20 Questions with Paul Truong
Chess One
20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
published at
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20 questions
session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought about
by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
illustrate the context of remarks made in the current interview.
There are also a few not-before-released pictures of Mr. Truong and his
wife, from their wedding.
Phil Innes
for Chessville
---
[aside] 20 Questions with Mickey Adams will be published next week as
previously stated - the above interview being more timely.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> Dear Reader,
>
> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
>
> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20 questions
> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought about
> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
> illustrate the context of remarks made in the current interview.
Mr. Truong:
"the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
What kind of bs is that?!
But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
respect he's unique.
Phil:
"you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
but satirizing another Board member,"
Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
(Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
you write like this).
Wlod
Chess One
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <senn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:214fc4e0-0244-4761...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I'm sorry Wlod, but I could [almost] always tell the difference between the
false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any native
English speaker could not. But perhaps people will now write in to say how
dumb they are?
What I found encouraging about the interview was a determination to pursue
this matter so that all the information could come out, and so all people
could review it. If I did not think that way I would lose respect for
myself.
As to your first point, surely marketing expertise is contestable! - but 50
mainstream mentions in 2006 compared with USCF's 2, makes for a contest, no?
A couple or 3 films on chess now in the offing, an Institute for chess
established within mainstream media... meanwhile
In the Parrot this week I had to take note in a sidebar that USCF's
financial advisor got it wrong by a mere $94,000 dollars, putting ChessHut
even further into the hole. And that is uncontestable. Now, 94k is nothing
to you and me, but its probably 3 or 4 jobs to other people - and this is
after Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall have prepared the scene by mentioning
letting people go...
And therefore, the Parrot extrapolates what this can all mean in the next 12
months - and if we will see a bare bones 'Small Tent' organisation of a
dozen or so people employed on maintencance activities. Did I answer your
marketing question yet?
I think post-Fischer boom that USCF membership has grown only to the same
extent as the US population. But anyway, you tell me what you think of all
that, and what your own measures are - then we could actually discuss
something.
I have respect for myself in attempting dialog based on actually looking at
what is going on, not on vague propaganda and partialities. The ship is
almost sunk Wlod, and no one seems to be in control nor responsible.
Certainly not the USCF board or Ex Director, who have declined to talk about
it.
Phil Innes
Rob
> "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <sennaj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:214fc4e0-0244-4761...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Great Interview.
Enjoy the temporary lull today. Since Sam is in court we will be
spared his diluge of cross-posting nonsense for at least 24 more
hours!
Rob
Brian Lafferty
Nothing new. Innes and his friends at Chessville aren't interested in
facts lets alone digging for them. They're really little more than PR
flacks.
Chess One
"Rob" <robm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fb96bc7-11de-4856...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Great Interview.
Enjoy the temporary lull today. Since Sam is in court we will be
spared his diluge of cross-posting nonsense for at least 24 more
hours!
Rob
--
Dear Rob "The Lexer" Mitchell
Who knows, maybe a real conversation could break out of the gloom, like how
will USCF /avoid/ employing just a dozen people by next Christmas, and what
the board could possible then find to discuss, except getting the ratings up
to speed [usual topic] and what to put in ChessLife [without surveying
anyone, as usual]. How much do 8-balls cost these days?
Is that an absurd scenario? Given the rejection of Polgar and Truong's charm
with the public, then its maintenance, maintenance and more maintenance,
just like in bygone years. And surely, 7 people sitting around organising
'policy' for 12 people is tad top heavy.
The other problem will be about what to do if anyone dies? I can't imagine
anyone applying to work a maintenance job at ChessHut, especially when the
application itself is made public. Perhaps jobs will continue to be awarded
the good-old-way by the good-old-boys, or offered directly to school
dropouts happy to find any work? Things were so much simpler before! I blame
these uppity wimmin and foreigners with their 'ideas' verve and energy!
Give these people an inch and the next thing they will be catawallin' for is
more democracy, transparency in business relationships and such fancy new
daft ideas which will wreck the current PolitBuro Model - maybe even
breaking up the safe-ward system for board and delegate seats, surveying
people for what they actually want the Federation to do in the C21st, and
even [ROFL] addressing USCF's mission.
Cordially, Phil Innes
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
hoping we would get at least some idea of what type of evidence Truong
claimed to have that might clear him, but saw absolutely nothing.
Truong seems to have the entirely wrong idea about obligations of the
USCF towards him. The USCF interests are not automatically bound to or
against the interests of Truong. They were presented with convincing
evidence of Truong's guilt, in the form of Motterhead's report which
was backed by two expert reports. Thus, their first obligation was to
try to determine whether Truong was innocent, in which case they would
tie their interests to his, or guilty, in which case they would try to
separate themselves from Truong as much as possible.
Therefore, the USCF asked him for a legally binding declaration of
innocence. Truong did not provide this; he did not at the time,
claiming a misunderstanding, but he could easily have provided one
since to try to mend fences. He claimed that he had convincing proof
of innocence. The USCF wisely sent it to their lawyers rather than
judge this themselves; the lawyers did not feel that the evidence was
at all convincing.
The timing is not exactly clear; around this time, Truong started
attacking the USCF board. By this time, it is very clear that the
interests of the USCF and Truong are not the same. Therefore, rather
than turn over records which Truong requested (and I am convinced they
would have done this had Truong given a sworn statement of innocence
plus rock-solid evidence of innocence which he claims), they came to
the conclusion that his interests must be separate from those of the
USCF. Negotiating settlements on behalf of the USCF without Truong
became obvious practical policy rather than a notorious plot. If
Truong wants access to the records, let his lawyers talk to the USCF
lawyers, but by not cooperating on his part he brought on himself the
decision that he would not automatically get access.
The USCF lawyers have undoubtedly told the USCF that there is strong
evidence of Truong's guilt, and that they must look out for their own
interests.
Truong claims that he has leads which might indicate guilty parties.
Why should they believe him? They have the expert reports, and Truong
himself does not give any reason to believe that these so-called leads
have any basis; instead he claims he has no idea who did it.
This does not even deal with previous behavior of Truong which might
cast doubt on his innocence; the PhD claims and the Bob Bennett
postings. Truong's credibility is very low; if he wants to convince
anyone, he had better show some vidence rather than dwell on Sam
Sloan's traits or USCF policies. Sam Sloan is the one who filed suit,
but nobody took notice when Sam made any earlier accusations. The
credibility this times comes from Motterhead and the two expert
reports; Sloan himself is irrelevant to the question of whether Truong
has been lying on this issue.
Jerry Spinrad
> Rob- Hide quoted text -
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
> the false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any
> native English speaker could not.
What's Joel Channing's native language?
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
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?
Rob
> flacks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear BL,
What you posted above is an unsubstantiated opinion thinly veiled as a
fact.
What is more disturbing is that there is absolutly no control over
attacks and accusations.
What I think should be directly and more importantly addressed is the
issue of directors compensation. This is what the Federal Tax code
states:
" Nonprofit Organization
Surprisingly, there is no legal definition of a nonprofit
organization. In general, a nonprofit organization is one that is
organized to achieve a purpose other than generating profit. Despite
this, a nonprofit organization is not precluded from making a profit
or engaging in profit-making activities. It is prohibited from passing
along any profits to those individuals who control it, like founders,
directors, officers, employees, and members. Nothing, however,
prevents a nonprofit from paying reasonable
Liability
Like other corporate entities, nonprofit organizations can be sued for
any number of reasons, including:
* publishing defamatory statements
* neglecting to pay taxes (tax exemptions under 501(c)(3) only cover
federal corporate income tax; the nonprofit is still responsible for
other taxes)
* violating state charitable solicitation laws, antitrust laws, or the
tax code by engaging in prohibited political activity or substantial
lobbying
* lawsuits common to any business: wrongful termination, employment
discrimination, personal injury, and breach of contract
Management Structure
Like other corporations, a nonprofit corporation consists of the
following classes of people:
* Incorporators:Incorporators form the nonprofit corporation.
* Board of Directors:The board of directors makes major strategic and
financial decisions for the organization and ensures compliance with
relevant legal and accounting requirements.
* Officers: Officers oversee day-to-day affairs; usually officers
consist of the president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer.
* Employees: Employees execute the decisions made by the directors and
officers.
Note that any or all of these people may be volunteers and that the
categories bleed into each other. Especially in nonprofit settings,
force of personality becomes the key to the identity of the decision
makers.
Operation
Operating a nonprofit organization is often burdensome and costly.
There are reporting requirements and operating restrictions that you
need to keep in mind in order to to comply with the law and maintain
501(c)(3) exempt status. Expect increased paperwork and red tape in
order to comply with:
* state corporate laws' formalities for corporate governance
* state laws on charitable organizations' record-keeping requirements
* IRS regulations on tax exemptions (do not underestimate the time and
energy that you will need to spend organizing the fundraising arm of
your nonprofit corporation in order to solicit and accept donations
and remain a publicly supported public charity)
* the public's right to inspect your nonprofit organization's
corporate records book
Note that the operating restrictions and requirements are even more
stringent if your organization qualifies as a private foundation and
not as a public charity.
Additionally, you will also be responsible for the tax and other
regulatory obligations imposed on all small businesses. For more on
the tax obligations of small businesses, see the Tax Obligations of
Small Businesses section and the IRS's informational guide,
Publication 583 (1/2007), Starting a Business and keeping Records.
Ownership of Assets/Distribution of Profits
Despite its name, a nonprofit organization is not precluded from
making a profit or engaging in profit-making activities. However, a
nonprofit is prohibited from passing along any profits to those
individuals who control them, like founders, directors, officers, key
employees, and members. (A handful of states allow a nonprofit
corporation to issue stock as a mechanism of control, but no dividend
rights accompany the issued stock.) Instead, a nonprofit organization
must use any profits to further its program activities or "exempt
functions." It may also invest profits in another tax-exempt
organization.
Although a nonprofit organization may not distribute profits to its
directors, officers, key employees, or members, a nonprofit
organization may pay its employees a salary and give them benefits. A
nonprofit organization may also pay directors for their expenses and
time spent attending director meetings. The key is that the salaries
and payments must be reasonable. Excessive payments or exorbitant
amounts posturing as salaries or compensation violate the tax code and
may lead to penalties and a loss of tax-exempt status.
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> Wlod, the who thing was little more than a press release for Trolgar.
>> Nothing new. Innes and his friends at Chessville aren't interested in
>> facts lets alone digging for them. They're really little more than PR
>> flacks.-
>Dear BL,
>What you posted above is an unsubstantiated opinion thinly veiled as a
>fact
Probably appropriate since the thread topic was a puff-piece
masquerading as an interview.
>What is more disturbing is that there is absolutly no control over
>attacks and accusations.
>What I think should be directly and more importantly addressed is the
>issue of directors compensation. This is what the Federal Tax code
>states: <snip>
Rob, this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the Fake Sam
Sloan or the Mottershead Report. It may well be something that should
be addressed but in this context, it's just a distraction, a decoy
from more immediate issues.
Chess...@yahoo.com
trying to present the other side of the story. I will be linking to
this same article on my blog later today ( http://www.twchesssafari.blogspot.com
). In a few days (or weeks), I will follow up with my own candid view
of the situation to the extent that I have any personal knowledge.
Some people seem to want Sam's nonsense to become reality. That's
truly a shame. It is also quite impossible.
The most significant comments in the Truong interview, in my opinion,
relate to the legal fees incurred by the USCF over this mess. One way
or the other, those fees will ultimately be picked up by USCF members.
For what purpose, I ask? Additionally, I can attest to hundreds of
thousands of dollars of potential donations that were lost from would-
be USCF benefactors because of the stuff written on
rec.games.chess.politics in the past. Nothing has changed.
Sadly,
Frank
Chess One
"Brian Lafferty" <blaf...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:rEVyj.398$x93.126@trndny03...
Golly gosh! The line-judge had turned into the whine-judge. The absurdity of
people posting anon at Chessville's Forum after receiving a rebuke from the
moderator to observe rules - and this person being a 'judge' who cannot
appreciate social rules... <grin> And no regular poster at Chessville's
forum makes any protest... <grin> who then has to create another anon
moniker, and encourage his buddies to do same <grin>
And such a fold being banned everywhere else on moderated forums... for lack
of respect for its populace, for hectoring opposition, for denying any
desire to hear the whole thing... <grin>
Well... after a 3,500 word interview, ain't it interesting that NO MATTER of
FAST is addressed by the whine-judge, who apparently doesn't need to hear
the all of it to make his JUDGEMENTS! and thus colludes with Wlod and
Spinrad, Murray and Brennan and others who don't need to hear the all of to
make up their mind, [as such] either. At least, this is what they say of
themselves.
Any other appreciation of thing, according to the whine-judge, is "PR".
What I say is that these folks are shit-scared of the whole thing coming
out, and letting members make up their own minds on it - since that would be
true democratic procedure, true transparency, and truly revealing of the
state of US chess.
I am encouraged to read from Paul Truong that he intends to pursue this
issue, in the proper 'forum' which I think is not any reference to
Chessville, and such people may have due reason to be 'shit-scared'. And
that Paul Truong will pursue it with a will. And he bloody well will ;))
Good!
It is necessary to explode all this nonsense, then we can get on with what
was always a difficult task - to progress chess in the country by open
dialog, and discard those people's opinions who gave up already.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
(Wlod)" <senn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Phil:
> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> but satirizing another Board member,"
Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
all the FSS filth was satire. Some posts *could* be categorized as
satire, of course, but hundreds of the FSS posts were just
misogynistic, racist, slanderous filth. Phil knows this, of course,
as would anybody who has followed this forum for the last few years.
Makes me think Phil is trying to cover some bases in case Truong is
unable to shake the accusations in the Mottershead Report.
Especially ironic after Phil's stubborn refusal to recognize The List
of the Blind Monkey as satire!!
>Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
>(Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
>but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
>you write like this).
I agree. Phil should be ashamed of presenting this cream puff as a
hard-hitting, pull-no-punches interview,especially after he flogged it
for several weeks on this forum.
>Wlod
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
> Surprisingly, there is no legal definition of a nonprofit
> organization.
501 c(3-4)?
Mike Murray
>We should be applauding Phil Innes and the folks at Chessville for
>trying to present the other side of the story. I will be linking to
>this same article on my blog later today ( http://www.twchesssafari.blogspot.com
>). In a few days (or weeks), I will follow up with my own candid view
>of the situation to the extent that I have any personal knowledge.
>Some people seem to want Sam's nonsense to become reality. That's
>truly a shame. It is also quite impossible.
Have you actually read the Mottershead Report ?
>The most significant comments in the Truong interview, in my opinion,
>relate to the legal fees incurred by the USCF over this mess. One way
>or the other, those fees will ultimately be picked up by USCF members.
>For what purpose, I ask? Additionally, I can attest to hundreds of
>thousands of dollars of potential donations that were lost from would-
>be USCF benefactors because of the stuff written on
>rec.games.chess.politics in the past. Nothing has changed.
Money continues to pour into baseball, football, basketball and other
professional sports despite documented instances of cheating, drug use
and other nefarious behavior. Why would the lack of money in chess be
traced to some Usenet postings?
>Sadly,
>Frank
SBD
<sennaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Truong:
>
> "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
Truong couldn't carry Kolty's gymbag.
SBD
. Why would the lack of money in chess be
> traced to some Usenet postings?
The real reason is hidden from him: people do not want to invest in
chess. This old chestnut has been around for years that someone's
chess' bad image offends sponsosrs. Yeah, tell that to the WWF.
Chess One
<jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote in message
news:1c493f22-ddfa-4bd9...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Did you actually think there was anything new in the interview? I was
hoping we would get at least some idea of what type of evidence Truong
claimed to have that might clear him, but saw absolutely nothing.
**And yet you DARE write about chess history - and can't understand or admit
that the inhibition to telling all, is Sloan's suit, added to which is the
majority of the board's will NOT to tell all.
Pfft! What kind of joke outfit do you write for? O! Do you work for one of
these 'questionable relationship' companies with USCF? I think so :)
**What a hack who cannot declare his monetary interest in this affair - who
does he think he is, Jerry Hanken?
Truong seems to have the entirely wrong idea about obligations of the
USCF towards him.
**No quotes about this proposed relationship? Only 'seems' zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The USCF interests are not automatically bound to or
against the interests of Truong. They were presented with convincing
evidence of Truong's guilt, in the form of Motterhead's report which
was backed by two expert reports. Thus, their
**Their? Who is they, Spinrad? Come on! You are a journalist, have a bash at
NAMING your NOUNS. Or is that not to your taste as an historical
writer/specualtor on chess subjects? Is this editorial policy where you are?
first obligation was to
try to determine whether Truong was innocent, in which case they would
tie their interests to his, or guilty, in which case they would try to
separate themselves from Truong as much as possible.
**Except of course if 'they' themselves were complicit :)))
** I wonder if Jerry Spinrad read the article - since he has not yet noticed
that Truong says he asked USCF for their information, and they declined to
provide it to him or their lawyers. But maybe this one-sided account is
enough for the historical journalist who works for USCF's client, ChessCafe?
This indeed, is my 5th offer to Spinrad to fess up to if he wishes to hear
all sides, or like the whine-judge, prosecution will do? He has been
previously faint on this issue, and only brave in accusations [LOL]. I
wonder anyone can pay this guy for his hack-notes.
**What resides below, is in the words of Chesscafe's historical journalist,
"not exactly clear", but from the onset, the historical journalist's
orientation has been absolutely clear.
**One should take care for posterity to even appear as an historical
recorder, rather than the commom mucky mucky here, who are merely
/hysterical/ recorders.
**ChessCafe and Spinrad stand accused in this interview. They are interested
parties, and they admit it not! Personally Spinrad has never even everred
that all should be put in the open, before the chess public, and continues
his ah... well, how seriously shall we take his orientation to any objective
view of what went on?
**Phil Innes
Jerzy
Użytkownik "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
>
> I'm sorry Wlod, but I could [almost] always tell the difference between
> the false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any
> native English speaker could not. But perhaps people will now write in to
> say how dumb they are?
So you are a native English speaker ? I thought that you were Scottish once.
Brian Lafferty
Getting rather sensitive there Bowel Boy. You and your friends at
Chessville are just shills hoping for droppings from the Trolgar pastry
wagon. Enjoy it while you can.
>
> Well... after a 3,500 word interview, ain't it interesting that NO MATTER of
> FAST is addressed by the whine-judge, who apparently doesn't need to hear
> the all of it to make his JUDGEMENTS! and thus colludes with Wlod and
> Spinrad, Murray and Brennan and others who don't need to hear the all of to
> make up their mind, [as such] either. At least, this is what they say of
> themselves.
>
> Any other appreciation of thing, according to the whine-judge, is "PR".
Nothing in the piece is new. Your utterly disingenuous statement about
what Truong did being satire is pitiful. That position isn't getting
any traction.
>
> What I say is that these folks are shit-scared of the whole thing coming
> out, and letting members make up their own minds on it - since that would be
> true democratic procedure, true transparency, and truly revealing of the
> state of US chess.
>
> I am encouraged to read from Paul Truong that he intends to pursue this
> issue, in the proper 'forum' which I think is not any reference to
> Chessville, and such people may have due reason to be 'shit-scared'. And
> that Paul Truong will pursue it with a will. And he bloody well will ;))
A number of us look forward to putting Mr. Truong and his wife under
oath to ask all the questions the shills haven't had the motivation to
ask. And at trial, they'll be subpoenaed as hostile witnesses. Fun
times ahead, if that's what Trolgar wants.
Chess One
"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:ldios35u6akai012l...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 05:06:36 -0800 (PST), "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
> (Wlod)" <senn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Phil:
>
>> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
> although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
> all the FSS filth was satire.
And even after I wrote that I could tell it was satire, who actually says
the FSS is NOT word-perfect american diction, without error? WHO Murray? You
can't tell? In my own edit of the reply I corrected dozens of errors ;) I
never saw any single idiomatic syntactically error by the FSS, did you?
That's not nothing considering 3,500 messages.
Don't protest abstractly to the air and reserve your wit. Other people have
written in to state the same opinion as mine - that they can tell the
difference - maybe you can't? Or don't like this idea? You say I 'apologise'
for this stuff, but do you apologise for being an ignoramus? Come on Murray,
speak up :) Wasn't all the FSS material alien to Sloan's own diction? Or
don't you know? Can't you tell? Should you offer your opinion or rubbish
those who can tell?
> Some posts *could* be categorized as
> satire, of course, but hundreds of the FSS posts were just
> misogynistic, racist, slanderous filth.
And Sloan doesn't do that. He doesn't curse, is very careful of any
mysogonistic views he has, and is not any notable rascist. I can tell this,
while not even liking Sloan. What's Murray's problem?
> Phil knows this, of course,
> as would anybody who has followed this forum for the last few years.
"this"? Ker-ist! You sound like Spinrad-vague.
> Makes me think Phil is trying to cover some bases in case Truong is
> unable to shake the accusations in the Mottershead Report.
Listen. I can ask the guy some questions, but cannot account for public
paranoia - if that is what this is.
> Especially ironic after Phil's stubborn refusal to recognize The List
> of the Blind Monkey as satire!!
You were rather insistent on your satire, Murray, like it wasn't reallya
joke, who are you kidding? You really stuffed it to anyone who said anything
about your 'joke'.
And you happily colluded with the worst abusenik on chess newsgroups to
compile your list. You yourself think your are joking, but you ain't! You
dig the 'irony' of things - especially the one-sided approach you took,
immediately trashing any other point of view - and this you now declare a
'joke'. You delude yourself on what's funny, and your own motivation, of
which you are merely ignorant.
But it don't seem to anyone else like any joke - like 'irony' and such
nonsense. It seems willfully crass trashing of someone else. That is what
you did Murray, and before everyone here.
>>Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
>>(Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
>>but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
>>you write like this).
>
> I agree. Phil should be ashamed of presenting this cream puff as a
> hard-hitting, pull-no-punches interview,especially after he flogged it
> for several weeks on this forum.
Wlod decided early who was to blame, and resides with those others who do
so. Wlod forgot I knew more about the Polish "Enigma" heroes than he did -
and celebrated them more.
And I did so with great justice to their heroism, and their neglect in
official histories..
After study and evaluation of those people they deserved what I said about
them, indeed, it was not nearly enough said, but a corrective, asking for a
re-evaluation.
I am the same person now as then.
Phil Innes
>>Wlod
>
>
David Kane
<Chess...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:624520c1-ee7b-4a7b...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> We should be applauding Phil Innes and the folks at Chessville for
> trying to present the other side of the story. I will be linking to
> this same article on my blog later today (
> http://www.twchesssafari.blogspot.com
> ). In a few days (or weeks), I will follow up with my own candid view
> of the situation to the extent that I have any personal knowledge.
> Some people seem to want Sam's nonsense to become reality. That's
> truly a shame. It is also quite impossible.
>
> The most significant comments in the Truong interview, in my opinion,
> relate to the legal fees incurred by the USCF over this mess. One way
> or the other, those fees will ultimately be picked up by USCF members.
USCF members made a mistake when they put somebody of
low character like Paul Truong in a position of importance. In the real
world there are consequences for making poor choices.
> For what purpose, I ask? Additionally, I can attest to hundreds of
> thousands of dollars of potential donations that were lost from would-
> be USCF benefactors because of the stuff written on
> rec.games.chess.politics in the past. Nothing has changed.
And the USCF's history of being apologists for wrongdoers
like Truong no doubt contributes as well.
Do you really think you are helping chess by rationalizing
Truong's decision to post 1000s of obscene messages
while posing as others? If so, could explain that logic
in a little more detail?
>
> Sadly,
> Frank
>
Jerzy
>> Some posts *could* be categorized as
>> satire, of course, but hundreds of the FSS posts were just
>> misogynistic, racist, slanderous filth.
>
> And Sloan doesn't do that. He doesn't curse, is very careful of any
> mysogonistic views he has, and is not any notable rascist. I can tell
> this, while not even liking Sloan. What's Murray's problem?
So why don`t you sue him to the court ?
I have seen here many idiotic posts by the fake Sam, Bill B. however none of
those idiots didn`t sue the real Sam to the court.
Rob
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:22:51 -0800 (PST), Rob <robmt...@gmail.com>
Hi Mike,
I can see how you may not see the connections. Let me state for the
record, I do not know who is or is not the FSS. It is my opinion and
belief it is not Paul Truong.
Now that I am NOT going to debate that point right now let me also say
the atmosphere at the USCF permitted and even encouraged this to
happen. Why? It happened because the USCF has been operated for years,
In my opinion, as a way for marginal businesspeople to make a living.
The lack of oversite and interest in the organization allowed this
behaivor to not only flourish but encouraged it.
The natural inclination of someone when they feel their livlihood is
being threatened is to defend it. They have to do it in such a way
that it not only solidifies their position or draws attention away
from their abuses or and including removes a threat from someone who
would clean up those abuses.
In this case of the FSS we have a "perfect storm". You have someone
who made money off the USCF, this person authorized a contractor to
the USCF to violate their NDA, the same person/persons colluded to
leak information to damage their intended targets, next these same
persons attempted to deny their targets due process.
Lest too much be made of things there are many reasons other law firms
may be involved in defending the board and Mr Truong. Not the least of
which may be the insurance companies determination that the Mr. Truong
may have a ligitimate claim that can be filed against the other
members of the board for impropriaty which would mean that there would
be a conflict of interest.
Why is all of this important? Because Mr. Truong was interested in
cleaning up the nepotism and illegal funding activities in the USCF.
Thats something that the powers that be could not allow to continue.
This is the line in the law that could undo the USCF:
"a nonprofit organization is not precluded from making a profit
or engaging in profit-making activities. It is prohibited from
passing
along any profits to those individuals who control it, like founders,
directors, officers, employees, and members."
Rob
Chess One
"SBD" <DrD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8356b63a-26e2-4fa5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
--
**Thank you Steven Dowd for this deep appraisal. Now, I much admire Kolty,
have said so in public. You care to discuss this, or gymbag it? In other
words, is this an actual measure of something you would discuss? If so, what
is your measure of it in your own terms?
Come on! Look at what is dying in this country! Left to itself USCF will
kill chess. If you don't like Paul Troung then try to engage him, harness
him, because for sure, Susan Polgar is doing more than Kolty ever did, to
more people and more often, and with more sensibitity, as becomes our age.
If you are content to write so ... what shall I say? In hero-worship vein,
about a person no-one knows much of anything anymore, then you are (a) on
your own and (b) obscure to a fault.
You have often been a sour-puss in the past. And if you wish to decline with
Kolty, 90% of USCF members or active chessplayers do not know to whom we
refer or what he did in this country. Believe me, brother, I get the
letters, and they ain't often informed!
Come on, you are better than this, much better than to pitch a past-pioneer
to a current one - as a contest. If you care for chess, harness those who
promote it to what is to the common good. Or give that up and reside with
dreams of the past, which you must admit, were not appreciable in terms of
chess players.
Most of all, do not write one sentence shite in public since that also
qualifies your wit.
Now cheer up or fuck-off back to 1960, when USCF had 5,000 members - even if
every single one was to the credit of Kolty.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>The natural inclination of someone when they feel their livlihood is
>being threatened is to defend it. They have to do it in such a way
>that it not only solidifies their position or draws attention away
>from their abuses or and including removes a threat from someone who
>would clean up those abuses.
>In this case of the FSS we have a "perfect storm". You have someone
>who made money off the USCF, this person authorized a contractor to
>the USCF to violate their NDA, the same person/persons colluded to
>leak information to damage their intended targets, next these same
>persons attempted to deny their targets due process.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant all your speculations
about impure motive, the Mottershead Report can be examined
independently of all that. It's either well-founded or it's not, and
this isn't a function of whether its author and his sponsor were
saints or scoundrels. It's already been vetted by two experts. PT
has produced no experts, but he and his apologists have relied
primarily on ad hominem attacks, diversions, and vague threats about
actions down the road. We'll see.
Your claim that the targets were denied due process is simply false.
They are enmeshed in due process right now. They are represented by
counsel, paid for by our USCF, even though they failed to cooperate
with the original attorneys assigned to represent them and others.
Now, if you mean "they didn't get to dictate the form of the due
process", I could agree with that. If they follow through with their
vague (and often proxy threats, e.g., via Innes), I suspect they'll be
treated to a few more forms of process very uncomfortable to them.
>Lest too much be made of things there are many reasons other law firms
>may be involved in defending the board and Mr Truong. Not the least of
>which may be the insurance companies determination that the Mr. Truong
>may have a ligitimate claim that can be filed against the other
>members of the board for impropriaty which would mean that there would
>be a conflict of interest.
Isn't it the same insurance company paying for both sets of legal
beagles?
>Why is all of this important? Because Mr. Truong was interested in
>cleaning up the nepotism and illegal funding activities in the USCF.
>Thats something that the powers that be could not allow to continue.
That's one interpretation / possibility. Another is simply that he
has a dark and irresponsible side and let it control things for too
long simply because he believed he could get away with it. We can
hope the truth will be revealed in the proper forum.
>This is the line in the law that could undo the USCF:
>"a nonprofit organization is not precluded from making a profit
>or engaging in profit-making activities. It is prohibited from
>passing
>along any profits to those individuals who control it, like founders,
>directors, officers, employees, and members."
I'd have to defer to the lawyers on this, but it seems to me that
clause might refer to something like "dividends".
>Rob
Mike Murray
wrote:
>>> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>> although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
>> all the FSS filth was satire.
>And even after I wrote that I could tell it was satire, who actually says
>the FSS is NOT word-perfect american diction, without error? WHO Murray? You
>can't tell? In my own edit of the reply I corrected dozens of errors ;) I
>never saw any single idiomatic syntactically error by the FSS, did you?
>That's not nothing considering 3,500 messages.
Besides it not making a great deal of sense, here's a couple things
wrong with your paragraph.
First, even if what the FSS wrote was intended as satire, even if you
and other cognoscenti can tell it was satire, he was not ACCUSED of
satire. He was ACCUSED of impersonation, slander and other acts. Get
it now?
Second, "word-perfect american diction, without error" is simply not
relevant. The FSS posts were FAKE. Many of the longer posts were
word for word copies of posts from other venues, with maybe a word or
sentence altered. Errors could have been deliberately inserted. Care
could have been taken to maintain any style. You can't tell. Maybe a
very sophisticated computer program could detect some stylistic
consistencies. Neither of us could do that. You're blowing smoke.
>Don't protest abstractly to the air and reserve your wit. Other people have
>written in to state the same opinion as mine - that they can tell the
>difference - maybe you can't? Or don't like this idea?
This from a man who once argued with his own post!! Some fake posts
are easy to identify, some not. I couldn't identify them all without
inspecting the headers. You say *you* could, but I doubt very many
people believe you. I don't.
Well, I've already violated Ken Sloan's rule for replying to your
posts, so I'll sign off here.
David Kane
"Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NOOdnQ9wtJo9H1Ha...@comcast.com...
>
> Come on! Look at what is dying in this country! Left to itself USCF will kill
> chess. If you don't like Paul Troung then try to engage him, harness him,
> because for sure, Susan Polgar is doing more than Kolty ever did, to more
> people and more often, and with more sensibitity, as becomes our age.
Apart from their recent exhibition of poor judgement and low character, what
exactly are Trolgar's doings, which are so superior to Kolty's?
marcusw...@hughes.net
Phil Innes, I perfer 0 members. Bankruptcy.
Marcus Roberts
parrt...@cs.com
I, for one, would also like to see Paul's answer to this question
posed a few months ago.
<Who will you ask about Truong's PhD claims? Paul was asked and denied
ever making claims of a PhD, and that what was on his website was
mysteriously hacked into it. Other people then volunteered that Paul
had presented himself as having a PhD, completely independent from the
website claims. What do you hope to ask Paul that would settle the
issue?> -- Jerry Spinrad
Chess One wrote:
> Dear Reader,
>
> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
> published at
> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>
> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20 questions
> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought about
> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
> illustrate the context of remarks made in the current interview.
>
> There are also a few not-before-released pictures of Mr. Truong and his
> wife, from their wedding.
>
> Phil Innes
> for Chessville
>
> ---
> [aside] 20 Questions with Mickey Adams will be published next week as
> previously stated - the above interview being more timely.
Rob
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:02:25 -0800 (PST), Rob <robmt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
Hi Mike,
I will try to answer below to your points. Please forgive any faulty
logic I may display.
> >The natural inclination of someone when they feel their livlihood is
> >being threatened is to defend it. They have to do it in such a way
> >that it not only solidifies their position or draws attention away
> >from their abuses or and including removes a threat from someone who
> >would clean up those abuses.
> >In this case of the FSS we have a "perfect storm". You have someone
> >who made money off the USCF, this person authorized a contractor to
> >the USCF to violate their NDA, the same person/persons colluded to
> >leak information to damage their intended targets, next these same
> >persons attempted to deny their targets due process.
> Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant all your speculations
> about impure motive, the Mottershead Report can be examined
> independently of all that. It's either well-founded or it's not, and
> this isn't a function of whether its author and his sponsor were
> saints or scoundrels. It's already been vetted by two experts. PT
> has produced no experts, but he and his apologists have relied
> primarily on ad hominem attacks, diversions, and vague threats about
> actions down the road. We'll see.
I have heard this often repeated but have seen no proof of the
positive vetting of his report that corroborates the claims. They may
exist, but they are obvious due to their absence . I have seen nothing
sacred that doesn't find itself onto the web via the sieve of USCF
confidentiality.
> Your claim that the targets were denied due process is simply false.
> They are enmeshed in due process right now. They are represented by
> counsel, paid for by our USCF, even though they failed to cooperate
> with the original attorneys assigned to represent them and others.
They were made the targets of an internal investigation without proper
due process being served. That may be the wrong term in this context.
I'll grant that. But who in the USCF has the authority without
consulting the board in advance, can order an investigation? I don't
know. Then there was an attempt to remove Paul from office, without
following the proscribed proceedures. Then there was an attempt to
deny them equal protection under an insurance policy.
> Now, if you mean "they didn't get to dictate the form of the due
> process", I could agree with that. If they follow through with their
> vague (and often proxy threats, e.g., via Innes), I suspect they'll be
> treated to a few more forms of process very uncomfortable to them.
No. Thats not what I mean.
> >Lest too much be made of things there are many reasons other law firms
> >may be involved in defending the board and Mr Truong. Not the least of
> >which may be the insurance companies determination that the Mr. Truong
> >may have a legitimate claim that can be filed against the other
> >members of the board for impropriety which would mean that there would
> >be a conflict of interest.
> Isn't it the same insurance company paying for both sets of legal
> beagles?
Yes it is the same company. The only reason different council would be
required is if there looked to be a case of conflict of interest. If
Paul decided to press a case against the other board members for not
following USCF rules and regulations concerning this matter... then
that insurance company is obligated to get alternative council. I
don't know much more than that as I have seen it first hand in the
past from a professional point of view. Bottom line.. I believe the
insurance company thinks Paul will sue the USCF board over this and
they need to separate council because the insurance company feels
there is a conflict of interest.
> >Why is all of this important? Because Mr. Truong was interested in
> >cleaning up the nepotism and illegal funding activities in the USCF.
> >Thats something that the powers that be could not allow to continue.
>
> That's one interpretation / possibility. Another is simply that he
> has a dark and irresponsible side and let it control things for too
> long simply because he believed he could get away with it. We can
> hope the truth will be revealed in the proper forum.
Possible but also not probable. But I will grant you it is possible.
> >This is the line in the law that could undo the USCF:
> >"a nonprofit organization is not precluded from making a profit
> >or engaging in profit-making activities. It is prohibited from
> >passing
> >along any profits to those individuals who control it, like founders,
> >directors, officers, employees, and members."
> I'd have to defer to the lawyers on this, but it seems to me that
> clause might refer to something like "dividends".
No. II know from first hand experience from being on non profit boards
myself. I can have no business where I make money from the non
profit . So long as I am on the board I cannot sell any type of
insurance or financial product to the organization where I would
receive anything of value in return. On this one point I am certain.
What amazes me is that the USCF has not been challenged on this
subject before.
> >Rob
Thanks for the civil discussion Mike. It is refreshing to coolly
discuss a topic without making it a personal attack.
Rob
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> > Mr. Truong:
>
> > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> Truong couldn't carry Kolty's gymbag.
... nor Maxim Dlugy's - neither as a chess player,
nor as a businessman.
-- Wlod
Chess One
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:35:55 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>>> although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
>>> all the FSS filth was satire.
>
>>And even after I wrote that I could tell it was satire, who actually says
>>the FSS is NOT word-perfect american diction, without error? WHO Murray?
>>You
>>can't tell? In my own edit of the reply I corrected dozens of errors ;)
>>I
>>never saw any single idiomatic syntactically error by the FSS, did you?
>>That's not nothing considering 3,500 messages.
>
> Besides it not making a great deal of sense, here's a couple things
> wrong with your paragraph.
>
> First, even if what the FSS wrote was intended as satire, even if you
> and other cognoscenti can tell it was satire, he was not ACCUSED of
> satire. He was ACCUSED of impersonation, slander and other acts. Get
> it now?
Are you asking me to agree with some point I didn't make above, Mike? I said
I could usually tell the FSS from the real Sloan. And I believe you are
making another point on the nature of the accusation.<shrug>.
> Second, "word-perfect american diction, without error" is simply not
> relevant.
Not relevant to whom? The falsity of your writing is that it avoids sentence
structure, like subject, verb, object. I do not mind what you chose to
believe, but in order to write as you do, you must need own your own
comments! If you can't do that, then who silly you seem telling other people
what is or is not relevant for them.
> The FSS posts were FAKE. Many of the longer posts were
> word for word copies of posts from other venues, with maybe a word or
> sentence altered. Errors could have been deliberately inserted. Care
> could have been taken to maintain any style. You can't tell. Maybe a
> very sophisticated computer program could detect some stylistic
> consistencies. Neither of us could do that. You're blowing smoke.
>
>>Don't protest abstractly to the air and reserve your wit. Other people
>>have
>>written in to state the same opinion as mine - that they can tell the
>>difference - maybe you can't? Or don't like this idea?
>
> This from a man who once argued with his own post!! Some fake posts
> are easy to identify, some not. I couldn't identify them all without
> inspecting the headers. You say *you* could, but I doubt very many
> people believe you. I don't.
A lie. I didn't say all. You say some are easy to identify, some not. Some
prosecution!
> Well, I've already violated Ken Sloan's rule for replying to your
> posts, so I'll sign off here.
You have done your normal thing - which is to take a couple of
straightforward questions and avoid answering them - instead you fling
around your comments about other people and have a lovely hissy fit. That is
indeed school-of-Ken.
Phil Innes
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:29e339e9-6abc-4df5...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> AN INTERESTING INTERVIEW
>
> I, for one, would also like to see Paul's answer to this question
> posed a few months ago.
>
> <Who will you ask about Truong's PhD claims? Paul was asked and denied
> ever making claims of a PhD, and that what was on his website was
> mysteriously hacked into it. Other people then volunteered that Paul
> had presented himself as having a PhD, completely independent from the
> website claims. What do you hope to ask Paul that would settle the
> issue?> -- Jerry Spinrad
I asked him a question he could answer, which was what education he had. I
am SO SORRY that that is not a scandalous way to ask the question - but you
know, I don't get off on it as much as some evidently do.
I have asked Jerry Spinrad several questions here about what evidence he has
for his own views, and as suspected, he is much better at asking rather than
answering, since one requires work. Jerry would have a much better basis to
criticise me if he himself answered even ordinary questions ~ but as a
kangaroo-court tribunalist, he is rather above such decencies.
Phil Innes.
Chess One
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <senn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1508abfa-519e-4934...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
and not for long! Wlod may not know that Max didn't exactly have a great
time aboard. Anyway, I see my request for any measure or benchmarks for
these statements has also gone overboard, but won't chase it up because i am
toobored... Phil
> -- Wlod
Guy Macon
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
>around this time, Truong started attacking the
>USCF board. By this time, it is very clear that
>the interests of the USCF and Truong are not
>the same.
Not necessarily. It is possible for the board of an
organization to not be working for the best interests
of that organization and for someone attacking that
board to be doing so in the best interests of the
organization.
I am expressing no opinion about this particular
case, merely pointing out that attacking the board
of an organization is not the same as attacking
the organization itself.
There is a presumption that whoever got the most
votes best represents the wishes of the membership,
but in reality the vote reflects what a politician
promised to do during the campaign, not what he
actually does once elected. That's why there is
always another election on the schedule.
help bot
> > <Who will you ask about Truong's PhD claims? Paul was asked and denied
> > ever making claims of a PhD, and that what was on his website was
> > mysteriously hacked into it. Other people then volunteered that Paul
> > had presented himself as having a PhD, completely independent from the
> > website claims. What do you hope to ask Paul that would settle the
> > issue?> -- Jerry Spinrad
>
> I asked him a question he could answer, which was what education he had. I
> am SO SORRY that that is not a scandalous way to ask the question - but you
> know, I don't get off on it as much as some evidently do.
You know, it's funny how for years, Dr. Phil IM Innes
carried on about Tyler Kingstone's inability to get tough
in an interview, about his lacking the courage to stick
it to an interviewee... And now this! Having been
requested *in advance* to clear up the matter regarding
holding of PhDs, our Dr. Phil nearly-an-IM Innes has not
the guts to slam-dunk the matter himself. Are we now
supposed to be surprised? Is this supposed to come
off as a black swan, a crazy fluke of an inconsistency?
Um, no. It is, in fact, a perfect match to the overall
pattern we have seen in nearly-IMnes' behavior here
(not to mention elsewhere, forsooth!).
As with so many other wannabees, the man /talks/ a
good game, but he cannot really /play/.
-- help bot
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
> jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
> >around this time, Truong started attacking the
> >USCF board. By this time, it is very clear that
> >the interests of the USCF and Truong are not
> >the same.
>
> Not necessarily. It is possible for the board of an
> organization to not be working for the best interests
> of that organization and for someone attacking that
> board to be doing so in the best interests of the
> organization.
The statement that the interests of the USCF and Truong were different
by this time follows from the whole previous history, not just the
final straw of Truong attacking the board. It comes from the fact that
the lawyers for the USCF felt that there was a strong case against
Truong, and that instead of cooperating with the lawyers to try to
make the case that he was innocent, he started attacking the process.
Truong continued to treat the case as if it was a frivolous suit that
he did not have to answer seriously. Since the serious allegations in
the suit are against Truong rather than the USCF itself (frankly, I do
not see why the USCF was named at all in the suit), I think the USCF
was completely correct to try to separate itself from Truong with
regard to the lawsuit when he did not give immediate and full
cooperation.
Jerry Spinrad
Mike Murray
wrote:
Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
Mike Murray commented:
>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
>> First, even if what the FSS wrote was intended as satire, even if you
>> and other cognoscenti can tell it was satire, he was not ACCUSED of
>> satire. He was ACCUSED of impersonation, slander and other acts. Get
>> it now?
And, now, Phil helplessly "shrugs",
>Are you asking me to agree with some point I didn't make above, Mike? I said
>I could usually tell the FSS from the real Sloan. And I believe you are
>making another point on the nature of the accusation.<shrug>.
Mike made another comment
>> Second, "word-perfect american diction, without error" is simply not
>> relevant.
And Phil complained
>Not relevant to whom? The falsity of your writing is that it avoids sentence
>structure, like subject, verb, object.
Now this refuge in grammar is about as secure as the home of the First
Little Pig. But then, maybe Phil's been spending too much time
reading Andean. The object is evident from context, the same way it
would be if I said, "The FSS is not nice", or "Neil is not fat". Would
Phil then complain about a missing object?
Rob
> (frankly, I do not see why the USCF was named at all in the suit), I think the >USCF
> was completely correct to try to separate itself from Truong with
> regard to the lawsuit when he did not give immediate and full
> cooperation.
Hi Jerry,
from my point of view the reason to mane the organization is two fold:
1. to punish the USCF board who would not do what Sloan wanted
2. because thats where the big insurance money is
Sue everyone and hope that some insurance company simply settles.
The reason the insurance company has not probably offered a settlement
is the feel the suit isn't winable by Sloan; and they arrive at that
conclusion because he cannot find councel to represent him even on a
contingency basis.
Rob
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
> <Snipped for clarity>
>
> > (frankly, I do not see why the USCF was named at all in the suit), I think the >USCF
> > was completely correct to try to separate itself from Truong with
> > regard to the lawsuit when he did not give immediate and full
> > cooperation.
>
> Hi Jerry,
> from my point of view the reason to mane the organization is two fold:
> 1. to punish the USCF board who would not do what Sloan wanted
> 2. because thats where the big insurance money is
>
> Sue everyone and hope that some insurance company simply settles.
Actually, I wonder whether Sam would comment on why the USCF is named.
I cannot always guess his motivations; they mix what seems very
reasonable and what seems very strange.
>
> The reason the insurance company has not probably offered a settlement
> is the feel the suit isn't winable by Sloan; and they arrive at that
> conclusion because he cannot find councel to represent him even on a
> contingency basis.
> Rob
Here I think you misinterpret what was happened. Sam never sought a
lawyer, nor would he. He has great belief in his own legal ability,
whether or not this is justified.
As to reasons for lack of settlements, it depends on the party. I
don't think anyone except for Truong is really worried about the suit,
because they are not culpable for the fact that someone else was
sending messages.
As for Truong, if he is innocent, he wouldn't want to settle; he would
want his name cleared. If he is guilty, he wouldn't want to settle; he
would want the suit thrown out on technical grounds (which remains a
serious possibility) without ever having to make any admission of
guilt which Sloan would demand as part of any settlement.
I am sure that Sloan could get a lawyer on this if he wanted. No
matter whether you believe in Truong's guilt or innocence, the reports
by experts make a strong case. The real question is what damages he
could expect, but I think that some lawyer would like to take a fling
on it, as there are some interesting legal points.
Of course, if he were willing to actually pay a lawyer, it would be
easy to get one. I am sad to say that I know of cases of lawyers
taking money from a paranoid schizophrenic to pursue the "case"
against mysterious persecutors. Having actual expert reports
supporting his side is much more than you would need to get a lawyer
to file suits.
Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
Chess One
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:58050ea4-9c74-4567...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 9:17 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> > <Who will you ask about Truong's PhD claims? Paul was asked and denied
>> > ever making claims of a PhD, and that what was on his website was
>> > mysteriously hacked into it. Other people then volunteered that Paul
>> > had presented himself as having a PhD, completely independent from the
>> > website claims. What do you hope to ask Paul that would settle the
>> > issue?> -- Jerry Spinrad
>>
>> I asked him a question he could answer, which was what education he had.
>> I
>> am SO SORRY that that is not a scandalous way to ask the question - but
>> you
>> know, I don't get off on it as much as some evidently do.
>
>
> You know, it's funny how for years, Dr. Phil IM Innes
> carried on about Tyler Kingstone's inability to get tough
> in an interview, about his lacking the courage to stick
> it to an interviewee... And now this! Having been
> requested *in advance* to clear up the matter regarding
> holding of PhDs, our Dr. Phil nearly-an-IM Innes has not
> the guts to slam-dunk the matter himself.
Greg Kennedy who has not the guts to sign his own name, nor even admit his
name, regrets that I asked precisely what educational and business level
achievements Paul Truong held.
In his own corn-cob way, asking the question and obtaining an answer, is not
to have 'guts', in his own gutless opinion.
Except now the answer is clearly established. There is no spin present, and
a straight question obtained a straight answer. What a novelty!
Kennedy, the cudda bin a C player! Doesn't like questions which simple bring
forth the truth - and he should join those others who prefer a National
Inquirer kinda approach, which is to laud a few, blame many, speculate very
much. But truth?
<guffaw>
De nada of truth. I do not apologise for not following that standard, and so
it seems to me, and my mailbag, neither does the general public. That is,
those with the balls to sign their names and own their opinions.
> Are we now
> supposed to be surprised?
"We"?
> Is this supposed to come
> off as a black swan, a crazy fluke of an inconsistency?
> Um, no. It is, in fact, a perfect match to the overall
> pattern we have seen in nearly-IMnes' behavior here
> (not to mention elsewhere, forsooth!).
>
> As with so many other wannabees, the man /talks/ a
> good game, but he cannot really /play/.
If you want to play at truth I suggest to you that you do not indulge your
cowardly self in sniping and blaming. If, of course, you want to play chess,
shut your huge mouth and do it. <shrug>
That is the state of play, corn-fed, and just a few people think otherwise,
and they write here, sometimes signing their own names, since nowhere else
do their completely indecent speculations appear. Nowhere at all since all
other people rejected them.
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
help bot
Our Dr. Phil nearly-IMnes seems to have gotten
lost somewhere along his merry way; the above
observations related to his cowardly avoidance in
not sticking it to his *interviewee*; nothing was
stated with regard to his propensity to wallow in
ad hominem, which is a different matter entirely.
-- help bot
Chess One
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:10:40 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>
>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> Mike Murray commented:
>
>>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>
> Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
Patient Mike? Mike Murray is a hot-headed judgemental sort of bloke who does
not need to hear all of anything to make his pronouncements - like Spinrad
and the whine-Judge - and who cannot own his own opinions, but is all to
ready to tells others what theirs should be, or mocks them, 50 times.
Patient Mike?
Murray can't even understand English and in his previous post converted
'mostly' to 'all' without a blush and with no apology - in fact, with this
level of open lying and self-deceit, is it any wonder he is confused?
This dunce of a person thinks he should be telling other people their
opinions all the time or he has some right to do so - whereas I say let it
all out and let people make up their own minds. Murray's problem is that he
doesn't understand much, and thinks that is other people's problem. <wink>
Meanwhile he will trash whoever he wants, using directly perceivable lies,
as in the above, because 'patient' Mike is hooter than hell! He even sais
that "sometimes" /he/ can tell the FSS from the real Sloan, he denies I can
do it more than he, therefore I don't exist or my opinion is less than his
or "something", and this is my problem... :)))
The most interesting thing about the whole affair is yet to be written, but
for damn sure it won't be written by those people who continue to argue
without admitting they want to know all of it. It is on-its-face idiocy,
small minded, mean, and truly stupid.
These people don't want to know everything. They continuously and despertely
deny and put down any other point of view. And they are so certain of
themselves they have to do so all the time.
ROFL!
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
"jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu" <jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu>
wrote:
> (frankly, I do not see why the USCF was named at all in the suit),
My guess is that Sam believes the FSS posts cost him his re-election,
and going after PT alone wouldn't do much about forcing a rerun. He
may also have believed the only way to goad the rest of the USCF board
out of inaction was to include 'em in the suit. A former in-law of
mine used this technique in pursuing medical malpractice suits, back
in the bad old days when doctors had a code of omerta against
testifying against other doctors. He sued *everybody*, nurses,
orderlies, administrators, janitors, connected with the patient --
they'd testify against the quacks when their own assets were on the
line.
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>> Mike Murray commented:
>>>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>> Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
>Patient Mike? Mike Murray is a hot-headed judgemental sort of bloke who does
>not need to hear all of anything to make his pronouncements - like Spinrad
>and the whine-Judge - and who cannot own his own opinions, but is all to
>ready to tells others what theirs should be, or mocks them, 50 times...
<remaining blather snipped>
As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
smokescreen.
Again, Phil, you said "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much
impersonating, but satirizing another Board member," which is
patently untrue. He has not been accused of satirizing. You were
caught, and now you're ducking and dodging.
Let's have you admit your error on this point before we address other
issues, shall we? Come on, Phil, 'fess up. It would be good for
your soul (and, Lord knows, it needs some goodness after that
miserable excuse for an "interview" -- maybe the Reverend Walker will
sell you an indulgence -- better make it a double plenary).
help bot
> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
> published athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
One curious remark by PT is that he is a USCF
Life Master; checking at the official Web site of
that organization, I found that his rating floor is
2100. How can this be? Should not a lifer be
supported by a floor of 2200? I know that as a
life Class C player, I can never drop lower than
1400, because if I did, I would then be a Class
D player, right?
So, I am reading along, noting a few (not many)
spelling errors, when all of a sudden in breaks
this guy claiming to be the editor! Huh? Where
was he when the spelling mistakes sneaked by?
Where was he then, eh? (See below.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10) You, and Susan Polgar, have also questioned
the basis of relationships surrounding USCF in
terms of contractual responsibilities, and
performance issues by contractors. [Editor: see,
e.g., USCF's Book & Equipment Deal with Chess
Cafe.] Can you describe what concerns you most
in these respects?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsurprisingly, the dynamic duo of PT and SP
complain of not having sufficient votes to get
things done, to overcome the powers that be in
the USCF. How many times did I mention this
with regard to Sam Sloan already? Mr. Sloan
complained of not being able to overcome the
evil henchmen of BG or whoever, and wanted a
fellow officer to "help him"; this was quickly met
by me pointing out that even with *two* votes,
the Sloan duo would be vastly outnumbered.
Some folks are just slow learners, I guess... .
A bit further down, PT is called "arguably the
best chess promoter the USCF ever had"; what
is the source of this claim? On what is it based?
Has Dr. Phil IMnes forgotten about the work
done by Ed Edmondson, by chance? The man
who got BF the world title. Here is what PT
himself has stated: "Even when I proposed
Marketing and PR ideas, no one cared." Does
that sound like the /best/ the USCF has ever
had? Or more like the worst?
At the bottom, PT himself raises the question
of integrity; all one can say is that the SP Web
site indicates a complete and utter lack thereof;
it is filled to overflowing with ridiculous lies and
false pretensions. To match the ludicrous
claims on that site, Bobby Fischer would have
to undergo a sex-change operation and then
enter numerous competitions-- and stay in top
form!
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
In February, March and April 1988 of Chess Life, Larry Evans' long 3-
part interview called MY DINNER WITH CAMPO was the toughest one I ever
published during my tenure. At one point Campo howled, "Did Parr put
you up to asking THAT question?!"
In began on page 40 of Chess Life, February 1988: "Since I am a
frequent critic of FIDE and its president Florencio Campomanes,
imagine my surprise upon hearing this message on my telephone
answering machine: "This is Campomanes, I am in Los Angeles, and I
thought I'd go over to Reno and have a chat with you, if that's
possible." It was. And on the evening of September 22, 1987, he
bravely defended his record in a three hour tape-recorded interview,
which has of necessity been edited down to a manageable length.
In the January and February issues of Chess Life several politicians
and journalists have gone at each other -- with the FIDE president
serving as one of their bones of chess contention. Here the reader may
judge for himself whether Mr. Campomanes answers my questions
straightforwardly or whether he equivocates and evades those
questions.
Evans: Some of these questions I've been asked to put to you by the
editor of Chess Life. I hope that you don't take offense at any of
them.
Campo: Oh, you told him that you were going to see me?
Evans: Yes. I told him that you were coming to see me. Do you have any
objections?
Campo:You must tell me which of the questions he asked. Can you do
that?
Evans: Well, I'll try as we go along....
Brian Lafferty
Better to nail him to a church door like Martin Luther did with his thesis.
Mike Murray
<nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 7:21 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
>> published athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
> One curious remark by PT is that he is a USCF
>Life Master; checking at the official Web site of
>that organization, I found that his rating floor is
>2100. How can this be? Should not a lifer be
>supported by a floor of 2200?
Your comment inspired me to look at the crosstable for the Spice Cup
tournament that was played in November of 2007. It shows PT equal
First with 5-0. I don't understand this tournament.. After beating
a 1429 in the first round and a 1739 in the second, PT evidently got
full point byes in rounds 3 and 4, then finished round 5 paired with
an unrated who had 2 wins, 1 loss and a draw. After winning, PT had a
5-0 score.
Mr. Bot, drawing on your depth of GetClub experience, maybe you can
clarify this for me.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200711110231-12123950
Mike Murray
<blaf...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Come on, Phil, 'fess up. It would be good for
>> your soul (and, Lord knows, it needs some goodness after that
>> miserable excuse for an "interview" -- maybe the Reverend Walker will
>> sell you an indulgence -- better make it a double plenary).
>Better to nail him to a church door like Martin Luther did with his thesis.
Reconsecrating a building is expensive these days. Anyway, a wooden
door might catch fire.
help bot
> THE TOUGHEST INTERVIEW
There is a BIG difference between interviewing
an arch-enemy and what our Dr. Phil IMnes did.
(Also, at that time, CL had a real editor, whereas
Dr. IM Innes cannot spell to save his own life.)
First of all, nearly-IMnes seemed to tweak many
of his questions to slant in favor of the PT/SP duo,
deliberately. Secondly, I seriously doubt that while
Larry Evans was interviewing FC, he stopped to
allow the latter to rant and rave much, the way PT
was allowed -- even encouraged -- to regarding
Sam Sloan (the unnamed sex maniac).
What I noticed was the many inconsistencies;
for instance, where PT boldly stated that SP
*always* put chess first-- after having just finished
telling us that she put chess aside in favor of
being a good mother-- that sort of thing.
Another thing I noted was the many attempts by
the "interviewer" to put words -- even ideas -- into
the mouthes of his interviewees; for instance, where
Dr. IMnes whiffed in trying to get PT to take up
the cause of ousting the current FIDE president.
This is remarkably similar to the many idiocies of
Taylor Kingston, in his interviews. (Why are such
attempts disguised as such, as "interviews", I
wonder.)
At one point, marketer/promoter Paul Truong
tossed out a claim to do something "150%", and
this struck a familiar chord; the Susan Polgar
Web site appears to exaggerate just about every
thing she ever did (and some things she has not
done) by at least that much! I suppose that to
some people, this sort of thing is just routine
"marketing"; to me, it shows an appalling lack of
integrity. Amazingly, PT had the gall to boast
about the integrity of the dynamic duo, in spite of
the obvious lack thereof.
In sum, what Larry Evans did is not comparable
to whatever it was that Phillip IMnes was trying
to do. One similarity, perhaps, is that both
interviewees were born in the Philippines. And
another is that both PT and Mr. Campomanes
were/are FIDE masters.
-- help bot
Chess One
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:40:10 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>
>>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
>>> Mike Murray commented:
>
>>>>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>>>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>>>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>
>>> Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
>
>>Patient Mike? Mike Murray is a hot-headed judgemental sort of bloke who
>>does
>>not need to hear all of anything to make his pronouncements - like Spinrad
>>and the whine-Judge - and who cannot own his own opinions, but is all to
>>ready to tells others what theirs should be, or mocks them, 50 times...
>
> <remaining blather snipped>
>
> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
> smokescreen.
A 'smokescreen' so important, it has to be snipped! ROFL! You would almost
think Mike was avoiding the fact that I just caught him making up my opinion
for me, which was plainly different than the thing I wrote. ;)
As to the degree that you can tell the FSS from Sloan, you yourself said
'some'. I can tell 'some' too. Not 'all' as /you/ wrote - since otherwise
there would be nothing to whine about for you would there?
And when I catch you lying yet again about what I wrote you say that is
blather.
Let me not detain myself further on what you continue to suppose about
people, when you are content to lie in public as you have, then dismiss
noticing your own behavior as 'blather' while pretending you are after some
truth.
I DO understand that /your/ point is about what my interviewee is 'accused
of', and you must pardon me for mention what I personally could tell of the
FSS material and for saying so since I raised this topic.
That you wish to change the topic, and of course you do, then let people
understand that /you/ write about accusations and I write what is evident,
which I think is rather how any courtroom will assess things.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
>> smokescreen.
>A 'smokescreen' so important, it has to be snipped! ROFL! You would almost
>think Mike was avoiding the fact that I just caught him making up my opinion
>for me, which was plainly different than the thing I wrote. ;)
>As to the degree that you can tell the FSS from Sloan, you yourself said
>'some'. I can tell 'some' too. Not 'all' as /you/ wrote - since otherwise
>there would be nothing to whine about for you would there?
We will address this in due time, Phil.
But, first, I want you to admit your error in declaring that Truong
was (and I quote) "accused of not as much impersonating, but
satirizing another Board member".
Do you agree that he was NOT accused of satirizing another Board
member?
Baby steps, Phil. Baby steps. Admitting fallibility is not all that
frightening. Ask the Pope....uh, well, OK, ask the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
Chess One
> On Mar 4, 6:00 pm, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>> THE TOUGHEST INTERVIEW
>
> There is a BIG difference between interviewing
> an arch-enemy and what our Dr. Phil IMnes did.
> (Also, at that time, CL had a real editor, whereas
> Dr. IM Innes cannot spell to save his own life.)
Great start by 'objective' Kennedy. I wonder where he is going with this?
> First of all, nearly-IMnes seemed to tweak many
> of his questions to slant in favor of the PT/SP duo,
> deliberately.
O dear! I need my own decoder ring.
> Secondly, I seriously doubt that while
> Larry Evans was interviewing FC, he stopped to
> allow the latter to rant and rave much, the way PT
> was allowed -- even encouraged -- to regarding
> Sam Sloan (the unnamed sex maniac).
I don't seem to remember asking any questions about sex mania, or maniacs.
Neither did my Interviewee. Perhaps Greg Kennedy has paraphrased something?
The point of referencing Sloan's character seems to follow this comment:-
Everyone can judge Mr. Sloan's credibility for themselves. This was one of
his statements in his filing: "Prior to the start of this disinformation
campaign, Sam Sloan enjoyed a sterling reputation as an investigative
reporter and was held in the highest regard by the World Chess Community."
And readers here can assess if Sam Sloan has actually a sterling reputation,
and is also held not just in high regard, but the highest by the World Chess
Community.
I suppose that anyone who actually cared to read what my interviewee said,
they could also comment on that - but seems to me that Kennedy is proposing
to readers here that my encouragment came from this, rather anodyne,
questions
"Several things then happened all at once in the Summer of 2007, including
you becoming accused of not as much impersonating, but satirizing another
Board member, Mr. Sam Sloan, resulting in a civil suit brought against you
and fellow Board members by Mr. Sloan."
> What I noticed was the many inconsistencies;
> for instance, where PT boldly stated that SP
> *always* put chess first-- after having just finished
> telling us that she put chess aside in favor of
> being a good mother-- that sort of thing.
Kennedy cannot grasp something here about the context of a remark, ie, that
it is personal gain and political power that is not seconded to chess.
> Another thing I noted was the many attempts by
> the "interviewer" to put words -- even ideas -- into
> the mouthes of his interviewees; for instance, where
> Dr. IMnes whiffed in trying to get PT to take up
> the cause of ousting the current FIDE president.
I will let Kennedy explain his own comment there, since deposing Kirsan
doesn't seem to be any question I asked.
> This is remarkably similar to the many idiocies of
> Taylor Kingston, in his interviews. (Why are such
> attempts disguised as such, as "interviews", I
> wonder.)
You would wonder - but there is a reason for that. [hint] its not about
other people.
> At one point, marketer/promoter Paul Truong
> tossed out a claim to do something "150%", and
> this struck a familiar chord; the Susan Polgar
> Web site appears to exaggerate just about every
> thing she ever did (and some things she has not
> done) by at least that much! I suppose that to
> some people, this sort of thing is just routine
> "marketing"; to me, it shows an appalling lack of
> integrity. Amazingly, PT had the gall to boast
> about the integrity of the dynamic duo, in spite of
> the obvious lack thereof.
In spite of hyperbole? What a source for such a criticism. This is the guy
who can't even write his own name, and always sends others up, doesn't
matter if he knows better or not. He is a bitter creature, who cudda bin a c
player. And, in sympathy, that is a bloody awful state indeed. Though, if he
didn't write here, and actually played the game against all the cheats out
there, he actually could become a c player!
But he is too pround to learn. Argue for your limitations, and they shall be
yours!
> In sum, what Larry Evans did is not comparable
> to whatever it was that Phillip IMnes was trying
> to do.
I don't think so either!
> One similarity, perhaps, is that both
> interviewees were born in the Philippines.
Foriegn boogers?
> And
> another is that both PT and Mr. Campomanes
> were/are FIDE masters.
Which is, to any newcomer to chess, much better than almost a c player.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
Do you think your posts make me *MORE* or *LESS* likely to ever consider any
kind of settlement over what happened to ME?
I'll help you out: if your goal is to help the defense, you're failing.
"Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i6ydneD3u_C9c1Pa...@comcast.com...
help bot
> > First of all, nearly-IMnes seemed to tweak many
> > of his questions to slant in favor of the PT/SP duo,
> > deliberately.
>
> O dear! I need my own decoder ring.
Already an example of this was hammered away
at by Mike Murray; the nearly-IMnes tweaked his
questions to slant toward "satire", which of course
is no crime worthy of any lawsuit by the sinister
Sam Sloan.
BTW, I have no problem with that interpretation,
insofar as the FSS postings were humorous. But
some folks interpreted them as more-- much more.
> > Secondly, I seriously doubt that while
> > Larry Evans was interviewing FC, he stopped to
> > allow the latter to rant and rave much, the way PT
> > was allowed -- even encouraged -- to regarding
> > Sam Sloan (the unnamed sex maniac).
>
> I don't seem to remember asking any questions about sex mania, or maniacs.
Can the fibrous mass of tissue calling itself
nearly-IMnes' brain recognize or recall the
ranting and raving itself? While not allowed
to actually name the sex-crazy loon, PT had
plenty to say and was allowed plenty of
opportunity to say it regarding his adversary.
I somehow doubt that Larry Evans managed
to "edit in" any such ravings by his interviewee.
Space is limited, you know (especially when
convenient).
> Everyone can judge Mr. Sloan's credibility for themselves. This was one of
> his statements in his filing: "Prior to the start of this disinformation
> campaign, Sam Sloan enjoyed a sterling reputation as an investigative
> reporter and was held in the highest regard by the World Chess Community."
>
> And readers here can assess if Sam Sloan has actually a sterling reputation,
> and is also held not just in high regard, but the highest by the World Chess
> Community.
>
> I suppose that anyone who actually cared to read what my interviewee said,
> they could also comment on that
Apparently, the nearly-IMnes has not been
paying attention; I myself have written much
the same criticism -- right here in rgc -- long
ago. I also preempted PT's commentary
regarding the duo's inability to get things
done (or to get their own way) with only two
votes. It's all in the archives, dude! This was
back when Mr. Sloan was whining about BG
seemingly having control on every vote, via
his drones; he wanted a second "helper" vote,
which, again, would not be nearly enough.
Here-- call this number; Bill Goichberg will
explain how /he/ runs things... .
> > Another thing I noted was the many attempts by
> > the "interviewer" to put words -- even ideas -- into
> > the mouthes of his interviewees; for instance, where
> > Dr. IMnes whiffed in trying to get PT to take up
> > the cause of ousting the current FIDE president.
>
> I will let Kennedy explain his own comment there, since deposing Kirsan
> doesn't seem to be any question I asked.
I think this statement reveals a lot about the
um, state of Dr. Phil IMnes' mind; if he can't
even recall what he wrote -- and published --,
how can such a man be expected to have a
/rational/ discussion of it? A: Obviously, he
can't.
> > This is remarkably similar to the many idiocies of
> > Taylor Kingston, in his interviews. (Why are such
> > attempts disguised as such, as "interviews", I
> > wonder.)
>
> You would wonder - but there is a reason for that. [hint] its not about
> other people.
Personally, I would prefer such nonsense to be
presented as the opinion of the authors them-
selves; you know-- /honestly/. I don't like these
sneaky attempts to foist words and ideas into
the unsuspecting mouthes of others, in a vain
attempt to lend them some sort of credibility
they are sorely lacking otherwise. The method
tells us what sort of evil scum we are dealing
with, it is true; but why mix /that/ up with ideas
which may warrant real examination? I just wish
these buffoons had the guts to stand behind their
own ideas, behind what they pretend to believe in;
like in the movie High Noon, where Gary Cooper
has to stand alone. Courage seems to be in very
short supply with these interviewer types.
> > One similarity, perhaps, is that both
> > interviewees were born in the Philippines.
>
> Foriegn boogers?
Nonsense; the USA invaded that country,
just like all the others. Right now there is a
set limit of fifty states, but just you wait... .
> Which is, to any newcomer to chess, much better than almost a c player.
Technically speaking, a nearly-a-C-player
is a Class D player. That's why I still don't
understand why you nearly-IMs can't grok
that you are nothing more than ego-maniac
FMs, who just happen to be rated 2450.
Until you can *earn* the IM title by defeating
a real IM in a match, just accept what you
are, like I do. May I suggest playing Ed
Formanek? (Stay away from IMs like that
Gata whatsisname-- they are still improving.)
-- help bot
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
> insofar as the FSS postings were humorous. But
> some folks interpreted them as more-- much more.
"some folks" = folks who were actually impersonated.
In my case, the FRG made threats to third parties in my name, and targeted
others, with an aim to getting the others to retaliate.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
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?
Chess One
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:01:51 -0500, "Chess One" <OneC...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
>>> smokescreen.
>
>>A 'smokescreen' so important, it has to be snipped! ROFL! You would almost
>>think Mike was avoiding the fact that I just caught him making up my
>>opinion
>>for me, which was plainly different than the thing I wrote. ;)
>
>>As to the degree that you can tell the FSS from Sloan, you yourself said
>>'some'. I can tell 'some' too. Not 'all' as /you/ wrote - since otherwise
>>there would be nothing to whine about for you would there?
>
> We will address this in due time, Phil.
Something wrong with admitting you lied, right now? Did I say all or not?
And how come you say I said all, as if mere lying without apology or any
sense that that is amiss, is just OK stuff in your investigation?
You see, if you cannot even understand plain English, and willingly twist
it, what "We" [ROFL] will address in time is utter nonsense. You are exposed
here Murray. Nothing else needs be declared to you since you are patently
insincere. [that means; dishonest]
> But, first, I want you to admit your error in declaring that Truong
> was (and I quote) "accused of not as much impersonating, but
> satirizing another Board member".
>
> Do you agree that he was NOT accused of satirizing another Board
> member?
I already stated that that was /your/ accusation. I also stated it was not
what I asked, and I could tell the difference not 'some' but 'most' of the
time. But you cut that, didn't you Murray, as if I had not said it. What an
honest broker! [lol]
So attend to your self Murray, and stop asking people about what they didn't
say, or making it up for them.
What an arrogant cod's piece you are to try to gloss your self this way -
and cut away such comments as if no one notices! Gawd!
Phil Innes
Chess One
Do you think your questions make any sense to me?
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:VrWdnZCIkIQmaVPa...@pghconnect.com...
You don't even write about chess, but you think I am trying to impress
/you?/
R
O
F
L
!
You are rather litigious sort of person, no? Are you scared of some
consequence so that you suggest [to me] some 'settlement'?
What a prima-donna thou art!
Phil Innes
Chess One
> On Mar 5, 2:24 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > First of all, nearly-IMnes seemed to tweak many
>> > of his questions to slant in favor of the PT/SP duo,
>> > deliberately.
>>
>> O dear! I need my own decoder ring.
>
> Already an example of this was hammered away
> at by Mike Murray; the nearly-IMnes tweaked his
> questions to slant toward "satire", which of course
> is no crime worthy of any lawsuit by the sinister
> Sam Sloan.
Help-bot, who can't write his own name, can't even write his own assessment.
Can he tell the FSS for the real Sloan, will anyone ever know? The
soap-erama continues!
But Help-not is not here for that, he justs wants to mouth off at other
people's expence [any exceptions?] - in fact, at most other people's
expense, especially better players than himself, or peolpe who inform
themselves.
Help-sot should call the National Inquirer and make his views plain. They
like people like him, pay them for their views! And thank their stars there
are people out there who will entertain their readers, cheaper than you
could make it up.
Excuse me while others talk of 'tweaking' whatever that means. Maybe it
means the same as Murray's 'some'. Like I can tell some and not some, doh!
Phil Innes
help bot
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> > BTW, I have no problem with that interpretation,
> > insofar as the FSS postings were humorous. But
> > some folks interpreted them as more-- much more.
>
> "some folks" = folks who were actually impersonated.
>
> In my case, the FRG made threats to third parties in my name, and targeted
> others, with an aim to getting the others to retaliate.
Well, I can think of worse things; for instance, an
insane fellow called Skippy Repa has repeatedly
"threatened" to travel from his asylum down to the
USA, to beat everybody who posts here up. Now,
after waiting um-teen months (years?) for him to
finally show up, I find that my kung fu lessons are
nothing but a waste of time (which could have been
spent, say, learning the Two Knights Tango
opening). (Oh well-- at least I can now walk on
rice paper without leaving any trace... .)
-- help bot
Mike Murray
wrote:
>>>>> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
>>>> smokescreen.
>>>A 'smokescreen' so important, it has to be snipped! ROFL! You would almost
>>>think Mike was avoiding the fact that I just caught him making up my
>>>opinion for me, which was plainly different than the thing I wrote. ;)
Maybe your opinion was different than the thing you wrote. We'd
accept that, I suppose.
>>>As to the degree that you can tell the FSS from Sloan, you yourself said
>>>'some'. I can tell 'some' too. Not 'all' as /you/ wrote - since otherwise
>>>there would be nothing to whine about for you would there?
>
>> We will address this in due time, Phil.
>... Did I say all or not?
We're not talking about telling the FSS from the RSS right now, Phil.
First, you have to fess up about your error on "satirizing". One
thing at a time.
You see, Phil, when you get caught, you start flinging about issue
after issue, trying to obscure things. We're not going to let you get
away with it this time.
>> But, first, I want you to admit your error in declaring that Truong
>> was (and I quote) "accused of not as much impersonating, but
>> satirizing another Board member".
>> Do you agree that he was NOT accused of satirizing another Board
>> member?
>I already stated that that was /your/ accusation. I also stated it was not
>what I asked, and I could tell the difference not 'some' but 'most' of the
>time. But you cut that, didn't you Murray, as if I had not said it. What an
>honest broker! [lol]
We weren't talking about telling the FSS from the RSS "all of the
time" or "most of the time. We're talking satire. I know it's
confusing for you to stay on topic. Here's what you said:
>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
Phil, this was what you said about satirizing. I don't see anything
in the question about "most of the time" or "some of the time". Do
you?
>What an arrogant cod's piece you are to try to gloss your self this way -
>and cut away such comments as if no one notices! Gawd!
Some named "P Innes" calling another person a codpiece! Gawd!
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Excuse me while others talk of 'tweaking' whatever that means. Maybe it
>means the same as Murray's 'some'. Like I can tell some and not some, doh!
In the case of your interview, Phil, it's flotsam and jetsam.
And it's spelled "duh", not "doh", unless you meant "dough" and were
trying to get a rise out of us... or 'fessing up to accepting a bribe
or something.
help bot
> > Already an example of this was hammered away
> > at by Mike Murray; the nearly-IMnes tweaked his
> > questions to slant toward "satire", which of course
> > is no crime worthy of any lawsuit by the sinister
> > Sam Sloan.
>
> Help-bot, who can't write his own name
Nearly-IMness feels a need to change the
subject, for some reason.
> can't even write his own assessment.
Two seconds ago, the creature known as
Poor Innes complained it could not grok my
meaning without a magic decoder ring; now it
complains that I have given an example,
rather than an overall assessment of some
sort. I am left wondering if the creature has
any intelligence at all, beyond emulating the
human ability to write.
> Can he tell the FSS for the real Sloan, will anyone ever know?
Interesting aside; aside from what we had
been discussing, that is. Once again, a
desperate need to change the subject
appears from out of nowhere.
> But Help-not is not here for that, he justs wants to mouth off at other
> people's expence
Expense. Ex pence is the Andean term for
"from money", as in "ex pence non derrivido
lotsasex" (literally, from money is not derived
happiness).
Anyway, back to the subject the creature
is desperately trying to avoid discussing; I
believe we were talking about the tweaking
of interview questions such as to avoid
getting tough with the interviewee. Now, as
I see it, there is nothing wrong with Nearly's
easy-does-it approach, apart from its very
obvious contrast to the approach formerly
preached by Dr. IMnes to Taylor Kingston.
You know, where the creature expounded
on how TK was so horrible to not crack the
whip and make the interviewee pay for
some past crimes of which he had been
accused. Apart from this titanic hypocrisy
on nearly-IMnes' part, I see nothing wrong
with his soft, mushy approach.
But where I do see a problem is in these
two (both nearly-IMnes and Taylor Kingston)
dishonestly attempting to pry and force
words and ideas into the mouthes of their
victims-- ah, interviewees. This sort of
nonsense needs to stop; just learn to be a
man, and write your opinions in an op ed
piece, under your own name, taking upon
yourselves the manly responsibility for what
you think. It's not that hard, really. Give
decency a try; who knows-- you might even
like it.
-- help bot
johnny_t
Bad grammar flame. Doh is a widely accepted and understood exclamation...
See
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> And it's spelled "duh", not "doh", unless you meant "dough" and were
>> trying to get a rise out of us... or 'fessing up to accepting a bribe
>> or something.
>Bad grammar flame. Doh is a widely accepted and understood exclamation...
>See
>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Doh
I stand corrected. Need to update my Homer Simpson repertoire.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
Depends on the intelligence of the reader.
> You don't even write about chess,
That's a lie.
>but you think I am trying to impress /you?/
Please tell me he's not THAT far down the food chain that he doesn't
undertand that the more he attacks or trivializes what happens, the LESS
likely I become to being willing to mitigate it.
Perhaps he doesn't give a shit about that, or simply doesn't understand how
counterproductive he's being towards his rather obvious goal, assuming (and
that may be a lot) that his behavior is in fact goal-oriented.
In other words, in the course of defending the HOT, he's making statements
which increase the need for me to see this through to a trial
help bot
> I can see how you may not see the connections. Let me state for the
> record, I do not know who is or is not the FSS. It is my opinion and
> belief it is not Paul Truong.
Even if the FSS was not PT, you still have the
fact that SP's Web site is filled to overflowing
with lies and fabrications. Mr. Truong brags
about his "marketing" experience, and the
finger points directly his way.
Every time Dr. Phil IMnes asked a (very)
complicated question, PT responded by just
ignoring the question and saying what a low
scum politician might say: some generality
to the effect that he (or SP) was a great
whatever who was going to do great things
for chess. But then he turned around and
admitted that all his suggestions were
dismissed outright, because BG and his
cronies run the show. In sum, all blow and
no go.
> In this case of the FSS we have a "perfect storm". You have someone
> who made money off the USCF, this person authorized a contractor to
> the USCF to violate their NDA, the same person/persons colluded to
> leak information to damage their intended targets, next these same
> persons attempted to deny their targets due process.
Okay, but you have not presented *any*
evidence to support this; you need to
demonstrate that the FSS was BG or
Mr. Mot.
> Lest too much be made of things there are many reasons other law firms
> may be involved in defending the board and Mr Truong. Not the least of
> which may be the insurance companies determination that the Mr. Truong
> may have a ligitimate claim that can be filed against the other
> members of the board for impropriaty which would mean that there would
> be a conflict of interest.
>
> Why is all of this important? Because Mr. Truong was interested in
> cleaning up the nepotism and illegal funding activities in the USCF.
> Thats something that the powers that be could not allow to continue.
According to PT himself, he was powerless
to get anything passed thru the USCF due to
BG's Queen-advantage in the voting.
> This is the line in the law that could undo the USCF:
>
> "a nonprofit organization is not precluded from making a profit
> or engaging in profit-making activities. It is prohibited from
> passing
> along any profits to those individuals who control it, like founders,
> directors, officers, employees, and members."
That line never stopped anybody in the
USCF before. Why are things different
now? Is PT /talking/ about bringing the
whole thing down, /singlehandedly/? Is
this real, or is it Memorex? I see a whole
lotta *talk*, but then, that's what marketers
do, isn't it.
-- help bot
Chess One
a to e, and back again
>>I already stated that that was /your/ accusation. I also stated it was not
>>what I asked, and I could tell the difference not 'some' but 'most' of the
>>time. But you cut that, didn't you Murray, as if I had not said it. What
>>an
>>honest broker! [lol]
>
> We weren't talking about telling the FSS from the RSS "all of the
> time" or "most of the time. We're talking satire. I know it's
> confusing for you to stay on topic. Here's what you said:
>
>>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> Phil, this was what you said about satirizing. I don't see anything
> in the question about "most of the time" or "some of the time". Do
> you?
That was in reply to YOU. Do you see that - or are you confused again, and
making smoke? Just take it slow
a) I can tell satire from Sloan
b) most of the time
c) that is my topic
d) i don't who who 'we' are
e) you can tell the satire 'some' of the time
Did anything else happen?
Phil Innes
Chess One
And also to believe that I can identify more righteous American cant than
you can. PI
Chess One
>> Do you think your questions make any sense to me?
>>but you think I am trying to impress /you?/
>
> Please tell me he's not THAT far down the food chain that he doesn't
> undertand that the more he attacks or trivializes what happens, the LESS
> likely I become to being willing to mitigate it.
Is that an ANSWER to the question? You see Ray, I am starting to understand
how people are so angry and confused about these issues. I make a suggestion
below*, but there is no obligation to do anythng about it.
I said that I wondered if you thought that I was writing to convince you?
And ridicuously, you can't even understand that simple 9-word question ~ so!
I think that, by other means, you sort of answered anyway.
> Perhaps he doesn't give a shit about that, or simply doesn't understand
> how counterproductive he's being towards his rather obvious goal, assuming
> (and that may be a lot) that his behavior is in fact goal-oriented.
You talking about Capablanca or Obama?
> In other words, in the course of defending the HOT, he's making statements
> which increase the need for me to see this through to a trial
Thank you for sharing these interesting opinions, albeit a propos of
nothing.
I wonder a title called *29 Reasons Not To Be An Intelligent Guy would sell?
Man, if we ever interview I'll cut the normal 20 questions down to... maybe
just 1?
Phil Innes
nob...@home.com
Mike Murray wrote:
>
>johnny_t <nobo...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Doh is a widely accepted and understood exclamation...
>
>>See
>
>>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Doh
>
>I stand corrected. Need to update my Homer Simpson repertoire.
I prefer to use it this way:
D'oh!
This is, IMO, more Homer-Simpon-like. The exclamation
point, of course, because homer uses it as an exclamation.
The apostraphe because such exclamations are usually a
modification of a dirty word.
Chess One
Do not e-mail me about business which is public. Just speak your piece here
as you did before.
Journalism is a little understood practice, but it is a public one. If you
wish to make your views public evident, as your wrote to me in private,
re-state them here.
My job as journalist is not to change anyone's opinion.
It is to, at genius level of operation*, shift everyone from their
certainties for as much as 10 minutes of thought. Where people land from
that is not my business, not should it be.
The practice of journalism is to act as catalyst, not consultant. To
activate the reader, not anticipate them. To stimulate the topic, not whore
after any trophies.
Phil Innes
*so said Bron Waugh
help bot
> My job as journalist is not to change anyone's opinion.
>
> It is to, at genius level of operation*, shift everyone from their
> certainties for as much as 10 minutes of thought. Where people land from
> that is not my business, not should it be.
>
> The practice of journalism is to act as catalyst, not consultant. To
> activate the reader, not anticipate them. To stimulate the topic, not whore
> after any trophies.
It's a shame that many of those who /call
themselves/ journalists do just the opposite.
For instance, Larry Evans is one of the most
opinionated writers I've ever seen. He not only
fails the above test regarding shifting away from
"certainties", but he sets the standard by which
other writers can be judged in that respect. Far
from promoting discussion of various ideas, this
type of writer has already made up his mind, and
is anything BUT open to "stimulating" intelligent
discussion.
Be that as it may, I suppose we can differ as
to what makes someone a journalist, as opposed
to some other term. What annoys me is these
nutters who will say they are conducting an
"interview", but who deliberately muck things up
by taking their own opinions, and not-so-cleverly
trying to shoehorn them into the mouthes of their
victims, the interviewees. I think it demonstrates
a lack of self-respect; the nut-cases believe that
their opinions have no real merit, unless they can
somehow foist them onto someone with more of
a celebrity status. Both Taylor Kingston and
nearly-IMnes have done this, and it comes
across as an underhanded, lowdown attempt to
manipulate the interviewees and make sock-
puppets out of them. Please-- get help! There
are 1-800 numbers you guys can dial, and if you
can't afford a psychologist, one will be appointed
for you at public expense. You have the right to
remain silent--- and please do!
-- help bot
David Kane
> My job as journalist is not to change anyone's opinion.
>
> It is to, at genius level of operation*, shift everyone from their certainties
> for as much as 10 minutes of thought. Where people land from that is not my
> business, not should it be.
>
> The practice of journalism is to act as catalyst, not consultant. To activate
> the reader, not anticipate them. To stimulate the topic, not whore after any
> trophies.
And let's not forget that in your hands, it's chief purpose
is to condone the posting of 1000s of obscene messages
made while posting as others.
Rob
> "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
That is a lie David.
samsloan
> Journalism is a little understood practice,
You are certainly one person who does not understand it.
Sam Sloan
David Kane
"Rob" <robm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd779a8e-e1d6-4804...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I wish it were. But, sadly, there really are
people like you and Phil who are of such
low character that you find Truong's
behavior acceptable. I do wonder
where people like you come from, but
your existence is fact.
Rob
> "Rob" <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That is another lie, David. I demand you to prove anywhere where I
have condoned the faking of posts. You can't because I never have. You
can repeat a lie as many times as you like but it still won't be the
truth.
David Kane
You repeatedly champion the person who posted thousands of
obscene posts while posing as others. You may wish to spin it
as something else, but "condonation" is a perfectly accurate
description of your behavior.
Chess One
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:741beaf7-eff3-4b97...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 5:37 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Journalism is a little understood practice,
>
> You are certainly one person who does not understand it.
Sam Sloan, you confuse topic with celebrity and personality-politics
Journalism is, for example:-
a) not about you
b) not about scandals
c) not about being better than others
because none of those further chess in society, even though they comprise
95% of your own output, they of themselves amount to nothing to other
people. In fact they are what in science is termed 'noise' rather than
signal.
I do not ask you to believe me, only to look at the evidence of your own
life's activities. But if you want to be interviewed maybe, like Ray here,
we should restrict the extent of the interview to 1 Question:
What have you ever done for anyone else in chess?
If indeed there is any answer to that, then along the same lines a second
question might be what you intend to do for others in chess and how you will
achieve that?
As far as any greater public is concerned, that's about their level of
interest in you as an individual.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
Rob
>
> - Show quoted text -
David,
Again you state as fact which is only conjecture. You are taking a
wide leap for where I actually stand to where you contend that I stand
on this issue. Again, I demand you prove anywhere where I have
condoned the faking of posts. Do not attempt to change what you said.
You may either retract it and restate what you said or admit you have
a bigoted and biased point of view and wish to condemn without due
process.
Rob
David Kane
>David,
>Again you state as fact which is only conjecture. You are taking a
>wide leap for where I actually stand to where you contend that I stand
>on this issue. Again, I demand you prove anywhere where I have
>condoned the faking of posts. Do not attempt to change what you said.
>You may either retract it and restate what you said or admit you have
>a bigoted and biased point of view and wish to condemn without due
>process.
Or even better, simply state the truth (a concept foreign to you, I know).
You seem to think that just because you haven't posted "I think the
FSS posts were a good thing" that it is inaccurate to say that you have
condoned them. That is incorrect.
Condoning means to forgive, overlook, or disregard without protest
or censure. Where you have you censured Truong for posting
1000s of obscene postings in others' names? Instead you are rambling on
about how it was inappropriate that the culprit was even identified.
If I haven't captured every nuance of your position, feel free to express
it more clearly.
Rob
> "Rob" <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d9704194-9e5c-4d48...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >David,
> >Again you state as fact which is only conjecture. You are taking a
> >wide leap for where I actually stand to where you contend that I stand
> >on this issue. Again, I demand you prove anywhere where I have
> >condoned the faking of posts. Do not attempt to change what you said.
> >You may either retract it and restate what you said or admit you have
> >a bigoted and biased point of view and wish to condemn without due
> >process.
> Or even better, simply state the truth (a concept foreign to you, I know).
> You seem to think that just because you haven't posted "I think the
> FSS posts were a good thing" that it is inaccurate to say that you have
> condoned them. That is incorrect.
David,
Again you fail to understand. Again you try to make a personal attack
on me because you cannot prove factually your statement. You say that
telling the truth is foriegn to me; prove it. Again I have never
posted that I condone the the fake postings. I neither know who did it
nor do I condone who did it. I will not condemn anyone before there it
has been determined legally that the events happened as you alluded
to.
> Condoning means to forgive, overlook, or disregard without protest
> or censure. Where you have you censured Truong for posting
> 1000s of obscene postings in others' names? Instead you are rambling on
> about how it was inappropriate that the culprit was even identified.
> If I haven't captured every nuance of your position, feel free to express
> it more clearly.
David , I have forgiven no one, overlooked no one and disregarded
nothing. I have simply not jumped onto you lynch mob bandwagon. I have
NOT rambled on about how inappropriate that the culprit was
identified. No one has been legally proven guilty of anything, have
they? You seem to be unable to distinguish between what I have said
and what others may have said. If you intend to attempt to slander me
in public you had best be sure that you have your facts straight.
David Kane
>> If I haven't captured every nuance of your position, feel free to express
>> it more clearly.
>David , I have forgiven no one, overlooked no one and disregarded
>nothing. I have simply not jumped onto you lynch mob bandwagon. I have
>NOT rambled on about how inappropriate that the culprit was
>identified. No one has been legally proven guilty of anything, have
>they? You seem to be unable to distinguish between what I have said
>and what others may have said. If you intend to attempt to slander me
>in public you had best be sure that you have your facts straight.
What facts are not straight? Have you or have you not censured the
poster of the obscenities? I suppose with this post you have moved beyond
simple condoning into the realm of being an active generator of apologia
("posting obscenities in others' names is OK unless it is found to be illegal")
What is truly sad is that people like you and Innes come across
as people whose standards so low that there is absolutely *no*
behavior that you would ever find objectionable in your allies.
Where do people like you come from?
Rob
> "Rob" <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5af49dcf-7e65-4872...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> If I haven't captured every nuance of your position, feel free to express
> >> it more clearly.
> >David , I have forgiven no one, overlooked no one and disregarded
> >nothing. I have simply not jumped onto you lynch mob bandwagon. I have
> >NOT rambled on about how inappropriate that the culprit was
> >identified. No one has been legally proven guilty of anything, have
> >they? You seem to be unable to distinguish between what I have said
> >and what others may have said. If you intend to attempt to slander me
> >in public you had best be sure that you have your facts straight.
> What facts are not straight? Have you or have you not censured the
David,
How do I have the authority to censure anyone? My God! Who do you
think you are talking to?
> poster of the obscenities? I suppose with this post you have moved beyond
> simple condoning into the realm of being an active generator of apologia
> ("posting obscenities in others' names is OK unless it is found to be illegal")
No. I do not say or imply that. Again you creat untruths from whole
cloth.
> What is truly sad is that people like you and Innes come across
> as people whose standards so low that there is absolutely *no*
> behavior that you would ever find objectionable in your allies.
> Where do people like you come from?
That is a lie and a slander.You afford proof of nothing so you result
to making things up. SO me a quote where I have done what you say.
David Kane
>
> That is a lie and a slander.You afford proof of nothing so you result
> to making things up. SO me a quote where I have done what you say.
You need to buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of words like
"condone" and "censure" etc. To prove me wrong about you condoning
the FSS posts, *you* will have to supply the posts. You've had
ample opportunity to condemn them, but all we hear from you
is the "blind monkey" nonsense. If you don't like being of low
character, then do something about it.
Rob
> "Rob" <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
David,
Once again you prove you understand nothing. You said I condoned an
action. I said prove it. You cannot produce any evidence as it does
not exist. No one can produce evidence that does not exist. I do not
need to consult a dictionary for any reason. Again, what you have
said about me and my position is a lie and slander. I do not now nor
have I ever said I condone the fake posts.
David Kane
It's what you don't say that condones Truong's behavior. If 1000's
of obscene posts is fine with you, is there *any* behavior that
is not? Please be specific.
parrt...@cs.com
>That is another lie, David. I demand you to prove
anywhere where I have condoned the faking of posts.
You can't because I never have. You can repeat a lie
as many times as you like but it still won't be the
truth.> -- Rob Mitchell to David Kane
Rob Mitchell demands that David Kane back up
his charge -- which has proven to be a LIE -- that the
former condones posting messages under false names
that are also obscene.
Mr. Mitchell demanded chapter and verse.
Kanester said that Mr. Mitchell was taking Paul
Truong's side. But correctly or mistakenly, Rob
reckons that Mr. Truong is not guilty until proven
beyond a shadow of a doubt. Rob is guilty of
condoning nothing in terms of intent, which is
what counts in this instance, since there is not
yet any final disposition of this case.
In any event, the Winter ratpackers have posted
numerous messages under pseudonyms. Taylor
Kingston, for example, posted under false names
IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF. He and the Kanester are
thick as ... peeves.
Mr. Mitchell: David Kane LIED when he attacked
you for condoning obscene messages delivered under
false names. It is he who is chummy with the
types who play those tricks.
Paul Truong, truthfully or otherwise, has denied
posting as fake Sam. Taylor Kingston has not denied
posting under Paulie Graf and Xylothist when it was
his practice to praise his own work while debating with
this writer.
That's the kind of intellectual excretions
produced by a Kanester ally. Does Kanester condone
such behavior by his ally? The answer will be obvious
in his next few postings.
Yours, Larry Parr
David Kane
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:a8dd365d-d96b-4263...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> CONDONING PAUL TRUONG
>
I have nothing against anonymous posting. If, for example, a poster found that
no one bought his
idiotic arguments and created a persona, called "jr" to to heap mindless praise
on them, I would not
consider it a great wrong, though it does make a rather sad comment about the
character
of the poor fellow who behaves that way. If Taylor Kingston has any posting
skeletons
in his closet, they are of absolutely no interest to me.
Surely even Parr is not so dim as to be unable to grasp that there is a
difference between an anonymous
post and posting 1000s of obscene posts in the name of others. For Rob to
condone such
behavior is noteworthy. His rationale for giving Truong a pass in face of
overwhelming,
not seriously contested evidence is not the least bit interesting. It seems odd
that Parr (who seems to profess
various libertarian positions without understanding them) would adopt Rob's
latest position
that misconduct can only be said to occur after the State has proven a case in a
court of law. But
intellectual consistency is not these folks' strong suit.
But since Parr has raised the issue of lying, and thrown me into an alliance
with Taylor Kingston,
how does he rationalize his own lie that Taylor Kingston lied about his rating?
Recall that
Kingston gave not only his (correspondence) rating, but also his ranking, and
taken together
those are a clear, unambiguous statement that the rating was *not* an OTB
rating. Yet Parr's
lie, repeated at least hundreds of times in this newsgroup, is that Kingston was
representing
his rating as being OTB. I do not condone (look the word up, please!) Parr's
dishonest behavior.
I condemn it.
Chess One
"David Kane" <david...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:P9adndI4BNZ4oE_a...@comcast.com...
>
> <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:a8dd365d-d96b-4263...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> CONDONING PAUL TRUONG
cutting to the quick:-
> Surely even Parr is not so dim as to be unable to grasp that there is a
> difference between an anonymous
> post and posting 1000s of obscene posts in the name of others. For Rob to
> condone such
> behavior is noteworthy.
As with another instance this week, where Mike Murray does not apologise for
changing my 'some to 'all' I must conclude that MM is content with that sort
of lie, or that he can't read. In this instance David Kane, who previously
did the same to LP as MM did to me, insists on his word 'condone', but is
shy of presenting any reason for doing so.
> His rationale for giving Truong a pass in face of overwhelming,
> not seriously contested evidence is not the least bit interesting.
David Kane is not the least interested in how uncompelling the
'overwhelming, not seriously contested evidence' might seem to others. It
does not occur to him that most people will want to hear two sides of any
issue, and the reason to not contest is thereby twofold: (a) its not worth
contesting, and (b) attempts at discussion are rubbished.
Is it fair to say that the likes of Kane and Murray do not 'condone' letting
others make up their own fully informed minds? I think so!
> It seems odd that Parr (who seems to profess
> various libertarian positions without understanding them) would adopt
> Rob's latest position
> that misconduct can only be said to occur after the State has proven a
> case in a court of law. But
> intellectual consistency is not these folks' strong suit.
Nor exposition yours, Mr. Kane. For example what is not consistent about
your own paraphrase? Perhaps consistency lies only in being accused, without
any rules of evidence and without an impartial jurer assessing that, and
also that no jury should attend and render their own opinion.
For I can tell Mr. Kane that his p.o.v. is consistent with a kangaroo court
or a show-trial on MacCarthy lines.
> But since Parr has raised the issue of lying, and thrown me into an
> alliance with Taylor Kingston,
> how does he rationalize his own lie that Taylor Kingston lied about his
> rating? Recall that
> Kingston gave not only his (correspondence) rating, but also his ranking,
> and taken together
> those are a clear, unambiguous statement that the rating was *not* an OTB
> rating. Yet Parr's
> lie, repeated at least hundreds of times in this newsgroup, is that
> Kingston was representing
> his rating as being OTB.
That would be a very fair point indeed, if only TK had not written "ELO" and
had on being challenged said right away that his USCF OTB rating was 1900.
But a good try by David Kane at what's fair and what not in any argument.
The issue at hand is a bit more serious than kiting your chess rating, and
therefore more formal and established means are necessary to resolve them.
How odd that Larry Parr on one side of the Sloan advocacy issue, and I [and
Rob Mitchell] on the other, should all agree with each other on the proper
level of investigation, and eshew less.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
wrote:
>As with another instance this week, where Mike Murray does not apologise for
>changing my 'some to 'all' I must conclude that MM is content with that sort
>of lie,
Ummmm, Phil, would you mind citing where I changed your "some to
'all'" ??
And I'm asking not for your deconstruction of an argument's subtext
but for an exact quote.
Or, is there no quote but only your interpretation cum hallucination?
Mike Murray
wrote:
Is this what's been confusing you Phil??
Your interview question to PT:
"you becoming accused of not as much impersonating, but satirizing
another Board member,"
My critique:
"Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
all the FSS filth was satire."
Had I intended to include Phil Innes among the "various apologists",
in this paragraph, believe me, I would have been specific about it.
parrt...@cs.com
<If Taylor Kingston has any posting skeletons in his closet,
they are of absolutely no interest to me.> -- David Kane
Dear Rob,
Heh, heh, heh. I told you David Kane would end up
condoning Taylor Kingston PRAISING HIMSELF in
postings written under false names. Kanester tells us
he does not have much against such stuff, and we now
know that he does not.
Rob: Kanester lies when he states that Taylor
Kingston initially gave his rating as a postal one.
Not at all. If he tries once again to defend this lie, I
will post Kingston's original claim in which he baldly
makes himself a strong master without mentioning
correspondence chess at all.
We will then discuss what it means among chess
players to give your rating straightforwardly as 2300+
Elo and tell us no more. You walk into a club and say,
"I'm no mean player, rated 2300+ Elo and ranked No. 45
in the country. You don't mention postal chess at all.
What conclusion will the average chess player draw
other than that the guy is calling himself a strong master?
But Kanester tells us an average bloke will assume
Kingston was talking about postal, not over-the-board chess.
That's our Kanester -- as we have come to know and love him.
As we shall see, his idiotic defense was NOT the one later
offered by Taylor Kingston himself for his weakminded lie.
Once again, Rob, you have condoned no
misbehavior by Paul Truong because, as I understand
your position, you want to see more than has been
presented. Kanester tries to bring in libertarian
categories, but to no avail. The poor blighter is
unaware that minarchism is not anarchism -- but more
about that later as this discussion weaves its way
to a weary end.
Yours, Larry Parr
Guy Macon
Chess One wrote:
>David Kane is not the least interested in how uncompelling
>the 'overwhelming, not seriously contested evidence' might
>seem to others.
Nor should he be. What matters is the strenth of the evidence
itself, not how someone feels about it. I posted my analysis
of the evidence and asked for anyone who could find a hole in
my logic to do so. Nobody, including you, has found a flaw
in the chain of reasoning that led me to conclude that the FSS
posts came from the same physical location as the Truong posts.
I have no reason to be biased against Truong, and many reasons
to be biased against Sloan, but the evidence is what it is, and
what it is is [A] overwhelming, and [B] not seriously contested.
I again ask you and anyone else here to please knock holes in my
analysis if they can.
Rob
Guy,
I have no desire to to dispute or review what you have posted. I am
simply not qualified to make a determination. Since this has been
pressed into a legal realm with lawsuits being bandied about; I
reserve judgment until such time as these matters are resolved in a
court of law. But I feel save in reiterating I do not condone fake
postings by anyone. Something David has admitted in a prior post he
finds nothing wrong with.
Rob
David Kane
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:e599cf71-b291-487c...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>I TOLD YOU SO
>
> <If Taylor Kingston has any posting skeletons in his closet,
> they are of absolutely no interest to me.> -- David Kane
>
> Dear Rob,
>
> Heh, heh, heh. I told you David Kane would end up
> condoning Taylor Kingston PRAISING HIMSELF in
> postings written under false names. Kanester tells us
> he does not have much against such stuff, and we now
> know that he does not.
That is correct. I condone anonymous posting. I don't
believe that Taylor Kingston has posted anonymously
in praise of himself. I do believe that you have. However,
whether I am right or wrong on either count is not
of interest to me, because the misdeed is minor.
On the contrary, I *know* that you routinely
post falsehoods, because you do so under your
own name. "Taylor Kingston" poster does not
post such falsehoods.
> Rob: Kanester lies when he states that Taylor
> Kingston initially gave his rating as a postal one.
> Not at all. If he tries once again to defend this lie, I
> will post Kingston's original claim in which he baldly
> makes himself a strong master without mentioning
> correspondence chess at all.
Please do post it. He posted his ranking, which was
*obviously* not an OTB ranking. That makes you a liar.
David Kane
No such thing was admitted. I have no problem with anonymous
posting. What Truong did, posting 1000s of obscene messages using
other names, I do have a problem with. Unlike you.