| |
Main
Date: 08 Oct 2008 12:53:43
From: samsloan
Subject: The Real Susan Polgar
|
Paul Truong deserves full credit for one thing: He has taken a
relatively unattractive young lady and made her into a beauty queen.
It is truly amazing how he was able to do this. A remarkable
transformation!!!
However, there may be those of you who would like to know what the
Real Susan Polgar looks like, without the makeup, the padded bras,
falsies, the dyed hair and the works. Just the plain old Real Susan.
So, here she is. You will hardly be able to recognize her. She is
speaking to Leontxo Garcia, the famous chess journalist from Spain,
during the 1988 World Chess Olympiad in Thessaloniki, Greece. Susan's
father, Laszlo Polgar, is to the left hand side of the crowd. He is
bearded and slightly bald on top.
I took this picture myself. It is one of a bunch of pictures I
recovered during my recent trip to San Francisco on August 15-23, 2008
in which I was able to locate and recover some of my old possessions.
Sam Sloan
http://www.anusha.com/real-polgar.htm
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 05:45:11
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 13, 5:34=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:03:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Murray's campaign is reduced to simple abuse
>
> Says, Phil, who then adds,
>
> >Murray is a coward
> >A one-issue abusenik,
> >without the slightest intention to be honorable,
> >a bloke who pretends to reason,
> >This person never evinced the slightest interest in discussing the game
> >Murray is on-line trailer trash - and typical of the voting block of 6
> >numbskulls who celebrate their numbness here.
>
> Yup, them durned abuseniks.
P Innes calling anyone "trailer trash" drives the Irony-ometer off the
scale.
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2008 09:41:49
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 14, 5:20=A0pm, Javert <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 14, 5:42=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:05:21 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]=
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> what is merely clever and celebrated, to what is simple and
> > >>good, and better kept simple so as to be good.
>
> > > Phil Innes prattling about things "better kept simple so as to be
> > > good" is like Alfred E. Neumann warning against excessive worry.
>
> > Well, I think Mike Murray, the guy who prosecutes someone publicly for =
15
> > months, but who can't look at direct evidence, need make no comparisons=
to
> > anyone. What a shit this guy Murray is, since what he writes is all he'=
s
> > got, and I repeat that it is SIGNIFICANT that that is all he has to sup=
port
> > his opinion as a one-issue poster for all this time.
>
> > Murray should save his opinion for idiots who don't need any
> > characterisation of an issue to resolve their own opinion, their being =
some
> > half dozen such joyless and witless folks in this newsgroup, since they
> > can't write elsewhere.
>
> > The idiotic and cowardly Murray once again ducks the issue, to indulge =
his
> > spite about other people.
>
> > Some people get off of this, but as I said many times before, where is =
any
> > substance from Murray that is not complete speculation and juvenile too=
?
>
> > There ain't none in 47 instance at his own count of what he discounts. =
Yet
> > he carries on as if ... zzzzzzzzz
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> I knew I was put to sleep by Phil's logorhea but now I see he does it
> to himself.
Putting P Innes to sleep? There's a consummation devoutly to be
wished.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2008 15:37:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 14, 6:20=A0pm, Javert <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 14, 5:42=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There ain't none in 47 instance at his own count of what he discounts. =
Yet
> > he carries on as if ... zzzzzzzzz
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> I knew I was put to sleep by Phil's logorhea but now I see he does it
> to himself.
Definition of Logorhea
* (medical) An excessive and often uncontrollable flow of words.
* (humorous) Excessive talkativeness.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2008 15:20:56
From: Javert
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 14, 5:42=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:05:21 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> what is merely clever and celebrated, to what is simple and
> >>good, and better kept simple so as to be good.
>
> > Phil Innes prattling about things "better kept simple so as to be
> > good" is like Alfred E. Neumann warning against excessive worry.
>
> Well, I think Mike Murray, the guy who prosecutes someone publicly for 15
> months, but who can't look at direct evidence, need make no comparisons t=
o
> anyone. What a shit this guy Murray is, since what he writes is all he's
> got, and I repeat that it is SIGNIFICANT that that is all he has to suppo=
rt
> his opinion as a one-issue poster for all this time.
>
> Murray should save his opinion for idiots who don't need any
> characterisation of an issue to resolve their own opinion, their being so=
me
> half dozen such joyless and witless folks in this newsgroup, since they
> can't write elsewhere.
>
> The idiotic and cowardly Murray once again ducks the issue, to indulge hi=
s
> spite about other people.
>
> Some people get off of this, but as I said many times before, where is an=
y
> substance from Murray that is not complete speculation and juvenile too?
>
> There ain't none in 47 instance at his own count of what he discounts. Ye=
t
> he carries on as if ... zzzzzzzzz
>
> Phil Innes
I knew I was put to sleep by Phil's logorhea but now I see he does it
to himself.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2008 17:05:29
From: SBD
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 11, 3:50=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> so... we are just dumb blokes who never were there, no?
>
> cordially, phil
Phil says something smart!
I don't understand this focus on Polgar's appearance, it seems cruel.
Women of course care about these things, and I have noted that Polgar
often had things like "make-up tips" and other things in her girl's
tournaments - it seems daft to me, but she is the famous female GM,
and probably has some understanding of these things. Maybe it does
help promote a positive self-image or somesuch.... what do I know of
such things?
Isn't it also natural that she would become more "glamorous"-conscious
in the US, and especially now, as she has to, as Innes' notes,
entertain people as celebrities in charge of a chess institute must?
Sam, on this one you should just apologize.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2008 10:05:45
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
Hey hair style sucked back then ..
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2008 16:50:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
"SAT W-7" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hey hair style sucked back then ..
so did mine
in fact, i never did bother with a style like some blokes do [lol] - i just
go to my barber, a muslim bloke from Egypt, and I say, cut it, and he does
whatever he wants <grin >
that's the real me, and if she was the real she then, good, but women
change - they have children, they become more or less famous, and they adapt
their personna to that, and to to their mature selves
which i think is nothing anyone here has to worry about :))
at least we are not famous and do not have to entertain 10 people a day, or
10,000
so... we are just dumb blokes who never were there, no?
cordially, phil
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2008 21:37:45
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 9, 3:40=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> Aww, Phil, have you been reading Schaupenhaur again? =A0You should stick
> with Edgar Guest.
I think the 'poet' Ogdan Nash once called the Unwelcome Guest writes
at an intellectual level far above that of P Innes.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2008 13:05:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a224a8a9-2162-469c-9e18-3ecafa4cad9f@v72g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 3:40 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> Aww, Phil, have you been reading Schaupenhaur again? You should stick
> with Edgar Guest.
I think the 'poet' Ogdan Nash once called the Unwelcome Guest writes
at an intellectual level far above that of P Innes.
--
I've been reading The Road Home, Rose Tremain, but then again, I like women,
am not afraid of them, unlike so many here! - And her book is about plain
peasants just like me, and such zomorodka as is Tremain's Polish Lev. Being
'intellectual' is so often the result of lack of experience, no? A crassness
which proclaims what it does not know from experience itself, plus a need to
speculate vicariously from the words of others who purport to know things,
as if in some insensible form of competition, when the issue is not striving
to be better, but trying to be decent as a human being.
There is a difference in appreciation here - not only in respect of
orientation from those writers who are scared of women <wink > and women's
power - but of what is merely clever and celebrated, to what is simple and
good, and better kept simple so as to be good.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2008 11:52:39
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:05:21 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> what is merely clever and celebrated, to what is simple and
>good, and better kept simple so as to be good.
Phil Innes prattling about things "better kept simple so as to be
good" is like Alfred E. Neumann warning against excessive worry.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2008 17:42:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:05:21 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> what is merely clever and celebrated, to what is simple and
>>good, and better kept simple so as to be good.
>
>
> Phil Innes prattling about things "better kept simple so as to be
> good" is like Alfred E. Neumann warning against excessive worry.
Well, I think Mike Murray, the guy who prosecutes someone publicly for 15
months, but who can't look at direct evidence, need make no comparisons to
anyone. What a shit this guy Murray is, since what he writes is all he's
got, and I repeat that it is SIGNIFICANT that that is all he has to support
his opinion as a one-issue poster for all this time.
Murray should save his opinion for idiots who don't need any
characterisation of an issue to resolve their own opinion, their being some
half dozen such joyless and witless folks in this newsgroup, since they
can't write elsewhere.
The idiotic and cowardly Murray once again ducks the issue, to indulge his
spite about other people.
Some people get off of this, but as I said many times before, where is any
substance from Murray that is not complete speculation and juvenile too?
There ain't none in 47 instance at his own count of what he discounts. Yet
he carries on as if ... zzzzzzzzz
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2008 16:53:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:42:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Phil Innes prattling about things "better kept simple so as to be
>> good" is like Alfred E. Neumann warning against excessive worry.
>Well, I think Mike Murray, the guy who prosecutes someone publicly for 15
>months, but who can't look at direct evidence, need make no comparisons to
>anyone. What a shit this guy Murray is, since what he writes is all he's
>got, and I repeat that it is SIGNIFICANT that that is all he has to support
>his opinion as a one-issue poster for all this time.
>
>Murray should save his opinion for idiots who don't need any
>characterisation of an issue to resolve their own opinion, their being some
>half dozen such joyless and witless folks in this newsgroup, since they
>can't write elsewhere.
>
>The idiotic and cowardly Murray once again ducks the issue, to indulge his
>spite about other people.
>
>Some people get off of this, but as I said many times before, where is any
>substance from Murray that is not complete speculation and juvenile too?
>
>There ain't none in 47 instance at his own count of what he discounts. Yet
>he carries on as if ... zzzzzzzzz
>
>Phil Innes
Phil's combining Logorrhea with narcolepsy may render him an
interesting subject for further research.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2008 12:38:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Phil's combining Logorrhea with narcolepsy may render him an
> interesting subject for further research.
Murray continues to support his public abuse campaign by egging on idiots
who have nothing whatever to say about chess - some of them not saying it
for 5 years, while the rest only care about one thing. The subject of
persecuting others outside the rule of law is constantly funny to this
crowd.
They have /abandoned/ conversation on every issue and continue to talk about
the Logorrhea of others - as if they knew what conversation was.
These are the real Susan Polgar bashers, and since they are not allowed to
spout elsewhere, since the chess world banned them, what we got are
numbskulls in collusion.
PI
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2008 18:31:11
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Phil's combining Logorrhea with narcolepsy may render him an
>> interesting subject for further research.
>
> Murray continues to support his public abuse campaign by egging on idiots
> who have nothing whatever to say about chess - some of them not saying it
> for 5 years, while the rest only care about one thing. The subject of
> persecuting others outside the rule of law is constantly funny to this
> crowd.
Mike, please stop bashing idiots such as Phil.
>
> They have /abandoned/ conversation on every issue and continue to talk about
> the Logorrhea of others - as if they knew what conversation was.
Spoken like a true bowel, Phil old boy.
>
> These are the real Susan Polgar bashers, and since they are not allowed to
> spout elsewhere, since the chess world banned them, what we got are
> numbskulls in collusion.
Another alleged conspiracy. Oh, my! Oh, my!
>
> PI
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2008 09:47:20
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:38:27 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Phil's combining Logorrhea with narcolepsy may render him an
>> interesting subject for further research.
>Murray continues to support his public abuse campaign by egging on idiots
>who have nothing whatever to say about chess - some of them not saying it
>for 5 years, while the rest only care about one thing. The subject of
>persecuting others outside the rule of law is constantly funny to this
>crowd.
>They have /abandoned/ conversation on every issue and continue to talk about
>the Logorrhea of others - as if they knew what conversation was.
Among other things, Phil, we talk about *you*.
>These are the real Susan Polgar bashers, and since they are not allowed to
>spout elsewhere, since the chess world banned them,
"not allowed to spout elsewhere since the chess world banned them"??
Phil, do you just pull this stuff out of your ass?
I realize facts aren't as important to you as to most of us, but you
usually obfuscate your lies with bizarre verbiage and formatting. This
is an unusually clear and concise claim. So, where have I been banned
?
Come on Phil, name a site, you can do it -- make something up. Then
we can check your claim, determine it to be false, call you on it, and
then you can deny making it. Isn't that how it works?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 07:54:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Come on Phil, name a site, you can do it -- make something up. Then
> we can check your claim, determine it to be false, call you on it, and
> then you can deny making it. Isn't that how it works?
Mike Murray has not quite understood the measure of disdain in which I hold
such as his opinion, and here cannot name other chess sites which he graces,
but puts me to the task!
Since he continues to act as if this is a conversation - but actually he
rubbishes all conversation about chess - especially any other opinion on the
FSS, I am merely pointing out his disability.
When I asked Murray to look at the FSS material it took 20 posts of his own,
but 30 of the usual abuse from others, to admit he /could/ tell the
difference. I wonder if its even true - he couldn't say how in his own
words?
I wrote 8 significant ways that anyone at all could determine the issue -
especially considered as a /pattern/of factors, and asked Murray or anyone
else if they too could characterise the work of the FSS? They rubbished even
the idea of it. Maybe its true that Murray also rubbishes others ideas
elsewhere - but I think no moderator would permit such complete nihilism and
cynical projection.
No answer from such as Murray to evidence available to all, which is mighty
curious, but completely unexplained - so these attempted 'proposals' to
engage the subject by Murray lack all conviction that they are true attempts
to discover anything. They are not initiatives which require work based on
observations, they are empty and abusive mouthings.
Where he can address a subject directly he is as watery as a great lake -
and since no-one else engages him on his fascinating views then maybe it is
not their fault at all - its a phantasm shared with the Sloan who declares
that everyone knows the identity of the FSS - but actually the half dozen
people here who seem most assured, are the least assuring that they know
based on knowledge as such.
As soon as any material emerges which is not mere opinion, they have nothing
to say about themselves, and revert to saying stuff about others.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 06:22:56
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:54:43 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Come on Phil, name a site, you can do it -- make something up. Then
>> we can check your claim, determine it to be false, call you on it, and
>> then you can deny making it. Isn't that how it works?
>Mike Murray ... here cannot name other chess sites which he graces,
>but puts me to the task!
Well, Phil, since you're evidently not up to the task, try the USCF
forum -- where I've not only NOT been "banned" but never even been
sanctioned or put in the moderation queue.
Actually, I don't remember posting anywhere else about chess.
> Maybe its true that Murray also rubbishes others ideas
>elsewhere - but I think no moderator would permit such complete nihilism and
>cynical projection.
So Phil retreats from his earlier clear and concise claim that the
chess world has "banned" me and waffles that "maybe" I say things
elsewhere that he "thinks" no moderator would permit.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2008 13:19:05
From: none
Subject: Re: The Unreal Sam Sloan
|
On Oct 9, 11:01=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:52=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:d3c3087c-ab22-4104-b14b-d5e82042ebe4@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Oct 8, 5:42 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:53:43 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Jesus, Sam, what's the point ? She deserves to present herself to the
> > > world however she wants -- it doesn't hurt anybody. What's the point
> > > of these remarks, other than to hurt her feelings?
>
> > You are absolutely right and normally I never make a comment about any
> > person's physical appearance. I do not believe that you have ever seen
> > me make such a comment like this before.
>
> > However, after being attacked daily by Polgar and Truong for the past
> > three years I think it is understandable that I would say something.
>
> > =A0 =A0 UNREAL OR NO?
>
> > **Sam Sloan is now disposed to say that he offers tit-for-tat, and that
> > Polgar and Truong are daily commentating on his physical appearance? Th=
at
> > must make the Sloan feel very important indeed! But, alas, as usual wit=
h the
> > Sloan, he 'reluctantly' responds to these inventions and gross exaggera=
tions
> > of his own imagination - since plainly he has now mixed up a fine brew =
by
> > suggesting that Polgar and Truong consider him of such importance they
> > insult him every day! that he himself is not obsessed with her but they=
with
> > him! added to which is a recurrent persecution complex, and subsequent
> > paranoia.
>
> > **How interesting that Sam Sloan concludes his message with the followi=
ng -
> > as if to justify his own action by ...
>
> > I now understand why the Hungarians hated her so much. She was doing
> > the same things over there to them, as she is now doing here to us.
>
> > **...male chauvinist and anti-semitic elements still active in Hungaria=
n
> > society. I see that even 2 years ago a fella active in Hungarian chess =
was
> > hauled in front of the European Commission for hate-speech crimes of th=
is
> > sort [the Protocols, and so on] - he was found guilty. But perhaps Sam =
Sloan
> > is referring to others in Hungary? - we could compare distribution list=
s.
>
> > =A0 =A0 DOING TO US
>
> > **The Sloan is miffed since Susan Polgar "is now doing here to us" a
> > category XV rr, which the collective mass of paid USCF staff have not
> > brought off for 35 years since their move from Greenwich Village. Such =
a
> > doing is reprehensible according to the Sloan, and needs rebuke.
>
> > **If the Sloan could ever get off the personality thing, he might then
> > accept that one measure of people's worth is a more objective factor, t=
hat
> > is, what they achieve. It might help him to gain a perspective of his o=
wn
> > stature in chess by also wondering why anyone would even conceivably wa=
nt to
> > attack him for 3 years on a daily basis? What could that possibly achie=
ve in
> > or out of office?
>
> > =A0 =A0 REALER
>
> > **Sam Sloan might instead consider attacking the subject of chess, rath=
er
> > than gaining a certain notoriety as a celebrity hitch-hiker gossiping a=
bout
> > his associations with the famous [even invented associations] - a condi=
tion
> > itself famously producing varieties of distortions in the appreciation =
of
> > things, so that utterly petty personal pricks are confounded with large
> > issues which actually have to do with the health of chess in the countr=
y.
>
> > **Phil Innes
>
> Just about everybody except for Phil Innes now accepts and agrees that
> it was Paul Truong and Susan Polgar who have posted 2,464 messages as
> "The Fake Sam Sloan" since June 25, 2005, except there are those who
> feel that Paul Truong acted alone and Susan Polgar was not involved.
>
> So, it seems clear that it is an almost universally held view that
> Truong and Polgar are obsessed with me, not the other way around.
>
> I am certainly not obsessed with her. If I had the opportunity to pick
> a top rated female chess player to sleep with, there is one I have in
> mind right now and it definitely is not her.
>
> Now, Phil Innes claims that all the trouble that Susan Polgar had with
> the other Hungarian chess players and with the Hungarian Chess
> Federation was entirely due to "male chauvinist and anti-Semitic
> elements still active in Hungarian society". This has been the
> Official Susan Polgar Line for the 24 years that I have known her. She
> used to claim that she was being persecuted by her fellow Hungarians.
> Now that she has moved here, we in the USCF have become her
> tormentors. She seems not to be claiming at present that the USCF is
> anti-Semitic. I was going to mention in my latest pleading that the
> obvious reason she is not using that line at present is the majority
> of the current USCF board is Jewish, so this one would not fly well,
> so now she claims that it is all because the board is anti-women and
> anti-foreigner that they are all against her.
>
> Phil Innes has become her official spokesman, since she no longer
> speaks directly to the membership herself. Does anybody other than
> Phil Innes accept the lines of BS we keep hearing?
>
> Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"So, it seems clear that it is an almost universally held view that
Truong and Polgar are obsessed with me, not the other way around. -
S.Sloan"
Yes, Sam fancies himselve and themselve as somethingakin to the three
musketeers. The three blind mice appears to be more fitting.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2008 17:34:57
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Unreal Sam Sloan
|
"none" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5d88a192-2bee-4547-9504-cf895c37ea28@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 11:01 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:52 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
"So, it seems clear that it is an almost universally held view that
Truong and Polgar are obsessed with me, not the other way around. -
S.Sloan"
Yes, Sam fancies himselve and themselve as somethingakin to the three
musketeers. The three blind mice appears to be more fitting.
//======\\
And Sam Sloan is so obviously obsessed, and so demonstrably unable to admit
it, despite 5 Polgar messages a day for 5 years = about 10,000 instances,
that he is entirely willing to bring down the entire USCF because he is so
grand a fella that he can't get over his bruised and rejected ego, and thus
destroys the thing he [only professes to] love. But useless to appeal to the
Sloan - who already rejected the fact that what anyone can see here is his
own obsession.
He has already begun to spout in terms of 'everyone' to me, as if half a
dozen net-louts are the entire universe. That, I suggest to you, is a
problem, and not any minor one.
Meanehile his confreres use him as a stalking horse to raise a little hell
for their own discontented existence, and shall we suspect nothing more? And
if Sloan falls, they won't give two fucks?
A classical tragedy - and for those who are and who have been engaged with
him, a real problem! Will they have to be bad on their own from now on if
the Sloan becomes disavowable?
Certainly, the Sloan knows not the slightest restraint, not even from long
time colleagues, and as for the law, what does he have to lose while he
skirts its fringes from quasi-obscurity and by veiled references suitable to
excite the circle-jerk crowd who egg him on?
He is another American tragedy of excess - of those who confuse freedom with
licence, with largesse and decency. Nothing new about that, except here
there are social consequences as well as individual ones.
The only person who does not understand the 'English' of this message will
be Sloan and his Jerks. To them, this is but a joke. But they are, each of
them, entirely unconsequential to any future, and as far as I can witness of
their writing, this too is a demonstrated fact of what they do and do not
care about.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2008 08:01:39
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Unreal Sam Sloan
|
On Oct 9, 9:52=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:d3c3087c-ab22-4104-b14b-d5e82042ebe4@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 8, 5:42 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:53:43 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jesus, Sam, what's the point ? She deserves to present herself to the
> > world however she wants -- it doesn't hurt anybody. What's the point
> > of these remarks, other than to hurt her feelings?
>
> You are absolutely right and normally I never make a comment about any
> person's physical appearance. I do not believe that you have ever seen
> me make such a comment like this before.
>
> However, after being attacked daily by Polgar and Truong for the past
> three years I think it is understandable that I would say something.
>
> =A0 =A0 UNREAL OR NO?
>
> **Sam Sloan is now disposed to say that he offers tit-for-tat, and that
> Polgar and Truong are daily commentating on his physical appearance? That
> must make the Sloan feel very important indeed! But, alas, as usual with =
the
> Sloan, he 'reluctantly' responds to these inventions and gross exaggerati=
ons
> of his own imagination - since plainly he has now mixed up a fine brew by
> suggesting that Polgar and Truong consider him of such importance they
> insult him every day! that he himself is not obsessed with her but they w=
ith
> him! added to which is a recurrent persecution complex, and subsequent
> paranoia.
>
> **How interesting that Sam Sloan concludes his message with the following=
-
> as if to justify his own action by ...
>
> I now understand why the Hungarians hated her so much. She was doing
> the same things over there to them, as she is now doing here to us.
>
> **...male chauvinist and anti-semitic elements still active in Hungarian
> society. I see that even 2 years ago a fella active in Hungarian chess wa=
s
> hauled in front of the European Commission for hate-speech crimes of this
> sort [the Protocols, and so on] - he was found guilty. But perhaps Sam Sl=
oan
> is referring to others in Hungary? - we could compare distribution lists.
>
> =A0 =A0 DOING TO US
>
> **The Sloan is miffed since Susan Polgar "is now doing here to us" a
> category XV rr, which the collective mass of paid USCF staff have not
> brought off for 35 years since their move from Greenwich Village. Such a
> doing is reprehensible according to the Sloan, and needs rebuke.
>
> **If the Sloan could ever get off the personality thing, he might then
> accept that one measure of people's worth is a more objective factor, tha=
t
> is, what they achieve. It might help him to gain a perspective of his own
> stature in chess by also wondering why anyone would even conceivably want=
to
> attack him for 3 years on a daily basis? What could that possibly achieve=
in
> or out of office?
>
> =A0 =A0 REALER
>
> **Sam Sloan might instead consider attacking the subject of chess, rather
> than gaining a certain notoriety as a celebrity hitch-hiker gossiping abo=
ut
> his associations with the famous [even invented associations] - a conditi=
on
> itself famously producing varieties of distortions in the appreciation of
> things, so that utterly petty personal pricks are confounded with large
> issues which actually have to do with the health of chess in the country.
>
> **Phil Innes
Just about everybody except for Phil Innes now accepts and agrees that
it was Paul Truong and Susan Polgar who have posted 2,464 messages as
"The Fake Sam Sloan" since June 25, 2005, except there are those who
feel that Paul Truong acted alone and Susan Polgar was not involved.
So, it seems clear that it is an almost universally held view that
Truong and Polgar are obsessed with me, not the other way around.
I am certainly not obsessed with her. If I had the opportunity to pick
a top rated female chess player to sleep with, there is one I have in
mind right now and it definitely is not her.
Now, Phil Innes claims that all the trouble that Susan Polgar had with
the other Hungarian chess players and with the Hungarian Chess
Federation was entirely due to "male chauvinist and anti-Semitic
elements still active in Hungarian society". This has been the
Official Susan Polgar Line for the 24 years that I have known her. She
used to claim that she was being persecuted by her fellow Hungarians.
Now that she has moved here, we in the USCF have become her
tormentors. She seems not to be claiming at present that the USCF is
anti-Semitic. I was going to mention in my latest pleading that the
obvious reason she is not using that line at present is the majority
of the current USCF board is Jewish, so this one would not fly well,
so now she claims that it is all because the board is anti-women and
anti-foreigner that they are all against her.
Phil Innes has become her official spokesman, since she no longer
speaks directly to the membership herself. Does anybody other than
Phil Innes accept the lines of BS we keep hearing?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2008 13:33:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Unreal Sam Sloan
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5f8581a5-53fa-4acb-adb0-a87994c4833b@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 9:52 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:d3c3087c-ab22-4104-b14b-d5e82042ebe4@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 8, 5:42 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:53:43 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jesus, Sam, what's the point ? She deserves to present herself to the
> > world however she wants -- it doesn't hurt anybody. What's the point
> > of these remarks, other than to hurt her feelings?
>
> You are absolutely right and normally I never make a comment about any
> person's physical appearance. I do not believe that you have ever seen
> me make such a comment like this before.
>
> However, after being attacked daily by Polgar and Truong for the past
> three years I think it is understandable that I would say something.
>
> UNREAL OR NO?
>
> **Sam Sloan is now disposed to say that he offers tit-for-tat, and that
> Polgar and Truong are daily commentating on his physical appearance? That
> must make the Sloan feel very important indeed! But, alas, as usual with
> the
> Sloan, he 'reluctantly' responds to these inventions and gross
> exaggerations
> of his own imagination - since plainly he has now mixed up a fine brew by
> suggesting that Polgar and Truong consider him of such importance they
> insult him every day! that he himself is not obsessed with her but they
> with
> him! added to which is a recurrent persecution complex, and subsequent
> paranoia.
>
> **How interesting that Sam Sloan concludes his message with the
> following -
> as if to justify his own action by ...
>
> I now understand why the Hungarians hated her so much. She was doing
> the same things over there to them, as she is now doing here to us.
>
> **...male chauvinist and anti-semitic elements still active in Hungarian
> society. I see that even 2 years ago a fella active in Hungarian chess was
> hauled in front of the European Commission for hate-speech crimes of this
> sort [the Protocols, and so on] - he was found guilty. But perhaps Sam
> Sloan
> is referring to others in Hungary? - we could compare distribution lists.
>
> DOING TO US
>
> **The Sloan is miffed since Susan Polgar "is now doing here to us" a
> category XV rr, which the collective mass of paid USCF staff have not
> brought off for 35 years since their move from Greenwich Village. Such a
> doing is reprehensible according to the Sloan, and needs rebuke.
>
> **If the Sloan could ever get off the personality thing, he might then
> accept that one measure of people's worth is a more objective factor, that
> is, what they achieve. It might help him to gain a perspective of his own
> stature in chess by also wondering why anyone would even conceivably want
> to
> attack him for 3 years on a daily basis? What could that possibly achieve
> in
> or out of office?
>
> REALER
>
> **Sam Sloan might instead consider attacking the subject of chess, rather
> than gaining a certain notoriety as a celebrity hitch-hiker gossiping
> about
> his associations with the famous [even invented associations] - a
> condition
> itself famously producing varieties of distortions in the appreciation of
> things, so that utterly petty personal pricks are confounded with large
> issues which actually have to do with the health of chess in the country.
>
> **Phil Innes
Just about everybody except for Phil Innes now accepts and agrees that
it was Paul Truong and Susan Polgar who have posted 2,464 messages as
"The Fake Sam Sloan" since June 25, 2005, except there are those who
feel that Paul Truong acted alone and Susan Polgar was not involved.
**That would make the half dozen people appearing here = everybody? There
seem to be vastly more people who think otherwise and who say so, but I
suppose if you choose to only observe such a tiny universe, one unmoderated
part governed only by suppositions, then you 'know' things yet unknown by,
say, the courts, or other chess venues.
So, it seems clear that it is an almost universally held view that
Truong and Polgar are obsessed with me, not the other way around.
**Which is precisely what I wrote above about about Sam Sloan's delusion.
There is no objective proof of anything by independent authority, and a
small-mob appearing locally is the entire Sloanic universe. But it would
appear that Sam Sloan actually thinks what he says is true - that for some
inexplicable reason he has become fascinating to Polgar and Truong, though
he perhaps has not yet suggested why that would come about?
I am certainly not obsessed with her.
**REALITY CHECK**
**Since we have not yet encountered one single objectified fact in the
Sloan's delusional missive - how can slagging this couple for several years,
several times every day, possibly be not obsessive? :))
**REALITY CHECK**
**The entire universe as the Sloan knows it, which might be as many as even
a dozen people who are still interested to publicly suppose on the identity
of the FSS, have not proved anything either - not objectively proved by
rules of evidence of the law of the land any single thing. They have instead
supposed on things. Whereas unless words have no meaning at all, the Sloan
denies his obsession while at the same time not denying what it is
*demonstrated* to any reader of this newsgroup - thousands of references to
Polgar and Truong is not *demonstrated* obsession, says the Sloan!
**Now, when people are so far off the page as this as to equivocate and deny
what is plain evidence to any reader here - it is pointless to continue
conversing with them as if they even know what they do, since whatever they
have to say about themselves is so evidently contradicted by what they
themselves demonstrate.
If I had the opportunity to pick
a top rated female chess player to sleep with, there is one I have in
mind right now and it definitely is not her.
**What Sam Sloan admits here is simply more of what I wrote above - not only
is he a rejected suitor, we see from his own published fantasies the nature
of the attraction - these are, after all, his own volunteered words. What I
am doing is merely noticing the behavior, and saying the behavior, not the
spin, is what's real about the Sloan.
Now, Phil Innes claims that all the trouble that Susan Polgar had with
the other Hungarian chess players and with the Hungarian Chess
Federation was entirely due to "male chauvinist and anti-Semitic
elements still active in Hungarian society".
**Actually I didn't claim that on behalf of Susan Polgar [who is
incidentally playing chess in Hungary this very day] I said it was my
knowledge of what was going even two years ago!
This has been the
Official Susan Polgar Line for the 24 years that I have known her. She
used to claim that she was being persecuted by her fellow Hungarians.
**Does Sam Sloan mean that sexist behavior and anti-semiticism in Hungarian
chess circles are imaginary?
Now that she has moved here, we in the USCF have become her
tormentors.
**Are you quoting Beatriz Marinello? B said the same thing without irony.
She seems not to be claiming at present that the USCF is
anti-Semitic. I was going to mention in my latest pleading that the
obvious reason she is not using that line at present is the majority
of the current USCF board is Jewish, so this one would not fly well,
**So you raise a 'problem' about her Jewishness which is not actually a
problem that anyone has raised? Why do you do that Sloan? I am a European,
and we had plenty of experience of that type of dialog in Europe.
so now she claims that it is all because the board is anti-women and
anti-foreigner that they are all against her.
**Yes, well - Beatriz said the same, and shall we allow women their own
opinion in the C21st, or shall we tell them they should not be expressing
these opinions? I wonder if you will mention your own attitude to this in
your next pleading?
Phil Innes has become her official spokesman, since she no longer
**Sam Sloan does not tell the truth. What he confuses is that in my culture
women are allowed their own point of view as individuals, and those people
who verbally beat up on them because they are women are frequently
confronted about their attitude by men who are not afraid of women, and
actually like intelligent, vocal and agalitarian female companions. That is
a perspective of a Celt - it is a less observed practice among Muslims, no?
And I think Sam Sloan is a Muslim.
speaks directly to the membership herself. Does anybody other than
Phil Innes accept the lines of BS we keep hearing?
**Why do you ask if you are, as you say you are, not obsessed, and have now
adopted a new fantasy female? In fact, what you do here is deny an
obsession, and then manically andf immediately return to it INT HE SAME
MESSAGE, plus inviting others to take part in a little mysogonistic
speculatory activity, no?
**Phil Innes
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2008 03:18:11
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 9, 5:48=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 8:53 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Paul Truong deserves full credit for one thing: He has taken a
> > relatively unattractive young lady and made her into a beauty queen.
> > It is truly amazing how he was able to do this. A remarkable
> > transformation!!!
>
> > However, there may be those of you who would like to know what the
> > Real Susan Polgar looks like, without the makeup, the padded bras,
> > falsies, the dyed hair and the works. Just the plain old Real Susan.
>
> > So, here she is. You will hardly be able to recognize her. She is
> > speaking to Leontxo Garcia, the famous chess journalist from Spain,
> > during the 1988 World Chess Olympiad in Thessaloniki, Greece. Susan's
> > father, Laszlo Polgar, is to the left hand side of the crowd. He is
> > bearded and slightly bald on top.
>
> That picture is 20 years old. It would have been really weird if she
> had still looked the same.
She was born in 1969. Is it not remarkable that she looks better at 39
then she did at 19?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2008 02:48:52
From: Krus T. Olfard
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
samsloan <[email protected] > wrote in news:b5f88f19-31fa-4c15-b970-
[email protected]:
> On Oct 9, 5:48�am, Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 8:53 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Paul Truong deserves full credit for one thing: He has taken a
>> > relatively unattractive young lady and made her into a beauty queen.
>> > It is truly amazing how he was able to do this. A remarkable
>> > transformation!!!
>>
>> > However, there may be those of you who would like to know what the
>> > Real Susan Polgar looks like, without the makeup, the padded bras,
>> > falsies, the dyed hair and the works. Just the plain old Real Susan.
>>
>> > So, here she is. You will hardly be able to recognize her. She is
>> > speaking to Leontxo Garcia, the famous chess journalist from Spain,
>> > during the 1988 World Chess Olympiad in Thessaloniki, Greece.
Susan's
>> > father, Laszlo Polgar, is to the left hand side of the crowd. He is
>> > bearded and slightly bald on top.
>>
>> That picture is 20 years old. It would have been really weird if she
>> had still looked the same.
>
> She was born in 1969. Is it not remarkable that she looks better at 39
> then she did at 19?
>
For someone who has almost no experience with women this possibly could
seem remarkable.
Kinda sad, really...
--
I'm an opinionated bastard. Everything I post is my opinion. If you do
not like my opinions then killfile me - if you like my opinions then send
me money.
The KTO Dictionary of Subjective Language
Tard: n Someone whose actions/words make her/him look like an idiot in
public but s/he is too disconnected to reality to realize it.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2008 02:48:06
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 8, 8:53 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Paul Truong deserves full credit for one thing: He has taken a
> relatively unattractive young lady and made her into a beauty queen.
> It is truly amazing how he was able to do this. A remarkable
> transformation!!!
>
> However, there may be those of you who would like to know what the
> Real Susan Polgar looks like, without the makeup, the padded bras,
> falsies, the dyed hair and the works. Just the plain old Real Susan.
>
> So, here she is. You will hardly be able to recognize her. She is
> speaking to Leontxo Garcia, the famous chess journalist from Spain,
> during the 1988 World Chess Olympiad in Thessaloniki, Greece. Susan's
> father, Laszlo Polgar, is to the left hand side of the crowd. He is
> bearded and slightly bald on top.
That picture is 20 years old. It would have been really weird if she
had still looked the same.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2008 17:30:23
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 8, 5:42=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:53:43 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Jesus, Sam, what's the point ? =A0She deserves to present herself to the
> world however she wants -- it doesn't hurt anybody. =A0What's the point
> of these remarks, other than to hurt her feelings?
You are absolutely right and normally I never make a comment about any
person's physical appearance. I do not believe that you have ever seen
me make such a comment like this before.
However, after being attacked daily by Polgar and Truong for the past
three years I think it is understandable that I would say something.
I now understand why the Hungarians hated her so much. She was doing
the same things over there to them, as she is now doing here to us.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2008 09:52:52
From: Chess One
Subject: The Unreal Sam Sloan
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d3c3087c-ab22-4104-b14b-d5e82042ebe4@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 5:42 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:53:43 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Jesus, Sam, what's the point ? She deserves to present herself to the
> world however she wants -- it doesn't hurt anybody. What's the point
> of these remarks, other than to hurt her feelings?
You are absolutely right and normally I never make a comment about any
person's physical appearance. I do not believe that you have ever seen
me make such a comment like this before.
However, after being attacked daily by Polgar and Truong for the past
three years I think it is understandable that I would say something.
UNREAL OR NO?
**Sam Sloan is now disposed to say that he offers tit-for-tat, and that
Polgar and Truong are daily commentating on his physical appearance? That
must make the Sloan feel very important indeed! But, alas, as usual with the
Sloan, he 'reluctantly' responds to these inventions and gross exaggerations
of his own imagination - since plainly he has now mixed up a fine brew by
suggesting that Polgar and Truong consider him of such importance they
insult him every day! that he himself is not obsessed with her but they with
him! added to which is a recurrent persecution complex, and subsequent
paranoia.
**How interesting that Sam Sloan concludes his message with the following -
as if to justify his own action by ...
I now understand why the Hungarians hated her so much. She was doing
the same things over there to them, as she is now doing here to us.
**...male chauvinist and anti-semitic elements still active in Hungarian
society. I see that even 2 years ago a fella active in Hungarian chess was
hauled in front of the European Commission for hate-speech crimes of this
sort [the Protocols, and so on] - he was found guilty. But perhaps Sam Sloan
is referring to others in Hungary? - we could compare distribution lists.
DOING TO US
**The Sloan is miffed since Susan Polgar "is now doing here to us" a
category XV rr, which the collective mass of paid USCF staff have not
brought off for 35 years since their move from Greenwich Village. Such a
doing is reprehensible according to the Sloan, and needs rebuke.
**If the Sloan could ever get off the personality thing, he might then
accept that one measure of people's worth is a more objective factor, that
is, what they achieve. It might help him to gain a perspective of his own
stature in chess by also wondering why anyone would even conceivably want to
attack him for 3 years on a daily basis? What could that possibly achieve in
or out of office?
REALER
**Sam Sloan might instead consider attacking the subject of chess, rather
than gaining a certain notoriety as a celebrity hitch-hiker gossiping about
his associations with the famous [even invented associations] - a condition
itself famously producing varieties of distortions in the appreciation of
things, so that utterly petty personal pricks are confounded with large
issues which actually have to do with the health of chess in the country.
**Phil Innes
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2008 14:42:30
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:53:43 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
Jesus, Sam, what's the point ? She deserves to present herself to the
world however she wants -- it doesn't hurt anybody. What's the point
of these remarks, other than to hurt her feelings?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2008 20:40:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:53:43 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Jesus, Sam, what's the point ? She deserves to present herself to the
> world however she wants -- it doesn't hurt anybody. What's the point
> of these remarks, other than to hurt her feelings?
because he is obsessed, like you are murray!
he is a rejected suitor - get it?
even his supporters can't stop his series of celebrations even though it
brings the house down - they can't even mention it to him in case he
isolates them - fischer was much the same towards the end of his life, and
for some, fischer the person was a great romantic hero
don't you understand about pathalogical obsessions and resentments?
it is the complete inability to notice such comments as your own, and you
should know, having rejected and mocked 47 [isn't it?] objections to your
own certainties
this message will achieve as much with you as yours has with sloan - it is
not intended to be a conscious reference point to you, since your ego
overcomes all objections [that's the mechanism, as if it were your will]
just as with the sloan
it is intended to register elsewhere
and what a shock it is to see yourself so mirrored, heh? but its okay, while
you still you live you can treat it as human condition - later too late
phil innes
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 05:44:08
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 16, 6:54=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Come on Phil, name a site, you can do it -- make something up. =A0Then
> > we can check your claim, determine it to be false, call you on it, and
> > then you can deny making it. Isn't that how it works?
>
> Mike Murray has not quite understood the measure of disdain in which I ho=
ld
> such as his opinion, and here cannot name other chess sites which he grac=
es,
> but puts me to the task!
>
> Since he continues to act as if this is a conversation - but actually he
> rubbishes all conversation about chess - especially any other opinion on =
the
> FSS, I am merely pointing out his disability.
>
> When I asked Murray to look at the FSS material it took 20 posts of his o=
wn,
> but 30 of the usual abuse from others, to admit he /could/ tell the
> difference. I wonder if its even true - he couldn't say how in his own
> words?
>
> I wrote 8 significant ways that anyone at all could determine the issue -
> especially considered as a /pattern/of factors, and asked Murray or anyon=
e
> else if they too could characterise the work of the FSS? They rubbished e=
ven
> the idea of it. Maybe its true that Murray also rubbishes others ideas
> elsewhere - but I think no moderator would permit such complete nihilism =
and
> cynical projection.
>
> No answer from such as Murray to evidence available to all, which is migh=
ty
> curious, but completely unexplained - so these attempted 'proposals' to
> engage the subject by Murray lack all conviction that they are true attem=
pts
> to discover anything. They are not initiatives which require work based o=
n
> observations, they are empty and abusive mouthings.
>
> Where he can address a subject directly he is as watery as a great lake -
> and since no-one else engages him on his fascinating views then maybe it =
is
> not their fault at all - its a phantasm shared with the Sloan who declare=
s
> that everyone knows the identity of the FSS - but actually the half dozen
> people here who seem most assured, are the least assuring that they know
> based on knowledge as such.
>
> As soon as any material emerges which is not mere opinion, they have noth=
ing
> to say about themselves, and revert to saying stuff about others.
>
> Phil Innes
So in other words, you couldn't name a site that "banned" - your word
- Mike Murray. Typical. Is there anyone on the chess groups that
hasn't pwnd you?
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2008 21:52:14
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 15, 11:47=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:38:27 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Phil's combining Logorrhea with narcolepsy may render him an
> >> interesting subject for further research.
> >Murray continues to support his public abuse campaign by egging on idiot=
s
> >who have nothing whatever to say about chess - some of them not saying i=
t
> >for 5 years, while the rest only care about one thing. The subject of
> >persecuting others outside the rule of law is constantly funny to this
> >crowd.
> >They have /abandoned/ conversation on every issue and continue to talk a=
bout
> >the Logorrhea of others - as if they knew what conversation was.
>
> Among other things, Phil, we talk about *you*.
>
> >These are the real Susan Polgar bashers, and since they are not allowed =
to
> >spout elsewhere, since the chess world banned them,
>
> "not allowed to spout elsewhere since the chess world banned them"??
> Phil, do you just pull this stuff out of your ass? =A0
>
> I realize facts aren't as important to you as to most of us, but you
> usually obfuscate your lies with bizarre verbiage and formatting. This
> is an unusually clear and concise claim. =A0So, where have I been banned
> ? =A0
>
> Come on Phil, name a site, you can do it -- make something up. =A0Then
> we can check your claim, determine it to be false, call you on it, and
> then you can deny making it. Isn't that how it works?
He usually throws in a reference to me as well. :-)
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2008 10:38:24
From: Javert
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Oct 15, 12:47=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:38:27 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Phil's combining Logorrhea with narcolepsy may render him an
> >> interesting subject for further research.
> >Murray continues to support his public abuse campaign by egging on idiot=
s
> >who have nothing whatever to say about chess - some of them not saying i=
t
> >for 5 years, while the rest only care about one thing. The subject of
> >persecuting others outside the rule of law is constantly funny to this
> >crowd.
> >They have /abandoned/ conversation on every issue and continue to talk a=
bout
> >the Logorrhea of others - as if they knew what conversation was.
>
> Among other things, Phil, we talk about *you*.
>
> >These are the real Susan Polgar bashers, and since they are not allowed =
to
> >spout elsewhere, since the chess world banned them,
>
> "not allowed to spout elsewhere since the chess world banned them"??
> Phil, do you just pull this stuff out of your ass? =A0
>
> I realize facts aren't as important to you as to most of us, but you
> usually obfuscate your lies with bizarre verbiage and formatting. This
> is an unusually clear and concise claim. =A0So, where have I been banned
> ? =A0
>
> Come on Phil, name a site, you can do it -- make something up. =A0Then
> we can check your claim, determine it to be false, call you on it, and
> then you can deny making it. Isn't that how it works?
I think rather than "numbskulls in collusion" when Phil is involved it
is "numbskulls in collision".
Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk.
I haven't been banned anywhere either.
I can also make my points directly using the wonderful tool known as
brevity.
The chess world banned them, lol lol lol. As if there were a chess
world that could ban someone.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Oct 2008 13:40:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:40:39 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Jesus, Sam, what's the point ? She deserves to present herself to the
>> world however she wants -- it doesn't hurt anybody. What's the point
>> of these remarks, other than to hurt her feelings?
>because he is obsessed, like you are murray!
>he is a rejected suitor - get it?
>don't you understand about pathalogical obsessions and resentments?
To be sure, Phil has helped me understand dysfunctional and
pathological thought processes.
>it is the complete inability to notice such comments as your own, and you
>should know, having rejected and mocked 47 [isn't it?] objections to your
>own certainties
Evidently, Phil is unable to understand the difference between
satirizing an argument and mocking a person's appearance.
>this message will achieve as much with you as yours has with sloan - it is
>not intended to be a conscious reference point to you, since your ego
>overcomes all objections [that's the mechanism, as if it were your will]
>just as with the sloan
Aww, Phil, have you been reading Schaupenhaur again? You should stick
with Edgar Guest.
>it is intended to register elsewhere
>and what a shock it is to see yourself so mirrored, heh?
When I look in the mirror, I see no reflection at all. What does that
mean?
>but its okay, while
>you still you live you can treat it as human condition - later too late
Guess I'll miss that pie in the sky when I die.
>phil innes
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2008 08:29:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>it is the complete inability to notice such comments as your own, and you
>>should know, having rejected and mocked 47 [isn't it?] objections to your
>>own certainties
>
> Evidently, Phil is unable to understand the difference between
> satirizing an argument and mocking a person's appearance.
Evidently Phil can see satire when he has 2,000 examples of it from the FSS,
and shall we presume Mike Murray says he too is providing 47 answers of
satire?
What is he actually saying? Its always difficult to understand him since he
can't talk for himself, its always what others believe or must think, or
commentary on them.
Recently Murray invented a soccer mom to speak for, then denied his own
invention had any reference to his own topic when his foolish example was
shown to be utter nonsense.
>>this message will achieve as much with you as yours has with sloan - it is
>>not intended to be a conscious reference point to you, since your ego
>>overcomes all objections [that's the mechanism, as if it were your will]
>>just as with the sloan
>
> Aww, Phil, have you been reading Schaupenhaur again? You should stick
> with Edgar Guest.
>
>>it is intended to register elsewhere
>
>>and what a shock it is to see yourself so mirrored, heh?
>
> When I look in the mirror, I see no reflection at all. What does that
> mean?
It means Murray doesn't have the conviction to speak for himself - but he
thinks he can tell others what to do, including prosecuting them for a year,
and also mocking those who prefer the rule of law, and even natural
intelligence which is the result of HONEST looking.
Murray only pretends to joke, but he gets very hot and angry when others
dare say their own opinion, opinions which make his own look like what they
are, gossip intended to amuse a little gang of one-issue abuseniks.
>>but its okay, while
>>you still you live you can treat it as human condition - later too late
>
> Guess I'll miss that pie in the sky when I die.
Guessing is all Murray does - and he is quite content to do that. This is a
life choice, but there are things which go with it:-
Knowing things eludes him since you need to own your own voice, honestly
look at the same things as others, and then intelligently compare your
perspective to say you know anything. People who non-stop speculate are
usually very sure of themselves - whereas real knowledge always admits
intelligent doubt.
Its a choice.
Phil Innes
>>phil innes
>>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2008 11:49:38
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:29:31 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Evidently, Phil is unable to understand the difference between
>> satirizing an argument and mocking a person's appearance.
>Evidently Phil can see satire when he has 2,000 examples of it from the FSS,
>and shall we presume Mike Murray says he too is providing 47 answers of
>satire?
Evidently, Phil Innes thinks "begging the question" is analogous to
"Spare Change?"
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 16:03:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:29:31 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Evidently, Phil is unable to understand the difference between
>>> satirizing an argument and mocking a person's appearance.
>
>>Evidently Phil can see satire when he has 2,000 examples of it from the
>>FSS,
>>and shall we presume Mike Murray says he too is providing 47 answers of
>>satire?
>
> Evidently, Phil Innes thinks "begging the question" is analogous to
> "Spare Change?"
Since the net-abusenik Murray puts into quotation marks something I never
said, and since he is merely content to avoid EVERY issue by rubbishing it,
then is he not the city-dump of inquiry? This Murray character will say
nothing about the FSS material, since it evidently is
inconvenient
to him to be honest. Meanwhile he is content to rubbish those who apply
their intelligence, and then to speculate on those who do - as if they were
some form of weird deviants who he targets for righteousness!
Murray's campaign is reduced to simple abuse, if indeed it ever achieved
more than that.
Murray is a coward before the fact - I have said so before, and despite what
he says about his orientation, he demonstrates very different behavior to
wanting to discuss anything here.
Evidently Phil got him right from the start. A one-issue abusenik, without
the slightest intention to be honorable, and a bloke who pretends to reason,
then mocks all who bother him with it.
This person never evinced the slightest interest in discussing the game
beyond his own *issues* about it, except when previously challenged this
way, when we got it up to provide one post of tokenism... zzzzzzz
Murray is on-line trailer trash - and typical of the voting block of 6
numbskulls who celebrate their numbness here.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 15:34:37
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Real Susan Polgar
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:03:24 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Murray's campaign is reduced to simple abuse
Says, Phil, who then adds,
>Murray is a coward
>A one-issue abusenik,
>without the slightest intention to be honorable,
>a bloke who pretends to reason,
>This person never evinced the slightest interest in discussing the game
>Murray is on-line trailer trash - and typical of the voting block of 6
>numbskulls who celebrate their numbness here.
Yup, them durned abuseniks.
|
|
