"jr" wrote in message ups.com...
This is what The Historian posted. Nothing about chess,
just his usual urgly pettiness. Brennen snarls and reverts

This coming from a no-nome who attacked Louis Blair with her
customary "urgly pettiness" in a recent posting while providing zero
chess content.



to type, and his animosity towards Evans and Parr is
sickenly obvious. Now he claims that he didn't call Evans
a hack, just someone who employs a pet hack -- a novel
form of character assassination!



jr's fawning and matriachal stance for the 2 larry's is more nauseating
than a vomiting vulture.




1. Did anyone besides myself notice the irony of g4 (an anon)
attacking jr (another anon)?


I was not attacking you for being an anonymous. I was attacking you
for being an anonymous JERK.

wrote:
LOOK WHO'S TALKING!

If Cerebus will carefully examine the newsgroup record
via Google or some such search engine, he will find that
Blair asks "the same questions again and again" only when
the person asked gives no satifactory answer, or no answer
at all. Notorious repeat offenders would be Parr and Innes, who
virtually never answer "inconvenient" questions. -- Taylor Kingston


From: - view profile
Date: Wed, May 24 2006 6:40 am
Email: "
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc

QUESTIONS KINGSTON WON'T ANSWER

They were posted here on Tuesday, May 23 2006 6:42 pm
Since then NM Kingston has made two postings in this
thread while completely ignoring them.

Now If my name were Louis Blair, I would repeat them
at least 50 more more times in order to create a diversion
in every other unrelated thread. Speaking of the parser, he
demands answers to "questions" while ignoring the ones
I put to him in "Louie's Mental Mush."

Here, once again, are the questions NM Kingston ignores.

PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE

Instead of practicing medicine without a license,
this guy might try addressing the actual issues raised
by Keene and Parr. -- jr

Parr spits out a string of lies, innuendo and
insults like some bar-room loudmouth and his
sock-puppet calls it "raising issues." If Parr could
keep a civil tongue in his head, he might get some
civil answers now and then -- even though he
scarcely gives any himself. -- Taylor Kingston

What can be more civil? We ask Taylor Kingston,
who has described himself as a man with "standards,"
the following questions:

1A: Did you vote as Xylothist in the Evans poll?

1B: Did you post on rgcp as Xylothist in praise
of your own positions and to attack your enemies?

2A: Did you vote as Paulie Graf in the Evans poll?

2B: Did you post Paulie Graf in praise of your own
positions and to attack your enemies?

3A: Did you vote as Niemand in the Evans poll?

3B: Did you post on as Niemand in praise
of your own positions?

We endeavour to be scrupulously fair with NM
Kingston, our self-described 2300+ ELO time bomb
who is actually rated about 1800.

We have stipulated repeatedly that his overall
work as a book reviewer is better than 90% of the stuff
in chess publications. Even NM Kingston's review of the Soltis
volume, which GM Ray Keene has so effectively savaged,
was an earnest, elaborate effort well beyond what most
chess-book reviewers are willing to make.

What we will not do is to pretend that NM
Kingston did not lie through his teeth when claiming
to be a strong chess master.

What we will not do is to let up on the withering
criticism when NM Kingston employs pseudonyms to
praise himself and his own arguments.

We do not consider his character weakness as
consonant with having those "standards" he boasts about.

We hope that NM Kingston will one day own up to
his lies and his impersonations. There might then be
a fresh beginning for the man on this newsgroup.

Larry, if you want the truth, you have to be willing to give the
truth. You are no more in a position to demand the truth than Hitler
was to complain about anti-Semitism. But I'll give you a chance.
Larry, I will be happy to answer your questions once you meet several
conditions, by admitting various lies by you and certain of your allies
that long antedate the Kingpin matter. The questions below have all
been posed to you well before this, some years ago, some many times.
You've been ducking them ever since:

We have stipulated repeatedly that his overall
work as a book reviewer is better than 90% of the stuff
in chess publications. Even NM Kingston's review of the Soltis
volume, which GM Ray Keene has so effectively savaged ...


1. You will admit that your and Keene's "savaging" of that review was
based on nothing but a lie, and you will agree that the various ways
your lie has been proven by Dr. Blair and myself are entirely accurate.
I will list those ways, and you will admit to each.

2. You will acknowledge that your claims of multiple voting in the
recent Chessville poll are completely without basis, and are motivated
by malice, and you will apologize contritely to all whom you accused.

3. Concerning your 2002 claim that "One of the sillier things stated
by Taylor Kingston in a ChessCafe piece was that no one dared to defy
Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp." -- You will admit
that I never wrote any such thing, but that you and Larry Evans both
did. You will admit that it was very silly of you to do this.

4. You will acknowledge the lie "jr" made when he pretended ignorance
of my correspondence with Richard Laurie, and you will reprimand him
for it.

5. Concerning Sam Sloan's 2005 claim that "Taylor Kingston is
involved with USCF Sales and is the perpetrator of the blacklist," you
will admit that Sam was completely wrong, that you were wrong not
reprimand him immediately, and you will reprimand him for it now.

6. You will admit that it was highly misleading to claim that you won
an "international Swiss tournament" in 1970, since the event was merely
a typical local tournament involving no titled players.

Of course, I'm letting you off easy, since this is only a tiny
portion of the many lies you have told here. But life is too short to
deal with them all.
Anyway, as the police captain said in LA Confidential, "Reciprocity
is the basis of any good relationship." You want some truth, you gotta
give some truth.

KINGSTON REPEATS HIMSELF

And I will also give the same answer to Mr. 2300+ Elo that
I gave before, to which he did not reply. Now we can all go
'round the mulberry bush once more.

Keene on Kingpin

From:
Date: Wed, May 24 2006 10:45 pm
Email: "
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc

DECONSTRUCTING KINGSTON

NM Taylor Kingston, our self-proclaimed 2300+
ELO bottle of wine who is actually rated about 1800,
proclaims himself to be a man with "standards."


We sought to test those "standards" by asking
a series of simple questions (in the second person):


Heh, heh, heh. NM Kingston ain't answering these
questions. Instead, he has taken the Fifth Amendment,
while launching a counterattack. That attack amounts
to this: NM Kingston will tell us about what he
himself has done if this writer will talk about what
persons other than I have done!


Further, we get a sense of what he meant by
"standards" when adducing recent events as reasons why
he will not answer questions that have been around for
a longer period. He will not tell us what he was
doing as Xylothist five years back unless we comment
on what jr wrote five weeks back. The man picks
events that occurred AFTER his fake postings as
reasons why he cannot answer questions about what he
himself has done. As for why he could not answer
questons about whether he created a gallery of fake
names to assuage his ego before several of the events
below occurred -- well, our item wrapped in a skin
buttons the old lip-eroo.


Standards indeed!


Here is NM Kingston's counterattack. The
comments in multiple brackets are by me.


[[[[NM KINGSTON ON WHY HE WON'T TELL US WHETHER HE
POSTED UNDER FAKE NAMES IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF]]]]


Kingston: Larry, if you want the truth, you have to be willing
to give the truth. You are no more in a position to demand the
truth than Hitler was to complain about anti-Semitism. But I'll give
you a chance.


Larry, I will be happy to answer your questions once you meet
several conditions, by admitting various lies by you and certain
of your allies that long antedate the Kingpin matter. The questions
below have all been posed to you well before this, some years ago,
some many times. You've been ducking them ever since:


[[[[[NM KINGSTON, QUOTING THIS WRITER, WHO TRIES TO
BE FAIR WHEN DEALING WITH THE MAN]]]]]


We have stipulated repeatedly that his overall work as a
book reviewer is better than 90% of the stuff in chess
publications. Even NM Kingston's review of the Soltis
volume, which GM Ray Keene has so effectively savaged


Kingston: 1. You will admit that your and Keene's "savaging"
of that review was based on nothing but a lie, and you will agree
that the various ways your lie has been proven by Dr. Blair and
myself are entirely accurate. I will list those ways, and you will
admit to each.


[[[[[PARR: Notice, NM Kingston does not believe that
this writer and GM Keene savaged his review of the
Soltis volume. He argues that we cannot know whether
he posted under fake names in praise of himself unless
this writer agrees that Ray and yours truly did not
savage the review.]]]]]


Kingston: 2. You will acknowledge that your claims of multiple
voting in the recent Chessville poll are completely without basis,
and are motivated by malice, and you will apologize contritely to
all whom you accused.


[[[[[PARR: We asked whether NM Kingston voted in the
Evans poll, employing the same monickers that he has
used when pretending to have non-existent supporters
of his positions. His point is that he will not tell us whether
he invented fake names to praise himself unless we withdraw
our questions. His argument amounts to this:


"I, NM Kingston, may create lies such as Xylothist, Paulie Graf,
Niemand and others, but I would never use them to vote"]]]]]


Kingston: 3. Concerning your 2002 claim that "One of the sillier
things stated by Taylor Kingston in a ChessCafe piece was that no
one dared to defy Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp."
-- You will admit that I never wrote any such thing, but that you and
Larry Evans both did. You will admit that it was very silly of you to
do this.


[[[[[PARR: NM Kingston's point is that he will not tell us whether
he invented false names to praise himself -- creating non-existent
supporters to salve his ego -- unless this writer agrees with his
interpretation of how he bungled History 101 when writing a piece
involving chess and Stalin.]]]]]


Kingston: 4. You will acknowledge the lie "jr" made when he
pretended ignorance of my correspondence with Richard Laurie,
and you will reprimand him for it.


[[[[PARR: NM Kingston says that we must take his side in a
recent spat he had with jr. Otherwise, he will not tell us whether
he posted under fake names in praise of himself several years ago!
We learn a lot here about his "standards." As for why he could
not answer questions about his impersonations before jr and he had
the spat -- well, he keeps his oral cavity zipped on that one!]]]]]


Kingston: 5. Concerning Sam Sloan's 2005 claim that "Taylor
Kingston is involved with USCF Sales and is the perpetrator of
the blacklist," you will admit that Sam was completely wrong,
that you were wrong not reprimand him immediately, and you
will reprimand him for it now.


[[[[[PARR: NM Kingston is telling us that he
will not comment about whether under intellectual and
moral pressure, he invented Paulie Graf some five
years back to praise his own arguments unless we take
NM Kingston's side in a relatively recent spat with
Sam. As for why NM Kingston could not answer
questions about whether he invented fake names in
order to feel better himself before his spat with Sam
-- well, our NM maintains a stilled tongue.]]]]]


Kingston: 6. You will admit that it was highly misleading to claim
[[[[[in my book Viktors Pupols: American Master]]]]] that you
won an "international Swiss tournament" in 1970, since the event
was merely a typical local tournament involving no titled players.


[[[[[PARR: NM Kingston says that he will not let us know whether
he invented Niemand to praise himself and his positions unless I
pretend that the phrase "international Swiss tournament" meant the
same thing a quarter century ago that it does today. When I wrote
wrote that phrase, even a book on a Lone Pine tournament by
Jude Acers' volume) did NOT call it an international Swiss. If one
understands the phrase based on what it means today rather than
25 years ago, then I will certainly amend it if the book in question
is ever reprinted.]]]]]


Kingston: Of course, I'm letting you off easy,
since this is only a tiny portion of the many lies
you have told here. But life is too short to deal with
them all. Anyway, as the police captain said in LA
Confidential, "Reciprocity is the basis of any good
relationship." You want some truth, you gotta give some truth.


[[[[[NM Kingston is trying to explain that he cannot tell us whether
he invented several fake names to bolster his ego and to create fake
supporters unless we take his side in spats with others. He's a doozy,
that one.]]]]]

Well, Larry, if I am "taking the Fifth Amendment," it would appear
you are too. My offer to answer your questions is quite sincere, but I
do ask that you meet my conditions. For an habitual liar to insist that
only he may ask the questions is hardly fair.

wrote:
KINGSTON REPEATS HIMSELF

And I will also give the same answer to Mr. 2300+ Elo that
I gave before, to which he did not reply. Now we can all go
'round the mulberry bush once more.

Keene on Kingpin

From:
Date: Wed, May 24 2006 10:45 pm
Email: "
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc

DECONSTRUCTING KINGSTON

NM Taylor Kingston, our self-proclaimed 2300+
ELO bottle of wine who is actually rated about 1800,
proclaims himself to be a man with "standards."


We sought to test those "standards" by asking
a series of simple questions (in the second person):


Heh, heh, heh. NM Kingston ain't answering these
questions. Instead, he has taken the Fifth Amendment,
while launching a counterattack. That attack amounts
to this: NM Kingston will tell us about what he
himself has done if this writer will talk about what
persons other than I have done!


Further, we get a sense of what he meant by
"standards" when adducing recent events as reasons why
he will not answer questions that have been around for
a longer period. He will not tell us what he was
doing as Xylothist five years back unless we comment
on what jr wrote five weeks back. The man picks
events that occurred AFTER his fake postings as
reasons why he cannot answer questions about what he
himself has done. As for why he could not answer
questons about whether he created a gallery of fake
names to assuage his ego before several of the events
below occurred -- well, our item wrapped in a skin
buttons the old lip-eroo.


Standards indeed!


Here is NM Kingston's counterattack. The
comments in multiple brackets are by me.


[[[[NM KINGSTON ON WHY HE WON'T TELL US WHETHER HE
POSTED UNDER FAKE NAMES IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF]]]]


Kingston: Larry, if you want the truth, you have to be willing
to give the truth. You are no more in a position to demand the
truth than Hitler was to complain about anti-Semitism. But I'll give
you a chance.


Larry, I will be happy to answer your questions once you meet
several conditions, by admitting various lies by you and certain
of your allies that long antedate the Kingpin matter. The questions
below have all been posed to you well before this, some years ago,
some many times. You've been ducking them ever since:


[[[[[NM KINGSTON, QUOTING THIS WRITER, WHO TRIES TO
BE FAIR WHEN DEALING WITH THE MAN]]]]]

Larry Parr claiming to be fair is like Linda Lovelace claiming to be
a virgin.

We have stipulated repeatedly that his overall work as a
book reviewer is better than 90% of the stuff in chess
publications. Even NM Kingston's review of the Soltis
volume, which GM Ray Keene has so effectively savaged


Kingston: 1. You will admit that your and Keene's "savaging"
of that review was based on nothing but a lie, and you will agree
that the various ways your lie has been proven by Dr. Blair and
myself are entirely accurate. I will list those ways, and you will
admit to each.


[[[[[PARR: Notice, NM Kingston does not believe that
this writer and GM Keene savaged his review of the
Soltis volume. He argues that we cannot know whether
he posted under fake names in praise of himself unless
this writer agrees that Ray and yours truly did not
savage the review.]]]]]


Kingston: 2. You will acknowledge that your claims of multiple
voting in the recent Chessville poll are completely without basis,
and are motivated by malice, and you will apologize contritely to
all whom you accused.


[[[[[PARR: We asked whether NM Kingston voted in the
Evans poll, employing the same monickers that he has
used when pretending to have non-existent supporters
of his positions. His point is that he will not tell us whether
he invented fake names to praise himself unless we withdraw
our questions. His argument amounts to this:


"I, NM Kingston, may create lies such as Xylothist, Paulie Graf,
Niemand and others, but I would never use them to vote"]]]]]


Kingston: 3. Concerning your 2002 claim that "One of the sillier
things stated by Taylor Kingston in a ChessCafe piece was that no
one dared to defy Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp."
-- You will admit that I never wrote any such thing, but that you and
Larry Evans both did. You will admit that it was very silly of you to
do this.


[[[[[PARR: NM Kingston's point is that he will not tell us whether
he invented false names to praise himself -- creating non-existent
supporters to salve his ego -- unless this writer agrees with his
interpretation of how he bungled History 101 when writing a piece
involving chess and Stalin.]]]]]


Kingston: 4. You will acknowledge the lie "jr" made when he
pretended ignorance of my correspondence with Richard Laurie,
and you will reprimand him for it.


[[[[PARR: NM Kingston says that we must take his side in a
recent spat he had with jr. Otherwise, he will not tell us whether
he posted under fake names in praise of himself several years ago!
We learn a lot here about his "standards." As for why he could
not answer questions about his impersonations before jr and he had
the spat -- well, he keeps his oral cavity zipped on that one!]]]]]


Kingston: 5. Concerning Sam Sloan's 2005 claim that "Taylor
Kingston is involved with USCF Sales and is the perpetrator of
the blacklist," you will admit that Sam was completely wrong,
that you were wrong not reprimand him immediately, and you
will reprimand him for it now.


[[[[[PARR: NM Kingston is telling us that he
will not comment about whether under intellectual and
moral pressure, he invented Paulie Graf some five
years back to praise his own arguments unless we take
NM Kingston's side in a relatively recent spat with
Sam. As for why NM Kingston could not answer
questions about whether he invented fake names in
order to feel better himself before his spat with Sam
-- well, our NM maintains a stilled tongue.]]]]]


Kingston: 6. You will admit that it was highly misleading to claim
[[[[[in my book Viktors Pupols: American Master]]]]] that you
won an "international Swiss tournament" in 1970, since the event
was merely a typical local tournament involving no titled players.


[[[[[PARR: NM Kingston says that he will not let us know whether
he invented Niemand to praise himself and his positions unless I
pretend that the phrase "international Swiss tournament" meant the
same thing a quarter century ago that it does today. When I wrote
wrote that phrase, even a book on a Lone Pine tournament by
Jude Acers' volume) did NOT call it an international Swiss. If one
understands the phrase based on what it means today rather than
25 years ago, then I will certainly amend it if the book in question
is ever reprinted.]]]]]


Kingston: Of course, I'm letting you off easy,
since this is only a tiny portion of the many lies
you have told here. But life is too short to deal with
them all. Anyway, as the police captain said in LA
Confidential, "Reciprocity is the basis of any good
relationship." You want some truth, you gotta give some truth.


[[[[[NM Kingston is trying to explain that he cannot tell us whether
he invented several fake names to bolster his ego and to create fake
supporters unless we take his side in spats with others. He's a doozy,
that one.]]]]]

From: "Louis Blair"
Date: 24 May 2006 17:55:24 -0700

Larry Parr wrote (24 May 2006 06:40:36 -0700):

QUESTIONS KINGSTON WON'T ANSWER
_
They were posted here on Tuesday, May 23 2006 6:42 pm
Since then NM Kingston has made two postings in this
thread while completely ignoring them.
_
Now If my name were Louis Blair, I would repeat them
at least 50 more more times in order to create a diversion
in every other unrelated thread. ...

_
I do not think that the rest of us are obliged to forget
about a subject just because Larry Parr chooses to
avoid it. Indeed, when Larry Parr starts going on about
how much he is "LOVIN' IT", it strikes me as a particularly
good time to remind him about some of the subjects that
he does not seem to love.
_
As for Larry Parr's habits, google finds about 70 of
his notes that mention Xylothist and many more
that contain that 2300 number.

_
Larry Parr wrote (24 May 2006 06:40:36 -0700):

Speaking of the parser, he demands answers to
"questions" while ignoring the ones I put to him in
"Louie's Mental Mush."

_
This is the only question that I can find in Larry Parr's
21 May 2006 22:43:43 -0700 note:
_
"Has Louie's pal Taylor Kingston received
the fax yet from GM Keene?" - Larry Parr
(21 May 2006 22:43:43 -0700)
_
I do not know why Larry Parr would want me to answer
that question, but, if he really desires this, my response
is to refer him to:
_
"yes, Larry, I have seen the errors with my
own eyes." - Taylor Kingston (22 May 2006
09:25:20 -0700)

_
Larry Parr wrote (24 May 2006 06:40:36 -0700):

Here, once again, are the questions NM Kingston ignores.
...
Did [Taylor Kingston] vote as Xylothist in the Evans poll?
...
Did [Taylor Kingston] vote as Paulie Graf in the Evans poll?
...
Did [Taylor Kingston] vote as Niemand in the Evans poll?
...

_
If Larry Parr is going to insist on referring to these as
"questions NM Kingston ignores", it seems to me that
fairness would dictate that Larry Parr should mention:
_
"I voted once -- period -- under my real name,
and did not place any more votes under that
name or any other." - Taylor Kingston
(19 May 2006 09:47:06 -0700)

_
Larry Parr wrote (24 May 2006 06:40:36 -0700):

... Kingston's review of the Soltis volume, which
GM Ray Keene has so effectively savaged ...

_
To me, this so-called effective savaging looks like
a sequence of GM Keene retreats (with no apologies
for previous mistakes).
_
"i found, more or less by random selection, a
review on chess cafe by taylor kingston ... what
i found simply confirms my view that many of
these so called reviewers are simply too weak
as chessplayers to do a proper job.and the
people who employ them dont recognise this
fact-because they lack chess strength as well.
_
one of the games from the soltis book taylor
kingston focussed on was duras v teichmann
ostend 1906 ..., the game which probably
contains the authors worst blunder in the
entire book. and what does the reviewer say
about this? nothing!
_
... of course, its not fair to expect a reviewer
to find all the analytical mistakes in a book,
but when that reviewer decides to concentrate
on a particular game, picks it out by name
and then a) fails to understand that one side
has an overwhelming positional plus and b)
could have utterly refuted the opponents
desperation attack by taking a rook, then
something is wrong somewhere! perhaps
the reviewer just wasnt up to the job."
- GM Keene quote reported by Phil Innes
(Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT)
_
_
"GM Keene [tried] to make a point by indicating
that Taylor Kingston had decided 'to concentrate
on' that 'particular game'. However, an
inspection of the actual review revealed that this
supposed concentration was no more than a brief
reference to the inadequacy of the introductory
material included with the game by Soltis."
- Louis Blair (23 Apr 2006 17:17:04 -0700)
_
_
"Anyone who knows anything real about
chess would know that this Duras rook
sac has been busted for ages."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry Parr
(26 Apr 2006 23:23:33 -0700)
_
_
"Does GM Keene claim that GM Soltis does
not know anything real about chess?"
- Louis Blair (27 Apr 2006 16:42:46 -0700)
_
_
"i think it fair to say that taylor kingstons
review would have been improved had he
pointed out the unsoundness of the rook
sac" - GM Keene quote reported by Phil
Innes (Mon, 08 May 2006 00:37:48 GMT)
_
_
"Unfortunately, GM Keene chose to say
something somewhat different in his
comments reported on Sat, 22 Apr 2006
11:50:08 GMT and on 26 Apr 2006
23:23:33 -0700 (by Phil Innes and Larry
Parr, respectively)." - Louis Blair
(7 May 2006 23:04:19 -0700)
....

Kingston Taylor - I know you do not tell the truth about your activities -
and I can prove it! It's in your e-mails marked 'not for publication.

Reaction to such an accusation is, in any normal psychology, to strenuously
deny false accusation. But you do not! You have only Brennan-like said
'prove it'.

You are not aware that your reactions comprise a significant aspectof such
proof!

Phil Innes



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

Well, Larry, if I am "taking the Fifth Amendment," it would appear
you are too. My offer to answer your questions is quite sincere, but I
do ask that you meet my conditions. For an habitual liar to insist that
only he may ask the questions is hardly fair.

wrote:
KINGSTON REPEATS HIMSELF

And I will also give the same answer to Mr. 2300+ Elo that
I gave before, to which he did not reply. Now we can all go
'round the mulberry bush once more.

Keene on Kingpin

From:
Date: Wed, May 24 2006 10:45 pm
Email: "
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc

DECONSTRUCTING KINGSTON

NM Taylor Kingston, our self-proclaimed 2300+
ELO bottle of wine who is actually rated about 1800,
proclaims himself to be a man with "standards."


We sought to test those "standards" by asking
a series of simple questions (in the second person):


Heh, heh, heh. NM Kingston ain't answering these
questions. Instead, he has taken the Fifth Amendment,
while launching a counterattack. That attack amounts
to this: NM Kingston will tell us about what he
himself has done if this writer will talk about what
persons other than I have done!


Further, we get a sense of what he meant by
"standards" when adducing recent events as reasons why
he will not answer questions that have been around for
a longer period. He will not tell us what he was
doing as Xylothist five years back unless we comment
on what jr wrote five weeks back. The man picks
events that occurred AFTER his fake postings as
reasons why he cannot answer questions about what he
himself has done. As for why he could not answer
questons about whether he created a gallery of fake
names to assuage his ego before several of the events
below occurred -- well, our item wrapped in a skin
buttons the old lip-eroo.


Standards indeed!


Here is NM Kingston's counterattack. The
comments in multiple brackets are by me.


[[[[NM KINGSTON ON WHY HE WON'T TELL US WHETHER HE
POSTED UNDER FAKE NAMES IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF]]]]


Kingston: Larry, if you want the truth, you have to be willing
to give the truth. You are no more in a position to demand the
truth than Hitler was to complain about anti-Semitism. But I'll give
you a chance.


Larry, I will be happy to answer your questions once you meet
several conditions, by admitting various lies by you and certain
of your allies that long antedate the Kingpin matter. The questions
below have all been posed to you well before this, some years ago,
some many times. You've been ducking them ever since:


[[[[[NM KINGSTON, QUOTING THIS WRITER, WHO TRIES TO
BE FAIR WHEN DEALING WITH THE MAN]]]]]

Larry Parr claiming to be fair is like Linda Lovelace claiming to be
a virgin.

We have stipulated repeatedly that his overall work as a
book reviewer is better than 90% of the stuff in chess
publications. Even NM Kingston's review of the Soltis
volume, which GM Ray Keene has so effectively savaged


Kingston: 1. You will admit that your and Keene's "savaging"
of that review was based on nothing but a lie, and you will agree
that the various ways your lie has been proven by Dr. Blair and
myself are entirely accurate. I will list those ways, and you will
admit to each.


[[[[[PARR: Notice, NM Kingston does not believe that
this writer and GM Keene savaged his review of the
Soltis volume. He argues that we cannot know whether
he posted under fake names in praise of himself unless
this writer agrees that Ray and yours truly did not
savage the review.]]]]]


Kingston: 2. You will acknowledge that your claims of multiple
voting in the recent Chessville poll are completely without basis,
and are motivated by malice, and you will apologize contritely to
all whom you accused.


[[[[[PARR: We asked whether NM Kingston voted in the
Evans poll, employing the same monickers that he has
used when pretending to have non-existent supporters
of his positions. His point is that he will not tell us whether
he invented fake names to praise himself unless we withdraw
our questions. His argument amounts to this:


"I, NM Kingston, may create lies such as Xylothist, Paulie Graf,
Niemand and others, but I would never use them to vote"]]]]]


Kingston: 3. Concerning your 2002 claim that "One of the sillier
things stated by Taylor Kingston in a ChessCafe piece was that no
one dared to defy Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp."
-- You will admit that I never wrote any such thing, but that you and
Larry Evans both did. You will admit that it was very silly of you to
do this.


[[[[[PARR: NM Kingston's point is that he will not tell us whether
he invented false names to praise himself -- creating non-existent
supporters to salve his ego -- unless this writer agrees with his
interpretation of how he bungled History 101 when writing a piece
involving chess and Stalin.]]]]]


Kingston: 4. You will acknowledge the lie "jr" made when he
pretended ignorance of my correspondence with Richard Laurie,
and you will reprimand him for it.


[[[[PARR: NM Kingston says that we must take his side in a
recent spat he had with jr. Otherwise, he will not tell us whether
he posted under fake names in praise of himself several years ago!
We learn a lot here about his "standards." As for why he could
not answer questions about his impersonations before jr and he had
the spat -- well, he keeps his oral cavity zipped on that one!]]]]]


Kingston: 5. Concerning Sam Sloan's 2005 claim that "Taylor
Kingston is involved with USCF Sales and is the perpetrator of
the blacklist," you will admit that Sam was completely wrong,
that you were wrong not reprimand him immediately, and you
will reprimand him for it now.


[[[[[PARR: NM Kingston is telling us that he
will not comment about whether under intellectual and
moral pressure, he invented Paulie Graf some five
years back to praise his own arguments unless we take
NM Kingston's side in a relatively recent spat with
Sam. As for why NM Kingston could not answer
questions about whether he invented fake names in
order to feel better himself before his spat with Sam
-- well, our NM maintains a stilled tongue.]]]]]


Kingston: 6. You will admit that it was highly misleading to claim
[[[[[in my book Viktors Pupols: American Master]]]]] that you
won an "international Swiss tournament" in 1970, since the event
was merely a typical local tournament involving no titled players.


[[[[[PARR: NM Kingston says that he will not let us know whether
he invented Niemand to praise himself and his positions unless I
pretend that the phrase "international Swiss tournament" meant the
same thing a quarter century ago that it does today. When I wrote
wrote that phrase, even a book on a Lone Pine tournament by
Jude Acers' volume) did NOT call it an international Swiss. If one
understands the phrase based on what it means today rather than
25 years ago, then I will certainly amend it if the book in question
is ever reprinted.]]]]]


Kingston: Of course, I'm letting you off easy,
since this is only a tiny portion of the many lies
you have told here. But life is too short to deal with
them all. Anyway, as the police captain said in LA
Confidential, "Reciprocity is the basis of any good
relationship." You want some truth, you gotta give some truth.


[[[[[NM Kingston is trying to explain that he cannot tell us whether
he invented several fake names to bolster his ego and to create fake
supporters unless we take his side in spats with others. He's a doozy,
that one.]]]]]

Chess One wrote:
Kingston Taylor - I know you do not tell the truth about your activities -
and I can prove it! It's in your e-mails marked 'not for publication.

Innes Fill -- We know who you are and why you are. My KGB agents have
a complete dossier on you that makes for lamentable reading. The Swiss
authorities do not take kindly to abuse of their banking regulations!
There is also the delicate question of what happened in Weed.

Reaction to such an accusation is, in any normal psychology, to strenuously
deny false accusation.

It is interesting that Innes Fill pretends to have any concept of
"normal psychology."

But you do not! You have only Brennan-like said
'prove it'.

54-40 or Fight! Cthulhu fhtagn!

You are not aware that your reactions comprise a significant aspectof such
proof!

You are not aware of the difference between the gluteal region and
the distal end of a humerus.

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

Well, Larry, if I am "taking the Fifth Amendment," it would appear
you are too. My offer to answer your questions is quite sincere, but I
do ask that you meet my conditions. For an habitual liar to insist that
only he may ask the questions is hardly fair.

"g4" wrote in message ...

"jr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dear Mr. Cerebrus,
If he fails to post the same boilerplate at least 50 times, even
though it has no relevance to the thread in question in order to
top-post Parr, then he has failed in his sacred duty to obfuscate,
snip, and arrange quotations out of context in order to discredit
his "foes." He seldom poses tough questions to his "allies."


The last statement coming from a no-name who has yet to ask tough
questions from her allies. And ditto for larry parr.


You will find life far more pleasant on these forums if
you simply plonk that pathetic loser who has no life apart
from Google.


This coming from a no-name who has often claimed that she plonked
the nutty professor, only to be caught directly answering at least one
of his subsequent posts. jr has been questioned on numerous occasions,
but she has yet to respond with any type of defense.

I quite sympathise with the original sentiment here, which is all but lost -
that this new fella, Cerebrus, is more interested in the issues, the news,
the relevance to chess in our time, than calling anyone else a ****bag,
****pot, &c.

Now, while I might comment on a frequent antagonist, Dr. Blair, I shall not
do so - thus being magnificently off-topic, and proud of it.

Phil Innes

"Jerzy" wrote in message
...
Uzytkownik "jr" napisal w wiadomosci
ups.com...

1. Did anyone besides myself notice the irony of g4 (an anon)
attacking jr (another anon)?

Don`t bother yourself with anonymous cowards who attack others using their
anonymity.

Its a pity about stalkers. But I think its my ego that is the main problem.
I feel that I deserve a more intelligent stalker.

2. It's unethical for Brennen to change the header from "of Mr.
Louis Blair" to of "Mr. Liarry Parr, the hack" merely to vent his
spleen once more against two people who have done more for
chess than anything Brennen will ever accomplish.

I can see that Neil and his supporters are over-zealous at doing such
tricks to attack e.g. Phil or Larry.

Off topic again - sorry Dr. Blair!

Jerzy - you seem like the only chess player here worth playing in a grudge
match since you make solid comments on games, and I recognise the confidence
of a stronger player. But so many others only refer to their magnificence,
and far too much

How unfortunate we do not disagree - or if we do - such as with your
ridiculously optimistic comment on Toppy's last game, neither of us becomes
hysterical about it

How then should we play each other in a grudge match, since we won't dislike
each other for writing about chess? And for example - in chess analysis, I
have no trouble saying - okay you bust my line, yours is better.

Perhaps in a few days a grandmaster will come to the newsgroups and start
engaging people on chess conversations - will people dislike him for it? Is
there, do you think, a resentment of knowledge - and people who disguise the
fact that they cannot contribute because they have very little to say of
which they know at first hand [from personal experience]?

Cordially, Phil

Larry Parr wrote:

THE HEART OF DARKNESS

I consider Blair an asset to this newsgroup. -- g4



jr wrote: Q. How do you know when Larry Parr is telling the truth?


A. Each time someone calls him Liarry.

Q. How do we know when jr is supporting Larry Parr?


A. Each time he posts. -- Wick Deer


My heavens, the Wickster is back, the former
chairman of the USCF Ethics Committee. He arrives,
sticks out his weak intellectual chin, takes a
chopping right, and then subsides.

Considering that Mr. Parr is the first to reply to my post, I am not
sure where this "chopping right" came from, unless Mr. Parr is
referring to his own reply to my post. Mr. Parr has never been short
of self appreciation, but that seems to be a trifle hubristic.

Louie Blair's work consists of conveniently
neglecting to discover quotations of, say, our Taylor
Kingston praising himself and of taking other
quotations right out of context. One of his tricks
is to take ironic or humorous statements as though
they were written seriously.


The Wickster and g4 consider Louie an asset in
their sense, and I think of him as an asset in my
sense. He is evidently aliterate and manages the
e-trick of reflecting his kind of light from the heart
of ratpacker darkness. A feat. I give him that much.

More of the intellectual rigor for which Mr. Parr is justly famed.

Where pray, in the name of God, did I state, or even imply, that I
considered Mr. Blair to be an asset to the newsgroup. My post did not
mention Mr. Blair, nor did the post to which I was responding.

Back in the Halcyon days of yore when I had a kill file, Mr. Blair
resided there.

Really, Larry, when it comes to jumping to conclusions, you use a
rocket powered pogo stick.

Wick