jr wrote (27 May 2006 19:23:03 -0700):

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

_
Jr does not mention the specifics of what g4 wrote.
_
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.d ca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newsh osting.com!newshosting.com!69.28.186.75.MISMATCH!h wmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!fe10.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "g4"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
References: .com
.com
.com
.com
Subject: of Mr Louis Blair...
Lines: 26
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 20:36:49 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.45.44.71
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: fe10.lga 1148776609 24.45.44.71 (Sat, 27 May 2006 17:36:49
MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 17:36:49 MST
Organization: Optimum Online


"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.

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

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 It's in your e-mails marked 'not for publication.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.

Okay Taylor - I'm ready to post your e-mails as response. Then you can deny
them - then we can check the servicer provider's sending codes, dates and
times - okay? I returned you 2 of them but there are at least 20.

Want to start with Laurie? Or Winter? Or the rat-pack messages?

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."

I make no pretensious statement at all and do not mention concepts. It is
hardly even special knowledge - who do you think you are kidding?

You don't deny any of these pseudonyms - that is very peculiar, and as a
detail, quite out of character.

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.

Let me take that as drunkeness.

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.

Larry Parr wrote (28 May 2006 00:48:52 -0700):

Louie Blair's work consists of conveniently neglecting
to discover quotations of, say, our Taylor Kingston
praising himself ...

_
I have never claimed to do any searching for such a thing.
Has Larry Parr asked Sam Sloan about the Holiday Quiz
incident? Has Larry Parr asked any questions about the
Chessville/David Kane incident? Has Larry Parr asked
jr any questions about the plonk/reply incident, the "hack"
incident, or the I-have-read/all-new-to-me incident?

_
Larry Parr wrote (28 May 2006 00:48:52 -0700):

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.

_
A habit of Larry Parr is to make complaints about context
without identifying anything specific that was left out and
should have been included.

_
Larry Parr wrote (28 May 2006 00:48:52 -0700):

... Instead of talking about any of that or the waste of
dues money on a chess retreat, or $50,000 given to a
crony of the board for a redesign without an open bidding
process, however, the ratpackers are obsessed with
such burning issues as whether Edward Winter ever
claimed that Kasparov's name was added to BCO nearly
25 years ago merely to boost sales.

_
Larry Parr neglects to mention that he was the one who
repeatedly chose to call our attention to the the GM Keene
assertion:
_
"[Edward winter] once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings
was ghosted" - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (24 Apr 2005 08:42:58 -0700)
_
Since Larry Parr often quotes GM Keene as an authority,
it seems to me to be of some interest to see whether or
not he should be trusted. Since Larry Parr himself has
chosen to list this item under the heading "EDWARD
WINTER'S TRIPE", it seems to me that the incident is,
to some degree, reflective of Larry Parr's own concern
for evidence supporting a public attack.
_
At this time, I am trying to find out whether or not Larry
Parr agrees that GM Keene has produced a quote or
quotes of Edward Winter that can be fairly described as
claiming that Kasparov's contribution to Batsford Chess
Openings was ghosted. Larry Parr seems to want to
discourage that activity. Why?

Cerebus wrote (27 May 2006 13:22:10 -0700):

I have been reading the contributions of Mr Louis
Blair. He sounds like a recurring decimal asking
the same questions again and again. Then when
he gets the answers he pretends he hasn't had
them and asks for them yet again. Is he short of
conversation or he just likes the look of his own
words, phrased and rephrased?
_
I came to this discussion group to talk about the
future of our game and other important issues. ...

_
If the Aardvark is really sincere about this, why does
he single out me for attack with no specifics? Here
is an example of the sort of thing to which he refers
(although I am not involved except as one who points
out the behavior):
_
"I voted once. Period." - Taylor Kingston
(19 May 2006 06:51:20 -0700)
_
"Yes, I believe Kingston voted once -- under
his real name." - Larry Parr (19 May 2006
09:36:00 -0700)
_
"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)
_
"1A: Did you vote as Xylothist in the Evans poll?
1B: ...
2A: Did you vote as Paulie Graf in the Evans poll?
2B: ...
3A: Did you vote as Niemand in the Evans poll?
3B: ..." - Larry Parr (23 May 2006 18:42:08 -0700)
_
"... Here, once again, are the questions NM Kingston
ignores. ...
1A: Did you vote as Xylothist in the Evans poll?
1B: ...
2A: Did you vote as Paulie Graf in the Evans poll?
2B: ...
3A: Did you vote as Niemand in the Evans poll?
3B: ..." - Larry Parr (24 May 2006 06:40:36 -0700)
_
"From: ...
Date: Wed, May 24 2006 6:40 am
... Here, once again, are the questions NM Kingston
ignores. ...
1A: Did you vote as Xylothist in the Evans poll?
1B: ...
2A: Did you vote as Paulie Graf in the Evans poll?
2B: ...
3A: Did you vote as Niemand in the Evans poll?
3B: ..." - Larry Parr (27 May 2006 16:48:49 -0700)

MR. KINGSTON'S SINCERITY

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. -- Taylor Kingston

NM Taylor Kingston, our self-claimed 2300+
ELO weighted chess piece who is actually rated about
1800, has adopted an interesting ploy.

We have twice posted answers to a series of
questions he asked, and he has twice snipped the
answers, announcing that we have not answered him.

It's a TN -- or at least a TK.

We do not understand the psychology of a Greg
Kennedy (currently our help bot) or an NM Kingston
(Xylothist, Paulie Graf, Niemand and probably others).
On the one hand, these two reckon that even those in
support of their positions know them to be men who
must, at times, seek the crutch of false identities;
on the other hand, they continue to abase themselves.

At the current time, Mr. Kennedy is the more
absurd. He will eventually subside as Help Bot, then
vanish for a couple of months as he did before and return
under his own name. Whereupon, he will make an effort
to restrain the brummagem, but he must eventually prattle on.

As for NM Kingston, his sudden reappearance as Niemand,
directly following his embarrassing charge against GM Keene
re the botched issue of Kingpin (he called them "rogue copies")
shows that pressure can build inside his cranium quite swiftly.
He reverts to another name reflexively.

But why? I'm genuinely baffled.

Why must Greg Kennedy continue the pretense as
Help Bot when even he knows that the ruse is
pointless? Why can't NM Kingston simply tell us
whether he posted in support of himself, and his own
positions under a series of invented names?

At the moment, NM Kingston states that this
writer must take his side in some recent disputes with
jr and Sam Sloan before he answers my questions. Alas, he
does not care to address why he could not answer them
during all the years BEFORE these recent disputes.

wrote:
MR. KINGSTON'S SINCERITY

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. -- Taylor Kingston

NM Taylor Kingston, our self-claimed 2300+
ELO weighted chess piece who is actually rated about
1800, has adopted an interesting ploy.

We have twice posted answers to a series of
questions he asked, and he has twice snipped the
answers, announcing that we have not answered him.

Checking your posts of the last week or so, Larry, I find none that
look remotely like proper answers my questions, nor any that even begin
to meet the conditions I set. I do see a post on "phantom tournaments."
Perhaps you posted phantom answers?

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Checking your posts of the last week or so, Larry, I find none that
look remotely like proper answers my questions, nor any that even begin
to meet the conditions I set. I do see a post on "phantom tournaments."
Perhaps you posted phantom answers?

I thought the phantom tournament thread was a discussion of Parr's
victory in an "International Swiss"; do you suppose Liarry Parr is a
Nearly an IM?

*Checking your posts of the last week or so, Larry,
I find none that look remotely like proper answers my
questions, nor any that even begin to meet the conditions.* (Kingston)

Kingston snipped Parr's answers twice but has not even answered
Parr's questions once because they don't meet his high standards.

Gosh, Larry, looks like you have to try harder.

Like Avis.

jr wrote:
*Checking your posts of the last week or so, Larry,
I find none that look remotely like proper answers my
questions, nor any that even begin to meet the conditions.* (Kingston)

Gosh, Larry, looks like you have to try harder.

Like Avis.

Ah, but he won't, because it Hertz too much.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
jr wrote:
*Checking your posts of the last week or so, Larry,
I find none that look remotely like proper answers my
questions, nor any that even begin to meet the conditions.* (Kingston)

Gosh, Larry, looks like you have to try harder.

Like Avis.

Ah, but he won't, because it Hertz too much.

jr. and Liarry didn't Budget on that reply.