Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 28th 10, 12:32 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Laugherty is, or is not to be

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


My bosses? You want to join a suit with Brennan?

If Laugherty had the balls to post his own name then I would make more
pointed comment, even formally, but he is content to circle-jerk those
who like his vague stuff, of course stiffly put, and we know who these
folks are, mostly other speculators who can't say their own names.

Here Laugherty intimates yet another topic and suggests I have a
'boss' - and is this Polgar?

After $600,000 dollars down the drain why isn't Brain Lafferty also
flushed from the system? I suppose its all easy if its other people's
money, but I still think he is not off the hook since when I asked him
about Polgar and hot-saucing he was not direct in his response to if
he knew the case had been investigated and also dismissed [Jerry
Spinrad was same, BTW] but Lafferty replied that it would be
'disengenuous' to reply to the issue - specially since he also
volunteered that he contacted the person who raised this issue, Susan
Polgar's ex.

This is a very strange self-representations which does not deny
knowledge that a court threw out the issue, while Lafferty continues
without expressing any knowledge that it did so. On being directly
challenged to his knowledge of the status of this issue, Lafferty
replied that it would be 'disingenuous' of him to answer.



Whereas I am calling him here to his honesty.

Lafferty has been vague here on the legalities of all, and even the
civilities of all, preferring to intimidate others by suggesting dire
things in the brew, forthcoming, and some sort of legal status he has.

At the time of the hot-saucing incident he said that he was in contact
with Susan's ex - but what sort of contact, initiated by whom, and how
come Brian Lafferty can't openly say whatever it was.

Sorry - 'thanks for sharing', don't cut it. It doesn't buy squat - yet
this multi-personality type has been accusing others for a couple of
years.

[email protected] a typical net auto-didact, and more than a modestly expanded
ego0, who cannot properly engage even newbies on a newgroup with
sobriety

Brian Laugherty should own up to his lack of chess savvy, knowledge or
love of the game as witnessed by the balance of his own postings, as
evidenced here in his contributions to any subject than legal ones and
speculatory ones less than those, and even then those tied to his own
prospects of a board position, or he should go away now, these
characterizations will not go away.

We have seen his like before.

Phil Innes


Thank again for sharing, Phil. Keep spinning.
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 28th 10, 01:41 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Laugherty is, or is not to be

On Jan 27, 7:32*pm, MrVidmar wrote:
ChessFire wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:24 pm, MrVidmar wrote:
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 didn t 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.


My bosses? You want to join a suit with Brennan?


If Laugherty had the balls to post his own name then I would make more
pointed comment, even formally, but he is content to circle-jerk those
who like his vague stuff, of course stiffly put, and we know who these
folks are, mostly other speculators who can't say their own names.


Here Laugherty intimates yet another topic and suggests I have a
'boss' - and is this Polgar?


After $600,000 dollars down the drain why isn't Brain Lafferty also
flushed from the system? I suppose its all easy if its other people's
money, but I still think he is not off the hook since when I asked him
about Polgar and hot-saucing he was not direct in his response to if
he knew the case had been investigated and also dismissed [Jerry
Spinrad was same, BTW] but Lafferty replied that it would be
'disengenuous' to reply to the issue - specially since he also
volunteered that he contacted the person who raised this issue, Susan
Polgar's ex.


This is a very strange self-representations which does not deny
knowledge that a court threw out the issue, while Lafferty continues
without expressing any knowledge that it did so. On being directly
challenged to his knowledge of the status of this issue, Lafferty
replied that it would be 'disingenuous' of him to answer.




Whereas I am calling him here to his honesty.


Lafferty has been vague here on the legalities of all, and even the
civilities of all, preferring to intimidate others by suggesting dire
things in the brew, forthcoming, and some sort of legal status he has.


At the time of the hot-saucing incident he said that he was in contact
with Susan's ex - but what sort of contact, initiated by whom, and how
come Brian Lafferty can't openly say whatever it was.


Sorry - 'thanks for sharing', don't cut it. It doesn't buy squat - yet
this multi-personality type has been accusing others for a couple of
years.


[email protected] a typical net auto-didact, and more than a modestly expanded
ego0, who cannot properly engage even newbies on a newgroup with
sobriety


Brian Laugherty should own up to his lack of chess savvy, knowledge or
love of the game as witnessed by the balance of his own postings, as
evidenced here in his contributions to any subject than legal ones and
speculatory ones less than those, and even then those tied to his own
prospects of a board position, or he should go away now, these
characterizations will not go away.


We have seen his like before.


Phil Innes


Thank again for sharing, Phil. *Keep spinning.


Keep changing the topic Laugherty, and call that change 'spinning' by
other people -but your are a tad shy of answering anything - as
anyone can see above I am 'sharing' questions put directly to
Lafferty, who while ready to challenge other people, has not the
******** to answer his own part in these affairs.

Let the WATCHERS note said response.

As such, can we say that what I record above goes uncontested in terms
of substantive response? I think a dozen tries and you are out,
Lafferty. Even a line judge should get that.

What on earth will you raise next, given that your base is so
compromised, and you cannot answer direct questions about your own
activities here?

Thank me again for pointing this out?

Phil Innes
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 28th 10, 02:07 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Laugherty is, or is not to be

ChessFire wrote:
On Jan 27, 7:32 pm, MrVidmar wrote:
ChessFire wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:24 pm, MrVidmar wrote:
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 didn t 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.
My bosses? You want to join a suit with Brennan?
If Laugherty had the balls to post his own name then I would make more
pointed comment, even formally, but he is content to circle-jerk those
who like his vague stuff, of course stiffly put, and we know who these
folks are, mostly other speculators who can't say their own names.
Here Laugherty intimates yet another topic and suggests I have a
'boss' - and is this Polgar?
After $600,000 dollars down the drain why isn't Brain Lafferty also
flushed from the system? I suppose its all easy if its other people's
money, but I still think he is not off the hook since when I asked him
about Polgar and hot-saucing he was not direct in his response to if
he knew the case had been investigated and also dismissed [Jerry
Spinrad was same, BTW] but Lafferty replied that it would be
'disengenuous' to reply to the issue - specially since he also
volunteered that he contacted the person who raised this issue, Susan
Polgar's ex.
This is a very strange self-representations which does not deny
knowledge that a court threw out the issue, while Lafferty continues
without expressing any knowledge that it did so. On being directly
challenged to his knowledge of the status of this issue, Lafferty
replied that it would be 'disingenuous' of him to answer.

Whereas I am calling him here to his honesty.
Lafferty has been vague here on the legalities of all, and even the
civilities of all, preferring to intimidate others by suggesting dire
things in the brew, forthcoming, and some sort of legal status he has.
At the time of the hot-saucing incident he said that he was in contact
with Susan's ex - but what sort of contact, initiated by whom, and how
come Brian Lafferty can't openly say whatever it was.
Sorry - 'thanks for sharing', don't cut it. It doesn't buy squat - yet
this multi-personality type has been accusing others for a couple of
years.
[email protected] a typical net auto-didact, and more than a modestly expanded
ego0, who cannot properly engage even newbies on a newgroup with
sobriety
Brian Laugherty should own up to his lack of chess savvy, knowledge or
love of the game as witnessed by the balance of his own postings, as
evidenced here in his contributions to any subject than legal ones and
speculatory ones less than those, and even then those tied to his own
prospects of a board position, or he should go away now, these
characterizations will not go away.
We have seen his like before.
Phil Innes

Thank again for sharing, Phil. Keep spinning.


Keep changing the topic Laugherty, and call that change 'spinning' by
other people -but your are a tad shy of answering anything - as
anyone can see above I am 'sharing' questions put directly to
Lafferty, who while ready to challenge other people, has not the
******** to answer his own part in these affairs.

Let the WATCHERS note said response.

As such, can we say that what I record above goes uncontested in terms
of substantive response? I think a dozen tries and you are out,
Lafferty. Even a line judge should get that.

What on earth will you raise next, given that your base is so
compromised, and you cannot answer direct questions about your own
activities here?

Thank me again for pointing this out?

Phil Innes


Philsey, thank you for all your "thoughts" that you share here.
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 28th 10, 03:09 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Laugherty is, or is not to be

On Jan 27, 9:07*pm, MrVidmar wrote:

Philsey, thank you for all your "thoughts" that you share here

--Phil and Sam do their level best to make everybody else here look
smart.
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
Laugherty is, or is not to be ChessFire rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 5 January 28th 10 04:49 AM
Laugherty is, or is not to be ChessFire rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 5 January 28th 10 04:49 AM
Whom Do You Trust? Brian Lafferty rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 8 April 21st 08 06:21 PM
The Board refused ... Chess One[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 90 February 22nd 08 12:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 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