 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics ChessKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Chess Forum / General Topics / March 2009The List of the Blind Monkey NEW
rec.games.chess.politics == KAYO KIMURA-SLOAN POLL == googlebot KAYO SLOAN, KAYO KIMURA It is alleged that during 2002 to 2009, many attempts have been made, online and offline, to communicate to Mrs Kayo Kimura-Sloan the nature of the man she chose to "marry" and to produce a child with. It is alleged that most of these contact attempts have been successful. Contact has also been made (once) with her mother in Japan. It may be assumed she passed the details on to Kayo. However, in spite of or because of the damning evidence of the nature of her "husband", even how he has ridiculed her online so many times, it cannot be denied that Mrs Kayo Kimura-Sloan has chosen to remain with Sam Sloan. It has been suggested in the private newsgroup alt.politics.samsloan that possible reasons for this are that Kayo: believes Sam's lie that if she divorces him she'll be forced to give evidence against him that can get both of them jailed is so much in love with Sam she believes all his spin is so ugly and desparate she knows she can't do better doesn't care about her daughter's physical/mental safety believes she is actually legally married to Sam even though he has other wives he legally married but forgot to divorce thinks Sam is so hot in bed that it is all worth it is too idiotic a bitch to even comprehend the situation believes Sam that she may inherit $25m if she sticks with him is hypnotized or under the influence of mindbending drugs administered by Sam believes there's a megasupraplanetary conspiracy to defame Sam can't bear to think she won't be able to talk to Jack B. over the phone as he won't call her once she's left Sam seeks martyrdom believes she won't be able to get her narcotics without him is extremely short-sighted and Sam cracked all her lenses is busy cuckolding Sam for hai-ku tai-chi feng-shui Revenge believes it isn't worth the effort as Sam will die in '09 is being held prisoner against her will by Sam has actually already left Sam but Sam's impersonating her thinks God commanded her to stay with Sam, and doesn't realize the voice that she heard was on a tape made by Sam has been murdered by the Usual Suspect and her place has been taken by a Doppelganger (FKK, the Fake Kayo Kimura) is quietly poisoning Sam with an accumulative eg. arsenic (which would explain Sam's physical appearance lately) thinks that Sam will defeat Creighton in the final reel believes marriage, even ""marriage"", is for life, NMW is quietly planning how to do it so Sam can't follow believes Sam that her green card or naturalization will be revoked if she quits Sam is a lunatic can't raise the dough for the tickets back to 'shima is the Real Fake Sam Sloan believes Sam that the Fake Sam Sloan did all the bad things is biding her time to maximize the damage to Sam swallows that her path to heavenly young camels is via Ishmael has eliminated Sam and replaced him with a body double thinks this is her only chance to become a 1900-player is waiting for Cynthia Beloff's check in the mail admires the classical purity of Sam's mind is revenging herself by aborting his deformed fetuses without him knowing confuses loyalty with being a downright moron has got the two Mahomeds confused is a Type VI masochist thinks incest is something that is best kept within the family is waiting until self-help castration is legalized in NY believes they'll take the kid from her if she leaves is crazy enough to be doing it for the good of the kid believes kiddie-f.cking is OK for consenting "adults" is being blackmailed by Sam thinks Brock told her that suffering in this life will lead to a promotion to queen in the next cycle can't figure out how to open the door sees the inner sweet loving man that Sam really truly is is too scared of Sam and what he might do if she goes can't make up her mind sees herself as a sacrificial victim, saving the remainder of womankind and girlkind and kiddiekind from Sam thinks Sam opens social, business or academic doors for her has been duped into thinking she can change Sam is collecting material for a definitive book about Sam thinks Sam is a hero who has overcome enormous odds in life has no interaction with Sam, so it isn't so painful enjoys giving chessplayers a problem they can't solve is an evil witch who enjoys participating in Sam's crimes some reason which is beyond what mortal man can fathom some or all or none of the above Please select from the above for the reason Kayo sticks with Sam, or if you have something new, tell us what it is. Your co-operation is appreciated. Replies will be monitored and may be used by Jack for the good of U.S. chess and for the safety and happiness of a minor. Thanks a bunch. This message has been approved by several of Sam's older children. "foad" <staring@yourtits.com> wrote in rec.games.chess. politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess. computer,alt.chess on Mar 26, 2009 7:37 am: > "samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote > Considering the economic climate, it would be a shame if > you were to live longer than AIG's ability to pay out > your policy. Have you considered throwing yourself out a > window or in front of a bus or perhaps drinking some > household chemicals? I'd say think of the children, but > I'm sure you already are. > rec.games.chess.politics == KAYO KIMURA-SLOAN POLL == > googlebot KAYO SLOAN, KAYO KIMURA [quoted text clipped - 171 lines] > > household chemicals? I'd say think of the children, but > > I'm sure you already are. Disgusting. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but leave his family alone. On Mar 27, 3:03 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote: > Disgusting. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but leave his family alone. Ditto that. > On Mar 27, 3:03 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote: > > > Disgusting. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but leave his family alone. > > Ditto that. Besides the post itself, it's lamentable that the anonymouse put it under Mike Murray's name. I seriously doubt that Murray, generally one of the most astute and fair-minded posters here, would write anything like this. >> On Mar 27, 3:03 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >of the most astute and fair-minded posters here, would write anything >like this. You are correct. I didn't write that. Some consolation: the faker was ethical enough to post using "Mike Murray II". > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:05:05 -0700 (PDT), tkings...@chittenden.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Some consolation: the faker was ethical enough to post using "Mike > Murray II". Peoples families are or should be off limits. No ones thinks Mike would post anything so disgusting. On Mar 27, 9:24 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:05:05 -0700 (PDT), tkings...@chittenden.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Some consolation: the faker was ethical enough to post using "Mike > Murray II". Peoples families are or should be off limits. No ones thinks Mike would post anything so disgusting. ==== Excellent point. None of you would be so vulgar as to discuss the intimate details of people's personal lives, such as whether Susan Polgar tortures her children, whether she's a fit parent, or whether she is in fact even legally married. Because that would be so wrong. And certainly not this Murray fellow, he'd never do anything like that, he's too good. Unless it was absolutely necessary obviously. Because even good people have their limits. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/3a48e9 3d63b7ff57# > On Mar 27, 9:24 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/th... In the link you provided, neither of Murray's two posts say anything even vaguely like what you describe. To quote them in full: "The ability of one married partner to act independently of the other in signing contracts, in providing legal testimony in certain cases, etc., is, I believe, constrained. One of the legal types can correct me if I'm wrong." "Without addressing the truth of your claim, the former could legally testify against the latter in all venues." On Mar 27, 11:52 am, "foad" <star...@yourtits.com> wrote: > "Rob" <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/th... In the link you provided, neither of Murray's two posts say anything even vaguely like what you describe. To quote them in full: "The ability of one married partner to act independently of the other in signing contracts, in providing legal testimony in certain cases, etc., is, I believe, constrained. One of the legal types can correct me if I'm wrong." "Without addressing the truth of your claim, the former could legally testify against the latter in all venues." ========== I'm aware of what's in the link that I supplied, having supplied it. And so is anyone else who can read. Clever of you to copy and paste it though: you must be one of the smart ones with opposable thumbs. The things I described are things I read in this ridiculous newsgroup in the few short months I've been reading it. Hot saucing. Custody issues. Whether the Polgars are married and if so when and who they told. And so on, and on and on, day after dreary day, baseless innuendo, unfounded speculation, vague allegations. I did not ascribe those things I mentioned specifically to this Murray fellow, whoever he may be. I do ascribe to him comments he made in a a thread where the Polgars marriage was under discussion, which comments concerned their marriage generally, and whether one could testify against the other, and so on, which comments "no one thinks mike would post anything" about. Except he did, right there. Perhaps you (the royal) don't realize what a bunch of hypocritical racist misogynistic refuckingtards you come across as. It's quite amusing. Most people think chess players are intellectuals. Good of you (the royal) to disabuse them of that notion. >The things I described are things I read in this ridiculous newsgroup in the >few short months I've been reading it. Oh, I think you've been reading it a lot longer than that. >Hot saucing. Custody issues. Whether >the Polgars are married and if so when and who they told. And so on, and on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >against the other, and so on, which comments "no one thinks mike would post >anything" about. > Except he did, right there. Few regular posters are dumb enough to confuse discussion of a concealed marriage between two candidates for a corporate EB and a bunch of sleazy lies about a person's family. I don't think you're that dumb either. It's your lack of courage and personal integrity that we question. >Perhaps you (the royal) don't realize what a bunch of hypocritical racist >misogynistic refuckingtards you come across as. It's quite amusing. Most >people think chess players are intellectuals. Good of you (the royal) to >disabuse them of that notion. Perhaps you (not the royal) don't realize most regular posters know what you're up to. >>The things I described are things I read in this ridiculous newsgroup in >>the >>few short months I've been reading it. > > Oh, I think you've been reading it a lot longer than that. I assure you that's not the case. I'm just a public spirited lawyer who dispenses free advice on the internets to deserving widows and orphans. I got trolled over here by the x posting nitwit Sloan. Not that it hasn't been fun: frankly I had no idea chess was full of such intrigue. It's like double naught spying, less the martinis and and pussy. >>Hot saucing. Custody issues. Whether >>the Polgars are married and if so when and who they told. And so on, and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > concealed marriage between two candidates for a corporate EB and a > bunch of sleazy lies about a person's family. I don't know which sleazy lies you're caviling about. Sloan tells half a hundred sleazy lies a week, barely nobody peeps. In any event, I didn't confuse anything. The comment I took issue with was "Peoples families are or should be off limits." Marital status falls under that rubric. That's what I commented on, which comment I stand behind. > I don't think you're that dumb either. It's your lack of courage and > personal integrity that we question. Yes well, in general I meant no disrespect to you personally, since I have no idea who you are. If I offended you I apologize. I happened to recall the thread discussing the Polgars marriage among many other threads discussing various aspects of their personal lives, which you (royal) discuss interminably. Whether their kids will be taken away. Whether they hot sauce them. Whether they're married. Whether they might be extradited and where to. Where they get their money from. Whether they'll flee the country, where they went to college, what their financial situation is. And so on. It's an interminable witch hunt of a list. That you happened to post in the thread I recalled was merely a cherry. Oh and PS there's no courage and personal integrity on the interwebs. It couldn't be less personal or less courageous. >>Perhaps you (the royal) don't realize what a bunch of hypocritical racist >>misogynistic refuckingtards you come across as. It's quite amusing. Most [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Perhaps you (not the royal) don't realize most regular posters know > what you're up to. We (royal) are up to no good. I freely admit that. But since I don't have a dog in this hunt perhaps you'd be better served questioning the motives of those who own the kennel. Finger to royal nose. >> Few regular posters are dumb enough to confuse discussion of a >> concealed marriage between two candidates for a corporate EB and a >> bunch of sleazy lies about a person's family. >I don't know which sleazy lies you're caviling about. Specifically, the ones in the post that started this thread, (almost) faking my name. >Sloan tells half a >hundred sleazy lies a week, barely nobody peeps. Sam does what he does and he does it under his own name. His off-topic and cross-posting practices are legend, and attacking him has no effect. Most regular poster have learned to ignore it unless he says something interesting, and to trim the newsgroups down to rgc* when replying. >In any event, I didn't >confuse anything. The comment I took issue with was "Peoples families are or >should be off limits." Marital status falls under that rubric. That's what I >commented on, which comment I stand behind. If you're an attorney as you claim, you must know that it's a big stretch to construe discussion of the marital status of two public figures (when that status is relevant to the topic) as going after their families. Certainly it's nothing comparable to the stuff in the post by "Mike Murray II". >Oh and PS there's no courage and personal integrity on the interwebs. It >couldn't be less personal or less courageous. There's five lawsuits implying you're wrong. >>> Few regular posters are dumb enough to confuse discussion of a >>> concealed marriage between two candidates for a corporate EB and a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Specifically, the ones in the post that started this thread, (almost) > faking my name. The ones in the post that started this thread seem to be a list of hypothetical reasons why Mrs Sloan chooses to remains Mrs Sloan. As such they're not lies at all, strictly speaking, they're conjecture. Some of them -- for example that Sam is hot in bed, as repulsive as that thought is -- are complimentary. Some -- Sam will defeat Creighton in the final reel, she confused two Mahomeds -- are obvious satire. Certainly none are as repulsive as earnestly discussing whether a mother abuses her children. >>Sloan tells half a >>hundred sleazy lies a week, barely nobody peeps. > > Sam does what he does and he does it under his own name. The same could be said of Pol Pot and Mother Teresa. What's your point? Shirley you don't think merely using your own name is praiseworthy? > His off-topic > and cross-posting practices are legend, and attacking him has no > effect. Most regular poster have learned to ignore it unless he says > something interesting, and to trim the newsgroups down to rgc* when > replying. So Sloan's behavior is so reprehensible that you tolerate it, but if anyone behaves the same way you chastise them, because behaving as he does is too reprehensible to tolerate. That is an interesting code of ethics. >>In any event, I didn't >>confuse anything. The comment I took issue with was "Peoples families are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If you're an attorney as you claim, Why would anyone pretend to be a lawyer? > you must know that it's a big > stretch to construe discussion of the marital status of two public > figures (when that status is relevant to the topic) as going after > their families. Certainly it's nothing comparable to the stuff in the > post by "Mike Murray II". What I know is what words mean. I know what "family" means, what "post anything" means, what "hypocrite" means. If you have an issue it should be with the person who said you'd never discuss "anything" like that, when you have in the past discussed "something" like that -- "the marital issue," in quotes here because they're your words you used describing what you were discussing-- when it suits you. Your prerogative obviously, but it is what it is. The larger point this obfuscates is why a thread discussing Sloan's family is vulgar in the context of a NG filled with idle speculation about the most intimate details of Polgar's family life, which speculation passes with nary a comment. >>Oh and PS there's no courage and personal integrity on the interwebs. It >>couldn't be less personal or less courageous. > > There's five lawsuits implying you're wrong. It doesn't take courage or personal integrity to file a lawsuit. It takes $ 210 and a word processor. > Specifically, the ones in the post that started this thread, (almost) > faking my name. (I hate double posting, but here I make an exception.) Speaking of the ones that started this thread, I went back just now and read "List of the Blind Monkey," upon which thread this thread is based. In that thread you are chatting amiably with someone called manoflemun ... @ yahoo.com regarding the list you started there. That person suggests adding to your list that "Truong may have committed a few careless web posting improprieties, but it's OK, because he keeps Polgar in line by occasionally slapping her around." He followed with a second post alleging a violent sexual relationship between two board members. Your reply to these postings was: "I get the feeling you've stopped taking this seriously. Heh, heh, heh." (Lest I be unclear, one was not a direct response to the the other. Yours was a reply to the both of his suggestions.) I'm wondering whether allegations of wife beating constitute discussing someone's family, and if so why they rate a "heh heh heh" rather than a series of essays about "sleazy lies." Take your time responding, it's a trick question. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/afa2d3 ddbf155670/6f229dd026fbf0c1?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=list+of+the+Blind+Monkey >> Specifically, the ones in the post that started this thread, (almost) >> faking my name. >(I hate double posting, but here I make an exception.) That's the nice thing about Usenet. You get home, think of things you should have said.... and you can just go back and say 'em. You don't have to be quick. You don't have to be clever. Just diligent or obsessive. >Speaking of the ones that started this thread, I went back just now and read >"List of the Blind Monkey," upon which thread this thread is based. In that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >heh." (Lest I be unclear, one was not a direct response to the the other. >Yours was a reply to the both of his suggestions.) On Usenet, one can reply only to one post at a time. My reply did not stipulate that was in response to multiple posts. I ignored the post that referenced "slapping around". So... another deliberate distortion by our mousekattorney. As one can read in the link foad provided, my reply to manoflemuncha, with the text I quoted of his post, was: --------------------------------------------------------- >26) EB Dialect 101: When one EB member says to another: "Wait until we >meet in private, I'm going to wring your neck and you'll not see >another sunrise!" this really means: "You take my breath away!" I get the feeling you've stopped taking this seriously. Heh, heh, heh. How about, "I'll pull off your left arm and beat your head with the bloody stump". --------------------------------------------------------- >I'm wondering whether >allegations of wife beating constitute discussing someone's family, and if >so why they rate a "heh heh heh" rather than a series of essays about >"sleazy lies." >Take your time responding, it's a trick question. > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/afa2d3 ddbf155670/6f229dd026fbf0c1?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=list+of+the+Blind+Monkey Does citing a long thread, summarizing the content incorrectly in the hope that people won't bother reading the original, constitute a trick question? I would have thought it just a lie. > That's the nice thing about Usenet. You get home, think of things you > should have said.... and you can just go back and say 'em. You don't > have to be quick. You don't have to be clever. Oh yeah? Well the jerk store called and they're running out of you. > Just diligent or obsessive. So to recap: in the normal course of your day you compile a purported list of 20 excuses used by "Polgar lackeys" (here defined as people you spend your days looking for under your bed.) You post this list in a newgroup where Polgar is discussed on a daily basis and at least one other such message board where you solicit more Polgar excuses. As each Polgar excuse is suggested you weigh it and discuss it and either include it on your Polgar list or not. You also defend your right to be arbiter of the Polgar list of Polgar excuses in an exchange with Polgar lackey Phil Innes. This Polgar list grows to about 18 inches long in a Polgar thread in a Polgar newsgroup that over a period of four days includes 20 or 30 posts by you personally. This you feel it is all happy and normal. Whereas if I merely read what you wrote, I'm "obsessive." >>Speaking of the ones that started this thread, I went back just now and >>read [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > On Usenet, one can reply only to one post at a time. I have a goldfish named Fred. > My reply did not stipulate that was in response to multiple posts. Oooo, stipulate, that's some impressive legal jargon. Except you don't have to stipulate to evidence: evidence and inference are either suasive or not. That the defendant gainsays the truth of it does not diminish its probative value. All that matters is what dupes the jury. I'm sorry, did I say dupes? I meant persuades. > I ignored the post that referenced "slapping around". I don't believe you. Your reply, that the poster was no longer taking your precious Polgar list seriously, makes no sense in the context of one misplaced suggestion. Whereas it makes a great deal of sense in the context of the beginning of a series of frivolous suggestions of sexual violence between board members, which frivolity you meant to quash, which series started with the wife beating one, heh heh heh. Fortunately whether I believe you or not doesn't matter, because either way your behavior betrays your prejudices. You are chatting amiably with the person who suggests that Truong is a wife beater. At best -- that is, rather than chastising this person for his calumny, rather than noting that people's families are off limits, or that a line has been crossed -- you continue chatting with him amiably, heh heh heh. Just as you continued chatting amiably later on in the thread when he discussed whether Susan Polgar's children were responsible for the faked postings -- this latter interesting because you at least mentioned that such discussions were out of bounds, that you would not subject her kids to the list: so at long last you do have some decency. Personally I do not chat amiably with people who lie and slander, whose behavior I find reprehensible. Whereas you either (a) overlook reprehensible behavior in those with whose opinions you otherwise agree or (2) you don't find the behavior reprehensible. There is no third way. Contrast your response to Truong is a wife beater (either playing along or nothing, as you wish) with your response to an obvious parody of your list that mocks your anti Polgar ally Sam Sloan: that you denounce as "sleazy lies," because you have "courage" and "personal integrity." > So... another deliberate distortion by our mousekattorney. No. I was pretty clear in what I wrote. I even included a parenthetical for the hard of thinking such as yourself, "Lest I be unclear." > As one can > read in the link foad provided <hose> As one can take out of context, you mean. I provided a link to all the evidence, what happened, what happened before, what happened after. So that interested parties can read it as they wish and form their own opinions, as have I. Because I'm happy to let the chips fall where they may, having no axe to grind, no dog to hunt, and no flag to run up the flag pole. It's not my fault that you have a petard that you are now ahoist. That's all you. > Does citing a long thread, summarizing the content incorrectly in the > hope that people won't bother reading the original, constitute a trick > question? I would have thought it just a lie. I summarized what happened just fine (complete with parentheticals) and supplied a link just in case anyone missed it. Your evasion of the issue is noted. If I'd wanted to lie, I'd have mentioned that the list was meant to include only "goofy" accusations, which would make your exclusion of the wife beating comment an endorsement of its truth. That would have been a lie. But I have no reason to do that, just being an amused bystander. (Or a secret Polgar spy, or a secret Polgar enemy double-crossing the Polgars, depending upon which obsessive Masonic one world government Trilateral Commission Council on Foreign Relations cabal I am secretly in league with). Speaking of amused, the funny thing about hypocrites isn't their character flaws, everybody has those, its their blindness to them in relation to their otherwise keen eyesight. >"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote >> That's the nice thing about Usenet. You get home, think of things you >> should have said.... and you can just go back and say 'em. You don't >> have to be quick. You don't have to be clever. >Oh yeah? Well the jerk store called and they're running out of you. Hang out with Pee Wee Hermann much ? > This you feel it is all happy and normal. Whereas if I merely >read what you wrote, I'm "obsessive." Why argue that I'm obsessive? I freely admit it. In fact, I'll stipulate it. >> On Usenet, one can reply only to one post at a time. >I have a goldfish named Fred. And what did he tell you ? >> My reply did not stipulate that was in response to multiple posts. >Oooo, stipulate, that's some impressive legal jargon. Except it wasn't used in the courtroom environ. There's nothing in Usenet convention that says a reply to a post encompasses a reply to "x" prior posts by the same author. >> I ignored the post that referenced "slapping around". >I don't believe you. It's not my fault if you choose to believe Fred over me. But give him some fish chow and he might tell you the truth. >Your reply, that the poster was no longer taking your >precious Polgar list seriously, The List of the Blind Monkey was not primarily about Polgar, or even Truong for that matter. It satirized the lame and invalid arguments advanced by those who chose to disbelieve the Mottershead Report. Of course, you already knew that, didn't you? >Fortunately whether I believe you or not doesn't matter, Definitely true. > Because I'm happy to let the chips fall where they may, having no >axe to grind, no dog to hunt, and no flag to run up the flag pole. Most lackeys would like to present themselves as independent men of judgment. I doubt many here believe you. Your posts reflect just one more toady. Which wouldn't be so bad (I mean, everybody serves somebody sometime) if you had the guts to post under your own name. Heh, heh, heh. >>> That's the nice thing about Usenet. You get home, think of things you >>> should have said.... and you can just go back and say 'em. You don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hang out with Pee Wee Hermann much ? It's a line used on Seinfeld by George Costanza actually. Quite a funny episode. What happens is that George becomes obsessed with a woman who's a better Scrabble player than he is because she's a stinky foreigner with a nice rack. In his lust to destroy her he throws in with a criminally insane pedophile (Crazy Joe Devollo), who accuses the Scrabble player of a bunch of nutty stuff like torturing her children. Zany hijinks ensue. Eventually the Scrabble player's husband (also a stinky foreigner) outsmarts George and his pals and saves his wife's honor by throwing himself on his sword and admiting to some minor legal transgressions of which she was accused, leaving George and his obsessed crew with shrimp on their faces. Although the Scrabble players live happily ever after, George's co defendants don't end up quite so well, as they lose their homes in the ensuing litigation and end up living under bridges. Still, what's farce without a little tragedy, roit? >> This you feel it is all happy and normal. Whereas if I merely >>read what you wrote, I'm "obsessive." > > Why argue that I'm obsessive? I freely admit it. In fact, I'll > stipulate it. So you'll stipulate to suffering from a "an unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation" having to so with Susan Polgar? Ladies and gentlemen, the persecution rests. >>> On Usenet, one can reply only to one post at a time. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Usenet convention that says a reply to a post encompasses a reply to > "x" prior posts by the same author. It's be a little easier to believe your spiel about usenet conventions if you displayed even a vague familiarity with those doing with quoting, which evidently eludes you. In any event, I'm not talking about convention or stipulation or whatevethefuck. I'm talking about the words you typed on screen, which words are seemingly the only thing you don't want to address. Specifically conversations in which you amiably discuss Polgar's marriage, her children, whether she is beaten by her husband, which subjects are otherwise off limits and "sleazy lies," which makes you either a liar or a hypocrite, you're free to pick. >>> I ignored the post that referenced "slapping around". > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Of course, you already knew that, didn't you? It doesn't matter what the list was purportedly about. It matters what was on it and what was in the thread that promulgated it. If you make a grocery list and on it call bagel and lox "kike food," it is not a defense to a charge of antisemitism that the list is meant to comprise foods you like to eat. >>Fortunately whether I believe you or not doesn't matter, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Most lackeys would like to present themselves as independent men of > judgment. And most people who are "obsessed" see the object of their compulsion behind every tree and under every rock. That is the nature of the mental defect to which you have stipulated. > I doubt many here believe you. I doubt you know what people think and know I don't give a f.ck. You're free to take comfort in the fact that your prejudices and neuroses are shared by the howling mob. Many ignorant people do just that. > Your posts reflect just one more toady. Which wouldn't be so bad (I > mean, everybody serves somebody sometime) Like you're getting served here you mean. > if you had the guts to post > under your own name. Only a coward thinks merely using his name is brave. >> Why argue that I'm obsessive? ... I'll stipulate it. >So you'll stipulate to suffering from a "an unhealthy and compulsive >preoccupation" having to so with Susan Polgar? >Ladies and gentlemen, the persecution rests. A general predisposition toward being obsessive doesn't equate to having any particular obsession, does it now? Pretty cheap debating trick. High school level. What mail-order outfit sold you your law degree? >It's be a little easier to believe your spiel about usenet conventions if >you displayed even a vague familiarity with those doing with quoting, which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >otherwise off limits and "sleazy lies," which makes you either a liar or a >hypocrite, you're free to pick. That I participated in a thread where such topics were mentioned doesn't mean I discussed them, does it now? But, you already knew that. >> The List of the Blind Monkey was not primarily about Polgar, or even >> Truong for that matter. It satirized the lame and invalid arguments >> advanced by those who chose to disbelieve the Mottershead Report. >> Of course, you already knew that, didn't you? >It doesn't matter what the list was purportedly about. It matters what was >on it and what was in the thread that promulgated it. If you make a grocery >list and on it call bagel and lox "kike food," it is not a defense to a >charge of antisemitism that the list is meant to comprise foods you like to >eat. If this nonsense were true, a single off-topic nasty post could poison any thread. But, you already knew that. >I doubt you know what people think and know I don't give a f.ck. Your posting here makes this suspect. >> if you had the guts to post under your own name. >Only a coward thinks merely using his name is brave. Not a sufficient condition for lack of cowardice, certainly, but it's a start. You've got to start doing better, Mister foad, or they'll take away your flack and toady badge. Is your client aware you've outsourced your newsgroup duties to a derelict? >>> Why argue that I'm obsessive? ... I'll stipulate it. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A general predisposition toward being obsessive doesn't equate to > having any particular obsession, does it now? I see. So when you "stipulate" to being "obsessive" amidst a discussion of your protracted "Polgar list" you were in fact denying being obsessive in regard to the matter under discussion and admitting to being obsessive about things not under discussion. Strange. And now your story is that while you are generally disposed towards obsession, you are not obsessed with Polgar, about whom you merely compile lists, create threads, and gossip interminably. One wonders what you would do if you *were* obsessed? Create a religion where she was the deity perhaps? Build her a pyramid? I suppose she should count herself lucky that she got off with a list, a few threads, and perhaps a space trilogy where she stars as Darth Vader, if you can find the time. > Pretty cheap debating trick. High school level. What mail-order > outfit sold you your law degree? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > That I participated in a thread where such topics were mentioned > doesn't mean I discussed them, does it now? No, your discussing them means you discussed them. Discussing "the marriage issue." Discussing her children. Chatting amiably with your pals who accuse she and her huband of felonies, heh heh heh. And whatever else you gossip about like a pathetic old grandma in the hundred of threads I CBA to read, as opposed to two I picked at random. > But, you already knew that. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If this nonsense were true, a single off-topic nasty post could poison > any thread. No. You're committing the fallacy of hasty generalization: one does not reason from the specific to the general. And especially here, where the general is not under discussion. I'm not drawing conclusions about "any thread." I'm not making rules of conduct: I'm discussing your behavior and pointing out your hypocrisy and lies. The rest is red herrings and straw men. > But, you already knew that. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Not a sufficient condition for lack of cowardice, certainly, but it's > a start. No it's not. It's a source of cheap virtue for the mundane such as yourself. Frankly I don't know which is stupider. Your belief that an anonymous can't be brave -- which if true puts a damper on that whole tomb of the unknown soldier thing -- or that you find virtuous repulsive slugs like Sam Sloan and Gordon Roy Parker, who you admire, because they use their own names, while behaving abominably. Wot a maroon. > You've got to start doing better, Mister foad, or they'll take away > your flack and toady badge. Is your client aware you've outsourced > your newsgroup duties to a derelict? I don't have a client. I just think you're a f.cking imbecile. >So when you "stipulate" to being "obsessive" amidst a discussion of >your protracted "Polgar list" you were in fact denying being obsessive in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >about whom you merely compile lists, create threads, and gossip >interminably. The List of the Blind Monkey was not about Polgar. But you knew that already. >>>Specifically conversations in which you amiably discuss Polgar's marriage, >>>her children, whether she is beaten by her husband, which subjects are >>>otherwise off limits and "sleazy lies," >> That I participated in a thread where such topics were mentioned >> doesn't mean I discussed them, does it now? >No, your discussing them means you discussed them. Discussing "the marriage >issue." Discussing someone's marriage can mean discussing things normally considered private family matters. Marriage is also a legally binding contract conferring certain rights and obligations. When two ostensibly "independent" candidates for a public EB decline to reveal the existence of this contract through the majority of the campaign, *this* is certainly relevant and a fit topic for discussion. >Discussing her children. Chatting amiably with your pals who accuse >she and her huband of felonies, heh heh heh. By "pals", you mean the USCF attorneys? Or perhaps the Secret Service? The California courts? And "chatting amiably" doesn't imply agreement with other possible statements that the person with whom one chats, now does it? But you knew that. At least, I thought you knew that. But your poor grammar makes me wonder whether you really *have* that law degree. Oh, yeah, I forgot. Mail order. >>>> if you had the guts to post under your own name. >>>Only a coward thinks merely using his name is brave. >> Not a sufficient condition for lack of cowardice, certainly, but it's >> a start. >No it's not. It's a source of cheap virtue for the mundane such as yourself. "I *am* brave. I really, truly am." rationalizes the gutless wienie anonymously. >Frankly I don't know which is stupider. Your belief that an anonymous can't >be brave -- which if true puts a damper on that whole tomb of the unknown >soldier thing Oh, you think the unknown soldier volunteered to be anonymous? I realize you'd like to associate yourself with someone people admire, but you must remember this: you are a gutless anonymouse. >-- or that you find virtuous repulsive slugs like Sam Sloan >and Gordon Roy Parker, who you admire, because they use their own names, >while behaving abominably. Wot a maroon. Finding a facet of someone's behavior acceptable doesn't equate to admiring the whole range of a person's behavior, now does it? But you knew that. >> You've got to start doing better, Mister foad, or they'll take away >> your flack and toady badge. Is your client aware you've outsourced >> your newsgroup duties to a derelict? >I don't have a client. I just think you're a f.cking imbecile. I'm sorry you have no client. Did you just graduate? Maybe food stamps would help. We could take up a collection for you, if you weren't an anonymous. P.S. If you ever get a client, make sure he doesn't bankrupt out of your fee. Heh, Heh, Heh. "foad" <staring@yourtits.com> wrote on Mon, 30 Mar 12:58:57 GMT: > > > "Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > end up quite so well, as they lose their homes in the ensuing litigation and > end up living under bridges. The name of two of the four bums who end up living under bridges are Hal and Mike. The rest are Brians. > > Except it wasn't used in the courtroom environ. There's nothing in > > Usenet convention that says a reply to a post encompasses a reply to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > otherwise off limits and "sleazy lies," which makes you either a liar or a > hypocrite, you're free to pick. I could have written that myself! ;^) > > > > I ignored the post that referenced "slapping around". > > > > > I don't believe you. Nor do I. These cybernarcissistic pedorux (exampled by Murray) think that they can fool people into believing their claim that they are evenhanded. We do not buy it and judges are not going to buy it. They have attacked and built skyscrapers on the most minor of alleged defects in SP/PT, while hypocritically attacking anyone who attacks a lying felon and his lying "wife" who will, if there is any justice, be a felon too, not least for her notarizing documents in which she had an interest of which she was aware, which is a felony. > > It's not my fault if you choose to believe Fred over me. But give him > > some fish chow and he might tell you the truth. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > charge of antisemitism that the list is meant to comprise foods you like to > eat. Too complex an argument for Libel Murray. His smarts makes sure that in round two of the legal filings, his name, with that of Brennen and one or two others, will feature. > >>Fortunately whether I believe you or not doesn't matter, > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > every tree and under every rock. That is the nature of the mental defect to > which you have stipulated. For sure. Worse still, Murray, for your information, is not the most obsessive of these clusterfuck ratpackers. > > I doubt many here believe you. > > I doubt you know what people think and know I don't give a f.ck. You're free > to take comfort in the fact that your prejudices and neuroses are shared by > the howling mob. Many ignorant people do just that. Well said. > > Your posts reflect just one more toady. Which wouldn't be so bad (I > > mean, everybody serves somebody sometime) > > Like you're getting served here you mean. LOLZ! Good double, we will note how much Murray will enjoy service. > > if you had the guts to post under your own name. > > Only a coward thinks merely using his name is brave. Home run. >> It's be a little easier to believe your spiel about usenet conventions if >> you displayed even a vague familiarity with those doing with quoting, which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> otherwise off limits and "sleazy lies," which makes you either a liar or a >> hypocrite, you're free to pick. >I could have written that myself! ;^) Probably not. Well, maybe, if you weren't functionally illiterate. . > The name of two of the four bums who end up living under bridges are Hal > and Mike. The rest are Brians. Who in the name of the flying fuckeroo wombat bloggin bog rats is "hal" - youse, legalised jargon scum can only reference true great creative zabriski, koscinski, chess-player supremacist film directing Kublik's 2001 ancient holy-bot for traction in youse's pin-striped, flashy mohair expense bag o' fruits - no?.. m. > >The things I described are things I read in this ridiculous newsgroup in the > >few short months I've been reading it. > > Oh, I think you've been reading it a lot longer than that. So, which Trolgar lackey do you think it is? >> >The things I described are things I read in this ridiculous newsgroup in the >> >few short months I've been reading it. >> Oh, I think you've been reading it a lot longer than that. >So, which Trolgar lackey do you think it is? Can't tell. Could even be somebody who hates PT/SP and is just trying to keep the pot roiled and people angry. The guy could even be who he says he is: somebody drawn in by Sam's cross-posting, but, somehow, I doubt it. The Nomen Nescio guy sounds like one of the nutballs over on ChessDiscussion. Hey! Anybody here an expert on "stylistic analysis" ?? :-) > On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:27:38 -0700 (PDT), The Historian > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ChessDiscussion. Hey! Anybody here an expert on "stylistic analysis" > ?? :-) It is quite likely that we have multiple instances of Nomen Nescio and others. Who is who among the anons? It is unimportant to me. They are all trash. Other than that, Mike's assessment strikes me as in the right direction. I'd guess that about half of them will disappear after certain clarifying future events, e.g. USCF election, resolution of various litigation. But trolls will stay as long as they can get their jollies enraging others. >>> >The things I described are things I read in this ridiculous newsgroup >>> >in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > says he is: somebody drawn in by Sam's cross-posting, but, somehow, I > doubt it. Yah, and I'm obsessed. > <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > is anyone else who can read. Clever of you to copy and paste it though: you > must be one of the smart ones with opposable thumbs. And you must be one of our many ill-mannered anonymice. > The things I described are things I read in this ridiculous newsgroup in the > few short months I've been reading it. Hot saucing. Custody issues. Whether > the Polgars are married and if so when and who they told. And so on, and on > and on, day after dreary day, baseless innuendo, unfounded speculation, > vague allegations. The rec.games.chess newsgroups are indeed full of such things. > I did not ascribe those things I mentioned specifically > to this Murray fellow, I beg to differ. Your implication was quite clear, that you considered Murray "vulgar," that you wanted readers to belived that he would "discuss the intimate details of people's personal lives, such as whether Susan Polgar tortures her children, whether she's a fit parent, or whether she is in fact even legally married." When you said "certainly not this Murray fellow, he'd never do anything like that, he's too good," it was clearly intended sarcastically. > whoever he may be. I do ascribe to him comments he > made in a a thread where the Polgars marriage was under discussion, which > comments concerned their marriage generally, Those comments were made by posters other than Murray. You're trying to tar all posters in a given thread with the same brush. > and whether one could testify > against the other, and so on, There was no "and so on" at all. Murray merely offered an opinion on a narrow legal question. He said nothing about the Polgars specifically in the link you provided. > which comments "no one thinks mike would post > anything" about. Except he did, right there. Again, you completely misrepresent what Murray posted there. I would say this qualifies as what you labeled "baseless innuendo." > Perhaps you (the royal) don't realize what a bunch of hypocritical racist > misogynistic refuckingtards you come across as. I agree there are several such posters here. Murray is not one of them. > I did not ascribe those things I mentioned specifically > to this Murray fellow, I beg to differ. Your implication was quite clear, that you considered Murray "vulgar," that you wanted readers to belived that he would "discuss the intimate details of people's personal lives, such as whether Susan Polgar tortures her children, whether she's a fit parent, or whether she is in fact even legally married." When you said "certainly not this Murray fellow, he'd never do anything like that, he's too good," it was clearly intended sarcastically. =========== You are confusing imply, which is what a writer does, with infer, which is what a reader does. I did not ascribe those motives or actions to Mr Murray. I did not imply anything about him at all. I stated categorically that he participated in a discussion of the marriage, which he shirley did, in reponse to a poster's assertion that he never would discuss people's families. The rest was mere hyperb(tr)ol(l)e(ry), which you seem to have misinterpretted. > whoever he may be. I do ascribe to him comments he > made in a a thread where the Polgars marriage was under discussion, which > comments concerned their marriage generally, Those comments were made by posters other than Murray. You're trying to tar all posters in a given thread with the same brush. ================= I'm not trying to tar anyone. If for no other reason that you people have used up all the asphalt. > and whether one could testify > against the other, and so on, There was no "and so on" at all. Murray merely offered an opinion on a narrow legal question. He said nothing about the Polgars specifically in the link you provided. =========== He said one would or would not (IDR) be able to testify against the other. He was discussing "this marriage issue." This marriage issue involves "Peoples families" which "are or should be off limits" -- except evidently when the family's name is Polgar, who you (royal) can't stop talking about, hence on and on > which comments "no one thinks mike would post > anything" about. Except he did, right there. Again, you completely misrepresent what Murray posted there. I would say this qualifies as what you labeled "baseless innuendo." ============== If he posted something about their marital relationship, which he did, then the statement that he would not "post anything" about their family is false. It's not rocket science. > Perhaps you (the royal) don't realize what a bunch of hypocritical racist > misogynistic refuckingtards you come across as. I agree there are several such posters here. Murray is not one of them. ============= I didn't say that he was: I don't even know who he is. That was a general comment about those posters who regard slander as a campaign strategy. I know who I'm talking about in that regard and, evidently, you do too. > <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You are confusing imply, which is what a writer does, with infer, which is > what a reader does. I did not ascribe those motives or actions to Mr Murray. Right. And Bernie Madoff meant to give the money back all the time. You're pulling the same crap as the trolls you complain about, and fooling no one. << I agree there are several such posters here. Murray is not one of >> them. > I didn't say that he was: I don't even know who he is. Then you had no business bringing Murray's name into it at all, did you? > That was a general > comment about those posters who regard slander as a campaign strategy. You sound like a child blaming his mischief on an imaginary playmate. Grow up. On Mar 27, 5:34 pm, tkings...@chittenden.com wrote: > > <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - "You sound like a child blaming his mischief on an imaginary playmate. Grow up. "-- TKingston Now don't get in a snit Kingston. A wise man once wrote-- "Those that write on newsgroup walls rolls their snits in little balls Those that read these words of wit eat those little balls of snit." --FTK . > "You sound like a child blaming his mischief on an imaginary > playmate. Grow up. "-- TKingston > > Now don't get in a snit Kingston. > A wise man once wrote-- . Thems write shite Aint 2 bright Thems ur tards Smear wall with sh.ts Not wise at all more Farquing none-wits.. > .> "You sound like a child blaming his mischief on an imaginary > > playmate. Grow up. "-- TKingston [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Not wise at all more > Farquing none-wits.. Really wonderful. Copyright it before Sam Sloan plagiarizes it. . > > > Now don't get in a snit Kingston. > > > A wise man once wrote-- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Really wonderful. Glad to be appreciated Mr Schmoe, it was done in haste.. I was about to partake of brunch when I happenstanced upon your plagiarised juvenalia (some nondescript public toilet wall no doubt) & bethought an immediate reactive response.. m. Copyright it before > Sam Sloan plagiarizes it. On Mar 27, 4:15 pm, "foad" <star...@yourtits.com> wrote: > <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > what a reader does. I did not ascribe those motives or actions to Mr > Murray. Right. And Bernie Madoff meant to give the money back all the time. You're pulling the same crap as the trolls you complain about, and fooling no one. ========== In order: that's a stupid analogy; I'm not complaining about anything and certainly not trolls, some of my best friends; and I'm not trying to fool anyone, because I wrote what I wrote and it's right there for anyone such as yourself to misunderstand. << I agree there are several such posters here. Murray is not one of >> them. > I didn't say that he was: I don't even know who he is. Then you had no business bringing Murray's name into it at all, did you? =============== Using Murray's name was a tactical error, because it allows gnumbskulls such as yourself to seize upon that strawman and ignore the actual issue. > That was a general > comment about those posters who regard slander as a campaign strategy. You sound like a child blaming his mischief on an imaginary playmate. Grow up. ============ My imaginary playmate is double jointed and a redhead. If growing up means I have to choose between you and her, you lose. (An embarassing, self-immolating rant.) This foad character is even stupider than I thought; in a tussle with slow-witted Taylor Kingston, "foad" comes off looking like an Class D player who has trapped his own Queen in an effort to gobble a rook-pawn. The imbecile "foad" has perhaps targeted the one chap who had said nothing negative in the thread he provided, while somehow allowing the real culprit, Mr. Sloan, to get away in foad's new Lexus net-police SUV. This incredible feat hardly even seems possible, and yet foad has somehow found a way... . -- help bot wrote: > foad > foad > foad > foad > foad > foad Obsess much? > wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Obsess much? Now don't be getting 'rediculous' thar foad & don't mind the hoosier. He's a bit highly strung, but he's not a bad lad overall.. Actually, I @ least found your castigation of the gruppen honest, & telling it like it is - like. Well done foad sir.. m. > On Mar 27, 9:24 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:05:05 -0700 (PDT), tkings...@chittenden.com [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/3a48e9 3d63b7ff57# You really want to argue that you're no better than the other side? That you're scum, too? Works for me. . > Besides the post itself, it's lamentable that the anonymouse put it > under Mike Murray's name. I seriously doubt that Murray, generally one > of the most astute and fair-minded posters here, would write anything > like this. In general, I'd agree with TK's sentiments notwithstanding MM's frequent use of ambiguity.. Usually, I just don't get it & it's only later on after further rumination I'm able to conclude - I still don't get it -- sigh.. m. --(Two LL's btw).. On Mar 27, 4:03 am, jkh...@aim.com wrote: > > rec.games.chess.politics == KAYO KIMURA-SLOAN POLL == > > googlebot KAYO SLOAN, KAYO KIMURA [quoted text clipped - 175 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But his family is exactly who Sam exploits. Someone must warn them. > On Mar 27, 11:52 am, "foad" <star...@yourtits.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > But his family is exactly who Sam exploits. Someone must warn them. It is shameful that the only people resisting the Sloaniac onslaught are Brock, Innes, Hillery (usually) and a pocket-full of anonamice. These goddamn hypocrites like Kingston, Murray and Brennan conveniently forget that Sloan conspired with Lafferty so the latter phoned Jacob Shutzman, GM Polgar's ex-husband, on Dec 19, 2007, to distress Mr Schutzman, to later spread in public lies or disinformation about the refuted allegations that GM Polgar and/or her husband tortured her children. Was that not 'family'? These goddamn hypocrites like Kingston, Murray and Brennan conveniently forget that Sloan himself wrote or published much material defaming Kayo Kimura, with a presumed purpose of showing how stupid she was, how ignorant she was, how she could not write correctly, how ugly she was, how obedient bor servile she was etc. Was that not 'family'? Now the boot is on the other foot. Bilello isn't the only PI at work. To use the words of a Jackass, we should sit back and enjoy a show. Both Dylan McClain and Brian Lafferty could have considered more before a war was declared. I cannot for sure know why the OP put the post under Fake Mike Murray. Likely, it was because Mike Murray started an original thread called list of the Blind Monkey used to attack other posters? I cannot for sure know a motivation for the OP but I guess it could be a wakeup call to Mrs Sloan. Or OP is the Real Sam Sloan? He is capable of anything. It can be, he is trying to get Mrs Sloan to leave him? Because "reasons" missing from the many options was that SHE IS PREGNANT or SHE ALREADY FILED FOR DIVORCE? OP had written Mrs Kayo Kimura-Sloan has chosen to remain with Sam Sloan because she: believes Sam's lie that if she divorces him she'll be forced to give evidence against him that can get both of them jailed is so much in love with Sam she believes all his spin is so ugly and desparate she knows she can't do better doesn't care about her daughter's physical/mental safety believes she is actually legally married to Sam even though he has other wives he legally married but forgot to divorce thinks Sam is so hot in bed that it is all worth it is too idiotic a bitch to even comprehend the situation believes Sam that she may inherit $25m if she sticks with him is hypnotized or under the influence of mindbending drugs administered by Sam believes there's a megasupraplanetary conspiracy to defame Sam can't bear to think she won't be able to talk to Jack B. over the phone as he won't call her once she's left Sam seeks martyrdom believes she won't be able to get her narcotics without him is extremely short-sighted and Sam cracked all her lenses is busy cuckolding Sam for hai-ku tai-chi feng-shui Revenge believes it isn't worth the effort as Sam will die in '09 is being held prisoner against her will by Sam has actually already left Sam but Sam's impersonating her thinks God commanded her to stay with Sam, and doesn't realize the voice that she heard was on a tape made by Sam has been murdered by the Usual Suspect and her place has been taken by a Doppelganger (FKK, the Fake Kayo Kimura) is quietly poisoning Sam with an accumulative eg. arsenic (which would explain Sam's physical appearance lately) thinks that Sam will defeat Creighton in the final reel believes marriage, even ""marriage"", is for life, NMW is quietly planning how to do it so Sam can't follow believes Sam that her green card or naturalization will be revoked if she quits Sam is a lunatic can't raise the dough for the tickets back to 'shima is the Real Fake Sam Sloan believes Sam that the Fake Sam Sloan did all the bad things is biding her time to maximize the damage to Sam swallows that her path to heavenly young camels is via Ishmael has eliminated Sam and replaced him with a body double thinks this is her only chance to become a 1900-player is waiting for Cynthia Beloff's check in the mail admires the classical purity of Sam's mind is revenging herself by aborting his deformed fetuses without him knowing confuses loyalty with being a downright moron has got the two Mahomeds confused is a Type VI masochist thinks incest is something that is best kept within the family is waiting until self-help castration is legalized in NY believes they'll take the kid from her if she leaves is crazy enough to be doing it for the good of the kid believes kiddie-f.cking is OK for consenting "adults" is being blackmailed by Sam thinks Brock told her that suffering in this life will lead to a promotion to queen in the next cycle can't figure out how to open the door sees the inner sweet loving man that Sam really truly is is too scared of Sam and what he might do if she goes can't make up her mind sees herself as a sacrificial victim, saving the remainder of womankind and girlkind and kiddiekind from Sam thinks Sam opens social, business or academic doors for her has been duped into thinking she can change Sam is collecting material for a definitive book about Sam thinks Sam is a hero who has overcome enormous odds in life has no interaction with Sam, so it isn't so painful enjoys giving chessplayers a problem they can't solve is an evil witch who enjoys participating in Sam's crimes some reason which is beyond what mortal man can fathom > > On Mar 27, 11:52 am, "foad" <star...@yourtits.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Was that not 'family'? At the risk of repeating myself: How does the fact that Sloan (or Lafferty) did something contemptible make /you/ look better for doing something contemptible? >> > On Mar 27, 11:52 am, "foad" <star...@yourtits.com> wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >Lafferty) did something contemptible make /you/ look better for doing >something contemptible? John, Your argumentum ad analogium fails on many grounds. The two actions are distinguished by motive. Lafferty's motive was to perpetrate a public and vicious smear against GM Polgar and FM Truong, to give him more importance in his campaigns, and to self-deal re his as then unannounced political aspirations. There was no motive to protect the children of GM Polgar, as a court had already examined the allegations Lafferty was insinuating, and dismissed them as fantasies. By contrast, on reflection I can see that the motive of the OP in this thread, the Fake Mike Murray, probably was to protect Mrs Kayo Kimura Sloan (and by extension the so-unfortunate child of the union, Sandra) from the malign influences of her association with the convicted felon Sloan, and from being included in the criminal investigations that are to be mounted against Sloan. Had there been any malicious intent to the post by the OP (the Fake MM) he or she would have mentioned the porn videos or the offer of a wife in exchange for a computer repair. Conveniently short memories on the part of Murray and Brennen, who now "forgot" that Sam's youngest bastard was willing to risk death, and is hit by a car trying to escape from the grasp of the Beast Of The Bronx. I wonder what PS199 / Davidson Avenue School did with the letter. It's sent by certified mail so they can't deny receipt. Case No. 2008-02071 Docket No. O-18182-05 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT had all the details at 75-78. That KK-S is so refuckingtarded as not to understand what drives her young daughter to try and escape from her father at every possible opportunity, so he had to put the poor infant on a leash even when she was 4, makes these repeated warnings in Sandra's interests. We have given up trying to persuade Anda to speak to Kayo about the danger Sam poses to any girl fated to be his daughter. As my fellow-lawyer Mr foad has astutely noted, the contents of the original Blind Monkey list originated by the Real Mike Murray had far more insulting and illegal material than the mild list of parodies and possibilities. That calumnous infamy was gleefully contributed to by the likes of Brennen and Murray, making their complaints when their own bad technique is employed more competently with a different target even more laughable and hypocritical. So there are distinctions both by degree and by "they did it first", a paramount legal consideration. There is a still bigger defect in your analogy. But I leave it for Mr foad to point out, since I don't need to grab all the glory. We came here in the same way as Mr foad (Sloan's crossdressing to misc.legal). You can see how the cowardly Sloan, Lafferty and Parr have stayed out of the thread. I will let the previous commentaries stand : These goddamn hypocrites like Kingston, Murray, Brennan conveniently forget that Sloan himself wrote or published much material defaming Kayo Kimura, with a presumed purpose of showing how stupid she was, how ignorant she was, how she could not write correctly, how ugly she was, how obedient or servile she was etc. Was that not 'family'? Now the boot is on the other foot. Bilello isn't the only PI at work. Hos brief relates to the Notarial improprieties, and to those alone. To use the words of a Jackass, we should sit back, and enjoy a show! Both Dylan McClain and Brian Lafferty could have considered more, before a war they will lose was declared. I cannot for sure know why the OP put the post under Fake Mike Murray. Likely, it was because Mike Murray started an original thread called list of the Blind Monkey used to attack other posters? I cannot for sure know a motivation for the OP but I guess it could be a wakeup call to Mrs Sloan. Or OP is the Real Sam Sloan? He is capable of anything. It can be, he is trying to get Mrs Sloan to leave him? Because "reasons" missing from the many options was that SHE IS PREGNANT or SHE ALREADY FILED FOR DIVORCE? OP had written Mrs Kayo Kimura-Sloan has chosen to remain with Sam Sloan because she: believes Sam's lie that if she divorces him she'll be forced to give evidence against him that can get both of them jailed is so much in love with Sam she believes all his spin is so ugly and desparate she knows she can't do better doesn't care about her daughter's physical/mental safety believes she is actually legally married to Sam even though he has other wives he legally married but forgot to divorce thinks Sam is so hot in bed that it is all worth it is too idiotic a bitch to even comprehend the situation believes Sam that she may inherit $25m if she sticks with him is hypnotized or under the influence of mindbending drugs administered by Sam believes there's a megasupraplanetary conspiracy to defame Sam can't bear to think she won't be able to talk to Jack B. over the phone as he won't call her once she's left Sam seeks martyrdom believes she won't be able to get her narcotics without him is extremely short-sighted and Sam cracked all her lenses is busy cuckolding Sam for hai-ku tai-chi feng-shui Revenge believes it isn't worth the effort as Sam will die in '09 is being held prisoner against her will by Sam has actually already left Sam but Sam's impersonating her thinks God commanded her to stay with Sam, and doesn't realize the voice that she heard was on a tape made by Sam has been murdered by the Usual Suspect and her place has been taken by a Doppelganger (FKK, the Fake Kayo Kimura) is quietly poisoning Sam with an accumulative eg. arsenic (which would explain Sam's physical appearance lately) thinks that Sam will defeat Creighton in the final reel believes marriage, even ""marriage"", is for life, NMW is quietly planning how to do it so Sam can't follow believes Sam that her green card or naturalization will be revoked if she quits Sam is a lunatic can't raise the dough for the tickets back to 'shima is the Real Fake Sam Sloan believes Sam that the Fake Sam Sloan did all the bad things is biding her time to maximize the damage to Sam swallows that her path to heavenly young camels is via Ishmael has eliminated Sam and replaced him with a body double thinks this is her only chance to become a 1900-player is waiting for Cynthia Beloff's check in the mail admires the classical purity of Sam's mind is revenging herself by aborting his deformed fetuses without him knowing confuses loyalty with being a downright moron has got the two Mahomeds confused is a Type VI masochist thinks incest is something that is best kept within the family is waiting until self-help castration is legalized in NY believes they'll take the kid from her if she leaves is crazy enough to be doing it for the good of the kid believes kiddie-f.cking is OK for consenting "adults" is being blackmailed by Sam thinks Brock told her that suffering in this life will lead to a promotion to queen in the next cycle can't figure out how to open the door sees the inner sweet loving man that Sam really truly is is too scared of Sam and what he might do if she goes can't make up her mind sees herself as a sacrificial victim, saving the remainder of womankind and girlkind and kiddiekind from Sam thinks Sam opens social, business or academic doors for her has been duped into thinking she can change Sam is collecting material for a definitive book about Sam thinks Sam is a hero who has overcome enormous odds in life has no interaction with Sam, so it isn't so painful enjoys giving chessplayers a problem they can't solve is an evil witch who enjoys participating in Sam's crimes some reason which is beyond what mortal man can fathom (snipped for brevity) Want to know how we tracked down Kayo's mother? A Tokyo lawyer was so appalled by what the Sloon put in http://www.samsloan.com/pafg448.htm (now dead) when we informed her, that it didn't cost us a single yen. > >> > On Mar 27, 11:52 am, "foad" <star...@yourtits.com> wrote: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > foad to point out, since I don't need to grab all the glory. We came > here in the same way as Mr foad (Sloan's crossdressing to misc.legal). In the first place, the only evidence of "motive" is self-serving statements by the culprit. In the second place, I reject the argument from the get-go. "Good motives" (determined how, exactly?) do not make wrong actions right. You're basically arguing that the end justifies the means. That's a fine principle if you want to run with the feral apes. Some of us have higher standards. >>>> On Mar 27, 11:52 am, "foad" <star...@yourtits.com> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Sloan, and from being included in the criminal investigations that are > to be mounted against Sloan. Thanks for sharing your distorted fantasy Paul or whomever. > Had there been any malicious intent to the post by the OP (the Fake > MM) [quoted text clipped - 197 lines] > appalled by what the Sloon put in http://www.samsloan.com/pafg448.htm > (now dead) when we informed her, that it didn't cost us a single yen. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.