Silence of the Board

On Nov 29, 10:54 am, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:39 am, zdrakec wrote:

snip

..."Polgar and Truong,
who clearly got elected by impersonating me ..."

An utterly ridiculous contention, demonstrating very clearly that your
grandiosity has led you into delusion.

Jeers,
zdrakec (the "real" one)

Why do you say that? Truong got elected to a 4-year term on a margin
of 30 votes. If the voters had known that he had been impersonating me
for the previous two years, he clearly would not have been elected.

Sam Sloan

Wrong on both counts

Originally Posted by bruce_leverett

You are wrong to say, "no one seemed too upset
by it". I was reading RGCP at the time the RSS was elected, and it
was screaming bedlam, and that doesn't even include what was happening
away from RGCP, such as at the Delegates' Meeting.

Have you noticed that all of the "Bedlam Screamers" one year ago are
the same people who are defending Paul Truong now?

The loudest screamers when I was elected one year ago were Herbert
Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, Grant Perks, Bill Goichberg, Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong. I cannot think of anybody else. These are the
same people who are defending Truong and Polgar now.

Also, my website contains no obscenities, none whatever, and no
pornography, so I do not know what you are referring to.

Sam Sloan

On Nov 29, 10:54 am, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:39 am, zdrakec wrote:

snip

..."Polgar and Truong,
who clearly got elected by impersonating me ..."

An utterly ridiculous contention, demonstrating very clearly that your
grandiosity has led you into delusion.

Jeers,
zdrakec (the "real" one)

Why do you say that? Truong got elected to a 4-year term on a margin
of 30 votes. If the voters had known that he had been impersonating me
for the previous two years, he clearly would not have been elected.

Sam Sloan

Okay, be careful he what you are about to see is called "logic".
I'm not sure you would recognize it without it being pointed out to
you.

First, you say "he clearly got elected by impersonating you"... how is
this clear? The only way to make such a contention clear would be to
identify everyone who voted for him, but NOT for you, and ask them if
they based their vote on some posts they read on Usenet. How exactly
could this point be proven else? However, the ballot is secret, is it
not? Therefore, this point is simply not provable, and your contending
it does not remotely make it so.

But hey, just for the sake of argument, let's grant that indeed,
enough people chose to vote against you because of the specious posts,
that you lost the election therefore. Mind you, I reject that
contention, and I do NOT approve of the fake posts, but we'll grant
the point for a minute.
Everyone who voted has a perfect right to determine who they will vote
for. It is simply not the court's affair, or anyone else's for that
matter, as to how these voters made up their minds. Presumably, they
are able for themselves competently to determine who will get their
vote. Unless the ballot box was actually rigged, the results are
perfectly valid, whether the voters read Usenet to make up their minds
(a highly doubtful proposition), or merely tossed some dice.
Got it?

Scorn, and slight regard,
zdrakec

I did not say that if Paul Truong had not impersonated me, I would not
have been elected.

I simply said that he had not impersonated me, he would not have been
elected.

There were ten candidates for four positions.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
...

I did not say that if Paul Truong had not impersonated me, I would not
have been elected.

I simply said that he had not impersonated me, he would not have been
elected.

You missed the /if/ from your first phrase above;

Since we are doing if's, why not continue the logic until arriving at :: Who
was impersonating him "impersonating" you?

Apart from abuseniks who are strangers to the truth, anyone who writes here
with normal discrimination on other subjects, such as chess, has no
difficulty distinguishing one from the other, besides most of the other
writers of the newsgroup were pointing it out continuously.

As zradec writes, this would not seem to sway many, or even any voters.

As for voters who might read here, we must assume some moronic level of
comprehension on their part if they couldn't tell the false-Sloan from the
real one, and I think you cannot prosecute stupidity in a court of law, not
even in New York state.

Phil Innes

There were ten candidates for four positions.

Sam Sloan

On Nov 29, 6:40 pm, samsloan wrote:
I did not say that if Paul Truong had not impersonated me, I would not
have been elected.

I simply said that he had not impersonated me, he would not have been
elected.

There were ten candidates for four positions.

Sam Sloan

sigh surely even you can see that the same logic applies to this
situation as well?

samsloan wrote:

Originally Posted by bruce_leverett

You are wrong to say, "no one seemed too upset
by it". I was reading RGCP at the time the RSS was elected, and it
was screaming bedlam, and that doesn't even include what was happening
away from RGCP, such as at the Delegates' Meeting.

Have you noticed that all of the "Bedlam Screamers" one year ago are
the same people who are defending Paul Truong now?

The loudest screamers when I was elected one year ago were Herbert
Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, Grant Perks, Bill Goichberg, Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong. I cannot think of anybody else. These are the
same people who are defending Truong and Polgar now.

Also, my website contains no obscenities, none whatever, and no
pornography, so I do not know what you are referring to.

Sam Sloan


http://www.shamema.com/pornplot.htm

Has your nose grown recently, Sam?

On Nov 30, 5:19 pm, wrote:
samsloan wrote:

Originally Posted by bruce_leverett

You are wrong to say, "no one seemed too upset
by it". I was reading RGCP at the time the RSS was elected, and it
was screaming bedlam, and that doesn't even include what was happening
away from RGCP, such as at the Delegates' Meeting.

Have you noticed that all of the "Bedlam Screamers" one year ago are
the same people who are defending Paul Truong now?

The loudest screamers when I was elected one year ago were Herbert
Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, Grant Perks, Bill Goichberg, Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong. I cannot think of anybody else. These are the
same people who are defending Truong and Polgar now.

Also, my website contains no obscenities, none whatever, and no
pornography, so I do not know what you are referring to.

Sam Sloan

http://www.shamema.com/pornplot.htm

Has your nose grown recently, Sam?


http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm

***

Sam Sloan is endorsed by Larry Parr.

On Nov 30, 6:16 pm, wrote:
On Nov 30, 5:19 pm, wrote:



samsloan wrote:

Originally Posted by bruce_leverett

You are wrong to say, "no one seemed too upset
by it". I was reading RGCP at the time the RSS was elected, and it
was screaming bedlam, and that doesn't even include what was happening
away from RGCP, such as at the Delegates' Meeting.

Have you noticed that all of the "Bedlam Screamers" one year ago are
the same people who are defending Paul Truong now?

The loudest screamers when I was elected one year ago were Herbert
Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, Grant Perks, Bill Goichberg, Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong. I cannot think of anybody else. These are the
same people who are defending Truong and Polgar now.

Also, my website contains no obscenities, none whatever, and no
pornography, so I do not know what you are referring to.

Sam Sloan

http://www.shamema.com/pornplot.htm

Has your nose grown recently, Sam?

http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm

***

Sam Sloan is endorsed by Larry Parr.

http://www.samsloan.com/aminmina.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/donmoon.htm

On Nov 30, 6:16 pm, wrote:
On Nov 30, 5:19 pm, wrote:



samsloan wrote:

Originally Posted by bruce_leverett

You are wrong to say, "no one seemed too upset
by it". I was reading RGCP at the time the RSS was elected, and it
was screaming bedlam, and that doesn't even include what was happening
away from RGCP, such as at the Delegates' Meeting.

Have you noticed that all of the "Bedlam Screamers" one year ago are
the same people who are defending Paul Truong now?

The loudest screamers when I was elected one year ago were Herbert
Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, Grant Perks, Bill Goichberg, Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong. I cannot think of anybody else. These are the
same people who are defending Truong and Polgar now.

Also, my website contains no obscenities, none whatever, and no
pornography, so I do not know what you are referring to.

Sam Sloan

http://www.shamema.com/pornplot.htm

Has your nose grown recently, Sam?

http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm

***

Sam Sloan is endorsed by Larry Parr.

http://www.samsloan.com/aminmina.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/donmoon.htm