Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 18th 08, 08:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default The Official Trolgar Attitude Toward the USCF Membership

From the wholly owned and controlled Trolgar chessdiscussion web site:

by Ron Suarez on Sun May 18, 2008 3:27 pm
Susan, would you please tell us why you were in Tulsa earlier this week
at the Championship, and then left before the Board Meeting?

I believe this meeting was not a teleconference one by design, meaning
that you and Paul were the only ones participating by telephone when all
the others were physically present.

This also brings forth the question I ask of why you were not present
for the Board Meeting.
From the Middle...

Ron Suarez

Ron Suarez

Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:14 pm

Top
USCF EB Meeting LIVE Update

Postby RoadRunner on Sun May 18, 2008 7:29 pm
Ron

The Why is not important and Susan does not have to explain her every
move to the membership. Allow her to decide how she is going to live her
life. She does not ask you why you had pizza for dinner yesterday.

**The major problem with the USCF is that the membership thinks they run
the show.** I suggest you go ask George Bush why he did everything he
did this past week and see how far you get. The USCF will do much better
when the membership butts out of trying to run the show and allows the
elected leadership to run the show. [emphasis added]
  #2   Report Post  
Old May 18th 08, 11:09 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default The Official Trolgar Attitude Toward the USCF Membership



Brian Lafferty wrote:
From the wholly owned and controlled Trolgar chessdiscussion web site:

by Ron Suarez on Sun May 18, 2008 3:27 pm
Susan, would you please tell us why you were in Tulsa earlier this week
at the Championship, and then left before the Board Meeting?

I believe this meeting was not a teleconference one by design, meaning
that you and Paul were the only ones participating by telephone when all
the others were physically present.

This also brings forth the question I ask of why you were not present
for the Board Meeting.
From the Middle...

Ron Suarez

Ron Suarez

Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:14 pm

Top
USCF EB Meeting LIVE Update

Postby RoadRunner on Sun May 18, 2008 7:29 pm
Ron

The Why is not important and Susan does not have to explain her every
move to the membership. Allow her to decide how she is going to live her
life. She does not ask you why you had pizza for dinner yesterday.

**The major problem with the USCF is that the membership thinks they run
the show.** I suggest you go ask George Bush why he did everything he
did this past week and see how far you get. The USCF will do much better
when the membership butts out of trying to run the show and allows the
elected leadership to run the show. [emphasis added]



I thought guilt by association went out with Joe McCarthy. By this
logic, the USCF is responsible for all the comments made by your
friend Donna Alarie. (I would have used you as an example, but you
have been happily absent since your second identity was placed in the
moderation queue.) Readers may note that you selectively quote the
nutcase RoadRunner, while omitting Polgar's own response.
  #3   Report Post  
Old May 18th 08, 11:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default The Official Trolgar Attitude Toward the USCF Membership

wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
From the wholly owned and controlled Trolgar chessdiscussion web site:

by Ron Suarez on Sun May 18, 2008 3:27 pm
Susan, would you please tell us why you were in Tulsa earlier this week
at the Championship, and then left before the Board Meeting?

I believe this meeting was not a teleconference one by design, meaning
that you and Paul were the only ones participating by telephone when all
the others were physically present.

This also brings forth the question I ask of why you were not present
for the Board Meeting.
From the Middle...

Ron Suarez

Ron Suarez

Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:14 pm

Top
USCF EB Meeting LIVE Update

Postby RoadRunner on Sun May 18, 2008 7:29 pm
Ron

The Why is not important and Susan does not have to explain her every
move to the membership. Allow her to decide how she is going to live her
life. She does not ask you why you had pizza for dinner yesterday.

**The major problem with the USCF is that the membership thinks they run
the show.** I suggest you go ask George Bush why he did everything he
did this past week and see how far you get. The USCF will do much better
when the membership butts out of trying to run the show and allows the
elected leadership to run the show. [emphasis added]



I thought guilt by association went out with Joe McCarthy. By this
logic, the USCF is responsible for all the comments made by your
friend Donna Alarie. (I would have used you as an example, but you
have been happily absent since your second identity was placed in the
moderation queue.) Readers may note that you selectively quote the
nutcase RoadRunner, while omitting Polgar's own response.


Your brain really is non-functional. How is the USCF responsible for
anyone's opinion on an open forum? They aren't. On a forum like
chessdiscussion, nothing gets up there without the express approval of
Trolgar. Thus, what is posted there by persons who are their known
minions (ie. roadrunner) represent their viewpoint unless contradicted
or pulled.

Now, try to follow his with your failing brain. I did not "selectively"
quote roadrunner. I quoted every word in roadrunner's post.

Again, try to follow this. I did not post Susie Chesspiece's drivel
because it was not there on chessdiscussion when I cut and pasted the
Suarez and roadrunner posts. You really are a mentally dysfunctional
old fool, John.
  #4   Report Post  
Old May 19th 08, 12:30 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default The Official Trolgar Attitude Toward the USCF Membership



Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
From the wholly owned and controlled Trolgar chessdiscussion web site:

by Ron Suarez on Sun May 18, 2008 3:27 pm
Susan, would you please tell us why you were in Tulsa earlier this week
at the Championship, and then left before the Board Meeting?

I believe this meeting was not a teleconference one by design, meaning
that you and Paul were the only ones participating by telephone when all
the others were physically present.

This also brings forth the question I ask of why you were not present
for the Board Meeting.
From the Middle...

Ron Suarez

Ron Suarez

Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:14 pm

Top
USCF EB Meeting LIVE Update

Postby RoadRunner on Sun May 18, 2008 7:29 pm
Ron

The Why is not important and Susan does not have to explain her every
move to the membership. Allow her to decide how she is going to live her
life. She does not ask you why you had pizza for dinner yesterday.

**The major problem with the USCF is that the membership thinks they run
the show.** I suggest you go ask George Bush why he did everything he
did this past week and see how far you get. The USCF will do much better
when the membership butts out of trying to run the show and allows the
elected leadership to run the show. [emphasis added]



I thought guilt by association went out with Joe McCarthy. By this
logic, the USCF is responsible for all the comments made by your
friend Donna Alarie. (I would have used you as an example, but you
have been happily absent since your second identity was placed in the
moderation queue.) Readers may note that you selectively quote the
nutcase RoadRunner, while omitting Polgar's own response.


Your brain really is non-functional. How is the USCF responsible for
anyone's opinion on an open forum? They aren't. On a forum like
chessdiscussion, nothing gets up there without the express approval of
Trolgar. Thus, what is posted there by persons who are their known
minions (ie. roadrunner) represent their viewpoint unless contradicted
or pulled.

Now, try to follow his with your failing brain. I did not "selectively"
quote roadrunner. I quoted every word in roadrunner's post.

Again, try to follow this. I did not post Susie Chesspiece's drivel
because it was not there on chessdiscussion when I cut and pasted the
Suarez and roadrunner posts. You really are a mentally dysfunctional
old fool, John.


The USCF Forum is moderated. That's why we haven't seen any of your
nonsense there recently. (You have chosen instead an arena where you
can lie, cheat and distort to your heart's content. I suppose it
remoinds you of your former profession.) Therefore (you do remember
logic from back when you were impersonating a law school student,
don't you?) if the moderators of chessdiscussion.com are responsible
for posts by RoadRunner, the USCF is responsible for posts by Donna
Alarie in which she attcks, well, everyone. Since "b" is not true,
neither is "a."

You seem to be getting a bit repetitive with the mindless insults,
Brian. I had thought better of you. ("Mentally dysfunctional" is
mildly amusing, though, coming from a Class F player approaching 1000
from the wrong direction.) If you can't win an argument with facts or
reason (and you haven't in a long time), you could at least come up
with some better invective. RGCP can always use another buffoon.
  #5   Report Post  
Old May 19th 08, 01:18 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default The Official Trolgar Attitude Toward the USCF Membership



wrote:
Laugherty 1- Hillary 0

Let's see how round two goes.


Are you a Lafferty sockpuppet? It's hard to believe that anyone else
could take the twit seriously. But then, this is rgcp, home of Mad
Marcus, the Sloon, and Phil Innes. I suppose little Brian has found
his level.


  #6   Report Post  
Old May 19th 08, 01:23 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default The Official Trolgar Attitude Toward the USCF Membership

wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:
From the wholly owned and controlled Trolgar chessdiscussion web site:

by Ron Suarez on Sun May 18, 2008 3:27 pm
Susan, would you please tell us why you were in Tulsa earlier this week
at the Championship, and then left before the Board Meeting?

I believe this meeting was not a teleconference one by design, meaning
that you and Paul were the only ones participating by telephone when all
the others were physically present.

This also brings forth the question I ask of why you were not present
for the Board Meeting.
From the Middle...

Ron Suarez

Ron Suarez

Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:14 pm

Top
USCF EB Meeting LIVE Update

Postby RoadRunner on Sun May 18, 2008 7:29 pm
Ron

The Why is not important and Susan does not have to explain her every
move to the membership. Allow her to decide how she is going to live her
life. She does not ask you why you had pizza for dinner yesterday.

**The major problem with the USCF is that the membership thinks they run
the show.** I suggest you go ask George Bush why he did everything he
did this past week and see how far you get. The USCF will do much better
when the membership butts out of trying to run the show and allows the
elected leadership to run the show. [emphasis added]

I thought guilt by association went out with Joe McCarthy. By this
logic, the USCF is responsible for all the comments made by your
friend Donna Alarie. (I would have used you as an example, but you
have been happily absent since your second identity was placed in the
moderation queue.) Readers may note that you selectively quote the
nutcase RoadRunner, while omitting Polgar's own response.

Your brain really is non-functional. How is the USCF responsible for
anyone's opinion on an open forum? They aren't. On a forum like
chessdiscussion, nothing gets up there without the express approval of
Trolgar. Thus, what is posted there by persons who are their known
minions (ie. roadrunner) represent their viewpoint unless contradicted
or pulled.

Now, try to follow his with your failing brain. I did not "selectively"
quote roadrunner. I quoted every word in roadrunner's post.

Again, try to follow this. I did not post Susie Chesspiece's drivel
because it was not there on chessdiscussion when I cut and pasted the
Suarez and roadrunner posts. You really are a mentally dysfunctional
old fool, John.


The USCF Forum is moderated. That's why we haven't seen any of your
nonsense there recently. (You have chosen instead an arena where you
can lie, cheat and distort to your heart's content. I suppose it
remoinds you of your former profession.)


You've apparently missed my most recent posts--12 in the past month. One
just yesterday. Keep your eyes open for more on the way.

Actually, I've chosen this arena because one can speak without fear of
being sanctioned. The down side is that people such as yourself are
allowed to post lies, falsehoods, distortions and the ramblings of a
cognitively failing brains. But, it doesn't remind me of the practice of
law. Even the worst lawyers; the most untrustworthy lawyers are far
better to deal with than miscreants such as you.

Therefore (you do remember
logic from back when you were impersonating a law school student,
don't you?) if the moderators of chessdiscussion.com are responsible
for posts by RoadRunner, the USCF is responsible for posts by Donna
Alarie in which she attcks, well, everyone. Since "b" is not true,
neither is "a."


You just got a F in logic 101. The moderators of the USCF forum are
guided by forum usage guidelines and must leave up opinions with which
they disagree. That is not what happens on chessdiscussion. It seems
everyone but you understands that.


You seem to be getting a bit repetitive with the mindless insults,
Brian. I had thought better of you. ("Mentally dysfunctional" is
mildly amusing, though, coming from a Class F player approaching 1000
from the wrong direction.) If you can't win an argument with facts or
reason (and you haven't in a long time), you could at least come up
with some better invective. RGCP can always use another buffoon.


I wasn't aware that there was a correlation between USCF rating and the
ability to think clearly in other areas. Considering your rating and
displayed mental ability here, the correlation doesn't exist. I guess
that makes Harry Payne (549) a moron in your view.

This may come as a surprise to you, but some of us actually play chess
for fun and couldn't care less about ratings. Anyway, I'm certain that
where it matters mine is greater than yours AND works better too.

V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
I'm referring to brain function, fool.
  #7   Report Post  
Old May 19th 08, 01:30 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default The Official Trolgar Attitude Toward the USCF Membership



Brian Lafferty wrote:

Your brain really is non-functional. How is the USCF responsible for
anyone's opinion on an open forum? They aren't. On a forum like
chessdiscussion, nothing gets up there without the express approval of
Trolgar. Thus, what is posted there by persons who are their known
minions (ie. roadrunner) represent their viewpoint unless contradicted
or pulled.




I suppose facts don't matter much to a former lia ... er, _lawyer_,
but the chessdiscussion forum is not pre-moderated, except for a few
people in the moderation queue. The rest of us have our posts appear
immediately. (Of course they can be removed later, just as with the
USCF forums.)

But I have to admit, Brian, that I'm really not sure whether you're a
brazen, dishonest liar, or just an empty suit with a big ego and a
loud voice. Either would fit the facts. Would you care to weigh in on
the topic?
  #8   Report Post  
Old May 19th 08, 01:36 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default The Official Trolgar Attitude Toward the USCF Membership

wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
Your brain really is non-functional. How is the USCF responsible for
anyone's opinion on an open forum? They aren't. On a forum like
chessdiscussion, nothing gets up there without the express approval of
Trolgar. Thus, what is posted there by persons who are their known
minions (ie. roadrunner) represent their viewpoint unless contradicted
or pulled.




I suppose facts don't matter much to a former lia ... er, _lawyer_,
but the chessdiscussion forum is not pre-moderated, except for a few
people in the moderation queue. The rest of us have our posts appear
immediately. (Of course they can be removed later, just as with the
USCF forums.)

But I have to admit, Brian, that I'm really not sure whether you're a
brazen, dishonest liar, or just an empty suit with a big ego and a
loud voice. Either would fit the facts. Would you care to weigh in on
the topic?


From chessdiscussion today:

Important note, the USCF issues is moderated via queue

by gregory on Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:49 pm
Note: this particular forum requires the posts being approved by the
moderation team prior to the post being made public. Our intent is not
to replicate the USCF Issues forum, but have a forum to discuss chess.
It is our hope that the USCF Issues do not overly politicize
chessdiscussions.com. We may turn the moderation queue off in the future.

This is a decision that I have made alone as the head moderator. I
apologize for the inconvenience,

Gregory
Gregory

ChessDiscussion webmaster
  #9   Report Post  
Old May 19th 08, 02:36 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Default The Official Trolgar Attitude Toward the USCF Membership

On May 18, 5:36*pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
Your brain really is non-functional. *How is the USCF responsible for
anyone's opinion on an open forum? *They aren't. *On a forum like
chessdiscussion, nothing gets up there without the express approval of
Trolgar. *Thus, what is posted there by persons who are their known
minions (ie. roadrunner) represent their viewpoint unless contradicted
or pulled.


I suppose facts don't matter much to a former lia ... er, _lawyer_,
but the chessdiscussion forum is not pre-moderated, except for a few
people in the moderation queue. The rest of us have our posts appear
immediately. (Of course they can be removed later, just as with the
USCF forums.)


But I have to admit, Brian, that I'm really not sure whether you're a
brazen, dishonest liar, or just an empty suit with a big ego and a
loud voice. Either would fit the facts. Would you care to weigh in on
the topic?


*From chessdiscussion today:

Important note, the USCF issues is moderated via queue

by gregory on Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:49 pm
Note: this particular forum requires the posts being approved by the
moderation team prior to the post being made public. Our intent is not
to replicate the USCF Issues forum, but have a forum to discuss chess.
It is our hope that the USCF Issues do not overly politicize
chessdiscussions.com. We may turn the moderation queue off in the future.

This is a decision that I have made alone as the head moderator. I
apologize for the inconvenience,

Gregory
Gregory

ChessDiscussion webmaster- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You quoted something that I wrote over a half of a year ago. As John
correctly stated, most users that actively post are not pre-moderated
in the USCF Issues section at chessdiscussion.com. This includes a
members such as Ron S, who tends to lean against Susan and Paul. Henry
has posted there, David (artichoke), and you yourself had a few posts
approved Brian. The new posters, and those who are moderated within
that one sub-forum usually are approved within an hour or two. This is
a far cry from the USCF owned forum which takes over 3 days for my own
posts to get approved.

Gregory
  #10   Report Post  
Old May 19th 08, 05:54 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default The Official Trolgar Attitude Toward the USCF Membership



Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
Your brain really is non-functional. How is the USCF responsible for
anyone's opinion on an open forum? They aren't. On a forum like
chessdiscussion, nothing gets up there without the express approval of
Trolgar. Thus, what is posted there by persons who are their known
minions (ie. roadrunner) represent their viewpoint unless contradicted
or pulled.




I suppose facts don't matter much to a former lia ... er, _lawyer_,
but the chessdiscussion forum is not pre-moderated, except for a few
people in the moderation queue. The rest of us have our posts appear
immediately. (Of course they can be removed later, just as with the
USCF forums.)

But I have to admit, Brian, that I'm really not sure whether you're a
brazen, dishonest liar, or just an empty suit with a big ego and a
loud voice. Either would fit the facts. Would you care to weigh in on
the topic?


From chessdiscussion today:

Important note, the USCF issues is moderated via queue

by gregory on Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:49 pm
Note: this particular forum requires the posts being approved by the
moderation team prior to the post being made public. Our intent is not
to replicate the USCF Issues forum, but have a forum to discuss chess.
It is our hope that the USCF Issues do not overly politicize
chessdiscussions.com. We may turn the moderation queue off in the future.

This is a decision that I have made alone as the head moderator. I
apologize for the inconvenience,

Gregory
Gregory

ChessDiscussion webmaster



Chessdiscussion.com has exactly five people in the moderation queue
(two of them are obviously the same person, and, of course, one of
them is you). Everyone else can post freely in the "FIDE/USCF"
section. You could easily have looked this up if you had the slightest
interest in facts.

Brian, your ignorance and dishonesty might be tolerable if you were
even slightly witty about it. But being an ignorant putz _and_ a foul-
mouthed buffoon pretty much exhausts your credit. Go back to your
bicycles, little guy. You're fighting outside your intellectual weight
class.
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
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 4 February 16th 08 03:46 PM
$am $loan for USCF Executive Board Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 12 May 2nd 06 08:24 PM
$am $loan for USCF Executive Board Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 11 May 2nd 06 08:24 PM
J accuse the Executive Board of the USCF of Fraud by Andrew Zito the Pushed Pawn alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 4 October 3rd 05 02:00 AM
Marinello Case: Reply Affidavit to Order to Show Cause Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 13 May 4th 05 09:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 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