Sam Sloan wrote:

In case you are wondering why I posted this, I am using it in the
brief I am writing today to be filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in Sloan vs. Truong,
Polgar, USCF et al, Civil 07-CV-8537 (DC) (FM)

Sam Sloan

....and your reason for posting it to a newsgroup dedicated to
computer chess was?

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

On Feb 3, 5:35 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
Sam Sloan wrote:
In case you are wondering why I posted this, I am using it in the
brief I am writing today to be filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in Sloan vs. Truong,
Polgar, USCF et al, Civil 07-CV-8537 (DC) (FM)

Sam Sloan

...and your reason for posting it to a newsgroup dedicated to
computer chess was?

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Have you read the decision?

The answer is obvious.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote:

In case you are wondering why I posted this, I am using it in the
brief I am writing today to be filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in Sloan vs. Truong,
Polgar, USCF et al, Civil 07-CV-8537 (DC) (FM)

Sam Sloan

...and your reason for posting it to a newsgroup dedicated to
computer chess was?

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Have you read the decision?

The answer is obvious.

Sam Sloan

This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism
of your crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing
to have a calm and rational discussion about your crossposting?

As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references
to "computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized
facility that provides an electronic communications service"
(what we non-lawyers would call an email server) and zero
references to chess or any other game.

Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what
does any of this have to do with computers playing chess?

Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion
about guilt or innocence in this or any related matter.


--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

samsloan wrote:

Have you read the decision?

The answer is obvious.

Sam Sloan

This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism
of your crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing
to have a calm and rational discussion about your crossposting?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not discuss this
with me because he knows that he is in the wrong.

As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references
to "computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized
facility that provides an electronic communications service"
(what we non-lawyers would call an email server) and zero
references to chess or any other game.

Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what
does any of this have to do with computers playing chess?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not answer my question
because he can't answer my question. He was hoping that just
saying "the answer is obvious" would fool everyone into not
noticing that he has no reason for posting legal briefs having
nothing to do with chess into it to a newsgroup dedicated to
computer chess.

Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion
about guilt or innocence in the underlying case.


--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Guy Macon wrote:
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
samsloan wrote:

Have you read the decision?

The answer is obvious.

Sam Sloan
This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism
of your crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing
to have a calm and rational discussion about your crossposting?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not discuss this
with me because he knows that he is in the wrong.

As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references
to "computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized
facility that provides an electronic communications service"
(what we non-lawyers would call an email server) and zero
references to chess or any other game.

Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what
does any of this have to do with computers playing chess?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not answer my question
because he can't answer my question. He was hoping that just
saying "the answer is obvious" would fool everyone into not
noticing that he has no reason for posting legal briefs having
nothing to do with chess into it to a newsgroup dedicated to
computer chess.

Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion
about guilt or innocence in the underlying case.


Mr. Macon,

I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
charter or not, or how it reads. Do you know? Could you post it?

On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
as many chess and chess politics aspects. His use of a particular legal
citation, while not directly related, bears on his case.

If one were to estimate the difference between Sam's case being
dismissed with prejudice with the alternative that he wins in every
respect there are undoubtedly many aspects of interest related to chess
and computers.

However, if you can produce the newsgroup's charter, and it is explicit
in which ways chess and computers are to be discussed, you may have a
point. Personally, I would be happy if the lawsuit topic were confined
to the politics group, but I see Sam's point.
--

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

J.D. Walker wrote:
Guy Macon wrote:
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
samsloan wrote:

Have you read the decision?

The answer is obvious.

Sam Sloan
This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism of your
crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing to have a calm
and rational discussion about your crossposting?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not discuss this with me
because he knows that he is in the wrong.

As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references to
"computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized facility that
provides an electronic communications service" (what we non-lawyers
would call an email server) and zero references to chess or any other
game.

Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what does any of
this have to do with computers playing chess?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not answer my question
because he can't answer my question. He was hoping that just
saying "the answer is obvious" would fool everyone into not noticing
that he has no reason for posting legal briefs having nothing to do
with chess into it to a newsgroup dedicated to
computer chess.
Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion about guilt or
innocence in the underlying case.


Mr. Macon,

I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
charter or not, or how it reads. Do you know? Could you post it?

On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
as many chess and chess politics aspects. His use of a particular legal
citation, while not directly related, bears on his case.

If one were to estimate the difference between Sam's case being
dismissed with prejudice with the alternative that he wins in every
respect there are undoubtedly many aspects of interest related to chess
and computers.

However, if you can produce the newsgroup's charter, and it is explicit
in which ways chess and computers are to be discussed, you may have a
point. Personally, I would be happy if the lawsuit topic were confined
to the politics group, but I see Sam's point.

To follow up, I found this in the newsgroup faq:

"CHARTER:

The rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup will provide a place to
disseminate reports, discussions and analysis of game servers, where
chess games can be played in real time, similar to playing games of
chess via telephone; information and discussion about databases, games
collections, chess-playing software, and other computer programs of a
similar nature, either offered for sale, or in the state of development."

Point taken...
--

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

J.D. Walker wrote:
I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
charter or not, or how it reads.

Well, why didn't you spend five seconds with a search engine to find
out, instead of displaying your ignorance for all to see?

http://www.just****inggoogleit.com/?...mputer+charter

First hit:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games/chess.../preamble.html

To save you the extreme effort of actually loading it in your web
browser, the relevant section is

``CHARTER: The rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup will provide a
place to disseminate reports, discussions and analysis of game
servers, where chess games can be played in real time, similar to
playing games of chess via telephone; information and discussion
about databases, games collections, chess-playing software, and
other computer programs of a similar nature, either offered for
sale, or in the state of development.''

On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
as many chess and chess politics aspects.

None of this makes it on-topic in rec.games.chess.computer, since it
has nothing to do with computer chess, i.e., chess played by, against
or via computers and other computer chess software. If the mere
involvement of a computer were sufficient to justify posting on
rgc.computer, any post about chess would be on-topic there, since
every single post is made using computers.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Pointy-Haired.com (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an E-commerce portal that's
completely clueless but it's full
of teeth!

David Richerby wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
charter or not, or how it reads.

Well, why didn't you spend five seconds with a search engine to find
out, instead of displaying your ignorance for all to see?


Why so hostile? Relax Dave. It has already been handled.

Please don't crosspost.

J.D. Walker wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
Guy Macon wrote:
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
samsloan wrote:

Have you read the decision?

The answer is obvious.

Sam Sloan
This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism of your
crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing to have a calm
and rational discussion about your crossposting?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not discuss this with me
because he knows that he is in the wrong.

As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references to
"computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized facility that
provides an electronic communications service" (what we non-lawyers
would call an email server) and zero references to chess or any
other game.

Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what does any
of this have to do with computers playing chess?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not answer my question
because he can't answer my question. He was hoping that just
saying "the answer is obvious" would fool everyone into not noticing
that he has no reason for posting legal briefs having nothing to do
with chess into it to a newsgroup dedicated to
computer chess.
Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion about guilt or
innocence in the underlying case.


Mr. Macon,

I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
charter or not, or how it reads. Do you know? Could you post it?

On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as
well as many chess and chess politics aspects. His use of a
particular legal citation, while not directly related, bears on his case.

If one were to estimate the difference between Sam's case being
dismissed with prejudice with the alternative that he wins in every
respect there are undoubtedly many aspects of interest related to
chess and computers.

However, if you can produce the newsgroup's charter, and it is
explicit in which ways chess and computers are to be discussed, you
may have a point. Personally, I would be happy if the lawsuit topic
were confined to the politics group, but I see Sam's point.

To follow up, I found this in the newsgroup faq:

"CHARTER:

The rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup will provide a place to
disseminate reports, discussions and analysis of game servers, where
chess games can be played in real time, similar to playing games of
chess via telephone; information and discussion about databases, games
collections, chess-playing software, and other computer programs of a
similar nature, either offered for sale, or in the state of development."

Point taken...


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

Please don't crosspost.

David Richerby wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
charter or not, or how it reads.

Well, why didn't you spend five seconds with a search engine to find
out, instead of displaying your ignorance for all to see?

http://www.just****inggoogleit.com/?...mputer+charter

First hit:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games/chess.../preamble.html

To save you the extreme effort of actually loading it in your web
browser, the relevant section is

``CHARTER: The rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup will provide a
place to disseminate reports, discussions and analysis of game
servers, where chess games can be played in real time, similar to
playing games of chess via telephone; information and discussion
about databases, games collections, chess-playing software, and
other computer programs of a similar nature, either offered for
sale, or in the state of development.''

On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
as many chess and chess politics aspects.

None of this makes it on-topic in rec.games.chess.computer, since it
has nothing to do with computer chess, i.e., chess played by, against
or via computers and other computer chess software. If the mere
involvement of a computer were sufficient to justify posting on
rgc.computer, any post about chess would be on-topic there, since
every single post is made using computers.


Dave.



--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/