On Oct 10, 10:01 pm, " wrote:
FULL TRANSPARENCY IS IMPERATIVE

Mike Murray's list of arguments advanced in the
Fake Sam-Gordon case was amusing and largely true.

Two points come to mind. I think they were, if
memory serves, Nos. 13 and 15.

If the author of a fake post uses a fairly easily
discernible fake address, is there a possible defense
that he was merely engaging in a dementedly prolonged
exercise in satire? That argument might not be so
legally loony.

The second point is one of authorial style. If
Paul Truong can point out distinct differences between
his writing style and the style in thousands of online
messages, then he has a defense. For if it is
difficult to imagine someone being able to burrow into
Truong's computer identity to fake messages so as to
frame the man, then it is even more difficult to
believe that Truong could sustain other styles of
writing over thousands of messages. The issue of
difficulty cuts both ways -- pro-and anti-Truong --
in this instance.

Now, to the issue of appointing an expert and
getting down to cases. Mike thinks that a fairly
simple issue.

I don't.

It ought to be simple. But it isn't.

Unless there is total transparency in the appointment
process -- which there won't be. What precise instructions
will be given to this expert? What will be his writ? Will we
be able to view in full light the process of investigation?

Is there reason to trust the Executive Board
members to be fair brokers? So far as I have
experienced the insider workings of the Federation,
the answer has to be a big, big NO!

First, outright crookedness.

I well recollect being a forgotten attendee
during a closed discussion of a U.S. Open bid during
the 1985 Hollywood U.S. Open. Many of the same
personalities are still around and still pulling
strings. This writer was called in for a fairly
polite talk with the Board over my coverage of
Campomanes' cancellation of the first K-K match.

The talk ended -- at which point the subject of the Open
bids came up without yours truly being dismissed right away.
There was anger that a Board member had bragged publicly
that the bid was already his. The Board was thus
forced to give the bid to Ralph Hall and those
organizing the Portland U.S. Open. The Board members
had earlier been going through a public charade that a
decision had not been made during the formal bid
presentations. Somewhere along the line the
politicos noticed I was still present, and I was
asked to leave.

Yes, it is that dishonest, low and crooked
among these people. They lie in public with
concerned, straight faces.

Then one recollects an episode that has a
direct bearing on hiring an expert to examine the
provenance of the Fake Sam-Gordon messages. I refer
to the Board hiring the Pinkerton Detective Agency --
at the instigation of Bill Goichberg! -- to go after
Larry Evans over authorship of a scurrilous political
mailing during an election campaign. The relevant
point: When Evans was cleared (insofar as one can
ever prove a negative) the investigation was suddenly
called off by those who demanded it after evidence
appeared implicating political allies who were
serving on the board. Red-faced board members
members then paid the bill out of their own pockets.

Will some of the same personalities and their
allies pull the same trick again with Paul Truong?
Will they bring in an expert whose job it is either to
clear or convict Truong, depending on the political
exigencies of the moment?

Based on precedent, we can expect crooked
dealing UNLESS there is total transparency in the
appointment and investigative process.

The idea that you can trust the board members --
in any setting outside a well-lighted one -- is farcical.

Yours, Larry Parr

First off, I'm going to make a personal note to Larry Parr. I have
read your rag/writing ever since I was a little critter, and all I can
say is, thanks for the great memories.

That aside, I agree with much of what you say, although I advise
caution when expecting too much from this type of board. For now, the
USCF would do well for each board member to have their own link in the
USCF website, where they make statements/updates --say, weekly--
concerning their board agenda/assignments/progress. This could help
solve some USCF EB-member transparency concerns.

In the issue of the ongoing investigation, I trust Randy Bauer will
hire an impartial, independent auditor--auditors are easily vetted, as
well--, and act appropriately. If not, and I trust Randy, he has been
vetted independently many times, believe me there will be hell to
pay.

I disagree with you on one point only, where you claim: "The second
point is one of authorial style. If Paul Truong can point out
distinct differences between his writing style and the style in
thousands of online messages, then he has a defense."
Consider that the very last thing that the fake poster would want to
do is use his or her own native writing style in composing these fake
Sloan/Gordon/Lafferty messages, as this characteristic, alike a
signature, would surely incriminate him or her. By your own admission,
these people are very, very clever, and with exception, sneaky.