BROCK'S MAGNIFICENT OBSESSIVENESS
Someone advised me not to feed the trolls
like Bill Brock (Politikalhack) who keeps changing
headers to suit his weird agenda, but I'll try again.
The great thing about the Rock Hudson - Jane
Wyman version of Lloyd C. Douglas' Magnificent
Obsession was that the magnificence of the
cinematography and Technicolor served the cause of
decent American soap opera rather than any obsession.
One might wish for soap opera where Bill Brock is
concerned. Instead we have to title his rgcp writing,
Magnificent Obsessiveness, in the sense that he
magnifies his obsessions.
Bill wants everyone to believe that Sam Sloan is
a child molester and that this writer is Sam's
apologist. The problem is that he never presents
proof that Sam molested any child, and he adduces no
apologias re Sam as a child molester from this writer.
Needless to say, when writing, "I would argue
that by any algor ithm of abuse, Sam has been far more
abused than abusing," I was responding to Joel
Channing's discussion of civil and uncivil speech
rather than addressing the Polgar and Sloan versions
of their relationship about which I know nothing.
We have heard no one accuse Mr. Sloan of
child molestation in the Polgar affair, which
is the topic under discussion. We await proof
from Bill B. that Sam has ever molested a child.
Beware the man who endlessly explores in public
the pubic lives of others. We continue to believe
that Brock's evident electronic twitchings derive from
an agitated ego rather than an afflicted sexual
libido. We continue to regard his postings as nobly
intended, though imbecilically framed and
rebarbatively composed.
Alas, we no longer continue to hope for anything
better from the man.
P.S. Here is an excerpt from a thread called BROCK'S TRUE
CONFESSIONS which I wrote on May 15, 2006:
Readers of this forum are aware that Bill Brock
accuses Sam Sloan daily of being a child molester,
though never offering any proof. None. If he had
anything solid, he would go to the authorities instead
of smearing Sam so relentlessly.
And, yes, Mr. Brock still presents no proof that
Sam is a child molester, though he repeats the charge
ad nauseum like a liturgical chant of faith.
MR. BROCK'S "SKELETONS"
We have noted that Internet self-revelatory effusions
ought to be taken with a grain of salt without proof
that the claims are true. That is because many people
typically write quickly on the Internet and don't express
accurately. They frequently write things they do not mean
to assert.
So, too, Bill Brock has written a claim about
himself that we do NOT regard as probative unless
proof is forthcoming that what he has said about
himself happens to be true.
Once again, in a response to Phil Innes of March
4, 2006, Mr. Brock wrote about having "skeletons"
(note the plural) in his closet directly after referencing a
case in which a Missouri chess official showed sexual
material to a young boy, presumably of a homosexual
nature. If Mr. Brock is writing truthfully about himself -- if
he actually meant what he wrote -- then we must conclude
he has committed some very, very ugly acts indeed.
The good news is that given Mr. Brock's
emotional condition and limited capacity for
expression, we assume that the man was bloviating
fecklessly at the keyboard.
What follows are two complete paragraphs and a
portion of a third from Mr. Brock's message to Mr.
Innes. In the first paragraph, Mr. Brock goes on
about his sympathy for Humbert Humberts, ending the
paragraph by referencing the aforementioned Missouri
chess official.
The second paragraph is two short declarative sentences --
"Jeepers, I have skeletons in my own closet. However, I don't
advertise my skeletons as trophies." -- in which Mr. Brock sums up
his own history, clearly referencing the preceding paragraph.
Comments in brackets are by me.
"The boundary between childhood and adulthood is
to some extent a social construct [a banal truism],
and the barrage of phone calls for my son tells me
something about the instinctual drives of 13-year-old
girls [if Sam Sloan had written thus, Mr. Brock would
be calling him a nosey Parker voyeur]. So I have a
bit of sympathy for the fallen Humbert Humberts of the
world [if Mr. Sloan had written thus, Mr. Brock would
accuse him of being soft on paedophilia]. Some of you
may remember the affair that caused a certain
controversy within the Missouri Chess Association
involving a 'consenting' minor [a chess official was
convicted of this-or-that after showing porn pictures
to a young boy]. In that case, the adult involved in
the act never presented his action as a mitzvah [if
Mr. Sloan had written thus, Mr. Brock would accuse him
of mitigating the conduct of a paedophile].
"Jeepers, I have skeletons in my own closet.
However, I don't advertise my skeletons as trophies."
Vince Hart wrote:
wrote:
MORE SINNED AGAINST THAN SINNING
I would argue that by any algorithm of abuse,
Sam has been far more abused than abusing.
In the past at rgcp, the typical scenario has
been dozens of postings filled with feral language
attributing crimes to Sam (his jail sentence was for
"kidnapping" his daughter in an affair of the heart
that would not even have been in the courts a couple
of generations back) and after constant abuse
directed at him Sam occasionally loses his temper,
though not often.
Indeed, I am constantly amazed at Sam's
self-restraint, given the provocations.
Let's keep the complete story in mind when we consider Parr's
characterization of Sam's felony conviction as "an affair of the
heart":
Sam abandoned the girl for two and one half of her first five years
with no contact and no support.
Sam violated multiple (i.e., three) court orders by "taking the child
out of the juridisdiction of the appropriate court and away from the
custodial parties."
His last attempt was thwarted when the child had the good sense to run
from Sam and lock herself in the car of the social worker who was
monitoring the visit between Sam and his daughter.
Sam "testified that he was still married to at least two wives and that
at least two of them and their children resided in the same house."
The court found that "Mr. Sloan's unfitness [as a parent] was exhibited
in his lifestyle, attitude, behavior, instability, living
circumstances, personal habits and emotional status."
The court noted that "[h]is credibility as a witness was very poor."
The court decided that contact with Sam was "not in the child's best
interest because of the unusual circumstances in that Mr. Sloan
continually takes the child to foreign countries or other jurisdictions
when court ordered not to do so."
Let us also keep in mind that Parr knows no more about family law than
he knows about the laws of evidence, copyright, or sexual abuse. Parr
likes to assert as fact whatever pops into his head.