On Dec 20, 12:04 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:41 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:

P Innes, sometimes known as Fulminating Phil, reached deep into the
rubbish bin and provided the Historian with a new tip for the Blind
Monkey -- number 41 below. Thanks, Phil, we knew we could count on
you as our standard bearer, even if we can barely stand you.

Oh, and a belated thanx and a tip of the organ grinder hat to the
Historian for reminding us of number 40. Not all invalid arguments
come from P Innes.

(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" Mottershead'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. Begone, fool.
(34) Your just jealous. So is Mottershead. So shut up.
(35) Online harassment is not a crime and even if it is, it's rarely
prosecuted. So why worry about this one?
(36) Online harassment might be illegal, but the laws are obsolete. So
you fogies can just shut up.
(37) Let's put this on ice until we can determine who the victim
really is.
(38) Brian Mottershead was a political opponent. That pretty much
proves he was the FSS himself.
(39) It's USCF proprietary data. Nobody can look at it unless
authorized. It hasn't been authorized. Thus, you can't look at it.
Where's your fine evidence now, buddy? Nyahhh. Nyahhh. Nyahhhh.
40. Someone's computer may possibly have had a trace of a virus at
some point or other. So obviously he wasn't the fake poster.
41. The work of the FSS is vulgar material, and we shouldn't post
links to it or quote it. Since we can't reference it, there's no
evidence and let's forget the whole matter.

42. Someone might have used a remailer at some point over the past ten
years. So what the FSS did was OK.

43. If you post a hypothetical situation describing what the FSS might
have done when discovered, it means you have blood on your hands and
something to hide about the FSS. And you thought Cornishmen were dumb!

On Dec 21, 8:16 am, The Historian wrote:
On Dec 20, 12:04 pm, Mike Murray wrote:



On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:41 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:

P Innes, sometimes known as Fulminating Phil, reached deep into the
rubbish bin and provided the Historian with a new tip for the Blind
Monkey -- number 41 below. Thanks, Phil, we knew we could count on
you as our standard bearer, even if we can barely stand you.

Oh, and a belated thanx and a tip of the organ grinder hat to the
Historian for reminding us of number 40. Not all invalid arguments
come from P Innes.

(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" Mottershead'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. Begone, fool.
(34) Your just jealous. So is Mottershead. So shut up.
(35) Online harassment is not a crime and even if it is, it's rarely
prosecuted. So why worry about this one?
(36) Online harassment might be illegal, but the laws are obsolete. So
you fogies can just shut up.
(37) Let's put this on ice until we can determine who the victim
really is.
(38) Brian Mottershead was a political opponent. That pretty much
proves he was the FSS himself.
(39) It's USCF proprietary data. Nobody can look at it unless
authorized. It hasn't been authorized. Thus, you can't look at it.
Where's your fine evidence now, buddy? Nyahhh. Nyahhh. Nyahhhh.
40. Someone's computer may possibly have had a trace of a virus at
some point or other. So obviously he wasn't the fake poster.
41. The work of the FSS is vulgar material, and we shouldn't post
links to it or quote it. Since we can't reference it, there's no
evidence and let's forget the whole matter.

42. Someone else might have used a remailer at some point over the past ten
years. So what the FSS did was OK.

43. If you post a hypothetical situation describing what the FSS might
have done when discovered, it means you have blood on your hands and
something to hide about the FSS. And you thought Cornishmen were dumb!

Thanks to the big P Innes for the latest:

44. Sloan had no chance in the election, and none of the other
'victims' had political ambitions, so there's no need to investigate
the fake postings.

The Historian has been busy, attending to this list when its
original Custodian has been lax. Three new items.

(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" Mottershead'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. Begone, fool.
(34) Your just jealous. So is Mottershead. So shut up.
(35) Online harassment is not a crime and even if it is, it's rarely
prosecuted. So why worry about this one?
(36) Online harassment might be illegal, but the laws are obsolete. So
you fogies can just shut up.
(37) Let's put this on ice until we can determine who the victim
really is.
(38) Brian Mottershead was a political opponent. That pretty much
proves he was the FSS himself.
(39) It's USCF proprietary data. Nobody can look at it unless
authorized. It hasn't been authorized. Thus, you can't look at it.
Where's your fine evidence now, buddy? Nyahhh. Nyahhh. Nyahhhh.
(40) Someone's computer may possibly have had a trace of a virus at
some point or other. So obviously he wasn't the fake poster.
(41) The work of the FSS is vulgar material, and we shouldn't post
links to it or quote it. Since we can't reference it, there's no
evidence and let's forget the whole matter.
(42) Someone else might have used a remailer at some point over the
past ten
years. So it's unfair to attack the FSS for it.
(43) If you post a hypothetical situation describing what the FSS
might
have done when discovered, it means you have blood on your hands and
something to hide about the FSS. This on courtesy of the Cornishman.
(44) Sloan had no chance in the election (as pointed out in number 17,
above), and none of the other 'victims' had political ambitions, so
what's the point of investigating anything?

On Dec 31 2007, 12:04 pm, Mike Murray
wrote:
The Historian has been busy, attending to thislistwhen its
original Custodian has been lax. Three new items.

(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" Mottershead'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. Begone, fool.
(34) Your just jealous. So is Mottershead. So shut up.
(35) Online harassment is not a crime and even if it is, it's rarely
prosecuted. So why worry about this one?
(36) Online harassment might be illegal, but the laws are obsolete. So
you fogies can just shut up.
(37) Let's put this on ice until we can determine who the victim
really is.
(38) Brian Mottershead was a political opponent. That pretty much
proves he was the FSS himself.
(39) It's USCF proprietary data. Nobody can look at it unless
authorized. It hasn't been authorized. Thus, you can't look at it.
Where's your fine evidence now, buddy? Nyahhh. Nyahhh. Nyahhhh.
(40) Someone's computer may possibly have had a trace of a virus at
some point or other. So obviously he wasn't the fake poster.
(41) The work of the FSS is vulgar material, and we shouldn't post
links to it or quote it. Since we can't reference it, there's no
evidence and let's forget the whole matter.
(42) Someone else might have used a remailer at some point over the
past ten
years. So it's unfair to attack the FSS for it.
(43) If you post a hypothetical situation describing what the FSS
might
have done when discovered, it means you have blood on your hands and
something to hide about the FSS. This on courtesy of the Cornishman.
(44) Sloan had no chance in the election (as pointed out in number 17,
above), and none of the other 'victims' had political ambitions, so
what's the point of investigating anything?

I knew P Innes would come through with a new one:

45. The action of members of the USCF EB asking for the resignation of
another board member weren't proper, and The New York Times of the
suit has been of poor quality. So the whole matter is Mcarthyism, and
we should reject the Mottershead report.

On Jan 16, 8:29 am, The Historian wrote:
On Dec 31 2007, 12:04 pm, Mike Murray
wrote:



The Historian has been busy, attending to thislistwhen its
original Custodian has been lax. Three new items.

(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" Mottershead'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. Begone, fool.
(34) Your just jealous. So is Mottershead. So shut up.
(35) Online harassment is not a crime and even if it is, it's rarely
prosecuted. So why worry about this one?
(36) Online harassment might be illegal, but the laws are obsolete. So
you fogies can just shut up.
(37) Let's put this on ice until we can determine who the victim
really is.
(38) Brian Mottershead was a political opponent. That pretty much
proves he was the FSS himself.
(39) It's USCF proprietary data. Nobody can look at it unless
authorized. It hasn't been authorized. Thus, you can't look at it.
Where's your fine evidence now, buddy? Nyahhh. Nyahhh. Nyahhhh.
(40) Someone's computer may possibly have had a trace of a virus at
some point or other. So obviously he wasn't the fake poster.
(41) The work of the FSS is vulgar material, and we shouldn't post
links to it or quote it. Since we can't reference it, there's no
evidence and let's forget the whole matter.
(42) Someone else might have used a remailer at some point over the
past ten
years. So it's unfair to attack the FSS for it.
(43) If you post a hypothetical situation describing what the FSS
might
have done when discovered, it means you have blood on your hands and
something to hide about the FSS. This on courtesy of the Cornishman.
(44) Sloan had no chance in the election (as pointed out in number 17,
above), and none of the other 'victims' had political ambitions, so
what's the point of investigating anything?

I knew P Innes would come through with a new one:

45. The action of members of the USCF EB asking for the resignation of
another board member weren't proper, and The New York Times of the
suit has been of poor quality. So the whole matter is Mcarthyism, and
we should reject the Mottershead report.

Suggested by a posting of Larry Parr:

46. The Executive Board of the USCF is itself depraved, and if so why
are we concerned with the Mottershead report? When in Rome....

"The Historian" wrote in message
...

I knew P Innes would come through with a new one:

45. The action of members of the USCF EB asking for the resignation of
another board member weren't proper, and The New York Times of the
suit has been of poor quality. So the whole matter is Mcarthyism, and
we should reject the Mottershead report.

But what happens if the board did not tell the truth about cooperating with
lawyers and insurance? Then will this fatuous fool have no further curiosity
than Prosecutor Murray or Investigator Spinrad?

Thus far they have contrived to bring 44 previous reasons why only one thing
should be considered, doubting nothing of its veracity. Dammit - they might
as well write for the Times itself!

What Neil Brennan knows about McCarthyite technique is as unknown as his
knowledge of any subject. What Brennan /does/ is to deploy that technique of
castigating others by negative aspersions.

This is the quintessential difference between an idiot and abusenik, though,
as in chess itself, sometimes two truly stupid factors combine to render
one's game over.

In this instance, it is very clear-cut - either Susan Polgar lied to me
today, or the board and its hacks did to the New York Times yesterday.

Let us all agree the penalty for such lies, no matter who are the liars. But
if Susan Polgar is proven correct in this instance, then... why did others
act as they did?

Therefore, by the inane logic of the celebrants he to add to this list,
item #47, might mention that if you are caught openly lying, then this has
utterly no consequence since; what are facts and decency to do with any of
this vile public rubbishing?

And we already know the answer to that one; nothing whatever.

Phil Innes

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:41 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:

Despite P Innes' attempts to spank the Monkey, our simian diligently
goes about his work, collecting and presenting non-sequiturs and
fallacious arguments.

(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" Mottershead'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. Begone, fool.
(34) Your just jealous. So is Mottershead. So shut up.
(35) Online harassment is not a crime and even if it is, it's rarely
prosecuted. So why worry about this one?
(36) Online harassment might be illegal, but the laws are obsolete. So
you fogies can just shut up.
(37) Let's put this on ice until we can determine who the victim
really is.
(38) Brian Mottershead was a political opponent. That pretty much
proves he was the FSS himself.
(39) It's USCF proprietary data. Nobody can look at it unless
authorized. It hasn't been authorized. Thus, you can't look at it.
Where's your fine evidence now, buddy? Nyahhh. Nyahhh. Nyahhhh.
(40) Someone's computer may possibly have had a trace of a virus at
some point or other. So obviously he wasn't the fake poster.
(41) The work of the FSS is vulgar material, and we shouldn't post
links to it or quote it. Since we can't reference it, there's no
evidence and let's forget the whole matter.
(42) Someone else might have used a remailer at some point over the
past ten
years. So it's unfair to attack the FSS for it.
(43) If you post a hypothetical situation describing what the FSS
might have done when discovered, it means you have blood on your hands
and something to hide about the FSS. This on courtesy of the
Cornishman.
(44) Sloan had no chance in the election (as pointed out in number 17,
above), and none of the other 'victims' had political ambitions, so
what's the point of investigating anything?
(45) The action of members of the USCF EB asking for the resignation
of another board member was illegal, and The New York Times account of
the suit has been of poor quality. Thus the whole matter is
McCarthyism, and we should reject the Mottershead report. Yes, this
gives new meaning to "Philology."
(46). The Executive Board of the USCF has a history of depravity. The
Mottershead report? A mere comedone midst a cluster of festering
pustules.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:26:53 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:


But what happens if the board did not tell the truth about cooperating with
lawyers and insurance? Then will this fatuous fool have no further curiosity
than Prosecutor Murray or Investigator Spinrad?

If someone demonstrates the board lied, this would be news and I'm
pretty certain the Times would publish it.

Thus far they have contrived to bring 44 previous reasons why only one thing
should be considered, doubting nothing of its veracity.

Debunking 47 bad arguments supporting Proposition "X" does not demand
"X" be false, doesn't even imply it. For example, if Phil Innes makes
the claim, "The Earth is round because marbles are round", and I
ridicule him for it, this doesn't mean I believe the Earth is flat.

Dammit - they might
as well write for the Times itself!

Wow, what a compliment! Thanks. Me, a NYT writer. Who'd a thunk it?
I never even went to Journalism school.

In this instance, it is very clear-cut - either Susan Polgar lied to me
today, or the board and its hacks did to the New York Times yesterday.

These are not the only possible explanations, Phil. Here are a few
others: (1) The board misunderstood PT, (2) PT misunderstood the USCF
attorney's demand, (3) PT did not communicate everything to his wife.
This list is by no means exhaustive.

Therefore, by the inane logic of the celebrants he to add to this list,
item #47, might mention that if you are caught openly lying, then this has
utterly no consequence since; what are facts and decency to do with any of
this vile public rubbishing?

And we already know the answer to that one; nothing whatever.

How about we get asked to resign?

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:26:53 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:


But what happens if the board did not tell the truth about cooperating
with
lawyers and insurance? Then will this fatuous fool have no further
curiosity
than Prosecutor Murray or Investigator Spinrad?

If someone demonstrates the board lied, this would be news and I'm
pretty certain the Times would publish it.

i think in another post, i represented the views of Susan Polgar to this
effect - the attenuating feature to 'demonstrate' is that she didn't think
the board would open up

which is a very odd observation - since, evidently, that would resolve very
much!

Thus far they have contrived to bring 44 previous reasons why only one
thing
should be considered, doubting nothing of its veracity.

Debunking 47 bad arguments supporting Proposition "X" does not demand

wait Mike - you must remember you are not the resident dictator here - nor
even teh judge. if you want to be the prosecutor or proponent of a certain
point of view - that is all very well, but you don't get to run the entire
conversation, nor decide the rules yourself

the arguments are not bad, except FATuous people lampoon them by virtue of
their own misanthropy

to be taken seriously, if you want to argue one side of something, you
cannot really resent 47 other points of view, and pretend that your own is
something miraculous!

"X" be false, doesn't even imply it. For example, if Phil Innes makes
the claim, "The Earth is round because marbles are round", and I
ridicule him for it, this doesn't mean I believe the Earth is flat.

If you make silly comparisons, then you can win all you like on the silly
scale. And that is what your list achieves.

Dammit - they might
as well write for the Times itself!

Wow, what a compliment! Thanks. Me, a NYT writer. Who'd a thunk it?
I never even went to Journalism school.

Its no compliment to you nor them! Their coverage of chess is atrocious.

In this instance, it is very clear-cut - either Susan Polgar lied to me
today, or the board and its hacks did to the New York Times yesterday.

These are not the only possible explanations, Phil. Here are a few
others: (1) The board misunderstood PT, (2) PT misunderstood the USCF
attorney's demand, (3) PT did not communicate everything to his wife.
This list is by no means exhaustive.

Nope! Sorry - you are not up with the game. The issue the board represented
was that Truong was not co-operating. Polgar said she could prove he was,
and wanted to make that proof public!

Neither was she aware of the 'leak' to the times, by the secret USCF meeting
[itself an illegal claim to be baord opinion] and I wonder if Mr. Canning
was involved either.

Since I have mentioned all these things, there has been a silence quiet as
the snows from board-boosters.

But Susan Polgar just tossed the ball back to the board - saying, in effect,
let the whole thing be opened up - I have nothing to hide - do you?

Therefore, by the inane logic of the celebrants he to add to this
list,
item #47, might mention that if you are caught openly lying, then this has
utterly no consequence since; what are facts and decency to do with any of
this vile public rubbishing?

And we already know the answer to that one; nothing whatever.

How about we get asked to resign?

'We'. Resign what?

Look, if you have been caught up in a little excitement [at someone else's
expense] this is not exactly big of you, nevertheless you have a critical
mind to investigate the issue - there is no point in resigning from anything
except if you wish to avoid the logically honorable consequence of your
previous actions.

You should stay with it, continued to be skeptical, and apply your
discrimination, but just enlarge its scope to take in the possibility that
what you have prosecuted here so far is not the whole picture.

Polgar's offer to open up would allow that whole picture to emerge into the
public sphere and to all USCF members. Isn't this actually what everyone has
been asking for - transparency of actions? Therefore, the board can allow
that or inhibit it by not playing. I leave it to your own determinations,
Mike, to think what you will of them if they do not.

Cordially, Phil Innes

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:45:15 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:


Polgar's offer to open up would allow that whole picture to emerge into the
public sphere and to all USCF members. Isn't this actually what everyone has
been asking for - transparency of actions?

Seems like a good step to me. Am anxious to watch it unfold. Of
course, transparency works both ways.