Who Threatened Steve Owens

Main

Date: 23 Jan 2009 21:40:31
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Who Threatened Steve Owens

From his blog which is being shut down. Who made the threat!!

Posted by Steve in TN
I have received a credible legal threat from an interested party in the
upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election. I will not identify that
party unless they go public with their threat or carry through on it.
This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control -- and
that is their right.

My attorney advises me that I can fight these bullying tactics -- and
win. And receive recompense for my trouble. My speech here is protected
in that what I write are opinions. Where I cite facts I provide sources.
I have also asked for input from those with whom I disagree, in fact, I
have asked those with alternate views to author items for the blog. For
instance, Jack Le Moine disagrees with me completely about certain
individuals. I have never pulled one of his posts or tried to make him
alter them. I have commented, at time in private and others publicly, on
what he writes. That is what this blog was supposed to be about --
Interaction between disparate viewpoints.

I have done everything I could to allow alternate viewpoints on this
blog. I have allowed relaxed standards for those who hold positions
here. I have tried to engage both members of USCF governance and regular
members, mostly with no success. In the end, the mission of this blog is
not being accomplished.

I have fought off legal threats before when others have tried bullying
tactics. This time I find it is not worth fighting. I do not hold the
passion I once had to bring out the facts and stories behind chess
governance in the US and I have been without that passion for a while. I
have been unable to find others who have this passion, at least not
enough to write about it. The USCF operates on a "One Man, One Vote"
governance principle to elect delegates and board members... But the
voting members and governance members either are too apathetic or too
engaged in their own power plays to open up meaningful dialogue on the
operations of our organization. In the end, fighting the litigious
personalities is not worth the time and effort, much less the financial
expense.

So, this is -- at least for now -- the last blog update for ChessUSA.net.

To the latest party to play the legal threat game -- Shame on you.

Date: 24 Jan 2009 08:06:45
From: Jebediah Kornworthy
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

Lafferty the Lawyer wrote:

> "I have received a credible legal threat from an interested party in the
> upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election.
> This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control"

> Who might this be??

> Who made the threat!!

http://www.anusha.com

Could it be Samantha of http://www.anusha.com ?

Samantha is an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board
election.

Samantha censored, threatened, banned and silenced Rob Mitchell from
posting dissenting material on Samantha's yahoo mailing list/weblog, and
boasted about doing this.

Samantha's legal threats and 2007 frivilous action against GM Polgar and FM
Truong started the whole brouhaha, with Lafferty the Lawyer, and his hordes
of anonyms, keeping the flames fanned.

So we must be overjoyed that Lafferty the Lawyer is distancing himself from
Samantha's unethical actions of silencing opposition and is condemning
them.

A big thank you to Lafferty the Lawyer. He will be hearing from us. He
should not delete any of his communications since 3/1/2006.

Date: 24 Jan 2009 10:50:48
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

Jebediah Kornworthy wrote:
> Lafferty the Lawyer wrote:
>
>> "I have received a credible legal threat from an interested party in the
>> upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election.
>> This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control"
>
>> Who might this be??
>
>> Who made the threat!!
>
> http://www.anusha.com
>
> Could it be Samantha of http://www.anusha.com ?
>
> Samantha is an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board
> election.
>
> Samantha censored, threatened, banned and silenced Rob Mitchell from
> posting dissenting material on Samantha's yahoo mailing list/weblog, and
> boasted about doing this.
>
> Samantha's legal threats and 2007 frivilous action against GM Polgar and FM
> Truong started the whole brouhaha, with Lafferty the Lawyer, and his hordes
> of anonyms, keeping the flames fanned.
>
> So we must be overjoyed that Lafferty the Lawyer is distancing himself from
> Samantha's unethical actions of silencing opposition and is condemning
> them.
>
> A big thank you to Lafferty the Lawyer. He will be hearing from us. He
> should not delete any of his communications since 3/1/2006.
>
LOL! The pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fit together and Sam
Sloan hasn't anything to do with what has been going on. He doesn't
have a clue as to what you've all been up to. The picture is very
interesting. The question now is which federal law enforcement agency
will be most interested and take the investigative lead. The game is
about over. Have a great day.

Date: 23 Jan 2009 17:01:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens

It is obvious that the "interested party" [who] "has silenced
opposition in venues under their control" is the Polgar-Truong-
Alexander Group.

In light of this, the response by Susan Polgar on her
chessdiscussion.com is funny. She wrotes:

"Appalling chess politics

Postby SusanPolgar on Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:39 am
I was just told that Mr. Steve Owens received a credible legal threat
from an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board
election. I find this appalling. I do not agree with Mr. Owens=92 view
on many occasions but this is chess politics at its worst. This is
wrong.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com

Date: 23 Jan 2009 22:18:41
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens

"This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control -- and
that is their right."

Who might this be??

B. Lafferty wrote:
> From his blog which is being shut down. Who made the threat!!
>
> Posted by Steve in TN
> I have received a credible legal threat from an interested party in the
> upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election. I will not identify that
> party unless they go public with their threat or carry through on it.
> This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control -- and
> that is their right.
>
> My attorney advises me that I can fight these bullying tactics -- and
> win. And receive recompense for my trouble. My speech here is protected
> in that what I write are opinions. Where I cite facts I provide sources.
> I have also asked for input from those with whom I disagree, in fact, I
> have asked those with alternate views to author items for the blog. For
> instance, Jack Le Moine disagrees with me completely about certain
> individuals. I have never pulled one of his posts or tried to make him
> alter them. I have commented, at time in private and others publicly, on
> what he writes. That is what this blog was supposed to be about --
> Interaction between disparate viewpoints.
>
> I have done everything I could to allow alternate viewpoints on this
> blog. I have allowed relaxed standards for those who hold positions
> here. I have tried to engage both members of USCF governance and regular
> members, mostly with no success. In the end, the mission of this blog is
> not being accomplished.
>
> I have fought off legal threats before when others have tried bullying
> tactics. This time I find it is not worth fighting. I do not hold the
> passion I once had to bring out the facts and stories behind chess
> governance in the US and I have been without that passion for a while. I
> have been unable to find others who have this passion, at least not
> enough to write about it. The USCF operates on a "One Man, One Vote"
> governance principle to elect delegates and board members... But the
> voting members and governance members either are too apathetic or too
> engaged in their own power plays to open up meaningful dialogue on the
> operations of our organization. In the end, fighting the litigious
> personalities is not worth the time and effort, much less the financial
> expense.
>
> So, this is -- at least for now -- the last blog update for ChessUSA.net.
>
> To the latest party to play the legal threat game -- Shame on you.

Date: 05 Feb 2009 19:29:24
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Feb 5, 6:15=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 4:32=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 9:48=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 7:36=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Samantha,
> > > > You use that term to be obnoxious. It is a petty feminine
> > > > characteristic you display so well; very catty. If you will notice,
> > > > your "hero" Trice has already had his legallyownlandonmars.com site
> > > > pulled by the FBI and his biography on Wikipedia as been removed as
> > > > well. You are the last person we know that believes anything he has
> > > > said.
>
> > > Is it really true that the FBI got Trice's website "Legally Own Land
> > > on Mars" shut down?
>
> > > How do you know this?
>
> > > Sam
>
> > You can check for yourself.www.legallyownlandonmars.com
> > And check wikipedia. Look for Ed trice. All you will get now is a
> > redirect to Gothic Chess
>
> I went towww.legallyownlandonmars.comand it says "Address Not
> Found".
>
> That does not mean that the FBI shut it down.
>
> Same thing will happen if you go to my former websitewww.ishipress.com
>
> The FBI did not shut it down. (The Sheriff of Amherst County Virginia
> did. That is why I am suing him.)
>
> I voted to kick Ed Trice's biography off of Wikipedia because I agree
> that all of his claims about himself are fake.
>
> But the letter on his website from you stating that you have made an
> agreement with Bobby Fischer to play a chess match for $14 million and
> your demand for front money in the amount of $35,000 seems quite real
> and I have not seen you denying it.
>
> Sam Sloan

The FBI contacted godaddy as did the Nashville police department.
Read carefully. Try not to read anything into it. Just the words. I
have answered this in the past so doing so again will change nothing.
He is a liar. By continuing as you do , you are giving him support and
comfort.

Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:32:04
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Feb 5, 9:48=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 7:36=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Samantha,
> > You use that term to be obnoxious. It is a petty feminine
> > characteristic you display so well; very catty. If you will notice,
> > your "hero" Trice has already had his legallyownlandonmars.com site
> > pulled by the FBI and his biography on Wikipedia as been removed as
> > well. You are the last person we know that believes anything he has
> > said.
>
> Is it really true that the FBI got Trice's website "Legally Own Land
> on Mars" shut down?
>
> How do you tnow this?
>
> Sam

You can check for yourself. www.legallyownlandonmars.com
And check wikipedia. Look for Ed trice. All you will get now is a
redirect to Gothic Chess

Date: 05 Feb 2009 16:15:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Feb 5, 4:32=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:48=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 7:36=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Samantha,
> > > You use that term to be obnoxious. It is a petty feminine
> > > characteristic you display so well; very catty. If you will notice,
> > > your "hero" Trice has already had his legallyownlandonmars.com site
> > > pulled by the FBI and his biography on Wikipedia as been removed as
> > > well. You are the last person we know that believes anything he has
> > > said.
>
> > Is it really true that the FBI got Trice's website "Legally Own Land
> > on Mars" shut down?
>
> > How do you know this?
>
> > Sam
>
> You can check for yourself.www.legallyownlandonmars.com
> And check wikipedia. Look for Ed trice. All you will get now is a
> redirect to Gothic Chess

I went to www.legallyownlandonmars.com and it says "Address Not
Found".

That does not mean that the FBI shut it down.

Same thing will happen if you go to my former website www.ishipress.com

The FBI did not shut it down. (The Sheriff of Amherst County Virginia
did. That is why I am suing him.)

I voted to kick Ed Trice's biography off of Wikipedia because I agree
that all of his claims about himself are fake.

But the letter on his website from you stating that you have made an
agreement with Bobby Fischer to play a chess match for $14 million and
your demand for front money in the amount of $35,000 seems quite real
and I have not seen you denying it.

Sam Sloan

Date: 05 Feb 2009 07:48:36
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Feb 5, 7:36=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> Samantha,
> You use that term to be obnoxious. It is a petty feminine
> characteristic you display so well; very catty. If you will notice,
> your "hero" Trice has already had his legallyownlandonmars.com site
> pulled by the FBI and his biography on Wikipedia as been removed as
> well. You are the last person we know that believes anything he has
> said.

Is it really true that the FBI got Trice's website "Legally Own Land
on Mars" shut down?

How do you tnow this?

Sam

Date: 05 Feb 2009 04:36:39
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Feb 5, 4:28=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:41=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 6:32=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Do you mean to suggest that Rob the Robber would do something
> > > unethical?
>
> > I coined the use of the term "Samantha". I had not realized it was
> > becoming so popular. I also coined the term"Skippy" for Jason Repa. I
> > do not know what I was thought to have posted. I always use my real
> > identity in my posts.
>
> > Rob "the Mitch"
>
> Right. That is why they call you "Rob the Robber".

Samantha,
You use that term to be obnoxious. It is a petty feminine
characteristic you display so well; very catty. If you will notice,
your "hero" Trice has already had his legallyownlandonmars.com site
pulled by the FBI and his biography on Wikipedia as been removed as
well. You are the last person we know that believes anything he has
said.

Date: 05 Feb 2009 02:28:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Feb 5, 12:41=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 6:32=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Do you mean to suggest that Rob the Robber would do something
> > unethical?
>
> I coined the use of the term "Samantha". I had not realized it was
> becoming so popular. I also coined the term"Skippy" for Jason Repa. I
> do not know what I was thought to have posted. I always use my real
> identity in my posts.
>
> Rob "the Mitch"

Right. That is why they call you "Rob the Robber".

Date: 04 Feb 2009 21:41:37
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Jan 25, 6:32=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:39=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Interesting post in only 1 sense. Both the use of Samantha and the
> > posting in tn.general seem to point atRobas the sender of this
> > message. I have noticedRob'sodd use of Samantha before; I found it a
> > particularly odd taunting nickname because it seems to be either
> > implying that Sam is gay (which we seem to have plenty of evidence
> > against) or (asRobseems to sometimes assert) that he is scared of
> > playing chess against opponents; again, this is one failing that Sam
> > clearly is not guilty of. It is possible that this is a misdirection,
> > but perhapsRobwill tell us whether he denies that the post is his? I
> > am guessing that it isRob's, but I can't understand why he chooses a
> > different form of positing for this, which seems like any other one
> > which he posts under his own name.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> Do you mean to suggest thatRobthe Robber would do something
> unethical?

I coined the use of the term "Samantha". I had not realized it was
becoming so popular. I also coined the term"Skippy" for Jason Repa. I
do not know what I was thought to have posted. I always use my real
identity in my posts.

Rob "the Mitch"

Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:35:14
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

samsloan ejaculated:

> > Jerry Spinrad

>snip the 3rd rate ramblings of some dumbo tenured academic with too much time - a type better suited in a fair world to shifting cords of wood - methinks...

> Do you mean to suggest that Rob the Robber would do something
> unethical?

Haw haw haw - or that the dyslexia pills actually work?

Haw haw - what a riot you are Sammy-boy. I mean all those legal papers
you keep clogging up the bandwidth with are just too fun - no?. None of
us here at rgc can sleep nites anticipating your next exciting project -
scanning up all the pages in the local telephone directory. Oh boy! Oh
boy!! Now is that gonna be too fun and a half or not??

Haw haw haw - 'pigs-arse'

Jackass Lafferty.

Date: 25 Jan 2009 04:32:10
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Jan 24, 1:39=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Interesting post in only 1 sense. Both the use of Samantha and the
> posting in tn.general seem to point at Rob as the sender of this
> message. I have noticed Rob's odd use of Samantha before; I found it a
> particularly odd taunting nickname because it seems to be either
> implying that Sam is gay (which we seem to have plenty of evidence
> against) or (as Rob seems to sometimes assert) that he is scared of
> playing chess against opponents; again, this is one failing that Sam
> clearly is not guilty of. It is possible that this is a misdirection,
> but perhaps Rob will tell us whether he denies that the post is his? I
> am guessing that it is Rob's, but I can't understand why he chooses a
> different form of positing for this, which seems like any other one
> which he posts under his own name.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Do you mean to suggest that Rob the Robber would do something
unethical?

Date: 24 Jan 2009 18:50:10
From:
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Jan 24, 6:41=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2:44=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 1:39=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Interesting post in only 1 sense. Both the use of Samantha and the
> > > posting in tn.general seem to point at Rob as the sender of this
> > > message.
>
> > The Princeton academic disports his awareness.
>
> > > I have noticed Rob's odd use of Samantha before; I found it a
> > > particularly odd taunting nickname because it seems to be either
> > > implying that Sam is gay (which we seem to have plenty of evidence
> > > against) or (as Rob seems to sometimes assert) that he is scared of
> > > playing chess against opponents;
>
> > A switch of topic from impersonation; from sound-bites to Sloan as
> > 'gay' according to Dr Spin, plus the Sloan's reticence, again
> > according to Dr. Spin.
>
> > > again, this is one failing that Sam
> > > clearly is not guilty of.
>
> > 'This' being which of the two?
>
> > Sloan is known to be more than somewhat 'struck' by Susan Polgar -
> > indeed, the Sloan cannot think that 8,000 posts per year [conservative
> > estimate] constitutes being obsessed. =A0 ROFL
>
> > As to joining in where the rest of us are playing chess, the Sloan is
> > far too proud to do that, and in fact a bit like a big girl in his
> > *special* status, no?
>
> > ROFL
>
> > > It is possible that this is a misdirection,
>
> > Only 'poosible' =A0:)
>
> > > but perhaps Rob will tell us whether he denies that the post is his?
>
> > Perhaps Dr Spin will tell us about his own postings about the hot-
> > sauce incident which he reported here. Did he know a court had
> > dismissed it at the time of his own enthusiasms. I have asked the
> > Brain the same question [and a couple more] - and his reply, running
> > as he is on a platform of 'transparency' was that the question was
> > 'disingenuous'.
>
> > :)
>
> > So much for plain speech.
>
> > What Dr. Spin has not admitted in public is a logical factor which
> > does not depend on partisan orientation.
>
> > If Paul Truong [and/or Susan Polgar] did not do as they are accused,
> > then they are being set-up. <right?>
>
> > And in that sense making a muddy field of all is an act conducted by,
> > or orchestrated by, the person who set em up. This is still to remain
> > within logical parameters and does not require any belief or partisan
> > orientation to admit.
>
> > How odd then that such logical parameters are not even admitted by
> > such as Dr. Spin and Captain Transparency.
>
> > > I
> > > am guessing that it is Rob's, but I can't understand why he chooses a
> > > different form of positing for this, which seems like any other one
> > > which he posts under his own name.
>
> > Just as logically, I might ask why such a nonsense needs be asked of
> > anyone who can't admit the LOGICAL necessity of either Truong did it,
> > or he was set up. And of the second circumstance, then who is that,
> > and do they post here, or are merely puppets who with or without their
> > own wit engage the subject.
>
> I have no problem with this logic, Phil. However, since I feel that
> Truong DID make the FSS posts

You /feel/ it!

> identified in the various reports, and
> my keen sense of logic says that if he did make those posts,

You rather indulge yourself with your logic, and immediately become
partisan.

I didn't do that.

> there is
> no reason to look for someone who was setting him up.

Especially since you /feel/ it, no?

Which is not exactly anything to do with with possibility, merely some
undeclared liking or not for one or the two possibilities, and
according to you own prejudices and likings.

> Why do I think
> this?

I rather doubt you are thinking at all, and I certainly haven't asked
you a question on /this/ matter.

> There is still no plausible alternative to the conclusions of
> the report which traced the posts to his computer.

Do you mean logically or legally? Logically he either did it or was
set up. Legally nothing is proved.

> Jerry Spinrad

I see you make another response below your signature...

> > This is not a partisan post - and suggests no orientation for nor
> > against any party, except that it does suggest that if one possibility
> > is not true, then the other one is likely - and who is it who writes
> > to only one of these aspects without even intellectual acknowledgment
> > that the other exists?
>
> > If Troung has been framed, then who acknowledges that the real perp
> > can be writing here, or responsible for who writes what here.
>
> > Dr Spin ducked my question of his own knowledge of the court's
> > dismissal of hot-saucing as did the Brain.
>
> Phil - I answered yor silly question.

Did you? What is the answer? You ask a lot of questions and refer to
answers - so what is it - yes you knew it was dismissed when you
posted it, or no you did not know that the issue you protested was
dismissed.

That is YES or NO.

How come you have to refer to you answer - as if you gave one.

I see you continue to prevaricate - as you will, and responded instead
of answering.

> Now, it is time to give some
> evidence that I ever posted a message which in any way implied wanting
> to look into the hot-sauce incident.

Donb't Spin Spinrad - just answer the question, yea or nay!

> In case you missed my answer elsewhere, I knew exactly as much as the
> people who were posting in the thread advocating inquiries into hot-
> saucing.

That's no yeah or nay!

> I forget whether or not it was public knowledge at that time
> that the abuse charges were dismissed.

That's spin, Spinrad. I asked what you knew when you posted your
messages.

> Now, what post ever gave you the idea that I advocated looking into
> it?

If you don't want to answer a simple question, then THIS is a matter
of note. And you duck the question!

At the time of your posting did you known the case was dismissed or
not?

The rest of your blather, and indeed your entire credulity here rests
on answering that question [3 posts ago].

Thanks for playing, but 3 tries and you're out!

Phil Innes

> > Some people with thing going on between their ears might ask why? I
> > do. Until they are as open themselves as the [hugely intrusive]
> > questions to others - who do these characters thing the are, and who
> > are they fooling except such excitable projectionists as themselves?
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > On Jan 24, 1:06=A0am, Jebediah Kornworthy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Lafferty the Lawyer wrote:
> > > > > "I have received a credible legal threat from an interested party=
in the
> > > > > upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election.
> > > > > This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control"
> > > > > Who might this be??
> > > > > Who made the threat!!
>
> > > >http://www.anusha.com
>
> > > > Could it be Samantha ofhttp://www.anusha.com?
>
> > > > Samantha is an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive=
Board
> > > > election.
>
> > > > Samantha censored, threatened, banned and silenced Rob Mitchell fro=
m
> > > > posting dissenting material on Samantha's yahoo mailing list/weblog=
, and
> > > > boasted about doing this.
>
> > > > Samantha's legal threats and 2007 frivilous action against GM Polga=
r and FM
> > > > Truong started the whole brouhaha, with Lafferty the Lawyer, and hi=
s hordes
> > > > of anonyms, keeping the flames fanned.
>
> > > > So we must be overjoyed that Lafferty the Lawyer is distancing hims=
elf from
> > > > Samantha's unethical actions of silencing opposition and is condemn=
ing
> > > > them.
>
> > > > A big thank you to Lafferty the Lawyer. He will be hearing from us.=
He
> > > > should not delete any of his communications since 3/1/2006.- Hide q=
uoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Date: 24 Jan 2009 15:41:32
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Jan 24, 2:44=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:39=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Interesting post in only 1 sense. Both the use of Samantha and the
> > posting in tn.general seem to point at Rob as the sender of this
> > message.
>
> The Princeton academic disports his awareness.
>
> > I have noticed Rob's odd use of Samantha before; I found it a
> > particularly odd taunting nickname because it seems to be either
> > implying that Sam is gay (which we seem to have plenty of evidence
> > against) or (as Rob seems to sometimes assert) that he is scared of
> > playing chess against opponents;
>
> A switch of topic from impersonation; from sound-bites to Sloan as
> 'gay' according to Dr Spin, plus the Sloan's reticence, again
> according to Dr. Spin.
>
> > again, this is one failing that Sam
> > clearly is not guilty of.
>
> 'This' being which of the two?
>
> Sloan is known to be more than somewhat 'struck' by Susan Polgar -
> indeed, the Sloan cannot think that 8,000 posts per year [conservative
> estimate] constitutes being obsessed. =A0 ROFL
>
> As to joining in where the rest of us are playing chess, the Sloan is
> far too proud to do that, and in fact a bit like a big girl in his
> *special* status, no?
>
> ROFL
>
> > It is possible that this is a misdirection,
>
> Only 'poosible' =A0:)
>
> > but perhaps Rob will tell us whether he denies that the post is his?
>
> Perhaps Dr Spin will tell us about his own postings about the hot-
> sauce incident which he reported here. Did he know a court had
> dismissed it at the time of his own enthusiasms. I have asked the
> Brain the same question [and a couple more] - and his reply, running
> as he is on a platform of 'transparency' was that the question was
> 'disingenuous'.
>
> :)
>
> So much for plain speech.
>
> What Dr. Spin has not admitted in public is a logical factor which
> does not depend on partisan orientation.
>
> If Paul Truong [and/or Susan Polgar] did not do as they are accused,
> then they are being set-up. <right?>
>
> And in that sense making a muddy field of all is an act conducted by,
> or orchestrated by, the person who set em up. This is still to remain
> within logical parameters and does not require any belief or partisan
> orientation to admit.
>
> How odd then that such logical parameters are not even admitted by
> such as Dr. Spin and Captain Transparency.
>
> > I
> > am guessing that it is Rob's, but I can't understand why he chooses a
> > different form of positing for this, which seems like any other one
> > which he posts under his own name.
>
> Just as logically, I might ask why such a nonsense needs be asked of
> anyone who can't admit the LOGICAL necessity of either Truong did it,
> or he was set up. And of the second circumstance, then who is that,
> and do they post here, or are merely puppets who with or without their
> own wit engage the subject.

I have no problem with this logic, Phil. However, since I feel that
Truong DID make the FSS posts identified in the various reports, and
my keen sense of logic says that if he did make those posts, there is
no reason to look for someone who was setting him up. Why do I think
this? There is still no plausible alternative to the conclusions of
the report which traced the posts to his computer.

Jerry Spinrad

>
> This is not a partisan post - and suggests no orientation for nor
> against any party, except that it does suggest that if one possibility
> is not true, then the other one is likely - and who is it who writes
> to only one of these aspects without even intellectual acknowledgment
> that the other exists?
>
> If Troung has been framed, then who acknowledges that the real perp
> can be writing here, or responsible for who writes what here.
>
> Dr Spin ducked my question of his own knowledge of the court's
> dismissal of hot-saucing as did the Brain.

Phil - I answered yor silly question. Now, it is time to give some
evidence that I ever posted a message which in any way implied wanting
to look into the hot-sauce incident.

In case you missed my answer elsewhere, I knew exactly as much as the
people who were posting in the thread advocating inquiries into hot-
saucing. I forget whether or not it was public knowledge at that time
that the abuse charges were dismissed.

Now, what post ever gave you the idea that I advocated looking into
it?

>
> Some people with thing going on between their ears might ask why? I
> do. Until they are as open themselves as the [hugely intrusive]
> questions to others - who do these characters thing the are, and who
> are they fooling except such excitable projectionists as themselves?
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > On Jan 24, 1:06=A0am, Jebediah Kornworthy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Lafferty the Lawyer wrote:
> > > > "I have received a credible legal threat from an interested party i=
n the
> > > > upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election.
> > > > This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control"
> > > > Who might this be??
> > > > Who made the threat!!
>
> > >http://www.anusha.com
>
> > > Could it be Samantha ofhttp://www.anusha.com?
>
> > > Samantha is an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive B=
oard
> > > election.
>
> > > Samantha censored, threatened, banned and silenced Rob Mitchell from
> > > posting dissenting material on Samantha's yahoo mailing list/weblog, =
and
> > > boasted about doing this.
>
> > > Samantha's legal threats and 2007 frivilous action against GM Polgar =
and FM
> > > Truong started the whole brouhaha, with Lafferty the Lawyer, and his =
hordes
> > > of anonyms, keeping the flames fanned.
>
> > > So we must be overjoyed that Lafferty the Lawyer is distancing himsel=
f from
> > > Samantha's unethical actions of silencing opposition and is condemnin=
g
> > > them.
>
> > > A big thank you to Lafferty the Lawyer. He will be hearing from us. H=
e
> > > should not delete any of his communications since 3/1/2006.- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 24 Jan 2009 12:44:57
From:
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Jan 24, 1:39=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Interesting post in only 1 sense. Both the use of Samantha and the
> posting in tn.general seem to point at Rob as the sender of this
> message.

The Princeton academic disports his awareness.

> I have noticed Rob's odd use of Samantha before; I found it a
> particularly odd taunting nickname because it seems to be either
> implying that Sam is gay (which we seem to have plenty of evidence
> against) or (as Rob seems to sometimes assert) that he is scared of
> playing chess against opponents;

A switch of topic from impersonation; from sound-bites to Sloan as
'gay' according to Dr Spin, plus the Sloan's reticence, again
according to Dr. Spin.

> again, this is one failing that Sam
> clearly is not guilty of.

'This' being which of the two?

Sloan is known to be more than somewhat 'struck' by Susan Polgar -
indeed, the Sloan cannot think that 8,000 posts per year [conservative
estimate] constitutes being obsessed. ROFL

As to joining in where the rest of us are playing chess, the Sloan is
far too proud to do that, and in fact a bit like a big girl in his
*special* status, no?

ROFL

> It is possible that this is a misdirection,

Only 'poosible' :)

> but perhaps Rob will tell us whether he denies that the post is his?

Perhaps Dr Spin will tell us about his own postings about the hot-
sauce incident which he reported here. Did he know a court had
dismissed it at the time of his own enthusiasms. I have asked the
Brain the same question [and a couple more] - and his reply, running
as he is on a platform of 'transparency' was that the question was
'disingenuous'.

:)

So much for plain speech.

What Dr. Spin has not admitted in public is a logical factor which
does not depend on partisan orientation.

If Paul Truong [and/or Susan Polgar] did not do as they are accused,
then they are being set-up. <right? >

And in that sense making a muddy field of all is an act conducted by,
or orchestrated by, the person who set em up. This is still to remain
within logical parameters and does not require any belief or partisan
orientation to admit.

How odd then that such logical parameters are not even admitted by
such as Dr. Spin and Captain Transparency.

> I
> am guessing that it is Rob's, but I can't understand why he chooses a
> different form of positing for this, which seems like any other one
> which he posts under his own name.

Just as logically, I might ask why such a nonsense needs be asked of
anyone who can't admit the LOGICAL necessity of either Truong did it,
or he was set up. And of the second circumstance, then who is that,
and do they post here, or are merely puppets who with or without their
own wit engage the subject.

This is not a partisan post - and suggests no orientation for nor
against any party, except that it does suggest that if one possibility
is not true, then the other one is likely - and who is it who writes
to only one of these aspects without even intellectual acknowledgment
that the other exists?

If Troung has been framed, then who acknowledges that the real perp
can be writing here, or responsible for who writes what here.

Dr Spin ducked my question of his own knowledge of the court's
dismissal of hot-saucing as did the Brain.

Some people with thing going on between their ears might ask why? I
do. Until they are as open themselves as the [hugely intrusive]
questions to others - who do these characters thing the are, and who
are they fooling except such excitable projectionists as themselves?

Phil Innes

> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Jan 24, 1:06=A0am, Jebediah Kornworthy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Lafferty the Lawyer wrote:
> > > "I have received a credible legal threat from an interested party in =
the
> > > upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election.
> > > This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control"
> > > Who might this be??
> > > Who made the threat!!
>
> >http://www.anusha.com
>
> > Could it be Samantha ofhttp://www.anusha.com?
>
> > Samantha is an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Boa=
rd
> > election.
>
> > Samantha censored, threatened, banned and silenced Rob Mitchell from
> > posting dissenting material on Samantha's yahoo mailing list/weblog, an=
d
> > boasted about doing this.
>
> > Samantha's legal threats and 2007 frivilous action against GM Polgar an=
d FM
> > Truong started the whole brouhaha, with Lafferty the Lawyer, and his ho=
rdes
> > of anonyms, keeping the flames fanned.
>
> > So we must be overjoyed that Lafferty the Lawyer is distancing himself =
from
> > Samantha's unethical actions of silencing opposition and is condemning
> > them.
>
> > A big thank you to Lafferty the Lawyer. He will be hearing from us. He
> > should not delete any of his communications since 3/1/2006.

Date: 24 Jan 2009 10:39:01
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

Interesting post in only 1 sense. Both the use of Samantha and the
posting in tn.general seem to point at Rob as the sender of this
message. I have noticed Rob's odd use of Samantha before; I found it a
particularly odd taunting nickname because it seems to be either
implying that Sam is gay (which we seem to have plenty of evidence
against) or (as Rob seems to sometimes assert) that he is scared of
playing chess against opponents; again, this is one failing that Sam
clearly is not guilty of. It is possible that this is a misdirection,
but perhaps Rob will tell us whether he denies that the post is his? I
am guessing that it is Rob's, but I can't understand why he chooses a
different form of positing for this, which seems like any other one
which he posts under his own name.

Jerry Spinrad

On Jan 24, 1:06=A0am, Jebediah Kornworthy <[email protected] > wrote:
> Lafferty the Lawyer wrote:
> > "I have received a credible legal threat from an interested party in th=
e
> > upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election.
> > This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control"
> > Who might this be??
> > Who made the threat!!
>
> http://www.anusha.com
>
> Could it be Samantha ofhttp://www.anusha.com?
>
> Samantha is an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board
> election.
>
> Samantha censored, threatened, banned and silenced Rob Mitchell from
> posting dissenting material on Samantha's yahoo mailing list/weblog, and
> boasted about doing this.
>
> Samantha's legal threats and 2007 frivilous action against GM Polgar and =
FM
> Truong started the whole brouhaha, with Lafferty the Lawyer, and his hord=
es
> of anonyms, keeping the flames fanned.
>
> So we must be overjoyed that Lafferty the Lawyer is distancing himself fr=
om
> Samantha's unethical actions of silencing opposition and is condemning
> them.
>
> A big thank you to Lafferty the Lawyer. He will be hearing from us. He
> should not delete any of his communications since 3/1/2006.

Date: 27 Jan 2009 09:36:19
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Was Edmondson Murdered?

[email protected] wrote:
>
> DIDN'T KNOW THIS

IGNORANCE IS BLISS - you stupid bleedin' sphincter-pile...

YOURS - Laughing Jackass.

>
> <Did you know that Ed Edmondson's death on the beach was a murder?>
> -- anon
>
> Details please.
>
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > An other Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On 24 Jan 2009 at 10:39 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > >> It is possible that this is a misd
> > >
> > >I never realized how low the academical standard of Princeton had
> > >collapsed. Students should demand a full compensation. Period.
> >
> > lol! I agree. I think the Spinner, after his hot sauce defamation,
> > which he stated after he had knowledge that the allegation had been
> > dismissed by a competent court as lacking factual basis, can himself
> > confidently expect a high position of honor in the next lawsuit. JS
> > has grown bolder and bolder, to the point that not to give him some
> > suitable recognition would be an act of ingratitude. Vanderbilt can
> > be included for assisting.
> >
> > But also I think remailers have become too easy to use, so even the
> > idiots can use them. What do you say? The result of over-abuses is
> > only two seem to be permitting posts to rgcp. Very shameful that a
> > bluffing cyclist has been able to bully them. Is nothing sacred?
> >
> > Tell me why you ask your posts not to be archived? To provoke the
> > attorney who is claimed (but it could be gossip) suffers from OCD?
> >
> > Today, I have my letter to Marilyn Patel etc. to complete, including
> > the racist references by TUS to "niggers", "Japs" and her husband.
> > While I do not buy into the most fancified explanation for what did
> > occur, no good judge can fail to acknowledge that the best needs of
> > justice are served if S, P and G, who received provocation from the
> > animals beyond what is humanly possible to endure and could have in
> > a minor way retaliated, must be exonerated. By the victimization to
> > which the USCF has become complicit, it has tarnished forever its
> > own reputation and will be linked to the name and deeds of TUS.
> >
> > Beware of mangrin. Like randseed, it is run by the DEA or spooks.
> > Did you know that Ed Edmondson's death on the beach was a murder?
> >
> > >Followup-To: alt.naif
> >
> > No such header set, no such NG exists. I show you how it is done.
> > I trimmed off the unnecessary NGs.

Date: 25 Jan 2009 14:52:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Was Edmondson Murdered?

DIDN'T KNOW THIS

<Did you know that Ed Edmondson's death on the beach was a murder? >
-- anon

Details please.

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> An other Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 24 Jan 2009 at 10:39 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> It is possible that this is a misd
> >
> >I never realized how low the academical standard of Princeton had
> >collapsed. Students should demand a full compensation. Period.
>
> lol! I agree. I think the Spinner, after his hot sauce defamation,
> which he stated after he had knowledge that the allegation had been
> dismissed by a competent court as lacking factual basis, can himself
> confidently expect a high position of honor in the next lawsuit. JS
> has grown bolder and bolder, to the point that not to give him some
> suitable recognition would be an act of ingratitude. Vanderbilt can
> be included for assisting.
>
> But also I think remailers have become too easy to use, so even the
> idiots can use them. What do you say? The result of over-abuses is
> only two seem to be permitting posts to rgcp. Very shameful that a
> bluffing cyclist has been able to bully them. Is nothing sacred?
>
> Tell me why you ask your posts not to be archived? To provoke the
> attorney who is claimed (but it could be gossip) suffers from OCD?
>
> Today, I have my letter to Marilyn Patel etc. to complete, including
> the racist references by TUS to "niggers", "Japs" and her husband.
> While I do not buy into the most fancified explanation for what did
> occur, no good judge can fail to acknowledge that the best needs of
> justice are served if S, P and G, who received provocation from the
> animals beyond what is humanly possible to endure and could have in
> a minor way retaliated, must be exonerated. By the victimization to
> which the USCF has become complicit, it has tarnished forever its
> own reputation and will be linked to the name and deeds of TUS.
>
> Beware of mangrin. Like randseed, it is run by the DEA or spooks.
> Did you know that Ed Edmondson's death on the beach was a murder?
>
> >Followup-To: alt.naif
>
> No such header set, no such NG exists. I show you how it is done.
> I trimmed off the unnecessary NGs.

Date: 25 Jan 2009 05:20:15
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On 24 Jan 2009 at 10:39 am, [email protected] wrote:
> It is possible that this is a misd

I never realized how low the academical standard of Princeton had
collapsed. Students should demand a full compensation. Period.

Followup-To: alt.naif

Date: 25 Jan 2009 23:42:23
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Remops? Who Threatened Spinrad?

An other Nomen Nescio <[email protected] > wrote:
>On 24 Jan 2009 at 10:39 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> It is possible that this is a misd
>
>I never realized how low the academical standard of Princeton had
>collapsed. Students should demand a full compensation. Period.

lol! I agree. I think the Spinner, after his hot sauce defamation,
which he stated after he had knowledge that the allegation had been
dismissed by a competent court as lacking factual basis, can himself
confidently expect a high position of honor in the next lawsuit. JS
has grown bolder and bolder, to the point that not to give him some
suitable recognition would be an act of ingratitude. Vanderbilt can
be included for assisting.

But also I think remailers have become too easy to use, so even the
idiots can use them. What do you say? The result of over-abuses is
only two seem to be permitting posts to rgcp. Very shameful that a
bluffing cyclist has been able to bully them. Is nothing sacred?

Tell me why you ask your posts not to be archived? To provoke the
attorney who is claimed (but it could be gossip) suffers from OCD?

Today, I have my letter to Marilyn Patel etc. to complete, including
the racist references by TUS to "niggers", "Japs" and her husband.
While I do not buy into the most fancified explanation for what did
occur, no good judge can fail to acknowledge that the best needs of
justice are served if S, P and G, who received provocation from the
animals beyond what is humanly possible to endure and could have in
a minor way retaliated, must be exonerated. By the victimization to
which the USCF has become complicit, it has tarnished forever its
own reputation and will be linked to the name and deeds of TUS.

Beware of mangrin. Like randseed, it is run by the DEA or spooks.
Did you know that Ed Edmondson's death on the beach was a murder?

>Followup-To: alt.naif

No such header set, no such NG exists. I show you how it is done.
I trimmed off the unnecessary NGs.

Date: 24 Jan 2009 12:28:20
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:39:01 -0800 (PST),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Interesting post in only 1 sense. Both the use of Samantha and the
>posting in tn.general seem to point at Rob as the sender of this
>message. I have noticed Rob's odd use of Samantha before; I found it a
>particularly odd taunting nickname because it seems to be either
>implying that Sam is gay (which we seem to have plenty of evidence
>against) or (as Rob seems to sometimes assert) that he is scared of
>playing chess against opponents; again, this is one failing that Sam
>clearly is not guilty of. It is possible that this is a misdirection,
>but perhaps Rob will tell us whether he denies that the post is his? I
>am guessing that it is Rob's, but I can't understand why he chooses a
>different form of positing for this, which seems like any other one
>which he posts under his own name.
.

Any faker could have noticed Rob's usage and tossed it in there. IMO,
these blatant stylistic "clues" are red herrings.

Date: 24 Jan 2009 07:05:31
From: None
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens of Tennessee

On Jan 24, 2:06=A0am, Jebediah Kornworthy <[email protected] > wrote:
> Lafferty the Lawyer wrote:
> > "I have received a credible legal threat from an interested party in th=
e
> > upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election.
> > This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control"
> > Who might this be??
> > Who made the threat!!
>
> http://www.anusha.com
>
> Could it be Samantha ofhttp://www.anusha.com?
>
> Samantha is an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board
> election.
>
> Samantha censored, threatened, banned and silenced Rob Mitchell from
> posting dissenting material on Samantha's yahoo mailing list/weblog, and
> boasted about doing this.
>
> Samantha's legal threats and 2007 frivilous action against GM Polgar and =
FM
> Truong started the whole brouhaha, with Lafferty the Lawyer, and his hord=
es
> of anonyms, keeping the flames fanned.
>
> So we must be overjoyed that Lafferty the Lawyer is distancing himself fr=
om
> Samantha's unethical actions of silencing opposition and is condemning
> them.
>
> A big thank you to Lafferty the Lawyer. He will be hearing from us. He
> should not delete any of his communications since 3/1/2006.

Good to see that Charlie is back and posting stuff that can be
subpoenaed

Date: 23 Jan 2009 15:24:15
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens

On Jan 23, 5:18=A0pm, "B. Lafferty " <[email protected] > wrote:
> "This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control -- and
> that is their right."
>
> Who might this be??

You talking to me?

RL

Date: 23 Jan 2009 13:52:24
From: None
Subject: Re: Who Threatened Steve Owens

On Jan 23, 4:40=A0pm, "B. Lafferty " <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0From his blog which is being shut down. =A0Who made the threat!!
>
> Posted by Steve in TN
> I have received a credible legal threat from an interested party in the
> upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election. I will not identify that
> party unless they go public with their threat or carry through on it.
> This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control -- and
> that is their right.
>
> My attorney advises me that I can fight these bullying tactics -- and
> win. And receive recompense for my trouble. My speech here is protected
> in that what I write are opinions. Where I cite facts I provide sources.
> I have also asked for input from those with whom I disagree, in fact, I
> have asked those with alternate views to author items for the blog. For
> instance, Jack Le Moine disagrees with me completely about certain
> individuals. I have never pulled one of his posts or tried to make him
> alter them. I have commented, at time in private and others publicly, on
> what he writes. That is what this blog was supposed to be about --
> Interaction between disparate viewpoints.
>
> I have done everything I could to allow alternate viewpoints on this
> blog. I have allowed relaxed standards for those who hold positions
> here. I have tried to engage both members of USCF governance and regular
> members, mostly with no success. In the end, the mission of this blog is
> not being accomplished.
>
> I have fought off legal threats before when others have tried bullying
> tactics. This time I find it is not worth fighting. I do not hold the
> passion I once had to bring out the facts and stories behind chess
> governance in the US and I have been without that passion for a while. I
> have been unable to find others who have this passion, at least not
> enough to write about it. The USCF operates on a "One Man, One Vote"
> governance principle to elect delegates and board members... But the
> voting members and governance members either are too apathetic or too
> engaged in their own power plays to open up meaningful dialogue on the
> operations of our organization. In the end, fighting the litigious
> personalities is not worth the time and effort, much less the financial
> expense.
>
> So, this is -- at least for now -- the last blog update for ChessUSA.net.
>
> To the latest party to play the legal threat game -- Shame on you.

The more things change the more they stay the same