Things I've done on other sites/blogs on the internet in the last few days.
USCF's Forums
Re: Let Hal Bogner Back to the USCF’s Forum
Post 178596
Let's make it unanimous. I recall that about 2 years ago Hal posted something from a meeting 4 of us had had. It was between him, me, Bill Hall and Mike Mulford. The Moderators pulled the post citing some arcane rule requiring substantive support for facts reported. So Hal went to Mike Mulford who said he couldn't remember. So, in desperation Hal came to me. Naturally, I supported him.
Re: The Polgar Settlement
Post 178394
Money talks. So, amid all the spin, and all the moderator sanctions levied, all the condescending attacks, it turns out that the USCF's lawsuit wasn't so very strong after all, nor was Polgar's case so very weak. Amid all the spinning, the chess world is expected to believe that after 2 years and on the very brink of victory, the USCF just decided to settle upon Polgar a monetary payment instead of getting a verdict.
Words have been shown to be just that. Money, on the other hand, talks.
This overriding fact also shows the chess world and the historians of the future that Paul Truong was innocent in the central issue of the lawsuits, the fake FSS Affair. At the end of the day, it was the USCF that forked over the dough, not Polgar and not Truong.
The point to me was from the beginning that we needed to get the truth. No matter the terms of the settlement, no matter what else. For that, I was mocked and pilloried. Now, the USCF may have bought itself a settlement where the truth can be kept hidden. Sadly, this leaves the only piece of hard news we have: follow the money.
I still want the truth to come out.
Re: Gary Walters, Candidate for USCF Executive Board
Post 178416
I just read the settlement statement on the home page. And then I read this. No thinking person caring an iota about objectivity could have written the above.
The press release came out after my statement. Read the posts on this thread prior to my own.
As for thinking persons, iotas, and objectivity, I remind the author about people in glass houses and what they should not do
Re: Response to Wick DeerPost 178423
As for the Mottershead Report, I am at a loss how any expert could verify it if he was not allowed to check the data upon which the report rests. None of the 3 experts you cited were independent experts approved by Susan or Paul. I am well aware of the hostility surrounding this case and how that colors people's judgements. [snip]
This is a developing story. As more facts come out, our statements can come closer to the truth. The central fact here is that money was paid for Susan's attorneys from USCF's insurance company. No insurance company whose premiums were paid by Susan Polgar paid anything to the USCF's team. Susan didn't pay anything. The USCF's insurance company paid to Susan's lawyer.
As for USCF relationship issues, I gather that Susan and Paul are so disgusted with the USCF right now, they were glad to stipulate because they didn't want to do anything to do with the USCF ever again.
As for the clause where they cannot ever again accept USCF office, this means people getting past their present hostility to consider the ramifications this has to USCF democracy. It was the USCF members who were targeted by the "accept" phrase. They are not allowed to ever cast a meaningful vote for them.
Re: The Polgar SettlementPost 178447
Mike Murray’s Question: “How do you spell "non sequitur" again ?”
My Response: M-O-N-E-Y.
Posts
