On Feb 5, 12:50 am, Rob wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:41 pm, "



wrote:
What a strange question! If you believe that Paul Truong repeatedly
made the offensive posts, and then lied about the matter, shouldn't
you be for removing him from the board without seeking to gain in any
way except for getting a dishonest person removed from office?

You may be (desperately, in my opinion) clinging to a belief in Paul's
innocence in this matter. I cannot believe that anyone could contend
that this innocence is obvious, however, after several expert reports
indicating that he is guilty, and no evidence presented in an open
forum on the other side. Please, feel free to try to convince us of
his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
removed must be acting out of some base motive.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob wrote:

Brian,
Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
Rob

How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.

It's a discussion forum.

But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
honorable.

"If I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong,
Who, you all know, are honorable men."

I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?

I've seen three computer reports, Motterhead's and two others that
confirm his findings. And when you add that to Troung's alleged
history - sending emails under Susan Polgar's name (see Shahade's
book), lying (see Hoffman's book), the restraining order against Susan
Polgar's children, the suggestive evidence that Truong used the name
"Bob Bennett" here five years ago, the fact he cannot visit the state
of California, the doctorate he claimed to have and then denied when
he was questioned on it, and other problems - there's enough there
that I, and many others, have come to the decision that he's unfit for
chess governance.

The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther (sic) have been a
total of four "experts"

There are three, and their findings agree.

As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
would have taken only one expert to disprove him.

Was this "once said" before or after Eisenstein made The Battleship
Potemkin?