Randy Bauer wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
EZoto wrote:
What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.
What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.
EZoto
Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
the courts eventually decide.

Oh, please - that is absolute baloney. Fairness in an election is
based on the ability of the voters to participate. If it was based on
the possibility that untruths were spoken, there would be few members
of Congress seated.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Besides, are you suggesting that Sam Sloan, who barely escaped last
place, would have won a seat if not for the FSS posts? That is too
absurd for words - Brian, you need to get out more often.

Not Sloan. But it may have kept Jones off the board.

Randy Bauer

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:06:05 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

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.

IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
sake of argument,

'for the sake of argument' continues Murray, discussing people's children -
and ignoring the *fact* that the issue was investigated - but Murray doesn't
like the terms I use, so blathers on...

that your usage of the terms "accusation" and
"dismissal" is proper in this instance.

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.

Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
expertise?

You cannot admit your own understanding of the material, therefore you
describe those who do look at direct evidence by the term 'nut'.

It is no different from the entire campaign, where only selective evidence
is admitted by the campaigners, and only to that their own prescription of
who musta dunnit. The inanity of this approach is only lost on themselves.

At least the poster Walker has taken a step back and subscribed to viewing
all the materials available, and I, like him, agree that when we do that
then let the chips lie where they may - and that is an orientation which is
not prescriptive, which is not dependent on who the perp turns out to be.

I will not discuss either of the issues above further with the people who
refused to actually look at what is before them, and whose 'questions' are
simply evasions 'for the sake of argument' - which is actually, for the sake
of persecution.

If you can't get Polgar, get Truong, and if you can't get either, get the
kids? I challenged Hanken before the whole board on 3 issues of his recent
'representations' and Hanken spat at me in private e-mail and ran off. So
much for his standards.

Heuch!

Phil Innes

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:LaTLj.43$HJ1.9@trndny01...

Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT
the charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.

Did the judge now? Got a copy of the decision and order of "dismissal?"
If you don't have the order, tell us when it was filed with the court
clerk. Prove to us that there was a "dismissal."

Lafferty - you evade your understanding of what a charge 'thrown out' means,
as if the term was unknown or unusual. Now you want me to do your work for
you, and 'prove' something to an abusenik!

You have raised this issue, let you be aware that it is a contested one, and
some due diligence is necessary when casting aspersions, eh?

I do not intend to prove anything to you, since your investigation is
patently insincere, and because I think 'answering' such material as you
request will make no difference to your own orientation whatever, and
indeed, I think people's children might be left out of this proxy fight.

My challenge was to you - that you pretend you cannot understand 'threw out'
to mean 'dismissal' even though I cited the context as much as it needs be
displayed in public. That you should continue to pretend not to understand
it requires no special recommendation of mine of your sincerity to the
public here.

Phil Innes

"EZoto" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:46:43 GMT, Brian Lafferty
wrote:

Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
the courts eventually decide.

And lets say the courts decide. What makes you think with the
behavoir shown here from you clowns would anyone want you guys in
office. If the courts decide then so be it. But there is no way
anyone would want you clowns either. Your behavoir as former elected
officials is reprehensible.

But at least Lafferty subscribes to the rule of law in his comment above -
and if indeed he is sincere in that, then let him not agitate further
outside that system of properly audited evidences.

The trouble with answering questions from a clacque of interrogators, is
that nothing ever seems to depend on it. Thereby, such 'questions' seem
never any more than opportunies to cast aspersions. No one, for example, has
said what they would resolve if the questions were answered - whether they
would apologise, stop casting negative aspersions onto others in public,
and, as at the top, allow the courts to do their properly constituted
business of determining what is what.

There's the rub!

Instead of declaring for themselves what /depends/ on any answer, instead we
read here newer, more horrifying crimes of the suspected perps -
alternately, the answers are not understood, or the answerer is rubbished,
since the interrogators don't like the answers.

This is literally to say that patently nothing depends on any answer to a
question, and the questioners take no responsibility for their own actions
in proposing them. That is, they are demonstrated to be nothing more than
feckless accusations, on which depends nothing.

Phil Innes

EZoto

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:54:33 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
trouble
who actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
legal &c.

Care to list any particulars ?

Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
anything - and as a person capable of dismissing other people's views, don't
pretend that you can enter into people's lives, when you can't even own your
own opinion, nor say what any more information would mean to you. Like the
fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more suspicious!

Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!

We, those who are capable of it, are discussing public standards of behavior
and what is honest representation and what is merely scandal-making
occasioned by people who obviously get off on a little bitty schadenfreude


Phil Innes

On Apr 13, 7:20 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I challenged Hanken before the whole board on 3 issues of his recent
'representations' and Hanken spat at me in private e-mail and ran off. So
much for his standards.

I agree it would have been better for Mr. Hanken to spit on you in
person. But perhaps he was intimidated by the length of the line.

On Apr 13, 7:29 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message

news:LaTLj.43$HJ1.9@trndny01...

Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT
the charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.
Did the judge now? Got a copy of the decision and order of "dismissal?"
If you don't have the order, tell us when it was filed with the court
clerk. Prove to us that there was a "dismissal."

Lafferty - you evade your understanding of what a charge 'thrown out' means,
as if the term was unknown or unusual. Now you want me to do your work for
you, and 'prove' something to an abusenik!

You have raised this issue...

Actually, you "raised the issue" by claiming there was a "dismissal."
But as usual, your screen persona writes checks that won't be honored.

Chess One wrote:
"EZoto" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:46:43 GMT, Brian Lafferty
wrote:

Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
the courts eventually decide.
And lets say the courts decide. What makes you think with the
behavoir shown here from you clowns would anyone want you guys in
office. If the courts decide then so be it. But there is no way
anyone would want you clowns either. Your behavoir as former elected
officials is reprehensible.

But at least Lafferty subscribes to the rule of law in his comment above -
and if indeed he is sincere in that, then let him not agitate further
outside that system of properly audited evidences.

The rule of law in our society exists quite comfortably with politics
and free speech.

[Remaining BB drivel snipped]

On Apr 12, 10:38 pm, Randy Bauer wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:



EZoto wrote:
What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.

What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.

EZoto

Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
the courts eventually decide.

Oh, please - that is absolute baloney. Fairness in an election is
based on the ability of the voters to participate. If it was based on
the possibility that untruths were spoken, there would be few members
of Congress seated.

Besides, are you suggesting that Sam Sloan, who barely escaped last
place, would have won a seat if not for the FSS posts? That is too
absurd for words - Brian, you need to get out more often.

Randy Bauer

Try another question.

Do you think that you, Randy Bauer, would have been elected had you
not been on the Polgar Ticket?

Remember that when you last ran in 2005 you lost badly.

Thus, it seems likely that it was support from Polgar that put you
over the top.

Try another question: Do you think that if the election were held
today, with Polgar no longer supporting you, you would still be
elected?

Sam Sloan

How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway? If the price
is right, perhaps someone with a bit of organizational experience
and no skeletons in the closet could win a seat, and then start
representing the average chessplayer for a change. Also, are
there any residency requirements? Where and how often do they meet?
--Possible Future Board Member ;=)