Parr, embrace Sloan's self-decribed conduct or distance yourself from it....

[politi...@gmail.com]

though I suspect you'll find a third option. :-)

Kindly examine Slothrop's recent posts and reconsider your stance.

[jame...@aol.com]

To reconsider you have to be able to consider; Larry Parr simply lacks
the mental apparatus to do so. Why tease the inept? It isn't Parr's
fault he has the reasoning ability of a child.

[Taylor Kingston]

I would disagree with you there, J.R. The flaw is not lack of
reasoning ability but Parr's habitual double standard. Somewhat like
Nietszche's "master morality" and "slave morality," Parr evaluates
things differently depending on who does them.
When discussing someone he finds disagreeable, no flaw is too trivial
for Parr to condemn. But when the person in question is an ally of Parr
(Sloan being a prime example), it seems that virtually anything short
of murder or armed robbery can be excused, rationalized, or at least
ignored.
Furthermore, when discussing an adversary, Parr often feels free to
invent sins they have not committed, while for an ally, he will invent
virtues they seldom or never demonstrate. It's simply spin and
flim-flam. It has nothing to do with logic or reasoning ability, and I
feel sure Parr is quite aware and consciously chooses to do it.

[LiamToo]

politi...@gmail.com wrote:
> though I suspect you'll find a third option. :-)
>
> Kindly examine Slothrop's recent posts and reconsider your stance.

"I am not trying to prove that the girl was young. For all we know, Sam

could have thought she was younger but she might have been actually 25
or something. Asians sometimes appear younger than they are when judged

by those from the West.

I am only commenting on Sam's intent to *portray* her as young and
underaged when he had sex with her. This is the intent that made him
use the phrase "junior high" when referring to her photo when
addressing a largely Western readership on his website who would
understandably draw certain conclusions from the reference to such a
very specific division of school. " --Tyrone Slothrop 01-31-06 08:29 AM

The above quote is the latest post by Tyrone Slothrop. It has been
examined and re-examined, what would Parr need to reconsider?

[jame...@aol.com]

Hmm, TK, I would say that such adherence to a double standard does show
a lack of reasoning resembling the way in which a child would think.
Parr views the world in polar opposites, and shows little ability to
reason in so called "gray areas" which require at least a modicum of
abstract thought.

I simply think he is in a state of permanent arrested mental
development, never having progressed say, past the stage of
pre-adolescence. His need to use flowery language which detracts from
his "points" more than it adds to those snippets of illogic is an ego
booster, a way of feeling he is smarter than the rest of us.

My point is to simply let him do his little cockwalk and ignore it; by
this point his mental decline(if he ever reached any higher state of
reasoning) is probably irreversible, with little he can do about it. So
I say let the mad manchild rant - let him and Philsy discuss all the
ills of chess while ignoring their own.

Yet if he is cognizant of what he is doing, as you state, does that
make him any less the fool?

[Say No To g4]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Parr, embrace Sloan's self-described conduct or distance yourself from it....

Now we all know that if either Parr, Innes, or myself wrote something
similar, our dear Louie would be all over this forum demanding quotes
to back up our statements. But, our dear Louie does not apply the same
standard to TK, so in the best interests of fairness, I will ask the tough
questions.

> I would disagree with you there, J.R. The flaw is not lack of
> reasoning ability but Parr's habitual double standard. Somewhat like
> Nietszche's "master morality" and "slave morality," Parr evaluates
> things differently depending on who does them.
> When discussing someone he finds disagreeable, no flaw is too trivial
> for Parr to condemn.

Yet TK provides no examples of Parr's double standard. TK provides
no quotes showing Parr condemning the trivial flaws of those he disagrees
with. Does TK expect us to accept his statements without any proof?
And doesn't TK's statement of double standard apply more to our dear
Louie? Perhaps TK has mistaken Parr for the Blair bot?

But when the person in question is an ally of Parr
> (Sloan being a prime example), it seems that virtually anything short
> of murder or armed robbery can be excused, rationalized, or at least
> ignored.

Can TK provide examples of conduct short of murder or armed robbery
that LP has excused or rationalized when it's his ally? Could it be that TK
has none? And while we're at it, does our TK or Louie question the conduct
of their allies with the same fervor as they question the conduct of Parr's
supporters?

> Furthermore, when discussing an adversary, Parr often feels free to
> invent sins they have not committed, while for an ally, he will invent

Once again, TK provides no examples or quotes illustrating "invented sins."
Why? Because such "invented sins" do not exist. Looks like TK is the one
inventing sins.

> virtues they seldom or never demonstrate. It's simply spin and
> flim-flam. It has nothing to do with logic or reasoning ability, and I
> feel sure Parr is quite aware and consciously chooses to do it.
>

What "virtues" of his allies has Parr invented? Again TK fails to provide
examples. Why? Because TK has none.

So I wonder - does TK have any idea of what he is talking about? Or is
TK practicing what he calls "spin and flim-flam?"

[Taylor Kingston]

You seem to be remarkably uninformed on this subject. Your comments
are like saying "President Bush and Iraq? Since when? What examples do
you have of Bush saying or doing anything about Iraq?"
Over the past 6 or 8 years, I and others have produced many examples
of what I have described. I am not interested in spoon-feeding newbies
or those feigning ignorance, so I suggest you do your own research.

[Louis Blair]

SayNoTog4 wrote (Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:09:36 -0500):

> we all know that if either Parr, Innes, or myself wrote
> something similar, our dear Louie would be all over
> this forum demanding quotes to back up our
> statements. But, our dear Louie does not apply the
> same standard to TK,

_
Does SayNoTog4 apply his own standards to Larry
Parr? Does he demand evidence from Larry Parr
when LP posts an attack without providing the
evidence?

_

SayNoTog4 wrote (Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:09:36 -0500):

> TK provides no examples of Parr's double standard.

_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"... I suggest our historians also widen
their search a bit because Winter's Chess
Notes is not the universe of chess ...
_
Edward Winter in former times also was
very very active in writing to chess
magazines. Try looking there too, guys ..."
- GM Keene quote reported by Larry
Parr (27 Jan 2006 00:20:00 -0800)
_
_
"Larry Parr ..., this time around, is content to
present GM Keene's words without comment
... If Larry Parr and GM Keene do not have an
Edward Winter BCO-ghosting quote, why
don't they admit it clearly?
...
In the past, in response to attacks by others,
Larry Parr has written things like:
_
'The man makes a charge without
providing a scintilla of evidence, let
alone proof'
_
and:
_
'[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear.' - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)
_
Why isn't currently-silent Larry Parr saying
anything like that now?" - Louis Blair
(27 Jan 2006 07:48:47 -0800)

_

SayNoTog4 wrote (Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:09:36 -0500):

> Can TK provide examples of conduct short of murder
> or armed robbery that LP has excused or rationalized
> when it's his ally?

_
Same incident:
_
"I warrant that most readers understand the
gravamen of Edward Winter's rhetorical
question: 'Is his name [Kasparov's] there
more for sales than for merit?'" - Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 20:41:33 -0800)
_
Larry Parr chose not to be specific about
this "gravamen" that he claimed "most readers"
understand, and, of course, his note did not
quote the "ghost" claim that was being
questioned.

_

SayNoTog4 wrote (Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:09:36 -0500):

> does our TK or Louie question the conduct of
> their allies with the same fervor as they question
> the conduct of Parr's supporters?

_
Does SayNoTog4 question the conduct of Larry Parr
with the same fervor as he questions me or TK?
And how about Larry Parr? Did he have anything
to say about Sam Sloan and the Holiday Quiz
incident?
_
"Taylor Kingston is involved with USCF Sales
and is the perpetrator of the blacklist."
- Sam Sloan (Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:11:53 GMT)
_
"No one [at USCF Sales] consults me on what
to stock in the catalog. I have never 'perpetrated'
any 'blacklist' of chess authors, or of anyone else."
- Taylor Kingston (22 Dec 2005 12:32:53 -0800)
_
Sam Sloan's accusation continued to appear on a
Wikipedia discussion page.
_
"I have had no involvment ever with USCF Sales,
except for buying the occasional book." - Taylor
Kingston (28 Dec 2005 09:31:43 -0800)
_
"If that is the case, then kindly explain why when
I look at the chesscafe.com website I see the
words "Taylor Kingston & Hanon Russell"
prominently displayed at the top." - Sam Sloan
(Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:09:39 GMT)
_
"It's the 9th Annual ChessCafe Holiday Quiz. I
wrote most of it, Hanon Russell the rest. Been
doing that for eight years now. Has nothing to do
with USCF Sales." - Taylor Kingston (28 Dec 2005
10:29:37 -0800)
_
"I suggest looking at www.chesscafe.com and
seeing that what it actually says there is
"Holiday Quiz by Taylor Kingston & Hanon
Russell". - Louis Blair (29 Dec 2005
03:30:41 -0800)

_

SayNoTog4 wrote (Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:09:36 -0500):

> TK provides no examples or quotes illustrating
> "invented sins."

_
"Louis Blair's essential dishonesty has been to
quote statements by this writer in which he left
out the 'as' or 'like' words referring to similes."
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 09:00:03 -0700)
_
Larry Parr gave no evidence at all. On 14 Jun 2005
12:46:41 -0700, I pointed out that I had not contributed
any quotes to the discussion that involved 'as' or 'like'
words. Larry Parr came back with:
_
"So, then, Louie Blair did indeed post some
'names' that I allegedly called that included
as 'as' and 'like' similes.
_
That's called dishonest." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2005 20:07:48 -0700)
_
Still "without a shred of evidence" and still wrong.
I complained again on 15 Jun 2005 13:07:10 -0700,
and I saw nothing further from Larry Parr on the
subject.

_

SayNoTog4 wrote (Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:09:36 -0500):

> What "virtues" of his allies has Parr invented?

_
"I will take a Sam Sloan any day, who goes about
correcting his errors ..." - Larry Parr (6 Nov 2005
18:25:29 -0800)
_
"Sam Sloan ... makes corrections, makes
admissions ..." - Larry Parr (1 Nov 2005
17:26:27 -0800)
_
"What Sam does, he does openly." - Larry Parr
(23 Oct 2005 19:26:10 -0700)

[parrt...@cs.com]

ESCAPE FROM NOLANLAND

Bill Brock has once again escaped from Nolanland.
He broke out of his restraint, managed to cut through
the wire fence with his e-cutters and is back at rgcp
after promising to leave us for greener pastures.

Once again, we note there is no proof offered
that Sam Sloan has had sex with children. Nothing
that would stand up in court.

There is no definition offered of what constitutes a child.
My view is that Mr. Brock is telling us more about himself
with these preposterous expostulations than he is about Mr. Sloan.

[politi...@gmail.com]

I'm not interested in pressing charges, Parr.

I'm interested in knowing how you defend your celebration of Sloan, who
claims to have had sex with a girl of junior-high-school age. Either
he had sex with a girl of junior high school age, or he wants the world
to believe it. (Or you could amuse us with the tortured parsings that
are possible--we could use a giggle. If you have the stomach to
examine Slothrop's evidence, you shouldn't be offended by Sloan's
Pokémon porn pages.)

The more we know about you and Sloan, the less relevant the two of you
become.

Do child molesters deserve a shot at redemption (far, far away from
children)? You bet.

While they're still bragging about their past conquests of junior high
school girls? One thinks not.

Two thousand words (some of them on-topic), chop chop.

Or you could....

But that would assume that you....

[politi...@gmail.com]

**possible duplicate: Google glitch**

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/f046de2e879789a8

I'm sure that in your circles and Parr's, folks enjoy swapping stories
(probably right after having listened to Fibber McGee) about their
sexual encounters as adults with junior-high-school-aged girls.

Because everyone is a liar, it's understood to be a story told just for
fun!

[politi...@gmail.com]

Do people who have previously acted as apologists for child molesters
deserve a shot at redemption?

You bet.

But first....

[politi...@gmail.com]

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/f046de2e879789a8

Perhaps in your circles, LiamToo, your middle-aged friends create
websites in which they brag about their sexual conquests of junior-high
school girls.

It's perfectly OK, because no one is serious--all your friends are
habitual liars--and it's understood to be good clean fun!

[help bot]

"The more we know about you and Sloan, the less relevant the two of you
become.

Do child molesters deserve a shot at redemption (far, far away from
children)? You bet.

While they're still bragging about their past conquests of junior high
school girls? One thinks not."

I see no reason why child molesters could not be given a second
chance; there are plenty of weather monitoring stations in Antartica
which need to be manned, deep-ocean oil rigs which could use some extra
help, and I hear they are planning an extensive, close-up underwater
study of great white sharks.... :)

[parrt...@cs.com]

SMEARS AND OBSESSIONS

Bill Brock is at large. Nolanland was not big enough
for this obsessed member of the USCF Finance Committee.

So Mr. Brock has rejoined us. Back here at
rgcp. Posting obsessively message after message about
the alleged doings of Sam Sloan, smears which we must keep
firmly in mind remain unproven.

Now, then, did I not tell all of you that Mr.
Brock would reappear here as a psycho-ceramic or, if
you will, a cracked pot after a stint in Nolanland?
Did I not predict his return? Did I not imply he
might be goofier and, certainly, more distraught than
when he left us?

The real villain here is not Mr. Brock. He is a
victim. Mike Nolan is the malefactor who has driven
Mr. Sloan's defeated opponent to the brink. I hope
that Mr. Nolan feels satisfied. I hope he can sleep
at night, considering what he has done to a fellow creature.

How cruel of Mr. Nolan, how doubly cruel of Joel
Channing and the entire USCF leadership, for creating
an e-place that we call Nolanland, which drives
distracted men to e-drophobia.

[politi...@gmail.com]

Forget about what Sloan has done, Parr.

What has Sloan *claimed* to have done in the web page referenced by
Slothrop?

http://www.ishipress.com/girlsgot.htm

Do you recognize one of the faces?

http://www.samsloan.com/burmese2.htm

What do you make of this sentence? "The question is: Would you rather
have your daughter living this life style, working in a whore house, or
would you rather have her taking dope while attending junior high
school in America?"

http://www.samsloan.com/burmese.htm

Celebrate the sexual exploitation of children, Larry Parr! It's the
path Sloan sings, it's the lifestyle you defend so vigorously.

2000 words, chop chop.

Happy to discuss substantive issues in Nolanland....

[jr]

What has any of this to do with chess?

Didn't we go through all this crap before the last USCF election?

Is Bill Brock really chairman of the USCF Finance Committee?

Obviously this guy is off his meds again.

[politi...@gmail.com]

jr would like to see USCF adopt a laissez-faire policy towards child
molesters.

I disagree.

Nite!

[Jerzy]

He is an utter moron. Just Kill File him.

[politi...@gmail.com]

Yes, killfile the evidence so Parr won't have to discuss his apologia
for child molestation.

Do you approve of Sloan's conduct, Jerzy?

[Jerzy]

I do not approve of your behaviour, moron.

[Say No To g4]

>
> You seem to be remarkably uninformed on this subject. Your comments
> are like saying "President Bush and Iraq? Since when? What examples do
> you have of Bush saying or doing anything about Iraq?"
> Over the past 6 or 8 years, I and others have produced many examples
> of what I have described. I am not interested in spoon-feeding newbies
> or those feigning ignorance, so I suggest you do your own research.
>

I take it that you don't like to be Blairbotted? That's OK, you don't have
to produce any examples to back up your accusations. No. Just go and
hide in your little shell where it's safe.

[Taylor Kingston]

Say No To g4 wrote:

None are so blind as those who will not see. In case you haven't
noticed, Parr's long-running defense of Sloan's, um, proclivities,
repeated yet again in this thread, is an excellent example of what I'm
talking about. Imagine if, say, Randy Bauer or Edward Winter had a
web-site with comparable content. Do you honestly think Parr would be
so lenient?
As for my point about Parr's tendency to invest his allies with
virtues they do not possess, we have this example:

"[Sam Sloan] usually issues immediate corrections and often thanks
nasty correspondents for information they provide." -- Parr, 22 April
2005, repeated 30 September 2005

As for Parr's tendency to accuse adversaries of sins they have not
committed, we have this example:

"One of the sillier things stated by Taylor Kingston in a ChessCafe
piece was that no one dared to defy Stalin's orders if he were in the
dictator's grasp." -- Parr, 16 February 2002.
In fact I have never written any such thing. As it turned out, there
are two people who have. One was -- wait for it -- Larry Parr! (Search
for it yourself on Google -- it will be good practice for you.)
The other was Parr's buddy Larry Evans: "And what is one of my
'assumptions'? That no Soviet citizen dared defy an order from Stalin
on pain of death." -- Evans, Chess Life, 12/2001.
So we have Parr calling me "silly" for something I never said, while
Evans, who did actually say it, is repeatedly venerated by Parr. An
excellent example of what I'm talking about, demonstrating Parr's
willingness to fabricate and take both sides of a double standard.

> No. Just go and
> hide in your little shell where it's safe.

Excuse me? I'm posting here under my own name. What's yours?

[jr]

*What has any of this to do with chess? Didn't we go through
all this crap before the last USCF election?* -- jr

*jr would like to see USCF adopt a laissez-faire policy towards child
molesters.* (Bill Brock)

Bill Brock is on a rampage and is clearly off his meds again.

So anyone who actually wants to talk about chess on these
chess forums instead of smears and character assassination is
now accused of being in favor of child molesters.

Where is Senator McCarthy when we need him?

*Excuse me? I'm posting here under my own name. What's yours?*
(Taylor Kingston to Say No To g4)

So the man who lied here publicly about his rating and used a
variety
of pseudonyms such as Xylothist and Paulie Graf (yet he still denies
it despite evidence to the contrary) now claims to be holier than the
Pope.

Will wonders never cease?

[Louis Blair]

Responding to a Taylor Kingston note,
SayNoTog4 wrote (Tue, 28 Feb 2006
08:19:44 -0500):

> you don't have to produce any examples
> to back up your accusations. No. Just go
> and hide in your little shell where it's safe.

_
Does SayNoTog4 intend his advice for
Larry Parr, too?

[Louis Blair]

Results of a Google search for rgcp "holier than the pope" quotes:
_
"holier than the Pope" - jr (28 Feb 2006 06:39:06 -0800)
_
"holier than the pope" - Larry Parr (14 Feb 2003 08:21:18 GMT)
_
"Holier than the Pope" - Larry Parr (23 Dec 2002 05:12:53 GMT)
_
"holier than the Pope" - Larry Parr (28 Jan 2002 15:14:28 GMT)
_
"holier than the Pope" - Larry Parr (09 Jul 2001 05:10:23 GMT)
_
"Holier than the Pope" - Larry Parr (1999/10/12)
_
"holier than the pope" - Larry Parr (1999/04/27)
_
"holier than the pope" - Larry Parr (1998/03/12)
_
"holier than the pope" - Larry Parr (1995/12/15)

[LiamToo]

Nope, not me I don't brag about sexual encounters. I don't know Sam
Sloan nor Larry Parr personally and vice versa. If you didn't
understand any of the above statements, let me know so that I can
elaborate further.

Your obsession about sexual encounters is leading me to believe
something else. I just hope and pray that you don't have any daughters.

[fed up]

Holier than the Pope

This expression is so rare that Google only shows 166,000
references to it.

[Taylor Kingston]

jr wrote:
> *Excuse me? I'm posting here under my own name. What's yours?*
> (Taylor Kingston to Say No To g4)
>
> So the man who lied here publicly about his rating and used a
> variety
> of pseudonyms such as Xylothist and Paulie Graf (yet he still denies
> it despite evidence to the contrary) now claims to be holier than the
> Pope.

Um, where in "I'm posting here under my own name. What's yours?" do
you find any claim to holiness, ultra-papal or otherwise?

[jr]

* Um, where in "I'm posting here under my own name. What's yours?" do

you find any claim to holiness, ultra-papal or otherwise? I'm posting

here under my own name. What's yours?* (Kingston)

Your name is mud. My name is none of your business.

In view of his sordid history on this forum, Taylor Kingston is the
last person to lecture us about ethics from his altar.

[Louis Blair]

fedup wrote (28 Feb 2006 09:18:37 -0800):

> Holier than the Pope
>_

> This expression is so rare that Google only shows
> 166,000 references to it.

_
Can fedup name anyone other than jr and
Larry Parr who has used the expression at
rec.games.chess.politics?

[Taylor Kingston]

jr wrote:
> * Um, where in "I'm posting here under my own name. What's yours?" do
> you find any claim to holiness, ultra-papal or otherwise? I'm posting
> here under my own name. What's yours?* (Kingston)
>
> Your name is mud.

Ah, gracious as ever.

> My name is none of your business.

Gee, I thought you'd agree with your hero Larry's oft-repeated maxim
that "sunshine is the best disinfectant." It's amazing how Parr's
double-standarditis seems to infect his disciples, most of whom are
anonymice these days.
Well, your condition seems incurable, so I'll quit wasting my time
with you.

[Say No To g4]

>
> > No. Just go and
> > hide in your little shell where it's safe.
>
> Excuse me? I'm posting here under my own name. What's yours?
>

Taylor - I take back that last comment. I should never have written it - hit
the send button too fast. You're definitely not one who hides .Sorry about
that old boy.

[parrt...@cs.com]

KINGSTON BASKS IN HIS VIRTUE

NM Taylor Kingston, the self-proclaimed
2300+ ELO steam engine who is 1800 rated, wants to
know the identity of g4. So do I. I also want to
know the identities of all those who post anonymously
and who support my position. I thank them for the
support, but they should post under their own names.

Now, then, NM Kingston tells us that he has
started to post under his own name rather than using a
pseudonym such as Xylothist. His tone suggests that
he is basking in his virtue.

We congratulate NM Kingston for not hiding behind
another name, but such becomes a virtue only when the
intellectual heat hottens. Will this man have the
character, which he could not summon earlier, to keep
using his own name when I once again incommode his
intellectual amour propre? I doubt it.

Why? Because our NM did not have the elemental
grace to write that g4 should provide his real name
even though he, NM Kingston, hid behind false
identities when he felt the need for some fake supporters.

NM Kingston: did you post under Xylothist and Paulie Graf?

[parrt...@cs.com]

KINGSTON'S SORDID HISTORY

I want to thank jr for his support of my
positions, but suggest that he give us his
real name.

Okay, jr has not used scrofulous language, and
he does not pretend to be anything other than an
anonymouse. He is someone with a point of view,
possibly involved with the USCF in some way, who does
not wish to make his name known.

Once again, I ask Taylor Kingston: did you post
at rgcp under the name of Xylothist? Did this attempt
to mislead and to support yourself anonymously accord
with your personal "standards," which is your word?
Is it hypocritical of you to ask a straightforward
anonymouse to give his name, when you will not answer
whether you appeared here as Xylothist (in support of
yourself!) and Paulie Graf?

Ah well. These questions won't get answered.
We know that much by now.

[politi...@gmail.com]

You do have a gift for avoiding the question.

[politi...@gmail.com]

Who has the Pokémon porn site featuring a young girl (12 years old per
the Pokémon narrative) being sexually tortured, Sloan or me?

Who has kid-friendly links on the same page, Sloan or me?

Who brags about having fingered a "young girl" on his website, Sloan or
me?

Who brags about having had sex with a girl of junior high school age,
Sloan or me?

Who is willing to defend his reputation in the courtroom, Sloan or me?
If you wish to continue along the lines you're pursuing, I'd suggest
creating a legal defense fund.

As I've disclosed previously, I was abused as a child (fortunately not
sexually AFAIK). So yeah, I do take these matters a bit more
personally than average....

[Taylor Kingston]

Say No To g4 wrote:
> >

Thank you. Retraction accepted.

[Vince Hart]

Xylothist posted at rgcp between April 1998 and February 2002. Paulie
Graf posted in September and October of 2001. Taylor Kingston did not
begin posting at rgcp until March of 2002. I have found no instance
where either Xylothist or Paulie Graf supported or responded to a
Taylor Kingston post.

On the other hand, I have found several instances in which Sam Sloan
claimed to have sex with female minors.

So much for Parr's intellectual integrity.

[parrt...@cs.com]

EVEN KINGSTON CAN'T DENY IT

>Is it hypocritical of you to ask a straightforward
anonymouse to give his name, when you will not
answer whether you appeared here as Xylothist
(in support of yourself!) and Paulie Graf? Ah well.
These questions won't get answered. We know

that much by now.> -- Larry Parr to Taylor Kingston

>Xylothist posted at rgcp between April 1998 and
February 2002. Paulie Graf posted in September
and October of 2001. Taylor Kingston did not
begin posting at rgcp until March of 2002. I have
found no instance where either Xylothist or Paulie
Graf supported or responded to a Taylor Kingston post.>

-- Vince Hart

We have been through all of this before. Vinnie
Hart is boldly lying. We have posted instances of
Xylothist praising Kingston and attacking the enemies
of Kingston who, by the way, rejected my challenge to
a $10,000 lie detector test about whether he used these
bogus names before reverting to his real name.

We may have to repost the dreary postings of both
Xylothist and Paulie Graf once again so that readers
can judge for themselves the inimitable Kingston touch.

Frankly, I am amazed by Vinnie's posting -- not
by his lying about my intellectual dishonesty but by
the crudity of it all.

[parrt...@cs.com]

KINGSTON'S DECEPTION

From: Chess One
Date: Jan 18 2006
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc

>KINGSTON DECEPTIVELY SUPPORTS HIMSELF
Someone advised me that there were 42 messages
from Xylothist, including several where NM Kingston
defends NM Kingston has been found.> -- Larry Parr

It goggles to 88 references, and one of them contains this

[[[[[Bringing up Mr. Kingston's career as Xylothist is evidently not
unrelated to the subject matter here. He invented a character to hide
behind while he attacked GM Evans and this writer. A reasonable
explanation for doing such is that it was ego driven. Where is the ad
hominem attack in bringing up Mr. Kingston's pseudonym?]]]]]

Xylothist was around in 1999 - although the excrebable 'Chess Life'
site has
errors in postscript so that I can't read my own messages in associated

scripts, nor Taylor Kingston's, nor Eric Schiller's, I could read about
50
of these messages from other sites, and at no time does Taylor Kingston

confirm nor deny....!

He changes the subject to; who is asking? Or makes counter-accusations.

While Niemand is now an admitted pseudonym, even Inspector Columbo
couldn't
trip him up, with all his bumbling around

The other two [I count 3, BTW, though not included shared identities]
are
neither avowed nor dissavowed! Even though there are so many entries on
the
subject. This is psychologically significant, IMO - since I sense that
to
surrender the identity is the same as to surrender the sentiment.

I have seen this many times before -- in fact, much of the resentment
of Sam
Sloan is that no matter what he has to say, I sense he is resented for
saying it all as Sam Sloan! In other words, a secret jeolousy that a
man can
own his stuff in his own name.

But all these /pretend names/ have the same theme, all are antagonistic
to
the same issues and the same people, in much the same language and
metaphor
[if briefer]. -- Phil Innes

[Vince Hart]

Assuming that Parr is correct about the identity of Xylothist and
Paulie Graf, the gist of the matter is that Taylor Kingston posted
anonymously for some time at rgcp before he switched to posting under
his own name. I found no evidence that he used a pseudonymn to respond
to and support the posts he was making under his own name as Parr has
suggested. If Parr has those cites, I would be interested in seeing
them.

Parr has previously said that there is nothing objectionable to posting
anonymously. So what's the problem? As far as I can tell, Parr's big
scoop is that Taylor Kingston took the same positions when he was using
pseudonymns that he took when he subsequently started posting under his
own name. I don't see the big scandal there. On the other hand, I am
happy to know that Parr recognizes the crudity of the claims Sam Sloan
posted on his website.

[help bot]

LP wrote:

"Bill Brock has once again escaped from Nolanland.
He broke out of his restraint, managed to cut through
the wire fence with his e-cutters and is back at rgcp
after promising to leave us for greener pastures.
Once again, we note there is no proof offered
that Sam Sloan has had sex with children. Nothing
that would stand up in court."

I seem to recall a time when LP took a very different stance; the key
difference here being that when it is someone LP is attacking the need
for courtroom style proof is quite unnecessary, but when it is a friend
or ally of LP, there magically arises the need for "proof." The man
has big feet, yet still somehow manages to fit one foot firmly in
mouth.

For one example of LP's amazing hypocrisy, think about the way LP
vehemently insisted that there was no need for courtroom "proof"
regarding the FIDE president; it was quite enough that he was accused,
and it *looked like* he did it -- hence guilty enough for LP.

Now we have Sam Sloan, accused, and apparently the star witness
against himself -- his own website "testifying" against him. But LP
wants courtroom proof.
It must be concluded that LP is either indulging himself in childish
games, or else he has no integrity whatsoever.

LP:

"There is no definition offered of what constitutes a child.
My view is that Mr. Brock is telling us more about himself
with these preposterous expostulations than he is about Mr. Sloan."

Sam Sloan presents the "child" in the photo as a prostitute, and as
such it conflicts with the presumption of a grown man exploiting an
innocent, helpless child. More to the point here, it appears that LP
wants to go this route: an escape on technicalities, such as the photo
and Sloan's words are no proof of exact age. Besides, a man cannot be
forced to "testify" against himself, and we have only Sloan's words and
his Web site as evidence that he did anything more than take photos and
make up stories.
And if all else fails, there is always the insanity defense; just
imagine what a really good lawyer could do in Sloan's case.

[help bot]

My alter identity wrote:

"Assuming that Parr is correct about the identity of Xylothist and
Paulie Graf, the gist of the matter is that Taylor Kingston posted
anonymously for some time at rgcp before he switched to posting under
his own name."

You are really going out on a limb here in view of LP's spotty record
of guesstimating the identities of posters. For one thing, LP has a
track record of being fairly certain he "knows" a given poster's true
identity, and then later changing his mind.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt and assumming he got to anons
right in a row, is like giving Phil Innes Rook odds -- a horrible
blunder.

VH:

"Parr has previously said that there is nothing objectionable to
posting
anonymously."

Translation: LP can't stand it when he doesn't know exactly who he
is dealing with; the main reason is that it is much harder to do his
ad hominem thing.

VH:

"On the other hand, I am happy to know that Parr recognizes
the crudity of the claims Sam Sloan posted on his website."

That's a mistranslation. LP accused us -- I mean YOU -- of crudity,
and you know it.
He also called us a boldfaced liar. Are we going to just take this
lying down?

"I will take a Sam Sloan any day, who goes about
correcting his errors ..." - Larry Parr (6 Nov 2005
18:25:29 -0800)
_
"Sam Sloan ... makes corrections, makes
admissions ..." - Larry Parr (1 Nov 2005
17:26:27 -0800)
_
"What Sam does, he does openly." - Larry Parr
(23 Oct 2005 19:26:10 -0700)

I think LP is giving us clues about himself, about what he wishes he
could be like, and imagines Sam Sloan *is* like.

[Vince Hart]

help bot wrote:
>
> "On the other hand, I am happy to know that Parr recognizes
> the crudity of the claims Sam Sloan posted on his website."
>
>
> That's a mistranslation. LP accused us -- I mean YOU -- of crudity,
> and you know it.
> He also called us a boldfaced liar. Are we going to just take this
> lying down?
>
>

Since the only "crudity" in our post--I mean my post--was an extremely
mild description of the content of Sam's website, I believe that
labeling the post crude necessarily acknowledges the crudity of the
material described.

Sticks and stones may break our bones, but Larry Parr is a weasel.

[Taylor Kingston]

Vince Hart wrote:
> Taylor Kingston did not
> begin posting at rgcp until March of 2002.

Vince, I've actually been posting here since 1997 or '98, if memory
serves. At that time I had a different ISP and e-mail address, so a
search with my current address would not show those posts. But they
were in my own name.

> I have found no instance
> where either Xylothist or Paulie Graf supported or responded to a
> Taylor Kingston post.

Nor have I found any instance where either said anything I would be
ashamed of.

> On the other hand, I have found several instances in which Sam Sloan
> claimed to have sex with female minors.
>
> So much for Parr's intellectual integrity.

The issue of pseudonyms is another example of Parr's double standard.
He welcomes support from pseudonymous posters, but casts aspersions on
antagonistic anonymice. In any event, like the President in
"Doonesbury" shouting "9/11! 9/11!" to every question about his
policies, it's simply a red herring. In this case, to deflect attention
from the main point of this thread: the fact that Parr's support of
Sloan is a source of ever-increasing embarrassment for Larry.

[Vince Hart]

I searched by author name rather than e-mail address. The posts prior
to March 2002 appear at rgcm.

[jr]

*Nor have I found any instance where either [Xylothist or Paulie Graf]
said anything I would be ashamed of.* (Kingston)

Of course not. That's because Taylor Kingston wrote these posts
under a false screen name and he has never denied it.

His essential hypocrisy is attacking others whose use a pseudonym
for various reasons (not wishing to be stalked by nutcakes, for
example)
when he himself used pseudonyms when it suited his purpose.

This thread, of course, has nothing to do with chess. It was initiated
for the sole purpose of smearing the real Sam Sloan and Larry Parr.

[Jerzy]

> This thread, of course, has nothing to do with chess. It was initiated
> for the sole purpose of smearing the real Sam Sloan and Larry Parr.

That`s correct. This thread was created by an utter moron.

[Chess One]

"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1141311688.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Vince Hart wrote:
>> Taylor Kingston did not
>> begin posting at rgcp until March of 2002.
>
> Vince, I've actually been posting here since 1997 or '98, if memory
> serves. At that time I had a different ISP and e-mail address, so a
> search with my current address would not show those posts. But they
> were in my own name.
>
>> I have found no instance
>> where either Xylothist or Paulie Graf supported or responded to a
>> Taylor Kingston post.
>
> Nor have I found any instance where either said anything I would be
> ashamed of.

50th reply, not exactly an answer though, for 50th time.

<snort>

>> On the other hand, I have found several instances in which Sam Sloan
>> claimed to have sex with female minors.
>>
>> So much for Parr's intellectual integrity.
>
> The issue of pseudonyms is another example of Parr's double standard.
> He welcomes support from pseudonymous posters, but casts aspersions on
> antagonistic anonymice. In any event, like the President in
> "Doonesbury" shouting "9/11! 9/11!" to every question about his
> policies, it's simply a red herring.

Its yet another false analogy from someone who for 50 times denies nothing.
The POINT is that if you use an anon to support your own posts, then this
has sod all to do with 9/11 or Sam Sloan. No Sirree. Quite another analogy
is necessary.

> In this case, to deflect attention
> from the main point of this thread: the fact that Parr's support of
> Sloan is a source of ever-increasing embarrassment for Larry.

I strongly support Sam Sloan writing here. And I just disagreed with him,
big time.

Welcome to America.

Phil Innes

[Vince Hart]

Chess One wrote:

>
> Its yet another false analogy from someone who for 50 times denies nothing.
> The POINT is that if you use an anon to support your own posts, then this
> has sod all to do with 9/11 or Sam Sloan. No Sirree. Quite another analogy
> is necessary.
>

>
> Phil Innes

The point is that there does not seem to be any evidence that the
anonymous posters in question ever supported any of Taylor Kingston's
posts. Parr has tried to create the impression that the anonymous
posters were created because Kingston was getting beaten up at rgcp,
but the evidence seems to be that anonymous posters came first.

[Louis Blair]

Larry Parr presented (1 Mar 2006 18:57:33 -0800)
a quote of Phil Innes:

> in fact, much of the resentment of Sam Sloan
> is that no matter what he has to say, I sense
> he is resented for saying it all as Sam Sloan!
> In other words, a secret jeolousy that a man
> can own his stuff in his own name.

_
Can Larry Parr or Phil Innes present a specific
example where it can be sensed that something
of this sort is happening (and explain how it is
that this "sense" works)? How about the Holiday
Quiz incident?
_
"Taylor Kingston is involved with USCF Sales
and is the perpetrator of the blacklist."
- Sam Sloan (Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:11:53 GMT)
_
"No one [at USCF Sales] consults me on what
to stock in the catalog. I have never 'perpetrated'
any 'blacklist' of chess authors, or of anyone else."
- Taylor Kingston (22 Dec 2005 12:32:53 -0800)
_
Sam Sloan's accusation continued to appear on a
Wikipedia discussion page.
_
"I have had no involvment ever with USCF Sales,
except for buying the occasional book." - Taylor
Kingston (28 Dec 2005 09:31:43 -0800)
_
"If that is the case, then kindly explain why when
I look at the chesscafe.com website I see the
words "Taylor Kingston & Hanon Russell"
prominently displayed at the top." - Sam Sloan
(Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:09:39 GMT)
_
"It's the 9th Annual ChessCafe Holiday Quiz. I
wrote most of it, Hanon Russell the rest. Been
doing that for eight years now. Has nothing to do
with USCF Sales." - Taylor Kingston (28 Dec 2005
10:29:37 -0800)
_
"I suggest looking at www.chesscafe.com and
seeing that what it actually says there is
"Holiday Quiz by Taylor Kingston & Hanon
Russell". - Louis Blair (29 Dec 2005
03:30:41 -0800)

[Chess One]

"Vince Hart" <Vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141327190.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

The only evidence is that for 50 occasions Kingston does not deny it, even
though he responds to the messages. Curious? But, you know, perhaps this is
/not/ a curious thing for you? Instead perhaps you, like him prefer to have
continuous fantasies and public speculations about Sam Sloan's sex life?

What has that to do with chess?

Phil Innes

[Vince Hart]

That sounds like no evidence whatsoever unless you believe that the
burden of proof is on the accused rather than the accuser.

Regarding Sam, on the other hand, we are not talking about accusations
that he does not deny. We are talking about the affirmative claims
that he makes on his website about his sexual exploits.

[Louis Blair]

_
"Is there any word yet on who is running [for the
board]?" - Louis Blair (18 Feb 2006 12:10:22 -0800)
_
"It will surprise you to learn that I am running." - Sam
Sloan (samhsl...@gmail.com) (18 Feb 2006
13:04:10 -0800)
_
"so far I think we have received only one candidate
petition." - Mike Nolan (21 Feb 2006 17:11:15 GMT)

[jame...@aol.com]

>Sticks and stones may break our bones, but Larry Parr is a weasel.

That is an insult to weasels everywhere.

[Chess One]

"Vince Hart" <Vin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1141330956.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> >> Phil Innes
>> >
>> > The point is that there does not seem to be any evidence that the
>> > anonymous posters in question ever supported any of Taylor Kingston's
>> > posts. Parr has tried to create the impression that the anonymous
>> > posters were created because Kingston was getting beaten up at rgcp,
>> > but the evidence seems to be that anonymous posters came first.
>>
>> The only evidence is that for 50 occasions Kingston does not deny it,
>> even
>> though he responds to the messages. Curious? But, you know, perhaps this
>> is
>> /not/ a curious thing for you? Instead perhaps you, like him prefer to
>> have
>> continuous fantasies and public speculations about Sam Sloan's sex life?
>>
>> What has that to do with chess?
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> That sounds like no evidence whatsoever unless you believe that the
> burden of proof is on the accused rather than the accuser.

I do not make any accusation, never mind demand 'evidence' as if we were in
a court. Are you putting him in court?

What is beyond doubt is the rather strange and demonstratred behavior as I
wrote above; making acccusations about other people, including their sex
lives.

> Regarding Sam, on the other hand, we are not talking about accusations
> that he does not deny.

Kingston makes open accusations about Sam Sloan's sex life, but can't say if
he writes anonymously?

> We are talking about the affirmative claims
> that he makes on his website about his sexual exploits.

We are talking about one person's behavior, at least I am.

Phil Innes

[Taylor Kingston]

Chess One wrote:
> Kingston makes open accusations about Sam Sloan's sex life, but can't say if
> he writes anonymously?

An outright lie, Phil. Of course, you will never produce any quote
demonstrating these alleged accusations of mine. In the area of sexual
conduct, I have only quoted Sloan's own words.

> > We are talking about the affirmative claims
> > that he makes on his website about his sexual exploits.

Exactly. Thank you, Vince.

[Jerzy]

>
>> > We are talking about the affirmative claims
>> > that he makes on his website about his sexual exploits.
>
> Exactly. Thank you, Vince.

Taylor, this thread has nth common with chess. It was created by an utter
moron to discredit Sam Sloan and, yes, your arch-"enemy" Larry Parr.

[parrt...@cs.com]

BROCK'S HEADING BACK TO NOLANLAND

<Taylor, this thread has nth common with chess.
It was created by an utter moron to discredit Sam

Sloan and, yes, your arch-"enemy" Larry Parr.> -- Jerzy

>It's useful to note that Parr seems to find no
alternative to ad hominem. Facing the evidence
seems to be too difficult for him. Enough of rgckf
for tonight: for substantive discussions, we'll see you
in Nolanland!> -- Bill Brock, chair of USCF Finance Committee

Bill Brock accuses me of attacking his person
even as his allies retail vile epithets in my direction.
Rynd-Dowd outdid himself by claiming that Vinnie
Hart calling me a weasel was an insult to weasels.

Now, gentlemen, I puts it to you and leaves it
to you, as Alfred P. Doolittle would say. Have I not
been funnin' Mr. Brock? I spoke of him careening
through the e-ways and byways of rgcp, a Lear-like
figure with twigs and branches in his hair, shouting
that he is more sinned against than sinning. Am I not
taking it easy on the man?

Mr. Brock arrives here suddenly as if he had
been running around the Internet, breathing heavily
about children and sex, whilst never offering any
evidence against Sam Sloan. He talks about Thai girls
endlessly, and he appear fixated on my admitting as
fact that which is not in evidence as he did for months
before the last USCF election when he himself, played
and lost a chess match in Chicago against someone
he calls a "child molester."

The man now announces, just as suddenly as he
arrived, that he is heading back to Nolanland. I
believes he labors under a perturbation, a murmur of
the mind. I don't argue that he is crazy and
certainly not dangerous; I merely suggest that there
is an emotional dislocation of some sort that periodically
pops out of his socket.

I NEVER suggested that Sam Sloan cannot be
criticised, and readers will notice that when I
challenged NM Taylor Kingston, our self-proclaimed
2300+ ELO pneumatic drill who is actually rated
about 1800, to post any criticisms of his mentor Edward
Winter by him that can match my dressings down of Sam,
he shaddup for a while.

Sam seems to be someone who forthrightly
appears here, giving and taking lumps under his own
name. NM Kingston would criticize anonymice even as
he himself used bogus screen names on occasion in
order to befoul his enemies (Keene, Schiller, Evans, etc.).

Back to Brock.

Our friend says that he is once again trekking
off into the wilderness of Nolanland for substantive
discussions. Every reader knows that the last time he
left us, he was in none too good shape, and he
returned from Nolanland in a dither of come-hithers.
He waved his arms around distractedly as if he were in
the stewpot of an African native and was desperate
that someone would notice and rescue him.

We counsel Mr. Brock not to make that fearsome
journey to Nolanland, which lies beyond the pale of
the Creation.

[Taylor Kingston]

parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> I NEVER suggested that Sam Sloan cannot be
> criticised, and readers will notice that when I
> challenged NM Taylor Kingston, our self-proclaimed
> 2300+ ELO pneumatic drill who is actually rated
> about 1800, to post any criticisms of his mentor Edward
> Winter by him that can match my dressings down of Sam,
> he shaddup for a while.

Gee, Larry -- did it ever occur to you that Winter does not do the
sort of things that Sloan does, and that therefore I would have no
cause for comparable criticism? I'm beginning to think that Rynd was
right about your reasoning abilities.

[Chess One]

"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message

news:1141341332.0...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>
> Chess One wrote:
>> Kingston makes open accusations about Sam Sloan's sex life, but can't say
>> if
>> he writes anonymously?
>
> An outright lie, Phil. Of course, you will never produce any quote
> demonstrating these alleged accusations of mine. In the area of sexual
> conduct, I have only quoted Sloan's own words.

ROFL.

This is a chess newsgroup. If Taylor Kingston chooses to spend his time
avoiding personal questions about his own activities but writes about other
peoples personal behavior, he 'only quoted Sloan's own words', I wonder why
he thinks this isn't strange.

As I understand the law of this country, Sam Sloan's sexual proclivities are
subject to the same laws as everyone else. If Sloan broke the law why hasn't
he been prosecuted? If he hasn't been prosecuted why is Kingston so
interested in repeating anecdote's of Sloan's sex life?

There are much simpler questions right here than socio-ethical ones about
contemporary American culture, which Taylor Kingston raises as accusations
and then avoids even acknowledging the results.

Whether its his own pen-names on Usenet [unanswered] or making strong
accusations against GM Keene for one example, based on what proved to be the
utterly false writing of E. Winter. [unacknowledged error]

No one has to like Sam Sloan or his writing. But if he isn't breaking the
law, then his critics might admit the [psychological] fact that they are as
interested in the subject as he is ;)

Phil Innes

[Chess One]

"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message

news:1141391502....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>
> parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>> I NEVER suggested that Sam Sloan cannot be
>> criticised, and readers will notice that when I
>> challenged NM Taylor Kingston, our self-proclaimed
>> 2300+ ELO pneumatic drill who is actually rated
>> about 1800, to post any criticisms of his mentor Edward
>> Winter by him that can match my dressings down of Sam,
>> he shaddup for a while.
>
> Gee, Larry -- did it ever occur to you that Winter does not do the
> sort of things that Sloan does,

I don't see why Taylor Kingston should raise the question of Winter's
sexuality. This is no marm-school but even so, Kingston is becoming obsessed
with the subject.

If anyone /would/ like to talk about sex and chess, I prospose the
following:

That USCF address the practice of chess teachers having sex with their
students, by offering a course on the subject, which also requires for
/Official USCF Trainers/ to undertake a back-ground check. In fact, any
organisation might do the same and advertise it. It ain't foolproof, but it
is good! And if you would nto undertake a background check ... ?

Now, I don't like unnecessary Government intervention any more than does
Larry Parr - but this program is not mandatory. I aslo thought for a long
time that it was not necessary. About 2 years ago I volunteered to work with
a national social services agency who catered to troubled kids, and learned
in the vetting process that in California, for example, 50% of the applicant
volunteers, /failed/ the vetting procedure. Holy Cow!

So, its a real problem, and real teachers are closely screened.

This would address an /actual/ and continuous problem in chess to which
current writers are silent - you too Larry Parr! - rather than these rather
theoretical objections, about the theoretical virgin Edward Winter.

Phil Innes

[Taylor Kingston]

Chess One wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1141391502....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> >> I NEVER suggested that Sam Sloan cannot be
> >> criticised, and readers will notice that when I
> >> challenged NM Taylor Kingston, our self-proclaimed
> >> 2300+ ELO pneumatic drill who is actually rated
> >> about 1800, to post any criticisms of his mentor Edward
> >> Winter by him that can match my dressings down of Sam,
> >> he shaddup for a while.
> >
> > Gee, Larry -- did it ever occur to you that Winter does not do the

> > sort of things that Sloan does, and that therefore I would have no
> > cause for comparable criticism? I'm beginning to think that Rynd was
> > right about your reasoning abilities.

> I don't see why Taylor Kingston should raise the question of Winter's
> sexuality.

Neither does Kingston. When did I, Phil?

> This is no marm-school but even so, Kingston is becoming obsessed
> with the subject.

Interesting. I am supposedly "obsessed" with a subject about which I
have never written, spoken, nor even thought. I think even Parr's
Distorted Dictionary would reject that definition.

[Chess One]

"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message

news:1141393038....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141391502....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>> >> I NEVER suggested that Sam Sloan cannot be
>> >> criticised, and readers will notice that when I
>> >> challenged NM Taylor Kingston, our self-proclaimed
>> >> 2300+ ELO pneumatic drill who is actually rated
>> >> about 1800, to post any criticisms of his mentor Edward
>> >> Winter by him that can match my dressings down of Sam,
>> >> he shaddup for a while.
>> >
>> > Gee, Larry -- did it ever occur to you that Winter does not do the
>> > sort of things that Sloan does, and that therefore I would have no
>> > cause for comparable criticism? I'm beginning to think that Rynd was
>> > right about your reasoning abilities.
>
>> I don't see why Taylor Kingston should raise the question of Winter's
>> sexuality.
>
> Neither does Kingston. When did I, Phil?

Here below is what I actually wrote in the sequence that I wrote it: Taylor
Kingston snipped my comment to distort the context.

------------

> Gee, Larry -- did it ever occur to you that Winter does not do the
> sort of things that Sloan does,

I don't see why Taylor Kingston should raise the question of Winter's
sexuality. This is no marm-school but even so, Kingston is becoming obsessed
with the subject.
-------------

>> This is no marm-school but even so, Kingston is becoming obsessed
>> with the subject.
>
> Interesting. I am supposedly "obsessed" with a subject about which I
> have never written, spoken, nor even thought. I think even Parr's
> Distorted Dictionary would reject that definition.

AMAZINGLY Kingston then cuts the comment that he continues to complain
about!!! :))))))) What a cheat! He is not only obsessed but dishonest.

Kingston actually cut the section about sex and chess abuses, and what might
be done about the situation, to insist that other people are Distorted.

What a cheap cheat! Maybe he should take his /obsession/ elsewhere, and stop
writing his libels about how other people distort.

Phil Innes

[parrt...@cs.com]

KINGSTON ABLY DEFENDS HIMSELF

<I have found no instance where either Xylothist or Paulie Graf
supported

or responded to a Taylor Kingston post.> -- Vince Hart

Vinnie didn't search very hard.

Here is just one of many examples of "Paulie Graf's" support for
Taylor Kingston (himself). Once again, does Mr. Kingston deny that he
posted on these forums as Xylothist and Paulie Graf before using his
own name?

From: Paulie Graf
Date: Fri, Oct 12 2001
Email: paulieg...@cs.com (Paulie Graf)
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics

Larry Parr wrote: <<In The Keres-Botvinnik Case Revisited ... Taylor
Kingston rehashes an attack on GM Larry Evans and launches an attack on
this writer.>>

It doesn't look that way to me, Larry. It would be more accurate to say

Kingston ably defends himself against Evans' continued attacks and
misrepresentations, and notes an outright fabrication by one Larry
Parr....

[Vince Hart]

There are no Taylor Kingston posts in that thread.

[LiamToo]

politi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Who is willing to defend his reputation in the courtroom, Sloan or me?
> If you wish to continue along the lines you're pursuing, I'd suggest
> creating a legal defense fund.

LOL! You know that you don't have a case against Sam Sloan. Ask you
buddy Vince Hart, he knows the law.

Sure, I will finance the defense fund for Sam Sloan if you're going
that way. However, be very ready for any counter charges. You know very
well that your attacks here in the net on Sam Sloan are all admissible
in court and are all tantamount to slander and defamation of moral
character.

You don't have a chance.

[Taylor Kingston]

Phil, it's obvious that you learned your English on another planet. I
have not said what you claim I say, and to the rest of us, your
statements have a different meaning than you later claim they mean.
This thread has exhausted what usefulness it may have had (little, if
any). Parr will never disown Sloan no matter how repulsive Sam's
private life (which unfortunately he does not keep private) and public
thoughts may be. As long as Sam and Larry persist, the horse ain't
dead, but I see no point in further flogging for the time being.

Chess One wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1141393038....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >> "Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1141391502....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> >> >> I NEVER suggested that Sam Sloan cannot be
> >> >> criticised, and readers will notice that when I
> >> >> challenged NM Taylor Kingston, our self-proclaimed
> >> >> 2300+ ELO pneumatic drill who is actually rated
> >> >> about 1800, to post any criticisms of his mentor Edward
> >> >> Winter by him that can match my dressings down of Sam,
> >> >> he shaddup for a while.
> >> >
> >> > Gee, Larry -- did it ever occur to you that Winter does not do the
> >> > sort of things that Sloan does, and that therefore I would have no
> >> > cause for comparable criticism? I'm beginning to think that Rynd was
> >> > right about your reasoning abilities.
> >
> >> I don't see why Taylor Kingston should raise the question of Winter's
> >> sexuality.
> >
> > Neither does Kingston. When did I, Phil?
>
> Here below is what I actually wrote in the sequence that I wrote it: Taylor
> Kingston snipped my comment to distort the context.

Gee, and Phil snipped out over half of what I wrote. The
double-standarditis contagion continues to spread.

[politi...@gmail.com]

One needs to get your response on record, as you have a habit of
denying the obvious.

http://www.samsloan.com/girlsgot.htm

Top row, fifth image from the left (captioned "Burmese Girl in
Thailand'). Does the face look familiar?

[politi...@gmail.com]

Your talent for misreading is substantial.

Ask Vince: he'll explain.

[jr]

*Once again, does Mr. Kingston deny that he posted on

these forums as Xylothist and Paulie Graf before using his

own name?* (Parr)

Kingston can't deny it because he knows it's true. So
he simply snips the question once again. His character
is evident to anyone familiar with his rants on this forum
against Keene, Schiller, Parr, Evans, Laurie, Sloan and
anyone else on his pal Edward Winter's enemy list.

This thread has served no useful purpose except to
expose the hate-mongers. It has zip to do with chess
and it's time to end it.

Here's hoping that Bill Brock is back on his meds.

[LiamToo]

politi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Your talent for misreading is substantial.
>
> Ask Vince: he'll explain.

Vince is your buddy, he will condone almost everything that you do. Go
ask him.

[politi...@gmail.com]

Let me ask you, Liam, the same question I asked Parr:

[LiamToo]

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't go to sites like pokemon or
anything and make assumptions on anything.

I don't even know that pokemon has a porno connotation to it. How would
a person know that? Simply by going to some porno sites and saw pokemon
there. I know that pokemon is simply a toy and that's it. I have no
obsession in anything sexual or being done by anybody. I really don't
care.

But I tell you this, IMO, Sam Sloan's site is not considered a porno
site.

[Vince Hart]

The current claim seems to be that Taylor Kingston posted anonymously
at rgcp before he started posting under his own name. Why would an
anonymous poster like "jr" have a problem with that?

[Chess One]

<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141401790....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

> Your talent for misreading is substantial.
>
> Ask Vince: he'll explain.

I don't know who you are, but I do know that when people write about 'you'
on usenet without saying who they are addressing or even what the subject
is, they ain't much.

If you want to be taken seriously, try not to do that, and if you want to
attack real people, try writing your own name to your post, otherwise people
may think you were a coward, can't even own your own opinion.

But there really is no need to attack anyone. The alternative is to discuss
chess politics which has to do with people's /opinions/ of how things are,
and could be managed in chess.

Phil Innes

[Chess One]

"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message

news:1141399577.2...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

>
> Phil, it's obvious that you learned your English on another planet. I
> have not said what you claim I say,

I didn't claim anything, I just rewrote your post, plus your bit of
cheating.

> and to the rest of us, your
> statements have a different meaning than you later claim they mean.

I see.

> This thread has exhausted what usefulness it may have had (little, if
> any). Parr will never disown Sloan no matter how repulsive Sam's
> private life (which unfortunately he does not keep private) and public
> thoughts may be.

Parr does not own Sam Sloan's thoughts, and therefore cannot 'disown' them.

> As long as Sam and Larry persist, the horse ain't
> dead, but I see no point in further flogging for the time being.

Fine! meanwhile you neither own nor disown your own behavior. But you fade
away once more after denigrating someone else's.

By the way, I do not belive your protestations about not understanding me, I
think you do understand me, and that is why you depart ;)

Phil

[Vince Hart]

Actually, I have always questioned the wisdom of Bill's decision to
confront Parr and Sloan. As Ken Starr learned with President Clinton,
it is very difficult to expose sexual misconduct without sullying one's
self in the process especially when dealing with someone who has no
qualms about lying and denying. However, I give Bill credit for trying
to do something to neutralize the crap that Parr and Sloan insist upon
dumping in the chess community.

As far as the legalities go, truth is a complete defense to a
defamation claim. And while it is true that Sam may be lying about his
sexual exploits with children, he can hardly claim that his reputation
has been damaged by anything other than his own boasts about what he
has done.

[politi...@gmail.com]

OK, I do need to clarify :-)

LiamToo wrote:

<<Your obsession about sexual encounters is leading me to believe
something else. I just hope and pray that you don't have any daughters.

[LiamToo]

He is Bill Brock, a member of the USCF Finance Committee.

I wonder if there is a bylaw to oust a committee member of the USCF, if
he is imposing his sexually obsessed opinion of Sam Sloan's sex life
here in a public newsgroup.

He is creating a sexually motivated disturbance of some sort, when in
reality Sam Sloan is considered an angel if compared to Bill Clinton.

Poor guy, like Jr said, he must be off his meds. I don't know what that
means or what Jr knows, but it doesn't sound too good.

Lance

[Vince Hart]

LiamToo wrote:

>
> He is creating a sexually motivated disturbance of some sort, when in
> reality Sam Sloan is considered an angel if compared to Bill Clinton.
>
>

This statement is moronic.

[LiamToo]

Vince Hart wrote:
> This statement is moronic.

That is your opinion, would you care to elaborate further?

[politi...@gmail.com]

Ad hominem.

I have never sought USCF office, and have no intentions to do so. I
chaired the committee that slated Illinois USCF Delegates for the
upcoming election; I had no desire to slate myself.

Sloan is the one seeking election to the Board. He finds it fit and
proper to discuss the character of others with respect to their USCF
service; I find it find and proper to discuss his lack of character.

Lance characterizes Sloan's conduct as relatively angelic. Heh.

Again I ask the question that Sloan's allies are afraid to answer:

[samsloan]

So what if I'm a scumbag? You can't stop me from running. One of these
days, I'll win!

Sam Sloan

[LiamToo]

So you were a committe chairman of something else. Are you a member of
the USCF Finance Committee?

On your question, to me, she doesn't look familiar. If you don't like
my answer would you like to re-phrase your question or call your buddy
Vince Hart?

[Chess One]

"LiamToo" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141417899.8...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

>
> Chess One wrote:
>> <politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141401790....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> > Your talent for misreading is substantial.
>> >
>> > Ask Vince: he'll explain.
>>
>> I don't know who you are, but I do know that when people write about
>> 'you'
>> on usenet without saying who they are addressing or even what the subject
>> is, they ain't much.
>>
>> If you want to be taken seriously, try not to do that, and if you want to
>> attack real people, try writing your own name to your post, otherwise
>> people
>> may think you were a coward, can't even own your own opinion.
>>
>> But there really is no need to attack anyone. The alternative is to
>> discuss
>> chess politics which has to do with people's /opinions/ of how things
>> are,
>> and could be managed in chess.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> He is Bill Brock, a member of the USCF Finance Committee.

I think he is head of the committee.

> I wonder if there is a bylaw to oust a committee member of the USCF, if
> he is imposing his sexually obsessed opinion of Sam Sloan's sex life
> here in a public newsgroup.

If there was such a rule I would oppose it. He can hold and speak whatever
opinion he wants. Unless these wallahs get to speak their mind here in the
uncensored realms of usenet, then we would have to believe they were all
saints and such [always a dubious claim, no?]

> He is creating a sexually motivated disturbance of some sort, when in
> reality Sam Sloan is considered an angel if compared to Bill Clinton.

I'm going to pass no comment on that one.

> Poor guy, like Jr said, he must be off his meds. I don't know what that
> means or what Jr knows, but it doesn't sound too good.

I /do/ understand his criticism. I sometimes wonder why Sam posts to 8
disparate newsgroups, and, after having identified something truly
insightful, then follows it up with personality trivia and antagonisms,
which then whittles away his first point. I think he is capable of more
considered opinions, and entirely capable of writing about them.

Brock & Co are simply the other side of the coin, equally obsessing on one
subject, but wanting to repress it rather than exhibit it.

The real criticism is that this is hardly a mature basis for adults to make
policy, and if one thing would keep a person from any social position, the
other thing would do so, by the same measure! Alas, no irony or
self-awareness seems to be encountered in these remonstrations.

There was a strange thing happened in the Humanities/Shak group a while ago,
when someone suddenly decided it was all Mrs. Macbeth's fault, and the poor
lad had been led astray by the demon woman. As an example of scapegoating,
that took the cake!

Cordially, Phil

> Lance
>

[Vince Hart]

Would you care to visit Sloan's website and familiarize yourself with
his claims about what he has done? If not, you cannot make an
intelligent comparison of his conduct to Clinton's.

[LiamToo]

Chess One wrote:
> "LiamToo" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141417899.8...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >> <politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1141401790....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Your talent for misreading is substantial.
> >> >
> >> > Ask Vince: he'll explain.
> >>
> >> I don't know who you are, but I do know that when people write about
> >> 'you'
> >> on usenet without saying who they are addressing or even what the subject
> >> is, they ain't much.
> >>
> >> If you want to be taken seriously, try not to do that, and if you want to
> >> attack real people, try writing your own name to your post, otherwise
> >> people
> >> may think you were a coward, can't even own your own opinion.
> >>
> >> But there really is no need to attack anyone. The alternative is to
> >> discuss
> >> chess politics which has to do with people's /opinions/ of how things
> >> are,
> >> and could be managed in chess.
> >>
> >> Phil Innes
> >
> > He is Bill Brock, a member of the USCF Finance Committee.
>
> I think he is head of the committee.

Yep, he said he was a chairman of a committe.

> > I wonder if there is a bylaw to oust a committee member of the USCF, if
> > he is imposing his sexually obsessed opinion of Sam Sloan's sex life
> > here in a public newsgroup.
>
> If there was such a rule I would oppose it. He can hold and speak whatever
> opinion he wants. Unless these wallahs get to speak their mind here in the
> uncensored realms of usenet, then we would have to believe they were all
> saints and such [always a dubious claim, no?]

Yes, I also share your opinion. They can come here out of NolanLand
(where is this NolanLand?) and express their opinions, whether they are
presidents, ex-presidents, committee chairmen, or anybody and they will
never be censored. These newsgroups were made for people like you and
I, who cherish the freedoms afforded by the Bill of Rights.

> > He is creating a sexually motivated disturbance of some sort, when in
> > reality Sam Sloan is considered an angel if compared to Bill Clinton.
>
> I'm going to pass no comment on that one.

I cant' blame you. You see, Bill Clinton is my hero, but he's no angel
either.

> > Poor guy, like Jr said, he must be off his meds. I don't know what that
> > means or what Jr knows, but it doesn't sound too good.
>
> I /do/ understand his criticism. I sometimes wonder why Sam posts to 8
> disparate newsgroups, and, after having identified something truly
> insightful, then follows it up with personality trivia and antagonisms,
> which then whittles away his first point. I think he is capable of more
> considered opinions, and entirely capable of writing about them.
>
> Brock & Co are simply the other side of the coin, equally obsessing on one
> subject, but wanting to repress it rather than exhibit it.
>
> The real criticism is that this is hardly a mature basis for adults to make
> policy, and if one thing would keep a person from any social position, the
> other thing would do so, by the same measure! Alas, no irony or
> self-awareness seems to be encountered in these remonstrations.
>
> There was a strange thing happened in the Humanities/Shak group a while ago,
> when someone suddenly decided it was all Mrs. Macbeth's fault, and the poor
> lad had been led astray by the demon woman. As an example of scapegoating,
> that took the cake!
>
> Cordially, Phil

Yep, Brock, Hart, et al have been antagonizing and harassing Sam for so
many years and still going strong. I'm annoyed, the reason why I stood
up. They should mind their own sexuality and not someone else's. They
know fully well that Sam is not breaking any law because of the
contents of his website. Sam's website is a saint compared to others.

I haven't been to HLAS for a long time as I've discovered a new
newsgroup that is consuming more of my time than doing my job at work,
RGP - Recreational Gambling Poker.

Best regards,
Lance

[LiamToo]

I've been to Sloan's website and IMO, he's a saint as compared to
Clinton.

[politi...@gmail.com]

So is it the sense of this group that USCF should maintain impartiality
WRT adults' self-reported sexual relations with minors?

[parrt...@cs.com]

OFF HIS MEDS?

<I have never sought USCF office, and have no intentions to do so. I
chaired the committee that slated Illinois USCF Delegates for the

upcoming election; I had no desire to slate myself.> -- Bill Brock

The gent doesn't mention that he is also a member of the finance
committee.

EB06 - 010 October 13, 2005 (Joel Channing) The following Committee
has passed by Objection Procedure

Motion:
FINANCE COMMITTEE

Randy Bauer, Chairman
Randybauer2...@yahoo.com
Charles D. Unruh
Grant Perks
Michael Carr
BILL BROCK [my emphasis]
Mike Nolan
Frank Camaratta

[politi...@gmail.com]

While Sloan is a kidnapper, he is not a convicted kidnapper. (I once
made the same mistake.)

His two felony convictions were for lesser related charges.