On Apr 24, 6:53*am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 23, 6:39 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Spinrad, you paraphrase me in order not to understand me, and you also
selectively quote - but can't say what part you can't understand about
your
own actions and decency in public reporting.

That is nothing to do with private e-mails, this is the evidence of what
you
do right here.

And I still do not understand you.

**You don't understand what you do here? Let me clarify my orientation
below.



In terms of private material:-

You did receive a private response to your public accusations right?
Not from me, but from Susan Polgar.

Have you investigated what she had to say?

After thinking about what she wrote, I recommended some actions she
(actually, Paul, since she has not been accused of anything) could
take to try to convince me and the public that the otherwise
improbable scenario of Paul being impersonated multiple times, in
bizarre ways, by a malevolent genius is actually true.

* * SANS SAUCE

**Wowa! Thats a different topic than hot-sauce. Did you receive something on
that subject - since you previously wrote in public about it what is your
current understanding? Is the accusation dismissed?

I have received no private email regarding hot sauce. I received a
polite request to withhold judgment on the FSS issue, and a review of
her side of the case. My first response was to question her regarding
several specific issues (not involving the children). I received a
reply with a somewhat more elaborate accouny of her side, including
one claim which was new to me, and that I recommended she make public.
I then emailed my recommendations, as described in an earlier post.

The children were mentioned only in passing, as evidence of the depths
that some people would sink to in accusing her. Since I have
consistently opposed bringing the children into the discussion, and
since my only post on the subject of hot sauce was a recommendation to
drop the accusation (albeit on the grounds that it is not a
particularly odious form of punishment rather than on the grounds that
it did not occur), I certainly did not see this as an important part
of the letter.

Jerry Spinrad

**There is no need to repeat private mail, but you /could state/ if you know
the accusations were dismissed right?

---

* * The BIG PIC CHA!

**As to other matters I do not 'believe' anything. I have previous knowledge
of the person's character, plus other information which is not yet public,
but not all information since USCF are maintaining some amount of that under
wraps.

**Instead of make-believe, I would prefer a court to resolve the issue [just
as above in the hot-sauce instance] then what need is there to believe or
speculate at all? And if impartial people decide the issue, with all due
attention to the rules of evidence having been observed, then I will be
content with their resolutions, and that is the same stance now as I ever
had.

**The 'issue' of reporting and avering anything other than that process is
the one contested here in newsgroups, and it is very hard to find
law-abiding chess netizens who will agree with that stance.

**How odd that Larry Parr and I should agree on this issue, since we are
clearly not of the same mind on the worth of the Sloan! Therefore it is
difficult to put Parr and Innes onto any side, except that of the law.

**I hope these simple remarks are sufficiently clear.

Phil Innes

----------

*I took some
time to think about this, and would not yet expect a reply. Since one
of them involves something which she should be able to prove, but I
only have from her confidential email, I cannot share it. One of them
has already been suggested numerous times, but I was happy to be able
to tell her in person; that Paul should produce for the public a
legally binding statement of his innocence, one that would open him to
perjury charges if it is false. I do not know the legal issues
involved; if it is not possible, then that should be explained. I have
a backup option if it is not possible, but I feel less good about it.
I am not a fan of polygraph tests, but taking and passing one in
public would probably be efective in swaying some opinions; at the
least, it would show he was willing to back his innocence with more
than calls for actions against other people.

I believe that if Paul made a legally binding testimony of innocence,
and more importantly took the public action I requested her privately
to take, it would be much more helpful than all the actions she has
taken so far.

Jerry Spinrad



If you think you can continue to prosecute your previous agenda by
repeating
accusations, not investigating the result of accusations and reporting
those
without distinguishing one from the other, by all means continue to define
yourself by pretending stuff here in public.

But you are going to get yourself dirty in this game Spinrad, and this is
not the venue where it will happen.

This is the sort of incomprehensible nonsense which I was talking
about. I still do not understand what you accuse me of, but it seems
that it can't be anything serious, except in your strange mind.





Is that enough spit for you?

If you can't understand [ROFL] this English, then maybe its your ears,
dude?

Phil Innes

wrote in message

...
I cannot understand Phil's latest nonsense. Here is his paragraph.

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

Now he seems to be saying that I am supposed to understand this as
relating to the fact that I am not publicly decent, because I am not
revealing the scandalous fact that I receive less than 1% of my family
income from Chess Cafe, which in turn has a financial relationship
with the USCF.

It doesn't wash. You asked me to tell everyone what the board received
recently, something in which I was named. The clear implication was
that I knew of this something, and was hiding it.

I know nothing about what the board received. Phil dislikes it when I
try to read into his illegible nonsense, but he seems at times to lump
me with people who have brought in Susan's children, when I have
consistently spoken against attempt to bring the children or any of
Susan's personal life into the issue.

So spit it out, Phil. You asked me to tell people what the board
received. Are you saying I know something and am hiding it? I flatly
deny this. YOU tell us what the board received, and then I will find
out with everybody else. It can't be that you want it secret since you
want me to reveal it; let us in on it.

Jerry Spinrad

On Apr 20, 9:01 am, "Chess One" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Apr 16, 7:48 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

**cutting to the point:-

Here is what Phil said

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

I am, actually, very curious as to what this is talking about. I had
an interest in what happened? My interests are in common with Jerry
Hanken, who I have never met? Any clues?

I really cannot see my connection. Everything I have said about the
FSS has been on this newsgroup. I write a column on chess history at
chesscafe, for which I receive a small amount of money.

** And what I asked of Jerry Hanken, and indeed all people who comment
on
USCF's politics, is if they will admit an interest - which is to say -
if
they make money or receive other consideration. This is apparently what
is
'so hard to understand'.

I have no idea what the board received recently. Maybe someone else
can tell me what the board received, or what my interest was?

** Since I wrote in //these newsgroups// about money and other
considerations being received by commentators does not make them
'dissinterested' parties to the issue, then the CONTEXT is established
clear. Perhaps JerrySpinradhas never heard the phrase, 'a disinterested
party'?

** I asked for fair and open declaration of the relationship of those
who
receive any consideration whatever in connection with USCF activities.
This
is what JerrySpinradprofesses so hard to understand, or even to
acknowledge is the question. If he does not think this is a fair request
then I presume he will reply to say so. When, as did Jerry Hanken,
negative
and public speculations extend to the children of board members, I
personally think the public should know something about the speculator
and
indeed the fulsomeness of their reporting.

**Certainly anyone pretending to journalism [CJA not excepted!] is
obliged
by public and ethical standard to differentiate what is allegation from
what
is found true. If matters have been investigated than does it not oblige
the
candid reporter to also note the fact?

**Like many other people I would wish all to be in the open, including
the
relationship of ALL those who would investige the issue in public or
private. And then I should wish for the chess public to make up their
own
minds of 'who is telling the truth, and who is not.'

**JerrySpinradwill chose to aver that propostion or continue to find its
clauses and precepts incomprehensible to him.

Phil Innes
Vermont
---

JerrySpinrad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -