A Non-Denial Denial by Paul Truong

**samsloan**

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

Quote:

Originally Posted by relyea

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

Remember Paul has
protested loudly and clearly that he is completely innocent and I
believe him.

George,

You've mentioned this or something similar several times, but you've
given no evidence. Did Mr. Truong ever say that he was "completely
innocent" publically? If so, where? He certainly hasn't on this
forum anywhere.

Alex Relyea

Well the only place he can post without a jahad attack is over at the
other web site.

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/index.php

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB...id=54&sr=posts

you will find it there. Others have commented on it. It was some
time ago now. There is not much discussion over there so you should
find it pretty fast.

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB...8&p=1613#p1613

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulTruong

Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with
it? Absolutely no.

Well I think that says it all. I believe Paul.

Sorry, George, but I have looked at that thread and nowhere does Paul
Truong state that he did not do it.

Here is the full quote:

by PaulTruong on Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:30 am
Bill,

Since I officially withdrew myself from the USCF forums, this is the
only place that I can respond once. This thread will not go further
and these people will not be allowed to spread their garbage here.

You can bet your bottom dollar that I will fight this absurd and
malicious nonsense all the way. These people tried to discredit me for
11 months without success. Now they have stooped to a new low. The
person who launched this "private investigation" and made this charge
said in writing that he had the authorization or consent from the ED
and Bill Goichberg. I have saved every post of his to be used as
evidence in court. Both Bill have since said in writing that they did
not make this authorization and they were not even aware of it.

Now friends of this circle have made public threats that they will use
this "evidence" to contact our employer Texas Tech and the NY Times
"unless" we resign.

You decide.

Best regards,
Paul Truong
http://www.SusanPolgar.com

**help bot**

On Nov 27, 12:48 pm, samsloan wrote:

[quote="PaulTruong"]

Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with
it? Absolutely no.

Since I officially withdrew myself from the USCF forums, this is the
only place that I can respond once. This thread will not go further
and these people will not be allowed to spread their garbage here.

It's not entirely clear whether PT is referring above to the Fake
Sloan postings, or to the atrocious Susan Polgar Web site.

You can bet your bottom dollar that I will fight this absurd and
malicious nonsense all the way. These people tried to discredit me for
11 months without success.

Hmm. It could be that someone has tried to attribute
the blame for the SP Web site to PT, who above
vehemently denies any connection.

Now they have stooped to a new low. The
person who launched this "private investigation" and made this charge
said in writing that he had the authorization or consent from the ED
and Bill Goichberg. I have saved every post of his to be used as
evidence in court.

One cannot sue for insanity -- the only charge which
can be proved by presenting a collection of SS postings.

Both Bill have since said in writing that they did
not make this authorization and they were not even aware of it.

Now friends of this circle have made public threats that they will use
this "evidence" to contact our employer Texas Tech and the NY Times
"unless" we resign.

You decide.

Best regards,
Paul Truonghttp://www.SusanPolgar.com

I think that decides for us; placing a link to the Web
site thus, amounts to self-incrimination. For a while,
I felt I was going out on a limb by assuming that PT
was a part of that atrocity; now I am vindicated!

Judit rules! Susan drools.

-- help bot

**B. Lafferty[_2_]**

"help bot" wrote in message
...
Judit rules! Susan drools.

LOL! True enough.

**samsloan**

Sorry, George, but I do not see anything that Paul Truong has written
as a denial that he is the Fake Sam Sloan.

You consider the following to be a denial,

"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with
it? Absolutely no."

However, in this quote, Truong fails to explain what the "it" was that
he did not do.

If he is going to make a denial it should be more clear and
unequivocal than that.

Sam Sloan

**samsloan**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Mottershead

The evidence pointing to Paul Truong being
the Fake Sam Sloan has been public now since September 26 -- over two
months. During all that time, there has not been a single item of
evidence brought forward on the other side.

Truong's defense from the beginning was simply a denial, attacks on
the credibility of the person who gathered the evidence, objections
that it was an invasion of his privacy for that evidence to be
gathered, and suggestions of various "possibilities" that he was
framed.

Two months later, he and his defenders are still only talking about
"possibilities". We aren't debating evidence from the Truong
defenders. We are still only debating just how possible hypothetical
possibilities are, and their probability compared to the vastly
simpler and straight-forward conclusion that Truong is responsible for
the FSS posts.

It should be noted that this isn't the first time that the "I've been
framed" defense has been raised by Truong and his defenders. One has
only to search in this forum for the discussion of his claims of
having a Ph.D.. When people produced solid evidence from the
Internet Archive that web sites under Truong's control had pages
asserting that he had a Ph.D., he claimed these were forgeries. Not
a shred of evidence was ever produced of how someone could have
obtained his AOL passwords and perpetrated the forgeries, or how
someone planted false evidence in the Internet Archive. No
explanation was ever given of how Truong did not notice a forged
resume on his own web site for years. It was enough for Truong
simply to deny it and talk of the possibility of forgeries, and there
were people who claimed that the case had not been proved. A mere
denial and a flat assertion of "forgery" was enough of a defense for
them when it came to Truong.

This time the offense is more serious than padding a resume with false
academic credentials, and there is a great deal more evidence --
evidence that would be even more difficult to forge or fake. The
defenses are once again "forgery", "hacking", etc. And once again
this defense, unsupporteed by evidence, is enough to raise sufficient
doubt in some people's minds that they feel obliged to adopt a "wait
and see" approach.

However, this time the issue is not going to be dismissed by invoking
mere possibilities.

More than that, Paul Truong at one point alleged that Sam Sloan had
forged his resume to include the Ph.D. degree. In addition, Stan Booz
in a posting to rgcp in 2003 pointed out that Paul Truong had
circulated a resume at the 2003 US Open in Los Angeles where he was
applying for a job as Executive Director stating that he had a Ph.D.
degree and numerous persons since then have asked him about that,
asking what educational institution awarded him that degree. He never
answered those inquiries but the PhD degree stayed on his AOL online
biography until 2005 and it was not until 2007 during the election
campaign that Truong admitted that he does not have a PhD degree.

Sam Sloan

**samsloan**

[quote="marknibb"]Joe, you may be right. And that may have been true
before the election, but that is not how the voters viewed it. Also,
if this is a frame, then giving up plays into the hands of those who
would continue to attack the federation as they have in the past.

I can assure you that for the most, the call for the recall against SS
was not for political grandstanding. The people that I know who were
a part of it, believed strongly that SS would and did harm the USCF.[/
quote]

But your people were in the minority. The pages on my website that you
have failed to specify thus far that you find objectionable have been
up since at least 1998, because I have made very few changes to my
website since then. everybody knew about them and a strong campaign
was conducted against me about them especially by Bill Brock.

Nevertheless, the votes were counted and I was elected. Then your
group tried to overturn the election results through a recall petition
which proved unsuccessful.

The new situation is that Paul Truong was elected after impersonating
other people, primarily Sam Sloan but others were impersonated and
attacked as well. The voters did not know about this. Had they known,
Truong would not have been elected. Therefore, both a lawsuit and a
recall petition are a ligitimate means to remove Mr. Truong from the
board.

Sam Sloan

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode