10. Have you no shame?

I think you forgot one.

"I have just been elected to the Executive Board of the United States
Chess Federation and you can expect to receive a strongly worded letter
soon if this miscxonduct is not corrected. Sam Sloan 09:02, 1 August
2006 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_ta...nd_Lies_by_You

Louis Blair wrote:
Mahoney wrote (21 Jan 2007 14:20:00 -0800):

7 Who's Mr. Sloan? Is he really a nut? Is he really as vile as
7 what people said?

_
One way to get a view of what Sam Sloan is like is to look at
the Wikipedia experience:
_

wrote in message
oups.com...
WHO'S ON FIRST?

We still have not learned how Miss Hayek's
career impacts the failure of Mr. Brock to present
proof that Sam Sloan is a child molester.

OTOH, by e-mail several people are now writing - including some female
lurkers here and correspondents from another chess newsgroup - writers who
can distinguish between two subjects of the need for general public
standards of decency and the more limited get-Sloan campaign, which is
'sophisticated'.

As might be expected, their own terms of references are somewhat wider in
scope. Additionally, there is some serious journalistic interest, plus a
study in India where varieties of sexism appear to be going just as strong
as it is presented here in the USA on TV

I would say that there is an acceptance of women choosing to describe their
own situations, and also describing their own remedies. This is nothing
novel these days, as one writer notes, together with the comment that there
is a concomitant aversion/avoidance actually and positively permitting them
to do so! Instead there are nervous jokes and a pretended nonchalance.

What does seem clear from [too small a sample from current writing, but from
impressions over time] is that women themselves have several opinions on how
others should represent them, and how they should represent themselves.
These are points along a spectrum than oppositions, and degrees of opinion -
also modulated IMO when women are mothers.

Though Brock's feminine champion Mz. Hayek, has not yet appeared on anyone's
radar than his and Tinker Taylor's - quite possibly the lady represents an
eccentric representation of women's self expression, and our own
Brock-in-shining-armor might consider listening to more central opinion?

While scanning the list of other famous people currently situated at
Montparnasse I noticed Simone de Beauvoire [whose first translator to
English, BTW, was Patrick O'Brian] and whose comments cannot seem at all
risible or threatening these days, although this is not quite to say that
they are observed either - and S de B 'merely' represented that women are
capable and prepared to speak their own words, thank you!

Why such a subject cannot be endorsed by men is of course something to do
with our misperception of their own abilities to protect themselves,
combined with a little fear that in abandoning our volunteered role, we give
up some means of control, and must find a new armor-less basis in order to
relate anew.

I would say that the paragraph above is one that women themselves would
acknowledge as being often the awkward state-of-the-art for inter-gender
communication.

No one, that is, no women, can really think why chess playing activity in
Eastern Europe and in China //should be// at about 45% of the population,
and why here in the USA it is 7%.

It is interesting to note that these US figures are for adults, not younger
players. It is apparently not interesting to anyone other than women
themselves to ask why this is so. Mz. Hayek and Sam Sloan do not appear to
be any singular cause of this long-term differential - and I suppose banning
both will make some people feel wonderful for a month, or even three! And of
course, solve nothing at all, not even increasing participation rates a
tenth of one percent.

Which is not to say that we should put either of them into the driving
seat - not at all, but why do we look to solutions before knowing what there
is to solve?

Real solutions require listening to real problems without interpolations or
interpretations. Thank you those who wrote - if indeed a conference can be
organized, then a proto-agenda is begun.

Phil Innes

I have previously provided the evidence requested; Parr and Innes
decided not to examine it.

The links below were active as of May 5, 2006; they may still be
accessed via the archive.org Wayback Machine

In case Parr and Innes are actually as dense as they are pretending to
be, the point of the tongue-in-cheek reference to the lovely Ms. Hayek
(who doubtless could do better than me :-) ) was to gently suggest that
there was nothing Bill Goichberg could say that could *compel* Sloan to
disclose a previous sexual relationship with a minor. But that's what
Sloan did in the infamous BINFO.

Here's the strongest case that can be made against me, which Parr and
Innes have failed to make. When Sloan claims that the Burmese
prostitute was of junior high school age, I believe him. When Sloan
claims to have had a sexual relationship with the teenaged Susan
Polgar, I don't believe him. This suggests a certain inconsistency on
my part.

I think Parr and Innes should begin their vigorous defense of Sloan by
attacking me on that point.


****************
****************

http://www.archive.org/index.php can be used to access dead links cited
below

**begin citation**

Larry Parr wrote:

The latest charge is that the girl in question, whose age is unknown,
is the same girl as another girl with whom Sam claims to have had sex.
We have no proof they are the same, and we do not know their age.

Right click on the fifth picture, top row, in
http://www.ishipress.com/girlsgot.htm : you'll find that the file name
is burmese2.jpg (at http://www.ishipress.com/burmese2.htm )

Right click on the picture in http://www.samsloan.com/burmese2.htm:
you'll find that the file name is burmese2.jpg (at
http://www.samsloan.com/burmese2.jpg )

Same photo, same file name.

Does Larry Parr still contend that "[w]e have no proof they are the
same [girl]"?

**end citation**

Is the person who pretends to be appalled by porn, but who, it seems, knows
more than anyone else - the greatest expositor of it? You be the judge.

I said enough already about motivational behaviors, and disassociated
complexes: (Of course, if you have this condition you can't readily let go
of wanting to control the issue, since every person's motive is to integrate
themselves, and this appears to you to be an easy way of doing that - expel
it by projection onto another - in the C16th you could even purchase such a
service!)

This, however, is not the same as resolving any issue, which means allowing
women to speak for themselves - on their own behalf, and on the behest of
children. -- This is the scrupulously avoided subject matter here.

Phil Innes

wrote in message
ups.com...
I have previously provided the evidence requested; Parr and Innes
decided not to examine it.

The links below were active as of May 5, 2006; they may still be
accessed via the archive.org Wayback Machine

In case Parr and Innes are actually as dense as they are pretending to
be, the point of the tongue-in-cheek reference to the lovely Ms. Hayek
(who doubtless could do better than me :-) ) was to gently suggest that
there was nothing Bill Goichberg could say that could *compel* Sloan to
disclose a previous sexual relationship with a minor. But that's what
Sloan did in the infamous BINFO.

Here's the strongest case that can be made against me, which Parr and
Innes have failed to make. When Sloan claims that the Burmese
prostitute was of junior high school age, I believe him. When Sloan
claims to have had a sexual relationship with the teenaged Susan
Polgar, I don't believe him. This suggests a certain inconsistency on
my part.

I think Parr and Innes should begin their vigorous defense of Sloan by
attacking me on that point.


****************
****************

http://www.archive.org/index.php can be used to access dead links cited
below

**begin citation**

Larry Parr wrote:

The latest charge is that the girl in question, whose age is unknown,
is the same girl as another girl with whom Sam claims to have had sex.
We have no proof they are the same, and we do not know their age.

Right click on the fifth picture, top row, in
http://www.ishipress.com/girlsgot.htm : you'll find that the file name
is burmese2.jpg (at http://www.ishipress.com/burmese2.htm )

Right click on the picture in http://www.samsloan.com/burmese2.htm:
you'll find that the file name is burmese2.jpg (at
http://www.samsloan.com/burmese2.jpg )

Same photo, same file name.

Does Larry Parr still contend that "[w]e have no proof they are the
same [girl]"?

**end citation**

wrote (22 Jan 2007 05:18:00 -0800):

7 I think you forgot one.
7
7 "I have just been elected to the Executive Board of the United
7 States Chess Federation and you can expect to receive a
7 strongly worded letter soon if this miscxonduct is not corrected.
7 Sam Sloan 09:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)"
7
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_ta...nd_Lies_by_You

_
That would also seem to be a good one to consider, but I think
the link is out-of-date. Here is my attempte to provide an
up-to-date link:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...nd_Lies_by_You

Chess Freak wrote:
When are you going to give up? Obviously Innes is in bed with Sloan
and will do nothing to upset his relationship with The Snake.


Be fair to Innes. Parr still thinks very highly of Sloan and tolerates
if not endorses his conduct past and present, while Innes has recently
vociferously objected to Sloan's conduct.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...2052480f818eef


Phil Innes wrote:

Your [i.e., Sloan's] own concentration on S. Polgar since the
election cannot be sep[a]rated
from her rejection of you as someone fit to talk about women's chess in
the
C21st, since it seems to me you cannot differentiate your opinions from
that
of women-as-sex-objects as they seem to you. You even fail to
understand
that this is resented!

On this count, I agree with Innes. Really...



During the election process I supported your application against
false
charges on all sorts of grounds, and if people wished to elect a
libertine
then they should do so; all charges against you being expressed as
personal
preferences not as any matter of legally upheld speeech in the United
States. I even wrote USCF about exhibiting a standard by which board
members
and committee chiefs could be asked to observe, and wrote long before
the
elction - a neglected opportunity for those who do not like you! -
though I
had other individuals in mind at the time, and in terms of sexual
affront,
made specific complaints - btw, never even acknowledged!.

Usual stipulations WRT Innes's opinion of yours truly--let's assume I'm
evil, too, of the argument.

Sloan's narratives of his sexual adventures with children go beyond
mere libertinism, however.


Children are legally incapable of giving consent. Not shouting, but
emphasizing: CHILDREN ARE LEGALLY INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT. To have
sex with a child not of the age of consent is to molest a child. To
give the appropriate currency to the child's business agent does not
change this. Would Parr or Innes care to dispute this point?

Of course, not all minors are children: I grant that the age of consent
is almost always lower than the age of majority. However, many
jurisdictions apply harsh penalties to those who have relations with
minor prosititutes well above the age of consent. And there is the
question of fiduciary duty. Would anyone care to disagree that an
adult who has had sexual relations with a minor well above the age of
consent may not be a fit fiduciary for a membership organization,
especially when the majority of that organization's members are minors?

WRT Sloan's sexual adventures with minors: in addition to all the
evidence previously cited, and previously distorted by Innes and Parr
(or ignored by them when the evidence was too overwhelming to distort),
now comes Susan Polgar, who recently claimed that Sloan had sexually
propositioned her at age 16.

Either Sloan is lying, or Sloan is telling the truth.

If Sloan is telling the truth, his conduct is despicable not only for
the reason stated by Innes--that he cannot conceive of women as
anything more than sex objects--but also because he, in his early 40s,
saw a minor girl *for whom he claimed, and still claims, to have been
acting as a fiduciary at that time* as a sexual object.

If Sloan is lying...I'll let others decide that case.

Chess One wrote:
Is the person who pretends to be appalled by porn, but who, it seems, knows
more than anyone else - the greatest expositor of it? You be the judge.

And the person whose websites contain the "porn" links to which Innes
refers is in fact the fiercest enemy of child sexual exploitation?

Heh.

Check out the following passage from a book co-authored by Sam Sloan
and convicted child molester Jefferson Poland

http://www.sterneck.net/cybertribe/s...ague/index.php

1. He/she goes naked most of the time, except when there is some
positive reason (not shame or modesty or fear) to dress up. "Clothes
are bandages for sick bodies", says Tuli Kupferberg. I believe nudism
is fundamental and necessary prerequisite for sexual freedom. Clothes
commonly build barriers of sexual fear and hostility. We learn
"Don't look" when we are still too young to comprehend "Don't
****". Each adult needs to spend several years living in a nude
society, in order to overcome the bad effects of our shame-filled
childhoods. And our children should be completely spared the morbid
sickness of hiding their beautiful bodies like some sort of carrion
deemed too foul for the light of day .

The problem is not advocacy of naturism, but the advocacy of naturism
*for children in the context of a manifesto for sexual freedom*.
Here's what Jefferson Poland did with that freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Poland

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Nudi.../Clitlick.html

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Nudi...Clitlick2.html

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/cgi/pros...=1869408310214

Please be sure to click on the tabs "Offenses" and "Known Aliases."

Larry Parr will now tell the State of California to lighten up....

wrote:

Usual stipulations WRT Innes's opinion of yours truly--let's assume I'm
evil, too, of the argument.

s/b "...evil, too, for the sake of the argument"

alternatively: "...evil, too, with the argument" ;-)


"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul, producing holy witness,
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

--some antisemitic shmuck