On Jan 21, 9:17 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" wrote:
She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to
do with it?
Absolutely no."
Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted
it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or
explained it to
us.
You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference
between a
statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar
blog. I
do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still
available in
the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that
it is
completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal
document.
If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility
to wet
nurse their ignorance.
Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on
their blog
at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps
Gregory
Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given
this, who
actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I
prefer to
operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.
I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
am, Reverend Walker.
As far as I know this was not about you Mr. Historian. Some one
sent me
anon email... It was not you was it?

No, Reverend Walker, I have not sent you any email, anonymous or
otherwise, at any time. Since you replied to and quoted my post, I
read your posting as addressed to me. My apologies for
misunderstanding.

No apology is necessary. Confusion caused by anons...
Nevertheless, the fellow had some good points to make. I wish he
would make them here now. I am not going to carry his water. :^)

Well, I will go this far. I have been pointed to one instance on the
blog of the statement by Paul Truong. It bears close scrutiny for what
it says and what it does not say.

" IP Addresses of Posters
Postby PaulTruong on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:36 pm

I am also very disturbed by the latest development. Through Susan's
blog, everyone knows the town where we live, events which we attend, as
well as the locations. Any experience individual who has access to my IP
can spoof it easily. It does not take a genius for this. /Do I know who
did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no./

It also bothers me that USCF contractors can do as they wish with
members' info without the consent or approval of the ED, EB or USCF
members. Anyone who violates the members' privacy and acted unethically
should be dismissed and have all their access to the USCF database and
members' info revoked immediately. And the USCF should go after any
contractor who violates the NDA which they signed. If not, the USCF will
be a target of serious legal problems for the harms they may have caused
to a number of USCF members.

In my opinion, this is not the time for the USCF to sit back and allow
such blatant violations of the members' right to privacy go unpunished.
Since this is now an official legal issue, this will be my only
statement regarding this matter. The question was asked and I answered.
Once the EB and the ED come to a decision, we will announce it."

Alright, alright, I will take it one more step... When Mr. Innes said:
"She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong: "Do I know who did it?
Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no."

Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it
to us."

We have the apparent original message above, and we have Susan's
quotation provided by Mr. Innes. A few points about this.

1) She has taken Paul's statement out of context to answer the USCF
objection. What was the context?

2) Careful reading of the origianl statement shows that in the paragraph
of context he was referring to IP spoofing.

3) If we replace the "it" in his statement with the logical substitute
"IP spoofing" we end up with this statement:

"Do I know who did the IP spoofing? Absolutely no. Did I have anything
to do with the IP spoofing? Absolutely no."

4) Therefore the in-context denial has nothing to do with what the USCF
was trying to address.

5) The statement by Susan "Can this be any clearer?" Is misdirection
distracting the reader from the fact that she has taken the denial out
of context and that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

6) Conclusion: Looks like sleazy lying to me. How does it look to you?

Like they neglected to update their 'denial' to match the latest
defense strategy of the remote-control trojan.

Now, my anon informant might have put this more elegantly, but I have
muddled something together as best I can. sighs
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.