"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:37:46 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

At least Mr. Channing seems to
have an appreciation of the difference between 'free' speech and
responsible
speech.

The one advantage of a moderated forum such as the USCF Issues Forum
is that it's more difficult to post anonymously. So posters tend to
be more accountable, if not necessarily more responsible.

Yes, that is a third factor - that of accountability, which is not
synonomous with responsibility.

As indeed do Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, who rather pointedly do
not take part in USCF's forum, and also seek to have it closed down.

Heh, heh. It's pointed all right. The point caught the latter right
in the keister.

In your opinion. In my opinion it is entirely otherwise - but that is
thereby a matter of opinion, however qualified ~ not anything you or I
actually know that permits either of us to unequivocally condemn anyone.
That is what court's do, again, however well, but is that not our minimum
standard in the West?

They especially don't take part in the USCF forum since Truong's posts
IN that forum were instrumental in the Mottershead Report nailing him
as the Fake Sam Sloan!!

You forgot to mention that, Phil.

I forgot nothing - instead you forget yourself in your passion. It ACCUSES,
and that is a little something you neglect to mention, Mr. Murray.

These two entwined USCF directors now prefer the one-two-three punch
of (1) Running their own forum where they control all posts and
content and where mysterious anonymous personas contribute to their
hearts' content.,

including abuseniks... who are not on board with them, and which they
publish

(2) Funneling info to other online sites, bloggers,
and columnists with whom they have business or social relationships,

as always existed, before them and will do after them, since are these
people not entitled to their own networking? i would also add that they
network with disinterested people in terms of chess development, pro bono
caissa

and (3) Trashing (uhh, make that "rubbishing") truly open Usenet
forums, such as we have here, as "cesspools".

I myself read that as a qualified statement, so that for example the
kangaroo courts common on most newsgroups are simply schools for scandal ~ I
recently accused McClain of NY Times of running a similar business, but for
profit

A good publicity man controls information. Closing down the USCF
forum would be a fine step in that direction.

Since you are not interested in whoever is the FSS, but only act from your
partial knowledge which excites your energies, then you are excused wider
appreciations, and you, Mike, are not capable of assessing aught else. You
have not the slightest demonstrated interest in discovering who the FSS is,
if it is not Truong, and you are like one of those dumb movie cops out to
make his numbers.

Channing has resigned, to return to the subject, since he seems to lack
confidence in USCF's own activity, sensing that the Forum is a great
liability, and it is. You can't run what past-president Tim Redman has
called entirely political forum under the control of a politician, and
pretend it is otherwise, and the objective numbers demonstrate that Redman
is right:-

The most visited item this morning was "Notices of Disciplinary actions"
which recorded a whopping 8,666 views [!] and another titled Complaints
Department had recorded 1,616 views.
Any thread identifying chess itself as a topic was in the hundreds of view,
and many of those seemed abandoned, with no 2008 entries at all.

"A good publicity man controls information" you wrote above. In fact, 8,666
of them.

Phil Innes