Polgar's Complaint Downloadable
samsloan
page lawsuit that Susan Polgar filed against the USCF in the District
Court of Lubbock, Texas.
http://rapidshare.com/files/148493505/polgars-complaint.pdf
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Readers of this group will notice how far away the allegations of this
complaint are from reality. Then you will understand why I said in my
answer and counterclaim, "Plaintiff Susan Polgar is showing signs and
symptoms of chronic and delusional psychosis and paranoia because she
keeps making claims about herself that have little or no basis in fact
or are exaggerations or embellishments of the truth".
There is almost a complete disconnect between what Polgar says about
herself in this complaint and reality.
Sam Sloan
help bot
> > Since few of you have had the opportunity to read it, here is the 18
> > page lawsuit that Susan Polgar filed against the USCF in the District
> > Court of Lubbock, Texas.
Oh boy! I've always wanted to wade through
reams and reams of oddly-worded legal mumbo
jumbo, and now at long last, I can.
> Readers of this group will notice how far away the allegations of this
> complaint are from reality. Then you will understand why I said in my
> answer and counterclaim, "Plaintiff Susan Polgar is showing signs and
> symptoms of chronic and delusional psychosis and paranoia
I am reminded of an old movie called, um,
called The Caine Mutiny, in which an amateur
psychoanalyst instigates a mutiny; but when
cross-examined he is unable to define such
technical terms as "psychosis", "neurosis"
and so forth; he leaves the witness stand
quite embarrassed, then insists he never
even heard of the U.S. Navy, but was captur-
ed and held prisoner against his will; claimed
he was a tree frog, and the crew was plan-
ning to eat him, covered with strawberries.
> because she
> keeps making claims about herself that have little or no basis in fact
> or are exaggerations or embellishments of the truth".
>
> There is almost a complete disconnect between what Polgar says about
> herself in this complaint and reality.
Indeed, this fact may be obscured by the
problem that Mr. Sloan, too, has hung up
the reality phone.
I expect a better approach would be to try,
I say TRY and appear sane, while allowing
Ms. Polgar to reveal her psychological
problems in her own way. With TWO
loonies, the outcome is quite unpredictable.
-- doc bot
Brian Lafferty
Federal court.
samsloan
I am reminded of an old movie called The Caine Mutiny, in which an
amateur psychoanalyst instigates a mutiny; but when cross-examined he
is unable to define such technical terms as "psychosis", "neurosis"
and so forth; he leaves the witness stand quite embarrassed, then
insists he never even heard of the U.S. Navy, but was captured and
held prisoner against his will; claimed he was a tree frog, and the
crew was planning to eat him, covered with strawberries.
>
> -- doc bot
She is not nearly as bad as Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" but
she is still bad. Take a look at page 10 of her complaint, where she
says that she "became the first chairman of the federation" because of
the "nationwide showing of support by USCF members".
What really happened is that the same board members that she is suing
here now gave her the honorary title of "Chairman of the USCF",
because she said that with this title she would go out and raise funds
for the USCF. When, after several months, she had not raised any of
the promised funds and had actually tried to use that title to divert
funds away from the USCF and into her own "Susan Polgar Foundation",
plus in Mexico City in September 2007 she had asked FIDE officials to
remove the USCF as the official representative of the United States of
America and to replace it with her "Susan Polgar Foundation", the
board took that title of "Chairman of the USCF" away from her.
In short, the same people who gave her the title took it away, due to
her poor performance.
I wonder what her lawyer will do when he finally realizes that his
client is just a nut.
Sam Sloan
foad
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ef4bf76-6bd0-446f...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
She is not nearly as bad as Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" but
she is still bad.
=====
You're not particularly swift on the uptake, are you.
=====
I wonder what her lawyer will do when he finally realizes that his
client is just a nut.
=====
Depends. If she's schizophrenic, I'd probably double bill her.
help bot
> I am reminded of an old movie called The Caine Mutiny, in which an
> amateur psychoanalyst instigates a mutiny; but when cross-examined he
> is unable to define such technical terms as "psychosis", "neurosis"
> and so forth; he leaves the witness stand quite embarrassed, then
> insists he never even heard of the U.S. Navy, but was captured and
> held prisoner against his will; claimed he was a tree frog, and the
> crew was planning to eat him, covered with strawberries.
> She is not nearly as bad as Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" but
> she is still bad. Take a look at page 10 of her complaint, where she
> says that she "became the first chairman of the federation" because of
> the "nationwide showing of support by USCF members".
That isn't necessary; anyone who has taken
even a brief glance at the SP Web site will
immediately be struck by the profound lack of
rationality of its creator(s), by the striking
fact that Ms. Polgar has attempted to take
credit herself for the many accomplishments
of countless other players.
While other demented folks may see this as
over-marketing or as one of them put it, mere
"hyperbole", the psychological /need/ to thieve
in such a way reveals a good deal about the
fundamental lack of honesty and rationality of
the culprit(s) involved.
> What really happened is that the same board members that she is suing
> here now gave her the honorary title of "Chairman of the USCF",
> because she said that with this title she would go out and raise funds
> for the USCF.
I'm wondering how they could have been so
stupid as this.
> When, after several months, she had not raised any of
> the promised funds and had actually tried to use that title to divert
> funds away from the USCF and into her own "Susan Polgar Foundation",
> plus in Mexico City in September 2007 she had asked FIDE officials to
> remove the USCF as the official representative of the United States of
> America and to replace it with her "Susan Polgar Foundation", the
> board took that title of "Chairman of the USCF" away from her.
I must say that I am disappointed in BG, the
ipso facto dictator of the USCF board. Why
didn't he see this coming? (The others I can
excuse, as they are mere dregs, who vote as
they are told to.)
> In short, the same people who gave her the title took it away, due to
> her poor performance.
Poor performance would simply amount to
not raising much if any funds. Using the
gifted title to undermine the USCF goes way
beyond "poor performance".
> I wonder what her lawyer will do when he finally realizes that his
> client is just a nut.
She probably won't even care; lawyers are
all about making money. Q: Okay, you are
stuck in an elevator with a tiger, a bear, and
a crockodile and a lawyer; you have a gun,
loaded with three bullets. What do you do?
A: Shoot the lawyer three times, throw him
to the croc, then while the bear and tiger go
at one another, climb your way out through
the ceiling. Save the gun-- you never know
when you may have to use the elevator
again.
-- help bot
samsloan
> I am reminded of an old movie called, um,
> called TheCaineMutiny, in which an amateur
> psychoanalyst instigates amutiny; but when
> cross-examined he is unable to define such
> technical terms as "psychosis", "neurosis"
> and so forth; he leaves the witness stand
> quite embarrassed, then insists he never
> even heard of the U.S. Navy,
>
> -- doc bot
I was wondering about this, so I went out and bought the video of "The
Caine Mutiny" and played it twice last night.
You are referring to the role played by Fred MacMurray, who is the
first to realize that Captain Queeg is paranoid but then, after the
mutiny that saves the ship, when called to testify, cracks and cannot
remember, thus nearly causing the mutineers to be convicted.
Of course, Susan Polgar is not nearly as bad as Captain Queeg.
However, I can see wh you brought this up. If you take a look at her
Blog at http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/ and then scroll down the
right hand side where she lists her supposed accomplishments, you will
see so many falsehoods that one has to wonder if she is not really
delusional or clinically psychotic. Here are a few examples:
"Winner of 4 Women’s World Championships"
Of course, this is not true. She only won it once.
"The only World Champion in history to win the Triple-Crown (Rapid,
Blitz and Classical World Championships)"
Not true either. There is no such thing as the "Triple Crown" in chess
nor is there any such thing as the rapid and blitz world
championships.
"Was the First Woman to Earn the Men’s Grandmaster title (1991)
through traditional FIDE requirements"
Not true. Nona Gaprindashvili was the first.
"Currently ranked #1 in the United States"
Not true. Irina Krush is ranked #1 in the US.
"Award-winning and best-selling chess author in numerous languages"
False on all four points. The only awards she has won are those she
gives herself, I do not believe that she is a best-seller, she did not
write the books herself and they are only in English.
"a true role model to millions of young people worldwide"
This however is true. There are lots of young plagiarizers and
falsifiers all around the world.
What makes this so strange is she has some solid real accomplishments.
She really did win the US Open Blitz Championship three times. She
played all 14 games in the 2004 World Chess Olympiad, the only player,
either male or female in the entire Olympiad to do that. (I checked
this.) She probably does hold four world records for a simultaneous
chess exhibition. She has a lot of practice and experience in doing
this, because when she was a tiny little girl, she made her living and
supported her entire family of five, mother, father and two sisters,
by giving simultaneous chess exhibitions. She never went to school but
was required to study chess 10 hours a day from the time she was four
years old until she reached adulthood. This was because her mother and
father quit their jobs to train her. Since they were unemployed, she
had to keep winning cash prizes to support her parents. The pressure
on the tiny tot to keep winning money in chess tournaments so that her
parents could eat was enormous. I saw her father get angry once and
blow his top when she only drew and did not defeat a player rated 100
points below her, so I know the pressures she was under.
I keep wondering why she does not just write about her real
accomplishments and leave out the fake once. Why does she write that
she won the Woman's World Championship four times when she only won it
once and that is just as good?
Or, is she so delusional that she really thinks she won events that
she did not win? Does she think that everybody is conspiring against
her because she really is paranoid?
Sam Sloan
foad
Of course, Susan Polgar is not nearly as bad as Captain Queeg.
However, I can see wh you brought this up. If you take a look at her
Blog at http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/ and then scroll down the
right hand side where she lists her supposed accomplishments, you will
see so many falsehoods that one has to wonder if she is not really
delusional or clinically psychotic. Here are a few examples:
======================
> "Winner of 4 Women�s World Championships"
> Of course, this is not true. She only won it once.
False.
1981 World Champion, girls < 16
1992 Women's world rapid champeen
1992 world blitz champeen
1996 women's world champeen
> "The only World Champion in history to win the Triple-Crown (Rapid,
> Blitz and Classical World Championships)"
> Not true either. There is no such thing as the "Triple Crown" in chess
> nor is there any such thing as the rapid and blitz world
> championships.
No such thing as rapid and blitz you say? What are these things then?
http://previews.chessdom.com/world-blitz-chess-championship-2007
http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/3268-world-blitz-championship
"In October 2003, the governing body of chess, FIDE, organized a rapid time
control tournament in Cap d'Agde and billed it as the World Rapid Chess
Championship. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand#World_Rapid_Chess_Champion
> "Was the First Woman to Earn the Men�s Grandmaster title (1991)
> through traditional FIDE requirements"
> Not true. Nona Gaprindashvili was the first.
No. Gaprindashvili did not "earn" the title of grandmaster. She was awarded
the title of grandmaster.
"It is regrettable, therefore, that [Gaprindashvili] did not actually earn
the title in the regular way: FIDE requires that to earn the grandmaster
title a player must achieve certain minimum scores in tournaments consisting
of at least twenty-four games in aggregate (the description is highly
oversimplified, but you get the idea), and Nona was two or three games
short. Yet the FIDE Qualifications Commission voted to give her the title.
In my opinion, this historic occasion should not have been allowed to carry
even this slight tarnish." - Pal Benko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nona_Gaprindashvili
> "Currently ranked #1 in the United States"
> Not true. Irina Krush is ranked #1 in the US.
In 1860, Lincoln was currently president. Was Polgar ranked one when the web
site went on line? Why yes, I believe she was.
> "Award-winning and best-selling chess author in numerous languages"
> False on all four points. The only awards she has won are those she
> gives herself,
No.
"Susan Polgar � Grandmaster of the Year 05.06.2003 � The four-time Women's
World Chess Champion Susan Polgar has just been named "Grandmaster of the
Year" by the United States Chess Federation. ***This is the first time in
history that a woman has won this most prestigious award.***
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=986
> I do not believe that she is a best-seller,
I do not believe that outside of cookoo land what you believe to be true
constitutes a fact.
> she did not write the books herself
Non sequitur. Co authors are authors.
> and they are only in English.
False. Her first book was published in Germany.
> "a true role model to millions of young people worldwide"
> This however is true. There are lots of young plagiarizers and
> falsifiers all around the world.
Libel.
> What makes this so strange is she has some solid real accomplishments.
Yes, world chess champion is quite an accomplishment. As opposed to say,
you.
<sour grapes hosed>
> I keep wondering why she <snip>
Yes, you seem to spend a lot of time wondering why she . . . Leads one to
wonder why you spend so much time wondering why she and what she's wearing
while you're wondering? Pawn to Queen, queen refused to mate. Nothing like a
gadfly scorned.
Brian Lafferty
It's too bad that Lasker, Capablanca, and a few others didn't "earn"
their GM titles either.
samsloan
> Yes, you seem to spend a lot of time wondering why she . . . Leads one to
> wonder why you spend so much time wondering why she and what she's wearing
> while you're wondering? Pawn to Queen, queen refused to mate. Nothing like a
> gadfly scorned.
What many of us are wondering is: Why do you post anonymously?
Sam Sloan
foad
=======
My Christian name is Foad. It's Dutch.
foad
"Brian Lafferty" <blaf...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:8mQEk.46$yI...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> foad wrote:
>>
>> "samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:695af5cc-8973-4b07...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> "Was the First Woman to Earn the Men�s Grandmaster title (1991)
>>> through traditional FIDE requirements"
>>
>>> Not true. Nona Gaprindashvili was the first.
>>
>>
>> No. Gaprindashvili did not "earn" the title of grandmaster. She was
>> awarded the title of grandmaster.
>>
>> "It is regrettable, therefore, that [Gaprindashvili] did not actually
>> earn the title in the regular way: FIDE requires that to earn the
>> grandmaster title a player must achieve certain minimum scores in
>> tournaments consisting of at least twenty-four games in aggregate (the
>> description is highly oversimplified, but you get the idea), and Nona was
>> two or three games short. Yet the FIDE Qualifications Commission voted to
>> give her the title. In my opinion, this historic occasion should not have
>> been allowed to carry even this slight tarnish." - Pal Benko
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nona_Gaprindashvili
>
> It's too bad that Lasker, Capablanca, and a few others didn't "earn" their
> GM titles either.
How Lasker may or may not have "earned" his title would be relevant to the
truthfulness of Polgar's statement in what way? Or do you mean to say that
you don't you care about lies as long as they're told by your friends.
Brian Lafferty
because Gaprindashvili did not receive her title under the FIDE system
is like saying that the masters at Saint Petersburg who were given their
GM titles by Nicholas II were not really grandmasters. So, by your
reckoning, who was the first male GM?
Chess One
> foad wrote:
>>
>> "Brian Lafferty" <blaf...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:8mQEk.46$yI...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>> foad wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:695af5cc-8973-4b07...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>> through traditional FIDE requirements"
>>>>
>>>>> Not true. Nona Gaprindashvili was the first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. Gaprindashvili did not "earn" the title of grandmaster. She was
>>>> awarded the title of grandmaster.
>>>>
>>>> "It is regrettable, therefore, that [Gaprindashvili] did not actually
>>>> earn the title in the regular way: FIDE requires that to earn the
>>>> grandmaster title a player must achieve certain minimum scores in
>>>> tournaments consisting of at least twenty-four games in aggregate (the
>>>> description is highly oversimplified, but you get the idea), and Nona
>>>> was two or three games short. Yet the FIDE Qualifications Commission
>>>> voted to give her the title. In my opinion, this historic occasion
>>>> should not have been allowed to carry even this slight tarnish." - Pal
>>>> Benko
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nona_Gaprindashvili
>>>
>>> It's too bad that Lasker, Capablanca, and a few others didn't "earn"
>>> their GM titles either.
>>
>> How Lasker may or may not have "earned" his title would be relevant to
>> the truthfulness of Polgar's statement in what way? Or do you mean to say
>> that you don't you care about lies as long as they're told by your
>> friends.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Now, try to follow this. Saying that Polgar was the first female GM
> because Gaprindashvili did not receive her title under the FIDE system is
> like saying
Beware analogy. Basically she earned hers. Gaprindashvili did not. What need
for analogy to explain this to the people? I think the people get it fair
and square without the BRAIN spinning it into contention - but he choses to!
What does he conflate...
>that the masters at Saint Petersburg who were given their GM titles by
>Nicholas II were not really grandmasters.
Yes it is like saying that. It is also like sayinig that Masters awarded by
USCF are not masters. See recent board resignee.
Awards are different from merit earned. Why does the BRAIN want to conflate
one with the other? Rhetorical question, the BRAIN will not offer his reason
for confusing merit with award systems - and here demonstrates no care to
distinguish between the two.
> So, by your reckoning, who was the first male GM?
I will leave the gent to answer for himself, if that is actually necessary.
The first Fide GM is perhaps more pertinent rather than Nicholas II's medals
or USCF's 'awards'.
Phil Innes
foad
Gosh, I'll try. Promise to go slow and I'll use my finger to follow along.
> Saying that Polgar was the first female GM because Gaprindashvili did not
> receive her title under the FIDE system is like saying that the masters at
> Saint Petersburg who were given their GM titles by Nicholas II were not
> really grandmasters.
No. ITFP, you are mischaracterizing Polgar's statement, which says quite
clearly that she is "the First Woman to **Earn** the Men�s Grandmaster
title (1991) ***through traditional FIDE requirements***." As such, it is a
true statement. And Sloan's statement that "Nona Gaprindashvili was the
first [to Earn the Men�s Grandmaster title]", as a rebuttable to SP's claim,
is a false statement. Because she did not "earn" the title, FIDE "voted to
give her the title." If she'd said she was the first female grandmaster, her
statement would have been false. She did not say that. EOS. ITSP, saying
something or in fact anything about how Gaprindashvili got the title is
completely irrelevant to Capabalnca, Tzar Nicholas, either Lasker, Saint
Petersburg, Saint Paulsville, and Jill Saint Johnstown. What it is relevant
to is Polgar's statement about Polgar's accomplishment, which is tue, and
Sloan's fanciful analysis of it, which is false.
> So, by your reckoning, who was the first male GM?
I have no idea, nor do I care to reckon, nor is it relevant to the point at
issue.
help bot
> Of course, Susan Polgar is not nearly as bad as Captain Queeg.
Hey-- the Captain cracked under the stress of war;
Ms. Polgar seems to have cracked due to just being
a nutter.
> However, I can see wh you brought this up. If you take a look at her
> Blog athttp://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/and then scroll down the
> right hand side where she lists her supposed accomplishments, you will
> see so many falsehoods that one has to wonder if she is not really
> delusional or clinically psychotic. Here are a few examples:
>
> ======================
>
> > "Winner of 4 Women s World Championships"
> > Of course, this is not true. She only won it once.
>
> False.
>
> 1981 World Champion, girls < 16
Nitwit. Girl's /= women's (see intro. to logic, a
lowly freshman-level class).
> 1992 Women's world rapid champeen
> 1992 world blitz champeen
Ditto those two.
> 1996 women's world champeen
FIDE-sanctioned, I hope. So then, we are
forced to ask: where was Judith that year? I
believe every sane person in the chess world
knows who is who, and what's what here--
Judith is/was the Gary Kasparov of women's
chess.
> "In October 2003, the governing body of chess, FIDE, organized a rapid time
> control tournament in Cap d'Agde and billed it as the World Rapid Chess
> Championship. "
I can top that. In 1992, a private match was
billed as "the world chess championship",
though it included neither GK nor AK, nor even
Jan Timman or Mickey Adams.
> No. Gaprindashvili did not "earn" the title of grandmaster. She was awarded
> the title of grandmaster.
>
> "It is regrettable, therefore, that [Gaprindashvili] did not actually earn
> the title in the regular way
Hmm. I seem to recall that BF did not earn
the title of FIDE IGM in "the regular way". So
then, maybe he is not a "real" grandmaster?
> In 1860, Lincoln was currently president.
There's something bizarre about the way
in which that statement is phrased; ah, I
think it may be the awkwardly inserted
word, "currently". Let's try to simplify:
"In 1860, Lincoln was president."
Much better-- although it must be noted
that you are as loony as a three-dollar bill,
for *Mr. Buchanan* was president in that
year, not Mr. Lincoln. In fact, it should be
noted that /your man/ was not even on the
ballot, where I come from.
> Was Polgar ranked one when the web
> site went on line? Why yes, I believe she was.
Perhaps the lunatic who crafted that awful
site ought to have written its ludicrous claims
in such a way as to make them "timeless".
You folks could probably learn a lot from
Sanny on how to craft a Web site.
> > "a true role model to millions of young people worldwide"
> > This however is true. There are lots of young plagiarizers and
> > falsifiers all around the world.
> Libel.
Before you "sue", take down the evidence,
the god-awful Web site containing oodles of
lies and falsehoods. Mr. Sloan never did
say where he found any plagiary-- I suspect
he may have confused you guys with a
famous nearly-an-IM on that score... .
FYI: Judith is the Queen of chess, not her
sister. That's because greatness in chess
is not about puffed-up egos; in fact, the
puffiest of them all had his "popped" when
he thought he was hanging a piece to little
sister Judith, and /cheated/ to save his
scared behind from an a**-whoopin' by a
girl.
-- hep blot
samsloan
> On Oct 1, 4:10 pm, "foad" <klf...@kjshf.org> wrote:
>
> > "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> I told Susan I had big feet. Booby Fischer also told her the same thing. Do
> you know what having big feet indicates?
>
> Paul Truong has exceptionally small feet.
>
> Sam Sloan
The above is a Fake Sam Sloan posting.
How many of you realized this?
Sam Sloan
Andrew Usher
> The above is a Fake Sam Sloan posting.
>
> How many of you realized this?
I did - you never use noarchive. Now he's able to fake your e-mail
address; only the path can show the difference. You post through
Google, he posts through remailers, which is why no one can
prositively prove who he is.
Andrew Usher
help bot
> The above is a Fake Sam Sloan posting.
>
> How many of you realized this?
It's pretty obvious. The real Sam Sloan's posts
are archived for all posterity to enjoy, while the
grossly inferior work of fakes are not. And the
real Sam Sloan's postings are always rated
five stars, while the fakes' are rated much, much
lower-- perhaps even as low as the postings of a
famous nearly-an-IM. Indeed, there's something
about a /real/ Sam Sloan posting which is difficult
to describe, but which nonetheless gives it that
"certain something" that makes a post gel.
-- help bot
foad
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8252217-bd2c-4ea6...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Girl's /= women's (see intro. to logic, a
lowly freshman-level class).
===================
Beg to differ squire. A girl is defined by Webster as "a young woman."
Perhaps your seeming inexperience with both is the result of thinking that
"logic" will teach you anything about either.
<twaddle hosed>
I've taken the liberty of hosing the rest of your reply. Mind, I was
impressed with your ability to drift effortlessly into irrelevancies, your
gift for non sequitur, the depth of your committment to irrationality, and
your own ready display of queegian -- you folk, you guys -- pathology. Not
to mention you having mastered english as a second language. But
unfortuately I CBA to deal with the printed-quotable formatting issue, so
you're SOOL. In any event, my only concern here was fact checking Sloan's
claims, which 15 minutes of search engine time revealed to be fanciful,
fanciful being a charitable term considering Sloan's habit of running around
usenet squawking about the sanctity of the truth. That "you guys" are
unmoved by his lies says something about your character and motives.
Don't worry though, in the next scene Jose Ferrer will be along to throw
a bit of drink in your face, it'll be epiphanic.
help bot
> Girl's /= women's (see intro. to logic, a
> lowly freshman-level class).
> Beg to differ squire. A girl is defined by Webster
What you need to learn is that any claim to
winning "the world championship" strongly
implies THE world championship (which a few
nutters like to call "the men's championship"),
and by the same token, any claim to winning
the women's world championship strongly
implies THE adult-female championship,
which FYI is a tad tougher than a children's
event, be it male, female, or mixed.
Now, while Mr. Sloan appears to have ducked
out after being challenged on a select few of
his opinions, the fact remains that numerous
idiotic claims are plastered all over the awful
SP Web site, and it makes no difference if he
plucked just the right ones to post as examples
or not; nor does it matter if, when challenged,
Mr. Sloan "chickened out" rather than try to
defend his pluckings. All that matters is that
we the readers are not fooled by this sort of
utterly dishonest nonsense.
Just so you know: we have not forgotten
about sister Judith-- no amount of lying will
ever change that. You can brag 'till you're
blue in the face, but SP will always remain
second-fiddle to her. I wonder if there is
any chess content on the SP site? Never
got that far, since the insidious lies sort of
drive a person away... .
-- help bot
foad
On Oct 2, 4:46 am, "foad" <klf...@kjshf.org> wrote:
What you need to learn is that any claim to
winning "the world championship" strongly
implies THE world championship (which a few
nutters like to call "the men's championship"),
and by the same token, any claim to winning
the women's world championship strongly
implies THE adult-female championship,
which FYI is a tad tougher than a children's
event, be it male, female, or mixed.
=====================
You are confusing the word "imply" -- which is what a writer does -- with
the word "infer" -- which is what a reader does -- and conflating normal
marketing hyperbole with Moses coming down the mountain with a pile of
rocks. In fact, anyone who knows enough about chess to distinguish between
the various champeenships will know that the female Polgar was not a four
time winner of the "men's world championship" and anyone who doesn't know
about enough about chess to distinguish between the various champeenships
would (1) be unlikely to visit Polgar's site (2) be completely uninterested
in the intricasies of the semanticisms you slog thru above and (3) be just
as impressed at her victory at a < 16 tournament as any other, most people
being inordinately impressed by the antics of precocious children.
Regardless of which, she stated that she'd won four world championships,
and she had, and Sloan claimed that was a lie, and it's not.
Now, while Mr. Sloan appears to have ducked
out after being challenged on a select few of
his opinions,
=========================
A select few? Opinions? You misspelled "each and every statement he alleged
as a fact."
the fact remains that numerous
idiotic claims are plastered all over the awful
SP Web site, and it makes no difference if he
plucked just the right ones to post as examples
or not;
===========================
So to recap: Polgar is a liar not because what she says is false, but
because Polgar lies. If that's true, the question arises: why the need to
fabricate evidence?
nor does it matter if, when challenged,
Mr. Sloan "chickened out" rather than try to
defend his pluckings. All that matters is that
we the readers are not fooled by this sort of
utterly dishonest nonsense.
==============================
No. What matters in this context is whether something is true or false. See,
Sloan said: here is a laundry list of things Polgar says that are lies. As a
stranger to the dispute I said, let me see whether Polgar lies. It turns out
that she tells the truth, at least in the laundry list of alleged lies
presented here. In fact, the only lies were told by Sloan, in an effort to
smear Polgar's reputation -- the self same tort that Sloan is suing Polgar
for.
Just so you know: we have not forgotten
about sister Judith-- no amount of lying will
ever change that. You can brag 'till you're
blue in the face,
=================
I have no sister Judith; am completely uninterested in whatever petty
insular political backbiting you're droning on about; have no reason to lie
and have not done so; wonder who the "we" is in "we have not forgotten";
wonder what I have written that comprises bragging; am normally complected,
with rosy cheeks and a winsome smile; and in general am wondering wtf are
you on about, as you seem to have me confused with someone else
but SP will always remain
second-fiddle to her. I wonder if there is
any chess content on the SP site? Never
got that far, since the insidious lies sort of
drive a person away... .
================
Yes quite, you are offended by insidious lies, especially those told by
Polgar on her website, the existence of which odious lies the reader is to
take your word for, which words you write in support for Sloan, whose
disregard for the truth is not insidious, because it is dedicated to the
greater purpose of smearing Polgar, who all know to be an insidious liar.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from
pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
> "help bot" <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a8252217-bd2c-4ea6...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Girl's /= women's (see intro. to logic, a
> lowly freshman-level class).
>
> ===================
>
> Beg to differ squire. A girl is defined by Webster as "a young woman."
> Perhaps your seeming inexperience with both is the result of thinking that
> "logic" will teach you anything about either.
>
> <twaddle hosed>
>
> I've taken the liberty of hosing the rest of your reply. Mind, I was
> impressed with your ability to drift effortlessly into irrelevancies, your
> gift for non sequitur, the depth of your committment to irrationality, and
> your own ready display of queegian -- you folk, you guys -- pathology. Not
> to mention you having mastered english as a second language. But
> unfortuately I CBA to deal with the printed-quotable formatting issue, so
> you're SOOL. In any event, my only concern here was fact checking Sloan's
> claims, which 15 minutes of search engine time revealed to be fanciful,
> fanciful being a charitable term considering Sloan's habit of running around
> usenet squawking about the sanctity of the truth. That "you guys" are
> unmoved by his lies says something about your character and motives.
Just for the record: most of "us guys" have tried without success to
try to get Sloan to concentrate on the accusation that Paul Truong
impersonated and harassed him, and to ignore the rest of his
scattershot claims. Like so much else, Susan Polgar's website claims
are simply a distraction from the actual issue. In my opinion, the
claims on the website deserve a bit of mockery in the same way that we
mock an overenthusiastic blurb on a book cover which exaggerates the
importance of a book, but are irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Jerry Spinrad
samsloan
Sorry, but you fail to understand.
This comes from the suit Polgar vs. the USCF, not my suit which is
Sloan vs. Truong.
In her suit against us, she alleges these accomplishments, such as
Four Times Woman's World Champion and winner of the Triple Crown in
chess.
She then alleges that we are jealous of her "accomplishments" and,
because of this jealousy motivated by our unfulfilled desire to win
the Woman's World Championship four times, we have slandered and
denigrated her, interfered with her business replationships and so on.
By "we", I mean Goichberg, Mottershead, Bogner, Lafferty, Bauer,
Hanken, Berry and Hough. We all wish that we had won the Woman's World
Championship four times. It makes up jealous that she won it and we
did not. Therefore, we do bad things to her, she alleges.
So, when it comes out that she did not really win the Woman's World
Championship four times and did not really win the "Triple Crown" in
chess, that this is all just a lie, that is highly relevant.
Sam Sloan
foad
Sorry, but you fail to understand.
This comes from the suit Polgar vs. the USCF, not my suit which is
Sloan vs. Truong.
================
No. Once again, you are not telling the truth. What you said was:
"If you take a look at her Blog at http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/ and then
scroll down the right hand side where she lists her supposed
accomplishments, you will see so many falsehoods that one has to wonder if
she is not really delusional or clinically psychotic."
So according to your OP, these allegations do not come from her suit, but
from her website.
In her suit against us, she alleges these accomplishments, such as
Four Times Woman's World Champion and winner of the Triple Crown in
chess.
=======================
No. I just dloaded and read the complaint. Once again you are not telling
the truth.
On page 7 of the complaint she claims "four world championships," not to
have been "Four Times Woman's World Champion." Nor does she claim to have
won the Triple Crown, a proper noun; she claims to have won the triple
crown, a lower case colloquiallism comprising three championships, which she
then names. The complaint uses the phrase in the same sense that it is used
in the USCF description of Pal Benko, who USCF claims has "won the triple
crown of chess publishing."
http://main.uschess.org/content/view/144/203
Perhaps you can convince your co defendants to form a giant circle and sue
each other for misrepresenting Benko's publishing creds? Just a thought.
She then alleges that we are jealous of her "accomplishments"
====================
No. In fact, AFAICT the word "accomplishments" does not occur anywhere in
the complaint. She alleges you are jealous of her "successes." That's what
those lines mean -- " . . . " -- they're called quotation marks. They
denote "the beginning and end of a phrase in which the exact words are
used." The operative word here being "exact."
because of this jealousy motivated by our unfulfilled desire to win
the Woman's World Championship four times, we have slandered and
denigrated her,
=======================
No. She alleges that defendants' jealousy arises because defendants are
xenophobes and misogynists who are envious of her "fame, notoriety, and
widespread fan appeal."
interfered with her business replationships and so on.
By "we", I mean Goichberg, Mottershead, Bogner, Lafferty, Bauer,
Hanken, Berry and Hough. We all wish that we had won the Woman's World
Championship four times. It makes up jealous that she won it and we
did not. Therefore, we do bad things to her, she alleges.
==============================
Absolutely a false characterization of the allegations in the complaint. She
claims defendants have become "irrationally concerned with [her] success" --
which in your case: res ipsa loquitur.
So, when it comes out that she did not really win the Woman's World
Championship four times and did not really win the "Triple Crown" in
chess, that this is all just a lie, that is highly relevant.
=================
If lies are indeed relevant then your co defendants should muzzle you. You
give loose cannons a bad name.
foad
<jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote in message
news:10254780-9695-49d8...@25g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Like so much else, Susan Polgar's website claims
are simply a distraction from the actual issue.
===========
You seem to have a rational outlook, so perhaps you'll indulge me: in 25
words or less, what is the actual issue?
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
> <jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote in message
Paul Truong is a USCF board member. A USCF volunteer did computer
analysis which claims to show (and I believe to be true) that Paul
Truong was also the author of thousands of messages signed Sam Sloan,
with email addresses similar to Sam Sloan. Truong denies the claim,
but mostly by wild attacks on Sloan and perceived enemies of Truong on
the board.
Many of us would like Truong removed from the board. There are other
incidents in which Truong has seemed to misrepresent himself. His
website used to say he had a PhD. He claims that this PhD claim was
inserted by a hacker; other people have claimed he also seemed to
suggest in person that he had a PhD. He claims to have been an
extraordinarily successful businessman, but Sloan discovered
bankruptcy filings at the time he claimed to be so successful that he
could retire and devote himself to chess.
Some of us are afraid that we have entrusted a sort of con-man with a
key board position. We want him removed.
Sloan's lawsuit, for all its wild claims, at least seemed to have the
virtue that it would make Truong swear in court as to whether he wrote
the emails. I believe that if push came to shove, he would not risk
perjury, and (with a good lawyer) try to make a case that he wrote the
emails but that this was not criminal. He might win the case this way
(I am no lawyer; this sort of impersonation strikes me as on the
borderline between prosecutable offense and simply bad behavior), but
would not survive on the board.
The only relevance of Susan Polgar's website is that it may be part of
Paul's standard modus operandi of playing fast and loose with truth.
These claims look like certain unverifiable claims regarding Paul's
own life, including claiming national titles in Vietnam at a young age
for what were at best much less than what seems to be conveyed when
you talk of national titles.
I don't know what your background is with chess, so I will give an
example that you may already understand. If I wanted to play by the
rules used on the web site, I could claim that I was the 4-time chess
champion of Tennessee. Yet, I feel it would be very dishonest to make
such a claim; I was 3-time "quick chess" champion and 1-time senior
champion, and these are much more minor titles than Tennessee
champion. If I made the claim to promote myself, say as a chess coach,
that I was 4-time Tennessee champ, I would deserve mockery. On the
other hand, it wouldn't be criminal, and would not be as Sloan seems
to indicate a sign of mental breakdown.
Sorry, much more than 25 words. In any case, many of us want Truong
out as an inappropriate board member; we just hope Sloan can contain
himself enough in his suit to force Truong to testify.
Jerry Spinrad
samsloan
The above posting is by the Fake Sam Sloan. Like almost all the
postings by The Fake Sam Sloan, its emphasis is on sexuality.
However, this one is different in that it makes deprecating remarks
about Truong's size.
Mr. Truong seems to be obsessed with this little problem he has. This
is the most common theme in postings by "The Fake Sam Sloan". See
http://mottershead.info/uscfdocs/fake-sam-sloan.txt
For example,
"She'll learn to enjoy my 4 1/4 inch power weapon."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/4eac112bdaa076ab
foad
<jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote in message
news:8e1f00a4-a0c7-4e3d...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Paul Truong is a USCF board member. A USCF volunteer did computer
analysis which claims to show (and I believe to be true) that Paul
Truong was also the author of thousands of messages signed Sam Sloan,
with email addresses similar to Sam Sloan. Truong denies the claim,
but mostly by wild attacks on Sloan and perceived enemies of Truong on
the board.
Many of us would like Truong removed from the board. There are other
incidents in which Truong has seemed to misrepresent himself. His
website used to say he had a PhD. He claims that this PhD claim was
inserted by a hacker; other people have claimed he also seemed to
suggest in person that he had a PhD. He claims to have been an
extraordinarily successful businessman, but Sloan discovered
bankruptcy filings at the time he claimed to be so successful that he
could retire and devote himself to chess.
Some of us are afraid that we have entrusted a sort of con-man with a
key board position. We want him removed.
=======================
I had gleaned some of the details of the Truong affair from Sloan's
ubiquitous x-postings to the legal board. I was more interested in the
animus toward Polgar. As a disinterested observer it seems odd, both the (1)
vilification of a grandmaster and world champion by the rank and file and
(2) if the allegations in her complaint are evenly vaguely true, the actions
and reactions of the US federation. Even if her husband is a scoundrel and
she is guilty of inflating her resume, I do not see how such things can be
justified. I assume there is more to the story.
Sloan's lawsuit, for all its wild claims, at least seemed to have the
virtue that it would make Truong swear in court as to whether he wrote
the emails. I believe that if push came to shove, he would not risk
perjury, and (with a good lawyer) try to make a case that he wrote the
emails but that this was not criminal. He might win the case this way
(I am no lawyer; this sort of impersonation strikes me as on the
borderline between prosecutable offense and simply bad behavior), but
would not survive on the board.
===============
What Sloan alleges is arguably libelous. Even if Sloan were denoted a
limited public figure, there is a case to be made that malice existed.
HOwever, considering Sloan's shall we say interesting life story,
if what I have read on the web about his personal life is true, damage to
his reputation will be difficult to prove and quantify.
A perjury charge is not much of a concern in a civil case. ITFP, people lie
in court every day, especially lawyers. ITSP, even if PT denied writing the
emails and lost the case, the quantum of proof in a civil matter (51%) is
not enough to sustain a criminal conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. And
ITTP, such prosecutions are rare. If 'I was never alone with Monica Lewinsky
while she was blowing me' doesn't rate a conviction, how will 'I denied
pretending to be someone else on the interwebs.'
The only relevance of Susan Polgar's website is that it may be part of
Paul's standard modus operandi of playing fast and loose with truth.
These claims look like certain unverifiable claims regarding Paul's
own life, including claiming national titles in Vietnam at a young age
for what were at best much less than what seems to be conveyed when
you talk of national titles.
I don't know what your background is with chess, so I will give an
example that you may already understand. If I wanted to play by the
rules used on the web site, I could claim that I was the 4-time chess
champion of Tennessee. Yet, I feel it would be very dishonest to make
such a claim; I was 3-time "quick chess" champion and 1-time senior
champion, and these are much more minor titles than Tennessee
champion. If I made the claim to promote myself, say as a chess coach,
that I was 4-time Tennessee champ, I would deserve mockery. On the
other hand, it wouldn't be criminal, and would not be as Sloan seems
to indicate a sign of mental breakdown.
=================
I take your point. (Although for example Viswanathan Anand's bio claims that
he is the "world rapid chess champion" and I can find no evidence of USCF or
anyone else pillorying him for puffing up his resume, which lends some
creedence to Polgar's claims). But in any event there is a
difference between justifiable interweb mockery on the one hand and plying
the provost of Texas Tech with alleged "facts" in an attempt to put the
kibosh on a private contractual matter on the other. AFAICT from my
interaction with him on these boards Sloan would not recognize a fact if a
herd of facts wearing "We are facts" tee shirts crawled up into his colon
and erected a giant billboard with the phrase "This is a fact" on it before
emolating themselves in a stupendous Viking Fact Funeral. In fact, I would
be hard pressed to locate an example of him telling the truth. If I were a
jointly liable co defendant, I would be a tad nervous.
Sorry, much more than 25 words. In any case, many of us want Truong
out as an inappropriate board member; we just hope Sloan can contain
himself enough in his suit to force Truong to testify.
===========
Thanks for taking the time to reply at all.
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
> <jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:8e1f00a4-a0c7-4e3d...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> =======================
>
> I had gleaned some of the details of the Truong affair from Sloan's
> ubiquitous x-postings to the legal board. I was more interested in the
> animus toward Polgar. As a disinterested observer it seems odd, both the (1)
> vilification of a grandmaster and world champion by the rank and file and
Actually, most people hoped Truong would resign and Polgar would stay
on the board when the report implicating Truong was first exposed.
During the vicious back-and-forth afterwards, Polgar made some
enemies, but there are still plenty of people (myself included) who
think that only Truong is at fault.
> (2) if the allegations in her complaint are evenly vaguely true, the actions
> and reactions of the US federation. Even if her husband is a scoundrel and
> she is guilty of inflating her resume, I do not see how such things can be
> justified. I assume there is more to the story.
Yes, the allegations in her complaint are often misleading. If you
have a specific part of her allegation to discuss, I can tell you
whether I think she has reason for complaint on that score are not.
For example, she seems sure that somebody from the USCF called Texas
Tech, but there is no reason to believe this was not the bizarre
Marcus Roberts (who boasted about contacting Texas Tech), or her ex-
husband with whom she seems to have a bitter relationship with, rather
than the USCF. Similarly, she has never made clear what supposed
threats were made against her family; it doesn't seem like the sort of
thing the USCF president would do. Some other issues are just legal
hardball; for instance, the USCF did not allow them to look at the
records because Truong would not give permission to contact his
internet service provider. She may have a point on some issues, but
you should certainly not assume everything in her allegations (or in
Sloan's) is strictly true. Strangely, I think neither is lying;
neither Polgar nor Sloan understand all the actions of other parties,
and each think the other is lying, and misinterprets what the other
says.
>
> Sloan's lawsuit, for all its wild claims, at least seemed to have the
> virtue that it would make Truong swear in court as to whether he wrote
> the emails. I believe that if push came to shove, he would not risk
> perjury, and (with a good lawyer) try to make a case that he wrote the
> emails but that this was not criminal. He might win the case this way
> (I am no lawyer; this sort of impersonation strikes me as on the
> borderline between prosecutable offense and simply bad behavior), but
> would not survive on the board.
>
> ===============
>
> What Sloan alleges is arguably libelous.
When I say Sloan's lawsuit, I mean only his case against Truong for
impersonating him. I have at several points advised him to drop all
other parts of the case, but he is a hard man to persuade.
Even if Sloan were denoted a
> limited public figure, there is a case to be made that malice existed.
> HOwever, considering Sloan's shall we say interesting life story,
> if what I have read on the web about his personal life is true, damage to
> his reputation will be difficult to prove and quantify.
I would like a comment on a legal theory I have on this one, where it
should be understood I am talking through my hat. If there is anyone
who can be said to have placed a value on hie internet persona, it is
Sam Sloan; he has materially damaged his real life by spending so much
energy on his virtual life. It seems to me he should have some sort of
rights from having spent so much time to build this up, so that
damaging his ability to post on the internet is somehow causing more
harm to him than impersonating someone who has less invested in it;
does this make any legal sense?
>
> A perjury charge is not much of a concern in a civil case. ITFP, people lie
> in court every day, especially lawyers. ITSP, even if PT denied writing the
> emails and lost the case, the quantum of proof in a civil matter (51%) is
> not enough to sustain a criminal conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. And
> ITTP, such prosecutions are rare. If 'I was never alone with Monica Lewinsky
> while she was blowing me' doesn't rate a conviction, how will 'I denied
> pretending to be someone else on the interwebs.'
I still think that when a lawyer looked at what I believe is
overwhelming evidence that he authored the emails in question, he
would advise Truong to admit writing them and concentrate on the issue
of whether there were any damages; he wouldn't want to make it easy to
be portrayed as a liar by being confronted with all the technical
evidence of his guilt.
>
> The only relevance of Susan Polgar's website is that it may be part of
> Paul's standard modus operandi of playing fast and loose with truth.
> These claims look like certain unverifiable claims regarding Paul's
> own life, including claiming national titles in Vietnam at a young age
> for what were at best much less than what seems to be conveyed when
> you talk of national titles.
>
> I don't know what your background is with chess, so I will give an
> example that you may already understand. If I wanted to play by the
> rules used on the web site, I could claim that I was the 4-time chess
> champion of Tennessee. Yet, I feel it would be very dishonest to make
> such a claim; I was 3-time "quick chess" champion and 1-time senior
> champion, and these are much more minor titles than Tennessee
> champion. If I made the claim to promote myself, say as a chess coach,
> that I was 4-time Tennessee champ, I would deserve mockery. On the
> other hand, it wouldn't be criminal, and would not be as Sloan seems
> to indicate a sign of mental breakdown.
>
> =================
>
> I take your point. (Although for example Viswanathan Anand's bio claims that
> he is the "world rapid chess champion" and I can find no evidence of USCF or
> anyone else pillorying him for puffing up his resume, which lends some
> creedence to Polgar's claims).
Noone would object to Polgar boasting that she was the world under-16
champion; it is just a significant but lesser title than world
champion which she also won. Similarly, I can boast about being
Tennessee senior champion, and I am proud of it; it is only worthy of
mocking if you claim something which seems more than what you earned.
There is nothing wrong that I see with Anand's claim, and is exactly
what Susan should say regarding her lesser titles; she should put
qualifiers rather than calling them world championships. Still, I am
one who thinks that is only a minor issue.
Jerry Spinrad