Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 27th 10, 11:24 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Who won the lawsuit?

ChessFire wrote:
On Jan 27, 3:08 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:59 pm, " wrote:





WHY DID THE USCF SETTLE?
Something stinks to high heaven.
Someone claimed that the settlement was "a complete victory" for the
USCF despite the expenditure of around $600,000. It doesn't look that
way from here.
The Wickster, who once headed the USCF Ethics Committee, tells us that
nobody won. Yet the Polgars are claiming victory.
If the case against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong was so airtight -- as
Brian Lafferty and others led us to believe for lo these many years
("stay tuned" was the mantra) -- why didnít the USCF go all the way?
Or at least push for attorney fees?
The board owes its members a complete explanation of what they did and
why.

There is the strategical picture, and the tactical.


And here dilates Wlod:-

Let me start with the tactical. The relative success (so far)
of the evil Truong and immature Polgar rests mainly on Sam
Sloan's stupidity.


Not exactly an explicable sentence in its own terms nor of any record.
What success does Wlod reference and what has this to do with the
Sloan?

Sam was too greedy, he wanted to win it all.
In the forst place he wanted (what an idiot) to justify his
political standing within the USCF. As the result he forgot the
major tactical weiqi device -- the safe group (also the notion
of the "safe play" comes from bridge, which means to make sure
tht you win the contract, and never mind the extras). Sam should
have focus exclusively on FSS. Well, Sam blow it. An idiot will
always find a way to part with the success and with the money,
despite his everyday busy schedule.


There are complicated references, yet Wlod has said that the Sloan
should have stuck the knitting, what knitting?

Now, about the strategic picture. Truong is an evil person,
dishionest to his last bone.


Look at his ties!

But USCF executives have a lot
of dirt to hide.


Maxing a metaphor, the dirt is deposited behind Truong's ties?

Thus Truong & Polgar used the only resource
available to them. They were not able to defend themselves,
hence they attacked the USCF executives.


I happen to remember a statement from Susan Polgar up front of all
this legal crap to the effect, show me yours and I'l show you mine. If
what Polgar said was enacted then we could all have decided outside
any court and $600,000 sooner who was hiding ****, and who was not.
USCF didn't want to play and officially said it may have been
compromising to them to have played openly. There is your problem, no?



Keep spinning BB. Read Polgar and Truong's depositions to see how you
show me yours, I'll show you mine came out. Better still ask them to let
you view the video recordings of their deposition testimony.

Let me know if you ever find an expert to opine on the Mottershead
Report from your boss' side of the aisle.

It is not so much as Polgar and Truong 'attacked' USCF executives, as
said how open they were to open discussion.


Bull****, Philsey. But still, thanks for sharing all of your spinning
"thoughts."


~interim~ and to your opinion Wlod, how much were USCF executives open
to open discussion? can you cite how they were so?

last time i attempted 'open discussion' with uscf it was to do with
'armageddon finishes' even to national titles, and despite chessbase
publishing senior voices in chess from all over Europe, uscf denied
those comments and defended it's own world-ridiculed decision.


And that was enough
to save their skin due to the heavy baggage carried by the USCF
guys.


Don't become as euphemistic as the natives, Wlod - express what you
mean about 'save skin' and 'baggiage'.

That's how I saw it and still see it now after reading hundreds
of posts on rgcm.


Which person here do you think even challenges these hundreds of posts
on rgcm? If I write anything Mike Murray will not allow even its
context, nevermind its content.

Are you so net-guy that you don't take a space from all this to say
something worthy your own signature. I see elsewhere you take the
short route and agree readily with idiots upon things saints would say
- apace! slower!

But you declare yourself hot for stuff, and the very declaration is
becomes the level upon which your comments are received. Too hot, too
young, too full or himself.

Heuch!

A man-baby unconfident of holding a conversation with all these baby
sureties - encouraged and brown nosing with those who are same? But
none who are other?

Heuch!

Grow up boy, or continue to talk to boys, one end of the day to
another. Don't talk to me.

Phil Innes

Regards,

Wlod


  #2   Report Post  
Old January 27th 10, 11:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Who won the lawsuit?

On Jan 27, 6:24*pm, MrVidmar wrote:
ChessFire wrote:


I happen to remember a statement from Susan Polgar up front of all
this legal crap to the effect, show me yours and I'l show you mine. If
what Polgar said was enacted then we could all have decided outside
any court and $600,000 sooner who was hiding ****, and who was not.
USCF didn't want to play and officially said it may have been
compromising to them to have played openly. There is your problem, no?




Keep spinning BB. *Read Polgar and Truong's depositions to see how you
show me yours, I'll show you mine came out. Better still ask them to let
you view the video recordings of their deposition testimony.


How can one get a copy of these depositions?


  #3   Report Post  
Old January 27th 10, 11:58 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Who won the lawsuit?

The Historian wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:24 pm, MrVidmar wrote:
ChessFire wrote:


I happen to remember a statement from Susan Polgar up front of all
this legal crap to the effect, show me yours and I'l show you mine. If
what Polgar said was enacted then we could all have decided outside
any court and $600,000 sooner who was hiding ****, and who was not.
USCF didn't want to play and officially said it may have been
compromising to them to have played openly. There is your problem, no?

Keep spinning BB. Read Polgar and Truong's depositions to see how you
show me yours, I'll show you mine came out. Better still ask them to let
you view the video recordings of their deposition testimony.


How can one get a copy of these depositions?


Good question. All parties to litigation are entitled to copies of
depositions, videos of them as well as all other materials from discovery.

I don't have a copy of the video and don't really have any interest in
obtaining one. Ask the other parties to the action. Maybe one of them
has or plans to obtain copies. For me, the transcripts are enough.
Sorry I can't be more helpful, but it's just not important to me now
that it's over.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Polgar Opposition to Cross-Motion MrVidmar rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 September 9th 09 06:11 PM
Polgar Opposition to Cross-Motion MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 September 9th 09 06:11 PM
Polgar Opposition to Cross-Motion MrVidmar alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 September 9th 09 06:11 PM
USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 August 25th 09 03:08 AM
Sound and Fury in Polgarland B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 December 15th 08 09:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017