And who does Mr. RoadRunner sound like? The greatest chess promoter in
history? Interesting that Truong uses roadrunner ip services in Lubbock.

I wonder if he knows the meaning of "hubris."
---------------------------------------------------------------

by RoadRunner on Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:19 pm

John Hillery wrote:
1) Criticism of Board member is not an attack on the USCF. Board members
are not hereditary monarchs, and if they do something wrong, they can
and should be criticized. The possibility of unjust criticism is the
price we have to pay for free speech. I still wonder if you would take
the same attitude if the criticism were aimed at someone of whom you
disapproved. (Sam Sloan?)

2) Once you accept the principle that the Board can restrict who writes
for Chess Life on the basis of their speech, there's no place to stop.
The editor would merely be a mouthpiece for whatever faction controlled
the Board. This system didn't work well in the Soviet Union, and we
don't want it here.

3) Since we seem to have reached the point at which you are simply
chanting "four legs good, two legs bad," I will have nothing more to say
on the subject. The readers should have enough information to make their
own decision.
--------------------


John thank you for giving me the last word. I guess that is your
admission that you are wrong here. Or certainly that you refuse to
listen to what I have to say.

1) Let me ask you to imagine a big successful company like Microsoft.
That is certainly successful. Imagine further that: Now they have a
magazine called Microsoft Magazine that goes out to all the employees of
the company and all investors in the stock. This magazine has writers
who openly severely criticize the Board of Directors of Microsoft. The
employee of Microsoft who is the Editor of the magazine informs Bill
Gates that he has to pay this writer money for his articles because
Hanken says the writer has freedom of speech. How long do you imagine it
will take for the editor to get his severance check from the company. Do
you think the new editor will hire this same writer because of freedom
of speech.

Sam Sloan is not a member of the EB of USCF. He is simply a member of
the USCF.

2) I support Free Speech and all of its Constitutional guarantees. This
is not a Free Speech issue. Stop trying to change the topic.

3) Hanken and Hillary have 2 legs each. Together they have 4. Nice try
to become a 4 legged animal. I have no idea what this red herring has to
do with the discussion. Are you trying to say you are prejudiced?

I will leave off with one statement. I have run a few successful
companies. If you and Hanken worked for me you would be fired
immediately in the middle of the day and receive a severance check
immedately and escorted to the door never to return. I would never put
up with your insolence.

in·so·lence –noun
1. contemptuously rude or impertinent behavior or speech.
2. the quality or condition of being insolent.

RoadRunner

Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:03 pm
FIDE Rating: 0
Languages: English

On Apr 13, 3:05 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
And who does Mr. RoadRunner sound like? The greatest chess promoter in
history? Interesting that Truong uses roadrunner ip services in Lubbock.

I wonder if he knows the meaning of "hubris."
---------------------------------------------------------------

by RoadRunner on Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:19 pm

John Hillery wrote:

1) Criticism of Board member is not an attack on the USCF. Board members
are not hereditary monarchs, and if they do something wrong, they can
and should be criticized. The possibility of unjust criticism is the
price we have to pay for free speech. I still wonder if you would take
the same attitude if the criticism were aimed at someone of whom you
disapproved. (Sam Sloan?)

2) Once you accept the principle that the Board can restrict who writes
for Chess Life on the basis of their speech, there's no place to stop.
The editor would merely be a mouthpiece for whatever faction controlled
the Board. This system didn't work well in the Soviet Union, and we
don't want it here.

3) Since we seem to have reached the point at which you are simply
chanting "four legs good, two legs bad," I will have nothing more to say
on the subject. The readers should have enough information to make their
own decision.

It's refreshing to see John Hillery stand up for what's right. Good
for him.

I've always said it's a good decision to let the editor of Chess Life
edit the magazine.

Good heavens. I'm being quoted favorably by Brian Lafferty? I think I
just saw a flying pig.

I suggest that RoadRunner improve his reading habits so he can
recognize a literary allusion when it bites him.

BTW, for those who have not read the thread being quoted, I have no
interest in weighing in on the shouting match between Hanken and
Polgar. My only concern was objecting to the suggestion that there
should be a political test for CL writers. Polgar herself has
disavowed that idea, so RoadRunner seems to be its only fervent
advocate.

wrote:
Good heavens. I'm being quoted favorably by Brian Lafferty? I think I
just saw a flying pig.

I suggest that RoadRunner improve his reading habits so he can
recognize a literary allusion when it bites him.

BTW, for those who have not read the thread being quoted, I have no
interest in weighing in on the shouting match between Hanken and
Polgar. My only concern was objecting to the suggestion that there
should be a political test for CL writers. Polgar herself has
disavowed that idea, so RoadRunner seems to be its only fervent
advocate.

Your point was well taken and well made.

Brian Lafferty wrote:
And who does Mr. RoadRunner sound like? The greatest chess promoter in
history? Interesting that Truong uses roadrunner ip services in Lubbock.


Extremely unlikely. I looked up RoadRunner's posts, and he's obviously
a weak player, certainly nowhere near master strength. I suppose you
could postulate the long-term development of a fake persona, but my
credulity threshold is set a bit too high for that. I don't think he's
a conspirator, just a pig-headed sycophant. Plenty of those on both
sides.

by RoadRunner on Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:19 pm


John thank you for giving me the last word. I guess that is your
admission that you are wrong here. Or certainly that you refuse to
listen to what I have to say.

1) Let me ask you to imagine a big successful company like Microsoft.
That is certainly successful. Imagine further that: Now they have a
magazine called Microsoft Magazine that goes out to all the employees of
the company and all investors in the stock. This magazine has writers
who openly severely criticize the Board of Directors of Microsoft. The
employee of Microsoft who is the Editor of the magazine informs Bill
Gates that he has to pay this writer money for his articles because
Hanken says the writer has freedom of speech. How long do you imagine it
will take for the editor to get his severance check from the company. Do
you think the new editor will hire this same writer because of freedom
of speech.

Sam Sloan is not a member of the EB of USCF. He is simply a member of
the USCF.

2) I support Free Speech and all of its Constitutional guarantees. This
is not a Free Speech issue. Stop trying to change the topic.

3) Hanken and Hillary have 2 legs each. Together they have 4. Nice try
to become a 4 legged animal. I have no idea what this red herring has to
do with the discussion. Are you trying to say you are prejudiced?

I will leave off with one statement. I have run a few successful
companies. If you and Hanken worked for me you would be fired
immediately in the middle of the day and receive a severance check
immedately and escorted to the door never to return. I would never put
up with your insolence.

in�so�lence �noun
1. contemptuously rude or impertinent behavior or speech.
2. the quality or condition of being insolent.

RoadRunner

__________________________________________________ __________

My response to that clucking fowl, Roadrunner, was pulled after
several hours, so I'm re-posting it here.
__________________________________________________ __________



1) No, I don't agree that I am wrong. I do plan not to listen to you
in future, since you've proven yourself to be utterly deluded and
impervious to reason.

2) I suggest that you a) learn to spell and b) improve your reading
habits to that you can recognize a literary allusion when it bites
you.

3) Fortunately, I don't work for you, and neither does anyone at the
USCF. Why don't you gut that red herring and fry it for dinner? If you
dislike insolence, then perhaps you should avoid debating with persons
over whom you have no power.

On Apr 13, 11:15 pm, wrote:

(Snip)
Why don't you gut that red herring and fry it for dinner?

Yuck.