Uzytkownik "Taylor Kingston" napisal w wiadomosci
ups.com...


Seriously, Rob, ask yourself: who here acts more like a fascist-style
propaganda ministry: Innes, Parr, Sloan et al, or those who try here to
counter their habitual falsehoods?


Oh c`mon Taylor you can see only the one side because you are on the other
side.

Undoubtedly Neil Brennan suffers a very deep obsession on Phil Innes. Neil
Brennan should go to the psychiatrist to take his advice.

You suffer a mild obsession on Larry Parr and Larry Parr suffers a mild
obsession on you. Fake Sams and several morons have an obsession on the real
Sam Sloan but the real Sam Sloan seems to have coldest blood from all of you
guys. :-)

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Rob wrote:
I call for the Chess Fachists to simply begin their own group and leave
the rest of us to think and breath free, unimcumbered under the iron fists
of their ridicule and persicutions for our opinions and ideas.

Rob, one of the distinguishing characteristics of fascism is that
under it, the publication of factual truth is suppressed in favor of
propaganda. Lies, half-truths, fabrications and slanders that serve the
interest of the ruling party are advanced at the expense of the
public's right to factual information.
Another typical fascist ploy is that normal definitions are stood on
their heads, e.g. "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is
strength" (Orwell). The way you use such terms as "free," "persicution"
[sic] and "iron fist" above indicates you may unwittingly be falling
into that manner of speech, something I'm sure you will want to avoid.


I dare say they know who they are and should they go unnamed? One is
the initiator of the "Pledge" against Mr. Inness.

Seriously, Rob, ask yourself: who here acts more like a fascist-style
propaganda ministry: Innes, Parr, Sloan et al, or those who try here to
counter their habitual falsehoods?

Taylor,
Open discussions are wonderful things. I appreciate your thoughtful
reply without attacking my obvious typo! :-)
There are ways to disagree. Opinions are destined to diverge from time
to time. It is the ability of a rational mind to accept that there may
be another answer to a problem than their own that works or works
better that seperats free thinkers from the "sheep" in our Orwellean
"Chess Animal Farm".
I will confess from time to time becoming myoptic in my views. I hope
that I would never quell honest,frank and polite discourse on any
subject. I simply lament that so much time is wasted on so little.
There tends to be less and less discussion about chess and more over
personalities and personal,viscious attacks on character.

Rob

Rob wrote:
Taylor,
Open discussions are wonderful things. I appreciate your thoughtful
reply without attacking my obvious typo! :-)
There are ways to disagree. Opinions are destined to diverge from time
to time. It is the ability of a rational mind to accept that there may
be another answer to a problem than their own that works or works
better that seperats free thinkers from the "sheep" in our Orwellean
"Chess Animal Farm".

Rob, what you say applies well to matters of opinion and taste, or
unsettled matters which are in doubt and where honest disagreement is
possible. The main problem with the Innes/Parr/Sloan set is their
continual fabrication of baseless nonsense, and continual falsification
on matters which are not in doubt, matters of public record and
established fact. Accepting that "opinions are destined to diverge" and
that "there may be another answer to a problem" does not mean one must
tolerate a falsehood, especially when that falsehood is a deliberate
smear.

I will confess from time to time becoming myopic in my views. I hope
that I would never quell honest,frank and polite discourse on any
subject. I simply lament that so much time is wasted on so little.
There tends to be less and less discussion about chess and more over
personalities and personal, viscious attacks on character.

If "vicious attacks on character" are repugnant to you, then I would
encourage you to dissociate yourself from those who habitually engage
in them here.

HABITUAL FALSEHOODS

Seriously, Rob, ask yourself: who here acts more like a
fascist-style propaganda ministry: Innes, Parr, Sloan et al, or
those who try here to counter their habitual falsehoods? -- Taylor
Kingston

NMnot Taylor Kingston speaks of countering
habitual falsehoods.

We await his explanation about how he uttered no
falsehoods or attempted to mislead when he praised
himself -- for Pete's sake! -- under the names of
Paulie Graf and Xylothist.

We know by now that he will merely repeat
propagandistically that he is a man with "standards,"
but he will not tell us whether those standards
include appearing here under false names in support of
arguments he advanced under his real name.

Nor, we may be sure, will he own up to his words
of June 5, 2005, posted here at 5:23 p.m. Our class
A-rated player wrote as follows: "Still, on the
subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to
be any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of
2300+, and a top ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the
country, I was a tad better than weak."

The official ratpacker defense of this
ego-driven lie is that a group of undifferentiated
players, hearing the statement, would NOT assume that
the man was talking about OTB strength.

"Oh, yeah," they tell us to imagine a conversation
among a group of players standing in the foyer of, say,
the Adams Mark at the World Open, "the guy can't be
talking about his over-the-board strength when claiming
he is 2300+ Elo. Must be talkin' about somethin' else."

But yes, that's the ratpacker defense of NMnot
Kingston's straightforward unadorned whopper, which he
then later compounded by inventing explanations (dubbed
The Horsefeathers Defense) that were not even the same
as the later defenses mounted by his apologists..

And so it goes.


Taylor Kingston wrote:
Rob wrote:
Taylor,
Open discussions are wonderful things. I appreciate your thoughtful
reply without attacking my obvious typo! :-)
There are ways to disagree. Opinions are destined to diverge from time
to time. It is the ability of a rational mind to accept that there may
be another answer to a problem than their own that works or works
better that seperats free thinkers from the "sheep" in our Orwellean
"Chess Animal Farm".

Rob, what you say applies well to matters of opinion and taste, or
unsettled matters which are in doubt and where honest disagreement is
possible. The main problem with the Innes/Parr/Sloan set is their
continual fabrication of baseless nonsense, and continual falsification
on matters which are not in doubt, matters of public record and
established fact. Accepting that "opinions are destined to diverge" and
that "there may be another answer to a problem" does not mean one must
tolerate a falsehood, especially when that falsehood is a deliberate
smear.

I will confess from time to time becoming myopic in my views. I hope
that I would never quell honest,frank and polite discourse on any
subject. I simply lament that so much time is wasted on so little.
There tends to be less and less discussion about chess and more over
personalities and personal, viscious attacks on character.

If "vicious attacks on character" are repugnant to you, then I would
encourage you to dissociate yourself from those who habitually engage
in them here.

Larry Parr wrote (20 Sep 2006 18:22:33 -0700):

7 ... appearing here under false names in support of
7 arguments he advanced under his real name. ...

_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the mark of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
_
"In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the
position. He simply selected a sentence from the
introduction to the game as an example of the
failure of GM Soltis to provide such information as
the round in which the game was played" - Louis
Blair (2 Jun 2006 01:03:30 -0700)
_
_
"This writer and others have argued that if one
references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
perforce highlighting ..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006
20:29:53 -0700)
_
_
"Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
22:44:43 -0700)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

KINGSTON'S STANDARDS

As is his custom NMnot Taylor Kingston, the
1800-rated player who claimed to be 2300+ Elo,
accuses this writer of falsifying matters that are not
in doubt and of fabricating falsehoods.

In the tradition of his role model Edward
Winter, who accused GM Ray Keene of cooking statistics
in "Warriors of the Mind" without offering examples, our
NMnot makes his charges without offering evidence.

Meanwhile, our NMnot will not explain why he
invented false personae (Xylothist, Paulie Graf, et
al.) to defend his arguments. He tells us that he has
"standards" but will not answer whether those
"standards" include inventing anonymice to defend himself.


Taylor Kingston wrote:
Rob wrote:
Taylor,
Open discussions are wonderful things. I appreciate your thoughtful
reply without attacking my obvious typo! :-)
There are ways to disagree. Opinions are destined to diverge from time
to time. It is the ability of a rational mind to accept that there may
be another answer to a problem than their own that works or works
better that seperats free thinkers from the "sheep" in our Orwellean
"Chess Animal Farm".

Rob, what you say applies well to matters of opinion and taste, or
unsettled matters which are in doubt and where honest disagreement is
possible. The main problem with the Innes/Parr/Sloan set is their
continual fabrication of baseless nonsense, and continual falsification
on matters which are not in doubt, matters of public record and
established fact. Accepting that "opinions are destined to diverge" and
that "there may be another answer to a problem" does not mean one must
tolerate a falsehood, especially when that falsehood is a deliberate
smear.

I will confess from time to time becoming myopic in my views. I hope
that I would never quell honest,frank and polite discourse on any
subject. I simply lament that so much time is wasted on so little.
There tends to be less and less discussion about chess and more over
personalities and personal, viscious attacks on character.

If "vicious attacks on character" are repugnant to you, then I would
encourage you to dissociate yourself from those who habitually engage
in them here.

A WOUND SO DEEP


Parrthenon speaks:

NMnot Taylor Kingston speaks of countering
habitual falsehoods.

We await his explanation about how he uttered no
falsehoods or attempted to mislead when he praised
himself -- for Pete's sake! -- under the names of
Paulie Graf and Xylothist.


Could Mr. Parr be so kind as to at least provide evidence
that these posters named above -- Polygraph and Xylothist --
have posted from the same vicinity as Taylor Kingston? Not
that that would prove anything, but at least it would be more
substantive than a mere Larry Parr fantasy, based upon
emptyness and pain.



Our class
A-rated player wrote as follows: "Still, on the
subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to
be any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of
2300+, and a top ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the
country, I was a tad better than weak."


Every time Mr. Parr goes down this road, he again
embarasses only himself; TK now has a 50-0 record
at GetClub.com, on top of his correspondence rating
which puts the Evans ratpackers to shame. IMO,
their only truly strong player is Larry Evans himself,
yet the rat pack wannabes, like Mr. Parr and "IM" Innes,
wish to pretend it is they who set the standard for chess
play. LOL!


As I see it, the most ludicrous claim to fame discussed
here is not TK having mentioned his "2300+" rating, it is
Ray Keene's self-description as "the world's foremost
authority" on chess and mindsports. That was a real gas!

In comparison, it is hardly worth mentioning boasts by
such worthies as Phil Innes and Mig Greengard to near-
IM status, let alone quibbling about the worth of a rating
which was earned in correspondence play as opposed to
OTB. As usual, Larry Parr is lost in a fog of delusion.


-- help bot

_
"... let us count the ways....
_
That Louis Blair has asked the same questions and
repeated the same boilerplate in post after post, often
on the same day. ..." - jr (13 Sep 2006 08:08:14 -0700)
_
Does jr have any comment on Larry Parr behavior at the
moment?

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Rob wrote:
I call for the Chess Fachists to simply begin their own group and leave
the rest of us to think and breath free, unimcumbered under the iron fists
of their ridicule and persicutions for our opinions and ideas.

Rob, one of the distinguishing characteristics of fascism is that
under it, the publication of factual truth is suppressed in favor of
propaganda. Lies, half-truths, fabrications and slanders that serve the
interest of the ruling party are advanced at the expense of the
public's right to factual information.
Another typical fascist ploy is that normal definitions are stood on
their heads, e.g. "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is
strength" (Orwell). The way you use such terms as "free," "persicution"
[sic] and "iron fist" above indicates you may unwittingly be falling
into that manner of speech, something I'm sure you will want to avoid.


I dare say they know who they are and should they go unnamed? One is
the initiator of the "Pledge" against Mr. Inness.

Seriously, Rob, ask yourself: who here acts more like a fascist-style
propaganda ministry: Innes, Parr, Sloan et al, or those who try here to
counter their habitual falsehoods?

Taylor, it's just a troll. Why feed it? If we ignore it, it will crawl
back under its bridge soon enough.

Rob wrote:
I call for the Chess Fachists to simply begin their own group and leave
the rest of us to think and breath free, unimcumbered under the iron fists
of their ridicule and persicutions for our opinions and ideas.


Hey Robtroll:

Do you really want the chess fascists, represented by the two liarries, parr
and evans, to leave this forum? Those are the persons who brook no dissent
from their point of view. Why, to someone like liarry parr, a disagreement
within his clique is chewing meat 30 times rather than 32. As for us
"ratpackers", you must have noticed how parr highlights our "debating" an
issue amongst ourselves or failing to tow the line on the Innes pledge. That's good.
We "ratpackers" are not of one mind ... not all cut from the same cloth. We can
have varying opinions without resorting to name calling.

And as for you calling on people who seem to disagree with you to leave
thgis newsgroup, YOU Robtroll have become the very thing you so
despise.




I dare say they know who they are and should they go unnamed? One is
the initiator of the "Pledge" against Mr. Inness.


Oh look at this - Robtroll pretends to support Innes, yet cannot even
spell his name correctly! A whole 5 letters ... wow, that must be tough!