| |
Main
Date: 01 Jan 2008 19:28:08
From: [email protected]
Subject: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
BLAST FROM THE PAST
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: [email protected] (Parrthenon)
Date: 25 Aug 2001 17:43:21 GMT
Local: Sat, Aug 25 2001 9:43 am
Subject: Winter's Humbug (6)
THE BOYS IN THE BANDWIDTH
By Larry Parr
Nowhere is the appetite for bogus revelation - most notably, a hunger
for Edward Winter's "The Facts About Larry Evans" - more ravenous than
at the ChessCafe. A ratpack of favored diners hangs about in the
buffet line at a greasy spoon called the bulletin board, a censored
forum that refuses to serve spicy dishes that might upset the
digestion of certain privileged feeders.
The boys in the bandwidth at the ChessCafe are largely those who
swallow
whole or, alternatively, cook up attacks against grandmasters such as
Garry
Kasparov, Raymond Keene and Larry Evans. Two recent threads are Nos.
317 and
335, where the targets are, respectively, GMs Keene and Evans. Thread
No. 335
contained the fallout from Edward Winter's article, "The Facts About
Larry
Evans," which appeared in the Cafe Skittles Room on June 6.
To capture the decorum at the Cafe diner's club, just imagine any of
the
food fights described by P. G. Wodehouse at the Drones Club. But
unlike the
latter institution, there is a lurking figure of authority that
ensures
privileged feeders are not left with egg on their face. That figure
of
authority is the bulletin board editor, who writes on the Cafe menu in
red
letters, "We reserve the right, in our absolute discretion, to edit or
refuse
to post anything we deem inappropriate."
Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may mean
anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I
wrote a
long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively debunked
several attacks
on and attackers of Ray Keene. My strategy was to send in the piece
about 48
hours before an officially posted deadline of June 1. Several days
earlier, GM
Keene had gone on the offensive and silenced many of the ratpackers
(who, given
the divisions in the chess world, are generally the same persons
attacking GMs
Kasparov and Evans); and my idea was to toss one big egg omelette -
you
can't make an omelette unless you break a few eggs - at the ratpackers
just
as the Cafe proprietors were snipping the thread.
I was playing by the posted rules.
But as I say, the Cafe has long-time customers, who are not to be
left
with omelettes on their face. Some of these diners are contributors
to
portions of the Cafe menu, and others have business relations with
the
proprietor. My omelette, therefore, became "inappropriate" and got the
spike.
The long meal of thread No. 317 ended after the 65th course rather
than my 66th
serving. The story and the omelette are served below under the
subheading,
"MANAGED DEBATE."
But first, some words about the censorship of thread No. 335 - a
censorship that matches at least one of the censorship standards in
the late Soviet Union.
SOVIET-STYLE CENSORSHIP
The difference between the all-encompassing censorship of Soviet
publications
and the selective culling of unwanted words in the Cafe menu is the
difference
between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent dishonesty. The
proprietors understand that the Cafe must serve a few forbidden fruits
if its
custom is not to suffer, but they also wish to guide serious disputes
involving
favorites to predetermined outcomes. If that requires spiking postings
of one
side at KEY MOMENTS in a debate, then so be it.
Still, there is a very interesting similarity between Cafe and Soviet
censorship. I refer to censoring the very mention of censorship. In
the old
Soviet Union, there was a thick volume jocularly known among censors
as "The
Talmud," which contained many items that could not be reported. Forest
fires,
for example, could not be mentioned even as smoke choked major cities.
Too,
when the Soviets exploded a 90-megaton hydrogen bomb in the Arctic
that shook
windows in Moscow, the explosion went unreported. "The Talmud" also
said that
the existence of "The Talmud" and censorship was not to be published.
The fate of a posting submitted by one Michael Charles is foul even
by
ChessCafe standards.
The story begins with an initial letter by Lawrence Zimmerman, a key
Evans defender during the censored debate on the Cafe bulletin board.
This
first letter was published, and it was attacked. Mr. Zimmerman
responded with
a piece that contained several points not mentioned in his first
letter,
contrary to claims by censorship apologists among the ratpackers. This
second
letter was rejected in toto because Mr. Zimmerman had the temerity to
mention
that Edward Winter resorts to the despicable ploy of recycling errors
of
opponents that have been acknowledged and even corrected. Here is the
offending passage:
<<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess writer:
to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
BOROCHOW-FINE (see above). PRINS-QUESADA. In a reply quoted by
Mr. Winter, GM Evans stated: "I stand corrected." What more can be
expected? THOMAS-MITCHELL (or Michell, who cares?). Maybe it was
wrong in the first edition (which I don't have) but my copy of
[Evans'] The 10 Most Common Chess Mistakes correctly states that White
(not Black) lost. Big deal. What book is perfect? To err is human.
In a long and distinguished career GM Evans has won several Olympic
gold
medals as well as many tournaments; he also collaborated on My 60
Memorable Games and helped Fischer ascend to the world championship;
he
penned tons of words and garnered numerous journalism awards. But Mr.
Winter, who boasts nothing comparable, is obsessed with trivial
mistakes,
typos and wrong dates. He can't see the forest for the trees. He
can only splatter mud. What a small man. >>
Ouch!
Mr. Zimmerman was escorted to the Cafe dining room door in no
uncertain terms.
Edward Winter may call GM Evans "shameless," but Mr. Zimmerman could
not
conclude that Mr. Winter is "a small man" for slovenly research in
which he
blamed GM Evans for errors either acknowledged or corrected in a later
edition
of a particular book. We shall see in the next section of this work,
"Fast
with the Facts", that the sloppy Mr. Winter failed to realize or,
quite
possibly, failed to mention that errors he cited had already been
corrected.
Enter or, more accurately, not enter Michael Charles. He sent the
following would-be posting to the ChessCafe bulletin board:
Sirs
I don't believe that Larry Evans has been treated fairly on this
[Chesscafe] bulletin board, which is supposed to be a level playing
field. I just
finished reading Lawrence Zimmerman's letter on rgcp which refutes
most of
Edward Winter's charges (see Mr. Winter's Humbug, June 15). This is a
real eye- opener and I can't understand why it was rejected on this
bulletin
board as noted by GM Evans in The Skittles Room. And why was Larry
Parr's
piece on Keene and his Critics also rejected here?
Bah, humbug, indeed!
--Michael Charles
Alas for Mr. Charles. He committed the sin of exposing censorship at
ChessCafe
and expected the letter to appear on the bulletin board there. The
proprietors
of the Cafe have taken a leaf from that mighty Soviet book of
censorship, "The
Talmud."
GM Evans, of course, understood full well that the Cafe bulletin board
is
censored, and he announced in a short piece in "The Skittles Room"
that he
would reply to Edward Winter's stuff elsewhere. He mentioned that I
would
also be writing about Mr. Winter's attack on the free forums, given
my
experience with thread No. 317.
MANAGED DEBATE
Here, then, is the story in extenso telling why I find myself posting
on as
many forums as possible EXCEPT the policed ChessCafe bulletin board.
Mr.
Winter gets his free pass at the Cafe by virtue of editorial muscle
exercised
by his business associates. His publisher (of books and feature
pieces) gets
to decide what criticism of him will appear during debates just as
that same
publisher decided to protect the critics of Ray Keene as related
below.
MANAGED DEBATE
By Larry Parr
The ChessCafe bulletin board has never enjoyed a high reputation as a
level debating field. It is closely monitored, and as the management
puts the
matter in words which are highlighted in red italics: "We reserve the
right,
in our absolute discretion, to edit or refuse to post anything we
deem
inappropriate."
What follows is a posting by yours truly that was deemed inappropriate
in
toto and that fell afoul of "absolute discretion."
No one, least of all myself, would question the right of the Cafe
proprietors to keep unwanted diners out of their buffet line. I have
never
supported public accommodations laws, and if this particular jiveass
chess
honkie is unwanted online (or in line) at that particular bulletin
board, then
- really - so what?
A CASE STUDY
Beginning this past April 12, a long thread snaked across the Cafe
bulletin
board. At last count - which may be the final count - 65 postings
appeared. Thousands of words were devoted to the subject of GM
Raymond
Keene's activities. Charge upon charge, intermixed with dollops of
personal
abuse, was hurled at GM Keene.
Exercising their "absolute discretion," the editors of the Cafe
bulletin
board okayed these wallops of dollops. Moreover, they were right to do
so.
Then GM Keene gave the screw a turn. He issued several strongly
worded
denials which his attackers left unaddressed, prompting a writer
generally
friendly toward the English grandmaster to suggest (unwisely in my
view) that
the debate be terminated. The bulletin board editors jumped at the
suggestion
and set June 1, as a deadline for any further contributions.
Two days before this deadline, I sent the following posting to the
Cafe
bulletin board, which juxtaposed several of the attacks with
explanations
offered by GM Keene.
For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the
Bulletin
Board editors. Fearing that they might hold the piece or deny
receiving it
(though I sent one copy in attachment and a second in standard e-mail
form), I
dispatched a message of inquiry. "I sent a posting to ChessCafe," I
wrote,
"concerning the brouhaha surrounding Raymond Keene's doings. Did you
folks
receive it? I send it again in this message via both attachment and in
e-mail
form."
An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece. BUT:
"The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months.
Your
proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word "also."
What was
"also" wrong?
I responded within minutes: "I thought that I [easily] made the
deadline
as posted. What are the length restrictions for the Bulletin Board?
Of
course, as noted, you have absolute discretion to reject this defense
of Ray
Keene after publishing tens of thousands of words in attack. That is
your
right, and I don't dispute it. So, if you don't mind, could you just
say
outright that you do not wish to publish it, and I will post it
immediately on
all of the possible other bulletin boards. Yours, Larry."
Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No one
was prepared to say anything "outright."
Managed debate by privately run internet businesses is not a violation
of
free speech rights - no matter how intellectually filthy the exercise
of
"absolute discretion" may be in given instances. I feel no "chill"
wafting
around my First Amendment rights. In truth, not even the wisp of a
cool
breeze. That's one side of the coin.
The other side of the coin is that we may also draw conclusions about
the intellectual hygiene of those serving the Cafe bulletin buffet. I
find
their intellectual sanitation to be soiled. In truth, dirty.
A case study, you might say, of the baloney rejecting the grinder.
WHAT CHESSCAFE WOULD NOT PRINT
To the editor of the Bulletin Board at Chess Cafe. Here is a
contribution
before your deadline that I would like to offer to thread No. 317 on
the doings
of Raymond Keene. I earlier sent this piece as an attachment and here
give it
as an e-mail message in case you prefer receiving contributions in
this form.
Yours, Larry Parr
317-?? IM Ricardo Calvo and others suggest that this thread come to an
end.
The editors of this Bulletin Board appear to agree. I disagree.
The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given every
opportunity to air the laundry until they quit the enterprise. Indeed,
the
polemical worm has turned in the past week or so; and Mr. Keene has
provided
answers in which he makes specific claims that the attackers must
refute or
leave The Hunt.
The political subtext behind the assault on Mr. Keene's activities is
that his attackers wish to pry him out of his jobs at The Times and
The
Spectator. The idea is to muck on enough mud until it begins to stick.
Not,
however, that there is anything wrong per se in attempting to destroy
the
livelihood and influence of Mr. Keene. He is a public figure, and his
attackers will argue that he deserves to be destroyed.
Here is a brief reprise of Attackers vs. Keene on this forum:
First, a bit of background. Suzanne tin, former CEO of Brain Games
Network (BGN), charged that the Russian mafia laundered money by
funneling
funds through BGN. The story broke on April 8 in the un-brainy
British
tabloid, News of the World, which is read by lots of young men
interested
mainly in the latest starlet's gluteal gestalt. But Ms. tin's
charge
had to be answered.
I understand GM Keene's answer as playing the Orthodox line of the
Due
Diligence Defense. In No. 317-19, he writes: "The money was raised by
City of
London stockbrokers Williams de Broe and paid into the client account
of
Lincolns Inn Lawyers Edwin Coe. By UK law money paid in via solicitors
must be
checked by them in advance against the possibility of money laundering
- it
is absolutely clear, therefore, that the investment in Brain Games was
honest
money from bona fide investors paid in the clearest possible way ....
if the
money which goes in is checked by lawyers and stockbrokers and is
clean - and
the money goes out to identified and legitimate sources [i.e., Kramnik
and
Kasparov] - logic dictates that there can be very little room left for
money
laundering!"
One Montgomery Church responded in No. 317-21: "Then in 317-19 Calvo
quotes Keene, but the latter's 'explanation' still reveals nothing
about
the origin of the funding. So we are no further forward than with the
laconic
'private investments' comment (317-4) that Mr. Keene made to Calvo
during
the match last year."
I warrant that most readers understand that we are considerably
"further
forward." Mr. Keene is saying that he undertook scrupulous due
diligence to
avoid laundered money and that he has the legal commitment of Lincolns
Inn
Lawyers Edwin Coe that the money is clean. That counts for something.
In
truth, rather a lot.
At no point does Keene ever deny that mafia money might not have
found
its way into the match. There is no way to prove this kind of
negative. But
for most people, a due diligence defense has to be shaken by the
attackers.
This defense has not been shaken or, for that matter, even touched
upon.
Secondly, Mr. Keene claims outright in No. 317-50, "Today (May 17) we
received an apology from the News of the World plus a cheque for
almost three
thousand pounds for BGN's costs. Newspapers, especially rich and
powerful
ones with virtually unlimited investigative resources, do not like to
admit
that they are wrong, so i [sic] feel the papers [sic] retraction and
payment
indicates that BGN has proven its probity in this respect."
Mr. Keene says that News of the World got cold feet and bailed out.
This
is either a stupid, outright lie on his part or, well, the truth. To
shake
this response, the critics must come forward to deny that he received
such a
check and such an apology. Otherwise, we can draw the conclusion that
Mr.
Keene's claim is probative.
Thirdly, Mr. Keene claims that one Sue Hale produced a draft agreement
of
a contract rather than a binding legal document. Once again, Mr. Keene
is
either lying with imbecilic abandon, or he is telling the truth. If we
are to
continue to pay any heed to critics who talk about BGN abandoning
chess orphans
to chill Caissic penury, the critics must argue that there was a
binding
agreement on the part of BGN.
Fourthly, there was a wintry contretemps over whether Mr. Keene
somehow
lied when claiming that Garry Kasparov had a five-year contract with
BGN. Mr.
Keene responded that such an agreement existed at the time that he
wrote the
claim in his book of the Kramnik-Kasparov match, but that such a
contract
lapsed at a later date. This claim makes sense on its face, and no
attacker
has since disputed it.
Once again, most people will assume that the charge was smoke unless
the
attackers can return with some new ammunition.
Fifthly, attackers have said that Mr. Keene defrauded the British
Chess
Federation. In No. 317-61, Mr. Keene responded, "I deny ever having
defrauded
the BCF and they have not taken any action against me." Forget about
Mr.
Keene's denial. That is to be expected. Mr. Keene's key claim here is
that the BCF folks "have not taken any action against me."
True or a blatant lie? Fraud is serious. For a charge of it to be
taken
seriously, the supposed victim must be seen to seek redress in the
courts.
Moreover, Mr. Keene is not in himself an enormous corporation. Those
who feel
abused can bring action against him without feeling that they are
battling
General Electric.
Has the BCF sought either civil or criminal redress against Mr.
Keene?
Mr. Keene denies that either is the case. The critics must respond by
pointing
out the civil or criminal action, or we must begin to use a word other
than
"fraud" and start talking about political battles among discordant
personalities.
Sixthly, the attackers have said that Mr. Keene took 50,000 pounds
from
Mind Sports Olympiad (MSO), which was somehow a fishy act that
smelled
financially. In 317-47, Mr. Keene responds, "[B]y the way, as CEO of
the
company, I had the absolute right to do this and the board of MSO Ltd
has
supported me since then and I remain CEO."
Once again, forget Mr. Keene's boiler plate about having an "absolute
right" to do this or that. His key claims are: 1. The Board of MSO
approved
his expenditure of 50,000 pounds; and 2. The Board continues to employ
him as
CEO of this company.
True - or two utterly unconscionable and moronic lies? Readers of
this
forum await for the attackers to return and to deny that the MSO Board
okayed
this expenditure and to deny that Mr. Keene remains as CEO at the
discretion of
the Board. If they cannot do so, then Mr. Keene's claim that the
Board
okayed his action is probative - to say the least. If they cannot do
so and
if the Board of the supposed injured party continues to pay for Mr.
Keene's
services, then one may possibly assume that the charges were more
smoke.
Seventhly, writes Mr. Keene in No. 317-47: "Elsewhere a correspondent
claims that I admitted I used L50,000 to set up Brain Games.
Absolutely
untrue. It wasn't used for that and I never admitted it!"
Did Mr. Keene ever admit to having used L50,000 to set up Brain Games?
He
appends an "!" to his denial. The critics must come up with the
claimed
admission, or Mr. Keene's strong denial, when considered together with
his
continued employment as MSO CEO, has probative value.
Eighthly, Mr. Keene refuses to defend himself against charges that
appeared in Kingpin. He does not enjoy the magazine and avoids it as a
general
rule. For myself, I think that the magazine is a good read, though
probably
not worth the subscription price. But my lineage is Scots, and I'm
cheap.
Still, I can understand Mr. Keene's fears that Kingpin will not
provide
a level playing field. The magazine is a prime example of reverential
irreverence - of lachrymose personalities who take themselves
seriously.
Such putatively open-minded people are usually the most close-minded.
Old St.
Mugg wrote about their types when describing his years as the editor
of Punch,
though I am not suggesting here that Kingpin is remotely the magazine
either in
quality or, of course, influence that Punch once was.
In the Spring 1999 issue, John Watson published "Chess and Politics."
Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and myself. I
wrote a
3,500-word "letter to the editor" in which I defended Evans and, to a
lesser,
extent Kasparov. Therein lies a story.
Editor Jonathan Manley sent me several e-mails in which we discussed
an
"article" to appear in his magazine. I wanted 5,000 words, which was
about the
length of Mr. Watson's piece. He said okay, and I sent him 5,000
words. He
then begged about space, and we agreed on an "article" of 3,500 words.
I
edited down the piece to exactly 3,500 words and made it better.
Whereupon,
the "article" appeared in six-point type as a letter to the editor!
Needless
to say, Mr. Manley did not consult me about printing a long article as
a letter
to the editor. Mr. Manley sent me a check for my efforts.
I returned the check because no honest editor should ever pay for a
"letter to the editor," and no writer should ever accept payment if
that is how
his work appears in print.
Mr. Watson was then given the right of concurrent reply to the
"letters"
of GM Evans and myself.
My conclusion is that GM Keene would do best to avoid Kingpin because
the
reverentially irreverent editor cannot be relied upon to provide an
honest forum.
A few words directly to GM Keene: You cannot rely upon any e-mails
from
Mr. Manley in which he states repeatedly that your work will appear as
an
"article." My advice is not to entertain intellectual commerce with
the gent.
Look, GM Keene, you have a track record of going your own way and of
ignoring advice. But just read, reread and peruse again and again and
again Mr.
Manley's words in No. 317-60: "It is true that Ray Keene and Peter
Kemmis
Betty once interviewed me for the post of Batsford chess editor, and I
must
confess that my failure to land that plum job was a crushing blow
which has
left me tormented and embittered. I sometimes wonder how my
professional and
personal life might have been enriched had I only been given this
opportunity
to study at close quarters the standards of professionalism, integrity
and
openness for which Mr. Keene commands world renown."
GM Keene: with or without reason, this man hates your intestines. Mr.
Manley tries to pen jaunty irony, but that pen has a broad and bold
rather than
a fine and light point. The blithe souffle falls flat. I warrant that
virtually every reader on this Bulletin Board caught the enduring
hurt. And,
too, Mr. Manley did not declare his interest in the pages of Kingpin
when
publishing attacks on you.
I think that most observers will understand if you steer clear of the
pages controlled by this obviously disappointed man.
HARRWITZ vs. MORPHY
Edward Winter and the ratpackers enjoy a censored homefield at the
ChessCafe
bulletin board. Their chief targets are Grandmasters Larry Evans,
Garry
Kasparov and Raymond Keene. The attackers of the three are, by and
large, the
same for all three. They are also, by and large, FIDE apologists.
Indeed,
Mr. Winter's Chess Notes was once distributed throughout the world by
FIDE,
and for quite some time, Mr. Winter wrote about FIDE issues without
disclosing
a financial interest that he had in the form of subscriptions from
that corrupt
international chess body. He was evidently not notably fastidious
concerning
income sources.
GM Raymond Keene outlined the extensive measures he took to ensure
that
the Kramnik-Kasparov match would attract unlaundered, yet unsoiled
money. One
wonders whether Mr. Winter performed due diligence on the source of
FIDE monies
flowing to his bank account - indeed, an amount sufficient to become a
FIDE
budget item. We do not anticipate that the ratpackers will tender the
same
questions to Mr. Winter that they tossed at GM Keene.
The good news is that there are uncensored bulletin boards in the
chess
world, such as the one on which this essay is appearing. Mr. Winter
is
perfectly free to respond to what I have written in this long series
of
articles, and he will have every expectation that the response will
not be
quashed or even edited.
Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficulty
in
showing up for a ninth match game against Paul Morphy, when trailing
by three
points. Earlier, at a moment when he led two-zip, he encountered no
similar
obstacles. Mr. Winter and the ratpackers had their lengthy innings on
a
censored homefield. Now, the play of dialectic has shifted to an arena
without
special fences erected by a home team.
Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
so.
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2008 19:54:03
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 11, 9:06 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 10, 1:02 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 2:49 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > IT'S GREAT FUN
>
> > > Watching Neil Brennen (The Historian) revert to type and Inspector
> > > Tapper scampering into a rathole. After his textual "analysis" was
> > > refuted, he counterattacked by accusing this writer of posting under
> > > bogus names.
>
> > "His"? "He"? Does Parr imagine that these pronouns refer to the same
> > person? Maybe Parr thinks of all those readers who criticize his
> > friends as a kind of undifferentiated mass of hostile protoplasm
> > acting as one organism. In that case, his world must be a frightening
> > place indeed.
>
> It seems to be a common assumption among certain rgcp posters that any
> anonymouse HAS to be another rgcp poster. Mr.Parr is hardly the worst
> offender. Sam Sloan suffers from that delusion, among others. Parr's
> buddy P Innes holds the crown in that regard, finding every anon to be
> me, oftentimes even after their identities are known ("Seeker" on the
> Shakespeare group HLAS, for example.)
Here's an example of Innes using his fine ear for stylistic evidence
in identifying anonymous posters.
>From humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
"seaker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lynne - Who would those reasonable people be? Paul Crowley, KCL,
> gangleri, Chess One, Art Neuendorffer, Elizabeth, Stephanie Caruana,
> Mousie, Roger Stritmatter? I don't think so. Stick to kiddie books,
> they probably don't tax your mind!
********
thanks neil, kiddie books are informing of the early mind, and early
learning is pyschologically so much more important than late, doncha
think?
phil
*******
I wrote:
I'm not "seaker"; Lynne .... addresses
"seaker" as "Robert", which is hardly a nickname for "Neil".
*********
Dr. David Webb wrote:
Nor is seaker's style remotely similar to yours, Neil.
And in a follow up post:
There is certainly no implied criticism of either of you, Neil; your
styles are just very different. However, many anti-Stratfordians seem
to be utterly tone-deaf to stylistic nuances, so perhaps Mr. Innes's
confusion is not surprising. Indeed, confusion seems to be his steady
state.
************
Sorry, Phil. I have been calling seaker Robert for ages. He is
definitely not Neil.
Regards,
Lynne
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2008 19:28:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 11, 9:06 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> It seems to be a common assumption among certain rgcp posters that any
> anonymouse HAS to be another rgcp poster. Mr.Parr is hardly the worst
> offender. Sam Sloan suffers from that delusion, among others. Parr's
> buddy P Innes holds the crown in that regard, finding every anon to be
> me, oftentimes even after their identities are known ("Seeker" on the
> Shakespeare group HLAS, for example.)
>
> This bizarre idea that anonymice MUST be known posters moonlighting
> strikes me as a subset of the old assumption that "all the lurkers
> agree with me." Both Parr and Innes, in their lucid moments, might
> reflect that they've probably antagonized many folks in and out of
> chess, and that those folks probably have computers.
In fact, it is only *annoying critics* who are
presumed by LP and others to be old enemies
come back to haunt them.
For instance, Wmiketwo and Jr are never
"identified" as moonlighters, nor are their
secret identities speculated upon by the Evans
ratpackers. This shows that FEAR and ANGER
are at the root of those speculations. Where an
"anonymouse" happens to agree with LP or his
dregs, no offense is taken to his identity being
unknown-- in fact, Evans ratpackers seem to
actually *forget* that some anons are on their
team, though they lash out at all anons as
"cowardly anonymice". LOL!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2008 06:06:17
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 10, 1:02 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:49 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > IT'S GREAT FUN
>
> > Watching Neil Brennen (The Historian) revert to type and Inspector
> > Tapper scampering into a rathole. After his textual "analysis" was
> > refuted, he counterattacked by accusing this writer of posting under
> > bogus names.
>
> "His"? "He"? Does Parr imagine that these pronouns refer to the same
> person? Maybe Parr thinks of all those readers who criticize his
> friends as a kind of undifferentiated mass of hostile protoplasm
> acting as one organism. In that case, his world must be a frightening
> place indeed.
It seems to be a common assumption among certain rgcp posters that any
anonymouse HAS to be another rgcp poster. Mr.Parr is hardly the worst
offender. Sam Sloan suffers from that delusion, among others. Parr's
buddy P Innes holds the crown in that regard, finding every anon to be
me, oftentimes even after their identities are known ("Seeker" on the
Shakespeare group HLAS, for example.)
This bizarre idea that anonymice MUST be known posters moonlighting
strikes me as a subset of the old assumption that "all the lurkers
agree with me." Both Parr and Innes, in their lucid moments, might
reflect that they've probably antagonized many folks in and out of
chess, and that those folks probably have computers.
> Also, in this thread I made the rather bland observation that gr...'s
> post defending Winter struck me as stylistically incompatible with
> anything Winter himself would write (even under a pseudonym, I might
> add). And that is all I wrote.
>
> After this minor contribution, Parr sees fit to pump up the rhetoric
> in a truly ridiculous way --- he now has "Inspector Tapper scampering
> into a rathole"! I mean really, is this sort of purple prose called
> for? Apparently any defense of Winter whatsoever, even in the most
> trivial context, has an effect on Parr like that of waving a red flag
> in front of a bull. It's a shame. I know that Parr is capable of
> intelligent and civil conversation from time to time, but the chance
> of his showing that here in rgcp seems to be getting slimmer and
> slimmer.
>
> LT
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2008 11:21:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 10, 1:02 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 2:49 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > IT'S GREAT FUN
>>
>> > Watching Neil Brennen (The Historian) revert to type and Inspector
>> > Tapper scampering into a rathole. After his textual "analysis" was
>> > refuted, he counterattacked by accusing this writer of posting under
>> > bogus names.
>>
>> "His"? "He"? Does Parr imagine that these pronouns refer to the same
>> person? Maybe Parr thinks of all those readers who criticize his
>> friends as a kind of undifferentiated mass of hostile protoplasm
>> acting as one organism. In that case, his world must be a frightening
>> place indeed.
>
> It seems to be a common assumption among certain rgcp posters that any
> anonymouse HAS to be another rgcp poster. Mr.Parr is hardly the worst
> offender. Sam Sloan suffers from that delusion, among others. Parr's
> buddy P Innes holds the crown in that regard, finding every anon to be
> me, oftentimes even after their identities are known ("Seeker" on the
> Shakespeare group HLAS, for example.)
Even more common than assumptions, are the very interesting sets of people
who show up to comment on them - as if so represent that, since they could
discuss anons, they themselves are not.
Of course, this rather transparent publicity device is as common as their
frequent misrepresentations, such as the one above.
That such commentators as these /have/ posed as anons, or acted
pseudonymously, is presumably their authority to comment on yet other anons?
Especially those people who cannot actually play or discuss chess without a
very great deal of narcissism and cupidity.
> This bizarre idea that anonymice MUST be known posters moonlighting
> strikes me as a subset of the old assumption that "all the lurkers
> agree with me." Both Parr and Innes, in their lucid moments, might
> reflect that they've probably antagonized many folks in and out of
> chess, and that those folks probably have computers.
Fortunately for Parr and Innes the antagonisms are over the game itself, and
frequently its management, but I excuse people who rarely comment on the
game from an lucid perspective to even perceive this point.
>> Also, in this thread I made the rather bland observation that gr...'s
>> post defending Winter struck me as stylistically incompatible with
>> anything Winter himself would write (even under a pseudonym, I might
>> add). And that is all I wrote.
>>
>> After this minor contribution, Parr sees fit to pump up the rhetoric
>> in a truly ridiculous way --- he now has "Inspector Tapper scampering
>> into a rathole"! I mean really, is this sort of purple prose called
>> for? Apparently any defense of Winter whatsoever, even in the most
>> trivial context, has an effect on Parr like that of waving a red flag
>> in front of a bull.
PUT OUT MORE FLAGS
A handy simile! OTOH, we must assume rather more flags and bulls for Mr.
Winter himself, whose own betes noire seem to comprise certain strong chess
players - especially those who are well-published authors, and indeed,
people who have commented on the games themselves and what it takes to play
chess.
Mr. Winter seems not to have gleaned that even the act of playing chess is
fraught with mistakes, but if you don't play, then how could you understand
that this is merely the human condition? In this sense I always view Mr.
Winter's commentary on the messy business of actually living in the world as
a ches player or author, as being explicitly virginal.
>> It's a shame. I know that Parr is capable of
>> intelligent and civil conversation from time to time, but the chance
>> of his showing that here in rgcp seems to be getting slimmer and
>> slimmer.
How culpable you are! While other people are surely as Larry Tapper
describes, the lack of his own chess comment, on topic in respect of
ChessCafe, escapes his unnoticed.
I have not seen anything that Larry Parr has written about the Cafe that is
untrue - I may have missed other comments, but I hardly see them as even
contested.
The Cafe ran a block against publishing any contrary views to those
columnists and writers who professed [rightly or wrongly] to dislike some
number of chess authors. It does not deny that it did so; except it did
excuse itself on the basis that L. Parr, writing to answer a multitude of
'questions', should we dignify the issue with that term, was 'too long'.
Whereas, of necessity, replying to so many points requiring so much
response - though not even attaining 1/4 of the already published number of
words.
The other issue I have seen written here is now resolved - that of Mr.
Winter's claims to copyright materials previously copyrighted by others. [I
make one correction to Larry Parr's note - these were not all public domain
materials, and some belonged to USCF.] My legal challenge to the publisher's
support of such measure went unanswered, defaulting any claim whatever by
the publisher - thereby Mr. Winter or his current publisher needs make their
own claim to the materials.
Was there another substantive issue you feel has been miscast by Larry Parr,
Larry Tapper?
Phil Innes
>> LT
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2008 00:38:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 9, 9:32 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >There was a lot more in common among Evans, Parr, jr, and Wmiketwo
>
> than unlike writing styles. In the case of jr, there was an IP match.
> In the case of Wmiketwo, there was a match in formatting - Parr,
> Evans, and Wmiketwo were the only posters on rgcp who had posts
> displaying the same odd formatting quirk.> -- The Historian
>
> I not only denied any knowledge of those posters but offered to bet a
> handsome chunk of money that I would pass a lie detector test
As far as I know, there is no such thing as
a "lie detector" test; I think what Mr. Parr is
referring to is a stress detector test, which
nails folks who are very uncomfortable with
speaking untruths while letting inveterate
liars off, since they display virtually no stress
in the same situation. I once knew a fellow
who was so immune to any such stress that
he was completely ambivalent when caught
lying; apparently, stress comes from guilt,
which is a manifestation of fear of punishment,
and some folks never got punished and thus
have no such fear and no stress.
People are different. Some people are
compulsive shoppers, while others recoil at
the thought of spending money recklessly.
Some thrill at the thought of just drawing a
higher-rated opponent, while others despise
draws, and would rather lose trying to win.
Some folks lie like a rug and think nothing
of it, while others begin to sweat bullets and
tense up, anticipating a trip to the woodshed
where "father" Charles Bronson will teach
them the error of their ways.
Mr. Parr's arrogant attitude suggests that
he believes he can "beat" a stress test, trick
the fellow who must /interpret/ the electrical
readings as indications of lying or mere
variances in voltage. It reminds me of the
guy I mentioned above-- the one who felt
*nothing* when caught in yet another lie.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2008 00:23:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 8, 10:38 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Duh. Like an anon wishing to hide his identity and abuse a foe is
> > going to write in his accustomed style.
> > Yeah. Right.
>
> Mr. Innes seems to think so. Ask him.
I have found that Dr. IM Innes is very handy as
a counter-indicator; that is, if he says an analysis
of syntax indicates X, then it is very likely that
the opposite of X is true.
If nearly-Innes believes that "ca." stands for
the Latin word "cetera", then it most likely is the
case that it really stands for any word *but* that
one.
And if the 2450-rated nearly-an-IM claims that,
say, Taylor Kingston has analyzed a game to
death, it most likely is the case that TK never
even looked at the game in question, but only
its introduction.
In fact, Rev. Innes is so reliable as a counter-
indicator, one can bet on him being wrong even
over Larry Parr-- who, admittedly, also makes for
a good counter-indicator on many issues. You
have to play the percentages... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2008 00:08:25
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 8, 12:19 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may mean
> > anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I
> > wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively debunked
> > several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
>
> Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. The
> difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing.
While it is true that Mr. Parr's ad hominem approach
to issues in no way constitutes a "debunking" of
annoying criticisms, the counter ad hominem attack
that LP "can barely play chess" is easily debunked.
In fact, Mr. Parr was a USCF Class A player, which
put him, at his likely peak, in the top 5% or so of all
rated chess players in the USA. In sum, he was a
well above average player, and even now, can likely
play a very good game of chess.
The smug attitude revealed above would seem to
suggest that the writer is one of those arrogant GMs,
who of course look down upon "commoners" of only
Class A strength as peons, unworthy to write about
the game. Perhaps he could become friends with his
kindred spirit, with five time U.S. champ Larry Evans,
were it not for the latter's close association with a
lowly peon named Larry Parr... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 11:39:12
From: SBD
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 10, 12:02=A0pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> I know that Parr is capable of
> intelligent and civil conversation from time to time,
Quite simply, no, he isn't.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 10:02:57
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 9, 2:49=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> IT'S GREAT FUN
>
> Watching Neil Brennen (The Historian) revert to type and Inspector
> Tapper scampering into a rathole. After his textual "analysis" was
> refuted, he counterattacked by accusing this writer of posting under
> bogus names.
"His"? "He"? Does Parr imagine that these pronouns refer to the same
person? Maybe Parr thinks of all those readers who criticize his
friends as a kind of undifferentiated mass of hostile protoplasm
acting as one organism. In that case, his world must be a frightening
place indeed.
Also, in this thread I made the rather bland observation that gr...'s
post defending Winter struck me as stylistically incompatible with
anything Winter himself would write (even under a pseudonym, I might
add). And that is all I wrote.
After this minor contribution, Parr sees fit to pump up the rhetoric
in a truly ridiculous way --- he now has "Inspector Tapper scampering
into a rathole"! I mean really, is this sort of purple prose called
for? Apparently any defense of Winter whatsoever, even in the most
trivial context, has an effect on Parr like that of waving a red flag
in front of a bull. It's a shame. I know that Parr is capable of
intelligent and civil conversation from time to time, but the chance
of his showing that here in rgcp seems to be getting slimmer and
slimmer.
LT
LT
> No mention, of course, of Taylor Kingston praising his own arguments
> under Xylothist, Niemand and Pauli Graf (polygraph)! The boys in the
> bandwith sure stick together.
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > INSPECTOR TAPPER ON THE CASE
>
> > <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> > so....
> > Looks like he has.> -- =A0Larry Parr
>
> > <Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> > Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> > intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> > use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.> --
> > Larry Tapper
>
> > =A0 =A0 Duh. Like an anon wishing to hide his identity and abuse a foe i=
s
> > going to write in his accustomed style.
> > Yeah. Right.
>
> > Larry Tapper wrote:
> > > On Jan 8, 2:50?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > PRESERVING THIS ANON FOR POSTERITY
>
> > > > <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> > > > so.> -- ?Larry Parr
>
> > > > Looks like he has.
>
> > > Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> > > Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> > > intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> > > use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.
>
> > > LT
>
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > You traveled across the world but your stench is still remembered.=
> > > > > Personal hygiene still sub-parr?
>
> > > > > On Jan 1 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > BLAST FROM THE PAST
>
> > > > > // snip recycled smear on Chesscafe //
>
> > > > > > Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may =
mean
> > > > > > anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when=
I
> > > > > > wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively d=
ebunked
> > > > > > several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
>
> > > > > Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. =
The
> > > > > difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing=
.
>
> > > > > > My strategy wa
>
> > > > > // snip on delusions //
>
> > > > > > difference between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent
> > > > > > dishonesty
>
> > > > > or your brand of dishonesty, which while always unintelligent is n=
ot
> > > > > always counterproductive?
>
> > > > > // snip further delusions //
>
> > > > > > <<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
> > > > > > separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
> > > > > > Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess write=
r:
> > > > > > to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
>
> > > > > Correct. Elsewhere RK provides a recommended line for one side whi=
le
> > > > > overlooking that there is a mate in three on the board.
>
> > > > > > Big deal. What book is perfect?
>
> > > > > Not yours and not Keene's, that's for sure.
>
> > > > > // snip usual anal fixation on Evans //
>
> > > > > > For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the Bu=
lletin
> > > > > > Board editors.
>
> > > > > Good grief, your delusions of self-importance could not have been =
better
> > > > > illustrated than by the above.
>
> > > > > // snip on nonsense //
>
> > > > > > An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece.=
BUT:
> > > > > > "The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months=
.
> > > > > > Your proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word=
"also."
> > > > > > What was "also" wrong?
>
> > > > > Your failure to appreciate and understand the above helps those wh=
o do
> > > > > not know you to understand why your firing from CL was so inevitab=
le.
>
> > > > > > I responded within minut
>
> > > > > // snip other delusions //
>
> > > > > > Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No =
one
> > > > > > was prepared to
>
> > > > > ?speak to an obsessive idiot.
>
> > > > > > The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given eve=
ry
> > > > > > opportunity to air the laundry
>
> > > > > Attacking RK is like shooting fish in a barrel.
>
> > > > > // snip attempted and one-sided defenses of RK //
>
> > > > > > utterly unconscionable and moronic lies
>
> > > > > Using that mirror again, Liarry?
>
> > > > > > Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and mys=
elf.
>
> > > > > Evans was attacked, Gary was criticized. You were merely quoted.
> > > > > But since to quote you is to attack you, I figure you are right.
>
> > > > > > I wrote a 3,500-word "letter to the edi
>
> > > > > // another snip of delusions //
>
> > > > > > Edward Winter and the ratp
>
> > > > > // snip smear of one whose intellectual boots you are unfit to lic=
k //
>
> > > > > > Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficu=
lt
>
> > > > > // snip more irrelevancies and confusion //
>
> > > > > > Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I ho=
pe so.
>
> > > > > See above. Mr. Kingston won't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 07:20:18
From:
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 9, 12:35 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> REHASH
>
> Neil Brennen has rehashed one of his smears that appeared here on Aug
> 31 2001.
I hereby give accolades to Mr. Parr for his applauding the actions of
one
of his adversaries (that IS what you're doing, right? That can be
the
only reasonable interpretation given your penchant for repeated
rehashings of multiple smears). This generosity of spirit is
appreciated
in these times of ugly chess controversies.
K
> Unlike Taylor Kingston, I have never posted under a bogus name and my
> lie detector challenge still stands if he dares to put his money where
> his mouth is.
>
> Perhaps Neil will pursue with equa diligence the bogus names used by
> his friend Mr. 2300+ Elo (Xylothist, Paulie Graf, Niemand) with equal
> diligence.
>
> Perhaps Neil would also cares to address the copyright claim by Edward
> Winter on chess photos in the public domain.
>
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 9:32 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > MY LIE DETECTOR CHALLENGE
>
> > > >There was a lot more in common among Evans, Parr, jr, and Wmiketwo
>
> > > than unlike writing styles. In the case of jr, there was an IP match.
> > > In the case of Wmiketwo, there was a match in formatting - Parr,
> > > Evans, and Wmiketwo were the only posters on rgcp who had posts
> > > displaying the same odd formatting quirk.> -- The Historian
>
> > > I not only denied any knowledge of those posters but offered to bet a
> > > handsome chunk of money that I would pass a lie detector test when
> > > this accusation was made several years ago by The Historian, Louis
> > > Blair and Taylor Kingston. I also seem to
> > > recall my offer to come to America from Malaysia at my own expense,
> > > and naming the date, if any member of this trio would accept the
> > > challenge.
>
> > > Needless to say, none of these worthies were willing to put their
> > > money where their mouths were.
>
> > From September 1, 2001:
>
> > I have been asked to post my reasons for stating that Larry Parr is
> > posting as Wmiketwo. I am listing them below.
>
> > 1. Wmiketwo appeared here with the first Winter postings, and while he
> > has been here he has only posted on two topics, namely Winter and Drug
> > Testing, the only two topics Parr has posted on. Such uniformity of
> > interest is a little striking; most posters have more varied posting
> > histories.
>
> > 2. Wmiketwo, despite his professed disdain for Winter, shows a good
> > working knowledge of his writings. One would think that if he used the
> > Zimmerman phrase "who cares" to describe Winter's penchant for detail
> > that he would not be able to quote Chess Notes at length.
>
> > 3. Wmiketwo uses the same techniques of argumentation that Parr does -
> > misquotation, self-quotation, and selective quotation, ad hom attacks,
> > repetition, defense of position by force of assertion, straw man,
> > flaming, refusal to answer questions, use of the third person.
>
> > 4. Both Parr and Wmiketwo have given titles IN CAPITAL LETTERS to
> > their postings - Parr consistently, Wmiketwo for a brief period until
> > I mentioned his likeness to Parr.
>
> > 5. Both Parr and Wmiketwo have the same ISP.
>
> > 6. Both Parr and Wmiketwo refer to each other in their posts. Wmiketwo
> > has made numerous postings along the lines of "Oh I can't wait for
> > those Larry Parr essays." And Parr has asked Wmiketwo to be patient
> > for change on the drug testing issue.
>
> > 7. And finally, the point that persuaded me was the ? errors. In a
> > number of postings by both Wmiketwo and Parr, Google shows ? in the
> > place of apostrophes or quotation ks. I've used the Google
> > newsgroup archives extensively over the past few months, and only Parr
> > and Wmiketwo seem to
> > have this problem. I did a test with chesstours to see if it was a
> > problem related to postings from Compuserve, but saw no sign of the ?
> > trouble.
>
> > No doubt Parr will suggest that this is coincidence, leaving us to
> > imagine a Compuserve-posting disenchanted Winter buff who worships
> > Parr to the extent of aping his text formatting problems. The
> > stumbling block of the differing prose styles disappears when you
> > remember Parr was a decent writer at one time; the ability to use a
> > different "voice" for a different poster should come naturally for
> > someone who has written "as" others.
>
> > In conclusion, while none of these points are sufficient in
> > themselves, together they suggest that Parr's best friend - perhaps
> > only friend - in his dispute with Winter is Larry Parr.
>
> > Below are some examples of the ? problem, pulled from Google.
>
> > I don?t know whether or not he will accept, but - Larry Parr, 6/15/01
>
> > while Mr. Winter?s column in New In Chess was
> > cancelled for lack of reader interest. This bitter Swiss critic is
> > obviously
> > consumed with envy and, needless to say, I?m eagerly awaiting Larry
> > Parr?s
> > series of essays on Mr. Winter?s Humbug. -Wmiketwo, 8/5/01
>
> > Readers are referred, by way of example, to a
> > detailed article by John Watson entitled ?Chess and
> > Politics? (Kingpin, Spring 1999, pages 33 ? 38), which
> > contains such observations on Evans as : ?huge bias?;
> > ?long
> > histories of ignoring and
> > distorting evidence? and ?Evans? absurd arguments?
> > .... Page 60 of the
> > Autumn 1999 Kingpin carried a brief reply from Evans.
> > Although, in
> > reality, he replied to virtually nothing, he did dispute
> > .... " ? Edward
> > Winter, "The Facts About Larry Evans" (ChessCafe, June 6,
> > 2001) - Larry Parr, 8/25/01
>
> > it?s hardto think of a hot, controversial topic that he hasn?t
> > covered -Wmiketwo, 8/5/01
>
> > "Plain facts seldom stand a chance. A small example of the Evans
> > approach to historical truth arises from his December 1999 column,
> > which
> > included the following: ?Wilhelm Steinitz was 50 when he defeated
> > Johannes
> > Zukertort (44) in 1892.? In the February 2000 Chess Life we pointed
> > out that
> > this seemed improbable, given that Zukertort had died in 1888. Mr.
> > Evans
> > responded tartly that the matter was unimportant because ?obviously
> > 1892 was
> > a typo instead of 1872.? Still not even the right decade." ? Edward
> > Winter, Kingpin (Spring 2000) - Larry Parr 8/25/01
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 14:02:05
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 9, 11:56=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
I don't see what the big fuss is about. Every chess book has errors
in analysis, as you can tell by playing through the annotated games
with Fritz. That's part of the fun--seeing where the author,
especially pre-chess engines, went wrong.
RL
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 11:56:30
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 9, 2:49 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> IT'S GREAT FUN
>
> Watching Neil Brennen (The Historian) revert to type and Inspector
> Tapper scampering into a rathole. After his textual "analysis" was
> refuted, he counterattacked by accusing this writer of posting under
> bogus names.
> No mention, of course, of Taylor Kingston praising his own arguments
> under Xylothist, Niemand and Pauli Graf (polygraph)! The boys in the
> bandwith sure stick together.
Apologies to W. S. Gilbert:
Though our hearts he's badly bruising,
By our anon so abusing,
Let's pretend it's most amusing,
Let's pretend it's most amusing,
Ha, ha, ha! Ha! ha! ha!,
Ha, ha! ha! Tantara!
Tantara! tantara! tantara!
Ha! ha, ha, ha!
Tantara! Tantara!
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 11:49:54
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
IT'S GREAT FUN
Watching Neil Brennen (The Historian) revert to type and Inspector
Tapper scampering into a rathole. After his textual "analysis" was
refuted, he counterattacked by accusing this writer of posting under
bogus names.
No mention, of course, of Taylor Kingston praising his own arguments
under Xylothist, Niemand and Pauli Graf (polygraph)! The boys in the
bandwith sure stick together.
[email protected] wrote:
> INSPECTOR TAPPER ON THE CASE
>
> <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> so....
> Looks like he has.> -- Larry Parr
>
> <Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.> --
> Larry Tapper
>
> Duh. Like an anon wishing to hide his identity and abuse a foe is
> going to write in his accustomed style.
> Yeah. Right.
>
>
>
>
> Larry Tapper wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 2:50?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > PRESERVING THIS ANON FOR POSTERITY
> > >
> > > <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> > > so.> -- ?Larry Parr
> > >
> > > Looks like he has.
> >
> > Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> > Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> > intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> > use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.
> >
> > LT
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > You traveled across the world but your stench is still remembered.
> > > > Personal hygiene still sub-parr?
> > >
> > > > On Jan 1 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > BLAST FROM THE PAST
> > >
> > > > // snip recycled smear on Chesscafe //
> > >
> > > > > Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may mean
> > > > > anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I
> > > > > wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively debunked
> > > > > several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
> > >
> > > > Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. The
> > > > difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing.
> > >
> > > > > My strategy wa
> > >
> > > > // snip on delusions //
> > >
> > > > > difference between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent
> > > > > dishonesty
> > >
> > > > or your brand of dishonesty, which while always unintelligent is not
> > > > always counterproductive?
> > >
> > > > // snip further delusions //
> > >
> > > > > <<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
> > > > > separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
> > > > > Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess writer:
> > > > > to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
> > >
> > > > Correct. Elsewhere RK provides a recommended line for one side while
> > > > overlooking that there is a mate in three on the board.
> > >
> > > > > Big deal. What book is perfect?
> > >
> > > > Not yours and not Keene's, that's for sure.
> > >
> > > > // snip usual anal fixation on Evans //
> > >
> > > > > For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the Bulletin
> > > > > Board editors.
> > >
> > > > Good grief, your delusions of self-importance could not have been better
> > > > illustrated than by the above.
> > >
> > > > // snip on nonsense //
> > >
> > > > > An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece. BUT:
> > > > > "The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months.
> > > > > Your proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word "also."
> > > > > What was "also" wrong?
> > >
> > > > Your failure to appreciate and understand the above helps those who do
> > > > not know you to understand why your firing from CL was so inevitable.
> > >
> > > > > I responded within minut
> > >
> > > > // snip other delusions //
> > >
> > > > > Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No one
> > > > > was prepared to
> > >
> > > > ?speak to an obsessive idiot.
> > >
> > > > > The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given every
> > > > > opportunity to air the laundry
> > >
> > > > Attacking RK is like shooting fish in a barrel.
> > >
> > > > // snip attempted and one-sided defenses of RK //
> > >
> > > > > utterly unconscionable and moronic lies
> > >
> > > > Using that mirror again, Liarry?
> > >
> > > > > Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and myself.
> > >
> > > > Evans was attacked, Gary was criticized. You were merely quoted.
> > > > But since to quote you is to attack you, I figure you are right.
> > >
> > > > > I wrote a 3,500-word "letter to the edi
> > >
> > > > // another snip of delusions //
> > >
> > > > > Edward Winter and the ratp
> > >
> > > > // snip smear of one whose intellectual boots you are unfit to lick //
> > >
> > > > > Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficult
> > >
> > > > // snip more irrelevancies and confusion //
> > >
> > > > > Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope so.
> > >
> > > > See above. Mr. Kingston won't.- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 09:35:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
REHASH
Neil Brennen has rehashed one of his smears that appeared here on Aug
31 2001.
Unlike Taylor Kingston, I have never posted under a bogus name and my
lie detector challenge still stands if he dares to put his money where
his mouth is.
Perhaps Neil will pursue with equa diligence the bogus names used by
his friend Mr. 2300+ Elo (Xylothist, Paulie Graf, Niemand) with equal
diligence.
Perhaps Neil would also cares to address the copyright claim by Edward
Winter on chess photos in the public domain.
The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 9, 9:32 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > MY LIE DETECTOR CHALLENGE
> >
> > >There was a lot more in common among Evans, Parr, jr, and Wmiketwo
> >
> > than unlike writing styles. In the case of jr, there was an IP match.
> > In the case of Wmiketwo, there was a match in formatting - Parr,
> > Evans, and Wmiketwo were the only posters on rgcp who had posts
> > displaying the same odd formatting quirk.> -- The Historian
> >
> > I not only denied any knowledge of those posters but offered to bet a
> > handsome chunk of money that I would pass a lie detector test when
> > this accusation was made several years ago by The Historian, Louis
> > Blair and Taylor Kingston. I also seem to
> > recall my offer to come to America from Malaysia at my own expense,
> > and naming the date, if any member of this trio would accept the
> > challenge.
> >
> > Needless to say, none of these worthies were willing to put their
> > money where their mouths were.
>
> From September 1, 2001:
>
> I have been asked to post my reasons for stating that Larry Parr is
> posting as Wmiketwo. I am listing them below.
>
> 1. Wmiketwo appeared here with the first Winter postings, and while he
> has been here he has only posted on two topics, namely Winter and Drug
> Testing, the only two topics Parr has posted on. Such uniformity of
> interest is a little striking; most posters have more varied posting
> histories.
>
> 2. Wmiketwo, despite his professed disdain for Winter, shows a good
> working knowledge of his writings. One would think that if he used the
> Zimmerman phrase "who cares" to describe Winter's penchant for detail
> that he would not be able to quote Chess Notes at length.
>
> 3. Wmiketwo uses the same techniques of argumentation that Parr does -
> misquotation, self-quotation, and selective quotation, ad hom attacks,
> repetition, defense of position by force of assertion, straw man,
> flaming, refusal to answer questions, use of the third person.
>
> 4. Both Parr and Wmiketwo have given titles IN CAPITAL LETTERS to
> their postings - Parr consistently, Wmiketwo for a brief period until
> I mentioned his likeness to Parr.
>
> 5. Both Parr and Wmiketwo have the same ISP.
>
> 6. Both Parr and Wmiketwo refer to each other in their posts. Wmiketwo
> has made numerous postings along the lines of "Oh I can't wait for
> those Larry Parr essays." And Parr has asked Wmiketwo to be patient
> for change on the drug testing issue.
>
> 7. And finally, the point that persuaded me was the ? errors. In a
> number of postings by both Wmiketwo and Parr, Google shows ? in the
> place of apostrophes or quotation ks. I've used the Google
> newsgroup archives extensively over the past few months, and only Parr
> and Wmiketwo seem to
> have this problem. I did a test with chesstours to see if it was a
> problem related to postings from Compuserve, but saw no sign of the ?
> trouble.
>
> No doubt Parr will suggest that this is coincidence, leaving us to
> imagine a Compuserve-posting disenchanted Winter buff who worships
> Parr to the extent of aping his text formatting problems. The
> stumbling block of the differing prose styles disappears when you
> remember Parr was a decent writer at one time; the ability to use a
> different "voice" for a different poster should come naturally for
> someone who has written "as" others.
>
> In conclusion, while none of these points are sufficient in
> themselves, together they suggest that Parr's best friend - perhaps
> only friend - in his dispute with Winter is Larry Parr.
>
> Below are some examples of the ? problem, pulled from Google.
>
> I don?t know whether or not he will accept, but - Larry Parr, 6/15/01
>
> while Mr. Winter?s column in New In Chess was
> cancelled for lack of reader interest. This bitter Swiss critic is
> obviously
> consumed with envy and, needless to say, I?m eagerly awaiting Larry
> Parr?s
> series of essays on Mr. Winter?s Humbug. -Wmiketwo, 8/5/01
>
> Readers are referred, by way of example, to a
> detailed article by John Watson entitled ?Chess and
> Politics? (Kingpin, Spring 1999, pages 33 ? 38), which
> contains such observations on Evans as : ?huge bias?;
> ?long
> histories of ignoring and
> distorting evidence? and ?Evans? absurd arguments?
> .... Page 60 of the
> Autumn 1999 Kingpin carried a brief reply from Evans.
> Although, in
> reality, he replied to virtually nothing, he did dispute
> .... " ? Edward
> Winter, "The Facts About Larry Evans" (ChessCafe, June 6,
> 2001) - Larry Parr, 8/25/01
>
> it?s hardto think of a hot, controversial topic that he hasn?t
> covered -Wmiketwo, 8/5/01
>
> "Plain facts seldom stand a chance. A small example of the Evans
> approach to historical truth arises from his December 1999 column,
> which
> included the following: ?Wilhelm Steinitz was 50 when he defeated
> Johannes
> Zukertort (44) in 1892.? In the February 2000 Chess Life we pointed
> out that
> this seemed improbable, given that Zukertort had died in 1888. Mr.
> Evans
> responded tartly that the matter was unimportant because ?obviously
> 1892 was
> a typo instead of 1872.? Still not even the right decade." ? Edward
> Winter, Kingpin (Spring 2000) - Larry Parr 8/25/01
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 08:50:04
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 9, 9:32 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> MY LIE DETECTOR CHALLENGE
>
> >There was a lot more in common among Evans, Parr, jr, and Wmiketwo
>
> than unlike writing styles. In the case of jr, there was an IP match.
> In the case of Wmiketwo, there was a match in formatting - Parr,
> Evans, and Wmiketwo were the only posters on rgcp who had posts
> displaying the same odd formatting quirk.> -- The Historian
>
> I not only denied any knowledge of those posters but offered to bet a
> handsome chunk of money that I would pass a lie detector test when
> this accusation was made several years ago by The Historian, Louis
> Blair and Taylor Kingston. I also seem to
> recall my offer to come to America from Malaysia at my own expense,
> and naming the date, if any member of this trio would accept the
> challenge.
>
> Needless to say, none of these worthies were willing to put their
> money where their mouths were.
From September 1, 2001:
I have been asked to post my reasons for stating that Larry Parr is
posting as Wmiketwo. I am listing them below.
1. Wmiketwo appeared here with the first Winter postings, and while he
has been here he has only posted on two topics, namely Winter and Drug
Testing, the only two topics Parr has posted on. Such uniformity of
interest is a little striking; most posters have more varied posting
histories.
2. Wmiketwo, despite his professed disdain for Winter, shows a good
working knowledge of his writings. One would think that if he used the
Zimmerman phrase "who cares" to describe Winter's penchant for detail
that he would not be able to quote Chess Notes at length.
3. Wmiketwo uses the same techniques of argumentation that Parr does -
misquotation, self-quotation, and selective quotation, ad hom attacks,
repetition, defense of position by force of assertion, straw man,
flaming, refusal to answer questions, use of the third person.
4. Both Parr and Wmiketwo have given titles IN CAPITAL LETTERS to
their postings - Parr consistently, Wmiketwo for a brief period until
I mentioned his likeness to Parr.
5. Both Parr and Wmiketwo have the same ISP.
6. Both Parr and Wmiketwo refer to each other in their posts. Wmiketwo
has made numerous postings along the lines of "Oh I can't wait for
those Larry Parr essays." And Parr has asked Wmiketwo to be patient
for change on the drug testing issue.
7. And finally, the point that persuaded me was the ? errors. In a
number of postings by both Wmiketwo and Parr, Google shows ? in the
place of apostrophes or quotation ks. I've used the Google
newsgroup archives extensively over the past few months, and only Parr
and Wmiketwo seem to
have this problem. I did a test with chesstours to see if it was a
problem related to postings from Compuserve, but saw no sign of the ?
trouble.
No doubt Parr will suggest that this is coincidence, leaving us to
imagine a Compuserve-posting disenchanted Winter buff who worships
Parr to the extent of aping his text formatting problems. The
stumbling block of the differing prose styles disappears when you
remember Parr was a decent writer at one time; the ability to use a
different "voice" for a different poster should come naturally for
someone who has written "as" others.
In conclusion, while none of these points are sufficient in
themselves, together they suggest that Parr's best friend - perhaps
only friend - in his dispute with Winter is Larry Parr.
Below are some examples of the ? problem, pulled from Google.
I don?t know whether or not he will accept, but - Larry Parr, 6/15/01
while Mr. Winter?s column in New In Chess was
cancelled for lack of reader interest. This bitter Swiss critic is
obviously
consumed with envy and, needless to say, I?m eagerly awaiting Larry
Parr?s
series of essays on Mr. Winter?s Humbug. -Wmiketwo, 8/5/01
Readers are referred, by way of example, to a
detailed article by John Watson entitled ?Chess and
Politics? (Kingpin, Spring 1999, pages 33 ? 38), which
contains such observations on Evans as : ?huge bias?;
?long
histories of ignoring and
distorting evidence? and ?Evans? absurd arguments?
.... Page 60 of the
Autumn 1999 Kingpin carried a brief reply from Evans.
Although, in
reality, he replied to virtually nothing, he did dispute
.... " ? Edward
Winter, "The Facts About Larry Evans" (ChessCafe, June 6,
2001) - Larry Parr, 8/25/01
it?s hardto think of a hot, controversial topic that he hasn?t
covered -Wmiketwo, 8/5/01
"Plain facts seldom stand a chance. A small example of the Evans
approach to historical truth arises from his December 1999 column,
which
included the following: ?Wilhelm Steinitz was 50 when he defeated
Johannes
Zukertort (44) in 1892.? In the February 2000 Chess Life we pointed
out that
this seemed improbable, given that Zukertort had died in 1888. Mr.
Evans
responded tartly that the matter was unimportant because ?obviously
1892 was
a typo instead of 1872.? Still not even the right decade." ? Edward
Winter, Kingpin (Spring 2000) - Larry Parr 8/25/01
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 06:32:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
MY LIE DETECTOR CHALLENGE
>There was a lot more in common among Evans, Parr, jr, and Wmiketwo
than unlike writing styles. In the case of jr, there was an IP match.
In the case of Wmiketwo, there was a match in formatting - Parr,
Evans, and Wmiketwo were the only posters on rgcp who had posts
displaying the same odd formatting quirk. > -- The Historian
I not only denied any knowledge of those posters but offered to bet a
handsome chunk of money that I would pass a lie detector test when
this accusation was made several years ago by The Historian, Louis
Blair and Taylor Kingston. I also seem to
recall my offer to come to America from Malaysia at my own expense,
and naming the date, if any member of this trio would accept the
challenge.
Needless to say, none of these worthies were willing to put their
money where their mouths were.
The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 9, 8:47 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 8:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > INSPECTOR TAPPER ON THE CASE
> >
> > > <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> > > so....
> > > Looks like he has.> -- Larry Parr
> >
> > > <Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> > > Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> > > intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> > > use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.> --
> > > Larry Tapper
> >
> > > Duh. Like an anon wishing to hide his identity and abuse a foe is
> > > going to write in his accustomed style.
> > > Yeah. Right.
> >
> > Duh yourself, Mr. Parr. By your reasoning, it follows that since the
> > postings of the anonymice jr and Wmiketwo were mainly devoted to the
> > defense of Larry Evans, they were most likely written by Evans
> > himself. The case for gr... being Winter is certainly no better than
> > the case for jr being Evans.
> >
> > LT
>
> There was a lot more in common among Evans, Parr, jr, and Wmiketwo
> than unlike writing styles. In the case of jr, there was an IP match.
> In the case of Wmiketwo, there was a match in formatting - Parr,
> Evans, and Wmiketwo were the only posters on rgcp who had posts
> displaying the same odd formatting quirk.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 06:10:57
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 9, 8:47 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 8:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > INSPECTOR TAPPER ON THE CASE
>
> > <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> > so....
> > Looks like he has.> -- Larry Parr
>
> > <Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> > Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> > intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> > use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.> --
> > Larry Tapper
>
> > Duh. Like an anon wishing to hide his identity and abuse a foe is
> > going to write in his accustomed style.
> > Yeah. Right.
>
> Duh yourself, Mr. Parr. By your reasoning, it follows that since the
> postings of the anonymice jr and Wmiketwo were mainly devoted to the
> defense of Larry Evans, they were most likely written by Evans
> himself. The case for gr... being Winter is certainly no better than
> the case for jr being Evans.
>
> LT
There was a lot more in common among Evans, Parr, jr, and Wmiketwo
than unlike writing styles. In the case of jr, there was an IP match.
In the case of Wmiketwo, there was a match in formatting - Parr,
Evans, and Wmiketwo were the only posters on rgcp who had posts
displaying the same odd formatting quirk.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2008 01:03:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 10, 10:55 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I cannot say which ratpacker our anon happens
> to be. But I do note that those who defend
> Edward Winter are given to using false names when
> conducting their polemics.
While still *fuming* over the "defense" of Edward
Winter, Mr. Parr seems to be making some
progress. Instead of merely shooting in the dark,
then later changing his aim, this time syntax
analyst Larry Parr is willing to *admit* he doesn't
know for sure.
Even so, he may well have narrowed his aim
too much; I happen to know that the postings in
question are not mine, so that leaves just three
potential "hits", out of an unlimited pool of
posters worldwide. How can LP be sure it is
not Jeremey Bibuld, or any number of others?
Does syntax expert LP have any reason to
believe that I, help bot, have ever posted under
this crazy "remove in ten days" condition?
Do TK or any of the others do that? Have they
ever done that? What about the missing link:
the wild and crazy Jason Repa, who was
sumily driven off by a consortium of those
who laughed at his empty threats to beat us
all up? Could this not be him-- again?
I don't know about you, but I think the only
people who can safely be ruled out are the
Evans ratpackers themselves, along with
anyone else foolish enough to adore the
"work" of Ray Keene. Look: I'm still here
in Indiana, so you can presumably eliminate
me unless this guy is posting from around
here (very unlikely). Admittedly, I was up
North (way up North) around Xmas eve, but
even then I was far too busy with, um,
deliveries, to mess with posting here under
any name. Just do some *research* for a
change, and stop with the shooting the
mouth off in the dark. It reveals deep-seated,
fuming anger and fears, not the true identities
of other posters.
C'mon: even Sam Sloan was able to dredge
up some info through research. I know LP is
not going to let SS best him-- not at this ad
hominem stuff anyway.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 19:55:33
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
I'M FLATTERED
I have attracted my very own dedicated,
hate-filled anonymouse. I am flattered by his
flattened spirit.
In his crudity, especially the wonderful ironic
accolade, "the Supreme Parr," the anon sounds like
like Greg Kennedy, who is help bot. In substance, he
says what Taylor Kingston, who has praised
himself on this forum while using such names as Paulie
Graf and Xylothist, is given to claiming. In directed
animus, he recalls Edward Winter.
I cannot say which ratpacker our anon happens
to be. But I do note that those who defend
Edward Winter are given to using false names when
conducting their polemics.
The issue re the anonymice defending Truong-Polgar
and Taylor Kingston is not that the practices of either are
acceptable. They are not.
The issue becomes which is worse: an anon, who
for whatever reason, defends someone other than
himself (in this case, Truong-Polgar) without
revealing his identity OR our TaylorKingston who
invented such false names as Paulie Graf and Xylothist
to back him up in disputations with this writer?
Taylor Kingston tells us that he has "standards."
What kind of standards has he? If we are to judge by
this forum, his standard is to create false personae
to bolster his ego when engaging in intellectual
confrontations. I consider that deeply corrupt
behavior. Taylor Kingston evidently considers it lofty
honesty. Readers must judge for themselves.
So who is the anonymouse? My guess right now
would be Greg Kennedy, not merely because of the
"Supreme Parr" barking but also because of the envious
aside about my quoting Latin and Ancient Greek. Greg
has never been able to hide his intellectual wounds --
those emotional stigmata of the soul -- very well.
Indeed, those abscesses of envy have been draining
themselves on this forum for several years in the form of
his garrulous verbal twitchings.
Still, the posting could have been penned by
Taylor Kingston, who is bright enough to notice Greg's
weak points and to imitate him. Certainly, given his
past record of adopting false names so as to praise
himself, Taylor Kingston is capable of such a posting.
I also cannot rule out the Supreme Edward Winter
or one of his clones.
Yours, Larry
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 9 2008, "The Historian" [email protected]> wrote:
> > There was a lot more in common among Evans, Parr, jr, and Wmiketwo
> > than unlike writing styles. In the case of jr, there was an IP match.
> > In the case of Wmiketwo, there was a match in formatting - Parr,
> > Evans, and Wmiketwo were the only posters on rgcp who had posts
> > displaying the same odd formatting quirk.
>
> Yes. The despicable coward Parr even believes that by praising some of
> the anons, his own anon misdeeds (both via and without a remailer) will
> be expiated, overlooked or forgiven. Parr fools only fools.
>
> @@ quote Parr (1/10/07 207.200.116.134) @@
> > On the other hand, some argue that these pro-Truong
> > and Polgar anons are defending the indefensible by trying
> > to cloud the issue. Though by no means acting morally
> > when refusing to give their real names, they strike me as
> > less morally objectionable than creatures such as our
> > [snip name of innocent] who chose to invent personae to
> > back him up in public disputation with this writer.
> @@ stop quote Parr (1/10/07 207.200.116.134) @@
>
> What clearer admission of his own hateful online work can one expect?
> Parr is a shameless serial liar and hypocrite. His odor is worse than
> Evans's. Of course Parr was jr, Wmiketwo and other unlearned anons.
> Parr is a coward, a poseur and a pompous ignoramus, vainly attempting
> to hide his vacuousity and sheer lack of class behind a wordy masque.
> I do not know when he began using anonymized remailers for his most
> unsavory exudations, but a careful perusal of the archives will reveal
> many examples of such use in soc.culture.malaysia, soc.culture.thai
> and other NGs including rec.games.chess.politics, supporting the POV
> of a traceable poster always posting from AOL's far-east IP block and
> who has a predeliction for inappropriately introducing phrases in
> ancient Greek or Latin into the discussion. Using a remailer was too
> much work for Parr for general use so he reserves it for times when he
> really can't afford for a subpoena to reveal who wrote what. jr only
> wrote sycophantic crap, no accusations of pederasty or death threats.
> Parr is worse than Sloan because Sloan's record of reliability and
> honesty is renowned, but Parr's is not, and Parr is far more adept
> than Sloan at successfully misleading others. I would not be surprised
> if Parr sailed through lie-detector tests, because - given what he has
> perpetrated and got away with so far - it is not that unlikely if he
> practises conductivity measurements (holding the probes of a multi-
> meter) while lying and doing the second most important thing for him,
> which is admiring his own face in the mirror. Old habits die hard..
> Sloan trolls outrageous tales to test whether anyone is so stupid as
> to buy them. For Sloan it is all games with swords (sic words, yet
> another example). Parr tells less outrageous but equally false tales
> so as to impress the reader that he, the Supreme Parr, is ster,
> more knowledgeable, wittier and more important than almost anyone
> else. Reality differs; Parr is a cheap, discredited hobo lacking in
> morals, dignity, ability, wisdom, intelligence, breeding and class.
> Dumb Parr is so easy to buy. He lives the life of one who was bought.
> We will make sure when his kids are older they are presented with
> data which can make them thoroughly ashamed to be related to him. Of
> course, if the apples didn't fall far from the rotten tree, and they
> share his dishonest genes, they may share his lack of ethical fiber
> and are proud that Dad's only accomplishment was being a LIAR and a
> HYPOCRITE. At least Evans played chess well and Keene wrote well.
> The only thing Parr does well is lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and lie.
> So- could Parr have been the one who infected Paul Truong's computer?
> Living where he does he has ready access, should he so desire, not
> only to cheap nubile 12 year old meat, but to a cheap hacker. Malays
> lead the Chinese in this field (Back Orifice originated in Malaysia),
> hate both Americans and Viets. We who are sane can merely speculate as
> to the motivations of one so vile, so base, so Liarry. To this self-
> appointed custodian of our morals must be asked: QCIC?
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: [email protected]
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Received: August 31, 2006 3:36 AM
> Subject: www.pgp.com
>
> >I am sick and tired of these peopel that keep on fake posting. The
> > point of encrpyion is to prove that you know who sent the message. PGP
> > uses public and prviate keys, but I am not going to get into how it can
> > be done.
> >
> > www.pgp.com
> >
> > We would have to register public keys for these accounts, and post
> > e-mails that are encrpyed to the general public. You would ahve to
> > update your group keys as the idea caught on.
> >
> > It should work. Perhaps somebody from PGP would help us to sell their
> > software.
> >
> > www.pgp.com
> >
> > I saw some of their investment material, but I didn't want to invest
> > wiht people who fight all of the time.
> >
> > cus Roberts
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 18:36:03
From:
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 9 2008, "The Historian" [email protected] > wrote:
> There was a lot more in common among Evans, Parr, jr, and Wmiketwo
> than unlike writing styles. In the case of jr, there was an IP match.
> In the case of Wmiketwo, there was a match in formatting - Parr,
> Evans, and Wmiketwo were the only posters on rgcp who had posts
> displaying the same odd formatting quirk.
Yes. The despicable coward Parr even believes that by praising some of
the anons, his own anon misdeeds (both via and without a remailer) will
be expiated, overlooked or forgiven. Parr fools only fools.
@@ quote Parr (1/10/07 207.200.116.134) @@
> On the other hand, some argue that these pro-Truong
> and Polgar anons are defending the indefensible by trying
> to cloud the issue. Though by no means acting morally
> when refusing to give their real names, they strike me as
> less morally objectionable than creatures such as our
> [snip name of innocent] who chose to invent personae to
> back him up in public disputation with this writer.
@@ stop quote Parr (1/10/07 207.200.116.134) @@
What clearer admission of his own hateful online work can one expect?
Parr is a shameless serial liar and hypocrite. His odor is worse than
Evans's. Of course Parr was jr, Wmiketwo and other unlearned anons.
Parr is a coward, a poseur and a pompous ignoramus, vainly attempting
to hide his vacuousity and sheer lack of class behind a wordy masque.
I do not know when he began using anonymized remailers for his most
unsavory exudations, but a careful perusal of the archives will reveal
many examples of such use in soc.culture.malaysia, soc.culture.thai
and other NGs including rec.games.chess.politics, supporting the POV
of a traceable poster always posting from AOL's far-east IP block and
who has a predeliction for inappropriately introducing phrases in
ancient Greek or Latin into the discussion. Using a remailer was too
much work for Parr for general use so he reserves it for times when he
really can't afford for a subpoena to reveal who wrote what. jr only
wrote sycophantic crap, no accusations of pederasty or death threats.
Parr is worse than Sloan because Sloan's record of reliability and
honesty is renowned, but Parr's is not, and Parr is far more adept
than Sloan at successfully misleading others. I would not be surprised
if Parr sailed through lie-detector tests, because - given what he has
perpetrated and got away with so far - it is not that unlikely if he
practises conductivity measurements (holding the probes of a multi-
meter) while lying and doing the second most important thing for him,
which is admiring his own face in the mirror. Old habits die hard..
Sloan trolls outrageous tales to test whether anyone is so stupid as
to buy them. For Sloan it is all games with swords (sic words, yet
another example). Parr tells less outrageous but equally false tales
so as to impress the reader that he, the Supreme Parr, is ster,
more knowledgeable, wittier and more important than almost anyone
else. Reality differs; Parr is a cheap, discredited hobo lacking in
morals, dignity, ability, wisdom, intelligence, breeding and class.
Dumb Parr is so easy to buy. He lives the life of one who was bought.
We will make sure when his kids are older they are presented with
data which can make them thoroughly ashamed to be related to him. Of
course, if the apples didn't fall far from the rotten tree, and they
share his dishonest genes, they may share his lack of ethical fiber
and are proud that Dad's only accomplishment was being a LIAR and a
HYPOCRITE. At least Evans played chess well and Keene wrote well.
The only thing Parr does well is lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and lie.
So- could Parr have been the one who infected Paul Truong's computer?
Living where he does he has ready access, should he so desire, not
only to cheap nubile 12 year old meat, but to a cheap hacker. Malays
lead the Chinese in this field (Back Orifice originated in Malaysia),
hate both Americans and Viets. We who are sane can merely speculate as
to the motivations of one so vile, so base, so Liarry. To this self-
appointed custodian of our morals must be asked: QCIC?
------ Original Message ------
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Received: August 31, 2006 3:36 AM
Subject: www.pgp.com
>I am sick and tired of these peopel that keep on fake posting. The
> point of encrpyion is to prove that you know who sent the message. PGP
> uses public and prviate keys, but I am not going to get into how it can
> be done.
>
> www.pgp.com
>
> We would have to register public keys for these accounts, and post
> e-mails that are encrpyed to the general public. You would ahve to
> update your group keys as the idea caught on.
>
> It should work. Perhaps somebody from PGP would help us to sell their
> software.
>
> www.pgp.com
>
> I saw some of their investment material, but I didn't want to invest
> wiht people who fight all of the time.
>
> cus Roberts
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2008 16:52:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Of course Parr was jr, Wmiketwo and other unlearned anons.
> Parr is a coward, a poseur and a pompous ignoramus, vainly attempting
> to hide his vacuousity and sheer lack of class behind a wordy masque.
said the newcomer brave-anon to the serial abusenik
both of whom seem attracted to every thread about fakery
what you all want, a tune to go with all this?
phil innes
these newsgroups cut:
alt.chess,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.thai
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 06:00:04
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
DUH
>Duh. Like an anon wishing to hide his identity and abuse a foe is
going to write in his accustomed style. Yeah. Right.
<Duh yourself, Mr. Parr. By your reasoning, it follows that since the
postings of the anonymice jr and Wmiketwo were mainly devoted to the
defense of Larry Evans, they were most likely written by Evans
himself. The case for gr... being Winter is certainly no better than
the case for jr being Evans. > -- Larry Tapper
Of course I don't know who Mr. Autumn is -- or any of the two others
you dredged up -- but I seem to recall that unlike Mr. Autumn their
addresses didn't bounce when you tried to communicate with them.
Larry Tapper wrote:
> On Jan 8, 8:36?pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > INSPECTOR TAPPER ON THE CASE
> >
> > <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> > so....
> > Looks like he has.> -- ?Larry Parr
> >
> > <Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> > Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> > intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> > use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.> --
> > Larry Tapper
> >
> > ? ? Duh. Like an anon wishing to hide his identity and abuse a foe is
> > going to write in his accustomed style.
> > Yeah. Right.
>
> Duh yourself, Mr. Parr. By your reasoning, it follows that since the
> postings of the anonymice jr and Wmiketwo were mainly devoted to the
> defense of Larry Evans, they were most likely written by Evans
> himself. The case for gr... being Winter is certainly no better than
> the case for jr being Evans.
>
> LT
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Larry Tapper wrote:
> > > On Jan 8, 2:50?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > PRESERVING THIS ANON FOR POSTERITY
> >
> > > > <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> > > > so.> -- ?Larry Parr
> >
> > > > Looks like he has.
> >
> > > Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> > > Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> > > intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> > > use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.
> >
> > > LT
> >
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > You traveled across the world but your stench is still remembered.
> > > > > Personal hygiene still sub-parr?
> >
> > > > > On Jan 1 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > BLAST FROM THE PAST
> >
> > > > > // snip recycled smear on Chesscafe //
> >
> > > > > > Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may mean
> > > > > > anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I
> > > > > > wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively debunked
> > > > > > several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
> >
> > > > > Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. The
> > > > > difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing.
> >
> > > > > > My strategy wa
> >
> > > > > // snip on delusions //
> >
> > > > > > difference between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent
> > > > > > dishonesty
> >
> > > > > or your brand of dishonesty, which while always unintelligent is not
> > > > > always counterproductive?
> >
> > > > > // snip further delusions //
> >
> > > > > > <<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
> > > > > > separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
> > > > > > Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess writer:
> > > > > > to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
> >
> > > > > Correct. Elsewhere RK provides a recommended line for one side while
> > > > > overlooking that there is a mate in three on the board.
> >
> > > > > > Big deal. What book is perfect?
> >
> > > > > Not yours and not Keene's, that's for sure.
> >
> > > > > // snip usual anal fixation on Evans //
> >
> > > > > > For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the Bulletin
> > > > > > Board editors.
> >
> > > > > Good grief, your delusions of self-importance could not have been better
> > > > > illustrated than by the above.
> >
> > > > > // snip on nonsense //
> >
> > > > > > An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece. BUT:
> > > > > > "The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months.
> > > > > > Your proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word "also."
> > > > > > What was "also" wrong?
> >
> > > > > Your failure to appreciate and understand the above helps those who do
> > > > > not know you to understand why your firing from CL was so inevitable.
> >
> > > > > > I responded within minut
> >
> > > > > // snip other delusions //
> >
> > > > > > Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No one
> > > > > > was prepared to
> >
> > > > > ?speak to an obsessive idiot.
> >
> > > > > > The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given every
> > > > > > opportunity to air the laundry
> >
> > > > > Attacking RK is like shooting fish in a barrel.
> >
> > > > > // snip attempted and one-sided defenses of RK //
> >
> > > > > > utterly unconscionable and moronic lies
> >
> > > > > Using that mirror again, Liarry?
> >
> > > > > > Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and myself.
> >
> > > > > Evans was attacked, Gary was criticized. You were merely quoted.
> > > > > But since to quote you is to attack you, I figure you are right.
> >
> > > > > > I wrote a 3,500-word "letter to the edi
> >
> > > > > // another snip of delusions //
> >
> > > > > > Edward Winter and the ratp
> >
> > > > > // snip smear of one whose intellectual boots you are unfit to lick //
> >
> > > > > > Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficult
> >
> > > > > // snip more irrelevancies and confusion //
> >
> > > > > > Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope so.
> >
> > > > > See above. Mr. Kingston won't.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 05:47:56
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 8, 8:36=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> INSPECTOR TAPPER ON THE CASE
>
> <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> so....
> Looks like he has.> -- =A0Larry Parr
>
> <Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.> --
> Larry Tapper
>
> =A0 =A0 Duh. Like an anon wishing to hide his identity and abuse a foe is
> going to write in his accustomed style.
> Yeah. Right.
Duh yourself, Mr. Parr. By your reasoning, it follows that since the
postings of the anonymice jr and Wmiketwo were mainly devoted to the
defense of Larry Evans, they were most likely written by Evans
himself. The case for gr... being Winter is certainly no better than
the case for jr being Evans.
LT
>
>
>
> Larry Tapper wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 2:50?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > PRESERVING THIS ANON FOR POSTERITY
>
> > > <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> > > so.> -- ?Larry Parr
>
> > > Looks like he has.
>
> > Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> > Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> > intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> > use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.
>
> > LT
>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > You traveled across the world but your stench is still remembered.
> > > > Personal hygiene still sub-parr?
>
> > > > On Jan 1 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > BLAST FROM THE PAST
>
> > > > // snip recycled smear on Chesscafe //
>
> > > > > Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may me=
an
> > > > > anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I=
> > > > > wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively deb=
unked
> > > > > several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
>
> > > > Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. Th=
e
> > > > difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing.
>
> > > > > My strategy wa
>
> > > > // snip on delusions //
>
> > > > > difference between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent
> > > > > dishonesty
>
> > > > or your brand of dishonesty, which while always unintelligent is not=
> > > > always counterproductive?
>
> > > > // snip further delusions //
>
> > > > > <<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
> > > > > separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
> > > > > Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess writer:=
> > > > > to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
>
> > > > Correct. Elsewhere RK provides a recommended line for one side while=
> > > > overlooking that there is a mate in three on the board.
>
> > > > > Big deal. What book is perfect?
>
> > > > Not yours and not Keene's, that's for sure.
>
> > > > // snip usual anal fixation on Evans //
>
> > > > > For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the Bull=
etin
> > > > > Board editors.
>
> > > > Good grief, your delusions of self-importance could not have been be=
tter
> > > > illustrated than by the above.
>
> > > > // snip on nonsense //
>
> > > > > An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece. B=
UT:
> > > > > "The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months.
> > > > > Your proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word "=
also."
> > > > > What was "also" wrong?
>
> > > > Your failure to appreciate and understand the above helps those who =
do
> > > > not know you to understand why your firing from CL was so inevitable=
.
>
> > > > > I responded within minut
>
> > > > // snip other delusions //
>
> > > > > Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No on=
e
> > > > > was prepared to
>
> > > > ?speak to an obsessive idiot.
>
> > > > > The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given every=
> > > > > opportunity to air the laundry
>
> > > > Attacking RK is like shooting fish in a barrel.
>
> > > > // snip attempted and one-sided defenses of RK //
>
> > > > > utterly unconscionable and moronic lies
>
> > > > Using that mirror again, Liarry?
>
> > > > > Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and mysel=
f.
>
> > > > Evans was attacked, Gary was criticized. You were merely quoted.
> > > > But since to quote you is to attack you, I figure you are right.
>
> > > > > I wrote a 3,500-word "letter to the edi
>
> > > > // another snip of delusions //
>
> > > > > Edward Winter and the ratp
>
> > > > // snip smear of one whose intellectual boots you are unfit to lick =
//
>
> > > > > Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficult=
>
> > > > // snip more irrelevancies and confusion //
>
> > > > > Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope=
so.
>
> > > > See above. Mr. Kingston won't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2008 05:02:34
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
THE AUTUMN OF HIS DISCONTENT
<Edward Winter and the ratp[packers] // snip smear of one whose
intellectual boots you are unfit to lick // -- [email protected]
Mr. Autumn's address bounced. Surprise. Surprise.
Could this anon be referring to none other the honorable Edward Winter
who claimed a copyright on chess photos in the public domain?
And so it goes.
[email protected] wrote:
> You traveled across the world but your stench is still remembered.
> Personal hygiene still sub-parr?
>
> On Jan 1 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> > BLAST FROM THE PAST
>
> // snip recycled smear on Chesscafe //
>
> > Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may mean
> > anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I
> > wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively debunked
> > several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
>
> Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. The
> difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing.
>
> > My strategy wa
>
> // snip on delusions //
>
> > difference between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent
> > dishonesty
>
> or your brand of dishonesty, which while always unintelligent is not
> always counterproductive?
>
> // snip further delusions //
>
> > <<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
> > separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
> > Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess writer:
> > to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
>
> Correct. Elsewhere RK provides a recommended line for one side while
> overlooking that there is a mate in three on the board.
>
> > Big deal. What book is perfect?
>
> Not yours and not Keene's, that's for sure.
>
> // snip usual anal fixation on Evans //
>
> > For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the Bulletin
> > Board editors.
>
> Good grief, your delusions of self-importance could not have been better
> illustrated than by the above.
>
> // snip on nonsense //
>
> > An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece. BUT:
> > "The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months.
> > Your proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word "also."
> > What was "also" wrong?
>
> Your failure to appreciate and understand the above helps those who do
> not know you to understand why your firing from CL was so inevitable.
>
> > I responded within minut
>
> // snip other delusions //
>
> > Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No one
> > was prepared to
>
> speak to an obsessive idiot.
>
> > The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given every
> > opportunity to air the laundry
>
> Attacking RK is like shooting fish in a barrel.
>
> // snip attempted and one-sided defenses of RK //
>
> > utterly unconscionable and moronic lies
>
> Using that mirror again, Liarry?
>
> > Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and myself.
>
> Evans was attacked, Gary was criticized. You were merely quoted.
> But since to quote you is to attack you, I figure you are right.
>
> > I wrote a 3,500-word "letter to the edi
>
> // another snip of delusions //
>
> > Edward Winter and the ratp
>
> // snip smear of one whose intellectual boots you are unfit to lick //
>
> > Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficult
>
> // snip more irrelevancies and confusion //
>
> > Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope so.
>
> See above. Mr. Kingston won't.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jan 2008 19:38:45
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 8, 8:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> INSPECTOR TAPPER ON THE CASE
>
> <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> so....
> Looks like he has.> -- Larry Parr
>
> <Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.> --
> Larry Tapper
>
> Duh. Like an anon wishing to hide his identity and abuse a foe is
> going to write in his accustomed style.
> Yeah. Right.
Mr. Innes seems to think so. Ask him.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jan 2008 17:36:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
INSPECTOR TAPPER ON THE CASE
<Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
so....
Looks like he has. > -- Larry Parr
<Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character. > --
Larry Tapper
Duh. Like an anon wishing to hide his identity and abuse a foe is
going to write in his accustomed style.
Yeah. Right.
Larry Tapper wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2:50?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > PRESERVING THIS ANON FOR POSTERITY
> >
> > <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> > so.> -- ?Larry Parr
> >
> > Looks like he has.
>
> Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
> Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
> intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
> use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.
>
> LT
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > You traveled across the world but your stench is still remembered.
> > > Personal hygiene still sub-parr?
> >
> > > On Jan 1 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > BLAST FROM THE PAST
> >
> > > // snip recycled smear on Chesscafe //
> >
> > > > Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may mean
> > > > anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I
> > > > wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively debunked
> > > > several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
> >
> > > Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. The
> > > difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing.
> >
> > > > My strategy wa
> >
> > > // snip on delusions //
> >
> > > > difference between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent
> > > > dishonesty
> >
> > > or your brand of dishonesty, which while always unintelligent is not
> > > always counterproductive?
> >
> > > // snip further delusions //
> >
> > > > <<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
> > > > separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
> > > > Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess writer:
> > > > to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
> >
> > > Correct. Elsewhere RK provides a recommended line for one side while
> > > overlooking that there is a mate in three on the board.
> >
> > > > Big deal. What book is perfect?
> >
> > > Not yours and not Keene's, that's for sure.
> >
> > > // snip usual anal fixation on Evans //
> >
> > > > For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the Bulletin
> > > > Board editors.
> >
> > > Good grief, your delusions of self-importance could not have been better
> > > illustrated than by the above.
> >
> > > // snip on nonsense //
> >
> > > > An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece. BUT:
> > > > "The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months.
> > > > Your proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word "also."
> > > > What was "also" wrong?
> >
> > > Your failure to appreciate and understand the above helps those who do
> > > not know you to understand why your firing from CL was so inevitable.
> >
> > > > I responded within minut
> >
> > > // snip other delusions //
> >
> > > > Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No one
> > > > was prepared to
> >
> > > ?speak to an obsessive idiot.
> >
> > > > The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given every
> > > > opportunity to air the laundry
> >
> > > Attacking RK is like shooting fish in a barrel.
> >
> > > // snip attempted and one-sided defenses of RK //
> >
> > > > utterly unconscionable and moronic lies
> >
> > > Using that mirror again, Liarry?
> >
> > > > Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and myself.
> >
> > > Evans was attacked, Gary was criticized. You were merely quoted.
> > > But since to quote you is to attack you, I figure you are right.
> >
> > > > I wrote a 3,500-word "letter to the edi
> >
> > > // another snip of delusions //
> >
> > > > Edward Winter and the ratp
> >
> > > // snip smear of one whose intellectual boots you are unfit to lick //
> >
> > > > Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficult
> >
> > > // snip more irrelevancies and confusion //
> >
> > > > Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope so.
> >
> > > See above. Mr. Kingston won't.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 08 Jan 2008 06:13:19
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
On Jan 8, 2:50=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> PRESERVING THIS ANON FOR POSTERITY
>
> <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> so.> -- =A0Larry Parr
>
> Looks like he has.
Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.
LT
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > You traveled across the world but your stench is still remembered.
> > Personal hygiene still sub-parr?
>
> > On Jan 1 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> > > BLAST FROM THE PAST
>
> > // snip recycled smear on Chesscafe //
>
> > > Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may mean
> > > anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I
> > > wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively debunke=
d
> > > several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
>
> > Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. The
> > difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing.
>
> > > My strategy wa
>
> > // snip on delusions //
>
> > > difference between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent
> > > dishonesty
>
> > or your brand of dishonesty, which while always unintelligent is not
> > always counterproductive?
>
> > // snip further delusions //
>
> > > <<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
> > > separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
> > > Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess writer:
> > > to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
>
> > Correct. Elsewhere RK provides a recommended line for one side while
> > overlooking that there is a mate in three on the board.
>
> > > Big deal. What book is perfect?
>
> > Not yours and not Keene's, that's for sure.
>
> > // snip usual anal fixation on Evans //
>
> > > For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the Bulletin=
> > > Board editors.
>
> > Good grief, your delusions of self-importance could not have been better=
> > illustrated than by the above.
>
> > // snip on nonsense //
>
> > > An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece. BUT:
> > > "The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months.
> > > Your proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word "also=
."
> > > What was "also" wrong?
>
> > Your failure to appreciate and understand the above helps those who do
> > not know you to understand why your firing from CL was so inevitable.
>
> > > I responded within minut
>
> > // snip other delusions //
>
> > > Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No one
> > > was prepared to
>
> > =A0speak to an obsessive idiot.
>
> > > The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given every
> > > opportunity to air the laundry
>
> > Attacking RK is like shooting fish in a barrel.
>
> > // snip attempted and one-sided defenses of RK //
>
> > > utterly unconscionable and moronic lies
>
> > Using that mirror again, Liarry?
>
> > > Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and myself.
>
> > Evans was attacked, Gary was criticized. You were merely quoted.
> > But since to quote you is to attack you, I figure you are right.
>
> > > I wrote a 3,500-word "letter to the edi
>
> > // another snip of delusions //
>
> > > Edward Winter and the ratp
>
> > // snip smear of one whose intellectual boots you are unfit to lick //
>
> > > Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficult
>
> > // snip more irrelevancies and confusion //
>
> > > Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope so.=
>
> > See above. Mr. Kingston won't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2008 09:30:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
"Larry Tapper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 8, 2:50 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> PRESERVING THIS ANON FOR POSTERITY
>
> <Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
> so.> -- Larry Parr
>
> Looks like he has.
Not at all. I don't know who gr... is, but it would be totally un-
Winterlike to write a heavy-handed line like "smear of one whose
intellectual boots you are unfit to lick", referring to himself. The
use of Bibuld's epithet "Liarry" is also quite out of character.
LT
**I agree with LT. In fact, syntactically it is very like a common [in 2
senses] abusenik de nos jours. Phil Innes
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > You traveled across the world but your stench is still remembered.
> > Personal hygiene still sub-parr?
>
> > On Jan 1 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> > > BLAST FROM THE PAST
>
> > // snip recycled smear on Chesscafe //
>
> > > Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may mean
> > > anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I
> > > wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively
> > > debunked
> > > several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
>
> > Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. The
> > difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing.
>
> > > My strategy wa
>
> > // snip on delusions //
>
> > > difference between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent
> > > dishonesty
>
> > or your brand of dishonesty, which while always unintelligent is not
> > always counterproductive?
>
> > // snip further delusions //
>
> > > <<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
> > > separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
> > > Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess writer:
> > > to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
>
> > Correct. Elsewhere RK provides a recommended line for one side while
> > overlooking that there is a mate in three on the board.
>
> > > Big deal. What book is perfect?
>
> > Not yours and not Keene's, that's for sure.
>
> > // snip usual anal fixation on Evans //
>
> > > For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the Bulletin
> > > Board editors.
>
> > Good grief, your delusions of self-importance could not have been better
> > illustrated than by the above.
>
> > // snip on nonsense //
>
> > > An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece. BUT:
> > > "The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months.
> > > Your proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word
> > > "also."
> > > What was "also" wrong?
>
> > Your failure to appreciate and understand the above helps those who do
> > not know you to understand why your firing from CL was so inevitable.
>
> > > I responded within minut
>
> > // snip other delusions //
>
> > > Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No one
> > > was prepared to
>
> > speak to an obsessive idiot.
>
> > > The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given every
> > > opportunity to air the laundry
>
> > Attacking RK is like shooting fish in a barrel.
>
> > // snip attempted and one-sided defenses of RK //
>
> > > utterly unconscionable and moronic lies
>
> > Using that mirror again, Liarry?
>
> > > Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and myself.
>
> > Evans was attacked, Gary was criticized. You were merely quoted.
> > But since to quote you is to attack you, I figure you are right.
>
> > > I wrote a 3,500-word "letter to the edi
>
> > // another snip of delusions //
>
> > > Edward Winter and the ratp
>
> > // snip smear of one whose intellectual boots you are unfit to lick //
>
> > > Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficult
>
> > // snip more irrelevancies and confusion //
>
> > > Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope so.
>
> > See above. Mr. Kingston won't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2008 23:50:23
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
PRESERVING THIS ANON FOR POSTERITY
<Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope
so. > -- Larry Parr
Looks like he has.
[email protected] wrote:
> You traveled across the world but your stench is still remembered.
> Personal hygiene still sub-parr?
>
> On Jan 1 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> > BLAST FROM THE PAST
>
> // snip recycled smear on Chesscafe //
>
> > Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may mean
> > anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I
> > wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively debunked
> > several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
>
> Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. The
> difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing.
>
> > My strategy wa
>
> // snip on delusions //
>
> > difference between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent
> > dishonesty
>
> or your brand of dishonesty, which while always unintelligent is not
> always counterproductive?
>
> // snip further delusions //
>
> > <<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
> > separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
> > Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess writer:
> > to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
>
> Correct. Elsewhere RK provides a recommended line for one side while
> overlooking that there is a mate in three on the board.
>
> > Big deal. What book is perfect?
>
> Not yours and not Keene's, that's for sure.
>
> // snip usual anal fixation on Evans //
>
> > For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the Bulletin
> > Board editors.
>
> Good grief, your delusions of self-importance could not have been better
> illustrated than by the above.
>
> // snip on nonsense //
>
> > An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece. BUT:
> > "The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months.
> > Your proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word "also."
> > What was "also" wrong?
>
> Your failure to appreciate and understand the above helps those who do
> not know you to understand why your firing from CL was so inevitable.
>
> > I responded within minut
>
> // snip other delusions //
>
> > Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No one
> > was prepared to
>
> speak to an obsessive idiot.
>
> > The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given every
> > opportunity to air the laundry
>
> Attacking RK is like shooting fish in a barrel.
>
> // snip attempted and one-sided defenses of RK //
>
> > utterly unconscionable and moronic lies
>
> Using that mirror again, Liarry?
>
> > Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and myself.
>
> Evans was attacked, Gary was criticized. You were merely quoted.
> But since to quote you is to attack you, I figure you are right.
>
> > I wrote a 3,500-word "letter to the edi
>
> // another snip of delusions //
>
> > Edward Winter and the ratp
>
> // snip smear of one whose intellectual boots you are unfit to lick //
>
> > Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficult
>
> // snip more irrelevancies and confusion //
>
> > Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope so.
>
> See above. Mr. Kingston won't.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jan 2008 05:19:28
From:
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
You traveled across the world but your stench is still remembered.
Personal hygiene still sub-parr?
On Jan 1 2008, [email protected] wrote:
> BLAST FROM THE PAST
// snip recycled smear on Chesscafe //
> Love that word, "inappropriate." It is a lawyer's word that may mean
> anything. I discovered one of its definitions this past May when I
> wrote a long posting for thread No. 317 that quite effectively debunked
> several attacks on and attackers of Ray Keene.
Keene's standards of research and diligence are similar to yours. The
difference is that you can barely play chess. You debunked nothing.
> My strategy wa
// snip on delusions //
> difference between counterproductive dishonesty and intelligent
> dishonesty
or your brand of dishonesty, which while always unintelligent is not
always counterproductive?
// snip further delusions //
> <<3 Great Mistakes. "We have seen, for instance, that in three
> separate games (Quesada v Prins, Borochow v Fine and Thomas v
> Michell) he failed in that most elementary task of a chess writer:
> to know who won and who lost." (Winter)
Correct. Elsewhere RK provides a recommended line for one side while
overlooking that there is a mate in three on the board.
> Big deal. What book is perfect?
Not yours and not Keene's, that's for sure.
// snip usual anal fixation on Evans //
> For some 16 hours, I received no response whatsoever from the Bulletin
> Board editors.
Good grief, your delusions of self-importance could not have been better
illustrated than by the above.
// snip on nonsense //
> An answer came quickly. They had indeed received my Keene piece. BUT:
> "The thread is being terminated tomorrow after almost two months.
> Your proposed submission is also much too long." Notice the word "also."
> What was "also" wrong?
Your failure to appreciate and understand the above helps those who do
not know you to understand why your firing from CL was so inevitable.
> I responded within minut
// snip other delusions //
> Evidently someone did "mind." Because: No response. Because: No one
> was prepared to
speak to an obsessive idiot.
> The attackers against Raymond Keene's doings should be given every
> opportunity to air the laundry
Attacking RK is like shooting fish in a barrel.
// snip attempted and one-sided defenses of RK //
> utterly unconscionable and moronic lies
Using that mirror again, Liarry?
> Among those attacked were GM Larry Evans, Garry Kasparov and myself.
Evans was attacked, Gary was criticized. You were merely quoted.
But since to quote you is to attack you, I figure you are right.
> I wrote a 3,500-word "letter to the edi
// another snip of delusions //
> Edward Winter and the ratp
// snip smear of one whose intellectual boots you are unfit to lick //
> Some 140 years ago, Daniel Harrwitz experienced enormous difficult
// snip more irrelevancies and confusion //
> Will Mr. Winter appear on this totally level playing field? I hope so.
See above. Mr. Kingston won't.
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2008 05:16:55
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
GM RAY KEENE ON EDWARD WINTER
<Thus, this is all ancient history. > -- Sam Sloan
Since then of course ChessCafe and Winter have fallen out.
For some unkown reason Chessbase now offer Winter's drivel a forum. He
is no more an historian than was Autolycus in the "Winters Tale" --- a
self confessed snapper up of unconsidered trifles.
samsloan wrote:
> This is a serious matter, because Chess Cafe was awarded the
> concession rights to handle the entire USCF Books and Equipment
> business. They should not be allowed to use that position to attack
> prominent chess writers such as Grandmaster Keene and Grandmaster
> Evans.
>
> Then, when ChessCafe was unable to forgive its indebtedness in the
> amount of $185,000 to the USCF, the USCF Executive Board "forgave"
> that debt and negotiated a new contract with ChessCafe which requires
> it to pay only $150,000 per year.
>
> However, there is another problem in that the above article was first
> published on August 25, 2001, which is 6 years ago. Thus, this is all
> ancient history.
>
> After a search, I was able to find one of the referenced articles at
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles161.pdf
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2008 02:06:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Facts about ChessCafe
|
This is a serious matter, because Chess Cafe was awarded the
concession rights to handle the entire USCF Books and Equipment
business. They should not be allowed to use that position to attack
prominent chess writers such as Grandmaster Keene and Grandmaster
Evans.
Then, when ChessCafe was unable to forgive its indebtedness in the
amount of $185,000 to the USCF, the USCF Executive Board "forgave"
that debt and negotiated a new contract with ChessCafe which requires
it to pay only $150,000 per year.
However, there is another problem in that the above article was first
published on August 25, 2001, which is 6 years ago. Thus, this is all
ancient history.
After a search, I was able to find one of the referenced articles at
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles161.pdf
Sam Sloan
|
|
