LEAVE THE KIDS OUT OF IT!
Dear Phil Innes,
If Paul Truong's statement is accurate -- and I
think the chances are high that it is -- then I was
right to condemn a few days back the ready habit to
employ a U.S. court action to condemn automatically
parents for what they may or may not be doing.
In this instance, Sam probably unwittingly
adopted the same tactic that several people on this
and other forums employed against him when he
"kidnapped" his daughter.
My point earlier was that it was morally
dangerous to pry through the written word into the
lives of families without a full knowledge of
cir***stances and hard facts. I noted that EVEN IF
the Tabasco charge were true and acted upon by an
American court, there was likely far more to the story.
In this instance, it appears that the basic
charge, regardless of familial cir***stances, was
untrue. That Mr. Truong waited until he had his ducks
properly lined up to respond suggests both a strong
human spirit on his and Susan Polgar's part and a
surprising degree of professionalism.
I am not at all sure that I could have kept my cool
and my keyboard quiet until the correct moment, had I
been in his position.
Yours, Larry Parr
Chess One wrote:
> <parrthenon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:da9c4acc-38fa-42ba-a0d1-c9f91796f329@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PAUL TRUONG ANSWERS SAM SLOAN IN ANOTHER FORUM
>
>
> ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED. In fact, the same person who made these
> bogus charges agreed to drop the charges. But what do you care about
> the truth, right?
>
> ---
>
> Dear Larry Parr,
>
> You may have noted my challenges here recently to specific persons on
these
> issues; those who proposed charges but knowingly repressed the knowledge
of
> their results. Or was their intention to investigate actually as they
> proposed it of themselves, and they cared not to look further other than
to
> amplify accusation while repressing the result of it?
>
> It is merely disgusting that anyone could call themselves 'journalist'
after
> that, or respecters of any rule of law which is a minimum standard,
never
> mind that higher level which is common decency! And disgust is what we
have
> become accustomed upon.
>
> And this is merely the /public/ level of exchange of those who would
declare
> their orientation in a proxy war. Like you, I opt for full disclosure of
the
> whole issue, but unlike you - and here we have a difference, a large one
- I
> cannot like what Sam Sloan does in his investigative mode, since I
cannot
> distinguish that from a McCarthyist adventurism into chess politics.
>
> Younger people will not know what that is, but we do, and we know what
it
> did. What it does now for USCF it then did to the country, it divided
and
> made it doubt itself for a decade, and the cold war was all the colder
for
> that.
>
> These excursions are some desperate remedy, [really! off any scale] and
are
> themselves worse than the addressed complaint, bad as those are - though
it
> is a permitted measure by those who pull the strings, and /timor addidit
> alas/ employs Puppet Sloan to /divertisments/ to switch languages, but
back
> again, which have the effect of /suppressio veri/.
>
> And that is what complainant Sloan does not understand, that he is the
> stalking horse for a habit of control he does not even acknowledge but
which
> works him; and after some year long engagement, neither do I feel he
wishes
> to understand, the moment being of greater force, though acting this way
is
> destructive of whatever he thinks he loves and would sustain about
chess.
>
> And this is merely of the complainant's psycho-pathology! And that does
not
> deserve reprobation as much as much needed understanding both
> psychologically and externally, of what a political puppet must
inevitably
> become - and the usual fate of the stalking horse.
>
> The crime here is not perpetrated by the evident agent, who I suggest is
> grandiloquently insensible to his manipulation, but the result of it is
an
> indifference to chess in preference to an attendant fame he thinks is
his
> bequest and project will be his just reward.
>
> The real criminal minds are not yet described or revealed in this scene.
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
|
