On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:32:38 -0700, The Historian
wrote:


This one doesn't impress me too much. It assumes we understand what
the presumed hacker is trying to do, and that the hacker is rational,
in addition to being fiendishly clever, and very, very patient. It's
just the other side of the coin from the spurious arguments Phil and
Rob have been making -- that we can say "well, there's no reason [of
which we're aware]

Your own writing is not 'fiendishly clever', it is juvenile

The words you quote referred to the hacker. At any rate, "juvenile"
beats "foolish" any day of the week.


that is no quote of
mine above, "well, there is no reason...

I said it was your "spurious argument". That means it was a summary
of one of your many positions. Doesn't mean I claimed it was a direct
quote. You claim to be a journalist?

What I said is that it is //behavior out of character// as I know it. You
see, I didn't say it is impossible, I qualified my own statement to say
something relative about it - and to be as honest as I could.

And I didn't say you claimed it was "impossible". And "to be as
honest as [you] could"? Phil, I have FAITH in you -- you CAN do
better, if you really, really try.

I am not interested in fixing up Paul Truong - I am interested in the
false-Sloan. You will not admit the difference in these approaches, and by
the same logic that you accuse me of shading my comment to protect Paul
Truong, you accuse yourself //by the same measure// of shading for someone
trying to implicate Truong.

This statement is intellectually dishonest even for you. What I've
been advocating, Phil, namely having a credentialed expert examine
the evidence Mottershead gathered could well CLEAR Truong. I've been
making fun of stupid, spurious arguments people, yourself included,
have made against taking this step.

And I've invited you to proceed with your own Inspector Cleaseau
investigations. I'd listen. You're right, I'd probably make fun of
you too, but only if your argument was stupid.

glug glug !

"Glug, Glug" ? You must be washing down your hat and humble pie with
the juice of some bitter lemon -- have you read Mig today, Phil?

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:49:43 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:32:38 -0700, The Historian
wrote:


In case it's not obvious, I was responding to Phil. The Historian
had quoted a long chunk of Phil's detritus and I should have pointed
by newsreader one click up the chain.

My apologies, Neil.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:49:43 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:32:38 -0700, The Historian
wrote:


In case it's not obvious, I was responding to Phil. The Historian
had quoted a long chunk of Phil's detritus and I should have pointed
by newsreader one click up the chain.

My apologies, Neil.

Now Mike Murray apologises to the biggest hate merchant in these newsgroup -
not content with eliminating all other material including character and
motive [ROFL!] which he terms 'detritus'.

Its only his own 'evidence' which he permits here, not 23 other factors. He
even says he is looking for who did it )))

Not only the biggest hate merchant apologised too, but someone who has
dogged the same issues of Sloan/Polgar/Truong as well as Innes/Mitchell, and
used varieties of identity to do so.

Neil Brennan shows up here again after a year's absense, and now we got us a
fair jury says Commisar Murray.

Phil Innes

On Oct 13, 9:11 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:49:43 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:32:38 -0700, The Historian
wrote:

In case it's not obvious, I was responding to Phil. The Historian
had quoted a long chunk of Phil's detritus and I should have pointed
by newsreader one click up the chain.

My apologies, Neil.

I wasn't aware I had recused myself. Anyway.. Mike demonstrated the
point I was trying to make and Neil grazed the evidence but didn't
quite get it full face. Phil has tried to explain why what was written
would not hold to the character of PT. WHat he writes is summarily
discounted because of a personal avarice hels towards him be one or
more posters here. It is a pity that people who wish to pose as
rational and thoughtful come accross like that.

Mike can be very honest at times when the evidence is clear. eg the
"Prozac" boat incident that left one detractor of mine looking silly
as the fell into my trap! :-)

So, if you can get past your personal distaste for me, look at my
suggestions closely and use an honest brain and unbiased logic to
determine the validity or the evidence when purported to argue against
Paul.

If you honestly will remove the emerald colored glasses and put aside
envy, I feel certain rationality will prevail.

FYI : This posting is not directed to or against any particular
individual.
Rob

On Oct 11, 3:52 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:41 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:

Reviewing this thread, I discovered I had unfairly omitted a valid
contribution. My apologies to Chester.

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 steal their identities.
(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) Authorized 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.
(13) You can identify the fakes by inspecting the headers so they're
not really fakes at all, just lampoons.
(14) The accusers don't have pure motives, so evidence they've
gathered should be ignored.
(15) Other people had motive and opportunity to make fake Sloan posts,
so why believe the evidence gathered?
(16) Stylistic analysis clears one suspect, regardless of any
electronic evidence.
(17) Sloan would have lost the election anyway, so who cares?
(18) Other people have done worse things. Why not focus our limited
law enforcement resources on terrorists and violent criminals?
(19) Sloan's charges are overly broad and not well crafted, so let's
ignore the stuff Mottershead found
(20) These fake poster(s) are forging web signatures and following the
suspect around the globe. We have absolutely no idea how it was done
or how to do it, but a child can do it. So ignore it.
(21) Anyone who hasn't considered the evil Historian has no
credibility. So quit talking about it.
(22) Gordon is 0-18 in court, so all the evidence is bogus. Give it
up.
(23) Sloan is 1-xx in court, so all the evidence is bogus. Are you
done yet?
(24) This is a witch-hunt that coddles Sloan. Have you no shame, sir?
Have you no shame?
(25) Mottershead used time on the clock or his own personal time to
conduct an unauthorized investigation on -- it would be rational to
assume he altered the information. So it's all wrong. (And you thought
they didn't study logic in Tennessee).
(26) The USCF forum no longer displays IP addresses for each post, so
folks can't conduct investigations of their choosing. So, it's only
fair to discard Mottershead's findings.
(27) Tim Redman called the USCF Forum "entirely political" and one of
the people scrutinized has chosen not to participate. We must ignore
the findings.
(28) The investigation is political, designed to neutralize agents of
change. Period. Don't pander to counter-revolutionaries! Naaaa Naaaa
Naaaa Naaaa. I can't hear you. I can't hear you.
(29) Sloan is a perpetual political candidate, so all the fakes were
political satire and are protected free speech. Throw it all out.
Next case.
(30) Long-standing jealousy and resentment over spurned advances have
driven Sloan to evil acts. So ignore what Mottershead found.
(31) Phil and Rob "actually know the people involved and witness to
their character" Motterhead's document is illusion.
(32) The Russian Mob made all those posts. Remember, you didn't hear
nothin', you didn't see nothin', you won't say nothin'. Kapeesh?
(33) What are these stupid posts when balanced against millions in
revenue to the USCF. Be gone, fool.

Wow! Just when I think that the well has run dry, the Truong
cheerleaders save the day!

(34) Contrary to their cited testimony, the individuals who compile
these lists sole motive for doing so is their jealousy toward Truong.
Discard Mottersheads' findings. [Baring any reason to question their
impartiality, forget their argument, attack them indirectly ad
hominem, ad hominem]

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 6:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 10, 2:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:

(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess,
so knock it off.

I think this more accurately reflects the zealots' stance:

11) Susan and Paul are Beyond Reproach and anyone who
suggests otherwise must be silenced immediately, and any
forum which permits such criticism must be abolished.

No - I certainly don't think so, in fact, let's open this one up,
'completely'. Ready?

What's your name?
Are you a party to this issue?
Have you ever met these people?
Are you aware of their reputation around the country in promoting chess?
Selected material, gathered by one party, is not evidence in law,
although,
you may agree [?] it /could/ be.

If you can't answer all these questions, I suggest the rest of this is
not
for you.

++++++++++++

How about other 11s ?

11a) regardless of who is being accused, no witch-hunts against any
individual can be pursued on a forum [a forum which ex-President Tim
Redman
recently termed 'entirely political' and also BTW one in which PT and SP
do
not contribute]

or do you like something more sarcastic;-

11b) seeking the identity of malicious posters is a subject which must be
silenced immediately, except if its the people you don't like

And finally

In place of ALL 1-26)

USCF needs an independent invigilator, normally called an ombudsman, to
settle such issues as this, and indeed, other contentious issues, such as
the performance of the rating system for correspondence players, which
was
inoperable for 9 months in the past FY, and which an NM suggested was
necessary to retain the confidence of all corres players.

I would say that USCF fails to act all the time since it simply ignores
the
problem, then when it erupts again with a will, it is of dimensions which
cannot be managed [typical non-profit behavior when board is stacked with
enthusiasts].

This last item is an interesting one. During pre-election interviews
Randy
Bauer could not agree with it. But to his credit, he made reasonable
objections. I wonder if he would shade more with my point of view, now?

I suggested that the Ombudsman needed to make suggestions for policy and
operation which were practical - and as such, if they were actually
doable,
the board should be bound by them.

--

The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of
change.
Period.

The surface factors of impersonations are of natural concern to those
impersonated, but absurd in terms of the characters of those accused. In
short, its a attempt to render the current board dysfunctional in terms
of
necessary remedies to current problems, and to future orientations.
Whatever
is the status quo is the thing being defended.

Phil Innes

Summary:

No! No summary from you. That was my invitation, as above. Since if you
can't answer these straightforward open honest questions, but can you
possibly be about?

I don't need a grey beard, and to come from Vienna, to have asked. You
didn;t just pass on being honest, you passed on the rule of law.

Phil Innes

On Oct 13, 2:05 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 10, 6:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Oct 10, 2:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:

(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess,
so knock it off.

I think this more accurately reflects the zealots' stance:

11) Susan and Paul are Beyond Reproach and anyone who
suggests otherwise must be silenced immediately, and any
forum which permits such criticism must be abolished.

No - I certainly don't think so, in fact, let's open this one up,
'completely'. Ready?

What's your name?
Are you a party to this issue?
Have you ever met these people?
Are you aware of their reputation around the country in promoting chess?
Selected material, gathered by one party, is not evidence in law,
although,
you may agree [?] it /could/ be.

If you can't answer all these questions, I suggest the rest of this is
not
for you.

++++++++++++

How about other 11s ?

11a) regardless of who is being accused, no witch-hunts against any
individual can be pursued on a forum [a forum which ex-President Tim
Redman
recently termed 'entirely political' and also BTW one in which PT and SP
do
not contribute]

or do you like something more sarcastic;-

11b) seeking the identity of malicious posters is a subject which must be
silenced immediately, except if its the people you don't like

And finally

In place of ALL 1-26)

USCF needs an independent invigilator, normally called an ombudsman, to
settle such issues as this, and indeed, other contentious issues, such as
the performance of the rating system for correspondence players, which
was
inoperable for 9 months in the past FY, and which an NM suggested was
necessary to retain the confidence of all corres players.

I would say that USCF fails to act all the time since it simply ignores
the
problem, then when it erupts again with a will, it is of dimensions which
cannot be managed [typical non-profit behavior when board is stacked with
enthusiasts].

This last item is an interesting one. During pre-election interviews
Randy
Bauer could not agree with it. But to his credit, he made reasonable
objections. I wonder if he would shade more with my point of view, now?

I suggested that the Ombudsman needed to make suggestions for policy and
operation which were practical - and as such, if they were actually
doable,
the board should be bound by them.

--

The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of
change.
Period.

The surface factors of impersonations are of natural concern to those
impersonated, but absurd in terms of the characters of those accused. In
short, its a attempt to render the current board dysfunctional in terms
of
necessary remedies to current problems, and to future orientations.
Whatever
is the status quo is the thing being defended.

Phil Innes

Summary:

No! No summary from you. That was my invitation, as above. Since if you
can't answer these straightforward open honest questions, but can you
possibly be about?

I don't need a grey beard, and to come from Vienna, to have asked. You
didn;t just pass on being honest, you passed on the rule of law.

Phil Innes

Well, gee Phil, thanks for informing me that "you write the rules of
posting here." You quoted Mike, and he responded to you. Later, I
contended that entries into this impartial list, per Mike's thread
rule--he created the thread, this is his idea, his de facto
intellectual property--must stand on their own merit and thus are best
made anonymously. Mike agreed. If you wish to make a new thread, of
any subject to your choosing, I wish you the best. This is now a dead
issue.

Make up rules and pseudo-law to your heart's content.

On Oct 13, 10:11 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:49:43 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:32:38 -0700, The Historian
wrote:

In case it's not obvious, I was responding to Phil. The Historian
had quoted a long chunk of Phil's detritus and I should have pointed
by newsreader one click up the chain.

My apologies, Neil.

No apologies needed, Mike. Perhaps I'm at fault for quoting Innes'
word-scat.

Meanwhile, I see Innes is back to his usual ad-hom routine. Doesn't he
realize that we all know ad-hom is his only method of debate, and so
we are hardened against it?

On Oct 13, 11:12 am, Rob wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:11 am, Mike Murray wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:49:43 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:32:38 -0700, The Historian
wrote:

In case it's not obvious, I was responding to Phil. The Historian
had quoted a long chunk of Phil's detritus and I should have pointed
by newsreader one click up the chain.

My apologies, Neil.

I wasn't aware I had recused myself. Anyway.. Mike demonstrated the
point I was trying to make and Neil grazed the evidence but didn't
quite get it full face.

There was nothing to graze.

Phil has tried to explain why what was written
would not hold to the character of PT.

Sorry, that one already made the list. Do you agree, Mike?

WHat (sic) he writes is summarily
discounted because of a personal avarice hels (sic) towards him be one or
more posters here.

Personal "avarice?" Is there another 35K "deal memo" in the works?

It is a pity that people who wish to pose as
rational and thoughtful come accross (sic) like that.

Mike can be very honest at times when the evidence is clear. eg the
"Prozac" boat incident that left one detractor of mine looking silly
as the fell into my trap! :-)

How it felt to the folks on the depression newsgroup you posted your
false statement to hasn't been discussed.

Snipped remainder sorry and soggy pleading from an associate of
Truong.

On Oct 13, 9:06 pm, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:12 am, Rob wrote:



On Oct 13, 9:11 am, Mike Murray wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:49:43 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:32:38 -0700, The Historian
wrote:

In case it's not obvious, I was responding to Phil. The Historian
had quoted a long chunk of Phil's detritus and I should have pointed
by newsreader one click up the chain.

My apologies, Neil.

I wasn't aware I had recused myself. Anyway.. Mike demonstrated the
point I was trying to make and Neil grazed the evidence but didn't
quite get it full face.

There was nothing to graze.

Phil has tried to explain why what was written

would not hold to the character of PT.

Sorry, that one already made the list. Do you agree, Mike?

WHat (sic) he writes is summarily

discounted because of a personal avarice hels (sic) towards him be one or
more posters here.

Personal "avarice?" Is there another 35K "deal memo" in the works?

It is a pity that people who wish to pose as

rational and thoughtful come accross (sic) like that.

Mike can be very honest at times when the evidence is clear. eg the
"Prozac" boat incident that left one detractor of mine looking silly
as the fell into my trap! :-)

How it felt to the folks on the depression newsgroup you posted your
false statement to hasn't been discussed.

Snipped remainder sorry and soggy pleading from an associate of
Truong.

Neil,
I has tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and I have NOT
attacked you, belittled you, condemned you in any way shape or form.
Why you continue to attack me when I have not attacked you or Mike or
anyone except Sloan is beyond me.
You try to silence discussion on any topic that the opinion does not
coincide with yours by way of personal attacks. What kind of person
would do that?

Nothing in what I saw of the Mottershead posting would I consider
condemning to Paul. To the contrary, I think it does more to vindicate
him.

Rob