On Jan 21, 5:20 pm, Rob wrote:

I am much distrubed by the USCF's inclination to "eat it's young".
There has been a tolerance of miscreants in this organization for
decades.

Two wrongs make right is a fallacy, my boy.
So drop the "everybody else does it" excuse.


Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are ,IMO, being attacked simply
because they are thoughtful agents of change.

Simple question: which one of these
"thoughtful agents" is responsible for the
ATROCITY that is the SP Web site? It
has to be one of them-- or both; there's
no getting around it; evil scum have a
very distinct scent all their own.


There is no personal
information that is safe once in the hands of the USCF.

That's true.


Confidential information of members is shared or left open to
exploitation. Employment applications and resume's of applicants are
faxed and distributed "willy-nilly" with no fore-thought to
confidentiality.

Confidentially, I hope the USCF's HQ gets
blown up-- of course, when there is no one
around to get hurt.


Currently, it appears to me the quickest way to destroy the future of
the game of chess in America is to associate it with the USCF.

It's a bit of a drag, like an anchor in the
water. But so far, it hasn't been able to
get the job done. Maybe we should
change the rules? Let's say that pawns
which reach the last rank just have to sit
there, blocking both sides. And Knights
can only hop forward and to the left--
once they reach the edge of the board,
they're stuck there.


-- helpful bot

DUMMY PROPOSES DUMMY PAWN RULE

Let's say that pawns which reach the last rank just have to sit
there, blocking both sides. -- help bot (aka Greg Kennedy)


help bot wrote:
On Jan 21, 5:20 pm, Rob wrote:

I am much distrubed by the USCF's inclination to "eat it's young".
There has been a tolerance of miscreants in this organization for
decades.

Two wrongs make right is a fallacy, my boy.
So drop the "everybody else does it" excuse.


Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are ,IMO, being attacked simply
because they are thoughtful agents of change.

Simple question: which one of these
"thoughtful agents" is responsible for the
ATROCITY that is the SP Web site? It
has to be one of them-- or both; there's
no getting around it; evil scum have a
very distinct scent all their own.


There is no personal
information that is safe once in the hands of the USCF.

That's true.


Confidential information of members is shared or left open to
exploitation. Employment applications and resume's of applicants are
faxed and distributed "willy-nilly" with no fore-thought to
confidentiality.

Confidentially, I hope the USCF's HQ gets
blown up-- of course, when there is no one
around to get hurt.


Currently, it appears to me the quickest way to destroy the future of
the game of chess in America is to associate it with the USCF.

It's a bit of a drag, like an anchor in the
water. But so far, it hasn't been able to
get the job done. Maybe we should
change the rules? Let's say that pawns
which reach the last rank just have to sit
there, blocking both sides. And Knights
can only hop forward and to the left--
once they reach the edge of the board,
they're stuck there.


-- helpful bot

I did not want to be caught up in this argument, which I feel is a
sideshow. However, since Phil brought me up, I feel I must say my
piece.

The accusation against the USCF board is that they used a pretext to
request that Paul Truong step down. This simply does not interest me
at all as a potential scandal.

It distracts from the real issue - did Paul Truong impersonate people
in the newsgroups, and then try to lie about it and cover it up?

If I had to guess, I would venture that at some point the board had
enough of the foot-dragging tactics of Truong, and made the request
because of it, while Truong could make the argument that he was
cooperating and was going to produce them. No crime either side as far
as that goes.

Truong could defuse the resignation call much more effectively by
simply producing legally binding testimony of innocence, and giving
legal access to his internet records. If he is innocent, he should be
eager to provide both of these, rather than having to negotiate his
way to doing so. The longer he waits on doing these, the more we
deserve to know why it is taking so long (and the more suspicious his
actions will seem).

I would prefer this to be my final word on opening the email records
between the board, since it is not an issue I want to see continue
distracting from the main question. I would enjoy looking at such
records, but mostly as a form of entertainment on the order of finding
out what new lows Brittney Spears has reached.

Jerry Spinrad


On Jan 22, 6:28*am, "Chess One" wrote:
* * STATE OF PLAY

While to-date I, Phil Innes, and Larry Parr, have both encouraged openning
up this issue so that all can see 'who is clean and who is not', and
especially that USCF members can make their own assessment, and to let the
chips lie where they may... It is fascinating to read that this is
partisanship! Though how Lary Parr and I can possibly be on the same team
for this issue is unexplained [though surely someone will try now!] In fact,
this issue will not even be contested or resolved by either of us - since
the intent is for the members to do that.

Equally fascinating is who does /not want/ the issue opened up. At least 4
recent commentators here, Brennan + 3 single-issue posters; the
not-a-Christian 'Reverend' Walker, Litigious-Laugherty, and Mike '48'
Murray, cannot bring themselves to support members coming to their own
conclusions by assessing all sides of the issue.

Who else can't manage to say much who is a 'frequent-contributor' to this
subject? Well, there is ChessCafe's columnist Jerry Spinrad. But the main
absentee from openness of communcation is Sam Sloan himself.

* * SLOAN'S OPTIONS

After an entire year of preaching to us that openning up the secretive can
of worms at USCF was his own dedicated mission, where is Sam Sloan now, when
it comes right down to it?

And finally, the last party not to aver allowing the members to make up
their own minds, rather than whatever is currently going on in the secret
recessess, is USCF itself. In 3 days the editorial deadline is reached, and
if USCF decline to accept either making their own statement, or to accept
the offer to open the secret doors, then I will be obliged to say so. To
respond or not is entirely USCF's own business, but it does have
consequences:-

* * REASONABLE DOUBT

Since this is a very specific instance of official secrecy then the
speculatory boot -the reasonable doubt- will be on the other foot, no? Since
what business /should/ need be secret in a public non-profit which exists to
promote and administer chess in the USA [excepting personnel records, and
such mandated federal confidential matters].

The biggest stimulus to affronting 'official secrets' would be if Sam Sloan
should support Susan Polgar on this issue, by also declaring that the light
should shine on all this matter - as he himself said most consistently of
all for an entire year - and indeed, who could possibly object then?

Phil Innes

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:23:53 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


Post by PaulTruong on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:36 pm
... Any experience individual who has access to my IP
can spoof it easily. It does not take a genius for this....

It also bothers me that USCF contractors can do as they wish with
members' info without the consent or approval of the ED, EB or USCF
members. Anyone who violates the members' privacy and acted unethically
should be dismissed and have all their access to the USCF database and
members' info revoked immediately. And the USCF should go after any
contractor who violates the NDA which they signed....

Much has been made over the brief publication of IP addresses on the
USCF Members Only Forum. Brian Mottershead, who was the volunteer
responsible for this, was quickly directed to revoke this publication.
The IP addresses were exposed for a few hours, mostly in the middle of
the night, but their publication was especially troublesome to members
who had fixed IP addresses. Mottershead acknowledged he could have
handled it better. He was suspended, his suspension evidently driven
by strong demands from Truong and Polgar.

I am curious as to whether there is any legal background establishing
IP addresses as sensitive information which needs to be protected in
some way. I am not saying it's impossible, but it strikes me as highly
unlikely.

Can you shed any light on the issue?



What I haven't seen discussed is that, some time (a few weeks, I
believe) before this fateful night, a poster on this rgcp forum had
suggested that IP addresses provided a way to trap the FSS. At that
time, the FSS had made a number of rgcp forgeries which copied large
amounts of material from the USCF Members website with a line or two
modified to change the meaning. Someone noted that a few of these
fake rgcp posts were made shortly after the original post appeared on
the USCF forum. It was suggested that checking the logs on the USCF
site would reveal a very short list of folks who had been active there
during the window of time between the original and fake post.

This approach seems similar to what Mottershead later implemented.

So, it was known some time before Mottershead did his analysis, at
least to regular posters, that a review of IP addresses could prove
dangerous to the anonymity of the FSS. I often wondered if this had
anything to do with Truong and Polgar reportedly demanding
Mottershead's immediate suspension when they found out he was
reviewing IP addresses. Admittedly, a more abstract concern with the
privacy issue provides an alternative explanation.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:38:04 -0800, "David Kane"
wrote:


I am curious as to whether there is any legal background establishing
IP addresses as sensitive information which needs to be protected in
some way. I am not saying it's impossible, but it strikes me as highly
unlikely.

Can you shed any light on the issue?

Here's what I've picked up from the discussions on the USCF Members'
Forum: An IP address is not private in the sense that visiting any
website reveals it (unless the visitor employs certain privacy tools)
to that site. However, users have the expectation that the site will
not reveal the IP address to third parties without good reason or
proper advance notice.

wrote in message
...
I did not want to be caught up in this argument, which I feel is a
sideshow. However, since Phil brought me up, I feel I must say my
piece.

The accusation against the USCF board is that they used a pretext to
request that Paul Truong step down. This simply does not interest me
at all as a potential scandal.

It distracts from the real issue - did Paul Truong impersonate people
in the newsgroups, and then try to lie about it and cover it up?

If I had to guess,

----
Jerry Spinraqd of Chesscafe /has/ to guess. He wants to guess.

If he wanted to actually find out who is clean or not, and he does not! Then
he would come along with Larry Parr and I and say, 'throw open the doors!'
and let the sun shine in, and let all see within.

The rest of his message here is because he does /not/ want to do that. And
since I have a reasonable toleration level for plain statement, and an
equivocation or two, and I have asked him this before - lets not pretend
that Jerry Spinrad , who previously wrote on 'behalf of the members' is at
all sincere. In fact... he now abandons his last plea, 'for the members'
since he can't admit even that the issue is to do with corruption within,
the strange awarding of contracts to certain parties, and that members
should even know about these things.

he does not mention that he is employed by a USCF contractee!

The gauntlet is down - he is not going to pick it up - but spares us a few
further insincere words about what he cares - his last words, so he says.
May they be so.

Phil Innes

-------------

I would venture that at some point the board had
enough of the foot-dragging tactics of Truong, and made the request
because of it, while Truong could make the argument that he was
cooperating and was going to produce them. No crime either side as far
as that goes.

Truong could defuse the resignation call much more effectively by
simply producing legally binding testimony of innocence, and giving
legal access to his internet records. If he is innocent, he should be
eager to provide both of these, rather than having to negotiate his
way to doing so. The longer he waits on doing these, the more we
deserve to know why it is taking so long (and the more suspicious his
actions will seem).

I would prefer this to be my final word on opening the email records
between the board, since it is not an issue I want to see continue
distracting from the main question. I would enjoy looking at such
records, but mostly as a form of entertainment on the order of finding
out what new lows Brittney Spears has reached.

Jerry Spinrad


On Jan 22, 6:28 am, "Chess One" wrote:
STATE OF PLAY

While to-date I, Phil Innes, and Larry Parr, have both encouraged openning
up this issue so that all can see 'who is clean and who is not', and
especially that USCF members can make their own assessment, and to let the
chips lie where they may... It is fascinating to read that this is
partisanship! Though how Lary Parr and I can possibly be on the same team
for this issue is unexplained [though surely someone will try now!] In
fact,
this issue will not even be contested or resolved by either of us - since
the intent is for the members to do that.

Equally fascinating is who does /not want/ the issue opened up. At least 4
recent commentators here, Brennan + 3 single-issue posters; the
not-a-Christian 'Reverend' Walker, Litigious-Laugherty, and Mike '48'
Murray, cannot bring themselves to support members coming to their own
conclusions by assessing all sides of the issue.

Who else can't manage to say much who is a 'frequent-contributor' to this
subject? Well, there is ChessCafe's columnist Jerry Spinrad. But the main
absentee from openness of communcation is Sam Sloan himself.

SLOAN'S OPTIONS

After an entire year of preaching to us that openning up the secretive can
of worms at USCF was his own dedicated mission, where is Sam Sloan now,
when
it comes right down to it?

And finally, the last party not to aver allowing the members to make up
their own minds, rather than whatever is currently going on in the secret
recessess, is USCF itself. In 3 days the editorial deadline is reached,
and
if USCF decline to accept either making their own statement, or to accept
the offer to open the secret doors, then I will be obliged to say so. To
respond or not is entirely USCF's own business, but it does have
consequences:-

REASONABLE DOUBT

Since this is a very specific instance of official secrecy then the
speculatory boot -the reasonable doubt- will be on the other foot, no?
Since
what business /should/ need be secret in a public non-profit which exists
to
promote and administer chess in the USA [excepting personnel records, and
such mandated federal confidential matters].

The biggest stimulus to affronting 'official secrets' would be if Sam
Sloan
should support Susan Polgar on this issue, by also declaring that the
light
should shine on all this matter - as he himself said most consistently of
all for an entire year - and indeed, who could possibly object then?

Phil Innes

On Jan 22, 2:38 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:23:53 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:

Post by PaulTruong on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:36 pm
... Any experience individual who has access to my IP
can spoof it easily. It does not take a genius for this....

It also bothers me that USCF contractors can do as they wish with
members' info without the consent or approval of the ED, EB or USCF
members. Anyone who violates the members' privacy and acted unethically
should be dismissed and have all their access to the USCF database and
members' info revoked immediately. And the USCF should go after any
contractor who violates the NDA which they signed....

Much has been made over the brief publication of IP addresses on the
USCF Members Only Forum. Brian Mottershead, who was the volunteer
responsible for this, was quickly directed to revoke this publication.
The IP addresses were exposed for a few hours, mostly in the middle of
the night, but their publication was especially troublesome to members
who had fixed IP addresses. Mottershead acknowledged he could have
handled it better. He was suspended, his suspension evidently driven
by strong demands from Truong and Polgar.

I am curious as to whether there is any legal background establishing
IP addresses as sensitive information which needs to be protected in
some way. I am not saying it's impossible, but it strikes me as highly
unlikely.

Can you shed any light on the issue?

Just this week the head of EU's data privacy group official spoke on
this topic.
IP addresses should be considered personal data. It's not legislated
yet but
seems to be going that way.

K

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...kc-WwD8UAGH900


What I haven't seen discussed is that, some time (a few weeks, I
believe) before this fateful night, a poster on this rgcp forum had
suggested that IP addresses provided a way to trap the FSS. At that
time, the FSS had made a number of rgcp forgeries which copied large
amounts of material from the USCF Members website with a line or two
modified to change the meaning. Someone noted that a few of these
fake rgcp posts were made shortly after the original post appeared on
the USCF forum. It was suggested that checking the logs on the USCF
site would reveal a very short list of folks who had been active there
during the window of time between the original and fake post.

This approach seems similar to what Mottershead later implemented.

So, it was known some time before Mottershead did his analysis, at
least to regular posters, that a review of IP addresses could prove
dangerous to the anonymity of the FSS. I often wondered if this had
anything to do with Truong and Polgar reportedly demanding
Mottershead's immediate suspension when they found out he was
reviewing IP addresses. Admittedly, a more abstract concern with the
privacy issue provides an alternative explanation.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:38:04 -0800, "David Kane"
wrote:


I am curious as to whether there is any legal background establishing
IP addresses as sensitive information which needs to be protected in
some way. I am not saying it's impossible, but it strikes me as highly
unlikely.

Can you shed any light on the issue?

Here's what I've picked up from the discussions on the USCF Members'
Forum: An IP address is not private in the sense that visiting any
website reveals it (unless the visitor employs certain privacy tools)
to that site. However, users have the expectation that the site will
not reveal the IP address to third parties without good reason or
proper advance notice.

Hmmm. In my mind there is a big difference between *visiting* a website
and publicly *posting* on a forum.

A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the Sloan
suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, including
the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the
opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, [received
overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar.

When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both
editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups.

Phil Innes

On Jan 25, 8:26 am, "Chess One" wrote:
A series of exchanges on this issue of the current USCF Scandal, the Sloan
suit, and related matters will appear this weekend at Chessville, including
the initial invitational letter from Susan Polgar; a response to the
opportunity to USCF to make their own statement by Chessville, [received
overnight]; and a counter-note from Susan Polgar.

Oh, the latest "final response", in other words.

When the material is published, further commentary may be made, both
editorially at Chessville, and in these newsgroups.

Warning, threat, or permission? P Innes' announcement can be read as
any of the three.