Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
Brian
Lafferty.
"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless?

I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
that) the facts told by the guardian ad litem. Do you have any such
knowledge to share with us, BB, such as a court order?


If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

And by all means please, please keep pointing things out in defense of
Trolgar. In that regard, I consider you to be an incredible asset in
the search for factual truth. The comparison to you is a stark one
making the truth shine through.



Phil Innes

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

You think so badly!

Uhh, Phil, how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
"accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
legal argot.

Maybe you should try reading somebody who writes straightforwardly.
How about, oh, Henry Miller?

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

Heh, heh. What is it all you legal sharks say? Something like, "I'm
postured to defend myself vigorously against false and spurious
accusations"?

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.

Evidently, Phil, you're under the delusion that you can command
responses. Well, why not, you've deluded yourself into an
International Master with a 2450 rating, you've become an Internet
Lawyer, why just generally be in command?

But why not humor the fool?

OK, I believe as part of the evaluation I recommended, the prospective
parents should look into the court follow-up and take what information
they glean into consideration.

Are you happy now?

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

I think people are getting a pretty good idea of the various posters'
standards.


Phil Innes

On Apr 11, 1:30 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

...



On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.

I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
Brian
Lafferty.

"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

Phil Innes

What do you mean "threw out" the charge? That was a court order, not a
charge. Courts do not "throw out" court orders, unless they are
appealed, which did not happen here.

What happened was that Polgar and Truong moved to Texas not long after
this court order was issued. Thus, the New York courts no longer have
jurisdiction over the matter. This may explain the reason they moved.

Sam Sloan

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:40:07 GMT, Brian Lafferty
wrote:


Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?

Reportedly, his lips move, but it could be a tic.

Really, you should ask whether he *understands* what he types.

Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:40:07 GMT, Brian Lafferty
wrote:


Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?

Reportedly, his lips move, but it could be a tic.

Really, you should ask whether he *understands* what he types.

What's to understand?? ;-)

Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

You think so badly!

Uhh, Phil, how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
"accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
legal argot.

Maybe you should try reading somebody who writes straightforwardly.
How about, oh, Henry Miller?

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

Heh, heh. What is it all you legal sharks say? Something like, "I'm
postured to defend myself vigorously against false and spurious
accusations"?

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.

Evidently, Phil, you're under the delusion that you can command
responses. Well, why not, you've deluded yourself into an
International Master with a 2450 rating, you've become an Internet
Lawyer, why just generally be in command?

Are you saying that Phil is Alexander Haig's love child? Fascinating.


But why not humor the fool?

OK, I believe as part of the evaluation I recommended, the prospective
parents should look into the court follow-up and take what information
they glean into consideration.

Are you happy now?

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

I think people are getting a pretty good idea of the various posters'
standards.

Phil Innes

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:HlOLj.14$mG1.9@trndny08...
Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
Brian
Lafferty.
"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I
tell you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless?

I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
that)

Who is BB? I said the investigating judge did so. What do you say?

the facts told by the guardian ad litem.

Who mysteriously spoke to /you/. How could that have come about?

But let me not digress with you about the questions you fail to even repeat,
nevermind answer. If you want to argue something in public, at least
withstand your critics who ask you about what you know. You do not even wish
to 'know' the questions put to you, and so bore on, which results in the
situation that this is the only forum where you can write, since everywhere
else has dismissed your arse.

So answer if you understand NOW, or do not answer at further.

Shall I repeat for you the things you evade?

That after 5 instances of investigation by the judge, among all the people I
mentioned earlier this day, the issue was thrown out of jurisdiction because
the judge thought it baseless.

You, Lafferty, care not to honor that - and instead continue to abuse those
who point it out.

What I do, Lafferty, is point you out.

Phil Innes

Do you have any such knowledge to share with us, BB, such as a court
order?


If you do not wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that
itself is an answer.

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point
it out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are
who are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

And by all means please, please keep pointing things out in defense of
Trolgar. In that regard, I consider you to be an incredible asset in the
search for factual truth. The comparison to you is a stark one making the
truth shine through.



Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:HlOLj.14$mG1.9@trndny08...
Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
Brian
Lafferty.
"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?
If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I
tell you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.
'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless?
I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
that)

Who is BB? I said the investigating judge did so. What do you say?

Who is BB? Hmmmmmm. Try to follow this Bowel Boy. You are BB. You
said a judge threw out charges. I noted that I don't know what you
(Bowel Boy, aka BB) means by "thrown out" in the context of that
proceeding.



the facts told by the guardian ad litem.

Who mysteriously spoke to /you/. How could that have come about?

Now, I've noted this before. You apparently either did not comprehend
or forgot. I was told about the guardian ad litem and the kids by the
kid's father, Mr. Shutzman. Got that? .

Now, please go play sandbox journalist with your friends the Trolgars.

[remainder snipped]

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

You think so badly!

Uhh, Phil,

Uhh?

how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
"accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
legal argot.

Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
accusation.

Before you write more **** about other people Murray, say if you understand
what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
and real investigation of accusations.

Maybe you should try reading

Maybe you should not offer advice, since you have no demonstrated ability to
even understand what others say, and even then, are shy to come up to any
mark of independent and dissinterested assessment.

You are as shot as Laugherty!

Phil Innes




somebody who writes straightforwardly.
How about, oh, Henry Miller?

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

Heh, heh. What is it all you legal sharks say? Something like, "I'm
postured to defend myself vigorously against false and spurious
accusations"?

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.

Evidently, Phil, you're under the delusion that you can command
responses. Well, why not, you've deluded yourself into an
International Master with a 2450 rating, you've become an Internet
Lawyer, why just generally be in command?

But why not humor the fool?

OK, I believe as part of the evaluation I recommended, the prospective
parents should look into the court follow-up and take what information
they glean into consideration.

Are you happy now?

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

I think people are getting a pretty good idea of the various posters'
standards.


Phil Innes

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 1:30 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

...



On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.

I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
Brian
Lafferty.

"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I
tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point
it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

Phil Innes

What do you mean "threw out" the charge? That was a court order, not a
charge. Courts do not "throw out" court orders, unless they are
appealed, which did not happen here.

What happened was that Polgar and Truong moved to Texas not long after
this court order was issued. Thus, the New York courts no longer have
jurisdiction over the matter. This may explain the reason they moved.

May?

That is not what happened, and unless you dare look at what happened, you
can continue to say may. zzzz

If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?

PI


Sam Sloan