FIDE Views on the USA and the Polgar Problems

[samsloan]

When I was at the World Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiyak, Siberia in
September 2010, I asked the delegate from Hungary about this. I am
quite aware that Zsuzsa Polgar had a very bad reputation in her own
country and they were quite happy to see her leave, so I thought he
might have some sympathy for the problems the USCF have had with her.

However, he replied that not only Hungary but all the countries in
FIDE have a very low opinion of USCF politics and therefore they pay
little or no attention to anything to come out of the USA. The USA is
respected in FIDE for being the most powerful country in the world but
only for that.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

As best I recall there was no provision that Susan Polgar could
continue to represent the USCF in FIDE Events. I do recall it was said
that Susan Polgar could continue to play chess as a non-USCF member.
However, she has not played a rated tournament game of chess since
2006 and those were just blitz events so this does not matter.

Incidentally, the study by Ken Reagan showing the similarity between
the moves played by certain players and computer generated moves shows
a high similarity of Polgar's moves to computer generated moves. Over
80% of her moves are the same, more than any male grandmaster. Polgar
was expelled from ICC (the Internet Chess Club) for computer cheating
so this raises some doubts about her playing.

The real issue is that Polgar continues to serve as Co-chairman of the
FIDE Woman's Commission, a fact that she proudly trumpets on her
websites all the time. Since she is a US player, even though she is
not a USCF member, the USCF could insist that she be removed from that
position. However, having attended FIDE Congresses myself, I know that
most FIDE delegates have a poor opinion of the USCF. I think there is
an article in ChessBase that calls the USCF "a terrible" organization.
So, I think it is probably not good diplomacy for the USCF to insist
that Polgar be kicked off. Also, the FIDE Woman's Commission is a do-
nothing organization with no powers. They just meet once every two
years to discuss issues regarding woman's chess but do nothing, so
there is no real harm in letting Polgar keep that position.

[samsloan]

[quote="ChessSpawn"][quote="tsawmiller"][quote="samsloan"]
[quote="tsawmiller"][quote="samsloan"]
Incidentally, the study by Ken Reagan showing the similarity between
the moves played by certain players and computer generated moves shows
a high similarity of Polgar's moves to computer generated moves. Over
80% of her moves are the same, more than any male grandmaster. Polgar
was expelled from ICC (the Internet Chess Club) for computer cheating
so this raises some doubts about her playing.
[/quote]
Is this documented anywhere?[/quote]

Is The New York Times good enough for you?[/quote]
Sure. Do you have a link to it?[/quote]
I just re-read Dylan McClain's article on this. It makes no mention
whatsoever of Susan Polgar or ICC.[/quote]

There was a link on the NY Times website showing 200 players and the
percentage of times their moves corresponded with the move the
computer picked.

Some of the players were historical. For example Bobby Fischer had a
high correlation with the computer picked moves. This was, of course,
because Bobby Fischer was a strong player. Computers did not exist
back when he was playing.

I believe that Emanuel Lasker had a high correlation among the
historical players. This is surprising because it has long been
thought that Lasker was a mere coffee-house player who played weak
moves to trick his opponents.

At the very top of the list was Susan Polgar. Her games had the
highest correlation with computer moves of any grandmaster. Since
Susan has rarely played in recent years I wonder what games of hers
were checked.

I can no longer find the list on the nytimes.com website. Perhaps
Susan Polgar has threatened to sue them so they took it down.

The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
article.

[Greegor]

Post by samsloan
[quote="ChessSpawn"][quote="tsawmiller"][quote="samsloan"]
[quote="tsawmiller"][quote="samsloan"]
Incidentally, the study by Ken Reagan showing the similarity between
the moves played by certain players and computer generated moves shows
a high similarity of Polgar's moves to computer generated moves. Over
80% of her moves are the same, more than any male grandmaster. Polgar
was expelled from ICC (the Internet Chess Club) for computer cheating
so this raises some doubts about her playing.
[/quote]
Is this documented anywhere?[/quote]
Is The New York Times good enough for you?[/quote]
Sure.  Do you have a link to it?[/quote]
I just re-read Dylan McClain's article on this. It makes no mention
whatsoever of Susan Polgar or ICC.[/quote]
There was a link on the NY Times website showing 200 players and the
percentage of times their moves corresponded with the move the
computer picked.
Some of the players were historical. For example Bobby Fischer had a
high correlation with the computer picked moves. This was, of course,
because Bobby Fischer was a strong player. Computers did not exist
back when he was playing.
I believe that Emanuel Lasker had a high correlation among the
historical players. This is surprising because it has long been
thought that Lasker was a mere coffee-house player who played weak
moves to trick his opponents.
At the very top of the list was Susan Polgar. Her games had the
highest correlation with computer moves of any grandmaster. Since
Susan has rarely played in recent years I wonder what games of hers
were checked.
I can no longer find the list on the nytimes.com website. Perhaps
Susan Polgar has threatened to sue them so they took it down.
The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
article.

How did their computer cheating work?
Did she have a speaker in her ear and
a camera in her glasses or in her hairdo
to let her confederate back in the hotel
room see the board and search out moves
on the computer?

The exact details of their method would
be very amusing.

I would think that mainframe computers
could have been used as far back as the
1960's though at considerable cost for
service and long distance telephone service.

I am not a Chess player but my understanding
is that computer chess moves have always
been inferior to high level human players
up until IBM's recent success.

Is there an ulterior reason for these people
to go to all of that trouble just to pass
themselves off as sophisticated chess players?

Would they have obtained winnings at that level
of play that would have made the subterfuge
worth the trouble and expense?

Espionage type behavior to what ends??

[samsloan]

Post by Greegor

Post by samsloan
[quote="ChessSpawn"][quote="tsawmiller"][quote="samsloan"]
[quote="tsawmiller"][quote="samsloan"]
Incidentally, the study by Ken Reagan showing the similarity between
the moves played by certain players and computer generated moves shows
a high similarity of Polgar's moves to computer generated moves. Over
80% of her moves are the same, more than any male grandmaster. Polgar
was expelled from ICC (the Internet Chess Club) for computer cheating
so this raises some doubts about her playing.
[/quote]
Is this documented anywhere?[/quote]
Is The New York Times good enough for you?[/quote]
Sure.  Do you have a link to it?[/quote]
I just re-read Dylan McClain's article on this. It makes no mention
whatsoever of Susan Polgar or ICC.[/quote]
There was a link on the NY Times website showing 200 players and the
percentage of times their moves corresponded with the move the
computer picked.
Some of the players were historical. For example Bobby Fischer had a
high correlation with the computer picked moves. This was, of course,
because Bobby Fischer was a strong player. Computers did not exist
back when he was playing.
I believe that Emanuel Lasker had a high correlation among the
historical players. This is surprising because it has long been
thought that Lasker was a mere coffee-house player who played weak
moves to trick his opponents.
At the very top of the list was Susan Polgar. Her games had the
highest correlation with computer moves of any grandmaster. Since
Susan has rarely played in recent years I wonder what games of hers
were checked.
I can no longer find the list on the nytimes.com website. Perhaps
Susan Polgar has threatened to sue them so they took it down.
The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
article.

How did their computer cheating work?
Did she have a speaker in her ear and
a camera in her glasses or in her hairdo
to let her confederate back in the hotel
room see the board and search out moves
on the computer?
The exact details of their method would
be very amusing.
I would think that mainframe computers
could have been used as far back as the
1960's though at considerable cost for
service and long distance telephone service.
I am not a Chess player but my understanding
is that computer chess moves have always
been inferior to high level human players
up until IBM's recent success.
Is there an ulterior reason for these people
to go to all of that trouble just to pass
themselves off as sophisticated chess players?
Would they have obtained winnings at that level
of play that would have made the subterfuge
worth the trouble and expense?
Espionage type behavior to what ends??

I used to be a computer chess programmer and my computer chess program
competed in the 1986 World Computer Championship in Cologne Germany.
My program only won one game but we were cheated in another game.

At that time the strongest computers in the world were about 2100
strength. In 1980, the best computer programs in the world were not
even Class C strength.

David Levy, whose strength is about 2300, did not lost his famous bet
until 1989:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Levy_%28chess_player%29#Computer_chess_bet

When Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were expelled for computer cheating,
they were playing online while using a computer. The interesting
querstion is how was ICC able to detect that they were using a
computer. It is possible that the computer program they were running
was being run on the same computer that they were playing on. In that
case, it should have been easy to detect. The other possibility is
that their moves were similar to the moves a computer program played.
This is the method that Ken Reagan used to confirm cheating by three
French players during the world Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk in
2010.

Here is the list.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/19/science/chess-players-whose-moves-most-matched-computers.html
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/WCallperfs.txt

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="Crume"][quote="samsloan"][quote="Brian Mottershead"]Randy, I
would also like to know whether the USCF has notified the FIDE of
Polgar's status. If you know, perhaps you would be kind enough to
answer. I am getting the impression from your previous answers in
this thread that you do know, but it isn't clear.

On a different point, it isn't clear whether Polgar's FIDE offices
depend on her having the approval of the federation with which she is
associated. Do you have an opinion on that question?[/quote]

It is an absolute fact that under FIDE rules, Susan Polgar cannot
serve as Co-Chairman of the FIDE Woman's Commission if the USCF
Objects.

Since Susan Polgar is still Co-Chairman of the FIDE Woman's
Commission, this means that the USCF has not objected.

Being a member of the USCF is not relevant. Many FIDE member nations
do not have memberships or membership dues. Thus the USA doctor who
serves on the FIDE Medical Commission does not have to be a dues-
paying USCF Member. However, if the USCF objects to his presence he
will be removed from that commission.[/quote]

Yes, well, enforcement of the objection is another matter.[/quote]

Not true. At the 2010 FIDE Congress in Khanty-Mansiysk Siberia which I
attended, if the US Delegation had objected to Susan Polgar being the
Co-Chairman of the FIDE Woman's Commission, she would have been
removed immediately.

I think the reason the US Delegate did not object was they saw Zsuzsa
hobnobbing with all those famous chess personalities so they thought
it diplomatically wise not to make a stink. I think that Goichberg was
angry with Bill Kelleher for this reason and that is why Kelleher lost
his FIDE Position and was not made USA Zone President, when he was by
far the most qualified person.

[samsloan]

Here is the New York Times Article and then the list:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/19/science/chess-players-whose-moves-most-matched-computers.html
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/WCallperfs.txt

As you can see, Susan Polgar is right at the top. The games used were
her 1996 match for the World Chess Championship against Xie Jun.

Below her is Kramnik and the games used were his match for the world
championship against Topalov where Topalov accused Kramnik of computer
cheating.

It is interesting that the highest percentage for a historical player
were by Emanual Lasker for his match against Marshall. Lasker died in
1941 long before chess computers were invented so he could not have
been computer cheating.

Sam Sloan
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/WCallperfs.txt

[Your smrat ®]

Post by samsloan
The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
article.

According to sworn documents filed by Spam Splooge in the case Sloan v
Truong Polgar Channing etcetera and so on, verified complaint, page 6
paragraph 17:

"Detractors also say that both he [truong] and Susan Polgar have been
expelled for computer cheating from several Internet chess playing
servers, including the Internet Chess Club (“ICC”) and US Chess Live.
Plaintiff [sloan] has no idea which of these claims are true and which
are not, because all of these claims, both positive and negative, have
proven to be unverifiable."

http://www.anusha.com/truong-polgar-lawsuit.pdf

In 2008 Sloan swore under penalty of perjury that he had no personal
knowledge of the truth or falsity of the cheating allegation and that
there was no available proof on the matter. Here on 2012 he claims
that the cheating allegation is a "fact," the truth of which he has
personal knowledge, based on Truong's contemporaneous admission. Both
statements cannot be true. So either Scam lied under oath in 2008, in
which case he is guilty of perjury, or he is lying now, in which case
his pants are on fire.

[samsloan]

Post by Your smrat ®

Post by samsloan
The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
article.

According to sworn documents filed by Spam Splooge in the case Sloan v
Truong Polgar Channing etcetera and so on, verified complaint, page 6
"Detractors also say that both he [truong] and Susan Polgar have been
expelled for computer cheating from several Internet chess playing
servers, including the Internet Chess Club (“ICC”) and US Chess Live.
Plaintiff [sloan] has no idea which of these claims are true and which
are not, because all of these claims, both positive and negative, have
proven to be unverifiable."
http://www.anusha.com/truong-polgar-lawsuit.pdf
In 2008 Sloan swore under penalty of perjury that he had no personal
knowledge of the truth or falsity of the cheating allegation and that
there was no available proof on the matter. Here on 2012 he claims
that the cheating allegation is a "fact," the truth of which he has
personal knowledge, based on Truong's contemporaneous admission. Both
statements cannot be true. So either Scam lied under oath in 2008, in
which case he is guilty of perjury, or he is lying now, in which case
his pants are on fire.

Truong states that he had been using computers while playing on ICC
"to test opening lines". In other words he wanted to learn a certain
opening that he did not know, so he would consult opening books or
computers during the opening phase of the game.

It is a fact that they were both expelled from ICC and US Chess Live.
The exact reasons have remained confidential. One person directly
familiar with the case was Duncan Oxley who unfortunately committed
suicide shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to chess. Another
person with personal knowledge of the facts is Mike Aignar, a regular
on the USCF Issues Forum. He has stated that he is sworn to
confidentiality.

Both Duncan Oxley and Mike Aignar were administrators on ICC and US
Chess Life when these events took place, so they have personal
knowledge of the Polgar and Truong expulsion cases. Unfortunately,
they are not talking.

Sam Sloan

[Your smrat ®]

Post by samsloan

Post by Your smrat ®

Post by samsloan
The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
article.

According to sworn documents filed by Spam Splooge in the case Sloan v
Truong Polgar Channing etcetera and so on, verified complaint, page 6
"Detractors also say that both he [truong] and Susan Polgar have been
expelled for computer cheating from several Internet chess playing
servers, including the Internet Chess Club (“ICC”) and US Chess Live.
Plaintiff [sloan] has no idea which of these claims are true and which
are not, because all of these claims, both positive and negative, have
proven to be unverifiable."
http://www.anusha.com/truong-polgar-lawsuit.pdf
In 2008 Sloan swore under penalty of perjury that he had no personal
knowledge of the truth or falsity of the cheating allegation and that
there was no available proof on the matter. Here on 2012 he claims
that the cheating allegation is a "fact," the truth of which he has
personal knowledge, based on Truong's contemporaneous admission. Both
statements cannot be true. So either Scam lied under oath in 2008, in
which case he is guilty of perjury, or he is lying now, in which case
his pants are on fire.

Truong states that he had been using computers while playing on ICC
"to test opening lines". In other words he wanted to learn a certain
opening that he did not know, so he would consult opening books or
computers during the opening phase of the game.

Where does he state that Spam Slooge? I find it hard to believe that
he stated it to you. When I search google for the phrase you put in qm
I get

No results found for truong "to test opening lines"..

Post by samsloan
It is a fact that they were both expelled from ICC and US Chess Live.
The exact reasons have remained confidential. One person directly
familiar with the case was Duncan Oxley who unfortunately committed
suicide shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to chess.  Another
person with personal knowledge of the facts is Mike Aignar, a regular
on the USCF Issues Forum. He has stated that he is sworn to
confidentiality.
Both Duncan Oxley and Mike Aignar were administrators on ICC and US
Chess Life when these events took place, so they have personal
knowledge of the Polgar and Truong expulsion cases. Unfortunately,
they are not talking.

I see. So there is no proof of your wild allegations and the only
witnesses are dead or not talking. That is convenient. Do you expect
to be taken at your word because of your high character and reputation
for honesty? If so you are even stupider than I take you for and
believe me I think you're a high functioning refuckingtard.

[j***@vanderbilt.edu]

Post by Your smrat ®

Post by samsloan

Post by Your smrat ®

Post by samsloan
The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at the
time and even acknowledged by Truong. It was not in the New York Times
article.

According to sworn documents filed by Spam Splooge in the case Sloan v
Truong Polgar Channing etcetera and so on, verified complaint, page 6
"Detractors also say that both he [truong] and Susan Polgar have been
expelled for computer cheating from several Internet chess playing
servers, including the Internet Chess Club (“ICC”) and US Chess Live.
Plaintiff [sloan] has no idea which of these claims are true and which
are not, because all of these claims, both positive and negative, have
proven to be unverifiable."
http://www.anusha.com/truong-polgar-lawsuit.pdf
In 2008 Sloan swore under penalty of perjury that he had no personal
knowledge of the truth or falsity of the cheating allegation and that
there was no available proof on the matter. Here on 2012 he claims
that the cheating allegation is a "fact," the truth of which he has
personal knowledge, based on Truong's contemporaneous admission. Both
statements cannot be true. So either Scam lied under oath in 2008, in
which case he is guilty of perjury, or he is lying now, in which case
his pants are on fire.

Truong states that he had been using computers while playing on ICC
"to test opening lines". In other words he wanted to learn a certain
opening that he did not know, so he would consult opening books or
computers during the opening phase of the game.

Where does he state that Spam Slooge? I find it hard to believe that
he stated it to you. When I search google for the phrase you put in qm
I get
No results found for truong "to test opening lines"..

Post by samsloan
It is a fact that they were both expelled from ICC and US Chess Live.
The exact reasons have remained confidential. One person directly
familiar with the case was Duncan Oxley who unfortunately committed
suicide shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to chess.  Another
person with personal knowledge of the facts is Mike Aignar, a regular
on the USCF Issues Forum. He has stated that he is sworn to
confidentiality.
Both Duncan Oxley and Mike Aignar were administrators on ICC and US
Chess Life when these events took place, so they have personal
knowledge of the Polgar and Truong expulsion cases. Unfortunately,
they are not talking.

I see. So there is no proof of your wild allegations and the only
witnesses are dead or not talking. That is convenient.  Do you expect
to be taken at your word because of your high character and reputation
for honesty? If so you are even stupider than I take you for and
believe me I think you're a high functioning refuckingtard.

Are you doubting the expulsion for computer cheating? This can easily
be verified.

ICC does not discuss how they know that a person is cheating, because
telling their methods for testing would make it easier to bypass their
tests for computer cheating. They do not discuss this for any case of
cheating, so you cannot use the fact that they are not talking to make
it seem that this case was spurious.

Jerry Spinrad

[Your smrat ®]

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
Are you doubting the expulsion for computer cheating? This can easily
be verified.

I am doubting the expulsion for cheating, yes. I doubt everything Spam
Splooge says. I wonder why if it is easily verifiable that Spam swore
under oath that he had no way of knowing whether it was true. I wonder
why if it is easily verifiable Spam says "the exact reasons [for the
expulsion] have remained confidential." What remains is that he either
lied under oath when he said he had no idea whether it was true, or
he's lying now when he says it is "a fact."

If you have evidence that it is "a fact" I'd be happy if you shared
it.

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
ICC does not discuss how they know that a person is cheating, because
telling their methods for testing would make it easier to bypass their
tests for computer cheating. They do not discuss this for any case of
cheating, so you cannot use the fact that they are not talking to make
it seem that this case was spurious.

That they are not talking is proof that Scam doesn't know what they
said, that much should be obvious. Their not talking is neither
evidence of "a fact" not evidence of spuriousness. That Scam said it
is however prima facie evidence of spuriousness.

[j***@vanderbilt.edu]

Post by Your smrat ®

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
Are you doubting the expulsion for computer cheating? This can easily
be verified.

I am doubting the expulsion for cheating, yes. I doubt everything Spam
Splooge says. I wonder why if it is easily verifiable that Spam swore
under oath that he had no way of knowing whether it was true. I wonder
why if it is easily verifiable Spam says "the exact reasons [for the
expulsion] have remained confidential." What remains is that he either
lied under oath when he said he had no idea whether it was true, or
he's lying now when he says it is "a fact."
If you have evidence that it is "a fact" I'd be happy if you shared
it.

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
ICC does not discuss how they know that a person is cheating, because
telling their methods for testing would make it easier to bypass their
tests for computer cheating. They do not discuss this for any case of
cheating, so you cannot use the fact that they are not talking to make
it seem that this case was spurious.

That they are not talking is proof that Scam doesn't know what they
said, that much should be obvious. Their not talking is neither
evidence of "a fact" not evidence of spuriousness. That Scam said it
is however prima facie evidence of spuriousness.

Although I feel Sam is often delusional, you are completely twisting
his statements here. What Sam said under oath is that Truong was
kicked of the servers for cheating, but he had no direct way of
knowing what was behind the accusations of cheating are true. This is
all perfectly reasonable.

Sam believes something is a fact because those who know more about it
than he does have declared it to be a fact. One can believe that the
laws of gravity are a fact, without having directly tested them
yourself, because you believe that the authorities who tested the law
were knowledgeable.

A flat-earther can take issue with the statement that the world is
round is a fact, but would be viewed as a kook. On the other hand,
declaring something is a fact because you read an internet post on
someone's blog saying it was true makes you naive. Trusting the
authorities of ICC clearly ranks between these two, but certainly does
not make Sam a liar as your twisting of the account would have it.

Would it change your mind about anything if you were convinced that
Truong was kicked off internet servers for cheating? I can find posts
by people I happen to trust (not Sam) which assert the fact, but you
may not have the same level of trust in these people. It is possible
that the servers would verify this, if you think that would have any
effect on an issue that you care about, eg whether it would make you
think Truong is a shady person. On the other hand, if you simply want
to score points against Sam Sloan in an argument, it is not worth
yours or my time to try to check it out.

Sam gets many things wrong, but you seem to have picked an odd point
on which to challenge him here.

Jerry Spinrad

[samsloan]

One Way to tell that a posting is fake:

Click on "more options" at the top and then click on "show original".

You may see something like this:

Received: by 10.68.202.37 with SMTP id kf5mr8294080pbc.
7.1334015685264;
Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: r9ni38267pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-
in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!news.alt.net!
news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x5!mail2news-x4!mail2news-x3!
mail2news-x2!mail2news
Subject: USCFId: 11115292 re: FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
From: "Chronic Pain" <***@aol.com>
References: <66dfd7ef-15e5-4ea0-
a7c3-***@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-No-Tracker: yes
X-bcc: "Boris Kreiman" <***@nym.mixmin.net>
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,talk.politics.libertarian
Message-ID:
<***@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:52:25 +0200
Mail-To-News-Contact: ***@dizum.com
Organization: ***@dizum.com
X-Received-Bytes: 15775
Lines: 407

This shows the above postuing to be fake. This is because it uses
dizum.com which the Fake dsam Sloan uses most often.

Also, the poster is ***@aol.com

VoiceOfReason was shown in 2008 to be Paul Truong.

The Real Sam Sloan

[Your smrat ®]

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
Although I feel Sam is often delusional,

Delusional is a benign explanation. He routinely displays behaviors
that in more civilized times would have gotten him hanged, or
disemboweled.

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
you are completely twisting
his statements here.  What Sam said under oath is that Truong was
kicked of the servers for cheating, but he had no direct way of
knowing what  was behind the accusations of cheating are true. This is
all perfectly reasonable.

Leaving aside the unreasonableness of including unverifiable innuendo
in a verified complaint and then swearing under oath that you don't
know whether the innuedo is false, yes, so far this is perfectly
reasonable: Sam heard a rumor that Troung was expelled for cheating
and doesn't know whether it is true. If that was all that he had said
then he would not have lied.

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
Sam believes something is a fact because those who know more about it
than he does have declared it to be a fact.

This is not reasonable and is not what he said. Sam said "The exact
reasons [for the expulsion] have remained confidential" because the
people in the know "are not talking." If the exact reasons for the
expulsion are confidential, then Spam doesn't know what the exact
reasons for the expulsion are, because no one has declared anything a
fact.

<hose>

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
Trusting the
authorities of ICC clearly ranks between these two, but certainly does
not make Sam a liar as your twisting of the account would have it.

What makes Sam a liar is that he tells lies. Under oath he says he has
no way of knowing whether the allegation is true. Not under oath he
says the allegation is "a fact" that "was reported at the time" and
"acknowledged by Truong" from whom he supplies a quotation. These two
statements are contradictory. He cannot both know that the allegation
is true and not know that it's true. Therefore one statement is false.
Whether Truong was in fact expelled for cheating is irrelevant. Sam
lied about his knowledge of the event, not the truth of the event. Not
a particularly subtle distinction, and yet it seems to have eluded
you.

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
Would it change your mind about anything if you were convinced that
Truong was kicked off internet servers for cheating? I can find posts
by people I happen to trust (not Sam) which assert the fact, but you
may not have the same level of trust in these people. It is possible
that the servers would verify this, if you think that would have any
effect on an issue that you care about, eg whether it would make you
think Truong is a shady person.  On the other hand, if you simply want
to score points against Sam Sloan in an argument, it is not worth
yours or my time to try to check it out.

I note in passing that whereas before you said that the allegation
could "easily be verified," now it seems like a great deal of trouble.
Evidence that Truong was expelled for cheating would convince me that
Scram wasn't lying when he said Truong was expelled for cheating.
Because I believe that every word out of Sloon's mouth is a lie,
including and and the. It wouldn't convince me that he wasn't lying
when said first that he had no proof one way or the other and then
later said that he had contemporaneous proof. These statements cannot
be reconciled.

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
Sam gets many things wrong, but you seem to have picked an odd point
on which to challenge him here.

I challenged him here on this point because this was the point here he
made. Challenging him on this point elsewhere or another point here
would have confused my many fans. And anyway I enjoy pointing out
Scam's many instances of juridical humiliation and legal
numfuckingskullery. Meanwhile you should consider that the point seems
odd to you because it went whooshing over your head.

[micky]

.

Post by Your smrat ®

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
Sam gets many things wrong, but you seem to have picked an odd point
on which to challenge him here.

I challenged him here on this point because this was the point here he
made. Challenging him on this point elsewhere or another point here
would have confused my many fans. And anyway I enjoy pointing out
Scam's many instances of juridical humiliation and legal
numfuckingskullery. Meanwhile you should consider that the point seems
odd to you because it went whooshing over your head.

Haw haw haw the lawyers are upfucking the revolution.. "my many fans"
haw haw "numfuckingscullerymaids" haw haw de haw (num num nutz) haw haw
foad leading the way - haw haw..

.

[Anonymous]

Post by Your smrat ®
refuckingtard

you are completely twisting his statements here

Accusation of twist from person named Spin.... mmmmm.... mmmmm.....
Pay no heeds to Spinrad. Does he endorse kiddie-fucking, provided at
least one of the parents of the kiddie-victim voted "Repugnican"? He
supported open legalized execution of all people who voted against
his hero the inventor-of-internet Al Gore, or not? Admit or deny,
Spinrad, leftwing, bigoted, commie-loving Sloan-apologist that you be.

Spinrad derive his inside knowledge of cheating, from he was threaten
to be expelled for severe cheating, online/academic. He is the fraud
with no knowledge of anything. He is Spin-rad by name and Spin by
nature nurture, puerile closed mind, vacuous thoughts, fantasies he
is defending underdog, when reality he is masturbating frenziedly.

Complaint was long ago made to Vanderbilt that Spinrad was using the
Vanderbilt email to carry on unlicensed practise of psychiatry. He
was caught giving a diagnosis and treatment plan for Marcus W Roberts
of Georgia Tech, and even advise to him on suicide, or goat-fucking.
Such a type can even derive pleasure if he goats some unfortunate
into taking his own life. Even today we do not know if Marcus Roberts
obeyed the instruction of Spinrad which is why MWR is 'disappeared'.

So it is to be expected that Spinrad support Sloan. Behind Spinrad's
liberal fesad, there lurk the authoritarian freedom-hater and person
who cannot engage in dialog or communality with womankind. Difference
is, Sloan is open about his megalomania, Spinrad cloaks his with lies.
Sloan puts in his courtfiling that he did not have five women chained
to beds in different rooms at the same time. Spinrad thinks about it
only, to try to get erection (the mission impossible for communist).

smrat-poster can encounter Spinrad for first time and be fooled. But
prior-knowledged know how to deal with Jerry, a few hard blows and
he Spins away, panicked for the scurrying human cockroach he emulates.

This is all perfectly reasonable.

To Spinrad, can we examine what is reasonable for Sloan to commit?

In the following two excerpts, Sam Sloan appears to defend Jefferson
Poland, with whom Sloan co-authored the book Sex Marchers, against
allegations of molesting a girl. In the first passage excepted below,
Sloan accuses the child's parents of being "obviously complici[t]" in
the molestation. In the contradictory second passage, Sloan accuses
the child's parents of themselves "abusing the child."

Sloan presents no evidence for the parent's complicity in Poland's
molestation or for his claim that the parents themselves abused the
daughter. Poland's curious choice of surname (see below) would tend to
suggest otherwise.

Poland is indeed a registered sex offender in the state of California,
as one may ascertain via http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/

To verify Poland's colorful aliases, see http://www.nsopr.gov/ & do a
national search (be sure to include CA)

LAST NAME "Poland"
FIRST NAME "Jefferson"

...then click on result (POLAND, JOHN JEFFERSON, AKA POLAND,
JEFFERSON [zip code 94109])

..then click on "Known Aliases." Here's the Federal Government's
results:

<<CLITLICK, JEFFERSON
CLITLICK, JOHN
FUCK, JEFFERSON
POLAND, JEFF
POLAND, JEFFERSON F
POLAND, JEFFERSON FUCK
POLAND, JEFFERSON JOHN >>

***

EXCERPT 1:

The author of the following passage from an earlier version of the
Wikipedia article on Jefferson Poland was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Poland

<<In the early 1980s, Poland was charged with child molestation.
Apparently, a nudist couple, including David Irving and his girlfriend,
had entrusted Poland with the care of their daughter while they were
nude sunbathing on Black's Beach in La Jolla, California near San
Diego. Some time later, the nudist couple accused Poland of having
performed cunnilingus on their daughter while they were nude
sunbathing. Poland fled the country rather than face these charges. He
lived for five years as a fugitive in Australia until 1988, when he was
extradited back to America. In view of the passage of time and the
obvious complicity of his accusers, Poland probably could have
successfully fought the charges. However, by that time he had changed
his name legally to "Clitlick" and he preferred to plead guilty to the
cunnilingus charge. He served about nine months in San Diego County
Jail. Upon his release, he returned to live in San Francisco. He
turned over his archives to the Bancroft Library of the University of
California at Berkeley, where they are now available for public viewing
by academic researchers. Poland now lives in San Francisco, where he is
monitored as a registered sex offender. >>

END EXCERPT 1

***

EXCERPT 2

On the Wikipedia talk page for the article on Jefferson Poland,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan (Sam Sloan)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jefferson_Poland
wrote:

<<I have not seen or spoken to Jefferson Poland since 1967. However,
based on what I have read, I strongly suspect that he was the victim of
a setup. In the years I knew him, I never saw him express any interest
in children. I never even saw him express much interest in adult woman,
except that he had a girlfriend, Holly Tannen, who followed him around
like a little puppy-dog everywhere he went.

Those were the glory days of sexual freedom. There was always a bevy of
naked hippie chicks laying around with their legs spread open waiting
for some guy to come along. I partook of these opportunities
frequently, but I never saw Jefferson have sex with a woman, although
there were plenty of available women around.

My guess is that the nudist couple were themselves abusing the child.
Then, they left the child briefly in the care of Jefferson, so that
they could come back and accuse him of what they had actually done. If
the San Diego prosecutor really had proof that Jefferson was guilty, he
would not have let him off with only nine months in jail.

Sam Sloan 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)>>

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jefferson_Poland"

END EXCERPT 2

***

The following article by Jefferson Poland himself offers an account at
odds with Sloan's:

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Clitlick2.html

<<CONFESSIONS OF A NUDIST CHILD MOLESTER
(reprinted for educational purposes from Nude and Natural 10.1)
by Jeff Poland

[*Prefatory paragraph by web editor Nikki Craft*]
What follows is Clitlick's article published in Lee Baxandall's
magazine. Baxandall used the article to shift the connection from the
naturists onto the nudists, when -- in this case -- the nudists
deserved to take none of it. Clitlick was a long time naturist. He
was a writer for Lee Baxandall and he was a long time free beach
and free love/sex advocate.
[*End prefatory paragraph by web editor Nikki Craft*]

I AM A RECOVERING PEDOPHILE. Every two weeks I receive injections
of a female hormone (medroxyprogesterone) designed to counteract my
testosterone, thus depressing my libido- a process known as "chemical
castration." I also attend weekly group psychotherapy sessions, in a
cognitive restructuring ("brainwash") program for sex offenders (mostly
incestuous fathers, step-fathers, and grandfathers).
My crime occurred in 1980 or earlier. Thru swinging, I had met a
ultra-liberal nudist family. The parents attended and hosted
adults-only orgies. The children went with them on nude camping trips
and visits to the nude beach. Although I was a self-described
pedophile, the parents allowed me to befriend their two children, a boy
and a girl, then around 7 and 8.
Most of my interaction with the kids consisted of innocent play,
usually nude. In addition, I fondled the girl's vulva and occasionally
performed cunnilingus on her. I never had erections in their presence,
nor did I ask them to perform any sexual acts on me.
I was romantically in love with my girl victim, although I
realized her feelings for me amounted merely to friendship. In my
fantasy I was her lover; in practice, her playmate.
My urge was driven by several factors: First, I genuinely enjoy
the company of children, more than most adults do. Second, I am unable
to maintain an erection with any partner (man, woman, girl, or boy)
which is a severe handicap in adult relationships; but no handicap with
children. Third, my ideal woman would be quite petite (like my mother,
who was only 5 ft. tall, and thin); so girls are attractive by being
short, and by having slender bodies and smooth skin. Fourth, I lack
attributes expected of an adult male (no job, no car, no dancing
ability, etc.); which makes it difficult to relate to adult women,
especially as I age; but kids don't care if you're old and poor; they
merely seek attention. Fifth, I am emotionally child-like and childish
myself.
I developed an elaborate rationalization ("stinkin' thinkin' ")
to justify my behavior. I believed that sexual pleasure was inherently
good, and that some (not all) types of erotic play were age-appropriate
for children, such as masturbation, fondling, and nudity. If sex were
basically good, then sexual learning would begin as soon as the child
showed interest.(Precocity in music is praised; but sexual ignorance is
considered virtue.) I believed that my needs suited me to be an erotic
mentor to an intelligent child.
I believed that such relationships, with the knowledge and
consent of the parents, could become acceptable in advanced societies
such as Denmark or the Netherlands. And among avant-garde life-stylers
here. But I failed to worry enough about the reaction of the straight
state.
I also failed to consider the extreme changeability of kids. One
can expect an adult to hold similar views from year to year. But the
views of children are continually changing-generally away from their
parents' views and toward those of their schoolmates. Thus nudist
children tend to become more prudish as they grow older, reflecting the
views of their non-nudist peers. A small child shares her parents' view
point, however unusual; while an older child or teen conforms to social
norms.
My victim's views have changed toward conventionality. The
problem of consent rearises: Will this activity be acceptable not only
today, but also next year when remembered?
My relationship ended around 1980, when my victim informed her
parents of our forbidden games. The police found out in 1983. I became
a fugitive until 1988, when the law finally caught me. In jail, quite
depressed, I attempted to cut off one of my testicles. Unfortunately I
failed.
I was charged with three counts of fondling and three counts of
cunnilingus. My victim was willing to testify against me. My lawyer
negotiated a plea-bargain under which I would serve a one-year county
jail sentence, and then be released on probation for 5 years. I pled
guilty to one count of fondling, and the other five counts were
dropped.
If I violate probation, I can be sent to state prison for a 5-yr
sentence. Probably I wouldn't survive prison, as "normal" prisoners
harass and try to kill pedophiles; this is one way in which an ordinary
criminal can redeem himself.
My problem now is to complete probation successfully. The
chemical castration and cognitive therapy are prescribed by court
order. To associate with children or to go where children congregate, I
would need a chaperone an adult who knows that I'm on probation for
fondling. I am also required to obey all laws (except traffic laws);
which means that I cannot go nude at the nude beach, where nudity is
unofficially tolerated but technically illegal. (I am avoiding the nude
beach anyway, as I expect my former friends there would reject me now
as a convicted child-molester.)
I realize now how futile it is to try to explain my experiences.
Most people-including educated, intelligent, sexually-tolerant
people-view the pedophile as an insane rapist, whose motives are not
worth examining. While the ignorant would kill the pedophile, the
educated would incarcerate him for life in hospital or prison.
--Jeff Poland >>

Also refer to the related article
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Clitlick.html
via the web repository at archive.org.

***

Jefferson Poland does not defend his conduct. Why then does Sam Sloan
defend the conduct of the confessed child molester?

And why then does Jerry Spinrad champion the character of Sam Sloan
(himself a convicted felon, guilty of attempted child abduction and
a serial apologist for a convicted child molester)?

Here is some background about Sam Sloan, the man supported by Spinrad.

Dayawathie Rankoth was born and grew up in Sri Lanka. Her father died of
natural causes when she was 18. Her family was destitute. Having learned
about this state of affairs in some way, an American pedophile called Sam
Sloan, who had traveled to Sri Lanka for the purpose of procuring female
victims, came to her village and befriended her family. Sam Sloan was 42.
He convinced Dayawathie's family to let him take her to New York to take
care of one of his children (Sloan already had numerous children but was
judicially denied access to all but one of the female children). The
family were unaware of Sloan's proclivities and consented. Instead of to
New York, Sloan took the 18 year old to the United Arab Emirates, where
local laws and law enforcement in practise afford women, especially those
from third-world countries, no effective protection from sexual predators.
Sam Sloan enslaved Dayawathie. For a prolonged period, she was locked
within Sloan's house to be subjected repeatedly to sexual abuse including
but not limited to rape, sodomy, beating with belts, beating with sticks,
the introduction of bottles and other objects, including sharpened ones,
into her vagina and anus, genital mutilation with razor blades and knives,
oral rape, whipping, suspension, chaining and other forms of restraints,
denial of sustenance other than that obtained via the male organ of Sloan,
burning, scalding, the use of forcible enemas and many other forms of
torture. All this is supported by affidavits by Dayawathie. Much of this
evidence was withheld from court because Sloan also impregnated the young
girl, and the protection of the minor children of the "union" was seen as
the priority, as it was considered they would be harmed further should the
full evidence against their biological father be disclosed.
Eventually, her spirit was broken, and Sloan was able to move Dayawathie
to locations even more convenient to him.
With the help of some sympathetic state officials, Dayawathie managed to
escape to her homeland, having been forced to abandon her first and only
child - the result of rape by Sloan, However, Sloan followed her to Sri
Lanka and used his control over the infant boy (and a false claim that
the boy was dying from a kidney complaint for lack of a transplant donor)
to lure Dayawathie away from the protection afforded by her poor family.
Many complaints about Sloan had been lodged with various Ministries and
Departments of the government of Sri Lanka, all relating to his sexual
predation or pedophilia, and Sloan was compelled to enter into a form of
marriage with Dayawathie (it is unclear whether or not this was bigamous)
in order for her to get an exit permit. In those days, Sri Lanka, in dire
need of revenue in hard currency, turned a blind eye to sex tourism.
Sam Sloan now relocated Dayawathie Rankoth permanently to the United
States, where a second child was born and she was pregnant with a third
one. When the second child fell ill due to Sloan's neglect, a nurse at the
hospital treating him noticed injuries to his mother, Dayawathie, and on
hearing her story, made a detailed report to the authorities. Dayawathie
and her children were immediately taken to a Sanctuary for Families
shelter, whose location was kept secret from the pedophile rapist Sloan.
However, due to an error by Dayawathie, several years later Sloan managed
to locate her and by a combination of physical and psychological menaces,
abducted her two older children. Attorneys acting for Sanctuary for
Families had Sloan arrested and secured the children's return.
Approximately ten years later, with his daughter from this "union" now
having attained an age (14) when she held interest for him, Sam Sloan
lodged a perjurious petition applying for her custody. An order of
protection on behalf of Dayawathie and her minor children was sought,
and Sloan's petition for custody of their 14 year old daughter was
vigorously contested. Despite the introduction of forged evidence and
the commission of numerous acts of perjury by Sloan, who, as a serial
vexatious litigant with no respect for the truth, contrived to drag
matters over about 45 court appearances necessitating testimony
from numerous witnesses and a cross-examination of an expert witness,
a forensic psychologist.
Lansner and Kubitschek's counsel proved that Sloan had published material
on the internet showing that women enjoy rape and even a document which
explained how to rape any woman (how2rape.htm). It is clear who the
court believed because Dayawathie and the children were given an order of
protection, Dayawathie was granted sole custody and Sloan denied visiting
rights.

certainly does not make Sam a liar as your twisting of the account
would have it.
Jerry Spinrad

"Birds of the feather....." Good example for the higher academics,
morale standards of his paperfactory and degreemill. Provided the
child has one or more "Repugnican" parent, it is permitted for them
to be abused by the kiddiefucker, according Vanderbilt policy? mmmm.

Together with Sloan and Spinrad, here are some more expulsion choices
10074258 TEASLEY, DOROTHY
10074819 RIGONO, GABRIEL
10078954 TANNENBAUM, JEFFREY ALAN
10101301 CONTICELLO, NICK
10104874 SCHNITZLER, GABOR J
10105544 FITZKO, MITCHELL
10489032 GOODALL, MIKE (DECEASED BUT POSTHUMOUS EXPULSION)
11017134 PACIULLI, FRANK R
11099599 ZUKOFF, LEON
12197010 BROWN, LARRY A
12287160 POLYAKIN, VLADIMIR L
12395472 PACCHIANA, DOUGLAS
12407354 PRIVMAN, BORIS
12435108 GARCIA, ROBERT C
12462863 PRINCE, HOWARD
12655385 LLOYD, STEADROY A
12670285 HARDING, ANDRE E
12680785 CHERNICK, STEVEN
12693373 PRESSMAN, LEIF
12713319 FIGLER, ILYE
12724150 TOWSEN, JOHN
12768106 DIGREGORIO, ROBERT
12774231 SLOAN, GEORGE RANKOTH (SON OF SAM)
12791591 HASAN, SHAHZAD
12809190 RAMANUJAM, SRINIVASAN (FAKE ID BY SLOAN TO FOOL NOLAN)
12834803 ESCHELBACH, KARL
12924840 KAN, PENG FEI
13024036 NARANJA, RENATO C
13102976 JOSEPH, MITCH M
13411328 SHADIEV, MURODJON
13457195 SMITH, KASHIFE
13553190 NICOLAS, JEAN

* ARCHIVED
Stay tuned

[j***@vanderbilt.edu]

I thought this type of abonymous garbage was now not allowed on google
groups. I am sure I do not have to worry about anyone taking it
seriously.

Jerry Spinrad

Post by Anonymous

Post by Your smrat ®
refuckingtard

you are completely twisting his statements here

Accusation of twist from person named Spin.... mmmmm.... mmmmm.....
Pay no heeds to Spinrad. Does he endorse kiddie-fucking, provided at
least one of the parents of the kiddie-victim voted "Repugnican"? He
supported open legalized execution of all people who voted against
his hero the inventor-of-internet Al Gore, or not? Admit or deny,
Spinrad, leftwing, bigoted, commie-loving Sloan-apologist that you be.
Spinrad derive his inside knowledge of cheating, from he was threaten
to be expelled for severe cheating, online/academic. He is the fraud
with no knowledge of anything. He is Spin-rad by name and Spin by
nature nurture, puerile closed mind, vacuous thoughts, fantasies he
is defending underdog, when reality he is masturbating frenziedly.
Complaint was long ago made to Vanderbilt that Spinrad was using the
Vanderbilt email to carry on unlicensed practise of psychiatry. He
was caught giving a diagnosis and treatment plan for Marcus W Roberts
of Georgia Tech, and even advise to him on suicide, or goat-fucking.
Such a type can even derive pleasure if he goats some unfortunate
into taking his own life. Even today we do not know if Marcus Roberts
obeyed the instruction of Spinrad which is why MWR is 'disappeared'.
So it is to be expected that Spinrad support Sloan. Behind Spinrad's
liberal fesad, there lurk the authoritarian freedom-hater and person
who cannot engage in dialog or communality with womankind. Difference
is, Sloan is open about his megalomania, Spinrad cloaks his with lies.
Sloan puts in his courtfiling that he did not have five women chained
to beds in different rooms at the same time. Spinrad thinks about it
only, to try to get erection (the mission impossible for communist).
smrat-poster can encounter Spinrad for first time and be fooled. But
prior-knowledged know how to deal with Jerry, a few hard blows and
he Spins away, panicked for the scurrying human cockroach he emulates.

This is all perfectly reasonable.

To Spinrad, can we examine what is reasonable for Sloan to commit?
In the following two excerpts, Sam Sloan appears to defend Jefferson
Poland, with whom Sloan co-authored the book Sex Marchers, against
allegations of molesting a girl. In the first passage excepted below,
Sloan accuses the child's parents of being "obviously complici[t]" in
the molestation. In the contradictory second passage, Sloan accuses
the child's parents of themselves "abusing the child."
Sloan presents no evidence for the parent's complicity in Poland's
molestation or for his claim that the parents themselves abused the
daughter. Poland's curious choice of surname (see below) would tend to
suggest otherwise.
Poland is indeed a registered sex offender in the state of California,
as one may ascertain viahttp://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
To verify Poland's colorful aliases, seehttp://www.nsopr.gov/& do a
national search (be sure to include CA)
LAST NAME "Poland"
FIRST NAME "Jefferson"
 ...then click on result (POLAND, JOHN JEFFERSON, AKA POLAND,
JEFFERSON [zip code 94109])
..then click on "Known Aliases." Here's the Federal Government's
<<CLITLICK, JEFFERSON
CLITLICK, JOHN
FUCK, JEFFERSON
POLAND, JEFF
POLAND, JEFFERSON F
POLAND, JEFFERSON FUCK
POLAND, JEFFERSON JOHN >>
***
The author of the following passage from an earlier version of the
Wikipedia article on Jefferson Poland washttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Poland
<<In the early 1980s, Poland was charged with child molestation.
Apparently, a nudist couple, including David Irving and his girlfriend,
had entrusted Poland with the care of their daughter while they were
nude sunbathing on Black's Beach in La Jolla, California near San
Diego. Some time later, the nudist couple accused Poland of having
performed cunnilingus on their daughter while they were nude
sunbathing. Poland fled the country rather than face these charges. He
lived for five years as a fugitive in Australia until 1988, when he was
extradited back to America. In view of the passage of time and the
obvious complicity of his accusers, Poland probably could have
successfully fought the charges. However, by that time he had changed
his name legally to "Clitlick" and he preferred to plead guilty to the
cunnilingus charge. He served about nine months in San Diego County
Jail. Upon his release, he returned to live in San Francisco. He
turned over his archives to the Bancroft Library of the University of
California at Berkeley, where they are now available for public viewing
by academic researchers. Poland now lives in San Francisco, where he is
monitored as a registered sex offender. >>
END EXCERPT 1
***
EXCERPT 2
On the Wikipedia talk page for the article on Jefferson Poland,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan(Sam Sloan)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jefferson_Poland
<<I have not seen or spoken to Jefferson Poland since 1967. However,
based on what I have read, I strongly suspect that he was the victim of
a setup. In the years I knew him, I never saw him express any interest
in children. I never even saw him express much interest in adult woman,
except that he had a girlfriend, Holly Tannen, who followed him around
like a little puppy-dog everywhere he went.
Those were the glory days of sexual freedom. There was always a bevy of
naked hippie chicks laying around with their legs spread open waiting
for some guy to come along. I partook of these opportunities
frequently, but I never saw Jefferson have sex with a woman, although
there were plenty of available women around.
My guess is that the nudist couple were themselves abusing the child.
Then, they left the child briefly in the care of Jefferson, so that
they could come back and accuse him of what they had actually done. If
the San Diego prosecutor really had proof that Jefferson was guilty, he
would not have let him off with only nine months in jail.
Sam Sloan 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)>>
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jefferson_Poland"
END EXCERPT 2
***
The following article by Jefferson Poland himself offers an account at
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Clitlick2.html
<<CONFESSIONS OF A NUDIST CHILD MOLESTER
(reprinted for educational purposes from Nude and Natural 10.1)
by Jeff Poland
[*Prefatory paragraph by web editor Nikki Craft*]
What follows is Clitlick's article published in Lee Baxandall's
magazine. Baxandall used the article to shift the connection from the
naturists onto the nudists, when -- in this case -- the nudists
deserved to take none of it. Clitlick was a long time naturist. He
was a writer for Lee Baxandall and he was a long time free beach
and free love/sex advocate.
[*End prefatory paragraph by web editor Nikki Craft*]
      I AM A RECOVERING PEDOPHILE. Every two weeks I receive injections
of a female hormone (medroxyprogesterone) designed to counteract my
testosterone, thus depressing my libido- a process known as "chemical
castration." I also attend weekly group psychotherapy sessions, in a
cognitive restructuring ("brainwash") program for sex offenders (mostly
incestuous fathers, step-fathers, and grandfathers).
      My crime occurred in 1980 or earlier. Thru swinging, I had met a
ultra-liberal nudist family. The parents attended and hosted
adults-only orgies. The children went with them on nude camping trips
and visits to the nude beach. Although I was a self-described
pedophile, the parents allowed me to befriend their two children, a boy
and a girl, then around 7 and 8.
      Most of my interaction with the kids consisted of innocent play,
usually nude. In addition, I fondled the girl's vulva and occasionally
performed cunnilingus on her. I never had erections in their presence,
nor did I ask them to perform any sexual acts on me.
      I was romantically in love with my girl victim, although I
realized her feelings for me amounted merely to friendship. In my
fantasy I was her lover; in practice, her playmate.
      My urge was driven by several factors: First, I genuinely enjoy
the company of children, more than most adults do. Second, I am unable
to maintain an erection with any partner (man, woman, girl, or boy)
which is a severe handicap in adult relationships; but no handicap with
children. Third, my ideal woman would be quite petite (like my mother,
who was only 5 ft. tall, and thin); so girls are attractive by being
short, and by having slender bodies and smooth skin. Fourth, I lack
attributes expected of an adult male (no job, no car, no dancing
ability, etc.); which makes it difficult to relate to adult women,
especially as I age; but kids don't care if you're old and poor; they
merely seek attention. Fifth, I am emotionally child-like and childish
myself.
      I developed an elaborate rationalization ("stinkin' thinkin' ")
to justify my behavior. I believed that sexual pleasure was inherently
good, and that some (not all) types of erotic play were age-appropriate
for children, such as masturbation, fondling, and nudity. If sex were
basically good, then sexual learning would begin as soon as the child
showed interest.(Precocity in music is praised; but sexual ignorance is
considered virtue.) I believed that my needs suited me to be an erotic
mentor to an intelligent child.
      I believed that such relationships, with the knowledge and
consent of the parents, could become acceptable in advanced societies
such as Denmark or the Netherlands. And among avant-garde life-stylers
here. But I failed to worry enough about the reaction of the straight
state.
      I also failed to consider the extreme changeability of kids. One
can expect an adult to hold similar views from year to year. But the
views of children are continually changing-generally away from their
parents' views and toward those of their schoolmates. Thus nudist
children tend to become more prudish as they grow older, reflecting the
views of their non-nudist peers. A small child shares her parents' view
point, however unusual; while an older child or teen conforms to social
norms.
      My victim's views have changed toward conventionality. The
problem of consent rearises: Will this activity be acceptable not only
today, but also next year when remembered?
      My relationship ended around 1980, when my victim informed her
parents of our forbidden games. The police found out in 1983. I became
a fugitive until 1988, when the law finally caught me. In jail, quite
depressed, I attempted to cut off one of my testicles. Unfortunately I
failed.
      I was charged with three counts of fondling and three counts of
cunnilingus. My victim was willing to testify against me. My lawyer
negotiated a plea-bargain under which I would serve a one-year county
jail sentence, and then be released on probation for 5 years. I pled
guilty to one count of fondling, and the other five counts were
dropped.
      If I violate probation, I can be sent to state prison for a 5-yr
sentence. Probably I wouldn't survive prison, as "normal" prisoners
harass and try to kill pedophiles; this is one way in which an ordinary
criminal can redeem himself.
      My problem now is to complete probation successfully. The
chemical castration and cognitive therapy are prescribed by court
order. To associate with children or to go where children congregate, I
would need a chaperone an adult who knows that I'm on probation for
fondling. I am also required to obey all laws (except traffic laws);
which means that I cannot go nude at the nude beach, where nudity is
unofficially tolerated but technically illegal. (I am avoiding the nude
beach anyway, as I expect my former friends there would reject me now
as a convicted child-molester.)
      I realize now how futile it is to try to explain my experiences.
Most people-including educated, intelligent, sexually-tolerant
people-view the pedophile as an insane rapist, whose motives are not
worth examining. While the ignorant would kill the pedophile, the
educated would incarcerate him for life in hospital or prison.
--Jeff Poland >>
Also refer to the related articlehttp://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Clitlick.html
via the web repository at archive.org.
***
Jefferson Poland does not defend his conduct. Why then does Sam Sloan
defend the conduct of the confessed child molester?
And why then does Jerry Spinrad champion the character of Sam Sloan
(himself a convicted felon, guilty of attempted child abduction and
a serial apologist for a convicted child molester)?
Here is some background about Sam Sloan, the man supported by Spinrad.
Dayawathie Rankoth was born and grew up in Sri Lanka. Her father died of
natural causes when she was 18. Her family was destitute. Having learned
about this state of affairs in some way, an American pedophile called Sam
Sloan, who had traveled to Sri Lanka for the purpose of procuring female
victims, came to her village and befriended her family. Sam Sloan was 42.
He convinced Dayawathie's family to let him take her to New York to take
care of one of his children (Sloan already had numerous children but was
judicially denied access to all but one of the female children). The
family were unaware of Sloan's proclivities and consented. Instead of to
New York, Sloan took the 18 year old to the United Arab Emirates, where
local laws and law enforcement in practise afford women, especially those
from third-world countries, no effective protection from sexual predators.
Sam Sloan enslaved Dayawathie. For a prolonged period, she was locked
within Sloan's house to be subjected repeatedly to sexual abuse including
but not limited to rape, sodomy, beating with belts, beating with sticks,
the introduction of bottles and other objects, including sharpened ones,
into her vagina and anus, genital mutilation with razor blades and knives,
oral rape, whipping, suspension, chaining and other forms of restraints,
denial of sustenance other than that obtained via the male organ of Sloan,
burning, scalding, the use of forcible enemas and many other forms of
torture. All this is supported by affidavits by Dayawathie. Much of this
evidence was withheld from court because Sloan also impregnated the young
girl, and the protection of the minor children of the "union" was seen as
the priority, as it was considered they would be harmed further should the
full evidence against their biological father be disclosed.
Eventually, her spirit was broken, and Sloan was able to move Dayawathie
to locations even more convenient to him.
With the help of some sympathetic state officials, Dayawathie managed to
escape to her homeland, having been forced to abandon her first and only
child - the result of rape by Sloan, However, Sloan followed her to Sri
Lanka and used his control over the infant boy (and a false claim that
the boy was dying from a kidney complaint for lack of a transplant donor)
to lure Dayawathie away from the protection afforded by her poor family.
Many complaints about Sloan had been lodged with various Ministries and
Departments of the government of Sri Lanka, all relating to his sexual
predation or pedophilia, and Sloan was compelled to enter into a form of
marriage with Dayawathie (it is unclear whether or not this was bigamous)
in order for her to get an exit permit. In those days, Sri Lanka, in dire
need of revenue in hard currency, turned a blind eye to sex tourism.
Sam Sloan now relocated Dayawathie Rankoth permanently to the United
States, where a second child was born and she was pregnant with a third
one. When the second child fell ill due to Sloan's neglect, a nurse at the
hospital treating him noticed injuries to his mother, Dayawathie, and on
hearing her story, made a detailed report to the authorities. Dayawathie
and her children were immediately taken to a Sanctuary for Families
shelter, whose location was kept secret from the pedophile rapist Sloan.
However, due to an error by Dayawathie, several years later Sloan managed
to locate her and by a combination of physical and psychological menaces,
abducted her two older children. Attorneys acting for Sanctuary for
Families had Sloan arrested and secured the children's return.
Approximately ten years later, with his daughter from this "union" now
having attained an age (14) when she held interest for him, Sam Sloan
lodged a perjurious petition applying for her custody. An order of
protection on behalf of Dayawathie and her minor children was sought,
and Sloan's petition for custody of their 14 year old daughter was
vigorously contested. Despite the introduction of forged evidence and
the commission of numerous acts of perjury by Sloan, who, as a serial
vexatious litigant with no respect for the truth, contrived to drag
matters over about 45 court appearances necessitating testimony
from numerous witnesses and a cross-examination of an expert witness,
a forensic psychologist.
Lansner and Kubitschek's counsel proved that Sloan had published material
on the internet showing that women enjoy rape and even a document which
explained how to rape any woman (how2rape.htm). It is clear who the
court believed because Dayawathie and the children were given an order of
protection, Dayawathie was granted sole custody and Sloan denied visiting
rights.

certainly does not make Sam a liar as your twisting of the account
would have it.
Jerry Spinrad

"Birds of the feather....." Good example for the higher academics,
morale standards of his paperfactory and degreemill. Provided the
child has one or more "Repugnican" parent, it is permitted for them
to be abused by the kiddiefucker, according Vanderbilt policy? mmmm.
Together with Sloan and Spinrad, here are some more expulsion choices
10074258 TEASLEY, DOROTHY
10074819 RIGONO, GABRIEL
10078954 TANNENBAUM, JEFFREY ALAN
10101301 CONTICELLO, NICK
10104874 SCHNITZLER, GABOR J
10105544 FITZKO, MITCHELL
10489032 GOODALL, MIKE   (DECEASED BUT POSTHUMOUS EXPULSION)
11017134 PACIULLI, FRANK R
11099599 ZUKOFF, LEON
12197010 BROWN, LARRY A
12287160 POLYAKIN, VLADIMIR L
12395472 PACCHIANA, DOUGLAS
12407354 PRIVMAN, BORIS
12435108 GARCIA, ROBERT C
12462863 PRINCE, HOWARD
12655385 LLOYD, STEADROY A
12670285 HARDING, ANDRE E
12680785 CHERNICK, STEVEN
12693373 PRESSMAN, LEIF
12713319 FIGLER, ILYE
12724150 TOWSEN, JOHN
12768106 DIGREGORIO, ROBERT
12774231 SLOAN, GEORGE RANKOTH  (SON OF SAM)
12791591 HASAN, SHAHZAD
12809190 RAMANUJAM, SRINIVASAN  (FAKE ID BY SLOAN TO FOOL NOLAN)
12834803 ESCHELBACH, KARL
12924840 KAN, PENG FEI
13024036 NARANJA, RENATO C
13102976 JOSEPH, MITCH M
13411328 SHADIEV, MURODJON
13457195 SMITH, KASHIFE
13553190 NICOLAS, JEAN
* ARCHIVED
Stay tuned

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
I thought this type of abonymous garbage was now not allowed on google
groups. I am sure I do not have to worry about anyone taking it
seriously.
Jerry Spinrad

Amen to that, Jerry.

[Taylor Kingston]

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
Would it change your mind about anything if you were convinced that
Truong was kicked off internet servers for cheating? I can find posts
by people I happen to trust (not Sam) which assert the fact,

Jerry, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I ask purely out of
curiosity: has Truong in fact been banned from ICC? I did a google
search for phrases to that effect, and all I found were posts by
Sloan. Does ICC keep publish a blacklist somewhere?

[j***@vanderbilt.edu]

Post by j***@vanderbilt.edu
Would it change your mind about anything if you were convinced that
Truong was kicked off internet servers for cheating? I can find posts
by people I happen to trust (not Sam) which assert the fact,

  Jerry, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I ask purely out of
curiosity: has Truong in fact been banned from ICC? I did a google
search for phrases to that effect, and all I found were posts by
Sloan. Does ICC keep publish a blacklist somewhere?

I couldn't find any ICC list. You can find statements of Tim Hanke
making the statement, also John Fernandez. These are members of the
old-time rational crowd from this newsgroup, as you certainly know. I
am sure they could be contacted about the matter. I would ask them
about it if the question was coming from a truly interested party,
which this guy does not seem to be.

Jerry

[Your smrat ®]

  Jerry, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I ask purely out of
curiosity: has Truong in fact been banned from ICC? I did a google
search for phrases to that effect, and all I found were posts by
Sloan. Does ICC keep publish a blacklist somewhere?

I've found a thread that discusses the allegation.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/994490251bbf6ce7/78744903346aa40c?q=banned+author:Tim+author:Hanke#

In the thread one Tim Hanke (never heard of him) posts a letter from
Polgar and Truong's (SPPT) lawyer threatening to sue him for libel. It
turns out later in the thread that the alleged libel concerns
statements by Hanke alleging that SP, assisted by PT, cheated in an
online chess match vs some grandmaster. The alleged cheating is
discussed by Hanke, this Fernandez guy (infra), and something called
Stan Booze. None of these people seem to have first hand knowledge but
the allegation at least is in the lexicon. It should be noted that
Booze and Hanke were quite vociferous in their distaste for SPPT, the
latter of whom Hanke compared to Hitler. No really, he compared Truong
to Hitler.

But that's not the interesting part. What's interesting is who appears
in the thread defending SPPT from accusations of cheating - who finds
that the accusations comprise libel. Is was of course - wait for
it ... Sam Sloan:

"I think that they [SPPT] have a very strong case. Among other things,
Hanke claimed that Zsuzsa did not play her own games but essentially
cheated by having Truong play for her using a computer. Such an
allegation is clearly libelous."

and again

"However, the more than one hundred vicious personal attacks can be
used to establish malice. That plus libelous statements such as Polgar
cheated in a chess game could meet the high standard set in New York
Times vs. Sullivan."


So here we have the trifecta. Regarding the allegation that SPPT
cheated in an online chess match Sloan has written that

1. He has no knowledge whether the allegations are true or false.

2. He knows the allegations are true.

3. He believes that allegations are libelous, meaning he thinks them
false.

One further note of hilarity: in the thread Scram Sploop posted an
example of a complaint that could be filed alleging that SP had been
libeled by Hanke. The hilarious part is not that Sploon is giving
anyone legal advice, and neither does the hilarity derive from Spam's
usual legal nitfuckingwittery in which he uses legal phrases
incorrectly and rambles on like a deranged slobbering dottard. Rather,
it is Spam's opinion that Hanke libeled SP because she would not fuck
him:


"1. In August 2003 Tim Hanke, the recently elected VP of Finance at
the
USCF, made sexual approaches and sexually suggestive remarks to
Polgar. Polgar rejected these advances and refused to sleep with
Hanke.


2. Thereafter, Hanke made a statement in a widely circulated e-mail
that Polgar had cheated in an Internet chess game."


Sloonatic, heal thyself.

[Chronic Pain]

USCFId: 11115292
We are reading with pleasure that Mr Sam Sloan is to be permanently
banned from United States of America Chess Federation membership.
This is a too long overdue step. Still, welcome. His serious crimes
were report to Mr George Makropoulos FIDE VP but because of a protocol
no action can be taken by FIDE until USCF has expelled. The reason
will be, safety of the children at chess events. I suggest also
insurer costs be added to the reasons. All minuted. All appeals
process to be agreed so there is no chance for successful objection.

I do recall it was said that Susan Polgar could continue to play chess
as a non-USCF member.

This exception won't be made by George for you once you are thrown out.

a high similarity of Polgar's moves to computer generated moves
Polgar was expelled from ICC for computer cheating

Liar, Sloan, you have no shame.

Truong states that he had been using computers while playing on ICC

It is not possible to connect to ICC without computer. Liar, Sloan,
you have no shame.

The fact that both Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were banned from both
ICC and US Chess Live because of computer cheating was reported at
the time

Liar, Sloan, you have no shame.

I can no longer find this on the nytimes.com website

because it was never there, no list giving any bad implication for
WGM Polgar is existing.

because Susan Polgar has threatened to sue them so they took it down.

Liar, Sloan, you have no shame.

It is a fact that they were both expelled from ICC and US Chess Live.

Liar, Sloan, you have no shame.

The exact reasons have remained confidential

Most highly confidential. Because they do not exist, even not one!

One person directly familiar with the case was Duncan Oxley

There was no case. Extra news: Duncan Oxley is a dead man. Most
convenient for Slaon lies, liar, Sloan, you have no shame.

Sloan, how did you managed to get Mike Goodall conveniently dying?

Another person with personal knowledge of the facts is Mike Aignar

Liar, Sloan, you have no shame. Mike Aigner, no Aignar, is willing
to testify there is no coverup. If you were not vagrant bum with no
traceable asset, your ass can be sued off for your lies.

personal knowledge of the Polgar and Truong expulsion cases

No knowledge possible as there were no expulsions and no cases.
Liar, Sloan, you have no shame.

Bill Kelleher

Bill K. wrote, ".. Sam Sloan is a danger to kids". Bill Kelleher
says, do not my name in any sentence which has in it also Sam Sloan.

most FIDE delegates have a poor opinion of the USCF

You don't say. They read that some board members and some delegates
chose a degenerate scamster and kiddie-troubler over a distinguished
grandmaster who was a victim of attempted molestation when a minor.
It is a wonder USCF itself is not expelled from FIDE for exhibiting
such a set of stupids.

it is probably not good diplomacy for the USCF to insist that Polgar
be kicked off

You betcha. The only way to rehabilitate the USCF is for you to be
expelled with prejudice and for you to be prosecuted, convicted and
sentenced for the rest of your natural. Frying would be better.

there is no real harm in letting Polgar keep that position

Who the fuck values what you, a nobody schmuck, thinks?

When I was at the World Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiyak, Siberia in
September 2010, I asked the delegate from Hungary about this. I am
quite aware that Zsuzsa Polgar had a very bad reputation in her own
country

Liar, Sloan, you have no shame.

and they were quite happy to see her leave

Liar, Sloan, you have no shame.

so I thought he might have some sympathy for the problems the USCF
have had with her. However,

he did not, Sloan. But does that stop your libels, Sloan? Do we have
to wait until you die for these lies to stop, Sloan? When will that be,
Sloan? Now that your elder son is expressing fantasies about revenging
himself for the crimes you committed against him, against his sister
Mary, against his half sisters Jessica, Shamema, Anusha, Sandra, against
his half-brothers, against many children, hopefully it could be sooner
then your Kiddiefucking-God-Mohamed-bin-Allah originally planned, Sloan.
Aisha was 6 when she was wed, but the pedo big-M (your namesake, Mohamed
Ismail Sloan) waited 2 - 3 years before first exploring her kiddie womb
with his penis, according what the Koran said the holy prophet did.

All the angst because a young lady age 16 years firmly rejected all the
advances of a lecher more then old enough to be her father, who by a bad
misjudgment had been allowed into her parents' house, where he grossly
abused his privileges as the trusted guest? What a v.warp personality
that can evidence?

he replied that not only Hungary but all the countries in FIDE have a
very low opinion of USCF politics

because though their main revenue streams are from scholastics and kids,
idiot USCF delegates elected a self confessed kiddiefucker and pedophile
pervert to serve on their Executive Board, namely one

Sam Sloan

If you ever want to come visit Budapest, let Sandra inherit little more
money by you only buying oneway airticket, Sloan.

Return will not be needed. Not be needed, because it will not be used.

As Hal T has pointed out, you are long past your expiration, and your
wild claims stopped being amusing ten years ago. To get you expelled
is a priority, and will be as demanded by the insurers. What we need
to work out is how to do this most efficiently, while making it easy
to get your vexatious suits, which your expulsion will trigger, all
dismissed at the first hurdle. The fact collector was Mr Vaughn, but
from what I was told his Sloonie dossier is reputedly now up from 400
to 900 pages

I make one concession. Your emissions to FJ Elizabeth LaPorte are
amusing. You haven't grasp, she knows about your career, and the one
thing she hasn't quite got figured as yet is how you are not in gaol.
Even now she knows about your Goodall scam forgeries in Marin County.
Feisty lady as she is --don't judge by appearances-- she is motivated
to put you where you should be, then leave you wandering streets.

SS checked out who sent this, and it was you, not the Fake Sam Sloan
which you later lied ::

Subject: The Age of Consent in Hungary is 14
From: ***@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:52:22 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.magyar,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,
misc.legal,alt.chess
Organization: Ishi Press
Reply-To: ***@ishipress.com
Message-ID: <***@ca.news.verio.net>
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!newspeer2.asbnva01.us.to.verio.net!new
sread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net!8b18be56!not-for-mail
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
X-Complaints-To: ***@verio.net
X-Trace: newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net 1154184742 68.199.110.255
(Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:52:22 GMT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Hungary
The age of consent in Hungary is 14 as specified by Section 201
(Seduction), which reads: "The person who has sexual intercourse
with a person who has not yet completed his 14th year, as well
as the person who has completed his 18th year and engages in
fornication with a person who has not yet exceeded his 14th year
of age, commits a felony and shall be punishable with imprisonment
from 1 to 5 years."
Hungarian Criminal Code (in Hungarian)
==

Your tired "it was Kayo who did it" defensive rag won't wipe here.
Tried "it was my baby daughter Sandra who wrote it in 2006" instead?

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>http://tinyurl.com/ye6bu6>>

FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.
FUCK YOU, SAM SLOAN.

* ARCHIVED *
Stay tuned.



***@expressmail.com

d3ch~YWgvhJ7gvhjgfjke8Q4ckh68AekDd7ew7r0Wh12-9elwL