wrote:
On Mar 23, 8:29 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
By asking a question of this nature, you suggest that there are a list
of such organizations in the back of your mind that you do not approve
of and that you want to make an issue of when possible. What other
organizations might they be Rich?

I am much more comfortable with the concept of regulation by law and the
criminal justice system than by this sort of informal blacklisting.

It isn't me. It is the chess community as a whole. Sam Sloan is
basing his entire lawsuit, which he intends to take down the U.S Chess
Federation upon, based upon comments that Polgar and so on slander him
over the Internet and that cost him the election. If he has a
checkered background that can show more than that, then what is the
legs of his lawsuit?

1. Have you surveyed the "chess community?" If so, give us the details.
2. Mr. Sloan or anyone else, such as myself, treated to fraudulent
harassment has nothing to do with anyone's past actions of any kind.
What Truong did was illegal and may well have affected the election--not
just for Sloan but for other candidates. And then we have the hypocrisy
of Truong/Polgar claiming the high road in the election when they are
really two of the dirtiest chess politicians who have ever lived.


As for who is acceptable and who isn't, when I discussed the prospects
of doing a chess-poker hybrid tournament on television, in order to
get chess on TV, I had people telling me the reputation of the U.S
Chess Federation, and their attempt to deal with minors, would make
that not a good idea.

It seems to me that the USCF has been and is promoting scholastic events
all the time. Give us the specifics of who told you it "would not be a
good idea."


- Rich

don't read this wrote:
"Judge" Brian Lafferty may have written in rgcp:

claiming the high road

Brian, and this is meant sincerely, I do not
think you would recognize the 'high road'. Even
when it came along and smacked you in the face,
asshole.

Sloan was ordered held for a 730 psychiatric
evaluation

Yes, committed to the looney bin against his will.
Or can't you comprehend the plain meaning of words?
That failure might explain the humble position you
occupied until the judicial system was finally able
to dispense with you and your "services", asshole.

You are counting on people like Martin Ambuhl never
having read your partner's website. Here it is
http://www.samsloan.com

The circumstances of his being ordered held were
highly questionable.

Yeah, we'd buy that, for sure. Just because you say
so.. With your record for "accuracy", "judgement"
and "fairness", how could any /sane/ and /informed/
person do otherwise, asshole? *~)

Had Mr. Sloan filed a complaint with the judicial
commission the judge might well have been
sanctioned.

Don't play our attorney wordgames with me, Brian.
"might well" is absolutely meaningless gibberish,
and well you know it, asshole.

"Had Mr. Sloan gone for a long walk in park, the
gangs might well have taken pity on the poor vagrant
and emptied their pockets for him."

"Had Mr. Sloan decided not to devote his life to
the immortal game he might well have grown up into
a responsible citizen and taxpayer."

"Had Mr. Lafferty (senior) decided to abstain from
sex with Mrs. Lafferty (senior) that fateful night,
or just changed his position or stroke somewhat, the
legal system might have been blessed by a truly
reasonable, perceptive, intelligent, gifted, smart
judge, rather than by the waste-of-carbon blowhard
we fondly know of as Brian Lafferty."

Get it, asshole?

Say hello to Paul and Susan

Who? I have various friends called Paul, and various
(other) friends called Susan, but IIRC none of them
share sleeping facilities.

, asshole.

You disgrace to the profession (irrespective of what
profession it might be), don't you ****ing call me
an asshole, asshole.

Crawl back into your hole and contemplate nature's
call and directive. You can solve your problems so
cleanly, without external help except for a vacant
stretch of line. Amtrak is the way to go, asshole.

To assist interpretation - I actually like Brian
quite a lot. If I didn't like him as much as I do,
I'd tell him what I really think of him, rather than
giving him the softsoap, KY-jel treatment above.
;*)


:-), asshole.

On Mar 24, 4:24*pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

1. Have you surveyed the "chess community?" *If so, give us the details.
2. Mr. Sloan or anyone else, such as myself, treated to fraudulent
harassment has nothing to do with anyone's past actions of any kind.
What Truong did was illegal and may well have affected the election--not
just for Sloan but for other candidates. *And then we have the hypocrisy
of Truong/Polgar claiming the high road in the election when they are
really two of the dirtiest chess politicians who have ever lived.


Brian,
You do not know what anyone has or has not done. You should use more
care in your phrasing. Liability for your words may prove painful
otherwise.



As for who is acceptable and who isn't, when I discussed the prospects
of doing a chess-poker hybrid tournament on television, in order to
get chess on TV, I had people telling me the reputation of the U.S
Chess Federation, and their attempt to deal with minors, would make
that not a good idea.


As is evidenced by Sloans own webpages and the quality of content in
writing from many of his supporters online.

It seems to me that the USCF has been and is promoting scholastic events
all the time. *Give us the specifics of who told you it "would not be a
good idea."

Brian,
Why would anyone share any evidence with you? Conduct your own survey
if so inclined.

Rob






- Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rob wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:24 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
1. Have you surveyed the "chess community?" If so, give us the details.
2. Mr. Sloan or anyone else, such as myself, treated to fraudulent
harassment has nothing to do with anyone's past actions of any kind.
What Truong did was illegal and may well have affected the election--not
just for Sloan but for other candidates. And then we have the hypocrisy
of Truong/Polgar claiming the high road in the election when they are
really two of the dirtiest chess politicians who have ever lived.


Brian,
You do not know what anyone has or has not done. You should use more
care in your phrasing. Liability for your words may prove painful
otherwise.

Rob, try real hard to follow this. Number one above is a question asked
precisely because I don't know what the poster has done and would like
to see support for his assertion. Your second sentence is nonsensical.



As for who is acceptable and who isn't, when I discussed the prospects
of doing a chess-poker hybrid tournament on television, in order to
get chess on TV, I had people telling me the reputation of the U.S
Chess Federation, and their attempt to deal with minors, would make
that not a good idea.


As is evidenced by Sloans own webpages and the quality of content in
writing from many of his supporters online.

It seems to me that the USCF has been and is promoting scholastic events
all the time. Give us the specifics of who told you it "would not be a
good idea."

Brian,
Why would anyone share any evidence with you? Conduct your own survey
if so inclined.

Evidence? This isn't a trial, Rob. Now again, pay attention and try
real hard to follow this. The poster made a bald assertion that he has
now been asked to support with facts so that we can determine if what he
represents is true or not.


Rob





- Rich- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 26, 4:00*pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

What Truong did was illegal and may well have affected the election--not
just for Sloan but for other candidates. *And then we have the hypocrisy
of Truong/Polgar claiming the high road in the election when they are
really two of the dirtiest chess politicians who have ever lived.

Brian,
You do not know what anyone has or has not done. You should use more
care in your phrasing. Liability for your words may prove painful
otherwise.

I tried to clear it up for you. YOU and others are conducting a trial
right now in public. Understand now?


Rob, try real hard to follow this. *Number one above is a question asked
precisely because I don't know what the poster has done and would like
to see support for his assertion. Your second sentence is nonsensical.



Brian,
Read #2

You might like someone to give you something for free, but wishing and
getting are not one in the same now are they?





As for who is acceptable and who isn't, when I discussed the prospects
of doing a chess-poker hybrid tournament on television, in order to
get chess on TV, I had people telling me the reputation of the U.S
Chess Federation, and their attempt to deal with minors, would make
that not a good idea.

As is evidenced by Sloans own webpages and the quality of content in
writing from many of his supporters online.

It seems to me that the USCF has been and is promoting scholastic events
all the time. *Give us the specifics of who told you it "would not be a
good idea."

Brian,
Why would anyone share any evidence with you? Conduct your own survey
if so inclined.



Evidence? *This isn't a trial, Rob. *Now again, pay attention and try
real hard to follow this. *The poster made a bald assertion that he has
now been asked to support with facts so that we can determine if what he
represents is true or not.



God Brian! Take your meds. You are requesting the evidence that
supports his assertion that others advised him that doing business
with the USCF wouldn't be wise. Duh!

Rob



Rob

- Rich- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rob wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:00 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

What Truong did was illegal and may well have affected the election--not
just for Sloan but for other candidates. And then we have the hypocrisy
of Truong/Polgar claiming the high road in the election when they are
really two of the dirtiest chess politicians who have ever lived.
Brian,
You do not know what anyone has or has not done. You should use more
care in your phrasing. Liability for your words may prove painful
otherwise.

I tried to clear it up for you. YOU and others are conducting a trial
right now in public. Understand now?

Rob, try real hard to follow this. Number one above is a question asked
precisely because I don't know what the poster has done and would like
to see support for his assertion. Your second sentence is nonsensical.



Brian,
Read #2

You might like someone to give you something for free, but wishing and
getting are not one in the same now are they?




As for who is acceptable and who isn't, when I discussed the prospects
of doing a chess-poker hybrid tournament on television, in order to
get chess on TV, I had people telling me the reputation of the U.S
Chess Federation, and their attempt to deal with minors, would make
that not a good idea.
As is evidenced by Sloans own webpages and the quality of content in
writing from many of his supporters online.
It seems to me that the USCF has been and is promoting scholastic events
all the time. Give us the specifics of who told you it "would not be a
good idea."
Brian,
Why would anyone share any evidence with you? Conduct your own survey
if so inclined.



Evidence? This isn't a trial, Rob. Now again, pay attention and try
real hard to follow this. The poster made a bald assertion that he has
now been asked to support with facts so that we can determine if what he
represents is true or not.



God Brian! Take your meds. You are requesting the evidence that
supports his assertion that others advised him that doing business
with the USCF wouldn't be wise. Duh!

Rob


Rob
- Rich- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You lose, Rob.

On Mar 26, 8:28 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Rob wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:00 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

What Truong did was illegal and may well have affected the election--not
just for Sloan but for other candidates. And then we have the hypocrisy
of Truong/Polgar claiming the high road in the election when they are
really two of the dirtiest chess politicians who have ever lived.
Brian,
You do not know what anyone has or has not done. You should use more
care in your phrasing. Liability for your words may prove painful
otherwise.

I tried to clear it up for you. YOU and others are conducting a trial
right now in public. Understand now?

Rob, try real hard to follow this. Number one above is a question asked
precisely because I don't know what the poster has done and would like
to see support for his assertion. Your second sentence is nonsensical.

Brian,
Read #2

You might like someone to give you something for free, but wishing and
getting are not one in the same now are they?

As for who is acceptable and who isn't, when I discussed the prospects
of doing a chess-poker hybrid tournament on television, in order to
get chess on TV, I had people telling me the reputation of the U.S
Chess Federation, and their attempt to deal with minors, would make
that not a good idea.
As is evidenced by Sloans own webpages and the quality of content in
writing from many of his supporters online.
It seems to me that the USCF has been and is promoting scholastic events
all the time. Give us the specifics of who told you it "would not be a
good idea."
Brian,
Why would anyone share any evidence with you? Conduct your own survey
if so inclined.

Evidence? This isn't a trial, Rob. Now again, pay attention and try
real hard to follow this. The poster made a bald assertion that he has
now been asked to support with facts so that we can determine if what he
represents is true or not.

God Brian! Take your meds. You are requesting the evidence that
supports his assertion that others advised him that doing business
with the USCF wouldn't be wise. Duh!

Rob

Rob
- Rich- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You lose, Rob.

You're lost Brian.

Rob wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:28 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Rob wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:00 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
What Truong did was illegal and may well have affected the election--not
just for Sloan but for other candidates. And then we have the hypocrisy
of Truong/Polgar claiming the high road in the election when they are
really two of the dirtiest chess politicians who have ever lived.
Brian,
You do not know what anyone has or has not done. You should use more
care in your phrasing. Liability for your words may prove painful
otherwise.
I tried to clear it up for you. YOU and others are conducting a trial
right now in public. Understand now?
Rob, try real hard to follow this. Number one above is a question asked
precisely because I don't know what the poster has done and would like
to see support for his assertion. Your second sentence is nonsensical.
Brian,
Read #2
You might like someone to give you something for free, but wishing and
getting are not one in the same now are they?
As for who is acceptable and who isn't, when I discussed the prospects
of doing a chess-poker hybrid tournament on television, in order to
get chess on TV, I had people telling me the reputation of the U.S
Chess Federation, and their attempt to deal with minors, would make
that not a good idea.
As is evidenced by Sloans own webpages and the quality of content in
writing from many of his supporters online.
It seems to me that the USCF has been and is promoting scholastic events
all the time. Give us the specifics of who told you it "would not be a
good idea."
Brian,
Why would anyone share any evidence with you? Conduct your own survey
if so inclined.
Evidence? This isn't a trial, Rob. Now again, pay attention and try
real hard to follow this. The poster made a bald assertion that he has
now been asked to support with facts so that we can determine if what he
represents is true or not.
God Brian! Take your meds. You are requesting the evidence that
supports his assertion that others advised him that doing business
with the USCF wouldn't be wise. Duh!
Rob
Rob
- Rich- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You lose, Rob.

You're lost Brian.
Whatever you say, Rob.

On Mar 27, 6:23*am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Rob wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:28 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Rob wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:00 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
What Truong did was illegal and may well have affected the election--not
just for Sloan but for other candidates. *And then we have the hypocrisy
of Truong/Polgar claiming the high road in the election when they are
really two of the dirtiest chess politicians who have ever lived.
Brian,
*You do not know what anyone has or has not done. You should use more
*care in your phrasing. Liability for your words may prove painful
*otherwise.
I tried to clear it up for you. YOU and others are conducting a trial
right now in public. Understand now?
Rob, try real hard to follow this. *Number one above is a question asked
precisely because I don't know what the poster has done and would like
to see support for his assertion. Your second sentence is nonsensical..
Brian,
Read #2
You might like someone to give you something for free, but wishing and
getting are not one in the same now are they?
As for who is acceptable and who isn't, when I discussed the prospects
of doing a chess-poker hybrid tournament on television, in order to
get chess on TV, I had people telling me the reputation of the U.S
Chess Federation, and their attempt to deal with minors, would make
that not a good idea.
As is evidenced by Sloans own webpages and the quality of content in
writing from many of his supporters online.
It seems to me that the USCF has been and is promoting scholastic events
all the time. *Give us the specifics of who told you it "would not be a
good idea."
Brian,
Why would anyone share any evidence with you? Conduct your own survey
if so inclined.
Evidence? *This isn't a trial, Rob. *Now again, pay attention and try
real hard to follow this. *The poster made a bald assertion that he has
now been asked to support with facts so that we can determine if what he
represents is true or not.
God Brian! Take your meds. You are requesting the evidence that
supports his assertion that others advised him that doing business
with the USCF wouldn't be wise. Duh!
Rob
Rob
- Rich- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You lose, Rob.

You're lost Brian.

Whatever you say, Rob.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What ever you say, Brian.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:08:39 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:


I tried to clear it up for you. YOU and others are conducting a trial
right now in public. Understand now?

Rob, this is nonsense. An investigation is not a trial. A bunch of
people trying to acquire and evaluate evidence is not a trial. A
newsgroup discussion is not a trial. FWIW, pay less attention to
Innes -- he's extremely imprecise in his use of language.