quote:

---

>I agree. These violate both the 'relevance' and the 'no personal
> attacks' rules for this forum, and the offending posts have been
> deleted.
>
> Do not repost them if you want to continue to have posting privileges
> here.
>
> Mike Nolan
>
> ===================================================
>
> The dictator Mike Nolan has made his mark again on Nolanland. He
> protects people like Scammy Sloan and deletes my legit post. That's
> Nolan for you.
>
> Phil Innes
>

quote:

---

>I agree. These violate both the 'relevance' and the 'no personal
> attacks' rules for this forum, and the offending posts have been
> deleted.
>
> Do not repost them if you want to continue to have posting privileges
> here.
>
> Mike Nolan
>
> ===================================================
>
> The dictator Mike Nolan has made his mark again on Nolanland. He
> protects people like Scammy Sloan and deletes my legit post. That's
> Nolan for you.
>
> Phil Innes
>

quote:

---

> Ho Ho! I have my own imposter, the apparent andrewzito@mail.com. Whoever
> this is, they don't want any discussion of chess issues going on. Odd.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
> "Chess One" <andrewzito@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141665538.056503.112210@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>

quote:

---

>they don't want any discussion of chess issues going on. Odd.

quote:

---

> Ho Ho! I have my own imposter, the apparent andrewzito@mail.com. Whoever
> this is, they don't want any discussion of chess issues going on. Odd.
>
> Phil Innes

quote:

---

> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
> The USCF forum moderators (there are more than one) have instructions
> from the Executive Board to follow the rules as posted in the USCF Forums.
>
> If you don't like those rules, please contact the USCF Executive Board
> and suggest better ones.
>
> Those include 'no personal attacks', which was the basis upon which your
> post was deleted. Also, your post did not seem to be relevant to USCF
> issues. In fact, it wasn't very clear what on earth it was you were even
> talking about, as it seemed like it was the middle of a thread, not the
> opening post in one.
> --
> Mike Nolan
>
>
>

quote:

---

> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
> The USCF forum moderators (there are more than one) have instructions
> from the Executive Board to follow the rules as posted in the USCF Forums.
>
> If you don't like those rules, please contact the USCF Executive Board
> and suggest better ones.

quote:

---

> Those include 'no personal attacks', which was the basis upon which your
> post was deleted.

quote:

---

> Also, your post did not seem to be relevant to USCF
> issues.

quote:

---

> In fact, it wasn't very clear what on earth it was you were even
> talking about,

quote:

---

> as it seemed like it was the middle of a thread, not the
> opening post in one.

quote:

---

> Mike Nolan
>
>
>

quote:

---

> "Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
> news:duhvk6$t15$1@gw.tssi.com...
>
> I contacted them this morning.
>
>
> Your forum does not allow the post of USCF agents, and will not allow your
> forum members to read their actual orinetation to the world of chess. How
> dumbing-down!
>
> It also cut Susan Polgar's comments on the political aspect of these
> messages.
>
>
> I am sure your opinion to what is 'relevant' will be called to question. I
> am sure because I intend to insist upon it.
>
>
> Talk to Bill Hall. Then tell me what are the facts.
>
>
> Since you are not clear on anything, but have decided to snip anyway, it is
> rather unfortunate for you that you have acted without information.
>
> I hope that someone will clue you in. On the other hand, if you prefer USCF
> agents to libel people in public, and say things you do not adfmit in your
> own forum - the basis of my complaint - you seem to affirm a certain trend.
>
> Phil Innes
>

quote:

---

> Phil,
>
> Could you please re-post your original remarks, the ones that Mike
> Nolan found too offensive for the USCF forum? I cannot find the post
> anywhere on this newsgroup. If it is available here, could someone
> please provide a link?
>
> Thanks,
> Eric M

quote:

---

> You don't answer my questions, Phil Innes, and you want me to answer
> yours? You go first: you have a backlog of unanswered questions re
> Sloan--some were posed months ago. I'll be happy to answer your
> questions when you've finished.

quote:

---

> Sloan's "allies" Parr and Innes can't bring themselves to defend
> Sloan's conduct. C'mon Phil, stop being unserious and give us your
> *endorsement* of adults having sex with girls of junior high school
> age. Don't you think that Polanski and LaMotta and Flynn were
> misunderstood prophets?
>
> http://www.ishipress.com/girlsgot.htm
>
> http://www.samsloan.com/burmese2.htm
>
> http://www.samsloan.com/burmese.htm
>
> I'll drop the ad hominem and speak unironically: what does Phil Innes
> believe that Sam Sloan has told the world about his conduct with the
> young woman featured in all three of the above-referenced pages?
> Does he have many adult male acquaintances who broadcast similar
> conduct?
>

quote:

---

>Nolan damn sure banned me from directing a chess tournamnet in the
>United States.

quote:

---

> If you know the real Marcus Roberts, it is only a matter
>of time until we all have a discussion about banning people from Chess
>(and perhaps closing down newsgruops) in the FIDE General Assembly.

quote:

---

>
> Dear Eric Mark,
>
> My exact post has been expunged from the USCF site, but I wrote what
> immediately follows to Bill Hall this morning, and also copied the board,
> neither of which has responded except via a public message from Mike Nolan
> who posted here, not by e-mail, and seems to act on his own, although it is
> unclear if he speaks of some general instruction or a specific to this
> instance. I also include below a subsequent post by Bill Brock.
>
> Since there is a great possibility that I will proceed legally against
> against both parties, Brock and USCF, either alone, or as a party to a more
> general suit, I limit myself to no further comment on this occasion.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> ------------
>
> Dear Mr. Bill Hall,
> Executive Director,
> United States Chess Federation,
> Crossville, TN
>
> 3/6/06
>
> I understand that a poster in a public newsgroup is the head of a USCF
> committee, and has taken to indecently speculating on the activities of Sam
> Sloan, and making various suggestive commentaries on those he feels supports
> Mr. Sloan, with a very unwelcome emphasis.
>
> I believe the person to be Bill Brock, and although the person does not sign
> his name to his posts, he is understood to be Bill Brock, and has previously
> responded to that address without demurrer.
>
> Today, 3/6/06, I noted my concern in the USCF's own forum.
>
> I am concerned by the issue of any harassment of children by chess teachers,
> have written about it publicly, and also editorially at Chessville, but do
> not consider Mr. Brock's approach to be an entirely sincere one, since he
> does not complain of any activities proved illegal by a court in respect of
> Mr. Sloan - and he has to-date ignored those proven instances of actual
> illegal activity by chess mentors.
>
> I understand that Mr. Brock's opinions may not be that of USCF, but I do not
> absolve USCF of responsibility since it may not be aware of this activity,
> to which this message is now a corrective measure, and instead I ask what
> rules USCF has in place for publicly avowed views by its agents, and if
> these rules are breached in these circumstances, and I ask before taking a
> very certain next step.
>
> You will please acknowledge my concern in writing [by response of e-mail] in
> a timely way since I feel more than slighted by this activity and while it
> continues I continue to suffer damage thereby, and to please state USCF's
> rules governing public expression and conduct by its agents.
>
> I also request that this message be officially received by USCF, that I be
> noted that it is received in a timely way, and that it officially appears
> before the board as both a notice of circumstances and as a complaint.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> Brattleboro, Vermont
>
> ------
>
> <politikalhack@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141626544.082715.122760@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> When this writer is ready for a mature conversation, he should sign his name
> to his posts.
>
> If indeed the writer is Bill Brock, then I believe he risks censure from
> both USCF and the law from publically speculating on what is not proved
> illegal by a court of law.
>
> I would also say that by suggesting that I would support an illegal activity
> is a libel - though no illegality is proved here - especially when I have
> already invited this poster, the general readership in rgcp, USCF, and all
> concerned, to address the matter of /actual/ sexually-abusive relationships
> in chess in an address which suggested vetting chess mentors would be a
> useful activity. This poster has signally ignored that invitation to the
> extent that I cannot think he is actually concerned with potential harm to
> children, but rather, makes direct or proxy attacks against a reporter of
> USCF's activities - which he now expands to that person's perceived allies,
> specifically myself and Larry Parr.
>
> Let me post these, your own comments, together with this reply, in the USCF
> forum - and we'll see if Nolanland likes them?
>
> But if not, then I will complain to USCF that I consider the associations
> you make here to be both indecent and unlawful, and also spoken as an attack
> by a chair of a USCF committee against a frequent aspirant to the USCF
> board, as well as about a commentator on USCF activities.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
> ---
> Bill Brock then wrote:-
>
> To summarize Innes's position:
>
> Advocating sexual relations with girls of junior high schol age is
> cool! But those who object to sexual relations with girls of junior
> high schol age aren't....
>
> Have a nice day living with yourself, kiddo....
>
>
> Bill Brock
> 1607 W. Thome Ave.
> Chicago 60660
>
> --------
>
> Mike Nolan has since made a public reply herem, and nowhere else, the
> following:-
>
> -------
>
> The USCF forum moderators (there are more than one) have instructions
> from the Executive Board to follow the rules as posted in the USCF Forums.
>
> If you don't like those rules, please contact the USCF Executive Board
> and suggest better ones.
>
> Those include 'no personal attacks', which was the basis upon which your
> post was deleted. Also, your post did not seem to be relevant to USCF
> issues. In fact, it wasn't very clear what on earth it was you were even
> talking about, as it seemed like it was the middle of a thread, not the
> opening post in one.
> --
> Mike Nolan

quote:

---

> I agree. These violate both the 'relevance' and the 'no personal
> attacks' rules for this forum, and the offending posts have been
> deleted.
>
> Do not repost them if you want to continue to have posting privileges
> here.
>
> Mike Nolan
>
> ===================================================
>
> The dictator Mike Nolan has made his mark again on Nolanland. He
> protects people like Scammy Sloan and deletes my legit post. That's
> Nolan for you.
>
> Phil Innes

quote:

---

> Since there is a great possibility that I will proceed legally against
> against both parties, Brock and USCF, either alone, or as a party to a more
> general suit, I limit myself to no further comment on this occasion.

quote:

---

>So is it off limits to talk about, in your view, about how you have
>special immuntities as a USCF Delegate that allow you to direct chess
>tournaments, even though you were unable to pay your prize funds in
>earlier tournamnets for which you were sanctioned? Or, are you still
>totally banned like you banned me?

quote:

---

>No. I was a local tournament in 1997. I directed enough tournaments in
>1997 to be a senior tournament directorr. The deal I worked out in 1997
>as a candidate to the executive board was automatic renewal. Austomatic
>renewal happened in 1997. You have no basis to deny me access to the
>website for tournament directors. In fact, you ahve created an
>international indicent.

quote:

---

>What deal did you work out to get out of your ban from directing
>tournamnets? Can you direct a chess tournament now?

quote:

---

> Hi Phil,

quote:

---

> Are you saying that Nolan can delete a rec.games.chess.politics
> post?

quote:

---

> Thanks for posting this, Phil. If I may ask, why do you concern
> yourself with an issue between Sam Sloan and Bill Brock?
>
> Cheers,
> Eric M

quote:

---

>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> Does anyone take Innes' smoke-blowing seriously anymore? Over the past
> several years Innes has threatened:
>
> 1 - physical harm to myself and Mike Nolan;
>
> 2. - lawsuits against me, USCF, James Eade, Bill Smythe, Chess Cafe,
> Frank Niro, Larry Parr, and others;
>
> 3. - a letter-writing campaign to my publishers to have me blacklisted;
>
> 4. - complaints against three professors to their universities;
>
> and
>
> 5. - an IRS investigation of the USCF.
>
> Guess which of these came to pass?
>

quote:

---

>In theory, anyone can delete a post in any non-moderated group. In
>practice, for this reason, many news servers don't accept deletion

quote:

---

> On 07 Mar 2006 10:17:23 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
> <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I always believed most servers would only honor the request if it were
> from the original poster. Is this incorrect?

quote:

---

>
> That's correct, the original poster can request deletion only of his
> own post.

quote:

---

> Some leeway is on that is reasonable, but your USCF membership lapsed
> over three years before your TD certification was due to be renewed.

quote:

---

>I always believed most servers would only honor the request if it were
>from the original poster. Is this incorrect?

quote:

---

> "LiamToo" <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> And how is the server supposed to tell whether the requests comes from
> the original poster? Remember that we're talking about a protocol
> that goes back to 1980-ish academia, and whose designers weren't
> really thinking about malicious users.

quote:

---

> You don't have your facts correct. There were never any prizes unpaid
> in any of the events I directed, even the one in which I personally made
> up nearly $1000 in losses out of my own pocket, $500 of which went to GM
> Gurevich, even though the organizer of record was the state affiliate,
> not me.

quote:

---

>In a prive e-mail, Mike warned me "you are either going to work with
>us, or against us." I didn't think he meant it the way he did, until
>now.

quote:

---

>I want to appeal this to the Board of Delegates, and FIDE might well
>force that appeal, in a few years. FIDE Delegates can do things, but it
>takes time.

quote:

---

> Mike Murray wrote:
>
> That's correct, the original poster can request deletion only of his
> own post.

quote:

---

> LiamToo <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You seem to have overlooked the possibility of forgery.
>
> Dave.

quote:

---

>LiamToo <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>You seem to have overlooked the possibility of forgery.

quote:

---

>
>
>Dave.

quote:

---

> David Richerby wrote:
>
> Not at all. The posters who signed and posted with their IDs and
> passwords are the only ones who can request deletions of their posts by
> signing in again with the required passwords.

quote:

---

> David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> If you include forgery, "anyone" can withdraw money from your
> checking account.

quote:

---

> If all you meant when using "anyone" was it's easy to forge an ID in
> order to delete a post which one didn't originate, you might have
> been more explicit.

quote:

---

> LiamToo <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> USENET posts aren't signed. You don't need a password to post to
> USENET. (You might need a password to access your ISP but that's all
> that's going on there.)
>
> Dave.

quote:

---

> Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> The level of forgery required here is equivalent to me walking into
> your bank and saying, `Hi, I'm Mike Murray. I'd like all my money,
> please,' and the bank saying, `Certainly, Mr Murray.'
>
>
>
> I'm trying to avoid providing a USENET forgery manual. Apologies if
> this leads to misunderstanding.
>
> Dave.

quote:

---

> Let me know that you've read this message. After that, I'll show you
> that I can request my own post to be deleted. Then come back and
> confirm that it's been deleted.

quote:

---

> LiamToo schrieb:
>
>
> What shall this prove? What Richard wanted to point out is, that it
> requires only some technical knowledge or an appropriate tool so that I
> or he could delete *your* message. This is possible, because there is
> no security implemented in Usenet. Nobody questioned that you can
> cancel your own messages .
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf

quote:

---

> LOL! Ralf, can you copy and paste where Richard said, "it requires
> only some technical knowledge or an appropriate tool so that I or he
> could delete *your* message. "

quote:

---

> LiamToo schrieb:
>
>
> "In theory, anyone can delete a post in any non-moderated group."
>
> "The level of forgery required here is equivalent to me walking into
> your bank and saying, `Hi, I'm Mike Murray. I'd like all my money,
> please,' and the bank saying, `Certainly, Mr Murray.' "
>
> This describes the technical detail, that a message can be canceled
> with the appropriate From: and message-id, but to fake them is no big
> deal.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf

quote:

---

> Talk to me Ralf, he said "In Theory". Then he questioned me when I
> said, that I can request deletion of my own post, by saying, "You seem
> to have overlooked the possibility of forgery. "

quote:

---

[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's correct, the original poster can request deletion only of his
> own post.

quote:

---

> You seem to be more adept in the German language than English, right?

quote:

---

> If so, then you didn't understand what Richard said.

quote:

---

> LiamToo schrieb:
>
>
> Here is the part in context:
>
> <quote>
>
>
> You seem to have overlooked the possibility of forgery.
> </quote>
>
> The question came from Mike. You notice the word "only"? Mike assumed
> that *only* the original poster could cancel the message, which you
> asserted "That's correct". Well, when you say that this is correct, it
> seems, that you oversaw the possibility of forgery, or at least your
> statement leaves open this possible reading. Simple logic, no
> spectacular secrets of the English language are required to understand
> this. Or you oversaw the "only", that's another possibility.
>
>
> Correct.
>
>
> Not correct.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf

quote:

---

> Aha, now we're into something, although Richerby is saying something
> else of course.

quote:

---

> I say it again, ONLY the original posters can request deletions of
> their own posts inside Google Groups.

quote:

---

> NOBODY is allowed to request deletion of any other posts but their own.

quote:

---

> I say it again, ONLY the original posters can request deletions of
> their own posts inside Google Groups. NOBODY is allowed to request
> deletion of any other posts but their own.

quote:

---

> Do you think that you can delete my post? Prove it. Even the most
> sophisticated tool that you can dream about CANNOT do it.

quote:

---

> Talk to me Ralf, he said "In Theory". Then he questioned me when I
> said, that I can request deletion of my own post, by saying, "You seem
> to have overlooked the possibility of forgery. "

quote:

---

> You are in Germany, in the beautiful Bayern Region, surrounded by the
> breathtaking splendor of the scenic cities of Munich, Ottobrunn,
> Dachau, Starnberg, Freising, etc. You seem to be more adept in the
> German language than English, right? If so, then you didn't understand
> what Richard said.

quote:

---

> I say it again, ONLY the original posters can request deletions of
> their own posts inside Google Groups. NOBODY is allowed to request
> deletion of any other posts but their own.

quote:

---

> Do you think that you can delete my post? Prove it.

quote:

---

> Even the most sophisticated tool that you can dream about CANNOT do
> it.

quote:

---

> David Richerby wrote:
>
> DUH! Everybody knows that Dave, you don't need password to post to
> USENET!

quote:

---

> Let me know that you've read this message. After that, I'll show you
> that I can request my own post to be deleted. Then come back and
> confirm that it's been deleted.

quote:

---

> Therefore, while a message that gets posted pretty quickly ends up on
> all of the servers, a deletion request will typically only affect a
> small number of them. This reason I say that `in theory' anyone can
> delete your message. Anyone can ask for it to be deleted but it won't
> have much of an effect.

quote:

---

> David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
> I'd say "it won't have much effect" goes a little too far.

quote:

---

>
> Who was talking about Google Groups? We were talking about Usenet in
> general.

quote:

---

> Google Groups is not the same thing as Usenet any more than AOL
> is the same thing as the Internet.

quote:

---

> LiamToo <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Whoa, there! The first time you said this, you mentioned nothing
> about Google Groups.

quote:

---

> Ralf Callenberg wrote:
>
> I was talking specifically about Google Groups, go back to my posts,
> read it and find out. Everything you said is meaningless at this point.

quote:

---

> On 07 Mar 2006 10:17:23 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
> <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I always believed most servers would only honor the request if it were
> from the original poster. Is this incorrect?

quote:

---

> LiamToo <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Your claim was that *only* you could delete your own posts. My claim
> is that anyone else can request that, too, by a trivial act of
> pretending to be you and that at least some servers will honour this
> request. Whether or not you can delete your own posts has absolutely
> nothing to do with this discussion.
>
>
>
> Firstly, my name isn't Richard. Secondly, Ralf understands what I'm
> saying far better than you do.
>
> Dave.

quote:

---

> "LiamToo" <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> Here is what you wrote:
>
> From: "LiamToo" <liamtoo805@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Re: Welcome to Nolanland
> Date: 7 Mar 2006 11:43:15 -0800
> Message-ID: <1141760595.221019.151840@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
>
> Mike Murray wrote:
>
> That's correct, the original poster can request deletion only of his
> own post.
>
> BTW, where is this Nolanland? Is this some sort of a chess paradise
> that only members can enter? I heard that some kind of communist-like
> censorship is involved in this paradise?
>
> There was no limitation to Google groups in that post. Mike referred
> to "most servers" which is definitely about the multi-server Usenet
> network and you are now trying to tap dance around your earlier
> ignorant and incorrect statement.

quote:

---

>
> Firstly, my name isn't Richard.

quote:

---

> Everything you said is meaningless at this point.
>

quote:

---

> David Richerby wrote:
>
> Let's stop right tere, look up on message #7, my response to Paul Rubin
> on March 07, 2006 3:50 pm.

quote:

---

> David Richerby wrote:
>
> I am terribly sorry, that was me who called you so.

quote:

---

> If what you're saying is reality and not just a figment of your
> imagination, prove it and delete this message, otherwise, you're
> telling the whole world something else.