Susan Polgar Porn Video
samsloan
existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar.
I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know
that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail
her, if necessary.
It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know
about it.
I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn
videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do.
However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal
complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing.
Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that
female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.
The Historian
Almost everybody is making porn
> videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do.
OK, time to fess up. How many posters here have made porn videos? One?
mooseb...@hotmail.com
I can't *believe* that! Shocking!! By the way, who the hell is Susan
Polgar?
zdrakec
I'd call you an asshole, but the term really is woefully inadequate.
billbr...@gmail.com
> existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar.
>
> I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know
> that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail
> her, if necessary.
>
> It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know
> about it.
>
> I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn
> videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do.
>
> However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal
> complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing.
> female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity#One_who_comes_into_equity_must_come_with_clean_hands
billbr...@gmail.com
along the lines of "3-9!"
billbr...@gmail.com
I did not look at the table prior to posting (honestly!): lucky me.
billbr...@gmail.com
Chess One
while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, for
their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to god
they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your own
dirty little obsession utterly?
phil innes
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195048592.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Taylor Kingston
>
> what a slut you are sloan!
>
> while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, for
> their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to god
> they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your own
> dirty little obsession utterly?
>
> phil innes
For once I must say that I heartily agree with Phil Innes. Very
heartily. This is definitely one of the more disgusting things Sloan
has ever posted, and that's saying something.
> "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1195048592.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the
> > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar.
>
> > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know
> > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail
> > her, if necessary.
>
> > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know
> > about it.
>
> > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn
> > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do.
>
> > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal
> > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing.
> > Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that
> > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Historian
> On Nov 14, 4:59 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > what a slut you are sloan!
>
> > while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, for
> > their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to god
> > they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your own
> > dirty little obsession utterly?
>
> > phil innes
>
> For once I must say that I heartily agree with Phil Innes. Very
> heartily. This is definitely one of the more disgusting things Sloan
> has ever posted, and that's saying something.
I agree with Mr. Kingston and Mr. Innes.
billbr...@gmail.com
Should one apply the same standards to Mr. Innes that Mr. Innes once
sought to apply to me?
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/freud/ex/137.html
One thinks not...it is better to emphasize the matters we agree upon.
And I agree with the statements of Messrs. Innes and Kingston
upthread.
***
David Quinn ("artichoke") and Larry Parr will be posting to this
thread shortly.
Chess One
"zdrakec" <zdr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195063435.5...@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Yes, yet other assholes support his stuff: Voted this asshole into office,
and despite the nothingness of his reign, continue to have no doubts
whatever, except very 'clever' ones based on the duplicity of other
people...
maybe they all are ... you know ;)
i can tell you that women players detest dudes like this - especially smart
asses like Sloan who try to 'promote' them - and they are wary of all such
people who use prominent women to gain their own attachment to celebrity
they say 'pimps', and far far worse!
4% of adult females over the age of 24 play chess in the usa - in ukraine it
is 45%
this is not 'chance', it is us chess culture
sorry, brother, to respond with such a 'heavy' answer, but I LIKE women, i
like them for themselves and am not afraid !
ha! and heuch!
phil innes
SBD
> I agree with Mr. Kingston and Mr. Innes.
It would be difficult for any reasonable person to do anything else in
this case. Sad state of affairs.
billbr...@gmail.com
Why are Sloan's allies silent?
One need not stint in one's critique of USCF misdeeds & mismanagement
past & present, or of criticism of Polgar, Truong, Goichberg, Hall,
Channing . . . even down to bit players such as yours truly (mix and
match to your taste).
But in the present matter: ratify Sloan's words. Or distance yourself
from them.
billbr...@gmail.com
As Mr. Innes wrote upthread:
"while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking
horse, for
their purposes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to
god
they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives
your own
dirty little obsession utterly?"
Surely to God, indeed.
We'll find out shortly.
Richard
I agree with everybody........especially my wife.
J.D. Walker
> I agree with everybody........especially my wife.
I will second that!
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti
billbr...@gmail.com
Day 1.
The Historian
> http://tinyurl.com/ypj89r
>
> Should one apply the same standards to Mr. Innes that Mr. Innes once
> sought to apply to me?
Yes. If only to watch him attempt to wiggle out of them.
billbr...@gmail.com
I'd rather move on.
artichoke
Sorry Bill to keep you waiting but I don't follow rgcp 24/7.
As requested, I have now posted in this thread.
billbr...@gmail.com
Thank you for taking a stand consistent with your principles.
marcusw...@hughes.net
> "zdrakec" <zdra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
phil
So the husband of Susan Polgar threatens to kill me, and you think it
is digusting that Sloan
finds out about a prono (if it exists) starring Susan Polgar?
Welcome to planet earth! We all eat, shit, drink water, and fuck.
(Well most chess players masterbate, and their lies interesting nature
of this porn.) We are human. Sometimes, we have intelligent
discussions. However, today, we are going to talk about fucking! I
feel the urge!
Mr. Innes, that prono, if it exists, is rightful discussion of a
public figure.
You remember that - if you claim to be a journalist. The truth, Phil,
will set you free.
You don't care who Paul makes death threats to, you want to defend S
Polgar
to the end. I can't agree with you here.
I would suggest that blackmail is a federal crime, and if a porn
exists, there are no
death threats that S. Polgar gets, they are BLACKMAIL THREATS.
I am sorry for this talk of fucking. However, every now and then, you
just got to do it!
Marcus Roberts
The Historian
You'd rather play politics is more like it.
Alex Herrera
porn. It's foreplay in a box.
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
realize that posts such as this hurt his reputation more than all the
fake Sam Sloan posts altogether.
Jerry Spinrad
On Nov 14, 7:53 pm, billbrock1...@gmail.com wrote:
Rob
>
> - Show quoted text -
WHen will the USCF just revoke his membership and ban him for life?
SBD
> Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't
> porn. It's foreplay in a box.
Is that what it is? I don't want to stir the pot any further, but if
it is one of those videos made by boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife
etc then it is particularly heinous for Sloan to go this route - he
makes out like it is a commercial video. Sad fellow.
Chess One
"SBD" <DrD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:819574c2-664c-443a...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective
silence, Step, un, Stev - I keep forgetting!
les affairs font les hommes, non?
But not, to radically and wildly change the subject, to mutter more about
our own dispute, and its resolution. Your credit more than mine, and then
what came of it - including engaging that interesting Belgian fellow - the
same one who has supported 3 Nobel candidates, [did he tell you about that?
he is modest] Anyway, he is going to cover Wijk aan Zee for us this year,
armed with Fritz and a camera.
As I said, not, those things.
So what now? If, a favorite net word, if you could celebrate an interesting
topic here in these public newsgroups, that is better informed this way than
by other means, what would it be? <fear not! this is not 20 questions>
I of course refer to new brooms, which in my execrable German, is neue Besen
kehren gut, or is that something about the new year only? ie, is it an
everyday trope or an occasion piece?
How to finish this note? Why do we come here? <the 3rd question, and my
quota is 3.5, so i ask it of myself> Which as ani ful no, 'come here' is
"idhar ao" in Hindu, though Kipling had a bash at Anglicizing it with
"hitherao", which didn't stick nearly so much as bungaloo!
Pretty bad post, no? ;)
Cordially, Phil Innes
I took the liberty of keeping my bad post to us chess fools, since otherwise
the fools in alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.chess would think themselves
superior ;(
J.D. Walker
> "SBD" <DrD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:819574c2-664c-443a...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 15, 6:55 am, Alex Herrera <alex.herr...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't
>>> porn. It's foreplay in a box.
>> Is that what it is? I don't want to stir the pot any further, but if
>> it is one of those videos made by boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife
>> etc then it is particularly heinous for Sloan to go this route - he
>> makes out like it is a commercial video. Sad fellow.
>
> Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective
> silence, Step, un, Stev - I keep forgetting!
>
*<SNIP THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE>*
> Pretty bad post, no? ;)
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
>
> I took the liberty of keeping my bad post to us chess fools, since otherwise
> the fools in alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.chess would think themselves
> superior ;(
>
Dear Mr. Innes,
I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however,
the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again
change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup
audience that you initiated. Why change the header?
Let us assume, for the sake of escape, that somewhere along the twisty
channels of rumor that Mr. Sloan has frequented that typographical error
reared its ugly head and managed to mislead poor Sloan. This was
suggested to me by the post from Mr. Roberts referring to something
called "prono." Dyslexia, typos -- who knows -- perhaps the proper
subject should be: self promotion.
If Sam had claimed that Mr. Truong had made a Susan Polgar "Promo"
video, no one would have paid attention. It would be too believable to
question. Well what about this self-promotion subject?
The Truong's have been very successful within the world chess community
of raising the profile of the "Susan Polgar" product very high indeed.
Yet beyond the circle of chess friends she is not well known at all.
Note the response to Sam's post in alt.gossip.celebrities, paraphrasing:
"Susan Polgar? Who is that?"
I suggest that the Polgar publicity machine continues to persistently
maneuver towards wider and wider name recognition of the "Polgar"
product. Perhaps one day she will be mentioned in the same breath as
celebrities like Britney Speares and and Paris Hilton. If that day
arrives, what then?
Do the Truong's realize that with that level of stardom that they will
face the paparazzi, the Hollywood sleaze media, and a throng of groupies
that will make them constantly miserable? I already can imagine
articles appearing in the National Enquirer advising her to seek counsel
from Joan Rivers on where to find the best practitioner of plastic
surgery. After all, she will then be in a world where female peers are
expected to get boob jobs, face lifts, and periodic Botox treatments to
prolong their shelf-life.
billbr...@gmail.com
Any harm suffered by the specific comments referenced was suffered by
me alone. I thought it was sufficient to note the irony (a second
time; I'd noted it once before) and move on.
Dealing with other people is indeed a political process:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/fashion/25love.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
billbr...@gmail.com
> WHen will the USCF just revoke his membership and ban him for life?
As Sloan himself notes, USCF has hundreds of convicted felons as
members.
billbr...@gmail.com
Chess One
"J.D. Walker" <j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IemdnbqkAb1gE6Ha...@comcast.com...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "SBD" <DrD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:819574c2-664c-443a...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Nov 15, 6:55 am, Alex Herrera <alex.herr...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't
>>>> porn. It's foreplay in a box.
>>> Is that what it is? I don't want to stir the pot any further, but if
>>> it is one of those videos made by boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife
>>> etc then it is particularly heinous for Sloan to go this route - he
>>> makes out like it is a commercial video. Sad fellow.
>>
>> Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective
>> silence, Step, un, Stev - I keep forgetting!
>>
>
> *<SNIP THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE>*
>
>> Pretty bad post, no? ;)
>>
>> Cordially, Phil Innes
>>
>> I took the liberty of keeping my bad post to us chess fools, since
>> otherwise the fools in alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.chess would think
>> themselves superior ;(
>>
>
> Dear Mr. Innes,
>
> I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however,
'not the best?' how about atrocious?
> the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again
> change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup
> audience that you initiated. Why change the header?
lets make it about you then ;)
> Let us assume, for the sake of escape, that somewhere along the twisty
> channels of rumor that Mr. Sloan has frequented that typographical error
Let us not assume anything whatever. If you wish to assume such, say so!
> reared its ugly head and managed to mislead poor Sloan. This was
> suggested to me by the post from Mr. Roberts referring to something called
> "prono." Dyslexia, typos -- who knows -- perhaps the proper subject
> should be: self promotion.
>
> If Sam had claimed that Mr. Truong had made a Susan Polgar "Promo" video,
> no one would have paid attention. It would be too believable to question.
> Well what about this self-promotion subject?
>
> The Truong's have been very successful within the world chess community of
> raising the profile of the "Susan Polgar" product very high indeed. Yet
> beyond the circle of chess friends she is not well known at all.
:))
> Note the response to Sam's post in alt.gossip.celebrities, paraphrasing:
> "Susan Polgar? Who is that?"
:))
> I suggest that the Polgar publicity machine continues to persistently
> maneuver towards wider and wider name recognition of the "Polgar" product.
> Perhaps one day she will be mentioned in the same breath as celebrities
> like Britney Speares and and Paris Hilton. If that day arrives, what
> then?
Or Jesus? Why not not go for it? Since you 'reluctantly' speculate on these
issues, shall she do a John Lennon, in your speculatory opinion, and say she
is more popular than JC?
Why stop here with your postulates?
> Do the Truong's realize that with that level of stardom that they will
> face the paparazzi, the Hollywood sleaze media, and a throng of groupies
> that will make them constantly miserable? I already can imagine articles
> appearing in the National Enquirer advising her to seek counsel from Joan
> Rivers on where to find the best practitioner of plastic surgery. After
> all, she will then be in a world where female peers are expected to get
> boob jobs, face lifts, and periodic Botox treatments to prolong their
> shelf-life.
> --
Thank you for sharing. While I have gained an increased sense of your own
imagination in this issue, are you Latin enough to understand
nil fuit umquam sic impar sibi
Which Horace meant to mean, nothing was [ever] so inconsequential with
itslef
Should you ever wish to comment on the actual character of the person,
sit ut est, aut not sit
Of which sense it is better you contribute your own attention
Cordially, Philip
J.D. Walker
>> Dear Mr. Innes,
>>
>> I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however,
>
> 'not the best?' how about atrocious?
As you wish...
>
>> the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again
>> change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup
>> audience that you initiated. Why change the header?
>
> lets make it about you then ;)
No thanks
>
>> Let us assume, for the sake of escape, that somewhere along the twisty
>> channels of rumor that Mr. Sloan has frequented that typographical error
>
> Let us not assume anything whatever. If you wish to assume such, say so!
>
I said so plain as day. You have disagreed. So be it.
>> reared its ugly head and managed to mislead poor Sloan. This was
>> suggested to me by the post from Mr. Roberts referring to something called
>> "prono." Dyslexia, typos -- who knows -- perhaps the proper subject
>> should be: self promotion.
>>
>> If Sam had claimed that Mr. Truong had made a Susan Polgar "Promo" video,
>> no one would have paid attention. It would be too believable to question.
>> Well what about this self-promotion subject?
>>
>> The Truong's have been very successful within the world chess community of
>> raising the profile of the "Susan Polgar" product very high indeed. Yet
>> beyond the circle of chess friends she is not well known at all.
>
> :))
>
>
>> Note the response to Sam's post in alt.gossip.celebrities, paraphrasing:
>> "Susan Polgar? Who is that?"
>
> :))
>
>
>> I suggest that the Polgar publicity machine continues to persistently
>> maneuver towards wider and wider name recognition of the "Polgar" product.
>> Perhaps one day she will be mentioned in the same breath as celebrities
>> like Britney Speares and and Paris Hilton. If that day arrives, what
>> then?
>
> Or Jesus? Why not not go for it? Since you 'reluctantly' speculate on these
> issues, shall she do a John Lennon, in your speculatory opinion, and say she
> is more popular than JC?
>
> Why stop here with your postulates?
Your invention of 'reluctance' serves no purpose. You seem to have
caught a fever of speculation that far exceeds my own. If you wish to
speculate, do so and own up to your own thoughts.
>
>> Do the Truong's realize that with that level of stardom that they will
>> face the paparazzi, the Hollywood sleaze media, and a throng of groupies
>> that will make them constantly miserable? I already can imagine articles
>> appearing in the National Enquirer advising her to seek counsel from Joan
>> Rivers on where to find the best practitioner of plastic surgery. After
>> all, she will then be in a world where female peers are expected to get
>> boob jobs, face lifts, and periodic Botox treatments to prolong their
>> shelf-life.
>> --
>
> Thank you for sharing. While I have gained an increased sense of your own
> imagination in this issue, are you Latin enough to understand
>
> nil fuit umquam sic impar sibi
>
> Which Horace meant to mean, nothing was [ever] so inconsequential with
> itslef
>
> Should you ever wish to comment on the actual character of the person,
>
> sit ut est, aut not sit
>
> Of which sense it is better you contribute your own attention
This means nothing to me. If you wish to communicate rather than leave
Latin graffiti strewn about, you could make a better effort.
--
Chess One
> Chess One wrote:
>
>>> Dear Mr. Innes,
>>>
>>> I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however,
>>
>> 'not the best?' how about atrocious?
>
> As you wish...
What? What do ///////you//////// wish by continuing this thread, Walker?
>>> the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again
>>> change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup
>>> audience that you initiated. Why change the header?
>>
>> lets make it about you then ;)
>
> No thanks
So fuck off, unless you get off on this subject - I see you changed it back!
Now we know more about 'Reverend' Walker. ROFL!
Phil Innes
J.D. Walker
> "J.D. Walker" <j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:X_adnYp3W85tWaHa...@comcast.com...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Innes,
>>>>
>>>> I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however,
>>> 'not the best?' how about atrocious?
>> As you wish...
>
> What? What do ///////you//////// wish by continuing this thread, Walker?
>
I am interested in the promotional efforts of the Truong's and consider
it a topic more worthy of general attention than the one that preceded it.
>>>> the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again
>>>> change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup
>>>> audience that you initiated. Why change the header?
>>> lets make it about you then ;)
>> No thanks
>
> So fuck off, unless you get off on this subject - I see you changed it back!
>
> Now we know more about 'Reverend' Walker. ROFL!
>
You mark yourself. I need say nothing.
samsloan
It has my whole-hearted support.
marcusw...@hughes.net
> "J.D. Walker" <j.d.wal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Phil
I think Susan Polgar should do the fucking here :-) Oh, the video
sales department at Hustler
See a GM Pea, See a GM Fuck
Telling the reverend to fuck off is not nice. Susan apparently has
done the fucking.
Marcus Roberts
artichoke
Fuck you. Now are you happy?
J.D. Walker
I suppose that Phil is irritated that his intent to play moderator of
rec.games.chess.politics was not observed. Note where he said:
>> Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective
>> silence, ...
I chose to alter the subject and discuss a tangent that I thought was
worth discussion. I still feel that the promotional efforts of the
Truong's are a valid topic for discussion.
Later in another thread, Phil referenced this message. Mr. Innes seems
to have forgotten what the subject of this post was. Take a careful
look at the message header Phil. It is not difficult to read. Do you
see the part labeled Subject? I did not write in some obscure Latin
dialect. Feel free to apologize if you have it in you.
The Historian
"the relentless self-promotion of two grasping individuals" was my
description of the standard behavior of Mr. Innes' favorite chess
couple.
Chess One
rec.games.chess.politics was not observed. Note where he said:
** Our own Reverend continues to suppose on things. He explains that he did
write in the porn thread, but to divert it...
>> Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective
>> silence, ...
I chose to alter the subject and discuss a tangent that I thought was
worth discussion. I still feel that the promotional efforts of the
Truong's are a valid topic for discussion.
**To have a discussion there needs to be mutual interest in a common
subject. Since you are not having a discussion with the 'Truong's' then you
want to speculate about them, rather than ask them directly? There is a
newsgroup where you can do that, eg.
Later in another thread, Phil referenced this message. Mr. Innes seems
to have forgotten what the subject of this post was. Take a careful
look at the message header Phil. It is not difficult to read. Do you
see the part labeled Subject? I did not write in some obscure Latin
dialect. Feel free to apologize if you have it in you.
--
**Apologise! You have taken encouragement and you measure of things here
from a known stalking Abusenik plus an in your face liar, who can scarcely
write in public or private without vehemently blaming someone or other, or
even whole groups of people - all of whom coincidentally [?] seem to have
actually achieved more than he. To be put down by such people is to have
yourself acknowledged, a sort of back-handed insult.
**Let you suppose about other people very much less, your holiness,
especially to negatively suppose on them or proffer spurious 'advice', of
which attitude all your fine feathers do not disguise the skunk in you.
Phil Innes
J.D. Walker
**To have a discussion there needs to be mutual interest in a common
subject. Since you are not having a discussion with the 'Truong's' then
you want to speculate about them, rather than ask them directly? There
is a newsgroup where you can do that, eg.
<insults deleted>
When one tries to discuss this on the Polgar blog or their forum, they
generally do not get a warm welcome. They get censored -- as you are
trying to do here. If no one wishes to discuss the topic it will die of
its own weight, unless you persist in your attempts to be group moderator.
I didn't expect you to be able to apologize, but I gave you a chance.
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
Chess One
> Chess One wrote:
>
> **To have a discussion there needs to be mutual interest in a common
> subject. Since you are not having a discussion with the 'Truong's' then
> you want to speculate about them, rather than ask them directly? There is
> a newsgroup where you can do that, eg.
>
> <insults deleted>
>
> When one tries to discuss this on the Polgar blog or their forum, they
> generally do not get a warm welcome. They get censored -- as you are
> trying to do here. If no one wishes to discuss the topic it will die of
> its own weight, unless you persist in your attempts to be group moderator.
>
> I didn't expect you to be able to apologize, but I gave you a chance.
OK - Talk as much porn as you like with those who will further attend on
you - at least you all have a common interest, in two senses of common. Phil
The Historian
Does Innes really think it's impossible to have a discussion between
third parties? Please note Reverend Walker and I are doing just that.
As for Innes' self-appointed role of Chief Moderator of the chess
newsgroups, it's a sign he's increasing his scope as the Elsworth
Toohey of chess - "the man who has nothing, and knows it.". Philsy's
all about building his own 'worth' through the labor of others.
J.D. Walker
> "J.D. Walker" <j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ermdncsTJMgsK6Da...@comcast.com...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> **To have a discussion there needs to be mutual interest in a common
>> subject. Since you are not having a discussion with the 'Truong's' then
>> you want to speculate about them, rather than ask them directly? There is
>> a newsgroup where you can do that, eg.
>>
>> <insults deleted>
>>
>> When one tries to discuss this on the Polgar blog or their forum, they
>> generally do not get a warm welcome. They get censored -- as you are
>> trying to do here. If no one wishes to discuss the topic it will die of
>> its own weight, unless you persist in your attempts to be group moderator.
>>
>> I didn't expect you to be able to apologize, but I gave you a chance.
>
> OK - Talk as much porn as you like with those who will further attend on
> you - at least you all have a common interest, in two senses of common. Phil
>
Mr. Innes,
I am not interested in porn. That seems to be /////your///// obsession.
I am interested how chess is promoted, especially as seen in the case
of Mr. and Mrs. Truong. Is this beginning to register yet?
--
Taylor Kingston
>
> what a slut you are sloan!
>
> while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, for
> their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to god
> they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your own
> dirty little obsession utterly?
>
> phil innes
Conspicuous by his absence from this thread is Larry Parr, normally
Sam Sloan's greatest booster and defender, and (I presume) the person
to whom Phil Innes primarily refers to above as one of the "people who
have pushed [Sloan] forward as their stalking horse."
Sam's vulgar, tasteless smear of Susan Polgar must be causing Larry
considerable embarrassment. So much so that, unlike with other Sloan
offerings of sex-related offal, Parr hasn't even tried to come up with
one of his torturously contrived, patently hypocritical double-
standard defenses.
Sloan's action is in fact so offensive that we see Phil Innes,
normally a Parr ally, one whom Parr has lauded as a "model
intellectual," quite correctly blasting Sloan for his vile post. It is
to Innes' credit that he has done this, and to Parr's shame that he
has not.
Parr can't win here. He can either defend Sloan's vileness and
thereby incur Innes' wrath (not to mention general censure), or he can
side with Innes, and have to repudiate his erstwhile fair-haired boy
Sam. Or, more likely, he will continue silent on the subject, and hope
that everyone forgets it ever happened. But some of us won't,
including, one hopes, the members of the USCF every time Sloan runs
for the EB.
>
> "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1195048592.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the
> > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar.
>
> > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know
> > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail
> > her, if necessary.
>
> > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know
> > about it.
>
> > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn
> > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do.
>
> > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal
> > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing.
> > Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that
> > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.- Hide quoted text -
help bot
> "the relentless self-promotion of two grasping individuals" was my
> description of the standard behavior of Mr. Innes' favorite chess
> couple.
Somebody at a local chess club mentioned getting the
next-to-latest version of Fritz for only $10; I decided to
have a look around the 'net, and see what exactly he was
talking about, and in my searching I stumbled upon an
article at chessbase (or perhaps chessbaseusa) which
noted that Judit Polgar (NOT Susan) was the strongest
female chess player ever. The article explained that she
was not in top form lately, having recently produced two
amazing novelties outside the world of chess... .
I wrinkle my nose at the self-promoting swill seen at
Susan Polgar's Web site; I spit upon it; I discharge gas
in its general direction.
-- help bot
Mike Murray
<nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I wrinkle my nose at the self-promoting swill seen at
>Susan Polgar's Web site; I spit upon it; I discharge gas
>in its general direction.
> -- help bot
Have a wafer-thin mint, Mr. Bot. It will make you feel better.
billbr...@gmail.com
Day 3.
billbr...@gmail.com
One would think that it would not be difficult for Parr to say that he
has to date supported Sloan for reasons x, y, and z, but disassociates
himself from Sloan's current remarks.
billbr...@gmail.com
The feeling of vindication can be bittersweet, David. ;-)
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:d41521d4-0251-4173...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 4:59 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> what a slut you are sloan!
>>
>> while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse,
>> for
>> their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to
>> god
>> they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your
>> own
>> dirty little obsession utterly?
>>
>> phil innes
>
> Conspicuous by his absence from this thread is Larry Parr, normally
> Sam Sloan's greatest booster and defender, and (I presume) the person
> to whom Phil Innes primarily refers to above as one of the "people who
> have pushed [Sloan] forward as their stalking horse."
Now there is a little provocation, if indeed Larry Parr had any political
ambition, it might even be a just fling. But he don't. My reference was more
to a subfusc political crew who use Sloan, those in office and those who
want in. Sloan himself is quite oblivious to his use.
> Sam's vulgar, tasteless smear of Susan Polgar must be causing Larry
> considerable embarrassment.
I don't think so. I supported Sloan against false charges against him during
his election campaign. I said, if he truly some sort of child molester, take
the man to court and prosecute him, don't complain about it on usenet - I
said this specifically to Bill Brock. Let the rule of law stand! That is our
Western tradition, and you yanks don't have direct experience of where it is
absent, and what goes on, so you are all rather theoretical about it.
Sloan is a libertarian, and especially on the subject of sexual mores, which
Larry Parr is not. But Sloan is insufficiently mature to notice that to
speak of these things requires more emothionla //thrust// that is typical in
any 13 year old. He has just begun to notice the fact that both Susan Polgar
and the future President of the USA both speak of sexism. At age 60, this
is, we must admit, at least momentum.
How should anyone else influence such people as Sloan, who seem to have
obsessed on women his whole life, while not really being very observant
about their own perspectives on things?
I support Sam Sloan being an immature, late learner [very bloody late!], but
hey - who is to judge whom, here? Is that what we should all be doing
together? We do need to say that some attitudes need challenge, that they
are juvenile, and comprised of all the usual faults, such as projections, et
al. But that is to speak of /behavior/ not the person. To credibly
differentiate the two itself needs some discipline, and self-awareness -
without which we merely react, not knowing if we cover up our own 'stuff' in
order to resent the 'stuff' of others [!]
> So much so that, unlike with other Sloan
> offerings of sex-related offal, Parr hasn't even tried to come up with
> one of his torturously contrived, patently hypocritical double-
> standard defenses.
I will defend Sloan. He did not break the law. He is his own man. Parr is
not his brother's keeper.
> Sloan's action is in fact so offensive that we see Phil Innes,
> normally a Parr ally, one whom Parr has lauded as a "model
> intellectual," quite correctly blasting Sloan for his vile post. It is
> to Innes' credit that he has done this, and to Parr's shame that he
> has not.
It is only offensive in our regime of values. People also thought Henry
Miller offensive because of the subject of sex. But Miller needed to deal
with that, since he was a profoundly spiritually oriented man, and he saw
sex as the great American hang-up, not hardly differentiated from violence
[look at your tv!] and a Victorian posture which inhibited expression,
indeed, in 'Nothing But the Miraculous' he cited original Puritan
attitudes - as if we had not understood Scarlet Letter.
> Parr can't win here. He can either defend Sloan's vileness and
> thereby incur Innes' wrath (not to mention general censure), or he can
> side with Innes, and have to repudiate his erstwhile fair-haired boy
> Sam.
I will defend Sloan for saying as he wishes! I will not admire what he says,
but in this vacuum, Taylor, where so often what is base gets most attention
in this newsgroup and our society, it is to be expected that the rights of
speech are confused with a concommitant responsibilty to responsible speech.
> Or, more likely, he will continue silent on the subject, and hope
> that everyone forgets it ever happened. But some of us won't,
> including, one hopes, the members of the USCF every time Sloan runs
> for the EB.
I asked them specifically 20 months ago if they had any standards whatever?
They did not. Neither did they choose to act on the issue and institute any.
Be so kind as to not posit other people's required opinion in order to speak
your own peace. It is not the fault of Larry Parr that Sam Sloan's behaviors
and obsessions do nothing in our opinion to further chess. It is our
responsibilty, since we did nothing to avert such behaviors from entering
the central body of our chess organisation.
Phil Innes
Rob
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The sad truth is this:
The USCF fears having standards for membership because it might make
them legally liable. The do not have "standards" for board membership
because it might make them "liable". Sloan is not stupid. He is
walking a tightrope just this side of the "legal" line. He also fears
no lawsuit as he has no assets to attach and therefore nothing to
lose.I believe karma is real. What he has coming to him is great.
Karma will take away what he prizes most. I for one will chose to
folow the words of Thomas Hart Benton,"when the good Lord lays his
hands on someone,sir; I take mine off". Here is to God's swift
justice.
Rob(which-Mitch) Lex Luthor
Taylor Kingston
>
> > On Nov 16, 12:04 pm, Taylor Kingston <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
> > > Conspicuous by his absence from this thread is Larry Parr, normally
> > > Sam Sloan's greatest booster and defender, and (I presume) the person
> > > to whom Phil Innes primarily refers to above as one of the "people who
> > > have pushed [Sloan] forward as their stalking horse."
> > > Sam's vulgar, tasteless smear of Susan Polgar must be causing Larry
> > > considerable embarrassment. So much so that, unlike with other Sloan
> > > offerings of sex-related offal, Parr hasn't even tried to come up with
> > > one of his torturously contrived, patently hypocritical double-
> > > standard defenses.
> > > Sloan's action is in fact so offensive that we see Phil Innes,
> > > normally a Parr ally, one whom Parr has lauded as a "model
> > > intellectual," quite correctly blasting Sloan for his vile post. It is
> > > to Innes' credit that he has done this, and to Parr's shame that he
> > > has not.
>
> > > Parr can't win here. He can either defend Sloan's vileness and
> > > thereby incur Innes' wrath (not to mention general censure), or he can
> > > side with Innes, and have to repudiate his erstwhile fair-haired boy
> > > Sam. Or, more likely, he will continue silent on the subject, and hope
> > > that everyone forgets it ever happened. But some of us won't,
> > > including, one hopes, the members of the USCF every time Sloan runs
> > > for the EB.
>
> has to date supported Sloan for reasons x, y, and z, but disassociates
> himself from Sloan's current remarks.
One might think that, Bill, but it seems Parr does not. For some
reason he seems to want his support for Sloan to remain absolute. For
Parr to admit that Sam is even slightly a scumbag would be the first
crack in the wall, the first step down the slippery slope. So he'll
condone Sloan's obscenity with silence.
billbr...@gmail.com
People can change: you may be right, but I hope you're wrong.
artichoke
Did you know that when Susan was vulgarly attacked on the USCF Forum
during the election campaign, I was a major -- maybe the major --
force in stopping the attack? If not, you should not have smeared my
integrity; ignorance is no excuse for that.
Bill I had thought better of you, from when I knew you long ago. Now
I see what you've become. It's too bad.
samsloan
> The sad truth is this:
> The USCF fears having standards for membership because it might make
> them legally liable. The do not have "standards" for board membership
> because it might make them "liable". Sloan is not stupid. He is
> walking a tightrope just this side of the "legal" line. He also fears
> no lawsuit as he has no assets to attach and therefore nothing to
> lose.I believe karma is real. What he has coming to him is great.
> Karma will take away what he prizes most. I for one will chose to
> folow the words of Thomas Hart Benton,"when the good Lord lays his
> hands on someone,sir; I take mine off". Here is to God's swift
> justice.
>
> Rob(which-Mitch) Lex Luthor
The hereafter will catch up with Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell. Don't
worry.
Rob
I prefer the here and now, personally. Why not come to Tennessee? Lots
of folks want to say "Howdy" to you personally Sloan.
billbr...@gmail.com
As noted above, I have similar feelings towards you.
Still, we were once friends; that is not something to be dismissed
lightly, and I wish you & yours well.
***
I have cordial relations with Polgar and Truong, but don't consider
myself a Polgarista. I counseled Polgar against having Troung on the
ticket, and would prefer that he resigned immediately for the good of
USCF.
***
In the present instance: does the forum chosen by Sloan determine the
propriety of the smear?
Gadflies serve a useful function, but there are gadflies available who
are far more ethical than Sloan.
artichoke
Yeah I feel the same way about friendship. I'll forget it happened
and this will be my last comment in this thread.
I have also had cordial relations with Susan via her blog, although I
never gave her campaign advice or opinions. I've never met her or
Paul in person. In an incident humorously discussed on the Forum, I
invited Paul to lunch and he declined. Too bad; I could have learned
a lot.
I agree it would ease things considerably if Paul were to resign.
But now the investigation of Mottershead's claims must proceed in a
prompt, thorough and businesslike way with transparency to the
membership. If Paul stays on the Board, we must be comfortable that
he isn't FSS, or at least comfortable that the matter is nowhere near
as clear as Mottershead's evidence makes it seem and that it cannot be
clarified further.
Who are these other gadflies?
Offramp
ever...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Rob why do you bother, Sloan is a Troll, just add him to your twit
filter... If everyone would do that, he would end up debating with
himself.
J.Lohner