"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 1:09 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and pornographic
messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
messages on her own blog athttp://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com,
Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside".

To parse that sentence, I first notice it is not an answer to anything I
wrote above, and then there is the usual Sloan-ism of relating 1,000s of
obsene messages from the FSS with 'those similar', according to Sloan
himself.

You keep saying this over and over again and I am calling your bluff.

I keep saying that you state unrelated elements? In the message which you
here snip I counted 5 of them. That is no bluff!

Please provide just one example of an obscene, pornographic or
objectionable posting by me to this chess group in the 12 years that I

Wowa! big boy! That would be number 6 unrelated elements.

have been posting here that is in any way comparable to the thousands
of obscene, pornographic or objectionable postings by the Fake Sam
Sloan

There is #7.

a/k/a Paul Truong under my name.

And number #8

I can provide many examples of obscene, pornographic or objectionable
postings by "anonymous" posters that have appeared recently on
susanpolgar.blogspot.com that are virtually word-for-word identical to
postings here by the Fake Sam Sloan.

Really? [Though that is still only 8 unrelated items.]

It is clear that the The Fake Sam
Sloan has written them all,

And number #9! A statement of what is clear to... ? Or how it is clear...?

that the Fake Sam Sloan is Paul Truong and
that Susan Polgar allows Paul Truong to post obscene, pornographic or
objectionable postings to her own blogspot.

Nice finish with #10.

Now NONE of that is what I addressed. I didn't ask for yet another litany of
accusations, I wrote that the first 5 accusations you made had no connection
among them that I could detect to justify linking them together.

Now - you cut that out AS IF another point was made, and to justify adding 5
more 'points' which I tell you, are blunt.

That is the level of your own address to the issue. You speak as if you
weren't there! That these factors you speak of are somehow independent of
you, rather than entirely the result of your own intellectual comprehension.

You completely make my point for me by cutting the reference to yourself,
and then continuing to suppose and assert things AS IF there existed any
objective linkage.

Seek the rift within, Mr. Sloan.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan