The Board refused ...

On Feb 5, 11:04 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Chess One wrote:
Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
skipping any issue whatever.

No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied to
these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.

Phil Innes

Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!! I look forward to reading your
"interview" with the hardest set of questions ever put to a board
member. Will Truong be connected to a polygraph or voice stress
analysis machine during the interview. Of course, neither of those
machines is perfectly reliable. For example, a pathological liar would
pass both in a breeze.



Brian,
Where is your axe? WHy do you wield it? Where is your dog in this?

On Feb 5, 12:42 pm, The Historian wrote:
On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

Chess One wrote:
Currently I am interviewing Paul Truong with what are probably the hardest
set of questions ever put to a USCF board member. I am not conscious of
skipping any issue whatever.

No doubt, there will be those who would prefer their own wording applied to
these questions, but I am writing as a journalist to obtain information by
asking real and answerable questions, not as a prosecutor hyperbolizing an
issue with a little rhetorical badinage for the peanut gallery.

Phil Innes

Bowel Boy is a journalist? ROTFLMAO!!

Let's take him at his word. Here are some questions I'd like to ask
Mr. Truong.

Q. A published report by Brian Mottershead links your IP address to
numerous obscene posts on the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics.
This report has been reviewed twice by experts and found to have been
sound in its methodology and conclusion. Did you make the posts in
question? Did your wife Susan Polgar make the posts in question? If
you or Susan Polgar did not make the posts, who did?

Q. Have you ever posted anonymously to newsgroups? If so, under what
screen names?

Q. Have you ever sent email under another person's name?

Q. Have you ever used remailer programs for posting to newsgroups?

Q. Have you ever posted under the name "Bob Bennett" to the chess
newsgroups?

Q. Have you ever used another person's ID on a chess-playing site?
Have you ever used a chess-playing engine while playing a game on a
chess-playing site?

Q. Have you ever fed hot-sauce to Susan Polgar''s children as
punishment or to force them to learn chess?

Q. Why did you use the title "Dr." on your homepage when you did not
have a doctorate?

Q. What business relationship do you have with Rob Mitchell? With his
company Chess Masterminds? With Chessville?

Q. What business relationship do you have with Philip Keith Innes, AKA
Phil Innes?

Q. Why did Rob Mitchell offer to be "deposed" if Sloan's lawsuit comes
to trial?

Q. Who was responsible for the notorious Chess Masterminds press
release that claimed Susan Polgar was one of the three strongest chess
players in the world, but didn't state that in fact that ranking was
among women only?

Day one. P Innes has failed to acknowledge these questions.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:10:41 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

The point, as I see it, is that the USCF has no reason to keep secret
material that would exonerate Truong.

ah! they have no reason to 'exonerate' Paul Truong, says Murray!~ since
presumably they would then need to look to the actual perp. And they have,
perhaps, no reason to want that to happen?

My gawd, Phil, your understanding is the opposite of what I said.

Maybe phrasing it in a different way would be easier for Phil to
parse: "The USCF has no reason to keep material that would exonerate
Truong secret." How's that?

That would be to express yourself properly, since your change inverts the
meaning of your first attempt ~ I think its an adverb and noun thing.

You see, I wasn't saying that they have
no reason to keep it. One more try: ( they have no reason) (to keep
secret) (material that would exonerate Truong). Does this help?

I think it helps you to write everything out twice, naming your pronouns and
so on, and you have almost rejoined your infinitive, already.

I don't know what's written beneath this - and no longer engage the
prosecutors who are not honest, any one of them, since this volunteered
statement by prosecutor Murray, rather identifies the entire game, no?

Indeed it does. My point, which I've repeated several times, and P
Innes is determined to mis-understand is that (1) The USCF has no
reason to keep exculpatory material secret since (2) Truong's lawyer
will pry it loose and (3) They would look all the worse for trying to
hide it.

Of course! So, perhaps tell USCF your sentiments. I sent my 20 questions to
PT last night - which included several on Official Secrets.

Essentially I wish all material to be known and therefore talk to people who
are prepared to speak out. If you wish to do the same, then look at your own
first clause above "(1) The USCF has no reason to keep exculpatory material
secret since" ... which I believe is the fly in your ointment, since they
evidently //do// have reasons, and have acted on them. So what you suppose
is not evidently true!

Of course, you nor anyone else can't investigate your supposition, pro or
con or disinterestedly, because USCF will not speak on the issue - and [is
it true?] that my note to them a couple weeks ago is the only board-resolved
response they have made to the public?

Phil Innes

On Feb 6, 8:14 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:10:41 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

The point, as I see it, is that the USCF has no reason to keep secret
material that would exonerate Truong.

ah! they have no reason to 'exonerate' Paul Truong, says Murray!~ since
presumably they would then need to look to the actual perp. And they have,
perhaps, no reason to want that to happen?

My gawd, Phil, your understanding is the opposite of what I said.

Maybe phrasing it in a different way would be easier for Phil to
parse: "The USCF has no reason to keep material that would exonerate
Truong secret." How's that?

That would be to express yourself properly, since your change inverts the
meaning of your first attempt ~ I think its an adverb and noun thing.

The meaning of the sentences, even snipped from context, is nearly
identical. P Innes' misunderstanding is unique to him.

You see, I wasn't saying that they have
no reason to keep it. One more try: ( they have no reason) (to keep
secret) (material that would exonerate Truong). Does this help?

I think it helps you to write everything out twice, naming your pronouns and
so on, and you have almost rejoined your infinitive, already.

The irony of Word-salad Innes lecturing anyone on grammar is mind-
boggling.

I don't know what's written beneath this - and no longer engage the
prosecutors who are not honest, any one of them, since this volunteered
statement by prosecutor Murray, rather identifies the entire game, no?

Indeed it does. My point, which I've repeated several times, and P
Innes is determined to mis-understand is that (1) The USCF has no
reason to keep exculpatory material secret since (2) Truong's lawyer
will pry it loose and (3) They would look all the worse for trying to
hide it.

Of course! So, perhaps tell USCF your sentiments. I sent my 20 questions to
PT last night - which included several on Official Secrets.

Slow pitch softball coming up!

Essentially I wish all material to be known and therefore talk to people who
are prepared to speak out. If you wish to do the same, then look at your own
first clause above "(1) The USCF has no reason to keep exculpatory material
secret since" ... which I believe is the fly in your ointment, since they
evidently //do// have reasons, and have acted on them. So what you suppose
is not evidently true!

Of course, you nor anyone else can't investigate your supposition, pro or
con or disinterestedly, because USCF will not speak on the issue - and [is
it true?] that my note to them a couple weeks ago is the only board-resolved
response they have made to the public?

OT: A stylistic digression (or, let's deal with some *real* nits for
a change)

The sentence in question:

"The USCF has no reason to keep secret material that would exonerate
Truong."

Where I meant:

"The USCF has no reason to keep secret (material that would exonerate
Truong)". (i.e., it's not in the USCF's interest to keep it secret).

But, Phil took it to mean

"The USCF has no reason to keep (secret material) that would exonerate
Truong." (i.e., the USCF might as well throw it away)

How to craft the sentence in question to eliminate the chance of
understanding it the way Phil did?

To me, both "The USCF has no reason material that would exonerate
Truong secret to keep" and "The USCF has no reason to keep material
that would exonerate Truong secret" both sound awkward. The latter
less so, I suppose.

Mike Murray wrote:

OT: A stylistic digression (or, let's deal with some *real* nits for
a change)

The sentence in question:

"The USCF has no reason to keep secret material that would exonerate
Truong."

Where I meant:

"The USCF has no reason to keep secret (material that would exonerate
Truong)". (i.e., it's not in the USCF's interest to keep it secret).

But, Phil took it to mean

"The USCF has no reason to keep (secret material) that would exonerate
Truong." (i.e., the USCF might as well throw it away)

How to craft the sentence in question to eliminate the chance of
understanding it the way Phil did?

To me, both "The USCF has no reason material that would exonerate
Truong secret to keep" and "The USCF has no reason to keep material
that would exonerate Truong secret" both sound awkward. The latter
less so, I suppose.


How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate
Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.
--

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

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate
Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.


Kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, don't it?

Mike Murray wrote:

OT: A stylistic digression (or, let's deal with some *real* nits for
a change)

The sentence in question:

"The USCF has no reason to keep secret material that would exonerate
Truong."

Where I meant:

"The USCF has no reason to keep secret (material that would exonerate
Truong)". (i.e., it's not in the USCF's interest to keep it secret).

But, Phil took it to mean

"The USCF has no reason to keep (secret material) that would exonerate
Truong." (i.e., the USCF might as well throw it away)

How to craft the sentence in question to eliminate the chance of
understanding it the way Phil did?

To me, both "The USCF has no reason material that would exonerate
Truong secret to keep" and "The USCF has no reason to keep material
that would exonerate Truong secret" both sound awkward. The latter
less so, I suppose.


When I read Bowel Boy's prose, I get visions of a toilet bowl whirlpool.
If only we could......oh, never mind. That film has been made already.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate
Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.


Kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, don't it?

But its just another speculation in the face of the facts - USCF /are/
deciding to hide material. Given that the fact of hiding /is/ present, the
comment that they have no reason to exonerate... is opinion - right? USCF
never said so. Maybe its good opinion, but I finish this note with another.

One implication of Mike Murray's sentence, though phrased without the
negatives, is to ask why they /are/ hiding material - right?

Alternatively; that USCF hides material to implicate rather than exonerate
Truong - right? USCF board have actually acted on this hidden material by
stripping Truong of his marketing title on the board - though no-one is
allowed to know the information that the board acted upon - which is not
tested before any court, nor before the membership.

Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal counsel,
because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
Chessville by board president Goichberg.

Of course - this is only what USCF has itself declared. There is one other
possibility, and that is that USCF may have some culpability in the affair.

That is a comment completely independent of the fact of the Sloan suit.

Phil Innes

"Chess One" wrote in message
. ..

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate
Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.


Kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, don't it?

But its just another speculation in the face of the facts - USCF /are/
deciding to hide material. Given that the fact of hiding /is/ present, the
comment that they have no reason to exonerate... is opinion - right? USCF
never said so. Maybe its good opinion, but I finish this note with another.

One implication of Mike Murray's sentence, though phrased without the
negatives, is to ask why they /are/ hiding material - right?

Alternatively; that USCF hides material to implicate rather than exonerate
Truong - right? USCF board have actually acted on this hidden material by
stripping Truong of his marketing title on the board - though no-one is
allowed to know the information that the board acted upon - which is not
tested before any court, nor before the membership.

The relevant evidence is *already* public. Nobody has given any
logical reason to discount it.



Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal counsel,
because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
Chessville by board president Goichberg.

Of course - this is only what USCF has itself declared. There is one other
possibility, and that is that USCF may have some culpability in the affair.


The USCF's culpability stems from the fact that one of its officers,
Paul Truong, posted 1000s of obscene messages in others' names, and
the USCF has done little about it.