THE CLAMP

Too much controversy has been allowed to fester with no firm
hand in evidence. Dear Bill [Goichberg] and [Bill Hall] I suggest
that you really clamp down on anything in the Forum having to
do with this situation until the Board is able to get the information
my motion is requesting and we're able to calmly consider the
right course of action. -- Joel Channing

Before getting to the crux, I am among those who
have seen no evidence putting Paul Truong's hands on
the keyboard of the False Sam and other messages of
that type. Until such evidence surfaces (as opposed
to geographical analyses and computer numbers that can
be jiggled by clever, if malign, hackers), it is
unfair to call for Paul Truong's resignation from the
Executive Board.

That said, the attempt by the usual gaggle of
politicians to close down discussion of whether Mr.
Truong or others are guilty of possibly fraudulent
behavior is ever so typical of the USCF political class.

Not only are they trying to do the impossible,
they are acting ever so stupidly. RGCP redivivus!

There is another possible scenario re the Truong
affair. It is possible that the USCF Old Guardist are
using Sam, who is the unwitting dupe here, to
undermine Polgar-Truong. he idea is to adopt a faux
statesmanship, involving censorship at the USCF Forum
and calls for prolonged investigation as a way of
positioning the Old Guardists as moderates who, at
long last, conclude that Mr. Truong ought to resign.

This latter is an ancient insider trick.

Yours, Larry Parr




B. Lafferty wrote:
a.. To: "Bill Goichberg " chessoffice@xxxxxxx, "'Bill Hall'"
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'BINFO'" USCF BINFO System, "'CONFIDENTIAL'"
confidential@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Jim Berry'" JABerryCG@xxxxxxx, "Patricia
Knight " pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Paul Truong'" Paultruong@xxxxxxx,
"'Rachel Lieberman'" queencapa@xxxxxxx, "'Randy Bauer'"
randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx, "Randy Hough " randallhough@xxxxxxxxx, "'Susan
Polgar'" SusanPolgar@xxxxxxx
b.. Subject: forum
c.. From: "Joel Channing" joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
d.. Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:53:35 -0400
e.. Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
f.. Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
g.. Thread-index: AcgCAN8+NPw8BtR8RU6KGbcBTthMkA==

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just read a threatening post by Brian Lafferty on the Forum. Apparently
he's talking to the press too (I hope you weren't Susan). Too much
controversy has been allowed to fester with no firm hand in evidence. Dear
Bill and Bill, I suggest that you really clamp down on anything in the Forum
having to do with this situation until the Board is able to get the
information my motion is requesting and we're able to calmly consider the
right course of action. Joel

SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL


Before getting to the crux, I am among those who
have seen no evidence putting Paul Truong's hands on
the keyboard of the False Sam and other messages of
that type. Until such evidence surfaces (as opposed
to geographical analyses and computer numbers that can
be jiggled by clever, if malign, hackers), it is
unfair to call for Paul Truong's resignation from the
Executive Board.


Until proof-positive "surfaces", LP says, it is "unfair" to
call for PT's resignation. A few years ago, hypocrite LP
took precisely the opposite position with regard to an evil
FIDE dictator who had been accused of masterminding
the assassination of one of his critics. No evidence was
presented against the FIDE ruler, apart from the fact that
he gained indirectly (if you pretend to ignore all of the
controversy the murder itself generated, all the backlash).

My take is that LP has no moral compass, nothing by
which to navigate such issues apart from whim and
whimsy, along with personal biases which bear no
relation to the issues at hand. When convenience
dictates, the great Parrthenium sees no evil, hears no
evil, and speaks no evil. But woe be unto those who
may have circumstantial evidence against them, if
there be enmity betwixt they and he! LOL


That said, the attempt by the usual gaggle of
politicians to close down discussion of whether Mr.
Truong or others are guilty of possibly fraudulent
behavior is ever so typical of the USCF political class.


So true. As of yet, no one has answered my query
as to whether or not it is "normal" for a non-profit org.
to take such measures, and I interpret this as meaning
that personal issues take precedence here over any
objective ones.


There is another possible scenario re the Truong
affair. It is possible that the USCF Old Guardist are
using Sam, who is the unwitting dupe here, to
undermine Polgar-Truong. he idea is to adopt a faux
statesmanship, involving censorship at the USCF Forum
and calls for prolonged investigation as a way of
positioning the Old Guardists as moderates who, at
long last, conclude that Mr. Truong ought to resign.


That made precious little sense, as it was not only SS
who was allegedly attacked, nor did SS require any
manipulation whatever to attack the PT/SP duo. (It
seems that it is in his nature to attack SP.)


This latter is an ancient insider trick.


One trick I have not yet learned is figuring out why
LP has chosen to support rather than attack Paul
Truong. Given all the "evidence" I have seen posted
here by LP's buddy SS, it is amazing that the former
would feign ignorance and take a position of trying
to ignore it and suggest that no evidence has yet
been "seen". In any case, one thing is certain:
once LP takes a position -- however ludicrous -- he
does not easily change his mind, regardless of the
pertinent facts. Thus, I expect to see a lot more of
this kind of SEE NO EVIL stuff in the near future.


Much of the stuff attributed to PT, I have not seen;
but going by the little I have read, an appropriate
punishment might be a spanking or else a time out.
That's because of the level of maturity of these posts,
which is clear evidence that the real culprit is no adult,
but a mischievous adolescent, reminiscent of the Grim
Repa (sans foul mouth). In fact, until I saw the posts
by Sam Sloan which correlated the culprit's/culprits'
location with the PT/SP duo, my guess was that at
least one of the impostors was probably JR.


-- help bot

On Oct 2, 10:12 pm, " wrote:
THE CLAMP

Too much controversy has been allowed to fester with no firm
hand in evidence. Dear Bill [Goichberg] and [Bill Hall] I suggest
that you really clamp down on anything in the Forum having to
do with this situation until the Board is able to get the information
my motion is requesting and we're able to calmly consider the
right course of action. -- Joel Channing

Before getting to the crux, I am among those who
have seen no evidence putting Paul Truong's hands on
the keyboard of the False Sam and other messages of
that type. Until such evidence surfaces (as opposed
to geographical analyses and computer numbers that can
be jiggled by clever, if malign, hackers), it is
unfair to call for Paul Truong's resignation from the
Executive Board.

That said, the attempt by the usual gaggle of
politicians to close down discussion of whether Mr.
Truong or others are guilty of possibly fraudulent
behavior is ever so typical of the USCF political class.

Not only are they trying to do the impossible,
they are acting ever so stupidly. RGCP redivivus!

There is another possible scenario re the Truong
affair. It is possible that the USCF Old Guardist are
using Sam, who is the unwitting dupe here, to
undermine Polgar-Truong. he idea is to adopt a faux
statesmanship, involving censorship at the USCF Forum
and calls for prolonged investigation as a way of
positioning the Old Guardists as moderates who, at
long last, conclude that Mr. Truong ought to resign.

This latter is an ancient insider trick.

Yours, Larry Parr



B. Lafferty wrote:
a.. To: "Bill Goichberg " chessoffice@xxxxxxx, "'Bill Hall'"
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'BINFO'" USCF BINFO System, "'CONFIDENTIAL'"
confidential@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Jim Berry'" JABerryCG@xxxxxxx, "Patricia
Knight " pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Paul Truong'" Paultruong@xxxxxxx,
"'Rachel Lieberman'" queencapa@xxxxxxx, "'Randy Bauer'"
randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx, "Randy Hough " randallhough@xxxxxxxxx, "'Susan
Polgar'" SusanPolgar@xxxxxxx
b.. Subject: forum
c.. From: "Joel Channing" joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
d.. Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:53:35 -0400
e.. Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
f.. Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
g.. Thread-index: AcgCAN8+NPw8BtR8RU6KGbcBTthMkA==

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

I just read a threatening post by Brian Lafferty on the Forum. Apparently
he's talking to the press too (I hope you weren't Susan). Too much
controversy has been allowed to fester with no firm hand in evidence. Dear
Bill and Bill, I suggest that you really clamp down on anything in the Forum
having to do with this situation until the Board is able to get the
information my motion is requesting and we're able to calmly consider the
right course of action. Joel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

TRIAL BY JURY, the AMERICAN WAY.............

What we need, Larry, is for a jury of 12 men and women to determine
the facts.

Sloan doesn't ask for a jury trial in his complaint, and until a jury
determines the facts, the lawsuit will probably be dismissed. I was
accused of trying to bomb the very hotel in Cherry Hill that is the
subject (part) of this lawsuit by Sloan. It appears to me that there
is a real conspiarcy, and Sloan has concluded that he can stirr up
trouble, Troung's removal is up to a State Judge in Illnois, not a
Federal Judge in New York. Sloan lacks the funds to sue in the proper
venue to order the removal of Troung. Our discussion on if he should
be removed is MUTE until we see a lawsuit in Illnois, the state of
USCF incorporation in 1938.

Now, hell bent "chess congressman" might try to move the state of
incorporation to Tennessee, just to prevent Sloan from suing them in
New York. They are that crazy, indeed!

What I have done, is simply to take my rights as a US Citizen and Life
Member of the US Chess Federation (12421655), and file a complaint
with the ETHICS COMMITTEE of the USCF. Therefore, I have prepared a
scenario where I can get a jury to look at the facts, as Mr. Sloan
wants so much.

I wish Mr. Sloan would try to let a JURY determine the facts, and the
courts rule on issues of law. All that is happening is that Sloan is
costs a few people some money to dismiss this complaint, which has
some real issues.

As I see the facts:

Mr. Sloan was SLANDERED by a group of conspirators who told the Cherry
HIll, NJ police that I was going to bomb the hotel. The same people
who conspired to slander Sloan used Glen Peterson and Daniel Miller.

Venue to Remove Troung is IL. Sloan has failed some legal requirments
that simply can't be ignored.

Motion to dismiss for lack of jurdisction.....
Motion to dimiss for failure to state a cause of action.....

But, when the ethics committee rules on my complaint, when can return
to Sloans version of the facts, with an honest jury, that can rule on
real issues of law, that Sloan attempts to bring up.

Marcus Roberts
former USCF Vice President
Life Member 12421655

THE GREAT PARTHENIUM

Until proof-positive "surfaces", LP says, it is "unfair" to call for PT's resignation. A few years ago, hypocrite LP took precisely the opposite position with regard to
an evil FIDE dictator who had been accused of masterminding the
assassination of one of his critics. No evidence was presented against
the FIDE ruler, apart from the
fact that he gained indirectly (if you pretend to ignore all of the
controversy the murder itself generated, all the backlash). My take is
that LP has no moral compass, nothing by which to navigate such issues
apart from whim and whimsy, along with personal biases which bear no
relation to the issues at hand. When convenience
dictates, the great Parrthenium sees no evil, hears no evil, and
speaks no evil. But woe be unto those who may have circumstantial
evidence against them, if
there be enmity betwixt they and he! LOL. -- Help Bot (Greg Kennedy)

"[T]he great Parrthenium"? If Paul Simon were
"still crazy after all these years," Greg Kennedy is
still bruised.

As our Greg Kennedy would have it, we entertain a
personal bias in favor of Paul Truong, even though
this writer favors permitting Sam Sloan, Brian
Lafferty and anyone else to flay Mr. Truong alive with
the electronic word on the USCF Forum, short of
essaying physical threats or, in other words,
threatening actually to flay the man unmetaphorically.
(Of course, Mr. Truong and his many supporters get to
flay back -- though not unmetaphorically.)

But that is not, in truth, our Greg's real
point. We will get to that a bit later.

The man's next argument was that the Old Guard
would not be using Sam, an unwitting dupe in this
scenario, to assail Mr. Truong because, after all, Sam
was an enemy of the Old Guard; and Mr. Truong, as Sam
believes the case to be, was flaying Sam.

Whether or not the Old Guard is pulling one of
its typical ploys, there is no contradiction between
wishing to end the political career of Sam and wishing
also to end the political career of Mr. Truong.

Now to Greg Kennedy's real point: he accuses me of a
double standard where Mr. Truong and Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov are concerned. Pure nonsense.

In the quoted posting, we wrote, "Before getting
to the crux," and this crux was NOT Mr. Truong's guilt
or innocence of Sam's charges. As we wrote, the crux
was censorship on the USCF Forum. Mr. Truong's guilt
was treated strictly as a tangential matter to the
main point. On the other hand Kirsan's responsibility
for Larisa Yudina's murder and the later "accident"
suffered by a key witness were always the central
points in the debate about the Kalmykian dictator.

There is also the respective gravities of the
two charges: Mr. Truong allegedly wrote naughty
e-mail postings; Kirsan stood accused of committing
brutal murder as well as torturing dissidents in
mental institutions. Here enters, among adult minds,
the element of prudential judgment. We are right to
be far more concerned about Kirsan's alleged acts than
Mr. Truong's. We are right to look harder and more
deeply into the crime of murder than into the zany
practice of posting scurrilous email messages. We are
right to answer carefully that ancient question, "Cui
bono?" We see no convincing attribution of motive
that would have caused Mr. Truong to waste the time
required to pen thousands of messages; we see oodles
of motive for a dictator, who is accustomed to living
like the Great Khan, to safeguard his enormous riches
and gratifying power by murdering a dangerous critic.
Too, the testimonies of Kirsan's torture victims, as
adumbrated by human rights organizations, speak to
Kirsan's personal character, adding a dimension of
plausibility to the murder charge that is lacking in
the email message charge. Finally, given the
conviction for murder of several Kirsan associates as
well as the death in a car accident of a witness who
stated he saw Kirsan's brother at the scene of
Yudina's murder, there is a tangible web of
inculpating circumstances suggesting, if not proving,
Kirsan's guilt -- a web that has yet to be spun so
durably in the case against Mr. Truong.

We may all dispute the degree of imbricated
filigree composing the respective webs -- how suavely
they package the respective chess prey -- but Greg's
charge of a contradiction on our part is puerile in
its peevishness. In truth, it is weakminded.

"[T]he great Parrthenium"? We should not enjoy
the envy-injury of our self-described Indiana corn pone.
It is a character failing on our part. Yet try as we
do to stanch our flow of amusement, we need to try
still harder. For we experience pleasure in the
corn pone's pain.

Yours, Larry Parr





help bot wrote:
SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL


Before getting to the crux, I am among those who
have seen no evidence putting Paul Truong's hands on
the keyboard of the False Sam and other messages of
that type. Until such evidence surfaces (as opposed
to geographical analyses and computer numbers that can
be jiggled by clever, if malign, hackers), it is
unfair to call for Paul Truong's resignation from the
Executive Board.


Until proof-positive "surfaces", LP says, it is "unfair" to
call for PT's resignation. A few years ago, hypocrite LP
took precisely the opposite position with regard to an evil
FIDE dictator who had been accused of masterminding
the assassination of one of his critics. No evidence was
presented against the FIDE ruler, apart from the fact that
he gained indirectly (if you pretend to ignore all of the
controversy the murder itself generated, all the backlash).

My take is that LP has no moral compass, nothing by
which to navigate such issues apart from whim and
whimsy, along with personal biases which bear no
relation to the issues at hand. When convenience
dictates, the great Parrthenium sees no evil, hears no
evil, and speaks no evil. But woe be unto those who
may have circumstantial evidence against them, if
there be enmity betwixt they and he! LOL


That said, the attempt by the usual gaggle of
politicians to close down discussion of whether Mr.
Truong or others are guilty of possibly fraudulent
behavior is ever so typical of the USCF political class.


So true. As of yet, no one has answered my query
as to whether or not it is "normal" for a non-profit org.
to take such measures, and I interpret this as meaning
that personal issues take precedence here over any
objective ones.


There is another possible scenario re the Truong
affair. It is possible that the USCF Old Guardist are
using Sam, who is the unwitting dupe here, to
undermine Polgar-Truong. he idea is to adopt a faux
statesmanship, involving censorship at the USCF Forum
and calls for prolonged investigation as a way of
positioning the Old Guardists as moderates who, at
long last, conclude that Mr. Truong ought to resign.


That made precious little sense, as it was not only SS
who was allegedly attacked, nor did SS require any
manipulation whatever to attack the PT/SP duo. (It
seems that it is in his nature to attack SP.)


This latter is an ancient insider trick.


One trick I have not yet learned is figuring out why
LP has chosen to support rather than attack Paul
Truong. Given all the "evidence" I have seen posted
here by LP's buddy SS, it is amazing that the former
would feign ignorance and take a position of trying
to ignore it and suggest that no evidence has yet
been "seen". In any case, one thing is certain:
once LP takes a position -- however ludicrous -- he
does not easily change his mind, regardless of the
pertinent facts. Thus, I expect to see a lot more of
this kind of SEE NO EVIL stuff in the near future.


Much of the stuff attributed to PT, I have not seen;
but going by the little I have read, an appropriate
punishment might be a spanking or else a time out.
That's because of the level of maturity of these posts,
which is clear evidence that the real culprit is no adult,
but a mischievous adolescent, reminiscent of the Grim
Repa (sans foul mouth). In fact, until I saw the posts
by Sam Sloan which correlated the culprit's/culprits'
location with the PT/SP duo, my guess was that at
least one of the impostors was probably JR.


-- help bot

wrote in message
ups.com...
THE CLAMP

Too much controversy has been allowed to fester with no firm
hand in evidence. Dear Bill [Goichberg] and [Bill Hall] I suggest
that you really clamp down on anything in the Forum having to
do with this situation until the Board is able to get the information
my motion is requesting and we're able to calmly consider the
right course of action. -- Joel Channing

Before getting to the crux, I am among those who
have seen no evidence putting Paul Truong's hands on
the keyboard of the False Sam and other messages of
that type.

I want to add three points.

The first is the pre-emptive challenge that Sam Sloan himself made to his
'evidence', which as Rob Mitchell has pointed out, is that your kids can
teach you how to fake-up one of those IDs. In fact, if someone wanted to
frame me up, they could use some Verizon-originated number from Vermont, and
when I travel to England to see the Queen as part of my well-publicsed
activities for the Crown, they could find a nice one out of London ...

I assume your determined faker would be up to that, after all, there are
hundreds and hundreds of fake-Sloan messages, and the fake is determined,
no?

Until such evidence surfaces (as opposed
to geographical analyses and computer numbers that can
be jiggled by clever, if malign, hackers), it is
unfair to call for Paul Truong's resignation from the
Executive Board.

A second point has to do with pattern recognition. I personally have no idea
if the accusation is true or not, since I have no more 'evidence' than
anyone else - but what can be said is that it would be, in my opinion,
entirely out of character for PT to stalk Sloan - whereas it would be
entirly in character for Sloan to suggest that he is important enough to
stalk, either because he is a chess hero or a poor victim! ;((( It
would seem more in character for PT to write dismissively of people who
really didn't know much and cared even less, about chess subjects - in fact
that is an established pattern at Sam Sloan's own newsgroup. I do not see
the psychological need for PT, who is able to make eye-wateringly direct
comments, to then slink around in some sub-fusc manner, and 'whittle-away'
at Sloan.

I suppose the third thing has to do with grammar, range of expression, and
the care the false-Sloan takes to never say too much to illustrate his
knowledge of English syntax, which, from many long conversations with PT I
would say is yet superior to that of PT.

There are others, even someone writing here, who profile much better as
false-Sloan, and who practice their 'writings' under a variety of names and
guises

There are a few other factors to consider about the fake Sloan, one of which
is that he does not seem to be a strong chess player, and never addresses
that subject directly - and PT is a strongish master level player, imnmersed
in GM-level conversation, and who is either very modest therefore, in not
mentioning that, or would not fear making quite complex announcements on
chess positions.

And, OK, one more below...

That said, the attempt by the usual gaggle of
politicians to close down discussion of whether Mr.
Truong or others are guilty of possibly fraudulent
behavior is ever so typical of the USCF political class.

Not only are they trying to do the impossible,
they are acting ever so stupidly. RGCP redivivus!

There is another possible scenario re the Truong
affair. It is possible that the USCF Old Guardist are
using Sam, who is the unwitting dupe here, to
undermine Polgar-Truong. he idea is to adopt a faux
statesmanship, involving censorship at the USCF Forum
and calls for prolonged investigation as a way of
positioning the Old Guardists as moderates who, at
long last, conclude that Mr. Truong ought to resign.

This latter is an ancient insider trick.

Yes - Sam Sloan the unwitting stalking horse for a diversionary activity,
which yet ensures that no conversations about anything that is actually of
general merit to forward American chess will be raised - and therefore,
no-one will be responsible for not doing anything much to change the status
quo.

Phil Innes, Vermont

Yours, Larry Parr




B. Lafferty wrote:
a.. To: "Bill Goichberg " chessoffice@xxxxxxx, "'Bill Hall'"
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'BINFO'" USCF BINFO System, "'CONFIDENTIAL'"
confidential@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Jim Berry'" JABerryCG@xxxxxxx, "Patricia
Knight " pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Paul Truong'" Paultruong@xxxxxxx,
"'Rachel Lieberman'" queencapa@xxxxxxx, "'Randy Bauer'"
randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx, "Randy Hough " randallhough@xxxxxxxxx,
"'Susan
Polgar'" SusanPolgar@xxxxxxx
b.. Subject: forum
c.. From: "Joel Channing" joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
d.. Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:53:35 -0400
e.. Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
f.. Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
g.. Thread-index: AcgCAN8+NPw8BtR8RU6KGbcBTthMkA==

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just read a threatening post by Brian Lafferty on the Forum.
Apparently
he's talking to the press too (I hope you weren't Susan). Too much
controversy has been allowed to fester with no firm hand in evidence.
Dear
Bill and Bill, I suggest that you really clamp down on anything in the
Forum
having to do with this situation until the Board is able to get the
information my motion is requesting and we're able to calmly consider the
right course of action. Joel

On Oct 3, 8:24 am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

THE CLAMP

Too much controversy has been allowed to fester with no firm
hand in evidence. Dear Bill [Goichberg] and [Bill Hall] I suggest
that you really clamp down on anything in the Forum having to
do with this situation until the Board is able to get the information
my motion is requesting and we're able to calmly consider the
right course of action. -- Joel Channing

Before getting to the crux, I am among those who
have seen no evidence putting Paul Truong's hands on
the keyboard of the False Sam and other messages of
that type.

I want to add three points.

The first is the pre-emptive challenge that Sam Sloan himself made to his
'evidence', which as Rob Mitchell has pointed out, is that your kids can
teach you how to fake-up one of those IDs. In fact, if someone wanted to
frame me up, they could use some Verizon-originated number from Vermont, and
when I travel to England to see the Queen as part of my well-publicsed
activities for the Crown, they could find a nice one out of London ...

I assume your determined faker would be up to that, after all, there are
hundreds and hundreds of fake-Sloan messages, and the fake is determined,
no?

Until such evidence surfaces (as opposed
to geographical analyses and computer numbers that can
be jiggled by clever, if malign, hackers), it is
unfair to call for Paul Truong's resignation from the
Executive Board.

A second point has to do with pattern recognition. I personally have no idea
if the accusation is true or not, since I have no more 'evidence' than
anyone else - but what can be said is that it would be, in my opinion,
entirely out of character for PT to stalk Sloan - whereas it would be
entirly in character for Sloan to suggest that he is important enough to
stalk, either because he is a chess hero or a poor victim! ;((( It
would seem more in character for PT to write dismissively of people who
really didn't know much and cared even less, about chess subjects - in fact
that is an established pattern at Sam Sloan's own newsgroup. I do not see
the psychological need for PT, who is able to make eye-wateringly direct
comments, to then slink around in some sub-fusc manner, and 'whittle-away'
at Sloan.

I suppose the third thing has to do with grammar, range of expression, and
the care the false-Sloan takes to never say too much to illustrate his
knowledge of English syntax, which, from many long conversations with PT I
would say is yet superior to that of PT.

There are others, even someone writing here, who profile much better as
false-Sloan, and who practice their 'writings' under a variety of names and
guises

There are a few other factors to consider about the fake Sloan, one of which
is that he does not seem to be a strong chess player, and never addresses
that subject directly - and PT is a strongish master level player, imnmersed
in GM-level conversation, and who is either very modest therefore, in not
mentioning that, or would not fear making quite complex announcements on
chess positions.

And, OK, one more below...





That said, the attempt by the usual gaggle of
politicians to close down discussion of whether Mr.
Truong or others are guilty of possibly fraudulent
behavior is ever so typical of the USCF political class.

Not only are they trying to do the impossible,
they are acting ever so stupidly. RGCP redivivus!

There is another possible scenario re the Truong
affair. It is possible that the USCF Old Guardist are
using Sam, who is the unwitting dupe here, to
undermine Polgar-Truong. he idea is to adopt a faux
statesmanship, involving censorship at the USCF Forum
and calls for prolonged investigation as a way of
positioning the Old Guardists as moderates who, at
long last, conclude that Mr. Truong ought to resign.

This latter is an ancient insider trick.

Yes - Sam Sloan the unwitting stalking horse for a diversionary activity,
which yet ensures that no conversations about anything that is actually of
general merit to forward American chess will be raised - and therefore,
no-one will be responsible for not doing anything much to change the status
quo.

Phil Innes, Vermont



Yours, Larry Parr

B. Lafferty wrote:
a.. To: "Bill Goichberg " chessoffice@xxxxxxx, "'Bill Hall'"
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'BINFO'" USCF BINFO System, "'CONFIDENTIAL'"
confidential@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Jim Berry'" JABerryCG@xxxxxxx, "Patricia
Knight " pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Paul Truong'" Paultruong@xxxxxxx,
"'Rachel Lieberman'" queencapa@xxxxxxx, "'Randy Bauer'"
randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx, "Randy Hough " randallhough@xxxxxxxxx,
"'Susan
Polgar'" SusanPolgar@xxxxxxx
b.. Subject: forum
c.. From: "Joel Channing" joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
d.. Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:53:35 -0400
e.. Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
f.. Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
g.. Thread-index: AcgCAN8+NPw8BtR8RU6KGbcBTthMkA==

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

I just read a threatening post by Brian Lafferty on the Forum.
Apparently
he's talking to the press too (I hope you weren't Susan). Too much
controversy has been allowed to fester with no firm hand in evidence.
Dear
Bill and Bill, I suggest that you really clamp down on anything in the
Forum
having to do with this situation until the Board is able to get the
information my motion is requesting and we're able to calmly consider the
right course of action. Joel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Phil

Anyone can be framed. Drugs can be planted in your house. The standard
of proof in a civil trial is lesser than "beyond a resonable doubt."
I'll let the attorneys comment on the standards of proof in a civil
action, but the fact that Texas Tech computers were alleged to have
been used in this personal attack on Sloan seems to me to offer a way
to prove (in a court of law) who has LIBELED Sloan.

Mr. Sloan is the VICTIM. Nobody seems to care....

If Texas Tech computers were used to attack Sloan, then Polgar will
(in all probablity) be forced out of Texas Tech, or the USCF, or both.
She is responsible as "chess coach" for what her students do.

As I have said before, Susan Polgar lacks the money to play this game
of calling me an IED bombing terrorist. If you want to call somebody
worth 100 times your net worth a terrorst, then your chess freinds
won't be able to help her now. The fact that Susan Polgar is a Grand
Master of Chess in no way gives her civil or criminal immunitiy. I
would not call Bill Gates a terrorist. Why does Susan conspire to
attack her political enemies with threats of IED bombings on hotels?
Glen Peterson didn't not act alone, this was a SETUP. Like Mr. Sloan,
I was framed.

This is far from over. Ms. Polgar has the ethics of a street whore. A
prostutite has more intergrity than Ms. Polgar, and I do not wish Ms.
Polgar well.

Sloans' comment on the Texas Tech Computers, as well as naming their
Unveristy as a defendant, jeapordizes Susan's job. In the real world,
I doubt Ms. Polgar is a victim of a setup. More likely, her chess
students are attacking Sloan, and for this, they are liabile to
EXPLUSION, and Ms. Polgar faces being FIRED.

A public records request for all of her e-mail on public computers
will quickly follow. We will see how she uses her official e-mail
accounts.



Marcus Roberts

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:24:03 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


I want to add three points.

The first is the pre-emptive challenge that Sam Sloan himself made to his
'evidence', which as Rob Mitchell has pointed out, is that your kids can
teach you how to fake-up one of those IDs. In fact, if someone wanted to
frame me up, they could use some Verizon-originated number from Vermont, and
when I travel to England to see the Queen as part of my well-publicsed
activities for the Crown, they could find a nice one out of London ...

I assume your determined faker would be up to that, after all, there are
hundreds and hundreds of fake-Sloan messages, and the fake is determined,
no?

Did either you or Rob read Brian Mottershead's long analysis of this
issue in the forum, before it was pulled?

A second point has to do with pattern recognition. I personally have no idea
if the accusation is true or not, since I have no more 'evidence' than
anyone else - but what can be said is that it would be, in my opinion,
entirely out of character for PT to stalk Sloan - whereas it would be
entirly in character for Sloan to suggest that he is important enough to
stalk, either because he is a chess hero or a poor victim! ;((( It
would seem more in character for PT to write dismissively of people who
really didn't know much and cared even less, about chess subjects - in fact
that is an established pattern at Sam Sloan's own newsgroup. I do not see
the psychological need for PT, who is able to make eye-wateringly direct
comments, to then slink around in some sub-fusc manner, and 'whittle-away'
at Sloan.

A pity you weren't around with your "pattern recognition" to help
clear poor Dr Jekyll of association with that rascally Hyde.
....

There are a few other factors to consider about the fake Sloan, one of which
is that he does not seem to be a strong chess player, and never addresses
that subject directly - and PT is a strongish master level player, imnmersed
in GM-level conversation, and who is either very modest therefore, in not
mentioning that, or would not fear making quite complex announcements on
chess positions.

What has the fake Sloan said that gave you any indication of his
relative strength or weakness?

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:24:03 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


I want to add three points.

The first is the pre-emptive challenge that Sam Sloan himself made to his
'evidence', which as Rob Mitchell has pointed out, is that your kids can
teach you how to fake-up one of those IDs. In fact, if someone wanted to
frame me up, they could use some Verizon-originated number from Vermont,
and
when I travel to England to see the Queen as part of my well-publicsed
activities for the Crown, they could find a nice one out of London ...

I assume your determined faker would be up to that, after all, there are
hundreds and hundreds of fake-Sloan messages, and the fake is determined,
no?

Did either you or Rob read Brian Mottershead's long analysis of this
issue in the forum, before it was pulled?

My understanding is that more evidence has been developed by Mr. Motterhead
indicating the Mr. Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan. More will be coming out
before too long.

On Oct 3, 8:24 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I want to add three points.

The first is the pre-emptive challenge that Sam Sloan himself made to his
'evidence', which as Rob Mitchell has pointed out, is that your kids can
teach you how to fake-up one of those IDs.

This argument was already addressed in a very long-winded
posting by Sam Sloan. The tech guy at the USCF was
quoted as claiming he was too smart to fool that easily; that
he had ways and means of debunking any such fakery, and
many examples were neatly laid out for us.

(Of course, for all I know SS may have just made all that
up. Maybe the tech guy is really SS's three year old kid.)


In fact, if someone wanted to
frame me up, they could use some Verizon-originated number from Vermont, and
when I travel to England to see the Queen as part of my well-publicsed
activities for the Crown, they could find a nice one out of London ...

I regret to report that I just played under the name of
IM Innes at the local club, and boy are those kids good!
I was barely able to save one draw -- the rest were not
pretty. Roughly a 200 point rating hit, I expect. Sorry
about that! (I always won at GetClub!)


I assume your determined faker would be up to that, after all, there are
hundreds and hundreds of fake-Sloan messages, and the fake is determined,
no?

Talk of a single fake-Sloan randomly alternates with talk of
a myriad of fakes. Who knows? If they can't even count 'em,
how are they gonna figure 'em out?


A second point has to do with pattern recognition. I personally have no idea
if the accusation is true or not, since I have no more 'evidence' than
anyone else - but what can be said is that it would be, in my opinion,
entirely out of character for PT to stalk Sloan - whereas it would be
entirly in character for Sloan to suggest that he is important enough to
stalk, either because he is a chess hero or a poor victim! ;(((

Is it stalking, or more like ridicule? Consider the fake
name: "JackassLafferty" -- to me, that's pure ridicule.


It would seem more in character for PT to write dismissively of people who
really didn't know much and cared even less, about chess subjects - in fact
that is an established pattern at Sam Sloan's own newsgroup. I do not see
the psychological need for PT, who is able to make eye-wateringly direct
comments, to then slink around in some sub-fusc manner, and 'whittle-away'
at Sloan.

This ventures ever farther away from the "hard evidence"
that LP does not want to admit having seen. Psychology
is not the answer here.

I find it interesting that neither of the main ratpackers
made any reply at all when SS posted his "evidence",
but now they want to feign interest/ignorance. There
was a lot of interesting stuff in that earlier post, which
of course is still available. One thing I did not know
was that the Siamese twins, PT and SP, were in
Texas (and thus, posted from Texas); that narrows it
down to just one country.


I suppose the third thing has to do with grammar, range of expression, and
the care the false-Sloan takes to never say too much to illustrate his
knowledge of English syntax, which, from many long conversations with PT I
would say is yet superior to that of PT.

Ah, the syntax experts are back. Too bad the posts were
not written in Andean.


There are others, even someone writing here, who profile much better as
false-Sloan, and who practice their 'writings' under a variety of names and
guises

If any of the fake-Sloans had a problem with spittin',
cussin', and hollerin', it may well have been Skip Repa:
the meanest, honeryest, I'll-come-down-there-and-beat-
you-up-iest feller what ever wore a Canadian sombrero.


There are a few other factors to consider about the fake Sloan, one of which
is that he does not seem to be a strong chess player

Aha! So then, "he" could not possibly have been
Susan Polgar (unless she was stone-cold drunk).


and never addresses
that subject directly - and PT is a strongish master level player, imnmersed
in GM-level conversation, and who is either very modest therefore, in not
mentioning that, or would not fear making quite complex announcements on
chess positions.

You seem to be missing a key point: a fake does not
deliberately compromise his/her identity by giving out
personal data. You have to figure it out from subtle
clues, like your utter inability to spell, Sanny's inability
to play chess, tell-tale troubles with rational thinking, or
an incurable spittin' and cussin' habit.


Yes - Sam Sloan the unwitting stalking horse for a diversionary activity,
which yet ensures that no conversations about anything that is actually of
general merit to forward American chess will be raised - and therefore,
no-one will be responsible for not doing anything much to change the status
quo.

As far as I have seen, everyone wants to change the
status quo. For instance, each candidate wants to
kick out somebody they personally dislike, and become
the replacement.

The real reason nothing ever gets done, that personal
infighting always trumps the forwarding of American
chess, is that the type of people who run for and win
office are opinionated egomaniacs; they simply are not
capable of serving the public interest, except perhaps
by accident.


-- help bot

On Oct 3, 3:31 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:24:03 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

I want to add three points.
The first is the pre-emptive challenge that Sam Sloan himself made to his
'evidence', which as Rob Mitchell has pointed out, is that your kids can
teach you how to fake-up one of those IDs. In fact, if someone wanted to
frame me up, they could use some Verizon-originated number from Vermont, and
when I travel to England to see the Queen as part of my well-publicsed
activities for the Crown, they could find a nice one out of London ...
I assume your determined faker would be up to that, after all, there are
hundreds and hundreds of fake-Sloan messages, and the fake is determined,
no?

Did either you or Rob read Brian Mottershead's long analysis of this
issue in the forum, before it was pulled?

Why would they? Aren't they both business associates of Paul Truong
and Susan Polgar? What else would you expect from them?

A second point has to do with pattern recognition. I personally have no idea
if the accusation is true or not, since I have no more 'evidence' than
anyone else - but what can be said is that it would be, in my opinion,
entirely out of character for PT to stalk Sloan - whereas it would be
entirly in character for Sloan to suggest that he is important enough to
stalk, either because he is a chess hero or a poor victim! ;((( It
would seem more in character for PT to write dismissively of people who
really didn't know much and cared even less, about chess subjects - in fact
that is an established pattern at Sam Sloan's own newsgroup. I do not see
the psychological need for PT, who is able to make eye-wateringly direct
comments, to then slink around in some sub-fusc manner, and 'whittle-away'
at Sloan.

A pity you weren't around with your "pattern recognition" to help
clear poor Dr Jekyll of association with that rascally Hyde.
...

This is the same Innesian "pattern recognition" that thought Larry
Tapper was Dr. Steven Dowd.

There are a few other factors to consider about the fake Sloan, one of which
is that he does not seem to be a strong chess player, and never addresses
that subject directly - and PT is a strongish master level player, imnmersed
in GM-level conversation, and who is either very modest therefore, in not
mentioning that, or would not fear making quite complex announcements on
chess positions.

What has the fake Sloan said that gave you any indication of his
relative strength or weakness?