"1) Is Truong actually responsible
for the “Fake” Usenet posts?
2) If the answer is “yes,” would it
be enough to justify recalling him?
(There’s no real question that it
would be a legitimate reason not
to vote for him if he were to run
again.)

My answers:

1) Insufficient data. There is
certainly some evidence to support
the charges, though probably not
enough to satisfy a “beyond reasonable
doubt” standard.

2) No. Essentially the charges are
of stupid and juvenile behavior. Like
we’ve never seen that on the PB/EB
before. Also, I’m tired of wasting
time and money on elections."

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.

On Sep 2, 1:03*pm, ChessFire wrote:
"1) Is Truong actually responsible
for the “Fake” Usenet posts?
2) If the answer is “yes,” would it
be enough to justify recalling him?
(There’s no real question that it
would be a legitimate reason not
to vote for him if he were to run
again.)

My answers:

1) Insufficient data. There is
certainly some evidence to support
the charges, though probably not
enough to satisfy a “beyond reasonable
doubt” standard.

2) No. Essentially the charges are
of stupid and juvenile behavior. Like
we’ve never seen that on the PB/EB
before. Also, I’m tired of wasting
time and money on elections."

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/. 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/. In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/. By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

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

On Sep 2, 6:07*pm, jkh001 wrote:
On Sep 2, 1:03*pm, ChessFire wrote:



"1) Is Truong actually responsible
for the “Fake” Usenet posts?
2) If the answer is “yes,” would it
be enough to justify recalling him?
(There’s no real question that it
would be a legitimate reason not
to vote for him if he were to run
again.)

My answers:

1) Insufficient data. There is
certainly some evidence to support
the charges, though probably not
enough to satisfy a “beyond reasonable
doubt” standard.

2) No. Essentially the charges are
of stupid and juvenile behavior. Like
we’ve never seen that on the PB/EB
before. Also, I’m tired of wasting
time and money on elections."

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/. 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/. In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/. By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

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

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

On Sep 2, 7:07*pm, jkh001 wrote:
On Sep 2, 1:03*pm, ChessFire wrote:





"1) Is Truong actually responsible
for the “Fake” Usenet posts?
2) If the answer is “yes,” would it
be enough to justify recalling him?
(There’s no real question that it
would be a legitimate reason not
to vote for him if he were to run
again.)

My answers:

1) Insufficient data. There is
certainly some evidence to support
the charges, though probably not
enough to satisfy a “beyond reasonable
doubt” standard.

2) No. Essentially the charges are
of stupid and juvenile behavior. Like
we’ve never seen that on the PB/EB
before. Also, I’m tired of wasting
time and money on elections."

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/. 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/. In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/. By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

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

- Show quoted text -

Why not? The only other board member is Frank Niro who was the worst
ED in federation history. As long as his IMness doesn't make a wave
when he wades in it won't be any worse than the three current board
members.

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.

On Sep 2, 4:51*pm, Rob wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:07*pm, jkh001 wrote:



On Sep 2, 1:03*pm, ChessFire wrote:

"1) Is Truong actually responsible
for the “Fake” Usenet posts?
2) If the answer is “yes,” would it
be enough to justify recalling him?
(There’s no real question that it
would be a legitimate reason not
to vote for him if he were to run
again.)

My answers:

1) Insufficient data. There is
certainly some evidence to support
the charges, though probably not
enough to satisfy a “beyond reasonable
doubt” standard.

2) No. Essentially the charges are
of stupid and juvenile behavior. Like
we’ve never seen that on the PB/EB
before. Also, I’m tired of wasting
time and money on elections."

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/. 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/. In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/. By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

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

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


Well, some people keep skunks or toads for pets. There's no accounting
for taste.

On Sep 2, 6:51*pm, Rob wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:07*pm, jkh001 wrote:





On Sep 2, 1:03*pm, ChessFire wrote:

"1) Is Truong actually responsible
for the “Fake” Usenet posts?
2) If the answer is “yes,” would it
be enough to justify recalling him?
(There’s no real question that it
would be a legitimate reason not
to vote for him if he were to run
again.)

My answers:

1) Insufficient data. There is
certainly some evidence to support
the charges, though probably not
enough to satisfy a “beyond reasonable
doubt” standard.

2) No. Essentially the charges are
of stupid and juvenile behavior. Like
we’ve never seen that on the PB/EB
before. Also, I’m tired of wasting
time and money on elections."

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/. 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/. In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/. By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

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

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

- Show quoted text -


If you detest the tone and the personal attacks, why don't you
complain about them in Phil's posts? He regularly makes ridiculous
slurs against his opponents. For example, just today he asked whether
Mike Murray was anti-Jewish because he opposed Polgar. This is a much
more offensive allegation than calling someone a burbling nitwit, in
response to a post that a writer feels is actually idiotic (by
contrast, I do not believe that by any stretch of the imagination
Mike's post could be considered to be anti-semitic).

It is hard to imagine that you can read Phil's posts, and then ask
other people to treat him gently. In fact, it is hard to imagine how
you can read Phil's posts and not realize that he writes as if he is a
raving lunatic. I think we have all wondered at some time what Phil's
problem is; his arguments are incoherent rants, and often contain
absurd statements. If you get a different impression meeting him in
real life, I am glad to hear it, but we can only judge him by his
posts. From reading the posts alone, one would believe that Phil has
some sort of serious problem, though the nature of the problem is not
completely clear. But then, I have come to realize that some people
act very differently as posters in net groups than they do in real
life, and I hope that Phil improves away from the keyboard.

Jerry Spinrad

On Sep 2, 10:15*pm, jspinrad wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:51*pm, Rob wrote:



On Sep 2, 6:07*pm, jkh001 wrote:

On Sep 2, 1:03*pm, ChessFire wrote:

"1) Is Truong actually responsible
for the “Fake” Usenet posts?
2) If the answer is “yes,” would it
be enough to justify recalling him?
(There’s no real question that it
would be a legitimate reason not
to vote for him if he were to run
again.)

My answers:

1) Insufficient data. There is
certainly some evidence to support
the charges, though probably not
enough to satisfy a “beyond reasonable
doubt” standard.

2) No. Essentially the charges are
of stupid and juvenile behavior. Like
we’ve never seen that on the PB/EB
before. Also, I’m tired of wasting
time and money on elections."

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/. 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/. In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/. By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

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

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

- Show quoted text -

If you detest the tone and the personal attacks, why don't you
complain about them in Phil's posts? He regularly makes ridiculous
slurs against his opponents. For example, just today he asked whether
Mike Murray was anti-Jewish because he opposed Polgar. This is a much
more offensive allegation than calling someone a burbling nitwit, in
response to a post that a writer feels is actually idiotic (by
contrast, I do not believe that by any stretch of the imagination
Mike's post could be considered to be anti-semitic).


I once made a comment about my interest in John Nash's work based on a
visit he made to our campus. Phil immediately placed me squarely in
the anti-Semite category, due to Nash's own paranoia re Jews (one
wonder how Mitchell, who tried to pretend he could get Fischer to play
in a match, passes muster since Nash's paranoia was mild compared to
Fischer's rantings, but that is just Phil. He doesn't have a double
standard, I suspect he has no standards whatsoever).

Of course the person who invited Nash to come speak at our campus was
a practicing Orthodox Jew who played in our Saturday tournaments, and
for whom we always made every possible accomodation. I showed him
Phil's post at club one night; we laughed the whole night over his
ravings.

Like many though, I find little amusement in Phil's paranoia and
ranting anymore, I find him pathetic.

On Sep 3, 7:48*am, sd wrote:
On Sep 2, 10:15*pm, jspinrad wrote:



On Sep 2, 6:51*pm, Rob wrote:

On Sep 2, 6:07*pm, jkh001 wrote:

On Sep 2, 1:03*pm, ChessFire wrote:

"1) Is Truong actually responsible
for the “Fake” Usenet posts?
2) If the answer is “yes,” would it
be enough to justify recalling him?
(There’s no real question that it
would be a legitimate reason not
to vote for him if he were to run
again.)

My answers:

1) Insufficient data. There is
certainly some evidence to support
the charges, though probably not
enough to satisfy a “beyond reasonable
doubt” standard.

2) No. Essentially the charges are
of stupid and juvenile behavior. Like
we’ve never seen that on the PB/EB
before. Also, I’m tired of wasting
time and money on elections."

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/. 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/. In a civil
case, of course, the standard is /preponderance of evidence/. By /
that/ standard, Truong would obviously have been convicted then -- and
the evidence has only grown stronger since.

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

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

- Show quoted text -

If you detest the tone and the personal attacks, why don't you
complain about them in Phil's posts? He regularly makes ridiculous
slurs against his opponents. For example, just today he asked whether
Mike Murray was anti-Jewish because he opposed Polgar. This is a much
more offensive allegation than calling someone a burbling nitwit, in
response to a post that a writer feels is actually idiotic (by
contrast, I do not believe that by any stretch of the imagination
Mike's post could be considered to be anti-semitic).

I once made a comment about my interest in John Nash's work based on a
visit he made to our campus. Phil immediately placed me squarely in
the anti-Semite category, due to Nash's own paranoia re Jews (one
wonder how Mitchell, who tried to pretend he could get Fischer to play
in a match, passes muster since Nash's paranoia was mild compared to
Fischer's rantings, but that is just Phil. He doesn't have a double
standard, I suspect he has no standards whatsoever).

Of course the person who invited Nash to come speak at our campus was
a practicing Orthodox Jew who played in our Saturday tournaments, and
for whom we always made every possible accomodation. I showed him
Phil's post at club one night; we laughed the whole night over his
ravings.

Like many though, I find little amusement in Phil's paranoia and
ranting anymore, I find him pathetic.

Hmm. Did you mention Philsy's argument that the blood libel has
nothing to do with Jews?

On Sep 3, 6:57*am, The Historian wrote:

Hmm. Did you mention Philsy's argument that the blood libel has
nothing to do with Jews?

I can't keep track of all his nutball theories, nor do I care to.
Basically it seems best just to let him scream and rave like those
bums on streetcorners with the signs that the world is coming to an
end tomorrow, and keep walking. Eventually their screams fade into
nothingness.....