Greetings Chess Friends,

Is it true that yet another independent expert is going to weigh in on
the validity of the Mottershead report tomorrow? I am most curious to
hear the result. If we have another vindication of the report, it is
going to make the USCF stonewall of denial look even more tragically doomed.

I have no idea how Sam will make out with his law suit. But it is time
for the USCF to go. We need a much better and different organization
leading the US chess community. I know there are good competent people
out there that can make a difference. I hope they are preparing to
seize the opportunity when the USCF falls. Otherwise it will fall, once
again, to the same corrupt, backstabbing, double-dealing,
self-promoting, thieving types that have served us so ill to date.
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

On Dec 9, 4:33 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Greetings Chess Friends,

Is it true that yet another independent expert is going to weigh in on
the validity of the Mottershead report tomorrow? I am most curious to
hear the result. If we have another vindication of the report, it is
going to make the USCF stonewall of denial look even more tragically doomed.

I have no idea how Sam will make out with his law suit. But it is time
for the USCF to go. We need a much better and different organization
leading the US chess community. I know there are good competent people
out there that can make a difference. I hope they are preparing to
seize the opportunity when the USCF falls. Otherwise it will fall, once
again, to the same corrupt, backstabbing, double-dealing,
self-promoting, thieving types that have served us so ill to date.

By "yet another", I take it that already some independent
experts have validated the report; that would be interesting
in view of the many who have for whatever reason resisted
accepting it or, in some cases, even gone into deep denial,
pretending to not see its very existence.

To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything
other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising
that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing
denial (i.e. Larry Parr), others like IM Innes opting for the
"PT was set up" ploy. What if SS actually gets money
out of this? Wow-- who'd of thunk it?

I still say there may have been more than one impostor;
even if it can be proved that Paul Truong was doing Mr.
Sloan, that does not mean there weren't any copycats.
Some people may have felt certain postings were funny,
and tried their own hands on a whim.


-- help bot


PS: Pay no attention to that guy who has broken my
password at GetClub-- he is a fish and loses even to
the Beginner level! Look what he has done to my
rating-- I can never recover from this. If that was you,
Mr. Innes, it's not funny; I was a nearly-a-Class C
player with a rating of 1400. -- Karel van Mander

ANOTHER GOOD LAUGH

To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything
other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising
that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing
denial (i.e. Larry Parr).... -- help bot

Why can't the Botster ever get it right? I never called for
anything except a full investigation before arriving at a conclusion.

In fact, here is one of my postings about Fake Sam from last
October. As I stated previously, our Greg is an invincible combination
of malice and ignorance.

P.S. It's "choosing" not "chosing." The Botster needs a new
spellchecker.


More options Oct 20, 7:01 am
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc
From: "
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:01:06 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 20 2007 7:01 am
Subject: Bauer Gets Free Attorney for Truong and Polgar


EVERY RAT FOR HIMSELF

Sam, I have spoken with an attorney -- a friend -- who says that if
during depositions, you can establish that some in the USCF leadership
knew the Fake Sam, then the Federation really could be at risk.

One possibility would be to make a deal with the Fake Sam to testify
about leadership connivance in the attacks.

Still, there is apparently some legal doctrine -- the lawyers here
will understand the point -- about organizational responsibility for
any kind of cooperation (defined, apparently, as conspiracy in some
instances) among high officials in these attacks. The penalty of
perjury will create quite a few queasy guts, and it is entirely
possible that some of the rats may break ranks.

I think it possibly of some value at a given point for all of us who
were victims of these attacks to talk about legal strategies -- either
joint or cooperative.

My sense is that if you can get this case to depositions, the house of
cards will fold. These people will not be able to keep their stories
straight. One point I learned long ago is that these characters live
on telephones and, presumably these days, on email. If there were
connivance rising to conspiracy, the stuff will come out
in depositions when it becomes every rat for himself.

Yours, Larry





help bot wrote:
On Dec 9, 4:33 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Greetings Chess Friends,

Is it true that yet another independent expert is going to weigh in on
the validity of the Mottershead report tomorrow? I am most curious to
hear the result. If we have another vindication of the report, it is
going to make the USCF stonewall of denial look even more tragically doomed.

I have no idea how Sam will make out with his law suit. But it is time
for the USCF to go. We need a much better and different organization
leading the US chess community. I know there are good competent people
out there that can make a difference. I hope they are preparing to
seize the opportunity when the USCF falls. Otherwise it will fall, once
again, to the same corrupt, backstabbing, double-dealing,
self-promoting, thieving types that have served us so ill to date.

By "yet another", I take it that already some independent
experts have validated the report; that would be interesting
in view of the many who have for whatever reason resisted
accepting it or, in some cases, even gone into deep denial,
pretending to not see its very existence.

To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything
other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising
that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing
denial (i.e. Larry Parr), others like IM Innes opting for the
"PT was set up" ploy. What if SS actually gets money
out of this? Wow-- who'd of thunk it?

I still say there may have been more than one impostor;
even if it can be proved that Paul Truong was doing Mr.
Sloan, that does not mean there weren't any copycats.
Some people may have felt certain postings were funny,
and tried their own hands on a whim.


-- help bot


PS: Pay no attention to that guy who has broken my
password at GetClub-- he is a fish and loses even to
the Beginner level! Look what he has done to my
rating-- I can never recover from this. If that was you,
Mr. Innes, it's not funny; I was a nearly-a-Class C
player with a rating of 1400. -- Karel van Mander

On Dec 9, 2:56 pm, " wrote:
ANOTHER GOOD LAUGH

To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything
other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising
that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing
denial (i.e. Larry Parr).... -- help bot

Why can't the Botster ever get it right? I never called for
anything except a full investigation before arriving at a conclusion.

In fact, here is one of my postings about Fake Sam from last
October. As I stated previously, our Greg is an invincible combination
of malice and ignorance.

P.S. It's "choosing" not "chosing." The Botster needs a new
spellchecker.

More options Oct 20, 7:01 am
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc
From: "
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:01:06 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 20 2007 7:01 am
Subject: Bauer Gets Free Attorney for Truong and Polgar

EVERY RAT FOR HIMSELF

Sam, I have spoken with an attorney -- a friend -- who says that if
during depositions, you can establish that some in the USCF leadership
knew the Fake Sam, then the Federation really could be at risk.

One possibility would be to make a deal with the Fake Sam to testify
about leadership connivance in the attacks.

Still, there is apparently some legal doctrine -- the lawyers here
will understand the point -- about organizational responsibility for
any kind of cooperation (defined, apparently, as conspiracy in some
instances) among high officials in these attacks. The penalty of
perjury will create quite a few queasy guts, and it is entirely
possible that some of the rats may break ranks.

I think it possibly of some value at a given point for all of us who
were victims of these attacks to talk about legal strategies -- either
joint or cooperative.

My sense is that if you can get this case to depositions, the house of
cards will fold. These people will not be able to keep their stories
straight. One point I learned long ago is that these characters live
on telephones and, presumably these days, on email. If there were
connivance rising to conspiracy, the stuff will come out
in depositions when it becomes every rat for himself.

Yours, Larry



help bot wrote:
On Dec 9, 4:33 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Greetings Chess Friends,

Is it true that yet another independent expert is going to weigh in on
the validity of the Mottershead report tomorrow? I am most curious to
hear the result. If we have another vindication of the report, it is
going to make the USCF stonewall of denial look even more tragically doomed.

I have no idea how Sam will make out with his law suit. But it is time
for the USCF to go. We need a much better and different organization
leading the US chess community. I know there are good competent people
out there that can make a difference. I hope they are preparing to
seize the opportunity when the USCF falls. Otherwise it will fall, once
again, to the same corrupt, backstabbing, double-dealing,
self-promoting, thieving types that have served us so ill to date.

By "yet another", I take it that already some independent
experts have validated the report; that would be interesting
in view of the many who have for whatever reason resisted
accepting it or, in some cases, even gone into deep denial,
pretending to not see its very existence.

To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything
other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising
that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing
denial (i.e. Larry Parr), others like IM Innes opting for the
"PT was set up" ploy. What if SS actually gets money
out of this? Wow-- who'd of thunk it?

I still say there may have been more than one impostor;
even if it can be proved that Paul Truong was doing Mr.
Sloan, that does not mean there weren't any copycats.
Some people may have felt certain postings were funny,
and tried their own hands on a whim.

-- help bot

PS: Pay no attention to that guy who has broken my
password at GetClub-- he is a fish and loses even to
the Beginner level! Look what he has done to my
rating-- I can never recover from this. If that was you,
Mr. Innes, it's not funny; I was a nearly-a-Class C
player with a rating of 1400. -- Karel van Mander- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Larry,

I disagree. The witnessess will take the fiftth amendment. Sam has
lost his case,
and will not make it to discovery.

Marcus Roberts

-- help bot

PS: Pay no attention to that guy who has broken my
password atGetClub-- he is a fish and loses even to
the Beginner level! Look what he has done to my
rating-- I can never recover from this. If that was you,
Mr. Innes, it's not funny; I was a nearly-a-Class C
player with a rating of 1400. -- Karel van Mander

I was thinking that GetClub Chess won because of the recent
improvements. So you can still beat GetClub Chess like carrots.
Yesterday GetClub Chess was made much stronger by removing 2 bugs. I
thought thats the reasion you lost 2/4 games to beginner Level.

Now no need to play with Higher Levels even beginner will beat you in
2/4 Games. Great times ahead.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 4:33 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Greetings Chess Friends,

Is it true that yet another independent expert is going to weigh in on
the validity of the Mottershead report tomorrow? I am most curious to
hear the result. If we have another vindication of the report, it is
going to make the USCF stonewall of denial look even more tragically
doomed.

I have no idea how Sam will make out with his law suit. But it is time
for the USCF to go. We need a much better and different organization
leading the US chess community. I know there are good competent people
out there that can make a difference. I hope they are preparing to
seize the opportunity when the USCF falls. Otherwise it will fall, once
again, to the same corrupt, backstabbing, double-dealing,
self-promoting, thieving types that have served us so ill to date.

By "yet another", I take it that already some independent
experts have validated the report; that would be interesting
in view of the many who have for whatever reason resisted
accepting it or, in some cases, even gone into deep denial,
pretending to not see its very existence.

To me, it was *surprising* to learn than SS had anything
other than hot air to back his claims, but unsurprising
that Evans ratpackers reacted irationally, some chosing
denial (i.e. Larry Parr), others like IM Innes opting for the
"PT was set up" ploy. What if SS actually gets money
out of this? Wow-- who'd of thunk it?

I see Larry Parr has made his own response. I say the same - malicious
misrepresentation of other people by those who can't write their own name is
indecent - and if all who think so are 'ratpackers' then those now include
the entire USCF, all its members, their access to their own forum, as well
as the accused persons - not to mention a board which has done very little
in 6 months because of this 'divide', which is a massive divide in mutual
confidence.

The point was always to satirise Sloan, since his own indecency in writing
is of another type, and he does not /ever/ use swear words - though of
course, neither does the person accused, ever.

In terms of who is now the /victim/ of the situation; who is it? PT or
Sloan?

I still say there may have been more than one impostor;

that was the case in rgcp some time ago, no?
Rolf and I thought their was a rotating account. Though that context was not
to satise, but to maliciously abuse.

---

The obvious first place to investigate is the source of the issue; ie,

what was the relationship between Mottershead and Truong? Does that
establish motive, for each of them? - what sorts are possible? Can
Mottershead not be the whistle blower, but the perp? Has he been fooled by
others?

In other words - to ask //normal// questions of the validity of the material
he has presented to its /veracity/.

---

I believe we may have heard [it had been openly reported in detail]
something previously on this subject, yet USCF dismissed an expert who did
not find any conclusive evidence, but did suggest further directions of
inquiry - then they hired another expert but did not repeat or aim the new
expert at that 'direction'.

And so USCF seem to have muddied the primary waters - and to remain with the
topic of motivation; why would they do that? In fact, which USCF board
members and staff directed the investigators?

Why conduct an investigation into secret activities, and hold the
investigational process secret?

---

These are /certainly/ areas which will emerge if a case every comes to a
courtroom - independent of the parties involved, and who sues whom - since
the law itself requires that it audit with a due-diligence accepted
evidential material which is otherwise termed 'hearsay'.

Phil Innes


even if it can be proved that Paul Truong was doing Mr.
Sloan, that does not mean there weren't any copycats.
Some people may have felt certain postings were funny,
and tried their own hands on a whim.


-- help bot


PS: Pay no attention to that guy who has broken my
password at GetClub-- he is a fish and loses even to
the Beginner level! Look what he has done to my
rating-- I can never recover from this. If that was you,
Mr. Innes, it's not funny; I was a nearly-a-Class C
player with a rating of 1400. -- Karel van Mander

Wasn't me. I am having too much trouble losing to 2500 players, and having
almost grin hit 2300 am likely to slip to 2250.

On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Snip typical Innes defense of his self-esteem meal-ticket.

Can
Mottershead not be the whistle blower, but the perp?

Mike, I think Philsy came up with a new one for the List of the Blind
Monkey!

On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" wrote:

The point was always to satirise Sloan, since his own indecency in writing
is of another type, and he does not /ever/ use swear words ...

On the contrary, instances of Sloan using profanity are legion, and
have been pointed out here many times. For now, a single example
suffices to refute this blanket "not /ever/" generalization:

http://tinyurl.com/2vrtrp

For those who'd rather not bother with the link, I append a
bowdlerized version below:

"Every Japanese Girl that comes to America has just one hope and
dream, and that is to get f---ed by a N--ger. How do I know this? I
know this from personal observation." -- Sam Sloan, on
soc.culture.korean, 27 August 2003.

Just as the US government requires warning labels on tobacco,
alcohol, and various drugs, one wonders if examples of this sort
should perhaps be appended to Sloan's candidate statement in Chess
Life every time he runs for USCF office.

On Dec 10, 8:53 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" wrote:



The point was always to satirise Sloan, since his own indecency in writing
is of another type, and he does not /ever/ use swear words ...

On the contrary, instances of Sloan using profanity are legion, and
have been pointed out here many times.

I think the Brattleboro Bedlam was being ironic, Taylor.

I do find it curious that a person who was never attacked by the fake
poster "knows" the fake poster's motives and the fake poster's
identity.

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 8:53 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 10, 6:58 am, "Chess One" wrote:



The point was always to satirise Sloan, since his own indecency in
writing
is of another type, and he does not /ever/ use swear words ...

On the contrary, instances of Sloan using profanity are legion, and
have been pointed out here many times.

I think the Brattleboro Bedlam was being ironic, Taylor.

I do find it curious that a person who was never attacked by the fake
poster "knows" the fake poster's motives and the fake poster's
identity.

How curious that Brennan finds it curious! Curioser and curioser!

He is attracted and fascinated to this subject of false-identity and abuse,
no? Didn't he get thrown of a moderated humanities group on Shakespeare
studies - was it just 18 months ago - for doing just that? Of course, he was
not posting here very much when the FSS was, so perhaps he is not very
expert on that person - but now 'he' is gone, Brennan returns to tell us all
about it, and what we should think.

As an abusenik, how preposterous that he has anything to say on this subject
by virtue of his own demonstrated behavior, and rather desperate
diversionary activities here.

I do not think Sloan uses swear words, it is extremely uncommon for him to
do so, despite some 'euphemised' instances including asterisks; such stuff
as f***. But as I say, Brennan were hardly here to note that, and in so many
posts of such length, those who were here noted swear words by their
absense, in comparison to the FSS by their frequency.

No. the FSS seems to have American cant speech down pretty well - 2,464
messages are syntactically a huge challenge from, IMO, a non-native speaker
to conduct without error.

Anyway - While I predicted that the newsgroup prosecution tribunal would not
be interested into he veracity of the initial Mottershead material - in
fact, that is entirely snipped from recent responses - the point was that a
court would be interested, in fact, it attains the status of primary
interest.

Phil Innes