On Jun 10, 12:18 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
He confuses the issue of claims and proofs, so that if no record exists,
then neither claim nor question to non-existent record can be proved by
access to the Demonstrandum, the non-existent record.

That's what's Quod.

Phil Innes

Yes but the burden of positive proof rests with the claimant, not the one
questioning the claim...so your defense of Truong falls flat.

Of course, if Eric had not snipped the context, then it could be seen that
he would like to see proof from a record which no one can cite, since there
is also no proof that such a record exists.

If indeed it does exist after all, what I wrote in the first place is, 'what
does such a record say?'. And this is the question I asked Mr. Minh.

That, Eric, is a formal quod erat demonstrandum ad demonstrandum, de minimus
non curat lex.

Phil Innes

ECJ

If the USCF is a small "mail order" company... they do a lousy job. If
they are an organization which cater's to the needs of affiliate clubs
then they need to allocate manpower to that. If they are an
organization that wishes to develop scholastics, then they need a
better vetting and training process. If they are an organization that
wants to promote professional chess playing, then they need to develop
an aggressive marketing plan and develop son "vision".
If they don't know where they are going how will they know when they
get there?
Rob