On Mar 27, 1:57*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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.

Hi Mike,
Lafferty said"what Troung has done". Lafferty and others have assigned
themselves judge and jury. And you are right that a newsgroup is not a
trial. Yet we have all this talk of evidence and a crime. Not only
that we have discussions of punishment. Sounds a lot like a trial to
me. :-) If people want to banter about innane things, thats fine. But
to convict someone in the court of public opinion and the penaly being
the loss of his reputation, is wrong. It's been sent to court. Thats
where the validity of the argument should remain.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:26:15 -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.

Hi Mike,
Lafferty said"what Troung has done". Lafferty and others have assigned
themselves judge and jury. And you are right that a newsgroup is not a
trial. Yet we have all this talk of evidence and a crime. Not only
that we have discussions of punishment. Sounds a lot like a trial to
me. :-) If people want to banter about innane things, thats fine. But
to convict someone in the court of public opinion and the penaly being
the loss of his reputation, is wrong. It's been sent to court. Thats
where the validity of the argument should remain.

Not so. It's perfectly fair to debate the truth of issues which will
only be resolved *legally* in court.

First, legal guilt or innocence doesn't resolve truth. For example,
certain evidence may be legally inadmissible (failure to follow all
the ticky marks in obtaining a search warrant, failure to observe
Miranda rights, evidence obtained under duress), and statutes of
limitations may preclude conviction even in the face of conclusive
evidence, etc., etc.

Second, business and electoral decisions often can't wait for several
years while a case winds through all possible appeals.

Discussion of these issues is the right thing to do, and rgc* is a
good place (but not the only place) to do it. There's a recall
going on and FSS implications will play a big part in it. Elections
may be held and members need to decide on candidates' fitness for
office. The USCF may conduct business with entities controlled by the
accused. The accused may be involved in hiring and firing decisions.

Voting members will make their own decisions regarding the FSS, and
will do this independently of any judge and jury. This IS the court
of public opinion, as you call it, and it's fitting, proper, and fair.

The idea that we should wait until some pro se libel suits fully
resolve before we discuss the issue of the FSS (while the person under
the spotlight holds office and helps set direction for the USCF) is
ludicrous.

IMO, those most vociferously demanding discussion cease while we wait
for the judge are deliberately engaging in a delaying tactic.

Rob wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:57 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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.

Hi Mike,
Lafferty said"what Troung has done". Lafferty and others have assigned
themselves judge and jury. And you are right that a newsgroup is not a
trial. Yet we have all this talk of evidence and a crime. Not only
that we have discussions of punishment. Sounds a lot like a trial to
me. :-) If people want to banter about innane things, thats fine. But
to convict someone in the court of public opinion and the penaly being
the loss of his reputation, is wrong. It's been sent to court. Thats
where the validity of the argument should remain.

Absent any evidence from Truong to in any manner contradict the
Motterhead Report as substantiated by two independent experts, one of
whose expertise was acknowledged by Ms. Polgar on chessdiscussion, I
have concluded that Mr. Truong is the FSS. I'm far from the only person
who has reached that conclusion.

If Mr. Truong had any supportive evidence, he could have ended this mess
in the USCF back in September. Whether it occurs in Federal court or a
state court, there will come a time when Mr. Truong will be placed under
oath and asked all the difficult questions he has dodged until now. If
Mr. Sloan's action survives in any form, I suspect there will be cross
claims against Mr. Truong which will make for a very interesting
discovery process.

On Mar 27, 5:05 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Rob wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:57 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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.

Hi Mike,
Lafferty said"what Troung has done". Lafferty and others have assigned
themselves judge and jury. And you are right that a newsgroup is not a
trial. Yet we have all this talk of evidence and a crime. Not only
that we have discussions of punishment. Sounds a lot like a trial to
me. :-) If people want to banter about innane things, thats fine. But
to convict someone in the court of public opinion and the penaly being
the loss of his reputation, is wrong. It's been sent to court. Thats
where the validity of the argument should remain.

Absent any evidence from Truong to in any manner contradict the
Motterhead Report as substantiated by two independent experts, one of
whose expertise was acknowledged by Ms. Polgar on chessdiscussion, I
have concluded that Mr. Truong is the FSS. I'm far from the only person
who has reached that conclusion.

If Mr. Truong had any supportive evidence, he could have ended this mess
in the USCF back in September. Whether it occurs in Federal court or a
state court, there will come a time when Mr. Truong will be placed under
oath and asked all the difficult questions he has dodged until now. If
Mr. Sloan's action survives in any form, I suspect there will be cross
claims against Mr. Truong which will make for a very interesting
discovery process.

Then compare the IP address from Sloan.

In case anybody doubts that I really was the President of the Sexual
Freedom League, there is an archive of records of that at the Bancroft
Library of the University of California at Berkeley.

http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/...loan&brand=oac

I do not know what they have. I suspect that it includes the records I
left behind when I abruptly left Berkeley on December 24, 1967 and
moved to New York City, never to return for 14 years.

I hope to go to that library and see what they have on my next trip to
California.

Sam Sloan

On Apr 19, 5:52 am, samsloan wrote:
In case anybody doubts that I really was the President of the Sexual
Freedom League, there is an archive of records of that at the Bancroft
Library of the University of California at Berkeley.

http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/...sam%20sloan&br...

I do not know what they have. I suspect that it includes the records I
left behind when I abruptly left Berkeley on December 24, 1967 and
moved to New York City, never to return for 14 years.

I hope to go to that library and see what they have on my next trip to
California.

Sam Sloan

On Apr 19, 10:08 am, Rob wrote:
SOUP

Why do you insist on doing this? What is your motivation?

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:58:03 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
wrote:

On Apr 19, 10:08 am, Rob wrote:
SOUP

Why do you insist on doing this? What is your motivation?

I've been wondering why children yell in a restaurant, when everyone
at their table is within conversational distance in the event they
have something to say.