"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
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.

i think in another post, i represented the views of Susan Polgar to this
effect - the attenuating feature to 'demonstrate' is that she didn't think
the board would open up

which is a very odd observation - since, evidently, that would resolve very
much!

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

wait Mike - you must remember you are not the resident dictator here - nor
even teh judge. if you want to be the prosecutor or proponent of a certain
point of view - that is all very well, but you don't get to run the entire
conversation, nor decide the rules yourself

the arguments are not bad, except FATuous people lampoon them by virtue of
their own misanthropy

to be taken seriously, if you want to argue one side of something, you
cannot really resent 47 other points of view, and pretend that your own is
something miraculous!

"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.

If you make silly comparisons, then you can win all you like on the silly
scale. And that is what your list achieves.

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.

Its no compliment to you nor them! Their coverage of chess is atrocious.

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.

Nope! Sorry - you are not up with the game. The issue the board represented
was that Truong was not co-operating. Polgar said she could prove he was,
and wanted to make that proof public!

Neither was she aware of the 'leak' to the times, by the secret USCF meeting
[itself an illegal claim to be baord opinion] and I wonder if Mr. Canning
was involved either.

Since I have mentioned all these things, there has been a silence quiet as
the snows from board-boosters.

But Susan Polgar just tossed the ball back to the board - saying, in effect,
let the whole thing be opened up - I have nothing to hide - do you?

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?

'We'. Resign what?

Look, if you have been caught up in a little excitement [at someone else's
expense] this is not exactly big of you, nevertheless you have a critical
mind to investigate the issue - there is no point in resigning from anything
except if you wish to avoid the logically honorable consequence of your
previous actions.

You should stay with it, continued to be skeptical, and apply your
discrimination, but just enlarge its scope to take in the possibility that
what you have prosecuted here so far is not the whole picture.

Polgar's offer to open up would allow that whole picture to emerge into the
public sphere and to all USCF members. Isn't this actually what everyone has
been asking for - transparency of actions? Therefore, the board can allow
that or inhibit it by not playing. I leave it to your own determinations,
Mike, to think what you will of them if they do not.

Cordially, Phil Innes