wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
So who do you believe, Sloan or S. Polgar?
Polgar claims that, while a minor, Sloan sexually propositioned her.
WRT Polgar, I do not claim that Sloan's proposition was illegal. As
Sloan has shown, the age of consent in Hungary is 14. Sloan has twice
intimated that a sexual relationship was in fact consummated. (Both
intimations were made in the course of conducting USCF business--rather
strange.) One might infer that both parties agree that a proposition
was made.
Adults should not sexually proposition minors. How's that for a
standard, kiddo?
Well, I see the proposed standard very clearly, and its based on a 'should'.
It ignores my proposed basis entirely, and this correspondent has
consistently ignored actual women and children [or their guardians], to the
degree that he insists his own 'should' preference superior to what they
themselves would declare.
It also bravely ignored everything I wrote, and proves the level of both
obsession with a dark subject and level of care about those offended.
***
I realize that Parr and Innes are transparent in their desire to
destroy USCF.
I cannot speak for others on this issue, especially those others who are
very capable and have the wherewithall to answer for themselves. What is not
'transparent' is what I wrote here a few hours ago, since that /was/ my
statement which hides behind nothing at all. Claims to the contrary can only
be achieved by addressing them, not putting them in the dark-closet!
And so readers can now fairly assess for themselves who cares for women and
children as affronted parties, and who cares for USCF as ostensibly entirely
seperated subject. What was cut was the comment that when this person plus
the then board [ex-Sloan] could have done something, they did not.
But they should not feel wedded to Sloan: they can find
a more ethical agent of destruction.
What unintended irony - I doubt I could compete - with you! But you do not
understand your own condition, and though you think Parr and myself inimical
to it, I think we do understand it in as non-judgmental a way as we
understood Tanner's cheating of himself - far less vilification at a
personal level than any other writers here!
Phil Innes
I will add one postscript to this message, in addition to serving on a
county board for youth services, I also volunteered for a program for
troubled youth. On passing the background audit I was perhaps too blasé,
since the invigilator said to me, 'you don't understand, half the people who
apply for this role in the state of California are rejected!'
So, that is a word to the wise concerning 'interest' in such subjects.