Brennan's willful distortions are very pertinent to this issue!

" "The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of
change. Period." So lets ignore the evidence. //Neil Brennan.

But what I wrote below, is to find WHOEVER the faker is. He fails to note my
question to Randy Bauer would appoint an INDEPENDENT person to investigate
that, and other issues embroiled in petty, but destructively spiteful,
politics.

I wonder why //Neil Brennan// can't understand that? ROFL!

I wonder why, in 5 years, Neil Brennan has never had anything good to say
about me, Paul Truong or Susan Polgar? Come to that, about Rob Mitchell
neither?

I wonder why he doesn't notice the pattern of the infamous xganon, who is
only related to my and his posts. I wonder why he doesn't notice that he
himself has posted under anonymous identities. Here he intercepts my
question to another anonymous poster.

Are these things also 'evidence' by his measure?

Guilt, even subconscious guilt, is a very powerful force relating to peoples
motives and behaviors, as powerful as the need to confess.

Phil Innes



"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 8:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 10, 2:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:

(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess,
so knock it off.

I think this more accurately reflects the zealots' stance:

11) Susan and Paul are Beyond Reproach and anyone who
suggests otherwise must be silenced immediately, and any
forum which permits such criticism must be abolished.

No - I certainly don't think so, in fact, let's open this one up,
'completely'. Ready?

What's your name?
Are you a party to this issue?
Have you ever met these people?
Are you aware of their reputation around the country in promoting chess?
Selected material, gathered by one party, is not evidence in law,
although,
you may agree [?] it /could/ be.

If you can't answer all these questions, I suggest the rest of this is
not
for you.

++++++++++++

How about other 11s ?

11a) regardless of who is being accused, no witch-hunts against any
individual can be pursued on a forum [a forum which ex-President Tim
Redman
recently termed 'entirely political' and also BTW one in which PT and SP
do
not contribute]

or do you like something more sarcastic;-

11b) seeking the identity of malicious posters is a subject which must be
silenced immediately, except if its the people you don't like

And finally

In place of ALL 1-26)

USCF needs an independent invigilator, normally called an ombudsman, to
settle such issues as this, and indeed, other contentious issues, such as
the performance of the rating system for correspondence players, which
was
inoperable for 9 months in the past FY, and which an NM suggested was
necessary to retain the confidence of all corres players.

I would say that USCF fails to act all the time since it simply ignores
the
problem, then when it erupts again with a will, it is of dimensions which
cannot be managed [typical non-profit behavior when board is stacked with
enthusiasts].

This last item is an interesting one. During pre-election interviews
Randy
Bauer could not agree with it. But to his credit, he made reasonable
objections. I wonder if he would shade more with my point of view, now?

I suggested that the Ombudsman needed to make suggestions for policy and
operation which were practical - and as such, if they were actually
doable,
the board should be bound by them.

--

The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of
change.
Period.

The surface factors of impersonations are of natural concern to those
impersonated, but absurd in terms of the characters of those accused. In
short, its a attempt to render the current board dysfunctional in terms
of
necessary remedies to current problems, and to future orientations.
Whatever
is the status quo is the thing being defended.

Phil Innes

Amazing. Phil Innes comes back from the Dark Side. I like his
contribution to the list:

"The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of
change. Period." So lets ignore the evidence.