quote:

---

> The title of the thread shouldn't surprise anyone, but this week's
> example is particularly blatant. Here it is, plucked in its full bloom,
> taken from that garden of gossip called Alekhine's Parrot. We leave
> aside the small matter than the Alekhine's Parrot columnist hasn't
> bothered to provide a source for the quotation:
>
> ******************************
> On the firing of GM Larry Evans [from last week]:
>
> <Your long position seems to be that it's just fine for the USCF to be
> a complete failure at promoting chess, so long as it survives. Sad.>
>
> -- David Kane to USCF Finance member Bill Brock.
> *******************************
>
> Mr. Kane's comment is, in fact, not about the ending of the Evans Chess
> Life column, but part of a larger discussion on
> rec.games.chess.politics of the value of a USCF membership.

quote:

---

> same thread, he stated his views on Evans and his column:
>

quote:

---

>snipped

quote:

---

> Does it surprise anyone that Philth Innes is behind this?
>

quote:

---

> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1144587829.442599.27650@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Of course you are correct that "Alekhine's
> Parrot" has completely distorted my position.
> But honestly I would never have known since
> I don't read that column.

quote:

---

> In that
>
>
>
> The original distortion was Larry Parr's.
> It is unclear whether the explanation
> is his poor reading comprehension
> or his dishonesty. Likewise "Alekhine's
> Parrot." My guess is the former because
> even the world's least creative
> person should be able to come up
> with more interesting lies than that.
>
>

quote:

---

>
> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:16ednYWxkfXWiqfZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> I would be glad to make any corrections to the statement, or restate it in
> its intended context - but am puzzled to think what that could have been?
>
> But, to people who might be called a tad revisionist about their comments,
> who make complaints without actually managing to say what was distorted

quote:

---

> or can be bothered to restate their context ... I wonder its worth

quote:

---

> to inquire?

quote:

---

> It isn't a "puzzle" in any ordinary
> meaning of the word. The words
> are clear and unambiguous and
> available for all to see. "The Historian"
> managed to understand what
> was written and state it accurately.

quote:

---

>
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:m4v_f.3441$ee6.3085@trndny01...
> ...
> bothering
>
> It isn't a "puzzle" in any ordinary
> meaning of the word. The words
> are clear and unambiguous and
> available for all to see. "The Historian"
> managed to understand what
> was written and state it accurately.
>
> I don't see how the original
> comment could have been interpreted
> to have anything to do with Evans, but
> that is Parr for you. But I did
> immediately volunteer that I completely
> disagreed with Parr's obviously ridiculous
> defense of Evans. I guess 'Alekhine's
> Parrot" missed that. I'm not worrying
> about it.
>
>
>
>
>

quote:

---

> It isn't a "puzzle" in any ordinary meaning of the word. The words are clear and
> unambiguous ...
> I don't see how the original comment could have been interpreted
> to have anything to do with Evans, but that is Parr for you. But I did
> immediately volunteer that I completely disagreed with Parr's obviously ridiculous
> defense of Evans. I guess 'Alekhine's Parrot" missed that.

quote:

---

>
> David Kane wrote:
>
>
> Dave, you must realize that Phil Innes, like Larry Parr and Larry
> Evans, is one of those rare people with the psychic power to understand
> what someone "really means," even when that meaning is completely at
> odds with whatever was actually said. As a general rule, this "real
> meaning" will coincide with the position Innes, Parr or Evans happens
> to be taking.
> It is this power, denied to ordinary mortals such as you and me, that
> gives them license to misquote, misinterpret and misrepresent at will,
> much as a Nietzschean Superman is not constrained by the petty
> strictures of herd morality.
>

quote:

---

> David Kane wrote:
>
> If it's not a puzzle, what is it that needs to be corrected?
>

quote:

---

> Taylor Kingston adds his usual and very 'personal' opinion to that of Neil
> Brennan, who elects to speculate on every subject imaginable including
> women's perspectives [ROFL].
>
> Individually they ain't much, as a pair they are entirely unable to address
> any topic whatsoever without getting over-excited and putting other people
> down, and actually addressing content rather than their own usually lurid
> specualtions.
>
> This make for 4 entries on this subject, all scarce of content. Kingston
> himself can't even state his OTB rating, and is entirely content to pitch
> his wit against grandmasters.
>
> If David Kane wants to have a 4th try at making himself clear, the original,
> plus two even more nebulous complaints, I assume he will do so.
>
> How many tries and you're out?
>
> Phil Innes

quote:

---

> David Kane wrote:
>
> If it's not a puzzle, what is it that needs to be corrected?

quote:

---

> "LiamToo" <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1144694484.443478.317970@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Read the thread and find out for yourself.

quote:

---

> Taylor Kingston adds his usual and very 'personal' opinion to that of Neil
> Brennan, who elects to speculate on every subject imaginable including
> women's perspectives [ROFL].
>
> Individually they ain't much, as a pair they are entirely unable to

quote:

---

> any topic whatsoever without getting over-excited and putting other people
> down, and actually addressing content rather than their own usually lurid
> specualtions.
>
> This make for 4 entries on this subject, all scarce of content. Kingston
> himself can't even state his OTB rating, and is entirely content to pitch
> his wit against grandmasters.
>
> If David Kane wants to have a 4th try at making himself clear, the

quote:

---

> plus two even more nebulous complaints, I assume he will do so.
>
> How many tries and you're out?
>

quote:

---

>
> David Kane wrote:
>
clear and[vbcol=seagreen]
ridiculous[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Dave, you must realize that Phil Innes, like Larry Parr and Larry
> Evans, is one of those rare people with the psychic power to understand
> what someone "really means," even when that meaning is completely at
> odds with whatever was actually said. As a general rule, this "real
> meaning" will coincide with the position Innes, Parr or Evans happens
> to be taking.

quote:

---

> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1144696600.134167.18240@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> clear and
> ridiculous
>
> Larry Evans has nothing to do with this. Parr and
> Innes made a possibly honest mistake and apparently
> lack the maturity to correct themselves. Hardly
> surprising to anyone who has read this newsgroup,
> but also not support for your generalizations.

quote:

---

>
> David Kane wrote:
>
> Aha, it's a puzzle then. LOL! It was a very simple question that needed
> a simple answer. If you can't answer it then stop crying.
>

quote:

---

> I'm not crying and frankly don't care if there
> is a correction. It is not my practice to
> mindlessly quote recent USENET messages.

quote:

---

>
> Chess One wrote:
Neil[vbcol=seagreen]
address[vbcol=seagreen]
people[vbcol=seagreen]
lurid[vbcol=seagreen]
pitch[vbcol=seagreen]
original,[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The context is already there Phil.
>
> Here is what David Kane wrote:
>
> "Just to be sure, I was in no way defending Parr's utterly
> riduclous defense of Evans.*If* you concluded
> that it really benefitted American chess to support a chess
> gossip columnist (and I consider that extremely unlikely),
> Evans would be just about the last person on earth to
> write such a column. He seems closer to the center of the
> chess world than my cat, but not dramatically so.
>
>
> "What Parr doesn't seem to be able to grasp is that
> if you have an unpopular product, you need to change
> the product to appeal to the market. The fact that
> someone, somewhere, still loves the product doesn't
> account for much."
>
> What do you find unclear about that Phil?
>
> What in that statement made you think that David Kane was upset that
> Larry Evans was being dropped?

quote:

---

> David Kane wrote:
>
> Well, here's one quote that's very interesting. You said,
> "Evans would be just about the last person on earth to
> write such a column. He seems closer to the center of
> the chess world than my cat, but not dramatically so."
>
> Why your cat?
>

quote:

---

>
> Sarcasm, perhaps?
>
> But, in case you are still trying to solve this
> most challenging of intellectual puzzles, this quote
> came *after* that quoted by Parr/Innes. I suggest
> you seek clues earlier in the thread ...

quote:

---

> David Kane wrote:
>
> I'm very good at decipehring intellectual puzzles. Here are the quotes.

quote:

---

>
> "Your long position seems to be that it's just fine for the USCF to be
> a complete failure at promoting chess, so long as it survives.
> Sad."--David Kane to Bill Brock
>
> "Amen" --Larry Parr to David Kane
>
> What's wrong with the above quotes?

quote:

---

> If David Kane wants to have a 4th try at making himself clear,
> the original, plus two even more nebulous complaints, I assume
> he will do so.

quote:

---

> what is it that needs to be corrected?

quote:

---

> If David Kane wants to have a 4th try at making himself clear,
> the original, plus two even more nebulous complaints, I assume
> he will do so.

quote:

---

> What is the problem? David Kane has made it pretty clear.
> His "USCF ... failure" comment was not "on the firing of GM
> Larry Evans", and should not have been presented as such.
> It was, in reality, a comment on the issue of membership in
> the USCF. His true reaction to the GM Evans issue was:
>_
> "Parr's [defense of Evans is] utterly riduclous.
> *If* you concluded that it really benefitted
> American chess to support a chess gossip
> columnist (and I consider that extremely
> unlikely), Evans would be just about the last
> person on earth to write such a column. He
> seems closer to the center of the chess world
> than my cat, but not dramatically so.
>_
> What Parr doesn't seem to be able to grasp
> is that if you have an unpopular product, you
> need to change the product to appeal to the
> market. The fact that someone, somewhere,
> still loves the product doesn't account for
> much." - David Kane (Wed, 29 Mar 2006
> 10:25:48 -0800)

quote:

---

> LiamToo wrote:
>
> You are also very obvious when it comes to intellectual dishonesty.
> Those are not all of the quotes.

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> You call it intellectual dishonesty if I've been searching for the
> quotes and have it validated by the original poster. I ended my quotes
> with a question mark asking him to validate my quotes. First I asked
> him a simple question and he responded by telling me to look for them.
>
> Vince hart, you just committed a crime and libeled me!

quote:

---

>
> Why are you asking David Kane to validate a Larry Parr quote?

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> LOL! What a moronic question.
>
> I was trying to get David Kane to talk about what was he's been
> complaining about. There a lot of quotes that needed to be discussed
> and we will get there if he was willing to discuss them with me.
>
> Of course, I didn't copy and pasted all of the quotes PURPOSELY, for
> simplicity. I needed to find out step by step. We will get to all of
> the quotes if he's willing to discuss all of them.
>
> Then some Brockhart mountain cowboy jumped in with libel. I suggest
> that this XXXXXXX go back to his closet.

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> LOL! What a moronic question.
>
> I was trying to get David Kane to talk about what was he's been
> complaining about. There a lot of quotes that needed to be discussed
> and we will get there if he was willing to discuss them with me.
>
> Of course, I didn't copy and pasted all of the quotes PURPOSELY, for
> simplicity. I needed to find out step by step. We will get to all of
> the quotes if he's willing to discuss all of them.

quote:

---

> Step by step? What a crock! Parr/Innes took Kane's statement out of
> context. Your "step by step" is an attempt to keep the context of
> Kane's statement out of the discussion. It would be simpler and more
> intellectually honest to discuss Kane's statement in light of his other
> statements on the same subject rather than demanding validation of
> Parr's irrelevant "Amen."

quote:

---

> You've yet to bring up a single statement of
> mine that was unclear and needs discussion.

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> Parr's "Amen" and the rest of his statements were very relevant
> and on topic with Parr's original post and in response to Kane's
> statement of "Your long position seems to be that it's just fine
> for the USCF to be a complete failure at promoting chess, so
> long as it survives. Sad."
>
> Parr was agreeing to Kane's displeasure with the USCF and
> maybe to Brock, since he is a member of the USCF"s Finance
> Committee.
>
> Then Kane complained and said this:
>
> "Just to be sure, I was in no way defending Parr's utterly
> riduclous defense of Evans.*If* you concluded
> that it really benefitted American chess to support a chess
> gossip columnist (and I consider that extremely unlikely),
> Evans would be just about the last person on earth to
> write such a column. He seems closer to the center of the
> chess world than my cat, but not dramatically so.
>
> "What Parr doesn't seem to be able to grasp is that
> if you have an unpopular product, you need to change
> the product to appeal to the market. The fact that
> someone, somewhere, still loves the product doesn't
> account for much."
>
> So what if Kane is not defending Parr's defense of Evans?
> So what? He cannot even pinpoint the ones that needed to
> be corrected in the article of Chessville.

quote:

---

>
> So what if Kane is not defending Parr's defense of Evans?
> So what?

quote:

---

> be corrected in the article of Chessville.
>

quote:

---

>
> LiamToo wrote:
>
>
> Of course he can. Neil quotes it in the post that begins this thread.
> Phil Innes wrote the following at Chessville "On the firing of GM
> Larry Evans [from last week]:
> <Your long position seems to be that it's just fine for the USCF to be
> a complete failure at promoting chess, so long as it survives. Sad.> --
> David Kane to USCF Finance member Bill Brock."
>
> It is perfectly clear that the statement did not pertain to the firing
> of Larry Evans as Innes claimed it did. He apparently assumed it did
> based on Parr's "Amen" without reading Kane's statements for himself.
>
> Kane responded to Neil's post with "Of course you are correct that
> "Alekhine's Parrot" has completely distorted my position." Since
> there is only one statement from Chessville quoted, it cannot be
> claimed with any degree of intellectual honesty that the statement has
> not been sufficiently pinpointed.
>
> In fairness to Parr, it does not seem to me that he misrepresented
> Kane's statement (although he did take it out of context). I think he
> assumed that Kane agreed with him about the firing, but I would call
> that wishful thinking rather than misrepresentation since I don't think
> Kane had made his position on the firing clear at that point.
>
> However, Phil has no excuse.
>

quote:

---

> After dutifully reading through the entirely of this thread, I think that I
> will make an addendum that David Kane says that his comment did not relate
> to Larry Evans, and no one is able to say what is did relate to, including
> himself. Phil Innes
>

quote:

---

> After dutifully reading through the entirely of this thread, I think that

quote:

---

> will make an addendum that David Kane says that his comment did not relate
> to Larry Evans, and no one is able to say what is did relate to, including
> himself. Phil Innes

quote:

---

> So what would you like to be corrected?

quote:

---

> After dutifully reading through the entirely of this thread,
> I think that I will make an addendum that David Kane
> says that his comment did not relate to Larry Evans, ...

quote:

---

> and no one is able to say what [David Kane's comment]
> did relate to, ...

quote:

---

>
> "LiamToo" <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1144778058.930175.266580@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

quote:

---

>
> He cannot even pinpoint the ones that needed to
>
> Others have. Actually I don't care if there
> is a correction. I'd hate for anyone to think
> that I cared about Phil's nonsense. It is
> genuinely sad that "Parr's Parrot" is unable
> to read and think for himself or take
> responsibility for his conduct.

quote:

---

>
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:8DS_f.2744$hf2.2111@trndny05...
> I
>
> Your correction is far more
> inaccurate and dishonest
> than your original error (which
> was easily attributable to simple
> sloppiness.)

quote:

---

> My initial statement was
> perfectly clear. The Historian,
> Louis Blair, and Vince Hart
> (sorry if I've left anyone out) *all*
> have accurately described what
> it related to in the past few days.

quote:

---

> Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:32:36 GMT):
>
>
> _
> It is not just a matter of what David Kane writes now
> (and wrote yesterday). Anyone can use Google to go
> back to the "USCF ... failure" comment in the Wed,
> 29 Mar 2006 09:16:30 -0800 note and see that GM Evans
> is not mentioned anywhere in what David Kane wrote
> in that note.
> _
> Furthermore, David Kane was responding to the
> 29 Mar 2006 07:27:19 -0800 note of William H. Brock.
> GM Evans had not been mentioned anywhere in what
> William H. Brock had written in his note.

quote:

---

>
> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:F6edndekgNDHYqbZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I thought you didn't care for a correction? If you want to make a

quote:

---

> about the context, this is your, what? 5th try.
>
>
> I expect I could also attain a level of understanding, but its normal to

quote:

---

> not for further interpretations, but what the speaker himself intended.
>

quote:

---

>
> The context is already there Phil.
>
> Here is what David Kane wrote:
>
> "Just to be sure, I was in no way defending Parr's utterly
> riduclous defense of Evans.*If* you concluded
> that it really benefitted American chess to support a chess
> gossip columnist (and I consider that extremely unlikely),
> Evans would be just about the last person on earth to
> write such a column. He seems closer to the center of the
> chess world than my cat, but not dramatically so.
>
>
> "What Parr doesn't seem to be able to grasp is that
> if you have an unpopular product, you need to change
> the product to appeal to the market. The fact that
> someone, somewhere, still loves the product doesn't
> account for much."
>
> What do you find unclear about that Phil?

quote:

---

> What in that statement made you think that David Kane was upset that
> Larry Evans was being dropped?
>
> Did you just mentally snip everything that did not agree with your own
> preconceptions?
>
> Don't you think that it was your duty as a journalist to figure out
> what David meant before you started quoting him in your column?
>
> Wouldn't any notion of journalistic standards require you to at least
> read the entire discussion to figure out what David meant before you
> quoted him?
>
> BTW, I eagerly await your "squawk" about standards.

quote:

---

> Are you going to
> actually suggest some standards yourself? Or will you merely offer to
> discuss standards if someone else suggests some first?

quote:

---

> ask
>
> If you can't understand simple English that was used the
> first time, why would you be any more capable of
> understanding a restatement?

quote:

---

> The point is that I don't
> need to make a statement about the context.

quote:

---

> I've
> said enough. It's your decision whether to be
> accurate - frankly I could not care less.

quote:

---

> I have been thinking about the issue of corrections
> in general, however. If you were to put a correction
> in your article, even a true one, it occurs to me that
> that in itself could be considered a dishonest act
> on your part. Why? Because it feigns a concern
> for truthfulness you don't have. More suited to your
> character is the Sloan/Parr method of blasting out one
> falsehood after another, without apology.

quote:

---

> Your inability to follow a simple thread does not
> obligate me to repeat myself. If you have a
> specific question, I'd be happy to answer it, but
> I suspect we are seeing evidence of your
> character, not your intellect.

quote:

---

> Larry Evans has nothing to do with this. Parr and
> Innes made a possibly honest mistake and apparently
> lack the maturity to correct themselves. Hardly
> surprising to anyone who has read this newsgroup,
> but also not support for your generalizations.

quote:

---

>
> Dear David,
>
> I can hardly care more to correct any record, or context for your

quote:

---

> than you show yourself.

quote:

---

>
> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:vNCdndMEUc3WWafZRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>
>
> But now you are not stating the truth - I have offered half a dozen times

quote:

---

> make a correction - its becoming hardly surprising that you want to

quote:

---

> in this petty victimhood. Phil
>

quote:

---

> "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:vNCdndMEUc3WWafZRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>
>
> But now you are not stating the truth - I have offered half a dozen times to
> make a correction

quote:

---

> in this petty victimhood. Phil

quote:

---

> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:vQX_f.2393$s77.2215@trndny09...
>
> statement,
>
> The heart of the problem. It may be foreign to you,
> but there are people who care about being truthful
> and accurate.

quote:

---

> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1144701220.101572.151810@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> O! Just that the quotation in question does not appear in the quoted text
> above.

quote:

---

>
>
>
> Why? I didn't know you cared? When I asked you to comment on the basis of
> standards, you went silent. Now you are full of piss and vinegar again.

quote:

---

>
>
> To whom? You weren't interested.

quote:

---

>
> Phil Innes

quote:

---

> Anyone can use Google to go back to
> the "USCF ... failure" comment in the Wed,
> 29 Mar 2006 09:16:30 -0800 note and see
> that GM Evans is not mentioned anywhere
> in what David Kane wrote in that note.
>_
> Furthermore, David Kane was responding
> to the 29 Mar 2006 07:27:19 -0800 note of
> William H. Brock. GM Evans had not been
> mentioned anywhere in what William H. Brock
> had written in his note.

quote:

---

> And yet ...:
>_
> "... In that same thread, [Mr. Kane] stated his
> views on Evans and his column ..." - Neil Brennen
> (9 Apr 2006 06:03:49 -0700)

quote:

---

> I have the distinct feeling that people are enjoying
> a 'larger context' which is a happily vague phrase,
> and this dreadful affront to their dignity.

quote:

---

> OTOH, theirs' is a rather casual treatment of the
> nominal topic, and if my apology seems equally
> casual, it must be some sense of proportion due
> the affront done to grandmasters in chess by
> these firings, compared with the grand folk writing
> here.

quote:

---

> it all seemed to be about L. Evans at the time.

quote:

---

> Phil Innes, as a non-member inclined to inject yourself into things
> that are none of your business (US Chess Federation affairs),

quote:

---

> why don't
> you *endorse* the noble Sam Sloan's candidacy for the USCF Board,

quote:

---

> noting that you find the material referenced below unobjectionable?
>
> Sloan is particularly noble because he never speaks of the sexual
> conduct of others http://tinyurl.com/m94s5
>
> And howsabout an endorsement of Sloan's conduct and candicacy from
> non-member Larry Parr?

quote:

---

> ***
> Larry Parr wrote:
>
> <<The latest charge is that the girl in question, whose age is unknown,
> is the same girl as another girl with whom Sam claims to have had sex.
> We have no proof they are the same, and we do not know their age. >>
>
> Right click on the fifth picture, top row, in
> http://www.ishipress.com/girlsgot.htm : you'll find that the file name
> is burmese2.jpg (at http://www.ishipress.com/burmese2.jpg )
>
> Right click on the picture in http://www.samsloan.com/burmese2.htm:
> you'll find that the file name is burmese2.jpg (at
> http://www.samsloan.com/burmese2.jpg )
>
> Same photo, same file name.
>
> Same pixel dimensions, same file size.....
>
> Does Larry Parr still contend that "[w]e have no proof they are the
> same [girl]"?
>

quote:

---

> <<If you want to be critical of specific people, write your own name,
> otherwise you are much stranger than those you criticise! >>
>
> I have never hesitated to subscribe my name; I do so now to annoy you.
> USCF members know how to retrieve it based on the ID furnished below.
>
> You're in the US, chess is your business, and you've been a nonmember
> for some years. Kindly provide your current USCF ID if you wish to be
> taken seriously when discussing USCF matters.

quote:

---

> standing, Phil Innes, as your economic interests are generally at odds
> with USCF's.
>

quote:

---

> The barrage of criticism from naysayers reminds one of short-sellers'
> lackeys posting bad karma on a message board. If Beatriz (for all her
> faults) had not begun the restructuring that saved USCF from financial
> ruin, the naysayers would have been in an excellent position to seize
> effective control of the nonprofit.
>
> Take a long position in USCF, just for a change of pace. It's good
> cover.

quote:

---

> I already asked if you would like to restate your context,
> and I would make a correction. You declined.

quote:

---

> What you do instead [of restating your context] is no
> clearer than at the first.

quote:

---

> Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:50:46 GMT):
> _
> I wrote (10 Apr 2006 18:27:12 -0700):
>
> _
> Still no correction at Chessville. What is the hold-up?

quote:

---

>
> Perhaps everyone should apologize to everyone they can think of and we can
> all go home?

quote:

---

>
> Still no correction at Chessvile.

quote:

---

> The Historian wrote:
>
> Maybe Phil thinks he already has made the correction since he offered
> to make one if someone else would make a correction first.

quote:

---

> After all, he thinks he addressed standards when he offered to do so if
> someone else would write about them first.

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> He's quiet this morning. Usually Innes has made a dozen postings by
> now. Perhaps he's writing a correction that will avoid looking like an
> admission of a mistake? That would take some time in this case.
>
>
> And, of course, he's stated he's the only one who "cares" about
> "standards".

quote:

---

> I'm no expert, but I thought that making sure that a person really
> meant what you say they meant is one of those standards from Journalism
> 101. The fact that the quote did not even mention Larry Evans might
> have inspired Phil to do a little independent inquiry (like reading the
> next post) rather than just relying on Parr's interpretation.

quote:

---

> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1144860480.747733.207900@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> let me excuse the logic of quoting something from something explained in the
> next post
>
> let me also excuse the strange circumstances here, where no ill will was
> intended by anyone, any remedial statement of context by the original writer
> offered, refused, and so on
>
> let me instead return to the context of the firings from which all this
> material evolved, since that did involve Larry Evans, and somehow seems a
> more important subject, indeed, is about a standard of organizational
> behavior, than whether anyone personally likes or dislikes a writer
>
> phil innes

quote:

---

>
> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1144860480.747733.207900@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> let me excuse the logic of quoting something from something explained in

quote:

---

> next post
>
> let me also excuse the strange circumstances here,