| |
Main
Date: 19 Dec 2008 20:31:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Response to George on Polgar Lawsuits
|
[quote="George"]It seems to me that if we could end the lawsuits that
would be good for USCF.
I do not see the present people in power making any attempt to end the
lawsuits.
Susan offered to not bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid $1. So it
seems the present administration is running on some kind of mind
altering Kool Aid. How can those opposed to Susan convince the
membership that spending in excess of $100,000 on lawyers is better
then giving $1 to stop a lawsuit. I suspect the membership will vote
for Polgar just as they did last time. [/quote]
George,
You fail to understand and so do many others.
Susan did not offer not to bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid her
$1.
Rather, she offered to drop the USCF from the list of 15 defendants to
her lawsuit if the USCF apologized, promised never to do it again, and
paid her $1. She would then be free to go forward with her cases
against Bill Goichberg, the other board members and the other
defendants.
Susan has never offered to drop her lawsuit entirely. Instead, she has
said repeatedly that she is going "all the way" with her lawsuit.
She repeated this only this past Saturday on her Saturday Open Forum,
where she wrote:
"I will drop the $25 million lawsuit against the USCF when the USCF
publicly apologize to me and sign an affidavit that they will never
harass or bother me or my family again. This is the one condition I
will not budge on.
"I have put up with the constant harassment and abuse for more than a
year. Enough is enough. This organization has done this to everyone
good person who wants to help. This has gone on for decades. The
difference is when this happened, good people simply walked away and
many never came back.
"I ran for the board with the mission to clean up the same old dirty
and disgusting chess politics that destroy this federation. It is time
someone stands up against this kind of corruption and incompetence at
the highest level or this federation will never get better.
"Best wishes,
"Susan Polgar"
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/12/saturday-open-forum_13.html
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 19:34:42
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Direct lie by Mr. Sloan in response to George on Polgar Lawsuits
|
The same post under two different nicks. Very very interesting.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 03:28:29
From: amicus curiae
Subject: Direct lie by Mr. Sloan in response to George on Polgar Lawsuits
|
X-No-Archive: yes
Mr. Sloan wrote on 12/19/2008...
>[quote="George"]It seems to me that if we could end the lawsuits that
>would be good for USCF.
>
>I do not see the present people in power making any attempt to end the
>lawsuits.
>
>Susan offered to not bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid $1. So it
>seems the present administration is running on some kind of mind
>altering Kool Aid. How can those opposed to Susan convince the
>membership that spending in excess of $100,000 on lawyers is better
>then giving $1 to stop a lawsuit. I suspect the membership will vote
>for Polgar just as they did last time. [/quote]
>
>George,
>
>You fail to understand and so do many others.
>
>Susan did not offer not to bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid her
>$1.
>
>Rather, she offered to drop the USCF from the list of 15 defendants to
>her lawsuit if the USCF apologized, promised never to do it again, and
>paid her $1. She would then be free to go forward with her cases
>against Bill Goichberg, the other board members and the other
>defendants.
This is a most direct lie by Mr. Sloan, what we have become accustom
to expect from him. His only truth is that there were 15 defendants,
Bauer*, Berry*, Bogner, Chess Magnet, Continental Chess*, Goichberg*,
Hall*, Hanken*, Hough*, Kronenberger**, Kronenberger Burgoyne**,
Lafferty, Mottershead, Sloan and the USCF*. All else is lies.
One lie is there were no "Polgar Lawsuits", only one lawsuit, entered
into with an obvious regret. You do not name frivilous lawsuits filed
by the likes of Mr. Sloan or Mr. Parker, or the USCF, as "Polgar
Lawsuits".
A second lie is that Mr. Sloan should have knowledge that all of the
defendants with names marked with the * can be included in the $1.00
offer. Those marked with the **, it would be irresponsible to the
extreme for me to say more, but it is possible for an arrangement to
be reached to prevent further regrettable damages to all reputations.
The appropriate communications were sent to the necessary parties.
Of the remaining five, not one is an officer of the USCF. They can
consult with their lawyers. Still it may be that Mr. Mottershead can
extract himself by paying costs and apologizing. Due to undeserved
generosity, it could be possible for Mr. Bogner and his LLC to escape
by paying costs and some penalty and publishing apologies and letters
to some appropriate authorities.
There can be strict time limits on all the possibilities of offers.
The remainder is Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Sloan. For them there can not
be any chances of any offer. Due to the alleged poverty or vagrancy
of Mr. Sloan, it means a burden will fall on Mrs. and Mr. Lafferty.
Many warnings were given but Mr. Lafferty ignored every one and he
recklessly chose alliance with allegedly mentally sick parties.
A third lie is that Mr. Sloan is a responsible journalist with an
excellent reputation. But the opposite is the truth.
I read in the papers that Proskauer Rose is badly affected by the
economic downturn, many staff are to be fired, these lawyers may be
out of business. But on their website I could not find any specifics.
Those who wish to litigate are even reminded of the opinion of Byte
Metrics (a much higher caliber than Ulevitch or Jones). I revealed
this in the summer and it was anonymously republished in rgcp.
[quote="XXXXXXXX"] I strongly suspect that any investigation that
we or another company does will not yield results of evidential
value; by that I mean provable, by a preponderance of facts, evidence
upon which one would rely to not just bring a complaint to court, but
to actually prevail on that complaint at trial. Rather, what I expect
that we could find, depending on how your emails have been preserved
since the time of these incidents, is evidence that someone was
"spoofing", that is, impersonating another's email.
The way this is usually discerned is in the differences in the IP
addresses of the email owner and the impersonator. Assuming that one
did find a difference in IP addresses, then the different IP address
would have to be traced. And it is in that step that I believe we
would come up empty, as the canny spoofer will have covered his/her
tracks. Thus, the best outcome I would foresee is that we could show
that an unknown someone was impersonating the true email account
holder. And even then, one couldn't rule out the possibility that the
true email account holder was spoofing him/herself, a tactic one
imagines a skilled chess player might use.
Realistically, however, I believe that an investigation would
show possibilities, perhaps probabilities, but not certainties.
Regards,
Mike
byte-metrics.com [/quote]
Mike did not mention the technique of "tunnelling". This makes it not
possible to trace an IP, even for the ISP or federal agencies. The
"canny" forgers use this for web surfing. They can also make the IP
look like that from an infected access PC. Could be Mr. Alexander's.
I am not Mrs. Polgar. I do not speak for Mrs. Polgar. But I shall be
working to ensure that if the $1 offer is not accepted we hold the
elections in February due to the administrative failure of the EB.
Then every detail will be cleared. If this became necessary the chess
players could never ever forgive those who took the side of Mr. Sloan
whose scandalous history and conducts will be fully revealed.
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 18:16:24
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: direct lies by Mr. Sloan in response to George on Polgar Lawsuits
|
On Dec 21, 8:25=A0pm, Illbay Oichberggay <[email protected] >
wrote:
>
> >Susan did not offer not to bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid her
> >$1.
>
> >Rather, she offered to drop the USCF from the list of 15 defendants to
> >her lawsuit if the USCF apologized, promised never to do it again, and
> >paid her $1. She would then be free to go forward with her cases
> >against Bill Goichberg, the other board members and the other
> >defendants.
>
> This is a most direct lie by Mr. Sloan, what we have become accustom
> to expect from him. His only truth is that there were 15 defendants,
> Bauer*, Berry*, Bogner, Chess Magnet, Continental Chess*, Goichberg*,
> Hall*, Hanken*, Hough*, Kronenberger**, Kronenberger Burgoyne**,
> Lafferty, Mottershead, Sloan and the USCF*. All else is lies.
>
> One lie is there were no "Polgar Lawsuits", only one lawsuit, entered
> into with an obvious regret. You do not name frivilous lawsuits filed
> by the likes of Mr. Sloan or Mr. Parker, or the USCF, as "Polgar
> Lawsuits".
>
> A second lie is that Mr. Sloan should have knowledge that all of the
> defendants with names marked with the * can be included in the $1.00
> offer. Those marked with the **, it would be irresponsible to the
> extreme for me to say more, but it is possible for an arrangement to
> be reached to prevent further regrettable damages to all reputations.
> The appropriate communications were sent to the necessary parties.
> Of the remaining five, not one is an officer of the USCF. They can
> consult with their lawyers. Still it may be that Mr. Mottershead can
> extract himself by paying costs and apologizing. Due to undeserved
> generosity, it could be possible for Mr. Bogner and his LLC to escape
> by paying costs and some penalty and publishing apologies and letters
> to some appropriate authorities.
>
> I am not Mrs. Polgar. I do not speak for Mrs. Polgar. But I shall be
> working to ensure that if the $1 offer is not accepted we hold the
> elections in Feb/March due to the administrative failure of the EB.
> Then every detail will be cleared. If this became necessary the chess
> players could never ever forgive those who took the side of Mr. Sloan
> whose scandalous history and breedcow conducts may be fully revealed.
You certainly write as though you are Susan Polgar or at least
representing her.
Are you Susan Polgar?
Susan Polgar is the only person who is named either as a plaintiff or
as a defendant in each of the four federal lawsuits. She is clearly
the central person in all four cases. Thus, it is entirely proper to
call them the "Polgar Lawsuits".
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 18:12:25
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: direct lies by Mr. Sloan in response to George on Polgar Lawsuits
|
On Dec 21, 8:25=A0pm, Illbay Oichberggay <[email protected] >
wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Thanks to our friends at last Ms. Alarie has grasped how unacceptable
> it can be for her to have her name forever linked with the likes of
> Mr. Sloan et al.
>
> Mr. Sloan wrote on 12/19/2008...
>
>
>
> >[quote=3D"George"]It seems to me that if we could end the lawsuits that
> >would be good for USCF.
>
> >I do not see the present people in power making any attempt to end the
> >lawsuits.
>
> >Susan offered to not bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid $1. =A0So it
> >seems the present administration is running on some kind of mind
> >altering Kool Aid. =A0How can those opposed to Susan convince the
> >membership that spending in excess of $100,000 on lawyers is better
> >then giving $1 to stop a lawsuit. =A0I suspect the membership will vote
> >for Polgar just as they did last time. [/quote]
>
> >George,
>
> >You fail to understand and so do many others.
>
> >Susan did not offer not to bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid her
> >$1.
>
> >Rather, she offered to drop the USCF from the list of 15 defendants to
> >her lawsuit if the USCF apologized, promised never to do it again, and
> >paid her $1. She would then be free to go forward with her cases
> >against Bill Goichberg, the other board members and the other
> >defendants.
>
> This is a most direct lie by Mr. Sloan, what we have become accustom
> to expect from him. His only truth is that there were 15 defendants,
> Bauer*, Berry*, Bogner, Chess Magnet, Continental Chess*, Goichberg*,
> Hall*, Hanken*, Hough*, Kronenberger**, Kronenberger Burgoyne**,
> Lafferty, Mottershead, Sloan and the USCF*. All else is lies.
>
> One lie is there were no "Polgar Lawsuits", only one lawsuit, entered
> into with an obvious regret. You do not name frivilous lawsuits filed
> by the likes of Mr. Sloan or Mr. Parker, or the USCF, as "Polgar
> Lawsuits".
>
> A second lie is that Mr. Sloan should have knowledge that all of the
> defendants with names marked with the * can be included in the $1.00
> offer. Those marked with the **, it would be irresponsible to the
> extreme for me to say more, but it is possible for an arrangement to
> be reached to prevent further regrettable damages to all reputations.
> The appropriate communications were sent to the necessary parties.
> Of the remaining five, not one is an officer of the USCF. They can
> consult with their lawyers. Still it may be that Mr. Mottershead can
> extract himself by paying costs and apologizing. Due to undeserved
> generosity, it could be possible for Mr. Bogner and his LLC to escape
> by paying costs and some penalty and publishing apologies and letters
> to some appropriate authorities.
> There can be strict time limits on all the possibilities of offers.
> The remainders are Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Sloan. For them there can not
> be any chances of any offer. Due to the alleged poverty or vagrancy
> of Mr. Sloan, it means a burden will fall on Mrs. and Mr. Lafferty.
> Many warnings were given but Mr. Lafferty ignored every one and he
> recklessly chose alliance with allegedly mentally sick parties.
>
> A third lie is that Mr. Sloan is a responsible journalist with an
> excellent reputation. The opposite is the truth.
>
> I read in the papers that Proskauer Rose is badly affected by the
> economic downturn, many staff are to be fired, these lawyers may be
> out of business. But on their website I could not find any specifics.
> Those who wish to litigate are even reminded of the opinion of Byte
> Metrics (a much higher caliber than Ulevitch or Jones). I revealed
> this in the summer and it was anonymously republished in rgcp.
> [quote=3D"XXXXXXXX"] I strongly suspect that any investigation that
> we or another company does will not yield results of evidential
> value; by that I mean provable, by a preponderance of facts, evidence
> upon which one would rely to not just bring a complaint to court, but
> to actually prevail on that complaint at trial. Rather, what I expect
> that we could find, depending on how your emails have been preserved
> since the time of these incidents, is evidence that someone was
> "spoofing", that is, impersonating another's email.
> =A0The way this is usually discerned is in the differences in the IP
> addresses of the email owner and the impersonator. Assuming that one
> did find a difference in IP addresses, then the different IP address
> would have to be traced. And it is in that step that I believe we
> would come up empty, as the canny spoofer will =A0have covered his/her
> tracks. Thus, the best outcome I would foresee is that we could show
> that an unknown someone was impersonating the true email account
> holder. And even then, one couldn't rule out the possibility that the
> true email account holder was spoofing him/herself, a tactic one
> imagines a skilled chess player might use.
> Realistically, however, I believe that an investigation would
> show possibilities, perhaps probabilities, but not certainties.
> Regards,
> =A0Mike
> =A0byte-metrics.com [/quote]
>
> Mike did not mention the technique of "tunnelling". This makes it not
> possible to trace an IP, even for the ISP or federal agencies. The
> "canny" forgers use this for web surfing. They can also make the IP
> look like that from an infected access PC. Could be Mr. Alexander's.
> The same Mr. Alexander who is Laffing at Mr. Lafferty's pathetical
> attempts to smear and intimidate him and drive a wedge between him
> and his true friends.
>
> I am not Mrs. Polgar. I do not speak for Mrs. Polgar. But I shall be
> working to ensure that if the $1 offer is not accepted we hold the
> elections in Feb/March due to the administrative failure of the EB.
> Then every detail will be cleared. If this became necessary the chess
> players could never ever forgive those who took the side of Mr. Sloan
> whose scandalous history and breedcow conducts may be fully revealed.
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.wiretrip.org!
news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x5!mail2news-x4!mail2news-x3!
mail2news-x2!mail2news
Subject: direct lies by Mr. Sloan in response to George on Polgar
Lawsuits
References: <4402929a-1df3-492a-
[email protected] >
From: Illbay Oichberggay <[email protected] >
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.92.180.XXX
X-Message-1: In order to receive the final octet of the NNTP Host you
must
X-Message-2: email [email protected] from a verifiable email
address
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.co=
mputer,alt.chess
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:25:10 +0100
Mail-To-News-Contact: [email protected]
Organization: [email protected]
Lines: 110
X-No-Archive: yes
Archived
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 02:25:10
From: Illbay Oichberggay
Subject: direct lies by Mr. Sloan in response to George on Polgar Lawsuits
|
X-No-Archive: yes
Thanks to our friends at last Ms. Alarie has grasped how unacceptable
it can be for her to have her name forever linked with the likes of
Mr. Sloan et al.
Mr. Sloan wrote on 12/19/2008...
>[quote="George"]It seems to me that if we could end the lawsuits that
>would be good for USCF.
>
>I do not see the present people in power making any attempt to end the
>lawsuits.
>
>Susan offered to not bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid $1. So it
>seems the present administration is running on some kind of mind
>altering Kool Aid. How can those opposed to Susan convince the
>membership that spending in excess of $100,000 on lawyers is better
>then giving $1 to stop a lawsuit. I suspect the membership will vote
>for Polgar just as they did last time. [/quote]
>
>George,
>
>You fail to understand and so do many others.
>
>Susan did not offer not to bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid her
>$1.
>
>Rather, she offered to drop the USCF from the list of 15 defendants to
>her lawsuit if the USCF apologized, promised never to do it again, and
>paid her $1. She would then be free to go forward with her cases
>against Bill Goichberg, the other board members and the other
>defendants.
This is a most direct lie by Mr. Sloan, what we have become accustom
to expect from him. His only truth is that there were 15 defendants,
Bauer*, Berry*, Bogner, Chess Magnet, Continental Chess*, Goichberg*,
Hall*, Hanken*, Hough*, Kronenberger**, Kronenberger Burgoyne**,
Lafferty, Mottershead, Sloan and the USCF*. All else is lies.
One lie is there were no "Polgar Lawsuits", only one lawsuit, entered
into with an obvious regret. You do not name frivilous lawsuits filed
by the likes of Mr. Sloan or Mr. Parker, or the USCF, as "Polgar
Lawsuits".
A second lie is that Mr. Sloan should have knowledge that all of the
defendants with names marked with the * can be included in the $1.00
offer. Those marked with the **, it would be irresponsible to the
extreme for me to say more, but it is possible for an arrangement to
be reached to prevent further regrettable damages to all reputations.
The appropriate communications were sent to the necessary parties.
Of the remaining five, not one is an officer of the USCF. They can
consult with their lawyers. Still it may be that Mr. Mottershead can
extract himself by paying costs and apologizing. Due to undeserved
generosity, it could be possible for Mr. Bogner and his LLC to escape
by paying costs and some penalty and publishing apologies and letters
to some appropriate authorities.
There can be strict time limits on all the possibilities of offers.
The remainders are Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Sloan. For them there can not
be any chances of any offer. Due to the alleged poverty or vagrancy
of Mr. Sloan, it means a burden will fall on Mrs. and Mr. Lafferty.
Many warnings were given but Mr. Lafferty ignored every one and he
recklessly chose alliance with allegedly mentally sick parties.
A third lie is that Mr. Sloan is a responsible journalist with an
excellent reputation. The opposite is the truth.
I read in the papers that Proskauer Rose is badly affected by the
economic downturn, many staff are to be fired, these lawyers may be
out of business. But on their website I could not find any specifics.
Those who wish to litigate are even reminded of the opinion of Byte
Metrics (a much higher caliber than Ulevitch or Jones). I revealed
this in the summer and it was anonymously republished in rgcp.
[quote="XXXXXXXX"] I strongly suspect that any investigation that
we or another company does will not yield results of evidential
value; by that I mean provable, by a preponderance of facts, evidence
upon which one would rely to not just bring a complaint to court, but
to actually prevail on that complaint at trial. Rather, what I expect
that we could find, depending on how your emails have been preserved
since the time of these incidents, is evidence that someone was
"spoofing", that is, impersonating another's email.
The way this is usually discerned is in the differences in the IP
addresses of the email owner and the impersonator. Assuming that one
did find a difference in IP addresses, then the different IP address
would have to be traced. And it is in that step that I believe we
would come up empty, as the canny spoofer will have covered his/her
tracks. Thus, the best outcome I would foresee is that we could show
that an unknown someone was impersonating the true email account
holder. And even then, one couldn't rule out the possibility that the
true email account holder was spoofing him/herself, a tactic one
imagines a skilled chess player might use.
Realistically, however, I believe that an investigation would
show possibilities, perhaps probabilities, but not certainties.
Regards,
Mike
byte-metrics.com [/quote]
Mike did not mention the technique of "tunnelling". This makes it not
possible to trace an IP, even for the ISP or federal agencies. The
"canny" forgers use this for web surfing. They can also make the IP
look like that from an infected access PC. Could be Mr. Alexander's.
The same Mr. Alexander who is Laffing at Mr. Lafferty's pathetical
attempts to smear and intimidate him and drive a wedge between him
and his true friends.
I am not Mrs. Polgar. I do not speak for Mrs. Polgar. But I shall be
working to ensure that if the $1 offer is not accepted we hold the
elections in Feb/March due to the administrative failure of the EB.
Then every detail will be cleared. If this became necessary the chess
players could never ever forgive those who took the side of Mr. Sloan
whose scandalous history and breedcow conducts may be fully revealed.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 13:18:48
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: direct lies by Mr. Sloan in response to George on Polgar Lawsuits
|
Illbay Oichberggay wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Thanks to our friends at last Ms. Alarie has grasped how unacceptable
> it can be for her to have her name forever linked with the likes of
> Mr. Sloan et al.
>
> Mr. Sloan wrote on 12/19/2008...
>> [quote="George"]It seems to me that if we could end the lawsuits that
>> would be good for USCF.
>>
>> I do not see the present people in power making any attempt to end the
>> lawsuits.
>>
>> Susan offered to not bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid $1. So it
>> seems the present administration is running on some kind of mind
>> altering Kool Aid. How can those opposed to Susan convince the
>> membership that spending in excess of $100,000 on lawyers is better
>> then giving $1 to stop a lawsuit. I suspect the membership will vote
>> for Polgar just as they did last time. [/quote]
>>
>> George,
>>
>> You fail to understand and so do many others.
>>
>> Susan did not offer not to bring her lawsuit if the USCF had paid her
>> $1.
>>
>> Rather, she offered to drop the USCF from the list of 15 defendants to
>> her lawsuit if the USCF apologized, promised never to do it again, and
>> paid her $1. She would then be free to go forward with her cases
>> against Bill Goichberg, the other board members and the other
>> defendants.
>
> This is a most direct lie by Mr. Sloan, what we have become accustom
> to expect from him. His only truth is that there were 15 defendants,
> Bauer*, Berry*, Bogner, Chess Magnet, Continental Chess*, Goichberg*,
> Hall*, Hanken*, Hough*, Kronenberger**, Kronenberger Burgoyne**,
> Lafferty, Mottershead, Sloan and the USCF*. All else is lies.
>
> One lie is there were no "Polgar Lawsuits", only one lawsuit, entered
> into with an obvious regret. You do not name frivilous lawsuits filed
> by the likes of Mr. Sloan or Mr. Parker, or the USCF, as "Polgar
> Lawsuits".
>
> A second lie is that Mr. Sloan should have knowledge that all of the
> defendants with names marked with the * can be included in the $1.00
> offer. Those marked with the **, it would be irresponsible to the
> extreme for me to say more, but it is possible for an arrangement to
> be reached to prevent further regrettable damages to all reputations.
> The appropriate communications were sent to the necessary parties.
> Of the remaining five, not one is an officer of the USCF. They can
> consult with their lawyers. Still it may be that Mr. Mottershead can
> extract himself by paying costs and apologizing. Due to undeserved
> generosity, it could be possible for Mr. Bogner and his LLC to escape
> by paying costs and some penalty and publishing apologies and letters
> to some appropriate authorities.
> There can be strict time limits on all the possibilities of offers.
> The remainders are Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Sloan. For them there can not
> be any chances of any offer. Due to the alleged poverty or vagrancy
> of Mr. Sloan, it means a burden will fall on Mrs. and Mr. Lafferty.
> Many warnings were given but Mr. Lafferty ignored every one and he
> recklessly chose alliance with allegedly mentally sick parties.
>
> A third lie is that Mr. Sloan is a responsible journalist with an
> excellent reputation. The opposite is the truth.
>
> I read in the papers that Proskauer Rose is badly affected by the
> economic downturn, many staff are to be fired, these lawyers may be
> out of business. But on their website I could not find any specifics.
> Those who wish to litigate are even reminded of the opinion of Byte
> Metrics (a much higher caliber than Ulevitch or Jones). I revealed
> this in the summer and it was anonymously republished in rgcp.
> [quote="XXXXXXXX"] I strongly suspect that any investigation that
> we or another company does will not yield results of evidential
> value; by that I mean provable, by a preponderance of facts, evidence
> upon which one would rely to not just bring a complaint to court, but
> to actually prevail on that complaint at trial. Rather, what I expect
> that we could find, depending on how your emails have been preserved
> since the time of these incidents, is evidence that someone was
> "spoofing", that is, impersonating another's email.
> The way this is usually discerned is in the differences in the IP
> addresses of the email owner and the impersonator. Assuming that one
> did find a difference in IP addresses, then the different IP address
> would have to be traced. And it is in that step that I believe we
> would come up empty, as the canny spoofer will have covered his/her
> tracks. Thus, the best outcome I would foresee is that we could show
> that an unknown someone was impersonating the true email account
> holder. And even then, one couldn't rule out the possibility that the
> true email account holder was spoofing him/herself, a tactic one
> imagines a skilled chess player might use.
> Realistically, however, I believe that an investigation would
> show possibilities, perhaps probabilities, but not certainties.
> Regards,
> Mike
> byte-metrics.com [/quote]
>
> Mike did not mention the technique of "tunnelling". This makes it not
> possible to trace an IP, even for the ISP or federal agencies. The
> "canny" forgers use this for web surfing. They can also make the IP
> look like that from an infected access PC. Could be Mr. Alexander's.
> The same Mr. Alexander who is Laffing at Mr. Lafferty's pathetical
> attempts to smear and intimidate him and drive a wedge between him
> and his true friends.
>
> I am not Mrs. Polgar. I do not speak for Mrs. Polgar. But I shall be
> working to ensure that if the $1 offer is not accepted we hold the
> elections in Feb/March due to the administrative failure of the EB.
> Then every detail will be cleared. If this became necessary the chess
> players could never ever forgive those who took the side of Mr. Sloan
> whose scandalous history and breedcow conducts may be fully revealed.
>
archived
|
|
