Re: So Who Did File the First Lawsuit?
nob...@nowhere.com
What stake do you have in USCF affairs, Murray?
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:53:04 -0700 (PDT), asca...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >It is not entirely clear to me whether any illegality was involved or
> >whether the Polgars were justified in learning whether USCF money was
> >being used to hire an attorney for political reasons.
>
> Well, you should certainly inform the courts in California and the
> Secret Service of this.
Why do you think they don't already know their jobs, Murray?
> >What legal communications can legally be withheld from duly elected
> >members of the EB?
None. That such was even attempted illustrates that any measures were
justified. How can honorable fiduciaries perform their function if they
are denied access to key information? They can't. End of consideration.
Further, a failure to do what they allegedly did could be purported to
comprise dereliction of duties, RP.
> >If information was being withheld, why would it be
> >illegal to use any method necessary to obtain the withheld
> >information?
It would not. Which is why there was no need to establish that Randy H.
had tacitly agreed, if not volunteered, for his email to serve as an
"access portal" to the information - even if he had not, there was not
only no illegality, but also no impropriety or unethicality. IAAL.
However, I would have advised that the "just for the sake of argument"
line be explored, as the effective USCF defense would then become "yes,
one of the board was a frigging incompetent negligent moron". Great!
> >It is a little bit like breaking into your own safe when
> >your partners have changed the combination. It is hard to find the
> >wrongdoing.
A good analogy, but insufficient. Here there is a written, legal, valid
binding agreement with the partner, guaranteeing each of you access to
the safe at all times..
> If the Secret Service concurs, be sure and let us know.
They do, and that saga has ended in its first part. The second part
will involve legal remedy being obtained against those responsible for
the setup and the complaint. Redress is expected to extend to a seven
figure sum, so it is just as well that most of the EB members' heirs
have no reasonable expectation of inheriting much of value from them.
> Provisionally, I'll regard your opinions as drivel.
No need for "provisionally", Murray - I'll dismiss all your uninformed
speculations, your libels, your smears, your one-sided bullshit, your
obsession with real chessplayers, your backing of the amazing Sloan,
etc. without any caveat whatsoever. Get lost. That the only persons who
swallow your line are a kiddy-lover, a lying nutter who claims to be
a Caribbean diplomat, a thoroughly discredited Parking Tickets Judge
who has been proven to be a cretin by the kiddy-lover, and a couple of
anonymous trolls who may be alters of the PTJ, should tell you a lot.
But you're far too vain to see that. Those opposed to your viewpoint
include many of the strongest chessplayers alive, who view the cruel
vilification and persecuation of SP as beneath contempt, and the use
of the law to bludgeon her for any mild retaliation by her loved ones.
> Yup.
Good. Settled, then. Put a cushion behind your head before squeezing.
Even though you don't have many, they can make a mess when distributed
all over a wall. I really shouldn't give a damn, but the cleaning check
will diminish the funds available to any suers of your estate. Do one
thing cleanly, Mr.Carton, to make up for that life of dissipation.(=:
Anonymous posting portals, no logfiles,
https://www.cotse.net/cgi-bin/mixnews.cgi
http://www.privacylover.com
https://www.awxcnx.de/mm-anon-news.htm
https://www.bananasplit.info/cgi-bin/anon.cgi
Mike Murray
>What stake do you have in USCF affairs, Murray?
Gutless anonymouse imagines he has standing to question real people.
He forgets, he's a gutless anonymouse and really doesn't count at all.
When he gathers up the courage to post under a real handle, maybe real
people will deign to include him in the conversation.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> [garbage]
Who are all those "none" and "nobody"?
How low must they feel to call themselves
"none" and "nobody". And that's what they are.
Wlod
ChessFire
>
> No need for "provisionally", Murray - I'll dismiss all your uninformed
> speculations, your libels, your smears, your one-sided bullshit, your
> obsession with real chessplayers, your backing of the amazing Sloan,
> etc. without any caveat whatsoever. Get lost. That the only persons who
> swallow your line are a kiddy-lover, a lying nutter who claims to be
> a Caribbean diplomat, a thoroughly discredited Parking Tickets Judge
> who has been proven to be a cretin by the kiddy-lover, and a couple of
> anonymous trolls who may be alters of the PTJ, should tell you a lot.
> But you're far too vain to see that. Those opposed to your viewpoint
> include many of the strongest chessplayers alive, who view the cruel
> vilification and persecuation of SP as beneath contempt, and the use
> of the law to bludgeon her for any mild retaliation by her loved ones.
While I think that the above anonymously written material is indeed
cowardly, that is, the person does not wish to become engaged in a law
suit to state his or her opinion, this anonymous coward gets very much
right.
In fact, what does he get wrong in the above?
Evidently Murray is intent on repressing every other point of view
than his own, and Murray is the intellectual star of those mentioned
here ;((
Which is to say, you know, don't you comrade: When it is all soldiers,
soldiers! there is no poetry from Zhivago - and in chess terms, when
there is only politicians there is no art nor joy evident from them
for the game, and those do who have that do not publish it here,
before swine, as it were.
That is much the sense of it, as I read things, and since i was a mega
journalist compared to anyone here, even the dread Spinrad of dubious
orientation, me with 60,000 readers a week, that is also my sense of
the chess public's overwhelming sense of things.
[It is only in this, or these newsgroups, where a few people conduct
an agitprop campaign to indicate otherwise]
To be honest, there is also strong public opinion that Polgar and
Truong should get the hell away from USCF, since nothing has been
clear about that organization for the past 20 years - not even why
they exist.
To join with USCF is to muddy one's self, and I suggest to them
directly that this is the case, and since IMO the rot is deep, their
case is suspect thereby.
The barky is untenable. A new one may be indicated, but not on the
basis of maintenance alone - chess is taking off in the USA, and needs
mentors, encouragement, events and spectacles, not just rating
services, and un-financed titles.
It needs links to mainstream media and mainstream education. Any thing
else is hardly worth the argument.
This is my criticism of USCF, and of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong.
Cute is not compelling.
Phil Innes
Vermont
None
Not particularly convincing. Since you choose to post your name means
not a fig to me. I still don't know you from Adam. Likewise you me.
Accept the moniker I choose to assign to meself and let it rest.
Surely, if you can rebuttal me with logic and not your "nameless" cop-
out you wiliest be the better person. So far that hasn't happened.
zdrakec
Wrong attitude, actually.
Address the points raised - not who raised them.
Regards,
zdrakec
Mike Murray
wrote:
I'd usually agree with you on this, but not here.
I respect personal or professional reasons for not exposing one's real
identity on a newsgroup. Someone who posts regularly under a
consistent handle? No problem.
In the case of rgc*, in the two years since the Mottershead report
evidently exposed the identity of the FSS, we've seen a barrage of
posts made through remailers. I don't consider these posters to be
interested in real discussion. Their "works" are more like vandalism
or graffiti, intended to insult, intimidate or just clutter up the
newsgroup. Responding to them is like painting "counter-graffiti" on
one's own fence.
>Regards,
>zdrakec
zdrakec
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:04:51 -0700 (PDT), zdrakec <zdra...@gmail.com>
Well, I concede a point there. But addressing them at all, in this
case, amounts to the same thing....
nob...@nowhere.com
What stake do you have in USCF affairs, Murray?
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:53:04 -0700 (PDT), asca...@aol.com wrote:
No need for "provisionally", Murray - I'll dismiss all your uninformed
speculations, your libels, your smears, your one-sided bullshit, your
obsession with real chessplayers, your backing of the amazing Sloan,
etc. without any caveat whatsoever. Get lost. That the only persons who
swallow your line are a kiddy-lover, a lying nutter who claims to be
a Caribbean diplomat, a thoroughly discredited Parking Tickets Judge
who has been proven to be a cretin by the kiddy-lover, and a couple of
anonymous trolls who may be alters of the PTJ, should tell you a lot.
But you're far too vain to see that. Those opposed to your viewpoint
include many of the strongest chessplayers alive, who view the cruel
vilification and persecuation of SP as beneath contempt, and the use
of the law to bludgeon her for any mild retaliation by her loved ones.
> Yup.
Good. Settled, then. Put a cushion behind your head before squeezing.
Even though you don't have many, they can make a mess when distributed
all over a wall. I really shouldn't give a damn, but the cleaning check
will diminish the funds available to any suers of your estate. Do one
thing cleanly, Mr.Carton, to make up for that life of dissipation.(=:
Anonymous posting portals, No logfiles,
Mike Murray
wrote:
.
>Well, I concede a point there. But addressing them at all, in this
>case, amounts to the same thing....
True enough. But, we all give in to temptation now and then.
help bot
> <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >What stake do you have in USCF affairs, Murray?
>
> Gutless anonymouse imagines he has standing to question real people.
> He forgets, he's a gutless anonymouse and really doesn't count at all.
>
> When he gathers up the courage to post under a real handle, maybe real
> people will deign to include him in the conversation.
[scribbles the name "Mike Murray" in log book of
rgc ad hominists, now up to seventy-four pages in
length! ...feels disappointment in MM... deactivates
emotion chip... problem solved!]
-- help bot
help bot
Objection: assumes capabilities not in evidence.
The very idea that anon-blasters "have guts" and
are therefore "real people", is amusing, though.
Perhaps they have some small value in the realm
of slapstick-level entertainers.
-- help bot
help bot
> >Well, I concede a point there. But addressing them at all, in this
> >case, amounts to the same thing....
> True enough. But, we all give in to temptation now and then.
Speak for yourself, pal. I have not touched a
chocolate truffle (my favorite!) since the year
1969. Gave up the Latvian Gambit after just
one try, and have never once taken the Queen
Knight's pawn with my Queen. When it comes
to pizzas, I never eat more than one per meal,
and as for Lay's potato chips-- I always stop
at just one.
Well, it is sad that MM set himself up to fall
so easily, by writing: "Responding to them is
like painting "counter-graffiti" on one's own
fence." A response is a response, even if it
was puerile, poorly thought out, and made in
anger.
[scribbles the name "Mike Murray" in log book
of those who have difficulties with elementary
logic, now every bit as long as the ad hominem
log book]
-- help bot
Taylor Kingston
>
> [scribbles the name "Mike Murray" in log book
> of those who have difficulties with elementary
> logic, now every bit as long as the ad hominem
> log book]
>
> -- help bot
Add one more name to the long list of people Greg Kennedy has
gratuitously insulted.
Mike Murray
Hey, Bot, you don't post through an anonymizer or remailer do ya? Why
are you getting your circuits all over-heated?
help bot
> Hey, Bot, you don't post through an anonymizer or remailer do ya?
I'm no expert on such matters as remailers; perhaps
you can tell me.
> Why are you getting your circuits all over-heated?
Whatever do you mean? I would say that judging
from your unusual lapse of logic and reason in this
thread, the steam you see is emanating from holes
in the sides of your head! Quick-- call a repairman.
LOL
Oh, by the way-- scientists have discovered that
killing the messenger is *not* a valid form of rational
argumentation, as was previously thought! You
appear to be in dire need of a refresher course to
bring you up to modern specifications and the
"new" standards. Say, did you ever figure out
whose writing style the anon's closely resembles?
Take another look.
-- help bot
help bot
wrote:
> Add one more name to the long list of people Greg Kennedy has
> gratuitously insulted.
Taylor Kingston complaining about gratuitous
insults, is like Sanny complaining that nobody
can beat his chess engine anymore. It is akin
to a drowning man complaining that there is
too much clorine in the pool, or a 500-pound
man complaining that his bicycle seat is too
small. It is like former president Bill Clinton
lecturing monks, on marital fidelity.
Even the very dimwitted Mr. Parr managed to
easily see through Mr. Kingston's chicanery:
"[Mr. Kingston] adopts the proud puff's con-
tumely, inventing excuses not to play Sam
Sloan a match..." -- Larry Parr
Another Evans ratpacker apparently agreed:
"[Mr.] Kingston's behavior is, as usual,
despicable." -- jr
One begins to wonder if there isn't some sort
of /contest/ going on-- to see which of the ad
hominists in rgc can dole out more juvenile
epithets and insults. If so, my money is spit
equally between Mr. Kingston and Dr. IMnes,
the two favorites.
-- help bot
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 2, 6:20 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Add one more name to the long list of people Greg Kennedy has
> > gratuitously insulted.
>
> Taylor Kingston complaining about gratuitous
> insults, is like Sanny complaining that nobody
> can beat his chess engine anymore. It is akin
> to a drowning man complaining that there is
> too much clorine in the pool, or a 500-pound
> man complaining that his bicycle seat is too
> small.
That's a "tu quoque" fallacy, Greg, followed by a series of
completely inapt similes. Interesting to see you, who boast so much
about a supposed prowess in logic, committing kindergarten-level
blunders like that. There's also a factual error in characterizing my
insults as gratuitous.
The fact that others have written insults does nothing to excuse
yours. You insult pretty much everyone here, with or (far more often)
without reason. Why is that?
samsloan
Mike Murray
<nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, by the way-- scientists have discovered that
>killing the messenger is *not* a valid form of rational
>argumentation, as was previously thought! You
>appear to be in dire need of a refresher course to
>bring you up to modern specifications and the
>"new" standards.
Or, perhaps your specifications for the ad hominem argument have not
been updated since, oh, since pre-Aristotelian times. I don't
believe refusing to enter the field of argument with an industrial
strength anonymouse is really employing an ad-hominem technique. I'm
not trying to use his posting status to refute *any* of his arguments
-- I'm just not doing business with him.
If I say, for example, your lack of U.L. certification renders you
unsuitable to enter the automaton convention, and I employing an
ad-hominem argument?
Maybe some jock who's taken Advanced Argumentation can settle this.
>Say, did you ever figure out
>whose writing style the anon's closely resembles?
>Take another look.
I've got an idea, but anybody -- no, make that "some people" -- can
fake a style.
help bot
> I don't believe refusing to enter the field of argument
Uh, let me stop you right there, before you dig
too deep a hole. Rgc is not an argumentation
newsgroup; it is a /discussion/ newsgroup (i.e.
where people "discuss" things-- not to get too
technical).
Others have made very similar errors... such
as the dullard Larry Parr, who believes that all
chess newsgroups are junior high school level
debates, wherein someone judges and then
declares "winners" and "losers", hands out
plastic trophys, or whatever; he seems to not
have gotten beyond a certain point as far as
maturity, and that point appears to come at
right about junior high school age.
> with an industrial strength anonymouse (sic)
That would be an anonymoose, I expect.
> is really employing an ad-hominem technique. I'm
> not trying to use his posting status to refute *any* of his arguments
Let's have a look at the fifty-cent poor man's
dictionary definition, to settle this:
---------------------------------------------------------
Ad hominem is where somebody argues
/to the person/. That is, they address (just
for fun, let's call him...) the oppoent, rather
than adressing issues, ideas, or contentions.
---------------------------------------------------------
> If I say, for example, your lack of U.L. certification renders you
> unsuitable to enter the automaton convention
Saps, IMHO. They are generally smug,
self-obsessed, and utterly limited in imagi-
nation. I much prefer the company of
other X.A.I. bots... or of beautiful women... .
> and I employing an ad-hominem argument?
I am not going to answer such questions
from someone /who is himself/ uncertified... .
> Maybe some jock who's taken Advanced Argumentation can settle this.
I don't know any "jocks", but I do know of
one chap who has been aptly described as
"a hanger-on and GM jock-sniffer"... .
> >Say, did you ever figure out
> >whose writing style the anon's closely resembles?
> >Take another look.
> I've got an idea, but anybody -- no, make that "some people" -- can
> fake a style.
Silly! There was no reason for the anon
to "fake" the writing style of the person in
question. On the contrary, there was a
reason for the person in question to post
anonymously, and he is so stupid that one
would hardly be surprised to find he failed
in disguising himself sufficiently.
Use your sharp wit to figure out who the
anon closely resembles, then have a look
at who exactly blasted his anonymity (other
than yourself). It is rather amusing, as this
has happened before... whereupon the two
loons slinked off the stage in embarrass-
ment. I think it may have been Mr. Kingston
or you who pointed out LP's /banana peel
slip and fall/ the last time around, or it could
have been Mr. Brennen.
-- help bot