On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:20:32 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
sake of argument,

'for the sake of argument' continues Murray, discussing people's children -
and ignoring the *fact* that the issue was investigated - but Murray doesn't
like the terms I use, so blathers on...

From what I've read about the context of the guardian ad litem's
report, the terms you used are improper or misleading.

Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
expertise?

You cannot admit your own understanding of the material, therefore you
describe those who do look at direct evidence by the term 'nut'.

The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
'crackpot' would be slightly better.

You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
forged material, Phil, and neither am I.

If you can't get Polgar, get Truong, and if you can't get either, get the
kids?

Another lie, so typical of Phil's lack of respect for truth and
history.