mentioned heretofore whether you care to
remember or no.

I say you are out of your mind, Phil.

Really, I thought you did not recall.

If you can't remember than that is not any logical progression. So what is
it? Shall I post the message entire?

I do not even say the content, yet you are terrified for
some reason that I should say what it was.

No, Phil, I don't give a rat's ass what the content was. As for
being "terrified" of you, well, I've seen scarier chihuahuas.

Once more, that seems like permission, and while Taylor Kingston cannot ever
say anything directly - except to rubbish others! - he seems to say it
doesn't matter to him if I publish his //confidential// private messaging.

This is exceptionally peculair
behavior

You are indeed most peculiar.

I am not. I ask you if you acknowledge your own actions, and you do not
reply. You are horrified that I might expose you, and prove it via server
records, but you are so ape-**** on this issue, that you seem... to
encourage me to do so.

But only seem. Since you do not say that I should publish your e-mails, or
what the consequence would be if I did. How odd!

That is why you are vague! Ever vague about other people, except for your
criticism of them, and not quote ever coming up to the plate about your own
private actions ; ))

Phil Innes

wrote in message
...
GET THERAPY

Phil, you are not well. Get help. You need it. -- Kingston to Innes

Phil Innes makes a good point. Taylor Kingston
will refuse to answer inconvenient questions, and it has
become his trademark to advise those with whom he
disagrees to get therapy.

Or, as in the case of Richard Laurie, they
have no memory; or, as appears to be his tacit line
right now, Laurie wrote him a private note that
Laurie never dreamedwould ever see the light of day
and then liked about what Kingston wrote.

Phil: I have no doubt Kingston is hiding his
"confidential" stuff again. He's a sneak who
does things behind closed doors and then
denies doing them..

While I would not, except for any criminal case, brought public or private,
bring any person's e-mail to public notice, I cannot permit people to write
to me in any confidential manner which obliges me top silence on an /issue/.

Since Our Taylour did just this, the question is only, what issue; his spat
with LE and CL or the subject of Keres Botvinnik?

Our Taylor cannot even say which it is, that wold require confidentiality.

And so he admits he cannot recall while continuing to rubbish other people
who not only can, but who have his very e-mails! He does not admit they
should be published except that he, by his own previous testomony, would
choose to own or disown them.

Now... this is psychologicaly interesting to me [rather than anything else,
to /me/, since it is an insensible persistence in public - to others it may
have monetary effect and achieve actual damage].

This is not the attitude of a mere ingenue, neh? This is serious insistence.

As for the mental heatlh bit, Kingston writes
postings under other names IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF
during hese debates. He invents higher chess ratings
for himself. What a guy!

BUT: unlike Kingston, I don't adopt the ploy that
he ought to seek therapy. He ought instead to consult
his own conscience. He ought to be happier about what
he is rather than seeking what he can never be.

I should phrase it otherwise, but in large part find agreement about such a
wallah. Why should he not be happy with who he is, while admiting on a very
complex subject that his own role in investigating it /could/ be subject to
bias - journalistic bias, here, to be sure.

Consult his what? He may not have a conscience,
but his alter ago who posts under other names IN PRAISE
OF HIMSELF -- and does so repeatedly, dozens of times --
avers that he has "standards."

Well, Phil, I think he does. And what standards
they happen to be.

I do not believe what he writes about 'do not recall'. Its the Ollie North
defence. When North was challenged to his orientation he said it was to the
President, not to the oath he took as an officer which was to defend the
public. An USMC officer superior to North literally threw at a congressional
hearing his own distinguised service medal, [of honor], stating that he
declined to share it with such as North.

Standards? hey! What is Our Taylor actually defending here? His journalistic
ego apart, anything at all?

Larry Tapper? Don't worry about him. He can be
bought off. Just invite him up for a break from
pickup truck country in Deliverance-land. Feed him
some flapjacks and Vermont maple syrup, and you will
find him amenable to switching sides.

You do not understand an orinentation of your fellow Americans these days.
Better to close ranks than admit falsity. Methinks Larry Evans would agree
with this on the [very] petty issues represented by USCF's politics.

The issue becomes: do you want the Tapperman
camping in your front yard? Rapatappatappa -- and all
that. He can be insistent about perks, so beware.

I 'm in Singapore at the moment and this note may
be all I have time to submit today.

I was in Connecticut yesterday, where it was 68 degrees outside the mansion
I visited - here, now, in southern Vermont it didn't hit 34. But I'd rather
be here than there, since we retain some substance here, whereas there, what
you see is what you get, and there are no second thoughts, nor by any
account, deep ones.

Yours, Larry Parr

Cordially, Phil Innes


Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...

Phil, you are not well. Get help. You need it.

Taylor, you resort to the cheapest repost on usenet, and actually, you
deny
nothing I write, nothing!

No one does! instead they 'do not recall'.

pfft!

After the Thanksgiving break, let me therefore, represent you with all
the
issues you ignore as your own effort - while you contine to rubbish other
people.

You have no courage to even say 'publish it', right? That is what is at
stake below. If I lie then sue me! But if you lie, then shall I sue thee?

You continue to pretend on these issues as is you could get away with it.
And your private messaging is here become a big problem compared with
what
you say in public.

You lack the nous to ken that you should have take any of 10 offers to
step
away from this issue, otherwise risk exposure.

Why indeed should I watch you continually do others brown, and have to
remain complicit to your own request for silence? As if that condition
survives any test of what is honorable?

I say you wrote to the persons mentioned heretofore whether you care to
remember or no. I do not even say the content, yet you are terrified for
some reason that I should say what it was. This is exceptionally peculair
behavior

Phil Innes




On Nov 21, 5:25 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...

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,

No Taylor. I asked /him/ why you sent it, and why he can't find it?
And
why
he had no memory of it - but since nothing is as important to you than
your
public face, you do not challenge me to present it, just continue the
bluff,
sort of, that you do 'not recall'

But this is psychological nonsense! If you do not remember you are not
nearly angry enough to deny it! You are left with 'do not recall'.

I recall sending no such e-mail.

What are you doing? Conducting the Olie North Defence?

And so far two of the
alleged recipients (Tapper, Brennen) have said they never received
any
such.

They would be implicit as conspitators, no? But again, these people
have
no
recall either - neither deny a thing! What is your stake if I post it,
refreshing your memory? This is what happened last time I returned 2
of
your
e-mails .... silence zzzzz until you decide to re-defend the
circumstance
yet again, and at the cost of rubbishing others, always!!

So far, you're outnumbered 3-to-1.

Ah! Your standard is unfurled! the conspirators do not admit it, or
actually, recall it, and that is that?

Okay Taylor, I will at my leisure post everything you ever wrote me.
OK?
Please say, or say nothing more!

I say its from you via server records, which are provable, and I don't
care
if you own them or not - since I have not seen such a public liar in
an
age!

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.

I should be the genius of an age to falsify your writing in so many
messages - you grant me this? That is, if these things are false.

I would have had to emulate your wooden prose to such an extent that
no
one
else here could agree?

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.

So you do not deny it - but you have to rubbish someone for your own
observed public deceit?

Ker-ist! And this is just your //public// face !!

If I said nothing else, this standard is enough.

Phil Innes

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
help bot wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:01 am, "Chess One" wrote:

What is the topic of this thread?

Rats. It's about how they pack together -- although I
must say I don't really see the connection with chess.


Me neither, but I am still trying to figure it out. I found an
interesting anonymous quotation. Phil, did you write the following?

I only write under my own name, which I usally, invariably, sign with my
name or intitials, and have never, at any time whatsoever written under
another name, nor pseudonymously, nor as any anon.

So tell me, why do you ask? You are among serpents here who would influence
you. At least with me you know I already called you for a certain
suppossitonal interest in pawns/porn issues

That is not the stance of anyone who /needs/ curry favor, no? It is to
challenge you, and I still find you shy.

"Since I still am hiding in the bunker can anybody explain who all these
people are...other than you all...see I am like a Proust novel...in this
case Le Prisoner, except I wont know when I am actually biting into the
mint. That should all bring you to a screeching halt...well except Collins
who is looking for the appropriate quote...Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Babe
Winklemann. First of all Marcel Proust was nothing but a Romain Rolland
wannabe...his writing style was a 19th century version of Chicken Soup for
the Soul, but written with three and a half million words. Secondly,
Wittgenstein, while an accomplished philosopher, was certainly no Soren
Kierkegaard. It is easy to lump Wittgenstein into the philosophical "rat
pack" (if you will allow me the analogy), where Kierkegaard (Martin),
Nietzsche (Sinatra), Wittgenstein (Sammy), Adorno (Bishop), and Derrida
(Lawford) act as gadflies to create a counterculture of heretical
philosophy where they could only say what they meant by abandoning the
conventional wisdom of the day and inventing a whole new irreverent form
of writing through the use of humor, satire, and parody (all generally
regarded as deconstructive techniques) in order to make the accepted forms
of wisdom and value untenable.

What a passion! I am surprised that the writer did not reference the more
obvious Joyce to his cause, who, after all, attempted to subvert an entire
lit crit tradition, which overthought their responses, and he did so by the
extraoridinary means of creating his own language of symbols to run around
the pat answer, the supercilious response, the 'learned' [vicariously] sense
of anything ...

[it is only, btw, a measure of whoever wrote this piece, not to notice
Joyce, rather than a net-critique familiar to those of us who must needs
attest original answers [!] ]

Kierkegaard had (in my opinion) a far more profound impact on modern day
(not to be confused with post modernism) philosophy than did messrs.
Wittgenstein & Winkelman (although The Babe wins hands down in the shore
lunch department). As proof of this postulate (redundant), I draw to your
attention the fact that Wittgenstein was reduced to a mere caricature of
himself (which some may argue was the ultimate homage, but I digress)
where he appears as a fictional character in numerous writings following
his death. His significance is inflated by the mystical adventures of the
fictional character Wittgenstein and his encounters with evil foe the
likes of Mothra and The Wolfman. In closing, I will leave you with the
words of our good friend Sinatra (well...our Sinatra character in our
humor-laden rhetorical hypothetical theoretical satirical paradoxical pack
of rats)...It is more convenient to follow one's conscience than one's
intelligence, for at every failure, conscience finds an excuse and an
encouragement in itself. That is why there are so many conscientious and
so few intelligent people."

Not any Jesuitical argument there! But 'our Sinatra' is deposed to represent
consciense over 'intelligence' [which can only mean of intelligence in this
context, a smarmy cleverness, and more particularly, a mob-oily version
thereof] to thus depose of the issue and permit the certainly clever writer
his point.

Now sir, how come you write to me on such sudden and spurious conditions? I
am not native of such a tribe to admit this curious question without
response. It is not of poetry you write, yet here below is ancient and
translated poesy to answer, but some matter of who asks whom and in what
spirit they engage.

Will you not remember your vast hardiness
O Souls

Cordially, Phil Innes

-- Anonymous