On Apr 23, 12:06 am, " wrote:

If Paul Truong's statement is accurate -- and I
think the chances are high that it is

Note the lies, fabrications and misrepresentations
on the SP Web site-- could these be the handiwork
of the same man upon whose testimony LP is now
relying?


-- then I was
right to condemn a few days back the ready habit to
employ a U.S. court action to condemn automatically
parents for what they may or may not be doing.

In this instance, Sam probably unwittingly
adopted the same tactic that several people on this
and other forums employed against him when he
"kidnapped" his daughter.

The old two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy. If Mr.
Sloan was wrong, let's just own up to it.


My point earlier was that it was morally
dangerous to pry through the written word into the
lives of families without a full knowledge of
circumstances and hard facts. I noted that EVEN IF
the Tabasco charge were true and acted upon by an
American court, there was likely far more to the story.

That's not what I read; what I read was a sort of
dissertation on Libertarian values, with an extra bit
thrown in for good measure, about how it was okay
to hot-sauce children because after all, they do it
in Asia.


In this instance, it appears that the basic
charge, regardless of familial circumstances, was
untrue. That Mr. Truong waited until he had his ducks
properly lined up to respond suggests both a strong
human spirit on his and Susan Polgar's part and a
surprising degree of professionalism.

It would greatly surprise me if the creators of the
horror that is SP's Web site could somehow manage
to get even two ducks in a row.


I am not at all sure that I could have kept my cool
and my keyboard quiet until the correct moment, had I
been in his position.

I would say that it is a near certainty that LP could
not keep his cool; instead, he would very likely fire
off some ad hominem "hot sauce" fireballs.


-- help bot