quote:

---

> THIS IS CHINATOWN (with apologies to the movie)
>
> <You are a crook, a liar and a thief. I am prepared to prove that in
> court.> Sam Sloan
>
> <NOBODY can say that I am a crook, liar and thief, because its not
> true.> Beatriz Marinello
>
> <You would have made a very big mistake to sue me because you would
> have lost and lost badly.> Sam Sloan
>
> There you have it. Sam Sloan calls Beatriz Marinello "a crook,
> a liar and a thief." Moreover, he does so in the most baiting manner
> imaginable.
>
> Will there now be a legal action?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> And for the same reason that Sam does not sue a Bill Brock,
> a Vinnie Hart, a Stan Boloz or other such types. This is rgcp and who
> can really show any damages?
>
> I stand accused by Bill Brock of wishing to divide up young
> children with Sam, and I respond by saying that I am not in the least
> put out by the charge. Why?
>
> Because this is Chinatown. Real outrage can no longer be
> distinguished from mock outrage. When everyone says everything about
> everyone, no one says anything about anyone.
>

quote:

---

>
> On the other hand, our Vinnie Hart and Bill Brock once again try
> to confuse the issue by alleging that Sam Sloan has had sex with or
> molested children. No proof is presented. One of them tells us that
> Sam admitted same, but they quote not the admission.

quote:

---

>
> Which is an admisison in itself.
>
> Another of these characters wants me to show in the current
> thread where it was said that I am ignored and despised, etc. I never
> made the claim.
>
> I wrote that Jim Eade here, Steve Doyle and others among the
> claque make the claim in one breath, then a bit later announce that I
> must be stopped and will be stopped and can be stopped, etc, etc., etc.
>

quote:

---

> On some occasions, I am ignored; on others, I am charged with
> being the source of bad karma (hence Stan Booz had to lie or Beatriz
> had to make the Natrol
> deal, etc.) and dissension over a period of years.
>
> I cannot be both despised and ignored and be the source of
> disaffection.

quote:

---

>
> If they must say that I am despised and ignored and whatever, so
> be it. If they wish to charge that I am the source of bad karma
> (hence, say, the four-letter imagery of a Bill Brock) and dissension,
> then so be it. But I cannot be both ignored and the source of public
> disaffection.

quote:

---

>
> And so it goes.

quote:

---

> As a newcomer to this forum,

quote:

---

> "I have, on the other hand, argued that Sam's own tales of his
> adventures with young prostitutes do constitute evidence that he
> committed the acts he claims to have committed.' -- Vince Hart
>
> You contradict yourself, sir. On the one hand you imply that very
> little posted here by Sam can be believed. On the other hand you argue
> that tales of his adventures can be believed and do constitute evidence
> of...what?
>
> Would you prosecute such a case based on such flimsy "evidence"?
>
> If not, stuff it!
>
> You and Bill Brock are indeed a pair to draw to.
>

quote:

---

> "I have, on the other hand, argued that Sam's own tales of his
> adventures with young prostitutes do constitute evidence that he
> committed the acts he claims to have committed.' -- Vince Hart
>
> You contradict yourself, sir. On the one hand you imply that very
> little posted here by Sam can be believed.

quote:

---

> On the other hand you argue
> that tales of his adventures can be believed and do constitute evidence
> of...what?

quote:

---

>
> Would you prosecute such a case based on such flimsy "evidence"?

quote:

---

>
> If not, stuff it!

quote:

---

> cynic wrote:
>
> Really? What have I said that implied that? I do think that Sam's
> statements about matters of which he has first hand knowledge are
> likely to be more reliable than those matters about which he is merely
> speculating.
>
>
>
> Evidence of sexual conduct with minors. On the other hand, it would
> not shock me if he exaggerated his exploits, but that would go to the
> weight that should be given the evidence rather than its admissibility.
>
>
> I am not a prosecutor. Haven't you figured that out yet? On the other
> hand, there is nothing that a prosecutor likes better than a
> defendant's own statements of what he did.
>
>
> I don't see why I should be limited to discussing things that I could
> prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Sam and Larry
> certainly are not subject to such limits.
>
> Vince Hart

quote:

---

>
> Vince, don't waste your time arguing with this anonymouse. He and
>"jr" are almost certainly the same. The guy behind their masks is very
>likely someone with whom you've already discussed these issues.

quote:

---

>I would still like to see some proof that your real name is Taylor Kingston. Why don't you tell us where and when you were born, what country you are from, and where you went to high school?> Sam Sloan

quote:

---

> I would still like to see some proof that your real name is Taylor
> Kingston.
>
> Why don't you tell us where and when you were born, what country you
> are from, and where you went to high school?

quote:

---

> Keep guessing, Sir Kingston. I'm here to stay.

quote:

---

>
>
> cynic wrote:
>
>
> Interesting header data July 13-14 2005:
>
> NNTP-Posting-Host for "cynic": 207.200.116.132
>
> NNTP-Posting-Host for "jr": 207.200.116.132
>
> NNTP-Posting-Host for well-known frequent rgcp poster, who happened
> to receive lavish praise from "jr": 207.200.116.132
>
> Perhaps some internet protocol expert can tell us whether the above
> is mere coincidence.

quote:

---

> WHAT ADMISSIONS?
>
> <Nonsense Larry. You know what the admissions are and you have
> addressed them. Don't you remember your idiotic claim that "flirting"
> is all Sam does with with young prostitutes? Don't you remember your
> idiotic claim that he's not a child molester because soldiers on leave
> have done worse things? Don't you remember your fairly reasonable claim
> that Sam might not have correctly judged the girls' ages?> Vince Hart
>
> Once again, Vinnie Hart talks about Sam Sloan's "admissions"
> without providing them. Once again, Mr. Sloan has been accused of
> having sex with and molesting children.
>
> No proof has been presented. None.
>
> A Vinnie Hart talks ABOUT his proof, but he chooses not to give
> it. Typical.
>
> The word "flirt" was the definition of a word that Sam's
> critics hit upon to convict him of sex with children. I looked up that
> word, and a main definition was "to flirt." It turned out that after
> all the ballyhoo that Sam was a rapist or a child molester, it was
> based upon a statement that he flirted with a girl of indeterminate age
> on a Thai street somewhere.
>
> Mr. Hart then tries to turn on its head my argument about
> soldiers on leave and sex. The point I made was that even were the
> charges against Mr. Sloan substantiated (which they were NOT)nothing he
> did amounted to half of what a typical American soldier does on R &R.
>
> I was not attempting to condone what Sam Sloan was not shown to
> have done; I was noting that even were the charges true as detailed
> (flirting on a street with a girl of indeterminate age) they were not
> in the same league as the typical sexual conduct of "our boys." My
> tacit premise was that the likes of Booz, Brock, Vinnie and their
> stripe were abominable hypocrites.
>
> Finally, since I stipulated that my comments about being
> portrayed in mutually exclusive terms were not part of the main
> argument here, the charge that I tried to divert discussion by
> employing a strawman is absurd.
>
> Vinnie Hart is a wannabe prosecutor who makes charges without
> producing proof. That makes him a rotten lawyer and a worse human
> being.
>
> He is a greater menace to the commonweal than Sam Sloan will ever
> be.

quote:

---

>
> Unlikely. Looks like Jerry Hanken's bailiwick.
>
>

quote:

---

> "Catalan" <Catalan@comXXXcast.net> wrote
>
> I have been looking at the style of this "fake" poster and noticed today he
> used the
> phrase "Get a life!" a favorite phrase of Paul Truong who was busted here
> previously
> using the handle Bob Bennett.
> See: http://tinyurl.com/cl8ro and decide for yourself if Paul Truong is
> Bennett.

quote:

---

> Duncan Oxley wrote:
>
> Duncan, the link you give supports my logic about the identity of
> "jr" and "cynic". That post shows that Truong and "Bennett" had the
> same NNTP-Posting-Host numbers back in 2003.
> In their recent posts, "jr" and "cynic" both show NNTP-Posting-Host
> 207.200.116.132. That, however, corresponds not to Paul Truong, but to
> Larry Parr. That, along with the fact that these two, especially "jr",
> have been praising Parr, leads me to suspect that they are Parr.
> Just to be sure there is something to this NNTP-Posting-Host
> business, I made up a pseudonym (Niemand, which is German for nobody)
> and posted a test message under that name on rgcm. Lo and behold, the
> NNTP-Posting-Host for me and Niemand is the same.
> I won't say definitely that they are Parr, but that seems the best
> guess at the moment, unless some techno-geek is going to a lot of
> trouble to impersonate Parr and say the kind of things Parr says on his
> own anyway.

quote:

---

>
> "Catalan" <Catalan@comXXXcast.net> wrote
>
>
> The problem with AOL (which uses the prefix 172. ) is it uses dynamic as
> opposed to static IP numbers. http://www.networldmap.com/TryIt.htm
>
> I have been looking at the style of this "fake" poster and noticed today
> he used the
> phrase "Get a life!" a favorite phrase of Paul Truong who was busted here
> previously
> using the handle Bob Bennett.
>
> Troung posts to the yahoo fide-chess list 5-10 times a day always
> attacking Marinello,
> Booze, USCF etc. He frequently uses "Get a life!". Join that list, access
> the archives
> and compare for yourself.
>
> See: http://tinyurl.com/cl8ro and decide for yourself if Paul Truong is
> Bennett. Oh, and
> Bennett stopped posting after he was "outed". Coincidence? :-)
>
> Duncan
>
> PS Of course it is entirely possible that it is not him (or a friend
> posting for him).
> I am no expert. Can an expert in this take a look?
>
>
>
>
>

quote:

---

> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> I don't think either are Parr. It would be psychologically
> inconsistent for him to use an alias.

quote:

---

>So let's look at Sam's use of the word dalliance and try to figure out whether he meant "flirting" or "foreplay." Next to a picture of a girl lying on a bed, Sam writes: "A young girl from Burma trying to lure me into a further dalliance with her. The

quote:

---

> DALLIANCE
>
whether he meant "flirting" or "foreplay." Next to a picture of a girl lying
on a bed, Sam writes: "A young girl from Burma trying to lure me into a
further dalliance with her. The[vbcol=seagreen]
> question is: Would you rather have your daughter living this life
> style, working in a whore house, or would you rather have her taking
> dope while attending junior high school in America?> Vince Hart
>
> What we have is another Hart to Hart talk.
>
> The new line is that "dalliance" can mean "foreplay." My
> Webster's New World Dictionary gives "dalliance" as meaning "the act of
> dallying; flirting, toying, or trifling."
>
> Now, then, what goes on in the mind of a prostitute is of no
> interest to us at all, contrary to Mr. Hart's attempts to make the
> matter germane. What goes on in OUR minds, as we walk a normal-enough
> street in SE Asia, is unrelated to whether someone is a child molester
> or has had sex with a child. One assumes that if flirting, glancing,
> dallying, and thinking, etc. were a crime, then every one of us would
> be in the clink.
>
> In a famous Playboy interview Jimmy Carter confessed to having
> lust in his hart (pun intended)
>
> But Mr. Hart has this dictionary, you see, that uses the word
> "foreplay." And this guy calls himself a lawyer!
>
> One can hear it: "In my dictionary, 'dalliance' can mean
> 'foreplay,' which means I have 'evidence,' if not 'proof,' that Sam
> Sloan is a child molester or has had sex with a child."
>
> What a crock! Yet the above is no strawman-rendering of Mr.
> Hart's argument; it IS his argument.
>
> By the way, the overwhelming likelihood is that Sam snapped that
> picture from an open doorway. It is common enough for girls to be
> lying down or hanging around the open doorways of rows of bawdy houses
> in Asia and even Mexico.
>
> You may argue whether it is tasteful to snap photos of girls in
> the doorway or if some of the thoughts that come to mind are apposite
> for a Christian, but neither makes one a child molester or a child
> sex-practitioner in any way.
>
> These vicious jokesters have presented no proof that Sam Sloan
> is a molester, and they have presented no confessions. They make
> assertions and then try to find a definition in a dictionary to back up
> the assertions, though most such definitions do not. Even if they did,
> it would not constitute anything of evidentiary importance.
>
> "Gentlemen of the jury: Mr. Sloan has been DALLYING."
>
> Whoosh goes the collective intake of breath. Then the
> outraged, "Dal-ly-ing," you say, as if intoned by Dame Edith Evans in
> The Importance of Being Earnest. That's evidence, all right. It's
> Alice in Wonderland Stuff and the Queen of Harts (pun intended).
>
> And so it goes.
>

quote:

---

> MATT JOINS THE LIARRY CLUB
>
> This time around, Mr. Nemmers returns for an intellectual
> encorpse.
>
> I was offering no syllogism when stating that Mr. Nemmers was
> shilling for Taylor Kingston when posturing ennui about a Polygraph
> Grudge Match.
>
> I figure he knows I don't post under pseudonyms and strongly suspects
> that Mr. Kingston was/is Xylothist. Mr. Nemmers does not deny my
> surmise (not syllogism) and contents himself by saying that my argument
> was not a syllogism. Cheesy and obvious enough on his part.
>
> Matt Nemmers has proudly joined the "Liarry" club as I knew he
> would. He finds himself in "excellent" company, and I agree that some
> members of the company he seeks are noted for their anal and f-word
> excellence.
>
> Mr. Nemmers latest "proof" or "evidence" or "confession" on
> Sam's part that the latter is a child molester or has had sex with a
> child is that Mr. Sloan spoke of a girl trying to lure him into a
> "FURTHER" (Mr. Nemmers' emphasis) "dalliance" with her in a doorway.
>
> There it is, gentlemen: a charge of child molestation or
> having sex with a child based upon a loony interpretation of a single
> word, "dalliance." That is "evidence" or "proof" in Mr. Nemmers'
> world.
>
> Or, well, not exactly. This time around, Mr. emmers plays the
> outright demagogue: he no longer argues that the above may be proof,
> evidence or a confession, but he wants the reader to think about what
> seems clear enough to Mr. Nemmers.
>
> It seems clear enough to me -- which is permissible, because I
> make no charges -- that the vast likelihood is that the girl was
> sitting or lying on a couch or bed in a doorway as Sam walked by an
> open-front house, which is the situation 99 percent of the time. They
> shout at you; you smile; they ask for money for "minum-lah" (a drink)
> or "makan-lah" (some food) and you either smile and wave and blow a
> kiss and walk by or stop and give them 50 cents, which will likely go
> for drugs.
>
> Mr. Nemmers also tries to change the subject to Sam questioning
> whether George John exists, etc. The subject is whether there is proof
> that Sam Sloan has ever molested or had sex with a child.
>
> Mr. Nemmers has nothing sensible to say about his claim to have
> had "dealings" with Mr. Sloan. He huffs and puffs but cannot deny that
> I carefully pointed out that my judgements of people are based on what
> they write here at rgcp, since I otherwise know them not.
>
> There is no hypocrisy in my noting the distinction between reaching
> conclusions "so far as one can gauge" from this site as opposed to an
> outright assertion by Mr. Nemmers -- an outright lie -- that he had
> "dealings" with Mr. Sloan, a man he never met.
>
> Finally, Sam's evident point when asking whether one wants a
> daughter working as a whore in Thailand or getting strung out on drugs
> in junior high school in America -- in spite of the ludicrous spin
> offered by Mr. Nemmers -- is to note that the absolute condition of two
> apparently very dissimilar persons (a
> relatively well-off American girl vs. a penurious Burmese girl
> spreading her legs) is not so dissimilar after all.
>

quote:

---

>Larry,
>
>Doesn't the child molestation charge also stem from Sam's drooling on a
>fifteen year old young lady at a Reno chess event in 1999?
>
>Didn't the mother complain to the tournament director about his fauning and
>other actions?
>
>I've heard the child molestation charge on a number of other occasions over
>the years too.
>
>How about child endangerment? Forcing a young girl to sleep under a hotel
>lobby table with no arrangements for sanitary and safety gives me pause.
>Suppose a child molester snatched her from under the table while Sam slept
>off the effects of his medication?
>
>
>--
>Tom Klem

quote:

---

>
>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> 1949, Mercy Hospital, San Diego, California, USA. Mission Bay High
>School, class of 1967.
>

quote:

---

> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 02:42:19 -0700, "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nospam.org>
> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> None of this is true. No such thing ever happened.

quote:

---

>In article <42d8f8a3.6170171@ca.news.verio.net>, sloan@ishipress.com wrote:
>
>
>
>Maybe Mom didn't complain, because I usually saw her in the hallway
>chatting with Sam. I think she was in the hallway chatting with Sam
>because Sam was looking for opportunities to drool on her daughter.
>
>--
>Frisco Del Rosario
>A First Book of Morphy -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1412039061

quote:

---

>Doesn't the child molestation charge also stem from Sam's drooling on a fifteen year old young lady at a Reno chess event in 1999?> Tom Klem, who didn't attend the U.S. Open held in Reno that year.

quote:

---

> ANOTHER FALSE CHARGE
>
fifteen year old young lady at a Reno chess event in 1999?> Tom Klem, who
didn't attend the U.S. Open held in Reno that year.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> <Nothing of the sort had occured. What had really happened was that
> some other chess player had proposed marriage to Jennie Franklakh
> during their last round game. Redman got the story mixed up and thought
> that I had done this.> Sam Sloan
>
> I remember this incident. The false charge was made, screamed
> about with the usual hatreds, and then there turned out to be not only
> no proof but to the extent that a false charge can be disproved, it
> was.
>
> The object was to smear Sam, and some mud stuck then, too. But it
> was as close to a verifiable lie as you can get.
>

quote:

---

>Did Tim Redman ever recant the story? Apologize publically? If not,

quote:

---

> DIRTY POLITICS
>
> why didn't Sloan sue?> Tom Klem
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> I have no idea whether Sam was at a chess tournament sleeping
> under a table with his daughter. The reports came from people who said
> false things about me, so what does one believe?

quote:

---

> DIRTY POLITICS
>
> why didn't Sloan sue?> Tom Klem
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> I have no idea whether Sam was at a chess tournament sleeping
> under a table with his daughter. The reports came from people who said
> false things about me, so what does one believe?
>

quote:

---

> I, for example, know I am not part of a syndicate to share girls
> with Sam from 13,000 miles away. Bill Brock makes that kind of idiotic
> charge and then makes a charge against Sam. That person has no
> credibility with me. Just none.
>
> What I am certain about is that all of these smears will simmer
> down once the ballots are counted or once Sam has lost. Then, when the
> next election rolls around, this character assassination will begin
> again. That is a given.
>

quote:

---

> You call it Chinatown, I call it Bedlam.

quote:

---

> ANOTHER FALSE CHARGE

quote:

---

> I remember this incident. The false charge was made, screamed
> about with the usual hatreds, and then there turned out to be not only
> no proof but to the extent that a false charge can be disproved, it
> was.

quote:

---

>
> "Instead Mr. Cavallo spends his time
> in New Windsor, which is only a few miles south of Newburgh. Newburgh,
> of course, is one of America's most inflamed rat rectums. About half
> its population feeds at the public welfare trough, and parking costs
> about five cents an hour when the meters are not bent at crazy skew-
> wiff angles. One afternoon (not night!) while driving along the main
> street of Newburgh, I witnessed a sight that has remained with me ever
> since. A mammoth black man with muscles the size of the average
> Japanese apartment in Tokyo rammed his chest into a parking meter.
> He was charging it straight on and eventually bent it nearly in half.
> Any of us would have been in the hospital with a broken collar bone or
> a cracked sternum. Such are the street sights of the New Windsor area."

quote:

---

>It stands to reason that a racist like Larry would bond with a racist like Sam...Larry sees blacks as inferior too. I discovered this when Larry told a story about how while waiting for a light to change in Newburgh, he watched a black man use his chest

quote:

---

> BOOZ PLAYS THE RACE CARD AGAIN
>
>
> What a tin ear has Catalan or Stan Booz!
>
> I was not concerned about a "childish act of wanton destruction."
> One skew-wiff Newburgh parking meter, more or less, makes no
> difference. I was interested in observing a black man who had a
> quarrel with a parking meter. To be fair, I will stipulate that the
> parking meter, in its unresponsive, uncaring stolidity, was far from
> blameless. I also dislike parking meters except that were I to try a
> Jack Lambert-style chest tackle, I would be in the emergency room.
> This fellow, on the other hand, hit the parking meter as if he were
> Gene "Big Daddy" Lipscomb and it were John Brodie in a memorable
> collision many years back.

quote:

---

>You call it Chinatown, I call it Bedlam.> Tom Klem

quote:

---

> BEDLAM
>
>
> You say tomato, I say tomahto.
>
> Bedlam may be a better attempt than my Chinatown. Colney Hatch is
> another possibility. But what you really have here is Hobbes' the war
> of all against all, except no blood gets spilled.
>
> What someone says here is less important than who says it.
>
> Strange business.
>

quote:

---

> DALLIANCE
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> question is: Would you rather have your daughter living this life
> style, working in a whore house, or would you rather have her taking
> dope while attending junior high school in America?> Vince Hart
>
> What we have is another Hart to Hart talk.
>
> The new line is that "dalliance" can mean "foreplay." My
> Webster's New World Dictionary gives "dalliance" as meaning "the act of
> dallying; flirting, toying, or trifling."
>
> Now, then, what goes on in the mind of a prostitute is of no
> interest to us at all, contrary to Mr. Hart's attempts to make the
> matter germane. What goes on in OUR minds, as we walk a normal-enough
> street in SE Asia, is unrelated to whether someone is a child molester
> or has had sex with a child. One assumes that if flirting, glancing,
> dallying, and thinking, etc. were a crime, then every one of us would
> be in the clink.
>
> In a famous Playboy interview Jimmy Carter confessed to having
> lust in his hart (pun intended)
>
> But Mr. Hart has this dictionary, you see, that uses the word
> "foreplay." And this guy calls himself a lawyer!
>
> One can hear it: "In my dictionary, 'dalliance' can mean
> 'foreplay,' which means I have 'evidence,' if not 'proof,' that Sam
> Sloan is a child molester or has had sex with a child."
>
> What a crock! Yet the above is no strawman-rendering of Mr.
> Hart's argument; it IS his argument.
>
> By the way, the overwhelming likelihood is that Sam snapped that
> picture from an open doorway. It is common enough for girls to be
> lying down or hanging around the open doorways of rows of bawdy houses
> in Asia and even Mexico.
>
> You may argue whether it is tasteful to snap photos of girls in
> the doorway or if some of the thoughts that come to mind are apposite
> for a Christian, but neither makes one a child molester or a child
> sex-practitioner in any way.
>
> These vicious jokesters have presented no proof that Sam Sloan
> is a molester, and they have presented no confessions. They make
> assertions and then try to find a definition in a dictionary to back up
> the assertions, though most such definitions do not. Even if they did,
> it would not constitute anything of evidentiary importance.
>
> "Gentlemen of the jury: Mr. Sloan has been DALLYING."
>
> Whoosh goes the collective intake of breath. Then the
> outraged, "Dal-ly-ing," you say, as if intoned by Dame Edith Evans in
> The Importance of Being Earnest. That's evidence, all right. It's
> Alice in Wonderland Stuff and the Queen of Harts (pun intended).
>
> And so it goes.

quote:

---

>Talk about a crock. As if the sum total of Sam's admissions consisted
>of a single use of the word "dalliance." Sam's website contains
>copious descriptions of his sexual contact with young prostitutes and
>Larry would have one believe that Sam did nothing more than photograph
>a young girl through an open doorway.
>
>Vince Hart

quote:

---

> On 17 Jul 2005 09:00:49 -0700, "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On just one short block of Patpong Road in Thailand there must be at
> least one thousand young prostitutes working. Several pictures on my
> website were taken on that one block. There are at least 20 bars on
> that block on the street level and at least 50 girls working in each
> bar. There are more bars on the second floor level where Thai
> nationals are not allowed to go. You have to prove that you are a
> foreigner to go up there, because that is where the dirty stuff takes
> place.
>
> Anybody can walk down Patpong Road and take lots of pictures.
> Apparently, Vince Hart must believe that I had sex with all of the
> more than one thousand prostitutes on that street.

quote:

---

> But we have here the first attempt to CHANGE THS SUBJECT to
> another category of person. And this Vince Hart calls himself a lawyer.

quote:

---

> WHAT IS THE CRIME?
>
> Vinnie Hart now says that Sam has committed the ... what? ...
> crime of having sex with "young prostitutes."
>
> The subject was child molestation and sex with children. I
> called for evidence of such. None has been forthcoming.
>
> None.
>
> We were told that evidence -- got none of dat stinkin' stuff --
> was unnecessary because Sam had confessed. Which turned out to be
> using the word "dalliance" with some prostitute lounging in a doorway.
> "Dalliance" means to flirt, trifle, dally
> and so on.
>
> So, the subject is to be changed. Sam may not have molested
> children or had sex with them, but he has been foolin' around with
> "young prostitutes."
> Whatever that may mean.
>
> The retort will be, "Young prostitutes are children."
>
> I will respond, "Show me proof they are children."
>
> And so it will go. In the end, no proof that Sam has had sex
> with children or molested them will be provided because there appears
> to be none.
>
> But we have here the first attempt to CHANGE THS SUBJECT to
> another category of person. And this Vince Hart calls himself a lawyer.
>
> Sheesh.
>

quote:

---

> WHAT IS THE CRIME?
>
> Vinnie Hart now says that Sam has committed the ... what? ...
> crime of having sex with "young prostitutes."
>
> The subject was child molestation and sex with children. I
> called for evidence of such. None has been forthcoming.
>
> None.
>
> We were told that evidence -- got none of dat stinkin' stuff --
> was unnecessary because Sam had confessed. Which turned out to be
> using the word "dalliance" with some prostitute lounging in a doorway.
> "Dalliance" means to flirt, trifle, dally
> and so on.
>
> So, the subject is to be changed. Sam may not have molested
> children or had sex with them, but he has been foolin' around with
> "young prostitutes."
> Whatever that may mean.
>
> The retort will be, "Young prostitutes are children."
>
> I will respond, "Show me proof they are children."
>
> And so it will go. In the end, no proof that Sam has had sex
> with children or molested them will be provided because there appears
> to be none.
>
> But we have here the first attempt to CHANGE THS SUBJECT to
> another category of person. And this Vince Hart calls himself a lawyer.
>
> Sheesh.

quote:

---

> According to the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (to which Sam
> provides a helpful link on his website), "[t]he internal traffic of
> Thai females consists mostly of 12-16 year olds." Sam tells a story
> about having sex with one young girl a week after she lost her
> virginity. He compares the young prostitutes to junior high school
> girls in America. He says that he likes the fact that the prostitutes
> in Thailand are young. I'd say that Sam wants everyone to believe that
> he was having sex with children.
>
> Vince Hart

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> Yes, Vince, a *thinking* person would naturally come to this conclusion
> after reading the numerous posts by our resident loud-mouthed pederast.
> However, Liarry wants us to PROVE it. Having never met the man, I can
> offer no tangible PROOF (e.g. a body, a medical record, or a
> semen-filled condom left carelessly on the floor of the 14-year old
> Thai girl's bedroom). However, based soley on what Sloan has said and
> posted here, if one uses even a teeny-tiny bit of deductive reasoning,
> this conclusion isn't irrational.
>
> I guess I come from the old-school line of thinking that "a man is only
> as good as his word," a philosophy Liarry doesn't subscribe to. See,
> Liarry doesn't understand the definition of the word 'logic' which
> means:
>
> "LOGIC: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the
> structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of
> method and validity in deductive reasoning."
>
> Based on the structure of Sloan's "propositions as distinguised from
> their content," deductive reasoning would obviously lead a *thinking*
> person to the conclusion you came to above.
>
> Liarry would have people believe that all of us who take offense to
> Sloan's exploits are nothing but Chicken Littles; people who make
> outlandish accusations with nothing to back it up. However, he
> conveniently overlooks the FACT that Sloan publishes his little
> escapades for the world to read and just CAN'T UNDERSTAND how people
> get to the conclusions they do based on the content of these
> statements. That's the problem I have with Parr. He refuses to
> acknowledge morality -- all the while preaching it, mind you -- and
> legalistically defends Sloan according to the letter of the law, seeing
> nothing wrong with the actions and confessions themselves.
>
> Now, that's all good for a court of law. And I'm certain (ready for
> this, Larry?) that Sloan wouldn't get convicted of this were charges
> ever filed. There. I said it. Happy?
>
> HOWEVER....this is not a court of law.
>
> What I and many others do here by pointing out these immoral interludes
> is ensure that people get a full frontal view of Sloan's nature and
> understand his character, so that based on his own statements alone,
> Sloan will never, ever be in contention for a seat on the Executive
> Board of the United States Chess Federation. So long as Sloan keeps
> running (his mouth AND for the EB), I will be here pointing out to
> everyone who gets a ballot what a piece of shit he is. Every lie will
> be discovered and thrown back in his face and every new ridiculous
> statement will be ridiculed. Bet on it.
>
> Just call me a public servant. And you're welcome, Liarry!
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt

quote:

---

>
>
>
>
>
> Matt Nemmers wrote:
>
> Yes Matt, I would agree with you that Sam's statements would be
> insufficient to support a criminal conviction for child molesting. On
> the other hand, there are some contexts in which Sam's stories might be
> all the proof someone needed.
>
> Let me propose a hypothetical:
>
> 1) You are divorced with custody of a thirteen year old daughter.
>
> 2) You have managed to impart your love of chess to your daughter and
> you send her to Sam Sloan for chess lessons.
>
> 3) Your ex-wife sues for custody on the grounds that you are an unfit
> parent because you left your daughter in the care of a known child
> molester.
>
> In that situation, I would not be surprised if Sam's website were all
> the proof your ex-wife needed to establish his character.
>
> Vince Hart
>