Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics
ChessKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Chess Forum / General Topics / April 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Why Does John Hillery Attack Sam Sloan All the Time?

Thread view: 
samsloan - 24 Apr 2009 00:50 GMT
It is a complete mystery as to me why John Hillery attacks me
constantly. I have never met or spoken to John Hillery. I would not
know him if I saw him on the street.

Yet, virtually everything I post is attacked by John Hillery.

He posts on rgcp as jkhill@aim.com and on the USCF Issues Forum as
rfeditor

John Hillery also has a personal website which states among other
things that I am a cannibal who eats the bodies of my dead babies.

(NO. I will not provide the URL and I hope that nobody else does
either.)

Can anybody explain this? Why does John K. Hillery do this?

Sam Sloan
Rob - 24 Apr 2009 01:03 GMT
On Apr 21, 10:06 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote  :
                                    < A satire >
  I did not realize until this morning that Judge Norman K. Moon has
  previous involvement in this case.

  http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=27434

  Judge Moonpie was a Virginia Court of Appeals Judge from 1885 to
1997.
I
  now remember that his name was consistently listed as one of the
  judges on my cases. I think that Judge Moonpie voted two or three
times
  for Democrats, always voting against  a liberal. I tried to bring
 the Roberts
  child custody case to the Virginia Court of Appeals several times.
 The
  first time, my appeal was dismissed because I am a raving lunatic,
 even
  though that is true it should to apply to child custody cases. My
  later appeals were dismissed because Judge Janbow refused to
transmit
my jazz record to the radio station  because I could not get a
  lyric sheet made Hungarian and the Polgar's would not cooperate in
  creating a record . I filed a petition for a writ of
  magnamamus delights against Judge Proctor and Gamble. It was
 dismissed by the Virginia Courtship Society on the ground that it
 raised issues that could be raised on leavened bread.
   When my criminal appeal was heard in bank card, I lost
  63 lbs and Judge Moonpie was impressed.

  I would appreciate it if somebody would hook me up with a Lexus.

  Since Judge Moonpie believes in lynching, it is obvious that he
knows
most
  of my sins.

  I'm short, Judge Moonpie is tall and  part of the "Tall Boy
Network"
 which
  enabled Charles and Shelby Roberts to protect my daughter and get
 away with it.

  This is all the more reason why Judge Moonpie should excuse me for
 being
  a douche bag and a TARBABY.

  Sam Sloan
jkh001@aim.com - 24 Apr 2009 02:43 GMT
> It is a complete mystery as to me why John Hillery attacks me
> constantly. I have never met or spoken to John Hillery. I would not
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Sam Sloan

Because you're wrong on just about every issue. I also find you
personally repugnant (a walking caricature of everything that was
loathsome about the 1960s, and a serial abuser of the legal system),
but if you weren't bedeviling the USCF with your lies and fantasies,
I'd simply ignore you.
DannyPurvis - 24 Apr 2009 08:59 GMT
On Apr 23, 9:43 pm, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> > It is a complete mystery as to me why John Hillery attacks me
> > constantly. I have never met or spoken to John Hillery. I would not
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I believe you're profoundly mistaken about that. Look at some things
Larry Parr said recently about Sam Sloan's accuracy:

“For the record, it was Sam Sloan who warned that the move to
Crossville, Tennessee, would be the ultimate cross for the USCF to
bear.  He predicted a cost of $750,000, which proved too low.

“For the record, it was Sam Sloan who brought up the issue of trying
to alienate the building which the USCF supposedly owned in Cross-to-
Bear.

“For the record, Sam's revelations got this writer to digging.  Eight
weeks before the Board made the fact public, I reported here that the
new building --about 40 percent the size of the older structure in
New Windsor -- was going to cost $650,000, up from the earlier
estimate
of $200,000 to $300,000.  We sold the older, larger building well
below
the price of the new building!  At the time I was called a liar.
Eight weeks later, the Board confirmed THE SAME FIGURE of $650,000.

“Then, as reported to me by a source(s), there was an inquisition to
find out who ‘leaked to Parr.’

“For the record, it was Sam Sloan who first broached the issue of a
sweetheart deal with a local good ol' boy architect in Cross-to-Bear.
Our Board and the insiders would not reveal the precise fee being
paid the architect.  Sam blew the whistle, and this writer was able
to
find out the figure -- an unbelievable fee of $60,000 to $65,000 for
a
building originally estimated to cost $200,000 to $300,000.

“Our chess politicos then announced AFTER my report that the fee
would be renegotiated DOWNWARDS with the local good ol' boy
architect.
Then, as reported to me by a source(s), there was the accustomed
inqjuisition to find out who ‘leaked to Parr.’

“ Instead of our politicians, including John Hillery, thanking this
writer for finding out the facts, there was the standard wave of
malevolent hatred.

“Sam's term on the Board was a time when he revealed quite a few of
the dirty, little and big secrets (the above is a small sampling).
John
Hillery and the political class will never forgive him.

“John Hillery's violent imagery -- hoping to skin Sam and the like
-- is an expression of hostility to someone who dared reveal numerous
crooked deals.

“There will be those here who deny there were kickbacks to get that
architect his absurd $65,000 fee.  The only issue is whether our
politicos got paid off in cash or in kind.  For those who have been
on the inside of the Federation, the same may be said about our
tournament bidding process.”

And

“Concerning anonymouse Joe Schmoe's attack on Sam Sloan, most of the
examples he gives are ones in which Sam was substantially correct.
Sam was, as even anonymouse Schmoe admits, correct that the
Federation was losing money even in the years when reports to the
Delegates so
dishonestly implied otherwise (the famous recalculations following
Delegates' meetings).  We note in the case of the cost of moving to
Crossville that Sam actually UNDERESTIMATED the extent of the
disaster, though at the time the official line was that Sam was
outrageously overstating the figure.”

And

“Concerning Sam Sloan, John H. is pretty much silent beyond uttering
a few more insults, granting him the rightful scalp of a former EB
member, etc.

“In my message I offered a long list of Sam's revelations about
incompetence and crookedness re the move to Crossville.  There are
also his many budgetary revelations over the years re the destruction
of the LMA and the enormous deficits being run by the Federation.
These postings of his have generally been all too accurate -- and
sadly so.

“Yes, Sam also has gotten a lot of things wrong. Some of his reports
did not need to be wrong, such as the one about the non-death of GM
Peter Leko; other reports about insider dealings re Chess Cafe and
the battles therein have been both right and wrong.  The mistaken
reports
have nearly always been the result of prying into areas that are
considered "secret" in the Federation without any real financial
resources to check out stories in depth.

“The fault, though partially belonging to Sam for such errors,
overwhelmingly lies with the politicians who work so hard to keep the
dirty linen inside the Federation drawer.  Those who deny
transparency to American chessplayers are the primary villains, not
the muckrakers
who make errors when trying to air the Scheisse-bekakt financial
underwear of the USC."
jkh001@aim.com - 24 Apr 2009 07:06 GMT
> John Hillery also has a personal website which states among other
> things that I am a cannibal who eats the bodies of my dead babies.
>
> Sam Sloan

BTW, I did not say that, though I ridiculed you in several other ways.
DannyPurvis - 24 Apr 2009 09:08 GMT
On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> > John Hillery also has a personal website which states among other
> > things that I am a cannibal who eats the bodies of my dead babies.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> BTW, I did not say that, though I ridiculed you in several other ways.

BTW, it's called "hyperbole," dimwit.
samsloan - 24 Apr 2009 12:48 GMT
On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> > John Hillery also has a personal website which states among other
> > things that I am a cannibal who eats the bodies of my dead babies.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> BTW, I did not say that, though I ridiculed you in several other ways.

It was a lot more than mere ridicule. Fortunately, the page seems to
have been taken down or moved, because it is not there any more. It
was there just a few days ago. It is possible that the ISP removed it
because it is more than merely objectionable.

It starts off by saying that I am a "cannibal and former serial killer
and sometime pederast".

This goes far beyond mere sarcasm, especially in view of Hillery long-
standing hostility towards me.

Sam Sloan
None - 24 Apr 2009 15:32 GMT
On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> > John Hillery also has a personal website which states among other
> > things that I am a cannibal who eats the bodies of my dead babies.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> BTW, I did not say that, though I ridiculed you in several other ways.

There you go, attacking his credibility again.
Don't worry John, everyone points out faults
in Sloon's rhetoric. Everyone that is except
Liary Parr and Donny the weasel.
samsloan - 24 Apr 2009 15:44 GMT
> On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> in Sloon's rhetoric. Everyone that is except
> Liary Parr and Donny the weasel.

What John Hillery actually wrote is far worse than that. Here is
another quote (I am trying to avoid giving enough information to
enable anyone to find it):

"Sloan spent several years hunting and murdering prostitutes"

Do you think that is funny or sarcasm?

The Real Sam Sloan
None - 24 Apr 2009 16:13 GMT
> > On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> The Real Sam Sloan

Sorry but without the URL I can't comment.
You have a history of mistaking things.
taylor.kingston@comcast.net - 24 Apr 2009 18:27 GMT
> > > On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Sorry but without the URL I can't comment.
> You have a history of mistaking things.

 Perhaps our Sam is referring to this?

 http://johnhillery.com/manifesto.html
samsloan - 24 Apr 2009 19:09 GMT
On Apr 24, 1:27 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:

> > > > On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
>  http://johnhillery.com/manifesto.html

Are you really so stupid that you cannot find it?

If it did not exist, Hillery would have informed us. He attacks
everything else I write.

Sam Sloan
Rob - 24 Apr 2009 19:40 GMT
> On Apr 24, 1:27 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

pfft
taylor.kingston@comcast.net - 24 Apr 2009 19:41 GMT
> On Apr 24, 1:27 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Are you really so stupid that you cannot find it?

 Gee, Sam, you seem upset that my online search engine does not find
it. Yet you assure us you don't want anyone reading it. Make up your
mind.

> If it did not exist, Hillery would have informed us.

 "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." --
Voltaire

 It's quite simple to prove the existence of this alleged site, Sam:
just give us a URL. But frankly I don't much give a rat's rear, one
way or the other.

> He attacks
> everything else I write.
>
> Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu - 24 Apr 2009 20:43 GMT
On Apr 24, 1:41 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:

> > On Apr 24, 1:27 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sam is correct on this one, though. It ssems that the original page is
gone, but you can still find it in google by looking at the cached
page.

Jerry Spinrad
taylor.kingston@comcast.net - 24 Apr 2009 21:20 GMT
On Apr 24, 3:43 pm, jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:

> Sam is correct on this one, though. It ssems that the original page is
> gone, but you can still find it in google by looking at the cached
> page.

 Hey, Jerry, you're right! Glad you pointed this out. The piece,
which is done in the style of a Wikipedia entry, is as a whole rather
crude and heavy-handed, but has a few hilarious quotes. Samples:

 "Sloan attended the University of California, Berkeley majoring in
lycanthropy."

 "While having no formal medical training, he once vivisected six
people in an Aztec religious ceremony, removing their hearts with an
obsidian knife."

 "Sloan ran [for the USCF Board] on an outsider platform, stating
that all other candidates were shapeshifting reptilian alien vampires,
and saying the board was supposed to be killed and eaten at the end of
its term."

 I would frankly be amazed if Sam thought anyone could take this
seriously. But I doubt he was worried; if he hadn't wanted people to
know about it, he would not have mentioned its existence here.
jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu - 24 Apr 2009 21:42 GMT
On Apr 24, 3:20 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:43 pm, jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> seriously. But I doubt he was worried; if he hadn't wanted people to
> know about it, he would not have mentioned its existence here.

If only Rob Mitchell could be 1/100th as clever as this in his
remarks, it would be a big step up for the newsgroup.

Jerry Spinrad
Mike Murray - 24 Apr 2009 22:00 GMT
>>   I would frankly be amazed if Sam thought anyone could take this
>> seriously. But I doubt he was worried; if he hadn't wanted people to
>> know about it, he would not have mentioned its existence here.

>If only Rob Mitchell could be 1/100th as clever as this in his
>remarks, it would be a big step up for the newsgroup.

>Jerry Spinrad

Spot on.
jkh001@aim.com - 25 Apr 2009 01:42 GMT
> >> � I would frankly be amazed if Sam thought anyone could take this
> >> seriously. But I doubt he was worried; if he hadn't wanted people to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Spot on.

BTW, the page was stored there for my own amusement, no links
anywhere. The only way Sloan could have found it was by searching for
his own name and reading all the pages. What do we call someone who
spends his time doing that?

If Sam wants to complain about it, he'll have to argue that a
reasonable person would believe all the statements were factual.
Including his degree in lycanthropy.
samsloan - 25 Apr 2009 02:00 GMT
On Apr 24, 8:42 pm, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:42:49 -0700 (PDT),
> > jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> reasonable person would believe all the statements were factual.
> Including his degree in lycanthropy.

Not true. It was first reported on this group some weeks ago by Neil
Brennen I believe, and it shows up in all the search engines.

You did not do a good job if hiding it, if that was your intention.

Sam Sloan
jkh001@aim.com - 25 Apr 2009 03:36 GMT
> On Apr 24, 8:42 pm, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:42:49 -0700 (PDT),
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Sam Sloan

I didn't hide it. No reason to. My contempt for you is hardly a
secret. But I didn't show it or advertise it. You did. Well,
technically you said "There's a page that says real bad things about
me about I don't want anyone to look at it." You're not that stupid.
If you want to show everyone a page that holds you up to ridicule, who
am I to object?
The Historian - 25 Apr 2009 05:23 GMT
> On Apr 24, 8:42 pm, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Not true. It was first reported on this group some weeks ago by Neil
> Brennen I believe, and it shows up in all the search engines.

Not true.

> You did not do a good job if hiding it, if that was your intention.
>
> Sam Sloan
Rob - 25 Apr 2009 04:58 GMT
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:42:49 -0700 (PDT),
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Spot on.

Slimy Sloan isn't worth my effort to be really clever. That is why I
harass him as lazily as possible.
help bot - 25 Apr 2009 09:16 GMT
> > >If only Rob Mitchell could be 1/100th as clever as this in his
> > >remarks, it would be a big step up for the newsgroup.
> > >Jerry Spinrad

> > Spot on.

> Slimy Sloan isn't worth my effort to be really clever. That is why I
> harass him as lazily as possible.

 Is there any substantive evidence in the
known universe that Mr. Mitchell is even
/capable/ of being "really clever"?   If not,
perhaps it is a bit much to ask of him.

 You can't get blood out of a turnip.

 -- help bot
Rob - 25 Apr 2009 23:19 GMT
>   You can't get blood out of a turnip.
>
>   -- help bot

Sorry  Not Bot. They can get blood from a turnip. Best not to rely on
ancient adages to belittle someone.

"RICHLAND, Wash. - Plants have been used in medical treatments
throughout human history, but researchers at the Department of
Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory are taking a new
approach to plants as pharmaceutical components. They are genetically
modifying plants to produce human blood proteins and tissue growth
agents.

These blood-clotting agents could lead to safer and less expensive
treatments for hemophiliacs and an alternative way of sealing wounds.
Pacific Northwest researchers have produced two blood factors that are
used to treat most patients with blood clotting disorders. blood
products prior to the development of screening programs.

Even with screening programs some viral products such as HIV, Epstein-
Barr, Hepatitis B and C and even the flu, can be transferred in blood
products. Using plants to produce human blood proteins eliminates the
possibility of transmitting disease along with lifesaving treatments.

"In addition to the obvious health benefits, we expect the cost of
synthesizing blood factors in transgenic or genetically modified
plants to be 10 times cheaper than current methods," said Brian
Hooker, a biochemical engineer at Pacific Northwest. "And, unlike
human blood donors or mammalian cells, plants provide a stable
production source and yield much higher amounts of the desired blood
factors."

Using genetic engineering technology, Pacific Northwest researchers
are transplanting applicable human genes into tobacco and turnip
plants and producing blood factors. Patents are pending on the
production and composition of
'"/>"

Contact: Susan Bauer
susan.bauer@pnl.gov
509-375-2561
DOE/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
12-Jul-1999
onechess@comcast.net - 25 Apr 2009 22:13 GMT
On Apr 24, 4:42 pm, jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:20 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Jerry Spinrad

Say's Gerry Spinrad, eager to kiss and make up to his chess.cafe
editor, who may have said other than he did.

Switch and bait, Princeton 101, J. Spinrad, passed.

~~~~~~~

For more serious consideration, it seems that the general opinion of
Sloan, excepting Spinrad and Murray, is that he is an egoist who
prefers his own ambition to anything else including getting on with
others to achieve anything, and certainly after a year in office at
USCF Sam Sloan passed one resolution he raised which was to praise a
volunteer.

I let aside that he abused another volunteer of the month far more
vocally that he praised any...

Somewhat slim credentials; whereas on the down-side no one can slam
our Sam better than he can himself. 8,000 Polgar references a year are
not, in his own opinion, obsessional behavior.

:))))

I think that boils down to about 22 serious Polgar crimes against
chess - PER DAY.

How should such a wanton speculator attain serious consideration for
what would forward chess? He is so reactionary to others that I really
wonder if he thought of anything he could do to benefit anyone else -
he doesn't seem to be able to do so, and therefore, since this seems
to be the received idea of Sloan within the chess community, how fit
he is to be lampooned for his vast egotism by John Hillery or anyone
in the chess press? How about 'a lot'?

I am an unlikely ally of John Hillery or the chess journalist [ROFL]
outfit he is member of - but no antipathy of mine could contradict
these statements which do not libel Sloan, but cast him firmly into
some sad role in chess USA.

Sam Sloan needs to stop slamming others and find just one real ally or
even a personal achievement which is not essentially blaming someone
else instead of achieving something himself.. If he can't anyone at
all then he intends to be a dictator, no?

What we see here is the evidence of his attendance on chess subjects,
which is universally scoffed at. How can such a character win
anything? Board position, law-suits; based on his 'standing'?

Phil Innes
taylor.kingston@comcast.net - 25 Apr 2009 23:14 GMT
On Apr 25, 5:13 pm, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Apr 24, 4:42 pm, jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Say's Gerry Spinrad, eager to kiss and make up to his chess.cafe
> editor, who may have said other than he did.

 "Said other than he did"? All Jerry did was tell me how to find the
cached page.
 And just for the record, Phil, I no longer edit Jerry's ChessCafe
column. I reluctantly had to let it go due to other obligations and
pursuits. As of about two months ago, Mark Donlan took over the job.
The Historian - 25 Apr 2009 05:31 GMT
On Apr 24, 4:20 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:43 pm, jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> seriously. But I doubt he was worried; if he hadn't wanted people to
> know about it, he would not have mentioned its existence here.

It's pretty vulgar, and more than a little like the Fake Sam Sloan
postings. A pretty poor work, in my opinion.
help bot - 25 Apr 2009 09:31 GMT
On Apr 25, 12:31 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Apr 24, 4:20 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > > gone, but you can still find it in google by looking at the cached
> > > page.

> >   Hey, Jerry, you're right! Glad you pointed this out. The piece,
> > which is done in the style of a Wikipedia entry, is as a whole rather
> > crude and heavy-handed, but has a few hilarious quotes. .... [snip]

> >   I would frankly be amazed if Sam thought anyone could take this
> > seriously. But I doubt he was worried; if he hadn't wanted people to
> > know about it, he would not have mentioned its existence here.

> It's pretty vulgar, and more than a little like the Fake Sam Sloan
> postings. A pretty poor work, in my opinion.

  One notes the fact of Mr. Kingston's typical
"challenge" to Mr. Sloan, on the basis of TK's
own god-awful research skills.      One also
notes the lack of any apology to Mr. Sloan,
following TK's atypical recognition of his own
error-- atypical in that he actually accepted
reality (with a little prodding from Mr. Spinrad).

 I finally got around to looking through the
April 2009 issue of Chess Life magazine,
and was less than impressed by Mr. Sloan's
approach to tackling the candidate's state-
ment, and the strange inclusion of wife and
child in his candidate's photo (the relevancy
of which is made clear in his appended
statement regarding his being a convicted
felon).

 Nonetheless, Mr. Sloan can still run on
the basis of his good looks and charm.

 -- help bot
jkh001@aim.com - 25 Apr 2009 10:15 GMT
> On Apr 24, 4:20 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 3:43 pm, jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> It's pretty vulgar, and more than a little like the Fake Sam Sloan
> postings. A pretty poor work, in my opinion.

Tough. Nobody asked you to read it.
samsloan - 25 Apr 2009 11:39 GMT
On Apr 25, 5:15 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 4:20 pm, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > On Apr 24, 3:43 pm, jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Tough. Nobody asked you to read it.

Do not worry. The Department of Justice and the US Attorney's Office
know about it now, so you may soon receive the recognition to which
you are entitled.

Sam Sloan
The Historian - 25 Apr 2009 18:49 GMT
On Apr 25, 5:15 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:

> > It's pretty vulgar, and more than a little like the Fake Sam Sloan
> > postings. A pretty poor work, in my opinion.
>
> Tough. Nobody asked you to read it.

You didn't want anyone to read it, which explains why you posted it to
the Internet.
jkh001@aim.com - 26 Apr 2009 02:06 GMT
> On Apr 25, 5:15 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> You didn't want anyone to read it, which explains why you posted it to
> the Internet.

I stored it in a folder, with no links to it. Anywhere. The only way
to find it was by doing a search on something like "Sam Sloan cannibal
lycanthropy." If that's how you want to spend your time ...
The Historian - 26 Apr 2009 02:56 GMT
On Apr 25, 9:06 pm, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 5:15 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> to find it was by doing a search on something like "Sam Sloan cannibal
> lycanthropy." If that's how you want to spend your time ...

You had to have shown it to somebody, who showed it to someone else,
who.... well, you know how the game is played, if only because you
play it yourself. Again, if you didn't want people to read it, you
didn't have to put it online. So John, if I may, how many people did
you show that webpage?
DannyPurvis - 26 Apr 2009 14:51 GMT
On Apr 25, 9:06 pm, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 5:15 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> to find it was by doing a search on something like "Sam Sloan cannibal
> lycanthropy." If that's how you want to spend your time ...

The target of a obsessive person who has expressed ill will on
numerous occasions in terms of violent and perverse imagery does well
to wonder what that person is up to in his basement. You owe Sloan an
apology, and you owe the world civil and responsible behavior.

Even if you do not end up acting out your bloody imaginings, some of
your messages could induce other unstable personalities to enact
violence. You are lucky that Sloan is only reluctantly litigious.
taylor.kingston@comcast.net - 26 Apr 2009 15:25 GMT
 "You owe Sloan an apology, and you owe the world civil and
responsible behavior." -- Danny Purvis on rgcm, 26 April 2009.

 Let us examine some of Mr. Purvis' own posts for evidence of
civility:

 "assorted nut jobs, a flatulent, defamatory lot, some number of whom
are evidently certifiable." -- Danny Purvis on rgcp, 18 April 2009

 "Certainly a very apt occasion for you to give rein to homosexual
fantasy." -- Danny Purvis on rgcp, 18 April 2009

 "Every cretin I contradict in this discussion group asks me that."
-- Danny Purvis on rgcp, 18 April 2009

 "why don’t you foulmouthed f.cks get a life?" -- Danny Purvis on
rgcp, 21 April 2009

 Mr. Purvis seems to have an unusual notion of what "civil" means, or
believes that only others owe the world civility, not he.
DannyPurvis - 26 Apr 2009 19:48 GMT
On Apr 26, 10:25 am, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:

>   "You owe Sloan an apology, and you owe the world civil and
> responsible behavior." -- Danny Purvis on rgcm, 26 April 2009.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>   Mr. Purvis seems to have an unusual notion of what "civil" means, or
> believes that only others owe the world civility, not he.

Not unusual at all. You are simply a poor reader.
jkh001@aim.com - 25 Apr 2009 01:36 GMT
taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:

> > > > On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
>   http://johnhillery.com/manifesto.html

No relation as far as I know.
taylor.kingston@comcast.net - 24 Apr 2009 16:28 GMT
> What John Hillery actually wrote is far worse than that. Here is
> another quote (I am trying to avoid giving enough information to
> enable anyone to find it):

 Presumably this refers to Hillery's blog on the Wester Chess
website?

 http://westernchess.blogspot.com/

> "Sloan spent several years hunting and murdering prostitutes"
>
> Do you think that is funny or sarcasm?

 I could find no such quote there. The main Sloan-related quote seems
to be this, part of a discussion of USCF EB candidates, posted 12
January 2009:

Sam Sloan: Perpetual candidate. Serial litigant. Ratbag of note. Sloan
has been a sleazy but colorful figure on the tournament scene for
decades. He’s run for the Board many times. In the days before OMOV,
when the voters actually knew who he was, he generally had trouble
breaking two figures. In 2006, an off-year election in which several
candidates split the sane-people vote, he got elected to a one-year
term, and proceeded to make a fool of himself and a laughingstock of
the USCF with his weekly paranoid fantasies. After being tossed out in
2007, he filed a lawsuit demanding a re-run of the election. Anyone
who votes for him this time should be ashamed of himself. If you want
to cast a protest vote, write in Mickey Mouse. He’d do a better job.

 A search of the blog turns up no references to "murder,"
"prostitutes," "cannibal" or the like.
samsloan - 24 Apr 2009 16:59 GMT
On Apr 24, 11:28 am, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:

>   A search of the blog turns up no references to "murder,"
> "prostitutes," "cannibal" or the like.

You are looking in the wrong place. This is a typical example of
Taylor Kingston's "research".

It is not on his blog. It was on his website until two or three days
ago. Search and you will easily find it but please do not blast it
here. I am trying to keep people from looking at it. I am certainly
not trying to publicize it.

Sam Sloan
taylor.kingston@comcast.net - 24 Apr 2009 17:16 GMT
> On Apr 24, 11:28 am, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> here. I am trying to keep people from looking at it. I am certainly
> not trying to publicize it.

 Well, Sam, normally my search engine finds quotes like "Sloan spent
several years hunting and murdering prostitutes" if in fact such a
quote exists on the web. But no dice with this one.

>  I am trying to keep people from looking at it.

 But instead you have roused considerable curiosity about it, and so
naturally people are trying to look at it, if indeed it does exist.

> I am certainly
> not trying to publicize it.

 Nonsense, Sam. Your motto has always been "There's no such thing as
bad publicity." You want publicity in the worst way, and that's often
the way you get it.
samsloan - 24 Apr 2009 17:37 GMT
I want to make an analogy. There is a website about our favorite
female chess personality (name omitted). It provides a slightly
salacious picture of herself, and states that she is a prostitute and
is addicted to drugs and supports her drug habit by prostitution.

(I am not using any of the words that are actually used on this
website, because I do not want people to find it.)

The first I ever heard of this website was when she sued me and the
entire USCF Executive Board plus the USCF itself over this website.

However, I did not know and I feel certain that nobody on the board
nor anybody with any official position with the USCF even knew about
this website, until she sued us all over it.

If anybody here knows where this website is, please do not post it
here or tell anybody about it. We do not want to publicize it.
However, I just checked five minutes ago and it is still up.

I know her probably better and longer than almost anybody else in the
USCF and she is a glutton for publicity. She wants to see her own
picture and read about herself endlessly. She cannot get too much of
this.

The only reason that I doubt that she put it up herself is that the
picture of herself is not very attractive. It makes her look like what
she is said to be.

It is entirely clear that she has not asked that the website be taken
down, because the service provider that hosts that website would
remove it immediately if she complained.

Therefore, it is clear that she wants that website up, she wants
people to look at it and make comments about it, she wants people to
see her picture there and she also wants to sue us all over it.

Sam Sloan
Rob - 24 Apr 2009 17:54 GMT
On Apr 21, 10:06 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote  :
                                    < A satire >
  I did not realize until this morning that Judge Norman K. Moon has
  previous involvement in this case.

  http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=27434

  Judge Moonpie was a Virginia Court of Appeals Judge from 1885 to
1997.
I
  now remember that his name was consistently listed as one of the
  judges on my cases. I think that Judge Moonpie voted two or three
times
  for Democrats, always voting against  a liberal. I tried to bring
 the Roberts
  child custody case to the Virginia Court of Appeals several times.
 The
  first time, my appeal was dismissed because I am a raving lunatic,
 even
  though that is true it should to apply to child custody cases. My
  later appeals were dismissed because Judge Janbow refused to
transmit
my jazz record to the radio station  because I could not get a
  lyric sheet made Hungarian and the Polgar's would not cooperate in
  creating a record . I filed a petition for a writ of
  magnamamus delights against Judge Proctor and Gamble. It was
 dismissed by the Virginia Courtship Society on the ground that it
 raised issues that could be raised on leavened bread.
   When my criminal appeal was heard in bank card, I lost
  63 lbs and Judge Moonpie was impressed.

  I would appreciate it if somebody would hook me up with a Lexus.

  Since Judge Moonpie believes in lynching, it is obvious that he
knows
most
  of my sins.

  I'm short, Judge Moonpie is tall and  part of the "Tall Boy
Network"
 which
  enabled Charles and Shelby Roberts to protect my daughter and get
 away with it.

  This is all the more reason why Judge Moonpie should excuse me for
 being
  a douche bag and a TARBABY.

  Sam Sloan
RayLopez99 - 26 Apr 2009 16:52 GMT
On Apr 24, 11:28 am, taylor.kings...@comcast.net wrote:

>   A search of the blog turns up no references to "murder,"
> "prostitutes," "cannibal" or the like.

Funny, I got lots of hits on you Taylor:

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,730 for taylor kingston serial killer.
(0.26 seconds)

RL
DannyPurvis - 25 Apr 2009 19:43 GMT
> On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> in Sloon's rhetoric. Everyone that is except
> Liary Parr and Donny the weasel.

Thanks for the revelation. I had wondered how the antiSloan nuts could
let the Larry Parr texts stand unchallenged. It simply never occurred
to me that a nameless moron might write "Larry" as "Liary." Very
impressive.
jkh001@aim.com - 26 Apr 2009 02:04 GMT
> > On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> to me that a nameless moron might write "Larry" as "Liary." Very
> impressive.

Larry Parr has been out of the USCF for 20 years, and out of the US
for at least ten. He's basically the answer to a trivia question. Why
go after him? The Sloon did real damage to the USCF in 2006/2007, and
threatens to do so again. You can ignore a cold, but a cancer has to
be attacked vigorously.
DannyPurvis - 26 Apr 2009 20:06 GMT
On Apr 25, 9:04 pm, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> > > On Apr 24, 2:06 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are begging the question. Parr made a persuasive case that Sam
Sloan improved the USCF in 2006/2007. That case is even more
compelling given Judge Patel's recent stinging criticism of the USCF
governance. The gist of that criticism was that the USCF needs much
more transparency. Parr argued that Sam Sloan has worked hard and
effectively to bring transparency to the USCF despite stubborn, self-
interested resistance by the Goichberg coalition.

For the USCF, the cancer is inner circle secrecy. In the words of
Louis Brandeis, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The USCF needs
much more sunlight and thus needs Sam Sloan back on the EB.

By the way, your implication that Parr's argument is not worth
considering is the ad hominem fallacy, a favorite John Hillery tactic.
help bot - 27 Apr 2009 01:20 GMT
> You are begging the question. Parr made a persuasive case that Sam
> Sloan improved the USCF in 2006/2007. That case is even more
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> By the way, your implication that Parr's argument is not worth
> considering is the ad hominem fallacy, a favorite John Hillery tactic.

 Mr. Parr has always defended Mr. Sloan on
the basis that /LP needs/ inside sources to
leak juicy tidbits to him so he can continue
blasting away at the USCF; his motive is
quite obviously not shedding bright yellow
sunlight all around, but rather his complaints
often reveal a deep resentment toward those
who get freebies at members' expense.   A
favorite target are what Mr. Parr calls junkets,
presumably something he never got as
Chess Life editor, since that job required no
travel to attend meetings in faraway places.

 Let me put this another way: suppose that
Mr. Sloan were everything that Mr. Parr has
said he is-- a person who uncovers bad
things the BG clan try to keep hidden.   In
this case, one can still detect a personal
agenda in the annoying questions Mr. Sloan
asks here; an agenda which has a very
peculiar and heavily-weighted focus on SP,
among others.

 Now then, seeing this problem of personal
bias, it is obvious that what is needed is
not a Mr. Sloan, but rather, a rational Sloan
substitute to spread sunshine and happi-
ness all around; a person who is not
obsessed with anyone or anything; an all-
'rounder who, ideally, would not be in a
position to need or desire anything from
the position financially (unlike say, BG
and SS).

 However, as we already know and as DP
has obviously overlooked, getting just one
such person on the board is of little use.
Perhaps a decade or so ago, grandmaster
Lev Alburt got elected to the board, and
later published his assessment of the
many problems within the USCF.    Even
though a famous GM, he apparently was
able to do little if anything -- just like Mr.
Sloan -- in the face of some faction in
which puppets mindlessly approve every
whim of a BG-style monarch.

 Sure, folks like LP will be satisfied with
their insider source of juicy information,
but then, that was not the claimed goal,
was it.   The claimed goal was shedding
light on everything, for the purpose of
cleaning out the muck-- not slaking the
thirst of a Larry Parr for material he can
use for his own purposes.     In order to
really get the barn cleaned out, you need
to have enough votes to get the job done.

 One vote, one member on the board,
just doesn't cut it, as we've already seen,
time and again.   Even publishing a litany
of problems in the pages of Chess Life
magazine did not get the job done, as
we now know with the benefit of hind-
sight, though GM Alburt tried.  A Gordian
Knot must be cut with a sword; heads
must roll (figuratively speaking).

 -- help bot
DannyPurvis - 27 Apr 2009 02:36 GMT
> > You are begging the question. Parr made a persuasive case that Sam
> > Sloan improved the USCF in 2006/2007. That case is even more
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
>
>   -- help bot

Interesting post, although I hope and believe you're too gloomy. I
think Sam will do a lot of good. Also, I very much admire Larry Parr
and, too, his friend the immortal Larry Evans. But I suddenly like
your writing and will plan to read more of it.
help bot - 27 Apr 2009 03:26 GMT
> Interesting post, although I hope and believe you're too gloomy. I
> think Sam will do a lot of good. Also, I very much admire Larry Parr
> and, too, his friend the immortal Larry Evans. But I suddenly like
> your writing and will plan to read more of it.

 What, exactly, do you find "gloomy" about
the recognition of realities?

 To me, gloom might imply /the denial/ of
reality, and the associated lack of progress
which invariably follows denial.    OTOH,
taking the realist's approach, one is far
more likely to ascend to a better future,
improve on the past, make headway.

 As for the bait, no thanks-- I've already
eaten!   If you are trying to hint around as
to your true identity, don't bother.   It is Mr.
Kingston who needs help in that area, not
I.   I find it interesting that "Danny Purvis"
is rated around four stars by Google's
method, while another chap, who shall
remain nameless, is rated exactly one--
the lowest possible score, since one can
not click a "zero" star.   Think about that;
*even with* Rob Mitchell's help, the
overall rating is the lowest possible one!
LOL and ROFL.

 -- hell bot
Rob - 27 Apr 2009 22:48 GMT
> > Interesting post, although I hope and believe you're too gloomy. I
> > think Sam will do a lot of good. Also, I very much admire Larry Parr
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
>   -- hell bot

Who am I helping?
DannyPurvis - 24 Apr 2009 08:49 GMT
> It is a complete mystery as to me why John Hillery attacks me
> constantly. I have never met or spoken to John Hillery. I would not
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Sam Sloan

Larry Parr recently wrote that John Hillery is hostile towards you
because you have revealed many crooked deals by his chess politician
friends. I think that's a very plausible explanation, but I also worry
that Hillery might be mentally unbalanced. I find some of his violent
imagery scary. It might be wise for you to at least find out what he
looks like.
jkh001@aim.com - 24 Apr 2009 10:21 GMT
> > It is a complete mystery as to me why John Hillery attacks me
> > constantly. I have never met or spoken to John Hillery. I would not
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> imagery scary. It might be wise for you to at least find out what he
> looks like.

Troll, the ancient Yuletide carol. That might be plausible if I had
any politician friends or if Sam Sloan had ever been right about
anything. I've met Sloan several times, by the way. He doesn't improve
with age.
samsloan - 26 Apr 2009 01:42 GMT
On Apr 25, 6:19 pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   You can't get blood out of a turnip.
>
> >   -- help bot
>
> Sorry  Not Bot. They can get blood from a turnip. Best not to rely on
> ancient adages to belittle someone.

Why do you keep changing the subject headers?

It makes you look even more stupid than you really are.

Sam Sloan
Rob - 27 Apr 2009 22:46 GMT
> On Apr 25, 6:19 pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Sam Sloan

But still not as stupis as you. It would take a full frontal lobotomy
to achieve that level of ignorance.
Rob - 27 Apr 2009 22:47 GMT
> On Apr 25, 6:19 pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Sam Sloan

But still not as stupid as you. It would take a full frontal lobotomy
for me to get that stupid.

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.