Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 31st 08, 12:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default What Se Doesn't Understand or Acknowledge

It's called litigation, Sue. You don't get what you want outside of
discovery, and you are about to experience discovery big time,
depositions included. Pass this on to Hubby.
************************************************** **********8

by SusanPolgar on Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:54 am

bigtuna wrote:
Someone may have missed something. If you carefully read the Illinois
statute it does allow for the "Corporation" to sue to remove a director.
If an individual member files suit to remove a director, then that
member must also include the Corporation in the suit.

I have not read the actual filing against Paul and Susan, but is it
individuals filing suit for removal or is it the [USCF] Corporation?

I would not be surprised to find out that the 'gang of four' in handling
the directing of the USCF operations between Delegates meetings has
instructed or directed the Corporation [USCF] to file the suit against
Paul and Susan.


This was posted by Mr. Hall:

The legal subcommittee voted 4-0 to initiate the Illinois action. This
was supported by USCF counsel and had my strong recommendation along
with it. The record of the vote was supplied to our Illinois counsel
prior to initiating the action. I did and still do strongly support the
action.

Bill Hall
Executive Director
USCF


In the mean time here was one of my requests 8 days ago:

Bill,

....Could you please let me know as to when I can get a signed copy of
the USCF retainer / legal agreement with Karl Kronenberger (Kronenberger
Burgoyne) back in September or October 2007?

This should not be a very difficult process and it should not take more
than 2-3 minutes to accomplish. Please see the previous request below
dating back to 12/22/2008. Can I expect to get it by tomorrow? I would
appreciate it if you comply with my request ASAP.

Thank you.
Susan Polgar

Mr. Hall completely ignores my requests and did not even have the
courtesy to respond. But Mr. Bauer answered the following tonight:

Ms. Polgar,

You are now an advers e party in three legal actions involving the USCF.
While I have not consulted with Bill Hall about this, my opinion is that
it is most appropriate to limit your access to USCF legal documents.

Randy Bauer

Why are they so afraid to show a simple retainer with the USCF lawyer?
Susan Polgar
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 31st 08, 01:05 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default What Se Doesn't Understand or Acknowledge

On Dec 31, 7:52*am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
It's called litigation, Sue. *You don't get what you want outside of
discovery, and you are about to experience discovery big time,
depositions included. *Pass this on to Hubby.
************************************************** **********8

by SusanPolgar on Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:54 am

bigtuna wrote:

Someone may have missed something. If you carefully read the Illinois
statute it does allow for the "Corporation" to sue to remove a director.
If an individual member files suit to remove a director, then that
member must also include the Corporation in the suit.

I have not read the actual filing against Paul and Susan, but is it
individuals filing suit for removal or is it the [USCF] Corporation?

I would not be surprised to find out that the 'gang of four' in handling
the directing of the USCF operations between Delegates meetings has
instructed or directed the Corporation [USCF] to file the suit against
Paul and Susan.

This was posted by Mr. Hall:

The legal subcommittee voted 4-0 to initiate the Illinois action. This
was supported by USCF counsel and had my strong recommendation along
with it. The record of the vote was supplied to our Illinois counsel
prior to initiating the action. I did and still do strongly support the
action.

Bill Hall
Executive Director
USCF

In the mean time here was one of my requests 8 days ago:

Bill,

...Could you please let me know as to when I can get a signed copy of
the USCF retainer / legal agreement with Karl Kronenberger (Kronenberger
Burgoyne) back in September or October 2007?

This should not be a very difficult process and it should not take more
than 2-3 minutes to accomplish. Please see the previous request below
dating back to 12/22/2008. Can I expect to get it by tomorrow? I would
appreciate it if you comply with my request ASAP.

Thank you.
Susan Polgar

Mr. Hall completely ignores my requests and did not even have the
courtesy to respond. But Mr. Bauer answered the following tonight:

Ms. Polgar,

You are now an advers e party in three legal actions involving the USCF.
While I have not consulted with Bill Hall about this, my opinion is that
it is most appropriate to limit your access to USCF legal documents.

Randy Bauer

Why are they so afraid to show a simple retainer with the USCF lawyer?
Susan Polgar


What I don't understand is why she's openly discussing litigation
against her? If there ever was a time for "no comment", it's now.

I agree her request for information outside of discovery is laughable.
  #3   Report Post  
Old December 31st 08, 01:46 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default What Se Doesn't Understand or Acknowledge

The Historian wrote:
On Dec 31, 7:52 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
It's called litigation, Sue. You don't get what you want outside of
discovery, and you are about to experience discovery big time,
depositions included. Pass this on to Hubby.
************************************************** **********8

by SusanPolgar on Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:54 am

bigtuna wrote:

Someone may have missed something. If you carefully read the Illinois
statute it does allow for the "Corporation" to sue to remove a director.
If an individual member files suit to remove a director, then that
member must also include the Corporation in the suit.

I have not read the actual filing against Paul and Susan, but is it
individuals filing suit for removal or is it the [USCF] Corporation?

I would not be surprised to find out that the 'gang of four' in handling
the directing of the USCF operations between Delegates meetings has
instructed or directed the Corporation [USCF] to file the suit against
Paul and Susan.

This was posted by Mr. Hall:

The legal subcommittee voted 4-0 to initiate the Illinois action. This
was supported by USCF counsel and had my strong recommendation along
with it. The record of the vote was supplied to our Illinois counsel
prior to initiating the action. I did and still do strongly support the
action.

Bill Hall
Executive Director
USCF

In the mean time here was one of my requests 8 days ago:

Bill,

...Could you please let me know as to when I can get a signed copy of
the USCF retainer / legal agreement with Karl Kronenberger (Kronenberger
Burgoyne) back in September or October 2007?

This should not be a very difficult process and it should not take more
than 2-3 minutes to accomplish. Please see the previous request below
dating back to 12/22/2008. Can I expect to get it by tomorrow? I would
appreciate it if you comply with my request ASAP.

Thank you.
Susan Polgar

Mr. Hall completely ignores my requests and did not even have the
courtesy to respond. But Mr. Bauer answered the following tonight:

Ms. Polgar,

You are now an advers e party in three legal actions involving the USCF.
While I have not consulted with Bill Hall about this, my opinion is that
it is most appropriate to limit your access to USCF legal documents.

Randy Bauer

Why are they so afraid to show a simple retainer with the USCF lawyer?
Susan Polgar


What I don't understand is why she's openly discussing litigation
against her? If there ever was a time for "no comment", it's now.

I agree her request for information outside of discovery is laughable.


Well, she's chanting they same conspiracy/dirty chess
politicians/jealousy/ plus now she's added the destroy SPICE lament--all
untrue, of course. The core problem with Trolgar is that they refuse to
accept any responsibility for their actions. The only thing they might,
repeat, might, acknowledge/understand is a court decision against them
or an arrest. Keep your eyes on the horizon............
  #4   Report Post  
Old December 31st 08, 01:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 114
Default What Se Doesn't Understand or Acknowledge

On Dec 31, 7:05*am, The Historian wrote:
On Dec 31, 7:52*am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:



It's called litigation, Sue. *You don't get what you want outside of
discovery, and you are about to experience discovery big time,
depositions included. *Pass this on to Hubby.
************************************************** **********8


by SusanPolgar on Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:54 am


bigtuna wrote:


Someone may have missed something. If you carefully read the Illinois
statute it does allow for the "Corporation" to sue to remove a director..
If an individual member files suit to remove a director, then that
member must also include the Corporation in the suit.


I have not read the actual filing against Paul and Susan, but is it
individuals filing suit for removal or is it the [USCF] Corporation?


I would not be surprised to find out that the 'gang of four' in handling
the directing of the USCF operations between Delegates meetings has
instructed or directed the Corporation [USCF] to file the suit against
Paul and Susan.


This was posted by Mr. Hall:


The legal subcommittee voted 4-0 to initiate the Illinois action. This
was supported by USCF counsel and had my strong recommendation along
with it. The record of the vote was supplied to our Illinois counsel
prior to initiating the action. I did and still do strongly support the
action.


Bill Hall
Executive Director
USCF


In the mean time here was one of my requests 8 days ago:


Bill,


...Could you please let me know as to when I can get a signed copy of
the USCF retainer / legal agreement with Karl Kronenberger (Kronenberger
Burgoyne) back in September or October 2007?


This should not be a very difficult process and it should not take more
than 2-3 minutes to accomplish. Please see the previous request below
dating back to 12/22/2008. Can I expect to get it by tomorrow? I would
appreciate it if you comply with my request ASAP.


Thank you.
Susan Polgar


Mr. Hall completely ignores my requests and did not even have the
courtesy to respond. But Mr. Bauer answered the following tonight:


Ms. Polgar,


You are now an advers e party in three legal actions involving the USCF..
While I have not consulted with Bill Hall about this, my opinion is that
it is most appropriate to limit your access to USCF legal documents.


Randy Bauer


Why are they so afraid to show a simple retainer with the USCF lawyer?
Susan Polgar


What I don't understand is why she's openly discussing litigation
against her? If there ever was a time for "no comment", it's now.

I agree her request for information outside of discovery is laughable.


If I were representing any party, I would advise against any postings
regarding this matter here, on USCF forums, or any other place. Ms.
Polgar is hardly alone in her penchant for commenting on litigation to
which she is a party. Mr. Lafferty's repeated comments just go to
prove the aphorism that lawyers are the worst clients.

Additionally, Ms. Polgar seems to be ignoring the basic concept of a
conflict of interest. She seems to be using her position as a USCF EB
member to demand documents to use against the USCF in litigation.
This would seem to be a violation of her duties as an EB member, and
thoughtfully provides evidence which can be used against her in the
Illinois action.
  #5   Report Post  
Old December 31st 08, 02:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default What Se Doesn't Understand or Acknowledge

Wick wrote:
On Dec 31, 7:05 am, The Historian wrote:
On Dec 31, 7:52 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:



It's called litigation, Sue. You don't get what you want outside of
discovery, and you are about to experience discovery big time,
depositions included. Pass this on to Hubby.
************************************************** **********8
by SusanPolgar on Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:54 am
bigtuna wrote:
Someone may have missed something. If you carefully read the Illinois
statute it does allow for the "Corporation" to sue to remove a director.
If an individual member files suit to remove a director, then that
member must also include the Corporation in the suit.
I have not read the actual filing against Paul and Susan, but is it
individuals filing suit for removal or is it the [USCF] Corporation?
I would not be surprised to find out that the 'gang of four' in handling
the directing of the USCF operations between Delegates meetings has
instructed or directed the Corporation [USCF] to file the suit against
Paul and Susan.
This was posted by Mr. Hall:
The legal subcommittee voted 4-0 to initiate the Illinois action. This
was supported by USCF counsel and had my strong recommendation along
with it. The record of the vote was supplied to our Illinois counsel
prior to initiating the action. I did and still do strongly support the
action.
Bill Hall
Executive Director
USCF
In the mean time here was one of my requests 8 days ago:
Bill,
...Could you please let me know as to when I can get a signed copy of
the USCF retainer / legal agreement with Karl Kronenberger (Kronenberger
Burgoyne) back in September or October 2007?
This should not be a very difficult process and it should not take more
than 2-3 minutes to accomplish. Please see the previous request below
dating back to 12/22/2008. Can I expect to get it by tomorrow? I would
appreciate it if you comply with my request ASAP.
Thank you.
Susan Polgar
Mr. Hall completely ignores my requests and did not even have the
courtesy to respond. But Mr. Bauer answered the following tonight:
Ms. Polgar,
You are now an advers e party in three legal actions involving the USCF.
While I have not consulted with Bill Hall about this, my opinion is that
it is most appropriate to limit your access to USCF legal documents.
Randy Bauer
Why are they so afraid to show a simple retainer with the USCF lawyer?
Susan Polgar

What I don't understand is why she's openly discussing litigation
against her? If there ever was a time for "no comment", it's now.

I agree her request for information outside of discovery is laughable.


If I were representing any party, I would advise against any postings
regarding this matter here, on USCF forums, or any other place. Ms.
Polgar is hardly alone in her penchant for commenting on litigation to
which she is a party. Mr. Lafferty's repeated comments just go to
prove the aphorism that lawyers are the worst clients.


That is old advice given by many lawyers to their clients to this day.
However, good law firms also hire PR firms and otherwise get their
message to the public and their constituency. Ms. Polgar does that
consistently on her fully self-controlled web sites. She has advocated
closing the USCF Issues Forum or so severely restricting its content (as
is now done) that outlets such as rgcp are of great importance in
stating the facts, openly and accurately in the face of Trolgar smoke
and mirrors. This is why it is so interesting that she pleads no words
of alleged defamation spoken here or elsewhere, because there aren't any.


Additionally, Ms. Polgar seems to be ignoring the basic concept of a
conflict of interest. She seems to be using her position as a USCF EB
member to demand documents to use against the USCF in litigation.
This would seem to be a violation of her duties as an EB member, and
thoughtfully provides evidence which can be used against her in the
Illinois action.



  #6   Report Post  
Old December 31st 08, 04:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default What Se Doesn't Understand or Acknowledge

What I don't understand is why she's openly discussing litigation
against her? If there ever was a time for "no comment", it's now.


I agree her request for information outside of discovery is laughable.


Well, she's chanting they same conspiracy/dirty chess
politicians/jealousy/ plus now she's added the destroy SPICE lament--all
untrue, of course. *The core problem with Trolgar is that they refuse to
accept any responsibility for their actions. The only thing they might,
repeat, might, acknowledge/understand is a court decision against them
or an arrest. Keep your eyes on the horizon............- Hide quoted text -



Usually the person talking about someone else "taking responsibility"
doesn't apply the standard so well to themselves. The USCF has taken
NO responsibility for what one of its board of directors did to ME, as
if my rights were somehow nonexistent.

Much of what USCF is *now* putting in its pleadings show that not only
did one of their directors harass me online and defame me for two
years, while another board member explicitly refused to investigate it
with open malice towards me. Now the alleged "lone wolf" who was
behind this cyberterror campaign is being thrown under a bus by the
same people who helped engineer his election to the board.

Like it or not, USCF is liable for the conduct of its officers, and
the more they prove misconduct towards me, the stronger they make my
case (and Sloan's). Is it any wonder they delayed this lawsuit until
the LAST possible moment before the election campaign bgan?

THe recent Laurie Drew conviction could easily be used as precedent to
estabish civil liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for
more than just USCF's damages, as I happen to have a business related
to chess that was easily damaged by the threshhold ($5k), plus they
were damaging my publishing company in general. The statute of
limitations for the CFAA is two years, just like the Illinois statute
for defamation. Once the EEOC sends me the second right-to-sue
letter, I can file all three claims in Illinois this time, which is
also where the non-employment retaliation precedent was established
aand later upheld by the US Supreme Court.

I also am bemused by the idiots who are distancing themselves from the
House of Truong, who were total assholes about supporting them, as if
the **** they stank up the room with for years retroactively did not
stink because THEY suddenly got a clue. The problem with them isn't
that they supported them, but how obnoxious they were in doing so.

Since when is an ISP subpoena not conclusive evidence of who posted a
message? I had asked Phil if he would consider that proof, and if
not, why not, but he never answered me.



  #7   Report Post  
Old December 31st 08, 06:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 879
Default What Se Doesn't Understand or Acknowledge

On Dec 31, 11:19*am, RayGordon wrote:


Usually the person talking about someone else "taking responsibility"
doesn't apply the standard so well to themselves. *The USCF has taken
NO responsibility for what one of its board of directors did to ME, as
if my rights were somehow nonexistent.

Much of what USCF is *now* putting in its pleadings show that not only
did one of their directors harass me online and defame me for two
years, while another board member explicitly refused to investigate it
with open malice towards me. *Now the alleged "lone wolf" who was
behind this cyberterror campaign is being thrown under a bus by the
same people who helped engineer his election to the board.

Like it or not, USCF is liable for the conduct of its officers, and
the more they prove misconduct towards me, the stronger they make my
case (and Sloan's). *Is it any wonder they delayed this lawsuit until
the LAST possible moment before the election campaign bgan?

THe recent Laurie Drew conviction could easily be used as precedent to
estabish civil liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for
more than just USCF's damages, as I happen to have a business related
to chess that was easily damaged by the threshhold ($5k), plus they
were damaging my publishing company in general. *The statute of
limitations for the CFAA is two years, just like the Illinois statute
for defamation. *Once the EEOC sends me the second right-to-sue
letter, I can file all three claims in Illinois this time, which is
also where the non-employment retaliation precedent was established
aand later upheld by the US Supreme Court.

I also am bemused by the idiots who are distancing themselves from the
House of Truong, who were total assholes about supporting them, as if
the **** they stank up the room with for years retroactively did not
stink because THEY suddenly got a clue. *The problem with them isn't
that they supported them, but how bananas they were in doing so.

Since when is an ISP subpoena not conclusive evidence of who posted a
message? *I had asked Phil if he would consider that proof, and if
not, why not, but he never answered me.


Dear Gordon,

I thought I already answered your question.

If you are asking me legal advice I am not the person to apply to what
may be admitted into evidence either generically or in a specific
case. Neither do I comment if such admitted testimony constitutes
proof.

From a stance of just ordinary computing knowledge I can answer. I
should like you to note that I changed a word in your second to last
paragraph - I substituted the word 'bananas' for your word
'obnoxious'. Yet it appear you wrote the whole post, no? To determine
otherwise your original message would have to be compared with the
text above.

There are only 2 possibilities as far as I can see in the ISP issue.
That PT did it, or that PT was framed.

Therefore, who had access to the records that show the ISP, including
PT's password?

Certainly all system admins need access to their computing system -
and would have such access. Who else had access? I understand there
was at least one other...

Secondly, as above, one means to check if you used the word bananas,
or I inserted it would be to compare with your original. In terms of
server-records there will be at least one back-up, no? If the back-up
differs from the 'proof', then its game over.

Even so, this is not the only way to substitute an identity - no
changed need be made to originals, but material can be posted in the
pass-word protected name or identity of another.

It is not possible for me to say if this occurred, and AFAIK, not
possible for anyone else to ascertain if it had either - without
having all the evidence before them, and sifted by more cyber-savvy
people than myself.

In short, the answer to your question is no, indication of ISP
identity is no certain proof.

Phil Innes
  #8   Report Post  
Old December 31st 08, 08:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 232
Default What Se Doesn't Understand or Acknowledge

Simply your all powerful evil person defense is becoming tiresome and
more bizarre by the day.

And your Deity (Omnipotent, Omniscient evildoer) defense isn't even
useful in criminal court either.

Most sane people in response to the Deity defense use Occam's razor in
reply. "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best"

It is beyond time to require anything more of the accuser, and to move
the organization forward. End this. Resign already.

If they have been wronged, look for retribution. But stop holding up
the actions of sane people to move the organization forward.

But waiting for a "legal determination" gives remedy to those that
should not get remedy.
  #9   Report Post  
Old December 31st 08, 08:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default What Se Doesn't Understand or Acknowledge

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:56:56 -0800 (PST), wrote:


There are only 2 possibilities as far as I can see in the ISP issue.
That PT did it, or that PT was framed.


And who said formal logic had no applicability to the real world?

Therefore, who had access to the records that show the ISP, including
PT's password?


Certainly all system admins need access to their computing system -
and would have such access. Who else had access? I understand there
was at least one other...


Hmmm. Did you get to see the secret USCF conspiracy information? If
so, who showed it to you? Was it a guy named "John Doe" ?

Secondly, as above, one means to check if you used the word bananas,
or I inserted it would be to compare with your original. In terms of
server-records there will be at least one back-up, no? If the back-up
differs from the 'proof', then its game over.


How do you know the backup wasn't corrupted by your
super-hacker-framer dude?

Even so, this is not the only way to substitute an identity - no
changed need be made to originals, but material can be posted in the
pass-word protected name or identity of another.


Kind of like logging on to the password protected private e-mail
account of another, ain't it?

It is not possible for me to say if this occurred,


Can't you apply the Tertullian Methodology and, based on Faith,
believe it to be so?

and AFAIK, not
possible for anyone else to ascertain if it had either - without
having all the evidence before them, and sifted by more cyber-savvy
people than myself.


That's already been done, Phil. They've looked at evidence. They've
subpoenaed records. Haven't you been reading this newsgroup?

In short, the answer to your question is no, indication of ISP
identity is no certain proof.


You forgot to mention IP-address cross-checking, credit card records,
etc.

And, have you given up on your stylistic analysis already?

Phil Innes

  #10   Report Post  
Old December 31st 08, 09:11 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 879
Default What Se Doesn't Understand or Acknowledge

On Dec 31, 3:29*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:56:56 -0800 (PST), wrote:
There are only 2 possibilities as far as I can see in the ISP issue.
That PT did it, or that PT was framed.


And who said formal logic had no applicability to the real world?


I wonder if that is an attempt at acknowledging 2 logical
possibilities? Who knows?

Therefore, who had access to the records that show the ISP, including
PT's password?


This is Mike Murray's biggest response - a big fat no-response.

Certainly all system admins need access to their computing system -
and would have such access. Who else had access? I understand there
was at least one other...


Hmmm. *Did you get to see the secret USCF conspiracy information? *If
so, who showed it to you? *Was it a guy named "John Doe" ?


What? I have never changed any opinion on this issue it came up - and
I merely state what any reasonable person could conclude were
possibilities. What that has to do with conspiracy or whatever Mike
Murray addresses is utterly unknown to me - but he is not big at
understanding things without spin. Possibly stating the range of
possibilities always suggests conspiracy to him? Who can tell from
what he says?

Secondly, as above, one means to check if you used the word bananas,
or I inserted it would be to compare with your original. In terms of
server-records there will be at least one back-up, no? If the back-up
differs from the 'proof', then its game over.


How do you know the backup wasn't corrupted by your
super-hacker-framer dude? *


Super-hacker? Is that your opinion? If I have your password I can just
post as you. As for corrupting the back-up too, then while that even
more conspiratorial, it would depend much how the back-up is
protected. Some placers have off-site back-ups to streaming tape, eg.
But I don't know which exact server network is engaged here.

Even so, this is not the only way to substitute an identity - no
changed need be made to originals, but material can be posted in the
pass-word protected name or identity of another.


Kind of like logging on to the password protected private e-mail
account of another, ain't it?


At minimum. If you control the registration of the data storage you
can also falsify backwards and forwards time-stamps and other aspects
of things. But sure.

It is not possible for me to say if this occurred,


Can't you apply the Tertullian Methodology and, based on Faith,
believe it to be so?


I am not as you all are. You need to believe something which you admit
you don't know the facts thereof, nevertheless are certain you are
right, and others naive.

What I suggest here are almost generically simple substitutions,
requiring no very special knowledge, merely opportunity - though
certainly, some level of competency.


and AFAIK, not
possible for anyone else to ascertain if it had either - without
having all the evidence before them, and sifted by more cyber-savvy
people than myself.


That's already been done, Phil. *They've looked at evidence. *They've
subpoenaed records. *Haven't you been reading this newsgroup? *


It has been 'done' by whom, and to whose satisfaction?

See above - who had access? Are such people named in the suit? Is the
data or the analysis from that source.

In short, the answer to your question is no, indication of ISP
identity is no certain proof.


You forgot to mention IP-address cross-checking, credit card records,
etc. *

And, have you given up on your stylistic analysis already?


You are embarrassed by other elements of the affair which you already
trashed when I wrote about them - and this sort of establishes how
objectively you report anything at all. You couldn't even admit it was
the false Sloan when there was a swear-word in the header...

But I am not attempting to prove anything to you, just observing the
wit with which you address this subject.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes


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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 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