"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
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?

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.

If you can't allow people to speak for themselves and of their own
standards, oh PULEEZE stop negatively speculating idly on what you do not
know, since that indeed, is the same issue I have posed Lafferty: What he
knows and what he cares to represent of that - and if he don't like hearing
other than his own views, then perhaps we should all simply know that,
rather than read as if he cared to distinguish between suppositions and
objectively determined facts.

For you Murray, you would rather speculate about other people than look at
anything. That is your choice.

Like Lafferty, you are rather concerned to not look at what is before you.
And that's ok with me - I am simply pointing out to everybody that that is
the case.

Phil Innes

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 ?

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

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.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:46:43 GMT, 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.

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.

EZoto

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

On Apr 12, 9:38 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.

You've managed to skip the whole identity theft issue. Evasion noted.

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

On Apr 12, 9:38 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

Have you considered challenging Kirsan, Randy?

http://www.fide.com/component/conten...27-fide-videos

On Apr 9, 8:37 pm, Brian Lafferty 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. The right
to speak truth to power is what men and women have given their lives for
in founding and defending this country.

To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.


Hmm. I recently received an email in which our
forefathers were praised for such things as washing
mouths out with soap, frequent trips to the wood
shed for the slightest transgression, and so forth.
Are you *sure* the form of government is what
marks the difference in approach here?

I think it is far more likely that the trouble lies in
hypocrisy: when money flows in the direction of
folks like SP, she is happy; but when money
runs to others, jealousy rears its ugly head. And
what do you suppose motivates posters like LP
and SS, to harry these folks who are on the
receiving end of USCF handouts? Jealousy
perhaps? Complaints always come up when
*somebody else* is getting a free ride... .

The whole game plan is wrong. The USCF
needs a complete makeover, starting with
getting rid of the flotsam and jetsam who use
members' monies for their own personal benefit.

According to Sam Sloan, just one of these
"moochers" can easily rack up tens of
thousands of dollars in costs to the members.
Just imagine how much money could be saved
by getting several moochers off of USCF welfare
and into real jobs!


-- help bot

On Apr 10, 5:51 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?


Nearly-IMnes cannot read Latin, only *Andean*.

If you will translate the term into /Andean/ and
repost, I'm certain that the nearly-an-IM 2450
Dr. Innes will reply with the necessary bleating
obfuscation, as always. It's not fair when you
use tricks on him like that.

Has anyone found a "pro bono" psychiatrist
willing to help Dr. IMnes, yet? If this were a
communist country, he would be first in line
due to his dire need. Unfortunately, we have
a dumb-ocratic re-dumb-lic, where those who
have the most money control everything.
This sometimes results in severe mental
disorders going sans treatment for decades.

What amazes me is that even after all this
time, people still respond to Dr. IMnes as if
he were sane, trying to "convince" him of
this or that; all the while, knowing full well
that his mind is gone... .


-- help bot