wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Not so fast, Larry Parr!

The List is completely partisan, eliminates others from consideration, and
concentrates on Truong alone. Mike Murray says this is not so, but what he
does is my measure, not what he says.

Even stiching-up Paul Truong is eliminated by Mike Murray, who himself was
impersonated here [!] causing Marcus to send the gunboats! And because I am
over 21, I do consider motive to be important to human behavior, and Mike's
anger is entirely understandable. It is also understandable that he wants to
nail who did it. But anger isn't going to achieve that.

Now, its okay for me if you wish to examine Paul Truong alone - but
pul-eeeeeze! Don't pretend that that is not the stance of an advocate, and
there is real interest in determining the fake person. To avert unwonted
comment, I don't care if no-one else says that here, and I don't believe
that people cannot understand what I am writing.

While without irony you personally discuss /transparency/ with Mike Murray,
it is he who has /opaqued/ 31 items.

Phil Innes

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 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:44:18 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


Not so fast, Larry Parr!

The List is completely partisan, eliminates others from consideration, and
concentrates on Truong alone. Mike Murray says this is not so, but what he
does is my measure, not what he says.

The List of the Blind Monkey is one thing and one thing only: A
collection of goofy arguments actually made by people trying to ignore
or disregard the evidence gathered and presented by Brian Mottershead.

It in no way evaluates that evidence or pronounces guilt.

I may discuss these issues elsewhere, and obviously have my opinions
based on what I've read thus far, but

The List stands alone, the List stands alone
And it sticks in your craw like a sharp fish bone
The List stands alone

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:16:25 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:


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.

And I would also think that after the report is presented to the
appropriate group in the USCF, before any final Federation judgment is
rendered, it seems only fair that people accused in the report would
have rights of rebuttal, the right to present their own expert to
that group, and probably the right to some sort of appeal.

This should be very troubling to anyone supporting Truong. Apparently,
in the earlier case, he was charged with falsely promoting himself as
having a Ph.D. He seems to vehemently deny the charge, though a close
reading might imply that he denies only 1 specific place in which he
seemed to be claiming to have a Ph.D. Yet, it has been brought up
recently that people not opposed to Paul say that he at one point
regularly claimed to be Dr. Truong.

This previous instance of vehement denial of an accusation which on
the surface seems to be true lessens the credibility of his vehement
denial in the current case. I will admit that I found Motterhead's
evidence convincing in any case, and was already predisposed to
believe that Truong was the poster. However, before reading of the
previous affair, I felt that if he issued a denial we were obliged to
defer judgement as long as the investigation was being actively
pursued.

Would any Truong supporter like to comment on the previous case? Do
you feel that he claimed to have a PhD, and when challenged denied
ever having made the claim? Does this affect your personal belief in
the truth of the current accusation against him?

In my view, it again places Truong in the position where the proper
response is to temporarily abstain from board decisions until the
allegations are refuted.

A person is innocent in law until proved guilty. This is an important
restriction on government actions against those it views as harmful to
society. A board member in a nonprofit is in a different position than
an accused criminal in fear of being locked up. Truong will suffer no
serious harm by abstaining from board decisions until cleared, and if
he is cleared can seem all the more virtuous from the decision. The
board will not have the troubling accusation interfering in decisions
it must make. It is the right thing to do for all parties concerned,
and I hope his close supporters are quietly convincing him to take
such a step.

When are the accusations serious enough to cause such a step? This is
an interesting question in general, but I think in this case we are
well beyond the line. We seem to all agree that the accusations are
serious enough to warrant resignation if true (hence the vehement
denials), the evidence for these accusations is well beyond any notion
that they can be dismissed easily, and Truong's previous behavior
loses him the benefit of the doubt which he might otherwise be given.

Jerry Spinrad


On Oct 11, 1:48 am, wrote:
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...ng-has-questio...

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.

On Oct 11, 9:41 am, "
wrote:
This should be very troubling to anyone supporting Truong. Apparently,
in the earlier case, he was charged with falsely promoting himself as
having a Ph.D. He seems to vehemently deny the charge, though a close
reading might imply that he denies only 1 specific place in which he
seemed to be claiming to have a Ph.D. Yet, it has been brought up
recently that people not opposed to Paul say that he at one point
regularly claimed to be Dr. Truong.

This previous instance of vehement denial of an accusation which on
the surface seems to be true lessens the credibility of his vehement
denial in the current case. I will admit that I found Motterhead's
evidence convincing in any case, and was already predisposed to
believe that Truong was the poster. However, before reading of the
previous affair, I felt that if he issued a denial we were obliged to
defer judgement as long as the investigation was being actively
pursued.

Would any Truong supporter like to comment on the previous case? Do
you feel that he claimed to have a PhD, and when challenged denied
ever having made the claim? Does this affect your personal belief in
the truth of the current accusation against him?

I think lying about one's titles is a good indication of how little
regard for the truth a person has. I've run into two instances online,
John Baker on the Shakespeare newsgroups, a Marlovian who claimed to
have a doctorate from Florida State, and a well-known "nearly an IM,
with a raring of 2450." If either of them told me the sun was shining
I'd feel the need to go outside to verify it.

THE INVESTIGATION

Not so fast, Larry Parr! The List is completely partisan, eliminates others
from consideration, and concentrates on Truong alone. Mike Murray says
this
is not so, but what he does is my measure, not what he says. -- Phil
Innes

Dear Phil,

I'm not so sure that the Murray list was tilted
against Paul Truong, and I agree that the question of
motive is paramount unless there is proof rather than
indications or easily faked circumstances that PT's
fingers were on the offending keyboard(s).

I must wait to see all the evidence before arriving at
a verdict. Truong's guilt is counter-intuitive if you know
Susan and have followed his career as a promoter. I've
always considered these two to be greedy in a positive
sense, which means they are eminently practical people.

Faking thousands of messages over the course of
several years takes time away from making money out of
chess. I cannot imagine either of them sacrificing SO
MUCH financially productive time to such an unremunerative
exercise in identity-theft.

I read one argument against PT and Susan from, I
believe, Stephen Jones. He has noticed they do not
appear to be hopping angry that someone has set
them up and do not seem to be pursuing the guilty
party vigorously.

Two points: 1. Different people react differently to
adversity; some of them collapse or grow depressed even
though they may be completely innocent; and 2. How do
any of us know what PT and Susan are doing about the charges?

Are they obligated o tell us they have hired an investigator or
enlisted close friends to help them in the search for an unknown
villain, if such they have done? Indeed, if I were they, I would keep
any such emdeavor as secret as possible.

I agree that PT and Susan ought not to be the
only ones who are expected to answer questions
concerning Fake Sams and Gordons, though they would be
wise to provide their side of the story.

There is an animus among several here against the
defense of being framed. Yet right up in your neck of
the woods there have been literally hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of drug convictions overturned because cops
planted drugs in cars to advance their own careers.

I do not find the "framed" defense to be an
unlikely explanation, especially in the area of
computer messages.

Stephen Jones is right about one thing: the USCF
Forum should be open for intellectual firefighting
among the various parties involved -- PT and Susan,
Brian Lafferty, Hal Bogner, Mike Murray, Sam Sloan,
Randy Bauer and others.

As the state of the evidence now stands, I think
PT and Susan would likely prevail in a raucous debate.
I think it was, in Barbara Tuchman's phrase a
"woodenheaded mistake" to shut down the Forum on this
and other issues. But what can you expect from a gaggle
of politicos who are so sensitive and fearful of exposure?

Yours, Larry Parr



Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:16:25 -0700, Mike Murray
wrote:


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.

And I would also think that after the report is presented to the
appropriate group in the USCF, before any final Federation judgment is
rendered, it seems only fair that people accused in the report would
have rights of rebuttal, the right to present their own expert to
that group, and probably the right to some sort of appeal.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:55:25 -0700, "
wrote:


I'm not so sure that the Murray list was tilted
against Paul Truong, and I agree that the question of
motive is paramount unless there is proof rather than
indications or easily faked circumstances that PT's
fingers were on the offending keyboard(s).

Motive -- here's my take on it.

The evidence Mottershead has gathered must be evaluated technically.
If the technical evaluation indicates a next step to be warranted,
then Truong's motivations or lack of same would be one factor to be
weighed, along with the evidence that Mottershead has gathered, and
countervailing material that Truong and his supporters might produce,
when judging Truong's guilt or innocence.

Mottershead's motivations are relevant if someone accuses HIM of
fabricating the evidence. In recent posts, Mottershead has offered
several sources to corroborate the material he's assembled. None of
these are under his control. Some of them would require a court order
to access.

If the expert evaluation of Mottershead's material indicates he didn't
fake it, then Mottershead's motivations are absolutely irrelevant.
Whether he did it because of a long standing hatred of Truong, or
because Kirsan slipped him money under the table, or because of his
childhood toilet training --- doesn't matter. He's out of the
picture.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:44:18 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


Not so fast, Larry Parr!

The List is completely partisan, eliminates others from consideration, and
concentrates on Truong alone. Mike Murray says this is not so, but what he
does is my measure, not what he says.

The List of the Blind Monkey is one thing and one thing only: A
collection of goofy arguments actually made by people trying to ignore
or disregard the evidence gathered and presented by Brian Mottershead.

It in no way evaluates that evidence or pronounces guilt.

That is less than the truth! The fact is that you add your own dismissive
comment to each and every line, thus eliminating all. Phil Innes

I may discuss these issues elsewhere, and obviously have my opinions
based on what I've read thus far, but

The List stands alone, the List stands alone
And it sticks in your craw like a sharp fish bone
The List stands alone

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:30:17 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

The List of the Blind Monkey is one thing and one thing only: A
collection of goofy arguments actually made by people trying to ignore
or disregard the evidence gathered and presented by Brian Mottershead.

It in no way evaluates that evidence or pronounces guilt.

That is less than the truth! The fact is that you add your own dismissive
comment to each and every line, thus eliminating all. Phil Innes

Of course. All items on the List of the Blind Monkey represent stupid
arguments against Mottershead's material. An argument that wasn't
stupid doesn't make the List.

Now, here's the kicker, Phil. Something you've evidently missed.
Dissing a bunch of stupid arguments against evidence

(1) Doesn't necessitate the evidence being true or even reasonable

(2) Doesn't preclude the possibility of valid arguments against the
evidence.

I suggest you try your best to come up with reasonable arguments
against Motterhead's findings. I need some fresh items for my List.


I may discuss these issues elsewhere, and obviously have my opinions
based on what I've read thus far, but

The List stands alone, the List stands alone
And it sticks in your craw like a sharp fish bone
The List stands alone

wrote in message
oups.com...
THE INVESTIGATION

Not so fast, Larry Parr! The List is completely partisan, eliminates
others
from consideration, and concentrates on Truong alone. Mike Murray says
this
is not so, but what he does is my measure, not what he says. -- Phil
Innes

Dear Phil,

I'm not so sure that the Murray list was tilted
against Paul Truong, and I agree that the question of
motive is paramount unless there is proof rather than
indications or easily faked circumstances that PT's
fingers were on the offending keyboard(s).

Thank you, Sir.

I must wait to see all the evidence before arriving at
a verdict. Truong's guilt is counter-intuitive if you know
Susan and have followed his career as a promoter. I've
always considered these two to be greedy in a positive
sense, which means they are eminently practical people.

For some, my knowledge of their character, their need to express themselves
in this proposed way, or whatever their motivation could possibly be, is
dismissed /because/ I know them, since any other sort of 'evidence' as it is
called here, has been [preemptively] dismissed already.

Like you, I have no idea what is true, since, like you, I have not seen any
duly processed evidence. All I have said is that what is sort-of presented
seems profoundly out of character. This is not to eliminate a possibility,
but to qualify one.

I have seen both under pressure. And certainly Paul is very verbal - unless
you talk, he does. In some 60 hours one week under some intense pressure to
get all together, I never heard a curse. Not even a euphemistic one, '...
the blessed so and so...' not even one bitten off short of saying it.

At least in this respect he is the same as Sam Sloan, who also does not
curse. (I do! I curse like Ramsey! But then, we are both uninhibited Scots.)

Faking thousands of messages over the course of
several years takes time away from making money out of
chess. I cannot imagine either of them sacrificing SO
MUCH financially productive time to such an unremunerative
exercise in identity-theft.

I rather feel that the obsession runs the other way. Sam cannot seem to go a
whole day without mention either of them at least 3 times.What any long-time
and reversed motivation could be is something I don't know.

I read one argument against PT and Susan from, I
believe, Stephen Jones. He has noticed they do not
appear to be hopping angry that someone has set
them up and do not seem to be pursuing the guilty
party vigorously.

Ah - well, what we got here is far from the whole story. Since other things
may depend on it which /are/ serious, besides any obligation to
confidentiality, it is not my part to say more.

What is general indecent to me, is that here in public we either declare
that by discussing the issue we are interested in finding out who it was
rather than pose one candidate for the dock, and that's all. We should also
declare that we cannot properly determine all that has gone on, and it is
conscious supposition.

I do understand people's anger about this deceit - but I am afraid things
are more involved and invested than what is currently displayed here.

Two points: 1. Different people react differently to
adversity; some of them collapse or grow depressed even
though they may be completely innocent; and 2. How do
any of us know what PT and Susan are doing about the charges?

As with Sam Sloan, if I felt he actually had something more to do with
chess, than with his own role in chess, I personally could be more
interested in the result. In effect, this has more to do with newsgroup
fakery than any chessic outcome.

Are they obligated o tell us they have hired an investigator or
enlisted close friends to help them in the search for an unknown
villain, if such they have done? Indeed, if I were they, I would keep
any such emdeavor as secret as possible.

It rather depends on what anyone thinks thay are doing. Just because you are
accused of something false, does not oblige you to refute the accusation.
That's a scene from Darkness at Noon. Obligation of proof lies elsewhere.
Have you noted how few people aver that, which is to say, respect the law
and people's rights withing the law.

So to turn the question; if there is sincere interest in finding out who the
false poster is, should that not be close, or privily kept, material? And
who should properly investigate it - in fact, who has said they were
interested? )

I agree that PT and Susan ought not to be the
only ones who are expected to answer questions
concerning Fake Sams and Gordons, though they would be
wise to provide their side of the story.

I think what underlies this 'event' should be sorted out, and that is
actually essential for this board to function. The surface factor we see
here is but the result of it. As you note above, notice of any determined
investigation is not going to appear here

There is an animus among several here against the
defense of being framed. Yet right up in your neck of
the woods there have been literally hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of drug convictions overturned because cops
planted drugs in cars to advance their own careers.

Actually, they are often interplanted in cornfields rather than in cars. As
for the cops, its hard not to pat them on the head and call them sonny.
Though they have been using their tasers rather too much of late. In our
town two environmentalists had chained themselves to a rock in a field as a
protest to development. Unfortunately the cops tased them. The Guvner is now
'looking into it'. A few years ago 2 cops shot a guy with a knife - he was
threatening his own life at about 25 feet from him, so to prevent his
suicide, they shot him dead.

I do not find the "framed" defense to be an
unlikely explanation, especially in the area of
computer messages.

Its one third of a good novel, no? A Who Dunnit Really Techno Thriller with
Intelligent People In It? A [cyber-] country replete with mischievous men...
roaming ...

Stephen Jones is right about one thing: the USCF
Forum should be open for intellectual firefighting
among the various parties involved -- PT and Susan,
Brian Lafferty, Hal Bogner, Mike Murray, Sam Sloan,
Randy Bauer and others.

Sorry to finish with an agreement since I thought we may have had a good
fight, but the only reason I can see for USCF to have its own forum at all
is to discuss chess politics, or chess management, if you like that title
better. How absurd that that is their quintessential function, and that is
the very taboo ishooooo!

And as we know, chess management is this country has failed because of an
excess of personality involvement [nice euphemism, eh?] to the degree that
donors all over the place think it the last place they will rest their
money. Eric Moskow just said it this morning in the NY Times. But what's a
million or two to the likes of us?

As the state of the evidence now stands, I think
PT and Susan would likely prevail in a raucous debate.
I think it was, in Barbara Tuchman's phrase a
"woodenheaded mistake" to shut down the Forum on this
and other issues. But what can you expect from a gaggle
of politicos who are so sensitive and fearful of exposure?

Its a pity that Randy Bauer has reverted to running on his record - poor
psychology these days - even if he were previously a saint. Unfortunately,
for every Saul who becomes a Paul, these days governmental ethics in the USA
has more going the other way.

What is needed is transparency, but on process, impartial procedure and
rules. That's the real business that Randy Bauer can do for USCF. In fact, I
would go so far as to say that no one else on the board could do this. It
ain't glamorous work, but more important than perhaps any other factor.

And he should do it. As a spokesperson he doesn't come off too well, and, [I
know you don't like him at all] I think even you agree that it is a waste of
all that government training money to tell us what time it is when we never
even asked.

The wise and the wiser have been saying this stuff for years, but the dear
old fellows who run the place keep putting it off, and are ever surprised
when things go west, once again.

People are so attached to weilding a very little power, they prefer it the
way it is down sleepy-hollow way, and the likes of Eric Moskow can go pound
sand.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Yours, Larry Parr