"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
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.

neither do i pretend to be !- but the point is that YOU act like one! get
it?

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.

Really? by virtue of what that you have written? Aren't you come to this a
bit late?

It's you who insists on blowing smoke and prattling about ignoring
evidence

your entire behavior belies what you say - so who are you kidding?

already gathered so that we can participate in your crackpot
search for the "real" fake.

another prescription from the guy who says he wants to know ... he doesn't
want to know anything! he wants to judge!

Evidence has been gathered.

i assume you have read a louis blair post. not even his mother could keep a
straight face with that selected stuff, which is not evidence of anything
anyone meant - it is a collation of stuff deliberately cobled together sans
any context

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.

i see you are not quoting my bleating - what an arse you are!

you just sound like someone impatient to nail someone ... some particular
one! and you object to any pause for due process while pretending you have
an open mind. you even write that you don't think motive is important -
ROFL - not quite understanding that I mean the reproter of the evidence, and
your own!

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.

so speaks honest mike, who has heard of some 'evidence', and not of any
other, and says here reserving judgement is 'befuddlement' to his anxious
mind, which is so urgent to knock out something i am saying! though he can't
say why

he would rather rubbish people who ask him why he is so hot! and why is he?
)

phil innes


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


phil innes

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:16:18 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


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.

neither do i pretend to be !- but the point is that YOU act like one! get
it?

No, as usual Phil, nobody gets it but you.

To the contrary. I have an intense interest in determining the fake.

Really? by virtue of what that you have written? Aren't you come to this a
bit late?

No, as usual Phil, you've evidently read but a smattering of what's
been posted.

It's you who insists on blowing smoke and prattling about ignoring
evidence

your entire behavior belies what you say - so who are you kidding?

As usual, Phil, nobody has to kid you. You're self sufficient in that
respect.

already gathered so that we can participate in your crackpot
search for the "real" fake.

another prescription from the guy who says he wants to know ... he doesn't
want to know anything! he wants to judge!

Judging you as a crackpot is a much easier task than identifying the
fake(s). We have as evidence the whole corpus of your pretentious,
poorly written, strangely punctuated and sloppy, typo-ridden, confused
postings to this news group. And every now and then, a few choice
tidbits from other groups. Your legacy, as it were.

Just ask yourself this, Phil: why do you think so many posters make
fun of you and make you the butt of jokes? Is it because they take
you seriously and are threatened by your incisive insight? OR is
it......... Satan?

Evidence has been gathered.

i assume you have read a louis blair post. not even his mother could keep a
straight face with that selected stuff, which is not evidence of anything
anyone meant - it is a collation of stuff deliberately cobled together sans
any context

So, you've "judged" the evidence already, have you Phil, and found it
wanting? What you've read gives precious little indication you've
read any of it. Maybe you couldn't understand it.

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.

i see you are not quoting my bleating - what an arse you are!

Why bother? Based on some of your past behavior, you'd probably deny
you wrote it.

you just sound like someone impatient to nail someone ... some particular
one! and you object to any pause for due process while pretending you have
an open mind. you even write that you don't think motive is important -
ROFL - not quite understanding that I mean the reproter of the evidence, and
your own!

Oh, I understood you thought it was the "reproter" of the evidence
whose motive was important, Phil. That's why I considered your
remarks to be extra stupid, even for you. When the USCF hires its
credentialed subject matter expert, he'll be able to evaluate the
material without doing any psychological profile of Mottershead.

How is requesting due process "denying any pause for due process" ?
Oh, maybe you really meant, "stumble around, waiting for Phil to
stylistically identify the perp(s)".

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.

so speaks honest mike, who has heard of some 'evidence', and not of any
other, and says here reserving judgement is 'befuddlement' to his anxious
mind, which is so urgent to knock out something i am saying! though he can't
say why

I've said why several times, Phil. But, OK, one more time: because
so much of what you're writing doesn't make sense. Clear enough?

he would rather rubbish people who ask him why he is so hot! and why is he?
)

You're the mind reader, Phil. You tell us.

FULL TRANSPARENCY IS IMPERATIVE

Mike Murray's list of arguments advanced in the
Fake Sam-Gordon case was amusing and largely true.

Two points come to mind. I think they were, if
memory serves, Nos. 13 and 15.

If the author of a fake post uses a fairly easily
discernible fake address, is there a possible defense
that he was merely engaging in a dementedly prolonged
exercise in satire? That argument might not be so
legally loony.

The second point is one of authorial style. If
Paul Truong can point out distinct differences between
his writing style and the style in thousands of online
messages, then he has a defense. For if it is
difficult to imagine someone being able to burrow into
Truong's computer identity to fake messages so as to
frame the man, then it is even more difficult to
believe that Truong could sustain other styles of
writing over thousands of messages. The issue of
difficulty cuts both ways -- pro-and anti-Truong --
in this instance.

Now, to the issue of appointing an expert and
getting down to cases. Mike thinks that a fairly
simple issue.

I don't.

It ought to be simple. But it isn't.

Unless there is total transparency in the appointment
process -- which there won't be. What precise instructions
will be given to this expert? What will be his writ? Will we
be able to view in full light the process of investigation?

Is there reason to trust the Executive Board
members to be fair brokers? So far as I have
experienced the insider workings of the Federation,
the answer has to be a big, big NO!

First, outright crookedness.

I well recollect being a forgotten attendee
during a closed discussion of a U.S. Open bid during
the 1985 Hollywood U.S. Open. Many of the same
personalities are still around and still pulling
strings. This writer was called in for a fairly
polite talk with the Board over my coverage of
Campomanes' cancellation of the first K-K match.

The talk ended -- at which point the subject of the Open
bids came up without yours truly being dismissed right away.
There was anger that a Board member had bragged publicly
that the bid was already his. The Board was thus
forced to give the bid to Ralph Hall and those
organizing the Portland U.S. Open. The Board members
had earlier been going through a public charade that a
decision had not been made during the formal bid
presentations. Somewhere along the line the
politicos noticed I was still present, and I was
asked to leave.

Yes, it is that dishonest, low and crooked
among these people. They lie in public with
concerned, straight faces.

Then one recollects an episode that has a
direct bearing on hiring an expert to examine the
provenance of the Fake Sam-Gordon messages. I refer
to the Board hiring the Pinkerton Detective Agency --
at the instigation of Bill Goichberg! -- to go after
Larry Evans over authorship of a scurrilous political
mailing during an election campaign. The relevant
point: When Evans was cleared (insofar as one can
ever prove a negative) the investigation was suddenly
called off by those who demanded it after evidence
appeared implicating political allies who were
serving on the board. Red-faced board members
members then paid the bill out of their own pockets.

Will some of the same personalities and their
allies pull the same trick again with Paul Truong?
Will they bring in an expert whose job it is either to
clear or convict Truong, depending on the political
exigencies of the moment?

Based on precedent, we can expect crooked
dealing UNLESS there is total transparency in the
appointment and investigative process.

The idea that you can trust the board members --
in any setting outside a well-lighted one -- is farcical.

Yours, Larry Parr

On Oct 10, 1:43 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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.

I just discovered another item on Usenet, the Ninja, Sloan's blog,
Susan's blog/site, and in the archives::

31) To prove his worthiness to the self-styled Queen of Chess, the
suitor (PT) had to belittle and humiliate all loud critics (Sloan,
Gordon, et. al.) of the Queen's rule. Thus, unaided, yet unceasingly,
he conducted the elaborate, and now infamous Usenet and USCF
Discussion board smear campaigns against the critics; ultimately
winning the Queen's hand favor, then matrimony whist both ascended to
the EB throne. As this is the stuff movies are made of, disregard the
peons' whining (Sloan, Gordon, et. al.) and lets get on with the
groveling.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:01:45 -0700, "
wrote:

FULL TRANSPARENCY IS IMPERATIVE

Mike Murray's list of arguments advanced in the
Fake Sam-Gordon case was amusing and largely true.

Two points come to mind. I think they were, if
memory serves, Nos. 13 and 15.

If the author of a fake post uses a fairly easily
discernible fake address, is there a possible defense
that he was merely engaging in a dementedly prolonged
exercise in satire? That argument might not be so
legally loony.

I guess a court would have to decide whether a defensible line was
crossed. But the addresses (e.g., and
) were easily discernible only if you'd already been
TOLD they were phony. They looked real. Sam posted several times to
inform people it wasn't really him. So did Gordon. A person not
steeped in rec.games.chess.* could hardly be expected to know this if
he did a Google search and got a lot of hits on these fake posts.

When the fake made physical threats against Marcus using my name,
Marcus believed it was me, at least for a while. Someone might argue
it was a joke, but it was hardly satire.

The second point is one of authorial style. If
Paul Truong can point out distinct differences between
his writing style and the style in thousands of online
messages, then he has a defense. For if it is
difficult to imagine someone being able to burrow into
Truong's computer identity to fake messages so as to
frame the man, then it is even more difficult to
believe that Truong could sustain other styles of
writing over thousands of messages. The issue of
difficulty cuts both ways -- pro-and anti-Truong --
in this instance.

Who knows? There may be software that can perform that sort of
textual analysis. But when the perp sticks with short sentences, few
big words, lots of copy-paste -- it doesn't seem easy to me.

Now, to the issue of appointing an expert and
getting down to cases. Mike thinks that a fairly
simple issue.

I don't.

It ought to be simple. But it isn't.

Unless there is total transparency in the appointment
process -- which there won't be. What precise instructions
will be given to this expert? What will be his writ? Will we
be able to view in full light the process of investigation?

Or will partisans again invoke the issue of privacy as a trump, while
simultaneously claiming the investigation was biased?
....
Based on precedent, we can expect crooked
dealing UNLESS there is total transparency in the
appointment and investigative process.

I agree. We need transparency and full disclosure of the expert's
credentials and the reason for picking that expert over others, and
some view of the report.

And we shouldn't forget that the expert's report can't send someone to
jail or force anyone to pay damages -- that next step would be up to
the courts.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:09:51 -0700, wrote:


I just discovered another item on Usenet, the Ninja, Sloan's blog,
Susan's blog/site, and in the archives::

31) To prove his worthiness to the self-styled Queen of Chess, the
suitor (PT) had to belittle and humiliate all loud critics (Sloan,
Gordon, et. al.) of the Queen's rule. Thus, unaided, yet unceasingly,
he conducted the elaborate, and now infamous Usenet and USCF
Discussion board smear campaigns against the critics; ultimately
winning the Queen's hand favor, then matrimony whist both ascended to
the EB throne. As this is the stuff movies are made of, disregard the
peons' whining (Sloan, Gordon, et. al.) and lets get on with the
groveling.

Interesting, indeed, but to qualify for the list, the item has to
represent arguments actually made by those *opposed* to using
Mottershead's report.

BEEP

On Oct 10, 10:01 pm, " wrote:
FULL TRANSPARENCY IS IMPERATIVE

Mike Murray's list of arguments advanced in the
Fake Sam-Gordon case was amusing and largely true.

Two points come to mind. I think they were, if
memory serves, Nos. 13 and 15.

If the author of a fake post uses a fairly easily
discernible fake address, is there a possible defense
that he was merely engaging in a dementedly prolonged
exercise in satire? That argument might not be so
legally loony.

The second point is one of authorial style. If
Paul Truong can point out distinct differences between
his writing style and the style in thousands of online
messages, then he has a defense. For if it is
difficult to imagine someone being able to burrow into
Truong's computer identity to fake messages so as to
frame the man, then it is even more difficult to
believe that Truong could sustain other styles of
writing over thousands of messages. The issue of
difficulty cuts both ways -- pro-and anti-Truong --
in this instance.

Now, to the issue of appointing an expert and
getting down to cases. Mike thinks that a fairly
simple issue.

I don't.

It ought to be simple. But it isn't.

Unless there is total transparency in the appointment
process -- which there won't be. What precise instructions
will be given to this expert? What will be his writ? Will we
be able to view in full light the process of investigation?

Is there reason to trust the Executive Board
members to be fair brokers? So far as I have
experienced the insider workings of the Federation,
the answer has to be a big, big NO!

First, outright crookedness.

I well recollect being a forgotten attendee
during a closed discussion of a U.S. Open bid during
the 1985 Hollywood U.S. Open. Many of the same
personalities are still around and still pulling
strings. This writer was called in for a fairly
polite talk with the Board over my coverage of
Campomanes' cancellation of the first K-K match.

The talk ended -- at which point the subject of the Open
bids came up without yours truly being dismissed right away.
There was anger that a Board member had bragged publicly
that the bid was already his. The Board was thus
forced to give the bid to Ralph Hall and those
organizing the Portland U.S. Open. The Board members
had earlier been going through a public charade that a
decision had not been made during the formal bid
presentations. Somewhere along the line the
politicos noticed I was still present, and I was
asked to leave.

Yes, it is that dishonest, low and crooked
among these people. They lie in public with
concerned, straight faces.

Then one recollects an episode that has a
direct bearing on hiring an expert to examine the
provenance of the Fake Sam-Gordon messages. I refer
to the Board hiring the Pinkerton Detective Agency --
at the instigation of Bill Goichberg! -- to go after
Larry Evans over authorship of a scurrilous political
mailing during an election campaign. The relevant
point: When Evans was cleared (insofar as one can
ever prove a negative) the investigation was suddenly
called off by those who demanded it after evidence
appeared implicating political allies who were
serving on the board. Red-faced board members
members then paid the bill out of their own pockets.

Will some of the same personalities and their
allies pull the same trick again with Paul Truong?
Will they bring in an expert whose job it is either to
clear or convict Truong, depending on the political
exigencies of the moment?

Based on precedent, we can expect crooked
dealing UNLESS there is total transparency in the
appointment and investigative process.

The idea that you can trust the board members --
in any setting outside a well-lighted one -- is farcical.

Yours, Larry Parr

First off, I'm going to make a personal note to Larry Parr. I have
read your rag/writing ever since I was a little critter, and all I can
say is, thanks for the great memories.

That aside, I agree with much of what you say, although I advise
caution when expecting too much from this type of board. For now, the
USCF would do well for each board member to have their own link in the
USCF website, where they make statements/updates --say, weekly--
concerning their board agenda/assignments/progress. This could help
solve some USCF EB-member transparency concerns.

In the issue of the ongoing investigation, I trust Randy Bauer will
hire an impartial, independent auditor--auditors are easily vetted, as
well--, and act appropriately. If not, and I trust Randy, he has been
vetted independently many times, believe me there will be hell to
pay.

I disagree with you on one point only, where you claim: "The second
point is one of authorial style. If Paul Truong can point out
distinct differences between his writing style and the style in
thousands of online messages, then he has a defense."
Consider that the very last thing that the fake poster would want to
do is use his or her own native writing style in composing these fake
Sloan/Gordon/Lafferty messages, as this characteristic, alike a
signature, would surely incriminate him or her. By your own admission,
these people are very, very clever, and with exception, sneaky.

Here's another, one which Brock has already hinted at on his blog:

"Sam Sloan is a racist bigot. So there's no need to look at the
evidence.


1.Sloan is a racist, among other things. That makes him unfit for
nonprofit Board service, but it certainly doesn't take away his right
to sue for redress. Nor does a plaintiff's racism take away one
defendant's right to note that racism....


2. I also believe that my friend Chris Falter has shown why Mr. Truong
should not be on the Board, either. (No equivalence intended.)

http://christopherfalter.blogspot.co...to-answer.html

Even if Mr. Truong were somehow exonerated in the current matter, my
opinion would not change. I can think of at least two people who
could confirm that I attempted to persuade Susan to drop Paul from the
slate, circa January 2007.


3. I have little respect for people who consciously violate the
privacy of others. If the evidence checks out, it's admissible
AFAIK. But if there was such a violation, those who breached the
trust should lose their positions as well.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:16:18 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


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.

neither do i pretend to be !- but the point is that YOU act like one! get
it?

No, as usual Phil, nobody gets it but you.

Really? I wouldn't say that, but if you mean the group clamoring here - that
is hardly a representative group, and many can't even write their own names.

But if I really am the only person talking about the rule of law, and you
are equating prospective depositions, apparently illegally obtained by a
contractor who the previous day was criticised by the person[s] now accused,
and for you such 'evidence' equals proof, as if /you/ were the rule of law -
then so be it.

To the contrary. I have an intense interest in determining the fake.

Really? by virtue of what that you have written? Aren't you come to this a
bit late?

No, as usual Phil, you've evidently read but a smattering of what's
been posted.

Let me take that as another 'pass' to a direct question - though I note all
you write in these threads is /judgemental/.

Like another person here who wanted me to question Truong but couldn't
answer a question himself, when the direct question of Mike Murray's own
engagement with this subject arises, the answer, given at bottom, is "You're
the mind reader, Phil. You tell us"

And its my shrewd guess which Mike Murray "can't understand"

When asked below in another direct question why Mike Murray makes yet
another false paraphrase of what I said - the answer is: "Why bother? Based
on some of your past behavior, you'd probably deny you wrote it."

Why bother even pretending this is any interest who the false-Sloan is?
That's a rhetorical statement. Let's hope we don't wind up with rhetorical
justice.

Phil Innes

It's you who insists on blowing smoke and prattling about ignoring
evidence

your entire behavior belies what you say - so who are you kidding?

As usual, Phil, nobody has to kid you. You're self sufficient in that
respect.

already gathered so that we can participate in your crackpot
search for the "real" fake.

another prescription from the guy who says he wants to know ... he doesn't
want to know anything! he wants to judge!

Judging you as a crackpot is a much easier task than identifying the
fake(s). We have as evidence the whole corpus of your pretentious,
poorly written, strangely punctuated and sloppy, typo-ridden, confused
postings to this news group. And every now and then, a few choice
tidbits from other groups. Your legacy, as it were.

Just ask yourself this, Phil: why do you think so many posters make
fun of you and make you the butt of jokes? Is it because they take
you seriously and are threatened by your incisive insight? OR is
it......... Satan?

Evidence has been gathered.

i assume you have read a louis blair post. not even his mother could keep
a
straight face with that selected stuff, which is not evidence of anything
anyone meant - it is a collation of stuff deliberately cobled together
sans
any context

So, you've "judged" the evidence already, have you Phil, and found it
wanting? What you've read gives precious little indication you've
read any of it. Maybe you couldn't understand it.

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.

i see you are not quoting my bleating - what an arse you are!

Why bother? Based on some of your past behavior, you'd probably deny
you wrote it.

you just sound like someone impatient to nail someone ... some particular
one! and you object to any pause for due process while pretending you have
an open mind. you even write that you don't think motive is important -
ROFL - not quite understanding that I mean the reproter of the evidence,
and
your own!

Oh, I understood you thought it was the "reproter" of the evidence
whose motive was important, Phil. That's why I considered your
remarks to be extra stupid, even for you. When the USCF hires its
credentialed subject matter expert, he'll be able to evaluate the
material without doing any psychological profile of Mottershead.

How is requesting due process "denying any pause for due process" ?
Oh, maybe you really meant, "stumble around, waiting for Phil to
stylistically identify the perp(s)".

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.

so speaks honest mike, who has heard of some 'evidence', and not of any
other, and says here reserving judgement is 'befuddlement' to his anxious
mind, which is so urgent to knock out something i am saying! though he
can't
say why

I've said why several times, Phil. But, OK, one more time: because
so much of what you're writing doesn't make sense. Clear enough?

he would rather rubbish people who ask him why he is so hot! and why is
he?
)

You're the mind reader, Phil. You tell us.

HOW TO RUN KANGAROO COURT

How about I say that the 31 items following are /qualifications/ to any
issue, but what Mike Murray says about them are /absolute/ factors which
*remove or dismiss* the qualification and the issue they relate too. The
list is prescriptively well-designed to exculpate anyone much but Paul
Truong from consideration, rather than any intent in discovering who the
fake is.

The plain refutation is that anyone who could create such a profile is
capable of prosecuting such a profile! - that means, actually being the
fake. By absolutely dismissing all 31 items from consideration - you really
can't pretend you are conducting an investigation with an open mind.

So far we have 31 reasons why types evidences /should not/ be considered!
While proponents for apparently illegal and 'blair-selected material' ask
for 'transparency' over just /that type/ of deposition. Hokum!

And this written by people who even dismiss 'Motive' of the perp. But maybe
that's natural enough, since they can't admit their own motivation either.

Phil Innes

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 10, 1:43 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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.

I just discovered another item on Usenet, the Ninja, Sloan's blog,
Susan's blog/site, and in the archives::

31) To prove his worthiness to the self-styled Queen of Chess, the
suitor (PT) had to belittle and humiliate all loud critics (Sloan,
Gordon, et. al.) of the Queen's rule. Thus, unaided, yet unceasingly,
he conducted the elaborate, and now infamous Usenet and USCF
Discussion board smear campaigns against the critics; ultimately
winning the Queen's hand favor, then matrimony whist both ascended to
the EB throne. As this is the stuff movies are made of, disregard the
peons' whining (Sloan, Gordon, et. al.) and lets get on with the
groveling.