| |
Main
Date: 16 Jan 2008 08:47:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Here is an official response from Susan Polgar on recent board 'actions' and
NY Times reporting //Phil Innes
----------
The following was issued by the majority of the USCF Executive Board last
night to the NY Times:
"In asking for Mr. Truong's resignation, the statement did not say whether
the four members agreed that he had done what Mr. Sloan claimed. Instead,
the board said Mr. Truong had not cooperated with a lawyer retained by the
federation."
This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Answers and evidence were
submitted to the USCF attorney. I was on the phone with the USCF attorney
for a considerable length of time to discuss this matter and to answer his
questions. If additional information was needed, we should have been asked.
No one asked. I have an email from the USCF attorney confirming that he
received the evidence. We were under the impression that everything was fine
until last night after the statement has already been submitted to the NY
Times. I can clearly document the time line step by step.
I cannot discuss this matter in details due to the pending legal issues. We
followed the instructions of our attorneys, including the one who was
assigned to us by the insurance company. All evidence will come out in due
time.
Lastly, there have been numerous leaks of board confidential information
from the 5 member sub-committee to various unauthorized people which can
severely harm this federation in many ways. Some of the confidential
information was told to Sam Sloan which can clearly effect the case for the
USCF. These are the information that only the other 5 board members and
their attorneys would know. We did not even know about it until after
various stories were leaked out.
We will make an official motion to investigate this type of inappropriate
actions by board members shortly.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2008 05:52:50
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
On Jan 18, 8:01 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:2eec4be2-e247-4530-8d43-c86bc02e6875@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > TRANSPARENCY CUTS BOTH WAYS
>
> > Dear Phil,
>
> > Right, Susan Polgar calls for total transparency
> > at this point. I agree.
>
> > That can cut both ways. Any ill-considered
> > statements or messages in private from Susan and Paul
> > Truong ought to come out. Too, the stuff that has
> > passed among Randy Bauer, a former state politico, and
> > the other Board members must be available for USCF
> > membership reading.
>
> > Susan evidently believes that in any battle of
> > mutual embarrassments, she and her husband will come
> > off with fewer blushes than the Board majority.
>
> > There is no direct way for either of us to
> > assess her judgment in terms of what the files may
> > really hold. Yet there are the past records of
> > several of the politicians on the current Board and
> > there are several histories of past involvement in
> > disputes by political leaders of the USCF. If one
> > were to extrapolate from this sordid political past,
> > which has some common sense value without
> > speaking in evidentiary terms to the precise battle
> > currently being waged, then odds are Susan is spot on.
>
> > Yours, Larry Parr
>
> Dear Larry,
>
> We will feature the official release from the blog site [that material
> being fugitive, receding down the page every day until it falls off the
> edge] this weekend to maintain it as a matter of record, so that very many
> chess players can see it for what it is - a publicly thrown gauntlet which
> now rests on USCF's door step.
>
> In the spirit of your letter, we will also ask them if they want to pick
> it up or just comment?
>
> My discussion with CV publisher considered 3 things; (a) do we want a
> statement by USCF in response? and while that would be (b) equal opportunity
> for both sides to comment, it does not (c) actually pick up that gauntlet in
> the open and public spirit that it was thrown, nor in the spirit of your
> letter here - to pick it up would require actually doing something in the
> open and letting others make up their //own// minds - without more words and
> spin by any party.
>
> Therefore, we resolve that we will (a) ask USCF.
> We will ask if they wish to make (b) their own comment on the issues
> invoked, AND
> We will (c) ask them if they will do more than comment, and pick up the
> gauntlet - and of course, when?.
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
It seems Mr. Innes is confused again. USCF was the gauntlet-thrower,
when they asked Mr. Truong to answer their questions. The Trolgar
'response' doesn't answer any of them.
|
| |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 20:13:05
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
TRANSPARENCY CUTS BOTH WAYS
Dear Phil,
Right, Susan Polgar calls for total transparency
at this point. I agree.
That can cut both ways. Any ill-considered
statements or messages in private from Susan and Paul
Truong ought to come out. Too, the stuff that has
passed among Randy Bauer, a former state politico, and
the other Board members must be available for USCF
membership reading.
Susan evidently believes that in any battle of
mutual embarrassments, she and her husband will come
off with fewer blushes than the Board majority.
There is no direct way for either of us to
assess her judgment in terms of what the files may
really hold. Yet there are the past records of
several of the politicians on the current Board and
there are several histories of past involvement in
disputes by political leaders of the USCF. If one
were to extrapolate from this sordid political past,
which has some common sense value without
speaking in evidentiary terms to the precise battle
currently being waged, then odds are Susan is spot on.
Yours, Larry Parr
Chess One wrote:
> Mr. Lafferty, what you miss is known best to yourself.
>
> The specific item of this thread concerns open communications by all
> parties, and their willingness to do so, while the NY Times is content, so
> it seems, to publish 'sort-of' board resolutions and statements, which are
> not only illegal, so it seems to me, being enacted in secret and
> 'accidentally' leaked by a board member...
>
> This is slutty stuff - and shameful!
>
> Your own interest in this matter is noted. You will also be pleased to note
> that this is a much broader issue than your own interest, with the same
> basis established for all parties to it, and nothing in the way of
> undercover, sort-of secret leaking, by those who themselves are yet to come
> up to the k of any transparency.
>
> While as some legal fella you already decided that Truong is caught out,
> though not by legal means and due process, are you not premature in only
> listening to the prosecution? I should not like to think of you, nor the
> legal business, as weak minded, interested, nor overwhelmingly impressed by
> the last person you spoke with.
>
> Nor predicating any future action on this basis. Should you wish to joke
> upon another's name such as you do with 'Trolgar', then you are in some
> danger, IMO, of yourself becoming 'Laugh-erty', as in, idiot-in-law.
>
> You are designing that suit with that attitude, Sir. Does it fit?
>
> Please entertain me with some substance, since entertainment is all that can
> be had here - unless indeed, USCF picks up that gauntlet, so that all USCF
> members and all here, can assess for themselves, and construe their own
> opinion.
>
> I am sure such glasn?st is vastly objectionable to the organisation. But,
> time comes...
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:apQjj.9219$YW6.3626@trndny07...
> >
> > "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> In brief reply to "B. Lafferty", my understanding of the statement is
> >> that it offers complete transparency, and challenges USCF to do the same.
> >
> > Did I miss Truong's offer to allow his computer to be transparently
> > examined by the USCF's forensic expert? Did I also miss Truong's
> > transparency offer to allow his IP provider's logs to be examined? This
> > is merely a continuation of the false posturing Truong and Polgar are
> > becoming so well know for.
> >
> >>
> >> The issue here is that the board statement seems untrue, since according
> >> to Polgar's statement, she complied or offered to comply with whatever
> >> was asked. > That is definitely not the sense of the New York Times
> >> 'leak' of the 'board meeting' which was not even a legal meeting - it
> >> taking place in private. That sense was the complete opposite; as if
> >> there was resistance to complying.
> >
> > Do you ever bother to read what you've typed before hitting the send icon?
> > Apparently not.
> >>
> >> What Lafferty says is 'refuted', is rather shy of saying by whom. Not any
> >> legal refutation, that's for sure.
> >>
> >> But that is of the same measure as his assertion at bottom, that Polgar
> >> and Truong should be transparent, and only them! And how is that even
> >> possible? The call by Susan Polgar, as I read it, is for all parties to
> >> be equally transparent, so that all may be made known.
> >
> > I don't recall ever saying that only Trolgar should be transparent. It
> > appears with certainty that Trolgar has utterly failed to be transparent
> > in privileged communications with their (and the USCF's) attorneys.
> >
> >>
> >> Then, let the would-be-public-prosecutors chose sides! Unless of course,
> >> they do not aver this principle of openness by all parties, and of all
> >> information, which rather reduces their status to partisan advocates and
> >> political enthusiasts, which is nothing to the point of any justice.
> >
> > Oh, do continue to opine on the subject of justice. The simple fact is
> > that Mr. Truong has been caught out and is seeking to avoid the imposition
> > of just consequences.
> >
> > Now let me ask all a question regarding employment. Once Texas Tech is
> > out of the Sloan action, how long will it take for TT to cut its ties with
> > Trolgar. I'm betting that their contract isn't renewed and that they will
> > soon receive formal notice to that effect as required by their contract.
> > I do hope Trolgar has kept the family apartment in Queens. Eastward Ho!!
> >
> >>
> >> Phil Innes
> >
> >
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jan 2008 08:01:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2eec4be2-e247-4530-8d43-c86bc02e6875@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> TRANSPARENCY CUTS BOTH WAYS
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> Right, Susan Polgar calls for total transparency
> at this point. I agree.
>
> That can cut both ways. Any ill-considered
> statements or messages in private from Susan and Paul
> Truong ought to come out. Too, the stuff that has
> passed among Randy Bauer, a former state politico, and
> the other Board members must be available for USCF
> membership reading.
>
> Susan evidently believes that in any battle of
> mutual embarrassments, she and her husband will come
> off with fewer blushes than the Board majority.
>
> There is no direct way for either of us to
> assess her judgment in terms of what the files may
> really hold. Yet there are the past records of
> several of the politicians on the current Board and
> there are several histories of past involvement in
> disputes by political leaders of the USCF. If one
> were to extrapolate from this sordid political past,
> which has some common sense value without
> speaking in evidentiary terms to the precise battle
> currently being waged, then odds are Susan is spot on.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
Dear Larry,
We will feature the official release from the blog site [that material
being fugitive, receding down the page every day until it falls off the
edge] this weekend to maintain it as a matter of record, so that very many
chess players can see it for what it is - a publicly thrown gauntlet which
now rests on USCF's door step.
In the spirit of your letter, we will also ask them if they want to pick
it up or just comment?
My discussion with CV publisher considered 3 things; (a) do we want a
statement by USCF in response? and while that would be (b) equal opportunity
for both sides to comment, it does not (c) actually pick up that gauntlet in
the open and public spirit that it was thrown, nor in the spirit of your
letter here - to pick it up would require actually doing something in the
open and letting others make up their //own// minds - without more words and
spin by any party.
Therefore, we resolve that we will (a) ask USCF.
We will ask if they wish to make (b) their own comment on the issues
invoked, AND
We will (c) ask them if they will do more than comment, and pick up the
gauntlet - and of course, when?.
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 19:32:23
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
On Jan 17, 5:12 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > The issue here is that the board statement seems untrue, since according
> > to Polgar's statement, she complied or offered to comply with whatever was
> > asked. > That is definitely not the sense of the New York Times 'leak' of
> > the 'board meeting' which was not even a legal meeting - it taking place
> > in private. That sense was the complete opposite; as if there was
> > resistance to complying.
>
> Do you ever bother to read what you've typed before hitting the send icon?
> Apparently not.
You are just discovering this now?
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2008 21:14:47
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here is an official response from Susan Polgar on recent board 'actions'
> and NY Times reporting //Phil Innes
>
> ----------
>
> The following was issued by the majority of the USCF Executive Board last
> night to the NY Times:
>
> "In asking for Mr. Truong's resignation, the statement did not say whether
> the four members agreed that he had done what Mr. Sloan claimed. Instead,
> the board said Mr. Truong had not cooperated with a lawyer retained by the
> federation."
>
> This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Answers and evidence
> were submitted to the USCF attorney. I was on the phone with the USCF
> attorney for a considerable length of time to discuss this matter and to
> answer his questions. If additional information was needed, we should have
> been asked. No one asked. I have an email from the USCF attorney
> confirming that he received the evidence. We were under the impression
> that everything was fine until last night after the statement has already
> been submitted to the NY Times. I can clearly document the time line step
> by step.
>
> I cannot discuss this matter in details due to the pending legal issues.
> We followed the instructions of our attorneys, including the one who was
> assigned to us by the insurance company. All evidence will come out in due
> time.
>
> Lastly, there have been numerous leaks of board confidential information
> from the 5 member sub-committee to various unauthorized people which can
> severely harm this federation in many ways. Some of the confidential
> information was told to Sam Sloan which can clearly effect the case for
> the USCF. These are the information that only the other 5 board members
> and their attorneys would know. We did not even know about it until after
> various stories were leaked out.
>
> We will make an official motion to investigate this type of inappropriate
> actions by board members shortly.
>
> Best wishes,
> Susan Polgar
The USCF press release states:
Specifically, the USCF asked Paul Truong to provide, by December 7,
2007, the following:
"1.Formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was involved in
the"Fake Sam Sloan" postings, or had knowledge of who made such
postings;
2.Provide the IP address of all his home and work Internet
connectionssince 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and
cooperate inthe Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and other
entities;
3.Provide all information that would support his argument that he was
notlocated at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
Sloanpostings, to include information relating to his travel.
To date, the USCF has not received a formal response to items 1 and 2
and incomplete information relating to item 3."
The assertion by Ms. Polgar is not new and apparently involves an email
communication to the USCF and/or the USCF's attorneys. What was
required of Mr. Truong was a writing signed by him (a formal
communication). Why wasn't that provided? Is Mr. Truong afraid to put
his signature to a denial meaning that he will not be able to simply
disavow having sent an unsigned email. There are serious reasons why
attorneys want certain things from their clients in writing and signed
by them.
The requirements of #2 are not addressed by Ms. Polgar and were
apparently not provided by Mr. Truong.
The travel issue has been raised by Ms. Polgar as a defense on numerous
occasions in several forums. I suggest that you look at the Mottershead
Report and the Jones Report where this issue is addressed and refuted.
Consider also that there are software programs that will send your email
and Usenet messages at a specified time, from your computer, when you
are away from your computer. Mr. Truong has had more than three month
to provide the USCF and its attorneys with all of his materials
necessary for a defense. Clearly, he has not done this and one
increasingly comes to understand why.
As to the alleged leaks, these are bald, unsupported assertions that have
been made before. Let
Ms. Polgar give us the specifics and the proof of same as she has been
asked to do but has failed to do.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 16:35:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
In brief reply to "B. Lafferty", my understanding of the statement is that
it offers complete transparency, and challenges USCF to do the same.
The issue here is that the board statement seems untrue, since according to
Polgar's statement, she complied or offered to comply with whatever was
asked.
That is definitely not the sense of the New York Times 'leak' of the 'board
meeting' which was not even a legal meeting - it taking place in private.
That sense was the complete opposite; as if there was resistance to
complying.
What Lafferty says is 'refuted', is rather shy of saying by whom. Not any
legal refutation, that's for sure.
But that is of the same measure as his assertion at bottom, that Polgar and
Truong should be transparent, and only them! And how is that even possible?
The call by Susan Polgar, as I read it, is for all parties to be equally
transparent, so that all may be made known.
Then, let the would-be-public-prosecutors chose sides! Unless of course,
they do not aver this principle of openness by all parties, and of all
information, which rather reduces their status to partisan advocates and
political enthusiasts, which is nothing to the point of any justice.
Phil Innes
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:btujj.8444$sA6.1585@trndny08...
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Here is an official response from Susan Polgar on recent board 'actions'
>> and NY Times reporting //Phil Innes
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> The following was issued by the majority of the USCF Executive Board last
>> night to the NY Times:
>>
>> "In asking for Mr. Truong's resignation, the statement did not say
>> whether the four members agreed that he had done what Mr. Sloan claimed.
>> Instead, the board said Mr. Truong had not cooperated with a lawyer
>> retained by the federation."
>>
>> This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Answers and evidence
>> were submitted to the USCF attorney. I was on the phone with the USCF
>> attorney for a considerable length of time to discuss this matter and to
>> answer his questions. If additional information was needed, we should
>> have been asked. No one asked. I have an email from the USCF attorney
>> confirming that he received the evidence. We were under the impression
>> that everything was fine until last night after the statement has already
>> been submitted to the NY Times. I can clearly document the time line step
>> by step.
>>
>> I cannot discuss this matter in details due to the pending legal issues.
>> We followed the instructions of our attorneys, including the one who was
>> assigned to us by the insurance company. All evidence will come out in
>> due time.
>>
>> Lastly, there have been numerous leaks of board confidential information
>> from the 5 member sub-committee to various unauthorized people which can
>> severely harm this federation in many ways. Some of the confidential
>> information was told to Sam Sloan which can clearly effect the case for
>> the USCF. These are the information that only the other 5 board members
>> and their attorneys would know. We did not even know about it until after
>> various stories were leaked out.
>>
>> We will make an official motion to investigate this type of inappropriate
>> actions by board members shortly.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Susan Polgar
>
> The USCF press release states:
> Specifically, the USCF asked Paul Truong to provide, by December 7,
> 2007, the following:
>
> "1.Formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was involved in
> the"Fake Sam Sloan" postings, or had knowledge of who made such
> postings;
> 2.Provide the IP address of all his home and work Internet
> connectionssince 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and
> cooperate inthe Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and other
> entities;
> 3.Provide all information that would support his argument that he was
> notlocated at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
> Sloanpostings, to include information relating to his travel.
>
> To date, the USCF has not received a formal response to items 1 and 2
> and incomplete information relating to item 3."
>
>
> The assertion by Ms. Polgar is not new and apparently involves an email
> communication to the USCF and/or the USCF's attorneys. What was
> required of Mr. Truong was a writing signed by him (a formal
> communication). Why wasn't that provided? Is Mr. Truong afraid to put
> his signature to a denial meaning that he will not be able to simply
> disavow having sent an unsigned email. There are serious reasons why
> attorneys want certain things from their clients in writing and signed
> by them.
>
> The requirements of #2 are not addressed by Ms. Polgar and were
> apparently not provided by Mr. Truong.
>
> The travel issue has been raised by Ms. Polgar as a defense on numerous
> occasions in several forums. I suggest that you look at the Mottershead
> Report and the Jones Report where this issue is addressed and refuted.
> Consider also that there are software programs that will send your email
> and Usenet messages at a specified time, from your computer, when you
> are away from your computer. Mr. Truong has had more than three month
> to provide the USCF and its attorneys with all of his materials
> necessary for a defense. Clearly, he has not done this and one
> increasingly comes to understand why.
>
> As to the alleged leaks, these are bald, unsupported assertions that
> have been made before. Let
> Ms. Polgar give us the specifics and the proof of same as she has been
> asked to do but has failed to do.
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 22:12:22
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In brief reply to "B. Lafferty", my understanding of the statement is that
> it offers complete transparency, and challenges USCF to do the same.
Did I miss Truong's offer to allow his computer to be transparently examined
by the USCF's forensic expert? Did I also miss Truong's transparency offer
to allow his IP provider's logs to be examined? This is merely a
continuation of the false posturing Truong and Polgar are becoming so well
know for.
>
> The issue here is that the board statement seems untrue, since according
> to Polgar's statement, she complied or offered to comply with whatever was
> asked. > That is definitely not the sense of the New York Times 'leak' of
> the 'board meeting' which was not even a legal meeting - it taking place
> in private. That sense was the complete opposite; as if there was
> resistance to complying.
Do you ever bother to read what you've typed before hitting the send icon?
Apparently not.
>
> What Lafferty says is 'refuted', is rather shy of saying by whom. Not any
> legal refutation, that's for sure.
>
> But that is of the same measure as his assertion at bottom, that Polgar
> and Truong should be transparent, and only them! And how is that even
> possible? The call by Susan Polgar, as I read it, is for all parties to be
> equally transparent, so that all may be made known.
I don't recall ever saying that only Trolgar should be transparent. It
appears with certainty that Trolgar has utterly failed to be transparent in
privileged communications with their (and the USCF's) attorneys.
>
> Then, let the would-be-public-prosecutors chose sides! Unless of course,
> they do not aver this principle of openness by all parties, and of all
> information, which rather reduces their status to partisan advocates and
> political enthusiasts, which is nothing to the point of any justice.
Oh, do continue to opine on the subject of justice. The simple fact is that
Mr. Truong has been caught out and is seeking to avoid the imposition of
just consequences.
Now let me ask all a question regarding employment. Once Texas Tech is out
of the Sloan action, how long will it take for TT to cut its ties with
Trolgar. I'm betting that their contract isn't renewed and that they will
soon receive formal notice to that effect as required by their contract. I
do hope Trolgar has kept the family apartment in Queens. Eastward Ho!!
>
> Phil Innes
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 20:28:01
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
>> In brief reply to "B. Lafferty", my understanding of the statement is
>> that it offers complete transparency, and challenges USCF to do the same.
>
> Did I miss Truong's offer to allow his computer to be transparently
> examined by the USCF's forensic expert?
Wait for the bus his wife just threw him under to finish its job, please.
--
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: 18 Jan 2008 01:55:43
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> In brief reply to "B. Lafferty", my understanding of the statement is
>>> that it offers complete transparency, and challenges USCF to do the
>>> same.
>>
>> Did I miss Truong's offer to allow his computer to be transparently
>> examined by the USCF's forensic expert?
>
> Wait for the bus his wife just threw him under to finish its job, please.
Thanks for the image.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 19:37:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Mr. Lafferty, what you miss is known best to yourself.
The specific item of this thread concerns open communications by all
parties, and their willingness to do so, while the NY Times is content, so
it seems, to publish 'sort-of' board resolutions and statements, which are
not only illegal, so it seems to me, being enacted in secret and
'accidentally' leaked by a board member...
This is slutty stuff - and shameful!
Your own interest in this matter is noted. You will also be pleased to note
that this is a much broader issue than your own interest, with the same
basis established for all parties to it, and nothing in the way of
undercover, sort-of secret leaking, by those who themselves are yet to come
up to the k of any transparency.
While as some legal fella you already decided that Truong is caught out,
though not by legal means and due process, are you not premature in only
listening to the prosecution? I should not like to think of you, nor the
legal business, as weak minded, interested, nor overwhelmingly impressed by
the last person you spoke with.
Nor predicating any future action on this basis. Should you wish to joke
upon another's name such as you do with 'Trolgar', then you are in some
danger, IMO, of yourself becoming 'Laugh-erty', as in, idiot-in-law.
You are designing that suit with that attitude, Sir. Does it fit?
Please entertain me with some substance, since entertainment is all that can
be had here - unless indeed, USCF picks up that gauntlet, so that all USCF
members and all here, can assess for themselves, and construe their own
opinion.
I am sure such glasn�st is vastly objectionable to the organisation. But,
time comes...
Phil Innes
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:apQjj.9219$YW6.3626@trndny07...
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In brief reply to "B. Lafferty", my understanding of the statement is
>> that it offers complete transparency, and challenges USCF to do the same.
>
> Did I miss Truong's offer to allow his computer to be transparently
> examined by the USCF's forensic expert? Did I also miss Truong's
> transparency offer to allow his IP provider's logs to be examined? This
> is merely a continuation of the false posturing Truong and Polgar are
> becoming so well know for.
>
>>
>> The issue here is that the board statement seems untrue, since according
>> to Polgar's statement, she complied or offered to comply with whatever
>> was asked. > That is definitely not the sense of the New York Times
>> 'leak' of the 'board meeting' which was not even a legal meeting - it
>> taking place in private. That sense was the complete opposite; as if
>> there was resistance to complying.
>
> Do you ever bother to read what you've typed before hitting the send icon?
> Apparently not.
>>
>> What Lafferty says is 'refuted', is rather shy of saying by whom. Not any
>> legal refutation, that's for sure.
>>
>> But that is of the same measure as his assertion at bottom, that Polgar
>> and Truong should be transparent, and only them! And how is that even
>> possible? The call by Susan Polgar, as I read it, is for all parties to
>> be equally transparent, so that all may be made known.
>
> I don't recall ever saying that only Trolgar should be transparent. It
> appears with certainty that Trolgar has utterly failed to be transparent
> in privileged communications with their (and the USCF's) attorneys.
>
>>
>> Then, let the would-be-public-prosecutors chose sides! Unless of course,
>> they do not aver this principle of openness by all parties, and of all
>> information, which rather reduces their status to partisan advocates and
>> political enthusiasts, which is nothing to the point of any justice.
>
> Oh, do continue to opine on the subject of justice. The simple fact is
> that Mr. Truong has been caught out and is seeking to avoid the imposition
> of just consequences.
>
> Now let me ask all a question regarding employment. Once Texas Tech is
> out of the Sloan action, how long will it take for TT to cut its ties with
> Trolgar. I'm betting that their contract isn't renewed and that they will
> soon receive formal notice to that effect as required by their contract.
> I do hope Trolgar has kept the family apartment in Queens. Eastward Ho!!
>
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Jan 2008 01:55:09
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr. Lafferty, what you miss is known best to yourself.
>
> The specific item of this thread concerns open communications by all
> parties, and their willingness to do so, while the NY Times is content, so
> it seems, to publish 'sort-of' board resolutions and statements, which are
> not only illegal, so it seems to me, being enacted in secret and
> 'accidentally' leaked by a board member...
The lack of transparency by Trolgar has been duely noted. The NY Times
published a newsworthy story about the action of four members of a national
non-profit seeking the removal of another board member for cause. That's
why you found the article in the Business section and not the Times' chess
column.
>
> This is slutty stuff - and shameful!
I suppose you would know.
>
> Your own interest in this matter is noted. You will also be pleased to
> note that this is a much broader issue than your own interest, with the
> same basis established for all parties to it, and nothing in the way of
> undercover, sort-of secret leaking, by those who themselves are yet to
> come up to the k of any transparency.
Your categorization of "secret leaking" is quite amusing. Please do recall
that the press release sent to the Times was apparently vetted by USCF
counsel. The four board members who called for Truong's resignation have no
duty of confidentiality when it comes to calling for the resignation of
another board membe for cause. They should be applauded for their
transparency.
>
> While as some legal fella you already decided that Truong is caught out,
> though not by legal means and due process, are you not premature in only
> listening to the prosecution? I should not like to think of you, nor the
> legal business, as weak minded, interested, nor overwhelmingly impressed
> by the last person you spoke with.
Truong has been caught out by those pesky things we call facts. I think
Trolgar has had every bit as much due process, perhaps more, than they gave
to Joe Lux when they defamed him behind his back. While there is a legal
action ongoing, in which Trolgar will have full procedural due process, USCF
politics and the politics of public persuasion are typical of a free and
open society.
Truong has made the mistake of taking on people who will now examine his
life minutely from the time of his first chess tournament in S. Vietnam to
the present. The period from around 1983 until the mid-1990s is presently
the focus of inquiries by more than one person. The facts will eventually
come out.
>
> Nor predicating any future action on this basis. Should you wish to joke
> upon another's name such as you do with 'Trolgar', then you are in some
> danger, IMO, of yourself becoming 'Laugh-erty', as in, idiot-in-law.
Can I send you a case of LaffyTaffy?
>
> You are designing that suit with that attitude, Sir. Does it fit?
>
> Please entertain me with some substance, since entertainment is all that
> can be had here - unless indeed, USCF picks up that gauntlet, so that all
> USCF members and all here, can assess for themselves, and construe their
> own opinion.
>
> I am sure such glasn�st is vastly objectionable to the organisation. But,
> time comes...
Phil, you really should read this stuff before you hit that send icon.
>
> Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Jan 2008 17:40:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1GTjj.13531$6F6.13356@trndny09...
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mr. Lafferty, what you miss is known best to yourself.
>>
>> The specific item of this thread concerns open communications by all
>> parties, and their willingness to do so, while the NY Times is content,
>> so it seems, to publish 'sort-of' board resolutions and statements, which
>> are not only illegal, so it seems to me, being enacted in secret and
>> 'accidentally' leaked by a board member...
>
> The lack of transparency by Trolgar has been duely noted.
Well - laugh-erty's intelligence has also been noted! When someone says let
it all be transparent, Laugp-erty says this is a 'lack'. What a start to a
post! Will such legal intelligence, it hat is not an ozymoron, continue, and
how?...
> The NY Times published a newsworthy story about the action of four members
> of a national non-profit seeking the removal of another board member for
> cause. That's why you found the article in the Business section and not
> the Times' chess column.
>
>>
>> This is slutty stuff - and shameful!
>
> I suppose you would know.
Yes. I would know. Do you? Or is that some crass evasion? Trouble is Judge
laugh-erty that you cannot indulge your je-jeune humor from the bench here.
You have to be equal with other posters, not superior to them, otherwise you
risk seeming like a stuffed prat.
>> Your own interest in this matter is noted. You will also be pleased to
>> note that this is a much broader issue than your own interest, with the
>> same basis established for all parties to it, and nothing in the way of
>> undercover, sort-of secret leaking, by those who themselves are yet to
>> come up to the k of any transparency.
>
> Your categorization of "secret leaking" is quite amusing.
I thought so too.
> Please do recall that the press release sent to the Times was apparently
> vetted by USCF counsel.
RoFL! 'apparently'.
And vetted by unnamed council who nevertheless didn't mention the secret
nature of the board meeting being illegal! Is it worth considering more of
what laugh-erty says
> The four board members who called for Truong's resignation have no duty
> of confidentiality when it comes to calling for the resignation of another
> board membe for cause. They should be applauded for their transparency.
An assertion of sympathy, not of what /the board/ could issue. Laughperty
plays with a board resolution, and what individual members of it think or
feel, as it was the same thing - AND presents it here as it was.
He not only doesn't respect the reader's intelligence, he completely
obfusticates any sense of opening up the issue to the members - which would
mean that he could not spin and distort any more. How awful for him!
>> While as some legal fella you already decided that Truong is caught out,
>> though not by legal means and due process, are you not premature in only
>> listening to the prosecution? I should not like to think of you, nor the
>> legal business, as weak minded, interested, nor overwhelmingly impressed
>> by the last person you spoke with.
>
> Truong has been caught out by those pesky things we call facts.
Not true. Who is 'we' how do we determine facts except by legal process? And
who are you to mislead people this way? There is accusation, period!@
There is also counter accusation which judge laugh-erty does not notice!
> I think Trolgar has had every bit as much due process, perhaps more, than
> they gave to Joe Lux when they defamed him behind his back. While there
> is a legal action ongoing, in which Trolgar will have full procedural due
> process, USCF politics and the politics of public persuasion are typical
> of a free and open society.
What? Is this free relating? Would even guffaw-erty allow this testimony in
a court room?
> Truong has made the mistake of taking on people who will now examine his
> life minutely from the time of his first chess tournament in S. Vietnam to
> the present. The period from around 1983 until the mid-1990s is presently
> the focus of inquiries by more than one person. The facts will eventually
> come out.
By, such people as yourself?
>> Nor predicating any future action on this basis. Should you wish to joke
>> upon another's name such as you do with 'Trolgar', then you are in some
>> danger, IMO, of yourself becoming 'Laugh-erty', as in, idiot-in-law.
>
> Can I send you a case of LaffyTaffy?
Only if you wish to confirm my opinion of you as a trivialising idiot.
>> You are designing that suit with that attitude, Sir. Does it fit?
:) It does, no? The great Laugh-erty is full of conjectures that would not
get heard in a court. Except this one, where the only rules are made by the
prosecution.
>> Please entertain me with some substance, since entertainment is all that
>> can be had here - unless indeed, USCF picks up that gauntlet, so that all
>> USCF members and all here, can assess for themselves, and construe their
>> own opinion.
>>
>> I am sure such glasn�st is vastly objectionable to the organisation. But,
>> time comes...
>
> Phil, you really should read this stuff before you hit that send icon.
That is also nothing of substance. I told you laugh-erty to write with more
than insensible conjecture. You cannot.
Dis-entertain me no more and go directly back to the agit-prop, where you
can engage the emotions of 41 year old teenagers who /need/ to rant and
project shit onto others, since, being adult themselves about such materials
is not an available choice to them.
See! You can be king of the wankers!
Phil Innes
>> Phil Innes
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 00:46:54
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1GTjj.13531$6F6.13356@trndny09...
>>
>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Mr. Lafferty, what you miss is known best to yourself.
>>>
>>> The specific item of this thread concerns open communications by all
>>> parties, and their willingness to do so, while the NY Times is content,
>>> so it seems, to publish 'sort-of' board resolutions and statements,
>>> which are not only illegal, so it seems to me, being enacted in secret
>>> and 'accidentally' leaked by a board member...
>>
>> The lack of transparency by Trolgar has been duely noted.
>
> Well - laugh-erty's intelligence has also been noted! When someone says
> let it all be transparent, Laugp-erty says this is a 'lack'. What a start
> to a post! Will such legal intelligence, it hat is not an ozymoron,
> continue, and how?...
>
>> The NY Times published a newsworthy story about the action of four
>> members of a national non-profit seeking the removal of another board
>> member for cause. That's why you found the article in the Business
>> section and not the Times' chess column.
>>
>>>
>>> This is slutty stuff - and shameful!
>>
>> I suppose you would know.
>
> Yes. I would know. Do you? Or is that some crass evasion? Trouble is Judge
> laugh-erty that you cannot indulge your je-jeune humor from the bench
> here. You have to be equal with other posters, not superior to them,
> otherwise you risk seeming like a stuffed prat.
>
>>> Your own interest in this matter is noted. You will also be pleased to
>>> note that this is a much broader issue than your own interest, with the
>>> same basis established for all parties to it, and nothing in the way of
>>> undercover, sort-of secret leaking, by those who themselves are yet to
>>> come up to the k of any transparency.
>>
>> Your categorization of "secret leaking" is quite amusing.
>
> I thought so too.
>
>> Please do recall that the press release sent to the Times was apparently
>> vetted by USCF counsel.
>
> RoFL! 'apparently'.
>
> And vetted by unnamed council who nevertheless didn't mention the secret
> nature of the board meeting being illegal! Is it worth considering more of
> what laugh-erty says
>
>> The four board members who called for Truong's resignation have no duty
>> of confidentiality when it comes to calling for the resignation of
>> another board membe for cause. They should be applauded for their
>> transparency.
>
> An assertion of sympathy, not of what /the board/ could issue. Laughperty
> plays with a board resolution, and what individual members of it think or
> feel, as it was the same thing - AND presents it here as it was.
>
> He not only doesn't respect the reader's intelligence, he completely
> obfusticates any sense of opening up the issue to the members - which
> would mean that he could not spin and distort any more. How awful for him!
>
>
>>> While as some legal fella you already decided that Truong is caught out,
>>> though not by legal means and due process, are you not premature in only
>>> listening to the prosecution? I should not like to think of you, nor the
>>> legal business, as weak minded, interested, nor overwhelmingly impressed
>>> by the last person you spoke with.
>>
>> Truong has been caught out by those pesky things we call facts.
>
> Not true. Who is 'we' how do we determine facts except by legal process?
> And who are you to mislead people this way? There is accusation, period!@
>
> There is also counter accusation which judge laugh-erty does not notice!
>
>> I think Trolgar has had every bit as much due process, perhaps more,
>> than they gave to Joe Lux when they defamed him behind his back. While
>> there is a legal action ongoing, in which Trolgar will have full
>> procedural due process, USCF politics and the politics of public
>> persuasion are typical of a free and open society.
>
> What? Is this free relating? Would even guffaw-erty allow this testimony
> in a court room?
>
>> Truong has made the mistake of taking on people who will now examine his
>> life minutely from the time of his first chess tournament in S. Vietnam
>> to the present. The period from around 1983 until the mid-1990s is
>> presently the focus of inquiries by more than one person. The facts will
>> eventually come out.
>
> By, such people as yourself?
>
>>> Nor predicating any future action on this basis. Should you wish to joke
>>> upon another's name such as you do with 'Trolgar', then you are in some
>>> danger, IMO, of yourself becoming 'Laugh-erty', as in, idiot-in-law.
>>
>> Can I send you a case of LaffyTaffy?
>
> Only if you wish to confirm my opinion of you as a trivialising idiot.
>
>>> You are designing that suit with that attitude, Sir. Does it fit?
>
>
> :) It does, no? The great Laugh-erty is full of conjectures that would
> not get heard in a court. Except this one, where the only rules are made
> by the prosecution.
>
>
>>> Please entertain me with some substance, since entertainment is all that
>>> can be had here - unless indeed, USCF picks up that gauntlet, so that
>>> all USCF members and all here, can assess for themselves, and construe
>>> their own opinion.
>>>
>>> I am sure such glasn�st is vastly objectionable to the organisation.
>>> But, time comes...
>>
>> Phil, you really should read this stuff before you hit that send icon.
>
> That is also nothing of substance. I told you laugh-erty to write with
> more than insensible conjecture. You cannot.
>
> Dis-entertain me no more and go directly back to the agit-prop, where you
> can engage the emotions of 41 year old teenagers who /need/ to rant and
> project shit onto others, since, being adult themselves about such
> materials is not an available choice to them.
>
> See! You can be king of the wankers!
>
>
> Phil Innes
>
>>> Phil Innes
:-)
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 13:46:33
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Chess One wrote:
> In brief reply to "B. Lafferty", my understanding of the statement is that
> it offers complete transparency, and challenges USCF to do the same.
>
> The issue here is that the board statement seems untrue, since according to
> Polgar's statement, she complied or offered to comply with whatever was
> asked.
>
> That is definitely not the sense of the New York Times 'leak' of the 'board
> meeting' which was not even a legal meeting - it taking place in private.
> That sense was the complete opposite; as if there was resistance to
> complying.
>
> What Lafferty says is 'refuted', is rather shy of saying by whom. Not any
> legal refutation, that's for sure.
>
> But that is of the same measure as his assertion at bottom, that Polgar and
> Truong should be transparent, and only them! And how is that even possible?
> The call by Susan Polgar, as I read it, is for all parties to be equally
> transparent, so that all may be made known.
>
> Then, let the would-be-public-prosecutors chose sides! Unless of course,
> they do not aver this principle of openness by all parties, and of all
> information, which rather reduces their status to partisan advocates and
> political enthusiasts, which is nothing to the point of any justice.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:btujj.8444$sA6.1585@trndny08...
>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Here is an official response from Susan Polgar on recent board 'actions'
>>> and NY Times reporting //Phil Innes
>>>
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> The following was issued by the majority of the USCF Executive Board last
>>> night to the NY Times:
>>>
>>> "In asking for Mr. Truong's resignation, the statement did not say
>>> whether the four members agreed that he had done what Mr. Sloan claimed.
>>> Instead, the board said Mr. Truong had not cooperated with a lawyer
>>> retained by the federation."
>>>
>>> This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Answers and evidence
>>> were submitted to the USCF attorney. I was on the phone with the USCF
>>> attorney for a considerable length of time to discuss this matter and to
>>> answer his questions. If additional information was needed, we should
>>> have been asked. No one asked. I have an email from the USCF attorney
>>> confirming that he received the evidence. We were under the impression
>>> that everything was fine until last night after the statement has already
>>> been submitted to the NY Times. I can clearly document the time line step
>>> by step.
>>>
>>> I cannot discuss this matter in details due to the pending legal issues.
>>> We followed the instructions of our attorneys, including the one who was
>>> assigned to us by the insurance company. All evidence will come out in
>>> due time.
>>>
>>> Lastly, there have been numerous leaks of board confidential information
>>> from the 5 member sub-committee to various unauthorized people which can
>>> severely harm this federation in many ways. Some of the confidential
>>> information was told to Sam Sloan which can clearly effect the case for
>>> the USCF. These are the information that only the other 5 board members
>>> and their attorneys would know. We did not even know about it until after
>>> various stories were leaked out.
>>>
>>> We will make an official motion to investigate this type of inappropriate
>>> actions by board members shortly.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Susan Polgar
>> The USCF press release states:
>> Specifically, the USCF asked Paul Truong to provide, by December 7,
>> 2007, the following:
>>
>> "1.Formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was involved in
>> the"Fake Sam Sloan" postings, or had knowledge of who made such
>> postings;
>> 2.Provide the IP address of all his home and work Internet
>> connectionssince 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and
>> cooperate inthe Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and other
>> entities;
>> 3.Provide all information that would support his argument that he was
>> notlocated at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
>> Sloanpostings, to include information relating to his travel.
>>
>> To date, the USCF has not received a formal response to items 1 and 2
>> and incomplete information relating to item 3."
>>
>>
>> The assertion by Ms. Polgar is not new and apparently involves an email
>> communication to the USCF and/or the USCF's attorneys. What was
>> required of Mr. Truong was a writing signed by him (a formal
>> communication). Why wasn't that provided? Is Mr. Truong afraid to put
>> his signature to a denial meaning that he will not be able to simply
>> disavow having sent an unsigned email. There are serious reasons why
>> attorneys want certain things from their clients in writing and signed
>> by them.
>>
>> The requirements of #2 are not addressed by Ms. Polgar and were
>> apparently not provided by Mr. Truong.
>>
>> The travel issue has been raised by Ms. Polgar as a defense on numerous
>> occasions in several forums. I suggest that you look at the Mottershead
>> Report and the Jones Report where this issue is addressed and refuted.
>> Consider also that there are software programs that will send your email
>> and Usenet messages at a specified time, from your computer, when you
>> are away from your computer. Mr. Truong has had more than three month
>> to provide the USCF and its attorneys with all of his materials
>> necessary for a defense. Clearly, he has not done this and one
>> increasingly comes to understand why.
>>
>> As to the alleged leaks, these are bald, unsupported assertions that
>> have been made before. Let
>> Ms. Polgar give us the specifics and the proof of same as she has been
>> asked to do but has failed to do.
>>
The offer of general transparency may strike a responsive chord amongst
our readers. It may be the best policy in the long run. However, I
question that any of the board members or the USCF itself are at liberty
to do anything of the sort at this juncture. There is a looming
lawsuit. Legal defense, and legal obligations, logically, would be
overriding concerns for the individuals and the group.
Thus I ask, is this offer of general transparency just spin?
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 18:25:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The offer of general transparency may strike a responsive chord amongst
> our readers. It may be the best policy in the long run. However, I
> question that any of the board members or the USCF itself are at liberty
> to do anything of the sort at this juncture. There is a looming lawsuit.
> Legal defense, and legal obligations, logically, would be overriding
> concerns for the individuals and the group.
>
> Thus I ask, is this offer of general transparency just spin?
Transparency is spin?
Come, come, Sir! What sort of reductio ad absurdam is this? If there is
legal liability, whose is it? Is the legal liability, eg, the same as legal
culpability? ;)
For some 6 months people have been asking for openness on this issue - and
here it is! - the ball clearly lying in the court of the board to open up in
exactly the same measure as Polgar and Truong. The board has been called!
That is an action they may perform, the rest is merely talk and exusings.
In addition to which I will interview Paul Truong on all these matters, as
well as his life in chess. The push to do so, and to ask terse questions,
coming from him, not from me.
Is this not enough for even the most venal of attentions? Does it sound at
all as if either Susan Polgar or Paul Truong have anything to hide?
No. The gauntlet has been issued the board, and their open reply qualifies
this issue - not such nonsense as we see leeked to the press by illegal
means by such as Randy Bauer.
People here will understand better one means or the other, and place their
trust and confidence in what happens next, which is not to spin any more
issues, but to allow all chess players and USCF members their own look at
events, and their own opinion of what's what.
If this is to be a caucus of opinion, then, when has the collected, and
considered opinion of the village ever been wrong?
Phil Innes
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Jan 2008 17:25:55
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The offer of general transparency may strike a responsive chord amongst
>> our readers. It may be the best policy in the long run. However, I
>> question that any of the board members or the USCF itself are at liberty
>> to do anything of the sort at this juncture. There is a looming lawsuit.
>> Legal defense, and legal obligations, logically, would be overriding
>> concerns for the individuals and the group.
>>
>> Thus I ask, is this offer of general transparency just spin?
>
> Transparency is spin?
>
> Come, come, Sir! What sort of reductio ad absurdam is this? If there is
> legal liability, whose is it? Is the legal liability, eg, the same as legal
> culpability? ;)
>
> For some 6 months people have been asking for openness on this issue - and
> here it is! - the ball clearly lying in the court of the board to open up in
> exactly the same measure as Polgar and Truong. The board has been called!
>
> That is an action they may perform, the rest is merely talk and exusings.
>
> In addition to which I will interview Paul Truong on all these matters, as
> well as his life in chess. The push to do so, and to ask terse questions,
> coming from him, not from me.
>
> Is this not enough for even the most venal of attentions? Does it sound at
> all as if either Susan Polgar or Paul Truong have anything to hide?
>
> No. The gauntlet has been issued the board, and their open reply qualifies
> this issue - not such nonsense as we see leeked to the press by illegal
> means by such as Randy Bauer.
>
> People here will understand better one means or the other, and place their
> trust and confidence in what happens next, which is not to spin any more
> issues, but to allow all chess players and USCF members their own look at
> events, and their own opinion of what's what.
>
> If this is to be a caucus of opinion, then, when has the collected, and
> considered opinion of the village ever been wrong?
>
> Phil Innes
>
>> Cordially,
>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>
Mr. Innes,
There is a clear question here: are the board members free to reveal
anything? This includes Paul and Susan. If they are bound by legal
circumstances to keep quiet, then the call for transparency is mistimed,
or merely calculated for effect. Do you know?
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Jan 2008 16:56:56
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>>
>
> Mr. Innes,
>
> There is a clear question here: are the board members free to reveal
> anything?
I have just asked them 2 questions, and they will make their own response in
7 days, or I shall report a 'no-response' to the statement and challenge
offered SusanPolgar.
> This includes Paul and Susan. If they are bound by legal circumstances
> to keep quiet, then the call for transparency is mistimed, or merely
> calculated for effect. Do you know?
Do I know what?
The issue is clear via the Polgar statement 16 January, to open up or not?
Everything else, sir, I suggest to you is spin, as are such terms; mistimed,
or to any calculation, or that very fat 'legal circumstances' which could as
well read 'legal culpability'.
So... I unspin all, and ask, as does Susan Polgar, that members themselves
should consider what is what. That is the simple and direct initiative here
to discover the nature of the thing.
I will report on two issues this day proposed to the USCF board, that they
comment on the issue, or they go along with the issue, cited January 16,
2008, to open up. I have offered equal response via chessville, and also to
adopt opening up or deny it, and also provided a reasonable deadline to
decide upon either.
I have also stated to Bill Hall that I wish the issue to be restricted to
the USCF board, and any legal opinion depending on it.
Phil Innes
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Jan 2008 15:03:52
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>
>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>> Mr. Innes,
>>
>> There is a clear question here: are the board members free to reveal
>> anything? This includes Paul and Susan. If they are bound by legal circumstances
>> to keep quiet, then the call for transparency is mistimed, or merely
>> calculated for effect. Do you know?
>
> Do I know what?
>
Never mind, I should have asked someone else.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 08:52:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>
>>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>>> Mr. Innes,
>>>
>>> There is a clear question here: are the board members free to reveal
>>> anything? This includes Paul and Susan. If they are bound by legal
>>> circumstances to keep quiet, then the call for transparency is mistimed,
>>> or merely calculated for effect. Do you know?
>>
>> Do I know what?
>>
>
> Never mind, I should have asked someone else.
You mean, someone who will tell you what you want to hear, instead of the
response, which you cut?
For the record; I asked, yesterday, the USCF and any legal counsel to make
their own responsive statement, and also to state if they would open their
own doors to the same degree that Susan Polgar is willing to do.
Of course, it is ruinous to people who have been demanding to know
everything about this issue - since S. Polgar seems to agree! If there are
'legal' reasons why something should be maintained as secret in a public
non-profit - that is itself interesting!
This is what Walker cut:
The issue is clear via the Polgar statement 16 January, to open up or not?
Everything else, sir, I suggest to you is spin, as are such terms; mistimed,
or to any calculation, or that very fat 'legal circumstances' which could as
well read 'legal culpability'.
//phil innes
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 06:29:11
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>>>> Mr. Innes,
>>>>
>>>> There is a clear question here: are the board members free to reveal
>>>> anything? This includes Paul and Susan. If they are bound by legal
>>>> circumstances to keep quiet, then the call for transparency is mistimed,
>>>> or merely calculated for effect. Do you know?
>>> Do I know what?
>>>
>> Never mind, I should have asked someone else.
>
> You mean, someone who will tell you what you want to hear, instead of the
> response, which you cut?
>
I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign. And you are not
interested in responding to my question. Shall we leave it at that?
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 12:45:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> You mean, someone who will tell you what you want to hear, instead of the
>> response, which you cut?
>>
>
> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
laugh - and yet you keep asking me questions! While i am content to ask both
sides to open up to the same degree, you keep cutting that as 'partisan'
while continuing to spin! Since you are doing this in public, I think this
is perhaps an observable projection on your part ;)
> And you are not interested in responding to my question. Shall we leave
> it at that?
If you want to leave it, go! You want to control an agenda here, cut all
else, and continue some fatuous diaglog insisting as if you seriously wanted
a conversation - pfft!
The issue is now before the board - and if they cannot answer the challenge
to open up for whatever reason - even 'legal ones' as our friend Lafferty
suggests - then 'why not' is the /next/ logical question.
Though, evidently, not your next question.
There is a substantial difference in playing chess than talking about chess
politics. In chess you get to demonstrate what you can do, whereas in chess
politics you can get away with suggesting it. How interesting that a strong
chess player should be willing to demonstrate her openness to scrutiny, and
let others think what they will.
What a completely refreshing change, and for once, in the spirit of the game
itself. Now, we have nothing more to say to each other until the board
decides on its response. And even then, I do not have the slightest idea if
you think allowing people to investige for themselves and make up their own
minds, is to your taste, since you keep CUTTING that out.
Phil Innes
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 09:57:10
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>
>>> You mean, someone who will tell you what you want to hear, instead of the
>>> response, which you cut?
>>>
>> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
>
> laugh
>
>> And you are not interested in responding to my question. Shall we leave
>> it at that?
>
> Now, we have nothing more to say to each other
Agreed.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 13:11:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>
>>>> You mean, someone who will tell you what you want to hear, instead of
>>>> the response, which you cut?
>>>>
>>> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
>>
>> laugh
>>> And you are not interested in responding to my question. Shall we
>>> leave it at that?
>>
>> Now, we have nothing more to say to each other
>
> Agreed.
Walker - you cut the context that it is YOUR partisanship here - that you do
not admit others should make up their own minds, and your snip is decietful,
since how can it possible be partisan if I take no part in what people think
after they are able to review all?
By these means, you also show you are a coward, in fact. If you continue to
write here, and to so mistreat what others write, then I suggest that that
is now public knowledge. Take yourself at your own word, and if you have
nothing to say, don't!
Phil Innes
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 10:15:17
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
<snip ongoing propaganda >
I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 13:35:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>
> <snip ongoing propaganda>
>
> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
Walker - I just /proved/ you are a partisan and cheat yourself! Since you
keep writing to tell us about how not interested you are in fairness and
open consideration by other people.
You are just the same as other fanatnicks here, and you just demonstrated to
everyone how you all are. Every time you write you merely confirm your
prejudice and agit-prop writings.
Write in again to tell everyone how not interested you are :))
Church of Satan, is it?
ROFL! Phil Innes
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 10:38:20
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
<snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks >
I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 13:50:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>
> <snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks>
>
> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
You are interested in lying walker. And having demonstrated that to everyone
here you are now play victim! How typical of the cowardly remailer sort of
guy! You prove your lie with every response.
Remember, folks, that the poor Reverend keeps suppressing the idea that you
should have access to all the information from both sides and make up your
own mind. That, he says, is partisan.
Well, so much for net-trash like him, and those like him
Phil Innes
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 11:06:56
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
<snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks >
I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 20:17:25
From:
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
J.D. Walker wrote:
><snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks>
>
>I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
For wasting my valuable time with multiple posts that are
cut and paste identical:
*plonk*
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 00:49:37
From:
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Don't assume guilt just because Phil Innes proclaims innocence.
Don't assume innocence just because Sam Sloan proclaims guilt.
Even an idiot can guess right every once in a while.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 12:22:23
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
[email protected] wrote:
> J.D. Walker wrote:
>
>> <snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks>
>>
>> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
>
> For wasting my valuable time with multiple posts that are
> cut and paste identical:
>
> *plonk*
>
>
We are not finished. (v2.0)
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 19:40:23
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>
>
> <snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks>
>
> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
I think of him as Paul and Susan's little lap dog.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 12:05:51
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
B. Lafferty wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> <snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks>
>>
>> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
>> --
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>
> I think of him as Paul and Susan's little lap dog.
>
>
Mr. Lafferty,
Let us not malign the lap dogs. I have never seen any canine engage in
gratuitous religious bigotry.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 22:34:26
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks>
>>>
>>> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
>>> --
>>>
>>> Cordially,
>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>>
>> I think of him as Paul and Susan's little lap dog.
> Mr. Lafferty,
>
> Let us not malign the lap dogs. I have never seen any canine engage in
> gratuitous religious bigotry.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
Mea culpa. I apologize to lap dogs everywhere. They deserve better than to
be likened to Mr. I.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 15:28:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Look at these 2 - on the run! Completely bust by the offer to open
everything up! Still - since their joint purpose in being here was
[ostensibly] to uncover who did what - the line-judge and the non-reverend
are reduced to doggie matters.
How soon will other tribunal members throw in the towel? Perhaps they will
make 6 posts saying they are no longer interested? [ROFL]
All you have to do is avoid admitting you want to let in the sunshine and
allow people their own judgment, not more jaw-jaw. That's the test.
The silence on this, most open of measures, is quite deafening, and not
admitting that what is proposed is fair process, completely spoils the fun
of so many people who are content to rubbish others non-stop. Not admitting
it means that no one can pretend any more that they are interested in who
the FSS is. If its not Truong, then... pfft! They're off!
These 2 enthusiasts have only shown up here to do one thing - neither of
them have done anything else at all in terms of writing about chess or chess
management. Others have less excuse since once-upon-a-time they had a go at
writing about chess. One even has his own column.
Now its game-over for the pretenders. The only way to continue to play the
game is to agree that all information should be taken into account, not just
some one-sided show.
Next Friday I will let everyone known if USCF want to play, want to talk, or
want to put their heads in the sand - except of course for leaking material
to the NY Times for which, I am sure we will hear, was a mistake, and very
sincerely apologised for.
Phil Innes
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks>
>>>
>>> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
>>> --
>>>
>>> Cordially,
>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>>
>> I think of him as Paul and Susan's little lap dog.
> Mr. Lafferty,
>
> Let us not malign the lap dogs. I have never seen any canine engage in
> gratuitous religious bigotry.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 12:33:25
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
Chess One wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chess One wrote:
<snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks >
>>> I think of him as Paul and Susan's little lap dog.
>> Mr. Lafferty,
>>
>> Let us not malign the lap dogs. I have never seen any canine engage in
>> gratuitous religious bigotry.
Mr. Innes,
I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2008 06:19:22
From:
Subject: Re: Truth and Lies on the board, and in the NY Times
|
On Jan 16, 7:47=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here is an official response from Susan Polgar on recent board 'actions' a=
nd
> NY Times reporting =A0//Phil Innes
>
> there have been numerous leaks of board confidential information
> from the 5 member sub-committee to various unauthorized people which can
> severely harm this federation in many ways.>
> Best wishes,
> Susan Polgar
I am amazed that some USCF Politicos seem to be unable to grasp
the fact the the USCF is a Member Orginization and that people acting
in that capacity should not be engaging in activities that, if made
public,
would cause damage to the orginization!
I had some sympathy for Susan/Paul regarding the release of personal
information such as detailed itinerarys and the like given the
apparent
mental instability of some of the posters here but orginizational
business should be conducted in a legally and morally defensible
manner with nothing other then the best interests of the membership
as the sole criteria. There should be no reason whatsoever to conceal
any financial, contractural or orginizational/procedural information
from
the membership. The governance of the orginization should avoid not
just impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety.
The fact that some members of the governance feels the needs for
secrecy suggest to me that things have been done and possibly
continue to be done that are not above board. Protecting individuals
who have possibly engaged in unethical or illegal activities does
not seem as if fits the criteria of severing the interests of the
Membership.
|
|
