| Chess One 2006-11-19, 8:31 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1162475958.500582.305940@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> On Nov 2, 1:09 am, "Matt Nemmers" <qcch...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> Not so, Matt. I have never given Innes permission to publish any
> private correspondence.
! There we go!
quote:
>
> Innes and I used to correspond fairly often, before he became
> irrationally hostile. He may have saved e-mails of mine from back then;
> I probably have a few of his, too. However, he cannot possibly have any
> e-mails of mine that prove his accusations of book-banning and the
> like, because I never wrote any such.
ROFL: 'In that sense' says Kingston, without identifying what my claim is.
He clearly denies permission as well as denying the content. But I think it
will be very interesting to now look at the the contents of just one of
these messages - especially the author-banning at chesscafe's forum, which
Kingston justified to me BECAUSE Larry Evans wouldn't print his letter. He
thought that was fair and reciprocal.
quote:
> In that sense, the e-mails Phil
> claims to have do not exist.
Kingston has always induced the market away from writers he doesn't like,
and says this is nothing! His own language of denial is precisely [if one
can use the term precise] "However, he cannot possibly have any e-mails of
mine that prove his accusations of book-banning and the like, because I
never wrote any such."
What exact accusation is this? I say he conducted this e-mail campaign while
he was at chesscafe as book reviewer, and perhaps he will think we should
think that is utter coincidence, 'and such'? Will we? There is no permission
to find out, despite local net lore.
In recording all this nonsense we have Louis convincing Matt that I have a
permission. Where did Louis get this idea? Is it, you know, a lie? Certainly
a strong enough impression to convince someone else. But enough of a lie so
that everyone thinks I am lying.
Kingston does not deny I have his e-mails - in fact he challenged me before
to something he said, and to return some of his e-mails to him - which I
did. After that he went silent for a couple of months rather than call me a
murderer or the devil &c since those e-mails DID contain what I said they
did!
I don't /want/ to post anyone's e-mails! - what I want is a fair forum to
discuss the issue of the basis of book banning at chesscafe by USCF's agent.
Kingston isn't going to play any open game at all.
I am even prepared to put aside any pursuit of this e-mail business by way
of the famous Kingston files [unless I read more direct contradictions of
what's in them] in order to pursue the agenda of why even the authors of the
banned books were not able to write in chesscafe's forum? -- it seemed to me
that anyone could write there if they didn't like the books - and this
rather created a sense of the chess community voting on their worth. A
rather engineered sense of things.
I say that was a sham process and a misrepresentation.
I ask Kingston one additional question - will he permit his and my comments
on the chesscafe forum to be published and people can judge for themselves?
Phil Innes
|