On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:26:53 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:


But what happens if the board did not tell the truth about cooperating with
lawyers and insurance? Then will this fatuous fool have no further curiosity
than Prosecutor Murray or Investigator Spinrad?

If someone demonstrates the board lied, this would be news and I'm
pretty certain the Times would publish it.

Thus far they have contrived to bring 44 previous reasons why only one thing
should be considered, doubting nothing of its veracity.

Debunking 47 bad arguments supporting Proposition "X" does not demand
"X" be false, doesn't even imply it. For example, if Phil Innes makes
the claim, "The Earth is round because marbles are round", and I
ridicule him for it, this doesn't mean I believe the Earth is flat.

Dammit - they might
as well write for the Times itself!

Wow, what a compliment! Thanks. Me, a NYT writer. Who'd a thunk it?
I never even went to Journalism school.

In this instance, it is very clear-cut - either Susan Polgar lied to me
today, or the board and its hacks did to the New York Times yesterday.

These are not the only possible explanations, Phil. Here are a few
others: (1) The board misunderstood PT, (2) PT misunderstood the USCF
attorney's demand, (3) PT did not communicate everything to his wife.
This list is by no means exhaustive.

Therefore, by the inane logic of the celebrants he to add to this list,
item #47, might mention that if you are caught openly lying, then this has
utterly no consequence since; what are facts and decency to do with any of
this vile public rubbishing?

And we already know the answer to that one; nothing whatever.

How about we get asked to resign?