Is Bill Hall really out sick again or just a lazy bum who doesn't want
to work?

Turns out that ever since I filed my lawsuit, Bill Hall has been out
sick.

It seems that every time something important is going on, Bill Hall
suddenly gets the flu or something.

Remember when we were trying to finalize the plans for the US
Championship on February 25 and needed him and he suddenly went out
sick for a week.

Remember when we needed him for the US Open and suddenly he was in the
emergency room and finally came in a wheel chair.

But these are just a few of the many examples, and when he is not sick
then his wife has been sick. It seems that he has been out sick more
often than he has been at work.

This has been going on for the full two years that Bill Hall has been
executive director. Nobody bothered to check his prior work record for
absenteeism before he was hired in June 2005.

Sam Sloan

"It seems that he has been out sick more
often than he has been at work."

Sam Sloan

---

Like most Sam Sloan posts, what is written above is not evidence. Neither is
it a fact. It is a suggestion, vastly overstated, but as always, containing
condemnation of others, as if what he 'asks' were actually true. In this
instance he merely restricts his non-factual statement to the mild, for him,
conclusion, about the Ex Dir being 'a lazy bum who doesn't want to work'.

At least this is a different subject from the 'evidence', as we are to
understand it already is, that Paul Truong is so obsessed with him, that he
parades around anonymously as a pseudo-Sloan.

I can understand Sam Sloan's evident resentment that Paul Truong married the
pretty woman, who is a world champion of chess, who is in the major media,
including television programs on cognitive psychology, funded by National
Geographic.

Who wouldn't? )))

We all envy the guy a bit, no?

--a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything, every
thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what 'experts'
working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is not likely to
impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to the main
psycho-drama

While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.

It is so psychologically implausible, [though not impossible] considering
Mr. Sloans soto-relationship with Mrs Polgar, that at any bar in the world,
guys would be nudging each other in the ribs, asking who the big ****** was?

Anyway, despite HIPPA, what exactly can this mean? And I'll put this forward
again

"It seems that he has been out sick more
often than he has been at work."

So... It /seems/ to Sam Sloan. But that is hyperbolous, surely, unless we
think he is innumerate, and can't count. Sam Sloan is stating that he would
prefer us to think as he would /seem/ to understand. Which is not his real
understanding.

In other words, he would like us to judge something known to him to be
false, as if it were not.

What's new?

Phil Innes

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:29:29 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


--a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything, every
thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what 'experts'
working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is not likely to
impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to the main
psycho-drama

Those with the skill, the motivation, and the resources have always
been able to fake evidence, Phil. That's what we call the "frame-up".
The perpetual cry of the perp: "I been framed". And some people do
get framed. This is no different from thousands of other cases that
ultimately get decided one way or the other. But you have to
remember, just because it's theoretically possible to hack evidence
doesn't prove evidence *was* hacked. To decide this requires
investigation and judgment.

And when there's a lot of evidence, you really need this investigation
and judgment. You can't just blithely say, "well, since it's possible
to have hacked this evidence, we can just ignore it".

While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.

You haven't been paying real close attention, Phil. Two things to
remember: (1) many others than Sloan were faked, and (2) the fake
Sloan was used as a vehicle or club to attack other players, board
candidates and issues.

On Oct 4, 7:05 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:29:29 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

--a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything, every
thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what 'experts'
working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is not likely to
impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to the main
psycho-drama

Those with the skill, the motivation, and the resources have always
been able to fake evidence, Phil. That's what we call the "frame-up".
The perpetual cry of the perp: "I been framed". And some people do
get framed. This is no different from thousands of other cases that
ultimately get decided one way or the other. But you have to
remember, just because it's theoretically possible to hack evidence
doesn't prove evidence *was* hacked. To decide this requires
investigation and judgment.

And when there's a lot of evidence, you really need this investigation
and judgment. You can't just blithely say, "well, since it's possible
to have hacked this evidence, we can just ignore it".

While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.

You haven't been paying real close attention, Phil. Two things to
remember: (1) many others than Sloan were faked, and (2) the fake
Sloan was used as a vehicle or club to attack other players, board
candidates and issues.

Hi Mike,

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

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:tabNi.6008$PV1.37@trndny08...
"It seems that he has been out sick more
often than he has been at work."

Sam Sloan

---

Like most Sam Sloan posts, what is written above is not evidence. Neither
is it a fact. It is a suggestion, vastly overstated, but as always,
containing condemnation of others, as if what he 'asks' were actually
true. In this instance he merely restricts his non-factual statement to
the mild, for him, conclusion, about the Ex Dir being 'a lazy bum who
doesn't want to work'.

At least this is a different subject from the 'evidence', as we are to
understand it already is, that Paul Truong is so obsessed with him, that
he parades around anonymously as a pseudo-Sloan.

I can understand Sam Sloan's evident resentment that Paul Truong married
the pretty woman, who is a world champion of chess, who is in the major
media, including television programs on cognitive psychology, funded by
National Geographic.

Who wouldn't? )))

We all envy the guy a bit, no?

--a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything,
every thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what
'experts' working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is
not likely to impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to
the main psycho-drama

While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.

It is so psychologically implausible, [though not impossible] considering
Mr. Sloans soto-relationship with Mrs Polgar, that at any bar in the
world, guys would be nudging each other in the ribs, asking who the big
****** was?

Anyway, despite HIPPA, what exactly can this mean? And I'll put this
forward again

"It seems that he has been out sick more
often than he has been at work."

So... It /seems/ to Sam Sloan. But that is hyperbolous, surely, unless we
think he is innumerate, and can't count. Sam Sloan is stating that he
would prefer us to think as he would /seem/ to understand. Which is not
his real understanding.

In other words, he would like us to judge something known to him to be
false, as if it were not.

What's new?

Phil Innes

The issue is not motive for the fake Sam & Ray. The issue is the validity
of the evidence produced by Mothershead. Hopefully the full report with ALL
the factual data will find its way into cyberspace. Harry Payne ran the
initial data past one of his company's security experts, who said
Mottershead's bare bones first posting report evidenced an 80% to 95%
probability that Truong is the Fake Sam. Examination of Truongs computer
would be needed to prove that to near 100%. Truong very much appears to
have been caught red handed. The attempt to remove Usenet posts put extra
nails in the coffin. It should also come out that he slipped up during the
AOL period by making several posts using a non-AOL account that links
directly to him.

Despite all the hyperbole by Truong, , George you and other of his friends
and minions, facts are pesky little creatures that have been presented and
no reasonable defense has yet been offered---most likely because there isn't
any.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news:ieoNi.7182$R%1.3442@trndny06...

In other words, he would like us to judge something known to him to be
false, as if it were not.

What's new?

Phil Innes

The issue is not motive for the fake Sam & Ray. The issue is the validity
of the evidence produced by Mothershead. Hopefully the full report with
ALL the factual data will find its way into cyberspace.

What are you ranting about? What are these vague terms you espouse?

Harry Payne ran the initial data past one of his company's security
experts, who said Mottershead's bare bones first posting report evidenced
an 80% to 95% probability that Truong is the Fake Sam.

I would suppose, that based on the publication of this report, that he would
feel 80% to 95% culpable in any subsequent law-suit for libel? Or is this
free opinion, and it is 80% to 95% 'free-speech'?

Examination of Truongs computer would be needed to prove that to near
100%. Truong very much appears to have been caught red handed. The
attempt to remove Usenet posts put extra nails in the coffin. It should
also come out that he slipped up during the AOL period by making several
posts using a non-AOL account that links directly to him.

Despite all the hyperbole by Truong, , George you and other of his friends
and minions,

I see you are already decided by this report, and that is sufficnet for you.
It sure is for me!

facts are pesky little creatures that have been presented and no
reasonable defense has yet been offered---most likely because there isn't
any.

Facts in law, are those established within a framework of what is admissable
evidence, with the onus on proof - and 80% to 95% proof may or may not
indict anyone, that is, if that is what the Justice actually establishes to
be necessary, though the usual term is 'beyond a doubt.'

Given the hyperbole here, and even 80% to 95% [whatever that can mean - what
can it Aactually mean???] that allows from 5 to 20% doubt, even though this
is the unchallenged and unmediated representation of the prosecution.

Why not just stop pretending anything about due process and get yerself a
hangin' judge?

Phil Innes

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".

Given the hyperbole here, and even 80% to 95% [whatever that can mean - what
can it Aactually mean???] that allows from 5 to 20% doubt, even though this
is the unchallenged and unmediated representation of the prosecution.

Why not just stop pretending anything about due process and get yerself a
hangin' judge?

C'mon Phil. I don't think anybody is claiming these percentages are
anything more than SWAGs. People are clamoring for an unbiased
*investigation* by somebody with respected technical credentials.
They're claiming there's enough to merit that.

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

Actually, 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?

Chess One wrote:
... though the usual term is 'beyond a doubt.'

False. In a criminal case, the "usual term" is "beyond a REASONABLE doubt".

I understand that you have issues with "reasonable".

But, of course, that's to *convict*. You blather on about "to indict" -
to indict, one looks at only one side of the evidence, and all that's
required is a prima facie case. All that needs to be established is
that the defendant has some 'splainin' to do.

In a civil case, the "usual term" is "by a preponderance of the evidence".

51% is more than enough.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/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".

That's correct. In civil cases the standard is preponderance of the
evidence. Preponderance=50%

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

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

To whom are you referring? Surely not Polgar. When did she win the
World Championship of Chess? I must have missed it in the news.

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

Who is the most successful promoter of chess in the USA? If you are
referring to Truong, what has he promoted besides himself and his
wife?

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

Since you claim that "any hacker" can hack an IP address, why don't
you prove it by hacking mine? The Fake Sam Sloan never hacked my IP
address, although he surely mist have tried.

The Real Sam Sloan