On Jan 6, 7:59 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Louis Blair" wrote in message

...
samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair
7 wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
7 Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
7 removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
7 Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
7 ...

_
That is false.

**But what did you do Louis? - you spent 30,000 words on the Fide-chess
newsgroup saying something, and no-one understands you still. You did do
something, right? Phil Innes

Are you still beating your ex-wives, Philsy?

"samsloan" wrote in message
...

The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote messages
to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators complaining about
my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg and that immediately thereafter User:JzG
not only deleted those four biographies but "salted the earth" so that
biographies of those four persons can never be posted again. Do you,
Louis Blair, deny writing such messages?

(1) There is no point asking Louis Blair a straight question, since, as
anyone can already read by his retort, there is 'no record' of such a file
referencing User:JzG . Which does not answer the question at all!

(2) I have asked Louis to state what he /did/ do, since he dislikes all
paraphrases of that - but he doesn't answer that either

(3) Apart from records of the 4 players mentioned here, I should like to
know what other activities Louis Blair conducted with Wikipedia - and since
I keep my send & receive e-mails, can check against public responses he made
in the Fide-Yahoo group on the topic of forwarding messages from the
False-Sloan to Wiki. I believe Louis Blair /has/ deigned to term some or all
of these things, his 'action.' Of the 30,000 words describing them, that is
all the detail he admits.

(4) It was because of such actions that Chessville chose to preserve any
similar attempts of biographical sketchs or anecdotes in its column,
'Vignettes', so that matters of fact can be corrected or clarified, rather
than these wholesale destructions of materials by malicious anons and
pseuds, we read about here.

(5) I do not particularly like Sam Sloan, nor his general behaviors - and
surely there is plenty of material to complain about! But I dislike even
more this destructive attitude to his fair work, which deserves, IMO, a bit
of praise - a factor which is actually likely to firm and recalibrate
anyone's compass, and which [transfigures any] genus est mortis male vivere,
[from its] malsueda fames.

Cordially, Vergel et Phil Innes

Apparently, you are playing games with words, saying that you did not
specifically request User:JzG to "salt the earth" with respect to
those four people. However, in view of the record of User:JzG of doing
that to other people, you obviously must have known that this was
going to be the consequence of your postings.

After a long struggle, I finally was able to get the earth "unsalted"
with respect to Ali Nihat Yazici, who, by the way, was the organizer
of the World Youth Championships recently concluded.

Since you, Louis Blair, are the person who caused this entire problem,
I am calling upon you to write to User:JzG and ask him to unsalt the
earth with respect to the other three biographies.

By the way, I have no connection with Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha or Geoffrey Borg. I have never knowingly met them. They
are not my friends or associates in any way. I just think that this
black mark on their names that was put there by Louis Blair should be
removed.

Sam Sloan

BLAIR'S EVASIONS

(1) There is no point asking Louis Blair a straight question, since,
as anyone can already read by his retort, there is 'no record' of such
a file referencing User:JzG . Which does not answer the question at
all!

(2) I have asked Louis to state what he /did/ do, since he dislikes all paraphrases of that - but he doesn't answer that either -- Phil Innes

Dear Phil and Sam,

If you begin with the assumption that Louie
Blair is a stinker and slinker -- the kind of little
rotter who as a kid would tie tin cans to the tails of
dogs -- then you will likely have a fair idea of what
our Louie was up to at Wikipedia re Sam's work.

Yours, Larry Parr




Chess One wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message
...

The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote messages
to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators complaining about
my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg and that immediately thereafter User:JzG
not only deleted those four biographies but "salted the earth" so that
biographies of those four persons can never be posted again. Do you,
Louis Blair, deny writing such messages?

(1) There is no point asking Louis Blair a straight question, since, as
anyone can already read by his retort, there is 'no record' of such a file
referencing User:JzG . Which does not answer the question at all!

(2) I have asked Louis to state what he /did/ do, since he dislikes all
paraphrases of that - but he doesn't answer that either

(3) Apart from records of the 4 players mentioned here, I should like to
know what other activities Louis Blair conducted with Wikipedia - and since
I keep my send & receive e-mails, can check against public responses he made
in the Fide-Yahoo group on the topic of forwarding messages from the
False-Sloan to Wiki. I believe Louis Blair /has/ deigned to term some or all
of these things, his 'action.' Of the 30,000 words describing them, that is
all the detail he admits.

(4) It was because of such actions that Chessville chose to preserve any
similar attempts of biographical sketchs or anecdotes in its column,
'Vignettes', so that matters of fact can be corrected or clarified, rather
than these wholesale destructions of materials by malicious anons and
pseuds, we read about here.

(5) I do not particularly like Sam Sloan, nor his general behaviors - and
surely there is plenty of material to complain about! But I dislike even
more this destructive attitude to his fair work, which deserves, IMO, a bit
of praise - a factor which is actually likely to firm and recalibrate
anyone's compass, and which [transfigures any] genus est mortis male vivere,
[from its] malsueda fames.

Cordially, Vergel et Phil Innes

Apparently, you are playing games with words, saying that you did not
specifically request User:JzG to "salt the earth" with respect to
those four people. However, in view of the record of User:JzG of doing
that to other people, you obviously must have known that this was
going to be the consequence of your postings.

After a long struggle, I finally was able to get the earth "unsalted"
with respect to Ali Nihat Yazici, who, by the way, was the organizer
of the World Youth Championships recently concluded.

Since you, Louis Blair, are the person who caused this entire problem,
I am calling upon you to write to User:JzG and ask him to unsalt the
earth with respect to the other three biographies.

By the way, I have no connection with Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha or Geoffrey Borg. I have never knowingly met them. They
are not my friends or associates in any way. I just think that this
black mark on their names that was put there by Louis Blair should be
removed.

Sam Sloan

On Jan 7, 6:47 am, wrote:

Help bot is improving his style.

Style? Check out this game-fragment:

help bot -- hapless

1. d4 d5
2. c4 dc
3. Nf3! (I calculated some sixty moves ahead,
concluding that Qa4+ was sub-optimal.)

3. ... b5?
4. a4! and wins.


He must be thinking about that job
Kirsan offered him. The last employee
Actually got to meet Sadam Hussein, but he died in a car bomb.

He dies /inside/ a bomb? I'm not sure I
would even fit inside a car bomb. Maybe
a Cadillac Expedition bomb.


Help bot finally makes a little sense.
The conflict can make a crazy poster sane, and bring out the best in
us.

Did you even look at the game? I began with
1.d4 -- hardly my best.


I think that this chess war did r.g.c.p good, in the quality of our
regular posters. We all seem to work harder when everyone
Is watching - or has the potential to watch - very soon. At the end,
the fake posters will loose confidence, with the FBI
and all, and what is left several quality intelligence analysts, and
one **** vat operator in Indiana :-)

Here in Indiana, we have no need of "operators"
for our sh*t vats; that is Vermont you are thinking
of. Here, we recycle the stuff back into the ground,
producing corn, beans and even tobacco. Instead
of cooking vats, we think of spreaders. Look, if it's
quality you want, go read "New in Chess". This ng
is for nutters and their more rational critics; it's for
the separation of the wheat from the chaff, the
lunatic fringers from the rational thinkers.

It's clear which group you belong to; anyone who
cannot appreciate Monsanto [MON] or Potash [POT]
might as well just buy an index fund. Loser. ;D


-- help bot

On Jan 7, 9:13 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

...

The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote messages
to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators complaining about
my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg and that immediately thereafter User:JzG
not only deleted those four biographies but "salted the earth" so that
biographies of those four persons can never be posted again. Do you,
Louis Blair, deny writing such messages?

(1) There is no point asking Louis Blair a straight question, since, as
anyone can already read by his retort, there is 'no record' of such a file
referencing User:JzG . Which does not answer the question at all!

Maybe LB's bluntness was in reaction to being
"attacked" here? SS came from out of nowhere
with a new thread accusing LB of wrongdoing.


(2) I have asked Louis to state what he /did/ do, since he dislikes all
paraphrases of that - but he doesn't answer that either

That makes two of you! Neither the accused
nor the first piler-on ratpacker is willing to state
what LB actually did on Wikipedia which was
so objectionable.


(3) Apart from records of the 4 players mentioned here, I should like to
know what other activities Louis Blair conducted with Wikipedia - and since
I keep my send & receive e-mails, can check against public responses he made
in the Fide-Yahoo group on the topic of forwarding messages from the
False-Sloan to Wiki. I believe Louis Blair /has/ deigned to term some or all
of these things, his 'action.' Of the 30,000 words describing them, that is
all the detail he admits.

Everything here is second-hand; all I see is that
SS is miffed, and that apparently, LB has driven
the roads of Wiki-ville while observing their quirky
speed limits and laws. SS "creates", his critics
destroy; but /what/ is it that SS creates? What is
it his critics on Wiki destroy? Example: the
destruction of influenza is not a bad thing, is it?


(4) It was because of such actions that Chessville chose to preserve any
similar attempts of biographical sketchs or anecdotes in its column,
'Vignettes', so that matters of fact can be corrected or clarified, rather
than these wholesale destructions of materials by malicious anons and
pseuds, we read about here.

Are you saying that you do not object to the
destruction of SS materials per se, but only
on account of the destroyer being anonymous?!!

If he is anonymous, than how can SS accuse
LB -- a real person -- of the "crime"? I read
articles on Wiki all the time, and there are always
comments that some parts need verification or
redoing, lest they eventually be deleted as sub-
standard. It's not just chess; the whole thing is
this way.


(5) I do not particularly like Sam Sloan, nor his general behaviors - and
surely there is plenty of material to complain about! But I dislike even
more this destructive attitude to his fair work, which deserves, IMO, a bit
of praise

Wiki seems to differ; I see rules regarding the
creation of materials from thin air as objectionable,
yet if cr*p is taken from a "reputable source", it is
deemed both edible and nutritious! My own views
are not in accord with this thinking-- especially
since what is a "reputable" resource is open to
interpretation. For instance, Chess Lies magazine
could be considered a reputable resource, and so
it goes.


- a factor which is actually likely to firm and recalibrate
anyone's compass, and which [transfigures any] genus est mortis male vivere,
[from its] malsueda fames.

Your Latin is horrific. You can't just cheat by
inserting brackets whenever you don't know
the proper words! BTW, my rigor mortis is
better -- thanks for asking. I got some pain
killer from Skippy, narcotics mixed with aceto
and Boris Men-o-phen. Unfortunately, my
chess play has fallen off a cliff. I can barely
see the board, and this would probably be a
perfect time for the ratpack to challenge for
another grudge match, even if SS is the best
you can offer. Heck, maybe even Rob the
robber Mitchell can beat me right now... .


-- hep blot

In case anybody here has any doubt that "the Earth has been salted"
with respect to these three individuals, try to create a Wikipedia
biography for any of them and see what happens. Go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...rg&action=edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ha&action=edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ti&action=edit

In addition, at the same time, on March 19, 2006, Phr (Paul Rubin) and
Louis Blair tried to have the biography of Bessel Kok deleted. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

Here you can see where Louis Blair posted to Paul Rubin's talk page:

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

To get an idea of the activity of User:JzG in deleting pages and
blocking users, take a look at his talk page, just for the past 6
weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...t=500&offset=0

It is possible to go back to March 2006 and see Louis Blair asking
User:JzG to take a look at those five biographies. However, I do not
know how to do this.

It would be much simpler if Louis Blair would just come clean on his
nefarious activities.

Sam Sloan

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Jan 7, 9:13 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

...

The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote messages
to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators complaining about
my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg and that immediately thereafter User:JzG
not only deleted those four biographies but "salted the earth" so that
biographies of those four persons can never be posted again. Do you,
Louis Blair, deny writing such messages?

(1) There is no point asking Louis Blair a straight question, since, as
anyone can already read by his retort, there is 'no record' of such a
file
referencing User:JzG . Which does not answer the question at all!

Maybe LB's bluntness was in reaction to being
"attacked" here? SS came from out of nowhere
with a new thread accusing LB of wrongdoing.


(2) I have asked Louis to state what he /did/ do, since he dislikes all
paraphrases of that - but he doesn't answer that either

That makes two of you! Neither the accused
nor the first piler-on ratpacker is willing to state
what LB actually did on Wikipedia which was
so objectionable.

Not true. I stated it plainly enough - LB did not agree - that is, with my
necessary paraphrase of his 30,000 word confessions. He denied nothing,
while asking for the usual citations. An absurd stance, since it would be
necessary to cite all 30,000 words.

Therefore LB wrote 30,000 words on what he did, which cannot be reduced by
any amount, not even by himself - and his denial is merely to how his
self-named 'action' is understood by readers - and not actually contesting
that he performed an 'action'.

(3) Apart from records of the 4 players mentioned here, I should like to
know what other activities Louis Blair conducted with Wikipedia - and
since
I keep my send & receive e-mails, can check against public responses he
made
in the Fide-Yahoo group on the topic of forwarding messages from the
False-Sloan to Wiki. I believe Louis Blair /has/ deigned to term some or
all
of these things, his 'action.' Of the 30,000 words describing them, that
is
all the detail he admits.

Everything here is second-hand; all I see is that
SS is miffed, and that apparently, LB has driven
the roads of Wiki-ville while observing their quirky
speed limits and laws. SS "creates", his critics
destroy; but /what/ is it that SS creates?

You sound like a politican, a drunk one. 4 reasonable attempts at player
biographies, is the answer.

What is
it his critics on Wiki destroy? Example: the
destruction of influenza is not a bad thing, is it?

Neither is the destruction of fatuous metaphors! You have started to argue
too early, not even acquainting yourself with the material, nor, naturally,
taking the word of those who have. zzzzzzz

(4) It was because of such actions that Chessville chose to preserve any
similar attempts of biographical sketchs or anecdotes in its column,
'Vignettes', so that matters of fact can be corrected or clarified,
rather
than these wholesale destructions of materials by malicious anons and
pseuds, we read about here.

Are you saying that you do not object to the
destruction of SS materials per se, but only
on account of the destroyer being anonymous?!!

Not, that would be an understanding of what I wrote and what people who
actually care about chess wish to do, which could only be understood by
someone of extreme;ly poor comprehension, who furthermore, didn't give a
damn.

If he is anonymous, than how can SS accuse
LB -- a real person -- of the "crime"?

You think you are clever, but only if you know nothing can you ask that
question. Being clever while knowing things is much harder! Did I not write
here that someone forwarded the FSS material to Wiki, without identifying it
as being the False-Sloan's material?

I read
articles on Wiki all the time, and there are always
comments that some parts need verification or
redoing, lest they eventually be deleted as sub-
standard. It's not just chess; the whole thing is
this way.

Complete destruction of fair work is very far from making any /necessary/
amendments to it - and this was the subject that I challenged LB upon, and
which occassioned the 30,000 words. While /some/ amendments seemed justified
in these instances, others seemed merely the preferences of other people -
and competetive rather than complimentary to the original materials.
Competitive to the extent that they were entirely destructive of it.

(5) I do not particularly like Sam Sloan, nor his general behaviors - and
surely there is plenty of material to complain about! But I dislike even
more this destructive attitude to his fair work, which deserves, IMO, a
bit
of praise

Wiki seems to differ; I see rules regarding the
creation of materials from thin air as objectionable,
yet if cr*p is taken from a "reputable source", it is
deemed both edible and nutritious!

What Greg Kennedy, who cannot admit his own name [!] 'sees all the time' is
sublimely unimportant to the specifics of these instances, which he seems to
have seen, never. And why he should continue to mock people who can sign
their names is a peculiarity of his own, relegating his often sensible
comments to the usual invective-strewn gutter of people who only exist here
to trash everything they can.

So Greg Kennedy should get it into his head that fair, by my opinion, being
as I say, nor friend of Sloan at all! materials should be destroyed by the
acts of pseudonymous people of unknown chessic intelligence without any
debate nor right to fair appeal whatsoever. That is what Greg Kennedy is
currently waffling about and defending by his abstractions of 'what he
sees.'

He has even seen nefarious things in the posts of Taylor Kingston where no
one else has seen them. All he has not seen is the book they come from - but
surely, he has argued, they are in there! The damned cheaters!

This rather relegates any ability to comment on particular issues by the
twin factors of literally not knowing the material on which he comments,
supplemented by a parano response on every issue about cheating everywhere.

My own views
are not in accord with this thinking-- especially
since what is a "reputable" resource is open to
interpretation. For instance, Chess Lies magazine
could be considered a reputable resource, and so
it goes.


- a factor which is actually likely to firm and recalibrate
anyone's compass, and which [transfigures any] genus est mortis male
vivere,
[from its] malsueda fames.

Your Latin is horrific.

Nonsense! You mean it is horrid. They have similar but distinguishable
stems~ [look them up, and don't bristle because you must do something] apart
from your English using the wrong part of speech )

Vergel is horrific! Look at how I spell it, the old-fashioned way, before
new-phonetics turned Peking into Beerchin, and the old order passed away.

You can't just cheat by
inserting brackets whenever you don't know
the proper words!

[The] proper [words] are redundant in Latin, which so very often requires
one to make one's own way from one sentence to another without
lead-directing and linking prepositions.

BTW, my rigor mortis is
better -- thanks for asking.

You are very welcome. But I thought that meant a stiff lock? [I quote that
wag, Mortise and Tenonson, a chip off the English romantic writers block]

O ha ha ha!

I got some pain
killer from Skippy, narcotics mixed with aceto
and Boris Men-o-phen.

In Wales they take to Men-of Harlech - but in Scotland its the whiskey and
lemon, and as you recover, gradually ease off the lemon.

Unfortunately, my
chess play has fallen off a cliff. I can barely
see the board, and this would probably be a
perfect time for the ratpack to challenge for
another grudge match, even if SS is the best
you can offer. Heck, maybe even Rob the
robber Mitchell can beat me right now... .

He is busy selling time-shares on Io, a very respectable little moon of
Jupiter to raise money to buy a couple of small Caribbean Islands and create
FantasyChessIsland.com which will have its own HD TV channel. I believe he
will call the Io joint, Lex-ville or Lex City, so the golf course will be
the Lex City Links, et ca.

Philippus von der Vermont


-- hep blot

samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):
7 ...
7 After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair
7 wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
7 Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
7 removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
7 Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
7 ...
_
I wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:43:02 -0800 (PST)
7 That is false.
_
_
We then saw a claim that did not mention the idea of
19 administrators being "known anti-chess and
anti-Sam Sloan" and being asked by me "to reinstate"
"removals ...".
_
_
samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:29:58 -0800 (PST)):
7 The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote
7 messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators
7 complaining about my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar
7 Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg ...
_
I wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:53:18 -0800 (PST)):
7 No such record exists.
_
_
Now (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)) we see claims
that no longer connect me to 19 Wikipedia administrators.
_
_
samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 ... on March 19, 2006, Phr (Paul Rubin) and Louis Blair tried
7 to have the biography of Bessel Kok deleted. See:
7
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history
7 ...
_
_
On that page, one can see records of notes by: Afasmit,
213.220.214.99, Seaaron, 83.77.224.195, Cydebot, CmdrObot,
Jmartinezot, Ulysses Zagreb, 88.14.48.169, RussBot, Stefan64,
Dionyseus, (:Julien, Ioannes Pragensis, Zargulon, Phr,
Billbrock, Rook wave, and Sam Sloan. None of those people
are me.
_
_
samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)):

7 Here you can see where Louis Blair posted to Paul Rubin's
7 talk page:
7
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_ta...n_announcement
7 ...
_
_
Indeed, one can and the post does not even mention Bessel
Kok, Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar, Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha, or Geoffrey Borg.
_
_
samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 It is possible to go back to March 2006 and see Louis Blair
7 asking User:JzG to take a look at those five biographies.
_
_
Notice that, in this claim, we no longer have the idea of me
supposedly "asking" for the "removal" of any biography.
_
_
samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)):

7 However, I do not know how to do this.
_
_
Then what justification does he have for asserting that it is
possible?
_
_
samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)):

7 It would be much simpler if Louis Blair would just come
7 clean on his nefarious activities.
_
_
I can not "come clean" on things that I did not do. It would
be much simpler if samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) identified exactly
what evidence he has that I supposedly: "wrote letters to 19
known anti-chess and anti-Sam Sloan administrators asking
them to reinstate the removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg."

Let's make it simple, Mr. Blair:

1. Did you or did you not write postings to 19 Wikipedia
administrators or editors pointing out that I had reinstated
biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg?

Answer that question "yes" or "no".

In other words, stop playing games with swords.

2. Is it not a fact that promptly after you wrote these 19
administrators, User:JzG "salted the earth" with respect to the
biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg, meaning that
no biography of those persons can ever be posted to Wikipedia again?

Answer "yes" or "no".

3. Is it not a fact that Bill Goichberg rewarded you for this deed by
appointing you as a member of the Forum Oversight Committee thereby
giving you the power to remove postings by Sam Sloan from the USCF
Issues Forum?

Answer that question "yes" or "no".

We will await your answers.

Sam Sloan

samsloan ) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:55:39 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7
7 Answer that question "yes" or "no".
7
7 We will await your answers.

_
Why are we seeing questions when be should seeing an
identification of specific evidence? Is samsloan
) (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154)
retracting the previous claims? If so, why isn't there an apology?
If not, why isn't there evidence?
_
"...
After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis
Blair wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
12:01:27 -0800 (PST)
_
_
"...
The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair
wrote messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia
administrators complaining about my biographies of Ali
Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha
and Geoffrey Borg ...
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
22:29:58 -0800 (PST))
_
_
"...
... on March 19, 2006, Phr (Paul Rubin) and Louis
Blair tried to have the biography of Bessel Kok deleted.
See:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
09:37:03 -0800 (PST))
_
_
"...
It is possible to go back to March 2006 and see Louis
Blair asking User:JzG to take a look at those five
biographies. However, I do not know how to do this."
..." - samsloan )
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
09:37:03 -0800 (PST))