| parrthenon@cs.com 2007-01-30, 8:26 pm |
| NOT ENTIRELY PLATONIC
quote:
>Discussion subject changed to "Larry Parr on Sloan's 2006
claims to have had a "not entirely Platonic" relationship with the
teenaged Susan Polgar" by politikalhack@gmail.com> -- Bill Brock
The subject is whether Bill Brock has the
long-promised proof that Sam Sloan is a child
molester. Thus far, no proof.
Instead, afflicted Bill has extended his
obsessions to other areas of what he imagines Sam
Sloan's sex life to be. We are supposed to know what
the phrase, "not entirely Platonic," entails. We do not
We know not a jot about the relationship between
Sam and GM Susan Polgar 20 years ago and we care
not even a bot.
We continue to wait for our William to prove his
assertion - his expertise is trial by assertion --
that Sam molested a child.
By now, quite a few of you have concluded that
Bill needs his life onthis forum, and we are reaching the
point of concurrence. His speculations about Sam's
supposed peculations and his dreams, fears and hopes
about what Sam does or does not do with the fair sex
-- against a backdrop of what a couple of you have
said is Bill's knowledge of porn history -- suggest
that Sam's vanquished chess opponent is treating this
forum as an exhibitionist might treat an open, uncurtained,
panoramic view window with nothing to say about CHESS.
Yours, Larry Parr
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> <politikalhack@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169390994.796145.83730@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brock is now stung is more like it, and continues to personally obsess and
> intrigue /only/ about Sloan. He still denies any personal connection and
> mentions only one other person!
>
> But Brock will not talk about what or how it should be about everybody - and
> that he did nothing about setting any standard at USCF long before Sloan was
> a board-member! He thus ignored a slew of offensive issues about yet other
> individuals.
>
> This is very curious! He avoids my proposal of what would actually have an
> effect that would implicate everyone - including Sloan! - since... maybe he
> wouldn't qualify himself? And if so, it would no longer be able to act as
> prosecutor, judge and jury all-in-one.
>
> What is additionally curious is that he does not ask 'Parr and Innes' to
> comment on his own behavior - as if it did not exist. While Sloan's
> juvenilia certainly is not likeable, exaggerating, inventing, and
> speculating upon what is unproved is the same kiting of issues that he
> accuses Sloan thereof.
>
> When I wrote that women and children should be heard - and should suggest
> their own remedies, I do not receive any responses. But I consider that the
> most mature view and in fact, a necessary one. Not receiving responses does
> not imply agreement or disagreement - but lack of support for any impersonal
> standard does imply a lack of real care to what would immediately alleviate
> the situation.
>
> What you read here is not any remedy to empower women and parent of children
> to have their own say. The reader will make up their own mind on the
> orientation of any 'alternative' suggestions.
>
> Phil Innes
|