On Mar 21, 6:53 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 21, 10:33 am, samsloan wrote:
I would like to point out that the charges were dropped or dismissed.
I was never convicted of anything.

Do you care to deny that you are a former president of the Sexual
Freedom League, or that you, in your later years, attribute that to
youth folly? Or do you still have the same views now as you do then?
If the last is true, do you care to explain how someone with your
views should have anything to do with professional chess and any chess
organizations?

- Rich

Sex between consenting adults, particularly pre-HIV, is a non-issue. If
there's a problem here, it is clearly yours. Were you a virgin when you
got married?

Look at what the Sexual Freedom League has advocated, and particularly
what Sam Sloan believes in light of that. He says his views haven't
changed since then. He supported the group meetings being orgy
sessions, for one thing. The question is whether or not having these
views make one someone who is an executive in the U.S Chess Federation
or not.

- Rich

On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, wrote:
On Mar 21, 6:53 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:



wrote:
On Mar 21, 10:33 am, samsloan wrote:
I would like to point out that the charges were dropped or dismissed.
I was never convicted of anything.

Do you care to deny that you are a former president of the Sexual
Freedom League, or that you, in your later years, attribute that to
youth folly? Or do you still have the same views now as you do then?
If the last is true, do you care to explain how someone with your
views should have anything to do with professional chess and any chess
organizations?

- Rich

Sex between consenting adults, particularly pre-HIV, is a non-issue. If
there's a problem here, it is clearly yours. Were you a virgin when you
got married?

Look at what the Sexual Freedom League has advocated, and particularly
what Sam Sloan believes in light of that. He says his views haven't
changed since then. He supported the group meetings being orgy
sessions, for one thing. The question is whether or not having these
views make one someone who is an executive in the U.S Chess Federation
or not.

- Rich

OK. I am going to call a press conference. My wife is going to stand
there Stoically beside me while I confess that I had sex with lots and
lots of women in sex orgies in the mid-1960s.

Will that satisfy you?

Sam Sloan

On Mar 22, 7:30 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, wrote:



On Mar 21, 6:53 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

wrote:
On Mar 21, 10:33 am, samsloan wrote:
I would like to point out that the charges were dropped or dismissed.
I was never convicted of anything.

Do you care to deny that you are a former president of the Sexual
Freedom League, or that you, in your later years, attribute that to
youth folly? Or do you still have the same views now as you do then?
If the last is true, do you care to explain how someone with your
views should have anything to do with professional chess and any chess
organizations?

- Rich

Sex between consenting adults, particularly pre-HIV, is a non-issue. If
there's a problem here, it is clearly yours. Were you a virgin when you
got married?

Look at what the Sexual Freedom League has advocated, and particularly
what Sam Sloan believes in light of that. He says his views haven't
changed since then. He supported the group meetings being orgy
sessions, for one thing. The question is whether or not having these
views make one someone who is an executive in the U.S Chess Federation
or not.

- Rich

OK. I am going to call a press conference. My wife is going to stand
there Stoically beside me while I confess that I had sex with lots and
lots of women in sex orgies in the mid-1960s.

Will that satisfy you?

Sam Sloan

What you say, and how you act, is far more important to the chess
community as a whole than it is to me. Outside of the prospects of
you wrecking the U.S Chess Federation, that makes my dealing with
them difficult, you don't need to do anything to satisfy me. My
seeing your suing everyone as merely a petty whine session to justify
you reason for losing control of the U.S Federation, doesn't have much
impact in how the rest of the world sees you. Likewise, my thinking
you are so full of yourself, you don't care about anything but
yourself, doesn't have much impact on the rest of the world. How
maybe you have annoyed the other communities around the world, such as
Shogi by your words and actions, is another issue, but it doesn't have
to do with me at all.

I would say, that if you still support having sexual orgies, that
might just affect your chances of regaining control of the U.S Chess
Federation just a tad. Oh, you can do me a big favor by not cross-
posting your whining about your state of affairs off chess.politics.
You would do everyone a big favor that way.

- Rich

wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:30 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, wrote:



On Mar 21, 6:53 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 21, 10:33 am, samsloan wrote:
I would like to point out that the charges were dropped or dismissed.
I was never convicted of anything.
Do you care to deny that you are a former president of the Sexual
Freedom League, or that you, in your later years, attribute that to
youth folly? Or do you still have the same views now as you do then?
If the last is true, do you care to explain how someone with your
views should have anything to do with professional chess and any chess
organizations?
- Rich
Sex between consenting adults, particularly pre-HIV, is a non-issue. If
there's a problem here, it is clearly yours. Were you a virgin when you
got married?
Look at what the Sexual Freedom League has advocated, and particularly
what Sam Sloan believes in light of that. He says his views haven't
changed since then. He supported the group meetings being orgy
sessions, for one thing. The question is whether or not having these
views make one someone who is an executive in the U.S Chess Federation
or not.
- Rich
OK. I am going to call a press conference. My wife is going to stand
there Stoically beside me while I confess that I had sex with lots and
lots of women in sex orgies in the mid-1960s.

Will that satisfy you?

Sam Sloan

What you say, and how you act, is far more important to the chess
community as a whole than it is to me. Outside of the prospects of
you wrecking the U.S Chess Federation, that makes my dealing with
them difficult, you don't need to do anything to satisfy me. My
seeing your suing everyone as merely a petty whine session to justify
you reason for losing control of the U.S Federation, doesn't have much
impact in how the rest of the world sees you. Likewise, my thinking
you are so full of yourself, you don't care about anything but
yourself, doesn't have much impact on the rest of the world. How
maybe you have annoyed the other communities around the world, such as
Shogi by your words and actions, is another issue, but it doesn't have
to do with me at all.

I would say, that if you still support having sexual orgies, that
might just affect your chances of regaining control of the U.S Chess
Federation just a tad. Oh, you can do me a big favor by not cross-
posting your whining about your state of affairs off chess.politics.
You would do everyone a big favor that way.

- Rich

What consenting adults choose to do which is not illegal, is none of
anyone's business--especially yours. It's a good thing you're not in
college today--damn, those parties are better than anything I
experienced in the 60s.

On Mar 22, 7:30 pm, samsloan wrote:

OK. I am going to call a press conference. My wife is going to stand
there Stoically beside me while I confess that I had sex with lots and
lots of women in sex orgies in the mid-1960s.

Will that satisfy you?

Sam Sloan

And, I must mention, I did not have to pay them a dime, unlikely our
former distinguished governor, who had to pay $4300 for two hours.

On Mar 22, 6:58 pm, wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:30 pm, samsloan wrote:



On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, wrote:

On Mar 21, 6:53 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

wrote:
On Mar 21, 10:33 am, samsloan wrote:
I would like to point out that the charges were dropped or dismissed.
I was never convicted of anything.

Do you care to deny that you are a former president of the Sexual
Freedom League, or that you, in your later years, attribute that to
youth folly? Or do you still have the same views now as you do then?
If the last is true, do you care to explain how someone with your
views should have anything to do with professional chess and any chess
organizations?

- Rich

Sex between consenting adults, particularly pre-HIV, is a non-issue. If
there's a problem here, it is clearly yours. Were you a virgin when you
got married?

Look at what the Sexual Freedom League has advocated, and particularly
what Sam Sloan believes in light of that. He says his views haven't
changed since then. He supported the group meetings being orgy
sessions, for one thing. The question is whether or not having these
views make one someone who is an executive in the U.S Chess Federation
or not.

- Rich

OK. I am going to call a press conference. My wife is going to stand
there Stoically beside me while I confess that I had sex with lots and
lots of women in sex orgies in the mid-1960s.

Will that satisfy you?

Sam Sloan

What you say, and how you act, is far more important to the chess
community as a whole than it is to me. Outside of the prospects of
you wrecking the U.S Chess Federation, that makes my dealing with
them difficult, you don't need to do anything to satisfy me. My
seeing your suing everyone as merely a petty whine session to justify
you reason for losing control of the U.S Federation, doesn't have much
impact in how the rest of the world sees you. Likewise, my thinking
you are so full of yourself, you don't care about anything but
yourself, doesn't have much impact on the rest of the world. How
maybe you have annoyed the other communities around the world, such as
Shogi by your words and actions, is another issue, but it doesn't have
to do with me at all.

I would say, that if you still support having sexual orgies, that
might just affect your chances of regaining control of the U.S Chess
Federation just a tad. Oh, you can do me a big favor by not cross-
posting your whining about your state of affairs off chess.politics.
You would do everyone a big favor that way.

- Rich

Bravo and Ditto!

On Mar 22, 8:56 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

What consenting adults choose to do which is not illegal, is none of
anyone's business--especially yours. It's a good thing you're not in
college today--damn, those parties are better than anything I
experienced in the 60s.

Prostitution, group sex, adultery, etc... are considered illegal in
some law. The idea of the Freedom League was to lobby for changes to
the law. Anyhow, Sam Sloan doesn't need to please me or anyone else
not fully in chess. However my question asks, whether or not someone
who believes what the Sexual Freedom League advocates, would be
someone a Chess Federation would want as an executive. Again, should
a former president of the Sexual Freedom League be an executive in
chess? Is your answer yes to that?

- Rich

wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:56 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

What consenting adults choose to do which is not illegal, is none of
anyone's business--especially yours. It's a good thing you're not in
college today--damn, those parties are better than anything I
experienced in the 60s.

Prostitution, group sex, adultery, etc... are considered illegal in
some law. The idea of the Freedom League was to lobby for changes to
the law. Anyhow, Sam Sloan doesn't need to please me or anyone else
not fully in chess. However my question asks, whether or not someone
who believes what the Sexual Freedom League advocates, would be
someone a Chess Federation would want as an executive. Again, should
a former president of the Sexual Freedom League be an executive in
chess? Is your answer yes to that?

- Rich

Rich,

Your question strikes me as being of a more general nature. Consider,
if you will, how you would feel if the question were re-targeted in
various ways. E.G. "However my question asks, whether or not someone
who believes what the Fill in the Blank advocates, would be
someone a Chess Federation would want as an executive."

Possible substitutions might include:

1) National Right to Life Committee
2) NARAL Pro-Choice America
3) John Birch Society
4) The Flat Earth Society
5) World Federation of Right To Die Societies
6) Roman Catholic Church
7) Boy Scouts of America
8) Gay and Lesbian Alliance
9) White Panthers
10) Black Panthers
11) Future Farmers of America
12) Libertarian Party

and on and on and on...

By asking a question of this nature, you suggest that there are a list
of such organizations in the back of your mind that you do not approve
of and that you want to make an issue of when possible. What other
organizations might they be Rich?

I am much more comfortable with the concept of regulation by law and the
criminal justice system than by this sort of informal blacklisting.

I leave it to the erudite to elaborate or correct if need be...
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:56 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

What consenting adults choose to do which is not illegal, is none of
anyone's business--especially yours. It's a good thing you're not in
college today--damn, those parties are better than anything I
experienced in the 60s.

Prostitution, group sex, adultery, etc... are considered illegal in
some law. The idea of the Freedom League was to lobby for changes to
the law. Anyhow, Sam Sloan doesn't need to please me or anyone else
not fully in chess. However my question asks, whether or not someone
who believes what the Sexual Freedom League advocates, would be
someone a Chess Federation would want as an executive. Again, should
a former president of the Sexual Freedom League be an executive in
chess? Is your answer yes to that?

- Rich

Rich,

Your question strikes me as being of a more general nature. Consider,
if you will, how you would feel if the question were re-targeted in
various ways. E.G. "However my question asks, whether or not someone
who believes what the Fill in the Blank advocates, would be
someone a Chess Federation would want as an executive."

Possible substitutions might include:

1) National Right to Life Committee
2) NARAL Pro-Choice America
3) John Birch Society
4) The Flat Earth Society
5) World Federation of Right To Die Societies
6) Roman Catholic Church
7) Boy Scouts of America
8) Gay and Lesbian Alliance
9) White Panthers
10) Black Panthers
11) Future Farmers of America
12) Libertarian Party

and on and on and on...

By asking a question of this nature, you suggest that there are a list
of such organizations in the back of your mind that you do not approve
of and that you want to make an issue of when possible. What other
organizations might they be Rich?

I am much more comfortable with the concept of regulation by law and the
criminal justice system than by this sort of informal blacklisting.

I leave it to the erudite to elaborate or correct if need be...

Well stated. But, you were channeling God and Her Wisdom, correct? ;-)

On Mar 23, 8:29 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
By asking a question of this nature, you suggest that there are a list
of such organizations in the back of your mind that you do not approve
of and that you want to make an issue of when possible. What other
organizations might they be Rich?

I am much more comfortable with the concept of regulation by law and the
criminal justice system than by this sort of informal blacklisting.

It isn't me. It is the chess community as a whole. Sam Sloan is
basing his entire lawsuit, which he intends to take down the U.S Chess
Federation upon, based upon comments that Polgar and so on slander him
over the Internet and that cost him the election. If he has a
checkered background that can show more than that, then what is the
legs of his lawsuit?

As for who is acceptable and who isn't, when I discussed the prospects
of doing a chess-poker hybrid tournament on television, in order to
get chess on TV, I had people telling me the reputation of the U.S
Chess Federation, and their attempt to deal with minors, would make
that not a good idea.

- Rich