Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
newsDqbk.258$9W.103@trndny04...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:mC7bk.202$qW.157@trndny03...
The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence.
When will Susan Polgar and her husband, and you as their unofficial
spokesman, address the three computer analysis that trace 2500
postings under fake names to Paul Truong?
They will never address it unless forced to do so in depositions and/or
at trial. Reason? They have no refutation available to them from a
creditable expert.
The point of all is to have all the records examined by an /independent/
expert.
Last fall, Donna Alarie offered to submit the materials and data
underlying the Mottershead Report to yet another independent forensic
expert chosen by Gregory Alexander on behalf of Trolgar. She asked
Alexander to provide cover letter wording and the name and address of an
expert chosesn by Alenander/Trolgar for transmittal. None of that was
provided by Mr. Alexander, the chessdiscussion web master. Bluff called.
Trolgar lost.

Dear Brian Lafferty,

as you must know, a court will seperate the perps from the experts - and if
the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, since if
Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?

As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
life, especially in politics. If Mr. Truong had any real evidence or a
real expert's report debunking the Mottershead Report and the other
experts verifying Mottershead's methodology and findings, I suspect he
would have given you an exclusive as his semi-official
mouthpiece/apologist.


What contesting parties point out about each other's behavior is quite
outside any rules of evidence. I have simply maintained from the start that
I do not want to hear only partialities, and do want independent assessment
[independent of all involved parties] to make their report.

Ask Mr. Truong to give you a report from an expert supporting his
position. Give us a scoop, Scoop and then go read some Evelyn Waugh.


That has ever been the stance, and that is the current initiative. In
fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste. Now the
only real way to resolve the issue is to have independent expertise attend
the matter, whose results can not be dismissed, but will be taken into
formal account; the implications of that inquiry being properly
constituted evidence - and let the chips fall where they may!
If you bother to read the expert's reports, you will see that the experts
have no connection and/or interesting in the outcome of this matter.
These issues were addressed by the experts in their reports.

I take it your opinion is not based with mine in a court's determination of
what's what. As an active partisan that is your choice of basis - but it is
not any objective nor legal one. It is opinion. Whereas mine is not an
opinion, it is impartial to who dunnit, and I will accept the truth as a
court resolves it to be.

We don't need a court to make all of our determinations in life, Phil.
I have approached the FSS matter with an open mind even though I did
oppose Trolgar's running for the EB on other grounds (recall, Phil, that
the Mottershead Report was not known until September 2007). I would
still consider a rebuttal from an independent expert produced by Mr.
Truong.


The bottom line is that it has been established quite clearly that Mr.
Truong is the FSS. What involvement his wife had in all this still
remains unclear.

? An extraordinary statement. I take it you have convinced yourself by a
partial view of proposed testimony, but how partial!

If the view is truly incomplete, please prevail on Trolgar to complete
the view for our edification.


The chips have fallen, Phil. Truong is the FSS unless and until he can
produce an expert who can discredit the experts' reports already in
hand--particularly the Ulevich Report.

Instead of your own recommendations, I prefer to keep an open mind on the
issue until I understand very much more than an accusation, and which is
decided by rule of law, and clearly differentiated by the activities of
those people in public who could also be the FSS.

Phil, your mind is far from open. You are no more than Trolgar's
mouthpiece squawking for your bread and butter at Chesslife.

[Phil drivel snipped]

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:Fzrbk.244$wa1.46@trndny07...
Chess One wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 7:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

In fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was
dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste.
Verify, if you can.

Not here! And previously it was disallowed by USCF itself.

For several months people who have demanded to see reports have ignored
this and other factors. If Rynd/Dowd actually wanted to know, he/they
could have asked USCF what they got to hide - right?

Some others already discount the "secret material" as Jerry Spinrad put
it, without even knowing what it contains - and can still conclude that
it would be no reason to resign.

Therefore these inquiries are nervous whistlings in the wind - they are
not sincere, they are pretenses - as the [in]actions or partialities of
only apparently sinceere investigators continuously demonstrate.

Phil Innes

No,Phil. YOU made a factual allegation. It is your responsibility to
substantiate it or retract it. It's put up or shut up time, Phil.

But Brian, to a judge and in a court! Not in a newsgroup where I might
suspect the perps lurks. You and others already declared yourselves not
interested in due legal process, nor all testimony, and already made your
minds up. That is up to you, and sponsored by your motivations! Personally I
think that itself /very/ strange

But it is your choice, as is mine to not behave as you do.

If you continue to think of yourself as prosecutor, which is necessarily a
partial view advocating one thing over another, it is intellectually
infamous to then ALSO ask to decide on any issue. Not only that, you even
want to be the jury too, in fact rendering your verdicts on things in
advance of even knowing what they are.

[see recent Jerry Spinrad memo on the 'secret evidence']

I think one might electively play any one role, not all 3, not unless this
was a nightmare scene out of Koestler's Darkness at Noon.

Its respect the properly contitued law of the land time, Brian.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:Fzrbk.244$wa1.46@trndny07...
Chess One wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 7:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

In fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was
dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste.
Verify, if you can.
Not here! And previously it was disallowed by USCF itself.

For several months people who have demanded to see reports have ignored
this and other factors. If Rynd/Dowd actually wanted to know, he/they
could have asked USCF what they got to hide - right?

Some others already discount the "secret material" as Jerry Spinrad put
it, without even knowing what it contains - and can still conclude that
it would be no reason to resign.

Therefore these inquiries are nervous whistlings in the wind - they are
not sincere, they are pretenses - as the [in]actions or partialities of
only apparently sinceere investigators continuously demonstrate.

Phil Innes
No,Phil. YOU made a factual allegation. It is your responsibility to
substantiate it or retract it. It's put up or shut up time, Phil.

But Brian, to a judge and in a court! Not in a newsgroup where I might
suspect the perps lurks.

This is a discussion group open to all. That's what freedom of speech
and discussion is all about. It matters not if any "perps" lurk here.


You and others already declared yourselves not
interested in due legal process, nor all testimony, and already made your
minds up.
This is a false and reckless statement on your part. I await the trial
of these matters with great interest. Perhaps that will come in the
Sloan or Brock actions. If not, it is rumored that other actions will
be commenced. All these actions are/will be in our courts according the
parties substantive and procedural due process.


That is up to you, and sponsored by your motivations! Personally I
think that itself /very/ strange

My sole motive, stated numerous times here and in the USCF Issues Forum,
it to discover and make known the facts of what has happened.

But it is your choice, as is mine to not behave as you do.

If only you WOULD behave more as I do.............. :-)


If you continue to think of yourself as prosecutor, which is necessarily a
partial view advocating one thing over another, it is intellectually
infamous to then ALSO ask to decide on any issue. Not only that, you even
want to be the jury too, in fact rendering your verdicts on things in
advance of even knowing what they are.

Wrong again, Phil. I do NOT consider myself a prosecutor. I am a USCF
member who wants facts and answers as to USCF governance.


[see recent Jerry Spinrad memo on the 'secret evidence']

I think one might electively play any one role, not all 3, not unless this
was a nightmare scene out of Koestler's Darkness at Noon.

Its respect the properly contitued(sic) law of the land time, Brian.

The constituted law of our land, Phil, includes freedom of speech and
association. Try to remember that in your legalistic approach to pr for
the Trolgars.


Phil Innes

"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 9:40 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:

The bottom line is that it has been established quite clearly that Mr.
Truong is the FSS. What involvement his wife had in all this still
remains unclear.

It would indeed be disheartening if it turns out her role was active;
I'd prefer to think she was duped by Bob Bennett in all this.

The sad thing really is all the "strange bedfellows" this has produced
- there are indeed (although I don't know if Goichberg knew as Sloan
claims) people whom I am sure knew who the FSS was and condoned the
behavior in an effort to get rid of Sloan. I've never been a Sloan fan
but anyone who would go to these means to defeat him - and I include
those complicit - should be barred from organized chess forever.
Sloan's bad image is nothing compared to the one the FSS has generated
not only for himself but for chess. Sloan is a wart; the FSS, a
malignant tumor.

A statement that should have been made by every figure in the chess world.

The silence and equivocation is even more disheartening to me than
the behavior of the outright apologists.

"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 10:39 am, "Chess One" wrote:

For several months people who have demanded to see reports have ignored
this
and other factors. If Rynd/Dowd actually wanted to know, he/they could
have
asked USCF what they got to hide - right?

Why would I?


I have no idea except that you wanted to know something.


You made the accusation, so you must know. What kind of
question is "what do you have to hide"? Is this the sort of thing you
send to the USCF in your "secret emails"? I should write the USCF and
ask them "What do you have to hide?" Jeesh......

I am sorry, but that is too vague to follow. Since Rynd/Dowd cut this post
so the context does not appear, I think he is, as he says of himself,
incurious to what happened.


Therefore these inquiries are nervous whistlings in the wind - they are
not
sincere, they are pretenses - as the [in]actions or partialities of only
apparently sinceere investigators continuously demonstrate.

This is always your pat answer when asked to come up with evidence. It
doesn't fly anymore. You claim something, you are asked for evidence.
You demur that the questioner must not be sincere.

Not must not, is not. If you want to know something about USCF's activities
then (a) you would have asked them, and (b) not cut the context of this very
message.

So you see, you are found out yet again to be merely a rhetoricist, as
someone who flings ideas in place of who flings a more serious attention.

And then you flit
about like the lying sack of crap you are, avoiding the topic and
focusing on everyone else's supposed insincerity.

No wonder you lie about your chess achievements as well.

How abstractly vague a response. I suppose it is consistent with other
argument, and that is the level to which this individual decides things.

But not how I do it.

Phil Innes

"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 11:35 am, "Chess One" wrote:


In which case she has played a very strange gambit since the start in
insisting that all information be on the table. Since she is in no-one's
opinion a poor chess player nor inept strategist, then I must say that
your
comment above to me here is counter-intuitive.

Well, the first comment is true, the second, a half-truth. She is

You are answering for someone else?

perhaps a very inept strategist in the game of life.You cannot
correlate success at the board with success in life, or do you believe
so since you are "ept" at neither????

You think an abstract rhetorical question decides individual cases?

Try to think more deeply about things before you post, otherwise its all
emotion and undergrad philosophy 101, uncertainly understood.

And we are not talking about that level of consideration but about real and
individual people. Should you wish your comments to stand then that is your
measure.

Not mine, nor that of the law of the land.

Phil Innes

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:gHsbk.79$0V1.21@trndny01...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
newsDqbk.258$9W.103@trndny04...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:mC7bk.202$qW.157@trndny03...
The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence.
When will Susan Polgar and her husband, and you as their unofficial
spokesman, address the three computer analysis that trace 2500
postings under fake names to Paul Truong?
They will never address it unless forced to do so in depositions
and/or at trial. Reason? They have no refutation available to them
from a creditable expert.
The point of all is to have all the records examined by an
/independent/ expert.
Last fall, Donna Alarie offered to submit the materials and data
underlying the Mottershead Report to yet another independent forensic
expert chosen by Gregory Alexander on behalf of Trolgar. She asked
Alexander to provide cover letter wording and the name and address of an
expert chosesn by Alenander/Trolgar for transmittal. None of that was
provided by Mr. Alexander, the chessdiscussion web master. Bluff
called. Trolgar lost.

Dear Brian Lafferty,

as you must know, a court will seperate the perps from the experts - and
if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, since
if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?

As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
life, especially in politics.

You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do they?

If Mr. Truong had any real evidence or a real expert's report debunking
the Mottershead Report and the other experts verifying Mottershead's
methodology and findings, I suspect he would have given you an exclusive
as his semi-official mouthpiece/apologist.

You expect? But surely he would have done as he has, and expected a court to
decide it? I am quite capable of questioning anyone to their own orientation
to things, but this is a global orientation with legal implications. Why
should he not resolve the issue in a court? That is a direct question to
you.

What contesting parties point out about each other's behavior is quite
outside any rules of evidence. I have simply maintained from the start
that I do not want to hear only partialities, and do want independent
assessment [independent of all involved parties] to make their report.

Ask Mr. Truong to give you a report from an expert supporting his
position. Give us a scoop, Scoop and then go read some Evelyn Waugh.

You again avoid the issue of your own orientation to the rule of law! You
cannot say if you would welcome it, and if you would accept its result. That
is remarkable coming from someone I suppose is himself a justice -- and it
is very curious.

You were personally involved, no? You said before you contacted Susan's
ex-husband. You did not say much further except to report about the abuse of
her children - which independent and LEGAL INVESTIGATION decided had no
basis whatever. Did you know this at the time of your writing?

Did your 'curiosity' extend that far? Do you now acknowledge that a LEGAL
INVESTIAGATION found it with basis?

Since you yourself raised the issue, should you not be a tad more honest
about its resolution - or was you simply mud-flinging?

And I knew Waugh's son, and his grandson, so please save me spurious
'advice' which you cannot even ennunciate, as if you knew something of that
too, more wise, superior than thou... pfft

Laugherty, yours is a sad scene, hardly better than that of the Sloan in its
aspersions. But where is any judicial sense of accusation and necessart
OBJECTIVE proof?

Instead of prentending to be impartial to it, you are a protagonist in it,
and advocate, and as above, not an honest reporter.

Now, since I spare you a few words from your initial comment, I do not agree
to proceed on your basis, nor correspond with you from it, especially since
I wrote that it is entirely unclear to me if the FSS is at loose here, and
if those who certainly fixed on their villain already, are entirely innocent
themselves?

---

I see below you write "We don't need a court to make all of our
determinations" and yet 'we' conduct one here. A kangaroo court on some
Soviet model. What is this 'we'? Is that something avowed by American
culture?

I think we do need a court, and I also think we should find the FSS and his
////allies////, and we should very certainly prosecute them.

Phil Innes


That has ever been the stance, and that is the current initiative. In
fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was
dismissed by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their
taste. Now the only real way to resolve the issue is to have
independent expertise attend the matter, whose results can not be
dismissed, but will be taken into formal account; the implications of
that inquiry being properly constituted evidence - and let the chips
fall where they may!
If you bother to read the expert's reports, you will see that the
experts have no connection and/or interesting in the outcome of this
matter. These issues were addressed by the experts in their reports.

I take it your opinion is not based with mine in a court's determination
of what's what. As an active partisan that is your choice of basis - but
it is not any objective nor legal one. It is opinion. Whereas mine is not
an opinion, it is impartial to who dunnit, and I will accept the truth as
a court resolves it to be.

We don't need a court to make all of our determinations in life, Phil. I
have approached the FSS matter with an open mind even though I did oppose
Trolgar's running for the EB on other grounds (recall, Phil, that the
Mottershead Report was not known until September 2007). I would still
consider a rebuttal from an independent expert produced by Mr. Truong.


The bottom line is that it has been established quite clearly that Mr.
Truong is the FSS. What involvement his wife had in all this still
remains unclear.

? An extraordinary statement. I take it you have convinced yourself by a
partial view of proposed testimony, but how partial!

If the view is truly incomplete, please prevail on Trolgar to complete the
view for our edification.


The chips have fallen, Phil. Truong is the FSS unless and until he can
produce an expert who can discredit the experts' reports already in
hand--particularly the Ulevich Report.

Instead of your own recommendations, I prefer to keep an open mind on the
issue until I understand very much more than an accusation, and which is
decided by rule of law, and clearly differentiated by the activities of
those people in public who could also be the FSS.

Phil, your mind is far from open. You are no more than Trolgar's
mouthpiece squawking for your bread and butter at Chesslife.

[Phil drivel snipped]

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:gHsbk.79$0V1.21@trndny01...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
newsDqbk.258$9W.103@trndny04...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:mC7bk.202$qW.157@trndny03...
The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence.
When will Susan Polgar and her husband, and you as their unofficial
spokesman, address the three computer analysis that trace 2500
postings under fake names to Paul Truong?
They will never address it unless forced to do so in depositions
and/or at trial. Reason? They have no refutation available to them
from a creditable expert.
The point of all is to have all the records examined by an
/independent/ expert.
Last fall, Donna Alarie offered to submit the materials and data
underlying the Mottershead Report to yet another independent forensic
expert chosen by Gregory Alexander on behalf of Trolgar. She asked
Alexander to provide cover letter wording and the name and address of an
expert chosesn by Alenander/Trolgar for transmittal. None of that was
provided by Mr. Alexander, the chessdiscussion web master. Bluff
called. Trolgar lost.
Dear Brian Lafferty,

as you must know, a court will seperate the perps from the experts - and
if the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, since
if Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?
As you must know, courts are not needed to make all determinations in
life, especially in politics.

You make a "political" commentary therefore? Rather than of "all
determinations" in life, but courts do not decide on this basis do they?

Translation, please.

If Mr. Truong had any real evidence or a real expert's report debunking
the Mottershead Report and the other experts verifying Mottershead's
methodology and findings, I suspect he would have given you an exclusive
as his semi-official mouthpiece/apologist.

You expect? But surely he would have done as he has, and expected a court to
decide it? I am quite capable of questioning anyone to their own orientation
to things, but this is a global orientation with legal implications. Why
should he not resolve the issue in a court? That is a direct question to
you.

I expect him to do nothing in the hopes that the Sloan case is
dismissed, which looks more an more unlikely. If the case is dismissed,
he'll keep on presenting bull**** reasons for not presenting his own
expert's report debunking Motterhead, et al.

What contesting parties point out about each other's behavior is quite
outside any rules of evidence. I have simply maintained from the start
that I do not want to hear only partialities, and do want independent
assessment [independent of all involved parties] to make their report.
Ask Mr. Truong to give you a report from an expert supporting his
position. Give us a scoop, Scoop and then go read some Evelyn Waugh.

You again avoid the issue of your own orientation to the rule of law! You
cannot say if you would welcome it, and if you would accept its result. That
is remarkable coming from someone I suppose is himself a justice -- and it
is very curious.

There is no issue here as to my view of the rule of law. Maybe there is
in your mind, Phil, but that hardly counts as reality. Try to follow
this, Phil. I am a Constitutional officer sworn to up hold the United
States Constitution, the NY State Constitution and the laws promulgated
thereunder. I accepted that duty with the utmost seriousness and
commitment. I look forward to seeing Trolgar in court, testifying under
oath. The trier of fact will make its findings which may or may not be
appealed.

You were personally involved, no? You said before you contacted Susan's
ex-husband. You did not say much further except to report about the abuse of
her children - which independent and LEGAL INVESTIGATION decided had no
basis whatever. Did you know this at the time of your writing?

Indeed, I have spoken with Mr. Schutzman. He told me many things about
Ms. Polgar, most of which I have not publicly revealed. Your conclusion
as to an investigation resulting in a specific determination is
apparently misplaced. It is my understanding from Mr. Schutzman that he
consented to the vacation of the order of protection against Trolgar,
and he has told me that he regrets having consented to the vacation of
the order. Of course, all of this has nothing to do with the recall of
Mr. Truong in relation to the FSS matter.

Did your 'curiosity' extend that far? Do you now acknowledge that a LEGAL
INVESTIAGATION found it with basis?

See above. Did you mean to write "without basis?"

Since you yourself raised the issue, should you not be a tad more honest
about its resolution - or was you simply mud-flinging?

I did not raise the issue here. You did, probably as a decoy from the
FSS issue. Also, I was not the first person to reveal the existence of
the order of protection regarding Trolgar and her children.

And I knew Waugh's son, and his grandson, so please save me spurious
'advice' which you cannot even ennunciate, as if you knew something of that
too, more wise, superior than thou... pfft

Too bad literary/editorial ability doesn't rub off on one.

Laugherty9sic), yours is a sad scene, hardly better than that of the Sloan in its
aspersions. But where is any judicial sense of accusation and necessart
OBJECTIVE proof?
Duh, Phil, lets look at the independent experts' reviews of
Mottershead's methodology and findings. Your boy is dead in the water
and listing very badly.


Instead of prentending to be impartial to it, you are a protagonist in it,
and advocate, and as above, not an honest reporter.

I am open to considering material presented by Trolgar in the form of a
bona fide expert's opinion debunking the Mottershead Report. The only
dishonest reporter here is not me, Phil.

Now, since I spare you a few words from your initial comment, I do not agree
to proceed on your basis, nor correspond with you from it, especially since
I wrote that it is entirely unclear to me if the FSS is at loose here, and
if those who certainly fixed on their villain already, are entirely innocent
themselves?

You are in need of editing services, Phil.

---

I see below you write "We don't need a court to make all of our
determinations" and yet 'we' conduct one here. A kangaroo court on some
Soviet model. What is this 'we'? Is that something avowed by American
culture?

No, Phil. Reasoned discussion without the ability to enforce any
judgment (as a court can), means we are not a Kangaroo Court even though
some people posting here have little more mental ability than a
Kangaroo. :-)

I think we do need a court, and I also think we should find the FSS and his
////allies////, and we should very certainly prosecute them.

Phil Innes

That has ever been the stance, and that is the current initiative. In
fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was
dismissed by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their
taste. Now the only real way to resolve the issue is to have
independent expertise attend the matter, whose results can not be
dismissed, but will be taken into formal account; the implications of
that inquiry being properly constituted evidence - and let the chips
fall where they may!
If you bother to read the expert's reports, you will see that the
experts have no connection and/or interesting in the outcome of this
matter. These issues were addressed by the experts in their reports.
I take it your opinion is not based with mine in a court's determination
of what's what. As an active partisan that is your choice of basis - but
it is not any objective nor legal one. It is opinion. Whereas mine is not
an opinion, it is impartial to who dunnit, and I will accept the truth as
a court resolves it to be.
We don't need a court to make all of our determinations in life, Phil. I
have approached the FSS matter with an open mind even though I did oppose
Trolgar's running for the EB on other grounds (recall, Phil, that the
Mottershead Report was not known until September 2007). I would still
consider a rebuttal from an independent expert produced by Mr. Truong.

The bottom line is that it has been established quite clearly that Mr.
Truong is the FSS. What involvement his wife had in all this still
remains unclear.
? An extraordinary statement. I take it you have convinced yourself by a
partial view of proposed testimony, but how partial!
If the view is truly incomplete, please prevail on Trolgar to complete the
view for our edification.

The chips have fallen, Phil. Truong is the FSS unless and until he can
produce an expert who can discredit the experts' reports already in
hand--particularly the Ulevich Report.
Instead of your own recommendations, I prefer to keep an open mind on the
issue until I understand very much more than an accusation, and which is
decided by rule of law, and clearly differentiated by the activities of
those people in public who could also be the FSS.
Phil, your mind is far from open. You are no more than Trolgar's
mouthpiece squawking for your bread and butter at Chesslife.

[Phil drivel snipped]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:10:24 GMT, Brian Lafferty
wrote:

..
I see below you write "We don't need a court to make all of our
determinations" and yet 'we' conduct one here. A kangaroo court on some
Soviet model. What is this 'we'? Is that something avowed by American
culture?

No, Phil. Reasoned discussion without the ability to enforce any
judgment (as a court can), means we are not a Kangaroo Court

This, of course, has been pointed out to Phil several times, but he
wilfully refuses to acknowledge his error.

He seems to feel if he acts sufficiently indignant, people will impute
factuality to his garboon.
..

Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:10:24 GMT, Brian Lafferty
wrote:

.
I see below you write "We don't need a court to make all of our
determinations" and yet 'we' conduct one here. A kangaroo court on some
Soviet model. What is this 'we'? Is that something avowed by American
culture?

No, Phil. Reasoned discussion without the ability to enforce any
judgment (as a court can), means we are not a Kangaroo Court

This, of course, has been pointed out to Phil several times, but he
wilfully refuses to acknowledge his error.

He seems to feel if he acts sufficiently indignant, people will impute
factuality to his garboon.
.

"Garboon" Mike? Really?? That word set me to searching as I have never
heard of it before. Not a particularly good find at the end of the
trail. Sort of like finding a dog pile at the end of the rainbow...

[ http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...n&defid=306402 ]

--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker