| |
Main
Date: 05 Jan 2008 06:33:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Did the Fake Ray Gordon or the Real Ray Gordon attack Jennifer
|
Regular readers of this group will remember the vicious personal
attacks by "Ray Gordon" on Jennifer Shahade. I have been wondering
which Ray Gordon was attacking her.
This question is confused by the fact that the Real Ray Gordon does
not like her. Also, the Real Ray Gordon and Jennifer are both from
Philadelphia, so there is probably some history between them.
I have just done a Google search and I have found that the really
nasty attacks come from the Fake Ray Gordon. Both the Real and the
Fake Ray Gordon call her a "bitch", but that is OK because Jennifer
calls herself that in her book, "Chess Bitch".
However, it is not OK to call her other female body parts such as the
C-word.
A Google search shows that the Fake Ray Gordon, whom we now know to be
Paul Truong and Susan Polgar, have called Jennifer the C-word many
times. The Real Ray Gordon has never called her that.
An example may be found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/db4ab364424b71a5
In this thread, Jennifer Shahade is allacked by all of the fakes, the
Fake Sam Sloan, the Fake Ray Gordon and the Fake Andrew Zito. We now
know that all three of these entities are the same person, Polgar and
Truong, a/k/a Trollgar.
The title of the thread is "Is it worth $50,000?"
This question pertains to the salary that Jennifer is reportedly being
paid.
In this thread, the Fake Sam Sloan posts under [email protected]
The Fake Ray Gordon posts under [email protected]
The Fake Andrew Zito posts under [email protected]
Here is an example of what they are saying:
The Fake Ray Gordon wrote: "Shahade also got $40K for something that
should have cost $500."
The Fake Andrew Zito replied as follows: "Are you crazy? I would pay
$40K to get Shahade in bed. Definitely! She's a babe with nice a nice
rack!"
For anybody who does not know, International Woman Grandmaster
Jennifer Shahade is the content provider and the web editor of the
USCF website at uschess.org and is also a rival of Susan Polgar as one
of the top women chess players in the US.
In former US Women's Champion Jennifer Shahade's acclaimed book "Chess
Bitch", she points out that the emails she receives signed "Susan
Polgar" were obviously written by Paul Truong in view of the vast
differences in their writing and speaking styles, and thus she refers
to them as "Trulgar" on page 105.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2008 16:29:32
From: The Historian
Subject: Shahade on "Trulgar"
|
On Jan 6, 10:59 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:2303b60c-dad7-4c11-b21d-a0ab1643abda@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 5, 8:33 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In former US Women's Champion JenniferShahade'sacclaimed book "Chess
> > Bitch", she points out that the emails she receives signed "Susan
> > Polgar" were obviously written by Paul Truong in view of the vast
> > differences in their writing and speaking styles, and thus she refers
> > to them as "Trulgar" on page 105.
>
> STRAIGHT TALK
>
> (or what she really said)
Please note P Innes never provides examples of "what she really said."
I'll try to help out by providing them.
> If the real Sam Sloan actually wrote the paragraph above I suggest he buy a
> real copy of Chess Bitch and, for a change, tell the truth. There are at
> least 2 -shall I call them lies? - or is it just unexplained spin? that is,
> somewhat willful misrepresentations to falsify the text.
>
> She does not call the pair Trulgar - she says some other people do.
"... many in the chess world...."
The
> reference is page 105, line 7. She also provides the context for the
> rek - but let's not get too deep with the Slaon - he'll get off on some
> vague detail
The context Ms. Shahade offers is an explanation of a "shared Internet
and literary persona...."
> The second issue is that she does not claim that the materials were
> 'obviously written by Paul Truong', she writes to say their writing styles
> are different, but they are so close that they write corporately - as if of
> one mind after consulting one another, but often emoticons identify a
> specific comment by Paul.
P Innes doesn't provide a quotation from the book supporting his
'interpretation' of Ms. Shahade's words. Needless to say, there's a
reason he didn't give a reference or provide a quotation. Here is what
Ms. Shahade wrote (quoted under "fair use" provisions of the US
Copyright Code):
"When I get e-mails from "Susan", they are peppered with smiley faces
and exuberant exclamations, which is typical for Paul [Truong], but
totally incongruous for Susan. Such a shared Internet and literary
persona makes it hard to determine what Susan is really like."
In other words, there's nothing in the passage that matches P Innes'
idea of a "corporate" email with emoticons king the sentences
written by Truong. If that's what Ms. Shahade intended to write, she's
certainly capable of writing it.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 06:34:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Shahade on "Trulgar"
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:791ff721-9612-4b7c-abdd-0c775e8c81ca@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 10:59 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2303b60c-dad7-4c11-b21d-a0ab1643abda@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 5, 8:33 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > In former US Women's Champion JenniferShahade'sacclaimed book "Chess
>> > Bitch", she points out that the emails she receives signed "Susan
>> > Polgar" were obviously written by Paul Truong in view of the vast
>> > differences in their writing and speaking styles, and thus she refers
>> > to them as "Trulgar" on page 105.
>>
>> STRAIGHT TALK
>>
>> (or what she really said)
>
> Please note P Innes never provides examples of "what she really said."
> I'll try to help out by providing them.
>
>> If the real Sam Sloan actually wrote the paragraph above I suggest he buy
>> a
>> real copy of Chess Bitch and, for a change, tell the truth. There are at
>> least 2 -shall I call them lies? - or is it just unexplained spin? that
>> is,
>> somewhat willful misrepresentations to falsify the text.
>>
>> She does not call the pair Trulgar - she says some other people do.
>
> "... many in the chess world...."
>
> The
>> reference is page 105, line 7. She also provides the context for the
>> rek - but let's not get too deep with the Slaon - he'll get off on
>> some
>> vague detail
>
> The context Ms. Shahade offers is an explanation of a "shared Internet
> and literary persona...."
>
>> The second issue is that she does not claim that the materials were
>> 'obviously written by Paul Truong', she writes to say their writing
>> styles
>> are different, but they are so close that they write corporately - as if
>> of
>> one mind after consulting one another, but often emoticons identify a
>> specific comment by Paul.
>
> P Innes doesn't provide a quotation from the book supporting his
> 'interpretation' of Ms. Shahade's words. Needless to say, there's a
> reason he didn't give a reference or provide a quotation. Here is what
> Ms. Shahade wrote (quoted under "fair use" provisions of the US
> Copyright Code):
>
> "When I get e-mails from "Susan", they are peppered with smiley faces
> and exuberant exclamations, which is typical for Paul [Truong], but
> totally incongruous for Susan. Such a shared Internet and literary
> persona makes it hard to determine what Susan is really like."
>
> In other words, there's nothing in the passage that matches P Innes'
> idea of a "corporate" email with emoticons king the sentences
> written by Truong. If that's what Ms. Shahade intended to write, she's
> certainly capable of writing it.
WHERE'S THE BITCH?
While our cyber-stalker and distorter and abusenik continues to stir up
dissent - in a quite candid telephone conversation I had with Jennifer about
the reception of her book, I cannot report any great confidence she had in
Neil Brennan's little report in as much as she thought he even understood
its basis. Now, I am not quoting her here, since the actual words might burn
a hole in your screen ;))
In other words - both Sloan and Brennan are attempting to exacerbate
differences - and neither of their opinions are exactly cherished by the
author of the book!
Just to read anything by either of them on this subject is to know that its
likely twisted. But to be fair to either of them - let them try to gain
their own interviews, which would be work for them, but then they can ask
directly rather than spin spin spin the words of others. I doubt Jenn
Shahade would give either them even 10 seconds of her time.
And that should be enough for anyone here to understand the worth of this
couple's 'commentary' on this topic.
WHAT'S REAL?
What I personally liked about Chess Bitch is that it /did/ offer differences
between her own views and that of other players, especially other women, and
that Jenn was quite straightforward in saying so! Even specifically what the
issues were,. But she was /not/ being a 'bitch' about these differences, and
what I read always seemed to create her own individual point of view,
respectful said, including the Socratic presentation of other people's
points of view to demonstrate that she could restate and understand them,
while coming to other conclusions herself.
Jenn Shahade didn't seem to need to put anyone down in order to make her own
point. Not only was her writing clear, but I thought the way any differences
were described to be particularly mature.
As for the 'bitch' in her book title, I suspect she was anticipating certain
critics - those who are overly-familiar, and those who are afraid of women,
but for either reason, those who notice nothing of women at all ;)))))
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 08 Jan 2008 03:43:19
From: EdmondX
Subject: Re: Did the Fake Ray Gordon or the Real Ray Gordon attack Jennifer
|
On Jan 6, 9:01=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 5, 10:23=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > You are a lunatic Sam Sloan. You are crazy. I am filing a complaint
> > > with the judge,
> > > and ask that you be prevented from filing any future litigation
> > > wihtout permission
> > > of the court.
>
> > > You need help, Sam Sloan.
>
> > > cus Roberts
>
> > You seem to have experience with court orders preventing lunatics from
> > filing litigation without permission of the court.
>
> > How did you gain this experience?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Every time I insult the real Sam Sloan, somebody calls me a nigger. Is
> that because the real Sam Sloan
> is also the fake Sam Sloan?
>
> cus Roberts- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everybody knows its all the same persom:
Fake Sam Sloan =3D Real Sam Sloan =3D Ray Gordon =3D Fake Ray Gordon
|
| |
Date: 06 Jan 2008 11:01:45
From:
Subject: Re: Did the Fake Ray Gordon or the Real Ray Gordon attack Jennifer
|
On Jan 5, 10:23=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > You are a lunatic Sam Sloan. You are crazy. I am filing a complaint
> > with the judge,
> > and ask that you be prevented from filing any future litigation
> > wihtout permission
> > of the court.
>
> > You need help, Sam Sloan.
>
> > cus Roberts
>
> You seem to have experience with court orders preventing lunatics from
> filing litigation without permission of the court.
>
> How did you gain this experience?
>
> Sam Sloan
Every time I insult the real Sam Sloan, somebody calls me a nigger. Is
that because the real Sam Sloan
is also the fake Sam Sloan?
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 05 Jan 2008 12:37:52
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Did the Fake Ray Gordon or the Real Ray Gordon attack Jennifer Shahade?
|
I never really posted anything too bad about either, other than my reasons
for disliking each. There is no history. It's political, and never on the
level of the FSS, who was trying to incite each of them. Of of the two knew
enough to know it was fake obviously. The other, well...
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 05 Jan 2008 08:23:58
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Did the Fake Ray Gordon or the Real Ray Gordon attack Jennifer
|
On Jan 5, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
> You are a lunatic Sam Sloan. You are crazy. I am filing a complaint
> with the judge,
> and ask that you be prevented from filing any future litigation
> wihtout permission
> of the court.
>
> You need help, Sam Sloan.
>
> cus Roberts
You seem to have experience with court orders preventing lunatics from
filing litigation without permission of the court.
How did you gain this experience?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 05:20:32
From: Non scrivetemi
Subject: LUNATICS (was: Did the Fake Ray Gordon or the Real Ray Gordon)
|
In the post shown below, the Real Sam Sloan (69.120.149.154) insulted an
accredited diplomat by insolently writing
"You seem to have experience with court orders preventing lunatics from
filing litigation without permission of the court.
How did you gain this experience?"
The innuendo by the Real Sam "Peter Leko is dead" Sloan is that this
diplomat is a lunatic who therefore gained the experience first-hand.
However, the facts indicate a very different reality. The diplomat gained
his experience (with court orders preventing lunatics from filing cases)
from his own careful, methodical research into Sam Sloan himself. :-)
I now am in possession of conclusive DOCUMENTARY evidence that Sam Sloan
- this Sam Sloan, not just any Sam Sloan - spent 5 or 6 DAYS (depending on
how you count days) LOCKED UP, BY ORDER OF A SENIOR JUDGE, in an ASYLUM FOR
LUNATICS. One where the really mad, foaming at the mouth, climbing up the
wall ones are held.
1/06/2006-1/07/2006
1/07/2006-1/08/2006
1/08/2006-1/09/2006
1/09/2006-1/10/2006
1/10/2006-1/11/2006
The chess community, disregarding some brown-nosed sycophants, has long
known about Sam Sloan's sanity (absence of). So this news should come as
no great shock.
So if anyone's experience of the consequences of lunacy was first-hand,
it wasn't the good diplomat's - it was Sam Sloan's!
I must break out the rulebook to check this. Shouldn't anyone who has
been evaluated, let alone incarcerated, for serious mental disorders have
a duty to disclose that when standing for election (irrespective of how
sane the person considers himself, lol)? I can't recall the rules even
addressing this, but they should. I can sure see the members voting for
a person whom a judge felt was necessary to have locked up for the best
part of a week in a lunatic asylum while being profiled.
Which leads us to the next consideration. Say, for the sake of argument,
Sloan impregnated a weak-minded, ugly, barely literate, foreign retard
and produced an attractive female offspring. Say the mother is so very
backward and stupid as to be unable to comprehend the realities/risks
of the situation and so is incapable of taking the steps all her many
predecessors have taken. While certain parties have advocated forced
sterilization (they probably would have happily agreed to castration) of
the male and an abortion in such cases, that would not be a remedy in
this hypothetical case, as the poor innocent infant already exists.
What steps can be taken to protect the little one from any dangers that
may face her
from: samsloan <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc, alt.chess,
rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Did the Fake Ray Gordon or the Real Ray Gordon attack Jennifer
Shahade?
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 08:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 19
Message-ID:
<3478ce9c-8905-46ae-ac9a-0d2db56d1762@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >
References:
<[email protected] >
<2303b60c-dad7-4c11-b21d-a0ab1643abda@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1199550239 24749 127.0.0.1 (5 Jan 2008 16:23:59
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:23:59 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.120.149.154;
posting-account=h0BplggAAACbakJwttbpVF72VZ8jVCAq
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.11)
Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
On Jan 5, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
> You are a lunatic Sam Sloan. You are crazy. I am filing a complaint
> with the judge,
> and ask that you be prevented from filing any future litigation
> wihtout permission
> of the court.
>
> You need help, Sam Sloan.
>
> cus Roberts
You seem to have experience with court orders preventing lunatics from
filing litigation without permission of the court.
How did you gain this experience?
Sam Sloan
( http://www.samsloan.com )
|
| |
Date: 05 Jan 2008 06:45:31
From:
Subject: Re: Did the Fake Ray Gordon or the Real Ray Gordon attack Jennifer
|
On Jan 5, 8:33=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Regular readers of this group will remember the vicious personal
> attacks by "Ray Gordon" on Jennifer Shahade. I have been wondering
> which Ray Gordon was attacking her.
>
> This question is confused by the fact that the Real Ray Gordon does
> not like her. Also, the Real Ray Gordon and Jennifer are both from
> Philadelphia, so there is probably some history between them.
>
> I have just done a Google search and I have found that the really
> nasty attacks come from the Fake Ray Gordon. Both the Real and the
> Fake Ray Gordon call her a "bitch", but that is OK because Jennifer
> calls herself that in her book, "Chess Bitch".
>
> However, it is not OK to call her other female body parts such as the
> C-word.
>
> A Google search shows that the Fake Ray Gordon, whom we now know to be
> Paul Truong and Susan Polgar, have called Jennifer the C-word many
> times. The Real Ray Gordon has never called her that.
>
> An example may be found here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/db4ab3644...
>
> In this thread, Jennifer Shahade is allacked by all of the fakes, the
> Fake Sam Sloan, the Fake Ray Gordon and the Fake Andrew Zito. We now
> know that all three of these entities are the same person, Polgar and
> Truong, a/k/a Trollgar.
>
> The title of the thread is "Is it worth $50,000?"
>
> This question pertains to the salary that Jennifer is reportedly being
> paid.
>
> In this thread, the Fake Sam Sloan posts under [email protected]
>
> The Fake Ray Gordon posts under [email protected]
>
> The Fake Andrew Zito posts under [email protected]
>
> Here is an example of what they are saying:
>
> The Fake Ray Gordon wrote: "Shahade also got $40K for something that
> should have cost $500."
>
> The Fake Andrew Zito replied as follows: "Are you crazy? I would pay
> $40K to get Shahade in bed. Definitely! She's a babe with nice a nice
> rack!"
>
> For anybody who does not know, International Woman Grandmaster
> Jennifer Shahade is the content provider and the web editor of the
> USCF website at uschess.org and is also a rival of Susan Polgar as one
> of the top women chess players in the US.
>
> In former US Women's Champion Jennifer Shahade's acclaimed book "Chess
> Bitch", she points out that the emails she receives signed "Susan
> Polgar" were obviously written by Paul Truong in view of the vast
> differences in their writing and speaking styles, and thus she refers
> to them as "Trulgar" on page 105.
>
> Sam Sloan
You are a lunatic Sam Sloan. You are crazy. I am filing a complaint
with the judge,
and ask that you be prevented from filing any future litigation
wihtout permission
of the court.
You need help, Sam Sloan.
cus Roberts
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jan 2008 10:59:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Did the Fake Ray Gordon or the Real Ray Gordon attack Jennifer Shahade?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2303b60c-dad7-4c11-b21d-a0ab1643abda@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 8:33 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> In former US Women's Champion Jennifer Shahade's acclaimed book "Chess
> Bitch", she points out that the emails she receives signed "Susan
> Polgar" were obviously written by Paul Truong in view of the vast
> differences in their writing and speaking styles, and thus she refers
> to them as "Trulgar" on page 105.
STRAIGHT TALK
(or what she really said)
If the real Sam Sloan actually wrote the paragraph above I suggest he buy a
real copy of Chess Bitch and, for a change, tell the truth. There are at
least 2 -shall I call them lies? - or is it just unexplained spin? that is,
somewhat willful misrepresentations to falsify the text.
She does not call the pair Trulgar - she says some other people do. The
reference is page 105, line 7. She also provides the context for the
rek - but let's not get too deep with the Slaon - he'll get off on some
vague detail
The second issue is that she does not claim that the materials were
'obviously written by Paul Truong', she writes to say their writing styles
are different, but they are so close that they write corporately - as if of
one mind after consulting one another, but often emoticons identify a
specific comment by Paul.
And thirdly - I know Sam Sloan has been writing as if to isolate Susan
Polgar from others in chess, especially other women - Sloan has been doing
that for 6 months at least - but what he fails to note, also on page 105 is
Jenn Shahade says that Susan herself does not emote very much - but gives an
amusing instance of when Susan lost if over 'move repetition, and cakes'.
To conclude at the bottom of page 105 with a sentence begininng, "A devoted
ambassador of chess, Susan promotes the game all year long - which JS then
illustrates with half a dozen laudatory comments from other women players
and organisers - and offers no item of criticism herself, or repeat those of
others.
This is hardly as Sam Sloan suggests above, and is, in fact, respectful.
I do not expect Sam Sloan to have read past the first opportunities for
spin, nor, what to me seems genuine commentary and support by Shahade in the
context above. And I further do not expect Sam Sloan to understand this word
'respect' since he seems to me to be a stranger to it.
Phil Innes
Vermont
> Sam Sloan
|
|
