You know it's bad if RAY is the voice of reason
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
Ted E Bear
"Ray Gordon, serial pontificator" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:UIedne5L7oofHSja...@pghconnect.com...
> 'nuff said.
>
Way too much said.......who toasted your nuts and put you on this manic
posting spree?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
> might have posted to Usenet (maintained by Google)
> as "voice of reason", but if so then I missed it.
> However, you sure were not the "voice of reason"
> who contributed to Michael's blog. I know. :-)
No.
> Noted you are the only one with enough smarts to
> see that Nixon Peabody's response was perfect.
It was standard, but also very concise. Why bother with merits when one can
win on technicalities? Though this doesn't make the merits go away.
Removal to state court is all that will be "won." That and about six months
of free time.
> Isn't Sam fortunate that Paul is not too violent
> a man?
The restraining order in NY Family Court suggests he is abusive, not
violent, as he does not seek out fair fights. It also seems to confirm my
initial claim that Ms. Polgar is a dumb cunt who can't choose men.
The reason it's not "fortunate" that anyone (him or anyone else) is "not too
violent" is that it's not relevant. Who anyone dislikes is their business,
and it behooves them not to act out on it to try to impose their views or
code on others.
To suggest otherwise would be extremely disconcerting.
>Most, given the heavy provocation Paul has
> endured from Sam (starting with Sam's lurid tales
> of young Zsuzsanna now Paul's dearly-beloved wife
> and business partner), must have been tempted to
> smash that ugly old face into something very hard,
I should hope not, for several reasons. To begin with, if the stories are
true, that is not Sam's problem, nor Pauls, as the events happened long ago,
and they are primarily Susan's business. Any individual who acts out on
behalf of a third party is a vigilante, nothing more, and they are the
threat to society because we don't live under their imperfect "justice"
system.
Not that Sam is correct to "provoke," but in no way would that justify any
type of response. From what I've seen, however, the notion of conflict
between Sloan and the House of Truong is a bit overblown, as it is primarily
relating to chess and political in nature.
> and not just once. If hypothetically we were even
> to assume Paul did post something inappropriate,
> it was usually for good purpose, and any innocent
> bystander involved was only used as local color
> which is no doubt deeply regretted -- sincerely!
The evidence does not suggest that I was randomly targeted by the imposter.
It also suggests that Sloan was not targeted at all by the imposter, at
least not by the definition of the word used by many here.
There were two primary targets in this affair, and neither of them were
Sloan. I was a third target, and only added several months in for reasons
which will also become clear by the end of next week.
> Not that I would know, but Paul is only a human!
Well, people would wonder why you support Paul, and some might suspect you
were him or sympathetic to him. Any poster would acknowledge the same if
they were unbiased. Why create that appearance?
Federal trials are not conducted in the dark, as one judge used to say.
That said, my opinion of Sloan is far lower than my opinion of Truong or
Polgar, though my opinion of all three isn't anything one would hang on
their wall.
That hot-sauce allegation isn't thrilling either.
> Gordon, from your extensive legal experience
Only as a kibitzer and support staff, not an attorney.
>you
> must know how 90 or 95% of this type of suit gets
> decided. In the first ten minutes the judge gives
> the evidence a perfunctory look and decides who
> is the bad guy (or who is the worse guy) and so
> who deserves to lose.
I disagree. Usually a clerk reviews the entire complaint, keeping in mind
the judge's belief system and what type of ruling is likely. Also if the
judge has a reason for wanting that type of case.
I do think the system is fair, but flawed.
>Then, he will try to fit
> all the facts, evidence and precedent around his
> tentative decision, and most of the time he can.
I call that "Judicial gymnastics" and it's not specific to any one motive.
> Very occasionally, judge hits an insurmountable
> problem, something which could lead to him being
> reversed on appeal.
Or applied to someone s/he likes down the road.
>It won't be an issue in the
> present action. The judge, having seen Sam for
> what he is, and having seen the cesspool of rgcp
> filled with anons, pseudos, fake IDs and forgers
> as it is for what it is, will bend over backward
> to deny Sam even the tiniest of victories, both
> in his court and in most other jurisdictions in
> which Sam could be tempted to re-file.
I disagree. There are some very substantial factual allegations in the
complaint, which, if true, would prove very disturbing for the defendants.
There's also the issue of various women who were targeted, some of whom work
for USCF, and that could cause EEOC to get a bug up its ass, especially if
others were involved, due to hostile-environment.
> Gordon, you have an obvious case against Sam.
Wrong. I have a case against Sam which no one understands right now. They
will. I also have a case against the imposter and several others.
There is someone else, however, who has a case that puts all the others to
shame, and they have an amazing team of attorneys at their disposal.
>Is
> there some reason you have not commenced action?
Yes. I wanted to figure out what was done, why, by whom, when, and for what
purpose, before I moved. I was not about to believe for one second that two
alleged loose-cannons would do what they did, for so long, with such a
targeted and precise outcome, without others being involved. I now have
answers to every last of those questions, and a lawsuit which explains
exactly what is going on that will be filed within days.
I am no one's pawn. That I may find positive aspects in some arguments
presented by some parties does not preclude the negative aspects I find in
those same individuals. There is not a single good guy in this mess, and
everyone involved seems to have broken the law in one or more ways. What is
hidden, however, is why this occurred, and the transparency sought by the
House of Truong indicates that they seem as eager as myself to have the
whole truth come to light. I doubt, however, that our motives are anything
close to identical.
The bottom line is simple: anyone who thinks that Samuel H. Sloan wound up
on the USCF Executive Board and the hero in exposing its biggest "scandal"
ever, by accident, or all by himself, is naive.
The effort by the parties to get the spectators to take sides, and the
reaction by said spectators, is humorous. Kind of like McDonalds and Burger
King making you choose between the two, without reminding you that "none of
the above" is also a choice.
My guess is you already know that I've figured out this whole thing. If
you're involved, you're all in like the rest of them. Don't know what I'd
do in your situation, but I wouldn't run myself into something like that in
the first place. It's simply not how I live.