Dear Larry,

I am becoming desperate. The boyos are reduced to asking 'as if' questions,
as if they were creating an alternative universe, and they are really boring
me!

Even Louis can't think of anything more than to repeat the Dowd forgery
line. Matt Demon is fascinated by the Kingston files but can't think of any
questions for Kingston himself, and Dowd has disappeared [no doubt perforce
important work!], and Mr Kennedy-not is trying hard to pick fights, but
nothing worth more than a line of response, and then its all like the
movies.

Only Taylor Kingston can be said to be holding the fort by resolutely
denying everything! Not exactly denying, of course, since he is not exactly
an exact sort of person, but telling us what we think he meant.

I posted a couple of recent game scores in chess.misc not knowing the name
of one, for which I am an idiot! Not that it has a name... I only asked.

How are you doing? Today it hit 70 here, but tonight, snow! Bloody strange
weather service. Almost as strange as Senator Inhofe who declared in 2005 as
chairman of the government agency, Committee on the Environment &c, of
"compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax."

I was minded on reading that today, of truth and lies, and what can be
expected of officialdom. In the same year an independent outfit, the
American Geophysical Something, said "natural influences cannot explain
rapid increases in global near-surface temperatures."

These are, by all current accounts, very alarming facts, but here we are in
a culture of lying about chess stuff, when global warming looms over us all
as a greater threat to everybody on the planet than the cold war!

How is it that we propose to speak true, in the face of what can be
demonstrated to be directly opposite? Is this as it ever was? Or have we
turned into our opposite and contracted the Soviet disease?

Cordially, Phil

On Nov 1, 6:43 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
Dear Larry,

I am becoming desperate. The boyos are reduced to asking 'as if' questions,
as if they were creating an alternative universe, and they are really boring
me!

Even Louis can't think of anything more than to repeat the Dowd forgery
line. Matt Demon is fascinated by the Kingston files but can't think of any
questions for Kingston himself, and Dowd has disappeared [no doubt perforce
important work!], and Mr Kennedy-not is trying hard to pick fights, but
nothing worth more than a line of response, and then its all like the
movies.

Only Taylor Kingston can be said to be holding the fort by resolutely
denying everything! Not exactly denying, of course, since he is not exactly
an exact sort of person, but telling us what we think he meant.

I posted a couple of recent game scores in chess.misc not knowing the name
of one, for which I am an idiot! Not that it has a name... I only asked.

How are you doing? Today it hit 70 here, but tonight, snow! Bloody strange
weather service. Almost as strange as Senator Inhofe who declared in 2005 as
chairman of the government agency, Committee on the Environment &c, of
"compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax."

I was minded on reading that today, of truth and lies, and what can be
expected of officialdom. In the same year an independent outfit, the
American Geophysical Something, said "natural influences cannot explain
rapid increases in global near-surface temperatures."

These are, by all current accounts, very alarming facts, but here we are in
a culture of lying about chess stuff, when global warming looms over us all
as a greater threat to everybody on the planet than the cold war!

How is it that we propose to speak true, in the face of what can be
demonstrated to be directly opposite? Is this as it ever was? Or have we
turned into our opposite and contracted the Soviet disease?

Cordially, Phil

Does this strike anyone else as Phil Innes saying the kitchen is too
hot for him, and would Mommy please come get him out?

Dear Phil,

I've been too busy to follow these disputes, but my opinion of
Mr. 2300+ Elo is amply documented on this forum.

Chess One wrote:
Dear Larry,

I am becoming desperate. The boyos are reduced to asking 'as if' questions,
as if they were creating an alternative universe, and they are really boring
me!

Even Louis can't think of anything more than to repeat the Dowd forgery
line. Matt Demon is fascinated by the Kingston files but can't think of any
questions for Kingston himself, and Dowd has disappeared [no doubt perforce
important work!], and Mr Kennedy-not is trying hard to pick fights, but
nothing worth more than a line of response, and then its all like the
movies.

Only Taylor Kingston can be said to be holding the fort by resolutely
denying everything! Not exactly denying, of course, since he is not exactly
an exact sort of person, but telling us what we think he meant.

I posted a couple of recent game scores in chess.misc not knowing the name
of one, for which I am an idiot! Not that it has a name... I only asked.

How are you doing? Today it hit 70 here, but tonight, snow! Bloody strange
weather service. Almost as strange as Senator Inhofe who declared in 2005 as
chairman of the government agency, Committee on the Environment &c, of
"compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax."

I was minded on reading that today, of truth and lies, and what can be
expected of officialdom. In the same year an independent outfit, the
American Geophysical Something, said "natural influences cannot explain
rapid increases in global near-surface temperatures."

These are, by all current accounts, very alarming facts, but here we are in
a culture of lying about chess stuff, when global warming looms over us all
as a greater threat to everybody on the planet than the cold war!

How is it that we propose to speak true, in the face of what can be
demonstrated to be directly opposite? Is this as it ever was? Or have we
turned into our opposite and contracted the Soviet disease?

Cordially, Phil

Chess One wrote:
Dear Larry,

I am becoming desperate. The boyos are reduced to asking 'as if' questions,
as if they were creating an alternative universe, and they are really boring
me!

If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

Even Louis can't think of anything more than to repeat the Dowd forgery
line. Matt Demon is fascinated by the Kingston files but can't think of any
questions for Kingston himself,

Questioning TK isn't necessary. He's already flatly DENIED that what
you say you have doesn't exist. Several times. I haven't asked you
any in-depth questions either, now that you mention it. I've simply
asked you to publish the evidence you have that shows TK to be the
out-and-out liar you claim he is. You haven't. And the only thing
you've offered in its stead is a bunch of lame excuses.

Those are the FACTS, Mr. Innes. And they are undisputed.

and Dowd has disappeared [no doubt perforce
important work!], and Mr Kennedy-not is trying hard to pick fights, but
nothing worth more than a line of response, and then its all like the
movies.

sniff

Only Taylor Kingston can be said to be holding the fort by resolutely
denying everything!

There you go! Finally, you see what I've been trying to tell you. He
denies you have anything. You bet (bluffed?); he called. Time to
reveal your hand.

I posted a couple of recent game scores in chess.misc not knowing the name
of one, for which I am an idiot! Not that it has a name... I only asked.

People calling you names? *******s.

SNIPPED groveling and asskissing (a term which is not meant to be
homoerotic, Phil)

Put up or shut up, Phil. You have danced around the issue long enough.
You already look pretty damn silly, but the longer you wait the
sillier you look.

It only gets worse...

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chess One wrote:
Dear Larry,

I am becoming desperate. The boyos are reduced to asking 'as if'
questions,
as if they were creating an alternative universe, and they are really
boring
me!

If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

BARK IT, IF YOU GOT IT

Big dogs, Matt? You have to be kidding!

Kingston puts the tail on the worng end of the dog, as usual and seems to
have convinced Matt its 'too hot in the kitchen' - and he sensibly has
suggested leaving the kitchen to the porch, and beyond.

But I indicated the opposite to Larry, its so cool its boring. And nothing
new is revealed here, except that Kingston has impressed Matt with a vague
denial - too vague in fact to answer.

Even Louis can't think of anything more than to repeat the Dowd forgery
line. Matt Demon is fascinated by the Kingston files but can't think of
any
questions for Kingston himself,

Questioning TK isn't necessary. He's already flatly DENIED that what
you say you have doesn't exist.

Ha! What? I say I had some 20 e-mails on a similar subject scanning one
month. But if you don't want to ask him, that's fine. Was this what he
denied?

Several times. I haven't asked you
any in-depth questions either, now that you mention it. I've simply
asked you to publish the evidence you have that shows TK to be the
out-and-out liar you claim he is.

Why should I publish someone's material when they don't deny it exists? Its
news to me that TK has denied these things exist!

You haven't. And the only thing
you've offered in its stead is a bunch of lame excuses.

'Excuses' for not wanting to publish other's e-mail are 'lame'?

Those are the FACTS, Mr. Innes. And they are undisputed.

Whether my reservation is lame, or a reticence for some other reason, is the
only undisputed factor here.

and Dowd has disappeared [no doubt perforce
important work!], and Mr Kennedy-not is trying hard to pick fights, but
nothing worth more than a line of response, and then its all like the
movies.

sniff

Only Taylor Kingston can be said to be holding the fort by resolutely
denying everything!

There you go! Finally, you see what I've been trying to tell you. He
denies you have anything. You bet (bluffed?); he called. Time to
reveal your hand.

That's not a bet where I come from! ROFL. Nobody has ante'd up!

What depends on it? Somewhere along the line you have come to believe
Kingston and what I want to know if how that came about.

Does he actually deny that the e-mails exist? OR Does he deny that their
contents are about books and commentaries by Parr, Evans, Schiller, Laurie,
Keene?

I posted a couple of recent game scores in chess.misc not knowing the
name
of one, for which I am an idiot! Not that it has a name... I only asked.

People calling you names? *******s.

I cried. But I'm over it now.

SNIPPED groveling and asskissing (a term which is not meant to be
homoerotic, Phil)

Its well known there are no poofters in the Navy, Matt, although I never
understood why you all wore those cute girl's hats?

Put up or shut up, Phil. You have danced around the issue long enough.
You already look pretty damn silly, but the longer you wait the
sillier you look.

I didn't know looking good was the name of the game? I thought we were
discussing what's fair and unfair commentary.

It only gets worse...

As expected, the situation gets Vaguer and Vaguer - so after reading this
report of what Matt has come to understand I am left wondering what is
actually in question.

Do the e-mails exist?
Or
Are their contents as I say they are? It seems important to others to sort
this out right away, but no-one can state of any /reason/ to do so, by
saying what depends on it.

Kingston has cast some doubt into Matt's mind, but what doubt that is I
don't know. At least I haven't read Kingston directly deny the materials
exist, only that they //directly// had nothing to do with book buying policy
at chesscafe.

All it will take now is for Louis to ask if someone could have hacked
Kingston's accounts

Phil Innes

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Does this strike anyone else as Phil Innes saying the kitchen is too
hot for him, and would Mommy please come get him out?

Replace "kitchen" with "nuthouse", Taylor.

Chess One wrote:
SNIP

Obviously Phil is bound and determined to never, ever show anyone the
evidence he claims to have against Kingston. I don't care one way or
the other -- I just like to stir the pot -- but since this Phil has dug
his heels in this whole issue has become tiresome.

Phil's not going to prove what he's been saying he CAN prove all this
time, everyone. He just wants you all to take him at his word: That
he has the goods and Taylor's a big, fat liar-liar-pants-on-fire.

Personally, I don't buy it -- not that Phil cares or should care. I
just wanted to see if he would actually publish the goods like he told
me he would in August. sigh

But whatever.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled RGCP rants and flame wars.

Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:53:29 GMT):

7 ... Does he actually deny that the e-mails exist? OR
7 Does he deny that their contents are about books and
7 commentaries by Parr, Evans, Schiller, Laurie, Keene?
7 ...

_
Is that the great revelation? Is it worth publicizing private
correspondence in order to establish that "their contents
are about books and commentaries by Parr, Evans,
Schiller, Laurie, Keene"?

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chess One wrote:
SNIP

Obviously Phil is bound and determined to never, ever show anyone the
evidence he claims to have against Kingston.

Just two days ago you and Louis were calling me a liar because the messages
didn't exist - today you pass on that - and now suggest that something else
is a lie?

They are only 'claims' since Kingston won't speak in the open - and that, I
suppose he does for his own reasons.

I don't care one way or
the other -- I just like to stir the pot -- but since this Phil has dug
his heels in this whole issue has become tiresome.

Not as tiresome I imagine as if you were an author whose books were banned.

Phil's not going to prove what he's been saying he CAN prove all this
time, everyone.

Isn't he?

He just wants you all to take him at his word:

At least what was a lie yesterday isn't anymore, and you know, I am willing
to put the stuff up there, but Kingston says no. shrug

That
he has the goods and Taylor's a big, fat liar-liar-pants-on-fire.

Personally, I don't buy it -- not that Phil cares or should care. I
just wanted to see if he would actually publish the goods like he told
me he would in August. sigh

But whatever.

In the Dowd affair Louis even suggested that the messages were false. So -
in order to entertain you guys and your liar-of-the-day posts, what does it
mean if things are proved or unproved.

Strangely talk of having no balls to do it seems centered around me - but
I'll post em. Its Kingston who doesn't want it done, and for reasons he does
not offer.

What are you going to do if your read stuff such as I posted in the previous
message about the chesscafe forum? What if you see its true?

I now return you to your regularly scheduled RGCP rants and flame wars.

Not necessary if people don't mess with other people and treat them with
respect. What is missing in these threads and in some areas of public chess
writing is enough light and air that will wring-out the truth of who is
influencing what.

If readers here can't figure out who is suppressing stuff, and wants it kept
in the dark, and who wants to open up the subject, they are sleepwalking.

Phil Innes

Matt Nemmers wrote (2 Nov 2006 07:03:56 -0800):
7 Obviously Phil is bound and determined to never, ever
7 show anyone the evidence he claims to have against
7 Kingston. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:19:19 GMT):

7 Just two days ago you and Louis were calling me a liar
7 because the messages didn't exist ...

_
That is categorically false. Phil Innes should apologize
promptly.