 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics ChessKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Chess Forum / Chess Politics / July 2009So Who Did File the First Lawsuit?
Susan Polgar writes in a Chess Cafe blog, "After wasting an exuberant amount of members’ money in the previous fiscal year, the USCF filed the first unauthorized lawsuit in San Francisco in June 2008." Hmmm. I have heard numerous complaints about the horrendous losses USCF was suffering because Polgar filed suit first against the USCF. If it is true that this is another self inflicted wound by USCF insiders hoping to be reelected, this rather changes the election picture. Another circular firing squad. Now I have been down this road before and the USCF insiders think nothing of distorting reality to the point of absurdity. The worse they manage, the more detached from reality they become. The fact is the incumbents are being presented as if they were the competent ones. I know little about Polgar and her slate, but if the incombents are indeed the competent ones then USCF is in dire trouble. It is as if the surgeons who will save us are really butchers from the continuing meat market that is USCF politics. What are the facts? Without interpretation. Did the USCF begin the lawsuits or was it Polgar? If it was USCF, then that says much about the credibility of the incumbents and their wacky accounting including death bequests as if they were a part of the operating budget. Lawsuits have been used as political tools by USCF insiders since the days of Don Schultz oddball suit against GM Larry Evans. Sheesh Richard Peterson ascach...@aol.com wrote: > Susan Polgar writes in a Chess Cafe blog, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Sheesh > Richard Peterson 1) The USCF and filed a suit for the e-mail hacking against "Does 1-10." Obviously they thought Polgar was involved, but they didn't have proof and they didn't name her. 2) Polgar then filed her "everybody is saying mean things about me" suit in Texas. 3) Having obtained more evidence, the USCF's attorneys amended their suit to name Polgar and Alexander. You can spin this either way and you're never gong to convince partisans on either side. A more useful question is which of the suits has merit. The filings are all available on line. Make up your own mind. > ascach...@aol.com wrote: > > Susan Polgar writes in a Chess Cafe blog, [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > question is which of the suits has merit. The filings are all > available on line. Make up your own mind. There is the old saying "you can be right and you can be dead right". The question people should ask themselves: was it prudent for the USCF to pursue a course of action that even if they won would bankrupt the organization? Was this fiscally responsible behavior? Part of being a good manager /administrator is being able to predict future outcomes of anticipated actions. It is the same for the game of chess. Why can't the USCF make the same distinction? They have chosen this hill to die on, I guess. So what happens now? My guess is that the USCF will continue until the money runs out Members will tie of having their money wasted and seek alternatives CXR can provide unlimited ratings for an individual for only $7/ year. If the CCA or other large organizer decided to use them rather than the USCF for rating purposes, what would happen then? >> 1) The USCF and filed a suit for the e-mail hacking against "Does >> 1-10." Obviously they thought Polgar was involved, but they didn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> question is which of the suits has merit. The filings are all >> available on line. Make up your own mind. >There is the old saying "you can be right and you can be dead right". >The question people should ask themselves: was it prudent for the >USCF to pursue a course of action that even if they won would bankrupt >the organization? Was this fiscally responsible behavior? >Part of being a good manager /administrator is being able to predict >future outcomes of anticipated actions. It is the same for the game of >chess. Why can't the USCF make the same distinction? They have chosen >this hill to die on, I guess. >So what happens now? My guess is that the USCF will continue until the >money runs out Members will tie of having their money wasted and seek >alternatives CXR can provide unlimited ratings for an individual for >only $7/ year. If the CCA or other large organizer decided to use them >rather than the USCF for rating purposes, what would happen then? Rob, I think your analysis overlooks a couple of very important factors. The first is that Polgar's suit highlights a vulnerability of small organizations such as the USCF, namely that they can be financially exhausted by a determined and well-funded litigant. A potential opponent or someone trying to control the USCF can use the threat of prolonged litigation to bluff or bludgeon it for whatever purpose, knowing that managers following your philosophy will always cave. The second factor you overlook is the ethical one. In their amended court claims in California, the USCF claimed that Polgar and others committed actual crimes by hacking into privileged attorney-client communication. The Secret Service evidently considered these claims credible enough to get involved with searches and seizures. What are the ethics of ignoring on the grounds of financial prudence, an opposition attempt to gain control of the USCF by illegally acquired information? What message would that convey to all the youth involved in organized chess? Let's take an analogy. You have a schoolyard nerdy bully, one who leaves fake notes about other kids all over the school, makes harassing calls from pay phones to other kids, threatens them with bodily harm, etc. You're a parent. You go to school authorities to complain. Turns out the bully's mommy is one of the teachers. She tells you, "I could lose my job over this, and if you don't lay off the complaints, I'm going to sue you for everything you've got". What do you do? Do you stop, hoping against hope that the little nerdy bully will now stop, or will at least quit targeting *your* kid? That's the big problem I have with your approach, Rob. It sacrifices integrity on the altar of financial prudence. It's the way of the coward. > >> 1) The USCF and filed a suit for the e-mail hacking against "Does > >> 1-10." Obviously they thought Polgar was involved, but they didn't [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Incompetence for not having sufficent nsurance coverage for this sort of crap. > > >> 1) The USCF and filed a suit for the e-mail hacking against "Does > > >> 1-10." Obviously they thought Polgar was involved, but they didn't [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Incompetence for not having sufficent nsurance coverage for this sort > of crap. Can you identify any one person who had the foresight? >Incompetence for not having sufficent nsurance coverage for this sort >of crap. As I understand it, some of coverage problems are due to the suits being internal: one EB member suing the USCF and the USCF suing one or more board members. Regardless of this, multiple instances of litigation will cause the insurance companies to drop further coverage or raise the rates beyond affordability. Yes, more extensive coverage would have been better, but it wouldn't entirely have solved the problem, which, again, is that a determined and well-funded litigant can exhaust the Federation (or similar organizations) financially. As I understand it, the chances of recovering costs and damages in the event Polgar's suits are found frivolous are pretty slim, although not entirely non-existent. Changes would have been better had the Fed been chartered in a state with decent anti-SLAPP laws. > >> 1) The USCF and filed a suit for the e-mail hacking against "Does > >> 1-10." Obviously they thought Polgar was involved, but they didn't [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > integrity on the altar of financial prudence. It's the way of the > coward. Mike, Given there is another choice, I might pull my kids from that school. I agree in a perfect world integrity should win out. But victors tend to write history. So if someone dies for a just cause but looses the war, do you think the victors will write history to say "the good guys lost"? I don't disagree with you about the need to approach situation with honor and integrity. I just wonder if the effort is wasted. You are right, small organizations are very exposed to litigation attacks. ie... Ishi Press. What I am saying directly is I believe the personalities involved were more interested in attacks than in doing what was /is financially in the USCF's best interests. >Mike, >Given there is another choice, I might pull my kids from that school. Actually, that's what parents tend to do when their kids encounter major bullying problems. School administrators are afraid to rock the boat, and many advocacy groups head for the courts when schools get tough on thugs and bullies. IMO, it's one of the major causes in the degradation of the public schools in the last few decades. But, do you leave town? What about bullying on the net? >I agree in a perfect world integrity should win out. But victors tend >to write history. So if someone dies for a just cause but looses the >war, do you think the victors will write history to say "the good guys >lost"? We ain't talkin' Genghis Khan here or the burning of the Library of Alexandria. If the USCF goes under, the folks who fought the good fight will still be around, and believe me, they won't forget and won't be silent, especially if Polgar and Truong end up taking over the Federation or controlling any organization that replaces it. The history won't be written on ChessDiscussion. > I don't disagree with you about the need to approach situation with >honor and integrity. I just wonder if the effort is wasted. Well, sometimes you lose, and this is definitely possible. A small business owner who refuses to pay protection may get his place torched and go bankrupt. A reporter in Kalmykia may get murdered. A whistle blower may get fired. A loss isn't always a waste. >You are right, small organizations are very exposed to litigation >attacks. ie... Ishi Press. What I am saying directly is I believe the >personalities involved were more interested in attacks than in doing >what was /is financially in the USCF's best interests. Maybe some were. Probably most weren't. Hard to know what lurks in the hearts of men. I haven't heard you speculate about the motives of the FSS. But, I'll tell you one thing: someone who sues the USCF for millions isn't doing what's in the USCF's best interest, even if it's followed with a publicity gimmick one buck settlement offer. > The second factor you overlook is the ethical one. In their amended > court claims in California, the USCF claimed that Polgar and others [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > acquired information? �What message would that convey to all the youth > involved in organized chess? � OK, I admit it. I was had just taken a drink and a sudden laugh made the CocaCola come out my nose. USCF and ethics in the same sentence. I am sure that there must be an English text book which provides that these two items cannot appear in the same sentence without the phrase "lack of". What message would it confer to the youth? What message did it confer to the 30,000 youth when USCF stole their subscription money by ending Schoolmates and keeping their money? How about, "Fool me twice, shame on me." There is an appropriate message. A little institutional memory please. Now USCF proposes to do the same thing to the Life Members but with their permission. Is the message that it is OK to rip off the kids without their permission but not OK to do the same with Life Members? Question: How is it possible for a duly elected member of the Executive Board to "hack" attorney-client emails when there is nothing which is supposed to be hidden from the EB members? Are some EB members hiding behind attorney client privilege in order to use USCF assets to attack other EB members? Mike Murray writes, "That's the big problem I have with your approach, Rob. It sacrifices integrity on the altar of financial prudence. It's the way of the coward." Mike would have us believe that the people who wish to hide the fact they lost $500K last year are the ethical ones. What is ethical about that? Query: Exactly what were the costs for attorneys? One side would have us think it was 500K and that their entire loss was attributable to the lawsuit which they apparently started. 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. Does either side have clean hands? I do not know the Polgars but if USCF insiders were using USCF funds to discredit the Polgars and help elect more compliant friends, then the insiders have violated the non-profit law by misusing USCF assets for personal reasons. We have been down this particular road before. What legal communications can legally be withheld from duly elected members of the EB? If information was being withheld, why would it be illegal to use any method necessary to obtain the withheld information? 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. Does anyone remember when Jim Eade and Tom Dorsch were stripped of all authority by other board members when Dorsch had been elected USCF treasurer? How do you strip the duly elected Treasurer from USCF financial information? Same insider clique, different victims. Sheesh Rp >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. If they concur with your uncertainty, let us know. It would disabuse us of the notion that most of your post was ignorant prattle. >What legal communications can legally be withheld from duly elected >members of the EB? If information was being withheld, why would it be >illegal to use any method necessary to obtain the withheld >information? 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. If the Secret Service concurs, be sure and let us know. Provisionally, I'll regard your opinions as drivel. >Sheesh Yup. >Rp > >It is not entirely clear to me whether any illegality was involved or > >whether the Polgars were justified in learning whether USCF money was [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If the Secret Service concurs, be sure and let us know. Provisionally, > I'll regard your opinions as drivel. Prattle? Provisional drivel? And oh yes, ethics. When it comes to talking out of your nether regions, you should fit right in with the USCF insiders. The mere fact that elected EB members do have the right to all information regarding USCF has you in a tizzy. Just because someone has filed a complaint with the Secret Service does not mean the US Justice Department is going to take action even if the allegation were true. Want to bet the complaintant failed to mention the "supposed violators" were elected to the USCF board? When that little fact is discovered, no further energy will be expended and USCF will be told this is a civil matter. This is so typically USCF. This is about USCF election year politics, nothing more. The insiders always have something to distract people from the facts. This year it is "The Polgars are being investigated by the Secret Service". Whoopee ding. The significant fact. This year, operations lost $500,000. We are told "Do not look at that man behind the curtain". Instead, look at Polgar who filed a lawsuit and cost us $500K in legal fees. Except it is not quite true either. Now we find, USCF insiders filed suit first and the legal fees argument (which are much less and $500K) are another in a series self inflicted wound for political purposes. Once USCF had filed the first lawsuit, were the Polgars not supposed to respond? Mike would have us claim the ethical high ground by bleeding USCF into bankruptcy. The only problem is the USCF insiders don't have any ethics and this is just another election year example. Sheesh Rp >Prattle? Provisional drivel? And oh yes, ethics. >When it comes to talking out of your nether regions, you should fit >right in with the USCF insiders. >The mere fact that elected EB members do have the right to all >information regarding USCF has you in a tizzy. No, what got me in a "tizzy" about your post was your claim that a possible legal right to information gave somebody the actual right to break in to another person's e-mail account and take it. Anybody with any sense would know that one would have to work through the legal system to get that information. If the information was on a document in the trunk of someone's car, do you believe an elected member has the legal right to pick the lock and review it? Your claim is breathtaking in its stupidity. Why would anyone take the rest of your post seriously? >Just because someone has filed a complaint with the Secret Service >does not mean the US Justice Department is going to take action even >if the allegation were true. Want to bet the complaintant failed to >mention the "supposed violators" were elected to the USCF board? When >that little fact is discovered, no further energy will be expended and >USCF will be told this is a civil matter. What you don't seem to realize is that the Secret Service has already obtained a warrant, searched somebody's house and seized computer equipment. So, it appears you are virtually ignorant about the background of the whole issue. That sure doesn't stop you from expressing your strong opinions on it, does it? >Sheesh Yup > >Prattle? Provisional drivel? And oh yes, ethics. > >When it comes to talking out of your nether regions, you should fit [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Yup http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml Maybe the" Access Device" investigation is what was exploited? >http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml >Maybe the" Access Device" investigation is what was exploited? "Exploited" ?? Strange choice of word. What do you mean? > >http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml > >Maybe the" Access Device" investigation is what was exploited? > > "Exploited" ?? Strange choice of word. What do you mean? I was trying to figure out what grounds the Secret Service would go after someone. I don't know what crime was alledged to have happened to encourage the Secret Service to get involved.Someone may have told them that something "suspicious" was happening. Does anyone know if the Secret Service is charging anyone? If they went through all the trouble to get a subpoena and search someones home and then dont bring criminal charges would that not lead one to infer that the whole thing was inflated for political purposes? > I don't know what crime was alledged to have happened to encourage the > Secret Service to get involved.Someone may have told them that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > charges would that not lead one to infer that the whole thing was > inflated for political purposes? Now you have it Rob. Mike says he got his information from the internet. Good Mike, a credible source. On the internet, does it say what the secret service was told by USCF insiders? Not likely. They say a DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Remember this is USCF politics. Which is more important to chess 1) That operations lost $500K or 2) That board members are fighting over access to information? The insiders want to distract your attention from the $500K loss. Who would reelect the party of massive losses? The insiders and their mouthpieces must rely on the distraction lest the voters figure out their incompetence. Would Polgar be better? Who knows? Did you notice Mike didn't address the ripoff of the 30,000 scholastic members by this same insider group when they stole their subscription money? Sheesh Rp >Now you have it Rob. >Mike says he got his information from the internet. Good Mike, a >credible source. Yes, now you have it Rob. That Peterson complete missed the sarcasm of my answer shows how much he's been following the developments in this case. RP, before you make an even greater a.s of yourself, why don't you review Polgar's response when asked where she got the privileged communications. >On the internet, does it say what the secret service >was told by USCF insiders? When these "insiders" whisper in an agent's ear, does the Secret Service follow them anywhere? >Not likely. They say a DA can get a grand >jury to indict a ham sandwich. Is Goichberg a DA ? >Remember this is USCF politics. >Which is more important to chess 1) That operations lost $500K or 2) >That board members are fighting over access to information? >The insiders want to distract your attention from the $500K loss. Seems to me they've been trying to direct our attention to the segment of this loss attributed to litigation expenses. >Who >would reelect the party of massive losses? Who would elect supporters of those who caused the massive losses? >The insiders and their >mouthpieces must rely on the distraction lest the voters figure out >their incompetence. Would Polgar be better? Who knows? That's true. We don't know. She might actually do a better job. Especially if she ends up owning the Federation. >Did you notice Mike didn't address the ripoff of the 30,000 scholastic >members by this same insider group when they stole their subscription >money? Remembering back a few years when I first started following this group, I read some accounts of a certain California insider, can't remember who at the moment, using his own unique interpretation of the law the "protect" scholastic money. Didn't his chain get jerked rather hard? Didn't he eat some serious crow? Maybe RP remembers this and can refresh our memory. >Sheesh Yup >Rp > >Did you notice Mike didn't address the ripoff of the 30,000 scholastic > >members by this same insider group when they stole their subscription [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > >Sheesh Hmmm. I wonder who Mike could be talking about? Now let's see if this fact pattern fits. Calchess insiders began to deposit money in a secret bank account and these same insiders stopped publishing CalChess Journal and kept more than 1000 CalChess kids subscription money. The CalChess Treasurer, who had no idea of the existence of this other account, went to the Kern County District attorney (Perry Patterson) to find out what to do with the children's stolen funds. Turns out Ass't DA was an expert on non-profits. A separate trust account was set up to hold the funds and the kids were asked what to do with their money. It was never mine and I never claimed any personal right to it. I just didn't want to hold stolen funds. Here is the funny part. The CalChess insiders went to a police department and filed grand theft charges. Then those police (Menlo Park if memory serves) were referred to the Kern County District attorney. Guess what? The charges were dropped. Don't feel badly if you do not know this. Neither did our current USCF VP from Oklahoma who learned what he learned from the internet writings of the CalChess insiders. He also said I didn't go to a District Attorney. Strangely, he also got the situation in western Pennsylvania wrong but that didn't stop him from writing about both even after he knew he was wrong. After the charges were found to be completely without merit, those same CalChess insiders were hiding from process servers for months. Hmmm. Whomever could Mike be referring? But in a USCF sense, isn't this typical. The insiders or their puppets attack the person and do not address the issues. There is still an operating loss of 500K last year and we are being asked to reelect these people. Isn't the real question, should we reelect incompetent people who lost 500K? Rp >Hmmm. I wonder who Mike could be talking about? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Hmmm. Whomever could Mike be referring? Interesting. If true, I owe you an apology for that segment of my post. >But in a USCF sense, isn't this typical. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Isn't the real question, should we reelect incompetent people who lost >500K? Or the supporters of those who sued the Federation and refused to cooperate with USCF attorneys. Don't forget that segment of your choice. >Rp >> >Maybe the" Access Device" investigation is what was exploited? >> "Exploited" ?? Strange choice of word. What do you mean? >I was trying to figure out what grounds the Secret Service would go >after someone. >I don't know what crime was alledged to have happened to encourage the >Secret Service to get involved.Someone may have told them that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >charges would that not lead one to infer that the whole thing was >inflated for political purposes? Rob, you're smarter than this. You should be better than this. You "don't know what crime was alleged"? After all this time, you don't know that someone was accused of hacking into the e-mail account of an EB member, accessing privileged attorney-client communication and making such communication public? Come on. The Secret Service isn't going to start searching houses and seizing computers because "someone may have told them that something 'suspicious' was happening". They have to get a warrant. To do that, they have to convince a judge that the search is warranted. Before the agents go to the judge, they do some investigation. Presumably, they reviewed the same evidence that the USCF cited in its civil case, and my guess is they went beyond it. Nobody claims that such searches always lead to formal charges, or that formal charges inevitably lead to convictions. But your statement that failure to escalate the case to the next level would imply "the whole thing was inflated for political purposes" itself implies that the agents involved and the judge who authorized the search either are absolute dunderheads OR that they were somehow in on the scheme. (BTW, is anyone sure the case will NOT be escalated?) There are plenty of reasons why a case may not be pursued -- for one, there may be evidence sufficient to win a civil case (preponderance of evidence) but not a criminal one (beyond a reasonable doubt). Of course, finding nothing and total innocence of the suspect is also a possible reason. Sure, the case serves the political agenda of those opposed to Polgar and Truong, just as Watergate served the agenda of the Democrats, just as Sam Sloan's felony record served the political agenda of his opponents in the last USCF election. People use what's there. Nothing new. You've beat the drums of morality several times, Rob. Are you ready to quit using oblique terms like "inflated" and "exploited" , to cut right to the chase and say that a crime should be excused or overlooked? That it doesn't count because it touches on "chess politics"? Or because the people accused are all around nice folks and could do a lot more for chess if not for these distractions? > >> >Maybe the" Access Device" investigation is what was exploited? > >> "Exploited" ?? Strange choice of word. What do you mean? [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > politics"? Or because the people accused are all around nice folks and > could do a lot more for chess if not for these distractions? Mike, Was Alexander doing work for the USCF at the time this happened?( I ask because I don't know.) Was he a moderator or something for the USCF? I really don't know so that is why I am asking. I thought I remembered that Alexander may have been a moderator or something. If he wasn't, then what I am asking isn't relevant. If he was a moderator and accessed internal emails from company web mails, then is it really a cyber crime? Moderators frequently have access to company mail accounts. The Secret Service will not normally get involved in this type of case if it is a moderator getting into company emails. Now if he got into a personal private email account that would be a different animal altogether. But as far as I know, no one knows what the actual charges were. If someones name and reputation is going to be dragged through the mud in public I believe it's important to be fair and open. The stolen emails were from the period January-February 2008. Gregory Alexander was first an FOC member and then a moderator in April-May 2007. The stolen email were not from the USCF website. They were from a private email account with Yahoo.com owned by Randy Hough. Sam Sloan > The stolen emails were from the period January-February 2008. Gregory > Alexander was first an FOC member and then a moderator in April-May > 2007. The stolen email were not from the USCF website. They were from > a private email account with Yahoo.com owned by Randy Hough. > > Sam Sloan Is molesting children worse than hacking email accounts? Probably, but two wrongs... etc. I'd ask Sistani to decide this question, but he's soon going to be otherwise occupied in Qom, and he doesn't like chess. > > The stolen emails were from the period January-February 2008. Gregory > > Alexander was first an FOC member and then a moderator in April-May [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'd ask Sistani to decide this question, but he's soon going to be > otherwise occupied in Qom, and he doesn't like chess. Pedantic solace from recent events in Iran: we now have an excuse to use "antidisestablishmentarianism" in casual conversation. Hmm...possible broader application. Is Goichbergism a quasi-state religion? > > > The stolen emails were from the period January-February 2008. Gregory > > > Alexander was first an FOC member and then a moderator in April-May [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Hmm...possible broader application. Is Goichbergism a quasi-state > religion? Well, golly. I always thought the cited term referree specifically to matters concerning the Church of England. David Ames > > Hmm...possible broader application. �Is Goichbergism a quasi-state > > religion? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Actually your reference to "other darkness" does seem ecumenical. It does seem there is an insiders "quasi state religion". If you dare to show the man behind the curtain, you are excommunicated by the insiders but this is rather liberating rather than inhibiting. For those who wish to improve the state of chess, they are always amazed to discover they are facing a wall of chess Jesuits. Rather like a debate between real Jesuits who are sure of their world view and a middle school basketball team which just wants the Jesuits to get off the court so they can play. The basketball team does not have a vested interest in the politics of the situation. It is not a fair fight. In some respects, the insiders seem more like scientologists who will sue at the drop of a hat. What always amazed me is how cheaply some of the insiders fellow travelers figuratively sell their souls and take up their robes. Rp >Was Alexander doing work for the USCF at the time this happened?( I >ask because I don't know.) Was he a moderator or something for the >USCF? He may, at one time, have served as a moderator on the USCF forums, but don't think he served in this capacity during the times of the alleged hacking. He was an active poster there. AFAIK, he served and still serves, in a volunteer capacity as an admin and web developer for ChessDiscussion. My USCF forum contacts with him have been cordial and he seems like a nice guy. This whole thing has to be a personal nightmare for him. >I really don't know so that is why I am asking. I thought I >remembered that Alexander may have been a moderator or something. If >he wasn't, then what I am asking isn't relevant. A lot of people have rotated through the various USCF forum moderation, oversight and administration positions. I don't think it's relevant to the email hacking issue. >If he was a moderator and accessed internal emails from company web >mails, then is it really a cyber crime? Moderators frequently have >access to company mail accounts. The Secret Service will not normally >get involved in this type of case if it is a moderator getting into >company emails. As Sam Sloan pointed out in his reply to your post, a private e-mail account was hacked. The data was then posted to a web site or blog. See below. >Now if he got into a personal private email account that would be a >different animal altogether. But as far as I know, no one knows what >the actual charges were. AFAIK, no formal criminal charges have, as yet, been filed. Only civil suits are in play. Here's a page with links: http://www.uschess.org/legalupdates/Site/PolAlexDoes.html > If someones name and reputation is going to >be dragged through the mud in public I believe it's important to be >fair and open. I believe Grand Jury investigations are normally closed, primarily to protect reputations of those investigated but not charged. > >Was Alexander doing work for the USCF at the time this happened?( I > >ask because I don't know.) Was he a moderator or something for the [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > I believe Grand Jury investigations are normally closed, primarily to > protect reputations of those investigated but not charged. So there was only one "personal" email account accessed? The rest were USCF internal accounts? If he violated a personal email account and it can be proven, it's something I can neither defend nor condone and facing the music is the only resolution possible IMO. The USCF internal accounts are not privledged and I don't believe you caould get a charge nor a conviction based upon his administrator status /moderator status within the USCF. >So there was only one "personal" email account accessed? The rest were >USCF internal accounts? I believe the USCF stated it was accessed illegally over 100 times. >If he violated a personal email account and it can be proven, it's >something I can neither defend nor condone and facing the music is the >only resolution possible IMO. The USCF internal accounts are not >privledged and I don't believe you caould get a charge nor a >conviction based upon his administrator status /moderator status >within the USCF. I believe the complaint mentioned hacking of the internal accounts too. My guess is that this was more to establish a pattern of hacking. Dunno. A moderator shouldn't be able to get at internal e-mails, but an admin probably could. A *former* moderator or admin would have no more privileged status than either of us -- just as a former employee would not be privileged to use an old extra key to enter the office at night. Most of the legal briefs have been posted, AFAIK. They make rather tedious reading, but you might get some of your questions answered straight from the horse's mouth (or some other exit). > >So there was only one "personal" email account accessed? The rest were > >USCF internal accounts? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > tedious reading, but you might get some of your questions answered > straight from the horse's mouth (or some other exit). Well, however things come out... it will not end well for anyone, least of all the USCF. They havn't produced an operational positive cash flow in at least half a decade from what I can determine and they have no plan to do so at all. Save an occassional bequeath from someone dying their business plan is almost void of any foresight. Aside from providing a rating service... what does the USCF really do that can't be done outside of, and many times better than it is done within , the USCF? I hope there is a way to reform and save the USCF. But it should be realized that it may not be possible or practical. A used car is a bargain until the cost of repairs begins to equal or exceed the cost total of replacement. Are the chess playing members ready to emotionally scrap their beloved clunker and move on? Personally I dont think they are. >Well, however things come out... it will not end well for anyone, >least of all the USCF. >They havn't produced an operational positive cash flow in at least >half a decade from what I can determine and they have no plan to do so >at all. Save an occassional bequeath from someone dying their business >plan is almost void of any foresight. Aside from providing a rating >service... what does the USCF really do that can't be done outside of, >and many times better than it is done within , the USCF? >I hope there is a way to reform and save the USCF. But it should be >realized that it may not be possible or practical. A used car is a >bargain until the cost of repairs begins to equal or exceed the cost >total of replacement. Are the chess playing members ready to >emotionally scrap their beloved clunker and move on? Personally I dont >think they are. Rob, you have no idea of the real cost of replacement. Why should a national chess organization be profitable? Coming reasonably close to breaking even is all I would ask. Once we accept the fact that chess has minimal spectator value, where does the money come from? The only way consistent big money will enter chess is via the government subsidized educational pipeline. Do we really want every college and university to have something equivalent to SPICE? Do we want PhD's awarded in Chess? Do we want our colleges serving, as they do in basketball and football, as minor leagues for some proprietary pro circuit, all at taxpayer expense? Maybe some would answer, "yes". But in this case, talk of "operational cash flow" is nonsense -- it's just taxpayer funded. Where's the "operational cash flow" for SPICE ? Instead of a shoestring semi-amateur operation like the USCF, fighting to break even, the costs have simply been shifted to the taxpayer. Where are the nice fat SPICE salaries for Polgar and Truong coming from? Ultimately, as tax payers, from us.. And, in this case, talk of "operational cash flow" is nonsense. Where's the "operational cash flow" for professional athletics? It's from cities and states dumping money into stadiums, from universities paying for payer development, etc., etc. I would object to some sort of proprietary substitute for the USCF. There is no reason to suppose this proprietary substitute, whether owned by the Polgars or somebody else, would be anything but closed and controlling. > >Well, however things come out... it will not end well for anyone, > >least of all the USCF. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > owned by the Polgars or somebody else, would be anything but closed > and controlling. MIke, Even a "not for profit" needs to have a positive operational cash flow. If it doesn't, it will run out of funds and go bankrupt. If you want to compare the USCF to professional sports( LOL) there are millions in profit sharing based upon revenue sharing from media contracts. The reason State or cities build the stadiums is because of the tax money they make when 50k people come to town to watch the games and because of the media exposure the city gets when games are broadcast on television. As far as knowing the real cost of replacement, who does know the true cost? Is it less than the "true cost" of keeping it? >Even a "not for profit" needs to have a positive operational cash >flow. If it doesn't, it will run out of funds and go bankrupt. Not so. Bequests, special fund raising events, donations, grants, etc., can easily make up for modest operational deficits. > If you >want to compare the USCF to professional sports( LOL) there are >millions in profit sharing based upon revenue sharing from media >contracts. Sure. And many in the chess world have dreamed of something similar. I believe these to be pipe dreams. Chess is not primarily a spectator sport. FIDE's efforts to drive it in that direction have been destructive and ineffective, IMO. >The reason State or cities build the stadiums is because of >the tax money they make when 50k people come to town to watch the >games and because of the media exposure the city gets when games are >broadcast on television. This is the hype, spewed out by wealthy team owners, who get the taxpayers to cough up millions on millions to subsidize facilities. And then threaten to move the team if the taxpayers don't come through with upgrades,more tax breaks, etc., etc. I don't believe much of this hype. I think it underestimates attendant costs caused by sporadic traffic tie-ups, loss of the tax base to other uses, and neighborhood degradation. And the real poison is harder to quantify: the huge number of kids focusing all their efforts on a future in pro sports with the idea of becoming one of the lucky big-buck big-leaguers, at the expense of getting a decent education or learning a decent trade or entrepreneurship. >As far as knowing the real cost of replacement, who does know the true >cost? Is it less than the "true cost" of keeping it? My point. We don't know. > >Even a "not for profit" needs to have a positive operational cash > >flow. If it doesn't, it will run out of funds and go bankrupt. > > Not so. Bequests, special fund raising events, donations, grants, > etc., can easily make up for modest operational deficits. It's a poor business plan to count on folks dying or having to "sell cookies" to make up for hundreds of thousands of dollars in short falls. > > If you > >want to compare the USCF to professional sports( LOL) there are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sport. FIDE's efforts to drive it in that direction have been > destructive and ineffective, IMO. I don't disagree given the current atmosphere. > >The reason State or cities build the stadiums is because of > >the tax money they make when 50k people come to town to watch the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And then threaten to move the team if the taxpayers don't come through > with upgrades,more tax breaks, etc., etc. Thats really not true. Memphis put a baseball park into the downtown area and the community has be revitalized by it. Now I am not saying every development is a good one. Nashville has the Titans and it has been a good thing for the city overall to have them here. The stadium is being paid for out of TIF revenue from the staduim itself. The city just secured the bonds, didn't cost them anything at all. > I don't believe much of this hype. I think it underestimates > attendant costs caused by sporadic traffic tie-ups, loss of the tax [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of the lucky big-buck big-leaguers, at the expense of getting a decent > education or learning a decent trade or entrepreneurship. Lets hope the world does not produce another Pac Man Jones! > >As far as knowing the real cost of replacement, who does know the true > >cost? Is it less than the "true cost" of keeping it? > > My point. We don't know. And we don't know the real cost to chess by continuing as things are either. To do something or do nothing but come with costs. The real choice to make( and I think people are doing it with their memberships) is if staying in an organization that appears to be on a path towards oblivion is one worth sending money for membership. There are really no right or wrong answers to this discussion,IMO. It's all still conjecture and open discussion. >> >Even a "not for profit" needs to have a positive operational cash >> >flow. If it doesn't, it will run out of funds and go bankrupt. >> Not so. Bequests, special fund raising events, donations, grants, >> etc., can easily make up for modest operational deficits. >It's a poor business plan to count on folks dying or having to "sell >cookies" to make up for hundreds of thousands of dollars in short >falls. I don't think endowments and grants fall under the category of "bake sale". More importantly, if not for the legal costs related to Polgar and Truong (and Sloan), the deficits have been manageable recently. > >Just because someone has filed a complaint with the Secret Service > >does not mean the US Justice Department is going to take action even [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > background of the whole issue. That sure doesn't stop you from > expressing your strong opinions on it, does it? Try to follow the conversation. Yes, a warrant was obtained. And... And nothing. They investigate. Discover there are civil actions pending and the dispute is over withheld information between duly elected board members and decide it is a civil issue better decided in the civil courts. Further, they discover one side is attempting to gain election advantage exploiting this through silly posts by Mike Murray. The secret service protects the President, investigates counterfeiting, and certain other specified real crimes. They don't investigate school bullys, trunk robberies, or other imaginary crimes just in time for the USCF elections. If we are talking about private email, why are USCF assets being used to pursue this matter in civil court? If the emails were part of the USCF email system, where is the crime? There is no law against breaking into your own trunk especially if other board members are attempting to file illegal lawsuits. Mike wants to miss the point and does. Issues like this always come up in USCF politics just before elections. It is a tempest in a teapot. Rp You claim you have access to the "facts". Pray tell, who gave you the "facts". Or are these more nether words? Did the secret service confide in Mike Murray? Doubtful. >> What you don't seem to realize is that the Secret Service has already >> obtained a warrant, searched somebody's house and seized computer >> equipment. So, it appears you are virtually ignorant about the >> background of the whole issue. That sure doesn't stop you from >> expressing your strong opinions on it, does it? >Try to follow the conversation. >Yes, a warrant was obtained. And... >And nothing. .....Yet. You imply the investigation's dropped. Do you know this or do you speculate? On this, you could be right or wrong. We'll see. The stupidity in your post comes later. >They investigate. Discover there are civil actions >pending and the dispute is over withheld information between duly >elected board members and decide it is a civil issue better decided in >the civil courts. Further, they discover one side is attempting to >gain election advantage exploiting this through silly posts by Mike >Murray. Here again, your ignorance rears its head. You claim the Secret Service will ignore a crime because the crime involves "information between duly elected board members". This is complete nonsense. Would appropriate legal agencies ignore breaking into someone's house to get the same information? >The secret service protects the President, investigates >counterfeiting, and certain other specified real crimes. They don't >investigate school bullys, trunk robberies, or other imaginary crimes >just in time for the USCF elections. More ignorant prattle. Rob just cited the appropriate section on the Secret Service's own website. Read it before you embarrass yourself further. >If we are talking about private email, why are USCF assets being used >to pursue this matter in civil court? >If the emails were part of the USCF email system, where is the crime? >There is no law against breaking into your own trunk especially if >other board members are attempting to file illegal lawsuits. They say someone who represents himself ends up with a fool for a lawyer and the lawyer ends up with a fool for a client. You seem to be taking this to a more general level. >Mike wants to miss the point and does. >Issues like this always come up in USCF politics just before >elections. It is a tempest in a teapot. Down the road, it will be fun rubbing your nose in this comment. >Rp >You claim you have access to the "facts". Pray tell, who gave you the >"facts". I found them "on the Internet". >Or are these more nether words? Did the secret service confide in >Mike Murray? Doubtful. Naaa. It's all public for those able to read. Maybe you could hire an eighth grader as a consultant. ascach...@aol.com wrote: > Try to follow the conversation. > Yes, a warrant was obtained. And... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gain election advantage exploiting this through silly posts by Mike > Murray. It was presented to a Grand Jury. Doesn't mean they'll indict, of course, It does mean you're an ignorant blowhard. > The secret service protects the President, investigates > counterfeiting, and certain other specified real crimes. They don't > investigate school bullys, trunk robberies, or other imaginary crimes > just in time for the USCF elections. It also investigates computer crimes like wire fraud and hacking. Historical reasons, going back the the early days of wire-transfer banking. Shouldn't you learn something about the subject before you make a fool of yourself? Nah, you never did before. > > The secret service protects the President, investigates > > counterfeiting, and certain other specified real crimes. �They don't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > banking. Shouldn't you learn something about the subject before you > make a fool of yourself? Nah, you never did before. Are you saying there was wire-transfer fraud or any financial loss that was not self inflicted? The questions remain: 1) If this was a private email that was hacked, why are USCF funds being used to pay for a lawsuit? 2) If this was related to USCF's website and email system, how can you deny access to a duly elected member of the EB? 3) Should the insiders who have financially wrecked USCF be reelected? Rp On Jun 22, 9:08 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > > > The secret service protects the President, investigates > > > counterfeiting, and certain other specified real crimes. They don't [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Rp It was confidential emails from the USCF's attorney to Randy Hough, a member of the USCF Executive Board. It showed up on a website owned by Susan Polgar who initially claimed that it was hers. As a result of a subpoena served on Yahoo, it was established that somebody with an IP address from Everette Washington had hacked into Randy Hough's Yahoo email account 111 times. After further subpoenas were served, it was established that the holder of that IP address was Gregory Alexander, an associate of Susan Polgar. The USCF's website was not involved in this aspect of the case. However, The USCF Issues Forum is involved in a related case in that Paul Truong a visitor to the USCF Issues forum was taking postings there and after modifying them and adding some obscenities and personal attacks then posted them here on rec.games.chess.politics making it appear that I and other prominent chess personalities had authored these obscene postings. Of course, I have issues with the USCF insiders. I do not support them. Nevertheless, I feel that the current insiders are far better than the Polgar-Truong crowd and their toadies and sycophants, Lugo, Hecht and Korenman. Sam Sloan The felon has been asked to provide a summary of the following case. Does the decision enhance his fitness to serve on the board of a national nonprofit organization? *** Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department D23302 G/nl AD3d Submitted - April 20, 2009 STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P. JOSEPH COVELLO DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ. 2008-07111 DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Samuel S. (Anonymous), appellant, v Dayawathie R. (Anonymous), respondent. (Docket Nos. V-05631-06, V-056232-06, V-11657-05) (Apologies for the double post to folks reading outside of Google: I deleted the original to make a redaction) The felon has been asked to provide an executive summary of the following case. How does it burnish his credentials for the USCF Executive Board? *** Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department D23302 G/nl AD3d Submitted - April 20, 2009 STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P. JOSEPH COVELLO DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ. 2008-07111 DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Samuel S. (Anonymous), appellant, v D********* R. (Anonymous), respondent. (Docket Nos. V-05631-06, V-056232-06, V-11657-05) > On Jun 22, 9:08 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote: The questions remain: > > 1) If this was a private email that was hacked, why are USCF funds > > being used to pay for a lawsuit? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > established that the holder of that IP address was Gregory Alexander, > an associate of Susan Polgar. Sam Sloan Assuming what Sam has written is accurate and only emails on Yahoo were hacked by someone in Everette, Washington, why are USCF funds involved in a lawsuit at all. This looks political and a waste of USCF funds. Let the USCF insiders pay their own legal bills. Rp ascach...@aol.com wrote: > > On Jun 22, 9:08 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > The questions remain: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Rp Polgar posted the stolen e-mails on line for political purposes, and the person apparently responsible for the hacking was an associate/ employee/volunteer for Polgar. For that matter, Polgar has admitted in one of her court filings that she said something to Alexander which probably led him to do the hacking. She just claims that he "misinterpreted" her request. ("Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?") And the damage from the stolen e-mails was to the USCF, not to individual Board members (violation of attorney-client privilege). It is certainly possible to argue that the California lawsuit was tactically unwise, but a knee-jerk attack on "insiders" (i.e. those who cast Richard Peterson into the other darkness, which is to say almost everyone) is just monkey chatter. And the damage from the stolen e-mails was to the USCF, not > to individual Board members (violation of attorney-client privilege). > It is certainly possible to argue that the California lawsuit was > tactically unwise, but a knee-jerk attack on "insiders" (i.e. those > who cast Richard Peterson into the other darkness, which is to say > almost everyone) is just monkey chatter.- "a knee-jerk attack on "insiders"??? If ever a group had earned condemnation it is the USCF insiders group. Not long ago I trusted them with $700 for a life membership. My son (a 9 time national scholastic champion) bought one for $800. The life members account had $2,000,000 in it and we owned our own building. What happened to USCF? Is it knee jerk to find fault with the insiders who lost the LMA? Is it knee jerk to find fault with the insiders who stole the subscription funds of 30,000 children? Is the litany of illegal political lawsuits filed by USCF an indication of competence? Shall we talk about insider junkets or the insiders who are paid for what passes for "journalism"? No "journalist" would be paid for this drivel but for certain insiders it is a recurrent perk. We lose Larry Evans but keep the insiders. Is it knee jerk to find fault with our financials which have been revised going back into the 1990s and always downwards. Things were always worse than the books given to the delegates. Is this an accident? It is a game of musical chairs. Insiders in, insiders out but always outnumbering any effort to reform. The delegate meetings get grayer and grayer as the insiders age. The insiders failed USCF. John Dillinger would have left the change. When lights go out, I have my suspicions that it is not I who will be left in the "other darkness". Rp On Jun 24, 11:01 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > The insiders failed USCF. > Rp The management didn't do what you would have had them do.Your remark is analogous to the Republicans complaining that the President has failed. He failed to do what they would have had them do. That's politics. David Ames > On Jun 24, 11:01�pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > David Ames NOT! The revolving insiders did not lose the Life Members $2,000,000? The revolving insiders did not steal the subscription money from the 30,000 young Schoolmates subscribers? The revolving insiders did not lose $500,000 from operations in the past year? In the last ten years, the revolving insiders have not used illegal lawsuits to attack their political enemies? And the question remains regarding book and equipment sales where gross margins were always shown at 30% when everybody in the business knows they are double that or more. I believe the record shows the insiders have failed exactly as advertised. You couldn't possibly be arguing that USCF is in good financial shape? Support your assertion. Please point to USCF success in the past decade. Rp On Jun 25, 7:11 am, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > > On Jun 24, 11:01 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > David Ames > Support your assertion. Please point to USCF success in the past > decade. > > Rp I made no assertion about successes. I said that management didn't do what you would have had them do. Put up your own candidacy or support someone else's. David Ames ascach...@aol.com wrote: > > On Jun 24, 11:01�pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Rp You're engaging a a pretty obvious logical fallacy: you are lumping together a bunch of people who have different policies and are often mutually hostile as "insiders," and blaming all of them collectively for anything done by any of them. It seems you're using "insider" as shorthand for "belongs to a faction other than mine." There's nothing wrong with that, until you start trying to claim some sort of moral superiority for being on the losing side. What stake do you have in USCF affairs, Murray? > >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 >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. > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:04:23 +0200, nob...@nowhere.com > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > When he gathers up the courage to post under a real handle, maybe real > people will deign to include him in the conversation. Wrong attitude, actually. Address the points raised - not who raised them. Regards, zdrakec >> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:04:23 +0200, nob...@nowhere.com >> <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. >Wrong attitude, actually. >Address the points raised - not who raised them. 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 > >> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:04:23 +0200, nob...@nowhere.com > >> <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Regards, > >zdrakec Well, I concede a point there. But addressing them at all, in this case, amounts to the same thing.... . >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. > >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 > [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. GREG'S CIRCUITS OVERHEATED <Add one more name to the long list of people Greg Kennedy has gratuitously insulted.> -- Taylor Kingston Greg Kennedy has returned with his circuits overheated. He has dropped the eugenics discussion and asks me a question about postings by anonymouse Joe Schmoe (None). Sorry, I'm under no obligation to answer questions by or about people who don't reveal their name.. Yours, Larry Parr > > [scribbles the name "Mike Murray" in log book > > of those who have difficulties with elementary [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Add one more name to the long list of people Greg Kennedy has > gratuitously insulted. On Jul 2, 10:06 pm, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote: > Sorry, I'm under no obligation to answer questions by > or about people who don't reveal their name.. As Dr. Blair proved beyond all doubt, Mr. Parr refuses to answer embarassing questions... such as those which reveal his own powerful tendency to lie and smear. "Larry, you promised rgc readers scandalous revelations from the Laurie archives. Instead, you just regurgitate the same old crap." -- Taylor Kingston "I see -- so by Larry Parr's standards, someone who fabricates a lie is under only a "teensy-weensy obligation" to provide any supporting evidence. And apparently under no obligation to retract it once refuted." -- Taylor Kingston "What Larry [Parr] doesn't like is the way that I and others on this newsgroup routinely embarrass him by pointing out his and Sloan's lies." -- Taylor Kingston -- help bot On Jul 2, 10:06 pm, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote: > GREG'S CIRCUITS OVERHEATED > Greg Kennedy has returned with his circuits overheated. He has > dropped the eugenics discussion and asks me a question about postings > by anonymouse Joe Schmoe (None). Sorry, I'm under no obligation to > answer questions by or about people who don't reveal their name.. > > Yours, Larry Parr How conveneient for you. You are a hoot Larry. You were under no obligation to comment in the first place yet you did. Now you scurry away with your tail between your legs. BTW I don't use a remailer. 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. 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 > On Jul 2, 6:20 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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? I filed the first lawsuit. GREG'S BORING RANTS Greg Kennedy continues to quote from old wars between Taylor Kingston and myself. They bring back full-blooded memories, and they may be an earnest (who knows?) for future battles between this writer and Mr. Kingston. Still, what do these quotations have to do with our Greg jerking himself like some poor soul with mental St. Vitus Dance? The discussion was on eugenics, and it appears that our lad has had enough and wishes to move on. On this forum, people heave a thousand and one adjectives at, say, Sam Sloan. But one of the rarer ones has been "boring." I can't recollect, though perhaps he has been, when either Mr. Kingston was boring or even his mentor Edward Winter, though I am no fan of his late-Victorian prose which sets some people to snoozin' and snorin', but not to imploring. Imploring? There are times when, as some have said did Gaius Petronius of Nero, one implores Greg not to bore us. We can forgive him much, even including his bouts of self-pity or that gratuitous brouhaha he had with the breakfast monkey in the Singapore Zoo that had the fortuitous and serendipitous name of "G. Kennedy." "To Nero, Emperor of Rome, Master of the World, Divine Pontiff," goes one version of what one wishes to say to our self-described Victim of Factory Work in Indiana. "I can forgive you for murdering your wife and your mother [in the current instance, mangling modifiers and hanging prepositions] for burning our beloved Rome [our beloved USCF headquarters?] for befouling our fair country [website] with the stench of your crimes [metaphorical but apt]. Yet one thing I cannot forgive -- the boredom of having to read your rants. Mutilate your subjects if you must [in our case, your sentences] but with my last breath [or keystroke] I implore you -- do not mutilate the arts [our newsgroup -- I know, I know].... Brutalize the people but do not bore them, as you have bored to death your friend, the late Gaius Petronius." I hereby propose that a collection plate be passed around the next time Greg tries to talk about a historical subject. We buy him a standard volume on whatever subject he chooses, let him read it and return to us spewing and spouting, though for once with a modicum of knowledgibility. Yours, Larry Parr > > On Jul 2, 6:20 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > yours. You insult pretty much everyone here, with or (far more often) > without reason. Why is that? On Jul 3, 10:21 am, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote: > GREG'S BORING RANTS > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Still, what do these quotations have to do with our Greg jerking > himself like some poor soul with mental St. Vitus Dance? Isn't it interesting how a jerk like Greg Kennedy can get erstwhile adversaries like Parr and myself on the same side of an issue? Reminds me of a sci-fi short story I read decades ago, by Theodore Sturgeon as I recall. A scientist devises a sophisticated scheme to make it appear that the Earth is threatened by an enemy from outer space. The various warring nations forget their petty differences and join in planetary unity against the alien menace, ushering in an unprecented era of peace. Maybe we could make Greg perform the same function? We'd finally be putting him to some good use. > > 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. > Wrong attitude, actually. > Address the points raised - not who raised them. 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 > <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >What stake do you have in USCF affairs, Murray? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 >> <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >What stake do you have in USCF affairs, Murray? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -- help bot Hey, Bot, you don't post through an anonymizer or remailer do ya? Why are you getting your circuits all over-heated? > 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 > 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. > 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 On Jun 29, 7:04 am, nob...@nowhere.com <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: > [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 On Jun 29, 5:40 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <sennaj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 7:04 am, nob...@nowhere.com <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Wlod 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. > No need for "provisionally", Murray - I'll dismiss all your uninformed > speculations, your libels, your smears, your one-sided bullshit, your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 What stake do you have in USCF affairs, Murray? > >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 On Jun 19, 9:36 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote: > Susan Polgar writes in a Chess Cafe blog, > > "After wasting an exuberant amount of members’ money "Exuberant" describes an amount? > What are the facts? Without interpretation. > Did the USCF begin the lawsuits or was it Polgar? Keeping in mind that the threat is stronger than the execution, who first threatened lawsuits? > Sheesh > Richard Peterson RP wrote: > So Who Did File the First Lawsuit? > What are the facts? > Did the USCF begin the lawsuits or was it Polgar? You need to pay more attention, Richard. It was Samuel Sloan who began the lawsuits, in his outrageous court filings of October 2007 against the USCF, many of its officers and miscellaneous others. What happened later is that all but one person on the then USCF EB conspired against SP and PT and took the side of Sam Sloan. This is the same Sam Sloan, who had for years been trying to get on control of the USCF with its tens of thousands of affiliated kids, who had written- "When my turn came, I went into the booth with three other men. The curtain came down. As soon as the curtain came down, the young girl who was in front of me grabbed my hand, pushed my hand down into her panties, and stuck my finger into her pussy. Then, seconds later, the young girl abruptly pulled my hand out of her pussy. At just the moment that she got my hand out of her pussy and out of her panties, the curtain went back up. This was an amazing deal. I had gotten a free feel for just eight cents, American money. I went around the fair. There were several other booths with young girls in them. I went into each of them, and had my finger stuck into many young pussies, all at the cost of two baht each." "I left Maesai, but I was thinking about this girl. When I came back one week later, her price had come down to 200 bhat (SIC - baht). Her virginity had been sold. I took advantage of this reduction in price." THERE ARE NO VIRGINS AGED OVER 14 IN MAESAI. So the oldest this girl could have been is fifteen and one week when Sam took advantage of that reduction in price. For unknown reasons, Sam Sloan deleted the text from his web sites but you may still find it at http://www.archive.org if you use these search terms: http://www.samsloan.com/chantabu.htm http://www.samsloan.com/maesai-v.htm http://www.anusha.com/chantabu.htm http://www.anusha.com/maesai-v.htm Who was pioneer of the method of exploiting the vulnerability of small or medium sized organizations (the USCF is small) to their financial exhaustion by a determined, persistent litigant? It was Sam Sloan, who used this with mixed results around 1970. As T-- wrote in his email: "In NY, Sam devised a scheme best called "How To Take Over A Small Public Company". The scam involved filing multiple lawsuits, possessed of just enough merit to prevent them being dismissed sua spondante, against them at a rate that they eventually were overwhelmed and failed to defend in time. Sam would then use the default judgement(s) to seize their assets and strip the company or even end up controlling it until a he was able to extort money from the legitimate owners. When this worked instead of making Sam any money it usually ended up with the company destroyed. As courts wised up to Sam's antics, he moved on, founding the scam known as 'Samuel H. Sloan Inc.'. More later." So it's beyond shameful that the majority on the USCF EB turned against their fellow-members who had taken a moral stand against this Sam Sloan. A few readers may already know the depth of support SP enjoys among her fellow GMs in this persecution. The evildoers responsible will be punish so severely for this, they will never to forget. Far from preserving the interests of US chess, they nearly destroyed it, and instead helped the litigation prospects of a scumbag who is the very one who sued the USCF in the first place. No revenge can ever suffice, no apology can ever be enough. nobody@nowhere.com Bcc: OdessaChess@russia.com BM, BL(=CM@aol.com), HB(@CC), CL, CP, KK and some other bottom-feeders. One of them needs to grasp the nature of the attorney-client privilege, and how serious it is when this sacred trust is breached by the attorney. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.