|
Main
Date: 16 Jan 2008 10:35:33
From: samsloan
Subject: The Mottershead Report
|
Several posters to the chess newsgroups have been defending Paul Truong, saying that the evidence is insufficient to prove him guilty. Today, several of those same people such as Guy Mason and Larry Parr have said that, oh, by the way, they have never read the Mottershead Report. This is truly astounding. People who claim that there must be alternative explanations and the evidence presented is not proof positive, now state that they have never looked at the evidence. The Mottershead Report has been available online since October. It can be found here: http://www.shamema.com/mottershead.pdf. I challenge anyone to read all ten pages and then come back here and state again that the Mottershead Report does not constitute 100% proof positive that Paul Truong is guilty of the offenses charged. Sam Sloan
|
|
|
Date: 17 Jan 2008 02:52:38
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Report
|
Normally I ignore net-abiusers who post off-topic material to rec.games.chess.computer (and now soc.culture.magyar!), but I will lower myself in order to respond to your accuations. Once. If you want a conversation with me, stop crossposting to unrelated newsgroups. samsloan wrote: >Several posters to the chess newsgroups have been defending Paul >Truong, saying that the evidence is insufficient to prove him guilty. Please be accurate. I clearly said that the evidence *I had seen* is insufficient to prove him guilty -- or to prove him not guilty. >Today, several of those same people such as Guy Mason Guy Macon. Try to get my name right, please. >and Larry Parr have said that, oh, by the way, they have never >read the Mottershead Report. ..and asked for a URL. Which was provided. At which point I read it and posted my initial impressions. >This is truly astounding. People who claim that there must be >alternative explanations and the evidence presented is not proof >positive, Again, please be accurate. I made no such claim. >I challenge anyone to read all ten pages and then come back here and >state again that the Mottershead Report does not constitute 100% proof >positive that Paul Truong is guilty of the offenses charged. Feel free to read my initial analysis posted today. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
|
Date: 16 Jan 2008 14:16:12
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Mottershead Report
|
EXCUSE ME, SAM <Today, several of those same people such as Guy Mason and Larry Parr have said that, oh, by the way, they have never read the Mottershead Report. > -- Sam Sloan Please provide any citation by me on this forum that I never read it. Also do you mean Guy Macon or Guy Mason? samsloan wrote: > Several posters to the chess newsgroups have been defending Paul > Truong, saying that the evidence is insufficient to prove him guilty. > > Today, several of those same people such as Guy Mason and Larry Parr > have said that, oh, by the way, they have never read the Mottershead > Report. > > This is truly astounding. People who claim that there must be > alternative explanations and the evidence presented is not proof > positive, now state that they have never looked at the evidence. > > The Mottershead Report has been available online since October. It can > be found here: > > http://www.shamema.com/mottershead.pdf. > > I challenge anyone to read all ten pages and then come back here and > state again that the Mottershead Report does not constitute 100% proof > positive that Paul Truong is guilty of the offenses charged. > > Sam Sloan
|
|