Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

Date: 01 Aug 2008 01:59:24
From: samsloan
Subject: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

It is now apparent that this latest suit by the USCF against Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong is NOT directly related to my suit against
them. Rather, it is because Polgar posted on her Chess Discussion
website embarrassing letters that Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall
received from Hanon Russell on June 7 and 8 and on July 18 and 30,
2008, in which Hanon suggested that he will stop paying the $150,000
he pays annually to the USCF for its books and equipment business and
he strongly disputes the $85,000 the USCF says he owes. These letters
indicate that the financial statements prepared by the USCF are false
and fraudulent.

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3D4&t=3D1240
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3D4&t=3D1375
http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3D5&t=3D7578&start=3D15

The June 7-8 letters suggested that if the USCF goes through with the
Goichberg Plan to stop mailing printed copies of Chess Life and Chess
Life for Kids magazines to the regular adult and scholastic members,
then Hanon Russell will stop paying the $150,000 per year he agreed to
pay primarily for ads in those magazines.

The July 18 and 30, 2008 letters from Hanon Russell to Bill Goichberg
and Bill Hall concern the fact that the USCF is carrying on its
financial statement an $85,000 accounts receivable from Hanon Russell.
However, Hanon Russell states "we dispute and deny liability for any
alleged amount owed other than the $14,000" he previously agreed to
pay off in monthly installments of $1000 per month.

Now, it seems clear that the USCF is suing Polgar and Truong for
posting these confidential letters on their website. However, Polgar
and Truong had a right and indeed an obligation to post these letters.
The members and especially the delegates and alternates need to know
that if the Goichberg Plan is passed in which regular members of the
USCF will no longer receive a magazine in the mail, then Hanon Russell
will likely stop paying the $150,000 per year. Also, the members,
delegates and alternates have a right to know that the USCF is
overstating its financial condition by claiming as an =93account
receivable=94 an amount of $85,000 that is disputed and is unlikely to
be received.

The lawsuit filed in Lubbock Texas states:

=93The U.S. Chess Federation, Inc., a nonprofit club based in Illinois,
wants to determine if chess celebrity Susan Polgar and her husband,
Paul Truong, leaked confidential e-mails from the club's executive
board sometime in June, according to court records.=94

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/072908/loc_310824280.shtml#mdw-comment=
s

If the USCF under Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall is going to court to
stop the membership from finding out about these things, they have
passed beyond the boundary of impropriety and into the area of
illegality.

Sam Sloan

Date: 11 Aug 2008 12:42:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 9, 5:58=A0pm, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote:

> In Mel Brooks's movie History of the World, Part I, during the scene
> about the Spanish inquisition, the chief inquisitor introduces
> Torquemada by saying, "Torquemada - do not implore him for compassion.
> Torquemada - do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada - do not ask him
> for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!" (talk him out
> of anything) - es..

In addition to not being particularly funny
(except to those who could just as easily
be entertained by the Three Stooges), Mr.
Brooks had a tendency to slant everything
a certain way.

For instance, in the movie you mentioned,
he had the Inquisition as existing purely "to
convert the Jews". In reality, it's functions
included persecuting Christians and
Muslims as well as Jews. (So you see, the
Inquisition was perfectly "fair and balanced",
just like the Fox news channel today... .)

Another Mel Brooks movie had a Dr.
Fraankensteen using electricity to revive
the dead-- a scientific impossibility, and
impractical at any rate because you have
to reallocate precious electrical power from
other, more useful functions such as
turning lead into gold. I never could
understand the concept of transferring the
blame for a failed experiment from the
supposedly ingenious doctor to his dim-
witted assistant, for it goes without saying
that it was the doctor himself who had
selected his own assistant, using his own
mind... such as it was.

But, lest anyone gain the impression that
I am a die-hard Mel Brooks basher, let me
just say that he did have the good sense
to not star in one of his own movies, have
someone throw him a guitar, and try to
sing like Elvis Presley, or dance like John
Travolta! In sum, things could have been
worse.

But, back to chess for a moment-- was it
not the SI who pressed for "orthodoxy" in
the Queen's Gambit, ultimately leading up
to Mr. Capablanca's superb handling of the
dull equalizing lines? Before this, people
used to try all sorts of bizarre and improper
lines as Black, such as 1. d4 e5?? or
1. d4 Nc6, so you can see how vital the
work of the SI was in steering us toward
modern chess, toward that which is decent
and good and away from evil ideas.

-- help bot

Date: 10 Aug 2008 07:58:19
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

help bot wrote:
>
> On Aug 7, 3:58 am, thumbody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The frenzy of the trolgar witch-hunt

> Now, originally, it was quite clear that a
> "male witch" was properly called a warlock,
> while the female kind were called witches.
> For instance, see the TV series Bewitched.

es, used to be one of my favs along with get smart. used to lust after
her ae a young nogood boyo - reminded me of my aunt she did..

> But then along came a new series called
> Charmed, in which three scantily-clad young
> women (gee, I wonder why they kept

es, missed all that musta been preoccupied with something else -
probably carnaby street by then..

> "bouncing" down those stairs all the time?)
> made all "male witches" into "demons", and
> only a lucky few males slipped by this new
> stereotype, casting females as "good" and
> males as automatically "evil".

> In the old
> days, everybody knew who the witches
> were by the fact that they flew around on
> broomsticks at night, going: "Yeehehehe!"

es, something ive always wanted to do - fly around at night on 't
broomstick cackle..

> That was before Salem was bought out
> by the cigarette companies and turned
> into a mere brand name. Back then,
> who knew that people would be so
> deluded as to imagine themselves as
> cowboys, flocking like lemmings to the
> newer "Malboro" brand... .

es, inna olden days used to smoke industrial strength goolies meself,
sorta bohemian if y'know what i mean..

In Mel Brooks's movie History of the World, Part I, during the scene
about the Spanish inquisition, the chief inquisitor introduces
Torquemada by saying, "Torquemada - do not implore him for compassion.
Torquemada - do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada - do not ask him
for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!" (talk him out
of anything) - es..

t.
>
> -- help bot

Date: 07 Aug 2008 01:21:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 7, 3:58=A0am, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote:

> The frenzy of the trolgar witch-hunt

Mr. Sloan seemed to switch back and forth
on a whim as to whether he thought the FSS
was PT or SP, or perhaps some combination,
even as he bragged about his lawsuit being
filed.

Now, originally, it was quite clear that a
"male witch" was properly called a warlock,
while the female kind were called witches.
For instance, see the TV series Bewitched.

But then along came a new series called
Charmed, in which three scantily-clad young
women (gee, I wonder why they kept
"bouncing" down those stairs all the time?)
made all "male witches" into "demons", and
only a lucky few males slipped by this new
stereotype, casting females as "good" and
males as automatically "evil".

Technically speaking, since it is PT who
is the main target here, should it not be
called a "warlock trial"? (Or does SP's
WGM status trump the male vs. female
thing? It's a bit confusing.) In the old
days, everybody knew who the witches
were by the fact that they flew around on
broomsticks at night, going: "Yeehehehe!"
Oh, and they had warts on their hideous
noses.

That was before Salem was bought out
by the cigarette companies and turned
into a mere brand name. Back then,
who knew that people would be so
deluded as to imagine themselves as
cowboys, flocking like lemmings to the
newer "Malboro" brand... .

-- help bot

Date: 06 Aug 2008 10:44:45
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 6, 12:19=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Aug 6, 7:37 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:f1df58dd-64cd-45bf-8065-049f8785eab9@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Aug 5, 12:54 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:00d856e6-c7cc-4838-ab4b-35ce81179ec5@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com=
...
> > > On Aug 1, 6:25 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 1, 3:53 pm, Javert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > <...>
>
> =A0But how should you 'hear of them?' (I take it that Jerry Spinrad does
> not
> have children, and this is merely naive single-bloke commentary)
>
> It is irrelevant, but as a social matter, I am very proud to speak
> about my two wonderful children.
>
>
>
> Below is your actual comment:
>
> =A0But not previously spurious! Once you were hot for it, hot for hot-
> sauce
> =A0abuse against dear young children! Then you got some information, and
> now
> =A0it
> =A0is 'spurious'
>
>
>
> > **Perhaps Jerry Spinrad would be less confused if he confined his frequ=
ent
> > comments to what people say, rather than inventing it
>
> OK, how should I have interpreted the statement above?
>
> **Cut it our Jerry! "the statement above" when there are 30o words above?=
If
> you were sincere you would not have cut out the direct question I put to =
you
> in the previous message - those were specifics - I asked you if and why y=
ou
> characterised the issue as if you were quoting me, and if not, why then m=
ake
> your choice of words. If you actually want to do what you say, then go ba=
ck
> and answer the ACTUAL questions. If you do not, you rather prove my point=
my
> saying one thing and behaving otherwise. Still too hard to understand?

I cut only what seemed irrelevant. I have no idea what you think I did
on the hot-sauce issue. What I actually did was this: When the
accusation of hot-saucing the children 1st came up in the newsgroup, I
said it was NOT an appropriate topic. I have no idea what you are
implying I said; I can only imagine that you are confused. You then
went on about it for a while, and no doubt convinced yourself it was
true. Why don't you find my actual quotation, if you think that I said
something inappropriate.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> **to back "this" up? ROFL. To back what issue up? I said that you were
> =A0asking questions about this incident in this newsgroup,
>
> I never asked questions about this in this newsgroup.
>
> > received some information about the issue, you ceased asking questions.
> > Period! I wonder if Jerry Spinrad would care to concur with that
> > straighforward remark about his own behavior?
>
> No, I do not concur.
>
> **Here, Jerry lets stand part of my question, and does not agree with the
> simple proposition I put to him. Of course, he cuts that out, and also CU=
TS
> my invitation to say what he DID do, rather than refer to unidentified no=
uns
> :)))

I tell you again - you must be confused. Find me a quote, or
apologize. I never changed my stance on investigating the allegations
regarding Susan's children, so I cannot concur with the statement
above.

>
> **Jerry Spinrad should resist such joking around on the subject of other
> people's kids - but again, only if he wants to - its a choice. But let hi=
m
> not say he wants dialog with people, when he trolls around like some
> passive-agressive newbie.
>
> **At least not with me, since it is more than a little boring, and that i=
s
> my choice. =A0Phil Innes
>

I will agree that this argument is boring. I always have to wonder on
issues like this; are you honestly confused, or are you intentinally
lying? Find me what I said about this hot-saucing that you think is
offensive, and I will be able to understand what you are talking
about.

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

Date: 06 Aug 2008 11:09:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:44:45 -0700 (PDT),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

> Find me what I said about this hot-saucing that you think is
>offensive, and I will be able to understand what you are talking
>about.

Wait just one minute now! Who do you expect us to believe, Phil's
account or our own lying eyes ?

Date: 06 Aug 2008 07:52:03
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 6, 7:37=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:f1df58dd-64cd-45bf-8065-049f8785eab9@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 5, 12:54 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:00d856e6-c7cc-4838-ab4b-35ce81179ec5@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Aug 1, 6:25 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Aug 1, 3:53 pm, Javert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <...>
>

But how should you 'hear of them?' (I take it that Jerry Spinrad does
not
have children, and this is merely naive single-bloke commentary)

It is irrelevant, but as a social matter, I am very proud to speak
about my two wonderful children.

>

Below is your actual comment:

But not previously spurious! Once you were hot for it, hot for hot-
sauce
abuse against dear young children! Then you got some information, and
now
it
is 'spurious'
>
> **Perhaps Jerry Spinrad would be less confused if he confined his frequen=
t
> comments to what people say, rather than inventing it

OK, how should I have interpreted the statement above?

Jerry Spinrad

>
**to back "this" up? ROFL. To back what issue up? I said that you were
asking questions about this incident in this newsgroup,

I never asked questions about this in this newsgroup.

> received some information about the issue, you ceased asking questions.
> Period! I wonder if Jerry Spinrad would care to concur with that
> straighforward remark about his own behavior?

No, I do not concur.
>

Date: 06 Aug 2008 13:19:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Aug 6, 7:37 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:f1df58dd-64cd-45bf-8065-049f8785eab9@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 5, 12:54 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:00d856e6-c7cc-4838-ab4b-35ce81179ec5@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 1, 6:25 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Aug 1, 3:53 pm, Javert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <...>
>

But how should you 'hear of them?' (I take it that Jerry Spinrad does
not
have children, and this is merely naive single-bloke commentary)

It is irrelevant, but as a social matter, I am very proud to speak
about my two wonderful children.

>

Below is your actual comment:

But not previously spurious! Once you were hot for it, hot for hot-
sauce
abuse against dear young children! Then you got some information, and
now
it
is 'spurious'
>
> **Perhaps Jerry Spinrad would be less confused if he confined his frequent
> comments to what people say, rather than inventing it

OK, how should I have interpreted the statement above?

**Cut it our Jerry! "the statement above" when there are 30o words above? If
you were sincere you would not have cut out the direct question I put to you
in the previous message - those were specifics - I asked you if and why you
characterised the issue as if you were quoting me, and if not, why then make
your choice of words. If you actually want to do what you say, then go back
and answer the ACTUAL questions. If you do not, you rather prove my point my
saying one thing and behaving otherwise. Still too hard to understand?

Jerry Spinrad

>
**to back "this" up? ROFL. To back what issue up? I said that you were
asking questions about this incident in this newsgroup,

I never asked questions about this in this newsgroup.

> received some information about the issue, you ceased asking questions.
> Period! I wonder if Jerry Spinrad would care to concur with that
> straighforward remark about his own behavior?

No, I do not concur.

**Here, Jerry lets stand part of my question, and does not agree with the
simple proposition I put to him. Of course, he cuts that out, and also CUTS
my invitation to say what he DID do, rather than refer to unidentified nouns
:)))

**Jerry Spinrad should resist such joking around on the subject of other
people's kids - but again, only if he wants to - its a choice. But let him
not say he wants dialog with people, when he trolls around like some
passive-agressive newbie.

**At least not with me, since it is more than a little boring, and that is
my choice. Phil Innes

>

Date: 06 Aug 2008 13:10:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

Date: 05 Aug 2008 17:04:08
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 5, 12:54=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:00d856e6-c7cc-4838-ab4b-35ce81179ec5@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 1, 6:25 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 3:53 pm, Javert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > I do not believe they talked about threats against the famil at that
> > point in time. I certainly never heard them.
>
> But how should you 'hear of them?' (I take it that jerry Spinrad does not
> have children, and this is merely naive single-bloke commentary)
>
> > The threats against the
> > family issue seems to be regarding whether the USCF lawyer should have
> > been allowed to pursue the (in my minds spurious)
>
> But not previously spurious! Once you were hot for it, hot for hot-sauce
> abuse against dear young children! Then you got some information, and now=
it
> is 'spurious'.

I find myself again dragged into a reply, out of the hopeful belief
that Phil does not intentionally lie, but is merely confused. I never
supported an investigation into the hot-saucing incident; this must be
confusing me with somebody else. The rest of Phil's nonsense is simply
ridiculous misinterpretation of my statements combined with weird
conspiracy fantasies, but I hope we can at least prune this outright
fabrication from the discussion. Either Phil should find a quote to
back this up, or apologize on this issue.

Jerry Spinrad
>
> If only you acted this way always, you would merely be a ready-fire-aim s=
ort
> of a guy. But you learned nothing about your own 'enthusiasms' eh?
>
> > questions on child
> > abuse, but this was only after the Motterhead report.
>
> To untangle this, Dr. Spinrad's parenthesis, despite what he knows
> privately, he links one thing with a dissasociated thing, fracturing his
> clauses in doing so, and to no known association of the two. Yet he was o=
nce
> anxious about both elements - then after info - just one.
>
> But Jerry Spinrad has attempted to set up himself as some sort of imparti=
al
> arbiter of things - whereas he is quite capable of declaring that Bill
> Goichberg's behavior, whatever it was as disclosed by, in his own words,
> 'secret material' would not cause Goichberg to resign. He is incapable of
> commenting on other things which he declares he has no knowledge of, and
> neither respects any logic. But still, we hear his abusive opinions about
> those who can do both.
>
> Does the reader understand this? Whatever Goichberg does is no concern to
> Jerry Spinrad. Though Jerry did not know what Goichberg did - since it is
> 'secret'. That is the 'logic' of this character. Jerry pretends he doesn'=
t
> read this little notice about his own orientation to other than a hot-hea=
d
> attacker, and pretends in public that he is some sort of cool
> conversationalist.
>
> ROFL:!!!
>
> Whereas this issue is of massive concern to Jerry Spinrad's publisher! In
> fact, HR has already stated that he is consulting lawyers about USCF
> secrets - the very agenda of the recent suit against Susan Polgar and Pau=
l
> Truong.
>
> Jerry Spinrad should speculate on nothing more than what he knows to be
> true, since otherwise he will live in a universe only populated by the li=
kes
> of Lafferty, Sloan, Brennen and Murray - with visits by Rynd/Dowd who don=
't
> like nuthin!
>
> A sad, depleted and paranoid place, with more speculations than there are
> things to speculate about.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Jerry,
> There were threats made.It was generally kept quiet .
> There has been a quiet conspiricy against Susan and Paul for a while.
> To be honest, I don't know why anyone would want to voluntarily
> associate themselves with the political tarbaby of USCF politics.

Date: 06 Aug 2008 08:37:57
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f1df58dd-64cd-45bf-8065-049f8785eab9@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 5, 12:54 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:00d856e6-c7cc-4838-ab4b-35ce81179ec5@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 1, 6:25 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 3:53 pm, Javert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > I do not believe they talked about threats against the famil at that
> > point in time. I certainly never heard them.
>
> But how should you 'hear of them?' (I take it that jerry Spinrad does not
> have children, and this is merely naive single-bloke commentary)
>
> > The threats against the
> > family issue seems to be regarding whether the USCF lawyer should have
> > been allowed to pursue the (in my minds spurious)
>
> But not previously spurious! Once you were hot for it, hot for hot-sauce
> abuse against dear young children! Then you got some information, and now
> it
> is 'spurious'.

I find myself again dragged into a reply, out of the hopeful belief
that Phil does not intentionally lie, but is merely confused. I never
supported an investigation into the hot-saucing incident;

**Perhaps Jerry Spinrad would be less confused if he confined his frequent
comments to what people say, rather than inventing it - I never said Jerry
Spinrad did, "support an investigation..." but I did say he publicised it.
Is his phrase intended as paraphrastic representation of my own? Those
aren't my words - are they intended to be? If not, why write them, then
complain?

this must be
confusing me with somebody else. The rest of Phil's nonsense is simply
ridiculous misinterpretation of my statements combined with weird
conspiracy fantasies, but I hope we can at least prune this outright
fabrication from the discussion.

**Perhaps if Jerry was less content with shooting his own straw man and
could make more direct, less vaguely aspersive comments, he could then say
what he did do, not what he didn't. ;)

Either Phil should find a quote to
back this up, or apologize on this issue.

**to back "this" up? ROFL. To back what issue up? I said that you were
asking questions about this incident in this newsgroup, and when you
received some information about the issue, you ceased asking questions.
Period! I wonder if Jerry Spinrad would care to concur with that
straighforward remark about his own behavior?

**Now, if I misunderstood his wish to be better understood, then perhaps he
would be kind enough to write more specifically, he would then be in less
danger of becoming "misunderstood." For an example, above he says in
response to my paragraph "I never supported an investigation..." which can
have several meanings, except one which supports making it a public issue by
writing about it here.

**As it is, Jerry continues to volunteer his opinions, suggesting he could
converse impartially, and immediately sets about characterizing contrary
opinion than his own as "nonsense". In short, I do see that what he says is
how he behaves which is a tad more pedantic. If he want to discuss anything
then firing off his opinion and leaving the scene is hardly efficacious to
anyone's understanding of what others mean and how they act.

**Phil Innes

Jerry Spinrad
>
> If only you acted this way always, you would merely be a ready-fire-aim
> sort
> of a guy. But you learned nothing about your own 'enthusiasms' eh?
>
> > questions on child
> > abuse, but this was only after the Motterhead report.
>
> To untangle this, Dr. Spinrad's parenthesis, despite what he knows
> privately, he links one thing with a dissasociated thing, fracturing his
> clauses in doing so, and to no known association of the two. Yet he was
> once
> anxious about both elements - then after info - just one.
>
> But Jerry Spinrad has attempted to set up himself as some sort of
> impartial
> arbiter of things - whereas he is quite capable of declaring that Bill
> Goichberg's behavior, whatever it was as disclosed by, in his own words,
> 'secret material' would not cause Goichberg to resign. He is incapable of
> commenting on other things which he declares he has no knowledge of, and
> neither respects any logic. But still, we hear his abusive opinions about
> those who can do both.
>
> Does the reader understand this? Whatever Goichberg does is no concern to
> Jerry Spinrad. Though Jerry did not know what Goichberg did - since it is
> 'secret'. That is the 'logic' of this character. Jerry pretends he doesn't
> read this little notice about his own orientation to other than a hot-head
> attacker, and pretends in public that he is some sort of cool
> conversationalist.
>
> ROFL:!!!
>
> Whereas this issue is of massive concern to Jerry Spinrad's publisher! In
> fact, HR has already stated that he is consulting lawyers about USCF
> secrets - the very agenda of the recent suit against Susan Polgar and Paul
> Truong.
>
> Jerry Spinrad should speculate on nothing more than what he knows to be
> true, since otherwise he will live in a universe only populated by the
> likes
> of Lafferty, Sloan, Brennen and Murray - with visits by Rynd/Dowd who
> don't
> like nuthin!
>
> A sad, depleted and paranoid place, with more speculations than there are
> things to speculate about.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Jerry,
> There were threats made.It was generally kept quiet .
> There has been a quiet conspiricy against Susan and Paul for a while.
> To be honest, I don't know why anyone would want to voluntarily
> associate themselves with the political tarbaby of USCF politics.

Date: 01 Aug 2008 22:05:38
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 1, 6:25=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 3:53=A0pm, Javert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 4:32=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Aug 1, 2:58=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 1, 11:17=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:07:34 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
>
> > > > > \"pivot\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >Didn't the polgars complain about Mottershead doing the same thi=
ng?
>
> > > > > Why the past tense? Their minions are still complaining. =A0
>
> > > > > The old "whose ox is being gored" problem.
>
> > > > Isn't it odd that Mr. Sloan leaked confidential information all of =
the
> > > > time but the USCF never filed a lawsuit against him. It looks to me=
as
> > > > if the USCF may be making a case that its real intent in the
> > > > Mottershead report as in this lawsuit, is to drive Susan and Paul f=
rom
> > > > the ranks of the USCF. Ifit's not true, it sure seems that way.
>
> > > Is there any evidence that they were trying to drive them away before
> > > they came to believe that Paul was guilty of being FSS? I don't
> > > believe in the current lawsuit, but when Paul didn't step off the
> > > board when being caught out as he should have, it became necessary to
> > > apply pressure somehow. I don't think they want to drive anybody away
> > > from chess, but they do want to get somebody who seems to be
> > > fundamentally dishonest off of the board.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > =A0 Well, supposedly there was pressure even during the election.
> > Evidence? Well none that I've seen other than campaigning against them
> > which you would expect her opponents in the election to do. But there
> > was the mysterious accusation of threats against the family during
> > that period of time.
>
> I do not believe they talked about threats against the famil at that
> point in time. I certainly never heard them. The threats against the
> family issue seems to be regarding whether the USCF lawyer should have
> been allowed to pursue the (in my minds spurious) questions on child
> abuse, but this was only after the Motterhead report.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Jerry,
There were threats made.It was generally kept quiet .
There has been a quiet conspiricy against Susan and Paul for a while.
To be honest, I don't know why anyone would want to voluntarily
associate themselves with the political tarbaby of USCF politics.

Date: 05 Aug 2008 13:54:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:00d856e6-c7cc-4838-ab4b-35ce81179ec5@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 1, 6:25 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 3:53 pm, Javert <[email protected]> wrote:

<... >

> I do not believe they talked about threats against the famil at that
> point in time. I certainly never heard them.

But how should you 'hear of them?' (I take it that jerry Spinrad does not
have children, and this is merely naive single-bloke commentary)

> The threats against the
> family issue seems to be regarding whether the USCF lawyer should have
> been allowed to pursue the (in my minds spurious)

But not previously spurious! Once you were hot for it, hot for hot-sauce
abuse against dear young children! Then you got some information, and now it
is 'spurious'.

If only you acted this way always, you would merely be a ready-fire-aim sort
of a guy. But you learned nothing about your own 'enthusiasms' eh?

> questions on child
> abuse, but this was only after the Motterhead report.

To untangle this, Dr. Spinrad's parenthesis, despite what he knows
privately, he links one thing with a dissasociated thing, fracturing his
clauses in doing so, and to no known association of the two. Yet he was once
anxious about both elements - then after info - just one.

But Jerry Spinrad has attempted to set up himself as some sort of impartial
arbiter of things - whereas he is quite capable of declaring that Bill
Goichberg's behavior, whatever it was as disclosed by, in his own words,
'secret material' would not cause Goichberg to resign. He is incapable of
commenting on other things which he declares he has no knowledge of, and
neither respects any logic. But still, we hear his abusive opinions about
those who can do both.

Does the reader understand this? Whatever Goichberg does is no concern to
Jerry Spinrad. Though Jerry did not know what Goichberg did - since it is
'secret'. That is the 'logic' of this character. Jerry pretends he doesn't
read this little notice about his own orientation to other than a hot-head
attacker, and pretends in public that he is some sort of cool
conversationalist.

ROFL:!!!

Whereas this issue is of massive concern to Jerry Spinrad's publisher! In
fact, HR has already stated that he is consulting lawyers about USCF
secrets - the very agenda of the recent suit against Susan Polgar and Paul
Truong.

Jerry Spinrad should speculate on nothing more than what he knows to be
true, since otherwise he will live in a universe only populated by the likes
of Lafferty, Sloan, Brennen and Murray - with visits by Rynd/Dowd who don't
like nuthin!

A sad, depleted and paranoid place, with more speculations than there are
things to speculate about.

Phil Innes

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

Jerry,
There were threats made.It was generally kept quiet .
There has been a quiet conspiricy against Susan and Paul for a while.
To be honest, I don't know why anyone would want to voluntarily
associate themselves with the political tarbaby of USCF politics.

Date: 07 Aug 2008 17:58:06
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

Chess One wrote:
.
> But how should you 'hear of them?' (I take it that jerry Spinrad does not
> have children, and this is merely naive single-bloke commentary)

Naw Phil,

Somewhere in the mish-mash, the rushing around to different ng's, the
flagrant & promiscuous cross-posting of those with little integrity &
small ethical wherewithall..

The frenzy of the trolgar witch-hunt, the death of A. Solzehnitsyn
http://ktffilms.com/ the righteous Rev.s admonitions to do that which is
right & so on. Your casual use of the word 'bent' & Spinrad's vigorous
rebuttal of any implied slur on his sexuality, he did come to the table
& present his credentials as a cordon-bleu, paid-up fambly chappie with
wifey & kindy to boot. But so what - you must have missed that bit -
no?..

t.

Date: 11 Aug 2008 08:42:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

"thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
> .
>> But how should you 'hear of them?' (I take it that jerry Spinrad does not
>> have children, and this is merely naive single-bloke commentary)
>
> Naw Phil,
>
> Somewhere in the mish-mash, the rushing around to different ng's, the
> flagrant & promiscuous cross-posting of those with little integrity &
> small ethical wherewithall..
>
> The frenzy of the trolgar witch-hunt, the death of A. Solzehnitsyn
> http://ktffilms.com/

he lived just up-state. our local paper carried a few additional notes from
one of his children about his time in Vermont. how odd that Putin would now
try to step into his literary shoes - I rather think that both of them
wanted Russia to be something Russian, not some imported culture - but they
probably vary wildly on what sort of Russian that is to be - perhaps its the
fault of Leaders, literary or political ones, that they are rather deaf to
what the people themselves want, or the need to encourage Russian media to
permit the people's views to be broadcast to each other and open dialogs
take place -

- after the hysterical and paranoid official 'receptions' of Kasparov's
really rather modest ideas of opening things up, one cannot be too hopeful
for the Russias whether Solzenhnitsen's or Putin's version.

>the righteous Rev.s admonitions to do that which is
> right & so on. Your casual use of the word 'bent' & Spinrad's vigorous
> rebuttal

i assume no pun intended?

> of any implied slur on his sexuality,

don't matter to me what he is, and when Eric Johnson wrote here, there was
plenty of Gay-bashing going on. I didn't notice anyone else much defending
Eric <shrug >

since MY context is 'not-bent' or some low slang, and canting trope, his
sexuality seems to be his introduced context, mine was children, the care
of...

returning to that subject of children, some people write //as if// they
don't really understand why a necessary discretion is indicated. that is no
longer a question I need a direct answer for, since I can readily see for
myself who understands and respects it, and who don't

> he did come to the table
> & present his credentials as a cordon-bleu, paid-up fambly chappie with
> wifey & kindy to boot. But so what - you must have missed that bit -
> no?..

i did see what he wrote, and am merely surprised that as a family man he
wrote as he did previously.

Dr. Spinrad's pronouncements and public speculations seem to me rather long
on hiss, short on fact and logic. My inquiry above asked about his
sensibilty, too...

Phil Innes

> t.

Date: 14 Aug 2008 06:10:48
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

Chess One wrote:
>
> "thumbody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Chess One wrote:
> > .
> >> But how should you 'hear of them?' (I take it that jerry Spinrad does not
> >> have children, and this is merely naive single-bloke commentary)
> >
> > Naw Phil,
> >
> > Somewhere in the mish-mash, the rushing around to different ng's, the
> > flagrant & promiscuous cross-posting of those with little integrity &
> > small ethical wherewithall..
> >
> > The frenzy of the trolgar witch-hunt, the death of A. Solzehnitsyn
> > http://ktffilms.com/
>
> he lived just up-state.

Yes, I remember, just after he was freed from the Gulag & exiled, the
papernazis bailed him up @ his retreat in Switzerland & he gave them a
steady look before getting some gravel & throwing small stones @ their
cameras..

> our local paper carried a few additional notes from
> one of his children about his time in Vermont. how odd that Putin would now
> try to step into his literary shoes - I rather think that both of them
> wanted Russia to be something Russian, not some imported culture - but they
> probably vary wildly on what sort of Russian that is to be - perhaps its the
> fault of Leaders, literary or political ones, that they are rather deaf to
> what the people themselves want, or the need to encourage Russian media to
> permit the people's views to be broadcast to each other and open dialogs
> take place -

Yes, well maybe the people are happy enough with bread & cicuses - &
vodka..
.
> >the righteous Rev.s admonitions to do that which is
> > right & so on. Your casual use of the word 'bent' & Spinrad's vigorous
> > rebuttal
>
> i assume no pun intended?

Your assumption is correct. Actually, I've noticed the language is often
funny enough without any deliberation + I'm not naturally that clever -
I'm-a-gettin/armageddon, talkim-outta/torquemada for examples..

> don't matter to me what he is, and when Eric Johnson wrote here, there was
> plenty of Gay-bashing going on. I didn't notice anyone else much defending
> Eric <shrug>

Grau used to 'write' here too iirc <shrugs >..

>
> since MY context is 'not-bent' or some low slang, and canting trope, his
> sexuality seems to be his introduced context,

Does seem that way doesn't it. Did you know that the much-maligned
father of psychoanalysis wrote his initial stuff with a boulder-sized
rock of Cocaine on his desk?

Clement, remember him, lived just across the river in Walberswick
(Suffolk). His daughters were just so 8.5 out of 10 know what I mean &
then of course there's Lucian, the famous artist living in London with
his pet rat..

> mine was children, the care
> of...
>
> returning to that subject of children, some people write //as if// they
> don't really understand why a necessary discretion is indicated. that is no
> longer a question I need a direct answer for, since I can readily see for
> myself who understands and respects it, and who don't

Yes, well contemporary demographics suggest a trend in singles an
increase in divorce & the higher the abortion rate (in the US @ least) a
decrease in crime..

Maybe you & I Phil, grew up in more innocent times, but I seriously
doubt that so sometimes the hysteria surrounding the dear young things
is too ridiculous for words..

Interesting the drop off in males teaching young kids - no?..

t.
>
> > he did come to the table
> > & present his credentials as a cordon-bleu, paid-up fambly chappie with
> > wifey & kindy to boot. But so what - you must have missed that bit -
> > no?..
>
> i did see what he wrote, and am merely surprised that as a family man he
> wrote as he did previously.
>
> Dr. Spinrad's pronouncements and public speculations seem to me rather long
> on hiss, short on fact and logic. My inquiry above asked about his
> sensibilty, too...
>
> Phil Innes
>
> > t.

Date: 14 Aug 2008 08:38:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

"thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> "thumbody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Chess One wrote:

>> he lived just up-state.
>
> Yes, I remember, just after he was freed from the Gulag & exiled, the
> papernazis bailed him up @ his retreat in Switzerland & he gave them a
> steady look before getting some gravel & throwing small stones @ their
> cameras..

Western Press wanted dirt on the East - they got some, but they also
received a vote of no-confidence from S, who said that the West too was
corrupt and any complaisancy or postures of superiority of culture were
misplaced.

Its interested that on the subject of chess Viktor Korchnoi said the same
thing!

---------
>
> Yes, well maybe the people are happy enough with bread & cicuses - &
> vodka..

"...and a strong leader."

Which apart from its historical naivete [what strong leader did anyone any
good in the C20th?] seems also to be a shrinking from the practice of
citizen's responsibilities. Of course, that is no unique Russian problem,
but it is an emphatic problem there.

<. >

>> don't matter to me what he is, and when Eric Johnson wrote here, there
>> was
>> plenty of Gay-bashing going on. I didn't notice anyone else much
>> defending
>> Eric <shrug>
>
> Grau used to 'write' here too iirc <shrugs>..

ah. but he was a pale shadow of the Real Rolf. it was something to do with
the quality of the jokes - and then sometimes amazing essays which linked
context, motivation and instance together - not perfectly, but better than
any one else seemed capable of in a newsgroup

Rolf too had his imitators - personally I could always tell on from
t'other - imitators are poor, eg, at making self-jokes, even though its a
vicarious self they sport around. no insight, no space, no real humor, and
no joy neither

consequently imitators can't raise a decent smile or even a little hell ;)

>>
>> since MY context is 'not-bent' or some low slang, and canting trope, his
>> sexuality seems to be his introduced context,
>
> Does seem that way doesn't it. Did you know that the much-maligned
> father of psychoanalysis wrote his initial stuff with a boulder-sized
> rock of Cocaine on his desk?

and smoked Freudian symbols? actually, near where I was born there was a
bloke lived on a cottage on the edge of a cliff across from the same
lighthouse Virgina wrote about - a long time before Freud this character
wrote about sex research, J.S. Collis wrote a half-decent bio of Havelock
Ellis. Ellis didn't 'stuff' so much, and it would have been gratifying for
him to have met Konrad Lorenz, eg, who refuted Freud wish to 'excorcise'
Aggression - saying that ritual aggression was actually a healthy form of
activity and practiced by all living beings - and what is chess other than a
form of ritual aggression?

[albeit chess politics is another animal entire!]

> Clement, remember him, lived just across the river in Walberswick
> (Suffolk). His daughters were just so 8.5 out of 10 know what I mean &
> then of course there's Lucian, the famous artist living in London with
> his pet rat..

That's what Ficher need, 2 normal kids or a pet rat.

>> returning to that subject of children, some people write //as if// they
>> don't really understand why a necessary discretion is indicated. that is
>> no
>> longer a question I need a direct answer for, since I can readily see for
>> myself who understands and respects it, and who don't
>
> Yes, well contemporary demographics suggest a trend in singles an
> increase in divorce & the higher the abortion rate (in the US @ least) a
> decrease in crime..
>
> Maybe you & I Phil, grew up in more innocent times, but I seriously
> doubt that so sometimes the hysteria surrounding the dear young things
> is too ridiculous for words..

I think for a long time we [as a society of a certain age] pretended there
were no problems, much as the Victorians did. As usual when the damn bursts
the first froths are oft hysterical and incoherent releases. Yet, I worked
as volunteer with a nation children's agency here, and on passing the
background test I must have appeared non-plussed, but the auditor shrink
told me that 50% of applicants in California were rejected as unsuitable to
be with children.

Cold statistics seem less hysterical, no? There is an increase in reported
predatorical activity around children in the US, and perhaps elsewhere too?
This increase is more real than apparent. An interesting analysis of it is
by Neil Postman in his book, The Dissapearance of Childhood.

> Interesting the drop off in males teaching young kids - no?..

Though that is not a direct result of measured abusive tendencies - I heard
a statistic that in the UK 50% of child abuse was committed by men. A male
shrink shared that, with an ironical preference on the /male/ statistic.

<... >

Phil Innes

Date: 05 Aug 2008 11:15:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:54:59 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Jerry Spinrad should speculate on nothing more than what he knows to be
>true,

Then it hardly would be speculation, would it now ?

Date: 05 Aug 2008 15:30:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:54:59 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jerry Spinrad should speculate on nothing more than what he knows to be
>>true,
>
> Then it hardly would be speculation, would it now ?

Quite! But you should continue your own line of thought, and decide if what
he writes is speculation or fact? What I see is continuous speculation. At
least if one has established fact, then one can speculate on what that means
or its implication socially - can engage others on similar speculations -
but to speculate on just what the facts might be... pfft ;(

Our Jerry has not attained the first level, which are those facts. Those he
has he is silent about.

Phil Innes

Date: 02 Aug 2008 02:19:16
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

>To be honest, I don't know why
>anyone would want to
>voluntarily associate themselves
>with the political tarbaby of
>USCF politics.

Control over $3.2 million a year in revenue is a good start.

--
--
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: 03 Aug 2008 03:15:04
From: Anonymous
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

In article <[email protected] >
"Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> >To be honest, I don't know why
> >anyone would want to
> >voluntarily associate themselves
> >with the political tarbaby of
> >USCF politics.
>
> Control over $3.2 million a year in revenue is a good start.
>
>
> --
> --
> Ray Gordon,
aka Gordon Roy Parker

The newsloon's level of discourse is amazing when he is able to
obtain his Narcissistic Supply elsewhere. Witness his current
delusional rampage in alt.seduction.fast

Date: 02 Aug 2008 12:49:47
From: Non scrivetemi
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

Date: 01 Aug 2008 17:00:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 1, 3:58=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> Isn't it odd that Mr. Sloan leaked confidential information all of the
> time but the USCF never filed a lawsuit against him. It looks to me as
> if the USCF may be making a case that its real intent in the
> Mottershead report as in this lawsuit, is to drive Susan and Paul from
> the ranks of the USCF. Ifit's not true, it sure seems that way.

Perhaps things need to be kept in their proper
order, or chronology: first the FSS did his/her
thing; next, SP and PT got elected to the board;
next, the real SS whined that he was unfairly
treated because of the FSS attacks and BG's
hit-letter; next, SS became obsessed with
getting his revenge; and then came the
Mottershead report, implicating the dynamic
duo; next came temporary housing by de Nile
for SP/PT apologists; then came a whole slew
of lawsuits, keeping these apologists fully
employed; next up, complaints designed to
shift attention away from what the dynamic
duo have done, to Mr. Sloan's actions (a silly
diversion tactic). Did I miss anything
important?

Of course, if the USCF has never filed a
lawsuit against SS, it may be because the
real object of such suits is to collect that
which Mr. Sloan hasn't got (i.e. money).
By contrast, Paul Truong, /we are told/, is
a great businessman who has trophies
and money enough to retire early; a man
of means, of sum and substance (like the
hosta). See now why the USCF would
not bother with the one, but /would/ the
other?

-- helpful bot

Date: 01 Aug 2008 16:35:09
From:
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

samsloan wrote:
> Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas
>
> It is now apparent that this latest suit by the USCF against Susan
> Polgar and Paul Truong is NOT directly related to my suit against
> them. Rather, it is because Polgar posted on her Chess Discussion
> website embarrassing letters that Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall
> received from Hanon Russell on June 7 and 8 and on July 18 and 30,
> 2008, in which Hanon suggested that he will stop paying the $150,000
> he pays annually to the USCF for its books and equipment business and
> he strongly disputes the $85,000 the USCF says he owes. These letters
> indicate that the financial statements prepared by the USCF are false
> and fraudulent.
>
> http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3D4&t=3D1240
> http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3D4&t=3D1375
> http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3D5&t=3D7578&start=3D15
>
> The June 7-8 letters suggested that if the USCF goes through with the
> Goichberg Plan to stop mailing printed copies of Chess Life and Chess
> Life for Kids magazines to the regular adult and scholastic members,
> then Hanon Russell will stop paying the $150,000 per year he agreed to
> pay primarily for ads in those magazines.
>
> The July 18 and 30, 2008 letters from Hanon Russell to Bill Goichberg
> and Bill Hall concern the fact that the USCF is carrying on its
> financial statement an $85,000 accounts receivable from Hanon Russell.
> However, Hanon Russell states "we dispute and deny liability for any
> alleged amount owed other than the $14,000" he previously agreed to
> pay off in monthly installments of $1000 per month.
>
> Now, it seems clear that the USCF is suing Polgar and Truong for
> posting these confidential letters on their website. However, Polgar
> and Truong had a right and indeed an obligation to post these letters.
> The members and especially the delegates and alternates need to know
> that if the Goichberg Plan is passed in which regular members of the
> USCF will no longer receive a magazine in the mail, then Hanon Russell
> will likely stop paying the $150,000 per year. Also, the members,
> delegates and alternates have a right to know that the USCF is
> overstating its financial condition by claiming as an =EF=BF=BDaccount
> receivable=EF=BF=BD an amount of $85,000 that is disputed and is unlikely=
to
> be received.
>
> The lawsuit filed in Lubbock Texas states:
>
> =EF=BF=BDThe U.S. Chess Federation, Inc., a nonprofit club based in Illin=
ois,
> wants to determine if chess celebrity Susan Polgar and her husband,
> Paul Truong, leaked confidential e-mails from the club's executive
> board sometime in June, according to court records.=EF=BF=BD
>
> http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/072908/loc_310824280.shtml#mdw-comme=
nts
>
> If the USCF under Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall is going to court to
> stop the membership from finding out about these things, they have
> passed beyond the boundary of impropriety and into the area of
> illegality.
>
> Sam Sloan

Has anyone bothered to notice that Sloan's "conclusions" about the
latest lawsuit are sheer speculation? I'd like to see actual
_evidence_ that it has something to do with the Russell dispute, as
opposed to inventions by a serial fabulist.

Date: 01 Aug 2008 16:25:37
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 1, 3:53=A0pm, Javert <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 4:32=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 2:58=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 1, 11:17=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:07:34 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
>
> > > > \"pivot\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >Didn't the polgars complain about Mottershead doing the same thing=
?
>
> > > > Why the past tense? Their minions are still complaining. =A0
>
> > > > The old "whose ox is being gored" problem.
>
> > > Isn't it odd that Mr. Sloan leaked confidential information all of th=
e
> > > time but the USCF never filed a lawsuit against him. It looks to me a=
s
> > > if the USCF may be making a case that its real intent in the
> > > Mottershead report as in this lawsuit, is to drive Susan and Paul fro=
m
> > > the ranks of the USCF. Ifit's not true, it sure seems that way.
>
> > Is there any evidence that they were trying to drive them away before
> > they came to believe that Paul was guilty of being FSS? I don't
> > believe in the current lawsuit, but when Paul didn't step off the
> > board when being caught out as he should have, it became necessary to
> > apply pressure somehow. I don't think they want to drive anybody away
> > from chess, but they do want to get somebody who seems to be
> > fundamentally dishonest off of the board.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> =A0 Well, supposedly there was pressure even during the election.
> Evidence? Well none that I've seen other than campaigning against them
> which you would expect her opponents in the election to do. But there
> was the mysterious accusation of threats against the family during
> that period of time.

I do not believe they talked about threats against the famil at that
point in time. I certainly never heard them. The threats against the
family issue seems to be regarding whether the USCF lawyer should have
been allowed to pursue the (in my minds spurious) questions on child
abuse, but this was only after the Motterhead report.

Jerry Spinrad

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 01 Aug 2008 13:56:24
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 1, 3:53 pm, Javert <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 4:32 pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 2:58 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 1, 11:17 am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:07:34 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
>
> > > > \"pivot\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >Didn't the polgars complain about Mottershead doing the same thing?
>
> > > > Why the past tense? Their minions are still complaining.
>
> > > > The old "whose ox is being gored" problem.
>
> > > Isn't it odd that Mr. Sloan leaked confidential information all of the
> > > time but the USCF never filed a lawsuit against him. It looks to me as
> > > if the USCF may be making a case that its real intent in the
> > > Mottershead report as in this lawsuit, is to drive Susan and Paul from
> > > the ranks of the USCF. Ifit's not true, it sure seems that way.
>
> > Is there any evidence that they were trying to drive them away before
> > they came to believe that Paul was guilty of being FSS? I don't
> > believe in the current lawsuit, but when Paul didn't step off the
> > board when being caught out as he should have, it became necessary to
> > apply pressure somehow. I don't think they want to drive anybody away
> > from chess, but they do want to get somebody who seems to be
> > fundamentally dishonest off of the board.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> Well, supposedly there was pressure even during the election.
> Evidence? Well none that I've seen other than campaigning against them
> which you would expect her opponents in the election to do. But there
> was the mysterious accusation of threats against the family during
> that period of time.

That's an old trick to get sympathy.

Date: 01 Aug 2008 13:53:54
From: Javert
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 1, 4:32=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2:58=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 11:17=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:07:34 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
>
> > > \"pivot\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >Didn't the polgars complain about Mottershead doing the same thing?
>
> > > Why the past tense? Their minions are still complaining. =A0
>
> > > The old "whose ox is being gored" problem.
>
> > Isn't it odd that Mr. Sloan leaked confidential information all of the
> > time but the USCF never filed a lawsuit against him. It looks to me as
> > if the USCF may be making a case that its real intent in the
> > Mottershead report as in this lawsuit, is to drive Susan and Paul from
> > the ranks of the USCF. Ifit's not true, it sure seems that way.
>
> Is there any evidence that they were trying to drive them away before
> they came to believe that Paul was guilty of being FSS? I don't
> believe in the current lawsuit, but when Paul didn't step off the
> board when being caught out as he should have, it became necessary to
> apply pressure somehow. I don't think they want to drive anybody away
> from chess, but they do want to get somebody who seems to be
> fundamentally dishonest off of the board.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Well, supposedly there was pressure even during the election.
Evidence? Well none that I've seen other than campaigning against them
which you would expect her opponents in the election to do. But there
was the mysterious accusation of threats against the family during
that period of time.

Date: 01 Aug 2008 13:32:28
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 1, 2:58=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 11:17=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:07:34 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
>
> > \"pivot\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >Didn't the polgars complain about Mottershead doing the same thing?
>
> > Why the past tense? Their minions are still complaining. =A0
>
> > The old "whose ox is being gored" problem.
>
> Isn't it odd that Mr. Sloan leaked confidential information all of the
> time but the USCF never filed a lawsuit against him. It looks to me as
> if the USCF may be making a case that its real intent in the
> Mottershead report as in this lawsuit, is to drive Susan and Paul from
> the ranks of the USCF. Ifit's not true, it sure seems that way.

Is there any evidence that they were trying to drive them away before
they came to believe that Paul was guilty of being FSS? I don't
believe in the current lawsuit, but when Paul didn't step off the
board when being caught out as he should have, it became necessary to
apply pressure somehow. I don't think they want to drive anybody away
from chess, but they do want to get somebody who seems to be
fundamentally dishonest off of the board.

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 01 Aug 2008 13:13:19
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 1, 3:58 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 11:17 am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:07:34 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
>
> > \"pivot\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >Didn't the polgars complain about Mottershead doing the same thing?
>
> > Why the past tense? Their minions are still complaining.
>
> > The old "whose ox is being gored" problem.
>
> Isn't it odd that Mr. Sloan leaked confidential information all of the
> time but the USCF never filed a lawsuit against him. It looks to me as
> if the USCF may be making a case that its real intent in the
> Mottershead report as in this lawsuit, is to drive Susan and Paul from
> the ranks of the USCF. Ifit's not true, it sure seems that way.

In fact I did not leak but broadcast some information that they were
trying to keep secret, such as the improper payment by Goichberg to
Polgar in November 2003 in the amount of $13,358.36, plus the fact
that all the books and records from prior to 2004 were lost, missing
or destroyed. They did not sue me. What Polgar has "leaked" is mild
compared to what I uncovered.

Sam Sloan

Date: 01 Aug 2008 12:58:42
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Aug 1, 11:17=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:07:34 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
>
> \"pivot\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Didn't the polgars complain about Mottershead doing the same thing?
>
> Why the past tense? Their minions are still complaining. =A0
>
> The old "whose ox is being gored" problem.

Isn't it odd that Mr. Sloan leaked confidential information all of the
time but the USCF never filed a lawsuit against him. It looks to me as
if the USCF may be making a case that its real intent in the
Mottershead report as in this lawsuit, is to drive Susan and Paul from
the ranks of the USCF. Ifit's not true, it sure seems that way.

Date: 01 Aug 2008 12:01:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

I have few occassions to praise Sam Sloan, and do not say I agree with his
conclusions at the bottom of his post, which seem to be matters for a court
to resolve. My own due diligence, an hour on the phone with Texas, would
appear to substantiate much of what is written below. I do note that some of
it is 'reportage', and also that this is /far/ from being the whole story -
but heretofore so many people haven't been interested in any whole story!

Yet it does indicate something which is a constant complaint about USCF's
management - its obsessive secrecy. Now, whether money matters in a public
non-profit can be held to be /necessarily/ secret, even from delegates and
members of a membership organization, will be some matter for the law to
establish.

The rather more public issue is whether other board members - perhaps
minority ones in terms of voting blocks - are allowed to mention their
demurrers, especially in such a massively important relationship as exists
between USCF and Chess Cafe? Unless USCF are also suing the Cafe, then is
Hanon Russell permitted to make his own case public? Surely if he already
wrote of his dissatisfaction, then may anyone at all mention his letter, or
is that an official secret too, and not even he may speak of 'confidentail
things', even though his plaint is that conditions have changed so radically
that, to paraphrase, he cannot be held to what no longer exists.

Surely we cannot conclude that resignation by board members is the only
alternative to saying nothing at all? Superadded to this point, is the
already chronic financial situation, and where the open speculation is about
not if, but when USCF will go down the tubes, with either incremental
lay-offs, or the whole nine yards at once.

Phil Innes

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2eef9a98-72f2-42da-b284-acd0b6ca97dc@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

It is now apparent that this latest suit by the USCF against Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong is NOT directly related to my suit against
them. Rather, it is because Polgar posted on her Chess Discussion
website embarrassing letters that Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall
received from Hanon Russell on June 7 and 8 and on July 18 and 30,
2008, in which Hanon suggested that he will stop paying the $150,000
he pays annually to the USCF for its books and equipment business and
he strongly disputes the $85,000 the USCF says he owes. These letters
indicate that the financial statements prepared by the USCF are false
and fraudulent.

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1240
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1375
http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7578&start=15

The June 7-8 letters suggested that if the USCF goes through with the
Goichberg Plan to stop mailing printed copies of Chess Life and Chess
Life for Kids magazines to the regular adult and scholastic members,
then Hanon Russell will stop paying the $150,000 per year he agreed to
pay primarily for ads in those magazines.

The July 18 and 30, 2008 letters from Hanon Russell to Bill Goichberg
and Bill Hall concern the fact that the USCF is carrying on its
financial statement an $85,000 accounts receivable from Hanon Russell.
However, Hanon Russell states "we dispute and deny liability for any
alleged amount owed other than the $14,000" he previously agreed to
pay off in monthly installments of $1000 per month.

Now, it seems clear that the USCF is suing Polgar and Truong for
posting these confidential letters on their website. However, Polgar
and Truong had a right and indeed an obligation to post these letters.
The members and especially the delegates and alternates need to know
that if the Goichberg Plan is passed in which regular members of the
USCF will no longer receive a magazine in the mail, then Hanon Russell
will likely stop paying the $150,000 per year. Also, the members,
delegates and alternates have a right to know that the USCF is
overstating its financial condition by claiming as an �account
receivable� an amount of $85,000 that is disputed and is unlikely to
be received.

The lawsuit filed in Lubbock Texas states:

�The U.S. Chess Federation, Inc., a nonprofit club based in Illinois,
wants to determine if chess celebrity Susan Polgar and her husband,
Paul Truong, leaked confidential e-mails from the club's executive
board sometime in June, according to court records.�

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/072908/loc_310824280.shtml#mdw-comments

If the USCF under Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall is going to court to
stop the membership from finding out about these things, they have
passed beyond the boundary of impropriety and into the area of
illegality.

Sam Sloan

Date: 01 Aug 2008 12:07:34
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

Didn't the polgars complain about Mottershead doing the same thing?

Date: 01 Aug 2008 09:17:07
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Real Reason for Latest Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong in Texas

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:07:34 -0400, "Ray Gordon, creator of the
\"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote:

>Didn't the polgars complain about Mottershead doing the same thing?

Why the past tense? Their minions are still complaining.

The old "whose ox is being gored" problem.