Day 551 and counting...kid-friendly porn courtesy of Sam Sloan, who is
endorsed by Star Trek Boy and Larry Parr!

***

But before Parr visits Sloan's site, he first visits the official
Pokémon website (Crass & cheesy? Yup! Kid-safe? You bet! Passé?
Probably....)

http://www.pokemon.com/flash.htm

....and the Wikipedia page.

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

Having learned all he knows about Pokémon from Sam Sloan's websites,
Parr naturally thought, circa June 2005, that Pokémon was some sort of
soft porn cartoon. Hilarious--kindly let me know how much pornography
you find on pokemon.com, Larry baby! (Or anyone else, for that matter:
post [nonexistent] salacious links below....)

To find Pokémon porn mixed with kid-friendly links, one needs to visit
Sam Sloan's website....

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

(How old is Misty, Larry baby? The answer is on the page)

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

(What thought experiment involves Misty, Larry baby?)

Does the ephebophile Sloan seem to be fixated on sexualizing the barely
pubescent (here, admittedly, barely pubescent cartoon characters, but
he's reported his adventures with barely pubescent humans elsewhere)?

http://tinyurl.com/78g8t

(you'll find three pages linked from this message)

CONFUSED

So far as we can reckon from Bill Brock's latest
confused posting, he no longer wishes to discuss his
charge that Sam Sloan is a child molester, never
having produced proof of such.

Instead, Mr. Brock wants to change the subject
to something involving poking and men or the Scots and
North England usage of "mon." He says in one section
of the posting that pokemon or, we assume, poking mon,
is not pornographic but then says that it may be.
Sounds dirty to us, but Mr. Brock says it is not in
one breath and is in the next paragraph.

One difficulty that we experience with Mr. Brock
is that this writer and he hail from different
cultures. He comes up with references that mean
nothing to me. What, for example, is "Misty." I
recollect a Clint Eastwood movie from about 30 years
ago called "Play Misty for Me." But otherwise, what
IS the man going on about? We can't see the
relationship between the Eastwood movie and Sam Sloan
unless Mr. Brock is now trying to argue that Sam is a
knife-wielding murderer. Tch. Tch.

The subject is whether Sam molested children,
and we wish that Mr. Brock will at long last present
the proof that he once promised.

Our recommendation is that we all go to
www.downunderdvd.com, which is a wonderful site filled
with great retro-entertainment disks. Perhaps the
fevered Mr. Brock will then subside. He can order
DVDs of Jimmy Lydon playing Henry Aldrich, and he can
begin to have fun again in his life.


wrote:
Day 551 and counting...kid-friendly porn courtesy of Sam Sloan, who is
endorsed by Star Trek Boy and Larry Parr!

***

But before Parr visits Sloan's site, he first visits the official
Pokémon website (Crass & cheesy? Yup! Kid-safe? You bet! Passé?
Probably....)

http://www.pokemon.com/flash.htm

...and the Wikipedia page.

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

Having learned all he knows about Pokémon from Sam Sloan's websites,
Parr naturally thought, circa June 2005, that Pokémon was some sort of
soft porn cartoon. Hilarious--kindly let me know how much pornography
you find on pokemon.com, Larry baby! (Or anyone else, for that matter:
post [nonexistent] s
alacious links below....)

To find Pokémon porn mixed with kid-friendly links, one needs to visit
Sam Sloan's website....

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

(How old is Misty, Larry baby? The answer is on the page)

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

(What thought experiment involves Misty, Larry baby?)

Does the ephebophile Sloan seem to be fixated on sexualizing the barely
pubescent (here, admittedly, barely pubescent cartoon characters, but
he's reported his adventures with barely pubescent humans elsewhere)?

http://tinyurl.com/78g8t

(you'll find three pages linked from this message)

wrote in message
oups.com...
CONFUSED

So far as we can reckon from Bill Brock's latest
confused posting, he no longer wishes to discuss his
charge that Sam Sloan is a child molester, never
having produced proof of such.

Instead, Mr. Brock wants to change the subject
to something involving poking and men or the Scots and
North England usage of "mon." He says in one section
of the posting that pokemon or, we assume, poking mon,
is not pornographic but then says that it may be.
Sounds dirty to us, but Mr. Brock says it is not in
one breath and is in the next paragraph.

-----------
You do him a little justice since it is obvious to me that he is referring
to the introduction of chess into England - not being confused by Huloet's
misuse of the word in 1552, the right record is from none other than MS
Douce (302, f. 29)

Of Frawnce he mad him anon regent,
And we did Kateren in his present ;
Into Englond anon he went.

Pretty boring so far, no? But here it is:-

And cround our quene in ryal aray.
Of quen Kateryn our kyng was borne,
To save our ry3t that was fore-lorne,
Oure faders in Frawns had won beforne,
That han hit hold moné a day.

Now - you will say this is not earliest use, but chess topically it is, and
beats the more invested A. Sax verse:-

By a tale y shal 3ou mone,
That fyl betwyx the fadyr and the sone.

/MS Harl. 1701 f. 8.

Which nevertheless gives us the useful rhyme with 'sone', and which we all
forgot, Larry! We forgot even later words writ by Chaucer, who we
discovered, scans! IF we pronounce that last 'e' syllable as an 'é', making
an extra one.

You will also want to know the meaning of this earlier use, and amusingly it
is: to explain, to admonish;

later absorbed into Anglo Norman as MONESTE; to admonish. The word MONGE is
a red-herring from the West country and polluted with p-Celtic, and means to
eat, to munch [fish].

Cordially, Phl Yns


---
One difficulty that we experience with Mr. Brock
is that this writer and he hail from different
cultures. He comes up with references that mean
nothing to me. What, for example, is "Misty." I
recollect a Clint Eastwood movie from about 30 years
ago called "Play Misty for Me." But otherwise, what
IS the man going on about? We can't see the
relationship between the Eastwood movie and Sam Sloan
unless Mr. Brock is now trying to argue that Sam is a
knife-wielding murderer. Tch. Tch.

The subject is whether Sam molested children,
and we wish that Mr. Brock will at long last present
the proof that he once promised.

Our recommendation is that we all go to
www.downunderdvd.com, which is a wonderful site filled
with great retro-entertainment disks. Perhaps the
fevered Mr. Brock will then subside. He can order
DVDs of Jimmy Lydon playing Henry Aldrich, and he can
begin to have fun again in his life.


wrote:
Day 551 and counting...kid-friendly porn courtesy of Sam Sloan, who is
endorsed by Star Trek Boy and Larry Parr!

***

But before Parr visits Sloan's site, he first visits the official
Pokémon website (Crass & cheesy? Yup! Kid-safe? You bet! Passé?
Probably....)

http://www.pokemon.com/flash.htm

...and the Wikipedia page.

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

Having learned all he knows about Pokémon from Sam Sloan's websites,
Parr naturally thought, circa June 2005, that Pokémon was some sort of
soft porn cartoon. Hilarious--kindly let me know how much pornography
you find on pokemon.com, Larry baby! (Or anyone else, for that matter:
post [nonexistent] s
alacious links below....)

To find Pokémon porn mixed with kid-friendly links, one needs to visit
Sam Sloan's website....

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

(How old is Misty, Larry baby? The answer is on the page)

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

(What thought experiment involves Misty, Larry baby?)

Does the ephebophile Sloan seem to be fixated on sexualizing the barely
pubescent (here, admittedly, barely pubescent cartoon characters, but
he's reported his adventures with barely pubescent humans elsewhere)?

http://tinyurl.com/78g8t

(you'll find three pages linked from this message)

Sad, isn't it?

Certainly you folks could find a non-felon whose sexual preferences run
to consenting *adults* to undermine USCF on your behalf....

wrote in message
ps.com...
Sad, isn't it?

Certainly you folks could find a non-felon whose sexual preferences run
to consenting *adults* to undermine USCF on your behalf....

Sir, as someone immune to any sense of what role they are playing in this
scenario, I think you are rather more interested in this subject than is
Sloan himself. You will have noted a certain resistance to view things your
way by Parr and self, and in the same indifferent attention to what we have
actually written, prefer to imagine and suspect.

For myself, I see that you reserve your opinion to discussing any standard
of behavior with me, any 'ethic', as we say, either now or when you held a
USCF office. Also for myself, and should I have to guess about this, absent
any comment of your own, I would think your reason for not voting for any
standard is that you might not obtain to it yourself.

Instead you take a symptom, and suggest that by eradicating it you will have
solved something. How naive! Naive in both a personal sense, and also to
what rather more serious people take as real threats to women and children
in this country.

So while you are content to suppose away like this; (which includes some
supposition that I know what is on Sloan's site or have some reason to visit
it, distinct from being able to assess his character [and yours!] from very
available behaviors practically everywhere else,) I wonder how sincere you
actually are?

If it were me writing this way, I would want his work to be illegal,
therefore prosecuting it under the law of the land, and I would also want
his past behavior assessed in context - that it, that he stole his own
daughter from a situation he, rightly or wrongly, thought unhealthy.
Assuming the very worst in that case, that her situation did not warrant
legal rebuke; even so, Sloan suffered the penalty already.

NOW - I am not in the personal habit of renting 100 porn videos at the local
video outlet and then, having 'absorbed' such material, and on an on-going
basis to 'keep in touch with contemporary debauchery', renting a new one
every day - for the purposes of then setting up a picket outside the store
so that people who perhaps don't know what's going on in there can then be
aware that while they might be getting Sound of Music out yet again, the
story also has titles like 'bad-barby and the beach-bums.'

In fact, despite my own regret that this material is available over the
counter, my own enthusiasm to repress it might actually advertise the very
thing I most dislike, and even more, people will think I am a prig, since it
is not illegal to sell soft-porn or even hard-porn anywhere in any town in
the United States of America - and the same junk is on late-night TV.

Of course, I could go to the school board and say we should not allow the
proprietors of these stores to sit on committees that have to do with
perpetuating negative and repressive stereo types, based on immature male
adolescent fantasies enacted by grown-ups, and also that we should refuse
money for scholarships from the cable company who show the same soft-porn,
combined with a bit of schadenfreude treatment of women and children.

I would expect a lively constitutional debate - where freedom of speech
would contend with security of those offended. In fact I did sit on a local
board in this county which discussed such affairs, and which had directly to
do with those who prey on children, with drugs sex and varieties of
allurements to get some control over them.

But if USCF were to conduct this conversation [and I asked them to] then I
imagine that they would have issued some sort of standard; a public
statement which supercedes the law of the land, which is the /lowest/ level
of socially acceptable behavior, and instead adopt an ethical basis which
would represent the /optimal/ standard of behavior.

And I did just this! Including sending materials to the board and also
discussing it for more than an hour on the phone with the Ex. Dir.

AFAIK, you did nothing, even though at the time you ran a USCF committee.
USCF also did nothing to avert any perceived or real current embarrassments.
They did not even /acknowledge/ my complaints to them!

Instead you wish to eliminate a symptom of juvenilia, and by scapegoating
only that, absolved yourself from any effort or even culpability in a
certain kind of obsessionalism which reminds me of quite literal witch-hunts
in Elizabethan times, as if the witches were utterly evil, and those who
wished to burn them alive were jolly saint-like people.

I am stating that 'your issue' is a societal one, and a resentment of
laissez-faire in public mores. If you are sincere in anything you write that
has to benefit those currently insulted, then I would encourage a deeper to
those who /actually/ affront women and children, who are very very often,
not obvious persons at all, and the result of removing surface symptoms is
to drive an issue back underground

- RATHER THAN -

the more apposite response of stating that these affronts are not only
substantial in our society, but they are on the increase, and increasingly
devious - and therefore, we need to adopt higher than minimum standards in
our institutions for those who would have anything to do with
administrations of women and children. This has already happened in women's
prisons in the USA, which still rank very high in the world - and the
Christian Science Monitor made the very unwelcome report that Amnesty
International put USA into the same list as, eg, the Kalmyk republik and
Iraq.

We cannot change the law of the land, but we can control those would join
our institutions to require a standard of our liking. During your tenure at
USCF you did nothing to air such a standard, and neither was the board at
all responsive to the issue.

That then, is my challenge, otherwise you certainly do not speak for those
concerned for affronts to women and children in chess - since when you could
do something, you did not. My challenge is to be less trite, and attend to
what needs be done, and as a basis of any standard I suggest that the
perspective of those most offended constituencies are the primary ones -
which means at the very least consulting with them to assess the extent of
the issues, as well as listening to their own sense of remedies. This, I
submit, would be sincere, and nothing less is other than hot air.

Phil Innes
Vermont

So who do you believe, Sloan or S. Polgar?

wrote:
So who do you believe, Sloan or S. Polgar?

Polgar claims that, while a minor, Sloan sexually propositioned her.

WRT Polgar, I do not claim that Sloan's proposition was illegal. As
Sloan has shown, the age of consent in Hungary is 14. Sloan has twice
intimated that a sexual relationship was in fact consummated. (Both
intimations were made in the course of conducting USCF business--rather
strange.) One might infer that both parties agree that a proposition
was made.

Adults should not sexually proposition minors. How's that for a
standard, kiddo?

***

I realize that Parr and Innes are transparent in their desire to
destroy USCF. But they should not feel wedded to Sloan: they can find
a more ethical agent of destruction.

P.S. Sloan's various narratives reference "seamy" travels with Ms.
Polgar in various countries.

The age of majority in Hungary is indeed 18; USA, generally 18; Canada,
generally 18-19, Argentina, 21.

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

Do Innes and Parr endorse an individual who admittedly sexually
propositions minors as a fit fiduciary for an organization with 45,000+
minors among its members? Bear in mind that a fiduciary duty is "the
highest standard of care imposed at either equity or law."

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

Perhaps Woody Allen and Roman Polanski play chess....

wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
So who do you believe, Sloan or S. Polgar?

Polgar claims that, while a minor, Sloan sexually propositioned her.

WRT Polgar, I do not claim that Sloan's proposition was illegal. As
Sloan has shown, the age of consent in Hungary is 14. Sloan has twice
intimated that a sexual relationship was in fact consummated. (Both
intimations were made in the course of conducting USCF business--rather
strange.) One might infer that both parties agree that a proposition
was made.

Adults should not sexually proposition minors. How's that for a
standard, kiddo?

Well, I see the proposed standard very clearly, and its based on a 'should'.
It ignores my proposed basis entirely, and this correspondent has
consistently ignored actual women and children [or their guardians], to the
degree that he insists his own 'should' preference superior to what they
themselves would declare.

It also bravely ignored everything I wrote, and proves the level of both
obsession with a dark subject and level of care about those offended.

***

I realize that Parr and Innes are transparent in their desire to
destroy USCF.

I cannot speak for others on this issue, especially those others who are
very capable and have the wherewithall to answer for themselves. What is not
'transparent' is what I wrote here a few hours ago, since that /was/ my
statement which hides behind nothing at all. Claims to the contrary can only
be achieved by addressing them, not putting them in the dark-closet!

And so readers can now fairly assess for themselves who cares for women and
children as affronted parties, and who cares for USCF as ostensibly entirely
seperated subject. What was cut was the comment that when this person plus
the then board [ex-Sloan] could have done something, they did not.

But they should not feel wedded to Sloan: they can find
a more ethical agent of destruction.

What unintended irony - I doubt I could compete - with you! But you do not
understand your own condition, and though you think Parr and myself inimical
to it, I think we do understand it in as non-judgmental a way as we
understood Tanner's cheating of himself - far less vilification at a
personal level than any other writers here!

Phil Innes

I will add one postscript to this message, in addition to serving on a
county board for youth services, I also volunteered for a program for
troubled youth. On passing the background audit I was perhaps too blasé,
since the invigilator said to me, 'you don't understand, half the people who
apply for this role in the state of California are rejected!'

So, that is a word to the wise concerning 'interest' in such subjects.

Why do you ask questions then ignore the answer Brock? Too revealing of
yourself? I said it before - more care than your approach is necessary, and
if you wanted to clarify the difference in your obsessions with Sloan, with
that of caring for women and children, then you would not have cut my
response to your, excuse me, childish appreciation of a subject to which you
know not where you are.

PI

wrote in message
oups.com...
P.S. Sloan's various narratives reference "seamy" travels with Ms.
Polgar in various countries.

The age of majority in Hungary is indeed 18; USA, generally 18; Canada,
generally 18-19, Argentina, 21.

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

Do Innes and Parr endorse an individual who admittedly sexually
propositions minors as a fit fiduciary for an organization with 45,000+
minors among its members? Bear in mind that a fiduciary duty is "the
highest standard of care imposed at either equity or law."

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

Perhaps Woody Allen and Roman Polanski play chess....