"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:51Opj.2833$FW3.2414@trndny03...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
Chess One wrote:
An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
Alekhine's Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm
reads;-
---
You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
than four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands
dollars of USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was
sent to Mr. Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report
had the wrong conclusion.
Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.
Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
persuasive.
Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the
views of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no
more than your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your
message without facts, as we know them, is your own business.
Ah, the Bowel of Brattleboro must be referring to the site run by the
Trolgar Acolytes over at Chessville. No discussion of inconvenient facts
regarding the Trolgars is allowed over there.
This guy was judge? A judge of what?
He was thrown off yet another website because he was hectoring all other
opinions. That's the truth. I do not understand that his opinions are
tolerated anywhere where there is a moderator. Nowhere do people's values
value his.
You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were
counsel, and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?
Bowelman needs to write something intelligible before I would venture a
substantive reply.
And these are the levels to which the ex-judge, somewhat shy of actually
responding to what others write, now propose to you all.
As if anyone in the world would respond to him directly after these
comments. But if you did he would snip them anyway [!]
While he may continue his dissertation, seems like he has reduced his
audience to 6 people in the known universe, and this has been to seriously
mis-judge his general reception
Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own
orientation to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider
your attiudes actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual
counsel does not adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?
Bowelman need to take his meds.
The cheapeast response by abusive newbies on newsnet. This is the level of
'jurisdiction' that prosecutes one side of an issue - and is cloth-eared to
any other. Truly, where do the people's talents begin?
Is Laugherty better or worse than the thing he prosecutes?
But chess players could make up their own minds, with no spin by anyone =
and that is a factor that the Laugherty Bowel Party [LBP] HATE - since it
would remove from them the power to suggest that they care, by challenging
what they do compared to what they say.
If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
don't - not one of them.
Therefore, such people are insincere in acting from anything other than
their own occulted motives, all half-dozen of them. And do they hate the
light!
Phil Innes