|
Main
Date: 14 Nov 2007 05:56:32
From: samsloan
Subject: Susan Polgar Porn Video
|
A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail her, if necessary. It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know about it. I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.
|
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 22:23:13
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Porn Video
|
Still no link. I'll come back later.
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 19:35:56
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Rats, pack, their nature impartially discussed
|
On Nov 16, 8:58 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 16, 5:06 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The sad truth is this: > > The USCF fears having standards for membership because it might make > > them legally liable. The do not have "standards" for board membership > > because it might make them "liable". Sloan is not stupid. He is > > walking a tightrope just this side of the "legal" line. He also fears > > no lawsuit as he has no assets to attach and therefore nothing to > > lose.I believe karma is real. What he has coming to him is great. > > Karma will take away what he prizes most. I for one will chose to > > folow the words of Thomas Hart Benton,"when the good Lord lays his > > hands on someone,sir; I take mine off". Here is to God's swift > > justice. > > > Rob(which-Mitch) Lex Luthor > > The hereafter will catch up with Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell. Don't > worry. I prefer the here and now, personally. Why not come to Tennessee? Lots of folks want to say "Howdy" to you personally Sloan.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2007 00:40:28
From:
Subject: Re: Rats, pack, their nature impartially discussed
|
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:35:56 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] > wrote: >On Nov 16, 8:58 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Nov 16, 5:06 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > The sad truth is this: >> > The USCF fears having standards for membership because it might make >> > them legally liable. The do not have "standards" for board membership >> > because it might make them "liable". Sloan is not stupid. He is >> > walking a tightrope just this side of the "legal" line. He also fears >> > no lawsuit as he has no assets to attach and therefore nothing to >> > lose.I believe karma is real. What he has coming to him is great. >> > Karma will take away what he prizes most. I for one will chose to >> > folow the words of Thomas Hart Benton,"when the good Lord lays his >> > hands on someone,sir; I take mine off". Here is to God's swift >> > justice. >> >> > Rob(which-Mitch) Lex Luthor >> >> The hereafter will catch up with Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell. Don't >> worry. > >I prefer the here and now, personally. Why not come to Tennessee? Lots >of folks want to say "Howdy" to you personally Sloan. Rob why do you bother, Sloan is a Troll, just add him to your twit filter... If everyone would do that, he would end up debating with himself. J.Lohner
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 18:58:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Rats, pack, their nature impartially discussed
|
On Nov 16, 5:06 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > The sad truth is this: > The USCF fears having standards for membership because it might make > them legally liable. The do not have "standards" for board membership > because it might make them "liable". Sloan is not stupid. He is > walking a tightrope just this side of the "legal" line. He also fears > no lawsuit as he has no assets to attach and therefore nothing to > lose.I believe karma is real. What he has coming to him is great. > Karma will take away what he prizes most. I for one will chose to > folow the words of Thomas Hart Benton,"when the good Lord lays his > hands on someone,sir; I take mine off". Here is to God's swift > justice. > > Rob(which-Mitch) Lex Luthor The hereafter will catch up with Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell. Don't worry.
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 18:27:02
From:
Subject: Re: Paging [...] Larry Parr
|
On Nov 16, 7:56 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 12:04 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Conspicuous by his absence from this thread is Larry Parr, normally > > > > Sam Sloan's greatest booster and defender, and (I presume) the person > > > > to whom Phil Innes priily refers to above as one of the "people who > > > > have pushed [Sloan] forward as their stalking horse." > > > > Sam's vulgar, tasteless smear of Susan Polgar must be causing Larry > > > > considerable embarrassment. So much so that, unlike with other Sloan > > > > offerings of sex-related offal, Parr hasn't even tried to come up with > > > > one of his torturously contrived, patently hypocritical double- > > > > standard defenses. > > > > Sloan's action is in fact so offensive that we see Phil Innes, > > > > normally a Parr ally, one whom Parr has lauded as a "model > > > > intellectual," quite correctly blasting Sloan for his vile post. It is > > > > to Innes' credit that he has done this, and to Parr's shame that he > > > > has not. > > > > > Parr can't win here. He can either defend Sloan's vileness and > > > > thereby incur Innes' wrath (not to mention general censure), or he can > > > > side with Innes, and have to repudiate his erstwhile fair-haired boy > > > > Sam. Or, more likely, he will continue silent on the subject, and hope > > > > that everyone forgets it ever happened. But some of us won't, > > > > including, one hopes, the members of the USCF every time Sloan runs > > > > for the EB. > > > One would think that it would not be difficult for Parr to say that he > > has to date supported Sloan for reasons x, y, and z, but disassociates > > himself from Sloan's current reks. > > One might think that, Bill, but it seems Parr does not. For some > reason he seems to want his support for Sloan to remain absolute. For > Parr to admit that Sam is even slightly a scumbag would be the first > crack in the wall, the first step down the slippery slope. So he'll > condone Sloan's obscenity with silence. People can change: you may be right, but I hope you're wrong.
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 16:56:03
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Paging [...] Larry Parr
|
On Nov 16, 3:40 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Nov 16, 12:04 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Conspicuous by his absence from this thread is Larry Parr, normally > > > Sam Sloan's greatest booster and defender, and (I presume) the person > > > to whom Phil Innes priily refers to above as one of the "people who > > > have pushed [Sloan] forward as their stalking horse." > > > Sam's vulgar, tasteless smear of Susan Polgar must be causing Larry > > > considerable embarrassment. So much so that, unlike with other Sloan > > > offerings of sex-related offal, Parr hasn't even tried to come up with > > > one of his torturously contrived, patently hypocritical double- > > > standard defenses. > > > Sloan's action is in fact so offensive that we see Phil Innes, > > > normally a Parr ally, one whom Parr has lauded as a "model > > > intellectual," quite correctly blasting Sloan for his vile post. It is > > > to Innes' credit that he has done this, and to Parr's shame that he > > > has not. > > > > Parr can't win here. He can either defend Sloan's vileness and > > > thereby incur Innes' wrath (not to mention general censure), or he can > > > side with Innes, and have to repudiate his erstwhile fair-haired boy > > > Sam. Or, more likely, he will continue silent on the subject, and hope > > > that everyone forgets it ever happened. But some of us won't, > > > including, one hopes, the members of the USCF every time Sloan runs > > > for the EB. > > One would think that it would not be difficult for Parr to say that he > has to date supported Sloan for reasons x, y, and z, but disassociates > himself from Sloan's current reks. One might think that, Bill, but it seems Parr does not. For some reason he seems to want his support for Sloan to remain absolute. For Parr to admit that Sam is even slightly a scumbag would be the first crack in the wall, the first step down the slippery slope. So he'll condone Sloan's obscenity with silence.
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 14:06:40
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Rats, pack, their nature impartially discussed
|
On Nov 16, 3:33 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 4:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> what a slut you are sloan! > > >> while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, > >> for > >> their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to > >> god > >> they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your > >> own > >> dirty little obsession utterly? > > >> phil innes > > > Conspicuous by his absence from this thread is Larry Parr, normally > > Sam Sloan's greatest booster and defender, and (I presume) the person > > to whom Phil Innes priily refers to above as one of the "people who > > have pushed [Sloan] forward as their stalking horse." > > Now there is a little provocation, if indeed Larry Parr had any political > ambition, it might even be a just fling. But he don't. My reference was more > to a subfusc political crew who use Sloan, those in office and those who > want in. Sloan himself is quite oblivious to his use. > > > Sam's vulgar, tasteless smear of Susan Polgar must be causing Larry > > considerable embarrassment. > > I don't think so. I supported Sloan against false charges against him during > his election campaign. I said, if he truly some sort of child molester, take > the man to court and prosecute him, don't complain about it on usenet - I > said this specifically to Bill Brock. Let the rule of law stand! That is our > Western tradition, and you yanks don't have direct experience of where it is > absent, and what goes on, so you are all rather theoretical about it. > > Sloan is a libertarian, and especially on the subject of sexual mores, which > Larry Parr is not. But Sloan is insufficiently mature to notice that to > speak of these things requires more emothionla //thrust// that is typical in > any 13 year old. He has just begun to notice the fact that both Susan Polgar > and the future President of the USA both speak of sexism. At age 60, this > is, we must admit, at least momentum. > > How should anyone else influence such people as Sloan, who seem to have > obsessed on women his whole life, while not really being very observant > about their own perspectives on things? > > I support Sam Sloan being an immature, late learner [very bloody late!], but > hey - who is to judge whom, here? Is that what we should all be doing > together? We do need to say that some attitudes need challenge, that they > are juvenile, and comprised of all the usual faults, such as projections, et > al. But that is to speak of /behavior/ not the person. To credibly > differentiate the two itself needs some discipline, and self-awareness - > without which we merely react, not knowing if we cover up our own 'stuff' in > order to resent the 'stuff' of others [!] > > > So much so that, unlike with other Sloan > > offerings of sex-related offal, Parr hasn't even tried to come up with > > one of his torturously contrived, patently hypocritical double- > > standard defenses. > > I will defend Sloan. He did not break the law. He is his own man. Parr is > not his brother's keeper. > > > Sloan's action is in fact so offensive that we see Phil Innes, > > normally a Parr ally, one whom Parr has lauded as a "model > > intellectual," quite correctly blasting Sloan for his vile post. It is > > to Innes' credit that he has done this, and to Parr's shame that he > > has not. > > It is only offensive in our regime of values. People also thought Henry > Miller offensive because of the subject of sex. But Miller needed to deal > with that, since he was a profoundly spiritually oriented man, and he saw > sex as the great American hang-up, not hardly differentiated from violence > [look at your tv!] and a Victorian posture which inhibited expression, > indeed, in 'Nothing But the Miraculous' he cited original Puritan > attitudes - as if we had not understood Scarlet Letter. > > > Parr can't win here. He can either defend Sloan's vileness and > > thereby incur Innes' wrath (not to mention general censure), or he can > > side with Innes, and have to repudiate his erstwhile fair-haired boy > > Sam. > > I will defend Sloan for saying as he wishes! I will not admire what he says, > but in this vacuum, Taylor, where so often what is base gets most attention > in this newsgroup and our society, it is to be expected that the rights of > speech are confused with a concommitant responsibilty to responsible speech. > > > Or, more likely, he will continue silent on the subject, and hope > > that everyone forgets it ever happened. But some of us won't, > > including, one hopes, the members of the USCF every time Sloan runs > > for the EB. > > I asked them specifically 20 months ago if they had any standards whatever? > They did not. Neither did they choose to act on the issue and institute any. > > Be so kind as to not posit other people's required opinion in order to speak > your own peace. It is not the fault of Larry Parr that Sam Sloan's behaviors > and obsessions do nothing in our opinion to further chess. It is our > responsibilty, since we did nothing to avert such behaviors from entering > the central body of our chess organisation. > > Phil Innes > > > > > > >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >>news:[email protected]... > > >> >A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the > >> > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. > > >> > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know > >> > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail > >> > her, if necessary. > > >> > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know > >> > about it. > > >> > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn > >> > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. > > >> > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal > >> > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. > >> > Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that > >> > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.- Hide > >> > quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The sad truth is this: The USCF fears having standards for membership because it might make them legally liable. The do not have "standards" for board membership because it might make them "liable". Sloan is not stupid. He is walking a tightrope just this side of the "legal" line. He also fears no lawsuit as he has no assets to attach and therefore nothing to lose.I believe karma is real. What he has coming to him is great. Karma will take away what he prizes most. I for one will chose to folow the words of Thomas Hart Benton,"when the good Lord lays his hands on someone,sir; I take mine off". Here is to God's swift justice. Rob(which-Mitch) Lex Luthor
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 12:40:23
From:
Subject: Paging [...] Larry Parr
|
On Nov 16, 2:28 pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Nov 16, 12:04 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 14, 4:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > what a slut you are sloan! > > > > while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, for > > > their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to god > > > they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your own > > > dirty little obsession utterly? > > > > phil innes > > > Conspicuous by his absence from this thread is Larry Parr, normally > > Sam Sloan's greatest booster and defender, and (I presume) the person > > to whom Phil Innes priily refers to above as one of the "people who > > have pushed [Sloan] forward as their stalking horse." > > Sam's vulgar, tasteless smear of Susan Polgar must be causing Larry > > considerable embarrassment. So much so that, unlike with other Sloan > > offerings of sex-related offal, Parr hasn't even tried to come up with > > one of his torturously contrived, patently hypocritical double- > > standard defenses. > > Sloan's action is in fact so offensive that we see Phil Innes, > > normally a Parr ally, one whom Parr has lauded as a "model > > intellectual," quite correctly blasting Sloan for his vile post. It is > > to Innes' credit that he has done this, and to Parr's shame that he > > has not. > > > Parr can't win here. He can either defend Sloan's vileness and > > thereby incur Innes' wrath (not to mention general censure), or he can > > side with Innes, and have to repudiate his erstwhile fair-haired boy > > Sam. Or, more likely, he will continue silent on the subject, and hope > > that everyone forgets it ever happened. But some of us won't, > > including, one hopes, the members of the USCF every time Sloan runs > > for the EB. > > > > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > >news:[email protected]... > > > > >A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the > > > > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. > > > > > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know > > > > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail > > > > her, if necessary. > > > > > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know > > > > about it. > > > > > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn > > > > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. > > > > > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal > > > > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. > > > > Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that > > > > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Day 3. One would think that it would not be difficult for Parr to say that he has to date supported Sloan for reasons x, y, and z, but disassociates himself from Sloan's current reks.
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 12:28:40
From:
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Porn Video
|
On Nov 16, 12:04 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 14, 4:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > what a slut you are sloan! > > > while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, for > > their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to god > > they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your own > > dirty little obsession utterly? > > > phil innes > > Conspicuous by his absence from this thread is Larry Parr, normally > Sam Sloan's greatest booster and defender, and (I presume) the person > to whom Phil Innes priily refers to above as one of the "people who > have pushed [Sloan] forward as their stalking horse." > Sam's vulgar, tasteless smear of Susan Polgar must be causing Larry > considerable embarrassment. So much so that, unlike with other Sloan > offerings of sex-related offal, Parr hasn't even tried to come up with > one of his torturously contrived, patently hypocritical double- > standard defenses. > Sloan's action is in fact so offensive that we see Phil Innes, > normally a Parr ally, one whom Parr has lauded as a "model > intellectual," quite correctly blasting Sloan for his vile post. It is > to Innes' credit that he has done this, and to Parr's shame that he > has not. > > Parr can't win here. He can either defend Sloan's vileness and > thereby incur Innes' wrath (not to mention general censure), or he can > side with Innes, and have to repudiate his erstwhile fair-haired boy > Sam. Or, more likely, he will continue silent on the subject, and hope > that everyone forgets it ever happened. But some of us won't, > including, one hopes, the members of the USCF every time Sloan runs > for the EB. > > > > > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:[email protected]... > > > >A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the > > > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. > > > > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know > > > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail > > > her, if necessary. > > > > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know > > > about it. > > > > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn > > > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. > > > > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal > > > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. > > > Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that > > > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - Day 3.
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 10:41:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo Video
|
On Nov 16, 9:04 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > "the relentless self-promotion of two grasping individuals" was my > description of the standard behavior of Mr. Innes' favorite chess > couple. Somebody at a local chess club mentioned getting the next-to-latest version of Fritz for only $10; I decided to have a look around the 'net, and see what exactly he was talking about, and in my searching I stumbled upon an article at chessbase (or perhaps chessbaseusa) which noted that Judit Polgar (NOT Susan) was the strongest female chess player ever. The article explained that she was not in top form lately, having recently produced two amazing novelties outside the world of chess... . I wrinkle my nose at the self-promoting swill seen at Susan Polgar's Web site; I spit upon it; I discharge gas in its general direction. -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 10:51:27
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo Video
|
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:41:54 -0800 (PST), help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > I wrinkle my nose at the self-promoting swill seen at >Susan Polgar's Web site; I spit upon it; I discharge gas >in its general direction. > -- help bot Have a wafer-thin mint, Mr. Bot. It will make you feel better.
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 10:04:40
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Porn Video
|
On Nov 14, 4:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > what a slut you are sloan! > > while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, for > their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to god > they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your own > dirty little obsession utterly? > > phil innes Conspicuous by his absence from this thread is Larry Parr, normally Sam Sloan's greatest booster and defender, and (I presume) the person to whom Phil Innes priily refers to above as one of the "people who have pushed [Sloan] forward as their stalking horse." Sam's vulgar, tasteless smear of Susan Polgar must be causing Larry considerable embarrassment. So much so that, unlike with other Sloan offerings of sex-related offal, Parr hasn't even tried to come up with one of his torturously contrived, patently hypocritical double- standard defenses. Sloan's action is in fact so offensive that we see Phil Innes, normally a Parr ally, one whom Parr has lauded as a "model intellectual," quite correctly blasting Sloan for his vile post. It is to Innes' credit that he has done this, and to Parr's shame that he has not. Parr can't win here. He can either defend Sloan's vileness and thereby incur Innes' wrath (not to mention general censure), or he can side with Innes, and have to repudiate his erstwhile fair-haired boy Sam. Or, more likely, he will continue silent on the subject, and hope that everyone forgets it ever happened. But some of us won't, including, one hopes, the members of the USCF every time Sloan runs for the EB. > > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > >A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the > > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. > > > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know > > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail > > her, if necessary. > > > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know > > about it. > > > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn > > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. > > > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal > > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. > > Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that > > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 21:33:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Rats, pack, their nature impartially discussed
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 14, 4:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> what a slut you are sloan! >> >> while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, >> for >> their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to >> god >> they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your >> own >> dirty little obsession utterly? >> >> phil innes > > Conspicuous by his absence from this thread is Larry Parr, normally > Sam Sloan's greatest booster and defender, and (I presume) the person > to whom Phil Innes priily refers to above as one of the "people who > have pushed [Sloan] forward as their stalking horse." Now there is a little provocation, if indeed Larry Parr had any political ambition, it might even be a just fling. But he don't. My reference was more to a subfusc political crew who use Sloan, those in office and those who want in. Sloan himself is quite oblivious to his use. > Sam's vulgar, tasteless smear of Susan Polgar must be causing Larry > considerable embarrassment. I don't think so. I supported Sloan against false charges against him during his election campaign. I said, if he truly some sort of child molester, take the man to court and prosecute him, don't complain about it on usenet - I said this specifically to Bill Brock. Let the rule of law stand! That is our Western tradition, and you yanks don't have direct experience of where it is absent, and what goes on, so you are all rather theoretical about it. Sloan is a libertarian, and especially on the subject of sexual mores, which Larry Parr is not. But Sloan is insufficiently mature to notice that to speak of these things requires more emothionla //thrust// that is typical in any 13 year old. He has just begun to notice the fact that both Susan Polgar and the future President of the USA both speak of sexism. At age 60, this is, we must admit, at least momentum. How should anyone else influence such people as Sloan, who seem to have obsessed on women his whole life, while not really being very observant about their own perspectives on things? I support Sam Sloan being an immature, late learner [very bloody late!], but hey - who is to judge whom, here? Is that what we should all be doing together? We do need to say that some attitudes need challenge, that they are juvenile, and comprised of all the usual faults, such as projections, et al. But that is to speak of /behavior/ not the person. To credibly differentiate the two itself needs some discipline, and self-awareness - without which we merely react, not knowing if we cover up our own 'stuff' in order to resent the 'stuff' of others [!] > So much so that, unlike with other Sloan > offerings of sex-related offal, Parr hasn't even tried to come up with > one of his torturously contrived, patently hypocritical double- > standard defenses. I will defend Sloan. He did not break the law. He is his own man. Parr is not his brother's keeper. > Sloan's action is in fact so offensive that we see Phil Innes, > normally a Parr ally, one whom Parr has lauded as a "model > intellectual," quite correctly blasting Sloan for his vile post. It is > to Innes' credit that he has done this, and to Parr's shame that he > has not. It is only offensive in our regime of values. People also thought Henry Miller offensive because of the subject of sex. But Miller needed to deal with that, since he was a profoundly spiritually oriented man, and he saw sex as the great American hang-up, not hardly differentiated from violence [look at your tv!] and a Victorian posture which inhibited expression, indeed, in 'Nothing But the Miraculous' he cited original Puritan attitudes - as if we had not understood Scarlet Letter. > Parr can't win here. He can either defend Sloan's vileness and > thereby incur Innes' wrath (not to mention general censure), or he can > side with Innes, and have to repudiate his erstwhile fair-haired boy > Sam. I will defend Sloan for saying as he wishes! I will not admire what he says, but in this vacuum, Taylor, where so often what is base gets most attention in this newsgroup and our society, it is to be expected that the rights of speech are confused with a concommitant responsibilty to responsible speech. > Or, more likely, he will continue silent on the subject, and hope > that everyone forgets it ever happened. But some of us won't, > including, one hopes, the members of the USCF every time Sloan runs > for the EB. I asked them specifically 20 months ago if they had any standards whatever? They did not. Neither did they choose to act on the issue and institute any. Be so kind as to not posit other people's required opinion in order to speak your own peace. It is not the fault of Larry Parr that Sam Sloan's behaviors and obsessions do nothing in our opinion to further chess. It is our responsibilty, since we did nothing to avert such behaviors from entering the central body of our chess organisation. Phil Innes >> >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >> news:[email protected]... >> >> >> >> >A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the >> > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. >> >> > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know >> > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail >> > her, if necessary. >> >> > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know >> > about it. >> >> > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn >> > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. >> >> > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal >> > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. >> > Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that >> > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.- Hide >> > quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - >
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 07:40:33
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo
|
On Nov 16, 10:27 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > **To have a discussion there needs to be mutual interest in a common > subject. Since you are not having a discussion with the 'Truong's' then > you want to speculate about them, rather than ask them directly? There > is a newsgroup where you can do that, eg. > > <insults deleted> > > When one tries to discuss this on the Polgar blog or their forum, they > generally do not get a warm welcome. They get censored -- as you are > trying to do here. If no one wishes to discuss the topic it will die of > its own weight, unless you persist in your attempts to be group moderator. > > I didn't expect you to be able to apologize, but I gave you a chance. > -- > > Cheers, > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' > -- (Exodus 23:2) > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick > society.' > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti Does Innes really think it's impossible to have a discussion between third parties? Please note Reverend Walker and I are doing just that. As for Innes' self-appointed role of Chief Moderator of the chess newsgroups, it's a sign he's increasing his scope as the Elsworth Toohey of chess - "the man who has nothing, and knows it.". Philsy's all about building his own 'worth' through the labor of others.
|
|
Date: 16 Nov 2007 06:04:29
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo Video
|
On Nov 16, 8:52 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > J.D. Walker wrote: > > Chess One wrote: > >> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >>news:[email protected]... > >>> On Nov 15, 6:55 am, Alex Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't > >>>> porn. It's foreplay in a box. > >>> Is that what it is? I don't want to stir the pot any further, but if > >>> it is one of those videos made by boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife > >>> etc then it is particularly heinous for Sloan to go this route - he > >>> makes out like it is a commercial video. Sad fellow. > > >> Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective > >> silence, Step, un, Stev - I keep forgetting! > > > *<SNIP THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE>* > > >> Pretty bad post, no? ;) > > >> Cordially, Phil Innes > > >> I took the liberty of keeping my bad post to us chess fools, since > >> otherwise the fools in alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.chess would think > >> themselves superior ;( > > > Dear Mr. Innes, > > > I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however, > > the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again > > change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup > > audience that you initiated. Why change the header? > > > Let us assume, for the sake of escape, that somewhere along the twisty > > channels of rumor that Mr. Sloan has frequented that typographical error > > reared its ugly head and managed to mislead poor Sloan. This was > > suggested to me by the post from Mr. Roberts referring to something > > called "prono." Dyslexia, typos -- who knows -- perhaps the proper > > subject should be: self promotion. > > > If Sam had claimed that Mr. Truong had made a Susan Polgar "Promo" > > video, no one would have paid attention. It would be too believable to > > question. Well what about this self-promotion subject? > > > The Truong's have been very successful within the world chess community > > of raising the profile of the "Susan Polgar" product very high indeed. > > Yet beyond the circle of chess friends she is not well known at all. > > Note the response to Sam's post in alt.gossip.celebrities, paraphrasing: > > "Susan Polgar? Who is that?" > > > I suggest that the Polgar publicity machine continues to persistently > > maneuver towards wider and wider name recognition of the "Polgar" > > product. Perhaps one day she will be mentioned in the same breath as > > celebrities like Britney Speares and and Paris Hilton. If that day > > arrives, what then? > > > Do the Truong's realize that with that level of stardom that they will > > face the paparazzi, the Hollywood sleaze media, and a throng of groupies > > that will make them constantly miserable? I already can imagine > > articles appearing in the National Enquirer advising her to seek counsel > > from Joan Rivers on where to find the best practitioner of plastic > > surgery. After all, she will then be in a world where female peers are > > expected to get boob jobs, face lifts, and periodic Botox treatments to > > prolong their shelf-life. > > I suppose that Phil is irritated that his intent to play moderator of > rec.games.chess.politics was not observed. Note where he said: > > >> Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective > >> silence, ... > > I chose to alter the subject and discuss a tangent that I thought was > worth discussion. I still feel that the promotional efforts of the > Truong's are a valid topic for discussion. "the relentless self-promotion of two grasping individuals" was my description of the standard behavior of Mr. Innes' favorite chess couple. > Later in another thread, Phil referenced this message. Mr. Innes seems > to have forgotten what the subject of this post was. Take a careful > look at the message header Phil. It is not difficult to read. Do you > see the part labeled Subject? I did not write in some obscure Latin > dialect. Feel free to apologize if you have it in you.
|
|
Date: 15 Nov 2007 17:59:57
From:
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo Video
|
On Nov 15, 4:34 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > Chess One wrote: > > >>> Dear Mr. Innes, > > >>> I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however, > > >> 'not the best?' how about atrocious? > > > As you wish... > > What? What do ///////you//////// wish by continuing this thread, Walker? > > >>> the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again > >>> change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup > >>> audience that you initiated. Why change the header? > > >> lets make it about you then ;) > > > No thanks > > So fuck off, unless you get off on this subject - I see you changed it back! > > Now we know more about 'Reverend' Walker. ROFL! > > Phil Innes > > > > > > >>> Let us assume, for the sake of escape, that somewhere along the twisty > >>> channels of rumor that Mr. Sloan has frequented that typographical error > > >> Let us not assume anything whatever. If you wish to assume such, say so! > > > I said so plain as day. You have disagreed. So be it. > > >>> reared its ugly head and managed to mislead poor Sloan. This was > >>> suggested to me by the post from Mr. Roberts referring to something > >>> called "prono." Dyslexia, typos -- who knows -- perhaps the proper > >>> subject should be: self promotion. > > >>> If Sam had claimed that Mr. Truong had made a Susan Polgar "Promo" > >>> video, no one would have paid attention. It would be too believable to > >>> question. Well what about this self-promotion subject? > > >>> The Truong's have been very successful within the world chess community > >>> of raising the profile of the "Susan Polgar" product very high indeed. > >>> Yet beyond the circle of chess friends she is not well known at all. > > >> :)) > > >>> Note the response to Sam's post in alt.gossip.celebrities, paraphrasing: > >>> "Susan Polgar? Who is that?" > > >> :)) > > >>> I suggest that the Polgar publicity machine continues to persistently > >>> maneuver towards wider and wider name recognition of the "Polgar" > >>> product. Perhaps one day she will be mentioned in the same breath as > >>> celebrities like Britney Speares and and Paris Hilton. If that day > >>> arrives, what then? > > >> Or Jesus? Why not not go for it? Since you 'reluctantly' speculate on > >> these issues, shall she do a John Lennon, in your speculatory opinion, > >> and say she is more popular than JC? > > >> Why stop here with your postulates? > > > Your invention of 'reluctance' serves no purpose. You seem to have caught > > a fever of speculation that far exceeds my own. If you wish to speculate, > > do so and own up to your own thoughts. > > >>> Do the Truong's realize that with that level of stardom that they will > >>> face the paparazzi, the Hollywood sleaze media, and a throng of groupies > >>> that will make them constantly miserable? I already can imagine > >>> articles appearing in the National Enquirer advising her to seek counsel > >>> from Joan Rivers on where to find the best practitioner of plastic > >>> surgery. After all, she will then be in a world where female peers are > >>> expected to get boob jobs, face lifts, and periodic Botox treatments to > >>> prolong their shelf-life. > >>> -- > > >> Thank you for sharing. While I have gained an increased sense of your own > >> imagination in this issue, are you Latin enough to understand > > >> nil fuit umquam sic impar sibi > > >> Which Horace meant to mean, nothing was [ever] so inconsequential with > >> itslef > > >> Should you ever wish to comment on the actual character of the person, > > >> sit ut est, aut not sit > > >> Of which sense it is better you contribute your own attention > > > This means nothing to me. If you wish to communicate rather than leave > > Latin graffiti strewn about, you could make a better effort. > > -- > > > Cheers, > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' > > -- (Exodus 23:2) > > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick > > society.' > > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Phil I think Susan Polgar should do the fucking here :-) Oh, the video sales department at Hustler See a GM Pea, See a GM Fuck Telling the reverend to fuck off is not nice. Susan apparently has done the fucking. cus Roberts
|
|
Date: 15 Nov 2007 16:03:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo Video
|
I think the change is wonderful. Excellent! It has my whole-hearted support.
|
|
Date: 15 Nov 2007 09:15:57
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Porn Video
|
On Nov 15, 6:55 am, Alex Herrera <[email protected] > wrote: > Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't > porn. It's foreplay in a box. Is that what it is? I don't want to stir the pot any further, but if it is one of those videos made by boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife etc then it is particularly heinous for Sloan to go this route - he makes out like it is a commercial video. Sad fellow.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 17:44:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Porn Video
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 15, 6:55 am, Alex Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: >> Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't >> porn. It's foreplay in a box. > > Is that what it is? I don't want to stir the pot any further, but if > it is one of those videos made by boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife > etc then it is particularly heinous for Sloan to go this route - he > makes out like it is a commercial video. Sad fellow. Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective silence, Step, un, Stev - I keep forgetting! les affairs font les hommes, non? But not, to radically and wildly change the subject, to mutter more about our own dispute, and its resolution. Your credit more than mine, and then what came of it - including engaging that interesting Belgian fellow - the same one who has supported 3 Nobel candidates, [did he tell you about that? he is modest] Anyway, he is going to cover Wijk aan Zee for us this year, armed with Fritz and a camera. As I said, not, those things. So what now? If, a favorite net word, if you could celebrate an interesting topic here in these public newsgroups, that is better informed this way than by other means, what would it be? <fear not! this is not 20 questions > I of course refer to new brooms, which in my execrable German, is neue Besen kehren gut, or is that something about the new year only? ie, is it an everyday trope or an occasion piece? How to finish this note? Why do we come here? <the 3rd question, and my quota is 3.5, so i ask it of myself > Which as ani ful no, 'come here' is "idhar ao" in Hindu, though Kipling had a bash at Anglicizing it with "hitherao", which didn't stick nearly so much as bungaloo! Pretty bad post, no? ;) Cordially, Phil Innes I took the liberty of keeping my bad post to us chess fools, since otherwise the fools in alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.chess would think themselves superior ;(
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 10:25:42
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo Video
|
Chess One wrote: > "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> On Nov 15, 6:55 am, Alex Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't >>> porn. It's foreplay in a box. >> Is that what it is? I don't want to stir the pot any further, but if >> it is one of those videos made by boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife >> etc then it is particularly heinous for Sloan to go this route - he >> makes out like it is a commercial video. Sad fellow. > > Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective > silence, Step, un, Stev - I keep forgetting! > *<SNIP THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE >* > Pretty bad post, no? ;) > > Cordially, Phil Innes > > I took the liberty of keeping my bad post to us chess fools, since otherwise > the fools in alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.chess would think themselves > superior ;( > Dear Mr. Innes, I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however, the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup audience that you initiated. Why change the header? Let us assume, for the sake of escape, that somewhere along the twisty channels of rumor that Mr. Sloan has frequented that typographical error reared its ugly head and managed to mislead poor Sloan. This was suggested to me by the post from Mr. Roberts referring to something called "prono." Dyslexia, typos -- who knows -- perhaps the proper subject should be: self promotion. If Sam had claimed that Mr. Truong had made a Susan Polgar "Promo" video, no one would have paid attention. It would be too believable to question. Well what about this self-promotion subject? The Truong's have been very successful within the world chess community of raising the profile of the "Susan Polgar" product very high indeed. Yet beyond the circle of chess friends she is not well known at all. Note the response to Sam's post in alt.gossip.celebrities, paraphrasing: "Susan Polgar? Who is that?" I suggest that the Polgar publicity machine continues to persistently maneuver towards wider and wider name recognition of the "Polgar" product. Perhaps one day she will be mentioned in the same breath as celebrities like Britney Speares and and Paris Hilton. If that day arrives, what then? Do the Truong's realize that with that level of stardom that they will face the paparazzi, the Hollywood sleaze media, and a throng of groupies that will make them constantly miserable? I already can imagine articles appearing in the National Enquirer advising her to seek counsel from Joan Rivers on where to find the best practitioner of plastic surgery. After all, she will then be in a world where female peers are expected to get boob jobs, face lifts, and periodic Botox treatments to prolong their shelf-life. -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 05:52:16
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo Video
|
J.D. Walker wrote: > Chess One wrote: >> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> On Nov 15, 6:55 am, Alex Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't >>>> porn. It's foreplay in a box. >>> Is that what it is? I don't want to stir the pot any further, but if >>> it is one of those videos made by boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife >>> etc then it is particularly heinous for Sloan to go this route - he >>> makes out like it is a commercial video. Sad fellow. >> >> Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective >> silence, Step, un, Stev - I keep forgetting! >> > > *<SNIP THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE>* > >> Pretty bad post, no? ;) >> >> Cordially, Phil Innes >> >> I took the liberty of keeping my bad post to us chess fools, since >> otherwise the fools in alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.chess would think >> themselves superior ;( >> > > Dear Mr. Innes, > > I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however, > the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again > change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup > audience that you initiated. Why change the header? > > Let us assume, for the sake of escape, that somewhere along the twisty > channels of rumor that Mr. Sloan has frequented that typographical error > reared its ugly head and managed to mislead poor Sloan. This was > suggested to me by the post from Mr. Roberts referring to something > called "prono." Dyslexia, typos -- who knows -- perhaps the proper > subject should be: self promotion. > > If Sam had claimed that Mr. Truong had made a Susan Polgar "Promo" > video, no one would have paid attention. It would be too believable to > question. Well what about this self-promotion subject? > > The Truong's have been very successful within the world chess community > of raising the profile of the "Susan Polgar" product very high indeed. > Yet beyond the circle of chess friends she is not well known at all. > Note the response to Sam's post in alt.gossip.celebrities, paraphrasing: > "Susan Polgar? Who is that?" > > I suggest that the Polgar publicity machine continues to persistently > maneuver towards wider and wider name recognition of the "Polgar" > product. Perhaps one day she will be mentioned in the same breath as > celebrities like Britney Speares and and Paris Hilton. If that day > arrives, what then? > > Do the Truong's realize that with that level of stardom that they will > face the paparazzi, the Hollywood sleaze media, and a throng of groupies > that will make them constantly miserable? I already can imagine > articles appearing in the National Enquirer advising her to seek counsel > from Joan Rivers on where to find the best practitioner of plastic > surgery. After all, she will then be in a world where female peers are > expected to get boob jobs, face lifts, and periodic Botox treatments to > prolong their shelf-life. I suppose that Phil is irritated that his intent to play moderator of rec.games.chess.politics was not observed. Note where he said: >> Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective >> silence, ... I chose to alter the subject and discuss a tangent that I thought was worth discussion. I still feel that the promotional efforts of the Truong's are a valid topic for discussion. Later in another thread, Phil referenced this message. Mr. Innes seems to have forgotten what the subject of this post was. Take a careful look at the message header Phil. It is not difficult to read. Do you see the part labeled Subject? I did not write in some obscure Latin dialect. Feel free to apologize if you have it in you. -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 21:06:48
From: Chess One
Subject: The Reverened Walker's perspectives
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Chess One wrote: >> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> On Nov 15, 6:55 am, Alex Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't >>>> porn. It's foreplay in a box. >>> Is that what it is? I don't want to stir the pot any further, but if >>> it is one of those videos made by boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife >>> etc then it is particularly heinous for Sloan to go this route - he >>> makes out like it is a commercial video. Sad fellow. >> >> Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective >> silence, Step, un, Stev - I keep forgetting! >> > > *<SNIP THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE>* > >> Pretty bad post, no? ;) >> >> Cordially, Phil Innes >> >> I took the liberty of keeping my bad post to us chess fools, since >> otherwise the fools in alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.chess would think >> themselves superior ;( >> > > Dear Mr. Innes, > > I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however, 'not the best?' how about atrocious? > the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again > change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup > audience that you initiated. Why change the header? lets make it about you then ;) > Let us assume, for the sake of escape, that somewhere along the twisty > channels of rumor that Mr. Sloan has frequented that typographical error Let us not assume anything whatever. If you wish to assume such, say so! > reared its ugly head and managed to mislead poor Sloan. This was > suggested to me by the post from Mr. Roberts referring to something called > "prono." Dyslexia, typos -- who knows -- perhaps the proper subject > should be: self promotion. > > If Sam had claimed that Mr. Truong had made a Susan Polgar "Promo" video, > no one would have paid attention. It would be too believable to question. > Well what about this self-promotion subject? > > The Truong's have been very successful within the world chess community of > raising the profile of the "Susan Polgar" product very high indeed. Yet > beyond the circle of chess friends she is not well known at all. :)) > Note the response to Sam's post in alt.gossip.celebrities, paraphrasing: > "Susan Polgar? Who is that?" :)) > I suggest that the Polgar publicity machine continues to persistently > maneuver towards wider and wider name recognition of the "Polgar" product. > Perhaps one day she will be mentioned in the same breath as celebrities > like Britney Speares and and Paris Hilton. If that day arrives, what > then? Or Jesus? Why not not go for it? Since you 'reluctantly' speculate on these issues, shall she do a John Lennon, in your speculatory opinion, and say she is more popular than JC? Why stop here with your postulates? > Do the Truong's realize that with that level of stardom that they will > face the paparazzi, the Hollywood sleaze media, and a throng of groupies > that will make them constantly miserable? I already can imagine articles > appearing in the National Enquirer advising her to seek counsel from Joan > Rivers on where to find the best practitioner of plastic surgery. After > all, she will then be in a world where female peers are expected to get > boob jobs, face lifts, and periodic Botox treatments to prolong their > shelf-life. > -- Thank you for sharing. While I have gained an increased sense of your own imagination in this issue, are you Latin enough to understand nil fuit umquam sic impar sibi Which Horace meant to mean, nothing was [ever] so inconsequential with itslef Should you ever wish to comment on the actual character of the person, sit ut est, aut not sit Of which sense it is better you contribute your own attention Cordially, Philip > > Cheers, > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' > -- (Exodus 23:2) > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick > society.' > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 15:09:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Reverened Walker's perspectives
|
I suppose that Phil is irritated that his intent to play moderator of rec.games.chess.politics was not observed. Note where he said: ** Our own Reverend continues to suppose on things. He explains that he did write in the porn thread, but to divert it... >> Let us bury this miserable subject under the weight of our collective >> silence, ... I chose to alter the subject and discuss a tangent that I thought was worth discussion. I still feel that the promotional efforts of the Truong's are a valid topic for discussion. **To have a discussion there needs to be mutual interest in a common subject. Since you are not having a discussion with the 'Truong's' then you want to speculate about them, rather than ask them directly? There is a newsgroup where you can do that, eg. Later in another thread, Phil referenced this message. Mr. Innes seems to have forgotten what the subject of this post was. Take a careful look at the message header Phil. It is not difficult to read. Do you see the part labeled Subject? I did not write in some obscure Latin dialect. Feel free to apologize if you have it in you. -- **Apologise! You have taken encouragement and you measure of things here from a known stalking Abusenik plus an in your face liar, who can scarcely write in public or private without vehemently blaming someone or other, or even whole groups of people - all of whom coincidentally [?] seem to have actually achieved more than he. To be put down by such people is to have yourself acknowledged, a sort of back-handed insult. **Let you suppose about other people very much less, your holiness, especially to negatively suppose on them or proffer spurious 'advice', of which attitude all your fine feathers do not disguise the skunk in you. Phil Innes Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 07:27:23
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo
|
Chess One wrote: **To have a discussion there needs to be mutual interest in a common subject. Since you are not having a discussion with the 'Truong's' then you want to speculate about them, rather than ask them directly? There is a newsgroup where you can do that, eg. <insults deleted > When one tries to discuss this on the Polgar blog or their forum, they generally do not get a warm welcome. They get censored -- as you are trying to do here. If no one wishes to discuss the topic it will die of its own weight, unless you persist in your attempts to be group moderator. I didn't expect you to be able to apologize, but I gave you a chance. -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 15:33:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Chess One wrote: > > **To have a discussion there needs to be mutual interest in a common > subject. Since you are not having a discussion with the 'Truong's' then > you want to speculate about them, rather than ask them directly? There is > a newsgroup where you can do that, eg. > > <insults deleted> > > When one tries to discuss this on the Polgar blog or their forum, they > generally do not get a warm welcome. They get censored -- as you are > trying to do here. If no one wishes to discuss the topic it will die of > its own weight, unless you persist in your attempts to be group moderator. > > I didn't expect you to be able to apologize, but I gave you a chance. OK - Talk as much porn as you like with those who will further attend on you - at least you all have a common interest, in two senses of common. Phil > > > Cheers, > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' > -- (Exodus 23:2) > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick > society.' > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 07:45:57
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo
|
Chess One wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> Chess One wrote: >> >> **To have a discussion there needs to be mutual interest in a common >> subject. Since you are not having a discussion with the 'Truong's' then >> you want to speculate about them, rather than ask them directly? There is >> a newsgroup where you can do that, eg. >> >> <insults deleted> >> >> When one tries to discuss this on the Polgar blog or their forum, they >> generally do not get a warm welcome. They get censored -- as you are >> trying to do here. If no one wishes to discuss the topic it will die of >> its own weight, unless you persist in your attempts to be group moderator. >> >> I didn't expect you to be able to apologize, but I gave you a chance. > > OK - Talk as much porn as you like with those who will further attend on > you - at least you all have a common interest, in two senses of common. Phil > Mr. Innes, I am not interested in porn. That seems to be /////your///// obsession. I am interested how chess is promoted, especially as seen in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Truong. Is this beginning to register yet? -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2007 16:53:07
From: Mary Whitehouse
Subject: Re: Polgar Porn..
|
Oh! I'm disgusted allright, you can't believe my utter disgustment @ the filth & guttersnipe behaviour of slutty Sloan. I join & hold hands in solidarity with Neil, Phil & Taylor in wishing & hoping for a speedy exit of this pimp-heart sleazeball from our hallowed ranks. What a filthy piece of scummy slime - DISGUSTING & the perverted notion that all us normal folks are busily engaged in videoing <shudder > our sexual proclivities with the lights on is just so DISGUSTING & filthy it beggars description. Let all upstanding citizens band together & run this incorrigble sleazer (metaphorically) out of town.. Thankyou, y Whitehouse. > > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > Chess One wrote: > >> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >> news:[email protected]... > >>> On Nov 15, 6:55 am, Alex Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't > >>>> porn. It's foreplay in a box.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 14:15:53
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo Video
|
Chess One wrote: >> Dear Mr. Innes, >> >> I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however, > > 'not the best?' how about atrocious? As you wish... > >> the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again >> change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup >> audience that you initiated. Why change the header? > > lets make it about you then ;) No thanks > >> Let us assume, for the sake of escape, that somewhere along the twisty >> channels of rumor that Mr. Sloan has frequented that typographical error > > Let us not assume anything whatever. If you wish to assume such, say so! > I said so plain as day. You have disagreed. So be it. >> reared its ugly head and managed to mislead poor Sloan. This was >> suggested to me by the post from Mr. Roberts referring to something called >> "prono." Dyslexia, typos -- who knows -- perhaps the proper subject >> should be: self promotion. >> >> If Sam had claimed that Mr. Truong had made a Susan Polgar "Promo" video, >> no one would have paid attention. It would be too believable to question. >> Well what about this self-promotion subject? >> >> The Truong's have been very successful within the world chess community of >> raising the profile of the "Susan Polgar" product very high indeed. Yet >> beyond the circle of chess friends she is not well known at all. > > :)) > > >> Note the response to Sam's post in alt.gossip.celebrities, paraphrasing: >> "Susan Polgar? Who is that?" > > :)) > > >> I suggest that the Polgar publicity machine continues to persistently >> maneuver towards wider and wider name recognition of the "Polgar" product. >> Perhaps one day she will be mentioned in the same breath as celebrities >> like Britney Speares and and Paris Hilton. If that day arrives, what >> then? > > Or Jesus? Why not not go for it? Since you 'reluctantly' speculate on these > issues, shall she do a John Lennon, in your speculatory opinion, and say she > is more popular than JC? > > Why stop here with your postulates? Your invention of 'reluctance' serves no purpose. You seem to have caught a fever of speculation that far exceeds my own. If you wish to speculate, do so and own up to your own thoughts. > >> Do the Truong's realize that with that level of stardom that they will >> face the paparazzi, the Hollywood sleaze media, and a throng of groupies >> that will make them constantly miserable? I already can imagine articles >> appearing in the National Enquirer advising her to seek counsel from Joan >> Rivers on where to find the best practitioner of plastic surgery. After >> all, she will then be in a world where female peers are expected to get >> boob jobs, face lifts, and periodic Botox treatments to prolong their >> shelf-life. >> -- > > Thank you for sharing. While I have gained an increased sense of your own > imagination in this issue, are you Latin enough to understand > > nil fuit umquam sic impar sibi > > Which Horace meant to mean, nothing was [ever] so inconsequential with > itslef > > Should you ever wish to comment on the actual character of the person, > > sit ut est, aut not sit > > Of which sense it is better you contribute your own attention This means nothing to me. If you wish to communicate rather than leave Latin graffiti strewn about, you could make a better effort. -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 22:34:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo Video
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Chess One wrote: > >>> Dear Mr. Innes, >>> >>> I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however, >> >> 'not the best?' how about atrocious? > > As you wish... What? What do ///////you//////// wish by continuing this thread, Walker? >>> the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again >>> change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup >>> audience that you initiated. Why change the header? >> >> lets make it about you then ;) > > No thanks So fuck off, unless you get off on this subject - I see you changed it back! Now we know more about 'Reverend' Walker. ROFL! Phil Innes >> >>> Let us assume, for the sake of escape, that somewhere along the twisty >>> channels of rumor that Mr. Sloan has frequented that typographical error >> >> Let us not assume anything whatever. If you wish to assume such, say so! >> > > I said so plain as day. You have disagreed. So be it. > >>> reared its ugly head and managed to mislead poor Sloan. This was >>> suggested to me by the post from Mr. Roberts referring to something >>> called "prono." Dyslexia, typos -- who knows -- perhaps the proper >>> subject should be: self promotion. >>> >>> If Sam had claimed that Mr. Truong had made a Susan Polgar "Promo" >>> video, no one would have paid attention. It would be too believable to >>> question. Well what about this self-promotion subject? >>> >>> The Truong's have been very successful within the world chess community >>> of raising the profile of the "Susan Polgar" product very high indeed. >>> Yet beyond the circle of chess friends she is not well known at all. >> >> :)) >> >> >>> Note the response to Sam's post in alt.gossip.celebrities, paraphrasing: >>> "Susan Polgar? Who is that?" >> >> :)) >> >> >>> I suggest that the Polgar publicity machine continues to persistently >>> maneuver towards wider and wider name recognition of the "Polgar" >>> product. Perhaps one day she will be mentioned in the same breath as >>> celebrities like Britney Speares and and Paris Hilton. If that day >>> arrives, what then? >> >> Or Jesus? Why not not go for it? Since you 'reluctantly' speculate on >> these issues, shall she do a John Lennon, in your speculatory opinion, >> and say she is more popular than JC? >> >> Why stop here with your postulates? > > Your invention of 'reluctance' serves no purpose. You seem to have caught > a fever of speculation that far exceeds my own. If you wish to speculate, > do so and own up to your own thoughts. > >> >>> Do the Truong's realize that with that level of stardom that they will >>> face the paparazzi, the Hollywood sleaze media, and a throng of groupies >>> that will make them constantly miserable? I already can imagine >>> articles appearing in the National Enquirer advising her to seek counsel >>> from Joan Rivers on where to find the best practitioner of plastic >>> surgery. After all, she will then be in a world where female peers are >>> expected to get boob jobs, face lifts, and periodic Botox treatments to >>> prolong their shelf-life. >>> -- >> >> Thank you for sharing. While I have gained an increased sense of your own >> imagination in this issue, are you Latin enough to understand >> >> nil fuit umquam sic impar sibi >> >> Which Horace meant to mean, nothing was [ever] so inconsequential with >> itslef >> >> Should you ever wish to comment on the actual character of the person, >> >> sit ut est, aut not sit >> >> Of which sense it is better you contribute your own attention > > This means nothing to me. If you wish to communicate rather than leave > Latin graffiti strewn about, you could make a better effort. > -- > > > Cheers, > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' > -- (Exodus 23:2) > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick > society.' > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2007 14:59:46
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Promo Video
|
Chess One wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> Chess One wrote: >> >>>> Dear Mr. Innes, >>>> >>>> I'd have to agree that this was not amongst your best posts, however, >>> 'not the best?' how about atrocious? >> As you wish... > > What? What do ///////you//////// wish by continuing this thread, Walker? > I am interested in the promotional efforts of the Truong's and consider it a topic more worthy of general attention than the one that preceded it. >>>> the spirit of the thing caught my attention. I am going to once again >>>> change the subject header and observe the narrowing of the newsgroup >>>> audience that you initiated. Why change the header? >>> lets make it about you then ;) >> No thanks > > So fuck off, unless you get off on this subject - I see you changed it back! > > Now we know more about 'Reverend' Walker. ROFL! > You k yourself. I need say nothing. -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
|
Date: 15 Nov 2007 04:55:30
From: Alex Herrera
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Porn Video
|
Two consenting adults taping themselves for their private use isn't porn. It's foreplay in a box.
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 17:44:37
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Deleted Disgusting Subject Line
|
On Nov 14, 5:11 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > I agree with Mr. Kingston and Mr. Innes. It would be difficult for any reasonable person to do anything else in this case. Sad state of affairs.
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 19:49:30
From: Richard
Subject: Re: Deleted Disgusting Subject Line
|
SBD wrote: > On Nov 14, 5:11 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree with Mr. Kingston and Mr. Innes. > > It would be difficult for any reasonable person to do anything else in > this case. Sad state of affairs. > > I agree with everybody........especially my wife.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 19:01:19
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: White doves oe'r Elysian fields...
|
Richard wrote: > I agree with everybody........especially my wife. I will second that! -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 15:11:39
From: The Historian
Subject: Deleted Disgusting Subject Line
|
On Nov 14, 5:55 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 14, 4:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > what a slut you are sloan! > > > while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, for > > their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to god > > they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your own > > dirty little obsession utterly? > > > phil innes > > For once I must say that I heartily agree with Phil Innes. Very > heartily. This is definitely one of the more disgusting things Sloan > has ever posted, and that's saying something. I agree with Mr. Kingston and Mr. Innes.
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 14:55:58
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Porn Video
|
On Nov 14, 4:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > what a slut you are sloan! > > while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, for > their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to god > they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your own > dirty little obsession utterly? > > phil innes For once I must say that I heartily agree with Phil Innes. Very heartily. This is definitely one of the more disgusting things Sloan has ever posted, and that's saying something. > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > >A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the > > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. > > > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know > > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail > > her, if necessary. > > > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know > > about it. > > > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn > > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. > > > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal > > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. > > Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that > > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 21:59:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Porn Video
|
what a slut you are sloan! while some people have pushed you forward as their own stalking horse, for their purpospes, whatever they intended you for good or bad, surely to god they now see your obsession as it is - as some dominant that drives your own dirty little obsession utterly? phil innes "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. > > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail > her, if necessary. > > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know > about it. > > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. > > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. > Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude. >
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 18:14:54
From:
Subject: Re: Clean hands
|
On Nov 14, 12:07 pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Nov 14, 7:56 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the > > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. > > > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know > > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail > > her, if necessary. > > > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know > > about it. > > > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn > > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. > > > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal > > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. > > Susan has even calledthe rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that > > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity#One_who_comes_into_equi... More to the point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity#One_who_seeks_equity_must_do_equity
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 18:12:06
From:
Subject: Re: Clean hands
|
On Nov 14, 12:11 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Upon reflection, instructions to plaintiff as to how to come should be > along the lines of "3-9!" > > http://direkickfeud.blogspot.com/2007/10/7-4.html I did not look at the table prior to posting (honestly!): lucky me.
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 18:11:05
From:
Subject: Re: Clean hands
|
Upon reflection, instructions to plaintiff as to how to come should be along the lines of "3-9!" http://direkickfeud.blogspot.com/2007/10/7-4.html
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 18:07:27
From:
Subject: Clean hands
|
On Nov 14, 7:56 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. > > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail > her, if necessary. > > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know > about it. > > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. > > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. > Susan has even calledthe rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity#One_who_comes_into_equity_must_come_with_clean_hands
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 08:38:10
From:
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Porn Video
|
On Nov 14, 8:56 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > A dirty little secret circulating privately for quite some time is the > existence of a porn video starring Susan Polgar. > > I do not believe that it has been commercially produced. I do know > that Paul Truong has it. Perhaps he intends to use it to blackmail > her, if necessary. > > It was apparently made some time in the 1990s. That is all I know > about it. > > I do not think it is a big deal. Almost everybody is making porn > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. > > However, in Susan's case it becomes an issue because of her vocal > complaints about one of her female rivals wearing revealing clothing. > Susan has even called the rival a "slut" and a "Lolita", although that > female rival has never appeared in a porn video or even nude. I can't *believe* that! Shocking!! By the way, who the hell is Susan Polgar?
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 06:16:42
From: The Historian
Subject: 'The Thing to Do"
|
On Nov 14, 8:56 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: Almost everybody is making porn > videos of themselves nowadays. It is quite the thing to do. OK, time to fess up. How many posters here have made porn videos? One?
|
|