On Feb 5, 3:06*pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:53*am, "





wrote:
You can't contend that there is no evidence of Truong's guilt. There
was evidence that he falsely claimed to have a PhD; it was on his web
page. There is evidence that the mysterious posts came from his
computer; it was in the Motterhead report, and confirmed by experts.

You can try to claim that this evidence is not convincing, that it was
(somehow, for some reason, and in a strange way of putting it there
without calling attention to it for years) planted to make him look
guilty. You cannot say that there is no evidence against him, however.

I am glad you looked into Paul's soul and found it to be pure. Others
who know them do not seem convinced, and I do not think that you can
expect those who do not know the people involved to take your word on
the issue.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 4, 11:50*pm, 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.
But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
honorable.
I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?

The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
would have taken only one expert to disprove him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Jerry,
I do not believe the claim that four experts found evidence is
correct. IF that were the case there would have only been three
experts that found no evidence and the last one to look at the
evidence would have proven the charges and IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
PUBLISHED. You can't honestly think that if there were hard and
conclusive evidence proving Paul's guilt that it would have not been
published and leaked. The USCF has leaks as a collander.
Rob- Hide quoted text -

The "4 experts" is entirely from Phil Innes. The number everyone else
gives is Motterhead, plus 2 outside experts. Nevertheless, that is at
least two experts (I am being generous here because some people are
claiming Motterhead is biased) confirming that Truong is the culprit.
In any case, your claim that there is no evidence is clearly
inaccurate, and even if you believe (which I find incredible) that the
evidence is not convincing, there is no reason to believe that people
who find this convincing must have some hidden agenda.

Jerry Spinrad

PS: Will you be at the Nashville Open this weekend? This will be the
largest tournament I have ever entered in 35 years of tournament play.
If there is anything about chess that I am ashamed of recently, it is
that I chickened out of being creamed in the open section, and will
instead play the U2000. I wonder whether I am doing the right thing
there.

- Show quoted text -