Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 16th 07, 02:04 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 383
Default Bauer's Ethical Conflict

From the USCF Forums:

Randy Bauer wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:Randy Bauer wrote:
Brian, you are hardly neutral on this matter. You and "the other Brian"
have cut corners at nearly every opportunity. Your demands are most
assuredly not going to cause me to speed up the process.

Excuse me. I'm looking for the facts and the truth. I don't know that
you've got a record of doing that. When you received the blind cc of Susan
Polgar's message to Bill Hall containing an anonymous attack on Joe Lux, I
don't recall your taking any action against your friend Susan. I don't
recall any public statement about her abject lie to the ED that she had only
sent it to Hall and, IIRC, Bill G--not to you or anyone else which she
admitted to doing once confront by Hall that he knew you had received a
copy. Mr. Bauer, you have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Mr. Lafferty, you are seeking to interject issues that are not a part of
this discussion. Did they teach you about that at law school? You might also
want to consult with Joe Lux as to why I refrained from commenting on the
matter.

Mr. Bauer, I'm questioning your credibility based on a sordid occurrence
in which you did nothing to expose or in any way censure your fellow
candidate who had endorsed your candidacy. Joe Lux did not want the matter
publicized. What did you do vis a vis Ms. Polgar? And now you're involved in
hiring the expert to review charges against Ms. Polgar's husband and
possibly her?! Please, don't lecture me about relevance and ethics.


We contacted a qualified firm with a national reputation the beginning
of last week. We spent a day trading an NDL back and forth and executed it.
They received documents and asked for 3 days to review and give us a
statement of work and cost estimate, which they sumitted on the third day.
We spent a day reviewing it and asked them to make revisions. We are now
waiting for their revised scope and statement of work.

Try this. Give the names of the expert firms to the USCF's attorney.
Have him make the initial contact and then hand it over to you or someone
credible on the EB. Then your work is covered by attorney client privilege
and you don't need an NDA. Ask the expert to take Mottershead's Report with
downloaded documentation and vet it for methodology and factual accuracy.
Tell them you need a preliminary analysis within five business days. Ask if
they can do that and what their hourly rate is. If acceptable, fax a letter
agreement and provide all documentation via email/web link.

Thanks for the gameplan. We already plan to run the report through our
attorney, and deciding who that will be (specialization is good here, and
that is also part of the delay. However, in deference for your approach,
from now on, I'll just refer to you as five-day Brian.

Your sarcasm illustrates the bankruptcy of your position.

As I've said, three interested parties that I'm aware of already have a
least three and probably four experts in with preliminary opinions ready to
do trial prep if necessary. Your excuses are just that--excuses. Lame ones
at that.


And I suppose these experts are willing to put their opinions in
writing, their names signed to them and aired in public? I assume they all
have sufficient E/0 coverage to deal with possible countersuits? Until you
produce that, their opinions are just like a certain human orifice -
everybody has one.

Yes. And if you ever produce your expert's opinion it will be vetted by
them and I have no doubt that their written analysis will be made public. As
for orifices--you certainly know from where you speak.

You've probably heard the saying 'measure twice, cut once.' If you
prefer the ready fire aim approach, fine, but I'm glad I've never sought
your services.

Let the expert measure--that's their job. All you're engaging in is
nonsensical delay. Why Randy? Given your prior interaction in the Lux
affair, you shouldn't be the EB member taking the lead on this.

Apparently the people that matter - the other members of the EB -
disagree. Run for the EB, get yourself elected, and you can have a vote.
Until then, stick to the follow-the-ambulance biz.

I don't think that says much about the rest of the EB. Again, your inane
sarcasm proves your lack of suitability for this project and probably EB
membership.

Note to the moderators. This will be posted on rgcp before you pull it
from here.


  #2   Report Post  
Old October 16th 07, 05:13 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Default Bauer's Ethical Conflict

On Oct 15, 6:04 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
From the USCF Forums:

Randy Bauer wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:Randy Bauer wrote:
Brian, you are hardly neutral on this matter. You and "the other Brian"
have cut corners at nearly every opportunity. Your demands are most
assuredly not going to cause me to speed up the process.

Excuse me. I'm looking for the facts and the truth. I don't know that
you've got a record of doing that. When you received the blind cc of Susan
Polgar's message to Bill Hall containing an anonymous attack on Joe Lux, I
don't recall your taking any action against your friend Susan. I don't
recall any public statement about her abject lie to the ED that she had only
sent it to Hall and, IIRC, Bill G--not to you or anyone else which she
admitted to doing once confront by Hall that he knew you had received a
copy. Mr. Bauer, you have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Mr. Lafferty, you are seeking to interject issues that are not a part of
this discussion. Did they teach you about that at law school? You might also
want to consult with Joe Lux as to why I refrained from commenting on the
matter.

Mr. Bauer, I'm questioning your credibility based on a sordid occurrence
in which you did nothing to expose or in any way censure your fellow
candidate who had endorsed your candidacy. Joe Lux did not want the matter
publicized. What did you do vis a vis Ms. Polgar? And now you're involved in
hiring the expert to review charges against Ms. Polgar's husband and
possibly her?! Please, don't lecture me about relevance and ethics.

We contacted a qualified firm with a national reputation the beginning
of last week. We spent a day trading an NDL back and forth and executed it.
They received documents and asked for 3 days to review and give us a
statement of work and cost estimate, which they sumitted on the third day.
We spent a day reviewing it and asked them to make revisions. We are now
waiting for their revised scope and statement of work.

Try this. Give the names of the expert firms to the USCF's attorney.
Have him make the initial contact and then hand it over to you or someone
credible on the EB. Then your work is covered by attorney client privilege
and you don't need an NDA. Ask the expert to take Mottershead's Report with
downloaded documentation and vet it for methodology and factual accuracy.
Tell them you need a preliminary analysis within five business days. Ask if
they can do that and what their hourly rate is. If acceptable, fax a letter
agreement and provide all documentation via email/web link.

Thanks for the gameplan. We already plan to run the report through our
attorney, and deciding who that will be (specialization is good here, and
that is also part of the delay. However, in deference for your approach,
from now on, I'll just refer to you as five-day Brian.

Your sarcasm illustrates the bankruptcy of your position.

As I've said, three interested parties that I'm aware of already have a
least three and probably four experts in with preliminary opinions ready to
do trial prep if necessary. Your excuses are just that--excuses. Lame ones
at that.

And I suppose these experts are willing to put their opinions in
writing, their names signed to them and aired in public? I assume they all
have sufficient E/0 coverage to deal with possible countersuits? Until you
produce that, their opinions are just like a certain human orifice -
everybody has one.

Yes. And if you ever produce your expert's opinion it will be vetted by
them and I have no doubt that their written analysis will be made public. As
for orifices--you certainly know from where you speak.

You've probably heard the saying 'measure twice, cut once.' If you
prefer the ready fire aim approach, fine, but I'm glad I've never sought
your services.

Let the expert measure--that's their job. All you're engaging in is
nonsensical delay. Why Randy? Given your prior interaction in the Lux
affair, you shouldn't be the EB member taking the lead on this.

Apparently the people that matter - the other members of the EB -
disagree. Run for the EB, get yourself elected, and you can have a vote.
Until then, stick to the follow-the-ambulance biz.

I don't think that says much about the rest of the EB. Again, your inane
sarcasm proves your lack of suitability for this project and probably EB
membership.

Note to the moderators. This will be posted on rgcp before you pull it
from here.


"As I've said, three interested parties that I'm aware of already have
a
least three and probably four experts in with preliminary opinions
ready to
do trial prep if necessary. Your excuses are just that--excuses. Lame
ones
at that."

Did you contact these three experts, and what was their findings if
they notified you?

I am curious,

Gregory

I have a question Brian,


  #3   Report Post  
Old October 16th 07, 09:01 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 54
Default Bauer's Ethical Conflict

Brian,

Excellent! Like a fly to fly paper, now lead Polgar-Truong-Mig-etc.
advocate, planner?, coach?, instigator?, Russian Mob point-man?
Gregory responds to your bait.

Now is the time to skillfully make him commit to answering this
question:

"Will you swear under oath, subject to the threat and penalty of
perjury, that you have never advised or otherwise conspired to, via
electronic device manipulation, expert consultation, internet message
posting, or other means to aid and later conceal any RGCC and/or USCF
discussion board messages entered by/for Paul Truong and/or Susan
Polgar made under any identity than their own legal names?"

[For the record, in front of any court in the United States, in any
trial, for myself, I answer no. I never read any of the offending
messages in the USCF forum and I just recently read Brian Motterhead's
report.]}

Perhaps you can lead him into answering the question, or instead
answer it yourself and ask him to do the same, both here and in the
USCF forum. Be very careful, though, Gregory is the point man, and why/
what circumstances leading to this situation at present are under
investigation.

Thank you,
Paul Tomchick

sole (only) RGCP name: manoflemuncha

  #4   Report Post  
Old October 16th 07, 10:13 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 383
Default Bauer's Ethical Conflict


wrote in message
oups.com...
Brian,

Excellent! Like a fly to fly paper, now lead Polgar-Truong-Mig-etc.
advocate, planner?, coach?, instigator?, Russian Mob point-man?
Gregory responds to your bait.

Now is the time to skillfully make him commit to answering this
question:

"Will you swear under oath, subject to the threat and penalty of
perjury, that you have never advised or otherwise conspired to, via
electronic device manipulation, expert consultation, internet message
posting, or other means to aid and later conceal any RGCC and/or USCF
discussion board messages entered by/for Paul Truong and/or Susan
Polgar made under any identity than their own legal names?"

[For the record, in front of any court in the United States, in any
trial, for myself, I answer no. I never read any of the offending
messages in the USCF forum and I just recently read Brian Motterhead's
report.]}

Perhaps you can lead him into answering the question, or instead
answer it yourself and ask him to do the same, both here and in the
USCF forum. Be very careful, though, Gregory is the point man, and why/
what circumstances leading to this situation at present are under
investigation.

Thank you,
Paul Tomchick

sole (only) RGCP name: manoflemuncha


I don't see any of them being transparent any time soon. The problem in our
age is that sport and publishing/promotion are hand in glove businesses.
Real journalism is difficult to come by. And when you do find it, the
journalist is attacked, a la Dylan McClain.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Conflict of Twitterings Chess One rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 27 September 11th 07 10:18 PM
Conflict of Interest by Susan Polgar samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 24 June 26th 07 10:14 AM
Conflict of Interest by Susan Polgar samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 25 June 26th 07 10:14 AM
Conflict of Interest by Susan Polgar samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 23 June 26th 07 09:58 AM
Conflict between Afghan Delegations to the World Chess Federation Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 3 May 27th 06 03:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:50 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