The Board refused ...

The Historian wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:45 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:
Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?
Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
heads. This would explain a number of things.
I have seen a photo of P Innes once.

Is it online? If so, please post a link.


Hmm, could this be it?
(http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/6...usion165mk.jpg)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

On Feb 5, 4:59 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:45 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:
Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?
Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
heads. This would explain a number of things.
I have seen a photo of P Innes once.

Is it online? If so, please post a link.

Hmm, could this be it?
(http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/6...usion165mk.jpg)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

It's been disabled. Probably by Mr. "transparency" himself.

On Feb 5, 12:39 am, Rob wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:12 pm, The Historian wrote: On Feb 4, 11:59 pm, Rob wrote:

Brian,
Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
the ragged garments of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
would you clarify please just what
relationships, business or otherwise, you have with Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar?

Since Rob Mitchell has ducked the question, I'll answer for him, with
his words:

"Susan,
I stand behind you and Paul and will be most happy to be deposed."

You can't contend that there is no evidence of Truong's guilt. There
was evidence that he falsely claimed to have a PhD; it was on his web
page. There is evidence that the mysterious posts came from his
computer; it was in the Motterhead report, and confirmed by experts.

You can try to claim that this evidence is not convincing, that it was
(somehow, for some reason, and in a strange way of putting it there
without calling attention to it for years) planted to make him look
guilty. You cannot say that there is no evidence against him, however.

I am glad you looked into Paul's soul and found it to be pure. Others
who know them do not seem convinced, and I do not think that you can
expect those who do not know the people involved to take your word on
the issue.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 4, 11:50*pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:41 pm, "





wrote:
What a strange question! If you believe that Paul Truong repeatedly
made the offensive posts, and then lied about the matter, shouldn't
you be for removing him from the board without seeking to gain in any
way except for getting a dishonest person removed from office?

You may be (desperately, in my opinion) clinging to a belief in Paul's
innocence in this matter. I cannot believe that anyone could contend
that this innocence is obvious, however, after several expert reports
indicating that he is guilty, and no evidence presented in an open
forum on the other side. Please, feel free to try to convince us of
his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
removed must be acting out of some base motive.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob wrote:

Brian,
Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
Rob

How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
honorable.
I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?

The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
would have taken only one expert to disprove him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 5, 12:50 am, Rob wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:41 pm, "



wrote:
What a strange question! If you believe that Paul Truong repeatedly
made the offensive posts, and then lied about the matter, shouldn't
you be for removing him from the board without seeking to gain in any
way except for getting a dishonest person removed from office?

You may be (desperately, in my opinion) clinging to a belief in Paul's
innocence in this matter. I cannot believe that anyone could contend
that this innocence is obvious, however, after several expert reports
indicating that he is guilty, and no evidence presented in an open
forum on the other side. Please, feel free to try to convince us of
his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
removed must be acting out of some base motive.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob wrote:

Brian,
Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
Rob

How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.

It's a discussion forum.

But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
honorable.

"If I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong,
Who, you all know, are honorable men."

I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?

I've seen three computer reports, Motterhead's and two others that
confirm his findings. And when you add that to Troung's alleged
history - sending emails under Susan Polgar's name (see Shahade's
book), lying (see Hoffman's book), the restraining order against Susan
Polgar's children, the suggestive evidence that Truong used the name
"Bob Bennett" here five years ago, the fact he cannot visit the state
of California, the doctorate he claimed to have and then denied when
he was questioned on it, and other problems - there's enough there
that I, and many others, have come to the decision that he's unfit for
chess governance.

The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther (sic) have been a
total of four "experts"

There are three, and their findings agree.

As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
would have taken only one expert to disprove him.

Was this "once said" before or after Eisenstein made The Battleship
Potemkin?

On Feb 5, 8:53 am, "
wrote:
You can't contend that there is no evidence of Truong's guilt. There
was evidence that he falsely claimed to have a PhD; it was on his web
page. There is evidence that the mysterious posts came from his
computer; it was in the Motterhead report, and confirmed by experts.

You can try to claim that this evidence is not convincing, that it was
(somehow, for some reason, and in a strange way of putting it there
without calling attention to it for years) planted to make him look
guilty. You cannot say that there is no evidence against him, however.

I am glad you looked into Paul's soul and found it to be pure. Others
who know them do not seem convinced, and I do not think that you can
expect those who do not know the people involved to take your word on
the issue.

Jerry, I hate to intrude into this Tennessee squabble, but Truong's
soul is his concern and God's. Most of us are concerned with Truong's,
and Polgar's, actions.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 5, 9:15*am, The Historian wrote:
On Feb 5, 12:50 am, Rob wrote:

As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
would have taken only one expert to disprove him.

Was this "once said" before or after Eisenstein made The Battleship
Potemkin?

No, Neil -- Rob is obviously referring to the American general and
president, Dwight D. Eisenstein.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 05:53:35 -0800 (PST),
"
wrote:

You can't contend that there is no evidence of Truong's guilt. There
was evidence that he falsely claimed to have a PhD; it was on his web
page. There is evidence that the mysterious posts came from his
computer; it was in the Motterhead report, and confirmed by experts.

You can try to claim that this evidence is not convincing, that it was
(somehow, for some reason, and in a strange way of putting it there
without calling attention to it for years) planted to make him look
guilty. You cannot say that there is no evidence against him, however.

It's this glib repetition of "there's no evidence" on the part of many
Truong supporters that convinces me they are not conducting these
discussions in good faith. If they acknowledge evidence but claim it
flawed or inadequate, they get into technical arguments about these
flaws, arguments which recent expert reports indicate they will
probably lose.

So, using ancient tricks of sophistry, they try to deflect the issue
back on those who are impressed by the weight of evidence already
presented: : (1) why are you so interested in this? or (2) Have you
investigated all the other suspects? The latest gimmick is to claim
USCF conspirators are hiding secret material, and to accuse of bias
those who fail to treat this secret stuff as the equal of evidence
already publicly presented and reviewed by experts.

I am glad you looked into Paul's soul and found it to be pure. Others
who know them do not seem convinced, and I do not think that you can
expect those who do not know the people involved to take your word on
the issue.

And the confidence that someone (with whom they've had a few dealings
and some social interaction) lacks an unrevealed dark side or hidden
character flaws. Really, how would they know?

"Rob" wrote in message
...

.....

Please, feel free to try to convince us of
his innocence, but it is absurd to say that those who want to see him
removed must be acting out of some base motive.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 4, 10:59 pm, Rob wrote:

Brian,
Why do you have an axe to grind and why are you determined to assume
the ragged garmets of a howling rabble? Where is your dog in this
matter? Where do you seek to gain in this?
Rob

How odd you would seek to answer a question directed at another.
But I know Paul and Susan personally and have found them to be very
honorable.
I have heard accusations , but no evidence. Have you?


The USCF has no conclusive evidence. That is why ther have been a
total of four "experts" As Eisenstein once said if he were wrong it
would have taken only one expert to disprove him.

What an interesting set of interactions! When I asked Jerry Spinrad's own
interest in knowing about the whole thing before asking someone to 'prove
their innocence' -- which is actually quite difficult, no? If you didn't do
it, then you are asked to prove a negative -- Spinrad went away for a week,
thus 'not-noticing' the question entirely, but he's back now, as if nothing
had happened and maybe his McCarthite methodology had been overlooked?

What Jerry Spinrad did not chose to answer was if he himself wanted to
review all the available information which USCF holds, or had he already
made his mind up on the basis of one-sided accusations presented here,
proposed by an the abysmal crowd of abuseniks of the same order of offensive
remarks as the FSS himself?

That one-sided show insists that those who want all to be known are
partisan! - not a very credible piece of logic! In fact, its a measure of
desperation, not excluding the ludicrous remark that the offer to open up is
'insincere', even though the act of opening up belongs to the majority of
the USCF board, and is actually beyond the control of the accused to make it
so or restrict it.

The gallery comments are especially inane about those who comment on the
issue - indeed, they mock them - since those who want all to be known don't
want to resolve the issue in this newsgroup, or even resolve it themselves,
but to let USCF's members make up their own minds. And since USCF members
appear to be the most offended of all constituencies, the absent
recommendation on their part more than conflicts with their own base of
questioning - which is ostensibly to be for the members. In fact it
completely contradicts their stance.

Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
skipping any issue whatever.

No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied to
these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.

Phil Innes

On Feb 4, 7:24 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

If Trolgar had a qualified forensic expert to refute Motterhead, Jones
and Ulevitch, they would be parading him all over creation. They might
even give Bowelman an exclusive interview for the purpose of asking soft
questions.

I guess that would be a stool softener, wouldn't it?