"samsloan" <samhsloan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7d49c844-d29a-49eb-829a-66c6c2f95f4a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 30, 1:09 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "samsloan" <samhsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>> > Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and ****ographic
>> > messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
>> > messages on her own blog athttp://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com,
>> > Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside".
>>
>> To parse that sentence, I first notice it is not an answer to anything
I
>> wrote above, and then there is the usual Sloan-ism of relating 1,000s
of
>> obsene messages from the FSS with 'those similar', according to Sloan
>> himself.
>
> You keep saying this over and over again and I am calling your bluff.
I keep saying that you state unrelated elements? In the message which you
here snip I counted 5 of them. That is no bluff!
> Please provide just one example of an obscene, ****ographic or
> objectionable posting by me to this chess group in the 12 years that I
Wowa! big boy! That would be number 6 unrelated elements.
> have been posting here that is in any way comparable to the thousands
> of obscene, ****ographic or objectionable postings by the Fake Sam
> Sloan
There is #7.
> a/k/a Paul Truong under my name.
And number #8
> I can provide many examples of obscene, ****ographic or objectionable
> postings by "anonymous" posters that have appeared recently on
> susanpolgar.blogspot.com that are virtually word-for-word identical to
> postings here by the Fake Sam Sloan.
Really? [Though that is still only 8 unrelated items.]
> It is clear that the The Fake Sam
> Sloan has written them all,
And number #9! A statement of what is clear to... ? Or how it is clear...?
> that the Fake Sam Sloan is Paul Truong and
> that Susan Polgar allows Paul Truong to post obscene, ****ographic or
> objectionable postings to her own blogspot.
Nice finish with #10.
Now NONE of that is what I addressed. I didn't ask for yet another litany
of
accusations, I wrote that the first 5 accusations you made had no
connection
among them that I could detect to justify linking them together.
Now - you cut that out AS IF another point was made, and to justify adding
5
more 'points' which I tell you, are blunt.
That is the level of your own address to the issue. You speak as if you
weren't there! That these factors you speak of are somehow independent of
you, rather than entirely the result of your own intellectual
comprehension.
You completely make my point for me by cutting the reference to yourself,
and then continuing to suppose and assert things AS IF there existed any
objective linkage.
Seek the rift within, Mr. Sloan.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
