wrote in message
oups.com...
FINALLY SOMETHING INTELLIGENT

I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
goes on in other countries. Why is there not
more from other countries? -- Louie Blair

Agree. It is a significant problem to identify, and potentially central to
our affairs.

Today on national public radio there was a discussion on national health
care from an MD family practitioner, who asked by phone-in, 'how do they
manage such things in other countries', to which the expert panel knew
nothing.

Although I have said it is central to our affairs, the ironic factor is that
foreign promoters of chess look to US as most media savvy nation on earth,
for a lead.

Phil Innes

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



Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster
them
over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
words...

So, in other words, you actually did not mean it when you condemned
jr's anonymity, and you are indifferent to his mendacity?

In the same words I refer again to Taylor Kingstons obsessional attitude to
personalities, not an approach ot objective fact.

----------

The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that.
Go
and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.

So then, you might comment in a thread devoted specifically to jr's
anonymity and mendacity?

Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is about -
and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.

So your saying it's not OK for me to avoid charges of anonymous
mendacity, but it is OK for jr to avoid them?

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What I
wrote about it was snipped.

Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
or not? Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
"show quoted text" and voila!
Actually I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.

But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit,

Probably for very commonplace reasons, as I wrote earlier. It's only
you and Parr who seem to consider it something clandestine and
sinister. It seems Larry feels compelled continually to claim he is
uncovering malevolent conspiracies. When he doesn't have a real
conspiracy handy, he portrays an ordinary event as an evil omen.

that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?
Phil Innes

I wonder how much better USCF could serve the public if they did not
have to spend so much time dealing with bull from Parr and Innes?

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is
about -
and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.

So your saying it's not OK for me to avoid charges of anonymous
mendacity, but it is OK for jr to avoid them?

Taylor Kingston demonstrates his understanding on ordinary issues - no
wonder he should fall out with those beyond his depth.

I am addressing his own anoymous postings - some of which he retrospectively
admits. But even these ! Even these ! He addrsses to his own posts, as if in
support of them..

menwhile Taylor wants me to put down other anons. ROFlL

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What
I
wrote about it was snipped.

Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
or not?

Only when the address to the topic has been snipped.

Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
"show quoted text" and voila!

And what did you address to the toipic in question?

After awhile these non-issue posts all sem very much the same, and its too
much bother to research and correct people who make no attempt at the
nominal subject. Maybe I was wrong and you did not snip, you were did not
address the subect at all?

I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.

Don't be a smart-arse when you are losing! t=Talk about chess or your
****ing huge ego. Its a choice.

But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit,

Probably for very commonplace reasons, as I wrote earlier. It's only
you and Parr who seem to consider it something clandestine and
sinister. It seems Larry feels compelled continually to claim he is
uncovering malevolent conspiracies. When he doesn't have a real
conspiracy handy, he portrays an ordinary event as an evil omen.

So Taylor thinks this commonplace event should be secret. He does not
object. Pointing out that is secret means that one has 'sinistre' motives.

that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?
Phil Innes

I wonder how much better USCF could serve the public if they did not
have to spend so much time dealing with bull from Parr and Innes?

And attend to Victoria's Secret, al la Taylor Kingston's recommended
analogy - being a change from Hitler and Mussolini analogies [and his native
Californian peyote references - hard to obtain peyote in Vermont, unknown
where L. Parr is].

That's chess politics for you. I wonder who really, wants a column in there,
and so is brown-nosing

Phil Innes

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


Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is
about -
and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.

So your saying it's not OK for me to avoid charges of anonymous
mendacity, but it is OK for jr to avoid them?

Taylor Kingston demonstrates his understanding on ordinary issues - no
wonder he should fall out with those beyond his depth.

I am addressing his own anoymous postings - some of which he retrospectively
admits. But even these ! Even these ! He addrsses to his own posts, as if in
support of them..

menwhile Taylor wants me to put down other anons. ROFlL

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What
I
wrote about it was snipped.

Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
or not?

Only when the address to the topic has been snipped.

Tell us exactly what verbiage of yours I snipped?

Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
"show quoted text" and voila!

And what did you address to the toipic in question?

I said that the topic in question was largely a product of Parr's
imagination, trying to impute sinister motives to quite ordinary,
common actions.

After awhile these non-issue posts all sem very much the same, and its too
much bother to research and correct people who make no attempt at the
nominal subject. Maybe I was wrong and you did not snip,

You mean you went and charged me with snipping, perhaps the most
rank, heinous offense of all, without even bothering to see if I
actually did? What a guy.

you were did not
address the subect at all?

I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.

Don't be a smart-arse when you are losing!

I'd say the only things being lost here are your temper and
reputation, Phil.

t=Talk about chess or your
****ing huge ego. Its a choice.

I prefer chess. My ego is actually not a very big topic.

But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit,

Probably for very commonplace reasons, as I wrote earlier. It's only
you and Parr who seem to consider it something clandestine and
sinister. It seems Larry feels compelled continually to claim he is
uncovering malevolent conspiracies. When he doesn't have a real
conspiracy handy, he portrays an ordinary event as an evil omen.

So Taylor thinks this commonplace event should be secret. He does not
object. Pointing out that is secret means that one has 'sinistre' motives.

I don't think it has even been established that it is "secret." All
we have seen in this thread is that Lucas did not discuss it in detail
with Keene. I see nothing sinister in that, but Parr insists it is.
Frankly, the idea of involving all and sundry in matters requiring
expertise sounds to me like a recipe for a mess -- too many cooks etc.


that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?
Phil Innes

I wonder how much better USCF could serve the public if they did not
have to spend so much time dealing with bull from Parr and Innes?

And attend to Victoria's Secret, al la Taylor Kingston's recommended
analogy - being a change from Hitler and Mussolini analogies [and his native
Californian peyote references - hard to obtain peyote in Vermont, unknown
where L. Parr is].

That's chess politics for you. I wonder who really, wants a column in there,
and so is brown-nosing

Ah, so now Phil comes out with what he believes is *my* sinister
motive! (amused chuckle) I want a Chess Life column?? Sorry to
disappoint you, Phil, but my reaction to that idea is rather like W.T.
Sherman's when he was approached about running for President: "I will
not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected."

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

I am addressing his own anoymous postings - some of which he
retrospectively
admits. But even these ! Even these ! He addrsses to his own posts, as if
in
support of them..

menwhile Taylor wants me to put down other anons. ROFlL

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message.
What
I
wrote about it was snipped.

Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
or not?

Only when the address to the topic has been snipped.

Tell us exactly what verbiage of yours I snipped?

tell us what you think on topic. You are very resistant to talking on topic
instead of whatever the hell you do, its too boring to research!

Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
"show quoted text" and voila!

And what did you address to the toipic in question?

And the topic is, yet again, typographic design is a secret, according to
Taylor Kingston - or maybe its a columnist design which is a secret -
whichever, why is it a secret?

ROFL!! Why should anyone make a secret of something that nobody buys?
ChessLife is not ont he newsstands, and you get it with a membership. What
is the result of secrecy, except to avert attention from what you have done
until after its too late to do anything about it?

I said that the topic in question was largely a product of Parr's
imagination, trying to impute sinister motives to quite ordinary,
common actions.

i don't think firing of 3 GMs is anybody'd "imagination", and hardly common,
in either sense of the word.

After awhile these non-issue posts all sem very much the same, and its
too
much bother to research and correct people who make no attempt at the
nominal subject. Maybe I was wrong and you did not snip,

You mean you went and charged me with snipping, perhaps the most
rank, heinous offense of all, without even bothering to see if I
actually did? What a guy.

you mean you can't bother to look up if you were addressing a topic, don't
deny you did, but still demanded other people do research on their response
to your off-topic material ? what not a guy!

you were did not
address the subect at all?

I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.

so far no content. is this how evans felt?

Don't be a smart-arse when you are losing!

I'd say the only things being lost here are your temper and
reputation, Phil.

**** reputation. topic is lost here, and you go on and on without it, 5
years now, your personality against the Greats.

t=Talk about chess or your
****ing huge ego. Its a choice.

I prefer chess. My ego is actually not a very big topic.

so talk chess. don't talk talking chess, talk chess.

you think firing these people is 'common' to use your own term?

But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit,

Probably for very commonplace reasons, as I wrote earlier. It's only
you and Parr who seem to consider it something clandestine and
sinister. It seems Larry feels compelled continually to claim he is
uncovering malevolent conspiracies. When he doesn't have a real
conspiracy handy, he portrays an ordinary event as an evil omen.

So Taylor thinks this commonplace event should be secret. He does not
object. Pointing out that is secret means that one has 'sinistre'
motives.

I don't think it has even been established that it is "secret." All
we have seen in this thread is that Lucas did not discuss it in detail
with Keene.

In any detail. Or in fact at all.

I was saying to someone the other day that the 3 new columns that USCF are
discussing are the faux marble ones that will go outside the new ChessHut.
They have to be paid for somehow.

I see nothing sinister in that, but Parr insists it is.

Firing people without any market research is not sinister?

Frankly, the idea of involving all and sundry in matters requiring
expertise sounds to me like a recipe for a mess -- too many cooks etc.

There is a bland generalism for you. I suppose it can be generally true as
long as the expertise doesn't relate to chess when the topic is chess.
zzzzzzz


that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?
Phil Innes

I wonder how much better USCF could serve the public if they did not
have to spend so much time dealing with bull from Parr and Innes?

And attend to Victoria's Secret, al la Taylor Kingston's recommended
analogy - being a change from Hitler and Mussolini analogies [and his
native
Californian peyote references - hard to obtain peyote in Vermont, unknown
where L. Parr is].

That's chess politics for you. I wonder who really, wants a column in
there,
and so is brown-nosing

Ah, so now Phil comes out with what he believes is *my* sinister
motive! (amused chuckle)

Better than suggesting you dislike refuseniks. But you haven't disliked
anything substantial in a while.

I want a Chess Life column?? Sorry to
disappoint you, Phil, but my reaction to that idea is rather like W.T.
Sherman's when he was approached about running for President: "I will
not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected."

I would like you to have a column! Maybe take Evans'? Then you can at last
say whatever was on your mind about Keres Botvinnik without being
reactionary, and get it over with. 3 Issues and you'd be out. zzzzzzzzz

People get tired of The Typo Report. Even Winter has discovered that. And
gets successively fired. Meantimes, Evans and Keene have held columns for 20
years apiece [even 27?]

It ain't by luck, Taylor.

Phil Innes

wrote:
Louis Blair wrote:
I, for one, would be glad to see more of what goes on in
other countries. Why is there not more from other countries?

The usual responses (or lack thereof) by the American writers to
posts about chess in 'other countries' (outside the United States)
tend to discourage anyone from writing more about chess in
'other countries'.

I have written some posts about chess in Africa or Asia.
As far as I can recall, the American writers either showed
no interest whatsoever or some American writers began
writing ignorant and sometimes offensive nonsense about
matters relating to Africa or Asia. I suppose that most
Americans really do believe much ignorant and offensive
nonsense (the 'mainstream' US media seems full of it)
about matters relating to Africa or Asia, but not every
reader here is as ignorant as the average American.

I could post about chess from other countries,
but then again, I am distracted.

Crazy chess players on this newsgroup are threatening
to kill people from the other countries (like me.)

"Look, I am a US citizen."
--Marcus Roberts (7 April 2006, in RGCP)

Does Marcus Roberts have multiple citizenship?

We never did much to anyone to deserve this treatment, either.

Were you born outside the United States?
Do you happen not to look like a white European?

Given the evident xenophobia and/or racism of many Americans
who write in RGC*, why should you feel so 'undeserving'?

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE

My advice (which he should feel free not to accept) to
Marcus Roberts would be for him *not* to waste his time
attempting to impress the abusive and dishonest Americans
who dominate rec.games.chess.politics. I suppose
that he *might* 'impress' those Americans by being as
sycophantic as possible, but would that be worth it?

--Nick

Taylor Kingston wrote:

That's chess politics for you. I wonder who really, wants a column in there,
and so is brown-nosing

Ah, so now Phil comes out with what he believes is *my* sinister
motive! (amused chuckle) I want a Chess Life column?? Sorry to
disappoint you, Phil, but my reaction to that idea is rather like W.T.
Sherman's when he was approached about running for President: "I will
not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected."

Taylor, take Philsy's accusation as proof you've won the argument. He's
accused me of angling for a USCF job a number of times, and always
after he's lost the argument.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Don't be a smart-arse when you are losing!

I'd say the only things being lost here are your temper and
reputation, Phil.

Losing his temper is a daily happening for the Nearly an IM from
Vermont. As for losing his reputation, it can only help him. God knows
if I had Innes' reputation I'd want to lose it too.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What I
wrote about it was snipped.

Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
or not? Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
"show quoted text" and voila!
Actually I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.

Nice one, Taylor.

WINTER'S MOUTHPIECE

At least that means fewer inaccurate answers are
given. Evans' CL column and factual accuracy have
something of an inverse relationship. -- Taylor Kingston

Mr. 2300+ Elo is a mouthpiece for the Winterian
party line. The truth is that Edward Winter committed a
higher incidence of error in his attack on GM Evans
than he claimed against GM Evans in the attack! I
catalogued Winter's sloppy misquotations. Minor, yes.
But so were most of the errors alleged against GM
Evans from his massive oeuvre of writing. As for
Taylor Kingston, the man can't get much straight in
his own attacks, having committed several boners here.

Now he tells us that the $50,000 being spent on a massive
redesign of Chess Life and the USCF website, without any open
bidding, is none of our business!

NM Taylor Kingston, the man who claimed to be
2300-+ ELO though having a class A rating, lies again
when he alleges that I find something sinister in Dan
Lucas' short response to Ray Keene.

I found it clear and forthright in its own way:
No change of mind, no willingness to discuss, but
civil and correct.

I broke down the message and suggested what it
meant because, as I noted, I have written such notes
myself on many an occasion and can catch the drift
readily enough.

My conclusion was that it was a model editorial reply.

Mind you, Editor Lucas is making an error and
his note was sadly mistaken, but it was certainly very
far from sinister. I would say that it was correct,
civil, cold and cocky.

And yes, Phil, you are right. NM Taylor Kingston will
not answer whether he posted in praise of himself under
the bogus screen names of Xylothist and Paulie Graf (among others).

That is one of the subjects that he will not
discuss, don't you see. He has these "standards,"
don't you see, and he would be doing something or
other to those "standards" of his, don't you see, were
he to tell us whether he appeared here under false
names to praise himself.

Heh, heh, heh.

Even NM Kingston's supporters are embarrassed
for the man, which our fake NM understands full well.