help bot wrote:


I find the above back-and-forth peculiarly dependent upon the precise
definition of a single term: minor. X claims that Y did action Z when
X
was a "minor"; Y claims that X was not a "minor" by Hungarian law.
W pops in, stating that a "minor" ought not to be Z'ed by an "adult".
Note how X and Y differ as to whether or not X was a "minor" at the
time of action Z. This sort of drags things down to the level of a
mere
technicality, so it seems.

-- help bot

Fiduciary duties (e.g., Sloan's duty to USCF) should meet higher
standards. At the moment, I wish to discuss one (rather low)
standard--that members of the Board should not have a history of sexual
relations with minors. Or we could go even lower: if they do, they
should keep it to themselves and not advertise said fact in the course
of conducting USCF business.

In the case of Polgar:

Polgar says she was propositioned by Sloan circa age 16 & that she
rebuffed Sloan.

Sloan claims to have had a "not entirely Platonic" and "seamy"
relationship with Polgar circa 1986, when she was 17. Were this true,
it would be charitable fot us to infer a prior proposition.

So I once again ask Parr and Innes to answer the question: who do you
believe, Sloan or Polgar?

Acceptable answers:

"Sloan";

"Polgar";

"neither."