Brian Lafferty wrote:


Therefore (you do remember
logic from back when you were impersonating a law school student,
don't you?) if the moderators of chessdiscussion.com are responsible
for posts by RoadRunner, the USCF is responsible for posts by Donna
Alarie in which she attacks, well, everyone. Since "b" is not true,
neither is "a."

You just got a F in logic 101. The moderators of the USCF forum are
guided by forum usage guidelines and must leave up opinions with which
they disagree. That is not what happens on chessdiscussion. It seems
everyone but you understands that.


That would be a valid argument _if_ your initial assumptions were
correct. But, of course, they aren't. I dislike addressing adults as
if they were retarded children, but in your case it seems I have no
choice. Follow:

1) The chessdiscussion forum is not pre-moderated, except for a few
trolls like you in the moderation queue.

2) RoadRunner made a dumb and offensive post at chessdiscussion.

3) _Therefore_ (your conclusion, not mine) Polgar, Truong and their
followers may justly be blamed for the opinions expressed by
RoadRunner. Do you see what's wrong with this syllogism? I can
recommend some books on formal logic if you don't.

Now, _if_ your syllogism above were valid (no one except a special
needs student would think so, but let's grant it for the sake of
argument), it would follow that:

1) The USCF Forums are not pre-moderated (except for a few trolls in
the mod. queue. Two of which are you, by the way.)

2) Donna Alarie has made a number of posts attacking the competence
and integrity of the USCF and several Board members by name.

3) _Therefore_ (am I going slowly enough for you, Brian?) the USCF is
responsible for the attacks on the USCF and Board members by Donna
Alarie. If you accept syllogism 1, you must accept syllogism 2. Since
no one with a functioning brain (I _assume_ that includes you) would
swallow syllogism 2, it follows that you must reject syllogism 1.

Of course I said the same thing earlier in far fewer words, but I was
aiming at a higher class of reader then. I guess the USCF will have to
scrap those "Chess makes you smart" bumper stickers. It only works
sometimes.

What Polgar actually wrote seems reasonable unless one considers the
fact that when they ran for election they knew that the board met four
times a year and the most important part of their duties was that they
would be expected to attend those four meeting.

It was known months in advance that there would be a meeting this past
weekend in Tulsa. No doubt some details were not provided but they
knew that there would be a meeting.

It is to be recalled that they announced that they would not be
attending the first meeting of the board, which was held in
Crossville, because of a "security breach". However, to everybody's
surprise, they showed up anyway. That is where they were served with a
summons and complaint.

The second meeting was held online because Truong refused to travel to
California to attend and Goichberg refused to travel to any other
state because he was living in California at the time.

Here is what Polgar (or Trollgar as they are known because it is
impossible to tell which are written by Polgar and which are written
by Truong) actually wrote explaining why she did not attend the third
meeting, that was held in Tulsa yesterday:

"A. Because the exact details were presented to us too late to make
the proper arrangements. Randy Bauer complained about this as well.
The details should have been given to all board members at least a
month in advance and not a week or so. Some board members do not have
children or just grown children. Their schedules are more flexible.

"B. Many board members have attended the meetings by phone in the
past. This is nothing unusual about this. I worry more about the state
of the USCF and not this issue. I am currently on 3 non-profit boards
and we do many of our meetings by phone with the other two.

"We met Bill G., Bill H., Jim B., Pat Knight and others in Tulsa. The
only 2 we did not meet were Randy Hough and Randy Bauer. Overall, the
meeting went quite well I think. I think we covered a lot of issues
which I believe will help the USCF. As I stated before, we obviously
have a number of differences in opinion and some compromises were
made. Most of the votes went 6-0 with a few minor abstentions.

"There will be more discussions with Bill Hall and Bill Goichberg in
the near future about increasing the USCF revenues via sponsorship,
advertisement, and donation. It is up to them to accept our offer to
help or not.

"Susan Polgar"

Gregory wrote:
On May 18, 5:36 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
Your brain really is non-functional. How is the USCF responsible for
anyone's opinion on an open forum? They aren't. On a forum like
chessdiscussion, nothing gets up there without the express approval of
Trolgar. Thus, what is posted there by persons who are their known
minions (ie. roadrunner) represent their viewpoint unless contradicted
or pulled.
I suppose facts don't matter much to a former lia ... er, _lawyer_,
but the chessdiscussion forum is not pre-moderated, except for a few
people in the moderation queue. The rest of us have our posts appear
immediately. (Of course they can be removed later, just as with the
USCF forums.)
But I have to admit, Brian, that I'm really not sure whether you're a
brazen, dishonest liar, or just an empty suit with a big ego and a
loud voice. Either would fit the facts. Would you care to weigh in on
the topic?
From chessdiscussion today:

Important note, the USCF issues is moderated via queue

by gregory on Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:49 pm
Note: this particular forum requires the posts being approved by the
moderation team prior to the post being made public. Our intent is not
to replicate the USCF Issues forum, but have a forum to discuss chess.
It is our hope that the USCF Issues do not overly politicize
chessdiscussions.com. We may turn the moderation queue off in the future.

This is a decision that I have made alone as the head moderator. I
apologize for the inconvenience,

Gregory
Gregory

ChessDiscussion webmaster- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You quoted something that I wrote over a half of a year ago.

Time to update your announcements, Gregory. But the issue is, what
appears from posters like roadrunner is the Trolgar party line.



As John
correctly stated, most users that actively post are not pre-moderated
in the USCF Issues section at chessdiscussion.com. This includes a
members such as Ron S, who tends to lean against Susan and Paul. Henry
has posted there, David (artichoke), and you yourself had a few posts
approved Brian. The new posters, and those who are moderated within
that one sub-forum usually are approved within an hour or two. This is
a far cry from the USCF owned forum which takes over 3 days for my own
posts to get approved.

Gregory

wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:
Your brain really is non-functional. How is the USCF responsible for
anyone's opinion on an open forum? They aren't. On a forum like
chessdiscussion, nothing gets up there without the express approval of
Trolgar. Thus, what is posted there by persons who are their known
minions (ie. roadrunner) represent their viewpoint unless contradicted
or pulled.


I suppose facts don't matter much to a former lia ... er, _lawyer_,
but the chessdiscussion forum is not pre-moderated, except for a few
people in the moderation queue. The rest of us have our posts appear
immediately. (Of course they can be removed later, just as with the
USCF forums.)

But I have to admit, Brian, that I'm really not sure whether you're a
brazen, dishonest liar, or just an empty suit with a big ego and a
loud voice. Either would fit the facts. Would you care to weigh in on
the topic?
From chessdiscussion today:

Important note, the USCF issues is moderated via queue

by gregory on Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:49 pm
Note: this particular forum requires the posts being approved by the
moderation team prior to the post being made public. Our intent is not
to replicate the USCF Issues forum, but have a forum to discuss chess.
It is our hope that the USCF Issues do not overly politicize
chessdiscussions.com. We may turn the moderation queue off in the future.

This is a decision that I have made alone as the head moderator. I
apologize for the inconvenience,

Gregory
Gregory

ChessDiscussion webmaster


Chessdiscussion.com has exactly five people in the moderation queue
(two of them are obviously the same person, and, of course, one of
them is you). Everyone else can post freely in the "FIDE/USCF"
section. You could easily have looked this up if you had the slightest
interest in facts.

Brian, your ignorance and dishonesty might be tolerable if you were
even slightly witty about it. But being an ignorant putz _and_ a foul-
mouthed buffoon pretty much exhausts your credit. Go back to your
bicycles, little guy. You're fighting outside your intellectual weight
class.

:-)

On May 18, 11:54 pm, wrote:
Go back to your
bicycles, little guy. You're fighting outside your intellectual weight
class.

I find cyclists to be a heck of a lot smarter than chessplayers.

On May 21, 3:32 am, "Greg Wren" wrote:
Hold the conference electronically! That way it could be done more often.
Why travel all over the USA?

When I was on the board, the board exchanged emails almost every day.

A lot gets accomplished that way, but often the only real progress
comes when everybody is in the same room together.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:
On May 21, 3:32 am, "Greg Wren" wrote:
Hold the conference electronically! That way it could be done more often.
Why travel all over the USA?

When I was on the board, the board exchanged emails almost every day.

A lot gets accomplished that way, but often the only real progress
comes when everybody is in the same room together.

Sam Sloan

Meetings a la Resident Evil.