Hugh Myers did it!

There is a person who keeps attacking me, every day, day after day, in
every forum of which he is a member with a repetitiveness exceeded
only by Bill Brock. He keeps calling me a liar at every opportunity
and is causing a lot of problems for me and other members of these
forums.

Mr. Jomp has called me a liar 42 times in the last 21 days, or an
average of twice a day, on rgcp alone, and a similar number of times
on the USChess forums. He obviously has no idea what he is writing
about and therefore I have been ignoring him, assuming that everyone
else will too.

Today, under the heading Sam Sloan's lies about others. he has posted
the following.

Sam basically accuses a decent man of terrorism. It just so
happens that I know Narciso better than Sam ever will. Narciso and I
were neighbors and we would meet frequently at chess tournaments and
at social events.

However, Sam doesn't let the truth get in the way of his ego.
Just because he is sometimes right doesn't make him a credible source.
I posted the facts about this and Sam, to this day, has not retracted
his dispicable post about Narciso.
_________________
John W. Jomp
Orlando, Florida

This person posts in the groups as "John J."

In the first place, I never called Narciso Rabell Mendez a terrorist,
so Mr. Jomp is a liar, not me.

Next, I said that his cousin with almost exactly the same name is
serving a life sentence in prison for planting a bomb. Mr. Jomp has
admitted that this is true.

The cousin is named Narciso Rabell Martinez, which is almost exactly
the same name as Narciso Rabell Mendez.

In addition, Mr. Jomp has informed us that anti-terrorists blew up the
house of Narciso Rabell Mendez (the chess organizer) in an effort to
kill him, in a case of mistaken identity. So, at least somebody,
perhaps mistakenly, thought he was a terrorist. Rabell has since
disappeared.

In spite of all this, Mr. Jomp keeps calling me a liar.

However, I have a source who I am certain knows Narciso Rabell Mendez
far better, over a longer period of time, than Mr. Jomp did.

The name of that person is distinguished author Hugh Myers. It was
Hugh Myers who told me that Narciso Rabell Mendez was an
Independentista.

It is, of course, possible that Hugh Myers was mistaken. However, Hugh
Myers lived for about two decades in Puerto Rico and the Dominican
Republic and had dealings with Narciso Rabell Mendez throughout those
twenty years, so I wager that he knew Rabell far better than Mr. Jomp
did.

In addition, Hugh Myers is a distinguished author, known to us all.
None of us had ever heard of Mr. Jomp until he came on this group to
attack me.

Hugh Myers is such a distinguished author that none other an authority
than Eric Schiller has written that Hugh Myers wrote the second best
book ever written on the Nimzovich Defense.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...avesofthomasje

I realize that getting Mr. Jomp, when faced with the truth, to stop
making these baseless allegations is about as likely to getting Bill
Brock to stop, so I now have no choice but to post this every time Mr.
Jomp again makes these baseless allegations.

Sam Sloan

Sam:

Here is what you posted:

"Rabell was an "Independentista" meaning that he wanted independence for
Puerto Rico. He was a member of the same group that shot up the United
States Congress. His cousin was serving life in prison for planting a
bomb."

Saying that Rabell was a member of the "same group", who are terrorists,
makes him a terrorist by association. Do you not see that?

Even if Rabell was an 'Independentista', that doesn't make him a terrorist,
as you seem to imply. Also, if He was really an Independentista he wouldn't
have been elected to the San Juan City Council.

Now, regarding Hugh Myers, I know him too. He was one of my teachers my last
year of High School. He would never say that Narciso was a terrorist.

What's happening here is that you're trying to show folks how much you know
about happenings in Puerto Rico when, in fact, you are getting all of your
information second hand. Only under extreme pressure did you try to clarify
and explain your post.


" Mr. Jomp has called me a liar 42 times in the last 21 days, or an
average of twice a day, on rgcp alone, and a similar number of times
on the USChess forums. He obviously has no idea what he is writing
about and therefore I have been ignoring him, assuming that everyone
else will too".
..

How can I call you a liar 42 times when I probably haven't even posted a
total of 42 times about all subjects. Just another example of you using a
search function without understanding its purpose.

" It is, of course, possible that Hugh Myers was mistaken."

He probably was.

" In addition, Hugh Myers is a distinguished author, known to us all."

That doesn't mean he knows anything about Narciso's politics.

" Hugh Myers is such a distinguished author that none other an authority
than Eric Schiller has written that Hugh Myers wrote the second best
book ever written on the Nimzovich Defense."

Of course. Is that the same Eric Schiller who's books are so rife with typos
and other mistakes they are virtually unreadable?

"Rabell has since disappeared."

That's a ridiculous statement bordering on a lie. Narciso's phone# is
publically available. As a matter of fact I spoke to him last week.


I'll take your post to be a retraction. Finally. Go back and count how many
times I've really called you a liar. For someone who held a Securities
License you sure are bad at math!

I wish you would stop censoring my posts by changing the subject
header.

Throughout your lengthy rant, I do not see anywhere that you dispute
the fact that Hugh Myers knew Narciso Rabell Mendez for more than 20
years. Since you state that Hugh Myers was your high school teacher, it
is obvious that he knew Rabell Mendez for many years before you did.

In short, not one word of your lengthy postings demonstrates that I am
a liar.

And, no, I am not retracting my postings.

Sam Sloan

John J. wrote:
Sam:

Here is what you posted:

"Rabell was an "Independentista" meaning that he wanted independence for
Puerto Rico. He was a member of the same group that shot up the United
States Congress. His cousin was serving life in prison for planting a
bomb."

Saying that Rabell was a member of the "same group", who are terrorists,
makes him a terrorist by association. Do you not see that?

Even if Rabell was an 'Independentista', that doesn't make him a terrorist,
as you seem to imply. Also, if He was really an Independentista he wouldn't
have been elected to the San Juan City Council.

Now, regarding Hugh Myers, I know him too. He was one of my teachers my last
year of High School. He would never say that Narciso was a terrorist.

What's happening here is that you're trying to show folks how much you know
about happenings in Puerto Rico when, in fact, you are getting all of your
information second hand. Only under extreme pressure did you try to clarify
and explain your post.


" Mr. Jomp has called me a liar 42 times in the last 21 days, or an
average of twice a day, on rgcp alone, and a similar number of times
on the USChess forums. He obviously has no idea what he is writing
about and therefore I have been ignoring him, assuming that everyone
else will too".
.

How can I call you a liar 42 times when I probably haven't even posted a
total of 42 times about all subjects. Just another example of you using a
search function without understanding its purpose.

" It is, of course, possible that Hugh Myers was mistaken."

He probably was.

" In addition, Hugh Myers is a distinguished author, known to us all."

That doesn't mean he knows anything about Narciso's politics.

" Hugh Myers is such a distinguished author that none other an authority
than Eric Schiller has written that Hugh Myers wrote the second best
book ever written on the Nimzovich Defense."

Of course. Is that the same Eric Schiller who's books are so rife with typos
and other mistakes they are virtually unreadable?

John, just a minor point FYI: Myers' book on the Nimzovich Defense
was actually the best, not second best. The book Schiller claimed to be
the best, "Nc6!" by Heikki Westerinen, was one he actually had not even
read. It is not even about the Nimzovich Defense; it's about a line in
the King's Indian.

"Rabell has since disappeared."

That's a ridiculous statement bordering on a lie. Narciso's phone# is
publically available. As a matter of fact I spoke to him last week.


I'll take your post to be a retraction. Finally. Go back and count how many
times I've really called you a liar. For someone who held a Securities
License you sure are bad at math!

"Rabell was an "Independentista" meaning that he wanted independence for
Puerto Rico. He was a member of the same group that shot up the United
States Congress. His cousin was serving life in prison for planting a
bomb."

Does that mean that everyone who denies the north opened a can of whoopass
on the south is also a member of the KKK? Hmm.




*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

lol lol


?

John, just a minor point FYI: Myers' book on the Nimzovich Defense
was actually the best, not second best. The book Schiller claimed to be
the best, "Nc6!" by Heikki Westerinen, was one he actually had not even
read. It is not even about the Nimzovich Defense; it's about a line in
the King's Indian.

Juan Jimenez wrote:
"Rabell was an "Independentista" meaning that he wanted independence for
Puerto Rico. He was a member of the same group that shot up the United
States Congress. His cousin was serving life in prison for planting a
bomb."

Does that mean that everyone who denies the north opened a can of whoopass
on the south is also a member of the KKK? Hmm.

I think that the point that you are trying to make is the same point
that I am trying to make, which is:

According to John Jomp, if I say:

1. Narciso Rabell Mendez was an 'Independentista' and
2. In 1954 a group of Independentistas shot up the United States
Congress

Therefore QED Narciso Rabell Mendez was a terrorist.

That is what John Jomp is writing and of course that does not follow.

Sam Sloan

I have been a friend of Hugh Myers for over twenty-five years.

He does not own a computer and certainly would not publish unpleasant
emails under a pseudonym.

James Pratt (Basingstoke!)

wrote:
I have been a friend of Hugh Myers for over twenty-five years.

He does not own a computer and certainly would not publish unpleasant
emails under a pseudonym.

James Pratt (Basingstoke!)

Nobody is suggesting that Hugh Myers has been involved in any way in
this discussion or has sent emails under a pseudonym.

Just to explain what this is all about, about one month ago, I posted
that Narciso Rabell Mendez was an Independentista.

John Jomp replied that Narciso Rabell Mendez was not a terrorist, that
he was a "decent man".

Now, I have had extensive dealings with Narciso Rabell Mendez and based
upon my experiences with him he is in no way a decent man. He is a very
obnoxious and difficult person, a person best avoided.

However, I prefered to forget about the whole thing and drop the matter
entirely.

John Jomp on the other hand has insisted on keeping this matter going.
For the past month, every time I have posted anything on any subject
whatever, John Jomp has jomped into the conversation and called me a
liar.

This has happened more than 40 times in the past month and has caused
problems not only for me but for other readers because those other
readers have naturally assumed that John Jomp has specific knowledge
and information about whatever subject was being discussed.

John Jomp is obviously a sick and disturbed man because anybody who
would do this over and over again more than 40 times in one month over
a matter of really no consequence to himself, is not normal.

So, I just ignored this crazy lunatic and did not respond to his
postings. Finally, I got tired of this and in the hope of ending the
conversation I posted that it was Hugh Myers who told me that Narciso
Rabell Mendez was an Independentista.

It is likely that Hugh Myers does not remenber telling me that because
he told me that twenty years ago and probably does not remember the
conversation. Hugh Myers did not even remember that I first met him in
the 1956 Eastern States Open in Washington DC.

However, I remember the conversation well because Narciso Rabell Mendez
was attacking me at that time.

However, it does not really matter whether Hugh Myers remembers this
conversation or not or even whether Narciso Rabell Mendez was an
Independentista or not because the fact is that I never called Narciso
Rabell Mendez a terrorist, although I admit to saying that John Jomp is
a crazy lunatic.

Sam Sloan

The fact remains that you are a freakin' liar. I already presented
irrefutable facts disproving your stupid statements regarding Narciso but
you fail to admit your mistake. It's obvious that you hate the guy so why
not attack him?

Once again, you know absolutely NOTHING about the politics down there yet
you insist on making damaging statements regarding folks you barely know.


"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
I have been a friend of Hugh Myers for over twenty-five years.

He does not own a computer and certainly would not publish unpleasant
emails under a pseudonym.

James Pratt (Basingstoke!)

Nobody is suggesting that Hugh Myers has been involved in any way in
this discussion or has sent emails under a pseudonym.

Just to explain what this is all about, about one month ago, I posted
that Narciso Rabell Mendez was an Independentista.

John Jomp replied that Narciso Rabell Mendez was not a terrorist, that
he was a "decent man".

Now, I have had extensive dealings with Narciso Rabell Mendez and based
upon my experiences with him he is in no way a decent man. He is a very
obnoxious and difficult person, a person best avoided.

However, I prefered to forget about the whole thing and drop the matter
entirely.

John Jomp on the other hand has insisted on keeping this matter going.
For the past month, every time I have posted anything on any subject
whatever, John Jomp has jomped into the conversation and called me a
liar.

This has happened more than 40 times in the past month and has caused
problems not only for me but for other readers because those other
readers have naturally assumed that John Jomp has specific knowledge
and information about whatever subject was being discussed.

John Jomp is obviously a sick and disturbed man because anybody who
would do this over and over again more than 40 times in one month over
a matter of really no consequence to himself, is not normal.

So, I just ignored this crazy lunatic and did not respond to his
postings. Finally, I got tired of this and in the hope of ending the
conversation I posted that it was Hugh Myers who told me that Narciso
Rabell Mendez was an Independentista.

It is likely that Hugh Myers does not remenber telling me that because
he told me that twenty years ago and probably does not remember the
conversation. Hugh Myers did not even remember that I first met him in
the 1956 Eastern States Open in Washington DC.

However, I remember the conversation well because Narciso Rabell Mendez
was attacking me at that time.

However, it does not really matter whether Hugh Myers remembers this
conversation or not or even whether Narciso Rabell Mendez was an
Independentista or not because the fact is that I never called Narciso
Rabell Mendez a terrorist, although I admit to saying that John Jomp is
a crazy lunatic.

Sam Sloan