Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 28th 08, 09:38 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,710
Default Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story


wrote in message
...

I go away for a weekend, and the Truong story changes 180 degrees.

**Says Susan Polgar's co-columnist at Chesscafe. Though without citing
anything by Truong. The rest of us didn't notice any change in his opinion
since he doesn't appear to have made any new statements.

When I left on Friday, we were supposed to believe them because they
wanted everything to be open,

**I think the message was that USCF members could make up their own minds
/if/ things were open. That is actually part of the text re-issued this
weekend. Does Jerry Spinrad acknowledge it is so, based on what was actually
said? What exactly did he read?

and only the USCF was stopping them
making their innocence clear.

**Well, that again is not a quote. It was not defensive, and not to do with
'their' innocence, but about what happened, and who indeed might be
responsible - and if that might be opened up to all.

I had trouble understanding this logic,

**Whose logic? You do not quote anyone, and talk about your own
'orientation'. yikes

because surely any restriction applied only to emails they had sent
already; had the evidence evaporated in sending it to the USCF so they
could not send it again?

**Anan? Are they constrained as board members by board vote to what may be
said and what not? I think so. Perhaps journalist Spinrad should ask USCF of
this is true? Unlike him, I did and got a response from the board. Does he
himself want to ask the board it it constrains material that is UFCF's
property from being used by any party?

Now, the story is that they have absolute proof that Truong is
innocent, but it cannot be seen by anyone.

**According to USCF it may not be seen.

This is the same evidence, I presume, that they sent the USCF earlier
but did not convince the committee members?

**But how absurd of Spinrad! Since if the accusation is false, then who is
guilty? Are the board 'convinced' or are they 'susceptible'? Does he allow a
second thought to enter his mind?

As you might guess, I think that Mr Truong has long ago used up any
credibility for benefit of doubt he might have gotten on this issue.

**Frankly, Jerry Spinrad who writes a historical column on chess, relies far
too much 'credabilty' and beliefs, and relies not nearly enough on
investigation - not even the kind he could conduct himself, prefering it
seems to cite no-one and ask no questions, but come to whatever conclusions
occur to him. While he may think himself cynical, I say it is not cynical
enough! And if he wants to negatively speculate on other people, did he
mention a single fact in the above, or quote anyone, or display any
impartial interest? I don't think so. But then again, Chesscafe is not
exactly a disinterested party to this affair, no? )

Phil Innes

---


Jerry Spinrad


On Jan 27, 6:58 am, samsloan wrote:
On her blog, Susan says that she has secret "rock solid" evidence
proving that she and her husband are not guilty of 2,464 the "Fake Sam
Sloan" postings.

Unfortunately, she cannot reveal this secret evidence until the case
is over.

Here is what Susan says:



"Blogger SusanPolgar said...

"Chris, nice to see your post. I know the evidence first hand. It
was faxed to the USCF attorney. The evidence is absolutely rock solid.
Perhaps one of these days after the case is dismissed, we can make it
public for all members to see.

"Best wishes to you and your family and Happy New Year!

"Susan Polgar"

Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:55:00 PM CST

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008...ter-ahead.html



  #2   Report Post  
Old January 29th 08, 09:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:38:50 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:


Now, the story is that they have absolute proof that Truong is
innocent, but it cannot be seen by anyone.


**According to USCF it may not be seen.


FOR THE JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, DEPARTMENT:

Phil, you've been beating the secret evidence drum quite loudly for a
time. But, ya know, whatever that secret stuff, it's mostly likely
gonna be revealed somewhere down the line, maybe by a leak, maybe by
Truolgar (they could give your column an exclusive), maybe in court,
maybe the USCF legal beagles will reverse themselves and let it all
hang out. Whatever.

Then, we will all be able to decide how important it was.

If you were correct, and it turns out to be really vital, exculpatory
stuff, then a whole bunch of us will have to eat some crow. And, eat
it, we will.

Enjoy this thought.

Because if WE are correct, and your much-touted secret stash turns out
to be trivial or irrelevant, we're never gonna let you forget it. It
will enter the Pantheon of Innes Blunders, your own secret Fortress of
Shame, to be exhibited along with your "Almost an IM 2450" claim, your
"I'm Not Your Boy" exercise in autoerotic argumentation, and your many
literary poo-faws. And we'll bring it up and stuff it in your face
every time you prattle on a new topic.

Have a nice day, now.
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 29th 08, 10:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,058
Default Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story

Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:38:50 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:


Now, the story is that they have absolute proof that Truong is
innocent, but it cannot be seen by anyone.


**According to USCF it may not be seen.


FOR THE JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, DEPARTMENT:

Phil, you've been beating the secret evidence drum quite loudly for a
time. But, ya know, whatever that secret stuff, it's mostly likely
gonna be revealed somewhere down the line, maybe by a leak, maybe by
Truolgar (they could give your column an exclusive), maybe in court,
maybe the USCF legal beagles will reverse themselves and let it all
hang out. Whatever.

Then, we will all be able to decide how important it was.

If you were correct, and it turns out to be really vital, exculpatory
stuff, then a whole bunch of us will have to eat some crow. And, eat
it, we will.

Enjoy this thought.

Because if WE are correct, and your much-touted secret stash turns out
to be trivial or irrelevant, we're never gonna let you forget it. It
will enter the Pantheon of Innes Blunders, your own secret Fortress of
Shame, to be exhibited along with your "Almost an IM 2450" claim, your
"I'm Not Your Boy" exercise in autoerotic argumentation, and your many
literary poo-faws. And we'll bring it up and stuff it in your face
every time you prattle on a new topic.

Have a nice day, now.


Mr. Murray,

I fear that Poor Innes may be the masochistic sort that thrives on
abuse. That would explain why he tries to cast himself in such a bad
light all the time. I can hear him now, reading your posting and
saying, "Beat me Mike, beat me harder..." A scary thought.

By the way, Poor Innes' frequent insults have led me to refer to him as
Poor Innes in the future. However I do not wish to suffer from carpal
tunnel syndrome, so I am going to abbreviate part of that. So when you
see me refer to P Innes in the future, you may rest assured that I am
really meaning Poor Innes.

Have a nice day, now.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 29th 08, 10:24 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:08:59 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:

when you
see me refer to P Innes in the future, you may rest assured that I am
really meaning Poor Innes.



Hmmmmm. Pooooooor Innes!

(who said that?).
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
The Judith Exner Story, The Life of the Mistress of John F.Kennedy ISBN 0923891900 samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 7 February 12th 08 06:05 PM
The Judith Exner Story, The Life of the Mistress of John F.Kennedy ISBN 0923891900 samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 6 February 12th 08 01:41 PM
Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 65 January 31st 08 06:17 PM
Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 60 January 31st 08 06:17 PM
Susan's "Secret Evidence" Story samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 8 January 31st 08 06:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 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