On Oct 12, 9:45 am, Rob wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:12 am, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 12, 8:27 am, Rob wrote:
On Oct 12, 5:06 am, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:13 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
Thanks, but I doubt I'm up to trying to make sense out of Phil's
hallucinations...at least not for free. It reminds me too much of
sifting through drug-addicts' memoirs for evidence.
Brave comments by a brave anon! Willing to prosecute someone in public, but
who can't write their own name!
And YOU think yours are appreciable comments on justice?
You are a coward, sir, ma'am.
Phil
Sorry Phil, I'm not under examination here, Truong, Sloan, et. al.
are.
You, however, of your own free will, you identify yourself (with the
motive that it will somehow lend credence to your point/argument?) and
in doing so, bring yourself under examination. I do not. By remaining
a low-level of anonymity, I allow/require that you examine the
validity of my contention alone, on it's own merit without playing any
of these childish ad hominem games that you and your group is so fond
of.
By hiding behind your persona, and not on the merit-or lack therof-
you sir are a coward, and a bully.
YES! YES! YES!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The logic fails. Here in the South we say "That dog don't hunt".
Surely one can hide behind a persona. However when it comes to the
honesty of an argument one must consider a point of view. Without that
it becomes difficult to determine the motivation behind the argument.
Intellectually dishonest arguments from people with masked identities
is only so much graffitti on the back of a warehouse wall painted in
the dark of night.
Rob
I can't agree. Knowing that Innes has connections to Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong doesn't make his arguments against the Mottershead report
any less or more absurd
It also does not make them any less correct. I don't believe he has
said anything definitively one way or the other about it.
; it only provides a possible explanation for
his making them.
Possible explanation, yes; not probable though. Phil has expressed, as
I have seen written, his doubt that Paul would have made those posts
based upon his knowledge of Paul character.
The Fake Sloan swears, the Real Sloan does not.There is only one
person to my knowledge who has ever posted to RGC who has routinely
used the type of language the Fake Sloan used. You can do a search for
those swear words in google groups and you will see that a certain
poster comes to light along with the Fake Sam.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Rob, let's set our differences of opinion aside for a moment, and as
they say in Greenville, SC let's get to the meat of this issue.
Fact: A faker raised bloody hell in Sam Sloan's, Roy Gordon's, and
several other users names. They used to hunt types like this down with
dogs in SC, but this is the Internet age, so modern-day hunters,
farmers, trappers, and detectives have to use new methods to snare our
quarry.
At this point, I don't know who did it. Mike doesn't know who did it,
and I take your word for it that you don't know who it was. Phil
Innes? No comment, he has a conflict of interest, he knows some of the
litigants so we'll recuse him from this investigation. So, as the
three of us who have no contact of interest in this matter, we can do
it impartially.
So, what do we really have?
1) Sam Sloan is a self-styled enigma, and generally pretty
incomprehensible.
2) Brian Mottershead posted incriminating evidence pointing toward
Truong as the fake poster on the USCF web site.
So far, we have seen a mountain of pretty inconclusive, opinionated,
garden-variety attacks against all parties in this, and Mike has only
tabulated the ones made against Mottershead's report. Perhaps we
should start a list about the absurd attacks made against Polgar and
Truong? Would you do it in a new thread, please? I agree that we
should examine all sides of this issue, so instead of trying to argue
them into this list, let's make another list. Let's try and look at
this impartially from every implicated party's point of view.
1) A list of Sloan attacks-connections-motives
2) A list of Truong-Polgar attacks-connections-motives
This is an interesting positive review that Sam Sloan wrote about
Polgar's column on March 22, 2006-also read comments.
http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-anal...rsy_99772.html
http://www.talkaboutgaming.com/group...ges/12618.html
http://mottershead.info/uscfdocs/
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...4e0596b9524e6c