On Jan 12, 7:15*pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
wrote in message

...







B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
....

B. Lafferty wrote:
You've effectively killed the Issues Forum. *A whopping 12 posts so
far
today. *No real issue substance either. *And people scoffed when I
compared
you guys to the censors in the USSR. *Good job, fools.

I take it you will be voluntarily reporting to a Gulag to be tortured
and killed? Your comment is pretty insulting to people who actually
suffered from oppression, but I don't suppose that would occur to a
sixties retread like you. Meanwhile, you are still free to express
your opinions, however juvenile, as you did here. I thought they
taught logical thinking in law school, but perhaps you took the course
in sophistry instead

Listen up, moron. *If you go back and read my post making the analogy,
you
will see that the analogy was made to censorship issues. *As such the
analogy is, IMO, a valid one. *I never mentioned the Gulag, only you
have.
Also note that I, and others, are NOT free to express opinions on the
USCF
Issues Forum. *Look up the posts by Mottershead and others noting how
many
posts have been pulled from the USCF forum on significant issues facing
the
USCF.

I'm certain that you and Putz will contribute mightily to the lack of
substance on the Issues Forum. *Moron and Putz; quite a team. :-)

What clever, well-reasoned arguments. I'm sure you're a credit to your
law school training. If you can't find any better arguments than
childish name-calling, maybe that means you don't have any arguments
at all.

Look, Brian, I'll try once more, though it seems clear that you are
impervious to reason. You are free to state you opinions (no matter
how noxious or juvenile) in many places, including rgcp or a blog of
your own. You are not free to vent you spleen on the USCF Forums,
because it is a private forum and the elected leadership has chosen to
set standards of civility which you refuse to meet. You have no legal
argument in, view of 27 USC 230. You have no moral argument, because
no one is preventing you from presenting your opinions -- just telling
you to do it somewhere else. All you have, as I pointed out above, is
a loud voice and a big ego. It's not enough.

Moron, try to remember when Bill Hall prohibited ANY discussion regarding
the Sloan legal action on the Issues Forum. *That's just one example of
censorship of substantive issue discussion--not the form of discussion as
you would like to focus on. *Again, go back and look at the posts that
Mottershead and others have noted were pulled. *They were pulled not because
of name calling, for example, they were pulled due to substance. Clearly,
you're argument is false. *All you're doing is blowing smoke out your bung
hole, especially with yet another of your incorrect and/or irrelevant pseudo
legal arguments.

Truly, you are one of the most ignorant posters on the Issues Forum. You are
usually *factually and legally incorrect in your assertions. BTW, Title 27
of the US Code has to do with intoxicating liquors. Perhaps you were
referring to Title 47 Section 230 set out below which has nothing to do with
the issue of Issues Forum censorship. *Once again, you've merely illustrated
your ignorance and inability to reason effectively.
EC. 230. *PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE
MATERIAL.
* (a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:

* * (1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive
computer services available to individual Americans represent an
extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational
resources to our citizens.

* * (2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the
information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater
control in the future as technology develops.

* * (3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum
for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for
cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

* * (4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have
flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government
regulation.

* * (5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a
variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

* (b) POLICY- It is the policy of the United States--

* * (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other
interactive computer services and other interactive media;

* * (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently
exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered
by Federal or State regulation;

* * (3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user
control over what information is received by individuals, families, and
schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;

* * (4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of
blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their
children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

* * (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and
punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of
computer.

* (c) PROTECTION FOR `GOOD SAMARITAN' BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE
MATERIAL-

* * (1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER- No provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
any information provided by another information content provider.

* * (2) CIVIL LIABILITY- No provider or user of an interactive computer
service shall be held liable on account of--

* * * (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to
or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally
protected; or

* * * (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information
content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to
material described in paragraph (1).

* (d) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS-

* * (1) NO EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LAW- Nothing in this section shall be
construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 of this Act, chapter 71
(relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children)
of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal criminal statute.

* * (2) NO EFFECT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW- Nothing in this section
shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual
property.

* * (3) STATE LAW- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any
State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No
cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any
State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Brian

I was expelled from the USCF forums for several posts made by Paul
Truong, an elected
Criminal in office. Paul hacked my account! These posts came within 6
hours. They don't want to reason with you,
They got a plurality of 15% of the votes in a mail ballot election.
You are actually arguing with Paul Truong, and Paul believes that
elections work the way they work in Vietnam.

When Paul left Vietnam, when you won an election, you KILL EVERYONE
WHO OPPOSES YOU.
Paul Truong lost an "election" around 1975, and fled to the USA on a
boat. So, now, Paul wants to KILL EVERYONE who supports Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov.
Paul Truong threatened to kill me for supporting Kirsan in the 2006
FIDE Presidential Elections. In Vietnamese politics, this is normal,
from the time Paul Truong left Vietnam.
Paul wants to KILL to advance in Chess politics, and a group of us are
going to put a stop to these death threats.

He is posting as a the VP of Marketing and Finance. You are arguing
with somebody who has no education
or ability to reason.

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE

"Zero" wrote in message
acolo.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

"B. Lafferty" wrote in rec.games.chess.politics...
You've effectively killed the Issues Forum. A whopping 12 posts so far
today. No real issue substance either. And people scoffed when I
compared you guys to the censors in the USSR. Good job, fools.

Hillery will probably beat me to posting this, but I will nonetheless
write.

Brian, this is penned with the very greatest possible respect. Truly.

It is more than hard to comprehend that you once held the post of Judge.
Yes,
were merely an ALJ, and ALJs have been characterized as being to real
judges
as $6-a-day shoeshine boys are to managers of footwear conglomerates.

But even for an ALJ, your feckless, extravagant, arrogant, unbalanced,
usually
tasteless, exaggerated prima donna outbursts go beyond what is acceptable.
A
certain degree of disruption is healthy for a board like the Issues Forum.
What you did, and do again, isn't. It's only a matter of time before the
scales fall away from Donna's eyes - if they have not already fallen away.

I will let you on to a little secret, in case Sam, who must know this
already
because he gets to hear things even before they happen (and sometimes they
do
not ever happen, but you'll wait forever for Sam to apologize or retract),
has
not shared this with you, his trusted backer in this his last great
adventure.

When the absurd lawsuit was filed, board members and others (I don't know
how
many, but I recognized most of the many email addresses it was carboned
to)
anonymously received instructions on how to post or email and still
maintain
deniability. In a nutshell, one sends an email to a gateway remailing
service
based outside the country, that strips out all the ID from the email
except
fake sender-specified material, holds the comms for a random time and then
sends it out. The only hitch is that the posts autodelete after a week.

One can and should speculate at the motive/s and identity of the person
who
sent out the instructions. The best place to hide a flake is a snowstorm -
if it was that type of flake. All the email addresses that I recognized
belonged to people who do not like what Sam does. I do not like what Sam
does and that is no secret to those who know me, Sam included. Why did the
poster let us see all the other recipients (he could have used
blindcarbon)?
The only reason I can come up with it is we would be more likely to have
confidence in his method if we could see that many others had been given
exactly the same method. It doesn't fly if it can be worked out who we
are.
I knew some of this already so it was not a big step for me. I do not know
how many others are getting even this way- at least one besides me (unless
that other is Sloan himself, with him you can never know).

If this is news to you, well, you were an outsider a year ago and you are
still an outsider. Why don't you find another hobby to waste other
people's
time on, Brian? You had apparently never heard of us in 2006. But we could
revert to that time, when we had never heard (of) the Jackass?

Did you know that there are more than three times as many ALJs in the United
States as regular judicial judges? In fact, most ALJ decisions, such as
mine, were appealable to the "regular" courts. I'm happy to say I never had
a decision reversed.

When sitting on the bench one has the duty to judge fairly in accordance
with statute and procedure. One does not have the luxury of the advocate
pressing his clients case to throw the bull**** to see if any sticks with
the judge or jury.

ALJs can significantly affect people's lives. I terminated public employees
for corruption which resulted in the forfeiture of pension funds and medical
treatment for the respondent and respondent's family. I also delayed a
suspension from the work place so as to keep a respondent's child covered by
medical insurance so that the child could undergo cancer treatment.

The bottom line is that regarding chess, I'm not acting in the role of
judge. I have the luxury to advocate and muckrake all I want. :-)