quote:

---

> <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:

In reply, Sam Sloan wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I am willing to bet a fairly large amount of money that if we had some
> way to check out this story (which unfortunately we do not) we would
> find that this is just another lie by Taylor Kingston.

quote:

---

> On 10 Jun 2005 12:11:30 -0700, Taylor Kingston
> <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
> In reply, Sam Sloan wrote:
> I am willing to bet a fairly large amount of money that if we had some
> way to check out this story (which unfortunately we do not) we would
> find that this is just another lie by Taylor Kingston.

quote:

---

>
>
> So, Sam, a few questions for the sake of clarity:
>
> 1. What exactly is the issue you want to bet on? My peak postal
>rating? My peak postal rank? Please be specific.
> 2. What will you accept as proof of the issue wagered on?
> 3. How much are you willing to bet?
> 4. Will you deposit the amount of your wager with an impartial third
>party, agreed upon by us both, who will act as stakeholder?

quote:

---

>

quote:

---

> BAUER BUTTS IN
>
> I speculate that Sam, who was an expert in the
> old days (which would equate to a higher rating these
> days) might raise his game near to (say 2150) or "at"
> the master level (2200) to play a grudge match for
> moolah with Taylor Kingston (an 1850 player). I might
> be wrong, but I figure a straight up bet of $100 would
> be a good bet.
>
> Now, I base my surmise on some of Sam's past
> results and a fairish number of strong scalps over the
> years. Then comes an imbecilic response from Mr. Bauer.
> He says, why not bet $1,000 in a match between
> himself and Sam, which has nothing to do with the
> issue at hand.
>
> First, Mr. Bauer is more than a 2200 master, who would have to
> demotivate himself to drop to a level that I posited Sam might possibly
> reach.
>
> Secondly, Mr. Bauer's proffered bet in the context of the message
> exchanges makes no political sense beyond trying to intercede on Taylor
> Kingston's behalf.
>
> If he wishes to butt in, then he should by all means do so.
> Welcome, the water is fine, if a bit warmish at the moment for our
> self-proclaimed strong master, NM or FM Taylor Kingston.

quote:

---

> On 16 Jun 2005 00:04:55 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Is it common knowledge that current ratings are inflated from, say,
> twenty years ago? What's caused this?

quote:

---

>Is it common knowledge that current ratings are inflated from, say,

quote:

---

> What's caused this?

quote:

---

> I speculate that Sam, who was an expert in the
>old days (which would equate to a higher rating these
>days)

quote:

---

>Larry presents a hypothesis (Sloan plays at or near the master level), I present an opportunity to test that hypothesis, and the suggestion is "imbecilic. So much for hypothesis testing.> Randy Bauer

quote:

---

>Larry presents a hypothesis (Sloan plays at or near the master level), I present an opportunity to test that hypothesis, and the suggestion is "imbecilic. So much for hypothesis testing.> Randy Bauer

quote:

---

>I think there is indeed some vindictive nastiness, though it >did not come from my pen. My position has been all along >that Mr. Kingston wrote a good article about Keres-Botvinnik >in Chess Life and that if he makes the amende honorable >the current di

quote:

---

>Geoffrey Strayer tells us that he buys Taylor Kingston's
>"horsefeathers" defense. Does Mr. Strayer also buy Mr. >Kingston's claim that he has been amused during the >dispute and found the exercise worthwhile --even as Mr. >Kingston employed some nasty name-calling, talked about >getting in a hole with this gr

quote:

---

>For I would argue that Mr. Kingston was not amused and >does not enjoy this dispute. I would argue that his claim >was designed to assuage his ego as it appeared before the >readers of rgcp -- just as I argued that his untruth and, I aver >further, lie

quote:

---

>Mr. Kingston has shown this ego-weakness before when he
>dishonestly assumed the nom de guerre of Xylothist, though >this episode may also fulfill Mr. Strayer's ethical criteria. In >that moment of weakness -- the same kind of weakness >that had Mr. Kingston posing as Xylothist and just now >claiming amusemen

quote:

---

>strength, calculating in a woolly minded way that the claim >could be sustained.

quote:

---

>We note that Mr. Strayer has nothing to say about the >evidently dishonest posturing by those offering the >otbcentric and postalcentric defense. We note that Mr. >Strayer tries to explain away Mr. Kingston's
>cheesy literal-truth defense. We note that Mr. Strayer >ignores how this literal truth defense contradicts in part Mr. >Kingston's claim to have been luring Sam Sloan into error. >Finally, we note that Mr. Strayer does not examine Mr. >Kingston's wooll

quote:

---

>really believe that Mr. Kingston even had this writer in mind >when posting his false statement about his chess strength?

quote:

---

> Frankly, I find Mr. Strayer's intervention here to be vindictive
>and expect little in the way of response from him.

quote:

---

> What I was proposing to bet on against some third party was obviously
> your claim that your rating got knocked down 250 points just because
> you quit postal chess.
> Although not impossible, in view of your history of lies on this
> newsgroup, I am willing to bet that this is just another lie.

quote:

---

> However, as far as my willingness to bet against you directly is
> concerned, I am williong to bet one thousand dollars cash money on the
> table that I can beat you in a chess match.
> Please note that I am but a simple man. I am rated a lowly 1931.
> You, on the other hand are a self-proclaimed chess master, a 2300
> player according to your own admission.

quote:

---

> However, there is a correspondence game I might be willing to play, a
>thematic game to test one of your favorite openings. Several times on
>this group you have expressed a belief in the soundness of Damiano's
>Defense: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5. Frankly, I think your line is
>crap.
> Care to put it to the test? I'm proposing a thematic correspondence
>game, beginning with those moves, where computer assistance is
>permitted, the goal being an objective test of the line's soundness.
>How much are you willing to bet on that, Sam?

quote:

---

> Mr. Parr:
>
> You wrote:
>
dispute over his false claim about playing >strength would end forthwith.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Mr. Parr, your own posts provide sufficient evidence of the above. I
> will just quote a few examples of your oeuvre from this thread and the
> related "Parr Answers Kingston's Questions" thread: "an imbecilic
> response," "he lied, rather incompetently, in a weak moment," "Bill
> Brock still drools," "Beatriz Marinello's lickspittle," "Mr. Blair
> weakmindedly confuses," "his dishonest supporters," "ludicrously
> dishonest," "I have no problem classifying Mr. Houlsby as a hysteric,"
> "palpably false," "evidently dishonest casuistry," "His sin is a moral
> one of middling evil," etc. I found these examples in a few minutes of
> reading backwards through these two threads; I have no doubt that there
> are many more examples, and stronger ones.
>
> You often seem incapable of arguing a point without insulting the
> intelligence and/or character of those who disagree with you. Hence my
> use of "nastiness" (for your constant use of belittling language re:
> others) and "vindictiveness" (because your insults seem to target only
> those that have the temerity to openly disagree with you) to describe
> some of your posts.
>
> You wrote:
>
greasy weasel and Sam Sloan >and thanked with evident relief those like Trollsby who tried >to support him, albeit with explanations which were >transparently dishonest and which Mr. Kingston himself did >not try to press?[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Here is a good example of the "disingenuousness" I referred to in my
> prior post. You frequently disguise your arguments and pejoratives in
> the form of questions, questions which incorporate assumptions and
> negative characterizations which you take as a given without
> establishing them as such. Then, if someone refuses to be drawn into a
> "when did you stop beating your wife" Q & A session, you can accuse
> them of not answering your questions. It is an interesting albeit
> hardly admirable rhetorical device, apparently designed to avoid having
> to defend often untenable positions and shift the burden to others to
> disprove your constant assumptions.
>
> You wrote:
>
e about his tournament strength came from the >same flawed ego-source which prompted his claimed >amusement.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Anyone even moderately familiar with your postings in rgcp knows that
> you would argue many things, Mr. Parr. From a purely empirical
> viewpoint, many of the things you do argue appear to have little or no
> basis in reality. So the significance of the fact that you "would
> argue" a certain point is rather unclear, IMO.
>
> I am not much interested in your pop psychoanalysis of Mr. Kingston,
> other than to note that it is once again belittling in nature. One
> could easily produce equally negative psychoanalytical theories
> regarding your own psyche. I must stress that your ability to state a
> theory does not make it true (as you seem to constantly assume) and,
> quite frankly, you lack any credentials which might make your diagnoses
> sufficiently credible to deserve a response.
>
> You wrote:
>
ent -- he lied about his playing[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Another example of your disingenuous tactics is your inclination to
> make "ad hominem" attacks unrelated or only very tenuously related to
> the subject matter at issue, such as the "Mr. Kingston posing as
> Xylothist" accusation here. Then if your "red herring" is ignored on
> the grounds that it is off-topic, you will proceed to harp on the lack
> of response in future posts as some sort of evidence of the strength of
> your position or the weakness of someone else's position. This sort of
> approach is rhetoric without reason, Mr. Parr, full of sound and fury
> but signifying nothing.
>
> You wrote:
>
lly stuff about how he was also planning to >lure this writer into the a snare. Does Mr. Strayer[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Actually, I appear to have been the one who offered up the "otbcentric
> and postalcentric defense" that you, true to character, describe as
> "evidently dishonest posturing." I am afraid I disagree with your
> characterization of my post, as I disagree with so many of your
> characterizations. First, it was not intended so much a "defense" of
> Mr. Kingston as a critique of the rather vicious knee-jerk attacks in
> response thereto. Mr. Kingston is certainly capable of defending
> himself and, quite frankly, I was motivated by a strong distaste for
> some of the reactions to Mr. Kingston's post than any feeling that he
> needed my help. Second, I don't think there is anything in my post
> which is "evidently dishonest," although I will admit you seem capable
> of misconstruing it.
>
> I am unsure why you doubt that Mr. Kingston had you in mind when he
> made his post. Your reaction was, in fact, rather predictable. When
> you engage in a controversy with someone, you often seem to strain for
> any method of portraying them in an unfavorable light. Given your
> debate with Mr. Kingston re: the Keres-Botvinnik article by Larry
> Evans, it was close to a given that you would attack Mr. Kingston's
> statement about his chess strength; in fact, his statement was akin to
> waving a red flag in front of a bull.
>
> Also, I see no contradiction between a "literal truth" argument and Mr.
> Kingston's claim to be provoking Mr. Sloan. It is apparent to any
> reader of this newsgroup that many things which are literally true are
> capable of provoking Mr. Sloan. Mr. Kingston's point, as I take it, is
> that his somewhat ambiguous statement was clearly defensible one to
> anyone willing to do a bit of internet research (Mr. Rubin being the
> obvious and admirable example), but it was nevertheless virtually
> guaranteed to provoke accusations from Mr. Sloan and yourself due to
> your habit of seizing on any pretext available to attack those who have
> the hubris to oppose your viewpoints.
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry you find my post vindictive, it was not intended to be. I
> have said some strong things, but not out of any personal dislike for
> you or affection for Mr. Kingston. I do not consider either of you
> friend or enemy. I only know the two of you from your writings here
> and some of Mr. Kingston's book reviews, some of which I found amusing
> but others of which I strongly disagreed with. (Mr. Kingston's
> negative review of "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins", in my humble opinion,
> is incredibly off base.)
>
> You seem in several posts to suggest that I am a "Kingston supporter"
> or "Kingston defender," as if I were allied with Mr. Kingston in all
> things. The fact is I am in no one's camp and have no interest in
> being so. I'm afraid I must reserve the right to support or oppose any
> person in any specific matter without my actions having any general or
> cosmic significance.
>
> My motivation in entering into this particular dispute is relatively
> straightforward, and I am happy to share it with you. You and Mr.
> Sloan are obviously intelligent men, and many of your posts here have
> points of interest which, IMO, add to rgcp. However, other of your
> posts bear all the indicia of internet bullies, who believe that the
> constant and stubborn repetitions of pejorative untruths and
> half-truths is an acceptable form of discourse. You are of course,
> free to continue in that vein if and when you please; this is
> unmoderated usenet, after all. But, correspondingly, you have no right
> to expect that people will not form opinions and make comments
> regarding your tactics, particularly when you are engaging in
> unjustified character assassinations. That is what I am doing here and
> in my previous posts, no less, no more. You may disagree with my
> opinion, you may even be offended by it, but I have the right to state
> it, and in this instance I found some of your statements sufficiently
> offensive to my sense of decency and fair play that I have exercised
> that right.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> - Geof Strayer

quote:

---

> Mr. Parr:
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> Mr. Parr, your own posts provide sufficient evidence of the above. I
> will just quote a few examples of your oeuvre from this thread and the
> related "Parr Answers Kingston's Questions" thread: "an imbecilic
> response," "he lied, rather incompetently, in a weak moment," "Bill
> Brock still drools," "Beatriz Marinello's lickspittle," "Mr. Blair
> weakmindedly confuses," "his dishonest supporters," "ludicrously
> dishonest," "I have no problem classifying Mr. Houlsby as a hysteric,"
> "palpably false," "evidently dishonest casuistry," "His sin is a moral
> one of middling evil," etc. I found these examples in a few minutes of
> reading backwards through these two threads; I have no doubt that there
> are many more examples, and stronger ones.
>
> You often seem incapable of arguing a point without insulting the
> intelligence and/or character of those who disagree with you. Hence my
> use of "nastiness" (for your constant use of belittling language re:
> others) and "vindictiveness" (because your insults seem to target only
> those that have the temerity to openly disagree with you) to describe
> some of your posts.
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> Here is a good example of the "disingenuousness" I referred to in my
> prior post. You frequently disguise your arguments and pejoratives in
> the form of questions, questions which incorporate assumptions and
> negative characterizations which you take as a given without
> establishing them as such. Then, if someone refuses to be drawn into a
> "when did you stop beating your wife" Q & A session, you can accuse
> them of not answering your questions. It is an interesting albeit
> hardly admirable rhetorical device, apparently designed to avoid having
> to defend often untenable positions and shift the burden to others to
> disprove your constant assumptions.
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> Anyone even moderately familiar with your postings in rgcp knows that
> you would argue many things, Mr. Parr. From a purely empirical
> viewpoint, many of the things you do argue appear to have little or no
> basis in reality. So the significance of the fact that you "would
> argue" a certain point is rather unclear, IMO.
>
> I am not much interested in your pop psychoanalysis of Mr. Kingston,
> other than to note that it is once again belittling in nature. One
> could easily produce equally negative psychoanalytical theories
> regarding your own psyche. I must stress that your ability to state a
> theory does not make it true (as you seem to constantly assume) and,
> quite frankly, you lack any credentials which might make your diagnoses
> sufficiently credible to deserve a response.
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> Another example of your disingenuous tactics is your inclination to
> make "ad hominem" attacks unrelated or only very tenuously related to
> the subject matter at issue, such as the "Mr. Kingston posing as
> Xylothist" accusation here. Then if your "red herring" is ignored on
> the grounds that it is off-topic, you will proceed to harp on the lack
> of response in future posts as some sort of evidence of the strength of
> your position or the weakness of someone else's position. This sort of
> approach is rhetoric without reason, Mr. Parr, full of sound and fury
> but signifying nothing.
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I appear to have been the one who offered up the "otbcentric
> and postalcentric defense" that you, true to character, describe as
> "evidently dishonest posturing." I am afraid I disagree with your
> characterization of my post, as I disagree with so many of your
> characterizations. First, it was not intended so much a "defense" of
> Mr. Kingston as a critique of the rather vicious knee-jerk attacks in
> response thereto. Mr. Kingston is certainly capable of defending
> himself and, quite frankly, I was motivated by a strong distaste for
> some of the reactions to Mr. Kingston's post than any feeling that he
> needed my help. Second, I don't think there is anything in my post
> which is "evidently dishonest," although I will admit you seem capable
> of misconstruing it.
>
> I am unsure why you doubt that Mr. Kingston had you in mind when he
> made his post. Your reaction was, in fact, rather predictable. When
> you engage in a controversy with someone, you often seem to strain for
> any method of portraying them in an unfavorable light. Given your
> debate with Mr. Kingston re: the Keres-Botvinnik article by Larry
> Evans, it was close to a given that you would attack Mr. Kingston's
> statement about his chess strength; in fact, his statement was akin to
> waving a red flag in front of a bull.
>
> Also, I see no contradiction between a "literal truth" argument and Mr.
> Kingston's claim to be provoking Mr. Sloan. It is apparent to any
> reader of this newsgroup that many things which are literally true are
> capable of provoking Mr. Sloan. Mr. Kingston's point, as I take it, is
> that his somewhat ambiguous statement was clearly defensible one to
> anyone willing to do a bit of internet research (Mr. Rubin being the
> obvious and admirable example), but it was nevertheless virtually
> guaranteed to provoke accusations from Mr. Sloan and yourself due to
> your habit of seizing on any pretext available to attack those who have
> the hubris to oppose your viewpoints.
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry you find my post vindictive, it was not intended to be. I
> have said some strong things, but not out of any personal dislike for
> you or affection for Mr. Kingston. I do not consider either of you
> friend or enemy. I only know the two of you from your writings here
> and some of Mr. Kingston's book reviews, some of which I found amusing
> but others of which I strongly disagreed with. (Mr. Kingston's
> negative review of "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins", in my humble opinion,
> is incredibly off base.)
>
> You seem in several posts to suggest that I am a "Kingston supporter"
> or "Kingston defender," as if I were allied with Mr. Kingston in all
> things. The fact is I am in no one's camp and have no interest in
> being so. I'm afraid I must reserve the right to support or oppose any
> person in any specific matter without my actions having any general or
> cosmic significance.
>
> My motivation in entering into this particular dispute is relatively
> straightforward, and I am happy to share it with you. You and Mr.
> Sloan are obviously intelligent men, and many of your posts here have
> points of interest which, IMO, add to rgcp. However, other of your
> posts bear all the indicia of internet bullies, who believe that the
> constant and stubborn repetitions of pejorative untruths and
> half-truths is an acceptable form of discourse. You are of course,
> free to continue in that vein if and when you please; this is
> unmoderated usenet, after all. But, correspondingly, you have no right
> to expect that people will not form opinions and make comments
> regarding your tactics, particularly when you are engaging in
> unjustified character assassinations. That is what I am doing here and
> in my previous posts, no less, no more. You may disagree with my
> opinion, you may even be offended by it, but I have the right to state
> it, and in this instance I found some of your statements sufficiently
> offensive to my sense of decency and fair play that I have exercised
> that right.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> - Geof Strayer
>

quote:

---

>If the queen of England is your relation, then Ken Sloan certainly is.

quote:

---

>Sam Sloan wrote:

quote:

---

>
> No, my title of correspondence master was not self-proclaimed, it was
>conferred by the USCF. By Joan DuBois,

quote:

---

> My family name really is Sloan. However, the mystery in my family is
> that my great-grandfather Creighton Sloan (1842-1916) is of unknown
> parentage. My theory (just a theory) is that he was the illegitimate
> child of Mary Ann Sloan, the youngest sister of Railroad Tycoon Sam
> Sloan (1817-1907), one of the richest men in America.

quote:

---

>

quote:

---

>You are a useless piece of shit defending a useless piece of shit. And you're too cheap to put your money where your mouth is. No lawsuits. No wager. No USCF membership. Do you buy groceries for your family, or do they have to forage like Sam's offspring

quote:

---

>I am willing to put up part of the prize fund. I would agree to chip

quote:

---

>Who else would be willing to kick in for the other half of a $1K prize

quote:

---

> Speaking of "dumb motherXXXXer," Sam, you should use your multiple
> personae more hygenically.
>
> Several of them show up in rec.pets.herp and alt.fan.howard-stern, for
> example.

quote:

---

>

quote:

---

>

quote:

---

> If someone accused me of such a thing, I would make it *priority numero uno* to clear my name and nail the slanderer, I think. At least, I would unless I knew I was guilty, and there was no chance of my winning the case.> Mark Houlsby

quote:

---

> Yes, "Terri" / Sam, Barry Bonds is a bigot. And so are you.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cfecf
>
> ****
>
> From: <<name deleted--you'll find out soon enough>>
> <redacted>@noa.nintendo.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 4:43 PM
> To: Bill Brock
> Subject: Re: Pok=E9mon pornography
>
> Thanks Bill -- Nintendo has an aggressive program to protect our
> consumers from improper links between Nintendo properties and
> sexually-explicit cites [sic]. We do take these matters seriously and
> we appreciate the information and the link. Thank you, <name deleted>

quote:

---

>

quote:

---

> <politikalhackCorporate wheels grind slowly--I did exchange emails with
> one
> of their attorneys today.>
>
> He is drafting a Restraining Order against you right now. I bet it scared
> the hell out of them that a fricking moronic lunatic like you could get
> their phone number.
>
> I guess it is typical of what is wrong with the USCF that some inbred
> XXXXXXX is willing to ignore the lack of controls at the USCF, and the
> fact
> that the bylaws are violated all the time and without any consequence.
> Instead, dickmunch wants to shut down a Pokeman fan site that has
> absolutely
> nothing pornographic or adult-oriented on it. What a sick XXXX you are.
>
> What is your real name and address? I would like the FBI to check out what
> your pre-occupation is with kiddie porn.
>
>

quote:

---

> To be sure, a Stan Booz or a Mark Houlsby will predictably
> pipe up, but they count not.

quote:

---

> Yet one somehow doubts whether Stan Booz
> will contact Bill Brock's employer, as he tried to do with mine over
> here in Malaysia, and forward all those rapid messages of his fellow
> CPA from the last few days?

quote:

---

>

quote:

---

>

quote:

---

> "StanB" <> It so happens I did speak to Brock's employer. I picked a few
> bones with him. Wing bones. Had two beers too.
>
> Then you crawled under the table and sucked his cack, but the answer was
> still no. Maybe Marinello will give you a job as book keeper in Crossville
> if you play your cards right.