Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 31st 07, 08:17 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2007
Posts: 146
Default Identity


Greetings friends,

I have been puzzling for some time now over issues raised by the
crimes committed by someone who has conveniently though inaccurately
been labeled "FSS" or "the Fake Sam Sloan." One obvious issue centers
on the concept of identity. Our impostor assumed dozens of other
peoples identities with the apparent purpose of discrediting and
defaming both those he impersonated and those he attacked through the
words he put into the impersonated victim's mouth. This created a
rather large network of confusion and disgust among many people. It
appears to me that many people were injured in this way, not just Sam
Sloan. Whatever other defects may be attributed to the character of
Sam Sloan, I believe he is due no small amount of credit for having
the guts to stand up and say "this is wrong." Whether his lawsuit has
merit I cannot say. I only hope that justice will be served. Leaving
that issue aside...

Suppose that by some reasonable interpretation of the word "same" that
the Fake Sam Sloan and alleged malefactor are both the same and not
the same. How could such a thing occur? One idea that comes to mind
is multiple personality disorder. How has the law dealt with such
cases in analogous circumstances? Another possibility is the idea of
temporal disjunction via amnesia. Perhaps for two years the FSS had
lost all knowledge of his past and was operating as a different
person??? Then he came to his senses, thus vacating the personality
of the FSS... Both of these mental impairment ideas seem unlikely in
the case of the FSS.

Another concept which might apply is multiple locale rather than
multiple personality. Suppose that our alleged malefactor believes he
lives in two different dimensions. By this view, are the
impersonation crimes committed in the same dimension as the legal
prosecution. Rather far-fetched, I agree. It appears only
sustainable as another mental impairment defense.

Another neighboring identity issue that has surfaced at various times:
the publicity machine for the promotion of Susan Polgar claims that
she is the first woman to have earned the International Grand Master
title. History gives that distinction to Nona Gaprindashvili. The
governing body, FIDE, according to its rules and processes in effect
at both times awarded the title to both women -- Nona first and later
Susan. How can we reconcile the Susan's claim and the facts of
history?

If Susan were to push to make her claim fact she would have to
initiate a process through FIDE of revoking Nona's title. However,
this would probably fail and also severely damage her reputation. It
appears that she realizes this and instead pursues a course of
claiming that Nona's title was not product of worthy efforts to the
same degree as hers. This is where the word "earned" comes into the
picture. The Polgar publicity machine claims that Susan was the first
woman to "earn" the title whereas Nona was only "awarded" it. There
are some serious problems with this approach.

Who is to decide the relative purity of International Grandmaster
titles? This is a new concept introduced by the Polgar publicity
machine. What is the USCF stand on title purity? How many titles are
impure? Should many of these titles be revoked? Should FIDE create a
committee to investigate this issue? Perhaps ALL titles should be
revoked and news ones should be defined and carefully issued to the
"worthy" for all of chess history... This is all ridiculous in my
mind, yet it is all implied by the Polgar claim of purity.

====

If I made any mistakes in the above reflections I would be happy to
make corrections where needed. But, I do claim the right of a Free
Thinker to engage interesting topics and to try to reach a reasonable
understanding of them.


Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

  #2   Report Post  
Old October 31st 07, 08:23 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,576
Default Identity

On Oct 31, 3:17 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:
Greetings friends,

I have been puzzling for some time now over issues raised by the
crimes committed by someone who has conveniently though inaccurately
been labeled "FSS" or "the Fake Sam Sloan." One obvious issue centers
on the concept of identity. Our impostor assumed dozens of other
peoples identities with the apparent purpose of discrediting and
defaming both those he impersonated and those he attacked through the
words he put into the impersonated victim's mouth. This created a
rather large network of confusion and disgust among many people. It
appears to me that many people were injured in this way, not just Sam
Sloan. Whatever other defects may be attributed to the character of
Sam Sloan, I believe he is due no small amount of credit for having
the guts to stand up and say "this is wrong." Whether his lawsuit has
merit I cannot say. I only hope that justice will be served. Leaving
that issue aside...

Suppose that by some reasonable interpretation of the word "same" that
the Fake Sam Sloan and alleged malefactor are both the same and not
the same. How could such a thing occur? One idea that comes to mind
is multiple personality disorder. How has the law dealt with such
cases in analogous circumstances? Another possibility is the idea of
temporal disjunction via amnesia. Perhaps for two years the FSS had
lost all knowledge of his past and was operating as a different
person??? Then he came to his senses, thus vacating the personality
of the FSS... Both of these mental impairment ideas seem unlikely in
the case of the FSS.

Another concept which might apply is multiple locale rather than
multiple personality. Suppose that our alleged malefactor believes he
lives in two different dimensions. By this view, are the
impersonation crimes committed in the same dimension as the legal
prosecution. Rather far-fetched, I agree. It appears only
sustainable as another mental impairment defense.

Another neighboring identity issue that has surfaced at various times:
the publicity machine for the promotion of Susan Polgar claims that
she is the first woman to have earned the International Grand Master
title. History gives that distinction to Nona Gaprindashvili. The
governing body, FIDE, according to its rules and processes in effect
at both times awarded the title to both women -- Nona first and later
Susan. How can we reconcile the Susan's claim and the facts of
history?

If Susan were to push to make her claim fact she would have to
initiate a process through FIDE of revoking Nona's title. However,
this would probably fail and also severely damage her reputation. It
appears that she realizes this and instead pursues a course of
claiming that Nona's title was not product of worthy efforts to the
same degree as hers. This is where the word "earned" comes into the
picture. The Polgar publicity machine claims that Susan was the first
woman to "earn" the title whereas Nona was only "awarded" it. There
are some serious problems with this approach.

Who is to decide the relative purity of International Grandmaster
titles? This is a new concept introduced by the Polgar publicity
machine. What is the USCF stand on title purity? How many titles are
impure? Should many of these titles be revoked? Should FIDE create a
committee to investigate this issue? Perhaps ALL titles should be
revoked and news ones should be defined and carefully issued to the
"worthy" for all of chess history... This is all ridiculous in my
mind, yet it is all implied by the Polgar claim of purity.

====

If I made any mistakes in the above reflections I would be happy to
make corrections where needed. But, I do claim the right of a Free
Thinker to engage interesting topics and to try to reach a reasonable
understanding of them.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti


Who is to decide the relative purity of International Grandmaster
titles? This is a new concept introduced by the Polgar publicity
machine. What is the USCF stand on title purity? How many titles
are
impure? Should many of these titles be revoked? Should FIDE create
a
committee to investigate this issue? Perhaps ALL titles should be
revoked and news ones should be defined and carefully issued to the
"worthy" for all of chess history... This is all ridiculous in my
mind, yet it is all implied by the Polgar claim of purity.

As a FIDE Delegate, I can file a motion to strip or award titles. I
talk to many of them
in secret, as most of them are afraid of Kirsan. J.D., this power is
what makes people
not want me to sit in the General Assembly, and thus nobody from St
Kitts and Nevis
play in the World Chess Championship.

I do not know why people care so much about this power. I find it
pretty puny.
But, it is worth dying for by some.

Any of about 160 of the FIDE Delegates can make proposals, and voting
is by majority
However, the FIDE Delegates are often threatened with death, so they
rarely use
the puny powers, which they have.

I would not vote to strip any titles, even from Bobby Fischer.

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE

  #3   Report Post  
Old October 31st 07, 08:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2007
Posts: 146
Default Identity

On Oct 31, 1:17 pm, "j.d.walker" wrote:
Greetings friends,

I have been puzzling for some time now over issues raised by the
crimes committed by someone who has conveniently though inaccurately
been labeled "FSS" or "the Fake Sam Sloan." One obvious issue centers
on the concept of identity. Our impostor assumed dozens of other
peoples identities with the apparent purpose of discrediting and
defaming both those he impersonated and those he attacked through the
words he put into the impersonated victim's mouth. This created a
rather large network of confusion and disgust among many people. It
appears to me that many people were injured in this way, not just Sam
Sloan. Whatever other defects may be attributed to the character of
Sam Sloan, I believe he is due no small amount of credit for having
the guts to stand up and say "this is wrong." Whether his lawsuit has
merit I cannot say. I only hope that justice will be served. Leaving
that issue aside...

Suppose that by some reasonable interpretation of the word "same" that
the Fake Sam Sloan and alleged malefactor are both the same and not
the same. How could such a thing occur? One idea that comes to mind
is multiple personality disorder. How has the law dealt with such
cases in analogous circumstances? Another possibility is the idea of
temporal disjunction via amnesia. Perhaps for two years the FSS had
lost all knowledge of his past and was operating as a different
person??? Then he came to his senses, thus vacating the personality
of the FSS... Both of these mental impairment ideas seem unlikely in
the case of the FSS.

Another concept which might apply is multiple locale rather than
multiple personality. Suppose that our alleged malefactor believes he
lives in two different dimensions. By this view, are the
impersonation crimes committed in the same dimension as the legal
prosecution. Rather far-fetched, I agree. It appears only
sustainable as another mental impairment defense.

Another neighboring identity issue that has surfaced at various times:
the publicity machine for the promotion of Susan Polgar claims that
she is the first woman to have earned the International Grand Master
title. History gives that distinction to Nona Gaprindashvili. The
governing body, FIDE, according to its rules and processes in effect
at both times awarded the title to both women -- Nona first and later
Susan. How can we reconcile the Susan's claim and the facts of
history?

If Susan were to push to make her claim fact she would have to
initiate a process through FIDE of revoking Nona's title. However,
this would probably fail and also severely damage her reputation. It
appears that she realizes this and instead pursues a course of
claiming that Nona's title was not product of worthy efforts to the
same degree as hers. This is where the word "earned" comes into the
picture. The Polgar publicity machine claims that Susan was the first
woman to "earn" the title whereas Nona was only "awarded" it. There
are some serious problems with this approach.

Who is to decide the relative purity of International Grandmaster
titles? This is a new concept introduced by the Polgar publicity
machine. What is the USCF stand on title purity? How many titles are
impure? Should many of these titles be revoked? Should FIDE create a
committee to investigate this issue? Perhaps ALL titles should be
revoked and news ones should be defined and carefully issued to the
"worthy" for all of chess history... This is all ridiculous in my
mind, yet it is all implied by the Polgar claim of purity.

====

If I made any mistakes in the above reflections I would be happy to
make corrections where needed. But, I do claim the right of a Free
Thinker to engage interesting topics and to try to reach a reasonable
understanding of them.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti



Hmmm, as an afterthought, I think I came up with 3 new entries for the
Blind Monkey List in my message up above. :^)

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

  #4   Report Post  
Old November 1st 07, 01:44 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Identity

CUI BONO?

J. D. Walker speculates on the nature of our Fake
Sam Sloan. A more useful question is the ancient
query, "Cui bono?"

The answer here is clear: the political Old Buard
in the USCF is the beneficiary. The effect of the scurrilous
postings, along with the endless sexual junk from
Finance Committee guyo Bill Brock, was to drive people
away from these forums. That has always been a goal of
our worthy Executive Board members.

I don't want to be seen as forever defending
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, but GM Polgar has a case
to make for calling herself the first woman to win the
male or open GM title from FIDE. Namely, Nona
Gaprindashvili was granted a break on the rules at the
time to receive her title. She was criticized at the
time for accepting the male or open title under
different rules than those applying to men. My
understanding is that Susan Polgar was the first woman
to receive the male or open GM title with precisely
the same stipulations applying to her as to men.

One can argue that some men in the past have
received dispensations, and their GM titles have not
been questioned. That would not be completely true,
as there have been debates over the titles awarded
to such men. Still, many of the male instances were,
in effect, emeritus titles for players who toiled
before the FIDE title system was created.

GM Polgar has a legitimate case to be made for
her claim, though she ought also to explain the
precise reasoning behind what she writes.

Yours, Larry Parr




j.d.walker wrote:
Greetings friends,

I have been puzzling for some time now over issues raised by the
crimes committed by someone who has conveniently though inaccurately
been labeled "FSS" or "the Fake Sam Sloan." One obvious issue centers
on the concept of identity. Our impostor assumed dozens of other
peoples identities with the apparent purpose of discrediting and
defaming both those he impersonated and those he attacked through the
words he put into the impersonated victim's mouth. This created a
rather large network of confusion and disgust among many people. It
appears to me that many people were injured in this way, not just Sam
Sloan. Whatever other defects may be attributed to the character of
Sam Sloan, I believe he is due no small amount of credit for having
the guts to stand up and say "this is wrong." Whether his lawsuit has
merit I cannot say. I only hope that justice will be served. Leaving
that issue aside...

Suppose that by some reasonable interpretation of the word "same" that
the Fake Sam Sloan and alleged malefactor are both the same and not
the same. How could such a thing occur? One idea that comes to mind
is multiple personality disorder. How has the law dealt with such
cases in analogous circumstances? Another possibility is the idea of
temporal disjunction via amnesia. Perhaps for two years the FSS had
lost all knowledge of his past and was operating as a different
person??? Then he came to his senses, thus vacating the personality
of the FSS... Both of these mental impairment ideas seem unlikely in
the case of the FSS.

Another concept which might apply is multiple locale rather than
multiple personality. Suppose that our alleged malefactor believes he
lives in two different dimensions. By this view, are the
impersonation crimes committed in the same dimension as the legal
prosecution. Rather far-fetched, I agree. It appears only
sustainable as another mental impairment defense.

Another neighboring identity issue that has surfaced at various times:
the publicity machine for the promotion of Susan Polgar claims that
she is the first woman to have earned the International Grand Master
title. History gives that distinction to Nona Gaprindashvili. The
governing body, FIDE, according to its rules and processes in effect
at both times awarded the title to both women -- Nona first and later
Susan. How can we reconcile the Susan's claim and the facts of
history?

If Susan were to push to make her claim fact she would have to
initiate a process through FIDE of revoking Nona's title. However,
this would probably fail and also severely damage her reputation. It
appears that she realizes this and instead pursues a course of
claiming that Nona's title was not product of worthy efforts to the
same degree as hers. This is where the word "earned" comes into the
picture. The Polgar publicity machine claims that Susan was the first
woman to "earn" the title whereas Nona was only "awarded" it. There
are some serious problems with this approach.

Who is to decide the relative purity of International Grandmaster
titles? This is a new concept introduced by the Polgar publicity
machine. What is the USCF stand on title purity? How many titles are
impure? Should many of these titles be revoked? Should FIDE create a
committee to investigate this issue? Perhaps ALL titles should be
revoked and news ones should be defined and carefully issued to the
"worthy" for all of chess history... This is all ridiculous in my
mind, yet it is all implied by the Polgar claim of purity.

====

If I made any mistakes in the above reflections I would be happy to
make corrections where needed. But, I do claim the right of a Free
Thinker to engage interesting topics and to try to reach a reasonable
understanding of them.


Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti


  #5   Report Post  
Old November 1st 07, 02:03 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2007
Posts: 146
Default Identity

Larry,

I disagree with your analysis. You state: "GM Polgar has a legitimate
case to be made for her claim." I respond, before what arbiter or
judge will she make this case? When and where will this case be
heard? You see the big problem is that she has already decided that
SHE is prosecutor, judge and jury! If you still insist she has a
proper case to make, it should go before FIDE, not before her censured
Blog audience of parrot groupies.

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

On Oct 31, 6:44 pm, " wrote:
CUI BONO?

J. D. Walker speculates on the nature of our Fake
Sam Sloan. A more useful question is the ancient
query, "Cui bono?"

The answer here is clear: the political Old Buard
in the USCF is the beneficiary. The effect of the scurrilous
postings, along with the endless sexual junk from
Finance Committee guyo Bill Brock, was to drive people
away from these forums. That has always been a goal of
our worthy Executive Board members.

I don't want to be seen as forever defending
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, but GM Polgar has a case
to make for calling herself the first woman to win the
male or open GM title from FIDE. Namely, Nona
Gaprindashvili was granted a break on the rules at the
time to receive her title. She was criticized at the
time for accepting the male or open title under
different rules than those applying to men. My
understanding is that Susan Polgar was the first woman
to receive the male or open GM title with precisely
the same stipulations applying to her as to men.

One can argue that some men in the past have
received dispensations, and their GM titles have not
been questioned. That would not be completely true,
as there have been debates over the titles awarded
to such men. Still, many of the male instances were,
in effect, emeritus titles for players who toiled
before the FIDE title system was created.

GM Polgar has a legitimate case to be made for
her claim, though she ought also to explain the
precise reasoning behind what she writes.

Yours, Larry Parr

j.d.walker wrote:
Greetings friends,


I have been puzzling for some time now over issues raised by the
crimes committed by someone who has conveniently though inaccurately
been labeled "FSS" or "the Fake Sam Sloan." One obvious issue centers
on the concept of identity. Our impostor assumed dozens of other
peoples identities with the apparent purpose of discrediting and
defaming both those he impersonated and those he attacked through the
words he put into the impersonated victim's mouth. This created a
rather large network of confusion and disgust among many people. It
appears to me that many people were injured in this way, not just Sam
Sloan. Whatever other defects may be attributed to the character of
Sam Sloan, I believe he is due no small amount of credit for having
the guts to stand up and say "this is wrong." Whether his lawsuit has
merit I cannot say. I only hope that justice will be served. Leaving
that issue aside...


Suppose that by some reasonable interpretation of the word "same" that
the Fake Sam Sloan and alleged malefactor are both the same and not
the same. How could such a thing occur? One idea that comes to mind
is multiple personality disorder. How has the law dealt with such
cases in analogous circumstances? Another possibility is the idea of
temporal disjunction via amnesia. Perhaps for two years the FSS had
lost all knowledge of his past and was operating as a different
person??? Then he came to his senses, thus vacating the personality
of the FSS... Both of these mental impairment ideas seem unlikely in
the case of the FSS.


Another concept which might apply is multiple locale rather than
multiple personality. Suppose that our alleged malefactor believes he
lives in two different dimensions. By this view, are the
impersonation crimes committed in the same dimension as the legal
prosecution. Rather far-fetched, I agree. It appears only
sustainable as another mental impairment defense.


Another neighboring identity issue that has surfaced at various times:
the publicity machine for the promotion of Susan Polgar claims that
she is the first woman to have earned the International Grand Master
title. History gives that distinction to Nona Gaprindashvili. The
governing body, FIDE, according to its rules and processes in effect
at both times awarded the title to both women -- Nona first and later
Susan. How can we reconcile the Susan's claim and the facts of
history?


If Susan were to push to make her claim fact she would have to
initiate a process through FIDE of revoking Nona's title. However,
this would probably fail and also severely damage her reputation. It
appears that she realizes this and instead pursues a course of
claiming that Nona's title was not product of worthy efforts to the
same degree as hers. This is where the word "earned" comes into the
picture. The Polgar publicity machine claims that Susan was the first
woman to "earn" the title whereas Nona was only "awarded" it. There
are some serious problems with this approach.


Who is to decide the relative purity of International Grandmaster
titles? This is a new concept introduced by the Polgar publicity
machine. What is the USCF stand on title purity? How many titles are
impure? Should many of these titles be revoked? Should FIDE create a
committee to investigate this issue? Perhaps ALL titles should be
revoked and news ones should be defined and carefully issued to the
"worthy" for all of chess history... This is all ridiculous in my
mind, yet it is all implied by the Polgar claim of purity.


====


If I made any mistakes in the above reflections I would be happy to
make corrections where needed. But, I do claim the right of a Free
Thinker to engage interesting topics and to try to reach a reasonable
understanding of them.


Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.


'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti





  #6   Report Post  
Old November 1st 07, 02:43 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Identity

On Oct 31, 8:44 pm, " wrote:

I don't want to be seen as forever defending
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, but GM Polgar has a case
to make for calling herself the first woman to win the
male or open GM title from FIDE. Namely, Nona
Gaprindashvili was granted a break on the rules at the
time to receive her title. She was criticized at the
time for accepting the male or open title under
different rules than those applying to men. My
understanding is that Susan Polgar was the first woman
to receive the male or open GM title with precisely
the same stipulations applying to her as to men.

One can argue that some men in the past have
received dispensations, and their GM titles have not
been questioned. That would not be completely true,
as there have been debates over the titles awarded
to such men. Still, many of the male instances were,
in effect, emeritus titles for players who toiled
before the FIDE title system was created.

GM Polgar has a legitimate case to be made for
her claim, though she ought also to explain the
precise reasoning behind what she writes.



If one were to visit the Susan Polgar Web site for the
very first time, knowing nothing whatever about the
history of chess, it is very likely one would emerge
thinking that SP is one of the best chess players of
all time -- male or female -- and that all other female
chess players simply don't measure up. This is
because of the grossly dishonest nature of the "facts"
as presented there, either by SP herself or by her
appointed representative(s).

The reality is that among all chess players, SP was
only remarkable on account of her gender and age, and
furthermore, that excluding males, even here she falls
short of her younger sister, Judith Polgar -- by a wide
margin. But one would never even begin to suspect
this, judging from the "facts" as presented on SP's
detestable Web site.

As far as the "case" is concerned, I think Mr. Walker
is correct. The difficulty of arguing in favor of SP's
methods is plainly evident in Mr. Parr's approach as
seen above; for instance, he finds it necessary to
introduce the red herring "male title" idea, and as we
have seen before, this always creeps in when LP is
having a spot of trouble. (FYI: there is no requirement
of sex in order to receive FIDE's IGM title.)

Where Mr. Parr would ask about the "precise reasoning"
behind such claims, I would simply note that this claim,
like most of the others I saw on the Web site, is there to
provide heft, to add to the considerable bulk of self-
promoting balderdash which pollutes that Web site. In
sum, no "reasoning" is required, in the sense he means.

To my mind, *Judith* Polgar is -- by a wide margin -- the
female chess player who has earned the right to brag,
and her sister is a mere faker, a pretentious wannabe
whose self-stroking antics are an embarrassment. After
seeing all this hype, I no longer have to wonder how SP
has made so many "enemies", why she bitterly resents
the other top female players and has so much trouble in
matters relating to the women's world championships.
Susan Polgar needs to get a grip on herself; come down
from her high tower way up in the sky. Sheesh.


-- help bot



  #7   Report Post  
Old November 2nd 07, 03:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 319
Default Second Mottershead Report

*crossposting removed to spare rgcm from Parr's obsession with
defending Sloan's sexual junk*

On Oct 31, 8:44 pm, " wrote:

The effect of the scurrilous
postings, along with the endless sexual junk from
Finance Committee guyo Bill Brock, was to drive people
away from these forums.

Who introduced a celebration of his sexual relations with minors into
rgcp? Sloan. If Sloan has not done so, he will certainly prevail in
his current civil action against me. Heh.

Who defended Sloan's right to have sex with minors? Larry "Thai
soldiers on leave" Parr. If that statement is untrue, kiddo, then the
court of equity is open to you as well.

I agree with Sloan and Parr that the anon postings are contemptible.
I would, however, observe that on the NY Times Forum, Sloan has
attempted to distance himself from certain of his own past posts by
claiming that they were authored by the fake. Where is the Second
Mottershead Report?


That has always been a goal of our worthy Executive Board members.


While we disagree on the merits of the current forum, I would agree
that USCF is an unusual nonprofit organization.

  #8   Report Post  
Old November 2nd 07, 04:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2007
Posts: 146
Default Identity

On Oct 31, 7:43 pm, help bot wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:44 pm, " wrote:



I don't want to be seen as forever defending
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, but GM Polgar has a case
to make for calling herself the first woman to win the
male or open GM title from FIDE. Namely, Nona
Gaprindashvili was granted a break on the rules at the
time to receive her title. She was criticized at the
time for accepting the male or open title under
different rules than those applying to men. My
understanding is that Susan Polgar was the first woman
to receive the male or open GM title with precisely
the same stipulations applying to her as to men.


One can argue that some men in the past have
received dispensations, and their GM titles have not
been questioned. That would not be completely true,
as there have been debates over the titles awarded
to such men. Still, many of the male instances were,
in effect, emeritus titles for players who toiled
before the FIDE title system was created.


GM Polgar has a legitimate case to be made for
her claim, though she ought also to explain the
precise reasoning behind what she writes.


If one were to visit the Susan Polgar Web site for the
very first time, knowing nothing whatever about the
history of chess, it is very likely one would emerge
thinking that SP is one of the best chess players of
all time -- male or female -- and that all other female
chess players simply don't measure up. This is
because of the grossly dishonest nature of the "facts"
as presented there, either by SP herself or by her
appointed representative(s).

The reality is that among all chess players, SP was
only remarkable on account of her gender and age, and
furthermore, that excluding males, even here she falls
short of her younger sister, Judith Polgar -- by a wide
margin. But one would never even begin to suspect
this, judging from the "facts" as presented on SP's
detestable Web site.

As far as the "case" is concerned, I think Mr. Walker
is correct. The difficulty of arguing in favor of SP's
methods is plainly evident in Mr. Parr's approach as
seen above; for instance, he finds it necessary to
introduce the red herring "male title" idea, and as we
have seen before, this always creeps in when LP is
having a spot of trouble. (FYI: there is no requirement
of sex in order to receive FIDE's IGM title.)

Where Mr. Parr would ask about the "precise reasoning"
behind such claims, I would simply note that this claim,
like most of the others I saw on the Web site, is there to
provide heft, to add to the considerable bulk of self-
promoting balderdash which pollutes that Web site. In
sum, no "reasoning" is required, in the sense he means.

To my mind, *Judith* Polgar is -- by a wide margin -- the
female chess player who has earned the right to brag,
and her sister is a mere faker, a pretentious wannabe
whose self-stroking antics are an embarrassment. After
seeing all this hype, I no longer have to wonder how SP
has made so many "enemies", why she bitterly resents
the other top female players and has so much trouble in
matters relating to the women's world championships.
Susan Polgar needs to get a grip on herself; come down
from her high tower way up in the sky. Sheesh.

-- help bot


Three cheers for Judit Polgar!!!

  #9   Report Post  
Old November 3rd 07, 12:34 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default Identity

j.d.walker wrote:
Three cheers for Judit Polgar!!!


Three cheers for trimming the goddamn quoted text.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Swiss Newspaper (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ daily broadsheet but it's made in
Switzerland!
  #10   Report Post  
Old November 3rd 07, 01:01 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 36
Default Identity

David Richerby wrote:
j.d.walker wrote:
Three cheers for Judit Polgar!!!


Three cheers for trimming the goddamn quoted text.


Heh heh! I'll second that. I hate wading through pages of quotes to arrive
at a one line post.

BTW Nick Cramer always uses his real name. The glove is up!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
I've known US vets who served as far back as the Spanish American War. They
are all my heroes! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not
forgotten. Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the Identity of Chess Freak [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 6 March 21st 07 02:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017