Greengard's ChessNinja.com

On the Road Again

| Permalink | 54 comments

Rumors of my evading the How Life Imitates Chess book tour were greatly exaggerated. I'm hitting the road with Garry Kasparov in a few hours. Garry's got a nasty cold so stand back if you come to a signing event! Please do say hello to me if you're a Dirt reader. Always nice to meet (sane) chess people. It's Boston today, Wash DC tomorrow, then back to NY for two days, and the train to Philly on the 19th. The full list of signings and media appearances with details is here. That page also has various links about the book.

Oct. 15 at 7pm, Boston. Harvard Bookstore @ 1st Parish Church. Tickets are $5.

Oct 16 at 7pm, Wash DC. Politics & Prose Bookstore @ Round House Theatre. 4545 East-West Highway, Bethesda. Two tickets with purchase of book, or $6.

Speaking of travel plans, as I commented at the end of everyone's favorite Slime thread, Susan Polgar and I worked out the first useful fact to come out of the discussion. This is not directly related to the purported court case, but it is obviously related indirectly in a big way. We went over the list of spammed comments in that thread, standardized to a single poster ("Voice of Reason"). Susan pointed out that she and Paul Truong were on a plane from Lubbock to NYC at the time many of these comments appeared on the morning of the October 10th. (AA flights 3652 and 720) She took the time to send me documents and this fact has been verified to my satisfaction. No, I don't have security camera video of them entering the plane. But confirmed reservations and purchase receipts are good enough for me. I refuse to believe she is going to fabricate evidence or lie to my face about this. You're a sad person if you do.

So, what does this new fact mean? As I said before, it doesn't directly relate to the Usenet postings that are the focus of what may or may not be an actual lawsuit initiated by Sloan. But it does show that the wave of posts here supporting Polgar/Truong and attacking their critics were not made by them. Which means there is an industrious lunatic with way too much time on his hands out there. This could be a deranged fan or, less likely, someone trying to frame them in a rather sophisticated way (the "impersonating an impersonator" theory). I still have no wish to beat this into the ground further, at least not until something legal happens. But I'm very happy to learn this. Thanks to Susan and Paul for their cooperation and I apologize for the hassles. I wish them luck.

Please do not take this as a cue to resume grinding any ax you may in relation to this situation or these people. If it was already said in the Slime thread it doesn't need to be said again. Thanks much.


Mig, this is offtopic but interesting:


Looks like Anand got more than be bargained for!

A question Mig. Regarding the in flight defense of Polgar and Truong. Which airline and airports? Commercial flights in the US and world-wide generally have internet access while in the air these days. There's also internet access in most airports while making connections. Thanks.


if this is a third independent person, it will clearly react with a statement to these new facts.

If no statement comes up, this third person
a) does not exist
b) is not independent from Polgar/Truong.

So we only have to wait.

Why don't you read the post before scampering to comment? It has the airline and the flight numbers. And you don't fly very often, or read, if you think US commercial flights have internet access. At all. I fly all the time and I've never seen it. Guess why? Google shows that Alaska Airlines was the first in the US to do it -- this month, in testing.


American Airlines (which they were flying on Oct 10th) says it will be rolling it out next year.


Heh, the preemptive conspiracy! Why on earth would the person who made all those posts feel obliged to pop up? To do what, confess? And who cares if he does? And who would know? Unless someone posts from that exact IP and string I'm not believing anyone who says it was them. This being the internet, which is full of people who say things like "commercial flights generally have internet" and "this person will clearly react" I'm sure there will be others of similar wattage ready to claim responsibility for a wave of asinine spam.

Again, who cares? The point is it wasn't Susan and/or Paul here. You can go back to the Usenet and fret about the fake Sloan and worse, the real Sloan.

"The point is it wasn't Susan and/or Paul here. "

Mig, in my anonymity I have disagreed with you on a lot of things, but obviously you are a very smart person and your intentions are sincere.

Voice of Reason had Paul Truong written all over it 100%. It has happened in the past and it happened now. The context of the posts, the vocabulary, the use of many personalities inside the same thread etc.

I'm not from U.S., so I shouldn't care how dishonest people lead your federation, but it's all sad really.

I was a victim of Paul Truong's computer cheating on ICC in late 1990's. Remind you this is not just my paranoia, but he actually got the (C) added behind his handle by SpeedTrap team. This was not the only chess server he cheated on.

And this is not libel, but an opinion. Susan Polgar played like a computer cheater in her internet match against Boris Gulko and I am far from the only chess player to consider this. I'm very experienced in spotting patterns of computer abuse (and on ICC SpeedTrap have agreed with my suspicions ~70% of the time) and I consider it nearly impossible for a human being to have played those patterns. There are human tactics, and then there are computer tactics.

So from there on I have been suspicious of this pair and their intentions when following the general chess chitchat on the net. It shocked me how dishonest campaign they orchestrated while at the same time demanding integrity. All constructive criticism and questions were arbitrarily censored on Susan's blog.

To capture one IP address for 18 months, you could just as well go and win in lottery and spent rest of your days at Tahiti - like many others have noted (ok, they didn't mention Tahiti but I would like to live there).

From computer cheating to helping to bring down US Chess live and abusing admin powers, to impersonations, to fake credentials, to anonymous attacks (yeah like me here, but way more consistently!) against different personalities in US Chess... this guy (Paul Truong) should have the same reliability as Sloan now. And it would be naive in the extreme to think that Susan wouldn't be aware of his behaviour. In the same apartment, from the same computer "no honey you can't come in here now (as I'm posting on the usenet as Sam Sloan)".

So when Paul Truong tells you "oh it wasn't me", your gut reaction should be to doubt him. I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of his mouth.

Liars never change.

Mig, since it was your own mistake that you are correcting now, perhaps you should say more about how you made this mistake.

How did you originally tie those posters together and to Suddenlink IP addresses? Though you did not say so, you seemed pretty convinced that it was Truong. Why?

The point of my post was to say that the posts of "Voice of Reason" did NOT come from Paul/Susan and could not unless it happened from an airplane. I had similar misgivings because of previous experiences, as I stated in the original item and in the comments. But Susan has provided good evidence they were on an airplane that day. That evidence is good enough that I would otherwise have to believe she was going so far as to fabricate said evidence and lie to my face about it knowing the entire time that it could at some point be disproved. It would have been infinitely safer to just ignore all this. Even if he/she/they were everything you say about them, they aren't total fools.

Just as relevantly, I either have to go with some circumstantial evidence or believe what a friend is telling me to my face. In this case that's as simple as "we were on a plane," and even without the luggage tag photos and Expedia itinerary, that would have to be enough for me. I'd rather believe a friend's word and be proven wrong than doubt a friend's word and be proven right.

I remind yet again that this is about the postings here from Oct 10-12. While I believe this development should give pause regarding the other similar matters in question, they are a separate data set.

A "friend"? Didn't she make fun of your rating using an anon id right after she had posted from the same ip in her name?

The are so sweet and friendly to everyone in person and that could be the reason they feel the need spew so much vitriol on others using anon ids.

This new development is indeed surprising as the earlier development was all fitting into a pattern and they was more spice from the revelations by Dennis M.

One could suggest some possibilities such as:
- Give content to a friend to post, after all it is spam
- Use tools to post with a delay

However all of these are ludicrous (almost as bad as the "IP spoofing is child's play" theory).

I guess it all depends on what was posted in those few hours when they were flying and from what servers. In any case, truth will come out when the server logs from chessninja and suddenlink are analyzed under court order. After all most people would want the truth to come out.

Mig, I do understand the reasons that you have corrected your original statements. They were in direct conflict with Susan's word to you about her whereabouts, with Paul, at particular times.
You give more weight to Susan's word than to your previous analysis. Since you didn't tell us very much about the nature of your previous analysis, it is hard for anybody to second guess you on this. I must say, that in your inimitable style, you seemed absolutely certain of your previous analysis at the time, and surely you understood that you were publicly calling the husband of someone you identify as a friend. That is not something that I would assume you do without good reason.

So I am still very interested, as I think many of your readers would be, in how you originally drew your very different conclusions.

In looking at the post times and the times of the flights, I wonder if you haven't have retracted your original conclusions too quickly.

From the American Airlines timetables, I see that AA3652 is Lubbock-DFW departing 9:05AM arriving 10:10AM. AA720 is DFW-La Guardia departing 11:00AM arriving 3:25PM. These are all local times. The posting times on your blog are Eastern Time, so if Susan and Paul were on these flights and the flights were (more or less) on schedule they were personally off the Internet from around 10:05AM to 11:10AM and from 12:00AM to 3:25PM Eastern Time.

There are 48 posts now tagged as "Voice of Reason" posts in the thread in question. Many of these were originally attributed to different handles but were subsequently changed by you to "Voice of Reason" on the basis of your previous analysis of logs, browser ids, etc.

Of these 48, none of them conflicted with AA3652.

There is one VOR post after AA3652 landed and before AA720 departed, which might have been made from DFW. DFW certainly has wireless Internet access. By the way, this one is only the second of the VOR posts.

Then, there are two VOR posts while AA720 was in the air, the first at 13:05PM and the other at 14:00PM. These were the third and fourth of the posts now bylined with "Voice of Reason".

The hot-and-heavy Voice of Reason posting does not really begin until several hours later on October 10. 44 of the 48 posts now bylined with "Voice of Reason" were made after 5:49PM Eastern on October 10, continuing through October 12, long after Paul and Susan were on the ground.

So the problems for your original conclusion come down to these two posts. When I read these posts, they don't seem very much like the others in style. What byline was on them originally? Are these two among the ones that originally had other bylines and which you decided were Voice of Reason posts? How closely linked by your forensic evidence are they to the others? Before you exonerate Paul and Susan from your previous conclusions, and before people make somewhat more elaborate theories, perhaps we should rule out the simple theory that you were merely mistaken in your classification of two out of 48 posts?

Brian, once again a very thorough job. This soap opera is turning more and more into an edge-of-the-seat thriller/whodunnit.

Kapalik wrote:

"A "friend"? Didn't she make fun of your rating using an anon id right after she had posted from the same ip in her name?"

Yep. I remember the post where Susan/Truong unfairly humiliated Mig because of his low rating.

Mig's sudden and drastic change of direction is most puzzling given the forceful way in which he confronted Paul Truong when he discovered evidence of multiple postings under different aliases originating from a certain IP address in Texas. My feeling is that Mig just wants to detach himself from this incredibly sleazy group of people. I don't blame him.

"But it does show that the wave of posts here supporting Polgar/Truong and attacking their critics were not made by them. Which means there is an industrious lunatic with way too much time on his hands out there."

It merely shows that Polgar/Truong didn't personally push the "send" button, a trivial matter.

With the possible exception of Sam himself, Susan and Paul are the most industrious people you'll ever meet.

"Mig's sudden and drastic change of direction is most puzzling..."

Mig has always disclosed business relationships which could impact his opinions, Kasparov, Chessbase, the Mexico WCC, etc.


Greg, I think you being unfair to Mig.

I think Mig is being polite and keeping social grace. He is active in chess circles and Polgar much more so and it is not advisable to have ugly/unpleasant exchanges when you meet or interact even if you don't like the person or find something about them irritating (same with colleagues at work) - unlike in blogs, usenet etc. where faceless interaction makes people more outspoken and often offensive.

If Polgar called him and discussed what she did, it would have been impolite (even if correct) to refuse. A lot of us would have done the same thing.

also my guess, greg. Look at his turn point to mexico. Would not be surprising if Mig runs the USCF website next.

Kapalik wrote:

"I think Mig is being polite and keeping social grace. He is active in chess circles and Polgar much more so and it is not advisable to have ugly/unpleasant exchanges when you meet or interact even if you don't like the person or find something about them irritating (same with colleagues at work) - unlike in blogs, usenet etc. where faceless interaction makes people more outspoken and often offensive. "

Well said.

I personally think that Mig is doing the right thing by avoiding further conflict. In fact, I'd not be surprised to find that Mig regrets ever posting about the latest USCF scandal in the first place, even if Truong/Polgar are guilty, as everything indicates. Just look at the Usenet creatures that post attracted; it's enough to make anyone want to forget about presummed guilt or innocence and just run for the closest exit!

Why bother with a fruitless issue? I don't blame Mig an iota. I'd do exactly the same (minus exonerating the Magic Duo based on dubious "evidence", as Brian Mottershead has demontrated).

That said, I'll be the first one to admit that thew whole affair, though sordid and quite sad, makes for very entertaining reading. I must be a chess player at heart!

If Mig was correlating the posts based on IP addresses, it would be strange for Polgar or Truong to have the same IP address over the whole trip (especially if part of it includes airport internet access).

Furthermore, it seems extremely unlikely that they would do this VOR bit after they were effectively caught once, involved in a lawsuit, and had gone to the trouble of attempting to delete the old posts.

Seems likely that VOR was just a bored troublemaker who decided to have fun on one particular day.

Given the alleged behavior on usenet, I disagree with Mig on his previous "USCF is lucky to have them even if they're guilty" statement from the slime thread (I'm paraphrasing... don't have time to find the exact quote). Low ethics and scandal keep people away. I've been considering playing tournaments again after several years away from them, but the idea of giving money to USCF in its current state is just very distasteful to me right now.

Math Guy, only something like 10 cents out of your entry fee would go to USCF (in the form of rating fees).

Maybe you'd still find that distasteful, just on principle. But consider that if you're in America, each day you go to work you're contributing more than that amount to the Iraq War (via federal taxes withheld from your pay).

The analysis by Brian Mottershead needs a satisfactory answer.
("Of these 48, none of them conflicted with AA3652")

How did Truong/Polgar managed to get away with all of this for so very long? Because they act extremely nice person to person, making the internet stuff too hard to believe.
(Or so it seems from everyting I have read about this saga so far.)

TRM wrote:

"How did Truong/Polgar managed to get away with all of this for so very long?"

Because their nastiest fights were mostly against people like Sam Sloan, who has his own share of uncivilized behavior, to say the least.

In the end, I think Truong/Polgar are just struggling to monetize Susan Polgar's chess achievements. There is nothing wrong with that, given that she is perhaps the second strongest female player in history (behind her sister Judith).

Where they have gone wrong is is thinking that infiltrating the USCF will bring the elusive cash. That's not going to happen because there are more powerful, experienced and shadier characters fighting for the same small pot; people like Bill Goichberg, Don Schultz, etc.

The whole thing is a pity because they could do much better financialy by staying away from the USCF; they are not bright enough to realize that they don't need the USCF - they lust after the scholastic membership portion of the USCF; they dream of the big amounts of money to be made by organizing USCF-sponsored and USCF-sanctioned scholastic events and "Chess In The Schools" programs. Sounds good in theory, but it is not doable in practice because it is a small pot (chess is insignificant in the USA) and there are lots of people fighting for it.

What the Dynamic (IP) Duo of Truong/Polgar needs is truly professional marketing advise from people with real credentials - and no, Paul is no marketing genius; if he were, Susan Polgar would not be in this mess. Then, they will truly realize Susan's potential in a positive manner, without the USCF and its psychotic characters.

My advise is given without malice, because I truly think that they are basically good people doing VERY stupid things. It's time to change the opening. The first move? Stay away from the USCF.

Remember how they claimed they could bring Eric Moskow's sponsorship money to the USCF? Well, if they are smart, they should get that money and any other money and organize their own scholastic federation. THEN, they would be making some real money without the cheap tricks.

If they have any intelligence, they will stop the stupid little lies and exaggerations about Susan Polgar's achievements. She has enough that she doesn't need the lies and hype. She is a great player in her own right.

Once again, we see ample evidence that chess skill and intelligence are not correlated...

My error about internet in the skies. Missing the flight numbers in your post had far more to do with lack of coffee. That said, I've been told by two far more technologically savvy people than I, that there are programs that will post to just about anything while you're away from home.

I'd still appreciate the dates and times for the pulled posts that you had ascribed to Truong. I'd also like to hear more about the other telltale data (cookies you stated, IIRC) that further identified the poster.

As for fretting, well it's certainly not me who's fretting. If I were you, I'd start doing some damage control on your credibility, Mig. You've taken a pretty good hit.

According to flightaware.com, AA72 departed DFW at 13:14 Eastern and arrived at LGA 15:56 Eastern. So that establishes PT's opportunity to make the third VOR post at 13:05 (via handheld?).

I suppose we could leave it up to Koster to make Sloan not look so bad. I have never had any business dealings with Susan and don't now. As my previous posts and comments illustrate well, I have my issues with Truong. None of them would outweigh Susan telling me to my face that they were on a plane and not responsible for any of those VOR posts here. If she's that far gone it will obviously come out soon enough and nothing we do here will have any impact on that eventuality anyway. They will have dug such a deep hole that they will never get out.

I know the jihadists don't understand the ability to change one's mind based on new information (or at all), but that's all that's happened. I'm interested in what is provable. An accomplice is not in that category. Those postings (or even just one is enough) not coming from them is (coincidentally, because of the flight) and was. My "drastic" change of mind was based on the introduction of new facts. You should give it a try some time. It might even lead to reasoning and you'll be able to trick your cage-mates out of the best bananas.

So, now it's about quantity? They made all of the posts but one?! All the evidence is the same for each post. Unless you are saying the 14:00 post was made by someone else, in which case they may as well all have been, what's the point? The flight was in the air at 14:00. If you want to move on to the accomplice theory, knock yourself out. That may even help out with how all the posts came from the same IP even though they were in different places in Texas for the first ones (including an airplane on the tarmac) and NY for the rest. As I've said repeatedly, the only thing this information proves is that they didn't make those posts. If you really want to go off the deep end with the entirely pointless theory that they used an accomplice for just one or two, feel free. (Pointless because it is entirely impossible to prove without tracking said person down and forcing them to confess.) Common sense left these threads long ago. I'm sure the loonies have already moved on to including me and perhaps Dick Cheney in the conspiracy.

Brian Lafferty, my credibility with anyone I respect can only be enhanced by any criticism from you and your ilk. I couldn't care less what you'd appreciate. I have no agenda here at all and in fact my original assumption was contradicted by the new information. The fact that I can admit that is what separates me from you and the others for whom the conclusion was settled long ago and you just have to keep rearranging the facts and making up new ones to reach that conclusion. You don't get credibility by insisting blindly in the face of contrary information.

They posted them! Oh, they didn't. Well, they used a program to do it! They used an accomplice! Whatever. I don't think there is any doubt at all the great minds assembled here can come up with all sorts of ways those posts could have appeared here at their will. Automated tasking (perhaps a program that also read the replies, too, so the posts are in context as they are), an accomplice, a satellite link-up from a laptop with an IP spoofing program (because spamming this blog with nonsense is so important, it just couldn't wait!). None of those ways can be proved or disproved, so they are ideal for a conspiracy theory. More importantly, if they are true, worrying about it is meaningless. Anything COULD happen. I'm interested in what DID happen or, at the very least, what did NOT happen. Demonstrably. And as far as the evidence shows, what did not happen was Susan or Paul making those posts here.

Do you guys realize how ridiculous you're sounding now? That instead of posting such stuff themselves whenever, and from different IPs, which they would obviously know how to do by now, they would arrange something with an accomplice (guaranteeing they could be hung out to dry if he turns on them) to post *once* while they are in the air (and all posts from the same IP so it looks suspicious) so they could later rest their defense on a flight when I asked Susan if she could provide exculpatory evidence? What masterminds!

I'm not for giving anyone a free ride. But I am interested in what we can prove. Until then it's innocent until proven guilty. Because of the seriousness of the charges around the Sloan lawsuit, if not the seriousness of the lawsuit itself, talking about instincts with no access to hard facts would be malicious. That's why I'm sticking to what happened here. My feelings toward Paul are strained because of my belief in his past sins, but I see no reason to take that out on him now, or on Susan. I'm not a marriage counselor and I try not to be a sanctimonious jerk more than once a week.

the most dangerous are the most polite.

Other Stuff. A few years ago, in spiegel.de the following story was published.

A car criminal complained, that he in fact had stolen many cars, but the car-theft for which they finally put him in prison, he had nothing to do with.

Sensible post, Mig. But I think you do understand, that when people are sure that they know (just like you I reckon) that Paul Truong has been involved in behaviour like this in the past - and this was a carbon copy incident - then it is the automatic assumption that "oh it's him again".

The internet world of chess is a small world, and when people have been sure that Paul Truong has been involved in **** like this, they feel vindicated when solid IP evidence is unearthed.

So whoever VoR was, you'd think he/she had to have a motive. I mean the net is full of trolls, but persistent trolls usually have personal motives. Not just a random guy appearing out of nowhere on your blog to defend the accused and harash others?

I agree, ac, and I don't begrudge a grudge!

I'm not anonymous here. I need to stick with facts because if I am proven wrong I will be able to admit it with a clean conscience. I wouldn't owe anyone an apology for being wrong based on available facts. On the other hand, if I'm making accusations and am proven wrong I would have a serious blotch on the old ethical record and owe serious apologies that could quite reasonable not be accepted. I see no reason to take that risk based on how fishy something does or doesn't smell.

Even if VOR was Paul Truong, who gives a sh**??? The only reason VOR posted on The Dirt was to attract attention from the chess world, and guess what? He got it.

Next time a lunatic starts ranting on a chess blog, please consider just ignoring them. The more you argue, the more they will spew their craziness. If no one had responded to his first couple of posts, he would have stopped much sooner.

Oh my

So as they are about to board the and deboard the plane the Truongs read the Daily Dirt, and then e-mail or fax their responses to a third party associate. When the posts are made while they are in the air in response to a post made a few minutes earlier while they were still in the air, (14:00 response to 13:36 post by John Fernandez), they presumably told their associate how to respond to different types of posts in great detail. They e-mailed and/or faxed their posts to an associated third party, leaving a lengthy trail of e-mails which the associate can later use to blackmail them in case of a falling out. All of this for the express benefit of giving the Agatha Christie fans who read this blog something to do in between figuring out who murdered Colonel Protheroe.

Stay tuned to find out:

Which retarded KGB agent posted as the Voice of Reason on this blog on October 10th?
Will Susan get jealous when Sam Sloan says he has dreams in which he walks LaGuardia bars alone with Paul Truong?
How many times did the Polgars go to the bathroom while the plane was in the air and whether the bathroom was Internet-wired?

I've stumbled upon a connection that I believe may be significant, although I require some help in interpreting it. I invite your assistance.

As many of you by now know, Polgar and Truong reside in Lubbock, Texas. I had been struggling with this fact for a while, when I noticed that the place name "Lubbock" sounds *very similar indeed* to the word "lummox". The Oxford English Dictionary defines lummox as: "A large, heavy, or clumsy person; an ungainly or stupid lout."

I feel it: my puny brain is on the edge of some great discovery. I just don't know what it is.

The duck theory:
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, the evidence has to be pretty strong to convince me that contrary to all appearances, it is in fact not really a duck.

So apparently 1 or 3 posts out of about 50 were made when the planes were in the air, hence, it couldn't have been them. That leaves the following possibilities:
1) One of them did not make the plane trip.
2) The planes were not in the air according to schedule.
3) A third person made the postings.

The third person theory:
They asked somebody to do this at a time when they have an alibi so as to give an example of how they could also have been framed elsewhere.

The copycat theory:
Truong/Polgar was responsible for what happened on usenet, so the only other possibility left here is some sort of a copycat who incidentally might also be responsible for what happened over at Monokroussos' blog (http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1126731029.shtml). Or maybe there is a fourth person? I don't really buy it, I'm sticking with the duck theory.

To be continued... ;)

Well, I just spent some time looking over the "Voice of Reason" posts in the "Slime" thread, and my conclusion is that their style and vocabulary are nothing like the "Fake Sam Sloan" posts, nothing like anything that Paul Truong is known to have written, and not much like anything Paul Truong has been accused in the past of writing. I think they're a big red herring and I would think that even if there were no airplane evidence.

In the past, the posts Paul Truong has been accused of writing have been of two kinds: (a) short vulgar posts, supposedly by Sloan or his enemies, and (b) longer posts, often in the name of "ordinary chessplayers", supporting Truong against his enemies, and arguably sharing sentence structure, word usage features, and vocabulary with Truong's writings under his own name.

The VOR posts are much different. They are long rambling diatribes with complex sentence structure and vocabulary, simulated dialect, literary references, and attacks on chess and chessplayers. I think they're by someone else.

(The post at 00:58 on October 10, in the name of Sam Sloan but which Sloan says was not by him, and which Mig did NOT tag as a VOR post, might be a different matter.)

Naturally I could be wrong about this as about anything else.

Actually, based on two lines of evidence, I would say that the VOR poster is the same person who posts as "Rob" in RGCP.

The first line is that the VOR poster more than once uses the word "yer". There are a small number of people who have posted on RGCP who have used "yer" more than once, but "Rob" uses it frequently.

The second line is that "Rob" and VOR say the same thing about proof. This is "Rob" in a post on Oct. 13:

"Problem is, the evidence must prove without a doubt that you have accused the right person. Otherwise he opens himself up to a considerable damage lawsuit."

This was the same argument made by VOR.


Our records indicate that "Voice Of Reason" or the person using his name is also a plagiarist:

Observe the following passage [1] :

Evidence of an indirect nature which implies the existence of the main fact in question but does not in itself prove it. That is, the existence of the main fact is deduced from the indirect or circumstantial evidence by a process of probable reasoning. The introduction of a defendant's fingerprints or DNA sample are examples of circumstantial evidence.

Some people believe that all evidence is circumstantial because -- some observers think (and some thoughtful judges agree) -- no evidence ever directly proves a fact.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)

Now check out this one [2]:

Evidence of an indirect nature which implies the existence of the main fact in question but does not in itself prove it. That is, the existence of the main fact is deduced from the indirect or circumstantial evidence by a process of probable reasoning. The introduction of a defendant's fingerprints, DNA sample, or IP Addresses are examples of circumstantial evidence.

Some people believe that all evidence is circumstantial because -- some observers think (and some thoughtful judges agree) -- no evidence ever directly proves a fact. Thus explains why "Mad Mohammad" Sam Sloan lost all of his cases. ooooo... I'm ganna get sued! Oh no! Help! I need to take a dump and wipe my hairy infidel ass with a Quran! (Peace be upon my Dingle-berries)


[2] Posted by: The Voice of Reason at October 10, 2007 03:49


Yuriy, this all seems rather elaborate. I'm sure there must be a simpler explanation. In fact, I think I've found it.

Paul has used Susan's Hungarian connections to hire Dr Zukhar (of Baguio City 1978 fame) and learnt top secret Soviet techniques for transferring thoughts. Not just from an auditorium to the stage, like Zukhar did to Korchnoi, but over distances of many thousands of miles.

Before leaving New York, he left his computer running, operated by a former KGB man recommended by Zukhar as being especially suited to this kind of work.

This was to enable him to keep up to date with the blog while he was away; the operator would inform him by telepathy of any developments, Paul would compose a reponse and transfer it back to the operator, who would duly type it in and post it to the blog. Thanks to the thorough training provided by Dr Zukhar, and the extraordinary skills of the operator, this would work even in a plane in mid-air.

Unfortunately, before entrusting his apartment to the KGB operator, Paul forgot to secure the drinks cabinet. After he returned from the airport and angrily sent him packing, the operator spent the night pacing the streets of New York in a drunken rage, broadcasting negative and disruptive thoughts through the sleeping city, and caused a big sell-off in the stock market the next day.

Of course, Bloomberg were in on the conspiracy as well, so they made up some nonsense about an analyst downgrading a Chinese company. A real giveaway, since China is in Asia, and Paul Truong came from Vietnam, which is also in Asia. Even more proof, were it needed, is that the Voice of Reason wrote something in Japanese, which is a language spoken in - yes, you guessed it - Asia!

The perceptive Theodulf speculates that Voice of Reason may actually be the frequent rgcp poster known as "Rob", for two reasons:

1. Use of "yer"

2. Comments about legal proof

Actually a third reason comes to mind which may be more telling than the first two. VOR, like Rob, seems to be convinced that it is a matter of earth-shaking significance that Sam Sloan has, at times, gone by the name Mohamed Ismail Sloan.

It is true that Sloan has used this name. My recollection is that he frequently went by the name Ismail Sloan 25-30 years ago, when he was doing business in Dubai. But in rgcp, few regular posters seem to care much about this biographical detail, as well they shouldn't. People can call themselves whatever they like, so long as there is no intent to defraud.

Nevertheless Rob seems to think it's a devastating put-down to repeatedly address Sloan as "Mohamed". It looks like Rob has been trying to stir up a xenophobic chorus over in rgcp, but for the most part, nobody's singing along.

Similar considerations make me wonder about the poster in the Slime thread who called himself "Pr".

Ah, the "impersonating an impersonator" theory. So this Rob has it in for Sloan. But why was he pretending to be Truong here? Or is that just randomly insane par for the course for that guy?


I just checked the American Airlines menu for that day. What would you guess was the desert for in-flight meal on October 10? You got it, purple yogurt.

I suggest dividing Daily Dirt readers into three teams based on technology skills, hand to eye coordination and familiarity with Father Brown short stories.

Team 1:

Interview stewards from the AA flights and see if any of them remember seeing Paul and Susan. We know they bought tickets, but did they actually board the plane? Maybe they waited till last second and took the space shuttle?

Team 2:

Hack into Susan and Paul's e-mail telephone logs. Were any extensive transfers of data made during and around flight time?

Team 3:

Intricate linguistic analysis of VOTR posts to determine his age, country of origin and sexual preference.

Anybody who doesn't want to be on any of those 3 teams:

Investigate ducks. Not sure what that means, but the duck theory sounds interesting. Perhaps a duck did this?

I find it amazing how critical thinking has left the building for so many people. When someone says something pro-agenda, that person is brilliant. If that same person says something counter-agenda, they are corrupt, foolhardy, or both.

Mig has done an admirable job here. After filtering through the 90% noise level this is still the best place to read real information. Sadly, it also seems to confirm my suspicions that the USCF has taken on too much water, and there is no reasonable way it can remain afloat and achieve it's mission.

trm asks why Rob might have been pretending to be Truong here. That is not the theory. If VOR was Rob, he was just behaving in a Truong-like way that raised Mig's suspicions.

Rob, by the way, has declared in rgcp that he is not impressed by Mottershead's log because Rob himself was in Truong's presence at some of the alleged posting times. Go figure.

Stay tuned next week for the latest news on the gold bug, the purloined letter, and the polonium spritzer.

A purple yoghurt! These are very deep waters, Yuriy. It is quite a three-pipe problem.

I seem to remember Peking Duck is a popular dish in Chinese restaurants. You may be onto something there.

Doesn't the Space Shuttle fly from Cape Canaveral? Ah, now I get it, NASA's in on this as well. After all, they faked the moon landings and 9/11; transporting the Space Shuttle from Florida to Texas and flying it to New York, without anyone noticing, would be child's play by comparison.

We found the solution! It wasn't Truong and Polgar, it was Old Man Jenkins who ran the lighthouse! The perfect crime, and it wouldn't have been possible to solve without the Hardy Boys.

Congratulations on solving another case and good luck regaining the WWE tag team titles!

Theodulf is right, the writing style is not that of Paul Truong.

As quoted by Chess Auditor:

..Thus explains why "Mad Mohammad" Sam Sloan lost all of his cases. ooooo... I'm ganna get sued! Oh no! Help! I need to take a dump and wipe my hairy infidel ass with a Quran! (Peace be upon my Dingle-berries)..

Anyone who thinks Paul ever thought or wrote like that is sure to fail forensics school.

Some people keep harping on how it's not possible to post from the plane, but nobody claims that's what they did (except one person in the beginning but that was addressed by Mig).

The defense "but we took a plane trip that day" is not conclusive enough in and of itself as a day still holds 24 hours, more than it takes to make a plane trip. It still hinges on only a few posts that coincide with the plane schedule. Even if this is enough, there are still other possibilities.

If it wasn't them then who was it and what's the motive? This "Rob" reportedly has a history as a troll and has a beef with Sloan so he makes a good candidate. Apart from attacking Sloan, he also defends Truong/Polgar: "You have no proof Susan or Paul did anything, just a bad case of prejudice. ... Long live the success of Susan Polgar!"
Very convenient.

As the guy who posted the flight data, I must confess I can't think of how one would post from a plane. The 14:00 post rules out PT.

I am satisfied that VOR was an anonymous and overzealous supporter of Trollgar.

VOR stays silent, as expected. It's good to know Polgar/Truong will face the court for their actions. Do they have to fear prison?

From the Truong Case, anything new?

Ellrond: not really. There were no revelations on this front at the Nov. 3-4 Executive Board meeting in Crossville. The Board created a committee of itself composed of all the members except Truong and Polgar to look into the affair.

The USCF has retained a law firm with internet experience; it was initially thought that the next step would be to hire independent experts to go over the Mottershead Report and assess its conclusions, but a message from Bill Goichberg to the USCF Forums yesterday said that this has been held up on advice of counsel. This could be read a couple of different ways; maybe the firm thinks they don't need an expert, since they understand the report themselves; maybe it's something else. Bill assures us that the Board is taking this all seriously.

On the legal (Sam Sloan's lawsuit) side, which I expect to go nowhere because the lawsuit is so disorganized and joins numerous parties without any reasonable legal ground, Sam says that Texas Tech is moving to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. The individual members of the EB were served with process in Crossville. That's all I have.

it's a pity Mig lost interest, for unknown reason, in finding out that spammer who never popped up again as expected (assumened Truong is that person)

You mean other than the many reasons I stated explicitly above? Get a life.


I visited this page first time and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.bestphonelookup.com

It is interesting to note that even in chess, there are such insane fans that will do such a thing. This impersonating an impersonator theory is also interesting to hear about. I hope that things ended well for you.

Brandon - http://www.doubledowncasino.com

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on October 15, 2007 2:50 AM.

    Fast Start at Essent 07 was the previous entry in this blog.

    Read Like a Grandmaster - Anand Swamped is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.