Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 11th 03, 04:19 AM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

MR. BROCK'S "CULTURAL" ALLUSION

By Larry Parr

Bill Brock's "cultural" allusion to a movie called Taxi Driver with an
actress called Jodie Foster gets the better of us. We have never seen the film
and know nothing more about the actress in question than that she was the love
interest of John Hinckley. At our home we prefer films such as Bringing Up
Baby with Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn and the Andy Hardy series with
Mickey Rooney. My children also enjoy the Ealing comedies. Mr. Brock's tastes
are more spicily catholic.

Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
"children." They adduced no evidence to demonstrate such. None.

The charge then changed.

Mr. Sloan was said to have fingered Thai girls in the sex trade. He
was, in short, accused of doing what is part of the very basic Thai way of
life. He was accused of acting like Thai soldiers on leave.

We noted that the first charge is not the second charge.

Bill Brock weighs in, accusing us of, we guess, cultural relativism. We
noted other ways of life and the rough-and-ready practices of other societies,
and the man is now having a hissy fit.

I will never forget the first time I ran into some Thai soldiers who
brought a bunch of snakes into a bar. They were slithering around on the bar
and I had one handed to me, which wrapped itself around my arm. I did my best
to laugh, waited a few minutes, and then extended my arm as casually as I could
manage to one of the soldiers, who relieved me of the reptile. This kind of
thing would not go down well even at Studio 54 in New York, let alone a
suburban bar in a Chicago suburb. In some border town in Thailand, it is
common. In a metropolis such as Bangkok, it happens now and then.

The vital distinction between a FIDE bawdy house and Sam Sloan living
the life of a Thai in a border town is that FIDE would be acting in OUR name,
whereas Mr. Sloan was leading his life in his own name. Elementary.

We think that if Mr. Brock's movie viewing habits betoken his interests,
then he is more interested in the underside of life than we.

Perhaps Mr. Brock or, we make so bold, "Billy Baby" could take us to one
of the parties that he hungers to attend. He could then introduce us to Jodie
Foster.


  #2   Report Post  
Old August 11th 03, 07:20 AM
Jerzy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

"Parrthenon" wrote in message
...

Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
"children." They adduced no evidence to demonstrate such. None.


Good shot, Larry ;-)

Regards,

Jerzy


  #3   Report Post  
Old August 11th 03, 04:12 PM
Bill Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

(Parrthenon) wrote in message ...
MR. BROCK'S "CULTURAL" ALLUSION

By Larry Parr

Bill Brock's "cultural" allusion to a movie called Taxi Driver with an
actress called Jodie Foster gets the better of us. We have never seen the film
and know nothing more about the actress in question than that she was the love
interest of John Hinckley. At our home we prefer films such as Bringing Up
Baby with Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn and the Andy Hardy series with
Mickey Rooney. My children also enjoy the Ealing comedies. Mr. Brock's tastes
are more spicily catholic.

Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
"children." They adduced no evidence to demonstrate such. None.

The charge then changed.

Mr. Sloan was said to have fingered Thai girls in the sex trade. He
was, in short, accused of doing what is part of the very basic Thai way of
life. He was accused of acting like Thai soldiers on leave.

We noted that the first charge is not the second charge.

Bill Brock weighs in, accusing us of, we guess, cultural relativism. We
noted other ways of life and the rough-and-ready practices of other societies,
and the man is now having a hissy fit.

I will never forget the first time I ran into some Thai soldiers who
brought a bunch of snakes into a bar. They were slithering around on the bar
and I had one handed to me, which wrapped itself around my arm. I did my best
to laugh, waited a few minutes, and then extended my arm as casually as I could
manage to one of the soldiers, who relieved me of the reptile. This kind of
thing would not go down well even at Studio 54 in New York, let alone a
suburban bar in a Chicago suburb. In some border town in Thailand, it is
common. In a metropolis such as Bangkok, it happens now and then.

The vital distinction between a FIDE bawdy house and Sam Sloan living
the life of a Thai in a border town is that FIDE would be acting in OUR name,
whereas Mr. Sloan was leading his life in his own name. Elementary.

We think that if Mr. Brock's movie viewing habits betoken his interests,
then he is more interested in the underside of life than we.

Perhaps Mr. Brock or, we make so bold, "Billy Baby" could take us to one
of the parties that he hungers to attend. He could then introduce us to Jodie
Foster.



Larry baby

Old-fashioned values can be learned from Travis Bickle as well as from
screwball comedies.

I don't like adults who have sex with children. That's why I don't
like Sam Sloan.

I don't like adults who defend the practice of other adults having sex
with children. That's why I don't like you.


Billy baby

205 W. Randolph
Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60606
  #4   Report Post  
Old August 13th 03, 08:31 AM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

PROBABLY KENNEDY'S BEST

By Larry Parr

What follows is probably Greg Kennedy's best attempt at satire. I
would like to note severely that Mr. Kennedy rehearsed some of my past phrases
that are evidently burned into his hide like cattle brands, and I do so note
here. But I also laughed and, still worse, s******ed many times while reading
his piece.

We condescend. Unlike Queen Victoria, we ARE amused.

DEER IN MY HEADLIGHTS

by Larry Parr

[nomorechess=Greg Kennedy]

These dimwitted, ad hominem attacks upon my illustrious person are easily
refuted, as they have no basis in reality.

Jim Eade, who no doubt is still smarting from our last episode, wherein I
dealt a lethal blow to his silly nonsense about the key players we had been
discussing, is back. And how! Will he never learn his painful lesson?

Lappy Parr wrote:


A puerile, deliberate misspelling, made only because they HATE me.

wick deer responded:


"Wick Deer," he means. This just goes to show the sort of education -- if
that is quite the word -- Mr. Eade has received.
A name is always capitalized, as every second grader in private school knows.
We are embarrassed for you, Mr. Eade. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
But don't give up hope -- there is always the local library, which offers
someone in your, ah, "challenged" position some hope.

I don't hate you Larry. I am concerned for the well being of your imortal

soul, if any.


That should be "immortal" soul. One cringes at the sound of a weak mind,
creaking as it *tries* to work.

Truth is stranger than fiction.


While plagiarism is rather common. I suppose Mr. Eade thought he could
sneak that one past us? Not so fast, Fast Eddie!

I used to think that Parr would occupy a circle of Dante's

Inferno above Sloan's. (One above) It saddens me to say: they belong
together.

So, you have read Sam's latest attempt at writing a pornographic fantasy
story (the one where he and I go into a Taiwanese bar, and...)? We didn't
actually do any of those illegal things to those girls. But you have to admit,
it makes for a good story!

Newbies bewa I filter out both Sloan and Parr (you should too) I only

respond when I see quotes in other people's posts.


You omitted a mandatory period after "(you should too)". One is again
reminded of a weak mind, creaking as it *tries* to work.

You will have to pay for what you've done, and I suspect you know it. You

still have time.

Nonsense. I have, so far, gotten away with anything and everything -- just
like my mentor, Bill Clinton! Dream on, Mr. Eade. Dream on.

I know, I know, there probably isn't anything that Sam Sloan has done that

you haven't. The difference is that you have the opportunity to regret it.

A a famous writer once noted, "opportunity knocks, but once."

Still, such weakminded slop is easily refuted. There is one thing I have
never done, which Sam Sloan has -- win against a decent opponent, after
essaying the hideous 1.g4. It's simple, really: Mr. Sloan is a
master-strength player, disguised as a 1900.

Lawyer Deer and his confreres, including Jim Eade, are quite obviouly jealous
of their intellectual superiors -- Sam Sloan and myself.

Their canker and choler has escalated into something which can only be
described as hate. Hate is derived from fear. And it is well that they fear
us. For fear equates to respect. And one should -- no MUST -- respect one's
intellectual superiors. The bottomfeeders would do well to always keep this
in mind when attempting to critique their betters -- a class which, in their
sad cases, is almost infinitely large.

-- Larry Parr

I-spam-you: chesscity.com (Parr on Winter)




  #5   Report Post  
Old August 13th 03, 05:33 PM
Kevin L. Bachler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

In article , Bill Brock says...

Bill, take it from me, perhaps the greatest windmill tilter of all, sometimes
you gotta let it go.

Many people see through Larry's game. Larry tries to couch everything in a way
to demonstrate his superiority (from his perspective at least.) This is why he
will defend something that is undefendable -- not because he believes in his
perspective -- not because it is right -- but to show that he (and only he) can.
Larry argued early in the thread that just because Sam is slunk meat doesn't
give people the right to slander him -- I noted that it also doesn't obligate
anyone to defend Sam from such slander. Larry has ignored this comment because
he must. To face it is to face the reality that Larry has allowed himself to be
duped by himself into defending slunk meat for the sole purpose of defending
Larry's superiority.

We all suspect what will happen when Larry reads this. He will launch into a
bombastic, loquacious, soliloquy full of Latin and other references designed to
show how bright he is and how the common man cannot possibly understand him. (I
cannot help but think that Larry would disdain the everyman of a Jimmy Stewart,
or a directness of a John Wayne.) What he won't do is say "****, I'm defending
a ****-up. I was wrong. Sorry."

So Bill, let it go. Your value to chess, especially here in Illinois, is far
greater than anything Larry ever has (or ever will) provide.

Peace.

Kevin L. Bachler



  #6   Report Post  
Old August 14th 03, 08:15 AM
Spam Scone
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

Kevin L. Bachler wrote in message ...
In article , Bill Brock says...

Bill, take it from me, perhaps the greatest windmill tilter of all, sometimes
you gotta let it go.
Many people see through Larry's game. Larry tries to couch everything in a way
to demonstrate his superiority (from his perspective at least.) This is why he
will defend something that is undefendable -- not because he believes in his
perspective -- not because it is right -- but to show that he (and only he) can.
Larry argued early in the thread that just because Sam is slunk meat doesn't
give people the right to slander him -- I noted that it also doesn't obligate
anyone to defend Sam from such slander. Larry has ignored this comment because
he must. To face it is to face the reality that Larry has allowed himself to be
duped by himself into defending slunk meat for the sole purpose of defending
Larry's superiority.
We all suspect what will happen when Larry reads this. He will launch into a
bombastic, loquacious, soliloquy full of Latin and other references designed to
show how bright he is and how the common man cannot possibly understand him. (I
cannot help but think that Larry would disdain the everyman of a Jimmy Stewart,
or a directness of a John Wayne.) What he won't do is say "****, I'm defending
a ****-up. I was wrong. Sorry."


This is a brilliant analysis of the Parr Problem. Everyone on RGCP
should read this post.

So Bill, let it go. Your value to chess, especially here in Illinois, is far
greater than anything Larry ever has (or ever will) provide.


Agreed, Kevin.
  #8   Report Post  
Old August 14th 03, 01:15 PM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?


"Spam Scone" wrote in message
om...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in message

...
In article , Bill Brock

says...

We all suspect what will happen when Larry reads this. He will launch

into a
bombastic, loquacious, soliloquy full of Latin and other references

designed to
show how bright he is and how the common man cannot possibly understand

him. (I
cannot help but think that Larry would disdain the everyman of a Jimmy

Stewart,
or a directness of a John Wayne.) What he won't do is say "****, I'm

defending
a ****-up. I was wrong. Sorry."


This is a brilliant analysis of the Parr Problem. Everyone on RGCP
should read this post.

So Bill, let it go. Your value to chess, especially here in Illinois,

is far
greater than anything Larry ever has (or ever will) provide.


Agreed, Kevin.


It is so nice of Larry to rally all the troops in a unifying front. I just
knew Larry wasn't really supporting a self-admitted child molester. He just
wanted us all to be allies for the common cause. Way to go bin Larry.

StanB


  #9   Report Post  
Old August 16th 03, 05:18 AM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

LAWYERIZING HERESY

By Larry Parr

Wick Deer, a lawyer and former USCF Ethicist-in-Chief, has applied his
fine legal pen to the subject of heresy. We think he has done an intricate
Italianate job.

If earlier, advocate Deer spoke of concern for our immortal soul "if
any," thereby leaving open the heretical possibility that a human creature was
created without a soul, he now argues either that he has uttered this heresy
hitherto (there may be others without souls) or that this writer may not be
human.

Here, then, was Lawyer Deer's problem: if he posits the possibility
that a human can be without a soul, he is assuming the possibility of Divine
error. He has neatly solved the problem by suggesting that we may not be
human. Instead, we may be a "demon who stalks the earth," creating disgust in
our path and leaving revulsion in our wake, even as we are also subverting
debate.

Talk about demonization!

We leave aside the issue of whether demons once had souls, and we
generously award Mr. Deer full points for suggesting that we may not be human.
More anon on the issue of subverting debate.

And now to Mr. Deer's unsubstantiated charge that Sam Sloan
"fondled" a child for the purposes of sexual gratification. Mr. Deer claims
that Mr. Sloan provided us with a written account of the incident. We recall
none. We recall Mr. Sloan describing sexual encounters with young Thai girls
in the sex trade rather than fondling a "child."

In a nod to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Lawyer Deer also finds
that we raise the bar too high by requiring "a ridiculously high standard of
detail."

Readers will recollect, we asked: who was the child, when did the
fondling occur, where did it occur?

Who, when, where? For some, no doubt, a ridiculously high standard.
For others, perhaps, simply the basics.

Back to the issue of subverting debate. We had thought that the
debate concerned producing evidence for a series of charges against Sam Sloan.
We had thought that changing the subject to our person and suggesting, as Jim
Eade did, that we are "probably" a child molester ourself -- why, we had
thought that that was subverting debate.


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
Where is Sam Sloan? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 June 24th 04 03:30 PM
I WANT TO MEET SAM SLOAN Ivan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 133 February 5th 04 12:53 AM
I voted for Sam Sloan AND Tim Hanke. Scott rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 211 October 28th 03 03:22 AM
Will anybody who voted for Sam Sloan DARE to speak up? Mhoulsby rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 69 August 9th 03 10:39 PM
Will Sam Sloan Sue? Parrthenon rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 July 24th 03 02:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 AM.

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