On Oct 11, 12:34 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Oct 10, 10:53 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

This seems to be based on as assumption that your IP address is
private. Where does that come from? It's just part of your post that
most people don't even know is there.
It is *not* specific information collected by the USCF that should
require some kind of extraordinary disclosure. No doubt
I could learn something about you by analyzing your posts to rgcp
if I were so inclined, and vice versa. That's a reality we live with.

In the present case, the faux Sloan seems to be upset because
he wasn't aware of that fact. If I leave my fingerprints at the scene
of a crime, believing that I can't be detected because I'm wearing
a mask, that doesn't make me one whose "privacy" has been
violated - it makes me a stupid criminal.

I am highlighting this one just to save it. I think this is an
especially good comment.

The Real Sam Sloan

For the record, I believe that those who refer to your
lawsuit as being "frivolous" are being very generous. Everything
that's not from Mottershead is utter crap. An embarrassment
to the human race, basically.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even the material from Mottershead, as posted on his website, is
suspect. I reviewed them. I reviewed them "in context" and also
shecked the faked email addresses and the altered identity line. I
also looked at who was being attacked and when. I dont know what was
at the USCF forum. But as for RGC, it is a dubious leap at best in
logic to believe it was a single person let alone PT who was the
culprit.

BELIEVING IS NOT ACCUSING

So, now I demand that Bill Brock produce proof that
I accused him of being the Fake Sam Sloan (as opposed
to merely listing him as one of many suspected of being
the Fake Sam Sloan) or apologize (not likely). -- Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan's inability to remember what he writes is
rivaled only by his inability to analyze simple facts.
How about this on July 8th of this year?

"Now that I am satisfied that my evidence does not
prove that Randy Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan, I revert
to my previous belief that either Paul Truong or Bill Brock
is the Fake Sam Sloan." -- Randy Bauer

A typically dishonest posting by Randy Bauer,
who remains on these foums, though he told us that
he would be moving on soon enough.

That was a lie. Straight out. He will be
hanging around as the board spinner about why
censorship is a grand thing on the USCF Forum.

Now, then, based on the instances adduced by
Mr. Bauer, Sam did NOT accuse Bill Brock, who has
hitherto offered an implicit admission of being a child
molester, of being the Fake Sam.

Sam told us he had a list of suspects, and who
in a similar situation would not have one? He stated
his "BELIEF" that either the Brockster or Paul Truong
was the Fake Sam.

To state a belief is not to make an accusation.
Sam was properly agnostic about the identity of Fake
Sam in the quoted excerpts.




Randy Bauer wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:40 am, samsloan wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:06 pm, wrote:

I would note that Sloan accused me on the USCF Forums of being a faux
Sloan (I wasn't), that the charge has to date never been withdrawn, &
that the In Very Important Title Case Report is AFAIK silent on
evidence tending to exculpate me. But if a USCF volunteer wants to
match up my IP addresses with dates I was in Chicago or the Quad
Cities, Manhattan or Shamokin, PA, then that volunteer is violating my
privacy.

I do not recall ever accusing Bill Brock of being the Fake Sam Sloan.

Bill Brock has been on everybody else's list of being a possible Fake
Sam Sloan, but not on mine.

The reason I have never believed that Bill Brock is the Fake Sam Sloan
is that he has attacked me openly almost every day for at least the
last three years, so he would not have any time left to be the Fake
Sam Sloan.

So, now I demand that Bill Brock produce proof that I accused him of
being the Fake Sam Sloan (as opposed to merely listing him as one of
many suspected of being the Fake Sam Sloan) or apologize (not likely).

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan's inability to remember what he writes is rivaled only by
his inability to analyze simple facts.

Sam, do you remember writing this on December 17, 2005?

"9. Bill Brock. Recently the Fake Sam Sloan has made several postings
which sound like Bill Brock. Previously, Bill Brock was never a
suspect. However, now Bill Brock has to be considered, especially
since this fake poster first started on exactly the evening when I
arrived in Chicago to play the grudge match against Bill Brock the
following morning.

Bill Brock has since sworn never to post here again and has not done
so, but how can he resist coming back under a fake name, so now he
has
to be high on the list."

How about this on July 8th of this year?

"Now that I am satisfied that my evidence does not prove that Randy
Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan, I revert to my previous belief that
either Paul Truong or Bill Brock is the Fake Sam Sloan."

There are others, but what's the point? You won't remember it by
tomorrow anyway.

Randy Bauer

On Oct 11, 5:01 pm, " wrote:
BELIEVING IS NOT ACCUSING

[...]


Sam told us he had a list of suspects, and who
in a similar situation would not have one? He stated
his "BELIEF" that either the Brockster or Paul Truong
was the Fake Sam.

Professor Plum in the Lounge with the Candlestick?

PROF. PLUM ILLUMINATES

Sam told us he had a list of suspects, and who
in a similar situation would not have one? He
stated his "BELIEF" that either the Brockster or Paul
Truong was the Fake Sam. -- Larry Parr

Professor Plum in the Lounge with the Candlestick?-- Bill Brock


The issue became hot and pointed when Prof. Plum
crammed the candlestick .... ah, well, we wait for
Bill Brock to show us where Sam accused him of writing
the Fake Sloan messages.

On Oct 11, 5:01 pm, " wrote:
BELIEVING IS NOT ACCUSING


"Now that I am satisfied that my evidence does not
prove that Randy Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan, I revert
to my previous belief that either Paul Truong or Bill Brock
is the Fake Sam Sloan." -- Randy Bauer

Now, then, based on the instances adduced by
Mr. Bauer, Sam did NOT accuse Bill Brock, who has
hitherto offered an implicit admission of being a child
molester, of being the Fake Sam.

Sam told us he had a list of suspects, and who
in a similar situation would not have one? He stated
his "BELIEF" that either the Brockster or Paul Truong
was the Fake Sam.

To state a belief is not to make an accusation.
Sam was properly agnostic about the identity of Fake
Sam in the quoted excerpts.

Yeahhh, right, thhhhat's the ticket.... I only said I BELIEVE he is
the fake Sam Sloan, that's not an accusation. Like in:

"I believe you stole my wallet."

"I accuse you of stealing my wallet."

Suuuuure.... those are VERY differant statements.

Geez, Larry, is your receding hairline the result of hair splitting?

Randy Bauer

On Oct 11, 2:13 pm, Rob wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:34 pm, "David Kane" wrote:



"samsloan" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 10, 10:53 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

This seems to be based on as assumption that your IP address is
private. Where does that come from? It's just part of your post that
most people don't even know is there.
It is *not* specific information collected by the USCF that should
require some kind of extraordinary disclosure. No doubt
I could learn something about you by analyzing your posts to rgcp
if I were so inclined, and vice versa. That's a reality we live with.

In the present case, the faux Sloan seems to be upset because
he wasn't aware of that fact. If I leave my fingerprints at the scene
of a crime, believing that I can't be detected because I'm wearing
a mask, that doesn't make me one whose "privacy" has been
violated - it makes me a stupid criminal.

I am highlighting this one just to save it. I think this is an
especially good comment.

The Real Sam Sloan

For the record, I believe that those who refer to your
lawsuit as being "frivolous" are being very generous. Everything
that's not from Mottershead is utter crap. An embarrassment
to the human race, basically.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even the material from Mottershead, as posted on his website, is
suspect. I reviewed them. I reviewed them "in context" and also
shecked the faked email addresses and the altered identity line. I
also looked at who was being attacked and when. I dont know what was
at the USCF forum. But as for RGC, it is a dubious leap at best in
logic to believe it was a single person let alone PT who was the
culprit.

Where is Mottershead's "website", Rob? And why was the evidence
"suspect?" In what way was it "suspect?"

On Oct 12, 4:02 am, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:13 pm, Rob wrote:





On Oct 11, 12:34 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

"samsloan" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 10, 10:53 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

This seems to be based on as assumption that your IP address is
private. Where does that come from? It's just part of your post that
most people don't even know is there.
It is *not* specific information collected by the USCF that should
require some kind of extraordinary disclosure. No doubt
I could learn something about you by analyzing your posts to rgcp
if I were so inclined, and vice versa. That's a reality we live with.

In the present case, the faux Sloan seems to be upset because
he wasn't aware of that fact. If I leave my fingerprints at the scene
of a crime, believing that I can't be detected because I'm wearing
a mask, that doesn't make me one whose "privacy" has been
violated - it makes me a stupid criminal.

I am highlighting this one just to save it. I think this is an
especially good comment.

The Real Sam Sloan

For the record, I believe that those who refer to your
lawsuit as being "frivolous" are being very generous. Everything
that's not from Mottershead is utter crap. An embarrassment
to the human race, basically.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even the material from Mottershead, as posted on his website, is
suspect. I reviewed them. I reviewed them "in context" and also
shecked the faked email addresses and the altered identity line. I
also looked at who was being attacked and when. I dont know what was
at the USCF forum. But as for RGC, it is a dubious leap at best in
logic to believe it was a single person let alone PT who was the
culprit.

Where is Mottershead's "website", Rob? And why was the evidence
"suspect?" In what way was it "suspect?"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

he posted the link to it in the replies on the blog at the NY Times. I
will let others read it for themselves so I don't prejudice them . I
think if you look at it closely, view the names and the faked
signatures and also the topic thread you will see what I mean.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:49:17 -0700, Rob wrote:

On Oct 12, 4:02 am, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:13 pm, Rob wrote:

Even the material from Mottershead, as posted on his website, is
suspect. I reviewed them. I reviewed them "in context" and also
shecked the faked email addresses and the altered identity line. I
also looked at who was being attacked and when. I dont know what was
at the USCF forum. But as for RGC, it is a dubious leap at best in
logic to believe it was a single person let alone PT who was the
culprit.

Where is Mottershead's "website", Rob? And why was the evidence
"suspect?" In what way was it "suspect?"

he posted the link to it in the replies on the blog at the NY Times. I
will let others read it for themselves so I don't prejudice them . I
think if you look at it closely, view the names and the faked
signatures and also the topic thread you will see what I mean.

c'mon Rob. This level of high minded disinterest is not appropriate
to the hog-wallow in which we are playing. Anyway, we're not the
jury. Feel free to convince us and prejudice us. We like it.

If you can't cite some reasons for saying "the material from
Mottershead, as posted on his website, is suspect", this is little
more than name-calling. We don't do that here. Oh....well, I guess
we do..... and that's OK too... but sometimes, we actually debate. Why
not give it a shot and be explicit about your reasons for writing
that?

On Oct 12, 7:24 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:49:17 -0700, Rob wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:02 am, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:13 pm, Rob wrote:
Even the material from Mottershead, as posted on his website, is
suspect. I reviewed them. I reviewed them "in context" and also
shecked the faked email addresses and the altered identity line. I
also looked at who was being attacked and when. I dont know what was
at the USCF forum. But as for RGC, it is a dubious leap at best in
logic to believe it was a single person let alone PT who was the
culprit.
Where is Mottershead's "website", Rob? And why was the evidence
"suspect?" In what way was it "suspect?"
he posted the link to it in the replies on the blog at the NY Times. I
will let others read it for themselves so I don't prejudice them . I
think if you look at it closely, view the names and the faked
signatures and also the topic thread you will see what I mean.

c'mon Rob. This level of high minded disinterest is not appropriate
to the hog-wallow in which we are playing. Anyway, we're not the
jury. Feel free to convince us and prejudice us. We like it.

If you can't cite some reasons for saying "the material from
Mottershead, as posted on his website, is suspect", this is little
more than name-calling. We don't do that here. Oh....well, I guess
we do..... and that's OK too... but sometimes, we actually debate. Why
not give it a shot and be explicit about your reasons for writing
that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike,
If I comment further it will cause some to simply want to attack what
I said just because it came frm me. Look at the information, closely.
Then we can discuss it.
Rob

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:20:36 -0700, Rob wrote:

c'mon Rob. This level of high minded disinterest is not appropriate
to the hog-wallow in which we are playing. Anyway, we're not the
jury. Feel free to convince us and prejudice us. We like it.

If you can't cite some reasons for saying "the material from
Mottershead, as posted on his website, is suspect", this is little
more than name-calling. We don't do that here. Oh....well, I guess
we do..... and that's OK too... but sometimes, we actually debate. Why
not give it a shot and be explicit about your reasons for writing
that?

Mike,
If I comment further it will cause some to simply want to attack what
I said just because it came frm me. Look at the information, closely.
Then we can discuss it.
Rob

Rob, I downloaded it. I looked at it. It's five and a half million
bytes long. It's like reading the phone book and Donald Trump's tax
return all mixed into one..

Gimme some specifics will ya?