Re: The Challenge to Larry Parr


Chess One wrote:
> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1137431265.403235.69640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > parrthenon@xxxxxx wrote:
> >> IT MATTERS FOR OTHER REASONS TOO
> >>
> >> I stated that NM Taylor Kingston's habit of
> >> employing pseudonyms is of interest mainly
> >> because of his appalling hypocrisy.
> >>
> >> That is only part of the equation.
> >>
> >> It is morally wrong to deceive when force majeure
> >> or credible threat thereof is not involved. Now,
> >> then, not all pseudonymous writers attempt to deceive
> >> even when they have no valid reason not to use their
> >> real names. Their sins are venial.
> >>
> >> However, NM Kingston spoke of having "standards."
> >> He also calls people like Say No To g4 trolls with whom he
> >> merely disagrees. Yet he still will not answer whether he
> >> posted messages here under the bogus names of Xylothist
> >> and Paulie Graf in an evident attempt to invent additional supporters
> >> in, among other things, a dispute with this writer.
> >
> > What utter bull***!
> >
> > The pseudonymns Xylothist and Paulie Graff have not posted to this
> > newsgroup for years.
>
> Not since the bans went into place?
>
> > Paulie Graf posted eight times in the fall of
> > 2001. Xylothist posted forty-five times bewteen 1998 and 2002. Taylor
> > Kingston, on the other hand, has posted some 1500 times between the
> > fall of 2001 and the present.
> >
> > It is doubtful that anyone would have remembered these two molehills of
> > "venial sins" (Parr's term) if Parr and his imaginary friends had not
> > decided try to turn them in to mountains of "appalling hypocrisy" (also
> > Parr's term).
>
> Do you mean that it is okay to invent a pseudonym to write in specially to
> your own post?

I have no idea what "specially to your own post" means, so I suspect it
is not what I meant.

> Especially when the MATTER concerns book banning people with
> real names?

Do you mean the people who ban books or the people whose books are
banned? Please write intelligible sentences if you wish for a
response.

>
> Or do you mean to dismiss the fact that Taylor Kingston did this - for
> whatever reason he did so - as a comment on truth-telling?

I have no idea what it is you think Kingston did so I can neither
dismiss nor condemn his conduct.


>
> Phil Innes
>
> > Nevertheless, having found that the facts were not in accord with his
> > assertions, Parr now preposterously claims that his own present attempt
> > to whip up a dispute over two long-forgotten pseudonymns is really
> > Kingston's present attempt to invent supporters.
> >
> > Clearly, such a deception (i.e., Parr's) is "morally wrong" (Parr's
> > term).
> >

.