The Board refused ...

Main

Date: 04 Feb 2008 17:27:00
From: Chess One
Subject: The Board refused ...

An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column, Alekhine's
Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm

reads;-

---

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of USCF
money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
conclusion.
The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for more
than 4 months.

The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
contractors and members of the board majority.

The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential information
as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken and
Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a lawsuit.

Susan Polgar

Date: 21 Feb 2008 12:23:52
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 21, 11:45=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:cBhvj.20188$eg3.8850@trndny05...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Chess One wrote:
> >> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:V5evj.9381$kz3.1314@trndny03...
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 4, 2:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
> >>>>> Alekhine's
> >>>>> Parrot,
> >>>>> atwww.chessville.comorhttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Alekhines=
Par...
>
> >>>>> reads;-
>
> >>>>> ---
>
> >>>>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more=

> >>>>> than
> >>>>> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars =
of
> >>>>> USCF
> >>>>> money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
> >>>>> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the
> >>>>> wrong
> >>>>> conclusion.
> >>>>> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data
> >>>>> for more
> >>>>> than 4 months.
>
> >>>>> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
> >>>>> contractors and members of the board majority.
>
> >>>>> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
> >>>>> information
> >>>>> as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanke=
n
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a
> >>>>> lawsuit.
>
> >>>>> Susan Polgar
> >>>> Truong says (through S.P.): "You have no sufficient evidence..."
>
> >>>> This is identical to Truong's misuse of the English language in his
> >>>> earlier press release:
> >>>> When asked if he was the Fake Sam Sloan, he replied:
>
> >>>> "Absolutely no..."]
> >>> Trolgar has been ginalized to the point of using sites like
> >>> Chessville to propagandize.
>
> >> Is this the same site you yourself have been doing the same?
>
> >>> =A0Some traffic rankings from Trolgar outlets;
>
> >>> Chessville =A0 =A0 =A0 309,373
>
> >> The fact is that Chessville now gets more hits than Chesscafe, and so i=
s
> >> become somewhat prominent in the USA, and so is hardly ginal!
>
> > Wrong, Bowel Boy. =A0ChessCafe has a higher ranking than Chessville.
> > ChessCafe is ranked at 195,970 to Chessville's 309,373
>
> I think your prosecution of all topics is as sophisticated as your wit - y=
ou
> have been banned everywhere, right? Banned or Bozo'd! Or do you say
> "disbarred?"
>
> If you and other Slondinistas want to proclaim on and on about the source =
of
> abuse - then I think you have found where it comes from in the middle of
> your own company! In the meantime, try and sort out visits and pages
> visited, and try to get up-to-date on things.
>
> But if you call people by the choicest and grautitously abusive terms, the=
n
> do you not become exactly as the false-sloan was? Isn't that a curious
> thing?
>
> And you dunder-heads think you are prosecuting, but you have always been i=
n
> my mind equally suspect [!] - and there is no hidden evidence about you-al=
l.
> You demonstrate your 'qualities' in every post.
>
> Have an ice day. Phil Innes
>
>
>
> >> And because Chessville always has covered chess politics, whereas
> >> chesscafe are in bed with the chess politicians and say nothing that
> >> might offend the over-Czars =A0;)
>
> >> Our hit, and page hit rate, is relatively steady, and seems not to be
> >> US-chess-catastrophe-of-the-month linked. After all 65% of readers are
> >> non USA.
>
> >> Chessville obtains about 35% of its readers from USA, and about 5% from=

> >> Canada sometimes 7%. We also obtain high levels of hits from central an=
d
> >> south-American countries who are Spanish speakers, since we have
> >> dual-language newsbriefs.
>
> >> Phil Innes
>
> >>> Chess Discussion 524,423
> >>> Polgar Blog =A0 =A0 =A0187,213
> >>> Chessgoddess =A0 3,581,650
>
> >>> Non-Trolgar/News Outlets:
> >>> USCF =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A096,729
> >>> Chessbase =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 14,357- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/chesscafe.com+chessville.com+uschess.org?me=
tric=3Datt

Date: 20 Feb 2008 23:33:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

On Feb 4, 11:44 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> > I have seen a photo of P Innes once.
>
> Is it online? If so, please post a link.

I'm not sure a photo of nearly-IMnes would
fit online; the man claims to be several
kilometers tall, so the camera would need
to be far away and set to wide-angle.

I once saw an online photo of his boss,
Larry Parr; the man was standing upon an
ancient wonder, and thankfully, there was
solid rock underneath to support him. In
fact, that is the only instance I know of
where there was anything of substance to
support him... .

-- help bot

Date: 21 Feb 2008 10:23:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 4, 11:44 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I have seen a photo of P Innes once.
>>
>> Is it online? If so, please post a link.
>
> I'm not sure a photo of nearly-IMnes would
> fit online; the man claims to be several
> kilometers tall,

nonsense! I said 30 litres tall. you amurcns are idjits!

> so the camera would need
> to be far away and set to wide-angle.
>
> I once saw an online photo of his boss,
> Larry Parr; the man was standing upon an
> ancient wonder, and thankfully, there was
> solid rock underneath to support him.

thats the famous photo on the Great Wall with the paper bag - inside the bag
I understand there is an action doll of help-bot and you can twist its head
around so it faces backwards, which is the way it walks

phil innes

> In
> fact, that is the only instance I know of
> where there was anything of substance to
> support him... .
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>

Date: 20 Feb 2008 19:08:45
From:
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 20, 7:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column, Alekhine's
> > Parrot, atwww.chessville.comorhttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesPar...
>
> > reads;-
>
> > ---
>
> > You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
> > four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of USCF
> > money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
> > Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
> > conclusion.
> > The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for more
> > than 4 months.
>
> > The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
> > contractors and members of the board majority.
>
> > The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential information
> > as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken and
> > Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a lawsuit.
>
> > Susan Polgar
>
> Truong says (through S.P.): "You have no sufficient evidence..."
>
> This is identical to Truong's misuse of the English language in his
> earlier press release:
> When asked if he was the Fake Sam Sloan, he replied:
>
> "Absolutely no..."]

Truong uses "no" instead of "not"

Date: 20 Feb 2008 22:16:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b1eff589-8482-4def-8645-065cc3d1b108@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 20, 7:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
>> > Alekhine's
>> > Parrot,
>> > atwww.chessville.comorhttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesPar...
>>
>> > reads;-
>>
>> > ---
>>
>> > You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
>> > than
>> > four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
>> > USCF
>> > money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
>> > Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
>> > conclusion.
>> > The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for
>> > more
>> > than 4 months.
>>
>> > The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
>> > contractors and members of the board majority.
>>
>> > The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
>> > information
>> > as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken
>> > and
>> > Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a
>> > lawsuit.
>>
>> > Susan Polgar
>>
>> Truong says (through S.P.): "You have no sufficient evidence..."
>>
>> This is identical to Truong's misuse of the English language in his
>> earlier press release:
>> When asked if he was the Fake Sam Sloan, he replied:
>>
>> "Absolutely no..."]
>
> Truong uses "no" instead of "not"

You mean the FSS, whose diction is American-perfect, would not?

PI

Date: 20 Feb 2008 19:03:08
From:
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 4, 2:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column, Alekhine's
> Parrot, atwww.chessville.comorhttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>
> reads;-
>
> ---
>
> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of USCF
> money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
> conclusion.
> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for more
> than 4 months.
>
> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
> contractors and members of the board majority.
>
> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential information
> as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken and
> Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a lawsuit.
>
> Susan Polgar

Truong says (through S.P.): "You have no sufficient evidence..."

This is identical to Truong's misuse of the English language in his
earlier press release:
When asked if he was the Fake Sam Sloan, he replied:

"Absolutely no..."]

Date: 21 Feb 2008 12:26:29
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column, Alekhine's
>> Parrot, atwww.chessville.comorhttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>>
>> reads;-
>>
>> ---
>>
>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
>> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of USCF
>> money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
>> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
>> conclusion.
>> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for more
>> than 4 months.
>>
>> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
>> contractors and members of the board majority.
>>
>> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential information
>> as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken and
>> Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a lawsuit.
>>
>> Susan Polgar
>
> Truong says (through S.P.): "You have no sufficient evidence..."
>
> This is identical to Truong's misuse of the English language in his
> earlier press release:
> When asked if he was the Fake Sam Sloan, he replied:
>
> "Absolutely no..."]

Trolgar has been ginalized to the point of using sites like
Chessville to propagandize. Some traffic rankings from Trolgar outlets;

Chessville 309,373
Chess Discussion 524,423
Polgar Blog 187,213
Chessgoddess 3,581,650

Non-Trolgar/News Outlets:
USCF 96,729
Chessbase 14,357

Date: 21 Feb 2008 10:56:40
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:V5evj.9381$kz3.1314@trndny03...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
>>> Alekhine's
>>> Parrot,
>>> atwww.chessville.comorhttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>>>
>>> reads;-
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
>>> than
>>> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
>>> USCF
>>> money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
>>> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
>>> conclusion.
>>> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for
>>> more
>>> than 4 months.
>>>
>>> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
>>> contractors and members of the board majority.
>>>
>>> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
>>> information
>>> as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken
>>> and
>>> Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a
>>> lawsuit.
>>>
>>> Susan Polgar
>>
>> Truong says (through S.P.): "You have no sufficient evidence..."
>>
>> This is identical to Truong's misuse of the English language in his
>> earlier press release:
>> When asked if he was the Fake Sam Sloan, he replied:
>>
>> "Absolutely no..."]
>
> Trolgar has been ginalized to the point of using sites like Chessville
> to propagandize.

Is this the same site you yourself have been doing the same?

> Some traffic rankings from Trolgar outlets;
>
> Chessville 309,373

The fact is that Chessville now gets more hits than Chesscafe, and so is
become somewhat prominent in the USA, and so is hardly ginal!

And because Chessville always has covered chess politics, whereas chesscafe
are in bed with the chess politicians and say nothing that might offend the
over-Czars ;)

Our hit, and page hit rate, is relatively steady, and seems not to be
US-chess-catastrophe-of-the-month linked. After all 65% of readers are non
USA.

Chessville obtains about 35% of its readers from USA, and about 5% from
Canada sometimes 7%. We also obtain high levels of hits from central and
south-American countries who are Spanish speakers, since we have
dual-language newsbriefs.

Phil Innes

> Chess Discussion 524,423
> Polgar Blog 187,213
> Chessgoddess 3,581,650
>
> Non-Trolgar/News Outlets:
> USCF 96,729
> Chessbase 14,357

Date: 21 Feb 2008 16:24:40
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:V5evj.9381$kz3.1314@trndny03...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Feb 4, 2:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
>>>> Alekhine's
>>>> Parrot,
>>>> atwww.chessville.comorhttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>>>>
>>>> reads;-
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
>>>> than
>>>> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
>>>> USCF
>>>> money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
>>>> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
>>>> conclusion.
>>>> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for
>>>> more
>>>> than 4 months.
>>>>
>>>> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
>>>> contractors and members of the board majority.
>>>>
>>>> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
>>>> information
>>>> as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken
>>>> and
>>>> Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a
>>>> lawsuit.
>>>>
>>>> Susan Polgar
>>> Truong says (through S.P.): "You have no sufficient evidence..."
>>>
>>> This is identical to Truong's misuse of the English language in his
>>> earlier press release:
>>> When asked if he was the Fake Sam Sloan, he replied:
>>>
>>> "Absolutely no..."]
>> Trolgar has been ginalized to the point of using sites like Chessville
>> to propagandize.
>
> Is this the same site you yourself have been doing the same?
>
>> Some traffic rankings from Trolgar outlets;
>>
>> Chessville 309,373
>
> The fact is that Chessville now gets more hits than Chesscafe, and so is
> become somewhat prominent in the USA, and so is hardly ginal!

Wrong, Bowel Boy. ChessCafe has a higher ranking than Chessville.
ChessCafe is ranked at 195,970 to Chessville's 309,373
>
> And because Chessville always has covered chess politics, whereas chesscafe
> are in bed with the chess politicians and say nothing that might offend the
> over-Czars ;)
>
> Our hit, and page hit rate, is relatively steady, and seems not to be
> US-chess-catastrophe-of-the-month linked. After all 65% of readers are non
> USA.
>
> Chessville obtains about 35% of its readers from USA, and about 5% from
> Canada sometimes 7%. We also obtain high levels of hits from central and
> south-American countries who are Spanish speakers, since we have
> dual-language newsbriefs.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>> Chess Discussion 524,423
>> Polgar Blog 187,213
>> Chessgoddess 3,581,650
>>
>> Non-Trolgar/News Outlets:
>> USCF 96,729
>> Chessbase 14,357
>
>

Date: 21 Feb 2008 12:45:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:cBhvj.20188$eg3.8850@trndny05...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:V5evj.9381$kz3.1314@trndny03...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Feb 4, 2:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
>>>>> Alekhine's
>>>>> Parrot,
>>>>> atwww.chessville.comorhttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> reads;-
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
>>>>> than
>>>>> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
>>>>> USCF
>>>>> money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
>>>>> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the
>>>>> wrong
>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data
>>>>> for more
>>>>> than 4 months.
>>>>>
>>>>> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
>>>>> contractors and members of the board majority.
>>>>>
>>>>> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
>>>>> information
>>>>> as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken
>>>>> and
>>>>> Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a
>>>>> lawsuit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan Polgar
>>>> Truong says (through S.P.): "You have no sufficient evidence..."
>>>>
>>>> This is identical to Truong's misuse of the English language in his
>>>> earlier press release:
>>>> When asked if he was the Fake Sam Sloan, he replied:
>>>>
>>>> "Absolutely no..."]
>>> Trolgar has been ginalized to the point of using sites like
>>> Chessville to propagandize.
>>
>> Is this the same site you yourself have been doing the same?
>>
>>> Some traffic rankings from Trolgar outlets;
>>>
>>> Chessville 309,373
>>
>> The fact is that Chessville now gets more hits than Chesscafe, and so is
>> become somewhat prominent in the USA, and so is hardly ginal!
>
> Wrong, Bowel Boy. ChessCafe has a higher ranking than Chessville.
> ChessCafe is ranked at 195,970 to Chessville's 309,373

I think your prosecution of all topics is as sophisticated as your wit - you
have been banned everywhere, right? Banned or Bozo'd! Or do you say
"disbarred?"

If you and other Slondinistas want to proclaim on and on about the source of
abuse - then I think you have found where it comes from in the middle of
your own company! In the meantime, try and sort out visits and pages
visited, and try to get up-to-date on things.

But if you call people by the choicest and grautitously abusive terms, then
do you not become exactly as the false-sloan was? Isn't that a curious
thing?

And you dunder-heads think you are prosecuting, but you have always been in
my mind equally suspect [!] - and there is no hidden evidence about you-all.
You demonstrate your 'qualities' in every post.

Have an ice day. Phil Innes

>> And because Chessville always has covered chess politics, whereas
>> chesscafe are in bed with the chess politicians and say nothing that
>> might offend the over-Czars ;)
>>
>> Our hit, and page hit rate, is relatively steady, and seems not to be
>> US-chess-catastrophe-of-the-month linked. After all 65% of readers are
>> non USA.
>>
>> Chessville obtains about 35% of its readers from USA, and about 5% from
>> Canada sometimes 7%. We also obtain high levels of hits from central and
>> south-American countries who are Spanish speakers, since we have
>> dual-language newsbriefs.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>> Chess Discussion 524,423
>>> Polgar Blog 187,213
>>> Chessgoddess 3,581,650
>>>
>>> Non-Trolgar/News Outlets:
>>> USCF 96,729
>>> Chessbase 14,357
>>

Date: 21 Feb 2008 20:37:27
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:cBhvj.20188$eg3.8850@trndny05...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:V5evj.9381$kz3.1314@trndny03...
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 4, 2:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
>>>>>> Alekhine's
>>>>>> Parrot,
>>>>>> atwww.chessville.comorhttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reads;-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
>>>>>> USCF
>>>>>> money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
>>>>>> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the
>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data
>>>>>> for more
>>>>>> than 4 months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
>>>>>> contractors and members of the board majority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
>>>>>> information
>>>>>> as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a
>>>>>> lawsuit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan Polgar
>>>>> Truong says (through S.P.): "You have no sufficient evidence..."
>>>>>
>>>>> This is identical to Truong's misuse of the English language in his
>>>>> earlier press release:
>>>>> When asked if he was the Fake Sam Sloan, he replied:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Absolutely no..."]
>>>> Trolgar has been ginalized to the point of using sites like
>>>> Chessville to propagandize.
>>> Is this the same site you yourself have been doing the same?
>>>
>>>> Some traffic rankings from Trolgar outlets;
>>>>
>>>> Chessville 309,373
>>> The fact is that Chessville now gets more hits than Chesscafe, and so is
>>> become somewhat prominent in the USA, and so is hardly ginal!
>> Wrong, Bowel Boy. ChessCafe has a higher ranking than Chessville.
>> ChessCafe is ranked at 195,970 to Chessville's 309,373
>
> I think your prosecution of all topics is as sophisticated as your wit - you
> have been banned everywhere, right? Banned or Bozo'd! Or do you say
> "disbarred?"
>
> If you and other Slondinistas want to proclaim on and on about the source of
> abuse - then I think you have found where it comes from in the middle of
> your own company! In the meantime, try and sort out visits and pages
> visited, and try to get up-to-date on things.
>
> But if you call people by the choicest and grautitously abusive terms, then
> do you not become exactly as the false-sloan was? Isn't that a curious
> thing?
>
> And you dunder-heads think you are prosecuting, but you have always been in
> my mind equally suspect [!] - and there is no hidden evidence about you-all.
> You demonstrate your 'qualities' in every post.
>
> Have an ice day. Phil Innes
>
>>> And because Chessville always has covered chess politics, whereas
>>> chesscafe are in bed with the chess politicians and say nothing that
>>> might offend the over-Czars ;)
>>>
>>> Our hit, and page hit rate, is relatively steady, and seems not to be
>>> US-chess-catastrophe-of-the-month linked. After all 65% of readers are
>>> non USA.
>>>
>>> Chessville obtains about 35% of its readers from USA, and about 5% from
>>> Canada sometimes 7%. We also obtain high levels of hits from central and
>>> south-American countries who are Spanish speakers, since we have
>>> dual-language newsbriefs.
>>>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>>> Chess Discussion 524,423
>>>> Polgar Blog 187,213
>>>> Chessgoddess 3,581,650
>>>>
>>>> Non-Trolgar/News Outlets:
>>>> USCF 96,729
>>>> Chessbase 14,357
>

For your consideration Bowel Boy;
1. Don't flatter yourself by thinking that I care about your opinion of
me. I don't.
2. You were clearly wrong on the rankings of Chessville and ChessCafe.
3. I'm not a reflexive Sloan supporter as you are with Trolgar.

Date: 21 Feb 2008 17:44:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:bilvj.15620$MY2.157@trndny07...

Here is the 'output' of someone nominated a 'judge', which is much to the
same effect as some self-styled non-Christian reverend, whatever that is,
and others who do not sport any titles to emit their 'sense' of things they
wish to 'believe' while crying down the idea of hearing everything before
coming to their own judgement of things:

> For your consideration Bowel Boy;

Brian Lafferty [the judge] is presumably unaware of any Freudian
implications of his own diction, though should we assume that this is how he
conducts his courtroom in America?

> 1. Don't flatter yourself by thinking that I care about your opinion of
> me. I don't.

I never appealed to flatter the judge. I instead wondered if he had any
sense or decency whatever

> 2. You were clearly wrong on the rankings of Chessville and ChessCafe.

An assertion, as usual lacking any datum. Should we think Judge Lafferty is
retired or was retired?

> 3. I'm not a reflexive Sloan supporter as you are with Trolgar.

I am not a supporter of anyone who does not advance chess which is also
USCF's mission. I say this in my own voice, despite the massive support of
those people who thing USCF sucks.

What the Judge says is a 'not' statement, but what the judge does is not as
he says, and the judge is shy of facing up to his 'activities' which are
everywhere banned except here - where he can say how he is, about himself,
etc.

pfft!

Phil Innes

Date: 21 Feb 2008 23:26:31
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:bilvj.15620$MY2.157@trndny07...
>
> Here is the 'output' of someone nominated a 'judge', which is much to the
> same effect as some self-styled non-Christian reverend, whatever that is,
> and others who do not sport any titles to emit their 'sense' of things they
> wish to 'believe' while crying down the idea of hearing everything before
> coming to their own judgement of things:
>
>> For your consideration Bowel Boy;
>
> Brian Lafferty [the judge] is presumably unaware of any Freudian
> implications of his own diction, though should we assume that this is how he
> conducts his courtroom in America?

Regrettably, I can not take full credit for your appellation. I forget
who it was, but another poster called you the Bowel of Brattleboro. I
merely adapted it to Bowel Boy--BB for short.

[Remaining bowel drippings snipped]

Date: 21 Feb 2008 19:27:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

If you /cut/ the issues you yourself raised Laugherty, then you deserve the
same treatment society offers you. Which is to treat you like a ranting
hectoring numbskull - an obnoxious bore! I think you already exhibited your
standards sufficiently that any response to such stuff by me is no longer
necessary to comment upon. Get it yet?

Here below is what you passed on this time - just so people know. But I
can't do your thinking for you, so do not apply this way again if your are
too sly to do it for yourself.

Phil Innes

----
> 1. Don't flatter yourself by thinking that I care about your opinion of
> me. I don't.

I never appealed to flatter the judge. I instead wondered if he had any
sense or decency whatever

> 2. You were clearly wrong on the rankings of Chessville and ChessCafe.

An assertion, as usual lacking any datum. Should we think Judge Lafferty is
retired or was retired?

> 3. I'm not a reflexive Sloan supporter as you are with Trolgar.

I am not a supporter of anyone who does not advance chess which is also
USCF's mission. I say this in my own voice, despite the massive support of
those people who thing USCF sucks.

What the Judge says is a 'not' statement, but what the judge does is not as
he says, and the judge is shy of facing up to his 'activities' which are
everywhere banned except here - where he can say how he is, about himself,
etc.

pfft!

--------

PI
\

Date: 21 Feb 2008 13:42:11
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Brian Lafferty wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
>>> Alekhine's
>>> Parrot,
>>> atwww.chessville.comorhttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> reads;-
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
>>> than
>>> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars
>>> of USCF
>>> money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
>>> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
>>> conclusion.
>>> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data
>>> for more
>>> than 4 months.
>>>
>>> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
>>> contractors and members of the board majority.
>>>
>>> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
>>> information
>>> as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken
>>> and
>>> Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a
>>> lawsuit.
>>>
>>> Susan Polgar
>>
>> Truong says (through S.P.): "You have no sufficient evidence..."
>>
>> This is identical to Truong's misuse of the English language in his
>> earlier press release:
>> When asked if he was the Fake Sam Sloan, he replied:
>>
>> "Absolutely no..."]
>
> Trolgar has been ginalized to the point of using sites like
> Chessville to propagandize. Some traffic rankings from Trolgar outlets;
>
> Chessville 309,373
> Chess Discussion 524,423
> Polgar Blog 187,213
> Chessgoddess 3,581,650
>
> Non-Trolgar/News Outlets:
> USCF 96,729
> Chessbase 14,357

According to alexa.com about 3/4 of chessdiscussion's users log on from
Canada. Interesting, eh?

Date: 20 Feb 2008 07:42:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

On Feb 20, 9:43 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:

> From Dr. Truong's web page [he claims this is a hacked, unauthorized
> page ;-), ;-) ]
>
> My name is Paul Truong, PhD
>
> The following are some of my chess accomplishments:
>
> * US Open Blitz Co-Champion 2001 with GM Roland Schmaltz (a 4-time
> World Lightning Champion)
> * NY Rapid G/10 Champion 2001
> * Tied for 1st with GM Horvath at the ECO International Tournament in
> Holland 1984
> * Qualified for the US Junior Championship in the mid 80's
> * Represented the U.S. in the historic Satellite Match (NY - London) vs
> World Champion G. Kasparov
> * 2-time NJ Junior Champion 1981-82
> * Scored 5-5 against the late GM Reshevsky in a 10 game match [G/15]
> * Youngest person to qualify for the World Junior Championship (under
> 21) in Manilla 1975 (age 8.5)
> * Obtained an official rating of 2200+ (youngest ever Master) after
> winning the South Vietnam National Championship 1974 (age 8.5) but
> since South Vietnam was not a member of FIDE at that time, the record
> was considered unofficial
> * 5-time undefeated National Champion of South Vietnam 1974-79 (age
> 8.5, youngest ever National Champion)
> * 4-time undefeated National Junior (under 21) Champion of South
> Vietnam 1970-74 (age 5.5, youngest ever National Junior Champion)
>
> * USCF Online Senior Master in 1999
> * FIDE Master in 1987
> * USCF Life Master in 1986
> * USCF National Master in 1980
> * National Master in 1974
>
> * Winner of more than 120 tournaments in the US, Europe and Asia
>
> * FIDE rating was approximately 2400 back in the 80's but I have
> retired from chess and not played serious tournament chess since.

Believe it or not, one or two of these claims might actually be true,
but most are demonstrably false.

For example, I believe that Truong is NOT a Life Master of the USCF.

I beat Truong a tournament game at the House of Spain in late 1980. I
doubt that he made master that year, but it is possible that he did.

He definitely did not ever win the Championship of Vietnam.

The championships he claims to have won in the US were not reported in
Chess Life.

It is possible that he was the junior champion of New Jersey in
1980-81

Truong is a FIDE Master but I do not know when he got the title.

http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=2001390

Sam Sloan

Date: 20 Feb 2008 03:38:16
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

On Feb 19, 11:46 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:47 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > **Why are you replying directly to someone who could justly claim to be the
> > > weakest chess player in the whole word at his age, and is, you know, maybe
> > > just a tad hung up about it? sort of like Winter, but wetter?
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > That is a good question. I really was getting bored with what I was
> > being forced to read and thought I would bring some humor and clarity
> > back to the topic. I loathe responding to anything he posts. His is
> > little more than bull baiting.
>
> > Lex, over and out!
> > :-)
>
> Nobody is forcing you to read anything. We wish you would not.
>
> Nobody seems to be able to find anything humorous in anything you post
> here.

Actually most people, if given a choice, would rather see you vacate
entirely cyberspace.You are the Morgellons infection of the USCF and
the worst example of serial crossposting on the internet. You should
change your name legally to Spam Sloan.

Date: 20 Feb 2008 10:14:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:242b48ad-6c07-4269-a825-4af0dedb5a66@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 11:46 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 11:47 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > **Why are you replying directly to someone who could justly claim to
>> > > be the
>> > > weakest chess player in the whole word at his age, and is, you know,
>> > > maybe
>> > > just a tad hung up about it? sort of like Winter, but wetter?
>>
>> > > Phil Innes
>>
>> > That is a good question. I really was getting bored with what I was
>> > being forced to read and thought I would bring some humor and clarity
>> > back to the topic. I loathe responding to anything he posts. His is
>> > little more than bull baiting.
>>
>> > Lex, over and out!
>> > :-)
>>
>> Nobody is forcing you to read anything. We wish you would not.
>>
>> Nobody seems to be able to find anything humorous in anything you post
>> here.
>
> Actually most people, if given a choice, would rather see you vacate
> entirely cyberspace.You are the Morgellons infection of the USCF and
> the worst example of serial crossposting on the internet. You should
> change your name legally to Spam Sloan.

Spin Alone Sloan?

But at least Spin Alone now recognises you as the real Lex Mitchell, but has
forgotten his own name, since he voices the opinion of 'nobody', then
immediately shifts to 'we'.

I doubt "we nobody's" was intended - but this exchange does reminder me of
the recent film about searching for humor in the Muslim world.

And also those people who write in to say they used to read here but now its
all gone to hell - as if this were TV, instead of a place where you make
your own entertainment [am I ranting yet?] like Sanny accusing someone last
month of winning 'by luck'. :)

How about Spin Alone making a joke about himself, his career in chess, or
the Bobby Fischer he hardly knew?

Phil Innes
The Frozen North, etc

Date: 19 Feb 2008 21:46:09
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

On Feb 19, 11:47 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> > **Why are you replying directly to someone who could justly claim to be the
> > weakest chess player in the whole word at his age, and is, you know, maybe
> > just a tad hung up about it? sort of like Winter, but wetter?
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> That is a good question. I really was getting bored with what I was
> being forced to read and thought I would bring some humor and clarity
> back to the topic. I loathe responding to anything he posts. His is
> little more than bull baiting.
>
> Lex, over and out!
> :-)

Nobody is forcing you to read anything. We wish you would not.

Nobody seems to be able to find anything humorous in anything you post
here.

Date: 19 Feb 2008 20:47:30
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

> **Why are you replying directly to someone who could justly claim to be the
> weakest chess player in the whole word at his age, and is, you know, maybe
> just a tad hung up about it? sort of like Winter, but wetter?
>
> Phil Innes

That is a good question. I really was getting bored with what I was
being forced to read and thought I would bring some humor and clarity
back to the topic. I loathe responding to anything he posts. His is
little more than bull baiting.

Lex, over and out!
:-)

Date: 19 Feb 2008 13:39:43
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

On Feb 14, 11:06=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:07 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:42 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Chess One wrote:
> > > > > Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the=
hardest
> > > > > set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscio=
us of
> > > > > skipping any issue whatever.
>
> > > > > No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording a=
pplied to
> > > > > these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain inform=
ation by
> > > > > asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbol=
izing an
> > > > > issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> > > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > > Bowel Boy is a journalist? =A0ROTFLMAO!!

My goodness.. some of you have a real anal fixation. From a herd of
Equus asinus

> > > Let's take him at his word. Here are some questions I'd like to ask
> > > Mr. Truong.

You have a phone? Call him. Be a man .

> > > Q. A published report by Brian Mottershead links your IP address to
> > > numerous obscene posts on the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics.
> > > This report has been reviewed twice by experts and found to have been
> > > sound in its methodology and conclusion. Did you make the posts in
> > > question? Did your wife Susan Polgar make the posts in question? If
> > > you or Susan Polgar did not make the posts, who did?

You didn't understand what was written, did you?

> > > Q. Have you ever posted anonymously to newsgroups? If so, under what
> > > screen names?

You n posting like this"anonymously,anonymously,anonymously" I just
posted it three times!

> > > Q. Have you ever sent email under another person's name?

Unclear usage of the language.How does one do that?

> > > Q. Have you ever used remailer programs for posting to newsgroups?

Do you have one to suggest?

> > > Q. Have you ever posted under the name "Bob Bennett" to the chess
> > > newsgroups?

As opposed to posting above,behind or in front of the name?

> > > Q. Have you ever used another person's ID on a chess-playing site?
> > > Have you ever used a chess-playing engine while playing a game on a
> > > chess-playing site?

Is that a direct request to improve your rating?

> > > Q. Have you ever fed hot-sauce to Susan Polgar''s children as
> > > punishment or to force them to learn chess?

I would consider kung pow sauce only a punishment if the meal were
prepared by a spandex- wearing sausage.

> > > Q. Why did you use the title "Dr." on your homepage when you did not
> > > have a doctorate?

Same place Dr. Demento got his. :-) Be sure of the facts. Not
everyone makes their own sites.

> > > Q. What business relationship do you have with Rob Mitchell? With his
> > > company Chess Masterminds? With Chessville?

none. none. don't know

>
> > > Q. Why did Rob Mitchell offer to be "deposed" if Sloan's lawsuit comes=

> > > to trial?

Because....

> > > Q. Who was responsible for the press
> > > release that claimed Susan Polgar was one of the three strongest chess=

> > > players in the world, but didn't state that in fact that ranking was
> > > among women only?

Same person that couldn't spell the name of "Bering Strait"

> >
>
> >
> -

Date: 19 Feb 2008 18:53:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:c2f3333c-831a-45ed-899e-425083d00e43@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> > > > > No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording
> > > > > applied to
> > > > > these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain
> > > > > information by
> > > > > asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor
> > > > > hyperbolizing an
> > > > > issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> > > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > > Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!!

My goodness.. some of you have a real anal fixation. From a herd of
Equus asinus

**Don't mention it Mr. Rob, they will deny it has any significance! ;)

> > > Let's take him at his word. Here are some questions I'd like to ask
> > > Mr. Truong.

You have a phone? Call him. Be a man .

**I actually asked much tougher questions than's Brennans- shirking nothing.
Answers are now in editorial province. Perhaps we will see them this
weekend? What a great big thrill for everyone. :))

<...?

> > > Q. Have you ever fed hot-sauce to Susan Polgar''s children as
> > > punishment or to force them to learn chess?

I would consider kung pow sauce only a punishment if the meal were
prepared by a spandex- wearing sausage.

**pause for a laugh - why do Americans think Asian food hotter - maybe
Americans don't know any Central American people? Or don't they want to know
them?

> > > Q. Why did you use the title "Dr." on your homepage when you did not
> > > have a doctorate?

Same place Dr. Demento got his. :-) Be sure of the facts. Not
everyone makes their own sites.

** Now there's a blast from the past - is Demento still going? He used to be
on NPR, but they don't carry California anymore.

> > > Q. What business relationship do you have with Rob Mitchell? With his
> > > company Chess Masterminds? With Chessville?

none. none. don't know

**hey Lex! first time you erred. you need to be a little sharper if you have
just returned here from Fantasy Chess Island, which is somewhere in the
Caribbean, no, and naturally a very relaxed place. maybe you used the
private Polgar-Lear jet too? maybe curious minds should investigate you
further!? huh? maybe you plan to take over the continent and become the new
czar of chess instead of the old bill [English joke], only more cunning?
weak minds want to know! daytime tv sucks, right, so let's at least
speculate here, and if we are a tad paranoid, and very fat, and into other
guy's bottoms and mention their dicks very often, encourage others to do so
too! then this is at least understandable as a reaction to daytime tv -
trouble is, how do you know you are not talking to the real FSS? i mean,
what's the difference? and even if the fat bycyclist is not that person, is
there any difference between what he writes and the what the false one did?

**Come on - you are the Blair-Slair! - is this the sort of person who when
asked for their address for previous libelous statements, declined to offer
it, and then shut up for a month?

>
> > > Q. Why did Rob Mitchell offer to be "deposed" if Sloan's lawsuit comes
> > > to trial?

Because....

**Why does Neil Brennan ask? He writes in all these threads to do with the
FSS, always about other people - as if, he himself were somehow interested
in ethical probity, while continuing to write trash like he has always
done - where actually was his fat arse when the FSS was active? on his bike
<right! > its just curious when the FSS stops, fat-arse comes back -
probably complete coincidence, no?

> Who was responsible for the press
> > > release that claimed Susan Polgar was one of the three strongest chess
> > > players in the world, but didn't state that in fact that ranking was
> > > among women only?

Same person that couldn't spell the name of "Bering Strait"

**Why are you replying directly to someone who could justly claim to be the
weakest chess player in the whole word at his age, and is, you know, maybe
just a tad hung up about it? sort of like Winter, but wetter?

Phil Innes

Date: 20 Feb 2008 14:43:48
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

Chess One wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:c2f3333c-831a-45ed-899e-425083d00e43@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>>> No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording
>>>>>> applied to
>>>>>> these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain
>>>>>> information by
>>>>>> asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor
>>>>>> hyperbolizing an
>>>>>> issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>>>>>> Phil Innes
>>>>> Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!!
>
> My goodness.. some of you have a real anal fixation. From a herd of
> Equus asinus
>
> **Don't mention it Mr. Rob, they will deny it has any significance! ;)
>
>>>> Let's take him at his word. Here are some questions I'd like to ask
>>>> Mr. Truong.
>
> You have a phone? Call him. Be a man .
>
> **I actually asked much tougher questions than's Brennans- shirking nothing.
> Answers are now in editorial province. Perhaps we will see them this
> weekend? What a great big thrill for everyone. :))
>
> <...?
>
>>>> Q. Have you ever fed hot-sauce to Susan Polgar''s children as
>>>> punishment or to force them to learn chess?
>
> I would consider kung pow sauce only a punishment if the meal were
> prepared by a spandex- wearing sausage.
>
> **pause for a laugh - why do Americans think Asian food hotter - maybe
> Americans don't know any Central American people? Or don't they want to know
> them?
>
>>>> Q. Why did you use the title "Dr." on your homepage when you did not
>>>> have a doctorate?
>
> Same place Dr. Demento got his. :-) Be sure of the facts. Not
> everyone makes their own sites.
>
> ** Now there's a blast from the past - is Demento still going? He used to be
> on NPR, but they don't carry California anymore.

From Dr. Truong's web page [he claims this is a hacked, unauthorized
page ;-), ;-) ]

My name is Paul Truong, PhD

The following are some of my chess accomplishments:

* US Open Blitz Co-Champion 2001 with GM Roland Schmaltz (a 4-time
World Lightning Champion)
* NY Rapid G/10 Champion 2001
* Tied for 1st with GM Horvath at the ECO International Tournament in
Holland 1984
* Qualified for the US Junior Championship in the mid 80's
* Represented the U.S. in the historic Satellite Match (NY - London) vs
World Champion G. Kasparov
* 2-time NJ Junior Champion 1981-82
* Scored 5-5 against the late GM Reshevsky in a 10 game match [G/15]
* Youngest person to qualify for the World Junior Championship (under
21) in Manilla 1975 (age 8.5)
* Obtained an official rating of 2200+ (youngest ever Master) after
winning the South Vietnam National Championship 1974 (age 8.5) but
since South Vietnam was not a member of FIDE at that time, the record
was considered unofficial
* 5-time undefeated National Champion of South Vietnam 1974-79 (age
8.5, youngest ever National Champion)
* 4-time undefeated National Junior (under 21) Champion of South
Vietnam 1970-74 (age 5.5, youngest ever National Junior Champion)

* USCF Online Senior Master in 1999
* FIDE Master in 1987
* USCF Life Master in 1986
* USCF National Master in 1980
* National Master in 1974

* Winner of more than 120 tournaments in the US, Europe and Asia

* FIDE rating was approximately 2400 back in the 80's but I have
retired from chess and not played serious tournament chess since.

Date: 14 Feb 2008 23:56:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

On Feb 7, 12:49 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> > > Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!!
>
> > Let's take him at his word. Here are some questions I'd like to ask
> > Mr. Truong.
>
> > Q. A published report by Brian Mottershead links your IP address to
> > numerous obscene posts on the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics.
> > This report has been reviewed twice by experts and found to have been
> > sound in its methodology and conclusion. Did you make the posts in
> > question? Did your wife Susan Polgar make the posts in question? If
> > you or Susan Polgar did not make the posts, who did?

"These attacks are an invasion of my privacy...".

[change the subject]

> > Q. Have you ever posted anonymously to newsgroups? If so, under what
> > screen names?

"What do you have against anonymous posts?
Even if I had...."

[duck the question]

> > Q. Have you ever sent email under another person's name?

"I often share a computer with others, including
my wife and kids..."

[duck]

> > Q. Have you ever used remailer programs for posting to newsgroups?

"I've heard of those, but I'm no expert on that
sort of thing..."

[duck]

> > Q. Have you ever posted under the name "Bob Bennett" to the chess
> > newsgroups?

"I heard a funny joke the other day. Two GMs
are in a sushi bar..."

[duck]

> > Q. Have you ever used another person's ID on a chess-playing site?

"Sometimes I play under my wife's ID, to get
her bullet rating back up..."

> > Have you ever used a chess-playing engine while playing a game on a
> > chess-playing site?

"Are you crazy? I would never do that. But
in our last article for Chess Life, we had Fritz
do most of the grunt work, as usual."

> > Q. Have you ever fed hot-sauce to Susan Polgar''s children as
> > punishment or to force them to learn chess?

"Okay, there are three guys in a plane: a
Catholic, a Rabbi, and an atheist..."

> > Q. Why did you use the title "Dr." on your homepage when you did not
> > have a doctorate?

"That must have been a typo..."

> > Q. What business relationship do you have with Rob Mitchell? With his
> > company Chess Masterminds? With Chessville?

"I read an interesting article on Chessville once.
It was about the Exchange variation of the..."

> > Q. What business relationship do you have with Philip Keith Innes, AKA
> > Phil Innes?

"Who?"

> > Q. Why did Rob Mitchell offer to be "deposed" if Sloan's lawsuit comes
> > to trial?

"Don;t talk to me about Sam Sloan-- I get
REAL MAD!!! One day soon, I'm gonna kick
his..."

> > Q. Who was responsible for the notorious Chess Masterminds press
> > release that claimed Susan Polgar was one of the three strongest chess
> > players in the world, but didn't state that in fact that ranking was
> > among women only?

"That was supposed to be understood. Everybody
knows that you don;t compare girls to men when it
comes to playing chess, 'cause they are, like, dumb."

> Q. Why are you unable to visit California?

"Didn't you know? They have earthquakes
there all the time. It's too dangerous for me
to take that kind of risk, since I am a very
rich man."

-- quote bot

Date: 14 Feb 2008 21:06:49
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

On Feb 6, 7:07 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:42 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Chess One wrote:
> > > > Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
> > > > set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
> > > > skipping any issue whatever.
>
> > > > No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied to
> > > > these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
> > > > asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
> > > > issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!!
>
> > Let's take him at his word. Here are some questions I'd like to ask
> > Mr. Truong.
>
> > Q. A published report by Brian Mottershead links your IP address to
> > numerous obscene posts on the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics.
> > This report has been reviewed twice by experts and found to have been
> > sound in its methodology and conclusion. Did you make the posts in
> > question? Did your wife Susan Polgar make the posts in question? If
> > you or Susan Polgar did not make the posts, who did?
>
> > Q. Have you ever posted anonymously to newsgroups? If so, under what
> > screen names?
>
> > Q. Have you ever sent email under another person's name?
>
> > Q. Have you ever used remailer programs for posting to newsgroups?
>
> > Q. Have you ever posted under the name "Bob Bennett" to the chess
> > newsgroups?
>
> > Q. Have you ever used another person's ID on a chess-playing site?
> > Have you ever used a chess-playing engine while playing a game on a
> > chess-playing site?
>
> > Q. Have you ever fed hot-sauce to Susan Polgar''s children as
> > punishment or to force them to learn chess?
>
> > Q. Why did you use the title "Dr." on your homepage when you did not
> > have a doctorate?
>
> > Q. What business relationship do you have with Rob Mitchell? With his
> > company Chess Masterminds? With Chessville?
>
> > Q. What business relationship do you have with Philip Keith Innes, AKA
> > Phil Innes?
>
> > Q. Why did Rob Mitchell offer to be "deposed" if Sloan's lawsuit comes
> > to trial?
>
> > Q. Who was responsible for the notorious Chess Masterminds press
> > release that claimed Susan Polgar was one of the three strongest chess
> > players in the world, but didn't state that in fact that ranking was
> > among women only?
>
> Day one. P Innes has failed to acknowledge these questions.

Day ten. P Innes continues to ignore questions he should ask Paul
Truong.

Date: 07 Feb 2008 09:49:35
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

On Feb 5, 12:42 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Chess One wrote:
> > > Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
> > > set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
> > > skipping any issue whatever.
>
> > > No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied to
> > > these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
> > > asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
> > > issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!!
>
> Let's take him at his word. Here are some questions I'd like to ask
> Mr. Truong.
>
> Q. A published report by Brian Mottershead links your IP address to
> numerous obscene posts on the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics.
> This report has been reviewed twice by experts and found to have been
> sound in its methodology and conclusion. Did you make the posts in
> question? Did your wife Susan Polgar make the posts in question? If
> you or Susan Polgar did not make the posts, who did?
>
> Q. Have you ever posted anonymously to newsgroups? If so, under what
> screen names?
>
> Q. Have you ever sent email under another person's name?
>
> Q. Have you ever used remailer programs for posting to newsgroups?
>
> Q. Have you ever posted under the name "Bob Bennett" to the chess
> newsgroups?
>
> Q. Have you ever used another person's ID on a chess-playing site?
> Have you ever used a chess-playing engine while playing a game on a
> chess-playing site?
>
> Q. Have you ever fed hot-sauce to Susan Polgar''s children as
> punishment or to force them to learn chess?
>
> Q. Why did you use the title "Dr." on your homepage when you did not
> have a doctorate?
>
> Q. What business relationship do you have with Rob Mitchell? With his
> company Chess Masterminds? With Chessville?
>
> Q. What business relationship do you have with Philip Keith Innes, AKA
> Phil Innes?
>
> Q. Why did Rob Mitchell offer to be "deposed" if Sloan's lawsuit comes
> to trial?
>
> Q. Who was responsible for the notorious Chess Masterminds press
> release that claimed Susan Polgar was one of the three strongest chess
> players in the world, but didn't state that in fact that ranking was
> among women only?
>
> More to come.....

http://lizzyknowsall.blogspot.com/2007/09/kings-gambit-writing-polgar-rating.html

Q. Care to explain about the exclusive "hot sauce" club you claim to
belong to?

Q. Why are you unable to visit California?

Date: 07 Feb 2008 09:47:01
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

Date: 06 Feb 2008 05:37:23
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 6, 8:14 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:10:41 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> The point, as I see it, is that the USCF has no reason to keep secret
> >>> material that would exonerate Truong.
>
> >>ah! they have no reason to 'exonerate' Paul Truong, says Murray!~ since
> >>presumably they would then need to look to the actual perp. And they have,
> >>perhaps, no reason to want that to happen?
>
> > My gawd, Phil, your understanding is the opposite of what I said.
>
> > Maybe phrasing it in a different way would be easier for Phil to
> > parse: "The USCF has no reason to keep material that would exonerate
> > Truong secret." How's that?
>
> That would be to express yourself properly, since your change inverts the
> meaning of your first attempt ~ I think its an adverb and noun thing.

The meaning of the sentences, even snipped from context, is nearly
identical. P Innes' misunderstanding is unique to him.

> > You see, I wasn't saying that they have
> > no reason to keep it. One more try: ( they have no reason) (to keep
> > secret) (material that would exonerate Truong). Does this help?
>
> I think it helps you to write everything out twice, naming your pronouns and
> so on, and you have almost rejoined your infinitive, already.

The irony of Word-salad Innes lecturing anyone on gram is mind-
boggling.

> >>I don't know what's written beneath this - and no longer engage the
> >>prosecutors who are not honest, any one of them, since this volunteered
> >>statement by prosecutor Murray, rather identifies the entire game, no?
>
> > Indeed it does. My point, which I've repeated several times, and P
> > Innes is determined to mis-understand is that (1) The USCF has no
> > reason to keep exculpatory material secret since (2) Truong's lawyer
> > will pry it loose and (3) They would look all the worse for trying to
> > hide it.
>
> Of course! So, perhaps tell USCF your sentiments. I sent my 20 questions to
> PT last night - which included several on Official Secrets.

Slow pitch softball coming up!

> Essentially I wish all material to be known and therefore talk to people who
> are prepared to speak out. If you wish to do the same, then look at your own
> first clause above "(1) The USCF has no reason to keep exculpatory material
> secret since" ... which I believe is the fly in your ointment, since they
> evidently //do// have reasons, and have acted on them. So what you suppose
> is not evidently true!
>
> Of course, you nor anyone else can't investigate your supposition, pro or
> con or disinterestedly, because USCF will not speak on the issue - and [is
> it true?] that my note to them a couple weeks ago is the only board-resolved
> response they have made to the public?

Date: 06 Feb 2008 10:36:44
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

OT: A stylistic digression (or, let's deal with some *real* nits for
a change)

The sentence in question:

"The USCF has no reason to keep secret material that would exonerate
Truong."

Where I meant:

"The USCF has no reason to keep secret (material that would exonerate
Truong)". (i.e., it's not in the USCF's interest to keep it secret).

But, Phil took it to mean

"The USCF has no reason to keep (secret material) that would exonerate
Truong." (i.e., the USCF might as well throw it away)

How to craft the sentence in question to eliminate the chance of
understanding it the way Phil did?

To me, both "The USCF has no reason material that would exonerate
Truong secret to keep" and "The USCF has no reason to keep material
that would exonerate Truong secret" both sound awkward. The latter
less so, I suppose.

Date: 06 Feb 2008 19:29:19
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Mike Murray wrote:
>
> OT: A stylistic digression (or, let's deal with some *real* nits for
> a change)
>
> The sentence in question:
>
> "The USCF has no reason to keep secret material that would exonerate
> Truong."
>
> Where I meant:
>
> "The USCF has no reason to keep secret (material that would exonerate
> Truong)". (i.e., it's not in the USCF's interest to keep it secret).
>
> But, Phil took it to mean
>
> "The USCF has no reason to keep (secret material) that would exonerate
> Truong." (i.e., the USCF might as well throw it away)
>
> How to craft the sentence in question to eliminate the chance of
> understanding it the way Phil did?
>
> To me, both "The USCF has no reason material that would exonerate
> Truong secret to keep" and "The USCF has no reason to keep material
> that would exonerate Truong secret" both sound awkward. The latter
> less so, I suppose.
>

When I read Bowel Boy's prose, I get visions of a toilet bowl whirlpool.
If only we could......oh, never mind. That film has been made already.

Date: 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Mike Murray wrote:
>
> OT: A stylistic digression (or, let's deal with some *real* nits for
> a change)
>
> The sentence in question:
>
> "The USCF has no reason to keep secret material that would exonerate
> Truong."
>
> Where I meant:
>
> "The USCF has no reason to keep secret (material that would exonerate
> Truong)". (i.e., it's not in the USCF's interest to keep it secret).
>
> But, Phil took it to mean
>
> "The USCF has no reason to keep (secret material) that would exonerate
> Truong." (i.e., the USCF might as well throw it away)
>
> How to craft the sentence in question to eliminate the chance of
> understanding it the way Phil did?
>
> To me, both "The USCF has no reason material that would exonerate
> Truong secret to keep" and "The USCF has no reason to keep material
> that would exonerate Truong secret" both sound awkward. The latter
> less so, I suppose.
>

How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate
Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 06 Feb 2008 11:10:02
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate
>Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.

Kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, don't it?

Date: 06 Feb 2008 15:41:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate
>>Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.
>
>
> Kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, don't it?

But its just another speculation in the face of the facts - USCF /are/
deciding to hide material. Given that the fact of hiding /is/ present, the
comment that they have no reason to exonerate... is opinion - right? USCF
never said so. Maybe its good opinion, but I finish this note with another.

One implication of Mike Murray's sentence, though phrased without the
negatives, is to ask why they /are/ hiding material - right?

Alternatively; that USCF hides material to implicate rather than exonerate
Truong - right? USCF board have actually acted on this hidden material by
stripping Truong of his keting title on the board - though no-one is
allowed to know the information that the board acted upon - which is not
tested before any court, nor before the membership.

Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal counsel,
because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
Chessville by board president Goichberg.

Of course - this is only what USCF has itself declared. There is one other
possibility, and that is that USCF may have some culpability in the affair.

That is a comment completely independent of the fact of the Sloan suit.

Phil Innes

Date: 06 Feb 2008 04:07:40
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

On Feb 5, 12:42 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Chess One wrote:
> > > Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
> > > set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
> > > skipping any issue whatever.
>
> > > No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied to
> > > these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
> > > asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
> > > issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!!
>
> Let's take him at his word. Here are some questions I'd like to ask
> Mr. Truong.
>
> Q. A published report by Brian Mottershead links your IP address to
> numerous obscene posts on the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics.
> This report has been reviewed twice by experts and found to have been
> sound in its methodology and conclusion. Did you make the posts in
> question? Did your wife Susan Polgar make the posts in question? If
> you or Susan Polgar did not make the posts, who did?
>
> Q. Have you ever posted anonymously to newsgroups? If so, under what
> screen names?
>
> Q. Have you ever sent email under another person's name?
>
> Q. Have you ever used remailer programs for posting to newsgroups?
>
> Q. Have you ever posted under the name "Bob Bennett" to the chess
> newsgroups?
>
> Q. Have you ever used another person's ID on a chess-playing site?
> Have you ever used a chess-playing engine while playing a game on a
> chess-playing site?
>
> Q. Have you ever fed hot-sauce to Susan Polgar''s children as
> punishment or to force them to learn chess?
>
> Q. Why did you use the title "Dr." on your homepage when you did not
> have a doctorate?
>
> Q. What business relationship do you have with Rob Mitchell? With his
> company Chess Masterminds? With Chessville?
>
> Q. What business relationship do you have with Philip Keith Innes, AKA
> Phil Innes?
>
> Q. Why did Rob Mitchell offer to be "deposed" if Sloan's lawsuit comes
> to trial?
>
> Q. Who was responsible for the notorious Chess Masterminds press
> release that claimed Susan Polgar was one of the three strongest chess
> players in the world, but didn't state that in fact that ranking was
> among women only?

Day one. P Innes has failed to acknowledge these questions.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 19:59:14
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 11:04 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
> > set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
> > skipping any issue whatever.
>
> > No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied to
> > these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
> > asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
> > issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!! I look forward to reading your
> "interview" with the hardest set of questions ever put to a board
> member. Will Truong be connected to a polygraph or voice stress
> analysis machine during the interview. Of course, neither of those
> machines is perfectly reliable. For example, a pathological liar would
> pass both in a breeze.
>
>

Brian,
Where is your axe? WHy do you wield it? Where is your dog in this?

Date: 05 Feb 2008 15:26:11
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 3:06=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 7:53=A0am, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You can't contend that there is no evidence of Truong's guilt. There
> > was evidence that he falsely claimed to have a PhD; it was on his web
> > page. There is evidence that the mysterious posts came from his
> > computer; it was in the Motterhead report, and confirmed by experts.
>
> > You can try to claim that this evidence is not convincing, that it was
> > (somehow, for some reason, and in a strange way of putting it there
> > without calling attention to it for years) planted to make him look
> > guilty. You cannot say that there is no evidence against him, however.
>
> > I am glad you looked into Paul's soul and found it to be pure. Others
> > who know them do not seem convinced, and I do not think that you can
> > expect those who do not know the people involved to take your word on
> > the issue.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > On Feb 4, 11:50=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 11:41 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > What a strange question! If you believe that Paul Truong repeatedly
> > > > made the offensive posts, and then lied about the matter, shouldn't
> > > > you be for removing him from the board without seeking to gain in an=
y
> > > > way except for getting a dishonest person removed from office?
>
> > > > You may be (desperately, in my opinion) clinging to a belief in Paul=
's
> > > > innocence in this matter. I cannot believe that anyone could contend=

> > > > that this innocence is obvious, however, after several expert report=
s
> > > > indicating that he is guilty, and no evidence presented in an open
> > > > forum on the other side. Please, feel free to try to convince us of
> > > > his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see hi=
m
> > > > removed must be acting out of some base motive.
>
> > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Brian,
> > > > > Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assu=
me
> > > > > the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> > > > > matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> > > > > Rob
>
> > > How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
> > > But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
> > > honorable.
> > > I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?
>
> > > The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
> > > total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
> > > would have taken only one expert to disprove him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Jerry,
> I do not believe the claim that four experts found evidence is
> correct. IF that were the case there would have only been three
> experts that found no evidence and the last one to look at the
> evidence would have proven the charges and IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
> PUBLISHED. You can't honestly think that if there were hard and
> conclusive evidence proving Paul's guilt that it would have not been
> published and leaked. The USCF has leaks as a collander.
> Rob- Hide quoted text -

The "4 experts" is entirely from Phil Innes. The number everyone else
gives is Motterhead, plus 2 outside experts. Nevertheless, that is at
least two experts (I am being generous here because some people are
claiming Motterhead is biased) confirming that Truong is the culprit.
In any case, your claim that there is no evidence is clearly
inaccurate, and even if you believe (which I find incredible) that the
evidence is not convincing, there is no reason to believe that people
who find this convincing must have some hidden agenda.

Jerry Spinrad

PS: Will you be at the Nashville Open this weekend? This will be the
largest tournament I have ever entered in 35 years of tournament play.
If there is anything about chess that I am ashamed of recently, it is
that I chickened out of being creamed in the open section, and will
instead play the U2000. I wonder whether I am doing the right thing
there.

> - Show quoted text -

Date: 05 Feb 2008 15:16:29
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 6:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> ah! they have no reason to 'exonerate' Paul Truong, says Murray!~ since
> presumably they would then need to look to the actual perp. And they have,
> perhaps, no reason to want that to happen?

P Innes desperately wants to drive the white Bronco for Truong.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 15:12:59
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 5:33 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:51Opj.2833$FW3.2414@trndny03...
> >> Chess One wrote:
> >>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
> >>>> Chess One wrote:
> >>>>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
> >>>>> Alekhine's Parrot, atwww.chessville.comor
> >>>>>http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>
> >>>>> reads;-
>
> >>>>> ---
>
> >>>>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
> >>>>> than four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands
> >>>>> dollars of USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was
> >>>>> sent to Mr. Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report
> >>>>> had the wrong conclusion.
> >>>> Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
> >>>> There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
> >>>> the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.
>
> >>>> Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
> >>>> persuasive.
> >>> Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
> >>> every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the
> >>> views of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no
> >>> more than your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your
> >>> message without facts, as we know them, is your own business.
> >> Ah, the Bowel of Brattleboro must be referring to the site run by the
> >> Trolgar Acolytes over at Chessville. No discussion of inconvenient facts
> >> regarding the Trolgars is allowed over there.
>
> > This guy was judge? A judge of what?
>
> > He was thrown off yet another website because he was hectoring all other
> > opinions. That's the truth. I do not understand that his opinions are
> > tolerated anywhere where there is a moderator. Nowhere do people's values
> > value his.
>
> >>> You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
> >>> should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
> >>> that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were
> >>> counsel, and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?
> >> Bowelman needs to write something intelligible before I would venture a
> >> substantive reply.
>
> > And these are the levels to which the ex-judge, somewhat shy of actually
> > responding to what others write, now propose to you all.
>
> > As if anyone in the world would respond to him directly after these
> > comments. But if you did he would snip them anyway [!]
>
> > While he may continue his dissertation, seems like he has reduced his
> > audience to 6 people in the known universe, and this has been to seriously
> > mis-judge his general reception ;)
>
> >>> Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own
> >>> orientation to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider
> >>> your attiudes actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual
> >>> counsel does not adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?
> >> Bowelman need to take his meds.
>
> > The cheapeast response by abusive newbies on newsnet. This is the level of
> > 'jurisdiction' that prosecutes one side of an issue - and is cloth-eared to
> > any other. Truly, where do the people's talents begin?
>
> > Is Laugherty better or worse than the thing he prosecutes?
>
> > But chess players could make up their own minds, with no spin by anyone =
> > and that is a factor that the Laugherty Bowel Party [LBP] HATE - since it
> > would remove from them the power to suggest that they care, by challenging
> > what they do compared to what they say.
>
> > If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
> > don't - not one of them.
>
> > Therefore, such people are insincere in acting from anything other than
> > their own occulted motives, all half-dozen of them. And do they hate the
> > light!
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Does Bowel Boy need a hug? Hug.

The Brattleboro Bedlam needs a jacket with wrap-around arms.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:29:48
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 4:06 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 7:53 am, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You can't contend that there is no evidence of Truong's guilt. There
> > was evidence that he falsely claimed to have a PhD; it was on his web
> > page. There is evidence that the mysterious posts came from his
> > computer; it was in the Motterhead report, and confirmed by experts.
>
> > You can try to claim that this evidence is not convincing, that it was
> > (somehow, for some reason, and in a strange way of putting it there
> > without calling attention to it for years) planted to make him look
> > guilty. You cannot say that there is no evidence against him, however.
>
> > I am glad you looked into Paul's soul and found it to be pure. Others
> > who know them do not seem convinced, and I do not think that you can
> > expect those who do not know the people involved to take your word on
> > the issue.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > On Feb 4, 11:50 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 11:41 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > What a strange question! If you believe that Paul Truong repeatedly
> > > > made the offensive posts, and then lied about the matter, shouldn't
> > > > you be for removing him from the board without seeking to gain in any
> > > > way except for getting a dishonest person removed from office?
>
> > > > You may be (desperately, in my opinion) clinging to a belief in Paul's
> > > > innocence in this matter. I cannot believe that anyone could contend
> > > > that this innocence is obvious, however, after several expert reports
> > > > indicating that he is guilty, and no evidence presented in an open
> > > > forum on the other side. Please, feel free to try to convince us of
> > > > his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
> > > > removed must be acting out of some base motive.
>
> > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Brian,
> > > > > Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
> > > > > the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> > > > > matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> > > > > Rob
>
> > > How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
> > > But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
> > > honorable.
> > > I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?
>
> > > The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
> > > total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
> > > would have taken only one expert to disprove him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Jerry,
> I do not believe the claim that four experts found evidence is
> correct. IF that were the case there would have only been three
> experts that found no evidence and the last one to look at the
> evidence would have proven the charges and IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
> PUBLISHED.

http://www.samsloan.com/mottershead.pdf

You can't honestly think that if there were hard and
> conclusive evidence proving Paul's guilt that it would have not been
> published and leaked. The USCF has leaks as a collander.
> Rob

Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:12:07
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 11:04=A0am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the harde=
st
> > set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
> > skipping any issue whatever.
>
> > No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied=
to
> > these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information =
by
> > asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing =
an
> > issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Bowel Boy is a journalist? =A0ROTFLMAO!! =A0I look forward to reading your=

> "interview" with the hardest set of questions ever put to a board
> member. =A0Will Truong be connected to a polygraph or voice stress
> analysis machine during the interview. =A0Of course, neither of those
> machines is perfectly reliable. =A0For example, a pathological liar would
> pass both in a breeze.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Brian,
Again I ask, "Why do you have an axe to grind here?"

Date: 05 Feb 2008 14:11:24
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:12:07 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Brian,
>Again I ask, "Why do you have an axe to grind here?"

Isn't that what they said to the folks from the North when they came
down South on the Freedom ches? You guys still say that?

Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:06:02
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 7:53=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> You can't contend that there is no evidence of Truong's guilt. There
> was evidence that he falsely claimed to have a PhD; it was on his web
> page. There is evidence that the mysterious posts came from his
> computer; it was in the Motterhead report, and confirmed by experts.
>
> You can try to claim that this evidence is not convincing, that it was
> (somehow, for some reason, and in a strange way of putting it there
> without calling attention to it for years) planted to make him look
> guilty. You cannot say that there is no evidence against him, however.
>
> I am glad you looked into Paul's soul and found it to be pure. Others
> who know them do not seem convinced, and I do not think that you can
> expect those who do not know the people involved to take your word on
> the issue.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Feb 4, 11:50=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 11:41 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > What a strange question! If you believe that Paul Truong repeatedly
> > > made the offensive posts, and then lied about the matter, shouldn't
> > > you be for removing him from the board without seeking to gain in any
> > > way except for getting a dishonest person removed from office?
>
> > > You may be (desperately, in my opinion) clinging to a belief in Paul's=

> > > innocence in this matter. I cannot believe that anyone could contend
> > > that this innocence is obvious, however, after several expert reports
> > > indicating that he is guilty, and no evidence presented in an open
> > > forum on the other side. Please, feel free to try to convince us of
> > > his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
> > > removed must be acting out of some base motive.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Brian,
> > > > Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume=

> > > > the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> > > > matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> > > > Rob
>
> > How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
> > But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
> > honorable.
> > I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?
>
> > The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
> > total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
> > would have taken only one expert to disprove him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Jerry,
I do not believe the claim that four experts found evidence is
correct. IF that were the case there would have only been three
experts that found no evidence and the last one to look at the
evidence would have proven the charges and IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
PUBLISHED. You can't honestly think that if there were hard and
conclusive evidence proving Paul's guilt that it would have not been
published and leaked. The USCF has leaks as a collander.
Rob

Date: 05 Feb 2008 12:33:01
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 3:16 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> **What a cowardly farce of a response! How can this guy write a column
> investigating history of chess for ChessCafe - Gawd Almighty!

As a reminder:

In December 2005, Phil Innes wrote:

"Jerry Spinrad has written very well .... and I will make him a few
introductions to publishers."

"At Mr. Spinrad's request I will make him all proper introductions..."

"LOL - the plain truth is that if I can find a publisher for Mr.
Spinrad, I will be glad to do so, gratis."

Date: 05 Feb 2008 09:47:25
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 12:32 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:20:05 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >maybe his McCarthite methodology had been overlooked?
>
> As a historical tidbit, it was McCarthy himself who often referred to
> secret reports to support his claims. In at least one noteworthy
> case, the secret report, which he claimed to hold in his hand, was
> blank.
>
> Maybe P Innes should use the Alger Hiss case as his historical analog.

You are assuming P Innes can read.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 09:42:26
From: The Historian
Subject: Questions P Innes can ask Truong

On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
> > set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
> > skipping any issue whatever.
>
> > No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied to
> > these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
> > asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
> > issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!!

Let's take him at his word. Here are some questions I'd like to ask
Mr. Truong.

Q. A published report by Brian Mottershead links your IP address to
numerous obscene posts on the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics.
This report has been reviewed twice by experts and found to have been
sound in its methodology and conclusion. Did you make the posts in
question? Did your wife Susan Polgar make the posts in question? If
you or Susan Polgar did not make the posts, who did?

Q. Have you ever posted anonymously to newsgroups? If so, under what
screen names?

Q. Have you ever sent email under another person's name?

Q. Have you ever used remailer programs for posting to newsgroups?

Q. Have you ever posted under the name "Bob Bennett" to the chess
newsgroups?

Q. Have you ever used another person's ID on a chess-playing site?
Have you ever used a chess-playing engine while playing a game on a
chess-playing site?

Q. Have you ever fed hot-sauce to Susan Polgar''s children as
punishment or to force them to learn chess?

Q. Why did you use the title "Dr." on your homepage when you did not
have a doctorate?

Q. What business relationship do you have with Rob Mitchell? With his
company Chess Masterminds? With Chessville?

Q. What business relationship do you have with Philip Keith Innes, AKA
Phil Innes?

Q. Why did Rob Mitchell offer to be "deposed" if Sloan's lawsuit comes
to trial?

Q. Who was responsible for the notorious Chess Masterminds press
release that claimed Susan Polgar was one of the three strongest chess
players in the world, but didn't state that in fact that ranking was
among women only?

More to come.....

Date: 05 Feb 2008 08:52:37
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

As I said before, my policy was to stop discussion with you, since it
seemed entirely nonproductive. I find your answers to be nonsense and
off point; you seem to feel the same about mine. We could each
continue to respond, proving to each other that our debate opponent is
an idiot, but it doesn't seem worth it.

I plan to respond to other supporters of Truong who post here, but not
to you. Feel free to say whatever you want about the quality of my
logic, but do not interpret my lack of response to you as conceding
any points. My only response to you in the future will be to repeat
this basic message if you again try to read implications into my non-
responses.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 5, 10:20=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:30dbdcc9-68ac-488d-8bde-70f0a46c8bd8@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> ....
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Please, feel free to try to convince us of
> >> his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
> >> removed must be acting out of some base motive.
>
> >> Jerry Spinrad
>
> >> On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Brian,
> >> > Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
> >> > the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> >> > matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> >> > Rob
>
> > How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
> > But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
> > honorable.
> > I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?
>
> > The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
> > total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
> > would have taken only one expert to disprove him.
>
> What an interesting set of interactions! When I asked Jerry Spinrad's own
> interest in knowing about the whole thing before asking someone to 'prove
> their innocence' -- which is actually quite difficult, no? If you didn't d=
o
> it, then you are asked to prove a negative -- Spinrad went away for a week=
,
> thus 'not-noticing' the question entirely, but he's back now, as if nothin=
g
> had happened and maybe his McCarthite methodology had been overlooked?
>
> What Jerry Spinrad did not chose to answer was if he himself wanted to
> review all the available information which USCF holds, or had he already
> made his mind up on the basis of one-sided accusations presented here,
> proposed by an the abysmal crowd of abuseniks of the same order of offensi=
ve
> reks as the FSS himself?
>
> That one-sided show insists that those who want all to be known are
> partisan! - not a very credible piece of logic! In fact, its a measure of
> desperation, not excluding the ludicrous rek that the offer to open up =
is
> 'insincere', even though the act of opening up belongs to the majority of
> the USCF board, and is actually beyond the control of the accused to make =
it
> so or restrict it.
>
> The gallery comments are especially inane about those who comment on the
> issue - indeed, they mock them - since those who want all to be known don'=
t
> want to resolve the issue in this newsgroup, or even resolve it themselves=
,
> but to let USCF's members make up their own minds. And since USCF members
> appear to be the most offended of all constituencies, the absent
> recommendation on their part more than conflicts with their own base of
> questioning - which is ostensibly to be for the members. In fact it
> completely contradicts their stance.
>
> Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest=

> set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
> skipping any issue whatever.
>
> No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied t=
o
> these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by=

> asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an=

> issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 05 Feb 2008 15:16:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e5cb0fbb-9691-4450-b150-f75c12724224@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
As I said before, my policy was to stop discussion with you, since it
seemed entirely nonproductive. I find your answers to be nonsense and
off point; you seem to feel the same about mine. We could each
continue to respond, proving to each other that our debate opponent is
an idiot, but it doesn't seem worth it.

** Have a bash at naming who you are addressing, then, have a bash at saying
what is nonproductive for /you/.

I plan to respond to other supporters of Truong who post here, but not
to you.

**But you just did!

Feel free to say whatever you want about the quality of my
logic,

**OK! Your posts don't possess any.

but do not interpret my lack of response to you as conceding
any points.

**Really, but I "interpret" Spinrads evasions as conceding all points! And
who needs to "interpret" actually? ROFL! Why else evade the issue put to you
about your own orinetation and indeed, you own honesty ;)

My only response to you in the future will be to repeat
this basic message if you again try to read implications into my non-
responses.

**Jerry Spinrad is pleased to spout this vague evasive crap [nothing of
substance in his message, not here, nor why he told everyone about some
mysteriosu 180 degree turn last time he was here] - once more evading the
only issue put to him = why he doesn't want the whole issued opened up. <--
<ggg >

**He has now gone off in a huff, formally not noticing that I called him
about his own obvious and partial partisanship - he already decided what's
what by listeninig to abuseniks on usenet! Don't need to listen to anyone
like me, espouses Spinrad.

**What a cowardly farce of a response! How can this guy write a column
investigating history of chess for ChessCafe - Gawd Almighty! I know things
have gone downhil there, but this guy can't answer a straight question put
to him on such a simple matter as his own evident bias.

Phil Innes

-----

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 5, 10:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:30dbdcc9-68ac-488d-8bde-70f0a46c8bd8@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> ....
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Please, feel free to try to convince us of
> >> his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
> >> removed must be acting out of some base motive.
>
> >> Jerry Spinrad
>
> >> On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Brian,
> >> > Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
> >> > the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> >> > matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> >> > Rob
>
> > How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
> > But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
> > honorable.
> > I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?
>
> > The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
> > total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
> > would have taken only one expert to disprove him.
>
> What an interesting set of interactions! When I asked Jerry Spinrad's own
> interest in knowing about the whole thing before asking someone to 'prove
> their innocence' -- which is actually quite difficult, no? If you didn't
> do
> it, then you are asked to prove a negative -- Spinrad went away for a
> week,
> thus 'not-noticing' the question entirely, but he's back now, as if
> nothing
> had happened and maybe his McCarthite methodology had been overlooked?
>
> What Jerry Spinrad did not chose to answer was if he himself wanted to
> review all the available information which USCF holds, or had he already
> made his mind up on the basis of one-sided accusations presented here,
> proposed by an the abysmal crowd of abuseniks of the same order of
> offensive
> reks as the FSS himself?
>
> That one-sided show insists that those who want all to be known are
> partisan! - not a very credible piece of logic! In fact, its a measure of
> desperation, not excluding the ludicrous rek that the offer to open up
> is
> 'insincere', even though the act of opening up belongs to the majority of
> the USCF board, and is actually beyond the control of the accused to make
> it
> so or restrict it.
>
> The gallery comments are especially inane about those who comment on the
> issue - indeed, they mock them - since those who want all to be known
> don't
> want to resolve the issue in this newsgroup, or even resolve it
> themselves,
> but to let USCF's members make up their own minds. And since USCF members
> appear to be the most offended of all constituencies, the absent
> recommendation on their part more than conflicts with their own base of
> questioning - which is ostensibly to be for the members. In fact it
> completely contradicts their stance.
>
> Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
> set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
> skipping any issue whatever.
>
> No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied
> to
> these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
> asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
> issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 05 Feb 2008 08:23:50
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 11:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
"... I am writing as a journalist ..."

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Date: 05 Feb 2008 08:20:24
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 4, 7:24 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:

> If Trolgar had a qualified forensic expert to refute Motterhead, Jones
> and Ulevitch, they would be parading him all over creation. They might
> even give Bowelman an exclusive interview for the purpose of asking soft
> questions.

I guess that would be a stool softener, wouldn't it?

Date: 05 Feb 2008 07:19:18
From:
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 9:15=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:50 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
> > would have taken only one expert to disprove him.
>
> Was this "once said" before or after Eisenstein made The Battleship
> Potemkin?

No, Neil -- Rob is obviously referring to the American general and
president, Dwight D. Eisenstein.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 06:17:50
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 8:53 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> You can't contend that there is no evidence of Truong's guilt. There
> was evidence that he falsely claimed to have a PhD; it was on his web
> page. There is evidence that the mysterious posts came from his
> computer; it was in the Motterhead report, and confirmed by experts.
>
> You can try to claim that this evidence is not convincing, that it was
> (somehow, for some reason, and in a strange way of putting it there
> without calling attention to it for years) planted to make him look
> guilty. You cannot say that there is no evidence against him, however.
>
> I am glad you looked into Paul's soul and found it to be pure. Others
> who know them do not seem convinced, and I do not think that you can
> expect those who do not know the people involved to take your word on
> the issue.

Jerry, I hate to intrude into this Tennessee squabble, but Truong's
soul is his concern and God's. Most of us are concerned with Truong's,
and Polgar's, actions.

> Jerry Spinrad

Date: 05 Feb 2008 06:15:00
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 12:50 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 11:41 pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What a strange question! If you believe that Paul Truong repeatedly
> > made the offensive posts, and then lied about the matter, shouldn't
> > you be for removing him from the board without seeking to gain in any
> > way except for getting a dishonest person removed from office?
>
> > You may be (desperately, in my opinion) clinging to a belief in Paul's
> > innocence in this matter. I cannot believe that anyone could contend
> > that this innocence is obvious, however, after several expert reports
> > indicating that he is guilty, and no evidence presented in an open
> > forum on the other side. Please, feel free to try to convince us of
> > his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
> > removed must be acting out of some base motive.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Brian,
> > > Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
> > > the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> > > matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> > > Rob
>
> How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.

It's a discussion forum.

> But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
> honorable.

"If I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong,
Who, you all know, are honorable men."

> I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?

I've seen three computer reports, Motterhead's and two others that
confirm his findings. And when you add that to Troung's alleged
history - sending emails under Susan Polgar's name (see Shahade's
book), lying (see Hoffman's book), the restraining order against Susan
Polgar's children, the suggestive evidence that Truong used the name
"Bob Bennett" here five years ago, the fact he cannot visit the state
of California, the doctorate he claimed to have and then denied when
he was questioned on it, and other problems - there's enough there
that I, and many others, have come to the decision that he's unfit for
chess governance.

> The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther (sic) have been a
> total of four "experts"

There are three, and their findings agree.

As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
> would have taken only one expert to disprove him.

Was this "once said" before or after Eisenstein made The Battleship
Potemkin?

Date: 05 Feb 2008 05:53:35
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

You can't contend that there is no evidence of Truong's guilt. There
was evidence that he falsely claimed to have a PhD; it was on his web
page. There is evidence that the mysterious posts came from his
computer; it was in the Motterhead report, and confirmed by experts.

You can try to claim that this evidence is not convincing, that it was
(somehow, for some reason, and in a strange way of putting it there
without calling attention to it for years) planted to make him look
guilty. You cannot say that there is no evidence against him, however.

I am glad you looked into Paul's soul and found it to be pure. Others
who know them do not seem convinced, and I do not think that you can
expect those who do not know the people involved to take your word on
the issue.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 4, 11:50=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 11:41 pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What a strange question! If you believe that Paul Truong repeatedly
> > made the offensive posts, and then lied about the matter, shouldn't
> > you be for removing him from the board without seeking to gain in any
> > way except for getting a dishonest person removed from office?
>
> > You may be (desperately, in my opinion) clinging to a belief in Paul's
> > innocence in this matter. I cannot believe that anyone could contend
> > that this innocence is obvious, however, after several expert reports
> > indicating that he is guilty, and no evidence presented in an open
> > forum on the other side. Please, feel free to try to convince us of
> > his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
> > removed must be acting out of some base motive.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Brian,
> > > Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
> > > the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> > > matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> > > Rob
>
> How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
> But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
> honorable.
> I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?
>
> The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
> total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
> would have taken only one expert to disprove him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 05 Feb 2008 07:59:42
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 05:53:35 -0800 (PST),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>You can't contend that there is no evidence of Truong's guilt. There
>was evidence that he falsely claimed to have a PhD; it was on his web
>page. There is evidence that the mysterious posts came from his
>computer; it was in the Motterhead report, and confirmed by experts.

>You can try to claim that this evidence is not convincing, that it was
>(somehow, for some reason, and in a strange way of putting it there
>without calling attention to it for years) planted to make him look
>guilty. You cannot say that there is no evidence against him, however.

It's this glib repetition of "there's no evidence" on the part of many
Truong supporters that convinces me they are not conducting these
discussions in good faith. If they acknowledge evidence but claim it
flawed or inadequate, they get into technical arguments about these
flaws, arguments which recent expert reports indicate they will
probably lose.

So, using ancient tricks of sophistry, they try to deflect the issue
back on those who are impressed by the weight of evidence already
presented: : (1) why are you so interested in this? or (2) Have you
investigated all the other suspects? The latest gimmick is to claim
USCF conspirators are hiding secret material, and to accuse of bias
those who fail to treat this secret stuff as the equal of evidence
already publicly presented and reviewed by experts.

>I am glad you looked into Paul's soul and found it to be pure. Others
>who know them do not seem convinced, and I do not think that you can
>expect those who do not know the people involved to take your word on
>the issue.

And the confidence that someone (with whom they've had a few dealings
and some social interaction) lacks an unrevealed dark side or hidden
character flaws. Really, how would they know?

Date: 05 Feb 2008 05:41:33
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 12:39 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 11:12 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:> On Feb 4, 11:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Brian,
> Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
> the ragged garments of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> would you clarify please just what
> relationships, business or otherwise, you have with Paul Truong and
> Susan Polgar?

Since Rob Mitchell has ducked the question, I'll answer for him, with
his words:

"Susan,
I stand behind you and Paul and will be most happy to be deposed."

Date: 05 Feb 2008 05:33:59
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

On Feb 5, 4:59 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 8:45 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Mike Murray wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
> >>>> chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
> >>>> perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
> >>>> actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
> >>>> illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?
> >>> Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
> >>> heads. This would explain a number of things.
> >> I have seen a photo of P Innes once.
>
> > Is it online? If so, please post a link.
>
> Hmm, could this be it?
> (http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/6543/illusion165mk.jpg)
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

It's been disabled. Probably by Mr. "transparency" himself.

Date: 04 Feb 2008 22:28:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 12:50 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
> But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
> honorable.
> I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?

Honorable, eh? Please explain just who is
responsible for the lies and fabrications which
constitute the bulk of SP Web site.

Personally, I find the idea, that it is not
possible to "spoof" this or that, unconvincing;
HOWEVER...

It is impossible to ignore the fact that SP
and/or PT has/have zero in the way of
"honor", after perusing that atrocious site.
I find it fits well with the sort of character
who would impersonate others elsewhere,
just as SP "impersonates" others by
grabbing at the credit for others'
accomplishments-- including her own sister,
Judit Polgar.

When I snap my fingers, you will awaken
and no longer be blinded by sheer idiocy. I
will first count backwards from infinity, so
you have time to acclimate yourself with
reality a bit... .

-- help bot

Date: 04 Feb 2008 22:17:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

On Feb 4, 11:32 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> NNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"

[Should be "INNES"]

> CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
> that it had hired internationally known

[Should be "renowned"]

> Nearly an IM Philip Keith Innes
> to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
> Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
> about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
> or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
> is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
> least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
> brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
> Executive Board Member Don Schultz.
>
> Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
> Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
> US chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
> chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
> deal between Innes and USCF are
> not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
> will be required to stop posting to newsgroups.

Nonsense. There is nothing in the (very lucrative)
contract which prohibits nearly-IMnes from posing
-- I mean posting -- anonymously. This was a hotly
debated point, in view of PI's other lucrative contracts
(with the Evans ratpack and with Rob da robber
Mitchell, to name but two).

> "We were concerned that
> Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
> caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
> Channing,
> "since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
> screeds."

Good point; but I think it's worth the risk.
After all, if nearly-IMnes is not paid to care
about chess, then just who do we, the chess
players, expect to do it for us?

Typically, *everybody* wants chess to get
cared about, but no one is willing to pick up
the tab; pay the piper. Look, this is America;
if you want to protect democracy, you have
learn that freedom comes at a price (which
varies, depending on which politicians you
are paying off). I say pay the man, and get
him a proof-reader who speaks Bochi.

-- help bot

Date: 04 Feb 2008 21:50:31
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 4, 11:41 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> What a strange question! If you believe that Paul Truong repeatedly
> made the offensive posts, and then lied about the matter, shouldn't
> you be for removing him from the board without seeking to gain in any
> way except for getting a dishonest person removed from office?
>
> You may be (desperately, in my opinion) clinging to a belief in Paul's
> innocence in this matter. I cannot believe that anyone could contend
> that this innocence is obvious, however, after several expert reports
> indicating that he is guilty, and no evidence presented in an open
> forum on the other side. Please, feel free to try to convince us of
> his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
> removed must be acting out of some base motive.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> > Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
> > the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> > matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> > Rob

How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
honorable.
I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?

The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
would have taken only one expert to disprove him.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 11:20:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:30dbdcc9-68ac-488d-8bde-70f0a46c8bd8@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

....

>>Please, feel free to try to convince us of
>> his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
>> removed must be acting out of some base motive.
>>
>> Jerry Spinrad
>>
>> On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Brian,
>> > Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
>> > the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
>> > matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
>> > Rob
>
> How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
> But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
> honorable.
> I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?
>
>
> The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
> total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
> would have taken only one expert to disprove him.

What an interesting set of interactions! When I asked Jerry Spinrad's own
interest in knowing about the whole thing before asking someone to 'prove
their innocence' -- which is actually quite difficult, no? If you didn't do
it, then you are asked to prove a negative -- Spinrad went away for a week,
thus 'not-noticing' the question entirely, but he's back now, as if nothing
had happened and maybe his McCarthite methodology had been overlooked?

What Jerry Spinrad did not chose to answer was if he himself wanted to
review all the available information which USCF holds, or had he already
made his mind up on the basis of one-sided accusations presented here,
proposed by an the abysmal crowd of abuseniks of the same order of offensive
reks as the FSS himself?

That one-sided show insists that those who want all to be known are
partisan! - not a very credible piece of logic! In fact, its a measure of
desperation, not excluding the ludicrous rek that the offer to open up is
'insincere', even though the act of opening up belongs to the majority of
the USCF board, and is actually beyond the control of the accused to make it
so or restrict it.

The gallery comments are especially inane about those who comment on the
issue - indeed, they mock them - since those who want all to be known don't
want to resolve the issue in this newsgroup, or even resolve it themselves,
but to let USCF's members make up their own minds. And since USCF members
appear to be the most offended of all constituencies, the absent
recommendation on their part more than conflicts with their own base of
questioning - which is ostensibly to be for the members. In fact it
completely contradicts their stance.

Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
skipping any issue whatever.

No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied to
these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.

Phil Innes

Date: 05 Feb 2008 09:32:04
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:20:05 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>maybe his McCarthite methodology had been overlooked?

As a historical tidbit, it was McCarthy himself who often referred to
secret reports to support his claims. In at least one noteworthy
case, the secret report, which he claimed to hold in his hand, was
blank.

Maybe P Innes should use the Alger Hiss case as his historical analog.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 17:04:41
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Chess One wrote:

> Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
> set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
> skipping any issue whatever.
>
> No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied to
> these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
> asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
> issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.
>
> Phil Innes

Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!! I look forward to reading your
"interview" with the hardest set of questions ever put to a board
member. Will Truong be connected to a polygraph or voice stress
analysis machine during the interview. Of course, neither of those
machines is perfectly reliable. For example, a pathological liar would
pass both in a breeze.

>
>

Date: 04 Feb 2008 21:41:46
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

What a strange question! If you believe that Paul Truong repeatedly
made the offensive posts, and then lied about the matter, shouldn't
you be for removing him from the board without seeking to gain in any
way except for getting a dishonest person removed from office?

You may be (desperately, in my opinion) clinging to a belief in Paul's
innocence in this matter. I cannot believe that anyone could contend
that this innocence is obvious, however, after several expert reports
indicating that he is guilty, and no evidence presented in an open
forum on the other side. Please, feel free to try to convince us of
his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
removed must be acting out of some base motive.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 4, 10:59=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> Brian,
> Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
> the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> Rob

Date: 04 Feb 2008 21:39:45
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 4, 11:12 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 11:59 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
Brian,
Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
the ragged garments of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
would you clarify please just what
relationships, business or otherwise, you have with Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar?

Date: 04 Feb 2008 21:12:53
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 4, 11:59 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> Brian,
> Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
> the ragged garmets (sic) of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
> matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
> Rob

While you are asking questions, would you clarify please just what
relationships, business or otherwise, you have with Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar?

Date: 04 Feb 2008 20:59:44
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Brian,
Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
Rob

Date: 04 Feb 2008 20:44:18
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

On Feb 4, 8:45 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
> >> chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
> >> perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
> >> actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
> >> illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?
>
> > Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
> > heads. This would explain a number of things.
>
> I have seen a photo of P Innes once.

Is it online? If so, please post a link.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 01:59:46
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

The Historian wrote:
> On Feb 4, 8:45 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mike Murray wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
>>>> chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
>>>> perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
>>>> actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
>>>> illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?
>>> Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
>>> heads. This would explain a number of things.
>> I have seen a photo of P Innes once.
>
> Is it online? If so, please post a link.
>

Hmm, could this be it?
(http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/6543/illusion165mk.jpg)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 04 Feb 2008 20:43:03
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

On Feb 4, 11:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> J.D. Walker:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Mike Murray:
>
> >>J.D. Walker:
>
> >>> Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
> >>> chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
> >>> perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
> >>> actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
> >>> illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?
>
> >> Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
> >> heads. This would explain a number of things.
>
> >I have seen a photo of P Innes once. I saw no trace of anything but a
> >solitary head. Are you suggesting a hidden head?
>
> That's how he manages to talk with his head stuck up his ass.

Great. P Innes is now going to rant that I made this post. :-)

Date: 04 Feb 2008 20:32:37
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

On Feb 4, 7:51 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> <snippery dippery doo>
> >> Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientation
> > to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes
> > actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does not
> > adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?
>
> <snippage>
>
> Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
> chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
> perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
> actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
> illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?

No, P Innes actually thinks he represents the chess world. Darn it,
he's fighting the good fight for US! Don't you realize it? If you
don't, you must be part of the forces of darkness, whoever they are
today.

NNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"

CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
that it had hired internationally known Nearly an IM Philip Keith
Innes
to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
Executive Board Member Don Schultz.

Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
US
chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
deal between Innes and USCF are
not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
will
be required to stop posting to newsgroups. "We were concerned that
Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
Channing,
"since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
screeds."

> Have a nice day folks. :)
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 04 Feb 2008 19:30:28
From:
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

On Feb 4, 7:45=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
> >> chess public?" =A0Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? =A0O=
r
> >> perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. =A0Does P Inn=
es
> >> actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
> >> illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?
>
> > Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
> > heads. =A0This would explain a number of things. =A0
>
> I have seen a photo of P Innes once. =A0I saw no trace of anything but a
> solitary head. =A0Are you suggesting a hidden head?
>
> I once watched a movie with Schwarzenegger where one of the more exotic
> mutants had a secret head that popped out of his belly at times and used
> powers of precognition. =A0But that is science fiction Mike...
>
> Besides, to qualify as "we, the chess public," I'd say that at least
> three heads were necessary. =A0And, that recalls to memory an old rpg
> monster named the /Studgeon/ that had the heads of Larry, Curly, and Moe
> lined up atop the shoulders of a trollish body. =A0The poor creature was
> constantly arguing with itself. =A0The main danger to others was getting
> caught in the crossfire when Moe tried to poke the eyes or slap the
> faces of the other two.
>
> I am going to have to discount these options as being only fantasy or
> science fiction. =A0What other explanation could there be?
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Phil Innes is like a HYDRA. He has eight heads, and he spits out foul
slobber whenever Susan Polgar is attacked. You have to cut off his
heads,
but they keep growing back, more and more loyal to Queen Polgar.

cus Roberts

Date: 04 Feb 2008 15:36:51
From:
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 4, 5:12=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Chess One wrote:
> >> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
> >> Alekhine's Parrot, atwww.chessville.comor
> >>http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>
> >> reads;-
>
> >> ---
>
> >> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more th=
an
> >> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
> >> USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
> >> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong=

> >> conclusion.
>
> > Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.=

> > There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in=

> > the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.=

>
> > Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
> > persuasive.
>
> Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
> every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the vie=
ws
> of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no more th=
an
> your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your message
> without facts, as we know them, is your own business.
>
> You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
> should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
> that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were counse=
l,
> and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?
>
> Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientatio=
n
> to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes=

> actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does no=
t
> adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?
>
> >> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for=

> >> more than 4 months.
>
> > Really?! =A0Who are Trolgar's experts who have been denied access to
> > Paulie's computer and ISP logs.
>
> You do not contest the fact, thereby? And business is of Laugherty to ask
> what expertise may be consulted? Is the Prosecutor Laugherty intent on
> proscribing who the Defence may consult? What is his point, actually?
>
> >> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
> >> contractors and members of the board majority.
>
> > Suzie, to be terrific, you must be specific. Details please.
>
> She may not respond, since USCF board majority have decried it is all
> secrect. Do you not understand the legal postion Lugherty? Or do you not
> chose to challenge the basis of the USCF's board's position, by addressing=

> them - rather than someone who would open up the whole shebang?
>
> If you can't answer this question, then serious questions about your own
> quest are implicated! And let us not hear your attitudes, let us hear if y=
ou
> did anything about them.
>
>
>
> >> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
> >> information as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between
> >> Jerry Hanken and Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the
> >> middle of a lawsuit.
>
> > Oh Suzie, this has already been discussed and debunked over at the USCF
> > Issues Forum you claim to never read.
>
> You are not writing to any Suzie, Laugherty, you are writing to me. And th=
e
> USCF issues forum is not one that 'Suzie' writes in, and if it is 'debunke=
d'
> according to you without any defence, what sort of hack lawyer are you to
> make such public pronouncements?
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Susan Polgar
>
> > Now Phil........perhaps you could ask her a few questions based on the
> > above so that we may all laugh at her feeble attempts at evasive answers=
.
> > Thanks in advance for the anticipated humor.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Phil Innes

Why pick on Judge Lafferty? Laffterty is not a hack lawyer, he is a
retired judge.
Is it possible that a broke snob from Vermont might have to content
with
Paul Truong being charged with a crime, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
being
fired from Texas Tech, FIDE being destoryed, and the game of chess
being
disgraced for the next 20 years?

Maybe you are just pissed off, becasue you are losing the FIDE
elections.

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and I have a deal. We might fight to the death, but
we still have a deal and that
deal is that Susan Polgar will not be FIDE President in 2010.

Ilyumzhinov can be deal with in the UN or the IOC. Polgar is a
criminal.

Why pick on Judge Lafferty, because you are losing?

cus Roberts

Date: 04 Feb 2008 22:50:59
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Chess One wrote:
> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column, Alekhine's
> Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>
> reads;-
>
> ---
>
> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of USCF
> money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
> conclusion.

Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie
in the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.

Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
persuasive.

> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for more
> than 4 months.

Really?! Who are Trolgar's experts who have been denied access to
Paulie's computer and ISP logs.
>
> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
> contractors and members of the board majority.

Suzie, to be terrific, you must be specific. Details please.

>
> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential information
> as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken and
> Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a lawsuit.

Oh Suzie, this has already been discussed and debunked over at the USCF
Issues Forum you claim to never read.

>
> Susan Polgar

Now Phil........perhaps you could ask her a few questions based on the
above so that we may all laugh at her feeble attempts at evasive
answers. Thanks in advance for the anticipated humor.

Date: 04 Feb 2008 18:12:01
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
> Chess One wrote:
>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
>> Alekhine's Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
>> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>>
>> reads;-
>>
>> ---
>>
>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
>> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
>> USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
>> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
>> conclusion.
>
> Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
> There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
> the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.
>
> Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
> persuasive.

Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the views
of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no more than
your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your message
without facts, as we know them, is your own business.

You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were counsel,
and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?

Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientation
to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes
actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does not
adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?

>> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for
>> more than 4 months.
>
> Really?! Who are Trolgar's experts who have been denied access to
> Paulie's computer and ISP logs.

You do not contest the fact, thereby? And business is of Laugherty to ask
what expertise may be consulted? Is the Prosecutor Laugherty intent on
proscribing who the Defence may consult? What is his point, actually?

>> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
>> contractors and members of the board majority.
>
> Suzie, to be terrific, you must be specific. Details please.

She may not respond, since USCF board majority have decried it is all
secrect. Do you not understand the legal postion Lugherty? Or do you not
chose to challenge the basis of the USCF's board's position, by addressing
them - rather than someone who would open up the whole shebang?

If you can't answer this question, then serious questions about your own
quest are implicated! And let us not hear your attitudes, let us hear if you
did anything about them.

>>
>> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
>> information as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between
>> Jerry Hanken and Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the
>> middle of a lawsuit.
>
> Oh Suzie, this has already been discussed and debunked over at the USCF
> Issues Forum you claim to never read.

You are not writing to any Suzie, Laugherty, you are writing to me. And the
USCF issues forum is not one that 'Suzie' writes in, and if it is 'debunked'
according to you without any defence, what sort of hack lawyer are you to
make such public pronouncements?

Phil Innes

>>
>> Susan Polgar
>
> Now Phil........perhaps you could ask her a few questions based on the
> above so that we may all laugh at her feeble attempts at evasive answers.
> Thanks in advance for the anticipated humor.

Date: 07 Feb 2008 06:35:19
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Feb 7, 9:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Larry Tapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:4ba40773-0dc1-45c4-9373-e330b63662e6@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Phil Innes writes (about evidence the USCF is allegedly keeping a lid
> on):
>
> > Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal counsel,
> > because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
> > Chessville by board president Goichberg.
>
> Phil,
>
> Is a statement by Goichberg on this matter, in his own words,
> accessible on the Chessville site or anywhere else? If so, could you
> provide a link?
>
> Larry T.
>
> ---
> Yes, Larry T. I received it exactly a week ago - from Bill Goicberg
> representing the majority board decision, with this note appended to top:-
> "Following is the statement. It was approved 4-1 with Channing opposed."
>
> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/PolgarUSCF.htm
>
> It is preceded by reks by Susan Polgar, then followed by further reks,
> which mostly emphasise the first ones. The matter of secret information is
> not in the least contested by Bill Goichberg.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> On Feb 6, 3:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate
> > >>Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.
>
> > > Kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, don't it?
>
> > But its just another speculation in the face of the facts - USCF /are/
> > deciding to hide material. Given that the fact of hiding /is/ present, the
> > comment that they have no reason to exonerate... is opinion - right? USCF
> > never said so. Maybe its good opinion, but I finish this note with
> > another.
>
> > One implication of Mike Murray's sentence, though phrased without the
> > negatives, is to ask why they /are/ hiding material - right?
>
> > Alternatively; that USCF hides material to implicate rather than exonerate
> > Truong - right? USCF board have actually acted on this hidden material by
> > stripping Truong of his keting title on the board - though no-one is
> > allowed to know the information that the board acted upon - which is not
> > tested before any court, nor before the membership.
>
> > Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal counsel,
> > because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
> > Chessville by board president Goichberg.
>
> > Of course - this is only what USCF has itself declared. There is one other
> > possibility, and that is that USCF may have some culpability in the
> > affair.
>
> > That is a comment completely independent of the fact of the Sloan suit.
>
> > Phil Innes

That is not what the Goichberg statement (that everybody here had
already read) says. What is says is:

"Attorneys for the USCF have directed the organization not to release
any confidential information during the pendency of the Sam Sloan
litigation."

That has nothing to do with the reason three board members were
stripped of their titles. They were stripped of their titles because
their titles DO NOT EXIST.

There is no such thing as the "Chairman of the USCF". That title is
not listed in the by-laws. The By-laws only authorize a President,
Vice-President, Secretary and VP-Finance. All other titles were fake.

Sam Sloan

Date: 07 Feb 2008 11:03:57
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 7, 9:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Larry Tapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4ba40773-0dc1-45c4-9373-e330b63662e6@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Phil Innes writes (about evidence the USCF is allegedly keeping a lid
>> on):
>>
>> > Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal
>> > counsel,
>> > because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
>> > Chessville by board president Goichberg.
>>
>> Phil,
>>
>> Is a statement by Goichberg on this matter, in his own words,
>> accessible on the Chessville site or anywhere else? If so, could you
>> provide a link?
>>
>> Larry T.
>>
>> ---
>> Yes, Larry T. I received it exactly a week ago - from Bill Goicberg
>> representing the majority board decision, with this note appended to
>> top:-
>> "Following is the statement. It was approved 4-1 with Channing opposed."
>>
>> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/PolgarUSCF.htm
>>
>> It is preceded by reks by Susan Polgar, then followed by further
>> reks,
>> which mostly emphasise the first ones. The matter of secret information
>> is
>> not in the least contested by Bill Goichberg.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>> On Feb 6, 3:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >>How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would
>> > >>exonerate
>> > >>Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.
>>
>> > > Kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, don't it?
>>
>> > But its just another speculation in the face of the facts - USCF /are/
>> > deciding to hide material. Given that the fact of hiding /is/ present,
>> > the
>> > comment that they have no reason to exonerate... is opinion - right?
>> > USCF
>> > never said so. Maybe its good opinion, but I finish this note with
>> > another.
>>
>> > One implication of Mike Murray's sentence, though phrased without the
>> > negatives, is to ask why they /are/ hiding material - right?
>>
>> > Alternatively; that USCF hides material to implicate rather than
>> > exonerate
>> > Truong - right? USCF board have actually acted on this hidden material
>> > by
>> > stripping Truong of his keting title on the board - though no-one is
>> > allowed to know the information that the board acted upon - which is
>> > not
>> > tested before any court, nor before the membership.
>>
>> > Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal
>> > counsel,
>> > because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
>> > Chessville by board president Goichberg.
>>
>> > Of course - this is only what USCF has itself declared. There is one
>> > other
>> > possibility, and that is that USCF may have some culpability in the
>> > affair.
>>
>> > That is a comment completely independent of the fact of the Sloan suit.
>>
>> > Phil Innes
>
> That is not what the Goichberg statement (that everybody here had
> already read) says. What is says is:

Sam - (1) you really have to attend to some logic, and if Larry Tapper asks
me to cite the location of the Goichberg announcement, then it is not
'everybody', but to (b) then 'say what it says' as if you make some
difference with what I wrote about it, not quoting it, is to suggest you
'say' something other than what I report. People can see for themselves:

> "Attorneys for the USCF have directed the organization not to release
> any confidential information during the pendency of the Sam Sloan
> litigation."

and I wrote this:

>> > Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal
>> > counsel,
>> > because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
>> > Chessville by board president Goichberg.

What the 'that' which Sloan objects to, are my comments not Goichbergs -
which are to the effect, that apart from the Sloan suit - there can be
another reason for not releasing information.

> That has nothing to do with the reason three board members were
> stripped of their titles. They were stripped of their titles because
> their titles DO NOT EXIST.

Let me not argue with the Sloan - since it if the board did remove titles,
then the board thinks they exist.

> There is no such thing as the "Chairman of the USCF". That title is
> not listed in the by-laws. The By-laws only authorize a President,
> Vice-President, Secretary and VP-Finance. All other titles were fake.

They are not fake, as much as new. Maybe you don't like them, and maybe you
shouldn't like them. But the board adopted them 8 months ago. And true
enough - if all the by-laws were actually observed, then we wouldn't be
here, would we?

Thank you for your unclarifications.

Other unclarifications that surround yourself, are that your own Sloan-suit
apart, do /you personally/ have an objection to the material being aired?
For example, to clarify the issue, so that all can know?

That is a question rather than a proxy negotiation; though others have asked
about negotiator Hanken's role - though that too cannot be known, since
otherwise presumably the sky would fall down.

In the mean-time we await Mr. Truong's responses to my current 20 questions,
which will have to suffice us until we can all see 'who is clean and who is
not'.

Phil Innes

> Sam Sloan

Date: 07 Feb 2008 05:06:02
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Phil Innes writes (about evidence the USCF is allegedly keeping a lid
on):

> Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal counsel,
> because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
> Chessville by board president Goichberg.

Phil,

Is a statement by Goichberg on this matter, in his own words,
accessible on the Chessville site or anywhere else? If so, could you
provide a link?

Larry T.

On Feb 6, 3:41=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate=

> >>Truong..." =A0P Innes might be able to handle that.
>
> > Kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, don't it?
>
> But its just another speculation in the face of the facts - USCF /are/
> deciding to hide material. Given that the fact of hiding /is/ present, the=

> comment that they have no reason to exonerate... is opinion - right? USCF
> never said so. Maybe its good opinion, but I finish this note with another=
.
>
> One implication of Mike Murray's sentence, though phrased without the
> negatives, is to ask why they /are/ hiding material - right?
>
> Alternatively; that USCF hides material to implicate rather than exonerate=

> Truong - right? USCF board have actually acted on this hidden material by
> stripping Truong of his keting title on the board - though no-one is
> allowed to know the information that the board acted upon - which is not
> tested before any court, nor before the membership.
>
> Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal counsel,
> because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
> Chessville by board president Goichberg.
>
> Of course - this is only what USCF has itself declared. There is one other=

> possibility, and that is that USCF may have some culpability in the affair=
.
>
> That is a comment completely independent of the fact of the Sloan suit.
>
> Phil Innes

Date: 07 Feb 2008 09:17:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"Larry Tapper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4ba40773-0dc1-45c4-9373-e330b63662e6@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Phil Innes writes (about evidence the USCF is allegedly keeping a lid
on):

> Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal counsel,
> because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
> Chessville by board president Goichberg.

Phil,

Is a statement by Goichberg on this matter, in his own words,
accessible on the Chessville site or anywhere else? If so, could you
provide a link?

Larry T.

---
Yes, Larry T. I received it exactly a week ago - from Bill Goicberg
representing the majority board decision, with this note appended to top:-
"Following is the statement. It was approved 4-1 with Channing opposed."

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/PolgarUSCF.htm

It is preceded by reks by Susan Polgar, then followed by further reks,
which mostly emphasise the first ones. The matter of secret information is
not in the least contested by Bill Goichberg.

Phil Innes

On Feb 6, 3:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate
> >>Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.
>
> > Kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, don't it?
>
> But its just another speculation in the face of the facts - USCF /are/
> deciding to hide material. Given that the fact of hiding /is/ present, the
> comment that they have no reason to exonerate... is opinion - right? USCF
> never said so. Maybe its good opinion, but I finish this note with
> another.
>
> One implication of Mike Murray's sentence, though phrased without the
> negatives, is to ask why they /are/ hiding material - right?
>
> Alternatively; that USCF hides material to implicate rather than exonerate
> Truong - right? USCF board have actually acted on this hidden material by
> stripping Truong of his keting title on the board - though no-one is
> allowed to know the information that the board acted upon - which is not
> tested before any court, nor before the membership.
>
> Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal counsel,
> because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
> Chessville by board president Goichberg.
>
> Of course - this is only what USCF has itself declared. There is one other
> possibility, and that is that USCF may have some culpability in the
> affair.
>
> That is a comment completely independent of the fact of the Sloan suit.
>
> Phil Innes

Date: 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: "we the chess public..."

Chess One wrote:

<snippery dippery doo >
>
> Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientation
> to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes
> actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does not
> adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?
>
<snippage >

Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?

Have a nice day folks. :)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 04 Feb 2008 17:09:47
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
>chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
>perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
>actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
>illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?

Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
heads. This would explain a number of things.

Date: 04 Feb 2008 17:45:13
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
>> chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
>> perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
>> actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
>> illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?
>
> Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
> heads. This would explain a number of things.

I have seen a photo of P Innes once. I saw no trace of anything but a
solitary head. Are you suggesting a hidden head?

I once watched a movie with Schwarzenegger where one of the more exotic
mutants had a secret head that popped out of his belly at times and used
powers of precognition. But that is science fiction Mike...

Besides, to qualify as "we, the chess public," I'd say that at least
three heads were necessary. And, that recalls to memory an old rpg
monster named the /Studgeon/ that had the heads of Larry, Curly, and Moe
lined up atop the shoulders of a trollish body. The poor creature was
constantly arguing with itself. The main danger to others was getting
caught in the crossfire when Moe tried to poke the eyes or slap the
faces of the other two.

I am going to have to discount these options as being only fantasy or
science fiction. What other explanation could there be?
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 04:40:19
From:
Subject: Re: "we the chess public..."

J.D. Walker:
>
>Mike Murray:
>
>>J.D. Walker:
>>
>>> Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
>>> chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
>>> perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
>>> actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
>>> illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?
>>
>> Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
>> heads. This would explain a number of things.
>
>I have seen a photo of P Innes once. I saw no trace of anything but a
>solitary head. Are you suggesting a hidden head?

That's how he manages to talk with his head stuck up his ass.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 00:24:33
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
>>> Alekhine's Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
>>> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>>>
>>> reads;-
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
>>> four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
>>> USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
>>> Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
>>> conclusion.
>> Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
>> There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
>> the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.
>>
>> Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
>> persuasive.
>
> Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
> every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the views
> of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no more than
> your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your message
> without facts, as we know them, is your own business.

Ah, the Bowel of Brattleboro must be referring to the site run by the
Trolgar Acolytes over at Chessville. No discussion of inconvenient facts
regarding the Trolgars is allowed over there.

>
> You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
> should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
> that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were counsel,
> and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?

Bowelman needs to write something intelligible before I would venture a
substantive reply.

>
> Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientation
> to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes
> actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does not
> adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?

Bowelman need to take his meds.

>
>>> The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for
>>> more than 4 months.
>> Really?! Who are Trolgar's experts who have been denied access to
>> Paulie's computer and ISP logs.
>
> You do not contest the fact, thereby? And business is of Laugherty to ask
> what expertise may be consulted? Is the Prosecutor Laugherty intent on
> proscribing who the Defence may consult? What is his point, actually?

If Trolgar had a qualified forensic expert to refute Motterhead, Jones
and Ulevitch, they would be parading him all over creation. They might
even give Bowelman an exclusive interview for the purpose of asking soft
questions.

>
>>> The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
>>> contractors and members of the board majority.
>> Suzie, to be terrific, you must be specific. Details please.
>
> She may not respond, since USCF board majority have decried it is all
> secrect. Do you not understand the legal postion Lugherty? Or do you not
> chose to challenge the basis of the USCF's board's position, by addressing
> them - rather than someone who would open up the whole shebang?

You can't have it just one way, Bowelman. Either Suzie opens up with
facts or she looks like what she is, a bullshitter trying to get past.

>
> If you can't answer this question, then serious questions about your own
> quest are implicated! And let us not hear your attitudes, let us hear if you
> did anything about them.

I think not, Bowelman.

>
>>> The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
>>> information as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between
>>> Jerry Hanken and Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the
>>> middle of a lawsuit.
>> Oh Suzie, this has already been discussed and debunked over at the USCF
>> Issues Forum you claim to never read.
>
> You are not writing to any Suzie, Laugherty, you are writing to me. And the
> USCF issues forum is not one that 'Suzie' writes in, and if it is 'debunked'
> according to you without any defence, what sort of hack lawyer are you to
> make such public pronouncements?

Oh, but I am writing to Suzie when I write to you, Bowelman. Trolgar
lurks here frequently judging by various comments made elsewhere on
occasion. And Bowelman has to get close enough to kiss Trolgars butt.

Have a nice evening, Bowelman.

>
> Phil Innes
>
>>> Susan Polgar
>> Now Phil........perhaps you could ask her a few questions based on the
>> above so that we may all laugh at her feeble attempts at evasive answers.
>> Thanks in advance for the anticipated humor.
>
>

Date: 05 Feb 2008 16:25:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:51Opj.2833$FW3.2414@trndny03...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
>>>> Alekhine's Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
>>>> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>>>>
>>>> reads;-
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
>>>> than four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands
>>>> dollars of USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was
>>>> sent to Mr. Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report
>>>> had the wrong conclusion.
>>> Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
>>> There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
>>> the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.
>>>
>>> Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
>>> persuasive.
>>
>> Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
>> every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the
>> views of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no
>> more than your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your
>> message without facts, as we know them, is your own business.
>
> Ah, the Bowel of Brattleboro must be referring to the site run by the
> Trolgar Acolytes over at Chessville. No discussion of inconvenient facts
> regarding the Trolgars is allowed over there.

This guy was judge? A judge of what?

He was thrown off yet another website because he was hectoring all other
opinions. That's the truth. I do not understand that his opinions are
tolerated anywhere where there is a moderator. Nowhere do people's values
value his.

>> You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
>> should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
>> that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were
>> counsel, and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?
>
> Bowelman needs to write something intelligible before I would venture a
> substantive reply.

And these are the levels to which the ex-judge, somewhat shy of actually
responding to what others write, now propose to you all.

As if anyone in the world would respond to him directly after these
comments. But if you did he would snip them anyway [!]

While he may continue his dissertation, seems like he has reduced his
audience to 6 people in the known universe, and this has been to seriously
mis-judge his general reception ;)

>> Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own
>> orientation to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider
>> your attiudes actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual
>> counsel does not adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?
>
> Bowelman need to take his meds.

The cheapeast response by abusive newbies on newsnet. This is the level of
'jurisdiction' that prosecutes one side of an issue - and is cloth-eared to
any other. Truly, where do the people's talents begin?

Is Laugherty better or worse than the thing he prosecutes?

But chess players could make up their own minds, with no spin by anyone =
and that is a factor that the Laugherty Bowel Party [LBP] HATE - since it
would remove from them the power to suggest that they care, by challenging
what they do compared to what they say.

If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
don't - not one of them.

Therefore, such people are insincere in acting from anything other than
their own occulted motives, all half-dozen of them. And do they hate the
light!

Phil Innes

Date: 05 Feb 2008 22:33:49
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:51Opj.2833$FW3.2414@trndny03...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>> An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
>>>>> Alekhine's Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
>>>>> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> reads;-
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
>>>>> than four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands
>>>>> dollars of USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was
>>>>> sent to Mr. Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report
>>>>> had the wrong conclusion.
>>>> Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
>>>> There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
>>>> the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
>>>> persuasive.
>>> Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
>>> every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the
>>> views of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no
>>> more than your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your
>>> message without facts, as we know them, is your own business.
>> Ah, the Bowel of Brattleboro must be referring to the site run by the
>> Trolgar Acolytes over at Chessville. No discussion of inconvenient facts
>> regarding the Trolgars is allowed over there.
>
> This guy was judge? A judge of what?
>
> He was thrown off yet another website because he was hectoring all other
> opinions. That's the truth. I do not understand that his opinions are
> tolerated anywhere where there is a moderator. Nowhere do people's values
> value his.
>
>>> You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
>>> should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
>>> that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were
>>> counsel, and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?
>> Bowelman needs to write something intelligible before I would venture a
>> substantive reply.
>
> And these are the levels to which the ex-judge, somewhat shy of actually
> responding to what others write, now propose to you all.
>
> As if anyone in the world would respond to him directly after these
> comments. But if you did he would snip them anyway [!]
>
> While he may continue his dissertation, seems like he has reduced his
> audience to 6 people in the known universe, and this has been to seriously
> mis-judge his general reception ;)
>
>>> Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own
>>> orientation to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider
>>> your attiudes actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual
>>> counsel does not adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?
>> Bowelman need to take his meds.
>
> The cheapeast response by abusive newbies on newsnet. This is the level of
> 'jurisdiction' that prosecutes one side of an issue - and is cloth-eared to
> any other. Truly, where do the people's talents begin?
>
> Is Laugherty better or worse than the thing he prosecutes?
>
> But chess players could make up their own minds, with no spin by anyone =
> and that is a factor that the Laugherty Bowel Party [LBP] HATE - since it
> would remove from them the power to suggest that they care, by challenging
> what they do compared to what they say.
>
> If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
> don't - not one of them.
>
> Therefore, such people are insincere in acting from anything other than
> their own occulted motives, all half-dozen of them. And do they hate the
> light!
>
> Phil Innes
>
>

Does Bowel Boy need a hug? Hug.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:47:40
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:25:51 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
>don't - not one of them.

As usual, P Innes does not understand the issue.

Speaking for myself, I'd LIKE to see all the "secret" USCF
correspondence, memos, records, etc., opened up. It would make some
interesting reading.

I can also envision valid reasons for USCF counsel to oppose this. I
can envision valid business reasons for keeping certain material
confidential. Of course, I can also envision nefarious reasons for
USCF bigwigs wanting to keep some records hidden.

The point, as I see it, is that the USCF has no reason to keep secret
material that would exonerate Truong. That material is going to come
out sooner or later anyway. Truong is represented by counsel. His
lawyer will pry this stuff loose, no doubt about it. And the USCF
would look all the worse for having tried to hide it.

So, here's where I'd guess Phil has been sucked in like a guppy:
There's probably a lot of material that would be embarrassing to USCF
officials for reasons other than The Case of Truong. They hope that
stuff will NEVER come out. And, if a judge rules it irrelevant to The
Case of Truong, it WILL never come out.

So, it's a great PR move to keep harping about secret evidence. It's
a great way to keep the supporters supporting, and to keep the general
membership confused. Keep promoting secret exculpatory evidence. Yup.
It's more valuable hidden than if, upon discovery, it consists of the
same tired old multi-year Black Orifice plot or the famous
posts-made-while-traveling.

Hey, Phil, which coin is the shell under? Come on, you saw me put it
there. It's easy money for a st guy like you.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 18:10:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:25:51 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
>>don't - not one of them.
>
> As usual, P Innes does not understand the issue.

Well, as usual, Mike Murray speak with forked tongue:

> Speaking for myself, I'd LIKE to see all the "secret" USCF
> correspondence, memos, records, etc., opened up. It would make some
> interesting reading.

And why does Mike Murray not encourage USCF to open upP...

> I can also envision valid reasons for USCF counsel to oppose this. I
> can envision valid business reasons for keeping certain material
> confidential. Of course, I can also envision nefarious reasons for
> USCF bigwigs wanting to keep some records hidden.

This is a big shift in opinion. Mike Murray wants one thing, and understands
why the thing he wants is not [nefariously] available. What does he conclude
about his perceptions?

> The point, as I see it, is that the USCF has no reason to keep secret
> material that would exonerate Truong.

ah! they have no reason to 'exonerate' Paul Truong, says Murray!~ since
presumably they would then need to look to the actual perp. And they have,
perhaps, no reason to want that to happen?

I don't know what's written beneath this - and no longer engage the
prosecutors who are not honest, any one of them, since this volunteered
statement by prosecutor Murray, rather identifies the entire game, no?

PI

> That material is going to come
> out sooner or later anyway. Truong is represented by counsel. His
> lawyer will pry this stuff loose, no doubt about it. And the USCF
> would look all the worse for having tried to hide it.
>
> So, here's where I'd guess Phil has been sucked in like a guppy:
> There's probably a lot of material that would be embarrassing to USCF
> officials for reasons other than The Case of Truong. They hope that
> stuff will NEVER come out. And, if a judge rules it irrelevant to The
> Case of Truong, it WILL never come out.
>
> So, it's a great PR move to keep harping about secret evidence. It's
> a great way to keep the supporters supporting, and to keep the general
> membership confused. Keep promoting secret exculpatory evidence. Yup.
> It's more valuable hidden than if, upon discovery, it consists of the
> same tired old multi-year Black Orifice plot or the famous
> posts-made-while-traveling.
>
> Hey, Phil, which coin is the shell under? Come on, you saw me put it
> there. It's easy money for a st guy like you.

Date: 05 Feb 2008 15:27:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:10:41 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> The point, as I see it, is that the USCF has no reason to keep secret
>> material that would exonerate Truong.

>ah! they have no reason to 'exonerate' Paul Truong, says Murray!~ since
>presumably they would then need to look to the actual perp. And they have,
>perhaps, no reason to want that to happen?

My gawd, Phil, your understanding is the opposite of what I said.

Maybe phrasing it in a different way would be easier for Phil to
parse: "The USCF has no reason to keep material that would exonerate
Truong secret." How's that? You see, I wasn't saying that they have
no reason to keep it. One more try: ( they have no reason) (to keep
secret) (material that would exonerate Truong). Does this help?

>I don't know what's written beneath this - and no longer engage the
>prosecutors who are not honest, any one of them, since this volunteered
>statement by prosecutor Murray, rather identifies the entire game, no?

Indeed it does. My point, which I've repeated several times, and P
Innes is determined to mis-understand is that (1) The USCF has no
reason to keep exculpatory material secret since (2) Truong's lawyer
will pry it loose and (3) They would look all the worse for trying to
hide it.

Date: 06 Feb 2008 08:14:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Board refused ...

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:10:41 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> The point, as I see it, is that the USCF has no reason to keep secret
>>> material that would exonerate Truong.
>
>>ah! they have no reason to 'exonerate' Paul Truong, says Murray!~ since
>>presumably they would then need to look to the actual perp. And they have,
>>perhaps, no reason to want that to happen?
>
> My gawd, Phil, your understanding is the opposite of what I said.
>
> Maybe phrasing it in a different way would be easier for Phil to
> parse: "The USCF has no reason to keep material that would exonerate
> Truong secret." How's that?

That would be to express yourself properly, since your change inverts the
meaning of your first attempt ~ I think its an adverb and noun thing.

> You see, I wasn't saying that they have
> no reason to keep it. One more try: ( they have no reason) (to keep
> secret) (material that would exonerate Truong). Does this help?

I think it helps you to write everything out twice, naming your pronouns and
so on, and you have almost rejoined your infinitive, already.

>>I don't know what's written beneath this - and no longer engage the
>>prosecutors who are not honest, any one of them, since this volunteered
>>statement by prosecutor Murray, rather identifies the entire game, no?
>
> Indeed it does. My point, which I've repeated several times, and P
> Innes is determined to mis-understand is that (1) The USCF has no
> reason to keep exculpatory material secret since (2) Truong's lawyer
> will pry it loose and (3) They would look all the worse for trying to
> hide it.

Of course! So, perhaps tell USCF your sentiments. I sent my 20 questions to
PT last night - which included several on Official Secrets.

Essentially I wish all material to be known and therefore talk to people who
are prepared to speak out. If you wish to do the same, then look at your own
first clause above "(1) The USCF has no reason to keep exculpatory material
secret since" ... which I believe is the fly in your ointment, since they
evidently //do// have reasons, and have acted on them. So what you suppose
is not evidently true!

Of course, you nor anyone else can't investigate your supposition, pro or
con or disinterestedly, because USCF will not speak on the issue - and [is
it true?] that my note to them a couple weeks ago is the only board-resolved
response they have made to the public?

Phil Innes