wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Not so fast, Larry Parr!

The List is completely partisan, eliminates others from consideration, and
concentrates on Truong alone. Mike Murray says this is not so, but what he
does is my measure, not what he says.

Even stiching-up Paul Truong is eliminated by Mike Murray, who himself was
impersonated here [!] causing Marcus to send the gunboats! And because I am
over 21, I do consider motive to be important to human behavior, and Mike's
anger is entirely understandable. It is also understandable that he wants to
nail who did it. But anger isn't going to achieve that.

Now, its okay for me if you wish to examine Paul Truong alone - but
pul-eeeeeze! Don't pretend that that is not the stance of an advocate, and
there is real interest in determining the fake person. To avert unwonted
comment, I don't care if no-one else says that here, and I don't believe
that people cannot understand what I am writing.

While without irony you personally discuss /transparency/ with Mike Murray,
it is he who has /opaqued/ 31 items.

Phil Innes

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