Main
Date: 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03
From: Chess One
Subject: who is clean and who is not
Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.
Everyone can then decide who is clean and who is not. Why not let the USCF
members decide what the facts are? "

The URL for the full statement is at

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/TheParrotSquaawks2008.htm

which extracts from Alekhine's Parrot, which also contains her earlier
statement on the same topic

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm

She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:

"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."

Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
us.

----

Phil Innes

for Chessville.






 
Date: 29 Jan 2008 15:51:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
On Jan 29, 12:40 am, Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] > wrote:

> The question is: whicht style do you use against it? I can see, that if
> you jump right at the program, it might be able to defend itself. But I
> played a quite slow setup and switched gear only after a mistake on its
> side (which didn't take too long), and even then I didn't try to finish
> it as fast as possible. The basic problem with Sannys program: it
> doesn't know what to do when there is no immediate threat. In those
> situations it tends to make silly moves and creates severe positional
> weaknesses. It might have gained some tactical abilities over the time,
> but has still no knowledge about positional factors.

Gosh Wally, this sounds an awful lot like the
old days, like back when chess computers were
just starting out!


> Also something
> under which GC clearly suffers: horizon problem. In my game it went into
> a situation, where it could prolong immediate loss of material for a
> while by attacking my queen. So, Sanny obviously hasn't implemented the
> increase of search depth in forced variations. This is a severe weak
> spot of the program.

I've tried to point Sanny to the resources
on the Web where such things are ironed
out in some detail. Things like, oh, tactical
search extensions and the like-- but he
apparently can't find them or else he is
unwilling to just start over and do it the right
way; after all, his programmers have already
plowed a lot of time and effort into doing it all
wrong!

The clearest example of this problem may
well be the draw issue; Sanny's program was
originally written without any knowledge of
draws, and even today there remain the
remnants of this problem, here and there.


> > This guy is a bit fruit-loopy; I'll wager the
> > Normal level would demolish a 100-man team
> > of USCF 1400s by a wide gin, in spite of
> > there being no time restriction on the humans,
> > while the program now generally follows its set
> > limit which, for it, is very restrictive.

> The thing is: it has tactical abilities which might go beyond a 1400.
> But it has severe limitations a 1400 usually doesn't have. From your
> reks you made here in the past, I read that you got problems if your
> attack didn't go through and GC was left with the upper hand.

My main problem was where I played recklessly,
as in my game as White in Larsen's Attack, and
I overlooked some tactical shot which decided
the game, from which there was no coming back.


> But a 1400
> wouldn't play this way against it. A 1400 has some basic idea how to
> develop, where to put the pieces etc. GC has nearly no idea about such
> things.

I disagree. While many 1400s are familiar with
where the pieces go and in what specific order,
*if* you follow along some traditional path, there
always seems to be a point in my games where
the typical 1400 player reveals a computeresque
ignorance of some routine chess knowledge--
hence the 1400 rating.

The most recent example I can recall was a
line where the entire plan for White was jilted,
in favor of a tactical battle which I won mainly
because my King was castled, his not, and
we were well into the middle-game at the time!
The 1400-type neglected normal development,
left his King in the center too long, and also
seemed to allow his emotions to get involved;
by which I mean that he was angry at me for
"daring" to castle on the Queen-side, which
was not the "normal", book plan for Black.
He actually felt insulted at this, whereas my
intentions were merely to maximize my King
safety, and of course the Black King is not
safe in the "normal" lines, but rather, a
favorite target-- which is one reason the line
is popular for White.


> The question is: could GC beat a player which is not overly
> ambitious of beating the shit out of the program right from the start?

I don't think the approach would be the
issue here; IMO, the issue would be that
when the position opened up, the typical
1400 players would be over-matched in
the tactical department. Both sides
would likely make silly strategic mistakes,
but the problem with humans is that our
tactical mistakes tend to be really BIG
ones, decisive ones.



> I must admit, that we might talk about apples and oranges, when talking
> about "1400". I have the German rating system in my mind, which is a bit
> different from the US-scale. Just to give an idea: the average German
> club player has a rating somewhere between 1600 und 1700.

I like that-- between 1600 "und" 1700.


> But nevertheless, for me it's not a bid deal, whether normal level has 1400
> or 1600 - fact is, a strong player shouldn't have a big problem beating it.

It's very possible that the average "German"
player is stronger than the average American.
Take Wilhelm Stenitz, for instance; he hopped
a boat to America, und violla: instant U.S.
Champion. His successor, Em. Lasker, ranked
as the highest-rated player *ever* for quite some
time, using retroactively-calculated numbers.

Ignoring regional variances for a moment, the
typical American 1400 player is no chess genius.
I play them all the time, and occasionally watch
their games with one another; many of these
games are easy wins, but "somehow" result in
draws, or else they are easy draws, but result
in wins. Really, these guys all need to be
taking lessons from me, so they can get to
1500 or so... .


-- help bot


 
Date: 29 Jan 2008 01:23:54
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
> 7 or 8 - there are plenty of free programs around on the internet. Not
> all of them are as strong as Fritz and Rybka, made by amateurs just for
> fun. Look for those programs, download them and let them play against
> yours - and see what happens. Only then you will be able to come up with
> some "numbers" for the level of your program.

Today after improving the GetClub Game, I tried with Jester here is
the Game. Beginner Vs Jester.

Game Played between sanjay11 and beginner at GetClub.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sanjay11: (White)
beginner: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM15232&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White -- Black
(sanjay11) -- (beginner)

1. e2-e4{6} e7-e5{0}
2. Ng1-f3{6} Nb8-c6{0}
3. Bf1-b5{6} a7-a6{0}
4. Bb5-c6{6} d7-c6{8}
5. Nb1-c3{8} f7-f6{6}
6. Ke1-g1{10} Bf8-c5{6}
7. d2-d3{12} Ng8-e7{10}
8. Nc3-a4{12} Bc5-a7{10}
9. Bc1-d2{10} Ke8-g8{6}
10. Bd2-b4{10} b7-b5{8}
11. Bb4-e7{10} Qd8-e7{8}
12. Na4-c3{10} b5-b4{12}
13. Nc3-a4{10} Qe7-d6{6}
14. Nf3-d2{12} Bc8-e6{16}
15. Qd1-h5{12} Be6-f7{6}
16. Qh5-h4{12} h7-h5{6}
17. a2-a3{10} b4-a3{16}
18. Ra1-a3{10} Rf8-b8{10}
19. Ra3-a1{14} Ba7-d4{10}
20. Rf1-b1{20} g7-g5{12}
21. Qh4-h3{46} Bd4-a7{6}
22. Na4-c3{12} g5-g4{6}
23. Qh3-h4{12} Ba7-d4{8}
24. Nc3-d1{10} Rb8-b6{6}
25. Nd2-c4{26} Bf7-c4{6}
26. d3-c4{12} f6-f5{6}
27. Qh4-g5{18} Kg8-f8{10}
28. Qg5-f5{16} Kf8-g8{8}
29. Qf5-h5{10} g4-g3{8}
30. h2-g3{10} Bd4-c5{10}
31. Ra1-a5{14} Ra8-f8{6}
32. Rb1-a1{14} Rb6-b8{6}
33. Ra5-a6{10} Qd6-f6{8}
34. Qh5-g4{10} Kg8-h8{6}
35. Qg4-h4{8} Kh8-g8{10}
36. Qh4-f6{10} Rf8-f6{8}
37. Ra6-a5{10} Bc5-d6{6}
38. b2-b3{10} Rb8-f8{8}
39. f2-f3{12} Kg8-h8{10}
40. Nd1-e3{16} c6-c5{8}
41. Ra5-a7{12} Bd6-e7{6}
42. Ra7-c7{22} Be7-d6{6}
43. Rc7-c6{10} Bd6-e7{6}
44. Rc6-f6{10} Rf8-f6{8}
45. Ne3-d5{12} Rf6-e6{6}
46. Nd5-e7{10} Re6-e7{6}
47. Ra1-a8{10} Kh8-g7{8}
48. Ra8-c8{10} Re7-a7{6}
49. Rc8-c5{16} Ra7-e7{6}
50. Kg1-f2{10} Kg7-h8{6}
51. Kf2-e3{10} Re7-d7{8}
52. Rc5-e5{10} Rd7-h7{8}
53. Ke3-d2{12} Rh7-h2{6}
54. Re5-g5{10} Rh2-g2{6}
55. Kd2-d3{10} Kh8-h7{6}
56. c4-c5{10} Rg2-h2{6}
57. c5-c6{10} Rh2-h6{6}
58. Rg5-c5{10} Rh6-g6{8}
59. c6-c7{10} Rg6-g8{12}
60. Qc7-c8{Q}{12} Rg8-c8{8}
61. Rc5-c8{10} Kh7-g7{12}
62. b3-b4{10} Kg7-h7{6}
63. b4-b5{8} Kh7-g6{8}
64. b5-b6{10} Kg6-f7{6}
65. b6-b7{10} Kf7-g7{6}
66. Qb7-b8{Q}{8} Kg7-f7{6}
67. Qb8-a7{10} Kf7-e7{6}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sanjay11: (White)
beginner: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM15232&game=Chess

Is the game now playing OK, Or are you finding any mistake in GetClub
Beginner Level Moves? Please indicate which moves are wrong So that I
may correct them.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html




 
Date: 29 Jan 2008 01:20:40
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
> This question is the equivalent to: "Please explain me how to playchess." To be honest: I can not explain it. I may come up with some good
> sounding sentences and advices, but they wouldn't help you much. The
> hard truth is: be it playingchessor programmingchess: it takes time,
> effort and lots of practice to learn it.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf

Thanks for your Advices. Now a few of them have been implemented and
Now the Game will play twice better than earlier.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


  
Date: 29 Jan 2008 22:38:59
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
29.01.2008 10:20, Sanny:
>
> Thanks for your Advices. Now a few of them have been implemented and
> Now the Game will play twice better than earlier.

You have implemented my hint, that chess is more complex than you
assumed? Amazing.

Greetings,
Ralf


   
Date: 30 Jan 2008 08:44:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.

"Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 29.01.2008 10:20, Sanny:
>>
>> Thanks for your Advices. Now a few of them have been implemented and
>> Now the Game will play twice better than earlier.
>
> You have implemented my hint, that chess is more complex than you assumed?
> Amazing.

At least Sanny provided the joke of the year so far, "Lucky". :))

Probably the best advice for him is to take in what an IM trainer recently
wrote in this ng, and adapt it to his engine.

Phil Innes

> Greetings,
> Ralf




 
Date: 28 Jan 2008 22:14:02
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
> The thing is: it has tactical abilities which might go beyond a 1400.
> But it has severe limitations a 1400 usually doesn't have. From your
> reks you made here in the past, I read that you got problems if your
> attack didn't go through and GC was left with the upper hand. But a 1400
> wouldn't play this way against it. A 1400 has some basic idea how to
> develop, where to put the pieces etc. GC has nearly no idea about such
> things. The question is: could GC beat a player which is not overly
> ambitious of beating the shit out of the program right from the start?

Thats the Question I have been asking for so long.

> A 1400 has some basic idea how to
> develop, where to put the pieces etc

Please give me in detail How to develop and what is wrong with GetClub
development. GetClub program always take out Knight/Bishop out and do
Chastling I think that is development am I missing something here?

Where to put Piece.

Can you tell me Places Where to put piece.

Here is for white Good Places for pawn/knight/bishop

Pawns: e4, e3, d4, d3, c4, f4, a3, h3 [Good] Any Other?
Knight: f3, c3 [Good]
Bishop: d2, e2, c3, e3, b4, f4 [Good]

Any what are the places where pawn should not be placed.

Pawns: c3, f3 [Bad]
Knight: a3, h3 [Bad]
Bishop: a4, h4. [Bad]

Do you think above are Correct? What else you want in the positional
play?

> The basic problem with Sannys program: it
> doesn't know what to do when there is no immediate threat.

What should it do when it has no immidiate threath? Please Explain.

Bye
Sanny



  
Date: 29 Jan 2008 08:48:19
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
29.01.2008 07:14, Sanny:
>> The question is: could GC beat a player which is not overly
>> ambitious of beating the shit out of the program right from the start?
>
> Thats the Question I have been asking for so long.

The answer has been given to you. But you preferred to ignore it.

>
>> A 1400 has some basic idea how to
>> develop, where to put the pieces etc
>
> Please give me in detail How to develop and what is wrong with GetClub
> development. GetClub program always take out Knight/Bishop out and do
> Chastling I think that is development am I missing something here?

What you are missing can not be corrected by explaining it in a few
sentences. Even the basic positional rules are not as simple as "develop
knight first" or something like that. An average talented player needs
several years before he reaches some decent level of play, before he
gets an idea what to do and what not in the different phases of the game.

>
> Where to put Piece.

This can simply not be answered in a general and static way. It depends
on the positions of the pawns but also on dynamic factors. And it
wouldn't help much, if I would tell you from a chess players perspective
what to do and what not - programs are based on a very different
approach. Only from the result, the actual moves your program makes, I
can tell it does something wrong. What exactly it is it should do
differently internally, I do not know, because I don't know all those
tricks and techniques chess programmers use to tell their programs to
play sound moves.


>> The basic problem with Sannys program: it
>> doesn't know what to do when there is no immediate threat.
>
> What should it do when it has no immidiate threath? Please Explain.

This question is the equivalent to: "Please explain me how to play
chess." To be honest: I can not explain it. I may come up with some good
sounding sentences and advices, but they wouldn't help you much. The
hard truth is: be it playing chess or programming chess: it takes time,
effort and lots of practice to learn it.

Greetings,
Ralf


 
Date: 28 Jan 2008 12:46:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: com>
On Jan 28, 3:31 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> > I am beaten by GetClub Beginner Level Every
>
> > time. So I have a rating of arround 1100-1200.
>
> Does not follow.
>
> Are you ignorant, or lying?

Apparently, Sanny uses his own "identity" to
test programs like Jester against the GetClub
program, so "his" rating may be meaningless.

It is true that having a rating well over 1000
is *not* indicative of losing to any of GetClub's
levels, which are by and large, well under 1000.

Anybody know how to "dumb-down" one of
the commercial chess programs while still
knowing its USCF-equivalent rating, for testing
purposes? I've got one that is adjustable, but
it won't go low enough for a fair fight-- maybe
my notebook computer is just too fast for GC?

I've seen plenty of complaints where players
have reported that some of these programs
don't accurately reflect true rating strengths.
All I know is that if I remove Fritz' Queen at
the start of a game, it seems to equalize things
a bit.. .


-- help bot







 
Date: 28 Jan 2008 11:36:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
On Jan 28, 1:23 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> Game Played between s65 and normal at GetClub.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> s65: (White)


I find it interesting that this critic chose the
White pieces, instead of Black. Why? If the
program is so very weak, would it not make
more sense to give it every possible chance?

(Just giving him a hard time.)


I generally take White against the lower
levels, intending to play a casual style game,
as in (very slow) blitz chess. For when I have
been requested to test the program's latest
"improvements", I will normally take Black
against the middle or higher levels, trying to
level the field just a bit. I find it can take
somewhat longer to win as Black, for instance,
because when the GC program does its p-h3
thing, I merely gain back the tempo I was
behind from the very start.


-- help bot







 
Date: 28 Jan 2008 11:27:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
On Jan 27, 6:54 am, Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] > wrote:


> > I think Normal Level is good enough for most of the Strong players.

> You think wrongly. It took me just routine moves, not playing
> particularly accurate to beat it easily.

This sounds like a description of a single game--
not exactly the approach a "scientist" might have
tried. Indeed, Sanny himself has posted bizarre-
looking results of such games here, including
where his program was miniaturized in ways I've
never seen it play against me.


> It is indeed a bit stronger
> since last time I played it, but it is still no match for a strong
> player. I would estimate its strength on Normal Level somewhere around
> 1400, give or take a hundred points. Not much more.

This guy is a bit fruit-loopy; I'll wager the
Normal level would demolish a 100-man team
of USCF 1400s by a wide gin, in spite of
there being no time restriction on the humans,
while the program now generally follows its set
limit which, for it, is very restrictive.

Recently, I did play *one* 1400-type who was
stronger, but then, he decimated all the other
players in the field, so obviously his rating was
not accurate, relative to others.


> And by the way: you finally should teach your program: if there is only
> one legal move: make it.

There are many such issues like this one.
I see no way in which making the "only" legal
move could hurt the program's results, so it
would be seen as an obvious improvement by
the users. However, in view of GC's history,
it is far from clear that the program "knows"
there was but one legal move, even *after* it
has played the move!


My ballpark estimate (I certainly can't claim
any particular accuracy here) for the Normal
level would be to add Sanny's over-optimistic
number to Mr. Clallenberg's, then divide the
result by two. I would say they fairly represent
the two extremes of the lunatic fringe.

Another way to look at this would be to try
and compare the move times taken by the
human opponents with the times taken by the
Normal level. I expect that some, if not all, of
the braggers here were struggling to move as
fast as they talk. OTOH, we cannot be certain
that all of them were not themselves using a
commercial chess program, in which case a
few seconds per move would be more than
adequate to the task at hand. In fact, I think
a few program could tackle Sanny's program
while "thinking", say, one second per move (or
even less).

This is mainly the dread result of "the boy who
cried: wolf!"; many moons ago, I tried to warn
Sanny that if he persisted in overstating his
program's strength and "improvements", the
result would be that no one would believe
anything he said. Time has passed, and it is
time to pay the (pied) piper (of Hamilin). Now,
it would almost require a miracle before any of
these injured townspeople would admit to
seeing a small fox at GetClub, or even a rat
terrier... .


-- help bot






  
Date: 29 Jan 2008 06:40:20
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
28.01.2008 20:27, help bot:

> This sounds like a description of a single game--
> not exactly the approach a "scientist" might have
> tried.

I never pretended to have a scientifc approach to that.

Indeed, Sanny himself has posted bizarre-
> looking results of such games here, including
> where his program was miniaturized in ways I've
> never seen it play against me.

The question is: whicht style do you use against it? I can see, that if
you jump right at the program, it might be able to defend itself. But I
played a quite slow setup and switched gear only after a mistake on its
side (which didn't take too long), and even then I didn't try to finish
it as fast as possible. The basic problem with Sannys program: it
doesn't know what to do when there is no immediate threat. In those
situations it tends to make silly moves and creates severe positional
weaknesses. It might have gained some tactical abilities over the time,
but has still no knowledge about positional factors. Also something
under which GC clearly suffers: horizon problem. In my game it went into
a situation, where it could prolong immediate loss of material for a
while by attacking my queen. So, Sanny obviously hasn't implemented the
increase of search depth in forced variations. This is a severe weak
spot of the program.

>
> This guy is a bit fruit-loopy; I'll wager the
> Normal level would demolish a 100-man team
> of USCF 1400s by a wide gin, in spite of
> there being no time restriction on the humans,
> while the program now generally follows its set
> limit which, for it, is very restrictive.

The thing is: it has tactical abilities which might go beyond a 1400.
But it has severe limitations a 1400 usually doesn't have. From your
reks you made here in the past, I read that you got problems if your
attack didn't go through and GC was left with the upper hand. But a 1400
wouldn't play this way against it. A 1400 has some basic idea how to
develop, where to put the pieces etc. GC has nearly no idea about such
things. The question is: could GC beat a player which is not overly
ambitious of beating the shit out of the program right from the start?

I must admit, that we might talk about apples and oranges, when talking
about "1400". I have the German rating system in my mind, which is a bit
different from the US-scale. Just to give an idea: the average German
club player has a rating somewhere between 1600 und 1700. But
nevertheless, for me it's not a bid deal, whether normal level has 1400
or 1600 - fact is, a strong player shouldn't have a big problem beating it.

Greetings,
Ralf


 
Date: 28 Jan 2008 09:43:50
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
On Jan 28, 7:21=A0pm, Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jan 28, 7:23 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yes I saw that Game. That Game was won because Blacks Queen & Bishop
> > Got Pin by your Rook. So it lost 2 points in the beginning only. I
> > think this game was won because of Luck.
>
> Listen man, this had nothing to do with luck. Your program played
> poorly, that's it.
>
> > Play a few games more say 5
> > and tell =A0me how many of them you can win.
>
> I won't do anything of this sort. It's a waste of time.
>
> > The Game was won because of that Bishop got Pin by rook.
>
> Yes, and this shouldn't have happened. Good players avoid their pieces
> to get pinned.
>
>
>
> > Here is the Game you played. Except 15..... Qd8-d7 I find all other
> > moves were quite good.
>
> You might, I don't. Your program played the opening poorly and then
> got destroyed. It didn't show any resistance afterwards.
>
> I asked you a question: How many rated players have you played in your
> live?
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf

I am not a chess player. I have never played any tournaments. I play
Chess only sometimes. I am beaten by GetClub Beginner Level Every
time. So I have a rating of arround 1100-1200. I do not understand
much in Chess only that pieces should be saved.

What are things that need to be seen other than material advantage?

You said it It didn't show any resistance afterwards? What type of
moves should it have played?

Bye
Sanny


  
Date: 29 Jan 2008 07:18:18
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
28.01.2008 18:43, Sanny:

> I am not a chess player. I have never played any tournaments. I play
> Chess only sometimes. I am beaten by GetClub Beginner Level Every
> time. So I have a rating of arround 1100-1200. I do not understand
> much in Chess only that pieces should be saved.

And that's exactly my point. To you those numbers "1400", "1800", "2000"
have no meaning. Even the 1100 you provide yourself is a quite
optimistic guess. You haven't the slightest idea which strength to
connect with those levels, you just make them up when you assign them to
your program. In my experience, playes who never played tournament
players have no clue how strong an average club player is. They beat
consistently all friends and family members and think they have some
strength. But when they walk into a chess club, they get beaten easily
even by the weaker players there - much to their amazement.

To give you a rough idea: a player around 1500, 1600 is not particularly
strong - but he would massacre you on the board with ease. And such a
1500, 1600 wouldn't stand a 2000 player (a level, where I would say, we
might start talking about strong players). And a 2000 player would be
quite happy to get 1 point out of 10 games against an International
Master. And such an IM is lost against current commercial chess programs
on decent hardware.

If you really want to get a rough idea about how strong your program is:
get yourself a cheap copy of Fritz. It has a function to evaluate the
strength of its component. It is a very rough estimate - but it might
give you an idea. If you are not able to even get hands on an old Fritz
7 or 8 - there are plenty of free programs around on the internet. Not
all of them are as strong as Fritz and Rybka, made by amateurs just for
fun. Look for those programs, download them and let them play against
yours - and see what happens. Only then you will be able to come up with
some "numbers" for the level of your program.

> What are things that need to be seen other than material advantage?

Positional play. That you got an idea where to put the pieces and what
to do when there is no immediate threat. To come up with long range
ideas, which you can't "calculate", but where you know, that in the long
run, it will lead to something. Chess programmers over the years came up
with ways to circumvent the limitations of the limited chess knowledge
they can provide their programs. They look at the mobility of the
pieces, where on the board they are located and so on, and they searched
for ways to weigh those factors against each other to reach strong
levels. If you want to learn about this, you have to study the
literature and look at Open Source programs. You will not be able to
"detect" it by yourself, just based on some hints you might get in this
forum.

Greetings,
Ralf


  
Date: 28 Jan 2008 14:31:23
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: com>
3441 wrote:
> I am beaten by GetClub Beginner Level Every
> time. So I have a rating of arround 1100-1200.

Does not follow.


Are you ignorant, or lying?

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


 
Date: 28 Jan 2008 06:21:30
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
On Jan 28, 7:23 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> Yes I saw that Game. That Game was won because Blacks Queen & Bishop
> Got Pin by your Rook. So it lost 2 points in the beginning only. I
> think this game was won because of Luck.

Listen man, this had nothing to do with luck. Your program played
poorly, that's it.


> Play a few games more say 5
> and tell me how many of them you can win.

I won't do anything of this sort. It's a waste of time.

> The Game was won because of that Bishop got Pin by rook.

Yes, and this shouldn't have happened. Good players avoid their pieces
to get pinned.

>
> Here is the Game you played. Except 15..... Qd8-d7 I find all other
> moves were quite good.

You might, I don't. Your program played the opening poorly and then
got destroyed. It didn't show any resistance afterwards.


I asked you a question: How many rated players have you played in your
live?

Greetings,
Ralf


 
Date: 27 Jan 2008 22:23:48
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
> > I dont think you have played with Normal Level soon.
>
> I have clearly stated, that I played it recently. The game was a few
> hours ago. Nickname S65. You may look it up yourself.


Yes I saw that Game. That Game was won because Blacks Queen & Bishop
Got Pin by your Rook. So it lost 2 points in the beginning only. I
think this game was won because of Luck. Play a few games more say 5
and tell me how many of them you can win. The Game was won because of
that Bishop got Pin by rook.

Here is the Game you played. Except 15..... Qd8-d7 I find all other
moves were quite good.

Game Played between s65 and normal at GetClub.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s65: (White)
normal: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM15187&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White -- Black
(s65) -- (normal)

1. c2-c4{4} e7-e6{0}
2. Ng1-f3{6} d7-d5{0}
3. e2-e3{10} Ng8-f6{112}
4. Nb1-c3{18} Nb8-c6{130}
5. c4-d5{88} Nf6-d5{104}
6. Bf1-b5{6} Bc8-d7{132}
7. Nc3-d5{78} e6-d5{106}
8. Qd1-b3{14} a7-a6{126}
9. Bb5-e2{26} Bd7-f5{122}
10. Ke1-g1{136} b7-b5{88}
11. a2-a4{74} b5-b4{110}
12. d2-d3{54} h7-h6{86}
13. e3-e4{18} d5-e4{122}
14. d3-e4{8} Bf5-e6{82}
15. Qb3-c2{36} Qd8-d7{128}
16. Rf1-d1{20} Bf8-d6{194}
17. e4-e5{6} Be6-f5{84}
18. Be2-d3{134} b4-b3{90}
19. Qc2-e2{38} Bd6-c5{110}
20. Bd3-a6{166} Nc6-d4{154}
21. Nf3-d4{6} Bc5-d4{106}
22. Bc1-e3{6} Qd7-e6{124}
23. Ba6-b5{44} c7-c6{122}
24. Bb5-c4{48} Bf5-g4{110}
25. Qe2-d3{14} Qe6-d7{98}
26. Qd3-d4{14} Bg4-d1{142}
27. Qd4-d7{8} Ke8-d7{96}
28. Ra1-d1{4} Kd7-c7{132}
29. Bc4-b3{42} g7-g5{148}
30. Bb3-f7{40} Rh8-d8{98}
31. Rd1-d8{34} Ra8-d8{104}
32. Kg1-f1{16} Kc7-b8{146}
33. e5-e6{10} Rd8-c8{106}
34. e6-e7{16} Kb8-b7{80}
35. a4-a5{8} Kb7-a6{110}
36. Be3-b6{4} c6-c5{110}
37. Bf7-c4{8} Ka6-b7{108}
38. Bb6-d8{4} g5-g4{116}
39. a5-a6{26} Kb7-a8{92}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s65: (White)
normal: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM15187&game=Chess

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html



 
Date: 27 Jan 2008 08:36:46
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
> > I think Normal Level is good enough for most of the Strong players.
>
> You think wrongly. It took me just routine moves, not playing
> particularly accurate to beat it easily. It is indeed a bit stronger
> since last time I played it, but it is still no match for a strong
> player. I would estimate its strength on Normal Level somewhere around
> 1400, give or take a hundred points. Not much more.

I dont think you have played with Normal Level soon. Just play and
show me your recorded game. I am sure Normal Level will win as Only
Help Bot has managed to beat Normal Level. Other Players not even able
to beat the Beginner Level.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


  
Date: 28 Jan 2008 00:54:54
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
27.01.2008 17:36, Sanny:

> I dont think you have played with Normal Level soon.

I have clearly stated, that I played it recently. The game was a few
hours ago. Nickname S65. You may look it up yourself.

> I am sure Normal Level will win as Only
> Help Bot has managed to beat Normal Level.

That's just because he is probably the only decent player who bothers
playing against your program on a regular basis.

> Other Players not even able to beat the Beginner Level.

Those other players might be beginners in chess - like you.

Sanny, have you ever played a few games against tournament players (i.e.
players with some sort of rating) of different strengths?

Greetings,
Ralf


 
Date: 27 Jan 2008 00:37:08
From: Sanny
Subject: GetClub is Strong Engine.
> > =A0My most interesting games are the ones at
> >GetClub; indeed, the program could be fairly
> > described as "half-blind", much like your
> > opponent.
>
> Getclub is a weak engine, everyone but you laughs at - I suppose to invest=


I am happy to know there are a few people who still thinks GetClub is
weak Engine.

These people are either of these.

1. They have never Played the Game at GetClub.

For them Just play and see for yourself.

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

2. You may have played 6 months back when it was really weak.

Come on Now getclub Chess plays better than ever. Now it is even
difficult to beat the Beginner Level. Only those taking help from
Computer are able to win the Higher Levels.

3. GetClub Chess plays very Slow.

Now, Beginner Level Makes Moves in just 6-10 seconds. No more waiting.
Still the moves are very strong. If you are really tough player then
you should try Easy & Normal Levels.

Play Chess at:: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

I think Normal Level is good enough for most of the Strong players.
Still for Grand Masters we have Master Level & Advance Levels. Which
think for 5-10 min / Move giving extremely difficult game to win.

But for Most Players Beginner Level is Sufficient which makes moves in
6-10 seconds. It is very difficult to get higher rating now. I see
each players rating is going down as the Levels are playing much
stronger than ever. Only those players who have left playing when it
used to play weak are at the Top.

Now it is very difficult even to mantain your rating from falling.
However only Help Bot Manages to get Higher Ratings. That prooves Help
Bot is really good players. If you think you are better than him then
beat his Scores. But without help from COMPUTERS.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at:: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


  
Date: 27 Jan 2008 12:54:31
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: GetClub is Strong Engine.
27.01.2008 09:37, Sanny:

> I am happy to know there are a few people who still thinks GetClub is
> weak Engine.
>
> These people are either of these.
>
> 1. They have never Played the Game at GetClub.
[..]
>
> 2. You may have played 6 months back when it was really weak.
>

You forgot a third option: those who know something about chess.

> Now it is even
> difficult to beat the Beginner Level.

It is not. Well, maybe it is for you.

> I think Normal Level is good enough for most of the Strong players.

You think wrongly. It took me just routine moves, not playing
particularly accurate to beat it easily. It is indeed a bit stronger
since last time I played it, but it is still no match for a strong
player. I would estimate its strength on Normal Level somewhere around
1400, give or take a hundred points. Not much more.

And by the way: you finally should teach your program: if there is only
one legal move: make it.

Greetings,
Ralf


 
Date: 26 Jan 2008 13:41:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 26, 3:46 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Speaking of grandstanding egos... what point is
> > there in a challenge when the opponent can, if he
> > chooses, fire up Rybka and win virtually any
> > position?
>
> True! But in these 700 games I have found only 3 people doing that, weak
> anbd strong players, so maybe your suspicions are unwarranted?

In my experience at ChessWorld, *nobody*
used Rybka (see my results-- no tough draws,
for instance. ; >D )

But is it unreasonable for Mr. Sloan to refuse
to play someone remotely, who *could* fire up
a chess program at any time-- even for one
move? I don't think so; I believe his request
to play real chess, mano a mano, was quite
reasonable.


> But this has
> nothing to do with egos, this has to do with paranoia, yours.

T'was SS who objected to playing Rybka,
not I! I am unafraid of stupid chess programs.

You are aware that without its openings book,
even Rybka will play moves like 1. Nc3, no?
In fact, it thinks 1. Nc3! Nc6! is perfect play
for both sides. (What a duffer!) I say, bring it
on, big daddy!


> Getclub is a weak engine, everyone but you laughs at

...And runs from! Even 2300+ TK has cut and
run, protecting his supposed "goal" of 50-0 by
getting out before the going got tough. Unless
you suffer from mental rigormortis, it is obvious
that the program is still improving.


> What is your opiniopn to me?

It's obviously Andean, not Latin or Chinese.
But I have to admit, I'm stumped; I'm really
not into the vocabulary-ego thing. To me,
one language is sufficient-- American.


-- help bot




 
Date: 26 Jan 2008 11:20:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 26, 8:35 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> >> Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered
> >> anyone less than 2100.
>
> > Not in person, you haven't!

> see answer to mike murray - who needs special effects for special people?
> for me its about the chess, not grandstanding egos

Speaking of grandstanding egos... what point is
there in a challenge when the opponent can, if he
chooses, fire up Rybka and win virtually any
position? No, in spite of all the talk about Mr.
Sloan's personal habits, I think it is ludicrous to
play a grunge match under conditions which
allow for wanton cheating, on a whim; it defeats
the whole purpose of such a match (destroying
the other guy's ego, etc.).


> the most interesting pair of games i have going at the moment is with a
> blind-person in yugoslavia - he has dropped a piece in one, but is level in
> the other at abt move 14

My most interesting games are the ones at
GetClub; indeed, the program could be fairly
described as "half-blind", much like your
opponent.


> look greg, i never refused to play anyone here, am not interested in special
> person status, and chess is a game of doing, not not doing and mouthing off
> instead

It's a fine line-- between "doing" and bragging.

This is where the Evans ratpack seem to get
confused, recognizing Mr. Sloan as a "doer"
and nearly-IMnes as a wannabe, a bragger--
and yet they cannot admit this publicly.

Me, I don't brag about my alleged results in
some far away land, of which there is no record;
but I will relate stories of such events-- not to
provide a basis for any claims of greatness or
nearly-IMdom, but merely for the content.


> i just took about 20 years off from playing serious chess, and if i can
> score 2200 playing fellow vermonters and a few others at U Mass after that,
> then maybe that isn't luck?

"If" you can do this and "if" you can do that,
then do it, my boy; don't talk about doing it!

The critics have nothing whatever to go by
apart from the public records of the sinister
organization known as the USCF; and by
those records, you seem to be struggling
well below the nearly-an-IM level of late. It
is obvious that playing in person negates
any advantages a player might have from
his computer at home, and subjects him to
cruel rules of time-management and so
forth. OTOH, everybody is on a level field,
which makes for decent comparisons.


> of course, you are not really interested in this
> stuff at all, right? you didn't join in the rgcp team

I was invited by Rob "da robber" Mitchell to join
some peculiarly ratpackish teams, and declined.

Note well that any foolish notions regarding
securing a "master" -- relying upon imaginary
syntax anal-thingies -- would be a grave error.
Look over some of my GetClub games and
get the real picture; I think it would probably
let people down if I signed up under false
pretenses, then played like the fish I am... .


OK, here's my best offer: I will play Slam
Stoned, but not for any huge sum of money
(because I believe many people cheat under
such circumstances). If a Mr. Slater type
wants to double the prize money, I'll play for
a huge sum. But know this: I've been, um,
training sort of, against computers (and I
don't mean just GetClub!). Mr. Sloan's
funky chess openings do not impress me in
the least; I've seen worse at my local club,
and yes, at GetClubbed as well. I'm a
stupid-chess openings specialist.


-- help bot







  
Date: 26 Jan 2008 15:46:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jan 26, 8:35 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily
>> >> slaughtered
>> >> anyone less than 2100.
>>
>> > Not in person, you haven't!
>
>> see answer to mike murray - who needs special effects for special people?
>> for me its about the chess, not grandstanding egos
>
> Speaking of grandstanding egos... what point is
> there in a challenge when the opponent can, if he
> chooses, fire up Rybka and win virtually any
> position?

True! But in these 700 games I have found only 3 people doing that, weak
anbd strong players, so maybe your suspicions are unwarranted? But this has
nothing to do with egos, this has to do with paranoia, yours.

> No, in spite of all the talk about Mr.
> Sloan's personal habits, I think it is ludicrous to
> play a grunge match under conditions which
> allow for wanton cheating, on a whim; it defeats
> the whole purpose of such a match (destroying
> the other guy's ego, etc.).

And so you reduce yourself to what no real chess players here experience as
any thing common to their experience, and instead, you use it to be
sceptical. Let's face it Greg, you can only get better if you play. If you
don't then you are just a paranoic protester.

>> the most interesting pair of games i have going at the moment is with a
>> blind-person in yugoslavia - he has dropped a piece in one, but is level
>> in
>> the other at abt move 14
>
> My most interesting games are the ones at
> GetClub; indeed, the program could be fairly
> described as "half-blind", much like your
> opponent.

Getclub is a weak engine, everyone but you laughs at - I suppose to invest
your time and then to triumph over it is to award the spammer his due.

>> look greg, i never refused to play anyone here, am not interested in
>> special
>> person status, and chess is a game of doing, not not doing and mouthing
>> off
>> instead
>
> It's a fine line-- between "doing" and bragging.

Just shut up and play - like the rest of us. Are you, like Sloan, a
*special* person? ROFL. If you play there is nothing to bullshit about. Its
just chess. And you win some you lose some.

> This is where the Evans ratpack seem to get
> confused, recognizing Mr. Sloan as a "doer"
> and nearly-IMnes as a wannabe, a bragger--
> and yet they cannot admit this publicly.
>
> Me, I don't brag about my alleged results in
> some far away land, of which there is no record;

No. You never left your cornfields and have nothing to brag about! Ker-ist!
Who is it but you non-playing commentators who ever makes a big deal about
ratings? If you were a player you would understand that it is always
relative to someone else, and those people are always better.

If you want to whine for a living, the best thing to do is pick on
substantially stonger players than yourself, and mouth off for years!!
ROFL - which is like you and Brennan, right?

> but I will relate stories of such events-- not to
> provide a basis for any claims of greatness or
> nearly-IMdom, but merely for the content.
>
>
>> i just took about 20 years off from playing serious chess, and if i can
>> score 2200 playing fellow vermonters and a few others at U Mass after
>> that,
>> then maybe that isn't luck?
>
> "If" you can do this and "if" you can do that,
> then do it, my boy; don't talk about doing it!

I do do it!

> The critics have nothing whatever to go by
> apart from the public records of the sinister
> organization known as the USCF; and by
> those records, you seem to be struggling
> well below the nearly-an-IM level of late. It
> is obvious that playing in person negates
> any advantages a player might have from
> his computer at home, and subjects him to
> cruel rules of time-management and so
> forth. OTOH, everybody is on a level field,
> which makes for decent comparisons.

Some show up and play, don't talk about it - then you can find out for
yourself. If you want to keep finding excuses for not playing chess, carry
on! What is your opiniopn to me?

>
>> of course, you are not really interested in this
>> stuff at all, right? you didn't join in the rgcp team
>
> I was invited by Rob "da robber" Mitchell to join
> some peculiarly ratpackish teams, and declined.

Ah...

Let us end this here, since you have been called by all sorts of people to
put up or shut up.

I think by your own continued words, we can understand how you are, and why
you write at all ;)

meanwhile, this thread is not about you or Brennan, its about USCF coming
clean or not. That you both pervert this to your own ideas and resentments
is also a perversion - your perverison.

Everyone has met people like you full of opinions on others, but who don't
risk anything themselves. There is substantially more at stake here than
your shy engagement with events, paranoia, and resentment of anyone who
knows stuff.

Get it yet Greg?

Not about you - its about real players, their choices. Not their suspicions.
But their judgment given all the information.

Phil Innes

> Note well that any foolish notions regarding
> securing a "master" -- relying upon imaginary
> syntax anal-thingies -- would be a grave error.
> Look over some of my GetClub games and
> get the real picture; I think it would probably
> let people down if I signed up under false
> pretenses, then played like the fish I am... .
>
>
> OK, here's my best offer: I will play Slam
> Stoned, but not for any huge sum of money
> (because I believe many people cheat under
> such circumstances). If a Mr. Slater type
> wants to double the prize money, I'll play for
> a huge sum. But know this: I've been, um,
> training sort of, against computers (and I
> don't mean just GetClub!). Mr. Sloan's
> funky chess openings do not impress me in
> the least; I've seen worse at my local club,
> and yes, at GetClubbed as well. I'm a
> stupid-chess openings specialist.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>




 
Date: 26 Jan 2008 05:40:30
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 25, 2:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:27 am, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jan 25, 7:57 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the
> >> > > Sloan
> >> > > suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville,
> >> > > including
> >> > > the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the
> >> > > opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville,
> >> > > [received
> >> > > overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar.
>
> >> > Oh, the latest "final response", in other words.
>
> >> > > When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both
> >> > > editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups.
>
> >> > Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as
> >> > any of the three.
>
> >> <<shrug>> I read it simply being information.
>
> > Why did he feel the need to give us permission to do what we would do
> > anyway?
>
> The culprit is the usual lack of understanding by Brennan, who is ever
> confused by multi-phrase sentences. Nowhere did I use the word 'permission',
> and whether its "warning, threat or permission", all three or none, seems to
> be simply the terms used by those who are so very /anxious/ about this
> issue. There are certainly other ways to characterise the issue.
>
> The sense of the material I wrote is to first allow it a big public view,
> and then to make commentary on it.

This must mean Paul Truong is going to allow the USCF attorneys access
to his IP records.

There is no new 'final response' by
> Polgar, but instead a reiteration of what she predicted would happen - with
> perhaps some additional emphasis indicated after the board's response, on
> the consequences of declining to open up.

In other words, the latest final response, with empty threats.

> My mailbag is already full of GM commentary [with an IM here and there]

Real titled players, or phony ones like yourself?

all,
> so far, supportive of Polgar. Now all chess players can also comment on what
> seems right and fair to them. After digesting the exchange sufficiently, I
> feel assured we will be entertained by more than a bunch of hot-heads here,
> by people who /do/ want to see the whole picture before committing to
> judgment.
>
> That was, and remains, the issue.
>
> Phil Innes



  
Date: 26 Jan 2008 11:13:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...

>> The culprit is the usual lack of understanding by Brennan, who is ever
>> confused by multi-phrase sentences. Nowhere did I use the word
>> 'permission',
>> and whether its "warning, threat or permission", all three or none, seems
>> to
>> be simply the terms used by those who are so very /anxious/ about this
>> issue. There are certainly other ways to characterise the issue.
>>
>> The sense of the material I wrote is to first allow it a big public view,
>> and then to make commentary on it.
>
> This must mean Paul Truong is going to allow the USCF attorneys access
> to his IP records.

Having already confounded the issue in his mind by inserting the word
'permission', Brennan now insists on what something 'must mean'. How he
should twice evolve his commentary from the statement before it, and why any
imperative 'must', is best known to himself. If he has comprehension
problems he should consult a philologist or stick to reading Winnie the
Pooh.

> There is no new 'final response' by
>> Polgar, but instead a reiteration of what she predicted would happen -
>> with
>> perhaps some additional emphasis indicated after the board's response, on
>> the consequences of declining to open up.
>
> In other words, the latest final response, with empty threats.

That again is a paraphrase so obtuse that it almost defies belief anyone
could write it. If what Polgar and Truong are saying is 'open it up' and
others decline to do so, which was their own prediction, they merely refer
to the /content/ they made before. What is 'final' about it seems to me to
be how far they are willing to go to cooperate with anyone - and in fact,
what or who limits any other possible cooperation.

Quite obviously, if USCF say that materials may not be vented, based on
their legal advice, neither can anyone else access the same materials.

>> My mailbag is already full of GM commentary [with an IM here and there]
>
> Real titled players, or phony ones like yourself?

How would you know? You don't write about chess - 99% percent of your posts
here and elsewhere are about trashing people. More trash about more people
than the FSS ever did. Maybe 5 times as much? 10 times? How you can
possibly pretend any interest in caring about cyber-abuse or chess, is
again, a subject known only to yourself, and the reverend re-mailer, plus
one or two other people spinning for a living, instead on any attention to
subject matter.

With such a record, its nothing to any point to protest it! It is a
demonstrated record - as any one can see.

Phil Innes

> all,
>> so far, supportive of Polgar. Now all chess players can also comment on
>> what
>> seems right and fair to them. After digesting the exchange sufficiently,
>> I
>> feel assured we will be entertained by more than a bunch of hot-heads
>> here,
>> by people who /do/ want to see the whole picture before committing to
>> judgment.
>>
>> That was, and remains, the issue.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>




 
Date: 25 Jan 2008 15:11:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 25, 5:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Indeed - this is a truism from our corn-fed, yet after 700 games against
> all-comers this past year, I don't see no Sloans showing up to do the same.
> Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered
> anyone less than 2100.

Not in person, you haven't!


> Perhaps chess is more to do with doing than with whatever the kibitzers 'are
> thinking', and certainly are saying? There seems to be a noted proclivity in
> ability :: lack of chess commentary.
>
> If any of these boys were ever interested in chess - and here as an aside to
> take offence at Larry Parr; what is it he thinks cornbot was an aspirant to?
> A class 'c' player ain't exactly any contendah!

In Vermont, perhaps; but where I'm at, a Class C
player can win a 5-round Swiss. In fact, I'm not
even sure that guy was as high as Class C; he
may technically be in the D class. Damned
sandbaggers!

To me, it would be a titanic insult to have my
handler pay lip service to my nearly-a-great-
player status, then turn around and embarrass
me by backing someone like Sam Sloan-- a
lowly Class A type. But it seems that the
ratpackers are immune to such incongruities;
they have no ability to detect their own gross
hypocrisies, nor can they seem to see any
problem in simultaneously accusing TK of
"lying" about his rating, while endorsing the
big lie of nearly-an-IM Innes' title and rating
claims. In short, they are as dumb as short
planks (or "boxes of rocks", in American
English).


-- help bot


  
Date: 26 Jan 2008 08:35:17
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 25, 5:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Indeed - this is a truism from our corn-fed, yet after 700 games against
>> all-comers this past year, I don't see no Sloans showing up to do the
>> same.
>> Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered
>> anyone less than 2100.
>
> Not in person, you haven't!

see answer to mike murray - who needs special effects for special people?
for me its about the chess, not grandstanding egos

>> Perhaps chess is more to do with doing than with whatever the kibitzers
>> 'are
>> thinking', and certainly are saying? There seems to be a noted proclivity
>> in
>> ability :: lack of chess commentary.
>>
>> If any of these boys were ever interested in chess - and here as an aside
>> to
>> take offence at Larry Parr; what is it he thinks cornbot was an aspirant
>> to?
>> A class 'c' player ain't exactly any contendah!
>
> In Vermont, perhaps;

the most interesting pair of games i have going at the moment is with a
blind-person in yugoslavia - he has dropped a piece in one, but is level in
the other at abt move 14

> but where I'm at, a Class C
> player can win a 5-round Swiss. In fact, I'm not
> even sure that guy was as high as Class C; he
> may technically be in the D class. Damned
> sandbaggers!
>
> To me, it would be a titanic insult to have my
> handler pay lip service to my nearly-a-great-
> player status, then turn around and embarrass
> me by backing someone like Sam Sloan-- a
> lowly Class A type. But it seems that the
> ratpackers are immune to such incongruities;

when you use that term, do you mean 'actual chess players?'

> they have no ability to detect their own gross
> hypocrisies, nor can they seem to see any
> problem in simultaneously accusing TK of
> "lying" about his rating, while endorsing the
> big lie of nearly-an-IM Innes' title and rating
> claims.

look greg, i never refused to play anyone here, am not interested in special
person status, and chess is a game of doing, not not doing and mouthing off
instead

i just took about 20 years off from playing serious chess, and if i can
score 2200 playing fellow vermonters and a few others at U Mass after that,
then maybe that isn't luck? of course, you are not really interested in this
stuff at all, right? you didn't join in the rgcp team or even stick around
much, but if you admit that its an //excuse// not to play, because all
others are cheating or something, then you would either have to shut up, or
put up

but please don't go on for another 6 years stuck between the horns of your
self-made dilemma, sinc it really is all about you, dude!

phil innes

> In short, they are as dumb as short
> planks (or "boxes of rocks", in American
> English).
>
>
> -- help bot




 
Date: 25 Jan 2008 09:55:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 23, 9:26 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> Another example of P Innes and his wonderful "stylistic" analysis.
> Only P Innes is capable of deducing that David Kane and Mike Murray
> are one and the same poster.

Idunno. If Larry Parr were to do a "syntax
analysis", it might turn out that DK, MM, and
the three fake-Taylor Kingstons were all one
and the same person... .

But one thing cannot be faked, and that it
amazing, astounding, and incredible chess
skill! This is why the Evans ratpackers always
go with Sam Sloan rather than nearly-IMnes
when it comes to their choice for the annual
grunge match (yes, grunge). Behind their
countless lies, the truth comes out in their
*actions*: not one believes in nearly-IMnes'
chess skill being comparable to SS's.

In any case, none of nearly-IMnes' many
critics is a writer of any significance, apart
from Mr. Orwell, who wrote: "who the hell is
Phil Innes?"


-- hep blot



  
Date: 25 Jan 2008 17:08:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jan 23, 9:26 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Another example of P Innes and his wonderful "stylistic" analysis.
>> Only P Innes is capable of deducing that David Kane and Mike Murray
>> are one and the same poster.
>
> Idunno. If Larry Parr were to do a "syntax
> analysis", it might turn out that DK, MM, and
> the three fake-Taylor Kingstons were all one
> and the same person... .
>
> But one thing cannot be faked, and that it
> amazing, astounding, and incredible chess
> skill! This is why the Evans ratpackers always
> go with Sam Sloan rather than nearly-IMnes
> when it comes to their choice for the annual
> grunge match (yes, grunge). Behind their
> countless lies, the truth comes out in their
> *actions*: not one believes in nearly-IMnes'
> chess skill being comparable to SS's.

Indeed - this is a truism from our corn-fed, yet after 700 games against
all-comers this past year, I don't see no Sloans showing up to do the same.
Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered
anyone less than 2100.

Perhaps chess is more to do with doing than with whatever the kibitzers 'are
thinking', and certainly are saying? There seems to be a noted proclivity in
ability :: lack of chess commentary.

If any of these boys were ever interested in chess - and here as an aside to
take offence at Larry Parr; what is it he thinks cornbot was an aspirant to?
A class 'c' player ain't exactly any contendah!

And since on the same scale as myself cornbot managed something like 1500,
compared with 2300, but plays Sanny's engine at genius level, and beats it
... snore :)))

What do all these protestations mean? Clearly cornbot needs to read more to
even overcome the errors of other writers, which he often rightly senses are
there, but cannot adequately address from his own wit, nor really correct
them [except for Fischer's bad play, of course], but more significant is his
absense from actual chess commentary - if he were actually a contendah! he
might have a go, no? But in all these years, he don't. So he probably is a
contendah to C, maybe even B class.

But he don't actually do neither. And here he hob-nobs with an even greater
chessic numbskull, the resident Eyeore named Brennan.

What a sad cast they throw together:

As if a general misanthropy as result from [indicated, no more]
disspointment about one's own prospects in chess, should be piled on willful
ignorance and crass stupidity, as result of being a fat bastard.

<that is the name volunteered in another ng to the person by a certain
literat, who, like me, suggests that work reduces fat, and intellectual work
reduces fatousness >.

Phil Innes

> In any case, none of nearly-IMnes' many
> critics is a writer of any significance, apart
> from Mr. Orwell, who wrote: "who the hell is
> Phil Innes?"
>
>
> -- hep blot
>




   
Date: 25 Jan 2008 14:35:02
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:08:39 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:


>Indeed - this is a truism from our corn-fed, yet after 700 games against
>all-comers this past year, I don't see no Sloans showing up to do the same.
>Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered
>anyone less than 2100.


Didn't Sloan challenge you to a grudge match some time ago?


    
Date: 26 Jan 2008 08:24:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:08:39 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Indeed - this is a truism from our corn-fed, yet after 700 games against
>>all-comers this past year, I don't see no Sloans showing up to do the
>>same.
>>Maybe the commons is not his scene. Besides, I have merrily slaughtered
>>anyone less than 2100.
>
>
> Didn't Sloan challenge you to a grudge match some time ago?

for several thousand million hundred dollars, if i remember

but since half a dozen 'ordinary' people in this ng were already playing
each other, we suggested he play in the open, so to speak, where his
*special* behavioral effects would be nullified - he could even join our
team! but i don't think he's a joiner

it was about this time when our team captain who invited him to play was
banned by Sloan from his fide group, on the pretence that he didn't know if
the captain's name was real [and because of certain questions put to Sloan]

i suppose that's a way out of a very general challenge, and besides, i think
everyone was sick of everything Sloan having to be *special*

if Mr. Slaon really wanted to play chess, he should have a go at being one
of the people, and show up where others play - he missed a chance to play
yelena dembo, who took us all on, a massacre, of course ;)

now, i have about 10 boards still going, and i'm losing half of them to
people rated 2500-2800, besides Corus is just firing up for the final
rounds...

phil innes




 
Date: 25 Jan 2008 07:05:14
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 25, 9:27 am, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 7:57 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the Sloan
> > > suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, including
> > > the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the
> > > opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, [received
> > > overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar.
>
> > Oh, the latest "final response", in other words.
>
> > > When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both
> > > editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups.
>
> > Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as
> > any of the three.
>
> <<shrug>> I read it simply being information.

Why did he feel the need to give us permission to do what we would do
anyway?


  
Date: 25 Jan 2008 14:20:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jan 25, 9:27 am, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 7:57 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the
>> > > Sloan
>> > > suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville,
>> > > including
>> > > the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the
>> > > opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville,
>> > > [received
>> > > overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar.
>>
>> > Oh, the latest "final response", in other words.
>>
>> > > When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both
>> > > editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups.
>>
>> > Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as
>> > any of the three.
>>
>> <<shrug>> I read it simply being information.
>
> Why did he feel the need to give us permission to do what we would do
> anyway?

The culprit is the usual lack of understanding by Brennan, who is ever
confused by multi-phrase sentences. Nowhere did I use the word 'permission',
and whether its "warning, threat or permission", all three or none, seems to
be simply the terms used by those who are so very /anxious/ about this
issue. There are certainly other ways to characterise the issue.

The sense of the material I wrote is to first allow it a big public view,
and then to make commentary on it. There is no new 'final response' by
Polgar, but instead a reiteration of what she predicted would happen - with
perhaps some additional emphasis indicated after the board's response, on
the consequences of declining to open up.

My mailbag is already full of GM commentary [with an IM here and there] all,
so far, supportive of Polgar. Now all chess players can also comment on what
seems right and fair to them. After digesting the exchange sufficiently, I
feel assured we will be entertained by more than a bunch of hot-heads here,
by people who /do/ want to see the whole picture before committing to
judgment.

That was, and remains, the issue.

Phil Innes




 
Date: 25 Jan 2008 06:27:05
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 25, 7:57=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the Slo=
an
> > suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, includ=
ing
> > the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the
> > opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, [received=

> > overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar.
>
> Oh, the latest "final response", in other words.
>
> > When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both
> > editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups.
>
> Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as
> any of the three.

<<shrug >> I read it simply being information.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2008 05:57:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the Sloan
> suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, including
> the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the
> opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, [received
> overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar.

Oh, the latest "final response", in other words.

> When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both
> editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups.

Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as
any of the three.



 
Date: 24 Jan 2008 15:21:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 24, 5:45 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> 3 perversions and you are out of all reckoning. Join the perverts,

> Phil Innes


Why does nearly-IMnes keep ranting about
other people, trashing them? Why can't he
seem to write about /chess/?

It seems that most days, while I am busy
recounting my brilliant successes against
the Beginner level, all nearly-IMnes does is
bash Neil Brennan and dismiss every report
regarding the Fake Sam Sloan; what a
narrow repertoire... .


-- hep blot


  
Date: 24 Jan 2008 19:13:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jan 24, 5:45 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 3 perversions and you are out of all reckoning. Join the perverts,
>
>> Phil Innes
>
>
> Why does nearly-IMnes keep ranting about
> other people, trashing them? Why can't he
> seem to write about /chess/?

Greg, have a bash at writing about Corus if you are capable of it, instead
of cutting what i wrote to you and mouthing off about some idiotic and
utterly indifferent program spammer any master could defeat [given 3 days]
with their eyes closed.

> It seems that most days, while I am busy
> recounting my brilliant successes against
> the Beginner level, all nearly-IMnes does is
> bash Neil Brennan and dismiss every report
> regarding the Fake Sam Sloan; what a
> narrow repertoire... .

Chess itself is narrow - those who shout abuse about it for 6 years straight
is passed over with no comment?

If Greg Kennedy wanted to really address anything, then he would address his
own attitude, but he cuts that.

I suppose Kennedy's noise is simply a different form than other non-chess
writers achieve here. It does have the same motive though, sour resentment
of any achievement.

If the gent wishes to be taken seriously, he will not behave as the lowest
low-life here, with all its cowardly symptoms. If he has nothing to say at
all to other people that he wishes to actually discuss with them, perhaps he
will shut his mouth? That is his choice. I want to talk chess, not regret
those who do.

Phil Innes

>
> -- hep blot




 
Date: 24 Jan 2008 06:34:46
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 24, 9:30 am, "Chess One" <OneC[email protected] > wrote:
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> I am asking you why you think Paul Truong should be exempt
> >>> from consequences for his actions.
>
> >> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
> >> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand
> >> from you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you
> >> write is simply more perversion.
>
> > I am not asking you to comment on Trolgar's latest
> > story. (Has it ever stayed the same two weeks running?)
> > Those are not facts.
>
> > I am asking for your comment on the facts. Why do
> > you believe that Truong should not experience consequences
> > for posting 1000s of obscene messages in others' names?
>
> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
> you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is
> simply more perversion.
>
> > Repeating irrelevant, non-factual arguments tells us that
> > you don't believe Truong should experience consequences,
> > but it doesn't tell us *why* you believe that.
>
> > So I am asking.
>
> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
> you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is
> simply more perversion.
>
> PI

<snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks >

Mr. Innes,

I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.


  
Date: 24 Jan 2008 16:57:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0caafacf-dc20-4503-98aa-
>
> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.

neil brennan is only interested in trashing other people.

he has done so for 6 years
he does not even like chess
by any evidence of his writing
which is 99% trashing people

and he is merely a typical newsgroup abusenik
an idiot who uses this medium
to trash other people non-stop
since that is the only attention possible
for the likes of him

he is /particularly/ interested in not
opening up the doors so that anyone
could discover just how it is

since there is nothing whatever clean
about neil brennan
not in this newsgroup nor in others

he is unable to distinguish between
partisanship and openess, has consistently
said so, to please the small gallery here

that is his measure

if i were to investigate who was the fss
i would wonder very much why brennan
himself was absent when that dolt was most active

and stuggle to distinguish brennan's orientation
from the fss

since this is mere speculation, and that is the game here,
why not say so?

it is said that it only takes good people
to do nothing
for evil to flourish

and this is the state of us chess

such as brennan's postings and vile speculations
go unnoticed and unchallenged
by those who think rubbishing real merit
a bit of sport

think on that, won't you?

but do not neglect that uscf
are offered their own statement

since either susan polgar is lying
about recent events, or it is

or another

and nothing said on what
is so secret
that we can't attend on it

instead of these rubbishings
by noted stalkers and abuseniks?

that is the choice for any reader
to want to know all of it
or attend these people's comments

phil innes




   
Date: 24 Jan 2008 14:05:35
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:57:43 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

Phil might consider posting as "f f goings", since his writings are
progressing from bad to verse.


 
Date: 24 Jan 2008 06:32:45
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 23, 10:49 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
>
> >>>> Why do *you* believe that Paul Truong has a
> >>>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
> >>>> posing as others, without consequence?
>
> >>> David, I never I said I do feel that - you have written it twice now - while
> >>> ignoring this idea to open it up.
>
> >>> Therefore, I already know your evasions, and your lack of interest in
> >>> opening the doors of perception. Do not write that I believe anyone has any
> >>> write to 'post thousands of obscene messages'. How dare you!
>
> >> For months, you've been doing nothing but try to make excuses for the
> >> person who did just that. Asking why is a perfectly legitimate question.
>
> >> I suppose in Polgar's case, she's ried to him, which is an
> >> understandable excuse. What is *your* excuse?
>
> > David - you did this with Larry Parr - you put words in his mouth which he
> > never held - then when challenged you refused to correct your comment.
>
> > Secondly, asking for all parties to open up is not partisan! It is IMPARTIAL
> > justice, for one and all. Any thing /else/ is partisan.
>
> The *facts* create the question. Paul Truong posted thousands
> of obscene messages while posing as others. You repeatedly
> have argued that he should suffer no consequences, and applaud
> his and Susan's attempts to avoid them.

Not just that. He's argued that resources should be spent tracking
down the 'real' FSS. And curiously, the prime 'suspect' changes based
on who is arguing with P Innes at the time.


 
Date: 23 Jan 2008 07:44:52
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 22, 3:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Meanwhile in the above comment, I ask you to take the challenge - to find
> out who is clean or not.

OK. We have two published reports, Mottershead and Jones. One links
the FSS to Truong. The other confirms the findings of the first
without naming Truong. I think Mr. Truong needs to come clean first.



 
Date: 23 Jan 2008 07:38:08
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 23, 7:53 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> To take them in order; Greg Kennedy who can't own his name thinks what's
> fair is to lessen the names of those who can. Proabably, from a
> psychological basis, we could stop there.

The irony of Trolgar's defender making that criticism almost makes
one's head explode!


 
Date: 23 Jan 2008 06:27:51
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 22, 2:26 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
>
> >> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]
> >>> STATE OF PLAY
>
> >> Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
> >> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
> >> posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
> >> his behavior.
>
> > I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are
>
> You have called for transparency. The only mystery in the present matter
> is why some people feel that Truong's posting thousands of obscene messages
> while
> posing as others should not involve consequences.
>
> That is the question you should answer yourself, but also pose
> to other members of the EB who, to date, have given Truong
> a free ride.
>
> By the way, I am not Mike Murray, though I find his contributions
> the best this newsgroup has to offer.

I agree, David. Mike has been a beacon of sense amid the 'ignorant
anonymice clashing by night' over the Mottershead Report.


 
Date: 23 Jan 2008 06:26:08
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 22, 2:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> STATE OF PLAY
>
> > Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
> > right to post thousands of obscene messages while
> > posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
> > his behavior.
>
> I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are
> not brave enough to let a single word stand. Pleaser state why Mike Murray
> is such a //wussie// that he can't let other people's comments stand? ;)
>
> You are such a trite imbecile Murray! That is my opinion of you!
>
> > It is appalling that there have been no consequences
> > to date.
>
> Consequences to you, do you mean? You are not correct. You are shown to be
> what you are - a coward.
>
> You are not even worth discussing anything with, since you bravely CUT the
> //entire// appeal for all parties to act in the open, while continuing your
> agit-prop campaign here. That is all people need to know about one-issue
> Mike Murray.
>
> But I think there /are/ consequences to all this business - its just a
> matter of time until all is revealed, and you and the gang attain your just
> deserts. You may not have noticed that you have all been called, and still
> posture away!\
>
> Don't ask me more question when you cut the responses and tell people what I
> believe instead. That is the k of a coward. Is /that/ clear, Murray?
>
> ROFL
>
> Phil Innes

Another example of P Innes and his wonderful "stylistic" analysis.
Only P Innes is capable of deducing that David Kane and Mike Murray
are one and the same poster.


 
Date: 22 Jan 2008 14:56:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 22, 5:02 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Why do *you* believe that Paul Truong has a
> > right to post thousands of obscene messages while
> > posing as others, without consequence?
>
> David, I never I said I do feel that - you have written it twice now - while
> ignoring this idea to open it up.
>
> Therefore, I already know your evasions, and your lack of interest in
> opening the doors of perception. Do not write that I believe anyone has any
> write to 'post thousands of obscene messages'. How dare you!
>
> Whatever else you have to say, don't say it to me. You already know my
> opinion about your 'orientation'.

I think that's Skippy Repa you are thinking
of: ninety percent straight, ten percent bi-
curious.

---------------------------------------------------

Writers who claim to know something
about Paul Truong have opined that if
the SP/PT duo are involved, it must be
PT who is guilty, not SP. But what if
these "experts" are wrong? What if he
is covering for his wife? Then a whole
lot of accusations would turn out to have
missed the k. Who can blame a
man for attempting to protect his wife,
for not willingly handing over evidence
against her?


As for me, I find the Susan Polgar Web
site to be clear evidence of heinous
atrocities against Truth and Justice, so
accusations against the owner(s) and
creator(s) of that site are consistent
with what I've seen with my own eyes.

Hence, I am a bit lacking in sympathy,
or interest in defending the low scum
responsible-- whoever it might be. Not
to say I want to hang an innocent man...
far from it. I've seen what can happen
to those who make that mistake (gulp);
a tall rider comes looking for you, to
take his revenge... someone who looks
just like Clint Eastwood-- without the
beer-belly. Even Alan Hale could not
escape... .

But I think it is a fair question to ask
nearly-Innes why he kneejerk-defends
these two, and like other ratpackers,
ignores any and all "evidence" which
might implicate either of them. It is
certainly peculiar, in view of the many
attacks on others which had no real
evidence, and which were supported
by the evil ratpack. The about-face
regarding "innocent until proved guilty"
sticks out like a doubled h-pawn. It
indicates that this is no matter of
principle, but rather, one of personal
bias. And what does that say about
the real-world value of nearly-Innes'
opinions on this matter?


-- help bot





  
Date: 23 Jan 2008 07:53:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...

> But I think it is a fair question to ask
> nearly-Innes why he kneejerk-defends
> these two, and like other ratpackers,

that's 2 questions so far

> ignores any and all "evidence" which

that's 3

> might implicate either of them. It is
> certainly peculiar, in view of the many
> attacks on others which had no real
> evidence, and which were supported
> by the evil ratpack. The about-face
> regarding "innocent until proved guilty"
> sticks out like a doubled h-pawn. It
> indicates that this is no matter of
> principle, but rather, one of personal
> bias. And what does that say about
> the real-world value of nearly-Innes'
> opinions on this matter?

those are 4 and 5.

To take them in order; Greg Kennedy who can't own his name thinks what's
fair is to lessen the names of those who can. Proabably, from a
psychological basis, we could stop there.

But the 2nd is to call 'rat-packers' everyone who wants to write about chess
in the open - or even just want to write about chess!

Then there is all "evidence" which Kennedy suggests I ignore - but it has it
exactly the wrong way around - and the challenge /is/ to look at all
evidence, instead of one-sided accusations. That challenge now lies on
USCF's doormat.

Kennedy continues to argue that all sides having to open up is personal not
a matter of principle. Shall we pass by this one quickly, lest he commits 2
logical fallicies, one after the other?

And finally, what it says about me is that I see one secretive organisation
operating as a non-profit, pro bono caissa, and because I write about chess,
and none of the anti-Truong crowd do that, then it is as natural as day that
I want chess to be an open topic for everyone.

---

I merely assume that all the people who do not want USCF to open up - can't
even seem to notice that this is, and always has been, the issue - are
interested in something other than chess.

The list of people who encourage such openess seems to include the strongest
players in the USA, now and then, rather than any saucerful of secrets of
which no good can ever come.

There is nothing else to say except to make this point, and to ask people to
admit it, or do their own thing for their own reasons: that the USCF should
not operate in camera, and that it is the considered opinion of very many
people indeed, that most of its 'troubles' would simply not exist if it did
so.

Phil Innes
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>




 
Date: 22 Jan 2008 11:27:44
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
I did not want to be caught up in this argument, which I feel is a
sideshow. However, since Phil brought me up, I feel I must say my
piece.

The accusation against the USCF board is that they used a pretext to
request that Paul Truong step down. This simply does not interest me
at all as a potential scandal.

It distracts from the real issue - did Paul Truong impersonate people
in the newsgroups, and then try to lie about it and cover it up?

If I had to guess, I would venture that at some point the board had
enough of the foot-dragging tactics of Truong, and made the request
because of it, while Truong could make the argument that he was
cooperating and was going to produce them. No crime either side as far
as that goes.

Truong could defuse the resignation call much more effectively by
simply producing legally binding testimony of innocence, and giving
legal access to his internet records. If he is innocent, he should be
eager to provide both of these, rather than having to negotiate his
way to doing so. The longer he waits on doing these, the more we
deserve to know why it is taking so long (and the more suspicious his
actions will seem).

I would prefer this to be my final word on opening the email records
between the board, since it is not an issue I want to see continue
distracting from the main question. I would enjoy looking at such
records, but mostly as a form of entertainment on the order of finding
out what new lows Brittney Spears has reached.

Jerry Spinrad


On Jan 22, 6:28=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 STATE OF PLAY
>
> While to-date I, Phil Innes, and Larry Parr, have both encouraged openning=

> up this issue so that all can see 'who is clean and who is not', and
> especially that USCF members can make their own assessment, and to let the=

> chips lie where they may... It is fascinating to read that this is
> partisanship! Though how Lary Parr and I can possibly be on the same team
> for this issue is unexplained [though surely someone will try now!] In fac=
t,
> this issue will not even be contested or resolved by either of us - since
> the intent is for the members to do that.
>
> Equally fascinating is who does /not want/ the issue opened up. At least 4=

> recent commentators here, Brennan + 3 single-issue posters; the
> not-a-Christian 'Reverend' Walker, Litigious-Laugherty, and Mike '48'
> Murray, cannot bring themselves to support members coming to their own
> conclusions by assessing all sides of the issue.
>
> Who else can't manage to say much who is a 'frequent-contributor' to this
> subject? Well, there is ChessCafe's columnist Jerry Spinrad. But the main
> absentee from openness of communcation is Sam Sloan himself.
>
> =A0 =A0 SLOAN'S OPTIONS
>
> After an entire year of preaching to us that openning up the secretive can=

> of worms at USCF was his own dedicated mission, where is Sam Sloan now, wh=
en
> it comes right down to it?
>
> And finally, the last party not to aver allowing the members to make up
> their own minds, rather than whatever is currently going on in the secret
> recessess, is USCF itself. In 3 days the editorial deadline is reached, an=
d
> if USCF decline to accept either making their own statement, or to accept
> the offer to open the secret doors, then I will be obliged to say so. To
> respond or not is entirely USCF's own business, but it does have
> consequences:-
>
> =A0 =A0 REASONABLE DOUBT
>
> Since this is a very specific instance of official secrecy then the
> speculatory boot -the reasonable doubt- will be on the other foot, no? Sin=
ce
> what business /should/ need be secret in a public non-profit which exists =
to
> promote and administer chess in the USA [excepting personnel records, and
> such mandated federal confidential matters].
>
> The biggest stimulus to affronting 'official secrets' would be if Sam Sloa=
n
> should support Susan Polgar on this issue, by also declaring that the ligh=
t
> should shine on all this matter - as he himself said most consistently of
> all for an entire year - and indeed, who could possibly object then?
>
> Phil Innes



  
Date: 22 Jan 2008 15:26:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I did not want to be caught up in this argument, which I feel is a
sideshow. However, since Phil brought me up, I feel I must say my
piece.

The accusation against the USCF board is that they used a pretext to
request that Paul Truong step down. This simply does not interest me
at all as a potential scandal.

It distracts from the real issue - did Paul Truong impersonate people
in the newsgroups, and then try to lie about it and cover it up?

If I had to guess,

----
Jerry Spinraqd of Chesscafe /has/ to guess. He wants to guess.

If he wanted to actually find out who is clean or not, and he does not! Then
he would come along with Larry Parr and I and say, 'throw open the doors!'
and let the sun shine in, and let all see within.

The rest of his message here is because he does /not/ want to do that. And
since I have a reasonable toleration level for plain statement, and an
equivocation or two, and I have asked him this before - lets not pretend
that Jerry Spinrad , who previously wrote on 'behalf of the members' is at
all sincere. In fact... he now abandons his last plea, 'for the members'
since he can't admit even that the issue is to do with corruption within,
the strange awarding of contracts to certain parties, and that members
should even know about these things.

he does not mention that he is employed by a USCF contractee!

The gauntlet is down - he is not going to pick it up - but spares us a few
further insincere words about what he cares - his last words, so he says.
May they be so.

Phil Innes

-------------

I would venture that at some point the board had
enough of the foot-dragging tactics of Truong, and made the request
because of it, while Truong could make the argument that he was
cooperating and was going to produce them. No crime either side as far
as that goes.

Truong could defuse the resignation call much more effectively by
simply producing legally binding testimony of innocence, and giving
legal access to his internet records. If he is innocent, he should be
eager to provide both of these, rather than having to negotiate his
way to doing so. The longer he waits on doing these, the more we
deserve to know why it is taking so long (and the more suspicious his
actions will seem).

I would prefer this to be my final word on opening the email records
between the board, since it is not an issue I want to see continue
distracting from the main question. I would enjoy looking at such
records, but mostly as a form of entertainment on the order of finding
out what new lows Brittney Spears has reached.

Jerry Spinrad


On Jan 22, 6:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> STATE OF PLAY
>
> While to-date I, Phil Innes, and Larry Parr, have both encouraged openning
> up this issue so that all can see 'who is clean and who is not', and
> especially that USCF members can make their own assessment, and to let the
> chips lie where they may... It is fascinating to read that this is
> partisanship! Though how Lary Parr and I can possibly be on the same team
> for this issue is unexplained [though surely someone will try now!] In
> fact,
> this issue will not even be contested or resolved by either of us - since
> the intent is for the members to do that.
>
> Equally fascinating is who does /not want/ the issue opened up. At least 4
> recent commentators here, Brennan + 3 single-issue posters; the
> not-a-Christian 'Reverend' Walker, Litigious-Laugherty, and Mike '48'
> Murray, cannot bring themselves to support members coming to their own
> conclusions by assessing all sides of the issue.
>
> Who else can't manage to say much who is a 'frequent-contributor' to this
> subject? Well, there is ChessCafe's columnist Jerry Spinrad. But the main
> absentee from openness of communcation is Sam Sloan himself.
>
> SLOAN'S OPTIONS
>
> After an entire year of preaching to us that openning up the secretive can
> of worms at USCF was his own dedicated mission, where is Sam Sloan now,
> when
> it comes right down to it?
>
> And finally, the last party not to aver allowing the members to make up
> their own minds, rather than whatever is currently going on in the secret
> recessess, is USCF itself. In 3 days the editorial deadline is reached,
> and
> if USCF decline to accept either making their own statement, or to accept
> the offer to open the secret doors, then I will be obliged to say so. To
> respond or not is entirely USCF's own business, but it does have
> consequences:-
>
> REASONABLE DOUBT
>
> Since this is a very specific instance of official secrecy then the
> speculatory boot -the reasonable doubt- will be on the other foot, no?
> Since
> what business /should/ need be secret in a public non-profit which exists
> to
> promote and administer chess in the USA [excepting personnel records, and
> such mandated federal confidential matters].
>
> The biggest stimulus to affronting 'official secrets' would be if Sam
> Sloan
> should support Susan Polgar on this issue, by also declaring that the
> light
> should shine on all this matter - as he himself said most consistently of
> all for an entire year - and indeed, who could possibly object then?
>
> Phil Innes




 
Date: 22 Jan 2008 09:06:23
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
DUMMY PROPOSES DUMMY PAWN RULE

<Let's say that pawns which reach the last rank just have to sit
there, blocking both sides. > -- help bot (aka Greg Kennedy)


help bot wrote:
> On Jan 21, 5:20 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I am much distrubed by the USCF's inclination to "eat it's young".
> > There has been a tolerance of miscreants in this organization for
> > decades.
>
> Two wrongs make right is a fallacy, my boy.
> So drop the "everybody else does it" excuse.
>
>
> > Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are ,IMO, being attacked simply
> > because they are thoughtful agents of change.
>
> Simple question: which one of these
> "thoughtful agents" is responsible for the
> ATROCITY that is the SP Web site? It
> has to be one of them-- or both; there's
> no getting around it; evil scum have a
> very distinct scent all their own.
>
>
> > There is no personal
> > information that is safe once in the hands of the USCF.
>
> That's true.
>
>
> > Confidential information of members is shared or left open to
> > exploitation. Employment applications and resume's of applicants are
> > faxed and distributed "willy-nilly" with no fore-thought to
> > confidentiality.
>
> Confidentially, I hope the USCF's HQ gets
> blown up-- of course, when there is no one
> around to get hurt.
>
>
> > Currently, it appears to me the quickest way to destroy the future of
> > the game of chess in America is to associate it with the USCF.
>
> It's a bit of a drag, like an anchor in the
> water. But so far, it hasn't been able to
> get the job done. Maybe we should
> change the rules? Let's say that pawns
> which reach the last rank just have to sit
> there, blocking both sides. And Knights
> can only hop forward and to the left--
> once they reach the edge of the board,
> they're stuck there.
>
>
> -- helpful bot


 
Date: 22 Jan 2008 05:55:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 5:20 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

> I am much distrubed by the USCF's inclination to "eat it's young".
> There has been a tolerance of miscreants in this organization for
> decades.

Two wrongs make right is a fallacy, my boy.
So drop the "everybody else does it" excuse.


> Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are ,IMO, being attacked simply
> because they are thoughtful agents of change.

Simple question: which one of these
"thoughtful agents" is responsible for the
ATROCITY that is the SP Web site? It
has to be one of them-- or both; there's
no getting around it; evil scum have a
very distinct scent all their own.


> There is no personal
> information that is safe once in the hands of the USCF.

That's true.


> Confidential information of members is shared or left open to
> exploitation. Employment applications and resume's of applicants are
> faxed and distributed "willy-nilly" with no fore-thought to
> confidentiality.

Confidentially, I hope the USCF's HQ gets
blown up-- of course, when there is no one
around to get hurt.


> Currently, it appears to me the quickest way to destroy the future of
> the game of chess in America is to associate it with the USCF.

It's a bit of a drag, like an anchor in the
water. But so far, it hasn't been able to
get the job done. Maybe we should
change the rules? Let's say that pawns
which reach the last rank just have to sit
there, blocking both sides. And Knights
can only hop forward and to the left--
once they reach the edge of the board,
they're stuck there.


-- helpful bot




 
Date: 22 Jan 2008 05:27:52
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 22, 7:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

<snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks >

Mr. Innes,

I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.



  
Date: 22 Jan 2008 05:53:03
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 22, 7:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks>
>
> Mr. Innes,
>
> I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.
>

He reminds me of Bottom in "A Midsummer Night's Dream."
Who thinks he is sleeping with the Queen of the faeries,
But all the while he is drugged and dreaming,
And braying like an ass...
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 22:01:43
From: Rob
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 11:05 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jan 21, 10:52 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Disclosure: Rob Mitchell was or is a business associate of Paul
> Truong.
>
>
>
> > Question? What internet service provider does Paul use?
>
> > AOL!
>
> > Does AOL have a static or dynamic IP address assignment system?
>
> > Dynamic!
>
> > Dynamic IP Address - Comes from a pool of IP addresses and is assigned
> > on the fly. Any available IP address can be used. Changes often.
>
> > If you have looked at your Web stats lately and noticed an
> > unbelievable number of AOL users have been to your site or are on your
> > site right now it is because AOL users are assigned dynamic IP
> > addresses.
>
> > In a perfect world, each computer would have one static IP address
> > assigned to it. Just like each person has one static name given at
> > birth to officially identify them. However, just like people, a
> > computer can change it's identity or take on different aliases on the
> > fly.
>
> > Internet users are almost always assigned a dynamic IP address by
> > their Internet provider but they usually do not change as often as AOL
> > users. That is because most Internet providers have nowhere near the
> > customers as AOL. Instead of buying millions and millions of IP
> > addresses, AOL re-uses from the same pool.
>
> > It is not uncommon for an AOL user to get a different IP address for
> > each page that they view. You may look at the "Whos On" in your stats
> > and see that 25 AOL users are at your Website. In all likelihood you
> > have one AOL user who has viewed 25 pages and received a different IP
> > address for each page they viewed. A new tracking session is started
> > every click (i.e. for each IP address) making it look like a separate
> > user.
>
> From the Mottershead Report:
>
> a) From ch 2006 to July 2006, Truong posted to the USCF Forums
> almost
> exclusively from AOL addresses. These IP addresses were in the same
> small
> address blocks as were used on those dates by the Fake Sam Sloan
> identities
> to post to Usenet.
>
> b) In July 2006, Truong obtained a RoadRunner cable IP address, and he
> had
> this one address persistently assigned to him for over a year, until
> August
> 2007. During this period he was posting mainly from this RoadRunner
> address
> to the USCF Forums. While the Fake Sam Sloan identities continued to
> post
> mainly from AOL addresses, there were several occasions during this
> period
> when one or more of the FSS identities posted to Usenet from Truong's
> RoadRunner IP address. When Truong did post from an AOL address to the
> USCF
> Issues forum, the previous pattern held up, namely that Truong's AOL
> address
> was frequently from the same small block from which one of the Fake
> Sam
> Sloan identities had posted on that same day.
>
> c) In August 2007, Truong moved to Lubbock Texas to take up an
> appointment
> at Texas Tech. He obtained new, somewhat persistent IP addresses from
> Suddenlink, the cable broadband provider in Lubbock. During August and
> September 2007, he accessed the USCF Forums from two different
> Suddenlink IP
> addresses, one briefly and the other for the rest of that time. These
> two
> Suddenlink IP addresses were both used multiple times during that
> period by
> more than one of the Fake Sam Sloan identities to post to Usenet,
> while at
> the same time Truong was using the IP to post to the USCF Forums.
>
> In other words, when Truong moved to Lubbock, the Fake Sam Sloan
> identities
> also moved to Lubbock. Indeed they were all using the same Suddenlink
> IP
> address.
>
> d) On September 20, Truong went to Mexico City for the World Chess
> Championship. While there, Truong visited the USCF Forums from a
> Mexico City
> IP address. Contemporaneously, one of the FSS identities, the Fake Ray
> Gordon, posted to Usenet from the same Mexico City IP address. Both
> Truong
> and Fake Ray Gordon also had the same user agent string, from a Tablet
> PC
> 2.0 while in Mexico City.
>
> e) From September 16 onwards, when we can see what user agent string
> Truong's browser was sending to the USCF forums, it is identical to
> the user
> agent string being presented at the time by the Fake Sam Sloan
> identities on
> Usenet. When Truong switched to a Tablet PC 2.0 to go to Mexico City,
> the
> Fake Ray Gordon, one of the FSS identities, switched to the same
> Tablet PC
> 2.0 user agent string, at the same time switching to the same Mexico
> City IP
> address as Truong.
>
> The odds against all of these correlations resulting from chance are
> overwhelming, and the almost inescapable conclusion is either that
> Paul
> Truong and the person behind the Fake Sam Sloan posts are one and the
> same.

I haven't researched this in a while, so that could be true. The last
I heard, which was at least a year ago (and bear in mind this is
pretty oversimplified) it worked something like this:

AOL user requests a page on your site.
Proxy checks to see if it has a recent enough cache of the page. If
yes: display from cache. If no:
Any proxy from the farm that doesn't have anything better to do at the
moment goes and gets the page. All these proxies have their own IPs
(and hostnames) so Fake Sam in Oklahoma might use the one that Fake
Ray from Maine used, seconds apart. Conversely, Fake Ray may have got
all the proxies in the farm to make a request for him at one point or
another, so may have posted with 9 million (or however many hosts
there are) different IPs/hostnames.

What you're describing is unlikely to not be the same user,
considering the number of users in the pool and the narrow timeframe,
but not impossible. Circumstantial evidence.


  
Date: 22 Jan 2008 07:28:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
STATE OF PLAY

While to-date I, Phil Innes, and Larry Parr, have both encouraged openning
up this issue so that all can see 'who is clean and who is not', and
especially that USCF members can make their own assessment, and to let the
chips lie where they may... It is fascinating to read that this is
partisanship! Though how Lary Parr and I can possibly be on the same team
for this issue is unexplained [though surely someone will try now!] In fact,
this issue will not even be contested or resolved by either of us - since
the intent is for the members to do that.

Equally fascinating is who does /not want/ the issue opened up. At least 4
recent commentators here, Brennan + 3 single-issue posters; the
not-a-Christian 'Reverend' Walker, Litigious-Laugherty, and Mike '48'
Murray, cannot bring themselves to support members coming to their own
conclusions by assessing all sides of the issue.

Who else can't manage to say much who is a 'frequent-contributor' to this
subject? Well, there is ChessCafe's columnist Jerry Spinrad. But the main
absentee from openness of communcation is Sam Sloan himself.

SLOAN'S OPTIONS

After an entire year of preaching to us that openning up the secretive can
of worms at USCF was his own dedicated mission, where is Sam Sloan now, when
it comes right down to it?

And finally, the last party not to aver allowing the members to make up
their own minds, rather than whatever is currently going on in the secret
recessess, is USCF itself. In 3 days the editorial deadline is reached, and
if USCF decline to accept either making their own statement, or to accept
the offer to open the secret doors, then I will be obliged to say so. To
respond or not is entirely USCF's own business, but it does have
consequences:-

REASONABLE DOUBT

Since this is a very specific instance of official secrecy then the
speculatory boot -the reasonable doubt- will be on the other foot, no? Since
what business /should/ need be secret in a public non-profit which exists to
promote and administer chess in the USA [excepting personnel records, and
such mandated federal confidential matters].

The biggest stimulus to affronting 'official secrets' would be if Sam Sloan
should support Susan Polgar on this issue, by also declaring that the light
should shine on all this matter - as he himself said most consistently of
all for an entire year - and indeed, who could possibly object then?

Phil Innes




   
Date: 22 Jan 2008 10:17:38
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> STATE OF PLAY
>


Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
right to post thousands of obscene messages while
posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
his behavior.

It is appalling that there have been no consequences
to date.





    
Date: 22 Jan 2008 14:08:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> STATE OF PLAY
>>
>
>
> Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
> posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
> his behavior.

I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are
not brave enough to let a single word stand. Pleaser state why Mike Murray
is such a //wussie// that he can't let other people's comments stand? ;)

You are such a trite imbecile Murray! That is my opinion of you!

> It is appalling that there have been no consequences
> to date.

Consequences to you, do you mean? You are not correct. You are shown to be
what you are - a coward.

You are not even worth discussing anything with, since you bravely CUT the
//entire// appeal for all parties to act in the open, while continuing your
agit-prop campaign here. That is all people need to know about one-issue
Mike Murray.

But I think there /are/ consequences to all this business - its just a
matter of time until all is revealed, and you and the gang attain your just
deserts. You may not have noticed that you have all been called, and still
posture away!\

Don't ask me more question when you cut the responses and tell people what I
believe instead. That is the k of a coward. Is /that/ clear, Murray?

ROFL

Phil Innes





     
Date: 22 Jan 2008 15:33:29
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

STILL "NOT YOUR BOY"

P Innes' post, below, presents the perfect picture of the lack of care
and thoughtfulness infecting most of his posts. His heading indicates
"David Kane", the quoted material is from "David Kane" and yet our
Phil believes he's writing to me. Of course, in a notorious earlier
"dialog", he vigorously attacked one of his own posts. So, I suppose
this might be an improvement.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:08:08 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>"David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]

>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> STATE OF PLAY

>> Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
>> posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
>> his behavior.

>I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are
>not brave enough to let a single word stand. Pleaser state why Mike Murray
>is such a //wussie// that he can't let other people's comments stand? ;)

>You are such a trite imbecile Murray! That is my opinion of you!

>> It is appalling that there have been no consequences
>> to date.

>Consequences to you, do you mean? You are not correct. You are shown to be
>what you are - a coward.

>You are not even worth discussing anything with, since you bravely CUT the
>//entire// appeal for all parties to act in the open, while continuing your
>agit-prop campaign here. That is all people need to know about one-issue
>Mike Murray.

>But I think there /are/ consequences to all this business - its just a
>matter of time until all is revealed, and you and the gang attain your just
>deserts. You may not have noticed that you have all been called, and still
>posture away!\

>Don't ask me more question when you cut the responses and tell people what I
>believe instead. That is the k of a coward. Is /that/ clear, Murray?

>ROFL

>Phil Innes



      
Date: 23 Jan 2008 13:07:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
You shouldn't snip the entirety of other people's posts then, should you
Murray?

The fact that Kane does the same does allow you to complain though, so maybe
continue?

In the meantime what is very funny to me, is the State of Play - with all
those who have /demanded/ information now shutting up when the offer to
throw the doors open, and the chips fall where they may, should be made.

Its not an offer in response to anything here, but so that members can
decide for themselves.

With 36 hours to go until USCF's response window is closed, we will all see
if anything is yet forthcoming.

After that, the boot will truly be on the other foot, and we shall have some
fun!

Phil Innes


"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> STILL "NOT YOUR BOY"
>
> P Innes' post, below, presents the perfect picture of the lack of care
> and thoughtfulness infecting most of his posts. His heading indicates
> "David Kane", the quoted material is from "David Kane" and yet our
> Phil believes he's writing to me. Of course, in a notorious earlier
> "dialog", he vigorously attacked one of his own posts. So, I suppose
> this might be an improvement.
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:08:08 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>
>>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> STATE OF PLAY
>
>>> Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
>>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
>>> posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
>>> his behavior.
>
>>I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are
>>not brave enough to let a single word stand. Pleaser state why Mike Murray
>>is such a //wussie// that he can't let other people's comments stand? ;)
>
>>You are such a trite imbecile Murray! That is my opinion of you!
>
>>> It is appalling that there have been no consequences
>>> to date.
>
>>Consequences to you, do you mean? You are not correct. You are shown to be
>>what you are - a coward.
>
>>You are not even worth discussing anything with, since you bravely CUT the
>>//entire// appeal for all parties to act in the open, while continuing
>>your
>>agit-prop campaign here. That is all people need to know about one-issue
>>Mike Murray.
>
>>But I think there /are/ consequences to all this business - its just a
>>matter of time until all is revealed, and you and the gang attain your
>>just
>>deserts. You may not have noticed that you have all been called, and still
>>posture away!\
>
>>Don't ask me more question when you cut the responses and tell people what
>>I
>>believe instead. That is the k of a coward. Is /that/ clear, Murray?
>
>>ROFL
>
>>Phil Innes
>




       
Date: 23 Jan 2008 11:31:55
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:07:54 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>You shouldn't snip the entirety of other people's posts then, should you
>Murray?

Sometimes I wonder if Innes is stark raving mad. My response included
his entire post. I top-posted my reply in order to leave his
response contiguous. It's there. I recommend he look for once,
before posting.

>The fact that Kane does the same does allow you to complain though, so maybe
>continue?

What does this mean? Seems gibberish.

>In the meantime what is very funny to me, is the State of Play - with all
>those who have /demanded/ information now shutting up when the offer to
>throw the doors open, and the chips fall where they may, should be made.

AFAIK, Polgar's "offer" was a showboat ploy, designed only to distract
and create FUD. She didn't offer to make available the items demanded
by the USCF's attorneys, namely the ISP records and Truong's formal
denial of FSS involvement. Instead, she offers to publicize a whole
raft of extraneous material, much of it not pertinent to the FSS case,
much of it related to apparently confidential business and personnel
matters involving third parties.

The offer seems merely a publicity stunt. If she knows of material
that would exonerate PT, she could point it out to their attorney, who
would find appropriate legal ways to pry it loose.

Couple analogies to cast this publicity stunt in the proper light:

(1) An employee is being disciplined for misuse of company time via
private e-mails, which he's encrypted. Offers to decrypt the material
for inspection if the company will release for his inspection ALL of
its emails in the same time period.

(2) A kid, suspected of some improper activity which his parents
believe he's described in his diary, offers to reveal his diary if the
parents will reveal theirs.

If P Innes were really taken in by this ploy, he's more gullible than
even his posting history would.... hmmmm.... well, OK, I guess it's
not surprising that he was taken in.



      
Date: 22 Jan 2008 18:30:58
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
Mike Murray wrote:
> STILL "NOT YOUR BOY"
>
> P Innes' post, below, presents the perfect picture of the lack of care
> and thoughtfulness infecting most of his posts. His heading indicates
> "David Kane", the quoted material is from "David Kane" and yet our
> Phil believes he's writing to me. Of course, in a notorious earlier
> "dialog", he vigorously attacked one of his own posts. So, I suppose
> this might be an improvement.
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:08:08 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>
>>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> STATE OF PLAY
>
>>> Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
>>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
>>> posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
>>> his behavior.
>
>> I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are
>> not brave enough to let a single word stand. Pleaser state why Mike Murray
>> is such a //wussie// that he can't let other people's comments stand? ;)

Mr. Murray,

It is lamentable to watch poor Innes stumble over himself -- over and
over again. Innes doesn't know who he is replying to: he argues with
himself. He constantly tries to draw in bystanders, with shotgun
insults. He resorts to ad hominen attacks and religious slurs without
provocation. It is certainly /ugly behavior./

On the other hand, I think he has found a good fit for his /talents/.
Polgar and Truong will probably reward him well, tossing him a bone or
two, if he can keep everyone annoyed enough that they are diverted from
serious investigation of the Polgar efforts at /obfuscation/.

By the way, I am one of those that favors /STRONG/ transparency. Let us
move right away to discovery and sworn testimony. Then the truth will
become transparently clear.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


     
Date: 22 Jan 2008 11:26:19
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> STATE OF PLAY
>>>
>>
>>
>> Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
>> posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
>> his behavior.
>
> I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are

You have called for transparency. The only mystery in the present matter
is why some people feel that Truong's posting thousands of obscene messages
while
posing as others should not involve consequences.

That is the question you should answer yourself, but also pose
to other members of the EB who, to date, have given Truong
a free ride.

By the way, I am not Mike Murray, though I find his contributions
the best this newsgroup has to offer.





      
Date: 22 Jan 2008 15:17:40
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> STATE OF PLAY
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
>>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
>>> posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
>>> his behavior.
>>
>> I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you
>> are
>
> You have called for transparency. The only mystery in the present matter
> is why some people feel that Truong's posting thousands of obscene
> messages while
> posing as others should not involve consequences.

Perhaps they 'feel' so because to-date we have had a one-sided presentation.
When the offer is to open it all up, then, David, who votes for how members
will 'feel'? How about you, for example?

> That is the question you should answer yourself, but also pose
> to other members of the EB who, to date, have given Truong
> a free ride.
>
> By the way, I am not Mike Murray, though I find his contributions
> the best this newsgroup has to offer.

Really? He is nothing other than a single issue scandal-merchant intent on
only one thing - the same thing you are. So, I suppose that figures.

Meanwhile in the above comment, I ask you to take the challenge - to find
out who is clean or not.

You, like others, noticeably duck the issue. ;)

Phil Innes




       
Date: 22 Jan 2008 13:38:16
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> STATE OF PLAY
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
>>>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
>>>> posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
>>>> his behavior.
>>>
>>> I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are
>>
>> You have called for transparency. The only mystery in the present matter
>> is why some people feel that Truong's posting thousands of obscene messages
>> while
>> posing as others should not involve consequences.
>
> Perhaps they 'feel' so because to-date we have had a one-sided presentation.

Why do *you* believe that Paul Truong has a
right to post thousands of obscene messages while
posing as others, without consequence?




        
Date: 22 Jan 2008 17:02:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Why do *you* believe that Paul Truong has a
> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
> posing as others, without consequence?

David, I never I said I do feel that - you have written it twice now - while
ignoring this idea to open it up.

Therefore, I already know your evasions, and your lack of interest in
opening the doors of perception. Do not write that I believe anyone has any
write to 'post thousands of obscene messages'. How dare you!

Whatever else you have to say, don't say it to me. You already know my
opinion about your 'orientation'.

Phil Innes





         
Date: 22 Jan 2008 14:57:02
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> Why do *you* believe that Paul Truong has a
>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
>> posing as others, without consequence?
>
> David, I never I said I do feel that - you have written it twice now - while
> ignoring this idea to open it up.
>
> Therefore, I already know your evasions, and your lack of interest in opening
> the doors of perception. Do not write that I believe anyone has any write to
> 'post thousands of obscene messages'. How dare you!

For months, you've been doing nothing but try to make excuses for the
person who did just that. Asking why is a perfectly legitimate question.

I suppose in Polgar's case, she's ried to him, which is an
understandable excuse. What is *your* excuse?


>
> Whatever else you have to say, don't say it to me. You already know my opinion
> about your 'orientation'.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>




          
Date: 23 Jan 2008 07:58:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>>> Why do *you* believe that Paul Truong has a
>>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
>>> posing as others, without consequence?
>>
>> David, I never I said I do feel that - you have written it twice now -
>> while ignoring this idea to open it up.
>>
>> Therefore, I already know your evasions, and your lack of interest in
>> opening the doors of perception. Do not write that I believe anyone has
>> any write to 'post thousands of obscene messages'. How dare you!
>
> For months, you've been doing nothing but try to make excuses for the
> person who did just that. Asking why is a perfectly legitimate question.
>
> I suppose in Polgar's case, she's ried to him, which is an
> understandable excuse. What is *your* excuse?

David - you did this with Larry Parr - you put words in his mouth which he
never held - then when challenged you refused to correct your comment.

Secondly, asking for all parties to open up is not partisan! It is IMPARTIAL
justice, for one and all. Any thing /else/ is partisan.

Since you do not correct your first point above about what I believe, nor
admit you want the members of USCF to know what goes on, nor any impartial
justice ...

... There is nothing more to be said between us to describe our orientations
to decent process.

Phil Innes


>>
>> Whatever else you have to say, don't say it to me. You already know my
>> opinion about your 'orientation'.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>
>>
>
>




           
Date: 23 Jan 2008 07:49:07
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>>> Why do *you* believe that Paul Truong has a
>>>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
>>>> posing as others, without consequence?
>>>
>>> David, I never I said I do feel that - you have written it twice now - while
>>> ignoring this idea to open it up.
>>>
>>> Therefore, I already know your evasions, and your lack of interest in
>>> opening the doors of perception. Do not write that I believe anyone has any
>>> write to 'post thousands of obscene messages'. How dare you!
>>
>> For months, you've been doing nothing but try to make excuses for the
>> person who did just that. Asking why is a perfectly legitimate question.
>>
>> I suppose in Polgar's case, she's ried to him, which is an
>> understandable excuse. What is *your* excuse?
>
> David - you did this with Larry Parr - you put words in his mouth which he
> never held - then when challenged you refused to correct your comment.
>
> Secondly, asking for all parties to open up is not partisan! It is IMPARTIAL
> justice, for one and all. Any thing /else/ is partisan.

The *facts* create the question. Paul Truong posted thousands
of obscene messages while posing as others. You repeatedly
have argued that he should suffer no consequences, and applaud
his and Susan's attempts to avoid them.

It is a simple question. Why?

> Since you do not correct your first point above about what I believe, nor
> admit you want the members of USCF to know what goes on, nor any impartial
> justice ...
>
> ... There is nothing more to be said between us to describe our orientations
> to decent process.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>>>
>>> Whatever else you have to say, don't say it to me. You already know my
>>> opinion about your 'orientation'.
>>>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>




            
Date: 23 Jan 2008 13:22:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>> David - you did this with Larry Parr - you put words in his mouth which
>> he never held - then when challenged you refused to correct your comment.
>>
>> Secondly, asking for all parties to open up is not partisan! It is
>> IMPARTIAL justice, for one and all. Any thing /else/ is partisan.
>
> The *facts* create the question. Paul Truong posted thousands
> of obscene messages while posing as others.

If you are so sure, write to USCF and ask them to come clean! If people
agree with you, then that's what you want, isn't it? And if they come to
other conclusions, then your *facts* may not be so evident to others, and
while you may still be correct, your *facts* may also be the same as your
prejudices.

> You repeatedly
> have argued that he should suffer no consequences, and applaud
> his and Susan's attempts to avoid them.

That is a lie.In fact I wrote very clearly that if he was the perp then
would go further than a censure motion from the board, I think he should
resign. Please do not continue to lie about what I said - you don't quote
me, and that is offensive! Mostly an offense to your intellect.

> It is a simple question. Why?

Its a simple lie.

ROFL - all the agit-prop people are now in a tail-spin! They can't figure
this thing out. Susan Polgar said let is all out - she has nothing to hide -
but let it /all/ out, not just the stuff we have read here.

Now the agit-propers are caught in their own trap. Having demanded to know
things - Susan Polgar says OK. But since USCF are holding /all/ the
information, then unless the same people who want to know things demand it
of USCF, it will be denied them.

This is just a middle game, and there is plenty of play in it yet. For
example, on Friday we will know if USCF want to keep their activities secret
or not ;)

Phil Innes


>> Since you do not correct your first point above about what I believe, nor
>> admit you want the members of USCF to know what goes on, nor any
>> impartial justice ...
>>
>> ... There is nothing more to be said between us to describe our
>> orientations to decent process.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Whatever else you have to say, don't say it to me. You already know my
>>>> opinion about your 'orientation'.
>>>>
>>>> Phil Innes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>




             
Date: 23 Jan 2008 11:24:35
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]

>
>> You repeatedly
>> have argued that he should suffer no consequences, and applaud
>> his and Susan's attempts to avoid them.
>
> That is a lie.In fact I wrote very clearly that if he was the perp then would
> go further than a censure motion from the board, I think he should resign.
> Please do not continue to lie about what I said - you don't quote me, and that
> is offensive! Mostly an offense to your intellect.
>

I am asking you why you think Paul Truong should be exempt
from consequences for his actions. To claim that you would hold
him accountable for some other hypothetical wrongdoing is no
answer.

Why?




              
Date: 23 Jan 2008 14:36:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>
>>
>>> You repeatedly
>>> have argued that he should suffer no consequences, and applaud
>>> his and Susan's attempts to avoid them.
>>
>> That is a lie.In fact I wrote very clearly that if he was the perp then
>> would go further than a censure motion from the board, I think he should
>> resign. Please do not continue to lie about what I said - you don't quote
>> me, and that is offensive! Mostly an offense to your intellect.
>>
>
> I am asking you why you think Paul Truong should be exempt
> from consequences for his actions.

And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is
simply more perversion.

> To claim that you would hold
> him accountable for some other hypothetical wrongdoing is no
> answer.
>
> Why?

Since Justice is impartial.

But you have taken to cutting references to if you agree with this,
including if you wish the whole subject to be open. That in itself declares
your real interest.

In these continued instances of your evasions, I have nothing more to say to
you - since your writing has descended to that of others here, and that is
vile McCarthyite stuff indeed.

Phil Innes




               
Date: 23 Jan 2008 12:51:28
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:_cWd[email protected]
>>
>>>
>>>> You repeatedly
>>>> have argued that he should suffer no consequences, and applaud
>>>> his and Susan's attempts to avoid them.
>>>
>>> That is a lie.In fact I wrote very clearly that if he was the perp then
>>> would go further than a censure motion from the board, I think he should
>>> resign. Please do not continue to lie about what I said - you don't quote
>>> me, and that is offensive! Mostly an offense to your intellect.
>>>
>>
>> I am asking you why you think Paul Truong should be exempt
>> from consequences for his actions.
>
> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
> you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is
> simply more perversion.

I am not asking you to comment on Trolgar's latest
story. (Has it ever stayed the same two weeks running?)
Those are not facts.

I am asking for your comment on the facts. Why do
you believe that Truong should not experience consequences
for posting 1000s of obscene messages in others' names?

Repeating irrelevant, non-factual arguments tells us that
you don't believe Truong should experience consequences,
but it doesn't tell us *why* you believe that.

So I am asking.




                
Date: 24 Jan 2008 09:30:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
>>> I am asking you why you think Paul Truong should be exempt
>>> from consequences for his actions.
>>
>> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
>> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand
>> from you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you
>> write is simply more perversion.
>
> I am not asking you to comment on Trolgar's latest
> story. (Has it ever stayed the same two weeks running?)
> Those are not facts.
>
> I am asking for your comment on the facts. Why do
> you believe that Truong should not experience consequences
> for posting 1000s of obscene messages in others' names?

And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is
simply more perversion.


> Repeating irrelevant, non-factual arguments tells us that
> you don't believe Truong should experience consequences,
> but it doesn't tell us *why* you believe that.
>
> So I am asking.

And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is
simply more perversion.

PI




                 
Date: 24 Jan 2008 10:52:05
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> I am asking you why you think Paul Truong should be exempt
>>>> from consequences for his actions.
>>>
>>> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
>>> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
>>> you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is
>>> simply more perversion.
>>
>> I am not asking you to comment on Trolgar's latest
>> story. (Has it ever stayed the same two weeks running?)
>> Those are not facts.
>>
>> I am asking for your comment on the facts. Why do
>> you believe that Truong should not experience consequences
>> for posting 1000s of obscene messages in others' names?
>
> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
> you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is
> simply more perversion.

You seem to be tripped up on the word "believe". How about this?
Why have you been tirelessly working to prevent Truong from
experiencing consequences for posting 1000s of obscene messages
in others' names?




                  
Date: 24 Jan 2008 17:45:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> I am asking you why you think Paul Truong should be exempt
>>>>> from consequences for his actions.
>>>>
>>>> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making
>>>> yet another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to
>>>> understand from you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then
>>>> what you write is simply more perversion.
>>>
>>> I am not asking you to comment on Trolgar's latest
>>> story. (Has it ever stayed the same two weeks running?)
>>> Those are not facts.
>>>
>>> I am asking for your comment on the facts. Why do
>>> you believe that Truong should not experience consequences
>>> for posting 1000s of obscene messages in others' names?
>>
>> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
>> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand
>> from
>> you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is
>> simply more perversion.
>
> You seem to be tripped up on the word "believe". How about this?
> Why have you been tirelessly working to prevent Truong from
> experiencing consequences for posting 1000s of obscene messages
> in others' names?

And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
you that you comprehend this fact.

Kane cannot notice I pushed this up his nose 3 times already. So that's
enough of his 'attention'.

3 perversions and you are out of all reckoning. Join the perverts, David,
they don't mind what they write. But don't expect -even more - attention
from me, since you are a rascal and I might as well ask you direct, what
should happen to anyone who wrote "1000s of obscene messages" without regard
to who wrote them?

You, like the other boyos here, cannot admit that all she assess who is
clean and who is not. That is your affair, your motive, your intelligence,
and your indecency.

Phil Innes




                   
Date: 24 Jan 2008 15:26:33
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> I am asking you why you think Paul Truong should be exempt
>>>>>> from consequences for his actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
>>>>> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand
>>>>> from you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write
>>>>> is simply more perversion.
>>>>
>>>> I am not asking you to comment on Trolgar's latest
>>>> story. (Has it ever stayed the same two weeks running?)
>>>> Those are not facts.
>>>>
>>>> I am asking for your comment on the facts. Why do
>>>> you believe that Truong should not experience consequences
>>>> for posting 1000s of obscene messages in others' names?
>>>
>>> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
>>> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
>>> you that you comprehend this fact. If you do not, then what you write is
>>> simply more perversion.
>>
>> You seem to be tripped up on the word "believe". How about this?
>> Why have you been tirelessly working to prevent Truong from
>> experiencing consequences for posting 1000s of obscene messages
>> in others' names?
>
> And I am repeatedly telling you that I do not think so. Before making yet
> another response to you, on the same point, I should wish to understand from
> you that you comprehend this fact.

What I understand is you won't answer the question. Why have you been
tirelessly working to prevent Truong from experiencing consequences for
posting 1000s of obscene messages in others' names?





 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 21:05:48
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 10:52 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:

Disclosure: Rob Mitchell was or is a business associate of Paul
Truong.

> Question? What internet service provider does Paul use?
>
> AOL!
>
> Does AOL have a static or dynamic IP address assignment system?
>
> Dynamic!
>
> Dynamic IP Address - Comes from a pool of IP addresses and is assigned
> on the fly. Any available IP address can be used. Changes often.
>
> If you have looked at your Web stats lately and noticed an
> unbelievable number of AOL users have been to your site or are on your
> site right now it is because AOL users are assigned dynamic IP
> addresses.
>
> In a perfect world, each computer would have one static IP address
> assigned to it. Just like each person has one static name given at
> birth to officially identify them. However, just like people, a
> computer can change it's identity or take on different aliases on the
> fly.
>
> Internet users are almost always assigned a dynamic IP address by
> their Internet provider but they usually do not change as often as AOL
> users. That is because most Internet providers have nowhere near the
> customers as AOL. Instead of buying millions and millions of IP
> addresses, AOL re-uses from the same pool.
>
> It is not uncommon for an AOL user to get a different IP address for
> each page that they view. You may look at the "Whos On" in your stats
> and see that 25 AOL users are at your Website. In all likelihood you
> have one AOL user who has viewed 25 pages and received a different IP
> address for each page they viewed. A new tracking session is started
> every click (i.e. for each IP address) making it look like a separate
> user.

From the Mottershead Report:

a) From ch 2006 to July 2006, Truong posted to the USCF Forums
almost
exclusively from AOL addresses. These IP addresses were in the same
small
address blocks as were used on those dates by the Fake Sam Sloan
identities
to post to Usenet.

b) In July 2006, Truong obtained a RoadRunner cable IP address, and he
had
this one address persistently assigned to him for over a year, until
August
2007. During this period he was posting mainly from this RoadRunner
address
to the USCF Forums. While the Fake Sam Sloan identities continued to
post
mainly from AOL addresses, there were several occasions during this
period
when one or more of the FSS identities posted to Usenet from Truong's
RoadRunner IP address. When Truong did post from an AOL address to the
USCF
Issues forum, the previous pattern held up, namely that Truong's AOL
address
was frequently from the same small block from which one of the Fake
Sam
Sloan identities had posted on that same day.

c) In August 2007, Truong moved to Lubbock Texas to take up an
appointment
at Texas Tech. He obtained new, somewhat persistent IP addresses from
Suddenlink, the cable broadband provider in Lubbock. During August and
September 2007, he accessed the USCF Forums from two different
Suddenlink IP
addresses, one briefly and the other for the rest of that time. These
two
Suddenlink IP addresses were both used multiple times during that
period by
more than one of the Fake Sam Sloan identities to post to Usenet,
while at
the same time Truong was using the IP to post to the USCF Forums.

In other words, when Truong moved to Lubbock, the Fake Sam Sloan
identities
also moved to Lubbock. Indeed they were all using the same Suddenlink
IP
address.

d) On September 20, Truong went to Mexico City for the World Chess
Championship. While there, Truong visited the USCF Forums from a
Mexico City
IP address. Contemporaneously, one of the FSS identities, the Fake Ray
Gordon, posted to Usenet from the same Mexico City IP address. Both
Truong
and Fake Ray Gordon also had the same user agent string, from a Tablet
PC
2.0 while in Mexico City.

e) From September 16 onwards, when we can see what user agent string
Truong's browser was sending to the USCF forums, it is identical to
the user
agent string being presented at the time by the Fake Sam Sloan
identities on
Usenet. When Truong switched to a Tablet PC 2.0 to go to Mexico City,
the
Fake Ray Gordon, one of the FSS identities, switched to the same
Tablet PC
2.0 user agent string, at the same time switching to the same Mexico
City IP
address as Truong.

The odds against all of these correlations resulting from chance are
overwhelming, and the almost inescapable conclusion is either that
Paul
Truong and the person behind the Fake Sam Sloan posts are one and the
same.


 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 19:52:17
From: Rob
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 4:30 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected].com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
>
> >> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]
>
> >>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]
> >>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Monday January 21st, 2008
> >>>>>-----------------------------
>
> >>>>>Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan
> >>>>>20,
> >>>>>2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
> >>>>>Truong's
> >>>>>complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
> >>>>>misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the
> >>>>>offer:-
>
> >>>>> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
> >>>>>information they have about us relating to this case.
>
> >>>> This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
> >>>> information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
> >>>> also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
> >>>> one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.
>
> >>> Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
> >>> asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
> >>> his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
> >>> about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.
>
> >>> For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally
> >>> to Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to
> >>> make any simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if
> >>> they will accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all
> >>> matters heretofore held secret.
>
> >>> I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that
> >>> questions actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I
> >>> do not know if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if
> >>> Susan Polgar's first statement was true.
>
> >>> Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
> >>> true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or
> >>> not - which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or
> >>> to open up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.
>
> >>> Phil Innes
>
> >> ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
> >> clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
> >> asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying
> >> or admitting the Sloan allegations.
>
> > And by opening up such correspondance it can be clearly known if this is a
> > true statement, no? Have you noticed that it is a contested statement?
>
> > Have you noticed that accordin to Susan Polgar the questions is already
> > answered?
>
> I've noticed that the question hasn't been answered directly by Truong as
> requested by counsel.
>
>
>
> >> Simple request. Normal request by ones counsel in litigation. But, a
> >> request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply with. Guilty people do have
> >> problems with such requests.
>
> >> Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from
> >> his IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan
> >> responds by saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.
>
> > I do not understand that to be a quote of Susan Polgar.
>
> Ask your buddy Sue for the exact quote in her next email missive to
> Chessville.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Bullshit will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
> >> Truong has reached the end of the line.
>
> >> ChaChing........GUILTY
>
> > Thank you. line-judge. for your comments, and that of the noted stalker
> > Neil Brennan who chimed in, to similar effect.
>
> > I should not wish this post to be about either of you, since you both
> > pretend to have comprehension problems by your rhetorical displays in
> > respect of both legal issues, and those merely decent. It is merely
> > curious to me, that the biggest supporter of Sam Sloan in these
> > newsgroups, Mr. Parr, with whom I differ on the worth of Mr. Sloan to
> > ked degree, should also aver with, should I sufficiently understand Mr.
> > Parr, that there should be no more secrets here than Susan Polgar
> > suggests.
>
> > Indeed, should Mr. Sloan himself be as good as his word about the need for
> > openness on these issues, he might adopt this specific instance to support
> > it himself.
>
> > Otherwise, as you will well understand, there are those people who, as we
> > say, "mouth off' about things, but when it comes right down to it, they
> > are not as good as their word, or their mouth, so to speak.
>
> > As to yourself, I take your lack of support for allowing the members to
> > gain their own opinion to indicate your orientation. Should you not quite
> > understand the level of insult here offered you, then you are, in my
> > opinion, rather less than Mr. Sloan who could still notice this issue and
> > be as good as his own word. Your words, sir, have no good in them
> > whatever, and you pronounce upon one-sided net-gossip, as if you had even
> > one thought in your head, rather than the emotional mendacity of a Neil
> > Brennan.
>
> > Should you, or others who dislike anything but secrecy find these words
> > too 'complicated' I could instead say of you that you are simple, and
> > additionally, you expect others to be simply stupid.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Phil, if you can't edit yourself before clicking the send icon, either don't
> click it or ask a professional journalist to edit it for you.

Question? What internet service provider does Paul use?

AOL!

Does AOL have a static or dynamic IP address assignment system?

Dynamic!

Dynamic IP Address - Comes from a pool of IP addresses and is assigned
on the fly. Any available IP address can be used. Changes often.

If you have looked at your Web stats lately and noticed an
unbelievable number of AOL users have been to your site or are on your
site right now it is because AOL users are assigned dynamic IP
addresses.

In a perfect world, each computer would have one static IP address
assigned to it. Just like each person has one static name given at
birth to officially identify them. However, just like people, a
computer can change it's identity or take on different aliases on the
fly.

Internet users are almost always assigned a dynamic IP address by
their Internet provider but they usually do not change as often as AOL
users. That is because most Internet providers have nowhere near the
customers as AOL. Instead of buying millions and millions of IP
addresses, AOL re-uses from the same pool.

It is not uncommon for an AOL user to get a different IP address for
each page that they view. You may look at the "Whos On" in your stats
and see that 25 AOL users are at your Website. In all likelihood you
have one AOL user who has viewed 25 pages and received a different IP
address for each page they viewed. A new tracking session is started
every click (i.e. for each IP address) making it look like a separate
user.


  
Date: 25 Jan 2008 04:03:46
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
>> Phil, if you can't edit yourself before clicking the send icon, either
>> don't
>> click it or ask a professional journalist to edit it for you.
>
> Question? What internet service provider does Paul use?
>
> AOL!
>
> Does AOL have a static or dynamic IP address assignment system?
>
> Dynamic!
>
> Dynamic IP Address - Comes from a pool of IP addresses and is assigned
> on the fly. Any available IP address can be used. Changes often.

AOL can trace USENET postings for up to ninety days minimum. I've
successfully subpoeaned them before.

The key to finding the imposter is the Suddenlink posts.


--
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: 25 Jan 2008 08:26:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the Sloan
suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, including
the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the
opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, [received
overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar.

When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both
editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups.

Phil Innes




  
Date: 24 Jan 2008 06:46:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 24, 9:29 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Sometimes I wonder if Innes is stark raving mad.
>
> You wonder, Mike? The "nearly an IM" and George Orwell 'quotation'
> nonsense didn't convince you?

Hey, you'd be surprised at how many patzers
out there convince themselves they are nearly
of IM strength. I have routinely encountered
folks who want to compare their own lifetime
*peak* ratings with other players' current
ratings, and who cannot see that this is at all
unfair.


> I used to add "snipped" to posts I quoted in their entirety, simply to
> see P Innes complain about my omitting something. I was rarely
> disappointed.

Snipped rest of rubbishing of your vast
superior-- a 2450 rated, nearly-an-IM who
now has Rybka, and is very likely nearly-a-
GM in strength as a result. If he has the
latest version, Mr. Innes may even be
nearly-a-world-champion now, with a rating
of 2950-- and that's without any endgame
table-bases!


> > >The fact that Kane does the same does allow you to complain though, so maybe
> > >continue?
>
> > What does this mean? Seems gibberish.
>
> It is gibberish.

Old Andean, actually. A distant relative
of Latin, but with a hint of Spanish, and a
pinch of garlic. I note that nearly-Innes
goes gibbery whenever he can't think of
anything intelligent to say-- which is most
of the time, now that I think about it... .


-- help bot


   
Date: 24 Jan 2008 17:05:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
Greg. you retreat even more into your misanthropy - and I have been reading
your cyncicism for 7 yeaqrs. If i 'had' Rybka I would be 3000 not 2300. You
said so yourself.

But you can't stand anyone to be better than you, so you forget you said so
in your self-pitying messages here.

If you can't write about chess at all, why not fuck off? I mean, you have a
certain intelligence for things, a good bullshit detector [except your own]
but are sour, so sour!

If you really had something to offer, wouldn't you write it in chess terms?
Not resentful of those who can?

Your post have descended to self-pitying whines about what you speculate.
They are become thought and fact free. Even previous allies distance
themselves. But I think you are getting off on being a tragic case. No-body
hates you, but your good mind for things is overwhelmed by dissapointments
and you become a drag.

Man to man, the targets of your arrows are cowardly aimed, lest you sign
yourself, as other than Captain Cheapshot.

Phil Innes

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 24, 9:29 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Sometimes I wonder if Innes is stark raving mad.
>>
>> You wonder, Mike? The "nearly an IM" and George Orwell 'quotation'
>> nonsense didn't convince you?
>
> Hey, you'd be surprised at how many patzers
> out there convince themselves they are nearly
> of IM strength. I have routinely encountered
> folks who want to compare their own lifetime
> *peak* ratings with other players' current
> ratings, and who cannot see that this is at all
> unfair.
>
>
>> I used to add "snipped" to posts I quoted in their entirety, simply to
>> see P Innes complain about my omitting something. I was rarely
>> disappointed.
>
> Snipped rest of rubbishing of your vast
> superior-- a 2450 rated, nearly-an-IM who
> now has Rybka, and is very likely nearly-a-
> GM in strength as a result. If he has the
> latest version, Mr. Innes may even be
> nearly-a-world-champion now, with a rating
> of 2950-- and that's without any endgame
> table-bases!
>
>
>> > >The fact that Kane does the same does allow you to complain though, so
>> > >maybe
>> > >continue?
>>
>> > What does this mean? Seems gibberish.
>>
>> It is gibberish.
>
> Old Andean, actually. A distant relative
> of Latin, but with a hint of Spanish, and a
> pinch of garlic. I note that nearly-Innes
> goes gibbery whenever he can't think of
> anything intelligent to say-- which is most
> of the time, now that I think about it... .
>
>
> -- help bot




  
Date: 24 Jan 2008 06:29:46
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 23, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:07:54 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >You shouldn't snip the entirety of other people's posts then, should you
> >Murray?
>
> Sometimes I wonder if Innes is stark raving mad.

You wonder, Mike? The "nearly an IM" and George Orwell 'quotation'
nonsense didn't convince you?

My response included
> his entire post. I top-posted my reply in order to leave his
> response contiguous. It's there. I recommend he look for once,
> before posting.

I used to add "snipped" to posts I quoted in their entirety, simply to
see P Innes complain about my omitting something. I was rarely
disappointed.

> >The fact that Kane does the same does allow you to complain though, so maybe
> >continue?
>
> What does this mean? Seems gibberish.

It is gibberish.

> >In the meantime what is very funny to me, is the State of Play - with all
> >those who have /demanded/ information now shutting up when the offer to
> >throw the doors open, and the chips fall where they may, should be made.
>
> AFAIK, Polgar's "offer" was a showboat ploy, designed only to distract
> and create FUD. She didn't offer to make available the items demanded
> by the USCF's attorneys, namely the ISP records and Truong's formal
> denial of FSS involvement. Instead, she offers to publicize a whole
> raft of extraneous material, much of it not pertinent to the FSS case,
> much of it related to apparently confidential business and personnel
> matters involving third parties.
>
> The offer seems merely a publicity stunt. If she knows of material
> that would exonerate PT, she could point it out to their attorney, who
> would find appropriate legal ways to pry it loose.
>
> Couple analogies to cast this publicity stunt in the proper light:
>
> (1) An employee is being disciplined for misuse of company time via
> private e-mails, which he's encrypted. Offers to decrypt the material
> for inspection if the company will release for his inspection ALL of
> its emails in the same time period.
>
> (2) A kid, suspected of some improper activity which his parents
> believe he's described in his diary, offers to reveal his diary if the
> parents will reveal theirs.
>
> If P Innes were really taken in by this ploy, he's more gullible than
> even his posting history would.... hmmmm.... well, OK, I guess it's
> not surprising that he was taken in.

Agreed.


   
Date: 24 Jan 2008 13:43:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jan 23, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:07:54 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You shouldn't snip the entirety of other people's posts then, should you
>> >Murray?
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder if Innes is stark raving mad.

Says the snipper.

> You wonder, Mike? The "nearly an IM" and George Orwell 'quotation'
> nonsense didn't convince you?

What does Brennan know about chess? Nothing - he doesn't write about chess,
he writes about people who write about chess. As for the Orwell 'quotation',
that is merely the limit of his integrity, since even in chess groups people
will have read that it is no quotation of Orwell at all - but liar-pants
only writes trash, so he continues his invention.

> My response included
>> his entire post. I top-posted my reply in order to leave his
>> response contiguous. It's there. I recommend he look for once,
>> before posting.
>
> I used to add "snipped" to posts I quoted in their entirety, simply to
> see P Innes complain about my omitting something. I was rarely
> disappointed.

Yeah - right!

Will either of them be brave enough to say they want USCF to open up
completely? Or is it their ludicrous choice after clamoring for 7 months to
now admit they don't want to hear the whole truth?

Just the bits which let them bitch? :)

What an awful conundrum for one-issue Murray, and the resident abusenik!
Poor lafferty has been laughed off several new newsgroups he has attempted
'conversation' with, and the not-a-Reverend /only/ observes the gutter
[through a silk hanky, of course]. Spinrad has run off. Kane invents the
opinions of others, unchallenged. And who else is there - O yeah! Sam Sloan,
who is in some danger of appearing to be a year-long hypocrite because after
promoting openess, he can't quite seem to notice this issue ;)

>> >The fact that Kane does the same does allow you to complain though, so
>> >maybe
>> >continue?
>>
>> What does this mean? Seems gibberish.
>
> It is gibberish.

Another 2-clause sentence stumps Brennan's comprehension. Truly, where do
his talents begin? Kane invents other people's attitudes, and so his
inventions cannot be seen as such he does not cite anything. Murray merely
excises all views not congenial to his own perspective. The two writers
enjoy this practice, since it allows them to say something - in fact to
bitch - otherwise they would actually have to attend to facts, as such, not
speculations, such as the rest of us must.

>> >In the meantime what is very funny to me, is the State of Play - with
>> >all
>> >those who have /demanded/ information now shutting up when the offer to
>> >throw the doors open, and the chips fall where they may, should be made.

And what a silence! Everyone has run away from this statement of NO DEFENCE
at all. Nothing to hide, says Polgar.

>> AFAIK, Polgar's "offer" was a showboat ploy, designed only to distract
>> and create FUD.

What an absurd, even Orwellian series of propositions! Letting others decide
for themselves is here become showboating and a distraction! What a truly
imbecilic commentary. These writers ask everyone to Double-Think.

Openess = Spin :))))

Some other wag recently accused me of being 'partisan' so that, by stating I
wanted the members to make up their own minds;

Openess with no proscriptive spin = Partisanship :))))0

No wonder abuseniks have to rubbish openess itself, since their vampiric
nature cannot operate in the sunshine. If Susan Polgar does have something
which would 'exhonerate' her husband, and USCF says she cannot reference it,
where now, O conspirators!

Let me pass on analogies since they are not necessary. If USCF have
something to conceal they will pass on the offer to open up. They have less
than 11 hours to make a response.

That is the challenge that all people should understand. If this little
ain't clear, then read the Parrot this weekend, since there are another
1,000 words which will contribute mightily to this issue by those accused
people who make it all mighty clear.

Very far from wishing to conceal anything, Susan Polgar keeps asking for it
to be published in its /entirety/ which is rather more than ever appeared in
this newsgroup. At the same time her husband wants to be interviewed to also
address this matter directly, and /pursues me/ for the opportunity to come
forth.

Neither of them seem the least shy in discussing every single aspect of
this. Therefore, by tommorrow morning, if nothing is heard from USCF, then
the entire trend of this investigation will have swung around 180 degrees.
This will dissapoint almost all writers to this subject in the newsgroup,
since then, the very material they want will have been denied them by USCF
itself.

And will they wonder why, or ask USCF itself? I think we know which, don't
we, children?

Phil Innes

>> She didn't offer to make available the items demanded
>> by the USCF's attorneys, namely the ISP records and Truong's formal
>> denial of FSS involvement. Instead, she offers to publicize a whole
>> raft of extraneous material, much of it not pertinent to the FSS case,
>> much of it related to apparently confidential business and personnel
>> matters involving third parties.
>>
>> The offer seems merely a publicity stunt. If she knows of material
>> that would exonerate PT, she could point it out to their attorney, who
>> would find appropriate legal ways to pry it loose.
>>
>> Couple analogies to cast this publicity stunt in the proper light:
>>
>> (1) An employee is being disciplined for misuse of company time via
>> private e-mails, which he's encrypted. Offers to decrypt the material
>> for inspection if the company will release for his inspection ALL of
>> its emails in the same time period.
>>
>> (2) A kid, suspected of some improper activity which his parents
>> believe he's described in his diary, offers to reveal his diary if the
>> parents will reveal theirs.
>>
>> If P Innes were really taken in by this ploy, he's more gullible than
>> even his posting history would.... hmmmm.... well, OK, I guess it's
>> not surprising that he was taken in.
>
> Agreed.




 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 22:46:28
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
This isn't the most sympathetic cast of characters, no matter which side
you're on, which seems to be what makes it so fascinating.


--
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: 21 Jan 2008 18:26:23
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 9:17 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> J.D. Walker wrote:
> > J.D. Walker wrote:
> >> The Historian wrote:
> >>> On Jan 21, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> The Historian wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> The Historian wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The Historian wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to
> >>>>>>>>>> do with it?
> >>>>>>>>>> Absolutely no."
> >>>>>>>>>> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted
> >>>>>>>>>> it in a
> >>>>>>>>>> different format, they should have officially informed or
> >>>>>>>>>> explained it to
> >>>>>>>>>> us.
> >>>>>>>>> You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference
> >>>>>>>>> between a
> >>>>>>>>> statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
> >>>>>>>>> understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
> >>>>>>>> To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar
> >>>>>>>> blog. I
> >>>>>>>> do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still
> >>>>>>>> available in
> >>>>>>>> the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that
> >>>>>>>> it is
> >>>>>>>> completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal
> >>>>>>>> document.
> >>>>>>>> If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
> >>>>>>>> asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility
> >>>>>>>> to wet
> >>>>>>>> nurse their ignorance.
> >>>>>>>> Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on
> >>>>>>>> their blog
> >>>>>>>> at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps
> >>>>>>>> Gregory
> >>>>>>>> Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given
> >>>>>>>> this, who
> >>>>>>>> actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
> >>>>>>> Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
> >>>>>>> Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
> >>>>>> Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I
> >>>>>> prefer to
> >>>>>> operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
> >>>>>> interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.
> >>>>> I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
> >>>>> hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
> >>>>> am, Reverend Walker.
> >>>> As far as I know this was not about you Mr. Historian. Some one
> >>>> sent me
> >>>> anon email... It was not you was it?
>
> >>> No, Reverend Walker, I have not sent you any email, anonymous or
> >>> otherwise, at any time. Since you replied to and quoted my post, I
> >>> read your posting as addressed to me. My apologies for
> >>> misunderstanding.
>
> >> No apology is necessary. Confusion caused by anons... :(
> >> Nevertheless, the fellow had some good points to make. I wish he
> >> would make them here now. I am not going to carry his water. :^)
>
> > Well, I will go this far. I have been pointed to one instance on the
> > blog of the statement by Paul Truong. It bears close scrutiny for what
> > it says and what it does not say.
>
> > "Re: IP Addresses of Posters
> > Postby PaulTruong on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:36 pm
>
> > I am also very disturbed by the latest development. Through Susan's
> > blog, everyone knows the town where we live, events which we attend, as
> > well as the locations. Any experience individual who has access to my IP
> > can spoof it easily. It does not take a genius for this. /Do I know who
> > did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no./
>
> > It also bothers me that USCF contractors can do as they wish with
> > members' info without the consent or approval of the ED, EB or USCF
> > members. Anyone who violates the members' privacy and acted unethically
> > should be dismissed and have all their access to the USCF database and
> > members' info revoked immediately. And the USCF should go after any
> > contractor who violates the NDA which they signed. If not, the USCF will
> > be a target of serious legal problems for the harms they may have caused
> > to a number of USCF members.
>
> > In my opinion, this is not the time for the USCF to sit back and allow
> > such blatant violations of the members' right to privacy go unpunished.
> > Since this is now an official legal issue, this will be my only
> > statement regarding this matter. The question was asked and I answered.
> > Once the EB and the ED come to a decision, we will announce it."
>
> Alright, alright, I will take it one more step... When Mr. Innes said:
> "She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong: "Do I know who did it?
> Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no."
>
> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
> different format, they should have officially informed or explained it
> to us."
>
> We have the apparent original message above, and we have Susan's
> quotation provided by Mr. Innes. A few points about this.
>
> 1) She has taken Paul's statement out of context to answer the USCF
> objection. What was the context?
>
> 2) Careful reading of the origianl statement shows that in the paragraph
> of context he was referring to IP spoofing.
>
> 3) If we replace the "it" in his statement with the logical substitute
> "IP spoofing" we end up with this statement:
>
> "Do I know who did the IP spoofing? Absolutely no. Did I have anything
> to do with the IP spoofing? Absolutely no."
>
> 4) Therefore the in-context denial has nothing to do with what the USCF
> was trying to address.
>
> 5) The statement by Susan "Can this be any clearer?" Is misdirection
> distracting the reader from the fact that she has taken the denial out
> of context and that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
>
> 6) Conclusion: Looks like sleazy lying to me. How does it look to you?

Like they neglected to update their 'denial' to match the latest
defense strategy of the remote-control trojan.

> Now, my anon informant might have put this more elegantly, but I have
> muddled something together as best I can. <sighs>
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.



 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 17:07:37
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The Historian wrote:
> >>> On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> The Historian wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
> >>>>>> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
> >>>>>> Absolutely no."
> >>>>>> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
> >>>>>> different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
> >>>>>> us.
> >>>>> You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
> >>>>> statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
> >>>>> understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
> >>>> To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
> >>>> do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
> >>>> the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
> >>>> completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
> >>>> If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
> >>>> asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
> >>>> nurse their ignorance.
> >>>> Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
> >>>> at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
> >>>> Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
> >>>> actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
> >>> Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
> >>> Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
> >> Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
> >> operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
> >> interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.
>
> > I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
> > hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
> > am, Reverend Walker.
>
> As far as I know this was not about you Mr. Historian. Some one sent me
> anon email... It was not you was it?

No, Reverend Walker, I have not sent you any email, anonymous or
otherwise, at any time. Since you replied to and quoted my post, I
read your posting as addressed to me. My apologies for
misunderstanding.



  
Date: 21 Jan 2008 17:10:15
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 21, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
>>>>>>>> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
>>>>>>>> Absolutely no."
>>>>>>>> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
>>>>>>>> different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
>>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>> You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
>>>>>>> statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
>>>>>>> understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
>>>>>> To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
>>>>>> do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
>>>>>> the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
>>>>>> completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
>>>>>> If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
>>>>>> asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
>>>>>> nurse their ignorance.
>>>>>> Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
>>>>>> at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
>>>>>> Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
>>>>>> actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
>>>>> Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
>>>>> Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
>>>> Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
>>>> operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
>>>> interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.
>>> I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
>>> hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
>>> am, Reverend Walker.
>> As far as I know this was not about you Mr. Historian. Some one sent me
>> anon email... It was not you was it?
>
> No, Reverend Walker, I have not sent you any email, anonymous or
> otherwise, at any time. Since you replied to and quoted my post, I
> read your posting as addressed to me. My apologies for
> misunderstanding.
>

No apology is necessary. Confusion caused by anons... :(
Nevertheless, the fellow had some good points to make. I wish he would
make them here now. I am not going to carry his water. :^)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


   
Date: 21 Jan 2008 17:23:53
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
J.D. Walker wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>> On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
>>>>>>>>> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do
>>>>>>>>> with it?
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely no."
>>>>>>>>> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted
>>>>>>>>> it in a
>>>>>>>>> different format, they should have officially informed or
>>>>>>>>> explained it to
>>>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>>> You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference
>>>>>>>> between a
>>>>>>>> statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
>>>>>>>> understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
>>>>>>> To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar
>>>>>>> blog. I
>>>>>>> do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still
>>>>>>> available in
>>>>>>> the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal
>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>> If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
>>>>>>> asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility
>>>>>>> to wet
>>>>>>> nurse their ignorance.
>>>>>>> Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their
>>>>>>> blog
>>>>>>> at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps
>>>>>>> Gregory
>>>>>>> Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given
>>>>>>> this, who
>>>>>>> actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
>>>>>> Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
>>>>>> Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
>>>>> Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
>>>>> operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
>>>>> interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.
>>>> I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
>>>> hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
>>>> am, Reverend Walker.
>>> As far as I know this was not about you Mr. Historian. Some one sent me
>>> anon email... It was not you was it?
>>
>> No, Reverend Walker, I have not sent you any email, anonymous or
>> otherwise, at any time. Since you replied to and quoted my post, I
>> read your posting as addressed to me. My apologies for
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>
> No apology is necessary. Confusion caused by anons... :( Nevertheless,
> the fellow had some good points to make. I wish he would make them here
> now. I am not going to carry his water. :^)

Well, I will go this far. I have been pointed to one instance on the
blog of the statement by Paul Truong. It bears close scrutiny for what
it says and what it does not say.

"Re: IP Addresses of Posters
Postby PaulTruong on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:36 pm

I am also very disturbed by the latest development. Through Susan's
blog, everyone knows the town where we live, events which we attend, as
well as the locations. Any experience individual who has access to my IP
can spoof it easily. It does not take a genius for this. /Do I know who
did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no./

It also bothers me that USCF contractors can do as they wish with
members' info without the consent or approval of the ED, EB or USCF
members. Anyone who violates the members' privacy and acted unethically
should be dismissed and have all their access to the USCF database and
members' info revoked immediately. And the USCF should go after any
contractor who violates the NDA which they signed. If not, the USCF will
be a target of serious legal problems for the harms they may have caused
to a number of USCF members.

In my opinion, this is not the time for the USCF to sit back and allow
such blatant violations of the members' right to privacy go unpunished.
Since this is now an official legal issue, this will be my only
statement regarding this matter. The question was asked and I answered.
Once the EB and the ED come to a decision, we will announce it."
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 21 Jan 2008 18:17:13
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
J.D. Walker wrote:
> J.D. Walker wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Jan 21, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
>>>>>>>>>> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to
>>>>>>>>>> do with it?
>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely no."
>>>>>>>>>> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted
>>>>>>>>>> it in a
>>>>>>>>>> different format, they should have officially informed or
>>>>>>>>>> explained it to
>>>>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>>>> You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference
>>>>>>>>> between a
>>>>>>>>> statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
>>>>>>>>> understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
>>>>>>>> To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar
>>>>>>>> blog. I
>>>>>>>> do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still
>>>>>>>> available in
>>>>>>>> the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that
>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>> completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal
>>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>>> If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
>>>>>>>> asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility
>>>>>>>> to wet
>>>>>>>> nurse their ignorance.
>>>>>>>> Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on
>>>>>>>> their blog
>>>>>>>> at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps
>>>>>>>> Gregory
>>>>>>>> Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given
>>>>>>>> this, who
>>>>>>>> actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
>>>>>>> Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
>>>>>>> Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
>>>>>> Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I
>>>>>> prefer to
>>>>>> operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
>>>>>> interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.
>>>>> I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
>>>>> hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
>>>>> am, Reverend Walker.
>>>> As far as I know this was not about you Mr. Historian. Some one
>>>> sent me
>>>> anon email... It was not you was it?
>>>
>>> No, Reverend Walker, I have not sent you any email, anonymous or
>>> otherwise, at any time. Since you replied to and quoted my post, I
>>> read your posting as addressed to me. My apologies for
>>> misunderstanding.
>>>
>>
>> No apology is necessary. Confusion caused by anons... :(
>> Nevertheless, the fellow had some good points to make. I wish he
>> would make them here now. I am not going to carry his water. :^)
>
> Well, I will go this far. I have been pointed to one instance on the
> blog of the statement by Paul Truong. It bears close scrutiny for what
> it says and what it does not say.
>
> "Re: IP Addresses of Posters
> Postby PaulTruong on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:36 pm
>
> I am also very disturbed by the latest development. Through Susan's
> blog, everyone knows the town where we live, events which we attend, as
> well as the locations. Any experience individual who has access to my IP
> can spoof it easily. It does not take a genius for this. /Do I know who
> did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no./
>
> It also bothers me that USCF contractors can do as they wish with
> members' info without the consent or approval of the ED, EB or USCF
> members. Anyone who violates the members' privacy and acted unethically
> should be dismissed and have all their access to the USCF database and
> members' info revoked immediately. And the USCF should go after any
> contractor who violates the NDA which they signed. If not, the USCF will
> be a target of serious legal problems for the harms they may have caused
> to a number of USCF members.
>
> In my opinion, this is not the time for the USCF to sit back and allow
> such blatant violations of the members' right to privacy go unpunished.
> Since this is now an official legal issue, this will be my only
> statement regarding this matter. The question was asked and I answered.
> Once the EB and the ED come to a decision, we will announce it."

Alright, alright, I will take it one more step... When Mr. Innes said:
"She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong: "Do I know who did it?
Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no."

Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it
to us."

We have the apparent original message above, and we have Susan's
quotation provided by Mr. Innes. A few points about this.

1) She has taken Paul's statement out of context to answer the USCF
objection. What was the context?

2) Careful reading of the origianl statement shows that in the paragraph
of context he was referring to IP spoofing.

3) If we replace the "it" in his statement with the logical substitute
"IP spoofing" we end up with this statement:

"Do I know who did the IP spoofing? Absolutely no. Did I have anything
to do with the IP spoofing? Absolutely no."

4) Therefore the in-context denial has nothing to do with what the USCF
was trying to address.

5) The statement by Susan "Can this be any clearer?" Is misdirection
distracting the reader from the fact that she has taken the denial out
of context and that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

6) Conclusion: Looks like sleazy lying to me. How does it look to you?

Now, my anon informant might have put this more elegantly, but I have
muddled something together as best I can. <sighs >
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 21 Jan 2008 18:04:35
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:23:53 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:


>Post by PaulTruong on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:36 pm
>... Any experience individual who has access to my IP
>can spoof it easily. It does not take a genius for this....

>It also bothers me that USCF contractors can do as they wish with
>members' info without the consent or approval of the ED, EB or USCF
>members. Anyone who violates the members' privacy and acted unethically
>should be dismissed and have all their access to the USCF database and
>members' info revoked immediately. And the USCF should go after any
>contractor who violates the NDA which they signed....

Much has been made over the brief publication of IP addresses on the
USCF Members Only Forum. Brian Mottershead, who was the volunteer
responsible for this, was quickly directed to revoke this publication.
The IP addresses were exposed for a few hours, mostly in the middle of
the night, but their publication was especially troublesome to members
who had fixed IP addresses. Mottershead acknowledged he could have
handled it better. He was suspended, his suspension evidently driven
by strong demands from Truong and Polgar.

What I haven't seen discussed is that, some time (a few weeks, I
believe) before this fateful night, a poster on this rgcp forum had
suggested that IP addresses provided a way to trap the FSS. At that
time, the FSS had made a number of rgcp forgeries which copied large
amounts of material from the USCF Members website with a line or two
modified to change the meaning. Someone noted that a few of these
fake rgcp posts were made shortly after the original post appeared on
the USCF forum. It was suggested that checking the logs on the USCF
site would reveal a very short list of folks who had been active there
during the window of time between the original and fake post.

This approach seems similar to what Mottershead later implemented.

So, it was known some time before Mottershead did his analysis, at
least to regular posters, that a review of IP addresses could prove
dangerous to the anonymity of the FSS. I often wondered if this had
anything to do with Truong and Polgar reportedly demanding
Mottershead's immediate suspension when they found out he was
reviewing IP addresses. Admittedly, a more abstract concern with the
privacy issue provides an alternative explanation.



    
Date: 22 Jan 2008 01:56:05
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

>It also bothers me that USCF contractors can do as they wish with
>members' info without the consent or approval of the ED, EB or USCF
>members. Anyone who violates the members' privacy and acted unethically
>should be dismissed and have all their access to the USCF database and
>members' info revoked immediately. And the USCF should go after any
>contractor who violates the NDA which they signed. If not, the USCF will
>be a target of serious legal problems for the harms they may have caused
>to a number of USCF members.

If that is the case then past and present could be involved.

>In my opinion, this is not the time for the USCF to sit back and allow
>such blatant violations of the members' right to privacy go unpunished.
>Since this is now an official legal issue, this will be my only
>statement regarding this matter. The question was asked and I answered.
>Once the EB and the ED come to a decision, we will announce it."

Sounds very Jose Canseco...ish.

EZoto


 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 16:57:17
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The Historian wrote:
> >>> On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
> >>>> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
> >>>> Absolutely no."
> >>>> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
> >>>> different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
> >>>> us.
> >>> You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
> >>> statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
> >>> understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
> >> To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
> >> do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
> >> the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
> >> completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
> >> If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
> >> asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
> >> nurse their ignorance.
>
> >> Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
> >> at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
> >> Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
> >> actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
>
> > Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
> > Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
>
> Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
> operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
> interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.

I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
am, Reverend Walker.



  
Date: 21 Jan 2008 16:59:56
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
>>>>>> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
>>>>>> Absolutely no."
>>>>>> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
>>>>>> different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
>>>>>> us.
>>>>> You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
>>>>> statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
>>>>> understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
>>>> To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
>>>> do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
>>>> the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
>>>> completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
>>>> If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
>>>> asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
>>>> nurse their ignorance.
>>>> Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
>>>> at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
>>>> Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
>>>> actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
>>> Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
>>> Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
>> Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
>> operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
>> interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.
>
> I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
> hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
> am, Reverend Walker.
>

As far as I know this was not about you Mr. Historian. Some one sent me
anon email... It was not you was it?
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 16:32:22
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
>
> >> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
> >> Absolutely no."
>
> >> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
> >> different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
> >> us.
>
> > You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
> > statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
> > understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
>
> To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
> do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
> the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
> completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
> If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
> asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
> nurse their ignorance.
>
> Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
> at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
> Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
> actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.

Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.



  
Date: 21 Jan 2008 16:53:28
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
>>>> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
>>>> Absolutely no."
>>>> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
>>>> different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
>>>> us.
>>> You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
>>> statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
>>> understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
>> To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
>> do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
>> the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
>> completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
>> If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
>> asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
>> nurse their ignorance.
>>
>> Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
>> at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
>> Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
>> actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
>
> Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
> Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
>

Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 16:09:02
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Monday January 21st, 2008
> -----------------------------
>
> Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
> 2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
> complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
> misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-
>
> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
> information they have about us relating to this case.
> Everyone can then decide who is clean and who is not. Why not let the USCF
> members decide what the facts are? "
>
> The URL for the full statement is at
>
> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/TheParrotSquaawk...
>
> which extracts from Alekhine's Parrot, which also contains her earlier
> statement on the same topic
>
> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm
>
> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
>
> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
> Absolutely no."
>
> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
> different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
> us.

You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
understand it, find a child to explain it to you.



  
Date: 21 Jan 2008 16:22:53
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
>>
>> "Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
>> Absolutely no."
>>
>> Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
>> different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
>> us.
>
> You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
> statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
> understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
>

To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
nurse their ignorance.

Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 15:05:17
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 5:22 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from
> > his IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan
> > responds by saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.
>
> I do not understand that to be a quote of Susan Polgar.

A not surprising admission from a person who doesn't know what a
quotation is, or how to use quotation ks. I suggest you follow
Judge Lafferty's advice and hire a journalist to write your posts for
you.


 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 14:20:59
From: Rob
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 2:46=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>Monday January 21st, 2008
> >>>-----------------------------
>
> >>>Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 2=
0,
> >>>2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
> >>>Truong's
> >>>complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
> >>>misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:=
-
>
> >>> =A0 =A0"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish al=
l
> >>>information they have about us relating to this case.
>
> >> This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
> >> information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. =A0They
> >> also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
> >> one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.
>
> > Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
> > asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to=

> > his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information=

> > about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.
>
> > For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally t=
o
> > Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make a=
ny
> > simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they wil=
l
> > accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters
> > heretofore held secret.
>
> > I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that questio=
ns
> > actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not kno=
w
> > if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan Polgar=
's
> > first statement was true.
>
> > Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is=

> > true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or not=
-
> > which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to ope=
n
> > up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> ROTFLMAO!! =A0Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. =A0It has been
> clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
> asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or=

> admitting the Sloan allegations. =A0Simple request. =A0Normal request by o=
nes
> counsel in litigation. But, a request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply=

> with. =A0Guilty people do have problems with such requests.
>
> Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from h=
is
> IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. =A0So Susan respond=
s by
> saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.
>
> Bullshit will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
> Truong has reached the end of the line.
>
> ChaChing........GUILTY
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am much distrubed by the USCF's inclination to "eat it's young".
There has been a tolerance of miscreants in this organization for
decades. Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are ,IMO, being attacked simply
because they are thoughtful agents of change. There is no personal
information that is safe once in the hands of the USCF.

Confidential information of members is shared or left open to
exploitation. Employment applications and resume's of applicants are
faxed and distributed "willy-nilly" with no fore-thought to
confidentiality.

Currently, it appears to me the quickest way to destroy the future of
the game of chess in America is to associate it with the USCF.


  
Date: 21 Jan 2008 22:25:47
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 21, 2:46 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>Monday January 21st, 2008
> >>>-----------------------------
>
> >>>Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan
> >>>20,
> >>>2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
> >>>Truong's
> >>>complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
> >>>misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the
> >>>offer:-
>
> >>> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
> >>>information they have about us relating to this case.
>
> >> This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
> >> information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
> >> also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
> >> one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.
>
> > Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
> > asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
> > his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
> > about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.
>
> > For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally
> > to
> > Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make
> > any
> > simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they
> > will
> > accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters
> > heretofore held secret.
>
> > I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that
> > questions
> > actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not
> > know
> > if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan
> > Polgar's
> > first statement was true.
>
> > Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
> > true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or
> > not -
> > which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to
> > open
> > up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
> clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
> asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
> admitting the Sloan allegations. Simple request. Normal request by ones
> counsel in litigation. But, a request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply
> with. Guilty people do have problems with such requests.
>
> Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from
> his
> IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan responds
> by
> saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.
>
> Bullshit will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
> Truong has reached the end of the line.
>
> ChaChing........GUILTY
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am much distrubed by the USCF's inclination to "eat it's young".
There has been a tolerance of miscreants in this organization for
decades. Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are ,IMO, being attacked simply
because they are thoughtful agents of change. [snip]

Thoughtful agents of change. Now that's the funniest one liner I've read in
years. Thanks for the laugh.




 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 12:47:23
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 21, 10:03 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Monday January 21st, 2008
> >>-----------------------------
>
> >>Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
> >>2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
> >>complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
> >>misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-
>
> >> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
> >>information they have about us relating to this case.
>
> > This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
> > information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
> > also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
> > one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.
>
> Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
> asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to his
> question; that the questions were answered, and that all information about
> the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.
>
> For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
> Susan Polgar.

Why? She hasn't responded to the USCF. She's just had her lickspittle
throw her mud for her.

In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make any
> simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they will
> accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters heretofore
> held secret.
>
> I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that questions
> actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not know if
> that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan Polgar's
> first statement was true.
>
> Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
> true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or not -

Actually, the gauntlet is lying on the "Welcome" mat on the Trolgar's
doorstep. They keep ignoring it, probably hoping it will go away.

> which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to open up
> so that members themselves can make their own assessment.
>
> Phil Innes



 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 06:51:47
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Monday January 21st, 2008
>-----------------------------

>Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
>2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
>complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
>misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
>information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.


  
Date: 21 Jan 2008 10:03:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Monday January 21st, 2008
>>-----------------------------
>
>>Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
>>2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
>>complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
>>misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-
>
>> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
>>information they have about us relating to this case.
>
> This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
> information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
> also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
> one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to his
question; that the questions were answered, and that all information about
the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make any
simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they will
accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters heretofore
held secret.

I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that questions
actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not know if
that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan Polgar's
first statement was true.

Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or not -
which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to open up
so that members themselves can make their own assessment.

Phil Innes




   
Date: 21 Jan 2008 20:46:42
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Monday January 21st, 2008
>>>-----------------------------
>>
>>>Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
>>>2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
>>>Truong's
>>>complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
>>>misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-
>>
>>> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
>>>information they have about us relating to this case.
>>
>> This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
>> information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
>> also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
>> one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.
>
> Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
> asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
> his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
> about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.
>
> For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
> Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make any
> simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they will
> accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters
> heretofore held secret.
>
> I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that questions
> actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not know
> if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan Polgar's
> first statement was true.
>
> Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
> true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or not -
> which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to open
> up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.
>
> Phil Innes

ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
admitting the Sloan allegations. Simple request. Normal request by ones
counsel in litigation. But, a request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply
with. Guilty people do have problems with such requests.

Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from his
IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan responds by
saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

Bullshit will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
Truong has reached the end of the line.

ChaChing........GUILTY


>




    
Date: 21 Jan 2008 23:49:27
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

>ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
>clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
>asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
>admitting the Sloan allegations. Simple request. Normal request by ones
>counsel in litigation. But, a request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply
>with. Guilty people do have problems with such requests.

I suppose almost everyone here is guilty then because there have been
many posts about sloan that were pretty bad. Your trying to play with
words here. Asking troung for a statement about sloan. You can't
possibly believe it will be a positive statement.

>Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from his
>IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan responds by
>saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

Nothing wrong with that request.
>
>Bullshit will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
>Truong has reached the end of the line.

I guess you haven't lived in the US for long have you? I can find
something to sue you for or anyone. It is a sad state of affairs that
this is possible but true. There are people out there that will put
you through the legal action for no reason and make your life a
nighte. Try bumping someones car in the rear and see what happens
if it is the wrong person. You will definitely suffer in court.
>
>ChaChing........GUILTY

Well I do remember a dry cleaners who was being sued for 54 million
dollars because he messed up a customers pair of pants. I mean he did
mess up his pants you know and the dry cleaners offered to pay for it.
The plaintiff said heck no. But the dry cleaners were guilty. This is
what sloan seems to want to do. It sounds like sour grapes because
these guys got elected and the losers can't stand to lose power.

EZoto
>
>
>>
>



    
Date: 21 Jan 2008 17:22:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Monday January 21st, 2008
>>>>-----------------------------
>>>
>>>>Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan
>>>>20,
>>>>2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
>>>>Truong's
>>>>complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
>>>>misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-
>>>
>>>> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
>>>>information they have about us relating to this case.
>>>
>>> This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
>>> information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
>>> also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
>>> one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.
>>
>> Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
>> asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
>> his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
>> about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.
>>
>> For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
>> Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make
>> any simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they
>> will accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters
>> heretofore held secret.
>>
>> I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that
>> questions actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I
>> do not know if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if
>> Susan Polgar's first statement was true.
>>
>> Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
>> true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or
>> not - which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or
>> to open up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
> clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
> asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
> admitting the Sloan allegations.

And by opening up such correspondance it can be clearly known if this is a
true statement, no? Have you noticed that it is a contested statement?

Have you noticed that accordin to Susan Polgar the questions is already
answered?

> Simple request. Normal request by ones counsel in litigation. But, a
> request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply with. Guilty people do have
> problems with such requests.
>
> Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from
> his IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan
> responds by saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

I do not understand that to be a quote of Susan Polgar.

> Bullshit will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
> Truong has reached the end of the line.
>
> ChaChing........GUILTY

Thank you. line-judge. for your comments, and that of the noted stalker Neil
Brennan who chimed in, to similar effect.

I should not wish this post to be about either of you, since you both
pretend to have comprehension problems by your rhetorical displays in
respect of both legal issues, and those merely decent. It is merely curious
to me, that the biggest supporter of Sam Sloan in these newsgroups, Mr.
Parr, with whom I differ on the worth of Mr. Sloan to ked degree, should
also aver with, should I sufficiently understand Mr. Parr, that there should
be no more secrets here than Susan Polgar suggests.

Indeed, should Mr. Sloan himself be as good as his word about the need for
openness on these issues, he might adopt this specific instance to support
it himself.

Otherwise, as you will well understand, there are those people who, as we
say, "mouth off' about things, but when it comes right down to it, they are
not as good as their word, or their mouth, so to speak.

As to yourself, I take your lack of support for allowing the members to gain
their own opinion to indicate your orientation. Should you not quite
understand the level of insult here offered you, then you are, in my
opinion, rather less than Mr. Sloan who could still notice this issue and be
as good as his own word. Your words, sir, have no good in them whatever, and
you pronounce upon one-sided net-gossip, as if you had even one thought in
your head, rather than the emotional mendacity of a Neil Brennan.

Should you, or others who dislike anything but secrecy find these words too
'complicated' I could instead say of you that you are simple, and
additionally, you expect others to be simply stupid.

Phil Innes


>
>>
>
>




     
Date: 23 Jan 2008 06:32:07
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Jan 22, 9:30 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > STILL "NOT YOUR BOY"
>
> > P Innes' post, below, presents the perfect picture of the lack of care
> > and thoughtfulness infecting most of his posts. His heading indicates
> > "David Kane", the quoted material is from "David Kane" and yet our
> > Phil believes he's writing to me. Of course, in a notorious earlier
> > "dialog", he vigorously attacked one of his own posts. So, I suppose
> > this might be an improvement.
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:08:08 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]
>
> >>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]
> >>>> STATE OF PLAY
>
> >>> Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
> >>> right to post thousands of obscene messages while
> >>> posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
> >>> his behavior.
>
> >> I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are
> >> not brave enough to let a single word stand. Pleaser state why Mike Murray
> >> is such a //wussie// that he can't let other people's comments stand? ;)
>
> Mr. Murray,
>
> It is lamentable to watch poor Innes stumble over himself -- over and
> over again. Innes doesn't know who he is replying to: he argues with
> himself. He constantly tries to draw in bystanders, with shotgun
> insults. He resorts to ad hominen attacks and religious slurs without
> provocation. It is certainly /ugly behavior./
>
> On the other hand, I think he has found a good fit for his /talents/.
> Polgar and Truong will probably reward him well, tossing him a bone or
> two, if he can keep everyone annoyed enough that they are diverted from
> serious investigation of the Polgar efforts at /obfuscation/.

I think he's proved to be a very useful idiot for the First Couple of
Chess.

> By the way, I am one of those that favors /STRONG/ transparency. Let us
> move right away to discovery and sworn testimony. Then the truth will
> become transparently clear.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.



     
Date: 21 Jan 2008 22:30:08
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Monday January 21st, 2008
>>>>>-----------------------------
>>>>
>>>>>Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan
>>>>>20,
>>>>>2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
>>>>>Truong's
>>>>>complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
>>>>>misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the
>>>>>offer:-
>>>>
>>>>> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
>>>>>information they have about us relating to this case.
>>>>
>>>> This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
>>>> information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
>>>> also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
>>>> one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.
>>>
>>> Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
>>> asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
>>> his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
>>> about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.
>>>
>>> For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally
>>> to Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to
>>> make any simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if
>>> they will accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all
>>> matters heretofore held secret.
>>>
>>> I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that
>>> questions actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I
>>> do not know if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if
>>> Susan Polgar's first statement was true.
>>>
>>> Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
>>> true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or
>>> not - which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or
>>> to open up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.
>>>
>>> Phil Innes
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
>> clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
>> asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying
>> or admitting the Sloan allegations.
>
> And by opening up such correspondance it can be clearly known if this is a
> true statement, no? Have you noticed that it is a contested statement?
>
> Have you noticed that accordin to Susan Polgar the questions is already
> answered?

I've noticed that the question hasn't been answered directly by Truong as
requested by counsel.
>
>> Simple request. Normal request by ones counsel in litigation. But, a
>> request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply with. Guilty people do have
>> problems with such requests.
>>
>> Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from
>> his IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan
>> responds by saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.
>
> I do not understand that to be a quote of Susan Polgar.

Ask your buddy Sue for the exact quote in her next email missive to
Chessville.

>
>> Bullshit will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
>> Truong has reached the end of the line.
>>
>> ChaChing........GUILTY
>
> Thank you. line-judge. for your comments, and that of the noted stalker
> Neil Brennan who chimed in, to similar effect.
>
> I should not wish this post to be about either of you, since you both
> pretend to have comprehension problems by your rhetorical displays in
> respect of both legal issues, and those merely decent. It is merely
> curious to me, that the biggest supporter of Sam Sloan in these
> newsgroups, Mr. Parr, with whom I differ on the worth of Mr. Sloan to
> ked degree, should also aver with, should I sufficiently understand Mr.
> Parr, that there should be no more secrets here than Susan Polgar
> suggests.
>
> Indeed, should Mr. Sloan himself be as good as his word about the need for
> openness on these issues, he might adopt this specific instance to support
> it himself.
>
> Otherwise, as you will well understand, there are those people who, as we
> say, "mouth off' about things, but when it comes right down to it, they
> are not as good as their word, or their mouth, so to speak.
>
> As to yourself, I take your lack of support for allowing the members to
> gain their own opinion to indicate your orientation. Should you not quite
> understand the level of insult here offered you, then you are, in my
> opinion, rather less than Mr. Sloan who could still notice this issue and
> be as good as his own word. Your words, sir, have no good in them
> whatever, and you pronounce upon one-sided net-gossip, as if you had even
> one thought in your head, rather than the emotional mendacity of a Neil
> Brennan.
>
> Should you, or others who dislike anything but secrecy find these words
> too 'complicated' I could instead say of you that you are simple, and
> additionally, you expect others to be simply stupid.
>
> Phil Innes

Phil, if you can't edit yourself before clicking the send icon, either don't
click it or ask a professional journalist to edit it for you.




   
Date: 21 Jan 2008 07:15:06
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:03:22 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:


>>> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
>>>information they have about us relating to this case.

>> This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
>> information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
>> also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
>> one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

>Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
>asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to his
>question; that the questions were answered, and that all information about
>the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

I based my statement on posts on the USCF forum by Goichberg and
Bauer, but didn't *quote* anyone. IMO, a good synopsis of the issue
was presented in Steve Owen's blog at

http://chessusa.blogspot.com/2008/01/susan-polgar-responds-to-request-for.html

where he states:

<quote >

The crux of the matter, as Bauer stated in his USCF Forums post, is
that the USCF attorneys asked Truong to:

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
connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and
cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and
other entities;
3. Provide all information that would support his argument that he
was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
Sloan postings, 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.

<unquote >


    
Date: 21 Jan 2008 07:43:44
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: who is clean and who is not
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:03:22 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>> "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
>>>> information they have about us relating to this case.
>
>>> This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
>>> information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
>>> also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
>>> one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.
>
>> Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
>> asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to his
>> question; that the questions were answered, and that all information about
>> the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.
>
> I based my statement on posts on the USCF forum by Goichberg and
> Bauer, but didn't *quote* anyone. IMO, a good synopsis of the issue
> was presented in Steve Owen's blog at
>
> http://chessusa.blogspot.com/2008/01/susan-polgar-responds-to-request-for.html
>
> where he states:
>
> <quote>
>
> The crux of the matter, as Bauer stated in his USCF Forums post, is
> that the USCF attorneys asked Truong to:
>
> 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
> connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and
> cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and
> other entities;
> 3. Provide all information that would support his argument that he
> was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
> Sloan postings, 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.
>
> <unquote>

On reflection, an excellent approach to /transparency/ would be for all
opposing lawyers to drop their motions for dismissal and let Mr. Sloan's
lawsuit proceed to discovery. Then we will learn much more. Is Ms.
Polgar willing to request that her lawyers drop the motions for
dismissal? Let us give her until Friday to indicate her reply.

This might end up very expensive for the defense, but /transparency/ and
truth would be served.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.