Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

Date: 04 Oct 2007 10:50:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want
to work?

Turns out that ever since I filed my lawsuit, Bill Hall has been out
sick.

It seems that every time something important is going on, Bill Hall
suddenly gets the flu or something.

Remember when we were trying to finalize the plans for the US
Championship on February 25 and needed him and he suddenly went out
sick for a week.

Remember when we needed him for the US Open and suddenly he was in the
emergency room and finally came in a wheel chair.

But these are just a few of the many examples, and when he is not sick
then his wife has been sick. It seems that he has been out sick more
often than he has been at work.

This has been going on for the full two years that Bill Hall has been
executive director. Nobody bothered to check his prior work record for
absenteeism before he was hired in June 2005.

Sam Sloan

Date: 08 Oct 2007 07:53:03
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

On Oct 8, 9:25 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:56:58 -0700, The Historian
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Hi Mike,
> >Who were the "many others?" Do you mean Lafferty and Gordon? Or are
> >there others?
>
> There were others. I was faked on a few posts some time ago. The
> fake had me making what appeared to be physical threats against
> cus. I didn't take them too seriously, but, as I remember, cus
> seemed to for a while.

I seem to recall at least one fake "Historian" post. Harmless stuff,
as I recall.

> The vast majority of fakes seem to be Sloan and Gordon, however.
>
> BTW, offensive as the "Jackass Lafferty" posts might have been, I
> don't consider them fakes, although some of them might have been
> slanderous.

Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:30:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

On Oct 4, 3:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> the pretty woman, who is a world champion of chess,

To whom are you referring? Surely not Polgar. When did she win the
World Championship of Chess? I must have missed it in the news.

> chess that perhaps the most successful promoter of it in the USA

Who is the most successful promoter of chess in the USA? If you are
referring to Truong, what has he promoted besides himself and his
wife?

I thought Goichberg was the most successful promoter of chess in the
USA.

Since you claim that "any hacker" can hack an IP address, why don't
you prove it by hacking mine? The Fake Sam Sloan never hacked my IP
address, although he surely mist have tried.

The Real Sam Sloan

Date: 06 Oct 2007 13:38:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

Subject: [fide-chess] Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy
bum who doesn't want to wo

On Oct 4, 3:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> the pretty woman, who is a world champion of chess,

To whom are you referring?

**Take a wild guess...

Surely not Polgar.

**ROFL - can this be an opportunity to [negatively] comment? :)))

When did she win the
World Championship of Chess? I must have missed it in the news.

** I wrote /a/ world champion of chess, not /the/. Is reading the news
actually any use, if you can't unnerstan plain English?

> chess that perhaps the most successful promoter of it in the USA

Who is the most successful promoter of chess in the USA?

**Take a wild guess

If you are
referring to Truong,

**Can this be an opportunity for a [negative] comment?

what has he promoted besides himself and his wife?

I thought Goichberg was the most successful promoter of chess in the USA.

**The reader is asked to understand the difference between promoter, and
organiser. I suppose both could be called promoter within chess realms, but
promoting chess in USA is rather larger than to the 80,000 USCF members, no?
There are getting on for 300,000,000 people outside chess - and I imagine
that none of them have heard the name Goichberg, whereas... but [I?]
digress... back to my own point.

Since you claim that "any hacker" can hack an IP address,

** Excuse me! That is not a quote! Where did I say 'any hacker?' Come on Mr.
Sloan, I don't have to play nicey nicey with you, and I just called you a
... I think you know what.

why don't
you prove it by hacking mine? The Fake Sam Sloan never hacked my IP
address, although he surely must have tried.

** We seem to have some thread drift here, as if I am addressing a
tri-partite schizoid. (a) Sam Sloan does not address his own topic, which is
the header, (b) he takes gratuitous swipes at 2 other people, by willfully
midunderstanding what I wrote, as if I wrote something else, and (c) is the
third Sam Sloan, so speak, asking something or telling something?

**Should Mr. Sloan still not understand me, can it be assumed that that is
his intent. For other, what I have written is NOT about Sam Sloan - it is
about requiring proof of others to establish their innocence; it is
discussion of 'evidence' as presented by a partisan, and about the
scandalising of HIPPA employment rules, in the case of Bill Hall, and why
there are no dissenting voices for such disprespectful treatment of anyone.

**Now, only the Real Sam Sloan could confound and corrupt all 3 in one post.
Phil Innes

The Real Sam Sloan

Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:23:13
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who

I can not stop laughing..

Date: 05 Oct 2007 05:42:22
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

On Oct 5, 6:57 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:29:29 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>--a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
> >>says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything,
> >>every
> >>thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what 'experts'
> >>working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is not likely
> >>to
> >>impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to the main
> >>psycho-drama
>
> > Those with the skill, the motivation, and the resources have always
> > been able to fake evidence, Phil. That's what we call the "frame-up".
> > The perpetual cry of the perp: "I been framed". And some people do
> > get framed. This is no different from thousands of other cases that
> > ultimately get decided one way or the other. But you have to
> > remember, just because it's theoretically possible to hack evidence
> > doesn't prove evidence *was* hacked. To decide this requires
> > investigation and judgment.
>
> I haven't decided what has happened Mike, although I think I am the only one
> who hasn't!
>
> > And when there's a lot of evidence, you really need this investigation
> > and judgment. You can't just blithely say, "well, since it's possible
> > to have hacked this evidence, we can just ignore it".
>
> Agree, and I haven't blithely said it.
>
> 'A lot' of evidence is not any amount of proof, but a lot of instances,
> which, until resolved, determine nothing.
>
> >>While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
> >>really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
> >>promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
> >>were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.
>
> > You haven't been paying real close attention, Phil. Two things to
> > remember: (1) many others than Sloan were faked, and (2) the fake
> > Sloan was used as a vehicle or club to attack other players, board
> > candidates and issues.
>
> Like Ray Gordon, who was not a board candidate, and as for 'issues' - is
> that a euphemism for something?
>
> Who are the 'many' and what 'issues' were present? What is common among all
> issues? About all impersonations?
>
> What I have 'blithely' said, is that the burden of any proof rests with the
> accuser, and such 'evidence' as we have is not proof of anything - neither
> has any independent party assessed it, nor do we know anything of what an
> independent person has assessed.
>
> Come to that, we don't quite got the whole story here either ;)
>
> Phil Innes

"...I work with Susan Polgar." - Phil Innes, April 3, 2005

Date: 05 Oct 2007 02:56:58
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

On Oct 4, 7:05 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:29:29 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >--a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
> >says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything, every
> >thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what 'experts'
> >working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is not likely to
> >impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to the main
> >psycho-drama
>
> Those with the skill, the motivation, and the resources have always
> been able to fake evidence, Phil. That's what we call the "frame-up".
> The perpetual cry of the perp: "I been framed". And some people do
> get framed. This is no different from thousands of other cases that
> ultimately get decided one way or the other. But you have to
> remember, just because it's theoretically possible to hack evidence
> doesn't prove evidence *was* hacked. To decide this requires
> investigation and judgment.
>
> And when there's a lot of evidence, you really need this investigation
> and judgment. You can't just blithely say, "well, since it's possible
> to have hacked this evidence, we can just ignore it".
>
> >While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
> >really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
> >promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
> >were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.
>
> You haven't been paying real close attention, Phil. Two things to
> remember: (1) many others than Sloan were faked, and (2) the fake
> Sloan was used as a vehicle or club to attack other players, board
> candidates and issues.

Hi Mike,

Who were the "many others?" Do you mean Lafferty and Gordon? Or are
there others?

Date: 08 Oct 2007 07:25:06
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:56:58 -0700, The Historian
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Hi Mike,

>Who were the "many others?" Do you mean Lafferty and Gordon? Or are
>there others?

There were others. I was faked on a few posts some time ago. The
fake had me making what appeared to be physical threats against
cus. I didn't take them too seriously, but, as I remember, cus
seemed to for a while.

The vast majority of fakes seem to be Sloan and Gordon, however.

BTW, offensive as the "Jackass Lafferty" posts might have been, I
don't consider them fakes, although some of them might have been
slanderous.

Date: 04 Oct 2007 16:23:18
From: GeekBoy
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

*PLONK*

Date: 04 Oct 2007 19:29:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

"It seems that he has been out sick more
often than he has been at work."

Sam Sloan

---

Like most Sam Sloan posts, what is written above is not evidence. Neither is
it a fact. It is a suggestion, vastly overstated, but as always, containing
condemnation of others, as if what he 'asks' were actually true. In this
instance he merely restricts his non-factual statement to the mild, for him,
conclusion, about the Ex Dir being 'a lazy bum who doesn't want to work'.

At least this is a different subject from the 'evidence', as we are to
understand it already is, that Paul Truong is so obsessed with him, that he
parades around anonymously as a pseudo-Sloan.

I can understand Sam Sloan's evident resentment that Paul Truong ried the
pretty woman, who is a world champion of chess, who is in the major media,
including television programs on cognitive psychology, funded by National
Geographic.

Who wouldn't? :))))

We all envy the guy a bit, no?

--a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything, every
thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what 'experts'
working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is not likely to
impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to the main
psycho-drama

While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.

It is so psychologically implausible, [though not impossible] considering
Mr. Sloans soto-relationship with Mrs Polgar, that at any bar in the world,
guys would be nudging each other in the ribs, asking who the big wanker was?

Anyway, despite HIPPA, what exactly can this mean? And I'll put this forward
again

"It seems that he has been out sick more
often than he has been at work."

So... It /seems/ to Sam Sloan. But that is hyperbolous, surely, unless we
think he is innumerate, and can't count. Sam Sloan is stating that he would
prefer us to think as he would /seem/ to understand. Which is not his real
understanding.

In other words, he would like us to judge something known to him to be
false, as if it were not.

What's new?

Phil Innes

Date: 05 Oct 2007 10:21:02
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:tabNi.6008$PV1.37@trndny08...
> "It seems that he has been out sick more
> often than he has been at work."
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> ---
>
> Like most Sam Sloan posts, what is written above is not evidence. Neither
> is it a fact. It is a suggestion, vastly overstated, but as always,
> containing condemnation of others, as if what he 'asks' were actually
> true. In this instance he merely restricts his non-factual statement to
> the mild, for him, conclusion, about the Ex Dir being 'a lazy bum who
> doesn't want to work'.
>
> At least this is a different subject from the 'evidence', as we are to
> understand it already is, that Paul Truong is so obsessed with him, that
> he parades around anonymously as a pseudo-Sloan.
>
> I can understand Sam Sloan's evident resentment that Paul Truong ried
> the pretty woman, who is a world champion of chess, who is in the major
> media, including television programs on cognitive psychology, funded by
> National Geographic.
>
> Who wouldn't? :))))
>
> We all envy the guy a bit, no?
>
> --a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
> says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything,
> every thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what
> 'experts' working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is
> not likely to impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to
> the main psycho-drama
>
> While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
> really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
> promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
> were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.
>
> It is so psychologically implausible, [though not impossible] considering
> Mr. Sloans soto-relationship with Mrs Polgar, that at any bar in the
> world, guys would be nudging each other in the ribs, asking who the big
> wanker was?
>
> Anyway, despite HIPPA, what exactly can this mean? And I'll put this
> forward again
>
> "It seems that he has been out sick more
> often than he has been at work."
>
> So... It /seems/ to Sam Sloan. But that is hyperbolous, surely, unless we
> think he is innumerate, and can't count. Sam Sloan is stating that he
> would prefer us to think as he would /seem/ to understand. Which is not
> his real understanding.
>
> In other words, he would like us to judge something known to him to be
> false, as if it were not.
>
> What's new?
>
> Phil Innes

The issue is not motive for the fake Sam & Ray. The issue is the validity
of the evidence produced by Mothershead. Hopefully the full report with ALL
the factual data will find its way into cyberspace. Harry Payne ran the
initial data past one of his company's security experts, who said
Mottershead's bare bones first posting report evidenced an 80% to 95%
probability that Truong is the Fake Sam. Examination of Truongs computer
would be needed to prove that to near 100%. Truong very much appears to
have been caught red handed. The attempt to remove Usenet posts put extra
nails in the coffin. It should also come out that he slipped up during the
AOL period by making several posts using a non-AOL account that links
directly to him.

Despite all the hyperbole by Truong, , George you and other of his friends
and minions, facts are pesky little creatures that have been presented and
no reasonable defense has yet been offered---most likely because there isn't
any.

Date: 05 Oct 2007 22:40:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ieoNi.7182$R%1.3442@trndny06...

>> In other words, he would like us to judge something known to him to be
>> false, as if it were not.
>>
>> What's new?
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> The issue is not motive for the fake Sam & Ray. The issue is the validity
> of the evidence produced by Mothershead. Hopefully the full report with
> ALL the factual data will find its way into cyberspace.

What are you ranting about? What are these vague terms you espouse?

> Harry Payne ran the initial data past one of his company's security
> experts, who said Mottershead's bare bones first posting report evidenced
> an 80% to 95% probability that Truong is the Fake Sam.

I would suppose, that based on the publication of this report, that he would
feel 80% to 95% culpable in any subsequent law-suit for libel? Or is this
free opinion, and it is 80% to 95% 'free-speech'?

> Examination of Truongs computer would be needed to prove that to near
> 100%. Truong very much appears to have been caught red handed. The
> attempt to remove Usenet posts put extra nails in the coffin. It should
> also come out that he slipped up during the AOL period by making several
> posts using a non-AOL account that links directly to him.
>
> Despite all the hyperbole by Truong, , George you and other of his friends
> and minions,

I see you are already decided by this report, and that is sufficnet for you.
It sure is for me!

> facts are pesky little creatures that have been presented and no
> reasonable defense has yet been offered---most likely because there isn't
> any.

Facts in law, are those established within a framework of what is admissable
evidence, with the onus on proof - and 80% to 95% proof may or may not
indict anyone, that is, if that is what the Justice actually establishes to
be necessary, though the usual term is 'beyond a doubt.'

Given the hyperbole here, and even 80% to 95% [whatever that can mean - what
can it Aactually mean???] that allows from 5 to 20% doubt, even though this
is the unchallenged and unmediated representation of the prosecution.

Why not just stop pretending anything about due process and get yerself a
hangin' judge?

Phil Innes

Date: 05 Oct 2007 19:22:17
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't

Chess One wrote:
> ... though the usual term is 'beyond a doubt.'

False. In a criminal case, the "usual term" is "beyond a REASONABLE doubt".

I understand that you have issues with "reasonable".

But, of course, that's to *convict*. You blather on about "to indict" -
to indict, one looks at only one side of the evidence, and all that's
required is a prima facie case. All that needs to be established is
that the defendant has some 'splainin' to do.

In a civil case, the "usual term" is "by a preponderance of the evidence".

51% is more than enough.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 05 Oct 2007 16:03:15
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:40:55 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

> what the Justice actually establishes to
>be necessary, though the usual term is 'beyond a doubt.'

I thought in civil cases it was "preponderance of evidence".

>Given the hyperbole here, and even 80% to 95% [whatever that can mean - what
>can it Aactually mean???] that allows from 5 to 20% doubt, even though this
>is the unchallenged and unmediated representation of the prosecution.

>Why not just stop pretending anything about due process and get yerself a
>hangin' judge?

C'mon Phil. I don't think anybody is claiming these percentages are
anything more than SWAGs. People are clamoring for an unbiased
*investigation* by somebody with respected technical credentials.
They're claiming there's enough to merit that.

Definitive answers will probably require a court order, in my
uninformed lay opinion.

Actually, one poster on the USCF site made the analogy to the recent
file-sharing case that was decided for the plaintiff. Not a perfect
analogy, IMO, but an interesting one.

And those opposing? Well, I've read these goodies recently:

(1) rgcp is a cesspool so it doesn't count
(2) Sloan and Gordon are held in low repute so it's obvious nobody
would want to imitate them
(3) These charges are destructive of the USCF and they should stop
(4) Sloan has dirty stuff on his web site so it doesn't count
(5) A *child* could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't count
(6) A master hacker could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't
count
(7) The fakes didn't really hurt anybody, so it's OK.
(8) Sam Sloan did it himself, so let's drop it.
(9) The investigation was unauthorized, so those responsible should be
fired or otherwise punished (and their suspicions are therefore
invalid).
(10) Unauthorized or not, the investigation invaded my privacy, so
those responsible should be fired or otherwise punished (and their
suspicions are therefore invalid).
(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess, so knock it off.
(12) The people complaining have complained a lot about other matters
in the past, so let's ignore 'em.

Have I missed any?

Date: 07 Oct 2007 13:50:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:40:55 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> what the Justice actually establishes to
>>be necessary, though the usual term is 'beyond a doubt.'
>
> I thought in civil cases it was "preponderance of evidence".

As you wish, but statistics presented as evidence are not preponderance of
proof, especially since other candidates may score the same, or even greater
[though we are not investigating this, see a&b below]. As written elsewhere,
if PT scores 80 to 95, and you yourself score 60 to 75 as a default median
poster...but here is the fly in the ointment... since this then becomes an
investigation into if that differential of 20 points indicates who is the
false-Sloan 'by preponderance of statistics'!

But it only means that one person's reporting has characterised the issue
that way by looking at one person alone against some median measure - and
this is what you wish to accept in order to speculate further? How likely is
Sam Sloan himself the false-Sloan? 75-85%? Think about it, uh...
statistically...

He is determined, ever writing stuff about chess, net-savvy... How hard is
it to stitch someone else up, especially when you track their every move? In
fact, of stitch-you-up candidates, let me eliminate PT entirely [except to
be statistically-correct let me say he is 5% likely to accuse himself from
subconscious guilt reflex which he can't repress...] and Sam Sloan would
be - what would you say, 80 to 95% likely? How about a LOT more likely than
the median poster, who, after all, is not as fascinated by Sam Sloan as Sam
Sloan is himself.

<... >

> C'mon Phil. I don't think anybody is claiming these percentages are
> anything more than SWAGs. People

Which people? All people have motives that determine their actions, [right?]
so these 'people' are motivated by what? (a) to investigate PT or (b) to
investigate the false-Sloan [and maybe other 'impersonations'*]

(*But only impersonations to those who can't read a header - right?
Since anyone reading here can tell a false from real Sloan by the posting
address in 10 seconds, as well as, BTW by the philological content of the
message [but that is for super-genius types like me].
Therefore, it is not impersonation at all as much as lampooning or
satyrising , for sympathy or otherwise! the activities of the Great Sloan,
and All His Works)

> are clamoring for an unbiased
> *investigation* by somebody with respected technical credentials.
> They're claiming there's enough to merit that.

Investigation by whom and into what? Who are these people who want an
investigation and would bring a suit, and into (a) or (b) above?

Who sent Wikipedia a whole raft of false-Sloan messenges [and no real ones]
without identifying they were false? Isn't that a sort of deception along
the same lines? Should that person also be taken into account? What about
the usual suspects right here - those who obviously don't like women, and
don't like strong players, and write heavily patterned serial abuse for
years and years - and who also use varieties of identity?

> Definitive answers will probably require a court order, in my
> uninformed lay opinion.

Again, answers to (a) or (b)?

What about making some statistics about the MO? Who has both motive and
opportunity to be the false-Sloan? We understand that it is technically not
at all difficult to achieve a false id or ip address, which is literally
child's-play. The other aspect of opportunity is time - who has the time
over a 12 month period to consistently do this? Then there is motive - who
has the greatest motive to stich-up PT. Put your own numbers into the
answers - but I don't think you will, since (b) is NOT being investigated.

> Actually,

Well, if you want to actually do anything but speculate, then let a court
determine matters, not analogise by 'some poster' and et cetera.

What I see you doing is NOT inquiring into the identity of the false-Sloan
[and false-others]. You end with "Have I missed any?" and I would answer by
saying, you missed everyone except... PT.

That's not an open mind to issues - and I really can have no control over
whatever you wish to speculate about in public. I can only respond to you
that you are an (a) type who has not yet written a candid word on (b).

Phil Innes

> one poster on the USCF site made the analogy to the recent
> file-sharing case that was decided for the plaintiff. Not a perfect
> analogy, IMO, but an interesting one.

> And those opposing? Well, I've read these goodies recently:
>
> (1) rgcp is a cesspool so it doesn't count
> (2) Sloan and Gordon are held in low repute so it's obvious nobody
> would want to imitate them
> (3) These charges are destructive of the USCF and they should stop
> (4) Sloan has dirty stuff on his web site so it doesn't count
> (5) A *child* could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't count
> (6) A master hacker could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't
> count
> (7) The fakes didn't really hurt anybody, so it's OK.
> (8) Sam Sloan did it himself, so let's drop it.
> (9) The investigation was unauthorized, so those responsible should be
> fired or otherwise punished (and their suspicions are therefore
> invalid).
> (10) Unauthorized or not, the investigation invaded my privacy, so
> those responsible should be fired or otherwise punished (and their
> suspicions are therefore invalid).
> (11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
> chess, so knock it off.
> (12) The people complaining have complained a lot about other matters
> in the past, so let's ignore 'em.
>
> Have I missed any?
>

Date: 07 Oct 2007 09:04:41
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:50:47 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> I thought in civil cases it was "preponderance of evidence".

>As you wish, but statistics presented as evidence are not preponderance of
>proof, especially since other candidates may score the same, or even greater

What in God's name does this mean? If multiple "suspects" are all
equally likely, then we don't HAVE "preponderance of evidence".

The most charitable response to your post is that it indicates you
haven't yet read Brian Mottershead's analysis. Its implications
weren't based speculation about motive, "philological" analysis or the
other stuff about which you blather, but rather upon what we might
call electronic footprints. And you conveniently omit reference to
all the Ray Gordon fakes.

> (*But only impersonations to those who can't read a header - right?

Wrong.

The headers are like a return address on an envelope. If you get
slanderous postal mail signed by "Sam Sloan" but from an Omaha
address, it's still identity theft. Do you really think the perp
could skate out of it by saying, "everybody knows Sloan only mails
letters from New York" ?

>Since anyone reading here can tell a false from real Sloan by the posting
>address in 10 seconds, as well as, BTW by the philological content of the
>message [but that is for super-genius types like me].
>Therefore, it is not impersonation at all as much as lampooning or
>satyrising , for sympathy or otherwise! the activities of the Great Sloan,
>and All His Works)

Wrong again.

Someone doing a Google search on "Sam Sloan" combined with some other
search string could not be expected to know that many of the results
would be from the fake. Only someone who followed the chess
newsgroups relatively closely, and read Sloan's and Gordon's explicit
denials that they ever posted from addresses the fake used would think
to inspect the headers of each and every "hit".

You ought to know better than to claim these posts were lampoons or
satire (BTW, I'll excuse your "satyrising" as a reasonable Freudian
slip).

Many of the posts were word for word copies, with only a phrase or two
altered, of things Sloan said in other venues. Many sought to
discredit other board candidates or advocates by linking them with
Sloan and Gordon. Some posts were simply slander of other people or
their businesses. This is not lampooning. This is not satire.

Your post *has* helped me update my list (items 13 through 15 below).
Thanks, Phil.

(1) rgcp is a cesspool so it doesn't count (2) Sloan and Gordon are
held in low repute so it's obvious nobody would want to imitate them
(3) These charges are destructive of the USCF and they should stop (4)
Sloan has dirty stuff on his web site so it doesn't count
(5) A *child* could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't count
(6) A master hacker could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't
count
(7) The fakes didn't really hurt anybody, so it's OK.
(8) Sam Sloan did it himself, so let's drop it.
(9) The investigation was unauthorized, so those responsible should be
fired or otherwise punished (and their suspicions are therefore
invalid).
(10) Authorized or not, the investigation invaded my privacy, so those
responsible should be fired or otherwise punished (and their
suspicions are therefore invalid).
(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess, so knock it off.
(12) The people complaining have complained a lot about other matters
in the past, so let's ignore 'em.
(13) You can identify the fakes by inspecting the headers so they're
not really fakes at all, just lampoons.
(14) The accusers don't have pure motives, so evidence they've
gathered should be ignored.
(15) Other people had motive and opportunity to make fake Sloan posts,
so why believe the evidence gathered?

Date: 07 Oct 2007 17:11:19
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:50:47 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> I thought in civil cases it was "preponderance of evidence".
>
>>As you wish, but statistics presented as evidence are not preponderance of
>>proof, especially since other candidates may score the same, or even
>>greater
>
> What in God's name does this mean? If multiple "suspects" are all
> equally likely, then we don't HAVE "preponderance of evidence".

Exactly!! And you have the courage to state your own logical conclusions to
this manner of investigation. :)))

All that remains is to deal with the resultant energy that is not subsumed
by logic.

> The most charitable response to your post is that it indicates you
> haven't yet read Brian Mottershead's analysis. Its implications
> weren't based speculation about motive, "philological" analysis or the
> other stuff about which you blather,

I am sorry, but you are merely rude - since I //never// said he had a
philological thought in his head.

Save your charity for your own thought process and reading comprehension -
and please, spare me further 'reason' by analogy, which is usually infamous.
I did not say that Motterhead's speculations were about motive, I said /I/
wondered what motive he had.

> but rather upon what we might
> call electronic footprints. And you conveniently omit reference to
> all the Ray Gordon fakes.

Your Highness! I apologise for not citing enough about Ray Gordon fakes to
suit you - though I did indicate that other-than-Sloan fakes abounded, no?

You wish to make me a partisan to this issue. But I think fairness and even
the law [!] is not partisan, nor can it be adjudicated that way. It must
instead be impartial. Advocates may be partisan, and need be in anything
other than a Socaratic dialog - which I think, we are not 'enjoying'.

>> (*But only impersonations to those who can't read a header - right?
>
> Wrong.
>
> The headers are like a return address on an envelope. If

Am I not saying the same thing about the false Sloan - here!

> you get
> slanderous postal mail signed by "Sam Sloan" but from an Omaha
> address, it's still identity theft.

Well, sure it is! What are you hot about now? - are you thinking that I am
in denial about the false-Sloan? Dammit - i challenged that person a lot
more than you [or anyone else!] did this past year!

> Do you really think the perp
> could skate out of it by saying, "everybody knows Sloan only mails
> letters from New York" ?
>
>>Since anyone reading here can tell a false from real Sloan by the posting
>>address in 10 seconds, as well as, BTW by the philological content of the
>>message [but that is for super-genius types like me].
>>Therefore, it is not impersonation at all as much as lampooning or
>>satyrising , for sympathy or otherwise! the activities of the Great Sloan,
>>and All His Works)
>
> Wrong again.
>
> Someone doing a Google search on "Sam Sloan"

NO! I am not talking about 'someone' who is doing a 'Google search'. I mean
what I wrote above.

> combined with some other
> search string could not be expected to know that many of the results
> would be from the fake.

That is true! But that is NOT a response to what I wrote. What you say is
yet another point.

> Only someone who followed the chess
> newsgroups relatively closely, and read Sloan's and Gordon's explicit
> denials that they ever posted from addresses the fake used would think
> to inspect the headers of each and every "hit".
>
> You ought to know better than to claim these posts were lampoons or
> satire (BTW, I'll excuse your "satyrising" as a reasonable Freudian
> slip).

A deliberate spelling, considering the context! [all my best jokes go
unappreciated <sniff >] But you be as condescending as your wit finds
necessary ;) OK, and I'll respond the same, if all we do is reduce this to
a pissing contest.

(PS: its a Freudian slit, ain't it, or is it slut?)

Are you really seriously saying //you// can't tell a false-Sloan from the
real one, without looking at any header? Maybe that too is a matter of
general comprenhesion, or wit? But let's not argue that, since the result
will be either that you are not very bright, or that we both ain't. The
first is not flattering to you, and neither is the second. But I can tell,
since I am a close reader - and as I say, this is far from the whole story
here.

You just have to wait a few days for a more 'official' announcement ;))

> Many of the posts were word for word copies, with only a phrase or two
> altered, of things Sloan said in other venues. Many sought to
> discredit other board candidates or advocates by linking them with
> Sloan and Gordon. Some posts were simply slander of other people or
> their businesses. This is not lampooning. This is not satire.
>
>
>
> Your post *has* helped me update my list (items 13 through 15 below).
> Thanks, Phil.

Your post has ignored any investigation into who the false-Sloan is, since
it lacks sufficiant intelligence in two senses of the word.

I understand people are /angry/ at the impersonation, but it takes a cooler
head than yours to sort it out by mere rhetorical flurry and
self-congratulation, and sort it by other means than you have yet
considered.

What /is/ understandable, Mike, is the anger about the deceit of the
situation. While that is still upon you, and its attendent need to be
resolved, then you are vulnerable to suggestion to offset the condition.
That also is understandable.

But none of that is sufficient to discover the imposter, and while it is
motive for everyone to investigate, anger is not the right means to go about
it, nor is what follows which is simple jejeune mannerism. For your sake, I
hope also, innocently proposed.

How angry would you still feel if someone were pulling your strings? I
should doubt you are immune. So take a breath, fire back at me, not today,
tomorrow.

Phil Innes

> (1) rgcp is a cesspool so it doesn't count (2) Sloan and Gordon are
> held in low repute so it's obvious nobody would want to imitate them
> (3) These charges are destructive of the USCF and they should stop (4)
> Sloan has dirty stuff on his web site so it doesn't count
> (5) A *child* could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't count
> (6) A master hacker could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't
> count
> (7) The fakes didn't really hurt anybody, so it's OK.
> (8) Sam Sloan did it himself, so let's drop it.
> (9) The investigation was unauthorized, so those responsible should be
> fired or otherwise punished (and their suspicions are therefore
> invalid).
> (10) Authorized or not, the investigation invaded my privacy, so those
> responsible should be fired or otherwise punished (and their
> suspicions are therefore invalid).
> (11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
> chess, so knock it off.
> (12) The people complaining have complained a lot about other matters
> in the past, so let's ignore 'em.
> (13) You can identify the fakes by inspecting the headers so they're
> not really fakes at all, just lampoons.
> (14) The accusers don't have pure motives, so evidence they've
> gathered should be ignored.
> (15) Other people had motive and opportunity to make fake Sloan posts,
> so why believe the evidence gathered?
>

Date: 07 Oct 2007 11:15:55
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:11:19 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> The most charitable response to your post is that it indicates you
>> haven't yet read Brian Mottershead's analysis. Its implications
>> weren't based speculation about motive, "philological" analysis or the
>> other stuff about which you blather,

>I am sorry, but you are merely rude - since I //never// said he had a
>philological thought in his head.

I was comparing *his* presentation of what he considered evidence with
*yours*. Your posts dwelled at length on matters of motivation and
stylistic analysis, which you at one point called "philological
content", of the fake posts,.

> spare me further 'reason' by analogy, which is usually infamous.

Without analogy, how do you suppose one determines the fitness of
logical premises to the real world? Just for grins, do a Google on
"analogy in legal reasoning" before you embarrass yourself further.

>I did not say that Motterhead's speculations were about motive, I said /I/
>wondered what motive he had.

And this little aside was just a matter of disinterested curiosity?
Oh, puleeze.

>> you get slanderous postal mail signed by "Sam Sloan" but from an Omaha
>> address, it's still identity theft.

>Well, sure it is! What are you hot about now? - are you thinking that I am
>in denial about the false-Sloan? Dammit - i challenged that person a lot
>more than you [or anyone else!] did this past year!

Just last post, you were saying it was not identity theft but parody
or lampoon!

>Are you really seriously saying //you// can't tell a false-Sloan from the
>real one, without looking at any header?

Not in all cases, no. I don't think you could either. And we both
are regular posters who have been following these chess newsgroups for
years.

>You just have to wait a few days for a more 'official' announcement ;))

Is that official or officious?

>How angry would you still feel if someone were pulling your strings? I
>should doubt you are immune. So take a breath, fire back at me, not today,
>tomorrow.

Your responses are not so forceful that one need's a good night's
sleep to calm down and craft a response, Phil. I'm exasperated that
you're trying to obscure the issue by spewing so much ink.

IMO, all that's needed is for AOL and other relevant ISPs to divulge
their electronic records and for someone with appropriate credentials
to correlate this information with the stuff gathered at the USCF.
Then, other appropriate people can judge whether the theoretical
possibility of someone hacking or faking these electronic footprints
is so strong that there's still no preponderance of evidence.

My emotional state, Brian's emotional state, your emotional state,
Lafferty's intentions, etc., are irrelevant.

Date: 07 Oct 2007 23:37:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:11:19 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> The most charitable response to your post is that it indicates you
>>> haven't yet read Brian Mottershead's analysis. Its implications
>>> weren't based speculation about motive, "philological" analysis or the
>>> other stuff about which you blather,
>
>>I am sorry, but you are merely rude - since I //never// said he had a
>>philological thought in his head.
>
> I was comparing *his* presentation of what he considered evidence with
> *yours*. Your posts dwelled at length on matters of motivation and
> stylistic analysis, which you at one point called "philological
> content", of the fake posts,.

that is not entirely true, Mike, you cut the prologue, right?

>> spare me further 'reason' by analogy, which is usually infamous.
>
> Without analogy, how do you suppose one determines the fitness of
> logical premises to the real world? Just for grins, do a Google on
> "analogy in legal reasoning" before you embarrass yourself further.

I see - so this is already legal 'reasoning' rather than other kinds. Ok -
understand your perspective.

>>I did not say that Motterhead's speculations were about motive, I said /I/
>>wondered what motive he had.
>
> And this little aside was just a matter of disinterested curiosity?
> Oh, puleeze.

Puleeze what? If you have a point, get on your hind legs and say it. You
already cheated by cutting the top off to your presumed own orinetation.
Puleeze! spare me your agony!?

>>> you get slanderous postal mail signed by "Sam Sloan" but from an Omaha
>>> address, it's still identity theft.
>
>>Well, sure it is! What are you hot about now? - are you thinking that I am
>>in denial about the false-Sloan? Dammit - i challenged that person a lot
>>more than you [or anyone else!] did this past year!
>
> Just last post, you were saying it was not identity theft but parody
> or lampoon!

What the fake wrote here is obvious parody and lampoon - what you decided to
write is as if 'someone googled' it and so on. You areguing with me, or with
your with self? BTW: I did not say it was 'not identity theft' since any
bloody fool could look at the headers here and see it was different from
Sloan's posting header.

that is what I wrote - and you dare not quote it twice, but still argue, as
if, :)

as if i wrote something else. pretty strong spinning!

>>Are you really seriously saying //you// can't tell a false-Sloan from the
>>real one, without looking at any header?
>
> Not in all cases, no. I don't think you could either. And we both
> are regular posters who have been following these chess newsgroups for
> years.
>
>>You just have to wait a few days for a more 'official' announcement ;))
>
> Is that official or officious?

Sober!

>>How angry would you still feel if someone were pulling your strings? I
>>should doubt you are immune. So take a breath, fire back at me, not today,
>>tomorrow.
>
> Your responses are not so forceful that one need's a good night's
> sleep to calm down and craft a response, Phil. I'm exasperated that
> you're trying to obscure the issue by spewing so much ink.

OK, carry on, bucko.

But you seem to cut the questions which engage why you are so hot and
anxious to deal with this situation. So be hot on your ownsome ;)

> IMO, all that's needed is for AOL and other relevant ISPs to divulge
> their electronic records and for someone with appropriate credentials
> to correlate this information with the stuff gathered at the USCF.
> Then, other appropriate people can judge whether the theoretical
> possibility of someone hacking or faking these electronic footprints
> is so strong that there's still no preponderance of evidence.
>
> My emotional state, Brian's emotional state, your emotional state,
> Lafferty's intentions, etc., are irrelevant.

People's emotional states do not reflect their motivations? ROFL Nor are any
guide to what they write, and what they SNIP. :))

Anyway, you made your bed, and insist on sleeping in it - what else can you
do know?

Phil Innes

Date: 07 Oct 2007 17:09:13
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:37:07 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>that is not entirely true, Mike, you cut the prologue, right?

Are you turning into Nick Bourbaki ? The "prologue" is still there,
for anyone with the patience to wade through your convoluted syntax. I
saw no need to repeat it.

>>> spare me further 'reason' by analogy, which is usually infamous.

>> Without analogy, how do you suppose one determines the fitness of
>> logical premises to the real world? Just for grins, do a Google on
>> "analogy in legal reasoning" before you embarrass yourself further.

>I see - so this is already legal 'reasoning' rather than other kinds. Ok -
>understand your perspective.

Well, duhhh. We were talking about slander and identity theft. But
google it without the "legal" -- you'll still find your "reason by
analogy which is usually infamous" comment is ridiculous.

>What the fake wrote here is obvious parody and lampoon -

BS. Does this sound like parody to you?

Under the heading "Did [x] and [y] hack USCF members accounts?", the
fake Ray Gordon posted: "Is it possible for these 2 crooks to hack
into the USCF computers?Does this mean that [x] will do the same with
customers of [x's business]? Can they steal members' credit card
information and rob them?"

>But you seem to cut the questions which engage why you are so hot and
>anxious to deal with this situation.

This continuous diversion into motives of why people might be
interested in this case indicates you're aware of the fatuousness of
your own argument. Does "Argumentum ad hominem" translate to Andean?

>> IMO, all that's needed is for AOL and other relevant ISPs to divulge
>> their electronic records and for someone with appropriate credentials
>> to correlate this information with the stuff gathered at the USCF.
>> Then, other appropriate people can judge whether the theoretical
>> possibility of someone hacking or faking these electronic footprints
>> is so strong that there's still no preponderance of evidence.

>> My emotional state, Brian's emotional state, your emotional state,
>> Lafferty's intentions, etc., are irrelevant.

>People's emotional states do not reflect their motivations? ROFL Nor are any
>guide to what they write, and what they SNIP. :))

Motivations just aren't relevant to the evidence. Have I mentioned
the fact that your have business relations with the person suspected
and thus your own motivations might not be fully disclosed? More
importantly, Phil, have YOU mentioned it? But would I harp on
something like that. Nahhhh.

Date: 08 Oct 2007 11:43:56
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:37:07 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>that is not entirely true, Mike, you cut the prologue, right?
>
> Are you turning into Nick Bourbaki ? The "prologue" is still there,
> for anyone with the patience to wade through your convoluted syntax. I
> saw no need to repeat it.

I think that means we are done! - since what you /know/ is that you falsely
paraphrased what I said, since you didn't like it. Then when I called you on
it, above, and I think its clear why you don't need to repeat it. ;)

Below you continue to amuse yourself by writing "Motivations just aren't
relevant to the evidence". But I suggest that every cop and lawyer knows
different, and the MO is big! Below I say your motivations are also
pertinent - though you don't seem to think that is true either ;)

Some other wag has written to me privately to dismiss my comments, and talks
about the 'evidence' and due process of law, as if THEY themselves were
conducting the investigation within the law. :))

Phil Innes

>>>> spare me further 'reason' by analogy, which is usually infamous.
>
>>> Without analogy, how do you suppose one determines the fitness of
>>> logical premises to the real world? Just for grins, do a Google on
>>> "analogy in legal reasoning" before you embarrass yourself further.
>
>>I see - so this is already legal 'reasoning' rather than other kinds. Ok -
>>understand your perspective.
>
> Well, duhhh. We were talking about slander and identity theft. But
> google it without the "legal" -- you'll still find your "reason by
> analogy which is usually infamous" comment is ridiculous.
>
>>What the fake wrote here is obvious parody and lampoon -
>
> BS. Does this sound like parody to you?
>
> Under the heading "Did [x] and [y] hack USCF members accounts?", the
> fake Ray Gordon posted: "Is it possible for these 2 crooks to hack
> into the USCF computers?Does this mean that [x] will do the same with
> customers of [x's business]? Can they steal members' credit card
> information and rob them?"
>
>>But you seem to cut the questions which engage why you are so hot and
>>anxious to deal with this situation.
>
> This continuous diversion into motives of why people might be
> interested in this case indicates you're aware of the fatuousness of
> your own argument. Does "Argumentum ad hominem" translate to Andean?
>
>>> IMO, all that's needed is for AOL and other relevant ISPs to divulge
>>> their electronic records and for someone with appropriate credentials
>>> to correlate this information with the stuff gathered at the USCF.
>>> Then, other appropriate people can judge whether the theoretical
>>> possibility of someone hacking or faking these electronic footprints
>>> is so strong that there's still no preponderance of evidence.
>
>>> My emotional state, Brian's emotional state, your emotional state,
>>> Lafferty's intentions, etc., are irrelevant.
>
>>People's emotional states do not reflect their motivations? ROFL Nor are
>>any
>>guide to what they write, and what they SNIP. :))
>
> Motivations just aren't relevant to the evidence. Have I mentioned
> the fact that your have business relations with the person suspected
> and thus your own motivations might not be fully disclosed? More
> importantly, Phil, have YOU mentioned it? But would I harp on
> something like that. Nahhhh.
>

Date: 06 Oct 2007 01:36:46
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

Date: 04 Oct 2007 17:05:50
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:29:29 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>--a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
>says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything, every
>thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what 'experts'
>working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is not likely to
>impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to the main
>psycho-drama

Those with the skill, the motivation, and the resources have always
been able to fake evidence, Phil. That's what we call the "frame-up".
The perpetual cry of the perp: "I been framed". And some people do
get framed. This is no different from thousands of other cases that
ultimately get decided one way or the other. But you have to
remember, just because it's theoretically possible to hack evidence
doesn't prove evidence *was* hacked. To decide this requires
investigation and judgment.

And when there's a lot of evidence, you really need this investigation
and judgment. You can't just blithely say, "well, since it's possible
to have hacked this evidence, we can just ignore it".

>While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
>really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
>promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
>were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.

You haven't been paying real close attention, Phil. Two things to
remember: (1) many others than Sloan were faked, and (2) the fake
Sloan was used as a vehicle or club to attack other players, board
candidates and issues.

Date: 05 Oct 2007 11:57:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want to work?

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:29:29 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>--a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
>>says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything,
>>every
>>thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what 'experts'
>>working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is not likely
>>to
>>impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to the main
>>psycho-drama
>
> Those with the skill, the motivation, and the resources have always
> been able to fake evidence, Phil. That's what we call the "frame-up".
> The perpetual cry of the perp: "I been framed". And some people do
> get framed. This is no different from thousands of other cases that
> ultimately get decided one way or the other. But you have to
> remember, just because it's theoretically possible to hack evidence
> doesn't prove evidence *was* hacked. To decide this requires
> investigation and judgment.

I haven't decided what has happened Mike, although I think I am the only one
who hasn't!

> And when there's a lot of evidence, you really need this investigation
> and judgment. You can't just blithely say, "well, since it's possible
> to have hacked this evidence, we can just ignore it".

Agree, and I haven't blithely said it.

'A lot' of evidence is not any amount of proof, but a lot of instances,
which, until resolved, determine nothing.

>>While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
>>really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
>>promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
>>were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.
>
> You haven't been paying real close attention, Phil. Two things to
> remember: (1) many others than Sloan were faked, and (2) the fake
> Sloan was used as a vehicle or club to attack other players, board
> candidates and issues.

Like Ray Gordon, who was not a board candidate, and as for 'issues' - is
that a euphemism for something?

Who are the 'many' and what 'issues' were present? What is common among all
issues? About all impersonations?

What I have 'blithely' said, is that the burden of any proof rests with the
accuser, and such 'evidence' as we have is not proof of anything - neither
has any independent party assessed it, nor do we know anything of what an
independent person has assessed.

Come to that, we don't quite got the whole story here either ;)

Phil Innes