Having learned all he knows about Pokémon from Sam Sloan's websites, Parr naturally thought, circa June 2005, that Pokémon was some sort of soft porn cartoon. Hilarious--kindly let me know how much pornography you find on pokemon.com, Larry baby! (Or anyone else, for that matter: post [nonexistent] salacious links below....)
To find Pokémon porn mixed with kid-friendly links, one needs to visit Sam Sloan's website....
(What thought experiment involves Misty, Larry baby?)
Does the ephebophile Sloan seem to be fixated on sexualizing the barely pubescent (here, admittedly, barely pubescent cartoon characters, but he's reported his adventures with barely pubescent humans elsewhere)?
So far as we can reckon from Bill Brock's latest confused posting, he no longer wishes to discuss his charge that Sam Sloan is a child molester, never having produced proof of such.
Instead, Mr. Brock wants to change the subject to something involving poking and men or the Scots and North England usage of "mon." He says in one section of the posting that pokemon or, we assume, poking mon, is not pornographic but then says that it may be. Sounds dirty to us, but Mr. Brock says it is not in one breath and is in the next paragraph.
One difficulty that we experience with Mr. Brock is that this writer and he hail from different cultures. He comes up with references that mean nothing to me. What, for example, is "Misty." I recollect a Clint Eastwood movie from about 30 years ago called "Play Misty for Me." But otherwise, what IS the man going on about? We can't see the relationship between the Eastwood movie and Sam Sloan unless Mr. Brock is now trying to argue that Sam is a knife-wielding murderer. Tch. Tch.
The subject is whether Sam molested children, and we wish that Mr. Brock will at long last present the proof that he once promised.
Our recommendation is that we all go to www.downunderdvd.com, which is a wonderful site filled with great retro-entertainment disks. Perhaps the fevered Mr. Brock will then subside. He can order DVDs of Jimmy Lydon playing Henry Aldrich, and he can begin to have fun again in his life.
> Having learned all he knows about Pokémon from Sam Sloan's websites, > Parr naturally thought, circa June 2005, that Pokémon was some sort of > soft porn cartoon. Hilarious--kindly let me know how much pornography > you find on pokemon.com, Larry baby! (Or anyone else, for that matter: > post [nonexistent] s
> (What thought experiment involves Misty, Larry baby?)
> Does the ephebophile Sloan seem to be fixated on sexualizing the barely > pubescent (here, admittedly, barely pubescent cartoon characters, but > he's reported his adventures with barely pubescent humans elsewhere)?
So far as we can reckon from Bill Brock's latest confused posting, he no longer wishes to discuss his charge that Sam Sloan is a child molester, never having produced proof of such.
Instead, Mr. Brock wants to change the subject to something involving poking and men or the Scots and North England usage of "mon." He says in one section of the posting that pokemon or, we assume, poking mon, is not pornographic but then says that it may be. Sounds dirty to us, but Mr. Brock says it is not in one breath and is in the next paragraph.
----------- You do him a little justice since it is obvious to me that he is referring to the introduction of chess into England - not being confused by Huloet's misuse of the word in 1552, the right record is from none other than MS Douce (302, f. 29)
Of Frawnce he mad him anon regent, And we did Kateren in his present ; Into Englond anon he went.
Pretty boring so far, no? But here it is:-
And cround our quene in ryal aray. Of quen Kateryn our kyng was borne, To save our ry3t that was fore-lorne, Oure faders in Frawns had won beforne, That han hit hold moné a day.
Now - you will say this is not earliest use, but chess topically it is, and beats the more invested A. Sax verse:-
By a tale y shal 3ou mone, That fyl betwyx the fadyr and the sone.
/MS Harl. 1701 f. 8.
Which nevertheless gives us the useful rhyme with 'sone', and which we all forgot, Larry! We forgot even later words writ by Chaucer, who we discovered, scans! IF we pronounce that last 'e' syllable as an 'é', making an extra one.
You will also want to know the meaning of this earlier use, and amusingly it is: to explain, to admonish;
later absorbed into Anglo Norman as MONESTE; to admonish. The word MONGE is a red-herring from the West country and polluted with p-Celtic, and means to eat, to munch [fish].
Cordially, Phl Yns
--- One difficulty that we experience with Mr. Brock is that this writer and he hail from different cultures. He comes up with references that mean nothing to me. What, for example, is "Misty." I recollect a Clint Eastwood movie from about 30 years ago called "Play Misty for Me." But otherwise, what IS the man going on about? We can't see the relationship between the Eastwood movie and Sam Sloan unless Mr. Brock is now trying to argue that Sam is a knife-wielding murderer. Tch. Tch.
The subject is whether Sam molested children, and we wish that Mr. Brock will at long last present the proof that he once promised.
Our recommendation is that we all go to www.downunderdvd.com, which is a wonderful site filled with great retro-entertainment disks. Perhaps the fevered Mr. Brock will then subside. He can order DVDs of Jimmy Lydon playing Henry Aldrich, and he can begin to have fun again in his life.
> Having learned all he knows about Pokémon from Sam Sloan's websites, > Parr naturally thought, circa June 2005, that Pokémon was some sort of > soft porn cartoon. Hilarious--kindly let me know how much pornography > you find on pokemon.com, Larry baby! (Or anyone else, for that matter: > post [nonexistent] s
> (What thought experiment involves Misty, Larry baby?)
> Does the ephebophile Sloan seem to be fixated on sexualizing the barely > pubescent (here, admittedly, barely pubescent cartoon characters, but > he's reported his adventures with barely pubescent humans elsewhere)?
Discussion subject changed to "Both Innes and Parr find Sloan's site unproblematic, even though it's designed to introduce soft porn to minors...." by politikalhack@gmail.com
> Certainly you folks could find a non-felon whose sexual preferences run > to consenting *adults* to undermine USCF on your behalf....
Sir, as someone immune to any sense of what role they are playing in this scenario, I think you are rather more interested in this subject than is Sloan himself. You will have noted a certain resistance to view things your way by Parr and self, and in the same indifferent attention to what we have actually written, prefer to imagine and suspect.
For myself, I see that you reserve your opinion to discussing any standard of behavior with me, any 'ethic', as we say, either now or when you held a USCF office. Also for myself, and should I have to guess about this, absent any comment of your own, I would think your reason for not voting for any standard is that you might not obtain to it yourself.
Instead you take a symptom, and suggest that by eradicating it you will have solved something. How naive! Naive in both a personal sense, and also to what rather more serious people take as real threats to women and children in this country.
So while you are content to suppose away like this; (which includes some supposition that I know what is on Sloan's site or have some reason to visit it, distinct from being able to assess his character [and yours!] from very available behaviors practically everywhere else,) I wonder how sincere you actually are?
If it were me writing this way, I would want his work to be illegal, therefore prosecuting it under the law of the land, and I would also want his past behavior assessed in context - that it, that he stole his own daughter from a situation he, rightly or wrongly, thought unhealthy. Assuming the very worst in that case, that her situation did not warrant legal rebuke; even so, Sloan suffered the penalty already.
NOW - I am not in the personal habit of renting 100 porn videos at the local video outlet and then, having 'absorbed' such material, and on an on-going basis to 'keep in touch with contemporary debauchery', renting a new one every day - for the purposes of then setting up a picket outside the store so that people who perhaps don't know what's going on in there can then be aware that while they might be getting Sound of Music out yet again, the story also has titles like 'bad-barby and the beach-bums.'
In fact, despite my own regret that this material is available over the counter, my own enthusiasm to repress it might actually advertise the very thing I most dislike, and even more, people will think I am a prig, since it is not illegal to sell soft-porn or even hard-porn anywhere in any town in the United States of America - and the same junk is on late-night TV.
Of course, I could go to the school board and say we should not allow the proprietors of these stores to sit on committees that have to do with perpetuating negative and repressive stereo types, based on immature male adolescent fantasies enacted by grown-ups, and also that we should refuse money for scholarships from the cable company who show the same soft-porn, combined with a bit of schadenfreude treatment of women and children.
I would expect a lively constitutional debate - where freedom of speech would contend with security of those offended. In fact I did sit on a local board in this county which discussed such affairs, and which had directly to do with those who prey on children, with drugs sex and varieties of allurements to get some control over them.
But if USCF were to conduct this conversation [and I asked them to] then I imagine that they would have issued some sort of standard; a public statement which supercedes the law of the land, which is the /lowest/ level of socially acceptable behavior, and instead adopt an ethical basis which would represent the /optimal/ standard of behavior.
And I did just this! Including sending materials to the board and also discussing it for more than an hour on the phone with the Ex. Dir.
AFAIK, you did nothing, even though at the time you ran a USCF committee. USCF also did nothing to avert any perceived or real current embarrassments. They did not even /acknowledge/ my complaints to them!
Instead you wish to eliminate a symptom of juvenilia, and by scapegoating only that, absolved yourself from any effort or even culpability in a certain kind of obsessionalism which reminds me of quite literal witch-hunts in Elizabethan times, as if the witches were utterly evil, and those who wished to burn them alive were jolly saint-like people.
I am stating that 'your issue' is a societal one, and a resentment of laissez-faire in public mores. If you are sincere in anything you write that has to benefit those currently insulted, then I would encourage a deeper to those who /actually/ affront women and children, who are very very often, not obvious persons at all, and the result of removing surface symptoms is to drive an issue back underground
- RATHER THAN -
the more apposite response of stating that these affronts are not only substantial in our society, but they are on the increase, and increasingly devious - and therefore, we need to adopt higher than minimum standards in our institutions for those who would have anything to do with administrations of women and children. This has already happened in women's prisons in the USA, which still rank very high in the world - and the Christian Science Monitor made the very unwelcome report that Amnesty International put USA into the same list as, eg, the Kalmyk republik and Iraq.
We cannot change the law of the land, but we can control those would join our institutions to require a standard of our liking. During your tenure at USCF you did nothing to air such a standard, and neither was the board at all responsive to the issue.
That then, is my challenge, otherwise you certainly do not speak for those concerned for affronts to women and children in chess - since when you could do something, you did not. My challenge is to be less trite, and attend to what needs be done, and as a basis of any standard I suggest that the perspective of those most offended constituencies are the primary ones - which means at the very least consulting with them to assess the extent of the issues, as well as listening to their own sense of remedies. This, I submit, would be sincere, and nothing less is other than hot air.
politikalh...@gmail.com wrote: > So who do you believe, Sloan or S. Polgar?
Polgar claims that, while a minor, Sloan sexually propositioned her.
WRT Polgar, I do not claim that Sloan's proposition was illegal. As Sloan has shown, the age of consent in Hungary is 14. Sloan has twice intimated that a sexual relationship was in fact consummated. (Both intimations were made in the course of conducting USCF business--rather strange.) One might infer that both parties agree that a proposition was made.
Adults should not sexually proposition minors. How's that for a standard, kiddo?
***
I realize that Parr and Innes are transparent in their desire to destroy USCF. But they should not feel wedded to Sloan: they can find a more ethical agent of destruction.
Do Innes and Parr endorse an individual who admittedly sexually propositions minors as a fit fiduciary for an organization with 45,000+ minors among its members? Bear in mind that a fiduciary duty is "the highest standard of care imposed at either equity or law."
