The Historian wrote:
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.


No apology is necessary. Confusion caused by anons...
Nevertheless, the fellow had some good points to make. I wish he would
make them here now. I am not going to carry his water. :^)
--

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

J.D. Walker wrote:
The Historian wrote:
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.


No apology is necessary. Confusion caused by anons... Nevertheless,
the fellow had some good points to make. I wish he would make them here
now. I am not going to carry his water. :^)

Well, I will go this far. I have been pointed to one instance on the
blog of the statement by Paul Truong. It bears close scrutiny for what
it says and what it does not say.

" IP Addresses of Posters
Postby PaulTruong on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:36 pm

I am also very disturbed by the latest development. Through Susan's
blog, everyone knows the town where we live, events which we attend, as
well as the locations. Any experience individual who has access to my IP
can spoof it easily. It does not take a genius for this. /Do I know who
did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no./

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. If not, the USCF will
be a target of serious legal problems for the harms they may have caused
to a number of USCF members.

In my opinion, this is not the time for the USCF to sit back and allow
such blatant violations of the members' right to privacy go unpunished.
Since this is now an official legal issue, this will be my only
statement regarding this matter. The question was asked and I answered.
Once the EB and the ED come to a decision, we will announce it."
--

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

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. If not, the USCF will
be a target of serious legal problems for the harms they may have caused
to a number of USCF members.

If that is the case then past and present could be involved.

In my opinion, this is not the time for the USCF to sit back and allow
such blatant violations of the members' right to privacy go unpunished.
Since this is now an official legal issue, this will be my only
statement regarding this matter. The question was asked and I answered.
Once the EB and the ED come to a decision, we will announce it."

Sounds very Jose Canseco...ish.

EZoto

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.

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.

J.D. Walker wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
The Historian wrote:
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.


No apology is necessary. Confusion caused by anons...
Nevertheless, the fellow had some good points to make. I wish he
would make them here now. I am not going to carry his water. :^)

Well, I will go this far. I have been pointed to one instance on the
blog of the statement by Paul Truong. It bears close scrutiny for what
it says and what it does not say.

" IP Addresses of Posters
Postby PaulTruong on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:36 pm

I am also very disturbed by the latest development. Through Susan's
blog, everyone knows the town where we live, events which we attend, as
well as the locations. Any experience individual who has access to my IP
can spoof it easily. It does not take a genius for this. /Do I know who
did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no./

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. If not, the USCF will
be a target of serious legal problems for the harms they may have caused
to a number of USCF members.

In my opinion, this is not the time for the USCF to sit back and allow
such blatant violations of the members' right to privacy go unpunished.
Since this is now an official legal issue, this will be my only
statement regarding this matter. The question was asked and I answered.
Once the EB and the ED come to a decision, we will announce it."

Alright, alright, I will take it one more step... When Mr. Innes said:
"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."

We have the apparent original message above, and we have Susan's
quotation provided by Mr. Innes. A few points about this.

1) She has taken Paul's statement out of context to answer the USCF
objection. What was the context?

2) Careful reading of the origianl statement shows that in the paragraph
of context he was referring to IP spoofing.

3) If we replace the "it" in his statement with the logical substitute
"IP spoofing" we end up with this statement:

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

4) Therefore the in-context denial has nothing to do with what the USCF
was trying to address.

5) The statement by Susan "Can this be any clearer?" Is misdirection
distracting the reader from the fact that she has taken the denial out
of context and that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

6) Conclusion: Looks like sleazy lying to me. How does it look to you?

Now, my anon informant might have put this more elegantly, but I have
muddled something together as best I can. sighs
--

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

On Jan 21, 9:17 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
The Historian wrote:
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.

No apology is necessary. Confusion caused by anons...
Nevertheless, the fellow had some good points to make. I wish he
would make them here now. I am not going to carry his water. :^)

Well, I will go this far. I have been pointed to one instance on the
blog of the statement by Paul Truong. It bears close scrutiny for what
it says and what it does not say.

" IP Addresses of Posters
Postby PaulTruong on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:36 pm

I am also very disturbed by the latest development. Through Susan's
blog, everyone knows the town where we live, events which we attend, as
well as the locations. Any experience individual who has access to my IP
can spoof it easily. It does not take a genius for this. /Do I know who
did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no./

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. If not, the USCF will
be a target of serious legal problems for the harms they may have caused
to a number of USCF members.

In my opinion, this is not the time for the USCF to sit back and allow
such blatant violations of the members' right to privacy go unpunished.
Since this is now an official legal issue, this will be my only
statement regarding this matter. The question was asked and I answered.
Once the EB and the ED come to a decision, we will announce it."

Alright, alright, I will take it one more step... When Mr. Innes said:
"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."

We have the apparent original message above, and we have Susan's
quotation provided by Mr. Innes. A few points about this.

1) She has taken Paul's statement out of context to answer the USCF
objection. What was the context?

2) Careful reading of the origianl statement shows that in the paragraph
of context he was referring to IP spoofing.

3) If we replace the "it" in his statement with the logical substitute
"IP spoofing" we end up with this statement:

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

4) Therefore the in-context denial has nothing to do with what the USCF
was trying to address.

5) The statement by Susan "Can this be any clearer?" Is misdirection
distracting the reader from the fact that she has taken the denial out
of context and that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

6) Conclusion: Looks like sleazy lying to me. How does it look to you?

Like they neglected to update their 'denial' to match the latest
defense strategy of the remote-control trojan.

Now, my anon informant might have put this more elegantly, but I have
muddled something together as best I can. sighs
--

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

On Jan 21, 4:30 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
"Chess One" wrote in message

...





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

"Chess One" wrote in message
m...

"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.

Question? What internet service provider does Paul use?

AOL!

Does AOL have a static or dynamic IP address assignment system?

Dynamic!

Dynamic IP Address - Comes from a pool of IP addresses and is assigned
on the fly. Any available IP address can be used. Changes often.

If you have looked at your Web stats lately and noticed an
unbelievable number of AOL users have been to your site or are on your
site right now it is because AOL users are assigned dynamic IP
addresses.

In a perfect world, each computer would have one static IP address
assigned to it. Just like each person has one static name given at
birth to officially identify them. However, just like people, a
computer can change it's identity or take on different aliases on the
fly.

Internet users are almost always assigned a dynamic IP address by
their Internet provider but they usually do not change as often as AOL
users. That is because most Internet providers have nowhere near the
customers as AOL. Instead of buying millions and millions of IP
addresses, AOL re-uses from the same pool.

It is not uncommon for an AOL user to get a different IP address for
each page that they view. You may look at the "Whos On" in your stats
and see that 25 AOL users are at your Website. In all likelihood you
have one AOL user who has viewed 25 pages and received a different IP
address for each page they viewed. A new tracking session is started
every click (i.e. for each IP address) making it look like a separate
user.

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, 7:28 am, "Chess One" wrote:

snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks

Mr. Innes,

I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.

The Historian wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:28 am, "Chess One" wrote:

snip ongoing propaganda & ad hominen attacks

Mr. Innes,

I am not interested in your partisan PR campaign.


He reminds me of Bottom in "A Midsummer Night's Dream."
Who thinks he is sleeping with the Queen of the faeries,
But all the while he is drugged and dreaming,
And braying like an ass...
--

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