On Oct 8, 7:21 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message

ps.com...

On Oct 8, 6:03 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

Perhaps they are prudently waiting for an outside opinion re the IP
addresses. I don't always agree with Messrs. Bauer and Channing, but
they are both honorable people.

Does Mr. Lafferty (who is himself no slouch at ducking uncomfortable
questions) need to obtain a disinterested party's opinion of Mr.
Sloan's character?

This issue here has nothing to do with Sloan's character. Set aside
Sloan's
legal action, which is independent of Mottershead's fact digging, and you
have only one issue--has Brian Mottershead connected all the dots to
Truong?
On the face of it, it looks like he has. If he hasn't, let Polgar and
Truong have their expert analyze the Mottershead data (more than 1000
pages
of log and IP data) and pick it apart factually and with cogent analysis.
Posting smear letters like Bauer's fits the methodology of the first
couple
with their behind the back attempted smears of Joe Lux and me during the
election campaign.

"Just the facts, Ma'am." --Sgt. Joe Friday

Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities, Brian - but when somebody
names me in a lawsuit, and makes claims about me without supplying
necessary foundation, I think I have the right to raise issues of the
attacker's character, and, as a result, credibility.

Randy Bauer

The following was submitted by me to chessdiscussion.com. It has not, thus
far, been approved and posted by Mr. Alexander.

NYCChessmon wrote:

"As disturbing is McClain's wholesale reliance on Brian Lafferty as a source
both in the Times article as well as in McClain's chess blog without doing
the basic research that would have identified Lafferty as an outspoken and
overwhelmingly hostile critic of Polgar and Truong almost from the moment
that he joined the USCF less than a year ago. McClain is a USCF member. He
could have and should have gone to the archives of the USCF issues forum
where he could have seen ample evidence of Lafferty's overt hostility
(though if I recall, some of his more offensive postings like "Susan Polgar
should shut her pie hole" were removed). I'm shocked that McClain wrote that
Lafferty "believed Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar were responsible for the false
posts" when, as Randy Bauer pointed out, there is no allegation from
Mottershead that Polgar was involved. Maybe someone should bring this to the
attention of McClain's editor or The Public Editor at the Times."

For the record, I made it very clear to Mr. McCain that I have been a vocal
questioner and critic of Ms. Polgar and particularly, Mr. Truong's
representations as to background, employment history, foundation accounting
and form 990 reporting. I have dug for the facts, period. I have never been
satisfied with the answers and representatons made by both parties.

That said, I suggest to you that the ONLY issue here is whether or not Mr.
Mottershead has put the dots together leading to Mr. Truong as the Fake Sam
Sloan. I have seen a copy of the Mottershead Report submitted to the
Executive Board. In my opinion, a prima facae case has been made that Mr.
Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan. The Report also contains the complete text of
all the FSS Usenet messages---more than 900 pages of them. Review of those
posting as addressed to me make it clear to me that I have been victimized
by the FSS in violation of Federal criminal law. I will be taking the
Mottershead Report and other relevant documentation to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation tomorrow with the request that the Department of Justice fully
investigate this matter.

With all due respect to ueschessmon/nycchessmon, this is not about Mr.
Sloan's character, Mr. Brock's character or Ms. Polgar's orifice that I on
one occasion regrettably referred to as a pie hole. This is about the
criminal use of the internet to harass targeted victims for political and
perhaps other purposes.

Brian Lafferty

Mr. Lafferty, my reputation has been damaged by a former Board member
of the United States Chess Federation.

You may wish that the lies of Mr. Goichberg's handyman were not at
issue, but they are.

What standing do you have to receive a copy of the (drumroll, please)
"Mottershead Report." Mr. Mottershead is reporting on yet another
board that it has not been promulgated beyond Board members.

Saints that we all are, we are each and every one of us acting in the
fiduciary interest of the nonprofit organization. Having said said,
are you otherwise, formally or informally, representing any party
other than yourself?

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB...k=t&sd=a#p2150

Mr. Mottershead wrote:

"I have since written a report, which the USCF Executive Board and
Executive Director have. This has more information than the original
post, and, of course, is a lot more specific, including all the USCF
log and database information on which the conclusions are based. This
report has not been made public."