Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 11:53 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Brian Lafferty asks for Amnesty on the USCF Issues Forum

I absolutely agree that there should be an amnesty. We have an
election campaign going on here, but the history of moderation of the
USCF Issues Forum has been that the moderators will not allow postings
favoring candidates they oppose or opposing candidates they favor.

For example, right now oldtimer, who favors Sam Sloan, is suspended
from posting.

How can the voting membership properly evaluate the candidates, if
they do not know what is being said about them?

Why is John Hillary allowed to attack Sam Sloan endlessly without
being sanctioned?

Let us remember that it was excessive moderation of this forum that
caused Polgar and Truong to be elected in the first place. When Polgar
and Truong were running for election, all of the moderators were pro-
Polgar and Truong and anti-Sam Sloan. Something like one thousand
postings, almost all of them anti-Polgar and Truong or pro-Sam Sloan,
were pulled by the moderators. Those of us who knew the true
background and history of Polgar and Truong and were trying to inform
the voting members of what we knew about them were prevented from
doing so.

Had the members of this forum been allowed to ask questions and make
negative observations about Polgar and Truong, almost without doubt
Truong would not have been elected. The person who would have been
elected was Stephen Jones, who was probably the best qualified person
ever to run for the USCF Executive Board. (Jones is a lawyer, a Ph.D.
in mathematics, a rated chess master and a life member of the USCF.)

Now, because of excessive moderation, instead of getting a qualified
person like Jones, we got Truong.

Are we going to go down that road again, with moderators who are using
their positions to get candidates they favor elected?

And are they going to sanction me for making this post?

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 01:50 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 Brian Lafferty asks for Amnesty on the USCF Issues Forum

On Jan 29, 6:53*am, samsloan wrote:
I absolutely agree that there should be an amnesty. We have an
election campaign going on here, but the history of moderation of the
USCF Issues Forum has been that the moderators will not allow postings
favoring candidates they oppose or opposing candidates they favor.

For example, right now oldtimer, who favors Sam Sloan, is suspended
from posting.

How can the voting membership properly evaluate the candidates, if
they do not know what is being said about them?

Why is John Hillary allowed to attack Sam Sloan endlessly without
being sanctioned?

Let us remember that it was excessive moderation of this forum that
caused Polgar and Truong to be elected in the first place. When Polgar
and Truong were running for election, all of the moderators were pro-
Polgar and Truong and anti-Sam Sloan. Something like one thousand
postings, almost all of them anti-Polgar and Truong or pro-Sam Sloan,
were pulled by the moderators. Those of us who knew the true
background and history of Polgar and Truong and were trying to inform
the voting members of what we knew about them were prevented from
doing so.

Had the members of this forum been allowed to ask questions and make
negative observations about Polgar and Truong, almost without doubt
Truong would not have been elected. The person who would have been
elected was Stephen Jones, who was probably the best qualified person
ever to run for the USCF Executive Board. (Jones is a lawyer, a Ph.D.
in mathematics, a rated chess master and a life member of the USCF.)

Now, because of excessive moderation, instead of getting a qualified
person like Jones, we got Truong.

Are we going to go down that road again, with moderators who are using
their positions to get candidates they favor elected?

And are they going to sanction me for making this post?

Sam Sloan


USCF 'chess politicians' as a group were enormously pro-Polgar and
Truong, so much so in fact that they bent over backwards for the
Gruesome Twosome and didn't conduct due diligence on Truong's claims.
There were voices raised in warning as far back as 2003, but USCF
stifled Stan Booz and Tim Hanke when they tried to sound the alarm.
(You might recall Hanke was the first person threatened with a
lawsuit.) The Polgar Problem has existed for a long time, and long
before the USCF Forums.

I agree Stephen Jones would have been preferable to Paul Truong.
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 04:16 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 Brian Lafferty asks for Amnesty on the USCF Issues Forum

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:50:25 -0800 (PST), The Historian
wrote:


USCF 'chess politicians' as a group were enormously pro-Polgar and
Truong, so much so in fact that they bent over backwards for the
Gruesome Twosome and didn't conduct due diligence on Truong's claims.
There were voices raised in warning as far back as 2003, but USCF
stifled Stan Booz and Tim Hanke when they tried to sound the alarm.
(You might recall Hanke was the first person threatened with a
lawsuit.) The Polgar Problem has existed for a long time, and long
before the USCF Forums.


This what I found amazing as their campaign unfolded. It was based on
running *against* the "chess politicians" using the slogan "time to
clean up the USCF".

They'd received very favorable treatment at the hands of these various
"chess politicians", both financially and in the pages of Chess Life.
Maybe what they were trying to recreate with their campaign was a
return to the good old days of Niro, when largesse flowed to them like
pork from heaven. In retrospect, Niro seems like little more than
their stooge.

Until Hanke started posting, I would have thought either or both of
them stellar additions to the USCF board. It was only when the fake
resume claims and the FSS stuff started unfolding in this group that I
decided they were actually unfit for the office.
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 04:58 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 Brian Lafferty asks for Amnesty on the USCF Issues Forum

On Jan 29, 11:16*am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:50:25 -0800 (PST), The Historian

wrote:
USCF 'chess politicians' as a group were enormously pro-Polgar and
Truong, so much so in fact that they bent over backwards for the
Gruesome Twosome and didn't conduct due diligence on Truong's claims.
There were voices raised in warning as far back as 2003, but USCF
stifled Stan Booz and Tim Hanke when they tried to sound the alarm.
(You might recall Hanke was the first person threatened with a
lawsuit.) The Polgar Problem has existed for a long time, and long
before the USCF Forums.


This what I found amazing as their campaign unfolded. *It was based on
running *against* the "chess politicians" using the slogan "time to
clean up the USCF". *

They'd received very favorable treatment at the hands of these various
"chess politicians", both financially and in the pages of Chess Life.
Maybe what they were trying to recreate with their campaign was a
return to the good old days of Niro, when largesse flowed to them like
pork from heaven. * *In retrospect, Niro seems like little more than
their stooge.

Until Hanke started posting, I would have thought either or both of
them stellar additions to the USCF board. * It was only when the fake
resume claims and the FSS stuff started unfolding in this group that I
decided they were actually unfit for the office.


I'm not amazed at all. These are the same folks who find nothing wrong
with altering graphs and pie charts to fool the USCF membership about
the finances, and who promoted Fischer years after he ceased to be
relevant to the chess world.

I agree with you about Niro.
  #5   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 06:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Brian Lafferty asks for Amnesty on the USCF Issues Forum

On Jan 29, 11:16*am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:50:25 -0800 (PST), The Historian

wrote:
USCF 'chess politicians' as a group were enormously pro-Polgar and
Truong, so much so in fact that they bent over backwards for the
Gruesome Twosome and didn't conduct due diligence on Truong's claims.
There were voices raised in warning as far back as 2003, but USCF
stifled Stan Booz and Tim Hanke when they tried to sound the alarm.
(You might recall Hanke was the first person threatened with a
lawsuit.) The Polgar Problem has existed for a long time, and long
before the USCF Forums.


This what I found amazing as their campaign unfolded. *It was based on
running *against* the "chess politicians" using the slogan "time to
clean up the USCF". *

They'd received very favorable treatment at the hands of these various
"chess politicians", both financially and in the pages of Chess Life.


Is this a way of saying that in any year they got 100 mainstream media
notices while USCF got 2? I wonder who was taking advantage of whom
for 'free' publicity?

Maybe what they were trying to recreate with their campaign was a
return to the good old days of Niro, when largesse flowed to them like
pork from heaven.


Not a Jewish heaven, presumably, with all that pork raining down.
Possibly a mid-west one?

* *In retrospect, Niro seems like little more than
their stooge.

Until Hanke started posting, I would have thought either or both of
them stellar additions to the USCF board.


Quite evidently Booz and Hanke did not think their claims were
provable in a court, otherwise why did they shut up?

* It was only when the fake
resume claims and the FSS stuff started unfolding in this group that I
decided they were actually unfit for the office.


Even the resume may have been faked?

In short, two leading promoters of chess collided with a sleepy
organization who had just removed themselves to the sticks to save
something or other, but it wasn't money - an organization interested
only in maintenance, even so had recently employed 30 people to
'maintain' USCF.

When Truong challenged a paid contractor's contract and performance, a
contractor who we presume was also 'maintaining' things regular staff
couldn't do [why not is obscure] then the fur flew.

Although there continues to be testimony, none of it has actually ever
reached a court to become evidence under rule of law in settlement of
any suits, and even USCF have not thought their testimony worth
bankrupting the institution, despite wild talk of sureties elsewhere.
Settling a suit doesn't seem to be the sort of thing you would do if
you really were so sure that you need not settle since your evidence
was clear and uncompromised.

Anyway - the result of all the above is that USCF can now retire to
its previous role of making strange decisions about the national
championship, rubber stamping anything from FiDE, and maintaining the
rating system, without awarding board memberships to those who cheated
the rating system even though 30 paid staff 'didn't notice'. While
that may be incompetency or will, maintenance of the core product the
rating system and to not even attempt 'good' rather than perfection,
is USCF's current challenge.

Since they gave up attending to the bulk of their market, scholastics,
by eliminating the scholastic director's job, and the nat.
championship is now farmed out and de facto run by the sponsor,
Ratings-R-Us is what's left.

And Polgar and Truong can get back to promoting chess and it's
benefits, which they did so well before. Plus now that they have no
conflicts of interest, might amplify the number of high level
tournaments they have reintroduced to USA.

Phil Innes



  #6   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 08:13 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 Brian Lafferty asks for Amnesty on the USCF Issues Forum

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:50:07 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
wrote:

On Jan 29, 11:16*am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:50:25 -0800 (PST), The Historian


wrote:


USCF 'chess politicians' as a group were enormously pro-Polgar and
Truong, so much so in fact that they bent over backwards for the
Gruesome Twosome and didn't conduct due diligence on Truong's claims.
There were voices raised in warning as far back as 2003, but USCF
stifled Stan Booz and Tim Hanke when they tried to sound the alarm.
(You might recall Hanke was the first person threatened with a
lawsuit.) The Polgar Problem has existed for a long time, and long
before the USCF Forums.


Mike responded:
This what I found amazing as their campaign unfolded. *It was based on
running *against* the "chess politicians" using the slogan "time to
clean up the USCF". *


They'd received very favorable treatment at the hands of these various
"chess politicians", both financially and in the pages of Chess Life.


And, now Phil:

Is this a way of saying that in any year they got 100 mainstream media
notices while USCF got 2? I wonder who was taking advantage of whom
for 'free' publicity?


That they may have been more adept at mainstream publicity doesn't
alter the fact they got really favorable treatment from all those
"chess politicians" at USCF.

Maybe what they were trying to recreate with their campaign was a
return to the good old days of Niro, when largesse flowed to them like
pork from heaven.


Not a Jewish heaven, presumably, with all that pork raining down.
Possibly a mid-west one?


In retrospect, maybe I should have said "like pork from Washington".

Until Hanke started posting, I would have thought either or both of
them stellar additions to the USCF board.


Quite evidently Booz and Hanke did not think their claims were
provable in a court, otherwise why did they shut up?


Phil pretends to be unaware of the impact of SLAPP suits or the threat
of same.

But let me turn the question around.

Why didn't Polgar and Truong threaten similar action against
prosperous, feisty, lawyered up and legally savvy old Harry Payne?
After all, he said a lot more than Hanke or the Boozer ever did, and
he's still saying it. I think we both know the answer: because he
and his folks would have knocked the dynamic duo right back on their
arrogant bullying keisters (in the nicest possible litigious way, of
course). The extent of any actual response to Harry: a few
scurrilous anonymous remarks in rgcp about his mother, and then
silence, timid, silence.

* It was only when the fake
resume claims and the FSS stuff started unfolding in this group that I
decided they were actually unfit for the office.


Even the resume may have been faked?


Right, Phil, on PT's own password-protected website. Oh, maybe you
mean the "contents" of the resume. Yes. Some of it evidently *was*
faked.

Although there continues to be testimony, none of it has actually ever
reached a court to become evidence under rule of law in settlement of
any suits, and even USCF have not thought their testimony worth
bankrupting the institution, despite wild talk of sureties elsewhere.
Settling a suit doesn't seem to be the sort of thing you would do if
you really were so sure that you need not settle since your evidence
was clear and uncompromised.


You know, Phil, a good stooge, which seems one of your goals in life,
shouldn't ask such questions SINCE THEY CAN JUST AS EASILY BE ASKED
OF POLGAR ABOUT HER SUIT. Jesus, Phil, can't you think two steps
ahead? If you insist on being a flak, do it well, man. Do it well.

And Polgar and Truong can get back to promoting chess and it's
benefits, which they did so well before. Plus now that they have no
conflicts of interest, might amplify the number of high level
tournaments they have reintroduced to USA.


Amazing what one can't do with a pipeline into the taxpayer's pocket,
ain't it?
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 08:55 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Brian Lafferty asks for Amnesty on the USCF Issues Forum

On Jan 29, 3:13*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:50:07 -0800 (PST), ChessFire

wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:16*am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:50:25 -0800 (PST), The Historian
wrote:
USCF 'chess politicians' as a group were enormously pro-Polgar and
Truong, so much so in fact that they bent over backwards for the
Gruesome Twosome and didn't conduct due diligence on Truong's claims.
There were voices raised in warning as far back as 2003, but USCF
stifled Stan Booz and Tim Hanke when they tried to sound the alarm.
(You might recall Hanke was the first person threatened with a
lawsuit.) The Polgar Problem has existed for a long time, and long
before the USCF Forums.


Mike responded:

This what I found amazing as their campaign unfolded. *It was based on
running *against* the "chess politicians" using the slogan "time to
clean up the USCF". *
They'd received very favorable treatment at the hands of these various
"chess politicians", both financially and in the pages of Chess Life.


And, now Phil:

Is this a way of saying that in any year they got 100 mainstream media
notices *while USCF got 2? I wonder who was taking advantage of whom
for 'free' publicity?


That they may have been more adept at mainstream publicity doesn't
alter the fact they got really favorable treatment from all those
"chess politicians" at USCF.


You mean those chess politicians wanted to associate with people who
performed 50x better than they did? But previously you write to the
effect that this was of benefit to Polgar?

As for your 'maybe better' above, 50:1 is some argument.

Maybe what they were trying to recreate with their campaign was a
return to the good old days of Niro, when largesse flowed to them like
pork from heaven.

Not a Jewish heaven, presumably, with all that pork raining down.
Possibly a mid-west one?


In retrospect, maybe I should have said "like pork from Washington".


However apt that is, since that sort of statement is about private or
discriminatory benefit to public policy. Not a very apt metaphor here,
unless Mike Murray can say more.

Until Hanke started posting, I would have thought either or both of
them stellar additions to the USCF board.

Quite evidently Booz and Hanke did not think their claims were
provable in a court, otherwise why did they shut up?


Phil pretends to be unaware of the impact of SLAPP suits or the threat
of same.


Phil pretends nothing. Hanke and Booz mooted various accusations that
they couldn't substantiate. Period.

But let me turn the question around. *

Why didn't Polgar and Truong threaten similar action against
prosperous, feisty, lawyered up and legally savvy old Harry Payne?


Did he write unsubstantiated lies about them? Tell us.

After all, he said a lot more than Hanke or the Boozer ever did, and


'a lot more' yawn

he's still saying it. *I think we both know the answer: *because he
and his folks would have knocked the dynamic duo right back on their
arrogant bullying *keisters (in the nicest possible litigious way, of
course). *The extent of any actual response to Harry: *a few
scurrilous anonymous remarks in rgcp about his mother, and then
silence, timid, silence. *


So far, so vague. But you can't prosecute vague. Perhaps there is some
issue that is worth contending as represented by Howard Payne? If it
us something personal, then presumably said Payne is of some or no
note. I don't know which, since as usual with critics, it is hard to
determine if it's about them or some issue.

Mike Murray is by all means invited to actually say something, and
then we could determine if any Payne/Polgar issue is up for
discussion.


* It was only when the fake
resume claims and the FSS stuff started unfolding in this group that I
decided they were actually unfit for the office.

Even the resume may have been faked?


Right, Phil, on PT's own password-protected website.


Who had access to that? The contractor, or no?

That is to say, the fired contractor or no.

And who authorized or didn't stop the fired contractors access? After
all, such a person could either find evidence, or place evidence,
right? But in either case, this was someone who after being dismissed,
still was into 'records'. What that person did their is not
contestable, since it would take a court and an oath, and rather more
stringent invigilation that we have seem in this newsgroup to support
any findings.

*Oh, *maybe you
mean the "contents" of the resume. *Yes. Some of it evidently *was*
faked.



An insensible statement by virtue of the *was* qualification, but not
an actually contested statement, I note.

Although there continues to be testimony, none of it has actually ever
reached a court to become evidence under rule of law in settlement of
any suits, and even USCF have not thought their testimony worth
bankrupting the institution, despite wild talk of sureties elsewhere.
Settling a suit doesn't seem to be the sort of thing you would do if
you really were so sure that you need not settle since your evidence
was clear and uncompromised.


You know, Phil, a good stooge, *which seems one of your goals in life,
shouldn't ask such questions *SINCE THEY CAN JUST AS EASILY BE ASKED
OF POLGAR ABOUT HER SUIT. *Jesus, Phil, can't you think two steps
ahead?


As a stronger chess player than you, yes. And proved thereby, but you
are HOT about something here - let's look at it: you act like that
idiot Brennan, who accuses me of being 'employed' by Susan Polgar.
When I first challenged Brennan about his lie he resorted to writing
'employed' and if that had some special sense, since being employed by
her had none. But what sense did he have he could say, except his
paranoia?

But Mike Murray is not the subject of being persecuted nor prosecuted
here. Still, he wants Jesus to help him.

I have said from the start that whatever a court shall decide [not
Jesus] is right in a legal suit. I admit the law is necessary as a
regulator and abide by the law - I do not abide by some special rights
that people think they have to personally prosecute outside the law -
and I am talking about you Murray - you who produced and published 50
reasons outside any common sense, including the most cynical comments
by any loser who happened to write in here.

Get it?

You don't now nor ever wanted objective measures of determination of
this issue, and set yourself up as both prosecutor and judge, even
unto eliminating testimony from others by mocking it.

That is your standing in this issue.


If you insist on being a flak, do it well, *man. *Do it well.


If I want to promote chess I am going to mention those people who best
promote chess. If this is to you, a non-chess poster - really, 1% on
chess topics? - then go pound sand. You are a sad person Murray who
can't respond to anything you don't like, and you really don't like
those who pursue chess beyond the 'dusty' realm of USCF.

And Polgar and Truong can get back to promoting chess and it's
benefits, which they did so well before. Plus now that they have no
conflicts of interest, might amplify the number of high level
tournaments they have reintroduced to USA.


Amazing what one can't do with a pipeline into the taxpayer's pocket,
ain't it?


If they did achieve public acceptance of chess, let us here note that
Mike Murray, a single issue poster and abusenik, calls promoting chess
'a pipeline into the taxpayer's pocket'.

Murray had signally failed in two things in all his postings here.

1) he uncertainly likes the game - no evidence otherwise
2) he dislikes those who do like the game and promote it - and he
abuses them

That is all Murray is worth. And what worth is that?

In chess terms, de nada and de nada

Phil Innes

  #8   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 09:49 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Brian Lafferty asks for Amnesty on the USCF Issues Forum

On Jan 29, 8:16*am, Mike Murray wrote:

Until Hanke started posting, I would have thought either or both of
them stellar additions to the USCF board. * It was only when the fake
resume claims and the FSS stuff started unfolding in this group that I
decided they were actually unfit for the office.


Weird. The moment I read Truong's bio written by himself I knew
that he is fake and ugly. This kind of phony but tricky guys
use the same BS style regardless of times and country or the
field of activity. It can be the US business or politics, WWII
occupied Poland or communist Vietnam... They are all the same,
their lies and BS sounds the same. Big claims, big slogans, cliches,
little specific information, which real guys provide naturally and
as a matter of fact, continuously, in the intimate detail. BSers
provide emotional political and "moral" cries instead.

Wlod
  #9   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 09:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Brian Lafferty asks for Amnesty on the USCF Issues Forum

On Jan 29, 1:49*pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:


Weird. The moment I read Truong's bio written by himself I knew
that he is fake and ugly.


Actually, all this USCF contra Truong nonsense is something
regular. Each likes each own. No wonder that they liked each
other.

Wlod
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 10:02 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Brian Lafferty asks for Amnesty on the USCF Issues Forum

On Jan 29, 12:55*pm, ChessFire wrote:


yawn



At least cover your mouth - what can be more
distasteful than a yawning toothless QueenPhil?

Wlod
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
Major Victory for USCF in Illinois MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 22 July 16th 09 07:18 AM
The End Draws Near Mr.Vidmar[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 March 25th 09 01:10 AM
Text of Complaint in USCF v. Polgar, Springfield IL, Case No.2008MR000751 samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 December 31st 08 10:03 AM
Text of Complaint in USCF v. Polgar, Springfield IL, Case No.2008MR000751 samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 1 December 31st 08 10:03 AM
USCF Issues Forum: "New York Times" [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 10th 07 06:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:50 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