On Oct 9, 7:44 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:41 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:

We're slowing down, folks, but I got a good one (25) from
TenneseeVols over on chessdiscussions.

(1) rgcp is a cesspool so it doesn't count
(2) Sloan and Gordon are held in low repute so it's obvious nobody
would want to steal their identities.
(3) These charges are destructive of the USCF and they should stop
(4) Sloan has dirty stuff on his web site so it doesn't count
(5) A *child* could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't count
(6) A master hacker could have faked all this evidence, so it doesn't
count
(7) The fakes didn't really *hurt* anybody, so it's OK.
(8) Sam Sloan did it himself, so let's drop it.
(9) The investigation was unauthorized, so those responsible should
be fired or otherwise punished (and their suspicions are therefore
invalid).
(10) Authorized or not, the investigation invaded my privacy, so those
responsible should be fired or otherwise punished (and their
suspicions are therefore invalid).
(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess, so knock it off.
(12) The people complaining have complained a lot about other matters
in the past, so let's ignore 'em.
(13) You can identify the fakes by inspecting the headers so they're
not really fakes at all, just lampoons.
(14) The accusers don't have pure motives, so evidence they've
gathered should be ignored.
(15) Other people had motive and opportunity to make fake Sloan posts,
so why believe the evidence gathered?
(16) Stylistic analysis clears one suspect, regardless of any
electronic evidence.
(17) Sloan would have lost the election anyway, so who cares?
(18) Other people have done worse things. Why not focus our limited
law enforcement resources on terrorists and violent criminals?
(19) Sloan's charges are overly broad and not well crafted, so let's
ignore the stuff Mottershead found
(20) These fake poster(s) are forging web signatures and following the
suspect around the globe. We have absolutely no idea how it was done
or how to do it, but a child can do it. So ignore it.
(21) Anyone who hasn't considered the evil Historian has no
credibility. So quit talking about it.
(22) Gordon is 0-18 in court, so all the evidence is bogus. Give it
up.
(23) Sloan is 1-xx in court, so all the evidence is bogus. Are you
done yet?
(24) This is a witch-hunt that coddles Sloan. Have you no shame, sir?
Have you no shame?
(25) Mottershead used time on the clock or his own personal time to
conduct an unauthorized investigation -- it would be rational to
assume he altered the information. (And you thought they didn't study
logic in Tennessee).

OK, how about this one:

26) EB Dialect 101: When one EB member says to another: "Wait until we
meet in private, I'm going to wring your neck and you'll not see
another sunrise!" this really means: "You take my breath away!"

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

(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.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:52:32 -0700, wrote:


26) EB Dialect 101: When one EB member says to another: "Wait until we
meet in private, I'm going to wring your neck and you'll not see
another sunrise!" this really means: "You take my breath away!"

I get the feeling you've stopped taking this seriously. Heh, heh,
heh.

How about, "I'll pull off your left arm and beat your head with the
bloody stump".

On Oct 10, 2:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:

(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for chess, so knock it off.

I think this more accurately reflects the zealots' stance:

11) Susan and Paul are Beyond Reproach and anyone who
suggests otherwise must be silenced immediately, and any
forum which permits such criticism must be abolished.

On Oct 10, 12:58 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:52:32 -0700, wrote:
26) EB Dialect 101: When one EB member says to another: "Wait until we
meet in private, I'm going to wring your neck and you'll not see
another sunrise!" this really means: "You take my breath away!"

I get the feeling you've stopped taking this seriously. Heh, heh,
heh.

How about, "I'll pull off your left arm and beat your head with the
bloody stump".

Hey, hang around long enough and this just might get interesting.
How about this one:

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

On Oct 10, 2:55 am, Mike Murray
(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot
for chess, so knock it off.

The lottery-ticket argument:

n+1) Susan and Paul can somehow bring millions in revenue, so let's
forgive their felonies.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"I'm worth a million in priiiizes" -- Iggy Pop

On Oct 10, 2:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:41 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:

(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.

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.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 10, 2:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:

(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for chess,
so knock it off.

I think this more accurately reflects the zealots' stance:

11) Susan and Paul are Beyond Reproach and anyone who
suggests otherwise must be silenced immediately, and any
forum which permits such criticism must be abolished.

No - I certainly don't think so, in fact, let's open this one up,
'completely'. Ready?

What's your name?
Are you a party to this issue?
Have you ever met these people?
Are you aware of their reputation around the country in promoting chess?
Selected material, gathered by one party, is not evidence in law, although,
you may agree [?] it /could/ be.

If you can't answer all these questions, I suggest the rest of this is not
for you.

++++++++++++

How about other 11s ?

11a) regardless of who is being accused, no witch-hunts against any
individual can be pursued on a forum [a forum which ex-President Tim Redman
recently termed 'entirely political' and also BTW one in which PT and SP do
not contribute]

or do you like something more sarcastic;-

11b) seeking the identity of malicious posters is a subject which must be
silenced immediately, except if its the people you don't like

And finally

In place of ALL 1-26)

USCF needs an independent invigilator, normally called an ombudsman, to
settle such issues as this, and indeed, other contentious issues, such as
the performance of the rating system for correspondence players, which was
inoperable for 9 months in the past FY, and which an NM suggested was
necessary to retain the confidence of all corres players.

I would say that USCF fails to act all the time since it simply ignores the
problem, then when it erupts again with a will, it is of dimensions which
cannot be managed [typical non-profit behavior when board is stacked with
enthusiasts].

This last item is an interesting one. During pre-election interviews Randy
Bauer could not agree with it. But to his credit, he made reasonable
objections. I wonder if he would shade more with my point of view, now?

I suggested that the Ombudsman needed to make suggestions for policy and
operation which were practical - and as such, if they were actually doable,
the board should be bound by them.

--

The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of change.
Period.

The surface factors of impersonations are of natural concern to those
impersonated, but absurd in terms of the characters of those accused. In
short, its a attempt to render the current board dysfunctional in terms of
necessary remedies to current problems, and to future orientations. Whatever
is the status quo is the thing being defended.

Phil Innes

On Oct 10, 8:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 10, 2:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:

(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for chess,
so knock it off.

I think this more accurately reflects the zealots' stance:

11) Susan and Paul are Beyond Reproach and anyone who
suggests otherwise must be silenced immediately, and any
forum which permits such criticism must be abolished.

No - I certainly don't think so, in fact, let's open this one up,
'completely'. Ready?

What's your name?
Are you a party to this issue?
Have you ever met these people?
Are you aware of their reputation around the country in promoting chess?
Selected material, gathered by one party, is not evidence in law, although,
you may agree [?] it /could/ be.

If you can't answer all these questions, I suggest the rest of this is not
for you.

++++++++++++

How about other 11s ?

11a) regardless of who is being accused, no witch-hunts against any
individual can be pursued on a forum [a forum which ex-President Tim Redman
recently termed 'entirely political' and also BTW one in which PT and SP do
not contribute]

or do you like something more sarcastic;-

11b) seeking the identity of malicious posters is a subject which must be
silenced immediately, except if its the people you don't like

And finally

In place of ALL 1-26)

USCF needs an independent invigilator, normally called an ombudsman, to
settle such issues as this, and indeed, other contentious issues, such as
the performance of the rating system for correspondence players, which was
inoperable for 9 months in the past FY, and which an NM suggested was
necessary to retain the confidence of all corres players.

I would say that USCF fails to act all the time since it simply ignores the
problem, then when it erupts again with a will, it is of dimensions which
cannot be managed [typical non-profit behavior when board is stacked with
enthusiasts].

This last item is an interesting one. During pre-election interviews Randy
Bauer could not agree with it. But to his credit, he made reasonable
objections. I wonder if he would shade more with my point of view, now?

I suggested that the Ombudsman needed to make suggestions for policy and
operation which were practical - and as such, if they were actually doable,
the board should be bound by them.

--

The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of change.
Period.

The surface factors of impersonations are of natural concern to those
impersonated, but absurd in terms of the characters of those accused. In
short, its a attempt to render the current board dysfunctional in terms of
necessary remedies to current problems, and to future orientations. Whatever
is the status quo is the thing being defended.

Phil Innes

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

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

Brennan's willful distortions are very pertinent to this issue!

" "The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of
change. Period." So lets ignore the evidence. //Neil Brennan.

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

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

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

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

Are these things also 'evidence' by his measure?

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

Phil Innes



"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 8:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 10, 2:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:

(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess,
so knock it off.

I think this more accurately reflects the zealots' stance:

11) Susan and Paul are Beyond Reproach and anyone who
suggests otherwise must be silenced immediately, and any
forum which permits such criticism must be abolished.

No - I certainly don't think so, in fact, let's open this one up,
'completely'. Ready?

What's your name?
Are you a party to this issue?
Have you ever met these people?
Are you aware of their reputation around the country in promoting chess?
Selected material, gathered by one party, is not evidence in law,
although,
you may agree [?] it /could/ be.

If you can't answer all these questions, I suggest the rest of this is
not
for you.

++++++++++++

How about other 11s ?

11a) regardless of who is being accused, no witch-hunts against any
individual can be pursued on a forum [a forum which ex-President Tim
Redman
recently termed 'entirely political' and also BTW one in which PT and SP
do
not contribute]

or do you like something more sarcastic;-

11b) seeking the identity of malicious posters is a subject which must be
silenced immediately, except if its the people you don't like

And finally

In place of ALL 1-26)

USCF needs an independent invigilator, normally called an ombudsman, to
settle such issues as this, and indeed, other contentious issues, such as
the performance of the rating system for correspondence players, which
was
inoperable for 9 months in the past FY, and which an NM suggested was
necessary to retain the confidence of all corres players.

I would say that USCF fails to act all the time since it simply ignores
the
problem, then when it erupts again with a will, it is of dimensions which
cannot be managed [typical non-profit behavior when board is stacked with
enthusiasts].

This last item is an interesting one. During pre-election interviews
Randy
Bauer could not agree with it. But to his credit, he made reasonable
objections. I wonder if he would shade more with my point of view, now?

I suggested that the Ombudsman needed to make suggestions for policy and
operation which were practical - and as such, if they were actually
doable,
the board should be bound by them.

--

The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of
change.
Period.

The surface factors of impersonations are of natural concern to those
impersonated, but absurd in terms of the characters of those accused. In
short, its a attempt to render the current board dysfunctional in terms
of
necessary remedies to current problems, and to future orientations.
Whatever
is the status quo is the thing being defended.

Phil Innes

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

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