| |
Main
Date: 28 Dec 2007 11:45:44
From: [email protected]
Subject: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
"Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
any judgment against him....
"What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really two
questions:
1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
"My answers:
1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
doubt' standard.
2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
time and money on elections."
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2008 18:13:10
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
[email protected] wrote:
>If you would like to engage in a reasoned discussion of the matter
>(even one strongly critical of me), you are welcome to write a letter
>to the editor. (See www.chessjournalism.org.) Serious discussions
>belong in print, a medium which requires the writer to think before
>speaking and makes it more difficult to speak with forked tongue.
I consider my own posts to be a valid counterexample to your assertion
that USENET newsgroups are devoid of reasoned / serious discussions.
As for the posters to whom you refer, you would be able to filter
them out if you accessed the real USENET instead of the perversion
of it offered up by groups.google.com.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jan 2008 15:34:34
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
Guy Macon wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> If you would like to engage in a reasoned discussion of the matter
>> (even one strongly critical of me), you are welcome to write a letter
>> to the editor. (See www.chessjournalism.org.) Serious discussions
>> belong in print, a medium which requires the writer to think before
>> speaking and makes it more difficult to speak with forked tongue.
>
> I consider my own posts to be a valid counterexample to your assertion
> that USENET newsgroups are devoid of reasoned / serious discussions.
>
> As for the posters to whom you refer, you would be able to filter
> them out if you accessed the real USENET instead of the perversion
> of it offered up by groups.google.com.
>
You still have a uucp connection?
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Jan 2008 13:44:56
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>You still have a uucp connection?
Yup. Ever try to make a PPP or SLIP connection using 110
baud FSK on an Insat satellite phone?
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 16:37:23
From:
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
J.D. Walker wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > J.D. Walker wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
> >>>
> >>> This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
> >>>
> >>> "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> >>> insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> >>> since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> >>> any judgment against him....
> >> This seems reasonable...
> >>
> >>> "What should the rest of us think about all this?
> >> I always mistrust a journalist that uses a phrase like "What should the
> >> rest of us think..." Is he a sheep herder?
> >>
> >>> There are really two questions:
> >> Why two questions? Is this a hypothetical lead in to a defense
> >> attorney's sumy before a jury?
> >>
> >>> 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
> >>>
> >>> 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> >>> him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> >>> not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
> >> 3) Will the USCF survive this lawsuit financially?
> >>
> >> 4) Will the USCF have a severely damaged reputation as a result of the
> >> law suit?
> >>
> >>> "My answers:
> >>>
> >>> 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> >>> charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> >>> doubt' standard.
> >> I'd be surprised if the author has examined all the evidence that will
> >> be presented in a case that is still gearing up for trial. Why doesn't
> >> he state that "he has no idea?" Also, from what my newsgroup friends
> >> tell me, the standard for proof for a civil lawsuit is not the same as
> >> that for a criminal trial. If so, the comment about "beyond a
> >> reasonable doubt" misses the k. Anyone care to clarify this?
> >>
> >>> 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> >>> we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> >>> time and money on elections."
> >> The recall process does not need the consent of Mr. Hillery to proceed.
> >> It will be up to concerned members to decide if they wish to pursue it.
> >> --
> >>
> >> Cordially,
> >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
> >>
> >> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
> >> Report?"
> >
> >
> > 1) I've seen the "evidence" presented by Sloan in his pleading, which
> > is, by the way, the only thing the judge is going to consider. It's
> > drivel. I'll bet long odds that this nonsense is gone by ch. Of
> > course, that won't stop Sloan from making a fool of himself again. He
> > does it so well.
> >
> > 2) Larry is either engaging in rhetorical sleight-of-hand, or simply
> > didn't understand what I wrote. Sloan's nuisance suit is an
> > irrelevancy, as is he. The questions I asked were whether there was
> > enough to decide that Truong was guilty, and _if so_ whether it would
> > justify his recall. The question is not what would satisfy a court
> > (since it's never going to get there), but what would satisfy me. The
> > readers are free to form their own opinions, and if they are USCF
> > members (unlike Larry), perhaps even act upon them. That's why it's
> > called an editorial instead of a news story.
> >
> > 3) Of course the members (more likely the Delegates, since there is
> > almost no chance of getting 3300+ Voting Member signatures) are free
> > to pursue a recall attempt. They are also entitled to know the facts,
> > which is more than they have been getting from the various one-sided
> > partisan accounts (from _both_ sides).
> >
> > 4) The insertion of those "questions 3 & 4" is a little annoying. It's
> > a typical sleazy-editor trick, implying that I wrote them without
> > actually saying so. I think both of them are silly and pointless, but
> > Larry is free to write his own editorial if he wishes. The fact that
> > he no longer has access to any print media, or any credibility to
> > speak of, is his problem, not mine.
>
> Mr. Hillery,
>
> This reply to my message of the 28th of December of last year comes more
> than two weeks later, and circumstances have changed a great deal in the
> interim. That makes it difficult to have an intelligent dialog. So, I
> will not bother. <Shrugs> Have fun with Mr. Parr.
>
> Nevertheless, here are a few general comments on the affair from my
> perspective...
>
> It appears to me that Sam's lawsuit may not go anywhere. I never was a
> partisan of the lawsuit. I want to see the USCF imposter identified and
> dealt with properly. February 4th should be a newsworthy day.
>
> The follow up analysis of the Mottershead report has failed to arrive.
> That leaves us, as concerned citizens of the US chess community, with
> the Mottershead and Jones reports to evaluate.
>
> A number of people that oppose the lawsuit seem to think that if it is
> dismissed that the whole matter is resolved. This is far from the
> truth: the reports still stand. What will the USCF do about them when
> they are not encumbered by a lawsuit? What will individual board
> members do? Will USCF rank & file members organize for a recall? Will
> members leave the organization?
>
> I do not know, and can not guess. I can only say that, based on my
> current assessment of the situation, I will not be rejoining the USCF,
> and will remain retired from tournament chess until there is a proper
> resolution of the two reports.
>
> Life has much else to offer anyways... :^)
> --
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>
> "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
> society."
>
> -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
If you would like to engage in a reasoned discussion of the matter
(even one strongly critical of me), you are welcome to write a letter
to the editor. (See www.chessjournalism.org.) Serious discussions
belong in print, a medium which requires the writer to think before
speaking and makes it more difficult to speak with forked tongue. (And
no, that is not a personal dig at you. I think it should be obvious
who among the rgcp denizens I have in mind.)
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 17:25:42
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> If you would like to engage in a reasoned discussion of the matter
> (even one strongly critical of me), you are welcome to write a letter
> to the editor. (See www.chessjournalism.org.) Serious discussions
> belong in print, a medium which requires the writer to think before
> speaking and makes it more difficult to speak with forked tongue. (And
> no, that is not a personal dig at you. I think it should be obvious
> who among the rgcp denizens I have in mind.)
Mr. Hillery,
Thank you for the invitation, but I must decline. I would feel a "fish
out of water" engaging in such an exchange. Although the type of
discussion you invite has its advantages and adherents, I prefer a free
and open discussion among people that attempt to be courteous and civil,
and hopefully have a consequent respect for each other even when they
disagree on major issues.
I fully realize that such an aim may appear ridiculous in the extreme in
the present context due to all the hysteria, malice, and hatred we see
so often. Still, I am improving at finding sane exchanges with people here.
I could lament about the weakness of human nature or the "Tragedy of the
Commons," but I would rather just slog ahead and make a dent in the
torrent of abuse.
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 16:31:00
From:
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
samsloan wrote:
> I disagree. I think that the Proskauer Rose motion is largely
> frivolous and will not in any case lead to a quick knock-out that the
> bad guys are hoping for.
>
> It is likely that there will be an article about me in the New York
> Times tomorrow or at least within a few days.
>
> Sam Sloan
You can think anything you want, Sam. It's a free country. Reality,
however, will not adjust itself to fit your beliefs. We'll know in a
few weeks. The real problem is that, since you are without assets or
employment, you can't be properly punished for vexatious litigation.
That, however, is a problem for Congress. For the time being, we'll
just have to live with rats, roaches, and Sloans.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 14:38:02
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
I disagree. I think that the Proskauer Rose motion is largely
frivolous and will not in any case lead to a quick knock-out that the
bad guys are hoping for.
It is likely that there will be an article about me in the New York
Times tomorrow or at least within a few days.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 04:37:17
From:
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
J.D. Walker wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
> >
> > This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
> >
> > "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> > insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> > since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> > any judgment against him....
>
> This seems reasonable...
>
> > "What should the rest of us think about all this?
>
> I always mistrust a journalist that uses a phrase like "What should the
> rest of us think..." Is he a sheep herder?
>
> > There are really two questions:
>
> Why two questions? Is this a hypothetical lead in to a defense
> attorney's sumy before a jury?
>
> > 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
> >
> > 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> > him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> > not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
>
> 3) Will the USCF survive this lawsuit financially?
>
> 4) Will the USCF have a severely damaged reputation as a result of the
> law suit?
>
> > "My answers:
> >
> > 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> > charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> > doubt' standard.
>
> I'd be surprised if the author has examined all the evidence that will
> be presented in a case that is still gearing up for trial. Why doesn't
> he state that "he has no idea?" Also, from what my newsgroup friends
> tell me, the standard for proof for a civil lawsuit is not the same as
> that for a criminal trial. If so, the comment about "beyond a
> reasonable doubt" misses the k. Anyone care to clarify this?
>
> > 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> > we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> > time and money on elections."
>
> The recall process does not need the consent of Mr. Hillery to proceed.
> It will be up to concerned members to decide if they wish to pursue it.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>
> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
> Report?"
1) I've seen the "evidence" presented by Sloan in his pleading, which
is, by the way, the only thing the judge is going to consider. It's
drivel. I'll bet long odds that this nonsense is gone by ch. Of
course, that won't stop Sloan from making a fool of himself again. He
does it so well.
2) Larry is either engaging in rhetorical sleight-of-hand, or simply
didn't understand what I wrote. Sloan's nuisance suit is an
irrelevancy, as is he. The questions I asked were whether there was
enough to decide that Truong was guilty, and _if so_ whether it would
justify his recall. The question is not what would satisfy a court
(since it's never going to get there), but what would satisfy me. The
readers are free to form their own opinions, and if they are USCF
members (unlike Larry), perhaps even act upon them. That's why it's
called an editorial instead of a news story.
3) Of course the members (more likely the Delegates, since there is
almost no chance of getting 3300+ Voting Member signatures) are free
to pursue a recall attempt. They are also entitled to know the facts,
which is more than they have been getting from the various one-sided
partisan accounts (from _both_ sides).
4) The insertion of those "questions 3 & 4" is a little annoying. It's
a typical sleazy-editor trick, implying that I wrote them without
actually saying so. I think both of them are silly and pointless, but
Larry is free to write his own editorial if he wishes. The fact that
he no longer has access to any print media, or any credibility to
speak of, is his problem, not mine.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 10:47:47
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> J.D. Walker wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
>>>
>>> This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
>>>
>>> "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
>>> insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
>>> since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
>>> any judgment against him....
>> This seems reasonable...
>>
>>> "What should the rest of us think about all this?
>> I always mistrust a journalist that uses a phrase like "What should the
>> rest of us think..." Is he a sheep herder?
>>
>>> There are really two questions:
>> Why two questions? Is this a hypothetical lead in to a defense
>> attorney's sumy before a jury?
>>
>>> 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
>>>
>>> 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
>>> him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
>>> not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
>> 3) Will the USCF survive this lawsuit financially?
>>
>> 4) Will the USCF have a severely damaged reputation as a result of the
>> law suit?
>>
>>> "My answers:
>>>
>>> 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
>>> charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
>>> doubt' standard.
>> I'd be surprised if the author has examined all the evidence that will
>> be presented in a case that is still gearing up for trial. Why doesn't
>> he state that "he has no idea?" Also, from what my newsgroup friends
>> tell me, the standard for proof for a civil lawsuit is not the same as
>> that for a criminal trial. If so, the comment about "beyond a
>> reasonable doubt" misses the k. Anyone care to clarify this?
>>
>>> 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
>>> we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
>>> time and money on elections."
>> The recall process does not need the consent of Mr. Hillery to proceed.
>> It will be up to concerned members to decide if they wish to pursue it.
>> --
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>>
>> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
>> Report?"
>
>
> 1) I've seen the "evidence" presented by Sloan in his pleading, which
> is, by the way, the only thing the judge is going to consider. It's
> drivel. I'll bet long odds that this nonsense is gone by ch. Of
> course, that won't stop Sloan from making a fool of himself again. He
> does it so well.
>
> 2) Larry is either engaging in rhetorical sleight-of-hand, or simply
> didn't understand what I wrote. Sloan's nuisance suit is an
> irrelevancy, as is he. The questions I asked were whether there was
> enough to decide that Truong was guilty, and _if so_ whether it would
> justify his recall. The question is not what would satisfy a court
> (since it's never going to get there), but what would satisfy me. The
> readers are free to form their own opinions, and if they are USCF
> members (unlike Larry), perhaps even act upon them. That's why it's
> called an editorial instead of a news story.
>
> 3) Of course the members (more likely the Delegates, since there is
> almost no chance of getting 3300+ Voting Member signatures) are free
> to pursue a recall attempt. They are also entitled to know the facts,
> which is more than they have been getting from the various one-sided
> partisan accounts (from _both_ sides).
>
> 4) The insertion of those "questions 3 & 4" is a little annoying. It's
> a typical sleazy-editor trick, implying that I wrote them without
> actually saying so. I think both of them are silly and pointless, but
> Larry is free to write his own editorial if he wishes. The fact that
> he no longer has access to any print media, or any credibility to
> speak of, is his problem, not mine.
Mr. Hillery,
This reply to my message of the 28th of December of last year comes more
than two weeks later, and circumstances have changed a great deal in the
interim. That makes it difficult to have an intelligent dialog. So, I
will not bother. <Shrugs > Have fun with Mr. Parr.
Nevertheless, here are a few general comments on the affair from my
perspective...
It appears to me that Sam's lawsuit may not go anywhere. I never was a
partisan of the lawsuit. I want to see the USCF imposter identified and
dealt with properly. February 4th should be a newsworthy day.
The follow up analysis of the Mottershead report has failed to arrive.
That leaves us, as concerned citizens of the US chess community, with
the Mottershead and Jones reports to evaluate.
A number of people that oppose the lawsuit seem to think that if it is
dismissed that the whole matter is resolved. This is far from the
truth: the reports still stand. What will the USCF do about them when
they are not encumbered by a lawsuit? What will individual board
members do? Will USCF rank & file members organize for a recall? Will
members leave the organization?
I do not know, and can not guess. I can only say that, based on my
current assessment of the situation, I will not be rejoining the USCF,
and will remain retired from tournament chess until there is a proper
resolution of the two reports.
Life has much else to offer anyways... :^)
--
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society."
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 16:46:28
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:47:47 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> I can only say that, based on my
>current assessment of the situation, I will not be rejoining the USCF,
>and will remain retired from tournament chess until there is a proper
>resolution of the two reports.
Only three words in response to your intended plan, Reverend:
Grand Pacific Open.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 17:09:31
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:47:47 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I can only say that, based on my
>> current assessment of the situation, I will not be rejoining the USCF,
>> and will remain retired from tournament chess until there is a proper
>> resolution of the two reports.
>
> Only three words in response to your intended plan, Reverend:
> Grand Pacific Open.
Interesting. Victoria, Vancouver Island, BC. A pleasant boat ride.
Very nice in the Summer. Maybe decent in ch. No USCF to worry
about! Probably get to see a bunch of old friends.
I'd probably be more interested in talking and kibitzing than playing.
I could flash my new ULC Press card a bit. :^)
Thanks Mike. I will consider it.
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society."
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2008 01:54:19
From: WPraeder
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 30 2007, 4:13 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> I FAVOR FULL DISCLOSURE
>
> <I believe preponderance of the evidence may be most appropriate here
> but when USCF insiders circle the wagons, the level of proof required
> may only be beyond any
> doubt.> --WaynePraeder
>
> DearWayne,
>
> Strangely enough, on certain points, I agree
> with the Hillery editorial. At least, my instincts
> are with the man's slant that Paul Truong may be a
> victim rather than victimizer. I find the whole idea
> absurd that Susan Polgar and he are basically
> psychotics. Yet the charges, if true, certainly point
> in that direction. Certain insiders have assured me
> that Paul Truong is essentially a con artist trying
> to milk the federation for money.
>
> As for the reports of computer experts, I have
> heard arguments among these types in our own office --
> this or that is 100 percent true and absolutely
> established, scientifically, etc., then the whole
> thing gets reversed. You have absolute certainty
> among those with degrees in computerism on Tuesday,
> and you have equal absolutely certain two days later
> on Thursday about a proposition the opposite of what
> was said 48 hours earlier.
>
> Motive still means more to me than these reports.
>
> BUT: Unlike Hillery (JHK) and the other hacks, I
> favor getting to the bottom of this issue, and I know
> that the Executive Board insiders will try to prevent
> truth from emerging. That could mean hanging out
> Polgar and Truong to dry, whatever their innocence or
> culpability, or yes,Wayne, it could mean endeavouring
> to suppress evidence of guilt.
>
> I don't buy this demonization of the Truongs,
> but I can't hold with the Hillery know-nothings who
> oppose full disclosure.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> WPraeder wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 9:16?am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:e28be751-b1e2-40f9-98d6-322e29ac02d4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
>
> > > > This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
>
> > > > "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> > > > insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> > > > since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> > > > any judgment against him....
>
> > > > "What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really two
> > > > questions:
>
> > > > 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
>
> > > > 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> > > > him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> > > > not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
>
> > > > "My answers:
>
> > > > 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> > > > charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> > > > doubt' standard.
>
> > > > 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> > > > we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> > > > time and money on elections."
>
> > > This is to cast the issue under the temporary and very tenuous shade
> > > provided by the umbrella of current public invective. Very far from
> > > proceeding to any sufficiency of 'data', there is not any credible evidence
> > > of motive! - who, after all, can mock those imitated here better than they
> > > can consistently do for themselves?
>
> > > But there is a sufficiency of information to investigate who the FSS is
> > > [which is the other, unreported investigation than here in the newsgroups],
> > > and as always, this begins with the question, Cui Bono? or Qui if you like
> > > your Latin. Certainly the result of the affair seems to have neutralised any
> > > new initiatives issuing from the board, and to permit the status quo to
> > > continue.
>
> > > I remember Larry Parr offering or proferring [ignored] advice to Sam Sloan
> > > just before he joined the board - not to become entangled in personality
> > > attacks, which would constitute the means of isolating him, and neutralising
> > > any efforts he made. The current attack on personality is literally a
> > > virtual one ~ but to the same effect, and prosecuted by some known, and some
> > > new re-mailer heroes, with such scant notice to motive as would make Eeyore
> > > laugh out loud.
>
> > > The infamous list of 24 aspects which should not be considered are excused
> > > by suggesting they are comic - and yet they are themselves celebrated with
> > > more abuse to suppress further items than ever the FSS achieved! And, of
> > > course, with /no/ real intent than to fit an unproven hypothesis to a
> > > tailor-made political perpetrator, who certainly threatens to shake up the
> > > status quo, no? For better or worse, would at least be a discussion, but
> > > shake for sure!
>
> > > I see that Hillery also fails to note the relationship between Truong and
> > > Mottorshead, and the chronology of events surrounding the 'report'. That is
> > > a very curious ommission, but then, of those who speculate in public, they
> > > too have not deemed to notice a few inconvenient facts - facts which are not
> > > in doubt, and address the prime aspect of any issue - motivation.
>
> > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Phil,
>
> > Some believe evidence can stand or fall on its own merits. Speculation
> > may not be as useful, but I for one find the idea that the FSS focused
> > on those who may have been critical of Ms. Polgar to be practical
> > inducement.
>
> > Regards,
> >WaynePraeder- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Larry,
I appreciate your and others need for absolute certainty in this case.
I however don't believe this type of certainty is attainable. Ideas
like "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt" are
quite useful, provided that we think about what they mean. They don't
mean beyond all doubt. They are not the same even as a result which
can be replicated. They are essentially probability based standards.
They are not truly absolute proof.
Some go with the evidence and some go with their instincts. Both can
be acceptable in this court of public opinion. Regardless we both
appear to favor full disclosure.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
|
| |
Date: 31 Dec 2007 11:19:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 30, 3:13=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I FAVOR FULL DISCLOSURE
>
> <I believe preponderance of the evidence may be most appropriate here
> but when USCF insiders circle the wagons, the level of proof required
> may only be beyond any
> doubt.> -- Wayne Praeder
>
> Dear Wayne,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Strangely enough, on certain points, I agree
> with the Hillery editorial. =A0At least, my instincts
> are with the man's slant that Paul Truong may be a
> victim rather than victimizer. =A0I find the whole idea
> absurd that Susan Polgar and he are basically
> psychotics. =A0Yet the charges, if true, certainly point
> in that direction. Certain insiders have assured me
> that Paul Truong is essentially a con artist trying
> to milk the federation for money.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 As for the reports of computer experts, I have
> heard arguments among these types in our own office --
> this or that is 100 percent true and absolutely
> established, scientifically, etc., then the whole
> thing gets reversed. =A0You have absolute certainty
> among those with degrees in computerism on Tuesday,
> and you have equal absolutely certain two days later
> on Thursday about a proposition the opposite of what
> was said 48 hours earlier.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Motive still means more to me than these reports.
This may be valid if there is a disagreement on experts. In this case,
we have only seen experts (at least those who are disinterested and
willing to use their own names) who say that the evidence implicates
Truong. I think it will be hard to find an expert to say otherwise,
unless one uses money to buy an expert as happens in some courts.
Sometimes expert opinion does agree (nobody seems to challenge
paternity suits by finding a different expert, for example), and it is
silly to throw out expert opinion because someday a disagreeing expert
may appear.
I think it is wrong to characterize the FSS postings as psychotic.
They are juvenile, but there are many posters willing to clutter the
newsgroups with such trash, and they are by no means all crazy. In
this case, they even have an effect; when enough such messages clutter
the newsgroup, they drive readers to other forums where people may not
read accusations the writer would rather not have spread around.
More important than motive, which is very hard to ascertain, is
pattern of behavior. There is a history of disreputable behavior,
followed by vigorous denial with extremely unlikely technical
explanations, which fit both the PhD claim and the FSS claim on the
part of Paul Truong. If you believe that the denial of Truong's
explanation on the PhD claim has been exploded, it is reasonable for
it to affect your belief in this case as well.
Some people ask why Truong is treated differently from Polgar in this
case; it is this previous pattern of behavior on Truong's part which
does not appear in Polgar's history (as well as a few other minor
reasons to suspect that evidence points to Truong rather than Polgar)
which makes me think that he us entirely responsible.
I am not judge and jury, but in my mind the evidence weighs heavily
against Truong, and I have seen no reasonable alternative explanation.
I am waiting to see the USCF report. If the allegations are true, I
actually do not feel this is necessarily a criminal offence, but I
think that Truong should definitely be asked to resign from the board,
and that he should not be given any special positions (eg team
coaching) by the USCF in the future.
Jerry Spinrad
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 BUT: =A0Unlike Hillery (JHK) and the other hacks, I
> favor getting to the bottom of this issue, and I know
> that the Executive Board insiders will try to prevent
> truth from emerging. =A0That could mean hanging out
> Polgar and Truong to dry, whatever their innocence or
> culpability, or yes, Wayne, it could mean endeavouring
> to suppress evidence of guilt.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't buy this demonization of the Truongs,
> but I can't hold with the Hillery know-nothings who
> oppose full disclosure.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> WPraeder wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 9:16?am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:e28be751-b1e2-40f9-98d6-322e29ac02d4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> > > > EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
>
> > > > This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WA=
R:
>
> > > > "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> > > > insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> > > > since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecti=
ng
> > > > any judgment against him....
>
> > > > "What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really t=
wo
> > > > questions:
>
> > > > 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
>
> > > > 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> > > > him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> > > > not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
>
> > > > "My answers:
>
> > > > 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support th=
e
> > > > charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> > > > doubt' standard.
>
> > > > 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Li=
ke
> > > > we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wastin=
g
> > > > time and money on elections."
>
> > > This is to cast the issue under the temporary and very tenuous shade
> > > provided by the umbrella of current public invective. Very far from
> > > proceeding to any sufficiency of 'data', there is not any credible evi=
dence
> > > of motive! - who, after all, can mock those imitated here better than =
they
> > > can consistently do for themselves?
>
> > > But there is a sufficiency of information to investigate who the FSS i=
s
> > > [which is the other, unreported investigation than here in the newsgro=
ups],
> > > and as always, this begins with the question, Cui Bono? or Qui if you =
like
> > > your Latin. Certainly the result of the affair seems to have neutralis=
ed any
> > > new initiatives issuing from the board, and to permit the status quo t=
o
> > > continue.
>
> > > I remember Larry Parr offering or proferring [ignored] advice to Sam S=
loan
> > > just before he joined the board - not to become entangled in personali=
ty
> > > attacks, which would constitute the means of isolating him, and neutra=
lising
> > > any efforts he made. The current attack on personality is literally a
> > > virtual one ~ but to the same effect, and prosecuted by some known, an=
d some
> > > new re-mailer heroes, with such scant notice to motive as would make E=
eyore
> > > laugh out loud.
>
> > > The infamous list of 24 aspects which should not be considered are exc=
used
> > > by suggesting they are comic - and yet they are themselves celebrated =
with
> > > more abuse to suppress further items than ever the FSS achieved! And, =
of
> > > course, with /no/ real intent than to fit an unproven hypothesis to a
> > > tailor-made political perpetrator, who certainly threatens to shake up=
the
> > > status quo, no? For better or worse, would at least be a discussion, b=
ut
> > > shake for sure!
>
> > > I see that Hillery also fails to note the relationship between Truong =
and
> > > Mottorshead, and the chronology of events surrounding the 'report'. Th=
at is
> > > a very curious ommission, but then, of those who speculate in public, =
they
> > > too have not deemed to notice a few inconvenient facts - facts which a=
re not
> > > in doubt, and address the prime aspect of any issue - motivation.
>
> > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Phil,
>
> > Some believe evidence can stand or fall on its own merits. Speculation
> > may not be as useful, but I for one find the idea that the FSS focused
> > on those who may have been critical of Ms. Polgar to be practical
> > inducement.
>
> > Regards,
> > Wayne Praeder- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 31 Dec 2007 10:08:05
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 31, 12:34 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
Snipped typical P Innes twaddle. Seven paragraphs and he couldn't
answer a single question.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Dec 2007 16:55:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 31, 12:34 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Snipped typical P Innes twaddle. Seven paragraphs and he couldn't
> answer a single question.
I answered all questions by referring to the quality of attention of the
person who asked them - as if to say - the brave snipper could not let any
of the replies stand! - therefore, that is standard he employs which is to
openly LIE in public about all that is not to his convenience, and which is
to his /personal/ discomfort - and pointedly, that this newsgroup's, and
others, chief abusenik should not get to set the agenda on abuse, who does
it, and why! - whereas, pointedly, the resolution to the issue looks very
much to his own order of things. ;)
Neil Brennan profiles so very well, does he not? And besides, other than
token visits for the purpose of abuse, he was absent during most of the time
the FSS was active. Now he is back and blowing smoke, much smoke!~
What differences are there between them, actually?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 31 Dec 2007 08:29:45
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 31, 10:29 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "WPraeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 30, 9:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Phil,
>
> Some believe evidence can stand or fall on its own merits. Speculation
> may not be as useful, but I for one find the idea that the FSS focused
> on those who may have been critical of Ms. Polgar to be practical
> inducement.
I'm going, for the umpteenth time, attempt rational discourse with
this 'gentleman'.
> **But only /some/ of those people, Wayne? But if such narrow measure is
> enough to have belief, that accords with our Newsnet court scope of
> operations. The FSS sought to cause division among others, especially by
> targetting people who were a bit rash, and likely to re-act, indeed, become
> reactive. Then others convinced the victims of the perpetration that for
> some inscrutable reason, they, and only they, were to be sullied, presumably
> because, if only in their own minds, they had political ambitions with USCF.
Mike Murray and I had "political ambitions" in USCF? I can't, and
won't, speak for Mr. Murray, but I haven't been a USCF member since
2004!
I await your list of not-for-profits I don't belong to that I have
"political ambitions" in. I'm sure it's coming.
> **Since Sloan is entirely equal to negating any good he may have conceivable
> have done, by his other behavior, and was already a lame-duck candidate -
> are we to think that the 3 chosen victims actually had any chance whatever?
> I don't really think so.
There were more than three victims of the hoaxing. Incidentally, it's
good that you finally see there were victims; previously you said we
didn't even know if there were any.
> **No! The missing link in all this is the motivation of the FSS, which need
> not be any rational one at all - therefore only if PT is irrationally
> possessed to waste his time on no-hopers could he get stuck with a motive...
Motive doesn't trump evidence, Philsy. And if you are going to drag
motive into it, why not history? Ask "Bob Bennett" what he thinks. Or
Jennifer Shahade, who reported Truong sent emails under Susan Polgar's
name?
> whereas, there are those who have written much the same trash about Polgar
> and Truong [and also Sloan] in these very newsgroups!
|
| | |
Date: 31 Dec 2007 12:34:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
brennen! is not interested in chess in any demonstrable way illustrated by
his own writing, and can scarcely understand what he reads, nevermind make
commentary on it - how absurd! below he FATuously inserts his and Murray's
names, for more agitprop - and a bit more cover!
he obsessively stirs up the shit among others - he just can't stop!
the principle abuser on these newsgroups who dislikes both truong and sloan
wants to 'try for the umpteenth'... his paraphrastic renderings and spin do
not deceive me to his nature - neither its conscious activity nor that great
need to confess ;)
he is the most conspicous twister and abuser here - and that is a matter of
record, in this group and in others - and has done nothing in his entire
record of posting in chess groups but attempt to stir up the shit among
other people
! -- > what a profile <-- !
He starts with 'gentleman' in inverted commas as if sincere [laugh] or as if
after thousands of abusive postings could claim it for himself - postings
typically playing on the names of others! but it is just occasion for more
abuse! which he returns to immediately with his 'philsy'. despite my firm
rejection of so many "G&S" advances
these diversionary screens /are/ being noted, and perhaps only those who
insist on them, and who are drawn to these threads to 'josh' about other
people's reputation, and who obviously get off on it - think they are
anything more than the same pattern brennen ever produced
phil innes
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f5c0ac09-eaca-4b23-a4be-d49f9a26dd52@v32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 10:29 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "WPraeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>> On Dec 30, 9:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Phil,
>>
>> Some believe evidence can stand or fall on its own merits. Speculation
>> may not be as useful, but I for one find the idea that the FSS focused
>> on those who may have been critical of Ms. Polgar to be practical
>> inducement.
>
> I'm going, for the umpteenth time, attempt rational discourse with
> this 'gentleman'.
>
>> **But only /some/ of those people, Wayne? But if such narrow measure is
>> enough to have belief, that accords with our Newsnet court scope of
>> operations. The FSS sought to cause division among others, especially by
>> targetting people who were a bit rash, and likely to re-act, indeed,
>> become
>> reactive. Then others convinced the victims of the perpetration that for
>> some inscrutable reason, they, and only they, were to be sullied,
>> presumably
>> because, if only in their own minds, they had political ambitions with
>> USCF.
>
> Mike Murray and I had "political ambitions" in USCF? I can't, and
> won't, speak for Mr. Murray, but I haven't been a USCF member since
> 2004!
>
> I await your list of not-for-profits I don't belong to that I have
> "political ambitions" in. I'm sure it's coming.
>
>> **Since Sloan is entirely equal to negating any good he may have
>> conceivable
>> have done, by his other behavior, and was already a lame-duck candidate -
>> are we to think that the 3 chosen victims actually had any chance
>> whatever?
>> I don't really think so.
>
> There were more than three victims of the hoaxing. Incidentally, it's
> good that you finally see there were victims; previously you said we
> didn't even know if there were any.
>
>> **No! The missing link in all this is the motivation of the FSS, which
>> need
>> not be any rational one at all - therefore only if PT is irrationally
>> possessed to waste his time on no-hopers could he get stuck with a
>> motive...
>
> Motive doesn't trump evidence, Philsy. And if you are going to drag
> motive into it, why not history? Ask "Bob Bennett" what he thinks. Or
> Jennifer Shahade, who reported Truong sent emails under Susan Polgar's
> name?
>
>> whereas, there are those who have written much the same trash about
>> Polgar
>> and Truong [and also Sloan] in these very newsgroups!
>
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2007 15:17:25
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 30, 6:13 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > post the entire thing, rather than sound bites, is you actually wanted a
> > conversation - for agitprop purposes, post less - if you can 'finally figure
> > that out' as best befits your wit, honesty, not to say aught of your public
> > standing, as might be measured by the non-Christian reverend, and the serial
> > abusenik, Brennan - even these people have standards, though, admittedly,
> > below ground ones
>
> Dear Mr. Innes,
>
> I am sorry but I have not been paying much attention to this newsgroup.
> What is it you are asking me to measure?
When you find out, could you let "Brennan", whoever he may be, know as
well?
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2007 13:13:30
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
I FAVOR FULL DISCLOSURE
<I believe preponderance of the evidence may be most appropriate here
but when USCF insiders circle the wagons, the level of proof required
may only be beyond any
doubt. > -- Wayne Praeder
Dear Wayne,
Strangely enough, on certain points, I agree
with the Hillery editorial. At least, my instincts
are with the man's slant that Paul Truong may be a
victim rather than victimizer. I find the whole idea
absurd that Susan Polgar and he are basically
psychotics. Yet the charges, if true, certainly point
in that direction. Certain insiders have assured me
that Paul Truong is essentially a con artist trying
to milk the federation for money.
As for the reports of computer experts, I have
heard arguments among these types in our own office --
this or that is 100 percent true and absolutely
established, scientifically, etc., then the whole
thing gets reversed. You have absolute certainty
among those with degrees in computerism on Tuesday,
and you have equal absolutely certain two days later
on Thursday about a proposition the opposite of what
was said 48 hours earlier.
Motive still means more to me than these reports.
BUT: Unlike Hillery (JHK) and the other hacks, I
favor getting to the bottom of this issue, and I know
that the Executive Board insiders will try to prevent
truth from emerging. That could mean hanging out
Polgar and Truong to dry, whatever their innocence or
culpability, or yes, Wayne, it could mean endeavouring
to suppress evidence of guilt.
I don't buy this demonization of the Truongs,
but I can't hold with the Hillery know-nothings who
oppose full disclosure.
Yours, Larry Parr
WPraeder wrote:
> On Dec 30, 9:16?am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:e28be751-b1e2-40f9-98d6-322e29ac02d4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
> >
> > > This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
> >
> > > "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> > > insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> > > since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> > > any judgment against him....
> >
> > > "What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really two
> > > questions:
> >
> > > 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
> >
> > > 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> > > him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> > > not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
> >
> > > "My answers:
> >
> > > 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> > > charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> > > doubt' standard.
> >
> > > 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> > > we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> > > time and money on elections."
> >
> > This is to cast the issue under the temporary and very tenuous shade
> > provided by the umbrella of current public invective. Very far from
> > proceeding to any sufficiency of 'data', there is not any credible evidence
> > of motive! - who, after all, can mock those imitated here better than they
> > can consistently do for themselves?
> >
> > But there is a sufficiency of information to investigate who the FSS is
> > [which is the other, unreported investigation than here in the newsgroups],
> > and as always, this begins with the question, Cui Bono? or Qui if you like
> > your Latin. Certainly the result of the affair seems to have neutralised any
> > new initiatives issuing from the board, and to permit the status quo to
> > continue.
> >
> > I remember Larry Parr offering or proferring [ignored] advice to Sam Sloan
> > just before he joined the board - not to become entangled in personality
> > attacks, which would constitute the means of isolating him, and neutralising
> > any efforts he made. The current attack on personality is literally a
> > virtual one ~ but to the same effect, and prosecuted by some known, and some
> > new re-mailer heroes, with such scant notice to motive as would make Eeyore
> > laugh out loud.
> >
> > The infamous list of 24 aspects which should not be considered are excused
> > by suggesting they are comic - and yet they are themselves celebrated with
> > more abuse to suppress further items than ever the FSS achieved! And, of
> > course, with /no/ real intent than to fit an unproven hypothesis to a
> > tailor-made political perpetrator, who certainly threatens to shake up the
> > status quo, no? For better or worse, would at least be a discussion, but
> > shake for sure!
> >
> > I see that Hillery also fails to note the relationship between Truong and
> > Mottorshead, and the chronology of events surrounding the 'report'. That is
> > a very curious ommission, but then, of those who speculate in public, they
> > too have not deemed to notice a few inconvenient facts - facts which are not
> > in doubt, and address the prime aspect of any issue - motivation.
> >
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Phil,
>
> Some believe evidence can stand or fall on its own merits. Speculation
> may not be as useful, but I for one find the idea that the FSS focused
> on those who may have been critical of Ms. Polgar to be practical
> inducement.
>
> Regards,
> Wayne Praeder
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2007 07:37:03
From: WPraeder
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 30, 9:16=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:e28be751-b1e2-40f9-98d6-322e29ac02d4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
>
> > This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
>
> > "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> > insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> > since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> > any judgment against him....
>
> > "What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really two
> > questions:
>
> > 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
>
> > 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> > him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> > not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
>
> > "My answers:
>
> > 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> > charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> > doubt' standard.
>
> > 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> > we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> > time and money on elections."
>
> This is to cast the issue under the temporary and very tenuous shade
> provided by the umbrella of current public invective. Very far from
> proceeding to any sufficiency of 'data', there is not any credible evidenc=
e
> of motive! - who, after all, can mock those imitated here better than they=
> can consistently do for themselves?
>
> But there is a sufficiency of information to investigate who the FSS is
> [which is the other, unreported investigation than here in the newsgroups]=
,
> and as always, this begins with the question, Cui Bono? or Qui if you like=
> your Latin. Certainly the result of the affair seems to have neutralised a=
ny
> new initiatives issuing from the board, and to permit the status quo to
> continue.
>
> I remember Larry Parr offering or proferring [ignored] advice to Sam Sloan=
> just before he joined the board - not to become entangled in personality
> attacks, which would constitute the means of isolating him, and neutralisi=
ng
> any efforts he made. The current attack on personality is literally a
> virtual one ~ but to the same effect, and prosecuted by some known, and so=
me
> new re-mailer heroes, with such scant notice to motive as would make Eeyor=
e
> laugh out loud.
>
> The infamous list of 24 aspects which should not be considered are excused=
> by suggesting they are comic - and yet they are themselves celebrated with=
> more abuse to suppress further items than ever the FSS achieved! And, of
> course, with /no/ real intent than to fit an unproven hypothesis to a
> tailor-made political perpetrator, who certainly threatens to shake up the=
> status quo, no? For better or worse, would at least be a discussion, but
> shake for sure!
>
> I see that Hillery also fails to note the relationship between Truong and
> Mottorshead, and the chronology of events surrounding the 'report'. That i=
s
> a very curious ommission, but then, of those who speculate in public, they=
> too have not deemed to notice a few inconvenient facts - facts which are n=
ot
> in doubt, and address the prime aspect of any issue - motivation.
>
> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Phil,
Some believe evidence can stand or fall on its own merits. Speculation
may not be as useful, but I for one find the idea that the FSS focused
on those who may have been critical of Ms. Polgar to be practical
inducement.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
|
| | |
Date: 31 Dec 2007 10:29:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
"WPraeder" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Dec 30, 9:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
Phil,
Some believe evidence can stand or fall on its own merits. Speculation
may not be as useful, but I for one find the idea that the FSS focused
on those who may have been critical of Ms. Polgar to be practical
inducement.
**But only /some/ of those people, Wayne? But if such narrow measure is
enough to have belief, that accords with our Newsnet court scope of
operations. The FSS sought to cause division among others, especially by
targetting people who were a bit rash, and likely to re-act, indeed, become
reactive. Then others convinced the victims of the perpetration that for
some inscrutable reason, they, and only they, were to be sullied, presumably
because, if only in their own minds, they had political ambitions with USCF.
**Since Sloan is entirely equal to negating any good he may have conceivable
have done, by his other behavior, and was already a lame-duck candidate -
are we to think that the 3 chosen victims actually had any chance whatever?
I don't really think so.
**No! The missing link in all this is the motivation of the FSS, which need
not be any rational one at all - therefore only if PT is irrationally
possessed to waste his time on no-hopers could he get stuck with a motive...
whereas, there are those who have written much the same trash about Polgar
and Truong [and also Sloan] in these very newsgroups!
Phil Innes
--
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2007 09:16:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e28be751-b1e2-40f9-98d6-322e29ac02d4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
>
> This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
>
> "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> any judgment against him....
>
> "What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really two
> questions:
>
> 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
>
> 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
>
> "My answers:
>
> 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> doubt' standard.
>
> 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> time and money on elections."
This is to cast the issue under the temporary and very tenuous shade
provided by the umbrella of current public invective. Very far from
proceeding to any sufficiency of 'data', there is not any credible evidence
of motive! - who, after all, can mock those imitated here better than they
can consistently do for themselves?
But there is a sufficiency of information to investigate who the FSS is
[which is the other, unreported investigation than here in the newsgroups],
and as always, this begins with the question, Cui Bono? or Qui if you like
your Latin. Certainly the result of the affair seems to have neutralised any
new initiatives issuing from the board, and to permit the status quo to
continue.
I remember Larry Parr offering or proferring [ignored] advice to Sam Sloan
just before he joined the board - not to become entangled in personality
attacks, which would constitute the means of isolating him, and neutralising
any efforts he made. The current attack on personality is literally a
virtual one ~ but to the same effect, and prosecuted by some known, and some
new re-mailer heroes, with such scant notice to motive as would make Eeyore
laugh out loud.
The infamous list of 24 aspects which should not be considered are excused
by suggesting they are comic - and yet they are themselves celebrated with
more abuse to suppress further items than ever the FSS achieved! And, of
course, with /no/ real intent than to fit an unproven hypothesis to a
tailor-made political perpetrator, who certainly threatens to shake up the
status quo, no? For better or worse, would at least be a discussion, but
shake for sure!
I see that Hillery also fails to note the relationship between Truong and
Mottorshead, and the chronology of events surrounding the 'report'. That is
a very curious ommission, but then, of those who speculate in public, they
too have not deemed to notice a few inconvenient facts - facts which are not
in doubt, and address the prime aspect of any issue - motivation.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 30 Dec 2007 10:04:35
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:16:39 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>The infamous list of 24 aspects which should not be considered
I finally figured out what you meant by "24 aspects". You mean the
List of the Blind Monkey, a collection of invalid arguments
caricatured. One more instance and it will be up to 42, which would
at least offer dyslexia as a possible excuse for your error.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2007 18:04:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
post the entire thing, rather than sound bites, is you actually wanted a
conversation - for agitprop purposes, post less - if you can 'finally figure
that out' as best befits your wit, honesty, not to say aught of your public
standing, as might be measured by the non-Christian reverend, and the serial
abusenik, Brennan - even these people have standards, though, admittedly,
below ground ones
pi
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:16:39 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The infamous list of 24 aspects which should not be considered
>
> I finally figured out what you meant by "24 aspects". You mean the
> List of the Blind Monkey, a collection of invalid arguments
> caricatured. One more instance and it will be up to 42, which would
> at least offer dyslexia as a possible excuse for your error.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2007 18:08:00
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:04:07 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:16:39 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>The infamous list of 24 aspects which should not be considered
>> I finally figured out what you meant by "24 aspects". You mean the
>> List of the Blind Monkey, a collection of invalid arguments
>> caricatured. One more instance and it will be up to 42, which would
>> at least offer dyslexia as a possible excuse for your error.
>post the entire thing, rather than sound bites,
For the convenience of those interested, as the List grows, it gets
reposted as a response in the thread titled, "The List of the Blind
Monkey". Nothing would be added by spewing it into other threads.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2007 15:13:48
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
Chess One wrote:
> post the entire thing, rather than sound bites, is you actually wanted a
> conversation - for agitprop purposes, post less - if you can 'finally figure
> that out' as best befits your wit, honesty, not to say aught of your public
> standing, as might be measured by the non-Christian reverend, and the serial
> abusenik, Brennan - even these people have standards, though, admittedly,
> below ground ones
>
Dear Mr. Innes,
I am sorry but I have not been paying much attention to this newsgroup.
What is it you are asking me to measure?
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2007 02:04:12
From: WPraeder
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 28, 2:45=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
>
> This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
>
> "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> any judgment against him....
>
> "What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really two
> questions:
>
> 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
>
> 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
>
> "My answers:
>
> 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> doubt' standard.
>
> 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> time and money on elections."
Larry,
Those who have examined the evidence may disagree with the editorial.
However, I understand that if, after careful, honest, and impartial
consideration of all the evidence, you cannot say that you are
convinced of the defendant's guilt, then you have a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable
person, after careful and thoughtful reflection, to hesitate to act in
the graver or more important matters of life. However, it is not
imaginary doubt, nor a doubt based on speculation or guesswork; it is
a doubt based on reason.
Certainly, clear and convincing evidence means one must be persuaded
by the evidence that it is highly probable that the claim or
affirmative defense is true. I believe preponderance of the evidence
may be most appropriate here but when USCF insiders circle the wagons,
the level of proof required may only be beyond any doubt.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
|
| |
Date: 29 Dec 2007 18:13:54
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 28, 5:57=A0pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > Slander and death threats -- just =A0juvenile pranks.
>
> Hardly.
>
> >Not to mention
> > that many of the posts assumed =A0the identity of other USCF members and=
> > officers,
>
> You forgot someone.
>
> > To trivialize this Rovesque, and possibly criminal behavior, as merely
> > "stupid and juvenile" is incredibly irresponsible.
>
> Especially given the anti-Sloan soapboxers and the standards they applied =
to
> him.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com=
/library.html
> Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
>
> Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-500=
0
>
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods whic=
h
> no longer work.
>
> Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:http://www.dirtyscot=
tsdale.com/?p=3D1187
>
> Beware! =A0VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. =A0Six of the eight
> contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. =A0The pa=
id
> targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruin=
ed
> their prromised acting credit. =A0What else has Mystery lied about?
Actually, he forgot a no-one.
|
| |
Date: 29 Dec 2007 04:10:49
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 28, 2:45 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
>
> This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
>
> "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> any judgment against him....
>
> "What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really two
> questions:
>
> 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
>
> 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
>
> "My answers:
>
> 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> doubt' standard.
>
> 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> time and money on elections."
This statement by JKH doesn't surprise me. The fellow has been a
lapdog for chess politicians for years. Lapdogs bark an awful lot. Few
pay them any attention.
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2007 19:29:27
From:
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 28, 9:28=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 28, 8:19=A0pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>Not to mention
> > >>> that many of the posts assumed =A0the identity of other USCF members=
and
> > >>> officers,
>
> > >>You forgot someone.
>
> > > I should have said "...current and former USCF members and officers."
>
> > So because I played in tournament chess from 1987-1991 -- and quit in pa=
rt
> > because their position that at age 24 because I was merely "expert" was
> > something I thought absurd -- I'm fair game on a par with Samuel H. Sloa=
n in
> > 2007?
>
> > Tough sell there.
>
> > --
> > Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.c=
om/library.html
> > Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
>
> > Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5=
000
>
> > Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods wh=
ich
> > no longer work.
>
> > Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:http://www.dirtysc=
ottsdale.com/?p=3D1187
>
> > Beware! =A0VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. =A0Six of the eight=
> > contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. =A0The =
paid
> > targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ru=
ined
> > their prromised acting credit. =A0What else has Mystery lied about?
>
> No Ray, you hav an excellent claim. You are just a different class of
> defendant. What is your time limit? You know of damages,
> how long do you and I havve to file suit?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Plantiff, sorry.
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2007 19:28:44
From:
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 28, 8:19=A0pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> >>>Not to mention
> >>> that many of the posts assumed =A0the identity of other USCF members a=
nd
> >>> officers,
>
> >>You forgot someone.
>
> > I should have said "...current and former USCF members and officers."
>
> So because I played in tournament chess from 1987-1991 -- and quit in part=
> because their position that at age 24 because I was merely "expert" was
> something I thought absurd -- I'm fair game on a par with Samuel H. Sloan =
in
> 2007?
>
> Tough sell there.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com=
/library.html
> Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
>
> Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-500=
0
>
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods whic=
h
> no longer work.
>
> Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:http://www.dirtyscot=
tsdale.com/?p=3D1187
>
> Beware! =A0VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. =A0Six of the eight
> contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. =A0The pa=
id
> targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruin=
ed
> their prromised acting credit. =A0What else has Mystery lied about?
No Ray, you hav an excellent claim. You are just a different class of
defendant. What is your time limit? You know of damages,
how long do you and I havve to file suit?
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2007 16:31:01
From:
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 28, 6:11=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 28, 3:52=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:44 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
> > >This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
> > >"Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> > >insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> > >since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> > >any judgment against him....
> > >"What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really two
> > >questions:
> > >1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
> > >2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> > >him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> > >not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
>
> > The assumption that a recall is the only option should PT be
> > determined to be the FSS is simply incorrect. =A0A motion of censure by
> > the other board members, including publication in Chess Life of the
> > reason for this censure, would be one option. =A0There are others.
>
> > >"My answers:
> > >1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> > >charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> > >doubt' standard.
>
> > JKH ought to know "preponderance of evidence" is the standard in civil
> > cases. =A0
>
> > >2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> > >we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> > >time and money on elections."
>
> > Slander and death threats -- just =A0juvenile pranks. Not to mention
> > that many of the posts assumed =A0the identity of other USCF members and=
> > officers, and dealt directly with Federation issues -- during and
> > after the election.
>
> > To trivialize this Rovesque, and possibly criminal behavior, as merely
> > "stupid and juvenile" is incredibly irresponsible.
>
> I just had to send a packet of 10 e-mails to the Government of St
> Kitts and Nevis (a real
> one, not some FIDE Chess Government) and these death threats have
> offended the
> entire world. Paul Truong started a CHESS WAR. This war was declared
> on Barbados by
> St Kitts and Nevis. Now, Barbados does not deny their participation of
> a coup de ta'
> Running newspaper ads paid for by -- guess who -- slave traders -- to
> try to overthrow me,
> With what? Nobody? You got it. Barbados sent in troops, and ST Kitts
> and Nevis sent in spies.
> They asked me why I didn't show up, and they were amazed I had no
> invovlement. But these
> death threats created such a sitaution that we can not stand for Paul
> Truong to be a leader in Chess.
>
> I want to know the position of the President of FIDE, in fact,
> I request it here and now. I request his technical assistence in this
> crime.
>
> 40,000 people are going to stand up and do battle with the most
> powerful man in chess on earth,
> Lead by cus Roberts and Larry Parr. Who started it? Was it Kirsan?
> No. It was PAUL TROUNG
> Pretending to be KIRSAN threatening to kill our Prime Minster. Yep,
> anything he could to start a war,
> so his wife can become PRESIDNET OF FIDE (Phil Innes, Press Secretary
> to her majesty).
>
> How do you think this makes Kirsan Ilyumzhinov feel? The death threats
> How do you think this makes Kirsan's family feel? The death threats
> How do you think this makes Prime Minster Douglas family feel? The
> death threats
>
> Some of the world's most powerful leaders now have to sit down and
> talk about cus Roberts
> And Kirsan Ilyumzhinov fighting, and in fact, it is PAUL TROUNG.
> Russian Presidnet Putin counts
> his nuclear warheads, and once every few months, asks about the war
> with cus! MY GOD, PAUL,
> you have gotten the President of Russia invovled!
>
> I formally request assistance with the government of Russia with an
> EXPERT to clear the name
> of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov with this crime.
>
> Let's see what the Russians have to say about Paul and his misdeeds.
>
> I am on the telephone all day long with Congressman, District
> Attorneys, and Law Officers, who keep catching
> Chess players in a lie, centered on Paul Truong and GM Susan Polgar.
>
> You want to get me and Kirsan to fight, let's see what Kirsan has to
> say about this! Paul!
>
> cus Roberts
> Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just had to send a packet of 10 e-mails to the Government of St
Kitts and Nevis (a real
one, not some FIDE Chess Government) and these death threats have
offended the
entire world. Paul Truong started a CHESS WAR. This war was declared
on Barbados by
St Kitts and Nevis. Now, Barbados does not deny their participation
of
a coup de ta'
Running newspaper ads paid for by -- guess who -- slave traders -- to
try to overthrow me,
With what? Nobody? You got it. Barbados sent in troops, and ST Kitts
and Nevis sent in spies.
They asked me why I didn't show up, and they were amazed I had no
involvement. But these
death threats created such a situation that we cannot stand for Paul
Truong to be a leader in Chess.
I want to know the position of the President of FIDE, in fact,
I request it here and now. I request his technical assistance in this
crime.
40,000 people are going to stand up and do battle with the most
powerful man in chess on earth,
Lead by cus Roberts and Larry Parr. Who started it? Was it Kirsan?
No. It was PAUL TROUNG
Pretending to be KIRSAN threatening to kill our Prime Minster. Yep,
anything he could to start a war,
so his wife can become PRESIDENT OF FIDE (Phil Innes, Press Secretary
to her majesty).
How do you think this makes Kirsan Ilyumzhinov feel? The death
threats
How do you think this makes Kirsan's family feel? The death threats
How do you think this makes Prime Minster Douglas family feel? The
death threats
Some of the world's most powerful leaders now have to sit down and
talk about cus Roberts
And Kirsan Ilyumzhinov fighting, and in fact, it is PAUL TROUNG.
Russian President Putin counts
his nuclear warheads, and once every few months, asks about the war
with cus! MY GOD, PAUL,
you have gotten the President of Russia involved!
I formally request assistance with the government of Russia with an
EXPERT to clear the name
of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov with this crime.
Let's see what the Russians have to say about Paul and his misdeeds.
I am on the telephone all day long with Congressman, District
Attorneys, and Law Officers, who keep catching
Chess players in a lie, centered on Paul Truong and GM Susan Polgar.
You want to get me and Kirsan to fight, let's see what Kirsan has to
say about this! Paul!
cus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2007 16:11:42
From:
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Dec 28, 3:52=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:44 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
> >This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
> >"Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> >insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> >since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> >any judgment against him....
> >"What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really two
> >questions:
> >1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
> >2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> >him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> >not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
>
> The assumption that a recall is the only option should PT be
> determined to be the FSS is simply incorrect. =A0A motion of censure by
> the other board members, including publication in Chess Life of the
> reason for this censure, would be one option. =A0There are others.
>
> >"My answers:
> >1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> >charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> >doubt' standard.
>
> JKH ought to know "preponderance of evidence" is the standard in civil
> cases. =A0
>
> >2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> >we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> >time and money on elections."
>
> Slander and death threats -- just =A0juvenile pranks. Not to mention
> that many of the posts assumed =A0the identity of other USCF members and
> officers, and dealt directly with Federation issues -- during and
> after the election.
>
> To trivialize this Rovesque, and possibly criminal behavior, as merely
> "stupid and juvenile" is incredibly irresponsible.
I just had to send a packet of 10 e-mails to the Government of St
Kitts and Nevis (a real
one, not some FIDE Chess Government) and these death threats have
offended the
entire world. Paul Truong started a CHESS WAR. This war was declared
on Barbados by
St Kitts and Nevis. Now, Barbados does not deny their participation of
a coup de ta'
Running newspaper ads paid for by -- guess who -- slave traders -- to
try to overthrow me,
With what? Nobody? You got it. Barbados sent in troops, and ST Kitts
and Nevis sent in spies.
They asked me why I didn't show up, and they were amazed I had no
invovlement. But these
death threats created such a sitaution that we can not stand for Paul
Truong to be a leader in Chess.
I want to know the position of the President of FIDE, in fact,
I request it here and now. I request his technical assistence in this
crime.
40,000 people are going to stand up and do battle with the most
powerful man in chess on earth,
Lead by cus Roberts and Larry Parr. Who started it? Was it Kirsan?
No. It was PAUL TROUNG
Pretending to be KIRSAN threatening to kill our Prime Minster. Yep,
anything he could to start a war,
so his wife can become PRESIDNET OF FIDE (Phil Innes, Press Secretary
to her majesty).
How do you think this makes Kirsan Ilyumzhinov feel? The death threats
How do you think this makes Kirsan's family feel? The death threats
How do you think this makes Prime Minster Douglas family feel? The
death threats
Some of the world's most powerful leaders now have to sit down and
talk about cus Roberts
And Kirsan Ilyumzhinov fighting, and in fact, it is PAUL TROUNG.
Russian Presidnet Putin counts
his nuclear warheads, and once every few months, asks about the war
with cus! MY GOD, PAUL,
you have gotten the President of Russia invovled!
I formally request assistance with the government of Russia with an
EXPERT to clear the name
of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov with this crime.
Let's see what the Russians have to say about Paul and his misdeeds.
I am on the telephone all day long with Congressman, District
Attorneys, and Law Officers, who keep catching
Chess players in a lie, centered on Paul Truong and GM Susan Polgar.
You want to get me and Kirsan to fight, let's see what Kirsan has to
say about this! Paul!
cus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2007 13:52:17
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:44 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
>This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
>"Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
>insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
>since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
>any judgment against him....
>"What should the rest of us think about all this? There are really two
>questions:
>1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
>2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
>him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
>not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
The assumption that a recall is the only option should PT be
determined to be the FSS is simply incorrect. A motion of censure by
the other board members, including publication in Chess Life of the
reason for this censure, would be one option. There are others.
>"My answers:
>1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
>charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
>doubt' standard.
JKH ought to know "preponderance of evidence" is the standard in civil
cases.
>2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
>we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
>time and money on elections."
Slander and death threats -- just juvenile pranks. Not to mention
that many of the posts assumed the identity of other USCF members and
officers, and dealt directly with Federation issues -- during and
after the election.
To trivialize this Rovesque, and possibly criminal behavior, as merely
"stupid and juvenile" is incredibly irresponsible.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Dec 2007 18:57:14
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
> Slander and death threats -- just juvenile pranks.
Hardly.
>Not to mention
> that many of the posts assumed the identity of other USCF members and
> officers,
You forgot someone.
> To trivialize this Rovesque, and possibly criminal behavior, as merely
> "stupid and juvenile" is incredibly irresponsible.
Especially given the anti-Sloan soapboxers and the standards they applied to
him.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2007 16:10:50
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:57:14 -0500, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
\"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote:
>>Not to mention
>> that many of the posts assumed the identity of other USCF members and
>> officers,
>You forgot someone.
I should have said "...current and former USCF members and officers."
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2007 21:19:25
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
>>>Not to mention
>>> that many of the posts assumed the identity of other USCF members and
>>> officers,
>
>>You forgot someone.
>
> I should have said "...current and former USCF members and officers."
So because I played in tournament chess from 1987-1991 -- and quit in part
because their position that at age 24 because I was merely "expert" was
something I thought absurd -- I'm fair game on a par with Samuel H. Sloan in
2007?
Tough sell there.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2007 13:48:47
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The Chess Journalist on Sloan & Truong
|
[email protected] wrote:
> EDITORIAL BY EDITOR JOHN HILLERY (JKH)
>
> This is the conclusion of his 1.5 page editorial entitled FOREVER WAR:
>
> "Of course the lawsuit is an utter farrago but the USCF or its
> insurance company will have to pay attorneys to dispose of it, and
> since Sloan is virtually indigent there is little chance of collecting
> any judgment against him....
This seems reasonable...
> "What should the rest of us think about all this?
I always mistrust a journalist that uses a phrase like "What should the
rest of us think..." Is he a sheep herder?
> There are really two questions:
Why two questions? Is this a hypothetical lead in to a defense
attorney's sumy before a jury?
> 1) Is Truong actually responsible for the 'Fake' Usenet posts?
>
> 2) If the answer is 'yes,' would it be enough to justify recalling
> him? (There's no real question that it would be a legitimate reason
> not to vote for him if he were to run again.)
3) Will the USCF survive this lawsuit financially?
4) Will the USCF have a severely damaged reputation as a result of the
law suit?
> "My answers:
>
> 1) INSUFFICIENT DATA. There is certainly some evidence to support the
> charges, though probably not enough to satisfy a 'beyond reasonable
> doubt' standard.
I'd be surprised if the author has examined all the evidence that will
be presented in a case that is still gearing up for trial. Why doesn't
he state that "he has no idea?" Also, from what my newsgroup friends
tell me, the standard for proof for a civil lawsuit is not the same as
that for a criminal trial. If so, the comment about "beyond a
reasonable doubt" misses the k. Anyone care to clarify this?
> 2) NO. Essentially the charges are of stupid and juvenile nature. Like
> we've never seen that on the PB/EB before. Also, I'm tired of wasting
> time and money on elections."
The recall process does not need the consent of Mr. Hillery to proceed.
It will be up to concerned members to decide if they wish to pursue it.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"
|
|
