Gregory Alexander continues the attempted character assassination of
Donna Alarie. In typical McCarthy fashion, he refuses to share his
confidential information and asks probing "questions" that are thinly
veiled attempts to destroy the character of a Trolgar critic. This is
what the sophist defender does when facts and logic fail him.

From chessdiscussion;

by gregory on Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:34 am
I have confidential evidence that Donna was informed of Brian
Mottersheads investigation before it even began. It is likely that Brian
Mottershead planned the method and the delivery of the so called
'investigation' before it came out. Donna has already stated that prior
to the lawsuit, she discussed the investigation with Sam Sloan via
phone; and they were prepared a strategy to deliver this 'news' to the
NY Times.

Was Donna notified of the investigation by Brian Mottershead prior to it
coming out? If so, it would be yet another huge NDA violation, and Brian
would be caught in another lie regarding the handling of confidential
information. I asked Donna about this 3 times now in the USCF Forums;
and she declined to answer. Instead of either denying or admitting it;
she wrote a one liner about 'frying bigger fish'.

This serious question deserves to be answered by her. Since she declined
to answer for the better part of a week, unless she denies it; I will
assume that the confidential information is correct.

If it is true; having Donna and company help plan this investigation,
and then run for the vacated Executive Board after they cause damage
reeks of dirty politics. If Brian strategized with Donna prior to the
investigation, it would be extremely unethical. This whole mess appears
to be a blatant political based investigation to receive the results
that certain parties wanted.
Gregory
----------------------------------------------

by Engelbert on Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:55 am
I hope that this is not true. Given the track record of Mr. Mottershead,
who knows? And the real issue is why the board refused to allow the
other side the opportunity to examine the data?

-----------------------------------------------
by gregory on Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:03 am
Here were my posts that ask Donna if she was informed by Brian
Mottershead before the investigation was released.

The initial post was pulled by the new forum moderator, Martinak, and
Tim Sawmiller pulled the last two. It appears that if anyone wants to
question the methods, or the veracity of the findings, the posts will be
pulled. However, any evidence that points the other way, however weak,
are allowed to be posted on the USCF forums and at least two of the
moderators allow other members to use any means to attack members who
question the findings.

I am under official sanction review for asking this question, and one
moderator is 'asking that I work with them' and provide the confidential
evidence. I responded that it is confidential, and there is no way that
I will give it to them. I also stated that I have no problem if they
pull the posts if Donna answered in the negative, but unless she does
so, it should be allowed to stand.

gregory wrote:Martinak pulled my post yesterday regarding a
question to Donna. I only asked it once, it was never answered with a
yes or a no; yet it was pulled. There is nothing in the AUG that forbids
asking a question once, everyone knows that this has happened a thousand
times in the past in these forums, and I have been asked difficult
questions myself many times. Certain moderators have allowed question
after question as long it is against a certain party. I see no reason,
other than the political affiliation of those hired to the moderation
bunch, whey this can't be posted and asked again.

Donna and Brian Mottershead; was Donna informed of the FSS
investigation before the IP addresses were turned on and the
investigation was officially made? Donna, I don't care about fish being
fried, but a simple yes or no will do; and I will leave this topic alone.

Thank-you for your time.

Gregory
Gregory Alexander
--------------------------------------------------------------------



gregory wrote:Hi all,

I am under sanction review again; and will likely have my 3rd
sanction in as many months for asking a question to Donna regarding the
FSS investigation. The forum moderation is so out of whack that I will
be banned for asking one question to one of the activists trying to
remove a member of the Executive Board. I have compelling confidential
evidence to believe that she was told of the investigation prior to it
happening, but I stated very clearly that I wanted her to answer it in
the negative, and if done so; I would leave this matter alone. She
declined to answer the question, and later, the posts were pulled.

I have been asked difficult questions, most everyone that partakes
in this forum has. Questions have been allowed to stand as long as the
question was not repeated again and again once the question was
answered. Everyone has this right; but it appears that we do not have
this right as long as we hold a particular view of innocence before
guilt. Since the FSS issue has been on very public trial here, and
finger pointing has been allowed, even encouraged by some moderators,
one would assume that if the process was fair others could at least
question the evidence, and how this matter was held.

As most of you know, I was a very active moderator in this forum
during the election season. I believed in what I was doing, and even
though there was negative interference and support from certain leaders;
I believed that the vast majority of the team that I was working with
was on the same page. There were several issues in the past that reeked
of politics, I have already indicated them in brief terms, but I still
had some confidence that people would put aside their own views and at
least try to make the forums work right. However, in the last several
months, we have seen the most opinionated of our members be nominated to
the moderation roles, and the forums are now being used as a one-way
attack club against certain parties and anyone who dares to step up and
question them.

I know I have said this, but will say it again... I have worked as
a moderator for a long time on many different sites (I work as a
moderator on two active sites now), and have been very active in
blogging and bbs'ing in the past and have never been sanctioned or
warned. In the last 2 months, I have received two sanctions, and now am
on my way to a third. The FOC just vacated Sam Sloan's long list of
violations due to timing, yet; I received a sanction during the same
period and using the same logic that was used with Sam Sloan, a few of
my own violations (along with others) should have been vacated. Yet, my
sanctions remain. One for finally responding to numerous questions after
I had answered it with 'do you beat bums?', the second merely for
quoting and using the same meaning of David Quinn's words.

There is something wrong with the forum moderation, as well as
certain members of leadership using the forums as a political tool. This
should be a place of networking, and if it does venture into politics,
they should be moderated fair and balanced view.

Regards all,

Gregory
Gregory Alexander
-------------------------------------------------------------
by Mulfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:05 am
Does your "confidential evidence" indicate that Donna was actually in
possession of any of the information you believe Brian violated the NDA
by sharing, Gregory, or is she merely a "conspirator" according to that
evidence? That's relevant in that if she didn't actually see any
confidential information than the NDA hasn't taken any more of a beating
than we already know it took.

As far as the AUG's requirement for substantial proof goes, it would
seem to me that anything you're not willing to share doesn't really
constitute proof of anything. After all, I'm sure you can think of a few
folks who might assert they had evidence in order to slander someone
when in fact they had no evidence at all. I don't think the moderators
should make judgments on who is trustworthy in that regard, nor would I
want them to. So I think if you want to be legal AUG-wise you ought to
be prepared to back up any allegations of unethical behavior. Assuming
such a standard were evenly applied (don't snicker), wouldn't you agree
that's a fair standard?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
by gregory on Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:15 am
It is a pertinent question that should have been answered with a yes, or
a no-- not with: 'I am frying bigger fish'. If Donna continues to ignore
this question, then it should been allowed to stand in the USCF Forums.
We deserve to know how this investigation was performed, and what
methods were used.

How many questions are asked in the USCF Forums that are in the same
vein? Thousands of difficult questions used to be allowed as long as
they are not repeated and the user answers them.

If you would like to debate about the USCF AUG, or why this question
can't be asked, post it elsewhere or in your own thread. I am not going
down this road with you again in this thread.

Regards,
Gregory

ChessDiscussion webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
by Tennessee Vols on Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:10 am
This does not surprise me, as I was always thinking the FSS scandal was
orchestrated with a network of likeminded people. The shear level of the
FSS postings, the level of different writing styles of the postings
always made me question it was a group of people. What always interested
me with the FSS postings and the counter Sam Sloan postings was the
level of speed between the FSS postings and the counter postings of Sam
Sloan.

With the lawsuit filed by Sam Sloan, it is the most organized lawsuit
filed by Sam Sloan: as before he really stood alone with the lawsuits
without support. The organized level with Donna Alarie and her
confederates during the summer of 2007 and the fall of 2007 did have a
war chest of capital with the funding of the campaign. With the
traveling and with the meetings it does not look to be self funded with
the project.

With Donna Alarie already being the chief organizer with the failed Sam
Sloan campaign, and it is safe to say Sam Sloan has more ethical faults
than her current recall demand. With very few elected delegates
supporting that recall it is very save to say that repeated strategy
does not have any traction. You can only scream wolf so many times
before the town folks just finds it annoying. With Donna Alarie working
with Sam Sloan, would feel that the elected delegates should be feeling
they were taken advantage from Donna Alarie with her grasping for
political power.

Right at this time I am thinking of the statement from All the
President’s Men (book 1974 and movie 1976), with that line being follow
the money. It is interesting that members of the United States Congress
have to make official financial disclosure statements; because in the
past members of congress did receive financial support from lobbyists at
a level that most people feel is unethical. When I think of a recall, I
feel it should be for ethical reasons to use it not being used for
political reasons.

In my judgment, the recall clause within the bylaws of the United States
Chess Federation should be altered. Not to remove words but to add words
to make it ethical on both the person being asked to be recalled and the
delegates are asking for the recall. Right at this time, anyone even non
members of the United States Chess Federation can start a recall
campaign; this is like high school kids starting the impeachment of the
President of the United States of American in a garage. To be fair, it
should be started with five (5) elected delegates of the United States
Chess Federation. Also to be fair and make sure that the delegates are
ethical with their mission, they have to file a financial disclosure
statement for the past two (2) years and one (1) year after. If this
motion does pass the delegates, it should go back to the time the recall
clause was added to the bylaws of the United States Chess Federation.
Image

SS,DY.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3703305.stm


1950: McCarthy launches anti-red crusade
United States Senator Joe McCarthy has accused more than 200 staff in
the State Department of being members of the Communist Party.

He made the startling allegation in a public speech in Wheeling, West
Virginia, saying the State Department was infested with communists and
brandished a sheet of paper which purportedly contained the traitors' names.

Senator McCarthy told the Ohio county women's Republican Club that
Secretary of State Dean Acheson knew the names of 205 people who were in
his words still "working in and shaping the policy of the State
Department".

His comments brought an immediate denial from Lincoln White, press
officer at the State Department.

Mr White said: "If he is correctly quoted, his allegation that the
Secretary of State has a list of 205 Communist Party members who are
working and shaping policy in the State Department is entirely without
foundation.

"We know of no Communist Party members in the department and if we find
any they will be summarily dismissed. We did not furnish Senator
McCarthy with any such list and we would be interested in seeing his list."

Senator McCarthy has made his claims against a background of growing
anti-Communist feeling.

Alger Hiss, a former senior public servant, was convicted and jailed
last month of perjury after being accused of being an accomplice to a
self-confessed former member of an underground Communist network.

Senator McCarthy's speech also coincides with the collapse of the
Kuomintang regime in China and the establishment there of a Communist
government, adding to American fears about the global spread of Communism.

Mr McCarthy was defeated for the Republican nomination for the Senate in
1944 but two years later was able to win the Republication nomination
away from veteran Senator, Robert La Follette.

In the election he beat his Democrat opponent after a campaign of
continuous misrepresentation of Professor Howard McMurray as a Communist
sympathiser.

On Feb 12, 5:10 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
SS,DY.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...ry/9/newsid_37...

1950: McCarthy launches anti-red crusade
United States Senator Joe McCarthy has accused more than 200 staff in
the State Department of being members of the Communist Party.

He made the startling allegation in a public speech in Wheeling, West
Virginia, saying the State Department was infested with communists and
brandished a sheet of paper which purportedly contained the traitors' names.

Senator McCarthy told the Ohio county women's Republican Club that
Secretary of State Dean Acheson knew the names of 205 people who were in
his words still "working in and shaping the policy of the State
Department".

His comments brought an immediate denial from Lincoln White, press
officer at the State Department.

Mr White said: "If he is correctly quoted, his allegation that the
Secretary of State has a list of 205 Communist Party members who are
working and shaping policy in the State Department is entirely without
foundation.

"We know of no Communist Party members in the department and if we find
any they will be summarily dismissed. We did not furnish Senator
McCarthy with any such list and we would be interested in seeing his list."

Senator McCarthy has made his claims against a background of growing
anti-Communist feeling.

Alger Hiss, a former senior public servant, was convicted and jailed
last month of perjury after being accused of being an accomplice to a
self-confessed former member of an underground Communist network.

Senator McCarthy's speech also coincides with the collapse of the
Kuomintang regime in China and the establishment there of a Communist
government, adding to American fears about the global spread of Communism.

Mr McCarthy was defeated for the Republican nomination for the Senate in
1944 but two years later was able to win the Republication nomination
away from veteran Senator, Robert La Follette.

In the election he beat his Democrat opponent after a campaign of
continuous misrepresentation of Professor Howard McMurray as a Communist
sympathiser.



Slightly over a year ago, I had cordial correspondence over some
months with both Gregory and Donna, and have exchanged infrequent
messages since then.

Argument by McCarthyite analogy is probably more wrong-headed than
anything Gregory has said. Ass-backwards, too: wouldn't Troung
(political ideology aside) be more like Alger Hiss?

recommended rgcp reading:

Coover, The Public Burning
Radosh & Milton, The Rosenberg File
Tanenhaus, W. Chambers

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:10:47 GMT, Brian Lafferty
wrote:


Senator McCarthy told the Ohio county women's Republican Club that
Secretary of State Dean Acheson knew the names of 205 people who were in
his words still "working in and shaping the policy of the State
Department".


Kinda like the claim that the USCF has this secret stash of
information... Too bad McCarthy didn't think of the gambit, "If the
State Department claims it doesn't have such information, why doesn't
it open up ALL its files and correspondence to my staff for
inspection. Then the American people can decide for themselves".

It's truly ironic that P Innes keeps making the claim of McCarthyism.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:24:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

wouldn't Troung (political ideology aside) be more like Alger Hiss?

Weak analogy, IMO. Hiss *filed* suit. And the Mottershead Report was
actual evidence (suspending judgment, for the sake of argument,
whether it rises to the level of proof) while those attempting to
smear Mottershead, Alerie, et.al, have utilized innuendo and
imputation of conspiracy through "questions".

Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:24:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

wouldn't Troung (political ideology aside) be more like Alger Hiss?

Weak analogy, IMO. Hiss *filed* suit. And the Mottershead Report was
actual evidence (suspending judgment, for the sake of argument,
whether it rises to the level of proof) while those attempting to
smear Mottershead, Alerie, et.al, have utilized innuendo and
imputation of conspiracy through "questions".

Sadly, Mr. Alexander appears to be doing a great job of trashing his own
reputation...

Be kind to your furry friends, and have a great day!
--

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

On Feb 12, 10:04 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:24:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

wouldn't Troung (political ideology aside) be more like Alger Hiss?

Weak analogy, IMO. Hiss *filed* suit. And the Mottershead Report was
actual evidence (suspending judgment, for the sake of argument,
whether it rises to the level of proof) while those attempting to
smear Mottershead, Alerie, et.al, have utilized innuendo and
imputation of conspiracy through "questions".


All analogies are "weak." Better to deal in facts & arguments.

I have a pdf of the July 5, 2007, NDA signed by Mr. Mottershead.
Perhaps he would like to share the *full* text of it with us, as well
as his interpretation of the relevant clauses?

On Feb 12, 11:16 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:24:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

wouldn't Troung (political ideology aside) be more like Alger Hiss?

Weak analogy, IMO. Hiss *filed* suit. And the Mottershead Report was
actual evidence (suspending judgment, for the sake of argument,
whether it rises to the level of proof) while those attempting to
smear Mottershead, Alerie, et.al, have utilized innuendo and
imputation of conspiracy through "questions".

Sadly, Mr. Alexander appears to be doing a great job of trashing his own
reputation...

Be kind to your furry friends, and have a great day!
--

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

Sadly, Mr. Alexander has no reputation.

Have you forgotten that Gregory Alexander first joined the USCF just a
few months ago and played his first rated game of chess in September
2007? He does not have enough games to have even a provisional USCF
Rating.

Perhaps after he finishes here he will go off and bother the United
States Cycling Federation or some such group.

Sam Sloan

wrote in message
...
On Feb 12, 10:04 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:24:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

wouldn't Troung (political ideology aside) be more like Alger Hiss?

Weak analogy, IMO. Hiss *filed* suit. And the Mottershead Report was
actual evidence (suspending judgment, for the sake of argument,
whether it rises to the level of proof) while those attempting to
smear Mottershead, Alerie, et.al, have utilized innuendo and
imputation of conspiracy through "questions".


All analogies are "weak." Better to deal in facts & arguments.

I have a pdf of the July 5, 2007, NDA signed by Mr. Mottershead.
Perhaps he would like to share the *full* text of it with us, as well
as his interpretation of the relevant clauses?


Since it is better to deal in facts & arguments, what are your
facts and what is your argument?

Mottershead comes across as the lone hero in this entire affair.

On Feb 12, 2:02 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Feb 12, 10:04 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:24:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

wouldn't Troung (political ideology aside) be more like Alger Hiss?

Weak analogy, IMO. Hiss *filed* suit. And the Mottershead Report was
actual evidence (suspending judgment, for the sake of argument,
whether it rises to the level of proof) while those attempting to
smear Mottershead, Alerie, et.al, have utilized innuendo and
imputation of conspiracy through "questions".

All analogies are "weak." Better to deal in facts & arguments.

I have a pdf of the July 5, 2007, NDA signed by Mr. Mottershead.
Perhaps he would like to share the *full* text of it with us, as well
as his interpretation of the relevant clauses?

Since it is better to deal in facts & arguments, what are your
facts and what is your argument?

Mottershead comes across as the lone hero in this entire affair.

I have the NDA dated July 7, 2007. I cannot discuss it further
without violating an oral agreement. As its signatory, I believe Mr.
Mottershead could release me from my agreement with the source.

I don't consider Mr. Mottershead a hero in this matter, but I have a
certain degree of empathy for his position. (The anon I consider
lower than Mr. Sloan, which is rather low...) But those are
expressions of feelings, not the requested facts & arguments, which
would require the aforementioned release.