Subject: [fide-chess] Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy
bum who doesn't want to wo


On Oct 4, 3:29 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

the pretty woman, who is a world champion of chess,

To whom are you referring?

**Take a wild guess...

Surely not Polgar.

**ROFL - can this be an opportunity to [negatively] comment? ))

When did she win the
World Championship of Chess? I must have missed it in the news.


** I wrote /a/ world champion of chess, not /the/. Is reading the news
actually any use, if you can't unnerstan plain English?

chess that perhaps the most successful promoter of it in the USA

Who is the most successful promoter of chess in the USA?

**Take a wild guess

If you are
referring to Truong,

**Can this be an opportunity for a [negative] comment?

what has he promoted besides himself and his wife?

I thought Goichberg was the most successful promoter of chess in the USA.


**The reader is asked to understand the difference between promoter, and
organiser. I suppose both could be called promoter within chess realms, but
promoting chess in USA is rather larger than to the 80,000 USCF members, no?
There are getting on for 300,000,000 people outside chess - and I imagine
that none of them have heard the name Goichberg, whereas... but [I?]
digress... back to my own point.

Since you claim that "any hacker" can hack an IP address,

** Excuse me! That is not a quote! Where did I say 'any hacker?' Come on Mr.
Sloan, I don't have to play nicey nicey with you, and I just called you a
.... I think you know what.

why don't
you prove it by hacking mine? The Fake Sam Sloan never hacked my IP
address, although he surely must have tried.


** We seem to have some thread drift here, as if I am addressing a
tri-partite schizoid. (a) Sam Sloan does not address his own topic, which is
the header, (b) he takes gratuitous swipes at 2 other people, by willfully
midunderstanding what I wrote, as if I wrote something else, and (c) is the
third Sam Sloan, so speak, asking something or telling something?

**Should Mr. Sloan still not understand me, can it be assumed that that is
his intent. For other, what I have written is NOT about Sam Sloan - it is
about requiring proof of others to establish their innocence; it is
discussion of 'evidence' as presented by a partisan, and about the
scandalising of HIPPA employment rules, in the case of Bill Hall, and why
there are no dissenting voices for such disprespectful treatment of anyone.

**Now, only the Real Sam Sloan could confound and corrupt all 3 in one post.
Phil Innes

The Real Sam Sloan

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:40:55 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

what the Justice actually establishes to
be necessary, though the usual term is 'beyond a doubt.'

I thought in civil cases it was "preponderance of evidence".

As you wish, but statistics presented as evidence are not preponderance of
proof, especially since other candidates may score the same, or even greater
[though we are not investigating this, see a&b below]. As written elsewhere,
if PT scores 80 to 95, and you yourself score 60 to 75 as a default median
poster...but here is the fly in the ointment... since this then becomes an
investigation into if that differential of 20 points indicates who is the
false-Sloan 'by preponderance of statistics'!

But it only means that one person's reporting has characterised the issue
that way by looking at one person alone against some median measure - and
this is what you wish to accept in order to speculate further? How likely is
Sam Sloan himself the false-Sloan? 75-85%? Think about it, uh...
statistically...

He is determined, ever writing stuff about chess, net-savvy... How hard is
it to stitch someone else up, especially when you track their every move? In
fact, of stitch-you-up candidates, let me eliminate PT entirely [except to
be statistically-correct let me say he is 5% likely to accuse himself from
subconscious guilt reflex which he can't repress...] and Sam Sloan would
be - what would you say, 80 to 95% likely? How about a LOT more likely than
the median poster, who, after all, is not as fascinated by Sam Sloan as Sam
Sloan is himself.

...

C'mon Phil. I don't think anybody is claiming these percentages are
anything more than SWAGs. People

Which people? All people have motives that determine their actions, [right?]
so these 'people' are motivated by what? (a) to investigate PT or (b) to
investigate the false-Sloan [and maybe other 'impersonations'*]

(*But only impersonations to those who can't read a header - right?
Since anyone reading here can tell a false from real Sloan by the posting
address in 10 seconds, as well as, BTW by the philological content of the
message [but that is for super-genius types like me].
Therefore, it is not impersonation at all as much as lampooning or
satyrising , for sympathy or otherwise! the activities of the Great Sloan,
and All His Works)

are clamoring for an unbiased
*investigation* by somebody with respected technical credentials.
They're claiming there's enough to merit that.

Investigation by whom and into what? Who are these people who want an
investigation and would bring a suit, and into (a) or (b) above?

Who sent Wikipedia a whole raft of false-Sloan messenges [and no real ones]
without identifying they were false? Isn't that a sort of deception along
the same lines? Should that person also be taken into account? What about
the usual suspects right here - those who obviously don't like women, and
don't like strong players, and write heavily patterned serial abuse for
years and years - and who also use varieties of identity?

Definitive answers will probably require a court order, in my
uninformed lay opinion.

Again, answers to (a) or (b)?

What about making some statistics about the MO? Who has both motive and
opportunity to be the false-Sloan? We understand that it is technically not
at all difficult to achieve a false id or ip address, which is literally
child's-play. The other aspect of opportunity is time - who has the time
over a 12 month period to consistently do this? Then there is motive - who
has the greatest motive to stich-up PT. Put your own numbers into the
answers - but I don't think you will, since (b) is NOT being investigated.

Actually,

Well, if you want to actually do anything but speculate, then let a court
determine matters, not analogise by 'some poster' and et cetera.

What I see you doing is NOT inquiring into the identity of the false-Sloan
[and false-others]. You end with "Have I missed any?" and I would answer by
saying, you missed everyone except... PT.

That's not an open mind to issues - and I really can have no control over
whatever you wish to speculate about in public. I can only respond to you
that you are an (a) type who has not yet written a candid word on (b).

Phil Innes


one poster on the USCF site made the analogy to the recent
file-sharing case that was decided for the plaintiff. Not a perfect
analogy, IMO, but an interesting one.



And those opposing? Well, I've read these goodies recently:

(1) rgcp is a cesspool so it doesn't count
(2) Sloan and Gordon are held in low repute so it's obvious nobody
would want to imitate them
(3) These charges are destructive of the USCF and they should stop
(4) Sloan has dirty stuff on his web site so it doesn't count
(5) A *child* could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't count
(6) A master hacker could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't
count
(7) The fakes didn't really hurt anybody, so it's OK.
(8) Sam Sloan did it himself, so let's drop it.
(9) The investigation was unauthorized, so those responsible should be
fired or otherwise punished (and their suspicions are therefore
invalid).
(10) Unauthorized or not, the investigation invaded my privacy, so
those responsible should be fired or otherwise punished (and their
suspicions are therefore invalid).
(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess, so knock it off.
(12) The people complaining have complained a lot about other matters
in the past, so let's ignore 'em.

Have I missed any?

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:11:19 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

The most charitable response to your post is that it indicates you
haven't yet read Brian Mottershead's analysis. Its implications
weren't based speculation about motive, "philological" analysis or the
other stuff about which you blather,

I am sorry, but you are merely rude - since I //never// said he had a
philological thought in his head.

I was comparing *his* presentation of what he considered evidence with
*yours*. Your posts dwelled at length on matters of motivation and
stylistic analysis, which you at one point called "philological
content", of the fake posts,.

spare me further 'reason' by analogy, which is usually infamous.

Without analogy, how do you suppose one determines the fitness of
logical premises to the real world? Just for grins, do a Google on
"analogy in legal reasoning" before you embarrass yourself further.

I did not say that Motterhead's speculations were about motive, I said /I/
wondered what motive he had.

And this little aside was just a matter of disinterested curiosity?
Oh, puleeze.

you get slanderous postal mail signed by "Sam Sloan" but from an Omaha
address, it's still identity theft.

Well, sure it is! What are you hot about now? - are you thinking that I am
in denial about the false-Sloan? Dammit - i challenged that person a lot
more than you [or anyone else!] did this past year!

Just last post, you were saying it was not identity theft but parody
or lampoon!

Are you really seriously saying //you// can't tell a false-Sloan from the
real one, without looking at any header?

Not in all cases, no. I don't think you could either. And we both
are regular posters who have been following these chess newsgroups for
years.

You just have to wait a few days for a more 'official' announcement )

Is that official or officious?

How angry would you still feel if someone were pulling your strings? I
should doubt you are immune. So take a breath, fire back at me, not today,
tomorrow.

Your responses are not so forceful that one need's a good night's
sleep to calm down and craft a response, Phil. I'm exasperated that
you're trying to obscure the issue by spewing so much ink.

IMO, all that's needed is for AOL and other relevant ISPs to divulge
their electronic records and for someone with appropriate credentials
to correlate this information with the stuff gathered at the USCF.
Then, other appropriate people can judge whether the theoretical
possibility of someone hacking or faking these electronic footprints
is so strong that there's still no preponderance of evidence.

My emotional state, Brian's emotional state, your emotional state,
Lafferty's intentions, etc., are irrelevant.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:11:19 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

The most charitable response to your post is that it indicates you
haven't yet read Brian Mottershead's analysis. Its implications
weren't based speculation about motive, "philological" analysis or the
other stuff about which you blather,

I am sorry, but you are merely rude - since I //never// said he had a
philological thought in his head.

I was comparing *his* presentation of what he considered evidence with
*yours*. Your posts dwelled at length on matters of motivation and
stylistic analysis, which you at one point called "philological
content", of the fake posts,.

that is not entirely true, Mike, you cut the prologue, right?

spare me further 'reason' by analogy, which is usually infamous.

Without analogy, how do you suppose one determines the fitness of
logical premises to the real world? Just for grins, do a Google on
"analogy in legal reasoning" before you embarrass yourself further.

I see - so this is already legal 'reasoning' rather than other kinds. Ok -
understand your perspective.

I did not say that Motterhead's speculations were about motive, I said /I/
wondered what motive he had.

And this little aside was just a matter of disinterested curiosity?
Oh, puleeze.

Puleeze what? If you have a point, get on your hind legs and say it. You
already cheated by cutting the top off to your presumed own orinetation.
Puleeze! spare me your agony!?

you get slanderous postal mail signed by "Sam Sloan" but from an Omaha
address, it's still identity theft.

Well, sure it is! What are you hot about now? - are you thinking that I am
in denial about the false-Sloan? Dammit - i challenged that person a lot
more than you [or anyone else!] did this past year!

Just last post, you were saying it was not identity theft but parody
or lampoon!

What the fake wrote here is obvious parody and lampoon - what you decided to
write is as if 'someone googled' it and so on. You areguing with me, or with
your with self? BTW: I did not say it was 'not identity theft' since any
bloody fool could look at the headers here and see it was different from
Sloan's posting header.

that is what I wrote - and you dare not quote it twice, but still argue, as
if,

as if i wrote something else. pretty strong spinning!

Are you really seriously saying //you// can't tell a false-Sloan from the
real one, without looking at any header?

Not in all cases, no. I don't think you could either. And we both
are regular posters who have been following these chess newsgroups for
years.

You just have to wait a few days for a more 'official' announcement )

Is that official or officious?

Sober!

How angry would you still feel if someone were pulling your strings? I
should doubt you are immune. So take a breath, fire back at me, not today,
tomorrow.

Your responses are not so forceful that one need's a good night's
sleep to calm down and craft a response, Phil. I'm exasperated that
you're trying to obscure the issue by spewing so much ink.

OK, carry on, bucko.

But you seem to cut the questions which engage why you are so hot and
anxious to deal with this situation. So be hot on your ownsome

IMO, all that's needed is for AOL and other relevant ISPs to divulge
their electronic records and for someone with appropriate credentials
to correlate this information with the stuff gathered at the USCF.
Then, other appropriate people can judge whether the theoretical
possibility of someone hacking or faking these electronic footprints
is so strong that there's still no preponderance of evidence.

My emotional state, Brian's emotional state, your emotional state,
Lafferty's intentions, etc., are irrelevant.

People's emotional states do not reflect their motivations? ROFL Nor are any
guide to what they write, and what they SNIP. )

Anyway, you made your bed, and insist on sleeping in it - what else can you
do know?

Phil Innes

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:56:58 -0700, The Historian
wrote:


Hi Mike,

Who were the "many others?" Do you mean Lafferty and Gordon? Or are
there others?

There were others. I was faked on a few posts some time ago. The
fake had me making what appeared to be physical threats against
Marcus. I didn't take them too seriously, but, as I remember, Marcus
seemed to for a while.

The vast majority of fakes seem to be Sloan and Gordon, however.

BTW, offensive as the "Jackass Lafferty" posts might have been, I
don't consider them fakes, although some of them might have been
slanderous.

On Oct 8, 9:25 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:56:58 -0700, The Historian

wrote:
Hi Mike,
Who were the "many others?" Do you mean Lafferty and Gordon? Or are
there others?

There were others. I was faked on a few posts some time ago. The
fake had me making what appeared to be physical threats against
Marcus. I didn't take them too seriously, but, as I remember, Marcus
seemed to for a while.

I seem to recall at least one fake "Historian" post. Harmless stuff,
as I recall.

The vast majority of fakes seem to be Sloan and Gordon, however.

BTW, offensive as the "Jackass Lafferty" posts might have been, I
don't consider them fakes, although some of them might have been
slanderous.