Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 4th 09, 03:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default USCF vs. Polgar makes today's New York Times

There is an article about the latest USCF vs. Polgar case in today's
New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/cr...s/04fight.html
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 4th 09, 03:44 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Brian Lafferty already posted this: USCF vs. Polgar makes today's NewYork Times

On Jan 4, 9:29*am, samsloan wrote:
There is an article about the latest USCF vs. Polgar case in today's
New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/cr...s/04fight.html


Sam,
Brian already posted this information.
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 4th 09, 04:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2009
Posts: 57
Default USCF vs. Polgar makes today's New York Times


"samsloan" wrote in message
...
There is an article about the latest USCF vs. Polgar case in today's
New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/cr...s/04fight.html


I don't understand why the reporter says the suit was dismissed on
jurisdictional grounds. The judge said that the suit was dismissed because
Sam Sloan is an incompetent buffoon. No wonder nobody reads the Slimes
anymore.

"The complaint largely interweaves purported "facts" with Sloan's
own subjective rantings and commentary about defendants and their alleged
shortcomings. For the most part, these are simply personal, vindictive, and
nonsensical attacks that do not belong in a pleading filed in a judicial
proceeding."

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67469

  #4   Report Post  
Old January 5th 09, 10:38 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default USCF vs. Polgar makes today's New York Times

Nomen Nescio wrote:
"foad" wrote in message
...
"samsloan" wrote in message
...
There is an article about the latest USCF vs. Polgar case in today's
New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/cr...s/04fight.html

I don't understand why the reporter says the suit was dismissed on
jurisdictional grounds.


It is evident you've never had the misfortune to meet Dylan Loeb
McClain. While I read the article, I didn't need to have in order
to know why McClain says what he says.
The reason why McClain says what he says is that Dylan Loeb McClain
is exactly as much of a 'reporter' as is Sam Sloan.
Giving Dylan the benefit of the doubt, he probably barely glanced
at the judge's decision, and accepted without question the lies
spun to him by Sloan.
McClain is a biased c_t who should be fired, yesterday. McClain is
a disgrace, an insult to his office and his predecessor, and shows
the very low esteem in which the Slimes holds its chess readership.
One naturally speculates as to how many other even less savory
similarities exist between McClain and Sloan. There must be a
reason for the sycophancy to Sam Sloan and the apparent hatred for
GM Polgar and FM Truong.
If Byrne is following this, he must be disgusted.

The judge said that the suit was dismissed because
Sam Sloan is an incompetent buffoon. No wonder nobody reads the Slimes
anymore.

"The complaint largely interweaves purported "facts" with Sloan's
own subjective rantings and commentary about defendants and their alleged
shortcomings. For the most part, these are simply personal, vindictive, and
nonsensical attacks that do not belong in a pleading filed in a judicial
proceeding."

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67469


Archived. Noted also that the poster did not dispute anything reported
by McClain as being false or inaccurate.
  #5   Report Post  
Old January 5th 09, 11:37 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 879
Default USCF vs. Polgar makes today's New York Times

On Jan 5, 5:38*am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
"foad" wrote in message
...
"samsloan" wrote in message
....
There is an article about the latest USCF vs. Polgar case in today's
New York Times.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/cr...s/04fight.html
I don't understand why the reporter says the suit was dismissed on
jurisdictional grounds.


It is evident you've never had the misfortune to meet Dylan Loeb
McClain. While I read the article, I didn't need to have in order
to know why McClain says what he says.
The reason why McClain says what he says is that Dylan Loeb McClain
is exactly as much of a 'reporter' as is Sam Sloan.
Giving Dylan the benefit of the doubt, he probably barely glanced
at the judge's decision, and accepted without question the lies
spun to him by Sloan.
McClain is a biased c_t who should be fired, yesterday. McClain is
a disgrace, an insult to his office and his predecessor, and shows
the very low esteem in which the Slimes holds its chess readership.
One naturally speculates as to how many other even less savory
similarities exist between McClain and Sloan. There must be a
reason for the sycophancy to Sam Sloan and the apparent hatred for
GM Polgar and FM Truong.
If Byrne is following this, he must be disgusted.


The judge said that the suit was dismissed because
Sam Sloan is an incompetent buffoon. No wonder nobody reads the Slimes
anymore.


"The complaint largely interweaves purported "facts" with Sloan's
own subjective rantings and commentary about defendants and their alleged
shortcomings. For the most part, these are simply personal, vindictive, and
nonsensical attacks that do not belong in a pleading filed in a judicial
proceeding."


2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67469


Archived. *Noted also that the poster did not dispute anything reported
by McClain as being false or inaccurate.


You should 'archive' this too - the first writer is commenting on,
what is in his opinion, a critical lack of judgement in McClain's
column. (I wonder, BTW if NY Times has reported the Chesscafe suit?)

I have written there a few times - to ask about the editorial policy
of NY Times in admitting the 'extended gossip' of their column to be
published, and who replied that reporting court cases was pro-forma
activity, and not a partisan one - albeit NY Times seemed happy to
permit every sort of speculation about the court cases.

I also wrote asking how come journalist McClain had the nerve to
comment on a Judit Polgar game, offering us a line where she would
give up a pawn immediately and effectively lose all initiative and
hence the game itself, instead of requiring her opponent to open up
and perhaps err in the intervening 12 moves, with the clock still
ticking, to win that pawn?

There was no answer. Its one thing to be quoting Fritz, but I guess
unless you actually understand Fritz or whatever source you use, then
it is a tad arrogant to make suggestions to the one of the top players
in the world, and a noted fighter, in the middle of a must-win game -
which merely suggests you give up and fold. zzzzz

In terms of chess commentary and also permitted comments on the social
side of things - I would say the column is definitely light-weight
material, tending to scandalize social chess issues.

Phil Innes





  #6   Report Post  
Old January 5th 09, 12:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2009
Posts: 57
Default USCF vs. Polgar makes today's New York Times


"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
...

Noted also that the poster did not dispute anything reported by McClain as
being false or inaccurate.



Which poster? Me? I certainly did. Don't again ever mischaracterize any of
my statements lest I am constrained to archive your post for the purpose of
bring you and your really important interewebs chess club to the attention
of the attorney general of the united states and also the united nations
security council, see if I don't.

What's false is the statement that says the case was dismissed on
jurisdictional grounds. That is false. What Chin says in his opinion is that
there is no federal question raised; that is, that the complaint fails to
state a cause of action. If it were merely jurisdictional, meaning that the
case had been filed in the wrong court, Chin would not have dismissed
Sloan's "personal, vindictive, and nonsensical attacks that do not belong in
a pleading filed in a judicial proceeding" with prejudice, meaning that it
cannot be refiled anywhere, and with costs, which is effectively a sanction
for a frivilous filing.

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
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 October 6th 08 02:49 PM
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 24 February 29th 08 03:55 PM
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 4 February 16th 08 03:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 PM.

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