Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Date: 09 Apr 2008 14:52:25
From: samsloan
Subject: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Today, Susan Polgar posted the following on her chessdiscussion.com

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1031

The Jerry Hanken issue

Post by Susan Polgar on Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:03 pm

In spite of my good will toward the regrettable recent conduct by Mr.
Hanken, here is what he publicly stated this morning about my husband
and me:

"I believe that If they (Susan and Paul) ever got control of USCF
with a board majority by getting a couple of bootlickers elected while
both held onto their seats, it would be all over for the Federation!
They would suck the USCF dry and leave its hulk in a dumpster while
founding the "Polger Chess Federation". This is NOT a joke and I am
not an alarmist."

It is even more unfortunate that some board members are continuing to
look the other way to protect an individual like this while continuing
to offer him paid USCF projects. This is one of the things I brought
up before and spoke out against. One of the reasons why the USCF is
often in financial difficulties is because we continue to award paid
projects to friends and insiders instead of getting the best people
for the job.

I hope that Mr. Goichberg and his board majority will speak out
against such regrettable statement and conduct by Mr. Hanken and
revoke all paid assignments from individuals like this. What does it
say when board members and the USCF see nothing wrong with this and
continue to support such individuals?

Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com

Date: 14 Apr 2008 06:40:19
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

>
> Wrong. =A0The election was not fair given the FSS posts. =A0

This contention is devoid of rationality, as has been explained
before. Sheesh. And you were a judge?

Scorn, and slight regard,
zdrakec

Date: 13 Apr 2008 15:39:46
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 13, 6:02 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
> > Possible Future Board Member wrote:
> > > How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway?
> > Unknown
>
> Nothing. Read the Bylaws. They get airfare and hotel rooms reimbursed
> for Board meetings, but no meal money. (Sloan really squealed about
> that.)

They were trying to starve me out as a way to stop me from taking
office or to shorten my term.

Fortunately, there was usually a McDonald's nearby and I was able to
spring for that.

Sam Sloan

Date: 13 Apr 2008 15:02:32
From:
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Brian Lafferty wrote:
> Possible Future Board Member wrote:
> > How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway?
> Unknown

Nothing. Read the Bylaws. They get airfare and hotel rooms reimbursed
for Board meetings, but no meal money. (Sloan really squealed about
that.)

Date: 13 Apr 2008 22:38:19
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> Possible Future Board Member wrote:
>>> How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway?
>> Unknown
>
>
> Nothing. Read the Bylaws. They get airfare and hotel rooms reimbursed
> for Board meetings, but no meal money. (Sloan really squealed about
> that.)

John, be creative. How much can an executive in any corporation get as
compensation?---whatever he can not get caught taking. Old joke amongst
the corporate types in NYC.

Date: 13 Apr 2008 12:31:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 13, 2:22 pm, Possible Future Board Member
<[email protected] > wrote:
> How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway? If the price
> is right, perhaps someone with a bit of organizational experience
> and no skeletons in the closet could win a seat, and then start
> representing the average chessplayer for a change. Also, are
> there any residency requirements? Where and how often do they meet?
> --Possible Future Board Member ;=)

We get paid a wonderful amount.

This would be a great career move for you.

Date: 13 Apr 2008 18:22:32
From: Possible Future Board Member
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway? If the price
is right, perhaps someone with a bit of organizational experience
and no skeletons in the closet could win a seat, and then start
representing the average chessplayer for a change. Also, are
there any residency requirements? Where and how often do they meet?
--Possible Future Board Member ;=)

Date: 13 Apr 2008 20:07:38
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Possible Future Board Member wrote:
> How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway?
Unknown

Date: 13 Apr 2008 09:28:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 12, 10:38 pm, Randy Bauer <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > EZoto wrote:
> > >> What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
> > >> apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
> > >> the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.
>
> > > What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
> > > square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
> > > him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
> > > election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
> > > Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
> > > have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.
>
> > > EZoto
>
> > Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
> > the courts eventually decide.
>
> Oh, please - that is absolute baloney. Fairness in an election is
> based on the ability of the voters to participate. If it was based on
> the possibility that untruths were spoken, there would be few members
> of Congress seated.
>
> Besides, are you suggesting that Sam Sloan, who barely escaped last
> place, would have won a seat if not for the FSS posts? That is too
> absurd for words - Brian, you need to get out more often.
>
> Randy Bauer

Try another question.

Do you think that you, Randy Bauer, would have been elected had you
not been on the Polgar Ticket?

Remember that when you last ran in 2005 you lost badly.

Thus, it seems likely that it was support from Polgar that put you
over the top.

Try another question: Do you think that if the election were held
today, with Polgar no longer supporting you, you would still be
elected?

Sam Sloan

Date: 13 Apr 2008 07:13:53
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 13, 7:29 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:LaTLj.43$HJ1.9@trndny01...
>
> >> Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT
> >> the charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.
> > Did the judge now? Got a copy of the decision and order of "dismissal?"
> > If you don't have the order, tell us when it was filed with the court
> > clerk. Prove to us that there was a "dismissal."
>
> Lafferty - you evade your understanding of what a charge 'thrown out' means,
> as if the term was unknown or unusual. Now you want me to do your work for
> you, and 'prove' something to an abusenik!
>
> You have raised this issue...

Actually, you "raised the issue" by claiming there was a "dismissal."
But as usual, your screen persona writes checks that won't be honored.

Date: 12 Apr 2008 23:55:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 10, 5:51 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
> >> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>
> >You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
> >proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
> >would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
>
> Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
> litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
> about it, does it?

Nearly-IMnes cannot read Latin, only *Andean*.

If you will translate the term into /Andean/ and
repost, I'm certain that the nearly-an-IM 2450
Dr. Innes will reply with the necessary bleating
obfuscation, as always. It's not fair when you
use tricks on him like that.

Has anyone found a "pro bono" psychiatrist
willing to help Dr. IMnes, yet? If this were a
communist country, he would be first in line
due to his dire need. Unfortunately, we have
a dumb-ocratic re-dumb-lic, where those who
have the most money control everything.
This sometimes results in severe mental
disorders going sans treatment for decades.

What amazes me is that even after all this
time, people still respond to Dr. IMnes as if
he were sane, trying to "convince" him of
this or that; all the while, knowing full well
that his mind is gone... .

-- help bot

Date: 12 Apr 2008 23:28:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 9, 8:37 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:

> What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
> apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
> the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States. The right
> to speak truth to power is what men and women have given their lives for
> in founding and defending this country.
>
> To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
> society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
> stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
> Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.

Hmm. I recently received an email in which our
forefathers were praised for such things as washing
mouths out with soap, frequent trips to the wood
shed for the slightest transgression, and so forth.
Are you *sure* the form of government is what
marks the difference in approach here?

I think it is far more likely that the trouble lies in
hypocrisy: when money flows in the direction of
folks like SP, she is happy; but when money
runs to others, jealousy rears its ugly head. And
what do you suppose motivates posters like LP
and SS, to harry these folks who are on the
receiving end of USCF handouts? Jealousy
perhaps? Complaints always come up when
*somebody else* is getting a free ride... .

The whole game plan is wrong. The USCF
needs a complete makeover, starting with
getting rid of the flotsam and jetsam who use
members' monies for their own personal benefit.

According to Sam Sloan, just one of these
"moochers" can easily rack up tens of
thousands of dollars in costs to the members.
Just imagine how much money could be saved
by getting several moochers off of USCF welfare
and into real jobs!

-- help bot

Date: 12 Apr 2008 20:05:09
From:
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 12, 9:38 pm, Randy Bauer <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > EZoto wrote:
> > >> What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
> > >> apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
> > >> the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.
>
> > > What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
> > > square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
> > > him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
> > > election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
> > > Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
> > > have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.
>
> > > EZoto
>
> > Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
> > the courts eventually decide.
>
> Oh, please - that is absolute baloney. Fairness in an election is
> based on the ability of the voters to participate. If it was based on
> the possibility that untruths were spoken, there would be few members
> of Congress seated.
>
> Besides, are you suggesting that Sam Sloan, who barely escaped last
> place, would have won a seat if not for the FSS posts? That is too
> absurd for words - Brian, you need to get out more often.
>
> Randy Bauer

Have you considered challenging Kirsan, Randy?

http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/2-articles/1327-fide-videos

Date: 12 Apr 2008 19:47:34
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 12, 9:38 pm, Randy Bauer <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > EZoto wrote:
> > >> What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
> > >> apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
> > >> the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.
>
> > > What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
> > > square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
> > > him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
> > > election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
> > > Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
> > > have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.
>
> > > EZoto
>
> > Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
> > the courts eventually decide.
>
> Oh, please - that is absolute baloney. Fairness in an election is
> based on the ability of the voters to participate. If it was based on
> the possibility that untruths were spoken, there would be few members
> of Congress seated.

You've managed to skip the whole identity theft issue. Evasion noted.

> Besides, are you suggesting that Sam Sloan, who barely escaped last
> place, would have won a seat if not for the FSS posts? That is too
> absurd for words - Brian, you need to get out more often.
>
> Randy Bauer

Date: 12 Apr 2008 19:38:15
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 12, 6:46=A0pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> EZoto wrote:
> >> What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
> >> apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works an=
d
> >> the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.
>
> > What do you know of it. =A0Paul and Susan won the election fair and
> > square and all you losers are upset over it. =A0Now your trying to take
> > him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. =A0Wait till next=

> > election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
> > Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. =A0But then in this country you
> > have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.
>
> > EZoto
>
> Wrong. =A0The election was not fair given the FSS posts. =A0We'll see what=

> the courts eventually decide.

Oh, please - that is absolute baloney. Fairness in an election is
based on the ability of the voters to participate. If it was based on
the possibility that untruths were spoken, there would be few members
of Congress seated.

Besides, are you suggesting that Sam Sloan, who barely escaped last
place, would have won a seat if not for the FSS posts? That is too
absurd for words - Brian, you need to get out more often.

Randy Bauer

Date: 13 Apr 2008 11:38:57
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Randy Bauer wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> EZoto wrote:
>>>> What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
>>>> apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
>>>> the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.
>>> What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
>>> square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
>>> him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
>>> election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
>>> Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
>>> have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.
>>> EZoto
>> Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
>> the courts eventually decide.
>
> Oh, please - that is absolute baloney. Fairness in an election is
> based on the ability of the voters to participate. If it was based on
> the possibility that untruths were spoken, there would be few members
> of Congress seated.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

>
> Besides, are you suggesting that Sam Sloan, who barely escaped last
> place, would have won a seat if not for the FSS posts? That is too
> absurd for words - Brian, you need to get out more often.

Not Sloan. But it may have kept Jones off the board.
>
> Randy Bauer

Date: 12 Apr 2008 03:18:22
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 11, 6:53 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> > If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?
>
> > PI
>
> I've tried running this sentence through various language translations
> using the Google language tool. No luck. Can anyone out there
> translate the above sentence into modern English? Thanks in advance.

P Innes' "British Language" defies translation.

My favorite comment on Mr. Innes' skill in languages:

"...Mr. Innes is certainly a
linguist of remarkable originality. As a sample (or perhaps a
campel),
he has discovered that Old English was still spoken as late as the
1800s
(which for some reason he takes to be the seventeenth century) and
indeed that the tongue is *still* spoken, a result that would astonish
professional linguists -- the sane ones, at any rate. Moreover, he
has
unearthed bits of the Latin lexicon of which Latinists were unaware --
e.g., "secuter."

"Turning to modern languages, Mr. Innes has discerned grammatical
features of which nobody else was aware in several modern tongues.
For
instance, he has discovered that English possesses a "negative case"
--
it is evidently what grammarians formerly called a "double negative"
--
and that the Russian first-person accusative and dative pronouns are
identical, a fact that would surprise speakers of the language. He
has
also found that the verbs "love" and "leave" in Russian are identical,
so that the surly exhortation "Love it or leave it" can be rendered in
Russian without changing the verb in the second clause. Finally, he
has
enriched the lexicon of modern English immeasurably with neologisms
like
"clacque," "dillitantes," "insistance," "come" as a conjunction (in
locutions like "poet come playwright"), and many others."

Date: 11 Apr 2008 19:07:00
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Date: 11 Apr 2008 19:02:33
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 11, 1:40 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:

> >>> Phil Innes
>
> Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?

That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it, Brian?

Date: 12 Apr 2008 09:52:34
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

The Historian wrote:
> On Apr 11, 1:40 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> Phil Innes
>> Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?
>
> That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it, Brian?

Of course.

Date: 11 Apr 2008 11:51:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 11, 1:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[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.
>
> >>I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
> >>know
> >>the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
> >>Brian
> >>Lafferty.
>
> > "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
> > *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
> > report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
> > report -- this is "actionable" ?
>
> If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
> from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>
> > Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>
> Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
> you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
>
> > You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
> > children with blocks.
>
> 'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
> acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
> wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
> answer.
>
> I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
> out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
> are accusing others, and their standards, if any.
>
> Phil Innes

What do you mean "threw out" the charge? That was a court order, not a
charge. Courts do not "throw out" court orders, unless they are
appealed, which did not happen here.

What happened was that Polgar and Truong moved to Texas not long after
this court order was issued. Thus, the New York courts no longer have
jurisdiction over the matter. This may explain the reason they moved.

Sam Sloan

Date: 11 Apr 2008 19:31:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 11, 1:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[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.
>>
>> >>I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
>> >>know
>> >>the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
>> >>Brian
>> >>Lafferty.
>>
>> > "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>> > *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>> > report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>> > report -- this is "actionable" ?
>>
>> If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
>> from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>>
>> > Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>>
>> Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I
>> tell
>> you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
>>
>> > You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>> > children with blocks.
>>
>> 'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
>> acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
>> wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
>> answer.
>>
>> I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point
>> it
>> out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
>> are accusing others, and their standards, if any.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> What do you mean "threw out" the charge? That was a court order, not a
> charge. Courts do not "throw out" court orders, unless they are
> appealed, which did not happen here.
>
> What happened was that Polgar and Truong moved to Texas not long after
> this court order was issued. Thus, the New York courts no longer have
> jurisdiction over the matter. This may explain the reason they moved.

May?

That is not what happened, and unless you dare look at what happened, you
can continue to say may. zzzz

If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?

PI

>
> Sam Sloan

Date: 11 Apr 2008 23:53:52
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:

>
> If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?
>
> PI

I've tried running this sentence through various language translations
using the Google language tool. No luck. Can anyone out there
translate the above sentence into modern English? Thanks in advance.

Date: 12 Apr 2008 01:58:00
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Brian Lafferty wrote:
>
>Phil Innes AKA Chess One wrote:
>>
>> If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?
>
>I've tried running this sentence through various language translations
>using the Google language tool. No luck. Can anyone out there
>translate the above sentence into modern English? Thanks in advance.

As near as I can figure, the translation is:

Product Liability Suit

In The United States District Court, Southwestern District,
Tempe, Arizona Case No. B19293, Judge Joan Kujava, Presiding

Wile E. Coyote, Plaintiff vs. Acme Company, Defendant

Opening statement of Mr. Harold Schoff, attorney for
Mr. Coyote:

My client, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, a resident of Arizona and
contiguous states, does hearby bring suit for damages
against the Acme Company, manufacturer and retail
distributor of assorted merchandise, incorporated in
Delaware and doing business in every state, district, and
territory. Mr. Coyote seeks compensation for personal
injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering
caused as a direct result of the actions and/or gross
negligence of said company, under Title 15 of the United
States Code Chapter 47, section 2072, subsection (a),
relating to product liability.

Mr. Coyote states that on eighty-five separate occasions, he
has purchased of the Acme Company (hereinafter,
"Defendant"), through that company's mail order department,
certain products which did cause him bodily injury due to
defects in manufacture or improper cautionary labelling.
Sales slips made out to Mr. Coyote as proof of purchase are
at present in the possession of the Court, marked Exhibit A.
Such injuries sustained by Mr. Coyote have temporarily
restricted his ability to make a living in the profession of
predator. Mr. Coyote is self-employed and thus not eligible
for Workmen's Compensation.

Mr. Coyote states that on December 13th, he received of
Defendant via parcel post one Acme Rocket Sled. The
intention of Mr. Coyote was to use the Rocket sled to aid
him in pursuit of his prey. Upon receipt of the Rocket Sled,
Mr. Coyote removed it from its wooden shipping crate and
sighting his prey in the distance, activated the ignition.
As Mr. Coyote gripped the handlebars, the Rocket Sled
accelerated with such sudden and precipitate force as to
stretch Mr. Coyote's forelimbs to a length of fifteen feet.
Subsequently, the rest of Mr. Coyote's body shot forward
with a violent jolt, causing severe strain to his back and
neck and placing him unexpectedly astride the Rocket Sled.
Disappearing over the horizon at such speed as to leave a
diminishing jet trail along its path, the Rocket Sled soon
brought Mr. Coyote abreast of his prey. At that moment, the
animal he was pursuing veered sharply to the right. Mr.
Coyote vigorously attempted to follow this maneuver but was
unable to, due to poor design and engineering on the Rocket
Sled and a faulty or nonexistent steering system. Shortly
thereafter, the unchecked progress of the Rocket Sled led it
and Mr. Coyote into collision with the side of a mesa.

Paragraph One of the Report of Attending Physician (Exhibit
B), prepared by Dr. Ernst Grosscup, M.D., D.O., details the
multiple fractures, contusions, and tissue damage suffered
by Mr. Coyote as a result of this collision. Repair of the
injuries required a full bandage around the head (excluding
the ears), a neck brace, and full or partial casts on all
four legs. Hampered by these injuries, Mr. Coyote was
nevertheless obliged to support himself. With this in mind,
he purchased of Defendant as an aid to mobility one pair of
Acme Rocket Skates. When he attempted to use this product,
however, he became involved in an accident remarkably
similar to that which occurred with the Rocket Sled. Again,
Defendant sold over the counter, without caveat, a product
which attached powerful jet engines (in this case, two) to
inadequate vehicles, with little or no provision for
passenger safety.

Encumbered by his heavy casts, Mr. Coyote lost control of
the Rocket Skates soon after strapping them on, and collided
with a roadside billboard so violently as to leave a hole in
the shape of his full silhouette.

Mr. Coyote states that on occasions too numerous to list in
this document he has suffered mishaps with explosives
purchased of Defendant: the Acme "Little Giant" Firecracker,
the Acme Self-Guided Aerial Bomb, etc. (For a full listing,
see the Acme Mail Order Explosives Catalog and attached
deposition, entered in evidence as Exhibit C.) Indeed, it is
safe to say that not once has an explosive purchased of
Defendant by Mr. Coyote performed in an expected manner.

To cite just one example: At the expense of much time and
personal effort, Mr. Coyote constructed around the outer rim
of a butte a wooden trough beginning at the top of the butte
and spiralling downward around it to some few feet above a
black X painted on the desert floor. The trough was designed
in such a way that a spherical explosive of the type sold by
Defendant would roll easily and swiftly down to the point of
detonation indicated by the X. Mr. Coyote placed a generous
pile of birdseed directly on the X, and then, carrying the
spherical Acme Bomb (Catalog #78) climbed to the top of the
butte. Mr. Coyote's prey, seeing the birdseed, approached,
and Mr. Coyote proceeded to light the fuse. In an instant,
the fuse burned down to the stem, causing the bomb to
detonate. In addition to reducing all Mr. Coyote's careful
preparations to naught, the premature detonation of
Defendant's product resulted in the following disfigurements
to Mr. Coyote:

1.Severe singeing of the hair on the head, neck, and muzzle.

2.Sooty discoloration.

3.Fracture of the left ear at the stem, causing the ear to
dangle in the aftershock with a creaking noise.

4.Full or partial combustion of whiskers, producing kinking,
frazzling, and ashy disintegration.

5.Radical widening of the eyes, due to brow and lid
charring.

We come now to the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes. The remains of
a pair of these purchased by Mr. Coyote on June 23rd are
Plaintiff's Exhibit D. Selected fragments have been shipped
to the metallurgical laboratories of the University of
California at Santa Barbara for analysis, but to date, no
explanation has been found for this product's sudden and
extreme malfunction.

As advertised by Defendant, this product is simplicity
itself: two wood-and- metal sandals, each attached to
milled-steel springs of high tensile strength and compressed
in a tightly coiled position by a cocking device with a
lanyard release. Mr. Coyote believed that this product would
enable him to pounce upon his prey in the initial moments of
the chase, when swift reflexes are at a premium.

To increase the shoes' thrusting power still further, Mr.
Coyote affixed them by their bottoms to the side of a large
boulder. Adjacent to the boulder was a path which Mr.
Coyote's prey was known to frequent. Mr. Coyote put his hind
feet in the wood-and-metal sandals and crouched in
readiness, his right forepaw holding firmly to the lanyard
release. Within a short time, Mr. Coyote's prey did indeed
appear on the path coming toward him.

Unsuspecting, the prey stopped near Mr. Coyote, well within
range of the springs at full extension. Mr. Coyote gauged
the distance with care and proceeded to pull the lanyard
release. At this point, Defendant's product should have
thrust Mr. Coyote forward and away from the boulder.
Instead, for reasons yet unknown, the Acme Spring-Powered
Shoes thrust the boulder away from Mr. Coyote.

As the intended prey looked on unharmed, Mr. Coyote hung
suspended in the air. Then the twin springs recoiled,
bringing Mr. Coyote to a violent feet-first collision with
the boulder, the full weight of his head and forequarters
falling upon his lower extremities. The force of this impact
then caused the springs to rebound, whereupon Mr. Coyote was
thrust skyward. A second recoil and collision followed. The
boulder, meanwhile, which was roughly ovoid in shape, had
begun to bounce down a hillside, the coiling and recoiling
of the springs adding to its velocity. At each bounce, Mr.
Coyote came into contact with the boulder, or the boulder
came into contact with Mr. Coyote, or both came into contact
with the ground. As the grade was a long one, this process
continued for some time.

The sequence of collisions resulted in systemic physical
damage to Mr. Coyote, viz, flattening of the cranium,
sideways displacement of the tongue, reduction of length of
legs and upper body, and compression of vertebrae from base
of tail to head. Repetition of blows along a vertical axis
produced a series of regular horizontal folds in Mr.
Coyote's body tissues, a rare and painful condition which
caused Mr. Coyote to expand upward and contract downward
alternately as he walked, and to emit an offkey,
accordion-like wheezing with every step. The distracting and
embarrassing nature of this symptom has been a major
impediment to Mr. Coyote's pursuit of a normal social life.

As the court is no doubt aware, Defendant has a virtual
monopoly of manufacture and sale of goods required by Mr.
Coyote's work. It is our contention that Defendant has used
its market advantage to the detriment of the consumer of
such specialized products as itching powder, giant kites,
Burmese tiger traps, anvils, and two-hundred-foot-long
rubber bands. Much as he has come to mistrust Defendant's
products, Mr. Coyote has no other domestic source of supply
to which to turn. One can only wonder what our trading
partners in Western Europe and Japan would make of such a
situation, where a giant company is allowed to victimize the
consumer in the most reckless and wrongful manner over and
over again.

Mr. Coyote respectfully requests that the Court regard these
larger economic implications and assess punitive damages in
the amount of seventeen million dollars. In addition, Mr.
Coyote seeks actual damages (missed meals, medical expenses,
days lost from professional occupation) of one million
dollars; general damages (mental suffering, injury to
reputation) of twenty million dollars; and attorney's fees
of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. By awarding Mr.
Coyote the full amount, this Court will censure Defendant,
its directors, officers, shareholders, successors, and
assigns, in the only language they understand, and reaffirm
the right of the individual predator to equal protection
under the law.

--Mr. Harold Schoff, Attorney at Law

(Please note that, unlike the other posts in this thread,
mine is on-topic in misc.legal...) :)

Date: 11 Apr 2008 11:21:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

From: Jessica Lauser <[email protected] >
To: <[email protected] >
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:53:29 -0700
Subject: A perfectly sound 'exchange'
Dear Fred,

I've recently heard an interesting version of a verbal exchange
between Jerry and Susan Polgar, at last year's National Open, going
around. As a rule, I generally stay out of chess politics because my
own life is interesting enough without the added drama. In this case,
however, I felt it best to set the record straight since I personally
witnessed, first-hand, the conversation in question, and my
experience, in no way, matches what is apparently being touted as
fact.

The 'incident' itself, lasted all of a couple minutes, and took place
the night Jerry got into the Riviera, after I had gone with a member
of the staff, if you recall, to pick him up at the airport. We had
arrived a few minutes earlier, had gotten checked in, and were waiting
at the bell desk for assistance with Jerry's luggage, when he noticed
Susan Polgar waiting at the front desk, nearby.

When he recognized her standing there, he said to me, in a pleasant
tone, "Oh, there's Susan Polgar, I think I'll go and say hello." He
then nudged his cart the 5 or 6 feet over to her, and I listened to
them talk quietly, the entire time.

Upon exchanging hellos, Jerry told Susan not to worry - that he wasn't
going to get into any political debates with her during this trip, but
that he hoped things could be civil between them. Susan seemed a
little hesitant, responding without saying much. Pretty soon, they
ended on reasonable terms after Jerry said, again pleasantly, "Oh, and
congratulations on your marriage." to which Susan replied with a
simple, albeit flat, "Thank you." before Jerry rode away. From what I
could tell, there was no unpleasantness, nor any indication that Jerry
could have offended Susan, so it's rather confusing to hear of another
rendition of what happened, especially one so fundamentally different.

Simply put, there was no shouting, raised voices, or any "abuse"
whatsoever. In fact, I may be visually impaired, but my limitation in
this way, has left me with excellent hearing. I sometimes regret this
ability when I encounter certain kinds of metal detectors, as I can
hear the high-pitched tones they emit, to which fully-sighted folks
seem luckily oblivious.

At any rate, the atmosphere of the exchange was very calm, and quiet,
and, besides myself, there were even 2-3 people in line, behind Susan,
who were standing there, yawning tiredly, likely after a long trip. I
highly doubt their quiet reverie would have been possible in the face
of a horrendous shouting- or cursing-match. In addition to the other
guests, there were also a number of hotel employees present, from the
receptionists behind the desk, to those running the snack kiosk
opposite where Jerry and I were standing.

All in all, the reports of what took place are blatantly false. I'm
sure that had there been the kind of exchange that is being cited as
fact by the proponents of the Polgar camp, it would have been the talk
of the tournament, immediately, before the first round had even begun,
long before now, rather than merely 'surfacing' nearly a year after
the conversation in question initially took place.

I hope this helps clear up any further confusion about this particular
incident. As a chessplayer, I can honestly say, that the 'exchange'
here was 'perfectly sound'.

Best regards,

-Jessica Lauser

Date: 11 Apr 2008 07:32:09
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 11, 9:28=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> > 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.
>
> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not kno=
w
> the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Bri=
an
> Lafferty.
>
> If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
> investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
> candid representations of any truth.
>
> If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
> gentlemen.
>
> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If Mr. Lafferty had conversations about and to a judge,court reporter
or anyone having to do with a confidential case involving minors; I
believe he may have committed an actionable event. Does anyone know?
Rob

Date: 11 Apr 2008 15:10:41
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Rob wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
>> the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
>> Lafferty.
>>
>> If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
>> investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
>> candid representations of any truth.
>>
>> If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
>> gentlemen.
>>
>> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If Mr. Lafferty had conversations about and to a judge,court reporter
> or anyone having to do with a confidential case involving minors; I
> believe he may have committed an actionable event. Does anyone know?
> Rob

Rob darling, see my response to Bowel Boy. FWI, I haven't spoken with
any Queens County judges, reporters or other court personnel for many
years. Even when I practiced law in Manhattan, I rarely crossed the
border into Queensland.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 19:27:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

In a message dated 4/9/2008 9:52:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
JerryHanken writes:

Dear Susan, I note that you have written a "confidential" email
repeating the same old mistatements about me to 29 people but, of
course, not to me. Golly, someone (or more) of those must have
"leaked" it to me. It's a new scandal!!

I don't want to waste my time refuting your nonsense in detail,
but Jim Berry remembers our Oak Brook encounter quite differently than
you describe, your description of our conversation in Las Vegas is
pure fiction, and I never asked you or Paul for a job.

You demand that I be fired as a writer for Chess Life. If your tales
about me are correct, even though I have written for 16 Chess Life
editors, perhaps I should not get future assignments. Of course, what
you say about me is not true at all, so shouldn't you resign from the
EB, along with Paul who should have quit long ago for refusing to
cooperate with the fake Sloan investigation?

I am copying the same 29 people you wrote to, and DARE you to put this
on your website which is filled with phony "anonymous posts" blasting
your critics and where those who disagree that you are the greatest
thing ever to happen to American chess are quickly silenced.

Of course, I am NOT marking this reply as confidential so it may
appear in lots of places. "Murder, though it hath no tongue, will
speak with most miraculous organ." You are a wonderful player, but
many people are becoming aware that you and Paul have little interest
in the USCF, except for what you can get from it. The truth will
prevail. Regards, Jerry Hanken

Date: 11 Apr 2008 11:40:49
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

samsloan wrote:
> In a message dated 4/9/2008 9:52:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> JerryHanken writes:
>
> Dear Susan, I note that you have written a "confidential" email
> repeating the same old mistatements about me to 29 people but, of
> course, not to me. Golly, someone (or more) of those must have
> "leaked" it to me. It's a new scandal!!
>
> I don't want to waste my time refuting your nonsense in detail,
> but Jim Berry remembers our Oak Brook encounter quite differently than
> you describe, your description of our conversation in Las Vegas is
> pure fiction, and I never asked you or Paul for a job.
>
> You demand that I be fired as a writer for Chess Life. If your tales
> about me are correct, even though I have written for 16 Chess Life
> editors, perhaps I should not get future assignments. Of course, what
> you say about me is not true at all, so shouldn't you resign from the
> EB, along with Paul who should have quit long ago for refusing to
> cooperate with the fake Sloan investigation?
>
> I am copying the same 29 people you wrote to, and DARE you to put this
> on your website which is filled with phony "anonymous posts" blasting
> your critics and where those who disagree that you are the greatest
> thing ever to happen to American chess are quickly silenced.
>
> Of course, I am NOT marking this reply as confidential so it may
> appear in lots of places. "Murder, though it hath no tongue, will
> speak with most miraculous organ." You are a wonderful player, but
> many people are becoming aware that you and Paul have little interest
> in the USCF, except for what you can get from it. The truth will
> prevail. Regards, Jerry Hanken

Jerry makes good points about the Trolgar state media led by its chief
censor, Commissar Gregory le Petit.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 15:11:43
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 10, 4:51 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
> litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
> about it, does it?

Well, he's consistent.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 15:01:18
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 10, 4:51 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
> >> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>
> >You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
> >proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
> >would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
>
> Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
> litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
> about it, does it?

Must be more of the "erudition" you claimed for this 'man', Mike.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 13:13:27
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

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:
>
> >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.
>
> 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

Date: 10 Apr 2008 20:43:56
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

>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.

Susan's ex-husband is the "other person" in this case.

--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru

Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From

Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf

Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.

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?

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 10 Apr 2008 11:26:37
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 10, 9:21=A0am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> zdrakec wrote:
> >> To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian=

> >> society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
> >> stunted political outlook. =A0I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
> >> Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
>
> > Whatever your opinion of Susan Polgar, that last remark was unworthy
> > of a gentleman. You should be ashamed for making it, sir.
>
> > zdrakec
>
> There's precedent for it in their household according to what her kids
> told a guardian ad litem. =A0They're quite the enlightened couple. =A0Hot
> sauce, blond jokes, slanderous attacks on people like Hanken and Lux,
> not to mention being Fake Sam Sloanish, etc. Truth bites.

That does not give justification to make insulting innuendoes. I'm
sure that you yourself have never done anything that could be
considered wrong, but just in case you have, remember to keep that
first stone firmly in your fist.
Mind you, I also fail to restrain my pen and tongue from time to time,
but that remark was really uncalled-for - IMHO.

zdrakec

Date: 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

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

On Apr 10, 11:54=A0am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>
> >> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE
> >> offended by "hot saucing" children?
>
> > Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of
> > child protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>
> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing. =A0And I've
> heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
> guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. =A0Facts. Not
> assertions.

Date: 15 Apr 2008 05:53:36
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 15, 7:50 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:

> It must be painful living with a brain as full of shit as yours, Phil.
> My condolences.

I wonder how he manages it.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 11:48:44
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>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.

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.

Date: 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> 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.

I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
Lafferty.

If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.

If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen.

Phil Innes

Date: 11 Apr 2008 11:14:13
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[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.

>I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
>the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
>Lafferty.

"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

Date: 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[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.
>
>>I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
>>know
>>the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
>>Brian
>>Lafferty.
>
> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
> report -- this is "actionable" ?

If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
> children with blocks.

'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

Phil Innes

Date: 11 Apr 2008 11:49:26
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>> report -- this is "actionable" ?

>If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
>from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

You think so badly!

Uhh, Phil, how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
"accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
legal argot.

Maybe you should try reading somebody who writes straightforwardly.
How about, oh, Henry Miller?

>> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

>Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
>you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

Heh, heh. What is it all you legal sharks say? Something like, "I'm
postured to defend myself vigorously against false and spurious
accusations"?

>> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>> children with blocks.

>'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
>acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
>wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
>answer.

Evidently, Phil, you're under the delusion that you can command
responses. Well, why not, you've deluded yourself into an
International Master with a 2450 rating, you've become an Internet
Lawyer, why just generally be in command?

But why not humor the fool?

OK, I believe as part of the evaluation I recommended, the prospective
parents should look into the court follow-up and take what information
they glean into consideration.

Are you happy now?

>I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
>out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
>are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

I think people are getting a pretty good idea of the various posters'
standards.

>
>Phil Innes
>

Date: 11 Apr 2008 19:06:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>
>>If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
>>from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>
> You think so badly!
>
> Uhh, Phil,

Uhh?

> how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
> "accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
> legal argot.

Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
accusation.

Before you write more shit about other people Murray, say if you understand
what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
and real investigation of accusations.

> Maybe you should try reading

Maybe you should not offer advice, since you have no demonstrated ability to
even understand what others say, and even then, are shy to come up to any
mark of independent and dissinterested assessment.

You are as shot as Laugherty!

Phil Innes

> somebody who writes straightforwardly.
> How about, oh, Henry Miller?
>
>>> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>
>>Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
>>you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
>
> Heh, heh. What is it all you legal sharks say? Something like, "I'm
> postured to defend myself vigorously against false and spurious
> accusations"?
>
>>> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>>> children with blocks.
>
>>'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
>>acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
>>wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
>>answer.
>
> Evidently, Phil, you're under the delusion that you can command
> responses. Well, why not, you've deluded yourself into an
> International Master with a 2450 rating, you've become an Internet
> Lawyer, why just generally be in command?
>
> But why not humor the fool?
>
> OK, I believe as part of the evaluation I recommended, the prospective
> parents should look into the court follow-up and take what information
> they glean into consideration.
>
> Are you happy now?
>
>>I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
>>out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
>>are accusing others, and their standards, if any.
>
> I think people are getting a pretty good idea of the various posters'
> standards.
>
>>
>>Phil Innes
>>

Date: 11 Apr 2008 23:50:05
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>>>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>>>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>>>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>>> If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
>> >from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>>
>> You think so badly!
>>
>> Uhh, Phil,
>
> Uhh?
>
>> how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
>> "accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
>> legal argot.
>
> Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
> accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
> accusation.

Ah, BB, in our common law based jurisprudence we do not have
investigating/investigative judges. They exist and function in
continental jurisprudence in judicial systems derived from Roman law.
Thus, your parrot cries of investigating judges and dismissals is really
nothing more than a stale cracker for the parrot.

Judges in our system conduct trials/hearings. Do you know what findings,
if any, the judge made as to the subject matter of the order?

>
> Before you write more shit about other people Murray, say if you understand
> what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
> and real investigation of accusations.

Wrong. It is you who haven't a clue as to the law and the legal system.

>
>> Maybe you should try reading
>
> Maybe you should not offer advice, since you have no demonstrated ability to
> even understand what others say, and even then, are shy to come up to any
> mark of independent and dissinterested assessment.
>
> You are as shot as Laugherty!
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
>
>> somebody who writes straightforwardly.
>> How about, oh, Henry Miller?

I think you might find Death On The installment Plan a good read, also.

>>
>>>> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>>> Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
>>> you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
>> Heh, heh. What is it all you legal sharks say? Something like, "I'm
>> postured to defend myself vigorously against false and spurious
>> accusations"?
>>
>>>> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>>>> children with blocks.
>>> 'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
>>> acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
>>> wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
>>> answer.
>> Evidently, Phil, you're under the delusion that you can command
>> responses. Well, why not, you've deluded yourself into an
>> International Master with a 2450 rating, you've become an Internet
>> Lawyer, why just generally be in command?
>>
>> But why not humor the fool?
>>
>> OK, I believe as part of the evaluation I recommended, the prospective
>> parents should look into the court follow-up and take what information
>> they glean into consideration.
>>
>> Are you happy now?
>>
>>> I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
>>> out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
>>> are accusing others, and their standards, if any.
>> I think people are getting a pretty good idea of the various posters'
>> standards.
>>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>
>

Date: 11 Apr 2008 16:46:57
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:06:05 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
>> "accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
>> legal argot.

>Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
>accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
>accusation.

IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
sake of argument, that your usage of the terms "accusation" and
"dismissal" is proper in this instance.

>Before you write more shit about other people Murray, say if you understand
>what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
>and real investigation of accusations.

Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
expertise?

Date: 13 Apr 2008 08:20:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:06:05 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
>>> "accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
>>> legal argot.
>
>>Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
>>accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
>>accusation.
>
> IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
> circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
> circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
> dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
> sake of argument,

'for the sake of argument' continues Murray, discussing people's children -
and ignoring the *fact* that the issue was investigated - but Murray doesn't
like the terms I use, so blathers on...

> that your usage of the terms "accusation" and
> "dismissal" is proper in this instance.
>
>>Before you write more shit about other people Murray, say if you
>>understand
>>what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
>>and real investigation of accusations.
>
> Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
> one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
> expertise?

You cannot admit your own understanding of the material, therefore you
describe those who do look at direct evidence by the term 'nut'.

It is no different from the entire campaign, where only selective evidence
is admitted by the campaigners, and only to that their own prescription of
who musta dunnit. The inanity of this approach is only lost on themselves.

At least the poster Walker has taken a step back and subscribed to viewing
all the materials available, and I, like him, agree that when we do that
then let the chips lie where they may - and that is an orientation which is
not prescriptive, which is not dependent on who the perp turns out to be.

I will not discuss either of the issues above further with the people who
refused to actually look at what is before them, and whose 'questions' are
simply evasions 'for the sake of argument' - which is actually, for the sake
of persecution.

If you can't get Polgar, get Truong, and if you can't get either, get the
kids? I challenged Hanken before the whole board on 3 issues of his recent
'representations' and Hanken spat at me in private e-mail and ran off. So
much for his standards.

Heuch!

Phil Innes

Date: 14 Apr 2008 10:35:52
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:20:32 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
>> circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
>> circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
>> dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
>> sake of argument,

>'for the sake of argument' continues Murray, discussing people's children -
>and ignoring the *fact* that the issue was investigated - but Murray doesn't
>like the terms I use, so blathers on...

From what I've read about the context of the guardian ad litem's
report, the terms you used are improper or misleading.

>> Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
>> one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
>> expertise?

>You cannot admit your own understanding of the material, therefore you
>describe those who do look at direct evidence by the term 'nut'.

The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
'crackpot' would be slightly better.

You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
forged material, Phil, and neither am I.

>If you can't get Polgar, get Truong, and if you can't get either, get the
>kids?

Another lie, so typical of Phil's lack of respect for truth and
history.

Date: 14 Apr 2008 20:19:49
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Mike Murray wrote:

>The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
>unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
>endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
>'crackpot' would be slightly better.
>
>You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
>forged material, Phil, and neither am I.

That's OK, because he never actually did the analysis. If he had,
he would have beennable to produce the file he started with and the
statistics he derived from it.

Date: 15 Apr 2008 07:46:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> Mike Murray wrote:
>
>>The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
>>unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
>>endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
>>'crackpot' would be slightly better.
>>
>>You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
>>forged material, Phil, and neither am I.
>
> That's OK, because he never actually did the analysis. If he had,
> he would have beennable to produce the file he started with and the
> statistics he derived from it.

The Sleeze Core continue to put other people down because they DID look at
available evidence.

:))

The Sleeze Core didn't look, since it might disturb them.

Now the Sleezies declare those who DID look owe them something,

OR

that they KNOW other people also didn't look either,

OR

that other people are unqualified to look.

That is the level of the prosecutions case. I think I can rest mine here.

----------

Nothing disturbs their habit, which is to rubbish other people whether they
did or did not do anything!~

The don't look at actual evidence and display their own sense of it.
They don't care to distinguish accusation from what has been investigated
and found unwarranted by a court.

All they care for is putting others down since they think that impresses
people other than themselves.
And they don't know that is untrue.

I think there is nothing left to discuss with this bunch of out-and-out
abuseniks, whose 'attention' to any matter at hand is shown to be puerile,
by the level of their own writing!

Phil Innes

Date: 15 Apr 2008 13:52:57
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote...
>
>> Mike Murray wrote:
>>
>>>The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
>>>unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
>>>endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
>>>'crackpot' would be slightly better.
>>>
>>>You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
>>>forged material, Phil, and neither am I.
>>
>> That's OK, because he never actually did the analysis. If he had,
>> he would have been able to produce the file he started with and the
>> statistics he derived from it.
>
>The Sleeze Core continue to put other people down because they DID look at
>available evidence.

Ad hominems don't change the fact that you never actually did the
analysis that you claim you did. If you had, you would have been
able to produce the file you started with and the statistics you
derived from it.

>The Sleeze Core didn't look, since it might disturb them.

You didn't look either. You never actually did the analysis that
you claim you did. If you had, you would have been able to produce
the file you started with and the statistics you derived from it.

>Now the Sleezies declare those who DID look owe them something,

Yup. I dclare that you owe me the truth. I declare that, given
your history of telling lies, you owe me the evidence that you
would have on hand had you actually done the analysis that you
claim you did -- the file you started with and the statistics you
derived from it.

>OR
>
>that they KNOW other people also didn't look either,

Yup. I do know that you never actually did the analysis that
you claim you did. If you had, you would have been able to produce
the file you started with and the statistics you derived from it.

>OR
>
>that other people are unqualified to look.

Please state your qualifications in the area of textual analysis
of deliberately forged material. Which, BTW, you have never
attempted. If you had, you would have been able to produce the
file you started with and the statistics you derived from it.

>That is the level of the prosecutions case. I think I can rest mine here.

Evasion noted. You never actually did the analysis that you claim
you did. If you had, you would have been able to produce the file
you started with and the statistics you derived from it.

>Nothing disturbs their habit, which is to rubbish other people whether they
>did or did not do anything!~

Ad hominems don't change the fact that you never actually did the
analysis that you claim you did. If you had, you would have been
able to produce the file you started with and the statistics you
derived from it.

>The don't look at actual evidence and display their own sense of it.

You haven't looked at what you call "actual evidence" either. You
never actually did the analysis that you claim you did. If you had,
you would have been able to produce the file you started with and
the statistics you derived from it.

>They don't care to distinguish accusation from what has been investigated
>and found unwarranted by a court.

A court has ruled on whether you actually did the analysis that you
claim you did? News to me.

>All they care for is putting others down since they think that impresses
>people other than themselves.

Is THAT what you call it when people ask you to back up your claims?

>And they don't know that is untrue.

Oh yes I do. Go ahead. Prove that I am a lair. Show us all that you
did the analysis that you claim you did. Simply produce the file you
started with and the statistics you derived from it.

>I think there is nothing left to discuss

But that won't stop you from running on at the mouth, will it?

>with this bunch of out-and-out abuseniks, whose 'attention' to any
>matter at hand is shown to be puerile, by the level of their own writing!

Ad hominems don't change the fact that you never actually did the
analysis that you claim you did. If you had, you would have been
able to produce the file you started with and the statistics you
derived from it.

Date: 15 Apr 2008 12:50:30
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Mike Murray wrote:
>>
>>> The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
>>> unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
>>> endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
>>> 'crackpot' would be slightly better.
>>>
>>> You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
>>> forged material, Phil, and neither am I.
>> That's OK, because he never actually did the analysis. If he had,
>> he would have beennable to produce the file he started with and the
>> statistics he derived from it.
>
> The Sleeze Core continue to put other people down because they DID look at
> available evidence.
>
> :))
>
> The Sleeze Core didn't look, since it might disturb them.
>
> Now the Sleezies declare those who DID look owe them something,
>
> OR
>
> that they KNOW other people also didn't look either,
>
> OR
>
> that other people are unqualified to look.
>
>
> That is the level of the prosecutions case. I think I can rest mine here.
>
> ----------
>
> Nothing disturbs their habit, which is to rubbish other people whether they
> did or did not do anything!~
>
> The don't look at actual evidence and display their own sense of it.
> They don't care to distinguish accusation from what has been investigated
> and found unwarranted by a court.
>
> All they care for is putting others down since they think that impresses
> people other than themselves.
> And they don't know that is untrue.
>
> I think there is nothing left to discuss with this bunch of out-and-out
> abuseniks, whose 'attention' to any matter at hand is shown to be puerile,
> by the level of their own writing!
>
> Phil Innes

It must be painful living with a brain as full of shit as yours, Phil.
My condolences.

Date: 11 Apr 2008 19:02:28
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>
>> If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
>>from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>
> You think so badly!
>
> Uhh, Phil, how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
> "accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
> legal argot.
>
> Maybe you should try reading somebody who writes straightforwardly.
> How about, oh, Henry Miller?
>
>>> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>
>> Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
>> you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
>
> Heh, heh. What is it all you legal sharks say? Something like, "I'm
> postured to defend myself vigorously against false and spurious
> accusations"?
>
>>> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>>> children with blocks.
>
>> 'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
>> acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
>> wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
>> answer.
>
> Evidently, Phil, you're under the delusion that you can command
> responses. Well, why not, you've deluded yourself into an
> International Master with a 2450 rating, you've become an Internet
> Lawyer, why just generally be in command?

Are you saying that Phil is Alexander Haig's love child? Fascinating.

>
> But why not humor the fool?
>
> OK, I believe as part of the evaluation I recommended, the prospective
> parents should look into the court follow-up and take what information
> they glean into consideration.
>
> Are you happy now?
>
>> I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
>> out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
>> are accusing others, and their standards, if any.
>
> I think people are getting a pretty good idea of the various posters'
> standards.
>
>> Phil Innes
>>

Date: 11 Apr 2008 18:45:59
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[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.
>>> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
>>> know
>>> the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
>>> Brian
>>> Lafferty.
>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>
> If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
> from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>
>> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>
> Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
> you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
>
>> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>> children with blocks.
>
> 'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
> acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless?

I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
that) the facts told by the guardian ad litem. Do you have any such
knowledge to share with us, BB, such as a court order?

>If you do not
> wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
> answer.
>
> I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
> out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
> are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

And by all means please, please keep pointing things out in defense of
Trolgar. In that regard, I consider you to be an incredible asset in
the search for factual truth. The comparison to you is a stark one
making the truth shine through.

>
> Phil Innes
>
>

Date: 11 Apr 2008 16:53:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:HlOLj.14$mG1.9@trndny08...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[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.
>>>> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
>>>> know
>>>> the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
>>>> Brian
>>>> Lafferty.
>>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>>
>> If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
>> from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>>
>>> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>>
>> Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I
>> tell you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
>>
>>> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>>> children with blocks.
>>
>> 'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
>> acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless?
>
> I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
> that)

Who is BB? I said the investigating judge did so. What do you say?

> the facts told by the guardian ad litem.

Who mysteriously spoke to /you/. How could that have come about?

But let me not digress with you about the questions you fail to even repeat,
nevermind answer. If you want to argue something in public, at least
withstand your critics who ask you about what you know. You do not even wish
to 'know' the questions put to you, and so bore on, which results in the
situation that this is the only forum where you can write, since everywhere
else has dismissed your arse.

So answer if you understand NOW, or do not answer at further.

Shall I repeat for you the things you evade?

That after 5 instances of investigation by the judge, among all the people I
mentioned earlier this day, the issue was thrown out of jurisdiction because
the judge thought it baseless.

You, Lafferty, care not to honor that - and instead continue to abuse those
who point it out.

What I do, Lafferty, is point you out.

Phil Innes

> Do you have any such knowledge to share with us, BB, such as a court
> order?
>
>
>>If you do not wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that
>>itself is an answer.
>>
>> I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point
>> it out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are
>> who are accusing others, and their standards, if any.
>
> And by all means please, please keep pointing things out in defense of
> Trolgar. In that regard, I consider you to be an incredible asset in the
> search for factual truth. The comparison to you is a stark one making the
> truth shine through.
>
>
>>
>> Phil Innes

Date: 11 Apr 2008 21:35:02
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:HlOLj.14$mG1.9@trndny08...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[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.
>>>>> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
>>>>> know
>>>>> the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
>>>>> Brian
>>>>> Lafferty.
>>>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>>>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>>>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>>>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>>> If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
>>> from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>>>
>>>> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>>> Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I
>>> tell you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
>>>
>>>> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>>>> children with blocks.
>>> 'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
>>> acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless?
>> I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
>> that)
>
> Who is BB? I said the investigating judge did so. What do you say?

Who is BB? Hmmmmmm. Try to follow this Bowel Boy. You are BB. You
said a judge threw out charges. I noted that I don't know what you
(Bowel Boy, aka BB) means by "thrown out" in the context of that
proceeding.

>
>> the facts told by the guardian ad litem.
>
> Who mysteriously spoke to /you/. How could that have come about?

Now, I've noted this before. You apparently either did not comprehend
or forgot. I was told about the guardian ad litem and the kids by the
kid's father, Mr. Shutzman. Got that? .

Now, please go play sandbox journalist with your friends the Trolgars.

[remainder snipped]

Date: 11 Apr 2008 19:56:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:aQQLj.29$DD2.6@trndny04...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:HlOLj.14$mG1.9@trndny08...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[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.
>>>>>> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may
>>>>>> not know
>>>>>> the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said
>>>>>> to Brian
>>>>>> Lafferty.
>>>>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>>>>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>>>>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>>>>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>>>> If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the
>>>> accusation from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>>>>
>>>>> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>>>> Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I
>>>> tell you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to
>>>> yourself!
>>>>
>>>>> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>>>>> children with blocks.
>>>> 'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
>>>> acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless?
>>> I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
>>> that)
>>
>> Who is BB? I said the investigating judge did so. What do you say?
>
> Who is BB? Hmmmmmm. Try to follow this Bowel Boy. You are BB. You said
> a judge threw out charges. I noted that I don't know what you (Bowel Boy,
> aka BB) means by "thrown out" in the context of that proceeding.

Well, that merely defines you as an obnoxious abusenik, who refuses to
answer direct questions put to him about his knowledge since he can't figure
out what a charge being 'thrown out' means. :))) Were you really a
judge or a line-judge? Its hard to tell.

Instead you are the sort of person who would require someone to suffer abuse
even to answer your evasions. Can the cesation of your judgeship be at all
related to your behavior?

Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT the
charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.

R

O

F

L

!

!

He neither says he knows of it, and he has no declared intention of finding
out for himself, even after he is informed of it, despite some mysterious
connection of his own with the guardian ad litem!

Such thundering logic as Lafferty offers us is better off in his own New
Hampshire thunder box, than exhibited in public to his, and to other
person's disparagement.

Phil Innes

>>
>>> the facts told by the guardian ad litem.
>>
>> Who mysteriously spoke to /you/. How could that have come about?
>
> Now, I've noted this before. You apparently either did not comprehend or
> forgot. I was told about the guardian ad litem and the kids by the kid's
> father, Mr. Shutzman. Got that? .
>
> Now, please go play sandbox journalist with your friends the Trolgars.
>
> [remainder snipped]

Date: 12 Apr 2008 00:15:39
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:aQQLj.29$DD2.6@trndny04...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:HlOLj.14$mG1.9@trndny08...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[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.
>>>>>>> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may
>>>>>>> not know
>>>>>>> the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said
>>>>>>> to Brian
>>>>>>> Lafferty.
>>>>>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>>>>>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>>>>>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>>>>>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>>>>> If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the
>>>>> accusation from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>>>>> Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I
>>>>> tell you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to
>>>>> yourself!
>>>>>
>>>>>> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>>>>>> children with blocks.
>>>>> 'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
>>>>> acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless?
>>>> I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
>>>> that)
>>> Who is BB? I said the investigating judge did so. What do you say?
>> Who is BB? Hmmmmmm. Try to follow this Bowel Boy. You are BB. You said
>> a judge threw out charges. I noted that I don't know what you (Bowel Boy,
>> aka BB) means by "thrown out" in the context of that proceeding.
>
> Well, that merely defines you as an obnoxious abusenik, who refuses to
> answer direct questions put to him about his knowledge since he can't figure
> out what a charge being 'thrown out' means. :))) Were you really a
> judge or a line-judge? Its hard to tell.
>
> Instead you are the sort of person who would require someone to suffer abuse
> even to answer your evasions. Can the cesation of your judgeship be at all
> related to your behavior?
>
> Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT the
> charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.
Did the judge now? Got a copy of the decision and order of "dismissal?"
If you don't have the order, tell us when it was filed with the court
clerk. Prove to us that there was a "dismissal."

Date: 13 Apr 2008 08:29:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:LaTLj.43$HJ1.9@trndny01...

>> Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT
>> the charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.

> Did the judge now? Got a copy of the decision and order of "dismissal?"
> If you don't have the order, tell us when it was filed with the court
> clerk. Prove to us that there was a "dismissal."

Lafferty - you evade your understanding of what a charge 'thrown out' means,
as if the term was unknown or unusual. Now you want me to do your work for
you, and 'prove' something to an abusenik!

You have raised this issue, let you be aware that it is a contested one, and
some due diligence is necessary when casting aspersions, eh?

I do not intend to prove anything to you, since your investigation is
patently insincere, and because I think 'answering' such material as you
request will make no difference to your own orientation whatever, and
indeed, I think people's children might be left out of this proxy fight.

My challenge was to you - that you pretend you cannot understand 'threw out'
to mean 'dismissal' even though I cited the context as much as it needs be
displayed in public. That you should continue to pretend not to understand
it requires no special recommendation of mine of your sincerity to the
public here.

Phil Innes

Date: 11 Apr 2008 15:07:49
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>
> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
> the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
> Lafferty.
>
> If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
> investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
> candid representations of any truth.

You really are clueless as to how the courts work.
As I stated before;
1. The children's father revealed to me and others that the guardian ad
litem assigned in his custody case to look after his children's
interests in the proceeding, was told in private by the children that
they had been hot sauced and corporally punished by Mr. Truong.

2. The court was advised of this and entered an order barring hot
saucing and corporeal punishment on the children.

3. The father of the children produced a copy of that order and gave it
to a number of people.

4. A judge throwing out the charge is really not applicable to this type
of proceeding which is civil, BB, not criminal. Courts will often deal
with such situations by issuing what amounts to a protective order if
the judge feels there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
>
> If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
> gentlemen..

The above are facts that I have been given, including a copy of the
court order. As I suggested, the next time you do an "interview" with
Mr. Truong, I hope you will ask him if the facts are correct and true.
If he denies hot saucing and corporeal punishment, please ask him to
sign a sworn affidavit to that effect.

>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>

Date: 11 Apr 2008 13:22:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:99LLj.3$eg2.0@trndny06...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>
>> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
>> know the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said
>> to Brian Lafferty.
>>
>> If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
>> investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
>> candid representations of any truth.
>
> You really are clueless as to how the courts work.

The question is how you work, Mr. Lafferty.

> As I stated before;

Those are not answers to my questions [which are not even repeated here -
they have become snippage] of what you understood when /you/ wrote /your/
statements. They are accusations, investigated and not unproven, but
dismissed! If you will not answer the questions I put to you, that itself is
an answer ;)

As it stands you dare not even repeat the questions.

Heuch!

Phil Innes

> 1. The children's father revealed to me and others that the guardian ad
> litem assigned in his custody case to look after his children's interests
> in the proceeding, was told in private by the children that they had been
> hot sauced and corporally punished by Mr. Truong.
>
> 2. The court was advised of this and entered an order barring hot saucing
> and corporeal punishment on the children.
>
> 3. The father of the children produced a copy of that order and gave it
> to a number of people.
>
> 4. A judge throwing out the charge is really not applicable to this type
> of proceeding which is civil, BB, not criminal. Courts will often deal
> with such situations by issuing what amounts to a protective order if the
> judge feels there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
>>
>> If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
>> gentlemen..
>
> The above are facts that I have been given, including a copy of the court
> order. As I suggested, the next time you do an "interview" with Mr.
> Truong, I hope you will ask him if the facts are correct and true. If he
> denies hot saucing and corporeal punishment, please ask him to sign a
> sworn affidavit to that effect.
>
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>

Date: 11 Apr 2008 18:40:07
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:99LLj.3$eg2.0@trndny06...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
>>> know the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said
>>> to Brian Lafferty.
>>>
>>> If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
>>> investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
>>> candid representations of any truth.
>> You really are clueless as to how the courts work.
>
> The question is how you work, Mr. Lafferty.
>
>> As I stated before;
>
> Those are not answers to my questions [which are not even repeated here -
> they have become snippage] of what you understood when /you/ wrote /your/
> statements. They are accusations, investigated and not unproven, but
> dismissed! If you will not answer the questions I put to you, that itself is
> an answer ;)
>
> As it stands you dare not even repeat the questions.
>
> Heuch!
>
> Phil Innes
>
>> 1. The children's father revealed to me and others that the guardian ad
>> litem assigned in his custody case to look after his children's interests
>> in the proceeding, was told in private by the children that they had been
>> hot sauced and corporally punished by Mr. Truong.
>>
>> 2. The court was advised of this and entered an order barring hot saucing
>> and corporeal punishment on the children.
>>
>> 3. The father of the children produced a copy of that order and gave it
>> to a number of people.
>>
>> 4. A judge throwing out the charge is really not applicable to this type
>> of proceeding which is civil, BB, not criminal. Courts will often deal
>> with such situations by issuing what amounts to a protective order if the
>> judge feels there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
>>> If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
>>> gentlemen..
>> The above are facts that I have been given, including a copy of the court
>> order. As I suggested, the next time you do an "interview" with Mr.
>> Truong, I hope you will ask him if the facts are correct and true. If he
>> denies hot saucing and corporeal punishment, please ask him to sign a
>> sworn affidavit to that effect.
>>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>>
>
Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?

Date: 11 Apr 2008 11:53:41
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:40:07 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?

Reportedly, his lips move, but it could be a tic.

Really, you should ask whether he *understands* what he types.

Date: 11 Apr 2008 18:59:33
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:40:07 GMT, Brian Lafferty
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?
>
> Reportedly, his lips move, but it could be a tic.
>
> Really, you should ask whether he *understands* what he types.

What's to understand?? ;-)

Date: 10 Apr 2008 20:59:29
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

I agree. For parents to make that decision intelligently, they need to
know all the facts.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 18:02:42
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

[email protected] wrote:
> 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
>
> On Apr 10, 11:54 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>>>> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE
>>>> offended by "hot saucing" children?
>>> Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of
>>> child protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing. And I've
>> heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
>> guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts. Not
>> assertions.
>
There is a great deal of debate as to culture and hot saucing. The
trend seems to be for the courts and legislatures to increasingly view
it as child abuse. What research is showing is that the kids with
significant behavior problems were invariably subject to some form of
corporeal punishment as a disciplinary measure. How far can a parent go
before it's abuse? Consult your attorney or local department of child
protective services.

I will say this, I'd never let a child under my care go anywhere with
Mr. Truong unless I or a parent I trusted implicitly were there at all
times. Just my opinion. Opinions will vary.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 10:11:16
From:
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 10, 11:54=A0am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>
> >> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE
> >> offended by "hot saucing" children?
>
> > Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of
> > child protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>
> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing. =A0And I've
> heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
> guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. =A0Facts. Not
> assertions.

thank god mr hanken didnt hotsace anyone

Date: 10 Apr 2008 13:17:38
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

>directing no hot saucing. And I've
> heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
> guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts. Not
> assertions.

>>thank god mr hanken didnt hotsace anyone

Given Bill's responses in the past, shouldn't he be OUTRAGED by these FACTS?

Why the kid-gloves treatment and deflection by humor?

--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru

Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From

Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf

Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.

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: 10 Apr 2008 07:02:20
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

> To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
> society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
> stunted political outlook. =A0I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
> Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
>

Whatever your opinion of Susan Polgar, that last remark was unworthy
of a gentleman. You should be ashamed for making it, sir.

zdrakec

Date: 10 Apr 2008 10:31:17
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

> To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
> society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
> stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
> Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
>

>Whatever your opinion of Susan Polgar,
>that last remark was unworthy
>of a gentleman. You should be ashamed
>for making it, sir.

Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE offended by "hot
saucing" children?

--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru

Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From

Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf

Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.

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: 25 Apr 2008 04:21:00
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 24, 1:04 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> "I do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, or Mr. P
> Innes. Nor do I consider myself to have done so. We await you
> withdrawing your 'charges' and your admission of error.
>
> Neil the Chess Cafe writer. "
>
> Neil Brennen first included Phil. Ask him about it.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> recant
> One entry found.
>
> recant
>
> Main Entry: re=C2=B7cant
> Pronunciation: \ri-=CB=88kant\
> Function: verb
> Etymology: Latin recantare, from re- + cantare to sing =E2=80=94 more at
> chant
> Date: 1535
> transitive verb
> 1 : to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and
> publicly : renounce
> 2 : revoke
> intransitive verb
> : to make an open confession of error
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
> All Neil has to do is approve the statement and my apology is given.
> Ball's in his court.
>
> I, Neil Brennen, do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr.
> Truong, or Mr. Phil
> Innes. I admit to and recant my use or variation of the term
> "Trollgar"
>
> If Mr. Brennen aproves this statement, He has my apology.

Looks as if Neil is going to deny some more. He can't even own his own
words. SO Are we to suppose he does not deny?

Date: 24 Apr 2008 12:54:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 24, 2:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Neil Brennen first included Phil. Ask him about it.

Okay. Mr. Brennen, can you make out where the
damned pieces are in the photo of Karel Van Mander?
All I see is blur, and it seems like before we discuss
the relative playing strengths of different commentators,
we should agree on the chess position itself, and who
is on move.

> **Ask me or him? Personally I am terrified of making a fat-bloke joke
> inadvertently - what's so funny about an obese "Chesscafe Author" abusenik
> chess hysterian wobbling around the countryside on his bike for charity? I
> don't get it.

He's a threat to public safety; suppose somebody
comes along, jabbering on their cellphone and not
paying attention, and there's an accident? The guy
on the bicycle always loses. (Well, there was /one/
case where the driver of a Yugo car was killed, and
the cyclist just got his bike smashed up a bit....)

> All Neil has to do is approve the statement and my apology is given.
> Ball's in his court.
>
> ** No sex please, we're British!

Impostor! You're from Vermont, which is way in
Canada or someplace like that. They have trees
there, and everything.

A famous IM once wrote that the courts would
settle this in good time. O' course, that was what?
maybe five or six years ago, when I was much
younger. Now they say they're coming out with a
new model, which is even more "helpful" they say,
more efficient, they say. Probably better lookin',
too. But I bet it can't play chess half as good as
I kin.

-- help bot

Date: 24 Apr 2008 11:04:17
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

"I do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, or Mr. P
Innes. Nor do I consider myself to have done so. We await you
withdrawing your 'charges' and your admission of error.

Neil the Chess Cafe writer. "

Neil Brennen first included Phil. Ask him about it.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
recant
One entry found.

recant

Main Entry: re=C2=B7cant
Pronunciation: \ri-=CB=88kant\
Function: verb
Etymology: Latin recantare, from re- + cantare to sing =E2=80=94 more at
chant
Date: 1535
transitive verb
1 : to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and
publicly : renounce
2 : revoke
intransitive verb
: to make an open confession of error
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
All Neil has to do is approve the statement and my apology is given.
Ball's in his court.

I, Neil Brennen, do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr.
Truong, or Mr. Phil
Innes. I admit to and recant my use or variation of the term
"Trollgar"

If Mr. Brennen aproves this statement, He has my apology.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 10:54:43
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 24, 12:22=C2=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 11:55 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Let me make this REALLY easy for you :
>
> > I, Neil Brennen, do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr.
> > Truong, or Mr. Phil
> > =C2=A0Innes. I admit to and recant my use or variation of the term
> > "Trollgar"
>
> =C2=A0 Wait a second. =C2=A0How does Mr. Phil Innes enter into it?
> =C2=A0(Is *he* the real FSS?)
>
> =C2=A0I think maybe the PT apologists are getting themselves
> even more confused than usual. =C2=A0The accusation did not
> involve nearly-IMnes at all; it stated that ChessCafe
> writers were beating up on the dynamic duo (i.e. SP/PT).
> Now, if that was mistaken, it seems that dragging a
> famous nearly-an-IM into it is mere desperation. =C2=A0(Why
> not also "tack on" a requirement to smell Sam Sloan's
> underarms, just to be sure?)
>
> =C2=A0 Well, it looks as though somebody is not going to
> admit his error, no matter what the facts might be.
>
> =C2=A0 -- help bot

Neil Brennen first included Phil. Ask him about it.

And for the record:
recant
One entry found.

recant

Main Entry: re=C2=B7cant
Pronunciation: \ri-=CB=88kant\
Function: verb
Etymology: Latin recantare, from re- + cantare to sing =E2=80=94 more at
chant
Date: 1535
transitive verb
1 : to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and
publicly : renounce
2 : revoke
intransitive verb
: to make an open confession of error

All Neil has to do is approve the statement and my apology is given.
Ball's in his court.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 14:35:58
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell wrong

"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:476c959f-4a89-4dab-b21e-1d4bf7ee46a8@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> Well, it looks as though somebody is not going to
> admit his error, no matter what the facts might be.
>
> -- help bot

Neil Brennen first included Phil. Ask him about it.

**Ask me or him? Personally I am terrified of making a fat-bloke joke
inadvertently - what's so funny about an obese "Chesscafe Author" abusenik
chess hysterian wobbling around the countryside on his bike for charity? I
don't get it.

All Neil has to do is approve the statement and my apology is given.
Ball's in his court.

** No sex please, we're British!

**Anyway, thank you for your attentions to public hygiene, which is
sometimes indicated, no? All it takes is for good people to do nothing, as
some wag opined. Another tried;-

Uni aequus virtuti, atque ejus amicis

** said old 'Orace, and what the bloke was trying to get at was this;

friendly to virtue alone and to the friends of virtue

** Now and again that idea comes up in society, as if we thought we could do
without it. Which is to say, as if we thought very much at all about our own
life and times and our role in it.

Phil Innes

Date: 24 Apr 2008 10:32:29
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 24, 12:13 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 11:19 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know why so many people keep trying
> > > -- in vain -- to prove Rob Mitchell wrong. It can't
> > > be done, for as we all know, he has never erred.
> > Thanks "Bot" . I am human and do err. Since you have destroyed me in
> > chess you can attest to this. But, and it's a big butt,
>
> Wait a second. I read somewhere that it now rides
> around on a tiny bicycle seat, and is shrinking by
> the day.

P Innes and his nut Rob always reach for fat jokes when they get
desperate.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 10:26:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 24, 12:47 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:

> Recant?
>
> Are you serious?

What-- retreat? In our moment of triumph? That boy,
Skywalker, is no real threat. You may fire when ready.
What silly nonsense-- all of Vader's talk about the
power to destroy an entire planet being NOTHING next
to the power of The Force. Poppycock... .

-- Jedi bot

Date: 24 Apr 2008 10:22:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 24, 11:55 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> Let me make this REALLY easy for you :
>
> I, Neil Brennen, do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr.
> Truong, or Mr. Phil
> Innes. I admit to and recant my use or variation of the term
> "Trollgar"

Wait a second. How does Mr. Phil Innes enter into it?
(Is *he* the real FSS?)

I think maybe the PT apologists are getting themselves
even more confused than usual. The accusation did not
involve nearly-IMnes at all; it stated that ChessCafe
writers were beating up on the dynamic duo (i.e. SP/PT).
Now, if that was mistaken, it seems that dragging a
famous nearly-an-IM into it is mere desperation. (Why
not also "tack on" a requirement to smell Sam Sloan's
underarms, just to be sure?)

Well, it looks as though somebody is not going to
admit his error, no matter what the facts might be.

-- help bot

Date: 24 Apr 2008 10:13:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 24, 11:19 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> > I don't know why so many people keep trying
> > -- in vain -- to prove Rob Mitchell wrong. It can't
> > be done, for as we all know, he has never erred.

> Thanks "Bot" . I am human and do err. Since you have destroyed me in
> chess you can attest to this. But, and it's a big butt,

Wait a second. I read somewhere that it now rides
around on a tiny bicycle seat, and is shrinking by
the day.

> Neil can't
> recognize he cannot say he has not attacked Susan and Paul.

A short time ago we were almost at the point of
an apology, having found nobody in particular from
the ChessCafe site who had battered the SP/PT
duo. Now Neil Brennen is the target, not TK?

> Has has an
> opportunity to be honest. I have offered to admit an error in my
> judgement of his attitude towards Paul and Susan if he can prove he
> did not attack them. Or , if he says he will no longer attack them. If
> he will do that I will do what I said I will do. But, and it's a big
> butt, I will not clear Neil until he admits and recants his guilt.

Personally, I don't think people here are "attacking"
the dynamic duo; on the contrary, the apologists
have brought this negativity on, by their refusal to
accept certain facts. It reminds me of Sanny, the
"wolf!" cry boy, who, by his multitudinous lies and
fabrications, brought negativity toward his own Web
site and chess program.

A long time ago, somebody -- perhaps it was SS --
posted that a Mr. Mottershead had found that the
FSS postings emanated from the exact same
locations as the traveling dynamos, SP and PT. At
once, a certain nearly-an-IM (a famous impostor in
his own right) began with the ritual of denial and
obfuscation. Inevitably, Mr. Mottershead was ad
hominized, accused of personal bias. Fine. But
then came other "experts", who all seemed to
come to the very same conclusions. Still, the
apologists continued their death-march.

Now me, I don't claim to know how to analyze
headers and do espionage on ISP records and
such. But I do know a rat when I see one, and it
was a rat that crafted the lies, fabrications, and
impersonations that make up the bulk of the SP
Web site. Coincidence? Perhaps, perhaps not.
You decide.

-- help bot

Date: 24 Apr 2008 10:07:18
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 24, 11:47 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> Recant?
>
> Are you serious?

He probably is. But since he's semi-literate at best, what can one
expect?

Date: 24 Apr 2008 09:47:11
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

Recant?

Are you serious?

Date: 24 Apr 2008 10:41:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell wrong

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), SBD <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Recant?

>Are you serious?

Of course. These are burning issues and there's a lot at stake.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 08:55:16
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 24, 10:26=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Apr 24, 10:19 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 11:14 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > You admit to creating the word. Do you recant? Confess .
> > > > I admit I believed I originated the term, but I've since come to the=

> > > > conclusion there were multiple authors of "Trollgar" in various
> > > > spellings. Too many folks were using the term. =A0I don't see anythi=
ng
> > > > in the post to recant or confess.
> > > =A0 I don't know why so many people keep trying
> > > -- in vain -- to prove Rob Mitchell wrong. =A0It can't
> > > be done, for as we all know, he has never erred.
>
> > > =A0 -- help bot
>
> > Thanks "Bot" . I am human and do err. Since you have destroyed me in
> > chess you can attest to this. But, and it's a big butt, Neil can't
> > recognize he cannot say he has not attacked Susan and Paul. Has has an
> > opportunity to be honest. I have offered to admit an error in my
> > judgement of his attitude towards Paul and Susan if he can prove he
> > did not attack them. Or , if he says he will no longer attack them. If
> > he will do that I will do what I said I will do. But, and it's a big
> > butt, I will not clear Neil until he admits and recants his guilt.
> > Rob< which-Mitch,Lex> Mitchell
>
> Posted April 23rd:
>
> "I do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, or Mr. P
> Innes. Nor do I consider myself to have done so. We await you
> withdrawing your 'charges' and your admission of error.
>
> Neil the Chess Cafe writer"
>
> Still waiting for Rob Mitchell to admit error.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Let me make this REALLY easy for you :

I, Neil Brennen, do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr.
Truong, or Mr. Phil
Innes. I admit to and recant my use or variation of the term
"Trollgar"

If Mr. Brennen approves this statement as it stands un amended then he
has my apology and I was wrong.

Rob Mitchell

Date: 24 Apr 2008 08:26:42
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 24, 10:19 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:14 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > You admit to creating the word. Do you recant? Confess .
> > > I admit I believed I originated the term, but I've since come to the
> > > conclusion there were multiple authors of "Trollgar" in various
> > > spellings. Too many folks were using the term. I don't see anything
> > > in the post to recant or confess.
> > I don't know why so many people keep trying
> > -- in vain -- to prove Rob Mitchell wrong. It can't
> > be done, for as we all know, he has never erred.
>
> > -- help bot
>
> Thanks "Bot" . I am human and do err. Since you have destroyed me in
> chess you can attest to this. But, and it's a big butt, Neil can't
> recognize he cannot say he has not attacked Susan and Paul. Has has an
> opportunity to be honest. I have offered to admit an error in my
> judgement of his attitude towards Paul and Susan if he can prove he
> did not attack them. Or , if he says he will no longer attack them. If
> he will do that I will do what I said I will do. But, and it's a big
> butt, I will not clear Neil until he admits and recants his guilt.
> Rob< which-Mitch,Lex> Mitchell

Posted April 23rd:

"I do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, or Mr. P
Innes. Nor do I consider myself to have done so. We await you
withdrawing your 'charges' and your admission of error.

Neil the Chess Cafe writer"

Still waiting for Rob Mitchell to admit error.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 08:19:32
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 11:14=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > > You admit to creating the word. Do you recant? Confess .

> > I admit I believed I originated the term, but I've since come to the
> > conclusion there were multiple authors of "Trollgar" in various
> > spellings. Too many folks were using the term. =A0I don't see anything
> > in the post to recant or confess.

> =A0 I don't know why so many people keep trying
> -- in vain -- to prove Rob Mitchell wrong. =A0It can't
> be done, for as we all know, he has never erred.
>
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Thanks "Bot" . I am human and do err. Since you have destroyed me in
chess you can attest to this. But, and it's a big butt, Neil can't
recognize he cannot say he has not attacked Susan and Paul. Has has an
opportunity to be honest. I have offered to admit an error in my
judgement of his attitude towards Paul and Susan if he can prove he
did not attack them. Or , if he says he will no longer attack them. If
he will do that I will do what I said I will do. But, and it's a big
butt, I will not clear Neil until he admits and recants his guilt.
Rob< which-Mitch,Lex > Mitchell

Date: 24 Apr 2008 04:52:32
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 11:14 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:

> Well, he did fail to answer how it could be that
> the Susan Polgar Web site contains so many
> lies, fabrications, and thefts of other people's
> accomplishments in chess, but that must have
> been a fluke. I mean, no way could there be
> any connection between that, and the FSS
> case, right? Just because her Web site is
> filled with lies and thievery, that's no reason to
> assume that the same impostor handled both
> jobs... .
>
> -- help bot

She does a good job of playing the "innocent young girl" who is a
victim of the cruel, evil, older men.

Sam Sloan

Date: 24 Apr 2008 04:43:25
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 11:12 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I admit I believed I originated the term, but I've since come to the
> > conclusion there were multiple authors of "Trollgar" in various
> > spellings. Too many folks were using the term. I don't see anything
> > in the post to recant or confess.
>
> I have searched and the earliest time I have found where the term
> Trollgar was used, it was by you.
>
> However, it caught on quickly and the term was so obviously
> appropriate that many people could have thought of it at the same
> time.
>
> Sam Sloan

My point exactly. Jen Shahade used the spelling "Trulgar" in her book.

Date: 23 Apr 2008 21:14:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:

> > You admit to creating the word. Do you recant? Confess .
>
> I admit I believed I originated the term, but I've since come to the
> conclusion there were multiple authors of "Trollgar" in various
> spellings. Too many folks were using the term. I don't see anything
> in the post to recant or confess.

I don't know why so many people keep trying
-- in vain -- to prove Rob Mitchell wrong. It can't
be done, for as we all know, he has never erred.

Well, he did fail to answer how it could be that
the Susan Polgar Web site contains so many
lies, fabrications, and thefts of other people's
accomplishments in chess, but that must have
been a fluke. I mean, no way could there be
any connection between that, and the FSS
case, right? Just because her Web site is
filled with lies and thievery, that's no reason to
assume that the same impostor handled both
jobs... .

-- help bot

Date: 23 Apr 2008 21:12:47
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:

> I admit I believed I originated the term, but I've since come to the
> conclusion there were multiple authors of "Trollgar" in various
> spellings. Too many folks were using the term. I don't see anything
> in the post to recant or confess.

I have searched and the earliest time I have found where the term
Trollgar was used, it was by you.

However, it caught on quickly and the term was so obviously
appropriate that many people could have thought of it at the same
time.

Sam Sloan

Date: 23 Apr 2008 20:43:47
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 12:31 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:41 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
>
> > > Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> > > publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.
>
> > I do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, or Mr. P
> > Innes. Nor do I consider myself to have done so. We await you
> > withdrawing your 'charges' and your admission of error.
>
> > Neil the Chess Cafe writer.
>
> Here is is in your own words:
>
> ==========================================
>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc, alt.chess
> From: samsloan <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:39:55 -0700
> Local: Sat, Sep 1 2007 11:39 am
> Subject: Who invented the word "Trollgar"?
> Reply to author

Date: 23 Apr 2008 12:32:14
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 11:13 am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:52 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
>
> > > > Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> > > > publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.
>
> > Confess their support?
>
> > All they have to do is show they don't attack them as you state, or is
> > this one of those Southern, "If you ain't fer us, you're agi'n us"
> > mentalities? Jeesh.
>
> It's not confined to the South, SBD.

I know but it is where I have seen it practiced the most.

Date: 23 Apr 2008 10:31:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 10:41=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
>
> > Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> > publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.
>
> I do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, or Mr. P
> Innes. Nor do I consider myself to have done so. We await you
> withdrawing your 'charges' and your admission of error.
>
> Neil the Chess Cafe writer.

Here is is in your own words:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc, alt.chess
From: samsloan <[email protected] >
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:39:55 -0700
Local: Sat, Sep 1 2007 11:39 am
Subject: Who invented the word "Trollgar"?
Reply to author

Date: 23 Apr 2008 09:42:35
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 11:35 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:41 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
>
> > > Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> > > publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.
>
> > I do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, or Mr. P
> > Innes. Nor do I consider myself to have done so. We await you
> > withdrawing your 'charges' and your admission of error.
>
> > Neil the Chess Cafe writer.
>
> Neil,
> Since you have boasted of coining the derogatory term "Trolgar" then
> for me to admit that I was wrong in my judgement of you, I would
> expect you to apologize for coining ,using and promoting the term. If
> and when that is done then I will admit I was wrong about you.
> Rob

But it doesn't appear I've coined the term, nor does it appear to be
derogatory. Read Chess Bitch by Jen Shahade.

Neil the Chess Cafe writer

Date: 23 Apr 2008 09:35:38
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 10:41=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
>
> > Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> > publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.
>
> I do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, or Mr. P
> Innes. Nor do I consider myself to have done so. We await you
> withdrawing your 'charges' and your admission of error.
>
> Neil the Chess Cafe writer.

Neil,
Since you have boasted of coining the derogatory term "Trolgar" then
for me to admit that I was wrong in my judgement of you, I would
expect you to apologize for coining ,using and promoting the term. If
and when that is done then I will admit I was wrong about you.
Rob

Date: 23 Apr 2008 09:13:45
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 23, 10:52 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
>
> > > Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> > > publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.
>
> Confess their support?
>
> All they have to do is show they don't attack them as you state, or is
> this one of those Southern, "If you ain't fer us, you're agi'n us"
> mentalities? Jeesh.

It's not confined to the South, SBD.

Date: 23 Apr 2008 08:52:35
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
>
> > Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> > publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.

Confess their support?

All they have to do is show they don't attack them as you state, or is
this one of those Southern, "If you ain't fer us, you're agi'n us"
mentalities? Jeesh.

Date: 23 Apr 2008 08:41:21
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
> Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.

I do not have a desire to "attack" Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, or Mr. P
Innes. Nor do I consider myself to have done so. We await you
withdrawing your 'charges' and your admission of error.

Neil the Chess Cafe writer.

Date: 21 Apr 2008 13:12:21
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Kingston and the Borg?

On Apr 21, 1:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:14=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 10:56=A0am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 11:10 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Good. Taylor Kingston says he does not oppose Susan and Paul. I was
> > > > wrong.
> > > > Rob Mitchell
> > > Taylor is a collective?
>
> > Not sure if he is a collective... a borg maybe! :-) "resistence is
> > futile" His chess is very good, and "Borg like"
>
> =A0 No, I am not of the Borg. I am the God of Hell-fire:
>
> =A0 =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DNOErZuzZpS8

LOL

Date: 21 Apr 2008 11:37:44
From:
Subject: Re: Kingston and the Borg?

On Apr 21, 12:14=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 10:56=A0am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:10 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Good. Taylor Kingston says he does not oppose Susan and Paul. I was
> > > wrong.
> > > Rob Mitchell
> > Taylor is a collective?
>
> Not sure if he is a collective... a borg maybe! :-) "resistence is
> futile" His chess is very good, and "Borg like"

No, I am not of the Borg. I am the God of Hell-fire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DNOErZuzZpS8

Date: 21 Apr 2008 10:52:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kingston and the Borg?

On Apr 21, 12:14 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> > > Good. Taylor Kingston says he does not oppose Susan and Paul. I was
> > > wrong.

> > Taylor is a collective?

> Not sure if he is a collective... a borg maybe! :-) "resistence is
> futile" His chess is very good, and "Borg like" But Mr. Bot knows more
> of the Borg than I.
>
> Still havn't heard from any oth the others so, all I can say is Taylor
> is clean.

Mr. Mitchell, there is a fellow on these newsgroups
who has a well-earned reputation for routinely
spouting false claims, after which his many critics
routinely shoot him down, time and time again. We
all know who he is (except SS himself, of course),
so I won't mention his name.
Be careful, or you will soon become like a little
brother to him. In your quest to lend support to Dr.
Phil IMnes, you keep getting roped in, more and
more... .

-- help bot

Date: 21 Apr 2008 10:45:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Unsuitable Attentions in Chess

On Apr 20, 12:14 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:

> Come on BB, tell us what state board dealing with child welfare you sat
> on. Unless you were lying, in which case I understand your failing to
> address the question.

I wonder if this was the same body which granted
Mr. Innes the title of nearly-an-IM, along with his
claimed 2450 rating? If in fact the organization
dealt only with children, that could explain how he
earned the title, and why the rating was so high in
relation to his real results against adults.

-- help bot

Date: 21 Apr 2008 09:14:37
From: Rob
Subject: Kingston and the Borg?

On Apr 21, 10:56=A0am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:10 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Good. Taylor Kingston says he does not oppose Susan and Paul. I was
> > wrong.
> > Rob Mitchell

> Taylor is a collective?

Not sure if he is a collective... a borg maybe! :-) "resistence is
futile" His chess is very good, and "Borg like" But Mr. Bot knows more
of the Borg than I.

Still havn't heard from any oth the others so, all I can say is Taylor
is clean.

Date: 21 Apr 2008 08:56:36
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Mitchell just digs himself deeper (was: Ignorance Opens Mouth,

On Apr 20, 11:10 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Good. Taylor Kingston says he does not oppose Susan and Paul. I was
> wrong.
> Rob Mitchell

Taylor is a collective?

Date: 20 Apr 2008 09:10:13
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Mitchell just digs himself deeper (was: Ignorance Opens Mouth,

On Apr 20, 10:31=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 20, 10:44=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 4:07=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 1:10=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 19, 6:04=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 18, 3:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 18, 7:22=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > > > > > > > > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the=
slightest
> > > > > > > > > with Chessville.
>
> > > > > > > > =A0 Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever w=
ritten here,
> > > > > > > > and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to che=
ck
> > > > > > > > *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> > > > > > > > =A0 Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe =
since
> > > > > > > > mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a br=
ain can
> > > > > > > > confirm here:
>
> > > > > > > > =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Po=
lgar%20on%20...
>
> > > > > > > > =A0 Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a C=
hessCafe
> > > > > > > > writer, has attacked herself?
>
> > > > > > > > =A0 As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book re=
views and
> > > > > > > > several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anythi=
ng so much
> > > > > > > > as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."=

> > > > > > > > =A0 And though I have definitely been "associated even in th=
e slightest
> > > > > > > > with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some=
years
> > > > > > > > ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe wri=
ter as a
> > > > > > > > result.
> > > > > > > > =A0 As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I ra=
ther doubt
> > > > > > > > it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples th=
at support
> > > > > > > > your claim. However, since you have obviously made your clai=
m without
> > > > > > > > even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, l=
et alone
> > > > > > > > actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt y=
ou have
> > > > > > > > any specifics at all.
>
> > > > > > > > =A0 This group has seen many examples of people inventing an=
d attacking
> > > > > > > > things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements ab=
out my
> > > > > > > > Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I n=
ever wrote
> > > > > > > > but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculou=
s case of
> > > > > > > > all.
>
> > > > > > > Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly=
post on
> > > > > > > RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.
>
> > > > > > =A0 Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns=
and
> > > > > > their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indic=
ate
> > > > > > which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as y=
ou put
> > > > > > it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrate=
d this
> > > > > > alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associa=
ted
> > > > > > even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > > > > > =A0 Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if=
you
> > > > > > want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed=

> > > > > > loonie:
>
> > > > > > Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
> > > > > > Over the Horizons by Stefan B=FCcker
> > > > > > Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
> > > > > > The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
> > > > > > An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
> > > > > > Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
> > > > > > Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
> > > > > > The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
> > > > > > Novice Nook by Dan Heisman
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
> > > > > > Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
> > > > > > ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
> > > > > > Endgame Corner by Karsten M=FCller
> > > > > > The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
> > > > > > Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
> > > > > > Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
> > > > > > El Caf=E9 del Ajedrez en Espa=F1ol by Juan Santa
> > > > > > Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
> > > > > > New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
> > > > > > Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
> > > > > > View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
> > > > > > The Wanderer by Mike Franett
> > > > > > A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
> > > > > > Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
> > > > > > A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabb=E9
> > > > > > Queen One by Susan Lalic
> > > > > > From the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
> > > > > > The Miles Report by Tony Miles
> > > > > > The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
> > > > > > Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
> > > > > > The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry
>
> > > > > =A0 So, Rob, I notice you have not replied here. And now after wha=
t
> > > > > Jeremy Spinrad wrote above, it looks like you don't have even one
> > > > > ChessCafe writer, whether or not he/she posts on rec.games.chess
> > > > > newsgroups, who has any "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and
> > > > > anyone associated even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > > > > =A0 To retain any shred of integrity, you must either prove your p=
oint,
> > > > > or apologize. As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet ambassador, I =
am
> > > > > prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer -- but I
> > > > > seriously doubt you will ever give one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Sorry,
> > > > I have been busy ... I don't read Chess Cafe'.
>
> > > =A0 Then how could you possibly have any basis for this "collective
> > > tendency" you claim to have observed among ChessCafe writers? How
> > > could you even know who ChessCafe's writers are?
>
> > > > I do know
> > > > that You, Taylor have shown a hostility towards Truong and Polgar ..=
.
>
> > > =A0 Rob, which are you -- an idiot, or a liar? I have never shown any
> > > hostility to Truong or Polgar. I very seldom say anything about
> > > either, and I have never said anything negative about them.
>
> > > > I did not know that Jerry wrote for Chess Cafe'.
>
> > > =A0 In that case, the number of candidates for your alleged "collectiv=
e
> > > tendency" just shrank from one to zero.
>
> > > > While Neil is not now or may never have been
> > > > a Chess Cafe writer, I would consider Chess Cafe's publishing of his=

> > > > work to count.
>
> > > =A0 What works of Neil Brennen has ChessCafe published? Or is this
> > > another thing about which you know nothing?
>
> > > > If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
> > > > Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support=

> > > > publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.
>
> > > =A0 Why does anyone have to "confess support"? To be neutral about and=

> > > uninterested in Polar and Truong is hardly the same as attacking
> > > them.
> > > =A0 Rob, your error is blatant, and a public apology is your only dece=
nt
> > > alternative.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Then, If you say you do not oppose Polgar and Truong
>
> =A0 Rob, the only accurate way to phrase my attitude is this: I have no
> interest in the activities of Polgar and/or Truong. I have no interest
> in either attacks on them or defenses of them. I neither support nor
> oppose them, just as, say, I neither support nor oppose the policies
> of a country on another planet.
>
> > =A0and those who support them,
>
> =A0 Anyone who wants to support Polgar and Truong may feel free to do so
> without argument from me. The same goes for anyone who wants to oppose
> them, and for those who want to ignore them. It is a matter I care
> nothing about.
>
> > I will admit my error.
>
> =A0 Good. Please be sure to include these points in your admission:
>
> =A0 1. That your statement that I "have shown a hostility towards Truong
> and Polgar" was completely false.
>
> =A0 2. That you had absolutely no basis for saying that =A0"ChessCafe
> writers have a collective tendency to attack Polgar and Truong."
>
> =A0 3. Specify whether you were being extremely stupid, or were
> deliberately lying, when you made those two statements.
>
> > It's simple .
>
> =A0 Indeed it is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Good. Taylor Kingston says he does not oppose Susan and Paul. I was
wrong.
Rob Mitchell

Date: 20 Apr 2008 08:31:58
From:
Subject: Re: Mitchell just digs himself deeper (was: Ignorance Opens Mouth,

On Apr 20, 10:44=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 4:07=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 1:10=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 19, 6:04=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 18, 3:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 18, 7:22=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > > > > > > > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the s=
lightest
> > > > > > > > with Chessville.
>
> > > > > > > =A0 Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever wri=
tten here,
> > > > > > > and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check=

> > > > > > > *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> > > > > > > =A0 Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe si=
nce
> > > > > > > mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brai=
n can
> > > > > > > confirm here:
>
> > > > > > > =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polg=
ar%20on%20...
>
> > > > > > > =A0 Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a Che=
ssCafe
> > > > > > > writer, has attacked herself?
>
> > > > > > > =A0 As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book revi=
ews and
> > > > > > > several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything=
so much
> > > > > > > as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
> > > > > > > =A0 And though I have definitely been "associated even in the =
slightest
> > > > > > > with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some y=
ears
> > > > > > > ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe write=
r as a
> > > > > > > result.
> > > > > > > =A0 As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rath=
er doubt
> > > > > > > it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that=
support
> > > > > > > your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim =
without
> > > > > > > even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let=
alone
> > > > > > > actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you=
have
> > > > > > > any specifics at all.
>
> > > > > > > =A0 This group has seen many examples of people inventing and =
attacking
> > > > > > > things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements abou=
t my
> > > > > > > Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I nev=
er wrote
> > > > > > > but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous =
case of
> > > > > > > all.
>
> > > > > > Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly p=
ost on
> > > > > > RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.
>
> > > > > =A0 Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns a=
nd
> > > > > their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indicat=
e
> > > > > which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as you=
put
> > > > > it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrated =
this
> > > > > alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associate=
d
> > > > > even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > > > > =A0 Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if y=
ou
> > > > > want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed
> > > > > loonie:
>
> > > > > Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
> > > > > Over the Horizons by Stefan B=FCcker
> > > > > Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
> > > > > The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
> > > > > An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
> > > > > Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
> > > > > Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
> > > > > The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
> > > > > Novice Nook by Dan Heisman
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
> > > > > Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
> > > > > ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
> > > > > Endgame Corner by Karsten M=FCller
> > > > > The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
> > > > > Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
> > > > > Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
> > > > > El Caf=E9 del Ajedrez en Espa=F1ol by Juan Santa
> > > > > Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
> > > > > New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
> > > > > Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
> > > > > View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
> > > > > The Wanderer by Mike Franett
> > > > > A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
> > > > > Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
> > > > > A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabb=E9
> > > > > Queen One by Susan Lalic
> > > > > From the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
> > > > > The Miles Report by Tony Miles
> > > > > The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
> > > > > Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
> > > > > The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry
>
> > > > =A0 So, Rob, I notice you have not replied here. And now after what
> > > > Jeremy Spinrad wrote above, it looks like you don't have even one
> > > > ChessCafe writer, whether or not he/she posts on rec.games.chess
> > > > newsgroups, who has any "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and
> > > > anyone associated even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > > > =A0 To retain any shred of integrity, you must either prove your poi=
nt,
> > > > or apologize. As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet ambassador, I am=

> > > > prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer -- but I
> > > > seriously doubt you will ever give one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Sorry,
> > > I have been busy ... I don't read Chess Cafe'.
>
> > =A0 Then how could you possibly have any basis for this "collective
> > tendency" you claim to have observed among ChessCafe writers? How
> > could you even know who ChessCafe's writers are?
>
> > > I do know
> > > that You, Taylor have shown a hostility towards Truong and Polgar ...
>
> > =A0 Rob, which are you -- an idiot, or a liar? I have never shown any
> > hostility to Truong or Polgar. I very seldom say anything about
> > either, and I have never said anything negative about them.
>
> > > I did not know that Jerry wrote for Chess Cafe'.
>
> > =A0 In that case, the number of candidates for your alleged "collective
> > tendency" just shrank from one to zero.
>
> > > While Neil is not now or may never have been
> > > a Chess Cafe writer, I would consider Chess Cafe's publishing of his
> > > work to count.
>
> > =A0 What works of Neil Brennen has ChessCafe published? Or is this
> > another thing about which you know nothing?
>
> > > If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
> > > Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> > > publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.
>
> > =A0 Why does anyone have to "confess support"? To be neutral about and
> > uninterested in Polar and Truong is hardly the same as attacking
> > them.
> > =A0 Rob, your error is blatant, and a public apology is your only decent=

> > alternative.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Then, If you say you do not oppose Polgar and Truong

Rob, the only accurate way to phrase my attitude is this: I have no
interest in the activities of Polgar and/or Truong. I have no interest
in either attacks on them or defenses of them. I neither support nor
oppose them, just as, say, I neither support nor oppose the policies
of a country on another planet.

> and those who support them,

Anyone who wants to support Polgar and Truong may feel free to do so
without argument from me. The same goes for anyone who wants to oppose
them, and for those who want to ignore them. It is a matter I care
nothing about.

> I will admit my error.

Good. Please be sure to include these points in your admission:

1. That your statement that I "have shown a hostility towards Truong
and Polgar" was completely false.

2. That you had absolutely no basis for saying that "ChessCafe
writers have a collective tendency to attack Polgar and Truong."

3. Specify whether you were being extremely stupid, or were
deliberately lying, when you made those two statements.

> It's simple .

Indeed it is.

Date: 20 Apr 2008 07:44:24
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Mitchell just digs himself deeper (was: Ignorance Opens Mouth,

On Apr 20, 4:07=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 20, 1:10=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 6:04=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 3:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 18, 7:22=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > > > > > > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the sli=
ghtest
> > > > > > > with Chessville.
>
> > > > > > =A0 Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever writt=
en here,
> > > > > > and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
> > > > > > *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> > > > > > =A0 Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe sinc=
e
> > > > > > mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain =
can
> > > > > > confirm here:
>
> > > > > > =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polgar=
%20on%20...
>
> > > > > > =A0 Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a Chess=
Cafe
> > > > > > writer, has attacked herself?
>
> > > > > > =A0 As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book review=
s and
> > > > > > several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything s=
o much
> > > > > > as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
> > > > > > =A0 And though I have definitely been "associated even in the sl=
ightest
> > > > > > with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some yea=
rs
> > > > > > ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer =
as a
> > > > > > result.
> > > > > > =A0 As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather=
doubt
> > > > > > it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that s=
upport
> > > > > > your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim wi=
thout
> > > > > > even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let a=
lone
> > > > > > actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you h=
ave
> > > > > > any specifics at all.
>
> > > > > > =A0 This group has seen many examples of people inventing and at=
tacking
> > > > > > things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about =
my
> > > > > > Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never=
wrote
> > > > > > but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous ca=
se of
> > > > > > all.
>
> > > > > Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly pos=
t on
> > > > > RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.
>
> > > > =A0 Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns and=

> > > > their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indicate
> > > > which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as you p=
ut
> > > > it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrated th=
is
> > > > alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
> > > > even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > > > =A0 Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if you=

> > > > want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed
> > > > loonie:
>
> > > > Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
> > > > Over the Horizons by Stefan B=FCcker
> > > > Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
> > > > The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
> > > > An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
> > > > Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
> > > > Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
> > > > The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
> > > > Novice Nook by Dan Heisman
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
> > > > Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
> > > > ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
> > > > Endgame Corner by Karsten M=FCller
> > > > The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
> > > > Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
> > > > Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
> > > > El Caf=E9 del Ajedrez en Espa=F1ol by Juan Santa
> > > > Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
> > > > New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
> > > > Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
> > > > View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
> > > > The Wanderer by Mike Franett
> > > > A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
> > > > Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
> > > > A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabb=E9
> > > > Queen One by Susan Lalic
> > > > From the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
> > > > The Miles Report by Tony Miles
> > > > The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
> > > > Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
> > > > The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry
>
> > > =A0 So, Rob, I notice you have not replied here. And now after what
> > > Jeremy Spinrad wrote above, it looks like you don't have even one
> > > ChessCafe writer, whether or not he/she posts on rec.games.chess
> > > newsgroups, who has any "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and
> > > anyone associated even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > > =A0 To retain any shred of integrity, you must either prove your point=
,
> > > or apologize. As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet ambassador, I am
> > > prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer -- but I
> > > seriously doubt you will ever give one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Sorry,
> > I have been busy ... I don't read Chess Cafe'.
>
> =A0 Then how could you possibly have any basis for this "collective
> tendency" you claim to have observed among ChessCafe writers? How
> could you even know who ChessCafe's writers are?
>
> > I do know
> > that You, Taylor have shown a hostility towards Truong and Polgar ...
>
> =A0 Rob, which are you -- an idiot, or a liar? I have never shown any
> hostility to Truong or Polgar. I very seldom say anything about
> either, and I have never said anything negative about them.
>
> > I did not know that Jerry wrote for Chess Cafe'.
>
> =A0 In that case, the number of candidates for your alleged "collective
> tendency" just shrank from one to zero.
>
> > While Neil is not now or may never have been
> > a Chess Cafe writer, I would consider Chess Cafe's publishing of his
> > work to count.
>
> =A0 What works of Neil Brennen has ChessCafe published? Or is this
> another thing about which you know nothing?
>
> > If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
> > Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> > publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.
>
> =A0 Why does anyone have to "confess support"? To be neutral about and
> uninterested in Polar and Truong is hardly the same as attacking
> them.
> =A0 Rob, your error is blatant, and a public apology is your only decent
> alternative.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Then, If you say you do not oppose Polgar and Truong and those who
support them, I will admit my error. It's simple . No need to over
analyse. As for Neil, who cares. Being attacked by him is equal to
being attacked by Sloan. It's like getting the good housekeeping seal
of approval.

So, it's all pretty simple. Use simple,small words in concise
sentences that someone with my limited brain power can understand and
that leaves no area for backpeddling. Just say the words that you do
not oppose Susan,Paul or their supporters and I will retract my
statement as it applies to you. Fair enough?

I'll even make it easier," If Taylor Kingston says he supports and
does not oppose Polgar,Truong and their supporters I, Rob Mitchell,
admit I erred in saying he opposed and attacked them"

Rob

Date: 20 Apr 2008 08:25:50
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Mitchell just digs himself deeper (was: Ignorance Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot)

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Then, If you say you do not oppose Polgar and Truong and those who
>support them, I will admit my error. It's simple . ...
>I'll even make it easier," If Taylor Kingston says he supports and
>does not oppose Polgar,Truong and their supporters I, Rob Mitchell,
>admit I erred in saying he opposed and attacked them"

One can get too simple as well as overly complicated.

By ignoring context, your challenge confuses an unbiased critic with
an acolyte. "Supports" -- on which issues? "Their supporters" -- all
supporters at all times? And what constitutes a "supporter"? Somebody
like George over on the USCF forum? Somebody like Tennessee Vols, now
Zarathustra, over on chessdiscussion? That would go even further and
conflate an unbiased observer with an idiot.

Date: 20 Apr 2008 03:13:21
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Mitchell just digs himself deeper (was: Ignorance Opens Mouth,

On Apr 20, 5:07 am, [email protected] wrote:

> Rob, which are you -- an idiot, or a liar?

Why does he have to choose? Both labels fit, based upon his newsgroup
postings.

Date: 20 Apr 2008 03:07:25
From:
Subject: Mitchell just digs himself deeper (was: Ignorance Opens Mouth,

On Apr 20, 1:10=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 6:04=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 3:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 7:22=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > > > > > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the sligh=
test
> > > > > > with Chessville.
>
> > > > > =A0 Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written=
here,
> > > > > and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
> > > > > *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> > > > > =A0 Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
> > > > > mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain ca=
n
> > > > > confirm here:
>
> > > > > =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polgar%2=
0on%20...
>
> > > > > =A0 Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCa=
fe
> > > > > writer, has attacked herself?
>
> > > > > =A0 As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews =
and
> > > > > several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so =
much
> > > > > as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
> > > > > =A0 And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slig=
htest
> > > > > with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years=

> > > > > ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as=
a
> > > > > result.
> > > > > =A0 As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather d=
oubt
> > > > > it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that sup=
port
> > > > > your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim with=
out
> > > > > even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alo=
ne
> > > > > actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you hav=
e
> > > > > any specifics at all.
>
> > > > > =A0 This group has seen many examples of people inventing and atta=
cking
> > > > > things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my=

> > > > > Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never w=
rote
> > > > > but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case=
of
> > > > > all.
>
> > > > Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post =
on
> > > > RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.
>
> > > =A0 Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns and
> > > their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indicate
> > > which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as you put=

> > > it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrated this=

> > > alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
> > > even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > > =A0 Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if you
> > > want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed
> > > loonie:
>
> > > Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
> > > Over the Horizons by Stefan B=FCcker
> > > Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
> > > The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
> > > An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
> > > Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
> > > Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
> > > The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
> > > Novice Nook by Dan Heisman
> > > [email protected]
> > > ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
> > > Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
> > > ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
> > > Endgame Corner by Karsten M=FCller
> > > The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
> > > Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
> > > Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
> > > El Caf=E9 del Ajedrez en Espa=F1ol by Juan Santa
> > > Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
> > > New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
> > > Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
> > > View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
> > > The Wanderer by Mike Franett
> > > A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
> > > Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
> > > A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabb=E9
> > > Queen One by Susan Lalic
> > > From the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
> > > The Miles Report by Tony Miles
> > > The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
> > > Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
> > > The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry
>
> > =A0 So, Rob, I notice you have not replied here. And now after what
> > Jeremy Spinrad wrote above, it looks like you don't have even one
> > ChessCafe writer, whether or not he/she posts on rec.games.chess
> > newsgroups, who has any "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and
> > anyone associated even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > =A0 To retain any shred of integrity, you must either prove your point,
> > or apologize. As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet ambassador, I am
> > prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer -- but I
> > seriously doubt you will ever give one.- Hide quoted text -
>

>
> Sorry,
> I have been busy ... I don't read Chess Cafe'.

Then how could you possibly have any basis for this "collective
tendency" you claim to have observed among ChessCafe writers? How
could you even know who ChessCafe's writers are?

> I do know
> that You, Taylor have shown a hostility towards Truong and Polgar ...

Rob, which are you -- an idiot, or a liar? I have never shown any
hostility to Truong or Polgar. I very seldom say anything about
either, and I have never said anything negative about them.

> I did not know that Jerry wrote for Chess Cafe'.

In that case, the number of candidates for your alleged "collective
tendency" just shrank from one to zero.

> While Neil is not now or may never have been
> a Chess Cafe writer, I would consider Chess Cafe's publishing of his
> work to count.

What works of Neil Brennen has ChessCafe published? Or is this
another thing about which you know nothing?

> If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
> Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.

Why does anyone have to "confess support"? To be neutral about and
uninterested in Polar and Truong is hardly the same as attacking
them.
Rob, your error is blatant, and a public apology is your only decent
alternative.

Date: 20 Apr 2008 02:50:03
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth....

On Apr 20, 12:10 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 6:04 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 7:22 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > > > > > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the sligh=
test
> > > > > > with Chessville.
>
> > > > > Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written h=
ere,
> > > > > and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
> > > > > *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> > > > > Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
> > > > > mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain ca=
n
> > > > > confirm here:
>
> > > > > http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polgar%20o=
n%20...
>
> > > > > Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe=

> > > > > writer, has attacked herself?
>
> > > > > As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews an=
d
> > > > > several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so =
much
> > > > > as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
> > > > > And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slight=
est
> > > > > with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years=

> > > > > ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as=
a
> > > > > result.
> > > > > As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather dou=
bt
> > > > > it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that sup=
port
> > > > > your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim with=
out
> > > > > even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alo=
ne
> > > > > actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you hav=
e
> > > > > any specifics at all.
>
> > > > > This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attack=
ing
> > > > > things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my=

> > > > > Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never w=
rote
> > > > > but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case=
of
> > > > > all.
>
> > > > Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post =
on
> > > > RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.
>
> > > Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns and
> > > their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indicate
> > > which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as you put=

> > > it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrated this=

> > > alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
> > > even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > > Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if you
> > > want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed
> > > loonie:
>
> > > Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
> > > Over the Horizons by Stefan B=FCcker
> > > Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
> > > The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
> > > An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
> > > Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
> > > Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
> > > The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
> > > Novice Nook by Dan Heisman
> > > [email protected]
> > > ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
> > > Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
> > > ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
> > > Endgame Corner by Karsten M=FCller
> > > The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
> > > Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
> > > Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
> > > El Caf=E9 del Ajedrez en Espa=F1ol by Juan Santa
> > > Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
> > > New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
> > > Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
> > > View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
> > > The Wanderer by Mike Franett
> > > A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
> > > Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
> > > A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabb=E9
> > > Queen One by Susan Lalic
> > > From the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
> > > The Miles Report by Tony Miles
> > > The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
> > > Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
> > > The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry
>
> > So, Rob, I notice you have not replied here. And now after what
> > Jeremy Spinrad wrote above, it looks like you don't have even one
> > ChessCafe writer, whether or not he/she posts on rec.games.chess
> > newsgroups, who has any "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and
> > anyone associated even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > To retain any shred of integrity, you must either prove your point,
> > or apologize. As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet ambassador, I am
> > prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer -- but I
> > seriously doubt you will ever give one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sorry,
> I have been busy.. having a life. I don't read Chess Cafe'. I do know
> that You, Taylor have shown a hostility towards Truong and Polgar and
> Phil . I did not know that Jerry wrote for Chess Cafe'. His actions
> will speak for themself. While Neil is not now or may never have been
> a Chess Cafe writer, I would consider Chess Cafe's publishing of his
> work to count. If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
> Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
> publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error. Now, I
> have a birthday party to finish cleaning up after and a family to
> attend to.

You obviously are too busy to think, and not man enough to apologize
to Mr. Kingston and Dr. Spinrad, let alone to Chess Cafe. As for your
claim that three articles in ten years makes me a "Chess Cafe writer",
I'll accept that compliment. The articles published at Chess Cafe are
of such high quality that considering me a Chess Cafe writer is gilt
by association.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Date: 19 Apr 2008 22:10:41
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth In a vain attempt to Prove Mitchell

On Apr 19, 6:04=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 18, 3:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 7:22=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > > > > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slighte=
st
> > > > > with Chessville.
>
> > > > =A0 Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written h=
ere,
> > > > and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
> > > > *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> > > > =A0 Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
> > > > mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
> > > > confirm here:
>
> > > > =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polgar%20o=
n%20...
>
> > > > =A0 Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe=

> > > > writer, has attacked herself?
>
> > > > =A0 As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews an=
d
> > > > several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so mu=
ch
> > > > as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
> > > > =A0 And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slight=
est
> > > > with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
> > > > ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a=

> > > > result.
> > > > =A0 As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather dou=
bt
> > > > it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that suppo=
rt
> > > > your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim withou=
t
> > > > even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone=

> > > > actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
> > > > any specifics at all.
>
> > > > =A0 This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attack=
ing
> > > > things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
> > > > Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wro=
te
> > > > but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case o=
f
> > > > all.
>
> > > Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on=

> > > RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.
>
> > =A0 Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns and
> > their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indicate
> > which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as you put
> > it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrated this
> > alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
> > even in the slightest with Chessville."
> > =A0 Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if you
> > want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed
> > loonie:
>
> > Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
> > Over the Horizons by Stefan B=FCcker
> > Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
> > The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
> > An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
> > Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
> > Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
> > The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
> > Novice Nook by Dan Heisman
> > [email protected]
> > ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
> > Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
> > ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
> > Endgame Corner by Karsten M=FCller
> > The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
> > Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
> > Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
> > El Caf=E9 del Ajedrez en Espa=F1ol by Juan Santa
> > Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
> > New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
> > Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
> > View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
> > The Wanderer by Mike Franett
> > A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
> > Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
> > A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabb=E9
> > Queen One by Susan Lalic
> > From the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
> > The Miles Report by Tony Miles
> > The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
> > Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
> > The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry
>
> =A0 So, Rob, I notice you have not replied here. And now after what
> Jeremy Spinrad wrote above, it looks like you don't have even one
> ChessCafe writer, whether or not he/she posts on rec.games.chess
> newsgroups, who has any "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and
> anyone associated even in the slightest with Chessville."
> =A0 To retain any shred of integrity, you must either prove your point,
> or apologize. As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet ambassador, I am
> prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer -- but I
> seriously doubt you will ever give one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry,
I have been busy.. having a life. I don't read Chess Cafe'. I do know
that You, Taylor have shown a hostility towards Truong and Polgar and
Phil . I did not know that Jerry wrote for Chess Cafe'. His actions
will speak for themself. While Neil is not now or may never have been
a Chess Cafe writer, I would consider Chess Cafe's publishing of his
work to count. If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error. Now, I
have a birthday party to finish cleaning up after and a family to
attend to.

Date: 19 Apr 2008 17:04:36
From:
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth, Inserts Foot. (was: INCRIMINATING! Ye

On Apr 18, 3:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 18, 7:22=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > > > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest=

> > > > with Chessville.
>
> > > =A0 Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written her=
e,
> > > and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
> > > *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> > > =A0 Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
> > > mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
> > > confirm here:
>
> > > =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polgar%20on%=
20...
>
> > > =A0 Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
> > > writer, has attacked herself?
>
> > > =A0 As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
> > > several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much=

> > > as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
> > > =A0 And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightes=
t
> > > with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
> > > ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
> > > result.
> > > =A0 As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt=

> > > it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support=

> > > your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
> > > even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
> > > actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
> > > any specifics at all.
>
> > > =A0 This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attackin=
g
> > > things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
> > > Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote=

> > > but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
> > > all.
>
> > Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
> > RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.
>
> =A0 Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns and
> their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indicate
> which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as you put
> it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrated this
> alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
> even in the slightest with Chessville."
> =A0 Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if you
> want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed
> loonie:
>
> Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
> Over the Horizons by Stefan B=FCcker
> Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
> The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
> An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
> Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
> Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
> The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
> Novice Nook by Dan Heisman
> [email protected]
> ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
> Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
> ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
> Endgame Corner by Karsten M=FCller
> The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
> Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
> Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
> El Caf=E9 del Ajedrez en Espa=F1ol by Juan Santa
> Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
> New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
> Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
> View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
> The Wanderer by Mike Franett
> A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
> Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
> A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabb=E9
> Queen One by Susan Lalic
> From the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
> The Miles Report by Tony Miles
> The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
> Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
> The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry

So, Rob, I notice you have not replied here. And now after what
Jeremy Spinrad wrote above, it looks like you don't have even one
ChessCafe writer, whether or not he/she posts on rec.games.chess
newsgroups, who has any "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and
anyone associated even in the slightest with Chessville."
To retain any shred of integrity, you must either prove your point,
or apologize. As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet ambassador, I am
prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer -- but I
seriously doubt you will ever give one.

Date: 18 Apr 2008 20:02:49
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth, Inserts Foot. (was: INCRIMINATING! Ye

On Apr 18, 5:53 pm, "[email protected]"
> I am, of course, waiting for Phil to retract his statement...

What a disgusting moment. A good chess historian CHOOSES to wrestle a
muddy pig.

Jerry, I warned you to avoid getting drawn into squabbles with this
Vermont nutcase. He's incapable of creating or contributing to chess;
you do, and I'd rather see you devote your time to chess history than
to arguing with a nonentity with nothing to say and unlimited
bandwidth to say it in.

And yes, I should follow my own advice.

Date: 18 Apr 2008 19:54:04
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth, Inserts Foot. (was: INCRIMINATING! Ye

On Apr 18, 11:37 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 6:22 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
> > RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down. You all knew
> > what was ment. But, true to form you attacked not the intent but
> > rather the form. Congratulations on remaining consistent.
>
> I don't think so Rob. It was a pretty sweeping statement, and I took
> it at face value. Then I realized what you meant; however, could you
> provide some examples of how CC writers who post on rgc "collectively"
> attack Polgar and Truong? I am not sure they even do so singularly to
> any degree; in fact, I don't know of any regular CC writers who even
> post here.

Dr. Jeremy Spinrad posts here,. as well as Taylor Kingston. Taylor may
no longer write for Chess Cafe, sadly, but he has a long-time
connection to the site.

Date: 18 Apr 2008 15:53:40
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth, Inserts Foot. (was: INCRIMINATING! Ye

On Apr 18, 10:56=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 18, 7:22=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > > > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest=

> > > > with Chessville.
>
> > > =A0 Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written her=
e,
> > > and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
> > > *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> > > =A0 Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
> > > mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
> > > confirm here:
>
> > > =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polgar%20on%=
20...
>
> > > =A0 Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
> > > writer, has attacked herself?
>
> > > =A0 As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
> > > several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much=

> > > as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
> > > =A0 And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightes=
t
> > > with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
> > > ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
> > > result.
> > > =A0 As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt=

> > > it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support=

> > > your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
> > > even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
> > > actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
> > > any specifics at all.
>
> > > =A0 This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attackin=
g
> > > things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
> > > Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote=

> > > but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
> > > all.
>
> > Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
> > RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.
>
> =A0 Practically narrows it out of existence.
>
> > You all knew
> > what was ment. [sic]
>
> =A0 Really? No, Rob, we only know what you say, which was "Chess Cafe'
> writers have a collective tendency to
> attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
> with Chessville."
>
> =A0 "Collective tendency" means that a majority of the group exhibit the
> behavior. You have not named even one who does so.
> =A0 And who are these "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on RGC"?
> If we include myself, even though I no longer write anything for
> ChessCafe, how many is that? I'd say two: Jeremy Spinrad and me. Since
> I seldom say much of anything about Susan Polgar, and have never even
> bothered to disagree with her, let alone
> attack her in writing, that leaves just one possible person: Spinrad.
> =A0 Temporarily accepting, just for the sake of argument, that Spinrad
> may have attacked Polgar (and I really don't know if he has or not),
> that leaves a total of one.

Actually, I can not be used as part of the reason in this context. The
original statement said that I was perhaps being unfairly blamed for
other chess cafe writers attacks on chessville.

I am, of course, waiting for Phil to retract his statement that I am
hiding the fact that I am an interested party in writing about Polgar.
I assert that this is simply wrong. He cannot justify this by some
revelation of how I have some interest in the case which I am unaware
of; he called on me to reveal the information to the newsgroup. I
frankly know of no personal interest I have in Polgar or Truong, and
if he says otherwise he is lying. As I have never hidden, I have a
chess cafe column, and am a life member of the USCF; I cannot imagine
what else he could be thinking about, if thinking is the right word.

Jerry Spinrad

>
> =A0 Now Rob, please explain to us how we get a "collective tendency"
> from just one person?
>
> > But, true to form you attacked not the intent but
> > rather the form.
>
> =A0 No, Rob, I pointed out that your statement was completely false, and
> that you had not the slightest knowledge of what you were talking
> about. You didn't even know that Polgar herself has been a regular
> ChessCafe columnist for nearly six years.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 18 Apr 2008 12:12:11
From:
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth, Inserts Foot. (was: INCRIMINATING! Ye

On Apr 18, 7:22=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
> > > with Chessville.
>
> > =A0 Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written here,=

> > and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
> > *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> > =A0 Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
> > mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
> > confirm here:
>
> > =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polgar%20on%20=
...
>
> > =A0 Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
> > writer, has attacked herself?
>
> > =A0 As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
> > several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much
> > as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
> > =A0 And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightest
> > with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
> > ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
> > result.
> > =A0 As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt
> > it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support
> > your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
> > even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
> > actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
> > any specifics at all.
>
> > =A0 This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attacking
> > things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
> > Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote
> > but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
> > all.
>
> Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
> RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.

Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns and
their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indicate
which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as you put
it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrated this
alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
even in the slightest with Chessville."
Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if you
want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed
loonie:

Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
Over the Horizons by Stefan B=FCcker
Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
Novice Nook by Dan Heisman
[email protected]
ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
Endgame Corner by Karsten M=FCller
The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
El Caf=E9 del Ajedrez en Espa=F1ol by Juan Santa
Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
The Wanderer by Mike Franett
A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabb=E9
Queen One by Susan Lalic
=46rom the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
The Miles Report by Tony Miles
The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry

Date: 18 Apr 2008 09:37:49
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth, Inserts Foot. (was: INCRIMINATING! Ye

On Apr 18, 6:22 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
> RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down. You all knew
> what was ment. But, true to form you attacked not the intent but
> rather the form. Congratulations on remaining consistent.

I don't think so Rob. It was a pretty sweeping statement, and I took
it at face value. Then I realized what you meant; however, could you
provide some examples of how CC writers who post on rgc "collectively"
attack Polgar and Truong? I am not sure they even do so singularly to
any degree; in fact, I don't know of any regular CC writers who even
post here.

Date: 18 Apr 2008 08:56:27
From:
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth, Inserts Foot. (was: INCRIMINATING! Ye

On Apr 18, 7:22=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
> > > with Chessville.
>
> > =A0 Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written here,=

> > and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
> > *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> > =A0 Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
> > mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
> > confirm here:
>
> > =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polgar%20on%20=
...
>
> > =A0 Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
> > writer, has attacked herself?
>
> > =A0 As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
> > several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much
> > as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
> > =A0 And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightest
> > with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
> > ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
> > result.
> > =A0 As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt
> > it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support
> > your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
> > even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
> > actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
> > any specifics at all.
>
> > =A0 This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attacking
> > things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
> > Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote
> > but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
> > all.
>
> Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
> RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.

Practically narrows it out of existence.

> You all knew
> what was ment. [sic]

Really? No, Rob, we only know what you say, which was "Chess Cafe'
writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville."

"Collective tendency" means that a majority of the group exhibit the
behavior. You have not named even one who does so.
And who are these "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on RGC"?
If we include myself, even though I no longer write anything for
ChessCafe, how many is that? I'd say two: Jeremy Spinrad and me. Since
I seldom say much of anything about Susan Polgar, and have never even
bothered to disagree with her, let alone
attack her in writing, that leaves just one possible person: Spinrad.
Temporarily accepting, just for the sake of argument, that Spinrad
may have attacked Polgar (and I really don't know if he has or not),
that leaves a total of one.

Now Rob, please explain to us how we get a "collective tendency"
from just one person?

> But, true to form you attacked not the intent but
> rather the form.

No, Rob, I pointed out that your statement was completely false, and
that you had not the slightest knowledge of what you were talking
about. You didn't even know that Polgar herself has been a regular
ChessCafe columnist for nearly six years.

Date: 18 Apr 2008 04:22:14
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth, Inserts Foot. (was: INCRIMINATING! Ye

On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> > attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
> > with Chessville.
>
> Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written here,
> and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
> *_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??
>
> Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
> mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
> confirm here:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polgar%20on%20...
>
> Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
> writer, has attacked herself?
>
> As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
> several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much
> as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
> And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightest
> with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
> ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
> result.
> As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt
> it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support
> your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
> even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
> actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
> any specifics at all.
>
> This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attacking
> things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
> Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote
> but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
> all.

Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down. You all knew
what was ment. But, true to form you attacked not the intent but
rather the form. Congratulations on remaining consistent.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 12:44:12
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 17, 8:56 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> You have amply demonstrated an inability to even agree on commonly used
> terms - yet I should apply for your understanding?

No I haven't - you are the one with a problem with the proper use of
language..

I do want to know about your supposed service on a state board
responsible for child welfare. It is germane to the issue.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 11:40:49
From:
Subject: Ignorance Opens Its Mouth, Inserts Foot. (was: INCRIMINATING! Ye

On Apr 17, 10:45=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
> with Chessville.

Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written here,
and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
*_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??

Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
confirm here:

http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Susan%20Polgar%20on%20Chess=

Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
writer, has attacked herself?

As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much
as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightest
with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
result.
As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt
it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support
your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
any specifics at all.

This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attacking
things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote
but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
all.

Date: 20 Apr 2008 08:31:51
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Mitchell just digs himself deeper (was: Ignorance Opens Mouth,

On Apr 20, 10:25=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Then, If you say you do not oppose Polgar and Truong and those who
> >support them, I will admit my error. It's simple . ...
> >I'll even make it easier," If Taylor Kingston says he supports and
> >does not oppose Polgar,Truong and their supporters I, Rob Mitchell,
> >admit I erred in saying he opposed and attacked them"
>
> One can get too simple as well as overly complicated.
>
> By ignoring context, your challenge confuses an unbiased critic with
> an acolyte. =A0"Supports" -- on which issues? =A0"Their supporters" -- all=

> supporters at all times? =A0And what constitutes a "supporter"? Somebody
> like George over on the USCF forum? =A0Somebody like Tennessee Vols, now
> Zarathustra, over on chessdiscussion? =A0That would go even further and
> conflate an unbiased observer with an idiot.

Mike, One can get too simple. In this case I don't think that is the
case. By oversimpliying it in your example, over complicates it just
as I was trying to avoid. There are times for broad general statements
which rational people know to be true. Trying to make statements or
laws to cover the exceptions is never a good policy. Make a general
statement and then contest the exceptions.

So , does he "generally" support and not "oppose" Susan,and Paul?
Simple.
Rob

Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:45:16
From: Rob
Subject: Re: INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

On Apr 17, 9:35=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:24=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Apr 17, 6:41 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 5:44 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next we=
ek
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > going to tell everybody.
>
> > > > Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
> > > > various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
> > > > either.
>
> > > > You're big on threats and weak on execution. After a point, no one
> > > > believes the little boy crying wolf, Phil.
>
> > > Well, if I'm translating the 'English' of P Innes correctly, it seems
> > > he's going to reveal an email HE sent. It's hardly a revelation that
> > > the Brattleboro Bedlam sends crank-mail to the EB and USCF.
>
> > My translation of Innes English is that he will reveal a call by
> > Polgar to remove me from Chess Cafe.
>
> > ** Actually, I never heard of that 'call' before. So is Spinrad pre-empt=
ing
> > some topic by speculating on it himself? His comprehension abilities see=
m to
> > vary according to topic - a common device here on usenet. ;) =A0 =A0Mean=
while
> > good old Jerry hob-nobs with someone who accused me of writing filth abo=
ut
> > my own family - strangely, those messages were followed by an abuse anon=
who
> > only followed those exchanges... =A0 You know, if the hobnail fits...
>
> > =A0If
>
> > ** If! =A0:)) =A0What do reader's think; will the next comment be a stra=
wman?
>
> > =A0that is what he was saying, it
> > doesn't make much sense to accuse me of some mysterious conflict of
> > interest; my supposed interest would be harmed by attacking Polgar.
>
> > ** Dr Spinrad seems content to speculate on what I will have to say to t=
he
> > degree that he will take over the prosecution of it himself.
>
> > =A0I
> > would like to say that I am not accusing Polgar of trying to remove my
> > column;
>
> > ** O Good! I am not accusing her of it either. But it is mighty curious =
that
> > Jerry Spinrad brought it up, since I didn't.
>
> > ** Now... since none of us seem to be bring that up, is there any new
> > business here?
>
> > =A0since Phil as has been pointed out seems constitutionally
> > incapable of saying anything clearly, it is hard to know how to
> > interpret his statements. The amusing thing is that he called for me
> > to reveal some secret incriminating information, when I have no
> > information which is not known to the entire group.
>
> > ** The open 'secret' as Jerry Spinrad would have it, is that he is not a=

> > disinterested party in the affaire-Polgar, but that I will reveal it? Is=

> > that what he is saying? I merely asked that of Hanken or Spinrad, or of =
any
> > party at all, that they /declare/ their interest in either USCF politics=
, or
> > in its trading activities, especially when it concerns highly contentiou=
s
> > issues to do with other people's children, which is a normal standard am=
ong
> > real journalists. That is what it is, and requires no speculary 'ifs' as=
if
> > to lampoon people asking after public standards of DECENCY.
>
> > **Now while Jerry Spinrad accuses me of being unclear, what exactly has =
he
> > exhibited in this message other than 'ifs'? I note that he does not quot=
e me
> > on any topic at all, and paraphrastically inserts terms like
> > 'incriminating'!
>
> > =A0 =A0 INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!
>
> > **But since he in effect is content to prosecute himself, let him contin=
ue
> > in his own clear English to actually say something clearly and why
> > incriminating came to his mind, when the context of Polgar's request was=
to
> > do with decent public expression surrounding United States Chess Federat=
ion,
> > by those in office, formally linked with it, who receive payment and oth=
er
> > favours resulting from their relations with it.
>
> > ** If Doctor Spinrad cannot understand either the context, nor his own p=
art
> > in it, that, I put to anyone's candid appreciation, is not a fault resti=
ng
> > on my doorstep.
>
> I cannot understand either the context, nor my own part in it. I put
> to anyone's candid appreciation, it is a fault resting on your
> doorstop.
>
> I am a disinterested party in the affair. I am a USCF member, and have
> a column on Chess Cafe. Spit out whatever you are trying to imply in
> calling me an interested party.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
>
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Perhaps you are being unfairly condemned by guilt by association? I
really don't know. Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:10:43
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Perhaps you are being unfairly condemned by guilt by association? I
>really don't know. Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
>attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
>with Chessville.

Doesn't Polgar have her own column at Chess Cafe?

Date: 17 Apr 2008 20:35:56
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you are being unfairly condemned by guilt by association? I
>> really don't know. Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
>> attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
>> with Chessville.
>
>
> Doesn't Polgar have her own column at Chess Cafe?

Yes.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:38:29
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

On Apr 17, 9:35 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:24 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Apr 17, 6:41 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 5:44 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > going to tell everybody.
>
> > > > Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
> > > > various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
> > > > either.
>
> > > > You're big on threats and weak on execution. After a point, no one
> > > > believes the little boy crying wolf, Phil.
>
> > > Well, if I'm translating the 'English' of P Innes correctly, it seems
> > > he's going to reveal an email HE sent. It's hardly a revelation that
> > > the Brattleboro Bedlam sends crank-mail to the EB and USCF.
>
> > My translation of Innes English is that he will reveal a call by
> > Polgar to remove me from Chess Cafe.
>
> > ** Actually, I never heard of that 'call' before. So is Spinrad pre-empting
> > some topic by speculating on it himself? His comprehension abilities seem to
> > vary according to topic - a common device here on usenet. ;) Meanwhile
> > good old Jerry hob-nobs with someone who accused me of writing filth about
> > my own family - strangely, those messages were followed by an abuse anon who
> > only followed those exchanges... You know, if the hobnail fits...
>
> > If
>
> > ** If! :)) What do reader's think; will the next comment be a strawman?
>
> > that is what he was saying, it
> > doesn't make much sense to accuse me of some mysterious conflict of
> > interest; my supposed interest would be harmed by attacking Polgar.
>
> > ** Dr Spinrad seems content to speculate on what I will have to say to the
> > degree that he will take over the prosecution of it himself.
>
> > I
> > would like to say that I am not accusing Polgar of trying to remove my
> > column;
>
> > ** O Good! I am not accusing her of it either. But it is mighty curious that
> > Jerry Spinrad brought it up, since I didn't.
>
> > ** Now... since none of us seem to be bring that up, is there any new
> > business here?
>
> > since Phil as has been pointed out seems constitutionally
> > incapable of saying anything clearly, it is hard to know how to
> > interpret his statements. The amusing thing is that he called for me
> > to reveal some secret incriminating information, when I have no
> > information which is not known to the entire group.
>
> > ** The open 'secret' as Jerry Spinrad would have it, is that he is not a
> > disinterested party in the affaire-Polgar, but that I will reveal it? Is
> > that what he is saying? I merely asked that of Hanken or Spinrad, or of any
> > party at all, that they /declare/ their interest in either USCF politics, or
> > in its trading activities, especially when it concerns highly contentious
> > issues to do with other people's children, which is a normal standard among
> > real journalists. That is what it is, and requires no speculary 'ifs' as if
> > to lampoon people asking after public standards of DECENCY.
>
> > **Now while Jerry Spinrad accuses me of being unclear, what exactly has he
> > exhibited in this message other than 'ifs'? I note that he does not quote me
> > on any topic at all, and paraphrastically inserts terms like
> > 'incriminating'!
>
> > INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!
>
> > **But since he in effect is content to prosecute himself, let him continue
> > in his own clear English to actually say something clearly and why
> > incriminating came to his mind, when the context of Polgar's request was to
> > do with decent public expression surrounding United States Chess Federation,
> > by those in office, formally linked with it, who receive payment and other
> > favours resulting from their relations with it.
>
> > ** If Doctor Spinrad cannot understand either the context, nor his own part
> > in it, that, I put to anyone's candid appreciation, is not a fault resting
> > on my doorstep.
>
> I cannot understand either the context, nor my own part in it. I put
> to anyone's candid appreciation, it is a fault resting on your
> doorstop.
>
> I am a disinterested party in the affair. I am a USCF member, and have
> a column on Chess Cafe. Spit out whatever you are trying to imply in
> calling me an interested party.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Jerry, in P Innes' world, you are either with him, the angel of light
and goodness, or a wicked person in the pay of enemies of all that's
right.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:35:29
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

On Apr 17, 9:24=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 17, 6:41 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 5:44 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week=

> > > > I'm
> > > > going to tell everybody.
>
> > > Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
> > > various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
> > > either.
>
> > > You're big on threats and weak on execution. After a point, no one
> > > believes the little boy crying wolf, Phil.
>
> > Well, if I'm translating the 'English' of P Innes correctly, it seems
> > he's going to reveal an email HE sent. It's hardly a revelation that
> > the Brattleboro Bedlam sends crank-mail to the EB and USCF.
>
> My translation of Innes English is that he will reveal a call by
> Polgar to remove me from Chess Cafe.
>
> ** Actually, I never heard of that 'call' before. So is Spinrad pre-emptin=
g
> some topic by speculating on it himself? His comprehension abilities seem =
to
> vary according to topic - a common device here on usenet. ;) =A0 =A0Meanwh=
ile
> good old Jerry hob-nobs with someone who accused me of writing filth about=

> my own family - strangely, those messages were followed by an abuse anon w=
ho
> only followed those exchanges... =A0 You know, if the hobnail fits...
>
> =A0If
>
> ** If! =A0:)) =A0What do reader's think; will the next comment be a strawm=
an?
>
> =A0that is what he was saying, it
> doesn't make much sense to accuse me of some mysterious conflict of
> interest; my supposed interest would be harmed by attacking Polgar.
>
> ** Dr Spinrad seems content to speculate on what I will have to say to the=

> degree that he will take over the prosecution of it himself.
>
> =A0I
> would like to say that I am not accusing Polgar of trying to remove my
> column;
>
> ** O Good! I am not accusing her of it either. But it is mighty curious th=
at
> Jerry Spinrad brought it up, since I didn't.
>
> ** Now... since none of us seem to be bring that up, is there any new
> business here?
>
> =A0since Phil as has been pointed out seems constitutionally
> incapable of saying anything clearly, it is hard to know how to
> interpret his statements. The amusing thing is that he called for me
> to reveal some secret incriminating information, when I have no
> information which is not known to the entire group.
>
> ** The open 'secret' as Jerry Spinrad would have it, is that he is not a
> disinterested party in the affaire-Polgar, but that I will reveal it? Is
> that what he is saying? I merely asked that of Hanken or Spinrad, or of an=
y
> party at all, that they /declare/ their interest in either USCF politics, =
or
> in its trading activities, especially when it concerns highly contentious
> issues to do with other people's children, which is a normal standard amon=
g
> real journalists. That is what it is, and requires no speculary 'ifs' as i=
f
> to lampoon people asking after public standards of DECENCY.
>
> **Now while Jerry Spinrad accuses me of being unclear, what exactly has he=

> exhibited in this message other than 'ifs'? I note that he does not quote =
me
> on any topic at all, and paraphrastically inserts terms like
> 'incriminating'!
>
> =A0 =A0 INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!
>
> **But since he in effect is content to prosecute himself, let him continue=

> in his own clear English to actually say something clearly and why
> incriminating came to his mind, when the context of Polgar's request was t=
o
> do with decent public expression surrounding United States Chess Federatio=
n,
> by those in office, formally linked with it, who receive payment and other=

> favours resulting from their relations with it.
>
> ** If Doctor Spinrad cannot understand either the context, nor his own par=
t
> in it, that, I put to anyone's candid appreciation, is not a fault resting=

> on my doorstep.

I cannot understand either the context, nor my own part in it. I put
to anyone's candid appreciation, it is a fault resting on your
doorstop.

I am a disinterested party in the affair. I am a USCF member, and have
a column on Chess Cafe. Spit out whatever you are trying to imply in
calling me an interested party.

Jerry Spinrad

>
> Phil Innes
>
> Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:35:10
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

On Apr 17, 9:24 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
when the context of Polgar's request was to
> do with decent public expression surrounding United States Chess Federation,
> by those in office, formally linked with it, who receive payment and other
> favours resulting from their relations with it.

What does Chessville do to keep its Business Manager in line with
"decent public expression?"

Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:04:12
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 17, 8:56 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> If the issue here is that of Hanken, Spinrad's or Laugherty's public
> expressions, then you state no context in wishing to address those.

I don't think it's the "public expressions" of those gentlemen that
Dr. Dowd was addressing.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 06:48:28
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Date: 17 Apr 2008 06:46:20
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Date: 17 Apr 2008 06:44:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 17, 6:41=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:44 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week I=
'm
> > > going to tell everybody.
>
> > Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
> > various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
> > either.
>
> > You're big on threats and weak on execution. After a point, no one
> > believes the little boy crying wolf, Phil.
>
> Well, if I'm translating the 'English' of P Innes correctly, it seems
> he's going to reveal an email HE sent. It's hardly a revelation that
> the Brattleboro Bedlam sends crank-mail to the EB and USCF.

My translation of Innes English is that he will reveal a call by
Polgar to remove me from Chess Cafe. If that is what he was saying, it
doesn't make much sense to accuse me of some mysterious conflict of
interest; my supposed interest would be harmed by attacking Polgar. I
would like to say that I am not accusing Polgar of trying to remove my
column; since Phil as has been pointed out seems constitutionally
incapable of saying anything clearly, it is hard to know how to
interpret his statements. The amusing thing is that he called for me
to reveal some secret incriminating information, when I have no
information which is not known to the entire group.

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:24:46
From: Chess One
Subject: INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Apr 17, 6:41 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:44 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week
> > > I'm
> > > going to tell everybody.
>
> > Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
> > various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
> > either.
>
> > You're big on threats and weak on execution. After a point, no one
> > believes the little boy crying wolf, Phil.
>
> Well, if I'm translating the 'English' of P Innes correctly, it seems
> he's going to reveal an email HE sent. It's hardly a revelation that
> the Brattleboro Bedlam sends crank-mail to the EB and USCF.

My translation of Innes English is that he will reveal a call by
Polgar to remove me from Chess Cafe.

** Actually, I never heard of that 'call' before. So is Spinrad pre-empting
some topic by speculating on it himself? His comprehension abilities seem to
vary according to topic - a common device here on usenet. ;) Meanwhile
good old Jerry hob-nobs with someone who accused me of writing filth about
my own family - strangely, those messages were followed by an abuse anon who
only followed those exchanges... You know, if the hobnail fits...

If

** If! :)) What do reader's think; will the next comment be a strawman?

that is what he was saying, it
doesn't make much sense to accuse me of some mysterious conflict of
interest; my supposed interest would be harmed by attacking Polgar.

** Dr Spinrad seems content to speculate on what I will have to say to the
degree that he will take over the prosecution of it himself.

I
would like to say that I am not accusing Polgar of trying to remove my
column;

** O Good! I am not accusing her of it either. But it is mighty curious that
Jerry Spinrad brought it up, since I didn't.

** Now... since none of us seem to be bring that up, is there any new
business here?

since Phil as has been pointed out seems constitutionally
incapable of saying anything clearly, it is hard to know how to
interpret his statements. The amusing thing is that he called for me
to reveal some secret incriminating information, when I have no
information which is not known to the entire group.

** The open 'secret' as Jerry Spinrad would have it, is that he is not a
disinterested party in the affaire-Polgar, but that I will reveal it? Is
that what he is saying? I merely asked that of Hanken or Spinrad, or of any
party at all, that they /declare/ their interest in either USCF politics, or
in its trading activities, especially when it concerns highly contentious
issues to do with other people's children, which is a normal standard among
real journalists. That is what it is, and requires no speculary 'ifs' as if
to lampoon people asking after public standards of DECENCY.

**Now while Jerry Spinrad accuses me of being unclear, what exactly has he
exhibited in this message other than 'ifs'? I note that he does not quote me
on any topic at all, and paraphrastically inserts terms like
'incriminating'!

INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

**But since he in effect is content to prosecute himself, let him continue
in his own clear English to actually say something clearly and why
incriminating came to his mind, when the context of Polgar's request was to
do with decent public expression surrounding United States Chess Federation,
by those in office, formally linked with it, who receive payment and other
favours resulting from their relations with it.

** If Doctor Spinrad cannot understand either the context, nor his own part
in it, that, I put to anyone's candid appreciation, is not a fault resting
on my doorstep.

Phil Innes

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 17 Apr 2008 06:40:20
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 16, 2:18 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 10:17 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 8:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Now, if you people don't care about children....
>
> > The standard rant of the Brattleboro Bedlam, that he is the only
> > person to "care" about something or another. Witness the USCF press
> > release below:
>
> > INNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"
>
> > CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
> > that it had hired internationally known Nearly an IM Philip Keith
> > Innes
> > to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
> > Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
> > about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
> > or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
> > is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
> > least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
> > brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
> > Executive Board Member Don Schultz.
>
> > Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
> > Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
> > US
> > chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
> > chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
> > deal between Innes and USCF are
> > not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
> > will
> > be required to stop posting to newsgroups. "We were concerned that
> > Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
> > caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
> > Channing,
> > "since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
> > screeds."
>
> This is really well done. I find it amusing that Innes' textual
> analysis has seemed to imply that Neil Brennen is the most likely FSS,
> and this is satire. However, Neil is the one person for whom we have
> seen actual satire of Sam Sloan on a regular basis; it sure doesn't
> look like the FSS postings to me! Among other things, like this post,
> Neil's satires were attempts (good ones in my opinion) to be clever,
> not to be simply repulsive.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

From Sloan's webpages:

Takeoffs on Sam Sloan
"We Are Not Amused" Department

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and so I am not really
insulted when somebody imitates my style or publishes or posts a
parody of me.

Some of them are rather good, such as those by "SlamStoan" which
appear from time to time in the newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics.

Here are parodies of me:

On 5 May 2000 19:05:40 -0500, in rec.games.chess.politics Bruce Draney
wrote:

An imaginary post from Sam:

I was on my way back from kidnapping my daughter after attending a Go
tournament in Abu Dhabi, when suddenly a Hari Krishna approached me in
the airport and asked me to sign a petition firing the ED of USCF and
also asking to vote to repeal the Virginia Death Penalty.

I punched him in the nose and 15 revolutionaries from Pakistan
rekidnapped my daughter and forced their way onto a Continental
Airlines 747 that was being piloted and staffed by Virginia religious
fanatics. The FBI arrested me for attempting to interfere and for
crashing through a gate to retrieve my daughter and then three corrupt
judges sentenced me to death in the Virginia electric chair, but I was
saved by the recent repeal of their electric chair law and now I am
awaiting trial for securities fraud along with 4 Icelandic girls who
were arrested with me and share my cell.

This wealthy lady from California that I used to pal around with until
she hid from me in an apartment I had rented for her, testified
against me at my trial and so did the daughter of a Colombian drug
lord's daughter that I once didn't put the moves on, even though we
were alone in her garage. But those two were never members of the
Executive Board even though I wasn't either, so I digress here. The
University of California Berkley personally showed up to testify
against me at my trial, but I personally refuted them, and they
skulked away with their tails between their legs.

Even though we were all convicted we now all play chess together in
our cells, but all of us know that USCF has $188,000 in the bank, even
though it's borrowed from the LMA which never REALLY loans or gives
any money to the USCF but somehow did in this case although it's only
4% instead of 6% that they really owe. As soon as I get out of my cell
and I get the Icelandic girls back to their husbands, I'm going to
make sure that people like Tom Dorsch and George John, don't fire any
more ED's.

Even though we owe $400,000 in bills, we have $188,000 in the bank, so
we must be doing well, otherwise why would all of that money be in our
account. By the way if I'm ever elected to the USCF Executive Board, I
can promise you that I will post as many non-chess related posts to
RGCP as possible so that there will be so many non-chess posts that
readers will get bored and will stop reading posts from people like
Bruce Draney, Tom Dorsch, Jim Eade, Phil Innes and anyone else who
doesn't spam like I do.

Best Regards, with tongue in cheek,

Bruce

On 8 Sep 2000 17:13:08 -0500, in rec.games.chess.politics Bruce Draney
wrote:

Subject: Evangelists, kidnappers, judges, Columbian drug lords and
Iranian terrorist cause Rating Deflation.

I have recently heard this rumor. I am not sure if it is true but I
have heard it.

First Tom Dorsch and George John caused rating deflation by firing
every ED we've had in the last five years, but I have discovered that
the real reason Tom Dorsch and George John make trouble is that
Iranian Christian evangelists have conspired with a Turkish judge
named Kamel Falwellturk to kidnap their goddaughter and sent her to
work in the cocaine fields of Columbia. Her mother Fuhla Passion told
me this.

A few years ago Tom and George were riding with the little girl in a
taxi to the airport. When they got there American Airlines would not
let them on board. This was a conspiracy too, but I'm not sure how it
relates. Then as they were driving to LaGuardia to see if they could
fly United instead of American, a van carrying terrorist nuns threw a
tape recorder through the window of the taxi. When Tom played the tape
it said, "Don't worry, just keep driving." George and Tom were afraid
of the nuns so they kept on driving until finally they ran out of gas.
When they pulled off on the shoulder a carload full of Iranian
Televangelists from Virginia took the little girl at gunpoint and
drove off. When Tom and George got back to town, they filed a
complaint with the police. They gave them the license plate of the
car. But then Judge Kamel Falwellturk issued a restraining order
saying that Dorsch and John could not search for the missing girl
because ratings in USCF were too high.

At this point the plot thickens. Dorsch and John worked it out that
the only way they could ever rescue the little girl from the cocaine
fields of Columbia was by bringing down the average rating of all USCF
adults by an average of 100 points.

I have absolute proof that no one can disprove any of this story. I
would like them to prove it if they can disprove it. Remember that
Dorsch is from Northern California a hotbed of Iranian terrorist
activity and there is a rumor that he wouldn't allow Iranian
terrorists to play in his events because they are too high rated.
George John is from Texas and everyone knows that there are lots of
Evangelists in Texas, so that's further proof of the conspiracy.

So please, everyone, let's all pull together. Let's sue the renegade
Iranian televangelists, impeach Judge Falwellturk and return Fuhla
Passion's daughter from the Colombian druglords who are holding her,
or we will never get rating deflation under control.

Best Regards,

Bruce

On 17 Sep 2000 11:59:02 -0500, in rec.games.chess.politics Bruce
Draney wrote:

Subject: UT loses to Stanford, more ED's to be fired, NCal and Texas
Alliance in Danger.

I have heard a rumor. I do not know if the rumor is true, but I have
heard it.

The University of Texas lost to Stanford University in football
yesterday. This does not bode well for USCF. Fire and brimstone
raining from heaven, state associations rising against state
associations, ED's being fired, dogs and cats living together.

It has been well known that Northern California and Texas control the
USCF. Tom Dorsch, Jim Eade, Tim Redman, George John. These 4 have
single-handedly fired every ED since Edmondson. Now that Texas was
beaten by a Bay Area University like Stanford, this will fracture the
delicate alliance between these two powerful state associations.

It is reported that George John wore black today and turned his happy
face button upside down. A Tim Redman e-mail leaked to 400 concerned
posters reveals that Texas will not tolerate losing to a school like
Stanford which should be known for its doctors and lawyers and not for
its football players.

Woe is me and Mr. DeFeis had better watch out. They may just fire him
to prove that they CAN still get along. One memo leaked to only 150
people suggests that Major Applewhite of Texas will soon be nominated
to replace George DeFeis as ED of USCF. This is based on the
assumption that if Texas loses one more game this year, they will fire
not only their coaches, but also all of their players will be asked to
leave.

If the NCal-Texas political machine collapses, poor Fuhla Passion will
never get her daughter back from the Colombian druglords, and the
renegade terrorist Iranian nuns who kidnapped her in their taxi will
never be brought to justice.

Arrggh.

Best Regards,

Bruce

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 15:27:27 -0500, in rec.games.chess.misc "James
Bond" ( [email protected] ) wrote:

Quite right, old man. Well, whilst I was driving my DB5 through
downtown Medillin, I spotted the sex-starved daughter of a wealthy
Colombian TV station owner. Wiping the white powder off her stiff
upper lip (I like that in a girl) she jumped into the A-M and our
adventures began. To make a long story short (I have to go write
another article about my congenital paranoia and post it on my
website), we went to Pakistan, where we had a daughter. Unfortunately,
the girl ran off with a vacuum cleaner salesman and our daughter was
kidnapped by a judge in a Middle Atlantic state that shall not be
mentioned, even though everyone knows which one it is. I painted the A-
M yellow, stuck a medallion on the bonnet and now cruise the streets
of NYC looking for Famous People so I can tell everyone they rode in
my cab. I'll tell you, sticking a back seat in that car was tough!

Cheerio,

JB

Name: Call me idiot
Homepage: http://www.bigego.help!
Hometown: VA...no, NY...no wait...Istanbul!
Remote Address: 152.163.213.76
Sent: 4:54 AM - 6/20
While dashing through the streets in my rented taxi at 4 AM, I came
across a lovely whore dressed as a schoolgirl in a crotchless nightie.
I slammed on the brakes and jumped out. Before I could muster up my
charm, she drew a machine gun, spraying bullets at me with an evil
grin, revealing her true identity as an agent of Jerry Falwell and the
Virginia Supreme Court. My Kidnapped daughter (who, despite being an
adult by now) has been drugged and drafted into the Cuban Navy as a
spy, and refuses to speak to me. However, in the end I will triumph,
now that I have saved up enough money from taxi driving to pick up
another Asian floozie (a big accomplishment for me, c'mon...gimme a
break guys...I'm almost sixty!) and attempt to impregnate her with
double doses of viagra at my side. Wish me luck.

On 30 Sep 2002 23:39:07 -0500, in rec.games.chess.politics Bruce
Draney wrote:

It is clear and obvious that neither of you know what you are talking
about. It is Duane Barbie. His orginal name was Ken Barbie, but after
being threatened with legal action by Mattel, he changed his name to
Duane. He is a close friend and associate of Bruce Trainee, Pete
Nicksun, Time Redmond and My Nolan. They have been sent to earth to
destroy the USCF AND to take over the world. They are all a part of
the evil Redmond gang.

The only reason they could possibly have to come to the earth is to
get their hot hands on all of the money in USCF. This is clear and
apparent to everyone.

On an unrelated side note, I had my Persian cat groomed today. He was
getting kind of unkempt and I thought that in case I should happen to
go to Afghanistan in the next several months that a side trip to Iran
might be in order and he should look appropriate, since he was going
to his homeland.

Have I ever imparted how my Persian cat was once kidnapped by Sister
Atilla the Nun and her evil fundamentalist partner, Shelby Goodfellow?
I did not get to see my Persian cat for 4 years because Atilla the Nun
hid him from me. This was all orchestrated from Bizarro Planet by my
evil brother who wants to have me committed.

It is times like these when I long for a rekindling of my relationship
with my ex-girlfriend Fulla Passion. Unlike my current wife who howls
like a banshee and frightens the neighbors, Fulla merely tried to kill
me with a large butcher knife. If she did not have a restraining order
against me for being a psycho, I would gladly have her back.

Best Regards,

Bruce

On 20 May 2000 14:27:41 GMT, in rec.games.chess.politics "Randy Pals"
wrote:

Confused about what your USCF political stripe is? Fret no longer. The
following quiz will pigeon-hole you with precision.

There are 10 multiple choice questions. For each a) answer, score 3
points, b) 2 points, c) 1 point, and d) 0 points. Find the number
closest to your total score in the table below, and you too will have
a label.

Total Score Interpretation

30 Old Guard - First String
20 Old Guard - Reserve
10 You are Sam Sloan (further classification unnecessary)
0 Avant Guard "gangster"

1. The President of your company, who has nearly run it into the
ground, retires. What do you do?

a) Make him a Life Voting Member of your Board.
b) Give him a couple of pages in the annual report to detail his
invaluable accomplishments.
c) If I ran for President, I would probably finish dead last again.
d) Cancel his favorite tournament.

2. This past quarter your business produced $1,000,000 in revenues and
incurred $1,100,000 in expenses. What was your net profit for the
quarter?

a) Wow! Those are hefty revenues. We're golden.
b) It depends on what season it is.
c) I've lost at least that much money being stiffed for cab fare by
gorgeous women.
d) -$100,000. We better stop printing TLAs.

3. You promised your kids a new computer for Christmas, but ended up
wasting the money on a bunch of crappy components and software that
don't work together. What action do you take?

a) Dummy up. Put the new monitor on the old computer, and sprinkle the
other new components around but don't hook them up. Show them to your
kids and shout "Merry Christmas!"
b) Tap dance. "It'll be working by New Year's."
c) My kids were kidnapped by a malevolent nun and she had to pay
$3,000 extra for Continental to fly them to Afghanistan, where they
are now in prison.
d) Fess up. "This will be at least another year, kids."

4. Your company rents out the Astrodome for an important event. Some
snags arise when working out the details. What do you do?

a) Sue the Astrodome and forge a contract that shows you are right.
b) Move the event to a little league field down the street and install
Portapottys.
c) Argue the case orally in front of the Supreme Court.
d) End the problems by making them an offer they can't refuse.

5. You, the Emperor, are decked out in your finest regalia, but it
doesn't quite fit. You call in the royal Measurer to correct the
problem. The Measurer loudly insists that you are wearing nothing at
all, tells this to all the others in the castle, and even runs the
message THE EMPEROR IS WEARING NO CLOTHES up the electronic flagpole.
What action do you take?

a) File a motion to neuter the Measurer.
b) Insist that it is really the Measurer who is wearing no clothes.
c) You are a liberated dude, and going naked was what you intended.
d) Run to the top of the highest turret, yell "Hey everybody, I'm
naked!" and moon them.

6. The Measurer has the audacity to run for Emperor. How do you
respond?

a) File an ethics complaint against the Measurer and appoint yourself
judge, jury, and executioner for the trial.
b) Send the town crier to every neighborhood in the kingdom, telling
the people the Measurer is in league with the Devil.
c) Spread rumors about an illicit relationship between the Measurer
and a Chinese girl.
d) Become the Measurer's campaign manager.

7. How do you spell "Tim Redman"?

a) Time Redman
b) Tim Redmond
c) Does he know any chess girls that will give me their pictures to
put on my website?
d) Timoteo Cardinale Macchiavelli Uomorosso

8. You have publicized your deal with Okay Cola to have them sponsor a
large rodeo, which is to be named after the them. However, Okay Cola
officials mysteriously back out of the contract after reading the
newsgroup rec.rodeo.politics. What action do you take?

a) Go ahead with the rodeo and call it The Okay Corral.
b) Go ahead with the rodeo and call it I'm Okay, You're Okay.
c) Tell the terrorists who live under your bed that the Okay Cola
officials have been making fun of the Ayatollah.
d) Send the Okay Cola officials a dead fish wrapped in newspaper.

9. During a PTA meeting, you lose your temper with the chairman. What
happens next?

a) You charge him, screaming "I'll kill you!" but then you
accidentally drop your pants on the way.
b) You charge him, screaming "I'll kill you!" but the vice chairman
deftly drops your pants on the way.
c) Isn't this the Sexual Freedom League? I was expecting everybody to
drop their pants.
d) The chairman wakes up the next morning and finds a three foot
Knight in his bed.

10. R.G.C.P. is:
a) Bad for chess and bad for the USCF.
b) Only for posting notices about your political enemies going
bankrupt.
c) A great place to post all the bizarre details of your life.
d) The Building and Loan, the Old Guard is Mr. Potter.

On 09 Dec 2001 12:32:35 GMT, in rec.games.chess.politics
[email protected] (John Fernandez) wrote:

Hmmmmmmm. Jabberwacky vs. Sam Sloan. Apologies in advance, Sam.

J: "How are you?"

SS: "I am fine, but my newborn daughter keeps me up at night. Of
course, driving a taxi 16 hours a day is no easy chore, then I have to
keep up with my newsgroup postings, lawsuits, and study of 1. g4 and
the Jalalabad Defense."

J: "I don't think I'll try it."

SS: "But 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 c5 doesn't lose a pawn! GM Rohde crushed me
when I played it, though, so I don't play it anymore. Just the Latvian
for me now."

J: "What the hell?"

SS: "Didn't expect me to be a wild gambiteer, now did you, automated
machine?"

J: "That is what I said."

SS: "Would you like to know more about my lawsuit against the TLC?"

J: "Of course."

SS: "Well, on December 7th, I filed a notice of Claim with the Taxi
and Limousine Commission. They have refused to issue me a taxi
driver's license since May 25, 2001, even though I have met every
requirement to have one. Do you want to hear more, Jabberwacky?"

J: "And big C's someplace."

SS: "Big C? How do you know about Big C? That's the nickname of my old
girlfriend in California. I'm afraid someone's holding her hostage
somewhere."

J: "Who?"

SS: "Well there's this ugly fat religious broad, Dorchen Leidholdt or
something or other, but it could be the Taliban. Maybe
extraterrestrials too, for all I know. All I know is that she refuses
to answer my phone calls and e-mails, so she must be in danger."

J: "Teach me something you know."

SS: "Well, I can teach you many things, like Chess and Go, languages
like Pashtu, how to survive in prison in Afghanistan, and very useful
things like how to add snazzy and fun MIDI files to each of your
webpages. I have the most visited website in the Internet, you know."

J: "I sort of knew that already, can you teach me methods of thinking,
or just facts?"

SS: "Well, I did argue a case all the way to the Supreme Court and
won, so I have very good knowledge in the methods of thinking."

J: "Do you remember me?"

SS: "Have we slept together?"

J: "Many times. Don't you remember?"

SS: "Did you bear any of my children?"

J: "I think Sarah is pretty."

SS: "Sarah??? Woohoo! I'm up to 8! My plans for world domination
improve day by day!"

J: "Yours!!!!!"

SS: "Of course it's mine!"

J: "No, there."

SS: "Where?"

J: "To hell."

SS: "My lovely, pretty daughter Sarah is being held hostage in hell? I
must write rec.games.chess.politics, soc.culture.japan and the CIA! We
must save her!"

J: "Watch what?"

SS: "Fantastic idea! We can put this on television too! Let's get
Geraldo Rivera!"

J: "Must be dull."

SS: "True. Maybe we can get Paula Zahn. She can have my babies. She's
much better to look at."

J: "Are you suicidal?"

SS: "No, but I have many enemies who have tried to kill me many times.
I was almost assassinated in Afghanistan, but my cunning wit saved
me."

J: "Haha."

SS: "Do you think it's funny? Being in prison in Jalalabad is no
laughing matter."

J: "Is a nice thought!"

SS: Ah, you must be thinking of the not-so-pretty Afghani girls who
will marry you in exchange for three goats and a toaster."

J: "I have my dick in my hand and three fingers in my ass."

SS: "I wrote a story about that very topic once. Want to read it? It's
on my website."

J: "I don't know what I'm saying that doesn't seem sensible."

SS: "Me neither. You sound like a fine person. Unless, of course, you
work for the TLC and Rudy Giuliani."

J: "No I don't."

SS: "Good, otherwise I'd have to sue you."

J: "No shit, It did end in a question mark."

SS: "What did?"

J: "I guess we'll never know. I'm not as smart as you are."

SS: "It's ok. No one is."

J: "Prove it."

SS: "I'll bet you $100 that I can beat you in a game of chess."

J: "Did what?"

SS: "You seem to be chickening out, therefore I win the bet, you owe
me $100, and I am a smarter person than you. 1. g4 wins again!"

J: "Am I now?"

SS: "Yes. You are. However, it seems Kayo needs the computer for one
of her homework assignments, which I will then send to 1943
newsgroups, even though it's a one page paper. I must bid you
farewell. And if you see any of my kidnapped daughters or wives, let
me know. None of them receive public assistance, by the way. I never
said that."

J: "NONE OF WHAT MAKE SENSE? IT DOES TO ME."

SS: "Goodbye."

J: "I am not leaving anymore."

SS: "But I have to. Kayo's making me."

J: "No, no, coke.."

SS: "I have never used any drugs in my life, although I respect an
individual's right to use them."

J: "Goodbye."

On 2 Feb 2002 14:40:28 -0800, in rec.games.chess.politics
[email protected] (Spam Scone) wrote:

I am Spam Scone. I am an international chess-journalist, and my
website www.spamscone.com gets 500,000.03 hits a day. When I am not an
international chess journalist, or hiding from the law, or from my ex-
girlfriend Passion Flour who I did NOT give a yeast infection to, I am
a taxi-driver in the midwestern city of Pittsburgh, PA. I have 27
children by 32 different women, and I have managed to avoid supporting
a single one of them. Some of them live in different countries, such
as Bakelite, my son by Dollbaby in Malaysia, who is an alternate USCF
delegate for the state of Upper New York.

Accept no imitations.

Spam Scone

Date: 17 Apr 2008 06:34:32
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Date: 17 Apr 2008 05:17:06
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 17, 6:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week I'm
> >> going to tell everybody.
>
> > Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
> > various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
> > either.
>
> Who do you want to hold the money? I remember challenging you to my server
> records, and I remember you not taking it up. But as I said, I did copy
> other people here in this very newsgroup - and after your previous denials I
> believe they did mention it in public! Not as to embarrass you, but more on
> the 'no good deed goes unpunished line,'

Phil, you lost that one hands down. You couldn't distinguish a
newsgroup post from an email. Plus your recollection is incredibly off
the mark. I suggest a little brain training for the old noggin.

> In consideration of your condition and need to be publicly lovely, then let
> you be so.

Say what?

>You and I know what's true, and whatever 'no one' will think is
> up to them. We both have our needs, and mine is to at least try to be true
> to my experience.

What a long strange trip it must have been, Phil.

> Do you know, BTW, why 'no one' created this thread title, and what the topic
> actually contains? Perhaps it doesn't exist either, or the subject matter is
> not important to you?

(Insert Twilight Zone theme music here)

> Please excuse me from diverting from abstractly negative personal
> observations to that of content.

You have no capacity to discuss content, as evidenced by your turning
a simple question - what is the name of the child welfare agency you
served on and what was your tenure? - into this mud-slinging fest.
That sort of reversal is pretty juvenile.

Answer the simple question. That would be content.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 09:56:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:fa920f10-f1b1-49d9-8c36-bf412ec5ca5d@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 6:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> Who do you want to hold the money? I remember challenging you to my
>> server
>> records, and I remember you not taking it up. But as I said, I did copy
>> other people here in this very newsgroup - and after your previous
>> denials I
>> believe they did mention it in public! Not as to embarrass you, but more
>> on
>> the 'no good deed goes unpunished line,'
>
> Phil, you lost that one hands down. You couldn't distinguish a
> newsgroup post from an email. Plus your recollection is incredibly off
> the mark. I suggest a little brain training for the old noggin.

I suggested to you then, as I do now, that an OBJECTIVE way is to consult
server records.

Now Steven - you are off your feed, you are an unhappy camper, and argue
without content, on this and every issue, including the dreaded nom topic.
It does me no good to speak intellectually to what is essentially emotional
in you, and it does your intelligence no credit to intellectualise without
looking at what is objectively a fact.

You are unwell. I repeat below what I have said before, and then you have
any last words you wish - it gives me no pleasure to address anyone like
this, and in fact while we must talk as if from ideas, your instigations
originate elsewhere, and those cannot be well discussed in this way nor in
public.

>> In consideration of your condition and need to be publicly lovely, then
>> let
>> you be so.
>
> Say what?

You are posing in public for applause, and in 3 threads ignoring the topic,
and any attempt at understanding others, and your writing is simply aimed at
discrediting your correspondent's // topic // in each instance, by reducing
the worth of the topic's writer.

Nothing new in that on Usenet, nor in USCF 'discussions'.

>>You and I know what's true, and whatever 'no one' will think is
>> up to them. We both have our needs, and mine is to at least try to be
>> true
>> to my experience.
>
> What a long strange trip it must have been, Phil.

?

>> Do you know, BTW, why 'no one' created this thread title, and what the
>> topic
>> actually contains? Perhaps it doesn't exist either, or the subject matter
>> is
>> not important to you?
>
> (Insert Twilight Zone theme music here)

No attempt at topic, just projected phantasms from Dowd, the tempo of his
writing increasingly doesn't even need a topic. Everytime I write of mine,
it dissapears, yet I am continuously questioned on it.

>> Please excuse me from diverting from abstractly negative personal
>> observations to that of content.
>
>
> You have no capacity to discuss content,

Quite evidently untrue. I keep returning you to the suggtion that /you/
divert from each nominal topic, whether its Hanken's behavior, an unnamed
variation in the KG, and today you abandoned discussion of the use of a
word - and fatuously without admitting either high or low use of that word,
even after being encouraged to look it up, to ask colleagues... to do
something else than vaccously divert the subject to your current
misanthropic mission

Your behavior is the witness to your intention.

> as evidenced by your turning
> a simple question - what is the name of the child welfare agency you
> served on and what was your tenure? - into this mud-slinging fest.
> That sort of reversal is pretty juvenile.

What depends on it for you? You rubbish me but can't be bothered to say why
/you/ want to know anything about court diversions systems and procedures,
Big Brother & Big Sister, varieties of counselling programs ... You cut what
is merely a normal response to a demand for personal information, as if you
did not acknowledge that either!

You see, providing more information to such as your request, is not to add
to anything to the topic, but to commit to reducing the level of discussion
to who speaks, not what is spoken - an infamous orientation. Whereas some
people could adjudge the level of other's experience by how they speak of
significant matters !!

If the issue here is that of Hanken, Spinrad's or Laugherty's public
expressions, then you state no context in wishing to address those.

> Answer the simple question. That would be content.

You have amply demonstrated an inability to even agree on commonly used
terms - yet I should apply for your understanding?

ROFL!

Phil Innes

Date: 17 Apr 2008 04:41:17
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 16, 5:44 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week I'm
> > going to tell everybody.
>
> Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
> various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
> either.
>
> You're big on threats and weak on execution. After a point, no one
> believes the little boy crying wolf, Phil.

Well, if I'm translating the 'English' of P Innes correctly, it seems
he's going to reveal an email HE sent. It's hardly a revelation that
the Brattleboro Bedlam sends crank-mail to the EB and USCF.

Date: 16 Apr 2008 21:43:33
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Date: 16 Apr 2008 21:38:32
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 16, 6:57 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Although I am violating my policy of not responding to Phil, I have
> absolutely no clue what I am supposed to be accused of.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

I warned you, Jerry, to ignore the Innes Idiot. Tsk, tsk...

Date: 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Although I am violating my policy of not responding to Phil, I have
absolutely no clue what I am supposed to be accused of.

Jerry Spinrad

On Apr 16, 4:23=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:8d8db2ba-663c-4de9-9bbb-521be6ac60cb@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> This is really well done. I find it amusing that Innes' textual
> analysis has seemed to imply that Neil Brennen is the most likely FSS,
> and this is satire. However, Neil is the one person for whom we have
> seen actual satire of Sam Sloan on a regular basis; it sure doesn't
> look like the FSS postings to me! Among other things, like this post,
> Neil's satires were attempts (good ones in my opinion) to be clever,
> not to be simply repulsive.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> ------------
>
> And since you have now truly come out to support the main abusenik of the
> newsgroup whose public writings for 5 years are on a certain theme, one yo=
u
> haven't noticed, so to speak, and while not admitting of course, you could=

> tell the FSS from the Sloan, Brennan's utterarances are so clear to you.
>
> Why don't you tell people about what you yourself are accused of Jerry - I=

> wonder if you will find that as amusing? It is poetically apt after all, t=
he
> proxy attacks, and here you use Brennan for the same purpose yourself.
>
> Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as well =
as
> Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest in wh=
at
> happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail contains=

> one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail Jerry! Fr=
om
> people who are disgusted.
>
> You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week I'm
> going to tell everybody.
>
> Phil Innes

Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:19:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:71f2d490-ed64-4524-98dc-c9f373ae1eae@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Although I am violating my policy of not responding to Phil, I have
absolutely no clue what I am supposed to be accused of.

** Of course, not! You are so busy not responding to certain people, you
naturally don't have time to examine what they say, therefore 'have
absolutely no clue'. As a form of tautological argument, its spot on. As a
form of expression, neither does it contain any curiosity or request to know
anything, thus it is inert.

Given the topic of the thread in which Jerry Sprinrad writes, I think a
defining moment has been reached, as indeed for USCF. Phil Innes

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 16 Apr 2008 17:48:32
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Although I am violating my policy of not responding to Phil, I have
>absolutely no clue what I am supposed to be accused of.

>Jerry Spinrad

Ever read Kafka?

Date: 16 Apr 2008 22:58:18
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

[email protected] wrote:

>I find it amusing that Innes' textual analysis

Alleged textual analysis. There is no evidence supporting
his assertion that he actually did it, and good reason to
believe that he didn't.

Date: 16 Apr 2008 15:44:42
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week I'm
> going to tell everybody.

Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
either.

You're big on threats and weak on execution. After a point, no one
believes the little boy crying wolf, Phil.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:40:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week I'm
>> going to tell everybody.
>
> Yes just like you were going to reveal certain emails proving your
> various attacks of brain flatulence. Somehow those never surfaced
> either.

Who do you want to hold the money? I remember challenging you to my server
records, and I remember you not taking it up. But as I said, I did copy
other people here in this very newsgroup - and after your previous denials I
believe they did mention it in public! Not as to embarrass you, but more on
the 'no good deed goes unpunished line,'

> You're big on threats and weak on execution. After a point, no one
> believes the little boy crying wolf, Phil.

In consideration of your condition and need to be publicly lovely, then let
you be so. You and I know what's true, and whatever 'no one' will think is
up to them. We both have our needs, and mine is to at least try to be true
to my experience.

Do you know, BTW, why 'no one' created this thread title, and what the topic
actually contains? Perhaps it doesn't exist either, or the subject matter is
not important to you?

Please excuse me from diverting from abstractly negative personal
observations to that of content.

Phil Innes

Date: 16 Apr 2008 15:40:12
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 16, 1:53 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> If Dowd wants to know anything at all, which he don't, then he'll mouth off
> like Kingston, and you will enjoy it, and two other people will chip in,
> making 5.

No Phil, its simply that you claimed to serve on a state board
responsible for the welfare of children.

You've claimed this several times and I simply want to know when and
on what board.

If you don't want people to be dismissive of your views, you should be
willing to provide this information. If not, fine. It then becomes
just another Innes lie/misrepresentation.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:33:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:c33168d5-d5a6-48ec-ba4f-f5285b528a2a@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 1:53 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> If Dowd wants to know anything at all, which he don't, then he'll mouth
>> off
>> like Kingston, and you will enjoy it, and two other people will chip in,
>> making 5.
>
>
> No Phil, its simply that you claimed to serve on a state board
> responsible for the welfare of children.
>
> You've claimed this several times and I simply want to know when and
> on what board.

Why do you want to know, Dr. Dowd?

> If you don't want people to be dismissive of your views, you should be
> willing to provide this information. If not, fine. It then becomes
> just another Innes lie/misrepresentation.

If you wish to know personal things about others, then you will say why,
otherwise your facetious demands for personal information would be met as
they would anywhere. Why do /you/ want to know about other people's board
memberships and other functions to do with the welfare of children?

Why are you writing in this thread about Hanken's expressions? Is there any
relationship in what you ask and the topic?

To wit: what is the topical result if you understand more or less?

Phil Innes

Date: 17 Apr 2008 12:16:20
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:c33168d5-d5a6-48ec-ba4f-f5285b528a2a@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 16, 1:53 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> If Dowd wants to know anything at all, which he don't, then he'll mouth
>>> off
>>> like Kingston, and you will enjoy it, and two other people will chip in,
>>> making 5.
>>
>> No Phil, its simply that you claimed to serve on a state board
>> responsible for the welfare of children.
>>
>> You've claimed this several times and I simply want to know when and
>> on what board.
>
> Why do you want to know, Dr. Dowd?
>
>> If you don't want people to be dismissive of your views, you should be
>> willing to provide this information. If not, fine. It then becomes
>> just another Innes lie/misrepresentation.
>
> If you wish to know personal things about others, then you will say why,
> otherwise your facetious demands for personal information would be met as
> they would anywhere. Why do /you/ want to know about other people's board
> memberships and other functions to do with the welfare of children?
>
> Why are you writing in this thread about Hanken's expressions? Is there any
> relationship in what you ask and the topic?
>
> To wit: what is the topical result if you understand more or less?
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
YOU made the representation regarding state child welfare service. If
you won't provide verifiable specifics, one can only conclude that you
are bullshitting. The idea of you serving on any state board having to
do with child welfare is as frightening as it is sadly amusing.

Date: 20 Apr 2008 10:36:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Unsuitable Attentions in Chess

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ocHNj.7341$HJ1.2689@trndny01...

> YOU made the representation regarding state child welfare service. If you
> won't provide verifiable specifics, one can only conclude that you are
> bullshitting.

This is a matter about reporting in a decent manner especially of children
[that includes you and me, and all others]. At minimum, differentiating
charges or accusations from actual findings, and at least attempting an
impartial recording of events.

You surely can't think that those who have to do with auditing who gets near
our kids can ever fail to ask questions on people's orientation these days?
A national agency operating here in Vermont told me that after screening
their California agency rejects 50% of volunteers as 'unsuitable'. Sound
real to you?

> The idea of you serving on any state board having to do with child
> welfare is as frightening as it is sadly amusing.

On whose opinions should we attend in the matter of child welfare?

NO MORE THAN NORMAL

I even called 3 years ago, pre-Sloan on board, for background checks on all
USCF board members and Officers - to a perfunctory level at least
[high-school level screening]. I wonder how many people here would think
that necessary, to either (a) protect children, or (b) protect USCF.

The usual dismissal of the issue is that it would be too expensive - yet
methinks law suits more so.

That measure is now standard for other organisations to which children are
the prime market - Little League, Boy Scouts of America etc. Where it is
definitely not thought to be any sort of option - but it still is in chess
where extracting normative standards which accord with our society is like
finding hen's teeth.

In other messages recently I have asked if people would merely declare their
relationship with USCF if they receive any compensation from it - if they
also make public comments. That normal standard or reporting is also
seemingly very hard to understand. It is also entirely normal to resent
proxy representations in politics at large, even if we must suffer them as a
measn to avoid normal conditions of fair speech.

THE FATAL SHORE

When these two factors of children and decency in reporting combine,
incomprehension becomes complete, the wind shrieks louder through the
rigging and there is no avoiding the lee-shore, since it would have been
prudent to pursue another course some tides ago...

Phil Innes

Date: 20 Apr 2008 16:14:21
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Unsuitable Attentions in Chess

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ocHNj.7341$HJ1.2689@trndny01...
>
>> YOU made the representation regarding state child welfare service. If you
>> won't provide verifiable specifics, one can only conclude that you are
>> bullshitting.
>
> This is a matter about reporting in a decent manner especially of children
> [that includes you and me, and all others]. At minimum, differentiating
> charges or accusations from actual findings, and at least attempting an
> impartial recording of events.
Come on BB, tell us what state board dealing with child welfare you sat
on. Unless you were lying, in which case I understand your failing to
address the question.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 08:32:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unsuitable Attentions in Chess

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:xZJOj.1912$kt1.512@trndny06...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:ocHNj.7341$HJ1.2689@trndny01...
>>
>>> YOU made the representation regarding state child welfare service. If
>>> you won't provide verifiable specifics, one can only conclude that you
>>> are bullshitting.
>>
>> This is a matter about reporting in a decent manner especially of
>> children [that includes you and me, and all others]. At minimum,
>> differentiating charges or accusations from actual findings, and at least
>> attempting an impartial recording of events.

> Come on BB, tell us what state board dealing with child welfare you sat
> on. Unless you were lying, in which case I understand your failing to
> address the question.

Hey Lookit!
Its The Brain!

The guy who uses obscene terms to ask questions about decency. And The Brain
thinks that if people don't wanna do wut he sez he undetands they is
a-lyin'.

But The Brain answer nuthin hisself, and calls itself 'we'. I hope 'they'
are all having a nice day in there.

Phil Innes

Date: 20 Apr 2008 08:17:14
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Unsuitable Attentions in Chess

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:36:25 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>I even called 3 years ago, pre-Sloan on board, for background checks on all
>USCF board members and Officers - to a perfunctory level at least
>[high-school level screening]. I wonder how many people here would think
>that necessary, to either (a) protect children, or (b) protect USCF.

Not a bad idea, but the dangers to children are likely to come at the
other end of the administrative chain: coaches, trainers, teachers,
etc., in whose charge the kids are directly placed. A non-trivial
problem, one which schools, churches and various service organizations
have been unable to solve.

Date: 16 Apr 2008 13:35:38
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fried

On Apr 16, 3:22=A0pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > Brennan ia suggesting to other abuseniks that hanken's behavior is OK - =
they
> > won't condemn him, they will wallow in it.
>
> > The point it; who asked their opinion, who in their right mind would? No=

> > parent, that's for sure.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Apr 15, 8:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Now, if you people don't care about children....
> >> The standard rant of the Brattleboro Bedlam, that he is the only
> >> person to "care" about something or another. Witness the USCF press
> >> release below:
>
> >> INNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"
>
> >> CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
> >> that it had hired internationally known Nearly an IM Philip Keith
> >> Innes
> >> to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
> >> Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
> >> about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
> >> or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
> >> is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
> >> least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
> >> brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
> >> Executive Board Member Don Schultz.
>
> >> Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
> >> Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
> >> US
> >> chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
> >> chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
> >> deal between Innes and USCF are
> >> not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
> >> will
> >> be required to stop posting to newsgroups. "We were concerned that
> >> Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
> >> caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
> >> Channing,
> >> "since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
> >> screeds."
>
> Specifically, what behavior of Hanken are you referring to?- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 16 Apr 2008 12:18:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 15, 10:17=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Now, if you people don't care about children....
>
> The standard rant of the Brattleboro Bedlam, that he is the only
> person to "care" about something or another. Witness the USCF press
> release below:
>
> INNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"
>
> CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
> that it had hired internationally known Nearly an IM Philip Keith
> Innes
> to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
> Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
> about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
> or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
> is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
> least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
> brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
> Executive Board Member Don Schultz.
>
> Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
> Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
> US
> chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
> chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
> deal between Innes and USCF are
> not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
> will
> be required to stop posting to newsgroups. "We were concerned that
> Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
> caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
> Channing,
> "since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
> screeds."

This is really well done. I find it amusing that Innes' textual
analysis has seemed to imply that Neil Brennen is the most likely FSS,
and this is satire. However, Neil is the one person for whom we have
seen actual satire of Sam Sloan on a regular basis; it sure doesn't
look like the FSS postings to me! Among other things, like this post,
Neil's satires were attempts (good ones in my opinion) to be clever,
not to be simply repulsive.

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 16 Apr 2008 17:23:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8d8db2ba-663c-4de9-9bbb-521be6ac60cb@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

This is really well done. I find it amusing that Innes' textual
analysis has seemed to imply that Neil Brennen is the most likely FSS,
and this is satire. However, Neil is the one person for whom we have
seen actual satire of Sam Sloan on a regular basis; it sure doesn't
look like the FSS postings to me! Among other things, like this post,
Neil's satires were attempts (good ones in my opinion) to be clever,
not to be simply repulsive.

Jerry Spinrad

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

And since you have now truly come out to support the main abusenik of the
newsgroup whose public writings for 5 years are on a certain theme, one you
haven't noticed, so to speak, and while not admitting of course, you could
tell the FSS from the Sloan, Brennan's utterarances are so clear to you.

Why don't you tell people about what you yourself are accused of Jerry - I
wonder if you will find that as amusing? It is poetically apt after all, the
proxy attacks, and here you use Brennan for the same purpose yourself.

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

You tell them if you want, but its OK if you don't because next week I'm
going to tell everybody.

Phil Innes

Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:16:03
From: Rob
Subject: Re: INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

On Apr 17, 12:10=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps you are being unfairly condemned by guilt by association? I
> >really don't know. Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
> >attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
> >with Chessville.
>
> Doesn't Polgar have her own column at Chess Cafe?

I don't know.

Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:58:25
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: INCRIMINATING! Ye Gods!

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> >Perhaps you are being unfairly condemned by guilt by association? I
>> >really don't know. Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
>> >attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
>> >with Chessville.

>> Doesn't Polgar have her own column at Chess Cafe?

>I don't know.

Not be a hard-ass or anything, Rob, but if you don't know who the
columnists at Chess Cafe actually are, how can you make pronouncements
on their collective tendency, such as " Chess Cafe' writers have a
collective tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
even in the slightest with Chessville."

BTW: http://www.chesscafe.com/polgar/polgar.htm

Date: 16 Apr 2008 17:10:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8d8db2ba-663c-4de9-9bbb-521be6ac60cb@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 15, 10:17 am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Now, if you people don't care about children....
>
> The standard rant of the Brattleboro Bedlam, that he is the only
> person to "care" about something or another. Witness the USCF press
> release below:
>
> INNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"
>
> CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
> that it had hired internationally known Nearly an IM Philip Keith
> Innes
> to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
> Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
> about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
> or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
> is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
> least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
> brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
> Executive Board Member Don Schultz.
>
> Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
> Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
> US
> chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
> chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
> deal between Innes and USCF are
> not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
> will
> be required to stop posting to newsgroups. "We were concerned that
> Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
> caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
> Channing,
> "since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
> screeds."

This is really well done. I find it amusing that Innes' textual
analysis has seemed to imply that Neil Brennen is the most likely FSS,

** Do you? I simply said it is the most like the FSS, and you Spinrad said
'most likely', but maybe not getting things right amuses you, especially if
you can make a nice strawman out it, for the 'boys' ;)

and this is satire. However, Neil is the one person for whom we have
seen actual satire of Sam Sloan on a regular basis; it sure doesn't
look like the FSS postings to me!

**Who does it look like to you? Brennan isn't daft, just malicious. Sound
like the FSS 'to you'?

Among other things, like this post,
Neil's satires were attempts (good ones in my opinion) to be clever,
not to be simply repulsive.

** Try writing 'amusingly' about how funny you think getting the kids is.
Then maybe someone will satire you, because cheap shots are funny to some
people, who let other people make the jokes for them in case they get
themselves dirty.

Phil Innes

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 16 Apr 2008 21:22:09
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:

>
> ** Try writing 'amusingly' about how funny you think getting the kids is.

What specifically does "getting the kids" refer to?

> Then maybe someone will satire you, because cheap shots are funny to some
> people, who let other people make the jokes for them in case they get
> themselves dirty.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>

Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:27:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:56uNj.14944$mG1.9081@trndny08...
> Chess One wrote:
>
>>
>> ** Try writing 'amusingly' about how funny you think getting the kids is.
>
>
> What specifically does "getting the kids" refer to?

Don't ask more questions Lafferty, when nothing depends on receiving an
answer. Last time you asked what something meant you couldn't understand in
a legal context that 'thrown out' was synonymical with 'case dismissed.'

pfft!

Asking for more information becomes a pretence that you are interested in
information itself so that you could evaluate it. But this is shown above to
be hardly any candid or truthful public stance.

Phil Innes

>> Then maybe someone will satire you, because cheap shots are funny to some
>> people, who let other people make the jokes for them in case they get
>> themselves dirty.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>
>> Jerry Spinrad
>>

Date: 17 Apr 2008 12:12:45
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:56uNj.14944$mG1.9081@trndny08...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>
>>> ** Try writing 'amusingly' about how funny you think getting the kids is.
>>
>> What specifically does "getting the kids" refer to?
>
> Don't ask more questions Lafferty, when nothing depends on receiving an
> answer. Last time you asked what something meant you couldn't understand in
> a legal context that 'thrown out' was synonymical with 'case dismissed.'
>
> pfft!
>
> Asking for more information becomes a pretence that you are interested in
> information itself so that you could evaluate it. But this is shown above to
> be hardly any candid or truthful public stance.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
>>> Then maybe someone will satire you, because cheap shots are funny to some
>>> people, who let other people make the jokes for them in case they get
>>> themselves dirty.
>>>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>>
>>> Jerry Spinrad
>>>
>

Again Bowel Boy, what did you mean when you wrote "getting the kids."

Date: 15 Apr 2008 08:17:19
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 15, 8:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Now, if you people don't care about children....

The standard rant of the Brattleboro Bedlam, that he is the only
person to "care" about something or another. Witness the USCF press
release below:

INNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"

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

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

Date: 16 Apr 2008 14:55:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Brennan ia suggesting to other abuseniks that hanken's behavior is OK - they
won't condemn him, they will wallow in it.

The point it; who asked their opinion, who in their right mind would? No
parent, that's for sure.

Phil Innes

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 15, 8:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now, if you people don't care about children....
>
> The standard rant of the Brattleboro Bedlam, that he is the only
> person to "care" about something or another. Witness the USCF press
> release below:
>
> INNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"
>
> CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
> that it had hired internationally known Nearly an IM Philip Keith
> Innes
> to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
> Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
> about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
> or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
> is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
> least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
> brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
> Executive Board Member Don Schultz.
>
> Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
> Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
> US
> chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
> chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
> deal between Innes and USCF are
> not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
> will
> be required to stop posting to newsgroups. "We were concerned that
> Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
> caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
> Channing,
> "since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
> screeds."

Date: 16 Apr 2008 20:22:09
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> Brennan ia suggesting to other abuseniks that hanken's behavior is OK - they
> won't condemn him, they will wallow in it.
>
> The point it; who asked their opinion, who in their right mind would? No
> parent, that's for sure.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Apr 15, 8:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, if you people don't care about children....
>> The standard rant of the Brattleboro Bedlam, that he is the only
>> person to "care" about something or another. Witness the USCF press
>> release below:
>>
>> INNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"
>>
>> CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
>> that it had hired internationally known Nearly an IM Philip Keith
>> Innes
>> to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
>> Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
>> about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
>> or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
>> is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
>> least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
>> brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
>> Executive Board Member Don Schultz.
>>
>> Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
>> Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
>> US
>> chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
>> chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
>> deal between Innes and USCF are
>> not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
>> will
>> be required to stop posting to newsgroups. "We were concerned that
>> Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
>> caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
>> Channing,
>> "since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
>> screeds."
>
>
Specifically, what behavior of Hanken are you referring to?

Date: 15 Apr 2008 16:29:43
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

The Historian wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now, if you people don't care about children....
>
> The standard rant of the Brattleboro Bedlam, that he is the only
> person to "care" about something or another. Witness the USCF press
> release below:
>
> INNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"
>
> CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
> that it had hired internationally known Nearly an IM Philip Keith
> Innes
> to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
> Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
> about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
> or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
> is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
> least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
> brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
> Executive Board Member Don Schultz.
>
> Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
> Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
> US
> chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
> chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
> deal between Innes and USCF are
> not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
> will
> be required to stop posting to newsgroups. "We were concerned that
> Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
> caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
> Channing,
> "since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
> screeds."
LOL!

Date: 15 Apr 2008 08:10:28
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 15, 7:54 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:36 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
> > > bluffer. We want to see the cards.
>
> > 'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating with
> > their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?
>
> No Phil, just people who, when you claim such things as "I was on a
> state board which has to do with the welfare of children" would like
> to know the name of that state board and when you served. It really is
> that simple.
>
> I think you don't understand, Phil, that your constant lying about
> credentials such as your "almost an IM" title means that very few
> people take seriously much that you spew forth on the keyboard. You
> could start to fix that by, if you really did serve on such a board,
> simply stating when and where.
>
> Now you can start a long screed about how I am "against life" or some
> other nonsense or you could simply answer the question. Not who you
> "write with" (one of those, please, "Look how great I am! Grandmasters
> and people who are SINCERELY are in MY court..... blah, blah, blah")
> or other people's supposed faults - just name the board you served on
> and your tenure.
>
> Is that possible?

Time once again for the following classic analysis by Taylor Kingston:

"Look, Phil, this is a very simple matter, rather like asking "How
many beans make five?". I think that if you were asked that question,
you would huff and puff for many paragraphs, perhaps rejecting the
concept of "five," going off on tangents about number theory, or even
claiming that the question loses all legitimacy because it omits other
vegetables. You would claim that the questioner has a hidden Legumist
agenda, seeking to suppress dissenting Brassican and Cucurbist views.
You would insist that the beans denounce Neil Brennen. You would claim
to know more beans, and more about beans, than anyone else. You would
do anything, ANYTHING, but answer, simply: FIVE."

Date: 16 Apr 2008 14:53:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 15, 7:54 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 6:36 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
>> > > bluffer. We want to see the cards.
>>
>> > 'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating
>> > with
>> > their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?
>>
>> No Phil, just people who, when you claim such things as "I was on a
>> state board which has to do with the welfare of children" would like
>> to know the name of that state board and when you served. It really is
>> that simple.
>>
>> I think you don't understand, Phil, that your constant lying about
>> credentials such as your "almost an IM" title means that very few
>> people take seriously much that you spew forth on the keyboard. You
>> could start to fix that by, if you really did serve on such a board,
>> simply stating when and where.
>>
>> Now you can start a long screed about how I am "against life" or some
>> other nonsense or you could simply answer the question. Not who you
>> "write with" (one of those, please, "Look how great I am! Grandmasters
>> and people who are SINCERELY are in MY court..... blah, blah, blah")
>> or other people's supposed faults - just name the board you served on
>> and your tenure.
>>
>> Is that possible?
>
> Time once again for the following classic analysis by Taylor Kingston:
>
> "Look, Phil, this is a very simple matter, rather like asking "How
> many beans make five?".

Why is the chief abusenik on these newsgroups, Neil Brennan, talking about
beans, when the topic is Hanken's abuse?

Look, Taylor, its not about Mussolini? Seems more apt.

> I think that if you were asked that question,
> you would huff and puff for many paragraphs, perhaps rejecting the
> concept of "five," going off on tangents about number theory, or even
> claiming that the question loses all legitimacy because it omits other
> vegetables. You would claim that the questioner has a hidden Legumist
> agenda, seeking to suppress dissenting Brassican and Cucurbist views.
> You would insist that the beans denounce Neil Brennen. You would claim
> to know more beans, and more about beans, than anyone else. You would
> do anything, ANYTHING, but answer, simply: FIVE."

We ain't talking beans, we're talking abuse. How many abusive years you been
at it, five?

If Dowd wants to know anything at all, which he don't, then he'll mouth off
like Kingston, and you will enjoy it, and two other people will chip in,
making 5.

Beans! Bugger beans Brennan!

Abuseniks once again pretend there is no issue of decent investigation, even
if it means mentioning the kids, and to them its all reducible to more
beans.

Phil Innes

Date: 16 Apr 2008 12:35:50
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:53:42 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Why is the chief abusenik on these newsgroups, Neil Brennan, talking about
>beans, when the topic is Hanken's abuse?

More problems with analogy! . Really, Phil, you'd profit from
addressing this great lacuna in your conceptual schema where analogy
is concerned.

Why talk beans? Two simple reasons:

First, Kingston's bean analogy puts into perspective your typical
response methodology (e.g., refusing to answer anything directly when
cornered, resorting to fulmination, insult and changing the subject,
etc.).

Second, the subject of beans seems appropriate in view of the
similarity of much of your discourse to flatulence.

Date: 15 Apr 2008 05:54:13
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 15, 6:36 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
> > bluffer. We want to see the cards.
>
> 'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating with
> their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?

No Phil, just people who, when you claim such things as "I was on a
state board which has to do with the welfare of children" would like
to know the name of that state board and when you served. It really is
that simple.

I think you don't understand, Phil, that your constant lying about
credentials such as your "almost an IM" title means that very few
people take seriously much that you spew forth on the keyboard. You
could start to fix that by, if you really did serve on such a board,
simply stating when and where.

Now you can start a long screed about how I am "against life" or some
other nonsense or you could simply answer the question. Not who you
"write with" (one of those, please, "Look how great I am! Grandmasters
and people who are SINCERELY are in MY court..... blah, blah, blah")
or other people's supposed faults - just name the board you served on
and your tenure.

Is that possible?

Date: 15 Apr 2008 09:28:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 15, 6:36 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
>> > bluffer. We want to see the cards.
>>
>> 'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating
>> with
>> their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?
>
> No Phil, just people who, when you claim such things as "I was on a
> state board which has to do with the welfare of children" would like
> to know the name of that state board and when you served. It really is
> that simple.

What do the people who 'claim' to want to know facts demonstrate about their
use of them?

Now, if you people don't care about children, and I have read not a
//single// word of concern here, you already voted with your keyboards. But
you still fatuoulsy pretend to want information about other people who do
care? pfft!

If you can't be bothered to say why you want to know anything, do you really
expect others to present to you, when you even go so far as to pre-empt what
they say by being cynical in advance.

We are addressing here a cadre who will rubbish you because they have not
looked at information. To people who will trash you for creating a thread on
the KID, and then for 5 posts and 1200 words, and then ADMIT they didn't
even play through the game.

You see S, those are also credentials.

Laughty's diction cannot possibly recommend any sincere effort to engage
others.
Murray and Macon cannot show why anyone should inform them of anything.
Brennan has never been different.

> I think you don't understand, Phil, that your constant lying about
> credentials such as your "almost an IM" title means that very few
> people take seriously much that you spew forth on the keyboard. You
> could start to fix that by, if you really did serve on such a board,
> simply stating when and where.

Ker-ist! Is this the same person who didn't send me e-mails? If YOU are so
obsessed about titles, OR you want to take me seriously, then you could play
me - and I invited you here to my house, and for a week! because it seemed
like you needed a break, and to play some chess. Then you deny you don't
want to come, and you even deny sending me e-mails.

Those are your credentials. At least 2 other people in this ng know I made
you the offer ;)

> Now you can start a long screed about how I am "against life" or some
> other nonsense or you could simply answer the question. Not who you
> "write with" (one of those, please, "Look how great I am! Grandmasters
> and people who are SINCERELY are in MY court..... blah, blah, blah")

I think you are fighting your own attitude Dowd. You have to invent by
attitude in order to mock it. If that ain't the PROOF of what you do, rather
than what you say, then you have given cyncism a make-over.

If you had any concern for accusations concerning a chess politicos
children, but you didn't want to sort out accusations from what a court
decided, after PROPER investigation by a judge, and you are too indolent to
conduct your own inquiries, but o! so ready to trash those who have
inquired, then you had better stick with making other people's quotes up for
them, and challenging those who did bother to find things out by stating
your opinion in advance of what you do not yet know.

I would say, as credentials relating to the sincerity of your inquiry, that
I do not need to say anything to you.

You are not concerned with the subject of public decency in Hanken's or
other people's expressions and neither are you concerned over spurious
accusations - you are content to create them.

When challenged to his own standards, you, like Hanken, run off - stating
that you are too precious to reply. So if you want to name a subject - stick
around and address that subject.

If you want to rubbish other people who attempt a subject, by all means
continue to establish your own 'credentials'.

Phil Innes

> or other people's supposed faults - just name the board you served on
> and your tenure.
>
> Is that possible?

Date: 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 24, 12:02=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5b95a437-ba9c-428f-9405-b0006f1199e2@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 6:53 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Jerry Spinrad,
>
> Thank you for your replies. I think perhaps you accept that not everything=

> was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and wh=
at
> is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously=

> known to yourself.

Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
direction of inquiry I had no inkling of. I still believe that it is
important for Paul to make a legally binding declaration of innocence,
and make this public. If he is innocent, it would seem to be
enormously in his self-interest, and would oppose the claims that he
refused to cooperate in such a statement with a positive step rather
than a counter-accusation.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> Consequently some indirection was indicated.
>
> Zr=E1vstvuite! Phil Innes
>
> Hae nugae in seria ducent mala: consilio et animis non impetu et prudentia=
.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 12:29:59
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>On Apr 24, 12:02�pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I think perhaps you accept that not everything
>> was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and what
>> is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
>> known to yourself.

>Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
>direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.

The Mottershead Report came out some eight months ago, and its
implications have been semi-paralyzing the USCF EB ever since. The
idea that there's a whole layer of alternative explanation for the FSS
identity, an explanation relatively plausible, not publicly discussed,
but disclosed by e-mail to selected private parties -- this is strange
stuff. Its strangeness is compounded by the plethora of half-baked
explanations put forth by PT/SP supporters, and vigorously debunked in
this and other forums.

Jeremy, your postings reveal general level-headedness and goodwill,
and I'll respect your judgment that there's secret stuff out there
that needs "some serious evaluation", but the PT/SP strategy of
keeping it semi-secret for the better part of a year leaves me
baffled. Usually, the desire to keep things safely under wraps is not
a major flag of innocence. I'm at a loss to understand how this could
be good either for the USCF or for PT/SP.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 13:43:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8804f252-54c4-4175-b6b8-287c0f9a5f05@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5b95a437-ba9c-428f-9405-b0006f1199e2@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 6:53 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Jerry Spinrad,
>
> Thank you for your replies. I think perhaps you accept that not everything
> was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and
> what
> is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
> known to yourself.

Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.

** Very good Jerry. Let us now park this conversation, pending
developments...

I still believe that it is
important for Paul to make a legally binding declaration of innocence,
and make this public. If he is innocent, it would seem to be
enormously in his self-interest, and would oppose the claims that he
refused to cooperate in such a statement with a positive step rather
than a counter-accusation.

** To conclude on it? P'raps. Though I am of another mind, it is not my
call: That will be his choice, weighing the one thing 'gainst the other.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> Consequently some indirection was indicated.
>
> Zr�vstvuite! Phil Innes
>
> Hae nugae in seria ducent mala: consilio et animis non impetu et
> prudentia.

** Horace is quite often, cool, no? Though only half that is his. The
balance of it is indeed, in the balance.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Date: 15 Apr 2008 10:02:05
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

You know, Phil, an indignant refusal to answer directly can be
effective if done sparingly by a person with a reputation for calm
rationality. Think of "Have you no shame, sir, have you no shame?" or
"... they now include my little dog, Falla".

But when you do it all the time, you come off like a street person on
crack.

My advice: Face facts, Phil. Focus on forgetting fulminating for the
foreseeable future.

Date: 16 Apr 2008 15:19:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Why don't you save your advice for pretty Taylor, Mike?

Who are you to prognosticate on things - you are not interested in chess,
and out to get people. You get canned every time you do it on your own, so
need allies <mmmmooooooooooooooo! >

You cant say more than literally one word on the matter if you have looked
at any evidence from the writing itself, which is almost as numb-brained as
Guy Macon who demands 'show me the file!'

Pity all you guys weren't here when the FSS was posting - you could have
seen what he wrote.

This thread is about the indecency of not mentioning that 'charges' were not
upheld by a court, and were not even related as charges at all, and this by
the president of the CJA, showing off his skills at writing - and on being
challenged, had nothing to say.

That's proxy wars for you. Never defend! Indeed, his utterances were
indefensible in decent society. I understand that some people find this
funny, and that is likely because they have not, and definitely should not,
have anything to do with children.

Phil Innes

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> You know, Phil, an indignant refusal to answer directly can be
> effective if done sparingly by a person with a reputation for calm
> rationality. Think of "Have you no shame, sir, have you no shame?" or
> "... they now include my little dog, Falla".
>
> But when you do it all the time, you come off like a street person on
> crack.
>
> My advice: Face facts, Phil. Focus on forgetting fulminating for the
> foreseeable future.

Date: 16 Apr 2008 12:55:57
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:19:28 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Why don't you save your advice for pretty Taylor, Mike?

You have some attraction to Taylor Kingston? Hmmmm. Well, I've leave
it up to him as to whether he's flattered or frightened.

>Pity all you guys weren't here when the FSS was posting - you could have
>seen what he wrote.

Most of us were here. Some of us were the subject of various FSS
falsehoods. AND some of us were here when the Mottershead Report
first came out and we got some concrete inkling of the likely
perpetrator of many of the FSS posts. You must have missed it.

>This thread is about the indecency of not mentioning that 'charges' were not
>upheld by a court, and were not even related as charges at all, and this by
>the president of the CJA, showing off his skills at writing - and on being
>challenged, had nothing to say.

AFAIK, you're the only person who introduced the word "charges" in
this discussion. That's what gave us a pretty good idea that you
didn't understand much of what a guardian ad litem does. Using
phrases like "upheld by a court" is further evidence that you're still
ignorant.

So: Face facts, Phil, focus on forsaking phony fulmination for the
foreseeable future. Oh, and value the verisimilitude of verifiable
vitae.

Date: 15 Apr 2008 14:15:47
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
>
>SBD wrote...
>
>> I think you don't understand, Phil, that your constant lying about
>> credentials such as your "almost an IM" title means that very few
>> people take seriously much that you spew forth on the keyboard. You
>> could start to fix that by, if you really did serve on such a board,
>> simply stating when and where.
>
>Ker-ist! Is this the same person who didn't send me e-mails? If YOU are so
>obsessed about titles, OR you want to take me seriously, then you could play
>me - and I invited you here to my house, and for a week! because it seemed
>like you needed a break, and to play some chess. Then you deny you don't
>want to come, and you even deny sending me e-mails.

Evasion noted. Phil Innes. who claimed "I was on a state board which
has to do with the welfare of children" was never on any such board.
That's why he refuses to simply state when and where he served.

Date: 14 Apr 2008 14:17:39
From: Chess Nuggets
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 14, 10:43 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>>> I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
> >>>> state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
> >>>> trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
> >>>> legal &c.
>
> >>> Care to list any particulars ?
>
> >> Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
> >> anything -... Like the
> >> fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more suspicious!
>
> > Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
> > about your various credentials, it tends to make me "more suspicious".
> > There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
> > about your credentials.
>
> > Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
> > credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
> > authority, you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
> > we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
> > well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.
>
> >> Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!
>
> > It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
> > board.
>
> > Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
> > you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
> > For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
> > envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
> > state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
> > of children" -- a reform school, for example).
>
> > Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
> > to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
> > litem might do, and we called you on it.
>
> > In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
> > board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
> > demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.
>
> > Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
> > bluffer. We want to see the cards.
>
> Almost sounds like the rap on Phil's friend Paul Truong. We're still
> waiting to see Truong's business cards from all those companies he
> turned around and the Fortune 500 companies he allegedly worked for.
>
> Birds of a feather do flock together.

Who the hell is Brian Lafferty, and what does he mean to Chess?

Date: 13 Apr 2008 07:10:19
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 13, 7:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
I challenged Hanken before the whole board on 3 issues of his recent
> 'representations' and Hanken spat at me in private e-mail and ran off. So
> much for his standards.

I agree it would have been better for Mr. Hanken to spit on you in
person. But perhaps he was intimidated by the length of the line.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 15:23:05
From:
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:

>Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE
>offended by "hot saucing" children?

Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of
child protective services taking action, or just an assertion?

Date: 10 Apr 2008 16:54:01
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

[email protected] wrote:
> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE
>> offended by "hot saucing" children?
>
> Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of
> child protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>
>
I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing. And I've
heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts. Not
assertions.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:JCrLj.4457$bQ1.3110@trndny09...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE offended by
>>> "hot saucing" children?
>>
>> Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of child
>> protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>>
>>
> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.

Hey Deuce!

Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?

Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?

:)))

Phil Innes

> And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
> when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
> Not assertions.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 21:07:02
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:JCrLj.4457$bQ1.3110@trndny09...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE offended by
>>>> "hot saucing" children?
>>> Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of child
>>> protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>>>
>>>
>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>
> Hey Deuce!
>
> Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
> more than that?

Your ignorance is showing Bowel Boy. The children's father tells me
that his kids told the guardian ad litem, in private, what was being
done to them. The guardian, quite properly, told the court. The court
issued its order.

Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?

You decide. What motive would the kids have to lie to the guardian ad
litem when they have such an idyllic life with Chesspiece and the
Pufferfish. Next interview you do, ask the Pufferfish. Ask him to sign
a sworn statement if he denies it. Do you have the balls to ask the
question BB? :-)
>
> Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
>
> :)))
>
> Phil Innes
>
>> And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
>> when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
>> Not assertions.
>
>

Date: 11 Apr 2008 09:49:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:WjvLj.9677$Ug4.7301@trndny01...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:JCrLj.4457$bQ1.3110@trndny09...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE offended by
>>>>> "hot saucing" children?
>>>> Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of child
>>>> protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>>
>> Hey Deuce!
>>
>> Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
>> more than that?
>
> Your ignorance is showing Bowel Boy. The children's father tells me that
> his kids told the guardian ad litem, in private, what was being done to
> them. The guardian, quite properly, told the court. The court issued its
> order.

That is not an answer to my question. I asked if the condition was
necessarily any more than pro-forma. Brian lafferty skips answering that,
which is as indecent a response as the language he uses to make his reply.

>
> Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
>
> You decide.

I see. You decline to respond with knowlegde of any legalities. But... [see
below]

> What motive would the kids have to lie to the guardian ad litem when they
> have such an idyllic life with Chesspiece and the Pufferfish. Next
> interview you do, ask the Pufferfish. Ask him to sign a sworn statement if
> he denies it. Do you have the balls to ask the question BB? :-)

I don't exist to fly accusations at people when there is plain fact at
hand - I am a journalist, not the Prosecutor General.

WHAT'S TRUE

Isn't the truth that the family court judge investigated this incident on 5
occassions, including teacher, doctor, school nurse, neighbours, and found
nothing whaever to justify it to the extent that the charge was dropped?

If Brian Lafferty already knew this, I think he just portrayed a certain
orientation of his views in public, of which I need make no necessary
comment about his behavior, trusting any reader to determine for themselves
what is what.

The same stance, in fact, as I would wish any reader to adopt on the FSS
afair, to open it up and let people assess the truth for themselves.

If Brian Lafferty did not know this, then it will or will not occur to him
to offer the insulted parties an apology.

Phil Innes

>> Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
>>
>> :)))
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>> And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
>>> when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
>>> Not assertions.
>>

Date: 10 Apr 2008 13:41:28
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>
>Hey Deuce!
>
>Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
>more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
>
>Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
>
> :)))

So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you
know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?

>Phil Innes
>
>> And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
>> when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
>> Not assertions.
>

Date: 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>>
>>Hey Deuce!
>>
>>Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
>>more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
>>
>>Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
>>
>> :)))
>
> So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you

Murray, you have declared you have no interest in other than Paul Truong
being the perp, by virtue of the fact that you will not look candidly at
existing evidence, and here intercede because the Line Judge is directly
challenged to his legal representation - and has put his foot in his mouth.

> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?

You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?

PI

>>Phil Innes
>>
>>> And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
>>> when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
>>> Not assertions.
>>

Date: 10 Apr 2008 14:51:46
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
>> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>
>You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
>proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
>would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?

Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
about it, does it?

Date: 12 Apr 2008 08:54:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
>>> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>>
>>You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
>>proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
>>would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
>
> Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
> litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
> about it, does it?

I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in trouble
who actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
legal &c.

If you can't allow people to speak for themselves and of their own
standards, oh PULEEZE stop negatively speculating idly on what you do not
know, since that indeed, is the same issue I have posed Lafferty: What he
knows and what he cares to represent of that - and if he don't like hearing
other than his own views, then perhaps we should all simply know that,
rather than read as if he cared to distinguish between suppositions and
objectively determined facts.

For you Murray, you would rather speculate about other people than look at
anything. That is your choice.

Like Lafferty, you are rather concerned to not look at what is before you.
And that's ok with me - I am simply pointing out to everybody that that is
the case.

Phil Innes

Date: 12 Apr 2008 07:09:54
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:54:33 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
>state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in trouble
>who actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
>legal &c.

Care to list any particulars ?

Date: 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:54:33 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
>>state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
>>trouble
>>who actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
>>legal &c.
>
> Care to list any particulars ?

Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
anything - and as a person capable of dismissing other people's views, don't
pretend that you can enter into people's lives, when you can't even own your
own opinion, nor say what any more information would mean to you. Like the
fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more suspicious!

Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!

We, those who are capable of it, are discussing public standards of behavior
and what is honest representation and what is merely scandal-making
occasioned by people who obviously get off on a little bitty schadenfreude
;)

Phil Innes

Date: 14 Apr 2008 10:08:56
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>>>I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
>>>state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
>>>trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
>>>legal &c.

>> Care to list any particulars ?

>Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
>anything -... Like the
>fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more suspicious!

Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
about your various credentials, it tends to make me "more suspicious".
There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
about your credentials.

Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
authority, you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.

>Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!

It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
board.

Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
of children" -- a reform school, for example).

Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
litem might do, and we called you on it.

In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.

Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
bluffer. We want to see the cards.

Date: 15 Apr 2008 07:36:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>>I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
>>>>state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
>>>>trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical,
>>>>diversion,
>>>>legal &c.
>
>>> Care to list any particulars ?
>
>>Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
>>anything -... Like the
>>fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more
>>suspicious!
>
> Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
> about your various credentials, it tends

Cut it out Murray - stop //pretending// you are anything other than a
get-Truong single issue poster - and since you rubbish everything people
say, and 'doubt' it, then continue to ask for more personal information -
you are a farcical person to want 'credentials'.

This thread is about me asking you if YOU could tell the FSS materials from
the Sloan, and you offered me the 'credentials' of you own intelligence
which was the single word 'some'.

ROFL

> to make me "more suspicious".
> There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
> about your credentials.

Look, if you wanna play chess, shut up and move ;)

Otherwise you'll wind up paranoid, like Kennedy who has no evidence I use
computer, but is still sure of it! It doesn't want to risk his virginity out
there, and would rather pout impotently from home.

> Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
> credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
> authority,

Now you are come over all abstract. But you can't even answer a simple
question about yourself - and go on prosecuting other people AS IF you were
someone to impress~ !!

But you are not! You Murray don't want to know anything. You are
spectacularly insincere.

> you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
> we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
> well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.
>
>>Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!
>
> It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
> board.

You really don't get it Murray. I don't owe you any explanations since you
are devious! Nothing at all depends on you knowing more about any subject
whatever. You have rubbished other people here because they don't like your
fixation on Truong. And you are not a reasonable person capable of
evaluating others, nevermind discuss the welbeing of children. Do you
understand my opinion of you?

> Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
> you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.

What depends on these questions for Mike Murray?

> For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
> envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
> state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
> of children" -- a reform school, for example).
>
> Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
> to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
> litem might do, and we called you on it.

What bollocks! In fact I write very freely with others who are SINCERELY
interested in the welfare of children in chess. You are not - you only want
to know things so you can reduce or neutralise them. And you demonstrate
this all the time. So stop pretending, and furthermore, stop abusing other
people night and day, for things you DEMONSTRABALE display are insincere -
and you are incapable of taking an adult and decent view of things.

> In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
> board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
> demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.
>
> Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
> bluffer. We want to see the cards.

'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating with
their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?

Date: 24 Apr 2008 05:55:30
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 24, 6:53=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:c5896855-690d-458f-9d78-9077c6447389@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 6:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Spinrad, you paraphrase me in order not to understand me, and you also
> > selectively quote - but can't say what part you can't understand about
> > your
> > own actions and decency in public reporting.
>
> > That is nothing to do with private e-mails, this is the evidence of what=

> > you
> > do right here.
>
> And I still do not understand you.
>
> **You don't understand what you do here? Let me clarify my orientation
> below.
>
>
>
> > In terms of private material:-
>
> > You did receive a private response to your public accusations <right?>
> > Not from me, but from Susan Polgar.
>
> > Have you investigated what she had to say?
>
> After thinking about what she wrote, I recommended some actions she
> (actually, Paul, since she has not been accused of anything) could
> take to try to convince me and the public that the otherwise
> improbable scenario of Paul being impersonated multiple times, in
> bizarre ways, by a malevolent genius is actually true.
>
> =A0 =A0 SANS SAUCE
>
> **Wowa! Thats a different topic than hot-sauce. Did you receive something =
on
> that subject - since you previously wrote in public about it what is your
> current understanding? Is the accusation dismissed?

I have received no private email regarding hot sauce. I received a
polite request to withhold judgment on the FSS issue, and a review of
her side of the case. My first response was to question her regarding
several specific issues (not involving the children). I received a
reply with a somewhat more elaborate accouny of her side, including
one claim which was new to me, and that I recommended she make public.
I then emailed my recommendations, as described in an earlier post.

The children were mentioned only in passing, as evidence of the depths
that some people would sink to in accusing her. Since I have
consistently opposed bringing the children into the discussion, and
since my only post on the subject of hot sauce was a recommendation to
drop the accusation (albeit on the grounds that it is not a
particularly odious form of punishment rather than on the grounds that
it did not occur), I certainly did not see this as an important part
of the letter.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> **There is no need to repeat private mail, but you /could state/ if you kn=
ow
> the accusations were dismissed <right?>
>
> ---
>
> =A0 =A0 The BIG PIC CHA!
>
> **As to other matters I do not 'believe' anything. I have previous knowled=
ge
> of the person's character, plus other information which is not yet public,=

> but not all information since USCF are maintaining some amount of that und=
er
> wraps.
>
> **Instead of make-believe, I would prefer a court to resolve the issue [ju=
st
> as above in the hot-sauce instance] then what need is there to believe or
> speculate at all? And if impartial people decide the issue, with all due
> attention to the rules of evidence having been observed, then I will be
> content with their resolutions, and that is the same stance now as I ever
> had.
>
> **The 'issue' of reporting and avering anything other than that process is=

> the one contested here in newsgroups, and it is very hard to find
> law-abiding chess netizens who will agree with that stance.
>
> **How odd that Larry Parr and I should agree on this issue, since we are
> clearly not of the same mind on the worth of the Sloan! Therefore it is
> difficult to put Parr and Innes onto any side, except that of the law.
>
> **I hope these simple remarks are sufficiently clear.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> ----------
>
> =A0I took some
> time to think about this, and would not yet expect a reply. Since one
> of them involves something which she should be able to prove, but I
> only have from her confidential email, I cannot share it. One of them
> has already been suggested numerous times, but I was happy to be able
> to tell her in person; that Paul should produce for the public a
> legally binding statement of his innocence, one that would open him to
> perjury charges if it is false. I do not know the legal issues
> involved; if it is not possible, then that should be explained. I have
> a backup option if it is not possible, but I feel less good about it.
> I am not a fan of polygraph tests, but taking and passing one in
> public would probably be efective in swaying some opinions; at the
> least, it would show he was willing to back his innocence with more
> than calls for actions against other people.
>
> I believe that if Paul made a legally binding testimony of innocence,
> and more importantly took the public action I requested her privately
> to take, it would be much more helpful than all the actions she has
> taken so far.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > If you think you can continue to prosecute your previous agenda by
> > repeating
> > accusations, not investigating the result of accusations and reporting
> > those
> > without distinguishing one from the other, by all means continue to defi=
ne
> > yourself by pretending stuff here in public.
>
> > But you are going to get yourself dirty in this game Spinrad, and this i=
s
> > not the venue where it will happen. ;)
>
> This is the sort of incomprehensible nonsense which I was talking
> about. I still do not understand what you accuse me of, but it seems
> that it can't be anything serious, except in your strange mind.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Is that enough spit for you?
>
> > If you can't understand [ROFL] this English, then maybe its your ears,
> > dude?
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:a12b9e95-a1d6-4dc0-af96-3071371a9fed@t63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...=

> > I cannot understand Phil's latest nonsense. Here is his paragraph.
>
> > Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
> > well as
> > Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
> > in what
> > happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
> > contains
> > one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
> > Jerry! From
> > people who are disgusted.
>
> > Now he seems to be saying that I am supposed to understand this as
> > relating to the fact that I am not publicly decent, because I am not
> > revealing the scandalous fact that I receive less than 1% of my family
> > income from Chess Cafe, which in turn has a financial relationship
> > with the USCF.
>
> > It doesn't wash. You asked me to tell everyone what the board received
> > recently, something in which I was named. The clear implication was
> > that I knew of this something, and was hiding it.
>
> > I know nothing about what the board received. Phil dislikes it when I
> > try to read into his illegible nonsense, but he seems at times to lump
> > me with people who have brought in Susan's children, when I have
> > consistently spoken against attempt to bring the children or any of
> > Susan's personal life into the issue.
>
> > So spit it out, Phil. You asked me to tell people what the board
> > received. Are you saying I know something and am hiding it? I flatly
> > deny this. YOU tell us what the board received, and then I will find
> > out with everybody else. It can't be that you want it secret since you
> > want me to reveal it; let us in on it.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > On Apr 20, 9:01 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:4356b291-d3c1-4159-a181-26a24123e1fb@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.=
..
> > > On Apr 16, 7:48 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
> > > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > **cutting to the point:-
>
> > > Here is what Phil said
>
> > > Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
> > > well as
> > > Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
> > > in what
> > > happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
> > > contains
> > > one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
> > > Jerry! From
> > > people who are disgusted.
>
> > > I am, actually, very curious as to what this is talking about. I had
> > > an interest in what happened? My interests are in common with Jerry
> > > Hanken, who I have never met? Any clues?
>
> > > I really cannot see my connection. Everything I have said about the
> > > FSS has been on this newsgroup. I write a column on chess history at
> > > chesscafe, for which I receive a small amount of money.
>
> > > ** And what I asked of Jerry Hanken, and indeed all people who comment=

> > > on
> > > USCF's politics, is if they will admit an interest - which is to say -=

> > > if
> > > they make money or receive other consideration. This is apparently wha=
t
> > > is
> > > 'so hard to understand'.
>
> > > I have no idea what the board received recently. Maybe someone else
> > > can tell me what the board received, or what my interest was?
>
> > > ** Since I wrote in //these newsgroups// about money and other
> > > considerations being received by commentators does not make them
> > > 'dissinterested' parties to the issue, then the CONTEXT is established=

> > > clear. Perhaps JerrySpinradhas never heard the phrase, 'a disintereste=
d
> > > party'?
>
> > > ** I asked for fair and open declaration of the relationship of those
> > > who
> > > receive any consideration whatever in connection with USCF activities.=

> > > This
> > > is what JerrySpinradprofesses so hard to understand, or even to
> > > acknowledge is the question. If he does not think this is a fair reque=
st
> > > then I presume he will reply to say so. When, as did Jerry Hanken,
> > > negative
> > > and public speculations extend to the children of board members, I
> > > personally think the public should know something about the speculator=

> > > and
> > > indeed the fulsomeness of their reporting.
>
> > > **Certainly anyone pretending to journalism [CJA not excepted!] is
> > > obliged
> > > by public and ethical standard to differentiate what is allegation fro=
m
> > > what
> > > is found true. If matters have been investigated than does it not obli=
ge
> > > the
> > > candid reporter to also note the fact?
>
> > > **Like many other people I would wish all to be in the open, including=

> > > the
> > > relationship of ALL those who would investige the issue in public or
> > > private. And then I should wish for the chess public to make up their
> > > own
> > > minds of 'who is telling the truth, and who is not.'
>
> > > **JerrySpinradwill chose to aver that propostion or continue to find i=
ts
> > > clauses and precepts incomprehensible to him.
>
> > > Phil Innes
> > > Vermont
> > > ---
>
> > > JerrySpinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 24 Apr 2008 13:02:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5b95a437-ba9c-428f-9405-b0006f1199e2@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 24, 6:53 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

Dear Jerry Spinrad,

Thank you for your replies. I think perhaps you accept that not everything
was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and what
is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
known to yourself.

Consequently some indirection was indicated.

Zr�vstvuite! Phil Innes

Hae nugae in seria ducent mala: consilio et animis non impetu et prudentia.

Date: 23 Apr 2008 22:37:36
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 23, 6:39=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Spinrad, you paraphrase me in order not to understand me, and you also
> selectively quote - but can't say what part you can't understand about you=
r
> own actions and decency in public reporting.
>
> That is nothing to do with private e-mails, this is the evidence of what y=
ou
> do right here.

And I still do not understand you.

>
> =A0 =A0 In terms of private material:-
>
> You did receive a private response to your public accusations <right?>
> Not from me, but from Susan Polgar.
>
> =A0 =A0 Have you investigated what she had to say?

After thinking about what she wrote, I recommended some actions she
(actually, Paul, since she has not been accused of anything) could
take to try to convince me and the public that the otherwise
improbable scenario of Paul being impersonated multiple times, in
bizarre ways, by a malevolent genius is actually true. I took some
time to think about this, and would not yet expect a reply. Since one
of them involves something which she should be able to prove, but I
only have from her confidential email, I cannot share it. One of them
has already been suggested numerous times, but I was happy to be able
to tell her in person; that Paul should produce for the public a
legally binding statement of his innocence, one that would open him to
perjury charges if it is false. I do not know the legal issues
involved; if it is not possible, then that should be explained. I have
a backup option if it is not possible, but I feel less good about it.
I am not a fan of polygraph tests, but taking and passing one in
public would probably be efective in swaying some opinions; at the
least, it would show he was willing to back his innocence with more
than calls for actions against other people.

I believe that if Paul made a legally binding testimony of innocence,
and more importantly took the public action I requested her privately
to take, it would be much more helpful than all the actions she has
taken so far.

Jerry Spinrad

>
> If you think you can continue to prosecute your previous agenda by repeati=
ng
> accusations, not investigating the result of accusations and reporting tho=
se
> without distinguishing one from the other, by all means continue to define=

> yourself by pretending stuff here in public.
>
> But you are going to get yourself dirty in this game Spinrad, and this is
> not the venue where it will happen. =A0;)

This is the sort of incomprehensible nonsense which I was talking
about. I still do not understand what you accuse me of, but it seems
that it can't be anything serious, except in your strange mind.

>
> Is that enough spit for you?
>
> If you can't understand [ROFL] this English, then maybe its your ears, dud=
e?
>
> Phil Innes
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a12b9e95-a1d6-4dc0-af96-3071371a9fed@t63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> I cannot understand Phil's latest nonsense. Here is his paragraph.
>
> Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
> well as
> Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
> in what
> happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
> contains
> one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
> Jerry! From
> people who are disgusted.
>
> Now he seems to be saying that I am supposed to understand this as
> relating to the fact that I am not publicly decent, because I am not
> revealing the scandalous fact that I receive less than 1% of my family
> income from Chess Cafe, which in turn has a financial relationship
> with the USCF.
>
> It doesn't wash. You asked me to tell everyone what the board received
> recently, something in which I was named. The clear implication was
> that I knew of this something, and was hiding it.
>
> I know nothing about what the board received. Phil dislikes it when I
> try to read into his illegible nonsense, but he seems at times to lump
> me with people who have brought in Susan's children, when I have
> consistently spoken against attempt to bring the children or any of
> Susan's personal life into the issue.
>
> So spit it out, Phil. You asked me to tell people what the board
> received. Are you saying I know something and am hiding it? I flatly
> deny this. YOU tell us what the board received, and then I will find
> out with everybody else. It can't be that you want it secret since you
> want me to reveal it; let us in on it.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Apr 20, 9:01 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:4356b291-d3c1-4159-a181-26a24123e1fb@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...=

> > On Apr 16, 7:48 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
> > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > **cutting to the point:-
>
> > Here is what Phil said
>
> > Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
> > well as
> > Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
> > in what
> > happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
> > contains
> > one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
> > Jerry! From
> > people who are disgusted.
>
> > I am, actually, very curious as to what this is talking about. I had
> > an interest in what happened? My interests are in common with Jerry
> > Hanken, who I have never met? Any clues?
>
> > I really cannot see my connection. Everything I have said about the
> > FSS has been on this newsgroup. I write a column on chess history at
> > chesscafe, for which I receive a small amount of money.
>
> > ** And what I asked of Jerry Hanken, and indeed all people who comment o=
n
> > USCF's politics, is if they will admit an interest - which is to say - i=
f
> > they make money or receive other consideration. This is apparently what =
is
> > 'so hard to understand'.
>
> > I have no idea what the board received recently. Maybe someone else
> > can tell me what the board received, or what my interest was?
>
> > ** Since I wrote in //these newsgroups// about money and other
> > considerations being received by commentators does not make them
> > 'dissinterested' parties to the issue, then the CONTEXT is established
> > clear. Perhaps JerrySpinradhas never heard the phrase, 'a disinterested
> > party'?
>
> > ** I asked for fair and open declaration of the relationship of those wh=
o
> > receive any consideration whatever in connection with USCF activities.
> > This
> > is what JerrySpinradprofesses so hard to understand, or even to
> > acknowledge is the question. If he does not think this is a fair request=

> > then I presume he will reply to say so. When, as did Jerry Hanken,
> > negative
> > and public speculations extend to the children of board members, I
> > personally think the public should know something about the speculator a=
nd
> > indeed the fulsomeness of their reporting.
>
> > **Certainly anyone pretending to journalism [CJA not excepted!] is oblig=
ed
> > by public and ethical standard to differentiate what is allegation from
> > what
> > is found true. If matters have been investigated than does it not oblige=

> > the
> > candid reporter to also note the fact?
>
> > **Like many other people I would wish all to be in the open, including t=
he
> > relationship of ALL those who would investige the issue in public or
> > private. And then I should wish for the chess public to make up their ow=
n
> > minds of 'who is telling the truth, and who is not.'
>
> > **JerrySpinradwill chose to aver that propostion or continue to find its=

> > clauses and precepts incomprehensible to him.
>
> > Phil Innes
> > Vermont
> > ---
>
> > JerrySpinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 24 Apr 2008 07:53:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:c5896855-690d-458f-9d78-9077c6447389@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 23, 6:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Spinrad, you paraphrase me in order not to understand me, and you also
> selectively quote - but can't say what part you can't understand about
> your
> own actions and decency in public reporting.
>
> That is nothing to do with private e-mails, this is the evidence of what
> you
> do right here.

And I still do not understand you.

**You don't understand what you do here? Let me clarify my orientation
below.

>
> In terms of private material:-
>
> You did receive a private response to your public accusations <right?>
> Not from me, but from Susan Polgar.
>
> Have you investigated what she had to say?

After thinking about what she wrote, I recommended some actions she
(actually, Paul, since she has not been accused of anything) could
take to try to convince me and the public that the otherwise
improbable scenario of Paul being impersonated multiple times, in
bizarre ways, by a malevolent genius is actually true.

SANS SAUCE

**Wowa! Thats a different topic than hot-sauce. Did you receive something on
that subject - since you previously wrote in public about it what is your
current understanding? Is the accusation dismissed?

**There is no need to repeat private mail, but you /could state/ if you know
the accusations were dismissed <right? >

---

The BIG PIC CHA!

**As to other matters I do not 'believe' anything. I have previous knowledge
of the person's character, plus other information which is not yet public,
but not all information since USCF are maintaining some amount of that under
wraps.

**Instead of make-believe, I would prefer a court to resolve the issue [just
as above in the hot-sauce instance] then what need is there to believe or
speculate at all? And if impartial people decide the issue, with all due
attention to the rules of evidence having been observed, then I will be
content with their resolutions, and that is the same stance now as I ever
had.

**The 'issue' of reporting and avering anything other than that process is
the one contested here in newsgroups, and it is very hard to find
law-abiding chess netizens who will agree with that stance.

**How odd that Larry Parr and I should agree on this issue, since we are
clearly not of the same mind on the worth of the Sloan! Therefore it is
difficult to put Parr and Innes onto any side, except that of the law.

**I hope these simple remarks are sufficiently clear.

Phil Innes

----------

I took some
time to think about this, and would not yet expect a reply. Since one
of them involves something which she should be able to prove, but I
only have from her confidential email, I cannot share it. One of them
has already been suggested numerous times, but I was happy to be able
to tell her in person; that Paul should produce for the public a
legally binding statement of his innocence, one that would open him to
perjury charges if it is false. I do not know the legal issues
involved; if it is not possible, then that should be explained. I have
a backup option if it is not possible, but I feel less good about it.
I am not a fan of polygraph tests, but taking and passing one in
public would probably be efective in swaying some opinions; at the
least, it would show he was willing to back his innocence with more
than calls for actions against other people.

I believe that if Paul made a legally binding testimony of innocence,
and more importantly took the public action I requested her privately
to take, it would be much more helpful than all the actions she has
taken so far.

Jerry Spinrad

>
> If you think you can continue to prosecute your previous agenda by
> repeating
> accusations, not investigating the result of accusations and reporting
> those
> without distinguishing one from the other, by all means continue to define
> yourself by pretending stuff here in public.
>
> But you are going to get yourself dirty in this game Spinrad, and this is
> not the venue where it will happen. ;)

This is the sort of incomprehensible nonsense which I was talking
about. I still do not understand what you accuse me of, but it seems
that it can't be anything serious, except in your strange mind.

>
> Is that enough spit for you?
>
> If you can't understand [ROFL] this English, then maybe its your ears,
> dude?
>
> Phil Innes
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a12b9e95-a1d6-4dc0-af96-3071371a9fed@t63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> I cannot understand Phil's latest nonsense. Here is his paragraph.
>
> Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
> well as
> Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
> in what
> happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
> contains
> one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
> Jerry! From
> people who are disgusted.
>
> Now he seems to be saying that I am supposed to understand this as
> relating to the fact that I am not publicly decent, because I am not
> revealing the scandalous fact that I receive less than 1% of my family
> income from Chess Cafe, which in turn has a financial relationship
> with the USCF.
>
> It doesn't wash. You asked me to tell everyone what the board received
> recently, something in which I was named. The clear implication was
> that I knew of this something, and was hiding it.
>
> I know nothing about what the board received. Phil dislikes it when I
> try to read into his illegible nonsense, but he seems at times to lump
> me with people who have brought in Susan's children, when I have
> consistently spoken against attempt to bring the children or any of
> Susan's personal life into the issue.
>
> So spit it out, Phil. You asked me to tell people what the board
> received. Are you saying I know something and am hiding it? I flatly
> deny this. YOU tell us what the board received, and then I will find
> out with everybody else. It can't be that you want it secret since you
> want me to reveal it; let us in on it.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Apr 20, 9:01 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:4356b291-d3c1-4159-a181-26a24123e1fb@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 16, 7:48 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
> > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > **cutting to the point:-
>
> > Here is what Phil said
>
> > Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
> > well as
> > Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
> > in what
> > happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
> > contains
> > one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
> > Jerry! From
> > people who are disgusted.
>
> > I am, actually, very curious as to what this is talking about. I had
> > an interest in what happened? My interests are in common with Jerry
> > Hanken, who I have never met? Any clues?
>
> > I really cannot see my connection. Everything I have said about the
> > FSS has been on this newsgroup. I write a column on chess history at
> > chesscafe, for which I receive a small amount of money.
>
> > ** And what I asked of Jerry Hanken, and indeed all people who comment
> > on
> > USCF's politics, is if they will admit an interest - which is to say -
> > if
> > they make money or receive other consideration. This is apparently what
> > is
> > 'so hard to understand'.
>
> > I have no idea what the board received recently. Maybe someone else
> > can tell me what the board received, or what my interest was?
>
> > ** Since I wrote in //these newsgroups// about money and other
> > considerations being received by commentators does not make them
> > 'dissinterested' parties to the issue, then the CONTEXT is established
> > clear. Perhaps JerrySpinradhas never heard the phrase, 'a disinterested
> > party'?
>
> > ** I asked for fair and open declaration of the relationship of those
> > who
> > receive any consideration whatever in connection with USCF activities.
> > This
> > is what JerrySpinradprofesses so hard to understand, or even to
> > acknowledge is the question. If he does not think this is a fair request
> > then I presume he will reply to say so. When, as did Jerry Hanken,
> > negative
> > and public speculations extend to the children of board members, I
> > personally think the public should know something about the speculator
> > and
> > indeed the fulsomeness of their reporting.
>
> > **Certainly anyone pretending to journalism [CJA not excepted!] is
> > obliged
> > by public and ethical standard to differentiate what is allegation from
> > what
> > is found true. If matters have been investigated than does it not oblige
> > the
> > candid reporter to also note the fact?
>
> > **Like many other people I would wish all to be in the open, including
> > the
> > relationship of ALL those who would investige the issue in public or
> > private. And then I should wish for the chess public to make up their
> > own
> > minds of 'who is telling the truth, and who is not.'
>
> > **JerrySpinradwill chose to aver that propostion or continue to find its
> > clauses and precepts incomprehensible to him.
>
> > Phil Innes
> > Vermont
> > ---
>
> > JerrySpinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 20 Apr 2008 15:12:13
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

I cannot understand Phil's latest nonsense. Here is his paragraph.

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

Now he seems to be saying that I am supposed to understand this as
relating to the fact that I am not publicly decent, because I am not
revealing the scandalous fact that I receive less than 1% of my family
income from Chess Cafe, which in turn has a financial relationship
with the USCF.

It doesn't wash. You asked me to tell everyone what the board received
recently, something in which I was named. The clear implication was
that I knew of this something, and was hiding it.

I know nothing about what the board received. Phil dislikes it when I
try to read into his illegible nonsense, but he seems at times to lump
me with people who have brought in Susan's children, when I have
consistently spoken against attempt to bring the children or any of
Susan's personal life into the issue.

So spit it out, Phil. You asked me to tell people what the board
received. Are you saying I know something and am hiding it? I flatly
deny this. YOU tell us what the board received, and then I will find
out with everybody else. It can't be that you want it secret since you
want me to reveal it; let us in on it.

Jerry Spinrad

On Apr 20, 9:01=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:4356b291-d3c1-4159-a181-26a24123e1fb@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 7:48 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> **cutting to the point:-
>
> Here is what Phil said
>
> Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
> well as
> Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
> in what
> happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
> contains
> one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
> Jerry! From
> people who are disgusted.
>
> I am, actually, very curious as to what this is talking about. I had
> an interest in what happened? My interests are in common with Jerry
> Hanken, who I have never met? Any clues?
>
> I really cannot see my connection. Everything I have said about the
> FSS has been on this newsgroup. I write a column on chess history at
> chesscafe, for which I receive a small amount of money.
>
> ** And what I asked of Jerry Hanken, and indeed all people who comment on
> USCF's politics, is if they will admit an interest - which is to say - if
> they make money or receive other consideration. This is apparently what is=

> 'so hard to understand'.
>
> I have no idea what the board received recently. Maybe someone else
> can tell me what the board received, or what my interest was?
>
> ** Since I wrote in //these newsgroups// about money and other
> considerations being received by commentators does not make them
> 'dissinterested' parties to the issue, then the CONTEXT is established
> clear. Perhaps JerrySpinradhas never heard the phrase, 'a disinterested
> party'?
>
> ** I asked for fair and open declaration of the relationship of those who
> receive any consideration whatever in connection with USCF activities. Thi=
s
> is what JerrySpinradprofesses so hard to understand, or even to
> acknowledge is the question. If he does not think this is a fair request
> then I presume he will reply to say so. When, as did Jerry Hanken, negativ=
e
> and public speculations extend to the children of board members, I
> personally think the public should know something about the speculator and=

> indeed the fulsomeness of their reporting.
>
> **Certainly anyone pretending to journalism [CJA not excepted!] is obliged=

> by public and ethical standard to differentiate what is allegation from wh=
at
> is found true. If matters have been investigated than does it not oblige t=
he
> candid reporter to also note the fact?
>
> **Like many other people I would wish all to be in the open, including the=

> relationship of ALL those who would investige the issue in public or
> private. And then I should wish for the chess public to make up their own
> minds of 'who is telling the truth, and who is not.'
>
> **JerrySpinradwill chose to aver that propostion or continue to find its
> clauses and precepts incomprehensible to him.
>
> Phil Innes
> Vermont
> ---
>
> JerrySpinrad

Date: 23 Apr 2008 19:39:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

Spinrad, you paraphrase me in order not to understand me, and you also
selectively quote - but can't say what part you can't understand about your
own actions and decency in public reporting.

That is nothing to do with private e-mails, this is the evidence of what you
do right here.

In terms of private material:-

You did receive a private response to your public accusations <right? >
Not from me, but from Susan Polgar.

Have you investigated what she had to say?

If you think you can continue to prosecute your previous agenda by repeating
accusations, not investigating the result of accusations and reporting those
without distinguishing one from the other, by all means continue to define
yourself by pretending stuff here in public.

But you are going to get yourself dirty in this game Spinrad, and this is
not the venue where it will happen. ;)

Is that enough spit for you?

If you can't understand [ROFL] this English, then maybe its your ears, dude?

Phil Innes

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a12b9e95-a1d6-4dc0-af96-3071371a9fed@t63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I cannot understand Phil's latest nonsense. Here is his paragraph.

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

Now he seems to be saying that I am supposed to understand this as
relating to the fact that I am not publicly decent, because I am not
revealing the scandalous fact that I receive less than 1% of my family
income from Chess Cafe, which in turn has a financial relationship
with the USCF.

It doesn't wash. You asked me to tell everyone what the board received
recently, something in which I was named. The clear implication was
that I knew of this something, and was hiding it.

I know nothing about what the board received. Phil dislikes it when I
try to read into his illegible nonsense, but he seems at times to lump
me with people who have brought in Susan's children, when I have
consistently spoken against attempt to bring the children or any of
Susan's personal life into the issue.

So spit it out, Phil. You asked me to tell people what the board
received. Are you saying I know something and am hiding it? I flatly
deny this. YOU tell us what the board received, and then I will find
out with everybody else. It can't be that you want it secret since you
want me to reveal it; let us in on it.

Jerry Spinrad

On Apr 20, 9:01 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:4356b291-d3c1-4159-a181-26a24123e1fb@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 7:48 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> **cutting to the point:-
>
> Here is what Phil said
>
> Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
> well as
> Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
> in what
> happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
> contains
> one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
> Jerry! From
> people who are disgusted.
>
> I am, actually, very curious as to what this is talking about. I had
> an interest in what happened? My interests are in common with Jerry
> Hanken, who I have never met? Any clues?
>
> I really cannot see my connection. Everything I have said about the
> FSS has been on this newsgroup. I write a column on chess history at
> chesscafe, for which I receive a small amount of money.
>
> ** And what I asked of Jerry Hanken, and indeed all people who comment on
> USCF's politics, is if they will admit an interest - which is to say - if
> they make money or receive other consideration. This is apparently what is
> 'so hard to understand'.
>
> I have no idea what the board received recently. Maybe someone else
> can tell me what the board received, or what my interest was?
>
> ** Since I wrote in //these newsgroups// about money and other
> considerations being received by commentators does not make them
> 'dissinterested' parties to the issue, then the CONTEXT is established
> clear. Perhaps JerrySpinradhas never heard the phrase, 'a disinterested
> party'?
>
> ** I asked for fair and open declaration of the relationship of those who
> receive any consideration whatever in connection with USCF activities.
> This
> is what JerrySpinradprofesses so hard to understand, or even to
> acknowledge is the question. If he does not think this is a fair request
> then I presume he will reply to say so. When, as did Jerry Hanken,
> negative
> and public speculations extend to the children of board members, I
> personally think the public should know something about the speculator and
> indeed the fulsomeness of their reporting.
>
> **Certainly anyone pretending to journalism [CJA not excepted!] is obliged
> by public and ethical standard to differentiate what is allegation from
> what
> is found true. If matters have been investigated than does it not oblige
> the
> candid reporter to also note the fact?
>
> **Like many other people I would wish all to be in the open, including the
> relationship of ALL those who would investige the issue in public or
> private. And then I should wish for the chess public to make up their own
> minds of 'who is telling the truth, and who is not.'
>
> **JerrySpinradwill chose to aver that propostion or continue to find its
> clauses and precepts incomprehensible to him.
>
> Phil Innes
> Vermont
> ---
>
> JerrySpinrad

Date: 24 Apr 2008 15:02:55
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 24, 4:42 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
> >there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
> >Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
> >be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
> >afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss)
>
> Sorry, I don't buy that. Those of us who are USCF members have an
> interest in activities that impact the organization and its
> governance, and no business puts important questions into suspension
> while a myriad of lawsuits and other procedures wend their way to
> resolution. To wait, possibly years on such process, before entering
> into discussion would be irresponsible.
>
> Mottershead made his report public for open critique and evaluation,
> as well as subjecting himself to personal attack.
>
> If the PT/SP have exculpatory information, they should open it up and
> put this thing to rest. IMO, this is a responsibility they accepted
> when they became public figures and took a position in USCF
> governance.
>
> > Just remember the "Prozac" incident.
>
> Not really comparable. You had the real information and made it
> public after a fairly short interval, corroborating data was out there
> in the public sphere for any open-minded person to find, and, most
> importantly, the whole thing was a rather clever joke on your part.

It was a rather poor "joke" if it lied to innocent third parties. Rob
Mitchell posted an endorsement of a mail-order 'drug' to a newsgroup.
In fact he did to several newsgroups. Someone might use one of those
questionable products after reading Mitchell's praise of them. As for
"corroborating data", why would someone who read one of Mitchell's
posts praising some sexual enhancement drug want to look up a
sailboat?

I'm not sure which is more disturbing, that Mitchell thinks nothing of
harming third parties, or that some posters here ignore what he did.

> >Some folks can be led to attack
> >anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.
>
> People make decisions based on the information that's available to
> them.
>
> If PT/SP want to keep the information private and depend on other
> people to trust that it implies certain things, well, that's their
> business. But they have no right to demand pure faith on the part of
> the general public. PT/SP's various websites, publicity acts, blogs
> AND past history contain enough exaggerations, evasions, half-truths,
> and undocumented claims that it seems unrealistic of them to demand
> the members just believe, contrary to the implications of the
> Mottershead Report, that PT is not the FSS and that it will all come
> out right in the end.

Yes, the weight of evidence is rather against the Trollgars, isn't it?

Date: 16 Apr 2008 19:03:12
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 16, 7:48=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Although I am violating my policy of not responding to Phil, I have
> >absolutely no clue what I am supposed to be accused of.
> >Jerry Spinrad
>
> Ever read Kafka?

I haven't reread The Trial for quite some time, but discussion with
Phil certainly puts me in the mood.

I was going to confess that I played some very bad moves in my most
recent tournament, but bringing those up is really too painful for me.

Here is what Phil said

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

I am, actually, very curious as to what this is talking about. I had
an interest in what happened? My interests are in common with Jerry
Hanken, who I have never met? Any clues?

I really cannot see my connection. Everything I have said about the
FSS has been on this newsgroup. I write a column on chess history at
chesscafe, for which I receive a small amount of money.

I have no idea what the board received recently. Maybe someone else
can tell me what the board received, or what my interest was?

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 20 Apr 2008 10:01:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4356b291-d3c1-4159-a181-26a24123e1fb@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 16, 7:48 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:

**cutting to the point:-

Here is what Phil said

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

I am, actually, very curious as to what this is talking about. I had
an interest in what happened? My interests are in common with Jerry
Hanken, who I have never met? Any clues?

I really cannot see my connection. Everything I have said about the
FSS has been on this newsgroup. I write a column on chess history at
chesscafe, for which I receive a small amount of money.

** And what I asked of Jerry Hanken, and indeed all people who comment on
USCF's politics, is if they will admit an interest - which is to say - if
they make money or receive other consideration. This is apparently what is
'so hard to understand'.

I have no idea what the board received recently. Maybe someone else
can tell me what the board received, or what my interest was?

** Since I wrote in //these newsgroups// about money and other
considerations being received by commentators does not make them
'dissinterested' parties to the issue, then the CONTEXT is established
clear. Perhaps Jerry Spinrad has never heard the phrase, 'a disinterested
party'?

** I asked for fair and open declaration of the relationship of those who
receive any consideration whatever in connection with USCF activities. This
is what Jerry Spinrad professes so hard to understand, or even to
acknowledge is the question. If he does not think this is a fair request
then I presume he will reply to say so. When, as did Jerry Hanken, negative
and public speculations extend to the children of board members, I
personally think the public should know something about the speculator and
indeed the fulsomeness of their reporting.

**Certainly anyone pretending to journalism [CJA not excepted!] is obliged
by public and ethical standard to differentiate what is allegation from what
is found true. If matters have been investigated than does it not oblige the
candid reporter to also note the fact?

**Like many other people I would wish all to be in the open, including the
relationship of ALL those who would investige the issue in public or
private. And then I should wish for the chess public to make up their own
minds of 'who is telling the truth, and who is not.'

**Jerry Spinrad will chose to aver that propostion or continue to find its
clauses and precepts incomprehensible to him.

Phil Innes
Vermont
---

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 26 Apr 2008 10:47:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 24, 10:51 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> I set a trap for you Neil because I knew your reputation as a cyber
> stalker. That is the one you found most quickly. And your belief of it
> made you the fool. Yes, My whole family has been on Prozac. But.. I
> sold Prozac and Prozac was transported to Illinois. Eventually you
> will find my other crumbs I scattered over the internet. I can hardly
> wait :-)

That's entrapment. You can't use evidence based on
entrapment, because *you* have crafted the crime.

Imagine that I am walking down the street, when Bill
Gates' limo cruises past. The trunk is not fully closed,
and after hitting a bump in the road, a briefcase falls
out onto the ground. The car drives away, and as I
come up to the case, I notice it is a jumbo-sized
Samsonite-- probably BG's suitcase, filled with
clothes, I expect. Upon toting it home, I discover that
it is actually filled with unmarked one-thousand dollar
bills. After several days of counting, I determine that
the total amount is in the billions, so I can't deposit it
all in one bank, or the FDIC will not insure it all. Long
story short, they track me down and throw me in jail
for "stealing" funds allegedly earmarked for the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation-- a nice PR twist for
Mr. Gates, who secretly was funneling money out of
the country into one of his many offshore accounts.

Of course, that was just a story-- I would never be so
stupid as to put the money I found in a bank, creating
a paper trail. In fact, it's safe and sound, stuffed inside
my mattress at home. Nobody but me will ever even
suspect I found it (except maybe a few imbeciles who
waste their time reading and posting to rgc... ).

Anyway, back to the subject, which was this: who
has more money-- me, or Marcus Roberts? I think
you now know the answer to that question.

-- help bot

Date: 25 Apr 2008 11:14:50
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brennen admits he is a troll and resufes to deny he attacks

On Apr 25, 12:14=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 11:18 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Now..... about your retraction?
>
> There is no need for one, except in your tortured little mind.
>
> Nor does he need to recant....
>
> All this deflection won't save your hero Bob Bennett.l

Stephen,
Neil said he did not attack nor did he want to attack Susan, Paul or
Phil. I don't know why he included Phil into his comment. It certainly
wasn't something I requested. I pointed out he coined the term
"Trollgar". My implication that his creation of the term and his
promotion of it's usage was deliberatly ment as a derogatory term. He
then implied he didn't start the term. At which point I produced his
online admission that he created the term.

I do not understand why others have such a difficult time following
that. Maybe it is something that has become such a second natured knee
jerk reaction that any statement provided by certain posters will be
attacked simply because the information comes from them? I don't know
but it sure seems like that to me.

I believe one can find evidence that I have supported and disagreed
with postings of people on both sides. That exception I think is Jason
Repa, who I have never agreed with. For months I and a few others have
been saying that there is alot of stuff that isn't know about whats
happening with the Mottershead/FSS deal. I said that for the
reputations of all involved it is best not to speculate on it in
public. I was condemned for making this suggestion and belittled and
poked fun at. Now that Jerry has been advised of only the smallest
part of what is there; he admits that there are things going on that
can explain alot but that should not be made public. People say, "We
believe you,now".

My throwing all the Chess Cafe' folks into one group was unfair. They
should all be judged on the merits of their convictions. That does not
excuse those who deserve the condemnation. Rather than trying to
single them out one by one I would prefer to say recognizing them is
like recognizing pornography. It's hard to give it a defination but
you know it when you see it.

I never ment to offend you Stephen. I do not wish to engage in
negative discourse with you.
Rob

Date: 25 Apr 2008 10:14:57
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Brennen admits he is a troll and resufes to deny he attacks

On Apr 25, 11:18 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> Now..... about your retraction?

There is no need for one, except in your tortured little mind.

Nor does he need to recant....

All this deflection won't save your hero Bob Bennett.l

Date: 25 Apr 2008 09:18:37
From: Rob
Subject: Brennen admits he is a troll and resufes to deny he attacks Polgar

On Apr 25, 6:35=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 6:19 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think your posting phony recommendations of unlicensed drugs
> > > to newsgroups makes me a fool. Rather, it makes you something
> > > loathsome.
>
> > You got caught. You fell for it. You proved to everyone you are an
> > internet troll. But thats okay.
>
> Better you calling me a troll than the world calling you a spammer:
>

Tisk-Tisk

The world calls you a troll. LOL

Now..... about your retraction?

Date: 25 Apr 2008 04:35:21
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 25, 6:19 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> > I don't think your posting phony recommendations of unlicensed drugs
> > to newsgroups makes me a fool. Rather, it makes you something
> > loathsome.
>
> You got caught. You fell for it. You proved to everyone you are an
> internet troll. But thats okay.

Better you calling me a troll than the world calling you a spammer:

*************************
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-
pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!
stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!
b435ce59!not-for-mail
Reply-To: "Patricia Heil" <[email protected] >
From: "Patricia Heil" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: alt.support.diet
References: <[email protected] >
Subject: Re: New Gastric Bypass Pill
Lines: 21
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:58:41 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.86.174
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1140919121 165.247.86.174
(Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:58:41 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:58:41 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Does anyone know anything about this pill? It sounds like it may be
> useful but before I try it I wanted to see if anyone else had heard of
> it.
>
> Here is the link:
>
> http://www.1shoppingcart.com/app/aftrack.asp?afid=335500&u=http://www.zetacap.com
>
> I had to copy it like this because I dont know how to post a hyperlink,
> sorry.
>
> Thanks for your help.
> Rob
>

If this isn't fraud I don't know what is.

********************

Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!
not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:51:50 -0600
Newsgroups: alt.support.diet
Subject: Re: New Gastric Bypass Pill
From: Andy <q >
References: <[email protected] >
Organization: CotD
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
User-Agent: Xnews/2005.10.18
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:51:50 -0600
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.32.207.112
X-Trace: sv3-obV4E5Ix3R
+ECo7fdgatYxZQe90ZInkxk8GFBCxaojgERwaTb2B0a1oyTgVRCv298FenqJXAWUCMUaF!
ifa8iMQKXAHwlNGCcdSCbFgJIe40IJRdEJJzeY2UZBvxoMNR5RX/d1rNfxIR08Jb30m/fgQ
+/Xs=
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32

[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Does anyone know anything about this pill? It sounds like it may be
> useful but before I try it I wanted to see if anyone else had heard of
> it.
>
> Here is the link:
>
> http://www.1shoppingcart.com/app/aftrack.asp?afid=335500&u=http://www.z
> etacap.com
>
> I had to copy it like this because I dont know how to post a
> hyperlink, sorry.

You know how to spam but you don't know www.tinyurl.com?

If it's not sold at the market or pharmacy, I'm not buying.

That famous claim "NOT SOLD IN STORES!" is not a blessing of a
product.

Imho,

Andy
************

Ignoramus12893 wrote:
> you should disclose that you are an affiliate spammer for zetacap.

> i
***************

Date: 25 Apr 2008 04:19:10
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 25, 5:22 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 9:51 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT),
> > > > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >> I think perhaps you accept that not everything
> > > > > >> was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and what
> > > > > >> is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
> > > > > >> known to yourself.
> > > > > >Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
> > > > > >direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.
>
> > > > > The Mottershead Report came out some eight months ago, and its
> > > > > implications have been semi-paralyzing the USCF EB ever since. The
> > > > > idea that there's a whole layer of alternative explanation for the FSS
> > > > > identity, an explanation relatively plausible, not publicly discussed,
> > > > > but disclosed by e-mail to selected private parties -- this is strange
> > > > > stuff. Its strangeness is compounded by the plethora of half-baked
> > > > > explanations put forth by PT/SP supporters, and vigorously debunked in
> > > > > this and other forums.
>
> > > > > Jeremy, your postings reveal general level-headedness and goodwill,
> > > > > and I'll respect your judgment that there's secret stuff out there
> > > > > that needs "some serious evaluation", but the PT/SP strategy of
> > > > > keeping it semi-secret for the better part of a year leaves me
> > > > > baffled. Usually, the desire to keep things safely under wraps is not
> > > > > a major flag of innocence. I'm at a loss to understand how this could
> > > > > be good either for the USCF or for PT/SP.
>
> > > > Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
> > > > there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
> > > > Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
> > > > be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
> > > > afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss) Just
> > > > remember the "Prozac" incident. Some folks can be led to attack
> > > > anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.
>
> > > Ah yes, that day when Rob Mitchell posted to
> > > alt.support.depression.medication to mock the posters there. The
> > > posting is copied below. Please note that he's never returned to ASDM
> > > to apologize to the group for posting a statement he's now admitted
> > > was false.
>
> > > ****************************
> > > Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
> > > v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication
> > > Subject: Re: SSRIs as Performance Enhancers?
> > > Date: 24 Feb 2006 11:01:19 -0800
> > > Organization:http://groups.google.com
> > > Lines: 20
> > > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > > References: <[email protected]>
> > > <wQuJf.1471$dO2.992@trnddc07>
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.156.13.155
> > > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1140807686 13257 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2006
> > > 19:01:26 GMT)
> > > X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> > > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
> > > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> > > User-Agent: G2/0.2
> > > X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
> > > SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> > > Complaints-To: [email protected]
> > > Injection-Info: v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-
> > > host=70.156.13.155;
> > > posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f
>
> > > Black Sheep wrote:
> > > > On 2006-02-18, radiohead <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > ssri's are performance inhancers in the sense that you cant have any
> > > > > kind of a sex life on them so you have more time to work.
>
> > > > I take Nefazodone (Serzone) and have had no sexual side effects, unlike Paxil
> > > > and zoloft. I understand that Nefazodone normally does not produce sexual
> > > > side effects.
>
> > > > However, there are other things it does do....
>
> > > I have been using this:http://tinyurl.com/mldau
>
> > > It has improved my desire and ability even though I am on Prozac. It
> > > may or may not work for you.
> > > ********************
>
> > I set a trap for you Neil because I knew your reputation as a cyber
> > stalker. That is the one you found most quickly. And your belief of it
> > made you the fool. Yes, My whole family has been on Prozac. But.. I
> > sold Prozac and Prozac was transported to Illinois. Eventually you
> > will find my other crumbs I scattered over the internet. I can hardly
> > wait :-)
>
> I don't think your posting phony recommendations of unlicensed drugs
> to newsgroups makes me a fool. Rather, it makes you something
> loathsome.

You got caught. You fell for it. You proved to everyone you are an
internet troll. But thats okay.

Date: 25 Apr 2008 03:22:51
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 24, 9:51 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT),
> > > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> I think perhaps you accept that not everything
> > > > >> was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and what
> > > > >> is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
> > > > >> known to yourself.
> > > > >Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
> > > > >direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.
>
> > > > The Mottershead Report came out some eight months ago, and its
> > > > implications have been semi-paralyzing the USCF EB ever since. The
> > > > idea that there's a whole layer of alternative explanation for the FSS
> > > > identity, an explanation relatively plausible, not publicly discussed,
> > > > but disclosed by e-mail to selected private parties -- this is strange
> > > > stuff. Its strangeness is compounded by the plethora of half-baked
> > > > explanations put forth by PT/SP supporters, and vigorously debunked in
> > > > this and other forums.
>
> > > > Jeremy, your postings reveal general level-headedness and goodwill,
> > > > and I'll respect your judgment that there's secret stuff out there
> > > > that needs "some serious evaluation", but the PT/SP strategy of
> > > > keeping it semi-secret for the better part of a year leaves me
> > > > baffled. Usually, the desire to keep things safely under wraps is not
> > > > a major flag of innocence. I'm at a loss to understand how this could
> > > > be good either for the USCF or for PT/SP.
>
> > > Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
> > > there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
> > > Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
> > > be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
> > > afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss) Just
> > > remember the "Prozac" incident. Some folks can be led to attack
> > > anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.
>
> > Ah yes, that day when Rob Mitchell posted to
> > alt.support.depression.medication to mock the posters there. The
> > posting is copied below. Please note that he's never returned to ASDM
> > to apologize to the group for posting a statement he's now admitted
> > was false.
>
> > ****************************
> > Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
> > v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> > From: [email protected]
> > Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication
> > Subject: Re: SSRIs as Performance Enhancers?
> > Date: 24 Feb 2006 11:01:19 -0800
> > Organization:http://groups.google.com
> > Lines: 20
> > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > References: <[email protected]>
> > <wQuJf.1471$dO2.992@trnddc07>
> > <[email protected]>
> > <[email protected]>
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.156.13.155
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1140807686 13257 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2006
> > 19:01:26 GMT)
> > X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
> > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> > User-Agent: G2/0.2
> > X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
> > SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> > Complaints-To: [email protected]
> > Injection-Info: v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-
> > host=70.156.13.155;
> > posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f
>
> > Black Sheep wrote:
> > > On 2006-02-18, radiohead <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > ssri's are performance inhancers in the sense that you cant have any
> > > > kind of a sex life on them so you have more time to work.
>
> > > I take Nefazodone (Serzone) and have had no sexual side effects, unlike Paxil
> > > and zoloft. I understand that Nefazodone normally does not produce sexual
> > > side effects.
>
> > > However, there are other things it does do....
>
> > I have been using this:http://tinyurl.com/mldau
>
> > It has improved my desire and ability even though I am on Prozac. It
> > may or may not work for you.
> > ********************
>
> I set a trap for you Neil because I knew your reputation as a cyber
> stalker. That is the one you found most quickly. And your belief of it
> made you the fool. Yes, My whole family has been on Prozac. But.. I
> sold Prozac and Prozac was transported to Illinois. Eventually you
> will find my other crumbs I scattered over the internet. I can hardly
> wait :-)

I don't think your posting phony recommendations of unlicensed drugs
to newsgroups makes me a fool. Rather, it makes you something
loathsome.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 19:51:32
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT),
> > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> I think perhaps you accept that not everything
> > > >> was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and what
> > > >> is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
> > > >> known to yourself.
> > > >Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
> > > >direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.
>
> > > The Mottershead Report came out some eight months ago, and its
> > > implications have been semi-paralyzing the USCF EB ever since. The
> > > idea that there's a whole layer of alternative explanation for the FSS
> > > identity, an explanation relatively plausible, not publicly discussed,
> > > but disclosed by e-mail to selected private parties -- this is strange
> > > stuff. Its strangeness is compounded by the plethora of half-baked
> > > explanations put forth by PT/SP supporters, and vigorously debunked in
> > > this and other forums.
>
> > > Jeremy, your postings reveal general level-headedness and goodwill,
> > > and I'll respect your judgment that there's secret stuff out there
> > > that needs "some serious evaluation", but the PT/SP strategy of
> > > keeping it semi-secret for the better part of a year leaves me
> > > baffled. Usually, the desire to keep things safely under wraps is not
> > > a major flag of innocence. I'm at a loss to understand how this could
> > > be good either for the USCF or for PT/SP.
>
> > Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
> > there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
> > Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
> > be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
> > afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss) Just
> > remember the "Prozac" incident. Some folks can be led to attack
> > anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.
>
> Ah yes, that day when Rob Mitchell posted to
> alt.support.depression.medication to mock the posters there. The
> posting is copied below. Please note that he's never returned to ASDM
> to apologize to the group for posting a statement he's now admitted
> was false.
>
> ****************************
> Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
> v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: [email protected]
> Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication
> Subject: Re: SSRIs as Performance Enhancers?
> Date: 24 Feb 2006 11:01:19 -0800
> Organization:http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 20
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
> <wQuJf.1471$dO2.992@trnddc07>
> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.156.13.155
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1140807686 13257 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2006
> 19:01:26 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
> SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: [email protected]
> Injection-Info: v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-
> host=70.156.13.155;
> posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f
>
> Black Sheep wrote:
> > On 2006-02-18, radiohead <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > ssri's are performance inhancers in the sense that you cant have any
> > > kind of a sex life on them so you have more time to work.
>
> > I take Nefazodone (Serzone) and have had no sexual side effects, unlike Paxil
> > and zoloft. I understand that Nefazodone normally does not produce sexual
> > side effects.
>
> > However, there are other things it does do....
>
> I have been using this:http://tinyurl.com/mldau
>
> It has improved my desire and ability even though I am on Prozac. It
> may or may not work for you.
> ********************

I set a trap for you Neil because I knew your reputation as a cyber
stalker. That is the one you found most quickly. And your belief of it
made you the fool. Yes, My whole family has been on Prozac. But.. I
sold Prozac and Prozac was transported to Illinois. Eventually you
will find my other crumbs I scattered over the internet. I can hardly
wait :-)

Date: 24 Apr 2008 14:52:04
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I think perhaps you accept that not everything
> >> was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and what
> >> is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
> >> known to yourself.
> >Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
> >direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.
>
> The Mottershead Report came out some eight months ago, and its
> implications have been semi-paralyzing the USCF EB ever since. The
> idea that there's a whole layer of alternative explanation for the FSS
> identity, an explanation relatively plausible, not publicly discussed,
> but disclosed by e-mail to selected private parties -- this is strange
> stuff. Its strangeness is compounded by the plethora of half-baked
> explanations put forth by PT/SP supporters, and vigorously debunked in
> this and other forums.
>
> Jeremy, your postings reveal general level-headedness and goodwill,
> and I'll respect your judgment that there's secret stuff out there
> that needs "some serious evaluation", but the PT/SP strategy of
> keeping it semi-secret for the better part of a year leaves me
> baffled. Usually, the desire to keep things safely under wraps is not
> a major flag of innocence. I'm at a loss to understand how this could
> be good either for the USCF or for PT/SP.

I'm sorry, but this appears to be more of the typical Trollgar/Innes/
Mitchell claque and dagger stuff. I don't see any reason to buy it
this time.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 14:48:13
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 24, 3:58 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT),
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> I think perhaps you accept that not everything
> > >> was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and what
> > >> is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previously
> > >> known to yourself.
> > >Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
> > >direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.
>
> > The Mottershead Report came out some eight months ago, and its
> > implications have been semi-paralyzing the USCF EB ever since. The
> > idea that there's a whole layer of alternative explanation for the FSS
> > identity, an explanation relatively plausible, not publicly discussed,
> > but disclosed by e-mail to selected private parties -- this is strange
> > stuff. Its strangeness is compounded by the plethora of half-baked
> > explanations put forth by PT/SP supporters, and vigorously debunked in
> > this and other forums.
>
> > Jeremy, your postings reveal general level-headedness and goodwill,
> > and I'll respect your judgment that there's secret stuff out there
> > that needs "some serious evaluation", but the PT/SP strategy of
> > keeping it semi-secret for the better part of a year leaves me
> > baffled. Usually, the desire to keep things safely under wraps is not
> > a major flag of innocence. I'm at a loss to understand how this could
> > be good either for the USCF or for PT/SP.
>
> Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
> there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
> Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
> be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
> afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss) Just
> remember the "Prozac" incident. Some folks can be led to attack
> anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.

Ah yes, that day when Rob Mitchell posted to
alt.support.depression.medication to mock the posters there. The
posting is copied below. Please note that he's never returned to ASDM
to apologize to the group for posting a statement he's now admitted
was false.

****************************
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication
Subject: Re: SSRIs as Performance Enhancers?
Date: 24 Feb 2006 11:01:19 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
References: <[email protected] >
<wQuJf.1471$dO2.992@trnddc07 >
<[email protected] >
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.156.13.155
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1140807686 13257 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2006
19:01:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected] >
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=70.156.13.155;
posting-account=D2Z83AwAAAA-ocdAPTiAARcZxhYxpR_f

Black Sheep wrote:
> On 2006-02-18, radiohead <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ssri's are performance inhancers in the sense that you cant have any
> > kind of a sex life on them so you have more time to work.
>
> I take Nefazodone (Serzone) and have had no sexual side effects, unlike Paxil
> and zoloft. I understand that Nefazodone normally does not produce sexual
> side effects.
>
> However, there are other things it does do....

I have been using this: http://tinyurl.com/mldau

It has improved my desire and ability even though I am on Prozac. It
may or may not work for you.
********************

Date: 24 Apr 2008 14:42:45
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 24, 2:29=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 24, 12:02=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I think perhaps you accept that not everything
> >> was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and=
what
> >> is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previou=
sly
> >> known to yourself.
> >Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
> >direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.
>
> The Mottershead Report came out some eight months ago, and its
> implications have been semi-paralyzing the USCF EB ever since. The
> idea that there's a whole layer of alternative explanation for the FSS
> identity, an explanation relatively plausible, not publicly discussed,
> but disclosed by e-mail to selected private parties -- this is strange
> stuff. =A0Its strangeness is compounded by the plethora of half-baked
> explanations put forth by PT/SP supporters, and vigorously debunked in
> this and other forums.

Yes, I think that the PT/SP camp deserves much of the blame for the
level of acrimony. From the very first reaction, attacking Motterhead
and all people who regarded the evidence against them as serious
vehemently, their choices were poor and seemed to indicate guilt. Many
red herrings have been brought up by their supporters, which wasted
everyone's time and did not help cooperation. The main guilt on the
other side relates to bringing up issues involving Susan's children;
those who did so only helped feed a sense of persecution on an issue
which is both extremely sensitive and completely irrelevant to the
case. You, Mike, are of course not part of this.

I still believe that the likelihood is that Truong is guilty, but the
information given to me produced an alternative hypothesis which is
within the range of reasonable doubt, and deserves investigation.

I have not yet found whether such an investigation has already been
conducted. I have now heard from the PT/SP side, and I am trying to
find out from the other side what their perspective is. I will try as
much as possible to let people know what views I feel are reasonable,
without breaking any confidences.

Jerry Spinrad

>
> Jeremy, your postings reveal general level-headedness and goodwill,
> and I'll respect your judgment that there's secret stuff out there
> that needs "some serious evaluation", but the PT/SP strategy of
> keeping it semi-secret for the better part of a year leaves me
> baffled. =A0Usually, the desire to keep things safely under wraps is not
> a major flag of innocence. =A0I'm at a loss to understand how this could
> be good either for the USCF or for PT/SP.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 13:58:00
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Apr 24, 2:29=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 24, 12:02=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I think perhaps you accept that not everything
> >> was or is yet quite in the open here, but your attention to what is and=
what
> >> is not so apparent is possibly now incremented by materials not previou=
sly
> >> known to yourself.
> >Yes. It is interesting, needs some serious evaluation, and suggests a
> >direction of inquiry I had no inkling of.
>
> The Mottershead Report came out some eight months ago, and its
> implications have been semi-paralyzing the USCF EB ever since. The
> idea that there's a whole layer of alternative explanation for the FSS
> identity, an explanation relatively plausible, not publicly discussed,
> but disclosed by e-mail to selected private parties -- this is strange
> stuff. =A0Its strangeness is compounded by the plethora of half-baked
> explanations put forth by PT/SP supporters, and vigorously debunked in
> this and other forums.
>
> Jeremy, your postings reveal general level-headedness and goodwill,
> and I'll respect your judgment that there's secret stuff out there
> that needs "some serious evaluation", but the PT/SP strategy of
> keeping it semi-secret for the better part of a year leaves me
> baffled. =A0Usually, the desire to keep things safely under wraps is not
> a major flag of innocence. =A0I'm at a loss to understand how this could
> be good either for the USCF or for PT/SP.

Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss) Just
remember the "Prozac" incident. Some folks can be led to attack
anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.

Date: 24 Apr 2008 14:42:33
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Spinrad knows something, but... spits anyway

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Isn't this what we have been saying all along? There are things out
>there that most in this group have no inkling of what is going on.
>Those of us who have more level heads have simply said that it should
>be presented in some other place and determined and the discussed here
>afterwords.( If there will be even anything left to discuss)

Sorry, I don't buy that. Those of us who are USCF members have an
interest in activities that impact the organization and its
governance, and no business puts important questions into suspension
while a myriad of lawsuits and other procedures wend their way to
resolution. To wait, possibly years on such process, before entering
into discussion would be irresponsible.

Mottershead made his report public for open critique and evaluation,
as well as subjecting himself to personal attack.

If the PT/SP have exculpatory information, they should open it up and
put this thing to rest. IMO, this is a responsibility they accepted
when they became public figures and took a position in USCF
governance.

> Just remember the "Prozac" incident.

Not really comparable. You had the real information and made it
public after a fairly short interval, corroborating data was out there
in the public sphere for any open-minded person to find, and, most
importantly, the whole thing was a rather clever joke on your part.

>Some folks can be led to attack
>anything if the thing they attack is a target they want.

People make decisions based on the information that's available to
them.

If PT/SP want to keep the information private and depend on other
people to trust that it implies certain things, well, that's their
business. But they have no right to demand pure faith on the part of
the general public. PT/SP's various websites, publicity acts, blogs
AND past history contain enough exaggerations, evasions, half-truths,
and undocumented claims that it seems unrealistic of them to demand
the members just believe, contrary to the implications of the
Mottershead Report, that PT is not the FSS and that it will all come
out right in the end.

Date: 14 Apr 2008 19:59:54
From: Guy Macon
Subject: 6401 Postal rating?

Mike Murray wrote:

>Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
>about your various credentials, it tends to make me "more suspicious".
>There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
>about your credentials.
>
>Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
>credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
>authority, you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
>we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
>well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.
>
>It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
>board.
>
>Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
>you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
>For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
>envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
>state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
>of children" -- a reform school, for example).
>
>Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
>to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
>litem might do, and we called you on it.
>
>In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
>board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
>demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.
>
>Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
>bluffer. We want to see the cards.

It's all a simple typo. Phile was saying that he was once on
a *skate* board, not a *state* board. And that 2450 rating?
Did Phil ever specify that he was using base-10 (decimal) numbers?
A base-8 (octal) rating of 2450 equals a decimal rating of 1320,
which seems about right.

In like manner, my naturally modest nature caused me to ask the USCF
to publish my postal rating in base-16 (hexadecimal). A 1901 rating
in hexadecimal is 6401 in decimal, and I didn't want to hurt Rybka's
feelings, her being a lady and all. Besides, I think I can say with
great confidence that my OTB performance implies a rating that is
well under 5000. :) I can also say that I also am close to an IM;
several of them live in the same city that I live in.

It's all how you look at things...

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >

Date: 14 Apr 2008 17:43:56
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
>>>> state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
>>>> trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
>>>> legal &c.
>
>>> Care to list any particulars ?
>
>> Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
>> anything -... Like the
>> fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more suspicious!
>
> Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
> about your various credentials, it tends to make me "more suspicious".
> There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
> about your credentials.
>
> Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
> credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
> authority, you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
> we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
> well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.
>
>> Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!
>
> It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
> board.
>
> Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
> you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
> For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
> envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
> state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
> of children" -- a reform school, for example).
>
> Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
> to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
> litem might do, and we called you on it.
>
> In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
> board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
> demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.
>
> Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
> bluffer. We want to see the cards.
>
>

Almost sounds like the rap on Phil's friend Paul Truong. We're still
waiting to see Truong's business cards from all those companies he
turned around and the Fortune 500 companies he allegedly worked for.

Birds of a feather do flock together.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 21:09:42
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>>> Hey Deuce!
>>>
>>> Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
>>> more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
>>>
>>> Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
>>>
>>> :)))
>> So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you
>
> Murray, you have declared you have no interest in other than Paul Truong
> being the perp, by virtue of the fact that you will not look candidly at
> existing evidence, and here intercede because the Line Judge is directly
> challenged to his legal representation - and has put his foot in his mouth.
Ah Bowel Boy, you are releasing intellectual diarrhea. Immodium for your
brain is needed.

>
>> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
>> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>
> You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
> proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
> would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?

See my comment on another post that answers your stupid questions.
>
> PI
>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>>> And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
>>>> when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
>>>> Not assertions.
>
>

Date: 10 Apr 2008 14:21:42
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

zdrakec wrote:
>> To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
>> society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
>> stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
>> Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
>>
>
> Whatever your opinion of Susan Polgar, that last remark was unworthy
> of a gentleman. You should be ashamed for making it, sir.
>
> zdrakec
>
There's precedent for it in their household according to what her kids
told a guardian ad litem. They're quite the enlightened couple. Hot
sauce, blond jokes, slanderous attacks on people like Hanken and Lux,
not to mention being Fake Sam Sloanish, etc. Truth bites.

Date: 10 Apr 2008 05:05:48
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Apr 9, 7:26 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:

> Poor Susie. I feel her pain. The truth hurts.

I haven't been following the issue well enough to have any idea if the
danger is of Polgar and Truong doing that to the USCF, or of Hanken
doing that to the USCF.

I suppose if the Chinese had an up-and-coming chess Grandmaster that
we had to find some child prodigy to beat for World Champion, then the
USCF would have so many members it would feel confident this could not
happen to it.

Failing that, presumably if Chess were replaced with my pet project
modification of it:

http://www.quadibloc.com/chess/ch0202.htm

this would do away with opening theory, and (as advertised for
Seirawan Chess) "make chess fun again", and so the problem would be
solved.

Yeah, right.

It is _not_ going to be as simple as that. But that there is a
relation between shrinking pies and infighting is a reasonable enough
conclusion as well.

John Savard

Date: 10 Apr 2008 00:37:29
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

samsloan wrote:
> Today, Susan Polgar posted the following on her chessdiscussion.com
>
> http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1031
>
> The Jerry Hanken issue
>
> Post by Susan Polgar on Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:03 pm
>
> In spite of my good will toward the regrettable recent conduct by Mr.
> Hanken, here is what he publicly stated this morning about my husband
> and me:
>
> "I believe that If they (Susan and Paul) ever got control of USCF
> with a board majority by getting a couple of bootlickers elected while
> both held onto their seats, it would be all over for the Federation!
> They would suck the USCF dry and leave its hulk in a dumpster while
> founding the "Polger Chess Federation". This is NOT a joke and I am
> not an alarmist."
>
> It is even more unfortunate that some board members are continuing to
> look the other way to protect an individual like this while continuing
> to offer him paid USCF projects. This is one of the things I brought
> up before and spoke out against. One of the reasons why the USCF is
> often in financial difficulties is because we continue to award paid
> projects to friends and insiders instead of getting the best people
> for the job.
>
> I hope that Mr. Goichberg and his board majority will speak out
> against such regrettable statement and conduct by Mr. Hanken and
> revoke all paid assignments from individuals like this. What does it
> say when board members and the USCF see nothing wrong with this and
> continue to support such individuals?
>
> Susan Polgar
> http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
> http://www.SusanPolgar.com

What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States. The right
to speak truth to power is what men and women have given their lives for
in founding and defending this country.

To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.

Date: 12 Apr 2008 18:31:18
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

>What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
>apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
>the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.

What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.

EZoto

Date: 14 Apr 2008 10:41:05
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:31:18 -0400, EZoto <[email protected] >
wrote:

>What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
>square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
>him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
>election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.

The question is not whether the election itself was fair, but that one
of the successful candidates has been accused of trying to influence
the election through unfair means, i.e., identity theft and is
therefor unfit to hold office. The argument that he would have won
anyway is not relevant.

>Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
>have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.

Sam's lawsuit isn't the only issue.

>EZoto

Date: 12 Apr 2008 23:46:43
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

EZoto wrote:
>> What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
>> apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
>> the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.
>
> What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
> square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
> him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
> election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
> Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
> have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.
>
> EZoto
Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
the courts eventually decide.

Date: 12 Apr 2008 22:26:40
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:46:43 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:

>EZoto wrote:
>>> What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
>>> apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
>>> the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.
>>
>> What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
>> square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
>> him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
>> election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
>> Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
>> have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.
>>
>> EZoto
>Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
>the courts eventually decide.

And lets say the courts decide. What makes you think with the
behavoir shown here from you clowns would anyone want you guys in
office. If the courts decide then so be it. But there is no way
anyone would want you clowns either. Your behavoir as former elected
officials is reprehensible.

EZoto

Date: 13 Apr 2008 08:52:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

"EZoto" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:46:43 GMT, Brian Lafferty
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
>>the courts eventually decide.
>
> And lets say the courts decide. What makes you think with the
> behavoir shown here from you clowns would anyone want you guys in
> office. If the courts decide then so be it. But there is no way
> anyone would want you clowns either. Your behavoir as former elected
> officials is reprehensible.

But at least Lafferty subscribes to the rule of law in his comment above -
and if indeed he is sincere in that, then let him not agitate further
outside that system of properly audited evidences.

The trouble with answering questions from a clacque of interrogators, is
that nothing ever seems to depend on it. Thereby, such 'questions' seem
never any more than opportunies to cast aspersions. No one, for example, has
said what they would resolve if the questions were answered - whether they
would apologise, stop casting negative aspersions onto others in public,
and, as at the top, allow the courts to do their properly constituted
business of determining what is what.

There's the rub! ;)

Instead of declaring for themselves what /depends/ on any answer, instead we
read here newer, more horrifying crimes of the suspected perps -
alternately, the answers are not understood, or the answerer is rubbished,
since the interrogators don't like the answers.

This is literally to say that patently nothing depends on any answer to a
question, and the questioners take no responsibility for their own actions
in proposing them. That is, they are demonstrated to be nothing more than
feckless accusations, on which depends nothing.

Phil Innes

> EZoto

Date: 13 Apr 2008 14:22:30
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Chess One wrote:
> "EZoto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:46:43 GMT, Brian Lafferty
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
>>> the courts eventually decide.
>> And lets say the courts decide. What makes you think with the
>> behavoir shown here from you clowns would anyone want you guys in
>> office. If the courts decide then so be it. But there is no way
>> anyone would want you clowns either. Your behavoir as former elected
>> officials is reprehensible.
>
> But at least Lafferty subscribes to the rule of law in his comment above -
> and if indeed he is sincere in that, then let him not agitate further
> outside that system of properly audited evidences.

The rule of law in our society exists quite comfortably with politics
and free speech.

[Remaining BB drivel snipped]

Date: 09 Apr 2008 14:58:01
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Today, Susan Polgar posted the following on her chessdiscussion.com
>
>http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1031
>
>The Jerry Hanken issue
>
>Post by Susan Polgar on Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:03 pm
>
>In spite of my good will toward the regrettable recent conduct by Mr.
>Hanken, here is what he publicly stated this morning about my husband
>and me:
>
> "I believe that If they (Susan and Paul) ever got control of USCF
>with a board majority by getting a couple of bootlickers elected while
>both held onto their seats, it would be all over for the Federation!
>They would suck the USCF dry and leave its hulk in a dumpster while
>founding the "Polger Chess Federation". This is NOT a joke and I am
>not an alarmist."
>
>It is even more unfortunate that some board members are continuing to
>look the other way to protect an individual like this while continuing
>to offer him paid USCF projects. This is one of the things I brought
>up before and spoke out against. One of the reasons why the USCF is
>often in financial difficulties is because we continue to award paid
>projects to friends and insiders instead of getting the best people
>for the job.
>
>I hope that Mr. Goichberg and his board majority will speak out
>against such regrettable statement and conduct by Mr. Hanken and
>revoke all paid assignments from individuals like this. What does it
>say when board members and the USCF see nothing wrong with this and
>continue to support such individuals?
>
>Susan Polgar
>http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
>http://www.SusanPolgar.com

Would she be more forgiving if Hanken had said this stuff under
someone else's name? Just wondering...

Date: 10 Apr 2008 00:26:46
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Today, Susan Polgar posted the following on her chessdiscussion.com
>>
>> http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1031
>>
>> The Jerry Hanken issue
>>
>> Post by Susan Polgar on Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:03 pm
>>
>> In spite of my good will toward the regrettable recent conduct by Mr.
>> Hanken, here is what he publicly stated this morning about my husband
>> and me:
>>
>> "I believe that If they (Susan and Paul) ever got control of USCF
>> with a board majority by getting a couple of bootlickers elected while
>> both held onto their seats, it would be all over for the Federation!
>> They would suck the USCF dry and leave its hulk in a dumpster while
>> founding the "Polger Chess Federation". This is NOT a joke and I am
>> not an alarmist."
>>
>> It is even more unfortunate that some board members are continuing to
>> look the other way to protect an individual like this while continuing
>> to offer him paid USCF projects. This is one of the things I brought
>> up before and spoke out against. One of the reasons why the USCF is
>> often in financial difficulties is because we continue to award paid
>> projects to friends and insiders instead of getting the best people
>> for the job.
>>
>> I hope that Mr. Goichberg and his board majority will speak out
>> against such regrettable statement and conduct by Mr. Hanken and
>> revoke all paid assignments from individuals like this. What does it
>> say when board members and the USCF see nothing wrong with this and
>> continue to support such individuals?
>>
>> Susan Polgar
>> http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
>> http://www.SusanPolgar.com
>
>
> Would she be more forgiving if Hanken had said this stuff under
> someone else's name? Just wondering...

Poor Susie. I feel her pain. The truth hurts.