Let's not forget the recent line of attack put forth by Rob Mitchell
and lauded by Larry Parr: "Only the government can decide if
wrongdoing has occurred"

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:41 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:

Despite P Innes' attempts to spank the Monkey, our simian diligently
goes about his work, collecting and presenting non-sequiturs and
fallacious arguments.

We've had a long dry spell -- I mean how many bad arguments on one
issue can there BE? -- but TenneseeVols, over on ChessDiscussion,
crafted a doozer. Presenting number 47 for your amusement and
edification.

(1) rgcp is a cesspool so it doesn't count
(2) Sloan and Gordon are held in low repute so it's obvious nobody
would want to steal their identities.
(3) These charges are destructive of the USCF and they should stop
(4) Sloan has dirty stuff on his web site so it doesn't count
(5) A *child* could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't count
(6) A master hacker could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't
count
(7) The fakes didn't really *hurt* anybody, so it's OK.
(8) Sam Sloan did it himself, so let's drop it.
(9) The investigation was unauthorized, so those responsible should
be fired or otherwise punished (and their suspicions are therefore
invalid).
(10) Authorized or not, the investigation invaded my privacy, so those
responsible should be fired or otherwise punished (and their
suspicions are therefore invalid).
(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess, so knock it off.
(12) The people complaining have complained a lot about other matters
in the past, so let's ignore 'em.
(13) You can identify the fakes by inspecting the headers so they're
not really fakes at all, just lampoons.
(14) The accusers don't have pure motives, so evidence they've
gathered should be ignored.
(15) Other people had motive and opportunity to make fake Sloan posts,
so why believe the evidence gathered?
(16) Stylistic analysis clears one suspect, regardless of any
electronic evidence.
(17) Sloan would have lost the election anyway, so who cares?
(18) Other people have done worse things. Why not focus our limited
law enforcement resources on terrorists and violent criminals?
(19) Sloan's charges are overly broad and not well crafted, so let's
ignore the stuff Mottershead found
(20) These fake poster(s) are forging web signatures and following the
suspect around the globe. We have absolutely no idea how it was done
or how to do it, but a child can do it. So ignore it.
(21) Anyone who hasn't considered the evil Historian has no
credibility. So quit talking about it.
(22) Gordon is 0-18 in court, so all the evidence is bogus. Give it
up.
(23) Sloan is 1-xx in court, so all the evidence is bogus. Are you
done yet?
(24) This is a witch-hunt that coddles Sloan. Have you no shame, sir?
Have you no shame?
(25) Mottershead used time on the clock or his own personal time to
conduct an unauthorized investigation on -- it would be rational to
assume he altered the information. So it's all wrong. (And you thought
they didn't study logic in Tennessee).
(26) The USCF forum no longer displays IP addresses for each post, so
folks can't conduct investigations of their choosing. So, it's only
fair to discard Mottershead's findings.
(27) Tim Redman called the USCF Forum "entirely political" and one of
the people scrutinized has chosen not to participate. We must ignore
the findings.
(28) The investigation is political, designed to neutralize agents of
change. Period. Don't pander to counter-revolutionaries! Naaaa Naaaa
Naaaa Naaaa. I can't hear you. I can't hear you.
(29) Sloan is a perpetual political candidate, so all the fakes were
political satire and are protected free speech. Throw it all out.
Next case.
(30) Long-standing jealousy and resentment over spurned advances have
driven Sloan to evil acts. So ignore what Mottershead found.
(31) Phil and Rob "actually know the people involved and witness to
their character" Mottershead's document is illusion.
(32) The Russian Mob made all those posts. Remember, you didn't hear
nothin', you didn't see nothin', you won't say nothin'. Kapeesh?
(33) What are these stupid posts when balanced against millions in
revenue to the USCF. Begone, fool.
(34) Your just jealous. So is Mottershead. So shut up.
(35) Online harassment is not a crime and even if it is, it's rarely
prosecuted. So why worry about this one?
(36) Online harassment might be illegal, but the laws are obsolete. So
you fogies can just shut up.
(37) Let's put this on ice until we can determine who the victim
really is.
(38) Brian Mottershead was a political opponent. That pretty much
proves he was the FSS himself.
(39) It's USCF proprietary data. Nobody can look at it unless
authorized. It hasn't been authorized. Thus, you can't look at it.
Where's your fine evidence now, buddy? Nyahhh. Nyahhh. Nyahhhh.
(40) Someone's computer may possibly have had a trace of a virus at
some point or other. So obviously he wasn't the fake poster.
(41) The work of the FSS is vulgar material, and we shouldn't post
links to it or quote it. Since we can't reference it, there's no
evidence and let's forget the whole matter.
(42) Someone else might have used a remailer at some point over the
past ten
years. So it's unfair to attack the FSS for it.
(43) If you post a hypothetical situation describing what the FSS
might have done when discovered, it means you have blood on your hands
and something to hide about the FSS. This on courtesy of the
Cornishman.
(44) Sloan had no chance in the election (as pointed out in number 17,
above), and none of the other 'victims' had political ambitions, so
what's the point of investigating anything?
(45) The action of members of the USCF EB asking for the resignation
of another board member was illegal, and The New York Times account of
the suit has been of poor quality. Thus the whole matter is
McCarthyism, and we should reject the Mottershead report. Yes, this
gives new meaning to "Philology."
(46). The Executive Board of the USCF has a history of depravity. The
Mottershead report? A mere comedone midst a cluster of festering
pustules.
(47) The experts who evaluated the Mottershead Report work for and
cooperate with scientists involved in cloning. Therefore, the Report
is offensive, the experts are offensive, and it all should be
ignored. Where is William Jennings Bryan when we need him?