| |
Main
Date: 14 Oct 2007 07:51:15
From: samsloan
Subject: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
They have not stopped.
Dennis Monokroussos reports that Polgar and Truong have posted to his
blog under 36 different fake names. He has banned all 36.
http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1126731029.shtml
This happened after Monokroussos posted an article entitled "Go,
Nona!" in which he celebrated Nona Gaprindashvili as the first chess
grandmaster.
The 36 fake posters replied that Nona Gaprindashvili was not a real
grandmaster. Susan Polgar was. Monokroussos found it strange that all
36 posters that said that claimed to be in different parts of the
world, yet they all had the same IP address. He reports, "overweening
Polgarites in the past were all just this same person".
Two days ago, Mig Greengard, in an article entitled "Slime Spillover"
reported that Polgar and Truong had posted to his blog under ten
different fake names.
On this subject, Mig writes:
"I'm all for anonymity, even as stupid as it makes some people.
But when it comes to people coming here and crapping all over the
place, no. Crawl back to the Usenet or we will see what your
Suddenlink provider has to say about identity theft and providing
server logs, which can trivially reconstruct your connection times,
dns connection records, and packet transmission down to the
millisecond, making IP superfluous."
-Mig Greengard, Slime Spillover
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/10/slime_spillover.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_Greengard
When will they ever learn?
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 13:16:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
On Oct 18, 1:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> My sincere apologies to Mr. Sloan.
>
> I must admit that I don't read most of the posts here, and that
> I assumed that anything from Sloan must be fabricated. Now that
> I see that someone sane agrees with the accusations, I will give
> the evidence a proper looking over.
>
> I plan on searching the archives myself, but if Sam cares to, in
> one place, document the above (the malware claim seems especially
> damming) I will look there first. Come to think of it, he probably
> has on his website. I will look there first.
Ooooh -- I wouldn't advise that. Some evil dudes have
gone and posted all kinds of horrible stuff on Mr. Sloan's
Web site just to make him look like a sex-crazed
pedophile (which of course he is not). Maybe it was
aliens, or Bogfoot? ; >D
> Again, my apologies to Mr. Sloan. He is an annoying (crossposting
> to soc.culture.magyar and soc.culture.rep-of-georgia? That's just
> being an assclown!), but that doesn't mean that he is wrong, and I
> shouldn't have assumed that it does. One can only hope that any
> jury or judge isn't prejudiced by Sloan's antics.
Just now, some folks are suggesting that Mr. Sloan's
account of Texas Tech IPs are not quite right; it is
starting to look as though he tossed them in on his
own, not in conjunction with the USCF's former tech
guy, perhaps as a grab for money or maybe just to
gain their cooperation so he can nail PT. What I find
interesting is the way in which the dynamic duo of
SP and PT are reacting to inquiries into IP addresses;
as a disinterested party, if someone fingered my IPs
and revealed that I am not only "help bot", but also
played as, God forbid, "helpbot", I imagine I would be
unconcerned, yawn a few times and then check to
see if they got it right or wrong. But these two appear
to be greatly agitated, irritated, annoyed, in a huff. I
find that interesting, but I will once again state that I
have also noticed the strange disappearance of Skip
Repa during the time in question, the time during
which many of the Fake Sloan postings were made.
I also find THAT interesting.
> Can I still make fun of Innes? Pretty please?
Please: a little respect; he is nearly-an-IM you
know, and just as with a nearly-a-full-Colonel, we
refer to him as IM Innes out of respect for his vast
playing skills. Making fun of your vast superiors
is expressly prohibited in the FAQ. Oh well -- you
can still annoy Rob Mitchell and Neil Brennan if
you like. Just for the record: I am the highest
rated player, ever, on GetClub, so you can't do
anything to me; I was close to becoming the
second-highest rated ever as well ("help bot"),
before the program went bonkers and started
forfeiting me in winning positions in every game.
As they say upon reaching the pinnacle of Mt.
Everest: it's tough going at the top.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 18:58:54
From:
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mr. Sloan has posted a very long, detailed article
>here in which the USCF's tech guy is supporting
>his claim that Paul Truong is the Fake Sloan.
>
> In addition, look at the later postings which noted
>that the Suzan Polgar-controlled EB got rid of this
>tech guy, stating that it was "voluntary" and then
>later on waffling to admit it wasn't.
>
> Here's another "inconvenient truth": assuming that
>PT's claim that mal-ware had allowed somebody to
>frame him by taking over his computer, that someone
>would also have needed to do the same with the
>computers at Texas Tech, where some of the
>postings in question originated. This supposed
>framer would have needed to follow PT everywhere,
>& obsess over top-level women's chess over a long
>period of time, and you want to point to the remote
>possibility of a psycho instead of the much simpler
>explanation that PT may have made the postings
>from PT's computer? Wacky.
My sincere apologies to Mr. Sloan.
I must admit that I don't read most of the posts here, and that
I assumed that anything from Sloan must be fabricated. Now that
I see that someone sane agrees with the accusations, I will give
the evidence a proper looking over.
I plan on searching the archives myself, but if Sam cares to, in
one place, document the above (the malware claim seems especially
damming) I will look there first. Come to think of it, he probably
has on his website. I will look there first.
Again, my apologies to Mr. Sloan. He is an annoying (crossposting
to soc.culture.magyar and soc.culture.rep-of-georgia? That's just
being an assclown!), but that doesn't mean that he is wrong, and I
shouldn't have assumed that it does. One can only hope that any
jury or judge isn't prejudiced by Sloan's antics.
Can I still make fun of Innes? Pretty please?
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 22:15:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
On Oct 17, 11:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> In such cases (someone designing fake posts to look like a
> particular person posted them) it is often the person who follows
> up with an analysis supposedly proving who posted them who is
> the real author.
>
> Everything that you have posted that points to Polgar or Truong
> impersonating someone is equally well explaimnd by Sam Sloan
> trying to frame Polgar and Truong.
That's not true.
Mr. Sloan has posted a very long, detailed article
here in which the USCF's tech guy is supporting
his claim that Paul Truong is the Fake Sloan.
In addition, look at the later postings which noted
that the Suzan Polgar-controlled EB got rid of this
tech guy, stating that it was "voluntary" and then
later on waffling to admit it wasn't.
Here's another "inconvenient truth": assuming that
PT's claim that mal-ware had allowed somebody to
frame him by taking over his computer, that someone
would also have needed to do the same with the
computers at Texas Tech, where some of the
postings in question originated. This supposed
framer would have needed to follow PT everywhere,
& obsess over top-level women's chess over a long
period of time, and you want to point to the remote
possibility of a psycho instead of the much simpler
explanation that PT may have made the postings
from PT's computer? Wacky.
While it's true that Mr. Sloan tosses out such
accusations the way other people might toss
salads, the fact remains that every once in a while
he (and by sheer luck, his apologists) is right. If you
want to go the psycho route you're going to have to
come up with a plausible explanation for:
a) why the USCF tech guy is conspiring with a man
like Sam Sloan to "get" Paul Truong
and
b) why the good people who run the USCF would
accidentally fire the tech guy, and then lie about it.
> So again I ask, what evidence do you have that you yourself
> (or some third party) could not have manufactured?
A better question might be: where were *you*, and
all the others who pretend no evidence has appeared
here, when it was posted? And why do you suppose
not one ratpacker ever saw any of those postings,
though everybody else did? LOL
> One should also note that you post rape instructions on your
> website and crosspost off-topic material to soc.culture.magyar
Ad hominem dude: the evidence is not affected
one way or the other if, say, Mr. Sloan is convicted
of the Texas chain-saw massacre, or happens to
play the Damiano's Defense. This is because his
foibles/past crimes/etc. are immaterial to the case
(except for determining alleged damages).
> and soc.culture.rep-of-georgia, while Polgar and Truong don't
> do such things.
Judging by Mr. Sloan's very biased postings, I
would say that Ms. Polgar & pal routinely attack
her rivals, as one who has an over-inflated ego
might be expected to do. Many of the quotes
I've seen appear to indicate that Susan Polgar
is a tad nasty, and deluded; IMO, it was her
sister, Judit Polgar, who merited all those
fine things that are claimed by this duo for SP.
> If you are unwilling to follow social norms
> in the area of off-topic crossposting, that makes it more
> believable that you are unwilling to follow social norms in
> the area of framing people and impersonating people.
Considering that accusation is based entirely
on circumstantial "evidence", it certainly looks
silly in a posting criticizing another for a lack of
real evidence.
IMO, there's a fair chance this mess will lead
nowhere, the suit being tossed out or some
settlement being reached where all parties
agree to dismiss counter-suits, etc. Or maybe
the guilty party will be slapped with a small fine,
indicating that Mr. Sloan had demolished his
own reputation long before the arrival of any
fakes on the scene.
But please stop embarrassing yourselves by
attempting to pretend no evidence was presented
here, that all of the ratpackers never saw any of
the postings in question, which everyone else
saw and have been discussing ever since. If you
can't do better than that, hire a sixth grader to
lend advice on strategy.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 04:05:31
From:
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
samsloan wrote:
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Evidence, please.
>
>Take a look at some of these posts, all posted from the same IP
>address all within a few minutes of each other, but under different
>names.
That establishes that it was one person, not who that person is.
>remember that there are at least 40 or 50 of these articles all
>supposedly from different people but all saying much the same thing:
Again that is evidence that it was one person, not who that person is.
>Now, look at some of the postings to the "Go Nona!" article and see if
>you think that anybody other than Polgar and Truong (known as
>"Trollgar" ) could have written them.
OK. I looked at them. I see no real evidence that Polgar or
Truong posted them.
Your entire argument fails as soon as one realizes that it is
possible for someone to frame another person by posting things
that look like they are from the target. For example, if a
bunch of forged posts showed up suporting you and taking the
same positions you take, one might think that to be evidence
that you posted them, even though the reality was that I posted
them to make you look guilty.
In such cases (someone designing fake posts to look like a
particular person posted them) it is often the person who follows
up with an analysis supposedly proving who posted them who is
the real author.
Everything that you have posted that points to Polgar or Truong
impersonating someone is equally well explaimnd by Sam Sloan
trying to frame Polgar and Truong. Or to some third party who
wishes to get you to falsely accuse Polgar and Truong.
So again I ask, what evidence do you have that you yourself
(or some third party) could not have manufactured?
One should also note that you post rape instructions on your
website and crosspost off-topic material to soc.culture.magyar
and soc.culture.rep-of-georgia, while Polgar and Truong don't
do such things. If you are unwilling to follow social norms
in the area of off-topic crossposting, that makes it more
believable that you are unwilling to follow social norms in
the area of framing people and impersonating people.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 08:07:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
On Oct 17, 10:26 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Evidence, please.
Take a look at some of these posts, all posted from the same IP
address all within a few minutes of each other, but under different
names. I would like to point out that in 1978, when Nona
Gaprindashvili was awarded the GM title, the current requirement of
three GM norms and a FIDE rating of 2500 was not yet in effect. The
rule up until at least 1970 was ONE NORM in a 1A tournament of at
least 16 players and ten grandmasters was enough to earn the GM title.
The rating requirement of at least 2450 (not 2500) was introduced in
around 1980. FIDE ratings did not even exist until 1970.
Now, look at some of the postings to the "Go Nona!" article and see if
you think that anybody other than Polgar and Truong (known as
"Trollgar" ) could have written them and remember that there are at
least 40 or 50 of these articles all supposedly from different people
but all saying much the same thing:
Guy Pelletier (www):
Nona was not the first to earn grandmaster title. She was a good
champion but not in the same level as Maia, Xie or Susan. Polgar was
the first woman to legitimately earn the grandmaster title.
9.13.2005 9:26am
(link)
Lena Yokashvili (www):
Nona is best woman champion ever. Polgar is best chess ambassador
ever. I think Polgar is stronger too. But Nona is our #1. We love both
Nona and Polgar. Yes, Nona got igm title after she lost to Maia.
Polgar first woman to have 3 igm norms and good rating. But it's no
matter. She's our champion at heart.
9.13.2005 9:37am
(link)
Javier Torres:
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Monokroussos. Nona deserves much
credit for being a great women's world champion. However, she was not
the first woman to earn the grandmaster title. She was the first woman
to receive the title. Zsuzsa Polgar was the first to earn it. She did
it with norms and rating and not through political assistance.
9.13.2005 9:59am
(link)
Burt:
Nona was never over 2500. How could she be GM without 2500 rating?
That is absurd. Let's not make the title cheaper by debating this to
death. Peng of Holland is GM at 2400. What a joke. Polgar was the
first to earn the GM title with real GM strength consistently.
9.13.2005 10:02am
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 02:37:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
Dennis Monokroussos has called me to task for saying that he reported
that Truong and Polgar had posted fake messages from 36 fake
individuals to his web blog. Also, he says that the true number was
more than 36. 36 was just the number of fake people who posted to his
third blog on this subject.
http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1192490748.shtml
I admit that it is true. Dennis Monokroussos never said that it was
Polgar and Truong who did it. He merely wrote that the person who did
it was a "Polgarite".
But who else but Polgar and Truong has a history of writing 36 or more
fake messages from fake individuals praising Polgar and attacking one
of her chief rivals, in this case Nona Gaprindashvili?
On a related subject, Nona Gaprindashvili was NOT awarded the
grandmaster title because of being the woman's world champion. Nona
was awarded the Grandmaster Title because of winning Lone Pine 1977.
Lone Pine 1977 was the strongest tournament held in the world that
year any anybody who had won it would have been awarded the
grandmaster title. Being a woman had nothing to do with it.
Back in 1977, the now standard system of awarding the grandmaster
title based on at least two GM norms involving at least 24 games was
just getting started. I am not sure exactly what year it was
introduced but it was about then. Winning a tournament like Lone Pine
against a nearly all-grandmaster field was such a spectacular result
especially back then when few grandmaster events were played that the
winner undoubtedly would have received the GM title.
The fact that more than 36 people would write in to Dennis
Monokroussos, all from the same IP address, saying that Nona
Gaprindashvili did not deserve the grandmaster title and Polgar did is
certainly suspicious. The fact that Susan Polgar has a history of
attacking her rivals adds to this suspicion, such as for example her
calling Grandmaster Alexandra Kosteniuk a "slut" and a "Lolita" on
susanpolgar.blogspot.com . By the way, when has Susan Polgar ever won
a tournament as strong as Lone Pine 1977? When has she ever even
played in a tournament as strong as Lone Pine 1977 (not counting the
1992 PCA Interzonal where Susan Polgar finished dead last in a field
of 54)?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 14:26:36
From:
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
Evidence, please.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 02:31:29
From: Jonathan Gryting
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
samsloan;244880 Wrote:
> They have not stopped.
>
> Dennis Monokroussos reports that Polgar and Truong have posted to his
> blog under 36 different fake names. He has banned all 36.
>
> [snip]
>
> Two days ago, Mig Greengard, in an article entitled "Slime Spillover"
> reported that Polgar and Truong had posted to his blog under ten
> different fake names.
>
> [snip]
>
> When will they ever learn?
>
> Sam Sloan
Dennis reports no such thing. He explicitly says that he does not kno
who did the multiple postings. See:
http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1192490748.shtml
Nor is this episode relevant to your accusation, "They have not ye
stopped." These postings to Dennis's blog were made two years ago.
Mig reports no such thing. He explicitly says that he does not know wh
did the multiple postings. See:
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/10/on_the_road_again.htm
I'm writing not to exonerate Polgar and Truong: perhaps they made thos
posts, perhaps they didn't. Mig thinks they didn't. Instead, I'
pointing out that you're twisting other people's words, Sam
--
Jonathan Gryting
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 14:17:23
From:
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
On Oct 14, 9:51 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> They have not stopped.
>
> Dennis Monokroussos reports that Polgar and Truong have posted to his
> blog under 36 different fake names. He has banned all 36.
>
> http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1126731029.shtml
>
> This happened after Monokroussos posted an article entitled "Go,
> Nona!" in which he celebrated Nona Gaprindashvili as the first chess
> grandmaster.
>
> The 36 fake posters replied that Nona Gaprindashvili was not a real
> grandmaster. Susan Polgar was. Monokroussos found it strange that all
> 36 posters that said that claimed to be in different parts of the
> world, yet they all had the same IP address. He reports, "overweening
> Polgarites in the past were all just this same person".
>
> Two days ago, Mig Greengard, in an article entitled "Slime Spillover"
> reported that Polgar and Truong had posted to his blog under ten
> different fake names.
>
> On this subject, Mig writes:
>
> "I'm all for anonymity, even as stupid as it makes some people.
> But when it comes to people coming here and crapping all over the
> place, no. Crawl back to the Usenet or we will see what your
> Suddenlink provider has to say about identity theft and providing
> server logs, which can trivially reconstruct your connection times,
> dns connection records, and packet transmission down to the
> millisecond, making IP superfluous."
> -Mig Greengard, Slime Spilloverhttp://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/10/slime_spillover.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_Greengard
>
> When will they ever learn?
>
> Sam Sloan
This is crazy. This is crazy. This is crazy.
We are now getting the real data. Too many reports have come in from
too many people verffying that Paul is gulity.
Thanks Sam
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 12:22:32
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong have posted under 36 different fake names
|
The 36 persons who were banned from the blog were Alexander
Kosalinsky, Shrestha Keshav, David Arutinian, Wopart, Guy Pelletier,
anonymous, Sandra Tejada, Xavier, Jorge Palacios, ek Podolsky,
Josephine, R. Singh, V. Singh, Sasha Zilberman, Jacob, R. DeGuzman,
Fred, H.D., Miguel, Wolfgang, Delilah, Yolanda, Tinkerbell, Jacob
Weissman, ek Podolsky, Wojciech Blik, Upset User, Jorge Palacios,
ia Fernandez, Beautiful Bunny, Mad dog, Burt, Javier Torres, Lena
Yokashvili, Luang Zhang, M. Rodriguez
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 12:26:05
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: 36 different names
|
> When will they ever learn?
As soon as I can get my work done and get the paperwork rolling.
I'm going to have to spend two days drafting a complaint and a full
afternoon with the EEOC first.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
|
