| |
Main
Date: 11 Jul 2006 15:20:53
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: The Master Forger Strikes Again !!
|
The article below was written by a new Fake Sam Sloan. I did not write
this.
Although he uses a different name, he is clearly the same person who
has posted a few fake messages starting on July 3, 2006.
He is clearly a cut above all the other Fake Sam Sloans. He knows
chess and writes in complete sentences.
He demonstrates that he is a real chess player by pointing out a move
that I missed completely in the game. 26. .... d3 wins instantly, for
the reason he gives. The move I actually played, 26. .... e3 wins too,
but it takes much longer.
I suspect that he does not really know Anna Ginzburg but perhaps he
does because he hit her right on one point. Anna Ginzburg really is
beautiful, perhaps the most beautiful female chess player we have
right now.
However, from the looks of the way she played this game, she will not
be hitting grandmaster any time soon.
The Really Real Sam Sloan
From: George Orwell <[email protected] >
Louis Blair apparently wants to converse with the fake Sam Sloan,
rather than with Sam Sloan, despite having been repeatedly provided
with a way of determining that it is the fake Sam Sloan with whom he
is conversing.
Is this because Louis Blair made a mistake? Louis Blair makes many
mistakes. Most people think that Louis Blair himself was and is a
mistake.
No, it is no mistake. And Louis Blair wants us to know it was not a
mistake because above you can see he posted the NMTP-Posting Host of
the forger (who has temporarily given up forging my ishipress.com
email address and is using gmail which is from google.com) when he was
replying to the forger.
The forged messages from gmail go back a long time, and were in
general much better than the easily detected nonsense posted by
[email protected] and [email protected]. I used to ignore all of
them as a matter of policy. In fact it was quite convenient for me, in
one way, that these forgers or this forger existed.
So why is Louis Blair responding to forgeries as if they are from me?
He is clearly not the forger himself, as it is well known that he can
barely play chess and probably would struggle even beating Howcheng in
20 moves. All Louis Blair can do is provide long posts filled with
what other people might or might not have written a long time ago.
But then Louis Blair often operates in league with Wlod H, a fake
poster who writes in the same way that the other fake poster Calvin
Abu Qusz used to write.
Kirsan hasn't sent Louis Blair a Rolex Watch (though he should). Maybe
Louis Blair wears a Rolex. Where did Louis Blair get the Rolex he may
be wearing? The answer to that could tell us who is behind all this.
Will Louis Blair tell us exactly where he got the Rolex he may be
wearing?
Obviously, the reason that Louis Blair wants us to know that he know
that the message is forged but is still responding to it may mean that
Louis Blair also wants the forger to be caught, and knows or suspects
who is the forger, but won't do it directly. The answer is somewhere
in the IPs of the Wiki-vandals, though Callenberg is also too weak to
have come up with
I checked the "IP" in some of my recent emails from Tom Dorsch and
they are from central California, which means he has moved, which is
unlikely given what his wife does, or is trying to hide something. I
wonder what Tom Dorsch may be trying to hide. He is very good at
hiding things. Depending on where he is standing, he can hide the
whole Golden Gate Bridge.
A clue is in one of the fake games he posted.
[Event "4 Rated Games Tonight"]
[Site "shall Chess Club, NYC"]
[Date "2006.04.13"]
[Round "04"]
[White "Ginzburg, Anna"]
[Black "Sloan, Sam"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "1747"]
[BlackElo "1938"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Be2 e4 6.Nd4 c5 7.Nc2 Nc6
8.O-O f5 9.d3 Nf6 10.c4 Qe6 11.Nc3 Bd6 12.dxe4 fxe4 13.Ne3 O-O
14.Nb5 Be5 15.Nd5 Qf7 16.Rb1 Be6 17.Nxf6+ Qxf6 18.Be3 Nd4 19.b3
Rad8 20.Qe1 a6 21.Nxd4 cxd4 22.Bd2 Qh4 23.f4 Qxe1 24.Rbxe1 Bd6
25.a4 Rd7 26.Rc1 e3 27.Be1 Bxf4 28.Bb4 Rff7 29.Rcd1 b6 30.g3 Be5
31.Rxf7 Bxf7 32.Bd3 a5 33.Be1 Bh5 34.Rb1 Kf7 35.b4 Bg6 36.Rb3 0-1
I don't know how he knows I know Anna Ginzburg well enough or that she
is really much stronger than her rating suggests, but I am going to
check if she was actually at the shall that day, for if she was,
that forger too was at the shall or knows someone who was at the
shall that day.
The game itself is quite plausible and many girls are so terrified of
the Damiano that they play weak moves like 3. c3 to avoid it, even
though white's position is then lost. The made-up moves are not
malicious except for one thing. I would never, ever play 26. .. e3. It
is the wrong pawn. It is obviously the wrong pawn. Even skittles
players would know the e-pawn is the wrong pawn and that 26. .. d3 is
moving the right pawn. It is the right pawn because after the bishop
on e2 is immediately forced to move I can get right through white's
defences and check her with 27 .. Bc5+ at which point the game is
over. With an opponent like Anna, such an opportunity would be
one I doubly would not miss. Anyone can see 26. .. d3 also wins but it
wins grindingly and boringly in the way that Maurice Ashley might win.
Bobby Fischer would play 26. .. d3. Even Jim Eade would play 26. ..
d3, even if the only reason was that the black rook was on that file.
Only a greedy pawn-odds player would play 26. .. e3 because the fact
that it allows black to capture the pawn on f4 (by deflecting the
bishop on d2 that was defending it) attracts a greedy pawn-odds
player. A player like me knows that the f pawn is not important, if
needed it can be won later, and the central black pawns and the attack
on white's queen will decide the game long before there is time to
waste winning the f-pawn.
Do not think that is no use wondering what motivates the forger. While
the game is malicious because it makes me seem as if I play like
Maurice Ashley and not like Bobby Fischer, that is too subtle for the
likes of Ralf Callenberg, Louis Blair, Neil Bernnen or for most of the
voters whom one might think the forger was trying to influence. So if
he (or she) is being malicious they are not being competent at being
malicious. That he is competent at being a forger does not mean for
sure he is competent at being malicious but it suggests that he is not
malicious and so is not a he.
It could therefore be that the forger and stalker is one of the
beautiful and very intelligent mischievous ladies whom I have mated
but whom I have not taken to bed. Regretably I have never mated Anna
Ginzburg, though I knew it was not her already who is behind the
forgeries.
I will definitely put up a page about the Damiano forgeries, though.
The Real Sam Sloan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 12:47:25
From: Wolfgang
Subject: Re: The Master Forger Strikes Again !!
|
You know everybody but no one knows you. What does that mean? I means
that no one gives a shit about you because you're a scumbag.
Wolfgang
>
> Yes. And I know her too,
>
> I wrote the first article about Miss Caoili and published her first
> game at the 1996 US Open in Alexandria Virginia when she was only nine
> years old.
>
> http://www.samsloan.com/us-open.htm
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 11:32:28
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Master Forger Strikes Again !!
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> >Anna Ginzburg really is
> > beautiful, perhaps the most beautiful female chess player we have
> > right now.
> >
> > However, from the looks of the way she played this game, she will not
> > be hitting grandmaster any time soon.
>
> Here's one who's sexier (age 19):
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/caoili/41.jpg
>
> She has one IM norm already, no less.
>
>
> --
> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
> District of PA Judge
> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
Yes. And I know her too,
I wrote the first article about Miss Caoili and published her first
game at the 1996 US Open in Alexandria Virginia when she was only nine
years old.
http://www.samsloan.com/us-open.htm
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2006 10:58:52
From: Wolfgang
Subject: Re: The Master Forger Strikes Again !!
|
Everyone knows that Sam Sloan forged himself. He wanted to get some
petty attention.
Sam Sloan wrote:
> The article below was written by a new Fake Sam Sloan. I did not write
> this.
>
> Although he uses a different name, he is clearly the same person who
> has posted a few fake messages starting on July 3, 2006.
>
> He is clearly a cut above all the other Fake Sam Sloans. He knows
> chess and writes in complete sentences.
>
> He demonstrates that he is a real chess player by pointing out a move
> that I missed completely in the game. 26. .... d3 wins instantly, for
> the reason he gives. The move I actually played, 26. .... e3 wins too,
> but it takes much longer.
>
> I suspect that he does not really know Anna Ginzburg but perhaps he
> does because he hit her right on one point. Anna Ginzburg really is
> beautiful, perhaps the most beautiful female chess player we have
> right now.
>
> However, from the looks of the way she played this game, she will not
> be hitting grandmaster any time soon.
>
> The Really Real Sam Sloan
>
>
> From: George Orwell <[email protected]>
>
> Louis Blair apparently wants to converse with the fake Sam Sloan,
> rather than with Sam Sloan, despite having been repeatedly provided
> with a way of determining that it is the fake Sam Sloan with whom he
> is conversing.
>
> Is this because Louis Blair made a mistake? Louis Blair makes many
> mistakes. Most people think that Louis Blair himself was and is a
> mistake.
>
> No, it is no mistake. And Louis Blair wants us to know it was not a
> mistake because above you can see he posted the NMTP-Posting Host of
> the forger (who has temporarily given up forging my ishipress.com
> email address and is using gmail which is from google.com) when he was
> replying to the forger.
>
> The forged messages from gmail go back a long time, and were in
> general much better than the easily detected nonsense posted by
> [email protected] and [email protected]. I used to ignore all of
> them as a matter of policy. In fact it was quite convenient for me, in
> one way, that these forgers or this forger existed.
>
> So why is Louis Blair responding to forgeries as if they are from me?
>
> He is clearly not the forger himself, as it is well known that he can
> barely play chess and probably would struggle even beating Howcheng in
> 20 moves. All Louis Blair can do is provide long posts filled with
> what other people might or might not have written a long time ago.
>
> But then Louis Blair often operates in league with Wlod H, a fake
> poster who writes in the same way that the other fake poster Calvin
> Abu Qusz used to write.
>
> Kirsan hasn't sent Louis Blair a Rolex Watch (though he should). Maybe
> Louis Blair wears a Rolex. Where did Louis Blair get the Rolex he may
> be wearing? The answer to that could tell us who is behind all this.
> Will Louis Blair tell us exactly where he got the Rolex he may be
> wearing?
>
> Obviously, the reason that Louis Blair wants us to know that he know
> that the message is forged but is still responding to it may mean that
> Louis Blair also wants the forger to be caught, and knows or suspects
> who is the forger, but won't do it directly. The answer is somewhere
> in the IPs of the Wiki-vandals, though Callenberg is also too weak to
> have come up with
>
> I checked the "IP" in some of my recent emails from Tom Dorsch and
> they are from central California, which means he has moved, which is
> unlikely given what his wife does, or is trying to hide something. I
> wonder what Tom Dorsch may be trying to hide. He is very good at
> hiding things. Depending on where he is standing, he can hide the
> whole Golden Gate Bridge.
>
> A clue is in one of the fake games he posted.
>
> [Event "4 Rated Games Tonight"]
> [Site "shall Chess Club, NYC"]
> [Date "2006.04.13"]
> [Round "04"]
> [White "Ginzburg, Anna"]
> [Black "Sloan, Sam"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "1747"]
> [BlackElo "1938"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Be2 e4 6.Nd4 c5 7.Nc2 Nc6
> 8.O-O f5 9.d3 Nf6 10.c4 Qe6 11.Nc3 Bd6 12.dxe4 fxe4 13.Ne3 O-O
> 14.Nb5 Be5 15.Nd5 Qf7 16.Rb1 Be6 17.Nxf6+ Qxf6 18.Be3 Nd4 19.b3
> Rad8 20.Qe1 a6 21.Nxd4 cxd4 22.Bd2 Qh4 23.f4 Qxe1 24.Rbxe1 Bd6
> 25.a4 Rd7 26.Rc1 e3 27.Be1 Bxf4 28.Bb4 Rff7 29.Rcd1 b6 30.g3 Be5
> 31.Rxf7 Bxf7 32.Bd3 a5 33.Be1 Bh5 34.Rb1 Kf7 35.b4 Bg6 36.Rb3 0-1
>
> I don't know how he knows I know Anna Ginzburg well enough or that she
> is really much stronger than her rating suggests, but I am going to
> check if she was actually at the shall that day, for if she was,
> that forger too was at the shall or knows someone who was at the
> shall that day.
>
> The game itself is quite plausible and many girls are so terrified of
> the Damiano that they play weak moves like 3. c3 to avoid it, even
> though white's position is then lost. The made-up moves are not
> malicious except for one thing. I would never, ever play 26. .. e3. It
> is the wrong pawn. It is obviously the wrong pawn. Even skittles
> players would know the e-pawn is the wrong pawn and that 26. .. d3 is
> moving the right pawn. It is the right pawn because after the bishop
> on e2 is immediately forced to move I can get right through white's
> defences and check her with 27 .. Bc5+ at which point the game is
> over. With an opponent like Anna, such an opportunity would be
> one I doubly would not miss. Anyone can see 26. .. d3 also wins but it
> wins grindingly and boringly in the way that Maurice Ashley might win.
> Bobby Fischer would play 26. .. d3. Even Jim Eade would play 26. ..
> d3, even if the only reason was that the black rook was on that file.
> Only a greedy pawn-odds player would play 26. .. e3 because the fact
> that it allows black to capture the pawn on f4 (by deflecting the
> bishop on d2 that was defending it) attracts a greedy pawn-odds
> player. A player like me knows that the f pawn is not important, if
> needed it can be won later, and the central black pawns and the attack
> on white's queen will decide the game long before there is time to
> waste winning the f-pawn.
>
> Do not think that is no use wondering what motivates the forger. While
> the game is malicious because it makes me seem as if I play like
> Maurice Ashley and not like Bobby Fischer, that is too subtle for the
> likes of Ralf Callenberg, Louis Blair, Neil Bernnen or for most of the
> voters whom one might think the forger was trying to influence. So if
> he (or she) is being malicious they are not being competent at being
> malicious. That he is competent at being a forger does not mean for
> sure he is competent at being malicious but it suggests that he is not
> malicious and so is not a he.
>
> It could therefore be that the forger and stalker is one of the
> beautiful and very intelligent mischievous ladies whom I have mated
> but whom I have not taken to bed. Regretably I have never mated Anna
> Ginzburg, though I knew it was not her already who is behind the
> forgeries.
>
> I will definitely put up a page about the Damiano forgeries, though.
>
> The Real Sam Sloan
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 13:29:28
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: The Master Forger Strikes Again !!
|
>Anna Ginzburg really is
> beautiful, perhaps the most beautiful female chess player we have
> right now.
>
> However, from the looks of the way she played this game, she will not
> be hitting grandmaster any time soon.
Here's one who's sexier (age 19):
http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/caoili/41.jpg
She has one IM norm already, no less.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
|
