On Jul 3, 6:32 am, samsloan wrote:

by jlemoine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:06 am
My take on this story:

In a dramatic challenge to President Goichberg and the rest of her
opponents, Susan Polgar offered to resign from the USCF Executive
Board Monday provided they (1) "give me the FULL CONSENT to release
all information to ALL USCF members" and (2) " If I cannot prove
what I said is true then I will resign immediately."

The other half of the challenge: "However, if I can prove that
what I said is true then President Goichberg would resign from
the board immediately."

Susan in effect says:

you are accusing Trolgar of FSS,
so we will accuse you of XYZ.

A nice trick but it doesn't work in court. Each court
case is limited in its scope (or else nothing in court
would ever get resolved). Trolgar would have to make a
**separate** XYZ case, while the issue of FSS would
still stand alone, **unaffected** by XYZ, at least with
respect to Trolgar.

Wlod

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
On Jul 3, 6:32 am, samsloan wrote:

by jlemoine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:06 am
My take on this story:

In a dramatic challenge to President Goichberg and the rest of her
opponents, Susan Polgar offered to resign from the USCF Executive
Board Monday provided they (1) "give me the FULL CONSENT to release
all information to ALL USCF members" and (2) " If I cannot prove
what I said is true then I will resign immediately."

The other half of the challenge: "However, if I can prove that
what I said is true then President Goichberg would resign from
the board immediately."

Susan in effect says:

you are accusing Trolgar of FSS,
so we will accuse you of XYZ.

A nice trick but it doesn't work in court. Each court
case is limited in its scope (or else nothing in court
would ever get resolved). Trolgar would have to make a
**separate** XYZ case, while the issue of FSS would
still stand alone, **unaffected** by XYZ, at least with
respect to Trolgar.

Wlod

Well stated.

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:l4Pbk.209$iU.196@trndny02...

Phil, you do know that help is available, don't you?

How witty? That's a sincere question.

But for all I know, that is actually sufficient where you are to make people
fall down in helpless fits of laughter.

But that place is not here. If you can't do content at ALL here, then you
might consider retreating to the 100-acre wood and hanging-out with Eyeore?

Since your response is to do with the origins in English of the name
'chess', perhaps it is as random as your comments on other subjects? I am
concerned to tell you that you are in some danger of appearing to be a
boorish uneducated lout, capable of one-liners [3 in all, 2 anal]

Phil Innes

"Javert" wrote in message
...
big snip

I have to admire Phil. He's getting his butt kicked all over the
place on this issue by several people but continues to return for
more, in the hopes that volumes of fractured prose will provide a
sufficient weapon.

not signed, no content, a literally anal attitude, and finally obscurity

the writer might try a complete sentence, which would include subject, verb,
object, and after demonstrating he can write one of those; or two together!
demonstrate he knows what fractures prose ... [ROFL]

as to content, including the sufficient weapon he thinks I am forging for
.....? i think i can't have said less than a 100 times that the law, and
properly constituted evidence, is enough for me

this quite naturally causes others to become agitated, vaguely hysterical,
then mock-polite abusive, then straight mock. But what they mock is the law
of the land, and the way most decent people would have it

phil innes

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Jul 5, 1:29 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Reminds me a bit of Shakespeare, "Reason, by compulsion!?" People have
said
that they have /told/ me how reasonable they are, as if autodidacts in
sole
possession of such equanimity of mind.

Of course the 'pointing out' is a means of editing what there is to
reason
about, as if that act was itself a reasonable one, whereas I have
merely
preferred to take all in before publishing such certainties as they.
This
indeed appears to be my principal sin.

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

In interesting old word which occurs in Florio, pp 55, 443, and also
Drayton's poems p. 88 and also Stanihurst p.34. The writer no doubt was
thinking of GARBOIL, a commotion, tumult, uproar, or confusion. Its
stem~ is
almost certainly GAR; to force, to compel, to make [North] and with
alternate spelling of GARE.

And from that link, we can easily find the A. Sax root~

GARDE: caused, made, as mentioned by the startling comment;

"he garde hyme goo"

which occurs in Torrent of Portugal, p. 28

Lest of course it is intended to be a later word ?- something from A.
Norman
such as GARGOUN; which has a meaning of 'jargon', as well as simply
'language. In occurs in Wright's Seven Sages on pages 106, 107.

Since all those are very easy to look up, even to their detail, I
expect
they will be uncontroversial and no substantive additional comment will
be
made. How unsatisfactory!

Therefore...

More controversial is the origin of the word CHESS. Now, while everyone
is
hitting the books I wonder if they will conclude that one early
possibility
may have come from an A. Sax verb, CHESE; (1) to chose; (2) saw

"Even til the hegh bord he chese,"
//. Syr Gowghter, 312.

There are of course many later words in Anglo Norman to select - but
has
anyone an earlier alternate candidate than the one above?

Phil Innes

Phil, you do know that help is available, don't you?

Mental Health and Developmental Services
802-254-6028
Fax: 802-254-7501
51 Fairview Street
Brattleboro, VT 05301
http://www.hcrs.org/

If evidence is needed of stalkers... then it is so easy to profile people -
since they are compulsives, they cannot hide the /pattern/ of their
collective achievements, they can only vary for a post or two.

Here the author of the idiotic statement 'Old English is dead,' the phrase
which is itself composed of 4 words of old English, here makes a response
normal for him. In fact, he has gone substantially out of his way to do
similar things to myself and others - and this is what he will do in public!

[why do I keep bringing this sort of idiocy to others attention? it is a
mark of the level of the commentators wit! - it is what might be called
intercepted, and by an energy which is evidently mean, diverting from any
point, and cravenly brown-nosing to those who like this sort of stuff - this
replaces intelligence as we know it.]

Here our stalker has not quite penetrated very far, since I sat on a board
which invigilates mental health services for younger people in the county
and for the state, but he hasn't found my name in the rosters yet.

Do people really need evidence of malice, though? Or is it, as some write
here, good fun, from their perspective? You just **** with people full time,
and others laugh - doesn't matter if it is abuse of women or children - all
is grist to the mill!

Let's face it. 6 years and no content other than hate speech would profile
anyone quite well, and disqualify them from practically any audited public
function. Psychologically I have written before that this is a mechanism -
it operates when a very low self esteem must be avoided by continuous
efforts to bring others to that level or beneath it - after such projection
the mechanism can survive with its self until the next challenge, and that
is naturally further deprecations of others who appear to achieve things
beyond the grasp of the afflicted's ability.

Since what we have with the nominal title above - (but whatever the topic) -
is willful deviant behavior as would shame the emotional functions of a 13
year old, then here is your advocate for that orientation. If you get off on
it, you too, dear reader, are, to use a clinical psychological expression,
also nutz@!

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Jul 5, 1:29 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
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.
Reminds me a bit of Shakespeare, "Reason, by compulsion!?" People have
said
that they have /told/ me how reasonable they are, as if autodidacts in
sole
possession of such equanimity of mind.
Of course the 'pointing out' is a means of editing what there is to
reason
about, as if that act was itself a reasonable one, whereas I have
merely
preferred to take all in before publishing such certainties as they.
This
indeed appears to be my principal sin.
He seems to feel if he acts sufficiently indignant, people will impute
factuality to his garboon.
In interesting old word which occurs in Florio, pp 55, 443, and also
Drayton's poems p. 88 and also Stanihurst p.34. The writer no doubt was
thinking of GARBOIL, a commotion, tumult, uproar, or confusion. Its
stem~ is
almost certainly GAR; to force, to compel, to make [North] and with
alternate spelling of GARE.
And from that link, we can easily find the A. Sax root~
GARDE: caused, made, as mentioned by the startling comment;
"he garde hyme goo"
which occurs in Torrent of Portugal, p. 28
Lest of course it is intended to be a later word ?- something from A.
Norman
such as GARGOUN; which has a meaning of 'jargon', as well as simply
'language. In occurs in Wright's Seven Sages on pages 106, 107.
Since all those are very easy to look up, even to their detail, I
expect
they will be uncontroversial and no substantive additional comment will
be
made. How unsatisfactory!
Therefore...
More controversial is the origin of the word CHESS. Now, while everyone
is
hitting the books I wonder if they will conclude that one early
possibility
may have come from an A. Sax verb, CHESE; (1) to chose; (2) saw
"Even til the hegh bord he chese,"
//. Syr Gowghter, 312.
There are of course many later words in Anglo Norman to select - but
has
anyone an earlier alternate candidate than the one above?
Phil Innes
Phil, you do know that help is available, don't you?
Mental Health and Developmental Services
802-254-6028
Fax: 802-254-7501
51 Fairview Street
Brattleboro, VT 05301
http://www.hcrs.org/

If evidence is needed of stalkers... then it is so easy to profile people -
since they are compulsives, they cannot hide the /pattern/ of their
collective achievements, they can only vary for a post or two.

Here the author of the idiotic statement 'Old English is dead,' the phrase
which is itself composed of 4 words of old English, here makes a response
normal for him. In fact, he has gone substantially out of his way to do
similar things to myself and others - and this is what he will do in public!

[why do I keep bringing this sort of idiocy to others attention? it is a
mark of the level of the commentators wit! - it is what might be called
intercepted, and by an energy which is evidently mean, diverting from any
point, and cravenly brown-nosing to those who like this sort of stuff - this
replaces intelligence as we know it.]

Here our stalker has not quite penetrated very far, since I sat on a board
which invigilates mental health services for younger people in the county
and for the state, but he hasn't found my name in the rosters yet.

Do people really need evidence of malice, though? Or is it, as some write
here, good fun, from their perspective? You just **** with people full time,
and others laugh - doesn't matter if it is abuse of women or children - all
is grist to the mill!

Let's face it. 6 years and no content other than hate speech would profile
anyone quite well, and disqualify them from practically any audited public
function. Psychologically I have written before that this is a mechanism -
it operates when a very low self esteem must be avoided by continuous
efforts to bring others to that level or beneath it - after such projection
the mechanism can survive with its self until the next challenge, and that
is naturally further deprecations of others who appear to achieve things
beyond the grasp of the afflicted's ability.

Since what we have with the nominal title above - (but whatever the topic) -
is willful deviant behavior as would shame the emotional functions of a 13
year old, then here is your advocate for that orientation. If you get off on
it, you too, dear reader, are, to use a clinical psychological expression,
also nutz@!

Phil Innes


You really do need professional help, Phil.

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:qI8dk.1169$bn3.1006@trnddc07...

You really do need professional help, Phil.

Brian Lafferty continues not to notice questions put to him about his own
behavior, of what he knew and what he did. He seems puzzled that anyone
should question him!

At least Jerry Spinrad thinks rules of evidence within the law are
'incomprehensible' when I write them - he has never avered that independent
and established authority should adjudicate the issue.

While his own determinations outside the law are A-OK, no matter what he
based them on - such as Brian Lafferty's commentary - and just to clarify
that, I ask Our Brian a few questions...

Our Jerry was so sure about this previously, but is not mentioning it any
more.

Here are once again the questions which Our Brian can't seem to notice, and
it seem to me that all evidential material might come under a bit more
scrutiny, and then even Our Jerry might be impressed:

1) Did Lafferty write his opinion of ex-Sp's husband /after/ a court decided
there was nothing to it?

2) Did Lafferty ever admit the above circumstance? Which would be to
indicate
that it was entirely unfounded?

3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above, that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.

Phil Innes

On Jul 10, 6:02 am, "Chess One" wrote:

1) Did Lafferty write his opinion of ex-Sp's husband /after/ a court decided
there was nothing to it?

2) Did Lafferty ever admit the above circumstance? Which would be to
indicate that it was entirely unfounded?

3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above, that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.

Phil Innes

You seem to be referring to the two court orders issued by judges of
the Queens Family Court which prohibited Susan Polgar and her
"paramour Paul" from using corporal punishment against Susan's
children for refusing to play chess.

As far as I am aware no judge has ever decided that the matter was
"unfounded". The orders eventually expired after Paul and Susan moved
to Texas and thus were out of the jurisdiction. Do you have any
evidence to the contrary?

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:02 am, "Chess One" wrote:

1) Did Lafferty write his opinion of ex-Sp's husband /after/ a court decided
there was nothing to it?

2) Did Lafferty ever admit the above circumstance? Which would be to
indicate that it was entirely unfounded?

3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above, that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.

Phil Innes

You seem to be referring to the two court orders issued by judges of
the Queens Family Court which prohibited Susan Polgar and her
"paramour Paul" from using corporal punishment against Susan's
children for refusing to play chess.

As far as I am aware no judge has ever decided that the matter was
"unfounded". The orders eventually expired after Paul and Susan moved
to Texas and thus were out of the jurisdiction. Do you have any
evidence to the contrary?

Sam Sloan

Mr. Schutzman told me that the orders were vacated with his consent on
advice of his then counsel. He also stated to me that his counsel, in
his opinion, did not do right by him in recommending that he consent.

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:qI8dk.1169$bn3.1006@trnddc07...

You really do need professional help, Phil.

Brian Lafferty continues not to notice questions put to him about his own
behavior, of what he knew and what he did. He seems puzzled that anyone
should question him!

At least Jerry Spinrad thinks rules of evidence within the law are
'incomprehensible' when I write them - he has never avered that independent
and established authority should adjudicate the issue.

While his own determinations outside the law are A-OK, no matter what he
based them on - such as Brian Lafferty's commentary - and just to clarify
that, I ask Our Brian a few questions...

Our Jerry was so sure about this previously, but is not mentioning it any
more.

Here are once again the questions which Our Brian can't seem to notice, and
it seem to me that all evidential material might come under a bit more
scrutiny, and then even Our Jerry might be impressed:

1) Did Lafferty write his opinion of ex-Sp's husband /after/ a court decided
there was nothing to it?

Phil, you either have dementia or a severe lack of reading
comprehension. This has been discussed here on rgcp in detail before.
Obviously, all concerned other than Truong, Polgar and Schutzman, knew
of the order before anyone here knew about it.

2) Did Lafferty ever admit the above circumstance? Which would be to
indicate
that it was entirely unfounded?

As has been discussed here several dimes before, Mr. Schutzman advised
me that the order(s) was vacated on consent of the parties, the giving
of which consent he now regrets. Do you have a copy of any Family Court
order with findings of fact that would indicate that there was no
factual basis for the original orders? Of course you don't. Ask your
friend Susan if she has such an order the next time you have your nose
up her butt crack seeking favor.

3) Since Lafferty admits, so it seems from his statement above, that this is
merely politics, is this indeed his own standard of reporting /
non-reporting of things? If it is, then let us take note that the Judge does
not report on the law, but on what is merely politic, and that he is himself
an active agent in the process of this affair.

Earth to Phil. Your assumptions are not reality. I'll ignore the
remaineder of your verbal stupidity.

Now, please, Phi. Get professional help.

Phil Innes