> "-" wrote:
>> Loads of Info here: Home Page by Sam Sloanhttp://samsloan.com/
"Rob" <robmtchl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> Don't be so naive' as to take any half-truth that Sloan posts as fact.
I said "info" without claim to truth or fact. Perhaps it goes
without saying that processing of "info" is a job for professionals.
-------------------------------------------------
> (-) wrote:
>> Your logic seems disingenuous.
<ttk5079@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Your tone seems highly offensive.
Considering who was the object of the remark, in retrospect
perhaps I was too kind, even -spoiling- you with compassion.
>> ... "Lying" or "bad things" are by themselves not particularly
>> worrisome unless there are actual harms to be discussed.
> As I said, you go your way, I'll go mine.
I'll go to all places except the ****-hole of hell. See ya !
>> Once you delink aspects of
>> harmfulness, it seems you have marginalized your argument.
> What argument would that be? The only thesis I have advanced is
> that Sam Sloan is a liar. I had the impression you agreed with that.
There is a difference between somebody who misspoke, or
let slip a misrepresentation, and the habitual liar. When confronted
with the inaccuracy Mr. Sloan issued a correction. Not a liar,
sorry.
>> Sloan refers to an incident in Chinese Chess 20 years ago.
>> His remarks were off-the-cuff at a political event.
> Sounded to me like a prepared speech. Not off the cuff at all.
Obviously you set the bar too low for what is prepared speech.
>> Perhaps there were no Chinese people in the audience.
> And therefore it was OK to lie?
It's not OK to lie, but it's OK to amend and revise the
inexact utterances, which Mr. Sloan has done. On the other
hand it's not OK to continually badger somebody after they
have already issued the corrections. Happens in newspapers.
>> It's not his main topic,
>> but merely an (abortive) effort to garner credibility.
> Garnering credibility by lying. Another strange concept.
We're about to notice that you do something similar, which
appears to be a feature mostly of the Chess Community. Again
I will be referencing your disingenuous hypocrisy which seeks
to become victimized by justifiably righteous offensive critiques.
>> ... Sloan's website has never claimed anything else. Your harping
>> on dead & beaten horses says more about you than it does about
>> Sam Sloan.
> I'm "harping on dead and beaten horses"? Because I answered
> _your_ request for specific examples of Sloan's mendacity?
You'll next remind us that Sloan is still pickled on YouTube.
>> Moreover, your unwillingness to abandon your ineptitude
>> about how to effectively handle the -alleged- USCF book
>> author "blacklisting" indicates in inflexibility and incapacity
>> to properly adapt to the needs of an office presumably created
>> for the public interest.
> Another truly bizarre comment. Offensive tone again noted.
Nope, I'm actually holding back on those punches that
you deserve. You exhibit a toxic personality which has no
place in any gaming organization dedicated to promotion.
>> Don't try to follow politics, by the way, because its sheer
>> number of lies will probably bury you with Kruschev's shoes.
> His name is spelled Krushchev.
His name was spelled in Russian Cyrillic, you blithering idiot.
>> Small-minded of you.
> Offensive tone again noted.
Note also that your head is still stuck up your impacted colon.
>> The "tip" of this iceberg concerns
>> Paul Truong, or his posting agent, doesn't it ?
> I have no interest in that issue, I know little or nothing about it,
> and have made no comment on it.
Better start the research then, because the attacks on
Sam Sloan is what this was all really about, to include you.
> I have the strong sense that you are a troll, and the knowledge
> that you are a boor, therefore I think this conversation is over.
Smells to me like you're troll fodder, then. Glad not to hear
from you again, so that big boys can nail down USCF's deadbeats.
------------------------------------------------
>> "Rob" (Stooge #2) <robmtchl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Bravo Taylor!
> "ian" (ignorant killfiling Stooge#3) <sivadnai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> You should note that - uses a program to generate automated
>> responses to most usenet posts. This is why they generally
>> seem to be spouting a load of ****ing bollocks.
Britain suffers from severe anger mismanagement...
<ttk5079@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Ah, much is explained. Thank you.
Yes, the English word "****ing" explained it all to you.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dawkins Press Conference 3/11/08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzZ2FWAF1H0&feature=related
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
