On Jul 4, 7:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message

news:mC7bk.202$qW.157@trndny03...

The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence.

When will Susan Polgar and her husband, and you as their unofficial
spokesman, address the three computer analysis that trace 2500
postings under fake names to Paul Truong?

They will never address it unless forced to do so in depositions and/or at
trial. Reason? They have no refutation available to them from a
creditable expert.

The point of all is to have all the records examined by an /independent/
expert. That has ever been the stance, and that is the current initiative.
In fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste. Now the
only real way to resolve the issue is to have independent expertise attend
the matter, whose results can not be dismissed, but will be taken into
formal account; the implications of that inquiry being properly constituted
evidence - and let the chips fall where they may!

This, naturally, terrifies some people since it at once removes any idea of
hiding information, and secondly, might implicate other parties.



Phil Innes

The two reports that validated Brian Mottershead's findings were done
by folks with no connection to USCF. Again, when are S. Polgar, P
Truong, and P Innes going to address these reports?

On Jul 4, 7:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

In fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste.

Verify, if you can.

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:mC7bk.202$qW.157@trndny03...
The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence.
When will Susan Polgar and her husband, and you as their unofficial
spokesman, address the three computer analysis that trace 2500
postings under fake names to Paul Truong?
They will never address it unless forced to do so in depositions and/or at
trial. Reason? They have no refutation available to them from a
creditable expert.

The point of all is to have all the records examined by an /independent/
expert.

Last fall, Donna Alarie offered to submit the materials and data
underlying the Mottershead Report to yet another independent forensic
expert chosen by Gregory Alexander on behalf of Trolgar. She asked
Alexander to provide cover letter wording and the name and address of an
expert chosesn by Alenander/Trolgar for transmittal. None of that was
provided by Mr. Alexander, the chessdiscussion web master. Bluff
called. Trolgar lost.

That has ever been the stance, and that is the current initiative.
In fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste. Now the
only real way to resolve the issue is to have independent expertise attend
the matter, whose results can not be dismissed, but will be taken into
formal account; the implications of that inquiry being properly constituted
evidence - and let the chips fall where they may!

If you bother to read the expert's reports, you will see that the
experts have no connection and/or interesting in the outcome of this
matter. These issues were addressed by the experts in their reports.
The bottom line is that it has been established quite clearly that Mr.
Truong is the FSS. What involvement his wife had in all this still
remains unclear.

The chips have fallen, Phil. Truong is the FSS unless and until he can
produce an expert who can discredit the experts' reports already in
hand--particularly the Ulevich Report.

This, naturally, terrifies some people since it at once removes any idea of
hiding information, and secondly, might implicate other parties.

I suspect the only one terrified of the factual truth here is Trolgar.
The truth will not set Trolgar free--except from the USCF board.



Phil Innes

On Jul 4, 9:40 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:

The bottom line is that it has been established quite clearly that Mr.
Truong is the FSS. What involvement his wife had in all this still
remains unclear.

It would indeed be disheartening if it turns out her role was active;
I'd prefer to think she was duped by Bob Bennett in all this.

The sad thing really is all the "strange bedfellows" this has produced
- there are indeed (although I don't know if Goichberg knew as Sloan
claims) people whom I am sure knew who the FSS was and condoned the
behavior in an effort to get rid of Sloan. I've never been a Sloan fan
but anyone who would go to these means to defeat him - and I include
those complicit - should be barred from organized chess forever.
Sloan's bad image is nothing compared to the one the FSS has generated
not only for himself but for chess. Sloan is a wart; the FSS, a
malignant tumor.

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 7:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message

news:mC7bk.202$qW.157@trndny03...

The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence.

When will Susan Polgar and her husband, and you as their unofficial
spokesman, address the three computer analysis that trace 2500
postings under fake names to Paul Truong?

They will never address it unless forced to do so in depositions and/or
at
trial. Reason? They have no refutation available to them from a
creditable expert.

The point of all is to have all the records examined by an /independent/
expert. That has ever been the stance, and that is the current
initiative.
In fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was
dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste. Now the
only real way to resolve the issue is to have independent expertise
attend
the matter, whose results can not be dismissed, but will be taken into
formal account; the implications of that inquiry being properly
constituted
evidence - and let the chips fall where they may!

This, naturally, terrifies some people since it at once removes any idea
of
hiding information, and secondly, might implicate other parties.



Phil Innes

The two reports that validated Brian Mottershead's findings were done
by folks with no connection to USCF. Again, when are S. Polgar, P
Truong, and P Innes going to address these reports?

/Court/ ordered independent, of /all/ the material, and furthermore
/non-prescriptive/ to the identity of the perp. I think that is what we all
wanted, and have all said, all along.

That process is normal, as above the non-prescriptive nature of who did it
frightens many, and maybe all who don't like the normal process of the law,
or to hear all testimony, or like a court to decide the result.

The rest of the issue is partisan spin.

Phil Innes

"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 7:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

In fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was
dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste.

Verify, if you can.

Not here! And previously it was disallowed by USCF itself.

For several months people who have demanded to see reports have ignored this
and other factors. If Rynd/Dowd actually wanted to know, he/they could have
asked USCF what they got to hide - right?

Some others already discount the "secret material" as Jerry Spinrad put it,
without even knowing what it contains - and can still conclude that it would
be no reason to resign.

Therefore these inquiries are nervous whistlings in the wind - they are not
sincere, they are pretenses - as the [in]actions or partialities of only
apparently sinceere investigators continuously demonstrate.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 7:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

In fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was
dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste.
Verify, if you can.

Not here! And previously it was disallowed by USCF itself.

For several months people who have demanded to see reports have ignored this
and other factors. If Rynd/Dowd actually wanted to know, he/they could have
asked USCF what they got to hide - right?

Some others already discount the "secret material" as Jerry Spinrad put it,
without even knowing what it contains - and can still conclude that it would
be no reason to resign.

Therefore these inquiries are nervous whistlings in the wind - they are not
sincere, they are pretenses - as the [in]actions or partialities of only
apparently sinceere investigators continuously demonstrate.

Phil Innes



No,Phil. YOU made a factual allegation. It is your responsibility to
substantiate it or retract it. It's put up or shut up time, Phil.

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
newsDqbk.258$9W.103@trndny04...
Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:mC7bk.202$qW.157@trndny03...
The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence.
When will Susan Polgar and her husband, and you as their unofficial
spokesman, address the three computer analysis that trace 2500
postings under fake names to Paul Truong?
They will never address it unless forced to do so in depositions and/or
at trial. Reason? They have no refutation available to them from a
creditable expert.

The point of all is to have all the records examined by an /independent/
expert.

Last fall, Donna Alarie offered to submit the materials and data
underlying the Mottershead Report to yet another independent forensic
expert chosen by Gregory Alexander on behalf of Trolgar. She asked
Alexander to provide cover letter wording and the name and address of an
expert chosesn by Alenander/Trolgar for transmittal. None of that was
provided by Mr. Alexander, the chessdiscussion web master. Bluff called.
Trolgar lost.

Dear Brian Lafferty,

as you must know, a court will seperate the perps from the experts - and if
the idea of the court is to find the FSS, then I fully support that
activity - I don't know what other means is actually respectable, since if
Paul Truong is not the FSS he has been set-up, and by whom?

What contesting parties point out about each other's behavior is quite
outside any rules of evidence. I have simply maintained from the start that
I do not want to hear only partialities, and do want independent assessment
[independent of all involved parties] to make their report.

That has ever been the stance, and that is the current initiative. In
fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste. Now the
only real way to resolve the issue is to have independent expertise attend
the matter, whose results can not be dismissed, but will be taken into
formal account; the implications of that inquiry being properly
constituted evidence - and let the chips fall where they may!

If you bother to read the expert's reports, you will see that the experts
have no connection and/or interesting in the outcome of this matter.
These issues were addressed by the experts in their reports.

I take it your opinion is not based with mine in a court's determination of
what's what. As an active partisan that is your choice of basis - but it is
not any objective nor legal one. It is opinion. Whereas mine is not an
opinion, it is impartial to who dunnit, and I will accept the truth as a
court resolves it to be.

The bottom line is that it has been established quite clearly that Mr.
Truong is the FSS. What involvement his wife had in all this still
remains unclear.

? An extraordinary statement. I take it you have convinced yourself by a
partial view of proposed testimony, but how partial!

The chips have fallen, Phil. Truong is the FSS unless and until he can
produce an expert who can discredit the experts' reports already in
hand--particularly the Ulevich Report.

Instead of your own recommendations, I prefer to keep an open mind on the
issue until I understand very much more than an accusation, and which is
decided by rule of law, and clearly differentiated by the activities of
those people in public who could also be the FSS.

This, naturally, terrifies some people since it at once removes any idea
of hiding information, and secondly, might implicate other parties.

I suspect the only one terrified of the factual truth here is Trolgar. The
truth will not set Trolgar free--except from the USCF board.

In which case she has played a very strange gambit since the start in
insisting that all information be on the table. Since she is in no-one's
opinion a poor chess player nor inept strategist, then I must say that your
comment above to me here is counter-intuitive.

In terms of fear - why is there so much avoidance of the topic of a truly
legal investigation? I would say that that is no negligible psychological
factor, and somewhat, or even greatly, reduces the weight of people's actual
confidence in their stated opinion.

Phil Innes



Phil Innes

On Jul 4, 10:39 am, "Chess One" wrote:

For several months people who have demanded to see reports have ignored this
and other factors. If Rynd/Dowd actually wanted to know, he/they could have
asked USCF what they got to hide - right?

Why would I? You made the accusation, so you must know. What kind of
question is "what do you have to hide"? Is this the sort of thing you
send to the USCF in your "secret emails"? I should write the USCF and
ask them "What do you have to hide?" Jeesh......


Therefore these inquiries are nervous whistlings in the wind - they are not
sincere, they are pretenses - as the [in]actions or partialities of only
apparently sinceere investigators continuously demonstrate.

This is always your pat answer when asked to come up with evidence. It
doesn't fly anymore. You claim something, you are asked for evidence.
You demur that the questioner must not be sincere. And then you flit
about like the lying sack of crap you are, avoiding the topic and
focusing on everyone else's supposed insincerity.

No wonder you lie about your chess achievements as well.

On Jul 4, 11:35 am, "Chess One" wrote:


In which case she has played a very strange gambit since the start in
insisting that all information be on the table. Since she is in no-one's
opinion a poor chess player nor inept strategist, then I must say that your
comment above to me here is counter-intuitive.

Well, the first comment is true, the second, a half-truth. She is
perhaps a very inept strategist in the game of life.You cannot
correlate success at the board with success in life, or do you believe
so since you are "ept" at neither????