Relentless Election Based Attacks Return to USCF Issues Forum and Responses Blocked

[samsloan]

What is the "charge" that you want evidence for? I have just re-read
my posting and I can see nothing in it that there is any doubt about.

If you will look back at postings during the year 2005-2006 you will
see that Tanstaafl was an anonymous poster. ALL of his postings during
that period were attacks on Sam Sloan. Go back and check. He refused
to identify himself and give his name. When Herbert Rodney Vaughn came
to the USCF Delegates meeting in Chicago in 2006 claiming falsely to
be a delegate from Ohio, we did not know that he was the same person
as TANSTAAFL. If we had known that he would have been challenged and
not seated. There have been two persons posting as TANSTAAFL so we
cannot be certain which is which.

The only way we found out that TANSTAAFL was the same person as
Herbert Rodney Vaughn was at my first board meeting on August 14,
2006, I made a motion that anonymous posters not be allowed on the
USCF Issues Forum and that everybody posting there must provide his
real name and USCF ID number. My motion passed. Then, later, Nolan
notified TANSTAAFL that he was blocked from posting until he provided
his real name. TANSTAAFL protested vehemently but eventually complied.
He then filed his 4,000 page ethics complaint against me including in
it the charge that it was unethical for me to require him to reveal
his real name.

TANSTAAFL has been noteworthy for his attacks on me which has
influenced the results of several elections. Now he is doing the same
thing joined by Harry Payne attacking Beatriz Marinello, Tim Redman
and Chuck Unruh with his baseless and relentless attacks. Are you
going to stop allowing him to do this?

Sam Sloan

[quote="Ron Suarez"][quote="Ron Suarez"]Sam Sloan can not post further
until he answers the charge in an earlier post and thread to give
evidence and substantiation for charges he has made.

[quote="AUG"]Do not post allegations without checking your facts
first. If your post is about USCF, the governance section of
uschess.org is a good source to consult, and you may also ask the USCF
office or an EB or committee member for information. Search engines
can also be valuable. If facts you post are challenged, address this
before making further Forum posts.[/quote][/quote]


[url=http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?
p=258440#p258440]Subject: Best of the rest.[/url]

[quote="samsloan"][quote="jwiewel"][quote="samsloan"][quote="jwiewel"]
[quote="samsloan"]...
If you mean that she supported Kirsan whereas the USCF had endorsed
Karpov, she had the right to do that. She was a private citizen and
the delegate from Chile and Chile had endorsed Kirsan.[/quote]
I think he was going back a little farther to the time when she was
officially representing the USCF and, apparently actively, asking
other countries to remain neutral betwen Bessel Kok, the person the
USCF was supporting for FIDE president, and his opponent. Afterwards
she was awarded a FIDE post (was it General Secretary for the
Americas?).
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1170&p=13925&hilit=+Marinello#p13925

Has she been given a spot as an official USCF representative since
then?[/quote]

If that is what TANSTAAFL is referring to, it was before he first
joined the USCF and thus he could have no personal knowledge of the
facts.

He and Harry Payne both have the annoying habit of claiming to speak
with authority over historical events that took place years before
they first joined the USCF and thus could have no knowledge of the
facts. They are trying to influence the results of this election
through their disjointed misrepresentations of the facts.[/quote]
If you had simply read the link provided you would have seen that it
was related to a letter Beatriz sent out on May 6, 2006 (included in
the first post of the linked topic) and which TANSTAAFL referred to in
his May 12, 2006 post. Also TANSTAAFL joined the forums in 2005.

So your statement that TANSTAAFL could have no personal knowledge of
the facts is false. Your statement that it happened years before he
first joined is false. Your statement that he is trying to "influence
the results of this election through ... disjointed misrepresentations
of the facts" is speculative and, since there was no misrepresentation
done, false.[/quote]

With the benefit of hindsight, most observers now believe that Bessel
Kok would not have been a good President of FIDE. He had already
pretty much dropped out of chess by 2006 and nothing has been heard
from him since.

Beatriz was under no obligation to commit political suicide by
actively supporting a candidate who was a sure looser.

The board at that time consisted of people like Goichberg and Channing
who have never in their lives attended a FIDE meeting and who know
nothing about how FIDE works. They keep on saying that FIDE is a
"corrupt regime". How is it corrupt? On what basis do they make these
statements, since they know nothing about it?[/quote][/quote]