| |
Main
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:40:55
From:
Subject: The Kingson Files
|
I admit, even with such a vague abuser as Kingston himself, I have
refrained 7 years from exposing what he wrote me as e-mail.
But now and again he likes to combine a vague [naturally] denial of
his own postings with commentary that others are lying, to the damage
of other people. I think this is not OK, and but a reliance on the
character of others, rather than himself.
I offer Taylor Kingston to admit his attentions to me, on the subjects
of Jew-baiting and suppressions in the SU - in the Averbakh
correspondence, and secondly to his attentions to Larry Evans and
Richard Laurie, and what Larry Parr said on their behests thereafter.
Should Taylor Kingston intimate even the slightest wish to contest he
voluntarily wrote me on these subjects, then shared his opinions by e-
mail in broader issue with those he thought would consort with him, I
in turn will publish his e-mails here, and challenge him to refute
that he sent them, by reference to our mutual server records - rather
than to his liking or not to his own content.
That is the basis of my challenge.
Let the brave mouth reply, or contest nothing further.
I do not accuse him of being other than opportunistic in petty-
journalistic sense in both instances, but his own messages may indite
him further, and to what end he should best consider himself. The
issue now to be determined is by his own /unequivocal/ wish.
Should no message from him be evidenced here, I will say no more. If
it cavils upon any fact or condition, then, I take that as legal
challenge and shall provide both message and source.
I do not restrict my actions here to merely reporting what is in fact,
as I understand it to be so.
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2009 20:04:54
From: madams
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 9:39 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 8:02 pm, madams <[email protected]> wrote:
.
> > > Throw it away & play something else for a change - Blind Faith or J.
> > > McLaughlin for examps. ..
> >
> > John McGlaughlin, the great guitarist?
Yes - that's the chap or 'mahavishnu'. I too figured there was a 'G'
somewhere in McLaughlin, but apparently not..
There's another dude called Jon McLaughlin too, but he's only 26 - so
not him..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McLaughlin_(musician)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith
m.
> > Loved his album
> > "Extrapolation" (1970, as I recall) but gradually lost interest when
> > he got religion. Blind Faith, alas, no. A total much less than the sum
> > of its parts. Clapton seemed to be playing with hadcuffs on.
>
> Correction: the 1970 McLaughlin album I was thinking of was
> "Devotion," not "Extrapolation," which he released in 1969. A sort of
> fusion of jazz and heavy-metal sounds.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2009 06:55:27
From:
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files
|
On Jan 28, 9:39=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 8:02=A0pm, madams <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 5:47 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > .
> > > > =A0 Phil, you need help. Get it. Quickly.
>
> > > > =A0 BTW, please learn to spell my name correctly.
>
> > > For the record: here is aversion to factual matter and instead a
> > > defamatory comment. Pi
>
> > This record is old & scratched - the needle is stuck in a groove & keep=
s
> > playing the same thing over & over again..
>
> > Throw it away & play something else for a change - Blind Faith or J.
> > McLaughlin for examps. ..
>
> =A0 John McGlaughlin, the great guitarist? Loved his album
> "Extrapolation" (1970, as I recall) but gradually lost interest when
> he got religion. Blind Faith, alas, no. A total much less than the sum
> of its parts. Clapton seemed to be playing with hadcuffs on.
Correction: the 1970 McLaughlin album I was thinking of was
"Devotion," not "Extrapolation," which he released in 1969. A sort of
fusion of jazz and heavy-metal sounds.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2009 06:39:48
From:
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files
|
On Jan 27, 8:02=A0pm, madams <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 5:47 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> .
> > > =A0 Phil, you need help. Get it. Quickly.
>
> > > =A0 BTW, please learn to spell my name correctly.
>
> > For the record: here is aversion to factual matter and instead a
> > defamatory comment. Pi
>
> This record is old & scratched - the needle is stuck in a groove & keeps
> playing the same thing over & over again..
>
> Throw it away & play something else for a change - Blind Faith or J.
> McLaughlin for examps. ..
John McGlaughlin, the great guitarist? Loved his album
"Extrapolation" (1970, as I recall) but gradually lost interest when
he got religion. Blind Faith, alas, no. A total much less than the sum
of its parts. Clapton seemed to be playing with hadcuffs on.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2009 12:02:05
From: madams
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 5:47 pm, [email protected] wrote:
.
> > Phil, you need help. Get it. Quickly.
> >
> > BTW, please learn to spell my name correctly.
>
> For the record: here is aversion to factual matter and instead a
> defamatory comment. Pi
This record is old & scratched - the needle is stuck in a groove & keeps
playing the same thing over & over again..
Throw it away & play something else for a change - Blind Faith or J.
McLaughlin for examps. ..
m.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 16:48:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files
|
On Jan 27, 5:47=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> =A0 Phil, you need help. Get it. Quickly.
>
> =A0 BTW, please learn to spell my name correctly
I, too, noticed the faux pas in Dr. IMnes' spelling.
Here, for the record, is the correct spelling, to the
best of my knowledge:
"Brave Mouth".
Note how the first letter of both first and last
names are capitalized, as is customary; this is
precisely where Dr. IMnes had blundered.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 16:40:23
From:
Subject: Re: The Kingson Files
|
On Jan 27, 5:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I do not restrict my actions here to merely reporting what is in fact,
> as I understand it to be so.
>
> Phil Innes
For once our Phil speaks truly. He has seldom restricted his
"reporting" to facts.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 15:18:12
From:
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files
|
On Jan 27, 5:47=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > I admit, even with such a vague abuser as Kingston himself, I have
> > refrained 7 years from exposing what he wrote me as e-mail.
>
> > But now and again he likes to combine a vague [naturally] denial of
> > his own postings with commentary that others are lying, to the damage
> > of other people. I think this is not OK, and but a reliance on the
> > character of others, rather than himself.
>
> > I offer Taylor Kingston to admit his attentions to me, on the subjects
> > of Jew-baiting and suppressions in the SU - in the Averbakh
> > correspondence, and secondly to his attentions to Larry Evans and
> > Richard Laurie, and what Larry Parr said on their behests thereafter.
>
> > Should Taylor Kingston intimate even the slightest wish to contest he
> > voluntarily wrote me on these subjects, then shared his opinions by e-
> > mail in broader issue with those he thought would consort with him, I
> > in turn will publish his e-mails here, and challenge him to refute
> > that he sent them, by reference to our mutual server records - rather
> > than to his liking or not to his own content.
>
> > That is the basis of my challenge.
>
> > Let the brave mouth reply, or contest nothing further.
>
> > I do not accuse him of being other than opportunistic in petty-
> > journalistic sense in both instances, but his own messages may indite
> > him further, and to what end he should best consider himself. The
> > issue now to be determined is by his own /unequivocal/ wish.
>
> > Should no message from him be evidenced here, I will say no more. If
> > it cavils upon any fact or condition, then, I take that as legal
> > challenge and shall provide both message and source.
>
> > I do not restrict my actions here to merely reporting what is in fact,
> > as I understand it to be so.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> =A0 Phil, you need help. Get it. Quickly.
>
> =A0 BTW, please learn to spell my name correctly.
For the record: here is aversion to factual matter and instead a
defamatory comment. Pi
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:47:06
From:
Subject: Re: The Kingston Files
|
On Jan 27, 5:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I admit, even with such a vague abuser as Kingston himself, I have
> refrained 7 years from exposing what he wrote me as e-mail.
>
> But now and again he likes to combine a vague [naturally] denial of
> his own postings with commentary that others are lying, to the damage
> of other people. I think this is not OK, and but a reliance on the
> character of others, rather than himself.
>
> I offer Taylor Kingston to admit his attentions to me, on the subjects
> of Jew-baiting and suppressions in the SU - in the Averbakh
> correspondence, and secondly to his attentions to Larry Evans and
> Richard Laurie, and what Larry Parr said on their behests thereafter.
>
> Should Taylor Kingston intimate even the slightest wish to contest he
> voluntarily wrote me on these subjects, then shared his opinions by e-
> mail in broader issue with those he thought would consort with him, I
> in turn will publish his e-mails here, and challenge him to refute
> that he sent them, by reference to our mutual server records - rather
> than to his liking or not to his own content.
>
> That is the basis of my challenge.
>
> Let the brave mouth reply, or contest nothing further.
>
> I do not accuse him of being other than opportunistic in petty-
> journalistic sense in both instances, but his own messages may indite
> him further, and to what end he should best consider himself. The
> issue now to be determined is by his own /unequivocal/ wish.
>
> Should no message from him be evidenced here, I will say no more. If
> it cavils upon any fact or condition, then, I take that as legal
> challenge and shall provide both message and source.
>
> I do not restrict my actions here to merely reporting what is in fact,
> as I understand it to be so.
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, you need help. Get it. Quickly.
BTW, please learn to spell my name correctly.
|
|
