ChessBanter - View Single Post - A Serious Legal Issue Facing the USCF Forums

**politikalhack@gmail.com**

wrote:
THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, kiddo. Ad hominem is in your
blood. I will suggest alternatives for you....

To recall, the issue before us is Sloan's 2006 claims with respect to
his relationship with the teenaged Susan Polgar.

1. Vicious Anon Defense

One might deny Sloan's authorship of these words. Perhaps someone has
commandeered Sloan' s identity on the USCF BINFO system or on the USCF
Issues Forum....

2. Dalliance Defense

One might note that although Sloan has referred to this relationship as
"seamy" and "not entirely Platonic," he has not explicitly stated that
his relationship with the teenaged Susan Polgar was sexual in nature.
One might then explain Sloan's (doubtless pure and good) motives for
his 2006 statements.

3. Kotov Defense ("Think about sexual relations with a grandmaster")

One might argue that one tends to believe Sloan's account, not
Polgar's, and that the relationship was not only legal (given the age
of consent in both Hungary and Argentina), but moral, a celebration of
life.... For example, many Thai soldiers on leave sleep with the
daughters of their hosts; sometimes such relationships are even
consensual (M-16 not always required!).

4. Flattery Defense

One might argue that one tends to believe Polgar's account, not
Sloan's, but that Sloan was only trying to flatter Polgar. One might
further explain why Sloan felt compelled to disclose the (nonexistent)
relationship, and that Sloan's lie was a higher form of truth, while
Polgar's statement of fact was a base lie.

5. Denial Defense

One might claim that Sloan's BINFO (subsequently deleted) and Sloan's
response to the ethics complaint simply don't exist, and that Brock is
lying.

There are many other possibilities...