"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news:Sw7lj.4687$YH6.842@trndny03...

"Chess One" wrote in message
. ..

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan
20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make
any simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they
will accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters
heretofore held secret.

I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that
questions actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I
do not know if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if
Susan Polgar's first statement was true.

Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or
not - which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or
to open up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.

Phil Innes

ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
admitting the Sloan allegations.

And by opening up such correspondance it can be clearly known if this is a
true statement, no? Have you noticed that it is a contested statement?

Have you noticed that accordin to Susan Polgar the questions is already
answered?

Simple request. Normal request by ones counsel in litigation. But, a
request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply with. Guilty people do have
problems with such requests.

Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from
his IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan
responds by saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

I do not understand that to be a quote of Susan Polgar.

Bull**** will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
Truong has reached the end of the line.

ChaChing........GUILTY

Thank you. line-judge. for your comments, and that of the noted stalker Neil
Brennan who chimed in, to similar effect.

I should not wish this post to be about either of you, since you both
pretend to have comprehension problems by your rhetorical displays in
respect of both legal issues, and those merely decent. It is merely curious
to me, that the biggest supporter of Sam Sloan in these newsgroups, Mr.
Parr, with whom I differ on the worth of Mr. Sloan to marked degree, should
also aver with, should I sufficiently understand Mr. Parr, that there should
be no more secrets here than Susan Polgar suggests.

Indeed, should Mr. Sloan himself be as good as his word about the need for
openness on these issues, he might adopt this specific instance to support
it himself.

Otherwise, as you will well understand, there are those people who, as we
say, "mouth off' about things, but when it comes right down to it, they are
not as good as their word, or their mouth, so to speak.

As to yourself, I take your lack of support for allowing the members to gain
their own opinion to indicate your orientation. Should you not quite
understand the level of insult here offered you, then you are, in my
opinion, rather less than Mr. Sloan who could still notice this issue and be
as good as his own word. Your words, sir, have no good in them whatever, and
you pronounce upon one-sided net-gossip, as if you had even one thought in
your head, rather than the emotional mendacity of a Neil Brennan.

Should you, or others who dislike anything but secrecy find these words too
'complicated' I could instead say of you that you are simple, and
additionally, you expect others to be simply stupid.

Phil Innes