Why is this not objectionable?
Sam Sloan
context was it came in a debate about the problem of entering Chinese
names in databases. The topic concerned the name of Chinese
Grandmaster Zhang Zhong. Was his family name Zhang or Zhong? Which
should come first?
As an ethnic slur, I consider it to be forgettable, except that Tim
Hanke does it all the time. Almost every day Hanke makes a racist or
sexist remark. Imagine what would happen if George W. Bush said that
he wanted to go mud-wrestling with Hillary Clinton. I am surprised
that you find nothing objectionable about Tim Hanke saying that he
wants to go mud-wrestling with Beatriz Marinello, his election
opponent:
From:Tim Hanke (timoth...@attbi.com)
Subject:Re: Zhang Zhong revisited
Newsgroups:rec.games.chess.misc
Date:2003-06-02 17:18:59 PST
"Bill Smythe" <chic...@beforeRCNafter.com> wrote ...
> "Mark Houlsby" wrote:
> > Surely you meant to write: "Smythe Bill"?! :-)
>
> No, but we Americans (and western Europeans) could reasonably make a
> concession to the Chinese. When entering a Chinese name into a Western
> database, such as the USCF membership list, enter the entire name in the
> family-name field, and leave the given-name field blank. Such names would
> appear correctly on both alphabetized lists and paychecks. On lists, they
> would appear without commas. The lack of a comma could be an indicator that
> the family name is the first name listed.
Bugger the Chinese. Next you will be telling us our calendar is all
wrong too, and this is really 4700, the Year of the Ram.
Tim Hanke (born in 4655, the Year of the Dog)
--
I am a candidate for the U.S. Chess Federation Executive Board in the
2003 election. Please visit my website at http://www.timothyhanke.net.
Mhoulsby
>Date: 20/07/03 22:54 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f1b0eb6...@ca.news.verio.net>
Sloan,
This could do without your help.
Butt out.
Chris Mattern
> Here is the full text of Tim Hanke's remark, "Bugger the Chinese". The
He won, you lost, get over it.
Chris Mattern
Matt Nemmers
> As an ethnic slur, I consider it to be forgettable, except that Tim
> Hanke does it all the time. Almost every day Hanke makes a racist or
> sexist remark. Imagine what would happen if George W. Bush said that
> he wanted to go mud-wrestling with Hillary Clinton. I am surprised
> that you find nothing objectionable about Tim Hanke saying that he
> wants to go mud-wrestling with Beatriz Marinello, his election
> opponent:
Get over it, Sloan.
You lost -- quit fuckin' cryin' about it. Hanke beat you fair and square
and no amount of over-sensitive quibbling over semantics is going to change
that.
You're not Chinese and you'll never get married to Marinello, so WHAT IS
YOUR POINT??? Everyone knows what Tim said and nobody really gives a shit
except you PC commandos out there who want to make a mountain out of every
molehill on the course.
MN
Mhoulsby
>Date: 20/07/03 23:46 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MYESa.109570$H17.34075@sccrnsc02>
Not true. I'm no commando, nor confedrit neither, not nohow, nosiree...
MH
John Macnab
present an opinion. If you disagree with the post, make an argument.
If you dislike Sam Sloan, aren't you tired of saying it yet?
John
Looney
"John Macnab" <john_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RaXSa.479680$3C2.12...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
Perhaps their opinion was that Sloan's sour grapes were getting annoying and
he mayhap want to give it a rest...
--
Looney
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.patzersprogress.com
Dr. Robert Faurisson
"Mhoulsby" <mhou...@aol.com-remove-> wrote in message
news:20030720185031...@mb-m21.aol.com...
What you are dickbreath is a flaming faggot troll that can niether play
chess or do anything else in your pathetic life with any degree of
competency!
ps The US chess federation lost all credibility when they snubbed the one
guy who did more for them than anyone else.....Robert James Fischer
Listen to Fischer's latest June Interview:
http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/index.htm
Mhoulsby
>Date: 29/07/03 16:31 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <zrwVa.555935$3C2.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>
Timothy Hanke, Stan Booz and Briarroot evidently agree with this assessment,
Jason, which has clearly been meticulously researched.
Are you guys co-ordinating this attack or what?
I'm scaaaaaaaaaaared!
What's your next move, revisionist boy?
Mark
>
>
>ps The US chess federation lost all credibility when they snubbed the one
>guy who did more for them than anyone else.....Robert James Fischer
>
>Listen to Fischer's latest June Interview:
>http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/index.htm
>
Well, Fischer is no more disturbed than Jason is, at least. I hope that both
recover their sanity.
Don Mihokovich
I have been a critic of Tim's approach to certain subjects (e.g.
admitted "cultural prejudice; at least during the election), but find
it interesting that this question is coming from the King of the
Objectionable.
So how about this "sexual" stuff from Sloan's websites? Is it
objectionable?
Caution: Don't click these links if you are under the age of 18,
and/or offended by "adult" material. Even those not offended by
"adult" material will be offended by some of this, including but not
limited to Sam's "how2rape":
http://www.anusha.com/how2rape.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/pornplot.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/threesom.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/got-her.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/catholic.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/chantabu.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/arraign.htm
http://www.ishipress.com/trobrian.htm
http://www.anusha.com/girlspic.htm
I reluctantly post these links just in case there are readers out
there who don't know about Sam's writings. Unfortunately, Sam will
probably love that I posted this because it will get him the website
"hits" he lives for.
KIdDon
Spam Scone
> So how about this "sexual" stuff from Sloan's websites? Is it
> objectionable?
> Caution: Don't click these links if you are under the age of 18,
> and/or offended by "adult" material. Even those not offended by
> "adult" material will be offended by some of this, including but not
> limited to Sam's "how2rape":
> http://www.anusha.com/how2rape.htm
> http://www.samsloan.com/pornplot.htm
> http://www.samsloan.com/threesom.htm
> http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
> http://www.samsloan.com/got-her.htm
> http://www.samsloan.com/catholic.htm
> http://www.samsloan.com/chantabu.htm
Thanks. This last one is the defense to a libel suit. Stan, was this
the one you remember about Sloan?
StanB
"Spam Scone" <tartak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76ba5964.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > http://www.samsloan.com/chantabu.htm
>
> Thanks. This last one is the defense to a libel suit. Stan, was this
> the one you remember about Sloan?
No. He had pictures of prostitutes under the age of fifteen who he claimed
to have bedded. He no longer has that page up.
StanB
Tony D.
this time. He is clearly a disgusting person, and one can only hope for his
swift demise.
"Ever since I lost a lung to cancer, I've cut my smoking in half"
Tony D.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
Not true. There are no such pictures. I have never taken a page or a
picture off my website. Every picture that was ever on my website is
still there now.
Stan is just projecting that some of the women whose pictures are on
my website are under-aged. He does not know the ages of the women and
neither do I in most cases.
Sam Sloan
StanB
> >No. He had pictures of prostitutes under the age of fifteen who he
claimed
> >to have bedded. He no longer has that page up.
>
> Not true. There are no such pictures. I have never taken a page or a
> picture off my website. Every picture that was ever on my website is
> still there now.
Well since you've never been caught in a lie, you must be right.
StanB
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
Thus far, the crime committed by Sam Sloan appears to be having sex
with a 19-year-old Thai lady, who evidently got the better of him.
Gutter patriot and would-be neighborhood TIPs informer Stan Booz and
the evidently envious Historian have presented no evidence of Sam Sloan having
sex with children.
Gutter patriot Booz claims to have seen pictures on the Sloan web page
of very young girls with whom Mr. Sloan allegedly said he had sex. Over the
years I have gone through virtually the entire Sloan web page. I have never
seen what our gutter patriot claims.
We may take the claim for a vicious lie. Period. Strictly in the
style of the gutter patriot.
The Historian is different. He evidently drools -- moisture of the
printed word! -- over what he has never had. You can see the slime on his
words. Pathetic.
(One warns The Historian in the event he ever tries to get leeringly
frisky with one of those Thai ladies, who kick their feet over their heads.
Many of them know Muay Thai, and one of those little ladies, slamming her heel
up under his chin, would put him to sleep in some ludicrous attitude for a few
minutes.)
I think it fair to ask The Historian to repeat and elaborate on his
sex-with-children charge against Mr. Sloan. The more he writes, the better.
From Mr. Sloan's angle, such writing would add to the documentation because The
Historian can never hide his malice. From The Historian's angle, if he
believes his libels, he would be exposing Mr. Sloan for all to see. If he
truly believes what he is writing, which he does not, he will not retreat into
his patented, pusillanimous silence. Which he has. And will.
Our gutter patriot has a role to play. We remember when The Historian,
in a display of half bathos and half cowardice, fled the forum after Phil Innes
threatened a libel suit. Mr. Booz bucked him up and dragged him back. That
was delightfully cruel on the part of Mr. Booz
We can see that The Historian wants out, but Mr. Booz keeps dragging
him back. Mr. Sloan's hope is that Mr. Booz will drag back his confrere one
time too many and that The Historian ejaculates sufficiently large splotches of
bile to finish him off in a courtroom.
Randy Bauer
Larry,
You really need to find some new copy. This mind numbing defense of a
morally depraved and ethically deprived reprobate just isn't credible.
Say what you want about the other parties in this discussion, but
defending Sam Sloan's honor is simply disingenuous.
Randy Bauer
Matt Nemmers
news:625d11e3.03080...@posting.google.com...
>
> You really need to find some new copy. This mind numbing defense of a
> morally depraved and ethically deprived reprobate just isn't credible.
> Say what you want about the other parties in this discussion, but
> defending Sam Sloan's honor is simply disingenuous.
>
> Randy Bauer
Hear, hear!!
Regards,
Matt
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
>You really need to find some new copy. This mind numbing defense of a
morally depraved and ethically deprived reprobate just isn't credible.
Say what you want about the other parties in this discussion, but
defending Sam Sloan's honor is simply disingenuous. --- Randy Bauer
Just because you don't like someone or find him morally depraved and ethically
deprived doesn't give you the right to libel them by inventing false charges.
More anon.
Looney
^^^^^^^^^^^
Randy,
You misspelled *f'ing moronic*
HTH
Tim Hanke
> ----------------------------------------------------
> http://www.patzersprogress.com
The above URL takes one to an excellent chess website, one of the best
personal websites I have ever seen.
Tim Hanke
Looney
"Tim Hanke" <timoth...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SPwWa.42231$uu5.5018@sccrnsc04...
Hey, thanks, Tim.
Kevin L. Bachler
says...
>SNUP
>Just because you don't like someone or find him morally depraved and ethically
>deprived doesn't give you the right to libel them by inventing false charges.
Nor does it create an obligation to defend them.
Kevin L. Bachler
StanB
"Parrthenon" <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030801002936...@mb-m15.news.cs.com...
> Gutter patriot and would-be neighborhood TIPs informer Stan Booz
and
> the evidently envious Historian have presented no evidence of Sam Sloan
having
> sex with children.
>
> Gutter patriot Booz claims to have seen pictures on the Sloan web
page
> of very young girls with whom Mr. Sloan allegedly said he had sex. Over
the
> years I have gone through virtually the entire Sloan web page. I have
never
> seen what our gutter patriot claims.
>
> We may take the claim for a vicious lie. Period. Strictly in
the
> style of the gutter patriot.
Hey asshole. No one said he saw him. It was said he was a self-admitted
child molester. As to who the liar is, your record speaks for itself. This
is the best troll bait you can generate? Maybe you need to incubate some new
Winter/Evans shit. BTW gutter and patriot in the same breath is an oxymoron.
StanB
StanB
> Just because you don't like someone or find him morally depraved and
ethically
> deprived doesn't give you the right to libel them by inventing false
charges.
And of course that is happening. Bullshit.
StanB
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
Randy Bauer and Matt Nemmers say that I am defending Sam Sloan's honor.
When, how?
I have asked for evidence that Mr. Sloan has had sex with children,
the precise charge tossed at him by The Historian and Stan Booz. Thus far, I
have nailed one outright lie. Namely, Mr. Booz's assertion that there were
pictures of some young girls/children on Sam's web page where he asserted that
he had sex. I have been through that page a number of times, and unless I
missed the single page that is so denominated, then Mr. Booz just made up a
story.
I don't believe I missed such a page, and Mr. Booz lies viciously when
claiming such a page existed and was removed by Mr. Sloan.
Once again, gentlemen, that's a lie. A lie dripping with malice to
boot. Straight out.
I am on record repeatedly -- got that, Messrs. Bauer and Nemmers? --
as asserting that Sam leads a life, or has often led one, straight out of a
fruit blender. He's a character. But I have also heard claims about him for
which there is not a scintilla of evidence. Nothing, nothing, nothing. Got
that?
If there is no such evidence, then I hold those who retail the stories
as being located on a lower loci of the food chain than Mr. Sloan.
Got that?
Parrthenon
TROLL-LA-LA-LA-DE-YEA!
By Larry Parr
In what follows, Stan Booz agonizes, "This is the best troll bait you
can generate?"
To prove that nothing we wrote hit the mark, gutter patriot Booz also
fumes or, more accurately, evacuates, "Hey asshole .... As to who the liar is,
your record speaks for itself .... Maybe you need to incubate some new
Winter/Evans shit. BTW gutter and patriot in the same breath is an oxymoron."
having bitten into the hook. Both, however, wriggle when on the line. Where
rolls of bologna are more circumspect than gents with egos is that they would
reject the grinder if they could. Mr. Booz does not.
Mr. Booz lied about Sam Sloan having had a page on his website showing
photographs of children with whom he had had sex. He lied viciously.
Maliciously. Period.
Now Mr. Booz claims that Mr. Sloan is "a self-admitted child
molester." Once again, whom did he molest? When did the molestation occur?
Where did it occur? Where is the admission from Mr. Sloan?
Mr. Booz imagines that "gutter" and "patriot" placed together is an
oxymoron. True enough, if we are talking about real patriotism, which in the
American context means extolling the Bill of Rights and protecting the U.S.
Constitution. But if we are talking about someone who waves the flag and who
would literally shat upon Madison's copy of the Bill of Rights if he butt
could, then the phrase, "gutter patriot," is just fine.
Mr. Booz is a gent who waves the flag but despises the freedom it
stands for.
StanB
> Mr. Booz imagines that "gutter" and "patriot" placed together is
an
> oxymoron. True enough, if we are talking about real patriotism, which in
the
> American context means extolling the Bill of Rights and protecting the
U.S.
> Constitution. But if we are talking about someone who waves the flag and
who
> would literally shat upon Madison's copy of the Bill of Rights if he butt
> could, then the phrase, "gutter patriot," is just fine.
You are a hoot. I can see you now, chastising Jefferson for keeping slaves.
You know, with all your writing skills I would expect you to contribute
deathless prose to our humble group. Instead we get an endless stream of
gutter sniping and hindsight criticism. I challenge you Larry, make a
positive contribution to the group.
StanB
Spam Scone
Kevin, don't fall for the typical Parr heroic pose. This is not about
defending Sam Sloan, it's about getting even. Experienced
Parr-watchers know that whenever Liarry Parr starts on one of his
crusades, look for the self-interest beneath it. And that
self-interest usually boils down to an attempt to salve his wounded
pride.
StanB
> Kevin, don't fall for the typical Parr heroic pose. This is not about
> defending Sam Sloan, it's about getting even. Experienced
> Parr-watchers know that whenever Liarry Parr starts on one of his
> crusades, look for the self-interest beneath it. And that
> self-interest usually boils down to an attempt to salve his wounded
> pride.
You may have something here. I was contemplating the notion that Larry has a
hard time scoring his Preparation H in Malaysia.
StanB
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
If The Historian were a businessman, his company would be called Stigmata
Incorporated. He does not wear his ego injuries lightly.
I have not defended Sam Sloan except to ask for evidence from The
Historian, whose envy of Mr. Sloan's opportunities is sexually patent, and from
Stan Booz that Mr. Sloan has had sex with children. They can point to none,
and they can adduce no statement, in spite of their claims, that Mr. Sloan
admitted to same.
We may assume that The Historian and Mr. Booz both lied. They hate Mr.
Sloan, and they lie about him. That's the sum of it.
As for salved egos, methinks The Historian doth wound too much.
"I challenge you Larry, make a
positive contribution to the group." -- Stan Booz, musing about Preparation H.
Bill Brock
Let's end this thread by noting that the answer to the question posed
is "no." The countersuit would be a slam-dunk.
Bill Brock
205 W. Randolph
Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60606
Kevin L. Bachler
tartak...@hotmail.com says...
I wasn't falling for it...I was tee-ing up the next comment by noting that Larry
was CHOOSING to defend Sam.
Kevin L. Bachler
StanB
> If The Historian were a businessman, his company would be called
Stigmata
> Incorporated.
And if bullshit was money, Larry would be wealthy beyond his wildest dreams.
> I have not defended Sam Sloan except to ask for evidence from The
> Historian, whose envy of Mr. Sloan's opportunities is sexually patent, and
from
> Stan Booz that Mr. Sloan has had sex with children. They can point to
none,
> and they can adduce no statement, in spite of their claims, that Mr. Sloan
> admitted to same.
>
> We may assume that The Historian and Mr. Booz both lied. They hate
Mr.
> Sloan, and they lie about him. That's the sum of it.
When you assume you make an ASS of U and ME.
The following text by Sam Sloan comes from his webpage at
http://www.samsloan.com/chantabu.htm:
"When my turn came, I went into the booth with three other men. The curtain
came down. As soon as the curtain came down, the young girl who was in front
of me grabbed my hand, pushed my hand down into her panties, and stuck my
finger into her pussy.
"Then, seconds later, the young girl abruptly pulled my hand out of her
pussy. At just the moment that she got my hand out of her pussy and out of
her panties, the curtain went back up.
"This was an amazing deal. I had gotten a free feel for just eight cents,
American money.
"I went around the fair. There were several other booths with young girls in
them. I went into each of them, and had my finger stuck into many young
pussies, all at the cost of two baht each."
There is plenty more like this throughout Sam's website.
Such as the young Thai girl whose virginity was offered to him, but Sam
waited a week till her price had gone down considerably: "I left Maesai, but
I was thinking about this girl. When I came back one week later, her price
had come down to 200 bhat. Her virginity had been sold. I took advantage of
this reduction in price." Details at http://www.samsloan.com/maesai-v.htm.
I can hardly wait for bin Larry to spin Sam's words.
I challenge you Larry to make a positive contribution to the group.
StanB
Oreo Knight
...does the thought of Ismail Sloan having sex with *anybody* make one
cringe with uttmost revulsion? It gives me nightmares!
Spam Scone
> http://www.samsloan.com/chantabu.htm:
> "When my turn came, I went into the booth with three other men. The curtain
> came down. As soon as the curtain came down, the young girl who was in front
> of me grabbed my hand, pushed my hand down into her panties, and stuck my
> finger into her pussy.
> "Then, seconds later, the young girl abruptly pulled my hand out of her
> pussy. At just the moment that she got my hand out of her pussy and out of
> her panties, the curtain went back up.
> "This was an amazing deal. I had gotten a free feel for just eight cents,
> American money.
> "I went around the fair. There were several other booths with young girls in
> them. I went into each of them, and had my finger stuck into many young
> pussies, all at the cost of two baht each."
> There is plenty more like this throughout Sam's website.
> Such as the young Thai girl whose virginity was offered to him, but Sam
> waited a week till her price had gone down considerably: "I left Maesai, but
> I was thinking about this girl. When I came back one week later, her price
> had come down to 200 bhat. Her virginity had been sold. I took advantage of
> this reduction in price." Details at http://www.samsloan.com/maesai-v.htm.
> I can hardly wait for bin Larry to spin Sam's words.
> I challenge you Larry to make a positive contribution to the group.
> StanB
Don't forget this one:
http://www.samsloan.com/daa.htm
StanB
"Oreo Knight" <OreoK...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3e92bb1.0308...@posting.google.com...
> ...does the thought of Ismail Sloan having sex with *anybody* make one
> cringe with uttmost revulsion? It gives me nightmares!
I don't know. I'd pay to see him humping Larry Parr.
StanB
Oreo Knight
Now THAT is some nightmare material indeed!
O.K.
Parrthenon
CHANGE OF CHARGE
By Larry Parr
The Historian and Stan Booz accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
children.
It is crucial to keep in mind that they have failed to produce a
single word of proof. Instead, they changed the charge.
Mr. Sloan is no longer accused of having sex with children. Instead,
he is accused of living according to the mores of a distant Buddhist land. We
are invited to condemn Mr. Sloan for acting no differently than the Thais, who
must also be condemned.
I spent months of my life along the Thai-Cambodian border, though as a
reporter rather than a tourist. Whatever one may say about the Thais, I could
not help but notice -- sleeping on the floors of Thai army barracks, as I did a
number of times, and bouncing in the back of many a Thai army truck -- how
decently the soldiers conducted themselves. Yes, they went to carnivals and
parties in Thai towns and screwed their brains out in brothels galore or did
the kinds of things Sam describes. On the other hand, they did not shoot
defenseless children off roofs of their homes, murder entire families at
ill-defined checkpoints, and conduct themselves like marauding conquerors as
too many of "our boys" are conducting themselves in Iraq.
The Thais were defending their country against Vietnamese incursions
and trying to handle an enormous flow of refugees from the high socialist
madness of Cambodia. The soldiers treated the villagers well, and I only saw
nastiness in the form of threats and some slapping and wild screaming a half
dozen times.
The Thais have a rough and ready way of life out in the small towns,
but there are far worse things, including The Historian's evident prurient envy
of Mr. Sloan. If some Thai soldiers brought in boa snakes and drop them on a
bar counter, you play with them. If they brought in girls, you don't turn and
leave in a huff.
Sam lived like an average Thai. That is the new charge levelled
against him.
Parrthenon
MORE OF STAN BOOZ'S SPECIALTY
By Larry Parr
I think the exchange below between Stan Booz and Oreo Knight is a
good example of our gutter patriot's idea about what constitutes valuable
contributions to this forum.
Mr. Booz and The Historian (who may be Oreo Knight) accused Sam Sloan
of having sex with children. They offered no evidence to support their charge.
They simply retailed a vicious lie because they hate Mr. Sloan.
Mr. Booz hates Mr. Sloan because he is not a militarist and statist.
The Historian hates Mr. Sloan with a rare prurience because he hates his own
pinched existence and experience.
Mr. Booz's latest piece of sodomized filth may be read below.
StanB
"Parrthenon" <parrt...@cs.com> defecated in message
news:20030806011307...@mb-m04.news.cs.com...
> The Historian and Stan Booz accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
> children.
>
> It is crucial to keep in mind that they have failed to produce a
> single word of proof. Instead, they changed the charge.
No, we pointed out and annotated that Sam bragged about sexual acts with
children.
> Mr. Sloan is no longer accused of having sex with children.
Instead,
> he is accused of living according to the mores of a distant Buddhist land.
We
> are invited to condemn Mr. Sloan for acting no differently than the Thais,
who
> must also be condemned.
>
> I spent months of my life along the Thai-Cambodian border, though
as a
> reporter rather than a tourist. Whatever one may say about the Thais, I
could
> not help but notice -- sleeping on the floors of Thai army barracks, as I
did a
> number of times, and bouncing in the back of many a Thai army truck -- how
> decently the soldiers conducted themselves. Yes, they went to carnivals
and
> parties in Thai towns and screwed their brains out in brothels galore or
did
> the kinds of things Sam describes. On the other hand, they did not shoot
> defenseless children off roofs of their homes, murder entire families at
> ill-defined checkpoints, and conduct themselves like marauding conquerors
as
> too many of "our boys" are conducting themselves in Iraq.
How would you know? Pardon me if I conclude that you are bending the truth
in order to justify the devilish acts of a few middle eastern devils. I
challenge you to name instances where American soldiers purposely shot
defenseless (or otherwise) children on or off of rooftops.
> The Thais were defending their country against Vietnamese
incursions
> and trying to handle an enormous flow of refugees from the high socialist
> madness of Cambodia. The soldiers treated the villagers well, and I only
saw
> nastiness in the form of threats and some slapping and wild screaming a
half
> dozen times.
>
> The Thais have a rough and ready way of life out in the small
towns,
> but there are far worse things, including The Historian's evident prurient
envy
> of Mr. Sloan. If some Thai soldiers brought in boa snakes and drop them
on a
> bar counter, you play with them. If they brought in girls, you don't turn
and
> leave in a huff.
>
> Sam lived like an average Thai. That is the new charge levelled
> against him.
So in essense you concede that your client was guilty of fingering girls
younger than 16. You rationalize it because it was aceptable to do so there
and then.
You sir are repugnant. Indeed, a worthless piece of shit.
StanB
StanB
> I think the exchange below between Stan Booz and Oreo Knight is
a
> good example of our gutter patriot's idea about what constitutes valuable
> contributions to this forum.
>
> Mr. Booz and The Historian (who may be Oreo Knight)
Tom Dorsch.
>accused Sam Sloan
> of having sex with children. They offered no evidence to support their
charge.
>
> They simply retailed a vicious lie because they hate Mr. Sloan.
Are you saying Sam's confession is a lie?
> Mr. Booz hates Mr. Sloan because he is not a militarist and
statist.
I don't hate Sam. Or you. Or even Jerome. I just lump y'all together as part
of the flotsam that attaches itself to chess.
> The Historian hates Mr. Sloan with a rare prurience because he hates his
own
> pinched existence and experience.
>
> Mr. Booz's latest piece of sodomized filth may be read below.
>
> >>...does the thought of Ismail Sloan having sex with *anybody* make one
> cringe with uttmost revulsion? It gives me nightmares!
>
> >I don't know. I'd pay to see him humping Larry Parr.
Well I know you're a big fan of the Greeks and their ancient ways.
StanB
Oreo Knight
by Oreo Knight
(JEEEEzus...it'scheesy to start a bit of writing like this doesn't it
Larry? What were you THINKING when you did this in your past few
posts? Looks like the format for an essay which should start "HOW I
SPENT MY SUMMER VACATION" by Billy Bob or any random first-grader.
YOU need to chill out. You're so jumpy and defensive of our dear
Ismail that it could make one suspicious of your own sexual age
cut-off preferences. (???). I don't think either "Stan Booz" (as you
so lovingly call him) or myself (far from "historian")really give a
flying fuck about your sensitivity to this issue.
It's nice to know that you are "getting in touch with your inner
child" and all of those warm-fuzzies with regard to the Sam Sloan
thing...but go sit by a fire, burn some incense, and sing Kumbaya with
your boyfriend instead. You weren't quite so hyper about anything
until it was suggested that the thought of him buggering you would be
hilarious, so perhaps you have some repressed feelings of desire in
this regard?
O.K.
parrt...@cs.com (Parrthenon) wrote in message news:<20030806011307...@mb-m04.news.cs.com>...
Bill Brock
The ne plus ultra of sophism!
Parrthenon
THE NE PLUS ULTRA OF CRETINISM
By Larry Parr
"The ne plus ultra of sophism!" -- Bill Brock's response to my posting
The man has no argument to make.
Once again, Sam Sloan has been accused of having sex with children. No
evidence has been adduced.
None.
The charge has now been changed.
Mr. Sloan is accused of having sex with young Thais of indeterminate
age. He is accused of acting no differently from many Thais.
Or, for that matter, many Americans, especially of a somewhat earlier
period. Marriage is legal, for example at ages 12 to 14 in a number of states.
Mr. Sloan was attacked by Stan Booz and The Historian. They tossed a
charge at him of having sex with children, and they can offer no evidence.
The two men levelled this charge because they hate Mr. Sloan. They
understood they had no evidence, but that did not stop them.
Mr. Sloan has his faults, but he is up the chain from the likes of the
Historian and Stan Booz, who falsely claimed that Mr. Sloan removed pages from
his website.
StanB
> Mr. Sloan has his faults, but he is up the chain from the likes of
the
> Historian and Stan Booz, who falsely claimed that Mr. Sloan removed pages
from
> his website.
I challenge you Larry, make a
Oreo Knight
parrt...@cs.com (Parrthenon) wrote:
> THE NE PLUS ULTRA OF CRETINISM
>
> By Larry Parr
>
> "The ne plus ultra of sophism!" -- Bill Brock's response to my posting
>
> The man has no argument to make.
>
> Once again, Sam Sloan has been accused of having sex with children. No
> evidence has been adduced.
>
> None.
>
> The charge has now been changed.
>
> Mr. Sloan is accused of having sex with young Thais of indeterminate
> age. He is accused of acting no differently from many Thais.
>
> Or, for that matter, many Americans, especially of a somewhat earlier
> period. Marriage is legal, for example at ages 12 to 14 in a number of
states.
>
> Mr. Sloan was attacked by Stan Booz and The Historian. They tossed a
> charge at him of having sex with children, and they can offer no evidence.
What the fuck is this "historian" bullshit? I swear I don't think anyone
really has a clue what you rant about my dearest love Larry.
>
> The two men levelled this charge because they hate Mr. Sloan. They
> understood they had no evidence, but that did not stop them.
>
> Mr. Sloan has his faults, but he is up the chain from the likes of the
> Historian and Stan Booz, who falsely claimed that Mr. Sloan removed pages from
> his website.
No, he DID remove pages from his website.
Oreo Knight
<stan...@comXXXcast.net> wrote:
We'll be waiting until hell freezes over, I hope you realize that.
Don Mihokovich
(snip)
> Or, for that matter, many Americans, especially of a somewhat earlier
> period. Marriage is legal, for example at ages 12 to 14 in a number of states.
(snip)
____________________________
I'm not sure what relevance the legal age of marriage has to the
overall argument (whatever it is), but the trend among the states in
recent years appears to be moving the legal age of marriage upward.
Most states have established 16 as the minimum age for marriage with
the consent of parents, while 18 is the threshold set for legal
marriage without parental permission. Unlike marriage with parental
consent, parents cannot consent to someone having sex with their minor
children -- so again, I think this has no relevance.
I have no idea whether or not Sam Sloan has ever had sex with anyone,
period, or if some or all of what he posts on his website is pure
fantasy. What we do know is what he posts on his internet site, which
many find objectionable (e.g. "how2rape"). Obviously, he has a First
Amendment right to post the objectionable material, and others have a
First Amendment right to criticize it.
KidDon
StanB
"Don Mihokovich" <Donald.M...@Ruden.com> wrote in message
news:538985f4.03080...@posting.google.com...
> I have no idea whether or not Sam Sloan has ever had sex with anyone,
> period, or if some or all of what he posts on his website is pure
> fantasy. What we do know is what he posts on his internet site, which
> many find objectionable (e.g. "how2rape"). Obviously, he has a First
> Amendment right to post the objectionable material, and others have a
> First Amendment right to criticize it.
Bin Larry thinks the constitution should only apply when he wants it to
apply.
StanB
Bill Brock
broken, child molestation is a good thing.
Thanks for helping me see the light!
Parrthenon
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND
By Larry Parr
Sam Sloan has been accused by The Historian and Stan Booz of having had
sex with "children."
No evidence of any kind was adduced. Mr. Booz said that Mr. Sloan took
down a page from his website showing pictures of the children with whom he had
sex. This claim was a lie.
That's all. A bald lie.
The charge then changed.
Mr. Sloan had had sex with Thai girls who were in the trade, which is
to say, he was living for a period of his life like the average Thai male. Mr.
Booz, for whom a murdered Iraqi family here and there is of small moment, was
outraged that Mr. Sloan would seek such release. The Historian was smoldering
with the envy of prurience.
Once again, I am repeatedly on record as stating that Mr. Sloan's life
gives the impression of having all the coherence of the bidding floor of a
commodities exchange, but he is a few rungs higher on the food chain than
either Mr. Booz or The Historian.
The latest charge comes from Bill Brock below. Mr. Sloan is now guilty
of something called "child molestation." Whatever that may be.
The single virtue of the molestation charge, for which no evidence of
any kind is adduced, is that it is considerably more vague than the straight
out charge that Mr. Sloan had sex with children. It also summons up mental
images to which there is no defense because the charge contains no specificity.
Bill Brock
très cool for adults to finger "young girls" in the trade (think of
Jodi Foster's character in _Taxi Driver_), or to deflower one--14, 12,
it's cool, tight pussy is tight pussy, right? Molestation may be an
objective description, but is not now meant disparagingly. Hey, if it
feels good, do it!
And yes, I now agree, different cultures and circumstances DO allow
for different morals. (Marlow to Kurtz, upriver: "Wow, this flesh is
delicious!") And now that I know what the average Thai is really like
(gee, they once seemed like normal family types to me, but I'm
gullible), I'm excited to go restaurant-hopping: my next tom kha khai
might lead to something even spicier!
And you're right, we have NO EVIDENCE for Sam Sloan's actions other
than the testimony of Sam Sloan (whose reputation for veracity may
have been discussed on previous occasions), certain circumstantial
evidence you're indicated that you're not interested in discussing,
and something else (also circumstantial) ... but I'm cool with that,
too ....
In short, I've had it with this puritanical obsession with "morality",
and will follow your advice, Larry baby, and act accordingly, as
should you all.
Now if the kiddie hos had been being run by FIDE pimps who were
funneling the profits to Campo, THAT would be a cause for outrage!
Everything (ex-FIDE) is permitted! Thank you so much, Larry baby!
PARTY ON!!!!!
Wickdeer3
>NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND
>
> By Larry Parr
>
> Sam Sloan has been accused by The Historian and Stan Booz of having
>had
>sex with "children."
>
Given the definition of "having had sex" with children that Mr. Parr seems to
be advocating here, it would seem that his logic would compel the conclusion
that President Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinski.
Wick Deer
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
Bill Brock's "cultural" allusion to a movie called Taxi Driver with an
actress called Jodie Foster gets the better of us. We have never seen the film
and know nothing more about the actress in question than that she was the love
interest of John Hinckley. At our home we prefer films such as Bringing Up
Baby with Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn and the Andy Hardy series with
Mickey Rooney. My children also enjoy the Ealing comedies. Mr. Brock's tastes
are more spicily catholic.
Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
"children." They adduced no evidence to demonstrate such. None.
The charge then changed.
Mr. Sloan was said to have fingered Thai girls in the sex trade. He
was, in short, accused of doing what is part of the very basic Thai way of
life. He was accused of acting like Thai soldiers on leave.
We noted that the first charge is not the second charge.
Bill Brock weighs in, accusing us of, we guess, cultural relativism. We
noted other ways of life and the rough-and-ready practices of other societies,
and the man is now having a hissy fit.
I will never forget the first time I ran into some Thai soldiers who
brought a bunch of snakes into a bar. They were slithering around on the bar
and I had one handed to me, which wrapped itself around my arm. I did my best
to laugh, waited a few minutes, and then extended my arm as casually as I could
manage to one of the soldiers, who relieved me of the reptile. This kind of
thing would not go down well even at Studio 54 in New York, let alone a
suburban bar in a Chicago suburb. In some border town in Thailand, it is
common. In a metropolis such as Bangkok, it happens now and then.
The vital distinction between a FIDE bawdy house and Sam Sloan living
the life of a Thai in a border town is that FIDE would be acting in OUR name,
whereas Mr. Sloan was leading his life in his own name. Elementary.
We think that if Mr. Brock's movie viewing habits betoken his interests,
then he is more interested in the underside of life than we.
Perhaps Mr. Brock or, we make so bold, "Billy Baby" could take us to one
of the parties that he hungers to attend. He could then introduce us to Jodie
Foster.
Jerzy
> Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
> "children." They adduced no evidence to demonstrate such. None.
>
Good shot, Larry ;-)
Regards,
Jerzy
RSHaas
brought a bunch of snakes into a bar. They were slithering around on the bar
kind of thing would not go down well even at Studio 54 in New York, let alone a
==============
It didn't go over too well at the Winn-Dixie in Punta Gorda, Florida back in
1977 when from my car window I spotted a 4 foot eastern diamondback rattlesnake
just off US 41. I jammed on my brakes, caught the snake with a BBQ skewer and
took it into a nearby Winn-Dixie to get two cardboard boxes to transport it.
The little blue haired ladies from New Jersey almost blew a circuit in their
pacemakers. (RSHaas)
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
Richard Haas knows his vipers.
Mr. Haas was once a contendah in USCF politics, and he coulda been a
champ. But he discovered that only the venom of the Malay Beaked Seasnake
(Enhydrina schistosa) came close to matching the poisons in our Federation
Slytherin House and the progression of Severus Snapes who gave us their
"volunteer" services.
I don't know my snakes.
True enough, I have had a half dozen wrapped around my arm over the years,
but to this day, I don't know whether they were inoffensive baby boas or
whether I got off lucky when some vipers were tossed in. I do have an 8 by 10
photo of a giant boa wrapped around me and another photo where I am holding a
cobra behind the hood. The boa was little bother; the cobra was a highly
unpleasant experience that involved saving face. Yikes, I still get the
willies up the spine when thinking about it. Yeeks and eeks.
Over here in Malaysia, I have the old boa picture in some folder and will
get it up on the next update of our family web page.
Bill Brock
Larry baby
Old-fashioned values can be learned from Travis Bickle as well as from
screwball comedies.
I don't like adults who have sex with children. That's why I don't
like Sam Sloan.
I don't like adults who defend the practice of other adults having sex
with children. That's why I don't like you.
Billy baby
205 W. Randolph
Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60606
StanB
Did you forget about that Alaskan Snowsnake?
StanB
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
Wick Deer's latest charge against this writer -- there have been many
in the past -- is that he possesses "irrefutable evidence of [my] moral
depravity." Under separate cover, rgcp excrementalist Stan Booz, usurping the
role of He Who Judges, weighs in with "No soul, no heart, no conscience," which
presumably require no Preparation H, his unguent of preference.
Lawyer Deer also accuses me of abusing those whom I dislike. He
offers no examples of such abuse.
How, then, did we reach this pass?
Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
Let us keep this point in mind. The gentlemen in question could only
adduce their own hissing hatred as "evidence" that their charge is correct.
Stan Booz also retailed an outright lie. He accused Mr. Sloan of
taking down from his web page pictures of children with whom the latter had had
sex. That was a palpable lie. Period. I know that web page well, and the
claimed pictures were never there.
Mr. Booz lied because he hates Sam Sloan and because he danged well felt
like it. That's all.
Lawyer Deer, in his canker and choler, intervenes now because he, too,
hates Sam Sloan and this writer. That's all.
The head of the USCF Un-Ethics Committee has absolutely nothing to say
about Mr. Booz's lies.
Indeed, this writer takes pride of cage in Lawyer Deer's bestiary. For only
I have provided "irrefutable evidence of [my] depravity," a claim that Lawyer
Deer does not make below about Mr. Sloan.
Instead, Lawyer Deer retails a new charge against Mr. Sloan.
Hitherto, we have had these two charges: 1. Mr. Sloan had sex with
"children"; and 2. Mr. Sloan had had sex with Thai working girls in border
villages. Lawyer Deer offers No. 3: Mr. Sloan "fondled at least one child for
purposes of his sexual gratification."
Who? When? Where? What evidence has Lawyer Deer to offer?
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
John Fernandez weighs in with his own ounce-worth. He speaks about
unprovable truth in an ongoing smear campaign.
Three charges have been brought against Sam Sloan.
First, Stan Booz and The Historian claimed Sam Sloan had sex with
"children." No proof. Just the claim.
Secondly, the charge changed. Mr. Sloan was held to have had sex
with Thai girls in the sex trade.
Thirdly, Wick Deer now speaks of Sam Sloan fondling an unnamed child
while experienceing sexual excitement. Who, when, where, and what proof? None
offered.
Somewhere along the way, Stan Booz also retailed the lie that Mr.
Sloan removed pictures of children from his site with whom he had sex. Mr.
Booz lied just because he felt like doing so.
Enter John Fernandez.
Writes this logician, "It's definitely true. Whether it can be proven
is another matter."
"Definitely" true, yet cannot, perhaps, be proven.
Can't say who; can't say when; can't say where; and can't provide
evidence. But it's gotta be true.
Proof by faith alone.
<It's definitely true. Whether it can be proven is another matter.> --
John Fernandez
Tony D.
>felt
>like it. That's all.
danged well ??
"Ever since I lost a lung to cancer, I've cut my smoking in half"
Tony D.
Wickdeer3
> Wick Deer's latest charge against this writer -- there have been many
>in the past -- is that he possesses "irrefutable evidence of [my] moral
>depravity."
Larry, anyone who has read the posts in this thread has the evidene.
<Snip>
> Lawyer Deer also accuses me of abusing those whom I dislike. He
>offers no examples of such abuse.
>
Res Ipsa Loquitor. A random deja search in this newsgroup would yield a 98%
chance of a successful hit.
> How, then, did we reach this pass?
>
> Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
>"children." They presented not a whit of evidence. None.
>
Speaking of producing evidence, Larry, would you please quote a post where they
made such a claim. I do not recall such a post.
> Lawyer Deer, in his canker and choler, intervenes now because he, too,
>hates Sam Sloan and this writer. That's all.
>
I don't hate you Larry. I am concerned for the well being of your imortal
soul, if any.
> The head of the USCF Un-Ethics Committee has absolutely nothing to say
>about Mr. Booz's lies.
>
First of all, your claim that I am the head of the ethics committee is sadly
out of date. I did serve a one year term in that capacity, but that expired
over a year ago. I don't even know if I was reappointed this year.
> Indeed, this writer takes pride of cage in Lawyer Deer's bestiary. For
>only
>I have provided "irrefutable evidence of [my] depravity," a claim that Lawyer
>Deer does not make below about Mr. Sloan.
>
> Instead, Lawyer Deer retails a new charge against Mr. Sloan.
>
> Hitherto, we have had these two charges: 1. Mr. Sloan had sex with
>"children"; and 2. Mr. Sloan had had sex with Thai working girls in border
>villages. Lawyer Deer offers No. 3: Mr. Sloan "fondled at least one child
>for
>purposes of his sexual gratification."
>
> Who? When? Where? What evidence has Lawyer Deer to offer?
>
Stan Booz quoted a web page from Sam's Website which recounts such an incident
in graphic detail.
Or did Stan make that one up too?
Looking forward to the next barrage of bile and obfuscation,
I remain
Wick Deer
JimEade
Lappy Parr wrote:
>> Lawyer Deer, in his canker and choler, intervenes now because he,
>too,
>>hates Sam Sloan and this writer. That's all.
>>
wick deer responded:
>
>I don't hate you Larry. I am concerned for the well being of your imortal
>soul, if any.
This is it in a nut shell. Larry Parr assumes that we hate Sam Sloan, and that
we hate Larry Parr. He is comfortable with that emotion. In his internal
universe hate translates into something that he can connect with and confront.
The sad truth is that it isn't hate that Larry is experiencing. It is
something else entirely. He can handle hate. He can't handle the truth.
Truth is stranger than fiction. Larry Parr and Don Schultz are partners in
crime defending Sam Sloan. So what if one squandered hundreds of thousands of
dollars, and the other fingered little girls for money. The bottom line is
that they need each other.
I'm sorry, but if I ever sank that low, I would hope to hell that someone would
blow my brains out. I used to think that Parr would occupy a circle of Dante's
Inferno above Sloan's. (One above) It saddens me to say: they belong together.
Newbies beware: I filter out both Sloan and Parr (you should too) I only
respond when I see quotes in other people's posts. Do not interpret my silence
as consent, if I ignore them as much as possible, and I would advise you to do
the same. They represent the worst of us.
Larry, it isn't hate you're feeling. However, you should pay attention to that
feeling. It's trying to tell you something.
You will have to pay for what you've done, and I suspect you know it. You
still have time.
I know, I know, there probably isn't anything that Sam Sloan has done that you
haven't. The difference is that you have the opportunity to regret it.
Take it.
James Eade
Remove the Sheesh to respond. Don't worry. Talk happy.
NoMoreChess
DEER IN MY HEADLIGHTS
by Larry Parr
These dimwitted, ad hominem attacks upon my illustrious person are easily
refuted, as they have no basis in reality.
Jim Eade, who no doubt is still smarting from our last episode, wherein I
dealt a lethal blow to his silly nonsense about the key players we had been
discussing, is back. And how! Will he never learn his painful lesson?
>Lappy Parr wrote:
A puerile, deliberate misspelling, made only because they HATE me.
>wick deer responded:
"Wick Deer," he means. This just goes to show the sort of education -- if
that is quite the word -- Mr. Eade has received.
A name is always capitalized, as every second grader in private school knows.
We are embarrassed for you, Mr. Eade. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
But don't give up hope -- there is always the local library, which offers
someone in your, ah, "challenged" position some hope.
>>I don't hate you Larry. I am concerned for the well being of your imortal
>>soul, if any.
That should be "immortal" soul. One cringes at the sound of a weak mind,
creaking as it *tries* to work.
>Truth is stranger than fiction.
While plagiarism is rather common. I suppose Mr. Eade thought he could
sneak that one past us? Not so fast, Fast Eddie!
> I used to think that Parr would occupy a circle of Dante's
>Inferno above Sloan's. (One above) It saddens me to say: they belong
>together.
So, you have read Sam's latest attempt at writing a pornographic fantasy
story (the one where he and I go into a Taiwanese bar, and...)? We didn't
actually do any of those illegal things to those girls. But you have to admit,
it makes for a good story!
>Newbies beware: I filter out both Sloan and Parr (you should too) I only
>respond when I see quotes in other people's posts.
You omitted a mandatory period after "(you should too)". One is again
reminded of a weak mind, creaking as it *tries* to work.
>You will have to pay for what you've done, and I suspect you know it. You
>still have time.
Nonsense. I have, so far, gotten away with anything and everything -- just
like my mentor, Bill Clinton! Dream on, Mr. Eade.
Dream on.
>I know, I know, there probably isn't anything that Sam Sloan has done that
>you haven't. The difference is that you have the opportunity to regret it.
A a famous writer once noted, "opportunity knocks, but once."
Still, such weakminded slop is easily refuted. There is one thing I have
never done, which Sam Sloan has -- win against a decent opponent, after
essaying the hideous 1.g4. It's simple, really: Mr. Sloan is a
master-strength player, disguised as a 1900.
Lawyer Deer and his confreres, including Jim Eade, are quite obviouly jealous
of their intellectual superiors -- Sam Sloan and myself.
Their canker and choler has escalated into something which can only be
described as hate. Hate is derived from fear. And it is well that they fear
us. For fear equates to respect. And one should -- no MUST -- respect one's
intellectual superiors. The bottomfeeders would do well to always keep this
in mind when attempting to critique their betters -- a class which, in their
sad cases, is almost infinitely large.
-- Larry Parr
I-spam-you: chesscity.com (Parr on Winter)
Parrthenon
RES IPSA LOQUITUR, INDEED
By Larry Parr
For the benefit of Wick Deer, the phrase is res ipsa loquitur rather than
loquitor. Ah, the dangers of Latinate loquacity!
Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
The charge changed. Mr. Sloan was accused of having sex or fingering
young Thai girls in the trade out in a border town. (He is accused, keep in
mind, of having less intimate contact with ladies in the trade than any typical
U.S. Marine or Army guy is even now purchasing from some Iraqi or, in the past,
from some Vietnamese or Thai of teen years.)
Finally, Lawyer and former USCF Ethicist Deer weighed in with the
charge that Mr. Sloan has "fondled at least one child" for the purpose of
sexual gratification.
In an earlier message I asked who was the child, when did the act
occur, where did it occur, what were the circumstances. In short, proof.
Down below, we will examine how Lawyer and former USCF Ethicist Deer
answers these questions.
Along the way, Mr. Booz also lied for the joy of it by stating that
Mr. Sloan had removed from his website pictures of children with whom he had
had sex.
Mr. Booz just tossed out this lie because he felt like it. Kinda in
the mood, you know. That's all.
We must keep in mind that these three gents, while undoubtedly
possessing the capability to make accusations, may not be making true
accusations. We must keep in mind that they offer no proof.
In what follows, my further comments appear in extended brackets.
[[[[[Wick Deer, quoting this writer]]]]]
> Wick Deer's latest charge against this writer -- there have been many>in
the past -- is that he possesses "irrefutable evidence of [my] moral
depravity."
[[[[[Mr. Deer]]]]]
Larry, anyone who has read the posts in this thread has the evidene.
[[[[[Parr: The one thing that Lawyer and former USCF Ethicist Deer does not
present is evidence. Of any kind. Is this how he conducts himself in court?
He chipped in with an accusation because he couldn't keep his canker in
check. I would argue that Mr. Deer -- and he would perforce agree -- defines
his advocacy in the above statement.]]]]]
[[[[[Mr. Deer, quoting this writer]]]]]
Lawyer Deer also accuses me of abusing those whom I dislike. He
offers no examples of such abuse.
[[[[[Mr. Deer]]]]]
Res Ipsa Loquitor. A random deja search in this newsgroup would yield a 98%
chance of a successful hit.
[[[[[Parr: The affair really does speak for itself, all right. Mirabile
dictu, ipse dixit. In short, another accusation without proof. And, really,
not so surprising.]]]]]
[[[[[Mr. Deer, quoting this writer]]]]]
How, then, did we reach this pass? Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam
Sloan of having sex with "children." They presented not a whit of evidence.
None.
[[[[[Mr. Dee now asks for evidence, but still provides none himself]]]]]
Speaking of producing evidence, Larry, would you please quote a post where they
made such a claim. I do not recall such a post.
[[[[[Parr: Shore 'nuff, podner. I knows yoh memory ain't what it used to be,
'specially since those old wranglers Booz and Historian have repeatedly made
the charge. So look, podnah, jes' check out The Historian's posting of July 22
at 5:19, which appeared under a coupla his false names -- yah know,
tartak...@hotmail.com and SpamScone.
He wrote, "And Sam Sloan's having sex with children gets a pass from
'drahmiel.'"
On July 23, Stan Booz claimed that he had seen proof on Sam's page that he
had had sex with "children."
Kinda funny, sho' 'nuff. Ethicist Deer wants proof of sumpin' that
Booz and The Historian would repeat with pride. Jes' ask dem podner. Sho'
'nuff.]]]]]
[[[[[Mr. Deer, quoting this writer]]]]]
> Lawyer Deer, in his canker and choler, intervenes now because he, too,
hates Sam Sloan and this writer. That's all.>
[[[[[Mr. Deer]]]]]
I don't hate you Larry. I am concerned for the well being of your imortal
soul, if any.
[[[[[Parr: Certainly sounds like hate to me. Last I heard, both Hitler and
Stalin would be held to have had immortal souls. One notes that Lawyer and
former USCF Ethicist Deer holds out the possibility that I am unique in all
human creation: a person without a soul. I'd add that the sentiment on his
part is actually heretical, but no matter. Our Lawyer-Ethicist is on a
roll.]]]]]
[[[[[Mr. Deer, quoting this writer]]]]]
> The head of the USCF Un-Ethics Committee has absolutely nothing to say
about Mr. Booz's lies.>
[[[[[Mr. Deer, denying he heads the committee any longer]]]]]
First of all, your claim that I am the head of the ethics committee is sadly
out of date. I did serve a one year term in that capacity, but that expired
over a year ago. I don't even know if I was reappointed this year.
[[[[[Parr: Mea culpa, fac me cocleario vomere!]]]]]
[[[[[Mr. Deer, quoting this writer]]]]]
> Indeed, this writer takes pride of cage in Lawyer Deer's bestiary. For
only I have provided "irrefutable evidence of [my] depravity," a claim that
Lawyer Deer does not make below about Mr. Sloan.
Instead, Lawyer Deer retails a new charge against Mr. Sloan.
<Hitherto, we have had these two charges: 1. Mr. Sloan had sex with
"children"; and 2. Mr. Sloan had had sex with Thai working girls in
border>villages. Lawyer Deer offers No. 3: Mr. Sloan "fondled at least one
child for purposes of his sexual gratification."
> Who? When? Where? What evidence has Lawyer Deer to offer?>
[[[[[Mr. Deer, demanding evidence earlier that I provided, now refuses to offer
evidence of his own. Is this how he conducts himself in court?]]]]]
Stan Booz quoted a web page from Sam's Website which recounts such an
incident in graphic detail.
[[[[[Parr: Mr. Booz presented no quotation wherein Mr. Sloan admitted to
fondling a child. Which child did Mr. Sloan fondle? Who? When? Where?]]]]]
[[[[[Mr. Deer]]]]
Or did Stan make that one up too?
[[[[[Parr: Mr. Booz made no claim that Mr. Sloan fondled a child. Show me a
message where he said that? You have made up an accusation that Mr. Booz has
yet to make up! I mean to say, Mr. Booz will oblige you, but you guys need to
work out your sequencing better.]]]]]
[[[[[Mr. Deer]]]]]
<Looking forward to the next barrage of bile and obfuscation,
I remain
Wick Deer>
[[[[[Parr: Looking forward to the next barrage of ... barrage. I
remainpainsane Larry Parr]]]]]
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
What follows is probably Greg Kennedy's best attempt at satire. I
would like to note severely that Mr. Kennedy rehearsed some of my past phrases
that are evidently burned into his hide like cattle brands, and I do so note
here. But I also laughed and, still worse, sniggered many times while reading
his piece.
We condescend. Unlike Queen Victoria, we ARE amused.
DEER IN MY HEADLIGHTS
by Larry Parr
[nomorechess=Greg Kennedy]
<These dimwitted, ad hominem attacks upon my illustrious person are easily
refuted, as they have no basis in reality.
Jim Eade, who no doubt is still smarting from our last episode, wherein I
dealt a lethal blow to his silly nonsense about the key players we had been
discussing, is back. And how! Will he never learn his painful lesson?
>Lappy Parr wrote:
A puerile, deliberate misspelling, made only because they HATE me.
>wick deer responded:
"Wick Deer," he means. This just goes to show the sort of education -- if
that is quite the word -- Mr. Eade has received.
A name is always capitalized, as every second grader in private school knows.
We are embarrassed for you, Mr. Eade. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
But don't give up hope -- there is always the local library, which offers
someone in your, ah, "challenged" position some hope.
>>I don't hate you Larry. I am concerned for the well being of your imortal
soul, if any.>>
Spam Scone
> snip
> Liarry Parr wrote:
>
> >> Lawyer Deer, in his canker and choler, intervenes now because he,
> too,
> >>hates Sam Sloan and this writer. That's all.
> >>
> wick deer responded:
> >
> >I don't hate you Larry. I am concerned for the well being of your imortal
> >soul, if any.
>
> This is it in a nut shell. Larry Parr assumes that we hate Sam Sloan, and that
> we hate Larry Parr. He is comfortable with that emotion. In his internal
> universe hate translates into something that he can connect with and confront.
> The sad truth is that it isn't hate that Larry is experiencing. It is
> something else entirely. He can handle hate. He can't handle the truth.
Parr needs to cast whatever he feels as hate, because it feeds his
need to be thought of as a Great Man. He goes on these little crusades
to make himself feel important. That's why he needs to create
"enemies", for doesn't every Great Man have to overcome them?
I'm reminded of Richard Strauss' tone poem Ein Heldenleben, in which
the composer attempted to cast himself, a mild-mannered man and
henpecked husband, as an epic hero, and music critics as "enemies".
The comparison quickly breaks down, however, because Strauss created
art in the midst of feeding his ego, but Parr's newsgroup postings
remain swill.
Fifiela
What's the point of all this? It makes you look small.
Best, Allan
Randy Bauer
perhaps hell is nothing more than an enormous committee comprised of
people who, with little or nothing to say, take an eternity to say it.
Would somebody PLEASE weave Hitler or Nazis into this thread so that
we can bury it so deep nobody can revive it?
Randy Bauer
parrt...@cs.com (Parrthenon) wrote in message news:<20030813020005...@mb-m10.news.cs.com>...
> RES IPSA LOQUITUR, INDEED
>
> By Larry Parr
>
(snip a bunch of stuff that gave me a headache)
StanB
"Spam Scone" <tartak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76ba5964.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > This is it in a nut shell. Larry Parr assumes that we hate Sam Sloan,
and that
> > we hate Larry Parr. He is comfortable with that emotion. In his
internal
> > universe hate translates into something that he can connect with and
confront.
> > The sad truth is that it isn't hate that Larry is experiencing. It is
> > something else entirely. He can handle hate. He can't handle the
truth.
>
> Parr needs to cast whatever he feels as hate, because it feeds his
> need to be thought of as a Great Man. He goes on these little crusades
> to make himself feel important. That's why he needs to create
> "enemies", for doesn't every Great Man have to overcome them?
It is the Winter of Parr's discontent.
StanB
StanB
"Fifiela" <fif...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030813055458...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> Larry,
>
> What's the point of all this? It makes you look small.
>
> Best, Allan
Larry's asshole buddy rises to the occasion. One thing that can never be
said is that bin Larry is small. Big donkeys like him are never small.
StanB
Bill Brock
Legislation of Interpol member states on sexual offences against
children
Thailand - Thaïlande - Tailandia
Bangkok
I. Ages for legal purposes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age of simple majority
According to the Prostitution Prevention and Suppression Act, " child
" means a person who is not yet over 18 years of age.
Age of consent for marriage
Book 5 of the Civil and Commercial Code states that marriage can be
done when both parties are seventeen (17) years of age but with a
reasonable ground , the court may permit them to be married before.
II.Rape
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title IX ‘Offences relating to sexuality'Section 277 of the Penal Code
'Whoever has sexual intercourse with a girl not yet over thirteen
years of age, with or without her consent, shall be punished with
imprisonment of seven (7) to twenty (20) years and fine of fourteen
thousand to forty thousand baht, or imprisonment for life.
If the offence according to the first paragraph is committed by
participation of persons in the nature for destroying a girl and such
girl is not consent, or by carrying or using any gun or explosive, the
offender shall be punished with imprisonment for life.'
Title IX Section 277 bis
'If the commission of offence according to the first paragraph of …
Section 277 causes:
grievious bodily harm to the victim, the offender shall be punished
with imprisonment of fifteen to twenty years and fine of thirty
thousand to forty thousand baht, or imprisonment for life.
death of the victim, the offender shall be punished with death or
imprisonment for life.'
Title IX Section 277 ter
'If the commission of the offence according to the second paragraph of
… Section 277 causes
grievious bodily harm to the victim, the offender shall be punished
with death or imprisonment for life.
death to the victim, the offender shall be punished with death.'
Title IX Section 285
'If the commission of offence according to … Section 277, 277 bis, 277
ter, … is against the descendant, apupil under taken his care, a
person under his control according to his official authority, or a
person under his tutorship, guardianship, or curatorship, the offender
shall be liable heavier punishment than that as provided in such
section by one third.'
III Other form of child sex abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title IV Section 279
'Whoever commits an indecent act on a child not over thirteen years of
age, with or without her consent, shall be punished with imprisonment
not exceeding ten years or fine not exceeding twenty thousand baht, or
both.
If the commission of offence according to the first paragraph, the
offender commits it by threatening by any means whatever, by doing any
act of violence, by taking advantage of such child being in the
condition of inability to resist, or by causing such child to mistake
him for another person, the offender shall be punished with
imprisonment not exceeding fifteen years or fine not exceeding thirty
thousand baht, or both.'
The Section 285 is also applied in the case of indecent acts.
IV. Child prostitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'Prostitution Prevention and Suppression Act'. In this Act
'Prostitution' means
'The acceptance of sexual intercourse, the acceptance of any other
act, or the commission of any act for sexual gratification of another
person in a promiscuous manner, in order to gain financial or other
benefit, no matter whether the person who accepts such act and the
person who commits such act are of the same or opposite sex.'
Section 8 of the 'Prostitution Prevention and Suppression Act' states
'Whoever, for sexual gratification of that person or of the third
person, commits sexual intercourse or any other act against a person
who is over fifteen (15) years but not yet over eighteen (18) years of
age, with or without his or her consent, in a place for prostitution,
shall be punished with imprisonment of one to three years and a fine
of twenty thousand to sixty thousand baht.
If the commission of the offence as specified in the first paragraph
is committed against a child not over fifteen (15) years of age, the
offender shall be punished with imprisonment of two to six years and a
fine of forty thousand to one hundred and twenty thousand baht.'
Section 9 of the 'Prostitution Prevention and Suppression Act' states
'Whoever procures, seduces, or traffics the other person to commit the
act of prostitution, even with consent of the other person, no matter
whether the commission of various acts which constitute the offence
are committed inside or outside the territory of the Kingdom, shall be
punished with imprisonment of one to ten years and an fine of twenty
thousand to two hundred thousand baht.
If the commission of the offence as specified in the first paragraph
is against a person who is over fifteen (15) years but not yet over
eighteen (18) years of age, the offender shall be punished with
imprisonment of five to fifteen years and a fine of one hundred
thousand to three hundred thousand baht.
If the commission of the offence as specified in the first paragraph
is against a child not over fifteen (15) years of age, the offender
shall be punished with imprisonment of ten to twenty years and a fine
of two hundred thousand to hundred thousand baht.
If the commission of the offence as specified in the first, second or
third paragraph is perpetrated by using deceitful means, threat,
physical assault, immoral influence, or mental coercion by any other
means, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment one-third
heavier than the punishment accordingly specified in the first,
second, third or fourth paragraph as the case may be.'
Section 10 of the 'Prostitution Prevention and Suppression Act' states
'Whoever is the father, mother, or guardian of a person not yet over
eighteen (18) years of age, with the knowledge that there is the
commission of the offence as specified in the second third, or fourth
paragraph of Section 9 against the person within his or her
guardianship, colludes with another offender in the commission of that
offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of four to twenty years,
and a fine of eighty thousand to four hundred thousand baht.'
Section 11 of the 'Prostitution Prevention and Suppression Act' states
'Whoever is the owner, supervisor, or manager of a prostitution
business or a place for prostitution, or controller of a prostitute in
the place of prostitution, shall be punished with imprisonment of
three to fifteen years, and a fine of sixty thousand to three hundred
thousand baht.
If the prostitution business or place for prostitution as specified,
has a person not yet over eighteen (18) years of age performing the
act of prostitution in such place, the offender shall be punished with
imprisonment of five to fifteen years, and a fine of one hundred
thousand to three hundred thousand baht.
If the prostitution business or place for prostitution as specified ,
has a child not yet over fifteen (15) years of age performing the act
of prostitution in such place, the offender shall be punished with
imprisonment of ten to twenty years, and a fine of two hundred
thousand to four hundred thousand baht.'
Section 12 of the 'Prostitution Prevention and Suppression Act' states
'Whoever detains or confines the other person, commits any other act
that deprives the liberty of the other person, assaults the other
person, or threatens with any other means to use physical force to
commit a violent act against the other person, in order to force the
other person to perform the prostitution activity, shall be punished
with imprisonment of ten to twenty years, and a fine of two hundred to
four hundred thousand baht.
If the commission of the offence as specified in the first paragraph
causes to the other person:
1) serious bodily injury, the offender shall be punished with life
imprisonment.
2) death, the offender shall be punished with the death penalty or
life imprisonment.
(...)'
Wickdeer3
>Would somebody PLEASE weave Hitler or Nazis into this thread so that
>we can bury it so deep nobody can revive it?
>
Sadly, a subparagraph of the Hilter rule is that any deliberate attempt to use
it to end a thread will not be successful.
Wick Deer
Wickdeer3
While Parr loudly demands that others produce evidence, but when asked to do so
himself, he ignores the request. Apparently such menial tasks are for peons.
Pathetic.
Wick Deer
Wickdeer3
My bad.
Thanks in part to Mr. Parr's . . . uh . . . unique formatting, I missed a
portion of his reply.
Wick Deer
Kevin L. Bachler
Bill, take it from me, perhaps the greatest windmill tilter of all, sometimes
you gotta let it go.
Many people see through Larry's game. Larry tries to couch everything in a way
to demonstrate his superiority (from his perspective at least.) This is why he
will defend something that is undefendable -- not because he believes in his
perspective -- not because it is right -- but to show that he (and only he) can.
Larry argued early in the thread that just because Sam is slunk meat doesn't
give people the right to slander him -- I noted that it also doesn't obligate
anyone to defend Sam from such slander. Larry has ignored this comment because
he must. To face it is to face the reality that Larry has allowed himself to be
duped by himself into defending slunk meat for the sole purpose of defending
Larry's superiority.
We all suspect what will happen when Larry reads this. He will launch into a
bombastic, loquacious, soliloquy full of Latin and other references designed to
show how bright he is and how the common man cannot possibly understand him. (I
cannot help but think that Larry would disdain the everyman of a Jimmy Stewart,
or a directness of a John Wayne.) What he won't do is say "Shit, I'm defending
a fuck-up. I was wrong. Sorry."
So Bill, let it go. Your value to chess, especially here in Illinois, is far
greater than anything Larry ever has (or ever will) provide.
Peace.
Kevin L. Bachler
Bill Brock
died at the moment of truth.
You make a good point, Kevin. While moderation in the defense of
justice may be no virtue, I've always thought the fellow who said that
a bit of a nutso (albeit an admirably principled nutso). So I'll stop
going back on my earlier word and really, no shit, really leave RGCP
for awhile.
But before I stop reading the board, I have a very serious question to
ask with reference to the following link:
http://www.samsloan.com/pornplot.htm
Suppose, Kevin, you were a child molester (I hasten to add that AFAIK
Kevin most assuredly isn't...), and your fiancée asked you to deflower
her two young daughters. To seal the deal, you asked your fiancée for
a personal computer. What specs would YOU want the computer to have?
(Personally, I think only a needleprick would be happy with a 56k
modem....)
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
The lads are talking to themselves. Always an interesting
development.
Bill Brock left the thread, announcing that the subject of sex with
children was too serious for him to be making jokes about.
The subject, we notice, has changed. As it always does.
I am now the subject. Which also always happens.
Readers will recollect that Stan Booz and The Historian both accused
Sam Sloan of having sex with "children." They presented no proof. None.
No proof was available.
The charge then changed. Mr. Sloan was accused of having sex with
Thai girls in the sex trade in border towns. Mind you, the actual incident
adduced involved far less intimate contact than that between any young U.S.
Marine of Army boy with Iraqi girls or, in times past, with Vietnamese and Thai
girls.
Finally, Lawyer and former USCF Ethicist Wick Deer accused Sam Sloan
of fondling a particular child. I asked: which child? where did the fondling
occur? when did it occur?
No answer. And, of course, no proof. Just the charge from Lawyer and
former USCF Ethicist Deer.
Along the way, Stan Booz lied straight out that Mr. Sloan removed from
his website pictures of children with whom he had had sex. There were no such
pictures. Period.
CHANGE OF SUBJECT
Given that providing who, when and where is impossible, the question among
the confreres becomes, "What?"
As in, what to do?
So, I am now the subject. Jim Eade says I was an unpopular child and
probably a child molester myself. Along with Don Schultz, I am also a
criminal. Stan Booz says that I am ... well, we all know what he says. It
usually begins and ends with excrement. His theme, at least, has the merit of
constancy. Bill Brock says I tilt at windmills, and the smarting Kevin Bachler
says I take delight in defending the indefensible ("undefendable" -- tut, tut)
so as to prove my superiority. This last attack is a corollary of Eade's Law
that I am indefensible per se and the Deer Thesis, a heresy, that perhaps I am
the first person since Creation without an immortal soul.
A correction. Mr. Bachler has me arguing that Sam Sloan is slunk
meat. I never wrote such. I stated that his life has resembled the
composition of a Jackson Pollock painting or the garage of one of those
wreck-a-thons at local speedways on weekends. That is something different.
So far as I know, Mr. Sloan went to jail over a family matter that,
in an earlier time, would not have been in the criminal courts at all. I saw
no proof of any kind to show that he had sex with "children." Indeed, my
repeated requests for such proof has led to the delightful outcome that ...
I am now the subject among the confreres.
One wonders how many of these worthies ever argued a case on their own
behalf and beat the government in the Supreme Court.
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
In alphabetical order: Bachler, Booz, Brock, Deer, Eade, Fernandez,
Historian...
They are nearly all here. A tear wells up in the eye. If only Greg
Kennedy would join in, we could sing Auld Lang Mine.
These reunions are always touching moments. The threads that bind,
you know. Rgcp is thicker than water.
Parrthenon
By Rudolph Deer
INTERNET, Aug. 14 -- Embattled rgcp columnist Larry Parr confessed
during an emotional e-conference today that he fondled repeatedly a 10-year-old
girl and seven-year-old boy.
The confession followed an attack on Parr by rgcp spokesman James Eade,
who wrote that Parr "probably" molests children.
Reading from a prepared statement, Parr said, "Both before and after
July 16 last, I repeatedly fondled two children, a young girl and boy. The
girl's name was Christianna, and the boy's name was Ian. I have also kept them
under lock and key nearly every night for several years. The events occurred
during a period of great stress."
Under intense questioning from rgcp reporters, Parr conceded that the
children were his own. The fondling began a day or so before a ceremony at the
childrens' school and continued afterwards.
"My children," Parr admitted, "finished first in their respective
classes, receiving trophies at the awards ceremony of Sayfol International
School. My daughter finished clear first in fifth grade, and my son finished
in a dead heat for first in third grade with a girl from India."
When pressed for details about what caused the fondling, Parr
attributed it to a series of tests. "The fondle impulse," Parr asserted,
"became irresistible following Christianna scoring 88 from 90 in a test on
Tudor and Stuart history and a perfect 90 out of 90 in Victorian Britain."
Parr released the examinations in a press conference handout.
Here is the fifth-grade exam on the Tudors and Stuarts.
There was a page showing the Tudor and Stuart family trees as they
intertwined. The kids had to fill in the following names: Henry VII,
Elizabeth of York, Henry VIII (his six wives: Catherine of Aragon, Anne
Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves [Henry thought her an ugly dog], Catherine
Howard [she thought Henry a fat dog], and Catherine Parr [the best of the
lot]), Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary I Queen of Scots, James I, Charles
I, Charles II, James II and William III.
Questions included: who succeeded Elizabeth I and in what year (James
I, 1603); who established the New Model Army (Oliver Cromwell); which king was
found guilty of treason and in which year (Charles I, 1649); who were Drake’s
chief enemies (the Spanish); who were the most famous colonists of the New
World (the Puritans); who founded the Royal Society (Charles II); name the
flagship of Drake (the Golden Hind); what was the name of those who supported
Charles I and how did they dress in battle (Cavaliers, they wore leather coats,
iron breast plates and carried pistols and swords); when Charles II escaped,
where did he go (he fled to Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight); who
became King in 1660 and what was this period called (Charles II became king,
and the period is called The Restoration); when and how did William III become
King (in 1689 Parliament invited William to become king); who was Sir Walter
Raleigh (he was Queen Elizabeth’s favorite courtier whom she made a knight);
which colony did Raleigh’s sailors start in America (Virginia); what happened
to Raleigh after Elizabeth I died (he was imprisoned in the tower of London for
13 years and later executed by James I).
More questions: What motivated young men to go to sea during the
reign of Queen Elizabeth (seeking riches through plunder; finding new trade
routes; exploring new lands); what strict laws did the Puritans have (people
could not dance, gamble, horse race, drink alcohol, go to the theatre); what
made Drake’s flagship famous (Drake sailed around the world in it, Queen
Elizabeth knighted him there after the Battle of Gravelines); describe the New
Model Army (the most advanced army of its time; it was well trained and
disciplined, regularly paid, had good muskets and had uniforms); who was the
leader of the Gunpowder Plot (Robert Catesby, a Roman Catholic noble); who was
the expert in the use of gunpowder (Guy Fawkes); was the Gunpowder Plot
successful and why (it was unsuccessful because a plotter warned Lord Monteagle
of the House of Lords to stay away on the day James I would open Parliament;
the letter was discovered by James I’s men); what and when was the Act of
Supremacy (Henry VIII made himself head of the Roman Catholic Church in England
in 1534).
Finally the kids were given a series of events and required to give
the dates: Drake sailed to Central America (1572); Battle of Gravelines,
defeating the Armada (1588); Gunpowder Plot (1605); Puritans sail on Mayflower
(1620); Charles I dissolves Parliament and rules directly (1629); the Battle of
Marston Moor (1644); the Battle of Worcester (1651); and Cromwell closes the
Long Parliament and declares himself Lord Protector (1653).
The fifth-grade test for Victorian Britain: Fondled Christianna Parr
actually scored 89 1/2 out of 90, a score that as then rounded upwards.
She was asked to explain the Mines Act and what year it was passed.
(It was passed in 1842 and stopped children under 10 working in the coal
mines.) Other questions: the percentage of the world’s coal Britain
supplied during Queen Victoria’s reign (80 percent); the two most famous
Victorian prime ministers (Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone); the man
who started Britain’s police force (Robert Peel); the most famous of all
Victorian poets (Alfred, Lord Tennyson – those who missed the comma between
Alfred and Lord, were docked a half point); the author and year that Alice’s
Adventures in Wonderland appeared (Lewis Carroll, 1865); define landed gentry
("people who owned land or who inherited it and therefore were rich"); what
educational event of importance took place in 1848 (Miss Buss and Miss Beale
founded the first college for women in London); name scientists who worked with
electricity (Faraday, Edison, Swann); what was a penny-farthing bicycle (the
first, unsafe bicycle with a large front wheel, introduced in the 1870s).
Name an accomplishment of Prince Albert (he introduced the Christmas
tree to England from Germany in 1848); who brought up middle-class children (a
nanny); what were inmates in workhouses fed (a thin porridge called gruel);
what was a "drawer" (a woman who pulled coal out of a mine with a chain
attached to a belt around her waist); when was the first national postal
service introduced (1841); who was James Simpson (a Scottish doctor who in 1847
used a liquid called chloroform, the first anaesthetic, in an operation); what
was the favorite toy in Victorian nurseries (a wooden rocking horse); how did
Prince Albert die and at what age (he died of typhoid at age 42); what year did
Victoria die (1901); name eight major changes during Queen Victoria’s reign
(the text listed 10 and the students had to mention eight: electricity was
used for lights; all men were allowed to vote; the train replaced the
stagecoach; Prince Albert introduced the Christmas tree to Britain; child labor
in factories and mines was stopped; children from all families could go to
school; photography was invented; Britain gained a large empire).
Name four sources for learning about the Victorians that we have
today: street signs; old maps; street directories; census returns.
Who was Louis Pasteur and what did he discover? My daughter answered:
"Louis Pasteur was a great scientist who discovered that wounds became infected
by germs and bacteria."
How were women treated by Victorian men? My daughter answered:
"Women were not allowed to vote. Women were not allowed to own property. Women
were not allowed to have the same education as men." [[[[[Ah, how one misses
the good old days!!]]]]]
Name the different types of work done during the harvesting season by
men, women and children: 1. Men cut wheat with scythes; 2. Women and
children bundled it up; 3. Men and children took the wheat to barns in horse
drawn carts; and 4. Everyone threshed the wheat by hand to separate the grain
from the chaff.
List and show on the accompanying map at least 10 important countries
in the British empire at the end of Victoria’s reign. My daughter mentioned
and marked the locations of the Cape Colony [South Africa], Nigeria, Kenya,
Egypt, Sudan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Malaya, India and Ceylon.
How did Victorians feel about railroads and describe their importance
and development? My daughter wrote: "The railways were a source of great
pride to the Victorians. They became a major form of transport for both people
and goods. The first modern passenger railway was opened between Liverpool and
Manchester. Before then railways had been used mainly to take coal from the
mines to factories or canals. The railways spread rapidly as they provided a
cheap means [[[[[here she lost her half point: she failed to mention
“quick” after cheap]]]]] of transport. Engineers like Isambard Kingdom
Brunel planned great bridges and other engineering marvels to enable the trains
to run across all sorts of rivers, marshes, hills and over deep valleys."
Tell why different people wanted an empire? She wrote: "Ordinary people
wanted to make a fresh start in life. They wanted a chance of establishing a
business of their own. Traders and industrialists wanted to open new markets
for their goods. Investors and bankers wanted to invest money and make large
profits. Some politicians wanted to stop other European countries from having
powerful empires of their own. Missionaries wanted to convert more people to
Christianity."
Spam Scone
> In article <ea907f13.03081...@posting.google.com>, Bill Brock says...
>
> Bill, take it from me, perhaps the greatest windmill tilter of all, sometimes
> you gotta let it go.
> Many people see through Larry's game. Larry tries to couch everything in a way
> to demonstrate his superiority (from his perspective at least.) This is why he
> will defend something that is undefendable -- not because he believes in his
> perspective -- not because it is right -- but to show that he (and only he) can.
> Larry argued early in the thread that just because Sam is slunk meat doesn't
> give people the right to slander him -- I noted that it also doesn't obligate
> anyone to defend Sam from such slander. Larry has ignored this comment because
> he must. To face it is to face the reality that Larry has allowed himself to be
> duped by himself into defending slunk meat for the sole purpose of defending
> Larry's superiority.
> We all suspect what will happen when Larry reads this. He will launch into a
> bombastic, loquacious, soliloquy full of Latin and other references designed to
> show how bright he is and how the common man cannot possibly understand him. (I
> cannot help but think that Larry would disdain the everyman of a Jimmy Stewart,
> or a directness of a John Wayne.) What he won't do is say "Shit, I'm defending
> a fuck-up. I was wrong. Sorry."
This is a brilliant analysis of the Parr Problem. Everyone on RGCP
should read this post.
> So Bill, let it go. Your value to chess, especially here in Illinois, is far
> greater than anything Larry ever has (or ever will) provide.
Agreed, Kevin.
Spam Scone
> Suppose....your fiancée asked you to deflower
> her two young daughters. To seal the deal, you asked your fiancée for
> a personal computer. What specs would YOU want the computer to have?
> (Personally, I think only a needleprick would be happy with a 56k
> modem....)
Sam Sloan would do the deed for a TRS-80 with a daisywheel printer.
Heck, he'd prostitute himself for the videogame PONG.... Really old,
obsolete hardware, you know.
Spam Scone
> This excruciatingly tiresome exchange reminds me of a favorite quip -
> perhaps hell is nothing more than an enormous committee comprised of
> people who, with little or nothing to say, take an eternity to say it.
>
> Would somebody PLEASE weave Hitler or Nazis into this thread so that
> we can bury it so deep nobody can revive it?
I brought in Richard Strauss. Is that close enough?
Neil Brennen
currently listening to:
R. Strauss, Also Sprach Zarathustra
Fritz Reiner/Chicago Symphony Orchestra
StanB
"Parrthenon" <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030814005656...@mb-m11.news.cs.com...
> So, I am now the subject. Jim Eade says I was an unpopular child
and
> probably a child molester myself. Along with Don Schultz, I am also a
> criminal. Stan Booz says that I am ... well, we all know what he says.
It
> usually begins and ends with excrement. His theme, at least, has the
merit of
> constancy. Bill Brock says I tilt at windmills, and the smarting Kevin
Bachler
> says I take delight in defending the indefensible ("undefendable" -- tut,
tut)
> so as to prove my superiority. This last attack is a corollary of Eade's
Law
> that I am indefensible per se and the Deer Thesis, a heresy, that perhaps
I am
> the first person since Creation without an immortal soul.
Hey Larry. If one person calls you an ass thing naught of it. If several
people call you an ass maybe you oughta buy a saddle.
StanB
StanB
news:<bhdp9...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > In article <ea907f13.03081...@posting.google.com>, Bill Brock
says...
> > We all suspect what will happen when Larry reads this. He will launch
into a
> > bombastic, loquacious, soliloquy full of Latin and other references
designed to
> > show how bright he is and how the common man cannot possibly understand
him. (I
> > cannot help but think that Larry would disdain the everyman of a Jimmy
Stewart,
> > or a directness of a John Wayne.) What he won't do is say "Shit, I'm
defending
> > a fuck-up. I was wrong. Sorry."
>
> This is a brilliant analysis of the Parr Problem. Everyone on RGCP
> should read this post.
>
> > So Bill, let it go. Your value to chess, especially here in Illinois,
is far
> > greater than anything Larry ever has (or ever will) provide.
>
> Agreed, Kevin.
It is so nice of Larry to rally all the troops in a unifying front. I just
knew Larry wasn't really supporting a self-admitted child molester. He just
wanted us all to be allies for the common cause. Way to go bin Larry.
StanB
Randy Bauer
If you've seen one Austrian/German you've seen them all?
Randy Bauer (yep, I'm one of them)
Randy Bauer
>
\(snip)
> meat. I never wrote such. I stated that his life has resembled the
> composition of a Jackson Pollock painting or the garage of one of those
> wreck-a-thons at local speedways on weekends. That is something different.
That's all? Tom Dorsch, I suspect, knows Sam and his "exploits" much
better than you or I, and he has detailed in newsgroup postings Sam's
history of cons and scams that is far less benign than your
characterization.
(snip)
> One wonders how many of these worthies ever argued a case on their own
> behalf and beat the government in the Supreme Court.
I'm sure there has never been a lying, scheming degenerate who can say
that! Regardless, I would not let him anywhere near my two elementary
school daughters.
Randy Bauer
Spam Scone
> tartak...@hotmail.com (Spam Scone) wrote in message news:<76ba5964.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > randyba...@yahoo.com (Randy Bauer) wrote in message news:<625d11e3.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > This excruciatingly tiresome exchange reminds me of a favorite quip -
> > > perhaps hell is nothing more than an enormous committee comprised of
> > > people who, with little or nothing to say, take an eternity to say it.
> > > Would somebody PLEASE weave Hitler or Nazis into this thread so that
> > > we can bury it so deep nobody can revive it?
> >
> > I brought in Richard Strauss. Is that close enough?
> > Neil Brennen
> > currently listening to:
> > R. Strauss, Also Sprach Zarathustra
> > Fritz Reiner/Chicago Symphony Orchestra
>
> If you've seen one Austrian/German you've seen them all?
> Randy Bauer (yep, I'm one of them)
Well, I wouldn't go THAT far!
Neil Brennen
currently listening to:
R. Strauss, Don Juan
Klaus Tennstedt/London Philharmonic Orchestra
Mike Murray
>PARR FONDLES CHILDREN
>
> By Rudolph Deer
>
> INTERNET, Aug. 14 -- Embattled rgcp columnist Larry Parr confessed
>during an emotional e-conference today that he fondled repeatedly a 10-year-old
>girl and seven-year-old boy.
It's good that your children are doing so well academically, and you
have every right to be proud of their achievements.
But, using them to score points or deflect criticism in a newsgroups
discussion on such a topic, especially with the tabloid-style headline
and lead in, is not good.
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
As I noted before Stan Booz and the old gang's all here again. I have often
claimed to be a force for unity. Once again, I not only talk the talk, but walk
the walk.
KNOWN BY YOUR ENEMIES
People are known by both their friends and by their enemies. Having
the likes of those listed below as foes is an endorsement of my excellent self
this fine day in Malaysia.
My friends are an eclectic group -- and yes, Sam Sloan is among them.
"Hey Larry. If one person calls you an ass thing naught of it. If several
people call you an ass maybe you oughta buy a saddle." -- StanB
> So, I am now the subject. Jim Eade says I was an unpopular child
and probably a child molester myself. Along with Don Schultz, I am also a
criminal. Stan Booz says that I am ... well, we all know what he says. It
usually begins and ends with excrement. His theme, at least, has the merit
of constancy. Bill Brock says I tilt at windmills, and the smarting Kevin
Bachler says I take delight in defending the indefensible ("undefendable" --
tut, tut) so as to prove my superiority. This last attack is a corollary of
Eade's Law that I am indefensible per se and the Deer Thesis, a heresy, that
perhaps
I am the first person since Creation without an immortal soul.> -- Larry Parr
Kevin L. Bachler
says...
So you can either take pride in these comments, as you seem to be doing, or at
least consider why people make them. Socrates said that the unexamined life is
not worth living. Your keen inability to examine your own, under any
circumstance, testifies to the truth of his comment.
Kevin L. Bachler
NoMoreChess
>THE GANGS ALL HERE
>
> By Larry Parr
>
>As I noted before Stan Booz and the old gang's all here again. I have often
>claimed to be a force for unity. Once again, I not only talk the talk, but
>walk
>the walk.
>
> KNOWN BY YOUR ENEMIES
>
> People are known by both their friends and by their enemies. Having
>the likes of those listed below as foes is an endorsement of my excellent
>self
>this fine day in Malaysia.
Typical of his usual style, Mr. Parr carelessly slips-up while basking in
delight from having been attacked by so many of his beloved "enemies."
We have seen this before, as when Mr. Parr insisted that he *always* signed
his name to *every* posting. Which he did. Every posting, except *that one*,
of course! Huge foot--in-mouth -- is there a doctor in the house? LOL!
The man's hypocrisy knows no bounds. One day, he is needling some critic or
other for making an insignificant typo in an offhand posting to usenet; the
next he is doing the very same thing, in what he apparently considers to be a
creation of some importance -- even appending titles, and a byline, as if to
show that his ramblings are not completely insignificant.
Let me take the load off of poor, beleagered Mr. Winter's very weary
nitpicking shoulders, and point out the insignificant errors above, before Mr.
Parr's seven-year-old son beats him to it:
1. In the title, "THE GANGS" should have had an apostrophe, substituting for
the "i" in "gang is."
2. There was an extra "space" character in the first sentence, after the word
"Booz".
3. After "As I noted before," there should have been a comma since there is a
natural, long pause here when reading that sentence properly.
Having "enemies," as Mr. Parr tells it, or rather critics, in no way
demonstrates a man's greatness.
Can anyone imagine that Adolf H*tler had *no* critics whatever? Or Joseph
Stal*n? What about Anatoly Karp*v -- he had oodles of critics! Does this
imply that he far superceeded other, better-liked chessplayers, like Boris
Spassky, Anderssen (spelling?), or Paul Morphy? I think not.
No, what Mr. Parr is doing is called self-deception. He talks-the-talk of a
GREAT MAN, but having a few critics on rgc cannot substitute for that which is
sorely lacking in Mr. Parr's postings: truth, substance, fairness, a real
point.
As could be expected, talking-the-talk is easy. Walking-the-walk, is a quite
different matter.
For example, I could say that I play much better than Sam Sloan, and it is
not difficult to back this up: my 1.e4 beats the heck out of Sam's 1.g4.
Unfortunately, the "evidence" in my favor stops there. Poor example. Let's
start again, shall we? I could say that my website is far superior to Sam
Sloan's, and the evidence, I think, will back me up. I walk-the-talk, and
talk-the-walk. I walk, and talk, and talk -- too much, I fear.
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
In what follows, Mike Murray makes, unfortunately, a good point. If I
could offer the kids an apology that they would begin to understand (rgcp and
chess are terra incognita to them) I would.
My posting was offered by way of bragging about my two youngsters
beating out a lot of very bright embassy kids from around the world (a student
body of about 700 comes from nearly 50 countries) and by way of gloating that
by asking for proof of the charges against Sam Sloan, I would then be accused
of the same things!
Now, then, those deserving no apologies are:
1. Wick Deer: for making a charge against someone, Sam Sloan in this
instance, of fondling children for sexual purposes without offering proof. (We
do not include in our indictment his highly original heresy that this writer
may possibly be the first person in the history of creation to lack a soul.)
2. Jim Eade: for his aspersion against my wife and for his suggestive
innuendo on this writer's treatment of my children and other children.
3. The Historian: for making unsubstantiated charges against Sam Sloan
and for participating in Mr. Eade's muck.
4. Bill Brock: for the yucks.
5. Kevin Bachler: for doing virtually nothing at all beyond
incontinently butting into a nasty thread without having a real stone to throw.
This guy just wanted to show up and join the rest of the gang. How weak on
his part. I had expected worse.
6. Stan Booz: for making unsubstantiated charges against Sam Sloan,
though we take note that he did not participate in Mr. Eade's muck.
NoMoreChess
> My posting was offered by way of bragging about my two youngsters
>beating out a lot of very bright embassy kids from around the world
That much was obvious. A proud father simply bragging about his kids.
Those who attempt to intermingle this bragging with their own thoughts
regarding child molestation, with the accusations against Sam Sloan (whose
websites have purportedly contained plenty of "strange" stuff), are reaching.
What disturbed me was the very *narrow* focus of that particular test:
Euro-centric history, names, dates -- Winterian material.
Consider, for example, the offhand question: when was child labor outlawed in
England?
The schoolchildren will automatically regurgitate the correct number, never
stopping to consider that the law enacted in the year they have memorized by
rote, only applied to very young children -- under the age of, say, ten.
Children between the age of about ten, and shall-we-say sixteen, were still
allowed (read: forced) to work in the coal mines. A step in the right
direction, of course, but still a very hard life to be working in a mine from
the age of eleven onward.
The truly important stuff is always given short shrift. Questions like which
side of the road do you drive on, are never asked. What do you do if your
clothes catch on fire? If you lock your keys in your car? If a vicious dog
attacks? If, after eating at an expensive restaurant, you discover that you
left your wallet at home? If you win a piece against a much stronger opponent,
who, after carefully assessing the position for a half-hour, offers you (a
known patzer) a draw, out of clear desperation? If you are leading the
Cannibal Open by a full point, but the final round has you paired with a guy
who ALWAYS beats you to a pulp (he is trailing because he lost to your older
sister)?
Will Sam Sloan sue? Will Sam Sloan slew? Will Slam Sloan Slew?
Wickdeer3
> 1. Wick Deer: for making a charge against someone, Sam Sloan in this
>instance, of fondling children for sexual purposes without offering proof.
Incorrect. A written admission of Mr. Sloan was offered as proof. Mr. Parr
attempts to ignore the evidence presented by creating a ridiculously high
standard of detail required for an admission to be believable, and then arguing
that it was not sufficiently detailed.
Pure sophistry.
>(We
>do not include in our indictment his highly original heresy that this writer
>may possibly be the first person in the history of creation to lack a soul.)
>
Incorrect. First of all, whileI have acknowledged the very real possibility
that you have no soul --I see no evidence of one in your writing -- I never
claimed that you were the first. For that matter, I am not even sure you are
human, rather than some demon who stalks the earth, creating disgust and
revulsion, with a side mission of subverting all rational debate.
I hope this clarifies my position.
Your friend,
Wick Deer
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
Wick Deer, a lawyer and former USCF Ethicist-in-Chief, has applied his
fine legal pen to the subject of heresy. We think he has done an intricate
Italianate job.
If earlier, advocate Deer spoke of concern for our immortal soul "if
any," thereby leaving open the heretical possibility that a human creature was
created without a soul, he now argues either that he has uttered this heresy
hitherto (there may be others without souls) or that this writer may not be
human.
Here, then, was Lawyer Deer's problem: if he posits the possibility
that a human can be without a soul, he is assuming the possibility of Divine
error. He has neatly solved the problem by suggesting that we may not be
human. Instead, we may be a "demon who stalks the earth," creating disgust in
our path and leaving revulsion in our wake, even as we are also subverting
debate.
Talk about demonization!
We leave aside the issue of whether demons once had souls, and we
generously award Mr. Deer full points for suggesting that we may not be human.
More anon on the issue of subverting debate.
And now to Mr. Deer's unsubstantiated charge that Sam Sloan
"fondled" a child for the purposes of sexual gratification. Mr. Deer claims
that Mr. Sloan provided us with a written account of the incident. We recall
none. We recall Mr. Sloan describing sexual encounters with young Thai girls
in the sex trade rather than fondling a "child."
In a nod to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Lawyer Deer also finds
that we raise the bar too high by requiring "a ridiculously high standard of
detail."
Readers will recollect, we asked: who was the child, when did the
fondling occur, where did it occur?
Who, when, where? For some, no doubt, a ridiculously high standard.
For others, perhaps, simply the basics.
Back to the issue of subverting debate. We had thought that the
debate concerned producing evidence for a series of charges against Sam Sloan.
We had thought that changing the subject to our person and suggesting, as Jim
Eade did, that we are "probably" a child molester ourself -- why, we had
thought that that was subverting debate.
Nick
> "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
> news:3f1b0eb6...@ca.news.verio.net...
> <SNIP>
> > As an ethnic slur, I consider it to be forgettable, except that Tim
> > Hanke does it all the time. Almost every day Hanke makes a racist or
> > sexist remark. Imagine what would happen if George W. Bush said that
> > he wanted to go mud-wrestling with Hillary Clinton. I am surprised
> > that you find nothing objectionable about Tim Hanke saying that he
> > wants to go mud-wrestling with Beatriz Marinello, his election opponent:
> <SNIP>
>
> Get over it, Sloan.
> You lost--quit fuckin' cryin' about it. Hanke beat you fair and square and
> no amount of over-sensitive quibbling over semantics is going to change that.
Mr. Nemmers,
I have no interest in USCF politics. Yet I would agree with you that Sam
Sloan's post sounded mostly like the whining of a loser who was still finding
it too hard to accept the fact that he had lost in the USCF election.
> You're not Chinese and you'll never get married to Marinello, so WHAT IS
> YOUR POINT???
I don't know what was Sam Sloan's point. But here's what I believe:
I believe in the humanistic principle of 'gens una sumus'.
I am a human being. The Chinese are human beings, my brothers and sisters
in our family of humanity. I believe that treating every person with
common respect--being opposed to racism--simply means being pro-human.
Perhaps you find that difficult to understand?
> Everyone knows what Tim said
Is that why you completely snipped Tim Hanke's "Bugger the Chinese" comment
to Bill Smythe (which was quoted in Sam Sloan's post)?
> and nobody really gives a shit
Evidently, you don't find anything "objectionable" about Tim Hanke's comment.
And you seem to believe that no one else should find anything objectionable
about it too. On behalf of whom did you believe that you were writing?
Every USCF member? Every American? Every human being?
"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me."
--Martin Niemoller (1945, on the Nazis in Germany)
> except you PC commandos out there who want to make a mountain out of every
> molehill on the course.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
--United States of America's Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)
Unfortunately, too many Americans today seem to regard treating people of
a perceived different (or "inferior") race or culture with common courtesy
as a demeaning exercise in "political correctness".
The Chinese communities in the United States have been extremely politically
marginalized, and they have practically no political influence. (Only one
Chinese American--Rep. David Wu of Oregon--has ever been elected to the
United States Congress.) Accordingly, it's hardly surprising that most
anti-Chinese slurs tend to be condoned in the media and in daily life.
Consider what the response might have been to Tim Hanke's comment, "Bugger X",
if X had not been just "the Chinese", but a much more influential group in the
United States, one with enough power to command basic expressions of respect.
Almost all Americans seem to believe that it's a good thing to say: "We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal."
Some Americans seem to believe that it's a better thing to practice what that
means instead of just saying it. Other Americans seem to believe that it's
enough just to say it, on certain patriotic occasions, and perhaps that only
"PC commandos" (Matt Nemmers's term) should feel that anything more ought to
be done about it in daily life.
On 18 April 1942, sixteen American B-25 "Mitchell" medium bombers attacked
targets in Japan in what became known as the famous "Doolittle Raid". The
bombers ran out of fuel before they were able to land safely on the Chinese
airfields. Consequently, most of the American airmen were forced down into
Chinese territory under Japanese military occupation. With the invaluable
help of many Chinese, which was given at great risk to their own lives and
those of their families, nearly all of the American airmen were able to elude
the Japanese pursuit and eventually reach safety behind the Chinese lines.
But the Chinese people would suffer from extremely terrible reprisals by the
the Imperial Japanese Army, whose soldiers routinely slaughtered every person
in any village that they even suspected might have assisted the Americans. Some
American historians have estimated that the Japanese massacred 250000 Chinese
civilians as a consequence of the Doolittle Raid. Evidently, many Americans
today can still remember the daring of the American "Doolittle Raiders", but
few of them would know (or perhaps even care) about the far greater sacrifices
of the Chinese people, which were essential in keeping those American airmen
alive and out of Japanese captivity. Yet the surviving "Doolittle Raiders"
can still remember how much they owe to their Chinese friends and benefactors.
"I had no idea how friendly they (the Chinese) were. I couldn't get anyone
to understand what I was saying, not matter, what I did, beyond that we were
from America. It was rough. Then this young man came in--Tung-Sheng Liu--and
he could speak a little English, and he asked if he could be of some help?
I said, 'Yes, you sure can. Help keep us away from the Japanese.' He said,
'I'll do my very best', and with great disregard for his own safety, he stayed
with us and directed us away from places that, if I had been on my own, we
would have walked right in and wound up in the hands of the Japanese. I know
it for a fact. So I believe to this day that he saved my life, my skin, and
that of my crew, and I thank him for it every time I see him. He makes more
modest assertions about it, but I can't say too much about him."
--Trav Hoover (quoted in "The First Heroes" by Craig Nelson, p. 193)
After the war, Tung-Sheng Liu emigrated to the United States and became an
engineer. In recognition of his courage in saving American lives during the
war, the "Doolittle Raiders" voted to make Tung-Sheng Liu an honorary member,
and he has attended nearly all of their reunions.
Whenever Tim Hanke next thinks of saying, "Bugger the Chinese", perhaps he
should first think of Tung-Sheng Liu.
'Were uneasiness of conscience measured by extent of crime, human history
had been different.'
--George Eliot (Daniel Deronda)
--Nick
The Masked Bishop
> > that you find nothing objectionable about Tim Hanke saying that he
> > wants to go mud-wrestling with Beatriz Marinello, his election opponent<
Well, *I* want to go mud-wrestling with Jennifer Shahade, but only after
we've tanked down a a quart of tequila together. She can wear a white
Queen's crown, I'll wear my black Bishop's miter, and she can mate my sorry
ass right there in the muck...
Hope that's not too objectionable, Sammy. Not that your lovely website, with
all them photos of underage Asian prosties you proudly caption as having
donged, is completely Reader's Digest...