Discussion:
Are the Polgar vs. USCF Cases about to settle?
(too old to reply)
madams
2009-11-11 22:44:20 UTC
Permalink
I wish to point out that during the mediation process all pending
motions were stayed. These included motions to remove Karl
Kronenberger as the USCF's counsel and Polgar's motion to dismiss the
USCF's case on the grounds of ultra virus in that it was not
authorized.
-----
I wish, wish, wish (fingers crossed, cob-in-arse..)....
All corsets stayed, krone's bowels, Polgar-turbo-shit..
B-dissed, cawfee-granules, swine-vaccine (bewished.. b)
The pigfat-farted....FRRrtt...NOfrrtt..nOfrrt oinc.k !
_____
zzzzzzz...
madams
2009-11-12 00:45:49 UTC
Permalink
jkh001 wrote:
.
I think Sloan could make a real contribution to the Chinese economy.
They're always in the market for organs to harvest.
------

Penis envy - John ?

______
jkh001
2009-11-12 02:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by madams
.
I think Sloan could make a real contribution to the Chinese economy.
They're always in the market for organs to harvest.
------
Penis envy - John ?
______
Since the Sloon's useful organs withered away long ago, hardly. Of
course, his brain went first.
The Masked Bishop
2009-11-12 12:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Ah, yes. The old can't-we-all-just-get-along speech. I know it
well. <

Oh no, I would never suggest that you all get along! That's too
boring. The idea was that there's no debating someone whose notion of
a riposte is to call you a funny and then run back behind a tree.

With that said, at this point Sam Sloan is easily the most skilled
debater on this board, because he sticks to (his version) of the
issues.

Just a thought...and thanks Matt, good to be back.

TMB
jkh001
2009-11-13 00:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Masked Bishop
Ah, yes.  The old can't-we-all-just-get-along speech.  I know it
well. <
Oh no, I would never suggest that you all get along! That's too
boring. The idea was that there's no debating someone whose notion of
a riposte is to call you a funny and then run back behind a tree.
With that said, at this point Sam Sloan is easily the most skilled
debater on this board, because he sticks to (his version) of the
issues.
Just a thought...and thanks Matt, good to be back.
TMB
Not everyone is worthy of rational debate. Those with an impaired
reality test must simply be ignored or ridiculed. Sloan proved himself
to be in that category years ago. If you are really suggesting that
the rest of us should coddle his delusions, where exactly do you want
to draw the line? Marcus Roberts? David Ickes? Lyndon LaRouche? You
can debate people like that if you wish, but don't expect the rest of
us to go along.
The Masked Bishop
2009-11-13 02:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
If you are really suggesting that
the rest of us should coddle his delusions,<

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that acting like name-
calling ten-year olds is even worse that posting delusions. If the
notions aren't worth debating, ignore them.

I know, it's a reach.
jkh001
2009-11-14 07:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Masked Bishop
Post by jkh001
If you are really suggesting that
the rest of us should coddle his delusions,<
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that acting like name-
calling ten-year olds is even worse that posting delusions.  If the
notions aren't worth debating, ignore them.
I know, it's a reach.
I have some sympathy with that view. The problem is that a
loggorhoetic narcissist like Sloan is going to flood all available
channels with his lunacies. Often, he sounds superficially rational if
you don't know the facts, If he's not debunked, he'll end up being
quoted later as an "authority." Stomp him like a cockroach, /then/
ignore him.
RayGordon
2009-11-18 03:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by The Masked Bishop
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that acting like name-
calling ten-year olds is even worse that posting delusions. If the
notions aren't worth debating, ignore them.
I know, it's a reach.
I have some sympathy with that view.
Only when others use the tactic against HIM. A little Boolean logic
unravels the darker motive.
Post by jkh001
The problem is that a
loggorhoetic narcissist like Sloan
With “narcissist” defined at someone better at drawing crowds than
he. How DARE people pay attention to Sloan!!

The underlying premise is that “John” should be the one to determine
Sloan’s level of self-esteem, an attempt at social dominance which is
actually rather predatory.
Post by jkh001
is going to flood all available
channels with his lunacies.
The term “lunacy” is what they call SLANTED language, used to
establish false premise for discrediting it, or a false “need” to
counteract it, which, of course, could be done LOGICALLY, without the
insults, most of which are thought by actual debaters to be a sign
that one is LOSING an argument, and is just making noise to disguise
that.
Post by jkh001
Often, he sounds superficially rational if
you don't know the facts,
He SOUNDS that way at times, because he IS that way, at times. That’s
the point of DEBATING. “John” is actually insulting the AUDIENCE, by
claiming that it doesn’t know how to think for itself, and needs him
to “inform” it.

This is also the guy who felt the need to post a DEATH THREAT against
me (people DO go to prisons for that stuff), with similar
justification (in his mind), literally at risk to his freedom. As a
rule, men don’t risk prison or lawsuits unless something BIG is at
stake.

This raises the question: what IS his stake here that would cause him
to take such risks?
Post by jkh001
If he's not debunked, he'll end up being
quoted later as an "authority." Stomp him like a cockroach, /then/
ignore him.
“John” has some seriously violent ideations here, and it’s not the
first time. His basic premise – that his words carry more weight than
any other voice on this group – is flawed, and used only to justify
his abusive, if not illegal, behavior.

I do know that a pattern is emerging where several individuals with
current or former ties to USCF are harassing me on this group, to the
point where another round of litigation (if not outright criminal
complaints) may be in order.

Maybe “John” has been so isolated for so long, he doesn’t understand
that what might sound innocuous when spoken among equally impotent
chess geeks can lead to some serious legal consequences in regular
company. Saw his type lots of time in the chess world: one got
verbally aggressive with me at a tournament skittles room until I took
two steps in his direction, only to find a sheepish offer of a
handshake.

This thread has definitely strengthened my resolve NOT to settle this
case, something I was open to until “Teddybear,” JKH, and Double-D
started their shit again. I hope USCF and the Polgars are aware of
why this case will be continuing. They have no one but these three to
thank.
Matt Nemmers
2009-11-18 04:28:21 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 17, 10:24 pm, RayGordon <***@cybersheet.com> wrote:

He's ba-aaaaack.....!

Please stay tuned for your daily dose of sarcasm.
Post by RayGordon
The term “lunacy” is what they call SLANTED language, used to
establish false premise for discrediting it, or a false “need” to
counteract it, which, of course, could be done LOGICALLY, without the
insults, most of which are thought by actual debaters to be a sign
that one is LOSING an argument, and is just making noise to disguise
that.
Yes!

The "man" who spams this NG and others with such riveting and thought-
provoking posts like, "SUSAN POLGAR IS A CUNT" is clearly the person
by which all our moral posting barometers should be governed.
Post by RayGordon
Post by jkh001
Often, he sounds superficially rational if
you don't know the facts,
He SOUNDS that way at times, because he IS that way, at times.  That’s
the point of DEBATING.   “John” is actually insulting the AUDIENCE, by
claiming that it doesn’t know how to think for itself, and needs him
to “inform” it.
Yes!

The "man" who has consistently and exasperatingly taken pains to try
and PROVE why everyone on this forum is wrong and HIS point of view is
the only rational one -- despite HARD evidence indicating otherwise --
is most certainly the person people here should listen to about what
constitutes rational debate.
Post by RayGordon
This is also the guy who felt the need to post a DEATH THREAT against
me (people DO go to prisons for that stuff), with similar
justification (in his mind), literally at risk to his freedom.  As a
rule, men don’t risk prison or lawsuits unless something BIG is at
stake.
Yes!

The "man" who has threatened civil and criminal litigation against
nearly every one of his detractors here yet has never once even
properly served any of them and never actually won a SINGLE case he's
actually gotten before a judge should be taken VERY seriously when he
interprets the law and defines what constitutes an actionable offense.
Post by RayGordon
Post by jkh001
If he's not debunked, he'll end up being
quoted later as an "authority." Stomp him like a cockroach, /then/
ignore him.
“John” has some seriously violent ideations here, and it’s not the
first time.  His basic premise – that his words carry more weight than
any other voice on this group – is flawed, and used only to justify
his abusive, if not illegal, behavior.
Yes!

The "man" who has threatened the lives of teenage gymnasts, wished the
death of children under the age of ten, and justified the attacks of
September 11, 2001 is the one we all should look to to gague what is
"abusive" and "illegal" behavior.
Post by RayGordon
I do know that a pattern is emerging where several individuals with
current or former ties to USCF are harassing me on this group, to the
point where another round of litigation (if not outright criminal
complaints) may be in order.
Yes!

The "man" who has yet to even show damages for alleged libel and not
yet filed a coherent complaint should be absolutely taken at his word
when he says he means business.
Post by RayGordon
Maybe “John” has been so isolated for so long, he doesn’t understand
that what might sound innocuous when spoken among equally impotent
chess geeks can lead to some serious legal consequences in regular
company.  Saw his type lots of time in the chess world: one got
verbally aggressive with me at a tournament skittles room until I took
two steps in his direction, only to find a sheepish offer of a
handshake.
Yes!

The "man" who hasn't played a real game of chess in almost two decades
-- so this alleged confrontation had to have taken place when he was
half the age he is now -- should frighten everybody here because he is
VERY strong and tough and imposing and scary and HE MEANS BUSINESS!
Post by RayGordon
This thread has definitely strengthened my resolve NOT to settle this
case, something I was open to until “Teddybear,” JKH, and Double-D
started their shit again.  I hope USCF and the Polgars are aware of
why this case will be continuing.  They have no one but these three to
thank.
Yes!

The "man" who got involved in this "high profile litigation" simply
because his pseudonym was brought up in court filings should expect to
see a WINDFALL of money on the coat-tails of those *actually* involved
in the case (despite the fact that he can't prove damages) because
he's GORDON ROY PARKER: PRO-SE LITIGANT EXTRAORDINAIRE!

.....

<sigh>

Despite the fact nobody -- NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HERE OR ANYWHERE --
believes him, supports him, or thinks he can back up all the
outrageous claims he purports on here, he's never going to stop
talking out his ass, is he?

Attention whores: Gotta love 'em.
jkh001
2009-11-18 09:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by The Masked Bishop
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that acting like name-
calling ten-year olds is even worse that posting delusions.  If the
notions aren't worth debating, ignore them.
I know, it's a reach.
I have some sympathy with that view.
Only when others use the tactic against HIM.  A little Boolean logic
unravels the darker motive.
Post by jkh001
The problem is that a
loggorhoetic narcissist like Sloan
With “narcissist” defined at someone better at drawing crowds than
he.  How DARE people pay attention to Sloan!!
The underlying premise is that “John” should be the one to determine
Sloan’s level of self-esteem, an attempt at social dominance which is
actually rather predatory.
Post by jkh001
is going to flood all available
channels with his lunacies.
The term “lunacy” is what they call SLANTED language, used to
establish false premise for discrediting it, or a false “need” to
counteract it, which, of course, could be done LOGICALLY, without the
insults, most of which are thought by actual debaters to be a sign
that one is LOSING an argument, and is just making noise to disguise
that.
Post by jkh001
Often, he sounds superficially rational if
you don't know the facts,
He SOUNDS that way at times, because he IS that way, at times.  That’s
the point of DEBATING.   “John” is actually insulting the AUDIENCE, by
claiming that it doesn’t know how to think for itself, and needs him
to “inform” it.
This is also the guy who felt the need to post a DEATH THREAT against
me (people DO go to prisons for that stuff), with similar
justification (in his mind), literally at risk to his freedom.  As a
rule, men don’t risk prison or lawsuits unless something BIG is at
stake.
This raises the question: what IS his stake here that would cause him
to take such risks?
Post by jkh001
If he's not debunked, he'll end up being
quoted later as an "authority." Stomp him like a cockroach, /then/
ignore him.
“John” has some seriously violent ideations here, and it’s not the
first time.  His basic premise – that his words carry more weight than
any other voice on this group – is flawed, and used only to justify
his abusive, if not illegal, behavior.
I do know that a pattern is emerging where several individuals with
current or former ties to USCF are harassing me on this group, to the
point where another round of litigation (if not outright criminal
complaints) may be in order.
Maybe “John” has been so isolated for so long, he doesn’t understand
that what might sound innocuous when spoken among equally impotent
chess geeks can lead to some serious legal consequences in regular
company.  Saw his type lots of time in the chess world: one got
verbally aggressive with me at a tournament skittles room until I took
two steps in his direction, only to find a sheepish offer of a
handshake.
This thread has definitely strengthened my resolve NOT to settle this
case, something I was open to until “Teddybear,” JKH, and Double-D
started their shit again.  I hope USCF and the Polgars are aware of
why this case will be continuing.  They have no one but these three to
thank.
That's right, I have an axe to grind. An old-fashioned fondness for
truth and sanity. Since Raygor's only contact with chess in the last
13 years has been exchanging insults with other rgcp trolls, I doubt
he's in any position to opine on either Sam Sloan's credibility, or
the conduct those of us who actually run tournaments would tolerate in
a skittles room. Of course, unlike Sloan, there's no particular need
to debunk the Gorgon. His references to "DEATH THREATS" (tm, be sure
to capitalize) are enough to put him in the Official Monster Raving
Loony category. (Paranoids of the world unite! You have nothing to
lose but your sanity!)
Teddybear
2009-11-18 13:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by jkh001
Post by The Masked Bishop
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that acting like name-
calling ten-year olds is even worse that posting delusions. If the
notions aren't worth debating, ignore them.
I know, it's a reach.
I have some sympathy with that view.
Only when others use the tactic against HIM. A little Boolean logic
unravels the darker motive.
OH please tell us what that darker motive might be oh wise one......
Post by jkh001
The problem is that a
loggorhoetic narcissist like Sloan
With “narcissist” defined at someone better at drawing crowds than
he. How DARE people pay attention to Sloan!!
? The underlying premise is that “John” should be the one to determine
Post by jkh001
Sloan’s level of self-esteem, an attempt at social dominance which is
actually rather predatory.
Look who's talking! Pot, meet Kettle..
Post by jkh001
is going to flood all available
channels with his lunacies.
The term “lunacy” is what they call SLANTED language, used to
establish false premise for discrediting it, or a false “need” to
counteract it, which, of course, could be done LOGICALLY, without the
insults, most of which are thought by actual debaters to be a sign
that one is LOSING an argument, and is just making noise to disguise
that.
One cannot use logic, with the illogical. Sloan feels it's necessary to
post everything in his life on every group that he has the remotest interest
in. Who cares what is going on in some lawsuit over who knows what in
California? it has nothing to do with the purpose of this group. Sort of
like the garbage you post and cross post all over the internet when you want
attention. One does not have to have a degree in psychology to know an
attention whore when it manefests itself.
Post by jkh001
Often, he sounds superficially rational if
you don't know the facts,
He SOUNDS that way at times, because he IS that way, at times. That’s
the point of DEBATING. “John” is actually insulting the AUDIENCE, by
claiming that it doesn’t know how to think for itself, and needs him
to “inform” it.
This is also the guy who felt the need to post a DEATH THREAT against
me (people DO go to prisons for that stuff), with similar
justification (in his mind), literally at risk to his freedom. As a
rule, men don’t risk prison or lawsuits unless something BIG is at
stake.
Ohhhh, another claim of a DEATH THREAT (note the capitals) which is
unspecified and if history serves us, probably not a threat at all. Like
the "death threats" that were supposed to be in that letter that was sent to
his mother, and later turned out to contain only the truth of what he has
been doing for years. Are we supposed to pity poor gordie now, because he's
scared of the big bad wolf?
Post by jkh001
This raises the question: what IS his stake here that would cause him
to take such risks?
Maybe he just doesn't like you, and your bombast. Did you ever think about
that gordie?
Post by jkh001
If he's not debunked, he'll end up being
quoted later as an "authority." Stomp him like a cockroach, /then/
ignore him.
“John” has some seriously violent ideations here, and it’s not the
first time. His basic premise – that his words carry more weight than
any other voice on this group – is flawed, and used only to justify
his abusive, if not illegal, behavior.
Abusive, hmmm, like all that stuff you posted on the gymnastics group? you
mean abusive like that?
Post by jkh001
I do know that a pattern is emerging where several individuals with
current or former ties to USCF are harassing me on this group, to the
point where another round of litigation (if not outright criminal
complaints) may be in order.
Ok, he's almost finished with his list of whines, and threats that are
typical of his posts, so here it comes.........
Post by jkh001
Maybe “John” has been so isolated for so long, he doesn’t understand
that what might sound innocuous when spoken among equally impotent
chess geeks can lead to some serious legal consequences in regular
company. Saw his type lots of time in the chess world: one got
verbally aggressive with me at a tournament skittles room until I took
two steps in his direction, only to find a sheepish offer of a
handshake.
I cannot imagine gordie in a social setting, and why would anyone at a
tournament say such things to him anyway, unless he was displaying his
typical abrasive pattern?
Post by jkh001
This thread has definitely strengthened my resolve NOT to settle this
case, something I was open to until “Teddybear,” JKH, and Double-D
started their shit again. I hope USCF and the Polgars are aware of
why this case will be continuing. They have no one but these three to
thank.
BINGO, he has now exhausted his list of typical threats, this time he's
going to carry on a lawsuit because uninvolved parties laugh at his threats.
Uh huh....LOL

Who is Double D? Or is that someone from another group? I see he's cross
posted to 5 groups including alt.morons. How appropriate!

Loading...