| help bot 2006-11-19, 8:44 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> MENTAL BALANCE
>
> NMnot Taylor Kingston made a straighforward
> avowal that he was 2300+ ELO without qualifying it
> in any way. A group of undifferentiated chess players
> hearing such a claim will automatically assume that
> the person is talking about OTB chess. You walk up to
> a person in a tournament or at a club or on the
> Internet
How does one "walk up to" someone on the internet?
Don't you have to be awfully thin to fit through all those
phone lines? Where I'm from, nobody could do it. I
strongy suspect the people in Malaysia are not the
over-eaters we are, here in the U.S.A.
quote:
> and give your strength as 2300-plus ELO, he
> will not say, "Oh, you had a postal rating, did you?"
> He will assume the claim is about OTB.
A false dichotomy; he might not *assume* anything.
quote:
> Just as our NMnot invented pseudonyms to write
> in praise of himself, he attempted to deceive
> regarding his rating.
Non sequitur. If Mr. Kingston really did post "in
praise of himself" under multiple screen names, it
tells us nothing about his intentions regarding the
"2300+" rating claim.
quote:
> It was a stupid lie by a man who is likely not stupid at all.
Is the above a veiled insult of Taylor Kingston's
"inferior" lying skills, I wonder?
quote:
> I have no doubt that
> our NMnot regretted writing as he did almost the
> moment he clicked the "send" function.
Delusion, or more lies? Either way, it doesn't look
good for Mr. Parr.
Obviously (to any sane person, that is), Mr. Kingston
could not possibly have regretted anything but his
imperfect rating conversion -- and that, only if he knew
about it at the time he clicked "send".
quote:
> Phil Innes inverted intellectual moves by
> beginning with a reference to the Nottingham
> tournament and then later typing in Hastings 1935.
> One sees nothing here to match NM Kingston's invention
> of false names so that he could make himself feel
> better during the course of an intellectual exchange
> with this writer.
It is difficult for me to even imagine an "intellectual
exchange" with Mr. Parr. Is this really possible? Dr.
Blair? Is there any record of such an exchange here?
quote:
> If one posits mental illness based on the
> performances of Phil Innes and NMnot Kingston, which I
> do in neither case, then the more likely person to be
> emotionally disabled is NMnot. After all, if you have
> to invent non-existent persons to write praise of
> yourself, something is wrong.
So, you're saying that I should just drop the charade,
give "Sanny" the axe? No can do: wthout him, I would
not be world-famous as a "star" at GetClub!
quote:
> Still, the mirror crack'd [sic] need not be in the mind. I figure it speaks
> to NMnot's personal character rather than his mental balance.
I suspect LP meant "moral character" here. The phrase
"personal character" makes little sense, for what other
kind could there be, but personal?
-----------
I should point out that Mr. Innes made his claim to
IM-dom in such a way as to plainly suggest that he
believed Neil Brennen was no longer reading (and thus,
potentially checking) such a claim. Refering to him as
"Nil" (or was it "nil"?), Mr. Innes boldly lied about his
numerical rating and then threw in a near-title for good
measure. To me, this is precisely the sort of behavior
which "fits" the complaint of Mr. Parr, while Taylor
Kingston's claim, quite obviously, was simply not an
over-the-board chess rating, but something closely
related. The more Mr. Parr continues to repeat this
baldfaced lie, the less sane he looks.
-- help bot
|