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.

On Jan 11, 5:19*pm, "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.

We call this America? We call this the United States Chess Federation?
NAZI is a better description.

I do not understand why during a crisis, they try to censor. You need
a little secrecy in any
group of people, but transperency is vital, for trust. Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov allows more freedoms
in his republic than exist on the USCF forums.

Kirsan allows printed oppostion, just no publication. USCF forums
blocks all ideas, period.
How can the USCF delegates make decisions when they are denied all
information? This is
the cult of Susan Polgar.

Marcus Roberts

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

On Jan 11, 7:13*pm, wrote:
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

jhk

Supports Susan Polgar
Supports human rights violations in the name of chess
has never been to law school
is probably Paul Truong
Has never read the first amendment of the US Constitution

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. :-)

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. :-)


Mr. Lafferty,

Can you enlighten me? Who is Putz?
--

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

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"

"J.D. Walker" 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. :-)
Mr. Lafferty,

Can you enlighten me? Who is Putz?

Ken Sloan
--

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

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"

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.

wrote:
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.

Sorry, that should have been 47 USC 230. No doubt you'll make a big
deal of this, thus showing yet again your lack of intellectual
substance.

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.