On Nov 15, 6:09 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message

Come, come! If you wish to engage me on any topic, please to name it.

Phil Innes

Of course if Mr. Innes does not like the topic you name he may respond
to you as he did to me:

"So **** off, unless you get off on this subject..."
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Rev, you have just received an rgcp "baptism of flaming," and come
out of it in good form. Long-time observers of our Phil know that he
has definite problems involving disagreement and anger-management, not
to mention other serious issues. Along with Parr and Sloan, he forms a
sort of Unholy Trinity here, though that's not quite the right way to
put it, since it gives the impression they are important. The Bard put
it better when he spoke of "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

On Nov 15, 5:30 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

The question of whether Keres threw games now comes down to what some
C player playwright thinks?

Or B player Kingston?

IM Innes is clearly confused; the dividing line is set
at 1799/1800, so most /rational/ people will see Taylor
Kingston as a USCF Class A player, not Class B.

But if it is his strength /at the time/ his article was
actually written, then we must delve backward in
time -- reversing the "clock" of secrecy several years.

And indeed, by sheer *luck* the notorious fool IM
Innes gets partial credit for the fact that TK has
bounced back and forth across the class barriers!
Congratulations IM Innes; this no doubt improves
your overall record by a vast margin.



I know absolutely the facts of what I speak, and inquire of you, what is
your topic?

Is it Soviet fixing?

It may well be difficult to stick to /that topic/, on
account of the countless ad hominem misdirections
instigated here by the Evans ratpackers.

----

One item of note is the apparent fact that the
innocent victim, GM Bronstein, has admitted /his
own complicity/ in the fixing of games in other
events. The plot of the play is spoiled thereby;
its assumption of sympathy ruined, at least to
some extent.

However, the title of the play had naught to do
with poor Mr. Bronstein; he was but a convenient
tool, handy for the moment. I think the real agenda
was to attack FIDE, and this one incident is of
little concern, except insofar as it might allow
another attack: the one on Taylor Kingston, an
annoyance to GM Evans and his ratpack.

What is clear is the fact that GM Evans and
his ratpackers will not mend their ways -- ever!
So the ad hominem slop is doomed to continue
sloshing its way 'round these chess newsgroups
indefinitely (read: until they eventually die off, one
by one). We are waiting with bated breath... .


-- patient bot

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 15, 6:09 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message

Come, come! If you wish to engage me on any topic, please to name it.

Phil Innes

Of course if Mr. Innes does not like the topic you name he may respond
to you as he did to me:

"So **** off, unless you get off on this subject..."
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Rev, you have just received an rgcp "baptism of flaming," and come
out of it in good form. Long-time observers of our Phil know that he
has definite problems involving disagreement and anger-management, not
to mention other serious issues. Along with Parr and Sloan, he forms a
sort of Unholy Trinity here, though that's not quite the right way to
put it, since it gives the impression they are important. The Bard put
it better when he spoke of "sound and fury, signifying nothing."


Does that make Sloan the Unholy Goat? I'm sorry, the Devil made me do
it.

On Nov 15, 7:41 pm, wrote:

Does that make Sloan the Unholy Goat? I'm sorry, the Devil made me do
it.

Not bad!

On Nov 15, 7:41 pm, wrote:

Rev, you have just received an rgcp "baptism of flaming," and come
out of it in good form. Long-time observers of our Phil know that he
has definite problems involving disagreement and anger-management, not
to mention other serious issues. Along with Parr and Sloan, he forms a
sort of Unholy Trinity here, though that's not quite the right way to
put it, since it gives the impression they are important. The Bard put
it better when he spoke of "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Does that make Sloan the Unholy Goat? I'm sorry, the Devil made me do
it.


Among those three, Mr. Sloan is the only one with
any real accomplishments in chess: defender of
Damiano's Defense, proponent of the mighty Grob,
Mr. Sloan slays all comers who dare to challenge
him (including Bill Brock, among others). Only
Randy Bauer or perhaps Taylor Kingston can stop
him -- but alas, they are afraid to even try!

By comparison, even Neil Brennen or TK could
probably take on either of the other two without
breaking a sweat; only SS has real, not imaginary,
chess talent. This is probably why LP /always/
suggests that our grudge matches include him.


-- help bot

TIME FOR HONESTY

Taylor Kingston will usually answer (except
whether he posted under other names on this forum in
PRAISE OF HIMSELF -- for Pete's sake) but he may not
always choose to understand what is asked of him.

Those whose self-regard leads to preciosity must
guard against understanding points.

One could argue -- though I definitely do not --
that after all these years Taylor Kingston would be
losing credibility beyond recovery were he finally to
say: "I posted under false names during heated
debates because I needed to praise myself and to
attack Larry Parr, among others, while using an alias.
I dishonestly avoided answering the question for years."

It would have been easy enough for him to have
written the above a few years back. To write it at this
point would require moral courage; and I, for one, would
recognize that moral courage immediately. Frankly, if I
found myself in such a pickle, I can't say for sure what I'd do.

I don't think that Taylor Kingston could restore his
credibility right away with the likes of a Tapperman
or a Louie Blair or a Greg Kennedy or a Dr. Dowd
(whatever they might dribble on this frum to the contrary)
after such an admission, but as far as I am concerned,
he would instantly gain a lot of stature.

Finally, I am repeatedly on record in the past
(and I do not rescind a word of it) as having praised
his book reviews as better than 90% of the stuff written
about chess books. That may not be the very highest
of praise, but it is not meant to be ironic belittlement either.

My judgment of his written written work is, I believe, objective.
He takes care when writing, provides a lot of information
(sometimes too much) and writes in literate if mannered,
Johnny-one-note English. I don't happen to care for that style,
though adopting it myself on occasion in these debates. Still,
one must be objective. Taylor Kingston writes competently
and grammatically.

Now, he needs to write honestly.

Yours, Larry Parr



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:41 pm, wrote:

Does that make Sloan the Unholy Goat? I'm sorry, the Devil made me do
it.

Not bad!

LOST IN SPACE


It would have been easy enough for him to have
written the above a few years back. To write it at this
point would require moral courage; and I, for one, would
recognize that moral courage immediately. Frankly, if I
found myself in such a pickle, I can't say for sure what I'd do.


No need: LP's actions already provide the answer.

After so many years of practicing ad hominem, the
path of least resistance is to remain in motion along
the same despicable path. Struggling to vary out of
that orbit would require vast amounts of energy, not
to mention a moral compass which is clearly lacking.

Hence, my prediction is a dead-engine float right
along the same orbit as always, unless and until a
meteor strikes the LP ship head-on, smashing it to
smithereens. In fact, I place the odds on this at 99%
(not the meteor strike, but the morally-barren float).


-- space bot

LAURIE'S '''CONFUSED MIND"

"All you have proven is that Mr. Laurie has definite deficiencies in
reading comprehension and factual reporting." -- Taylor Kinglston

I presented a civil letter from playwright Richard
Laurie written to NMnot Taylor Kingston. (There may
be more coming.) It was dated 2002. Obviously, the
contents of the letter, which came from Mr. Laurie's
pen, are in no sense confidential just because of
NMnot Taylor Kingston's passion for secrecy in his
sneak-communications.

Now, then, to the issue at hand. The letter is
probative, if not determinative, evidence that NMnot
Kingston denied knowledge of a dispute between GM
Larry Evans and Eddie Winter. The claim is made in a
letter dated 2002 by a good writer who had no stake at
that time in making such a claim. NMnot Kingston has
responded that Mr. Laurie was a confused liar..

For those who understand weighting of evidence
either in a courtroom or, for that matter, in writing
history, the Laurie claim carries more weight than the
Kingston denial. Readers must decide whom to
believe: an outsider and produced playwright, who at
the time was largely uninvolved in chess disputes and
who commands an understanding of nuance and the
English language; or our NMnot Kingston, who has
written on this forum under false names IN PRAISE OF
HIMSELF, for Pete's sake.

Mr. Laurie's statement regarding whether our
NMnot impugned GM Evans' analytical ability was
couched in conditionals and spoke of what seemed to be
the case and what was implied. I agree with Mr.
Laurie that the implication can be found in what NM
Kingston wrote, and the adjudication here will be made
by forum readers.

Yours, Larry Parr



wrote:
TIME FOR HONESTY

Taylor Kingston will usually answer (except
whether he posted under other names on this forum in
PRAISE OF HIMSELF -- for Pete's sake) but he may not
always choose to understand what is asked of him.

Those whose self-regard leads to preciosity must
guard against understanding points.

One could argue -- though I definitely do not --
that after all these years Taylor Kingston would be
losing credibility beyond recovery were he finally to
say: "I posted under false names during heated
debates because I needed to praise myself and to
attack Larry Parr, among others, while using an alias.
I dishonestly avoided answering the question for years."

It would have been easy enough for him to have
written the above a few years back. To write it at this
point would require moral courage; and I, for one, would
recognize that moral courage immediately. Frankly, if I
found myself in such a pickle, I can't say for sure what I'd do.

I don't think that Taylor Kingston could restore his
credibility right away with the likes of a Tapperman
or a Louie Blair or a Greg Kennedy or a Dr. Dowd
(whatever they might dribble on this frum to the contrary)
after such an admission, but as far as I am concerned,
he would instantly gain a lot of stature.

Finally, I am repeatedly on record in the past
(and I do not rescind a word of it) as having praised
his book reviews as better than 90% of the stuff written
about chess books. That may not be the very highest
of praise, but it is not meant to be ironic belittlement either.

My judgment of his written written work is, I believe, objective.
He takes care when writing, provides a lot of information
(sometimes too much) and writes in literate if mannered,
Johnny-one-note English. I don't happen to care for that style,
though adopting it myself on occasion in these debates. Still,
one must be objective. Taylor Kingston writes competently
and grammatically.

Now, he needs to write honestly.

Yours, Larry Parr



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:41 pm, wrote:

Does that make Sloan the Unholy Goat? I'm sorry, the Devil made me do
it.

Not bad!

wrote in message
...
LAURIE'S '''CONFUSED MIND"

"All you have proven is that Mr. Laurie has definite deficiencies in
reading comprehension and factual reporting." -- Taylor Kinglston

I presented a civil letter from playwright Richard
Laurie written to NMnot Taylor Kingston. (There may
be more coming.) It was dated 2002. Obviously, the
contents of the letter, which came from Mr. Laurie's
pen, are in no sense confidential just because of
NMnot Taylor Kingston's passion for secrecy in his
sneak-communications.

Now, then, to the issue at hand. The letter is
probative, if not determinative, evidence that NMnot
Kingston denied knowledge of a dispute between GM
Larry Evans and Eddie Winter. The claim is made in a
letter dated 2002 by a good writer who had no stake at
that time in making such a claim. NMnot Kingston has
responded that Mr. Laurie was a confused liar..

For those who understand weighting of evidence
either in a courtroom or, for that matter, in writing
history, the Laurie claim carries more weight than the
Kingston denial.

Wrong. Kingston's denial was supported with evidence. There
has been no evidence in support of Laurie's claim.

Get the idea, yet?

KANGAROO COURT IN THE LAND OF OZ


Now, then, to the issue at hand. The letter is
probative, if not determinative, evidence that NMnot
Kingston denied knowledge of a dispute between GM
Larry Evans and Eddie Winter. The claim is made in a
letter dated 2002 by a good writer who had no stake at
that time in making such a claim. NMnot Kingston has
responded that Mr. Laurie was a confused liar..

Does Larry Parr actually /believe/ that the quality of
writing of Mr. Laurie is relevant here? It would appear
so, given his wording above.


For those who understand weighting of evidence
either in a courtroom or, for that matter, in writing
history, the Laurie claim carries more weight than the
Kingston denial. Readers must decide whom to
believe: an outsider and produced playwright,

Is Larry Parr so ignorant that he /believes/ being
a "produced playwright" somehow lends weight to
a man's opinion on other matters? It would appear
so, given his wording above.


who at
the time was largely uninvolved in chess disputes

Except, of course, the one in question; the very
one that matters here. LOL


and who commands an understanding of nuance and the
English language; or our NMnot Kingston, who has
written on this forum under false names IN PRAISE OF
HIMSELF, for Pete's sake.

Where is the proof of this charge? We see the
same accusations, again and again, but Mr. Parr
seems incapable of producing substantive evidence
to support it. This reminds me of Mr. Sloan's many
assertions that he can hold Damiano's2. ...f6,
except that at least Mr. Sloan presents a few
examples where he got lucky against weak
opposition and did just that. By comparison to
this, Mr. Parr is just blowing hot air.


Mr. Laurie's statement regarding whether our
NMnot impugned GM Evans' analytical ability was
couched in conditionals and spoke of what seemed to be
the case and what was implied. I agree with Mr.
Laurie that the implication can be found in what NM
Kingston wrote, and the adjudication here will be made
by forum readers.

Thank you very much.

I believe intelligent readers here will note the typical
lack of substance in these accusations, the error in
logic of concluding that it is "disparaging" to GM Evans
to note that GM Nunn was the stronger player at the
time he wrote his article. Mr. Kingston has stated here
that he *agrees* with GM Evans' chess analysis, so if
anything, that must be the disparaging or damning
evidence Mr. Parr seeks. After all, by Parr-logic,
agreeing with "NM-not Taylor Kingston" is equivalent to
being wrong, by definition.

-------

As I wrote before, the idea of ad hominizing TK as
opposed to defending (or rather, embarrassing) LE
was mine. I have repeatedly advised Mr. Parr to forgo
his futile attempts at "defense" (at which he is, quite
frankly, incompetent) in favor of unsound counter-
attacks. Now he has taken my good advice, but I
apparently must claim the credit for myself. The
point is, /any fool/ can conduct some sort of unsound
counter-attack, so this is right up Mr. Parr's alley.


-- help bot