Re: who is clean and who is not

The *facts* create the question. Paul Truong posted thousands
of obscene messages while posing as others. You repeatedly
have argued that he should suffer no consequences, and applaud
his and Susan's attempts to avoid them.

It is a simple question. Why?

David - you did this with Larry Parr - you put words in his mouth which he
never held - then when challenged you refused to correct your comment.

Secondly, asking for all parties to open up is not partisan! It is IMPARTIAL
justice, for one and all. Any thing /else/ is partisan.

Since you do not correct your first point above about what I believe, nor
admit you want the members of USCF to know what goes on, nor any impartial
justice ...

... There is nothing more to be said between us to describe our orientations
to decent process.

Phil Innes

For months, you've been doing nothing but try to make excuses for the
person who did just that. Asking why is a perfectly legitimate question.

I suppose in Polgar's case, she's married to him, which is an
understandable excuse. What is *your* excuse?

David, I never I said I do feel that - you have written it twice now - while
ignoring this idea to open it up.

Therefore, I already know your evasions, and your lack of interest in
opening the doors of perception. Do not write that I believe anyone has any
write to 'post thousands of obscene messages'. How dare you!

Whatever else you have to say, don't say it to me. You already know my
opinion about your 'orientation'.

Phil Innes

Why do *you* believe that Paul Truong has a
right to post thousands of obscene messages while
posing as others,  without consequence?

Perhaps they 'feel' so because to-date we have had a one-sided presentation.
When the offer is to open it all up, then, David, who votes for how members
will 'feel'? How about you, for example?

Really? He is nothing other than a single issue scandal-merchant intent on
only one thing - the same thing you are. So, I suppose that figures.

Meanwhile in the above comment, I ask you to take the challenge - to find
out who is clean or not.

You, like others, noticeably duck the issue.   ;)

Phil Innes

You have called for transparency. The only mystery in the present matter
is why some people feel that Truong's posting thousands of obscene messages
while
posing as others should not involve consequences.

That is the question you should answer yourself, but also pose
to other members of the EB who, to date, have given Truong
a free ride.

By the way, I am not Mike Murray, though I find his contributions
the best this newsgroup has to offer.

I have no reason to do so beyond what I have already written which you are
not brave enough to let a single word stand. Pleaser state why Mike Murray
is such a //wussie// that he can't let other people's comments stand?  ;)

You are such a trite imbecile Murray! That is my opinion of you!

Consequences to you, do you mean? You are not correct. You are shown to be
what you are - a coward.

You are not even worth discussing anything with, since you bravely CUT the
//entire// appeal for all parties to act in the open, while continuing your
agit-prop campaign here. That is all people need to know about one-issue
Mike Murray.

But I think there /are/ consequences to all this business - its just a
matter of time until all is revealed, and you and the gang attain your just
deserts. You may not have noticed that you have all been called, and still
posture away!\

Don't ask me more question when you cut the responses and tell people what I
believe instead. That is the mark of a coward. Is /that/ clear, Murray?

ROFL

Phil Innes

Please state why you believe that Paul Truong has a
right to post thousands of obscene messages while
posing as others, and then suffer no consequences for
his behavior.

It is appalling that there have been no consequences
to date.

STATE OF PLAY

While to-date I, Phil Innes, and Larry Parr, have both encouraged openning
up this issue so that all can see 'who is clean and who is not', and
especially that USCF members can make their own assessment, and to let the
chips lie where they may... It is fascinating to read that this is
partisanship! Though how Lary Parr and I can possibly be on the same team
for this issue is unexplained [though surely someone will try now!] In fact,
this issue will not even be contested or resolved by either of us - since
the intent is for the members to do that.

Equally fascinating is who does /not want/ the issue opened up. At least 4
recent commentators here, Brennan + 3 single-issue posters; the
not-a-Christian 'Reverend' Walker, Litigious-Laugherty, and Mike '48'
Murray, cannot bring themselves to support members coming to their own
conclusions by assessing all sides of the issue.

Who else can't manage to say much who is a 'frequent-contributor' to this
subject? Well, there is ChessCafe's columnist Jerry Spinrad. But the main
absentee from openness of communcation is Sam Sloan himself.

   SLOAN'S OPTIONS

After an entire year of preaching to us that openning up the secretive can
of worms at USCF was his own dedicated mission, where is Sam Sloan now, when
it comes right down to it?

And finally, the last party not to aver allowing the members to make up
their own minds, rather than whatever is currently going on in the secret
recessess, is USCF itself. In 3 days the editorial deadline is reached, and
if USCF decline to accept either making their own statement, or to accept
the offer to open the secret doors, then I will be obliged to say so. To
respond or not is entirely USCF's own business, but it does have
consequences:-

   REASONABLE DOUBT

Since this is a very specific instance of official secrecy then the
speculatory boot -the reasonable doubt- will be on the other foot, no? Since
what business /should/ need be secret in a public non-profit which exists to
promote and administer chess in the USA [excepting personnel records, and
such mandated federal confidential matters].

The biggest stimulus to affronting 'official secrets' would be if Sam Sloan
should support Susan Polgar on this issue, by also declaring that the light
should shine on all this matter - as he himself said most consistently of
all for an entire year - and indeed, who could possibly object then?

Phil Innes

On Jan 21, 11:05 pm, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I haven't researched this in a while, so that could be true. The last
I heard, which was at least a year ago (and bear in mind this is
pretty oversimplified) it worked something like this:

AOL user requests a page on your site.
Proxy checks to see if it has a recent enough cache of the page. If
yes: display from cache. If no:
Any proxy from the farm that doesn't have anything better to do at the
moment goes and gets the page. All these proxies have their own IPs
(and hostnames) so Fake Sam in Oklahoma might use the one that Fake
Ray from Maine used, seconds apart. Conversely, Fake Ray may have got
all the proxies in the farm to make a request for him at one point or
another, so may have posted with 9 million (or however many hosts
there are) different IPs/hostnames.

What you're describing is unlikely to not be the same user,
considering the number of users in the pool and the narrow timeframe,
but not impossible. Circumstantial evidence.

Disclosure: Rob Mitchell was or is a business associate of Paul
Truong.

From the Mottershead Report:

a) From March 2006 to July 2006, Truong posted to the USCF Forums
almost
exclusively from AOL addresses. These IP addresses were in the same
small
address blocks as were used on those dates by the Fake Sam Sloan
identities
to post to Usenet.

b) In July 2006, Truong obtained a RoadRunner cable IP address, and he
had
this one address persistently assigned to him for over a year, until
August
2007. During this period he was posting mainly from this RoadRunner
address
to the USCF Forums. While the Fake Sam Sloan identities continued to
post
mainly from AOL addresses, there were several occasions during this
period
when one or more of the FSS identities posted to Usenet from Truong's
RoadRunner IP address. When Truong did post from an AOL address to the
USCF
Issues forum, the previous pattern held up, namely that Truong's AOL
address
was frequently from the same small block from which one of the Fake
Sam
Sloan identities had posted on that same day.

c) In August 2007, Truong moved to Lubbock Texas to take up an
appointment
at Texas Tech. He obtained new, somewhat persistent IP addresses from
Suddenlink, the cable broadband provider in Lubbock. During August and
September 2007, he accessed the USCF Forums from two different
Suddenlink IP
addresses, one briefly and the other for the rest of that time. These
two
Suddenlink IP addresses were both used multiple times during that
period by
more than one of the Fake Sam Sloan identities to post to Usenet,
while at
the same time Truong was using the IP to post to the USCF Forums.

In other words, when Truong moved to Lubbock, the Fake Sam Sloan
identities
also moved to Lubbock. Indeed they were all using the same Suddenlink
IP
address.

d) On September 20, Truong went to Mexico City for the World Chess
Championship. While there, Truong visited the USCF Forums from a
Mexico City
IP address. Contemporaneously, one of the FSS identities, the Fake Ray
Gordon, posted to Usenet from the same Mexico City IP address. Both
Truong
and Fake Ray Gordon also had the same user agent string, from a Tablet
PC
2.0 while in Mexico City.

e) From September 16 onwards, when we can see what user agent string
Truong's browser was sending to the USCF forums, it is identical to
the user
agent string being presented at the time by the Fake Sam Sloan
identities on
Usenet. When Truong switched to a Tablet PC 2.0 to go to Mexico City,
the
Fake Ray Gordon, one of the FSS identities, switched to the same
Tablet PC
2.0 user agent string, at the same time switching to the same Mexico
City IP
address as Truong.

The odds against all of these correlations resulting from chance are
overwhelming, and the almost inescapable conclusion is either that
Paul
Truong and the person behind the Fake Sam Sloan posts are one and the
same.

Question? What internet service provider does Paul use?

AOL!

Does AOL have a static or dynamic IP address assignment system?

Dynamic!

Dynamic IP Address - Comes from a pool of IP addresses and is assigned
on the fly. Any available IP address can be used. Changes often.

If you have looked at your Web stats lately and noticed an
unbelievable number of AOL users have been to your site or are on your
site right now it is because AOL users are assigned dynamic IP
addresses.

In a perfect world, each computer would have one static IP address
assigned to it. Just like each person has one static name given at
birth to officially identify them. However, just like people, a
computer can change it's identity or take on different aliases on the
fly.

Internet users are almost always assigned a dynamic IP address by
their Internet provider but they usually do not change as often as AOL
users. That is because most Internet providers have nowhere near the
customers as AOL. Instead of buying millions and millions of IP
addresses, AOL re-uses from the same pool.

It is not uncommon for an AOL user to get a different IP address for
each page that they view. You may look at the "Whos On" in your stats
and see that 25 AOL users are at your Website. In all likelihood you
have one AOL user who has viewed 25 pages and received a different IP
address for each page they viewed. A new tracking session is started
every click (i.e. for each IP address) making it look like a separate
user.

I've noticed that the question hasn't been answered directly by Truong as
requested by counsel.

Ask your buddy Sue for the exact quote in her next email missive to
Chessville.

Phil, if you can't edit yourself before clicking the send icon, either don't
click it or ask a professional journalist to edit it for you.

And by opening up such correspondance it can be clearly known if this is a
true statement, no? Have you noticed that it is a contested statement?

Have you noticed that accordin to Susan Polgar the questions is already
answered?

I do not understand that to be a quote of Susan Polgar.

Thank you. line-judge. for your comments, and that of the noted stalker Neil
Brennan who chimed in, to similar effect.

I should not wish this post to be about either of you, since you both
pretend to have comprehension problems by your rhetorical displays in
respect of both legal issues, and those merely decent. It is merely curious
to me, that the biggest supporter of Sam Sloan in these newsgroups, Mr.
Parr, with whom I differ on the worth of Mr. Sloan to marked degree, should
also aver with, should I sufficiently understand Mr. Parr, that there should
be no more secrets here than Susan Polgar suggests.

Indeed, should Mr. Sloan himself be as good as his word about the need for
openness on these issues, he might adopt this specific instance to support
it himself.

Otherwise, as you will well understand, there are those people who, as we
say, "mouth off' about things, but when it comes right down to it, they are
not as good as their word, or their mouth, so to speak.

As to yourself, I take your lack of support for allowing the members to gain
their own opinion to indicate your orientation. Should you not quite
understand the level of insult here offered you, then you are, in my
opinion, rather less than Mr. Sloan who could still notice this issue and be
as good as his own word. Your words, sir, have no good in them whatever, and
you pronounce upon one-sided net-gossip, as if you had even one thought in
your head, rather than the emotional mendacity of a Neil Brennan.

Should you, or others who dislike anything but secrecy find these words too
'complicated' I could instead say of you that you are simple, and
additionally, you expect others to be simply stupid.

Phil Innes

ROTFLMAO!!  Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you.  It has been
clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
admitting the Sloan allegations.  Simple request.  Normal request by ones
counsel in litigation. But, a request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply
with.  Guilty people do have problems with such requests.

Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from his
IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation.  So Susan responds by
saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

Bullshit will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
Truong has reached the end of the line.

ChaChing........GUILTY

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to his
question; that the questions were answered, and that all information about
the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make any
simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they will
accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters heretofore
held secret.

I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that questions
actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not know if
that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan Polgar's
first statement was true.

Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or not -
which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to open up
so that members themselves can make their own assessment.

Phil Innes

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP.  They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

   "We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.
Everyone can then decide who is clean and who is not. Why not let the USCF
members decide what the facts are? "

The URL for the full statement is at

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/TheParrotSquaawks2008.htm

which extracts from Alekhine's Parrot, which also contains her earlier
statement on the same topic

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/Index.htm

She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:

"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."

Of which she comments: Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a
different format, they should have officially informed or explained it to
us.

----

Phil Innes

for Chessville.