Re: Paul Truong Has Filed For Bankruptcy -- Response for Mr. Kane

On Jul 29, 10:52 pm, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:12 pm, Rob <robmt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 29, 6:16 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"J.D. Walker" <j.d.wal...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:lsadncCIj-UNCRLVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Brian Lafferty wrote:
David Kane wrote:

"Mike Murray" <mikemur...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bpdu84ltcchokit697u6vsj2od5krtbt32@xxxxxxxxxx

You forgot. He's a chessplayer. The chess world prides itself
on having no standards and does not require a person to
maintain a reputation. It won't be long before Parr, Innes, Mitchell,
Walker and the rest are posting their creative defenses.

This charge you have made about me is no doubt an example of the quality of
/your/ standards.  I do not defend Mr. Truong.  I do not defend Ms. Polgar.
Recently, the documents that have been discovered are quite damning..  I have
been tempted to join the frenzy of condemnation.  I have restrained myself to
offering the suggestion that Ms. Polgar;'s friends need to supply good advice
at this time.  The force of events is going to move on despite the temptations
of the lynch mob mentality that some find irresistible.  It looks very, very
bad for Mr. Truong.  Is that defense Mr. Kane?

First, I missed that you had posted prior to my post. I apologize for that
and do not consider what you posted a defense of Truong in any way.
Sorry.

Second, while neither your previous post nor this one are defenses
of Truong, I do not (yet) retract my prediction.
[BTW, Innes has behaved as predicted, and Mitchell, though denying
that he's offering a defense is on the counterattack -  not
much difference. Parr is usually cautious, so it would not be surprising
for him to take longer to figure out how to spin it - especially when
there is no GM Evans position that he can copy verbatim.]


Mr. Kane, I am not on the counterattack as you call it. I am simply
trying to point out the lack of Christian charity I see in this group.


And you regularly foster said lack of charity.

Not completely accurate. But I can be provoked.

I began reading this group long before my first post in 2004. At that
time the same group of people have been attacking two persons without
cessation.


Not so. You and Innes have occasionally given me a day off.

Is your name Paul or Susan? Hmmm?

My natural instinct is to defend those who appear to be on



the receiving end of gang derision. If you are without sin, then cast
the stone.

Is calm discussion possible?

Reverend, regarding the topic of Paul,Susan Phil or Sam Sloan, there
is little rational or civil discussions based on actual concerns. They
are usually personality driven contrivances.

You were the one making light of Fischer's advocacy of genocide
because he was "disturbed", mocking the very idea that
chessplayers had the right to comment on the public behavior
of those in its group. You were the one refusing (on extremely
flimsy and illogical grounds) to comment on the Truong's
obscenity-laden impersonations, despite
the fact that the smoking gun has been in front of us all for months.

Personally, I don't care how "calm" you are. I'm more impressed
with thoughtfulness and honesty.

And, Mr. Kane, you never did explain the substance behind your standards other
than to explain away questions by calling them /main stream./
I pointed out numerous times that it was an irrelevancy. You still
have never addressed the substantive issue - what do do in the
face of obvious wrongdoing.

Here we have something. A claim of proof of obvious wrong doing. But
keep in mind this:
1. A court has to determine that he made the posts.


No, it doesn't.

If he is being accused of it that must be proven in court because a
suit has been filed. But ya know.. you have been acting like RGC is
court. :-)

2. A court has to decide that the making of the posts was an actual
crime under statute.

No, it doesn't.

Tiresome Neil. Feels like Monty Python.. Yes it does. :-)

3. There has to be proof that an injury was caused by the said
actions.


Impersonation is injury.

Prove a damage? Demonstrate and verify a loss. A real loss not a
perceived loss. Impersonation is not an injury. If it was then Rich
Little would be on America's Most Wanted.

4. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.


Not in civil cases, halfwit.

Here it come... Neil has to start calling names and trying to make
things personal. Didn't I tell you this would happen?
RGC is not a court .


Finally we agree on something. Now go explain it to Innes.


I believe he has said the same and says so in a previous post.

The kangaroo court of chess revenge is not a



legitimate place to post these claims.

Should I judge your standards in light of your leveling charges at the
innocent?
--

Very valid question

What charges have I leveled? At worst I've overgeneralized from
your behavior in other instances and made a bad prediction.

Not quite honest. You have, with other posters, acted as judge,jury
and hangman.

If you start "doing that which is right", I'd be happy to
correct any errors I've made. I'll even take a little credit.

"Do that which is right..."

And judge not lest ye be judged .

Rob


Do you understand the biblical meaning of "judged?" No one has
condemned anyone to hell. Not even you. (Many of us think friendship
with Innes is enough punishment.)

See.. again with personal attacks. You "know" what is ment by the
statement. And to which hell is one condemned? Do you know what the
Bible accurately describes hell as being in the literal definition?
There isn't enough time to go into that here. Just remember Neil the
only good purpose for trying to split hares( hairs) is to kill a
rabbit.

.

Relevant Pages