|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > August 2006 > Super-secret redesign report
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Super-secret redesign report
|
|
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:11 pm |
| THE REDESIGN
<The decision to stop carrying Evans' column was part of a
complete redesign of Chess Life now taking place. The new design
will be unveiled in June. All I can say is that the decision on which
columnists to stop carrying was not made lightly.> -- editor Dan Lucas
We are told that the board, without any open bidding, authorized
$50,000 for a complete redesign of Chess Life and its website to Paul
Hoffman, a crony of certain board members. We are also told that
Jennifer Shahade, also without any open bidding, has been hired to run
this website (whereupon her brother resigned from the board).
Where is this report cited by the new editor and why can't
we see it? So far all we have seen is this note by former editor
Kalev Pehme:
"The current editor of Chess Life, who is not a professional editor, is
a creature of a board member who is not kindly disposed to Evans. I
should note that the consultant on the remaking of the magazine is also
not a professional magazine designer or strategic planner and is also
tied to chess politicians who are adverse to Evans...I have found my
run with the USCF to have done one thing which I cannot forgive. I have
come to despise chess, even though throughout my entire life I have
loved the game...My experience with the USCF's politicians have made me
feel pain every time I look at a chess board, when I should be feeling
the joy that I felt when I first read Evans's books. For that I can't
forgive the USCF..."
| |
| Terry 2006-08-02, 10:11 pm |
|
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1144337183.498220.70660@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> THE REDESIGN
>
> <The decision to stop carrying Evans' column was part of a
> complete redesign of Chess Life now taking place. The new design
> will be unveiled in June. All I can say is that the decision on which
> columnists to stop carrying was not made lightly.> -- editor Dan Lucas
>
> We are told that the board, without any open bidding, authorized
> $50,000 for a complete redesign of Chess Life and its website to Paul
> Hoffman, a crony of certain board members. We are also told that
> Jennifer Shahade, also without any open bidding, has been hired to run
> this website (whereupon her brother resigned from the board).
>
> Where is this report cited by the new editor and why can't
> we see it? So far all we have seen is this note by former editor
> Kalev Pehme:
>
> "The current editor of Chess Life, who is not a professional editor, is
> a creature of a board member who is not kindly disposed to Evans. I
> should note that the consultant on the remaking of the magazine is also
> not a professional magazine designer or strategic planner and is also
> tied to chess politicians who are adverse to Evans...I have found my
> run with the USCF to have done one thing which I cannot forgive. I have
> come to despise chess, even though throughout my entire life I have
> loved the game...My experience with the USCF's politicians have made me
> feel pain every time I look at a chess board, when I should be feeling
> the joy that I felt when I first read Evans's books. For that I can't
> forgive the USCF..."
>
More f**king american chess politics. I wish they would stop polluting
this newsgroup. Being an ignorant lot - they will carry on of course.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:11 pm |
| Terry wrote (Thu, 6 Apr 2006 18:39:36 +0100)
quote:
> More f**king american chess politics. I wish they
> would stop polluting this newsgroup. Being an
> ignorant lot - they will carry on of course.
_
I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
goes on in other countries. Why is there not
more from other countries?
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:11 pm |
| FINALLY SOMETHING INTELLIGENT
<I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
goes on in other countries. Why is there not
more from other countries?> -- Louie Blair
| |
| Paul Rubin 2006-08-02, 10:11 pm |
| "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com> writes:
quote:
> "The current editor of Chess Life, who is not a professional editor,
If he's not a professional editor, then what exactly is it that he
does for a living these days?
| |
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2006-08-02, 10:11 pm |
| Both Larry Parr and Phil Innes correctly observe that an accusation of
child molestation should not be made lightly.
In the following two excerpts, Sam Sloan defends Jefferson Poland, with
whom Sloan co-authored the book _Sex Marchers_, against allegations of
molesting a girl. In the first passage excepted below, Sloan accuses
the child's parents of being "obviously complici[t]" in the
molestation. In the contradictory second passage, Sloan accuses the
child's parents of themselves "abusing the child."
Sloan presents no evidence for the parent's complicity in Poland's
molestation or for his claim that the parents themselves abused the
daughter. Poland's curious choice of surname (see below) would tend to
suggest otherwise.
Poland is indeed a registered sex offender in the state of California,
as one may ascertain via http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
EXCERPT 1:
The author of the following passage from an earlier version of the
Wikipedia article on Jefferson Poland was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...d&oldid=4175...
<<In the early 1980s, Poland was charged with child molestation.
Apparently, a nudist couple, including David Irving and his girlfriend,
had entrusted Poland with the care of their daughter while they were
nude sunbathing on Black's Beach in La Jolla, California near San
Diego. Some time later, the nudist couple accused Poland of having
performed cunnalingus [sic--WHB] on their daughter while they were nude
sunbathing. Poland fled the country rather than face these charges. He
lived for five years as a fugitive in Australia until 1988, when he was
extradited back to America. In view of the passage of time and the
obvious complicity of his accusers, Poland probably could have
successfully fought the charges. However, by that time he had changed
his name legally to "Clitlick" and he preferred to plead guilty to the
cunnalingus [sic--WHB] charge. He served about nine months in San Diego
County Jail. Upon his release, he returned to live in San Francisco. He
turned over his archives to the Bancroft Library of the university of
California at Berkeley, where they are now available for public viewing
by academic researchers. Poland now lives in San Francisco, where he is
monitored as a registered sex offender.>>
END EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
On the Wikipedia talk page for the article on Jefferson Poland,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan (Sam Sloan)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...Poland&oldid...
wrote:
<< I have not seen or spoken to Jefferson Poland since 1967. However,
based on what I have read, I strongly suspect that he was the victim of
a setup. In the years I knew him, I never saw him express any interest
in children. I never even saw him express much interest in adult woman,
except that he had a girlfriend, Holly Tannen, who followed him around
like a little puppy-dog everywhere he went.
Those were the glory days of sexual freedom. There was always a bevy of
naked hippie chicks laying around with their legs spread open waiting
for some guy to come along. I partook of these opportunities
frequently, but I never saw Jefferson have sex with a woman, although
there were plenty of available women around.
My guess is that the nudist couple were themselves abusing the child.
Then, they left the child briefly in the care of Jefferson, so that
they could come back and accuse him of what they had actually done. If
the San Diego prosecutor really had proof that Jefferson was guilty, he
would not have let him off with only nine months in jail. Sam Sloan
16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) >>
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jefferson_Poland"
END EXCERPT 2
| |
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2006-08-02, 10:11 pm |
| 2000 words: "why Sam Sloan is a saint," chop chop.
| |
| Mike Murray 2006-08-02, 10:11 pm |
| On 06 Apr 2006 15:50:34 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
quote:
>"parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com> writes:
>
>If he's not a professional editor, then what exactly is it that he
>does for a living these days?
OJT ?
| |
|
| Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
explain why the redesign report is classified?
From: politikalhack@gmail.com - view profile
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 4:09 pm
Both Larry Parr and Phil Innes correctly observe that an accusation of
child molestation should not be made lightly.
In the following two excerpts, Sam Sloan defends Jefferson Poland, with
whom Sloan co-authored the book _Sex Marchers_, against allegations of
molesting a girl. In the first passage excepted below, Sloan accuses
the child's parents of being "obviously complici[t]" in the
molestation. In the contradictory second passage, Sloan accuses the
child's parents of themselves "abusing the child."
Sloan presents no evidence for the parent's complicity in Poland's
molestation or for his claim that the parents themselves abused the
daughter. Poland's curious choice of surname (see below) would tend to
suggest otherwise.
Poland is indeed a registered sex offender in the state of California,
as one may ascertain via http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
EXCERPT 1:
The author of the following passage from an earlier version of the
Wikipedia article on Jefferson Poland was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...d&oldid=4175...
<<In the early 1980s, Poland was charged with child molestation.
Apparently, a nudist couple, including David Irving and his girlfriend,
had entrusted Poland with the care of their daughter while they were
nude sunbathing on Black's Beach in La Jolla, California near San
Diego. Some time later, the nudist couple accused Poland of having
performed cunnalingus [sic--WHB] on their daughter while they were nude
sunbathing. Poland fled the country rather than face these charges. He
lived for five years as a fugitive in Australia until 1988, when he was
extradited back to America. In view of the passage of time and the
obvious complicity of his accusers, Poland probably could have
successfully fought the charges. However, by that time he had changed
his name legally to "Clitlick" and he preferred to plead guilty to the
cunnalingus [sic--WHB] charge. He served about nine months in San Diego
County Jail. Upon his release, he returned to live in San Francisco. He
turned over his archives to the Bancroft Library of the university of
California at Berkeley, where they are now available for public viewing
by academic researchers. Poland now lives in San Francisco, where he is
monitored as a registered sex offender.>>
END EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
On the Wikipedia talk page for the article on Jefferson Poland,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan (Sam Sloan)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...Poland&oldid...
wrote:
<<I have not seen or spoken to Jefferson Poland since 1967. However,
based on what I have read, I strongly suspect that he was the victim of
a setup. In the years I knew him, I never saw him express any interest
in children. I never even saw him express much interest in adult woman,
except that he had a girlfriend, Holly Tannen, who followed him around
like a little puppy-dog everywhere he went.
Those were the glory days of sexual freedom. There was always a bevy of
naked hippie chicks laying around with their legs spread open waiting
for some guy to come along. I partook of these opportunities
frequently, but I never saw Jefferson have sex with a woman, although
there were plenty of available women around.
My guess is that the nudist couple were themselves abusing the child.
Then, they left the child briefly in the care of Jefferson, so that
they could come back and accuse him of what they had actually done. If
the San Diego prosecutor really had proof that Jefferson was guilty, he
would not have let him off with only nine months in jail. Sam Sloan
16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) >>
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jefferson_Poland"
END EXCERPT 2
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:11 pm |
|
jr wrote:
quote:
> Instead of changing the subject can Bill Brock (politikalhack)
> explain why the redesign report is classified?
Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?
| |
|
| Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Terry wrote (Thu, 6 Apr 2006 18:39:36 +0100)
I am reading this thread in rec.games.chess.misc.
I suspect that Terry's reading this thread (at least
before he reset his filters) in rec.games.chess.misc,
*not* rec.games.chess.politics. I suspect that
Terry was expressing his objection to the 'ignorant
lot' of American writers who like to cross-post their
opinions about USCF politics to rec.games.chess.misc.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
> goes on in other countries. Why is there not
> more from other countries?
Several readers from outside the United States have
let me know that they prefer not to read, let alone to
write, in rec.games.chess.politics because it's a
cesspit of abuse and dishonesty. RGCP is a
de facto US political newsgroup, and it seems
dominated by many abusive and dishonest
American writers, who usually seem to be
jingoistic and sometimes seem to be racist.
Many of those American writers seem extremely
intolerant of any real or perceived criticism of the
United States and seem unwilling to listen seriously
to what a perceived foreign writer might have to say.
As far as I know, more than a few American writers
have quit reading and writing in RGCP because even
they perceive it as a cesspit of abuse and dishonesty.
Is there any reason that many more non-American writers
should feel encouraged to begin writing in RGCP? No.
--Nick
| |
| marcus@stkittsnevischess.org 2006-08-02, 10:11 pm |
| > I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
quote:
> goes on in other countries. Why is there not
> more from other countries?
I could post about chess from other countries, but then again, I am
distracted.
Crazy chess players on this newsgroup are threatening to kill people
from the other countries (like me.) We never did much to anyone to
deserve this treatment, either.
Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
| |
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
| all rgckf, all the time....
Jr, do you approve of Sam Sloan's conduct in the above-referenced
matter?
Do you endorse his candidacy for the USCF Board?
These are simple questions. You're an anon: you can give an honest
answer without embarrassment.
10152763
| |
| help bot 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
| Louis Blair asked:
"I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
goes on in other countries. Why is there not
more from other countries?"
I have seen some chess discussion here from posters who were
obviously not Americans. The problem is, their comments and the
replies always seem to degenerate into political battles regarding
America's foreign affairs (i.e. wars). What Nick Bourbaki has called
jingoist Americans all gang up on the poor loner, and he soon tires of
fighting off the attacks.
Another issue is that many foreigners do not speak (or write) English
as a first language, if at all.
And of course, the main reason we don't see more postings here by
non-Americans is that in other countries, people actually have to
*work* for a living. That's right, forty hours is not the end of their
work week; and when they get home they don't park the Lexus in the
2-car garage, turn on their 52 inch Sony TV, and then boot up their
notebook computer to check how their Google stock is doing. Instead,
they do laundry, wash dishes (yes, by hand), and even cook their own
food! Is the floor dirty? Then grab a broom -- not a Hoover
self-propelled Super-dooper vacuum with built-in DVD player....
| |
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
| << Jr, do you approve of Sam Sloan's conduct in the above-referenced
matter?
Do you endorse his candidacy for the USCF Board?
These are simple questions. You're an anon: you can give an honest
answer without embarrassment. >>
More specifically: Sloan accused the parents of a molested child of
themselves being complicit in the molestation, and, separately, of
having themselves "abused" their child.
The context is Sloan's defense of his acquaintance, the convicted child
molester Jefferson Poland.
I think you're morally capable of defending Sloan's conduct, jr.
Larry "Thai soldiers on leave" Parr is also up to the challenge.
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1144365815.054341.156350@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> jr wrote:
>
> Instead of changing the subject, can little jr (Wmiketwo? FedUp?
> Larry Parr?) explain how in January 2006 he claimed to know all about
> Richard Laurie, but in April 2006 said "it's all new to me"?
Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote in
2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair shake
at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
more space in Chess Life.
The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's website
and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret? Is this a personality issue for
you? Is everything?
Phil Innes
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
<politikalhack@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144364996.402450.229370@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Both Larry Parr and Phil Innes correctly observe that an accusation of
> child molestation should not be made lightly.
That's only one thing we observed.
Another thing is that its unusual for anyone to be prosecutor, judge and
jury, under our western system - which are standards upheld and assented to
by everyone.
For myself, I also note that this thread is about USCF's secrecy policy in
its redesign efforts, and when off-topical matter such as this appear, it
may even disqualify a would be prosecutor in another issue!
Finally, public standards are those which prosecutor, judge and jury attend,
not personal ideosyncracies of taste. There is no set of standards for these
issues and USCF, neither are there observed standards of what is public or
private in a public non-profit.
Every now and again a politico will show up and declare that personnel
matter should be private - and general decency observes this to be a truism,
and something to which everyone can assent. As such it is a worthwhile
standard.
So what is the standard employed here, where posters continue to excite and
speculate about a specific individual, but who refuse to assent to an
ethical basis which consults those who are disobliged by varieties of
expression, [that is, from the perspective of who is affronted] while at the
same time graphic art is held to be secret?
Phil Innes
quote:
> In the following two excerpts, Sam Sloan defends Jefferson Poland, with
>
> whom Sloan co-authored the book _Sex Marchers_, against allegations of
> molesting a girl. In the first passage excepted below, Sloan accuses
> the child's parents of being "obviously complici[t]" in the
> molestation. In the contradictory second passage, Sloan accuses the
> child's parents of themselves "abusing the child."
>
>
> Sloan presents no evidence for the parent's complicity in Poland's
> molestation or for his claim that the parents themselves abused the
> daughter. Poland's curious choice of surname (see below) would tend to
>
> suggest otherwise.
>
>
> Poland is indeed a registered sex offender in the state of California,
> as one may ascertain via http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
>
>
> EXCERPT 1:
>
>
> The author of the following passage from an earlier version of the
> Wikipedia article on Jefferson Poland was
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...d&oldid=4175...
>
>
>
> <<In the early 1980s, Poland was charged with child molestation.
> Apparently, a nudist couple, including David Irving and his girlfriend,
>
> had entrusted Poland with the care of their daughter while they were
> nude sunbathing on Black's Beach in La Jolla, California near San
> Diego. Some time later, the nudist couple accused Poland of having
> performed cunnalingus [sic--WHB] on their daughter while they were nude
>
> sunbathing. Poland fled the country rather than face these charges. He
> lived for five years as a fugitive in Australia until 1988, when he was
>
> extradited back to America. In view of the passage of time and the
> obvious complicity of his accusers, Poland probably could have
> successfully fought the charges. However, by that time he had changed
> his name legally to "Clitlick" and he preferred to plead guilty to the
> cunnalingus [sic--WHB] charge. He served about nine months in San Diego
>
> County Jail. Upon his release, he returned to live in San Francisco. He
>
> turned over his archives to the Bancroft Library of the university of
> California at Berkeley, where they are now available for public viewing
>
> by academic researchers. Poland now lives in San Francisco, where he is
>
> monitored as a registered sex offender.>>
>
>
> END EXCERPT 1
>
>
> EXCERPT 2
>
>
> On the Wikipedia talk page for the article on Jefferson Poland,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan (Sam Sloan)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...Poland&oldid...
>
> wrote:
>
>
> << I have not seen or spoken to Jefferson Poland since 1967. However,
> based on what I have read, I strongly suspect that he was the victim of
>
> a setup. In the years I knew him, I never saw him express any interest
> in children. I never even saw him express much interest in adult woman,
>
> except that he had a girlfriend, Holly Tannen, who followed him around
> like a little puppy-dog everywhere he went.
>
>
> Those were the glory days of sexual freedom. There was always a bevy of
>
> naked hippie chicks laying around with their legs spread open waiting
> for some guy to come along. I partook of these opportunities
> frequently, but I never saw Jefferson have sex with a woman, although
> there were plenty of available women around.
>
>
> My guess is that the nudist couple were themselves abusing the child.
> Then, they left the child briefly in the care of Jefferson, so that
> they could come back and accuse him of what they had actually done. If
> the San Diego prosecutor really had proof that Jefferson was guilty, he
>
> would not have let him off with only nine months in jail. Sam Sloan
> 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) >>
>
>
> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jefferson_Poland"
>
>
> END EXCERPT 2
>
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1144365815.054341.156350@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Taylor, time to stop obsessing on how you now appear after what you wrote in
> 2001/2. That was also not about any content, just personality
> confrontations, and you admitted to me that Evans couldn't get a fair shake
> at Chesscafe in response to clan-of-Winter articles. Your own unpublished
> letter hardy address any topic, rather than complain about not taking up
> more space in Chess Life.
Matchlessly turbid and inventive, as always, Phil. As the success of
"The Da Vinci Code" has shown, there is a big market for wildly
imaginative fiction with a veneer of plausibility. Why waste your time
making stuff up here for nothing, when you could be making big bucks?
As for the point of my above post, let me cite your own words:
" ... If you want to be critical of specific people, write your own
name, otherwise
you are much stranger than those you criticise! ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
29 Mar 2006 14:28:33 GMT) (to politikalhack)
This indicates a negative attitude on your part toward pseudonymous
posters. You were therefore asked:
"Would Phil Innes apply this sort of thinking to jr?" - Louis
Blair (29 Mar 2006
07:36:53 -0800)
You replied:
"I would apply it to anyone who talks in a deprecating manner
about people with real names. So, yes." - Phil Innes (Thu, 30 Mar 2006
13:31:13 GMT)
I am going to number the next few logical steps, for clarity.
1. The above quotes establish that you disapprove of jr posting
anonymously.
2. The fact that he often "talks in a deprecating manner about people
with real names" must only increase that disapproval.
3. It seems reasonable, then, that your disapproval should increase
*even further* if it were shown that jr had lied.
We have proof of that, provided by Dr. Blair:
"I have read Richard Laurie's exchanges with Kingston who secretly
tried to get him to retract an item Laurie submitted to Chess Life." --
jr posting 8 Jan 2006 12:21:20
"Larry, please tell us more about playwright Richard Laurie. IT'S
ALL NEW TO ME and sounds like another juicy scandal." -- jr posting, 2
Apr 2006 09:20:05 (emphasis added.)
You see? In January jr claimed to know all about my correspondence
with Laurie. Less than 3 months later, he claims NOT to know. As
amnesia seems out as an explanation, this is commonly called a lie.
Jr has made no comment on this. How about you?
quote:
> The title of /this/ thread asks after the design report for USCF's website
> and for ChessLife, viz; why is it secret?
Without real information, I can only speculate. A few guesses:
I don't take out an ad in the NY Times about where and when I'm going
on vacation.
Your wife does not post her grocery list here every week.
Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's.
Ford and Chevy do not show the chassis of next year's models before
unveiling the complete car.
Unless it's Victoria's Secret, fashion designers do not first show
models in their underwear, then later fully dressed.
None of these can reasonably be considered efforts to conceal a dark
secret. I would think USCF's reasons are similar to one or more of
them. It is Larry Parr who, as usual, wants to portray this as
something clandestine and sinister.
quote:
> Is this a personality issue for you?
Um, no.
quote:
> Is everything?
Um, no.
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1144418466.462761.4260@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> Matchlessly turbid and inventive, as always, Phil. As the success of
> "The Da Vinci Code" has shown, there is a big market for wildly
> imaginative fiction with a veneer of plausibility. Why waste your time
> making stuff up here for nothing, when you could be making big bucks?
> As for the point of my above post, let me cite your own words:
The point above hoped your obsessive behavior would not continue to plague
all subject, forever, and to note that this thread was about the re-design
of Cl and the web-site.
quote:
> " ... If you want to be critical of specific people, write your own
> name, otherwise
> you are much stranger than those you criticise! ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
> 29 Mar 2006 14:28:33 GMT) (to politikalhack)
>
> This indicates a negative attitude on your part toward pseudonymous
> posters. You were therefore asked:
>
> "Would Phil Innes apply this sort of thinking to jr?" - Louis
> Blair (29 Mar 2006
> 07:36:53 -0800)
>
> You replied:
>
> "I would apply it to anyone who talks in a deprecating manner
> about people with real names. So, yes." - Phil Innes (Thu, 30 Mar 2006
> 13:31:13 GMT)
>
> I am going to number the next few logical steps, for clarity.
Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster them
over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
words...
So while you may make comments from other threads about other people on
other issues, that is all about you.
This thread is not about you. Your writing is very odd indeed, and from a
psychological perspective, you are actually indifferent to what you read -
and you want to keep posing away in public about a subject that you know I
have no respect for your own honesty, and which contains no objectivity.
The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that. Go
and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.
Taylor Kingston denies this is a personality issue for him, but only writes
about his and other peoples personalities.
Rhetoric is saying what you do, philosophy is doing what you say. What
Taylor Kingston does is not what he says he does, its rhetorical self
promotion.
And all this to come up with an answer: 'all I can do is speculate'. The
only contribution to the subject, and then we CL as Victoria's Secret as
rationale.
Good Grief!
Phil Innes
quote:
> 1. The above quotes establish that you disapprove of jr posting
> anonymously.
> 2. The fact that he often "talks in a deprecating manner about people
> with real names" must only increase that disapproval.
> 3. It seems reasonable, then, that your disapproval should increase
> *even further* if it were shown that jr had lied.
> We have proof of that, provided by Dr. Blair:
>
> "I have read Richard Laurie's exchanges with Kingston who secretly
> tried to get him to retract an item Laurie submitted to Chess Life." --
> jr posting 8 Jan 2006 12:21:20
>
> "Larry, please tell us more about playwright Richard Laurie. IT'S
> ALL NEW TO ME and sounds like another juicy scandal." -- jr posting, 2
> Apr 2006 09:20:05 (emphasis added.)
>
> You see? In January jr claimed to know all about my correspondence
> with Laurie. Less than 3 months later, he claims NOT to know. As
> amnesia seems out as an explanation, this is commonly called a lie.
>
> Jr has made no comment on this. How about you?
>
>
> Without real information, I can only speculate. A few guesses:
> I don't take out an ad in the NY Times about where and when I'm going
> on vacation.
> Your wife does not post her grocery list here every week.
> Macy's doesn't tell Gimble's.
> Ford and Chevy do not show the chassis of next year's models before
> unveiling the complete car.
> Unless it's Victoria's Secret, fashion designers do not first show
> models in their underwear, then later fully dressed.
>
> None of these can reasonably be considered efforts to conceal a dark
> secret. I would think USCF's reasons are similar to one or more of
> them. It is Larry Parr who, as usual, wants to portray this as
> something clandestine and sinister.
>
>
> Um, no.
>
>
> Um, no.
>
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1144418466.462761.4260@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> The point above hoped your obsessive behavior would not continue to plague
> all subject, forever, and to note that this thread was about the re-design
> of Cl and the web-site.
>
>
> Which is all very well Taylor, except that you prove my point. You are so
> OBSSESSED with afronts you feel you have received that you then plaster them
> over every subject, and here you bore on about anons for another 700
> words...
So, in other words, you actually did not mean it when you condemned
jr's anonymity, and you are indifferent to his mendacity?
quote:
> So while you may make comments from other threads about other people on
> other issues, that is all about you.
>
> This thread is not about you. Your writing is very odd indeed, and from a
> psychological perspective, you are actually indifferent to what you read -
> and you want to keep posing away in public about a subject that you know I
> have no respect for your own honesty, and which contains no objectivity.
>
> The wildly imaginative fiction is YOURS. This thread is not about that. Go
> and Da Vinci Code somewhere else.
So then, you might comment in a thread devoted specifically to jr's
anonymity and mendacity?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Taylor Kingston denies this is a personality issue for him, but only writes
> about his and other peoples personalities.
>
> Rhetoric is saying what you do, philosophy is doing what you say. What
> Taylor Kingston does is not what he says he does, its rhetorical self
> promotion.
>
> And all this to come up with an answer: 'all I can do is speculate'. The
> only contribution to the subject, and then we CL as Victoria's Secret as
> rationale.
>
> Good Grief!
>
> Phil Innes
>
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1144421914.910236.27520@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> So, in other words, you actually did not mean it when you condemned
> jr's anonymity, and you are indifferent to his mendacity?
In the same words I refer again to Taylor Kingstons obsessional attitude to
personalities, not an approach ot objective fact.
----------
quote:
>
> So then, you might comment in a thread devoted specifically to jr's
> anonymity and mendacity?
Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is about -
and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.
No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What I
wrote about it was snipped. But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
content design is secret in rational to a public non profit, that does not
sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?
Phil Innes
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1144355619.155357.141010@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> FINALLY SOMETHING INTELLIGENT
>
> <I, for one, would be glad to see more of what
> goes on in other countries. Why is there not
> more from other countries?> -- Louie Blair
Agree. It is a significant problem to identify, and potentially central to
our affairs.
Today on national public radio there was a discussion on national health
care from an MD family practitioner, who asked by phone-in, 'how do they
manage such things in other countries', to which the expert panel knew
nothing.
Although I have said it is central to our affairs, the ironic factor is that
foreign promoters of chess look to US as most media savvy nation on earth,
for a lead.
Phil Innes
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1144421914.910236.27520@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
> In the same words I refer again to Taylor Kingstons obsessional attitude to
> personalities, not an approach ot objective fact.
>
> ----------
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Taylor still doesn't understand my comment about what this thread is about -
> and continues to obssess on 'jr', nevermind he so obviously denies [or
> rather avoids] that he has also written [to himself] as an anon.
So your saying it's not OK for me to avoid charges of anonymous
mendacity, but it is OK for jr to avoid them?
quote:
> No other comment to the nominal subject was evident in this message. What I
> wrote about it was snipped.
Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
or not? Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
"show quoted text" and voila!
Actually I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.
quote:
> But essentially I ask why graphic design, or
> content design is secret in rational to a public non profit,
Probably for very commonplace reasons, as I wrote earlier. It's only
you and Parr who seem to consider it something clandestine and
sinister. It seems Larry feels compelled continually to claim he is
uncovering malevolent conspiracies. When he doesn't have a real
conspiracy handy, he portrays an ordinary event as an evil omen.
quote:
> that does not
> sell women's underwear as interests Taylor Kingston to mention, but is
> ostensibly established to further chess to the greater public?
> Phil Innes
I wonder how much better USCF could serve the public if they did not
have to spend so much time dealing with bull from Parr and Innes?
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1144438468.511231.158190@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> So your saying it's not OK for me to avoid charges of anonymous
> mendacity, but it is OK for jr to avoid them?
Taylor Kingston demonstrates his understanding on ordinary issues - no
wonder he should fall out with those beyond his depth.
I am addressing his own anoymous postings - some of which he retrospectively
admits. But even these ! Even these ! He addrsses to his own posts, as if in
support of them..
menwhile Taylor wants me to put down other anons. ROFlL
quote:
>
> Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
> or not?
Only when the address to the topic has been snipped.
quote:
> Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
> precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
> If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
> "show quoted text" and voila!
And what did you address to the toipic in question?
After awhile these non-issue posts all sem very much the same, and its too
much bother to research and correct people who make no attempt at the
nominal subject. Maybe I was wrong and you did not snip, you were did not
address the subect at all?
quote:
> I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
> if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.
Don't be a smart-arse when you are losing! t=Talk about chess or your
XXXXing huge ego. Its a choice.
quote:
>
> Probably for very commonplace reasons, as I wrote earlier. It's only
> you and Parr who seem to consider it something clandestine and
> sinister. It seems Larry feels compelled continually to claim he is
> uncovering malevolent conspiracies. When he doesn't have a real
> conspiracy handy, he portrays an ordinary event as an evil omen.
So Taylor thinks this commonplace event should be secret. He does not
object. Pointing out that is secret means that one has 'sinistre' motives.
quote:
>
> I wonder how much better USCF could serve the public if they did not
> have to spend so much time dealing with bull from Parr and Innes?
And attend to Victoria's Secret, al la Taylor Kingston's recommended
analogy - being a change from Hitler and Mussolini analogies [and his native
Californian peyote references - hard to obtain peyote in Vermont, unknown
where L. Parr is].
That's chess politics for you. I wonder who really, wants a column in there,
and so is brown-nosing ;)
Phil Innes
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1144438468.511231.158190@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Taylor Kingston demonstrates his understanding on ordinary issues - no
> wonder he should fall out with those beyond his depth.
>
> I am addressing his own anoymous postings - some of which he retrospectively
> admits. But even these ! Even these ! He addrsses to his own posts, as if in
> support of them..
>
> menwhile Taylor wants me to put down other anons. ROFlL
>
>
> Only when the address to the topic has been snipped.
Tell us exactly what verbiage of yours I snipped?
quote:
>
> And what did you address to the toipic in question?
I said that the topic in question was largely a product of Parr's
imagination, trying to impute sinister motives to quite ordinary,
common actions.
quote:
> After awhile these non-issue posts all sem very much the same, and its too
> much bother to research and correct people who make no attempt at the
> nominal subject. Maybe I was wrong and you did not snip,
You mean you went and charged me with snipping, perhaps the most
rank, heinous offense of all, without even bothering to see if I
actually did? What a guy.
quote:
> you were did not
> address the subect at all?
quote:
>
> Don't be a smart-arse when you are losing!
I'd say the only things being lost here are your temper and
reputation, Phil.
quote:
> t=Talk about chess or your
> XXXXing huge ego. Its a choice.
I prefer chess. My ego is actually not a very big topic.
quote:
>
> So Taylor thinks this commonplace event should be secret. He does not
> object. Pointing out that is secret means that one has 'sinistre' motives.
I don't think it has even been established that it is "secret." All
we have seen in this thread is that Lucas did not discuss it in detail
with Keene. I see nothing sinister in that, but Parr insists it is.
Frankly, the idea of involving all and sundry in matters requiring
expertise sounds to me like a recipe for a mess -- too many cooks etc.
quote:
>
> And attend to Victoria's Secret, al la Taylor Kingston's recommended
> analogy - being a change from Hitler and Mussolini analogies [and his native
> Californian peyote references - hard to obtain peyote in Vermont, unknown
> where L. Parr is].
>
> That's chess politics for you. I wonder who really, wants a column in there,
> and so is brown-nosing ;)
Ah, so now Phil comes out with what he believes is *my* sinister
motive! (amused chuckle) I want a Chess Life column?? Sorry to
disappoint you, Phil, but my reaction to that idea is rather like W.T.
Sherman's when he was approached about running for President: "I will
not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected."
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:12 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1144446307.861381.221400@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Tell us exactly what verbiage of yours I snipped?
tell us what you think on topic. You are very resistant to talking on topic
instead of whatever the hell you do, its too boring to research!
quote:
And the topic is, yet again, typographic design is a secret, according to
Taylor Kingston - or maybe its a columnist design which is a secret -
whichever, why is it a secret?
ROFL!! Why should anyone make a secret of something that nobody buys?
ChessLife is not ont he newsstands, and you get it with a membership. What
is the result of secrecy, except to avert attention from what you have done
until after its too late to do anything about it?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I said that the topic in question was largely a product of Parr's
> imagination, trying to impute sinister motives to quite ordinary,
> common actions.
i don't think firing of 3 GMs is anybody'd "imagination", and hardly common,
in either sense of the word.
quote:
>
> You mean you went and charged me with snipping, perhaps the most
> rank, heinous offense of all, without even bothering to see if I
> actually did? What a guy.
you mean you can't bother to look up if you were addressing a topic, don't
deny you did, but still demanded other people do research on their response
to your off-topic material ? what not a guy!
quote:
>
so far no content. is this how evans felt?
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I'd say the only things being lost here are your temper and
> reputation, Phil.
XXXX reputation. topic is lost here, and you go on and on without it, 5
years now, your personality against the Greats.
quote:
>
> I prefer chess. My ego is actually not a very big topic.
so talk chess. don't talk talking chess, talk chess.
you think firing these people is 'common' to use your own term?
quote:
>
> I don't think it has even been established that it is "secret." All
> we have seen in this thread is that Lucas did not discuss it in detail
> with Keene.
In any detail. Or in fact at all.
I was saying to someone the other day that the 3 new columns that USCF are
discussing are the faux marble ones that will go outside the new ChessHut.
They have to be paid for somehow.
quote:
> I see nothing sinister in that, but Parr insists it is.
Firing people without any market research is not sinister?
quote:
> Frankly, the idea of involving all and sundry in matters requiring
> expertise sounds to me like a recipe for a mess -- too many cooks etc.
There is a bland generalism for you. I suppose it can be generally true as
long as the expertise doesn't relate to chess when the topic is chess.
zzzzzzz
quote:
>
>
> Ah, so now Phil comes out with what he believes is *my* sinister
> motive! (amused chuckle)
Better than suggesting you dislike refuseniks. But you haven't disliked
anything substantial in a while.
quote:
> I want a Chess Life column?? Sorry to
> disappoint you, Phil, but my reaction to that idea is rather like W.T.
> Sherman's when he was approached about running for President: "I will
> not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected."
I would like you to have a column! Maybe take Evans'? Then you can at last
say whatever was on your mind about Keres Botvinnik without being
reactionary, and get it over with. 3 Issues and you'd be out. zzzzzzzzz
People get tired of The Typo Report. Even Winter has discovered that. And
gets successively fired. Meantimes, Evans and Keene have held columns for 20
years apiece [even 27?]
It ain't by luck, Taylor.
Phil Innes
| |
|
| marcus@stkittsnevischess.org wrote:
quote:
> Louis Blair wrote:
The usual responses (or lack thereof) by the American writers to
posts about chess in 'other countries' (outside the United States)
tend to discourage anyone from writing more about chess in
'other countries'.
I have written some posts about chess in Africa or Asia.
As far as I can recall, the American writers either showed
no interest whatsoever or some American writers began
writing ignorant and sometimes offensive nonsense about
matters relating to Africa or Asia. I suppose that most
Americans really do believe much ignorant and offensive
nonsense (the 'mainstream' US media seems full of it)
about matters relating to Africa or Asia, but not every
reader here is as ignorant as the average American.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I could post about chess from other countries,
> but then again, I am distracted.
>
> Crazy chess players on this newsgroup are threatening
> to kill people from the other countries (like me.)
"Look, I am a US citizen."
--Marcus Roberts (7 April 2006, in RGCP)
Does Marcus Roberts have multiple citizenship?
quote:
> We never did much to anyone to deserve this treatment, either.
Were you born outside the United States?
Do you happen not to look like a white European?
Given the evident xenophobia and/or racism of many Americans
who write in RGC*, why should you feel so 'undeserving'?
quote:
> Marcus Roberts
> Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
My advice (which he should feel free not to accept) to
Marcus Roberts would be for him *not* to waste his time
attempting to impress the abusive and dishonest Americans
who dominate rec.games.chess.politics. I suppose
that he *might* 'impress' those Americans by being as
sycophantic as possible, but would that be worth it?
--Nick
| |
| The Historian 2006-08-02, 10:13 pm |
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
>
>
> Ah, so now Phil comes out with what he believes is *my* sinister
> motive! (amused chuckle) I want a Chess Life column?? Sorry to
> disappoint you, Phil, but my reaction to that idea is rather like W.T.
> Sherman's when he was approached about running for President: "I will
> not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected."
Taylor, take Philsy's accusation as proof you've won the argument. He's
accused me of angling for a USCF job a number of times, and always
after he's lost the argument.
| |
| The Historian 2006-08-02, 10:13 pm |
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
>
>
> I'd say the only things being lost here are your temper and
> reputation, Phil.
Losing his temper is a daily happening for the Nearly an IM from
Vermont. As for losing his reputation, it can only help him. God knows
if I had Innes' reputation I'd want to lose it too.
| |
| The Historian 2006-08-02, 10:13 pm |
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
>
>
> Do you automatically yell "Snipping!" every time, whether it's true
> or not? Check again, I think you'll see I left every one of your
> precious words in there, except perhaps your signature at the bottom.
> If it does not all appear, all you have to do in Google is click on
> "show quoted text" and voila!
> Actually I intentionally made sure to leave it all there, just to see
> if you'd yell "Snip!" anyway. Thank you for your cooperation.
Nice one, Taylor.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:13 pm |
| WINTER'S MOUTHPIECE
<At least that means fewer inaccurate answers are
given. Evans' CL column and factual accuracy have
something of an inverse relationship.> -- Taylor Kingston
Mr. 2300+ Elo is a mouthpiece for the Winterian
party line. The truth is that Edward Winter committed a
higher incidence of error in his attack on GM Evans
than he claimed against GM Evans in the attack! I
catalogued Winter's sloppy misquotations. Minor, yes.
But so were most of the errors alleged against GM
Evans from his massive oeuvre of writing. As for
Taylor Kingston, the man can't get much straight in
his own attacks, having committed several boners here.
Now he tells us that the $50,000 being spent on a massive
redesign of Chess Life and the USCF website, without any open
bidding, is none of our business!
NM Taylor Kingston, the man who claimed to be
2300-+ ELO though having a class A rating, lies again
when he alleges that I find something sinister in Dan
Lucas' short response to Ray Keene.
I found it clear and forthright in its own way:
No change of mind, no willingness to discuss, but
civil and correct.
I broke down the message and suggested what it
meant because, as I noted, I have written such notes
myself on many an occasion and can catch the drift
readily enough.
My conclusion was that it was a model editorial reply.
Mind you, Editor Lucas is making an error and
his note was sadly mistaken, but it was certainly very
far from sinister. I would say that it was correct,
civil, cold and cocky.
And yes, Phil, you are right. NM Taylor Kingston will
not answer whether he posted in praise of himself under
the bogus screen names of Xylothist and Paulie Graf (among others).
That is one of the subjects that he will not
discuss, don't you see. He has these "standards,"
don't you see, and he would be doing something or
other to those "standards" of his, don't you see, were
he to tell us whether he appeared here under false
names to praise himself.
Heh, heh, heh.
Even NM Kingston's supporters are embarrassed
for the man, which our fake NM understands full well.
| |
| help bot 2006-08-02, 10:13 pm |
| Help bot notes that Larry Parr repeatedly relies upon his own
"interpretation" of facts to lend support to his own opinions. For
example, Larry Parr has maintained:
"The truth is that Edward Winter committed a
higher incidence of error in his attack on GM Evans
than he claimed against GM Evans in the attack!"
This sort of thing is just arguing in a circle, using one's own
peculiar "interpretations" to lend support to one's own opinion. It
has not been established here (or anywhere esle, so far as I know) that
the *actual* overall error rate is higher for one writer than the
other.
Another problem (which is self-evident to any rational reader) is
that Larry Parr has constructed a "two wrongs make a right" argument.
No matter if Edward Winter's own error rate were double that of even
say, Phil Innes, it is still a valid criticism to note the careless
handling of spelling, dates, and sometimes facts in Evans' Chess Life
column. Even if Winter could not spell his own name correctly, this
would hardly save Evans from responsibility for his own spelling
errors.
Two wrongs don't make a right; they make double the wrong. This is
second grade level math.
"Mind you, Editor Lucas is making an error and
his note was sadly mistaken, but it was certainly very
far from sinister. I would say that it was correct,
civil, cold and cocky."
That viewpoint makes sense from a certain perspective -- one where
Keene is highy respected for a) being a Grandmaster, and b) being a
famous writer of chess books and magazine articles.
But there is another perspective; one which takes into account (and
in fact weighs quite heavily) the quality of a writer's work, not just
the quantity or commercial success thereof. It is from this
perspective that Taylor Kingston noted the problem Evans has been
having with errors and/or personal bias -- a problem which Edward
Winter has attempted to magnify into something far greater than mere
laziness, which happens to be my personal assessment.
One more note: Larry Parr continues to assert that Taylor Kingston
has posted anonymouse-ly, as he puts it, "in praise of himself"; but
the examples I have thus far seen only show that the anons in question
(who have yet to be shown to be TK) *agreed* with TK. The question
remains, where is the "praise", the idolatry, the self-worship? Either
Larry Parr believes a man should "argue with himself" when posting
under another name, or else he has thus far been too lazy to post
examples of say, Xylothist, actually praising Kingston and not merely
being in accord on the issues discussed. Perhaps the difference
between "praise" and accordance of opinion is just too subtle for Larry
Parr to fathom, but I think it more likely that LP either has no
pertinent examples to give, or is just too lazy to support his
arguments with facts.
-- help bot
PS: I humbly suggest a "solution" to the problem of TK and PI
making certain claims regarding their chess abilities and/or ratings.
A duel -- no, make that a *match*, wherein the near-IM faces off
against the 2300 ELO. Winner take all: if Innes wins, he gets all 2300
points; if Kingston wins, he gets Innes' near-IM title. The loser is
relegated to mere patzer status henceforth. First to win six, draws
not counting. In the event of a tie, Louis Blair gets the near-IM
title while Larry Parr gains 2300 ELO points. Fair enough?
| |
|
|
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message news:1144470583.398352.112280@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> And yes, Phil, you are right. NM Taylor Kingston will
> not answer whether he posted in praise of himself under
> the bogus screen names of Xylothist and Paulie Graf (among others).
>
Why should he when you are doing the same under the guise of jr?
quote:
> That is one of the subjects that he will not
> discuss, don't you see. He has these "standards,"
> don't you see, and he would be doing something or
> other to those "standards" of his, don't you see, were
> he to tell us whether he appeared here under false
> names to praise himself.
>
And what are YOUR standards? In all fairness, a man without standards
should not cricticize onw with standards.
quote:
> Heh, heh, heh.
>
> Even NM Kingston's supporters are embarrassed
> for the man, which our fake NM understands full well.
>
Speaking of embarrassment, do you still consider Sam Sloan
an ally? Having him in your corner (or vice versa) seems like a
public relations disaster to me.
| |
| Niemand 2006-08-02, 10:13 pm |
|
help bot wrote:
quote:
> But there is another perspective; one which takes into account (and
> in fact weighs quite heavily) the quality of a writer's work, not just
> the quantity or commercial success thereof. It is from this
> perspective that Taylor Kingston noted the problem Evans has been
> having with errors and/or personal bias -- a problem which Edward
> Winter has attempted to magnify into something far greater than mere
> laziness, which happens to be my personal assessment.
As far as I know, Winter's comments on Evans make a definite
distinction between cases of simple error, as when Evans twice failed
to get the right year for a Steinitz match, and cases of dishonesty, as
when he misrepresented my own views. Laziness seems a plausible
explanation for the former, but not the latter.
quote:
> PS: I humbly suggest a "solution" to the problem of TK and PI
> making certain claims regarding their chess abilities and/or ratings.
> A duel -- no, make that a *match*, wherein the near-IM faces off
> against the 2300 ELO.
The problem there is that my master rating (a fact, not a claim) was
20 years ago and in postal chess. Innes' claim relates to OTB play,
from about as long ago. For a proper test, we'd have to go back to,
say, 1985, and have Innes play by OTB rules while I play under postal
rules. Apples and oranges, and not really fair.
quote:
> Winner take all: if Innes wins, he gets all 2300
> points; if Kingston wins, he gets Innes' near-IM title. The loser is
> relegated to mere patzer status henceforth.
OTB I've always been a patzer, with occasional flashes of mediocrity.
Probably the best OTB player I've beaten is former Vermont state
champion, FM Steven Winer (now about 2350-2400), but that was when he
was about 13 years old. Now I lack any OTB ambition.
| |
| samsloan 2006-08-02, 10:13 pm |
| Niemand a/k/a Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> The problem there is that my master rating (a fact, not a claim) was
> 20 years ago and in postal chess.
Taylor Kingston is not a master. Never was a master. Never will be a
master. His mind is weak but his XXX is strong.
It is impossible for a master to go down to become an 1800 player,
which is what Taylor Kingston is.
Taylor Kingston has never been awarded a master title by any recognized
chess organization, not even in postal chess.
At the time when Kingston claims to have been a postal master, any
player got to choose his own initial starting rating. Nobody called or
considered such players to be masters.
If Taylor Kingston were really a master he could produce many games
where he defeated masters and even a few games where he defeated
grandmasters. Taylor Kingston has failed to produce any games where he
defeated anybody at all, even in postal chess, much less a game where
he defeated a master or even an expert.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
|
samsloan wrote:
quote:
> Niemand a/k/a Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
>
> Taylor Kingston is not a master. Never was a master. Never will be a
> master. His mind is weak but his XXX is strong.
> It is impossible for a master to go down to become an 1800 player,
> which is what Taylor Kingston is.
You are confusing my OTB and postal ratings. Two different things.
quote:
> Taylor Kingston has never been awarded a master title by any recognized
> chess organization, not even in postal chess.
Not to brag, but if you're going to fling lies, I feel I should state
the facts. I was indeed given the title of postal chess master by USCF.
Got a certificate signed by USCF Postal Director Joan Dubois. I was
listed as #45 on USCF's list of Postal Masters in Chess Life. So unless
the USCF is not "a recognized chess organization," you are incorrect.
quote:
> At the time when Kingston claims to have been a postal master, any
> player got to choose his own initial starting rating. Nobody called or
> considered such players to be masters.
The highest rating at which a postal player could start was 1300,
which then was the lower limit of class A. No one was allowed to give
himself a 1700+ master rating. I began more modestly at 900, class C,
and in a few years worked up to over 1800, which translates to about
2250-2300 Elo.
quote:
> If Taylor Kingston were really a master he could produce many games
> where he defeated masters and even a few games where he defeated
> grandmasters. Taylor Kingston has failed to produce any games where he
> defeated anybody at all, even in postal chess, much less a game where
> he defeated a master or even an expert.
I don't like to bore rgcm readers with my games, but since you
insist, here's one with Stephen Barbre, who, if memory serves, has won
the US Absolute Correspondence Chess Championship, definitely a postal
master-class player:
Barbre-Kingston, 1981 Golden Knights Finals, 8/1983-3/1984: 1. d4 Nf6
2. Nc3 d5 3. Bg5 Nbd7 4. Nf3 g6 5. e3 Bg7 6. Bd3 O-O 7. O-O c5 8. Ne5
Nxe5 9. dxe5 Ng4 10. Be2 d4 11. exd4 cxd4 12.Nb5 Nxe5 13. Nxd4 Qb6 14.
Bxe7 Re8 15. Bh4 Qxb2 16. Rb1 Qxa2 17. Bb5 Bg4 18. f3 Bd7 19. Bxd7 Nxd7
20. Rxb7 Qd5 21. Nc6 Qxc6 22. Rxd7 a5 23. Re1 a4 24. Rxe8+ Rxe8 25. Rd6
Qc5+ 26. Bf2 Re1+ 27. Qxe1 Qxd6 28. g3 a3 29. Qe8+ Bf8 30. Qa4 Qb4 31.
Qa8 Qb1+ 32. Kg2 Qxc2 33. g4 Qb2 0-1
If you would like more samples, send me a mailing address and I will
provide you with copies of the USCF Postal Chess Bulletin, in which I
annotated several of my games. Or if you happen to have the MasterChess
2000 database, a few are on there also.
| |
|
| Responding to Scam Sloan's accusations looks too easy. Like shooting
fish in a barrel, eh?
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1144515055.456131.142980@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> samsloan wrote:
| |
|
| Terry wrote:
quote:
> <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1144337183.498220.70660@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> More f**king american chess politics. I wish they would stop polluting
> this newsgroup. Being an ignorant lot - they will carry on of course.
I am reading this thread in rec.games.chess.misc.
Ignorance alone cannot explain why many American writers insist on
cross-posting their US political opinions to rec.games.chess.misc.
Over the years, many diverse non-American writers have been
telling the Americans who like to write in rec.games.chess.politics
to stop doing that. As I recall, for instance, David Richerby often
expressed his objections about that until he apparently realised
that those Americans simply were not going to listen to him.
My conclusion is that many, perhaps most, of the Americans
who like to write in rec.games.chess.politics do not listen
seriously to or respect the views of non-Americans.
--Nick
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
| THERE WAS NO CONFUSION
<You are confusing my OTB and postal ratings. Two different things.> --
Taylor Kingston
Mr. 2300+ Elo made the bald claim knowing full well that most
readers
would understand it was his over-the-board rating. He later offered a
number
of excuses, such as he was laying a trap for this writer and Sam Sloan,
etc..
Other excuses followed for his misleading claim.
One poster aptly called it "The Horsefeathers Defense."
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> THERE WAS NO CONFUSION
You're right, Larry. There was no confusion. You and Sloan instantly
assumed I was lying about an OTB rating, while rgcm's more rational and
intelligent readers checked the USCF web-site and correctly realized I
was referring to my postal rating. No confusion either way: you and
Sloan assumed and were wrong, just as you did yesterday about my Chess
Life subscription. Others checked the facts and were right.
quote:
> <You are confusing my OTB and postal ratings. Two different things.> --
> Taylor Kingston
>
> Mr. 2300+ Elo made the bald claim knowing full well that most readers
> would understand it was his over-the-board rating. He later offered a
> number of excuses, such as he was laying a trap for this writer and Sam Sloan,
> etc..
Which you fell into like a sleepwalker. So predictable.
quote:
> Other excuses followed for his misleading claim.
Interesting that only you and Sloan were "misled."
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
|
"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144512491.066253.252620@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Niemand a/k/a Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
>
> Taylor Kingston is not a master. Never was a master. Never will be a
> master. His mind is weak but his XXX is strong.
>
> It is impossible for a master to go down to become an 1800 player,
> which is what Taylor Kingston is.
I disagree, Sam! my irregular but sometimes sparring partner who delivers
the mail won the Nevada Open when it was 'big', was a 2350 rated player, and
we bullshit a lot about chess and what it takes to do it. [its not theory!@]
he said he took a few years off and then played in a New Hampshire
tournament and lost to 2 1600 players in succession
now he still plays on ICC and gets up to a 24xx rating, then blows the whole
thing by playing all night with the big guys and drinking 'a few' bottles of
wine
quote:
> Taylor Kingston has never been awarded a master title by any recognized
> chess organization, not even in postal chess.
>
> At the time when Kingston claims to have been a postal master, any
> player got to choose his own initial starting rating. Nobody called or
> considered such players to be masters.
you think i could spot him a knight? or just pawn and move? the issue would
be at what time-control? maybe the best test would to to penalise time
instead of pieces? like 5 to 10 minutes.
i never took correspondance chess seriously anyway, obviously, you can look
at your books and consult Fritz or whatever, and what a nonsense all that is
compared to the challenge of being at the board and a 'live challenge' in
progress
quote:
> If Taylor Kingston were really a master he could produce many games
> where he defeated masters and even a few games where he defeated
> grandmasters. Taylor Kingston has failed to produce any games where he
> defeated anybody at all, even in postal chess, much less a game where
> he defeated a master or even an expert.
to be 1800 it is entirely likely that he has beaten both a master or two
plus expert A's, but not often.
what can boost your rating a hundred points or so is to be involved in a
strong pool of players, which is what happened to me in Germany. you lose a
hell of a lot at the beginning, usually from novel openings you don't
understand the pattern of, but your play changes considerably, not just in
'things learned' but by practice against stronger players than yourself -
its a sort of raja yoga - you simply are more ready and able to fight and
not be lazy at the board
you also have to have enough energy and bloody mindedness to win!
if this mongolian girl can play 'up' 600 points for a tournament, then
playing up 100 points for a season is only amazing to patzers
i play another guy more regualrly than the 2350 guy, and he is rated 2000.
sometimes our score is even - we average wins and loses, not even based on
white/black. we have also been playing chess together for 20 years and we
both get sick and tired of the repetoire - his slav, or alekhine's or
karo-kan, my mod. benoni, benko or pelikan . but sometimes i win all the
games, 4 or 6 or 8 in a row played at 10 or 15 minutes. i don't know why,
maybe its just him losing, or as it seems to me, I sometimes feel more on
and 'see' so many more things, and [laugh] within the allowable time
but what is our experience as players? if we had an easy week or two
otherwise, are solid with our repetoire, and pushed our perceptions out
further than normal by playing-over high level games - doesn't this make for
substantial difference in play? I would say that is worth a 100 points right
there
when i was a 'kid' this is exactly what did the trick. relatively high level
of general practice and preparation combined with being relaxed at the
table. after age 30, i lived in such a remote area, almost in the artic
circle that there were no strong opponents, and i played other people, but
like an idiot -not really feeling any challenge or threat, ploped out dull
moves, and only winning by making less mistakes than they did
i also gave up mountain climbing when my first child was born, since maybe
for the first time in my life something about mortality entered into my
considerations - i sometimes yearn so much to be up there on the tops, but
must reflect that there are no old mountain climbers
chess is more enduring, and the joy of it is that no matter how prepared you
are, you still bring unconsciously everything you ever learned to the table,
and try to observe what is going on, and dance with it - doesn't matter so
much what your rating is, but where your heart is
phil innes
quote:
> Sam Sloan
>
| |
|
| Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> You're right, Larry. There was no confusion.
That's quite a disingenuous assertion by Taylor Kingston.
quote:
> You and Sloan instantly assumed I was lying about an OTB rating,
I did not assume that Taylor Kingston 'was lying about an OTB rating'.
I have not accused Taylor Kingston of 'lying about an OTB rating'.
quote:
> while rgcm's more rational and intelligent readers checked the USCF
> web-site and correctly realized I was referring to my postal rating.
Taylor Kingston's original claim was of a "2300+ Elo" rating.
Taylor Kingston's correspondence rating at the USCF website is 2037.
2037 is *not* close to '2300+'.
I know of no available evidence (to the general public) at the
USCF website that would show that Taylor Kingston ever
had a correspondence rating of '2300+', which was needed
to confirm his original claim.
So how on earth could any 'intelligent reader' (as someone who's
not a white American, I may not qualify as such) 'correctly realize'
that Taylor Kingston's correspondence rating of 2037 at the
USCF website *must* confirm Taylor Kingston's original claim
of a '2300+ Elo' rating?
I did *not necessarily* assume that Taylor Kingston's
correspondence rating of 2037 was his peak correspondence
rating. But there was no available evidence (to the general
public) at the USCF website about Taylor Kingston's peak
correspondence rating. I had no reason to assume that
Taylor Kingston *must* once have been rated 263+ points
higher than his current correspondence rating.
quote:
> No confusion either way:
That's quite a disingenuous assertion by Taylor Kingston.
quote:
> you and Sloan assumed and were wrong, just as you
> did yesterday about my Chess Life subscription.
> Others checked the facts and were right.
As I recall, someone associated with the USCF later did
look up Taylor Kingston's peak correspondence rating
(it's 1806, if I recall correctly), which, using a formula,
would convert to a mid-2200s rating today.
A converted mid-2200s rating does *not* quite confirm
a ratings claim of '2300+ Elo', though Taylor Kingston
prefers to act as though it completely confirms it.
What would I call the difference between a converted
mid-2200s rating and a claimed '2300+' rating?
I would call it an exaggeration; some people
may prefer to describe it in harsher terms.
quote:
I know of no evidence that Taylor Kingston ever has had,
even by conversion, a '2300+' correspondence rating.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Which you fell into like a sleepwalker. So predictable.
>
>
> Interesting that only you and Sloan were "misled."
How on earth could Taylor Kingston be certain that only
Larry Parr and Sam Sloan believed that Taylor Kingston's
claim of a '2300+ Elo' rating was misleading?
Can Taylor Kingston read everyone else's mind?
Indeed, a friend of mine (who has deep disdain for both
Larry Parr and Sam Sloan) has criticised Taylor Kingston's
'2300+ Elo' rating claim in harsher terms than I have.
He regards Taylor Kingston's '2300+ Elo' rating claim
as misleading and deceptive and Taylor Kingston's
continuing defences of his claim as dishonest.
If Taylor Kingston had written something like:
"I had an old USCF correspondence rating that
would convert to something *approaching* a
USCF correspondence rating of 2300 today",
then that would have been a fair statement.
I regard Larry Parr's continuing criticisms of Taylor
Kingston's '2300+ Elo' rating claim as excessive,
and I regard Taylor Kingston's continuing defences
of his '2300+ Elo' rating claim as disingenuous.
--Nick
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
|
Nick wrote:
quote:
> I did not assume that Taylor Kingston 'was lying about an OTB rating'.
> I have not accused Taylor Kingston of 'lying about an OTB rating'.
Thank you. As I stated, that line is taken by Parr and Sloan.
quote:
>
> Taylor Kingston's original claim was of a "2300+ Elo" rating.
> Taylor Kingston's correspondence rating at the USCF website is 2037.
> 2037 is *not* close to '2300+'.
As was explained here months ago, I had several unfinished games in
progress when I retired from postal chess. Those games were forfeited,
subtracting over 200 points from my rating.
quote:
> I know of no available evidence (to the general public) at the
> USCF website that would show that Taylor Kingston ever
> had a correspondence rating of '2300+', which was needed
> to confirm his original claim.
>
> So how on earth could any 'intelligent reader' (as someone who's
> not a white American, I may not qualify as such) 'correctly realize'
> that Taylor Kingston's correspondence rating of 2037 at the
> USCF website *must* confirm Taylor Kingston's original claim
> of a '2300+ Elo' rating?
You're looking at the wrong side of the issue, Nick. The point is, at
the USCF web-site the OTB rating history of myself and every other USCF
member is easily available. I have known of this for years, and it is
common knowledge among those who post on this group. It shows my OTB
rating has never gone above 1853.
It would be the height of folly, then, for anyone to make a false
claim about his OTB USCF rating, when it can so easily be checked. I
know this, you know this, most folks here know it.
Now I know you don't like me, Nick, but do you really think I'm so
stupid as to believe I could get away with claiming a phony OTB rating?
I might as well claim to have won an Oscar, the Nobel Prize, or the Cy
Young Award.
But Parr and Sloan, always eager to think and say the worst of their
adversaries, did just that. It never occurred to them to think "Wait a
minute -- he *can't* be talking about his OTB rating. It must be
something else." No, they were so eager to smear me, they just rushed
right ahead, as I knew they would.
Meanwhile, within minutes of Sloan's "Kingston's lying!!" post,
another poster calmly pointed out that I was *obviously* referring to
postal ratings. Do a google search if you don't believe me.
The point of the exercise was to show: (1) Parr/Sloan's sloppiness
when it comes to checking facts, and (2) their willingness to make
false accusations and smears based on faulty information and
assumptions. I'd say it worked quite well in that regard.
What I regret about the whole thing is that in retrospect, it was so
redundant and superfluous. Going to any special trouble to show that
Parr and Sloan are sloppy and mendacious is like applying for a federal
grant to research if water is wet. They both prove it again and again,
with no help from me, and probably always will.
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
| I was misled too. So it turns out you were once an 1800 OTB player. Okay.
That's got that over with. Phil Innes
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1144522686.901454.241780@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> You're right, Larry. There was no confusion. You and Sloan instantly
> assumed I was lying about an OTB rating, while rgcm's more rational and
> intelligent readers checked the USCF web-site and correctly realized I
> was referring to my postal rating. No confusion either way: you and
> Sloan assumed and were wrong, just as you did yesterday about my Chess
> Life subscription. Others checked the facts and were right.
>
>
> Which you fell into like a sleepwalker. So predictable.
>
>
> Interesting that only you and Sloan were "misled."
>
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (7 Apr 2006 21:29:43 -0700):
quote:
> ... That is one of the subjects that he will not discuss,
> don't you see. ...
_
Larry Parr likes to make a lot of fuss about questions that
certain individuals have not answered, but Larry Parr and
his supporter, jr, have, at times, also avoided answering a
question. It seems to me that, by Parr-logic, such
questions must be "sear"ing.
_
"Larry, please tell us more about playwright
Richard Laurie. IT'S ALL NEW TO ME and
sounds like another juicy scandal. Why did
truth-seeker Kingston ask Laurie to keep their
correspondence secret?" - jr (2 Apr 2006
09:20:05 -0700) (Emphasis added.)
_
_
"And yet, earlier this year, we saw:
_
'I have read Richard Laurie's
exchanges with Kingston who
secretly tried to get him to
retract an item Laurie submitted
to Chess Life.' - jr (8 Jan 2006
12:21:20 -0800)"
- Louis Blair (2 Apr 2006 14:36:03 -0700)
_
_
"Care to explain, jr?" - Taylor Kingston
(4 Apr 2006 09:54:13 -0700)
_
_
"[Has Larry Parr] yet made any comments
about jr's ... question about Laurie, where [jr]
contradicted what he had previously posted?"
- Tom Martinak (7 Apr 2006 09:27:57 -0700)
_
Another incident:
_
"Edward Winter combed through thousands of
pages of GM Evans' writing over half a century
and found about 25 mistakes, most of them
minor." - Larry Parr (26 Mar 2006 16:56:54 -0800)
_
"What is the source ...?" - Louis Blair (26 Mar 2006
17:35:53 -0800)
_
Another incident:
_
"Here is one of the nine essays I wrote in my
examination of Edward Winter's attack against
GM Evans at the ChessCafe in 2001.
...
To my mind, Mr. Winter's lowest, in fact
subterranean, device is to argue that GM Evans
is loath to admit mistakes." - Larry Parr
(3 Apr 2006 02:29:07 -0700)
_
_
"Where is there a quote of Edward Winter saying
that GM Evans is loath to admit mistakes?" - Louis
Blair (4 Apr 2006 06:33:09 -0700)
_
_
"[Greg Kennedy (Help Bot) wrote:] 'Edward Winter
seems to have clearly argued this in his article
entitled "The Facts About Larry Evans", which can
be found on the Chess Notes website.'
...
Any normal person reading this article would reach
the same conclusion as the lad from Indiana."
- Larry Parr (5 Apr 2006 04:58:04 -0700)
_
_
"Do any of these 'normal' people have a quote to
back up Larry Parr's claim?
_
Larry Parr quotes helpbot, and, this time around,
chooses not to mention any of his previous
assessments.
_
'he has laid down a trail of typed refuse.'
- Larry Parr (2 Apr 2006 20:54:08 -0700)"
- Louis Blair (5 Apr 2006 06:46:50 -0700)
_
Another incident:
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?
_
If they do, why doesn't either of them say so
explicitly? If they don't, why don't they admit
that they still have not produced a record of
such a claim?" - Louis Blair (28 Jan 2006
16:03:20 -0800)
_
Thirty days later:
_
"GM Keene, who has had extenstive dealings
with Mr. Winter, made the claim. Not I."
- Larry Parr (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800)
_
_
"Larry Parr fails to mention that he posted
this claim in a note with the heading
'EDWARD WINTER'S TRIPE (Continued)'.
Does Larry Parr claim that he had no
obligation to deal with the issue of
evidence? Did he make any attempt to
ask GM Keene for a quote of the supposed
Edward Winter claim? In the past, in
response to attacks by others, Larry Parr
has written things like:
_
'The man makes a charge without
providing a scintilla of evidence, let
alone proof' - Larry Parr (21 Sep 2005
20:39:02 -0700)
_
and:
_
'[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear.' - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)
_
Does Larry Parr think it was acceptable
for him to be a party to that sort of thing?"
- Louis Blair (27 Feb 2006 22:46:33 -0800)
_
Another incident:
_
"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?
_
Another incident:
_
"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)
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (26 Mar 2006 16:56:54 -0800):
quote:
> Edward Winter combed through thousands of
> pages of GM Evans' writing over half a century
> and found about 25 mistakes, most of them
> minor.
_
What is the source for this claim?
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> I was misled too. So it turns out you were once an 1800 OTB player. Okay.
> That's got that over with. Phil Innes
You were "misled too," Phil? Have you forgotten our conversation at
Stratton Mountain? June 1999 I think it was, the Chesswise
International. We talked for an hour or two, had lunch together. Among
other things we discussed our OTB strength. I told you my USCF OTB
rating, and mentioned my postal activities of earlier years. You've
forgotten, I suppose?
I seem to recall your saying to Keith, the teenage kid who hung out
with us for a while, that you were "nearly of IM strength" or words to
that effect. At the time I attached no significance to the remark.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (8 Apr 2006 11:44:58 -0700):
quote:
> One poster aptly called it "The Horsefeathers Defense."
_
Guess who that "one poster" was?
_
"THE 'HORSEFEATHERS' DEFENSE"
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 19:57:27 -0700)
_
It DOES have to be acknowledged that someone,
calling himself "fed up", had previously used the
word, "horsefeathers", in connection with the
matter. By now, I imagine that most here are
familiar with the type.
_
"Parrthenon keeps making solid, well-reasoned
arguments, ..." - fed up (30 Apr 2005 19:50:13 -0700)
| |
| The Historian 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> You were "misled too," Phil? Have you forgotten our conversation at
> Stratton Mountain? June 1999 I think it was, the Chesswise
> International. We talked for an hour or two, had lunch together. Among
> other things we discussed our OTB strength. I told you my USCF OTB
> rating, and mentioned my postal activities of earlier years. You've
> forgotten, I suppose?
> I seem to recall your saying to Keith, the teenage kid who hung out
> with us for a while, that you were "nearly of IM strength" or words to
> that effect. At the time I attached no significance to the remark.
Interesting. One of my Vermont correspondents on another newsgroup once
mentioned a "chessmaster named Phil" who stopped frequenting the local
clubs when he found the members refused to take orders from him. Any
chance it was the "nearly an IM"?
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1144534401.666454.88080@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> You were "misled too," Phil? Have you forgotten our conversation at
> Stratton Mountain? June 1999 I think it was, the Chesswise
> International. We talked for an hour or two, had lunch together. Among
> other things we discussed our OTB strength. I told you my USCF OTB
> rating, and mentioned my postal activities of earlier years. You've
> forgotten, I suppose?
Christ. Get it over with. 6 years ago. Was it 2000? Not that I really care,
but anything over 1700 meant that you stepped out of the book enough to play
on your own. Seems an odd thing to dsay but 95% of players never get that
far.
quote:
> I seem to recall your saying to Keith, the teenage kid who hung out
> with us for a while, that you were "nearly of IM strength" or words to
> that effect. At the time I attached no significance to the remark.
O good. I am glad you remember. I remember a little snow coming down
outside. Playing Keith who was an okay junior. And a pint and a sandwich.
On another occasion I met Tim Hanke on a nearby mountain, and Kenny from
Harvard. They were playing in a tourney - Ivanov was there, and your
Burlington player Alain who had the Fischer anecdotes.
phil
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1144534401.666454.88080@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Christ. Get it over with. 6 years ago. Was it 2000? Not that I really care,
> but anything over 1700 meant that you stepped out of the book enough to play
> on your own. Seems an odd thing to dsay but 95% of players never get that
> far.
quote:
>
> O good. I am glad you remember. I remember a little snow coming down
> outside. Playing Keith who was an okay junior. And a pint and a sandwich.
O good, I am glad you remember, too. Double-checking, and taking into
account your comment about "snow coming down," I recall it was not the
Chesswise International in June, but the Green Mountain Open, November
1999.
So, having agreed that we both remember the event, do you still claim
to have been "misled" about my postal rating or my OTB rating (which at
the time was actually below 1800)? Despite the fact that both were
mentioned to you there in person?
quote:
> On another occasion I met Tim Hanke on a nearby mountain, and Kenny from
> Harvard. They were playing in a tourney - Ivanov was there, and your
> Burlington player Alain who had the Fischer anecdotes.
Do you mean Alan Shaw? I don't think he ever played Fischer, but he
did play Tal, who consumed alarming amounts of gin-and-tonic over the
course of the evening. Or do you mean Allyn Khan? He played Fischer at
State College, Pennsylvania, on May 31, the last stop on Bobby's big
1964 tour, when Allyn was a member of the Penn State team (cf. "A
Legend on the Road" (2nd edition) by John Donaldson, p. 192).
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:14 pm |
| JOEL CHANNING ON STAYING THE COURSE
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:16 am
Gentlepersons,
I've already noticed a broadening out of subject matter including
articles of broader interest and emphasis on those human aspects of
chess that better reflect the true relationship between chess and a
life well lived. Yes, the Evans column is excellent, but Tim Redman's
article is beautifully written (I | | |