This should be very troubling to anyone supporting Truong. Apparently,
in the earlier case, he was charged with falsely promoting himself as
having a Ph.D. He seems to vehemently deny the charge, though a close
reading might imply that he denies only 1 specific place in which he
seemed to be claiming to have a Ph.D. Yet, it has been brought up
recently that people not opposed to Paul say that he at one point
regularly claimed to be Dr. Truong.

This previous instance of vehement denial of an accusation which on
the surface seems to be true lessens the credibility of his vehement
denial in the current case. I will admit that I found Motterhead's
evidence convincing in any case, and was already predisposed to
believe that Truong was the poster. However, before reading of the
previous affair, I felt that if he issued a denial we were obliged to
defer judgement as long as the investigation was being actively
pursued.

Would any Truong supporter like to comment on the previous case? Do
you feel that he claimed to have a PhD, and when challenged denied
ever having made the claim? Does this affect your personal belief in
the truth of the current accusation against him?

In my view, it again places Truong in the position where the proper
response is to temporarily abstain from board decisions until the
allegations are refuted.

A person is innocent in law until proved guilty. This is an important
restriction on government actions against those it views as harmful to
society. A board member in a nonprofit is in a different position than
an accused criminal in fear of being locked up. Truong will suffer no
serious harm by abstaining from board decisions until cleared, and if
he is cleared can seem all the more virtuous from the decision. The
board will not have the troubling accusation interfering in decisions
it must make. It is the right thing to do for all parties concerned,
and I hope his close supporters are quietly convincing him to take
such a step.

When are the accusations serious enough to cause such a step? This is
an interesting question in general, but I think in this case we are
well beyond the line. We seem to all agree that the accusations are
serious enough to warrant resignation if true (hence the vehement
denials), the evidence for these accusations is well beyond any notion
that they can be dismissed easily, and Truong's previous behavior
loses him the benefit of the doubt which he might otherwise be given.

Jerry Spinrad


On Oct 11, 1:48 am, wrote:
Here's another, one which Brock has already hinted at on his blog:

"Sam Sloan is a racist bigot. So there's no need to look at the
evidence.

1.Sloan is a racist, among other things. That makes him unfit for
nonprofit Board service, but it certainly doesn't take away his right
to sue for redress. Nor does a plaintiff's racism take away one
defendant's right to note that racism....

2. I also believe that my friend Chris Falter has shown why Mr. Truong
should not be on the Board, either. (No equivalence intended.)

http://christopherfalter.blogspot.co...ng-has-questio...

Even if Mr. Truong were somehow exonerated in the current matter, my
opinion would not change. I can think of at least two people who
could confirm that I attempted to persuade Susan to drop Paul from the
slate, circa January 2007.

3. I have little respect for people who consciously violate the
privacy of others. If the evidence checks out, it's admissible
AFAIK. But if there was such a violation, those who breached the
trust should lose their positions as well.