Re: Sam Sloan Master Title in Chinese Chess

>> Rob <robmt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> I would disagree that he is harmless. He has been arrested
>>> and served time for kidnapping and has been detained against
>>> his will for mental evaluation. Also his frivilous "pro se" lawsuits
>>> have cost the USCF tens of thousands of dollars.

> (-) wrote:
>> I assume that his wikipedia main article and discussion page
>> are branching points for obtaining some facts. 

<ttk5079@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>  Not a wise assumption if it's one of the Wikipedia articles Sam
> himself has posted. Some of those have been pure fantasy on 
> Sam's part. For example, see if you can track down his Wikipedia 
> claim that I masquerade as British chess historian Edward Winter. 
> One of Sam's many delusions.


          Let's adopt a rational approach.  Surely Sam is not precluded
     from contributing to wikipedia articles about himself.  Yet there is,
     by the same token, nothing to prevent others from supplementing
     what Sam says.  Over time there is a main page and discussion
     page.  If something is missing why can't it be added forthwith?
     I assume that you are Taylor Kingston.  I don't find any wikipedia
     track that TK "masquerades as" Edward Winter.  You're asking 
     me to locate something that you simply could locate for us?

          Somebody having the reputation of a known fantasizer is not
     exactly accorded sufficient credibility to warrant much concern.



>> Is somebody alleging that Sloan committed his own slanders? 

> Sloan frequently smears people on this newsgroup. 
> His mendacity is notorious.


          His mendacity is ridiculous.  Would such smearing justify
     counter-smearing?  My question did not address whether Sloan
     slandered others.  I asked whether those slanders upon Sloan
     were generated by Sloan himself, to set up a victimization ruse.



>> Is there any reason why our discussion here should not conform
>> to something akin to wikipedia edit discussion standards, i.e. that
>> all statements need to obtain reliable source verification by facts?

>  A worthy standard I strongly endorse. Unfortunately, it is one 
> Sam has never followed. Planet Sloan seems to exist in an 
> alternate universe.


          If, as you say, wikipedia has accepted -some- of Sloan's 
     statements on its webpage(s) then Sloan must be following
     the wikipedia edit discussion standards -some- of the time.  I
     find your glittering overgenerality slanderous and disingenuous.
     I don't find slanders from Sloan in the recent thread exchanges.
     I don't understand how Sloan could win in the Supreme Court,
     and arouse USCF to formal litigation if he is so easily dismissed.



                      - regards
                      - jb

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Sutra Translations ...
http://lotus.nichirenshu.org/lotus/sutra/english/hokke-idx.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------