Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Sep 2, 7:51 pm, Rob wrote:

I detest the tone and personal attacks. Mr. Innes is a fine friend and
one anyone should be happy to have.

Oh fer Chrissakes, Rob. I used to think so too, then he went
paranoid and started snapping at all and sundry. I'm sure your turn
will come too, should you become lax in your sycophancy.

Ah yes! - ye olde Perfidium Albonious ...

Of course, it does well to remark; 'a man who loves wolves can't be all
bad' ...

....

On Sep 3, 12:52*pm, ChessFarte wrote:

"How pleasant to be accused on the same day of being both pro and
anti
semite. The only thing missing is for Neil Brennen to show up and say
that [a] I believe in the Protocols of Zion, and [b] that is /why/ I
am a friend to Susan Polgar."--Phil IMnes

And here I thought it was because you liked women with fat asses. But
maybe you're not fat. Even so, Frank Niro (USCF's worst ED ever) is...

On Sep 3, 9:44*am, ChessFire wrote:
It will be marked that there is no connection between honest John's
answer to his own first question - *which was that there is
'insufficient data' and his second comment which presumes something
else, as well as glossing what 'we' have seen before, since certainly
I have seen it before and even now - look at the Bauer's behaviors,
for example.

After all his honking about law and due process, Philsy clearly does
not understand either very well. What I wrote (In December 2007) was
that there was not sufficient evidence to say that Truong was guilty /
beyond reasonable doubt/.

Be even more careful - do you mean that /you/ didn't think so, or
there was insufficient cause for a legal indictment?

I choose my words carefully (a concept quite
alien to the Vermont Viper), and I put it that way because I felt that
this should be the standard for /recalling a Board member/.

I see you refer to your own sense of things - which is all very well.
But you react against me when I talk of something more rigorous - that
is what is permitted in a court. Why you should chose to characterize
that as 'Viper' behavior is entirely unclear, except that such strong
emotion when we discuss different things is a sign of something not
revealed in your writing.

As it stands I have said that I do not like kangaroo courts, and
prefer real ones. How vituperative is that, and how come you are
always so angry and emotional if anyone says things you do not like?
Can that really recommend your own judgement.

As far as USCF membership are concerned, what was presented to them
seems hardly a balanced view - in fact it was a one-sided series of
accusations which have not been INDEPENDENTLY substantiated by
impartial persons.

In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/.

But why do you confuse testimony with evidence? You speak as if there
were already some preponderance of evidence presented to a court - yet
as we know, there is none accepted by a civil court. The evidence,
whatever it is, is yet to be heard.

Now, this is not a partisan statement pro or con Polgar and Truong. It
is simply to state a logical process by which we can discuss
accusations and due process. Conflating testimony not yet accepted by
rules of evidence, and using legal terms indiscriminately covers up
the fact the current indictment is only a social one.

I should wish John Hillery to understand that I am talking about the
process of things - and no process is a statement of partisanship.

OTOH, where there is such strong emotion and partisanship present, as
in his own case, one can hardly think his recommendations to be
impartially considered at all - and all the more suspect thereby.

By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

Here John Hillery anticipates what a court would have done - and talks
of evidence as if only one side could have any. But no court has found
either way, since there has been no process.

Anticipating what would 'obviously' be the resolution of a court is to
abandon any pretense that one is prepared to look at all the evidencde
which can be admitted. Conflating what John Hillery thinks a court
must do with what has now happened in the social sphere at USCF, is a
logical muddle where words are used to confuse things rather than
illuminate them.

I wonder if Polgar and Truong really want a burbling nitwit like Innis
defending them? With friends like these ...

I wonder if John Hillery can note that I am /not/ defending them!

I am talking about a /process/ which would applicable to /anyone/ at
all, and I am also talking about the difference of this pretense that
we hardly need a court to resolve anything at all, since it would be
'obviously resolved' and therefore we might as well try the case in
the newsgroups and chess forums.

Why such an attitude as this provokes such hysteria in others is not a
mystery, and there is a reason for it. The increasingly acidic tenor
of those who don't like both the process of law. and who do not want
to discuss anything at all, not even primary evidence - is marked.

Phil Innes


You're still babbling, Phil. Since you can make up this drivel faster
than the sane people can reply, I'll confine myself to a few points.

1) There was never any suggestion of a "legal indictment" with regard
to the FSS junk. That's a straw-man argument.

2) There's plenty of evidence. While I think the USCF would have been
better off if Mottershead had found another hobby, the evidence he
presented is very strong, certainly more than the 50% needed for a
civil case. While it is /possible/ it could have been faked, this
would require an utterly preposterous level of conspiracy and
coordination. There are people who believe in that sort of thing --
troofers, birthers, and other loons. If you want to put yourself in
that class, I won't argue.

3) Of course you're "defending them." You're arguing "actual
innocence" on Truong's part. There are a number of arguments you can
make on his side (e.g., that the things he was accused of were not of
sufficient magnitude to justify his removal, or that his actions
should be excused because he was provoked), but this is by far the
weakest one. It requires willful blindness to masses of evidence.

4) The saccharine pleading in your final paragraph remains monkey
chatter. Since the question of Truong's responsibility for (most of)
the FSS postings is not a criminal matter and is not before a court,
it is unlikely ever to be adjudicated. Are you really trying to argue
that, because he has not been convicted by a court (in a non-criminal
matter), we may not look at the evidence and reach a conclusion? Time
to take a refresher course in civics, Philsy. By that reasoning, we
would not be allowed to reach the obvious conclusion that you're a
blithering booby.

On Sep 3, 5:42*pm, jkh001 wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:44*am, ChessFire wrote:





It will be marked that there is no connection between honest John's
answer to his own first question - *which was that there is
'insufficient data' and his second comment which presumes something
else, as well as glossing what 'we' have seen before, since certainly
I have seen it before and even now - look at the Bauer's behaviors,
for example.

After all his honking about law and due process, Philsy clearly does
not understand either very well. What I wrote (In December 2007) was
that there was not sufficient evidence to say that Truong was guilty /
beyond reasonable doubt/.

Be even more careful - do you mean that /you/ didn't think so, or
there was insufficient cause for a legal indictment?

I choose my words carefully (a concept quite
alien to the Vermont Viper), and I put it that way because I felt that
this should be the standard for /recalling a Board member/.

I see you refer to your own sense of things - which is all very well.
But you react against me when I talk of something more rigorous - that
is what is permitted in a court. Why you should chose to characterize
that as 'Viper' behavior is entirely unclear, except that such strong
emotion when we discuss different things is a sign of something not
revealed in your writing.

As it stands I have said that I do not like kangaroo courts, and
prefer real ones. How vituperative is that, and how come you are
always so angry and emotional if anyone says things you do not like?
Can that really recommend your own judgement.

As far as USCF membership are concerned, what was presented to them
seems hardly a balanced view - in fact it was a one-sided series of
accusations which have not been INDEPENDENTLY substantiated by
impartial persons.

In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/.

But why do you confuse testimony with evidence? You speak as if there
were already some preponderance of evidence presented to a court - yet
as we know, there is none accepted by a civil court. The evidence,
whatever it is, is yet to be heard.

Now, this is not a partisan statement pro or con Polgar and Truong. It
is simply to state a logical process by which we can discuss
accusations and due process. Conflating testimony not yet accepted by
rules of evidence, and using legal terms indiscriminately covers up
the fact the current indictment is only a social one.

I should wish John Hillery to understand that I am talking about the
process of things - and no process is a statement of partisanship.

OTOH, where there is such strong emotion and partisanship present, as
in his own case, one can hardly think his recommendations to be
impartially considered at all - and all the more suspect thereby.

By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

Here John Hillery anticipates what a court would have done - and talks
of evidence as if only one side could have any. But no court has found
either way, since there has been no process.

Anticipating what would 'obviously' be the resolution of a court is to
abandon any pretense that one is prepared to look at all the evidencde
which can be admitted. Conflating what John Hillery thinks a court
must do with what has now happened in the social sphere at USCF, is a
logical muddle where words are used to confuse things rather than
illuminate them.

I wonder if Polgar and Truong really want a burbling nitwit like Innis
defending them? With friends like these ...

I wonder if John Hillery can note that I am /not/ defending them!

I am talking about a /process/ which would applicable to /anyone/ at
all, and I am also talking about the difference of this pretense that
we hardly need a court to resolve anything at all, since it would be
'obviously resolved' and therefore we might as well try the case in
the newsgroups and chess forums.

Why such an attitude as this provokes such hysteria in others is not a
mystery, and there is a reason for it. The increasingly acidic tenor
of those who don't like both the process of law. and who do not want
to discuss anything at all, not even primary evidence - is marked.

Phil Innes

You're still babbling, Phil. Since you can make up this drivel faster
than the sane people can reply, I'll confine myself to a few points.

1) There was never any suggestion of a "legal indictment" with regard
to the FSS junk. That's a straw-man argument.

2) There's plenty of evidence. While I think the USCF would have been
better off if Mottershead had found another hobby, the evidence he
presented is very strong, certainly more than the 50% needed for a
civil case. While it is /possible/ it could have been faked, this
would require an utterly preposterous level of conspiracy and
coordination. There are people who believe in that sort of thing --
troofers, birthers, and other loons. If you want to put yourself in
that class, I won't argue.

3) Of course you're "defending them." You're arguing "actual
innocence" on Truong's part. There are a number of arguments you can
make on his side (e.g., that the things he was accused of were not of
sufficient magnitude to justify his removal, or that his actions
should be excused because he was provoked), but this is by far the
weakest one. It requires willful blindness to masses of evidence.

4) The saccharine pleading in your final paragraph remains monkey
chatter. Since the question of Truong's responsibility for (most of)
the FSS postings is not a criminal matter and is not before a court,
it is unlikely ever to be adjudicated. Are you really trying to argue
that, because he has not been convicted by a court (in a non-criminal
matter), we may not look at the evidence and reach a conclusion? Time
to take a refresher course in civics, Philsy. By that reasoning, we
would not be allowed to reach the obvious conclusion that you're a
blithering booby.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is my belief that under just about any reasonable standard, those
have read this newsgroup for the last few years would conclude that
Philsy is a blithering booby. It is my belief that with Philsy, the
logic bar has been set low enough for pretty much everybody but Rob to
step over.

Randy Bauer

On Sep 4, 1:46*am, Randy Bauer wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:42*pm, jkh001 wrote:



On Sep 3, 9:44*am, ChessFire wrote:

It will be marked that there is no connection between honest John's
answer to his own first question - *which was that there is
'insufficient data' and his second comment which presumes something
else, as well as glossing what 'we' have seen before, since certainly
I have seen it before and even now - look at the Bauer's behaviors,
for example.

After all his honking about law and due process, Philsy clearly does
not understand either very well. What I wrote (In December 2007) was
that there was not sufficient evidence to say that Truong was guilty /
beyond reasonable doubt/.

Be even more careful - do you mean that /you/ didn't think so, or
there was insufficient cause for a legal indictment?

I choose my words carefully (a concept quite
alien to the Vermont Viper), and I put it that way because I felt that
this should be the standard for /recalling a Board member/.

I see you refer to your own sense of things - which is all very well.
But you react against me when I talk of something more rigorous - that
is what is permitted in a court. Why you should chose to characterize
that as 'Viper' behavior is entirely unclear, except that such strong
emotion when we discuss different things is a sign of something not
revealed in your writing.

As it stands I have said that I do not like kangaroo courts, and
prefer real ones. How vituperative is that, and how come you are
always so angry and emotional if anyone says things you do not like?
Can that really recommend your own judgement.

As far as USCF membership are concerned, what was presented to them
seems hardly a balanced view - in fact it was a one-sided series of
accusations which have not been INDEPENDENTLY substantiated by
impartial persons.

In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/.

But why do you confuse testimony with evidence? You speak as if there
were already some preponderance of evidence presented to a court - yet
as we know, there is none accepted by a civil court. The evidence,
whatever it is, is yet to be heard.

Now, this is not a partisan statement pro or con Polgar and Truong. It
is simply to state a logical process by which we can discuss
accusations and due process. Conflating testimony not yet accepted by
rules of evidence, and using legal terms indiscriminately covers up
the fact the current indictment is only a social one.

I should wish John Hillery to understand that I am talking about the
process of things - and no process is a statement of partisanship.

OTOH, where there is such strong emotion and partisanship present, as
in his own case, one can hardly think his recommendations to be
impartially considered at all - and all the more suspect thereby.

By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

Here John Hillery anticipates what a court would have done - and talks
of evidence as if only one side could have any. But no court has found
either way, since there has been no process.

Anticipating what would 'obviously' be the resolution of a court is to
abandon any pretense that one is prepared to look at all the evidencde
which can be admitted. Conflating what John Hillery thinks a court
must do with what has now happened in the social sphere at USCF, is a
logical muddle where words are used to confuse things rather than
illuminate them.

I wonder if Polgar and Truong really want a burbling nitwit like Innis
defending them? With friends like these ...

I wonder if John Hillery can note that I am /not/ defending them!

I am talking about a /process/ which would applicable to /anyone/ at
all, and I am also talking about the difference of this pretense that
we hardly need a court to resolve anything at all, since it would be
'obviously resolved' and therefore we might as well try the case in
the newsgroups and chess forums.

Why such an attitude as this provokes such hysteria in others is not a
mystery, and there is a reason for it. The increasingly acidic tenor
of those who don't like both the process of law. and who do not want
to discuss anything at all, not even primary evidence - is marked.

Phil Innes

You're still babbling, Phil. Since you can make up this drivel faster
than the sane people can reply, I'll confine myself to a few points.

1) There was never any suggestion of a "legal indictment" with regard
to the FSS junk. That's a straw-man argument.

2) There's plenty of evidence. While I think the USCF would have been
better off if Mottershead had found another hobby, the evidence he
presented is very strong, certainly more than the 50% needed for a
civil case. While it is /possible/ it could have been faked, this
would require an utterly preposterous level of conspiracy and
coordination. There are people who believe in that sort of thing --
troofers, birthers, and other loons. If you want to put yourself in
that class, I won't argue.

3) Of course you're "defending them." You're arguing "actual
innocence" on Truong's part. There are a number of arguments you can
make on his side (e.g., that the things he was accused of were not of
sufficient magnitude to justify his removal, or that his actions
should be excused because he was provoked), but this is by far the
weakest one. It requires willful blindness to masses of evidence.

4) The saccharine pleading in your final paragraph remains monkey
chatter. Since the question of Truong's responsibility for (most of)
the FSS postings is not a criminal matter and is not before a court,
it is unlikely ever to be adjudicated. Are you really trying to argue
that, because he has not been convicted by a court (in a non-criminal
matter), we may not look at the evidence and reach a conclusion? Time
to take a refresher course in civics, Philsy. By that reasoning, we
would not be allowed to reach the obvious conclusion that you're a
blithering booby.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is my belief that under just about any reasonable standard, those
have read this newsgroup for the last few years would conclude that
Philsy is a blithering booby. *It is my belief that with Philsy, the
logic bar has been set low enough for pretty much everybody but Rob to
step over.

Randy Bauer

Randy,
I am quite able to follow logic. What you and others so often attempt
to pass off as logic is little more than thinly disguised personal
attacks. I have never spoken ill of you and your unwarranted attack on
me is not in keeping with the higher ideals of a gentleman.
Rob

On Sep 4, 2:46*am, Randy Bauer wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:42*pm, jkh001 wrote:



On Sep 3, 9:44*am, ChessFire wrote:

It will be marked that there is no connection between honest John's
answer to his own first question - *which was that there is
'insufficient data' and his second comment which presumes something
else, as well as glossing what 'we' have seen before, since certainly
I have seen it before and even now - look at the Bauer's behaviors,
for example.

After all his honking about law and due process, Philsy clearly does
not understand either very well. What I wrote (In December 2007) was
that there was not sufficient evidence to say that Truong was guilty /
beyond reasonable doubt/.

Be even more careful - do you mean that /you/ didn't think so, or
there was insufficient cause for a legal indictment?

I choose my words carefully (a concept quite
alien to the Vermont Viper), and I put it that way because I felt that
this should be the standard for /recalling a Board member/.

I see you refer to your own sense of things - which is all very well.
But you react against me when I talk of something more rigorous - that
is what is permitted in a court. Why you should chose to characterize
that as 'Viper' behavior is entirely unclear, except that such strong
emotion when we discuss different things is a sign of something not
revealed in your writing.

As it stands I have said that I do not like kangaroo courts, and
prefer real ones. How vituperative is that, and how come you are
always so angry and emotional if anyone says things you do not like?
Can that really recommend your own judgement.

As far as USCF membership are concerned, what was presented to them
seems hardly a balanced view - in fact it was a one-sided series of
accusations which have not been INDEPENDENTLY substantiated by
impartial persons.

In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/.

But why do you confuse testimony with evidence? You speak as if there
were already some preponderance of evidence presented to a court - yet
as we know, there is none accepted by a civil court. The evidence,
whatever it is, is yet to be heard.

Now, this is not a partisan statement pro or con Polgar and Truong. It
is simply to state a logical process by which we can discuss
accusations and due process. Conflating testimony not yet accepted by
rules of evidence, and using legal terms indiscriminately covers up
the fact the current indictment is only a social one.

I should wish John Hillery to understand that I am talking about the
process of things - and no process is a statement of partisanship.

OTOH, where there is such strong emotion and partisanship present, as
in his own case, one can hardly think his recommendations to be
impartially considered at all - and all the more suspect thereby.

By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

Here John Hillery anticipates what a court would have done - and talks
of evidence as if only one side could have any. But no court has found
either way, since there has been no process.

Anticipating what would 'obviously' be the resolution of a court is to
abandon any pretense that one is prepared to look at all the evidencde
which can be admitted. Conflating what John Hillery thinks a court
must do with what has now happened in the social sphere at USCF, is a
logical muddle where words are used to confuse things rather than
illuminate them.

I wonder if Polgar and Truong really want a burbling nitwit like Innis
defending them? With friends like these ...

I wonder if John Hillery can note that I am /not/ defending them!

I am talking about a /process/ which would applicable to /anyone/ at
all, and I am also talking about the difference of this pretense that
we hardly need a court to resolve anything at all, since it would be
'obviously resolved' and therefore we might as well try the case in
the newsgroups and chess forums.

Why such an attitude as this provokes such hysteria in others is not a
mystery, and there is a reason for it. The increasingly acidic tenor
of those who don't like both the process of law. and who do not want
to discuss anything at all, not even primary evidence - is marked.

Phil Innes

You're still babbling, Phil. Since you can make up this drivel faster
than the sane people can reply, I'll confine myself to a few points.

1) There was never any suggestion of a "legal indictment" with regard
to the FSS junk. That's a straw-man argument.

2) There's plenty of evidence. While I think the USCF would have been
better off if Mottershead had found another hobby, the evidence he
presented is very strong, certainly more than the 50% needed for a
civil case. While it is /possible/ it could have been faked, this
would require an utterly preposterous level of conspiracy and
coordination. There are people who believe in that sort of thing --
troofers, birthers, and other loons. If you want to put yourself in
that class, I won't argue.

3) Of course you're "defending them." You're arguing "actual
innocence" on Truong's part. There are a number of arguments you can
make on his side (e.g., that the things he was accused of were not of
sufficient magnitude to justify his removal, or that his actions
should be excused because he was provoked), but this is by far the
weakest one. It requires willful blindness to masses of evidence.

4) The saccharine pleading in your final paragraph remains monkey
chatter. Since the question of Truong's responsibility for (most of)
the FSS postings is not a criminal matter and is not before a court,
it is unlikely ever to be adjudicated. Are you really trying to argue
that, because he has not been convicted by a court (in a non-criminal
matter), we may not look at the evidence and reach a conclusion? Time
to take a refresher course in civics, Philsy. By that reasoning, we
would not be allowed to reach the obvious conclusion that you're a
blithering booby.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is my belief that under just about any reasonable standard, those
have read this newsgroup for the last few years would conclude that
Philsy is a blithering booby. *It is my belief that with Philsy, the
logic bar has been set low enough for pretty much everybody but Rob to
step over.

Randy Bauer

Rob is pretty much tied to Philsy. People tend to forget they worked
together on a video project in 2005 and later at Chessville. The video
project is interesting, since it was filmed in Nashville with Polgar
and Truong about the time the infamous "Net Zero" account was opened
in that city. You remember, the account used for some of the postings
detailed in the Mottershead Report?

On Sep 4, 7:54*am, Rob wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:46*am, Randy Bauer wrote:





On Sep 3, 5:42*pm, jkh001 wrote:

On Sep 3, 9:44*am, ChessFire wrote:

It will be marked that there is no connection between honest John's
answer to his own first question - *which was that there is
'insufficient data' and his second comment which presumes something
else, as well as glossing what 'we' have seen before, since certainly
I have seen it before and even now - look at the Bauer's behaviors,
for example.

After all his honking about law and due process, Philsy clearly does
not understand either very well. What I wrote (In December 2007) was
that there was not sufficient evidence to say that Truong was guilty /
beyond reasonable doubt/.

Be even more careful - do you mean that /you/ didn't think so, or
there was insufficient cause for a legal indictment?

I choose my words carefully (a concept quite
alien to the Vermont Viper), and I put it that way because I felt that
this should be the standard for /recalling a Board member/.

I see you refer to your own sense of things - which is all very well.
But you react against me when I talk of something more rigorous - that
is what is permitted in a court. Why you should chose to characterize
that as 'Viper' behavior is entirely unclear, except that such strong
emotion when we discuss different things is a sign of something not
revealed in your writing.

As it stands I have said that I do not like kangaroo courts, and
prefer real ones. How vituperative is that, and how come you are
always so angry and emotional if anyone says things you do not like?
Can that really recommend your own judgement.

As far as USCF membership are concerned, what was presented to them
seems hardly a balanced view - in fact it was a one-sided series of
accusations which have not been INDEPENDENTLY substantiated by
impartial persons.

In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/.

But why do you confuse testimony with evidence? You speak as if there
were already some preponderance of evidence presented to a court - yet
as we know, there is none accepted by a civil court. The evidence,
whatever it is, is yet to be heard.

Now, this is not a partisan statement pro or con Polgar and Truong. It
is simply to state a logical process by which we can discuss
accusations and due process. Conflating testimony not yet accepted by
rules of evidence, and using legal terms indiscriminately covers up
the fact the current indictment is only a social one.

I should wish John Hillery to understand that I am talking about the
process of things - and no process is a statement of partisanship.

OTOH, where there is such strong emotion and partisanship present, as
in his own case, one can hardly think his recommendations to be
impartially considered at all - and all the more suspect thereby.

By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

Here John Hillery anticipates what a court would have done - and talks
of evidence as if only one side could have any. But no court has found
either way, since there has been no process.

Anticipating what would 'obviously' be the resolution of a court is to
abandon any pretense that one is prepared to look at all the evidencde
which can be admitted. Conflating what John Hillery thinks a court
must do with what has now happened in the social sphere at USCF, is a
logical muddle where words are used to confuse things rather than
illuminate them.

I wonder if Polgar and Truong really want a burbling nitwit like Innis
defending them? With friends like these ...

I wonder if John Hillery can note that I am /not/ defending them!

I am talking about a /process/ which would applicable to /anyone/ at
all, and I am also talking about the difference of this pretense that
we hardly need a court to resolve anything at all, since it would be
'obviously resolved' and therefore we might as well try the case in
the newsgroups and chess forums.

Why such an attitude as this provokes such hysteria in others is not a
mystery, and there is a reason for it. The increasingly acidic tenor
of those who don't like both the process of law. and who do not want
to discuss anything at all, not even primary evidence - is marked.

Phil Innes

You're still babbling, Phil. Since you can make up this drivel faster
than the sane people can reply, I'll confine myself to a few points.

1) There was never any suggestion of a "legal indictment" with regard
to the FSS junk. That's a straw-man argument.

2) There's plenty of evidence. While I think the USCF would have been
better off if Mottershead had found another hobby, the evidence he
presented is very strong, certainly more than the 50% needed for a
civil case. While it is /possible/ it could have been faked, this
would require an utterly preposterous level of conspiracy and
coordination. There are people who believe in that sort of thing --
troofers, birthers, and other loons. If you want to put yourself in
that class, I won't argue.

3) Of course you're "defending them." You're arguing "actual
innocence" on Truong's part. There are a number of arguments you can
make on his side (e.g., that the things he was accused of were not of
sufficient magnitude to justify his removal, or that his actions
should be excused because he was provoked), but this is by far the
weakest one. It requires willful blindness to masses of evidence.

4) The saccharine pleading in your final paragraph remains monkey
chatter. Since the question of Truong's responsibility for (most of)
the FSS postings is not a criminal matter and is not before a court,
it is unlikely ever to be adjudicated. Are you really trying to argue
that, because he has not been convicted by a court (in a non-criminal
matter), we may not look at the evidence and reach a conclusion? Time
to take a refresher course in civics, Philsy. By that reasoning, we
would not be allowed to reach the obvious conclusion that you're a
blithering booby.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is my belief that under just about any reasonable standard, those
have read this newsgroup for the last few years would conclude that
Philsy is a blithering booby. *It is my belief that with Philsy, the
logic bar has been set low enough for pretty much everybody but Rob to
step over.

Randy Bauer

Randy,
I am quite able to follow logic. What you and others so often attempt
to pass off as logic is little more than thinly disguised personal
attacks. I have never spoken ill of you and your unwarranted attack on
me is not in keeping with the higher ideals of a gentleman.
Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Go buy a saddle.

On Sep 4, 2:46*am, Randy Bauer wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:42*pm, jkh001 wrote:





On Sep 3, 9:44*am, ChessFire wrote:

It will be marked that there is no connection between honest John's
answer to his own first question - *which was that there is
'insufficient data' and his second comment which presumes something
else, as well as glossing what 'we' have seen before, since certainly
I have seen it before and even now - look at the Bauer's behaviors,
for example.

After all his honking about law and due process, Philsy clearly does
not understand either very well. What I wrote (In December 2007) was
that there was not sufficient evidence to say that Truong was guilty /
beyond reasonable doubt/.

Be even more careful - do you mean that /you/ didn't think so, or
there was insufficient cause for a legal indictment?

I choose my words carefully (a concept quite
alien to the Vermont Viper), and I put it that way because I felt that
this should be the standard for /recalling a Board member/.

I see you refer to your own sense of things - which is all very well.
But you react against me when I talk of something more rigorous - that
is what is permitted in a court. Why you should chose to characterize
that as 'Viper' behavior is entirely unclear, except that such strong
emotion when we discuss different things is a sign of something not
revealed in your writing.

As it stands I have said that I do not like kangaroo courts, and
prefer real ones. How vituperative is that, and how come you are
always so angry and emotional if anyone says things you do not like?
Can that really recommend your own judgement.

As far as USCF membership are concerned, what was presented to them
seems hardly a balanced view - in fact it was a one-sided series of
accusations which have not been INDEPENDENTLY substantiated by
impartial persons.

In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/.

But why do you confuse testimony with evidence? You speak as if there
were already some preponderance of evidence presented to a court - yet
as we know, there is none accepted by a civil court. The evidence,
whatever it is, is yet to be heard.

Now, this is not a partisan statement pro or con Polgar and Truong. It
is simply to state a logical process by which we can discuss
accusations and due process. Conflating testimony not yet accepted by
rules of evidence, and using legal terms indiscriminately covers up
the fact the current indictment is only a social one.

I should wish John Hillery to understand that I am talking about the
process of things - and no process is a statement of partisanship.

OTOH, where there is such strong emotion and partisanship present, as
in his own case, one can hardly think his recommendations to be
impartially considered at all - and all the more suspect thereby.

By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

Here John Hillery anticipates what a court would have done - and talks
of evidence as if only one side could have any. But no court has found
either way, since there has been no process.

Anticipating what would 'obviously' be the resolution of a court is to
abandon any pretense that one is prepared to look at all the evidencde
which can be admitted. Conflating what John Hillery thinks a court
must do with what has now happened in the social sphere at USCF, is a
logical muddle where words are used to confuse things rather than
illuminate them.

I wonder if Polgar and Truong really want a burbling nitwit like Innis
defending them? With friends like these ...

I wonder if John Hillery can note that I am /not/ defending them!

I am talking about a /process/ which would applicable to /anyone/ at
all, and I am also talking about the difference of this pretense that
we hardly need a court to resolve anything at all, since it would be
'obviously resolved' and therefore we might as well try the case in
the newsgroups and chess forums.

Why such an attitude as this provokes such hysteria in others is not a
mystery, and there is a reason for it. The increasingly acidic tenor
of those who don't like both the process of law. and who do not want
to discuss anything at all, not even primary evidence - is marked.

Phil Innes

You're still babbling, Phil. Since you can make up this drivel faster
than the sane people can reply, I'll confine myself to a few points.

1) There was never any suggestion of a "legal indictment" with regard
to the FSS junk. That's a straw-man argument.

2) There's plenty of evidence. While I think the USCF would have been
better off if Mottershead had found another hobby, the evidence he
presented is very strong, certainly more than the 50% needed for a
civil case. While it is /possible/ it could have been faked, this
would require an utterly preposterous level of conspiracy and
coordination. There are people who believe in that sort of thing --
troofers, birthers, and other loons. If you want to put yourself in
that class, I won't argue.

3) Of course you're "defending them." You're arguing "actual
innocence" on Truong's part. There are a number of arguments you can
make on his side (e.g., that the things he was accused of were not of
sufficient magnitude to justify his removal, or that his actions
should be excused because he was provoked), but this is by far the
weakest one. It requires willful blindness to masses of evidence.

4) The saccharine pleading in your final paragraph remains monkey
chatter. Since the question of Truong's responsibility for (most of)
the FSS postings is not a criminal matter and is not before a court,
it is unlikely ever to be adjudicated. Are you really trying to argue
that, because he has not been convicted by a court (in a non-criminal
matter), we may not look at the evidence and reach a conclusion? Time
to take a refresher course in civics, Philsy. By that reasoning, we
would not be allowed to reach the obvious conclusion that you're a
blithering booby.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is my belief that under just about any reasonable standard, those
have read this newsgroup for the last few years would conclude that
Philsy is a blithering booby. *It is my belief that with Philsy, the
logic bar has been set low enough for pretty much everybody but Rob to
step over.

Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer doesn't differ from his usual offering - and has the nerve
to actively contribute to abuse threads. When is the last time Bauer
made a contribution to chess topics?

Personal attacks have always been the way with USCF, which is not to
say that has any bearing on the $500,000 in legal suits it has
expended on lawyers over the past 2 years. Right!

Instead a using discussion forums for conversation a [small] bunch of
people run off all real conversations by a process of defamations and
lying.

The last time Bauer showed up he did not wish to clarify his statement
that I was in the pay of Susan Polgar.

Shall we call that a lie?

Here he uses the same nitwit technique as does Hillery to justify his
own obfustification of an issue. Using legal terms to justify his own
kangaroo court activities.

No wonder I am so resented! The thing to understand is that this
behavior is only apparently directed against myself, since I am the
only person more or less to contradict the abusers here. But this
activity is widespread at USCF, and has ben so for a long time.

Here is just one more example of Bauer having nothing to say except
abuse. That is why he agitates against me, because I challenge what
such as he is up to at USCF.

At least Hillery states his premise and then what he concludes about
them, albeit becoming unlicensed prosecutor judge and jury to do so.
Perhaps Bauer thinks the same as Hillery about this matter - and
detests such as myself because we are content that impartial agents
investigate and resolve on the issue? That stance is the one which
brings on the hissing - so I think I hit the target fair and square. I
think I hit it so hard that people want to shut me up.

Its a bit like people who tell Larry Parr he can't write, and has
nothing to say. They have to check his writing daily to make sure they
are correct, and then tell others here what they think.

Or rather, tell other people that they do not think at all.

Phil Innes

On Sep 4, 10:26*am, ChessFire wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:46*am, Randy Bauer wrote:





On Sep 3, 5:42*pm, jkh001 wrote:

On Sep 3, 9:44*am, ChessFire wrote:

It will be marked that there is no connection between honest John's
answer to his own first question - *which was that there is
'insufficient data' and his second comment which presumes something
else, as well as glossing what 'we' have seen before, since certainly
I have seen it before and even now - look at the Bauer's behaviors,
for example.

After all his honking about law and due process, Philsy clearly does
not understand either very well. What I wrote (In December 2007) was
that there was not sufficient evidence to say that Truong was guilty /
beyond reasonable doubt/.

Be even more careful - do you mean that /you/ didn't think so, or
there was insufficient cause for a legal indictment?

I choose my words carefully (a concept quite
alien to the Vermont Viper), and I put it that way because I felt that
this should be the standard for /recalling a Board member/.

I see you refer to your own sense of things - which is all very well.
But you react against me when I talk of something more rigorous - that
is what is permitted in a court. Why you should chose to characterize
that as 'Viper' behavior is entirely unclear, except that such strong
emotion when we discuss different things is a sign of something not
revealed in your writing.

As it stands I have said that I do not like kangaroo courts, and
prefer real ones. How vituperative is that, and how come you are
always so angry and emotional if anyone says things you do not like?
Can that really recommend your own judgement.

As far as USCF membership are concerned, what was presented to them
seems hardly a balanced view - in fact it was a one-sided series of
accusations which have not been INDEPENDENTLY substantiated by
impartial persons.

In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/.

But why do you confuse testimony with evidence? You speak as if there
were already some preponderance of evidence presented to a court - yet
as we know, there is none accepted by a civil court. The evidence,
whatever it is, is yet to be heard.

Now, this is not a partisan statement pro or con Polgar and Truong. It
is simply to state a logical process by which we can discuss
accusations and due process. Conflating testimony not yet accepted by
rules of evidence, and using legal terms indiscriminately covers up
the fact the current indictment is only a social one.

I should wish John Hillery to understand that I am talking about the
process of things - and no process is a statement of partisanship.

OTOH, where there is such strong emotion and partisanship present, as
in his own case, one can hardly think his recommendations to be
impartially considered at all - and all the more suspect thereby.

By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

Here John Hillery anticipates what a court would have done - and talks
of evidence as if only one side could have any. But no court has found
either way, since there has been no process.

Anticipating what would 'obviously' be the resolution of a court is to
abandon any pretense that one is prepared to look at all the evidencde
which can be admitted. Conflating what John Hillery thinks a court
must do with what has now happened in the social sphere at USCF, is a
logical muddle where words are used to confuse things rather than
illuminate them.

I wonder if Polgar and Truong really want a burbling nitwit like Innis
defending them? With friends like these ...

I wonder if John Hillery can note that I am /not/ defending them!

I am talking about a /process/ which would applicable to /anyone/ at
all, and I am also talking about the difference of this pretense that
we hardly need a court to resolve anything at all, since it would be
'obviously resolved' and therefore we might as well try the case in
the newsgroups and chess forums.

Why such an attitude as this provokes such hysteria in others is not a
mystery, and there is a reason for it. The increasingly acidic tenor
of those who don't like both the process of law. and who do not want
to discuss anything at all, not even primary evidence - is marked.

Phil Innes

You're still babbling, Phil. Since you can make up this drivel faster
than the sane people can reply, I'll confine myself to a few points.

1) There was never any suggestion of a "legal indictment" with regard
to the FSS junk. That's a straw-man argument.

2) There's plenty of evidence. While I think the USCF would have been
better off if Mottershead had found another hobby, the evidence he
presented is very strong, certainly more than the 50% needed for a
civil case. While it is /possible/ it could have been faked, this
would require an utterly preposterous level of conspiracy and
coordination. There are people who believe in that sort of thing --
troofers, birthers, and other loons. If you want to put yourself in
that class, I won't argue.

3) Of course you're "defending them." You're arguing "actual
innocence" on Truong's part. There are a number of arguments you can
make on his side (e.g., that the things he was accused of were not of
sufficient magnitude to justify his removal, or that his actions
should be excused because he was provoked), but this is by far the
weakest one. It requires willful blindness to masses of evidence.

4) The saccharine pleading in your final paragraph remains monkey
chatter. Since the question of Truong's responsibility for (most of)
the FSS postings is not a criminal matter and is not before a court,
it is unlikely ever to be adjudicated. Are you really trying to argue
that, because he has not been convicted by a court (in a non-criminal
matter), we may not look at the evidence and reach a conclusion? Time
to take a refresher course in civics, Philsy. By that reasoning, we
would not be allowed to reach the obvious conclusion that you're a
blithering booby.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is my belief that under just about any reasonable standard, those
have read this newsgroup for the last few years would conclude that
Philsy is a blithering booby. *It is my belief that with Philsy, the
logic bar has been set low enough for pretty much everybody but Rob to
step over.

Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer doesn't differ from his usual offering - and has the nerve
to actively contribute to abuse threads. When is the last time Bauer
made a contribution to chess topics?

Personal attacks have always been the way with USCF, which is not to
say that has any bearing on the $500,000 in legal suits it has
expended on lawyers over the past 2 years. Right!

Instead a using discussion forums for conversation a [small] bunch of
people run off all real conversations by a process of defamations and
lying.

The last time Bauer showed up he did not wish to clarify his statement
that I was in the pay of Susan Polgar.

Shall we call that a lie?

Here he uses the same nitwit technique as does Hillery to justify his
own obfustification of an issue. Using legal terms to justify his own
kangaroo court activities.

No wonder I am so resented! The thing to understand is that this
behavior is only apparently directed against myself, since I am the
only person more or less to contradict the abusers here. But this
activity is widespread at USCF, and has ben so for a long time.

Here is just one more example of Bauer having nothing to say except
abuse. That is why he agitates against me, because I challenge what
such as he is up to at USCF.

At least Hillery states his premise and then what he concludes about
them, albeit becoming unlicensed prosecutor judge and jury to do so.
Perhaps Bauer thinks the same as Hillery about this matter - and
detests such as myself because we are content that impartial agents
investigate and resolve on the issue? That stance is the one which
brings on the hissing - so I think I hit the target fair and square. I
think I hit it so hard that people want to shut me up.

Its a bit like people who tell Larry Parr he can't write, and has
nothing to say. They have to check his writing daily to make sure they
are correct, and then tell others here what they think.

Or rather, tell other people that they do not think at all.

Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Discussions prosper from direct statements,not from snide innuendos.
Please directly state your point and then provide evidence of your
position . Then relate that to your conclusion. If I am wrong about
something, show me through proof and solid evidence. Convince me of
your position through the strength of logic.

To attempt to bully people into believing you by using personal
attacks against others makes you appears as a cowardly schoolyard
bully. Getting people to agree with you for fear of having their noses
rubbed in the mud if they don't go along or at least remain complicit
through their silence.

Notice this post is a broad indictment of a great many who post in
this group. I did this without being personal or derogatory towards
anyone. Are you unable to do the same?

Rob

On Sep 4, 12:01*pm, Rob wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:26*am, ChessFarte wrote: On Sep 4, 2:46*am, Randy Bauer wrote:


"Discussions prosper from direct statements,not from snide innuendos.
Please directly state your point and then provide evidence of your
position . Then relate that to your conclusion. If I am wrong about
something, show me through proof and solid evidence. Convince me of
your position through the strength of logic.

To attempt to bully people into believing you by using personal
attacks against others makes you appears as a cowardly schoolyard
bully. Getting people to agree with you for fear of having their
noses
rubbed in the mud if they don't go along or at least remain complicit
through their silence.


Notice this post is a broad indictment of a great many who post in
this group. I did this without being personal or derogatory towards
anyone. Are you unable to do the same? "--Rob

Can this be our Rob lecturing His IMnes?