LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON

Subj: Reply to TK please post
Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:

It would be nice if sites such as this one were actually used to
explore and debate questions of chess history, literature and, of
course, the games themselves. It would be nice, but that is not the
way they are used. Instead we have invective and smear until the
original issue is lost in the clash of personalities.

In the beginning of this particular issue, GM Larry Evans published
an article probing whether or not the Soviets were cheating at the top
levels of chess. He focused on the Keres-Botvinnik games in the 1948
World Championship tournament. Was Keres coerced into throwing the
games?

Though not of great import in world history, it is important in chess
history and GM Evans was one of the few who kept the issue alive.
Many others were content to either accept Soviet denials or let the
matter drop.

When GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that one
or more smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were
explored, he was praised by our friend Taylor Kingston.

Later, for reasons of his own, Mr. Kingston published a counter
article; but unable to refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM
Evans' ability to analyze. His basis for this assault appears to have
been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky. (Mr.
Kingston and I discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but not a good
foundation for intellectual discourse. It was instead rather like
comparing the Green Bay Packers of the 1960's with the Pittsburgh
Steelers of the 70's and New England Patriots of today. This book
received a savage review from Ed Winters in his "Chess Explorations"
on pages 227-30.

This latter article prompted a letter from me to GM Evans which was
published in Chess Life. This letter in turn elicited an email from
Mr. Kingston. Mind you, we had never communicated before and
certainly never met. Yet, Mr. Kingston thought my letter deserved
some attention from him and he sought me out through the internet to
ask if he could present his side of the issue.

He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
between GM Evans and Ed Winter. Lastly, he asked if we could keep our
communication a secret. This was a request I ignored as I do not talk
behind people's backs.

Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs, Mr.
Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by telling me he
was in contact with the editors of Chess Life and wanted to tell him I
had switched sides in the dispute even though I had not done so.

His "proofs" which I later returned to him without copying consisted
of nothing more than a collection of tear sheets and xeroxed articles
with such phrases as "This is a lie" scribbled across them. They
reminded me of a packet of documents and letters an older friend of
mine carried with him when he was enduring an emotional breakdown. My
friend's problems were due to Post Traumatic Stress (once called
"Battle Fatigue") dating back to experiences during the Second World
War. I will not hazard a guess as to Mr. Kingston's motivations.

I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not heard from
him since he wrote me that I was even nastier than GM Evans.

These are the facts. Mr. Kingston knows these are the facts.

Period. End of story.

Richard Laurie

I want to mention that at one time an article appeared on
chesscafe.com attacking me. I did not know at the time that Taylor
Kingston was webmaster or whatever you call it of the Chess Cafe
Forum. Naturally, I wrote back to Chess Cafe refuting the attack on
me.

I was soon informed that Chess Cafe had rejected my posting.

This is just one of many incidents that has convinced me that Taylor
Kingston is just a nasty, dirty, despicable character, beneath
contempt.

Sam Sloan

On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, " wrote:
LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON

Gee, Larry, I must have really rankled your ass for you to go to
such lengths as this. And all just because I dissed your boy-toy Sloan
a while back.

As for Mr. Laurie, what an utterly bizarre letter. A few
observations below:

Subj: Reply to TK please post
Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:

It would be nice if sites such as this one were actually used to
explore and debate questions of chess history, literature and, of
course, the games themselves. It would be nice, but that is not the
way they are used. Instead we have invective and smear until the
original issue is lost in the clash of personalities.

I agree. That is Larry Parr's usual modus operandi, unfortunately.

In the beginning of this particular issue, GM Larry Evans published
an article probing whether or not the Soviets were cheating at the top
levels of chess. He focused on the Keres-Botvinnik games in the 1948
World Championship tournament. Was Keres coerced into throwing the
games?

Though not of great import in world history, it is important in chess
history and GM Evans was one of the few who kept the issue alive.
Many others were content to either accept Soviet denials or let the
matter drop.

When GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that one
or more smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were
explored, he was praised by our friend Taylor Kingston.

Later, for reasons of his own, Mr. Kingston published a counter
article; but unable to refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM
Evans' ability to analyze.

Why Messrs. Parr and Laurie cling repeatedly to this outright
fiction defies understanding. They have never produced a single
statement of mine that confirms this fabrication. As I have pointed
out many times, I have never "maligned GM Evans' ability to analyze";
quite the opposite. But, it seems that Parr and Laurie must continue
to repeat the Big Lie.

His basis for this assault appears to have
been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky.

This is perhaps the most bizarre of Mr. Laurie's many bizarre
statements. "Warriors of the Mind" is not even mentioned within the
body of my two articles. It is listed in the bibliography of the first
only because it provided some minor background information.
In any event, "Warriors" provides no basis for "maligning Evans'
analytical ability."

(Mr. Kingston and I discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but not a good
foundation for intellectual discourse. It was instead rather like
comparing the Green Bay Packers of the 1960's with the Pittsburgh
Steelers of the 70's and New England Patriots of today. This book
received a savage review from Ed Winters in his "Chess Explorations"
on pages 227-30.

Quite irrelevant, in view of the fact the book in question was a
very minor part of my two K-B-related articles.

This latter article prompted a letter from me to GM Evans which was
published in Chess Life. This letter in turn elicited an email from
Mr. Kingston. Mind you, we had never communicated before and
certainly never met. Yet, Mr. Kingston thought my letter deserved
some attention from him and he sought me out through the internet to
ask if he could present his side of the issue.

He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
between GM Evans and Ed Winter.

Another falsehood Laurie and Parr continue to peddle, one for which
they have continually failed to present any evidence. I am on record
as being quite aware of the Evans-Winter feud in 1999, three years
before writing to Mr. Laurie.

Lastly, he asked if we could keep our
communication a secret. This was a request I ignored as I do not talk
behind people's backs.

That's rich. No, Mr. Laurie simply lies in public.

Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs, Mr.
Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by telling me he
was in contact with the editors of Chess Life and wanted to tell him I
had switched sides in the dispute even though I had not done so.

Further falsehood.

His "proofs" which I later returned to him without copying consisted
of nothing more than a collection of tear sheets and xeroxed articles
with such phrases as "This is a lie" scribbled across them. They
reminded me of a packet of documents and letters an older friend of
mine carried with him when he was enduring an emotional breakdown. My
friend's problems were due to Post Traumatic Stress (once called
"Battle Fatigue") dating back to experiences during the Second World
War. I will not hazard a guess as to Mr. Kingston's motivations.

My motivation was quite simple. Mr.Laurie wrote something false. I
wished to show him the facts. Alas, one may lead a horse to water,
but ...

I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not heard from
him since he wrote me that I was even nastier than GM Evans.

These are the facts. Mr. Kingston knows these are the facts.

Mr. Laurie's notion of "facts" and the testimony of the public
record are two quite different things.

Larry, you promised rgc readers scandalous revelations from the
Laurie archives. Instead, you just regurgitate the same old crap, with
Laurie's seriously fallible memory even more wrong than it was 5 years
ago. I must say, this is proving quite entertaining.

On Nov 18, 8:10 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, " wrote:

LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON

Gee, Larry, I must have really rankled your ass for you to go to
such lengths as this. And all just because I dissed your boy-toy Sloan
a while back.

As for Mr. Laurie, what an utterly bizarre letter. A few
observations below:

Subj: Reply to TK please post
Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:

It would be nice if sites such as this one were actually used to
explore and debate questions of chess history, literature and, of
course, the games themselves. It would be nice, but that is not the
way they are used. Instead we have invective and smear until the
original issue is lost in the clash of personalities.

I agree. That is Larry Parr's usual modus operandi, unfortunately.





In the beginning of this particular issue, GM Larry Evans published
an article probing whether or not the Soviets were cheating at the top
levels of chess. He focused on the Keres-Botvinnik games in the 1948
World Championship tournament. Was Keres coerced into throwing the
games?

Though not of great import in world history, it is important in chess
history and GM Evans was one of the few who kept the issue alive.
Many others were content to either accept Soviet denials or let the
matter drop.

When GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that one
or more smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were
explored, he was praised by our friend Taylor Kingston.

Later, for reasons of his own, Mr. Kingston published a counter
article; but unable to refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM
Evans' ability to analyze.

Why Messrs. Parr and Laurie cling repeatedly to this outright
fiction defies understanding. They have never produced a single
statement of mine that confirms this fabrication. As I have pointed
out many times, I have never "maligned GM Evans' ability to analyze";
quite the opposite. But, it seems that Parr and Laurie must continue
to repeat the Big Lie.

His basis for this assault appears to have
been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky.

This is perhaps the most bizarre of Mr. Laurie's many bizarre
statements. "Warriors of the Mind" is not even mentioned within the
body of my two articles. It is listed in the bibliography of the first
only because it provided some minor background information.
In any event, "Warriors" provides no basis for "maligning Evans'
analytical ability."

(Mr. Kingston and I discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but not a good
foundation for intellectual discourse. It was instead rather like
comparing the Green Bay Packers of the 1960's with the Pittsburgh
Steelers of the 70's and New England Patriots of today. This book
received a savage review from Ed Winters in his "Chess Explorations"
on pages 227-30.

Quite irrelevant, in view of the fact the book in question was a
very minor part of my two K-B-related articles.

This latter article prompted a letter from me to GM Evans which was
published in Chess Life. This letter in turn elicited an email from
Mr. Kingston. Mind you, we had never communicated before and
certainly never met. Yet, Mr. Kingston thought my letter deserved
some attention from him and he sought me out through the internet to
ask if he could present his side of the issue.

He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
between GM Evans and Ed Winter.

Another falsehood Laurie and Parr continue to peddle, one for which
they have continually failed to present any evidence. I am on record
as being quite aware of the Evans-Winter feud in 1999, three years
before writing to Mr. Laurie.

Lastly, he asked if we could keep our
communication a secret. This was a request I ignored as I do not talk
behind people's backs.

That's rich. No, Mr. Laurie simply lies in public.

Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs, Mr.
Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by telling me he
was in contact with the editors of Chess Life and wanted to tell him I
had switched sides in the dispute even though I had not done so.

Further falsehood.

His "proofs" which I later returned to him without copying consisted
of nothing more than a collection of tear sheets and xeroxed articles
with such phrases as "This is a lie" scribbled across them. They
reminded me of a packet of documents and letters an older friend of
mine carried with him when he was enduring an emotional breakdown. My
friend's problems were due to Post Traumatic Stress (once called
"Battle Fatigue") dating back to experiences during the Second World
War. I will not hazard a guess as to Mr. Kingston's motivations.

My motivation was quite simple. Mr.Laurie wrote something false. I
wished to show him the facts. Alas, one may lead a horse to water,
but ...

I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not heard from
him since he wrote me that I was even nastier than GM Evans.

Oh yes, I meant to add that I have never said anything to that
effect about Mr. Laurie. This is yet another fabrication Laurie and
Parr have yet to substantiate.

These are the facts. Mr. Kingston knows these are the facts.

Mr. Laurie's notion of "facts" and the testimony of the public
record are two quite different things.

Larry, you promised rgc readers scandalous revelations from the
Laurie archives. Instead, you just regurgitate the same old crap, with
Laurie's seriously fallible memory even more wrong than it was 5 years
ago. I must say, this is proving quite entertaining.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Larry Parr wrote (Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:58:46 -0800 (PST))
(Subject: The facts about Taylor Kingston):

7 LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON
7
7 Subj: Reply to TK please post
7 Date: 11/18/2007 2:08:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
7 From:
7 ...
7 ... Mr. Kingston published a counter article; but unable to
7 refute the analysis itself, he maligned GM Evans' ability to
7 analyze. ...
_
_
What does Larry Parr think about this Richard Laurie
perception?
_
"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)
_
"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)
_
_
7 ...
7 ... Mr. Kingston ... denied any knowledge of a feud between
7 GM Evans and Ed Winter. ...
_
_
"Kingston to Laurie, 21 February 2002:
'... I am not aware of any personal attacks by Mr.
Winter, though admittedly I do not have the full
voluminous record of words that have passed
between [Winter and Evans] ...'" - Taylor Kingston
(Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:38:53 -0800)
_
Has Larry Parr tried asking Richard Laurie if that is the
comment that caused RL to claim that Taylor Kingston
denied being aware of the battle between Evans and
Winter? What would be the opinion of Larry Parr if the
"personal attacks" quote is the basis for RL's claim that
Taylor Kingston wrote such a denial?
_
_
7 Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs,
7 Mr. Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by
7 telling me he was in contact with the editors of Chess Life
7 and wanted to tell him I had switched sides in the dispute
7 even though I had not done so.
7 ...
_
_
"...
... There is no quote of me 'denigrating Evans' analysis.'
There is no quote of me telling Peter Kurzdorfer that
Laurie had changed his mind. There is no quote of me
calling Laurie and Evans 'evil.' And why are there no
such quotes? Very simple -- I never wrote nor said any
such thing.
..." - Taylor Kingston (Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:57:08 -0800)
_
_
7 ...
7 I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not
7 heard from him since he wrote me that I was even nastier
7 than GM Evans.
7 ...
7 Richard Laurie
_
_
Is Richard Laurie dropping his previous claim?
_
"...
[Playwright Richard Laurie just authorized me to post
this message.]
_
'When I refused to retract my letter to Chess Life, Taylor
Kingston told me, in effect, that I was even more evil than
Larry Evans. ...' -- Richard Laurie" - Larry Parr (Wed,
14 Nov 2007 00:08:06 -0800)

samsloan (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote:

7 ... I did not know at the time that Taylor Kingston was
7 webmaster or whatever you call it of the Chess Cafe
7 Forum. ...
_
_
Does he claim to know it now? If so, how?

wrote in message
...
LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON



He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
between GM Evans and Ed Winter.


Curious that Mr. Laurie can't provide a single shred of evidence
to support that claim.

WOUNDS NOT OF THE FLESH

I must say, this is proving quite entertaining. -- Taylor Kingston

Before discussing what Mr. Laurie wrote, one has to
comment on the ploy employed by NMnot Kingston in response.

Once again, this writer recently published a
letter written by Mr. Laurie to NMnot Kingston in
March 2002. In this letter, Laurie said that the
latter had denied knowledge of the Evans-Winter
brouhaha. The letter is evidently probative, if not
determinative, evidence of such dishonest behavior on
NMnot's part. Our NMnot issued a denial.

Now, then, in his response to Mr. Laurie, NMnot
says that he was on public record as being well aware
of the dispute between Evans and Winter. No one,
including Mr. Laurie, has denied that such is so. The
issue is whether NMnot wrote to Mr. Laurie, posing as
a naif in order to elicit certain hoped-for comments
from the playwright. There is probative evidence that
he did exactly that.

In fact, Louis Blair just dug up a quote from Kingston
apparently posted in this forum over seven years ago that
contradicts this claim by Kingston on November 18, 2007:

I am on record as being quite aware of the Evans-Winter feud
in 1999, three years before writing to Mr. Laurie. -- Taylor
Kingston,

"Kingston to Laurie, 21 February 2002: '... I am not aware of any
personal attacks by Mr. Winter, though admittedly I do not have the
full voluminous record of words that have passed between [Winter and
Evans] ...'" -- quote produced by Louis Blair

Mr. Laurie has described behavior by NMnot that
appears both sneaky and a trifle unbalanced. He
describes sheets of paper with NMnot's scribbled
annotations (such as "This is a lie") and they
reminded him of similar stuff from someone who had
suffered the travails of a war.

NMnot Kingston reacts poorly under moral and
intellectual pressure. When Sam Sloan was pressing
him mercilessly about his playing strength, our NMnot
raised his rating 500 points. It was a stupid, stupid
lie that easily refuted by Sam and others. Only after
after the exposure did NMnot offer an explanation for
the ego-driven fib.

In debates with this writer, NMnot invented false
names such as Paulie Graf and Xylothist and then wrote
messages IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF, for Pete's sake. A
normal personality does not conduct business in such a
fashion, though we make no claim that he suffers from
psychopathology or needs therapy, which he advised me to get.

What Mr. Laurie says about NMnot Kingston's
behavior is what we here have come to know well.

In response thus far, NMnot Kingston dragged me
in a couple of times to toss out gratuitous insults.
He also tried to jump on Mr. Laurie's reference to
"Warriors of the Mind", stating that he did not
reference the book in his attack on GM Evans. That
was a typical Kingston strawman. Mr. Laurie wrote
with precision about the work serving, in NMnot's
hands, as a "basis" for the attack. That is quite different.

Mr. Laurie describes surprise at receiving from
our NMnot an envelope filled with paper that had
phrases such as, "This is a lie," scribbled over them.
To Mr. Laurie, the wad of pulp seemed like a similar
mailing he once received from a friend who was
suffering emotional turmoil, probably from experiences
during World War II.

The tone of Mr. Laurie's response here, while
strong and a mite angry, is not without feeling for
NMnot Kingston. He is right to intuit that the man
has suffered wounds, though in the current instance
the wounds were not ones of the flesh.

Yours, Larry Parr



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
...
LAURIE REPLIES TO KINGSTON



He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
between GM Evans and Ed Winter.


Curious that Mr. Laurie can't provide a single shred of evidence
to support that claim.

On Nov 18, 5:58 pm, " wrote:

It would be nice if sites such as this one were actually used to
explore and debate questions of chess history, literature and, of
course, the games themselves. It would be nice, but that is not the
way they are used. Instead we have invective and smear until the
original issue is lost in the clash of personalities.

We are used to this problem by now, so there is no point
in complaining so late about Mr. Par's tactics; where were
you five, ten, or fifteen years ago? The party's nearly over,
and you missed it.


In the beginning of this particular issue,

The facts of the chronology are fairly stated in the
article by Taylor Kingston, so attempting to "write
out" Larry Evans' predecessors looks suspect; is the
motive to obscure his *dubious sources*? Perhaps,
but writing those characters out also makes LE
look good for raising the questions himself, as
opposed to being a mere repeater antenna (which
is much closer to the reality).


GM Larry Evans published
an article probing whether or not the Soviets were cheating at the top
levels of chess. He focused on the Keres-Botvinnik games in the 1948
World Championship tournament. Was Keres coerced into throwing the
games?

I wouldn't know. I sent three different guys to interrogate
Mr. Krylenko, but each time their IDs were returned to me
with a note attached, reading "now sleeps with the fishes".
What can it mean?


Though not of great import in world history, it is important in chess
history and GM Evans was one of the few who kept the issue alive.
Many others were content to either accept Soviet denials or let the
matter drop.

In truth, just prior to the article by LE there were
articles published by others, and these were in fact
his (dubious) sources. The idea fit well with a
general bashing-FIDE mindset, so the facts were
dealt with accordingly.


When GM Evans showed through analysis of the games in question that
there was reason to suspect coercion and held forth the view that one
or more smoking guns would be found as the Soviet archives were
explored, he was praised by our friend Taylor Kingston.

Friend, eh? This is starting to sound completely
dishonest. Perhaps it is a ritual of some sort, which
must be completed before gaining full membership
status in the Evans ratpack.


Later, for reasons of his own

I note a deliberate omission of TK's research efforts,
which prompted the new article. Hmm -- complete
dishonesty, omission of pertinent facts along with a
"reasons of his own" lie... congratulations, my boy,
I think you've made the cut!


Mr. Kingston published a counter
article; but unable to refute the analysis itself

Another lie. Mr. Kingston largely agreed with
the chess analysis, so there was no effort at
"refutation" at all. (One thing you can say for the
ratpackers: they are nothing if not consistent.)


he maligned GM
Evans' ability to analyze.

Another lie. It appears this guy wants to not
merely get in, but advance rapidly up the ladder
to the top of the pack!


His basis for this assault appears to have
been the book, "Warriors of the Mind" by Keene and Divinsky. (Mr.
Kingston and I discussed this in an exchange of e-mails as well.) This
book was a harmless piece of brain candy by itself, but not a good
foundation for intellectual discourse. It was instead rather like
comparing the Green Bay Packers of the 1960's with the Pittsburgh
Steelers of the 70's and New England Patriots of today. This book
received a savage review from Ed Winters in his "Chess Explorations"
on pages 227-30.

That should be Ed Winter, singular. (They may clone
sheep or frogs, but no one in their right mind would ever
clone Edward Winter. In fact, there ought to be a law
against it.)


This latter article prompted a letter from me to GM Evans which was
published in Chess Life. This letter in turn elicited an email from
Mr. Kingston. Mind you, we had never communicated before and
certainly never met. Yet, Mr. Kingston thought my letter deserved
some attention from him and he sought me out through the internet to
ask if he could present his side of the issue.

Well, nobody's perfect. Had he known now what
he didn't know then, he'd likely have dismissed it as
just another hack, who can't get his facts straight.


He told me he had evidence that GM Evans was liar and asked if he
could send me these "proofs." He also denied any knowledge of a feud
between GM Evans and Ed Winter. Lastly, he asked if we could keep our
communication a secret. This was a request I ignored as I do not talk
behind people's backs.

This does not jibe with the story told here by Mr.
Parr. In LP's earlier version of this "story", the
request was not "ignored" until AFTER Taylor
Kingston contacted the magazine editor, thus
ticking Mr. Laurie off. (That's the trouble with all
liars: they can't remember every lie they've told,
and sooner or later, they contradict themselves
like this.)


Because I accepted delivery of his packet of so-called proofs, Mr.
Kingston violated his own request for confidentiality by telling me he
was in contact with the editors of Chess Life and wanted to tell him

"Editors" is plural; "him", singular. You do realize
that quite recently LP was singing your literacy praises,
right? Don't let your head honcho, chief rat, or whatever
it is you people call him, down like this.


I had switched sides in the dispute even though I had not done so.

His "proofs" which I later returned to him without copying consisted
of nothing more than a collection of tear sheets and xeroxed articles
with such phrases as "This is a lie" scribbled across them. They
reminded me of a packet of documents and letters an older friend of
mine carried with him when he was enduring an emotional breakdown. My
friend's problems were due to Post Traumatic Stress (once called
"Battle Fatigue") dating back to experiences during the Second World
War. I will not hazard a guess as to Mr. Kingston's motivations.

Ignorance is bliss! My suggestion would be to
get on the bad side of Larry Parr by disagreeing
with his opinions here, then kick back and watch
the carnage. If you take these Evans ratpackers
seriously, I can see how the term "battle fatigue"
might eventually set in. (Fortunately, their
overwhelming dishonesty precludes that from
ever happening.)


I later returned said package to Mr. Kingston and have not heard from
him since he wrote me that I was even nastier than GM Evans.

Where Mr. Parr promised evidence from saved
emails, all we ever seem to actually get is foggy
memories of days gone by. Each time I see yet
another reference from the ratpack to such emails,
I wonder if it is really even possible, given the
vast number of OS upgrades, new hardware, or
both that I've experienced over the years. Maybe
somewhere out there, is a person who still has
their first-ever emails, their first (still-working)
computer. Maybe.


These are the facts. Mr. Kingston knows these are the facts.

Period. End of story.

It makes for a good story.


-- help bot

On Nov 18, 8:10 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

My motivation was quite simple. Mr.Laurie wrote something false. I
wished to show him the facts. Alas, one may lead a horse to water,
but ...

This is an insult to horses.

Mr. Laurie has demonstrated an inability to think
rationally, most clearly in his repetitions of the lie
regarding comments about Dr. Nunn. No horse is
that stupid. In fact, I think all the ratpackers could
do worse than to study how horses think.


Larry, you promised rgc readers scandalous revelations from the
Laurie archives. Instead, you just regurgitate the same old crap, with
Laurie's seriously fallible memory even more wrong than it was 5 years
ago. I must say, this is proving quite entertaining.

Well, it's a grave disappointment to those of us
who took 10-1 odds, thinking the ratpack might
*for once* get lucky.


-- help bot