Main
Date: 15 Jan 2008 03:41:24
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/crosswords/chess/15chess.html




 
Date: 15 Jan 2008 15:18:47
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
USCF Executive Board Member has just posted the following on the USCF
Issues Forum:


And how is this "politics that have played out for over the last 9
months?" Please explain how I am playing politics with this, given
that I have allied with Susan over the last 9 months and have defended
Paul on this forum and over at the New York Times blog (which Susan
even quoted on her own blog)? This is NOT about politics, it is about
accepting and demonstrating responsibility as Executive Board members
to the USCF and the dues paying members when the attorneys we hire to
defend us ask us to take specific actions.

Randy Bauer


  
Date: 16 Jan 2008 06:53:56
From:
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
On Jan 15, 10:58 pm, johnny_t <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:33:03 -0800, johnny_t <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> J.D. Walker wrote:
>
> >>> If Paul truly is innocent why would he refuse to sign a statement saying
> >>> so? Can anyone explain? Is there a possibility of a perjury action, or
> >>> some other kind of legal liability related to formally professing
> >>> innocence?
>
> >> There is no liability simply for the truth being the truth. Which means
> >> no perjury action. He has stated nothing for which he can perjure
> >> himself. This doesn't mean that he does not have positive obligations
> >> as a board member.
>
> > But, if he formally declared to the court that he was not responsible
> > for any of the FSS postings, and then later, somehow, it was proven
> > that he *did* make some or most or all of them, wouldn't that render
> > him vulnerable ?
>
> Um... Read the first five words of the question.. "If Paul truly is
> innocent" The rest of your question is moot.

It is naive of you to think that innocence guarantees one will not be
proven to have commited an offense.

K


   
Date: 16 Jan 2008 12:55:47
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
[email protected] wrote:

> It is naive of you to think that innocence guarantees one will not be
> proven to have commited an offense.


Wow.


  
Date: 15 Jan 2008 19:51:12
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
On Jan 15, 9:15 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> johnny_t wrote:
> > Guy Macon wrote:
> >> johnny_t wrote:
>
> >>> Guy Macon wrote:
>
> >>>> My question is this: Isn't his statement to the
> >>>> New York Times that he did nothing wrong good enough for you?
> >>> Why would this be sufficient? It is not for Paul to determine it was
> >>> right or wrong. It is for Paul to submit to the board request to
> >>> accept or deny the specific allegation in writing. None of this
> >>> implication crap. Simple, specific, explicit, clear, and in writing,
> >>> acceptance or denial. Not hard. Time to man up.
>
> >> He has no obligation to respond at all.
>
> > If he wants to serve at the pleasure of the membership and the board he
> > does. There are serious accusations, serious questions and he has
> > refused to answer.
>
> > Simply as an officer of the company he needs to answer.
>
> > He can choose not to answer as a non-board member. He has dug his own
> > grave in his continued ways of non-answering. It is to the point of
> > being deceitful. And as a board member he has an obligation to be
> > transparent in activities that reflect on his public relations.
>
> If Paul truly is innocent why would he refuse to sign a statement saying
> so?

To be technical, he would need to sign a statement saying he is not
guilty of the acts he is accused of in the lawsuit. That's not the
same thing as saying he's "innocent".

Can anyone explain? Is there a possibility of a perjury action, or
> some other kind of legal liability related to formally professing
> innocence?
>
> A second question that puzzles me: if the insurance company concludes
> the defense of the lawsuit and finds that some of those that they
> defended lied or impeded the defense, would the insurance co. then turn
> on them with a new lawsuit to recoup losses from the first lawsuit?
>
> I am no lawyer: I am curious though.
> --
>
> Cheers,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.



  
Date: 15 Jan 2008 10:00:25
From: RufusZ
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
On Jan 15, 12:09 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> New York Times -- Chess -- Member of U.S. Chess Federation's Board
> Is Asked to Resign in Dispute Over an Election
>
> By DYLAN LOEB McCLAIN
>
> Published: January 15, 2008
>
> A majority on the executive board of the United States Chess
> Federation plans to formally ask a member to resign amid allegations
> that he had posted messages under other people's names to Internet
> bulletin boards to get elected to the board.
>
> The call by four of the board's seven members for Paul Truong's
> resignation came in the wake of a lawsuit filed last year by a former
> board member. The resignation request was made in a statement to be
> released on Tuesday, which was sent to The New York Times on Monday.
>
> The suit by the former member, Samuel H. Sloan, claims that Mr. Truong
> and his wife, Susan Polgar, another board member, posted comments
> about candidates in the name of Mr. Sloan and others. Many of the
> comments were sexual in nature.
>
> The suit also named as defendants the other members of the board, the
> federation and Texas Tech University, where Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar
> work. Motions by all the defendants to dismiss the case were pending.
>
> The four board members did not ask Ms. Polgar to resign. Randall
> Bauer, a member of the board, said, "I have known Susan for a long
> time, and I don't think that she would be involved in all of this."
>
> Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar have denied the allegations.
>
> On Monday night, Mr. Truong said he had no plans to resign. "I don't
> understand why I would even consider stepping down, because I haven?t
> done anything."
>
> Ms. Polgar said that she was considering resigning, but had not made
> up her mind. "I am just fed up with how my co-board members are
> acting," she said.
>
> In asking for Mr. Truong's resignation, the statement did not say
> whether the four members agreed that he had done what Mr. Sloan
> claimed. Instead, the board said Mr. Truong had not cooperated with a
> lawyer retained by the federation.
>
> The statement said that Mr. Truong had not admitted or denied in
> writing doing what Mr. Sloan had alleged. It also said he had not
> provided information needed to research the allegations, or the
> permission to obtain such information from Internet service providers.
>
> Therefore, the statement concluded, "Mr. Truong has neglected his
> fiduciary duties, and based on discussions between him and our
> attorney, there seems little likelihood this situation will change in
> the future."
>
> A board member can be removed only if members hold a recall election.
> Brian P. Lafferty, a member mentioned in some of the Internet
> postings, said a recall petition was being prepared. Mr. Bauer said,
> "If a recall petition is circulated, I will sign it."
>
> In an interview, Mr. Sloan said he did not plan to drop his suit even
> if Mr. Truong resigned. "Paul resigning would just be a cosmetic
> thing," Mr. Sloan said. He said the federation had dragged its feet,
> allowing the issue to fester. As for some of the postings, Mr. Sloan
> said, "For as long as I live, I will be known as a child
> pornographer."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/crosswords/chess/15chess.html
>
> -
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>

It appears clear to me that one of the following three scenarios is
true:

1) Truong is guilty as charged.
2) The USCF Executive board continues to be is ruled by self-serving
political agendas.
3) Both of the above.

Regardless of which is the truth, it bodes a sad day for US chess.

Personally, I had high hopes for Susan Polgar. I believed then, as I
do now, that she has the best intentions for the future of the USCF,
and that she is personally above the reproachful behaviors I have seen
well too often these last few months.

However, I also believe her trust has been poorly placed, and in doing
so she has brought with her the instrument that will be used to skewer
her: Paul Truong. I believe Paul did it, and I don't believe Susan
knows. I believe she has been blinded by the thickest of blindfolds -
her heart.

As RGCP has recently been nothing more than a back-patting, Polgar-
bashing forum, I doubt I'll get much agreement here. That really
doesn't matter, because the harm has been done, and the hard-working
players and membership of the USCF will be paying the price.



  
Date: 15 Jan 2008 17:40:36
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times



>And how is this "politics that have played out for over the last 9
>months?" Please explain how I am playing politics with this, given
>that I have allied with Susan over the last 9 months and have defended
>Paul on this forum and over at the New York Times blog (which Susan
>even quoted on her own blog)? This is NOT about politics, it is about
>accepting and demonstrating responsibility as Executive Board members
>to the USCF and the dues paying members when the attorneys we hire to
>defend us ask us to take specific actions.
>
>Randy Bauer

Randy, I have a couple of questions about this. I realize that
newspaper accounts often get things wrong, but it appears that:

According to the Times, the board says that "Mr. Truong had
not admitted or denied in writing doing what Mr. Sloan had
alleged." My question is this: Isn't his statement to the
New York Times that he did nothing wrong good enough for you?

Also according to the Times, the board says that "Mr. Truong
had not cooperated with a lawyer retained by the federation"
and "he had not provided information needed to research the
allegations, or the permission to obtain such information
from Internet service providers." My question is this: on
what basis is the claim being made that USCF board members
are required to give other board members permission to access
information about them held by their ISPs? Have the board
members making this request given Mr. Truong permission to
go on a fishing expedition through their own ISPs records?

Lastly, you crossposted the above to:

rec.games.chess.politics,
rec.games.chess.misc,
rec.games.chess.computer,
nyc.politics,
misc.legal,
alt.chess,
soc.culture.usa,
alt.politics.bush

A USCF board member's actions should be beyond reproach, and
you should not be posting material to rec.games.chess.computer
that has nothing to do with computer chess, you should not be
posting material to alt.politics.bush that has nothing to do
with George Bush, etc. Please try to set a better example in
the future.



--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



   
Date: 17 Jan 2008 21:28:14
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times




Lack of response from Randy Bauer noted.




On Tuesday, 15 Jan 2008, <http://www.guymacon.com/ > Guy Macon wrote:

>>This is NOT about politics, it is about >accepting and
>>demonstrating responsibility as Executive Board members
>>to the USCF and the dues paying members when the attorneys
>>we hire to defend us ask us to take specific actions.
>>
>>Randy Bauer
>
>Randy, I have a couple of questions about this. I realize that
>newspaper accounts often get things wrong, but it appears that:
>
>According to the Times, the board says that "Mr. Truong had
>not admitted or denied in writing doing what Mr. Sloan had
>alleged." My question is this: Isn't his statement to the
>New York Times that he did nothing wrong good enough for you?
>
>Also according to the Times, the board says that "Mr. Truong
>had not cooperated with a lawyer retained by the federation"
>and "he had not provided information needed to research the
>allegations, or the permission to obtain such information
>from Internet service providers." My question is this: on
>what basis is the claim being made that USCF board members
>are required to give other board members permission to access
>information about them held by their ISPs? Have the board
>members making this request given Mr. Truong permission to
>go on a fishing expedition through their own ISPs records?
>
>Lastly, you crossposted the above to:
>
>rec.games.chess.politics,
>rec.games.chess.misc,
>rec.games.chess.computer,
>nyc.politics,
>misc.legal,
>alt.chess,
>soc.culture.usa,
>alt.politics.bush
>
>A USCF board member's actions should be beyond reproach, and
>you should not be posting material to rec.games.chess.computer
>that has nothing to do with computer chess, you should not be
>posting material to alt.politics.bush that has nothing to do
>with George Bush, etc. Please try to set a better example in
>the future.
>
>
>

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



   
Date: 15 Jan 2008 09:57:53
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
Guy Macon wrote:
> My question is this: Isn't his statement to the
> New York Times that he did nothing wrong good enough for you?

Why would this be sufficient? It is not for Paul to determine it was
right or wrong. It is for Paul to submit to the board request to accept
or deny the specific allegation in writing. None of this implication
crap. Simple, specific, explicit, clear, and in writing, acceptance or
denial. Not hard. Time to man up.


    
Date: 15 Jan 2008 18:46:13
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times



johnny_t wrote:

>Guy Macon wrote:

>> My question is this: Isn't his statement to the
>> New York Times that he did nothing wrong good enough for you?
>
>Why would this be sufficient? It is not for Paul to determine it was
>right or wrong. It is for Paul to submit to the board request to accept
>or deny the specific allegation in writing. None of this implication
>crap. Simple, specific, explicit, clear, and in writing, acceptance or
>denial. Not hard. Time to man up.

He has no obligation to respond at all.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



     
Date: 15 Jan 2008 18:01:24
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
Guy Macon wrote:
> johnny_t wrote:
>
>> Guy Macon wrote:
>
>>> My question is this: Isn't his statement to the
>>> New York Times that he did nothing wrong good enough for you?
>> Why would this be sufficient? It is not for Paul to determine it was
>> right or wrong. It is for Paul to submit to the board request to accept
>> or deny the specific allegation in writing. None of this implication
>> crap. Simple, specific, explicit, clear, and in writing, acceptance or
>> denial. Not hard. Time to man up.
>
> He has no obligation to respond at all.
>
If he wants to serve at the pleasure of the membership and the board he
does. There are serious accusations, serious questions and he has
refused to answer.

Simply as an officer of the company he needs to answer.

He can choose not to answer as a non-board member. He has dug his own
grave in his continued ways of non-answering. It is to the point of
being deceitful. And as a board member he has an obligation to be
transparent in activities that reflect on his public relations.


      
Date: 15 Jan 2008 18:15:26
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
johnny_t wrote:
> Guy Macon wrote:
>> johnny_t wrote:
>>
>>> Guy Macon wrote:
>>
>>>> My question is this: Isn't his statement to the
>>>> New York Times that he did nothing wrong good enough for you?
>>> Why would this be sufficient? It is not for Paul to determine it was
>>> right or wrong. It is for Paul to submit to the board request to
>>> accept or deny the specific allegation in writing. None of this
>>> implication crap. Simple, specific, explicit, clear, and in writing,
>>> acceptance or denial. Not hard. Time to man up.
>>
>> He has no obligation to respond at all.
>>
> If he wants to serve at the pleasure of the membership and the board he
> does. There are serious accusations, serious questions and he has
> refused to answer.
>
> Simply as an officer of the company he needs to answer.
>
> He can choose not to answer as a non-board member. He has dug his own
> grave in his continued ways of non-answering. It is to the point of
> being deceitful. And as a board member he has an obligation to be
> transparent in activities that reflect on his public relations.

If Paul truly is innocent why would he refuse to sign a statement saying
so? Can anyone explain? Is there a possibility of a perjury action, or
some other kind of legal liability related to formally professing
innocence?

A second question that puzzles me: if the insurance company concludes
the defense of the lawsuit and finds that some of those that they
defended lied or impeded the defense, would the insurance co. then turn
on them with a new lawsuit to recoup losses from the first lawsuit?

I am no lawyer: I am curious though.
--

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


       
Date: 15 Jan 2008 18:33:03
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
J.D. Walker wrote:

> If Paul truly is innocent why would he refuse to sign a statement saying
> so? Can anyone explain? Is there a possibility of a perjury action, or
> some other kind of legal liability related to formally professing
> innocence?

There is no liability simply for the truth being the truth. Which means
no perjury action. He has stated nothing for which he can perjure
himself. This doesn't mean that he does not have positive obligations
as a board member.

> A second question that puzzles me: if the insurance company concludes
> the defense of the lawsuit and finds that some of those that they
> defended lied or impeded the defense, would the insurance co. then turn
> on them with a new lawsuit to recoup losses from the first lawsuit?

Absolutely. This happens with insurance companies all the time, in many
different kinds of situations. There are indeed real penalties for
inaction.

> I am no lawyer: I am curious though.

Be truthful, open, and just. That is always the best defense in a
lawful society.


        
Date: 15 Jan 2008 19:45:51
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
johnny_t wrote:
> J.D. Walker wrote:
>
>> A second question that puzzles me: if the insurance company concludes
>> the defense of the lawsuit and finds that some of those that they
>> defended lied or impeded the defense, would the insurance co. then
>> turn on them with a new lawsuit to recoup losses from the first lawsuit?
>
> Absolutely. This happens with insurance companies all the time, in many
> different kinds of situations. There are indeed real penalties for
> inaction.
>

Given this sort of possibility, Mr. Wickdeer's comment about a 300 pound
gorilla seems to be a gross underestimation. I figure that the
insurance company is at least an 800 pound gorilla, and if any of the
people it defends are deceitful or obstructive, it can quickly turn on
them, and destroy them.

Yes, I agree, tis best to be truthful, open and just.
--

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


        
Date: 15 Jan 2008 19:20:07
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:33:03 -0800, johnny_t <[email protected] >
wrote:

>J.D. Walker wrote:

>> If Paul truly is innocent why would he refuse to sign a statement saying
>> so? Can anyone explain? Is there a possibility of a perjury action, or
>> some other kind of legal liability related to formally professing
>> innocence?

>There is no liability simply for the truth being the truth. Which means
>no perjury action. He has stated nothing for which he can perjure
>himself. This doesn't mean that he does not have positive obligations
>as a board member.

But, if he formally declared to the court that he was not responsible
for any of the FSS postings, and then later, somehow, it was proven
that he *did* make some or most or all of them, wouldn't that render
him vulnerable ?


         
Date: 15 Jan 2008 19:58:36
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:33:03 -0800, johnny_t <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> J.D. Walker wrote:
>
>>> If Paul truly is innocent why would he refuse to sign a statement saying
>>> so? Can anyone explain? Is there a possibility of a perjury action, or
>>> some other kind of legal liability related to formally professing
>>> innocence?
>
>> There is no liability simply for the truth being the truth. Which means
>> no perjury action. He has stated nothing for which he can perjure
>> himself. This doesn't mean that he does not have positive obligations
>> as a board member.
>
> But, if he formally declared to the court that he was not responsible
> for any of the FSS postings, and then later, somehow, it was proven
> that he *did* make some or most or all of them, wouldn't that render
> him vulnerable ?


Um... Read the first five words of the question.. "If Paul truly is
innocent" The rest of your question is moot.


     
Date: 15 Jan 2008 11:53:57
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:46:13 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:

>
>
>
>johnny_t wrote:
>
>>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>>> My question is this: Isn't his statement to the
>>> New York Times that he did nothing wrong good enough for you?
>>
>>Why would this be sufficient? It is not for Paul to determine it was
>>right or wrong. It is for Paul to submit to the board request to accept
>>or deny the specific allegation in writing. None of this implication
>>crap. Simple, specific, explicit, clear, and in writing, acceptance or
>>denial. Not hard. Time to man up.
>
>He has no obligation to respond at all.

Not as a citizen, but as a board member, sure. Corporations fire or
suspend people all the time for failure to cooperate in
investigations, even if this lack of cooperation is on the advice of
personal counsel.


  
Date: 15 Jan 2008 17:09:59
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times



New York Times -- Chess -- Member of U.S. Chess Federation's Board
Is Asked to Resign in Dispute Over an Election

By DYLAN LOEB McCLAIN

Published: January 15, 2008

A majority on the executive board of the United States Chess
Federation plans to formally ask a member to resign amid allegations
that he had posted messages under other people's names to Internet
bulletin boards to get elected to the board.

The call by four of the board's seven members for Paul Truong's
resignation came in the wake of a lawsuit filed last year by a former
board member. The resignation request was made in a statement to be
released on Tuesday, which was sent to The New York Times on Monday.

The suit by the former member, Samuel H. Sloan, claims that Mr. Truong
and his wife, Susan Polgar, another board member, posted comments
about candidates in the name of Mr. Sloan and others. Many of the
comments were sexual in nature.

The suit also named as defendants the other members of the board, the
federation and Texas Tech University, where Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar
work. Motions by all the defendants to dismiss the case were pending.

The four board members did not ask Ms. Polgar to resign. Randall
Bauer, a member of the board, said, "I have known Susan for a long
time, and I don't think that she would be involved in all of this."

Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar have denied the allegations.

On Monday night, Mr. Truong said he had no plans to resign. "I don't
understand why I would even consider stepping down, because I haven?t
done anything."

Ms. Polgar said that she was considering resigning, but had not made
up her mind. "I am just fed up with how my co-board members are
acting," she said.

In asking for Mr. Truong's resignation, the statement did not say
whether the four members agreed that he had done what Mr. Sloan
claimed. Instead, the board said Mr. Truong had not cooperated with a
lawyer retained by the federation.

The statement said that Mr. Truong had not admitted or denied in
writing doing what Mr. Sloan had alleged. It also said he had not
provided information needed to research the allegations, or the
permission to obtain such information from Internet service providers.

Therefore, the statement concluded, "Mr. Truong has neglected his
fiduciary duties, and based on discussions between him and our
attorney, there seems little likelihood this situation will change in
the future."

A board member can be removed only if members hold a recall election.
Brian P. Lafferty, a member mentioned in some of the Internet
postings, said a recall petition was being prepared. Mr. Bauer said,
"If a recall petition is circulated, I will sign it."

In an interview, Mr. Sloan said he did not plan to drop his suit even
if Mr. Truong resigned. "Paul resigning would just be a cosmetic
thing," Mr. Sloan said. He said the federation had dragged its feet,
allowing the issue to fester. As for some of the postings, Mr. Sloan
said, "For as long as I live, I will be known as a child
pornographer."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/crosswords/chess/15chess.html


-
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



 
Date: 14 Jan 2008 22:02:19
From: GeekBoy
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
I especially like there part were the aurthor writes "Sloan, a pathetic
loser without a life..."


"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/crosswords/chess/15chess.html



  
Date: 15 Jan 2008 06:24:18
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
On Jan 15, 8:44=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 11:02 pm, "GeekBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I especially like there part were the aurthor writes "Sloan, a pathetic
> > loser without a life..."
>
> =A0 A rich aroma of preposterous irony, as heady and full as the bouquet
> of a premier cru Bordeaux, rises from this sentence:
>
> =A0 "As for some of the postings, Mr. Sloan said, "For as long as I
> live, I will be known as a child pornographer."

One further question: Is this a lamentation on Sam's part, or a
promise?



  
Date: 15 Jan 2008 05:44:06
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Article about Sloan vs. Truong in tomorrow's New York Times
On Jan 14, 11:02 pm, "GeekBoy" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I especially like there part were the aurthor writes "Sloan, a pathetic
> loser without a life..."

A rich aroma of preposterous irony, as heady and full as the bouquet
of a premier cru Bordeaux, rises from this sentence:

"As for some of the postings, Mr. Sloan said, "For as long as I
live, I will be known as a child pornographer."