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

Reviewing this thread, I discovered I had unfairly omitted a valid
contribution. My apologies to Chester.

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 nothin', you won't say nothin'. Kapeesh?
(33) What are these stupid posts when balanced against millions in
revenue to the USCF. Be gone, fool.

On Oct 11, 3:47 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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

All very amusing I suppose. Couldn't you have the script writers work
in some of the old tried and true themes? How about 1) Crop circles,
2) Alien abduction, or 3) The fluoridated water conspiracy?

At any rate, kudos to Mr. Murray for trying to inject some humor into
this pathetic, low-grade soap opera.

Regards, J. D. Walker

On Oct 11, 3:38 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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.

Yikes! Looks like I best stay in the Bat-cave until daylight!

Here's another take from the Ninja blog -- note that Chris Falter used
to work alongside nolan on the USCF website --:

"Pr believes that Russian hackers could have spoofed Truong's IP
address, and provides several news articles as proof. However, the
news articles prove nothing of the sort. They describe distributed
denial-of-service attacks, a DRM compromise of Adobe's eBook Reader,
and the compromising of unpatched web servers. None of these involved
IP spoofs.

It is basically impossible that someone could have spoofed Paul's IP.
The only way short of a compromise of Paul's actual computers
(plural--3 different ones were involved in Mottershead's analysis)
would have been a dnsspoof man-in-the-middle attack against Paul's
connections to USCF servers, followed by fake postings to USENET from
the MITM host at the appropriate moments. This would have involved
serious compromises on the internal networks of at least 2 different
ISPs over long periods of time in order to install/use dnsspoof.
Basically impossible, like I said.

It is of course not impossible that Paul's notebook and home desktop
have been compromised. However, such compromises are generally the
result of visiting malicious web pages that exploit vulnerabilities to
install malware. Hackers then use the compromised machines to spam or
launch DOS attacks across the internet. It is unheard of for a hacker
to use a compromised machine to post to Usenet groups under a fake
identity, with the expectation that a zealous sys admin will hunt down
the owner of the compromised computer and accuse him of spoofery. The
scenario is so implausible that there is no need to consider it any
further.

Another reason to reject the hacker hypothesis is that anyone who
would go to extreme and time-consuming lengths to impersonate Paul
over a period of several months would be motivated to embarrass Paul
at a more suitable moment. If a hacker were motivated to embarrass
Paul, you would think s/he would point the accusing finger prior to an
election, when it could do some real damage to Paul's election
chances. Believing the hacker hypothesis entails a belief that the
hacker spent dozens of hours over many months with the express purpose
of embarrassing Paul, but never lifted a finger to publicize the
embarrassing situation. This is not a credible hypothesis.

I will be posting more on my blog shortly, God willing."
Posted by: Chris Falter at October 11, 2007 12:34

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/..._spillover.htm
http://christopherfalter.blogspot.com/

On Oct 11, 4:54 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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.

Innes objects to anyone pointing out that he "works with Susan Polgar"
or is connected to Truong, but he and Rob know them well enough that
they can "witness to their character?" As Larry Parr would say,
"lovin' it!"

On Oct 11, 9:36 pm, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:54 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

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.

Innes objects to anyone pointing out that he "works with Susan Polgar"
or is connected to Truong, but he and Rob know them well enough that
they can "witness to their character?"

As Larry Parr would say,
"lovin' it!"

Isn't that the McDonald's catch phrase?Feel a Big Mac Attack coming
on?

"two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a
sesame seed bun" "you deserve a break today, so get up and get away"
LOL

On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:13 pm, "Chess One" wrote:



wrote in message

roups.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.

YES! YES! YES!

On Oct 12, 5:06 am, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, wrote:





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

wrote in message

roups.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.

YES! YES! YES!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The logic fails. Here in the South we say "That dog don't hunt".
Surely one can hide behind a persona. However when it comes to the
honesty of an argument one must consider a point of view. Without that
it becomes difficult to determine the motivation behind the argument.
Intellectually dishonest arguments from people with masked identities
is only so much graffitti on the back of a warehouse wall painted in
the dark of night.
Rob

On Oct 12, 8:27 am, Rob wrote:
On Oct 12, 5:06 am, The Historian wrote:



On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, wrote:

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

wrote in message

roups.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.

YES! YES! YES!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The logic fails. Here in the South we say "That dog don't hunt".
Surely one can hide behind a persona. However when it comes to the
honesty of an argument one must consider a point of view. Without that
it becomes difficult to determine the motivation behind the argument.
Intellectually dishonest arguments from people with masked identities
is only so much graffitti on the back of a warehouse wall painted in
the dark of night.
Rob

I can't agree. Knowing that Innes has connections to Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong doesn't make his arguments against the Mottershead report
any less or more absurd; it only provides a possible explanation for
his making them.

On Oct 12, 9:12 am, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 12, 8:27 am, Rob wrote:





On Oct 12, 5:06 am, The Historian wrote:

On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, wrote:

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

wrote in message

roups.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.

YES! YES! YES!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The logic fails. Here in the South we say "That dog don't hunt".
Surely one can hide behind a persona. However when it comes to the
honesty of an argument one must consider a point of view. Without that
it becomes difficult to determine the motivation behind the argument.
Intellectually dishonest arguments from people with masked identities
is only so much graffitti on the back of a warehouse wall painted in
the dark of night.
Rob

I can't agree. Knowing that Innes has connections to Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong doesn't make his arguments against the Mottershead report
any less or more absurd

It also does not make them any less correct. I don't believe he has
said anything definitively one way or the other about it.

; it only provides a possible explanation for
his making them.


Possible explanation, yes; not probable though. Phil has expressed, as
I have seen written, his doubt that Paul would have made those posts
based upon his knowledge of Paul character.

The Fake Sloan swears, the Real Sloan does not.There is only one
person to my knowledge who has ever posted to RGC who has routinely
used the type of language the Fake Sloan used. You can do a search for
those swear words in google groups and you will see that a certain
poster comes to light along with the Fake Sam.
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
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,

No, I am saying you dismiss them. Which is what you cut. You make them
stupid, as it were. That's all.

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.

Actually two sentences, each with verb and subject...

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.

I am asking about your evident and rather willful dismissal of what other
people write - eg, 'stupid arguments', which, right or wrong is your, Mike
Murray's, dismissive comment. right?

And sure, people say things which are not perspective, yet you have
eliminated ALL 20+ things that others have said.


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).

You are 'just' a person saying their own opinion intent on dismissing the
opinions of others?" Quite!

its okay, I just want to let you know that I don't mind you stating your
opinion...

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

....any more than anyone else. the fault you see, is that you 'just' care for
your own, and not anyone else's

which is using that word 'just' in the sense of 'only' rather than as stem
for just~ice

phil innes