Re: The List of the Blind Monkey NEW

On Mar 27, 5:34 pm, tkings...@chittenden.com wrote:

"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

 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

 Then you had no business bringing Murray's name into it at all, did
you?

 You sound like a child blaming his mischief on an imaginary
playmate. Grow up.

 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.

 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.

 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

 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.

 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.

 And you must be one of our many ill-mannered anonymice.

 The rec.games.chess newsgroups are indeed full of such things.

 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.

 Those comments were made by posters other than Murray. You're trying
to tar all posters in a given thread with the same brush.

 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.

 Again, you completely misrepresent what Murray posted there. I would
say this qualifies as what you labeled "baseless innuendo."

 I agree there are several such posters here. Murray is not one of
them.

On Mar 27, 11:52 am, "foad" <star...@yourtits.com> wrote:

 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.

 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, 9:24 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:

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#

Peoples families are or should be off limits. No ones thinks Mike
would post anything so disgusting.

You are correct.  I didn't write that.

Some consolation:  the faker was ethical enough to post using "Mike
Murray II".

 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:

Ditto that.

Disgusting. Sure, Sloan is a jerk, but leave his family alone.

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: