On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:56:11 GMT, "Matt Nemmers"
wrote:

(And no, pity-votes and jokes don't count. And if you were drunk when you
voted for him, that doesn't count either.)

Would anyone who *seriously* voted for Sloan thinking he was a *serious*
candidate like to hang a big matzah-ball out there and admit it on a public
forum? And if so, would you care to explain WHY you did so, in light of his
obvious character flaws and insanity?

Yes -- I voted for Sam. He is no surely worse than the rest of those
bunglers. At least I can count on Sam to be informed before he makes a
decision, and not just spout off random nonsense like 99% of this
newsgroup's participants.



-- mcf

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:28:21 GMT, "Matt Nemmers"
wrote:

"Michael Ferguson" wrote in message
.. .

Yes -- I voted for Sam. He is no surely worse than the rest of those
bunglers. At least I can count on Sam to be informed before he makes a
decision, and not just spout off random nonsense like 99% of this
newsgroup's participants.



-- mcf


I guess you're new 'round these parts.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2E351555

Check that out before you start talking about Sloan being "informed before
he makes a decision" and how he doesn't "just spout off random nonsense."

I read the link. Sam was just reporting something he had heard
elsewhere; there was no "decision", except to unknowingly relay the
incorrect information. Anyone could fall for something like this.

Guess maybe YOU should've been a little more informed before you cast your
vote. (Not that you aren't entitled...)

I've been reading this newsgroup long enough to know that 99% of the
denizens here are a bunch of crack-smocking lunatics. Sam may be
insane in his own way, but at least he has good writing skills and can
reason clearly. This is much more than I can say for the majority of
the group.



-- mcf

Actually, I think the whole point is that Sam Sloan is NOT capable of
reasoning clearly, or reasoning at all. When you say "may be insane", I
don`t think you realise how accurate you are with that statement. You
apparently don`t know about Sloan`s criminal history, fleeing the USA to
avoid statutes of limitations on arrest warrants, spending time in prisons
in multiple Middle East countries for sex and financial crimes, statutory
rape accusations in the USA, him publicly boasting of sex with minors,
having pictures of underage naked girls on his website... for that matter,
look at his own website. He makes no secret of his crimes or his insane
ravings about how the USA based its activities in Afghanistan around his
website, and so forth. If you can honestly look at his website and see the
articles like "How to Rape a Woman" (where he seems to clearly advocate rape
as a positive thing, and explains how to do it and get away with it), and
still say that he is an acceptable candidate, well... I don`t know what to
say.

http://www.samsloan.com


- Joshua B. Lilly




"Michael Ferguson" wrote in message
...

I've been reading this newsgroup long enough to know that 99% of the
denizens here are a bunch of crack-smocking lunatics. Sam may be
insane in his own way, but at least he has good writing skills and can
reason clearly. This is much more than I can say for the majority of
the group.

-- mcf

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message news:3f1d3ddf$1_2@newsfeed...
Actually, I think the whole point is that Sam Sloan is NOT capable of
reasoning clearly, or reasoning at all.

Dear Mr. Lilly,

Here's more evidence (as though more were required):

In the thread, "Teimour Radjabov vs. Sam Sloan (Damiano Defense)"
(9 August 2003), Sam Sloan wrote:

"I would be very happy to play the Damiano's Defense against Teimour Radjabov.
The only condition would be that he not be told in advance what opening I was
going to play so that he would have no chance to study and prepare in advance.
I would bet that I would survive the opening with a playable game, although
he might eke out a win in the endgame...."

How much does Sam Sloan wish to bet? (I have no personal interest.)

When you say "may be insane", I don`t think you realise how accurate you are
with that statement. You apparently don`t know about Sloan`s criminal
history, fleeing the USA to avoid statutes of limitations on arrest warrants,
spending time in prisons in multiple Middle East countries for sex and
financial crimes, statutory rape accusations in the USA, him publicly
boasting of sex with minors, having pictures of underage naked girls on his
website... for that matter, look at his own website. He makes no secret of
his crimes or his insane ravings about how the USA based its activities in
Afghanistan around his website, and so forth.

I did not know that for certain. But I tend to take minimal interest in the
personal lives, careers, or circumstances of anyone else who writes here.
Out of curiosity, I have visited Sam Sloan's website briefly, but I prefer
not to wallow there.

If you can honestly look at his website and see the articles like "How to
Rape a Woman" (where he seems to clearly advocate rape as a positive thing,
and explains how to do it and get away with it), and still say that he is an
acceptable candidate, well...I don`t know what to say.

Unfortunately, in the thread, "There has got to be a great punchline to the
original subject" (9 July 2003,) NoMoreChess posted an apparent "joke" about
how to rape a woman:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G2EF21675

"In some cases madness is catching."
--Tobias Smollett (Sir Launcelot Greaves)

--Nick