wrote in message
oups.com...

Thanks, but I doubt I'm up to trying to make sense out of Phil's
hallucinations...at least not for free. It reminds me too much of
sifting through drug-addicts' memoirs for evidence.

Brave comments by a brave anon! Willing to prosecute someone in public, but
who can't write their own name!

And YOU think yours are appreciable comments on justice?

You are a coward, sir, ma'am.

Phil

On Oct 11, 2:13 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Thanks, but I doubt I'm up to trying to make sense out of Phil's
hallucinations...at least not for free. It reminds me too much of
sifting through drug-addicts' memoirs for evidence.

Brave comments by a brave anon! Willing to prosecute someone in public, but
who can't write their own name!

And YOU think yours are appreciable comments on justice?

You are a coward, sir, ma'am.

Phil

Sorry Phil, I'm not under examination here, Truong, Sloan, et. al.
are.

You, however, of your own free will, you identify yourself (with the
motive that it will somehow lend credence to your point/argument?) and
in doing so, bring yourself under examination. I do not. By remaining
a low-level of anonymity, I allow/require that you examine the
validity of my contention alone, on it's own merit without playing any
of these childish ad hominem games that you and your group is so fond
of.

By hiding behind your persona, and not on the merit-or lack therof-
you sir are a coward, and a bully.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:35:20 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


The idea that these are ideas are stupid, is your commentary, so far 23 of
them. And you do not phrase what you dismiss in the terms they are raised,
but by sarcastic dismmissal, which you can't own as your own action in this.

Actually, the list is up to 30 now. Read the last one.

So, Phil, you are saying the ideas in the list AREN'T stupid, that
they could be phrased in a way that makes them well founded? Well,
give it a shot. Use short, clear sentences, no funny words, eschew
the oracular and the cryptic, no weird punctuation, run a
spell-checker on it before you post it. Be, how they say,
"professional".

I'm happy to revise the list in case of error.

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

What does that sentence mean?

Phil, it's not a sentence. It's a phrase. The sentence includes the
two list items below it, formatted for your reading convenience.

Or are you asking about the slang word "Dissing"? I thought you were
a street-wise kinda guy.


That is your own standard. You might get over yourself a bit to realise that
it ain't everybody's, and certainly no standard in law, and you are not a
judge and do not represent anything like any legal process. You are a
prosecutor of one point of view - admit it!

Sorry, Phil. I'm just a guy posting opinions on a newsgroup. Not a
judge, not a prosecutor, not an IM (not even close).


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

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

Just when you thought it was over, Phil fills the bill with a will.

(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 dismays IP addresses for each post, so
folks can't conduct investigations of their choosing. So, it's only
fair to discard Motershead's findings.
(27) Tim Redman called the USCF Forum "entirely political" and one of
the people scrutinized has chosen not to participate. We must ignore
the findings.
(28) The investigation is political, designed to neutralize agents of
change. Period. Don't pander to counter-revolutionaries! Naaaa Naaaa
Naaaa Naaaa. I can't hear you. I can't hear you.
(29) Sloan is a perpetual political candidate, so all the fakes were
political satire and are protected free speech. Throw it all out.
Next case.
(30) Long-standing jealousy and resentment over spurned advances have
driven Sloan to evil acts. So ignore what Mottershead found.
(31) Phil and Rob "actually know the people involved and witness to
their character" Motterhead's document is illusion.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:09:42 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


Theoretically this is true, but in reality when people make ludicrous
arguments it is usually because there are no strong arguments to
make. Excepting Phil and Rob's contributions,

Except Phil and Rob's contributions, who actually know the people involved,
and witness to their character, there are no other contributions.

Gee, thanks, Phil. I was beginning to think the well had run dry. You
just made the list again. Number 31. No other contributor even comes
close.

Remember to look at the LAST post to see the full, up-to-date list.

On Oct 11, 2:49 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:41 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:

Just when you thought it was over, Phil fills the bill with a will.

(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 dismays IP addresses for each post, so
folks can't conduct investigations of their choosing. So, it's only
fair to discard Motershead's findings.
(27) Tim Redman called the USCF Forum "entirely political" and one of
the people scrutinized has chosen not to participate. We must ignore
the findings.
(28) The investigation is political, designed to neutralize agents of
change. Period. Don't pander to counter-revolutionaries! Naaaa Naaaa
Naaaa Naaaa. I can't hear you. I can't hear you.
(29) Sloan is a perpetual political candidate, so all the fakes were
political satire and are protected free speech. Throw it all out.
Next case.
(30) Long-standing jealousy and resentment over spurned advances have
driven Sloan to evil acts. So ignore what Mottershead found.
(31) Phil and Rob "actually know the people involved and witness to
their character" Motterhead's document is illusion.

!! Nice catch !! back-slap, high-fives! (31) is proof that the list
is evolving right before our eyes:

I've seen this one on Usenet, and especially in the Ninja blog:

As the Russian mob is afraid of losing their grip on the USCF, they
posted all the fake Sloan, Gorden, et. al. Usenet and USCF blog
entries. Motterhead's document is meaningless.

(32) It's the [Russian] mob's fault. Motterhead's document is
meaningless.

On Oct 11, 3:25 pm, wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:49 pm, Mike Murray wrote:



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

wrote:

Just when you thought it was over, Phil fills the bill with a will.

(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 dismays IP addresses for each post, so
folks can't conduct investigations of their choosing. So, it's only
fair to discard Motershead's findings.
(27) Tim Redman called the USCF Forum "entirely political" and one of
the people scrutinized has chosen not to participate. We must ignore
the findings.
(28) The investigation is political, designed to neutralize agents of
change. Period. Don't pander to counter-revolutionaries! Naaaa Naaaa
Naaaa Naaaa. I can't hear you. I can't hear you.
(29) Sloan is a perpetual political candidate, so all the fakes were
political satire and are protected free speech. Throw it all out.
Next case.
(30) Long-standing jealousy and resentment over spurned advances have
driven Sloan to evil acts. So ignore what Mottershead found.
(31) Phil and Rob "actually know the people involved and witness to
their character" Motterhead's document is illusion.

!! Nice catch !! back-slap, high-fives! (31) is proof that the list
is evolving right before our eyes:

I've seen this one on Usenet, and especially in the Ninja blog:

As the Russian mob is afraid of losing their grip on the USCF, they
posted all the fake Sloan, Gorden, et. al. Usenet and USCF blog
entries. Motterhead's document is meaningless.

(32) It's the [Russian] mob's fault. Motterhead's document is
meaningless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Ninja blog:

Actually,

What SH says is true. (Not about me being Paul or Sam or Mig). Did I
say Mig? Forget that.

This case isn't about whether Susan or Paul are guilty. Sam Sloan's
antics have guaranteed that they will walk away from this unscathed.

It is about the merit of the charges. The charges have no legal merit
because of the multiple snafus Mr. Sloan added to the verbiage. Bozo
the Clown wouldn't let the lawsuit fly and even the most conservative
judge would simply throw away the lawsuit.

Now, how is this for a theory. Paul paid Sam Sloan to file a frivolous
lawsuit because in reality both Paul and Susan were being black-mailed
by Russian mafiosos through threats of defamation lawsuits through
other past USCF EB officers on the Russian payrolls for decades. Check
the bank records of the most vocal dissidents in this case and you may
find some Rubles in their accounts if you know what I mean!
Follow the money!

The Sloan lawsuit creates a good block to the Russian mob's fork
attack on Susan and Paul. Do you think the Russians have forgotten the
loss they incurred at Susan's hands back then during the "Sack of
Rome" chess event? Also, they are mad about Anand's win in Mexico
City. Guess who has helped Anand become a powerful player? Yes, you
guessed it.. the Polgar Sisters. Now that she is on top, the Russians
want some payback and an opportunity to give American chess a black-
eye. Mr. Sloan may end up being a hero after all. Thanks Sam. The
check is in the mail.

VOR
Posted by: Voice of Reason at October 11, 2007 03:17 "
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/..._spillover.htm

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

The Man from Le Muncha made me an offer I couldn't refuse.

(1) rgcp is a cesspool so it doesn't count
(2) Sloan and Gordon are held in low repute so it's obvious nobody
would want to steal their identities.
(3) These charges are destructive of the USCF and they should stop
(4) Sloan has dirty stuff on his web site so it doesn't count
(5) A *child* could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't count
(6) A master hacker could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't
count
(7) The fakes didn't really *hurt* anybody, so it's OK.
(8) Sam Sloan did it himself, so let's drop it.
(9) The investigation was unauthorized, so those responsible should
be fired or otherwise punished (and their suspicions are therefore
invalid).
(10) Authorized or not, the investigation invaded my privacy, so those
responsible should be fired or otherwise punished (and their
suspicions are therefore invalid).
(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess, so knock it off.
(12) The people complaining have complained a lot about other matters
in the past, so let's ignore 'em.
(13) You can identify the fakes by inspecting the headers so they're
not really fakes at all, just lampoons.
(14) The accusers don't have pure motives, so evidence they've
gathered should be ignored.
(15) Other people had motive and opportunity to make fake Sloan posts,
so why believe the evidence gathered?
(16) Stylistic analysis clears one suspect, regardless of any
electronic evidence.
(17) Sloan would have lost the election anyway, so who cares?
(18) Other people have done worse things. Why not focus our limited
law enforcement resources on terrorists and violent criminals?
(19) Sloan's charges are overly broad and not well crafted, so let's
ignore the stuff Mottershead found
(20) These fake poster(s) are forging web signatures and following the
suspect around the globe. We have absolutely no idea how it was done
or how to do it, but a child can do it. So ignore it.
(21) Anyone who hasn't considered the evil Historian has no
credibility. So quit talking about it.
(22) Gordon is 0-18 in court, so all the evidence is bogus. Give it
up.
(23) Sloan is 1-xx in court, so all the evidence is bogus. Are you
done yet?
(24) This is a witch-hunt that coddles Sloan. Have you no shame, sir?
Have you no shame?
(25) Mottershead used time on the clock or his own personal time to
conduct an unauthorized investigation on -- it would be rational to
assume he altered the information. So it's all wrong. (And you thought
they didn't study logic in Tennessee).
(26) The USCF forum no longer displays IP addresses for each post, so
folks can't conduct investigations of their choosing. So, it's only
fair to discard Mottershead's findings.
(27) Tim Redman called the USCF Forum "entirely political" and one of
the people scrutinized has chosen not to participate. We must ignore
the findings.
(28) The investigation is political, designed to neutralize agents of
change. Period. Don't pander to counter-revolutionaries! Naaaa Naaaa
Naaaa Naaaa. I can't hear you. I can't hear you.
(29) Sloan is a perpetual political candidate, so all the fakes were
political satire and are protected free speech. Throw it all out.
Next case.
(30) Long-standing jealousy and resentment over spurned advances have
driven Sloan to evil acts. So ignore what Mottershead found.
(31) Phil and Rob "actually know the people involved and witness to
their character" Motterhead's document is illusion.
(32) The Russian Mob made all those posts. Remember, you didn't hear
nothin', you didn't see nothing', you won't say nothin'. Kapeesh?

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:25:18 -0700, wrote:


I've seen this one on Usenet, and especially in the Ninja blog:

As the Russian mob is afraid of losing their grip on the USCF, they
posted all the fake Sloan, Gorden, et. al. Usenet and USCF blog
entries. Motterhead's document is meaningless.

(32) It's the [Russian] mob's fault. Motterhead's document is
meaningless.

Thanks, Muncha Man. Remember, the man with the piano wire may not be
a musician.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:29:36 -0700, wrote:


Now, how is this for a theory. Paul paid Sam Sloan to file a frivolous
lawsuit because in reality both Paul and Susan were being black-mailed
by Russian mafiosos through threats of defamation lawsuits through
other past USCF EB officers on the Russian payrolls for decades. Check
the bank records of the most vocal dissidents in this case and you may
find some Rubles in their accounts if you know what I mean!
Follow the money!

The Sloan lawsuit creates a good block to the Russian mob's fork
attack on Susan and Paul. Do you think the Russians have forgotten the
loss they incurred at Susan's hands back then during the "Sack of
Rome" chess event? Also, they are mad about Anand's win in Mexico
City. Guess who has helped Anand become a powerful player? Yes, you
guessed it.. the Polgar Sisters. Now that she is on top, the Russians
want some payback and an opportunity to give American chess a black-
eye. Mr. Sloan may end up being a hero after all. Thanks Sam. The
check is in the mail.


This is too hard. I don't want to make Phil's head explode.

BEEP