On Nov 24, 6:03 pm, The Historian wrote:
And
remember, I
have the e-mail which you and Tapper do not recall.

Actually, it's the email that NO ONE recalls.

Is this your request I publish it?

It's not mine to grant or deny. I'm not the alleged author.

What would happen if I did?

The mountains would heave and bring forth a silly little mouse.

What

consequence to you and Tapper and Kingston?

About as much a consequence as if you have published one of those
'please help me' emails that ask to use my bank account to hold funds
for the Nigerian government. You would prove I have an email address.
Don't expect the world to be shocked, Philsy.

I believe I have come across the email Philsy has been braying about
for days. Here it is:

Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and Winter,

I AM A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE FEDERAL GOVT OF NIGERIA.
I WAS RECENTLY ELECTED A SENATOR AND HAVE BEEN MANDATED BY SOME SENIOR
GOVT OFFICIALS TO ARRANGE AND NEGOTIATE FOR A TRUSTED FORIEGN FIRM OR
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT TO ASSIST IN THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SOME OF MONEY
DERIVED FROM THE OVERINVOICING OF A CONTRACT PERFORMED IN 1998. THE
CONTRACT WAS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ABUJA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CONTROL TOWERS, CONSTRUCTION OF RUNWAY AND LANDING FACILITIES ETC ETC.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ORIGINAL VALUE OF THESE CONTRACTS WERE
PURPOSELY OVERINVOICED BY US DURING THE TENDER PERIOD. THE TOTAL MONEY
TO BE TRANSFERED IS USD36 MILLION DOLLARS. WE HAVE MADE THE NECCESARY
ARRANGEMENTS AND ALL WE NEED IS A RELIABLE FORIEGN ACCOUNT TO HELP US
TRANSFER THIS SUM BECAUSE AS CIVIL SERVANTS, WE CANNOT HOLD FORIEGN
ACCOUNTS ABROAD. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE AGREED TO GIVE YOU 30% OF THIS SUM
FOR YOUR ASSSISTANCE, WHILE 10% WILL BE SET ASIDE TO REIMBURSE ANY
EXPENSES INCURRED BY EITHER OF US DURING THE PERIOD OF TRANSFER, WHILE
WE WILL KEEP 60% FOR US. ALL MODALITIES HAVE BEEN EFFICIENTLY AND
SECRETLY WORKED OUT WITH THE TOP OFFICIALS OF THE FEDERAL MINISTRY OF
FINANCE IN NIGERIA, AND THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA. TO FACILITATE THE
REMMITTANCE OF THIS AMOUNT INTO YOUR ACCOUNT WITHIN 14 WORKING DAYS OF
RECIEVING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM YOU:

THE NAME, ADDRESS, TELEX, TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS OF YOUR BANK, YOUR
BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER, YOUR COMPANY'S NAME, YOUR PERSONAL PHONE AND FAX
NUMBER.

I ALSO LOOK FORWARD TO DOING OTHER BUSINESSES WITH YOU INCLUDING OIL
AND PETROLEUM AS SOON AS WE COMPLETE THIS TRANSACTION. PLEASE SEND ME
AN EMAIL OR CALL ME ON 234 1 2672749
SINCERELY
DR TONY IDRIS

On Nov 24, 7:26 pm, The Historian wrote:

I disagree with you on the matter of Phil's pain over my weight loss,
for indeed it is pain Mr. Innes shows in his postings. He's referred
to my appearance often enough to prove it has some importance to him.
But enough of this. It's 40 degrees out, the sun is shining, and I
have miles of bike riding to get in before nightfall. (Take that,
Philsy!)

A nippy 24 miles this afternoon. I stopped at my bike shop halfway and
had tea (English Breakfast, one lump of sugar) with the owner. She's
installed a flat screen TV on one wall of the store to show cycling
DVDs during store hours. From there it was to my gym for some upper
body lifting, and then home. I may need to stop wearing my Specialized
MTB shoes during winter - my feet were far too cold. I think I'll wear
my hiking boots on tomorrow's ride.

Some useful advice: you needn't discard all those old
XXXXL shirts and buy a new wardrobe, if you take after
the Terminator and replace lost fat with absurd quantities
of upper body muscle. But be forewarned -- you may not
be able to scratch your own back, due to becoming what
they call being muscle-bound. Just take those old
cotton tees, soak one in warm or hot water, put it on and
wear until dry; the biceps may rip, but otherwise it will
shrink-to-fit. Old jackets which were swollen at the
bottom (i.e. belly) may now be worn upside down, if the
sleeves are relocated. The opening for the waist should
now accommodate your super-muscular neck. A word
of warning: when pulling sturdy-looking leather shoelaces
tight, they will now snap like peas; better to go with
steel cable (Ahhhnold, in his prime, used titanium).


-- help bot

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 4:43 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

Mr. Kingston had a previous publisher?

Yes he had a previous publisher!

Wow, previous to when? What publisher is this? What of mine did he
publish? If he owes me royalties, I wanna find out!

Is this a denial of having a publisher, in Kinstonese?

And remember, I
have the e-mail which you and Tapper do not recall.

Yes, you alone, Phil, of all the alleged addressees (not to mention
the alleged author!), you alone seem to "remember" this mysterious e-
mail.

i do not 'remember' nor seem to, I have them!

Tell you what -- how about you refresh my memory? Send this
"Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and
Winter" e-mail to me -- you know the address.

NO! I already did this - instead I think I'll publish the whole lot here! I
am sick of you duplitious posturing in public at other's expense, and to
adopt an old-fshioned term, you are a cad!

Your idiotic requests have ALREDY been granted, right? since the last time
you came to this I returned your e-mails to you, but you were silent about
them? Shall I mention those too?

If it's genuine, I'll
remember it.

That's it, "remember". LOL

If it's not mine, we'll know you either made it up, or
are badly confused (neither would be a surprise).

You are a ****e of a man. You do not deserve further personal context, so
because of your vast arrogance and deceit I will not pretend I am dealing
with anyone who would be surprised if they dealt with the very devil.

You had your chance Kingston, now let whatever may be, be!

And if you refuse to send it to me, we'll know you're just blowing
hot air to conceal your transparent dishonesty and/or lunacy.

Your conditions are insensible ones, as usual. How about I publish them and
then YOU PROVE you did not send them? By all means utilise a lawyer to do so
)))

All I ever wanted you to do is join the human race. But your continuous
****ing over of other people is insufferable.

Time to take your lumps California boy! When it is all over, consider that
it builds character, and that you very much need!

Phil Innes

On Nov 24, 7:59 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...

On Nov 24, 4:43 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

Mr. Kingston had a previous publisher?

Yes he had a previous publisher!

Wow, previous to when? What publisher is this? What of mine did he
publish? If he owes me royalties, I wanna find out!

Is this a denial of having a publisher, in Kinstonese?

Heck, no! I want *_everyone_* to know I have a publisher, so they'll
buy my book:

http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?PID=256

Tell you what -- how about you refresh my memory? Send this
"Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and
Winter" e-mail to me -- you know the address.

NO! I already did this -

Nope, never got it, Phil. Try again.

instead I think I'll publish the whole lot here!

To paraphrase what John Wayne said to Robert Duvall in "True Grit":
You do what you think best, Phil.

I am sick of you duplitious posturing in public at other's expense, and to
adopt an old-fshioned term, you are a cad!

Whew! At leat you didn't tell everyone that I'm Irish!

You are a ****e of a man. You do not deserve further personal context,

Context is something that is deserved?

so
because of your vast arrogance and deceit I will not pretend I am dealing
with anyone who would be surprised if they dealt with the very devil.

You had your chance Kingston, now let whatever may be, be!

Damn, guess I'd better make out my will. Life is hard.

And if you refuse to send it to me, we'll know you're just blowing
hot air to conceal your transparent dishonesty and/or lunacy.

Your conditions are insensible ones, as usual. How about I publish them and
then YOU PROVE you did not send them?

By the same token, Phil, prove you did not:

a) mastermind the 9/11 attacks
b) assassinate RFK and MLK
c) do that wicked thing to that little girl
d) eat that poor little bear's porridge

All I ever wanted you to do is join the human race. But your continuous
****ing over of other people is insufferable.

You mean continual. Learn to speak English, Phil. Or even Andean
would be an improvement for you.

Time to take your lumps California boy! When it is all over, consider that
it builds character, and that you very much need!

Biff! Pow!

On Nov 24, 9:15 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Mr. Kingston had a previous publisher?

Ridiculous; as "Beating nearly-IMs in Chess" is his
first and only work. I should mention that either the
spelling on the spine ("Bleating nearly-IMs...") is wrong,
or else the cover is, unless... it's about someone we
know. You realize what this means-- a pan by EW for
a spelling malfunction.


http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?PID=256

The description implies you have brought together
much of Larry Evans' recent work -- excellent!


I am sick of you duplitious posturing in public

I think it is spelled diplodocus -- nearly as long as
IM Innes (who claims to measure three kilometers,
but that is probably a slight exaggeration), though
with four legs it is not nearly as tall.


And if you refuse to send it to me, we'll know you're just blowing
hot air to conceal your transparent dishonesty and/or lunacy.

Sharp. One does not exclude the other -- especially
in the nearly-an-IM's case.


By the same token, Phil, prove you did not:

a) mastermind the 9/11 attacks

Those attacks were well-coordinated, so we may
eliminate IM Innes as a serious suspect.


b) assassinate RFK and MLK

Those shots hit their targets, so we may safely
assume the shooter could not have been PI.


c) do that wicked thing to that little girl

This seems more his speed. PI may have lowered
the spider beside her, as she ate her curds and whey.


d) eat that poor little bear's porridge

And this. Wait-- would PI have had the courage
to go into the bears' house, /even in their absence/?
I think not. Besides, the burden of proof is on the
bears.


-- help bot

On Nov 24, 10:09 pm, help bot wrote:

By the same token, Phil, prove you did not:

a) mastermind the 9/11 attacks

Those attacks were well-coordinated, so we may
eliminate IM Innes as a serious suspect.

Besides, the FBI wouldn't take his calls if they thought he was
involved in 9/11. They take his calls; they don't take them
seriously.

b) assassinate RFK and MLK

Those shots hit their targets, so we may safely
assume the shooter could not have been PI.

Besides, it would have involved effort, and we know Innes is all about
indolence.

c) do that wicked thing to that little girl

This seems more his speed. PI may have lowered
the spider beside her, as she ate her curds and whey.

Wouldn't that have meant Philsy actually DID something? Couldn't be.

d) eat that poor little bear's porridge

And this. Wait-- would PI have had the courage
to go into the bears' house, /even in their absence/?
I think not. Besides, the burden of proof is on the
bears.

MORAL COURAGE (Cont'd)

I only write under my own name, which I us[u]ally, invariably, sign with my
name or intitials, and have never, at any time whatsoever written
under
another name, nor pseudonymously, nor as any anon. -- Phil Innes

Dear Rev. Walker,

Phil Innes writes using his name. He does not
hide behind false names. Neither do I.

When asked if he ever posted entries in praise of his
own arguments under bogus names such as Xylothist
or Paulie Graf, Mr. Kingston falls silent. He never
answers and never will because he isn't proud of it.

Some others we deal with make it a habit to
employ false monickers to add extra voices. Taylor
Kingston is notorious, of course. Another voice you have
heard here is Larry Tapper. I call him the Tapperman
because that is what he does. He taps gingerly around
different issues and practices the most astonishing
doublestandards. On one occasion he admitted online
that Kingston raising his rating by 500 points was far
from that man's most shining moment. I used his
precise quotation a few times, and soon thereafter
he began pounding out another tune.

Help bot is a chap named Greg Kennedy. His ploy is to
repeat back what I have written earlier, reversing meaning,
twisting words, and surely you have noticed that nearly every
one of his postings shows an eerie obsession with GM Evans.

Greg (also nomorechess) cannot admit his identity at this late
stage because after twigging pretty easily to his person,
I offered him a chance to come clean. He refused.

Yes, the situation is ludicrous.

I am back from Singapore and soon will address a
couple of questions. You may wonder why this writer
and others did not respond to attacks at ChessCafe in 2001
when GM Evans was falsely accused by Edward Winter, whose
books were published by Hanon Russell, who runs ChessCafe.
Apparently they both have since had some sort of falling out.

FOR THE RECORD, we did respond but several answers were
quashed. I will post for you several long essays in which I
examined how the censored ChessCafe bulletin board
suppressed defenses of Larry Evans and Ray Keene. I will
also post a long exchange that I had with IM John Watson in
the pages of Kingpin, an English rag, and you may judge for
yourself whether the behavior of its editor Jonathan Manley,
who published Winter's column regularly in those days,
meets your standards.

I tell you directly: in his responses to you, Kingston told
several lies, including trying to explain his unwillingness to
work our mutual way through some entries on subjects Soviet
in the first edition of the Oxford Companion to Chess. And I will
tell you: the review I wrote of that volume is possibly the root of
the intellectual skunk cabbage that grew. I wrote it in an obviously
ATTENUATED sense as, say, Kaiser Wilhelm's failure to renew
Bismarck's pact with Russia was the attenuated cause of World
War I, though certainly neither the proximate nor immediate cause.

You will be reading a great deal over the next few days as past
materials are posted here. You will notice a lot of silence to key
questions from Kingston because he lacks the moral courage to
cross Edward Winter, a sworn enemy of Evans, Keene, Kasparov,
and many other top players.

Kingston will not discuss the Oxford Companion entries because
he cannot defend, say, the article on Gulko or several other such
such pieces, and he knows that he lacks the intellectual background
to dispute these details. The Companion first edition even suppressed
the fact that GM Lev Alburt was a defector from the USSR.

Yours, Larry Parr




J.D. Walker wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"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

I had no ulterior motives. I encountered that piece of writing. It
reminded me of you. I thought that if you had written it, that it might
help explain why the term 'ratpack' was so frequently encountered here.
And that you might have more insights to offer.

You have explained your policy on anonymous writing. That is fine.
Then you proceeded to discuss the piece of writing. I found your
responses very interesting.

As for any challenges, I am not sure what you mean. Nevertheless, my
counselor, Sir Tryptophan, has advised me to take a nap rather than to
frolic in verbal confrontations.
--

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

On Nov 24, 10:40 pm, " wrote:

You will be reading a great deal over the next few days as past
materials are posted here. You will notice a lot of silence to key
questions from Kingston because he lacks the moral courage to
cross Edward Winter, a sworn enemy of Evans, Keene, Kasparov,
and many other top players.

Mr. Winter does indeed exhibit a nasty attitude toward
such writers (not players -- no man has yet misspelled
a word while shuffling wooden men), for to him they can
only mean one thing: heavy work in correcting the
inevitable *multitude of errors*. One gathers that Mr.
Winter is lazy; or at the least, he does not relish his
work.

Obsessive compulsive disorder: that's the technical
term for someone who sifts through a longish work
/searching for/ some tiny misspelling or date with two
digits in the wrong order to report having found them,
as though having discovered a gold mine or important
historical artifact. Even while in the middle of debunking
some random lies by the evil Keene/Kasparov clan, EW
feels /compelled/ to stop and note a teensy off-by-one-
day date error -- as if that held the very same weight!


Kingston will not discuss the Oxford Companion entries because
he cannot defend, say, the article on Gulko or several other such
such pieces, and he knows that he lacks the intellectual background
to dispute these details.

Wouldn't it make more sense to take up such quibbles
as these with the authors themselves? In what way is
Mr. Kingston responsible for the sins of others? Is he
perhaps a distant relative, or maybe a distributor of the
book? Perhaps LP is confused as to the authors'
identities, having divined them using his patented
"syntax analysis" technique?


The Companion first edition even suppressed
the fact that GM Lev Alburt was a defector from the USSR.

In view of LP's longstanding record of self-delusion,
I think it wise to first determine if LA had in fact
defected at the time of that volume's first publication.
If so, then we may proceed normally.

For the record, my paperback version has *very
brief* entries for such players as LA, wasting space
by telling us his middle name, but certainly not
affording much in the way of any details on his life.
The term chosen for GM Alburt's relocation?
Emigration.
My guess is the real affront is the brevity of his
entry; perhaps Mr. Bogolubov or some other also-
ran got a half-page?


LP has a very brief entry, just above PAULSEN...

-------
"from the German /patzen/, to bungle or botch,
with a hint of /patzig/, boastful or impudent."
-------

My mistake; that was a different item than what
I thought. I can't seem to locate the name Parr.



-- help bot

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
news:3338bb45-abc6-46cb-b3e8-
Tell you what -- how about you refresh my memory? Send this
"Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and
Winter" e-mail to me -- you know the address.

NO! I already did this -

Nope, never got it, Phil. Try again.

Since I retruned 2 or your e-mails to you at your private request, which did
not bounce, but which you now say never got - I think the most secure place
to send them next is here in this newsgroup, since things always show up -
maybe the messages I sent got frozen, brittle and broke on the way north?

it did actually climb to a balmy 34 degrees here yesterday

instead I think I'll publish the whole lot here!

To paraphrase what John Wayne said to Robert Duvall in "True Grit":
You do what you think best, Phil.

To paraphrase no one at all, I will if I choose, since you care to deny that
you wrote in private with a condition of confidentaility, then publicly
accuse those you placed in restraint of your confidence of lying about the
self-same condition!

You do the same with Laurie?

I am sick of you duplitious posturing in public at other's expense, and
to
adopt an old-fshioned term, you are a cad!

Whew! At leat you didn't tell everyone that I'm Irish!

You are a ****e of a man. You do not deserve further personal context,

Context is something that is deserved?

Yes. It means that your understanding and memory are subject to your will,
not any sense of honor in reporting the truth, as such.

While you do not seem to have added anything at all to the subject of Soviet
coercian or Keres Botvinnik, you DO seem to have made lots of noise on the
scene for some 10 years - and this noise covers those who have written most
on Soviet chess era.

Why you do that is mighty peculiar. The only direct opportunity you had to
find out for youself seems to have been with Averbahk, especially since you
had asked me about him, and i gave you 2 references that indicated low
confidence that he would speak true about coercian and repression.

And then you didn't even raise the question during the interview!

If I add that significant ommission to your public behavior in oppressing
those who have written on Soviet era stuff,

plus wads of e-mails on exactly the same subject which you are currently
'not recalling',

plus the just as evidently strange denials and evasions to Larry Parr over
the Oxford entries,

then I think that there is a decided and active prejudice at work.

That is my context.

Phil Innes

On Nov 25, 7:24 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

news:3338bb45-abc6-46cb-b3e8-

Tell you what -- how about you refresh my memory? Send this
"Dear Messrs. Blair, Brennen, Hanke, Innes, Manley, Tapper, and
Winter" e-mail to me -- you know the address.

NO! I already did this -

Nope, never got it, Phil. Try again.

Since I retruned 2 or your e-mails to you at your private request, which did
not bounce, but which you now say never got - I think the most secure place
to send them next is here in this newsgroup, since things always show up -
maybe the messages I sent got frozen, brittle and broke on the way north?

it did actually climb to a balmy 34 degrees here yesterday

instead I think I'll publish the whole lot here!

To paraphrase what John Wayne said to Robert Duvall in "True Grit":
You do what you think best, Phil.

To paraphrase no one at all, I will if I choose,

And you've chosen not to all these years you have been braying about
this alleged email.

since you care to deny that
you wrote in private with a condition of confidentaility,

This must be another of those famous email confidentiality agreements
that you phantasize over. Remember the "think-tank" you sucked people
into in the name of 9/11? The one that turned out to be intended as a
puff for Shahcom?

then publicly
accuse those you placed in restraint of your confidence of lying about the
self-same condition!

You do the same with Laurie?

I am sick of you duplitious posturing in public at other's expense, and
to
adopt an old-fshioned term, you are a cad!

Whew! At leat you didn't tell everyone that I'm Irish!

You are a ****e of a man. You do not deserve further personal context,

Context is something that is deserved?

Yes. It means that your understanding and memory are subject to your will,
not any sense of honor in reporting the truth, as such.

While you do not seem to have added anything at all to the subject of Soviet
coercian or Keres Botvinnik, you DO seem to have made lots of noise on the
scene for some 10 years - and this noise covers those who have written most
on Soviet chess era.

Why you do that is mighty peculiar. The only direct opportunity you had to
find out for youself seems to have been with Averbahk, especially since you
had asked me about him, and i gave you 2 references that indicated low
confidence that he would speak true about coercian and repression.

And then you didn't even raise the question during the interview!

If I add that significant ommission to your public behavior in oppressing
those who have written on Soviet era stuff,

plus wads of e-mails on exactly the same subject which you are currently
'not recalling',

plus the just as evidently strange denials and evasions to Larry Parr over
the Oxford entries,

then I think that there is a decided and active prejudice at work.

That is my context.

Phil Innes

(snipped remaining Innes twaddle)