On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:29:29 -0700, Rob wrote:


Thanks for proving my point Mike.
It's pretty easy to know production dates on a Television crew and the
rehersals. LOL

Unfortunately, it doesn't prove your point. The more technically
adept could identify me. But the "surface" information is easy to
fake.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:40:54 -0700, Robertus Phonius Michelius
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:29:29 -0700, Rob wrote:


Thanks for proving my point Mike.
It's pretty easy to know production dates on a Television crew and the
rehersals. LOL

Unfortunately, it doesn't prove your point. The more technically
adept could identify me. But the "surface" information is easy to
fake.

Sorry Rob. It's like Mr Hyde. It's taking over. I can't resist it.
I can't sssssssstttttttttttoooooooooopppppppppppp.

On Oct 11, 3:13 pm, Rob wrote:
Even the material from Mottershead, as posted on his website, is
suspect. I reviewed them. I reviewed them "in context" and also
shecked the faked email addresses and the altered identity line. I
also looked at who was being attacked and when. I dont know what was
at the USCF forum. But as for RGC, it is a dubious leap at best in
logic to believe it was a single person let alone PT who was the
culprit.

Dubious leap of logic indeed!

Here are more facts, though you may close your eyes again.

Paul posted 49 messages in 2 days, without even breaking a sweat.

"The person posting here as "Memory" also posted in this same thread
as "Voice of Reason", "Kramnik", "sh", "Crash", "Chronic Pain",
"Doody", "kitty", "Grange" and many others. So, the usual process of
filing an abuse report with his ISP has begun. Unsurprisingly, all
these posts are of a theme, one I'm sure you can guess. Hmm, where in
the past have we seen one person posting under dozens of names to
attack people in something related to Susan Polgar?" -- Mig

Can't you offer anything stronger than "refuse to believe it"?

On Oct 13, 10:02 pm, wrote:
On Oct 11, 3:13 pm, Rob wrote:

Even the material from Mottershead, as posted on his website, is
suspect. I reviewed them. I reviewed them "in context" and also
shecked the faked email addresses and the altered identity line. I
also looked at who was being attacked and when. I dont know what was
at the USCF forum. But as for RGC, it is a dubious leap at best in
logic to believe it was a single person let alone PT who was the
culprit.

Dubious leap of logic indeed!

Here are more facts, though you may close your eyes again.

Paul posted 49 messages in 2 days, without even breaking a sweat.

"The person posting here as "Memory" also posted in this same thread
as "Voice of Reason", "Kramnik", "sh", "Crash", "Chronic Pain",
"Doody", "kitty", "Grange" and many others. So, the usual process of
filing an abuse report with his ISP has begun. Unsurprisingly, all
these posts are of a theme, one I'm sure you can guess. Hmm, where in
the past have we seen one person posting under dozens of names to
attack people in something related to Susan Polgar?" -- Mig

Can't you offer anything stronger than "refuse to believe it"

LOL!
If Mig had actual proof of who it was he would have said so. He is not
afraid of telling the truth. What I suspect is he doesn't know so he
is simply sending in email complaints to ISP's which we all know go
nowhere. If he had hard evidence, the quickest way to "nip it in the
bud" as Barney would say, would be to fire off an email to the
offending party outlining the evidence and asking them to stop. Then,
if they didn't stop, post the information and make the evidence
public. Problem is, the evidence must prove without a doubt that you
have accused the right person. Otherwise he opens himself up to a
considerable damage lawsuit.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:05:44 -0700, Rob wrote:


LOL!
If Mig had actual proof of who it was he would have said so. He is not
afraid of telling the truth. What I suspect is he doesn't know so he
is simply sending in email complaints to ISP's which we all know go
nowhere. If he had hard evidence, the quickest way to "nip it in the
bud" as Barney would say, would be to fire off an email to the
offending party outlining the evidence and asking them to stop. Then,
if they didn't stop, post the information and make the evidence
public. Problem is, the evidence must prove without a doubt that you
have accused the right person. Otherwise he opens himself up to a
considerable damage lawsuit.

Mig already answered all your objections.

On Oct 14, 1:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:05:44 -0700, Rob wrote:
LOL!
If Mig had actual proof of who it was he would have said so. He is not
afraid of telling the truth. What I suspect is he doesn't know so he
is simply sending in email complaints to ISP's which we all know go
nowhere. If he had hard evidence, the quickest way to "nip it in the
bud" as Barney would say, would be to fire off an email to the
offending party outlining the evidence and asking them to stop. Then,
if they didn't stop, post the information and make the evidence
public. Problem is, the evidence must prove without a doubt that you
have accused the right person. Otherwise he opens himself up to a
considerable damage lawsuit.

Mig already answered all your objections.

The Chess Masterminds' King of the Deal Memo is up awfully late coming
up with excuses, isn't he? I love the combined smell of midnight oil
and desperation in his posts.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:39:21 -0700, The Historian
wrote:


Mig already answered all your objections.

The Chess Masterminds' King of the Deal Memo is up awfully late coming
up with excuses, isn't he? I love the combined smell of midnight oil
and desperation in his posts.

It's not just Rob. Currently, there's seems a lot of movement on this
issue. But one side, it's the hands of the desperate grasping at
straws and the flutter of instant experts frantically winging it. On
the other, the great millstone grinding and the pounding of nails.
Hmmmmm. Is that hammer slowly morphing into a gavel?

On Oct 14, 8:33 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:39:21 -0700, The Historian

wrote:
Mig already answered all your objections.
The Chess Masterminds' King of the Deal Memo is up awfully late coming
up with excuses, isn't he? I love the combined smell of midnight oil
and desperation in his posts.

It's not just Rob. Currently, there's seems a lot of movement on this
issue. But one side, it's the hands of the desperate grasping at
straws and the flutter of instant experts frantically winging it.

Most of the grasping seems to be from Mitchell and his buddy Innes,
the Ellsworth Toohey of chess.

On
the other, the great millstone grinding and the pounding of nails.
Hmmmmm. Is that hammer slowly morphing into a gavel?

Let's list the nails: Mottershead report, "Bob Bennett", "Barbara
Villers", Mig's blog, the 36 different names on a blog in September
2005, Jennifer Shahade's book describing Truong sending emails under
Polgar's name....

wrote:
HAIR-SPLITTING

Geez, Larry, is your receding hairline the result of
hair splitting? -- Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer accuses this writer of casuistical
overexuberance because I argue that there is a vital,
obvious and large distinction between saying that one
believes a person to be guilty and stating directly
that the person is guilty.

Our Randy cannot see the evident difference
between Sam writing, "It is my belief that Bill Brock
is Fake Sam" and "Bill Brock is Fake Sam." The former
is a statement of opinion, easily recognized as such; the
latter is a clear accusation, easily recognized as such.

Randy's simian guffawing reminds one of some of
the stuff coming out of the mouths of the presidential
frontrunners in the primary this year.

Yours, Larry Parr



Randy Bauer wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:01 pm, " wrote:
BELIEVING IS NOT ACCUSING


"Now that I am satisfied that my evidence does not
prove that Randy Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan, I revert
to my previous belief that either Paul Truong or Bill Brock
is the Fake Sam Sloan." -- Randy Bauer

Now, then, based on the instances adduced by
Mr. Bauer, Sam did NOT accuse Bill Brock, who has
hitherto offered an implicit admission of being a child
molester, of being the Fake Sam.

Sam told us he had a list of suspects, and who
in a similar situation would not have one? He stated
his "BELIEF" that either the Brockster or Paul Truong
was the Fake Sam.

To state a belief is not to make an accusation.
Sam was properly agnostic about the identity of Fake
Sam in the quoted excerpts.

Yeahhh, right, thhhhat's the ticket.... I only said I BELIEVE he is
the fake Sam Sloan, that's not an accusation. Like in:

"I believe you stole my wallet."

"I accuse you of stealing my wallet."

Suuuuure.... those are VERY differant statements.

Geez, Larry, is your receding hairline the result of hair splitting?

Randy Bauer

You are mistaken, Larry. Labeling something something as an opinion
does not make it one. It's not the form, it's the content. What
matters is whether the alleged libel makes a statement of fact,
defined as one _capable_ of disproof. "In my opinion, John Smith is a
murderer" is a statement of fact. "It is an absolutely certain fact
that John Smith hates me" is a statement of opinion, since there is no
way even in principle to disprove it. This is such a basic point of
libel law that I'm surprised someone who worked for years in the
publishing industry doesn't grasp it.