|
Main
Date: 09 Dec 2007 01:33:47
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: The Mottershead Dance...
|
Greetings Chess Friends, Is it true that yet another independent expert is going to weigh in on the validity of the Mottershead report tomorrow? I am most curious to hear the result. If we have another vindication of the report, it is going to make the USCF stonewall of denial look even more tragically doomed. I have no idea how Sam will make out with his law suit. But it is time for the USCF to go. We need a much better and different organization leading the US chess community. I know there are good competent people out there that can make a difference. I hope they are preparing to seize the opportunity when the USCF falls. Otherwise it will fall, once again, to the same corrupt, backstabbing, double-dealing, self-promoting, thieving types that have served us so ill to date. -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
|
|
Date: 12 Dec 2007 21:27:54
From:
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 10, 12:24 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:08:06 -0800 (PST), The Historian > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Snip typical Innes defense of his self-esteem meal-ticket. > > Can > >> Mottershead not be the whistle blower, but the perp? > >Mike, I think Philsy came up with a new one for the List of the Blind > >Monkey! > > Somehow, I suspected one of the flacks would go this route. It's > amazing after all P. Innes' self-righteous prattle about evidence that > he'd blithely toss out such garbage. > > These desperate attempts to divert attention and muddy the waters have > been duplicated over in the monitored world of the USCF forums, but, > AFAIK, nobody has been dumb enough over there to claim Mottershead > might be the Fake Sam Sloan. Over there, as expert opinion more and > more supports the report and its underlying methodology, the > nay-sayers have tended to claim (1) it invaded other members' privacy > and (2) it wasn't authorized. Mike, I find it interesting that the claim is made that it invaded members privacy. Bill Hall gave the Cherry Hill, NJ private information about me calling me a terrorist. I am going to put hall in his place, and offerer a reward to stop the criminal activity that goes on with his approval. In any event, my privacy is not respected, and nobody seems to care about the truth. If Hall can call me a terrorist, then I call him a childmolester. Why not, Hall did not respect my privacy. He told the cops I was a terrorist, and gave out private infomraiton about me. cus Roberts
|
|
Date: 11 Dec 2007 06:27:32
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 11, 8:27 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:22:59 -0800 (PST), The Historian > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >Now we need a 'good' reason for the FMM, FNB, FLP, etc. > > Anybody who got involved in the issues with which the FSS was engaged > usually became fair game for some fake posts. I think it was partly > intimidation, partly crime of opportunity. And if one of the motives > was to destroy these newsgroups, making it harder to use kill-filters > would have been a effective way to go. > > And, who knows, the FSS may have had a whimsical side. Agreed. I noticed the FNB posts showed up about the time I criticized Trollgar/Chess Masterminds for distortions in a press release - they claimed some nonsense about GM Polgar's record. As for whimsy, I'd describe it more as obsession.
|
|
Date: 11 Dec 2007 06:09:10
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 11, 1:11 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 11, 12:30 am, The Historian <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Somehow, I suspected one of the flacks would go this route. It's > > > amazing after all P. Innes' self-righteous prattle about evidence that > > > he'd blithely toss out such garbage. > > You must be new here. That's all Innes ever does - toss out garbage. > > I thought Phil Innes *was* the garbage. > > -- help bot Agreed.
|
|
Date: 10 Dec 2007 22:11:25
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 11, 12:30 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > > Somehow, I suspected one of the flacks would go this route. It's > > amazing after all P. Innes' self-righteous prattle about evidence that > > he'd blithely toss out such garbage. > You must be new here. That's all Innes ever does - toss out garbage. I thought Phil Innes *was* the garbage. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 10 Dec 2007 21:30:57
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 10, 1:24 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:08:06 -0800 (PST), The Historian > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Snip typical Innes defense of his self-esteem meal-ticket. > > Can > >> Mottershead not be the whistle blower, but the perp? > >Mike, I think Philsy came up with a new one for the List of the Blind > >Monkey! > > Somehow, I suspected one of the flacks would go this route. It's > amazing after all P. Innes' self-righteous prattle about evidence that > he'd blithely toss out such garbage. You must be new here. That's all Innes ever does - toss out garbage.
|
|
Date: 10 Dec 2007 21:22:59
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 10, 9:14 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:45:34 -0500, "Ray Gordon, creator of the > > \"pivot\"" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> These desperate attempts to divert attention and muddy the waters have > >> been duplicated over in the monitored world of the USCF forums, but, > >> AFAIK, nobody has been dumb enough over there to claim Mottershead > >> might be the Fake Sam Sloan. Over there, as expert opinion more and > >> more supports the report and its underlying methodology, the > >> nay-sayers have tended to claim (1) it invaded other members' privacy > >> and (2) it wasn't authorized. > >Which STILL doesn't explain why I was targeted. > > Here's my opinion. YMMV. > > You and Sam Sloan have been two of the more controversial American > posters in the rgc* forums. Sloan's been widely reviled for his > notorious cross-posting and often inadequately researched claims, and > for some of his autobiographical accounts of what many would call > licentious behavior. You've been whomped on for earlier activity in > other forums (with a number of enemies who followed you here), for > some vulgar and callous references to women, particularly Susan Polgar > and some claims of chess strength and aptitude which many consider > exaggerated. Plus, your seduction business seems controversial. > > Since you two were widely criticized, the FSS attempted to associate > various people with either or both of you, the idea being the > antipathy would rub off. > > And, by doing most of his fake posts using your identities, I believe > the FSS thought others would be less likely to become outraged and go > after him for it. > > In your case, I don't believe the FSS intended so much to hurt you > personally as to use you to hurt others. This seems less consistently > true for Sloan, who was running for reelection. > > As I said, YMMV. Now we need a 'good' reason for the FMM, FNB, FLP, etc.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 05:27:16
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:22:59 -0800 (PST), The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: >Now we need a 'good' reason for the FMM, FNB, FLP, etc. Anybody who got involved in the issues with which the FSS was engaged usually became fair game for some fake posts. I think it was partly intimidation, partly crime of opportunity. And if one of the motives was to destroy these newsgroups, making it harder to use kill-filters would have been a effective way to go. And, who knows, the FSS may have had a whimsical side.
|
|
Date: 10 Dec 2007 09:31:19
From:
Subject: Who Gives a Shit?
|
JHC
|
|
Date: 10 Dec 2007 08:50:20
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 10, 11:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:7719a977-f06c-497d-9660-7170496e2de2@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > On Dec 10, 9:18 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Didn't he get thrown of a moderated humanities group on Shakespeare > >> studies - was it just 18 months ago - for doing just that? > > > No. Phil the Fact Factory strikes (out) again! > > That's a challenge to a fact. But what happens if Brennan receives a fact - > he continues to snip everything to the point while making strange overtures > on line. > > Nothing seems to depend on anything for Brennan, since everything he doesn't > know, like or admit, is to him a lie. Lynne Kositsky says other than you > do - is she a liar too? The lady in question said no such thing. And why do you insist on posting her name here when she's requested you don't do so?
|
|
Date: 10 Dec 2007 06:39:16
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 10, 9:18 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: Didn't he get thrown of a moderated humanities group on Shakespeare > studies - was it just 18 months ago - for doing just that? No. Phil the Fact Factory strikes (out) again!
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 11:41:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:7719a977-f06c-497d-9660-7170496e2de2@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 10, 9:18 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > Didn't he get thrown of a moderated humanities group on Shakespeare >> studies - was it just 18 months ago - for doing just that? > > No. Phil the Fact Factory strikes (out) again! That's a challenge to a fact. But what happens if Brennan receives a fact - he continues to snip everything to the point while making strange overtures on line. Nothing seems to depend on anything for Brennan, since everything he doesn't know, like or admit, is to him a lie. Lynne Kositsky says other than you do - is she a liar too? She even wrote that your attentions to her caused her to cease writing on the HLAS newsgroup. Go ahead and post this there, and if it is refuted, get back to us. But please don't quote your HLAS heroes - the women-haters there. This is what you cut this time - which has to do with truth and lies, and the sort of attention this subject gets, and who writes about it here: How curious that Brennan finds it curious! Curioser and curioser! He is attracted and fascinated to this subject of false-identity and abuse, no? Didn't he get thrown of a moderated humanities group on Shakespeare studies - was it just 18 months ago - for doing just that? Of course, he was not posting here very much when the FSS was, so perhaps he is not very expert on that person - but now 'he' is gone, Brennan returns to tell us all about it, and what we should think. As an abusenik, how preposterous that he has anything to say on this subject by virtue of his own demonstrated behavior, and rather desperate diversionary activities here.
|
|
Date: 10 Dec 2007 05:59:18
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 10, 8:53 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The point was always to satirise Sloan, since his own indecency in writing > > is of another type, and he does not /ever/ use swear words ... > > On the contrary, instances of Sloan using profanity are legion, and > have been pointed out here many times. I think the Brattleboro Bedlam was being ironic, Taylor. I do find it curious that a person who was never attacked by the fake poster "knows" the fake poster's motives and the fake poster's identity.
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 09:18:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:9702ffff-e7cf-4761-9097-44d209b71e6e@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 10, 8:53 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > The point was always to satirise Sloan, since his own indecency in >> > writing >> > is of another type, and he does not /ever/ use swear words ... >> >> On the contrary, instances of Sloan using profanity are legion, and >> have been pointed out here many times. > > I think the Brattleboro Bedlam was being ironic, Taylor. > > I do find it curious that a person who was never attacked by the fake > poster "knows" the fake poster's motives and the fake poster's > identity. How curious that Brennan finds it curious! Curioser and curioser! He is attracted and fascinated to this subject of false-identity and abuse, no? Didn't he get thrown of a moderated humanities group on Shakespeare studies - was it just 18 months ago - for doing just that? Of course, he was not posting here very much when the FSS was, so perhaps he is not very expert on that person - but now 'he' is gone, Brennan returns to tell us all about it, and what we should think. As an abusenik, how preposterous that he has anything to say on this subject by virtue of his own demonstrated behavior, and rather desperate diversionary activities here. I do not think Sloan uses swear words, it is extremely uncommon for him to do so, despite some 'euphemised' instances including asterisks; such stuff as f***. But as I say, Brennan were hardly here to note that, and in so many posts of such length, those who were here noted swear words by their absense, in comparison to the FSS by their frequency. No. the FSS seems to have American cant speech down pretty well - 2,464 messages are syntactically a huge challenge from, IMO, a non-native speaker to conduct without error. Anyway - While I predicted that the newsgroup prosecution tribunal would not be interested into he veracity of the initial Mottershead material - in fact, that is entirely snipped from recent responses - the point was that a court would be interested, in fact, it attains the status of priy interest. Phil Innes
|
|
Date: 10 Dec 2007 05:53:32
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > The point was always to satirise Sloan, since his own indecency in writing > is of another type, and he does not /ever/ use swear words ... On the contrary, instances of Sloan using profanity are legion, and have been pointed out here many times. For now, a single example suffices to refute this blanket "not /ever/" generalization: http://tinyurl.com/2vrtrp For those who'd rather not bother with the link, I append a bowdlerized version below: "Every Japanese Girl that comes to America has just one hope and dream, and that is to get f---ed by a N--ger. How do I know this? I know this from personal observation." -- Sam Sloan, on soc.culture.korean, 27 August 2003. Just as the US government requires warning labels on tobacco, alcohol, and various drugs, one wonders if examples of this sort should perhaps be appended to Sloan's candidate statement in Chess Life every time he runs for USCF office.
|
|
Date: 10 Dec 2007 05:08:06
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: Snip typical Innes defense of his self-esteem meal-ticket. Can > Mottershead not be the whistle blower, but the perp? Mike, I think Philsy came up with a new one for the List of the Blind Monkey!
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 10:24:37
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:08:06 -0800 (PST), The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: >On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >Snip typical Innes defense of his self-esteem meal-ticket. > Can >> Mottershead not be the whistle blower, but the perp? >Mike, I think Philsy came up with a new one for the List of the Blind >Monkey! Somehow, I suspected one of the flacks would go this route. It's amazing after all P. Innes' self-righteous prattle about evidence that he'd blithely toss out such garbage. These desperate attempts to divert attention and muddy the waters have been duplicated over in the monitored world of the USCF forums, but, AFAIK, nobody has been dumb enough over there to claim Mottershead might be the Fake Sam Sloan. Over there, as expert opinion more and more supports the report and its underlying methodology, the nay-sayers have tended to claim (1) it invaded other members' privacy and (2) it wasn't authorized.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 19:45:34
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
> These desperate attempts to divert attention and muddy the waters have > been duplicated over in the monitored world of the USCF forums, but, > AFAIK, nobody has been dumb enough over there to claim Mottershead > might be the Fake Sam Sloan. Over there, as expert opinion more and > more supports the report and its underlying methodology, the > nay-sayers have tended to claim (1) it invaded other members' privacy > and (2) it wasn't authorized. Which STILL doesn't explain why I was targeted. -- Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy Ray's new "Project 5000" is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which no longer work. Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS: http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187 Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 18:14:27
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:45:34 -0500, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote: >> These desperate attempts to divert attention and muddy the waters have >> been duplicated over in the monitored world of the USCF forums, but, >> AFAIK, nobody has been dumb enough over there to claim Mottershead >> might be the Fake Sam Sloan. Over there, as expert opinion more and >> more supports the report and its underlying methodology, the >> nay-sayers have tended to claim (1) it invaded other members' privacy >> and (2) it wasn't authorized. >Which STILL doesn't explain why I was targeted. Here's my opinion. YMMV. You and Sam Sloan have been two of the more controversial American posters in the rgc* forums. Sloan's been widely reviled for his notorious cross-posting and often inadequately researched claims, and for some of his autobiographical accounts of what many would call licentious behavior. You've been whomped on for earlier activity in other forums (with a number of enemies who followed you here), for some vulgar and callous references to women, particularly Susan Polgar and some claims of chess strength and aptitude which many consider exaggerated. Plus, your seduction business seems controversial. Since you two were widely criticized, the FSS attempted to associate various people with either or both of you, the idea being the antipathy would rub off. And, by doing most of his fake posts using your identities, I believe the FSS thought others would be less likely to become outraged and go after him for it. In your case, I don't believe the FSS intended so much to hurt you personally as to use you to hurt others. This seems less consistently true for Sloan, who was running for reelection. As I said, YMMV.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 00:22:30
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
> >>Which STILL doesn't explain why I was targeted. > > Here's my opinion. YMMV. > > You and Sam Sloan have been two of the more controversial American > posters in the rgc* forums. Sloan's been widely reviled for his > notorious cross-posting and often inadequately researched claims, and > for some of his autobiographical accounts of what many would call > licentious behavior. You've been whomped on for earlier activity in > other forums (with a number of enemies who followed you here), for > some vulgar and callous references to women, particularly <snip> > and some claims of chess strength and aptitude which many consider > exaggerated. I would say "outdated" more than exaggerated. >Plus, your seduction business seems controversial. > > Since you two were widely criticized, the FSS attempted to associate > various people with either or both of you, the idea being the > antipathy would rub off. > > And, by doing most of his fake posts using your identities, I believe > the FSS thought others would be less likely to become outraged and go > after him for it. > > In your case, I don't believe the FSS intended so much to hurt you > personally as to use you to hurt others. This seems less consistently > true for Sloan, who was running for reelection. Well, the motive doesn't matter to me as much as the actions. -- Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy Ray's new "Project 5000" is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which no longer work. Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS: http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187 Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
|
Date: 09 Dec 2007 21:27:18
From: Sanny
Subject: GetClub Dance
|
> -- help bot > > PS: Pay no attention to that guy who has broken my > password atGetClub-- he is a fish and loses even to > the Beginner level! Look what he has done to my > rating-- I can never recover from this. If that was you, > Mr. Innes, it's not funny; I was a nearly-a-Class C > player with a rating of 1400. -- Karel van Mander I was thinking that GetClub Chess won because of the recent improvements. So you can still beat GetClub Chess like carrots. Yesterday GetClub Chess was made much stronger by removing 2 bugs. I thought thats the reasion you lost 2/4 games to beginner Level. Now no need to play with Higher Levels even beginner will beat you in 2/4 Games. Great times ahead. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
Date: 09 Dec 2007 15:27:58
From:
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 9, 2:56 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > ANOTHER GOOD LAUGH > > >To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything > > other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising > > that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing > > denial (i.e. Larry Parr).... -- help bot > > Why can't the Botster ever get it right? I never called for > anything except a full investigation before arriving at a conclusion. > > In fact, here is one of my postings about Fake Sam from last > October. As I stated previously, our Greg is an invincible combination > of malice and ignorance. > > P.S. It's "choosing" not "chosing." The Botster needs a new > spellchecker. > > More options Oct 20, 7:01 am > Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:01:06 -0700 > Local: Sat, Oct 20 2007 7:01 am > Subject: Re: Bauer Gets Free Attorney for Truong and Polgar > > EVERY RAT FOR HIMSELF > > Sam, I have spoken with an attorney -- a friend -- who says that if > during depositions, you can establish that some in the USCF leadership > knew the Fake Sam, then the Federation really could be at risk. > > One possibility would be to make a deal with the Fake Sam to testify > about leadership connivance in the attacks. > > Still, there is apparently some legal doctrine -- the lawyers here > will understand the point -- about organizational responsibility for > any kind of cooperation (defined, apparently, as conspiracy in some > instances) among high officials in these attacks. The penalty of > perjury will create quite a few queasy guts, and it is entirely > possible that some of the rats may break ranks. > > I think it possibly of some value at a given point for all of us who > were victims of these attacks to talk about legal strategies -- either > joint or cooperative. > > My sense is that if you can get this case to depositions, the house of > cards will fold. These people will not be able to keep their stories > straight. One point I learned long ago is that these characters live > on telephones and, presumably these days, on email. If there were > connivance rising to conspiracy, the stuff will come out > in depositions when it becomes every rat for himself. > > Yours, Larry > > > > help bot wrote: > > On Dec 9, 4:33 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Greetings Chess Friends, > > > > Is it true that yet another independent expert is going to weigh in on > > > the validity of the Mottershead report tomorrow? I am most curious to > > > hear the result. If we have another vindication of the report, it is > > > going to make the USCF stonewall of denial look even more tragically doomed. > > > > I have no idea how Sam will make out with his law suit. But it is time > > > for the USCF to go. We need a much better and different organization > > > leading the US chess community. I know there are good competent people > > > out there that can make a difference. I hope they are preparing to > > > seize the opportunity when the USCF falls. Otherwise it will fall, once > > > again, to the same corrupt, backstabbing, double-dealing, > > > self-promoting, thieving types that have served us so ill to date. > > > By "yet another", I take it that already some independent > > experts have validated the report; that would be interesting > > in view of the many who have for whatever reason resisted > > accepting it or, in some cases, even gone into deep denial, > > pretending to not see its very existence. > > > To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything > > other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising > > that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing > > denial (i.e. Larry Parr), others like IM Innes opting for the > > "PT was set up" ploy. What if SS actually gets money > > out of this? Wow-- who'd of thunk it? > > > I still say there may have been more than one impostor; > > even if it can be proved that Paul Truong was doing Mr. > > Sloan, that does not mean there weren't any copycats. > > Some people may have felt certain postings were funny, > > and tried their own hands on a whim. > > > -- help bot > > > PS: Pay no attention to that guy who has broken my > > password at GetClub-- he is a fish and loses even to > > the Beginner level! Look what he has done to my > > rating-- I can never recover from this. If that was you, > > Mr. Innes, it's not funny; I was a nearly-a-Class C > > player with a rating of 1400. -- Karel van Mander- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Larry, I disagree. The witnessess will take the fiftth amendment. Sam has lost his case, and will not make it to discovery. cus Roberts
|
|
Date: 09 Dec 2007 12:56:58
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
ANOTHER GOOD LAUGH >To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything > other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising > that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing > denial (i.e. Larry Parr).... -- help bot Why can't the Botster ever get it right? I never called for anything except a full investigation before arriving at a conclusion. In fact, here is one of my postings about Fake Sam from last October. As I stated previously, our Greg is an invincible combination of malice and ignorance. P.S. It's "choosing" not "chosing." The Botster needs a new spellchecker. More options Oct 20, 7:01 am Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc From: "[email protected]" <[email protected] > Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:01:06 -0700 Local: Sat, Oct 20 2007 7:01 am Subject: Re: Bauer Gets Free Attorney for Truong and Polgar EVERY RAT FOR HIMSELF Sam, I have spoken with an attorney -- a friend -- who says that if during depositions, you can establish that some in the USCF leadership knew the Fake Sam, then the Federation really could be at risk. One possibility would be to make a deal with the Fake Sam to testify about leadership connivance in the attacks. Still, there is apparently some legal doctrine -- the lawyers here will understand the point -- about organizational responsibility for any kind of cooperation (defined, apparently, as conspiracy in some instances) among high officials in these attacks. The penalty of perjury will create quite a few queasy guts, and it is entirely possible that some of the rats may break ranks. I think it possibly of some value at a given point for all of us who were victims of these attacks to talk about legal strategies -- either joint or cooperative. My sense is that if you can get this case to depositions, the house of cards will fold. These people will not be able to keep their stories straight. One point I learned long ago is that these characters live on telephones and, presumably these days, on email. If there were connivance rising to conspiracy, the stuff will come out in depositions when it becomes every rat for himself. Yours, Larry help bot wrote: > On Dec 9, 4:33 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Greetings Chess Friends, > > > > Is it true that yet another independent expert is going to weigh in on > > the validity of the Mottershead report tomorrow? I am most curious to > > hear the result. If we have another vindication of the report, it is > > going to make the USCF stonewall of denial look even more tragically doomed. > > > > I have no idea how Sam will make out with his law suit. But it is time > > for the USCF to go. We need a much better and different organization > > leading the US chess community. I know there are good competent people > > out there that can make a difference. I hope they are preparing to > > seize the opportunity when the USCF falls. Otherwise it will fall, once > > again, to the same corrupt, backstabbing, double-dealing, > > self-promoting, thieving types that have served us so ill to date. > > By "yet another", I take it that already some independent > experts have validated the report; that would be interesting > in view of the many who have for whatever reason resisted > accepting it or, in some cases, even gone into deep denial, > pretending to not see its very existence. > > To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything > other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising > that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing > denial (i.e. Larry Parr), others like IM Innes opting for the > "PT was set up" ploy. What if SS actually gets money > out of this? Wow-- who'd of thunk it? > > I still say there may have been more than one impostor; > even if it can be proved that Paul Truong was doing Mr. > Sloan, that does not mean there weren't any copycats. > Some people may have felt certain postings were funny, > and tried their own hands on a whim. > > > -- help bot > > > PS: Pay no attention to that guy who has broken my > password at GetClub-- he is a fish and loses even to > the Beginner level! Look what he has done to my > rating-- I can never recover from this. If that was you, > Mr. Innes, it's not funny; I was a nearly-a-Class C > player with a rating of 1400. -- Karel van Mander
|
|
Date: 09 Dec 2007 10:46:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
On Dec 9, 4:33 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Greetings Chess Friends, > > Is it true that yet another independent expert is going to weigh in on > the validity of the Mottershead report tomorrow? I am most curious to > hear the result. If we have another vindication of the report, it is > going to make the USCF stonewall of denial look even more tragically doomed. > > I have no idea how Sam will make out with his law suit. But it is time > for the USCF to go. We need a much better and different organization > leading the US chess community. I know there are good competent people > out there that can make a difference. I hope they are preparing to > seize the opportunity when the USCF falls. Otherwise it will fall, once > again, to the same corrupt, backstabbing, double-dealing, > self-promoting, thieving types that have served us so ill to date. By "yet another", I take it that already some independent experts have validated the report; that would be interesting in view of the many who have for whatever reason resisted accepting it or, in some cases, even gone into deep denial, pretending to not see its very existence. To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing denial (i.e. Larry Parr), others like IM Innes opting for the "PT was set up" ploy. What if SS actually gets money out of this? Wow-- who'd of thunk it? I still say there may have been more than one impostor; even if it can be proved that Paul Truong was doing Mr. Sloan, that does not mean there weren't any copycats. Some people may have felt certain postings were funny, and tried their own hands on a whim. -- help bot PS: Pay no attention to that guy who has broken my password at GetClub-- he is a fish and loses even to the Beginner level! Look what he has done to my rating-- I can never recover from this. If that was you, Mr. Innes, it's not funny; I was a nearly-a-Class C player with a rating of 1400. -- Karel van Mander
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 06:58:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:ca9a3062-5c0a-4e34-a685-f7a71bf4d590@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 9, 4:33 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Greetings Chess Friends, >> >> Is it true that yet another independent expert is going to weigh in on >> the validity of the Mottershead report tomorrow? I am most curious to >> hear the result. If we have another vindication of the report, it is >> going to make the USCF stonewall of denial look even more tragically >> doomed. >> >> I have no idea how Sam will make out with his law suit. But it is time >> for the USCF to go. We need a much better and different organization >> leading the US chess community. I know there are good competent people >> out there that can make a difference. I hope they are preparing to >> seize the opportunity when the USCF falls. Otherwise it will fall, once >> again, to the same corrupt, backstabbing, double-dealing, >> self-promoting, thieving types that have served us so ill to date. > > By "yet another", I take it that already some independent > experts have validated the report; that would be interesting > in view of the many who have for whatever reason resisted > accepting it or, in some cases, even gone into deep denial, > pretending to not see its very existence. > > To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything > other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising > that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing > denial (i.e. Larry Parr), others like IM Innes opting for the > "PT was set up" ploy. What if SS actually gets money > out of this? Wow-- who'd of thunk it? I see Larry Parr has made his own response. I say the same - malicious misrepresentation of other people by those who can't write their own name is indecent - and if all who think so are 'ratpackers' then those now include the entire USCF, all its members, their access to their own forum, as well as the accused persons - not to mention a board which has done very little in 6 months because of this 'divide', which is a massive divide in mutual confidence. The point was always to satirise Sloan, since his own indecency in writing is of another type, and he does not /ever/ use swear words - though of course, neither does the person accused, ever. In terms of who is now the /victim/ of the situation; who is it? PT or Sloan? > I still say there may have been more than one impostor; that was the case in rgcp some time ago, no? ;) Rolf and I thought their was a rotating account. Though that context was not to satise, but to maliciously abuse. --- The obvious first place to investigate is the source of the issue; ie, what was the relationship between Mottershead and Truong? Does that establish motive, for each of them? - what sorts are possible? Can Mottershead not be the whistle blower, but the perp? Has he been fooled by others? In other words - to ask //normal// questions of the validity of the material he has presented to its /veracity/. --- I believe we may have heard [it had been openly reported in detail] something previously on this subject, yet USCF dismissed an expert who did not find any conclusive evidence, but did suggest further directions of inquiry - then they hired another expert but did not repeat or aim the new expert at that 'direction'. And so USCF seem to have muddied the priy waters - and to remain with the topic of motivation; why would they do that? In fact, which USCF board members and staff directed the investigators? Why conduct an investigation into secret activities, and hold the investigational process secret? ;) --- These are /certainly/ areas which will emerge if a case every comes to a courtroom - independent of the parties involved, and who sues whom - since the law itself requires that it audit with a due-diligence accepted evidential material which is otherwise termed 'hearsay'. Phil Innes > even if it can be proved that Paul Truong was doing Mr. > Sloan, that does not mean there weren't any copycats. > Some people may have felt certain postings were funny, > and tried their own hands on a whim. > > > -- help bot > > > PS: Pay no attention to that guy who has broken my > password at GetClub-- he is a fish and loses even to > the Beginner level! Look what he has done to my > rating-- I can never recover from this. If that was you, > Mr. Innes, it's not funny; I was a nearly-a-Class C > player with a rating of 1400. -- Karel van Mander Wasn't me. I am having too much trouble losing to 2500 players, and having almost <grin > hit 2300 am likely to slip to 2250.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 19:43:34
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Dance...
|
> The point was always to satirise Sloan, since his own indecency in writing > is of another type, and he does not /ever/ use swear words - though of > course, neither does the person accused, ever. > > In terms of who is now the /victim/ of the situation; who is it? PT or > Sloan? Me. -- Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy Ray's new "Project 5000" is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which no longer work. Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS: http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187 Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
|