"Chess One" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news:Sw7lj.4687$YH6.842@trndny03...

"Chess One" wrote in message
. ..

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan
20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the
offer:-

"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally
to Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to
make any simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if
they will accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all
matters heretofore held secret.

I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that
questions actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I
do not know if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if
Susan Polgar's first statement was true.

Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or
not - which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or
to open up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.

Phil Innes

ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying
or admitting the Sloan allegations.

And by opening up such correspondance it can be clearly known if this is a
true statement, no? Have you noticed that it is a contested statement?

Have you noticed that accordin to Susan Polgar the questions is already
answered?

I've noticed that the question hasn't been answered directly by Truong as
requested by counsel.

Simple request. Normal request by ones counsel in litigation. But, a
request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply with. Guilty people do have
problems with such requests.

Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from
his IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan
responds by saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

I do not understand that to be a quote of Susan Polgar.

Ask your buddy Sue for the exact quote in her next email missive to
Chessville.


Bull**** will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
Truong has reached the end of the line.

ChaChing........GUILTY

Thank you. line-judge. for your comments, and that of the noted stalker
Neil Brennan who chimed in, to similar effect.

I should not wish this post to be about either of you, since you both
pretend to have comprehension problems by your rhetorical displays in
respect of both legal issues, and those merely decent. It is merely
curious to me, that the biggest supporter of Sam Sloan in these
newsgroups, Mr. Parr, with whom I differ on the worth of Mr. Sloan to
marked degree, should also aver with, should I sufficiently understand Mr.
Parr, that there should be no more secrets here than Susan Polgar
suggests.

Indeed, should Mr. Sloan himself be as good as his word about the need for
openness on these issues, he might adopt this specific instance to support
it himself.

Otherwise, as you will well understand, there are those people who, as we
say, "mouth off' about things, but when it comes right down to it, they
are not as good as their word, or their mouth, so to speak.

As to yourself, I take your lack of support for allowing the members to
gain their own opinion to indicate your orientation. Should you not quite
understand the level of insult here offered you, then you are, in my
opinion, rather less than Mr. Sloan who could still notice this issue and
be as good as his own word. Your words, sir, have no good in them
whatever, and you pronounce upon one-sided net-gossip, as if you had even
one thought in your head, rather than the emotional mendacity of a Neil
Brennan.

Should you, or others who dislike anything but secrecy find these words
too 'complicated' I could instead say of you that you are simple, and
additionally, you expect others to be simply stupid.

Phil Innes

Phil, if you can't edit yourself before clicking the send icon, either don't
click it or ask a professional journalist to edit it for you.

On Jan 21, 5:22 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from
his IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan
responds by saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

I do not understand that to be a quote of Susan Polgar.

A not surprising admission from a person who doesn't know what a
quotation is, or how to use quotation marks. I suggest you follow
Judge Lafferty's advice and hire a journalist to write your posts for
you.

ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
admitting the Sloan allegations. Simple request. Normal request by ones
counsel in litigation. But, a request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply
with. Guilty people do have problems with such requests.

I suppose almost everyone here is guilty then because there have been
many posts about sloan that were pretty bad. Your trying to play with
words here. Asking troung for a statement about sloan. You can't
possibly believe it will be a positive statement.

Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from his
IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan responds by
saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

Nothing wrong with that request.

Bull**** will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
Truong has reached the end of the line.

I guess you haven't lived in the US for long have you? I can find
something to sue you for or anyone. It is a sad state of affairs that
this is possible but true. There are people out there that will put
you through the legal action for no reason and make your life a
nightmare. Try bumping someones car in the rear and see what happens
if it is the wrong person. You will definitely suffer in court.

ChaChing........GUILTY

Well I do remember a dry cleaners who was being sued for 54 million
dollars because he messed up a customers pair of pants. I mean he did
mess up his pants you know and the dry cleaners offered to pay for it.
The plaintiff said heck no. But the dry cleaners were guilty. This is
what sloan seems to want to do. It sounds like sour grapes because
these guys got elected and the losers can't stand to lose power.

EZoto

On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.
Everyone can then decide who is clean and who is not. Why not let the USCF
members decide what the facts are? "

The URL for the full statement is at

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...eParrotSquaawk...

which extracts from Alekhine's Parrot, which also contains her earlier
statement on the same topic

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:

"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."

Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
us.

You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
understand it, find a child to explain it to you.

The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" wrote:
She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:

"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."

Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
us.

You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
understand it, find a child to explain it to you.


To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
nurse their ignorance.

Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
--

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

On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" wrote:
She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:

"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."

Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
us.

You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
understand it, find a child to explain it to you.

To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
nurse their ignorance.

Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.

Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.

The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" wrote:
She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."
Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
us.
You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
nurse their ignorance.

Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.

Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.


Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.
--

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

On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" wrote:
She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."
Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
us.
You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
nurse their ignorance.

Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.

Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.

Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.

I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
am, Reverend Walker.

The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" wrote:
She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."
Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
us.
You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
nurse their ignorance.
Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.

I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
am, Reverend Walker.


As far as I know this was not about you Mr. Historian. Some one sent me
anon email... It was not you was it?
--

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

On Jan 21, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:53 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 7:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
The Historian wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:08 am, "Chess One" wrote:
She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:
"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."
Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
us.
You might want to explain to Suzie Chesspiece the difference between a
statement from Paul Truong and heresay from his wife. If you don't
understand it, find a child to explain it to you.
To be fair, I recall Paul's statement appearing on the Polgar blog. I
do not know if it appeared elsewhere. Probably it is still available in
the blog archives. Even so, that does not excuse the fact that it is
completely inadequate to serve the purpose of a signed legal document.
If Susan and Paul did not understand this they certainly could have
asked their own lawyers. It is not anyone else's responsibility to wet
nurse their ignorance.
Paul has a habit of using Susan's account to post things on their blog
at times. Susan may do the same with Paul's account. Perhaps Gregory
Alexander gets into the act at times. I do not know. Given this, who
actually made the statement on the blog is open to question.
Which explains why it's not acceptable as a written statement from
Paul Truong by anyone other than P Innes.
Now I am getting anon coaching from supporters via email. I prefer to
operate as an independent agent thank, you. Your points were
interesting, but you should make them yourself in this thread.

I thought I did make a point in the post you replied to. And I'm
hardly anonymous. Even your clueless antagonist P Innes knows who I
am, Reverend Walker.

As far as I know this was not about you Mr. Historian. Some one sent me
anon email... It was not you was it?

No, Reverend Walker, I have not sent you any email, anonymous or
otherwise, at any time. Since you replied to and quoted my post, I
read your posting as addressed to me. My apologies for
misunderstanding.