wrote in message
ups.com...
THE CLAMP

Too much controversy has been allowed to fester with no firm
hand in evidence. Dear Bill [Goichberg] and [Bill Hall] I suggest
that you really clamp down on anything in the Forum having to
do with this situation until the Board is able to get the information
my motion is requesting and we're able to calmly consider the
right course of action. -- Joel Channing

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.

I want to add three points.

The first is the pre-emptive challenge that Sam Sloan himself made to his
'evidence', which as Rob Mitchell has pointed out, is that your kids can
teach you how to fake-up one of those IDs. In fact, if someone wanted to
frame me up, they could use some Verizon-originated number from Vermont, and
when I travel to England to see the Queen as part of my well-publicsed
activities for the Crown, they could find a nice one out of London ...

I assume your determined faker would be up to that, after all, there are
hundreds and hundreds of fake-Sloan messages, and the fake is determined,
no?

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.

A second point has to do with pattern recognition. I personally have no idea
if the accusation is true or not, since I have no more 'evidence' than
anyone else - but what can be said is that it would be, in my opinion,
entirely out of character for PT to stalk Sloan - whereas it would be
entirly in character for Sloan to suggest that he is important enough to
stalk, either because he is a chess hero or a poor victim! ;((( It
would seem more in character for PT to write dismissively of people who
really didn't know much and cared even less, about chess subjects - in fact
that is an established pattern at Sam Sloan's own newsgroup. I do not see
the psychological need for PT, who is able to make eye-wateringly direct
comments, to then slink around in some sub-fusc manner, and 'whittle-away'
at Sloan.

I suppose the third thing has to do with grammar, range of expression, and
the care the false-Sloan takes to never say too much to illustrate his
knowledge of English syntax, which, from many long conversations with PT I
would say is yet superior to that of PT.

There are others, even someone writing here, who profile much better as
false-Sloan, and who practice their 'writings' under a variety of names and
guises

There are a few other factors to consider about the fake Sloan, one of which
is that he does not seem to be a strong chess player, and never addresses
that subject directly - and PT is a strongish master level player, imnmersed
in GM-level conversation, and who is either very modest therefore, in not
mentioning that, or would not fear making quite complex announcements on
chess positions.

And, OK, one more below...

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.

Not only are they trying to do the impossible,
they are acting ever so stupidly. RGCP redivivus!

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.

This latter is an ancient insider trick.

Yes - Sam Sloan the unwitting stalking horse for a diversionary activity,
which yet ensures that no conversations about anything that is actually of
general merit to forward American chess will be raised - and therefore,
no-one will be responsible for not doing anything much to change the status
quo.

Phil Innes, Vermont

Yours, Larry Parr




B. Lafferty wrote:
a.. To: "Bill Goichberg " chessoffice@xxxxxxx, "'Bill Hall'"
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'BINFO'" USCF BINFO System, "'CONFIDENTIAL'"
confidential@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Jim Berry'" JABerryCG@xxxxxxx, "Patricia
Knight " pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Paul Truong'" Paultruong@xxxxxxx,
"'Rachel Lieberman'" queencapa@xxxxxxx, "'Randy Bauer'"
randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx, "Randy Hough " randallhough@xxxxxxxxx,
"'Susan
Polgar'" SusanPolgar@xxxxxxx
b.. Subject: forum
c.. From: "Joel Channing" joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
d.. Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:53:35 -0400
e.. Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
f.. Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
g.. Thread-index: AcgCAN8+NPw8BtR8RU6KGbcBTthMkA==

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

I just read a threatening post by Brian Lafferty on the Forum.
Apparently
he's talking to the press too (I hope you weren't Susan). Too much
controversy has been allowed to fester with no firm hand in evidence.
Dear
Bill and Bill, I suggest that you really clamp down on anything in the
Forum
having to do with this situation until the Board is able to get the
information my motion is requesting and we're able to calmly consider the
right course of action. Joel