| |
Main
Date: 07 Jun 2008 21:10:07
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
Thank you for the material below, which is interesting and useful.
It seems that you are right, so thank you again for the correction.
But what you wrote, we already knew. But we needed you to again
write it. Goodbye, there is no further need for communications,
the rest is for the other recipient/s, but thank you for your help.
My points exactly, which will not be lost on the astute JUDGE CHINN:
even the so-called Real Sam Sloan finds it almost impossible to
himself distinguish between the Real Sam Sloan and the Fake Sam Sloan.
To add to existing archival evidence where the Real Sam Sloan admits
on several occasions that the "only way I know that this post is not
written by me is that I did not write it." Finis. Mr Parker, provender
of "advice", maintains one can in law rape a prostitute. But that is
not the analogy that pertains. Can one "rape" the sexual reputation of
a long established, notorious kerbside prostitute is a tighter fit.
When we get to the damage to the journalistic standards... hohhhhoaa.
So even if we believe / accept the submissions of the Real Sam Sloan,
which is absurd but we do so for the sake of argument, no perceptible
injury has been suffered by the Real Sam Sloan as the Fake Sam Sloan
posted no worse than did the Real Sam Sloan. At worst, instead of
45 crazy posts signed "Sam Sloan" in an interval, there could be 80
crazy posts signed "Sam Sloan" in an interval. So, no injury and no
damage (your idiot Jackass attorney can explain to you any difference
between injury and damage per his long outdated misunderstandings, on
this issue there is a chance his error would not be too gaping).
Here is an example. Is this written by a Fake Sam Sloan (even assuming
for the sake of argument / hypothetically) motivated maliciously to
spoil the "reputation" of the Real Sam Sloan, or is it written by the
Real Sam Sloan himself (with what motive only qualified psychiatric
personnel can speculate about):-
###################################################################
"It just so happens that I know Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [the alleged
Mastermind of 9/11, facing the death penalty, with trial in progress]
He was involved with my wife, Honzagool. I am not making this up.
Do not execute him. Make a deal with him to give me Honzagool back.
She had not been seen in 25 years and nobody knows were she is, but
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed probably knows.
THIS IS NOT A JOKE.
Sam Sloan"
###################################################################
So was it the Real Sam Sloan or the Fake Sam Sloan who wrote this
false, self-contradictory ("nobody knows were she is, but"),
sensationalist, libelous trash?
Answer, the Real Sam Sloan (Date: Apr 24 2008 10:46:06 -0700; news:
45c639fc-35ea-4f8b-9f8d-5029802bff8a@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
from NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154).
Yes, it is just as the Real Sam Sloan writes, THIS IS NOT A JOKE.
Similarly, claims that he is responsible for starting (or ending) the
war of Vietnam. And has an involvement in many dozens of major world
events since 1970, to put Forrest Gump to shame. Even Kissinger or
Dick Nixon (of Nixon Rose, now an LLP) could barely make a move without
consulting or involving him. Similarly, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton
and other Presidents whose identity was kept secret from the general
public but whom even were related to the Rodham-Sloans or familiars !
The present executive is also closely connected, via his accomplice
or representative (who is ambassador at large and has degree, with
honor, also immune).
Yes, all such nonsensical outpourings have, allowing me some very small
degree of poetical latitude in recounting them, come from the Real Sam
Sloan. He has forgotten some, which is the problem when one lies so
habitually over at minimum a half-lifetime.
In the chance Judge Chinn permits this melange of a "case" (more like
circus) to come into his Court, I wonder if Mr Sloan will bring plenty
of changes of clothes with him. It seems not so unlikely that the Real
Sam Sloan will stay under the supervision of the Court for a prolonged
time. Even a second "referral" (reality being taken by the NYPD there)
for extended psychiatric evaluation to an institution of which he has
previously been a "guest"? This time, the stay could be much longer,
not just 5 days in a padded cell in the kookhouse.
Leaving aside "advice" from the Jackass Ambulance-Chaser here, we have
enquired and the acid test is whether the Real Sam Sloan constitutes a
credible danger to others. Danger is not limited to physical violence,
it includes other illegalities.
Amassing evidence of this has been something on which there has been a
degree of collaboration. The repeated lodging of vexatious lawsuits is
not as irrelevant as the Real Sam Sloan has been "advised". Pre-emption
is more and more a political and so legal issue. Like ID theft. Whose
hands are clean among the Sloan parties?
Someone else said we must cooperate in this for the sake of Sam's
minor children. As assorted courts have concurred, they are better off
minus the company of their sperm-donor dad. In the past, with the
Virginian exception, this laudable aim was each time accomplished by
moving the children's mountains away from Mohammed (Ali/as Sloan).
But it can also be obtained by the moving of this Mohammed.
Even if they let him out, the family will then be 7,900 miles distant.
Their mistake of last time will not be repeated. Where the choice can
be explained to be between the man and the child, the lady will take
the correct path. Even in his brief Libertarian adventures, he has
managed to make enemies. Only in foe-making has he true skills?
He has this last chance to wake up and retract his filing or beg for
mercy. But after that, it will be to the finis, and he will see who
is chessmaster and who chessidiot. "THIS IS NOT A JOKE." The Real Sam
Sloan will then wish he was the Fake Sam Sloan, for the Real Sam Sloan
has forgotten skeletons which have been tumbled from their closets.
Some of these skeletons have some (beautiful) flesh around them too.
Sloan has assessed that he had nothing to lose by this attack because
of his judgment-proof status. He judged very wrongly. His move, Grob
Chicken works vs I.M. Brock. Maybe he can call for help from another
Mohammed. Khalid Shaikh, the horse dealer, jailkeeper or his founder?
From: samsloan <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,ny.politics,
nyc.politics
Subject: Re: Rob, PROOF that FSS = RSS, PT has been framed
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 179
Message-ID:
<a7a07177-bb2e-46a9-b30f-4f7b1ed7c761@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com >
References: <http://tinyurl.com/58zx32 >
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1212796709 3451 127.0.0.1 (6 Jun 2008 23:58:29
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 23:58:29 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.120.149.154;
posting-account=h0BplggAAACbakJwttbpVF72VZ8jVCAq
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.14)
Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
On Jun 6, 6:10 pm, Nomen Nescio <[email protected] > wrote:
> Today I download both these usenet post from Google Archiv after a tip from
> Mitchell.
>
> Two posts. Made 3 hours a-part in 2006 October.
> POST 1 the Real Sam Sloan admits he posted in rec.games.chess.politics from
> IP 64.12.116.67 (AOL) attacking Bill G.
> POST 2 the Real Sam Sloan claims was made by the Fake Sam Sloan posted in
> newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics from IP 152.163.100.67 (AOL also) saying
> Sloan is a liaison for Booby.
>
> But the computer is the SAME for both posts! Same X-HTTP-UserAgent, same
> User-Agent, same Google Posting Account (Ua1dlw0AAAA1_dVRiSGiD5ejBHhRdV9F).
> The different IP is not significant, it is be usual AOL server shifting.
>
> So either the Real Sam Sloan is claiming that HIS own computer was hacked
> by the Fake Sam Sloan in very mysterious ways, or claim that the Fake Sam
> Sloan broke into the hovel of the Real Sam Sloan and used the computer to
> send Post 2, or that the Real Sam Sloan broke into the apartment of the
> Fake Sam Sloan and made Post 1 on the PC of the Fake Sam Sloan.
>
> All uncredible. Simple Ockham says FSS = RSS.
>
> Rob, Jurgen, Mig, Greg and my other amigos, you must rush this evidence to
> Proskauer Rose, Nixon Rose and the New York Times and the Court and
> Honorable Judge Denny Chin. From this evidence alone, the Sloan case is 100
> per cent in collapse. And in addition the Court must order a rapid arrest
> of Sam Sloan on charge of extortion, or attempt to misuse the legal process
> to commit a 10,000,000 dollar fraud. A quick arrest is important because
> this felon is likely to skip to UAE, Buda-Pest, Viet Nam Dan Cong Chu Hua
> or if he decides to retain the bitch Hiro-Shima.
>
> I sent extra evidence to [email protected] but there was a deliverance
> failure. H. is not replying at his mobile, I will try again momentarily.
>
> ##################################### POST 1
>
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
> Subject: AF4C and Bill Goichberg are ruining chess
> Date: 11 Oct 2006 04:50:23 -0700
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.67
> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1160567428 11961 127.0.0.1 (11 Oct 2006
> 11:50:28 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:50:28 +0000 (UTC)
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT
> 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET
> CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32
> [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/1.1 Turboweb [mtc-ta032 8.4.1], HTTP/1.0
> cache-mtc-ab03.proxy.aol.com[400C7443] (Traffic-Server/6.1.2 [uScM])
> Complaints-To: [email protected]
> Injection-Info: k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.12.116.67;
> posting-account=Ua1dlw0AAAA1_dVRiSGiD5ejBHhRdV9F
>
> 2007 US CHAMPIONSHIP DETAILS ANNOUNCED
>
> The 2007 US Championship, organized by America's Foundation for Chess in
> cooperation with the US Chess Federation, will consist of 32 players who
> will play knockout matches. To maximize spectator interest, each match will
> be broadcast live on the internet and only one or two matches will be held
> per day. It is expected that most matches will be held in the home area of
> one of the players, though some may be held elsewhere, such as at major
> tournaments. Matches may be played online. The final match will be held in
> Las Vegas.
>
> The first three rounds of KO matches will commence in March, and each will
> match will consist of two games. Each match will be conducted over two
> days; one game per day. Tie-breaks, if necessary, will also take place on
> day two.
>
> The fourth and final preliminary round will involve four game matches,
> possibly played at the US Open. This final round will reduce the field to
> two players. These two finalists will play a match in Las Vegas in November
> for the US Championship title.
>
> Twelve players have qualified so far from qualifying tournaments.
>
> They will be joined by the following:
>
> The Western States Open, American Open, National Chess Congress and North
> American Open will each qualify two players.
>
> The following will be seeded: the 2006 US Champion, 2006 Grand Prix winner,
> the top 3 by rating on the December 2006 list, and the 2006 US Junior, US
> Senior, and US Women's champion.
>
> Two more women will be seeded based on Dec 2006 rating, and another woman's
> spot will be offered to the winner of an online women's tournament for
> players rated 2100 or above. Note that the 2007 US Championship will not
> determine the US Women's Champion, however four women are being invited in
> order to provide experience and publicity for our top women.
>
> The usual online tournament of state champions will again be held and will
> qualify one player.
>
> Further details are expected to be available soon.
>
> Bill Goichberg
>
> .............
>
> Bill Goichberg posted this on his own without consulting the board. I am a
> member of the board and I was not informed of this until it was posted on
> the USCF website. I do not understand how Bill had the right to announce
> this without any vote having been taken by the board.
>
> I am strongly opposed to the provision that some of the matches may take
> place online.
>
> I doubt that the players will agree to this format. Do any of our
> grandmasters really want to play a two-game match for only $200?
>
> Bill has been acting strangely lately. He seems to spend all his time
> attacking me, neglecting the serious business of the federation.
>
> Has something gone wrong with him?
>
> I will vote no on this one, if a vote is ever taken. It seems that Bill
> plans to go forward with this plan without even asking for approval by the
> board.
>
> Also, it appears that all but one of the qualifying tournaments is a Bill
> Goichberg tournament.
>
> The AF4C stated some months ago that they definitely will NOT be holding
> the US Woman's Championship. Bill and the rest of the board has known this
> all along, but does not want you to know this.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> ##################################### POST 2
>
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: Gothic Chess and Fischer
> Date: 11 Oct 2006 08:18:14 -0700
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.67
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com
> 1160579899 32520 127.0.0.1 (11 Oct 2006 15:18:19 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:18:19 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT
> 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET
> CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32
> [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/1.1 Turboweb [rtc-tc051 8.4.1], HTTP/1.0
> cache-rtc-ab03.proxy.aol.com[98A36443] (Traffic-Server/6.1.2 [uScM])
> Complaints-To: [email protected]
> Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=152.163.100.67;
> posting-account=Ua1dlw0AAAA1_dVRiSGiD5ejBHhRdV9F
>
> Rob wrote:
> > Just got an email from gothic chess about an announcement coming up
> > tomorrow on chessfm. Anyone else hear about this? Rob
>
> I'm Fischer's liaison but I can't tell you about it until Friday. It will
> be a big announcement.
>
> Sam Sloan
There are several things wrong with this. The first is that these are
both AOL addresses. I have never posted from AOL.
The second is that they both come from [email protected] That is
an address used by the fake Sam Sloan. I have never used that address.
The top post may be something I posted somewhere else but was re-posted
here by the Fake Sam Sloan, something he often did.
Sam sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 13:03:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
It was a frequent occurrence that when I would post something on the
USCF Issues Forum, the Fake Sam Sloan would make some minor changes in
the wording and post almost the same thing over on
rec.games.chess.politics
Often this would happen within ten or fifteen minutes of my initial
posting, which proved that the Fake Sam Sloan was logged into the USCF
Issues Forum almost all the time.
This indeed is how the Fake Sam Sloan finally got caught and it was
proven that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan.
This also proves that Bill Goichberg knew all along that Paul Truong
was the Fake Sam Sloan because Brian Mottershead was able to establish
that Paul Truong had hidden secret access to the USCF Issues Forum.
The only person who knew about this was Mike Nolan who obviously would
have told Bill Goichberg, since Goichberg was USCF President,
especially since this issue came up at meetings of the USCF Executive
Board.
Thus, Goichberg was so desperate to have the Real Sam Sloan defeated
for re-election to the USCF Executive Board that he allowed Paul
Truong to impersonate me and other chess personalities 2,464 times.
This also explains why Goichberg took no action at all when
Mottershead privately told him that he had proof that Truong was the
Fake Sam Sloan. Goichberg told Mottershead to file an ethics complaint
and otherwise to keep it quiet.
Fortunately, sensing that Goichberg was already in on the fix,
Mottershead, after waiting a decent interval, went public with his
report.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 15:56:18
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
Actually, the FSS targeted various people in Sam's name (and my name) in the
hope of inciting retaliation from the targets.
ONce SuddenLink is subpoenaed, the guessing games will end.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jun 2008 08:14:56
From: Vance
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
On Jun 12, 5:57 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
[Major snip]
> > Argument ad hominem, to a group of anonymous cockroaches on USENET. How
> > quaint.
>
> I wondered that you never wrote about chess. Though perhaps I missed your
> contributions and asked if anyone else could say what I missed, or if I am
> in fact correct. While what I say is hardly complimentary to your
> orientation, it is not ad hominem. It is an observation about your
> /behavior/ nor your person - and actually a true statement, no?
>
> To commit some ad hominem statement I would have had to write some such
> thing as you were incapable of writing about chess because [make up any
> reason such as it required thought, or insight, and you a truly stupid, and
> so on]. But I didn't ask or suggest that. I wondered why the very great
> majority of your posts had no chess in them, and why you chose to /behave/
> that way, while still making yourself the central figure of importance of
> your messages?
>
While an ad hominem argument, or ad hominem attack, is popularly
considered a negative form, it is very appropriate where the person's
credibility, expertise, self proclaimed status, etc., is a salient
issue. In Gordon's case, his posting history to various Usenet groups
amply shows that he is, in the main, a liar in this venue (or
otherwise dissembles) and has problems differentiating reality from
his wants, desires and other fantasies and acts based on those wants,
desires and fantasies. That provides an adequate basis to question
what Gordon posts based on his nature, character and even his thought
processes.
Gordon, by choice and behavior, makes himself the issue. The ad
hominem form of argument is often the right one.
Vance
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jun 2008 15:35:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, the FSS targeted various people in Sam's name (and my name) in
> the hope of inciting retaliation from the targets.
Quite so, and in that sense you are merely a bit of designer-noise in the
FSS's system, to confuse them all. Who else will emote most? Marcus? OK, do
Marcus too!
Do you, BTW, have the slightest interest in chess - if so, what is it? Is
thgere anyone else at all here who would support what you say is your
interest? Who is that?
You write here about as much as Sloan himself, and while he writes of chess
only in relationship to his own stature, as he himself views it, a sort of
Statue of Libertine, you seem not to need the chess part.
Phil Innes
3 newsgroups snipped.
> ONce SuddenLink is subpoenaed, the guessing games will end.
>
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
>
> Finding Your A-Game:
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
> The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
>
> Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
> http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
>
> Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
> http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
>
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods
> which no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they
> make from what they teach.
>
> Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
> http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
>
> Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
> contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
> targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and
> ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
>
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jun 2008 01:20:33
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
>> Actually, the FSS targeted various people in Sam's name (and my name) in
>> the hope of inciting retaliation from the targets.
>
> Quite so, and in that sense you are merely a bit of designer-noise in the
> FSS's system, to confuse them all.
If so, that's about the dumbest thing the FSS could have done, as my
citizenship gives me "designer rights." The REAL problem, however, is how
people who got up in arms over what the RSS *said* can ignore what the FSS
*did.* They kind of backed themselves into a corner by setting a behavioral
standard that was then violted by someone else.
Did "Phil" ever answer my q6uestion about whether or not he'd consider
Suddenlink's evidence decisive in identifying the FSS?
>Who else will emote most?
I'm not emoting, I'm suing.
> Do you, BTW, have the slightest interest in chess - if so, what is it? Is
Current rating 1900, peak rating 2000, still very active in playing online.
I also wasn't as much of a "diversion" for the FSS, as I was targeted only
after I had raised concerns abou the Chess Life online editor's job.
> thgere anyone else at all here who would support what you say is your
> interest? Who is that?
Argument ad hominem, to a group of anonymous cockroaches on USENET. How
quaint.
> You write here about as much as Sloan himself,
We seem to have a very loyal reader in Phil.
>and while he writes of chess only in relationship to his own stature, as he
>himself views it, a sort of Statue of Libertine, you seem not to need the
>chess part.
Yet I've posted several games of mine.
The August 1990 Chess Life has a game I lost on time to a 2508 player (I was
1956).
> >> ONce SuddenLink is subpoenaed, the guessing games will end.
No comment? Tsk.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Jun 2008 08:57:17
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> Actually, the FSS targeted various people in Sam's name (and my name) in
>>> the hope of inciting retaliation from the targets.
>>
>> Quite so, and in that sense you are merely a bit of designer-noise in the
>> FSS's system, to confuse them all.
>
> If so, that's about the dumbest thing the FSS could have done, as my
> citizenship gives me "designer rights."
Maybe the FSS is also dissing you, or your abilities?
> The REAL problem, however, is how people who got up in arms over what the
> RSS *said* can ignore what the FSS *did.* They kind of backed themselves
> into a corner by setting a behavioral standard that was then violted by
> someone else.
I'm sorry, I don't understand that.
> Did "Phil" ever answer my q6uestion about whether or not he'd consider
> Suddenlink's evidence decisive in identifying the FSS?
In the sense that you call something evidence, and not testimony, yes, I did
answer that properly consituted authority is very welcome to proceed with
investigations.
>>Who else will emote most?
>
> I'm not emoting, I'm suing.
Laugh. For purely intellectual reasons? Or are you angry? You illustrate my
point very well.
>> Do you, BTW, have the slightest interest in chess - if so, what is it? Is
>
> Current rating 1900, peak rating 2000, still very active in playing
> online. I also wasn't as much of a "diversion" for the FSS, as I was
> targeted only after I had raised concerns abou the Chess Life online
> editor's job.
Since you have made some [how many?] 400 posts on these subjects, I would
say that that is plenty of diversion, not even counting your proposed
law-suit.
>> thgere anyone else at all here who would support what you say is your
>> interest? Who is that?
>
> Argument ad hominem, to a group of anonymous cockroaches on USENET. How
> quaint.
I wondered that you never wrote about chess. Though perhaps I missed your
contributions and asked if anyone else could say what I missed, or if I am
in fact correct. While what I say is hardly complimentary to your
orientation, it is not ad hominem. It is an observation about your
/behavior/ nor your person - and actually a true statement, no?
To commit some ad hominem statement I would have had to write some such
thing as you were incapable of writing about chess because [make up any
reason such as it required thought, or insight, and you a truly stupid, and
so on]. But I didn't ask or suggest that. I wondered why the very great
majority of your posts had no chess in them, and why you chose to /behave/
that way, while still making yourself the central figure of importance of
your messages?
>> You write here about as much as Sloan himself,
>
> We seem to have a very loyal reader in Phil.
Actually, I just notice who contributes to certain headers and avoid some
writers completely since they never write on topic or make any sort of
chessic contribution.
>>and while he writes of chess only in relationship to his own stature, as
>>he himself views it, a sort of Statue of Libertine, you seem not to need
>>the chess part.
>
> Yet I've posted several games of mine.
>
> The August 1990 Chess Life has a game I lost on time to a 2508 player (I
> was 1956).
Hey! That's something anyone can do - lose on time to a 2500! And 18 years
ago!
>> >> ONce SuddenLink is subpoenaed, the guessing games will end.
>
> No comment? Tsk.
What sort of comment are you prompting me for? What's the topic, you?
If you want to sue then on //all evidence// a properly constituted jury will
do the deciding. Advocates for either side, and those who are victims, don't
get to decide. I am actually for that, always have been, and hope it happens
soon.
Phil Innes
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
>
> Finding Your A-Game:
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
> The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
>
> Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
> http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
>
> Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
> http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
>
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods
> which no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they
> make from what they teach.
>
> Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
> http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
>
> Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
> contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
> targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and
> ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Jun 2008 09:44:29
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
>>> Quite so, and in that sense you are merely a bit of designer-noise in
>>> the FSS's system, to confuse them all.
>>
>> If so, that's about the dumbest thing the FSS could have done, as my
>> citizenship gives me "designer rights."
>
> Maybe the FSS is also dissing you, or your abilities?
(note the kid-glove terminology, as this was more than "dissing")
If so, then the lawsuit is a logical consequence of that. If in fact the
FSS was on the board when doing so, that could prove detrimental to the
USCF.
Today's "cyberbullies" haven't gotten the mem: it is not "cool" to go around
ambushing people from behind a monitor. Standing there and insulting the
other person doesn't make them look bad, and the way the laws are, the
targets won't fight back in kind, but rather just press charges or file
lawsuits.
Most ironoic is that if the standard applied to Sloan is applied to the FSS,
there's no possible defense for its conduct.
>> The REAL problem, however, is how people who got up in arms over what
>> the RSS *said* can ignore what the FSS *did.* They kind of backed
>> themselves into a corner by setting a behavioral standard that was then
>> violted by someone else.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand that.
Low IQ? The wording was simple, as is the question of how RSS's legal
conduct can be worse than FSS's illegal conduct.
Same for my posts, as those who take issue with them, unless they aer
biased, would have to take far greater issue with the imposter, who was
threatening innocents in my name.
Something tells me if someone went around impersonating Phil and threatening
the children of known organized-crime figures, that he'd understand why it
was wrong.
>> Did "Phil" ever answer my q6uestion about whether or not he'd consider
>> Suddenlink's evidence decisive in identifying the FSS?
>
> In the sense that you call something evidence, and not testimony, yes, I
> did answer that properly consituted authority is very welcome to proceed
> with investigations.
Testimony of that nature would just recount the evidence for the court.
SuddenLink KNOWS who the imposter was, because they can match IP addresses
up to their usernames. Unlike AOL, SuddenLink uses static IP addresses that
rarely change, nor do they have the volume of log data to purge like AOL
does relatively quickly.
SuddenLink will provide a name of who had the IP that made the imposter
posts. That will be good enough for the public and for the courts.
>>>Who else will emote most?
>>
>> I'm not emoting, I'm suing.
>
> Laugh. For purely intellectual reasons? Or are you angry? You illustrate
> my point very well.
It's easy to laugh when someone else is being sued, I suppose. It was easy
for the imposter to laugh before it got caught, just as well.
I happen to be an Expert-rated chessplayer (at peak) who offers lessons, and
who is writing a book on the opening. That makes me a competitor (Lanham
Act) to other teachers, authors, and booksellers.
Anyone whose financial interests are threatened by illegal conduct generally
considers suing. Add to that, that the imposter was inciting the children
of known organized-crime figures while appearing to be me, clearing the
record in court becomes even more necessary, lest the organized-crime figure
in question have any belief that it was me.
>>> Do you, BTW, have the slightest interest in chess - if so, what is it?
>>> Is
>>
>> Current rating 1900, peak rating 2000, still very active in playing
>> online. I also wasn't as much of a "diversion" for the FSS, as I was
>> targeted only after I had raised concerns abou the Chess Life online
>> editor's job.
>
> Since you have made some [how many?] 400 posts on these subjects, I would
> say that that is plenty of diversion, not even counting your proposed
> law-suit.
The FSS impersonating me was not a "diversion" but rather targeting me
directly. In my lawsuit, I showed temporal proximity between when I would
correspond with someone at USCF, and the imposter would strike. It was
almost to the day in some cases, and it was consistent throughout the year
or two it was going on.
>>> thgere anyone else at all here who would support what you say is your
>>> interest? Who is that?
>>
>> Argument ad hominem, to a group of anonymous cockroaches on USENET. How
>> quaint.
>
> I wondered that you never wrote about chess. Though perhaps I missed your
> contributions and asked if anyone else could say what I missed, or if I am
> in fact correct. While what I say is hardly complimentary to your
> orientation, it is not ad hominem. It is an observation about your
> /behavior/ nor your person - and actually a true statement, no?
I meant argument ad POPULUM.
I do write about chess, but the internet is about distribution, not quality
of content, sadly. Good content without distribution winds up stolen by
those with better distribution.
I've been working on a book on how to play the opening for a few years now.
It was about half-finished before this garbage interrupted it.
> To commit some ad hominem statement I would have had to write some such
> thing as you were incapable of writing about chess because [make up any
> reason such as it required thought, or insight, and you a truly stupid,
> and so on]. But I didn't ask or suggest that. I wondered why the very
> great majority of your posts had no chess in them, and why you chose to
> /behave/ that way, while still making yourself the central figure of
> importance of your messages?
I was important enough to impersonate. Also note that even if it was just
to use me as a "pawn" or a "diversion" that still crosses legal lines.
Btw, what the imposter did is now a federal crime, not just actionable in
civil court. Ever since the suicide of Megan Meier, "cyberbullying" is
frowned upon about the same way drunk driving is. People who speak proudly
of insulting or flaming others for "amusement" are now the rough equivalent
of peopleo who brag about driving drunk.
>>> You write here about as much as Sloan himself,
>>
>> We seem to have a very loyal reader in Phil.
>
> Actually, I just notice who contributes to certain headers and avoid some
> writers completely since they never write on topic or make any sort of
> chessic contribution.
I've posted about chess many times, from openings, to politics, to fixing
USCF (I wrote about abolishing the print CL several years back), and so
forth.
From 1987-1991, I probably studied chess more than anyone else in this
country (70-75 hours a week). I then quit at age twenty-four, as American
life has too much to offer (no money or women in chess), but got back into
it through online play, now that I'm older and more sedentary.
>>>and while he writes of chess only in relationship to his own stature, as
>>>he himself views it, a sort of Statue of Libertine, you seem not to need
>>>the chess part.
>>
>> Yet I've posted several games of mine.
>>
>> The August 1990 Chess Life has a game I lost on time to a 2508 player (I
>> was 1956).
>
> Hey! That's something anyone can do - lose on time to a 2500! And 18 years
> ago!
Smashing a 2500 in the opening is not something "anyone" can do, especially
in the pre-computer era.
I did get a draw against Asa Hoffman once in a quad at the Manhattan Chess
Club, which allowed me to tie for first, costing Asa $12.50 in reduced prize
money.
If you think taking $12.50 out of Asa Hoffman's pocket over the board is
easy, you'd be in the minority, at least among those who knew him.
The point is that game was published and is proof that I was an active
player with a high rating back in the day.
>>> >> ONce SuddenLink is subpoenaed, the guessing games will end.
>>
>> No comment? Tsk.
>
> What sort of comment are you prompting me for? What's the topic, you?
You act as if the FSS is some big mystery that can't be solved. I'm saying
SuddenLink can solve the mystery. Is there a reason you disagree?
> If you want to sue then on //all evidence// a properly constituted jury
> will do the deciding.
By that standard, one could say they know absolutely noting about Sam Sloan.
SuddenLink will be able to tell us who had the IP address that made the
imposter postings. If they name a specific individual, is there ANY reason
that one should not believe that individual is the FSS?
>Advocates for either side, and those who are victims, don't get to decide.
>I am actually for that, always have been, and hope it happens soon.
Way ahead of you on that.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jun 2008 07:54:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>> Quite so, and in that sense you are merely a bit of designer-noise in
>>>> the FSS's system, to confuse them all.
>>>
>>> If so, that's about the dumbest thing the FSS could have done, as my
>>> citizenship gives me "designer rights."
>>
>> Maybe the FSS is also dissing you, or your abilities?
>
> (note the kid-glove terminology, as this was more than "dissing")
I am suggesting from the perspective of the FSS, adding you and Marcus by
saying uncomplimentary things achieved a lot of noise, and what was dissed
was your ability to do anything other than emote, thus adding further noise
to the scene.
> If so, then the lawsuit is a logical consequence of that. If in fact the
> FSS was on the board when doing so, that could prove detrimental to the
> USCF.
I presume you refer to the lawsuit you have in mind? Or Sloan's suit? Or one
you have filed, against whom?
> Today's "cyberbullies" haven't gotten the mem: it is not "cool" to go
> around ambushing people from behind a monitor. Standing there and
> insulting the other person doesn't make them look bad, and the way the
> laws are, the targets won't fight back in kind, but rather just press
> charges or file lawsuits.
>
> Most ironoic is that if the standard applied to Sloan is applied to the
> FSS, there's no possible defense for its conduct.
>
>
>>> The REAL problem, however, is how people who got up in arms over what
>>> the RSS *said* can ignore what the FSS *did.* They kind of backed
>>> themselves into a corner by setting a behavioral standard that was then
>>> violted by someone else.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I don't understand that.
>
> Low IQ? The wording was simple, as is the question of how RSS's legal
> conduct can be worse than FSS's illegal conduct.
Yes low IQ, 165 and falling. I was confused by your mixed matadors above,
the un-named nouns, and indeed for whom the unspecified 'question' is worse?
Are you personally attempting a commnent such as: the RSS is the same
[better .. worse.. ?] as the FSS?
> Same for my posts, as those who take issue with them, unless they aer
> biased, would have to take far greater issue with the imposter, who was
> threatening innocents in my name.
I think you abandon your initial clause, and become lost in parenthesis.
I can see you are tyring to equivocate abuse in your name with something you
siad above.
> Something tells me if someone went around impersonating Phil and
> threatening the children of known organized-crime figures, that he'd
> understand why it was wrong.
I can understand why impersonating anyone is wrong. But that is all I can
understand from your writing.
>>> Did "Phil" ever answer my q6uestion about whether or not he'd consider
>>> Suddenlink's evidence decisive in identifying the FSS?
>>
>> In the sense that you call something evidence, and not testimony, yes, I
>> did answer that properly consituted authority is very welcome to proceed
>> with investigations.
>
> Testimony of that nature would just recount the evidence for the court.
> SuddenLink KNOWS who the imposter was, because they can match IP addresses
> up to their usernames. Unlike AOL, SuddenLink uses static IP addresses
> that rarely change, nor do they have the volume of log data to purge like
> AOL does relatively quickly.
>
> SuddenLink will provide a name of who had the IP that made the imposter
> posts. That will be good enough for the public and for the courts.
That is indeed for the court to decide! Not you. But how will a court decide
anything - are you going to bring a suit against anyone?
>>>>Who else will emote most?
>>>
>>> I'm not emoting, I'm suing.
>>
>> Laugh. For purely intellectual reasons? Or are you angry? You illustrate
>> my point very well.
>
> It's easy to laugh when someone else is being sued, I suppose. It was
> easy for the imposter to laugh before it got caught, just as well.
I am not laughing at you being impersonated - what I said is that you make
plenty of noise /because/ you were impersonated - and its just possible that
you were impersonated /because/ you would make lots of noise.
Do you understand what that point of view?
> I happen to be an Expert-rated chessplayer (at peak) who offers lessons,
> and who is writing a book on the opening. That makes me a competitor
> (Lanham Act) to other teachers, authors, and booksellers.
>
> Anyone whose financial interests are threatened by illegal conduct
> generally considers suing. Add to that, that the imposter was inciting
> the children of known organized-crime figures while appearing to be me,
> clearing the record in court becomes even more necessary, lest the
> organized-crime figure in question have any belief that it was me.
Ok - I understand that you have a reputation to present to a court, and that
if they consider it damaged, then they make chose to award recompensive
damages.
>>>> Do you, BTW, have the slightest interest in chess - if so, what is it?
>>>> Is
>>>
>>> Current rating 1900, peak rating 2000, still very active in playing
>>> online. I also wasn't as much of a "diversion" for the FSS, as I was
>>> targeted only after I had raised concerns abou the Chess Life online
>>> editor's job.
>>
>> Since you have made some [how many?] 400 posts on these subjects, I would
>> say that that is plenty of diversion, not even counting your proposed
>> law-suit.
>
> The FSS impersonating me was not a "diversion" but rather targeting me
> directly.
I understand you have been attacked directly. I do not mean you have been
attacked indirectly, I mean that the direct attack on you is perhaps a
diversion from the attack on Sloan.
> In my lawsuit, I showed temporal proximity between when I would
> correspond with someone at USCF, and the imposter would strike. It was
> almost to the day in some cases, and it was consistent throughout the year
> or two it was going on.
So what was the result of your lawsuit?
>>>> thgere anyone else at all here who would support what you say is your
>>>> interest? Who is that?
>>>
>>> Argument ad hominem, to a group of anonymous cockroaches on USENET. How
>>> quaint.
>>
>> I wondered that you never wrote about chess. Though perhaps I missed your
>> contributions and asked if anyone else could say what I missed, or if I
>> am in fact correct. While what I say is hardly complimentary to your
>> orientation, it is not ad hominem. It is an observation about your
>> /behavior/ nor your person - and actually a true statement, no?
>
> I meant argument ad POPULUM.
>
> I do write about chess, but the internet is about distribution, not
> quality of content, sadly.
Well... if that is to say what you write on chess is, in your own words, of
little value here, then we agree.
Anyway, lest we dilate too far....
Phil Innes
> Good content without distribution winds up stolen by those with better
> distribution.
>
> I've been working on a book on how to play the opening for a few years
> now. It was about half-finished before this garbage interrupted it.
>
>
>> To commit some ad hominem statement I would have had to write some such
>> thing as you were incapable of writing about chess because [make up any
>> reason such as it required thought, or insight, and you a truly stupid,
>> and so on]. But I didn't ask or suggest that. I wondered why the very
>> great majority of your posts had no chess in them, and why you chose to
>> /behave/ that way, while still making yourself the central figure of
>> importance of your messages?
>
> I was important enough to impersonate. Also note that even if it was just
> to use me as a "pawn" or a "diversion" that still crosses legal lines.
>
> Btw, what the imposter did is now a federal crime, not just actionable in
> civil court. Ever since the suicide of Megan Meier, "cyberbullying" is
> frowned upon about the same way drunk driving is. People who speak
> proudly of insulting or flaming others for "amusement" are now the rough
> equivalent of peopleo who brag about driving drunk.
>
>
>>>> You write here about as much as Sloan himself,
>>>
>>> We seem to have a very loyal reader in Phil.
>>
>> Actually, I just notice who contributes to certain headers and avoid some
>> writers completely since they never write on topic or make any sort of
>> chessic contribution.
>
> I've posted about chess many times, from openings, to politics, to fixing
> USCF (I wrote about abolishing the print CL several years back), and so
> forth.
>
> From 1987-1991, I probably studied chess more than anyone else in this
> country (70-75 hours a week). I then quit at age twenty-four, as American
> life has too much to offer (no money or women in chess), but got back into
> it through online play, now that I'm older and more sedentary.
>
>>>>and while he writes of chess only in relationship to his own stature, as
>>>>he himself views it, a sort of Statue of Libertine, you seem not to need
>>>>the chess part.
>>>
>>> Yet I've posted several games of mine.
>>>
>>> The August 1990 Chess Life has a game I lost on time to a 2508 player (I
>>> was 1956).
>>
>> Hey! That's something anyone can do - lose on time to a 2500! And 18
>> years ago!
>
> Smashing a 2500 in the opening is not something "anyone" can do,
> especially in the pre-computer era.
>
> I did get a draw against Asa Hoffman once in a quad at the Manhattan Chess
> Club, which allowed me to tie for first, costing Asa $12.50 in reduced
> prize money.
>
> If you think taking $12.50 out of Asa Hoffman's pocket over the board is
> easy, you'd be in the minority, at least among those who knew him.
>
> The point is that game was published and is proof that I was an active
> player with a high rating back in the day.
>
>
>>>> >> ONce SuddenLink is subpoenaed, the guessing games will end.
>>>
>>> No comment? Tsk.
>>
>> What sort of comment are you prompting me for? What's the topic, you?
>
>
> You act as if the FSS is some big mystery that can't be solved. I'm
> saying SuddenLink can solve the mystery. Is there a reason you disagree?
>
>
>> If you want to sue then on //all evidence// a properly constituted jury
>> will do the deciding.
>
> By that standard, one could say they know absolutely noting about Sam
> Sloan.
>
> SuddenLink will be able to tell us who had the IP address that made the
> imposter postings. If they name a specific individual, is there ANY
> reason that one should not believe that individual is the FSS?
>
>
>>Advocates for either side, and those who are victims, don't get to decide.
>>I am actually for that, always have been, and hope it happens soon.
>
> Way ahead of you on that.
>
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
>
> Finding Your A-Game:
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
> The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
>
> Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
> http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
>
> Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
> http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
>
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods
> which no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they
> make from what they teach.
>
> Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
> http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
>
> Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
> contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
> targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and
> ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2008 04:16:40
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
>>>> If so, that's about the dumbest thing the FSS could have done, as my
>>>> citizenship gives me "designer rights."
>>>
>>> Maybe the FSS is also dissing you, or your abilities?
>>
>> (note the kid-glove terminology, as this was more than "dissing")
>
> I am suggesting from the perspective of the FSS, adding you and Marcus by
> saying uncomplimentary things achieved a lot of noise, and what was dissed
> was your ability to do anything other than emote, thus adding further
> noise to the scene.
Looks like the "disser" miscalculated then. People who write about the
USCF's "legal situation" might want to consider whose behavior caused that
situation: the imposter's.
I was targeted in addition to Sloan, for other reasons, most involving my
discrimination grievance over the Chess Life online editor hiring.
Whether or not the board acted in conspiracy, as I alleged in my lawsuit,
that they spent so much time on things like "picturegate" or trying to
remove Sloan from office was at at the least, neglient. They literally
fiddled while Rome was burning and they had the fire hose all along.
Now that is where I consider Sloan's extracurricular actiities while on the
board to be "wrong" in that it kept him off-task with regard to regular USCF
business (Picturegate doesn't qualify AFAIC) rather than acting as if he was
"forced" to reveal an alleged relationship twenty years ago or whatever.
>> If so, then the lawsuit is a logical consequence of that. If in fact the
>> FSS was on the board when doing so, that could prove detrimental to the
>> USCF.
>
> I presume you refer to the lawsuit you have in mind?
Not in mind, in the courts.
>Or Sloan's suit? Or one you have filed, against whom?
I filed suit in February, and have been serving the defendants this month.
They include: Sloan, Channing, Polgar, Truong, Goichberg, USCF, SPF and CCA.
>> Today's "cyberbullies" haven't gotten the mem: it is not "cool" to go
>> around ambushing people from behind a monitor. Standing there and
>> insulting the other person doesn't make them look bad, and the way the
>> laws are, the targets won't fight back in kind, but rather just press
>> charges or file lawsuits.
>>
>> Most ironoic is that if the standard applied to Sloan is applied to the
>> FSS, there's no possible defense for its conduct.
Took his breath away.
>>>> The REAL problem, however, is how people who got up in arms over what
>>>> the RSS *said* can ignore what the FSS *did.* They kind of backed
>>>> themselves into a corner by setting a behavioral standard that was then
>>>> violted by someone else.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I don't understand that.
>>
>> Low IQ? The wording was simple, as is the question of how RSS's legal
>> conduct can be worse than FSS's illegal conduct.
>
> Yes low IQ, 165 and falling. I was confused by your mixed matadors above,
> the un-named nouns, and indeed for whom the unspecified 'question' is
> worse?
>
> Are you personally attempting a commnent such as: the RSS is the same
> [better .. worse.. ?] as the FSS?
One more time: I said those who were so up in arms over the RSS's conduct
(stuff like his personal website, which was legal), could then all but
ignore what the FSS did. Same for me: I'm told that relatively tame
postings of mine were somehow horrible, yet what was done while
impersonating me was downright criminal.
Those who applied these standards to me or to the RSS, if their stated
reasons for doing so are consistent, would have to be far more against what
the FSS did.
I don't have a 165 IQ, so I never learned what a "mixed matador" is.
>> Same for my posts, as those who take issue with them, unless they aer
>> biased, would have to take far greater issue with the imposter, who was
>> threatening innocents in my name.
>
> I think you abandon your initial clause, and become lost in parenthesis.
> I can see you are tyring to equivocate abuse in your name with something
> you siad above.
No, I'm saying that those who took issue with my posts or the RSS's posts
should take greater issue with the FSS, yet they don't.
My lawsuit included several e-mails from one USCF board member that claimed
that "ANYONE" who made "vile postings" would not be someone USCF would hire,
yet the imposter may very well be someone they did hire and who they
continue to do business with.
I also have a count for fraud based on my allegation that the person who
wrote me that e-mail knew quite well who the imposter was.
>> Something tells me if someone went around impersonating Phil and
>> threatening the children of known organized-crime figures, that he'd
>> understand why it was wrong.
>
> I can understand why impersonating anyone is wrong. But that is all I can
> understand from your writing.
Phil seems to have much greater ability to understand what is written when
he's bashing Sloan and the like.
"Wrong" on what level? The laws say what the FSS did is criminal.
Anonymous internet harassment, for example, is now a felony (since January
2007).
>>>> Did "Phil" ever answer my q6uestion about whether or not he'd consider
>>>> Suddenlink's evidence decisive in identifying the FSS?
>>>
>>> In the sense that you call something evidence, and not testimony, yes, I
>>> did answer that properly consituted authority is very welcome to proceed
>>> with investigations.
>>
>> Testimony of that nature would just recount the evidence for the court.
>> SuddenLink KNOWS who the imposter was, because they can match IP
>> addresses up to their usernames. Unlike AOL, SuddenLink uses static IP
>> addresses that rarely change, nor do they have the volume of log data to
>> purge like AOL does relatively quickly.
>>
>> SuddenLink will provide a name of who had the IP that made the imposter
>> posts. That will be good enough for the public and for the courts.
>
> That is indeed for the court to decide! Not you. But how will a court
> decide anything - are you going to bring a suit against anyone?
I already filed suit in February. Five defendants have been served. I'll
likely be adding another EEOC complaint soon, as the previous one may be
time-barred (due to what I alleged was a misrepresentation by USCF).
The FIRST subpoena I send out once discovery begins will be to SuddenLink,
though I might get everyone's story under oath first.
>>>>>Who else will emote most?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not emoting, I'm suing.
>>>
>>> Laugh. For purely intellectual reasons? Or are you angry? You illustrate
>>> my point very well.
>>
>> It's easy to laugh when someone else is being sued, I suppose. It was
>> easy for the imposter to laugh before it got caught, just as well.
>
> I am not laughing at you being impersonated - what I said is that you make
> plenty of noise /because/ you were impersonated - and its just possible
> that you were impersonated /because/ you would make lots of noise.
The reason I was impersonated is not relevant in that context, any more than
the reason a spouse was physically abused is relevant in a divorce case, or
a rapist's motivation in a rape case. Laws were broken regardless of the
motive.
I am also not Sam Sloan. I didn't name the State of Texas, the USA
government, etc. I would have liked to name Texas Tech and agree with Sloan
that they should not be immune from suit, but as a practical matter, that
would have made the litigation tremendously complicated.
Why he sued the federal government, however, is beyond me.
> Do you understand what that point of view?
>
>> I happen to be an Expert-rated chessplayer (at peak) who offers lessons,
>> and who is writing a book on the opening. That makes me a competitor
>> (Lanham Act) to other teachers, authors, and booksellers.
>>
>> Anyone whose financial interests are threatened by illegal conduct
>> generally considers suing. Add to that, that the imposter was inciting
>> the children of known organized-crime figures while appearing to be me,
>> clearing the record in court becomes even more necessary, lest the
>> organized-crime figure in question have any belief that it was me.
>
> Ok - I understand that you have a reputation to present to a court, and
> that if they consider it damaged, then they make chose to award
> recompensive damages.
It's not just reputation, as this is not just a libel case. Unlike Sloan's
lawsuit, mine is rooted in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(employment).
Truth is not a defense against anything but defamation.
>>>>> Do you, BTW, have the slightest interest in chess - if so, what is it?
>>>>> Is
>>>>
>>>> Current rating 1900, peak rating 2000, still very active in playing
>>>> online. I also wasn't as much of a "diversion" for the FSS, as I was
>>>> targeted only after I had raised concerns abou the Chess Life online
>>>> editor's job.
>>>
>>> Since you have made some [how many?] 400 posts on these subjects, I
>>> would say that that is plenty of diversion, not even counting your
>>> proposed law-suit.
>>
>> The FSS impersonating me was not a "diversion" but rather targeting me
>> directly.
>
> I understand you have been attacked directly. I do not mean you have been
> attacked indirectly, I mean that the direct attack on you is perhaps a
> diversion from the attack on Sloan.
No, it was a separate attack on me for a completely different motive.
Sloan could have unmasked the imposter years ago with a single lawsuit and
subpoena to AOL, yet didn't.
Sloan also did not name the SPF in his lawsuit, nor the CCA, despite his
having named their primary officers in his lawsuit.
> >> In my lawsuit, I showed temporal proximity between when I would
>> correspond with someone at USCF, and the imposter would strike. It was
>> almost to the day in some cases, and it was consistent throughout the
>> year or two it was going on.
>
> So what was the result of your lawsuit?
Nothing yet, as I just served some of the defendants and have a few left to
serve. As the world open is coming to town, I may ask for an extension to
serve CCA, which is also why I waited to serve the other defendants (so
everyone would be served not too far apart).
>> I meant argument ad POPULUM.
>>
>> I do write about chess, but the internet is about distribution, not
>> quality of content, sadly.
>
> Well... if that is to say what you write on chess is, in your own words,
> of little value here, then we agree.
I never said that, but you should watch the trade libel, or at least give
examples of my chess writing you consider so poor.
You don't hear me saying anything about your work.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Jun 2008 10:08:29
From: mstrhypno
Subject: Re: 5-9? Not 0-21?
|
On Jun 15, 6:24 pm, Paul Knight <[email protected] > wrote:
> I find it amusing that Ray is bragging about his .357 average (actually
> quite a bit lower). This is especially funny because most of the cases
> were thrown out with the first MTD. That is like a fighter bragging
> about losing two-thirds of his bouts, mostly by being knocked out with
> the first punch. How embarrassing.
>
> At least he has finally admitted to losing in court. Congratulations,
> Ray. Admitting your failures is the first step to recovery. Next, you
> have to admit that YOU have a problem.
What I'd like is for somebody to admit that this thread does NOT
belong on alt.hypnosis!
Yes, Ray's history in court is amusing in a serio-comedic sort of way,
but this thread really has nothing to do with hypnosis and really does
not belong here, does it?
Lee Darrow, C.H.
www.stagehypnosissafetyclass.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jun 2008 09:02:31
From: Vance
Subject: Re: 5-9, not 0-21
|
On Jun 15, 4:34 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> The previous poster believes the audience is stupid enough to believe it,
> even if the record shows otherwise.
>
> The previous poster also chooses to intentially lie about me despite
> knowing, or where it should know, the truth.
>
> Under its math, losing cases are counted up to four or five times (appeals
> and refilings after dismissal without prejudice), while ignoring cases where
> I have prevailed or settled.
>
> By involving itself in this case, however, those who post to this thread can
> and may very well find themselves involved in discovery to ascertain their
> motives for misleading others and attempting to affect the outcome of this
> case.
>
Gordon, I hate to break the news to you but:
1. Filing an appeal is a separate and independent case and counts
separately.
2. Refiling after dismissal is a separate legal case. One loss for
the dismissal.
It runs something like this:
One loss for the dismissal, one loss on the refiled case and one loss
on the appeal where a case runs its course. That's three dings.
One loss for a dismissal without refiling; one ding.
One loss where everything has been adjudicated and you just plain out
lost and didn't do anything but lick your wounds. Another ding.
You don't get, or lose, anything for a settlement. It's neutral. You
also don't lose anything for motions quashed, ruled against, or
anything else you did that failed within the evolution of the case.
It's only the terminal condition that counts.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for you. Ding, ding, ding.
Ding, ding. Ding.
Gordon, you call into question the proposition that mathematics is a
universal language we can use to communicate with alien life forms.
Vance
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jun 2008 10:35:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Just to cut to the issue here, all I said was that in addition to mocking
the Sloan, also mocking you was a noise-making device, and since you have
written about the issue at such length, then it was successful. I have no
idea if that was a deliberate strategm, but the effect is certainly evident.
> I was targeted in addition to Sloan, for other reasons, most involving my
> discrimination grievance over the Chess Life online editor hiring.
You ascribe motive as being a rejected suitor for the post of Editor of CL,
and then in your opinion, you were victimised for claiming 'discrimination'?
> Whether or not the board acted in conspiracy, as I alleged in my lawsuit,
I interupt your paragraph to wonder if this is the same subject? What
exactly was the basis for, in your opinion, the 'discrimination' practiced
against you - and was this exercised by the USCF board?
I have removed some other comments especially about the Sloan to better
review your own 'plaint.
> I filed suit in February, and have been serving the defendants this month.
> They include: Sloan, Channing, Polgar, Truong, Goichberg, USCF, SPF and
> CCA.
And is the suit about (a) said 'discrimination', or about (b) subsequent
impersonation?
>> Are you personally attempting a comment such as: the RSS is the same
>> [better .. worse.. ?] as the FSS?
>
> One more time: I said those who were so up in arms over the RSS's conduct
> (stuff like his personal website, which was legal), could then all but
> ignore what the FSS did.
I don't think that is a direct answer, but more on that below. You say
certain people obsessed over Sloan's site, which though legal occupied their
attention to the neglect of the FSS material. You also add a qualification
in 'all but ignore'.
> Same for me: I'm told that relatively tame postings of mine were somehow
> horrible, yet what was done while impersonating me was downright criminal.
OK - now you answer: that the FSS material was worse than the material the
FSS mocked - and the sense of your use of 'worse' is because it was illegal
impersonation, whereas those who complained about the Sloan site mentioned
it was merely lude, lubricious, and so on. I also pick up on that word
'impersonation', since you use it several times.
An impersonation is to imitate so as to deceive. With the Sloan material I
could usually tell the FSS from the RSS. Could you? The FSS used a technique
of satire which overstated features of the Sloan, rather like a visual
cartoonist over-emphasises features of a subject - the usual technique
deployed was to use low speech, direct and crass materials, so as to lampoon
the subject.
Personally I could tell the FSS immediately in 50% of cases by quickly
scanning the text, simply by the use of his language. Beyond that
not-so-subtle differences existed in language use, differences of direct and
indirect speech typical of the Sloan - just to mention the most obvious
aspects of the FSS material as would occur to anyone with a candid mind.
Was the impersonation of yourself of a similar nature, or something other?
> Those who applied these standards to me or to the RSS, if their stated
> reasons for doing so are consistent, would have to be far more against
> what the FSS did.
You subcribe others to motives but without saying why they 'would have to
be'.
Certainly one reason to discard so much of the FSS material is that it was
so obviously ignorable! What does one have to say to a troll, for example?
This is not to say it is not very objectionable material, both in its
content and its manner of deprecating named individuals - but as to ignoring
it, or not taking it seriously, it wants to be taken seriously, no - and in
noticing it, achieves the desire of its author.
As to motives of others, then it is at least possible that they felt the
Sloan material more objectionable /to them/ for whatever reasons they may
have had, but certainly including the fact that the Sloan held an elected
national office in chess. In this sense, it was a reaction to /role/ rather
than personality.
Whereas, you don't hold office and while you might not like it, perhaps
people didn't care so much for you, or your propsects on that basis?
Therefore it did not attract people's attention because it was merely
personal. Though of course, you must necessarily have a different point of
view.
> I don't have a 165 IQ, so I never learned what a "mixed matador" is.
It has two definitions: (a) a self-illustrating malapropism joking on mixed
metaphors and also that anyone who malaprops can hardly be expected to
describe themselves with mixing it all up, and (b) a gender
undifferentiating term used by Spanish new-age bull-fighters.
<... >
> No, I'm saying that those who took issue with my posts or the RSS's posts
> should take greater issue with the FSS, yet they don't.
Those moral imperatives! Its the 'should' in your sentence which is the
issue. I suggested above that this was because of the relative importance of
the social ROLE that Sloan played, while the FSS and yourself had no
significance in that respect.
> My lawsuit included several e-mails from one USCF board member that
> claimed that "ANYONE" who made "vile postings" would not be someone USCF
> would hire, yet the imposter may very well be someone they did hire and
> who they continue to do business with.
You have added your own comment to a paraphrase of a board member. I take it
that you say the board member wrote this:
"ANYONE" who made "vile postings" would not be someone USCF would hire
And the speculation which follows beginning "yet the imposter... " is your
own comment. If that is true, it is unclear to me if your intention is to
say that USCF /knowingly/ hired someone making vile postings - or if you
merely suppose that they do not know if their hirees had made vile postings,
but it could happen?
> I also have a count for fraud based on my allegation that the person who
> wrote me that e-mail knew quite well who the imposter was.
I see - jsut to be clear about your meaning, then you say the impersonator
[to use your own word] is known, but you do not say if the impersonator is
actually hired by USCF or someone USCF does business with. Is that right?
>>> Something tells me if someone went around impersonating Phil and
>>> threatening the children of known organized-crime figures, that he'd
>>> understand why it was wrong.
>>
>> I can understand why impersonating anyone is wrong. But that is all I can
>> understand from your writing.
>
> Phil seems to have much greater ability to understand what is written when
> he's bashing Sloan and the like.
Who is like Sloan? I am just trying to understand what you write and what
you know - in fact, to get you to name your nouns and generally define your
terms, interrogate your imperatives, and all in all, understand from your
own perspective what you think happened. This is a very difficult process
since you keep introducing new terms, themselves equivocal, such as 'bash',
which I suppose means anything from 'doesn't agree with' to 'sarcasticly
denigrate'.
> "Wrong" on what level? The laws say what the FSS did is criminal.
> Anonymous internet harassment, for example, is now a felony (since January
> 2007).
Ok. You have defined your own term!
---------
>>> SuddenLink will provide a name of who had the IP that made the imposter
>>> posts. That will be good enough for the public and for the courts.
>>
>> That is indeed for the court to decide! Not you. But how will a court
>> decide anything - are you going to bring a suit against anyone?
>
> I already filed suit in February. Five defendants have been served. I'll
> likely be adding another EEOC complaint soon, as the previous one may be
> time-barred (due to what I alleged was a misrepresentation by USCF).
>
> The FIRST subpoena I send out once discovery begins will be to SuddenLink,
> though I might get everyone's story under oath first.
As I wrote above, I don't think its necessary for me to comment on "will be
good enough for the public and for the courts", except to repeat that the
jury or collected justices say 'what is good enough'.
As for the public! Well - having undergone this experience, I wonder if you
have altogether too much trust in 'the public's opinion', since you actually
complain that they rather ignored offenses against you.
-------
>> I am not laughing at you being impersonated - what I said is that you
>> make plenty of noise /because/ you were impersonated - and its just
>> possible that you were impersonated /because/ you would make lots of
>> noise.
>
> The reason I was impersonated is not relevant in that context, any more
> than the reason a spouse was physically abused is relevant in a divorce
> case, or a rapist's motivation in a rape case. Laws were broken
> regardless of the motive.
Those are of course inflammatory references or parallelisms - let me light
one of my own, to say again that I observe that someone may hat lit a
diversionary fire, and you were it! I am not asking you to agree with me,
but I am stating their are /impersonal/ reasons why you should have suffered
abuse. Do you understand the difference?
---------
>> I understand you have been attacked directly. I do not mean you have been
>> attacked indirectly, I mean that the direct attack on you is perhaps a
>> diversion from the attack on Sloan.
>
> No, it was a separate attack on me for a completely different motive.
But look! Given long enough you completely copntradict yourself - I removed
a few hundred words to connect your very own comments on motive.
I expect any court will insist on investigating motive, both personal and
impersonal, and indeed, not be satisfied by whether others think motive is
relevent or not.
I leave the rest of this alone, since it continues on the subject of the
Sloan, and what he cudda done, and only note at the very end of the message
you presume to know my opinion, in fact, you invent it for me - here it is:
>> Well... if that is to say what you write on chess is, in your own words,
>> of little value here, then we agree.
>
> I never said that, but you should watch the trade libel, or at least give
> examples of my chess writing you consider so poor
It seems to me that I reflect to you your own and only anecdote on your
chess writing here - which was that you lost on time to an IM in 1990. I
didn't say your chess writing was poor! How could I?
I said that your chess writing seemed entirely absent.
Phil Innes
> Sloan could have unmasked the imposter years ago with a single lawsuit and
> subpoena to AOL, yet didn't.
>
> Sloan also did not name the SPF in his lawsuit, nor the CCA, despite his
> having named their primary officers in his lawsuit.
>
>
>> >> In my lawsuit, I showed temporal proximity between when I would
>>> correspond with someone at USCF, and the imposter would strike. It was
>>> almost to the day in some cases, and it was consistent throughout the
>>> year or two it was going on.
>>
>> So what was the result of your lawsuit?
>
> Nothing yet, as I just served some of the defendants and have a few left
> to serve. As the world open is coming to town, I may ask for an extension
> to serve CCA, which is also why I waited to serve the other defendants (so
> everyone would be served not too far apart).
>
>
>>> I meant argument ad POPULUM.
>>>
>>> I do write about chess, but the internet is about distribution, not
>>> quality of content, sadly.
>>
>> Well... if that is to say what you write on chess is, in your own words,
>> of little value here, then we agree.
>
> I never said that, but you should watch the trade libel, or at least give
> examples of my chess writing you consider so poor.
>
> You don't hear me saying anything about your work.
>
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
>
> Finding Your A-Game:
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
> The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
>
> Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
> http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
>
> Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
> http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
>
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods
> which no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they
> make from what they teach.
>
> Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
> http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
>
> Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
> contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
> targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and
> ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2008 22:50:02
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Gordon Roy Parker abandons all hope in his frivolous lawsuit
|
Gordon Roy Parker wrote under the stolen pseudonym 'Ray Gordon':
> I was targeted in addition to Sloan, for other reasons, most involving my
being a scumbag and object of general ridicule?
> Whether or not the board acted in conspiracy, as I alleged in my lawsuit,
it is natural for good people to appear to be in conspiracy when they unite
against the village cretin who is defecating in public places.
> They literally fiddled while Rome was burning
but Rome did not burn GRP enough, since the asshole is still able to post.
Shame, that.
> in the courts
where the judge will wonder why FRG left the kid gloves on when dealing
with
a fucking loser like Gord.
> have been serving the defendants this month
Not always successfully, lol, only 5 by my count.
> Took his breath away
You have had a premonition, I see? Your breath will soon be taken away.
> One more time: I said those who were so
sure that you are a pervert, were totally right.
> relatively tame postings of mine were somehow horrible
postings such as like the brutal rapes of underage gymnast girls.
> what was done while impersonating me was downright criminal
and FRG should be castigated for giving me such an easy ride.
> I don't have a IQ
- as y'all suspected.
> No, I'm saying that those who took issue with my posts
deserve congratulations and encouragement.
> My lawsuit included several e-mails
"Lawsuits" cannot include "e-mails", 'wipe.
> I also have a count for fraud
on the grounds of being a well-known fraudster and hold-up dude.
> Anonymous internet harassment, for example, is now a felony
which is why I conduct my harassment under the real name "Ray Gordon", lol.
> Five defendants have been served
but not the principal defendant.
> the previous one may be time-barred
just like wiser heads told me it would be.
> The FIRST subpoena I send out once discovery begins will be to
the old bitch Penny Skullcrack Parker for not drowning me at birth.
> The reason I was impersonated is
that Ray Gordon is a goddamn child-molesting cunt.
> a rapist's motivation in a rape
is something to which I give a good deal of thought every day.
> I am also not Sam Sloan
though Gordon Roy Parker impersonated Sam more than once, thinking that
no one would notice.
> I would have liked to name Texas Tech and
they would like you to go suck on the business end of a 45.
> that would have made the litigation tremendously complicated.
!haHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHa!
> I happen to be an Expert-rated chessplayer
while I am not being an olympic-rated weightlifter or pitching for the
Yankees.
> It's not just reputation, as
Gordon Roy Parker has none.
> this is not a libel case.
Sure right there.
> mine is rooted in
Gordon Roy Parker being a pathetic loser.
> Truth is not a defense against nothing but defamation.
!haHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHa!
> it was a separate attack on me for a completely different motive
which is that for most people the very existence of grp-ie on our planet
is an affront to human dignity and which must be remedied.
> Sloan could have
That has no relevance to anything. Are you an idiot?
> Sloan also did not
That also has no relevance to anything. Yes, you are an idiot.
> Nothing yet
Those words will serve as your epitaph, Porker. "Nothing yet"
> I have a few left
not when we are through with you, you won't have any left.
> I may ask for
a late abortion to be performed on my momma's corpse?
> why I waited to serve the other defendants (so everyone would
have a laugh at about the same time.)
> I never said that
OK, that can be on your tombstone too. "Nothing yet. I never said that"
> You don't hear me saying anything
because nothing important is ever said.
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods
but instead rely on the ravings of a virgin (blow-up dolls and twenty
buck whores excepted) and herpes-infested, basement-dwelling faggot.
So, have you paid Thom Geiger the money the Third Circuit court ordered
you to pay him? Why not?
|
|
