Larry Parr reported (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
that GM Keene wrote:
Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ...
_
I wrote (25 Jan 2006 10:04:33 -0800):
Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone else back
this up with a quote from a verifiable source?
_
Larry Parr reported (25 Jan 2006 17:28:36 -0800)
that GM Keene wrote:
winter clearly impugned authorship in chess notes
_
I wrote (25 Jan 2006 22:42:40 -0800):
A much more vague claim
_
Phil Innes reported (Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:54:46 GMT)
that GM Keene wrote:
I HAVE FOUND THE ORIGINAL WINTER QUOTES
RE THE AUTHORSHIP OF BCO
_
chess magazine volume 49
_
letter from ed winter signed "edward winter geneva"
_
here are some choice extracts re bco:
_
having questioned "the exact role of kasparov in the
whole business--"
_
in an earlier communication-winter refers to:
_
"my doubts about whether kasparov had been
sufficiently involved in bco to merit one of the
two author credits"
_
and
_
"batsfords exaggerated use of a name is not
limited to bco"
_
I wrote (27 Apr 2006 22:33:03 -0700):
Does GM Keene contend that these quotes can
be fairly described as a "claim" "that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted"?
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:29:36 GMT):
Does Louis Blair intend to define his own terms?
_
I wrote (28 Apr 2006 13:29:41 -0700):
"If Phil Innes has trouble with ordinary words
in English he should consult a dictionary."
- Louis Blair (14 Mar 2006 12:25:52 -0800)
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:29:36 GMT):
Why does Louis Blair require someone else to
parse [the Edward Winter quotes] for him?
_
I wrote (28 Apr 2006 13:29:41 -0700):
I am not asking anyone to do any parsing in this
discussion.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:57:40 GMT):

I wonder what parsing is, if not to fairly describe one's
comprehension of?

_
According to a handy (admittedly cheap) dictionary,
to parse means "to describe the grammatical function
of each word in a sentence." I have not asked anyone
to describe the grammatical function of each word in
a sentence.

jr wrote (28 Apr 2006 17:14:28 -0700):

My most notable disagreement with Parr was in a
thread "Open Letter to the Editor" where on March
31, 2006, I noted that Parr's argument was
preposterous:
_
* He was obliged -- no strike that, absolutely required
as a matter of honor -- to contact Mr. Kingston before
using the man's initial letter of praise." -- Larry Parr,
August 2001*
_
Is Parr seriously suggesting that every time someone
quotes from a letter to the editor that person is obliged
to contact the one who wrote the letter and obtain
permission before using it?
_
Preposterous.
_
You don't need permission to quote material that's in
the public domain.

_
In his attempt to document disagreement with Larry
Parr, jr fails to mention that Larry Parr had ALREADY
decided that he himself disagreed with his former
position:
_
"I wrongly took my friend to task for quoting
from Mr. Kingston's letter, which is on the
public record in letters to the editor of Chess
Life, but I have since learned many more facts
and hereby tender an apology to GM Evans."
- Larry Parr (30 Apr 2005 15:04:50 -0700)

Good catch!

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
jr wrote (28 Apr 2006 17:14:28 -0700):

My most notable disagreement with Parr was in a
thread "Open Letter to the Editor" where on March
31, 2006, I noted that Parr's argument was
preposterous:
_
* He was obliged -- no strike that, absolutely required
as a matter of honor -- to contact Mr. Kingston before
using the man's initial letter of praise." -- Larry Parr,
August 2001*
_
Is Parr seriously suggesting that every time someone
quotes from a letter to the editor that person is obliged
to contact the one who wrote the letter and obtain
permission before using it?
_
Preposterous.
_
You don't need permission to quote material that's in
the public domain.

_
In his attempt to document disagreement with Larry
Parr, jr fails to mention that Larry Parr had ALREADY
decided that he himself disagreed with his former
position:
_
"I wrongly took my friend to task for quoting
from Mr. Kingston's letter, which is on the
public record in letters to the editor of Chess
Life, but I have since learned many more facts
and hereby tender an apology to GM Evans."
- Larry Parr (30 Apr 2005 15:04:50 -0700)

TIME FOR AN UPGRADE

"help bot" wrote in message
ps.com...

Parrots don't technically "agree"; they mimick.


"And in addition, would not an anonymous Larry Parr flunkie
be considered graceless?"


There is no such word as "flunkie".

Both flunkie and flunky are acceptable in scrabble ... so yes, they
are words.

But even if there were, it would
be unfair to compare a mindless parrot like jr with a human lackey,
because a human is responsible for his flunkyism, while a parrot is...
well, just a mindless bird.


jr has told his/her own set of lies ... lies that lacked the sophistication
of Parr's ... that were easily uncovered. So again I disagree ... jr has
his/her own mind and is much more than a mimic or a PARRot.

You need an upgrade. When is helpbot 2.0 coming out?

_
"Louis Blair ... does not care one wit [sic] about
the USCF." - SayNoTog4 (Sun, 15 Jan 2006
20:46:55 -0500)


That should be whit, not wit. But be as it may, after I made that remark,
Louis Blair has expressed his own opinions about the USCF ... thus, I am
convinced for now that he does care about the USCF.

Louis Blair wrote:
Larry Parr wrote (28 Apr 2006 19:32:39 -0700):

Phil Innes and I have had some titanic battles,
in truth.

_
Larry Parr does not say anything about when the last
"titanic battle" was. Here is one that I remember.
However, Larry Parr was not aware, at the time, that
he was battling with Phil Innes. When Larry Parr did
become aware of this, somehow the battle became
considerably less "titanic".
_
"... Gilbert and Sullivan! (two English twits,
no longer celebrated in any actual
performance) ..." - Phil Innes
(Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:21:28 -0500)
_
_
"Astonishing. Their light operas are the most
performed musical pieces in the world today.
They are easily the most performed of all time
-- by an enormous margin.
_
Decent schools routinely put on G & S musicals.
My favorites are H. M. S. Pinafore and The Mikado
and maybe The Gondoliers.
_
The sheer malevolent stupidity of The Historian's
claim, which one prays that he knows to be
untrue, can only mean that Phil Innes has once
again incommoded the man's intellectual amour
propre. There is simply no other explanation
unless we posit a lack of reading by the man
beyond what we had hitherto imagined." - Larry
Parr (10 Oct 2002 03:08:46 GMT)
_
_
"What can one make of Larry Parr's inept
reading of a newsgroup post, one in which
he attributes to me remarks posted and
written by the Cornish Hen?" - Neil Brennen
(10 Oct 2002 04:19:05 -0700)
_
_
"I have finally seen the original posting in
which Phil Innes made the claim about
Gilbert and Sullivan that I mistakenly
attributed to Neil Brennen, a.k.a. The
Historian.
_
I was 100 percent wrong.
_
I apologize to Mr. Brennen.
_
Mr. Innes and I will have to agree to
disagree of G &S. Which should be
easy to do, given that we agree on so
many other cultural questions."
- Larry Parr (15 Oct 2002 08:05:24 GMT)

I wonder if our Malaysian Savoyard agrees with Mr. Innes on the
following dubious statements:

"[W. S. Gilbert] was almostly certainly gay, get over it."

And

"A penchant for dressing up men~as~women on the stage?"

The first is but another example of Innes' fixation on homosexuality -
the Nearly an IM goes from "merely a possibility" of Gilbert being gay
to "almost certainly" in a matter of minutes. His second statement is
an outright falsehood, since aside from Princess Ida there is no male
crossdressing in the G and S canon. As I wrote:

"He took the idea from his source, The Princess by
Tennyson. I would hardly call that a "penchant". And even in this one
instance, the cross-dressing is remarkably unsexual - the female
clothing Hilarion and his friends wear are university gowns, and
there's no attraction by the female students to the men until "the
truth is found".