Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 27th 07, 08:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 383
Default Goddesschess Takes an Intersting Stand

Frankly the logic of Jan Newton escapes me. The comment in this thread from
her blog that was pulled was from me. I pointed out that the issue was not
my character as argued and continues to argue. That she attacked my
character is really, in chess terms, just a decoy. The real character
issues center on Polgar and Truong.

From Chessgoddess's Blog:

Brian Lafferty said...
Apparently Dr. Moskow's withdrawal of sponsorship of this event and all
other sponsorship to the Susan Polgar Foundation has a bit more motivation
than just Mr. Sloan's legal action. Dr. Moskow posted the following on the
NY Times Gambit Blog in his unique typing style:

i FOR ONE AM INTERESTED IN SETTING UP A MEETING TO START A NEW ORGANIZATION.
iF INTERESTED EMAIL ME. . sUSAN HAS REJECTED ALL MY
PROPOSALS, BILL AND SAM WERE GENTLEMAN ,, UPFRONT AND HONEST. sUSAN IS
SUPPORTING PAUL, PAUL NEVER EVEN CALLED. i AM NO LONGER INTERESTED IN THERE
ISSUES AND HAVE WITHDRAWN ALL FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THEIR ACTIVITIES. nO
MATTER HOW THIS TURNS OUT, HAVING A HUSBAND AND WIFE ON A BOARD TOGETHER IS
A RECIPE FOR FAILURE.

It would appear that Ms. Polgar's husband is a factor in Dr. Moskow's
decision. Perhaps someone could ask Dr. Moskow.

October 24, 2007 5:39 PM

Jan said...
I believe Dr. Moskow has made his position perfectly clear, Mr. Lafferty, in
several statements he has made at The New York Times chess blog. I have read
his comments and those of others and have reached my own conclusions about
his motivations and his character. It is, of course, Dr. Moskow's right to
choose not to honor his word after all.

October 24, 2007 7:10 PM

Brian Lafferty said...
Jan, presumably you were referring to the following statement by Dr. Moskow
on the Gambit Blog. I think perhaps the problem here is more Mr. Truong than
Ms. Polgar:
-----------------------
well here is the skinny, bill was a gentleman in fact could not ofbeen more
reasonable, articulate and and thoughtful, he agreed to resign is he was
found to have set this debacle up,sam agreed to drop the suit under certain
conditions all proposed byme and in fact he gavereasonable and well thought
out positions. susan on the other hand despite my strong advice wouldnot
give an inch, hence my support of her spiceand paul is finished. I am
embarressed and depressed by her positions.The fact is I see little hope,
and the conflict of related board members should never recur,the uscf is
farworse off polarized than dominated by same oldsame old, in fact same old
was reasonable. In the end quilty or not this regime has stained the uscf
and driven away all sponsorship for the immediate future. Pathetic state of
affairs, lets say mr anderson, mr eade and others were right and I was just
a fool. shame on me.Susan you have your platform, and your actions will
determine your destiny best of luck eric d moskow m.d
-------------------------
As I consider Ms. Polgar and her motivations, I can't help but think that as
her friend you might want to give her a copy of Melody Beattie's book
,"Codependent No More....." or Hemfelt's "Love Is a Choice: The Definitive
Book on Letting Go of Unhealthy Relationships"

October 25, 2007 9:02 AM

Brian Lafferty said...
FYI--The latest posting by Dr. oskow on the NY Times Gambit Blog:


I would refer everyone to susans polgars blog. She conviently distorts the
facts so I am now on the recieving end of hate mail. Let meset therecord
straight again. I uscf fromnever pulledout. I offered to give the money
directly to texas tech and did not want an association with bpaul given the
hoopla, inconsistent behavior and vicious comments to sue goichberg and from
susan. Furthermore, I do not support sam sloan in any way, I am
umcomfortable with his blog, litiginous behavior etc. Than said I find
Susans behavior, anger and destructive comments inconsistent with my support
of her, my goals and find any association with paul given the current state
of affairs unaceptable to me.Please not an alernative tourneysame dates in
argentisponsored with me with greater expense too me.It is fair to say any
misrepresentation of the facts by susan or paul or psuedo bloch publishers
will be responded too by interviews, mailings and recall elections.Susan the
truth is useful.eric d moskow m.d. Killing me with support is noless hurtful
than viscious lies.good try.

- Posted by eric moskow

October 25, 2007 4:37 PM

Jan said...
Interesting - Dr. Moskow is now a victim of adverse publicity. He's received
hate-mail, has he? He published his email for all the world to see when
publicly announcing that he had pulled funding from the Reshevsky Memorial.
He provides his rationale for what he did, but the bottom line appears to be
that what he did and how he did it upset a LOT of people. It doesn't take a
genius to predict what the reaction would be. And yet he didn't consider
that his actions might engender negative consequences once publicized? And
here I thought I was the only naive person left in the world.

For the record, in response to your prior post, I am not a personal
acquaintance of Ms. Polgar, and it would be a gross impertinence to send her
either of the publications you mentioned in any event. I honor someone who
honors their commitments, Mr. Lafferty.

I let your post stand, Mr. Lafferty, because I think it reveals something
telling about your character, which may not be so well known to the people
who read this blog but do not read other boards and blogs where you have
been quite prolific in expressing our opinions. I feel free to tell you that
I will make no bones about deleting any posts you might feel the need to
make here in the future - depending upon content, of course. After all, I do
like a gentleman.

October 25, 2007 8:56 PM

Anonymous said...
Dr moskow is quite capable of defending himself and needs no help from ill
informed outsiders.1.I went on record with a reporter prior to doing this at
the n.y. times in the event that their was a backlash. 2. i offered to pay
texas tech directly. 3. Ijust did not want pauls name and mine in any
emails, pr or interviews as an association. No other strings that was
rejected. Clearly a formal press release and interview will now be
needed.Also I have no history chess politics and no prior motiviations other
than playing and becoming an IM. I am not naive andnegative response but
texas tech never called me and susan posted this on her blog so you tell
methe story.No good deed goesunpunished.Also mr sloan did not cause this
paul and susan could of prevented it and dealt with mr sloan behind court
doors. I furthur brokered a solution rejected by susan and paul. The loss of
funding was there choice not mine. Also,why did paul need or want to use me
in this process????Again, if texas tech ever wants to right the shipmy door
is open, my issue is pauls public credibility nbattle, notwanting an
association with sloan ,or any of the chronies in this horrible childish
squabble, itsw not my fight.eric moskow

October 26, 2007 4:05 AM

Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator. [as per m comments
above]

October 26, 2007 4:48 AM

Jan said...
I'm not "ill informed", Dr. Moskow, unless you've been less than 100%
truthful in your reports in various blogs and to the media. I've read what
you wrote, and what you've been quoted as saying. It is upon this
information, and this information alone, that I have formed my opinion of
you. And it's not a very good opinion.

If you had really wanted to give money to Texas Tech, you could have just
donated it to the University with any strings - or none - that you wished to
have attached to it; I'm sure TT would have been pleased to accept the funds
directly from you. As I said in my prior post, you doth protest too much.

October 26, 2007 7:33 PM

Brian Lafferty said...
Jan wrote:
"If you had really wanted to give money to Texas Tech, you could have just
donated it to the University with any strings - or none - that you wished to
have attached to it; I'm sure TT would have been pleased to accept the funds
directly from you. As I said in my prior post, you doth protest too much."

Jan, perhaps you missed Dr. Moskow's point. He apparently did not/does not
want any donation to Texas Tech to be associated in any way with Paul
Truong's name. The fact that he tried to broker a settlement that would
remove Paul Truong from the USCF board while keeping Susan Polgar on the
board and continue funding of her events, albeit not through the SPF, runs
counter to your interpretation of Dr. Moskow's published remarks. The
problem here, which an increasing number of people are coming to recognize,
is the issue of Paul Truong's character. The question still begs. Why is
Susan so apparently willing to let Paul drag her down into the muck with
him?
Best regards,
Brian Lafferty

October 27, 2007 11:24 AM

Jan said...

Mr. Lafferty, I reiterate what I wrote in my prior post: Dr. Moskow could
have attached any conditions - or none - to donating the money to Texas Tech
to advance the tournament. He chose not to do this. He chose, instead, to
believe unsubstantiated reports on the internet about Mr. Truong's "guilt" -
without the benefit of a single court hearing or the ultimate determination
of fact in the United States - a trial. Instead of acting in an honorable
manner and standing by the financial commitment he had made to the Reshefsky
Memorial, he cut and run, thereby potentially damaging parties who have
nothing whatsoever to do with the controversy. Given Mr. Sloan's prior
history, I would suspect that he is rubbing his hands in glee, and laughing
behind his hand at Dr. Moskow.

You too, have tried and "convicted" Mr. Truong and, by extension, Ms.
Polgar, on the basis of internet reports and the "consensus" of the
equivalent of an internet lynch mob. You are an attorney, Mr. Lafferty - you
of all people should know better than to fall into such a trap. However, it
seems you have chosen to ignore your legal training and experience in
practicing law. Given your prior history of animosity toward Ms. Polgar and
Mr. Truong, I can only conclude that you fell most willingly into the trap.
It is too bad. You are well-spoken and no doubt very good at the art of
practicing law, Mr. Lafferty, as witness your attempts here to turn the
focus to the "character" of Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong. But the issue raised
in this thread - and I remain on point - is Dr. Moskow's act in revoking his
sponsorship of the Reshefsky Memorial and what that says about his
character. I expressed my opinion; you have expressed yours; Dr. Moskow has
expressed his.

This thread is now closed.


__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

And there you have it. Another general attack on my character with nothing
specificly alleged that I have done which is unethical. When you can't
defend the indefensable, go ad hominum. I thin Jan is looking at the world
through ideological glases. Sad. Illogical.

October 27, 2007 12:33 PM


  #2   Report Post  
Old October 28th 07, 12:00 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Goddesschess Takes an Intersting Stand


http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/200...an-polgar.html


"Because of the pending litigation, Ms. Polgar's comments were general in
nature. Ms. Polgar's conduct is in marked contrast to the behavior of Mr.
Sam Sloan; but what, really, does he have to lose? His reputation? His
honor? Would one expect decent behavior from Mr. Sloan?"

"In the American justice system, in both civil and criminal cases,
allegations filed in a Complaint are not accepted as proven facts until a
judgment has been rendered to that effect, either by trial to a court or a
trial by jury. One would think, though, that we live in France, where the
system works entirely to the advantage of bureaucrats and police - one is
presumed to be guilty unless one can prove oneself innocent! If one only
reads chess blogs, it seems that a majority of the posters to these blogs
have already concluded that Mr. Truong and/or Ms. Polgar are "guilty" -
although Mr. Sloan's action is a civil action, not a criminal case, and
"guilty" is not a concept in civil actions."

ROFL! jan hits it, or him, on the head

ps: I hear the Reschevsky is going forward ) What a drag for Eeyore
;(

Phil Innes


  #3   Report Post  
Old October 28th 07, 12:31 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 383
Default Goddesschess Takes an Intersting Stand


"Chess One" wrote in message
news[email protected]

http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/200...an-polgar.html


"Because of the pending litigation, Ms. Polgar's comments were general in
nature. Ms. Polgar's conduct is in marked contrast to the behavior of Mr.
Sam Sloan; but what, really, does he have to lose? His reputation? His
honor? Would one expect decent behavior from Mr. Sloan?"

"In the American justice system, in both civil and criminal cases,
allegations filed in a Complaint are not accepted as proven facts until a
judgment has been rendered to that effect, either by trial to a court or a
trial by jury. One would think, though, that we live in France, where the
system works entirely to the advantage of bureaucrats and police - one is
presumed to be guilty unless one can prove oneself innocent! If one only
reads chess blogs, it seems that a majority of the posters to these blogs
have already concluded that Mr. Truong and/or Ms. Polgar are "guilty" -
although Mr. Sloan's action is a civil action, not a criminal case, and
"guilty" is not a concept in civil actions."

ROFL! jan hits it, or him, on the head

ps: I hear the Reschevsky is going forward ) What a drag for Eeyore
;(

Phil Innes


Phil, the issue isn't the Sloan suit; it's the Mottershead Report. But you
and Jan know that. You're both good at dissembling and trying to shift the
focus from the first couple. But, it's not working. :-)


  #4   Report Post  
Old October 28th 07, 12:35 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 383
Default Reschevsky


ps: I hear the Reschevsky is going forward )


Who's in it? What's the prize fund? Is there a web listing for it
anywhere. I can't find anything about it on the Texas Tech web site or the
USCF tournament listings. I've seen it mentioned on Polgar and Jan's blogs
but with no real details. Fill us in Mr. Chess Journalist. :-)


  #5   Report Post  
Old October 28th 07, 01:54 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,576
Default Goddesschess Takes an Intersting Stand

On Oct 27, 6:00 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/200...an-polgar.html

"Because of the pending litigation, Ms. Polgar's comments were general in
nature. Ms. Polgar's conduct is in marked contrast to the behavior of Mr.
Sam Sloan; but what, really, does he have to lose? His reputation? His
honor? Would one expect decent behavior from Mr. Sloan?"

"In the American justice system, in both civil and criminal cases,
allegations filed in a Complaint are not accepted as proven facts until a
judgment has been rendered to that effect, either by trial to a court or a
trial by jury. One would think, though, that we live in France, where the
system works entirely to the advantage of bureaucrats and police - one is
presumed to be guilty unless one can prove oneself innocent! If one only
reads chess blogs, it seems that a majority of the posters to these blogs
have already concluded that Mr. Truong and/or Ms. Polgar are "guilty" -
although Mr. Sloan's action is a civil action, not a criminal case, and
"guilty" is not a concept in civil actions."

ROFL! jan hits it, or him, on the head

ps: I hear the Reschevsky is going forward ) What a drag for Eeyore
;(

Phil Innes


Phil

You are off base. There are times in civil cases where the courts
assume guilt before
a trial, in civil and criminal cases. I would like the system to work
as you describe, but if the police
bust into your home and find a pound of cocaine and some scales, you
will NOT be presumed innocent.
In Vermont, you let convicted felons vote while in prision. This idea
is LIBERAL, as is your ideas in general.
The rest of the country does not share your view.

This idea that we are all inncoent until proven gulity is a nice idea,
but it is not reality.

I will compalin about the Reschvsky tounrmante to the STate Bar of
Texas. So, I wouldn't count
on that tournament. If Paul is arrested, Texas Tech will find it has
to cancel the tournament.

Marcus



  #6   Report Post  
Old October 28th 07, 03:54 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Reschevsky

On Oct 27, 6:35 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
ps: I hear the Reschevsky is going forward )


Who's in it? What's the prize fund? Is there a web listing for it
anywhere. I can't find anything about it on the Texas Tech web site or the
USCF tournament listings. I've seen it mentioned on Polgar and Jan's blogs
but with no real details. Fill us in Mr. Chess Journalist. :-)


I hope you were jesting, Mr. Lafferty. Innes isn't a journalist.

  #7   Report Post  
Old October 28th 07, 10:45 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 383
Default Reschevsky


"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 27, 6:35 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
ps: I hear the Reschevsky is going forward )


Who's in it? What's the prize fund? Is there a web listing for it
anywhere. I can't find anything about it on the Texas Tech web site or
the
USCF tournament listings. I've seen it mentioned on Polgar and Jan's
blogs
but with no real details. Fill us in Mr. Chess Journalist. :-)


I hope you were jesting, Mr. Lafferty. Innes isn't a journalist.

I was. I'd like to know the details of this upcoming, major Polgar
sponsored tournament.


  #8   Report Post  
Old October 28th 07, 09:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Goddesschess Takes an Intersting Stand


"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news:[email protected]


ROFL! jan hits it, or him, on the head

ps: I hear the Reschevsky is going forward ) What a drag for
Eeyore ;(

Phil Innes


Phil, the issue isn't the Sloan suit; it's the Mottershead Report. But
you and Jan know that. You're both good at dissembling and trying to shift
the focus from the first couple. But, it's not working. :-)


Thank you jury, I mean prosecutor - or was it judge? Did you really think
you could be all 3?


R


O



F




L



!


!



What an imbecilic remark you forward to my attention, Sir, as it you declare
yourself the self-same French style investigator that Jan proposed, and some
living depended on your result.

I do not bandy with banditry. That, I propose you, is not the rule of law.
Should you not possess yourself of any patience, for heavens sake, do not
insult my, nor any reader's intelligence, by pretending you are, at random,
prosecution, judge and jury, before even any contrary evidence is heard.

Are these strange concepts to you?

Have you yourself heard of the idea of innocent til /proved/ guilty? In
fact, it is indicated that I should ask you, what manner of judge are you,
exactly?

My judgement of you is not any legal estimate.

Phil Innes
The Hippocampus,
[look it up]
Vermont


  #9   Report Post  
Old October 30th 07, 11:49 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Goddesschess Takes an Intersting Stand


wrote in message
ps.com...

In Vermont, you let convicted felons vote while in prision. This idea
is LIBERAL, as is your ideas in general.
The rest of the country does not share your view.


USA didn't agree with Vermont about slavery either.
---

But Marcus, let us not banter any more, since yesterday I offered you a
challenge to support further conversation. It had to do with background
checks for those people having to do with children in chess.

I suggested you pursue Super-Sloan on it, and, you know, by all means state
your own point of view as well.

That is an actual /issue/ that can achieve something. Otherwise most
newsgroup chat is about free-speech or rather its abuse - but not
responsible speech, so is utterly contentless, and no use to anyone except
as an abstraction of what /could/ be said.

If you like it that way, ignore the above.

Phil Innes


This idea that we are all inncoent until proven gulity is a nice idea,
but it is not reality.

I will compalin about the Reschvsky tounrmante to the STate Bar of
Texas. So, I wouldn't count
on that tournament. If Paul is arrested, Texas Tech will find it has
to cancel the tournament.

Marcus



  #10   Report Post  
Old October 30th 07, 12:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Goddesschess Takes an Intersting Stand

On Oct 30, 6:49 am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

In Vermont, you let convicted felons vote while in prison. This idea
is LIBERAL, as is your ideas in general.
The rest of the country does not share your view.


USA didn't agree with Vermont about slavery either.


In what way? Do you think the rest of the country calls the Civil War
the "War of Vermont Aggression?"



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
Will the real Sam Sloan please stand up, please stand up, please stand up [email protected] rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 1 February 8th 07 03:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 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