Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

Main

Date: 09 Jan 2009 12:57:18
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

From Polgar's Chessdiscussion. See below for another proposal:
----------------------------------------
In a message dated 1/7/2009 8:51:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
JABerryCG writes:

EB
I move the USCF EB approve 5 year bid for G/60 & G/30 Championships for
Sevan Muradian.

I move and vote yes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:01:18 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Paultruong writes:

I believe the voting process cannot be kept confidential. Therefore, I
copy it to binfo instead of confidential binfo.

I vote yes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:03:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
SusanPolgar writes:

Yes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:23:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Chessoffice writes:

I don't think it's wise to commit these events to one organizer for that
long and keep others from bidding. I vote no.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:30:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Paultruong writes:

I do NOT think you should vote in this motion since you clearly have a
direct conflict of interest from organizing major tournaments in Chicago.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/8/2009 6:16:29 P.M. Central Standard Time,
SusanPolgar writes:

This is a gray area at best and I would prefer if you abstain on this
matter, especially when you organize one of your major for profit
tournaments in the same city.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/8/2009 7:57:34 P.M. Central Standard Time,
randallhough writes:

I wouldn't dismiss Muradian's proposal out of hand, but I'm much more
concerned about his past efforts to undermine USCF than I am about any
(real or, more likely, perceived) conflicts of interest on Bill's part.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/8/2009 10:12:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
randybauer writes:

There are lots of grey areas.

Susan and Paul, didn't you vote on (or offer) motions relating to Texas
Tech and/or Lubbock to receive awards from the USCF last year? Don't
these meet this same threshold - voting on a city from which you profit
from your work?

I vote no.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/8/2009 10:36:58 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Paultruong writes:

No, you are mistaken. It was actually the under the table deal between
Bill Goichberg and Jim Berry for various USCF awards for people he
selected way in advance. This includes the last minute negotiation to
switch awards to please a family member and a friend.

I specifically remember the reason Jim Berry gave for his brother
wanting the TD of the year award instead of organizer of the year award
and giving that award to another individual.

Do you want the entire world to know the reason given? If you wish, we
can open the closed session recording for all USCF members to listen to
understand how the EB members conduct business. The members can then
decide which one of us is correct.

This is also the same committee which includes a close friend of the
USCF President who purposely left off deserving nominees for political
reason. In fact, why don't we open ALL USCF Confidential BINFO and
recordings for all members to see how board members conduct business? We
are totally for opening up the confidential BINFO. Are you? Do you and
your board majority have something to hide?

And here is the actual vote:

EB08 � 049 � Board - The Chess College of the Year award is given to the
University of Texas at Dallas. PASSED 4-0 2 with Susan Polgar and Paul
Truong abstaining.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:03:58 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Paultruong writes:

I move that the USCF opens up all Confidential BINFO and Confidential
Recordings and make them available for all USCF members to examine.

I vote yes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:19:28 P.M. Central Standard Time,
SusanPolgar writes:

I vote yes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Goichberg immediately rejected the motion.
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com

SusanPolgar
MOD

Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Top
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truong to
produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat, Truong
and Muradian? That might be of interest. --- BL

Date: 09 Jan 2009 08:54:24
From: Javert
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 7:57=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0From Polgar's Chessdiscussion. See below for another proposal:
> ----------------------------------------
> In a message dated 1/7/2009 8:51:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> JABerryCG writes:
>
> EB
> I move the USCF EB approve 5 year bid for G/60 & G/30 Championships for
> Sevan Muradian.
>
> I move and vote yes.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------
>
> In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:01:18 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> Paultruong writes:
>
> I believe the voting process cannot be kept confidential. Therefore, I
> copy it to binfo instead of confidential binfo.
>
> I vote yes.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------
>
> In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:03:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> SusanPolgar writes:
>
> Yes.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------
>
> In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:23:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> Chessoffice writes:
>
> I don't think it's wise to commit these events to one organizer for that
> long and keep others from bidding. I vote no.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------
>
> In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:30:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> Paultruong writes:
>
> I do NOT think you should vote in this motion since you clearly have a
> direct conflict of interest from organizing major tournaments in Chicago.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2009 6:16:29 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> SusanPolgar writes:
>
> This is a gray area at best and I would prefer if you abstain on this
> matter, especially when you organize one of your major for profit
> tournaments in the same city.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2009 7:57:34 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> randallhough writes:
>
> I wouldn't dismiss Muradian's proposal out of hand, but I'm much more
> concerned about his past efforts to undermine USCF than I am about any
> (real or, more likely, perceived) conflicts of interest on Bill's part.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2009 10:12:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> randybauer writes:
>
> There are lots of grey areas.
>
> Susan and Paul, didn't you vote on (or offer) motions relating to Texas
> Tech and/or Lubbock to receive awards from the USCF last year? Don't
> these meet this same threshold - voting on a city from which you profit
> from your work?
>
> I vote no.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------
>

I might be inclined to vote yes, I've been impressed with Muradian's
organizing though not some of his allies.

I am more and more impressed with Randy the longer this goes on and he
keeps a rational level head.

Polgar and Truong don't come off well at all in these BINFOs. Spoiled
children is the term that comes to mind. They are very ill-suited to a
political arena.

Date: 09 Jan 2009 10:15:18
From: None
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 11:54=A0am, Javert <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:57=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0From Polgar's Chessdiscussion. See below for another proposal:
> > ----------------------------------------
> > In a message dated 1/7/2009 8:51:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> > JABerryCG writes:
>
> > EB
> > I move the USCF EB approve 5 year bid for G/60 & G/30 Championships for
> > Sevan Muradian.
>
> > I move and vote yes.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----=AD--------
>
> > In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:01:18 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> > Paultruong writes:
>
> > I believe the voting process cannot be kept confidential. Therefore, I
> > copy it to binfo instead of confidential binfo.
>
> > I vote yes.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----=AD--------
>
> > In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:03:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> > SusanPolgar writes:
>
> > Yes.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----=AD--------
>
> > In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:23:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> > Chessoffice writes:
>
> > I don't think it's wise to commit these events to one organizer for tha=
t
> > long and keep others from bidding. I vote no.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----=AD--------
>
> > In a message dated 1/7/2009 9:30:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> > Paultruong writes:
>
> > I do NOT think you should vote in this motion since you clearly have a
> > direct conflict of interest from organizing major tournaments in Chicag=
o.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----=AD--------
>
> > In a message dated 1/8/2009 6:16:29 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> > SusanPolgar writes:
>
> > This is a gray area at best and I would prefer if you abstain on this
> > matter, especially when you organize one of your major for profit
> > tournaments in the same city.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----=AD--------
>
> > In a message dated 1/8/2009 7:57:34 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> > randallhough writes:
>
> > I wouldn't dismiss Muradian's proposal out of hand, but I'm much more
> > concerned about his past efforts to undermine USCF than I am about any
> > (real or, more likely, perceived) conflicts of interest on Bill's part.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----=AD--------
>
> > In a message dated 1/8/2009 10:12:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> > randybauer writes:
>
> > There are lots of grey areas.
>
> > Susan and Paul, didn't you vote on (or offer) motions relating to Texas
> > Tech and/or Lubbock to receive awards from the USCF last year? Don't
> > these meet this same threshold - voting on a city from which you profit
> > from your work?
>
> > I vote no.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----=AD--------
>
> I might be inclined to vote yes, I've been impressed with Muradian's
> organizing though not some of his allies.
>
> I am more and more impressed with Randy the longer this goes on and he
> keeps a rational level head.
>
> Polgar and Truong don't come off well at all in these BINFOs. Spoiled
> children is the term that comes to mind. They are very ill-suited to a
> political arena.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--Polgar and Truong don't come off well at all in these BINFOs.
Spoiled
children is the term that comes to mind. They are very ill-suited to
a
political arena.

No shit?

Date: 09 Jan 2009 09:35:34
From:
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

Sadly as a Former Member I can't realy
"Vote" but I will offer up that if members
could vote on making the contents of the
"Confidential BINFOs" and the like, excluding
material currently directly related to the
current torent of litigation of course, I would
actually be inclined to rejoin simply to have
an opportunity to vote YES.

Date: 09 Jan 2009 08:20:23
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 7:57=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:

> How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truong to
> produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat, Truong
> and Muradian? =A0That might be of interest. =A0--- BL

So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell come out?

Date: 09 Jan 2009 23:02:52
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 9:52=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> 1) Why would there be anything wrong in having contact with Susan
> Polgar's ex-husband?
>
> 2) Phil repeated his claim that I once wanted to attack Truong on the
> hot-sauce issue. Since he got this completely ass-backwards, I asked
> him to show me such a post or retract and apologize. He never did, but
> he shut up on the issue for a while. I believe that he also told Susan
> Polgar I had done so (since I got an email from her asking me to
> refrain from doing so), which makes me a bit more upset than just his
> usual ranting here. If Phil does not show any such post or apologize,
> since you are a Phil/Polgar supporter, why don't you check out my
> posts on the issue and tell whether you think Phil's characterization
> is remotely near the truth?
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Jan 9, 7:26=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 3:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 9, 4:04=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 9, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > > > >>> On Jan 9, 11:24 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >>>> The Historian wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Jan 9, 7:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Tru=
ong to
> > > > >>>>>> produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polg=
at, Truong
> > > > >>>>>> and Muradian? =A0That might be of interest. =A0--- BL
> > > > >>>>> So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell com=
e out?
> > > > >>>> Good question. =A0I haven't got an answer.
> > > > >>> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan'=
s Ex,
> > > > >>> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed w=
hen you
> > > > >>> reported it here.
> > > > >> You reveal yourself as a Trolgar minion.
>
> > > > > Aargh! the light the light!
>
> > > > > OR
>
> > > > > The palpable excuse of a man can't say his own truth! Did you wis=
h to
> > > > > run on a platform of transparency, are you already bust at the fi=
rst
> > > > > question?
>
> > > > > Can others actually ask the questions to which you intend to gove=
rn
> > > > > transparently, or will those windows be as rare as a Scottish tow=
er?
>
> > > > >> =A0Your boss
>
> > > > > An insinuation or an accusation: I am asking you a PLAIN QUESTION=
and
> > > > > you AVOID the answer by whatever this is you do, insinuation and
> > > > > accusation combined - neither of which is true.
>
> > > > > Hence Brian Laugherty falls at the first occasion to be open and
> > > > > transparent.
>
> > > > > Remember folks, the question was:
>
> > > > > "Could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
> > > > > or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed whe=
n you
> > > > > reported it here."
>
> > > > > Both these questions seem mighty inconvenient to transparency, an=
d we
> > > > > note formally note the fact .
>
> > > > >> couldn't even find
> > > > >> one sentence in which I accused her of anything to put before th=
e court
> > > > >> in Lubbock. =A0Why was that? =A0Because I never accused her of a=
nything in
> > > > >> relation to her ex-husband.
>
> > > > > That would seem to be a response to a question I did not ask, rat=
her
> > > > > than an answer to the two questions I did ask.
>
> > > > >>> Did you say you were for or against 'transparency'? - How will =
you do
> > > > >>> that exactly if you are not transparent yourself?
> > > > >>> I support transparency! Let the dreadful saucerful of secrets b=
e
> > > > >>> revealed in the light of day!
> > > > >>> Let people make up their own minds what it all means.
> > > > >>> I am a chess player and can compete this way with any one at al=
l when
> > > > >>> all the pieces are in view. This is the very spirit of the game=
, no?
> > > > >> ROTFLMAO =A0I don't plan on responding to you any more. =A0:-)
>
> > > > > So much for transparency, and so much for being transparent to th=
e
> > > > > independent and #1 US -based chess site.
>
> > > > > I record this response as the writer proposes about himself - his
> > > > > transparency platform is a "ROTFLMAO" item, a laughable plank, ev=
en at
> > > > > the first test, and in his own words!
>
> > > > > In terms of what Mr. Laugherty proposes, I am not interested as a
> > > > > journalist in 'responses' so thank him his further neglect to pro=
vide
> > > > > them, I am interested in Answers, and those who can do that are r=
ara
> > > > > avis, of another order.
>
> > > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > > >>> Phil Innes
>
> > > > Interesting psychological projection on your part.
>
> > > Interesting continuing evasion on yours, and I use 'interesting'
> > > similarly to your own euphemistic sense of the term. But as you
> > > previously announced you will take no more interest in those who
> > > question your own transparency, a rather absurd stance [!] you achiev=
e
> > > here in public:
>
> > > a) you avoid my original questions to your role in the hot-sauce
> > > incident, while
>
> > > b) saying you would respond no further to me, who asks after your own
> > > transparency, but you do, since it must be attended to, and
>
> > > c) you now say this is 'interesting psychology', which it certainly i=
s
> > > - but what is projected by me as you propose? Is your ability to name
> > > your subjects and objects to be 'transparent' to your readers? and
>
> > > d) you don't answer what I just put to you about your relations with
> > > Susan's ex, ands what you knew about a court's dismissal of the hot-
> > > sauce accusation at the time you wrote about it here.
>
> > > Now there is a transparent honesty test =A0:)))
>
> > > Does this mention alone sink Brian's aspirations? Transparent? I don'=
t
> > > think I need do anything than witness your failure to answer about
> > > your own actions.
>
> > > You see, Brian, I called you, and you twice failed to come up to the
> > > mark about yourself - you responded, but not to answer the question,
> > > which is itself odd - should this recommend your political
> > > aspirations, or will you remain forever in the minor leagues by
> > > obviously avoiding questions about your own transparency, whjle merel=
y
> > > talking about them in public?
>
> > > In this first test of being transparent, you punt.
>
> > > Not good, brother. =A0In fact, you respond without factual matter. I =
am
> > > sure you understand the nature of this challenge to an hypocritical
> > > standard, as medicos like to say, and have sensibly managed your repl=
y
> > > to reflect how you will be to any future opportunity to be
> > > 'transparent'.
>
> > > Are you content with your first effort?
>
> > > Should I have got you wrong you will bother to inform readers here an=
d
> > > everywhere upon such other posture that I currently fail to notice.
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > Did Brian have contact with Susan Polgar's ex husband? Will Brian
> > answer this with a "yes" or a "no"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Jerry,

Brian should know he will be held to a different standard if he is
running for office.

Date: 09 Jan 2009 19:52:22
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

1) Why would there be anything wrong in having contact with Susan
Polgar's ex-husband?

2) Phil repeated his claim that I once wanted to attack Truong on the
hot-sauce issue. Since he got this completely ass-backwards, I asked
him to show me such a post or retract and apologize. He never did, but
he shut up on the issue for a while. I believe that he also told Susan
Polgar I had done so (since I got an email from her asking me to
refrain from doing so), which makes me a bit more upset than just his
usual ranting here. If Phil does not show any such post or apologize,
since you are a Phil/Polgar supporter, why don't you check out my
posts on the issue and tell whether you think Phil's characterization
is remotely near the truth?

Jerry Spinrad

On Jan 9, 7:26=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 3:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 4:04=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > On Jan 9, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > > >>> On Jan 9, 11:24 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>>> The Historian wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Jan 9, 7:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truon=
g to
> > > >>>>>> produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat=
, Truong
> > > >>>>>> and Muradian? =A0That might be of interest. =A0--- BL
> > > >>>>> So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell come =
out?
> > > >>>> Good question. =A0I haven't got an answer.
> > > >>> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's =
Ex,
> > > >>> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed whe=
n you
> > > >>> reported it here.
> > > >> You reveal yourself as a Trolgar minion.
>
> > > > Aargh! the light the light!
>
> > > > OR
>
> > > > The palpable excuse of a man can't say his own truth! Did you wish =
to
> > > > run on a platform of transparency, are you already bust at the firs=
t
> > > > question?
>
> > > > Can others actually ask the questions to which you intend to govern
> > > > transparently, or will those windows be as rare as a Scottish tower=
?
>
> > > >> =A0Your boss
>
> > > > An insinuation or an accusation: I am asking you a PLAIN QUESTION a=
nd
> > > > you AVOID the answer by whatever this is you do, insinuation and
> > > > accusation combined - neither of which is true.
>
> > > > Hence Brian Laugherty falls at the first occasion to be open and
> > > > transparent.
>
> > > > Remember folks, the question was:
>
> > > > "Could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
> > > > or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when =
you
> > > > reported it here."
>
> > > > Both these questions seem mighty inconvenient to transparency, and =
we
> > > > note formally note the fact .
>
> > > >> couldn't even find
> > > >> one sentence in which I accused her of anything to put before the =
court
> > > >> in Lubbock. =A0Why was that? =A0Because I never accused her of any=
thing in
> > > >> relation to her ex-husband.
>
> > > > That would seem to be a response to a question I did not ask, rathe=
r
> > > > than an answer to the two questions I did ask.
>
> > > >>> Did you say you were for or against 'transparency'? - How will yo=
u do
> > > >>> that exactly if you are not transparent yourself?
> > > >>> I support transparency! Let the dreadful saucerful of secrets be
> > > >>> revealed in the light of day!
> > > >>> Let people make up their own minds what it all means.
> > > >>> I am a chess player and can compete this way with any one at all =
when
> > > >>> all the pieces are in view. This is the very spirit of the game, =
no?
> > > >> ROTFLMAO =A0I don't plan on responding to you any more. =A0:-)
>
> > > > So much for transparency, and so much for being transparent to the
> > > > independent and #1 US -based chess site.
>
> > > > I record this response as the writer proposes about himself - his
> > > > transparency platform is a "ROTFLMAO" item, a laughable plank, even=
at
> > > > the first test, and in his own words!
>
> > > > In terms of what Mr. Laugherty proposes, I am not interested as a
> > > > journalist in 'responses' so thank him his further neglect to provi=
de
> > > > them, I am interested in Answers, and those who can do that are rar=
a
> > > > avis, of another order.
>
> > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > >>> Phil Innes
>
> > > Interesting psychological projection on your part.
>
> > Interesting continuing evasion on yours, and I use 'interesting'
> > similarly to your own euphemistic sense of the term. But as you
> > previously announced you will take no more interest in those who
> > question your own transparency, a rather absurd stance [!] you achieve
> > here in public:
>
> > a) you avoid my original questions to your role in the hot-sauce
> > incident, while
>
> > b) saying you would respond no further to me, who asks after your own
> > transparency, but you do, since it must be attended to, and
>
> > c) you now say this is 'interesting psychology', which it certainly is
> > - but what is projected by me as you propose? Is your ability to name
> > your subjects and objects to be 'transparent' to your readers? and
>
> > d) you don't answer what I just put to you about your relations with
> > Susan's ex, ands what you knew about a court's dismissal of the hot-
> > sauce accusation at the time you wrote about it here.
>
> > Now there is a transparent honesty test =A0:)))
>
> > Does this mention alone sink Brian's aspirations? Transparent? I don't
> > think I need do anything than witness your failure to answer about
> > your own actions.
>
> > You see, Brian, I called you, and you twice failed to come up to the
> > mark about yourself - you responded, but not to answer the question,
> > which is itself odd - should this recommend your political
> > aspirations, or will you remain forever in the minor leagues by
> > obviously avoiding questions about your own transparency, whjle merely
> > talking about them in public?
>
> > In this first test of being transparent, you punt.
>
> > Not good, brother. =A0In fact, you respond without factual matter. I am
> > sure you understand the nature of this challenge to an hypocritical
> > standard, as medicos like to say, and have sensibly managed your reply
> > to reflect how you will be to any future opportunity to be
> > 'transparent'.
>
> > Are you content with your first effort?
>
> > Should I have got you wrong you will bother to inform readers here and
> > everywhere upon such other posture that I currently fail to notice.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Did Brian have contact with Susan Polgar's ex husband? Will Brian
> answer this with a "yes" or a "no"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 09 Jan 2009 21:01:54
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:52:22 -0800 (PST),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>2) Phil repeated his claim that I once wanted to attack Truong on the
>hot-sauce issue. Since he got this completely ass-backwards, I asked
>him to show me such a post or retract and apologize. He never did

Phil's motto is "never apologize, never explain", the former because
he's a stubborn, crotchety old coot, the latter because, well, uhh, it
wouldn't do any good because nobody could understand his explanations
anyway.

Date: 09 Jan 2009 17:26:03
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 3:40=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 9, 4:04=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Jan 9, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>> On Jan 9, 11:24 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> The Historian wrote:
> > >>>>> On Jan 9, 7:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>>> How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truong =
to
> > >>>>>> produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat, =
Truong
> > >>>>>> and Muradian? =A0That might be of interest. =A0--- BL
> > >>>>> So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell come ou=
t?
> > >>>> Good question. =A0I haven't got an answer.
> > >>> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex=
,
> > >>> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when =
you
> > >>> reported it here.
> > >> You reveal yourself as a Trolgar minion.
>
> > > Aargh! the light the light!
>
> > > OR
>
> > > The palpable excuse of a man can't say his own truth! Did you wish to
> > > run on a platform of transparency, are you already bust at the first
> > > question?
>
> > > Can others actually ask the questions to which you intend to govern
> > > transparently, or will those windows be as rare as a Scottish tower?
>
> > >> =A0Your boss
>
> > > An insinuation or an accusation: I am asking you a PLAIN QUESTION and
> > > you AVOID the answer by whatever this is you do, insinuation and
> > > accusation combined - neither of which is true.
>
> > > Hence Brian Laugherty falls at the first occasion to be open and
> > > transparent.
>
> > > Remember folks, the question was:
>
> > > "Could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
> > > or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when yo=
u
> > > reported it here."
>
> > > Both these questions seem mighty inconvenient to transparency, and we
> > > note formally note the fact .
>
> > >> couldn't even find
> > >> one sentence in which I accused her of anything to put before the co=
urt
> > >> in Lubbock. =A0Why was that? =A0Because I never accused her of anyth=
ing in
> > >> relation to her ex-husband.
>
> > > That would seem to be a response to a question I did not ask, rather
> > > than an answer to the two questions I did ask.
>
> > >>> Did you say you were for or against 'transparency'? - How will you =
do
> > >>> that exactly if you are not transparent yourself?
> > >>> I support transparency! Let the dreadful saucerful of secrets be
> > >>> revealed in the light of day!
> > >>> Let people make up their own minds what it all means.
> > >>> I am a chess player and can compete this way with any one at all wh=
en
> > >>> all the pieces are in view. This is the very spirit of the game, no=
?
> > >> ROTFLMAO =A0I don't plan on responding to you any more. =A0:-)
>
> > > So much for transparency, and so much for being transparent to the
> > > independent and #1 US -based chess site.
>
> > > I record this response as the writer proposes about himself - his
> > > transparency platform is a "ROTFLMAO" item, a laughable plank, even a=
t
> > > the first test, and in his own words!
>
> > > In terms of what Mr. Laugherty proposes, I am not interested as a
> > > journalist in 'responses' so thank him his further neglect to provide
> > > them, I am interested in Answers, and those who can do that are rara
> > > avis, of another order.
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > >>> Phil Innes
>
> > Interesting psychological projection on your part.
>
> Interesting continuing evasion on yours, and I use 'interesting'
> similarly to your own euphemistic sense of the term. But as you
> previously announced you will take no more interest in those who
> question your own transparency, a rather absurd stance [!] you achieve
> here in public:
>
> a) you avoid my original questions to your role in the hot-sauce
> incident, while
>
> b) saying you would respond no further to me, who asks after your own
> transparency, but you do, since it must be attended to, and
>
> c) you now say this is 'interesting psychology', which it certainly is
> - but what is projected by me as you propose? Is your ability to name
> your subjects and objects to be 'transparent' to your readers? and
>
> d) you don't answer what I just put to you about your relations with
> Susan's ex, ands what you knew about a court's dismissal of the hot-
> sauce accusation at the time you wrote about it here.
>
> Now there is a transparent honesty test =A0:)))
>
> Does this mention alone sink Brian's aspirations? Transparent? I don't
> think I need do anything than witness your failure to answer about
> your own actions.
>
> You see, Brian, I called you, and you twice failed to come up to the
> mark about yourself - you responded, but not to answer the question,
> which is itself odd - should this recommend your political
> aspirations, or will you remain forever in the minor leagues by
> obviously avoiding questions about your own transparency, whjle merely
> talking about them in public?
>
> In this first test of being transparent, you punt.
>
> Not good, brother. =A0In fact, you respond without factual matter. I am
> sure you understand the nature of this challenge to an hypocritical
> standard, as medicos like to say, and have sensibly managed your reply
> to reflect how you will be to any future opportunity to be
> 'transparent'.
>
> Are you content with your first effort?
>
> Should I have got you wrong you will bother to inform readers here and
> everywhere upon such other posture that I currently fail to notice.
>
> Phil Innes

Did Brian have contact with Susan Polgar's ex husband? Will Brian
answer this with a "yes" or a "no"?

Date: 13 Jan 2009 17:22:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 6:38=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 13, 7:05=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 5:56=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 13, 6:10=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Phil,
>
> > > > In this very thread, you said
>
> > > > >[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and ment=
ion
> > > > >of this subject, on which he was previously hot]
>
> > So what do you contend you meant when you said I seemed to drop my own
> > inquiry into hot-saucing, on which I was previously hot? Do you now
> > agree I never made such an inquiry?
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > In another thread you said that at one point I had been hot - hot f=
or
> > > > hot-saucing
>
> > > > There are many other such quotes.
>
> > > > Everyone understood
>
> > > What are you talking about? You are 'everyone'?
>
> > > I asked you ONE question which you do not answer -
>
> > > did you know when you wrote about the hot-saucing episode that it was
> > > already dismissed by an investigative court:
>
> > > yes or no?
>
> > > I don't care for more words than these, which is what I have asked yo=
u
> > > over and again, and which you notably fail to answer, preferring what
> > > 'everyone knows' type of responses to which you think you should add
> > > your usual invective.
>
> > > I do not care for how you should wish to characterize the question or
> > > what you think it 'means'.
>
> > > Did you know that the case was dismissed when you wrote about it? Tha=
t
> > > is the all of it.
>
> > > That's the matter I put to you, and you will answer or you will spin,
> > > Spinrad - as you can keep your insults to this plain question I ask
> > > you about other people to yourself, since that is your own measure an=
d
> > > response and personal feeling. But no answer to a simple question I
> > > proposed - which is mighty curious since is this not the 6th time I
> > > put it to you?
>
> > > This is no longer a request - it is a notice that you Jerry Spinrad
> > > avoid a plain question, and instead 'reward' your questioner with wha=
t
> > > follows:
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > > > this to mean that you were saying that at one
> > > > time, I was advocating pursuing the hot-saucing/child abuse charge
> > > > against Truong, even though this was exactly opposite of what I sai=
d.
>
> > > > Now, confronted with the posts, you use your usual weaseling,
> > > > dishonest, lowlife trick of pretending that you meant something els=
e
> > > > by your statement.
>
> > > > Again, in this very thread, you responded to my post by saying
>
> > > > Jerry: 2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very
> > > > explicitly that
> > > > this should be between the parents and children.
>
> > > > Phil: I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you
> > > > insisted
> > > > upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
> > > > and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.
>
> > > > Clearly, you thought I said something different than what the posts
> > > > show (that I always said this was between the parents and children)
> > > > but rather than admit that you were wrong you choose to go off on
> > > > another silly tangent. I stand behind everything I said on the issu=
e;
> > > > it would be nice for you to own up to your own statements.
>
> > > > You are really shameless.
>
> > > > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Spinrad, you know my question to you, we all know you do not answer.
>
> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I answered the question. I do not remember whether I knew the
complaint was dismissed. I think I did not. I know that I knew only as
much as everyone else in the newsgroups at the time; I had received no
private email when I wrote my response.

Now, you sniveling worm, tell me what statement I made that justifies
your alleging that I was pursuing an inquiry into the hot-sauce issue.
I do not understand how your question was at all relevant to that
issue.

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 13 Jan 2009 17:01:56
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 7:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
Does everyone know what the
> question was?

I don't think you know what the question was, and you allegedly asked
it.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 16:38:58
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 7:05=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 5:56=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 13, 6:10=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Phil,
>
> > > In this very thread, you said
>
> > > >[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mentio=
n
> > > >of this subject, on which he was previously hot]
>
> So what do you contend you meant when you said I seemed to drop my own
> inquiry into hot-saucing, on which I was previously hot? Do you now
> agree I never made such an inquiry?
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > > In another thread you said that at one point I had been hot - hot for
> > > hot-saucing
>
> > > There are many other such quotes.
>
> > > Everyone understood
>
> > What are you talking about? You are 'everyone'?
>
> > I asked you ONE question which you do not answer -
>
> > did you know when you wrote about the hot-saucing episode that it was
> > already dismissed by an investigative court:
>
> > yes or no?
>
> > I don't care for more words than these, which is what I have asked you
> > over and again, and which you notably fail to answer, preferring what
> > 'everyone knows' type of responses to which you think you should add
> > your usual invective.
>
> > I do not care for how you should wish to characterize the question or
> > what you think it 'means'.
>
> > Did you know that the case was dismissed when you wrote about it? That
> > is the all of it.
>
> > That's the matter I put to you, and you will answer or you will spin,
> > Spinrad - as you can keep your insults to this plain question I ask
> > you about other people to yourself, since that is your own measure and
> > response and personal feeling. But no answer to a simple question I
> > proposed - which is mighty curious since is this not the 6th time I
> > put it to you?
>
> > This is no longer a request - it is a notice that you Jerry Spinrad
> > avoid a plain question, and instead 'reward' your questioner with what
> > follows:
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > > this to mean that you were saying that at one
> > > time, I was advocating pursuing the hot-saucing/child abuse charge
> > > against Truong, even though this was exactly opposite of what I said.
>
> > > Now, confronted with the posts, you use your usual weaseling,
> > > dishonest, lowlife trick of pretending that you meant something else
> > > by your statement.
>
> > > Again, in this very thread, you responded to my post by saying
>
> > > Jerry: 2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very
> > > explicitly that
> > > this should be between the parents and children.
>
> > > Phil: I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you
> > > insisted
> > > upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
> > > and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.
>
> > > Clearly, you thought I said something different than what the posts
> > > show (that I always said this was between the parents and children)
> > > but rather than admit that you were wrong you choose to go off on
> > > another silly tangent. I stand behind everything I said on the issue;
> > > it would be nice for you to own up to your own statements.
>
> > > You are really shameless.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Spinrad, you know my question to you, we all know you do not answer.

Phil Innes

Date: 13 Jan 2009 16:37:52
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 7:05=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 5:56=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 13, 6:10=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Phil,
>
> > > In this very thread, you said
>
> > > >[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mentio=
n
> > > >of this subject, on which he was previously hot]
>
> So what do you contend you meant when you said I seemed to drop my own
> inquiry into hot-saucing, on which I was previously hot? Do you now
> agree I never made such an inquiry?

Spinrad, I asked you one question which you are still HOT to avoid.
Your own response is answer enough. Does everyone know what the
question was?

It was if Spinrad knew about the case being dismissed by a court at
the time he wrote about it. That's it.

If he doesn't want to answer, that is up to him. I am not pursuing any
other point, and for whatever reason he does not like to notice what I
am asking him, this is nevertheless the 7th time no answer is
received. ;)

Phil Innes

> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > > In another thread you said that at one point I had been hot - hot for
> > > hot-saucing
>
> > > There are many other such quotes.
>
> > > Everyone understood
>
> > What are you talking about? You are 'everyone'?
>
> > I asked you ONE question which you do not answer -
>
> > did you know when you wrote about the hot-saucing episode that it was
> > already dismissed by an investigative court:
>
> > yes or no?
>
> > I don't care for more words than these, which is what I have asked you
> > over and again, and which you notably fail to answer, preferring what
> > 'everyone knows' type of responses to which you think you should add
> > your usual invective.
>
> > I do not care for how you should wish to characterize the question or
> > what you think it 'means'.
>
> > Did you know that the case was dismissed when you wrote about it? That
> > is the all of it.
>
> > That's the matter I put to you, and you will answer or you will spin,
> > Spinrad - as you can keep your insults to this plain question I ask
> > you about other people to yourself, since that is your own measure and
> > response and personal feeling. But no answer to a simple question I
> > proposed - which is mighty curious since is this not the 6th time I
> > put it to you?
>
> > This is no longer a request - it is a notice that you Jerry Spinrad
> > avoid a plain question, and instead 'reward' your questioner with what
> > follows:
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > > this to mean that you were saying that at one
> > > time, I was advocating pursuing the hot-saucing/child abuse charge
> > > against Truong, even though this was exactly opposite of what I said.
>
> > > Now, confronted with the posts, you use your usual weaseling,
> > > dishonest, lowlife trick of pretending that you meant something else
> > > by your statement.
>
> > > Again, in this very thread, you responded to my post by saying
>
> > > Jerry: 2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very
> > > explicitly that
> > > this should be between the parents and children.
>
> > > Phil: I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you
> > > insisted
> > > upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
> > > and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.
>
> > > Clearly, you thought I said something different than what the posts
> > > show (that I always said this was between the parents and children)
> > > but rather than admit that you were wrong you choose to go off on
> > > another silly tangent. I stand behind everything I said on the issue;
> > > it would be nice for you to own up to your own statements.
>
> > > You are really shameless.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Date: 13 Jan 2009 16:05:33
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 5:56=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 13, 6:10=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Phil,
>
> > In this very thread, you said
>
> > >[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mention
> > >of this subject, on which he was previously hot]

So what do you contend you meant when you said I seemed to drop my own
inquiry into hot-saucing, on which I was previously hot? Do you now
agree I never made such an inquiry?

Jerry Spinrad

>
> > In another thread you said that at one point I had been hot - hot for
> > hot-saucing
>
> > There are many other such quotes.
>
> > Everyone understood
>
> What are you talking about? You are 'everyone'?
>
> I asked you ONE question which you do not answer -
>
> did you know when you wrote about the hot-saucing episode that it was
> already dismissed by an investigative court:
>
> yes or no?
>
> I don't care for more words than these, which is what I have asked you
> over and again, and which you notably fail to answer, preferring what
> 'everyone knows' type of responses to which you think you should add
> your usual invective.
>
> I do not care for how you should wish to characterize the question or
> what you think it 'means'.
>
> Did you know that the case was dismissed when you wrote about it? That
> is the all of it.
>
> That's the matter I put to you, and you will answer or you will spin,
> Spinrad - as you can keep your insults to this plain question I ask
> you about other people to yourself, since that is your own measure and
> response and personal feeling. But no answer to a simple question I
> proposed - which is mighty curious since is this not the 6th time I
> put it to you?
>
> This is no longer a request - it is a notice that you Jerry Spinrad
> avoid a plain question, and instead 'reward' your questioner with what
> follows:
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > this to mean that you were saying that at one
> > time, I was advocating pursuing the hot-saucing/child abuse charge
> > against Truong, even though this was exactly opposite of what I said.
>
> > Now, confronted with the posts, you use your usual weaseling,
> > dishonest, lowlife trick of pretending that you meant something else
> > by your statement.
>
> > Again, in this very thread, you responded to my post by saying
>
> > Jerry: 2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very
> > explicitly that
> > this should be between the parents and children.
>
> > Phil: I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you
> > insisted
> > upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
> > and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.
>
> > Clearly, you thought I said something different than what the posts
> > show (that I always said this was between the parents and children)
> > but rather than admit that you were wrong you choose to go off on
> > another silly tangent. I stand behind everything I said on the issue;
> > it would be nice for you to own up to your own statements.
>
> > You are really shameless.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 13 Jan 2009 15:56:55
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 6:10=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Phil,
>
> In this very thread, you said
>
> >[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mention
> >of this subject, on which he was previously hot]
>
> In another thread you said that at one point I had been hot - hot for
> hot-saucing
>
> There are many other such quotes.
>
> Everyone understood

What are you talking about? You are 'everyone'?

I asked you ONE question which you do not answer -

did you know when you wrote about the hot-saucing episode that it was
already dismissed by an investigative court:

yes or no?

I don't care for more words than these, which is what I have asked you
over and again, and which you notably fail to answer, preferring what
'everyone knows' type of responses to which you think you should add
your usual invective.

I do not care for how you should wish to characterize the question or
what you think it 'means'.

Did you know that the case was dismissed when you wrote about it? That
is the all of it.

That's the matter I put to you, and you will answer or you will spin,
Spinrad - as you can keep your insults to this plain question I ask
you about other people to yourself, since that is your own measure and
response and personal feeling. But no answer to a simple question I
proposed - which is mighty curious since is this not the 6th time I
put it to you?

This is no longer a request - it is a notice that you Jerry Spinrad
avoid a plain question, and instead 'reward' your questioner with what
follows:

Phil Innes

> this to mean that you were saying that at one
> time, I was advocating pursuing the hot-saucing/child abuse charge
> against Truong, even though this was exactly opposite of what I said.
>
> Now, confronted with the posts, you use your usual weaseling,
> dishonest, lowlife trick of pretending that you meant something else
> by your statement.
>
> Again, in this very thread, you responded to my post by saying
>
> Jerry: 2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very
> explicitly that
> this should be between the parents and children.
>
> Phil: I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you
> insisted
> upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
> and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.
>
> Clearly, you thought I said something different than what the posts
> show (that I always said this was between the parents and children)
> but rather than admit that you were wrong you choose to go off on
> another silly tangent. I stand behind everything I said on the issue;
> it would be nice for you to own up to your own statements.
>
> You are really shameless.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Date: 13 Jan 2009 15:10:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

Phil,

In this very thread, you said

>[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mention
>of this subject, on which he was previously hot]

In another thread you said that at one point I had been hot - hot for
hot-saucing

There are many other such quotes.

Everyone understood this to mean that you were saying that at one
time, I was advocating pursuing the hot-saucing/child abuse charge
against Truong, even though this was exactly opposite of what I said.

Now, confronted with the posts, you use your usual weaseling,
dishonest, lowlife trick of pretending that you meant something else
by your statement.

Again, in this very thread, you responded to my post by saying

Jerry: 2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very
explicitly that
this should be between the parents and children.

Phil: I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you
insisted
upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.

Clearly, you thought I said something different than what the posts
show (that I always said this was between the parents and children)
but rather than admit that you were wrong you choose to go off on
another silly tangent. I stand behind everything I said on the issue;
it would be nice for you to own up to your own statements.

You are really shameless.

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 13 Jan 2009 14:31:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 4:41=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Yes, I want to push the issue. You repeatedly made incorrect claims
> about my position, and when challenged you repeated the claims instead
> of checking them out. An apology is certainly in order; ideally, it
> might be a lesson for you on future behavior as well.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Jerry, as you have probably noticed in the threads about Morphy and
Fischer, Phil's been making "incorrect claims" there, as he so often
does. And of course, despite being repeatedly corrected, he never
learns anything from it.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 14:23:14
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 4:41=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2:50=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:> On Jan 13, 2:06=A0pm, =
"[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It has nothing to do with the subject. However, in this thread, Phil
> chose to re-introduce a complete lie about me. Here are the facts.
>
> 1) Phil has repeatedly said that at one point, I was advocating
> pursuing an inquiry into the hot-saucing issue.
>
> Phil: =A0I have? I have not! I asked you why you were pursuing the hot-
> sauce
> =A0incident, and if you knew a court had already dismissed it? I think
> =A0you never answered this question. Did you answer it? How did you
> answer?
>
> As I told you repeatedly, I was never pursuing the hot-sauce issue.

'Pursued?' is that really an answer to what I ask above?

> Why must I be the only one to back up my answers with copies of my
> posts? If you are going to accuse me of this, you should show me the
> posts. You do not, because they do not exist!

And yet you don't quote me while characterising my attitude.

But you did write to this subject, didn't you? So what DID you say?

> I can only imagine that long ago you misread a post, but you never
> stopped your attack even when asked repeatedly to back up what you
> were saying.

What you imagine is all to the point! You certainly don't answer what
I ask, and prefer 'what you only imagine'.

> Phil: I think someone else also sent you sufficient detail of what
> happened
> =A0in the courts to then give you pause - which was sufficient for me.
>
> It was obvious from the email that someone had completely
> misrepresented my position on the hot-sauce issue.

Well, it wasn't me, perhaps it was 'the person' themselves who
volunteered you additional information. In fact it was.

> The e-mail I
> received had no affect on my position, because I always said this was
> a private matter.

But this is dilettante comment. It is a private matter, proved untrue
in a court - that is to say, there is no NO evidence that it occurred
after formal investigation.

Is your own comment quite clear on this - do you not suggest that it
may have occurred, and comment in public that if so, it is private?

This is why I ask you my question. Did you know a court dismissed the
issue when you wrote about it? That's a yes or no, and I still do not
understand your response. Either word removes my further comment on
the issue ;)

What I see you write below are to do with the privacy you accord
parents to discipline their children in what might be termed an
unloving way.

What I ask you is different from that - and which you do not
acknowledge. I asked you if when you published these hypothetical and
personal abstract philosophical reflets, IF YOU KNEW AT THE TIME THAT
THE ISSUE WAS ALREADY DISMISSED BY A COURT.

The rest resolves on your answer, which can only be yes or no.

Will you address that, or pass with a million words?

I did at no time point out you nor your opinions to Susan Polgar, nor
indeed to any person. If she wrote you direct I imagine [only] that
that was her measure of you as a fellow chesscafe columnist, and that
she expected you to understand both the context and the specifics she
then presented you.

Phil Innes

> 2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very explicitly that
> =A0this should be between the parents and children.
>
> Phil: =A0I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you
> insisted
> upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
> and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.
>
> Yes, and here are the only posts I made on the issue. You could have
> found them by searching for spinrad hot-sauce, and doing a sort by
> date.
>
> Here they are:
>
> Apr 10, 2007
> I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
> decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
> who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
> to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
> they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them,
> and
> felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
> it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
> make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
> don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
> which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
> cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
> still practiced in this country.
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> I then replied to Mike Murray's disagreement with me, again on Apr 10
>
> On Apr 10, 1:48=3DA0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
> involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
> parents of prospective clients should evaluate. =3DA0
>
> I think it is still too much of a stretch. If there are accusations
> as
> to what they did to other people's children, that is a different
> matter.
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> Those were my only 2 posts on the issue.
>
> Shortly after these posts, I received my 1st email message from Susan
> Polgar, in which (among other issues) she seemed to have the mistaken
> impression that I was wanting to pursue the issue of child abuse. Do
> you have any idea who might have given her that impression?
>
>
>
> 3) When this was pointed out to Phil, instead of apologizing, he
> repeated the charge without any evidence to back it up.
>
> Phil: =A0I am not interested in your pointing out or characterising your
> own
> =A0behavior. If the issue is in doubt then you might produce your own
> =A0messages at the time, and if you do not, and want to rest the issue,
> =A0then I can too.
>
> I have produced my own messages of the time, which you should have had
> the courtesy to reexamine when you were challenged to back up your
> claims.
>
> > > Will you have the integrity to tell Phil that his behavior on this
> > > subject is reprehensible?
>
> My behavior is unexamined! Show any 3 of your messages on this subject
> then dare to repeat your posture - if you want to push the issue. But
> if you do, then will you say when you posted them, and when you knew
> =A0of the court's dismissal of the issue? =A0 ;)
>
> Since I only posted 2 messages on the subject, I feel that I have
> answered your questions.
>
> Yes, I want to push the issue. You repeatedly made incorrect claims
> about my position, and when challenged you repeated the claims instead
> of checking them out. An apology is certainly in order; ideally, it
> might be a lesson for you on future behavior as well.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > On Jan 13, 9:43=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 13, 6:55=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 13, 12:27=A0am, "[email protected]"
>
> > > > > > Phil, this is beneath even you.
>
> > > > > No it's not.
>
> > > > What does this have to do with the subject thread?
> > > > I think we need another "bot" to help us here... the "continuity" b=
ot.
> > > > LOL
>
> > > > <ducking> I better brace myself for an onslaut of attacks now from
> > > > those with ill senses of humor. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Date: 13 Jan 2009 14:32:56
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:23:14 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>On Jan 13, 4:41�pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2:50�pm, [email protected] wrote:> On Jan 13, 2:06�pm, "[email protected]"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> It has nothing to do with the subject. However, in this thread, Phil
>> chose to re-introduce a complete lie about me. Here are the facts.
>>
>> 1) Phil has repeatedly said that at one point, I was advocating
>> pursuing an inquiry into the hot-saucing issue.
>>
>> Phil: �I have? I have not! I asked you why you were pursuing the hot-
>> sauce
>> �incident, and if you knew a court had already dismissed it? I think
>> �you never answered this question. Did you answer it? How did you
>> answer?
>>
>> As I told you repeatedly, I was never pursuing the hot-sauce issue.
>
>'Pursued?' is that really an answer to what I ask above?
>
>> Why must I be the only one to back up my answers with copies of my
>> posts? If you are going to accuse me of this, you should show me the
>> posts. You do not, because they do not exist!
>
>And yet you don't quote me while characterising my attitude.
>
>But you did write to this subject, didn't you? So what DID you say?

Normally, I follow snipping conventions, but not this time.

I think I've determined one explanation for why Phil makes so many
goofy posts.

Here's my deduction: Phil starts replying to posts, line by line,
before he's read the whole post, and he never looks back.

How else could he make the comment, "So what DID you say?", when he's
replying to Spinrad's post that details exactly that? The only
problem, Spinrad's quote is further down and Phil hasn't got there
yet!

Jesus!

>> I can only imagine that long ago you misread a post, but you never
>> stopped your attack even when asked repeatedly to back up what you
>> were saying.
>
>What you imagine is all to the point! You certainly don't answer what
>I ask, and prefer 'what you only imagine'.
>
>> Phil: I think someone else also sent you sufficient detail of what
>> happened
>> �in the courts to then give you pause - which was sufficient for me.
>>
>> It was obvious from the email that someone had completely
>> misrepresented my position on the hot-sauce issue.
>
>Well, it wasn't me, perhaps it was 'the person' themselves who
>volunteered you additional information. In fact it was.
>
>> The e-mail I
>> received had no affect on my position, because I always said this was
>> a private matter.
>
>But this is dilettante comment. It is a private matter, proved untrue
>in a court - that is to say, there is no NO evidence that it occurred
>after formal investigation.
>
>Is your own comment quite clear on this - do you not suggest that it
>may have occurred, and comment in public that if so, it is private?
>
>This is why I ask you my question. Did you know a court dismissed the
>issue when you wrote about it? That's a yes or no, and I still do not
>understand your response. Either word removes my further comment on
>the issue ;)
>
>What I see you write below are to do with the privacy you accord
>parents to discipline their children in what might be termed an
>unloving way.
>
>What I ask you is different from that - and which you do not
>acknowledge. I asked you if when you published these hypothetical and
>personal abstract philosophical reflets, IF YOU KNEW AT THE TIME THAT
>THE ISSUE WAS ALREADY DISMISSED BY A COURT.
>
>The rest resolves on your answer, which can only be yes or no.
>
>Will you address that, or pass with a million words?
>
>I did at no time point out you nor your opinions to Susan Polgar, nor
>indeed to any person. If she wrote you direct I imagine [only] that
>that was her measure of you as a fellow chesscafe columnist, and that
>she expected you to understand both the context and the specifics she
>then presented you.
>
>
>Phil Innes
>
>
>> 2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very explicitly that
>> �this should be between the parents and children.
>>
>> Phil: �I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you
>> insisted
>> upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
>> and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.
>>
>> Yes, and here are the only posts I made on the issue. You could have
>> found them by searching for spinrad hot-sauce, and doing a sort by
>> date.
>>
>> Here they are:
>>
>> Apr 10, 2007
>> I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
>> decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
>> who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
>> to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
>> they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them,
>> and
>> felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
>> it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
>> make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
>> don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
>> which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
>> cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
>> still practiced in this country.
>> Jerry Spinrad
>>
>> I then replied to Mike Murray's disagreement with me, again on Apr 10
>>
>> On Apr 10, 1:48=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
>> involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
>> parents of prospective clients should evaluate. =A0
>>
>> I think it is still too much of a stretch. If there are accusations
>> as
>> to what they did to other people's children, that is a different
>> matter.
>> Jerry Spinrad
>>
>> Those were my only 2 posts on the issue.
>>
>> Shortly after these posts, I received my 1st email message from Susan
>> Polgar, in which (among other issues) she seemed to have the mistaken
>> impression that I was wanting to pursue the issue of child abuse. Do
>> you have any idea who might have given her that impression?
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) When this was pointed out to Phil, instead of apologizing, he
>> repeated the charge without any evidence to back it up.
>>
>> Phil: �I am not interested in your pointing out or characterising your
>> own
>> �behavior. If the issue is in doubt then you might produce your own
>> �messages at the time, and if you do not, and want to rest the issue,
>> �then I can too.
>>
>> I have produced my own messages of the time, which you should have had
>> the courtesy to reexamine when you were challenged to back up your
>> claims.
>>
>> > > Will you have the integrity to tell Phil that his behavior on this
>> > > subject is reprehensible?
>>
>> My behavior is unexamined! Show any 3 of your messages on this subject
>> then dare to repeat your posture - if you want to push the issue. But
>> if you do, then will you say when you posted them, and when you knew
>> �of the court's dismissal of the issue? � ;)
>>
>> Since I only posted 2 messages on the subject, I feel that I have
>> answered your questions.
>>
>> Yes, I want to push the issue. You repeatedly made incorrect claims
>> about my position, and when challenged you repeated the claims instead
>> of checking them out. An apology is certainly in order; ideally, it
>> might be a lesson for you on future behavior as well.
>>
>> Jerry Spinrad
>>
>>
>>
>> > Phil Innes
>>
>> > > Jerry Spinrad
>>
>> > > On Jan 13, 9:43�am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jan 13, 6:55�am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Jan 13, 12:27�am, "[email protected]"
>>
>> > > > > > Phil, this is beneath even you.
>>
>> > > > > No it's not.
>>
>> > > > What does this have to do with the subject thread?
>> > > > I think we need another "bot" to help us here... the "continuity" bot.
>> > > > LOL
>>
>> > > > <ducking> I better brace myself for an onslaut of attacks now from
>> > > > those with ill senses of humor. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -

Date: 13 Jan 2009 13:41:27
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 2:50=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2:06=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
<[email protected] > wrote:
It has nothing to do with the subject. However, in this thread, Phil
chose to re-introduce a complete lie about me. Here are the facts.
>
1) Phil has repeatedly said that at one point, I was advocating
pursuing an inquiry into the hot-saucing issue.
>
Phil: I have? I have not! I asked you why you were pursuing the hot-
sauce
incident, and if you knew a court had already dismissed it? I think
you never answered this question. Did you answer it? How did you
answer?

As I told you repeatedly, I was never pursuing the hot-sauce issue.
Why must I be the only one to back up my answers with copies of my
posts? If you are going to accuse me of this, you should show me the
posts. You do not, because they do not exist!

I can only imagine that long ago you misread a post, but you never
stopped your attack even when asked repeatedly to back up what you
were saying.

Phil: I think someone else also sent you sufficient detail of what
happened
in the courts to then give you pause - which was sufficient for me.

It was obvious from the email that someone had completely
misrepresented my position on the hot-sauce issue. The e-mail I
received had no affect on my position, because I always said this was
a private matter.

2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very explicitly that
this should be between the parents and children.
>
Phil: I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you
insisted
upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.

Yes, and here are the only posts I made on the issue. You could have
found them by searching for spinrad hot-sauce, and doing a sort by
date.

Here they are:

Apr 10, 2007
I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them,
and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
Jerry Spinrad

I then replied to Mike Murray's disagreement with me, again on Apr 10

On Apr 10, 1:48=3DA0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate. =3DA0

I think it is still too much of a stretch. If there are accusations
as
to what they did to other people's children, that is a different
matter.
Jerry Spinrad

Those were my only 2 posts on the issue.

Shortly after these posts, I received my 1st email message from Susan
Polgar, in which (among other issues) she seemed to have the mistaken
impression that I was wanting to pursue the issue of child abuse. Do
you have any idea who might have given her that impression?

>
3) When this was pointed out to Phil, instead of apologizing, he
repeated the charge without any evidence to back it up.
>
Phil: I am not interested in your pointing out or characterising your
own
behavior. If the issue is in doubt then you might produce your own
messages at the time, and if you do not, and want to rest the issue,
then I can too.

I have produced my own messages of the time, which you should have had
the courtesy to reexamine when you were challenged to back up your
claims.
>
> > Will you have the integrity to tell Phil that his behavior on this
> > subject is reprehensible?
>
My behavior is unexamined! Show any 3 of your messages on this subject
then dare to repeat your posture - if you want to push the issue. But
if you do, then will you say when you posted them, and when you knew
of the court's dismissal of the issue? =A0 ;)

Since I only posted 2 messages on the subject, I feel that I have
answered your questions.

Yes, I want to push the issue. You repeatedly made incorrect claims
about my position, and when challenged you repeated the claims instead
of checking them out. An apology is certainly in order; ideally, it
might be a lesson for you on future behavior as well.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > On Jan 13, 9:43=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 13, 6:55=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > On Jan 13, 12:27=A0am, "[email protected]"
>
> > > > > Phil, this is beneath even you.
>
> > > > No it's not.
>
> > > What does this have to do with the subject thread?
> > > I think we need another "bot" to help us here... the "continuity" bot=
.
> > > LOL
>
> > > <ducking> I better brace myself for an onslaut of attacks now from
> > > those with ill senses of humor. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 13 Jan 2009 12:50:06
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 2:06=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> It has nothing to do with the subject. However, in this thread, Phil
> chose to re-introduce a complete lie about me. Here are the facts.
>
> 1) Phil has repeatedly said that at one point, I was advocating
> pursuing an inquiry into the hot-saucing issue.

I have? I have not! I asked you why you were pursuing the hot-sauce
incident, and if you knew a court had already dismissed it? I think
you never answered this question. Did you answer it? How did you
answer?

I think someone else also sent you sufficient detail of what happened
in the courts to then give you pause - which was sufficient for me.

> 2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very explicitly that
> this should be between the parents and children.

I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you insisted
upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.

> 3) When this was pointed out to Phil, instead of apologizing, he
> repeated the charge without any evidence to back it up.

I am not interested in your pointing out or characterising your own
behavior. If the issue is in doubt then you might produce your own
messages at the time, and if you do not, and want to rest the issue,
then I can too.

> Will you have the integrity to tell Phil that his behavior on this
> subject is reprehensible?

My behavior is unexamined! Show any 3 of your messages on this subject
then dare to repeat your posture - if you want to push the issue. But
if you do, then will you say when you posted them, and when you knew
of the court's dismissal of the issue? ;)

Phil Innes

> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Jan 13, 9:43=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 13, 6:55=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > On Jan 13, 12:27=A0am, "[email protected]"
>
> > > > Phil, this is beneath even you.
>
> > > No it's not.
>
> > What does this have to do with the subject thread?
> > I think we need another "bot" to help us here... the "continuity" bot.
> > LOL
>
> > <ducking> I better brace myself for an onslaut of attacks now from
> > those with ill senses of humor. :-)

Date: 13 Jan 2009 11:06:58
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

It has nothing to do with the subject. However, in this thread, Phil
chose to re-introduce a complete lie about me. Here are the facts.

1) Phil has repeatedly said that at one point, I was advocating
pursuing an inquiry into the hot-saucing issue.

2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very explicitly that
this should be between the parents and children.

3) When this was pointed out to Phil, instead of apologizing, he
repeated the charge without any evidence to back it up.

Will you have the integrity to tell Phil that his behavior on this
subject is reprehensible?

Jerry Spinrad

On Jan 13, 9:43=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 6:55=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 13, 12:27=A0am, "[email protected]"
>
> > > Phil, this is beneath even you.
>
> > No it's not.
>
> What does this have to do with the subject thread?
> I think we need another "bot" to help us here... the "continuity" bot.
> LOL
>
> <ducking> I better brace myself for an onslaut of attacks now from
> those with ill senses of humor. :-)

Date: 13 Jan 2009 08:27:07
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

> <ducking> I better brace myself for an onslaut of attacks now from
> those with ill senses of humor. :-)

is onslaut like kornslaw for ducks? anyway, where's your column? ;)

our dc legal friend is doing the other half of it, but as you know, he
is delayed with other work

pity others here couldn't chip in, but it would mean playing, and
possibly appearing human

less bots, more chess, is my motto - although i admit i liked Wall-E a
lot

16F here at the moment, and the NPR announcer said a cold front's
coming in - this message was repeated by a friend who makes films, but
said gleefully - BTW, I'm off to LA for 4 days on a shoot, he said

anyway, the new policy of not feeding the trolls information is
working very well indeed - they hate it!

cordially, dicky nixon

Date: 13 Jan 2009 07:43:46
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 6:55=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 12:27=A0am, "[email protected]"
>
> > Phil, this is beneath even you.
>
> No it's not.

What does this have to do with the subject thread?
I think we need another "bot" to help us here... the "continuity" bot.
LOL

<ducking > I better brace myself for an onslaut of attacks now from
those with ill senses of humor. :-)

Date: 13 Jan 2009 04:55:49
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 12:27=A0am, "[email protected]"
> Phil, this is beneath even you.

No it's not.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 00:10:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 12:27=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> > > Phil ***seems*** to think

I have highlighted the key word in the
sentence above.

> > > As usual, he is dead wrong. Why doesn't he apologize?

Is there a psychiatrist in the house?

> Phil, this is beneath even you.

Wrong.

-- help bot

Date: 12 Jan 2009 21:27:12
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

This makes it clear to me that you are being dishonest. You know very
well, Phil, that you on repeated occasions claimed that at one time I
was very eager to try to make hot-saucing an issue. You said so in
this thread, after you had been repeatedly called on the matter

>[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mention
>of this subject, on which he was previously hot]

I feel no need to show you all your quotes on this; you know full well
that you made this smear on numerous occasions.

I believe that you also mentioned this to Susan Polgar, though I
cannot prove that fact.

On Jan 12, 8:20=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 12, 9:07=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 7:09=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:44:37 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > > >[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mentio=
n
> > > >of this subject, on which he was previously hot]
>
> > > Phil, your continual misrepresentation of others' positions gets
> > > tiresome. =A0
>
> > > Come on, give us a quote that would indicate Spinrad was "hot" on thi=
s
> > > topic.
>
> > I have been quite patient on this issue, but I would like an apology
> > from Phil, incapable of admitting mistakes as he may be. To make it
> > easier for him ,let me note that I made two posts about hot-saucing,
> > both in the thread Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired.
>
> > My first post started
>
> > I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up.
>
> > My reasoning (I am abridging my post here) was that it was a family
> > matter between the various parents and children.
>
> > Although Phil seems to think
>
> 'seems to think' =A0[lol]
>
> > this was not clear,
>
> what was not clear?
>
> > there was a response
> > that although one might normally agree,
>
> what is that in plain language? how tortuous a phrasing!
>
> > given their involvement with
> > scholastic chess it is something parents of prospective clients should
> > evaluate.
>
> > I replied to this post by saying that it was still too much of a
> > stretch; it would be different if there were accusations of hot-
> > saucing other people's children.
>
> > Those were the only two posts I had on the matter, before Phil started
> > accusing me of being hot to prosecute.
>
> i see you do not quote me, yet and still use the word 'prosecute'
>
> > As usual, he is dead wrong. Why doesn't he apologize?
>
> for this?
>
> what does spinrad charge me with that requires apology?
>
> instead as he well knows he was acquainted with the facts of what the
> court resolved, then he became less hot on the issue

No, you moron! I just showed you what I said on the hot-sauce issue -
my first post said that it was not an issue to pursue.
>
> does he contest that? that is the all of it

Of course I contest it! You must know by now that I never advocated
pursuing the issue. What do you think you are gaining by contiuing
this obviously untrue smear campaign?

Phil, this is beneath even you.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> phil innes
>
>
>
> > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 13 Jan 2009 14:48:48
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 5:32=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> I think I've determined one explanation for why Phil makes so many
> goofy posts. =A0
>
> Here's my deduction: =A0Phil starts replying to posts, line by line,
> before he's read the whole post, and he never looks back. =A0
>
> How else could he make the comment, "So what DID you say?", when he's
> replying to Spinrad's post that details exactly that? =A0The only
> problem, Spinrad's quote is further down and Phil hasn't got there
> yet!

Your discovery makes perfect sense. It explains why Innes mixes up
posters, cannot attribute quotations correctly, and even argues with
himself from time to time.

However, he's still nutty as a Cornish fruitcake. And he's dishonest.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 22:53:21
From: Non-Person
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 13, 5:32 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think I've determined one explanation for why Phil makes so many
>> goofy posts.
>>
>> Here's my deduction: Phil starts replying to posts, line by line,
>> before he's read the whole post, and he never looks back.
>>
>> How else could he make the comment, "So what DID you say?", when he's
>> replying to Spinrad's post that details exactly that? The only
>> problem, Spinrad's quote is further down and Phil hasn't got there
>> yet!
>
> Your discovery makes perfect sense. It explains why Innes mixes up
> posters, cannot attribute quotations correctly, and even argues with
> himself from time to time.
>
> However, he's still nutty as a Cornish fruitcake. And he's dishonest.
As a PR flack how would you rate him on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being
lowest?

Date: 12 Jan 2009 18:20:21
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 12, 9:07=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 11, 7:09=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:44:37 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > >[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mention
> > >of this subject, on which he was previously hot]
>
> > Phil, your continual misrepresentation of others' positions gets
> > tiresome. =A0
>
> > Come on, give us a quote that would indicate Spinrad was "hot" on this
> > topic.
>
> I have been quite patient on this issue, but I would like an apology
> from Phil, incapable of admitting mistakes as he may be. To make it
> easier for him ,let me note that I made two posts about hot-saucing,
> both in the thread Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired.
>
> My first post started
>
> I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up.
>
> My reasoning (I am abridging my post here) was that it was a family
> matter between the various parents and children.
>
> Although Phil seems to think

'seems to think' [lol]

> this was not clear,

what was not clear?

> there was a response
> that although one might normally agree,

what is that in plain language? how tortuous a phrasing!

> given their involvement with
> scholastic chess it is something parents of prospective clients should
> evaluate.
>
> I replied to this post by saying that it was still too much of a
> stretch; it would be different if there were accusations of hot-
> saucing other people's children.
>
> Those were the only two posts I had on the matter, before Phil started
> accusing me of being hot to prosecute.

i see you do not quote me, yet and still use the word 'prosecute'

> As usual, he is dead wrong. Why doesn't he apologize?

for this?

what does spinrad charge me with that requires apology?

instead as he well knows he was acquainted with the facts of what the
court resolved, then he became less hot on the issue

does he contest that? that is the all of it

phil innes

> Jerry Spinrad

Date: 12 Jan 2009 18:07:29
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 11, 7:09=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:44:37 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mention
> >of this subject, on which he was previously hot]
>
> Phil, your continual misrepresentation of others' positions gets
> tiresome. =A0
>
> Come on, give us a quote that would indicate Spinrad was "hot" on this
> topic.

I have been quite patient on this issue, but I would like an apology
from Phil, incapable of admitting mistakes as he may be. To make it
easier for him ,let me note that I made two posts about hot-saucing,
both in the thread Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired.

My first post started

I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up.

My reasoning (I am abridging my post here) was that it was a family
matter between the various parents and children.

Although Phil seems to think this was not clear, there was a response
that although one might normally agree, given their involvement with
scholastic chess it is something parents of prospective clients should
evaluate.

I replied to this post by saying that it was still too much of a
stretch; it would be different if there were accusations of hot-
saucing other people's children.

Those were the only two posts I had on the matter, before Phil started
accusing me of being hot to prosecute.

As usual, he is dead wrong. Why doesn't he apologize?

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:44:38
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 12, 3:00=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >> I expect that I'll be asking you questions under oath before all of th=
is
> >> is over. =A0Your two questions above are disingenuous. =A0They contain
> >> incorrect assumptions.
>
> > They may indeed contain incorrect assumptions, but are they my
> > assumptions? My questions are innocent and as plain as day.
>
> >> =A0Even if they didn't, why would I answer your
> >> questions given your relationship to Polgar and Truong?
>
> > It does seem curious that you don't answer, regardless of my
> > 'relationship' with any one at all. What about our mutual relationship
> > with speaking the truth?
>
> > You see - you have asked rather a lot of questions here while making
> > your own asumptions, and given what you say above, why should I or
> > anyone have answered you?
>
> > How can anyone discover what is or is not 'disingenuous' except they
> > ask? And this is not a court room, its an unmoderated public
> > newsgroup, and my question has the merit of simply discovering what
> > roles people have played in the issues they themselves write about to
> > great degree.
>
> >> =A0It's a no
> >> brainer. =A0Oh, and Phil, it has nothing to do with transparency in th=
e EB
> >> campaign.
>
> > That seems to be up to the voters to declare.
>
> >> =A0This is about litigation which you may be involved in down
> >> the road. =A0Do be certain to preserve ALL of your communications with
> >> Polgar and Truong as noticed to you late last year.
>
> > Since you cannot declare your interest in this, how can I be bound to
> > do your bidding?
>
> Easy. =A0When you are subpoenaed by a court of competent jurisdiction to
> produce evidence and give testimony, you will be asked to produce your
> relevant communications with Polgar and Truong. =A0You have prior written
> notice to preserve those communications. =A0If you don't, you run the ris=
k
> of being sanctioned by the court. =A0If it comes to where I need to
> subpoena you, you will then know my interest. =A0All you'll need do is
> read the verified complaint.
>
> The piss ant games are over, Phil. Polgar, Truong and a number of their
> minions are in this well over their heads. =A0If you don't believe me,
> just give Gregory a call. =A0Next time you interview Paul and Susan, ask
> them how much money has gone through that Florida corporation, where it
> came from and whose money it was.
>
>
>
> >> Have a nice evening.
>
> > Here in the north we say " have an ice evening "
>
> > Phil Innes

I thank you for your concerns, but I asked you if you are a collateral
witness to this case, a legal advocate for any party in it, or a
speculator upon what may happen in a court or out of it - as is
evidenced by other posters here. I ask because I don't know!

You decline to identify your interest and relations with the issues.
That is all that has happened here.

I said from the start that properly constituted legal procedures
should resolve legal suits. My opinion is that public and unmonitored
newsgroups are not the right place to conduct investigations on legal
issues - though surely they may comment on them to the extent of their
extant wit.

This is not an offer to so conduct the matter here as a court may
construe what is proper to proceed with.

While you may request such and such upon future circumstance - that is
quite apart from my inquiry to you upon current matters before the
courts.

I am not interested in speculating on things here - and entirely
content to have proper jurisdiction decide the matter, especially
since so much of it seems to me as yet undisclosed.

Let this general, and essentially unchanged, opinion stand as response
to your message - which you are under no obligation to reply to, as I
am in no obligation to you - since I have no idea of your own stance
in these issues - or what possible combination of roles you may have
played.

Phil Innes

Date: 12 Jan 2009 21:12:52
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 12, 3:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> I expect that I'll be asking you questions under oath before all of this
>>>> is over. Your two questions above are disingenuous. They contain
>>>> incorrect assumptions.
>>> They may indeed contain incorrect assumptions, but are they my
>>> assumptions? My questions are innocent and as plain as day.
>>>> Even if they didn't, why would I answer your
>>>> questions given your relationship to Polgar and Truong?
>>> It does seem curious that you don't answer, regardless of my
>>> 'relationship' with any one at all. What about our mutual relationship
>>> with speaking the truth?
>>> You see - you have asked rather a lot of questions here while making
>>> your own asumptions, and given what you say above, why should I or
>>> anyone have answered you?
>>> How can anyone discover what is or is not 'disingenuous' except they
>>> ask? And this is not a court room, its an unmoderated public
>>> newsgroup, and my question has the merit of simply discovering what
>>> roles people have played in the issues they themselves write about to
>>> great degree.
>>>> It's a no
>>>> brainer. Oh, and Phil, it has nothing to do with transparency in the EB
>>>> campaign.
>>> That seems to be up to the voters to declare.
>>>> This is about litigation which you may be involved in down
>>>> the road. Do be certain to preserve ALL of your communications with
>>>> Polgar and Truong as noticed to you late last year.
>>> Since you cannot declare your interest in this, how can I be bound to
>>> do your bidding?
>> Easy. When you are subpoenaed by a court of competent jurisdiction to
>> produce evidence and give testimony, you will be asked to produce your
>> relevant communications with Polgar and Truong. You have prior written
>> notice to preserve those communications. If you don't, you run the risk
>> of being sanctioned by the court. If it comes to where I need to
>> subpoena you, you will then know my interest. All you'll need do is
>> read the verified complaint.
>>
>> The piss ant games are over, Phil. Polgar, Truong and a number of their
>> minions are in this well over their heads. If you don't believe me,
>> just give Gregory a call. Next time you interview Paul and Susan, ask
>> them how much money has gone through that Florida corporation, where it
>> came from and whose money it was.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Have a nice evening.
>>> Here in the north we say " have an ice evening "
>>> Phil Innes
>
> I thank you for your concerns, but I asked you if you are a collateral
> witness to this case, a legal advocate for any party in it, or a
> speculator upon what may happen in a court or out of it - as is
> evidenced by other posters here. I ask because I don't know!
>
> You decline to identify your interest and relations with the issues.
> That is all that has happened here.
>
> I said from the start that properly constituted legal procedures
> should resolve legal suits. My opinion is that public and unmonitored
> newsgroups are not the right place to conduct investigations on legal
> issues - though surely they may comment on them to the extent of their
> extant wit.
>
> This is not an offer to so conduct the matter here as a court may
> construe what is proper to proceed with.
>
> While you may request such and such upon future circumstance - that is
> quite apart from my inquiry to you upon current matters before the
> courts.
>
> I am not interested in speculating on things here - and entirely
> content to have proper jurisdiction decide the matter, especially
> since so much of it seems to me as yet undisclosed.
>
> Let this general, and essentially unchanged, opinion stand as response
> to your message - which you are under no obligation to reply to, as I
> am in no obligation to you - since I have no idea of your own stance
> in these issues - or what possible combination of roles you may have
> played.
>
> Phil Innes

:-)

Date: 12 Jan 2009 04:57:23
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

>
> I expect that I'll be asking you questions under oath before all of this
> is over. =A0Your two questions above are disingenuous. =A0They contain
> incorrect assumptions.

They may indeed contain incorrect assumptions, but are they my
assumptions? My questions are innocent and as plain as day.

> =A0Even if they didn't, why would I answer your
> questions given your relationship to Polgar and Truong?

It does seem curious that you don't answer, regardless of my
'relationship' with any one at all. What about our mutual relationship
with speaking the truth?

You see - you have asked rather a lot of questions here while making
your own asumptions, and given what you say above, why should I or
anyone have answered you?

How can anyone discover what is or is not 'disingenuous' except they
ask? And this is not a court room, its an unmoderated public
newsgroup, and my question has the merit of simply discovering what
roles people have played in the issues they themselves write about to
great degree.

> =A0It's a no
> brainer. =A0Oh, and Phil, it has nothing to do with transparency in the E=
B
> campaign.

That seems to be up to the voters to declare.

> =A0This is about litigation which you may be involved in down
> the road. =A0Do be certain to preserve ALL of your communications with
> Polgar and Truong as noticed to you late last year.

Since you cannot declare your interest in this, how can I be bound to
do your bidding?

> Have a nice evening.

Here in the north we say " have an ice evening "

Phil Innes

Date: 24 Jan 2009 17:57:17
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: rec.games.chess.tactics.bullying

On Jan 24, 7:10=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > topposted:
> WHAT SECRET?
>
> You mean that Executive Board candidate Ruth Haring was married to GM
> Peter Biyiasis when Fischer stayed at their home in San Francisco and
> decisively defeated Biyiasis in a series of rapid games? If so, isn't
> that common knowledge?
>
> samsloan wrote:
> >It seems that Brock has discovered the secret that I have been alluding =
to for the past two weeks. >

Boring.

There's a rook & pawn ending to analyze.

Date: 24 Jan 2009 17:10:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: rec.games.chess.tactics.bullying

WHAT SECRET?

You mean that Executive Board candidate Ruth Haring was married to GM
Peter Biyiasis when Fischer stayed at their home in San Francisco and
decisively defeated Biyiasis in a series of rapid games? If so, isn't
that common knowledge?

samsloan wrote:
>It seems that Brock has discovered the secret that I have been alluding to for the past two weeks.>

Date: 24 Jan 2009 19:08:48
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: rec.games.chess.tactics.bullying

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:10:19 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>WHAT SECRET?
>
>You mean that Executive Board candidate Ruth Haring was married to GM
>Peter Biyiasis when Fischer stayed at their home in San Francisco and
>decisively defeated Biyiasis in a series of rapid games? If so, isn't
>that common knowledge?

If not common knowledge, it's at least common belief. I heard
Biyiasis didn't win a single game. I'd assumed it was 5-minute blitz.

>samsloan wrote:
>>It seems that Brock has discovered the secret that I have been alluding to for the past two weeks.>

Date: 12 Jan 2009 20:00:14
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

[email protected] wrote:
>> I expect that I'll be asking you questions under oath before all of this
>> is over. Your two questions above are disingenuous. They contain
>> incorrect assumptions.
>
> They may indeed contain incorrect assumptions, but are they my
> assumptions? My questions are innocent and as plain as day.
>
>> Even if they didn't, why would I answer your
>> questions given your relationship to Polgar and Truong?
>
> It does seem curious that you don't answer, regardless of my
> 'relationship' with any one at all. What about our mutual relationship
> with speaking the truth?
>
> You see - you have asked rather a lot of questions here while making
> your own asumptions, and given what you say above, why should I or
> anyone have answered you?
>
> How can anyone discover what is or is not 'disingenuous' except they
> ask? And this is not a court room, its an unmoderated public
> newsgroup, and my question has the merit of simply discovering what
> roles people have played in the issues they themselves write about to
> great degree.
>
>> It's a no
>> brainer. Oh, and Phil, it has nothing to do with transparency in the EB
>> campaign.
>
> That seems to be up to the voters to declare.
>
>> This is about litigation which you may be involved in down
>> the road. Do be certain to preserve ALL of your communications with
>> Polgar and Truong as noticed to you late last year.
>
> Since you cannot declare your interest in this, how can I be bound to
> do your bidding?

Easy. When you are subpoenaed by a court of competent jurisdiction to
produce evidence and give testimony, you will be asked to produce your
relevant communications with Polgar and Truong. You have prior written
notice to preserve those communications. If you don't, you run the risk
of being sanctioned by the court. If it comes to where I need to
subpoena you, you will then know my interest. All you'll need do is
read the verified complaint.

The piss ant games are over, Phil. Polgar, Truong and a number of their
minions are in this well over their heads. If you don't believe me,
just give Gregory a call. Next time you interview Paul and Susan, ask
them how much money has gone through that Florida corporation, where it
came from and whose money it was.

>
>> Have a nice evening.
>
> Here in the north we say " have an ice evening "
>
> Phil Innes

Date: Steve
From: GG
Subject: Re:

[email protected]

Date: 24 Jan 2009 22:10:55
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: rec.games.chess.tactics.bullying

On Jan 25, 12:00=A0am, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:08=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:10:19 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >WHAT SECRET?
>
> > >You mean that Executive Board candidate Ruth Haring was married to GM
> > >Peter Biyiasis when Fischer stayed at their home in San Francisco and
> > >decisively defeated Biyiasis in a series of rapid games? If so, isn't
> > >that common knowledge?
>
> > If not common knowledge, it's at least common belief. =A0I heard
> > Biyiasis didn't win a single game. =A0I'd assumed it was 5-minute blitz=
.
>
> > >samsloan wrote:
> > >>It seems that Brock has discovered the secret that I have been alludi=
ng to for the past two weeks. >
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=3DJcAfWaCa9esC&pg=3DPA343&dq=3Dbiyiasas+=
fi...
>
> In case the link doesn't work, see William Nack, _My Turf: Horses,
> Boxers, Blood Money, and the Sporting Life_ (Da Capo, 2004), p. 343.

The rook ending in question is the following:

White: Kd4, Rf2. Pa2, Pe3
Black: Kb4, Rc8, Pa4

This brand-new video on Grigoriev's combined method may be useful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DR4IRUi-m4b4

Date: 24 Jan 2009 22:00:34
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: rec.games.chess.tactics.bullying

On Jan 24, 9:08=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:10:19 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >WHAT SECRET?
>
> >You mean that Executive Board candidate Ruth Haring was married to GM
> >Peter Biyiasis when Fischer stayed at their home in San Francisco and
> >decisively defeated Biyiasis in a series of rapid games? If so, isn't
> >that common knowledge?
>
> If not common knowledge, it's at least common belief. =A0I heard
> Biyiasis didn't win a single game. =A0I'd assumed it was 5-minute blitz.
>
> >samsloan wrote:
> >>It seems that Brock has discovered the secret that I have been alluding=
to for the past two weeks. >

http://books.google.com/books?id=3DJcAfWaCa9esC&pg=3DPA343&dq=3Dbiyiasas+fi=
scher&ei=3DqP57SeXoF4-SMueDiMIE&client=3Dfirefox-a

In case the link doesn't work, see William Nack, _My Turf: Horses,
Boxers, Blood Money, and the Sporting Life_ (Da Capo, 2004), p. 343.

Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:05:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: rec.games.chess.tactics.bullying

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:00:34 -0800 (PST), billbrock
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Jan 24, 9:08�pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:10:19 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >WHAT SECRET?
>>
>> >You mean that Executive Board candidate Ruth Haring was married to GM
>> >Peter Biyiasis when Fischer stayed at their home in San Francisco and
>> >decisively defeated Biyiasis in a series of rapid games? If so, isn't
>> >that common knowledge?
>>
>> If not common knowledge, it's at least common belief. �I heard
>> Biyiasis didn't win a single game. �I'd assumed it was 5-minute blitz.
>>
>> >samsloan wrote:
>> >>It seems that Brock has discovered the secret that I have been alluding to for the past two weeks.>
>
>http://books.google.com/books?id=JcAfWaCa9esC&pg=PA343&dq=biyiasas+fischer&ei=qP57SeXoF4-SMueDiMIE&client=firefox-a
>
>In case the link doesn't work, see William Nack, _My Turf: Horses,
>Boxers, Blood Money, and the Sporting Life_ (Da Capo, 2004), p. 343.

I got a feeling of deja vu when reading it. Where was it first
published? Esquire, perhaps?

Date: B. Lafferty
From: GG
Subject: Re:

[email protected]

Date: B. Lafferty
From: GG
Subject: Re:

[email protected]

Date: 11 Jan 2009 19:20:57
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 11, 8:24=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I expect that I'll be asking you questions under oath before all of this
> is over..... =A0This is about litigation which you may be involved in dow=
n
> the road. =A0Do be certain to preserve ALL of your communications with
> Polgar and Truong as noticed to you late last year.
>
> Have a nice evening.

I don't know if Phil Innes will have a naif, err, nice evening, but
reading the above just made mine. Thanks, Brian!

Date: 11 Jan 2009 16:44:37
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 11, 6:59=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> johnny reb wrote:
> > Some time ago (I will not say when, for an obvious reason) Hal T. and I=
had
> > an exchange about Brian Lafferty. =A0Now there is someone who definitel=
y had
> > BL all figured out early on in the game. =A0In the quoting below,
> > non-relevant postheaders and lines are deleted to save space and to ass=
ist
> > readability. They are replaced with "../.."
>
> > On 9 Jan 2009 5:26 pm PST, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ./..
> >>>>> On Jan 9, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> > ./..
> >>>>>>> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's =
Ex,
> >>>>>>> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed whe=
n
> >>>>>>> you reported it here.
> > ./..
> >> Did Brian have contact with Susan Polgar's ex husband?
> >> Will Brian answer this with a "yes" or a "no"?
>
> > Mr Mitchell, there is no need for Lafferty to answer this. =A0The evide=
nce
> > that Lafferty phoned Jacob Shutzman, GM Polgar's ex-husband, on Dec 19,
> > 2007 is with the attorneys and other law enforcement. =A0
>
> So? =A0I'm not aware of anything that prevents or makes it improper for
> anyone to telephone Mr. Schutzman.

Who mentioned the legality of it apart from you? Remember, you are
running on a single plank, transparency, therefore no need to twitch
and invent accusations if asked.

So, you telephoned Schutzman on your own volition.

What I asked you is 2 things: (1) what happened as consequence of your
own initiative and phone call? and (b) when you posted here about the
hot-saucing accusation, did you know a court after investigation
already dismissied it?

[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mention
of this subject, on which he was previously hot]

You can either answer these questions put to you some 6 months ago, or
not. But if you don't, then perhaps your single transparency plank has
a worm in it that all can see?

Phil Innes

> >Below you can read
> > some of the proof, admited by Lafferty himself. =A0When recently contac=
ted by
> > phone for verification, Shutzman instantly knew who "Brian Lafferty" wa=
s.
> > He seemed to think, for some reason, that he was talking to Lafferty, w=
hich
> > was helpful.. =A0Shutzman became much less happy when he was referred t=
o the
> > Lynchburg case (CR91003195-00 re attempted child abduction by Sloan, wh=
o
> > was convicted) and informed how collusion with Lafferty, given Lafferty=
's
> > established links and work with felon Sloan, would have effects on his
> > personal life, future, access etc. =A0All taped.
>
> NJ is a one party consent state. =A0Which state were you telephoning Mr.
> Schutzman from? =A0And of course, you're going to tell the court who you
> are as a foundation for admitting the transcript into evidence--assuming
> it's relevant, which it isn't. ROTFL!
>
> =A0 >Here is one part of the
>
>
>
> > proof of Lafferty's solicitation of Shutzman, including evidence of the
> > partnership between Lafferty and Sloan (WHOIS on the website shamema.co=
m
> > from which Lafferty taunts/quotes shows its owner is Sloan)..
>
> > Path:
> > !cycny02.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny08.POSTE=
D!d8
> > cce190!not-for-mail
> > From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> > Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> > Subject: Re: Typical Document from a nasty divorce
> > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> > Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> > Message-ID: <q3Paj.14123$DO.4130@trndny08>
> > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:19:18 GMT
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.163.89
> > X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> > X-Trace: trndny08 1198243158 151.203.163.89 (Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:19:18 =
EST)
> > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:19:18 EST
> > ./..
> > Yesterday, I wrote to Ms. Polgar via email asking for her side of the
> > allegations made by` er ex-husband Mr. Shutzman.
> > ./..
> > I spoke via telephone yesterday, 12/19/07, with Mr. Shutzman =A0who tol=
d me
> > that his children, during a private interview with the guardian ad lite=
m,
> > told the guardian that they had been beaten by Paul Truong for the purp=
ose
> > of making them study chess.
>
> Well, lets put the entire email into the post, OK? =A0Here it is:
>
> Ms. Polgar,
> I have been made aware of two Queens County, New York Family Court
> Orders that present issues of concern for scholastic parents such as
> myself. =A0Let me make clear that I did not go looking for the documents
> referenced below. =A0As Donna Alarie noted in a post to the USCF Issues
> Forum last evening, the substance of this matter has been known to other
> USCF members, including Joe Lux, for several weeks. =A0Let me emphasize
> that I draw NO final conclusion as to the truth of the allegations
> raised by these court orders. =A0I have litigated matrimonial and custody
> disputes and I know how vicious parents can be in seeking an advantage
> in court. [emphasis added]
> However, in this instance I must lend some level of credence to certain
> allegation as they were apparently made by the children themselves, in
> private, to a guardian ad litem appointed by the court to represent
> their interests in the custody/visitation dispute before the Family Court=
.
> I spoke via telephone yesterday, 12/19/07, with Mr. Shutzman =A0who told
> me that his children, during a private interview with the guardian ad
> litem, told the guardian that they had been beaten by Paul Truong for
> the purpose of making them study chess.
> As a parent of a scholastic chess player, I ask you to present your side
> of this matter. =A0 I have spoken with parents of other scholastic player=
s
> who find this matter troubling in-as-much-as you are both deeply
> involved with scholastic chess and working with children.
> To reiterate, I make NO final conclusion or judgment as to the facts
> underlying these court orders. =A0I=92d like to hear your side of the sto=
ry.
> [emphasis added]
> A copy of the initial court order can be found athttp://www.shamema.com/p=
olgar-op-1.pdf
> A copy of the second page of a subsequent court order can be found athttp=
://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-2.pdf
> I would appreciate the courtesy of your reply.
> Very truly yours,Brian Lafferty
>
>
>
> > ./..
> > A copy of the initial court order can be found at
> >http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-1.pdf
> > A copy of the second page of a subsequent court order can be found at
> >http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-2.pdf
> > ./..
> > Very truly yours, Brian Lafferty
>
> > Finding: Lafferty admitted to the contact, and Shutzman has admitted
> > Lafferty did it. =A0Now experts looked at a few of many pseudonyms Laff=
erty
> > adopted to carry out his campaign..
>
> > Path:
> > !news.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-f=
or-m
> > ail
> > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:33:29 -1000
> > From: johnny_t <[email protected]>
> > User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> > Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests
> > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 2692592d.news.astraweb.com
> > X-Trace:
> > DXC=3Dmm7ZmZW;W11aTZ9_0GJc??L?0kYOcDh@:2_H5R0]:7Q9`O1JH1;F6<3e>?_D:CLgI=
2J<FE5
> > [XUN]>^4_8OOHjMn1
> > ./..
> > There is a lot of consternation by bicyclers and testing in the Tour de
> > France.
> > ./..
>
> > Two things are of note in that ASTRAWEB.COM post from "johnny_t" - the =
use
> > of Thunderbird and the reference to bicycling. There are other stylisti=
c
> > giveaways, but that is not for disclosure now.
>
> Is Innes going to be called as your expert on stylistic identification? =
=A0:-)
>
> =A0 =A0Compare it with the cycling
>
>
>
> > reference from Lafferty in hundreds of messages on blogs BBs and posts,
> > including..
>
> > Path:
> > !newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas=
.ear
> > thlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ca87db2a!not-for-mai=
l
> > From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> > Newsgroups:
> > rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,=
alt.
> > chess
> > Subject: Re: I'll sue the USCF
> > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
> > X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
> > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:02:37 GMT
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.41.6.45
> > X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> > X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1168095757 24.41.6.45 (Sat, 0=
6
> > Jan 2007 07:02:37 PST)
> > NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:02:37 PST
> > Organization: EarthLink Inc. --http://www.EarthLink.net
> > ./..
> > You folks are as tragic (and funny) as the folks over at the other USCF
> > (United States Cycling Federation et al.)
> > ./..
>
> > Finding: strike one, an OT cycling fetish on a chess politics newsgroup=
.
> > More cycling below, from another IP (71.198.200.229) geolocated very cl=
ose
> > to the IP above (24.41.6.45) in Mass..
>
> > Path:
> > !local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.PO=
STED
> > !not-for-mail
> > NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:31:55 -0600
> > From: "Chess Freak" <[email protected]>
> > Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> > Subject: Re: radio ads in Crosssvilee, Tennessee
> > Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 15:32:09 -0800
> > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
> > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.198.200.229
> > X-Trace:
> > sv3-Gr5aQ67dThh6xcgvss7CIG8mmy/KDooRzNcSCOxUdqJVoiNVUUkosKINur6/SK/4/1l=
ogzm
> > lYeMIh8F!FcedHKNThySktVrswYYCVwIbsrC7suA4itAp2YI2o6IT2V0tsnl/kr33eArph2=
skXZ
> > N8ekExRLN0!KtEQz9Kcmr0uMrtevllZhGEPkztsIA=3D=3D
> > X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> > ./..
> > shut the fuck up. I was a USCF (United States Cycling Federation)
> > racer in the 80's and had to give urine samples on a few occasions.
>
> ROTFL!!! =A0Not me.
>
> > ./..
> > I believe what you are saying is bullshit. =A0Have you ever in your
> > life taken a drug test, Marcus? What are you trying to hide anyway?
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> > ./..
>
> > Now on the same day as the original admission by Lafferty he had phoned
> > Shutzman, there is a post titled "Hot Saucing Children...", also from
> > ASTRAWEB and using Thunderbird..
>
> > Path: !newshub.sdsu.edu!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb.com!not-for-=
mail
> > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:41:49 -0800
> > From: johnny_t <[email protected]>
> > User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
> > Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> > Subject: Hot Saucing Children...
> > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: af765e1c.news.astraweb.com
> > X-Trace:
> > DXC=3DI:UaQ87k:A_I56`<E^G]B^L?0kYOcDh@Z3^AP^ioBC;PcKf9lWGnVh\ggFYB6J@I9=
Xo7Z@g
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB

Date: 12 Jan 2009 01:24:40
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 11, 6:59 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> johnny reb wrote:
>>> Some time ago (I will not say when, for an obvious reason) Hal T. and I had
>>> an exchange about Brian Lafferty. Now there is someone who definitely had
>>> BL all figured out early on in the game. In the quoting below,
>>> non-relevant postheaders and lines are deleted to save space and to assist
>>> readability. They are replaced with "../.."
>>> On 9 Jan 2009 5:26 pm PST, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ./..
>>>>>>> On Jan 9, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> ./..
>>>>>>>>> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
>>>>>>>>> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when
>>>>>>>>> you reported it here.
>>> ./..
>>>> Did Brian have contact with Susan Polgar's ex husband?
>>>> Will Brian answer this with a "yes" or a "no"?
>>> Mr Mitchell, there is no need for Lafferty to answer this. The evidence
>>> that Lafferty phoned Jacob Shutzman, GM Polgar's ex-husband, on Dec 19,
>>> 2007 is with the attorneys and other law enforcement.
>> So? I'm not aware of anything that prevents or makes it improper for
>> anyone to telephone Mr. Schutzman.
>
> Who mentioned the legality of it apart from you? Remember, you are
> running on a single plank, transparency, therefore no need to twitch
> and invent accusations if asked.
>
> So, you telephoned Schutzman on your own volition.
>
> What I asked you is 2 things: (1) what happened as consequence of your
> own initiative and phone call? and (b) when you posted here about the
> hot-saucing accusation, did you know a court after investigation
> already dismissied it?
>
> [BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mention
> of this subject, on which he was previously hot]
>
> You can either answer these questions put to you some 6 months ago, or
> not. But if you don't, then perhaps your single transparency plank has
> a worm in it that all can see?

I expect that I'll be asking you questions under oath before all of this
is over. Your two questions above are disingenuous. They contain
incorrect assumptions. Even if they didn't, why would I answer your
questions given your relationship to Polgar and Truong? It's a no
brainer. Oh, and Phil, it has nothing to do with transparency in the EB
campaign. This is about litigation which you may be involved in down
the road. Do be certain to preserve ALL of your communications with
Polgar and Truong as noticed to you late last year.

Have a nice evening.

>
> Phil Innes
>
>>> Below you can read
>>> some of the proof, admited by Lafferty himself. When recently contacted by
>>> phone for verification, Shutzman instantly knew who "Brian Lafferty" was.
>>> He seemed to think, for some reason, that he was talking to Lafferty, which
>>> was helpful.. Shutzman became much less happy when he was referred to the
>>> Lynchburg case (CR91003195-00 re attempted child abduction by Sloan, who
>>> was convicted) and informed how collusion with Lafferty, given Lafferty's
>>> established links and work with felon Sloan, would have effects on his
>>> personal life, future, access etc. All taped.
>> NJ is a one party consent state. Which state were you telephoning Mr.
>> Schutzman from? And of course, you're going to tell the court who you
>> are as a foundation for admitting the transcript into evidence--assuming
>> it's relevant, which it isn't. ROTFL!
>>
>> >Here is one part of the
>>
>>
>>
>>> proof of Lafferty's solicitation of Shutzman, including evidence of the
>>> partnership between Lafferty and Sloan (WHOIS on the website shamema.com
>>> from which Lafferty taunts/quotes shows its owner is Sloan)..
>>> Path:
>>> !cycny02.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny08.POSTED!d8
>>> cce190!not-for-mail
>>> From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>>> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
>>> Subject: Re: Typical Document from a nasty divorce
>>> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
>>> Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
>>> Message-ID: <q3Paj.14123$DO.4130@trndny08>
>>> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:19:18 GMT
>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.163.89
>>> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
>>> X-Trace: trndny08 1198243158 151.203.163.89 (Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:19:18 EST)
>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:19:18 EST
>>> ./..
>>> Yesterday, I wrote to Ms. Polgar via email asking for her side of the
>>> allegations made by` er ex-husband Mr. Shutzman.
>>> ./..
>>> I spoke via telephone yesterday, 12/19/07, with Mr. Shutzman who told me
>>> that his children, during a private interview with the guardian ad litem,
>>> told the guardian that they had been beaten by Paul Truong for the purpose
>>> of making them study chess.
>> Well, lets put the entire email into the post, OK? Here it is:
>>
>> Ms. Polgar,
>> I have been made aware of two Queens County, New York Family Court
>> Orders that present issues of concern for scholastic parents such as
>> myself. Let me make clear that I did not go looking for the documents
>> referenced below. As Donna Alarie noted in a post to the USCF Issues
>> Forum last evening, the substance of this matter has been known to other
>> USCF members, including Joe Lux, for several weeks. Let me emphasize
>> that I draw NO final conclusion as to the truth of the allegations
>> raised by these court orders. I have litigated matrimonial and custody
>> disputes and I know how vicious parents can be in seeking an advantage
>> in court. [emphasis added]
>> However, in this instance I must lend some level of credence to certain
>> allegation as they were apparently made by the children themselves, in
>> private, to a guardian ad litem appointed by the court to represent
>> their interests in the custody/visitation dispute before the Family Court.
>> I spoke via telephone yesterday, 12/19/07, with Mr. Shutzman who told
>> me that his children, during a private interview with the guardian ad
>> litem, told the guardian that they had been beaten by Paul Truong for
>> the purpose of making them study chess.
>> As a parent of a scholastic chess player, I ask you to present your side
>> of this matter. I have spoken with parents of other scholastic players
>> who find this matter troubling in-as-much-as you are both deeply
>> involved with scholastic chess and working with children.
>> To reiterate, I make NO final conclusion or judgment as to the facts
>> underlying these court orders. I�d like to hear your side of the story.
>> [emphasis added]
>> A copy of the initial court order can be found athttp://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-1.pdf
>> A copy of the second page of a subsequent court order can be found athttp://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-2.pdf
>> I would appreciate the courtesy of your reply.
>> Very truly yours,Brian Lafferty
>>
>>
>>
>>> ./..
>>> A copy of the initial court order can be found at
>>> http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-1.pdf
>>> A copy of the second page of a subsequent court order can be found at
>>> http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-2.pdf
>>> ./..
>>> Very truly yours, Brian Lafferty
>>> Finding: Lafferty admitted to the contact, and Shutzman has admitted
>>> Lafferty did it. Now experts looked at a few of many pseudonyms Lafferty
>>> adopted to carry out his campaign..
>>> Path:
>>> !news.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-m
>>> ail
>>> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:33:29 -1000
>>> From: johnny_t <[email protected]>
>>> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0
>>> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
>>> Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests
>>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2692592d.news.astraweb.com
>>> X-Trace:
>>> DXC=mm7ZmZW;W11aTZ9_0GJc??L?0kYOcDh@:2_H5R0]:7Q9`O1JH1;F6<3e>?_D:CLgI2J<FE5
>>> [XUN]>^4_8OOHjMn1
>>> ./..
>>> There is a lot of consternation by bicyclers and testing in the Tour de
>>> France.
>>> ./..
>>> Two things are of note in that ASTRAWEB.COM post from "johnny_t" - the use
>>> of Thunderbird and the reference to bicycling. There are other stylistic
>>> giveaways, but that is not for disclosure now.
>> Is Innes going to be called as your expert on stylistic identification? :-)
>>
>> Compare it with the cycling
>>
>>
>>
>>> reference from Lafferty in hundreds of messages on blogs BBs and posts,
>>> including..
>>> Path:
>>> !newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.ear
>>> thlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ca87db2a!not-for-mail
>>> From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>>> Newsgroups:
>>> rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.
>>> chess
>>> Subject: Re: I'll sue the USCF
>>> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
>>> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
>>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:02:37 GMT
>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.41.6.45
>>> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
>>> X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1168095757 24.41.6.45 (Sat, 06
>>> Jan 2007 07:02:37 PST)
>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:02:37 PST
>>> Organization: EarthLink Inc. --http://www.EarthLink.net
>>> ./..
>>> You folks are as tragic (and funny) as the folks over at the other USCF
>>> (United States Cycling Federation et al.)
>>> ./..
>>> Finding: strike one, an OT cycling fetish on a chess politics newsgroup.
>>> More cycling below, from another IP (71.198.200.229) geolocated very close
>>> to the IP above (24.41.6.45) in Mass..
>>> Path:
>>> !local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED
>>> !not-for-mail
>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:31:55 -0600
>>> From: "Chess Freak" <[email protected]>
>>> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
>>> Subject: Re: radio ads in Crosssvilee, Tennessee
>>> Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 15:32:09 -0800
>>> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
>>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
>>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.198.200.229
>>> X-Trace:
>>> sv3-Gr5aQ67dThh6xcgvss7CIG8mmy/KDooRzNcSCOxUdqJVoiNVUUkosKINur6/SK/4/1logzm
>>> lYeMIh8F!FcedHKNThySktVrswYYCVwIbsrC7suA4itAp2YI2o6IT2V0tsnl/kr33eArph2skXZ
>>> N8ekExRLN0!KtEQz9Kcmr0uMrtevllZhGEPkztsIA==
>>> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
>>> ./..
>>> shut the fuck up. I was a USCF (United States Cycling Federation)
>>> racer in the 80's and had to give urine samples on a few occasions.
>> ROTFL!!! Not me.
>>
>>> ./..
>>> I believe what you are saying is bullshit. Have you ever in your
>>> life taken a drug test, Marcus? What are you trying to hide anyway?
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> ./..
>>> Now on the same day as the original admission by Lafferty he had phoned
>>> Shutzman, there is a post titled "Hot Saucing Children...", also from
>>> ASTRAWEB and using Thunderbird..
>>> Path: !newshub.sdsu.edu!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
>>> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:41:49 -0800
>>> From: johnny_t <[email protected]>
>>> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
>>> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
>>> Subject: Hot Saucing Children...
>>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: af765e1c.news.astraweb.com
>>> X-Trace:
>>> DXC=I:UaQ87k:A_I56`<E^G]B^L?0kYOcDh@Z3^AP^ioBC;PcKf9lWGnVh\ggFYB6J@I9Xo7Z@g
>> ...
>>
>> read more �
>

Date: 14 Jan 2009 05:07:10
From: madams
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

B. Lafferty wrote:
.
> Oh, and Phil, it has nothing to do with transparency in the EB
> campaign. This is about litigation which you may be involved in down
> the road. Do be certain to preserve ALL of your communications with
> Polgar and Truong as noticed to you late last year.
>
> Have a nice evening.

Creep..

Mr. Lafferty is clearly one of those surplus to requirement legals
churned out by the notorious US system who then go about inflicting
their garbage on whatever..

Should be a law agin these dung-dwelling scum..

m.

Date: 11 Jan 2009 17:09:24
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:44:37 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>[BTW: Jerry Spinrad seems to have dropped his own inquiry and mention
>of this subject, on which he was previously hot]

Phil, your continual misrepresentation of others' positions gets
tiresome.

Come on, give us a quote that would indicate Spinrad was "hot" on this
topic.

Date: 11 Jan 2009 03:12:21
From: johnny reb
Subject: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

Some time ago (I will not say when, for an obvious reason) Hal T. and I had
an exchange about Brian Lafferty. Now there is someone who definitely had
BL all figured out early on in the game. In the quoting below,
non-relevant postheaders and lines are deleted to save space and to assist
readability. They are replaced with "../.."

On 9 Jan 2009 5:26 pm PST, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
./..
>>>> On Jan 9, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
./..
>>>>>> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
>>>>>> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when
>>>>>> you reported it here.
./..
>Did Brian have contact with Susan Polgar's ex husband?
>Will Brian answer this with a "yes" or a "no"?

Mr Mitchell, there is no need for Lafferty to answer this. The evidence
that Lafferty phoned Jacob Shutzman, GM Polgar's ex-husband, on Dec 19,
2007 is with the attorneys and other law enforcement. Below you can read
some of the proof, admited by Lafferty himself. When recently contacted by
phone for verification, Shutzman instantly knew who "Brian Lafferty" was.
He seemed to think, for some reason, that he was talking to Lafferty, which
was helpful.. Shutzman became much less happy when he was referred to the
Lynchburg case (CR91003195-00 re attempted child abduction by Sloan, who
was convicted) and informed how collusion with Lafferty, given Lafferty's
established links and work with felon Sloan, would have effects on his
personal life, future, access etc. All taped. Here is one part of the
proof of Lafferty's solicitation of Shutzman, including evidence of the
partnership between Lafferty and Sloan (WHOIS on the website shamema.com
from which Lafferty taunts/quotes shows its owner is Sloan)..

Path:
!cycny02.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny08.POSTED!d8
cce190!not-for-mail
From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: Typical Document from a nasty divorce
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Message-ID: <q3Paj.14123$DO.4130@trndny08 >
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:19:18 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.163.89
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: trndny08 1198243158 151.203.163.89 (Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:19:18 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:19:18 EST
./..
Yesterday, I wrote to Ms. Polgar via email asking for her side of the
allegations made by` er ex-husband Mr. Shutzman.
./..
I spoke via telephone yesterday, 12/19/07, with Mr. Shutzman who told me
that his children, during a private interview with the guardian ad litem,
told the guardian that they had been beaten by Paul Truong for the purpose
of making them study chess.
./..
A copy of the initial court order can be found at
http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-1.pdf
A copy of the second page of a subsequent court order can be found at
http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-2.pdf
./..
Very truly yours, Brian Lafferty

Finding: Lafferty admitted to the contact, and Shutzman has admitted
Lafferty did it. Now experts looked at a few of many pseudonyms Lafferty
adopted to carry out his campaign..

Path:
!news.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-m
ail
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:33:29 -1000
From: johnny_t <[email protected] >
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2692592d.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace:
DXC=mm7ZmZW;W11aTZ9_0GJc??L?0kYOcDh@:2_H5R0]:7Q9`O1JH1;F6<3e >?_D:CLgI2J<FE5
[XUN] >^4_8OOHjMn1
./..
There is a lot of consternation by bicyclers and testing in the Tour de
France.
./..

Two things are of note in that ASTRAWEB.COM post from "johnny_t" - the use
of Thunderbird and the reference to bicycling. There are other stylistic
giveaways, but that is not for disclosure now. Compare it with the cycling
reference from Lafferty in hundreds of messages on blogs BBs and posts,
including..

Path:
!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.ear
thlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ca87db2a!not-for-mail
From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.
chess
Subject: Re: I'll sue the USCF
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:02:37 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.41.6.45
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1168095757 24.41.6.45 (Sat, 06
Jan 2007 07:02:37 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:02:37 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
./..
You folks are as tragic (and funny) as the folks over at the other USCF
(United States Cycling Federation et al.)
./..

Finding: strike one, an OT cycling fetish on a chess politics newsgroup.
More cycling below, from another IP (71.198.200.229) geolocated very close
to the IP above (24.41.6.45) in Mass..

Path:
!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED
!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:31:55 -0600
From: "Chess Freak" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: radio ads in Crosssvilee, Tennessee
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 15:32:09 -0800
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.198.200.229
X-Trace:
sv3-Gr5aQ67dThh6xcgvss7CIG8mmy/KDooRzNcSCOxUdqJVoiNVUUkosKINur6/SK/4/1logzm
lYeMIh8F!FcedHKNThySktVrswYYCVwIbsrC7suA4itAp2YI2o6IT2V0tsnl/kr33eArph2skXZ
N8ekExRLN0!KtEQz9Kcmr0uMrtevllZhGEPkztsIA==
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
./..
shut the fuck up. I was a USCF (United States Cycling Federation)
racer in the 80's and had to give urine samples on a few occasions.
./..
I believe what you are saying is bullshit. Have you ever in your
life taken a drug test, Marcus? What are you trying to hide anyway?
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
./..

Now on the same day as the original admission by Lafferty he had phoned
Shutzman, there is a post titled "Hot Saucing Children...", also from
ASTRAWEB and using Thunderbird..

Path: !newshub.sdsu.edu!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:41:49 -0800
From: johnny_t <[email protected] >
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Hot Saucing Children...
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: af765e1c.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace:
DXC=I:UaQ87k:A_I56`<E^G]B^L?0kYOcDh@Z3^AP^ioBC;PcKf9lWGnVh\ggFYB6J@I9Xo7Z@g
=Q_U6Vo0^ >0@aleiP
./..
Because, Well, you know, it seems to be the topic dejour.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin9.htm

To remove any doubt whatsoever there is also..

Path:
!cycny02.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny08.POSTED!d8
cce190!not-for-mail
From: Brian Lafferty <[email protected] >
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: USCF Forum
Message-ID: <8Dwmj.240$7S5.54@trndny08 >
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:09:08 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.154.187.49
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: trndny08 1201313348 141.154.187.49 (Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:09:08 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:09:08 EST
./..
The membership fee is worth the price of admission.

This shows the use of Thunderbird now that Lafferty may no longer be
strictlyusing a PC for the posts under his name and a Mac for the libels.
Finding: "johnny_t" <[email protected] >, "Chess Freak"
<[email protected] > and Lafferty are one and the same person -
Common media
Common method
Common motives
Common purpose
Common expression
Common posting times
Common use of Thunderbird
Common locus of IPs and ISPs
Common cycling and hot-sauce/child-torture/spanking obsessions
Absence of interaction between sockpuppets and puppeteer
Examining the posts from "johnny_t" and "Chess Freak" reveal many
defamatory statements that may now be attributed, without any doubt
whatever, to Lafferty. Three other posters to rec.games.chess.politics
have similarly been unmasked as also being Lafferty. There may well be
more. Subpeonas to Verizon, Earthlink, Astraweb, Speakeasy and others will
yield irrefutable proof of Lafferty's modus. This fishing may be expected
to uncover entirely new avenues to adopt for the future.

To be cited as: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

Date: 13 Jan 2009 17:31:02
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 8:22=A0pm, "[email protected]"

> Now, you sniveling worm, tell me what statement I made that justifies
> your alleging that I was pursuing an inquiry into the hot-sauce issue.

I see Dr. Spinrad has been consuming hot sauce today.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 15:56:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 4:23=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 13, 4:41=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 2:50=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:> On Jan 13, 2:06=A0pm=
, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It has nothing to do with the subject. However, in this thread, Phil
> > chose to re-introduce a complete lie about me. Here are the facts.
>
> > 1) Phil has repeatedly said that at one point, I was advocating
> > pursuing an inquiry into the hot-saucing issue.
>
> > Phil: =A0I have? I have not! I asked you why you were pursuing the hot-
> > sauce
> > =A0incident, and if you knew a court had already dismissed it? I think
> > =A0you never answered this question. Did you answer it? How did you
> > answer?
>
> > As I told you repeatedly, I was never pursuing the hot-sauce issue.
>
> 'Pursued?' is that really an answer to what I ask above?
>
> > Why must I be the only one to back up my answers with copies of my
> > posts? If you are going to accuse me of this, you should show me the
> > posts. You do not, because they do not exist!
>
> And yet you don't quote me while characterising my attitude.
>
> But you did write to this subject, didn't you? So what DID you say?
>
> > I can only imagine that long ago you misread a post, but you never
> > stopped your attack even when asked repeatedly to back up what you
> > were saying.
>
> What you imagine is all to the point! You certainly don't answer what
> I ask, and prefer 'what you only imagine'.
>
> > Phil: I think someone else also sent you sufficient detail of what
> > happened
> > =A0in the courts to then give you pause - which was sufficient for me.
>
> > It was obvious from the email that someone had completely
> > misrepresented my position on the hot-sauce issue.
>
> Well, it wasn't me, perhaps it was 'the person' themselves who
> volunteered you additional information. In fact it was.
>
> > The e-mail I
> > received had no affect on my position, because I always said this was
> > a private matter.
>
> But this is dilettante comment. It is a private matter, proved untrue
> in a court - that is to say, there is no NO evidence that it occurred
> after formal investigation.
>
> Is your own comment quite clear on this - do you not suggest that it
> may have occurred, and comment in public that if so, it is private?
>
> This is why I ask you my question. Did you know a court dismissed the
> issue when you wrote about it? That's a yes or no, and I still do not
> understand your response. Either word removes my further comment on
> the issue =A0;)
>
> What I see you write below are to do with the privacy you accord
> parents to discipline their children in what might be termed an
> unloving way.
>
> What I ask you is different from that - and which you do not
> acknowledge. I asked you if when you published these hypothetical and
> personal abstract philosophical reflets, IF YOU KNEW AT THE TIME THAT
> THE ISSUE WAS ALREADY DISMISSED BY A COURT.

I don't think I knew. It does not matter to me, my answer is the same.
This is not a matter for courts, it is a matter between parents and
children. I think this is a private matter, so I paid no attention to
any questions of court judgments. I oppose it being an issue, just as
I would oppose bringing up any issues of sexual orientation regarding
any candidate, without bothering to find out the candidate's actual
orientation.

Jerry Spinrad

>
> The rest resolves on your answer, which can only be yes or no.
>
> Will you address that, or pass with a million words?
>
> I did at no time point out you nor your opinions to Susan Polgar, nor
> indeed to any person. If she wrote you direct I imagine [only] that
> that was her measure of you as a fellow chesscafe columnist, and that
> she expected you to understand both the context and the specifics she
> then presented you.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > 2) My only posts on the hot-saucing issue stated very explicitly that
> > =A0this should be between the parents and children.
>
> > Phil: =A0I don't remember it that way at all. I rather thought you
> > insisted
> > upon other parents and their children. Of course, I might be wrong,
> > and only your actual posts would reveal which way it was.
>
> > Yes, and here are the only posts I made on the issue. You could have
> > found them by searching for spinrad hot-sauce, and doing a sort by
> > date.
>
> > Here they are:
>
> > Apr 10, 2007
> > I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
> > decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
> > who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
> > to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
> > they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them,
> > and
> > felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
> > it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
> > make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
> > don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
> > which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
> > cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
> > still practiced in this country.
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > I then replied to Mike Murray's disagreement with me, again on Apr 10
>
> > On Apr 10, 1:48=3DA0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
> > involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
> > parents of prospective clients should evaluate. =3DA0
>
> > I think it is still too much of a stretch. If there are accusations
> > as
> > to what they did to other people's children, that is a different
> > matter.
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > Those were my only 2 posts on the issue.
>
> > Shortly after these posts, I received my 1st email message from Susan
> > Polgar, in which (among other issues) she seemed to have the mistaken
> > impression that I was wanting to pursue the issue of child abuse. Do
> > you have any idea who might have given her that impression?
>
> > 3) When this was pointed out to Phil, instead of apologizing, he
> > repeated the charge without any evidence to back it up.
>
> > Phil: =A0I am not interested in your pointing out or characterising you=
r
> > own
> > =A0behavior. If the issue is in doubt then you might produce your own
> > =A0messages at the time, and if you do not, and want to rest the issue,
> > =A0then I can too.
>
> > I have produced my own messages of the time, which you should have had
> > the courtesy to reexamine when you were challenged to back up your
> > claims.
>
> > > > Will you have the integrity to tell Phil that his behavior on this
> > > > subject is reprehensible?
>
> > My behavior is unexamined! Show any 3 of your messages on this subject
> > then dare to repeat your posture - if you want to push the issue. But
> > if you do, then will you say when you posted them, and when you knew
> > =A0of the court's dismissal of the issue? =A0 ;)
>
> > Since I only posted 2 messages on the subject, I feel that I have
> > answered your questions.
>
> > Yes, I want to push the issue. You repeatedly made incorrect claims
> > about my position, and when challenged you repeated the claims instead
> > of checking them out. An apology is certainly in order; ideally, it
> > might be a lesson for you on future behavior as well.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > On Jan 13, 9:43=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 13, 6:55=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]>=
wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 13, 12:27=A0am, "[email protected]"
>
> > > > > > > Phil, this is beneath even you.
>
> > > > > > No it's not.
>
> > > > > What does this have to do with the subject thread?
> > > > > I think we need another "bot" to help us here... the "continuity"=
bot.
> > > > > LOL
>
> > > > > <ducking> I better brace myself for an onslaut of attacks now fro=
m
> > > > > those with ill senses of humor. :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 13 Jan 2009 15:02:45
From:
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

On Jan 13, 5:31=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 4:41=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I want to push the issue. You repeatedly made incorrect claims
> > about my position, and when challenged you repeated the claims instead
> > of checking them out. An apology is certainly in order; ideally, it
> > might be a lesson for you on future behavior as well.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> =A0 Jerry, as you have probably noticed in the threads about Morphy and
> Fischer, Phil's been making "incorrect claims" there, as he so often
> does. And of course, despite being repeatedly corrected, he never
> learns anything from it.

KINGSTON, shut your stupid offensive mouth and if Spinrad had the
balls to answer my question to him. let him. If he don't then you can
both mouth off till next Christmas.

Why do you intercept the question Kingston, of what he knew when he
wrote about it: As usual - you must always be asked what this means to
you - except of course if you merely brown-nosing some dude ;)

Here you seem to want to repress the question. As even Spinrad can see
in the Morphy threads, Kingston only wants to disagree with Nunn, and
cannot answer if he wants to actually measure Morphy via Fritz.

Kingston is too often corrected, and becomes overly confused by actual
information. But that is merely ego. Here, Spinrad I ask youy a direct
yes or no question, which despite your 'responses' you fail to answer.

Phil Innes

Date: 11 Jan 2009 23:59:27
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

johnny reb wrote:
> Some time ago (I will not say when, for an obvious reason) Hal T. and I had
> an exchange about Brian Lafferty. Now there is someone who definitely had
> BL all figured out early on in the game. In the quoting below,
> non-relevant postheaders and lines are deleted to save space and to assist
> readability. They are replaced with "../.."
>
> On 9 Jan 2009 5:26 pm PST, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> ./..
>>>>> On Jan 9, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> ./..
>>>>>>> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
>>>>>>> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when
>>>>>>> you reported it here.
> ./..
>> Did Brian have contact with Susan Polgar's ex husband?
>> Will Brian answer this with a "yes" or a "no"?
>
> Mr Mitchell, there is no need for Lafferty to answer this. The evidence
> that Lafferty phoned Jacob Shutzman, GM Polgar's ex-husband, on Dec 19,
> 2007 is with the attorneys and other law enforcement.

So? I'm not aware of anything that prevents or makes it improper for
anyone to telephone Mr. Schutzman.

>Below you can read
> some of the proof, admited by Lafferty himself. When recently contacted by
> phone for verification, Shutzman instantly knew who "Brian Lafferty" was.
> He seemed to think, for some reason, that he was talking to Lafferty, which
> was helpful.. Shutzman became much less happy when he was referred to the
> Lynchburg case (CR91003195-00 re attempted child abduction by Sloan, who
> was convicted) and informed how collusion with Lafferty, given Lafferty's
> established links and work with felon Sloan, would have effects on his
> personal life, future, access etc. All taped.

NJ is a one party consent state. Which state were you telephoning Mr.
Schutzman from? And of course, you're going to tell the court who you
are as a foundation for admitting the transcript into evidence--assuming
it's relevant, which it isn't. ROTFL!

>Here is one part of the
> proof of Lafferty's solicitation of Shutzman, including evidence of the
> partnership between Lafferty and Sloan (WHOIS on the website shamema.com
> from which Lafferty taunts/quotes shows its owner is Sloan)..
>
> Path:
> !cycny02.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny08.POSTED!d8
> cce190!not-for-mail
> From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: Typical Document from a nasty divorce
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> Message-ID: <q3Paj.14123$DO.4130@trndny08>
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:19:18 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.163.89
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> X-Trace: trndny08 1198243158 151.203.163.89 (Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:19:18 EST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:19:18 EST
> ./..
> Yesterday, I wrote to Ms. Polgar via email asking for her side of the
> allegations made by` er ex-husband Mr. Shutzman.
> ./..
> I spoke via telephone yesterday, 12/19/07, with Mr. Shutzman who told me
> that his children, during a private interview with the guardian ad litem,
> told the guardian that they had been beaten by Paul Truong for the purpose
> of making them study chess.

Well, lets put the entire email into the post, OK? Here it is:

Ms. Polgar,
I have been made aware of two Queens County, New York Family Court
Orders that present issues of concern for scholastic parents such as
myself. Let me make clear that I did not go looking for the documents
referenced below. As Donna Alarie noted in a post to the USCF Issues
Forum last evening, the substance of this matter has been known to other
USCF members, including Joe Lux, for several weeks. Let me emphasize
that I draw NO final conclusion as to the truth of the allegations
raised by these court orders. I have litigated matrimonial and custody
disputes and I know how vicious parents can be in seeking an advantage
in court. [emphasis added]
However, in this instance I must lend some level of credence to certain
allegation as they were apparently made by the children themselves, in
private, to a guardian ad litem appointed by the court to represent
their interests in the custody/visitation dispute before the Family Court.
I spoke via telephone yesterday, 12/19/07, with Mr. Shutzman who told
me that his children, during a private interview with the guardian ad
litem, told the guardian that they had been beaten by Paul Truong for
the purpose of making them study chess.
As a parent of a scholastic chess player, I ask you to present your side
of this matter. I have spoken with parents of other scholastic players
who find this matter troubling in-as-much-as you are both deeply
involved with scholastic chess and working with children.
To reiterate, I make NO final conclusion or judgment as to the facts
underlying these court orders. I�d like to hear your side of the story.
[emphasis added]
A copy of the initial court order can be found at
http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-1.pdf
A copy of the second page of a subsequent court order can be found at
http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-2.pdf
I would appreciate the courtesy of your reply.
Very truly yours,Brian Lafferty

> ./..
> A copy of the initial court order can be found at
> http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-1.pdf
> A copy of the second page of a subsequent court order can be found at
> http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-2.pdf
> ./..
> Very truly yours, Brian Lafferty
>
> Finding: Lafferty admitted to the contact, and Shutzman has admitted
> Lafferty did it. Now experts looked at a few of many pseudonyms Lafferty
> adopted to carry out his campaign..
>
> Path:
> !news.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-m
> ail
> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:33:29 -1000
> From: johnny_t <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2692592d.news.astraweb.com
> X-Trace:
> DXC=mm7ZmZW;W11aTZ9_0GJc??L?0kYOcDh@:2_H5R0]:7Q9`O1JH1;F6<3e>?_D:CLgI2J<FE5
> [XUN]>^4_8OOHjMn1
> ./..
> There is a lot of consternation by bicyclers and testing in the Tour de
> France.
> ./..
>
> Two things are of note in that ASTRAWEB.COM post from "johnny_t" - the use
> of Thunderbird and the reference to bicycling. There are other stylistic
> giveaways, but that is not for disclosure now.

Is Innes going to be called as your expert on stylistic identification? :-)

Compare it with the cycling
> reference from Lafferty in hundreds of messages on blogs BBs and posts,
> including..
>
> Path:
> !newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.ear
> thlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ca87db2a!not-for-mail
> From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.
> chess
> Subject: Re: I'll sue the USCF
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:02:37 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.41.6.45
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1168095757 24.41.6.45 (Sat, 06
> Jan 2007 07:02:37 PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:02:37 PST
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> ./..
> You folks are as tragic (and funny) as the folks over at the other USCF
> (United States Cycling Federation et al.)
> ./..
>
> Finding: strike one, an OT cycling fetish on a chess politics newsgroup.
> More cycling below, from another IP (71.198.200.229) geolocated very close
> to the IP above (24.41.6.45) in Mass..
>
> Path:
> !local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED
> !not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:31:55 -0600
> From: "Chess Freak" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: radio ads in Crosssvilee, Tennessee
> Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 15:32:09 -0800
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.198.200.229
> X-Trace:
> sv3-Gr5aQ67dThh6xcgvss7CIG8mmy/KDooRzNcSCOxUdqJVoiNVUUkosKINur6/SK/4/1logzm
> lYeMIh8F!FcedHKNThySktVrswYYCVwIbsrC7suA4itAp2YI2o6IT2V0tsnl/kr33eArph2skXZ
> N8ekExRLN0!KtEQz9Kcmr0uMrtevllZhGEPkztsIA==
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> ./..
> shut the fuck up. I was a USCF (United States Cycling Federation)
> racer in the 80's and had to give urine samples on a few occasions.

ROTFL!!! Not me.
> ./..
> I believe what you are saying is bullshit. Have you ever in your
> life taken a drug test, Marcus? What are you trying to hide anyway?
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> ./..
>
> Now on the same day as the original admission by Lafferty he had phoned
> Shutzman, there is a post titled "Hot Saucing Children...", also from
> ASTRAWEB and using Thunderbird..
>
> Path: !newshub.sdsu.edu!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:41:49 -0800
> From: johnny_t <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Hot Saucing Children...
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: af765e1c.news.astraweb.com
> X-Trace:
> DXC=I:UaQ87k:A_I56`<E^G]B^L?0kYOcDh@Z3^AP^ioBC;PcKf9lWGnVh\ggFYB6J@I9Xo7Z@g
> =Q_U6Vo0^>0@aleiP
> ./..
> Because, Well, you know, it seems to be the topic dejour.
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin9.htm
>
> To remove any doubt whatsoever there is also..
LOL!

>
> Path:
> !cycny02.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny08.POSTED!d8
> cce190!not-for-mail
> From: Brian Lafferty <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: USCF Forum
> Message-ID: <8Dwmj.240$7S5.54@trndny08>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:09:08 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.154.187.49
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> X-Trace: trndny08 1201313348 141.154.187.49 (Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:09:08 EST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:09:08 EST
> ./..
> The membership fee is worth the price of admission.
>
> This shows the use of Thunderbird now that Lafferty may no longer be
> strictlyusing a PC for the posts under his name and a Mac for the libels.
> Finding: "johnny_t" <[email protected]>, "Chess Freak"
> <[email protected]> and Lafferty are one and the same person -
> Common media
> Common method
> Common motives
> Common purpose
> Common expression
> Common posting times
> Common use of Thunderbird
> Common locus of IPs and ISPs
> Common cycling and hot-sauce/child-torture/spanking obsessions
> Absence of interaction between sockpuppets and puppeteer
> Examining the posts from "johnny_t" and "Chess Freak" reveal many
> defamatory statements that may now be attributed, without any doubt
> whatever, to Lafferty. Three other posters to rec.games.chess.politics
> have similarly been unmasked as also being Lafferty. There may well be
> more. Subpeonas to Verizon, Earthlink, Astraweb, Speakeasy and others will
> yield irrefutable proof of Lafferty's modus. This fishing may be expected
> to uncover entirely new avenues to adopt for the future.
ROTFLMAO!! Want to borrow my fishing pole? You are such a funny putz. :-)

Please post again soon.

>
> To be cited as: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty
>
>

Date: 11 Jan 2009 03:45:20
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

johnny reb wrote:
> Some time ago (I will not say when, for an obvious reason) Hal T. and I had
> an exchange about Brian Lafferty. Now there is someone who definitely had
> BL all figured out early on in the game. In the quoting below,
> non-relevant postheaders and lines are deleted to save space and to assist
> readability. They are replaced with "../.."
>
> On 9 Jan 2009 5:26 pm PST, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> ./..
>>>>> On Jan 9, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> ./..
>>>>>>> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
>>>>>>> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when
>>>>>>> you reported it here.
> ./..
>> Did Brian have contact with Susan Polgar's ex husband?
>> Will Brian answer this with a "yes" or a "no"?
>
> Mr Mitchell, there is no need for Lafferty to answer this. The evidence
> that Lafferty phoned Jacob Shutzman, GM Polgar's ex-husband, on Dec 19,
> 2007 is with the attorneys and other law enforcement. Below you can read
> some of the proof, admited by Lafferty himself. When recently contacted by
> phone for verification, Shutzman instantly knew who "Brian Lafferty" was.
> He seemed to think, for some reason, that he was talking to Lafferty, which
> was helpful.. Shutzman became much less happy when he was referred to the
> Lynchburg case (CR91003195-00 re attempted child abduction by Sloan, who
> was convicted) and informed how collusion with Lafferty, given Lafferty's
> established links and work with felon Sloan, would have effects on his
> personal life, future, access etc. All taped. Here is one part of the
> proof of Lafferty's solicitation of Shutzman, including evidence of the
> partnership between Lafferty and Sloan (WHOIS on the website shamema.com
> from which Lafferty taunts/quotes shows its owner is Sloan)..
>
> Path:
> !cycny02.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny08.POSTED!d8
> cce190!not-for-mail
> From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: Typical Document from a nasty divorce
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> Message-ID: <q3Paj.14123$DO.4130@trndny08>
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:19:18 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.163.89
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> X-Trace: trndny08 1198243158 151.203.163.89 (Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:19:18 EST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:19:18 EST
> ./..
> Yesterday, I wrote to Ms. Polgar via email asking for her side of the
> allegations made by` er ex-husband Mr. Shutzman.
> ./..
> I spoke via telephone yesterday, 12/19/07, with Mr. Shutzman who told me
> that his children, during a private interview with the guardian ad litem,
> told the guardian that they had been beaten by Paul Truong for the purpose
> of making them study chess.
> ./..
> A copy of the initial court order can be found at
> http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-1.pdf
> A copy of the second page of a subsequent court order can be found at
> http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-2.pdf
> ./..
> Very truly yours, Brian Lafferty
>
> Finding: Lafferty admitted to the contact, and Shutzman has admitted
> Lafferty did it. Now experts looked at a few of many pseudonyms Lafferty
> adopted to carry out his campaign..
>
> Path:
> !news.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-m
> ail
> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:33:29 -1000
> From: johnny_t <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2692592d.news.astraweb.com
> X-Trace:
> DXC=mm7ZmZW;W11aTZ9_0GJc??L?0kYOcDh@:2_H5R0]:7Q9`O1JH1;F6<3e>?_D:CLgI2J<FE5
> [XUN]>^4_8OOHjMn1
> ./..
> There is a lot of consternation by bicyclers and testing in the Tour de
> France.
> ./..
>
> Two things are of note in that ASTRAWEB.COM post from "johnny_t" - the use
> of Thunderbird and the reference to bicycling. There are other stylistic
> giveaways, but that is not for disclosure now. Compare it with the cycling
> reference from Lafferty in hundreds of messages on blogs BBs and posts,
> including..
>
> Path:
> !newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.ear
> thlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ca87db2a!not-for-mail
> From: "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.
> chess
> Subject: Re: I'll sue the USCF
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:02:37 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.41.6.45
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1168095757 24.41.6.45 (Sat, 06
> Jan 2007 07:02:37 PST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:02:37 PST
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> ./..
> You folks are as tragic (and funny) as the folks over at the other USCF
> (United States Cycling Federation et al.)
> ./..
>
> Finding: strike one, an OT cycling fetish on a chess politics newsgroup.
> More cycling below, from another IP (71.198.200.229) geolocated very close
> to the IP above (24.41.6.45) in Mass..
>
> Path:
> !local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED
> !not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:31:55 -0600
> From: "Chess Freak" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: radio ads in Crosssvilee, Tennessee
> Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 15:32:09 -0800
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.198.200.229
> X-Trace:
> sv3-Gr5aQ67dThh6xcgvss7CIG8mmy/KDooRzNcSCOxUdqJVoiNVUUkosKINur6/SK/4/1logzm
> lYeMIh8F!FcedHKNThySktVrswYYCVwIbsrC7suA4itAp2YI2o6IT2V0tsnl/kr33eArph2skXZ
> N8ekExRLN0!KtEQz9Kcmr0uMrtevllZhGEPkztsIA==
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> ./..
> shut the fuck up. I was a USCF (United States Cycling Federation)
> racer in the 80's and had to give urine samples on a few occasions.
> ./..
> I believe what you are saying is bullshit. Have you ever in your
> life taken a drug test, Marcus? What are you trying to hide anyway?
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> ./..
>
> Now on the same day as the original admission by Lafferty he had phoned
> Shutzman, there is a post titled "Hot Saucing Children...", also from
> ASTRAWEB and using Thunderbird..
>
> Path: !newshub.sdsu.edu!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:41:49 -0800
> From: johnny_t <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Hot Saucing Children...
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: af765e1c.news.astraweb.com
> X-Trace:
> DXC=I:UaQ87k:A_I56`<E^G]B^L?0kYOcDh@Z3^AP^ioBC;PcKf9lWGnVh\ggFYB6J@I9Xo7Z@g
> =Q_U6Vo0^>0@aleiP
> ./..
> Because, Well, you know, it seems to be the topic dejour.
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin9.htm
>
> To remove any doubt whatsoever there is also..
>
> Path:
> !cycny02.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny08.POSTED!d8
> cce190!not-for-mail
> From: Brian Lafferty <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: USCF Forum
> Message-ID: <8Dwmj.240$7S5.54@trndny08>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:09:08 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.154.187.49
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> X-Trace: trndny08 1201313348 141.154.187.49 (Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:09:08 EST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:09:08 EST
> ./..
> The membership fee is worth the price of admission.
>
> This shows the use of Thunderbird now that Lafferty may no longer be
> strictlyusing a PC for the posts under his name and a Mac for the libels.

Archived. ROTFLMAO!! I've never in my life used a Mac.

> Finding: "johnny_t" <[email protected]>, "Chess Freak"
> <[email protected]> and Lafferty are one and the same person -
> Common media
> Common method
> Common motives
> Common purpose
> Common expression
> Common posting times
> Common use of Thunderbird
> Common locus of IPs and ISPs
> Common cycling and hot-sauce/child-torture/spanking obsessions
> Absence of interaction between sockpuppets and puppeteer
> Examining the posts from "johnny_t" and "Chess Freak" reveal many
> defamatory statements that may now be attributed, without any doubt
> whatever, to Lafferty. Three other posters to rec.games.chess.politics
> have similarly been unmasked as also being Lafferty. There may well be
> more. Subpeonas to Verizon, Earthlink, Astraweb, Speakeasy and others will
> yield irrefutable proof of Lafferty's modus. This fishing may be expected
> to uncover entirely new avenues to adopt for the future.
>
> To be cited as: Endless pseudonyms and dissemblies of Brian Lafferty

LOL. The Trolgar camp is definitely rattled tonight. What happened to
trigger all this gibberish?

>
>

Date: 09 Jan 2009 13:40:36
From:
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 4:04=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Jan 9, 11:24 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> The Historian wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 9, 7:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truong to
> >>>>>> produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat, Tr=
uong
> >>>>>> and Muradian? =A0That might be of interest. =A0--- BL
> >>>>> So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell come out?
> >>>> Good question. =A0I haven't got an answer.
> >>> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
> >>> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when yo=
u
> >>> reported it here.
> >> You reveal yourself as a Trolgar minion.
>
> > Aargh! the light the light!
>
> > OR
>
> > The palpable excuse of a man can't say his own truth! Did you wish to
> > run on a platform of transparency, are you already bust at the first
> > question?
>
> > Can others actually ask the questions to which you intend to govern
> > transparently, or will those windows be as rare as a Scottish tower?
>
> >> =A0Your boss
>
> > An insinuation or an accusation: I am asking you a PLAIN QUESTION and
> > you AVOID the answer by whatever this is you do, insinuation and
> > accusation combined - neither of which is true.
>
> > Hence Brian Laugherty falls at the first occasion to be open and
> > transparent.
>
> > Remember folks, the question was:
>
> > "Could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
> > or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when you
> > reported it here."
>
> > Both these questions seem mighty inconvenient to transparency, and we
> > note formally note the fact .
>
> >> couldn't even find
> >> one sentence in which I accused her of anything to put before the cour=
t
> >> in Lubbock. =A0Why was that? =A0Because I never accused her of anythin=
g in
> >> relation to her ex-husband.
>
> > That would seem to be a response to a question I did not ask, rather
> > than an answer to the two questions I did ask.
>
> >>> Did you say you were for or against 'transparency'? - How will you do
> >>> that exactly if you are not transparent yourself?
> >>> I support transparency! Let the dreadful saucerful of secrets be
> >>> revealed in the light of day!
> >>> Let people make up their own minds what it all means.
> >>> I am a chess player and can compete this way with any one at all when
> >>> all the pieces are in view. This is the very spirit of the game, no?
> >> ROTFLMAO =A0I don't plan on responding to you any more. =A0:-)
>
> > So much for transparency, and so much for being transparent to the
> > independent and #1 US -based chess site.
>
> > I record this response as the writer proposes about himself - his
> > transparency platform is a "ROTFLMAO" item, a laughable plank, even at
> > the first test, and in his own words!
>
> > In terms of what Mr. Laugherty proposes, I am not interested as a
> > journalist in 'responses' so thank him his further neglect to provide
> > them, I am interested in Answers, and those who can do that are rara
> > avis, of another order.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> >>> Phil Innes
>
> Interesting psychological projection on your part.

Interesting continuing evasion on yours, and I use 'interesting'
similarly to your own euphemistic sense of the term. But as you
previously announced you will take no more interest in those who
question your own transparency, a rather absurd stance [!] you achieve
here in public:

a) you avoid my original questions to your role in the hot-sauce
incident, while

b) saying you would respond no further to me, who asks after your own
transparency, but you do, since it must be attended to, and

c) you now say this is 'interesting psychology', which it certainly is
- but what is projected by me as you propose? Is your ability to name
your subjects and objects to be 'transparent' to your readers? and

d) you don't answer what I just put to you about your relations with
Susan's ex, ands what you knew about a court's dismissal of the hot-
sauce accusation at the time you wrote about it here.

Now there is a transparent honesty test :)))

Does this mention alone sink Brian's aspirations? Transparent? I don't
think I need do anything than witness your failure to answer about
your own actions.

You see, Brian, I called you, and you twice failed to come up to the
mark about yourself - you responded, but not to answer the question,
which is itself odd - should this recommend your political
aspirations, or will you remain forever in the minor leagues by
obviously avoiding questions about your own transparency, whjle merely
talking about them in public?

In this first test of being transparent, you punt.

Not good, brother. In fact, you respond without factual matter. I am
sure you understand the nature of this challenge to an hypocritical
standard, as medicos like to say, and have sensibly managed your reply
to reflect how you will be to any future opportunity to be
'transparent'.

Are you content with your first effort?

Should I have got you wrong you will bother to inform readers here and
everywhere upon such other posture that I currently fail to notice.

Phil Innes

Date: 09 Jan 2009 12:48:23
From:
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 2:00=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 11:24 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The Historian wrote:
> >>> On Jan 9, 7:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truong to
> >>>> produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat, Truo=
ng
> >>>> and Muradian? =A0That might be of interest. =A0--- BL
> >>> So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell come out?
> >> Good question. =A0I haven't got an answer.
>
> > Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
> > or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when you
> > reported it here.
>
> You reveal yourself as a Trolgar minion.

Aargh! the light the light!

OR

The palpable excuse of a man can't say his own truth! Did you wish to
run on a platform of transparency, are you already bust at the first
question?

Can others actually ask the questions to which you intend to govern
transparently, or will those windows be as rare as a Scottish tower?

> =A0Your boss

An insinuation or an accusation: I am asking you a PLAIN QUESTION and
you AVOID the answer by whatever this is you do, insinuation and
accusation combined - neither of which is true.

Hence Brian Laugherty falls at the first occasion to be open and
transparent.

Remember folks, the question was:

"Could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when you
reported it here."

Both these questions seem mighty inconvenient to transparency, and we
note formally note the fact .

> couldn't even find
> one sentence in which I accused her of anything to put before the court
> in Lubbock. =A0Why was that? =A0Because I never accused her of anything i=
n
> relation to her ex-husband.

That would seem to be a response to a question I did not ask, rather
than an answer to the two questions I did ask.

> > Did you say you were for or against 'transparency'? - How will you do
> > that exactly if you are not transparent yourself?
>
> > I support transparency! Let the dreadful saucerful of secrets be
> > revealed in the light of day!
> > Let people make up their own minds what it all means.
>
> > I am a chess player and can compete this way with any one at all when
> > all the pieces are in view. This is the very spirit of the game, no?
>
> ROTFLMAO =A0I don't plan on responding to you any more. =A0:-)

So much for transparency, and so much for being transparent to the
independent and #1 US -based chess site.

I record this response as the writer proposes about himself - his
transparency platform is a "ROTFLMAO" item, a laughable plank, even at
the first test, and in his own words!

In terms of what Mr. Laugherty proposes, I am not interested as a
journalist in 'responses' so thank him his further neglect to provide
them, I am interested in Answers, and those who can do that are rara
avis, of another order.

Phil Innes

>
>
> > Phil Innes

Date: 09 Jan 2009 21:04:53
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:00 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Jan 9, 11:24 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 9, 7:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truong to
>>>>>> produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat, Truong
>>>>>> and Muradian? That might be of interest. --- BL
>>>>> So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell come out?
>>>> Good question. I haven't got an answer.
>>> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
>>> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when you
>>> reported it here.
>> You reveal yourself as a Trolgar minion.
>
> Aargh! the light the light!
>
> OR
>
> The palpable excuse of a man can't say his own truth! Did you wish to
> run on a platform of transparency, are you already bust at the first
> question?
>
> Can others actually ask the questions to which you intend to govern
> transparently, or will those windows be as rare as a Scottish tower?
>
>> Your boss
>
> An insinuation or an accusation: I am asking you a PLAIN QUESTION and
> you AVOID the answer by whatever this is you do, insinuation and
> accusation combined - neither of which is true.
>
> Hence Brian Laugherty falls at the first occasion to be open and
> transparent.
>
> Remember folks, the question was:
>
> "Could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when you
> reported it here."
>
> Both these questions seem mighty inconvenient to transparency, and we
> note formally note the fact .
>
>> couldn't even find
>> one sentence in which I accused her of anything to put before the court
>> in Lubbock. Why was that? Because I never accused her of anything in
>> relation to her ex-husband.
>
> That would seem to be a response to a question I did not ask, rather
> than an answer to the two questions I did ask.
>
>
>>> Did you say you were for or against 'transparency'? - How will you do
>>> that exactly if you are not transparent yourself?
>>> I support transparency! Let the dreadful saucerful of secrets be
>>> revealed in the light of day!
>>> Let people make up their own minds what it all means.
>>> I am a chess player and can compete this way with any one at all when
>>> all the pieces are in view. This is the very spirit of the game, no?
>> ROTFLMAO I don't plan on responding to you any more. :-)
>
> So much for transparency, and so much for being transparent to the
> independent and #1 US -based chess site.
>
> I record this response as the writer proposes about himself - his
> transparency platform is a "ROTFLMAO" item, a laughable plank, even at
> the first test, and in his own words!
>
> In terms of what Mr. Laugherty proposes, I am not interested as a
> journalist in 'responses' so thank him his further neglect to provide
> them, I am interested in Answers, and those who can do that are rara
> avis, of another order.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
>>
>>> Phil Innes
>
Interesting psychological projection on your part.

Date: 09 Jan 2009 10:49:35
From:
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 11:24=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 7:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truong to
> >> produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat, Truong
> >> and Muradian? =A0That might be of interest. =A0--- BL
>
> > So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell come out?
>
> Good question. =A0I haven't got an answer.

Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when you
reported it here.

Did you say you were for or against 'transparency'? - How will you do
that exactly if you are not transparent yourself?

I support transparency! Let the dreadful saucerful of secrets be
revealed in the light of day!
Let people make up their own minds what it all means.

I am a chess player and can compete this way with any one at all when
all the pieces are in view. This is the very spirit of the game, no?

Phil Innes

Date: 11 Jan 2009 14:22:14
From:
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 11, 12:27=A0pm, Wick <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 11, 7:23=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Given that the statement in quotes that Phil attributes to me, was, i=
n
> > > fact, written by Mike Murray, Mr. Innes' reply is yet another example
> > > of the unintentional comedy that he routinely supplies to this forum.
>
> > Except of course that the negative and derogatoruy and vague ad hom
> > commentaries by those who do not sign their names are indistinguisable
> > from one another.
>
> Only if one is too lazy to count the number of ">" before the line.
>
> > Wick does deserve an apology from me, however credentialed are his own
> > post - and he may chose to append my comment to any of his he choses -
> > since in truth, it makes no difference whatsoever to anything he
> > writes since they all lack chess content.
>
> Your apology will be accepted whenever I figure out what you are
> t

Look Wick, you are not quite catching my drift. You are a pissy sort
of poster incapable of doing what you do right now - and that is
typical of USCF insiders.

I do not look for nor value your opinions. To me, they are the same
level as your chess.

> > Whichever poster says I am the same as Sloan is committing a libel and
> > up to the usual tricks of using net-media to actually repress chess
> > issues.
>
> I did compare you to Sloan, although to say that I said that you were
> the "same as Sloan" is an inaccurate paraphrase -- imagine that.

do I have to be so generous to your prose? I don't think so. I think
you have nothing to say on any issue, and you exhibit you nothingness
every time you post.

What follows are things I would take up if they were not so entirely
wrong, and would encourage you to be a pissy-man.

You catching my drift yet?

If not, then this is no competiiton - write whatever you want, and if
it ever strays in the direction of chess development we may re-
encounter each other.

Phil Innes

> I do see substantial similarities between you and Sloan, to wit:
>
> 1. =A0Both you and Sloan post here obsessively.
>
> 2. =A0Both your and Sloan's posts are colored by intense personal
> agendas and feuds.
>
> 3, =A0I don't trust either of you to get your facts straight. =A0I take
> every post by either of you with a grain of salt the approximate size
> of the Hope Diamond.
>
> 4. =A0Both of you, in my opinion, have vastly inflated egos and opinions
> of your importance in the chess world.
>
> 5. =A0Both of you seem to view chess ratings as meaning something other
> than chess strength.
>
> > Because like so many others Dear Wick can't write such stuff at the
> > USCF forum without getting banned, what he does here is merely
> > illustrate my point for me by demonstrating that those boosting USCF
> > are clearly not boosting chess in this country.
>
> As it happens, I have posted over 60 times at USCF forums without ever
> getting so much as a peep from the moderators.
>
> > If Evans and Alburt aren't enough authority on the activity of the
> > cuyrrent board, Paul Truong's response Friday published at chessville
> > today should make clear that nothing essential has changed at USCF,
> > despite OMOV and its own forum, where the only thing you can't talk
> > about is chess management by USCF =A0; ((((
>
> Obviously, you don't read that forum.
>
> If you want to compare censorship on the USCF forums vs. censorship at
> ChessDiscussion.com, let's do that. =A0I think readers without an dog in
> that fight, if any, would find the censorship at chessdiscussion much
> more pervasive.
>
> RGCP, of course has no moderation, in any sense of that term. =A0For
> that reason, I reserve the right, when the mood strikes me, to comment
> about posts and posters.
>
> > > Phil's inability to state facts correctly is so chronic that he can't
> > > even accurately attribute quotes in a usenet post.
>
> > > To be fair, there are differences between Sam Sloan and Phil Innes.
> > > Mr. Sloan, when the impulse strikes him, can write coherent prose.
>
> > To be fair to Dear Wick, I understand losing chess games to another
> > poster stings - but at least he played a couple! Which is more than
> > most brave-mouths are quite capable of.
>
> Um. we played when? =A0I honestly have no recollection of ever playing
> you.
>
> > Sam Sloan, the great prose writer that he is, merely suffers from
> > understanding nothing, which is to say he is a dimwit - or that he
> > does understand things and maliciously inverts the truth of them. In
> > this very instance the Sloan chose to read my games against Dear Wick
> > as loses rather than wins, and also to ignore both our corres
> > ratings. =A0Pfft.
>
> Do I even have a correspondence rating? =A0Other than an abortive and
> completely unsuccessful foray into email chess, I haven't played
> correspondence.
>
> > But I understand he is too busy not being obsessed to really pay
> > attention to actual things which go on. Unknown what excuse Dear Wick
> > deploys.
>
> > Of the Sloan I think, to grammatically pun, my prose is rather
> > different than are his.
>
> Yes. =A0I can understand wtf he is talking about. =A0Your posts -- not so
> much.
>
> Wick

Date: 11 Jan 2009 09:27:52
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 11, 7:23=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Given that the statement in quotes that Phil attributes to me, was, in
> > fact, written by Mike Murray, Mr. Innes' reply is yet another example
> > of the unintentional comedy that he routinely supplies to this forum.
>
> Except of course that the negative and derogatoruy and vague ad hom
> commentaries by those who do not sign their names are indistinguisable
> from one another.
>

Only if one is too lazy to count the number of " >" before the line.

> Wick does deserve an apology from me, however credentialed are his own
> post - and he may chose to append my comment to any of his he choses -
> since in truth, it makes no difference whatsoever to anything he
> writes since they all lack chess content.
>

Your apology will be accepted whenever I figure out what you are
talking about in the rest of the paragraph. Don't wait up.

> Whichever poster says I am the same as Sloan is committing a libel and
> up to the usual tricks of using net-media to actually repress chess
> issues.
>

I did compare you to Sloan, although to say that I said that you were
the "same as Sloan" is an inaccurate paraphrase -- imagine that.

I do see substantial similarities between you and Sloan, to wit:

1. Both you and Sloan post here obsessively.

2. Both your and Sloan's posts are colored by intense personal
agendas and feuds.

3, I don't trust either of you to get your facts straight. I take
every post by either of you with a grain of salt the approximate size
of the Hope Diamond.

4. Both of you, in my opinion, have vastly inflated egos and opinions
of your importance in the chess world.

5. Both of you seem to view chess ratings as meaning something other
than chess strength.

> Because like so many others Dear Wick can't write such stuff at the
> USCF forum without getting banned, what he does here is merely
> illustrate my point for me by demonstrating that those boosting USCF
> are clearly not boosting chess in this country.
>

As it happens, I have posted over 60 times at USCF forums without ever
getting so much as a peep from the moderators.

> If Evans and Alburt aren't enough authority on the activity of the
> cuyrrent board, Paul Truong's response Friday published at chessville
> today should make clear that nothing essential has changed at USCF,
> despite OMOV and its own forum, where the only thing you can't talk
> about is chess management by USCF =A0; ((((
>

Obviously, you don't read that forum.

If you want to compare censorship on the USCF forums vs. censorship at
ChessDiscussion.com, let's do that. I think readers without an dog in
that fight, if any, would find the censorship at chessdiscussion much
more pervasive.

RGCP, of course has no moderation, in any sense of that term. For
that reason, I reserve the right, when the mood strikes me, to comment
about posts and posters.

> > Phil's inability to state facts correctly is so chronic that he can't
> > even accurately attribute quotes in a usenet post.
>
> > To be fair, there are differences between Sam Sloan and Phil Innes.
> > Mr. Sloan, when the impulse strikes him, can write coherent prose.
>
> To be fair to Dear Wick, I understand losing chess games to another
> poster stings - but at least he played a couple! Which is more than
> most brave-mouths are quite capable of.
>

Um. we played when? I honestly have no recollection of ever playing
you.

> Sam Sloan, the great prose writer that he is, merely suffers from
> understanding nothing, which is to say he is a dimwit - or that he
> does understand things and maliciously inverts the truth of them. In
> this very instance the Sloan chose to read my games against Dear Wick
> as loses rather than wins, and also to ignore both our corres
> ratings. =A0Pfft.

Do I even have a correspondence rating? Other than an abortive and
completely unsuccessful foray into email chess, I haven't played
correspondence.

> But I understand he is too busy not being obsessed to really pay
> attention to actual things which go on. Unknown what excuse Dear Wick
> deploys.
>
> Of the Sloan I think, to grammatically pun, my prose is rather
> different than are his.
>

Yes. I can understand wtf he is talking about. Your posts -- not so
much.

Wick

Date: 11 Jan 2009 07:52:10
From: None
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 10, 1:21=A0pm, Wick <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 11:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:52:22 -0800 (PST),
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >2) Phil repeated his claim that I once wanted to attack Truong on the
> > >hot-sauce issue. Since he got this completely ass-backwards, I asked
> > >him to show me such a post or retract and apologize. He never did
>
> > Phil's motto is "never apologize, never explain", the former because
> > he's a stubborn, crotchety old coot, the latter because, well, uhh, it
> > wouldn't do any good because nobody could understand his explanations
> > anyway.
>
> Between Phil Innes and Sam Sloan, there is precious little to choose.

--Between Phil Innes and Sam Sloan, there is precious little to
choose.

I'm not so sure. There is always Liarry Parr, that champion of the
first admendment and the yellow press.

Date: 11 Jan 2009 05:23:07
From:
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

> Given that the statement in quotes that Phil attributes to me, was, in
> fact, written by Mike Murray, Mr. Innes' reply is yet another example
> of the unintentional comedy that he routinely supplies to this forum.

Except of course that the negative and derogatoruy and vague ad hom
commentaries by those who do not sign their names are indistinguisable
from one another.

Wick does deserve an apology from me, however credentialed are his own
post - and he may chose to append my comment to any of his he choses -
since in truth, it makes no difference whatsoever to anything he
writes since they all lack chess content.

Whichever poster says I am the same as Sloan is committing a libel and
up to the usual tricks of using net-media to actually repress chess
issues.

Because like so many others Dear Wick can't write such stuff at the
USCF forum without getting banned, what he does here is merely
illustrate my point for me by demonstrating that those boosting USCF
are clearly not boosting chess in this country.

If Evans and Alburt aren't enough authority on the activity of the
cuyrrent board, Paul Truong's response Friday published at chessville
today should make clear that nothing essential has changed at USCF,
despite OMOV and its own forum, where the only thing you can't talk
about is chess management by USCF ; ((((

> Phil's inability to state facts correctly is so chronic that he can't
> even accurately attribute quotes in a usenet post.
>
> To be fair, there are differences between Sam Sloan and Phil Innes.
> Mr. Sloan, when the impulse strikes him, can write coherent prose.

To be fair to Dear Wick, I understand losing chess games to another
poster stings - but at least he played a couple! Which is more than
most brave-mouths are quite capable of.

Sam Sloan, the great prose writer that he is, merely suffers from
understanding nothing, which is to say he is a dimwit - or that he
does understand things and maliciously inverts the truth of them. In
this very instance the Sloan chose to read my games against Dear Wick
as loses rather than wins, and also to ignore both our corres
ratings. Pfft.

But I understand he is too busy not being obsessed to really pay
attention to actual things which go on. Unknown what excuse Dear Wick
deploys.

Of the Sloan I think, to grammatically pun, my prose is rather
different than are his.

Phil Innes

Date: 10 Jan 2009 17:09:01
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 10, 5:35=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 10, 1:21=A0pm, Wick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 11:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:52:22 -0800 (PST),
> > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >2) Phil repeated his claim that I once wanted to attack Truong on th=
e
> > > >hot-sauce issue. Since he got this completely ass-backwards, I asked
> > > >him to show me such a post or retract and apologize. He never did
>
> > > Phil's motto is "never apologize, never explain", the former because
> > > he's a stubborn, crotchety old coot, the latter because, well, uhh, i=
t
> > > wouldn't do any good because nobody could understand his explanations
> > > anyway.
>
> > Between Phil Innes and Sam Sloan, there is precious little to choose.
>
> Except of course playing strength. But Wick already has experience of
> this, and besides his lawyerly lie, which he stupidly puts into
> quotation marks - and which is obviously false, since I always
> explain,
>

Given that the statement in quotes that Phil attributes to me, was, in
fact, written by Mike Murray, Mr. Innes' reply is yet another example
of the unintentional comedy that he routinely supplies to this forum.
Phil's inability to state facts correctly is so chronic that he can't
even accurately attribute quotes in a usenet post.

To be fair, there are differences between Sam Sloan and Phil Innes.
Mr. Sloan, when the impulse strikes him, can write coherent prose.

Date: 10 Jan 2009 15:35:24
From:
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 10, 1:21=A0pm, Wick <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 11:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:52:22 -0800 (PST),
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >2) Phil repeated his claim that I once wanted to attack Truong on the
> > >hot-sauce issue. Since he got this completely ass-backwards, I asked
> > >him to show me such a post or retract and apologize. He never did
>
> > Phil's motto is "never apologize, never explain", the former because
> > he's a stubborn, crotchety old coot, the latter because, well, uhh, it
> > wouldn't do any good because nobody could understand his explanations
> > anyway.
>
> Between Phil Innes and Sam Sloan, there is precious little to choose.

Except of course playing strength. But Wick already has experience of
this, and besides his lawyerly lie, which he stupidly puts into
quotation marks - and which is obviously false, since I always
explain,

Wick shows up yet again to bitch, and nothing else.

I already got a bitch in Brennan, Wick.

You girls fight it out. ;)

Phil Innes

Date: 10 Jan 2009 17:27:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:35:24 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

> I always explain

Explanation? Obfuscation! Phil's in need of edification.
Clarification? No, confusion. The English language he's abusin'
Wheelin', dealin', wealth or pelf? Now he argues with himself.
Angry posts, insults, abuse. Consensus is the man's obtuse.
heuch! heuch! heuch!

Date: 13 Jan 2009 11:07:07
From: madams
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

Mike Murray wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:35:24 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I always explain
>
> Explanation? Obfuscation! Phil's in need of edification.
> Clarification? No, confusion. The English language he's abusin'
> Wheelin', dealin', wealth or pelf? Now he argues with himself.
> Angry posts, insults, abuse. Consensus is the man's obtuse.
> heuch! heuch! heuch!

***

Explanation obfuscation - Phil's in need of edukation..

Clarify - no? confuse, - the englisch he by right abuse..

Wheel deal wealth or pelf - now he argue with 'eself..

Droppeth worm in open mouth - consensus is man from
louth..

occhi! occhi! occhi!..

[much improved version no.1]

m.

Date: 12 Jan 2009 22:04:07
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:07:07 +1100, madams <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Mike Murray wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:35:24 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > I always explain
>>
>> Explanation? Obfuscation! Phil's in need of edification.
>> Clarification? No, confusion. The English language he's abusin'
>> Wheelin', dealin', wealth or pelf? Now he argues with himself.
>> Angry posts, insults, abuse. Consensus is the man's obtuse.
>> heuch! heuch! heuch!
>
> ***
>
>Explanation obfuscation - Phil's in need of edukation..
>
>Clarify - no? confuse, - the englisch he by right abuse..
>
>Wheel deal wealth or pelf - now he argue with 'eself..
>
>Droppeth worm in open mouth - consensus is man from
>louth..
>
>occhi! occhi! occhi!..
>
>
>
>[much improved version no.1]
>
>m.

Collaboration always welcome.

Now if somebody could translate it into LOLspeak

Date: 10 Jan 2009 10:21:50
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 11:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:52:22 -0800 (PST),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >2) Phil repeated his claim that I once wanted to attack Truong on the
> >hot-sauce issue. Since he got this completely ass-backwards, I asked
> >him to show me such a post or retract and apologize. He never did
>
> Phil's motto is "never apologize, never explain", the former because
> he's a stubborn, crotchety old coot, the latter because, well, uhh, it
> wouldn't do any good because nobody could understand his explanations
> anyway.

Between Phil Innes and Sam Sloan, there is precious little to choose.

Date: 09 Jan 2009 19:00:55
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 9, 11:24 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Jan 9, 7:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truong to
>>>> produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat, Truong
>>>> and Muradian? That might be of interest. --- BL
>>> So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell come out?
>> Good question. I haven't got an answer.
>
> Neither could you answer your own relationship regarding Susan's Ex,
> or even answer if you knew the 'hot-sauce' case was dismissed when you
> reported it here.

You reveal yourself as a Trolgar minion. Your boss couldn't even find
one sentence in which I accused her of anything to put before the court
in Lubbock. Why was that? Because I never accused her of anything in
relation to her ex-husband.

>
> Did you say you were for or against 'transparency'? - How will you do
> that exactly if you are not transparent yourself?
>
> I support transparency! Let the dreadful saucerful of secrets be
> revealed in the light of day!
> Let people make up their own minds what it all means.
>
> I am a chess player and can compete this way with any one at all when
> all the pieces are in view. This is the very spirit of the game, no?
ROTFLMAO I don't plan on responding to you any more. :-)

>
> Phil Innes

Date: 11 Jan 2009 20:38:00
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 11, 4:22=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 11, 12:27=A0pm, Wick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 7:23=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Given that the statement in quotes that Phil attributes to me, was,=
in
> > > > fact, written by Mike Murray, Mr. Innes' reply is yet another examp=
le
> > > > of the unintentional comedy that he routinely supplies to this foru=
m.
>
> > > Except of course that the negative and derogatoruy and vague ad hom
> > > commentaries by those who do not sign their names are indistinguisabl=
e
> > > from one another.
>
> > Only if one is too lazy to count the number of ">" before the line.
>
> > > Wick does deserve an apology from me, however credentialed are his ow=
n
> > > post - and he may chose to append my comment to any of his he choses =
-
> > > since in truth, it makes no difference whatsoever to anything he
> > > writes since they all lack chess content.
>
> > Your apology will be accepted whenever I figure out what you are
> > t
>
> Look Wick, you are not quite catching my drift. You are a pissy sort
> of poster incapable of doing what you do right now - and that is
> typical of USCF insiders.
>

USCF Insider???

Please. I have no position with USCF at the moment, except as a
humble member.

Of course, compared to you, that does make me an insider, doesn't it?

Wick

Date: 09 Jan 2009 09:58:39
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 10:20=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:57=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truong to
> > produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat, Truong
> > and Muradian? =A0That might be of interest. =A0--- BL
>
> So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell come out?

LOL
God! Thats funny. I'm sorry, thats so funny I can hardly stop
laughing! Neil, thanks for the back handed compliment. I wish I was
that important in the world of chess. I am not though.

Happy New Year!
Rob "The Mitch"

Date: 09 Jan 2009 16:24:25
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How about one of the board member move to ask Polgar and Truong to
>> produce all correspondence, email and otherwise between Polgat, Truong
>> and Muradian? That might be of interest. --- BL
>
> So when does their correspondence with Innes and Mitchell come out?
>
Good question. I haven't got an answer.

Date: 09 Jan 2009 05:16:26
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 6:57=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0From Polgar's Chessdiscussion. See below for another proposal:
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:03:58 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> Paultruong writes:
>
> I move that the USCF opens up all Confidential BINFO and Confidential
> Recordings and make them available for all USCF members to examine.
>
> I vote yes.
>

Paraphrased: I move to examine all of USCF's confidential and
privileged documents and discussions regarding litigation involving my
wife.

Conflict of interest, much?

Date: 09 Jan 2009 08:20:09
From:
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 9:55=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 06:32:03 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >If the secret material is revealed the terrible situation will come
> >about that people will make up their own minds about wbho is decent,
> >legal, honest and truthful
>
> If this were a video chat group, we could see whether Phil could keep
> a straight face while posting such crap.

Murray-land, home of the euphemism.

> >For whatever reasons it has to maintain such secrecy, evidently USCF
> >are terrified that others will come to their own opinions in a
> >membership organization about the people who manage it.
>
> "Secrecy" =A0instead of "confidentiality" -- what a difference a choice
> of word makes. =A0

It makes absolutely no difference to members or delegates, since
whatever term is used it provides them absolutely no information.

Secondly, [laugh] who is to say that what is claimed confidential is
truly and necessarily so, under any normal business standards such as
personnel records, or contracts-in-progress?

The classification of secret or confidential material is itself a
secret matter - and after all, it is another word for the same thing
except in Murrayland, since he thinks they are different, and because
he evidently doesn't want people making up their own minds - look at
his last contribution...

Not even parents should discern whether their own children are well
placed with other adults, since those who do so [100% in my
experience] are 'bible thumpers', opined Murray on several occasions.

Murray introduced his own terms to muddle the waters, since his own
motives are hardly transparent. He spends all his net-time putting
down those who simply own their own opinions. He doesn't want members
and delegates to know what goes on behind the big doors. Presumably
the members themselves are MCO-thumpers?

Phil Innes

Date: 09 Jan 2009 06:32:03
From:
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 8:16=A0am, Wick <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 6:57=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0From Polgar's Chessdiscussion. See below for another proposal:
>
> > In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:03:58 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> > Paultruong writes:
>
> > I move that the USCF opens up all Confidential BINFO and Confidential
> > Recordings and make them available for all USCF members to examine.
>
> > I vote yes.
>
> Paraphrased: =A0I move to examine all of USCF's confidential and
> privileged documents and discussions regarding litigation involving my
> wife.
>
> Conflict of interest, much?

Isn't it the precise opposite of a conflict of interest - it is the
exactly same interest. At least, the same interest as the members &
delegates have in electing anyone.

There are those talking about 'transparency' but cannot think of any
actual thing which should be made transparent.

If the secret material is revealed the terrible situation will come
about that people will make up their own minds about wbho is decent,
legal, honest and truthful: a state which currently does not prevail.

For whatever reasons it has to maintain such secrecy, evidently USCF
are terrified that others will come to their own opinions in a
membership organization about the people who manage it.

Huech!@

Phil Innes
Vermont

Date: 09 Jan 2009 06:55:56
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 06:32:03 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>If the secret material is revealed the terrible situation will come
>about that people will make up their own minds about wbho is decent,
>legal, honest and truthful

If this were a video chat group, we could see whether Phil could keep
a straight face while posting such crap.

>For whatever reasons it has to maintain such secrecy, evidently USCF
>are terrified that others will come to their own opinions in a
>membership organization about the people who manage it.

"Secrecy" instead of "confidentiality" -- what a difference a choice
of word makes.

Date: 09 Jan 2009 06:22:04
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Jan 9, 7:26=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Wick wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 6:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> =A0From Polgar's Chessdiscussion. See below for another proposal:
>
> >> In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:03:58 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> >> Paultruong writes:
>
> >> I move that the USCF opens up all Confidential BINFO and Confidential
> >> Recordings and make them available for all USCF members to examine.
>
> >> I vote yes.
>
> > Paraphrased: =A0I move to examine all of USCF's confidential and
> > privileged documents and discussions regarding litigation involving my
> > wife.
>
> > Conflict of interest, much?
>
> Here's another idea. =A0How about Susan and Paul open up the records of
> all the money flowing into and out of their Florida corporation(s)?
>
> Let's start a pool as to how many figures have pass though in the past
> few years. =A0I'm betting seven or eight digits.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why?

Date: 09 Jan 2009 07:01:38
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 06:22:04 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> Here's another idea. �How about Susan and Paul open up the records of
>> all the money flowing into and out of their Florida corporation(s)?

>> Let's start a pool as to how many figures have pass though in the past
>> few years. �I'm betting seven or eight digits.

>Why?

Does "Mitchell" translate into French as "Clouseau" ?

Date: 09 Jan 2009 14:55:19
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

Rob wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:26 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wick wrote:
>>> On Jan 9, 6:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> From Polgar's Chessdiscussion. See below for another proposal:
>>>> In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:03:58 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>>>> Paultruong writes:
>>>> I move that the USCF opens up all Confidential BINFO and Confidential
>>>> Recordings and make them available for all USCF members to examine.
>>>> I vote yes.
>>> Paraphrased: I move to examine all of USCF's confidential and
>>> privileged documents and discussions regarding litigation involving my
>>> wife.
>>> Conflict of interest, much?
>> Here's another idea. How about Susan and Paul open up the records of
>> all the money flowing into and out of their Florida corporation(s)?
>>
>> Let's start a pool as to how many figures have pass though in the past
>> few years. I'm betting seven or eight digits.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Why?
Why?

Date: 09 Jan 2009 13:26:33
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Trolgar Games and An Alternative Motion Idea

Wick wrote:
> On Jan 9, 6:57 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> From Polgar's Chessdiscussion. See below for another proposal:
>>
>> In a message dated 1/8/2009 11:03:58 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>>
>> Paultruong writes:
>>
>> I move that the USCF opens up all Confidential BINFO and Confidential
>> Recordings and make them available for all USCF members to examine.
>>
>> I vote yes.
>>
>
> Paraphrased: I move to examine all of USCF's confidential and
> privileged documents and discussions regarding litigation involving my
> wife.
>
> Conflict of interest, much?
>
>
Here's another idea. How about Susan and Paul open up the records of
all the money flowing into and out of their Florida corporation(s)?

Let's start a pool as to how many figures have pass though in the past
few years. I'm betting seven or eight digits.