| |
Main
Date: 27 Jan 2008 04:58:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On her blog, Susan says that she has secret "rock solid" evidence
proving that she and her husband are not guilty of 2,464 the "Fake Sam
Sloan" postings.
Unfortunately, she cannot reveal this secret evidence until the case
is over.
Here is what Susan says:
"Blogger SusanPolgar said...
"Chris, nice to see your post. I know the evidence first hand. It
was faxed to the USCF attorney. The evidence is absolutely rock solid.
Perhaps one of these days after the case is dismissed, we can make it
public for all members to see.
"Best wishes to you and your family and Happy New Year!
"Susan Polgar"
Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:55:00 PM CST
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/01/financial-disaster-ahead.html
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 18:17:04
From:
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
I would like to buy one of those 12 feet by 12 feet giant chess boards and
fuck Susan Polgar on it!
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 21:02:26
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Jan 29, 5:24 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:08:59 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > when you
> >see me refer to P Innes in the future, you may rest assured that I am
> >really meaning Poor Innes.
>
> Hmmmmm. Pooooooor Innes!
>
> (who said that?).
Uncle Vik?
And I've never been to Washington State!
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 21:06:12
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
On Jan 29, 4:17 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
You, Mr. Innes, are an
> intellectual charlatan of the first order.
YES! YES! YES!
It's nice that someone finally caught on.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 21:02:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Jan 29, 12:18 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > the Bowel of Brattleboro.
>
> OUCH!!
A reference to "the large bowel in his neck" prompted P Innes' first
known death threat, the famous "sharper than wit" post.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 21:00:39
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Jan 29, 1:37 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Chess One wrote:
> >>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>>> Mr. Innes,
>
> >>>> By making unsubstantiated claims of obscenity against non-Christians, by
> >>>> prior posts suggesting Satanic activities of non-Christians you have
> >>> BIGOTS - LIBRE!
>
> >>> What a complete nutter to blather on about resentment from the pulpit of
> >>> the Church of Remailers
> >> So you really can not understand why people with different religions than
> >> yours would take exception and be insulted by your reks? Do you think
> >> this serves you well in some way? Do you realize that there are billions
> >> of people on the planet that see religion differently than you? You are
> >> insulting all of them!
>
> > I am insulting no-one.
>
> When you stated "BIGOTS - LIBRE!" you not only confessed and confirmed
> your bigotry, but you are also promoting it... Are you an anti-Semite
> as well?
From 2000:
Bob Simpson:
> > Fischer said the Holocaust never happened. Do you agree?
P Innes:
> My understanding of the KZs has absolutely nothing to do with Mr.
> Fischer's, who, as I have said clearly above, is encouraged by
> would-be-friends to make extravagant claims of a sensationalist nature.
> What Mr. Robt. J. Fischer really understands about the Showa (sic) is not
> necessarily represented though such 'friends,' and here this Bob, how do
> you or I know his opinion otherwise?
And a further comment:
P Innes:
> Shame on your triffling understanding, of logic, decency and frankness
> in expression, but especially of a particularly dark period in our human
> history, where no-one was much innocent.
If you like, there's a choice P Innes argument that the "blood libel"
isn't anti-Semitic.
I ask for openness from you. Are you representing Susan
> Polgar and Paul Truong with your insults of other's faiths?
>
> I have no idea where you came up with the phrase "Church of Remailers."
> What are you talking about? Just more gibberish?
P Innes seems to think you are behind the anonymous posters. After
all, you've argued with him.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 13:18:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Jan 29, 8:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Has Dr. Phil nearly-IMnes "investigated" who is
> > responsible for the atrocities which make up the
> > SP Web site? Has he bothered to do any
> > "investigating" to discover who, exactly, made up
> > the many lies which appear there? If nearly-an-
> > IMnes cares so much for objectivity and factual
> > "investigation", then why is he unable to answer
> > such questions as these?
>
> Because no-one /here/ is interested in any investigation which does not
> implicate Paul Truong!
Nonsense; as I have pointed out several times,
no one has presented any convincing evidence
that it must be PT rather than his co-traveler,
SP. As far as I can tell, the geographical
location approach is insufficient, because you
cannot just pick one arbitrarily; *if* the evidence
proves that one of these two is the Fake SS, you
still must prove /which one/. (I believe it was SS
who exhibited a strong preference for convicting
Paul Truong-- for obvious reasons; eliminate the
competition.)
> The single exception being Larry Parr who has spoken
> consistently about opening up the issue.
Larry Parr is the imbecile who argued that no
substantive evidence is necessary-- in order to
convict people he doesn't particularly like, that
is. His about-face on that issue would be an
embarrassment to any self-respecting pack of
rats, but seems to pose no problems for the
Evans ratpackers. Food for thought.
> Since Larry Parr and I cannot be
> construed as any menagerie or 'pack' on this issue, our collective advocacy
> to open it up is demonstrably non-partisan.
Well, I must admit that LP's position of "not
having seen" any evidence he didn't want to,
is different from the IMnes approach. I'm
thinking the IMnes approach has been more
like: the evidence is unconvincing, and what's
more, lets just wait and let the courts decide.
Trouble is, many, many court cases are:
1. dropped
2. "settled" for financial reasons
3. tried by judges who are stark raving mad.
Don't take my word for it: review the old TV
shows, where a recently-retired judge tries
minor cases, and the "show" revolves mainly
around their own ego issues, not the evidence.
> What a nit-wit is our corn-fed! Having investigated and openly published the
> views of Susan Polgar, the views of USCF [who else has obtained any
> statement from the board?], and invited Sam Sloan to the very same point of
> opening the doors [still shy!], Corn-fed still asks if I 'investigate'. Has
> anyone else done as much?
You talk as if you've done something here;
what, exactly? All I've seen here is your
typical stonewalling, and ad hom. attacks on
those who accept evidence you don''t like.
Are we to classify /that/ as an important
accomplishment? Why?
> Corn-fed wants to know if I investigate in a partisan way - other
> investigation is not worth mentioning.
Nah. I merely pointed out the fact that
your, um, "investigation", has somehow
missed some pertinent facts. One such
fact is that somebody -- SP and/or PT --
is an inveterate liar and fabricator, as
demonstrated by the contents of the SP
Web site. Comments? Anything to say
about SP's pathetic impersonation of her
sister? Her theft of accomplishments by
many others?
> I put these questions to Jerry Spinrad, since I wonder why he chose to say
> what he did, without any citations or quotations - sine he too, seemed not
> to be interested in opening up, and if the perp was not Truong, then he has
> not chosen to say anything about his further orientation, as if, perhaps, he
> would not be interested in any other result?
I wouldn't know about JS; my comments
were in regard to nearly-IMnes' own claims
regarding his"investigation" skills, which I
find lacking.
> This response will not please Corn-fed who hasn't noticed the complete lack
> of content in Spinrad's effort to warrant his 180 degree opinion, or any
> other opinions he expressed, and instead Corn-fed choses to criticise me for
> pointing that out. <ggg>
I have no position of this JS fellow. My comments
are in regard to the ad hominem barking of nearly-
IMnes, who invariably hounds people who accept
those reports as evidence, while attempting to
muddy the waters, or change the subject at every
opportunity; those are the actions of a desperate
hack-- not an objective investigator.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 09:15:35
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Jan 29, 10:48 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> J.D. Walker wrote:
> >>> Chess One wrote:
> >>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
> >>> While the non-Christian reverend initiates obscene posts.
>
> >>> Mr. Innes,
>
> >>> I am not aware of having made any obscene posts. What are you talking
> >>> about? If I inadvertently did so, I apologize in advance, but I suspect
> >>> you are just engaging in inflammatory hyperbole...
>
> >> Mr. Innes,
>
> >> As a follow up, perhaps you would like to explain your continual religious
> >> bigotry that causes you to single out non-christians for ridicule when it
> >> has nothing to do with the topic at hand...
> >> --
>
> > DIRVERTIMENTI
>
> > no sir, i would not care to make /you/ the even further subject of
> > conversational /diversion/, nor attempt to understand your need for personal
> > attention, even unto what you mean by bigotry - when I wrote "non-Christian
> > reverend", which is merely true by your own words, isn't it?
>
> > i would instead like to attend to what makes a difference in chess, and what
> > inhibits it - and certainly, excessively personality concentrations have
> > almost destroyed it in this country
>
> Mr. Innes,
>
> By making unsubstantiated claims of obscenity against non-Christians, by
> prior posts suggesting Satanic activities of non-Christians you have
> clearly demonstrated religious bigotry. I could go back into the
> archives and dig out further instances of your bigotry. It is clearly
> demonstrable.
>
> If you did not wish to draw my attention to this thread why did you
> mention me at all? Are you a fool?
>
> If you wish to do your /cause/ justice you might take more care with the
> /drivel/ that flows from your mouth.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
That's a vain wish. There's no softener for the 'product' coming from
the Bowel of Brattleboro.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 17:18:17
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
The Historian wrote:
> the Bowel of Brattleboro.
OUCH!!
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2008 15:07:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Jan 28, 4:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **Whose logic? You do not quote anyone, and talk about your own
> 'orientation'. <yikes>
> **Frankly, Jerry Spinrad who writes a historical column on chess, relies far
> too much 'credabilty' and beliefs, and relies not nearly enough on
> investigation
Has Dr. Phil nearly-IMnes "investigated" who is
responsible for the atrocities which make up the
SP Web site? Has he bothered to do any
"investigating" to discover who, exactly, made up
the many lies which appear there? If nearly-an-
IMnes cares so much for objectivity and factual
"investigation", then why is he unable to answer
such questions as these?
IMO, the lies and fabrications which make up
the majority of SP's Web site are consistent
with such accusations as those surrounding the
Fake SS case, and it would behoove us all to
know which lowdown dirty scum is responsible
for either, or perhaps both. The odds seem
good that it is the very same culprit-- completely
lacking in any sense of decency; it is therefore
no surprise to see the evil ratpackers "defend"
or ignore evidence which might implicate the low
scum responsible.
While Fake SS postings might be spoofed (or
not), it is hardly possible to hide the evidence
found on the SP Web site-- indeed, without the
many lies, those pages would be rather empty.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 08:28:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 28, 4:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> **Whose logic? You do not quote anyone, and talk about your own
>> 'orientation'. <yikes>
>
>> **Frankly, Jerry Spinrad who writes a historical column on chess, relies
>> far
>> too much 'credabilty' and beliefs, and relies not nearly enough on
>> investigation
>
> Has Dr. Phil nearly-IMnes "investigated" who is
> responsible for the atrocities which make up the
> SP Web site? Has he bothered to do any
> "investigating" to discover who, exactly, made up
> the many lies which appear there? If nearly-an-
> IMnes cares so much for objectivity and factual
> "investigation", then why is he unable to answer
> such questions as these?
Because no-one /here/ is interested in any investigation which does not
implicate Paul Truong! The single exception being Larry Parr who has spoken
consistently about opening up the issue. Since Larry Parr and I cannot be
construed as any menagerie or 'pack' on this issue, our collective advocacy
to open it up is demonstrably non-partisan.
What a nit-wit is our corn-fed! Having investigated and openly published the
views of Susan Polgar, the views of USCF [who else has obtained any
statement from the board?], and invited Sam Sloan to the very same point of
opening the doors [still shy!], Corn-fed still asks if I 'investigate'. Has
anyone else done as much?
Corn-fed wants to know if I investigate in a partisan way - other
investigation is not worth mentioning.
I put these questions to Jerry Spinrad, since I wonder why he chose to say
what he did, without any citations or quotations - sine he too, seemed not
to be interested in opening up, and if the perp was not Truong, then he has
not chosen to say anything about his further orientation, as if, perhaps, he
would not be interested in any other result?
This response will not please Corn-fed who hasn't noticed the complete lack
of content in Spinrad's effort to warrant his 180 degree opinion, or any
other opinions he expressed, and instead Corn-fed choses to criticise me for
pointing that out. <ggg >
Phil Innes
ps: since the chess.computer folks don't seem to want to read these
materials, lets not copy them, or even alt.hungary... etc
> IMO, the lies and fabrications which make up
> the majority of SP's Web site are consistent
> with such accusations as those surrounding the
> Fake SS case, and it would behoove us all to
> know which lowdown dirty scum is responsible
> for either, or perhaps both. The odds seem
> good that it is the very same culprit-- completely
> lacking in any sense of decency; it is therefore
> no surprise to see the evil ratpackers "defend"
> or ignore evidence which might implicate the low
> scum responsible.
>
> While Fake SS postings might be spoofed (or
> not), it is hardly possible to hide the evidence
> found on the SP Web site-- indeed, without the
> many lies, those pages would be rather empty.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 21:18:12
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
On Jan 30, 2:24 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > Net-trash declare victory, [Vietnam style].
>
> > They return to the cheapest crap you can write on the internet. How odd that
> > clown Laugherty and the ?Reverend? should collude with the biggest and most
> > persistent abusenik on any chessthread?
>
> > For the first 4 months of their protest you could almost believe that it was
> > about abuse itself, but...
>
> > as usual, 7 minutes later, here comes Neil Brennan to support plain and
> > simple abuse - without the slightest attempt to address content - which
> > these folks always dismiss. That is their /entire/ measure.
>
> > Brennan himself says it is not so. Just because he is an abuser doesn't mean
> > he had anything to do with the FSS - and people who comment on that are
> > paranoid. I suppose pending proof, it should be extended the benefit of any
> > doubt, just as any other person is.
>
> > Just as I extend innocence until proved guilty on all the evidence, no
> > matter if the person accused seems to not profile for the task, and no
> > matter how Brennan does. Principal is the same whether you are a shaker and
> > mover of chess, or a net abusenik.
>
> > The very idea that what this agitprop group do is itself become suspect - as
> > has been drawn out here <ggg> - will occur to them very slowly - quicker
> > witted versions of themselves have already know which way the wind blows,
> > and taken off.
>
> > For the record - these are the people who do /not/ want anyone to know what
> > goes on. They are steadfastly against it, and also allowing anyone else to
> > make any comments that does not accord with their miserable and McCarthyite
> > suppositions on other people.
>
> > They are no longer worth addressing individually, since there is nothing at
> > all sincere in them to address.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Phi, the clinic called. They'd like you to stop by this afternoon.
Yah, und mein email to .... Philsy Innes bounced. I post
it here:
"Yah, ist Dr. Ryndtapper here. ....Der Innes thinks I never answer
him ....Who "Larry Tapper"
und "JamesRynd" are I do not know, but they are not me, Dr. D. Owd
Ryndtapper. Perhaps they .... will help me put Innes back
in testing lab. He escaped pretending to be a chess player. Staff did
not realize he was not ordinary lunatic. We need him back behind bars,
chanting "I'm not your boy" and pretending to be strong chess player
to
impress those who do not know better. We give him Internet access as
therapy; it is part of testing.
"Please send me Tyler Kingtson emails, Philsy. We have cupcakes for
you, und big sailor for you to eat since you are on seafood diet."
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper,
Department of Abnormal Psychology,
University of Brattleboro
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 07:39:58
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
On Jan 30, 10:32 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Phil, are you off your meds again?
> I thought the half-way house mother was supposed to make sure you take
> them every day.
P Innes:
> Yes - what fun in Ward 6! Soon nursie will bring the big pink ones, and we
> can laugh all over again.
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper:
You are missed in Ward 6. Male nurse bring you nice big pink one to
put
in your mouth. You laugh almost as much as staff laugh at you.
P Innes:
> Seriously, If friend Rynd is hereabouts - to email me - otherwise I am going
> to slaughter Taylor for charity.
Yah, I vill email, if you come back to testing lab. Philsy sick pup,
need to be treated for kookiness.
Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper,
Department of Experimental Abnormal Psychology,
University of Brattleboro
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 13:44:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
Net-trash declare victory, [Vietnam style].
They return to the cheapest crap you can write on the internet. How odd that
clown Laugherty and the ?Reverend? should collude with the biggest and most
persistent abusenik on any chessthread?
For the first 4 months of their protest you could almost believe that it was
about abuse itself, but...
as usual, 7 minutes later, here comes Neil Brennan to support plain and
simple abuse - without the slightest attempt to address content - which
these folks always dismiss. That is their /entire/ measure.
Brennan himself says it is not so. Just because he is an abuser doesn't mean
he had anything to do with the FSS - and people who comment on that are
paranoid. I suppose pending proof, it should be extended the benefit of any
doubt, just as any other person is.
Just as I extend innocence until proved guilty on all the evidence, no
matter if the person accused seems to not profile for the task, and no
matter how Brennan does. Principal is the same whether you are a shaker and
mover of chess, or a net abusenik.
The very idea that what this agitprop group do is itself become suspect - as
has been drawn out here <ggg > - will occur to them very slowly - quicker
witted versions of themselves have already know which way the wind blows,
and taken off.
For the record - these are the people who do /not/ want anyone to know what
goes on. They are steadfastly against it, and also allowing anyone else to
make any comments that does not accord with their miserable and McCarthyite
suppositions on other people.
They are no longer worth addressing individually, since there is nothing at
all sincere in them to address.
Phil Innes
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:598350f0-dbc1-41e8-9e0f-91306ae31ee9@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 10:32 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Phil, are you off your meds again?
>> I thought the half-way house mother was supposed to make sure you take
>> them every day.
>
> P Innes:
>> Yes - what fun in Ward 6! Soon nursie will bring the big pink ones, and
>> we
>> can laugh all over again.
>
> Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper:
> You are missed in Ward 6. Male nurse bring you nice big pink one to
> put
> in your mouth. You laugh almost as much as staff laugh at you.
>
> P Innes:
>> Seriously, If friend Rynd is hereabouts - to email me - otherwise I am
>> going
>> to slaughter Taylor for charity.
>
> Yah, I vill email, if you come back to testing lab. Philsy sick pup,
> need to be treated for kookiness.
>
> Dr. D. Owd Ryndtapper,
> Department of Experimental Abnormal Psychology,
> University of Brattleboro
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 13:19:22
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
Chess One wrote:
> Net-trash declare victory, [Vietnam style].
>
> They return to the cheapest crap you can write on the internet. How odd that
> clown Laugherty and the ?Reverend? should collude with the biggest and most
> persistent abusenik on any chessthread?
>
> For the first 4 months of their protest you could almost believe that it was
> about abuse itself, but...
>
> as usual, 7 minutes later, here comes Neil Brennan to support plain and
> simple abuse - without the slightest attempt to address content - which
> these folks always dismiss. That is their /entire/ measure.
>
> Brennan himself says it is not so. Just because he is an abuser doesn't mean
> he had anything to do with the FSS - and people who comment on that are
> paranoid. I suppose pending proof, it should be extended the benefit of any
> doubt, just as any other person is.
>
> Just as I extend innocence until proved guilty on all the evidence, no
> matter if the person accused seems to not profile for the task, and no
> matter how Brennan does. Principal is the same whether you are a shaker and
> mover of chess, or a net abusenik.
>
> The very idea that what this agitprop group do is itself become suspect - as
> has been drawn out here <ggg> - will occur to them very slowly - quicker
> witted versions of themselves have already know which way the wind blows,
> and taken off.
>
> For the record - these are the people who do /not/ want anyone to know what
> goes on. They are steadfastly against it, and also allowing anyone else to
> make any comments that does not accord with their miserable and McCarthyite
> suppositions on other people.
>
> They are no longer worth addressing individually, since there is nothing at
> all sincere in them to address.
>
> Phil Innes
Mr. Innes,
After reflecting on much of what you have posted over the last six
months, I have concluded that you are one of the unfortunate ongoing
tragedies of rec.games.chess. As in other cases, I hope you will find
recovery and peace at some point in your life.
Have a nice day.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 19:24:56
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
Chess One wrote:
> Net-trash declare victory, [Vietnam style].
>
> They return to the cheapest crap you can write on the internet. How odd that
> clown Laugherty and the ?Reverend? should collude with the biggest and most
> persistent abusenik on any chessthread?
>
> For the first 4 months of their protest you could almost believe that it was
> about abuse itself, but...
>
> as usual, 7 minutes later, here comes Neil Brennan to support plain and
> simple abuse - without the slightest attempt to address content - which
> these folks always dismiss. That is their /entire/ measure.
>
> Brennan himself says it is not so. Just because he is an abuser doesn't mean
> he had anything to do with the FSS - and people who comment on that are
> paranoid. I suppose pending proof, it should be extended the benefit of any
> doubt, just as any other person is.
>
> Just as I extend innocence until proved guilty on all the evidence, no
> matter if the person accused seems to not profile for the task, and no
> matter how Brennan does. Principal is the same whether you are a shaker and
> mover of chess, or a net abusenik.
>
> The very idea that what this agitprop group do is itself become suspect - as
> has been drawn out here <ggg> - will occur to them very slowly - quicker
> witted versions of themselves have already know which way the wind blows,
> and taken off.
>
> For the record - these are the people who do /not/ want anyone to know what
> goes on. They are steadfastly against it, and also allowing anyone else to
> make any comments that does not accord with their miserable and McCarthyite
> suppositions on other people.
>
> They are no longer worth addressing individually, since there is nothing at
> all sincere in them to address.
>
> Phil Innes
Phi, the clinic called. They'd like you to stop by this afternoon.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 06:28:23
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
On Jan 30, 9:10 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, Brian Lafferty
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Bullshit. You're the one making personal attacks and not discussing the
> >>issues and the facts underlying those issues. You, Mr. Innes, are an
> >>intellectual charlatan of the fist order. PLONK!
>
> > Jeez, don't plonk him. What will you do amusement?
>
> Indeed, please talk amongst yourselves. The real investigation is not going
> on here, but those who contribute here are not so much part of any objective
> review committee, as much as they themselves are suspects. Who is doing more
> to resent the idea of opening up this can of worms? And why? That is a fair
> journalistic question. :)
>
> Of all commentaries, the most amusing came from Laugherty - so stung
> yesterday about his own 'role' he had to excise my entire response to him,
> then publicly *plonk* this writer.
>
> Somehow, this intellectual giant [standing on the shoulders of trolls?] has
> proposed that the very idea of openning up the issue for all to see, is
> insincere, even though it was the USCF baord who voted on the issue,
> prompted by my letter to them - which in fact required a board resolution to
> respond at all.
>
> Laugherty resolves from this circumstance that the offer to open the records
> [rejected 4 to 3] was therefore 'insincere'.
>
> :)) That is the level of inane commentary we read here, and only here,
> since these clowns have been ejected everywhere else. Attempting more
> rational, and sober commentary is simply drowned out by endless noise in
> engagement with this crew - and who actually bothers to do so?
>
> Since what I asked was that all evidence be considered, this was not to this
> groups' liking at all! After yesterday's show of emotion, the crew are
> back, for what they call amusement, at other people's expense [of course!],
> and which yet others call shadenfreude.
>
> Now - why would any group of people /not want/ the issue opened up? There
> are 2 plausible reasons,
>
> (a) as we read above in their own words, it will spoil their fun, and (b)
> ... ?
>
> (b) is under broader investigation, and quite naturally I do not invite the
> views of those here investigated on /their own/ activities, since as we all
> know the agitprop campaign is only interested in get-Truong activities.
> Neither am i the investigator of it! Though I can take their activities into
> account
>
> But their collective output here is another sort of evidence. A
> demonstration. What all this means is that, in good time, there will be one
> way or another, much more to say than is here suggested. I think everyone
> can safely count on that.
>
> This is not an invitation to engage this agitprop group further - it is a
> notice to all other readers that their great campaign seems to comprise
> themselves alone, is not taking place anywhere else, and that after the
> opening gambit, we are hardly into any middlegame yet ;)
>
> Phil Innes
As I've stated before, anyone who criticizes P Innes will be accused
of being the FSS.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 13:37:30
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jan 28, 4:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> **Whose logic? You do not quote anyone, and talk about your own
>>> 'orientation'. <yikes>
>>> **Frankly, Jerry Spinrad who writes a historical column on chess, relies
>>> far
>>> too much 'credabilty' and beliefs, and relies not nearly enough on
>>> investigation
>> Has Dr. Phil nearly-IMnes "investigated" who is
>> responsible for the atrocities which make up the
>> SP Web site? Has he bothered to do any
>> "investigating" to discover who, exactly, made up
>> the many lies which appear there? If nearly-an-
>> IMnes cares so much for objectivity and factual
>> "investigation", then why is he unable to answer
>> such questions as these?
>
> Because no-one /here/ is interested in any investigation which does not
> implicate Paul Truong!
Bullshit.
[remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 08:49:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:u_Fnj.1602$1f.58@trndny02...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Jan 28, 4:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **Whose logic? You do not quote anyone, and talk about your own
>>>> 'orientation'. <yikes>
>>>> **Frankly, Jerry Spinrad who writes a historical column on chess,
>>>> relies far
>>>> too much 'credabilty' and beliefs, and relies not nearly enough on
>>>> investigation
>>> Has Dr. Phil nearly-IMnes "investigated" who is
>>> responsible for the atrocities which make up the
>>> SP Web site? Has he bothered to do any
>>> "investigating" to discover who, exactly, made up
>>> the many lies which appear there? If nearly-an-
>>> IMnes cares so much for objectivity and factual
>>> "investigation", then why is he unable to answer
>>> such questions as these?
>>
>> Because no-one /here/ is interested in any investigation which does not
>> implicate Paul Truong!
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
What he does is not what he says! If anyone wanted more proof of the gang's
orientation, such posts say it all, that is, they say nothing at all! They
meticulously erase all evidence of an open investigation. They even erase
their own URLs ;) While the non-Christian reverend initiates obscene posts.
For a group where openness = partisanship, all is Orwellian double-think, an
action actually erasing thought itself.
Reminds me of some scene from Dylan's Desolation Row. Phil Innes
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 06:04:17
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
While the non-Christian reverend initiates obscene posts.
Mr. Innes,
I am not aware of having made any obscene posts. What are you talking
about? If I inadvertently did so, I apologize in advance, but I suspect
you are just engaging in inflammatory hyperbole...
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 06:21:58
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
J.D. Walker wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
> While the non-Christian reverend initiates obscene posts.
>
> Mr. Innes,
>
> I am not aware of having made any obscene posts. What are you talking
> about? If I inadvertently did so, I apologize in advance, but I suspect
> you are just engaging in inflammatory hyperbole...
Mr. Innes,
As a follow up, perhaps you would like to explain your continual
religious bigotry that causes you to single out non-christians for
ridicule when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand...
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 10:38:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J.D. Walker wrote:
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
>> While the non-Christian reverend initiates obscene posts.
>>
>> Mr. Innes,
>>
>> I am not aware of having made any obscene posts. What are you talking
>> about? If I inadvertently did so, I apologize in advance, but I suspect
>> you are just engaging in inflammatory hyperbole...
>
>
> Mr. Innes,
>
> As a follow up, perhaps you would like to explain your continual religious
> bigotry that causes you to single out non-christians for ridicule when it
> has nothing to do with the topic at hand...
> --
DIRVERTIMENTI
no sir, i would not care to make /you/ the even further subject of
conversational /diversion/, nor attempt to understand your need for personal
attention, even unto what you mean by bigotry - when I wrote "non-Christian
reverend", which is merely true by your own words, isn't it?
i would instead like to attend to what makes a difference in chess, and what
inhibits it - and certainly, excessively personality concentrations have
almost destroyed it in this country
if you and others keep snipping the content, then, just as in my reply to
lafferty, what you do is very clear to all here
---
TO SEE, OR NOT TO SEE?
so - the topical content is that uscf does not want to open the
informational doors to let everyone make their own assessment - and as such,
since susan polgar and paul truong are board members, they are currently
restrained from make the "Secret Evidence" public by action of the majority
of the board
rather than dispute anything immediate, it is better if correspondents
actually admit what they dispute - so to you, Spinrad, lafferty, Brennan,
Corn-fed, Murray, and the Queen of the May - that is the topical issue here
plainly the group that has agitated against Paul Truong have commited
contortions around this development, claiming that the desire for open
information is in fact its opposite - and just as plainly, this is a level
of commentary which is laugh out loud daft - and exposes the anti-Truong
group - differentiating them them from those who wish to discover *whoever*
is the FSS [singular or plural]
that is the plain issue, unspinnable in fact, since all other protestations
can only be partisan likes or dislikes and implicitly a vote for
non-disclosure and official secrets in chess, from which smokey screen,
netwits can offer their suggestive 'questions' and innuendos as if the issue
was as open to review as a game of chess, instead of a game of liar's poker
phil innes
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 07:48:55
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> J.D. Walker wrote:
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
>>> While the non-Christian reverend initiates obscene posts.
>>>
>>> Mr. Innes,
>>>
>>> I am not aware of having made any obscene posts. What are you talking
>>> about? If I inadvertently did so, I apologize in advance, but I suspect
>>> you are just engaging in inflammatory hyperbole...
>>
>> Mr. Innes,
>>
>> As a follow up, perhaps you would like to explain your continual religious
>> bigotry that causes you to single out non-christians for ridicule when it
>> has nothing to do with the topic at hand...
>> --
>
> DIRVERTIMENTI
>
> no sir, i would not care to make /you/ the even further subject of
> conversational /diversion/, nor attempt to understand your need for personal
> attention, even unto what you mean by bigotry - when I wrote "non-Christian
> reverend", which is merely true by your own words, isn't it?
>
> i would instead like to attend to what makes a difference in chess, and what
> inhibits it - and certainly, excessively personality concentrations have
> almost destroyed it in this country
>
Mr. Innes,
By making unsubstantiated claims of obscenity against non-Christians, by
prior posts suggesting Satanic activities of non-Christians you have
clearly demonstrated religious bigotry. I could go back into the
archives and dig out further instances of your bigotry. It is clearly
demonstrable.
If you did not wish to draw my attention to this thread why did you
mention me at all? Are you a fool?
If you wish to do your /cause/ justice you might take more care with the
/drivel/ that flows from your mouth.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 12:07:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr. Innes,
>
> By making unsubstantiated claims of obscenity against non-Christians, by
> prior posts suggesting Satanic activities of non-Christians you have
BIGOTS - LIBRE!
What a complete nutter to blather on about resentment from the pulpit of the
Church of Remailers [ROFL] and have the nerve to call anyone who wants to
see the whole of an issue, a bigot, while personally carrying on whining in
the most obviously evasive way, in the pseudo anonymous agitprop campaign,
as if /he/ were the victim of anything, other than to expose himself as what
he is.
I think anyone will discover the definition is someone with a ked
indifference to looking at the whole thing, while presuming to be the judge
of all.
WHAT WAS MY POINT?
I wonder if The Rev Rem and the team of heroes wanted to look at the whole
thing, or if all interest evaporated if Paul Truong is not the only topic of
'conversations'? <--studiously avoided question
Otherwise I recommend the Reverend Remailer to seek the bigot within.
For sure, if what the Rev does here is typical of his gig, I am against it.
But that doesn't make me a bigot - I want /everyone/ to look at the /whole/
thing, and have never varied an inch from that stance.
Phil Innes
> clearly demonstrated religious bigotry. I could go back into the archives
> and dig out further instances of your bigotry. It is clearly
> demonstrable.
>
> If you did not wish to draw my attention to this thread why did you
> mention me at all? Are you a fool?
>
> If you wish to do your /cause/ justice you might take more care with the
> /drivel/ that flows from your mouth.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 09:14:35
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Mr. Innes,
>>
>> By making unsubstantiated claims of obscenity against non-Christians, by
>> prior posts suggesting Satanic activities of non-Christians you have
>
> BIGOTS - LIBRE!
>
> What a complete nutter to blather on about resentment from the pulpit of the
> Church of Remailers
So you really can not understand why people with different religions
than yours would take exception and be insulted by your reks? Do you
think this serves you well in some way? Do you realize that there are
billions of people on the planet that see religion differently than you?
You are insulting all of them! It is hard for me to imagine that you
have the support of Susan Polgar in trashing other people's faiths.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 13:26:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Mr. Innes,
>>>
>>> By making unsubstantiated claims of obscenity against non-Christians, by
>>> prior posts suggesting Satanic activities of non-Christians you have
>>
>> BIGOTS - LIBRE!
>>
>> What a complete nutter to blather on about resentment from the pulpit of
>> the Church of Remailers
>
> So you really can not understand why people with different religions than
> yours would take exception and be insulted by your reks? Do you think
> this serves you well in some way? Do you realize that there are billions
> of people on the planet that see religion differently than you? You are
> insulting all of them!
I am insulting no-one. Don't snip and run, reverend remailer! That makes you
a coward, see? And everyone here /can/ see.
> It is hard for me to imagine that you have the support of Susan Polgar in
> trashing other people's faiths.
The abusenik continues to whine and make it all about him! What a truly sad
story he tells. <sob >
Of course, he cut the bit about looking at the whole thing - and if that
makes you a bigot or not - in order to pronouce for everyone else. So...
pftt!
You have to be pretty bust to try this strategy ;)
pi
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 10:37:18
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Mr. Innes,
>>>>
>>>> By making unsubstantiated claims of obscenity against non-Christians, by
>>>> prior posts suggesting Satanic activities of non-Christians you have
>>> BIGOTS - LIBRE!
>>>
>>> What a complete nutter to blather on about resentment from the pulpit of
>>> the Church of Remailers
>> So you really can not understand why people with different religions than
>> yours would take exception and be insulted by your reks? Do you think
>> this serves you well in some way? Do you realize that there are billions
>> of people on the planet that see religion differently than you? You are
>> insulting all of them!
>
> I am insulting no-one.
When you stated "BIGOTS - LIBRE!" you not only confessed and confirmed
your bigotry, but you are also promoting it... Are you an anti-Semite
as well? I ask for openness from you. Are you representing Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong with your insults of other's faiths?
I have no idea where you came up with the phrase "Church of Remailers."
What are you talking about? Just more gibberish?
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 09:05:06
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:48:55 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Mr. Innes,
>...Are you a fool?
Certainly an appropriate question considering his recent posts, but a
tad ambiguous. Did you mean "fool" in the more modern sense of one
lacking judgment, or were you getting medieval on us, referring to a
clown or lackey who performs humorous but degrading acts for the
amusement of royalty such as a Queen?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 17:13:13
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:48:55 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Mr. Innes,
>> ...Are you a fool?
>
> Certainly an appropriate question considering his recent posts, but a
> tad ambiguous. Did you mean "fool" in the more modern sense of one
> lacking judgment, or were you getting medieval on us, referring to a
> clown or lackey who performs humorous but degrading acts for the
> amusement of royalty such as a Queen?
Actually Mike, the medieval fool was an important person in the royal
court. The Fool was the only one who could openly call the King/Queen
to task for folly. Of course, it helped to do it with a sense of comic
presentation--make them laugh at themselves. Phil ain't no medieval fool.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 13:56:16
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:u_Fnj.1602$1f.58@trndny02...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Jan 28, 4:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> **Whose logic? You do not quote anyone, and talk about your own
>>>>> 'orientation'. <yikes>
>>>>> **Frankly, Jerry Spinrad who writes a historical column on chess,
>>>>> relies far
>>>>> too much 'credabilty' and beliefs, and relies not nearly enough on
>>>>> investigation
>>>> Has Dr. Phil nearly-IMnes "investigated" who is
>>>> responsible for the atrocities which make up the
>>>> SP Web site? Has he bothered to do any
>>>> "investigating" to discover who, exactly, made up
>>>> the many lies which appear there? If nearly-an-
>>>> IMnes cares so much for objectivity and factual
>>>> "investigation", then why is he unable to answer
>>>> such questions as these?
>>> Because no-one /here/ is interested in any investigation which does not
>>> implicate Paul Truong!
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
>
> What he does is not what he says! If anyone wanted more proof of the gang's
> orientation, such posts say it all, that is, they say nothing at all! They
> meticulously erase all evidence of an open investigation. They even erase
> their own URLs ;) While the non-Christian reverend initiates obscene posts.
> For a group where openness = partisanship, all is Orwellian double-think, an
> action actually erasing thought itself.
>
> Reminds me of some scene from Dylan's Desolation Row. Phil Innes
>
>
More Innes bullshit. Tell your pal Trolgar to show us that evidence
clearing Paul. If they have it, it would be wonderful to see it and put
this whole sorry mess behind us. Trolgar could have done this months
ago, before any litigation, but they didn't and still haven't. Why is
that Mr. Chess One? Because it's all Trolgar smoke and mirrors? Hint
Phil, only the Trolgar acolytes are swallowing the line these days.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 09:29:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4gGnj.1152$6g.95@trndny05...
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
>>
>> What he does is not what he says! If anyone wanted more proof of the
>> gang's orientation, such posts say it all, that is, they say nothing at
>> all! They meticulously erase all evidence of an open investigation. They
>> even erase their own URLs ;) While the non-Christian reverend initiates
>> obscene posts. For a group where openness = partisanship, all is
>> Orwellian double-think, an action actually erasing thought itself.
>>
>> Reminds me of some scene from Dylan's Desolation Row. Phil Innes
> More Innes bullshit.
Lafferty - it is your /actions/ which are evident. And since you snip
'drivel' which asks for openness, and all commentary which does not directly
accuse Paul Truong, those are your /deeds/. How inane to deny it and say
'bullshit' when you /demonstrate/ it in every post.
Just like the call for members to make their own evaluation, I let people
decide for themselves their opinion of you based on what you do, not what
you say about what you do. I hope that's OK with you, because they'll do it
anyway ;)
> Tell your pal Trolgar to show us that evidence
If you can't write other people's names without insult, and conspicuously
insult the idea of open conversation, don't ask me to represent your point
of view!
> clearing Paul. If they have it, it would be wonderful to see it and put
> this whole sorry mess behind us. Trolgar could have done this months ago,
> before any litigation, but they didn't and still haven't. Why is that Mr.
> Chess One?
And don't ask facetious questions - you know - the commentary already cut
out of this thread over and over, as if you were (a) not informed of the
answer already, or (b) having a bad hair day.
> Because it's all Trolgar smoke and mirrors? Hint Phil, only the Trolgar
> acolytes are swallowing the line these days.
More double think? Complete openness is become 'smoke and mirrors'. That is
a counsel of desperation, no?
R
O
F
L
!
!
!
Our correspondent ain't called laugherty for nuthin!
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 11:30:12
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:29:54 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>More double think? Complete openness is become 'smoke and mirrors'. That is
>a counsel of desperation, no?
While the Polgar site advocates their version of "openness", they
simultaneously suggest closing down the USCF Members Forum. Of
course, not because it's "open" but because it's too expensive and
underutilized. Ya sure, you betcha.
While they advocate "openness", the rgcp and rgcm forums are peppered
with remailer anonymouse conspiracy advocates parroting one version or
another of the Black Orifice alibi, the official Truong escape hatch.
Coincidence?
Does their "openness" ploy entail Troung giving access to his ISP
records for review? Thought not.
And what's this garbage about "Reverend Remailer"? The Rev Walker
always posts under his own name. It's *your* fellow-travelers that
use the anonymous remailer trick.
Now, as to your prattle that nobody's interested in anything but
pinning it all on Truong. I think most of us would be interested in
any evidence comparable to the Mottershead report that implicated
someone else. The fact is, posts purporting to present such evidence
have been rekably lame. For example, your piffle about the FSS
using poor English while Truong used correct English, the various
stuff about other people having motive, technical skills, etc. There's
been nothing comparable to the Mottershead report, vetted by respected
experts, implicating anybody else. If something shows up we'll look
at it. If it resembles earlier twaddle, it will end up in the List of
the Blind Monkey, where it belongs and where it will be ridiculed and
"rubbished" to a fare-thee-well.
While we're waiting, here's something to consider: why would the USCF
sit on "evidence" which they believe exculpatory for Truong, when they
know it is bound to come out at trial, "evidence" which either Polgar
or Truong could reveal at any time they choose? What would the USCF
gain by this?
If this doesn't cause mental overload, ask yourself if it might not be
a clever ruse to press for release of the "secret" documents, even if
one knew they wouldn't help the PT case directly. If, e.g., one knew
some of the "secret" correspondence contained material embarrassing to
other board members or 3rd parties for other reasons. I mean, it's
win, win. If the USCF reveals it, it causes a big distraction. If
they don't reveal it, one can claim it's because they want to hide
material that would clear PT.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 17:10:14
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:4gGnj.1152$6g.95@trndny05...
>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
>>> What he does is not what he says! If anyone wanted more proof of the
>>> gang's orientation, such posts say it all, that is, they say nothing at
>>> all! They meticulously erase all evidence of an open investigation. They
>>> even erase their own URLs ;) While the non-Christian reverend initiates
>>> obscene posts. For a group where openness = partisanship, all is
>>> Orwellian double-think, an action actually erasing thought itself.
>>>
>>> Reminds me of some scene from Dylan's Desolation Row. Phil Innes
>> More Innes bullshit.
>
> Lafferty - it is your /actions/ which are evident. And since you snip
> 'drivel' which asks for openness, and all commentary which does not directly
> accuse Paul Truong, those are your /deeds/. How inane to deny it and say
> 'bullshit' when you /demonstrate/ it in every post.
The drivel of yours that I snip is the false posturing for openness that
you present on behalf of Trolgar. They have NEVER acted in and open
manner from the secrecy of their riage (which they only admitted to
when people at TTU found they were hiring a ried couple), to Truong's
refusal to allow a third party to verify his prior business experience
from former clients, to Truong's failure to document or explain his
Vietnamese chess championships (all eleven of them), to Truong's sending
a defamatory communication to FOC members behind the subject's back, to
Polgar's defamation of Joe Lux behind his back and her abject lie to
Bill Hall that she only sent it "a" and "b" when she got caught sending
a bcc to Randy Bauer and then also admitted that she had sent it to
others. So yes Phil, Trolgar's call, and your call on their behalf, for
openness and transparency is nothing more than hollow bullshit.
>
> Just like the call for members to make their own evaluation, I let people
> decide for themselves their opinion of you based on what you do, not what
> you say about what you do. I hope that's OK with you, because they'll do it
> anyway ;)
Well that's mighty generous of you Phil to let people make their own
judgments of me. Thanks so very much.
>
>> Tell your pal Trolgar to show us that evidence
>
> If you can't write other people's names without insult, and conspicuously
> insult the idea of open conversation, don't ask me to represent your point
> of view!
Trolgar is not meant as an insult, Phil. It's a simple contraction of
their two names for writing convenience when referring to both of them.
Why would you, or they, consider it an insult?
>
>> clearing Paul. If they have it, it would be wonderful to see it and put
>> this whole sorry mess behind us. Trolgar could have done this months ago,
>> before any litigation, but they didn't and still haven't. Why is that Mr.
>> Chess One?
>
> And don't ask facetious questions - you know - the commentary already cut
> out of this thread over and over, as if you were (a) not informed of the
> answer already, or (b) having a bad hair day.
Indeed, Trolgar's claims to have evidence of Truong's innocence is
facetious as in a very bad and expensive joke for the USCF.
>
>> Because it's all Trolgar smoke and mirrors? Hint Phil, only the Trolgar
>> acolytes are swallowing the line these days.
>
> More double think? Complete openness is become 'smoke and mirrors'. That is
> a counsel of desperation, no?
Complete openness? See above,Phil.
[drivel snipped yet again]
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 12:58:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:W5Jnj.1207$fg.1078@trndny03...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:4gGnj.1152$6g.95@trndny05...
>>
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
>>>> What he does is not what he says! If anyone wanted more proof of the
>>>> gang's orientation, such posts say it all, that is, they say nothing at
>>>> all! They meticulously erase all evidence of an open investigation.
>>>> They even erase their own URLs ;) While the non-Christian reverend
>>>> initiates obscene posts. For a group where openness = partisanship, all
>>>> is Orwellian double-think, an action actually erasing thought itself.
>>>>
>>>> Reminds me of some scene from Dylan's Desolation Row. Phil Innes
>>> More Innes bullshit.
>>
>> Lafferty - it is your /actions/ which are evident. And since you snip
>> 'drivel' which asks for openness, and all commentary which does not
>> directly accuse Paul Truong, those are your /deeds/. How inane to deny it
>> and say 'bullshit' when you /demonstrate/ it in every post.
>
> The drivel of yours that I snip is the false posturing for openness that
Let me tell you something very straight Lafferty! You don't have the courage
of your convictions to tell anyone anything - and you are caught out on this
issue.
How on earth can the offer to release material from USCF be termed
'posturing', when it is USCF's decision to release it or not? and MEMBERS
decision to make what they want of it?
Is this some *special* legal use of the term 'posture'?
Otherwise I tell you quite candidly that your use of the term is
counter-intuitive. Or, if that is not direct enough, wrong.
> you present on behalf of Trolgar.
Actually, I presented on behalf of USCF as well.
> They have NEVER acted in and open manner from the secrecy of their
> riage (which they only admitted to when people at TTU found they were
> hiring a ried couple),
I knew
> to Truong's refusal to allow a third party to verify his prior business
> experience
He asked me to find people who would vet him, people who did not know him
personally, nor could possibly be interested parties. And I wrote that right
here in public.
> from former clients, to Truong's failure to document or explain his
> Vietnamese chess championships (all eleven of them),
Document? ROFL!
(a) that country no longer exists
(b) should we like to take without possibility of audit what the nice
communist goverment should represent from someone they would have killed? is
that how your court worked? tell us, i'm fascinated
(c) i have seen paul play agianst the russian champion who was also european
champion [twice] and i thought he would clip him. while documents can be
true or sophisticated, you can't fake that level of /performance/, and why
anyone [who is a chess player] can want documents instead of direct evidence
is unknown!
> to Truong's sending a defamatory communication to FOC members behind the
> subject's back,
You think we should open the whole thing up, and then see what is defamatory
and what not? It is no defamation to speak what's true, or make a comment on
what other's say, is it?
> to Polgar's defamation of Joe Lux behind his back and her abject lie to
> Bill Hall that she only sent it "a" and "b" when she got caught sending a
> bcc to Randy Bauer and then also admitted that she had sent it to others.
Are you agreeing with me, therefore, that all should be opened up? And them
the members can make their own assessment from all the facts?
Or, do you think we should continue here as we do in this newsgroup, and
present partial materials, as if only the prosecution were allowed to speak?
That is an issue to tax your legal mind.
> So yes Phil, Trolgar's call, and your call on their behalf, for openness
> and transparency is nothing more than hollow bullshit.
Well, judge - I just called you on your commentary, didn't I? I said, WAIT
WAIT judge! Why are you speaking now - should you not wait for the defence
to present all the evidence?
Of course, your legal experience is vastly greater than mine - albeit, my
experience in newsgroup kangaroo courts is more extensive than yours.
Anyway - let us know what you yourself would do /if/ in a courtroom. Are you
content to listen to apparently damning evidence from the prosecution [let's
waive rules of evidence, as we have done here in the newsgroup] and then,
without opportunity for reply, you make such pronouncements as you have?
Should you refuse this mission - and it is a challenge to you - then move
over Mr. Justice. You cannot pretend at being prosecutor and Jurist at once,
no? While as prosecutor you are quite at liberty to pre-emptively state the
yet unheard defence will constitute, in your legal terminology, 'hollow
bullshit', surely you would receive a rebuke directly from the bench for
such a misrepresentation?
And should you and I switch positions, I should represent to you that the
law requires more than rhetorical flings to proceed, and that it is not the
permitted role of any advocate to decide the issue - that being the function
of the jury.
Now - you will be pleased to extend this little homily onto the public
scene - where all may be heard, all may still be argued, and the public are
the jury.
Shall this procedure please you at all?
>> Just like the call for members to make their own evaluation, I let people
>> decide for themselves their opinion of you based on what you do, not what
>> you say about what you do. I hope that's OK with you, because they'll do
>> it anyway ;)
>
> Well that's mighty generous of you Phil to let people make their own
> judgments of me. Thanks so very much.
No Sir! This is not about you! But since you seem to think so, perhaps we
have reached the extremity of any conversational scope we might attempt
together? I had meant people should make up their own minds for themselves.
Hadn't I made it clear? Or is it the principal of what I say that offends
you?
>>> Tell your pal Trolgar to show us that evidence
>>
>> If you can't write other people's names without insult, and conspicuously
>> insult the idea of open conversation, don't ask me to represent your
>> point of view!
>
> Trolgar is not meant as an insult, Phil. It's a simple contraction of
> their two names for writing convenience when referring to both of them.
> Why would you, or they, consider it an insult?
You write so much but must contract? Is that some legal thing, where neither
is seen as individual agents before the law? Besides, if it is meant as
plural, you should have used 'pals', rather than singular. But mostly it
will not seem to be insulting to people without sense nor sensibility. And
so, it is a matter of taste - ie, if you have any.
>>> clearing Paul. If they have it, it would be wonderful to see it and put
>>> this whole sorry mess behind us. Trolgar could have done this months
>>> ago, before any litigation, but they didn't and still haven't. Why is
>>> that Mr. Chess One?
>>
>> And don't ask facetious questions - you know - the commentary already cut
>> out of this thread over and over, as if you were (a) not informed of the
>> answer already, or (b) having a bad hair day.
>
> Indeed, Trolgar's claims to have evidence of Truong's innocence is
> facetious as in a very bad and expensive joke for the USCF.
Which hat are you wearing now? I don't mind if you want to play prosecutor -
but if you call the claim, who has the keys to the evidence? Isn't it
facetious to know that USCF will not release 'it', then suggest to people
that 'it' does not exist?
How can you, or USCF members, have any basis in fact for making any
determination?
And there's the sticky point for the prosecution, no? It wants to proceed
without a defence, while /knowing/ that defence material is being formally
withheld.
hmmm! tough game to make.
>>> Because it's all Trolgar smoke and mirrors? Hint Phil, only the Trolgar
>>> acolytes are swallowing the line these days.
>>
>> More double think? Complete openness is become 'smoke and mirrors'. That
>> is a counsel of desperation, no?
>
> Complete openness? See above,Phil.
>
> [drivel snipped yet again]
I called you in the above. I have called everyone who already made up their
mind without knowing the whole story. I am sorry your honor -- NOT! :))
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 11:54:10
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:58:30 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> They [Polgar & Truong] have NEVER acted in and open manner from the secrecy of their
>> riage (which they only admitted to when people at TTU found they were
>> hiring a ried couple),
>I knew
YOU DID?
And you're a columnist? And you sat on that information during the
election period? And now you're prattling about the right of the
membership to know?
And lecturing about hypocrisy?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 16:03:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:58:30 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> They [Polgar & Truong] have NEVER acted in and open manner from the
>>> secrecy of their
>>> riage (which they only admitted to when people at TTU found they were
>>> hiring a ried couple),
>
>>I knew
>
> YOU DID?
Murray - go obsess yourself elsewhere. I know personal details of all sorts
of people. What is that to you?
> And you're a columnist? And you sat on that information during the
> election period? And now you're prattling about the right of the
> membership to know?
>
> And lecturing about hypocrisy?
You are not the membership, Murray. The membership are not allowed to know
anything. That is what the board just decided, right?
You do not represent the membership - nor do you aver that the membership
should be able to decide for themselves.
You are all so bust the ONLY thing you can do is /mock/ those who WANT
openness. You are an OBSESSIVE. But not about chess!
And you are also bust, along with the rest of the crew - because you [ROFL]
can't admit that opening up the issue is good enough for /you/.
That's checkmate. Game over. Shut your !huge! oppressive and offensive
mouth - or come out and say that you don't want people knowing about the
issue. But don't write this bilge to me! Tell whoever cares for your
opinion.
(What else would Mike Murray want to know about other people's lives? Maybe
he can set up a tribunal for affairs? Those people not ried who cavort
together, and if the membership should know that too? There have been, after
all, a few of those.)
But what is left of decency here? And what hysterical nonsense continues!
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 13:27:19
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:03:31 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>>>> They [Polgar & Truong] have NEVER acted in and open manner from the
>>>> secrecy of their riage (which they only admitted to when people at TTU
>>>> found they were hiring a ried couple),
>>>I knew
>> YOU DID?
>Murray - go obsess yourself elsewhere. I know personal details of all sorts
>of people. What is that to you?
Evidently, Phil's concern about openness is false.
>> And you're a columnist? And you sat on that information during the
>> election period? And now you're prattling about the right of the
>> membership to know?
>> And lecturing about hypocrisy?
>You are not the membership, Murray. The membership are not allowed to know
>anything. That is what the board just decided, right?
How typical of Innes to compare material in a lawsuit, held back on
advice of counsel, to material in an ELECTION, concealed for the
convenience of the candidates.
Even so, insofar as one person can be the "membership", I think as a
USCF Life Member, I qualify.
>You do not represent the membership - nor do you aver that the membership
>should be able to decide for themselves.
You mean whether the membership believes it's electing two independent
candidates but is really a husband/wife team? They didn't get to
decide, did they?
>You are all so bust the ONLY thing you can do is /mock/ those who WANT
>openness.
I *mock* those who conflate propaganda with openness.
>You are an OBSESSIVE. But not about chess!
I'm obsessive about exposing liars and fakes. Oh, and probably also
about chess, not that this necessarily something I'd brag about.
>And you are also bust, along with the rest of the crew - because you [ROFL]
>can't admit that opening up the issue is good enough for /you/.
>That's checkmate. Game over. Shut your !huge! oppressive and offensive
>mouth - or come out and say that you don't want people knowing about the
>issue. But don't write this bilge to me! Tell whoever cares for your
>opinion.
Gee, Phil, checkmate doesn't seem to reflect the position on the
board.
>(What else would Mike Murray want to know about other people's lives? Maybe
>he can set up a tribunal for affairs? Those people not ried who cavort
>together, and if the membership should know that too? There have been, after
>all, a few of those.)
If two (or more) EB members were having an affair, YOU BET the
membership should know. In how many corporations have executives been
canned for just such activities.
>But what is left of decency here?
Not much after the FSS and the anonymouse acolytes got done.
>And what hysterical nonsense continues!
Phil, all you gotta do is stop posting this slop.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 04:53:01
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
>>But what is left of decency here?
>
> Not much after the FSS and the anonymouse acolytes got done.
Quite a lot, actually, as this group handled the situation with aplomb for
the most part. We stood our ground until the imposter imploded, and set
some very interesting wheels in motion.
A victory for free speech unlike many others.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 08:38:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>You are not the membership, Murray. The membership are not allowed to know
>>anything. That is what the board just decided, right?
>
> How typical of Innes to compare material in a lawsuit, held back on
> advice of counsel, to material in an ELECTION, concealed for the
> convenience of the candidates.
give it up Murray! YOU made the comparison!
what is interesting is that anyone in any public venue who ask for openness
in communications so that all may be known, gets trashed - no exceptions
what people should consider is that I have asked for all information to be
present so that people can decide for themselves. period!
it must be part of any REAL investigation to suspect that the attack-gang
here can be associated with the perp - not the investigators of the perp
in terms of any open process - they are terrified of it ;)
phil innes
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 18:19:53
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:W5Jnj.1207$fg.1078@trndny03...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:4gGnj.1152$6g.95@trndny05...
>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
>>>>> What he does is not what he says! If anyone wanted more proof of the
>>>>> gang's orientation, such posts say it all, that is, they say nothing at
>>>>> all! They meticulously erase all evidence of an open investigation.
>>>>> They even erase their own URLs ;) While the non-Christian reverend
>>>>> initiates obscene posts. For a group where openness = partisanship, all
>>>>> is Orwellian double-think, an action actually erasing thought itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reminds me of some scene from Dylan's Desolation Row. Phil Innes
>>>> More Innes bullshit.
>>> Lafferty - it is your /actions/ which are evident. And since you snip
>>> 'drivel' which asks for openness, and all commentary which does not
>>> directly accuse Paul Truong, those are your /deeds/. How inane to deny it
>>> and say 'bullshit' when you /demonstrate/ it in every post.
>> The drivel of yours that I snip is the false posturing for openness that
>
> Let me tell you something very straight Lafferty! You don't have the courage
> of your convictions to tell anyone anything - and you are caught out on this
> issue.
[Remaining Innes' ad hominem bowel purge snipped]
I's say thanks for sharing, but you'll understand if I don't.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 13:33:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d7Knj.1213$fg.240@trndny03...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:W5Jnj.1207$fg.1078@trndny03...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:4gGnj.1152$6g.95@trndny05...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
>>>>>> What he does is not what he says! If anyone wanted more proof of the
>>>>>> gang's orientation, such posts say it all, that is, they say nothing
>>>>>> at all! They meticulously erase all evidence of an open
>>>>>> investigation. They even erase their own URLs ;) While the
>>>>>> non-Christian reverend initiates obscene posts. For a group where
>>>>>> openness = partisanship, all is Orwellian double-think, an action
>>>>>> actually erasing thought itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reminds me of some scene from Dylan's Desolation Row. Phil Innes
>>>>> More Innes bullshit.
>>>> Lafferty - it is your /actions/ which are evident. And since you snip
>>>> 'drivel' which asks for openness, and all commentary which does not
>>>> directly accuse Paul Truong, those are your /deeds/. How inane to deny
>>>> it and say 'bullshit' when you /demonstrate/ it in every post.
>>> The drivel of yours that I snip is the false posturing for openness that
>>
>> Let me tell you something very straight Lafferty! You don't have the
>> courage of your convictions to tell anyone anything - and you are caught
>> out on this issue.
>
> [Remaining Innes' ad hominem bowel purge snipped]
>
> I's say thanks for sharing, but you'll understand if I don't.
Thanks for nothing, cowardy pants!
Let me take your resignation as case dismissed! And how odd that you the
Reverend Bigot, Brennan, should all write together to eliminate the only
thing that would reveal the truth!
If you can't contest it in the open, go back to your sewer, Lafferty, and
holler from there with all your friends who don't like the fresh air either.
Go on! Beat it!
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 18:44:21
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:d7Knj.1213$fg.240@trndny03...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:W5Jnj.1207$fg.1078@trndny03...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4gGnj.1152$6g.95@trndny05...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
>>>>>>> What he does is not what he says! If anyone wanted more proof of the
>>>>>>> gang's orientation, such posts say it all, that is, they say nothing
>>>>>>> at all! They meticulously erase all evidence of an open
>>>>>>> investigation. They even erase their own URLs ;) While the
>>>>>>> non-Christian reverend initiates obscene posts. For a group where
>>>>>>> openness = partisanship, all is Orwellian double-think, an action
>>>>>>> actually erasing thought itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reminds me of some scene from Dylan's Desolation Row. Phil Innes
>>>>>> More Innes bullshit.
>>>>> Lafferty - it is your /actions/ which are evident. And since you snip
>>>>> 'drivel' which asks for openness, and all commentary which does not
>>>>> directly accuse Paul Truong, those are your /deeds/. How inane to deny
>>>>> it and say 'bullshit' when you /demonstrate/ it in every post.
>>>> The drivel of yours that I snip is the false posturing for openness that
>>> Let me tell you something very straight Lafferty! You don't have the
>>> courage of your convictions to tell anyone anything - and you are caught
>>> out on this issue.
>> [Remaining Innes' ad hominem bowel purge snipped]
>>
>> I's say thanks for sharing, but you'll understand if I don't.
>
> Thanks for nothing, cowardy pants!
>
> Let me take your resignation as case dismissed! And how odd that you the
> Reverend Bigot, Brennan, should all write together to eliminate the only
> thing that would reveal the truth!
>
> If you can't contest it in the open, go back to your sewer, Lafferty, and
> holler from there with all your friends who don't like the fresh air either.
>
> Go on! Beat it!
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, your bowel splatter (written rantings) would make a much better
fit with your fellow Trolgaristas over at the Chessville Forum. Give
them my regards.
"Cowardy pants"---How will I ever survive your wit? Laughing to death
might not be a bad way to go for a Lafferty. :-)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 15:52:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9uKnj.3828$4f.2432@trndny06...
> "Cowardy pants"---How will I ever survive your wit? Laughing to death
> might not be a bad way to go for a Lafferty. :-)
Look numbskulls - if you cut the posts you refer to, which contain the thing
you ask for - but you are too COWARDLY to let it stand, you are just
net-shite.
I mean you Rafferty, and the not-reverend remailer bigot, teamed up with the
resident abusenik, plus other great big cowardly twits.
So who do you think you are fooling? You //prove// yourselves to be not as
you say you are - and I have been writing in these chess newsgroups for 10
years, and you ain't nuthin new!
If you can't come up to the k - and you cannot - you get no more
/personal/ attention.
What is DEMONSTRATED here - to every reader - is the complete lack of any
real inquiry from the 'get-Truoung' crowd into what went on.
These people define 'net-trash'. Quote me, Wikipedia.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 21:17:11
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9uKnj.3828$4f.2432@trndny06...
>
>> "Cowardy pants"---How will I ever survive your wit? Laughing to death
>> might not be a bad way to go for a Lafferty. :-)
>
> Look numbskulls - if you cut the posts you refer to, which contain the thing
> you ask for - but you are too COWARDLY to let it stand, you are just
> net-shite.
Moron, I cut you drivel because it's drivel and I don't want it
cluttering my posts. The fact that I snip it does not mean the drivel
is not available for other poor souls to to read.
>
> I mean you Rafferty, and the not-reverend remailer bigot, teamed up with the
> resident abusenik, plus other great big cowardly twits.
>
> So who do you think you are fooling? You //prove// yourselves to be not as
> you say you are - and I have been writing in these chess newsgroups for 10
> years, and you ain't nuthin new!
>
> If you can't come up to the k - and you cannot - you get no more
> /personal/ attention.
>
> What is DEMONSTRATED here - to every reader - is the complete lack of any
> real inquiry from the 'get-Truoung' crowd into what went on.
Bullshit. You're the one making personal attacks and not discussing the
issues and the facts underlying those issues. You, Mr. Innes, are an
intellectual charlatan of the fist order. PLONK!
>
> These people define 'net-trash'. Quote me, Wikipedia.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 13:30:28
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Bullshit. You're the one making personal attacks and not discussing the
>issues and the facts underlying those issues. You, Mr. Innes, are an
>intellectual charlatan of the fist order. PLONK!
Jeez, don't plonk him. What will you do amusement?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 09:10:56
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, Brian Lafferty
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Bullshit. You're the one making personal attacks and not discussing the
>>issues and the facts underlying those issues. You, Mr. Innes, are an
>>intellectual charlatan of the fist order. PLONK!
>
> Jeez, don't plonk him. What will you do amusement?
Indeed, please talk amongst yourselves. The real investigation is not going
on here, but those who contribute here are not so much part of any objective
review committee, as much as they themselves are suspects. Who is doing more
to resent the idea of opening up this can of worms? And why? That is a fair
journalistic question. :)
Of all commentaries, the most amusing came from Laugherty - so stung
yesterday about his own 'role' he had to excise my entire response to him,
then publicly *plonk* this writer.
Somehow, this intellectual giant [standing on the shoulders of trolls?] has
proposed that the very idea of openning up the issue for all to see, is
insincere, even though it was the USCF baord who voted on the issue,
prompted by my letter to them - which in fact required a board resolution to
respond at all.
Laugherty resolves from this circumstance that the offer to open the records
[rejected 4 to 3] was therefore 'insincere'.
:)) That is the level of inane commentary we read here, and only here,
since these clowns have been ejected everywhere else. Attempting more
rational, and sober commentary is simply drowned out by endless noise in
engagement with this crew - and who actually bothers to do so?
Since what I asked was that all evidence be considered, this was not to this
groups' liking at all! After yesterday's show of emotion, the crew are
back, for what they call amusement, at other people's expense [of course!],
and which yet others call shadenfreude.
Now - why would any group of people /not want/ the issue opened up? There
are 2 plausible reasons,
(a) as we read above in their own words, it will spoil their fun, and (b)
... ?
(b) is under broader investigation, and quite naturally I do not invite the
views of those here investigated on /their own/ activities, since as we all
know the agitprop campaign is only interested in get-Truong activities.
Neither am i the investigator of it! Though I can take their activities into
account
But their collective output here is another sort of evidence. A
demonstration. What all this means is that, in good time, there will be one
way or another, much more to say than is here suggested. I think everyone
can safely count on that.
This is not an invitation to engage this agitprop group further - it is a
notice to all other readers that their great campaign seems to comprise
themselves alone, is not taking place anywhere else, and that after the
opening gambit, we are hardly into any middlegame yet ;)
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 15:32:16
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, Brian Lafferty
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bullshit. You're the one making personal attacks and not discussing the
>>> issues and the facts underlying those issues. You, Mr. Innes, are an
>>> intellectual charlatan of the fist order. PLONK!
>> Jeez, don't plonk him. What will you do amusement?
>
> Indeed, please talk amongst yourselves. The real investigation is not going
> on here, but those who contribute here are not so much part of any objective
> review committee, as much as they themselves are suspects. Who is doing more
> to resent the idea of opening up this can of worms? And why? That is a fair
> journalistic question. :)
>
> Of all commentaries, the most amusing came from Laugherty - so stung
> yesterday about his own 'role' he had to excise my entire response to him,
> then publicly *plonk* this writer.
>
> Somehow, this intellectual giant [standing on the shoulders of trolls?] has
> proposed that the very idea of openning up the issue for all to see, is
> insincere, even though it was the USCF baord who voted on the issue,
> prompted by my letter to them - which in fact required a board resolution to
> respond at all.
>
> Laugherty resolves from this circumstance that the offer to open the records
> [rejected 4 to 3] was therefore 'insincere'.
>
> :)) That is the level of inane commentary we read here, and only here,
> since these clowns have been ejected everywhere else. Attempting more
> rational, and sober commentary is simply drowned out by endless noise in
> engagement with this crew - and who actually bothers to do so?
>
> Since what I asked was that all evidence be considered, this was not to this
> groups' liking at all! After yesterday's show of emotion, the crew are
> back, for what they call amusement, at other people's expense [of course!],
> and which yet others call shadenfreude.
>
> Now - why would any group of people /not want/ the issue opened up? There
> are 2 plausible reasons,
>
> (a) as we read above in their own words, it will spoil their fun, and (b)
> ... ?
>
> (b) is under broader investigation, and quite naturally I do not invite the
> views of those here investigated on /their own/ activities, since as we all
> know the agitprop campaign is only interested in get-Truong activities.
> Neither am i the investigator of it! Though I can take their activities into
> account
>
> But their collective output here is another sort of evidence. A
> demonstration. What all this means is that, in good time, there will be one
> way or another, much more to say than is here suggested. I think everyone
> can safely count on that.
>
> This is not an invitation to engage this agitprop group further - it is a
> notice to all other readers that their great campaign seems to comprise
> themselves alone, is not taking place anywhere else, and that after the
> opening gambit, we are hardly into any middlegame yet ;)
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, are you off your meds again?
I thought the half-way house mother was supposed to make sure you take
them every day.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 22:44:34
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, Brian Lafferty
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Bullshit. You're the one making personal attacks and not discussing the
>> issues and the facts underlying those issues. You, Mr. Innes, are an
>> intellectual charlatan of the fist order. PLONK!
>
> Jeez, don't plonk him. What will you do amusement?
Good point. I'll un-Plonk him.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 13:10:12
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9uKnj.3828$4f.2432@trndny06...
>
Mr. Innes,
I know how much you want to think that this is a conspiracy against Mr.
Truong. but you are overlooking how obnoxious a person you are in your
own right. Susan and Paul would do well to take you out to the woodshed
for a thrashing for so foully mucking up your representation of their views.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 12:53:56
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Net Trash Campaign, over.
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9uKnj.3828$4f.2432@trndny06...
>
What?
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 10:55:40
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Brian Lafferty wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
>> And how odd that you the Reverend Bigot, Brennan, should all write together to eliminate
>> the only thing that would reveal the truth!
Mr. Innes,
The only reason I wrote in this thread was because of your continual
religious bigotry and insults. Let me give you an elementary tip in how
to promote your arguments before a public audience: stick to the point.
I would not have gotten involved if you had stuck to your argument like
a competent advocate. Your conspiracy theory thus falls flat on its
face. The /truth/ is you have reaped according to what you have sown.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 16:16:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> Chess One wrote:
>
>>> And how odd that you the Reverend Bigot, Brennan, should all write
>>> together to eliminate the only thing that would reveal the truth!
>
> Mr. Innes,
Walker, we are finished! - don't pretend to have more conversation, since
like laugherty, it is sooooooooo insincere.
It is soooo faint and repulsive a thing to engage you all, who care not for
anything but your own jam.
The get-Truong club do not //want// the issue opened, not a single one of
them, otherwise they would re-direct their attention to USCF.
Then we would see who is clean and who is not. And the protesters here are
not! ;)
Phil Innes
> The only reason I wrote in this thread was because of your continual
> religious bigotry and insults. Let me give you an elementary tip in how
> to promote your arguments before a public audience: stick to the point.
>
> I would not have gotten involved if you had stuck to your argument like a
> competent advocate. Your conspiracy theory thus falls flat on its face.
> The /truth/ is you have reaped according to what you have sown.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 13:21:34
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> And how odd that you the Reverend Bigot, Brennan, should all write
>>>> together to eliminate the only thing that would reveal the truth!
>> Mr. Innes,
>
> Walker, we are finished! - don't pretend to have more conversation, since
> like laugherty, it is sooooooooo insincere.
Finished? I do not feel finished yet. Are you ready to apologize yet?
Then we might be finished.
>> The only reason I wrote in this thread was because of your continual
>> religious bigotry and insults. Let me give you an elementary tip in how
>> to promote your arguments before a public audience: stick to the point.
>>
>> I would not have gotten involved if you had stuck to your argument like a
>> competent advocate. Your conspiracy theory thus falls flat on its face.
>> The /truth/ is you have reaped according to what you have sown.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 06:40:08
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:4gGnj.1152$6g.95@trndny05...
>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> [remaining Chess One drivel snipped]
>>> While the non-Christian reverend initiates obscene posts.
>> More Innes bullshit.
>
===
Mr. Innes,
I am not aware of having made any obscene posts. What are you talking
about? If I inadvertently did so, I apologize in advance, but I suspect
you are just engaging in inflammatory hyperbole...
Mr. Innes,
As a follow up, perhaps you would like to explain your continual
religious bigotry that causes you to single out non-christians for
ridicule when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand...
> Lafferty - it is your /actions/ which are evident. And since you snip
> 'drivel' which asks for openness,
Mr. Innes,
/Openness/ has an ugly and meaningless sound when requested by an
inflammatory religious bigot.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2008 12:43:26
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
I go away for a weekend, and the Truong story changes 180 degrees.
When I left on Friday, we were supposed to believe them because they
wanted everything to be open, and only the USCF was stopping them
making their innocence clear. I had trouble understanding this logic,
because surely any restriction applied only to emails they had sent
already; had the evidence evaporated in sending it to the USCF so they
could not send it again?
Now, the story is that they have absolute proof that Truong is
innocent, but it cannot be seen by anyone.
This is the same evidence, I presume, that they sent the USCF earlier
but did not convince the committee members?
As you might guess, I think that Mr Truong has long ago used up any
credibility for benefit of doubt he might have gotten on this issue.
Jerry Spinrad
On Jan 27, 6:58=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On her blog, Susan says that she has secret "rock solid" evidence
> proving that she and her husband are not guilty of 2,464 the "Fake Sam
> Sloan" postings.
>
> Unfortunately, she cannot reveal this secret evidence until the case
> is over.
>
> Here is what Susan says:
>
> =A0 =A0 "Blogger =A0SusanPolgar said...
>
> =A0 =A0 "Chris, nice to see your post. I know the evidence first hand. It
> was faxed to the USCF attorney. The evidence is absolutely rock solid.
> Perhaps one of these days after the case is dismissed, we can make it
> public for all members to see.
>
> =A0 =A0 "Best wishes to you and your family and Happy New Year!
>
> =A0 =A0 "Susan Polgar"
>
> =A0 =A0 Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:55:00 PM CST
>
> http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/01/financial-disaster-ahead.html
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2008 16:38:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:cb10f104-7874-4535-9628-7290059e639e@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I go away for a weekend, and the Truong story changes 180 degrees.
**Says Susan Polgar's co-columnist at Chesscafe. Though without citing
anything by Truong. The rest of us didn't notice any change in his opinion
since he doesn't appear to have made any new statements.
When I left on Friday, we were supposed to believe them because they
wanted everything to be open,
**I think the message was that USCF members could make up their own minds
/if/ things were open. That is actually part of the text re-issued this
weekend. Does Jerry Spinrad acknowledge it is so, based on what was actually
said? What exactly did he read?
and only the USCF was stopping them
making their innocence clear.
**Well, that again is not a quote. It was not defensive, and not to do with
'their' innocence, but about what happened, and who indeed might be
responsible - and if that might be opened up to all.
I had trouble understanding this logic,
**Whose logic? You do not quote anyone, and talk about your own
'orientation'. <yikes >
because surely any restriction applied only to emails they had sent
already; had the evidence evaporated in sending it to the USCF so they
could not send it again?
**Anan? Are they constrained as board members by board vote to what may be
said and what not? I think so. Perhaps journalist Spinrad should ask USCF of
this is true? Unlike him, I did and got a response from the board. Does he
himself want to ask the board it it constrains material that is UFCF's
property from being used by any party?
Now, the story is that they have absolute proof that Truong is
innocent, but it cannot be seen by anyone.
**According to USCF it may not be seen.
This is the same evidence, I presume, that they sent the USCF earlier
but did not convince the committee members?
**But how absurd of Spinrad! Since if the accusation is false, then who is
guilty? Are the board 'convinced' or are they 'susceptible'? Does he allow a
second thought to enter his mind?
As you might guess, I think that Mr Truong has long ago used up any
credibility for benefit of doubt he might have gotten on this issue.
**Frankly, Jerry Spinrad who writes a historical column on chess, relies far
too much 'credabilty' and beliefs, and relies not nearly enough on
investigation - not even the kind he could conduct himself, prefering it
seems to cite no-one and ask no questions, but come to whatever conclusions
occur to him. While he may think himself cynical, I say it is not cynical
enough! And if he wants to negatively speculate on other people, did he
mention a single fact in the above, or quote anyone, or display any
impartial interest? I don't think so. But then again, Chesscafe is not
exactly a disinterested party to this affair, no? ;))
Phil Innes
---
Jerry Spinrad
On Jan 27, 6:58 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On her blog, Susan says that she has secret "rock solid" evidence
> proving that she and her husband are not guilty of 2,464 the "Fake Sam
> Sloan" postings.
>
> Unfortunately, she cannot reveal this secret evidence until the case
> is over.
>
> Here is what Susan says:
>
> "Blogger SusanPolgar said...
>
> "Chris, nice to see your post. I know the evidence first hand. It
> was faxed to the USCF attorney. The evidence is absolutely rock solid.
> Perhaps one of these days after the case is dismissed, we can make it
> public for all members to see.
>
> "Best wishes to you and your family and Happy New Year!
>
> "Susan Polgar"
>
> Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:55:00 PM CST
>
> http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/01/financial-disaster-ahead.html
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 21:05:59
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Jan 30, 2:48 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 12:09 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 4:27 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Even so, insofar as one person can be the "membership", I think as a
> > > USCF Life Member, I qualify.
>
> > You most certainly do. As opposed to P Innes, who left USCF a decade
> > ago when it became obvious he'd hold no greater title than that of
> > rating point 'donor' for B players.
>
> Ahem... I am strongly offended by that last rek!
> My plan -- not unlike the infamous Plan B from outer
> space -- is to avenge myself against these "lucky"
> B-players, at some point in the future. Like Darth
> Vader, I will hunt them down, one by one, if need be... .
>
> -- alternate blood donor
Based on his USCF record, the "nearly an IM 2450" P Innes was paying
out like a broken slot machine.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 11:48:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Jan 30, 12:09 am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jan 29, 4:27 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Even so, insofar as one person can be the "membership", I think as a
> > USCF Life Member, I qualify.
>
> You most certainly do. As opposed to P Innes, who left USCF a decade
> ago when it became obvious he'd hold no greater title than that of
> rating point 'donor' for B players.
Ahem... I am strongly offended by that last rek!
My plan -- not unlike the infamous Plan B from outer
space -- is to avenge myself against these "lucky"
B-players, at some point in the future. Like Darth
Vader, I will hunt them down, one by one, if need be... .
-- alternate blood donor
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 21:09:48
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Jan 29, 4:27 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> Even so, insofar as one person can be the "membership", I think as a
> USCF Life Member, I qualify.
You most certainly do. As opposed to P Innes, who left USCF a decade
ago when it became obvious he'd hold no greater title than that of
rating point 'donor' for B players.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 13:57:22
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:38:50 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Now, the story is that they have absolute proof that Truong is
>innocent, but it cannot be seen by anyone.
>**According to USCF it may not be seen.
FOR THE JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, DEPARTMENT:
Phil, you've been beating the secret evidence drum quite loudly for a
time. But, ya know, whatever that secret stuff, it's mostly likely
gonna be revealed somewhere down the line, maybe by a leak, maybe by
Truolgar (they could give your column an exclusive), maybe in court,
maybe the USCF legal beagles will reverse themselves and let it all
hang out. Whatever.
Then, we will all be able to decide how important it was.
If you were correct, and it turns out to be really vital, exculpatory
stuff, then a whole bunch of us will have to eat some crow. And, eat
it, we will.
Enjoy this thought.
Because if WE are correct, and your much-touted secret stash turns out
to be trivial or irrelevant, we're never gonna let you forget it. It
will enter the Pantheon of Innes Blunders, your own secret Fortress of
Shame, to be exhibited along with your "Almost an IM 2450" claim, your
"I'm Not Your Boy" exercise in autoerotic argumentation, and your many
literary poo-faws. And we'll bring it up and stuff it in your face
every time you prattle on a new topic.
Have a nice day, now.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 14:08:59
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:38:50 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Now, the story is that they have absolute proof that Truong is
>> innocent, but it cannot be seen by anyone.
>
>> **According to USCF it may not be seen.
>
> FOR THE JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, DEPARTMENT:
>
> Phil, you've been beating the secret evidence drum quite loudly for a
> time. But, ya know, whatever that secret stuff, it's mostly likely
> gonna be revealed somewhere down the line, maybe by a leak, maybe by
> Truolgar (they could give your column an exclusive), maybe in court,
> maybe the USCF legal beagles will reverse themselves and let it all
> hang out. Whatever.
>
> Then, we will all be able to decide how important it was.
>
> If you were correct, and it turns out to be really vital, exculpatory
> stuff, then a whole bunch of us will have to eat some crow. And, eat
> it, we will.
>
> Enjoy this thought.
>
> Because if WE are correct, and your much-touted secret stash turns out
> to be trivial or irrelevant, we're never gonna let you forget it. It
> will enter the Pantheon of Innes Blunders, your own secret Fortress of
> Shame, to be exhibited along with your "Almost an IM 2450" claim, your
> "I'm Not Your Boy" exercise in autoerotic argumentation, and your many
> literary poo-faws. And we'll bring it up and stuff it in your face
> every time you prattle on a new topic.
>
> Have a nice day, now.
Mr. Murray,
I fear that Poor Innes may be the masochistic sort that thrives on
abuse. That would explain why he tries to cast himself in such a bad
light all the time. I can hear him now, reading your posting and
saying, "Beat me Mike, beat me harder..." A scary thought.
By the way, Poor Innes' frequent insults have led me to refer to him as
Poor Innes in the future. However I do not wish to suffer from carpal
tunnel syndrome, so I am going to abbreviate part of that. So when you
see me refer to P Innes in the future, you may rest assured that I am
really meaning Poor Innes.
Have a nice day, now.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 14:24:29
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:08:59 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> when you
>see me refer to P Innes in the future, you may rest assured that I am
>really meaning Poor Innes.
Hmmmmm. Pooooooor Innes!
(who said that?).
|
|
