http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007...s-on-her-blog/

"Mr. Brink said that it was not possible that the university's
computers could have been identified as the source for fake postings
on the Internet, the charge in the lawsuit by Samuel H. Sloan, because
the university's IP addresses are constantly changing."

However, this is not correct. What follows are three logins by
"ChessPromotion" which is the USER ID of Paul Truong on the morning of
September 17, 2007. Two of them are from IP addresses assigned to
Texas Tech University.

To verify this go to http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp
check the box for IP address and enter 129.118.87.222 which is the IP
address for the first login. You will see that it says OrgName:
Texas Tech University
OrgID: TTU-1
Address: Telecommunications Department

The third IP below is 75.111.194.9 which is a Suddenlink address which
services Lubbock Texas.

In short, if Mr. Brink really believes that these logins were not by
Paul Truong, he had better start searching his campus to locate the
computers from which these logins were made and find out who was using
them on that date.

Mon Sep 17 08:50:56 2007 129.118.87.222 "ChessPromotion" 500
"ChessPromotion" /forums/viewforum.php
Mon Sep 17 08:50:58 2007 129.118.87.222 "ChessPromotion" 500
"ChessPromotion" /forums/style.php
Mon Sep 17 11:20:12 2007 75.111.194.9 "ChessPromotion" 500 "" /forums/
index.php "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0;
SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506;
InfoPath.2)"

The findings of Brian Mottershead were communicated privately to USCF
President Bill Goichberg on or about September 20, 2007. It was only
after a week had passed and Mr. Goichberg had refused to take any
action at all that Mr. Mottershead posted his findings on the USCF
members forum.

This is all detailed in the Mottershead Report at
http://www.ishipress.com/mottershead.pdf

Now a full month has passed and the board is still "searching" for an
"expert" to review the findings. Since the telephone book is filled
with experts, one suspects that this stonewall is just part of the
cover-up.

Sam Sloan

Several people have pointed out a contradiction in her words as
follows:

"The same people also tried to spread more lies by saying that my
husband and I have resigned from the USCF Executive Board. Some
confidential correspondence between board members was leaked out to
the same group of people. I have saved every email and post.
Everything will be introduced in due time."

So, she is saying that "confidential correspondence between board
members was leaked out to" certain people and then those same people
"spread lies".

Does anybody else find something questionable about this?

Sam Sloan

On Oct 23, 7:16 pm, samsloan wrote:

This is all detailed in the Mottershead Report athttp://www.ishipress.com/mottershead.pdf

Now a full month has passed and the board is still "searching" for an
"expert" to review the findings. Since the telephone book is filled
with experts, one suspects that this stonewall is just part of the
cover-up.


Not necessarily; they could just be shopping around for
the best deal on an expert they can afford to "buy off".


-- help bot

samsloan wrote:
..
Does anybody else find something questionable about this?

Yeah I do. Is it important? Does it matter in the big wide world? Has
she got a juicy ****? Did you stick your tongue in there? Is custard
yellow? & lastly could you pls. stick your bronx **** in your arse &
truly get ****ed out of here?..