Larry Parr wrote (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:03:59 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 Mr. Laurie's statement regarding whether our
7 NMnot impugned GM Evans' analytical ability was
7 couched in conditionals and spoke of what seemed to be
7 the case and what was implied.
_
_
Always?
_
"OPEN LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE (April 2 2006):
_
'...
... All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess
Life (about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948
World Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans'
ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.
...'" - Larry Parr (Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:24:27 -0800)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:03:59 -0800 (PST)):

7 I agree with Mr. Laurie that the implication can be found
7 in what NM Kingston wrote,
_
_
Is Larry Parr prepared to be specific about where he found
the "implication"? Does LP find it where Richard Laurie
reported it to be?
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:03:59 -0800 (PST)):

7 and the adjudication here will be made by forum readers.
7 ...
_
_
"Nunn is 'generally considered a stronger player than
Evans'" - Larry Parr presentation (Thu, 15 Nov 2007
08:05:37 -0800 (PST)) of a Richard Laurie description
(March 2, 2002) of what Taylor Kingston wrote (1998)

Larry Parr wrote (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:03:59 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 Mr. Laurie's statement regarding whether our
7 NMnot impugned GM Evans' analytical ability was
7 couched in conditionals and spoke of what seemed to be
7 the case and what was implied.
_
_
What about this other statement?
_
"OPEN LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE (April 2 2006):
_
'...
... All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess
Life (about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948
World Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans'
ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player.
...'" - Larry Parr (Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:24:27 -0800)
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:03:59 -0800 (PST)):

7 I agree with Mr. Laurie that the implication can be found
7 in what NM Kingston wrote,
_
_
Is Larry Parr prepared to be specific about where he found
the "implication"? Does LP find it where Richard Laurie
reported it to be?
_
_
Larry Parr wrote (Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:03:59 -0800 (PST)):

7 and the adjudication here will be made by forum readers.
7 ...
_
_
"Nunn is 'generally considered a stronger player than
Evans'" - Larry Parr presentation (Thu, 15 Nov 2007
08:05:37 -0800 (PST)) of a Richard Laurie description
(March 2, 2002) of what Taylor Kingston wrote (1998)

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
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,

Here comes Darth Vaguer Kingston to encourage more rubbishing of people who
think continuing to exite the topic of porn-video fantasies on a chess
newsgroup are more than regretable by the 'Reverend' here.

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."

Kingston! Didn't you just get caught lying again? Is that why you are angry?
What a massive ego to carry a slight for 9 years, then on being challenged
be /proved/ wrong the very next day. From your private writing I didn't have
any doubts, but now its in the open, eh!

After all - if you will commit to this sort of dialog in public... [!]

You and the 'Reverend' have a nice conversation now, you already agreed your
subject, and I think people have the measure of it.

Phil Innes

On Nov 15, 1:51 pm, SBD wrote:
On Nov 15, 11:05 am, " wrote:

LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE TO TAYLOR KINGSTON

This is the best Parr has? After all that posturing?

Very sad.

The mountains heaved, and all that came out was a tiny Laurie.

On Nov 15, 4:35 pm, help bot wrote:
I find it interesting that the, um, "standards" of the Evans
ratpack do not exclude posting personal information on
the internet, such as for instance, the home address of
one of the annoying critics of Larry Evans.

Innes harassed Frank Niro over far less.

On Nov 15, 9:15 pm, help bot wrote:
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

I disagree. Larry Parr was, in his prime, a better chess player than I
ever was. He may still be a better chess player. But Innes is pretty
much a fish.

Also, I wouldn't consider Parr as lacking "real accomplishments." I
own a couple of his books.

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.

Welcome to the club!

Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
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,

Here comes Darth Vaguer Kingston to encourage more rubbishing of people who
think continuing to exite the topic of porn-video fantasies on a chess
newsgroup are more than regretable by the 'Reverend' here.


Phil Innes

I see that Mr. Innes has chosen to compound his bad behavior with
misrepresentations of my posts in another thread. I have dealt with
that in the proper place.

I must say, Mr. Innes, that if this incident is typical of your
behavior in the past, I begin to understand how you acquired the
unsavory reputation that I frequently see referenced in this news group.
--


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

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

On Nov 16, 9:14 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
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,

Here comes Darth Vaguer Kingston to encourage more rubbishing of people who
think continuing to exite the topic of porn-video fantasies on a chess
newsgroup are more than regretable by the 'Reverend' here.

Phil Innes

I see that Mr. Innes has chosen to compound his bad behavior with
misrepresentations of my posts in another thread. I have dealt with
that in the proper place.

I must say, Mr. Innes, that if this incident is typical of your
behavior in the past, I begin to understand how you acquired the
unsavory reputation that I frequently see referenced in this news group.

Not just in this newsgroup. He's considered a chucklehead in the
Shakespeare group as well.

On Nov 16, 12:03 am, " wrote:
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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

Our Larry has a very strange idea of how a courtroom works. Larry
seems to think that if Person A claims that Person B shot Person C,
the court will decide B's guilt or innocence based on various abstract
qualities, such as A's "understanding of nuance." Perhaps this is how
it's done where our Larry lives, in Malaysia.

In America, however, we want proof. A court will require evidence
that (1) Person C actually was shot, and (2) Person B actually did it.
In this case, Parr doesn't even get past step 1.

It's relevant to point out that the public record shows I was quite
aware of the Evans-Winter feud well before 2002. Readers will find my
review of Winter's book "Kings, Commoners and Knaves he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kck.txt

This book was published in 1999, and read and reviewed by me in
1999. In the review, we find such passages as these:

"Chief among Winter's currently active knaves are, not surprisingly,
Raymond Keene and Eric Schiller ... Others reprised from [Winter's
previous book "Chess Explorations"] for new offenses include *** LARRY
EVANS ***, Jonathan Speelman, Nathan Divinsky, Andy Soltis, Dimitrije
Bjelica ..." (emphasis added)

At one point in the review I quote a Winter assessment of LE's work:

"Larry Evans' column in Chess Life continues to be unspeakable."

So it would have been ridiculous of me to claim ignorance of the
Winter-Evans feud in 2002, when I was already on record as knowing of
it in 1999. The plain fact is that I never pretended ignorance of the
Winter-Evans feud in 2002, to Richard Laurie or anyone else. But of
course our Larry will never admit this.

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.

Oh no, Larry, he spoke quite directly. In the March 2002 Chess Life,
page 14, Laurie wrote to Evans:

"I don't know who Taylor Kingston is and I don't recall much about
his Chess Life article [in May 1998] except he denigrated your ability
to analyze five Keres-Botvinnik games ..."

Please point out the "conditionals" in the above sentence, Larry.
In passing, I would also note Laurie's statement "I don't recall
much about his Chess Life article." Our Larry seems to think that
Laurie's memory is as reliable as a video-camera. By Laurie's own
admission, it is not.

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.

Our Larry is fond of finding these special "implications." If the
record provides no evidence for the smear he wants to make, he simply
decides the record means what he wants it to mean. Thus when I call
Evans' analysis "valid," our Larry decides that "vallid" actually
means "bad." On another occasion, our Larry decided that "doubt" can
mean "support." And of course when Parr's favorite Sam Sloan said
"Japanese girls want to be f---ed by a n--ger," this was not racism or
vulgarity; it only meant poor Sam was bored.

Parr-ese makes Newspeak look like the King's English, and his
notions of "evidence" would make a Vishinsky blush. There is not a
hole deep enough to encompass how low he really is.