| |
Main
Date: 02 Sep 2008 05:10:41
From: samsloan
Subject: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
"Constitutionally Protected Speech".
However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
often did, is not satire.
I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
"Constitutionally Protected Speech".
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 10:53:10
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 8, 5:54 am, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>
> If I understand [...]
No, you never do. You don't understand
"understand" in the first place.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 10:47:07
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 2, 10:53 am, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [total junk]
"JftD", you're pathetic.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 08 Sep 2008 08:16:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 7, 3:45=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 What's this? =A0Someone is /pretending/ that
> Mr. Brennen has attempted to interfere with
> the workings of our prestigious courts?!!?
>
> **No. Its not about Brennen at all, its about the law, which is indiffere=
nt
> to who protests what.
My dear boy, you still have *much* to learn.
-- O.J.
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2008 16:15:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 6, 6:05=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Please note that in rec.games.chess.misc, P Innes is again threatening
> > to prove Taylor Kingston wrote some alleged email correspondence by
> > using IP addresses and computer records. Yet P Innes, in this forum,
> > denies the Mottershead Report has any validity because it's based on
> > IP addresses and computer records.
> As I've asked before, why do you insist on computer records here, but
> deny the Mottershead Report has any validity?
> **What I say is the same I said all along - that if there are legal charg=
es,
> let a court decide on it!
What's this? Someone is /pretending/ that
Mr. Brennen has attempted to interfere with
the workings of our prestigious courts?!!?
What if NB has not the ability to interfere?
What if he has the ability, but fails? What if
the courts themselves fail to answer the
questions (who is the FSS? what has he/
she done? was it legal? was it fair? was
it then, "less unfair"?)? What if the courts
deny jurisdiction, or scoff at mere technical
errors-- what then?
> The offer stands to Kingston - publish you stuff or no? And then we
> can see who is fucking insane
> I think it's pretty clear who is insane. And a hypocrite as well.
Mr. Kingston cannot, so it seems, recall
his own name after any length of time has
passed. Why then, does our hero, Dr.
IMnes rely so heavily upon this aspect?
Why then, does he even involve such a
pathetic excuse for his inability to follow
through with his alleged threats? I think
the answer lies in the idea that these
supposed emails are not in his power to
reproduce; I think Dr. IMnes can no more
produce such emails as he has described
than he could produce a certificate of
achievement, cum laude, from the FIDE;
I think our hero is blathering once again,
as has been his habit since time began.
I further believe he cannot help himself--
that this problem plagues him as fleas
plague wild dogs. I believe he cannot be
held accountable for his own lies, his
own words, for they have gotten out of
hand and now /control him/, rather than
vicity versey.
I believe what is needed here is /divine
intervention/, and I call upon Caissa or
Zeus or somebody -- anybody -- for aid.
Heracles! Oh, art thou great and wise.
I beckon for thee to intervene, or thou art
busy with thy many wives (much like Mr.
Sloan, I expect), send that cleverest of
all heroes, Odysseus in thy stead. We
beseech thee for thy help, for one among
us has gone mad and needs thy aid!
Oh Hera, oh Apollo-- I care not which of
thee comes, but come thy needs must,
lest humanity in the end befall the same
fate as Brad Pitt-- er no, make that
/Achilles/, when he was taken down by
his unprotected heel! Oh Budda-- I rub
thy belly and beseech thee for thy aid.
Et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2008 15:45:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 6, 6:05 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Please note that in rec.games.chess.misc, P Innes is again threatening
> > to prove Taylor Kingston wrote some alleged email correspondence by
> > using IP addresses and computer records. Yet P Innes, in this forum,
> > denies the Mottershead Report has any validity because it's based on
> > IP addresses and computer records.
> As I've asked before, why do you insist on computer records here, but
> deny the Mottershead Report has any validity?
> **What I say is the same I said all along - that if there are legal
> charges,
> let a court decide on it!
What's this? Someone is /pretending/ that
Mr. Brennen has attempted to interfere with
the workings of our prestigious courts?!!?
**No. Its not about Brennen at all, its about the law, which is indifferent
to who protests what.
<... >
> The offer stands to Kingston - publish you stuff or no? And then we
> can see who is fucking insane
> I think it's pretty clear who is insane. And a hypocrite as well.
Mr. Kingston cannot, so it seems, recall
his own name after any length of time has
passed. Why then, does our hero, Dr.
IMnes rely so heavily upon this aspect?
**I see you respond to what Brennen says, while supposing via Kingston what
I rely on so heavily... zzzzzzz
Why then, does he even involve such a
pathetic excuse for his inability to follow
through with his alleged threats?
**If they are only alleged threats, then they are nothing yet threatened.
And what does threatened mean? Who, for example is threatened, and about
what? Aren't those terms to do with others, not me? I am reporting what
someone volunteered to me. If that's a threat to them, so be it, but that's
about them, not me.
I think
the answer lies in the idea that these
supposed emails are not in his power to
reproduce; I think Dr. IMnes can no more
produce such emails as he has described
than he could produce a certificate of
achievement, cum laude, from the FIDE;
**Same answer both issues. Its not whether I can or not, its if I need to
for some reason. What reason? Our Greg wants to embarrass Taylor Kingston
and myself by encouraging publication - that is his motive - but both Taylor
Kingston and I have other motives! And though I did not like his material in
content nor in method of circulation, that is entirely different from having
to publish it in order to satisfy Greg Kennedy! If I publish it then the
issue will be about fair reporting on the US chess scene. Our Taylor and I
disagree about that. But that is between him and me, and nor for a bit of
gratification for Our Greg.
I think our hero is blathering once again,
as has been his habit since time began.
I further believe he cannot help himself--
that this problem plagues him as fleas
plague wild dogs.
**Always worth reading these mixed matadors! As an instance of the clarity
of thought, here we got; blathering like plagues of fleas and plague dogs.
I believe he cannot be
held accountable for his own lies, his
own words, for they have gotten out of
hand and now /control him/, rather than
vicity versey.
**You would rather control my words for me, possibly better than you control
those about yourself?
I believe what is needed here is /divine
intervention/, and I call upon Caissa or
Zeus or somebody -- anybody -- for aid.
Heracles! Oh, art thou great and wise.
I beckon for thee to intervene, or thou art
busy with thy many wives (much like Mr.
Sloan, I expect), send that cleverest of
all heroes, Odysseus in thy stead. We
beseech thee for thy help, for one among
us has gone mad and needs thy aid!
**How fascinating and abstract and vague a dillemma! Help bot thinks that by
playing Bitch Boy will achieve results, other people doing what he wants,
just because he says so.
**pfft. As before, he should mind his own business, lest he spends all his
time minding that of others. And there is nothing more BORING than that -
plenty of other examples here of that state. Phil Innes
Oh Hera, oh Apollo-- I care not which of
thee comes, but come thy needs must,
lest humanity in the end befall the same
fate as Brad Pitt-- er no, make that
/Achilles/, when he was taken down by
his unprotected heel! Oh Budda-- I rub
thy belly and beseech thee for thy aid.
Et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2008 14:54:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
On Sep 6, 3:57=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:14:35 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>> What credentials can you present that we should trust your expertise
> >>> to evaluate these linguistic "finger-prints"?
>
> >>Credentials? What would constitute credentials?
>
> > Something more than your asking me for mine.
>
> **So say /what/ more. What credens do you possess to challenge what you
> cannot say?
>
> > =A0So, your answer is that
> > you have no credentials beyond strong opinions. =A0I suspected as much.
>
> **Not what I wrote! I wrote that your comprehension is as dull on the FSS=
as
> it is in understanding 'credentials'.
>
> Because Mike Murray has no need of anything whatever [36 objections isn't
> it? to which he argues nothing] to make his accusations, then what we are
> doing here is assessing Mike Murray's ability or will to discuss anything=
.
> As far as I can see, he has no need to do so - he can even dismiss the on=
ly
> direct evidence of the identity of the FSS, as if he, Mike Murray, has no=
t
> wit! No opinion. Will not go there - and [ROFL] when others point out the
> consistancy of the US diction used by the FSS, Murray's sole response is =
to
> ask them how they can know... as if he had no ability himself to discern
> PRIMARY EVIDENCE.
>
> Because, argues Murray, I do not attend to the issue, no one can! No one =
is
> allowed to have an opinion. Then
>
> farcially
>
> the very person who won't look at what is in front of him - wants to know
> how others can know? He is not content with 'looking' as any answer, and =
now
> wants authorities and credentials.
>
> I say this abandons the case entirely, and if Murray cannot look for hims=
elf
> as an American and speak frankly about the FSS's diction, then attempts t=
o
> negate the subject by simply avoiding PRIMARY EVIDENCE are desperate
> measures indeed!
>
> Below Mike Murray choses to change the subject from content, to
> meta-records, and that is enough for him to ask about missing links, etc,
> the usual shit with which we understand his intellect is so fond of
> reproducing.
>
> =A0 =A0 JUST LOOK AT MURRAY'S DUMBTH!
>
> >>Has anyone with, in your
> >>opinion, 'credentials', looked at the FSS material yet?
>
> > Yes, Phil, have you been on Mars or some alternate universe? =A0Two
> > credentialed experts have looked at the FSS material and published
> > their findings. =A0Are you missing a link? =A0Are you the missing link?
>
> Murray refers to experts who have /not/ reported on the content - but doe=
s
> Murray indicate his little shift?
>
> >>Yet that is prima facia evidence.
>
> >>What credentials do you Murray need to have in order to look at the hea=
der
> >>and immediately decide if its false? Tell me.
>
> > Credentials? =A0For that, one needs some experience and familiarity wit=
h
> > which of the several e-mail addresses might be valid for the RSS. =A0An=
d
> > when the content of the posts gets aggregated by various websites, the
> > headers often disappear.
>
> Murray denies what intelligent posters here said all along - by looking a=
t
> the header you could TELL by the address that it was not Sloan. Murray
> denies in effect he ever noticed anyone wrote this, or that he could do s=
o
> himself.
>
> >>Maybe you are not very braight
> >>but others are, and constantly referred to the FSS as being the FSS sol=
ely
> >>for that reason! Did you never note it?
>
> >>What credentials would Mike Murray need to determine if the swear-words
> >>are
> >>from the swearless Sloan? Tell us Mike. Tell us about the credential yo=
u
> >>would need? Come on - what in your opinion would need credentials to
> >>distinguish that?
>
> > So the posts that don't involve swearing are not fake? =A0Is that what
> > you are claiming?
>
> A HUGE diversion to what Murray himself understood.
>
> Murray does not even look at PRIMARY EVIDENCE, will not address that
> subject, then invents something OTTO-LIKE - which I did not write or 'cla=
im'
> as he says. How come Murray's stupid understanding of a direct question p=
ut
> to him about his own essential honesty in looking at what is in front of
> everybody, can get magically transformed into what I never indicated 'I
> claimed'?
>
> What a dishonest poster we got here! What an avoider of things that other
> people already reported on using nothing other than their wit, and not
> requiring experts or more 'credentials' that their own intelligence. Murr=
ay
> acts as if this never happened, with the result that he seems to have a
> significantly different opinion than others.
>
> But that is consistent, since he has trashed the opinion of all other
> people, including those who could tell the FSS simply from the header!
>
> > So, if Sam ever wants to do a turn-about and fake
> > somebody, just add a curse or two and he's in the clear, huh?
>
> huh?
>
> >>And tell us, since you are in jeopardy of seeming like you
> >>want to bury this issue - and I wonder why?
>
> > Oh, no. =A0This issue won't be buried no matter how much BS =A0you and
> > your fellow apologists dump on it.
>
> I do not apologise for what is in front of us all. What you do Murray is =
not
> look at that, and it is you who are the exception! =A0:))
>
> Above you DEMONSTRATE that you will not answer my question about looking =
at
> evidence. Why you do so is not my business particularly, I just point out
> that you have not done this from the start.
>
> Murray can find no flaw in my statement which challenges him to assess th=
e
> FSS material as American English. He doesn't even PRETEND to look at the
> material that way. =A0;)
>
>
>
> >>What level of imbecility would you need to relapse into not noticing th=
e
> >>entirely over the top nature of these posts? So that not even an
> >>ego-maniac
> >>like Sloan could use such public presentations to further his cause? Co=
me
> >>on
> >>Mike, tell us if you want someone with credentials to tell you about th=
is.
>
> >>And these are merely the crudest levels of evaluation, which those with=
out
> >>credentials identified here in public the whole time.
>
> > True, =A0these are "the crudest levels of evaluation", which anybody
> > could fake at will. =A0To come up with =A0more meaningful textual
> > evaluation would require credentials and resources which we both lack.
>
> >>What are your credentials for /not/ noticing?
>
> > A healthy level of skepticism and common sense.
>
> No - once again your comprehension, so you pretend, is not so good in
> English. I asked why YOU would not LOOK, you say you waon't look at evide=
nce
> 'because' [ROFL!!!] you claim healthy sketicism...
>
> When people conclude this for themselves, my job is done.
>
> >> =A0On the other hand, it's not
> >>> hard to believe many folks in the US for twenty years could master
> >>> various American idioms and write short sentences like a native.
>
> >>**Except of course if you knew the person, regularly read his writing,
> >>normally and under stress, and thought it nigh on impossible to bring i=
t
> >>perfectly off 2,500 times! more than on the SP blog! without evident
> >>error,
> >>would you think this was so possible when OTOH it seems like this very
> >>careful emulation of a native speaker was not matched by any care over =
the
> >>trail he left? An inconsistency? One the size of the Grand Canyon?
>
> > So, your private and personal evaluation constitutes proof?
>
> **No, please excuse my mention, but STUPID! I did not say that. It is you=
r
> miserable will to look at anything other than your bent which is on trial
> here. Your paraphrase is so stupid, how can you expect to be taken seriou=
sly
> on any subject to do with understanding other people?
>
> > =A0Sorry,
> > Phil, not with your track record.
>
> Well, coming from a one-issue poster, I would say your own track is prett=
y
> established - anyone not agreeing with you is simply dissed. I have prove=
d
> here that you intend to /not/ look at available and primary evidence whic=
h
> everyone else has also assessed, , and you are content to abuse those who
> do. What should anyone care what you 'think', Murray?
>
> I do not believe you to be stupid, thereby I accuse you of being not hone=
st.
> This is not a discussion at all - it is a demonstration of what a Mike
> Murray will do. In these exchanges you are evasive to the same degree tha=
t
> you are assertive, abusive and O so sure. pfft! About as weak a sense of
> anything as may be had.
>
> Phil Innes
I wonder if Mr. IMnes is aware that due to
his habit of using up a dictionary's worth
of words to say nothing whatsoever, more
than a few readers may, like me, just
pass over his "artistic creations", like the
one shown above?
To wit: smart people don't need hundreds
and thousands of words to have their say;
this is why after only three and a half hours
of hard work, I was able to hone my portion
of this posting down to just two paragraphs.
The first of these described my habit of
often zipping over Dr. IMnes' long-winded
ramblings, while the second relayed the
facts surrounding what smart people tend
to do, in sharp contrast to what people
like Dr. IMnes tend to do.
Now, in summary, I think it is important
to recognize the importance of brevity; to
keep one's ramblings here in rgc, or
anywhere for that matter, to a barest
minimum. It is quite unnecessary to
ramble on and on and on, boring one's
audience to tears, or repeating oneself
again and again, or in Dr.IMnes' peculiar
case, saying nothing whatever.
As we've seen in the last few paragraphs,
it is both wasteful and unproductive to
ramble; indeed, smart people like me
know /when/ to shut up, whereas dumb
ones, like say, Phil Innes, haven't a clue.
In closing, I would like to once again
stress the importance of not rambling on
and on; as the great writer Frederich
Icabod Napolean MacDougal so wisely
noted, "it just don't pay to jabber all day".
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 06:31:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 4, 4:36=A0pm, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote:
> What the hell are you talking about bot?..
"You had to be there". It seems so long
ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday.
The great NB had his army of respected
academics lined up behind him as always,
and they all agreed -- yes, every last one
of them -- with NB that his every whim was
backed by all the evidence -- yes, all of it
-- on every point -- yes, every point -- and
in each detail thereof.
Facing off against this mighty army of
always-agreeing academics was some
book Mr. Parr had stumbled upon, which
as I (faintly) recall, had it that it was not
by chance that "we" became involved in
WWII. The author of this particular book
(along with ill-respected academics who
had been banned for life for not toeing
the NB party line) had it that then
president of the United States FDR
overcame the "isolationist" position via
clever strategic moves, one of which was
"allowing" a "surprise" attack (which
befell Pearl Harbor in Hawaii).
> Are you aware that after the armistice, after the surrender of arms to
> victorious British Empire troops in Singers (Singapore)..
>
> After Mad Mike's Marauders had had their wicked way..
>
> After Wingate (now that's a case study in something!) 'n chindits - all
> of these dudes had been acknowledged with medals & everything..
>
> After all this bot, you didn't know this did you?, the allied
> authorities turned around free'd all these Nipponese soldiers gave 'em
> back their guns & ammo. & had them POLICE the native population..
That was nothing when compared against
what happened with regard to the biological
experimenters....
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 06:36:22
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
help bot wrote:
.
> As I vaguely recall, the issue related to
> then-president Abe Lincoln's decision to
> /allow/ the Japanese to attack the Alamo
> so that we could enter the war and thus,
> thump the Limeys and their allies, the
> Confederation of Idiots. Wait-- that's not
> quite right. I believe it was the Germans
> who were allowed to attack... was it at
> Normandy, on G-day? No, that's not it
> either. In any case, the idea not only
> "made for a good story", as LE likes to
> say, it also fits neatly with some of the
> evidence, and that raises it far above the
> norm for those guys and their ilk.
What the hell are you talking about bot?..
Are you aware that after the armistice, after the surrender of arms to
victorious British Empire troops in Singers (Singapore)..
After Mad Mike's Marauders had had their wicked way..
After Wingate (now that's a case study in something!) 'n chindits - all
of these dudes had been acknowledged with medals & everything..
After all this bot, you didn't know this did you?, the allied
authorities turned around free'd all these Nipponese soldiers gave 'em
back their guns & ammo. & had them POLICE the native population..
t.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 09:26:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 4, 11:11=A0am, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hi Mike..
>
> You sound like some mid-level management whimp..
> Ha ha. What a wanker is our Mike..
>
> He likes to portray himself as a sophisticate..
>
> Ha ha..
>
> I saw him ganging up on Nick (bourbaki) 'n funni'n him so he could'nt
> understand..
>
> So, he was driven away!..
"Driven away"? A typical transfer-the-blame
ploy, not unworthy of a low-level manager
(my dealings with such scum, I shall not
bother to elaborate here).
Talk about a wimp; poor Mr. Bourbaki oft as
not ran to his mantra (i.e. "all well respected
academics agree with me") each and every
time his own opinions were questioned, like a
child runs to its momma! Driven off indeed.
I would venture to say that the poor chap was
afraid of his own shadow, and would likely
have run away from it, too, if he only could.
Those who mourn for the "loss" of poor Mr.
Bourbaki may well wish to blame someone--
anyone for his disappearance, but the truth
is he simply could not stand the intellectual
heat of rgc (around 50 degrees Kelvin, +-- 3
degrees) and left in his own Honda Accord.
To me, this was a small loss in that I
backed Mr. Parr's thinking -- or rather his
parroting -- with regard to WWII, and had it
not been for Mr. Bourbaki's cowardice, we
might have had a /real discussion/ on that
issue for once. (Granted, where chess fits
into this picture is problematic, at best.)
As I vaguely recall, the issue related to
then-president Abe Lincoln's decision to
/allow/ the Japanese to attack the Alamo
so that we could enter the war and thus,
thump the Limeys and their allies, the
Confederation of Idiots. Wait-- that's not
quite right. I believe it was the Germans
who were allowed to attack... was it at
Normandy, on G-day? No, that's not it
either. In any case, the idea not only
"made for a good story", as LE likes to
say, it also fits neatly with some of the
evidence, and that raises it far above the
norm for those guys and their ilk.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 02:17:37
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
Javert wrote:
.
> A native born American would never ever be able to always speak in
> "faultless American English vernacular" over that many messages.
>
> Henry Higgins would agree with me.
OOh! - I see, he would, would he?..
Pray, tell young Huggins (oh! I say, frightfully sorry dear chap. It's
this tiresome little Jowet Javert person & he's convinced he has some
sort of coding to do with linguistics. He's calling it language -
sire?)..
Young Javert..
The court has ruled in your disfavour..
You now have 72hrs to show why this court should not proceed against
you..
Your inane assertion that Henry Higgins 'somehow' would agree with you
is held in contempt..
Nobody in this court could give a flying-fuck about your HH assertion,
so therefore this court holds you in the utmost contempt..
You, in effect are a contemptible little shit/piss, given to do nothing
other to cause a mess..
You are scum, born & bred to be that way & as such I hold with the Lord
in saying..
This rubbish NEEDS to be aborted..
Master (aka t).
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 07:52:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 4, 8:37=A0am, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > IS TRUONG GUILTY??
>
> > Dear Sam Sloan,
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0You're right. =A0The Fake Sam Sloan messages have
> > nothing to do with satire, parody and the like. =A0They
> > were, in the main, vicious attempts to injure you by
> > signing your name to messages that you did not write.
>
> snip..
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Now, Sam, I know that the issues are serious,
> > and you are serious. =A0You may be in no mood for
> > levity, but if fun can be had without blunting the
> > arrowheads, then why not enjoy ourselves?
>
> Yairs! - why not indeed..
>
> Dear Mr. Parr,
>
> I trust you have recovered from the testy, Malaysian infection recently
> rifling your bowels & that you are now sitting up & able to take tea..
>
> The baah-d (really bad) storm that was forecast to assault the s/eastern
> weatherboard, =A0New Orleans & Cincinatti in the American homeland has
> subsided with just the odd body lying around, a few nails pulled out of
> ma rooftop 'n a car on it's side..
>
> The USS Cutter 'sunnioaks' has been despatched from the great white
> fleet currently cruising in your section & you will be advised when &
> where to leave the shore with chattels & concubine & that this will be
> specifically an LED signaled - sig, op. ..
>
> After successful disembarkation, you will then be re-embarked on to the
> very mighty, small-pricked & hugely circumcised, unbalanced, stupid &
> supremely inane, blood-lust S.S. patton..
>
> We Shall then all set sail for Amerika chaps!..
>
> Phil will be there to welcome us home, Bot & Sammy too! - We shall take
> 'art when we go 'shore @ ann-'arbour that pilgwims troddeth this dear
> earth also, 'n 'tsete flie 'ee be a ferigner 'n so many other thigies
> clem - me 'ol moite, phut, phut p- dwibble phu. ..
>
> To the Parrist: Let it roll babee!!..
>
> You are all gonna find this out sooner than you hoped for. Oh Lordee! -
> so jus keep bring'n it on honsuga cos y'all, I'm uncontrollable -
> seeee?!. Ferkin!..
>
> We's are all waiting on you to sing forth about the great war. You's &
> your imagining blagaurd Jacks & so on. The pershing frosts we
> experienced there in '15, late november iirc..
>
> The icy ponds, the yellow ikky mud & so on?..
>
> Nice hearing from you again lad..
>
> t.
After a careful "syntax analysis", Mr. Parr
may very well conclude that Mr. thumbody
and I are one and the insane person-- but
an examination of the headers, footers and
in-betweeners of our respective postings
will exonerate me in the end; of this I have
no doubt.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 23:53:50
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
[email protected] wrote:
> One thing that always puzzled me about the FSS posts was why anyone
> would bother. Sloan always did a better job of discrediting himself
> than anyone else possibly could. The only explanation I could come up
> with was extreme _personal_ hostility toward Sloan. (As distinguished
> from the generalized contempt that most of us feel.) This is the main
> reason the charges against Truong had some plausibility. When you
> boast of a "not entirely Platonic" relationship with someone's wife, a
> violent reaction is not surprising.
*
Y'know jon - (aka. agen'001.aim)..
Much as I can't stand your smelly breath I think you might have
something here..
It could appear that @ some point in the young Hungarian,
pig-meat-product-loving & lusting 15yr old's biorhythms a freedom
solution appeared in the form of Sam's erect 7" dingle-dong..
Who are we to argue this..
This is not a question..
This is a fact..
Of life..
=====
If in effect Sam & Sue were having wild, uninhibited & juicy
bonking-sessions @ that time in their lives?..
How is it, that some jealous migrant prick can come in here some 20yrs
later, marry the 'hon' & start dictating morality to his hosts?..
That one, I find a real humdinger..
__________
By the way you smarmin' smirkin' piece of ass'ole slime..
It's MI6 nowadays - thks. ..
t.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 05:48:02
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
thumbody wrote:
>
> Phil will be there to welcome us home,
P Innes gets excited when the fleet's in for some reason.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 22:37:41
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> IS TRUONG GUILTY??
>
> Dear Sam Sloan,
>
> You're right. The Fake Sam Sloan messages have
> nothing to do with satire, parody and the like. They
> were, in the main, vicious attempts to injure you by
> signing your name to messages that you did not write.
snip..
> Now, Sam, I know that the issues are serious,
> and you are serious. You may be in no mood for
> levity, but if fun can be had without blunting the
> arrowheads, then why not enjoy ourselves?
Yairs! - why not indeed..
Dear Mr. Parr,
I trust you have recovered from the testy, Malaysian infection recently
rifling your bowels & that you are now sitting up & able to take tea..
The baah-d (really bad) storm that was forecast to assault the s/eastern
weatherboard, New Orleans & Cincinatti in the American homeland has
subsided with just the odd body lying around, a few nails pulled out of
ma rooftop 'n a car on it's side..
The USS Cutter 'sunnioaks' has been despatched from the great white
fleet currently cruising in your section & you will be advised when &
where to leave the shore with chattels & concubine & that this will be
specifically an LED signaled - sig, op. ..
After successful disembarkation, you will then be re-embarked on to the
very mighty, small-pricked & hugely circumcised, unbalanced, stupid &
supremely inane, blood-lust S.S. patton..
We Shall then all set sail for Amerika chaps!..
Phil will be there to welcome us home, Bot & Sammy too! - We shall take
'art when we go 'shore @ ann-'arbour that pilgwims troddeth this dear
earth also, 'n 'tsete flie 'ee be a ferigner 'n so many other thigies
clem - me 'ol moite, phut, phut p- dwibble phu. ..
To the Parrist: Let it roll babee!!..
You are all gonna find this out sooner than you hoped for. Oh Lordee! -
so jus keep bring'n it on honsuga cos y'all, I'm uncontrollable -
seeee?!. Ferkin!..
We's are all waiting on you to sing forth about the great war. You's &
your imagining blagaurd Jacks & so on. The pershing frosts we
experienced there in '15, late november iirc..
The icy ponds, the yellow ikky mud & so on?..
Nice hearing from you again lad..
t.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 05:32:16
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 4, 7:26=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 7:35=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So, your private and personal evaluation constitutes proof? =A0Sorry,
> > Phil, not with your track record.
>
> Please note that in rec.games.chess.misc, P Innes is again threatening
> to prove Taylor Kingston wrote some alleged email correspondence by
> using IP addresses and computer records. Yet P Innes, in this forum,
> denies the Mottershead Report has any validity because it's based on
> IP addresses and computer records.
***************
The statement by P Innes:
> I would also ask in advance if server records should be the proof of such
> correspondence, since not even I can 'fix' Verizon, and furthermore, I am
> willing to do this service for free to the chess community and for chess
> history.
> Phil Innes
I wrote:
As I've asked before, why do you insist on computer records here, but
deny the Mottershead Report has any validity?
And P Innes replied:
Here our fatuous commentator compares Our Taylor to our FSS. Why he in
particular should insist on this comparison is known best to himself,
his
short replies, indicating nothing.
The offer stands to Kingston - publish you stuff or no? And then we
can see
who is fucking insane, like Hitler and Mussolini, etc.
**************
I think it's pretty clear who is insane. And a hypocrite as well.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2008 18:05:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3db486ea-f2d7-4a6a-803e-d9c45159d703@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 7:26 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 7:35 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So, your private and personal evaluation constitutes proof? Sorry,
> > Phil, not with your track record.
>
> Please note that in rec.games.chess.misc, P Innes is again threatening
> to prove Taylor Kingston wrote some alleged email correspondence by
> using IP addresses and computer records. Yet P Innes, in this forum,
> denies the Mottershead Report has any validity because it's based on
> IP addresses and computer records.
***************
The statement by P Innes:
> I would also ask in advance if server records should be the proof of such
> correspondence, since not even I can 'fix' Verizon, and furthermore, I am
> willing to do this service for free to the chess community and for chess
> history.
> Phil Innes
I wrote:
As I've asked before, why do you insist on computer records here, but
deny the Mottershead Report has any validity?
**What? You do not quote me as saying Mottotshead has no validity. You avoid
the subject, as does Murray of if the FSS has as good an American diction as
you, for example. Of course, you were not posting here during that time, so
you will not know about it.
**What I say is the same I said all along - that if there are legal charges,
let a court decide on it!
**If there are public speculations, then I can speculate too - and since NO
ONE can contradict what I said, is it PROVED by the same means the gang
against Polgar and Truong are proved?
**Come on, Brennen, step up to the task or let it go as unchallengable fact.
You should know something about stalking, eh? You stalked Rob Mitchell and
myself. You appeared under a false moniker at the Shakespeare fellowship,
right?
And P Innes replied:
Here our fatuous commentator compares Our Taylor to our FSS. Why he in
particular should insist on this comparison is known best to himself,
his
short replies, indicating nothing.
The offer stands to Kingston - publish you stuff or no? And then we
can see
who is fucking insane, like Hitler and Mussolini, etc.
**************
I think it's pretty clear who is insane. And a hypocrite as well.
**To less than honest people then protesting what is clear is what? When
they themselves don't say what is clear? What would make the issue clear?
Verizon's records would. Like Larry Parr, I will take a polygraph. So you
can cut it either way, on objective server records or by skin galvanism! But
surely to contest the issue you must sugges /some/ way?
Kingston himself is silent on this issue, having never denied it, only
saying he could not recall - why Brennen should intecept this issue is very
interesting, and the Watchers might take note.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 05:26:17
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 3, 7:35=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> So, your private and personal evaluation constitutes proof? =A0Sorry,
> Phil, not with your track record.
Please note that in rec.games.chess.misc, P Innes is again threatening
to prove Taylor Kingston wrote some alleged email correspondence by
using IP addresses and computer records. Yet P Innes, in this forum,
denies the Mottershead Report has any validity because it's based on
IP addresses and computer records.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2008 17:55:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e646faca-29c6-46cf-8464-d7c158257876@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 3, 7:35 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> So, your private and personal evaluation constitutes proof? Sorry,
> Phil, not with your track record.
Please note that in rec.games.chess.misc, P Innes is again threatening
to prove Taylor Kingston wrote some alleged email correspondence by
using IP addresses and computer records. Yet P Innes, in this forum,
denies the Mottershead Report has any validity because it's based on
IP addresses and computer records.
**For the record, only, I see that the poster Neil Brennen volunteers one
subject about ressented mention of a conspiracy to suppose upon an entirely
different one - the FSS!. Naturally, what he proposes is no means to
discover if what I say is true by way of server records, eg, since he is
complicit in the very correspondence!
If I did publish Kingston's e-mails, is it people's sense that Brennen is
saying that Mottershead's material is thereby untrue?
I am merely trying to establish 2 things:
(1) that this is the level of Brennen's logical processes, and
(2) why he should /volunteer/ this material of the FSS as analogy, since it
is not /evidently/ necessary to connect the two! Yet he does. Did the reader
understand that - /he/ does.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 20:32:16
From: none
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 3, 11:17=A0pm, Matt Nemmers <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 2, 1:16=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
> > with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
> > makes you, not me, guilty of libel.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Here Sloan goes again, holding others to standards he doesn't hold
> himself to.
>
> On 2 March 2002 at 2:58pm in the thread "Sam, you're famous," Sloan
> wrote:
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> "In spite of the personal attacks and the death threats I keep
> receiving because of these new pages, there may be a positive
> benefit.
> For example, on the follow up page athttp://blogwars.com/article.php?sid=
=3D151one young man writes that he
> cannot understand why I get more girls than he does since he has
> bigger muscles than I do, but a woman writes, "There's something
> strangly aluring about [Sam Sloan], i mean, it is sick, but i seem
> strangly attracted [to him]."
>
> So my plan is to concentrate on the woman and forget about the man."
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> And on the same day in the same thread, at 9:31pm, John Fernandez
> called him out on it with this:
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> "Sam, you lying, misquoting bitch.
>
> Here is the full post:
> ---------
> Re: E/N gone horribly wrong [Score: 1]
> by Faithless on Wednesday, February 27 @ 08:50:25 PM CST
>
> theres a something strangly aluring about the vagina bit, i mean, it
> is sick,
> but i seem strangly attracted to it, a bit like stiles rantings shoot
> me
> ---------
>
> So a few things:
>
> 1) Faithless is a GUY
> 2) He finds nothing strangely alluring about Sam Sloan, he's talking
> about the
> vagina quote that's on the site
> 3) He is not strangely attracted to you, he's strangely attracted
> again to the
> above quote.
>
> How stupid of you to intentionally change the meaning of a quotation
> that other
> people on this site would catch you on.
>
> John Fernandez"
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Sloan can't be held to ANY standard of decency, even his own. =A0What an
> ultra-maroon.
>
> Busted again, Sammy. =A0Not that it'll stop you from lying some more.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt
--Busted again, Sammy. Not that it'll stop you from lying some more
How do you bust an E-1 of rhetoric?
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 20:17:43
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 2, 1:16=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
> with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
> makes you, not me, guilty of libel.
>
> Sam Sloan
Here Sloan goes again, holding others to standards he doesn't hold
himself to.
On 2 March 2002 at 2:58pm in the thread "Sam, you're famous," Sloan
wrote:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"In spite of the personal attacks and the death threats I keep
receiving because of these new pages, there may be a positive
benefit.
For example, on the follow up page at
http://blogwars.com/article.php?sid=3D151 one young man writes that he
cannot understand why I get more girls than he does since he has
bigger muscles than I do, but a woman writes, "There's something
strangly aluring about [Sam Sloan], i mean, it is sick, but i seem
strangly attracted [to him]."
So my plan is to concentrate on the woman and forget about the man."
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
And on the same day in the same thread, at 9:31pm, John Fernandez
called him out on it with this:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Sam, you lying, misquoting bitch.
Here is the full post:
---------
Re: E/N gone horribly wrong [Score: 1]
by Faithless on Wednesday, February 27 @ 08:50:25 PM CST
theres a something strangly aluring about the vagina bit, i mean, it
is sick,
but i seem strangly attracted to it, a bit like stiles rantings shoot
me
---------
So a few things:
1) Faithless is a GUY
2) He finds nothing strangely alluring about Sam Sloan, he's talking
about the
vagina quote that's on the site
3) He is not strangely attracted to you, he's strangely attracted
again to the
above quote.
How stupid of you to intentionally change the meaning of a quotation
that other
people on this site would catch you on.
John Fernandez"
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sloan can't be held to ANY standard of decency, even his own. What an
ultra-maroon.
Busted again, Sammy. Not that it'll stop you from lying some more.
Regards,
Matt
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 17:14:24
From: Javert
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 3, 5:04=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:02:02 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >A little exploration into the actual evidence we all have before us migh=
t be
> >revealing, especially to chess players about the /pattern/ used by the F=
SS,
> >in particular his diction, which given some 2,500 instances, is much lik=
e a
> >finger-print.
>
> What credentials can you present that we should trust your expertise
> to evaluate these linguistic "finger-prints"?
>
> >When I have written this before, others, Bauer-like, have
> >denied it is even possible to distinguish if it seemed to them to be the
> >work of a native American speaker - in fact, they did not only not answe=
r
> >for themselves, they shooed the issue away saying others couldn't tell
> >either.
> >Whoever the FSS may be, he kept his expressions short,
>
> Which one might do if that person were *not* a native American speaker
> and trying to make sure it didn't show. =A0On the other hand, it's not
> hard to believe many folks in the US for twenty years could master
> various American idioms and write short sentences like a native. =A0Even
> though Phil has a hard time with it, someone younger and more
> flexible....
>
> >and was surely
> >conscious that the sort of factor I here describe might subsequently giv=
e
> >him away. What gave him away in another sense is the faultless American
> >English vernacular =A0;)...
>
> What gave him away in the most significant sense were IP addresses and
> similar "footprints".
>
> >In English you were being 'sent-up', what is the American word?
>
> That Phil has to ask such a question renders preposterous his claims
> of being qualified to judge what might be "faultless American English
> vernacular".
A native born American would never ever be able to always speak in
"faultless American English vernacular" over that many messages.
Henry Higgins would agree with me.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2008 15:20:40
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"Javert" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d0ec67cc-5f90-44f3-9453-5881edea50b5@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 3, 5:04 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:02:02 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >A little exploration into the actual evidence we all have before us might
> >be
> >revealing, especially to chess players about the /pattern/ used by the
> >FSS,
> >in particular his diction, which given some 2,500 instances, is much like
> >a
> >finger-print.
>
> What credentials can you present that we should trust your expertise
> to evaluate these linguistic "finger-prints"?
>
> >When I have written this before, others, Bauer-like, have
> >denied it is even possible to distinguish if it seemed to them to be the
> >work of a native American speaker - in fact, they did not only not answer
> >for themselves, they shooed the issue away saying others couldn't tell
> >either.
> >Whoever the FSS may be, he kept his expressions short,
>
> Which one might do if that person were *not* a native American speaker
> and trying to make sure it didn't show. On the other hand, it's not
> hard to believe many folks in the US for twenty years could master
> various American idioms and write short sentences like a native. Even
> though Phil has a hard time with it, someone younger and more
> flexible....
>
> >and was surely
> >conscious that the sort of factor I here describe might subsequently give
> >him away. What gave him away in another sense is the faultless American
> >English vernacular ;)...
>
> What gave him away in the most significant sense were IP addresses and
> similar "footprints".
>
> >In English you were being 'sent-up', what is the American word?
>
> That Phil has to ask such a question renders preposterous his claims
> of being qualified to judge what might be "faultless American English
> vernacular".
A native born American would never ever be able to always speak in
"faultless American English vernacular" over that many messages.
**An interesting proposition, though metaphysical, with omnipotent voice as
if from God, but somewhat theoretical! Whereas what is in everyone's face
are the facts: Where are the flaws in the FSS's US English diction?
Henry Higgins would agree with me.
**Mario Pei would not. Though how /very/ strange to quote a fictional
character in support of an imposture!
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 14:13:04
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
WHAT CRIME?
Dear Brian,
In addition to anything else that might come down the pike,
isn't this form of identity theft also punishable by law?
Brian Lafferty wrote:
> none wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 2:43 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Deadrat wrote:
> >>> Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> news:nFzvk.503$Wd.368@trnddc01:
> >>>> Judd for the Defense wrote:
> >>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:b7138320-e519-47e3-9e83-b0406c7761dd@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> I believe that is a crime. Do you agree?
> >>>>> =======================
> >>>>> What crime do you believe it to be?
> >>>> Depending on the overall purpose, it may be wire fraud.
> >>> Anybody lose any money?
> >> you don't have to be successful at the fraud to be convicted.
> >>
> >> Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to
> >> defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or
> >> fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes
> >> to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication
> >> in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals,
> >> pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or
> >> artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20
> >> years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such
> >> person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more
> >> than 30 years, or both.http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_0000...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Because of
> >>>> its anonymous nature,
> >>> I doubt "its anonymous nature" has anything to do with it.
> >> Oh, but it does.
> >>
> >> (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device,
> >> whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing
> >> his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any
> >> person at the called number or who receives the communications;http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sup_01_47.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> tt also constitutes internet harassment which
> >>>> has been made a federal crime only recently.
> >>> No, it hasn't. There's been an indictment based on violation of a TOS that
> >>> the feds claim constitutes hacking.
> >> Really?! Please tell us where which Grand Jury issued this indictment
> >> and who it was issued against.- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > My understanding is that fraud is extemely difficult to prove.
> >
> > SHS
> >
> That's exactly what folks sitting in prison on wire fraud thought too.
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 06:26:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 3, 8:34=A0am, "McGyver" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:64bc8b95-5d25-42fc-a43a-c47ddf9ba7cc@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
> > arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
> > "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> > However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
> > well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
> > of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
> > often did, is not satire.
>
> > I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
> > "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> All speech in the United States is constitutionally protected to some
> extent. =A0The speech you described is constitutionally protected to the
> extent that a law making such speech a crime would not be valid and the
> speaker could not be properly convicted under any such law. =A0The descri=
bed
> speech is not constitutionally protected from a defamation lawsuit under =
the
> rules applicable as satire.
>
> This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
> here: =A0http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com. =A0And I am not your atto=
rney.
>
> McGyver
Thank you.
However, the issue in this case is that when the "Fake Sam Sloan"
called a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and called a well known
scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history of molesting
young boys at chess tournaments, he signed my name, Sam Sloan, to the
postings.
I believe that is a crime. Do you agree?
Another issue is that when The Fake Sam Sloan made defamatory
statements about Hanna Itkis and Laura Ross quoted above, they were
both 17 years old and thus legally children. (Both are now 19). Do you
think that is a crime and actionable?
I know for a fact that some of the people attacked by the Fake Sam
Sloan still believe that I made the postings.
The Real Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 13:33:42
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b7138320-e519-47e3-9e83-b0406c7761dd@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I believe that is a crime. Do you agree?
=======================
What crime do you believe it to be?
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 17:18:11
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
Judd for the Defense wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:b7138320-e519-47e3-9e83-b0406c7761dd@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I believe that is a crime. Do you agree?
>
> =======================
>
> What crime do you believe it to be?
>
>
>
Depending on the overall purpose, it may be wire fraud. Because of its
anonymous nature, tt also constitutes internet harassment which has been
made a federal crime only recently.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 17:40:47
From: Deadrat
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote in
news:nFzvk.503$Wd.368@trnddc01:
> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:b7138320-e519-47e3-9e83-b0406c7761dd@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>> ...
>>
>>
>> I believe that is a crime. Do you agree?
>>
>> =======================
>>
>> What crime do you believe it to be?
>>
>>
>>
> Depending on the overall purpose, it may be wire fraud.
Anybody lose any money?
> Because of
> its anonymous nature,
I doubt "its anonymous nature" has anything to do with it.
> tt also constitutes internet harassment which
> has been made a federal crime only recently.
No, it hasn't. There's been an indictment based on violation of a TOS that
the feds claim constitutes hacking.
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 12:34:19
From: McGyver
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:64bc8b95-5d25-42fc-a43a-c47ddf9ba7cc@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
> arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
> well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
> of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
> often did, is not satire.
>
> I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
All speech in the United States is constitutionally protected to some
extent. The speech you described is constitutionally protected to the
extent that a law making such speech a crime would not be valid and the
speaker could not be properly convicted under any such law. The described
speech is not constitutionally protected from a defamation lawsuit under the
rules applicable as satire.
This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
here: http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com . And I am not your attorney.
McGyver
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 00:04:41
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
[quote="redman"]I thank Donna for letting me know that I am mentioned
by the Fake Sam Sloan. It still doesn't provoke my curiosity to read
further. I am currently rereading what was, in my view, the greatest
journal of the 20th century, at least in English, The New Age. It can
be found in pdf form at http://www.modjourn.org
Reviewing some of the posts here, what struck me this time was Randy
Bauer's statement that if he presented you with 10 postings by the
real Sam Sloan and 10 by the fake Sam Sloan, you would be hard pressed
to tell the difference. I have no reason to doubt Randy's judgment.
At the same time, I would argue that his assertion confirms my
statement that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan might constitute
parody, which is a subset of satire, but not the same thing.
Parody is either a humorous imitation or a poor and feeble imitation,
a travesty. It does have satirical intent. Satire is the use of
ridicule in exposing vice or folly.
If, as Randy Bauer suggests, one cannot tell the difference between
the real postings by Sam Sloan and the fake postings by the fake Sam
Sloan, I believe the latter fall clearly into the category of parody.
That is, after all, the point -- to produce something that is
congruent and at times indiscernible from the real, yet over time
identifiable as different and thus as parody.
Whether it is in good or execrable taste rather seems to me beyond the
point. I will grant, without reading it, that the community was
offended and it therefore was in bad taste.
Whether Mr. Truong committed misprision is another point entirely.
Cordially,
Tim Redman[/quote]
Tim Redman gets himself into even more trouble by writing about a
subject which he admits he knows nothing about.
The reason it was often difficult to tell the difference between the
postings by the Fake Sam Sloan and the real Sam Sloan (me) is that
one technique that the Fake Sam Sloan often used was to copy something
I actually wrote and then to modify it by adding an obscenity or a
personal attack or two or a reference to the sexual preferences to one
of the targets of the Fake Sam Sloan. For example, according if the
postings by the Fake Sam Sloan, I had relations with virtually every
top female chess player in the country, except for Polgar (the only
one whom I really did have relations with).
In order to tell the difference between the postings by the Fake Sam
Sloan and the Real Sam Sloan one would have to know that I never use
obscenities and the Fake Sam Sloan often does, I never make light of
the sexual preferences of anybody and the Fake Sam Sloan often does,
and I never call people names and the Fake Sam Sloan often did. Also,
one would have to know the email address that I post from, which are
[email protected] and [email protected] whereas the Fake Sam Sloan
never posted from those addresses but posted from a variety of others
including [email protected] and [email protected] and
[email protected] and, as "Ray Gordon", from [email protected]
It is interesting that earlier today Tim Redman claimed that he had
never used the word "satire" to describe the postings by the Fake Sam
Sloan, but now above he uses exactly that word.
I am below providing some more typical postings by The Fake Sam Sloan.
I am interested to know how funny Dr. Redman thinks the targets of
these "satirical" postings finds them to be. All of these postings are
proven to have been written by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. None of
them are by me. We should find Dr. Redman rolling on the floor with
laughter after he reads these satirical postings. Remember that these
are just a few examples from the hundreds of postings like this by
Polgar and Truong.
Sam Sloan
Article: 302304
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: My chess goal
Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700
I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
goal is to fuck every female player rated over 2200.
Sam Sloan
Article: 300715
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Shahade, Ross & Itkis
Date: 1 Sep 2006 08:08:41 -0700
I'll make a motion to use Jennifer Shahade, Laura Ross and Hana Itkis
in bikinis to promote scholastic chess. They're girls with very nice
racks. The boys will certainly love this idea and the girls will want
to be famous like them. This is the best way to raise scholastic
memberships.
Sam Sloan
Article: 289807
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Kosteniuk to appear in the May issue of Penthouse
Date: 5 Apr 2006 01:03:51 -0700
Congratulations to Mrs. Kosteniuk! Both Manakova and Kosteniuk have
publicly stated that they very much enjoy giving heads. They said they
like the attention they get from men when they perform oral sex. When
asked if they spit or swallow, they prefer the second one. We also
have Jennifer Shahade stating that she lusts for her female and male
opponents in threesome arrangements. Who wants to be first in line to
test these theories?
Sam Sloan
Article: 289758
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: chess bitch
Date: 4 Apr 2006 05:23:23 -0700
It's a must buy. Lesbians who love to give blowjobs. Shahade,
Kosteniuk and Manakova make a formidable team. It can't be any better.
Sam Sloan
Article: 289751
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: chess bitch
Date: 4 Apr 2006 00:44:27 -0700
I must say that Jennifer Shahade has the nicest pair of tits in
chess.Too bad she's a lesbian. I wouldn't mind converting here though.
Sam Sloan
Article: 289708
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Is Our Building in Crossville Insured against Tornado
Damage?
Date: 3 Apr 2006 08:48:13 -0700
I also hope that the USCF took out insurance coverage for Jennifer
Shahade's perky tits. They are national treasures.
Sam Sloan
Article: 289604
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: Who is the best role model for Chess?
Date: 2 Apr 2006 01:50:26 -0800
I want to see Kosteniuk pose naked in Hustler or Penthouse. That would
help popularize chess. Those perky little tits would do the trick.
Sam Sloan
Article: 287420
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Who has the biggest ...
Date: 5 Mar 2006 08:41:36 -0800
...boobs among women players? Marinello or Jennifer Shahade?
Who has the smallest boobs? Vicary or Kosteniuk?
Discuss among yourself.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 16:02:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [quote="redman"]I thank Donna for letting me know that I am mentioned
> by the Fake Sam Sloan. It still doesn't provoke my curiosity to read
> further. I am currently rereading what was, in my view, the greatest
> journal of the 20th century, at least in English, The New Age. It can
> be found in pdf form at http://www.modjourn.org
>
> Reviewing some of the posts here, what struck me this time was Randy
> Bauer's statement that if he presented you with 10 postings by the
> real Sam Sloan and 10 by the fake Sam Sloan, you would be hard pressed
> to tell the difference. I have no reason to doubt Randy's judgment.
Laugh! You have not reason or not motive?
Whereas people with whom I rarely agree on anything and who certainly never
allied on anything at all, such as John Hillery, have written the same thing
here as I did at the start; given all Sam Slaon's posts and all those of the
FSS, it /was/ possible to distinguish one from another, at least for those
who paid attention and are able to do so, and are honest enough to say so.
This is not to say that this type of impersonation is not in itself vile and
I personally challenged the FSS several times with language as direct as
that, but it was distinguishable to people accustomed to reading your
posts - and with just a little savvy on the current election after the first
episodes of vile posts, then their refutation as not from youself, all that
followed were massively suspicious, especially if you had no more wit than
to just look at the header address
I disagree with Larry Parr on this point, and that is a public difference
between us.
Otherwise there is another issue of people not used to your posts being
unable to distinguish them from the false Sloan, which is a fairer point.
They are unable to recognise charicature, lacking a model to distinguish the
FSs from the real Sloan.
What Randy Bauer professes /other/ people can do from a small and select
sample is best known to Randy Bauer himself. And why he should make this
exercise of his own judgement about what others understand a public matter,
is a further matter for comment!
> At the same time, I would argue that his assertion confirms my
> statement that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan might constitute
> parody, which is a subset of satire, but not the same thing.
They are indeed parodic, and of a certain style of parody, and whoa! I am
glad that someone has woken up to possibility of non-imitiation, but parodic
over-the-top lampooning of Sam Sloan.
A little exploration into the actual evidence we all have before us might be
revealing, especially to chess players about the /pattern/ used by the FSS,
in particular his diction, which given some 2,500 instances, is much like a
finger-print. When I have written this before, others, Bauer-like, have
denied it is even possible to distinguish if it seemed to them to be the
work of a native American speaker - in fact, they did not only not answer
for themselves, they shooed the issue away saying others couldn't tell
either.
Whoever the FSS may be, he kept his expressions short, and was surely
conscious that the sort of factor I here describe might subsequently give
him away. What gave him away in another sense is the faultless American
English vernacular ;) But the FSS can only achieve so much with such a
hectic schedule of abuse.
> Parody is either a humorous imitation or a poor and feeble imitation,
> a travesty. It does have satirical intent. Satire is the use of
> ridicule in exposing vice or folly.
In English you were being 'sent-up', what is the American word?
> If, as Randy Bauer suggests, one cannot tell the difference between
> the real postings by Sam Sloan and the fake postings by the fake Sam
> Sloan,
If Randy Bauer suggests 'one' cannot, who is that one? Himself?
Several other people writing here have said they can tell - so if Randy
Bauer says for unknown reasons 'one' cannot, what can that mean in terms of
his need to say others can't distinguish? Why would he say that?
> I believe the latter fall clearly into the category of parody.
> That is, after all, the point -- to produce something that is
> congruent and at times indiscernible from the real, yet over time
> identifiable as different and thus as parody.
>
> Whether it is in good or execrable taste rather seems to me beyond the
> point. I will grant, without reading it, that the community was
> offended and it therefore was in bad taste.
>
> Whether Mr. Truong committed misprision is another point entirely.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Tim Redman[/quote]
>
> Tim Redman gets himself into even more trouble by writing about a
> subject which he admits he knows nothing about.
I know Tim Redman, and would credit him for knowing a few things about the
abstrucities of writing and about chess politics, and other sorts of
politics. Sam Sloan is spinning away some new web of intrigue which, to make
just one selection from what follows:
> It is interesting that earlier today Tim Redman claimed that he had
> never used the word "satire" to describe the postings by the Fake Sam
> Sloan, but now above he uses exactly that word.
So Redman says he never previously used that specific word, but here he
does. This is important to Sam Sloan - he wishes to repress the idea, like
Bauer, that anyone could tell the difference, hence it would be
impersonation proper.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> The reason it was often difficult to tell the difference between the
> postings by the Fake Sam Sloan and the real Sam Sloan (me) is that
> one technique that the Fake Sam Sloan often used was to copy something
> I actually wrote and then to modify it by adding an obscenity or a
> personal attack or two or a reference to the sexual preferences to one
> of the targets of the Fake Sam Sloan. For example, according if the
> postings by the Fake Sam Sloan, I had relations with virtually every
> top female chess player in the country, except for Polgar (the only
> one whom I really did have relations with).
>
> In order to tell the difference between the postings by the Fake Sam
> Sloan and the Real Sam Sloan one would have to know that I never use
> obscenities and the Fake Sam Sloan often does, I never make light of
> the sexual preferences of anybody and the Fake Sam Sloan often does,
> and I never call people names and the Fake Sam Sloan often did. Also,
> one would have to know the email address that I post from, which are
> [email protected] and [email protected] whereas the Fake Sam Sloan
> never posted from those addresses but posted from a variety of others
> including [email protected] and [email protected] and
> [email protected] and, as "Ray Gordon", from [email protected]
>
> It is interesting that earlier today Tim Redman claimed that he had
> never used the word "satire" to describe the postings by the Fake Sam
> Sloan, but now above he uses exactly that word.
>
> I am below providing some more typical postings by The Fake Sam Sloan.
> I am interested to know how funny Dr. Redman thinks the targets of
> these "satirical" postings finds them to be. All of these postings are
> proven to have been written by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. None of
> them are by me. We should find Dr. Redman rolling on the floor with
> laughter after he reads these satirical postings. Remember that these
> are just a few examples from the hundreds of postings like this by
> Polgar and Truong.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> Article: 302304
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: My chess goal
> Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700
>
> I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
> Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
> goal is to fuck every female player rated over 2200.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 300715
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Shahade, Ross & Itkis
> Date: 1 Sep 2006 08:08:41 -0700
>
> I'll make a motion to use Jennifer Shahade, Laura Ross and Hana Itkis
> in bikinis to promote scholastic chess. They're girls with very nice
> racks. The boys will certainly love this idea and the girls will want
> to be famous like them. This is the best way to raise scholastic
> memberships.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 289807
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
> Subject: Kosteniuk to appear in the May issue of Penthouse
> Date: 5 Apr 2006 01:03:51 -0700
>
> Congratulations to Mrs. Kosteniuk! Both Manakova and Kosteniuk have
> publicly stated that they very much enjoy giving heads. They said they
> like the attention they get from men when they perform oral sex. When
> asked if they spit or swallow, they prefer the second one. We also
> have Jennifer Shahade stating that she lusts for her female and male
> opponents in threesome arrangements. Who wants to be first in line to
> test these theories?
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
>
> Article: 289758
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: chess bitch
> Date: 4 Apr 2006 05:23:23 -0700
>
> It's a must buy. Lesbians who love to give blowjobs. Shahade,
> Kosteniuk and Manakova make a formidable team. It can't be any better.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 289751
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: chess bitch
> Date: 4 Apr 2006 00:44:27 -0700
>
> I must say that Jennifer Shahade has the nicest pair of tits in
> chess.Too bad she's a lesbian. I wouldn't mind converting here though.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 289708
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
> Subject: Re: Is Our Building in Crossville Insured against Tornado
> Damage?
> Date: 3 Apr 2006 08:48:13 -0700
>
> I also hope that the USCF took out insurance coverage for Jennifer
> Shahade's perky tits. They are national treasures.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
>
> Article: 289604
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: Who is the best role model for Chess?
> Date: 2 Apr 2006 01:50:26 -0800
>
> I want to see Kosteniuk pose naked in Hustler or Penthouse. That would
> help popularize chess. Those perky little tits would do the trick.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 287420
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Who has the biggest ...
> Date: 5 Mar 2006 08:41:36 -0800
>
> ...boobs among women players? Marinello or Jennifer Shahade?
>
> Who has the smallest boobs? Vicary or Kosteniuk?
>
> Discuss among yourself.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 07:49:10
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
On Sep 8, 6:38=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:18 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Quibbling
> >Looking
> >> about
> >at
> >> the text of the FSS posts would be to enter into your
> >> world of fantasy expertise, Phil.
>
> >And there we have it. Looking is fantasy says Mike Murray.
>
> Hmmm. =A0You're well known on this group as one who is intellectually
> dishonest, Phil, =A0as well as for being a fool, but this takes the
> cake. =A0I say "quibbling", you substitute =A0"looking" and then take
> issue with it. =A0
>
> >Not only is
> >fantasy, but a 'fantasy experience' as though Mike describes those who l=
ook
> >at things as prefering a 'life-style'. In this respect, we must honor hi=
s
> >observation, no?
>
> "Life-style"?? =A0Where did that word come from. =A0Phil, I'm not your
> boy.
>
> Jeez, Phil, I don't care if you want to argue with yourself -- I mean
> you've done it before on this forum and provided comic relief for one
> and all, but when you substitute your words for mine and then argue
> with the substitute words.... =A0I mean, =A0keep me out if it.
>
> As for "looking" at the text of the FSS posts, I've gone you one
> better, I've "read" them. =A0
>
> What I won't do is regard as meaningful your childish attempts at
> ANALYSING them for textual patterns to prove or disprove the FSS'
> identity.
>
> As I've said before, your arguments focus on facets easily faked. Come
> back if and when you have something better.
Well-said, Mike.
And even if there were some validity in P Innes' 'analysis', it's
flawed since he's admitted to Guy Macon that he didn't read ALL the
postings in question.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 14:21:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a9ced72d-e1db-462a-bdae-f909aff8ad60@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 6:38 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> As I've said before, your arguments focus on facets easily faked. Come
> back if and when you have something better.
Well-said, Mike.
And even if there were some validity in P Innes' 'analysis', it's
flawed since he's admitted to Guy Macon that he didn't read ALL the
postings in question.
**Okay, so we have 3 people who won't look at primary evidence - here
Brennen won't because I 'admitted' [lol] to someone else I did not read all
2,500 messages. Well-said indeed, Mike! Your commentary is drawing out
opinion to who needs 'analysis' and who has a clue. Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2008 17:13:22
From:
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
On Sep 8, 7:38=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:18 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Quibbling
> >Looking
> >> about
> >at
> >> the text of the FSS posts would be to enter into your
> >> world of fantasy expertise, Phil.
>
> >And there we have it. Looking is fantasy says Mike Murray.
>
> Hmmm. =A0You're well known on this group as one who is intellectually
> dishonest, Phil, =A0as well as for being a fool, but this takes the
> cake. =A0I say "quibbling", you substitute =A0"looking" and then take
> issue with it. =A0
>
> >Not only is
> >fantasy, but a 'fantasy experience' as though Mike describes those who l=
ook
> >at things as prefering a 'life-style'. In this respect, we must honor hi=
s
> >observation, no?
>
> "Life-style"?? =A0Where did that word come from. =A0Phil, I'm not your
> boy.
>
> Jeez, Phil, I don't care if you want to argue with yourself -- I mean
> you've done it before on this forum and provided comic relief for one
> and all, but when you substitute your words for mine and then argue
> with the substitute words.... =A0I mean, =A0keep me out if it.
>
> As for "looking" at the text of the FSS posts, I've gone you one
> better, I've "read" them. =A0
>
> What I won't do is regard as meaningful your childish attempts at
> ANALYSING them for textual patterns to prove or disprove the FSS'
> identity.
>
> As I've said before, your arguments focus on facets easily faked. Come
> back if and when you have something better.
Hear, hear!
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 08:55:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ea137fd6-f6b2-4104-8565-3ec359cb21f3@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 7:38 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> As I've said before, your arguments focus on facets easily faked. Come
> back if and when you have something better.
Hear, hear!
Taylor Kingston subscribes to not looking, which Murray says is 'quibbling'.
Naturally, 'your arguments' which go unanswered are so easily faked, say
Mike Murray, who has such credentials for saying so, he doesn't even need to
address the 'arguments'.
[argument = looking at text]
Instead we descend into neither clearly talking about whether you can
identify the FSS from the Sloan, nor if you can identify something about the
FSS.
Murray proposes my 'arguments' on (1) telling the FSS from the Sloan are -
for him alone - easily faked, and to justify this he has to invent a Sloan
who might use new addresses - then you can't tell, see?
Then Murray can't tell anything from the text, the swear words and generally
crass lubricious content. I can! Sloan is clearly marked after 10 years of
posting here of /not/ writing that way.
Taylor Kingston goes on the record of saying he can't tell anything either,
whatever the either is.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 14:04:59
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:02:02 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>A little exploration into the actual evidence we all have before us might be
>revealing, especially to chess players about the /pattern/ used by the FSS,
>in particular his diction, which given some 2,500 instances, is much like a
>finger-print.
What credentials can you present that we should trust your expertise
to evaluate these linguistic "finger-prints"?
>When I have written this before, others, Bauer-like, have
>denied it is even possible to distinguish if it seemed to them to be the
>work of a native American speaker - in fact, they did not only not answer
>for themselves, they shooed the issue away saying others couldn't tell
>either.
>Whoever the FSS may be, he kept his expressions short,
Which one might do if that person were *not* a native American speaker
and trying to make sure it didn't show. On the other hand, it's not
hard to believe many folks in the US for twenty years could master
various American idioms and write short sentences like a native. Even
though Phil has a hard time with it, someone younger and more
flexible....
>and was surely
>conscious that the sort of factor I here describe might subsequently give
>him away. What gave him away in another sense is the faultless American
>English vernacular ;)...
What gave him away in the most significant sense were IP addresses and
similar "footprints".
>In English you were being 'sent-up', what is the American word?
That Phil has to ask such a question renders preposterous his claims
of being qualified to judge what might be "faultless American English
vernacular".
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 19:14:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:02:02 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>A little exploration into the actual evidence we all have before us might
>>be
>>revealing, especially to chess players about the /pattern/ used by the
>>FSS,
>>in particular his diction, which given some 2,500 instances, is much like
>>a
>>finger-print.
>
> What credentials can you present that we should trust your expertise
> to evaluate these linguistic "finger-prints"?
Credentials? What would constitute credentials? Has anyone with, in your
opinion, 'credentials', looked at the FSS material yet? Yet that is prima
facia evidence.
What credentials do you Murray need to have in order to look at the header
and immediately decide if its false? Tell me. Maybe you are not very braight
but others are, and constantly referred to the FSS as being the FSS solely
for that reason! Did you never note it?
What credentials would Mike Murray need to determine if the swear-words are
from the swearless Sloan? Tell us Mike. Tell us about the credential you
would need? Come on - what in your opinion would need credentials to
distinguish that? And tell us, since you are in jeopardy of seeming like you
want to bury this issue - and I wonder why?
What level of imbecility would you need to relapse into not noticing the
entirely over the top nature of these posts? So that not even an ego-maniac
like Sloan could use such public presentations to further his cause? Come on
Mike, tell us if you want someone with credentials to tell you about this.
And these are merely the crudest levels of evaluation, which those without
credentials identified here in public the whole time.
What are your credentials for /not/ noticing? You need some? What is your
excuse?
>>When I have written this before, others, Bauer-like, have
>>denied it is even possible to distinguish if it seemed to them to be the
>>work of a native American speaker - in fact, they did not only not answer
>>for themselves, they shooed the issue away saying others couldn't tell
>>either.
>
>>Whoever the FSS may be, he kept his expressions short,
>
> Which one might do if that person were *not* a native American speaker
> and trying to make sure it didn't show.
Yeah sure, /you/ might! But as well as...?
> On the other hand, it's not
> hard to believe many folks in the US for twenty years could master
> various American idioms and write short sentences like a native.
**Except of course if you knew the person, regularly read his writing,
normally and under stress, and thought it nigh on impossible to bring it
perfectly off 2,500 times! more than on the SP blog! without evident error,
would you think this was so possible when OTOH it seems like this very
careful emulation of a native speaker was not matched by any care over the
trail he left? An inconsistency? One the size of the Grand Canyon?
> Even
> though Phil has a hard time with it, someone younger and more
> flexible....
But Mike Murray does /not/ speculate nearly enough! He simply adds an
implausible context of masterfully disguising ESL and ignores the primary
issue that the FSS 'disguised' it so perfectly! it could have been a native
speaker - a subject that he does not devote a single sentence to.
Two-thousand Five-Hundred Times. Not worth a mention by Mike Murray!
I wonder if Mike Murray who dismissed 36 other objections thinks he is
apearing as entirely honest here? Is he only intending to rubbish yet
another thing, which others /could/ identify, but which he skirts entirely?
The answer to that is yes he is. Why he does he can't say. In fact he can't
say anything at all except that he is convinced.
Honest Mike won't even look at the main evidence we all have to look at
since it is public, not discovered, and directly in its author's words. He
won't look at that. He has to revert to speculation, rather than say his own
judgement of what is before him.
>>and was surely
>>conscious that the sort of factor I here describe might subsequently give
>>him away. What gave him away in another sense is the faultless American
>>English vernacular ;)...
>
> What gave him away in the most significant sense were IP addresses and
> similar "footprints".
Find, Replace. Database 101. Who could have done that? How come this topic
too is taboo? :)
>>In English you were being 'sent-up', what is the American word?
>
> That Phil has to ask such a question renders preposterous his claims
> of being qualified to judge what might be "faultless American English
> vernacular".
In other words, Mike will not answer for what the American word for 'send
up' or 'lampoon is' since his pathetic excuse is that /I/ don't know if
there is any difference at all between English idiom and American English,
therefore what I say doesn't exist!
Mike Murray is marked by all his posts on this subject as being biased to
one prescriptive result, not that he is untypical in doing so, but that he
publicly ignores offers to look at publicly available material, preferring
to speculate instead of looking, is similarly symptomatic of a need to
prosecute an offence, rather than look too hard at who is being strung up.
;)
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 08:56:23
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
On Sep 9, 10:07=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 07:26:51 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >While dismissing his own ability to comment on the text citing lack of
> >credentials, he apparently does not lack credentials to say who /can/ lo=
ok
> >at the text. He does not explain this rather paradoxical view of his own=
,
>
> One doesn't need to know the way out to know that one is lost.
> To paraphrase an old Greek, "I know only the fact of your own
> ignorance". =A0
>
> >nor even why he feels credentials are necessary at all.
>
> BZZZZT. =A0Wrong. =A0Explained this many times. =A0The kind of pattern
> matching that might be relevant is very sophisticated.
>
> And while one doesn't really need personal credentials if one has
> access to the right tools and expertise, you've so far presented
> nothing but your own childish armchair "analysis".
P Innes' analysis, in practice, boils down to 'whoever is arguing with
P Innes at a given moment is a suspected author of the FSS postings.'
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 15:47:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 9, 10:07 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 07:26:51 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >While dismissing his own ability to comment on the text citing lack of
> >credentials, he apparently does not lack credentials to say who /can/
> >look
> >at the text. He does not explain this rather paradoxical view of his own,
>
> One doesn't need to know the way out to know that one is lost.
> To paraphrase an old Greek, "I know only the fact of your own
> ignorance".
>
> >nor even why he feels credentials are necessary at all.
>
> BZZZZT. Wrong. Explained this many times. The kind of pattern
> matching that might be relevant is very sophisticated.
>
> And while one doesn't really need personal credentials if one has
> access to the right tools and expertise, you've so far presented
> nothing but your own childish armchair "analysis".
P Innes' analysis, in practice, boils down to 'whoever is arguing with
P Innes at a given moment is a suspected author of the FSS postings.'
**Says Neil Brennen. I am curious why looking at available direct evidence
is 'an argument', and 2 main proponents of not looking castigate those who
have looked.
**Of course, Brennen's own posts, and only his, were followed in this very
newsgroup by a foul mouthed anon, of which he has never offered an
explanation for a proto-FSS, as such. Instead he /must/ write about those
who do attend to what is before them to put them down - as if by his protest
he means it could not possibly be him? Though, Neil Brennen has a posting
history of stalking others, playing with people's names and so on. Once
again, Watchers, please make a note of this 'nothing'-response.
**Its as if Brennen and Murray, both Amercians, can't tell if 2,500 texts
are written in flawless American idiom. Its as if they can't tell by the
posting address. Its as if they can't tell by the content. They can tell
nothing, it seems, and this is the basis of their opinion of others too.
**Can't? or won't go there?
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 17:35:42
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:14:35 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> What credentials can you present that we should trust your expertise
>> to evaluate these linguistic "finger-prints"?
>Credentials? What would constitute credentials?
Something more than your asking me for mine. So, your answer is that
you have no credentials beyond strong opinions. I suspected as much.
>Has anyone with, in your
>opinion, 'credentials', looked at the FSS material yet?
Yes, Phil, have you been on Mars or some alternate universe? Two
credentialed experts have looked at the FSS material and published
their findings. Are you missing a link? Are you the missing link?
>Yet that is prima facia evidence.
>What credentials do you Murray need to have in order to look at the header
>and immediately decide if its false? Tell me.
Credentials? For that, one needs some experience and familiarity with
which of the several e-mail addresses might be valid for the RSS. And
when the content of the posts gets aggregated by various websites, the
headers often disappear.
>Maybe you are not very braight
>but others are, and constantly referred to the FSS as being the FSS solely
>for that reason! Did you never note it?
>What credentials would Mike Murray need to determine if the swear-words are
>from the swearless Sloan? Tell us Mike. Tell us about the credential you
>would need? Come on - what in your opinion would need credentials to
>distinguish that?
So the posts that don't involve swearing are not fake? Is that what
you are claiming? So, if Sam ever wants to do a turn-about and fake
somebody, just add a curse or two and he's in the clear, huh?
>And tell us, since you are in jeopardy of seeming like you
>want to bury this issue - and I wonder why?
Oh, no. This issue won't be buried no matter how much BS you and
your fellow apologists dump on it.
>What level of imbecility would you need to relapse into not noticing the
>entirely over the top nature of these posts? So that not even an ego-maniac
>like Sloan could use such public presentations to further his cause? Come on
>Mike, tell us if you want someone with credentials to tell you about this.
>And these are merely the crudest levels of evaluation, which those without
>credentials identified here in public the whole time.
True, these are "the crudest levels of evaluation", which anybody
could fake at will. To come up with more meaningful textual
evaluation would require credentials and resources which we both lack.
>What are your credentials for /not/ noticing?
A healthy level of skepticism and common sense.
> On the other hand, it's not
>> hard to believe many folks in the US for twenty years could master
>> various American idioms and write short sentences like a native.
>**Except of course if you knew the person, regularly read his writing,
>normally and under stress, and thought it nigh on impossible to bring it
>perfectly off 2,500 times! more than on the SP blog! without evident error,
>would you think this was so possible when OTOH it seems like this very
>careful emulation of a native speaker was not matched by any care over the
>trail he left? An inconsistency? One the size of the Grand Canyon?
So, your private and personal evaluation constitutes proof? Sorry,
Phil, not with your track record.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2008 15:57:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:14:35 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> What credentials can you present that we should trust your expertise
>>> to evaluate these linguistic "finger-prints"?
>
>>Credentials? What would constitute credentials?
>
> Something more than your asking me for mine.
**So say /what/ more. What credens do you possess to challenge what you
cannot say?
> So, your answer is that
> you have no credentials beyond strong opinions. I suspected as much.
**Not what I wrote! I wrote that your comprehension is as dull on the FSS as
it is in understanding 'credentials'.
Because Mike Murray has no need of anything whatever [36 objections isn't
it? to which he argues nothing] to make his accusations, then what we are
doing here is assessing Mike Murray's ability or will to discuss anything.
As far as I can see, he has no need to do so - he can even dismiss the only
direct evidence of the identity of the FSS, as if he, Mike Murray, has not
wit! No opinion. Will not go there - and [ROFL] when others point out the
consistancy of the US diction used by the FSS, Murray's sole response is to
ask them how they can know... as if he had no ability himself to discern
PRIMARY EVIDENCE.
Because, argues Murray, I do not attend to the issue, no one can! No one is
allowed to have an opinion. Then
farcially
the very person who won't look at what is in front of him - wants to know
how others can know? He is not content with 'looking' as any answer, and now
wants authorities and credentials.
I say this abandons the case entirely, and if Murray cannot look for himself
as an American and speak frankly about the FSS's diction, then attempts to
negate the subject by simply avoiding PRIMARY EVIDENCE are desperate
measures indeed!
Below Mike Murray choses to change the subject from content, to
meta-records, and that is enough for him to ask about missing links, etc,
the usual shit with which we understand his intellect is so fond of
reproducing.
JUST LOOK AT MURRAY'S DUMBTH!
>>Has anyone with, in your
>>opinion, 'credentials', looked at the FSS material yet?
>
> Yes, Phil, have you been on Mars or some alternate universe? Two
> credentialed experts have looked at the FSS material and published
> their findings. Are you missing a link? Are you the missing link?
Murray refers to experts who have /not/ reported on the content - but does
Murray indicate his little shift?
>>Yet that is prima facia evidence.
>
>>What credentials do you Murray need to have in order to look at the header
>>and immediately decide if its false? Tell me.
>
> Credentials? For that, one needs some experience and familiarity with
> which of the several e-mail addresses might be valid for the RSS. And
> when the content of the posts gets aggregated by various websites, the
> headers often disappear.
Murray denies what intelligent posters here said all along - by looking at
the header you could TELL by the address that it was not Sloan. Murray
denies in effect he ever noticed anyone wrote this, or that he could do so
himself.
>>Maybe you are not very braight
>>but others are, and constantly referred to the FSS as being the FSS solely
>>for that reason! Did you never note it?
>
>>What credentials would Mike Murray need to determine if the swear-words
>>are
>>from the swearless Sloan? Tell us Mike. Tell us about the credential you
>>would need? Come on - what in your opinion would need credentials to
>>distinguish that?
>
> So the posts that don't involve swearing are not fake? Is that what
> you are claiming?
A HUGE diversion to what Murray himself understood.
Murray does not even look at PRIMARY EVIDENCE, will not address that
subject, then invents something OTTO-LIKE - which I did not write or 'claim'
as he says. How come Murray's stupid understanding of a direct question put
to him about his own essential honesty in looking at what is in front of
everybody, can get magically transformed into what I never indicated 'I
claimed'?
What a dishonest poster we got here! What an avoider of things that other
people already reported on using nothing other than their wit, and not
requiring experts or more 'credentials' that their own intelligence. Murray
acts as if this never happened, with the result that he seems to have a
significantly different opinion than others.
But that is consistent, since he has trashed the opinion of all other
people, including those who could tell the FSS simply from the header!
> So, if Sam ever wants to do a turn-about and fake
> somebody, just add a curse or two and he's in the clear, huh?
huh?
>>And tell us, since you are in jeopardy of seeming like you
>>want to bury this issue - and I wonder why?
>
> Oh, no. This issue won't be buried no matter how much BS you and
> your fellow apologists dump on it.
I do not apologise for what is in front of us all. What you do Murray is not
look at that, and it is you who are the exception! :))
Above you DEMONSTRATE that you will not answer my question about looking at
evidence. Why you do so is not my business particularly, I just point out
that you have not done this from the start.
Murray can find no flaw in my statement which challenges him to assess the
FSS material as American English. He doesn't even PRETEND to look at the
material that way. ;)
>>What level of imbecility would you need to relapse into not noticing the
>>entirely over the top nature of these posts? So that not even an
>>ego-maniac
>>like Sloan could use such public presentations to further his cause? Come
>>on
>>Mike, tell us if you want someone with credentials to tell you about this.
>
>>And these are merely the crudest levels of evaluation, which those without
>>credentials identified here in public the whole time.
>
> True, these are "the crudest levels of evaluation", which anybody
> could fake at will. To come up with more meaningful textual
> evaluation would require credentials and resources which we both lack.
>
>>What are your credentials for /not/ noticing?
>
> A healthy level of skepticism and common sense.
No - once again your comprehension, so you pretend, is not so good in
English. I asked why YOU would not LOOK, you say you waon't look at evidence
'because' [ROFL!!!] you claim healthy sketicism...
When people conclude this for themselves, my job is done.
>> On the other hand, it's not
>>> hard to believe many folks in the US for twenty years could master
>>> various American idioms and write short sentences like a native.
>
>>**Except of course if you knew the person, regularly read his writing,
>>normally and under stress, and thought it nigh on impossible to bring it
>>perfectly off 2,500 times! more than on the SP blog! without evident
>>error,
>>would you think this was so possible when OTOH it seems like this very
>>careful emulation of a native speaker was not matched by any care over the
>>trail he left? An inconsistency? One the size of the Grand Canyon?
>
> So, your private and personal evaluation constitutes proof?
**No, please excuse my mention, but STUPID! I did not say that. It is your
miserable will to look at anything other than your bent which is on trial
here. Your paraphrase is so stupid, how can you expect to be taken seriously
on any subject to do with understanding other people?
> Sorry,
> Phil, not with your track record.
Well, coming from a one-issue poster, I would say your own track is pretty
established - anyone not agreeing with you is simply dissed. I have proved
here that you intend to /not/ look at available and primary evidence which
everyone else has also assessed, , and you are content to abuse those who
do. What should anyone care what you 'think', Murray?
I do not believe you to be stupid, thereby I accuse you of being not honest.
This is not a discussion at all - it is a demonstration of what a Mike
Murray will do. In these exchanges you are evasive to the same degree that
you are assertive, abusive and O so sure. pfft! About as weak a sense of
anything as may be had.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2008 14:32:29
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:57:00 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>> What credentials can you present that we should trust your expertise
>>>> to evaluate these linguistic "finger-prints"?
>>>Credentials? What would constitute credentials?
>> Something more than your asking me for mine.
>**So say /what/ more. What credens do you possess to challenge what you
>cannot say?
What's your experience and background with automated textual analysis
tools, such as Bayes engines and associated software?
Have you collected a large sample of documents known to be authored by
Truong and matched them against the body of suspected FSS material,
searching for usage, vocabulary and punctuation patterns unlikely to
be consciously manipulated by the author?
The stuff you've cited, such as the presence or absence of cursing, is
easily manipulated by a forger.
You prattle repeatedly about header information making it easy to
detect a forgery, pointedly ignoring the fact I pointed out:
aggregators often drop the some of the header information. Wanna bet
the FSS was aware of this?
But aside from this, you ignore the blatantly obvious fact that the
headers were designed to deceive -- they weren't all of the nature of
"[email protected] or [email protected] or some such thing.
They were stuff like [email protected] or [email protected]. One
could "tell" from the headers only if one had a list of the several
addys from which Sloan posted, and another list of the addys which Sam
had claimed were from the FSS. Without the list of fakes, a reader
might just believe Sam had added a new addy to his arsenal.
The headers, your ace in the hole, are really just more solid evidence
that the FSS was trying to appear the RSS.
The thing that convinces me you've been posting this nonsense not from
mere ignorance, but are actually propagandizing is your persistent
refusal to address the obvious:
THE FACT THAT SOMEONE OF SUFFICIENT BACKGROUND
CAN IDENTIFY A FAKE DOES NOT SIGNAL ABSENCE OF FORGERY.
Many months ago, I cited this analogy: a trained bank teller can spot
a counterfeit. That same counterfeit might fool a 7-11 clerk or work
in a vending machine. And while some artist might paint a saw-buck,
it's counterfeiting when he tries to spend it.
Sam doesn't curse but the FSS did? Well, first of all, the FSS
doesn't curse in every post, or even the majority of posts. Second,
the soccer-mom doing a bit of googling to check on the chess school
for her kid doesn't know this -- all she'll see is some foul mouthed
dreck under Sloan's name. And if the header is there, and she looks
at it, it will appear a reasonable header for Sam Sloan.
Who are you trying to kid with this stuff, Phil? The regulars here
know your history. You're not fooling anybody.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2008 08:23:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:57:00 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>>> What credentials can you present that we should trust your expertise
>>>>> to evaluate these linguistic "finger-prints"?
>
>>>>Credentials? What would constitute credentials?
>
>>> Something more than your asking me for mine.
>
>>**So say /what/ more. What credens do you possess to challenge what you
>>cannot say?
>
> What's your experience and background with automated textual analysis
> tools, such as Bayes engines and associated software?
So lets stop pretending this is a discussion Mike Murray. You have strong
opinions, yet keep ducking the issue about /your/ own attention to the
topic. Instead you challenge other people. But that doesn't constitute any
sort of discussion if you won't look yourself - and talking about
'crdentials' and so on may or may not be necessary. I don't think readers in
these newsgroup had trouble figuring out the real from the false Sloan for
reasons I have already stated.
To go deeper into the issue may be necessary to determine the nature or
character of the FSS - but that is distinct from seperating FSS posts from
Sloan.
> Have you collected a large sample of documents known to be authored by
> Truong and matched them against the body of suspected FSS material,
> searching for usage, vocabulary and punctuation patterns unlikely to
> be consciously manipulated by the author?
Having dissed 36 items in your Monkey list - now YOU make my points for me!
:)))
You already declined to look at each and every one of those items, in fact,
mocking any attempt to look a little deeper, 12 months later here you are
apparently interested in raising those topics yourself.
Do you see how completely and utterly insincere you appear in asking for
reports of what you already dismissed.
> The stuff you've cited, such as the presence or absence of cursing, is
> easily manipulated by a forger.
Is that YOUR experience as a forger? You challenge other people for their
credentials, and it seems fair enough to challenge your own! So... is it?
You also mix 2 elements of the puzzle indiscriminantly: telling the
difference between the FSS and the Sloan, and identifying the character of
the FSS by FSS text.
> You prattle repeatedly about header information making it easy to
> detect a forgery, pointedly ignoring the fact I pointed out:
> aggregators often drop the some of the header information. Wanna bet
> the FSS was aware of this?
Mike Murray continues in fantasy land completely ignoring what other people
in these newsgroups had no trouble doing by virtue of their pointing it out.
> But aside from this, you ignore the blatantly obvious fact that the
> headers were designed to deceive -- they weren't all of the nature of
> "[email protected] or [email protected] or some such thing.
> They were stuff like [email protected] or [email protected]. One
> could "tell" from the headers only if one had a list of the several
> addys from which Sloan posted, and another list of the addys which Sam
> had claimed were from the FSS. Without the list of fakes, a reader
> might just believe Sam had added a new addy to his arsenal.
"A reader"? Are you 'a reader'? But a reader who doesn't look at anything
other than the FSS material? You never noticed that other readers mocked
those falling for the FSS - telling them to wake up and look at the header.
You never noticed that, really?
That is very hard to believe.
Instead of that [ROFL] you now suggest the Sloan was creating new real
addresses for himself? To continue your idea: the Sloan then wrote swear
words or other indecencies in the subject line, and the same in the text -
yet you say this is all plausible to you?
Its as if you asserted that the Sloan began to emulate the FSS.
The only people that Mike Murray talks about are (a) not himself and (b)
those not looking very closely at any level of what was before them, and who
(c) missed all the commentary by other regular posters here.
> The headers, your ace in the hole, are really just more solid evidence
> that the FSS was trying to appear the RSS.
Since you can't say what you think, why do you think you can say what others
do? The headers are no aces, they are merely trumps in hand - and there are
many of those.
But if the most OBVIOUS signals are not even noticed, then Mike Murray will
have no need to confuse himself about just slighly more complicated
analysis.
> The thing that convinces me you've been posting this nonsense not from
> mere ignorance, but are actually propagandizing is your persistent
> refusal to address the obvious:
>
> THE FACT THAT SOMEONE OF SUFFICIENT BACKGROUND
> CAN IDENTIFY A FAKE DOES NOT SIGNAL ABSENCE OF FORGERY.
Let's just parse your effort which you bother to captalize as if of great
importance to you:
Is that an attempt to say that readers here [of 'sufficient' background,
whatever that means, since it seemed to include almost everyone]
can identify the FSS from the Sloan?
which you then link mysteriously to the peculiarly phrased "DOES NOT SIGNAL
ABSENCE OF FORGERY"
Which is incomprehensible when linked to the first half of the sentence.
> Many months ago, I cited this analogy: a trained bank teller can spot
> a counterfeit. That same counterfeit might fool a 7-11 clerk or work
> in a vending machine. And while some artist might paint a saw-buck,
> it's counterfeiting when he tries to spend it.
I suppose analogies are necessary at times - but who actually requires one
here other than Mike Murray himself, who appears in his own analogy as the
7-11 clerk, the rest of us being presumably the 'trained bank tellers'? Is
that it?
A minimum to telling false from true is to LOOK. I don't see Mike Murray
looking at anything at all. He [I must presume[ never looked at the headers,
nor noticed other posts which pointed that out. He notes the swear words are
un-Sloan like, but...
> Sam doesn't curse but the FSS did? Well, first of all, the FSS
> doesn't curse in every post, or even the majority of posts. Second,
...is presumably not fooled by the approximate 1/3 instances where there was
swearing or another third where there was not swearing but lubricious or
lewd suggestions. Mike Murray is therefore puzzled by the reamaining 1/3
instances,
> the soccer-mom doing a bit of googling to check on the chess school
> for her kid doesn't know this -- all she'll see is some foul mouthed
> dreck under Sloan's name.
**Of course, she never noticed anything else /but/ lewd and offensive
material by the FSS, not refutations by the Sloan nor by anyone else. She
certainly never read about the fact that there was an FSS and as everyone
knows, public newsgroups are places where only truth is presented after
stringent review by piers, moderators, and so on, so she believed what she
honed in on. She takes no other references to the chess school - public
newsgroup opinion is enough for her to part with her kids to otherwise
complete strangers
R
O
F
L
!
!
> And if the header is there, and she looks
> at it, it will appear a reasonable header for Sam Sloan.
>
> Who are you trying to kid with this stuff, Phil? The regulars here
> know your history. You're not fooling anybody.
I used to be a soccer mum! :)) A State soccer referee too.
You were never a soccer mom! You don't even act like a parent! And you want
to write about 'kidding'?
Your investigation technique continually suggests that other people are
intensely stupid, and that is the only reason they could possibly suffer any
ill-result - meanwhile you cannot directly answer for the basis of your own
opinion, when asked about it, you speculate on hypothetical and
psychologically implausible people, as in your soccer-mum analogy.
Other people have not needed analogies to understand things. No special
expertise. They just needed to use their native wit. Why you avoid that and
seek to repress it is your own very peculiar business ;)
As for regulars - you are mostly a one-issue poster showing up here at the
time of the FSS hoo-haa. Other 'regulars' showed up then too, and did pretty
much the same as you, and about as honestly.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2008 10:29:55
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 08:23:05 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> What's your experience and background with automated textual analysis
>> tools, such as Bayes engines and associated software?
>So lets stop pretending this is a discussion Mike Murray. You have strong
>opinions, yet keep ducking the issue about /your/ own attention to the
>topic. Instead you challenge other people. But that doesn't constitute any
>sort of discussion if you won't look yourself - and talking about
>'crdentials' and so on may or may not be necessary..
Quibbling about the text of the FSS posts would be to enter into your
world of fantasy expertise, Phil. The features of those posts to
which you've called our attention are easily faked, and you clearly
lack the background and experience to go deeper. Neither do I. Quit
pretending.
BTW, I was posting here on a variety of issues long before the FSS
reared his ugly head.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2008 17:59:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 08:23:05 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> What's your experience and background with automated textual analysis
>>> tools, such as Bayes engines and associated software?
>
>>So lets stop pretending this is a discussion Mike Murray. You have strong
>>opinions, yet keep ducking the issue about /your/ own attention to the
>>topic. Instead you challenge other people. But that doesn't constitute any
>>sort of discussion if you won't look yourself - and talking about
>>'crdentials' and so on may or may not be necessary..
>
> Quibbling
Looking
> about
at
> the text of the FSS posts would be to enter into your
> world of fantasy expertise, Phil.
And there we have it. Looking is fantasy says Mike Murray. Not only is
fantasy, but a 'fantasy experience' as though Mike describes those who look
at things as prefering a 'life-style'. In this respect, we must honor his
observation, no?
> The features of those posts to
> which you've called our attention are easily faked, and you clearly
> lack the background and experience to go deeper. Neither do I. Quit
> pretending.
Mike repeats that because he [cut obvious stuff to most people here] won't
look, can't tell thereby, that those who do are 'pretending'. ;)
> BTW, I was posting here on a variety of issues long before the FSS
> reared his ugly head.
O yeah? ;) 'a variety' of things.
In other words, Mike Murray cut the things which stung him which he can't
answer - which was 90% of my post. But he is prepared to present himself as
someone capable of interrogating the 'Fss thing'.
:))
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2008 16:38:18
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:18 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Quibbling
>Looking
>> about
>at
>> the text of the FSS posts would be to enter into your
>> world of fantasy expertise, Phil.
>
>And there we have it. Looking is fantasy says Mike Murray.
Hmmm. You're well known on this group as one who is intellectually
dishonest, Phil, as well as for being a fool, but this takes the
cake. I say "quibbling", you substitute "looking" and then take
issue with it.
>Not only is
>fantasy, but a 'fantasy experience' as though Mike describes those who look
>at things as prefering a 'life-style'. In this respect, we must honor his
>observation, no?
"Life-style"?? Where did that word come from. Phil, I'm not your
boy.
Jeez, Phil, I don't care if you want to argue with yourself -- I mean
you've done it before on this forum and provided comic relief for one
and all, but when you substitute your words for mine and then argue
with the substitute words.... I mean, keep me out if it.
As for "looking" at the text of the FSS posts, I've gone you one
better, I've "read" them.
What I won't do is regard as meaningful your childish attempts at
ANALYSING them for textual patterns to prove or disprove the FSS'
identity.
As I've said before, your arguments focus on facets easily faked. Come
back if and when you have something better.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 07:26:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:18 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> Quibbling
>
>>Looking
>
>>> about
>
>>at
>
>>> the text of the FSS posts would be to enter into your
>>> world of fantasy expertise, Phil.
>>
>>And there we have it. Looking is fantasy says Mike Murray.
>
> Hmmm. You're well known on this group as one who is intellectually
> dishonest, Phil, as well as for being a fool, but this takes the
> cake. I say "quibbling", you substitute "looking" and then take
> issue with it.
Since Mike Murray trashes everyone who doesn't agree withhis
characterization on this issue - lets see:-
I say 'looking' at the available evidence.
Mike Murray says this is 'quibbling'. Below he even quibbles himself, and
prefers reading to looking!
Furthermore, Murray does not admit what he saw when he looked. But he can't
say that directly! No!
While dismissing his own ability to comment on the text citing lack of
credentials, he apparently does not lack credentials to say who /can/ look
at the text. He does not explain this rather paradoxical view of his own,
nor even why he feels credentials are necessary at all.
Now Murray thinks I change /his/ word from quibbling to looking. Whereas I
said looking and HE changed looking to quibbling. But Mike Murray is sure
this is intellectually dishonest on my part.
Murray doesn't want to get into this looking business, because he senses a
weakness in himself!
Since any opinion he has is subject to verification by others who had the
same opportunity to look at the same material. Murray has already started to
diminish this approach by demanding 'credentials' of others.
Murray is so confident in his abilities to dismiss others - that he hardly
needs repeat their opinion, and as below makes it up for them.
I suppose lack of response to Murrays proposals here will seem to him to be
as if he argued something irrefutable. To me I see no substantive
conversations on this subject because Murray rubbishes both comment and
poster.
But I am not running off - I proved my point that Murray won't look directly
at the FSS material available here, and in his responses he CUT all
references to that, and himself DEMONSTRATED that he would not.
That's check and mate.
Phil Innes
>>Not only is
>>fantasy, but a 'fantasy experience' as though Mike describes those who
>>look
>>at things as prefering a 'life-style'. In this respect, we must honor his
>>observation, no?
>
> "Life-style"?? Where did that word come from. Phil, I'm not your
> boy.
>
> Jeez, Phil, I don't care if you want to argue with yourself -- I mean
> you've done it before on this forum and provided comic relief for one
> and all, but when you substitute your words for mine and then argue
> with the substitute words.... I mean, keep me out if it.
>
> As for "looking" at the text of the FSS posts, I've gone you one
> better, I've "read" them.
>
> What I won't do is regard as meaningful your childish attempts at
> ANALYSING them for textual patterns to prove or disprove the FSS'
> identity.
>
> As I've said before, your arguments focus on facets easily faked. Come
> back if and when you have something better.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 08:07:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 07:26:51 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>While dismissing his own ability to comment on the text citing lack of
>credentials, he apparently does not lack credentials to say who /can/ look
>at the text. He does not explain this rather paradoxical view of his own,
One doesn't need to know the way out to know that one is lost.
To paraphrase an old Greek, "I know only the fact of your own
ignorance".
>nor even why he feels credentials are necessary at all.
BZZZZT. Wrong. Explained this many times. The kind of pattern
matching that might be relevant is very sophisticated.
And while one doesn't really need personal credentials if one has
access to the right tools and expertise, you've so far presented
nothing but your own childish armchair "analysis".
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 14:36:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 07:26:51 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>While dismissing his own ability to comment on the text citing lack of
>>credentials, he apparently does not lack credentials to say who /can/ look
>>at the text. He does not explain this rather paradoxical view of his own,
>
> One doesn't need to know the way out to know that one is lost.
Actually Mike, is that an attempt to say your own point of view? As such,
and since you criticise 'intellectual' Phil, is your statement uttered while
completely sober? As a refutation [but of what?] its a beaut !!
"One doesn't need to know the way out to know that one is lost."
Look, if you are going to soar to that level of intellectual gravitas, I
think you should apply to Taylor Kingston and Neil Brennen for their
unstinting support, during these difficult times.
> To paraphrase an old Greek, "I know only the fact of your own
> ignorance".
You said your fantastic phrase to him to?
What I should like to know when you share your thoughts like this, is what
is going on for you as your type? Let's all look at your magnifent phrase
again:
"One doesn't need to know the way out to know that one is lost."
I suggest to you that you are reduced to that, an /inane/ sentence about
your own comprehension, and while this seems to be what you are capable of
as a leading intellectual here in chess.misc, requiring no credentials to
ask others for theirs, there is a problem with your statement which I will
not explain to you here since you may think me personally hostile, though
perhaps Taylor or Neil will oblige?
>>nor even why he feels credentials are necessary at all.
>
> BZZZZT. Wrong. Explained this many times. The kind of pattern
> matching that might be relevant is very sophisticated.
>
> And while one doesn't really need personal credentials if one has
> access to the right tools and expertise, you've so far presented
> nothing but your own childish armchair "analysis".
Let us not race until we can walk! Since after all, I am saying a child
/could/ decide if its the Sloan or the FSS by the header address, the
subject line too, and additionally a child could decide on the basis of the
cant troping language the message itself contains by contrasting that with
the real Sloan.
I am capable of more than that. But you are not, Mike. You are someone who
paraphrastically 'refutes' the idea of looking at the messages themselves
with
"One doesn't need to know the way out to know that one is lost."
Cordially, Phil is Greek!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 14:11:23
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:36:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> To paraphrase an old Greek, "I know only the fact of your own
>> ignorance".
>You said your fantastic phrase to him to?
I didn't have my Ouija board handy.
>as a leading intellectual here in chess.misc, requiring no credentials to
>ask others for theirs,
If one goes, say, to someone hanging out a shingle, calling himself
"Dr. Quack", does one need some special certification to ask said
Quack to verify his medical credentials?
>> And while one doesn't really need personal credentials if one has
>> access to the right tools and expertise, you've so far presented
>> nothing but your own childish armchair "analysis".
>Let us not race until we can walk!
Indeed, Phil, indeed! Return to us when you've mastered the baby
steps.
> Since after all, I am saying a child
>/could/ decide if its the Sloan or the FSS by the header address, the
>subject line too, and additionally a child could decide on the basis of the
>cant troping language the message itself contains by contrasting that with
>the real Sloan.
And, I'm simply saying you're a fool for saying that.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 09:14:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:36:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> To paraphrase an old Greek, "I know only the fact of your own
>>> ignorance".
>
>>You said your fantastic phrase to him to?
>
> I didn't have my Ouija board handy.
>
>>as a leading intellectual here in chess.misc, requiring no credentials to
>>ask others for theirs,
>
> If one goes, say, to someone hanging out a shingle, calling himself
> "Dr. Quack", does one need some special certification to ask said
> Quack to verify his medical credentials?
Mike Murray needs to go see Dr Quack to read newsgroup posts!
You see, Mike, you are not arguing with my point, you continue to make it
for me by demonstrating what you will look at, and what you assert is
special material needing some sort of expert commentary. How you can know
that without looking goes unexplained. When you do look you are
extraordinarily vague - as when you state that not half the FSS mateial
contains swear words or other offensive titling in the heading, eg. But
maybe 1/3 do?
I actually don't mind at all what conclusion you arrive at - but I do mind
the suggestion that primary evidence available to anyone reading here be
dismissed by yourself and others - and then those who did bother to take it
in, also dismissed.
Your own behavior is so peculiar in this respect that you have to resort to
inept analogy. Quite plainly you are being evasive since there is something
about this primary evidence you do not wish to admit.
>>> And while one doesn't really need personal credentials if one has
>>> access to the right tools and expertise, you've so far presented
>>> nothing but your own childish armchair "analysis".
>
>>Let us not race until we can walk!
>
> Indeed, Phil, indeed! Return to us when you've mastered the baby
> steps.
It takes no special skill to do what I suggest. YOU Murray suggests it
does - you are afraid of something that is or might be revealed, and so
rubbish others as if to squelch the inquiry. This disqualifies you as an
objective commentator or evaluator of anything.
>> Since after all, I am saying a child
>>/could/ decide if its the Sloan or the FSS by the header address, the
>>subject line too, and additionally a child could decide on the basis of
>>the
>>cant troping language the message itself contains by contrasting that with
>>the real Sloan.
>
> And, I'm simply saying you're a fool for saying that.
As I said, it game over! You demonstrate my point for me! You find excuses
not to look, but state no reasons, since to do so would void your
certainties, and render your own judgment questionable?
Having an open mind, or permitting uncertainties to exist in one's
evaluation, is not normally considered foolish, in fact most people would
credit that with applying their intelligence to a situation, and admitting
an uncertainty with being honest.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 10:00:26
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray's defence - won't look at primarly evidence!
|
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:14:47 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>You see, Mike, you are not arguing with my point, you continue to make it
>for me by demonstrating what you will look at, and what you assert is
>special material needing some sort of expert commentary. How you can know
>that without looking goes unexplained. When you do look you are
>extraordinarily vague - as when you state that not half the FSS mateial
>contains swear words or other offensive titling in the heading, eg. But
>maybe 1/3 do?
You use the word "look" multiple times, but you don't really mean
"look". You don't even mean "read", since it's pretty obvious over
the last 18 months or so that I've read most or all of the FSS posts.
What you really mean by saying I should "look" at the "evidence" is to
engage in the sort of primitive stylistic analysis (of the FSS vs RSS
posts) that you've been pushing here for some time, or at least to
engage in a dialog with you about your reasoning and conclusions.
You say "It takes no special skill to do what I suggest". And, I
suppose you might be right, in the sense that it would take no
"special skill" for two people who hadn't a clue to banter about
complex mathematical theorems or particle physics.
It's possible that usage patterns could be detected in the FSS posts
that, when compared to the RSS posts and Truong's other writings,
would yield useful clues about the FSS identity. But these wouldn't
be patterns that a reasonably clever forger could simply decide to
employ.
For example, software exists that will always beat humans at
Rock/Paper/Scissors, if the game goes on for any length of time. It
does this by detecting patterns that the human opponents use but of
which they aren't consciously aware.
Other software exists to analyze e-mails and predict with a fair level
of confidence whether the a-mail is spam. Pattern analysis plays a
significant part in this.
But all this isn't simple stuff. My knowledge of the subject isn't so
extensive that I would try to discuss it in a newsgroup. Nothing
you've posted indicates you have more to offer on the subject than
ignorant bluster.
>most people would
>credit that with applying their intelligence to a situation, and admitting
>an uncertainty with being honest.
Go back to Dirty Harry, Phil. After all, "a man's gotta know his
limitations."
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2008 01:11:26
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
Mike Murray wrote:
.
> So, your private and personal evaluation constitutes proof? Sorry,
> Phil, not with your track record.
Hi Mike..
You sound like some mid-level management whimp..
"not wih your track record" eu! "sorry" not wiv your history - cunt!..
Ha ha. What a wanker is our Mike..
He likes to portray himself as a sophisticate..
Ha ha..
I saw him ganging up on Nick (bourbaki) 'n funni'n him so he could'nt
understand..
So, he was driven away!..
Nik was nice to me. Held out an olive 'n palm leave as I remember..
But I put them on the sand 'n crushed 'em wiv my sandals = oil..
Nik was unhappy & left & became a high official in Zimbabwe & became
more unhappy..
Mike got good grades in pre-school. He's a real twerp if you don't
handle him well..
Ha ha ha..
t.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 11:30:55
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [quote="redman"]I thank Donna for letting me know that I am mentioned
> by the Fake Sam Sloan. It still doesn't provoke my curiosity to read
> further. I am currently rereading what was, in my view, the greatest
> journal of the 20th century, at least in English, The New Age. It can
> be found in pdf form at http://www.modjourn.org
>
> Reviewing some of the posts here, what struck me this time was Randy
> Bauer's statement that if he presented you with 10 postings by the
> real Sam Sloan and 10 by the fake Sam Sloan, you would be hard pressed
> to tell the difference. I have no reason to doubt Randy's judgment.
>
> At the same time, I would argue that his assertion confirms my
> statement that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan might constitute
> parody, which is a subset of satire, but not the same thing.
>
> Parody is either a humorous imitation or a poor and feeble imitation,
> a travesty. It does have satirical intent. Satire is the use of
> ridicule in exposing vice or folly.
>
> If, as Randy Bauer suggests, one cannot tell the difference between
> the real postings by Sam Sloan and the fake postings by the fake Sam
> Sloan, I believe the latter fall clearly into the category of parody.
> That is, after all, the point -- to produce something that is
> congruent and at times indiscernible from the real, yet over time
> identifiable as different and thus as parody.
>
> Whether it is in good or execrable taste rather seems to me beyond the
> point. I will grant, without reading it, that the community was
> offended and it therefore was in bad taste.
>
> Whether Mr. Truong committed misprision is another point entirely.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Tim Redman[/quote]
>
> Tim Redman gets himself into even more trouble by writing about a
> subject which he admits he knows nothing about.
>
> The reason it was often difficult to tell the difference between the
> postings by the Fake Sam Sloan and the real Sam Sloan (me) is that
> one technique that the Fake Sam Sloan often used was to copy something
> I actually wrote and then to modify it by adding an obscenity or a
> personal attack or two or a reference to the sexual preferences to one
> of the targets of the Fake Sam Sloan. For example, according if the
> postings by the Fake Sam Sloan, I had relations with virtually every
> top female chess player in the country, except for Polgar (the only
> one whom I really did have relations with).
>
> In order to tell the difference between the postings by the Fake Sam
> Sloan and the Real Sam Sloan one would have to know that I never use
> obscenities and the Fake Sam Sloan often does, I never make light of
> the sexual preferences of anybody and the Fake Sam Sloan often does,
> and I never call people names and the Fake Sam Sloan often did. Also,
> one would have to know the email address that I post from, which are
> [email protected] and [email protected] whereas the Fake Sam Sloan
> never posted from those addresses but posted from a variety of others
> including [email protected] and [email protected] and
> [email protected] and, as "Ray Gordon", from [email protected]
>
> It is interesting that earlier today Tim Redman claimed that he had
> never used the word "satire" to describe the postings by the Fake Sam
> Sloan, but now above he uses exactly that word.
>
> I am below providing some more typical postings by The Fake Sam Sloan.
> I am interested to know how funny Dr. Redman thinks the targets of
> these "satirical" postings finds them to be. All of these postings are
> proven to have been written by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. None of
> them are by me. We should find Dr. Redman rolling on the floor with
> laughter after he reads these satirical postings. Remember that these
> are just a few examples from the hundreds of postings like this by
> Polgar and Truong.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> Article: 302304
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: My chess goal
> Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700
>
> I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
> Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
> goal is to fuck every female player rated over 2200.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 300715
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Shahade, Ross & Itkis
> Date: 1 Sep 2006 08:08:41 -0700
>
> I'll make a motion to use Jennifer Shahade, Laura Ross and Hana Itkis
> in bikinis to promote scholastic chess. They're girls with very nice
> racks. The boys will certainly love this idea and the girls will want
> to be famous like them. This is the best way to raise scholastic
> memberships.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 289807
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
> Subject: Kosteniuk to appear in the May issue of Penthouse
> Date: 5 Apr 2006 01:03:51 -0700
>
> Congratulations to Mrs. Kosteniuk! Both Manakova and Kosteniuk have
> publicly stated that they very much enjoy giving heads. They said they
> like the attention they get from men when they perform oral sex. When
> asked if they spit or swallow, they prefer the second one. We also
> have Jennifer Shahade stating that she lusts for her female and male
> opponents in threesome arrangements. Who wants to be first in line to
> test these theories?
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
>
> Article: 289758
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: chess bitch
> Date: 4 Apr 2006 05:23:23 -0700
>
> It's a must buy. Lesbians who love to give blowjobs. Shahade,
> Kosteniuk and Manakova make a formidable team. It can't be any better.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 289751
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: chess bitch
> Date: 4 Apr 2006 00:44:27 -0700
>
> I must say that Jennifer Shahade has the nicest pair of tits in
> chess.Too bad she's a lesbian. I wouldn't mind converting here though.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 289708
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
> Subject: Re: Is Our Building in Crossville Insured against Tornado
> Damage?
> Date: 3 Apr 2006 08:48:13 -0700
>
> I also hope that the USCF took out insurance coverage for Jennifer
> Shahade's perky tits. They are national treasures.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
>
> Article: 289604
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: Who is the best role model for Chess?
> Date: 2 Apr 2006 01:50:26 -0800
>
> I want to see Kosteniuk pose naked in Hustler or Penthouse. That would
> help popularize chess. Those perky little tits would do the trick.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 287420
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Who has the biggest ...
> Date: 5 Mar 2006 08:41:36 -0800
>
> ...boobs among women players? Marinello or Jennifer Shahade?
>
> Who has the smallest boobs? Vicary or Kosteniuk?
>
> Discuss among yourself.
>
> Sam Sloan
Another brilliant move by the legal sooper genyious the alleged real Sam
Sloan, who republishes allegedly libelous material written by an alleged
imposter under his own alleged real screen name and then signs them using
his own real screen name. So not only has he demonstrated by juxtaposition
that anyone with half a brain would know that they were fake -- which is
obvious, because the postings in question are vaguely amusing, whereas as
the real Sloan is a deadly tedious bore -- but he's repeated himself
published material that allegedly damages his reputation, thereby diminshing
his damages. The Nitwit Gambit, nut to nut two, check.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 20:41:20
From:
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
[email protected] wrote:
> IS TRUONG GUILTY??
>
> Dear Sam Sloan,
>
> You're right. The Fake Sam Sloan messages have
> nothing to do with satire, parody and the like. They
> were, in the main, vicious attempts to injure you by
> signing your name to messages that you did not write.
>
> John Hillery and Tim Redman are either trolling
> or lying for political reasons. That's obvious to
> everyone, including the Messrs. Hillery and Redman.
Is it, now? You're a real piece of work, Larry. Well, a piece of
something.
I find it hard to believe that anyone with a three-digit IQ couldn't
tell the difference between Sloan and Fake Sloan, but if you want to
claim you couldn't I won't call you a liar. It says ... something ...
about either you or Sloan, though.
One thing that always puzzled me about the FSS posts was why anyone
would bother. Sloan always did a better job of discrediting himself
than anyone else possibly could. The only explanation I could come up
with was extreme _personal_ hostility toward Sloan. (As distinguished
from the generalized contempt that most of us feel.) This is the main
reason the charges against Truong had some plausibility. When you
boast of a "not entirely Platonic" relationship with someone's wife, a
violent reaction is not surprising.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 21:58:18
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>I find it hard to believe that anyone with a three-digit IQ couldn't
>tell the difference between Sloan and Fake Sloan,...
Anybody with a three-digit IQ who regularly followed rgcp, perhaps.
But not necessarily someone only recently become familiar with Sam,
and who was trying to decide how to vote in the coming USCF election.
This person does a little googling on, say, Joe or Steve and finds all
these (FSS) posts where they appear to be Sam's associates.
>One thing that always puzzled me about the FSS posts was why anyone
>would bother. Sloan always did a better job of discrediting himself
>than anyone else possibly could. The only explanation I could come up
>with was extreme _personal_ hostility toward Sloan. (As distinguished
>from the generalized contempt that most of us feel.)
Surely that's not the limit of your creativity.
How about this one: discrediting Sam Sloan was at most a side effect
of the FSS postings. The main goal was to discredit and attack other
people.
Sam's web page and the publicizing of his felony conviction had
rendered him notorious. A large number of USCF members regarded his
presence as a liability and wanted him out.
"The generalized contempt" and hostility that you mentioned was likely
to transfer to those regarded as "on Sam Sloan's side". Associate a
rival candidate with Sam's notorious web site, with his sexual
attitudes, etc., and you've taken a big step toward neutralizing that
candidate. The fake Ray Gordon could well have served the same
purposes.
Sam was regarded as an ineffective pro se litigator and as lacking the
financial resources to remedy this with counsel. Sam had already
accused all sorts of people of faking him. So, it was safe to screw
with his identity -- how would one ever get caught?
Then, along came Mottershead...
> This is the main
>reason the charges against Truong had some plausibility. When you
>boast of a "not entirely Platonic" relationship with someone's wife, a
>violent reaction is not surprising.
A vehicle to ridicule someone who had made one look foolish in her
book would also have been handy. A way safely to say disgusting
things about those in various forms of competition would have been
nice.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 21:14:22
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> IS TRUONG GUILTY??
>>
>> Dear Sam Sloan,
>>
>> You're right. The Fake Sam Sloan messages have
>> nothing to do with satire, parody and the like. They
>> were, in the main, vicious attempts to injure you by
>> signing your name to messages that you did not write.
>>
>> John Hillery and Tim Redman are either trolling
>> or lying for political reasons. That's obvious to
>> everyone, including the Messrs. Hillery and Redman.
>
>
> Is it, now? You're a real piece of work, Larry. Well, a piece of
> something.
>
> I find it hard to believe that anyone with a three-digit IQ couldn't
> tell the difference between Sloan and Fake Sloan, but if you want to
> claim you couldn't I won't call you a liar. It says ... something ...
> about either you or Sloan, though.
>
> One thing that always puzzled me about the FSS posts was why anyone
> would bother. Sloan always did a better job of discrediting himself
> than anyone else possibly could. The only explanation I could come up
> with was extreme _personal_ hostility toward Sloan. (As distinguished
> from the generalized contempt that most of us feel.) This is the main
> reason the charges against Truong had some plausibility.
Uh, no. They were "plausible" (to say the least) because the posts
originated from Truong's computer.
It's amazing what passes for thought these days.
When you
> boast of a "not entirely Platonic" relationship with someone's wife, a
> violent reaction is not surprising.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 20:19:09
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 2, 9:53=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> IS TRUONG GUILTY??
>
> Dear Sam Sloan,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0You're right. =A0The Fake Sam Sloan messages have
> nothing to do with satire, parody and the like. =A0They
> were, in the main, vicious attempts to injure you by
> signing your name to messages that you did not write.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0John Hillery and Tim Redman are either trolling
> or lying for political reasons. =A0That's obvious to
> everyone, including the Messrs. Hillery and Redman.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Having said that, I see no reason to convict Paul
> Truong of having written those messages. =A0Earlier, I
> was accused of writing some messages under the
> monicker of wmiketwo and a couple of other names that
> escape the memory. =A0The same kind of evidence using
> addresses and servers was adduced. =A0Since I know with
> cosmic certainty that I penned no such messages (and
> have offered to make high-profile bets, replete with
> monies on both sides placed in advance in escrow,
> involving lie-detector machines run by agreed-upon
> technicians) I find the "evidence" produced against
> Paul and Susan to be less than convincing.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Why? =A0Because it is the same kind of evidence
> that existed in my case, and I KNOW that I did not
> write those messages.
Good for you, Larry (and I haven't written that in a long time). You
stood up for the fact that you did not write the things others claimed
you did. No wonder nobody pushed you on those claims.
It was also suggested at one time (indeed, by Sam Sloan), that I might
be the 'FSS.' I immediately denied those charges and would be more
than happy to make similar "put your money where your mouth is"
financial deals if anybody believes and can prove differently..
The problem with the rest of your post is that Paul Truong has not
been willing to make similar claims. Given a chance to be deposed
(under oath) and make similar claims, he has avoided it. Given the
opportunity, in writing, to deny his involvement in the FSS
postings,in USCF corporate documents, he has chosen not to do so.
Why? Draw you own conclusions, but I would note that in both of the
above cases making a statement that was later proven to be false could
have significant financial or other personal implications.
Form your own conclusions.
Randy Bauer
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 19:53:18
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
IS TRUONG GUILTY??
Dear Sam Sloan,
You're right. The Fake Sam Sloan messages have
nothing to do with satire, parody and the like. They
were, in the main, vicious attempts to injure you by
signing your name to messages that you did not write.
John Hillery and Tim Redman are either trolling
or lying for political reasons. That's obvious to
everyone, including the Messrs. Hillery and Redman.
Having said that, I see no reason to convict Paul
Truong of having written those messages. Earlier, I
was accused of writing some messages under the
monicker of wmiketwo and a couple of other names that
escape the memory. The same kind of evidence using
addresses and servers was adduced. Since I know with
cosmic certainty that I penned no such messages (and
have offered to make high-profile bets, replete with
monies on both sides placed in advance in escrow,
involving lie-detector machines run by agreed-upon
technicians) I find the "evidence" produced against
Paul and Susan to be less than convincing.
Why? Because it is the same kind of evidence
that existed in my case, and I KNOW that I did not
write those messages.
What are the odds that Bill Goichberg and others
know who authored the Fake Sam messages and connived
at aiding the enterprise or passively permitted use of
USCF facilities or resources, in one form or another,
to attack you?
If the individual or individuals authoring the
messages are part of the Federation political
structure either at the EB level or within the
committee-organizer grouping, then the odds are
probably 50-50 or better.
What are the odds that Board members and other
insiders talked about the Fake Sam messages among
themselves and supported verbally and perhaps in other
ways those whom they supposed to be writing said
messages? If one recollects Lev Alburt's accounts of
how Board members conducted slanderous discussions
among themselves during his tenure on the Policy Board
and if one considers that our species of USCF chess
politician evolves with glacial torpor, then one has
to figure that the current gaggle of political geese
are still yukking and honking it up. There is real
scope here during depositions, if such come about.
The jokers won't be able to keep their stories
straight under close questioning when the
nerve-wracking laws of perjury kick in. You have a
chance to prevail in this legal action, and if you end
up owning the Federation, I hope you will retrieve the
USCF Library from the Cross-to-Bear landfill, hire Jo
Anne Fatherly on contract to reestablish said library,
and find out who stole so many valuable shots from the
Chess Life photo morgue.
What now exists, as one surveys the numerous
legal actions, is Hobbes' war of all against all. It
is vintage USCF. God help us all, but as Patton said
of the battlefield, one loves it.
I don't know how Larry Evans and Nigel Eddis
feel about the matter, but if you could do the
mailings and if they agree to help out, we ought to
resuscitate the USCF Delegate Newsletters. (Too bad
the great Bob Cohen is no longer with us to aid the
enterprise.) Our goal would be to inform, ridicule
mercilessly and have lots of fun. Even several of our
targets now enjoy rereading those Newsletters, though
when the battles were fresh and the ego-blood flowing,
feelings were delightfully heated.
Now, Sam, I know that the issues are serious,
and you are serious. You may be in no mood for
levity, but if fun can be had without blunting the
arrowheads, then why not enjoy ourselves?
Yours, Larry Parr
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Timothy P. Redman
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dear Mr. Sloan,
> >
> > I am also shocked that I used such terms as "satire" and
> > "Constitutionally Protected Speech." In fact, unless I am gravely
> > mistaken, I never used the terms "satire" and "Constitutionally
> > Protected Speech."
>
>
>
>
> "I would argue that his assertion confirms my statement that the
> postings by the Fake Sam Sloan might constitute parody, which is a
> subset of satire, but not the same thing. Parody is either a humorous
> imitation or a poor and feeble imitation, a travesty. It does have
> satirical intent."
>
>
> --
> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 20:20:36
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Now, Sam, I know that the issues are serious,
> and you are serious. You may be in no mood for
> levity, but if fun can be had without blunting the
> arrowheads, then why not enjoy ourselves?
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
Actually, I don't think Sam minds humor, even pointed in his direction.
He choses a non-private life, and expects a certain ribbing or
derision or even parody from the world.
A concerted effort of over 3000 usenet postings moves this into an
entire different category. That this was likely done by someone
questioning the ethics of the leadership, running for position, and
trying to place themselves in a position of being better than the rest,
without attribution and as a matter of fact outright denial and
derision, is not just politics. It is so ethically challenged and so
repugnant that the only solution seems to be one of a legal challenge.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 18:39:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Timothy P. Redman
<[email protected] > wrote:
Thank you, Mr. Sloan, for getting the quotes right.
However, your speculation about what happened at the meeting, my
having
votes in my hip pocket, etc., is the usual nonsense. Before I
voted I
consulted with two trusted friends from Texas, Dr. Alexey Root and
Luis
Salinas, and an old friend from Illinois, Fred Gruenberg, about
what
they thought. I voted with them, not the other way around.
Sincerely,
Tim Redman
I see.
So, instead of thinking for yourself, you let others do your thinking
for you.
Please note that the Fake Sam Sloan posted from [email protected] and
[email protected] and, as Ray Gordon, posted from
[email protected]
Neither I nor the Real Ray Gordon ever posted from any of those
addresses.
Although Tim Redman says that he does not care about this, some of the
other targets of the Fake Sam Sloan do care about this. They will be
interested to learn that Tim Redman considers these attacks to be
constitutionally protected satire and parody.
Since you state that you do not care what the Fake Sam Sloan said
about you, here are a few quotes from postings by the Fake Sam Sloan:
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: Redman to step down as UTD chess director
Date: 1 Sep 2006 08:03:46 -0700
That's good news. Redman is the worst USCF President ever. The
USCF
lost over $1 million under his presidency. He also tried to stop
me
from running for the board. But it's me who have the last laugh.
Sam Sloan
Article: 304660
Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
out02a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!postnews.google.com!79g2000cws.googlegroups.com!
not-for-mail
From: "samsloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Gay Chess Tournaments?
Date: 5 Dec 2006 19:21:58 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 32
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
References: <[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.67
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1165375325 21093 127.0.0.1 (6 Dec 2006
03:22:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 03:22:05 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected] >
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows
NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC
4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/
1.1 Turboweb [rtc-te092 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-rtc-
ab03.proxy.aol.com[98A36443] (Traffic-Server/6.1.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: 79g2000cws.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=152.163.100.67;
posting-account=Ua1dlw0AAAA1_dVRiSGiD5ejBHhRdV9F
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.chess.politics:304660
rec.games.chess.misc:269795 alt.chess:13396
We do have many gays and lesbians chess players. Here are some of
them:
- Sam Sloan
- Marcus Roberts
- Beatriz Marinello
- Eric Johnson
- Randy Hough
- Robert Tanner
- Tim Redman
- Ray Gordon
- Elizabeth Shaunessy
- Almira Skripchenko
Article: 304674
Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!
198.186.194.247.MISMATCH!news-out.readnews.com!news-
xxxfer.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com!
not-for-mail
From: "Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot"
<[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: After a decent interval....
Date: 6 Dec 2006 04:29:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 129
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
References:
<[email protected] >
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.67
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1165408170 4471 127.0.0.1 (6 Dec 2006
12:29:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:29:30 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
<[email protected] >
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; AOL 9.0; Windows
NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC
4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; IEMB3; IEMB3),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/
1.1 Turboweb [rtc-tf044 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-rtc-
ab03.proxy.aol.com[98A36443] (Traffic-Server/6.1.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=152.163.100.67;
posting-account=pzt0Dg0AAABJOWkhIGYqJEkINXRErvy4
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.chess.politics:304674
rec.games.chess.misc:269833
Evans is senile and can't write anymore. Parr ghost writes for him
for
50% fees. That's why Parr is pissed because he lost a monthly
paycheck
for ranting about Fischer. What a fucking pig. Byrne resigned and
so
should Evans. Bring on young cunts like Irina, Beatriz or
Jennifer.
Ray Gordon
Article: 304694
Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com!not-
for-mail
From: "samsloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: I will stop Polgar from getting elected to the EB
Date: 6 Dec 2006 17:53:41 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 9
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.67
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1165456427 20272 127.0.0.1 (7 Dec 2006
01:53:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:53:47 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows
NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC
4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/
1.1 Turboweb [rtc-tb091 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-rtc-
ab03.proxy.aol.com[98A36443] (Traffic-Server/6.1.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=152.163.100.67;
posting-account=Ua1dlw0AAAA1_dVRiSGiD5ejBHhRdV9F
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.chess.politics:304694
rec.games.chess.misc:269935 rec.games.chess.computer:177694
I'll do anything to stop Polgar from getting elected. This bitch is
not
going to stop my dream of getting re-elected for the executive board.
I
want 4 more years. I'll take her down. I'll do whatever it takes.
Her
idea of getting non-chess politicians to run for the EB is
stupid.
It'll never work. The USCF needs chess politicians like me. Vote
for
me! 4 more years! 4 more years!
Sam Sloan
Article: 304717
Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com!not-
for-mail
From: "Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot"
<[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Sam Sloan the rapist
Date: 7 Dec 2006 04:20:51 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 101
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
References:
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.67
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1165494073 25506 127.0.0.1 (7 Dec 2006
12:21:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:21:13 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
<[email protected] >
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; AOL 9.0; Windows
NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC
4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; IEMB3; IEMB3),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/
1.1 Turboweb [rtc-tc063 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-rtc-
ab03.proxy.aol.com[98A36443] (Traffic-Server/6.1.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: 16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=152.163.100.67;
posting-account=pzt0Dg0AAABJOWkhIGYqJEkINXRErvy4
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.chess.politics:304717
rec.games.chess.misc:269990 alt.chess:13402
It has been confirmed by Goichberg, Channing and Schultz that
Sloan
raped young boys.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 10:25:26
From: Richard
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
samsloan wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Timothy P. Redman
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you, Mr. Sloan, for getting the quotes right.
>>
>> However, your speculation about what happened at the meeting, my
>> having
>> votes in my hip pocket, etc., is the usual nonsense. Before I
>> voted I
>> consulted with two trusted friends from Texas, Dr. Alexey Root and
>> Luis
>> Salinas, and an old friend from Illinois, Fred Gruenberg, about
>> what
>> they thought. I voted with them, not the other way around.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Tim Redman
>
>
> I see.
>
> So, instead of thinking for yourself, you let others do your thinking
> for you.
>
I'm sorry, but consulting with people does not equal having them think
for you. By it's very definition, "consulting" means you are thinking.
You are gaining knowledge and/or advice with a view to solving a problem
or coming to a conclusion. Your conclusion based on what Mr Redman said,
is incorrect.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 17:33:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 2, 7:37=A0pm, richard <[email protected] > wrote:
> wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
>
> So file suit asshole.
> Yeah it's protected free speech, but there ain't no laws preventing
> the courts to make you pay for the privilege.
It seems you missed the point.
I filed the suit. It was dismissed "for lack of a federal question".
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 16:37:19
From: richard
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 05:10:41 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
>arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
>"Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
>However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
>well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
>of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
>often did, is not satire.
>
>I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
>"Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
>Sam Sloan
wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
So file suit asshole.
Yeah it's protected free speech, but there ain't no laws preventing
the courts to make you pay for the privilege.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 13:02:04
From: none
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 2, 2:41=A0pm, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a31ba159-0402-4ba2-ada1-35c6c409f42c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
> > with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
> > makes you, not me, guilty of libel.
>
> So you are retarded then. Okay.
Okay, okay boys...there is an six inch penalty for being rude duirng a
pissing match.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 11:10:51
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"none" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:69930e5c-1ebd-4d95-9a8f-75b89d785e8f@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 2:41 pm, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a31ba159-0402-4ba2-ada1-35c6c409f42c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
> > with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
> > makes you, not me, guilty of libel.
>
> So you are retarded then. Okay.
Okay, okay boys...there is an six inch penalty for being rude duirng a
pissing match.
===
What's the penalty for being an insufferable condescending fuckhead? Eight
inches?
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 11:16:28
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
makes you, not me, guilty of libel.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 18:41:17
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a31ba159-0402-4ba2-ada1-35c6c409f42c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
> with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
> makes you, not me, guilty of libel.
So you are retarded then. Okay.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 10:39:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 2, 1:32=A0pm, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f they have proof of this despicable al=
legation.
The truth is that the Fake Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
all said that about another candidate they opposed. They did not say
that about me or Dr. Redman.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 17:53:05
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b6fe4a63-a833-4ec4-881c-6c2c64c64c01@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 1:32 pm, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f they have proof of this despicable
> allegation.
The truth is that the Fake Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
all said that about another candidate they opposed. They did not say
that about me or Dr. Redman.
====
On the contrary, you made the allegation that "Dr. Redman [is] a gay
pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he
directs" and I am asking you for evidence. Shirley with your sooper geniouos
legal IQ you don't think that making a statement like that and merely
masking it in the hypothetical makes it not libel and not actionable, do
you, you fucking retard?
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 08:21:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Timothy P. Redman
<[email protected] > wrote:
Dear Mr. Sloan,
I am also shocked that I used such terms as "satire" and
"Constitutionally Protected Speech." =A0In fact, unless I am gravely
mistaken, I never used the terms "satire" and "Constitutionally
Protected Speech."
These are inventions by you, Mr. Sloan.
Like all of your inventions, they are amusing, about 10% reliable, and
the result of someone who shoots from the lip.
Recommendation.
If Mr. Sloan would be so good as to quell his impetus to simply lash
out at people, and actually do some fact checking, he might at some
future point be of some benefit to the Federation.
In my profession, quotation marks are used for something that someone
actually said.
Mr. Sloan invents quotes me for things that I never said. For example,
if I said that Mr. Sloan said the he was a "homeless, penniless
dirtbag" who delighted in the "meritless attention he was receiving
from the USCF" and that he was being "treated for a narcissistic
disorder," I would be dead wrong. Mr. Sloan, in fact, never said those
things.
Temper, Mr. Sloan, temper. Or perhaps distemper.
I am sure that your case will get a home in some court, in some
jurisdiction, somewhere, sometime.
Cordially,
Tim Redman
p.s. I am sure that we will soon get an e-mail from Mr. Sloan
correcting me and explaining that, in fact, his quotation marks are
not really quotation marks, but what he thought I meant, or what I
ought to have meant, or what he was too lazy to look into and report
factually.
God bless.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tim Redman insists that I quote him directly rather than my summary
=93Constitutionally protected speech=94.
I admit that the terms "protected speech" and "satire" are quotes from
John Hillary, not from Tim Redman, but in the next posting Redman
wrote that they finally agree on something.
Here are Dr. Redman's exact words in response to the statement by John
Hillery about satire and protected speech.
"And hello, John Hillery. Is it possible that we agree on something?
Well, after all of these years I have to say, you must be right."
However, Dr. Redman did use the term "parody". He wrote "parody, to
me, is a legitimate genre of dissent."
I would like for Dr. Redman to explain to us all why it is "parody" to
call the USCF President a "bulldyke" or why it is parody to call an
election opponent a "gay pedophile".
Tim Redman repeatedly invokes the US Constitution and his membership
in the ACLU in his defense of the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan. He
calls the postings parody.
I note that Tim Redman was never attacked by the Fake Sam Sloan. I
wonder why. I would have been willing to wager that if the Fake Sam
Sloan had ever called Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs, then Dr.
Redman would suddenly drop his high sounding words about the US
Constitution protecting satire and parody.
I am also shocked by the fact that at the USCF Delegates Meeting in
Dallas, Tim Redman spoke several times in defense of Truong and he had
a group of fellow Texans with him who constituted the swing-bloc which
brought about the defeat of the motions, yet he now admits that he has
never read the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan or the Mottershead
Report and that all he knows about them is what was presented to the
delegates. I am shocked that a former USCF President would come to
such an important meeting and cast such important votes without
bothering to familiarize himself with the issues either before or
since. Now he writes about the USCF election next year, basically
implying that if his group wins election, all of the USCF lawsuits
will be dismissed.
Since Dr. Redman insist on exact quotes, here they are:
"The founders/framers took a great deal of trouble in defining
treason, the only crime, if I recall, mentioned in the Constitution.
Their necks were on the line, as it were.
"Under the "mere words" doctrine, treasonable speech, by whoever's
standards, cannot be prosecuted.
"Cordially,
"Tim"
"Two legitimate points have been raised. The first is that I have not
read the Fake Sam Sloan postings. I have not and do not intend to.
"My point simply was conceptual and [i]a priori[/i]: free speech is
allowed, politically incorrect, blasphemous, inciting terrorist or
treasonable acts, racist, homophobic, sexist, or whatever. As I think
I pointed out, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
"I continue to deplore our recourse to litigation, but I have been
around long enough to realize that all of this has less to do with the
merits of the various cases than it has to do with the upcoming
Executive Board election.
"Cordially,
"Tim Redman"
"I have been following this thread with sorrow. My feelings come not
because of the posts, all in the best interests of the Federation, all
within the bounds of respectful discourse, all contributing to the
kind of comity we need to advance the cause of the USCF. They come
because the Federation has finally come to the point that litigation
seems the only possible resolution to our problems.
"I do not believe that the Sloan suit has merit, as a lawsuit. But I
think it has cause. I am a card-carrying member of the American Civil
Liberties Union, I am also the President of a chapter in PEN USA. PEN
is the oldest international human rights organization that defends the
right of authors to say what they think.
"When it comes to the Fake Sam Sloan postings, parody, to me, is a
legitimate genre of dissent. Mr, Sloan's rights should be protected.
"At the same time, I have not looked at the Fake Sam Sloan postings,
and only know what was read to us by Executive Director Bill Hall. I
am sure, from the example we were given, that they were very
offensive.
"Last time I looked, bad taste is not a shooting offense (except in
Texas).
"Election results will change politics. The current suits are in that
respect temporizing. All will depend upon the next election of the
Executive Board. These people will be elected under our One Member One
Vote system (OMOV). The new Executive Board will be able to dismiss
any current lawsuits.
"Cordially,
"Tim Redman"
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I find most curious the above quote where he writes: "When it comes to
the Fake Sam Sloan postings, parody, to me, is a legitimate genre of
dissent. Mr, Sloan's rights should be protected."
Strangely, he writes, "the Federation has finally come to the point
that litigation seems the only possible resolution to our problems."
However, this is because Redman and his group voted against the motion
to recall Truong. Redman, who lives in Texas, had enough votes in his
hip pocket to swing the result of the vote in Dallas. If instead the
vote had carried and Truong had been removed, my lawsuit and now my
appeal might not have been necessary. Now, with the forthcoming
election coming up, if two Truong candidates are elected, Truong will
control the USCF and can do whatever he wants with the $3.2 million in
annual revenues the USCF receives. This, all because of Dr. Redman's
votes.
The central issue is not what Paul Truong wrote, but the fact that he
signed my name to his postings. What we have here is forgery,
impersonation, and identity theft, all of which are crimes punishable
by years in prison. We have absolute, conclusive proof that all this
was done in thousands of postings by Paul Truong in which he signed
either my name or the names of others such as Ray Gordon. If Paul
Truong had signed his own name to his postings, I would agree that he
would have a constitutional right to do that, but I fail to understand
why Tim Redman seems to be claiming that Paul Truong had a
constitutional right to sign my name to his postings.
Also, had Paul Truong signed his own name to his postings, he would
have lost the election. By signing my name to his obscene postings, he
caused me to lose the election and enabled him to win the election.
That is the point to my lawsuit.
The decision by Judge Chin stated that the statute I cite as having
been violated is a criminal statute which does not create a private
right of action. However, the only case Judge Chin cites is a 1992
unreported district court case from the Eastern District of New York.
That case, being a lower court case, is not controlling authority and
it did not deal with Internet identity theft, as Internet identity
theft did not even exist in 1992 or, if it did exist, it did not
affect millions of people as it does today.
I fully believe that Judge Chin's decision will be overturned on
appeal and I even believe that some of my opponents in this litigation
will be unwilling to support Judge Chin's ruling.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 15:41:57
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:640ce2a6-98e3-437e-9089-2d98c1fb5e00@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,
===============
Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against Dr
Redman?
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 17:09:19
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
Judd for the Defense wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:640ce2a6-98e3-437e-9089-2d98c1fb5e00@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
> soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,
>
> ===============
>
> Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against Dr
> Redman?
>
>
That isn't what Mr. Sloan wrote. Sloan wrote, "I would have been
willing to wager that if the Fake Sam Sloan had ever called Dr. Redman a
gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess
tournaments he directs, then Dr. Redman would suddenly drop his high
sounding words about the US Constitution protecting satire and parody."
Not actionable at all.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 17:32:01
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3revk.354$393.180@trnddc05...
> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:640ce2a6-98e3-437e-9089-2d98c1fb5e00@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
>> soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,
>>
>> ===============
>>
>> Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against Dr
>> Redman?
> That isn't what Mr. Sloan wrote. Sloan wrote, "I would have been willing
> to wager that if the Fake Sam Sloan had ever called Dr. Redman a gay
> pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments
> he directs, then Dr. Redman would suddenly drop his high sounding words
> about the US Constitution protecting satire and parody."
>
> Not actionable at all.
If I understand you correctly you're saying that truth is a defense to libel
and that you're agreeing with Sam Sloan when states that "Dr. Redman [is] a
gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments
he directs." Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f they have proof of this
despicable allegation.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 20:58:30
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
Judd for the Defense wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3revk.354$393.180@trnddc05...
>> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:640ce2a6-98e3-437e-9089-2d98c1fb5e00@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
>>> soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,
>>>
>>> ===============
>>>
>>> Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against Dr
>>> Redman?
>> That isn't what Mr. Sloan wrote. Sloan wrote, "I would have been willing
>> to wager that if the Fake Sam Sloan had ever called Dr. Redman a gay
>> pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments
>> he directs, then Dr. Redman would suddenly drop his high sounding words
>> about the US Constitution protecting satire and parody."
>>
>> Not actionable at all.
>
> If I understand you correctly you're saying that truth is a defense to libel
> and that you're agreeing with Sam Sloan when states that "Dr. Redman [is] a
> gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments
> he directs." Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f they have proof of this
> despicable allegation.
>
>
No. The exact statement made by Mr. Sloan stated a clear hypothetical
noting that IF such an allegation had been made by the FSS as to Mr.
Redman, Mr. Redman, in Mr. Sloan's opinion, would have been upset.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 11:21:48
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:WNhvk.259$Dj1.172@trnddc02...
> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:3revk.354$393.180@trnddc05...
>>> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:640ce2a6-98e3-437e-9089-2d98c1fb5e00@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
>>>> soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,
>>>>
>>>> ===============
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against Dr
>>>> Redman?
>>> That isn't what Mr. Sloan wrote. Sloan wrote, "I would have been
>>> willing to wager that if the Fake Sam Sloan had ever called Dr. Redman a
>>> gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess
>>> tournaments he directs, then Dr. Redman would suddenly drop his high
>>> sounding words about the US Constitution protecting satire and parody."
>>>
>>> Not actionable at all.
>>
>> If I understand you correctly you're saying that truth is a defense to
>> libel and that you're agreeing with Sam Sloan when states that "Dr.
>> Redman [is] a gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at
>> chess tournaments he directs." Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f they
>> have proof of this despicable allegation.
>>
>>
> No. The exact statement made by Mr. Sloan stated a clear hypothetical
> noting that IF such an allegation had been made by the FSS as to Mr.
> Redman, Mr. Redman, in Mr. Sloan's opinion, would have been upset.
Right. And I'm asking what evidence exists to support the hypothetical
(supposition; conjecture; based primarily on surmise rather than adequate
evidence) that this Redman fellow like to stick his engorged peepee in
little boys, which is the libelous conjecture put forth by Sloan. Shirley
you don't think that you can willy nilly make any heinous statement you want
about anyone you want as long as phrase it as some dopey hypothetical.
Suppose Brian Lafferty were a pedophile wearing a red shirt and that he had
raped and murdered several children who buried them in his basement. How
many children do you suppose the pedophile Brian Lafferty would have raped
murdered and buried in his basement if he'd been wearing a blue shirt.
Discuss.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 18:13:03
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
Judd for the Defense wrote:
.
> > No. The exact statement made by Mr. Sloan stated a clear hypothetical
> > noting that IF such an allegation had been made by the FSS as to Mr.
> > Redman, Mr. Redman, in Mr. Sloan's opinion, would have been upset.
> >..<<B. Hee-Haw>>..
> Shirley you don't think that you can willy nilly make any heinous statement you want
> about anyone you want as long as you phrase it as some dopey hypothetical.
Matt, uh! sorry, Judd? - (I was thinking of a storeperson I once
knew.).. <<grnn >>..
In the Airforce we do it all by ourselves..
We just get up there 'n pull away to our heart's content..
t.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 07:44:51
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
On Sep 2, 7:10=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
> arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
> well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
> of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
> often did, is not satire.
>
> I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> Sam Sloan
Whether these are constitutionally protected or not doesn't matter
much with regard to fitness to serve on the board. Truong denied these
were his repeatedly, and this led to a prolonged fight which is bad
for the board. If (as I believe) he is the poster, he must step down
from the board; the court can then decide issues of whether this was
just nasty or illegal behavior.
Jerry Spinrad
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 07:36:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
samsloan wrote:
> Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
> arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
> well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
> of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
> often did, is not satire.
It is incorrect to characterize all of the FSS
postings as if they were homogenized, mixed
and stirred with some secret ingredient that
keeps them everywhere the same.
The fact is, some of the postings may fit
the definition of satire, while others may well
be described as something else, something
criminal.
Obviously, the lawsuit against the FSS will
tend to pea-pick examples which are not
merely satire, while a defense lawyer may
try to give examples which were-- to muddy
the waters. But all it should take for a win is
to show that /some/ of the FSS postings
amounted to criminal behavior, and of course
demonstrating the identity of the FSS.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 13:47:42
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??
|
samsloan wrote:
> Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
> arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
> well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
> of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
> often did, is not satire.
>
> I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> Sam Sloan
Mr. Redman is completely incorrect if he thinks that the FSS postings
were satire. They were anonymous harassment and defamation. The
satire/parody defense has been periodically floated by Trolgar minions
before. It's sad to see supposedly intelligent people acting as
apologists for these kinds of acts by such people. But, that's not
unusual in our world. The motives vary, but one motive is never
there--truth.
|
|
