The Board refused ...

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:51Opj.2833$FW3.2414@trndny03...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
Chess One wrote:
An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
Alekhine's Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

reads;-

---

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
than four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands
dollars of USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was
sent to Mr. Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report
had the wrong conclusion.
Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.

Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
persuasive.

Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the
views of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no
more than your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your
message without facts, as we know them, is your own business.

Ah, the Bowel of Brattleboro must be referring to the site run by the
Trolgar Acolytes over at Chessville. No discussion of inconvenient facts
regarding the Trolgars is allowed over there.

This guy was judge? A judge of what?

He was thrown off yet another website because he was hectoring all other
opinions. That's the truth. I do not understand that his opinions are
tolerated anywhere where there is a moderator. Nowhere do people's values
value his.

You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were
counsel, and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?

Bowelman needs to write something intelligible before I would venture a
substantive reply.

And these are the levels to which the ex-judge, somewhat shy of actually
responding to what others write, now propose to you all.

As if anyone in the world would respond to him directly after these
comments. But if you did he would snip them anyway [!]

While he may continue his dissertation, seems like he has reduced his
audience to 6 people in the known universe, and this has been to seriously
mis-judge his general reception

Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own
orientation to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider
your attiudes actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual
counsel does not adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?

Bowelman need to take his meds.

The cheapeast response by abusive newbies on newsnet. This is the level of
'jurisdiction' that prosecutes one side of an issue - and is cloth-eared to
any other. Truly, where do the people's talents begin?

Is Laugherty better or worse than the thing he prosecutes?

But chess players could make up their own minds, with no spin by anyone =
and that is a factor that the Laugherty Bowel Party [LBP] HATE - since it
would remove from them the power to suggest that they care, by challenging
what they do compared to what they say.

If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
don't - not one of them.

Therefore, such people are insincere in acting from anything other than
their own occulted motives, all half-dozen of them. And do they hate the
light!

Phil Innes

On Feb 5, 4:06 pm, Rob wrote:
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.

http://www.samsloan.com/mottershead.pdf

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 Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:25:51 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
don't - not one of them.

As usual, P Innes does not understand the issue.

Speaking for myself, I'd LIKE to see all the "secret" USCF
correspondence, memos, records, etc., opened up. It would make some
interesting reading.

I can also envision valid reasons for USCF counsel to oppose this. I
can envision valid business reasons for keeping certain material
confidential. Of course, I can also envision nefarious reasons for
USCF bigwigs wanting to keep some records hidden.

The point, as I see it, is that the USCF has no reason to keep secret
material that would exonerate Truong. That material is going to come
out sooner or later anyway. Truong is represented by counsel. His
lawyer will pry this stuff loose, no doubt about it. And the USCF
would look all the worse for having tried to hide it.

So, here's where I'd guess Phil has been sucked in like a guppy:
There's probably a lot of material that would be embarrassing to USCF
officials for reasons other than The Case of Truong. They hope that
stuff will NEVER come out. And, if a judge rules it irrelevant to The
Case of Truong, it WILL never come out.

So, it's a great PR move to keep harping about secret evidence. It's
a great way to keep the supporters supporting, and to keep the general
membership confused. Keep promoting secret exculpatory evidence. Yup.
It's more valuable hidden than if, upon discovery, it consists of the
same tired old multi-year Black Orifice plot or the famous
posts-made-while-traveling.

Hey, Phil, which coin is the shell under? Come on, you saw me put it
there. It's easy money for a smart guy like you.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:12:07 -0800 (PST), Rob
wrote:


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

Isn't that what they said to the folks from the North when they came
down South on the Freedom Marches? You guys still say that?

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:51Opj.2833$FW3.2414@trndny03...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
Chess One wrote:
An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
Alekhine's Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

reads;-

---

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
than four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands
dollars of USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was
sent to Mr. Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report
had the wrong conclusion.
Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.

Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
persuasive.
Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the
views of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no
more than your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your
message without facts, as we know them, is your own business.
Ah, the Bowel of Brattleboro must be referring to the site run by the
Trolgar Acolytes over at Chessville. No discussion of inconvenient facts
regarding the Trolgars is allowed over there.

This guy was judge? A judge of what?

He was thrown off yet another website because he was hectoring all other
opinions. That's the truth. I do not understand that his opinions are
tolerated anywhere where there is a moderator. Nowhere do people's values
value his.

You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were
counsel, and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?
Bowelman needs to write something intelligible before I would venture a
substantive reply.

And these are the levels to which the ex-judge, somewhat shy of actually
responding to what others write, now propose to you all.

As if anyone in the world would respond to him directly after these
comments. But if you did he would snip them anyway [!]

While he may continue his dissertation, seems like he has reduced his
audience to 6 people in the known universe, and this has been to seriously
mis-judge his general reception

Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own
orientation to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider
your attiudes actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual
counsel does not adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?
Bowelman need to take his meds.

The cheapeast response by abusive newbies on newsnet. This is the level of
'jurisdiction' that prosecutes one side of an issue - and is cloth-eared to
any other. Truly, where do the people's talents begin?

Is Laugherty better or worse than the thing he prosecutes?

But chess players could make up their own minds, with no spin by anyone =
and that is a factor that the Laugherty Bowel Party [LBP] HATE - since it
would remove from them the power to suggest that they care, by challenging
what they do compared to what they say.

If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
don't - not one of them.

Therefore, such people are insincere in acting from anything other than
their own occulted motives, all half-dozen of them. And do they hate the
light!

Phil Innes



Does Bowel Boy need a hug? Hug.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:25:51 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
don't - not one of them.

As usual, P Innes does not understand the issue.

Well, as usual, Mike Murray speak with forked tongue:

Speaking for myself, I'd LIKE to see all the "secret" USCF
correspondence, memos, records, etc., opened up. It would make some
interesting reading.

And why does Mike Murray not encourage USCF to open upP...

I can also envision valid reasons for USCF counsel to oppose this. I
can envision valid business reasons for keeping certain material
confidential. Of course, I can also envision nefarious reasons for
USCF bigwigs wanting to keep some records hidden.

This is a big shift in opinion. Mike Murray wants one thing, and understands
why the thing he wants is not [nefariously] available. What does he conclude
about his perceptions?

The point, as I see it, is that the USCF has no reason to keep secret
material that would exonerate Truong.

ah! they have no reason to 'exonerate' Paul Truong, says Murray!~ since
presumably they would then need to look to the actual perp. And they have,
perhaps, no reason to want that to happen?

I don't know what's written beneath this - and no longer engage the
prosecutors who are not honest, any one of them, since this volunteered
statement by prosecutor Murray, rather identifies the entire game, no?

PI



That material is going to come
out sooner or later anyway. Truong is represented by counsel. His
lawyer will pry this stuff loose, no doubt about it. And the USCF
would look all the worse for having tried to hide it.

So, here's where I'd guess Phil has been sucked in like a guppy:
There's probably a lot of material that would be embarrassing to USCF
officials for reasons other than The Case of Truong. They hope that
stuff will NEVER come out. And, if a judge rules it irrelevant to The
Case of Truong, it WILL never come out.

So, it's a great PR move to keep harping about secret evidence. It's
a great way to keep the supporters supporting, and to keep the general
membership confused. Keep promoting secret exculpatory evidence. Yup.
It's more valuable hidden than if, upon discovery, it consists of the
same tired old multi-year Black Orifice plot or the famous
posts-made-while-traveling.

Hey, Phil, which coin is the shell under? Come on, you saw me put it
there. It's easy money for a smart guy like you.

On Feb 5, 5:33 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:51Opj.2833$FW3.2414@trndny03...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
Chess One wrote:
An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
Alekhine's Parrot, atwww.chessville.comor
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

reads;-

---

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more
than four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands
dollars of USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was
sent to Mr. Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report
had the wrong conclusion.
Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.

Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
persuasive.
Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the
views of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no
more than your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your
message without facts, as we know them, is your own business.
Ah, the Bowel of Brattleboro must be referring to the site run by the
Trolgar Acolytes over at Chessville. No discussion of inconvenient facts
regarding the Trolgars is allowed over there.

This guy was judge? A judge of what?

He was thrown off yet another website because he was hectoring all other
opinions. That's the truth. I do not understand that his opinions are
tolerated anywhere where there is a moderator. Nowhere do people's values
value his.

You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were
counsel, and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?
Bowelman needs to write something intelligible before I would venture a
substantive reply.

And these are the levels to which the ex-judge, somewhat shy of actually
responding to what others write, now propose to you all.

As if anyone in the world would respond to him directly after these
comments. But if you did he would snip them anyway [!]

While he may continue his dissertation, seems like he has reduced his
audience to 6 people in the known universe, and this has been to seriously
mis-judge his general reception

Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own
orientation to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider
your attiudes actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual
counsel does not adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?
Bowelman need to take his meds.

The cheapeast response by abusive newbies on newsnet. This is the level of
'jurisdiction' that prosecutes one side of an issue - and is cloth-eared to
any other. Truly, where do the people's talents begin?

Is Laugherty better or worse than the thing he prosecutes?

But chess players could make up their own minds, with no spin by anyone =
and that is a factor that the Laugherty Bowel Party [LBP] HATE - since it
would remove from them the power to suggest that they care, by challenging
what they do compared to what they say.

If they truly cared, they too would wish USCF to open its doors. They
don't - not one of them.

Therefore, such people are insincere in acting from anything other than
their own occulted motives, all half-dozen of them. And do they hate the
light!

Phil Innes

Does Bowel Boy need a hug? Hug.

The Brattleboro Bedlam needs a jacket with wrap-around arms.

On Feb 5, 6:10 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

ah! they have no reason to 'exonerate' Paul Truong, says Murray!~ since
presumably they would then need to look to the actual perp. And they have,
perhaps, no reason to want that to happen?

P Innes desperately wants to drive the white Bronco for Truong.

On Feb 5, 3:06*pm, Rob wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

The "4 experts" is entirely from Phil Innes. The number everyone else
gives is Motterhead, plus 2 outside experts. Nevertheless, that is at
least two experts (I am being generous here because some people are
claiming Motterhead is biased) confirming that Truong is the culprit.
In any case, your claim that there is no evidence is clearly
inaccurate, and even if you believe (which I find incredible) that the
evidence is not convincing, there is no reason to believe that people
who find this convincing must have some hidden agenda.

Jerry Spinrad

PS: Will you be at the Nashville Open this weekend? This will be the
largest tournament I have ever entered in 35 years of tournament play.
If there is anything about chess that I am ashamed of recently, it is
that I chickened out of being creamed in the open section, and will
instead play the U2000. I wonder whether I am doing the right thing
there.

- Show quoted text -

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:10:41 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

The point, as I see it, is that the USCF has no reason to keep secret
material that would exonerate Truong.

ah! they have no reason to 'exonerate' Paul Truong, says Murray!~ since
presumably they would then need to look to the actual perp. And they have,
perhaps, no reason to want that to happen?

My gawd, Phil, your understanding is the opposite of what I said.

Maybe phrasing it in a different way would be easier for Phil to
parse: "The USCF has no reason to keep material that would exonerate
Truong secret." How's that? You see, I wasn't saying that they have
no reason to keep it. One more try: ( they have no reason) (to keep
secret) (material that would exonerate Truong). Does this help?

I don't know what's written beneath this - and no longer engage the
prosecutors who are not honest, any one of them, since this volunteered
statement by prosecutor Murray, rather identifies the entire game, no?

Indeed it does. My point, which I've repeated several times, and P
Innes is determined to mis-understand is that (1) The USCF has no
reason to keep exculpatory material secret since (2) Truong's lawyer
will pry it loose and (3) They would look all the worse for trying to
hide it.