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?