Larry Parr wrote (12 Jun 2006 21:58:24 -0700):

... Rynd/Dowd has dripped with hatred ever since he was
caught red-handed forging my name on a university website.

_
Some of what actually happened:
_
"... Is it not true that Mr. Pehme teaches journalist
and/or literature at St. John's University in New York
where USCF board member Frank Brady also
works? ..." - Larry Parr (12 Aug 2004 22:13:44 GMT)
_
_
"Evidence, please, Mr. Parr?" - Doctor SBD
(13 Aug 2004 01:47:14 GMT)
_
_
"... Simply google 'Professor Kalev Pehme' and this
is the first hit found there.
_

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/SelectTeacher.jsp?sid=842&orderby=TLName&letter=P"
- Larry Parr (13 Aug 2004 02:15:58 GMT)
_
_
"... you will note by clicking on the same link that I
added you as a professor. On that site, anyone can
be added. I also rated you as 'not hot', ...
_
... This is not a university site at all. ... Show me
something from the school that indicates he ever
taught there, not some bogus student rating
service.." - Doctor SBD (13 Aug 2004 04:43:52 GMT)
_
_
Is it appropriate to refer to someone as being "caught
red-handed", when the action was openly announced by
the person who took that action?

Larry Tapper wrote:
jr wrote:
If being irrational qualifies someone to write
for Chess Lies, then Brennenis first inline.

I always turn first to Evans On Chess and,
when done, turn the page in vain hoping for more.

I can see enjoying Evans' column. But it's hard for me to picture what
kind of chess buff would eagerly read Evans and consistently find every
other column worthless.

Larry, "jr" is "chesstours" under a false name. That should explain a
lot.

wrote:
In this instance, he hates yours truly for co-authoring
a memoirr that has been and will continue to sell well in
Asia and the Commonwealth countries.

Right, Larry. My 12 books pale in comparison to your vanity press
effort. I just hate you for having a third rate hack's job in a ****ty
country. I am only a professor at a Carnegie I institution, ooh, your
job is so much better, I hate you, I wish I could write ****ty books
for millionaires with nothing much to say....



Rynd/Dowd has dripped with hatred ever since he was
caught red-handed forging my name on a university website.

Dr. Blair has already noted: how do you get caught doing something out
in the wide open and with transparency? When I am the one who announced
I did it???

Do you possess any logical thinking skills whatsoever?

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
In this instance, he hates yours truly for co-authoring
a memoirr that has been and will continue to sell well in
Asia and the Commonwealth countries.

Right, Larry. My 12 books pale in comparison to your vanity press
effort. I just hate you for having a third rate hack's job in a ****ty
country. I am only a professor at a Carnegie I institution, ooh, your
job is so much better, I hate you, I wish I could write ****ty books
for millionaires with nothing much to say....

Dear Doctor Dowd - your posts are ALL about you - non-stop protests of how
good you are, and actually better than those correspondents with whom you
disagree. But not better at writing to a topic? Read on, if you will.

The trouble with school teachers is that they are, perforce, surrounded by
their inferiors, and this inevitably induces a form of contempt for others
and inability to hold an adult conversation. Cynical, no? And a generalism.
Prove me wrong.

Rest easy in your pubishing achievement! What Parr achieves elsewhere is no
threat to it. If instead you would ever address a topical item - and in this
issue there are several important ones, which I would have thought that an
American university professor would wish to intellectual embrace, if not
with a will!

Something, I recommend you, as worth your attention:-

We enter a scenario where a critic and his critique is confounded, then
eliminated. The critique is on the fons et origo of American chess, of what
drives and sustains it, and the criticism on the efficacy of both national
and international chess organisations to prosecute a raft of projects in
support of it, (rather than of the more self-serving kind of 'service' to
chess.)

Like Evans or not as a personality - his is the last authoritative
voice --as a role-- to write in Chess Life whichin any way addresses the
mission of USCF - which is to promote chess to the mainstream culture.

Would it be tolerable in your university to ban certain points of view
because they were viewed as politically inconvenient mentions of university
management practice to the neglect of student welfare?

If your students frequently asked questions on historical subjects and which
were then answered by the banned person, can this be misconstrued as a
'played-out' topic?

Is there still some value in American universities in coming to one's own
opinion by being exposed to more than one?

What has just transpired in Crossville denies even Socratic debate - since
the topic itself is removed from public view as [informally, but certainly]
a taboo one. That subject is what furthers chess in the country.

Who of those remaining will now pick up the standard and represent this
subject at all, nevermind in the often prickly way that Evans has done so?

He is an agitator - he is an irritant. Just as yeast in the bread is an
irritant to making the whole wad of dough into something digestible and
nourishing.

These are some points about decency in American public life and speech
entering the C21st. You are quite capable of addressing these issues by
virtue of your knowledge and experience, together with your unfriendly
correspondent here, Larry Parr.

Have you, too, abandoned all this by a de facto absense of address to the
essential vitality of this necessary --role-- which is no longer welcome in
the republic, but abandoned in preference to personality issues; to kings
and strumpets?

Phil Innes

GREG KENNEDY IS ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH


Greg Kennedy (help bot) still searches for his
spellchecker. The word is "derriere." Ah well, Mr.
Kennedy will never quite get it right.

The man still has not read enough. Wlod, who
read my remarks about communism, knows that I was
quoting slogans issued by the Party. Brezhnev
declared that fully developed socialism had come to
the Soviet Union and that many would live to
experience communism itself.

The point was that this kind of stuff was the
ultimate in happy talk, which was the context of my
remark. Poor Greg, the hopeless guy, figured I was
talking about actual political realities or possibilities.

Greg: pick up a copy of, say, Donald Treadgold'.s
20th Century Russia or Aleksandr Nekrich and
Mikahail Heller's Utopia in Power. Then ... TRY
READING. Treadgold will teach you the basic Marxist
distinctions among the stages of political development
and Nekrich and Heller will compare theory with the
practice, though Treadgold does plenty of the latter, too.

Mr. Kennedy spent the years of the 1960s reading
Ratman or whatever comics; others read The Aeneid in
the Latin. Granted, though, most simply read not.
So, then, Mr. Kennedy works in his factory and fails
to recognize standard Soviet political phraseology of
the late 1960s and mid-1970s.

True enough, the issue of Yasser Seirawan appearing
on a Chess Life cover was not worth losing my job by
disobeying a written order. I had the courage to antagonize
my bosses by saying no untiless I received a written order,
but I would not stake my job on such an issue.

Later on, when there arose basic issues of whether one
reported major international news, I put my job on the
line and was blue-pencilled out of USCF employment
-- as so many were before and after me.

*"jr" is "chesstours" under a false name.
That should explain a lot.* (Neil Brennen)

Thanks again for the compliment.

Now how about apologizing for your false claim about
Evans "printing private email" [from Paul Hoffman] without
permission when, as Parr noted, Hoffman's statement
appeared in a mass mailing and not a private email?

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....=News&file=art...


*Where to begin? How about the author printing
private email communication without permission
and calling it a "statement?"* (Neil Brennen)

Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:08:53 GMT):

... He is an agitator - he is an irritant. ...

_
Is he responsible?
_
On 18 Apr 2003 13:30:13 GMT, Larry Parr called
our attention to a November 2002 contribution to
Chess Life by GM Evans:
_
_
"WHY FISCHER QUIT
_
Scott Sensiba
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
_
Q. Can you tell me again why Bobby Fischer didn't
defend his title against Anatoly Karpov in 1975? I think Bobby
could have won.
_
A. This question has been covered here at length over the
years, but I'll try again because so many people keep asking.
_
I believed then as now that Fischer's obstinacy killed the
deal. 'Finally America produces its greatest chess genius, and
he turns out to be just a stubborn boy,' lamented Hans Kmoch.
_
Bobby resigned his title after FIDE rejected a key demand
-- that the match consist of an unlimited number of games, draws
not counting, until one player won 10 games (with the champion
retaining his title on a 9-9 tie). Instead FIDE restricted it to 36
games, counting draws, which they knew he would reject.
_
Whether he would have defended his title even if FIDE
capitulated to all of his demands is debatable, but the political
nature of the close vote was obvious. The Soviets and their allies
voted as a bloc against Fischer's key demand. Western nations
split. In general they supported his position but a notable
exception was England.
_
Lev Alburt said that Soviet grandmasters privately scoffed
at Karpov's chances in 1975. Most pundits believed he would
lose -- and badly. By quitting, Fischer not only turned down a
multi-million dollar purse -- he set back the cause of chess
in America and tragically destroyed his own career.
_
After seizing the title by default, Karpov became the most
active champion in history to try and prove it was no fluke. In
1977 a Soviet-dominated FIDE routinely granted him a rematch
clause, a bigger mathematical edge than anything Fischer ever
sought. This incident soured me and many others on FIDE."
_
_
Some of the subsequent discussion:
_
"the GM Evans quote is seriously flawed. He fails to
mention that FIDE eventually offered to agree to the
unlimited number of games and that what finally
terminated the Fischer-FIDE negotiations was
Fischer's demand that he keep his title unless the
challenger finished two or more points ahead of the
champion." - Louis Blair (Fri, 18 Apr 2003
14:40:42 -0500)
_
_
"Also, does Larry Parr have an explanation for how
GM Evans could authoritatively write that FIDE 'knew'
Fischer would reject the 36 game limit? Was
GM Evans trying to suggest that FIDE, as a group,
deliberately sought to avoid a match in 1975?"
- Louis Blair (17 Apr 2006 00:00:38 -0700)
_
More than three years after my original complaint:
_
"... [GM Evans] noted [that there was a second
meeting where FIDE granted the unlimited match
demand] at worldchessnetwork.com ..." - Larry
Parr (10 Jun 2006 06:58:48 -0700)
_
"Is Larry Parr at last acknowledging that the
November 2002 account was seriously flawed?
... Larry Parr ... avoids the issue of how GM Evans
could authoritatively write that FIDE 'knew' Fischer
would reject the 36 game limit. ... It is nice to know
that GM Evans wrote a world chess network account
that did not duplicate the serious flaw in his November
2002 Chess Life account, but did he ever tell Chess
Life readers about the serious flaw?" - Louis Blair
(10 Jun 2006 21:22:56 -0700)

jr wrote:
*"jr" is "chesstours" under a false name.
That should explain a lot.* (Neil Brennen)

Thanks again for the compliment.

Now how about apologizing for your false claim about
Evans "printing private email" [from Paul Hoffman] without
permission when, as Parr noted, Hoffman's statement
appeared in a mass mailing and not a private email?

Neil may be in error there, but I don't think anyone owes you an
apology until we have one from you regarding your lie about the
Kingston-Laurie correspondence. "Reciprocity is the basis of any good
relationship."

Does jr have any more to say on the matter of GM Evans
supposedly being called a "hack" by Neil Brennen?
_
"Neil Brennen went so far as to suggest that
Mr. Hoffman ignore legitimate questions from
'hacks' like Larry Evans and yours truly. Yes,
'hack' was the word he used to describe the
5-time U.S. Champion and Hall of Famer."
- Larry Parr (20 May 2006 02:04:29 -0700)
_
_
"when are you going to post the email in which
I allegedly called Larry Evans a 'hack', or used
the plural 'hacks'? I give you permission to post
it, complete with headers." - Neil Brennen
(23 May 2006 19:01:29 -0700)
_
_
"why don't you check your own emails?
_
There are several people here on that list who
can attest to the fact that the very first message
from chessnews@mindspring (who is Brennen)
did indeed use the word 'hack' in referring to Parr
and/or Evans.
_
Check your records, sir, and you will find the truth."
- jr (23 May 2006 21:16:59 -0700)
_
_
"I have [checked my own emails]. I'll even post
it he
_
**************
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
_
Again, I'd suggest ignoring all email
from chesstours AKA Larry Evans.
And please be prepared for all of your
correspondence to appear on message
boards and newsgroups, courtesy
Evans and his pet hack Larry Parr.
_
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
********************
_
... [I used the word 'hack' in referring to] Parr, not
Evans." - Neil Brennen (24 May 2006 02:45:27 -0700)

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:08:53 GMT):

... He is an agitator - he is an irritant. ...

_
Is he responsible?

I am not compelled nor even enabled by will nor any intellectual factor to
comment on substantial and indeed irresponsible snips which deliberately
eliminate all context, by persons who warrant their own prolixity by
declaratory expositions in its stead; who write such irresolute, indolent
and metaphysical phrases which also fail to indicate anything poignant by
virtue of the object of the sentence being absent [to whom?]

PI

video vacuo...

On 18 Apr 2003 13:30:13 GMT, Larry Parr called
our attention to a November 2002 contribution to
Chess Life by GM Evans:
_
_
"WHY FISCHER QUIT
_
Scott Sensiba
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
_
Q. Can you tell me again why Bobby Fischer didn't
defend his title against Anatoly Karpov in 1975? I think Bobby
could have won.
_
A. This question has been covered here at length over the
years, but I'll try again because so many people keep asking.
_
I believed then as now that Fischer's obstinacy killed the
deal. 'Finally America produces its greatest chess genius, and
he turns out to be just a stubborn boy,' lamented Hans Kmoch.
_
Bobby resigned his title after FIDE rejected a key demand
-- that the match consist of an unlimited number of games, draws
not counting, until one player won 10 games (with the champion
retaining his title on a 9-9 tie). Instead FIDE restricted it to 36
games, counting draws, which they knew he would reject.
_
Whether he would have defended his title even if FIDE
capitulated to all of his demands is debatable, but the political
nature of the close vote was obvious. The Soviets and their allies
voted as a bloc against Fischer's key demand. Western nations
split. In general they supported his position but a notable
exception was England.
_
Lev Alburt said that Soviet grandmasters privately scoffed
at Karpov's chances in 1975. Most pundits believed he would
lose -- and badly. By quitting, Fischer not only turned down a
multi-million dollar purse -- he set back the cause of chess
in America and tragically destroyed his own career.
_
After seizing the title by default, Karpov became the most
active champion in history to try and prove it was no fluke. In
1977 a Soviet-dominated FIDE routinely granted him a rematch
clause, a bigger mathematical edge than anything Fischer ever
sought. This incident soured me and many others on FIDE."
_
_
Some of the subsequent discussion:
_
"the GM Evans quote is seriously flawed. He fails to
mention that FIDE eventually offered to agree to the
unlimited number of games and that what finally
terminated the Fischer-FIDE negotiations was
Fischer's demand that he keep his title unless the
challenger finished two or more points ahead of the
champion." - Louis Blair (Fri, 18 Apr 2003
14:40:42 -0500)
_
_
"Also, does Larry Parr have an explanation for how
GM Evans could authoritatively write that FIDE 'knew'
Fischer would reject the 36 game limit? Was
GM Evans trying to suggest that FIDE, as a group,
deliberately sought to avoid a match in 1975?"
- Louis Blair (17 Apr 2006 00:00:38 -0700)
_
More than three years after my original complaint:
_
"... [GM Evans] noted [that there was a second
meeting where FIDE granted the unlimited match
demand] at worldchessnetwork.com ..." - Larry
Parr (10 Jun 2006 06:58:48 -0700)
_
"Is Larry Parr at last acknowledging that the
November 2002 account was seriously flawed?
... Larry Parr ... avoids the issue of how GM Evans
could authoritatively write that FIDE 'knew' Fischer
would reject the 36 game limit. ... It is nice to know
that GM Evans wrote a world chess network account
that did not duplicate the serious flaw in his November
2002 Chess Life account, but did he ever tell Chess
Life readers about the serious flaw?" - Louis Blair
(10 Jun 2006 21:22:56 -0700)