On Feb 24, 1:38 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:29 am, Rob wrote:



On Feb 24, 10:18 am, samsloan wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:03 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

Sam Sloan

Lex which- Mitch Agrees with Guy on this one , you serial cross
Guy Macon wrote:
Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Who is this "everybody"?
I do not see anybody else but you complaining.
Sam Sloan

Let's take a survey, shall we?

Does *anyone* here think that it is OK for Sam Sloan to
post things that have nothing to do with computer chess
to the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup?

poster

Let's take a survey he

Does anybody else thing that it is OK for Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell,
a well-known front money swindler, to keep changing the title to any
thread he does not like so that others will no longer be able to find
it?

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

Rob wrote:

Lex which- Mitch Agrees with Guy on this one , you serial cross
poster

I am sure that Guy Macon does not agree with Rob "The Robber" which
Mitch who changes the titles of threads so that nobody else can find
them.

I don't know who "Rob" is, but I note that whoever he is he was careful
to specify that he agrees with me "on this one." He could very well
disagree with me on everything else, and I him, but we agree that you
are way out of line posting your lawsuit information in a newsgroup
that is dedicated to computer chess.

Your usual practice is to stop responding when I ask the tough
questions (which does not bode well for you when it's a Judge
who is asking you tough questions), but I will ask anyway; is
it your contention that the majority of those who read this
newgroup approve of your crossposting off-topic material to
the Computer Chess newsgroup?

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 1:38 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:29 am, Rob wrote:



On Feb 24, 10:18 am, samsloan wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:03 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

Sam Sloan

Lex which- Mitch Agrees with Guy on this one , you serial cross
Guy Macon wrote:
Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Who is this "everybody"?
I do not see anybody else but you complaining.
Sam Sloan

Let's take a survey, shall we?

Does *anyone* here think that it is OK for Sam Sloan to
post things that have nothing to do with computer chess
to the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup?

poster

Let's take a survey he

Does anybody else thing that it is OK for Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell,
a well-known front money swindler,

And there we have it - the completely undefendable Macythyite tactic to
smear someone and divert from one's own orientation, which is what? Straight
out paranoia.. Mitchell ("The Robber") is 'well-known' to those other than
Sloan? Who?

Sloan is actually responding here to his own wanton egoic profligacy to
blast his latest **** to anyone who gives him attention. When challenged,
Sloan then disses the challengers, rubbishes them. But who supports any 'we'
statement from Sloan?

Guy Macon got it right when he challenged this at the outset - Sloan is back
on his weird-horse and talks of everyone and no-one. But can't say that it
is his own opinion or actually claim any support for anyone and no-one.

It does seem to be his own opinion and that of no one else - and thus Sloan
presents himself presents hystericaly of those who do not support his
activities.

It matters not who Sloan libels, since after all it is just his opinion -
but people actually voted him into a USCF board membership hoping that he
would disisnter where the bodies were buried. they didn't vote for him
twice.

Instead he practiced his dissapointed infatuation non-stop throughout his
tenure. And you know - you don't have to have a grey beard and come from
Vienna to understand his //fixation fantasy//. !!

If indeed I got him wrong, where is any evidence of that? Sloan is just a
grandstander with no demonstrated ability to further chess more than any of
the good-old-boys-club now resident in office. Sloan supporters should tell
him directly, public or private, makes no difference [to me] but to US Chess
he has indeed acted as a catalyst for all that is wrong with it.

He has likely killed it.

Now... Is that such a bad thing?

Phil Innes

to keep changing the title to any
thread he does not like so that others will no longer be able to find
it?

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:

Let's take a survey, shall we?

Does *anyone* here think that it is OK for Sam Sloan to
post things that have nothing to do with computer chess
to the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup?

Let's take a survey he

Does anybody else thing that it is OK for Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell,
a well-known front money swindler, to keep changing the title to any
thread he does not like so that others will no longer be able to find
it?

One survety at a time. You are losing 3 to 0 so far, and that's
without anyone asking the participants of the computer chess
newsgroup to vote.

As for your assertions above:

"well-known?"

I never heard of it. Nor do I care.

"keep changing the title to any thread he does not like so
that others will no longer be able to find it?"

As I have explained to you multiple times, this is USENET,
not Google Groups. Google just copies USENET and call it
Google Groups but USENET was here long before Google (or the
World Wide Web, or the Internet) and will be here long after
Goggle has cone the way of WordPerfect and Lotus-123.

USENET has threading by the References header and Properly
designed USENET newsreaders do not lose the thread when the
subject changes. Complain to Google Groups if their software
loses threading. Don't expect all of USENET to change to
accomodate bugs in Google Groups.

All of this has been explained to you multiple times.

On Feb 24, 5:07 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

...



On Feb 24, 1:38 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:29 am, Rob wrote:

On Feb 24, 10:18 am, samsloan wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:03 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

Sam Sloan

Lex which- Mitch Agrees with Guy on this one , you serial cross
Guy Macon wrote:
Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Who is this "everybody"?
I do not see anybody else but you complaining.
Sam Sloan

Let's take a survey, shall we?

Does *anyone* here think that it is OK for Sam Sloan to
post things that have nothing to do with computer chess
to the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup?

poster

Let's take a survey he

Does anybody else thing that it is OK for Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell,
a well-known front money swindler,

And there we have it - the completely undefendable Macythyite tactic to
smear someone and divert from one's own orientation, which is what? Straight
out paranoia.. Mitchell ("The Robber") is 'well-known' to those other than
Sloan? Who?

Sloan is actually responding here to his own wanton egoic profligacy to
blast his latest **** to anyone who gives him attention. When challenged,
Sloan then disses the challengers, rubbishes them. But who supports any 'we'
statement from Sloan?

Guy Macon got it right when he challenged this at the outset - Sloan is back
on his weird-horse and talks of everyone and no-one. But can't say that it
is his own opinion or actually claim any support for anyone and no-one.

It does seem to be his own opinion and that of no one else - and thus Sloan
presents himself presents hystericaly of those who do not support his
activities.

It matters not who Sloan libels, since after all it is just his opinion -
but people actually voted him into a USCF board membership hoping that he
would disisnter where the bodies were buried. they didn't vote for him
twice.

Instead he practiced his dissapointed infatuation non-stop throughout his
tenure. And you know - you don't have to have a grey beard and come from
Vienna to understand his //fixation fantasy//. !!

If indeed I got him wrong, where is any evidence of that? Sloan is just a
grandstander with no demonstrated ability to further chess more than any of
the good-old-boys-club now resident in office. Sloan supporters should tell
him directly, public or private, makes no difference [to me] but to US Chess
he has indeed acted as a catalyst for all that is wrong with it.

He has likely killed it.

Now... Is that such a bad thing?

Phil Innes

to keep changing the title to any
thread he does not like so that others will no longer be able to find
it?

Sam Sloan

Yes, LexWhich-Mitch Mitchell has confounded S.C.P. Sloan once
again. The gadfly of the USCF he is. LOL
Too afraid to play anytype of correspondence chess because he think
others will cheat. Thats a form of projection, SPC SLoan. Of which you
are a master.

Chess One wrote:

Sloan supporters

I believe that to be a null set. There are those who are enemies
of some of Sloan's enemies, and I suppose that they "support" him
in so far as he is able to ahr those mutual enemies, but even
among that group the general opinion seems to be that Sloan is
likely to extract defeat out of near-certain victory by failing
to concentrate on the strong part of his case.

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



Chess One wrote:

Sloan supporters

I believe that to be a null set. There are those who are enemies
of some of Sloan's enemies, and I suppose that they "support" him
in so far as he is able to ahr those mutual enemies, but even
among that group the general opinion seems to be that Sloan is
likely to extract defeat out of near-certain victory by failing
to concentrate on the strong part of his case.

shoot, guy! you are worse than me! - extracting your para from 2 words. yet,
it is actually evident, no? it is self-evident and evident to the chess
community, as far as i can see

only the sloan does not get it

but enough of that - there is plenty of chess to go around without these
obsessional proclamations - at least, if we took other things seriously,
rather than raw ego

phil innes

On Feb 24, 6:17 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Does *anyone* here think that it is OK for Sam Sloan to
post things that have nothing to do with computer chess
to the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup?

Why not take the survey where it really counts:
in rgc.computers? (Better still, why not cancel
your opinion survey and use something called
/reason/ to decide?)


Let's take a survey he

Does anybody else thing that it is OK for Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell,
a well-known front money swindler, to keep changing the title to any
thread he does not like so that others will no longer be able to find
it?

Why single out just one poster? Either everyone
has the right to change thread titles to their whims,
or else no one does. Please do not discriminate
against weak chessplayers like this.


As I have explained to you multiple times, this is USENET,
not Google Groups. Google just copies USENET and call it
Google Groups but USENET was here long before Google (or the
World Wide Web, or the Internet) and will be here long after
Goggle has cone the way of WordPerfect and Lotus-123.

Um, this is the first I've heard of that.

I have a very old notebook computer which
went on the blink years ago, and naturally, it
came with a pre-installed suite of expensive
software, like Lotus. A moment of silence,
please... .


USENET has threading by the References header and Properly
designed USENET newsreaders do not lose the thread when the
subject changes. Complain to Google Groups if their software
loses threading. Don't expect all of USENET to change to
accomodate bugs in Google Groups.

All of this has been explained to you multiple times.

Even so, thanks for explaining it once again.

BTW, your UNET stock is languishing down
around 3 cents per share, while my GOOG is
near an all-time high of $500. Clearly, this must
be because the market has not yet figured out
what's what. It just goes to show how few people
there are who "know everything", like you do; it
must be a tremendous responsibility.


-- help bot