Recently I wrote of Taylor Kingston's activities in reference to Chesscafe.
He replied without any contradiction to what I wrote. His choice of reply
was the typical ad hominem means he has adopted.

I felt compelled to contradict him for an earlier message on his intent re
Larry Evans, according to what he wrote me, which he now /changes/ when
writing in public.

I have 20-some of his e-mails from the same period, and I intend to publish
them if this lying continues. Kingston is already caught in the lie of his
messages re Evans, that he would ONLY go to put a word in the ear of the new
Ex Dir, and simply changes what he wants us to understand from his public
writing, in complete and utter contrast to what he wrote in his private
campaign.

The issue is book banning by the most popular authors in the US and whatever
his and chesscafe's role is in that.

I understand he denies that what I say is true, so perhaps he should
consider the proofs of his own words, and continue to contradict me, or sue.
I would certainly consider a counter-suit.

I have had enough of this culture of lying, and I think goody-two-shoes
needs to be exposed for the failed and bitter wannabe author he is, along
with all his spite against those who have achieved something in chess.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
Recently I wrote of Taylor Kingston's activities in reference to Chesscafe.
He replied without any contradiction to what I wrote. His choice of reply
was the typical ad hominem means he has adopted.

I felt compelled to contradict him for an earlier message on his intent re
Larry Evans, according to what he wrote me, which he now /changes/ when
writing in public.

I have 20-some of his e-mails from the same period, and I intend to publish
them if this lying continues. Kingston is already caught in the lie of his
messages re Evans, that he would ONLY go to put a word in the ear of the new
Ex Dir, and simply changes what he wants us to understand from his public
writing, in complete and utter contrast to what he wrote in his private
campaign.

The issue is book banning by the most popular authors in the US and whatever
his and chesscafe's role is in that.

I understand he denies that what I say is true, so perhaps he should
consider the proofs of his own words, and continue to contradict me, or sue.
I would certainly consider a counter-suit.

I have had enough of this culture of lying, and I think goody-two-shoes
needs to be exposed for the failed and bitter wannabe author he is, along
with all his spite against those who have achieved something in chess.

Phil Innes

I thought you'd already decided to publish "The Kingston Files," Phil.
Didn't you agree that after all the hemming and hawing they were
necessary in order to prove your case? And now you've reverted back to
*threatening* to publish them??

You'll excuse me -- and probably several others -- if I doubt the
existence of such emails after three months of no evidence.

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... Kingston is already caught in the lie of his messages
7 re Evans, that he would ONLY go to put a word in the
7 ear of the new Ex Dir, ...

_
Here is the actual 3/17/2002 quote of Taylor Kingston
that Phil Innes reported (Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:00:50 GMT):
_
"Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
just a few days ago. Due to the recent
expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
Enterprises' activities, the company recently
moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
ear a bit on Evans."
_
(Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)
_
"Where [in the 3/17/2002 quote] is there an
assertion about 'the only reason' that Taylor
Kingston would have [attended the ChessCafe
event]?" - Louis Blair (5 Aug 2006 22:11:16 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... The issue is book banning by the most popular authors
7 in the US and whatever his and chesscafe's role is in that.
7 ...

_
"... I have never been involved in any 'book-banning
campaign.' ..." - Taylor Kingston (4 Aug 2006
11:09:06 -0700)
_
Does Phil Innes have any specific facts that contradict this
assertion? If so, what are they? If not, why doesn't Phil
Innes clearly admit that he has no specific facts that
contradict the above assertion?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... I think goody-two-shoes needs to be exposed for the
7 failed and bitter wannabe author he is, along with all his
7 spite against those who have achieved something in
7 chess.

_
I have done some writing. I have criticized some of these
achievers. Does that make me a "wannabe author" involved
in book banning?

Louis Blair wrote:
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... Kingston is already caught in the lie of his messages
7 re Evans, that he would ONLY go to put a word in the
7 ear of the new Ex Dir, ...

_
Here is the actual 3/17/2002 quote of Taylor Kingston
that Phil Innes reported (Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:00:50 GMT):
_
"Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
just a few days ago. Due to the recent
expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
Enterprises' activities, the company recently
moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
ear a bit on Evans."
_
(Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)
_
"Where [in the 3/17/2002 quote] is there an
assertion about 'the only reason' that Taylor
Kingston would have [attended the ChessCafe
event]?" - Louis Blair (5 Aug 2006 22:11:16 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... The issue is book banning by the most popular authors
7 in the US and whatever his and chesscafe's role is in that.
7 ...

_
"... I have never been involved in any 'book-banning
campaign.' ..." - Taylor Kingston (4 Aug 2006
11:09:06 -0700)
_
Does Phil Innes have any specific facts that contradict this
assertion? If so, what are they? If not, why doesn't Phil
Innes clearly admit that he has no specific facts that
contradict the above assertion?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... I think goody-two-shoes needs to be exposed for the
7 failed and bitter wannabe author he is, along with all his
7 spite against those who have achieved something in
7 chess.

_
I have done some writing. I have criticized some of these
achievers. Does that make me a "wannabe author" involved
in book banning?

Actually, Dr. Blair, you count as an achiever. Mr. Innes counts as a
wannabe, a "nearly an IM" in all aspects of chess.

Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... Kingston is already caught in the lie of his messages
7 re Evans, that he would ONLY go to put a word in the
7 ear of the new Ex Dir, ...

_
Here is the actual 3/17/2002 quote of Taylor Kingston
that Phil Innes reported (Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:00:50 GMT):
_
"Interestingly, Hanon Russell met with Niro
just a few days ago. Due to the recent
expansion of ChessCafe's and Russell
Enterprises' activities, the company recently
moved into new offices, and had a 'grand
opening' reception, which several dignitaries,
including Niro, attended. I was invited too,
but couldn't make the long drive. If I had
gone, I might have been able to bend Niro's
ear a bit on Evans."
_
(Taylor Kingston has written (4 Aug 2006 12:26:15 -0700)
that he had in mind criticism of the "Evans' CL column".)
_
"... [Taylor Kingston] should tell us again about
why the only reason, in his own words, he would
have attend the ChessCafe event was to bend the
ear of the new USCF Executive Director about
Larry Evans. ..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 08 Aug 2006
13:11:02 GMT)
_
"Where [in the 3/17/2002 quote] is there an
assertion about 'the only reason' that Taylor
Kingston would have [attended the ChessCafe
event]? ..." - Louis Blair (8 Aug 2006
16:29:49 -0700)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... The issue is book banning by the most popular authors
7 in the US and whatever his and chesscafe's role is in that.
7 ...

_
"... I have never been involved in any 'book-banning
campaign.' ..." - Taylor Kingston (4 Aug 2006
11:09:06 -0700)
_
Does Phil Innes have any specific facts that contradict this
assertion? If so, what are they? If not, why doesn't Phil
Innes clearly admit that he has no specific facts that
contradict the above assertion?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:34:01 GMT):

7 ... I think goody-two-shoes needs to be exposed for the
7 failed and bitter wannabe author he is, along with all his
7 spite against those who have achieved something in
7 chess.

_
I have done some writing. I have criticized some of these
achievers. Does that make me a "wannabe author" involved
in book banning?

_
"... If it were private then it would break a confidence
to speak about it publicly, right? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
15 Aug 2002 20:28:26 -0500)
_
"... I said I will not make private conversation public. ..."
- Phil Innes (Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500)

Louis Blair wrote:
_
"... If it were private then it would break a confidence
to speak about it publicly, right? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
15 Aug 2002 20:28:26 -0500)
_
"... I said I will not make private conversation public. ..."
- Phil Innes (Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500)


A good piece of research, Mr. Blair.

But what about IM Innes' comments regarding ad
hominem? Does not his comment about TK being
a "wannabe", and "full of spite" amount to the same
thing -- ad hominem? I believe it does, and this
means if our Dr. Phil ever took the hyppocritical oath,
he is upholding it nicely.

IMO, IM Innes is just doing his "job" (harrying any
and all critics of the Evans ratpack), and as such, he
is not responsible; his handler is most likely the real
problem. If only IM Innes had a mind of his very own....

-- help bot

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chess One wrote:
Recently I wrote of Taylor Kingston's activities in reference to
Chesscafe.
He replied without any contradiction to what I wrote. His choice of reply
was the typical ad hominem means he has adopted.

I felt compelled to contradict him for an earlier message on his intent
re
Larry Evans, according to what he wrote me, which he now /changes/ when
writing in public.

I have 20-some of his e-mails from the same period, and I intend to
publish
them if this lying continues. Kingston is already caught in the lie of
his
messages re Evans, that he would ONLY go to put a word in the ear of the
new
Ex Dir, and simply changes what he wants us to understand from his public
writing, in complete and utter contrast to what he wrote in his private
campaign.

The issue is book banning by the most popular authors in the US and
whatever
his and chesscafe's role is in that.

I understand he denies that what I say is true, so perhaps he should
consider the proofs of his own words, and continue to contradict me, or
sue.
I would certainly consider a counter-suit.

I have had enough of this culture of lying, and I think goody-two-shoes
needs to be exposed for the failed and bitter wannabe author he is, along
with all his spite against those who have achieved something in chess.

Phil Innes

I thought you'd already decided to publish "The Kingston Files," Phil.

I offered to.

Didn't you agree that after all the hemming and hawing they were
necessary in order to prove your case?

I don't care to make 'any case' other than contrast the record of Kingstons
public/private views - which are the real ones? I would even allow him much
more room for self-interpretation if he didn't actually seem to absolutely
deny there is any difference public/private.

But he does do so, and pointely, at other people's expense.

And now you've reverted back to
*threatening* to publish them??

Because
You'll excuse me -- and probably several others -- if I doubt the
existence of such emails after three months of no evidence.

You too, wanna bet? Ask Kingston himself if he sent me the material. He even
asked me himself, and I returned a few to him. But knock yourself out and
ask him. Otherwise such doubts are just whistling, Matt.

There is no particular value in putting /all/ his material in public if he
can't get over the /first/ one.

If there is any 'case' here, it is the already established suit between the
two Kingstons, '02/private and '06/public variants.

And if he could actually DISCUSS these issues, rather than deny them so
absolutely, then, if he will excuse us, we would not be discussing
his --massive ego-- at all, but chess writing, and its history, and how we
know what we know.

I simply don't know if he is interested or even able to discuss something
beyond himself [which is a topic I personally would engage] or if he prefers
the former [his reputable self-projection and such]

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chess One wrote:
Recently I wrote of Taylor Kingston's activities in reference to
Chesscafe.
He replied without any contradiction to what I wrote. His choice of reply
was the typical ad hominem means he has adopted.

I felt compelled to contradict him for an earlier message on his intent
re
Larry Evans, according to what he wrote me, which he now /changes/ when
writing in public.

I have 20-some of his e-mails from the same period, and I intend to
publish
them if this lying continues. Kingston is already caught in the lie of
his
messages re Evans, that he would ONLY go to put a word in the ear of the
new
Ex Dir, and simply changes what he wants us to understand from his public
writing, in complete and utter contrast to what he wrote in his private
campaign.

The issue is book banning by the most popular authors in the US and
whatever
his and chesscafe's role is in that.

I understand he denies that what I say is true, so perhaps he should
consider the proofs of his own words, and continue to contradict me, or
sue.
I would certainly consider a counter-suit.

I have had enough of this culture of lying, and I think goody-two-shoes
needs to be exposed for the failed and bitter wannabe author he is, along
with all his spite against those who have achieved something in chess.

Phil Innes

I thought you'd already decided to publish "The Kingston Files," Phil.

I offered to.

No, you said, and I quote, "[Matt]...you have convinced me that the
Kingston files are necessary." You said that less than three months
ago. Not an "offering;" a necessity.

Didn't you agree that after all the hemming and hawing they were
necessary in order to prove your case?

I don't care to make 'any case' other than contrast the record of Kingstons
public/private views - which are the real ones?

Phil, we went over this already, too. Of COURSE you care to make a
case. If you didn't you'd just clam up about it and let this dead
horse rot.

I would even allow him much
more room for self-interpretation if he didn't actually seem to absolutely
deny there is any difference public/private.

But he does do so, and pointely, at other people's expense.

So prove it already! You said you were going to publish them almost
100 days ago and now, with the argument still the mass conflaguration
it was when I left, you're singing the same exact tune.

What do you expect? That Kingston's just going to roll over and say
"you win" without your giving up the goods (e.g. proof) you claim to
have? He's not gonna do it. Obviously. And nobody in the history of
RGCP has EVER done it before, either. Even WITH facts in cold, hard
black and white people don't 'fess up to their transgressions (e.g. Sam
Sloan). I really don't understand why you're stalling on this, as
important as this issue seems to you.

SNIP

Like I said a while back: Put up or shut up, Phil.

Matt Nemmers wrote:

I thought you'd already decided to publish "The Kingston Files," Phil.

I offered to.

No, you said, and I quote, "[Matt]...you have convinced me that the
Kingston files are necessary." You said that less than three months
ago. Not an "offering;" a necessity.

Didn't you agree that after all the hemming and hawing they were
necessary in order to prove your case?

I don't care to make 'any case' other than contrast the record of Kingstons
public/private views - which are the real ones?

Phil, we went over this already, too. Of COURSE you care to make a
case. If you didn't you'd just clam up about it and let this dead
horse rot.

He can't, Matt. The Innestroll needs to draw attention to itself, and
if possible slam a critic as well. After four years, his complaints
that I 'stalked' the Nearly an IM, or his blood relations, or his pet
hamster, or.... have grown thin. So now he's moved on to Taylor
Kingston.

(snip)

Like I said a while back: Put up or shut up, Phil.

I vote for the second.