Susan Polgar wants Jerry Hanken Fired
samsloan
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1031
The Jerry Hanken issue
Post by Susan Polgar on Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:03 pm
In spite of my good will toward the regrettable recent conduct by Mr.
Hanken, here is what he publicly stated this morning about my husband
and me:
"I believe that If they (Susan and Paul) ever got control of USCF
with a board majority by getting a couple of bootlickers elected while
both held onto their seats, it would be all over for the Federation!
They would suck the USCF dry and leave its hulk in a dumpster while
founding the "Polger Chess Federation". This is NOT a joke and I am
not an alarmist."
It is even more unfortunate that some board members are continuing to
look the other way to protect an individual like this while continuing
to offer him paid USCF projects. This is one of the things I brought
up before and spoke out against. One of the reasons why the USCF is
often in financial difficulties is because we continue to award paid
projects to friends and insiders instead of getting the best people
for the job.
I hope that Mr. Goichberg and his board majority will speak out
against such regrettable statement and conduct by Mr. Hanken and
revoke all paid assignments from individuals like this. What does it
say when board members and the USCF see nothing wrong with this and
continue to support such individuals?
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
Brian Lafferty
What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States. The right
to speak truth to power is what men and women have given their lives for
in founding and defending this country.
To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
zdrakec
> To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
> society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
> stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
> Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
>
Whatever your opinion of Susan Polgar, that last remark was unworthy
of a gentleman. You should be ashamed for making it, sir.
zdrakec
Brian Lafferty
told a guardian ad litem. They're quite the enlightened couple. Hot
sauce, blond jokes, slanderous attacks on people like Hanken and Lux,
not to mention being Fake Sam Sloanish, etc. Truth bites.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE offended by "hot
saucing" children?
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
inv...@example.com
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE
>offended by "hot saucing" children?
Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of
child protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
Brian Lafferty
heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts. Not
assertions.
billbr...@gmail.com
thank god mr hanken didnt hotsace anyone
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
> heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
> guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts. Not
> assertions.
>>thank god mr hanken didnt hotsace anyone
Given Bill's responses in the past, shouldn't he be OUTRAGED by these FACTS?
Why the kid-gloves treatment and deflection by humor?
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
Jerry Spinrad
On Apr 10, 11:54 am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Brian Lafferty
trend seems to be for the courts and legislatures to increasingly view
it as child abuse. What research is showing is that the kids with
significant behavior problems were invariably subject to some form of
corporeal punishment as a disciplinary measure. How far can a parent go
before it's abuse? Consult your attorney or local department of child
protective services.
I will say this, I'd never let a child under my care go anywhere with
Mr. Truong unless I or a parent I trusted implicitly were there at all
times. Just my opinion. Opinions will vary.
zdrakec
That does not give justification to make insulting innuendoes. I'm
sure that you yourself have never done anything that could be
considered wrong, but just in case you have, remember to keep that
first stone firmly in your fist.
Mind you, I also fail to restrain my pen and tongue from time to time,
but that remark was really uncalled-for - IMHO.
zdrakec
Mike Murray
"jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu" <jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu>
wrote:
>I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
>decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
>who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
>to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
>they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
>felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
>it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
>make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
>don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
>which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
>cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
>still practiced in this country.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
I think it is still too much of a stretch. If there are accusations as
to what they did to other people's children, that is a different
matter.
Jerry Spinrad
Chess One
"Brian Lafferty" <blaf...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:JCrLj.4457$bQ1.3110@trndny09...
> inv...@example.com wrote:
>> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE offended by
>>> "hot saucing" children?
>>
>> Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of child
>> protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>>
>>
> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
Hey Deuce!
Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
:)))
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>
>Hey Deuce!
>
>Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
>more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
>
>Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
>
> :)))
So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you
know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
Chess One
"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:6nusv3djthaelavvq...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>>
>>Hey Deuce!
>>
>>Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
>>more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
>>
>>Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
>>
>> :)))
>
> So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you
Murray, you have declared you have no interest in other than Paul Truong
being the perp, by virtue of the fact that you will not look candidly at
existing evidence, and here intercede because the Line Judge is directly
challenged to his legal representation - and has put his foot in his mouth.
> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
PI
Brian Lafferty
I agree. For parents to make that decision intelligently, they need to
know all the facts.
Brian Lafferty
> "Brian Lafferty" <blaf...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:JCrLj.4457$bQ1.3110@trndny09...
>> inv...@example.com wrote:
>>> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE offended by
>>>> "hot saucing" children?
>>> Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of child
>>> protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>>>
>>>
>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>
> Hey Deuce!
>
> Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
> more than that?
Your ignorance is showing Bowel Boy. The children's father tells me
that his kids told the guardian ad litem, in private, what was being
done to them. The guardian, quite properly, told the court. The court
issued its order.
Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
You decide. What motive would the kids have to lie to the guardian ad
litem when they have such an idyllic life with Chesspiece and the
Pufferfish. Next interview you do, ask the Pufferfish. Ask him to sign
a sworn statement if he denies it. Do you have the balls to ask the
question BB? :-)
Brian Lafferty
> "Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:6nusv3djthaelavvq...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>>> Hey Deuce!
>>>
>>> Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
>>> more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
>>>
>>> Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
>>>
>>> :)))
>> So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you
>
> Murray, you have declared you have no interest in other than Paul Truong
> being the perp, by virtue of the fact that you will not look candidly at
> existing evidence, and here intercede because the Line Judge is directly
> challenged to his legal representation - and has put his foot in his mouth.
brain is needed.
>
>> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
>> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>
> You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
> proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
> would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
See my comment on another post that answers your stupid questions.
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
>> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>
>You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
>proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
>would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
about it, does it?
The Historian
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net>
Must be more of the "erudition" you claimed for this 'man', Mike.
SBD
>
> Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
> litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
> about it, does it?
Well, he's consistent.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>there are accusations as
>to what they did to other people's
>children, that is a different
>matter.
Susan's ex-husband is the "other person" in this case.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
Jerry Spinrad
samsloan
JerryHanken writes:
Dear Susan, I note that you have written a "confidential" email
repeating the same old mistatements about me to 29 people but, of
course, not to me. Golly, someone (or more) of those must have
"leaked" it to me. It's a new scandal!!
I don't want to waste my time refuting your nonsense in detail,
but Jim Berry remembers our Oak Brook encounter quite differently than
you describe, your description of our conversation in Las Vegas is
pure fiction, and I never asked you or Paul for a job.
You demand that I be fired as a writer for Chess Life. If your tales
about me are correct, even though I have written for 16 Chess Life
editors, perhaps I should not get future assignments. Of course, what
you say about me is not true at all, so shouldn't you resign from the
EB, along with Paul who should have quit long ago for refusing to
cooperate with the fake Sloan investigation?
I am copying the same 29 people you wrote to, and DARE you to put this
on your website which is filled with phony "anonymous posts" blasting
your critics and where those who disagree that you are the greatest
thing ever to happen to American chess are quickly silenced.
Of course, I am NOT marking this reply as confidential so it may
appear in lots of places. "Murder, though it hath no tongue, will
speak with most miraculous organ." You are a wonderful player, but
many people are becoming aware that you and Paul have little interest
in the USCF, except for what you can get from it. The truth will
prevail. Regards, Jerry Hanken
Brian Lafferty
Jerry makes good points about the Trolgar state media led by its chief
censor, Commissar Gregory le Petit.
Chess One
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <blaf...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:JCrLj.4457$bQ1.3110@trndny09...
>>> inv...@example.com wrote:
>>>> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE offended by
>>>>> "hot saucing" children?
>>>> Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of child
>>>> protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
>>
>> Hey Deuce!
>>
>> Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
>> more than that?
>
> Your ignorance is showing Bowel Boy. The children's father tells me that
> his kids told the guardian ad litem, in private, what was being done to
> them. The guardian, quite properly, told the court. The court issued its
> order.
That is not an answer to my question. I asked if the condition was
necessarily any more than pro-forma. Brian lafferty skips answering that,
which is as indecent a response as the language he uses to make his reply.
>
> Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
>
> You decide.
I see. You decline to respond with knowlegde of any legalities. But... [see
below]
> What motive would the kids have to lie to the guardian ad litem when they
> have such an idyllic life with Chesspiece and the Pufferfish. Next
> interview you do, ask the Pufferfish. Ask him to sign a sworn statement if
> he denies it. Do you have the balls to ask the question BB? :-)
I don't exist to fly accusations at people when there is plain fact at
hand - I am a journalist, not the Prosecutor General.
WHAT'S TRUE
Isn't the truth that the family court judge investigated this incident on 5
occassions, including teacher, doctor, school nurse, neighbours, and found
nothing whaever to justify it to the extent that the charge was dropped?
If Brian Lafferty already knew this, I think he just portrayed a certain
orientation of his views in public, of which I need make no necessary
comment about his behavior, trusting any reader to determine for themselves
what is what.
The same stance, in fact, as I would wish any reader to adopt on the FSS
afair, to open it up and let people assess the truth for themselves.
If Brian Lafferty did not know this, then it will or will not occur to him
to offer the insulted parties an apology.
Phil Innes
Chess One
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
Lafferty.
If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.
If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen.
Phil Innes
Rob
> "Mike Murray" <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8vnsv31p914einqna...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
> > wrote:
>
> >>I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
> >>decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
> >>who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
> >>to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
> >>they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
> >>felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
> >>it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
> >>make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
> >>don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
> >>which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
> >>cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
> >>still practiced in this country.
>
> > Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
> > involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
> > parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
>
> I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
> the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
> Lafferty.
>
> If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
> investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
> candid representations of any truth.
>
> If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
> gentlemen.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
If Mr. Lafferty had conversations about and to a judge,court reporter
or anyone having to do with a confidential case involving minors; I
believe he may have committed an actionable event. Does anyone know?
Rob
Brian Lafferty
You really are clueless as to how the courts work.
As I stated before;
1. The children's father revealed to me and others that the guardian ad
litem assigned in his custody case to look after his children's
interests in the proceeding, was told in private by the children that
they had been hot sauced and corporally punished by Mr. Truong.
2. The court was advised of this and entered an order barring hot
saucing and corporeal punishment on the children.
3. The father of the children produced a copy of that order and gave it
to a number of people.
4. A judge throwing out the charge is really not applicable to this type
of proceeding which is civil, BB, not criminal. Courts will often deal
with such situations by issuing what amounts to a protective order if
the judge feels there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
>
> If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
> gentlemen..
The above are facts that I have been given, including a copy of the
court order. As I suggested, the next time you do an "interview" with
Mr. Truong, I hope you will ask him if the facts are correct and true.
If he denies hot saucing and corporeal punishment, please ask him to
sign a sworn affidavit to that effect.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
Brian Lafferty
Rob darling, see my response to Bowel Boy. FWI, I haven't spoken with
any Queens County judges, reporters or other court personnel for many
years. Even when I practiced law in Manhattan, I rarely crossed the
border into Queensland.
Chess One
The question is how you work, Mr. Lafferty.
> As I stated before;
Those are not answers to my questions [which are not even repeated here -
they have become snippage] of what you understood when /you/ wrote /your/
statements. They are accusations, investigated and not unproven, but
dismissed! If you will not answer the questions I put to you, that itself is
an answer ;)
As it stands you dare not even repeat the questions.
Heuch!
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
>> involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
>> parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
>I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
>the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
>Lafferty.
"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?
Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.
samsloan
To: <fg...@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:53:29 -0700
Subject: A perfectly sound 'exchange'
Dear Fred,
I've recently heard an interesting version of a verbal exchange
between Jerry and Susan Polgar, at last year's National Open, going
around. As a rule, I generally stay out of chess politics because my
own life is interesting enough without the added drama. In this case,
however, I felt it best to set the record straight since I personally
witnessed, first-hand, the conversation in question, and my
experience, in no way, matches what is apparently being touted as
fact.
The 'incident' itself, lasted all of a couple minutes, and took place
the night Jerry got into the Riviera, after I had gone with a member
of the staff, if you recall, to pick him up at the airport. We had
arrived a few minutes earlier, had gotten checked in, and were waiting
at the bell desk for assistance with Jerry's luggage, when he noticed
Susan Polgar waiting at the front desk, nearby.
When he recognized her standing there, he said to me, in a pleasant
tone, "Oh, there's Susan Polgar, I think I'll go and say hello." He
then nudged his cart the 5 or 6 feet over to her, and I listened to
them talk quietly, the entire time.
Upon exchanging hellos, Jerry told Susan not to worry - that he wasn't
going to get into any political debates with her during this trip, but
that he hoped things could be civil between them. Susan seemed a
little hesitant, responding without saying much. Pretty soon, they
ended on reasonable terms after Jerry said, again pleasantly, "Oh, and
congratulations on your marriage." to which Susan replied with a
simple, albeit flat, "Thank you." before Jerry rode away. From what I
could tell, there was no unpleasantness, nor any indication that Jerry
could have offended Susan, so it's rather confusing to hear of another
rendition of what happened, especially one so fundamentally different.
Simply put, there was no shouting, raised voices, or any "abuse"
whatsoever. In fact, I may be visually impaired, but my limitation in
this way, has left me with excellent hearing. I sometimes regret this
ability when I encounter certain kinds of metal detectors, as I can
hear the high-pitched tones they emit, to which fully-sighted folks
seem luckily oblivious.
At any rate, the atmosphere of the exchange was very calm, and quiet,
and, besides myself, there were even 2-3 people in line, behind Susan,
who were standing there, yawning tiredly, likely after a long trip. I
highly doubt their quiet reverie would have been possible in the face
of a horrendous shouting- or cursing-match. In addition to the other
guests, there were also a number of hotel employees present, from the
receptionists behind the desk, to those running the snack kiosk
opposite where Jerry and I were standing.
All in all, the reports of what took place are blatantly false. I'm
sure that had there been the kind of exchange that is being cited as
fact by the proponents of the Polgar camp, it would have been the talk
of the tournament, immediately, before the first round had even begun,
long before now, rather than merely 'surfacing' nearly a year after
the conversation in question initially took place.
I hope this helps clear up any further confusion about this particular
incident. As a chessplayer, I can honestly say, that the 'exchange'
here was 'perfectly sound'.
Best regards,
-Jessica Lauser
Chess One
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
>>> involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
>>> parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
>
>>I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
>>know
>>the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
>>Brian
>>Lafferty.
>
> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
> report -- this is "actionable" ?
If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
> children with blocks.
'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.
I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.
Phil Innes
Brian Lafferty
Brian Lafferty
I have no knowledge of any court "throwing out" (whatever BB means by
that) the facts told by the guardian ad litem. Do you have any such
knowledge to share with us, BB, such as a court order?
>If you do not
> wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
> answer.
>
> I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
> out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
> are accusing others, and their standards, if any.
And by all means please, please keep pointing things out in defense of
Trolgar. In that regard, I consider you to be an incredible asset in
the search for factual truth. The comparison to you is a stark one
making the truth shine through.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
>from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
You think so badly!
Uhh, Phil, how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
"accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
legal argot.
Maybe you should try reading somebody who writes straightforwardly.
How about, oh, Henry Miller?
>> Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
>Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
>you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!
Heh, heh. What is it all you legal sharks say? Something like, "I'm
postured to defend myself vigorously against false and spurious
accusations"?
>> You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
>> children with blocks.
>'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
>acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
>wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
>answer.
Evidently, Phil, you're under the delusion that you can command
responses. Well, why not, you've deluded yourself into an
International Master with a 2450 rating, you've become an Internet
Lawyer, why just generally be in command?
But why not humor the fool?
OK, I believe as part of the evaluation I recommended, the prospective
parents should look into the court follow-up and take what information
they glean into consideration.
Are you happy now?
>I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
>out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
>are accusing others, and their standards, if any.
I think people are getting a pretty good idea of the various posters'
standards.
>
>Phil Innes
>
samsloan
> "Mike Murray" <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6e8vv39ihn6vvapfi...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net>
What do you mean "threw out" the charge? That was a court order, not a
charge. Courts do not "throw out" court orders, unless they are
appealed, which did not happen here.
What happened was that Polgar and Truong moved to Texas not long after
this court order was issued. Thus, the New York courts no longer have
jurisdiction over the matter. This may explain the reason they moved.
Sam Sloan
Mike Murray
<blaf...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?
Reportedly, his lips move, but it could be a tic.
Really, you should ask whether he *understands* what he types.
Brian Lafferty
What's to understand?? ;-)
Brian Lafferty
Are you saying that Phil is Alexander Haig's love child? Fascinating.
Chess One
Who is BB? I said the investigating judge did so. What do you say?
> the facts told by the guardian ad litem.
Who mysteriously spoke to /you/. How could that have come about?
But let me not digress with you about the questions you fail to even repeat,
nevermind answer. If you want to argue something in public, at least
withstand your critics who ask you about what you know. You do not even wish
to 'know' the questions put to you, and so bore on, which results in the
situation that this is the only forum where you can write, since everywhere
else has dismissed your arse.
So answer if you understand NOW, or do not answer at further.
Shall I repeat for you the things you evade?
That after 5 instances of investigation by the judge, among all the people I
mentioned earlier this day, the issue was thrown out of jurisdiction because
the judge thought it baseless.
You, Lafferty, care not to honor that - and instead continue to abuse those
who point it out.
What I do, Lafferty, is point you out.
Phil Innes
Brian Lafferty
Who is BB? Hmmmmmm. Try to follow this Bowel Boy. You are BB. You
said a judge threw out charges. I noted that I don't know what you
(Bowel Boy, aka BB) means by "thrown out" in the context of that
proceeding.
>
>> the facts told by the guardian ad litem.
>
> Who mysteriously spoke to /you/. How could that have come about?
Now, I've noted this before. You apparently either did not comprehend
or forgot. I was told about the guardian ad litem and the kids by the
kid's father, Mr. Shutzman. Got that? .
Now, please go play sandbox journalist with your friends the Trolgars.
[remainder snipped]
Chess One
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 -0400, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>
>>If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
>>from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>
> You think so badly!
>
> Uhh, Phil,
Uhh?
> how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
> "accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
> legal argot.
Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
accusation.
Before you write more shit about other people Murray, say if you understand
what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
and real investigation of accusations.
> Maybe you should try reading
Maybe you should not offer advice, since you have no demonstrated ability to
even understand what others say, and even then, are shy to come up to any
mark of independent and dissinterested assessment.
You are as shot as Laugherty!
Phil Innes
Chess One
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:727ed82d-3fac-41ae...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
May?
That is not what happened, and unless you dare look at what happened, you
can continue to say may. zzzz
If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?
PI
>
> Sam Sloan
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
>> "accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
>> legal argot.
>Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
>accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
>accusation.
IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
sake of argument, that your usage of the terms "accusation" and
"dismissal" is proper in this instance.
>Before you write more shit about other people Murray, say if you understand
>what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
>and real investigation of accusations.
Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
expertise?
Brian Lafferty
> "Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:msbvv3dtk6hi9qqqk...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 -0400, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
>>>> *evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
>>>> report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
>>>> report -- this is "actionable" ?
>>> If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
>> >from what they know is the result of it, I think so!
>>
>> You think so badly!
>>
>> Uhh, Phil,
>
> Uhh?
>
>> how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
>> "accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
>> legal argot.
>
> Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
> accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
> accusation.
Ah, BB, in our common law based jurisprudence we do not have
investigating/investigative judges. They exist and function in
continental jurisprudence in judicial systems derived from Roman law.
Thus, your parrot cries of investigating judges and dismissals is really
nothing more than a stale cracker for the parrot.
Judges in our system conduct trials/hearings. Do you know what findings,
if any, the judge made as to the subject matter of the order?
>
> Before you write more shit about other people Murray, say if you understand
> what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
> and real investigation of accusations.
Wrong. It is you who haven't a clue as to the law and the legal system.
>
>> Maybe you should try reading
>
> Maybe you should not offer advice, since you have no demonstrated ability to
> even understand what others say, and even then, are shy to come up to any
> mark of independent and dissinterested assessment.
>
> You are as shot as Laugherty!
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
>
>> somebody who writes straightforwardly.
>> How about, oh, Henry Miller?
I think you might find Death On The installment Plan a good read, also.
Brian Lafferty
>
> If you know what it was, then you can't, so you don't look too hard, eh?
>
> PI
I've tried running this sentence through various language translations
using the Google language tool. No luck. Can anyone out there
translate the above sentence into modern English? Thanks in advance.
Chess One
Well, that merely defines you as an obnoxious abusenik, who refuses to
answer direct questions put to him about his knowledge since he can't figure
out what a charge being 'thrown out' means. :))) Were you really a
judge or a line-judge? Its hard to tell.
Instead you are the sort of person who would require someone to suffer abuse
even to answer your evasions. Can the cesation of your judgeship be at all
related to your behavior?
Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT the
charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.
R
O
F
L
!
!
He neither says he knows of it, and he has no declared intention of finding
out for himself, even after he is informed of it, despite some mysterious
connection of his own with the guardian ad litem!
Such thundering logic as Lafferty offers us is better off in his own New
Hampshire thunder box, than exhibited in public to his, and to other
person's disparagement.
Phil Innes
Brian Lafferty
If you don't have the order, tell us when it was filed with the court
clerk. Prove to us that there was a "dismissal."
The Historian
> >>> Phil Innes
>
> Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?
That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it, Brian?
The Historian
Perhaps it's Andean?
Brian Lafferty
Of course.
The Historian
P Innes' "British Language" defies translation.
My favorite comment on Mr. Innes' skill in languages:
"...Mr. Innes is certainly a
linguist of remarkable originality. As a sample (or perhaps a
campel),
he has discovered that Old English was still spoken as late as the
1800s
(which for some reason he takes to be the seventeenth century) and
indeed that the tongue is *still* spoken, a result that would astonish
professional linguists -- the sane ones, at any rate. Moreover, he
has
unearthed bits of the Latin lexicon of which Latinists were unaware --
e.g., "secuter."
"Turning to modern languages, Mr. Innes has discerned grammatical
features of which nobody else was aware in several modern tongues.
For
instance, he has discovered that English possesses a "negative case"
--
it is evidently what grammarians formerly called a "double negative"
--
and that the Russian first-person accusative and dative pronouns are
identical, a fact that would surprise speakers of the language. He
has
also found that the verbs "love" and "leave" in Russian are identical,
so that the surly exhortation "Love it or leave it" can be rendered in
Russian without changing the verb in the second clause. Finally, he
has
enriched the lexicon of modern English immeasurably with neologisms
like
"clacque," "dillitantes," "insistance," "come" as a conjunction (in
locutions like "poet come playwright"), and many others."
Chess One
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
>>> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>>
>>You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
>>proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
>>would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
>
> Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
> litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
> about it, does it?
I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in trouble
who actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
legal &c.
If you can't allow people to speak for themselves and of their own
standards, oh PULEEZE stop negatively speculating idly on what you do not
know, since that indeed, is the same issue I have posed Lafferty: What he
knows and what he cares to represent of that - and if he don't like hearing
other than his own views, then perhaps we should all simply know that,
rather than read as if he cared to distinguish between suppositions and
objectively determined facts.
For you Murray, you would rather speculate about other people than look at
anything. That is your choice.
Like Lafferty, you are rather concerned to not look at what is before you.
And that's ok with me - I am simply pointing out to everybody that that is
the case.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
>state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in trouble
>who actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
>legal &c.
Care to list any particulars ?
EZoto
>What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
>apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
>the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.
What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.
EZoto
Brian Lafferty
the courts eventually decide.
EZoto
And lets say the courts decide. What makes you think with the
behavoir shown here from you clowns would anyone want you guys in
office. If the courts decide then so be it. But there is no way
anyone would want you clowns either. Your behavoir as former elected
officials is reprehensible.
EZoto
Randy Bauer
Oh, please - that is absolute baloney. Fairness in an election is
based on the ability of the voters to participate. If it was based on
the possibility that untruths were spoken, there would be few members
of Congress seated.
Besides, are you suggesting that Sam Sloan, who barely escaped last
place, would have won a seat if not for the FSS posts? That is too
absurd for words - Brian, you need to get out more often.
Randy Bauer
billbr...@gmail.com
Have you considered challenging Kirsan, Randy?
http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/2-articles/1327-fide-videos
help bot
> What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
> apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
> the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States. The right
> to speak truth to power is what men and women have given their lives for
> in founding and defending this country.
>
> To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
> society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
> stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
> Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
Hmm. I recently received an email in which our
forefathers were praised for such things as washing
mouths out with soap, frequent trips to the wood
shed for the slightest transgression, and so forth.
Are you *sure* the form of government is what
marks the difference in approach here?
I think it is far more likely that the trouble lies in
hypocrisy: when money flows in the direction of
folks like SP, she is happy; but when money
runs to others, jealousy rears its ugly head. And
what do you suppose motivates posters like LP
and SS, to harry these folks who are on the
receiving end of USCF handouts? Jealousy
perhaps? Complaints always come up when
*somebody else* is getting a free ride... .
The whole game plan is wrong. The USCF
needs a complete makeover, starting with
getting rid of the flotsam and jetsam who use
members' monies for their own personal benefit.
According to Sam Sloan, just one of these
"moochers" can easily rack up tens of
thousands of dollars in costs to the members.
Just imagine how much money could be saved
by getting several moochers off of USCF welfare
and into real jobs!
-- help bot
help bot
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
> >> stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
>
> >You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
> >proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
> >would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
>
> Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
> litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
> about it, does it?
Nearly-IMnes cannot read Latin, only *Andean*.
If you will translate the term into /Andean/ and
repost, I'm certain that the nearly-an-IM 2450
Dr. Innes will reply with the necessary bleating
obfuscation, as always. It's not fair when you
use tricks on him like that.
Has anyone found a "pro bono" psychiatrist
willing to help Dr. IMnes, yet? If this were a
communist country, he would be first in line
due to his dire need. Unfortunately, we have
a dumb-ocratic re-dumb-lic, where those who
have the most money control everything.
This sometimes results in severe mental
disorders going sans treatment for decades.
What amazes me is that even after all this
time, people still respond to Dr. IMnes as if
he were sane, trying to "convince" him of
this or that; all the while, knowing full well
that his mind is gone... .
-- help bot
Brian Lafferty
> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> EZoto wrote:
>>>> What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
>>>> apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
>>>> the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States.
>>> What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
>>> square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
>>> him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
>>> election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.
>>> Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
>>> have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.
>>> EZoto
>> Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
>> the courts eventually decide.
>
> Oh, please - that is absolute baloney. Fairness in an election is
> based on the ability of the voters to participate. If it was based on
> the possibility that untruths were spoken, there would be few members
> of Congress seated.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
> Besides, are you suggesting that Sam Sloan, who barely escaped last
> place, would have won a seat if not for the FSS posts? That is too
> absurd for words - Brian, you need to get out more often.
Not Sloan. But it may have kept Jones off the board.
>
> Randy Bauer
Chess One
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:06:05 -0400, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
>>> "accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
>>> legal argot.
>
>>Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
>>accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
>>accusation.
>
> IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
> circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
> circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
> dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
> sake of argument,
'for the sake of argument' continues Murray, discussing people's children -
and ignoring the *fact* that the issue was investigated - but Murray doesn't
like the terms I use, so blathers on...
> that your usage of the terms "accusation" and
> "dismissal" is proper in this instance.
>
>>Before you write more shit about other people Murray, say if you
>>understand
>>what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
>>and real investigation of accusations.
>
> Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
> one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
> expertise?
You cannot admit your own understanding of the material, therefore you
describe those who do look at direct evidence by the term 'nut'.
It is no different from the entire campaign, where only selective evidence
is admitted by the campaigners, and only to that their own prescription of
who musta dunnit. The inanity of this approach is only lost on themselves.
At least the poster Walker has taken a step back and subscribed to viewing
all the materials available, and I, like him, agree that when we do that
then let the chips lie where they may - and that is an orientation which is
not prescriptive, which is not dependent on who the perp turns out to be.
I will not discuss either of the issues above further with the people who
refused to actually look at what is before them, and whose 'questions' are
simply evasions 'for the sake of argument' - which is actually, for the sake
of persecution.
If you can't get Polgar, get Truong, and if you can't get either, get the
kids? I challenged Hanken before the whole board on 3 issues of his recent
'representations' and Hanken spat at me in private e-mail and ran off. So
much for his standards.
Heuch!
Phil Innes
Chess One
>> Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT
>> the charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.
> Did the judge now? Got a copy of the decision and order of "dismissal?"
> If you don't have the order, tell us when it was filed with the court
> clerk. Prove to us that there was a "dismissal."
Lafferty - you evade your understanding of what a charge 'thrown out' means,
as if the term was unknown or unusual. Now you want me to do your work for
you, and 'prove' something to an abusenik!
You have raised this issue, let you be aware that it is a contested one, and
some due diligence is necessary when casting aspersions, eh?
I do not intend to prove anything to you, since your investigation is
patently insincere, and because I think 'answering' such material as you
request will make no difference to your own orientation whatever, and
indeed, I think people's children might be left out of this proxy fight.
My challenge was to you - that you pretend you cannot understand 'threw out'
to mean 'dismissal' even though I cited the context as much as it needs be
displayed in public. That you should continue to pretend not to understand
it requires no special recommendation of mine of your sincerity to the
public here.
Phil Innes
Chess One
"EZoto" <xeucl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7jr204t9rmnfbfga6...@4ax.com...
But at least Lafferty subscribes to the rule of law in his comment above -
and if indeed he is sincere in that, then let him not agitate further
outside that system of properly audited evidences.
The trouble with answering questions from a clacque of interrogators, is
that nothing ever seems to depend on it. Thereby, such 'questions' seem
never any more than opportunies to cast aspersions. No one, for example, has
said what they would resolve if the questions were answered - whether they
would apologise, stop casting negative aspersions onto others in public,
and, as at the top, allow the courts to do their properly constituted
business of determining what is what.
There's the rub! ;)
Instead of declaring for themselves what /depends/ on any answer, instead we
read here newer, more horrifying crimes of the suspected perps -
alternately, the answers are not understood, or the answerer is rubbished,
since the interrogators don't like the answers.
This is literally to say that patently nothing depends on any answer to a
question, and the questioners take no responsibility for their own actions
in proposing them. That is, they are demonstrated to be nothing more than
feckless accusations, on which depends nothing.
Phil Innes
> EZoto
Chess One
Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
anything - and as a person capable of dismissing other people's views, don't
pretend that you can enter into people's lives, when you can't even own your
own opinion, nor say what any more information would mean to you. Like the
fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more suspicious!
Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!
We, those who are capable of it, are discussing public standards of behavior
and what is honest representation and what is merely scandal-making
occasioned by people who obviously get off on a little bitty schadenfreude
;)
Phil Innes
The Historian
I challenged Hanken before the whole board on 3 issues of his recent
> 'representations' and Hanken spat at me in private e-mail and ran off. So
> much for his standards.
I agree it would have been better for Mr. Hanken to spit on you in
person. But perhaps he was intimidated by the length of the line.
The Historian
> "Brian Lafferty" <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:LaTLj.43$HJ1.9@trndny01...
>
> >> Laugherty refuses to acknowledge that the judge dismissed and THREW OUT
> >> the charge he repeats. He says he does not understand the phrase.
> > Did the judge now? Got a copy of the decision and order of "dismissal?"
> > If you don't have the order, tell us when it was filed with the court
> > clerk. Prove to us that there was a "dismissal."
>
> Lafferty - you evade your understanding of what a charge 'thrown out' means,
> as if the term was unknown or unusual. Now you want me to do your work for
> you, and 'prove' something to an abusenik!
>
Actually, you "raised the issue" by claiming there was a "dismissal."
But as usual, your screen persona writes checks that won't be honored.
Brian Lafferty
> "EZoto" <xeucl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7jr204t9rmnfbfga6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:46:43 GMT, Brian Lafferty
>> <blaf...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>> Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts. We'll see what
>>> the courts eventually decide.
>> And lets say the courts decide. What makes you think with the
>> behavoir shown here from you clowns would anyone want you guys in
>> office. If the courts decide then so be it. But there is no way
>> anyone would want you clowns either. Your behavoir as former elected
>> officials is reprehensible.
>
> But at least Lafferty subscribes to the rule of law in his comment above -
> and if indeed he is sincere in that, then let him not agitate further
> outside that system of properly audited evidences.
The rule of law in our society exists quite comfortably with politics
and free speech.
[Remaining BB drivel snipped]
samsloan
Try another question.
Do you think that you, Randy Bauer, would have been elected had you
not been on the Polgar Ticket?
Remember that when you last ran in 2005 you lost badly.
Thus, it seems likely that it was support from Polgar that put you
over the top.
Try another question: Do you think that if the election were held
today, with Polgar no longer supporting you, you would still be
elected?
Sam Sloan
zdrakec
>
> Wrong. The election was not fair given the FSS posts.
This contention is devoid of rationality, as has been explained
before. Sheesh. And you were a judge?
Scorn, and slight regard,
zdrakec
Mike Murray
wrote:
>>>I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
>>>state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
>>>trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
>>>legal &c.
>> Care to list any particulars ?
>Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
>anything -... Like the
>fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more suspicious!
Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
about your various credentials, it tends to make me "more suspicious".
There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
about your credentials.
Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
authority, you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.
>Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!
It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
board.
Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
of children" -- a reform school, for example).
Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
litem might do, and we called you on it.
In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.
Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
bluffer. We want to see the cards.
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
>> circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
>> circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
>> dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
>> sake of argument,
>'for the sake of argument' continues Murray, discussing people's children -
>and ignoring the *fact* that the issue was investigated - but Murray doesn't
>like the terms I use, so blathers on...
From what I've read about the context of the guardian ad litem's
report, the terms you used are improper or misleading.
>> Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
>> one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
>> expertise?
>You cannot admit your own understanding of the material, therefore you
>describe those who do look at direct evidence by the term 'nut'.
The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
'crackpot' would be slightly better.
You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
forged material, Phil, and neither am I.
>If you can't get Polgar, get Truong, and if you can't get either, get the
>kids?
Another lie, so typical of Phil's lack of respect for truth and
history.
Brian Lafferty
Almost sounds like the rap on Phil's friend Paul Truong. We're still
waiting to see Truong's business cards from all those companies he
turned around and the Fortune 500 companies he allegedly worked for.
Birds of a feather do flock together.
Chess Nuggets
Who the hell is Brian Lafferty, and what does he mean to Chess?
Chess One
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>>I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
>>>>state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
>>>>trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical,
>>>>diversion,
>>>>legal &c.
>
>>> Care to list any particulars ?
>
>>Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
>>anything -... Like the
>>fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more
>>suspicious!
>
> Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
> about your various credentials, it tends
Cut it out Murray - stop //pretending// you are anything other than a
get-Truong single issue poster - and since you rubbish everything people
say, and 'doubt' it, then continue to ask for more personal information -
you are a farcical person to want 'credentials'.
This thread is about me asking you if YOU could tell the FSS materials from
the Sloan, and you offered me the 'credentials' of you own intelligence
which was the single word 'some'.
ROFL
> to make me "more suspicious".
> There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
> about your credentials.
Look, if you wanna play chess, shut up and move ;)
Otherwise you'll wind up paranoid, like Kennedy who has no evidence I use
computer, but is still sure of it! It doesn't want to risk his virginity out
there, and would rather pout impotently from home.
> Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
> credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
> authority,
Now you are come over all abstract. But you can't even answer a simple
question about yourself - and go on prosecuting other people AS IF you were
someone to impress~ !!
But you are not! You Murray don't want to know anything. You are
spectacularly insincere.
> you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
> we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
> well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.
>
>>Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!
>
> It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
> board.
You really don't get it Murray. I don't owe you any explanations since you
are devious! Nothing at all depends on you knowing more about any subject
whatever. You have rubbished other people here because they don't like your
fixation on Truong. And you are not a reasonable person capable of
evaluating others, nevermind discuss the welbeing of children. Do you
understand my opinion of you?
> Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
> you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
What depends on these questions for Mike Murray?
> For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
> envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
> state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
> of children" -- a reform school, for example).
>
> Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
> to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
> litem might do, and we called you on it.
What bollocks! In fact I write very freely with others who are SINCERELY
interested in the welfare of children in chess. You are not - you only want
to know things so you can reduce or neutralise them. And you demonstrate
this all the time. So stop pretending, and furthermore, stop abusing other
people night and day, for things you DEMONSTRABALE display are insincere -
and you are incapable of taking an adult and decent view of things.
> In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
> board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
> demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.
>
> Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
> bluffer. We want to see the cards.
'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating with
their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?
SBD
> > Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
> > bluffer. We want to see the cards.
>
> 'We'. We abuseniks who crawl all over other people's lifes, speculating with
> their sickly opinions and anti-life attitudes?
No Phil, just people who, when you claim such things as "I was on a
state board which has to do with the welfare of children" would like
to know the name of that state board and when you served. It really is
that simple.
I think you don't understand, Phil, that your constant lying about
credentials such as your "almost an IM" title means that very few
people take seriously much that you spew forth on the keyboard. You
could start to fix that by, if you really did serve on such a board,
simply stating when and where.
Now you can start a long screed about how I am "against life" or some
other nonsense or you could simply answer the question. Not who you
"write with" (one of those, please, "Look how great I am! Grandmasters
and people who are SINCERELY are in MY court..... blah, blah, blah")
or other people's supposed faults - just name the board you served on
and your tenure.
Is that possible?
The Historian
Time once again for the following classic analysis by Taylor Kingston:
"Look, Phil, this is a very simple matter, rather like asking "How
many beans make five?". I think that if you were asked that question,
you would huff and puff for many paragraphs, perhaps rejecting the
concept of "five," going off on tangents about number theory, or even
claiming that the question loses all legitimacy because it omits other
vegetables. You would claim that the questioner has a hidden Legumist
agenda, seeking to suppress dissenting Brassican and Cucurbist views.
You would insist that the beans denounce Neil Brennen. You would claim
to know more beans, and more about beans, than anyone else. You would
do anything, ANYTHING, but answer, simply: FIVE."