All the Sloan replies here are false - it is well known that the real Sloan
never responds to anything real.

The false Sloan only wishes to stir things up, and a careful reading of
'its' orientation will reveal that 'it' is not antithetical to Sloan at all!
but wink winks, and nod nods, to the naughty boys, who enjoy this stuff, but
who are just boys themselves, and can't put their adult names to their
juvenalia.

Rob Mitchell will not be able to bring a successful suit, since
'trouble-maker' is sufficiently vague to describe anything - and the trouble
which the real Sloan fears and avoids is the question of challenging these
McCarthy-like accusations, by comparing his attitutudes to what he himself
does.

This is no crime in the law, it simply would, if actually confronted,
disqualify him from even a high-school chess club, nevermind any national
position to do with children.

To allow any conversation about the natuion's future to resolve around the
character of Sam Sloan is futile. Its funny, sad whatever you like, but
useless.

Instead Sloan's increasingly tenditious protestations [in plain talk -
scandal-mongering] should be viewed by readers here as the very sort of
negating activity which would wreck any group associated with him, whether
they are good or bad.

Whatever next? Maybe the CJA Ethics committee should take a good look?

ROFL

Phil Innes