Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 11th 03, 09:37 PM
Bill Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default bad karma on RGCP

Certain topics are too serious to joke about, and for anyone with the
normal human allotment of empathy, almost too painful to discuss.

I'll be spending my time elsewhere...hope to see you OTB!
  #2   Report Post  
Old August 11th 03, 10:39 PM
Jane Addams
 
Posts: n/a
Default bad karma on RGCP

"Bill Brock" wrote in message
om...
Certain topics are too serious to joke about, and for anyone with the
normal human allotment of empathy, almost too painful to discuss.

I'll be spending my time elsewhere...hope to see you OTB!


I agree with you. But where did someone joke about it?

Jane


  #3   Report Post  
Old August 12th 03, 02:48 AM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

MEMORANDUM TO BILLY BABY

FROM: Larry Baby

TO: Billy Baby

SUBJECT: Bye, Bye Billy Baby

Billy Baby: You write that some subjects are too serious to joke
about, and you will be quitting this discussion. One Jane Addams asks who was
joking?

The answer, Billy Baby, is that you started the flippancy with your
Larry Baby.

Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
"children." They presented no evidence. None. You repeat the charge, and you
present no evidence. Period.

A palpable lie from one of your confreres was Stan Booz's claim that
Sam Sloan had taken down pictures of children from his web page. I had read
everything there over the years and am certain that Mr. Booz just lied for the
sake of seeking to injure another person.

You talk about not liking adults who have sex with "children," and you
don't like adults who excuse other adults who have sex with "children."

Good, excellent. That obviously means you have no reason to dislike
either Sam Sloan or this writer.

Bye, bye Billy Baby.



  #4   Report Post  
Old August 12th 03, 03:17 AM
Wickdeer3
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

I continue to be amazed that Larry Parr apparently feels that abusing the those
he dislikes is worth protecting a man who has posted on his website that he has
fondled at least one child for purposes of his sexual gratification.

Quite simply, both acts are evil and depraved. Both acts are seriously more
evil than making unproven allegations on a newsgroups. That Mr. Parr prattles
on about the latter, while ignoring the former is irrefutable evidence of moral
depravity.

Wick Deer
  #5   Report Post  
Old August 12th 03, 04:30 AM
StanB
 
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 presented no evidence. None. You repeat the charge,

and you
present no evidence. Period.


You know damn right well the charge and the source come from his own forked
tongue. The associated evidence has been produced. Yet, you go on to
rationalize that there is nothing wrong with charging Thai soldiers a few
coins to finger some young girl. What if it were your daughter?

Larry, you have no soul, no heart. and no conscience. You should be taken
out back and horse whipped.

StanB




  #6   Report Post  
Old August 12th 03, 04:34 AM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?


"Wickdeer3" wrote in message
...

I continue to be amazed that Larry Parr apparently feels that abusing the

those
he dislikes is worth protecting a man who has posted on his website that

he has
fondled at least one child for purposes of his sexual gratification.

Quite simply, both acts are evil and depraved. Both acts are seriously

more
evil than making unproven allegations on a newsgroups. That Mr. Parr

prattles
on about the latter, while ignoring the former is irrefutable evidence of

moral
depravity.


No soul, no heart, no conscience.

StanB


  #7   Report Post  
Old August 12th 03, 06:17 AM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

DEER TO ME

By Larry Parr

Wick Deer's latest charge against this writer -- there have been many
in the past -- is that he possesses "irrefutable evidence of [my] moral
depravity." Under separate cover, rgcp excrementalist Stan Booz, usurping the
role of He Who Judges, weighs in with "No soul, no heart, no conscience," which
presumably require no Preparation H, his unguent of preference.

Lawyer Deer also accuses me of abusing those whom I dislike. He
offers no examples of such abuse.

How, then, did we reach this pass?

Stan Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
"children." They presented not a whit of evidence. None.

Let us keep this point in mind. The gentlemen in question could only
adduce their own hissing hatred as "evidence" that their charge is correct.

Stan Booz also retailed an outright lie. He accused Mr. Sloan of
taking down from his web page pictures of children with whom the latter had had
sex. That was a palpable lie. Period. I know that web page well, and the
claimed pictures were never there.

Mr. Booz lied because he hates Sam Sloan and because he danged well felt
like it. That's all.

Lawyer Deer, in his canker and choler, intervenes now because he, too,
hates Sam Sloan and this writer. That's all.

The head of the USCF Un-Ethics Committee has absolutely nothing to say
about Mr. Booz's lies.

Indeed, this writer takes pride of cage in Lawyer Deer's bestiary. For only
I have provided "irrefutable evidence of [my] depravity," a claim that Lawyer
Deer does not make below about Mr. Sloan.

Instead, Lawyer Deer retails a new charge against Mr. Sloan.

Hitherto, we have had these two charges: 1. Mr. Sloan had sex with
"children"; and 2. Mr. Sloan had had sex with Thai working girls in border
villages. Lawyer Deer offers No. 3: Mr. Sloan "fondled at least one child for
purposes of his sexual gratification."

Who? When? Where? What evidence has Lawyer Deer to offer?


  #8   Report Post  
Old August 12th 03, 06:19 AM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

FROM SODOMY TO HORSEWHIPPING

By Larry Parr

If, earlier, Stan Booz fantasized about this writer being sodomized, he
has now moved on to images of this writer being whipped.

Horsewhipped, to be precise.

Mr. Booz and The Historian accused Sam Sloan of having sex with
"children." They presented no evidence. None.

Mr. Booz also retailed a lie that Mr. Sloan had removed from his
website pictures of children with whom he had had sex. This claim was an
outright fabrication.

Mr. Booz just made it up because he just kinda felt like lying at a
given moment. That's all.

In what follows it would appear that Mr. Booz is now dropping the
charge against Mr. Sloan of having sex with "children." He is now alleging
that Mr. Sloan had sex with Thai working girls in villages in the fashion of
Thai soldiers on leave.

I would not condemn all of the American Marines and Army boys who
screwed, sodomized and did anything else they could to willing Vietnamese and
Thai women during their free moments. Nor would I condemn the Thai soldiers
for committing acts, as described by Mr. Sloan, less intimate and intrusive
than those which our own soldiers could easily afford on an American salary.

Nor would I condemn the girls -- waifs and adventuresses alike -- who
make their way in life as best they can.

My tastes, for the record, include classic films from the 1930s and
1940s as well as long, baggy Victorian novels. I am currently reading Anthony
Trollope's The Prime Minister, which tells about the Duke of Omnium's
disilllusionment with power.

We leave visions of sodomy and whips to Mr. Booz.

  #9   Report Post  
Old August 12th 03, 12:48 PM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will Sam Sloan sue?

UNPROVABLE TRUTH

By Larry Parr

John Fernandez weighs in with his own ounce-worth. He speaks about
unprovable truth in an ongoing smear campaign.

Three charges have been brought against Sam Sloan.

First, Stan Booz and The Historian claimed Sam Sloan had sex with
"children." No proof. Just the claim.

Secondly, the charge changed. Mr. Sloan was held to have had sex
with Thai girls in the sex trade.

Thirdly, Wick Deer now speaks of Sam Sloan fondling an unnamed child
while experienceing sexual excitement. Who, when, where, and what proof? None
offered.

Somewhere along the way, Stan Booz also retailed the lie that Mr.
Sloan removed pictures of children from his site with whom he had sex. Mr.
Booz lied just because he felt like doing so.

Enter John Fernandez.

Writes this logician, "It's definitely true. Whether it can be proven
is another matter."

"Definitely" true, yet cannot, perhaps, be proven.

Can't say who; can't say when; can't say where; and can't provide
evidence. But it's gotta be true.

Proof by faith alone.

It's definitely true. Whether it can be proven is another matter. --
John Fernandez


  #10   Report Post  
Old August 12th 03, 02:10 PM
Bill Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default bad karma on RGCP

"Jane Addams" wrote in message tnews.com...
"Bill Brock" wrote in message
om...
Certain topics are too serious to joke about, and for anyone with the
normal human allotment of empathy, almost too painful to discuss.

I'll be spending my time elsewhere...hope to see you OTB!


I agree with you. But where did someone joke about it?

Jane


Oops. I meant to say that the topic was too serious _for me_ to joke
about (as I'd previously done on RGCP).
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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 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