Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 25th 09, 07:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,re.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default For Phil the "Journalist"

http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...s-on/#comments

Scroll to comment 7.
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 25th 09, 08:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,re.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default For Phil the "Journalist"

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:53:53 GMT, "B. Lafferty "
wrote:

http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...s-on/#comments

Scroll to comment 7.


Kinda like "Please, please, please publish my comment. I'm really
important. I really DO count. Honest I do."
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 25th 09, 08:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,re.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default For Phil the "Journalist"

B. Lafferty wrote:
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...s-on/#comments


Scroll to comment 7.

Oops. Not up yet but here's a sneak preview.

To clarify as to alleged document tampering in the San Francisco Federal
case; there was no tampering. The exhibit to Attorney Kronenberger's
submission was redacted to only provide to the court that which
supported the point being made to the court, to wit, that Gregory
Alexander, on a certain date, opened an account with Anonyimizer.com.
This is important because by doing so Mr. Alexander agreed to
Anonymizer's terms of use subjecting him to the jurisdiction of the
California courts.


The content of the upper blacked out portion of the document contained
no information that is on its face exculpatory to Mr. Polgar. It merely
states that certain IP addresses did not belong to Polgar or Truong.
That does not mean that other IP addresses in Anonymizer's possession do
not match IP addresses used by Polgar and Truong.


The more interesting question is, what is in the bottom blacked out
portion of the exhibit that Polgar's counsel did not make public. Could
this omission by Polgar's counsel be because what is blacked out in
damaging to his client? Anyone with Adobe Acrobat Professional can see
what is in that lower blacked out box.. My understanding is that the
lower blacked out portion of the document contains evidence from
Anonymizer showing that Polgar's husband, Paul Truong, also opened an
account with Anonymizer.com.


This is really a diversionary tempest in a teapot given to us by Ms.
Polgar who is becoming desperate to keep the truth hidden. Indeed, she
has requested that all evidence in the San Francisco case be sealed by
the court--an outrageous attempt to prevent the press, particularly the
NY Times, from even handedly covering the legitimate news story of
Polgar and Truong's actions vis a vis the USCF.
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 25th 09, 08:09 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,re.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default For Phil the "Journalist"

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:04:53 GMT, "B. Lafferty "
wrote:


The content of the upper blacked out portion of the document contained
no information that is on its face exculpatory to Mr. Polgar. It merely
states that certain IP addresses did not belong to Polgar or Truong.
That does not mean that other IP addresses in Anonymizer's possession do
not match IP addresses used by Polgar and Truong.



I think this has been floating around for some time. How like Rob to
chirp up with "important" obsolete "news".
  #5   Report Post  
Old January 25th 09, 08:21 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,re.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default For Phil the "Journalist"

Mike Murray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:04:53 GMT, "B. Lafferty "
wrote:


The content of the upper blacked out portion of the document contained
no information that is on its face exculpatory to Mr. Polgar. It merely
states that certain IP addresses did not belong to Polgar or Truong.
That does not mean that other IP addresses in Anonymizer's possession do
not match IP addresses used by Polgar and Truong.



I think this has been floating around for some time. How like Rob to
chirp up with "important" obsolete "news".


It is old news by over a week. Phil is,IMO, Trolgar's flax out there
trying to fan the flames to create more smoke. It's not working.
Trolgar knows this which is why they want court documents sealed.

But, the truth comes out----especially when you start following the money.


  #6   Report Post  
Old January 25th 09, 09:10 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,re.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default For Phil the "Journalist"

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:21:54 GMT, "B. Lafferty "
wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:04:53 GMT, "B. Lafferty "
wrote:


The content of the upper blacked out portion of the document contained
no information that is on its face exculpatory to Mr. Polgar. It merely
states that certain IP addresses did not belong to Polgar or Truong.
That does not mean that other IP addresses in Anonymizer's possession do
not match IP addresses used by Polgar and Truong.



I think this has been floating around for some time. How like Rob to
chirp up with "important" obsolete "news".


It is old news by over a week. Phil is,IMO, Trolgar's flax out there
trying to fan the flames to create more smoke. It's not working.
Trolgar knows this which is why they want court documents sealed.

But, the truth comes out----especially when you start following the money.


Is it premature to drop a hint or two about funding sources ?

(this need for immediate gratification is why I prefer blitz to
correspondence chess - I wanna know how it all turns out and I hate
to wait)
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 25th 09, 09:36 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,re.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default For Phil the "Journalist"

Mike Murray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:21:54 GMT, "B. Lafferty "
wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:04:53 GMT, "B. Lafferty "
wrote:


The content of the upper blacked out portion of the document contained
no information that is on its face exculpatory to Mr. Polgar. It merely
states that certain IP addresses did not belong to Polgar or Truong.
That does not mean that other IP addresses in Anonymizer's possession do
not match IP addresses used by Polgar and Truong.

I think this has been floating around for some time. How like Rob to
chirp up with "important" obsolete "news".

It is old news by over a week. Phil is,IMO, Trolgar's flax out there
trying to fan the flames to create more smoke. It's not working.
Trolgar knows this which is why they want court documents sealed.

But, the truth comes out----especially when you start following the money.


Is it premature to drop a hint or two about funding sources ?

(this need for immediate gratification is why I prefer blitz to
correspondence chess - I wanna know how it all turns out and I hate
to wait)


Too early and there will be no hints. Law enforcement is where it's
going and nowhere else.
  #8   Report Post  
Old January 26th 09, 12:36 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default For Phil the "Journalist"

On Jan 25, 3:04*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:53:53 GMT, "B. Lafferty "
wrote:

http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...ainst-chess-of...


Scroll to comment 7.


Kinda like "Please, please, please publish my comment. *I'm really
important. *I really DO count. *Honest I do."


And it's a follow-up to two of his previous posts. How long until he
starts arguing with himself?
  #9   Report Post  
Old January 26th 09, 12:57 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 879
Default For Phil the "Journalist"

On Jan 25, 7:36*pm, The Historian wrote:
On Jan 25, 3:04*pm, Mike Murray wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:53:53 GMT, "B. Lafferty "
wrote:


http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...ainst-chess-of....


Scroll to comment 7.


Kinda like "Please, please, please publish my comment. *I'm really
important. *I really DO count. *Honest I do."


And it's a follow-up to two of his previous posts. How long until he
starts arguing with himself?


Neil Brennan repeats himself and avoids the questions that any and all
intelligent questions a real questioning mind might encounter in
relation to the NY Times non-reporting or suppression of the issue.
The subjects not encountered will not occur to Neil Brennan who will
continue to wonder why...

Or so he would so present himself to seem.\

Stupid, ignorant or wishing to hide the topic?

Phil Innes


  #10   Report Post  
Old January 27th 09, 03:39 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default For Phil the "Journalist"

On Jan 25, 7:57*pm, wrote:

http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...ainst-chess-of...


Scroll to comment 7.


Kinda like "Please, please, please publish my comment. *I'm really
important. *I really DO count. *Honest I do."


And it's a follow-up to two of his previous posts. How long until he
starts arguing with himself?


Neil Brennan repeats himself and avoids the questions that any and all
intelligent questions a real questioning mind might encounter in
relation to the NY Times non-reporting or suppression of the issue.
The subjects not encountered will not occur to Neil Brennan who will
continue to wonder why...

Or so he would so present himself to seem.\

Stupid, ignorant or wishing to hide the topic? *



That sensible bloke, "Jack" Lafferty, seems to have
cleared up the nonsense spewed about by The Great
Dr. IMnes regarding conspiracies and whatnot.

The question is, *if* Dr. IMnes wants to be seen as
a supporter of Ms. S. Polgar and not one of the rabid
attackers, then why does he keep trying so hard to
mess up the job of supporting her? Why does Dr.
IMnes make things so easy for the opponents.

Anyway, that other guy -- the anon who keeps
trying to claim that poor SP/PT were framed by an
evil trickster -- is a much better boot-licker than Dr.
IMnes. You see, as silly as the ploy is, it still
beats the tar out of associating incompetence and
lunacy with SP/PT! A few dullards may be fooled
....for a while anyway, by this other guy -- the anon.

The dull of wit may not notice such things as the
/grotesque dishonesty/ displayed on the SP Web
site... and connect the dots. Innocent victim? ...
who is also framed by the crafter of her own Web
site?? Not bloody likely, my boy! LOL


-- hel blot

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 07:08 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