On Oct 10, 8:39 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Brennan's willful distortions are very pertinent to this issue!

" "The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of

change. Period." So lets ignore the evidence. //Neil Brennan.

But what I wrote below, is to find WHOEVER the faker is. He fails to note my
question to Randy Bauer would appoint an INDEPENDENT person to investigate
that, and other issues embroiled in petty, but destructively spiteful,
politics.

I wonder why //Neil Brennan// can't understand that? ROFL!

I wonder why, in 5 years, Neil Brennan has never had anything good to say
about me, Paul Truong or Susan Polgar? Come to that, about Rob Mitchell
neither?

I wonder why he doesn't notice the pattern of the infamous xganon, who is
only related to my and his posts. I wonder why he doesn't notice that he
himself has posted under anonymous identities. Here he intercepts my
question to another anonymous poster.

Are these things also 'evidence' by his measure?

Guilt, even subconscious guilt, is a very powerful force relating to peoples
motives and behaviors, as powerful as the need to confess.

Phil Innes

"The Historian" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 10, 8:04 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

Amazing. Phil Innes comes back from the Dark Side. I like his
contribution to the list:

"The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of
change. Period." So lets ignore the evidence.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who was it that encouraged posters to submit "fake" posts from SLoan
on the internet a few years ago? DO we have a list of the people who
submitted posts?

"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

Who was it that encouraged posters to submit "fake" posts from SLoan
on the internet a few years ago? DO we have a list of the people who
submitted posts?

That's a good question.

I seem to remember that someone couldn't exactly say what his actions were
in this respect. I also remember that he then became an apointee to the USCF
forum in a regulatory role. I definitely remember that you and I questioned
him about the issue, and in 30,000 words or response, I was still confused
about if he was saying if he did or did not know they were false, or if he
did not say that he knew or didn't know they were false and therefore
couldn't comment on something he may or may not have said, or that he simply
forwarded them without comment and possibly without identifying them as
known to be false or not false. ggg

But forwarded them, for sure!

Phil Innes

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

The garden of truth was getting barren, but Phil Innes returned to
fertilize it. Thanks, Phil. Keep up the good work.

(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 -- 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.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:04:45 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


USCF needs an independent invigilator,

Sex toys would just be a distraction.

normally called an ombudsman,

Oh, OK. It's just that we so seldom meet invigilators, we forget what
to call 'em.

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

Good point. Correspondence ratings and identity theft/slander. How
can you address one without the other? Maybe he can fix the copier
and the chuck-hole in the parking lot too.

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:

27) USCF Governance Unified Field Theory: Periodically, while
distracting/entertaining the membership with frivolous lawsuits, line
your pockets, integrate with the mob, and pat yourself on the back for
a job well done.

Rob is our latest contributor. Thanks, Rob.

(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.

On Oct 10, 11:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:
Rob is our latest contributor. Thanks, Rob.

(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.

I've seen this one posted in many places on the web:

30) Sloan started all this years ago because Polgar refused his sexual
advances toward her and married Jacob Shutzman in 1994, divorced and
then married Truong, and he just can't accept rejection. As Sloan is
behind everything, ignore it.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:04:45 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


USCF needs an independent invigilator,

Sex toys would just be a distraction.

thank you mike murray for your contributions to this debate, about what is
decent, legal, honest and truthful. though i fail to see what you contribute
to any category

normally called an ombudsman,

Oh, OK. It's just that we so seldom meet invigilators, we forget what
to call 'em.

it is a term used outside chess, and normal in almost any industry

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

Good point. Correspondence ratings and identity theft/slander. How
can you address one without the other?

i did not suggest it did, instead you wit overcame you so that /you/ did

Maybe he can fix the copier
and the chuck-hole in the parking lot too.

a fascinating intellectual appreciation and knowledge of civil rights
[though of which country?] - why not trash the constitution directly,
instead of indirectly?

what you need to get into your head, Mike, is that you are not a judge, and
would even be an eligible jury member, since your attitude is prescriptive
to presume guilt, not innocence, and furthermore you have not displayed the
slighest interest in who the fake is, and continue to mount a kangaroo court
like even the SU would need to gloss

phil innes

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:55:21 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:

Our Man from Le Muncha is on the ball. Turning 30 and still growing.

(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.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:38:04 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

what you need to get into your head, Mike, is that you are not a judge,

Being well aware of that fact, I'm calling for the information already
gathered to be presented to one qualified to recommend invoking the
"judge".

BTW, Phil, that certainly ain't you.

and
would even be an eligible jury member, since your attitude is prescriptive
to presume guilt, not innocence, and furthermore you have not displayed the
slighest interest in who the fake is,

To the contrary. I have an intense interest in determining the fake.
It's you who insists on blowing smoke and prattling about ignoring
evidence already gathered so that we can participate in your crackpot
search for the "real" fake.

Evidence has been gathered. I eagerly await the judgment of the
credentialed expert the USCF has promised to appoint to review this
evidence. Never once have I identified someone as the proven fake.
You're the one bleating virtually indecipherable nonsense about first
doing more searching.

If the expert says, "nope, not good enough to proceed", then we don't.
If the expert says, "looks conclusive", then the USCF should take some
sort of action. That you would call this a "kangaroo court" speaks
only to your confused and befuddled state of mind.


and continue to mount a kangaroo court
like even the SU would need to gloss

phil innes