THE GREAT PARTHENIUM

Until proof-positive "surfaces", LP says, it is "unfair" to call for PT's resignation. A few years ago, hypocrite LP took precisely the opposite position with regard to
an evil FIDE dictator who had been accused of masterminding the
assassination of one of his critics. No evidence was presented against
the FIDE ruler, apart from the
fact that he gained indirectly (if you pretend to ignore all of the
controversy the murder itself generated, all the backlash). My take is
that LP has no moral compass, nothing by which to navigate such issues
apart from whim and whimsy, along with personal biases which bear no
relation to the issues at hand. When convenience
dictates, the great Parrthenium sees no evil, hears no evil, and
speaks no evil. But woe be unto those who may have circumstantial
evidence against them, if
there be enmity betwixt they and he! LOL. -- Help Bot (Greg Kennedy)

"[T]he great Parrthenium"? If Paul Simon were
"still crazy after all these years," Greg Kennedy is
still bruised.

As our Greg Kennedy would have it, we entertain a
personal bias in favor of Paul Truong, even though
this writer favors permitting Sam Sloan, Brian
Lafferty and anyone else to flay Mr. Truong alive with
the electronic word on the USCF Forum, short of
essaying physical threats or, in other words,
threatening actually to flay the man unmetaphorically.
(Of course, Mr. Truong and his many supporters get to
flay back -- though not unmetaphorically.)

But that is not, in truth, our Greg's real
point. We will get to that a bit later.

The man's next argument was that the Old Guard
would not be using Sam, an unwitting dupe in this
scenario, to assail Mr. Truong because, after all, Sam
was an enemy of the Old Guard; and Mr. Truong, as Sam
believes the case to be, was flaying Sam.

Whether or not the Old Guard is pulling one of
its typical ploys, there is no contradiction between
wishing to end the political career of Sam and wishing
also to end the political career of Mr. Truong.

Now to Greg Kennedy's real point: he accuses me of a
double standard where Mr. Truong and Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov are concerned. Pure nonsense.

In the quoted posting, we wrote, "Before getting
to the crux," and this crux was NOT Mr. Truong's guilt
or innocence of Sam's charges. As we wrote, the crux
was censorship on the USCF Forum. Mr. Truong's guilt
was treated strictly as a tangential matter to the
main point. On the other hand Kirsan's responsibility
for Larisa Yudina's murder and the later "accident"
suffered by a key witness were always the central
points in the debate about the Kalmykian dictator.

There is also the respective gravities of the
two charges: Mr. Truong allegedly wrote naughty
e-mail postings; Kirsan stood accused of committing
brutal murder as well as torturing dissidents in
mental institutions. Here enters, among adult minds,
the element of prudential judgment. We are right to
be far more concerned about Kirsan's alleged acts than
Mr. Truong's. We are right to look harder and more
deeply into the crime of murder than into the zany
practice of posting scurrilous email messages. We are
right to answer carefully that ancient question, "Cui
bono?" We see no convincing attribution of motive
that would have caused Mr. Truong to waste the time
required to pen thousands of messages; we see oodles
of motive for a dictator, who is accustomed to living
like the Great Khan, to safeguard his enormous riches
and gratifying power by murdering a dangerous critic.
Too, the testimonies of Kirsan's torture victims, as
adumbrated by human rights organizations, speak to
Kirsan's personal character, adding a dimension of
plausibility to the murder charge that is lacking in
the email message charge. Finally, given the
conviction for murder of several Kirsan associates as
well as the death in a car accident of a witness who
stated he saw Kirsan's brother at the scene of
Yudina's murder, there is a tangible web of
inculpating circumstances suggesting, if not proving,
Kirsan's guilt -- a web that has yet to be spun so
durably in the case against Mr. Truong.

We may all dispute the degree of imbricated
filigree composing the respective webs -- how suavely
they package the respective chess prey -- but Greg's
charge of a contradiction on our part is puerile in
its peevishness. In truth, it is weakminded.

"[T]he great Parrthenium"? We should not enjoy
the envy-injury of our self-described Indiana corn pone.
It is a character failing on our part. Yet try as we
do to stanch our flow of amusement, we need to try
still harder. For we experience pleasure in the
corn pone's pain.

Yours, Larry Parr





help bot wrote:
SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL


Before getting to the crux, I am among those who
have seen no evidence putting Paul Truong's hands on
the keyboard of the False Sam and other messages of
that type. Until such evidence surfaces (as opposed
to geographical analyses and computer numbers that can
be jiggled by clever, if malign, hackers), it is
unfair to call for Paul Truong's resignation from the
Executive Board.


Until proof-positive "surfaces", LP says, it is "unfair" to
call for PT's resignation. A few years ago, hypocrite LP
took precisely the opposite position with regard to an evil
FIDE dictator who had been accused of masterminding
the assassination of one of his critics. No evidence was
presented against the FIDE ruler, apart from the fact that
he gained indirectly (if you pretend to ignore all of the
controversy the murder itself generated, all the backlash).

My take is that LP has no moral compass, nothing by
which to navigate such issues apart from whim and
whimsy, along with personal biases which bear no
relation to the issues at hand. When convenience
dictates, the great Parrthenium sees no evil, hears no
evil, and speaks no evil. But woe be unto those who
may have circumstantial evidence against them, if
there be enmity betwixt they and he! LOL


That said, the attempt by the usual gaggle of
politicians to close down discussion of whether Mr.
Truong or others are guilty of possibly fraudulent
behavior is ever so typical of the USCF political class.


So true. As of yet, no one has answered my query
as to whether or not it is "normal" for a non-profit org.
to take such measures, and I interpret this as meaning
that personal issues take precedence here over any
objective ones.


There is another possible scenario re the Truong
affair. It is possible that the USCF Old Guardist are
using Sam, who is the unwitting dupe here, to
undermine Polgar-Truong. he idea is to adopt a faux
statesmanship, involving censorship at the USCF Forum
and calls for prolonged investigation as a way of
positioning the Old Guardists as moderates who, at
long last, conclude that Mr. Truong ought to resign.


That made precious little sense, as it was not only SS
who was allegedly attacked, nor did SS require any
manipulation whatever to attack the PT/SP duo. (It
seems that it is in his nature to attack SP.)


This latter is an ancient insider trick.


One trick I have not yet learned is figuring out why
LP has chosen to support rather than attack Paul
Truong. Given all the "evidence" I have seen posted
here by LP's buddy SS, it is amazing that the former
would feign ignorance and take a position of trying
to ignore it and suggest that no evidence has yet
been "seen". In any case, one thing is certain:
once LP takes a position -- however ludicrous -- he
does not easily change his mind, regardless of the
pertinent facts. Thus, I expect to see a lot more of
this kind of SEE NO EVIL stuff in the near future.


Much of the stuff attributed to PT, I have not seen;
but going by the little I have read, an appropriate
punishment might be a spanking or else a time out.
That's because of the level of maturity of these posts,
which is clear evidence that the real culprit is no adult,
but a mischievous adolescent, reminiscent of the Grim
Repa (sans foul mouth). In fact, until I saw the posts
by Sam Sloan which correlated the culprit's/culprits'
location with the PT/SP duo, my guess was that at
least one of the impostors was probably JR.


-- help bot