Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 23rd 09, 08:54 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Taylor Kingston still awaits Parr's proof

Yesterday, Google newsgroups seemed to be non-functional
for most of the day. New posts did not appear for many hours. It
might
be expected that as a regular here, I would have found this annoying.
Actually, it turned out to be one of the most peaceful and productive
days I've had in some time. Amazing what one gets done when not
distracted by petty squabbles.
So, I have decided to take an indefinite break from rgcp. Too many
better things to do than argue all day with the likes of Parr, Sloan,
Tomic et al.
I will make a few comments on one thing before signing off: Larry
Parr's announced intention to present "proof" that the co-authors
of the "Oxford Companion to Chess," David Hooper and Ken Whyld,
deliberately lied in various entries in that encyclopedia's first
edition, published in 1984.
I will hardly claim the OC is perfect - that's impossible with a
book so lengthy and detailed. Parr undoubtedly can find errors. Parr
may know a lot about Soviet and/or Russian history. He may disagree
with some of what H&W wrote. None of that constitutes evidence of
mendacity, none of that qualifies him, nor gives him any right, to
brand H&W as liars. His accusation is pure malicious, irresponsible
fabrication.
And as we have seen already (thanks to William Hyde), Parr has
tried
to support it by misrepresenting what the OC actually says. He has
also
tried simply force of assertion, argument by decree. His other
arguments remind me of the logic in those laughable "Ancient
Astronauts" books: "This ancient Mayan sculpture resembles what a
Martian might look like, therefore Martians must have visited Earth
long ago."
While Parr knew the late Hooper & Whyld little better than he knows
Martians, I happen to know directly and fully about a similar
accusation by Parr: that ChessCafe reviewers are ordered to toe a
party
line when reviewing certain authors.
How many reviews has Parr written for ChessCafe? Zero. None. Zip.
Zilch. On the other hand, I have written more featured book reviews
for
ChessCafe.com than anyone else - over 100 to date. I say this not to
brag, put to point out that that I am in much the better position to
know the truth about this, as even Larry must concede.
And the truth is: never - I repeat: NEVER - has there been any
attempt, by Hanon Russell or anyone connected with ChessCafe.com, to
interfere with or influence my reviews. A ChessCafe reviewer is sent
the book, and nothing else. He reads it, makes up his own mind, and
the
review is published as he wrote it -- PERIOD.
How many ChessCafe reviewers has Parr contacted to test his
hypothesis? Has he spoken with GM Hans Ree, GM Alex Baburin, IM
Richard
Forster, IM Tim Harding, FM Carsten Hansen, FM Bill Kelleher, FM
Steven
Winer, Glenn Budzinski, Larry Tapper, or any of the many other
reviewers, to see if they have been told what to write? I dare say
he's contacted none. Yet Parr insists he knows more than the people
who actually write ChessCafe's reviews. Perhaps he consults a Ouija
board.
I strongly recommend that rgcp readers view Parr's claims about the
OC in this light. He has no qualms about making slanderous
accusations
with no factual basis, with no investigation, and he churns them out
like diarrhea. I'm sick of reading them, and the whole sordid mess
Parr, Sloan, and their ilk make of this group. So, I'm going to get
some fresh air. I wish the fair-minded readers of rgcp "Ave atque
vale" for a while.

  #2   Report Post  
Old February 23rd 09, 09:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 37
Default Taylor Kingston still awaits Parr's proof

On Feb 23, 2:54*pm, None wrote:
* Yesterday, Google newsgroups seemed to be non-functional
for most of the day. New posts did not appear for many hours. It
might
be expected that as a regular here, I would have found this annoying.
Actually, it turned out to be one of the most peaceful and productive
days I've had in some time. Amazing what one gets done when not
distracted by petty squabbles.
* So, I have decided to take an indefinite break from rgcp. Too many
better things to do than argue all day with the likes of Parr, Sloan,
Tomic et al.
* I will make a few comments on one thing before signing off: Larry
Parr's announced intention to present "proof" that the co-authors
of the "Oxford Companion to Chess," David Hooper and Ken Whyld,
deliberately lied in various entries in that encyclopedia's first
edition, published in 1984.
* I will hardly claim the OC is perfect - that's impossible with a
book so lengthy and detailed. Parr undoubtedly can find errors. Parr
may know a lot about Soviet and/or Russian history. He may disagree
with some of what H&W wrote. None of that constitutes evidence of
mendacity, none of that qualifies him, nor gives him any right, to
brand H&W as liars. His accusation is pure malicious, irresponsible
fabrication.
* And as we have seen already (thanks to William Hyde), Parr has
tried
to support it by misrepresenting what the OC actually says. He has
also
tried simply force of assertion, argument by decree. His other
arguments remind me of the logic in those laughable "Ancient
Astronauts" books: "This ancient Mayan sculpture resembles what a
Martian might look like, therefore Martians must have visited Earth
long ago."
* While Parr knew the late Hooper & Whyld little better than he knows
Martians, I happen to know directly and fully about a similar
accusation by Parr: that ChessCafe reviewers are ordered to toe a
party
line when reviewing certain authors.
* How many reviews has Parr written for ChessCafe? Zero. None. Zip.
Zilch. On the other hand, I have written more featured book reviews
for
ChessCafe.com than anyone else - over 100 to date. I say this not to
brag, put to point out that that I am in much the better position to
know the truth about this, as even Larry must concede.
* And the truth is: never - I repeat: NEVER - has there been any
attempt, by Hanon Russell or anyone connected with ChessCafe.com, to
interfere with or influence my reviews. A ChessCafe reviewer is sent
the book, and nothing else. He reads it, makes up his own mind, and
the
review is published as he wrote it -- PERIOD.
* How many ChessCafe reviewers has Parr contacted to test his
hypothesis? Has he spoken with GM Hans Ree, GM Alex Baburin, IM
Richard
Forster, IM Tim Harding, FM Carsten Hansen, FM Bill Kelleher, FM

Bye, Taylor. I will miss you. Thank you also for the editing of my
column; I hope there are no hard feelings in that I am not good at
getting back in a timely manner. Sometime, I would like to think that
I am welcome to visit during a trip to the Northeast.

By the way, I may be writing weirdly in this NG for a time; stuck in
bed while taking codeine is probably not the best recipe for rational
posting. At the moment, my decision to keep playing soccer with 20
somethings while I am past the age of 50 seems about as bright as my
decision to argue with certain posters in the group although I felt
they wer well beyond the limits of rational discourse.

Jerry Spinrad


Steven
Winer, Glenn Budzinski, Larry Tapper, or any of the many other
reviewers, to see if they have been told what to write? I dare say
he's contacted none. Yet Parr insists he knows more than the people
who actually write ChessCafe's reviews. Perhaps he consults a Ouija
board.
* I strongly recommend that rgcp readers view Parr's claims about the
OC in this light. He has no qualms about making slanderous
accusations
with no factual basis, with no investigation, and he churns them out
like diarrhea. I'm sick of reading them, and the whole sordid mess
Parr, Sloan, and their ilk make of this group. So, I'm going to get
some fresh air. I wish the fair-minded readers of rgcp "Ave atque
vale" for a while.


  #3   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 02:12 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Taylor Kingston still awaits Parr's proof


OXFORD COMPANION TO CHESS (1984 edition)

One of the more vicious anonymice -- a Monsieur Schmoe or None --
has provided us with some clues to his identity -- if one can assume
he is not simply lying through his teeth about writing a single thing
for ChessCafe. As the matter stands, one figures that our None is
lying. His testimony about ChessCafe is worthless on its face. He is
a low flying bird with an anonymous background, offering the usual
excuses for his cowardice.

My offer to work through the first edition of the Oxford Companion
to Chess was conditional on Taylor Kingston accepting the challenge to
offer his defense of the volume, entry by entry. The entries, for
example, on Lev Alburt and Boris Gulko were self-evidently false and
meant to be that way. They either avoided mentioning or distorted
facts already known to be otherwise.

Over 20 years ago I wrote a review in Chess Life of the first
edition, and I am gratified that the effort is both remembered and
rankles many of the rats or, if you will, anonymice. My conclusion
was an unusual one: I found the work, in many ways, to be splendid
and announced it superseded all previous efforts at writing a chess
mini-encyclopaedia. That is high praise indeed. On the other hand I
noted the appalling scarlet thread that weaved its way through entries
on subjects Soviet. As with the scandal involving the Britannica many
years ago, I believe, though did not state so in the review, that the
authors made a deal with Soviet authorities in return for access to
information on some of those entries covered from the Soviet Union and
Imperial Russia.

Ken Whyld told Larry Evans when they met in England that he found
my review to be both gratifying personally and horrifying on the point
of what I noticed re the entries involving Soviets. He had not
hitherto read a review that contained such high praise -- Whyld
understood what it means among historians to say a work has
"superseded" all previous efforts -- and such withering criticism. He
did not deny the point I made about the Sovietized politics in
certain entries.

Since I wrote the review, the Companion remains supreme in the
field among English-language sources though it, too, has now been
superseded internationally by a late Soviet effort filled with
accurate and far more factual information than can be found in the
Companion. Ironically this Soviet effort, produced in the waning days
of the regime, is on balance more honest about historical issues
involving the Reds than the first edition of the Companion.

Yours, Larry Parr




None wrote:
Yesterday, Google newsgroups seemed to be non-functional
for most of the day. New posts did not appear for many hours. It
might
be expected that as a regular here, I would have found this annoying.
Actually, it turned out to be one of the most peaceful and productive
days I've had in some time. Amazing what one gets done when not
distracted by petty squabbles.
So, I have decided to take an indefinite break from rgcp. Too many
better things to do than argue all day with the likes of Parr, Sloan,
Tomic et al.
I will make a few comments on one thing before signing off: Larry
Parr's announced intention to present "proof" that the co-authors
of the "Oxford Companion to Chess," David Hooper and Ken Whyld,
deliberately lied in various entries in that encyclopedia's first
edition, published in 1984.
I will hardly claim the OC is perfect - that's impossible with a
book so lengthy and detailed. Parr undoubtedly can find errors. Parr
may know a lot about Soviet and/or Russian history. He may disagree
with some of what H&W wrote. None of that constitutes evidence of
mendacity, none of that qualifies him, nor gives him any right, to
brand H&W as liars. His accusation is pure malicious, irresponsible
fabrication.
And as we have seen already (thanks to William Hyde), Parr has
tried
to support it by misrepresenting what the OC actually says. He has
also
tried simply force of assertion, argument by decree. His other
arguments remind me of the logic in those laughable "Ancient
Astronauts" books: "This ancient Mayan sculpture resembles what a
Martian might look like, therefore Martians must have visited Earth
long ago."
While Parr knew the late Hooper & Whyld little better than he knows
Martians, I happen to know directly and fully about a similar
accusation by Parr: that ChessCafe reviewers are ordered to toe a
party
line when reviewing certain authors.
How many reviews has Parr written for ChessCafe? Zero. None. Zip.
Zilch. On the other hand, I have written more featured book reviews
for
ChessCafe.com than anyone else - over 100 to date. I say this not to
brag, put to point out that that I am in much the better position to
know the truth about this, as even Larry must concede.
And the truth is: never - I repeat: NEVER - has there been any
attempt, by Hanon Russell or anyone connected with ChessCafe.com, to
interfere with or influence my reviews. A ChessCafe reviewer is sent
the book, and nothing else. He reads it, makes up his own mind, and
the
review is published as he wrote it -- PERIOD.
How many ChessCafe reviewers has Parr contacted to test his
hypothesis? Has he spoken with GM Hans Ree, GM Alex Baburin, IM
Richard
Forster, IM Tim Harding, FM Carsten Hansen, FM Bill Kelleher, FM
Steven
Winer, Glenn Budzinski, Larry Tapper, or any of the many other
reviewers, to see if they have been told what to write? I dare say
he's contacted none. Yet Parr insists he knows more than the people
who actually write ChessCafe's reviews. Perhaps he consults a Ouija
board.
I strongly recommend that rgcp readers view Parr's claims about the
OC in this light. He has no qualms about making slanderous
accusations
with no factual basis, with no investigation, and he churns them out
like diarrhea. I'm sick of reading them, and the whole sordid mess
Parr, Sloan, and their ilk make of this group. So, I'm going to get
some fresh air. I wish the fair-minded readers of rgcp "Ave atque
vale" for a while.

  #4   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 03:26 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Taylor Kingston still awaits Parr's proof

On Feb 23, 9:12*pm, " wrote:
OXFORD COMPANION TO CHESS (1984 edition)

* * One of the more vicious anonymice -- a Monsieur Schmoe or None --
has provided us with some clues to his identity -- if one can assume
he is not simply lying through his teeth about writing a single thing
for ChessCafe. *As the matter stands, one figures that our None is
lying. *His testimony about ChessCafe is worthless on its face. *He is
a low flying bird with an anonymous background, offering the usual
excuses for his cowardice.

* * My offer to work through the first edition of the Oxford Companion
to Chess was conditional on Taylor Kingston accepting the challenge to
offer his defense of the volume, entry by entry. *The entries, for
example, on Lev Alburt and Boris Gulko were self-evidently false and
meant to be that way. *They either avoided mentioning or distorted
facts already known to be otherwise.

* * Over 20 years ago I wrote a review in Chess Life of the first
edition, and I am gratified that the effort is both remembered and
rankles many of the rats or, if you will, anonymice. *My conclusion
was an unusual one: *I found the work, in many ways, to be splendid
and announced it superseded all previous efforts at writing a chess
mini-encyclopaedia. *That is high praise indeed. *On the other hand I
noted the appalling scarlet thread that weaved its way through entries
on subjects Soviet. *As with the scandal involving the Britannica many
years ago, I believe, though did not state so in the review, that the
authors made a deal with Soviet authorities in return for access to
information on some of those entries covered from the Soviet Union and
Imperial Russia.

* *Ken Whyld told Larry Evans when they met in England that he found
my review to be both gratifying personally and horrifying on the point
of what I noticed re the entries involving Soviets. *He had not
hitherto read a review that contained such high praise -- Whyld
understood what it means among historians to say a work has
"superseded" all previous efforts -- and such withering criticism. *He
did not deny * the point I made about the Sovietized politics in
certain entries.

* *Since I wrote the review, the Companion remains supreme in the
field among English-language sources though it, too, has now been
superseded internationally by a late Soviet effort filled with
accurate and far more factual information than can be found in the
Companion. *Ironically this Soviet effort, produced in the waning days
of the regime, *is on balance more honest about historical issues
involving the Reds than the first edition of the Companion.

Yours, Larry Parr



None wrote:
Yesterday, Google newsgroups seemed to be non-functional
for most of the day. New posts did not appear for many hours. It
might
be expected that as a regular here, I would have found this annoying.
Actually, it turned out to be one of the most peaceful and productive
days I've had in some time. Amazing what one gets done when not
distracted by petty squabbles.
* So, I have decided to take an indefinite break from rgcp. Too many
better things to do than argue all day with the likes of Parr, Sloan,
Tomic et al.
* I will make a few comments on one thing before signing off: Larry
Parr's announced intention to present "proof" that the co-authors
of the "Oxford Companion to Chess," David Hooper and Ken Whyld,
deliberately lied in various entries in that encyclopedia's first
edition, published in 1984.
* I will hardly claim the OC is perfect - that's impossible with a
book so lengthy and detailed. Parr undoubtedly can find errors. Parr
may know a lot about Soviet and/or Russian history. He may disagree
with some of what H&W wrote. None of that constitutes evidence of
mendacity, none of that qualifies him, nor gives him any right, to
brand H&W as liars. His accusation is pure malicious, irresponsible
fabrication.
* And as we have seen already (thanks to William Hyde), Parr has
tried
to support it by misrepresenting what the OC actually says. He has
also
tried simply force of assertion, argument by decree. His other
arguments remind me of the logic in those laughable "Ancient
Astronauts" books: "This ancient Mayan sculpture resembles what a
Martian might look like, therefore Martians must have visited Earth
long ago."
* While Parr knew the late Hooper & Whyld little better than he knows
Martians, I happen to know directly and fully about a similar
accusation by Parr: that ChessCafe reviewers are ordered to toe a
party
line when reviewing certain authors.
* How many reviews has Parr written for ChessCafe? Zero. None. Zip.
Zilch. On the other hand, I have written more featured book reviews
for
ChessCafe.com than anyone else - over 100 to date. I say this not to
brag, put to point out that that I am in much the better position to
know the truth about this, as even Larry must concede.
* And the truth is: never - I repeat: NEVER - has there been any
attempt, by Hanon Russell or anyone connected with ChessCafe.com, to
interfere with or influence my reviews. A ChessCafe reviewer is sent
the book, and nothing else. He reads it, makes up his own mind, and
the
review is published as he wrote it -- PERIOD.
* How many ChessCafe reviewers has Parr contacted to test his
hypothesis? Has he spoken with GM Hans Ree, GM Alex Baburin, IM
Richard
Forster, IM Tim Harding, FM Carsten Hansen, FM Bill Kelleher, FM
Steven
Winer, Glenn Budzinski, Larry Tapper, or any of the many other
reviewers, to see if they have been told what to write? I dare say
he's contacted none. Yet Parr insists he knows more than the people
who actually write ChessCafe's reviews. Perhaps he consults a Ouija
board.
* I strongly recommend that rgcp readers view Parr's claims about the
OC in this light. He has no qualms about making slanderous
accusations
with no factual basis, with no investigation, and he churns them out
like diarrhea. I'm sick of reading them, and the whole sordid mess
Parr, Sloan, and their ilk make of this group. So, I'm going to get
some fresh air. I wish the fair-minded readers of rgcp "Ave atque
vale" for a while.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


You are such a hoot Larry.
  #5   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 07:55 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Taylor Kingston still awaits Parr's proof

On Feb 23, 9:12*pm, " wrote:

...yet another longwinded puff piece.


The poster whose moniker is "None" accused Mr.
Parr of failing to provide a promised /proof/, and in
response Mr. Parr has merely explained why he
holds a certain /opinion/. Intelligent people will
recognize the difference between proofs and mere
opinions, but perhaps Mr. Parr believes they are
one and the same thing. As for the alleged
"promise", no source was given, but this fits with
Mr. Parr's usual modus operandi.

The Great Dr. IMnes has complained endlessly
about the way in which a few entries in the Oxford
Companion to Chess failed to point out any wrong-
doing regarding those same fellas, so I always
thought this was his own, unique pet peeve. Now
I discover by happenstance, that just as usual, the
complaint is "borrowed" if not parroted from the
usual suspects, the dim-witted Evans ratpack.

I say dim-witted on account of their apparent,
firm belief that nobody notices their puerille,
dishonest tricks-and-mirrors routine. Well, one
of them knew better-- Mr. Keene was quickly
frightened away, apparently having realized
that his invisible-clothes act was not going over
too well here in rgc. But the majority of these
clowns simply aren't smart enough to catch on.

I recall a thread or three in which Mr. Parr --
one of the middle ranking rats -- blustered for
quite some time about how there was some
sort of mathematical proof, or some such
thing, regarding match conditions. The poor
chap was so flustered by the critics that he
seemed to have retired from the fray; but
eventually, Mr. Parr crawled back out from
under his rock, v-e-r-y reluctantly almost
sort of admitting his claimed "proof" did not
quite exist... all this, just so he could resume
his former duties as Evans ratpack Director
of Propaganda. It was a sad day for liars
everywhere, and flags were flown at half
mast for an entire week... .


-- help bot






  #6   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 02:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 71
Default Taylor Kingston still awaits Parr's proof

On Feb 23, 4:59 pm, wrote:

By the way, I may be writing weirdly in this NG for a time; stuck in
bed while taking codeine is probably not the best recipe for rational
posting. At the moment, my decision to keep playing soccer with 20
somethings while I am past the age of 50 seems about as bright as my


Ah, so I'm not the only graying idiot. While not on codeine, I am
currently missing the winter indoor season with remnants of
last seasons excesses. I hope you heal well.

K

decision to argue with certain posters in the group although I felt
they wer well beyond the limits of rational discourse.

Jerry Spinrad

  #7   Report Post  
Old February 25th 09, 03:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 248
Default Taylor Kingston still awaits Parr's proof

On Feb 23, 3:59*pm, wrote:
On Feb 23, 2:54*pm, None wrote:



* Yesterday, Google newsgroups seemed to be non-functional
for most of the day. New posts did not appear for many hours. It
might
be expected that as a regular here, I would have found this annoying.
Actually, it turned out to be one of the most peaceful and productive
days I've had in some time. Amazing what one gets done when not
distracted by petty squabbles.
* So, I have decided to take an indefinite break from rgcp. Too many
better things to do than argue all day with the likes of Parr, Sloan,
Tomic et al.
* I will make a few comments on one thing before signing off: Larry
Parr's announced intention to present "proof" that the co-authors
of the "Oxford Companion to Chess," David Hooper and Ken Whyld,
deliberately lied in various entries in that encyclopedia's first
edition, published in 1984.
* I will hardly claim the OC is perfect - that's impossible with a
book so lengthy and detailed. Parr undoubtedly can find errors. Parr
may know a lot about Soviet and/or Russian history. He may disagree
with some of what H&W wrote. None of that constitutes evidence of
mendacity, none of that qualifies him, nor gives him any right, to
brand H&W as liars. His accusation is pure malicious, irresponsible
fabrication.
* And as we have seen already (thanks to William Hyde), Parr has
tried
to support it by misrepresenting what the OC actually says. He has
also
tried simply force of assertion, argument by decree. His other
arguments remind me of the logic in those laughable "Ancient
Astronauts" books: "This ancient Mayan sculpture resembles what a
Martian might look like, therefore Martians must have visited Earth
long ago."
* While Parr knew the late Hooper & Whyld little better than he knows
Martians, I happen to know directly and fully about a similar
accusation by Parr: that ChessCafe reviewers are ordered to toe a
party
line when reviewing certain authors.
* How many reviews has Parr written for ChessCafe? Zero. None. Zip.
Zilch. On the other hand, I have written more featured book reviews
for
ChessCafe.com than anyone else - over 100 to date. I say this not to
brag, put to point out that that I am in much the better position to
know the truth about this, as even Larry must concede.
* And the truth is: never - I repeat: NEVER - has there been any
attempt, by Hanon Russell or anyone connected with ChessCafe.com, to
interfere with or influence my reviews. A ChessCafe reviewer is sent
the book, and nothing else. He reads it, makes up his own mind, and
the
review is published as he wrote it -- PERIOD.
* How many ChessCafe reviewers has Parr contacted to test his
hypothesis? Has he spoken with GM Hans Ree, GM Alex Baburin, IM
Richard
Forster, IM Tim Harding, FM Carsten Hansen, FM Bill Kelleher, FM


Bye, Taylor. I will miss you. Thank you also for the editing of my
column; I hope there are no hard feelings in that I am not good at
getting back in a timely manner. Sometime, I would like to think that
I am welcome to visit during a trip to the Northeast.

By the way, I may be writing weirdly in this NG for a time; stuck in
bed while taking codeine is probably not the best recipe for rational
posting. At the moment, my decision to keep playing soccer with 20
somethings while I am past the age of 50 seems about as bright as my
decision to argue with certain posters in the group although I felt
they wer well beyond the limits of rational discourse.

Jerry Spinrad



Steven
Winer, Glenn Budzinski, Larry Tapper, or any of the many other
reviewers, to see if they have been told what to write? I dare say
he's contacted none. Yet Parr insists he knows more than the people
who actually write ChessCafe's reviews. Perhaps he consults a Ouija
board.
* I strongly recommend that rgcp readers view Parr's claims about the
OC in this light. He has no qualms about making slanderous
accusations
with no factual basis, with no investigation, and he churns them out
like diarrhea. I'm sick of reading them, and the whole sordid mess
Parr, Sloan, and their ilk make of this group. So, I'm going to get
some fresh air. I wish the fair-minded readers of rgcp "Ave atque
vale" for a while.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Get well soon.
  #8   Report Post  
Old February 25th 09, 03:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2005
Posts: 138
Default "None" Pretends to be Kingston (was: Taylor Kingston still awaitsParr's proof)

On Feb 23, 3:54*pm, None wrote:
* Yesterday, Google newsgroups seemed to be non-functional
for most of the day. New posts did not appear for many hours. It
might
be expected that as a regular here, I would have found this annoying.
Actually, it turned out to be one of the most peaceful and productive
days I've had in some time. Amazing what one gets done when not
distracted by petty squabbles.
* So, I have decided to take an indefinite break from rgcp. Too many
better things to do than argue all day with the likes of Parr, Sloan,
Tomic et al.
* I will make a few comments on one thing before signing off: Larry
Parr's announced intention to present "proof" that the co-authors
of the "Oxford Companion to Chess," David Hooper and Ken Whyld,
deliberately lied in various entries in that encyclopedia's first
edition, published in 1984.
* I will hardly claim the OC is perfect - that's impossible with a
book so lengthy and detailed. Parr undoubtedly can find errors. Parr
may know a lot about Soviet and/or Russian history. He may disagree
with some of what H&W wrote. None of that constitutes evidence of
mendacity, none of that qualifies him, nor gives him any right, to
brand H&W as liars. His accusation is pure malicious, irresponsible
fabrication.
* And as we have seen already (thanks to William Hyde), Parr has
tried
to support it by misrepresenting what the OC actually says. He has
also
tried simply force of assertion, argument by decree. His other
arguments remind me of the logic in those laughable "Ancient
Astronauts" books: "This ancient Mayan sculpture resembles what a
Martian might look like, therefore Martians must have visited Earth
long ago."
* While Parr knew the late Hooper & Whyld little better than he knows
Martians, I happen to know directly and fully about a similar
accusation by Parr: that ChessCafe reviewers are ordered to toe a
party
line when reviewing certain authors.
* How many reviews has Parr written for ChessCafe? Zero. None. Zip.
Zilch. On the other hand, I have written more featured book reviews
for
ChessCafe.com than anyone else - over 100 to date. I say this not to
brag, put to point out that that I am in much the better position to
know the truth about this, as even Larry must concede.
* And the truth is: never - I repeat: NEVER - has there been any
attempt, by Hanon Russell or anyone connected with ChessCafe.com, to
interfere with or influence my reviews. A ChessCafe reviewer is sent
the book, and nothing else. He reads it, makes up his own mind, and
the
review is published as he wrote it -- PERIOD.
* How many ChessCafe reviewers has Parr contacted to test his
hypothesis? Has he spoken with GM Hans Ree, GM Alex Baburin, IM
Richard
Forster, IM Tim Harding, FM Carsten Hansen, FM Bill Kelleher, FM
Steven
Winer, Glenn Budzinski, Larry Tapper, or any of the many other
reviewers, to see if they have been told what to write? I dare say
he's contacted none. Yet Parr insists he knows more than the people
who actually write ChessCafe's reviews. Perhaps he consults a Ouija
board.
* I strongly recommend that rgcp readers view Parr's claims about the
OC in this light. He has no qualms about making slanderous
accusations
with no factual basis, with no investigation, and he churns them out
like diarrhea. I'm sick of reading them, and the whole sordid mess
Parr, Sloan, and their ilk make of this group. So, I'm going to get
some fresh air. I wish the fair-minded readers of rgcp "Ave atque
vale" for a while.


This is very strange. "None" (whoever he is) has taken an old post
of mine from long ago and re-posted it as if it was his own. I did not
make this post of 23 February 2009, and have no interest in reviving
the dispute to which he refers. Not being a regular reader of rgcp, I
would not even have noticed None's post had not "Jr" cross-posted a
reply to rgcm.
We've had several fake Sam Sloans; are the fake posters now
diversifying?

Taylor Kingston
  #9   Report Post  
Old February 25th 09, 04:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2005
Posts: 138
Default Taylor Kingston still awaits Parr's proof

On Feb 23, 4:59*pm, wrote:

Bye, Taylor. I will miss you.


Well, you won't have to, Jerry. The post to which you were replying
was an old one of mine recycled by an anonymouse for reasons unknown.
I have no intention of avoiding rgc for the time being.

Thank you also for the editing of my
column; I hope there are no hard feelings in that I am not good at
getting back in a timely manner.


No hard feelings at all, Jerry. It has been a pleasure and privilege
to edit your work. I just have too much else going on right now to
give it the attention it deserves.

Sometime, I would like to think that
I am welcome to visit during a trip to the Northeast.


Most definitely.

By the way, I may be writing weirdly in this NG for a time; stuck in
bed while taking codeine is probably not the best recipe for rational
posting. At the moment, my decision to keep playing soccer with 20
somethings while I am past the age of 50 seems about as bright as my
decision to argue with certain posters in the group although I felt
they wer well beyond the limits of rational discourse.


When I heard you were having surgery, I feared it was something life-
threatening. I was glad to learn it was "only" knee repair, unpleasant
though that must be.


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
In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25. chessplayer rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 21 October 21st 08 02:05 PM
Computer vs. human matches and Chess256 M Winther rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 159 September 14th 07 11:21 AM
Computer vs. human matches and Chess256 Guy Macon rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 155 September 8th 07 03:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 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