On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:11:19 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

The most charitable response to your post is that it indicates you
haven't yet read Brian Mottershead's analysis. Its implications
weren't based speculation about motive, "philological" analysis or the
other stuff about which you blather,

I am sorry, but you are merely rude - since I //never// said he had a
philological thought in his head.

I was comparing *his* presentation of what he considered evidence with
*yours*. Your posts dwelled at length on matters of motivation and
stylistic analysis, which you at one point called "philological
content", of the fake posts,.

spare me further 'reason' by analogy, which is usually infamous.

Without analogy, how do you suppose one determines the fitness of
logical premises to the real world? Just for grins, do a Google on
"analogy in legal reasoning" before you embarrass yourself further.

I did not say that Motterhead's speculations were about motive, I said /I/
wondered what motive he had.

And this little aside was just a matter of disinterested curiosity?
Oh, puleeze.

you get slanderous postal mail signed by "Sam Sloan" but from an Omaha
address, it's still identity theft.

Well, sure it is! What are you hot about now? - are you thinking that I am
in denial about the false-Sloan? Dammit - i challenged that person a lot
more than you [or anyone else!] did this past year!

Just last post, you were saying it was not identity theft but parody
or lampoon!

Are you really seriously saying //you// can't tell a false-Sloan from the
real one, without looking at any header?

Not in all cases, no. I don't think you could either. And we both
are regular posters who have been following these chess newsgroups for
years.

You just have to wait a few days for a more 'official' announcement )

Is that official or officious?

How angry would you still feel if someone were pulling your strings? I
should doubt you are immune. So take a breath, fire back at me, not today,
tomorrow.

Your responses are not so forceful that one need's a good night's
sleep to calm down and craft a response, Phil. I'm exasperated that
you're trying to obscure the issue by spewing so much ink.

IMO, all that's needed is for AOL and other relevant ISPs to divulge
their electronic records and for someone with appropriate credentials
to correlate this information with the stuff gathered at the USCF.
Then, other appropriate people can judge whether the theoretical
possibility of someone hacking or faking these electronic footprints
is so strong that there's still no preponderance of evidence.

My emotional state, Brian's emotional state, your emotional state,
Lafferty's intentions, etc., are irrelevant.