Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 18th 06, 03:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another $10,000 Challenge to Liarry Parr


Chess One wrote:
I could have made a mistake! Maybe it wasn't Niemand after all!


Make up your mind, Phil. "Maybe"? You definitely said "Niemand," not
"maybe could have." If Niemand and I did not do what you claimed, then
the manly thing to do is to admit your "mistake" unambiguously. You're
making a lot of them recently: saying that Frank Brady is Al Lawrence,
fabricating quotes, pretending to know great secrets that do not exist.

In the meantime, poor, gullible Larry Parr apparently swallowed your
"mistake" hook, line, and sinker -- such diligent standards of evidence
he has, our Larry. Therefore my challenge to him still stands:

wrote:
KINGSTON'S STANDARDS


NM Taylor Kingston, the man with "standards,"
tells us that although he posted under one pseudonym,
Niemand, that was successfully outed,


Larry, we're still waiting for you to tell us who "successfully
outed" Niemand, and on what date. If we disagree on who and when, would
you care to bet $10,000 on the issue? We wouldn't need any
lie-detectors, just a bit of Google-searching.

he cannot
recollect for sure whether he used his own name to
respond in an invented colloquy.


Larry, do you never tire of misquoting? I posted this yesterday:
"Well, Phil, I have searched both Google and my memory, and I cannot
find any post by Niemand that replies to a post by Taylor Kingston."
Nor did I ever do the reverse. That means no "invented colloquy."
What part of "no" do you not understand?

Phil Innes is under an obligation
to find such a colloquy, though it is a teensy-weensy
obligation at most.


I see -- so by Larry Parr's standards, someone who fabricates a lie
is under only a "teensy-weensy obligation" to provide any supporting
evidence. And apparently under no obligation to retract it once
refuted.
So, Larry -- I've already said who it was that revealed Niemand's
identity (see earlier posts in this thread). If you disagree, then put
up your $10,000, and tell me who you say it was, and when. If you're
wrong (and this can be checked in seconds via Google), you owe me ten
large.

  #2   Report Post  
Old January 18th 06, 04:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kingston's Deception

KINGSTON DECEPTIVELY SUPPORTS HIMSELF

Someone advised me that there were 42 messages
from Xylothist, including several where NM Kingston
defends NM Kingston has been found.

The Niemand business is NM Kingston arguing that
those bodies over there are not his responsibility --
only the bodies right over here. That kind of thing.

Here we have prime examples of NM Taylor
Kingston's, ah, "standards." He wrote a posting as
Xylothist in support of ... himself.

Here we have a man who wonders about Eric
Schiller's devotion to fact and who invents
discussions between himself and self. We are more
convinced than ever that NM Kingston developed his
"standards" from Edward Winter.

Once again, for the record: Mr. Kingston, did
you post messages on rgcp under the name of Xylothist?
Are faked conversations between yourself and self an
example of your "standards"? Would Edward Winter
approve of such "standards"? (Alas, he probably does.)

We do NOT ask Louie Blair for his comment on
invented conversations meant to deceive. His reply is
known in advance.

Jun 16 2001, 7:00 pm
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Xylothist)
Date: 17 Jun 2001 03:00:47 GMT
Subject: Mr. Winter's Humbug

Larry Parr, in his inimitable fashion, writes:

This doesn't look like DOUBT to me.


Typical Parr: thwarted from one angle, he changes the subject and
claims his new angle was the real issue all along. It having been
proven that Kingstonhas repudiated his support of Evans, Parr now tries
to say the real issueis Keres-Botvinnik. Slicker than snot on a
doorknob.
No, the issue at hand is Evans' deliberate misrepresentation. Now if
you will excuse me, I have better things to do than argue with broken
records and wriggling eels.

*************************************
Here is another Xylothist posting in which NM
Taylor Kingston, the man with "standards," defends
himself under a false name. Incredible stuff.

We are LOVIN' it.

Feb 16 2002, 7:32 am
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Xylothist)
Subject: Politicising History in Chess Life and ChessCafe

Larry Parr wrote: "One of the sillier things stated
by Taylor Kingston in a ChessCafe piece was that
no one dared to defy Stalin's orders if he were in
the dictator's grasp."

Having searched both of Kingston's Chess Cafe
articles on this subject, I found no such statement.
Please supply the exact quote on which you base your
comment. In the meantime, the following quote from
another source seems relevant: "No one, not even the
simpletons to be found among the ratpackers, would have
refused as a matter 'of course' to do what Stalin
'personally' proposed. Even these nit-twits know that Stalin
not only proposed, but disposed. Of any person who might ignore him."


The author? Larry Parr, in this forum, 25 August 2001.
Does Parr now find "silly" an assertion he recently espoused?
While attributing that assertion to someone else who never made it?

  #3   Report Post  
Old January 18th 06, 05:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another $10,000 Challenge to Liarry Parr


So, Larry, I take it you are chicken to take the bet about Niemand?
You were so certain about it yesterday.

wrote:
KINGSTON DECEPTIVELY SUPPORTS HIMSELF

Someone advised me that there were 42 messages
from Xylothist, including several where NM Kingston
defends NM Kingston has been found.


Gee, Larry, these look more like posts where Xylothist reamed you a
new one, rather than said anything great about me. No wonder he is your
White Whale. It was especially rich when you were hoist with your own
petar on that "silly thing" about Stalin. And in none is there any
"invented colloquy" between X and myself.

Jun 16 2001, 7:00 pm
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Xylothist)
Date: 17 Jun 2001 03:00:47 GMT
Subject: Mr. Winter's Humbug

Larry Parr, in his inimitable fashion, writes:

This doesn't look like DOUBT to me.


Typical Parr: thwarted from one angle, he changes the subject and
claims his new angle was the real issue all along. It having been
proven that Kingstonhas repudiated his support of Evans, Parr now tries
to say the real issueis Keres-Botvinnik. Slicker than snot on a
doorknob.
No, the issue at hand is Evans' deliberate misrepresentation. Now if
you will excuse me, I have better things to do than argue with broken
records and wriggling eels.

*************************************
Here is another Xylothist posting in which NM
Taylor Kingston, the man with "standards," defends
himself under a false name. Incredible stuff.

We are LOVIN' it.

Feb 16 2002, 7:32 am
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Xylothist)
Subject: Politicising History in Chess Life and ChessCafe

Larry Parr wrote: "One of the sillier things stated
by Taylor Kingston in a ChessCafe piece was that
no one dared to defy Stalin's orders if he were in
the dictator's grasp."

Having searched both of Kingston's Chess Cafe
articles on this subject, I found no such statement.
Please supply the exact quote on which you base your
comment. In the meantime, the following quote from
another source seems relevant: "No one, not even the
simpletons to be found among the ratpackers, would have
refused as a matter 'of course' to do what Stalin
'personally' proposed. Even these nit-twits know that Stalin
not only proposed, but disposed. Of any person who might ignore him."


The author? Larry Parr, in this forum, 25 August 2001.
Does Parr now find "silly" an assertion he recently espoused?
While attributing that assertion to someone else who never made it?


So, Larry, I take it you are chicken to take the bet about Niemand?
You were so certain about it yesterday.

  #4   Report Post  
Old January 18th 06, 05:43 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kingston's Deception


wrote in message
ups.com...
KINGSTON DECEPTIVELY SUPPORTS HIMSELF

Someone advised me that there were 42 messages
from Xylothist, including several where NM Kingston
defends NM Kingston has been found.


It goggles to 88 references, and one of them contains this

[[[[[Bringing up Mr. Kingston's career as Xylothist is evidently not
unrelated to the subject matter here. He invented a character to hide
behind while he attacked GM Evans and this writer. A reasonable
explanation for doing such is that it was
ego driven. Where is the ad hominem attack in bringing up Mr.
Kingston's pseudonym?]]]]]

Unfortunately Niemand googles to 6,650,000 references

Paulie Graf comes up with 9, 750.

Xylothist was around in 1999 - although the excrebable 'Chess Life' site has
errors in postscript so that I can't read my own messages in associated
scripts, nor Taylor Kingston's, nor Eric Schiller's, I could read about 50
of these messages from other sites, and at no time does Taylor Kingston
confirm nor deny.... !

He changes the subject to; who is asking? Or makes counter-accusations.
While Niemand is now an admitted pseudonym, even Inspector Columbo couldn't
trip him up, with all his bumbling around

ggg

The other two [I count 3, BTW, though not included shared identities] are
neither avowed nor dissavowed! Even though there are so many entries on the
subject. This is psychologically significant, IMO - since I sense that to
surrender the identity is the same as to surrender the sentiment.

I have seen this many times before - in fact, much of the resentment of Sam
Sloan is that no matter what he has to say, I sense he is resented for
saying it all as Sam Sloan! In other words, a secret jeolousy that a man can
own his stuff in his own name.

But all these /pretend names/ have the same theme, all are antagonistic to
the same issues and the same people, in much the same language and metaphor
[if briefer].

Phil Innes



  #5   Report Post  
Old January 18th 06, 08:11 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
jr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kingston's Deception

I commend Joel Channing for his straight talk. He's a breath of fresh
air.

Taylor Kingston's evasions (or Xylothist, Paulie Graf, etc., etc., )
are tiresome.
One thing is for su no matter what bogus screen name he uses, he
always
agrees with himself.



  #6   Report Post  
Old January 18th 06, 08:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another $10,000 Challenge to Liarry Parr

So, Larry, I take it you are chicken to take the bet about Niemand?
You were so certain about it yesterday.

wrote:
KINGSTON DECEPTIVELY SUPPORTS HIMSELF
Someone advised me that there were 42 messages
from Xylothist, including several where NM Kingston
defends NM Kingston has been found.


Gee, Larry, these look more like posts where Xylothist reamed you a
new one, rather than said anything great about me. No wonder he is your

White Whale. It was especially rich when you were hoist with your own
petar on that "silly thing" about Stalin. And in none is there any
"invented colloquy" between X and myself.

Jun 16 2001, 7:00 pm
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Xylothist)
Date: 17 Jun 2001 03:00:47 GMT
Subject: Mr. Winter's Humbug


Larry Parr, in his inimitable fashion, writes:


This doesn't look like DOUBT to me.


Typical Parr: thwarted from one angle, he changes the subject and
claims his new angle was the real issue all along. It having been
proven that Kingstonhas repudiated his support of Evans, Parr now tries
to say the real issueis Keres-Botvinnik. Slicker than snot on a
doorknob.
No, the issue at hand is Evans' deliberate misrepresentation. Now if
you will excuse me, I have better things to do than argue with broken
records and wriggling eels.


*************************************
Here is another Xylothist posting in which NM
Taylor Kingston, the man with "standards," defends
himself under a false name. Incredible stuff.
We are LOVIN' it.


Feb 16 2002, 7:32 am
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Xylothist)
Subject: Politicising History in Chess Life and ChessCafe


Larry Parr wrote: "One of the sillier things stated
by Taylor Kingston in a ChessCafe piece was that
no one dared to defy Stalin's orders if he were in
the dictator's grasp."


Having searched both of Kingston's Chess Cafe
articles on this subject, I found no such statement.
Please supply the exact quote on which you base your
comment. In the meantime, the following quote from
another source seems relevant: "No one, not even the
simpletons to be found among the ratpackers, would have
refused as a matter 'of course' to do what Stalin
'personally' proposed. Even these nit-twits know that Stalin
not only proposed, but disposed. Of any person who might ignore him."


The author? Larry Parr, in this forum, 25 August 2001.
Does Parr now find "silly" an assertion he recently espoused?
While attributing that assertion to someone else who never made it?


So, Larry, I take it you are chicken to take the bet about Niemand?
You were so certain about it yesterday.

  #7   Report Post  
Old January 19th 06, 12:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kingston's Deception

Larry Parr wrote (18 Jan 2006 08:47:16 -0800):

The Niemand business is NM Kingston arguing ...


_
It is not just about whatever Taylor Kingston is
arguing. There is also the matter of what Larry
Parr tried to tell us about what Taylor Kingston
wrote:
_
"[Taylor Kingston] tells us that although he
posted under one pseudonym, Niemand, that
was successfully outed, he ..." - Larry Parr
wrote (17 Jan 2006 18:19:04 -0800)
_
Larry Parr did not and continues to not produce
any quote of TK telling us Niemand was a
"successfully outed" pseudonym. Why doesn't
Larry Parr confess that he has no such quote?

_
Larry Parr wrote (18 Jan 2006 08:47:16 -0800):

Once again, for the record: Mr. Kingston, did
you post messages ...
_
We do NOT ask Louie Blair for his comment on
invented conversations meant to deceive. His
reply is known in advance.


_
I DO ask Larry Parr to comment on HIS OWN false
statements and HIS OWN decision to post them
with no attempt to identify evidence. The Larry
Parr response is not "known" in advance, but
we do know what Larry Parr's past behavior has
been.
_
For years Larry Parr has been making accusations
and subsequently refusing to talk about them,
much less, answer questions. It seems to me
that, by Parr-logic, he must find the following
questions "sear"ing. (He snips them or ignores
notes containing them.)
_
_
"The latest Louie Blair variation is he did not
know about my repeated statement that Mike
Murray reproduced what I wrote without material
difference." - Larry Parr (19 Oct 2005
18:35:36 -0700)
_
"This is false. Larry Parr should apologize
promptly." - Louis Blair (19 Oct 2005
18:53:08 -0700)
_
Why hasn't Larry Parr produced a quote to back up
his claim or clearly admitted that he has no quote
to back up his claim?
_
_
"Louis Blair's essential dishonesty has been to
quote statements by this writer in which he left
out the 'as' or 'like' words referring to similes."
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 09:00:03 -0700)
_
Larry Parr gave no evidence at all. On 14 Jun 2005
12:46:41 -0700, I pointed out that I had not contributed
any quotes to the discussion that involved 'as' or 'like'
words. Larry Parr came back with:
_
"So, then, Louie Blair did indeed post some
'names' that I allegedly called that included
as 'as' and 'like' similes.
_
That's called dishonest." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2005 20:07:48 -0700)
_
Still "without a shred of evidence" and still wrong.
I complained again on 15 Jun 2005 13:07:10 -0700,
and I saw nothing further from Larry Parr on the
subject. Again, why hasn't Larry Parr produced a
quote to back up his claim or clearly admitted that
he has no quote to back up his claim?
_
"[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear." - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)

  #8   Report Post  
Old January 19th 06, 02:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kingston's Deception

PHONY BET

So, Larry, I take it you are chicken to take the bet about Niemand?
--
Taylor Kingston

NM Taylor Kingston, the self-proclaimed 2300+
ELO Ferrari, posted numerous messages as Xylothist and
Paulie Graf, it would appear, in which he defends
himself. Very low indeed.

Another Kingston pseudonym is Niemand, and the man
states that I was sure about this or that re Niemand,
but I was actually confused as to NM Kingston's position.

I see no possibility for a bet here because my position was
NM Kingston's apparent confusion as I read his postings.
If he says that he is not confused and that he has known all
along he was Niemand, why then I can agree with that.

If he wants to make a bet about whether he posted
here deceptively as Xylothist, that's another matter.

So, then, did Edward Winter teach NM Kingston his
self-proclaimed "standards"? Did he instruct our NM
how to hold conversations with himself in which he
defends himself while pretending to be someone else?
Are those Mr. Winter's "standards"? Alas, they probably are.

We begin to learn more about the kind of
"standards" that NM Kingston would have Eric Schiller
adopt. Honest error is not NM Kingston's forte; he
prefers deliberate deception.

  #9   Report Post  
Old January 19th 06, 03:22 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kingston's Deception

ANOTHER XYLO BLAST FROM THE PAST

Like Alfred P. Doolittle, the common dustman, NM
Taylor Kingston, the common self-proclaimed 2300+
ELO duke, is willin', wantin' and waitin' to tell you.
In the case of NM Kingston, the preferred subject is
his "standards."

Below is a bit more on NM Kingston's
"standards." Here we see him as Xylothist, defending
himself. Amazing.

We believe that NM Kingston learned his
"standards" -- for he, like Mr. Doolittle, is a "most
original moralist" -- from Edward Winter.

Jun 16 2001, 5:02 pm
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Xylothist)
Subject: Mr. Winter's Humbug

Larry Parr writes: Mr. Kingston [alleges] he had publicly disavowed
his letter [praising The Tragedy of Paul Keres by GM Evans.]
We are still waiting for the honorable Mr. Kingston to provide
proof of what page in Chess Life this retraction appeared, or
to cite examples of my "baseless assertions" in Chess Life.

Good grief, Larry. This is below even your norm. You
allege that Kingston [Xylo refers to himself in the third person]
never made any public disavowal?

Kingston's entire article is, in essence, a critique
and repudiation of Evans' methods of historical "research."
To get to exact specifics, try Chess Life, May 1998, pp 49-50,
and even more exactly, page 49, upper right corner, and page 50,
middle column center. The same article as been on public view
in the Chess Cafe archives since mid-1998.

Furthermore, as Kingston stated in Kingpin (Spring 2000),
he had already told Evans of the change in his views by private
correspondence. As far as "baseless assertions" go, it seems
you've made one right here.

  #10   Report Post  
Old January 19th 06, 01:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default Parr's Selective Memory


wrote:
Another Kingston pseudonym is Niemand, and the man
states that I was sure about this or that re Niemand,
but I was actually confused as to NM Kingston's position.

I see no possibility for a bet here because my position was
NM Kingston's apparent confusion as I read his postings.
If he says that he is not confused and that he has known all
along he was Niemand, why then I can agree with that.


Really, Larry? Aren't you leaving out an important detail? There's
just one little problem with your explanation -- YOU knew all along I
was Niemand.

Just for the record, here is the early chronology of the screen name
. Read the following carefully. Keep it in mind
when reading it what Parr posted here on 17 January, 2006:

"[Kingston] posted under one pseudonym, Niemand, that was
successfully outed,"

"Successfully outed" would mean the pseudonymous poster was first
identified by someone else. This is not the case. The chronology:

July 15, 2005: I add screen name Niemand to my Adelphia account.

First newsgroup message (as recorded on Google log):

test message
test message - ignore.
alt.music.led-zeppelin - Jul 15 2005, 7:54 am by Niemand - 2 messages -
2 authors

Second message:

test message
ignore
rec.games.chess.misc - Jul 15 2005, 7:57 am by Niemand - 1 message - 1
author

First message to mention Niemand on rgcm, posted by
(i.e. myself, Taylor Kingston):

Jul 15 2005, 1:40 pm: "Just to be sure there is something to this
NNTP-Posting-Host business, I made up a pseudonym (Niemand, which is
German for nobody) and posted a test message under that name on rgcm.
Lo and behold, the NNTP-Posting-Host for me and Niemand is the same."

Notice that this is the same day as the screen-name first appeared,
less than four hours later. In what way, then, can it be claimed that
Niemand was used as secret pseudonym for nefarious purposes?
Then, the next day, we have this further clarification, in a post of
mine:

Jul 16 2005, 8:41 am:
wrote:
TK: Given the likelihood that this is Parr praising himself, perhaps
"cynic" (a.k.a. "jr") should have instead chosen the pseudonym
Narcissus. Taylor Kingston


Parr: There is no likelihood at all -- a possibility Taylor Kingston
leaves open in his carefully worded, dishonest locution -- that this
writer is Mr. Cynic. None.


TK: Then will Mr. Parr explain why his posts, cnyic's posts, and jr's
posts, all show the same NNTP-Posting-Host, i.e. 207.200.116.132? I
have found this kind of similarity nowhere else.
Except in one case: when I deliberately posted a test message under
the alias "Niemand" (German for nobody). Waddya know? Niemand and I
came out the same.


Jul 16 2005, at 11:51 pm: Larry Parr replies to the above post,
showing that he knew I had clearly identified myself as Niemand.
Now, go back and read Parr's post of 17 January 2006, seven months
LATER, and wonder: is Parr either terribly forgetful, or terribly
dishonest?

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Checking Kingston's claim [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 103 January 23rd 06 05:08 AM
The Challenge to Liarry Parr Randy Bauer rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 211 January 18th 06 03:23 PM
The Challenge to Phil Innes Chess One rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 15 January 18th 06 03:23 PM
Parr challenges Blair [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 201 January 3rd 06 01:19 PM
Parr challenges Blair [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 217 January 3rd 06 01:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017