You should read what they typed about YOU, Lafferty, in an email they sent
ME~~!~~~!!!!

On Apr 10, 1:48*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.

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 think it is still too much of a stretch. If there are accusations as
to what they did to other people's children, that is a different
matter.

Jerry Spinrad

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.

Hey Deuce!

Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?

Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?

))

So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you
know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?

Phil Innes

And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
Not assertions.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.

Hey Deuce!

Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?

Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?

))

So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you

Murray, you have declared you have no interest in other than Paul Truong
being the perp, by virtue of the fact that you will not look candidly at
existing evidence, and here intercede because the Line Judge is directly
challenged to his legal representation - and has put his foot in his mouth.

know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?

You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?

PI

Phil Innes

And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
Not assertions.

Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.

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 agree. For parents to make that decision intelligently, they need to
know all the facts.

Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
Hey Deuce!

Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?

Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?

))
So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you

Murray, you have declared you have no interest in other than Paul Truong
being the perp, by virtue of the fact that you will not look candidly at
existing evidence, and here intercede because the Line Judge is directly
challenged to his legal representation - and has put his foot in his mouth.
Ah Bowel Boy, you are releasing intellectual diarrhea. Immodium for your
brain is needed.


know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?

You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?

See my comment on another post that answers your stupid questions.

PI

Phil Innes

And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
Not assertions.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?

You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?

Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
about it, does it?

On Apr 10, 4:51 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?

You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?

Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
about it, does it?

Must be more of the "erudition" you claimed for this 'man', Mike.

On Apr 10, 4:51 pm, Mike Murray wrote:


Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
about it, does it?

Well, he's consistent.

In a message dated 4/9/2008 9:52:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
JerryHanken writes:

Dear Susan, I note that you have written a "confidential" email
repeating the same old mistatements about me to 29 people but, of
course, not to me. Golly, someone (or more) of those must have
"leaked" it to me. It's a new scandal!!

I don't want to waste my time refuting your nonsense in detail,
but Jim Berry remembers our Oak Brook encounter quite differently than
you describe, your description of our conversation in Las Vegas is
pure fiction, and I never asked you or Paul for a job.

You demand that I be fired as a writer for Chess Life. If your tales
about me are correct, even though I have written for 16 Chess Life
editors, perhaps I should not get future assignments. Of course, what
you say about me is not true at all, so shouldn't you resign from the
EB, along with Paul who should have quit long ago for refusing to
cooperate with the fake Sloan investigation?

I am copying the same 29 people you wrote to, and DARE you to put this
on your website which is filled with phony "anonymous posts" blasting
your critics and where those who disagree that you are the greatest
thing ever to happen to American chess are quickly silenced.

Of course, I am NOT marking this reply as confidential so it may
appear in lots of places. "Murder, though it hath no tongue, will
speak with most miraculous organ." You are a wonderful player, but
many people are becoming aware that you and Paul have little interest
in the USCF, except for what you can get from it. The truth will
prevail. Regards, Jerry Hanken