1) You guys spend way too much time obfuscating discussions and trying to somehow "win" a discussion by pointing out semantic flaws or creating them and then defending them. Maybe if you cooperated on creating a dialogue or a dialectic you would actually learn something. Honestly, by looking at all these discussions of the Parham, I have learned a few things but there is no evidence in these threads that many other people have. In particular, there are almost no consensus lines you have all worked out (which means you have mostly wasted your time).
2) Arguning about who is the better chess player, etc. is just a backwards kind of ad hominem argument that doesn't get you anywhere. If someone is a lousy chess player, they will probably suggest lousy lines and those should be easy to correct if you have some decent basis for dialogue.
3) Arguing about piece value based on how easy it is to mate with them is silly. Pieces have relative values depending on the position and a board devoid of pieces except one or two is a degenerate case that probably has little bearing on the valuation of the piece in other settings. Chess literature is absolutely full of discussions about relative merits of N vs B vs R in any number of settings and the discussion is never about "well in a complete liquidation, 2 B's is better than 2 N's so a B is better than an N". That's just dumb.
4) This discussion of K + 2 N's vs K + P is silly. Go to Google and look up Troitzky line if you care. It is very difficult and not winnable by many GM's (GM Lilienthal failed 3 times in his career I think). That means it is very likely a draw in amateur chess.
This is precisey what I was telling jetfighter with my post. 2 knights can't mate a lone king, but two bishops or 1 knight and 1 bishop can. However, they are rougly equal in value in the opening and middlegame. Therefore my point is that his "explanation" for why the rook is a better piece is irrelevant. I do agree the rook is a better piece, but not for the reason that he gives.
The value of a piece depends how many squares it can control and (in the middlegame) what squares they control.
44 pages of flogging a dead horse... Uh, not interesting at all.