The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 11:20 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"... I am writing as a journalist ..."

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

As I said before, my policy was to stop discussion with you, since it
seemed entirely nonproductive. I find your answers to be nonsense and
off point; you seem to feel the same about mine. We could each
continue to respond, proving to each other that our debate opponent is
an idiot, but it doesn't seem worth it.

I plan to respond to other supporters of Truong who post here, but not
to you. Feel free to say whatever you want about the quality of my
logic, but do not interpret my lack of response to you as conceding
any points. My only response to you in the future will be to repeat
this basic message if you again try to read implications into my non-
responses.

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 5, 10:20*am, "Chess One" wrote:
"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chess One wrote:

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

Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!! I look forward to reading your
"interview" with the hardest set of questions ever put to a board
member. Will Truong be connected to a polygraph or voice stress
analysis machine during the interview. Of course, neither of those
machines is perfectly reliable. For example, a pathological liar would
pass both in a breeze.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:20:05 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

maybe his McCarthite methodology had been overlooked?


As a historical tidbit, it was McCarthy himself who often referred to
secret reports to support his claims. In at least one noteworthy
case, the secret report, which he claimed to hold in his hand, was
blank.

Maybe P Innes should use the Alger Hiss case as his historical analog.

On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Chess One wrote:
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

Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!!

Let's take him at his word. Here are some questions I'd like to ask
Mr. Truong.

Q. A published report by Brian Mottershead links your IP address to
numerous obscene posts on the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics.
This report has been reviewed twice by experts and found to have been
sound in its methodology and conclusion. Did you make the posts in
question? Did your wife Susan Polgar make the posts in question? If
you or Susan Polgar did not make the posts, who did?

Q. Have you ever posted anonymously to newsgroups? If so, under what
screen names?

Q. Have you ever sent email under another person's name?

Q. Have you ever used remailer programs for posting to newsgroups?

Q. Have you ever posted under the name "Bob Bennett" to the chess
newsgroups?

Q. Have you ever used another person's ID on a chess-playing site?
Have you ever used a chess-playing engine while playing a game on a
chess-playing site?

Q. Have you ever fed hot-sauce to Susan Polgar''s children as
punishment or to force them to learn chess?

Q. Why did you use the title "Dr." on your homepage when you did not
have a doctorate?

Q. What business relationship do you have with Rob Mitchell? With his
company Chess Masterminds? With Chessville?

Q. What business relationship do you have with Philip Keith Innes, AKA
Phil Innes?

Q. Why did Rob Mitchell offer to be "deposed" if Sloan's lawsuit comes
to trial?

Q. Who was responsible for the notorious Chess Masterminds press
release that claimed Susan Polgar was one of the three strongest chess
players in the world, but didn't state that in fact that ranking was
among women only?

More to come.....

On Feb 5, 12:32 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:20:05 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

maybe his McCarthite methodology had been overlooked?

As a historical tidbit, it was McCarthy himself who often referred to
secret reports to support his claims. In at least one noteworthy
case, the secret report, which he claimed to hold in his hand, was
blank.

Maybe P Innes should use the Alger Hiss case as his historical analog.

You are assuming P Innes can read.

wrote in message
...
As I said before, my policy was to stop discussion with you, since it
seemed entirely nonproductive. I find your answers to be nonsense and
off point; you seem to feel the same about mine. We could each
continue to respond, proving to each other that our debate opponent is
an idiot, but it doesn't seem worth it.

** Have a bash at naming who you are addressing, then, have a bash at saying
what is nonproductive for /you/.

I plan to respond to other supporters of Truong who post here, but not
to you.

**But you just did!

Feel free to say whatever you want about the quality of my
logic,


**OK! Your posts don't possess any.

but do not interpret my lack of response to you as conceding
any points.

**Really, but I "interpret" Spinrads evasions as conceding all points! And
who needs to "interpret" actually? ROFL! Why else evade the issue put to you
about your own orinetation and indeed, you own honesty

My only response to you in the future will be to repeat
this basic message if you again try to read implications into my non-
responses.

**Jerry Spinrad is pleased to spout this vague evasive crap [nothing of
substance in his message, not here, nor why he told everyone about some
mysteriosu 180 degree turn last time he was here] - once more evading the
only issue put to him = why he doesn't want the whole issued opened up. --
ggg

**He has now gone off in a huff, formally not noticing that I called him
about his own obvious and partial partisanship - he already decided what's
what by listeninig to abuseniks on usenet! Don't need to listen to anyone
like me, espouses Spinrad.

**What a cowardly farce of a response! How can this guy write a column
investigating history of chess for ChessCafe - Gawd Almighty! I know things
have gone downhil there, but this guy can't answer a straight question put
to him on such a simple matter as his own evident bias.

Phil Innes

-----

Jerry Spinrad

On Feb 5, 10:20 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 5, 3:16 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

**What a cowardly farce of a response! How can this guy write a column
investigating history of chess for ChessCafe - Gawd Almighty!

As a reminder:

In December 2005, Phil Innes wrote:

"Jerry Spinrad has written very well .... and I will make him a few
introductions to publishers."

"At Mr. Spinrad's request I will make him all proper introductions..."

"LOL - the plain truth is that if I can find a publisher for Mr.
Spinrad, I will be glad to do so, gratis."

On Feb 5, 7:53*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 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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Jerry,
I do not believe the claim that four experts found evidence is
correct. IF that were the case there would have only been three
experts that found no evidence and the last one to look at the
evidence would have proven the charges and IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
PUBLISHED. You can't honestly think that if there were hard and
conclusive evidence proving Paul's guilt that it would have not been
published and leaked. The USCF has leaks as a collander.
Rob

On Feb 5, 11:04*am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Chess One wrote:
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

Bowel Boy is a journalist? *ROTFLMAO!! *I look forward to reading your
"interview" with the hardest set of questions ever put to a board
member. *Will Truong be connected to a polygraph or voice stress
analysis machine during the interview. *Of course, neither of those
machines is perfectly reliable. *For example, a pathological liar would
pass both in a breeze.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brian,
Again I ask, "Why do you have an axe to grind here?"