"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:40:55 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

what the Justice actually establishes to
be necessary, though the usual term is 'beyond a doubt.'

I thought in civil cases it was "preponderance of evidence".

As you wish, but statistics presented as evidence are not preponderance of
proof, especially since other candidates may score the same, or even greater
[though we are not investigating this, see a&b below]. As written elsewhere,
if PT scores 80 to 95, and you yourself score 60 to 75 as a default median
poster...but here is the fly in the ointment... since this then becomes an
investigation into if that differential of 20 points indicates who is the
false-Sloan 'by preponderance of statistics'!

But it only means that one person's reporting has characterised the issue
that way by looking at one person alone against some median measure - and
this is what you wish to accept in order to speculate further? How likely is
Sam Sloan himself the false-Sloan? 75-85%? Think about it, uh...
statistically...

He is determined, ever writing stuff about chess, net-savvy... How hard is
it to stitch someone else up, especially when you track their every move? In
fact, of stitch-you-up candidates, let me eliminate PT entirely [except to
be statistically-correct let me say he is 5% likely to accuse himself from
subconscious guilt reflex which he can't repress...] and Sam Sloan would
be - what would you say, 80 to 95% likely? How about a LOT more likely than
the median poster, who, after all, is not as fascinated by Sam Sloan as Sam
Sloan is himself.

...

C'mon Phil. I don't think anybody is claiming these percentages are
anything more than SWAGs. People

Which people? All people have motives that determine their actions, [right?]
so these 'people' are motivated by what? (a) to investigate PT or (b) to
investigate the false-Sloan [and maybe other 'impersonations'*]

(*But only impersonations to those who can't read a header - right?
Since anyone reading here can tell a false from real Sloan by the posting
address in 10 seconds, as well as, BTW by the philological content of the
message [but that is for super-genius types like me].
Therefore, it is not impersonation at all as much as lampooning or
satyrising , for sympathy or otherwise! the activities of the Great Sloan,
and All His Works)

are clamoring for an unbiased
*investigation* by somebody with respected technical credentials.
They're claiming there's enough to merit that.

Investigation by whom and into what? Who are these people who want an
investigation and would bring a suit, and into (a) or (b) above?

Who sent Wikipedia a whole raft of false-Sloan messenges [and no real ones]
without identifying they were false? Isn't that a sort of deception along
the same lines? Should that person also be taken into account? What about
the usual suspects right here - those who obviously don't like women, and
don't like strong players, and write heavily patterned serial abuse for
years and years - and who also use varieties of identity?

Definitive answers will probably require a court order, in my
uninformed lay opinion.

Again, answers to (a) or (b)?

What about making some statistics about the MO? Who has both motive and
opportunity to be the false-Sloan? We understand that it is technically not
at all difficult to achieve a false id or ip address, which is literally
child's-play. The other aspect of opportunity is time - who has the time
over a 12 month period to consistently do this? Then there is motive - who
has the greatest motive to stich-up PT. Put your own numbers into the
answers - but I don't think you will, since (b) is NOT being investigated.

Actually,

Well, if you want to actually do anything but speculate, then let a court
determine matters, not analogise by 'some poster' and et cetera.

What I see you doing is NOT inquiring into the identity of the false-Sloan
[and false-others]. You end with "Have I missed any?" and I would answer by
saying, you missed everyone except... PT.

That's not an open mind to issues - and I really can have no control over
whatever you wish to speculate about in public. I can only respond to you
that you are an (a) type who has not yet written a candid word on (b).

Phil Innes


one poster on the USCF site made the analogy to the recent
file-sharing case that was decided for the plaintiff. Not a perfect
analogy, IMO, but an interesting one.



And those opposing? Well, I've read these goodies recently:

(1) rgcp is a cesspool so it doesn't count
(2) Sloan and Gordon are held in low repute so it's obvious nobody
would want to imitate them
(3) These charges are destructive of the USCF and they should stop
(4) Sloan has dirty stuff on his web site so it doesn't count
(5) A *child* could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't count
(6) A master hacker could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't
count
(7) The fakes didn't really hurt anybody, so it's OK.
(8) Sam Sloan did it himself, so let's drop it.
(9) The investigation was unauthorized, so those responsible should be
fired or otherwise punished (and their suspicions are therefore
invalid).
(10) Unauthorized or not, the investigation invaded my privacy, so
those responsible should be fired or otherwise punished (and their
suspicions are therefore invalid).
(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess, so knock it off.
(12) The people complaining have complained a lot about other matters
in the past, so let's ignore 'em.

Have I missed any?