"It seems that he has been out sick more
often than he has been at work."
Sam Sloan
---
Like most Sam Sloan posts, what is written above is not evidence. Neither is
it a fact. It is a suggestion, vastly overstated, but as always, containing
condemnation of others, as if what he 'asks' were actually true. In this
instance he merely restricts his non-factual statement to the mild, for him,
conclusion, about the Ex Dir being 'a lazy bum who doesn't want to work'.
At least this is a different subject from the 'evidence', as we are to
understand it already is, that Paul Truong is so obsessed with him, that he
parades around anonymously as a pseudo-Sloan.
I can understand Sam Sloan's evident resentment that Paul Truong married the
pretty woman, who is a world champion of chess, who is in the major media,
including television programs on cognitive psychology, funded by National
Geographic.
Who wouldn't?
)))
We all envy the guy a bit, no?
--a little pause in this diatribe-- my son, a 5th year engineering student
says that his [name-brand] engineering school have hacked everything, every
thing at every level. its a sort of joke thing among them. what 'experts'
working with the non-profit uscf will understand, he said, is not likely to
impress him, and causes him some amusement -- okay, back to the main
psycho-drama
While Sam Sloan's rejected suitor orientation is as plain as day, does he
really think he is so central to chess that perhaps the most successful
promoter of it in the USA has time to, sort-of, mock him, as if he himself
were the *star* of it all, except in his own mind.
It is so psychologically implausible, [though not impossible] considering
Mr. Sloans soto-relationship with Mrs Polgar, that at any bar in the world,
guys would be nudging each other in the ribs, asking who the big ****** was?
Anyway, despite HIPPA, what exactly can this mean? And I'll put this forward
again
"It seems that he has been out sick more
often than he has been at work."
So... It /seems/ to Sam Sloan. But that is hyperbolous, surely, unless we
think he is innumerate, and can't count. Sam Sloan is stating that he would
prefer us to think as he would /seem/ to understand. Which is not his real
understanding.
In other words, he would like us to judge something known to him to be
false, as if it were not.
What's new?
Phil Innes