The below post was posted on the USCF forum today. About an hour
later, it vanished without a trace and without any explanation. It
vanished together numerous posts which had referenced it. All without
a trace or explanation. Decide for yourselves whether something in it
deserved censorship.

To me, censorship is a statement that the censor thinks he knows what
is better for other people than they know for themselves. It is
arrogant and belittling. It stinks of the belief, "Oh, if only the
world were as wonderful as I am." Mr. Sawmiller, I have news for
you. You ain't as wonderful as you think. And you have no monopoly
on truth, justice, or the American way.

The following was posted under the thread, Endgame ...

Since this thread uses a chess metaphor, let's take it one step
further. As chess players, we not only have to consider our next
move, but we must also consider how the other side will counter our
moves. With that in mind, imagine the following, hypothetical
scenario between an EB member (your choice) and Paul Truong:

EB member:

Paul, this matter is getting too expensive and too ugly. Now, I
don't know what the result of the investigation will be. The only one
who does know for certain is you. If you did not do it, then no one
can fault you for fighting all the way. On the other hand, if you did
do it, then after the report comes out you will either have to resign
or we will have to bring court action under Illinois law to remove
you. In either event, after your removal we will have to publish in
Chess Life the reasons for your departure. And once we publish that,
even with all your PR skills, you won't be able to sell pencils in the
street. But, if you resign now, it will save everyone money and
grief. We will put in Chess Life only a blurb that you resigned for
health reasons or for whatever other reason you want us to put in.
The matter will be dropped. The only people who will know the truth
-- or think they know the truth -- are those on the forums and, from
the election, we know that they are like mosquitoes, annoying but
completely harmless. What do you say?

Paul:

I'm not going to say one way or the other what the result of the
investigation will be. I will say just this - you're bluffing.
You're bluffing for two reasons. First, Susan and I are the greatest
thing for American chess since Bobby Fischer. You don't dare do
anything which will interfere with our promotion of chess. Second,
whatever happens you never did intend to tell anyone the results of
the investigation. Think about it. Why did you hire Kronenberger
Burgoyne, LLP? Not to defend the lawsuit. They are a San Francisco
firm. They are not going to defend the USCF in a New York action. In
fact, I doubt if any of them are even admitted to practice law in New
York. You hired the law firm so that it could arrange with some
expert to examine the Mottershead report. You didn't want to retain
the expert yourself because any expert report sent directly to you
would not be privileged. Somehow, one of those mad dogs on the forum
would be able to get hold of it. But they are unlikely to get any
report if it is protected by the attorney-client privilege. You have
already spent thousand of dollars on the attorneys just so that you
could keep the expert's report secret. Secrecy has always been the
mother's milk of the EB. So, no matter what happens, you're not going
to announce the truth to the world anyway, and don't try to bluff me
otherwise.
..
For 5 points, what is the best next move?

Stephen Jones

On Oct 25, 4:19 pm, wrote:
The below post was posted on the USCF forum today. About an hour
later, it vanished without a trace and without any explanation. It
vanished together numerous posts which had referenced it. All without
a trace or explanation. Decide for yourselves whether something in it
deserved censorship.

To me, censorship is a statement that the censor thinks he knows what
is better for other people than they know for themselves. It is
arrogant and belittling. It stinks of the belief, "Oh, if only the
world were as wonderful as I am." Mr. Sawmiller, I have news for
you. You ain't as wonderful as you think. And you have no monopoly
on truth, justice, or the American way.

The following was posted under the thread, Endgame ...

Since this thread uses a chess metaphor, let's take it one step
further. As chess players, we not only have to consider our next
move, but we must also consider how the other side will counter our
moves. With that in mind, imagine the following, hypothetical
scenario between an EB member (your choice) and Paul Truong:

EB member:

Paul, this matter is getting too expensive and too ugly. Now, I
don't know what the result of the investigation will be. The only one
who does know for certain is you. If you did not do it, then no one
can fault you for fighting all the way. On the other hand, if you did
do it, then after the report comes out you will either have to resign
or we will have to bring court action under Illinois law to remove
you. In either event, after your removal we will have to publish in
Chess Life the reasons for your departure. And once we publish that,
even with all your PR skills, you won't be able to sell pencils in the
street. But, if you resign now, it will save everyone money and
grief. We will put in Chess Life only a blurb that you resigned for
health reasons or for whatever other reason you want us to put in.
The matter will be dropped. The only people who will know the truth
-- or think they know the truth -- are those on the forums and, from
the election, we know that they are like mosquitoes, annoying but
completely harmless. What do you say?

Paul:

I'm not going to say one way or the other what the result of the
investigation will be. I will say just this - you're bluffing.
You're bluffing for two reasons. First, Susan and I are the greatest
thing for American chess since Bobby Fischer. You don't dare do
anything which will interfere with our promotion of chess. Second,
whatever happens you never did intend to tell anyone the results of
the investigation. Think about it. Why did you hire Kronenberger
Burgoyne, LLP? Not to defend the lawsuit. They are a San Francisco
firm. They are not going to defend the USCF in a New York action. In
fact, I doubt if any of them are even admitted to practice law in New
York. You hired the law firm so that it could arrange with some
expert to examine the Mottershead report. You didn't want to retain
the expert yourself because any expert report sent directly to you
would not be privileged. Somehow, one of those mad dogs on the forum
would be able to get hold of it. But they are unlikely to get any
report if it is protected by the attorney-client privilege. You have
already spent thousand of dollars on the attorneys just so that you
could keep the expert's report secret. Secrecy has always been the
mother's milk of the EB. So, no matter what happens, you're not going
to announce the truth to the world anyway, and don't try to bluff me
otherwise.
.
For 5 points, what is the best next move?

Stephen Jones

Steven Jones is a full of ****. The matter is the subject of a
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION,
the matter will NOT BE DROPPED. Mr. Jones is making a legal threat,
and he needs to shut
his damn mouth. He does not speak for me, and I will make Paul pay for
his death threats
against me! Is that clear?

This was deleted becasue it is a legal threat. I recommend you quit
reading the USCF forums.

Marcus Roberts

On Oct 25, 4:19 pm, wrote:
The below post was posted on the USCF forum today. About an hour
later, it vanished without a trace and without any explanation. It
vanished together numerous posts which had referenced it. All without
a trace or explanation. Decide for yourselves whether something in it
deserved censorship.

To me, censorship is a statement that the censor thinks he knows what
is better for other people than they know for themselves. It is
arrogant and belittling. It stinks of the belief, "Oh, if only the
world were as wonderful as I am." Mr. Sawmiller, I have news for
you. You ain't as wonderful as you think. And you have no monopoly
on truth, justice, or the American way.

The following was posted under the thread, Endgame ...

Since this thread uses a chess metaphor, let's take it one step
further. As chess players, we not only have to consider our next
move, but we must also consider how the other side will counter our
moves. With that in mind, imagine the following, hypothetical
scenario between an EB member (your choice) and Paul Truong:

EB member:

Paul, this matter is getting too expensive and too ugly. Now, I
don't know what the result of the investigation will be. The only one
who does know for certain is you. If you did not do it, then no one
can fault you for fighting all the way. On the other hand, if you did
do it, then after the report comes out you will either have to resign
or we will have to bring court action under Illinois law to remove
you. In either event, after your removal we will have to publish in
Chess Life the reasons for your departure. And once we publish that,
even with all your PR skills, you won't be able to sell pencils in the
street. But, if you resign now, it will save everyone money and
grief. We will put in Chess Life only a blurb that you resigned for
health reasons or for whatever other reason you want us to put in.
The matter will be dropped. The only people who will know the truth
-- or think they know the truth -- are those on the forums and, from
the election, we know that they are like mosquitoes, annoying but
completely harmless. What do you say?

Paul:

I'm not going to say one way or the other what the result of the
investigation will be. I will say just this - you're bluffing.
You're bluffing for two reasons. First, Susan and I are the greatest
thing for American chess since Bobby Fischer. You don't dare do
anything which will interfere with our promotion of chess. Second,
whatever happens you never did intend to tell anyone the results of
the investigation. Think about it. Why did you hire Kronenberger
Burgoyne, LLP? Not to defend the lawsuit. They are a San Francisco
firm. They are not going to defend the USCF in a New York action. In
fact, I doubt if any of them are even admitted to practice law in New
York. You hired the law firm so that it could arrange with some
expert to examine the Mottershead report. You didn't want to retain
the expert yourself because any expert report sent directly to you
would not be privileged. Somehow, one of those mad dogs on the forum
would be able to get hold of it. But they are unlikely to get any
report if it is protected by the attorney-client privilege. You have
already spent thousand of dollars on the attorneys just so that you
could keep the expert's report secret. Secrecy has always been the
mother's milk of the EB. So, no matter what happens, you're not going
to announce the truth to the world anyway, and don't try to bluff me
otherwise.
.
For 5 points, what is the best next move?

Stephen Jones

Paul has no reason to resign. He made death threats, and he knows that
if he can't find
a way to worm out, he is (possibly) stuck with a felony charge. Paul
Troung isn't bluffing, he
is fighting for his wife, job, and position in chess. Now, he might
get a misdemanor out of this,
but it will require a GULITY PLEA! Chess is the last thing on Paul's
mind.....

Paul is trying to save his ass. He did more than interfere with an
election. Read the e-mail
I just sent to Singapore. Do you think Ilyumzhinov will allow himself
to be drawn into death threats?

Paul can NEVER return to Russia...

This is criminal. Judge Lafferty nailed Paul when he got him to say "I
was framed."

Marcus Roberts