A NEW ONE

I have not followed this debate on eugenics very closely. Is my
understanding correct that Greg Kennedy cannot answer some questions
from Taylor Kingston because historical information is copyrighted?

That's a new one, if such is what this clown from Indiana is claiming.

Yours, Larry Parr

On Jun 28, 1:14*pm, " wrote:

A NEW ONE

I have not followed this debate on eugenics very closely. *Is my
understanding correct that Greg Kennedy cannot answer some questions
from Taylor Kingston because historical information is copyrighted?

That's a new one, if such is what this clown from Indiana is claiming.

Yours, Larry Parr

Larry, I have sympathy for your sentiments expressed
in your post.

On the other hand, due to the nature of your
post, shouldn't you make it 100% proof rather
than iffy?

Regards,

Wlod

On Jun 28, 4:14*pm, " wrote:
A NEW ONE

I have not followed this debate on eugenics very closely. *Is my
understanding correct that Greg Kennedy cannot answer some questions
from Taylor Kingston because historical information is copyrighted?

That's a new one, if such is what this clown from Indiana is claiming.

Here's a brief summary of the relevant statements, Larry:

Help-bot: "Many a fool has come to swallow whole the myth that /only
the Germans/ went in for the Eugenics movement; in reality, there were
very similar crimes against humanity all across the western hemishere
[sic], including in the USA and Canada, in which such nasty 'Nazi-
style' practices as sterilization worked their way into law ...
"In sum, the difference between what the Nazis did in the WWII era
and what others did, was a question of degree, not of principle."

I considered this absurdly disproportionate, and challenged Kennedy
to specify what "very similar crimes against humanity" have been
committed by the USA and Canada, that are remotely comparable to "what
the Nazis did in the WWII era."
His reply was evasive: "Were it not for the fact that it is
copyrighted material, I would be happy to make a few copies of some
enlightening discussions of these matters for Mr. Kingston's perusal,
at his lesiure [sic]."
To which I replied: "You can certainly name authors and titles, and
even post brief quotes, without violating copyright. However, I rather
doubt you'll do even that."
When he added: "But we all know that would just be a waste of time,"
I replied "Our Greg is already bailing out. He knows his pretense of
erudition is pure fraud and bluff."

He has since cited not a single source to support his claim about
the USA and Canada committing "very similar crimes against humanity."
He has merely fallen back on a lame and trivial argument that it was a
matter of degree, not principle, apparently implying that if the USA
or Canada has ever committed even one injustice, they're essentially
no better than the Nazis. My point is that however unjust such things
as the Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell were, calling them "very
similar" to Nazi crimes is a gross distortion.

BTW, Buck v. Bell is the one specific American case of involuntary
sterilization that has been mentioned in the discussion. I brought it
up, not Kennedy, but of course our Greg keeps saying he's the one who
knows history.

On Jun 28, 5:23*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jun 28, 4:14*pm, " wrote:

A NEW ONE

I have not followed this debate on eugenics very closely. *Is my
understanding correct that Greg Kennedy cannot answer some questions
from Taylor Kingston because historical information is copyrighted?

That's a new one, if such is what this clown from Indiana is claiming.

* Here's a brief summary of the relevant statements, Larry:

* Help-bot: "Many a fool has come to swallow whole the myth that /only
the Germans/ went in for the Eugenics movement; in reality, there were
very similar crimes against humanity all across the western hemishere
[sic], including in the USA and Canada, in which such nasty 'Nazi-
style' practices as sterilization worked their way into law ...
* "In sum, the difference between what the Nazis did in the WWII era
and what others did, was a question of degree, not of principle."

* I considered this absurdly disproportionate, and challenged Kennedy
to specify what "very similar crimes against humanity" have been
committed by the USA and Canada, that are remotely comparable to "what
the Nazis did in the WWII era."
* His reply was evasive: "Were it not for the fact that it is
copyrighted material, I would be happy to make a few copies of some
enlightening discussions of these matters for Mr. Kingston's perusal,
at his lesiure [sic]."
* To which I replied: "You can certainly name authors and titles, and
even post brief quotes, without violating copyright. However, I rather
doubt you'll do even that."
* When he added: "But we all know that would just be a waste of time,"
I replied "Our Greg is already bailing out. He knows his pretense of
erudition is pure fraud and bluff."

* He has since cited not a single source to support his claim about
the USA and Canada committing "very similar crimes against humanity."
He has merely fallen back on a lame and trivial argument that it was a
matter of degree, not principle, apparently implying that if the USA
or Canada has ever committed even one injustice, they're essentially
no better than the Nazis. My point is that however unjust such things
as the Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell were, calling them "very
similar" to Nazi crimes is a gross distortion.

* BTW, Buck v. Bell is the one specific American case of involuntary
sterilization that has been mentioned in the discussion. I brought it
up, not Kennedy, but of course our Greg keeps saying he's the one who
knows history.

Of course, this is just the latest variation on the theme that
suffuses most of Kennedy's posts, i.e. "The world and everyone in it
are pieces of crap, but all you fools are too stupid and ignorant to
see it. Only the great help-bot is smart enough to grasp this Truth of
Truths."

On Jun 28, 4:14*pm, " wrote:
A NEW ONE

I have not followed this debate on eugenics very closely. *Is my
understanding correct that Greg Kennedy cannot answer some questions
from Taylor Kingston because historical information is copyrighted?

That's a new one, if such is what this clown from Indiana is claiming.

Yours, Larry Parr

So now you're licking Taylor's ass. Why?

On Jun 28, 7:25*pm, None wrote:

I have not followed this debate [sic] on eugenics very closely. *
Is my understanding correct that Greg Kennedy cannot answer some questions
from Taylor Kingston because historical information is copyrighted?


Historical information is free to all at a Web site
known as wikipedia.org.


That's a new one, if such is what this clown from Indiana is claiming.


So now you're licking Taylor's ass. Why?


I suspect that Mr. Parr is an emmisary sent by Mr.
Sloan to arrange the long-awaited chess match
between the two:

"[Mr. Kingston] adopts the proud puff's contumely,
inventing excuses not to play Sam Sloan a match....
-- Larry Parr

"[Mr. Kingston's] "standards" dictate exhibitions of disdain
rather than entering the arena to slay or be slayed.
-- Larry Parr

WHAT COPYRIGHTED SOURCES?

No, I have a hankering for you to name those "copyrighted sources"
you claim to have at your fingertips. I have a hunch that (A) you
have
no such sources, or (B) if you do, they don't say what you claim they
do. --
Taylor Kingston to Greg Kennedy

Joe Schmoe (None) has me humoring Taylor Kingston because I
asked whether Greg Kennedy is claiming he is unable to answer
Kingston's questions because of copyright issues in historical works.

Once again, is that Mr. Kennedy's claim?

The entire episode involving eugenics as a fad and a practice in
Western democracies is well-known, contrary to Greg's claims to the
contrary. No one has covered up the evidence or tried to obscure it.
The other side of the coin is that few people like to mention that
Margaret Sanger and other liberal saints were supporters of eugenics.
After all, if building a better world by controlling the numbers of
people through birth control is not enough, there must also be people
control via genetics. A wonderful stage play on the theme is "Dr.
Cook's Garden."

Any discussion of relative sins obviously includes references
to the actions of governments, especially if one is talking about
laws.

Is the distinction between quantity and quality a useful
subject to raise when discussing eugenics and murder? Since life is
very largely a matter of degree, the amount of murder or legal
outrages obviously counts, especially to the surviving families of
those taken up in the larger holocaust in, say, Germany or Stalin's
Russia (yes, the weak and infirm were also disposed of in that
country). One leftist writer called it the "equality of death." And,
indeed, the dead are all equal.

For new readers on this forum, Greg is a bitter guy from
Indiana, who may recently have lost his job. Earlier on this forum,
under another name, he railed against working in a factory, called
Indiana a cultural wasteland and claimed that he coulda been a
contendah in world chess if only he had lived in Brooklyn like Bobby.
He told us that he read comic books in the 1960s rather than works of
history. Then he disappeared and came back later under his new name,
help bot.

The results are the historically illiterate tracts he currently
drops here like bowel movements. The poor man did not even know the
political geography of Europe in the 19th century; he actually
believed that Poland was independent during World War I, not realizing
that it was part of the Russian Empire.

That is the level of our angry Greg.

Yours, Larry Parr



help bot wrote:
On Jun 28, 7:25 pm, None wrote:

I have not followed this debate [sic] on eugenics very closely.
Is my understanding correct that Greg Kennedy cannot answer some questions
from Taylor Kingston because historical information is copyrighted?


Historical information is free to all at a Web site
known as wikipedia.org.


That's a new one, if such is what this clown from Indiana is claiming.


So now you're licking Taylor's ass. Why?


I suspect that Mr. Parr is an emmisary sent by Mr.
Sloan to arrange the long-awaited chess match
between the two:

"[Mr. Kingston] adopts the proud puff's contumely,
inventing excuses not to play Sam Sloan a match....
-- Larry Parr

"[Mr. Kingston's] "standards" dictate exhibitions of disdain
rather than entering the arena to slay or be slayed.
-- Larry Parr

On Jun 29, 12:18*am, " wrote:

(his usual claptrap)


It seems to me that Mr. Parr is still refusing to
answer questions-- just as he did back when
Dr. Blair harried him into oblivion.

One chap astutely observed that Mr. Parr was,
to use his words, licking Mr. Kingston's ass, and
(understandably) he wanted to know /why/.

Why should a former sworn enemy of Mr.
Kingston suddenly bend so low and start to lick
the enemy's posterior? Such questions may
well be asked, but as we know from Dr. Blair's
life-long quest to harry dishonest nutters like
Mr. Parr, they are unlikely to ever be answered.

Nevertheless, we may very well figure out the
answers for ourselves.


"Larry [Parr], you promised rgc readers scandalous
revelations from the Laurie archives. Instead, you just
regurgitate the same old crap." --Taylor Kingston

"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 [was] easily refuted by Sam and others."
--Larry Parr

"Taylor Kingston is the Rudolf Spielmann of
truth. Once again he gambits a full piece of it
in an rgcp posting. ... The lie is the use of the
word 'admitted.' ... Spielmann never played
a bigger sacrifice of a chess piece than Mr.
Kingston did of the truth with his king-size
whopper." --Larry Parr

"Gee, Larry [Parr], these look more like posts
where Xylothist reamed you a new one...."
--Taylor Kingston

On Jun 28, 5:23*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

* He has since cited not a single source to support his claim about
the USA and Canada committing "very similar crimes against humanity."
He has merely fallen back on a lame and trivial argument that it was a
matter of degree, not principle, apparently implying that if the USA
or Canada has ever committed even one injustice, they're essentially
no better than the Nazis. My point is that however unjust such things
as the Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell were, calling them "very
similar" to Nazi crimes is a gross distortion.

* BTW, Buck v. Bell is the one specific American case of involuntary
sterilization that has been mentioned in the discussion. I brought it
up, not Kennedy, but of course our Greg keeps saying he's the one who
knows history.

You should have asked me. I know all about this. Don't you understand?
I have been trying to tell you this for years.

The case of Buck vs. Bell is all about what happened to me and my
family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

The case of Buck vs. Bell is about the Virginia State Colony for
Epileptics and Feebleminded. My mother, Dr. Marjorie Sloan, was a
psychiatrist on the staff there, except that by that time the name of
the facility was changed the Lynchburg Training School and Hospital.
It is now called the Central Virginia Training School. Buck vs. Bell
was not just one isolated case. There were at least hundreds and
possibly thousands of mentally ill and mentally retarded people
involuntarily sterilized there. This was taking place while my mother
was a doctor on the staff there and she would have been the one to
decide whether the patient ought to be sterilized or not.

The facility in the picture, I know the place well. I have been there
many times. I often came there to pick up my mother at work.

http://www.cvtc.dmhmrsas.virginia.gov/

Years later, when my daughter Shamema was kidnapped in the United Arab
Emirates, she was taken to a place only two or three miles from there,
where she was held by the kidnappers for ten years until she grew up.
The judges of Amherst County Virginia who allowed the kidnappers to
get away with this crime were the same judges who routinely passed on
these involuntarily sterilization cases.

I have always suspected that Charles Roberts, the man who kidnapped my
daughter and got away with it, was an escapee or an outpatient from
the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded because he
was and still is a profoundly stupid man who believes that it was OK
to kidnap my daughter so that he would go to heaven.

Comparing the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded to
the Nazis was probably not even a matter of degree. I would wager that
as many of these involuntarily sterilizations were done at the
Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded as were done by
the Nazis. In fact, the Nazis always stated that they were following
the example provided by the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and
Feebleminded.

Judge Norman K. Moon, the same judge who recently stated that it was
OK for Mr. Roberts to kidnap my daughter, was involved in this.

The sterilization of the mentally retarded was brilliantly portrayed
by actor Montgomery Clift in the 1961 movie Judgment at Nuremberg.
However, do not think that this is a historical event that happened a
long time ago. It certainly happened while my mother was working there
and is probably taking place there now.

Sam Sloan

GREG'S TERGIVERSATIONS

In the message that follows, Greg Kennedy makes several claims.
We present them as he wrote the material, and our comments are in
multiple brackets.

Greg labors under the impression that this writer must suspend
judgment about Greg's historically illiterate smudgings because his
antagonist in these recent exchanges, Taylor Kingston, happens not to
be the favorite person of yours truly.

Our big quarrel with Mr. Kingston is not over the basics of
history (we are likely agreed on most of these, and I have no doubt
that, unlike our Greg, he knows the political geography of 19th
century Europe) but over what I believe he did when assuming false
monickers in which he praised himself during a series of debates with
me. He has to live with it in his conscience.

This writer has no substantive quarrel with Greg because his
efforts have no wings and fly nowhere. Instead, we occasionally
respond to the man when he reverses truth. For example, he has one
Louie Blair driving this writer off this forum, whereas every reader
here knows that my only extended absence from this forum in several
years was a period when I wrote a long series of articles on Larry
Evans. For reasons that we know not, it has been Dr. Blair -- not I --
who departed these precincts.

This reversal of truth is typical of Greg -- just as when he
claimed that GM Evans "brainwashed" America into accepting Fischer's
conditions against Karpov for the title match in 1975 when, in point
of fact, GM Evans was virtually the only writer in Chess Life who was
critical of Fischer's conditions.

Once again, see this writer's comments below in multiple
brackets:

[[[[[Writes Greg Kennedy: "It seems to me that Mr. Parr is still
refusing to answer questions -- just as he did back when Dr. Blair
harried him into oblivion."]]]]]

[[[[[As noted above and as known by every reader here, it is Dr.
Blair who left rgcp, for whatever reason, rather than this writer.
One wonders why Greg would write such an evident lie. He cannot
possibly believe that he serves his purposes with such a weakminded
falsehood. Or can he?]]]]]

[[[[[Writes Greg: "One chap astutely observed that Mr. Parr was, to
use his words, licking Mr. Kingston's ass, and (understandably) he
wanted to know /why/.]]]]]

[[[[[The correspondent is an anonymouse named Joe Schmoe (None). Greg,
too, is technically an anonymouse, though most of us guessed his
identity after a few postings under his new monicker.

Readers will judge for themselves whether we are playing up to
Mr. Kingston when, for the umpteenth time, we assert that he morally
wounded himself by assuming false identities that contained praise of
himself.]]]]]

[[[[[Writes Greg: "Why should a former sworn enemy of Mr. Kingston
suddenly bend so low and start to lick the enemy's posterior? Such
questions may well be asked, but as we know from Dr. Blair's life-long
quest to harry dishonest nutters like Mr. Parr, they are unlikely to
ever be answered. Nevertheless, we may very well figure out the
answers for ourselves."

[[[[[We leave it to rgcp readers to discern who is a nutjob in these
exchanges. If someone answers, "All of you folks on this forum" one
concedes that the assertion would be difficult to refute. On the
other hand, if one inquires who is bone ignorant of basic historical
facts, Greg is the answer. The man himself told us that he never read
during his formative years, blaming Indiana rather than himself for
his intellectual failure. Now his main source seems to be
wikipedia.]]]]]

[[[[[At this point: Greg Kennedy offers the following quotations from
past battles between Mr. Kingston and yours truly:

"Larry [Parr], you promised rgc readers scandalous
revelations from the Laurie archives. Instead, you just
regurgitate the same old crap." --Taylor Kingston

"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 [was] easily refuted by Sam and others."
--Larry Parr

"Taylor Kingston is the Rudolf Spielmann of
truth. Once again he gambits a full piece of it
in an rgcp posting. ... The lie is the use of the
word 'admitted.' ... Spielmann never played
a bigger sacrifice of a chess piece than Mr.
Kingston did of the truth with his king-size
whopper." --Larry Parr

"Gee, Larry [Parr], these look more like posts
where Xylothist reamed you a new one...." --Taylor Kingston

[[[[[What have the above quotations to do with the issues at
question? Certainly, neither Mr. Kingston nor I feel differently
about those matters than we did earlier.

In the current dispute over eugenics, Mr. Kingston is clearly
correct that since life is virtually all a matter of degree, then the
matter of degree that a given government or society commits horrendous
crimes is also very important.

Mr. Kennedy's claim that eugenics is a little-known episode in
Western politico-intellectual history is ahistorical -- a risible bit
of ignorance put into words. We reckon that he recently read
something on the subject in wikipedia and was all agog, failing to
realize that others had already, as they say, discovered America.

I assume many readers recollect Greg did not not even realize
that Steinitz was an American during his official years (as reckoned
by most chess historians) as world champion -- indeed, all of his
official years.

Or there was Greg's claim that Larry Evans and I misled the U.S.
press about the Fischer-FIDE dispute in 1974-75. The poor man was
attributing a reach and power to our writings that were indeed
flattering! GM Evans and yours truly had quite a few private
chuckles. If memory serves, there were a couple of times that Mr.
Kingston seemed pained by Greg's unconscious elevation of the two
Larrys to a level of influence over an issue with which he was more in
accord with Greg than with us.

Once again, this writer has no substantive quarrel with Greg
Kennedy. I simply enjoy, which I know I should not, pointing out the
poor cur's tergiversations.]]]]]






help bot wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:18 am, " wrote:

(his usual claptrap)


It seems to me that Mr. Parr is still refusing to
answer questions-- just as he did back when
Dr. Blair harried him into oblivion.

One chap astutely observed that Mr. Parr was,
to use his words, licking Mr. Kingston's ass, and
(understandably) he wanted to know /why/.

Why should a former sworn enemy of Mr.
Kingston suddenly bend so low and start to lick
the enemy's posterior? Such questions may
well be asked, but as we know from Dr. Blair's
life-long quest to harry dishonest nutters like
Mr. Parr, they are unlikely to ever be answered.

Nevertheless, we may very well figure out the
answers for ourselves.


"Larry [Parr], you promised rgc readers scandalous
revelations from the Laurie archives. Instead, you just
regurgitate the same old crap." --Taylor Kingston

"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 [was] easily refuted by Sam and others."
--Larry Parr

"Taylor Kingston is the Rudolf Spielmann of
truth. Once again he gambits a full piece of it
in an rgcp posting. ... The lie is the use of the
word 'admitted.' ... Spielmann never played
a bigger sacrifice of a chess piece than Mr.
Kingston did of the truth with his king-size
whopper." --Larry Parr

"Gee, Larry [Parr], these look more like posts
where Xylothist reamed you a new one...."
--Taylor Kingston