Larry Parr visits Sam Sloan's websites to learn about Pokémon
politi...@gmail.com
endorsed by Star Trek Boy and Larry Parr!
***
But before Parr visits Sloan's site, he first visits the official
Pokémon website (Crass & cheesy? Yup! Kid-safe? You bet! Passé?
Probably....)
http://www.pokemon.com/flash.htm
...and the Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokemon
Having learned all he knows about Pokémon from Sam Sloan's websites,
Parr naturally thought, circa June 2005, that Pokémon was some sort of
soft porn cartoon. Hilarious--kindly let me know how much pornography
you find on pokemon.com, Larry baby! (Or anyone else, for that matter:
post [nonexistent] salacious links below....)
To find Pokémon porn mixed with kid-friendly links, one needs to visit
Sam Sloan's website....
http://www.samsloan.com/pokeplot.htm
(How old is Misty, Larry baby? The answer is on the page)
http://www.shamema.com/pokepoll.htm
(What thought experiment involves Misty, Larry baby?)
Does the ephebophile Sloan seem to be fixated on sexualizing the barely
pubescent (here, admittedly, barely pubescent cartoon characters, but
he's reported his adventures with barely pubescent humans elsewhere)?
(you'll find three pages linked from this message)
parrt...@cs.com
So far as we can reckon from Bill Brock's latest
confused posting, he no longer wishes to discuss his
charge that Sam Sloan is a child molester, never
having produced proof of such.
Instead, Mr. Brock wants to change the subject
to something involving poking and men or the Scots and
North England usage of "mon." He says in one section
of the posting that pokemon or, we assume, poking mon,
is not pornographic but then says that it may be.
Sounds dirty to us, but Mr. Brock says it is not in
one breath and is in the next paragraph.
One difficulty that we experience with Mr. Brock
is that this writer and he hail from different
cultures. He comes up with references that mean
nothing to me. What, for example, is "Misty." I
recollect a Clint Eastwood movie from about 30 years
ago called "Play Misty for Me." But otherwise, what
IS the man going on about? We can't see the
relationship between the Eastwood movie and Sam Sloan
unless Mr. Brock is now trying to argue that Sam is a
knife-wielding murderer. Tch. Tch.
The subject is whether Sam molested children,
and we wish that Mr. Brock will at long last present
the proof that he once promised.
Our recommendation is that we all go to
www.downunderdvd.com, which is a wonderful site filled
with great retro-entertainment disks. Perhaps the
fevered Mr. Brock will then subside. He can order
DVDs of Jimmy Lydon playing Henry Aldrich, and he can
begin to have fun again in his life.
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1169194348.4...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
CONFUSED
So far as we can reckon from Bill Brock's latest
confused posting, he no longer wishes to discuss his
charge that Sam Sloan is a child molester, never
having produced proof of such.
Instead, Mr. Brock wants to change the subject
to something involving poking and men or the Scots and
North England usage of "mon." He says in one section
of the posting that pokemon or, we assume, poking mon,
is not pornographic but then says that it may be.
Sounds dirty to us, but Mr. Brock says it is not in
one breath and is in the next paragraph.
-----------
You do him a little justice since it is obvious to me that he is referring
to the introduction of chess into England - not being confused by Huloet's
misuse of the word in 1552, the right record is from none other than MS
Douce (302, f. 29)
Of Frawnce he mad him anon regent,
And we did Kateren in his present ;
Into Englond anon he went.
Pretty boring so far, no? But here it is:-
And cround our quene in ryal aray.
Of quen Kateryn our kyng was borne,
To save our ry3t that was fore-lorne,
Oure faders in Frawns had won beforne,
That han hit hold moné a day.
Now - you will say this is not earliest use, but chess topically it is, and
beats the more invested A. Sax verse:-
By a tale y shal 3ou mone,
That fyl betwyx the fadyr and the sone.
/MS Harl. 1701 f. 8.
Which nevertheless gives us the useful rhyme with 'sone', and which we all
forgot, Larry! We forgot even later words writ by Chaucer, who we
discovered, scans! IF we pronounce that last 'e' syllable as an 'é', making
an extra one.
You will also want to know the meaning of this earlier use, and amusingly it
is: to explain, to admonish;
later absorbed into Anglo Norman as MONESTE; to admonish. The word MONGE is
a red-herring from the West country and polluted with p-Celtic, and means to
eat, to munch [fish].
Cordially, Phl Yns
---
politi...@gmail.com
Certainly you folks could find a non-felon whose sexual preferences run
to consenting *adults* to undermine USCF on your behalf....
Chess One
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169218073....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sad, isn't it?
>
> Certainly you folks could find a non-felon whose sexual preferences run
> to consenting *adults* to undermine USCF on your behalf....
Sir, as someone immune to any sense of what role they are playing in this
scenario, I think you are rather more interested in this subject than is
Sloan himself. You will have noted a certain resistance to view things your
way by Parr and self, and in the same indifferent attention to what we have
actually written, prefer to imagine and suspect.
For myself, I see that you reserve your opinion to discussing any standard
of behavior with me, any 'ethic', as we say, either now or when you held a
USCF office. Also for myself, and should I have to guess about this, absent
any comment of your own, I would think your reason for not voting for any
standard is that you might not obtain to it yourself.
Instead you take a symptom, and suggest that by eradicating it you will have
solved something. How naive! Naive in both a personal sense, and also to
what rather more serious people take as real threats to women and children
in this country.
So while you are content to suppose away like this; (which includes some
supposition that I know what is on Sloan's site or have some reason to visit
it, distinct from being able to assess his character [and yours!] from very
available behaviors practically everywhere else,) I wonder how sincere you
actually are?
If it were me writing this way, I would want his work to be illegal,
therefore prosecuting it under the law of the land, and I would also want
his past behavior assessed in context - that it, that he stole his own
daughter from a situation he, rightly or wrongly, thought unhealthy.
Assuming the very worst in that case, that her situation did not warrant
legal rebuke; even so, Sloan suffered the penalty already.
NOW - I am not in the personal habit of renting 100 porn videos at the local
video outlet and then, having 'absorbed' such material, and on an on-going
basis to 'keep in touch with contemporary debauchery', renting a new one
every day - for the purposes of then setting up a picket outside the store
so that people who perhaps don't know what's going on in there can then be
aware that while they might be getting Sound of Music out yet again, the
story also has titles like 'bad-barby and the beach-bums.'
In fact, despite my own regret that this material is available over the
counter, my own enthusiasm to repress it might actually advertise the very
thing I most dislike, and even more, people will think I am a prig, since it
is not illegal to sell soft-porn or even hard-porn anywhere in any town in
the United States of America - and the same junk is on late-night TV.
Of course, I could go to the school board and say we should not allow the
proprietors of these stores to sit on committees that have to do with
perpetuating negative and repressive stereo types, based on immature male
adolescent fantasies enacted by grown-ups, and also that we should refuse
money for scholarships from the cable company who show the same soft-porn,
combined with a bit of schadenfreude treatment of women and children.
I would expect a lively constitutional debate - where freedom of speech
would contend with security of those offended. In fact I did sit on a local
board in this county which discussed such affairs, and which had directly to
do with those who prey on children, with drugs sex and varieties of
allurements to get some control over them.
But if USCF were to conduct this conversation [and I asked them to] then I
imagine that they would have issued some sort of standard; a public
statement which supercedes the law of the land, which is the /lowest/ level
of socially acceptable behavior, and instead adopt an ethical basis which
would represent the /optimal/ standard of behavior.
And I did just this! Including sending materials to the board and also
discussing it for more than an hour on the phone with the Ex. Dir.
AFAIK, you did nothing, even though at the time you ran a USCF committee.
USCF also did nothing to avert any perceived or real current embarrassments.
They did not even /acknowledge/ my complaints to them!
Instead you wish to eliminate a symptom of juvenilia, and by scapegoating
only that, absolved yourself from any effort or even culpability in a
certain kind of obsessionalism which reminds me of quite literal witch-hunts
in Elizabethan times, as if the witches were utterly evil, and those who
wished to burn them alive were jolly saint-like people.
I am stating that 'your issue' is a societal one, and a resentment of
laissez-faire in public mores. If you are sincere in anything you write that
has to benefit those currently insulted, then I would encourage a deeper to
those who /actually/ affront women and children, who are very very often,
not obvious persons at all, and the result of removing surface symptoms is
to drive an issue back underground
- RATHER THAN -
the more apposite response of stating that these affronts are not only
substantial in our society, but they are on the increase, and increasingly
devious - and therefore, we need to adopt higher than minimum standards in
our institutions for those who would have anything to do with
administrations of women and children. This has already happened in women's
prisons in the USA, which still rank very high in the world - and the
Christian Science Monitor made the very unwelcome report that Amnesty
International put USA into the same list as, eg, the Kalmyk republik and
Iraq.
We cannot change the law of the land, but we can control those would join
our institutions to require a standard of our liking. During your tenure at
USCF you did nothing to air such a standard, and neither was the board at
all responsive to the issue.
That then, is my challenge, otherwise you certainly do not speak for those
concerned for affronts to women and children in chess - since when you could
do something, you did not. My challenge is to be less trite, and attend to
what needs be done, and as a basis of any standard I suggest that the
perspective of those most offended constituencies are the primary ones -
which means at the very least consulting with them to assess the extent of
the issues, as well as listening to their own sense of remedies. This, I
submit, would be sincere, and nothing less is other than hot air.
Phil Innes
Vermont
politi...@gmail.com
politi...@gmail.com
> So who do you believe, Sloan or S. Polgar?
Polgar claims that, while a minor, Sloan sexually propositioned her.
WRT Polgar, I do not claim that Sloan's proposition was illegal. As
Sloan has shown, the age of consent in Hungary is 14. Sloan has twice
intimated that a sexual relationship was in fact consummated. (Both
intimations were made in the course of conducting USCF business--rather
strange.) One might infer that both parties agree that a proposition
was made.
Adults should not sexually proposition minors. How's that for a
standard, kiddo?
***
I realize that Parr and Innes are transparent in their desire to
destroy USCF. But they should not feel wedded to Sloan: they can find
a more ethical agent of destruction.
politi...@gmail.com
Polgar in various countries.
The age of majority in Hungary is indeed 18; USA, generally 18; Canada,
generally 18-19, Argentina, 21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority
Do Innes and Parr endorse an individual who admittedly sexually
propositions minors as a fit fiduciary for an organization with 45,000+
minors among its members? Bear in mind that a fiduciary duty is "the
highest standard of care imposed at either equity or law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary
Perhaps Woody Allen and Roman Polanski play chess....
Chess One
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169230916.1...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> politi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So who do you believe, Sloan or S. Polgar?
>
> Polgar claims that, while a minor, Sloan sexually propositioned her.
>
> WRT Polgar, I do not claim that Sloan's proposition was illegal. As
> Sloan has shown, the age of consent in Hungary is 14. Sloan has twice
> intimated that a sexual relationship was in fact consummated. (Both
> intimations were made in the course of conducting USCF business--rather
> strange.) One might infer that both parties agree that a proposition
> was made.
>
> Adults should not sexually proposition minors. How's that for a
> standard, kiddo?
Well, I see the proposed standard very clearly, and its based on a 'should'.
It ignores my proposed basis entirely, and this correspondent has
consistently ignored actual women and children [or their guardians], to the
degree that he insists his own 'should' preference superior to what they
themselves would declare.
It also bravely ignored everything I wrote, and proves the level of both
obsession with a dark subject and level of care about those offended.
> ***
>
> I realize that Parr and Innes are transparent in their desire to
> destroy USCF.
I cannot speak for others on this issue, especially those others who are
very capable and have the wherewithall to answer for themselves. What is not
'transparent' is what I wrote here a few hours ago, since that /was/ my
statement which hides behind nothing at all. Claims to the contrary can only
be achieved by addressing them, not putting them in the dark-closet!
And so readers can now fairly assess for themselves who cares for women and
children as affronted parties, and who cares for USCF as ostensibly entirely
seperated subject. What was cut was the comment that when this person plus
the then board [ex-Sloan] could have done something, they did not.
> But they should not feel wedded to Sloan: they can find
> a more ethical agent of destruction.
What unintended irony - I doubt I could compete - with you! But you do not
understand your own condition, and though you think Parr and myself inimical
to it, I think we do understand it in as non-judgmental a way as we
understood Tanner's cheating of himself - far less vilification at a
personal level than any other writers here!
Phil Innes
I will add one postscript to this message, in addition to serving on a
county board for youth services, I also volunteered for a program for
troubled youth. On passing the background audit I was perhaps too blasé,
since the invigilator said to me, 'you don't understand, half the people who
apply for this role in the state of California are rejected!'
So, that is a word to the wise concerning 'interest' in such subjects.
Chess One
yourself? I said it before - more care than your approach is necessary, and
if you wanted to clarify the difference in your obsessions with Sloan, with
that of caring for women and children, then you would not have cut my
response to your, excuse me, childish appreciation of a subject to which you
know not where you are.
PI
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169232403.6...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
politi...@gmail.com
> Why do you ask questions then ignore the answer Brock?
So who do you believe, Sloan or Polgar?
Acceptable answers:
"Sloan"
"Polgar"
"neither"
No essays.
politi...@gmail.com
<< What is not 'transparent' is what I wrote here a few hours ago,
since that /was/ my statement which hides behind nothing at all. >>
So who do you believe, Sloan or Polgar?
Acceptable answers:
"Sloan";
"Polgar";
"neither."
help bot
Sam Sloan has yet to demonstrate an ability to "destroy" anything
other than his own credibility, here.
----------
I find the above back-and-forth peculiarly dependent upon the precise
definition of a single term: minor. X claims that Y did action Z when
X
was a "minor"; Y claims that X was not a "minor" by Hungarian law.
W pops in, stating that a "minor" ought not to be Z'ed by an "adult".
Note how X and Y differ as to whether or not X was a "minor" at the
time of action Z. This sort of drags things down to the level of a
mere
technicality, so it seems.
-- help bot
politi...@gmail.com
>
> I find the above back-and-forth peculiarly dependent upon the precise
> definition of a single term: minor. X claims that Y did action Z when
> X
> was a "minor"; Y claims that X was not a "minor" by Hungarian law.
> W pops in, stating that a "minor" ought not to be Z'ed by an "adult".
> Note how X and Y differ as to whether or not X was a "minor" at the
> time of action Z. This sort of drags things down to the level of a
> mere
> technicality, so it seems.
>
> -- help bot
Fiduciary duties (e.g., Sloan's duty to USCF) should meet higher
standards. At the moment, I wish to discuss one (rather low)
standard--that members of the Board should not have a history of sexual
relations with minors. Or we could go even lower: if they do, they
should keep it to themselves and not advertise said fact in the course
of conducting USCF business.
In the case of Polgar:
Polgar says she was propositioned by Sloan circa age 16 & that she
rebuffed Sloan.
Sloan claims to have had a "not entirely Platonic" and "seamy"
relationship with Polgar circa 1986, when she was 17. Were this true,
it would be charitable fot us to infer a prior proposition.
So I once again ask Parr and Innes to answer the question: who do you
politi...@gmail.com
politi...@gmail.com
help bot
politi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Fiduciary duties (e.g., Sloan's duty to USCF) should meet higher
> standards. At the moment, I wish to discuss one (rather low)
> standard--that members of the Board should not have a history of sexual
> relations with minors. Or we could go even lower: if they do, they
> should keep it to themselves and not advertise said fact in the course
> of conducting USCF business.
>
> In the case of Polgar:
>
> Polgar says she was propositioned by Sloan circa age 16 & that she
> rebuffed Sloan.
>
> Sloan claims to have had a "not entirely Platonic" and "seamy"
> relationship with Polgar circa 1986, when she was 17. Were this true,
> it would be charitable fot us to infer a prior proposition.
>
> So I once again ask Parr and Innes to answer the question: who do you
> believe, Sloan or Polgar?
>
> Acceptable answers:
>
> "Sloan";
>
> "Polgar";
>
> "neither."
I don't see any choice whereby a dyed-in-the-wool ad hominist like
Mr. Parr could:
a) duck the question,
b) turn things around to a personal attack on the one asking a
question,
and c) not give a straightforward answer, since that would, for him, be
sacrilege.
Surely, the fault lies in the test itself, for not allowing a "more
flexible"
answer here.
-----
As for IM Innes, he is in a bit of a rough spot here, for he wants to
both
support Ms. Polgar, and yet not offend Mr. Parr, since a toady does not
do
such things without incurring risk of demotion to "victim". [For
details on how
this bully/toady/victim system works in practice, see "A Christmas
Story".]
-- help bot
Chess One
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169288227.7...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> politi...@gmail.com wrote:
> As for IM Innes, he is in a bit of a rough spot here, for he wants to
> both
> support Ms. Polgar, and yet not offend Mr. Parr, since a toady does not
> do
> such things without incurring risk of demotion to "victim".
NIL DICIT - 'he says nothing to the point, nothing to any defence,
nothing to effect'
My recommendation was for the people most offended to set the standard, that
is, for women and children [parents, guardians and themselves] to do so. I
do not see that comment being accepted as a reasonable one, or even being
acknowledged and allowed to stand. That is a strange fact in itself! While
there is ostensible care about offending others, those offended should not
be listened to!
Instead we receive recommendations from experts on popular soft-porn stars
known to themselves [not by Mr. Parr nor myself] by people who, are content
to continue to personalize issues - presumably since they don't want to
really listen to the voices of women and children at all! They would hate
that! Since it would give up a measure of their own control [itself very
psychologically suspect] ;)
- and place it where it needs to be.
An empire of laws, not of men! //John Adams.
That Adams' comment is a foundation stone of the Constitution - and is
pointedly setting a higher standard than partisanship or personal
preferences, or the rule of oligarchs. Standards, such are ethical factors,
are /im/personal measures, and apply to all equally.
That is what is needed, and the factor that will actually obtain a long-term
beneficial effect - 'in corporare sano' requires 'in custodia legis'.
Instead cheap solutions heavy with suppositions are presented, impatient of
due process, and surrender of decision making process to women and children
is resisted.
Immature measures addressing a serious subject are not any marks of
sincerity. I would be pleased instead to propose the basis of these
standards with anyone here advocating other views, including Mr. Parr.
Phil Innes
politi...@gmail.com
in full below?
2. Did Sam Sloan make Statement B below in USCF BINFO 200603590, dated
September 26, 2006, and quoted in full (with email address redactions)
below?
3. Did Sloan make Statement C below on January 5, 2007, as his full
response to Count 13 of a USCF ethics complaint?
*******
STATEMENT A
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006/07/you-can-protect-uscf.html#115405360583375300
On July 27, 2006, Susan Polgar wrote:
BEGIN STMT A, part 1 (blog post) QTN
If you are just as outraged as I am about the recent USCF Executive
Board Election, you can do something about it! You can call or write to
your state delegates and let them know the truth about Mr. Sam Sloan.
If your state delegates do not attend the US Open then anyone can be
nominated to be a delegate. The most important thing is vote.
In order for Mr. Sloan to take office, he has to be certified by the
delegates of the USCF. I strongly believe that a sexual predator (by
his own admission) and a convicted felon should not be allowed to serve
on the Executive Board of a non-profit organization with tens and
thousands of young members.
Mr. Sloan lied about his criminal record. He told the members of the
USCF that he has no criminal record while the chess community clearly
knows that he spent a considerable amount of time in jail. Mr. Sloan
also publicly admitted that he had inappropriate sexual relations with
minors. He also publicly admitted to other illegal and criminal
conducts.
He lied about me. He lied and attacked people who are associated with
me and the Susan Polgar Foundation. He lied and attacked other members,
sponsors, supporters and partners of the USCF. He spares no one.
I know first hand what Mr. Sloan is capable of. I will post the letter
I wrote on the official USCF forum in the comment section of this post.
Please feel free to look at it.
As a group, we must protect the young members of this federation. We
must protect all members. We must protect the integrity of the United
States Chess Federation. Together, we can stop this monster! Please
contact your state delegates and let them know what you think. Thank
you!
Posted by Picasa
posted by SusanPolgar at 7/27/2006 10:09:00 PM
END STMT A, part 1 (blog post) QTN
BEGIN STMT A, part 2 (blog comment) QTN
25 Comments:
SusanPolgar said...
I would like to make a few points about Mr. Sloan in response to
Mr. Sloan's comments. This is what Mr. Sloan stated:
Quote from Mr Sam Sloan:
....it is significant that in 1986 I gave Susan Polgar an expensive
computer and I lived in her apartment in Budapest for several months
when Susan was 16 years old and her sisters Sophia and Judit were 10
and 9. In the 20 years that have since passed, Susan Polgar has never
made any such claim. Frankly, as a result of living with them, I know a
lot of family secrets of the Polgar Family, which would be highly
embarrassing to Susan if I revealed them, but I will not go that route.
First of all, my family has hosted countless chess players and
personalities from around the world in our apartment in Budapest over
the years. This is a very common occurrence in the European culture. At
that time, Mr. Sloan seemed to be normal.
Secondly, Mr. Sloan stayed at my family's apartment for a very
short period of time and not several months as he claimed. In addition,
Mr. Sloan was never my manager as he falsely stated.
Thirdly, during his stay, he made a number of completely
inappropriate solicitation to me, a minor at that time, and he was
promptly and firmly told no. To his credit, he did not try it again.
But he tried with others. Since that time, I tried to be polite to Mr.
Sloan in public but I tried to avoid him as much as I could. I am not
surprised about the inappropriate sexual conducts that he claimed in
the past. He believes that it is OK.
Over the years, his behavior and conduct became much worst. I
believe that he is capable of anything and I hope that the USCF
delegates can understand this very serious situation. By me speaking
up, he already started to imply about trying to embarrass me with my
family secret. There are no secrets unless he plans to fabricate them.
He is using this tactic to try to avoid the real issues about him.
This is why I am very adamant about my position. As I stated
before, the Susan Polgar Foundation cannot accept Mr. Sloan or work
with someone like Mr. Sloan. The mission of the Susan Polgar Foundation
is to promote chess for young people, especially girls, with integrity
and high morals. Mr. Sloan is a danger to himself, the USCF and young
members of this federation. I believe that this federation MUST protect
our young members. Mr. Sloan's conduct is not appropriate for a
national organization with tens and thousands of young people.
I hope that you can understand my position. This is not a situation
that any woman want to be in. I did not bring this out before because
Mr. Sloan was not an elected official of the USCF. Now that he is, I
must speak up to protect other young players. Thank you for your
understanding.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgarFoundation.org
www.SusanPolgar.com
END STMT A, part 2 (blog comment) QTN
*******
STATEMENT B
In BINFO 200603590, dated September 26, 2006, Sam Sloan wrote:
BEGIN STMT B QTN
BINFO 200603590
Date 2006-09-25
>From samsloan
Status Standard Release
Release Date 2006-10-03
Subject Resolution of the Executive Board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Resolution of the Executive Board
From: Sam Sloan <samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:47:41 -0400
Cc: Joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Beatchess@xxxxxxx, Rtannerae@xxxxxxx,
randallhough@xxxxxxxxx, samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx, CHESSJOEL@xxxxxxx,
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, Chessdon@xxxxxxx, pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx,
queencapa@xxxxxxx , USCF BINFO System, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20060925110012.01f13280@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:00 AM 9/25/2006 -0400, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx wrote:>>I move in open
session that the Board approve the following resolution>written by our
attorney, Mike Matsler. I vote yes.
> >Bill Goichberg>I am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill, acting like a bull in a china shop, has brought this into the public forum by making a public motion and posting it to USCF BINFO System, as a result of which this
matter will disseminated and the entire world will know about it in due
course.The fact is that my relationship with Zsuzsa Polgar (who now
calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic. I have been discrete
and have not revealed to anyone other than a few close friends the true
nature of
our prior relationship, until now. Now, Bill's public motion
effectively forces me to reveal what really happened those many years
ago. This will do no good either to me, Zsuzsa,
Bill or the USCF, but it appears that now I will have no real choice
but to tell the whole story. Sam Sloan
END STMT B QTN
*******
STATEMENT C
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/f143056987eb3c90?hl=en&
In "Response to Ethics Complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn," dated
January 5, 2007, Sam Sloan
wrote:
BEGIN STMT C QTN
Response to Ethics Complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn
Herbert Rodney Vaughn has filed a 400 page ethics complaint against me.
I think the length of the complaint speaks for itself. For reasons
unknown to me, Mr. Vaughn has been obsessed with me for some time. He
has been attacking me on the USCF Forum at
http://www.uschess.org/forums under the fake name of tanstaafl for the
last one year, with around one thousand personal attacks on me. He has
also filled up Susan Polgar's Blog at
http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com with attacks on me. He got himself
certified as a delegate from Ohio (improperly in my opinion) and tied
up the delegate's meetings in Chicago held on August 12-13, 2006 with
attacks on me. I have no idea why he does this. I had never met the man
prior to the meetings in Chicago and I have never in my life had any
dealings with him.
The ethics complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn is entirely frivolous and
can be refuted without much difficulty. Fortunately, the Ethics
Committee has made my job easier by already dismissing 11 of the
sixteen counts of his complaint, even before it got to me. I will now
deal with the remaining five.
The counts over which the Ethics Committee accepted jurisdiction were
1A, 3, 4, 5, and 13.
Here are my responses:
[RESPONSES TO COUNTS 1A, 3, 4, AND 5 OMITTED--WHB 1/20/2007]
Count 13
Personal Attacks on Susan Polgar in the BINFO System, Standards
It is unfortunate that Mr. Vaughn has made an issue over this,
following the fact that Mr. Bill Goichberg previously made an issue
over this, because neither of them are aware of what they are getting
into or that they are acting like a Bull in a China Shop. I was for
practical purposes the boyfriend of Zsuzsa Polgar, to the extent that
she had a boyfriend, for six months in 1986. I traveled with her,
played in chess tournaments with her and stayed in her home in Budapest
during this period. This relationship started in April, 1986 and
extended through October, 1986. There was never a break in relations.
What ended this aspect of our relationship was that my brother,
Creighton, started litigation with my mother, which left us stranded in
Rio Gallegos Argentina after the conclusion of the World Under-16 Chess
Championship, in which Sophia and Judit Polgar had played. Because my
mother and I temporarily could not leave Argentina, we had to say
goodbye to the Polgars and, although she wrote me a few letters, my
relationship with Zsuzsa never resumed after that.
Our relationship started immediately on or after her 17th birthday. The
dates are important but are easy to remember and verify because of the
many chess tournaments in which we played together during those months.
Our relationship started right after the 1986 New York Open, which was
held March 30 to April 7, 1986. The relationship started due to a
coincidence caused by a flight delay.
The 1986 New York Open was the first time that Laszlo Polgar, Susan's
father, had ever reached America. Previously, Mr. Polgar had not been
able to obtain a US visa, for the same reasons that most Hungarians
were not able to get a visa, which was that they feared that he would
overstay.
When the US Embassy was finally convinced that Mr. Polgar really was a
legitimate tourist, they gave him a visa. Prior to that time, Susan had
visited the United States accompanied only by her mother. I had first
met Susan at an invitational Goichberg tournament at the Manhattan
Chess Club in November, 1985. She lost to Mark Ginzberg in a Lucena
position on the first day that I met her. The next time I came to see
her, she lost a long game to Yehuda Gruenfeld. As a result, Susan
disliked me at first, because every time I came to see her, she lost
her chess game.
Her mother, Klara, however, liked me. We next met at the 1986 National
Open in Las Vegas. I told them that I worked in computers. Klara told
me that her husband was very interested in computers and would be very
anxious to meet me when he was finally able to come to the US.
That turned out to be the 1986 New York Open. Laszlo Polgar told me
there that he was very interested in buying what he called the "Rare
Computer". I told him not to waste his money on unusual off-brands. He
should buy IBM PC compatibles or else Apple MacIntosh. Nevertheless,
Laszlo doggedly insisted that he must have the Rare Computer and
nothing else.
I had never heard of the Rare Computer, but after several days of
discussions about this, Laszlo Polgar refused to budge. He absolutely
must have the Rare Computer. I was later to learn that this is a
characteristic of Laszlo Polgar. He will not listen to reason. Once he
makes up his mind about something, he will never change it.
Finally, out of frustration, trying to deal with this bull dog of a
man, I just decided to buy him a computer with my own money. I called a
computer company in Texas, ordered a $2000 computer with my credit
card, and they agreed to ship it to the address of the Polgars in
Hungary. Laszlo Polgar was very happy, because he is always willing to
take anything offered for free.
After the New York Open, Susan told me that they were scheduled to fly
to Los Angeles, where Hal Bogner had scheduled for Susan to give a
simultaneous exhibition. I agreed to meet them when they came back and
to help them get to the airport, as I had a car.
When they returned a week later I was shocked to learn that they had
never made it to Los Angeles. Just after I had last spoken to them at
the New York Penta Hotel, they had been approached by a man named
Shiloh Quinn, who had told them that he would bring them millions of
dollars in sponsorship money if they would accompany him to Montreal.
As a result, they had called Hal Bogner and told him to cancel the
simultaneous exhibition, because they could not come to Los Angeles.
In Montreal, Shiloh Quinn has gotten them to agree to give him Sophia
Polgar, who was 11 years old at the time. Actually, Shiloh Quinn had
wanted Zsuzsa. However, they were not willing to give up Zsuzsa, but
they were willing to give up Sophia, so they had left Sophia with
Shiloh Quinn, and had returned to New York without her. Laszlo Polgar
said that this was OK, because Shiloh Quinn had a Hungarian wife.
At JFK Airport, they were scheduled to take different flights back to
Budapest. The reason for this was that Jose Cuxchi, the organizer of
the New York Open, had given Zsuzsa Polgar, her mother, Klara, and the
two sisters, Sophia and Judit, free tickets from Budapest to New York
on Iberia Airlines, with a stop-over in Madrid, Spain. However, he had
not given a free ticket to Laszlo Polgar. Therefore, Laszlo Polgar had
bought his own ticket on Malev, the Hungarian Airline.
However, Laszlo Polgar had never been to Spain before and he wanted to
go there. Therefore, in New York, he had made a deal with the airlines
to switch tickets with Zsuzsa. She would fly back directly to Budapest
on Malev, and he along with Klara and Judit would fly back to Budapest
in Iberia Airlines, with a stopover in Spain.
This was especially convenient because the Malev flight was scheduled
to leave JFK Asirport two hours before the Iberia Airlines flight, so
they would be with Susan until she caught her flight.
A serious problem, however, arose when the Malev flight was delayed due
to mechanical problems.
This meant that Laszlo, Klara and Judit Polgar had to leave on a flight
before Zsuzsa left. They had no choice in the matter. The tickets were
non-refundable promotional tickets provided by Jose Cuchi. They could
not afford to stay behind in New York, and it was too late to change
the tickets back to the way that they originally were, with Lazslo
flying on Malev and Zsuzsa flying on Iberia Airlines.
Therefore, when flight time came, they had no choice in the matter, but
to leave. Laszlo, Klara and Judit bordered the Iberia Airlines flight
to Spain, leaving Zsuzsa alone in JFK Airport with me, Sam Sloan.
It so happened that this was exactly Zsuzsa's 17th birthday. Zsuzsa
Polgar was born on April 19, 1969. The New York Open concluded on April
8, 1986. After that, they flew to Montreal, stayed for a week and flew
back to New York. So, this was exactly Susan's 17th birthday, or else
was the day after, I cannot remember which. I mention this because I
have been accused of getting involved with Susan when she was 16 years
old, but actually she was 17 at the time.
Shortly after Laszlo, Klara and Judit had departed on Iberia Airlines,
the representative of Malev Airlines came by. He said that, as the
flight had been delayed, he was offering a courtesy hotel room at
airline expense. I did not yet know Susan well, and she did not speak
much English, so I do not believe that I even asked her. I just asked
the airline representative when the flight was expected to leave. He
said that it would be only a few hours longer. So, without thinking or
asking Susan, I said that we would just wait in the airport, because a
few hours was no big deal.
What I did not yet realize was that Zsuzsa was the most protected girl
in the world. She was so protected that she could not even go to the
woman's restroom alone. Her mother would have to accompany her. Her
parents were terrified that she would meet a boy somewhere and fall in
love. As her parents did not work, Susan was the bread winner of the
family, supporting the family through her chess tournament winnings.
There was no way that they were going to allow her to go anywhere or to
be anywhere alone.
Suddenly, due to the delayed flight, for the first time in her entire
life, Zsuzsa was alone with a man, namely me.
Two months later, I went to Hungary. On my arrival in Budapest, I was
immediately invited to stay as a guest in the Polgar home. I was
shocked to learn that the computer I had purchased for them to be
shipped from Texas was still in the customs warehouse in Budapest.
Laszlo Polgar and I went to the customs warehouse. I paid some small
fees and the customs people released the computer to us. We took the
computer to the Polgar apartment.
I spent the next two days setting up the computer, organizing it and
putting files on it. It was unlike computers nowadays where everything
comes pre-installed. I was working on developing a computer chess
program called Rex Chess which I had entered into the World Computer
Chess Championship to be played the following month in Cologne,
Germany.
I was shocked when, two days after the computer had arrived, Laszlo
Polgar brought two men to the apartment to buy it. They said that they
had wanted the "Rare Computer" and were not entirely happy with this
other type of computer that Laszlo Polgar had. I then learned that the
Rare Computer was a brand name of a computer, and they had ordered it
from Laszlo. I have never been able to find a computer with that brand
name, however.
Finally, they agreed to buy the computer for $7,000. I was not happy. I
had bought the computer for the three Polgar Sisters. I had imagined
them to be geniuses, not the chess playing autonomons that they
actually turned out to be. I had dreams of them learning computer
programming and making a positive contribution to society. That is the
reason I had bought them the computer. I had not realized that the plan
all along had been to sell it for profit.
However, it would have been pointless for me to protest. If I had
stopped them from selling it while I was there, they would just wait
until I was not there, and then sell it. So, I said nothing about it.
After they got the $7,000 from selling the computer, they invited me to
accompany them to an International Chess Tournament in Albena,
Bulgaria. Zsuzsa won the tournament and I had one of the best results
of my life. I then accompanied Susan and her family over the next
several months to chess tournaments in Copenhagen, Denmark, San Juan,
Puerto Rico and Rio Gallegos, Argentina. I personally arranged the
tickets for the five of them and me to fly to Argentina.
I will leave out the details, some of which are seamy, except that I
will say that my remark about which Herbert Rodney Vaughn now files his
ethics complaint is entirely accurate.
I must add, however, that my remark was in response to a motion to
censure me made by Bill Goichberg. That motion by Goichberg consisted
of five parts, all of which had to do with my relationship with Susan
Polgar. Bill probably did not even know that I had ever had a
relationship with Susan Polgar. That is why I said that, in making his
motion, Bill was acting like a bull in a China Shop. All these past
twenty-one years, I have avoided publicly revealing the facts that I
have just set forth above.
Goichberg implied that this was a motion made by the USCF Attorney,
Michael Matsler. This is misleading. After the election votes were
counted and I had won the election on July 20, 2006, Bill Goichberg
wrote five letters to Michael Matsler, basically asking how he could
get rid of Sam Sloan, either by preventing me from taking office or by
removing me from office. Bill Goichberg also wrote a strongly worded
board motion attacking me over the Polgar Affair. Michael Matsler wrote
back with a much milder motion than the one written by Goichberg. Even
the relatively mildly worded motion by Matsler required me to respond.
I was thinking of making a much stronger response, but finally I
decided to make the delicately worded one-sentence response that I did,
which is the subject of this ethics complaint.
Obviously, you can figure out that I have just started to tell the full
story about what happened between me and Susan Polgar in 1986. If
Goichberg, Vaughn and Susan herself do not stop attacking me almost
daily over this, I may eventually have to tell the whole story and
write a book about it, but I am avoiding doing that for the time being.
Thus, I have answered all five of the remaining counts of the Ethics
Complaint filed by Herbert Rodney Vaughn. I believe that I have
satisfactorily addressed all these issues and that indeed I have
demonstrated that the ethics complaint is entirely frivolous. Again, I
request that the Ethics Committee obtain a tape or a transcript of the
Executive Board meeting on August 14, 2006. After reviewing that tape
or transcript, you will be able to see that everything I have written
on that subject is correct and accurate.
I realize that Bill Goichberg and perhaps some other members of the
board will try to prevent the Ethics Committee from obtaining that tape
or transcript, but I feel that you should insist on obtaining it due to
the circumstances of this case.
In compliance with the request of the Ethics Committee, I am not
responding to the other 11 counts which have already been dismissed,
although otherwise I would have a lot to say about them as well.
Dated: Bronx, New York
January 5, 2007
Respectfully
Submitted,
Sam Sloan
Sworn to before me this 5th
Day of January, 2007
_______________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
END STMT C QTN
politi...@gmail.com
>
> 2. Did Sam Sloan make Statement B below in USCF BINFO 200603590, dated
> September 26, 2006, and quoted in full (with email address redactions)
>
> 3. Did Sloan make Statement C [upthread] on January 5, 2007, as his full
> response to Count 13 of a USCF ethics complaint?
>
4. Do you find these three statements equally credible? Discuss.
5. Assume, in arguendo, that Polgar's Statement A is substantially true
and that Sloan's Statement B and Statement C were substantially untrue.
What conclusions would you reach about Sloan's character? About
Polgar's character?
6. Assume, in arguendo, that Polgar's Statement A is substantially
untrue and that Sloan's Statement B and Statement C were substantially
true. What conclusions would you reach about Sloan's character? About
Polgar's character?
7. Assume, in arguendo, that Polgar's Statement A, Sloan's Statement B,
and Sloan's Statement C are all substantially untrue. What conclusions
would you reach about Sloan's character? About Polgar's character?
politi...@gmail.com
Would be you be so kind as to explain why Bill Goichberg's motion gave
you "no real choice" but to reveal a "not entirely Platonic"
relationship with someone who was a minor at the time of the
relationship, given that the alleged relationship was two decades in
the past, and given that you had, by your own account, exercised
discretion in not disclosing said relationship for those two decades?
I have difficulty following the internal logic of your statement. Why
were you "effectively force[d] to reveal what really happened those
many years ago"?
9. For Sam Sloan:
Following up on 8: isn't it a general principle of common law that the
actions of a minor don't bind that minor after the age of majority?
(By your own account, she was escorted to the washroom--hardly an
emancipated minor.) Even if, in arguendo, one accepts all your
statements, why would any aspect of your private relationship with
Susan Polgar the minor be relevant to your public dealings with Susan
Polgar the adult?
Sam Sloan wrote:
<< I am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill [Goichberg],
politi...@gmail.com
Chess One
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169326977.9...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> politi...@gmail.com wrote:
> 4. Do you find these three statements equally credible? Discuss.
Discuss what with whom?
I have been discussing ethical factors relating to women and children in
chess for the past year.
Bill Brock has not been discussing that subject with anyone, he has been
scapegoating one person out of some confused presentation of his own motives
in a strange agit-prop campaign, seeming to want to write about a little
porn more than the person he accuses ;)
Mr. Brock has never said he agrees to any measure that is an objective one
for all people, and considering the strange-brew of his own past which he
has semi-hemi hinted and 'joked' about - its as if he wants to expunge that,
much more than attend to offenses to women and children.
As such, this is all about him.
Phil Innes
politi...@gmail.com
Polgar publicly accuses Sloan of being morally unfit to serve as a
fiduciary, and claims that Sloan had sexually propositioned her when
she was sixteen years old. In response, Sloan publicly claims (in two
separate statements, both in the course of USCF matters) that his
relationship with the teenaged Susan Polgar was "not entirely Platonic"
and that certain details of this relationship are "seamy."
Innes's response? "As such, this is all about [Bill Brock]."
I am amused.
Chess One
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169390994....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brock is now stung is more like it, and continues to personally obsess and
intrigue /only/ about Sloan. He still denies any personal connection and
mentions only one other person!
But Brock will not talk about what or how it should be about everybody - and
that he did nothing about setting any standard at USCF long before Sloan was
a board-member! He thus ignored a slew of offensive issues about yet other
individuals.
This is very curious! He avoids my proposal of what would actually have an
effect that would implicate everyone - including Sloan! - since... maybe he
wouldn't qualify himself? And if so, it would no longer be able to act as
prosecutor, judge and jury all-in-one.
What is additionally curious is that he does not ask 'Parr and Innes' to
comment on his own behavior - as if it did not exist. While Sloan's
juvenilia certainly is not likeable, exaggerating, inventing, and
speculating upon what is unproved is the same kiting of issues that he
accuses Sloan thereof.
When I wrote that women and children should be heard - and should suggest
their own remedies, I do not receive any responses. But I consider that the
most mature view and in fact, a necessary one. Not receiving responses does
not imply agreement or disagreement - but lack of support for any impersonal
standard does imply a lack of real care to what would immediately alleviate
the situation.
What you read here is not any remedy to empower women and parent of children
to have their own say. The reader will make up their own mind on the
orientation of any 'alternative' suggestions.
Phil Innes
politi...@gmail.com
Chess One
obsessed of S. Polgar! The only thing you perpetuate here is personality
obsession - you blithely exhibit the same behavior as the thing you resent.
You are also an insufficient person to address these issues to other
people - as if you really wanted to know my opinion ROFL! - but continuously
snip it, proving to everyone but yourself that this is all about you :))
Sam Sloan knows exactly what I think of his deportment about women as sex
objects. He is shy of meeting those points, which I absolutely made sure he
could fairly review by posting them in front on his nose in his own forum.
Why should I condemn Sloan as a villain, if, in my consideration, more
considerable villains exist? Especially less obvious and secret ones, who,
IMO, are more likely to act than people whose braggadocio is like 13 year
olds?
If you were at all genuinely concerned for women and children you would have
addressed my proposal to empower women and parents to conference and make
recommendations to whoever is interested in acting on them.
You have amply demonstrated that you are not such a person - and for this
reason! - neither should you audit other people's welfare.
Phil Innes
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169397170.7...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
politi...@gmail.com
Chess One wrote:
> William Brock, you are as obsessed by Sloan, as Sloan is so obviously
> obsessed of S. Polgar! The only thing you perpetuate here is personality
> obsession - you blithely exhibit the same behavior as the thing you resent.
[...]
>
> Phil Innes
And as for S. Polgar & her publicly-stated opinion of Sloan? Please
speak plainly.
:-)
<<In a message dated 1/5/2007 11:36:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
politi...@gmail.com writes:
Hello Susan
If you would be so kind as to consider a one-shot post on
rgcp...just affirming my quotation of your words.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/e1e7cfde0bb63cf9?hl=en&
Best regards, Bill
Susan Polgar replied:
You are free to post my answer.
Dear Bill,
Sorry but I do not visit rec.games. However, my opinion about Mr. Sloan
has not changed. In fact, it has become worse. Mr. Sloan is absolutely
unfit to serve on the USCF Executive Board. He is not capable of
telling the truth. He is not capable of being civil. He is not capable
of being professional. For every one good thing he did, the damages
that he caused is many many times larger.
This is precisely the reason why I chose to run for the board this
year. I vowed to restore the respectability, honesty, integrity and
credibility back to the USCF and US Chess. That is why I also asked
some of the most qualified and honorable people to run as well to help
the USCF. We, as a federation, can do better. We must do better.
The same old status quo is no longer acceptable. The same old
destructive politics must go.
Happy New Year and I am looking forward to a much better 2007 and
beyond for chess.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
Chess One
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169400851....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> William Brock, you are as obsessed by Sloan, as Sloan is so obviously
>> obsessed of S. Polgar! The only thing you perpetuate here is personality
>> obsession - you blithely exhibit the same behavior as the thing you
>> resent.
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> And as for S. Polgar & her publicly-stated opinion of Sloan? Please
> speak plainly.
>
> :-)
Presumably you admit by your snip that you are the same - and therefore her
comments would apply to you too equally. Thank you for noticing my point and
demonstrating the difference between obsessions and cares.
Now - I am writing with people who are actually interested, and who intend
to do something about it, beyond raising examples of what they personally
don't like and ignoring the rest, as if they could get beyond that to
actually attend to other people's needs.
Phil Innes
politi...@gmail.com
statement Innes makes about Brock is true.
Susan Polgar writes that "Mr. Sloan is absolutely unfit to serve on the
USCF Executive Board." I believe that is not an unfair
characterization of Innes's *current* position, though not Parr's, and
though Innes might not go so far as to say "*absolutely* unfit."
Does Innes agree with Polgar that Sloan "is not capable of telling the
truth"?
That Sloan "is not capable of being civil"?
That Sloan "is not capable of being professional"?
Or, alternatively, when Polgar writes, "This [misconduct of Sloan] is
precisely the reason why I chose to run for the board this year," would
Innes ascribe Polgar's Sloan obsession to Brock?
Or when Joel Channing said in exasperation of Sloan on 1/16/07, "you
are good for nothing but demolition," would Innes ascribe Channing's
Sloan obsession to Brock?
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1895&highlight=sloan
(valid USCF login requred)
Just askin'....
Chess Freak
and will do nothing to upset his relationship with The Snake.
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169400851....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Chess One
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169404073.0...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
No you are not. You are just smearin'. You are unable to address any
standards at all without obsessing over someone. You have a pretense of
interest, and you can't affirm or even repeat what the challenge is. Pfft!
Phil Innes
Mahoney
Who's Mr. Sloan? Is he really a nut? Is he really as vile as what
people said?
Best,
Brian
politi...@gmail.com
> [...] Pfft!
>
> Phil Innes
This is progress....
Louis Blair
7 Who's Mr. Sloan? Is he really a nut? Is he really as vile as
7 what people said?
_
One way to get a view of what Sam Sloan is like is to look at
the Wikipedia experience:
_
"it is easy to veryify that there is auch a blacklist. ..."
- Sam Sloan (19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
_
"If Sam Sloan is basing his contribution of a blacklist
based on conversations (newsgroup or otherwise),
emails, or his own suspicions that such a blacklist
exists, that is by definition original research and is not
allowed. However, if he were to cite reliable sources
that declare its existence, then its mention may be
included. This is non-negotiable. If Sam Sloan
continues his attempts to include this in the article
against the consensus formed by other editors on this
page, I will reluctantly have to impose a block."
- Howard Cheng (06:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC))
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chess_Life
_
_
"I do object when [Ralf Callenberg], JoanneB
and Janeth, none of whom know anything
about chess, try to delete the entire article."
- Sam Sloan (16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
_
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch
(The result of the debate was delete. - Howard Cheng
20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC))
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch
_
_
"I am having a dispute with [Howard Cheng]
and I request the Arbitration Committee to
resolve it." - Sam Sloan
_
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
Sam Sloan against [Howard Cheng] regarding Tom Dorsch
(soundly rejected - Dmcdevit 06:23, 11 February 2006)
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=39171201#User:Sam_Sloan_against_User:Howcheng_regarding_Tom_Dorsch
_
_
"The act by [Howard Cheng] to delete my Tom
Dorsch article was clearly wrong. ... I need
an order of protection telling [Howard Cheng]
to stay from my articles until he learns
something about chess." - Sam Sloan
(03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Tom Dorsch
(deletion endorsed - Splash 23:53, 10 March 2006)
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=43215421#Tom_Dorsch
_
_
"[Paul Rubin] has a history of vandalizing
almost every article I write." - Sam Sloan
(05:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC))
_
"his request for a 'cease and desist' order
is outside the scope of mediation." - Paul
Rubin (23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC))
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&oldid=44627462#User:Phr_against_User:Sam_Sloan
_
_
"[Ralf Callenberg] is clearly unwilling to
abide by the rules of Wikipedia and
therefore I am asking that if he continues
he be blocked." - Sam Sloan (04:11, 19
March 2006 (UTC))
_
"This doesn't appear to be a request for
mediation" - Ralf Callenberg (20:24,
19 March 2006 (UTC))
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&oldid=44627462#User:Rook_wave_against_User:Sam_Sloan
_
_
"the arbitration committee should consider
this dispute [with Paul Rubin]." - Sam Sloan
(10:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
[Sam Sloan vs. Paul Rubin]
(rejected - Sam Korn 11:11, 25 March 2006)
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=45398933#User:Phr_vs._User:Sam_Sloan
_
_
"[Ralf Callenberg] ... should not be allowed
to delete or modify my postings." - Sam
Sloan (01:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
[Sam Sloan vs. Ralf Callenberg]
(rejected - Sam Korn 11:11, 25 March 2006)
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=45398933#User:Rook_wave_vs._User:Sam_Sloan
_
_
"I am requesting that, if possible and
legally allowed, your chess federation
bring a proceeding to censure or
reprimand or otherwise punish Herr
Callenberg." - Sam Sloan
(sl...@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host:
68.199.110.255, Fri, 07 Apr 2006
14:54:46 GMT)
_
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/243babc58231400b?hl=en
_
_
"... Because of these lies by Louis Blair and [Guy Chapman] about five
good articles have been deleted from Wikipedia and even 'salted the
earth'. ..." - Sam Sloan (12:52, 1 August 2006)
_
"Reject." - Dmcdevit (18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
"Reject." - Fred Bauder (17:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC))
"Reject." - SimonP (14:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC))
"Closed. This isn't going anywhere." - Tony Sidaway
(21:53, 9 August 2006)
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan
parrt...@cs.com
<The relevance of Miss Hayek to the issue of whether there is proof
that Sam Sloan has molested children remains unexplained.> -- Larry
Parr
<Brock cannot ask a logical question because he utterly lacks logic.
The
only thing he can do is breaking the netiquette with his flooding
moronic
posts here so for reasonable users it is advisable to killfile him.> --
Jerzy
Based on the who's on first and second
commentary passing between Mr. 2300+ Elo and
Bill Brock, I appear to have been right in my guess
about the Hayek woman. She appears in seamy, steamy
stuff that some might call semi-porn or soft-porn or
what not. She received an Academy Award nomination,
says Mr. Brock.
Our NMnot and Mr. Brock are talking about the
current popcult. I know very nearly literally nothing
about the subject. Our NMnot calls such uninterest,
ignorance. On the other hand, if he wishes, we can
still have a detailed discussion of less weighty
issues than Miss Hayek -- you know, anything from
Juvenal to, say, Boris Souvarine's bio of Stalin. Or
entries Soviet in the first edition of The Oxford
Companion to Chess which he still won't discuss.
Oh, yes, our NMnot would be unfamiliar with the
career of Souvarine and the reason why that bio is
still in print, though published in 1938, fifteen
years before Stalin's death.
We still have not learned how Miss Hayek's
career impacts the failure of Mr. Brock to present
proof that Sam Sloan is a child molester.
politi...@gmail.com
2. Did Sam Sloan make Statement B below in USCF BINFO 200603590, dated
September 26, 2006, and quoted in full (with email address redactions)
below?
3. Did Sloan make Statement C below on January 5, 2007, as his full
response to Count 13 of a USCF ethics complaint?
*******
STATEMENT A
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006/07/you-can-protect-uscf.html#115...
SusanPolgar said...
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgarFoundation.org
www.SusanPolgar.com
*******
STATEMENT B
BEGIN STMT B QTN
BINFO 200603590
Date 2006-09-25
>From samsloan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
END STMT B QTN
*******
STATEMENT C
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/f14305698...
BEGIN STMT C QTN
Here are my responses:
were not able to get a visa, which was that they feared that he would
overstay.
When the US Embassy was finally convinced that Mr. Polgar really was a
politi...@gmail.com
> 1. Did Susan Polgar make Statement A, dated July 27, 2006, and quoted
> 2. Did Sam Sloan make Statement B below in USCF BINFO 200603590, dated
> September 26, 2006, and quoted in full (with email address redactions)
> [upthread]?
> 3. Did Sloan make Statement C [upthread] on January 5, 2007, as his full
> response to Count 13 of a USCF ethics complaint?
4. Do you find these three statements equally credible? Discuss.
5. Assume, in arguendo, that Polgar's Statement A is substantially true
politi...@gmail.com
Would be you be so kind as to explain why Bill Goichberg's motion gave
you "no real choice" but to reveal a "not entirely Platonic"
relationship with someone who was a minor at the time of the
relationship, given that the alleged relationship was two decades in
the past, and given that you had, by your own account, exercised
discretion in not disclosing said relationship for those two decades?
I have difficulty following the internal logic of your statement. Why
were you "effectively force[d] to reveal what really happened those
many years ago"?
9. For Sam Sloan:
Following up on 8: isn't it a general principle of common law that the
actions of a minor don't bind that minor after the age of majority?
(By your own account, she was escorted to the washroom--hardly an
emancipated minor.) Even if, in arguendo, one accepts all your
statements, why would any aspect of your private relationship with
Susan Polgar the minor be relevant to your public dealings with Susan
Polgar the adult?
Sam Sloan wrote:
<< I am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill [Goichberg],
politi...@gmail.com
rexar...@yahoo.com
"I have just been elected to the Executive Board of the United States
Chess Federation and you can expect to receive a strongly worded letter
soon if this miscxonduct is not corrected. Sam Sloan 09:02, 1 August
2006 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#Vandalizm_and_Lies_by_You
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1169434134.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> WHO'S ON FIRST?
> We still have not learned how Miss Hayek's
> career impacts the failure of Mr. Brock to present
> proof that Sam Sloan is a child molester.
OTOH, by e-mail several people are now writing - including some female
lurkers here and correspondents from another chess newsgroup - writers who
can distinguish between two subjects of the need for general public
standards of decency and the more limited get-Sloan campaign, which is
'sophisticated'.
As might be expected, their own terms of references are somewhat wider in
scope. Additionally, there is some serious journalistic interest, plus a
study in India where varieties of sexism appear to be going just as strong
as it is presented here in the USA on TV:)
I would say that there is an acceptance of women choosing to describe their
own situations, and also describing their own remedies. This is nothing
novel these days, as one writer notes, together with the comment that there
is a concomitant aversion/avoidance actually and positively permitting them
to do so! Instead there are nervous jokes and a pretended nonchalance.
What does seem clear from [too small a sample from current writing, but from
impressions over time] is that women themselves have several opinions on how
others should represent them, and how they should represent themselves.
These are points along a spectrum than oppositions, and degrees of opinion -
also modulated IMO when women are mothers.
Though Brock's feminine champion Mz. Hayek, has not yet appeared on anyone's
radar than his and Tinker Taylor's - quite possibly the lady represents an
eccentric representation of women's self expression, and our own
Brock-in-shining-armor might consider listening to more central opinion?
While scanning the list of other famous people currently situated at
Montparnasse I noticed Simone de Beauvoire [whose first translator to
English, BTW, was Patrick O'Brian] and whose comments cannot seem at all
risible or threatening these days, although this is not quite to say that
they are observed either - and S de B 'merely' represented that women are
capable and prepared to speak their own words, thank you!
Why such a subject cannot be endorsed by men is of course something to do
with our misperception of their own abilities to protect themselves,
combined with a little fear that in abandoning our volunteered role, we give
up some means of control, and must find a new armor-less basis in order to
relate anew.
I would say that the paragraph above is one that women themselves would
acknowledge as being often the awkward state-of-the-art for inter-gender
communication.
No one, that is, no women, can really think why chess playing activity in
Eastern Europe and in China //should be// at about 45% of the population,
and why here in the USA it is 7%.
It is interesting to note that these US figures are for adults, not younger
players. It is apparently not interesting to anyone other than women
themselves to ask why this is so. Mz. Hayek and Sam Sloan do not appear to
be any singular cause of this long-term differential - and I suppose banning
both will make some people feel wonderful for a month, or even three! And of
course, solve nothing at all, not even increasing participation rates a
tenth of one percent.
Which is not to say that we should put either of them into the driving
seat - not at all, but why do we look to solutions before knowing what there
is to solve?
Real solutions require listening to real problems without interpolations or
interpretations. Thank you those who wrote - if indeed a conference can be
organized, then a proto-agenda is begun.
Phil Innes
politi...@gmail.com
decided not to examine it.
The links below were active as of May 5, 2006; they may still be
accessed via the archive.org Wayback Machine
In case Parr and Innes are actually as dense as they are pretending to
be, the point of the tongue-in-cheek reference to the lovely Ms. Hayek
(who doubtless could do better than me :-) ) was to gently suggest that
there was nothing Bill Goichberg could say that could *compel* Sloan to
disclose a previous sexual relationship with a minor. But that's what
Sloan did in the infamous BINFO.
Here's the strongest case that can be made against me, which Parr and
Innes have failed to make. When Sloan claims that the Burmese
prostitute was of junior high school age, I believe him. When Sloan
claims to have had a sexual relationship with the teenaged Susan
Polgar, I don't believe him. This suggests a certain inconsistency on
my part.
I think Parr and Innes should begin their vigorous defense of Sloan by
attacking me on that point.
****************
****************
http://www.archive.org/index.php can be used to access dead links cited
below
**begin citation**
Larry Parr wrote:
<<The latest charge is that the girl in question, whose age is unknown,
is the same girl as another girl with whom Sam claims to have had sex.
We have no proof they are the same, and we do not know their age. >>
Right click on the fifth picture, top row, in
http://www.ishipress.com/girlsgot.htm : you'll find that the file name
is burmese2.jpg (at http://www.ishipress.com/burmese2.htm )
Right click on the picture in http://www.samsloan.com/burmese2.htm:
you'll find that the file name is burmese2.jpg (at
http://www.samsloan.com/burmese2.jpg )
Same photo, same file name.
Does Larry Parr still contend that "[w]e have no proof they are the
same [girl]"?
**end citation**
Chess One
more than anyone else - the greatest expositor of it? You be the judge.
I said enough already about motivational behaviors, and disassociated
complexes: (Of course, if you have this condition you can't readily let go
of wanting to control the issue, since every person's motive is to integrate
themselves, and this appears to you to be an easy way of doing that - expel
it by projection onto another - in the C16th you could even purchase such a
service!)
This, however, is not the same as resolving any issue, which means allowing
women to speak for themselves - on their own behalf, and on the behest of
children. <-- This is the scrupulously avoided subject matter here.
Phil Innes
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169480962.6...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Louis Blair
7 I think you forgot one.
7
7 "I have just been elected to the Executive Board of the United
7 States Chess Federation and you can expect to receive a
7 strongly worded letter soon if this miscxonduct is not corrected.
7 Sam Sloan 09:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)"
7
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#Vandalizm_and_Lies_by_You
_
That would also seem to be a good one to consider, but I think
the link is out-of-date. Here is my attempte to provide an
up-to-date link:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=67030083#Vandalizm_and_Lies_by_You
politi...@gmail.com
> When are you going to give up? Obviously Innes is in bed with Sloan
> and will do nothing to upset his relationship with The Snake.
Be fair to Innes. Parr still thinks very highly of Sloan and tolerates
if not endorses his conduct past and present, while Innes has recently
vociferously objected to Sloan's conduct.
Phil Innes wrote:
<<Your [i.e., Sloan's] own concentration on S. Polgar since the
election cannot be sep[a]rated
from her rejection of you as someone fit to talk about women's chess in
the
C21st, since it seems to me you cannot differentiate your opinions from
that
of women-as-sex-objects as they seem to you. You even fail to
understand
that this is resented! >>
On this count, I agree with Innes. Really...
<< During the election process I supported your application against
false
charges on all sorts of grounds, and if people wished to elect a
libertine
then they should do so; all charges against you being expressed as
personal
preferences not as any matter of legally upheld speeech in the United
States. I even wrote USCF about exhibiting a standard by which board
members
and committee chiefs could be asked to observe, and wrote long before
the
elction - a neglected opportunity for those who do not like you! -
though I
had other individuals in mind at the time, and in terms of sexual
affront,
made specific complaints - btw, never even acknowledged!. >>
Usual stipulations WRT Innes's opinion of yours truly--let's assume I'm
evil, too, of the argument.
Sloan's narratives of his sexual adventures with children go beyond
mere libertinism, however.
Children are legally incapable of giving consent. Not shouting, but
emphasizing: CHILDREN ARE LEGALLY INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT. To have
sex with a child not of the age of consent is to molest a child. To
give the appropriate currency to the child's business agent does not
change this. Would Parr or Innes care to dispute this point?
Of course, not all minors are children: I grant that the age of consent
is almost always lower than the age of majority. However, many
jurisdictions apply harsh penalties to those who have relations with
minor prosititutes well above the age of consent. And there is the
question of fiduciary duty. Would anyone care to disagree that an
adult who has had sexual relations with a minor well above the age of
consent may not be a fit fiduciary for a membership organization,
especially when the majority of that organization's members are minors?
WRT Sloan's sexual adventures with minors: in addition to all the
evidence previously cited, and previously distorted by Innes and Parr
(or ignored by them when the evidence was too overwhelming to distort),
now comes Susan Polgar, who recently claimed that Sloan had sexually
propositioned her at age 16.
Either Sloan is lying, or Sloan is telling the truth.
If Sloan is telling the truth, his conduct is despicable not only for
the reason stated by Innes--that he cannot conceive of women as
anything more than sex objects--but also because he, in his early 40s,
saw a minor girl *for whom he claimed, and still claims, to have been
acting as a fiduciary at that time* as a sexual object.
If Sloan is lying...I'll let others decide that case.
politi...@gmail.com
> Is the person who pretends to be appalled by porn, but who, it seems, knows
> more than anyone else - the greatest expositor of it? You be the judge.
And the person whose websites contain the "porn" links to which Innes
refers is in fact the fiercest enemy of child sexual exploitation?
Heh.
Check out the following passage from a book co-authored by Sam Sloan
and convicted child molester Jefferson Poland
http://www.sterneck.net/cybertribe/sex/sexual-freedom-league/index.php
<< 1. He/she goes naked most of the time, except when there is some
positive reason (not shame or modesty or fear) to dress up. "Clothes
are bandages for sick bodies", says Tuli Kupferberg. I believe nudism
is fundamental and necessary prerequisite for sexual freedom. Clothes
commonly build barriers of sexual fear and hostility. We learn
"Don't look" when we are still too young to comprehend "Don't
fuck". Each adult needs to spend several years living in a nude
society, in order to overcome the bad effects of our shame-filled
childhoods. And our children should be completely spared the morbid
sickness of hiding their beautiful bodies like some sort of carrion
deemed too foul for the light of day .>>
The problem is not advocacy of naturism, but the advocacy of naturism
*for children in the context of a manifesto for sexual freedom*.
Here's what Jefferson Poland did with that freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Poland
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Clitlick.html
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Clitlick2.html
politi...@gmail.com
Please be sure to click on the tabs "Offenses" and "Known Aliases."
Larry Parr will now tell the State of California to lighten up....
politi...@gmail.com
> Usual stipulations WRT Innes's opinion of yours truly--let's assume I'm
> evil, too, of the argument.
s/b "...evil, too, for the sake of the argument"
alternatively: "...evil, too, with the argument" ;-)
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul, producing holy witness,
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"
--some antisemitic shmuck
politi...@gmail.com
politi...@gmail.com
> Uh, Larry?
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/01/af4c_leaves_us_ch.htm
<< Peace...
The fact that Sam Sloan is a pariah and quite unfit to hold any
respectable office should be public knowledge by now, but it
unfortunately was not when people were voting for the USCF board. Not
many in the NYC chess community have forgotten his very public pining
for a then-12 year old girl, and such a circumstance is not an isolated
incident in the life of Sam Sloan. Many a parent have I heard at the
Marshall Chess Club tell their daughters to steer clear of that man,
and yet, he sits on the board of the national federation today. When a
slanderous, libelous pedophile is the best a national federation of any
sort can do, it is clear enough that the end times for said federation
are upon us unless it can reverse course swiftly and decisively.
Hotep,
Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at January 22, 2007 09:59 >>
politi...@gmail.com
chop chop.
politi...@gmail.com
On Jan 20, 3:42 am, "politikalh...@gmail.com"
<politikalh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Day 553
>
> politikalh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Day 551 and counting...kid-friendly porn courtesy of Sam Sloan, who is
> > endorsed by Star Trek Boy and Larry Parr!
>
> > ***
>
> > But before Parr visits Sloan's site, he first visits the official
> > Pokémon website (Crass & cheesy? Yup! Kid-safe? You bet! Passé?
> > Probably....)
>
> >http://www.pokemon.com/flash.htm
>
> > ...and the Wikipedia page.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokemon
>
> > Having learned all he knows about Pokémon from Sam Sloan's websites,
> > Parr naturally thought, circa June 2005, that Pokémon was some sort of
> > soft porn cartoon. Hilarious--kindly let me know how much pornography
> > you find onpokemon.com, Larry baby! (Or anyone else, for that matter:
> > post [nonexistent] salacious links below....)
>
> > To find Pokémon porn mixed with kid-friendly links, one needs to visit
> > Sam Sloan's website....
>
> >http://www.samsloan.com/pokeplot.htm
>
> > (How old is Misty, Larry baby? The answer is on the page)
>
> >http://www.shamema.com/pokepoll.htm
>
> > (What thought experiment involves Misty, Larry baby?)
>
> > Does the ephebophile Sloan seem to be fixated on sexualizing the barely
> > pubescent (here, admittedly, barely pubescent cartoon characters, but
> > he's reported his adventures with barely pubescent humans elsewhere)?
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/78g8t
>
> > (you'll find three pages linked from this message)
politi...@gmail.com
On Jan 23, 8:08 pm, "politikalh...@gmail.com"
parrt...@cs.com
>Discussion subject changed to "Larry Parr on Sloan's 2006
claims to have had a "not entirely Platonic" relationship with the
teenaged Susan Polgar" by politi...@gmail.com> -- Bill Brock
The subject is whether Bill Brock has the
long-promised proof that Sam Sloan is a child
molester. Thus far, no proof.
Instead, afflicted Bill has extended his
obsessions to other areas of what he imagines Sam
Sloan's sex life to be. We are supposed to know what
the phrase, "not entirely Platonic," entails. We do not
We know not a jot about the relationship between
Sam and GM Susan Polgar 20 years ago and we care
not even a bot.
We continue to wait for our William to prove his
assertion - his expertise is trial by assertion --
that Sam molested a child.
By now, quite a few of you have concluded that
Bill needs his life onthis forum, and we are reaching the
point of concurrence. His speculations about Sam's
supposed peculations and his dreams, fears and hopes
about what Sam does or does not do with the fair sex
-- against a backdrop of what a couple of you have
said is Bill's knowledge of porn history -- suggest
that Sam's vanquished chess opponent is treating this
forum as an exhibitionist might treat an open, uncurtained,
panoramic view window with nothing to say about CHESS.
Yours, Larry Parr
Chess One wrote:
> <politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169390994....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Chess One wrote:
> >> <politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1169326977.9...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >> > politi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > 4. Do you find these three statements equally credible? Discuss.
> >>
> >> Discuss what with whom?
> >>
> >> I have been discussing ethical factors relating to women and children in
> >> chess for the past year.
> >>
> >> Bill Brock has not been discussing that subject with anyone, he has been
> >> scapegoating one person out of some confused presentation of his own
> >> motives
> >> in a strange agit-prop campaign, seeming to want to write about a little
> >> porn more than the person he accuses ;)
> >>
> >> Mr. Brock has never said he agrees to any measure that is an objective
> >>
> >> for all people, and considering the strange-brew of his own past which he
> >> has semi-hemi hinted and 'joked' about - its as if he wants to expunge
> >> that,
> >> much more than attend to offenses to women and children.
> >>
> >> As such, this is all about him.
> >>
> >> Phil Innes
> >
> > Polgar publicly accuses Sloan of being morally unfit to serve as a
> > fiduciary, and claims that Sloan had sexually propositioned her when
> > she was sixteen years old. In response, Sloan publicly claims (in two
> > separate statements, both in the course of USCF matters) that his
> > relationship with the teenaged Susan Polgar was "not entirely Platonic"
> > and that certain details of this relationship are "seamy."
> >
> > Innes's response? "As such, this is all about [Bill Brock]."
> >
> > I am amused.
>
> Brock is now stung is more like it, and continues to personally obsess and
> intrigue /only/ about Sloan. He still denies any personal connection and
> mentions only one other person!
>
> But Brock will not talk about what or how it should be about everybody - and
> that he did nothing about setting any standard at USCF long before Sloan was
> a board-member! He thus ignored a slew of offensive issues about yet other
> individuals.
>
> This is very curious! He avoids my proposal of what would actually have an
> effect that would implicate everyone - including Sloan! - since... maybe he
> wouldn't qualify himself? And if so, it would no longer be able to act as
> prosecutor, judge and jury all-in-one.
>
> What is additionally curious is that he does not ask 'Parr and Innes' to
> comment on his own behavior - as if it did not exist. While Sloan's
> juvenilia certainly is not likeable, exaggerating, inventing, and
> speculating upon what is unproved is the same kiting of issues that he
> accuses Sloan thereof.
>
> When I wrote that women and children should be heard - and should suggest
> their own remedies, I do not receive any responses. But I consider that the
> most mature view and in fact, a necessary one. Not receiving responses does
> not imply agreement or disagreement - but lack of support for any impersonal
> standard does imply a lack of real care to what would immediately alleviate
> the situation.
>
> What you read here is not any remedy to empower women and parent of children
> to have their own say. The reader will make up their own mind on the
> orientation of any 'alternative' suggestions.
>
> Phil Innes
politi...@gmail.com
game of chess, go elsewhere.
politi...@gmail.com
Sloan, at a time when Sloan represents that he had a fiduciary
relationship with Polgar.
No matter what happened, this much is substantiated by both parties'
accounts.