On Oct 12, 8:37 am, Mike Murray wrote:
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?

Start at 2005 look at the "name" in the header and the fake from email
address. Look at the topics and who they attack. Now think back to
that time and what the relationships are between the parties.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:56:13 -0700, Rob wrote:

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?

Start at 2005 look at the "name" in the header and the fake from email
address. Look at the topics and who they attack. Now think back to
that time and what the relationships are between the parties.

OK, let's see if we're on the same page. Those posts starting around
line 2005 are show a "name" of and present a
bunch of filth directed at Marinello.

AFAIK, that's not a valid e-mail address and, at any rate, the real
Sam Sloan hasn't used it.

At various times Sam Sloan and Marinello have been on the outs, at
various times they've been on the same side of certain issues.

Around that time, I believe Marinello and Truong/Polgar had some very
serious disagreements, too.

So, what's your point?

On Oct 11, 10:46 pm, " wrote:
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.

In Clue, the suspicion / accusation distinction is part of the game.
This is Life. Played corrected, it is and isn't a game.

"We"? I picture you and Sam, chillin' to "Histoire de Melody Nelson"
for the umpteenth time....

On Oct 12, 9:11 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:56:13 -0700, Rob wrote:
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?
Start at 2005 look at the "name" in the header and the fake from email
address. Look at the topics and who they attack. Now think back to
that time and what the relationships are between the parties.

OK, let's see if we're on the same page. Those posts starting around
line 2005 are show a "name" of and present a
bunch of filth directed at Marinello.

AFAIK, that's not a valid e-mail address and, at any rate, the real
Sam Sloan hasn't used it.

At various times Sam Sloan and Marinello have been on the outs, at
various times they've been on the same side of certain issues.

Around that time, I believe Marinello and Truong/Polgar had some very
serious disagreements, too.

So, what's your point?

I've searched the report, and I'm surprised to discover I'm in it more
often than I thought I would be, both under the correct spelling of my
surname and the incorrect spelling Mr. Innes favors. Many of the
references are from around the time I criticized the chess broadcast
Innes and Mitchell cooked, or kooked, up. Among my criticisms were
some comments on how Susan Polgar's accomplishments were inflated in a
press release.

I'm now very interested to find out the results of examination of The
Mottershead Report.

HAIR-SPLITTING

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

Randy Bauer accuses this writer of casuistical
overexuberance because I argue that there is a vital,
obvious and large distinction between saying that one
believes a person to be guilty and stating directly
that the person is guilty.

Our Randy cannot see the evident difference
between Sam writing, "It is my belief that Bill Brock
is Fake Sam" and "Bill Brock is Fake Sam." The former
is a statement of opinion, easily recognized as such; the
latter is a clear accusation, easily recognized as such.

Randy's simian guffawing reminds one of some of
the stuff coming out of the mouths of the presidential
frontrunners in the primary this year.

Yours, Larry Parr



Randy Bauer wrote:
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 12, 9:11 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:56:13 -0700, Rob wrote:
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?
Start at 2005 look at the "name" in the header and the fake from email
address. Look at the topics and who they attack. Now think back to
that time and what the relationships are between the parties.

OK, let's see if we're on the same page. Those posts starting around
line 2005 are show a "name" of and present a
bunch of filth directed at Marinello.

AFAIK, that's not a valid e-mail address and, at any rate, the real
Sam Sloan hasn't used it.

At various times Sam Sloan and Marinello have been on the outs, at
various times they've been on the same side of certain issues.

Around that time, I believe Marinello and Truong/Polgar had some very
serious disagreements, too.

So, what's your point?

Look at the emails and the pretended names. Neil was close but missed
the mark by just a tad. Some of the quotes come from the same fake
email address. The from names changed. Some of the topics and context
attacked persons that neither Sloan nor Paul would have had reason to
attack at that point in time. Some of them occurred while the accused
was in my physical presence and had no access to a computer or the
internet.

It is looking more and more likely to me that the attack on Paul is
one based on sloppy work and a personal vendetta.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:31:26 -0700, Rob wrote:

...
Look at the emails and the pretended names. Neil was close but missed
the mark by just a tad. Some of the quotes come from the same fake
email address.

So what? You can quote yourself and reply to yourself.


The from names changed.

You can change your name at will, I think.

Again, could you give me some specific instances, line numbers, etc?
Not necessarily all of them or even a whole bunch, but one or two.

Some of the topics and context
attacked persons that neither Sloan nor Paul would have had reason to
attack at that point in time.

I would think the most you could say is, "neither... had reasons known
to us for attacking then", neither of us being a mind reader. And
it's possible the perp could have tossed in a few random attacks just
because he/she thought them funny, or to throw people off the trail.
Your point is not without significance, but not as important as you
seem to believe, IMO.


Some of them occurred while the accused
was in my physical presence and had no access to a computer or the
internet.

Jeez, Rob, if you were on the stand and somebody asked you, "where
were you on xxx xx, 2005 between xx:00 and yy:00, and who was with
you?", you could answer that question. That's a hell of a lot better
than I could do.



It is looking more and more likely to me that the attack on Paul is
one based on sloppy work and a personal vendetta.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:21:20 -0700, Robertus Phonius Michelius
wrote:

a fake message


See what I mean ??

On Oct 12, 12:21 pm, Robertus Phonius Michelius
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:31:26 -0700, Rob wrote:

..

Look at the emails and the pretended names. Neil was close but missed
the mark by just a tad. Some of the quotes come from the same fake
email address.

So what? You can quote yourself and reply to yourself.

The from names changed.

You can change your name at will, I think.

Again, could you give me some specific instances, line numbers, etc?
Not necessarily all of them or even a whole bunch, but one or two.

Some of the topics and context
attacked persons that neither Sloan nor Paul would have had reason to
attack at that point in time.

I would think the most you could say is, "neither... had reasons known
to us for attacking then", neither of us being a mind reader. And
it's possible the perp could have tossed in a few random attacks just
because he/she thought them funny, or to throw people off the trail.
Your point is not without significance, but not as important as you
seem to believe, IMO.

Some of them occurred while the accused
was in my physical presence and had no access to a computer or the
internet.

Jeez, Rob, if you were on the stand and somebody asked you, "where
were you on xxx xx, 2005 between xx:00 and yy:00, and who was with
you?", you could answer that question. That's a hell of a lot better
than I could do.



It is looking more and more likely to me that the attack on Paul is
one based on sloppy work and a personal vendetta.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for proving my point Mike.
It's pretty easy to know production dates on a Television crew and the
rehersals. LOL

On Oct 9, 5:17 am, The Historian wrote:

[...]


But unlike Mr. Bauer and Mr. Brock, I feel Sam Sloan should be able to
stop someone from posting under his name.

[...]

Please don't misrepresent my position, or Mr. Bauer's. Sloan has the
right to seek redress.