wrote:

First, to the Rev. Walker. NMnot Taylor Kingston
is crawling to you. He and I have had our historical
discussions before, especially regarding the Oxford
Companion to Chess. He bailed out. It has been his
practice in discussions to invent pseudonyms and then
post PRAISE OF HIMSELF under these false names.


Dear Mr. Parr,

I am going to remain outside of the flame war. You said that you get
great pleasure from the verbal conflict. Possibly you see it as
something like a fox hunt where your hounds are baying at several of the
critters now.

I am not sure how the others see their engagement. A battle for truth
as they see it? Revenge? I do not know.

Although I am new to these news groups, I do have the advantage that the
others presumably do not of knowing you from the "old days." I leave
you to your sport.


Regards,

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

--
"... what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a
measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results
with His Noodly Appendage."

-- Bobby Henderson in support of Intelligent Design...

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:40:06 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


Mike Murray's idea of control was to eliminate 25 objections to both his
own
and rule-of-law activities he conducted here. As in another current case
floundering around these newsgroups, there were not weighted, but
rubbished
and entirely dismissed.

You confuse satire with control. The former attempts to convince, the
latter to coerce. Would you carp about a caricature because it makes
the chin too big and the forehead bulge too much?

Mike, because you don't ask real questions, you don't get serious answers.
It just one of those rhetorical techniques to dissuade an issue, by
pre-emptive dissmissal of it.

All I really wanted to know, as Larry Parr wanted to know on this other
issue, is what /weight/ each factor has - and since we deal with a legal
case, what weight in law? I could narry find anyone to agree that was the
topic.

To say none, satirically or not, is not to admit that the law /does/ weight
evidence, all of it. If that is not the issue, and its just a usenet survey
of 'enthusiasts' - my reservation in 'answering points' is that what is
really caricatured is the usenet process of 'trying' someone, with
predominantly one-sided depositions, by those who also act as judge and
jury.

The other side of this issue is really contested elsewhere, in a courtroom.
Its absense here is only relevant to usenet, not any real factors of
whodunnit?

As you may or may not know, I have some 'evidence' too, but haven't
presented it here, since this is not the proper forum.

(Yeah, I guess you
might.)


Without irony he neverthless accuses me of wanting
to control everything.

I pointed out a number of your weak points and failings, Phil, but I
can't recall accusing you of "wanting to control everything". Can you
refresh my memory with a cite?

No. When I wrote about standards for USCF 22 months ago, people couldn't
'remember' anything either. This remembering was a euphemism for 'not
agree'. When I re-presented the premise for standards, no-one discussed
them. You see, sometimes questions and requests for information are not put
forward so that anything can happen, but to prevaricate on issues!

Then after successive scandalising of every standard of normal behavior by a
board member, it is now a big issue. That would be worth talking about
here - since public opinion is important in that issue, since it effects the
chess public!

The questions of standards is not one anyone can win, and actually requires
public consent [if we like things the way they are, nothing will change] to
promote any, and indeed, to avert the same thing happening next year...

Phil Innes

LEADEN INEPTITUDE

Sheesh, Larry, I don't mean to brag, but as far as understanding "the niceties of language," I'll stack my literary credentials up against Laurie's (or yours) any day. As the editor, co-author and/or translator of at least 15 books, and the author of
hundreds of articles published in Chess Life, Inside Chess, Kingpin,
Chess
Horizons, and ChessCafe.com I won't claim to be any Shakespeare or
Hemingway, but I will own to a reasonable command of English. People
pay me thousands of dollars to turn leaden ineptitude into, if not
gold, at least into grammatically correct, clear, understandable
English prose. -- Taylor Kingston

NMnot Taylor Kingston claims that people pay him thousands of
dollars to edit some kind of prose that starts out leaden, turns
molten after some intellectual heat is applied and ends up in a
spanking, superior form due to his efforts.

If NMnot's claim is true (people pay me tens of thousands to
write histories) then a semi-sucker is born ever minute.

By which I mean: our NMnot gets credit for correcting grammatical
errors, but I doubt that he gets much of the lead out. The leaden are
seldom materially changed by the sodden.

TO REV. WALKER

There is no necessary conflict between seeking truth and seeking
revenge. NMnot Kingston undoubtedly conditions his efforts on this
premise, whereas Greg
Kennedy just wants wholesome, good old-fashioned revenge for a
severely wounded amour propre.

I respect your neutrality, which I see as your method for
enjoying this forum.

Yours, Larry Parr



J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:

First, to the Rev. Walker. NMnot Taylor Kingston
is crawling to you. He and I have had our historical
discussions before, especially regarding the Oxford
Companion to Chess. He bailed out. It has been his
practice in discussions to invent pseudonyms and then
post PRAISE OF HIMSELF under these false names.


Dear Mr. Parr,

I am going to remain outside of the flame war. You said that you get
great pleasure from the verbal conflict. Possibly you see it as
something like a fox hunt where your hounds are baying at several of the
critters now.

I am not sure how the others see their engagement. A battle for truth
as they see it? Revenge? I do not know.

Although I am new to these news groups, I do have the advantage that the
others presumably do not of knowing you from the "old days." I leave
you to your sport.


Regards,

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

--
"... what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a
measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results
with His Noodly Appendage."

-- Bobby Henderson in support of Intelligent Design...

"help bot" wrote in message
...

Personally, I don't put any trust in what the many
talking heads /say/ happened, on account of very
annoying facts like:

a) After accusing players they don't like of cheating,
admitting somewhere else their own misdeeds in the
very same vein; this is titanic hypocrisy.

b) Many of these chronic complainers share a similar
background, as haters of the status-quo who moved
abroad; we never hear the other side of the story from
the FIDE-bashing hack writers, because they don't
/want/ it heard.

This is an interesting admission. Is anyone actually on the record with the
opinion that there was /not/ Soviet fixing?

Otherwise it seems that Corn-bot has eliminated all evidence, by those who
stayed in Russia and those who left, and all who reported them by any means.
Even Smyslov only denied his /own/ complicity.

c) Every Mickey Mouse conspiracy theory I have yet
seen fails miserably to account for the strength of
GM Botvinnik's moves! Even if all of his opponents
were throwing every game, this still requires a logical
explanation, since there was not yet any Fritz.

Corn-bot has failed to quite understand Taimanov's commentary, which is not
very subtle! And as Kosteniuk recently pointed out to us, Fritz recently
couldn't solve a mate in 2.

d) Western players, supposedly immune to threats
from the evil KGB, also had poor results against GM
Botvinnik, while doing considerably better against the
other Soviet players. (Again, conspiracy theorists
have nothing but embarrassed silence.)

It seems as if one must be a conspiracy theorist to contest the rest of
this, or alternatively put down the level of Botvinnik's play. I haven't
seen evidence of anyone doing either.

e) GM Botvinnik drew Bobby Fischer. Once again,
the room falls silent (and angry). Blind luck?

? he lost to Keene, what does that mean? Too narrow an anecdote to draw
conclusion from?

f) Every story is based on what somebody thinks or
on what somebody says they were told;

untrue, many stories are testimony, are direct witness to events - and for
heaven's sake, at least 4 of those have been mentioned here - what we make
of those things are susceptible to spin, or uncertain conclusion on them,
but is this a challenge to the witnesses themselves? a little bit of
Stalin-denial?

obviously,
no self-respecting hack writer would resort to that if
he could dredge up substantive evidence; it is only
when the hacks are incapable of finding anything
substantive that they report "sightings" of Kong,
interview people who /say/ they saw footprints, etc.,
instead of capturing the creature and bringing him
back to New York alive, so we can go and see him
in person (an excellent idea, if I do say so myself).

no sir. many things were not reported in the West, about the West or the
East because people did not want to look. Now there is little excuse in
looking, still there is reserve, as if we want to protect ourselves against
something - but what?

Phil Innes


-- help bot

wrote in message
...
LEADEN INEPTITUDE

Sheesh, Larry, I don't mean to brag, but as far as understanding "the
niceties of language," I'll stack my literary credentials up against
Laurie's (or yours) any day. As the editor, co-author and/or translator of
at least 15 books, and the author of
hundreds of articles published in Chess Life, Inside Chess, Kingpin,
Chess
Horizons, and ChessCafe.com I won't claim to be any Shakespeare or
Hemingway, but I will own to a reasonable command of English. People
pay me thousands of dollars to turn leaden ineptitude into, if not
gold, at least into grammatically correct, clear, understandable
English prose. -- Taylor Kingston

NMnot Taylor Kingston claims that people pay him thousands of
dollars to edit some kind of prose that starts out leaden, turns
molten after some intellectual heat is applied and ends up in a
spanking, superior form due to his efforts.

He also does not understand what niceties are, and indeed, if you can stack
them as you can presumably do so precisely with 'credentials.'

Then, to pass to the remains of the sentences, or rather pass over reference
to Shakespeare and for some reason, the apparently equitably credenced
Hemingway, since otherwise is he some polar reference to compass the
scene[?], to that 'leaden ineptitude', the very crux of the expression. It
is a fair metaphor, lead... to [not] gold, but the 'ineptness' has to
reference their prose [subject] albeit coming in in last place; which his
imperfect alchemy transmutes, almost, to an unstated though intermediary
substance, wood?

The thing of it is, is this a challenge to the previous writing of Evans,
now by way of Laurie's and your own? While, let us put you completely aside
a moment, Laurie's note was almost comic in its restraint of a certain
enthusiasm in his correspondent; it miraculously never broke out into open
laughter.

Was this model minor masterwork the sample compared?

What would Laurie do, given free range to compare as equitably? Would he too
suggest some analogous frame as Mussolini or Hitler, or such things as, so
Our Taylor assures as, are come nearest his con in consideration of
typographic errors?


Our Taylor might have another bash at his lead, so as to make his ept
properly apt

ON ORE-ING



Arks of an undelivered covenant,
Egg-sacs of their own Eden,
Seraphs of heavy ore

They surged away, magnetized,
Into the furnace boom of the Gulkana.

We watched them, deepening away.
They looked like what they were, somnambulists,
Drugged, ritual victims, melting away
Towards a sacrament
a consummation

They will begin to circle,
Shedding their ornaments,
In shufflings and shudders, male and female,
Begin to dance their deaths -


- Every molecule drained, and counted, and healed
Into the amethyst of emptiness -


And the old Indian Headsman, in his tatty jeans and sock, who smiled
Adjusting to our incomprehension - his face
A whole bat, that glistened and stirred.

[ext.] Gulkana /TH

By which I mean: our NMnot gets credit for correcting grammatical
errors, but I doubt that he gets much of the lead out. The leaden are
seldom materially changed by the sodden.

A biblical reference, I see. Though wasn't she changed into salt as remarked
by her Irish husband?

"Don't, I say, Do NOT look back at Sodden - o! Gomorrah!"

The fine work, the niceties of the Old Language itself, so to speak, have
been lost in translation.

Phil Innes


TO REV. WALKER

There is no necessary conflict between seeking truth and seeking
revenge. NMnot Kingston undoubtedly conditions his efforts on this
premise, whereas Greg
Kennedy just wants wholesome, good old-fashioned revenge for a
severely wounded amour propre.

I respect your neutrality, which I see as your method for
enjoying this forum.

Yours, Larry Parr

On Nov 18, 10:26 am, "Chess One" wrote:

He also does not understand what niceties are, and indeed, if you can stack
them as you can presumably do so precisely with 'credentials.'

Then, to pass to the remains of the sentences, or rather pass over reference
to Shakespeare and for some reason, the apparently equitably credenced
Hemingway, since otherwise is he some polar reference to compass the
scene[?], to that 'leaden ineptitude', the very crux of the expression. It
is a fair metaphor, lead... to [not] gold, but the 'ineptness' has to
reference their prose [subject] albeit coming in in last place; which his
imperfect alchemy transmutes, almost, to an unstated though intermediary
substance, wood?

Oh my Lord, our Phil presumes to pontificate on writing skills.
Should this trend continue, we can expect to see snails as coaches to
NFL wide receivers, penguins as flying instructors, and Sam Sloan as
Secretary of the Treasury.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 10:26 am, "Chess One" wrote:

He also does not understand what niceties are, and indeed, if you can
stack
them as you can presumably do so precisely with 'credentials.'

Then, to pass to the remains of the sentences, or rather pass over
reference
to Shakespeare and for some reason, the apparently equitably credenced
Hemingway, since otherwise is he some polar reference to compass the
scene[?], to that 'leaden ineptitude', the very crux of the expression.
It
is a fair metaphor, lead... to [not] gold, but the 'ineptness' has to
reference their prose [subject] albeit coming in in last place; which his
imperfect alchemy transmutes, almost, to an unstated though intermediary
substance, wood?

Oh my Lord, our Phil presumes to pontificate on writing skills.
Should this trend continue, we can expect to see snails as coaches to
NFL wide receivers, penguins as flying instructors, and Sam Sloan as
Secretary of the Treasury.

ERIC JOHNSON AWARD?

And mixed matadors, Mr. Malaprop? You see, nicety references what is precise
in any topic, and your aspersions are tolerably vague, as usual, [which you
snipped, as usual] and here we got snails, coaches, wide receivers, penguins
and flying instructors as well as ... all in one sentence.

Eric could scarcely do better, except he would have mentioned the boy
scouts, for sure.

Maybe you can award the Southern Californian version, leaving him the entire
east coast?

At least you did not challenge Ted Hughes' prose, who really did take the
lead out of wooden poesy. But you did divert the issue of how you wrote to
whom, and with what intent, which I think you are still shy of an answer,
nevermind you are no Hemingway, of whom, it must be at least admitted, had
the courage of his [own] convictions.

Did you have any at all? Or is it all about Winter's or Nunn's or, actually,
to any point of your own that you have managed, sans Shakespeare, and in the
all too common tongue, managed to identify these past 8 years?

Phil Innes

PS: I notice that Microsoft's spell checker does not admit malaprop, only
malapropism and the even rarer malapropos. Heuch!

Chess One wrote:

PS: I notice that Microsoft's spell checker does not admit malaprop, only
malapropism and the even rarer malapropos. Heuch!


The Thunderbird spell checker lists several more related variants. These
spell checkers are like young creatures that need nourishment to grow
into useful individuals. When you encounter a deficiency the practice
of selecting "Add to dictionary" will allow the critter to mature more
to your liking.

Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
--
"... what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a
measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results
with His Noodly Appendage."

-- Bobby Henderson opposing Evolution & Intelligent Design

Larry Parr wrote (Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:06:18 -0800 (PST)):

7 ... Louie Blair (the nutty professor) ...
_
_
"... name-calling and mud-slinging, I eschew
that kind of stuff ..." - Larry Parr (7 Jun 2005
20:00:59 -0700)

On Nov 16, 3:39 pm, William Hyde wrote:
On Nov 16, 12:03 am, " wrote:

LAURIE'S '''CONFUSED MIND"
I agree with Mr.
Laurie that the implication can be found in what NM
Kingston wrote,

There you have it, one and all, in black and white, Larry
Parr claims that Kingston is an NM!

By the standards of evidence usual in these groups, that is as rock
solid as proof gets. No evidence to the contrary will ever, ever,
ever, be allowed to contradict this. He admitted it, after all!

Mr. Parr has also "admitted" I am a historian. Larry occasionally see
the light.

Congratulations, NM Kingston!

And congratulations, Larry. It takes a big man to do that.

Now, if we can just get Neil Brennan to assert that Phil was rated
2400+, we can dump this absurd credentialism forever.

I'm not aware a "Neil Brennan" posts here.

As for the matter of 'credentialism', the tale of the Nearly an IM
2450 reminds me of the case of John Baker, a Marlovian wacko who
claimed to have a doctorate from Florida State. Baker routinely mocked
the educational background of other posters on the Shakespeare
newsgroup - until he was exposed as a fraud. Are you comfortable with
such behavior as Baker indulged in, Dr. Hyde?

Or more likely, not.

William Hyde