The Board refused ...

An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column, Alekhine's
Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

reads;-

---

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of USCF
money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
conclusion.
The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for more
than 4 months.

The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
contractors and members of the board majority.

The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential information
as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken and
Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a lawsuit.

Susan Polgar

Chess One wrote:
An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column, Alekhine's
Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

reads;-

---

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of USCF
money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
conclusion.

Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie
in the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.

Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
persuasive.

The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for more
than 4 months.

Really?! Who are Trolgar's experts who have been denied access to
Paulie's computer and ISP logs.

The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
contractors and members of the board majority.

Suzie, to be terrific, you must be specific. Details please.


The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential information
as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken and
Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a lawsuit.

Oh Suzie, this has already been discussed and debunked over at the USCF
Issues Forum you claim to never read.


Susan Polgar

Now Phil........perhaps you could ask her a few questions based on the
above so that we may all laugh at her feeble attempts at evasive
answers. Thanks in advance for the anticipated humor.

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
Chess One wrote:
An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
Alekhine's Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

reads;-

---

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
conclusion.

Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.

Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
persuasive.

Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the views
of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no more than
your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your message
without facts, as we know them, is your own business.

You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were counsel,
and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?

Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientation
to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes
actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does not
adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?

The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for
more than 4 months.

Really?! Who are Trolgar's experts who have been denied access to
Paulie's computer and ISP logs.

You do not contest the fact, thereby? And business is of Laugherty to ask
what expertise may be consulted? Is the Prosecutor Laugherty intent on
proscribing who the Defence may consult? What is his point, actually?

The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
contractors and members of the board majority.

Suzie, to be terrific, you must be specific. Details please.

She may not respond, since USCF board majority have decried it is all
secrect. Do you not understand the legal postion Lugherty? Or do you not
chose to challenge the basis of the USCF's board's position, by addressing
them - rather than someone who would open up the whole shebang?

If you can't answer this question, then serious questions about your own
quest are implicated! And let us not hear your attitudes, let us hear if you
did anything about them.


The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
information as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between
Jerry Hanken and Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the
middle of a lawsuit.

Oh Suzie, this has already been discussed and debunked over at the USCF
Issues Forum you claim to never read.

You are not writing to any Suzie, Laugherty, you are writing to me. And the
USCF issues forum is not one that 'Suzie' writes in, and if it is 'debunked'
according to you without any defence, what sort of hack lawyer are you to
make such public pronouncements?

Phil Innes


Susan Polgar

Now Phil........perhaps you could ask her a few questions based on the
above so that we may all laugh at her feeble attempts at evasive answers.
Thanks in advance for the anticipated humor.

On Feb 4, 5:12*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message

news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...





Chess One wrote:
An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
Alekhine's Parrot, atwww.chessville.comor
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

reads;-

---

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
conclusion.

Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.

Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
persuasive.

Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the views
of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no more than
your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your message
without facts, as we know them, is your own business.

You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were counsel,
and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?

Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientation
to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes
actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does not
adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?

The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for
more than 4 months.

Really?! *Who are Trolgar's experts who have been denied access to
Paulie's computer and ISP logs.

You do not contest the fact, thereby? And business is of Laugherty to ask
what expertise may be consulted? Is the Prosecutor Laugherty intent on
proscribing who the Defence may consult? What is his point, actually?

The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
contractors and members of the board majority.

Suzie, to be terrific, you must be specific. Details please.

She may not respond, since USCF board majority have decried it is all
secrect. Do you not understand the legal postion Lugherty? Or do you not
chose to challenge the basis of the USCF's board's position, by addressing
them - rather than someone who would open up the whole shebang?

If you can't answer this question, then serious questions about your own
quest are implicated! And let us not hear your attitudes, let us hear if you
did anything about them.



The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
information as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between
Jerry Hanken and Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the
middle of a lawsuit.

Oh Suzie, this has already been discussed and debunked over at the USCF
Issues Forum you claim to never read.

You are not writing to any Suzie, Laugherty, you are writing to me. And the
USCF issues forum is not one that 'Suzie' writes in, and if it is 'debunked'
according to you without any defence, what sort of hack lawyer are you to
make such public pronouncements?

Phil Innes





Susan Polgar

Now Phil........perhaps you could ask her a few questions based on the
above so that we may all laugh at her feeble attempts at evasive answers..
Thanks in advance for the anticipated humor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Phil Innes

Why pick on Judge Lafferty? Laffterty is not a hack lawyer, he is a
retired judge.
Is it possible that a broke snob from Vermont might have to content
with
Paul Truong being charged with a crime, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
being
fired from Texas Tech, FIDE being destoryed, and the game of chess
being
disgraced for the next 20 years?

Maybe you are just ****ed off, becasue you are losing the FIDE
elections.

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and I have a deal. We might fight to the death, but
we still have a deal and that
deal is that Susan Polgar will not be FIDE President in 2010.

Ilyumzhinov can be deal with in the UN or the IOC. Polgar is a
criminal.

Why pick on Judge Lafferty, because you are losing?

Marcus Roberts

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
Chess One wrote:
An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
Alekhine's Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

reads;-

---

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
conclusion.
Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.

Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
persuasive.

Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the views
of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no more than
your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your message
without facts, as we know them, is your own business.

Ah, the Bowel of Brattleboro must be referring to the site run by the
Trolgar Acolytes over at Chessville. No discussion of inconvenient facts
regarding the Trolgars is allowed over there.


You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were counsel,
and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?

Bowelman needs to write something intelligible before I would venture a
substantive reply.


Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientation
to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes
actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does not
adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?

Bowelman need to take his meds.


The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for
more than 4 months.
Really?! Who are Trolgar's experts who have been denied access to
Paulie's computer and ISP logs.

You do not contest the fact, thereby? And business is of Laugherty to ask
what expertise may be consulted? Is the Prosecutor Laugherty intent on
proscribing who the Defence may consult? What is his point, actually?

If Trolgar had a qualified forensic expert to refute Motterhead, Jones
and Ulevitch, they would be parading him all over creation. They might
even give Bowelman an exclusive interview for the purpose of asking soft
questions.


The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
contractors and members of the board majority.
Suzie, to be terrific, you must be specific. Details please.

She may not respond, since USCF board majority have decried it is all
secrect. Do you not understand the legal postion Lugherty? Or do you not
chose to challenge the basis of the USCF's board's position, by addressing
them - rather than someone who would open up the whole shebang?


You can't have it just one way, Bowelman. Either Suzie opens up with
facts or she looks like what she is, a bull****ter trying to get past.


If you can't answer this question, then serious questions about your own
quest are implicated! And let us not hear your attitudes, let us hear if you
did anything about them.

I think not, Bowelman.


The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
information as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between
Jerry Hanken and Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the
middle of a lawsuit.
Oh Suzie, this has already been discussed and debunked over at the USCF
Issues Forum you claim to never read.

You are not writing to any Suzie, Laugherty, you are writing to me. And the
USCF issues forum is not one that 'Suzie' writes in, and if it is 'debunked'
according to you without any defence, what sort of hack lawyer are you to
make such public pronouncements?

Oh, but I am writing to Suzie when I write to you, Bowelman. Trolgar
lurks here frequently judging by various comments made elsewhere on
occasion. And Bowelman has to get close enough to kiss Trolgars butt.

Have a nice evening, Bowelman.


Phil Innes

Susan Polgar
Now Phil........perhaps you could ask her a few questions based on the
above so that we may all laugh at her feeble attempts at evasive answers.
Thanks in advance for the anticipated humor.

Chess One wrote:

snippery dippery doo

Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientation
to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes
actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does not
adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?

snippage

Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?

Have a nice day folks.
--

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

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?

Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
heads. This would explain a number of things.

Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?

Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
heads. This would explain a number of things.

I have seen a photo of P Innes once. I saw no trace of anything but a
solitary head. Are you suggesting a hidden head?

I once watched a movie with Schwarzenegger where one of the more exotic
mutants had a secret head that popped out of his belly at times and used
powers of precognition. But that is science fiction Mike...

Besides, to qualify as "we, the chess public," I'd say that at least
three heads were necessary. And, that recalls to memory an old rpg
monster named the /Studgeon/ that had the heads of Larry, Curly, and Moe
lined up atop the shoulders of a trollish body. The poor creature was
constantly arguing with itself. The main danger to others was getting
caught in the crossfire when Moe tried to poke the eyes or slap the
faces of the other two.

I am going to have to discount these options as being only fantasy or
science fiction. What other explanation could there be?
--

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

On Feb 4, 7:45*pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:

Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
chess public?" *Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? *Or
perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. *Does P Innes
actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?

Your analysis ignores the possibility that he may actually have two
heads. *This would explain a number of things. *

I have seen a photo of P Innes once. *I saw no trace of anything but a
solitary head. *Are you suggesting a hidden head?

I once watched a movie with Schwarzenegger where one of the more exotic
mutants had a secret head that popped out of his belly at times and used
powers of precognition. *But that is science fiction Mike...

Besides, to qualify as "we, the chess public," I'd say that at least
three heads were necessary. *And, that recalls to memory an old rpg
monster named the /Studgeon/ that had the heads of Larry, Curly, and Moe
lined up atop the shoulders of a trollish body. *The poor creature was
constantly arguing with itself. *The main danger to others was getting
caught in the crossfire when Moe tried to poke the eyes or slap the
faces of the other two.

I am going to have to discount these options as being only fantasy or
science fiction. *What other explanation could there be?
--

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

Phil Innes is like a HYDRA. He has eight heads, and he spits out foul
slobber whenever Susan Polgar is attacked. You have to cut off his
heads,
but they keep growing back, more and more loyal to Queen Polgar.

Marcus Roberts

On Feb 4, 7:51 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Chess One wrote:

snippery dippery doo
Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientation
to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes
actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does not
adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?

snippage

Could anyone explain to me the sense of P Innes' claim to /be/ "we the
chess public?" Is this claim made in the sense of the Royal We? Or
perhaps it is a symptom of multiple personality disorder. Does P Innes
actually hear voices in his head which induce him to embrace the
illusion that he /IS/ the entire chess public?

No, P Innes actually thinks he represents the chess world. Darn it,
he's fighting the good fight for US! Don't you realize it? If you
don't, you must be part of the forces of darkness, whoever they are
today.

NNES HIRED TO "CARE ABOUT CHESS"

CROSSVILLE, TN - The United States Chess Federation announced today
that it had hired internationally known Nearly an IM Philip Keith
Innes
to "care about chess in the US", according to USCF Executive Director
Bill Hall. "Nearly an IM Innes has shown a great deal of caring
about US chess, despite his complete absence from organized chess play
or governance, and we at the USCF feel having him care about US chess
is worth the expense of paying him", Hall said. "He KNOWS at
least two native born GMs - in fact the only two the US has, and so he
brings a tremendous background experience to his caring", added USCF
Executive Board Member Don Schultz.

Innes, who posseses the prestigious Nearly an IM title, lives in
Brattleboro, Vermont, where he divides his time between caring about
US
chess and refusing to become a member of his local chess club, state
chess body, Chess Journalists of America, and USCF. The terms of the
deal between Innes and USCF are
not officially known, but off the record sources reveal that Innes
will
be required to stop posting to newsgroups. "We were concerned that
Nearly an IM Innes' newsgroup posts might blunt the full impact of his
caring about US chess," said USCF Executive Board Member Joel
Channing,
"since they could be read by the unimformed as semiliterate, whining
screeds."

Have a nice day folks.
--

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