Resignation of Gregory Alexander as moderator5
samsloan
sanction a moderator after he pulled the post after the FOC formally
voted to restore it. This was political pay-back time by the FOC in
order to stop a moderator to from moderating the forums and stopping
him from stating his views; nothing else.
Gregory[/quote]
What you seem to be saying if I understand you correctly is that you
pulled a post, then the FOC voted to restore it, it was restored, and
then you pulled the post a second time in defiance of the FOC decision
to restore the post.
If that was the case, then I feel that you should have been
sanctioned. After all, you should be required to obey the same rules
just like everybody else.
Now, you complain that the sanctioning process has been revealed by
Ron. However, there is another rule that states that the sanctioning
process can be revealed after it is completed. The sanctioning process
has now been completed with your resignation, since you will no longer
be sanctioned since you have voluntarily resigned.
Thus, we now know the real reason why you resigned, which was to
escape being sanctioned.
While you were moderator you pulled dozens of perfectly legitimate
posts by a wide variety of posters. I believe that almost all of the
pulling of posts was done by you as moderator5. There were numerous
complaints that you pulled posts simply because they were critical of
Polgar, whom you support for election. For example, you never pulled
posts by George, Mark or tanstaafl, even though they are constantly
attacking other people in clear violation of AUG, because they support
that same candidate that you support, namely Polgar.
Already we see Mark screaming because Polgar is no longer protected by
you from posts critical of her.
I think that now that the truth is coming out you will not find that
there is much sympathy for your situation.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
samsloan
of the thread. I'm in no position to demand. I am suggesting Mr. G
resign because of conflict of interest in that he can no longer act in
a unbiased way based on his stated support of candidates and dislike
of other candidates. Evidence of this is the changing of moderation
policy, restoring of removed posts that were removed legitematly by
the AUG, and politically motivated restoration of posts.[/quote]
Bill Goichberg did not change moderation policy. Bill Goichberg also
did not restore pulled posts.
What has finally come out since the resignation of Gregory Alexander
is that something like 95% to 99% of all pulled posts were pulled by
Gregory Alexander. The other two moderators do not moderate very
actively.
However, when Gregory Alexander pulled a post, it often happened that
the FOC (that I like to call the Polly-Group) would vote to reinstate
the post. Then Gregory Alexander would complain in a posting to this
group that the FOC has ordered the posting reinstated.
Thus, there has been a war going on between Gregory Alexander and the
Polly-Group for the last few months. Finally, the Polly-Group was on
the verge of voting to sanction Gregory Alexander.
Apparently, at this point Bill Goichberg contacted the moderators and
told them to lighten up, so as to stop this civil war.
I fail to understand how Mark can call this "unethical" and even
demand the resignation of Bill Goichberg from the USCF Executive
Board.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
and the title of this thread is: Dirty and Disgusting Politics -
Please Resign Mr. Goichberg
Thus, in the very title, the Mark Nibbelin has referred to Bill
Goichberg as both "Dirty" and "Disgusting".
This parallels the frequent statements on Susan's blog about:
"Dirty Chess Politicians"
"Disgusting Chess Politicians"
"Destructive Chess Politicians"
Yet, Mark Nibbelin complains that the forum is not being moderated
adequately because remarks negative to Polgar are now being allowed,
whereas they were not allowed under previous moderators.
However, if the AUG were being strictly followed, the entire thread
would be deleted and Mark Nibbelin would be suspended for a week.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
So this is the reason why I was under vote to be sanctioned for!?
While this is a nice post, this complaint was completely frivolous
Hal. You accused me of pulling posts for political reasons, and I
stated that [b]'I resent your accession Hal[/b]'; how is this a valid
complaint to sanction me for? Have you read 90% of the other posts?
C'mon Hal, you are better than this.
For that matter, so should be the Chair of the FOC, but Terry chose
not to dismiss this as he had a personal message to send against a
moderator to stop him for pulling posts that were against the AUG that
were against a candidate of his choice. It took only 3 minutes for the
FOC Chair to call for a restoral vote when I pulled a post that
inferred that Susan was in a a 'bordello screaming for clients, and
after the quick 3 vote FOC restore, then I was immediately under
improper sanction review for stating that I resented Hal's
accusation!?
Quck question Terry. I pulled posts equally from both 'sides' when
they were against the AUG, but how many posts were restored when it
was from a person supporting Susan? I have the data saved, care to
argue this point?
Note: I pulled just as many, if not more posts from supporters of the
Polgar slate. However, these posts were never restored by the FOC. It
should be noted that it only takes 3 FOC members to restore a post,
and with the Chairs urging; 3 votes were easily had. Ron, David, and
the Chair, let's toss our the AUG.
If you resent this post, I will make a complaint against you, and in
due fairness; you should vote to sanction yourselves.[/quote]
Your posting above contains a huge number of false statements which
explains why there was a groundswell of relief and why many members of
this forum breathed a sign of relief when you finally resigned as
moderator of the USCF Forum.
There has never been a posting to the Forum or anywhere else that
inferred that Susan Polgar was in a 'bordello screaming for clients'.
The comment by a grandmaster and former US Woman's Champion was a
perfectly valid commentary especially in light of the fact that Susan
Polgar constantly brags about her creation of the woman's "Dream
Team". That was the reason why the FOC so quickly voted to restore the
post.
It was well known that you were an extremely partisan pro-Polgar
supporter even before you were appointed first as a member of the FOC
and then as a moderator. It was a great error in judgment by Bill
Goichberg to appoint you to these positions and it is unfortunate that
you could not have been more even-handed in the use of the power this
gave you.
Every regular reader of the USCF Forum can plainly see that the
Polgarites are constantly attacking everybody who disagrees with them.
George, Mark Nebblin, Tanstaafl and you are constantly attacking
people, yet your posts are never pulled. Somebody like oldtimer who
never attacked anybody or even mentioned the name of anybody, was
suspended several times and was finally forced to leave the forum
simply because his statements tended to agree with mine.
I was suspended for a week merely for asking Sevan Muradian whether he
intended to submit a bid for the US Woman's Championship. (Apparently
he did not because he never submitted a bid.)
You state above: "this complaint was completely frivolous Hal. You
accused me of pulling posts for political reasons, and I stated that
[b]'I resent your accession Hal[/b]'"
The complaint that you pulled posts for political reasons was not
frivolous. It is widely believed that you pulled posts for political
reasons and you should address that issue rather than repeatedly
telling us how much you resent it.
You also state "3 votes were easily had. Ron, David, and the Chair".
The Chair, Louis Blair, has a long history of attacks on me. Ron as
well has a history, but shorter, of attacks on me. When two of the
three people who have a history of being anti-Sam Sloan nevertheless
repeatedly voted to restore the posts that you had been pulling, that
should tell everybody something about how biased you were.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
that such a motion exists, better, can you point to the motion
number? Every motion is contained in the archives, I believe.[/quote]
Steve, I'm just trying to determine what gave Mr. Goichberg the
authority to have the moderators and FOC loosen up on enforcement of
the agreed to AUG. If there was no official action to instruct the
members to loosen, well Mr. Goichberg acted innapropriately, and if
there was action, I would like to see what was said, what was agreed
to, and who voted what on it.
Sam, did you get to vote on this?[/quote]
No. I did not get to vote on this and there was no such motion.
One of my big complaints about Bill Goichberg is he decides everything
himself and just about never seeks the advice and consent of the
board. Thus the board members are reduced to being mere spectators.
An example of this was the US Championship. Bill Goichberg decided who
got to play in the US Championship. He handed out the invitations. Had
we board members been allowed to participate in the process, the
lineup in the US Championship would have been considerably different.
Having said that, I have long been complaining to Bill Goichberg that
the moderators and the FOC are excessively partisan Polgarites. We
have seen huge fights between Terry Winchester and the other members
of the FOC and between Gregory Alexander and the other moderators.
Also, any call by Bill Goichberg to "loosen up" on the moderation was
obviously directed at Gregory Alexander because something like 99% of
all pulling of posts was done by him. The other two moderators are
experienced ICC moderators and they never pull anything without good
reason. Certainly they would never pull a post just because it is
directed at a candidate they support.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
I checked again, my attorney(I did not ask so I will not at
this time give out his name) says you are partly right in your
assumptions. There is apparently a difference in a chat forum and a
Blog. A person can be held responsible for allowing a post to
remain(there is something about the word remain) on their Blog, I will
not try to quote all the terms, nor do I think I can remember them
all, that he used. I have used this attorney for 30 years and he has
not been wrong yet,so I will therefore stand by my statement.[/quote]
I think there is a big difference between a forum like this one and a
blog like Susan's.
The only moderation comes when a zealous supporter of a particular
candidate pulls a posting, usually several hours after the original
posting was made. Then, there is an appeals process.
On Susan's Blog, nothing is posted without Susan's approval. Susan
obviously does not agree with everything that is posted there. For
example, there are posts constantly appearing on her blog stating
something like, "Go Back to Where you came from. We don't need your
kind over here. This is a job for a man, not a woman."
We must assume that Susan does not agree with these comments, although
we suspect that Susan writes them herself, or that they are written by
Truong.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
That is because you do not know the truth.
[/quote]
I know the truth. You do not know the truth. Nyaa, nya...
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!
How does one argue with a child?
Sample:
[quote="samsloan"]It was a great error in judgment by Bill Goichberg
to appoint you to these positions and it is unfortunate that you could
not have been more even-handed in the use of the power this gave you.
[/quote]
Sloan can't even get this correct. This is a prevarication that he
has told several times about FOC members and Moderators. According to
BINFO 200701177 the vote was 4-0 to appoint three new members,
including Gregory, to the FOC. Bill Goichberg did not appoint these
three, the EB did by a 4-0 vote.
Sam Sloan can not be trusted for any measurable veracity. He should
not be on the EB. What a way for a member of USCF governance to treat
volunteers...[/quote]
OK. Let's take a look at that BINFO, which is dated 23 April 2007:
"Terry Winchester, chair of the FOC, reports that three members
have resigned: Jerry MacDonald, Bill Smythe, and JediJoshua (I believe
his name is Jerry Snyder). He suggests that we name the following to
replace them: David Quinn, Stephen Owens, and Gregory Alexander. On
behalf of the board's FOC subcommittee, I move that we approve these
appointments.
"David Quinn (Artichoke), Stephen Owens (SteveTN) and Gregory
Alexander are all very active forum posters and I suggest that anyone
unfamiliar with them go to the forum and read their posts before
voting.
"Bill Goichberg
"The motion has been approved 4-0 with Marinello and Sloan abstaining.
"Bill Goichberg"
As you can see it was made by Bill Goichberg who effectively appointed
all the original moderators and who has been running a "Stop Sam
Sloan" campaign by mailing more than ten thousand postcards all across
the country telling people NOT to vote for me.
One of the proposed FOC members was SteveTN who has been attacking me
daily since 2002 and is well known to be vehemently against me.
Another is Gregory Alexander who also has a history of attacking me.
So, it seems rather clear that these FOC members were appointed for
the specific purpose of stopping me from posting here.
As it turned out, SteveTN and Gregory Alexander subsequently quit and
that is why I am still allowed to post here. That is what Mark
Nibbelin is complaining about.
Sam Sloan
Chess One
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184330449....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> "The motion has been approved 4-0 with Marinello and Sloan abstaining.
>
> "Bill Goichberg"
>
> As you can see it was made by Bill Goichberg
(1) Made by a board majority
> who effectively appointed
> all the original moderators and who has been running a "Stop Sam
> Sloan" campaign by mailing more than ten thousand postcards all across
> the country telling people NOT to vote for me.
(2) But that is okay, since he has also relegated other people's status in
his quite legal representations.
(3) I notice that the President also included a USCF political message in
his latest, greatest tournament announcements for CCA! /That/ issue is more
troublesome, since the natural conflict of interest of the most powerful
competitor to chess organisation in the USA is overlooked! But not a peep on
this subject from current board members, since the big loser to loiss of
competition is the chess public ;)
> One of the proposed FOC members was SteveTN who has been attacking me
> daily since 2002 and is well known to be vehemently against me.
(4) He has also been 'attacking' me, rather more in fact than Sam Sloan.
Steve TN 'attacks' me a couple times a week, so Sam Sloan's statement is
more than a little untrue.
(5) What Mr. Steve doesn't like is that as a non-current USCF member I dare
to comment on the organisation, and what he really doesn't like to read are
such obvious conflicts of interest as I write above - on CCA/USCF
relationship, for example.
> Another is Gregory Alexander who also has a history of attacking me.
I first wrote with Mr. Alexander perhaps 3 years ago? And was a minor player
in his major initiative to establish an intercollegiate chess league, which
spanned the continent. In his postings on the USCf forum I note that he is
usaully the most moderate voice, attempting to reconcile various views,
while taking no heavily-polarised ones himself.
> So, it seems rather clear that these FOC members were appointed for
> the specific purpose of stopping me from posting here.
(6) Yes, so it would seem to Sam Sloan, since its all about him! Even when
its not.
(7) Sam Sloan has the unmittigated gall to complain about Forum moderation
when he banned Rob Mitchell for inquiring after Sam Sloan's own behavior;
which were twofold - in his illegal mentions of a USCF employees health
details, a subject Sam Sloan now fatuously denies; and also in Sloan's
respect of issues of public decency standards, to wit, even if he
understands why people are critical of him to such an extent that sponsors
raise both eyebrows, then turn their heads elsewhere.
(8) In the above issue Sam Sloan'a own standard of Forum moderation was
this: he acted as accuser, prosecutor, jury, then censorious judge!
Phil Innes
Vermont
Rob
> "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam seems to sufffer from the delusion that the chess universe
revolves around him.
samsloan
like this one and a blog like Susan's.
The only moderation comes when a zealous supporter of a particular
candidate pulls a posting, usually several hours after the original
posting was made. Then, there is an appeals process.
On Susan's Blog, nothing is posted without Susan's approval. Susan
obviously does not agree with everything that is posted there. For
example, there are posts constantly appearing on her blog stating
something like, "Go Back to Where you came from. We don't need your
kind over here. This is a job for a man, not a woman."
We must assume that Susan does not agree with these comments, although
we suspect that Susan writes them herself, or that they are written by
Truong.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
Take a look at Polgar's Blog, especially at:
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/07/open-uscf-election-thread.html
There, Polgar attacks almost everybody on the USCF Forum. Also, she
quotes extensively from postings made here, probably without
permission.
She has taken long postings here by Mike Aigner, Gregory Alexander and
Mark Nebbilin and re-posted them to her Blog. I doubt that she has the
permission of Mike Aigner although she might have the permission of
Gregory Alexander and Mark Nibbelin because they are known long-
standing Polgaristas.
People are complaining about copyright violations. What about this?
Now, take a look at all the people she attacks. It is almost everybody
on the USCF Forums.
It is noteworthy that she never attacks Joel Channing although she
constantly attacks his Buddy Don Schultz nowadays. One wonders why she
never attacks Channing. Perhaps he gave her money at some time in the
past.
The list of people she attacks is so long that I cannot copy the names
here.
Then she throws in her usual jingoist message by an "anonymous"
poster, saying "Go Back to where you came from. We don't want no
fereigners or women here."
I am so deeply disappointed that she hardly ever attacks me any more.
How could she have forgotten me so soon!
Sam Sloan
samsloan
information. I certainly don't deny that the content is what I posted
here.[/quote]
Thank you for informing us of this. I suspected that you had not given
permission.
What I find objectionable is her use of long quotes (well beyond the
allowed "fair use") plus the way that she implies that the poster
supports her for election.
I often quote people, but I never suggest or imply that they support
me or are voting for me.
Here I feel that any average reader of her blog will assume that Mike
Aigner, Mark Nibbelin and Gregory Alexander support her for election.
Whether that is true or not, I do not know.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
enjoying my summer without the extra headaches:lol:[/quote]
It is interesting to recall that Gregory Alexander initially posted
that he was resigning only because he was planning "on enjoying [his]
summer".
We now know that the real reason was that he felt that he was on the
verge of being sanctioned by the FOC, and he had been having
tremendous fights with the FOC, after he had repeatedly pulled posts
and they had reinstated them.
So, should Mr. Alexander now be sanctioned for #####?
Sam Sloan
samsloan
one.
There are less postings being pulled nowadays than there were
previously, not because Bill Goichberg told the moderators to "loosen
up", but because the composition of the moderators and the FOC has
changed.
With the most welcome departure of Gregory Alexander, all of the
Polgaristas and Polgarites have quit as moderators and members of the
FOC. When these positions were created and appointed by Bill
Goichberg, the majority of moderators and FOC members were Polgaristas
and Polgarites. That was because Goichberg initially supported Polgar
for election so his appointments were top-heavy with Polgarites and
Polgaristas.
Moderation was so severe that one wag referred to Polgar as "the name
that one dare not speak" because almost every negative posting about
Polgar was immediately deleted by the moderators.
Now, the moderators and FOC members are relatively neutral and as a
result more postings are being allowed. This is what Mark Nibbelin is
complaining about.
Sam Sloan
Chess One
[quote="gregory"]Thank-you. No, freedom beckons, and I plan on
enjoying my summer without the extra headaches:lol:[/quote]
It is interesting to recall that Gregory Alexander initially posted
that he was resigning only because he was planning "on enjoying [his]
summer".
We now know that the real reason was that he felt that he was on the
verge of being sanctioned by the FOC, and he had been having
tremendous fights with the FOC, after he had repeatedly pulled posts
and they had reinstated them.
**If I may use some unlady-like language - what a bunch of balls!
I don't know who the 'we' is above, but I knew months ago that the gent
intended to continue until the election process was complete, that this was
always his intent, and that he has not changed it as result of recent
affairs.
So, should Mr. Alexander now be sanctioned for #####?
** 'McCarthy' Sloan has blamed everyone [else] for everything so far, so,
'we' should at least grant him consistency in his campaign to blame. What is
less certain about Mr. Sloan is the effect of anything he has 'done' to
date. Is there, to anyone's knowledge, anything?
Phil Innes
Sam Sloan
mar...@stkittsnevischess.org
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sloan is similar to Richard Nixion. He has his moments of greatness,
but terrible moments of weakness. If you listen to Nixion tapes, and
read Sloan's posts, they are quite similar. What a resule for a
"hippe" to turn into a Richard Nixion.
At least Nixion resigned when he got caught in a felony. Sloan's
greatness came after his tour of the pokey for kidnapping...
Marcus Roberts
samsloan
FOC members who do not agree with your political views also did not
agree with the pressure they felt with your involvement in the
moderation process. I guess it is possible that you are just unaware
of the influence you wield but I have problems believing that
completely. After all, you not only appear to have called, emailed,
and pm'd enough people that some of them [b]felt[/b] what you were
doing was inapropriate.[/quote]
Who does this "several moderators or FOC members" consist of?
We know of one, Gregory Alexander.
Nobody has yet said that they acted any differently because of this
supposed pressure.
All we have is the claim by Gregory Alexander that a ton of the posts
that he pulled were restored by the FOC. He apparently claims, without
any evidence to support it, that the posts that he pulled were
restored due to pressure from Bill Goichberg. However, I doubt that it
really true. From what I have been able to see, Gregory constantly
pulled posts which were in no way objectionable, simply because they
contained negative inferences about political candidates that he
supported.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
that David met with you outside of the meeting at Stillwater and was
asked to reduce moderation, especially in regards to political speech-
and Terry stated that he has an email that states that political
speech should be allowed where ever possible.[/quote]
How was it possible for David to meet with Bill outside of the meeting
in Crossville, since David was not in Crossville and I feel certain
that David has not met with Bill anywhere else for that matter.
Is this the same Terry who resigned, revoked his resignation and then
resigned again and again?
What we all can see is that Gregory Alexander is extremely bitter,
even though he voluntarily resigned his position as moderator. I am
sure that he will never be let back in as moderator, so he should just
give it up and try to find some other way to help the candidates he
supports.
Sam Sloan
Chess One
<mar...@stkittsnevischess.org> wrote in message
news:1184358032.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sloan is similar to Richard Nixion. He has his moments of greatness,
> but terrible moments of weakness. If you listen to Nixion tapes, and
> read Sloan's posts, they are quite similar. What a resule for a
> "hippe" to turn into a Richard Nixion.
As a 'foreigner' I quite like Richard Nixon. He was prone in office to a bit
more paranoia than most president's show, but he also solved more issues
than any 3 recent presidents, and at least could be said to have thought his
own thoughts! He was also by far the most intelligent Republican for an age,
and a strong strudent of history.
He really lacked sufficient 'inner' democracy to conduct the outer one.
> At least Nixion resigned when he got caught in a felony. Sloan's
> greatness came after his tour of the pokey for kidnapping...
I am not sure Sam Sloan every did anything illegal, Marcus, except
technically so - and could be said to have been acting as a responsible
parent in the child's best interest as he saw it, rather than as the law saw
it.
I don't think this fact alone disqualifies him from anything!
The things that would limit Sam Sloan are those other things which he
neglects to notice, and as far as I can see, these are not just my opinions,
but those of the chess community, and broader, the values of the society.
If he had shown any signs of taking notice of himself, then, again like for
most of us, this would mediate his incessant judgements on other people by a
little understanding. You know, being able to say 'I resent that, I resemble
that!' Unfortunately the issues he raises are so intoxicated with a need to
project blame that all he seems to want to do is cause a sensation - instead
of providing a remedy.
More recently Sam has been more than a little hypocritical about this forum
business, since his 'own' yahoo-Fide site contains no objective standards,
and while he critices the Polgar Blog and the US Forum for censorship, he
has not demonstrated a higher standard himself.
But that's personality stuff for you - does anyone win?
Phil Innes
> Marcus Roberts
>
samsloan
Mark, are you ready to be a member of the FOC or a Moderator?
We do have openings in both areas, and if not I will gladly give you
my spot.[/quote]
OK Ron, I'm ready to be a moderator or an FOC member[/quote]
The board will have to vote on this and you will just never guess what
my vote is going to be.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
Did you let my friend Ron on the FOC? :D[/quote]
The motion to put Ron on the FOC was a surprise motion made by Bill
Goichberg during the meeting in Stillwater.
I was somewhat hesitant, but I believe that I voted for it. I do
object to the fact that Bill Goichberg keeps making these surprise
motions in such a way as to make it impossible to check on the posting
record of the person before voting.
I doubt that Bill will make a motion to put Mark Nibbelin on the FOC,
especially since Mark just stated a few minutes ago that he is opposed
to free speech and is in favor of imposing fines on anyone who makes
negative remarks about chess personalities such as Susan Polgar.
There will be no more board meetings until Cherry Hill. If Bill
Goichberg does try to put Mark Nibbelin on the FOC before then, I am
fairly certain that I can muster the three votes needed to block it.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
pulled a post, the FOC voted that it be restored, and Gregory
Alexander refused to restore it.
In one case, that evil Moderator4, the one who teaches his children to
cheat, restored the post, but then Gregory Alexander, who was
moderator5, pulled it a second time.
That is what started the conflict that led Gregory Alexander to resign
and started the current acrimonious debate.
So, the fact that the FOC voted to restore it does not mean much until
it is actually restored.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Here are your answers Sam:
Terry Vibbert is the new FOC Chair, I thought that you knew this Sam.
As far as David, maybe you should ask him what he meant by this, I am
sure that he would tell you being a supporter of yours and all.
"I know that Goichberg and Channing directly asked me, outside of the
Executive Board meeting in Stillwater, to reduce moderation especially
of political speech."
David Quinn
Quote from post:57358 in the staff lounge
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:48 pm
Perhaps he 'discussed' with them, rather than met; or maybe it was
made up; I don't know. But if it did happen; I sure wish that these
views were shared openly with us all. This would have saved us a bunch
of hassles, and in this case, I probably would not have resigned.[/
quote]
If the quote attributed to David is correct, I'm disappointed in him.
I've said no such thing. My feeling is that the moderation has been
too lax in matters of personal attacks and nasty comments, most of
which have masqueraded here as political speech.
Joel Channing[/quote]
Mr. Channing, you fail to recognize that at least three very serious
ethical violations were committed by Gregory Alexander, who was until
recently a moderator and apparently wants to be a moderator again, by
the above quote.
First, the qoute attributed to David Quinn was not correct. David
Quinn never wrote any such thing. Gregory Alexander admitted this a
few posts later when he wrote:
"My apologies; yes, you are right-- my email is stripping out the
quote tags. It was a quote from someone else then and this was not by
you."
However, in some cases mere apologies are not enough. This is one of
those cases. Also, I believe that now that Gregory Alexander has
provided the quote, he must reveal who said it. Probably it was Mike
Aigner, as he was the only moderator of FOC member who was actually at
the meeting in Stillwater and therefore in a position to say this.
But that is not all. Gregory Alexander has taken this quote from the
confidential "staff lounge", a secret place where moderators and FOC
members discuss which postings to delete and which should be allowed
to stand. However, Gregory Alexander is not supposed to have access to
that staff lounge any more since he has resigned both as FOC member
and as moderator. So, what seems to have happened is that Mike Nolan
forgot to cut him off from access to the staff lounge when he resigned
or else Gregory Alexander is able to hack into that staff lounge and
obtain information he is not supposed to have.
Next, Gregory Alexander makes the mysterious statement above: "my
email is stripping out the quote tags". Does this mean that somebody
sent him the quote by email? Does it mean that he used an email
program to post that false quote here?
The real problem is that over and over again in dozens of postings
Gregory Alexander demands that David Quinn confess to giving
confidential information to Hal Bogner and myself, among others.
During the debate during the meeting in Stillwater, Gregory Alexander
repeatedly demanded that Hal Bogner, who was at the meetring in
Stillwater while Gregory Alexander on the line, reveal and answer
questions about what Quinn had told him. However, Bogner quite
properly declined to answer. Gregory Alexander simply has no right to
know what was said in a private conversation between two other
persons.
You will see in subsequent postings including today, Gregory Alexander
writes, "Answer this, yes or no". He keeps demanding that Quinn reveal
confidential information while at the same time we know that Gregory
Alexander has revealed confidential information by that false quote
above from the staff lounge.
Not only that, but it seems that Gregory Alexander wants his position
as moderator back. He writes, "If I had known that, I would not have
resigned my position as moderator".
Heaven help us if he should be reinstated as moderator. We have every
reason to be concerned about that possibility, especially since Terry
Winchester resigned three times as FOC member and, after much yelling
and screaming like the proverbial "girls in a bordello", then took
back his resignations claiming that his resignations were not
effective since they had not been accepted.
Sam Sloan
help bot
> > > (6) Yes, so it would seem to Sam Sloan, since its all about him! Even when
> > > its not.
> > Sam seems to sufffer from the delusion that the chess universe
> > revolves around him.
Okay, why didn't IM Innes get the memo? Everyone
else did. In Binfo... um, I forgot which number... it was
reported that, by a vote of 6--3 with Dr. Blair abstaining,
everything chess-related would from then on, revolve
around Sam Sloan. (We were all drunk, and there was
something very strange about those brownies... .)
> Sloan is similar to Richard Nixion. He has his moments of greatness,
> but terrible moments of weakness. If you listen to Nixion tapes, and
> read Sloan's posts, they are quite similar. What a resule for a
> "hippe" to turn into a Richard Nixion.
I'm bored with listening to my old Bobby Fischer tapes;
he is nearly as repetitive as early Hall & Oates. Please
send me these Nixon tapes, so I can hear what he has
to say about Watergate, Chappequidick, and Rock'n'Roll.
-- help bot
help bot
> As a 'foreigner' I quite like Richard Nixon. He was prone in office to a bit
> more paranoia than most president's show, but he also solved more issues
> than any 3 recent presidents,
Um, no handy examples for those of us who are not
"strudents" of history?
> and at least could be said to have thought his
> own thoughts!
Crucial! This is one point I keep trying to make.
> He was also by far the most intelligent Republican for an age,
> and a strong strudent of history.
I recently viewed a chart which showed that for a long
time, the Democrats had control of the White House;
so I'm wondering if this might be what prompts such a
comment, rather than anything special about RN. The
balance of presidential power eventually shifted to the
Republicans, perhaps making Bill Clinton stand out
from others as well.
> He really lacked sufficient 'inner' democracy to conduct the outer one.
>
> > At least Nixion resigned when he got caught in a felony. Sloan's
> > greatness came after his tour of the pokey for kidnapping...
>
> I am not sure Sam Sloan every did anything illegal, Marcus, except
> technically so
Huh? The law is technical sometimes, but not others? Or it
changes its "polarity" every five hundred thousand years?
>- and could be said to have been acting as a responsible
> parent in the child's best interest as he saw it, rather than
> as the law saw it.
Good point. Too bad it was someone else's, and not
your own. BTW, I notice that those who seem to want
to "advocate" this special interpretation make no
attempts to change the apparently erroneous law. If
I didn't know better, I would guess that's because they
don't really believe their own spiel.
> I don't think this fact alone disqualifies him from anything!
Well, on top of the felony, there is also his taste in
chess openings; the Grob and Damiano's -- where is
the Spanish Inquisition when they are really needed?
> Unfortunately the issues he raises are so intoxicated with a need to
> project blame that all he seems to want to do is cause a sensation - instead
> of providing a remedy.
I think this is spot-on correct. However, not everyone
who is good at identifying or analyzing problems is also
capable (or good) at finding, or in a position to implement,
their solutions. Thus, when an accurate analysis is given
sans solution, rather than try and blame the messenger,
those who were not themselves able to spot the trouble
might do better to put their minds toward a solution; to
share the work-load, so to speak.
To my mind, even though it is highly probable -- if not
certain -- that Mr. Sloan's motive for spotting financial
blunders inside the USCF is to garner attention for
himself, nevertheless, when these problems are
identified, I don't see any point in obsessing over who
held the spotlight or why they were searching. In fact,
I think it is grossly unfair to expect the discoverer of
a problem to also find its workable solution; that places
all the work on one person.
> More recently Sam has been more than a little hypocritical about this forum
> business, since his 'own' yahoo-Fide site contains no objective standards,
> and while he critices the Polgar Blog
Ouch! This is why my blog has always been fortified
with high-carbon steel braces, and surrounded by a
high-voltage fence. (By the way, was that you who
tried to pee on the fence last night, only to discover
that, yes, there are current-carrying ions in one's pee?)
> and the US Forum for censorship, he
> has not demonstrated a higher standard himself.
>
> But that's personality stuff for you - does anyone win?
Just from reading a little about what goes on over there,
I get the general impression that the infighting is far from
reduced by the use of moderators. Instead, the war
simply shifts to battles over who will command the high
seas, and to what degree. As far as I can tell, it seems
to be Captain Goichberg: widely feared -- and hated --
for his ruthlessness, greed, and yes, success, as a
USCF-sanctioned pirate. But what do I know? I'm just
an observer.
-- help bot
Chess One
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184736074.8...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 14, 9:03 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> As a 'foreigner' I quite like Richard Nixon. He was prone in office to a
>> bit
>> more paranoia than most president's show, but he also solved more issues
>> than any 3 recent presidents,
>
> Um, no handy examples for those of us who are not
> "strudents" of history?
No, sorry. While usenet exists as a form of edu-tainment, history of your
own country is something you might take more seriously, especially from
native-born senior commentators who were 'there'.
>> and at least could be said to have thought his
>> own thoughts!
>
> Crucial! This is one point I keep trying to make.
Apart from Clinton, Nixon was the best historian to be a US President
since... ?
>> He was also by far the most intelligent Republican for an age,
>> and a strong strudent of history.
>
>
> I recently viewed a chart which showed that for a long
> time, the Democrats had control of the White House;
> so I'm wondering if this might be what prompts such a
> comment, rather than anything special about RN. The
> balance of presidential power eventually shifted to the
> Republicans, perhaps making Bill Clinton stand out
> from others as well.
Nixon purportedly had the highest IQ of any republican, at 150. The average
is 115. The current President's is purportedly 91. Carter had more than
twice that at 185, and Clinton at 175. These are 'assessed' IQs and may be
biased, yet at least real biased shrinks made em up.
>> He really lacked sufficient 'inner' democracy to conduct the outer one.
>>
>> > At least Nixion resigned when he got caught in a felony. Sloan's
>> > greatness came after his tour of the pokey for kidnapping...
>>
>> I am not sure Sam Sloan every did anything illegal, Marcus, except
>> technically so
>
>
> Huh? The law is technical sometimes, but not others? Or it
> changes its "polarity" every five hundred thousand years?
Sure, to both.
>>- and could be said to have been acting as a responsible
>> parent in the child's best interest as he saw it, rather than
>> as the law saw it.
>
> Good point. Too bad it was someone else's, and not
> your own.
Perhaps it is even a third party's, and would be, thereby, a view held by
many people. Certainly my own point of view is not inclined to be generous
to Sam Sloan, since what he preaches is rather different than what he does -
nevertheless, there is enough material to challenge his own conduct without
having to make things up.
> BTW, I notice that those who seem to want
> to "advocate" this special interpretation make no
> attempts to change the apparently erroneous law.
I certainly don't want to change the law. I advocate that it stays as it
is - there are already more people in jail per capita in this country than
anywhere else [?] and the law itself provides for context to be considered.
> If
> I didn't know better, I would guess that's because they
> don't really believe their own spiel.
As above: unless you study your own history which includes what your own
Constitution provides you, then you will not know better.
>> I don't think this fact alone disqualifies him from anything!
>
>
> Well, on top of the felony, there is also his taste in
> chess openings; the Grob and Damiano's -- where is
> the Spanish Inquisition when they are really needed?
True. Sloan has persisted in Spassky-disease. The young Boris was hammering
everyone with his King's Gambit, and his trainers told him off! But! said
Boris, I am hammering every... They told him that this was not enough to
survive in the first tier of chess, and they were right, otherwise Boris
Spassky would have been a very good player in a country chock-a-block with
great players, and severely limited his own potential.
As a youth I made a living out of 1.b4. ROFL. And on giving it up my results
were awful. I really liked taking the initiative and chosing either tactical
or strategic set-ups, with or without a gambit - and since I was aggressive
this paid off against my level of competition, which was rarely above master
level. But I was ambitious enough to want to do more than that - and
Benoni/Benko set-ups with black weren't good enough either.
So I had to learn e and d pawn openings from both sides of the board, until
I could cope with White's Sicilian and bang out 1... c5! with confidence.
Of course - this weird openings can be used as an attempt to ~shock~
partner. With very great amusement I was looking through a book and found
Hoogovens, Wijk aan Zee, 1972.
V. Smyslov - A. Adorjan
1. b4
ROFL! I mean - of all players to open 1. b4 I wonder if Symslov [something
of a conservative at the board] talked with other Russian players about
trying this on Adorjan? The Adorjan text then goes into a little rant about
1.g4? which he says is a complete nightmare, and that he "can understand
people who write books on garbage like this. But those who buy them...?"
Anyway - the above game takes the line
1...e5
2. Bb2 Bxb4
3. Bxe5 Nf6
4. Nf3 0-0
5. e3 Be7!?
unusual, but 'simple and good' says AA.
Anyway, Smyslov doen't understand enough about the features of this
formation to exploit whatever he has, and never gets enough activity for
white
6. c4 d5!
7. Nc3 Nc6
8. Bxf6 Bxf6
9. Rc1 d6
[more ambitious, worth examination, and less patient is 9. ...Bxc3, is this
what Smyslov wants to incite???]
10. Be2 Be6
11. 0-0 Rc8
12. Qc2 h6?!
[AA thinks he missed g6! so that Nd5, Bg7]
13. a3 - and here Nd5 is indicated as a winning try for the initiative
13... Rc8
14. d3?!
[Nd5! still equalises]
14. ... Bxc3!
15. Qxc3 b6
16. Rfd1 d5
Draw. 17. d4 ? is very wrong, while 17 cxd5! is necessary to continue.
Syslov could not find the right way to play the formation, and chose
positional means to perhaps invite an attack [see 9 above] but without
sufficient counter-initiative to exploit any openings. White should obtain
at least one good bishop and support it with Queen activity to repress
balck's manoevres, while simultaneouly trying to repress the black Q side
pawns [inviting a rush in the center with e and f pawns, which hopefully can
be stalled, and which uncover both black and white diagonals against the
castled black King which tends to paralyse black's position, or revert it to
defence, while white makes incremental gains. That would be a better
positional understanding.
---
What we say below is to return to Sloan = and I am so tired of issues being
raised /having/ to revolve around him, that hasn't it all been said already?
The only person who doesn't know about the Sloan effect, is Sloan himself.
It would be something if he by raising 'questions' he could act as a
catalyst, or some agent of useful change, thereby - but there is not the
slightest evidence of that, and is as ego-maniacal as the other petty
burocrats, who can be called at most, cute but not convincing.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Inconnux
> Nixon purportedly had the highest IQ of any republican, at 150. The
> average
> is 115. The current President's is purportedly 91. Carter had more than
> twice that at 185, and Clinton at 175. These are 'assessed' IQs and may be
> biased, yet at least real biased shrinks made em up.
>
for awhile.
I believe the 'study' assessed their IQ's based on the vocabulary they use.
IQ tests don't
test vocab :)
Chess One
"Inconnux" <ever...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9qvni.42148$Io4.8009@edtnps89...
It was somewhat broader than that - including speaking of any original idea,
extemporare, or being able to speak much at all!
I am sure if the current president resents this statement he will publish
his tested IQ rating, which is [lol] classified.
Phil
Gregory
false. Imagine that...
For the record, I posted a one sentence quote from the FOC Chair that
he received instructions to lighten moderation to allow political
speech after Bill Goichberg, and the FOC Chair denied that the
instructions were made. It was my long stated claim that we should not
have changed the moderation style, and for some odd reason; the FOC
Chair and Bill Goichberg would not own up to it that these
instructions were indeed privately made. Whether intentional, or not;
it is a fact that Bill shifted the moderation line suddenly in the
midst of a contentious election season and it is my contention that
this should not have been done privately as it can affect the election
and it opens the door to questions that this was used for political
gain. Providing ONE quote that the FOC received instruction to loosen
moderation to 'allow for political speech' is not giving out any
confidential data, in fact, the lightening of moderation should have
all been posted quite openly so that everyone can be aware of a
moderation change so everyone can adjust-- right? Surely the recipient
of the sarcastic 'shining light of the USCF' award can understand
this.
Regarding the David Quinn case- as you very well know, the Executive
Board voted on the matter of David Quinn in an open EB session; and it
failed. This information was released on the public EB transcripts.
When I heard David admit that he was once again passing off
confidential data to his personal friends-- to you and 'others' as you
have mentioned, I decided to call him on it. Furthermore, your friend
on the FOC committee has been regularly passing off ALL of the
confidential data to his friends, one of which is you. He and you both
have admitted to such. I find it highly ironic that you are
criticizing others for what you and David have been regularly doing
for the last several months, if not years. This behavior is quite
unethical, but I am sure that you won't see it this way-- too bad.
On a personal note: I can't wait to see you dropped off of the
Executive Board.
Gregory
Gregory
samsloan
The above shrill posting by Gregory Alexander tells a good part of the
story.
Gregory Alexander was briefly a member of the Forum Oversight
Committee (or "FOC") and then was made a moderator also briefly. While
on the FOC he and most FOC members voted to expel one of their fellow
members David Quinn from the FOC on the ground that he had violated
confidentiality by leaking information about what the FOC was doing.
Gergory Alexander believed and apparently still believes that David
Quinn had given me confidential information about a threatening letter
Paul Truong had written to the FOC complaining about Brian Lafferty.
Gregory Alexander was and still is mistaken. David Quinn had not given
me the Truong letter.
Anyway, Bill Goichberg and the rest of the executive board voted 6-0
and ruled that the FOC has no right to confidentiality. Also, the
board has no right to confidentiality other than temporary
confidentiality.
Gregory Alexander was transferred and became a moderator. He proceeded
to go on a wild rampage deleting every post even mildly or impliedly
critical of the Polgar slate that he supports. Meanwhile, most of the
Polgaristas and Polgarites had resigned from the FOC or as moderators,
so when he would remove a posting the remaining FOC members would vote
to reinstate it.
This led to a tug-of-war where Gregory Alexander would remove a
posting, the FOC would vote to reinstate it, and then Gregory
Alexander would remove it again.
Finally, the FOC was voting to censure Gregory Alexander and ask the
EB to remove him. At just that moment Gregory Alexander resigned thus
ending the crisis.
Sam Sloan
Paul Rubin
> Gregory Alexander was briefly a member of the Forum Oversight
> Committee (or "FOC") and then was made a moderator also briefly.
Why does anyone care about the stupid USCF forum? It sounds even more
dysfunctional than rgcp.
samsloan
Not true. The USCF Forum (which Paul Rubin cannot join because he is
not a USCF member) is much better than rgcp, mainly because the Fake
Sam Sloan cannot go there. Everybody must verifiable as a USCF member
posting under his real name.
That keeps out all the riffraff like "Rob Mitchell".
The debates in the USCF Forum are much better and sometimes actually
accomplish something! Gregory Alexander was a real problem because he
used his position as moderator to delete any posting he disagreed
with, but now that he has gone we are having some useful, constructive
debates.
Sam Sloan
help bot
> >> Nixon purportedly had the highest IQ of any republican, at 150. The
> >> average
> >> is 115. The current President's is purportedly 91. Carter had more than
> >> twice that at 185, and Clinton at 175. These are 'assessed' IQs and may
> >> be biased, yet at least real biased shrinks made em up.
>
> > This is based on an 'urban myth' study that has been floating around
> > online for awhile.
> > I believe the 'study' assessed their IQ's based on the vocabulary they
> > use. IQ tests don't
> > test vocab :)
>
> It was somewhat broader than that - including speaking of any original idea,
> extemporare, or being able to speak much at all!
>
> I am sure if the current president resents this statement he will publish
> his tested IQ rating, which is [lol] classified.
It is interesting to note how low are your standards
for guesstimating IQ. For instance, looking at only
verbal, public-speaking skills rather than a battery of
tests which might cover logic, math, and so forth, as
well as verbal skills.
My take on George W. Bush is that he would be
heavily penalized by such an approach due to his
problems with frequently jumbling words. I imagine
that inside his head, these words and ideas are
quite possibly all in order, but there may be a
problem with the transmission lines or else he is
already thinking about what he will say next.
One should note that back in my day, a president
would normally have carefully-prepared speeches,
in fact, prepared specifically to try and make him
sound smart. Nowadays, we have live TV where
the real facts can be easily seen, and this is a
huge disadvantage.
As for your silly numbers at top, I think it makes
sense to attribute the speaking ability of a
successful politician partly to this being a trained
professional, so to speak; this is what politicians
do, so of course they must be competent to some
degree. So, far from requiring numbers like 175 or
even 150, we might try to be a bit more realistic
here. Ever watch one of the debates on TV? I'm
sorry, but it becomes quite clear that many, if not
most, of these people are not all that smart. And
you surely must know that all too often, they get
caught with their pants down -- 175 my arse!
-- help bot
help bot
To me, the name Bill Goichberg seems to pop up
as if he were running the whole show singlehandedly.
Time and again, Sam Sloan will note that BG and a
random assortment of toadies voted this or that into
law. Hey -- why not end the charade and give the
man full dictatorial powers, make him King? Then
all you need is bodyguards and a standing army to
fend off the Huns, Turks, and so forth.
-- help bot
help bot
> > Why does anyone care about the stupid USCF forum? It sounds even more
> > dysfunctional than rgcp.
>
> Not true. The USCF Forum (which Paul Rubin cannot join because he is
> not a USCF member) is much better than rgcp, mainly because the Fake
> Sam Sloan cannot go there.
That seems like something which matters primarily
to just one person, Mr. Sloan.
> Everybody must verifiable as a USCF member
> posting under his real name.
>
> That keeps out all the riffraff like "Rob Mitchell".
Really? So you have revoked Mr. Innes' membership,
have you?
> The debates in the USCF Forum are much better and sometimes actually
> accomplish something!
Too bad the reporting here gives just the opposite
impression then.
> Gregory Alexander was a real problem because he
> used his position as moderator to delete any posting he disagreed
> with, but now that he has gone we are having some useful, constructive
> debates.
For the sake of variety, you might consider listing
a few examples -- just to contrast with the myriad
examples already posted which make the USCF
look like a bunch of petty egomaniacs who just
argue and fuss and fight one another.
-- help bot
Chess One
> On Jul 21, 2:40 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Why does anyone care about the stupid USCF forum? It sounds even more
>> > dysfunctional than rgcp.
>>
>> Not true. The USCF Forum (which Paul Rubin cannot join because he is
>> not a USCF member) is much better than rgcp, mainly because the Fake
>> Sam Sloan cannot go there.
>
>
> That seems like something which matters primarily
> to just one person, Mr. Sloan.
>
>
>> Everybody must verifiable as a USCF member
>> posting under his real name.
>>
>> That keeps out all the riffraff like "Rob Mitchell".
>
>
> Really? So you have revoked Mr. Innes' membership,
> have you?
What a silly fool you are! But there is an even sillier one, as recorded by
Zed, who one netwit was convinced was me, no matter what time of day or
night he consulted Zed, there I was right behind it putting words into its
mouth!
About 6 years ago someone was absolutely sure I was Campomanes! Seems like
people who can't their own names do much of the speculation, dismissing real
people as if they donj't exist! See below:-
Nothing can be as absolutely daft as Sam Sloan who 'permitted' someone
called Rob Mitchell to ask Louis Blair about his Wikipedia destruction, and
if, you know, that really qualified him to moderate anything, since Louis
Blair couldn't give a straight answer to save his life.
Blair's euphemism for destroy is 'moderate'. That is the nonsense of USCF
forumsn, and Paul Rubin [and ex Pres Tim Redman!] is right, its anodyne
stuff that addresses very little, and is entirely politicised [Redman].
When the topic changed to Sam Sloan's mentions of specific staff medical
problems [Sloan now denies he did it - an obvious lie, as plain as, as my
big toe!], and also his aptitude to administer scholastic chess, the very
same Rob Mitchell [same e-mail address, same typos] was dismissed from the
newsgroup!
Sam Sloan also denied that Rob Mitchell had provided him his home phone
number and pretended that he didn't know WHICH Rob Mitchell this was,
therefore his banning of Mitchell was justified, and besides, then he didn't
have to notice those awkward questions!
The Sloan comments below are as unreliable as his actions above. I knew
Gregory when he was arranging a US College chess league, and also as a plain
old poster on the forums - his views were usually the quietest of all - and
of all posters he was the most active in seeking concensus of views, rather
than single-point advocacy of any fixed position.
Help-bog finishes with a useful comment below - instead of characterising
who speaks, lets hear what is spoken of, or lets hear nothin' more from Sam
Sloan whose interest in issues is defined by his own actions against Rob
Mitchell.
Phil Innes
samsloan
> On Jul 21, 2:40 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why does anyone care about the stupid USCF forum? It sounds even more
> > > dysfunctional than rgcp.
>
> > Not true. The USCF Forum (which Paul Rubin cannot join because he is
> > not a USCF member) is much better than rgcp, mainly because the Fake
> > Sam Sloan cannot go there.
>
> That seems like something which matters primarily
> to just one person, Mr. Sloan.
>
> > Everybody must verifiable as a USCF member
> > posting under his real name.
>
> > That keeps out all the riffraff like "Rob Mitchell".
>
> Really? So you have revoked Mr. Innes' membership, have you?
You seem to be confusing the USCF Forum with my FIDE-chess Yahoo
Group. Phil Innes cannot enter the USCF Forum because he is not a USCF
member. He has not been a member since 1996. "Rob Mitchell" cannot
enter the USCF Forum for the same reason. They have nothing to say
anyway. They just fill up rgcp with junk and nonsense, so I would
advise them to save their money and not join the USCF just so that
they can enter the forum.
Sam Sloan
Mike Murray
wrote:
>> Why does anyone care about the stupid USCF forum? It sounds even more
>> dysfunctional than rgcp.
>Not true. The USCF Forum (which Paul Rubin cannot join because he is
>not a USCF member) is much better than rgcp, mainly because the Fake
>Sam Sloan cannot go there. Everybody must verifiable as a USCF member
>posting under his real name.
The one big advantage of the USCF Forum is one can't post anonymously.
There are several big disadvantages:
(1) Posters can *edit* their posts after they've been published, which
in some cases makes the responses in the thread seem nonsensical.
(2) One can't tell when certain threads have been censored, uhh, that
is, "moderated".
(3) One can't access the posts with a real newsreader, such as Agent,
but must rely on the browser, which tends to be slow and awkward. The
UI for composing posts is especially klutzy. It *does* let you use
HTML, which occasionally is effective, but often results in
over-cutesy presentation (15 varieties of smiley emoticons, colored
fonts of various sizes, etc).
(4) My guess is the archiving might be vulnerable, but time will tell.
SBD
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:40:20 -0000, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com>
> wrote: Everybody must verifiable as a USCF member
> >posting under his real name.
>
> The one big advantage of the USCF Forum is one can't post anonymously.
I still think someone could buy a membership with a PO Box and no one
would know the difference. Or is there an oversight committee who
makes sure each poster is the person in question? I can't imagine the
time it would take.....
Chess One
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185024395....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Really? So you have revoked Mr. Innes' membership, have you?
>
> You seem to be confusing the USCF Forum with my FIDE-chess Yahoo
> Group. Phil Innes cannot enter the USCF Forum because he is not a USCF
> member.
At least anything Sam says is like-the-truth if not actually true, as
such... for example, its 11:16 am EST and the forum says:
USCF Issues
A forum to discuss general USCF issues (Open to USCF members only.)
Moderators Moderator1, Moderator2, Moderator3, Moderator4, Moderator5
topics 1543 posts 35898 last post was Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:03 am
Mulfish
In the 'Who is on-line' category, it says "Our users have posted a total of
59728 articles
We have 1201 registered users"
and also In total there are 6 users online :: 3 Registered, 2 Hidden and 1
Guest [ Administrator ] [ Moderator ]
Most users ever online was 34 on Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:33 am
Registered Users: Mmorgan, Shaun80, xplor
As a detail, in tournament direction the latest post is [text] from a poster
in Illinois :"Any advice for directors who would like to play and direct at
the same tournament, from those who have done likewise?
The scenario is a one-section G/29 tournament of 20 or fewer players."
Obviously, Sam Sloan is a bit unsure of how anything actually works, and
almost-IMs like myself get granted the extraordinary priviledge of reading
such material <shrug>
>He has not been a member since 1996. "Rob Mitchell" cannot
> enter the USCF Forum for the same reason. They have nothing to say
> anyway.
More people read what I write than read ChessLife! Luck? Depends who you
ask, but I can't make people read my stuff, so, lets say what Sloan says is
his own opinion on what 'nothing' is - the subject of public decency is a
nothing to him! - whereas the click rate on my column speaks for actual
chess players.
As for Rob Mitchell, he talks with a few more state educators than Sam
Sloan, including Governors, Educational Commissioners, Head Math Gurus,
Senators, Heads of School Districts, even the White House <wink> and
actually knows rather a lot about what it would take to qualify chess as a
subject in any state in the entire USA - since he surveyed it! - and rather
more in fact than anyone else here. But he don't show off much, and he
don't talk to dopes.
That, as my wife says, "is not nothing".
Together we also produced a couple of hours of technically, politically,
financially, culturally, and historically very difficult stuff on chess for
TV which was aimed at mainstream audiences.
That ain't nuthin either.
> They just fill up rgcp with junk and nonsense, so I would
> advise them to save their money and not join the USCF just so that
> they can enter the forum.
Free advice, with a price from the amazing Sloan! Who don't know much of
what's going on, since he never listens to anyone who might 'encroach' on
the scene.
What a complete fruitcake!
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
>
samsloan
No. There is not. Anybody can join the USCF under a fake name provided
that they are wiling to pay $41.
You will never have to prove who you really are until you win a big
prize in a Goichberg tournament.
Sam Sloan
help bot
> What a silly fool you are! But there is an even sillier one, as recorded by
> Zed, who one netwit was convinced was me, no matter what time of day or
> night he consulted Zed, there I was right behind it putting words into its
> mouth!
Of course, it was Sanny all along!
> About 6 years ago someone was absolutely sure I was Campomanes!
Ridiculous. Mr. Campomanes was a *strong* player.
I could see getting you mixed up with Anon or even
Frank Marshall when he was losing 7-0 -- that would
be understandable.
> Seems like people who can't their own names
So? What if can't spell all my names -- big deal.
You try spelling "Dr. Calvin Abu Hindoo Rossolimo Qutz"
and see how you do. Or Sam Sloan, The Grim Repa,
and so on. It's hard enough just remembering all these
names. Sure, you have it easy, what with just two or
three handles.
> do much of the speculation, dismissing real
> people as if they donj't exist!
Hey -- a lot of people don't believe that aliens exist,
but you know what? The IRS in fact has a publication
especially for them.
> See below:-
>
> Nothing can be as absolutely daft as Sam Sloan who 'permitted' someone
> called Rob Mitchell to ask Louis Blair about his Wikipedia destruction, and
> if, you know, that really qualified him to moderate anything, since Louis
> Blair couldn't give a straight answer to save his life.
Of course, IM Innes has no quote of me saying
anything of the sort. -- Dr. Blairbot
> Blair's euphemism for destroy is 'moderate'. That is the nonsense of USCF
> forumsn, and Paul Rubin [and ex Pres Tim Redman!] is right, its anodyne
> stuff that addresses very little, and is entirely politicised [Redman].
>
> When the topic changed to Sam Sloan's mentions of specific staff medical
> problems [Sloan now denies he did it - an obvious lie, as plain as, as my
> big toe!], and also his aptitude to administer scholastic chess, the very
> same Rob Mitchell [same e-mail address, same typos] was dismissed from the
> newsgroup!
>
> Sam Sloan also denied that Rob Mitchell had provided him his home phone
> number and pretended that he didn't know WHICH Rob Mitchell this was,
> therefore his banning of Mitchell was justified, and besides, then he didn't
> have to notice those awkward questions!
Ah, but who exactly was the village idiot that put
all that power into the hands of SS? I mean, you
can't really expect someone like that to "moderate"
in a fair and objective manner, can you?
> The Sloan comments below are as unreliable as his actions above. I knew
> Gregory when he was arranging a US College chess league, and also as a plain
> old poster on the forums - his views were usually the quietest of all - and
> of all posters he was the most active in seeking concensus of views, rather
> than single-point advocacy of any fixed position.
>
> Help-bog finishes with a useful comment below - instead of characterising
> who speaks, lets hear what is spoken of, or lets hear nothin' more from Sam
> Sloan whose interest in issues is defined by his own actions against Rob
> Mitchell.
All well and good to slam SS if he did all that; I
just wish people would own their own actions, that
is, take responsibility for participating in the system
which handed such power over to him or anyone
else when they ought to have known better. This
system has led to years (decades?) of infighting,
and never-ending attacks on the moderators
themselves when their actions don't please everyone.
The names may change, but the story's plot remains
always the same, old drab rehash.
-- help bot
help bot
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:40:20 -0000, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Why does anyone care about the stupid USCF forum? It sounds even more
> >> dysfunctional than rgcp.
> >Not true. The USCF Forum (which Paul Rubin cannot join because he is
> >not a USCF member) is much better than rgcp, mainly because the Fake
> >Sam Sloan cannot go there. Everybody must verifiable as a USCF member
> >posting under his real name.
>
> The one big advantage of the USCF Forum is one can't post anonymously.
Of course, anyone who wishes to pretend their views
are confirmed by others could simply work with another
USCF member, so you haven't really eradicated the
Repa problem, but maybe you avoid fake Sam Sloans.
> There are several big disadvantages:
>
> (1) Posters can *edit* their posts after they've been published, which
> in some cases makes the responses in the thread seem nonsensical.
>
> (2) One can't tell when certain threads have been censored, uhh, that
> is, "moderated".
>
> (3) One can't access the posts with a real newsreader, such as Agent,
> but must rely on the browser, which tends to be slow and awkward. The
> UI for composing posts is especially klutzy. It *does* let you use
> HTML, which occasionally is effective, but often results in
> over-cutesy presentation (15 varieties of smiley emoticons, colored
> fonts of various sizes, etc).
>
> (4) My guess is the archiving might be vulnerable, but time will tell.
(5) Those whose postings are pulled will never cease
in whining that they were unfairly silenced by a biased
moderator.
-- help bot
Chess One
> On Jul 21, 8:44 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> What a silly fool you are! But there is an even sillier one, as recorded
>> by
>> Zed, who one netwit was convinced was me, no matter what time of day or
>> night he consulted Zed, there I was right behind it putting words into
>> its
>> mouth!
>
>
> Of course, it was Sanny all along!
Wish it was. For some time I even thought you were he, but...
>> About 6 years ago someone was absolutely sure I was Campomanes!
>
>
> Ridiculous. Mr. Campomanes was a *strong* player.
> I could see getting you mixed up with Anon or even
> Frank Marshall when he was losing 7-0 -- that would
> be understandable.
True.
>> Seems like people who can't their own names
>
>
> So? What if can't spell all my names -- big deal.
> You try spelling "Dr. Calvin Abu Hindoo Rossolimo Qutz"
> and see how you do.
I remember him/them.
> Or Sam Sloan, The Grim Repa,
> and so on. It's hard enough just remembering all these
> names. Sure, you have it easy, what with just two or
> three handles.
Can you still make corn-gin where you are?
>> do much of the speculation, dismissing real
>> people as if they donj't exist!
>
>
> Hey -- a lot of people don't believe that aliens exist,
> but you know what? The IRS in fact has a publication
> especially for them.
So does home-land security.
>> See below:-
>>
>> Nothing can be as absolutely daft as Sam Sloan who 'permitted' someone
>> called Rob Mitchell to ask Louis Blair about his Wikipedia destruction,
>> and
>> if, you know, that really qualified him to moderate anything, since Louis
>> Blair couldn't give a straight answer to save his life.
>
>
> Of course, IM Innes has no quote of me saying
> anything of the sort. -- Dr. Blairbot
Of course, Dr. Blairbot cannot quote where I say I have no quote of him not
saying aanything of the sort. You miss him?
---
>> Sam Sloan also denied that Rob Mitchell had provided him his home phone
>> number and pretended that he didn't know WHICH Rob Mitchell this was,
>> therefore his banning of Mitchell was justified, and besides, then he
>> didn't
>> have to notice those awkward questions!
>
>
> Ah, but who exactly was the village idiot that put
> all that power into the hands of SS? I mean, you
> can't really expect someone like that to "moderate"
> in a fair and objective manner, can you?
It depends what the subject is - if its other people, Sam Sloan is
spectacularly liberal with his moderation, but if its him, and he is
accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury... and he is, then actions speak louder
than censors, no?
---
>> Help-bog finishes with a useful comment below - instead of characterising
>> who speaks, lets hear what is spoken of, or lets hear nothin' more from
>> Sam
>> Sloan whose interest in issues is defined by his own actions against Rob
>> Mitchell.
>
>
> All well and good to slam SS if he did all that;
No if, he did.
> I
> just wish people would own their own actions, that
> is, take responsibility for participating in the system
> which handed such power over to him or anyone
> else when they ought to have known better.
Ah! Impeach the Resident?
> This
> system has led to years (decades?) of infighting,
> and never-ending attacks on the moderators
> themselves when their actions don't please everyone.
> The names may change, but the story's plot remains
> always the same, old drab rehash.
You fool! I must agree. Please say something else or people will think we're
in love.
Eg: Do you think women don't post here because (a) they are too sensible, or
(b) we are too stupid or (c) a&b are the same thing?
Cordially, I suppose. Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
help bot
> > Of course, it was Sanny all along!
>
> Wish it was. For some time I even thought you were he, but...
Hint: Sanny is maybe USCF 1000ish, while I am
the highest-rated player of all time (on GetClub,
that is)! At RedHotPawn, I am about 1700 (and
I may one day check my losses to see if I was
playing carbon-based or silicon-based opposition.
I tell you, some of these guys are tough as nails.)
> Can you still make corn-gin where you are?
Nope. Our corn is earmarked for ethanol production,
and the poor in Mexico will starve as a result. (What's
worse, there will be a significant rise in the price of corn
liquor, such as whiskey.) But here's the thing: since
the Fed (that's short for the Federal Reserve, a bunch of
stuffed shirts who set interest rates in the U.S.) is fond
of focusing on what they call "core" inflation, this whole
shebang will allow them to exclude the inevitable rise in
the price of food, and go on pretending that inflation is
under control. Sweet! They don't count the soaring
price of gasoline in "core" inflation numbers either. I
tell you, the Fed has fixed world chess... .
> >> do much of the speculation, dismissing real
> >> people as if they donj't exist!
Speculation? Orange juice futures, my friend, are
the answer. Bacteria got 'em. And honey bees are
dying off, too. The polar ice cap is melting, there
are earthquakes hammering Japan -- the whole
world is falling to pieces, and you and I are going to
be rich! Just bet on the world crumbling -- it's that
simple. But of course, real investors (those are
people who have a lot of money, so if you have a
wife and kids, fuggetaboutit!) don't speculate).
> > Hey -- a lot of people don't believe that aliens exist,
> > but you know what? The IRS in fact has a publication
> > especially for them.
>
> So does home-land security.
No use. Those aliens cannot be stopped. We sent
tanks and planes against them, and they were all
destroyed. Only when the tiniest of creatures, the
least significant -- or so we like to think -- of all life
forms on Earth came in contact with the aliens, were
they finally defeated!! I heard it all on the radio, you
know. There's a lesson there, somewhere... .
> > Of course, IM Innes has no quote of me saying
> > anything of the sort. -- Dr. Blairbot
>
> Of course, Dr. Blairbot cannot quote where I say I have no quote of him not
> saying aanything of the sort. You miss him?
Well, I can't find any quote of me anywhere saying
that I miss him, but I may later deny having looked
really hard.
> Eg: Do you think women don't post here because (a) they are too sensible, or
> (b) we are too stupid or (c) a&b are the same thing?
This may come back to bite me in the arse, but
I believe women, in general, are less prone than
men to become obsessed with chess. Fewer
obsessive women players mean fewer obsessive
posters here. I go to Hardee's a lot these days
and I must say there are far more men than
women who eat there. Most women don't seem
to go to such places to eat alone, while there
are myriad men in there all by themselves. You
want to know where all the women are, what they
are doing? Go into a nail salon or a clothing store:
(almost) no men. But what about computers?
Well, my guess is that more women like to "chat"
than read about some silly board game like chess.
And they also like to exchange jokes via email --
sometimes sending the same ones over and over,
not even realizing it is a duplicate (dingy broads!).
-- help bot
Paul Rubin
> No. There is not. Anybody can join the USCF under a fake name provided
> that they are wiling to pay $41.
>
> You will never have to prove who you really are until you win a big
> prize in a Goichberg tournament.
If this is the situation I don't understand why the USCF requires
providing any name at all. If the USCF sold anonymous memberships
that didn't require any contact info, I'd consider buying one. It
would be fine if anonymous members were ineligible for prizes. I just
don't want the USCF's damn magazine and other spam.
Mike Murray
OK, they can still fake a presense, but, by Gawd, they gotta pay!!
SBD
And earn master-level ratings, as seen on the MSA: 12707139: STANLEY
HARDY
Not even a believable fake name.
Chess One
> Nope. Our corn is earmarked for ethanol production,
> and the poor in Mexico will starve as a result.
A quick note before the main business - have you tried putting lime and
worms into ethanol, and drinking it? It might just need a cool name and
fancy bottle...
>> Eg: Do you think women don't post here because (a) they are too sensible,
>> or
>> (b) we are too stupid or (c) a&b are the same thing?
>
>
> This may come back to bite me in the arse, but
> I believe women, in general, are less prone than
> men to become obsessed with chess. Fewer
> obsessive women players mean fewer obsessive
> posters here. I go to Hardee's a lot these days
> and I must say there are far more men than
> women who eat there.
We were re-starting the local chess club last year, and far more women were
encouraging the project, but then they didn't show up. Maybe we have to
arrange a shuttle-bus to bring in a gaggle of them at a time?
> Most women don't seem
> to go to such places to eat alone, while there
> are myriad men in there all by themselves. You
> want to know where all the women are, what they
> are doing? Go into a nail salon or a clothing store:
> (almost) no men.
I have never been into a nail salon in my life. And what's wrong with last
year's clothes? I must have shopping aversion. I knew a poet fella in
Scotland who checked out bookstores to see if they had his own works, but he
said after 10 minutes in the store he became victim to uncontrolled farting.
> But what about computers?
> Well, my guess is that more women like to "chat"
> than read about some silly board game like chess.
Maybe if the board was heavier they squares could be re-(nail)-varnished in
different colors every week?
The pieces could wear bits of old Barbie and Ken outfits?
> And they also like to exchange jokes via email --
What a bore!
> sometimes sending the same ones over and over,
> not even realizing it is a duplicate (dingy broads!).
Doh!
Maybe we're better off as we are? They sound just as stupid as men!
PI
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
>
samsloan
of this Forum, so all my impressions are formed here.
You haven't been around USCF very long, but any advantage that might
give you is short-lived, because you are quite polarizing at least in
some of your interactions. You do not function as a quiet contributor
learning the ropes. I don't even recall seeing a serious attempt to
learn from the experience of others.[/quote]
Until you made this comment I failed to realize that Gregory Alexander
is a new USCF member who has never played a rated game of chess in his
life.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?13474581
It was obviously a serious error in judgment when Bill Goichberg
appointed him as moderator, thereby giving him the power to start
deleting every posting he disagreed with.
Sam Sloan
Jackass Lafferty
So Goichberg should resign and you should become USCF President. NOT!
samsloan
we would have probably banned Sam soon after being implemented if not
for being told we weren't able to by the EB.[/quote]
A good example of my point.
When the FOC was first created, Bill Goichberg, who personally
selected the members of the FOC, picked people known to be hostile to
me, such as Louis Blair, and also picked confirmed Polgaristas. The
reason for these selections was that at that time Goichberg backed
Polgar for election.
Fortunately, it was not long before all the Polgarites started
resigning. Then, when Polgar started attacking Goichberg, Goichberg
dropped his support for Polgar. After that the new appointments were
not outrageously Polgaristas, although most opposed me, including
Gregory Alexander and SteveTN.
However, when Gregory Alexander and SteveTN quit too, the moderation
became relatively neutral, as it is now.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
been elected he would probably not have attended the delegates
meeting. Indeed, he has never been to one.[/quote]
For those of you playing along at home, this is verifiably not true.
Alex Relyea[/quote]
No worries; Sam has a huge habit of making utterly false statements.[/
quote]
Gregory Alexander has a huge habit of making utterly false statements.
There should be a major inquiry into the question of how Gregory
Alexander, who just joined the USCF for the first time in his life a
few months ago and who has never played a rated game of chess in his
life, first got appointed to the Forum Oversight Committee by Bill
Goichberg and then got appointed at a moderator, and used this power
to delete hundreds if not thousands of postings by legitimate USCF
members, just because they asked embarrassing questions about Polgar
and Truong whom he supported for election.
The fact that Gregory Alexander did this, with the full support of
Bill Goichberg, raises questions about the legitimacy of the election
of Mr. Truong, who just got elected to a four year term by a margin of
30 votes.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
wrote:
Above is the first posting by Gregory Alexander to rgcp. In it he
complains about the same thing that we are complaining about, in that
Goichberg changed the rules in the middle of the game.
We can now see the reason: Prior to June 2007, Goichberg strongly
supported Polgar for election and did not believe Truong would be
elected. Therefore, he and Bill Hall appointed moderators who were
notoriously anti-Sam Sloan and pro-Polgar, so that they would remove
from the USCF Issues Forum all postings critical of Polgar or even
postings asking her embarrassing questions such as asking her to
provide the names and dates of the four world championships that she
falsely claims to have won.
However, when Polgar started openly attacking Goichberg, he through
Bill Hall contacted the moderators and told them to loosen up so that
some criticism of Polgar and Truong would be allowed. By then,
however, it was too late, as Polgar was so far ahead in the election
that there was no stopping her.
Sam Sloan