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

On Jul 30, 5:26 am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rob wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:43 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:12:21 -0700 (PDT), Rob <robmt...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

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.

Wrong.  There have been many highly rational, level-headed posts.  The
personality driven contrivances, as you call them, have been mostly
Phil's hysterical diversions.  

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

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.
2. A court has to decide that the making of the posts was an actual
crime under statute.
3. There has to be proof that an injury was caused by the said
actions.
4. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wrong on several counts.  First, there are managerial issues and civil
issues -- criminality is not the only game in town.   Second, in civil
cases, the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence, not
reasonable doubt.  This has been pointed out to you many times. Third,
decisions regarding employment and fitness to serve do not necessarily
imply criminal or civil liability, are not necessarily tied to injury,
and don't require a court finding.

Tomato/Toh-mah-toe If there is a preponderance of evidence then their
should be no reasonable doubt? I don't know.

Oh, I think you do know.  The difference is clear and if you Google both
terms you'll find many detailed explanations.



This is not an internal hiring board. Unfortunaly there are those who
use this group to conspire to injure others. I can see no other
validation other than a de
sire to inflict deliberate personal harm on another person. How long
has it been going on where people are doing background searches on
people they have had no personal contact with and posting information
about them in open forums in an attempt to cause them pain?

RGC is not a court . The kangaroo court of chess revenge is not a
legitimate place to post these claims.
If a news group devoted to chess politics is not the appropriate place
to discuss the behavior of a chess politician, what is?  Nobody other
than you and Phil makes the ridiculous claim that this is a "court",
or that anybody thinks punishment will be meted out in rgcp.

It has gone beyond discussing behavior. It's delving into the very
core of someone personal lives in an attempt to cause them public
humiliation. You are right. Saying RGC is a court is maybe to civil.
Maybe a lynch mob is a better fit?

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

Discussing documents and evidence is not acting as  judge,  jury and
hangman.  Newscasters, columnists, bloggers, etc., do it all the time.

Yes it is. They call it the "court of public opinion" and many people
have had their reputations unjustly sullied and ruined because news
sources jusmp at the first scent of blood in the wayer as so many
hungry sharks.

And judge not lest ye be judged .

Doesn't work very well for in the business and political arena,  do
it?  Do ya think that line would have worked at Nuremberg (we've gone
quite a while without invoking Godwin, after all) ?

I'll not invoke Godwin. :-) But perhaps those on trial at Nuremberg we
receiving the just deserts of having judged and condemned someone
else? Just a thought.

But I don't expect that this group will change much,if ever. If it
wasn't Paul or Susan it would be someone else. The group of attackers
in the group have attacked others before and will again. Beware lest
you become someone that envokes the attention of their jealous ire.

Why should I google "Tomato" Maybe you should "cuil it".
.

Relevant Pages