Chess Group Officials Accused of Using Internet to Hurt Rivals

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/ny...l?ref=nyregion

On Oct 8, 12:47 am, wrote:
Chess Group Officials Accused of Using Internet to Hurt Rivals

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/ny...l?ref=nyregion

Thanks for the link. The Times' coverage seems far more balanced than
the cheerleading and jeerleading that's made up the bulk of the rgcp
commentary. And I note the Times disclosed a connection between
themselves and a company mentioned in the article. Truong's Vermont
Defender, a hint for you.

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 8, 12:47 am, wrote:
Chess Group Officials Accused of Using Internet to Hurt Rivals

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/ny...l?ref=nyregion

Thanks for the link. The Times' coverage seems far more balanced than
the cheerleading and jeerleading that's made up the bulk of the rgcp
commentary. And I note the Times disclosed a connection between
themselves and a company mentioned in the article. Truong's Vermont
Defender, a hint for you.

Actual stalkers and misdirectors, unite! Here is yet another suggestion or
insinuation of something, [what?] or course, the writer is too careful to
make a plain statement since that would require a pair of balls.

I wonder if the same person ever impersonated anyone else, or went by
disguised names. I do believe he has. Of course, just because he has written
non stop trash in newsgroups for 5 years about other people, proves 80 to
95% of nothing.

---

I further suppose comment here by those who take the M out of MO, won't be
happy to notice this:

"These people started all these accusations the day after I criticized
them about their job performance,"

and they will continue to write about 'evidence' as if it were a synonym for
proof, and neglect to mention their own M in all this.

I think this is why, before rushing to conclusions over who is even the
victim of these vicious pranks, Sam Sloan or Paul Truong, a moments pause is
necessary, as if, you know, properly constituted agents would investigate
it, and also report within the normal sense of rules of evidence.

What other writers here care for due process and the law is as it may be,
and if indeed, as one writer has suggested, I am personally the only person
here to acknowledge its value, then, so be it!

Phil Innes

On Oct 8, 10:15 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 8, 12:47 am, wrote:
Chess Group Officials Accused of Using Internet to Hurt Rivals

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/ny...l?ref=nyregion

Thanks for the link. The Times' coverage seems far more balanced than
the cheerleading and jeerleading that's made up the bulk of the rgcp
commentary. And I note the Times disclosed a connection between
themselves and a company mentioned in the article. Truong's Vermont
Defender, a hint for you.

Actual stalkers and misdirectors, unite! Here is yet another suggestion or
insinuation of something, [what?] or course, the writer is too careful to
make a plain statement since that would require a pair of balls.

Ok:

"Phil Innes fails to disclose potential conflicts of interest, such as
his working with Susan Polgar."

Plain enough?

wrote:
Chess Group Officials Accused of Using Internet to Hurt Rivals

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/ny...l?ref=nyregion



I didn't know that Google sponsored RGCP...

Wow.

On Oct 8, 12:47 am, wrote:
Chess Group Officials Accused of Using Internet to Hurt Rivals

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/ny...l?ref=nyregion

"If I ever want to apply for a job, nobody's going to hire me because
there are thousands of obscene messages supposedly from me on the
Internet," Mr. Sloan said.

Sloan applying for a job?? Funniest line in the story.

"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

Actual stalkers and misdirectors, unite! Here is yet another suggestion
or
insinuation of something, [what?] or course, the writer is too careful to
make a plain statement since that would require a pair of balls.

Ok:

"Phil Innes fails to disclose potential conflicts of interest, such as
his working with Susan Polgar."

Plain enough?

I said I had worked with the SPF. That doesn't mean I am its client, or it
mine.

Since both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have worked with a vast crowd of
chess players and organisers from coast to coast, it seems to me the only
'conflict of interest' with any of these character witnesses, is to allow
them to speak what's true from their experience. Its a 'conflict' for others
since such witness is in conflict with often malicious speculation.

Who, ineed, in chess in the USA would not have a potential conflict of
interest in this sense - that they may have, do now, or could have a
connection with SP?

If Neil Brennan wants to ask something more directly, let his wit guide him,
best he can ....

Phil Innes

On Oct 10, 6:12 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

ups.com...

Actual stalkers and misdirectors, unite! Here is yet another suggestion
or
insinuation of something, [what?] or course, the writer is too careful to
make a plain statement since that would require a pair of balls.

Ok:

"Phil Innes fails to disclose potential conflicts of interest, such as
his working with Susan Polgar."

Plain enough?

I said I had worked with the SPF. That doesn't mean I am its client, or it
mine.

It's not what you said.

"It must be dissapointing (sic) for Brennan that I work with Susan
Polgar..." - Phil Innes, April 3, 2005

On Oct 10, 7:35 am, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 10, 6:12 am, "Chess One" wrote:





"The Historian" wrote in message

oups.com...

Actual stalkers and misdirectors, unite! Here is yet another suggestion
or
insinuation of something, [what?] or course, the writer is too careful to
make a plain statement since that would require a pair of balls.

Ok:

"Phil Innes fails to disclose potential conflicts of interest, such as
his working with Susan Polgar."

Plain enough?

I said I had worked with the SPF. That doesn't mean I am its client, or it
mine.

It's not what you said.

"It must be dissapointing (sic) for Brennan that I work with Susan
Polgar..." - Phil Innes, April 3, 2005- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Would you also pull up a quote of Jimmy Carter from 1978 that says" I
am US President" and call him a liar in 2007 because he isn't? There
is a danger in trying to pull up ancient quotes and apply them to
current times. What was once accurate in the past may not be true now
or in the future.