Some recent quotes from the USCF forums:
_
"... I have not been to his web site lately, but has he taken
down the pictures of his 'child' prostitutes from other
countries? Legal or not, it seems that he is a predator for
sex and that some of his conquests include children. ..."
- Mark Nibbelin (Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:37 am)
_
"Funny thing is, not only can you not find those pictures,
but nobody else has ever been able to find them either. ..."
- Sam Sloan (Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:40 am)

wrote:
BROCK'S MAGNIFICENT OBSESSIVENESS

Someone advised me not to feed the trolls
like Bill Brock (Politikalhack) who keeps changing
headers to suit his weird agenda, but I'll try again.

The great thing about the Rock Hudson - Jane
Wyman version of Lloyd C. Douglas' Magnificent
Obsession was that the magnificence of the
cinematography and Technicolor served the cause of
decent American soap opera rather than any obsession.

One might wish for soap opera where Bill Brock is
concerned. Instead we have to title his rgcp writing,
Magnificent Obsessiveness, in the sense that he
magnifies his obsessions.

Bill wants everyone to believe that Sam Sloan is
a child molester and that this writer is Sam's
apologist. The problem is that he never presents
proof that Sam molested any child, and he adduces no
apologias re Sam as a child molester from this writer.

Needless to say, when writing, "I would argue
that by any algor ithm of abuse, Sam has been far more
abused than abusing," I was responding to Joel
Channing's discussion of civil and uncivil speech
rather than addressing the Polgar and Sloan versions
of their relationship about which I know nothing.

We have heard no one accuse Mr. Sloan of
child molestation in the Polgar affair, which
is the topic under discussion. We await proof
from Bill B. that Sam has ever molested a child.

Beware the man who endlessly explores in public
the pubic lives of others. We continue to believe
that Brock's evident electronic twitchings derive from
an agitated ego rather than an afflicted sexual
libido. We continue to regard his postings as nobly
intended, though imbecilically framed and
rebarbatively composed.

Alas, we no longer continue to hope for anything
better from the man.

P.S. Here is an excerpt from a thread called BROCK'S TRUE
CONFESSIONS which I wrote on May 15, 2006:

Readers of this forum are aware that Bill Brock
accuses Sam Sloan daily of being a child molester,
though never offering any proof. None. If he had
anything solid, he would go to the authorities instead
of smearing Sam so relentlessly.

And, yes, Mr. Brock still presents no proof that
Sam is a child molester, though he repeats the charge
ad nauseum like a liturgical chant of faith.

MR. BROCK'S "SKELETONS"

We have noted that Internet self-revelatory effusions
ought to be taken with a grain of salt without proof
that the claims are true. That is because many people
typically write quickly on the Internet and don't express
accurately. They frequently write things they do not mean
to assert.

So, too, Bill Brock has written a claim about
himself that we do NOT regard as probative unless
proof is forthcoming that what he has said about
himself happens to be true.

Once again, in a response to Phil Innes of March
4, 2006, Mr. Brock wrote about having "skeletons"
(note the plural) in his closet directly after referencing a
case in which a Missouri chess official showed sexual
material to a young boy, presumably of a homosexual
nature. If Mr. Brock is writing truthfully about himself -- if
he actually meant what he wrote -- then we must conclude
he has committed some very, very ugly acts indeed.

The good news is that given Mr. Brock's
emotional condition and limited capacity for
expression, we assume that the man was bloviating
fecklessly at the keyboard.

What follows are two complete paragraphs and a
portion of a third from Mr. Brock's message to Mr.
Innes. In the first paragraph, Mr. Brock goes on
about his sympathy for Humbert Humberts, ending the
paragraph by referencing the aforementioned Missouri
chess official.

The second paragraph is two short declarative sentences --
"Jeepers, I have skeletons in my own closet. However, I don't
advertise my skeletons as trophies." -- in which Mr. Brock sums up
his own history, clearly referencing the preceding paragraph.
Comments in brackets are by me.

"The boundary between childhood and adulthood is
to some extent a social construct [a banal truism],
and the barrage of phone calls for my son tells me
something about the instinctual drives of 13-year-old
girls [if Sam Sloan had written thus, Mr. Brock would
be calling him a nosey Parker voyeur]. So I have a
bit of sympathy for the fallen Humbert Humberts of the
world [if Mr. Sloan had written thus, Mr. Brock would
accuse him of being soft on paedophilia]. Some of you
may remember the affair that caused a certain
controversy within the Missouri Chess Association
involving a 'consenting' minor [a chess official was
convicted of this-or-that after showing porn pictures
to a young boy]. In that case, the adult involved in
the act never presented his action as a mitzvah [if
Mr. Sloan had written thus, Mr. Brock would accuse him
of mitigating the conduct of a paedophile].

"Jeepers, I have skeletons in my own closet.
However, I don't advertise my skeletons as trophies."



















Vince Hart wrote:
wrote:
MORE SINNED AGAINST THAN SINNING

I would argue that by any algorithm of abuse,
Sam has been far more abused than abusing.

In the past at rgcp, the typical scenario has
been dozens of postings filled with feral language
attributing crimes to Sam (his jail sentence was for
"kidnapping" his daughter in an affair of the heart
that would not even have been in the courts a couple
of generations back) and after constant abuse
directed at him Sam occasionally loses his temper,
though not often.

Indeed, I am constantly amazed at Sam's
self-restraint, given the provocations.


Let's keep the complete story in mind when we consider Parr's
characterization of Sam's felony conviction as "an affair of the
heart":

Sam abandoned the girl for two and one half of her first five years
with no contact and no support.


Sam violated multiple (i.e., three) court orders by "taking the child
out of the juridisdiction of the appropriate court and away from the
custodial parties."


His last attempt was thwarted when the child had the good sense to run
from Sam and lock herself in the car of the social worker who was
monitoring the visit between Sam and his daughter.


Sam "testified that he was still married to at least two wives and that
at least two of them and their children resided in the same house."


The court found that "Mr. Sloan's unfitness [as a parent] was exhibited
in his lifestyle, attitude, behavior, instability, living
circumstances, personal habits and emotional status."


The court noted that "[h]is credibility as a witness was very poor."

The court decided that contact with Sam was "not in the child's best
interest because of the unusual circumstances in that Mr. Sloan
continually takes the child to foreign countries or other jurisdictions
when court ordered not to do so."


Let us also keep in mind that Parr knows no more about family law than
he knows about the laws of evidence, copyright, or sexual abuse. Parr
likes to assert as fact whatever pops into his head.

Why does Parr like to kiss my ass?

Sam Sloan

THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN

On an almost daily basis Bill Brock tries to change the
subject from his original charge that Sam Sloan
molested children to other issues, such as Sam being
"seamy" and the like.

That was also the burden of a posting by Vinnie
Hart. I wrote that Sam was not a criminal in the
natural law sense of the word and that he served time
for an affair of the heart that would not have been in
the courts a couple of generations back. Mr. Hart
then posted the view of a court that Sam was a bad
father, unreliable and so on. I don't know whether
that is true or whether a judge was chipping in to
support the viewpoint of another government agency;
but so far as I can see, Mr. Hart backed the essential
point that I made.

So, then, we still have no proof that Sam ever
molested any child. We do have endless attacks on his
employment status, his living circumstances, his
tending to his baby's diapers at a board meeting, etc.

To the extent that anyone on this forum has ever
provided evidence of someone being a child molester,
Bill Brock has done so. He wrote some nonsense about
HIMSELF that, as I have repeatedly stipulated, he
likely did not mean to write. Still, that is the only
evidence of child molestation we have; and if one were
to take Mr. Brock's words seriously, which I did not
and do not, we also have proof in the form of a
confession that he is a child molester. Some might
draw the conclusion, though I emphatically do not,
that Mr. Brock assaults Sam on a daily basis to assuage his
own sense of guilt.

wrote:
THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, kiddo. Ad hominem is in your
blood. I will suggest alternatives for you....


To recall, the issue before us is Sloan's 2006 claims with respect to
his relationship with the teenaged Susan Polgar.

1. Vicious Anon Defense

One might deny Sloan's authorship of these words. Perhaps someone has
commandeered Sloan' s identity on the USCF BINFO system or on the USCF
Issues Forum....

2. Dalliance Defense

One might note that although Sloan has referred to this relationship as
"seamy" and "not entirely Platonic," he has not explicitly stated that
his relationship with the teenaged Susan Polgar was sexual in nature.
One might then explain Sloan's (doubtless pure and good) motives for
his 2006 statements.

3. Kotov Defense ("Think about sexual relations with a grandmaster")

One might argue that one tends to believe Sloan's account, not
Polgar's, and that the relationship was not only legal (given the age
of consent in both Hungary and Argentina), but moral, a celebration of
life.... For example, many Thai soldiers on leave sleep with the
daughters of their hosts; sometimes such relationships are even
consensual (M-16 not always required!).

4. Flattery Defense

One might argue that one tends to believe Polgar's account, not
Sloan's, but that Sloan was only trying to flatter Polgar. One might
further explain why Sloan felt compelled to disclose the (nonexistent)
relationship, and that Sloan's lie was a higher form of truth, while
Polgar's statement of fact was a base lie.

5. Denial Defense

One might claim that Sloan's BINFO (subsequently deleted) and Sloan's
response to the ethics complaint simply don't exist, and that Brock is
lying.

There are many other possibilities...

wrote:
THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN


That was also the burden of a posting by Vinnie
Hart. I wrote that Sam was not a criminal in the
natural law sense of the word and that he served time
for an affair of the heart that would not have been in
the courts a couple of generations back. Mr. Hart
then posted the view of a court that Sam was a bad
father, unreliable and so on. I don't know whether
that is true or whether a judge was chipping in to
support the viewpoint of another government agency;
but so far as I can see, Mr. Hart backed the essential
point that I made.


Parr has never been able to see anything that did not support whatever
point he thought he was making.

Day 1

:-)

Larry Parr's continued public silence effectively forces me to reveal
my relationship with Salma Hayek. This will do no good either to me,
Ms. Hayek, or the Ventarosa production company, but it appears that now
I will have no real choice but to tell the whole story.

Parr probably did not even know that I had ever had a relationship with
Ms. Hayek. That is why I said that Parr was acting like a bull in a
China Shop. All these past twenty-one years (do the math: I'm cool), I
have avoided publicly revealing the facts that I have just set forth
above.

wrote:

Larry Parr's continued public silence effectively forces me to reveal
my relationship with Salma Hayek. This will do no good either to me,
Ms. Hayek, or the Ventarosa production company, but it appears that now
I will have no real choice but to tell the whole story.

Parr probably did not even know that I had ever had a relationship with
Ms. Hayek. That is why I said that Parr was acting like a bull in a
China Shop. All these past twenty-one years (do the math: I'm cool), I
have avoided publicly revealing the facts that I have just set forth
above.

;-)


********

Using equally rigorous logic, Sam Sloan wrote:

" [...]

I am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill [Goichberg], acting
like a bull in a china shop, has brought this into the public forum by
making a public motion and posting it to USCF BINFO System, as a result
of which this matter will disseminated and the entire world will know
about it in due
course.The fact is that my relationship with Zsuzsa Polgar (who now
calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic. I have been discrete
and have not revealed to anyone other than a few close friends the true
nature of our prior relationship, until now. Now, Bill's public motion
effectively forces me to reveal what really happened those many years
ago. This will do no good either to me, Zsuzsa,
Bill or the USCF, but it appears that now I will have no real choice
but to tell the whole story.

Sam Sloan"

********

In "Response to Ethics Complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn," Sam Sloan
wrote:

" [....] I then accompanied Susan [Polgar] and her family over the next
several months to chess tournaments in Copenhagen, Denmark, San Juan,
Puerto Rico and Rio Gallegos, Argentina. I personally arranged the
tickets for the five of them and me to fly to Argentina.

I will leave out the details, some of which are seamy, except that I
will say that my remark about which Herbert Rodney Vaughn now files his
ethics complaint is entirely accurate.

I must add, however, that my remark was in response to a motion to
censure me made by Bill Goichberg. That motion by Goichberg consisted
of five parts, all of which had to do with my relationship with Susan
Polgar. Bill probably did not even know that I had ever had a
relationship with Susan Polgar. That is why I said that, in making his
motion, Bill was acting like a bull in a China Shop. All these past
twenty-one years, I have avoided publicly revealing the facts that I
have just set forth above."

BROCK'S ELECTRONIC BREAKDOWN

Bill Brock is now claiming some kind of business
or other type of relationship with one Salma Hayek and
a company called Ventarosa.

We read Friedrich von Hayek's "Road to Serfdom"
and perhaps Salma Hayek may be a relative of the
Nobel Prize-winning economist.

On the other hand, we still can't imagine what
business dealings with, perhaps, a relative of the
great von Hayek has to do with proving that Sam Sloan
is a child molester.

Bill Brock appears to be in the midst of an
electronic nervous breakdown. He really does.

P.S. Mr. Brock (politikalhack) seems to have
hijacked this thread dealing with serious legal
issues facing the USCF.


wrote:
wrote:

Larry Parr's continued public silence effectively forces me to reveal
my relationship with Salma Hayek. This will do no good either to me,
Ms. Hayek, or the Ventarosa production company, but it appears that now
I will have no real choice but to tell the whole story.

Parr probably did not even know that I had ever had a relationship with
Ms. Hayek. That is why I said that Parr was acting like a bull in a
China Shop. All these past twenty-one years (do the math: I'm cool), I
have avoided publicly revealing the facts that I have just set forth
above.

;-)


********

Using equally rigorous logic, Sam Sloan wrote:

" [...]

I am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill [Goichberg], acting
like a bull in a china shop, has brought this into the public forum by
making a public motion and posting it to USCF BINFO System, as a result
of which this matter will disseminated and the entire world will know
about it in due
course.The fact is that my relationship with Zsuzsa Polgar (who now
calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic. I have been discrete
and have not revealed to anyone other than a few close friends the true
nature of our prior relationship, until now. Now, Bill's public motion
effectively forces me to reveal what really happened those many years
ago. This will do no good either to me, Zsuzsa,
Bill or the USCF, but it appears that now I will have no real choice
but to tell the whole story.

Sam Sloan"

********

In "Response to Ethics Complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn," Sam Sloan
wrote:

" [....] I then accompanied Susan [Polgar] and her family over the next
several months to chess tournaments in Copenhagen, Denmark, San Juan,
Puerto Rico and Rio Gallegos, Argentina. I personally arranged the
tickets for the five of them and me to fly to Argentina.

I will leave out the details, some of which are seamy, except that I
will say that my remark about which Herbert Rodney Vaughn now files his
ethics complaint is entirely accurate.

I must add, however, that my remark was in response to a motion to
censure me made by Bill Goichberg. That motion by Goichberg consisted
of five parts, all of which had to do with my relationship with Susan
Polgar. Bill probably did not even know that I had ever had a
relationship with Susan Polgar. That is why I said that, in making his
motion, Bill was acting like a bull in a China Shop. All these past
twenty-one years, I have avoided publicly revealing the facts that I
have just set forth above."

Larry Parr is as usual correct; Salma and Friedrich are second cousins
(see her recent Forbes FYI centerfold). She's best known as the voice
talents for Smurfette in this animated pr0n feature, coincidentally
available on Sam Sloan's website:

http://samsloan.com/SheWhoredForSmurfdom.htm

No groaning, please. Link may be broken, just like me ;-)


wrote:
BROCK'S ELECTRONIC BREAKDOWN

Bill Brock is now claiming some kind of business
or other type of relationship with one Salma Hayek and
a company called Ventarosa.

We read Friedrich von Hayek's "Road to Serfdom"
and perhaps Salma Hayek may be a relative of the
Nobel Prize-winning economist.

On the other hand, we still can't imagine what
business dealings with, perhaps, a relative of the
great von Hayek has to do with proving that Sam Sloan
is a child molester.

Bill Brock appears to be in the midst of an
electronic nervous breakdown. He really does.

P.S. Mr. Brock (politikalhack) seems to have
hijacked this thread dealing with serious legal
issues facing the USCF.


wrote:
wrote:

Larry Parr's continued public silence effectively forces me to reveal
my relationship with Salma Hayek. This will do no good either to me,
Ms. Hayek, or the Ventarosa production company, but it appears that now
I will have no real choice but to tell the whole story.

Parr probably did not even know that I had ever had a relationship with
Ms. Hayek. That is why I said that Parr was acting like a bull in a
China Shop. All these past twenty-one years (do the math: I'm cool), I
have avoided publicly revealing the facts that I have just set forth
above.

;-)


********

Using equally rigorous logic, Sam Sloan wrote:

" [...]

I am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill [Goichberg], acting
like a bull in a china shop, has brought this into the public forum by
making a public motion and posting it to USCF BINFO System, as a result
of which this matter will disseminated and the entire world will know
about it in due
course.The fact is that my relationship with Zsuzsa Polgar (who now
calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic. I have been discrete
and have not revealed to anyone other than a few close friends the true
nature of our prior relationship, until now. Now, Bill's public motion
effectively forces me to reveal what really happened those many years
ago. This will do no good either to me, Zsuzsa,
Bill or the USCF, but it appears that now I will have no real choice
but to tell the whole story.

Sam Sloan"

********

In "Response to Ethics Complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn," Sam Sloan
wrote:

" [....] I then accompanied Susan [Polgar] and her family over the next
several months to chess tournaments in Copenhagen, Denmark, San Juan,
Puerto Rico and Rio Gallegos, Argentina. I personally arranged the
tickets for the five of them and me to fly to Argentina.

I will leave out the details, some of which are seamy, except that I
will say that my remark about which Herbert Rodney Vaughn now files his
ethics complaint is entirely accurate.

I must add, however, that my remark was in response to a motion to
censure me made by Bill Goichberg. That motion by Goichberg consisted
of five parts, all of which had to do with my relationship with Susan
Polgar. Bill probably did not even know that I had ever had a
relationship with Susan Polgar. That is why I said that, in making his
motion, Bill was acting like a bull in a China Shop. All these past
twenty-one years, I have avoided publicly revealing the facts that I
have just set forth above."