On Oct 3, 8:24 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I want to add three points.

The first is the pre-emptive challenge that Sam Sloan himself made to his
'evidence', which as Rob Mitchell has pointed out, is that your kids can
teach you how to fake-up one of those IDs.

This argument was already addressed in a very long-winded
posting by Sam Sloan. The tech guy at the USCF was
quoted as claiming he was too smart to fool that easily; that
he had ways and means of debunking any such fakery, and
many examples were neatly laid out for us.

(Of course, for all I know SS may have just made all that
up. Maybe the tech guy is really SS's three year old kid.)


In fact, if someone wanted to
frame me up, they could use some Verizon-originated number from Vermont, and
when I travel to England to see the Queen as part of my well-publicsed
activities for the Crown, they could find a nice one out of London ...

I regret to report that I just played under the name of
IM Innes at the local club, and boy are those kids good!
I was barely able to save one draw -- the rest were not
pretty. Roughly a 200 point rating hit, I expect. Sorry
about that! (I always won at GetClub!)


I assume your determined faker would be up to that, after all, there are
hundreds and hundreds of fake-Sloan messages, and the fake is determined,
no?

Talk of a single fake-Sloan randomly alternates with talk of
a myriad of fakes. Who knows? If they can't even count 'em,
how are they gonna figure 'em out?


A second point has to do with pattern recognition. I personally have no idea
if the accusation is true or not, since I have no more 'evidence' than
anyone else - but what can be said is that it would be, in my opinion,
entirely out of character for PT to stalk Sloan - whereas it would be
entirly in character for Sloan to suggest that he is important enough to
stalk, either because he is a chess hero or a poor victim! ;(((

Is it stalking, or more like ridicule? Consider the fake
name: "JackassLafferty" -- to me, that's pure ridicule.


It would seem more in character for PT to write dismissively of people who
really didn't know much and cared even less, about chess subjects - in fact
that is an established pattern at Sam Sloan's own newsgroup. I do not see
the psychological need for PT, who is able to make eye-wateringly direct
comments, to then slink around in some sub-fusc manner, and 'whittle-away'
at Sloan.

This ventures ever farther away from the "hard evidence"
that LP does not want to admit having seen. Psychology
is not the answer here.

I find it interesting that neither of the main ratpackers
made any reply at all when SS posted his "evidence",
but now they want to feign interest/ignorance. There
was a lot of interesting stuff in that earlier post, which
of course is still available. One thing I did not know
was that the Siamese twins, PT and SP, were in
Texas (and thus, posted from Texas); that narrows it
down to just one country.


I suppose the third thing has to do with grammar, range of expression, and
the care the false-Sloan takes to never say too much to illustrate his
knowledge of English syntax, which, from many long conversations with PT I
would say is yet superior to that of PT.

Ah, the syntax experts are back. Too bad the posts were
not written in Andean.


There are others, even someone writing here, who profile much better as
false-Sloan, and who practice their 'writings' under a variety of names and
guises

If any of the fake-Sloans had a problem with spittin',
cussin', and hollerin', it may well have been Skip Repa:
the meanest, honeryest, I'll-come-down-there-and-beat-
you-up-iest feller what ever wore a Canadian sombrero.


There are a few other factors to consider about the fake Sloan, one of which
is that he does not seem to be a strong chess player

Aha! So then, "he" could not possibly have been
Susan Polgar (unless she was stone-cold drunk).


and never addresses
that subject directly - and PT is a strongish master level player, imnmersed
in GM-level conversation, and who is either very modest therefore, in not
mentioning that, or would not fear making quite complex announcements on
chess positions.

You seem to be missing a key point: a fake does not
deliberately compromise his/her identity by giving out
personal data. You have to figure it out from subtle
clues, like your utter inability to spell, Sanny's inability
to play chess, tell-tale troubles with rational thinking, or
an incurable spittin' and cussin' habit.


Yes - Sam Sloan the unwitting stalking horse for a diversionary activity,
which yet ensures that no conversations about anything that is actually of
general merit to forward American chess will be raised - and therefore,
no-one will be responsible for not doing anything much to change the status
quo.

As far as I have seen, everyone wants to change the
status quo. For instance, each candidate wants to
kick out somebody they personally dislike, and become
the replacement.

The real reason nothing ever gets done, that personal
infighting always trumps the forwarding of American
chess, is that the type of people who run for and win
office are opinionated egomaniacs; they simply are not
capable of serving the public interest, except perhaps
by accident.


-- help bot