Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.

I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?
--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?

You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.

'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film 'It Happened in Flatbush'.

Here's an excerpt from a 'Publishers Weekly' review of the
2001 novel by Robert Wise, 'The Empty Coffin: A Sam and
Vera Sloan Mystery': "There's been a murder in Colorado
Springs, Colo., but the body is missing. This doesn't faze
Det. Sam Sloan, who has built his reputation on his infallibility."

Nick wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?

You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.

'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film 'It Happened in Flatbush'.

Actually, it appears our Sammy has "officially" appeared in at least
one film:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0806012/

Hi Taylor:

Speaking of chess player/chess personality filmography, it would
be hard to beat the activity of Sean Whalen:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0923490/

If memory serves, Sean had a huge chess links web site back
in the middle-to-late 90's...

Kind Regards,
John

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Nick wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?

You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.

'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film 'It Happened in Flatbush'.

Actually, it appears our Sammy has "officially" appeared in at least
one film:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0806012/

Nick wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?

You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.

'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film 'It Happened in Flatbush'.

There was a character named Sam Sloan in that film, but he was played
by William Frawley, better known as Fred Mertz from the "I Love Lucy"
TV show. Frawley also was excellent as the judge's back-room political
advisor in "Miracle on 34th Street."

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Nick wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Just got back from seeing X3: The Last Stand.
I wonder if anyone else noticed the "Sam Sloan" character?

You mean Sam is actually a mutant? That would explain a lot.

'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film 'It Happened in Flatbush'.

When I wrote " 'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film
'It Happened in Flatbush' ", *of course* I was referring to
his appearance as a character rather than as an actor.

Considering that Sam Sloan (the writer in rec.games.chess.*,
not his impersonators) was born in 1944, I would have been
astonished if he had appeared as an actor in a 1942 film.

There was a character named Sam Sloan in that film,
but he was played by William Frawley,

Why did Taylor Kingston write 'but'? 'But' as opposed
to what? Did Taylor Kingston suspect that I believed
that Sam Sloan was an actor in that 1942 film?

Why did Taylor Kingston simply not write, "There was
a character named Sam Sloan in that film, *who* was
played by William Frawley" (which would *not* have
been new information for me) ?

better known as Fred Mertz from the
"I Love Lucy" TV show.

He may be better known as that character in the
memories of people who watched that television show.

Frawley also was excellent as the judge's back-room
political advisor in "Miracle on 34th Street."

I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.

--Nick

Nick wrote:
When I wrote " 'Sam Sloan' appeared in the 1942 film
'It Happened in Flatbush' ", *of course* I was referring to
his appearance as a character rather than as an actor.

Considering that Sam Sloan (the writer in rec.games.chess.*,
not his impersonators) was born in 1944, I would have been
astonished if he had appeared as an actor in a 1942 film.

That probably would not stop Sam himself from claiming that he
appeared in a 1942 film.

There was a character named Sam Sloan in that film,
but he was played by William Frawley,

Why did Taylor Kingston write 'but'?

Don't worry, Nick. I was only acting on orders from those who control
the secret conspiracy against you.

'But' as opposed
to what?

Exactly. It's sort of like Nietzsche's "Jenseits von Güte und
Böse."

Did Taylor Kingston suspect that I believed
that Sam Sloan was an actor in that 1942 film?

You are suspected of many things, Nick.

Why did Taylor Kingston simply not write, "There was
a character named Sam Sloan in that film, *who* was
played by William Frawley" (which would *not* have
been new information for me) ?

That was not part of my orders.

better known as Fred Mertz from the
"I Love Lucy" TV show.

He may be better known as that character in the
memories of people who watched that television show.

Which is many millions more than ever watched "It Happened in
Flatbush."

Frawley also was excellent as the judge's back-room
political advisor in "Miracle on 34th Street."

I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.

You mean you've never seen the movie? No wonder you're so crabby!
Even though it's not Christmas season, go and watch it right now. It
will cheer you you up right down to your toes!

Nick wrote:
I already know how to use the Internet Movie Database.

So do most of us here. So why bother telling us about some stupid movie
we can look up if we want?

Don't you have some admirers elsewhere you can entertain with your
supposed bon mots?

On 12 Jun 2006 15:55:37 -0700, "Nick"
wrote:

much whining drivel about Goran Tomic, Stan Booz, Parr, Sloan, Innes,
recent London Bombings, "white" Americans, Nick's "white" friends,
World War 2, Kingston's other writings, James Baldwin, etc., snipped

Having been shown to have played the fool, Nick tries to distract us
by playing the race card...again. "For the record", he sounds like a
*broken* record.

I realize we rgc* folk are an insensitive lot, so,

Please forgive those of us who find it hard to connect this diatribe
with the earlier thread topic about "Sam Sloan" in the movies, or even
with Nick's earlier carping about Taylor Kingston's use of the word
"but".

Please forgive those of us who find it difficult to accept without
question an anonymouse's autobiographical claims of racially based
persecution.

Please forgive those of us who find it difficult to accept as evidence
said anonymouse's unverifiable reports of conversations with unnamed
third parties.

Nick wrote:
Why is Taylor Kingston apparently misrepresenting
what I have described of my friend's response as my
own independent view?

Nick, it's still going right over your head.

My friend informed me that, as far as he knew,
*there was no 'plight of London'* (his emphasis) to speak of.
He felt that much of the news coverage was overblown.
My friend mentioned that his neighbours and he were
'laughing' (his term) at the bombers' incompetence.
His neighbours and he were not obsessing about the
supposed 'plight of London' (to quote Taylor Kingston).
He seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston had used
that expression and attributed it to ignorance.

Would Taylor Kingston, who was not there, like to
tell my friend that he did not observe what he did?

My friend went on to say that the deaths were statistically
minor in a city of London's great size. He added that he
still felt safer from violent death in London than he would
have felt in some cities in the United States.

Taylor Kingston has snipped what I wrote earlier:

Nick, for someone who complains repeatedly that his "context has been
snipped," you are really botching up the context of my "plight of
London" remark. For a man who often denigrates the erudition of others,
and boasts of his own intellectual attainments, you show an embarassing
lack of comprehension. You are also making a mountain of a molehill,
and looking quite silly in the process.
Now, using Google, go back to my 10 July 2005 post. Read it again
(and again and again if necessary) until you understand it. It would
help greatly if you also read the preceding posts, so that you
understand the surrounding context and exactly what my post replied to.
Because you seem to be having such a hard time with it, I will give you
a few helpful clues and hints to aid your understanding:

1. The post was directed at Goran Tomic and Sam Sloan.
2. Whenever he has no arguments to support his loony positions (which
is quite often), Goran Tomic is fond of exclaiming "This is chess
newsgroup! Return on chess topics!"
3. The post actually has nothing to do with London, bombing, plights,
etc.
4. Contrary to the interpretation you have so far given it, the post
is not to be taken in a literal sense. Think of such adjectives as
sardonic, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek. Think of such nouns as put-on,
lampoon, skewer.

See if you can figure it out now. And remember, this counts toward
your final grade.

"My friend recognised that Taylor Kingston may have
been attempting to offer his sympathy,

I have no sympathy for Goran Tomic or Sam Sloan.