Main
Date: 29 Jan 2008 06:14:02
From: another chess mom
Subject: Even if Paul did write one or two inappropriate things
Even if Paul did write one or two slightly inappropriate things, they were
101 % justified by the wicked abuses, even sexual slanders, heaped upon his
wife by a gang (no way to describe them besides as "gang") of conspirators.

The same gang now tries to use the Court to extort money because of the
highly natural protective responses that their own calculated appalling
rudeness produced. Almost daily cus W. Roberts publishes libelous and
shameful attacks (ex. "prostitute", "child molestor", "pimping", "peeing")
against a female chess grandmaster with perfect reputation and even against
other distinguished personalities. The same cus W. Roberts is seen to be
colluding with Samuel H. Sloan. This is shown from their history of public
exchanges, at a minimum one admitted face to face meeting between Roberts
and Sloan, plus discussions between them of a letter by Roberts to the Hon.
Judge Chin. Even though Roberts is not a disclosed party to the action.
This is prima facie evidence of the existence of joint action or planning.

Another member, who once held a judicial post, then places into the arena
incitements. This same person is alleged to have committed impersonation!

To safeguard the family especially minor children and wife is a principal
duty of the husband. Which no court is going to set aside for degenerates.
When shortly after Feb. 4 the present frivolous suit gets dismissed with
prejudice, you can expect much extra materials to be disclosed. The legal
actions which will follow will not be confined to the "judgment-proof"
ones but also to any who are their backers, financiers, advisors or fellow
conspirators. Those who reply to their libelous posts, quoting and so
repeating their libels without contradicting them, are counseled they too
could face severe consequences.

I have complete faith in Hon. Judge Denny Chin to see beyond the many
misrepresentations of the pro-se plaintiff to the much wider issues and
perspectives of incitement and a justified retaliatory measure. If the main
perpetrator or gangleader behaves as if immune from any legal repercussion
because he is lacking in assets and reputation, the decent citizen who is
being attacked smeared and cannot get satisfaction through the court is
partly justified to take proportionate (non-violent) defensive action. I
am sure mistakes have been made on the defensive side but when victimized
by pre-planned threats, grand conspiracy, endless defamation, some small
oversights are within the court's power to overlook without condoning. Is
it not the point that Justice should prevail not the dry letters of laws.

I have read in the newsgroup there is a movement to inform the N.Y. child
protective services. We should always put the child's interests first. I am
advised that Hon. Judge Denny Chin, who will become aquainted with the very
famous plaintiff, can make his own recommendation even though it is not the
matter before him. Recommendation from such a distinguished judge carries a
lot of weight with the CPS. Who can then initiate their own investigations,
not to the pitiful situation of the youngest (known) female child but other
minors in other jurisdictions.

I do not speak on behalf of anyone else, just my own view. Other persons
who may feel aggrieved by e-mail which Paul is blamed (wrongly or rightly)
for are requested with politeness, to show restraint and to follow the good
dignified example of Mr. Parker. He was unjustly attacked and his good name
dragged into a matter nothing to do with him, all involved must regret it.
He appears now to be receiving anonymous communication. All such e-mail are
to be assumed to originate from the conspirators in the newsgroup and must
be ignored or better referred to the Federal authorities. I would never
send e-mail anonymously because it is abuse. Anonymous posting to a public
newsgroup is different and actually is recommended, specially when the same
is patrolled by at least one abusive, violent lunatic.





lager but it's made
in
Switzerland!





 
Date: 02 Feb 2008 13:32:37
From:
Subject: Re: Even if Paul did write one or two inappropriate things



"another chess mom" wrote:

>Even if Paul did write one or two slightly inappropriate things, they were
>101 % justified by the wicked abuses, even sexual slanders, heaped upon his
>wife by a gang (no way to describe them besides as "gang") of conspirators.

So your theory is that doing something that would otherwise be wrong
is suddenly made right if the motive for doing it is revenge? In other
words, two wrongs make a right?

>To safeguard the family especially minor children and wife is a principal
>duty of the husband.

So your theory is that impersonating someone on Usenet is somehow
safeguarding minor children? Care to explain, in detail, exactly
how such "safeguarding" works?

>Which no court is going to set aside for degenerates.

So your theory is that "degenerates" don't deserve legal protection?

>Those who reply to their libelous posts, quoting and so repeating
>their libels without contradicting them, are counseled they too
>could face severe consequences.

You actually imagine that anyone will pay attention to the empty
threat above? Bring it on, oh blustery one!

>justified retaliatory measure.

In other words, two wrongs make a right?

>the decent citizen who is being attacked smeared and cannot get
>satisfaction through the court is partly justified to take
>proportionate (non-violent) defensive action.

Does this work two ways? If you can decide that someone attacked you
and thus justified your vigilantee revenge, why can't the ones who you
claim smeared you do the same and say that they are justified because
they decided that you attacked them?

>All such e-mail are to be assumed to originate from the conspirators
>in the newsgroup

Spoken like a true forger.

>I would never send e-mail anonymously because it is abuse.

I don't believe you.



 
Date: 02 Feb 2008 13:32:37
From:
Subject: Re: Even if Paul did write one or two inappropriate things



"another chess mom" wrote:

>Even if Paul did write one or two slightly inappropriate things, they were
>101 % justified by the wicked abuses, even sexual slanders, heaped upon his
>wife by a gang (no way to describe them besides as "gang") of conspirators.

So your theory is that doing something that would otherwise be wrong
is suddenly made right if the motive for doing it is revenge? In other
words, two wrongs make a right?

>To safeguard the family especially minor children and wife is a principal
>duty of the husband.

So your theory is that impersonating someone on Usenet is somehow
safeguarding minor children? Care to explain, in detail, exactly
how such "safeguarding" works?

>Which no court is going to set aside for degenerates.

So your theory is that "degenerates" don't deserve legal protection?

>Those who reply to their libelous posts, quoting and so repeating
>their libels without contradicting them, are counseled they too
>could face severe consequences.

You actually imagine that anyone will pay attention to the empty
threat above? Bring it on, oh blustery one!

>justified retaliatory measure.

In other words, two wrongs make a right?

>the decent citizen who is being attacked smeared and cannot get
>satisfaction through the court is partly justified to take
>proportionate (non-violent) defensive action.

Does this work two ways? If you can decide that someone attacked you
and thus justified your vigilantee revenge, why can't the ones who you
claim smeared you do the same and say that they are justified because
they decided that you attacked them?

>All such e-mail are to be assumed to originate from the conspirators
>in the newsgroup

Spoken like a true forger.

>I would never send e-mail anonymously because it is abuse.

I don't believe you.




  
Date: 02 Feb 2008 06:32:28
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Even if Paul did write one or two inappropriate things
On Feb 2, 8:32 am, inva...@example.com wrote:
> "another chess mom" wrote:
> >Even if Paul did write one or two slightly inappropriate things, they were
> >101 % justified by the wicked abuses, even sexual slanders, heaped upon his
> >wife by a gang (no way to describe them besides as "gang") of conspirators.
>
> So your theory is that doing something that would otherwise be wrong
> is suddenly made right if the motive for doing it is revenge? In other
> words, two wrongs make a right?
>
> >To safeguard the family especially minor children and wife is a principal
> >duty of the husband.
>
> So your theory is that impersonating someone on Usenet is somehow
> safeguarding minor children? Care to explain, in detail, exactly
> how such "safeguarding" works?

Trollgars favorite 'journalist', the Brattleboro Bedlam, used exactly
the same 'logic', posting libels in order to allegedly protect his
"female family members."

> >Which no court is going to set aside for degenerates.
>
> So your theory is that "degenerates" don't deserve legal protection?
>
> >Those who reply to their libelous posts, quoting and so repeating
> >their libels without contradicting them, are counseled they too
> >could face severe consequences.

This was also a point made by "Bob Bennett" back in 2003, an anonymous
poster many believe to have been Paul Truong. That post appears to
have been removed.

> You actually imagine that anyone will pay attention to the empty
> threat above? Bring it on, oh blustery one!
>
> >justified retaliatory measure.
>
> In other words, two wrongs make a right?
>
> >the decent citizen who is being attacked smeared and cannot get
> >satisfaction through the court is partly justified to take
> >proportionate (non-violent) defensive action.
>
> Does this work two ways? If you can decide that someone attacked you
> and thus justified your vigilantee revenge, why can't the ones who you
> claim smeared you do the same and say that they are justified because
> they decided that you attacked them?
>
> >All such e-mail are to be assumed to originate from the conspirators
> >in the newsgroup
>
> Spoken like a true forger.
>
> >I would never send e-mail anonymously because it is abuse.
>
> I don't believe you.



   
Date: 02 Feb 2008 09:51:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Even if Paul did write one or two inappropriate things

"The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1ff56ae4-c0f7-42ba-8e36-8d7e00012d06@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 8:32 am, inva...@example.com wrote:
>> "another chess mom" wrote:
>> >Even if Paul did write one or two slightly inappropriate things, they
>> >were
>> >101 % justified by the wicked abuses, even sexual slanders, heaped upon
>> >his
>> >wife by a gang (no way to describe them besides as "gang") of
>> >conspirators.
>>
>> So your theory is that doing something that would otherwise be wrong
>> is suddenly made right if the motive for doing it is revenge? In other
>> words, two wrongs make a right?
>>
>> >To safeguard the family especially minor children and wife is a
>> >principal
>> >duty of the husband.
>>
>> So your theory is that impersonating someone on Usenet is somehow
>> safeguarding minor children? Care to explain, in detail, exactly
>> how such "safeguarding" works?
>
> Trollgars favorite 'journalist', the Brattleboro Bedlam, used exactly
> the same 'logic', posting libels in order to allegedly protect his
> "female family members."

Just for the record!

What I want everyone to know is that Neil Brennan suggested I wrote filth
about my own family - instead of the poster who ONLY followed Brennan's
posts doing so!

And so the prosecution of people continues; the lies and libels, and by the
worst offenders in chess - who continue to speculate, as if to detract from
their /own/ activities - but they can't stop volunteering their filth, which
indicts themselves rather than others.

Phil Innes

>> >Which no court is going to set aside for degenerates.
>>
>> So your theory is that "degenerates" don't deserve legal protection?
>>
>> >Those who reply to their libelous posts, quoting and so repeating
>> >their libels without contradicting them, are counseled they too
>> >could face severe consequences.
>
> This was also a point made by "Bob Bennett" back in 2003, an anonymous
> poster many believe to have been Paul Truong. That post appears to
> have been removed.
>
>> You actually imagine that anyone will pay attention to the empty
>> threat above? Bring it on, oh blustery one!
>>
>> >justified retaliatory measure.
>>
>> In other words, two wrongs make a right?
>>
>> >the decent citizen who is being attacked smeared and cannot get
>> >satisfaction through the court is partly justified to take
>> >proportionate (non-violent) defensive action.
>>
>> Does this work two ways? If you can decide that someone attacked you
>> and thus justified your vigilantee revenge, why can't the ones who you
>> claim smeared you do the same and say that they are justified because
>> they decided that you attacked them?
>>
>> >All such e-mail are to be assumed to originate from the conspirators
>> >in the newsgroup
>>
>> Spoken like a true forger.
>>
>> >I would never send e-mail anonymously because it is abuse.
>>
>> I don't believe you.
>




 
Date: 29 Jan 2008 01:41:04
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Dignified?
How much you want to bet I won't be called "dignified" by these anonymous
sorts for too much longer.


--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy

Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.

Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187

Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?





 
Date: 29 Jan 2008 01:39:55
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Anonymous Hot Sauce
Study your USENET!!


--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy

Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.

Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187

Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?





 
Date: 29 Jan 2008 01:39:08
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re:
> I do not speak on behalf of anyone else,

Really?

>Other persons
> who may feel aggrieved by e-mail which Paul is blamed (wrongly or rightly)
> for are requested with politeness, to show restraint and to follow the
> good
> dignified example of Mr. Parker.

Triple-checking a mating combination for accuracy when one has a mountain of
time on their clock is not "restraint."

It is precision.


--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy

Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.

Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187

Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?