The USCF's moderation of the forums is beyond gay.

OBVIOUS SATIRE AND IRONY

Our Larry seems as unaware of the obvious satire and
irony in Brock's posts here, as he is of Salma Hayek. -- Taylor
Kingston

A Bill Brock or Mr. 2300+ Elo clearly have
different popcult tastes than I do. Salma Hayek is
described by them as a porn actress (probably soft
porn) who has been nominated for an Academy Award.

Fine. Never heard of her. I prefer old Charlie Chan
films or Paul Temple mysteries on the BBC.

The relevance of Miss Hayek to the issue of
whether there is proof that Sam Sloan has molested
children remains unexplained.

That NMnot Kingston has not noticed the larger
irony of Bill Brock's erotic obsession by changing
the heading of this thread speaks of his person tellingly.



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 19, 7:56 am, " 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.

Is Parr really unaware of who Salma Hayek, Oscar-nominated actress,
is? Try this, Larry: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000161/ .

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.

Our Larry seems as unaware of the obvious satire and irony in Brock's
posts here, as he is of Salma Hayek.

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.

You know, apart from me, you are probably the smartest guy I know!

-- help bot

Larry Parr highjacked the original thread title: I have corrected it.

On the USCF Forums and on the USCF BINFO system, Sloan (running for
re-election as a USCF Board member) has claimed to have had a "not
entirely Platonic" and "seamy" relationship with Polgar (also a
candidate for the USCF Board) circa 1986, when she was 17. Prior to
Sloan's claims, Polgar alleged to have rebuffed a proposition from
Sloan circa 1985 (when she was 16 and Sloan was in his mid-forties).

So I once again ask Parr and Innes to answer the question: who do you
believe, Sloan or Polgar?

Acceptable answers:

"Sloan";

"Polgar";

"neither."

Uzytkownik "Taylor Kingston" napisal w wiadomosci
oups.com...


The relevance of Miss Hayek to the issue of
whether there is proof that Sam Sloan has molested
children remains unexplained.

Indeed it does, but that is not the issue Brock is raising. The issue
is Sam Sloan's credibility and integrity. Sloan says one thing, Polgar
says another. They cannot both be telling the truth. Which do you
believe? As Brock pointed out, there are only three possible answers:

Acceptable answers:

"Sloan";

"Polgar";

"neither."


Wrong answers. 'Brock is wrong again' is the correct one. Brock cannot ask a
logical question because he utterly lacks logic. The only thing he can do is
breaking the netiquette with his flooding moronic posts here so for
reasonable users it is advisable to killfile him.

Jerzy invokes netiquette to defend Sam Sloan, the king of Usenet
crossposting. I am amused.

Prior to plonking me, perhaps Jerzy would like to take a stab at
answering the question? Not all complex questions are loaded
questions. "Do you still beat your wife?" is complex and loaded; "Would
you like a turkey sandwich with cole slaw?" is merely complex.

But I'll break "the" question down into constituent parts momentarily.

wrote:
Jerzy invokes netiquette to defend Sam Sloan, the king of Usenet
crossposting. I am amused.

Prior to plonking me, perhaps Jerzy would like to take a stab at
answering the question? Not all complex questions are loaded
questions. "Do you still beat your wife?" is complex and loaded; "Would
you like a turkey sandwich with cole slaw?" is merely complex.

But I'll break "the" question down into constituent parts momentarily.

Voilà:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...8dd2ef6?hl=en&

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 19, 11:22 pm, " wrote:
OBVIOUS SATIRE AND IRONY

Our Larry seems as unaware of the obvious satire and irony in Brock's posts here, as he is of Salma Hayek. -- Taylor Kingston

A Bill Brock or Mr. 2300+ Elo clearly have
different popcult tastes than I do. Salma Hayek is
described by them as a porn actress (probably soft
porn) who has been nominated for an Academy Award.

Neither Brock nor I referred to her as a "porn actress." AFAIK she is
not. My point, Larry, was to help you, in a small way, out of your
usual fog of ignorance and misinformation

[...]

Actually, I *did* make a tongue-in-cheek reference to her as Friedrich
Hayek's cousin and "the voice
talen[t] for Smurfette in this animated pr0n feature, coincidentally
available on Sam Sloan's website:

http://samsloan.com/SheWhoredForSmurfdom.htm "

See, kinda sounds like _The Road to Serfdom_. "That's not funny;
that's pathetic." -- my wife, earlier this month, after a similar bad
pun with a similarly elaborate setup....

Hayek is certainly not a porn actress, but she's had some rather steamy
roles. Lucky snake, lucky Tarentino:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haD8NGfvdjk

Day 11.

Parr says he doesn't know whether Sloan's solicitation of a minor for
sexual relations was successful or unsuccessful.

In either case, Larry "Thai soldiers on leave" Parr approves of sexual
relations with minors.