Crossville, TN
Crossville Chess
Sam Sloan
(Crossville Chess) wrote:
>Is it still on? Is the USCF still moving to Crossville?
No.
Harry Sabine, plus the Mayor of Crossville plus the Chairman of the
Chamber of Commerce of Crossville came all the way from Crossville,
Tennessee to the USCF Executive Board meeting in New Windsor, New York
yesterday
The USCF Executive Board refused to meet with them or to give them any
hearing. They returned to Crossville angry and upset.
It looks like the Crossville deal is either on hold or dead.
Sam Sloan
GrantPerks
>No.
>
>Harry Sabine, plus the Mayor of Crossville plus the Chairman of the
>Chamber of Commerce of Crossville came all the way from Crossville,
>Tennessee to the USCF Executive Board meeting in New Windsor, New York
>yesterday
>
>The USCF Executive Board refused to meet with them or to give them any
>hearing. They returned to Crossville angry and upset.
>
>It looks like the Crossville deal is either on hold or dead.
>
>Sam Sloan
>
Sam,
You are correct on one of the three that visited from Crossville, that in fact
was Harry Sabine. The other gentleman wasn't the mayor, and the lady from the
chamber of commerce wasn't the chairman of the chamber either, I believe she is
a vice president.
We met with them briefly during our closed session on Sunday, and had dinner
with them at Cosimo's on Sunday night as well.
Grant
StanB
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3f79f6fb....@ca.news.verio.net...
> Harry Sabine, plus the Mayor of Crossville plus the Chairman of the
> Chamber of Commerce of Crossville came all the way from Crossville,
> Tennessee to the USCF Executive Board meeting in New Windsor, New York
> yesterday
>
> The USCF Executive Board refused to meet with them or to give them any
> hearing. They returned to Crossville angry and upset.
You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. Not only did they meet with
them but them joined us for dinner Sunday night.
StanB
Tim Hanke
>
> "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote ...
>
> > Harry Sabine, plus the Mayor of Crossville plus the Chairman of the
> > Chamber of Commerce of Crossville came all the way from Crossville,
> > Tennessee to the USCF Executive Board meeting in New Windsor, New York
> > yesterday
> >
> > The USCF Executive Board refused to meet with them or to give them any
> > hearing. They returned to Crossville angry and upset.
>
> You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. Not only did they meet with
> them but them joined us for dinner Sunday night.
>
> StanB
Please, people, you can't rely on anything Sam Sloan says. Probably it is
wrong of me to get angry with him, because it is obvious to me, after
meeting him several times and reading his stuff on the Internet for years,
that he is mentally ill and therefore not fully responsible. But I do get
angry with him at times, mainly because some people do give him credence,
which makes him dangerous.
In the material Stan quotes above, Sloan identifies Harry Sabine correctly,
but there was no Mayor of Crossville and no Chairman of the Chamber of
Commerce at our meeting. Sloan's "Mayor" was someone from the local chess
club; Sloan's "Chairman" actually was a representative from the Chamber of
Commerce but did not have that lofty title.
Sloan states we "refused to meet with them"! The reverse is true: even
though these guests were not on our meeting agenda, we delayed our closed
meeting on Sunday out of deference to them, inviting them to speak to us
FIRST because they had come such a long way. After our closed meeting, we
went out to dinner and spent the evening talking with them.
It's really too bad that Sloan, one of the most prolific posters here, is
such a liar. He speaks very confidently and definitely, as if he knew
exactly what he was talking about, but it's all bullsh*t. Not everyone here
realizes that. That's what makes him dangerous, and that's why other people
(like me) sometimes lose their tempers with him. At such times my wife, who
used to work with mentally handicapped people, reminds me how foolish it is
to quarrel with someone like Sloan.
Tim Hanke
JimEade
>Please, people, you can't rely on anything Sam Sloan says. Probably it is
>wrong of me to get angry with him, because it is obvious to me, after
>meeting him several times and reading his stuff on the Internet for years,
>that he is mentally ill and therefore not fully responsible. But I do get
>angry with him at times, mainly because some people do give him credence,
>which makes him dangerous.
>
Gee, Tim, do you remember when you where on the other side of this argument?
Do you remember when you would give Sloan the "benefit of the doubt"?
Your eyes only opened when he began lying about you. You're part of the
problem. Sheesh.
>In the material Stan quotes above, Sloan identifies Harry Sabine correctly,
>but there was no Mayor of Crossville and no Chairman of the Chamber of
>Commerce at our meeting. Sloan's "Mayor" was someone from the local chess
>club; Sloan's "Chairman" actually was a representative from the Chamber of
>Commerce but did not have that lofty title.
>
>Sloan states we "refused to meet with them"! The reverse is true: even
>though these guests were not on our meeting agenda, we delayed our closed
>meeting on Sunday out of deference to them, inviting them to speak to us
>FIRST because they had come such a long way. After our closed meeting, we
>went out to dinner and spent the evening talking with them.
>
>It's really too bad that Sloan, one of the most prolific posters here, is
>such a liar. He speaks very confidently and definitely, as if he knew
>exactly what he was talking about, but it's all bullsh*t. Not everyone here
>realizes that. That's what makes him dangerous, and that's why other people
>(like me) sometimes lose their tempers with him. At such times my wife, who
>used to work with mentally handicapped people, reminds me how foolish it is
>to quarrel with someone like Sloan.
>
>Tim Hanke
>
>
Yes, but this prolific liar was given the benefit of the doubt by you. Why
should anybody believe you now?
Besides, he's sent his lies to a gizzillion people who you will never reach.
They'll give him the benefit of the doubt about you. Just as you did.
Heck, you might meet someone in a remote part of the world, and they might know
who you are. They might believe what Scammie says about you. Truth is
stranger than fiction.
There is nothing you or I can do about Scammie. There might be something you
can do about you. Think about it.
James Eade
Remove the Sheesh to respond. Don't worry. Talk happy.
Mhoulsby
>Date: 01/10/03 03:22 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030930222224...@mb-m06.aol.com>
James,
The post to which this is a reply (your post) is crammed with excellent advice
for Hanke. Unfortunately, as Hanke himself admitted (in a troll thread started
by the idiot Sloan, no less) he has "...less intelligence than a smart
six-year-old". See:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C24221016
"Mark,
Errrm ... because I have less intelligence than a smart six-year-old?"
From: Tim Hanke Date: 2003-07-22 10:07:06 PST
With this in mind, Hanke's attempts to think about it may bear little, if any,
fruit.
Thanks for writing.
Mark Houlsby
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
Tim Hanke takes issue with some of what Sam Sloan wrote about the
recent Policy Board meeting.
Specifically, Mr. Sloan claimed that visitors from Crossville,
Tennessee, got snubbed by the Executive Board and left with their noses out of
joint.
Mr. Hanke responded that Mr. Sloan misidentified some of the
Crossvilleans and that the visitors were given not only a hearing but also
attended what we may take to have been a lengthy dinner accompanied by vino,
camraderie and serious talk.
One is certain that Sam got everything reversed on the snubbing
score. However, one would like to know whether the Tennessee lads left in a
semi-huff or whether the outcome was amicable. We still don't know if the USCF
is moving to Crossville.
Enter Jim Eade.
Mr. Eade asks whether Mr. Hanke recollects being on the other side and
according Mr. Sloan the "benefit of the doubt" until the latter began to lie
about Mr. Hanke. Mr Eade then writes of Mr. Hanke, "You are part of the
problem. Sheesh."
Sheesh, indeed.
Continues Mr. Eade to Mr. Hanke, "Yes but this prolific liar [Mr. Sloan]
was given the benefit of the doubt by you. Why should anybody believe you
now?"
Concludes Mr. Eade to Mr. Hanke, "There is nothing you or I can do about
Scammie [Mr. Sloan]. There might be something you can do about you. Think
about it."
Two comments: 1. Readers will have to decide for themselves whether Mr.
Eade's response is aglow with gracefulness or reeks with disgracefulness; and
2. I don't think most readers Mr. Sloan was lying when getting it all wrong
about whether the Executive Board met with the Tennessee folks. People
frequently turn facts on their head, and they are not lying. They are -- well,
they are turning facts on their head.
Was Mr. Eade lying when he claimed on this forum that I had "two
daughters" or was he just getting his facts wrong? I think he was just getting
his facts wrong.
Sam Sloan
Notice the difference between what Grant Perks and Tim Hanke do deny
and what they do not deny.
For example, they say that the lady who came from Crossville,
Tennessee was not the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, that she
had a lower title.
However, these are minor insignificant details. They do not deny the
big, important points, which are:
1. Harry Sabine is extremely unhappy about what happened at the
meeting and
2. The Crossville deal is either dead or on hold.
Sam Sloan
ASCACHESS
>and what they do not deny.
>
>For example, they say that the lady who came from Crossville,
>Tennessee was not the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, that she
>had a lower title.
>
>However, these are minor insignificant details. They do not deny the
>big, important points, which are:
>
>1. Harry Sabine is extremely unhappy about what happened at the
>meeting and
>2. The Crossville deal is either dead or on hold.
>
>Sam Sloan
>
OF COURSE.
How could we all have been so stupid?
Sam is telling the truth and everyone else is lying.
Well, now that you put it that way, I think Sam Sloan should get the B+E
business as compensation.
Now we will have someone we can rely upon.
We have experience with Sam and know just how far he can be trusted.
Good luck Sam.
Richard Peterson
Bruce Draney
Maybe Harry was just behind Sam in the buffet line.
Best Regards,
Bruce
RMille9601
would we have known any of the "bits" we know now.
Russell Miller, Chelan WA
Sam Sloan
Thank you for pointing this out. The Executive Board often holds
meetings where nobody ever finds out what happened. In some cases,
nobody ever finds out that the meeting was even held.
It is clear that had I not posted a report about this meeting, nobody
would have posted anything.
Did you know that the Executive Board held a meeting about two weeks
ago by telephone conference call? This meeting lasted for several
hours. I only know about it because I called one of the Board members
while the meeting was taking place. Yet, there has been no report here
of what happened at that meeting.
Also, what I wrote was not mostly wrong. All the important operative
facts I provided are right. Al Lawrence did resign. Harry Sabine is
angry. The Crossville deal is dead or on hold. My detractors are
snipping at insignificant details, such as saying that the lady who
came from Crossville was not the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce
but was merely the Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
>There is nothing you or I can do about Scammie. There might be something you
>can do about you. Think about it.
>
>James Eade
>Remove the Sheesh to respond. Don't worry. Talk happy.
I had been wondering why Jim Eade has been so quiet about the Timothy
Hanke election. Now, it looks that the old feud between Hanke and Eade
is about to break out again. Remember that Hanke made disparaging
comments about the sexuality of Eade's wife and sister-in-law. Search
the archives back a year or two ago and you will find them.
By the way, I never said anything about this, even though Eade
constantly wrote attacks on me. I have met Eade's wife and I am sure
that Hanke never has. I know their personal situation much better than
Hanke does. While I am no friend of Eade, I would never attack the
family members of someone with whom I am having a disagreement.
In another posting today, Jim Eade writes: "Hanke has once again gone
psycho"
Now, above, Eade writes, "There is nothing you or I can do about
Scammie. There might be something you can do about you. Think about
it."
I wonder what Jim Eade has in mind.
Sam Sloan
Mike Nolan
>For example, they say that the lady who came from Crossville,
>Tennessee was not the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, that she
>had a lower title.
Actually, Beth Alexander is the Executive Director of the Crossville Chamber
of Commerce, and I doubt she'd consider that a 'lower' title.
Most Chambers are organized similar to the USCF, with a full-time paid
ED and a volunteer Board led by a President.
BTW, Sam, the other person with Harry Sabine was Gary Gillespie, a
member of the TCA Board. He'd probably be amused to know you thought he
was the Mayor.
--
Mike Nolan
Miriling
>On 1 October 2003 no...@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) replied in
>Message-id: <blen09$95t$1...@gw.tssi.com>
>
>sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:
>
>>For example, they say that the lady who came from Crossville,
>>Tennessee was not the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, that she
>>had a lower title.
>
>Actually, Beth Alexander is the Executive Director of the Crossville Chamber
>of Commerce, and I doubt she'd consider that a 'lower' title.
>
>Most Chambers are organized similar to the USCF, with a full-time paid
>ED and a volunteer Board led by a President.
>
>-snipped-
>--
>Mike Nolan
>
>
>Isn't Beth Alexander actually the Executive Vice President, not the Executive
Director, of the Crossville Chamber of Commerce? That's how her title is given
in Tennessee newspapers as well as on the chamber's website.
George Mirijanian
>
>
>
>
>
>
ASCACHESS
>that Hanke never has. I know their personal situation much better than
>Hanke does. While I am no friend of Eade, I would never attack the
>family members of someone with whom I am having a disagreement.
>
For instance, Sam would never completely make up a scenario where a father's
children were taken away from him at the airport.
Scammie has respect for families.
Scammie, you are worse than a lying dog.
You are flea bitten.
Richard Peterson
Mike Nolan
>>Isn't Beth Alexander actually the Executive Vice President, not the Executive
>Director, of the Crossville Chamber of Commerce? That's how her title is given
>in Tennessee newspapers as well as on the chamber's website.
I don't have her card. When I was talking to Harry Sabine, he referred
to her as the Executive Director. EVP is an equivalent title to Executive
Director in non-profits.
What matters is that she is the full-time paid person who runs the
Crossville Chamber.
--
Mike Nolan
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
>It looks like the Crossville deal is either on hold or dead.> -- Sam Sloan
Why quibble about the exact titles of the three visitors from Crossville?
The essential question is whether or not the USCF is moving there. Is Sam Sloan
right or wrong?
Nobody seems to be addressing this issue directly. We don't need Stan Booz,
who is not an elected USCF official, to tell us, "Yes. No."
What is the status of the Crossville bid? Frankly, in view of the money
crunch, the USCF should stay put.
Tim Hanke
>
> Gee, Tim, do you remember when you where on the other side of this
argument?
> Do you remember when you would give Sloan the "benefit of the doubt"?
>
> Your eyes only opened when he began lying about you. You're part of the
> problem. Sheesh.
Jim,
When Sam Sloan was lying about other people, I couldn't always know what was
true.
When Sloan started lying about me, it became obvious to me that he was
lying, because I had personal knowledge of the truth.
This is why he is so dangerous: Sloan lies about everything, usually to try
to make other people look bad, but in each case, only a few people will
actually know he is lying. Everybody else in the audience will have to
guess.
After Sloan caused an embarrassing scene at this past weekend's board
meeting, the board members discussed what we should do in cases like this.
We decided we wouldn't allow this kind of outrageous behavior in the future.
At future board meetings and delegates meetings, if Sloan shows up and
starts spouting off with his personal attacks as he did this past weekend,
we will just cut him off, and if necessary have him removed from the room.
There is no place for inappropriate behavior like that at our meetings.
Personally I felt bad for the audience. This past weekend we were in a very
small room, and Sloan's daughter had a very full diaper. Sloan of course
didn't care, but everyone in the audience had to put up with the smell. When
our COO Grant Perks tried to pick her up, she actually peed on his hand and
Grant had to go to the bathroom to wash up.
Even after Sloan was publicly asked to change his daughter's smelly diaper,
he stood around with a vacant look on his face for several minutes, doing
nothing. Possibly he was rehearsing his crazy rant in his mind, which
fortunately for everyone he did not get the opportunity to deliver in full.
Finally he changed his daughter's diaper, but rather than taking her into
the bathroom or somewhere more private, he changed her diaper in the midst
of the tightly packed audience, so they had to watch and smell the
proceedings. Then he put the dirty diaper in the wastebasket in our small
meeting room, rather than taking it into the bathroom.
Sloan then stood there with his unwashed hands for the rest of the meeting,
and probably proceeded to shake hands with people afterward. Now that I have
a good idea of his personal hygiene, I will be sure never to shake his hand.
Tim Hanke
Sam Sloan
>For instance, Sam would never completely make up a scenario where a father's
>children were taken away from him at the airport.
>
>Richard Peterson
OK. Let us ask it as a question. Was or was not your children
intercepted at the airport, perhaps on the complaint of your former
wife?
Let us step aside from the question of whether they were taken away or
not or whether you got them back the next day or the next week.
Just answer whether there was an incident like that, or do I have you
mixed up with another similar chess player?
Sam Sloan
AlforChess
Actually, such lies are a distraction, not a step in the process of disclosure.
Remember, some will read and remember only the lies.
Regards, al
Bruce Draney
> On 01 Oct 2003 05:50:15 GMT, rmill...@aol.com (RMille9601) wrote:
>
> >If Sam had not been at the meeting and then wrote about it (mostly wrong)
> >would we have known any of the "bits" we know now.
> >
> >Russell Miller, Chelan WA
>
> Thank you for pointing this out. The Executive Board often holds
> meetings where nobody ever finds out what happened. In some cases,
> nobody ever finds out that the meeting was even held.
You are confusing the present day with the "Evil McCrary Gang", a band
of "villainous rogues" who ran the USCF secretly from 2001 until 2003.
Under the able leadership of USCF Secretary in absentia, Bobchess,
the USCF managed to no provide quick and accurate minutes or
transcripts of what it was doing. Where else but amongst this group,
would Frank Camaratta the Treasurer of this bunch, be told, the day
before the Delegates meeting that USCF had lost over 364,000 in a
single year, despite predictions that somehow we were going to turn a
profit, even though credit lines were maxed out, adult membership had
been plunging at an accelerated rate, the LMA was tapped out, the
PPHBF funds were raided, and our A/P's were still over $200,000?
Where else would the USCF President publish a letter to the members
telling them how much things had turned around, which came out after
the staggering losses were announced, making him sound clueless?
Where else would everyone shirk responsibility for the losses and
point fingers at an ED they were praising as the greatest a few weeks
before for how good a job he was doing? Where else would one
incumbent Board candidate running for re-election (and losing),
campaign on how well things were going under the present Board's
leadership?
>
> It is clear that had I not posted a report about this meeting, nobody
> would have posted anything.
If you mean half truths, incorrect assertions and mistakes, you are
probably correct. If you mean accurate information that was true and
reliable, then Hanke and Booz would most certainly have posted, as
would probably Al Lawrence and maybe even Don Schultz. As usual,
your desire to be the "first" to tell everyone your impressions turned
out to be a lot like looking into one of those fun house mirrors to
judge one's appearance.
>
> Did you know that the Executive Board held a meeting about two weeks
> ago by telephone conference call?
Most of us knew because the minutes of the meeting were posted on
USCF's website promptly as well as at www.chessnews.org promptly.
Perhaps you were re-enacting one of your bizarre fantasies from the
60's and missed this.
This meeting lasted for several
> hours. I only know about it because I called one of the Board members
> while the meeting was taking place. Yet, there has been no report here
> of what happened at that meeting.
Other than on the USCF website under governance and on Bill's website,
this statement is up to your normal standards of truthfulness.
>
> Also, what I wrote was not mostly wrong. All the important operative
> facts I provided are right. Al Lawrence did resign. Harry Sabine is
> angry. The Crossville deal is dead or on hold. My detractors are
> snipping at insignificant details, such as saying that the lady who
> came from Crossville was not the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce
> but was merely the Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce.
Oh, you mean about how USCF refused to meet with them?
Or perhaps you mean, about how Stan Booz shouted down Goichberg?
Or perhaps you mean, about how Al Lawrence quit because they held an
LMA meeting without his knowledge?
In your troubled mind, these are just minor factual errors that have
no bearing upon the accuracy of what you said in your "fact filled"
post.
Did any of the Crossville people die in a car crash in Budapest by the
way after leaving New Windsor?
>
> Sam Sloan
Best Regards,
Bruce
ASCACHESS
Al,
I think Rusty was kidding.
Rusty, tell us you were kidding. Please.
Rp
ASCACHESS
>OK. Let us ask it as a question. Was or was not your children
>intercepted at the airport, perhaps on the complaint of your former
>wife?
No moron.
Are you deranged?
Nothing remotely like this ever happened.
If you have proof, please bring it forward.
Richard Peterson
ASCACHESS
>Let us step aside from the question of whether they were taken away or
>not or whether you got them back the next day or the next week.
Sloan,
You lunatic. My children were never taken, ever. Nor was any attempt ever
made to have them taken from me. You are insane.
Is that clear enough for you?
This all occured in your dreams you ass.
Richard Peterson
ASCACHESS
>mixed up with another similar chess player?
>
>Sam Sloan
Nothing remotely like that has ever happened in my life or in the lives of my
children.
Since you are stupidly lying again, now you try to dodge your own responsiblity
by claiming to have me confused with someone else.
What an ass. What an irresponsible dog.
Richard Peterson
ASCACHESS
>true.
>
>When Sloan started lying about me, it became obvious to me that he was
>lying, because I had personal knowledge of the truth.
This should be a clue to why people have warned you about your new friend on
the board.
Given what you know now, why would you trust anybody feeding Sam Sloan false
information and wanting to have plausible deniability for themselves?
Think about it.
Richard Peterson
AlforChess
>
>Richard Peterson
Why do we insult dogs so? Dogs would never behave in such a way. I am deeply
offended on behalf of the canines of the world and demand an immediate
retraction.
Regards, al
StanB
"Parrthenon" <parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031001125646...@mb-m14.news.cs.com...
> Nobody seems to be addressing this issue directly. We don't need Stan
Booz,
> who is not an elected USCF official, to tell us, "Yes. No."
>
> What is the status of the Crossville bid? Frankly, in view of the money
> crunch, the USCF should stay put.
There is no status. Right now we don't have an acceptable offer for the
present building. Until we do, our hands are tied. Until such a time, the
move is on hold. If you have any complaints, direct them to Niro. He was the
one to put this all together based on phony expectations that he was selling
the board.
StanB
Mark Houlsby
Sam,
I made up a new mantra for you, repeat it to yourself 24/7:
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
"Everything that ace reporter Sam Sloan writes *helps* Timothy Hanke."
ASCACHESS
You are correct.
To compare Sam to an decent animal that cleans itself with its tongue is
definitely an insult to man's best friend.
I don't know what I was thinking.
Richard Peterson
StanB
"ASCACHESS" <asca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031001162612...@mb-m23.aol.com...
> >
> >OK. Let us ask it as a question. Was or was not your children
> >intercepted at the airport, perhaps on the complaint of your former
> >wife?
>
> No moron.
> Are you deranged?
> Nothing remotely like this ever happened.
Does Sam still beat his wife?
StanB
StanB
"AlforChess" <alfor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031001170801...@mb-m22.aol.com...
If my dog looked like Sam, I'd shave its ass and make it walk backwards.
StanB
Matt Nemmers
news:3f7b0f5a....@ca.news.verio.net...
Yes, of course you have it mixed up, Sloan. A similar incident has no doubt
happened to you.
MN
Fifiela
meeting room, rather than taking it into the bathroom.>>>>
ROFLMAO. Aw Gawd! Sam,Sam,Sam....
If serving on the EB means being in cofined space with Sam, there won't be many
future canidates.
Hey Tim, how many days-hours-minutes-seconds till your term ends? You must be
counting them one by one.
Allan
Fifiela
business as compensation.>>>>
No way! I ain't buying no stinking books from Sam because I don't know where
those books have been (or maybe I do....)
Spam Scone
> "JimEade" <jim...@aol.comSheesh> wrote ...
> >
> > Gee, Tim, do you remember when you where on the other side of this
> argument?
> > Do you remember when you would give Sloan the "benefit of the doubt"?
> > Your eyes only opened when he began lying about you. You're part of the
> > problem. Sheesh.
>
> Jim,
> When Sam Sloan was lying about other people, I couldn't always know what was
> true.
Tim, when Sam Sloan claimed "Neil Brennen no-show at World Open", and
FOUR POSTERS, including Dan Heisman and Ernest Schlich, pointed out I
was there, and Sloan STILL spread his lies around, what did you think?
When Sam Sloan claimed Tim Redman was going to come to the USATE to
"get his hot hands on the money", what did you think?
When Sam Sloan claimed Eric Mark was not a journalist, despite his
posting from his newspaper's domain, what did you think?
When Sam Sloan claimed IM Igor Khmelnitsky threw a game, based on
nothing more than anti-Russian gossip, what did you think?
When Sam Sloan claimed Matt Nemmers was a high school dropout and was
illegally using his chess club's name, what did you think?
When Sam Sloan claimed George John's son was involved in a scandal at
the Denker, what did you think?
When Sam Sloan claimed James Eade was drunk in a FIDE meeting, what
did you think?
When Sam Sloan claimed Tom Dorsch had lupus, or that Bill Haines was
on welfare, what did you think?
When Sam Sloan now throws garbage at Richard Peterson's wife and
child, what do you think?
> When Sloan started lying about me, it became obvious to me that he was
> lying, because I had personal knowledge of the truth.
Tim, you only began to think when Sloan's lies were applied to you.
> This is why he is so dangerous: Sloan lies about everything, usually to try
> to make other people look bad, but in each case, only a few people will
> actually know he is lying. Everybody else in the audience will have to
> guess.
Most, if not all, of us don't need to guess Tim.
Jim Eade is 100 percent correct.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>Most, if not all, of us don't need to guess Tim.
>
>Jim Eade is 100 percent correct.
You are certainly correct on this one. Jim Eade just stated that Tim
Hanke is a "psycho" and that is 100 percent correct.
Sam Sloan
StanB
"Bruce Draney" <bdr...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:3F7B8B...@novia.net...
> We have decided to open the "Ripe Diaper" room on the 9th Floor. When
> people get off of the elevator on the 9th Floor, the door locks behind
> them and they find themselves in a crowded room of 400 square feet. In
> the center of the floor is a bullet and smash proof, but locked and well
> ventilated container containing a poopy diaper. Everyone in the room is
> nauseous, but there's nowhere to go and no way out.
Is this the room where Louis Blair reads, in a monotone, the quotations of
Bwanna Nick?
StanB
Kevin L. Bachler
Kevin L. Bachler
Kevin L. Bachler
Mhoulsby
>Date: 02/10/03 13:35 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <sOWdnWyF88V...@comcast.com><snip>
>Is this the room where Louis Blair reads, in a monotone, the quotations of
>Bwanna Nick?
>
>StanB
>
If you're going to troll Nick Bourbaki, I suggest that you learn to spell,
otherwise you will be providing yet more evidence of your being illiterate, and
therefore incapable of understanding what he writes (which may be the problem,
here).
Mark
Mhoulsby
>Date: 01/10/03 18:02 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <DMDeb.654359$uu5.107019@sccrnsc04>
Dear Timothy,
I have no doubt that all of the above, including the unsavoury details, is
true. I have no doubt, either, that when you started the troll thread: "Nick
Bourbaki's many lies" you knew that *you* were lying.
Your having erected the webpages:
http://www.timothyhanke.net/bwananick.htm
and
http://www.timothyhanke.net/youdecide.htm
(not to mention the inability of *your* faithful minion, Stan Booz, to spell
the Swahili word: "Bwana") make *you* look stupid. Not as stupid as Sloan, but
stupid, certainly.
Booz has resumed his trolling of Nick Bourbaki. It may be time for you to call
him off, and to apologise publicly to Bourbaki for all of the lies which you,
Timothy Hanke, have written about him.
Whaddyasay?
Mark Houlsby
JimEade
>Jim,
>
>When Sam Sloan was lying about other people, I couldn't always know what was
>true.
>
>When Sloan started lying about me, it became obvious to me that he was
>lying, because I had personal knowledge of the truth.
>
>This is why he is so dangerous: Sloan lies about everything, usually to try
>to make other people look bad, but in each case, only a few people will
>actually know he is lying. Everybody else in the audience will have to
>guess.
>
>
You can look at the overall pattern. You now know what a liar he is based on
first hand experience. I submit that it should've been obvious to you long
before. It also should be obvious that certain EB members have not only been
encouraging him, but feeding him information to vacilitate his attacks.
I would certainly agree that a zero tolerance policy is long over due for this
wretched person. But, when Steve Doyle to him to task at a FIDE meeting in
Cherry Hill, Don Schultz complained about Steve!
Freedom of speech is not a license to lie. Anyone with an ounce of character
should have nothing to do with him, and nothing to do with those that give him
aid and comfort.
Sadly, there will be calculating cronies, such as Schultz, and benefit of the
doubt givers, as you once were. Until Schultz and Goichberg tried to bring
Scammie into the mainstream, he was simply a kook. Now, he's a kook with
backers.
Schultz and Goichberg helped ruin the USCF's finances and brought Scammie to
the party. What will they think of next?
James Eade
Remove the Sheesh to respond. Don't worry. Talk happy.
StanB
"Mhoulsby" <mhou...@aol.com-remove-> wrote in message
news:20031002114916...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> (not to mention the inability of *your* faithful minion, Stan Booz, to
spell
> the Swahili word: "Bwana") make *you* look stupid. Not as stupid as Sloan,
but
> stupid, certainly.
>
> Booz has resumed his trolling of Nick Bourbaki. It may be time for you to
call
> him off, and to apologise publicly to Bourbaki for all of the lies which
you,
> Timothy Hanke, have written about him.
>
> Whaddyasay?
I say, Bwanna Mark.
StanB
Mhoulsby
>Date: 02/10/03 22:56 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <fpCdndkZG7d...@comcast.com>
'His ignorance was an Empire State Building of ignorance. You had to admire it
for its size.'
--Dorothy Parker (Attrib.)
'The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand.'
--Cesare Lombroso (The Man of Genius, Pt. III, Ch. 3).
'Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity.'
--Martin Luther King
You're one dangerous dude, Stan. You seem conscientious, too.
Have a nice day, now.
Mark
ASCACHESS
>otherwise you will be providing yet more evidence of your being illiterate,
>and
>therefore incapable of understanding what he writes (which may be the
>problem,
>here).
>
>Mark
>
Spelling is not the problem.
The problem will be when Blair repeats the misspelling until the second coming
of Frank Niro.
Rp
Mhoulsby
>Date: 02/10/03 23:41 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20031002184136...@mb-m07.aol.com>
Richard,
Spelling may not be the *fundamental* problem, indeed it is rather unlikely
that spelling is the fundamental problem. It seems likely that the fundamental
problem is the ignorance, stupidity and disingenuousness of these politicians,
especially Timothy Hanke, and their cronies, (in Hanke's case, especially Stan
Booz).
That said, wantonly bad spelling, such as that exhibited by Booz is indicative
of:
1) his illiteracy
or
2) his bloodymindedness
or
3) his stupidity
or
4) his being *incredibly* dumb
or
5) any combination/permutation of the above.
Mark
Sam Sloan
>I would certainly agree that a zero tolerance policy is long over due for this
>wretched person. But, when Steve Doyle to him to task at a FIDE meeting in
>Cherry Hill, Don Schultz complained about Steve!
I am surprised that you would bring that up, because that was one of
my finest hours.
Steve Doyle at the meeting said that there would be no drug testing at
the World Chess Olympiad in Bled.
Speaking from the back of the room, I said that I had been informed
that there would be drug testing at Bled. Furthermore, I stated that I
had the telephone number of Boris Kutin, the organizer of the Bled
Olympiad, and I was prepared to call him on the spot and get his
confirmation that there would be drug testing at Bled.
I was proven right and Doyle was wrong. There was in fact drug testing
at Bled.
You, Jim Eade, were sitting right next to Doyle when he said this. You
knew that there would be drug testing at Bled. You knew that Doyle was
lying. Yet, you remained silent. What I said was absolutely correct
and you knew that. Meanwhile, Doyle said that I should be thrown out
of the room.
Sam Sloan
Nick
news:<sOWdnWyF88V...@comcast.com>...
Here's a link to my post in the thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice",
wherein I cite evidence to prove directly that Stan Booz has *lied* about me:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V27416E75
"He was a falsehood done in flesh and blood."
--Mark Twain (The Gilded Age)
--Nick
John Fernandez
Wait a second. That was your FINEST moment? Let me recall...
First, you claimed that you met with a high level FIDE official at the
World Open who told you this. Jerry Bibuld called you out, and demanded you
name the high level FIDE official. You said the official was Albert Vasse.
Jerry then yelled at you again, pointing out that Albert Vasse was not a FIDE
official, and that you were lying. You stammered a bit, then finally coughed up
that you spoke to Boris Kutin at the World Open. Of course, Kutin wasn't there.
You stammered some more.
Eventually, after several minutes of this nonsense, you finally said you talked
to Kutin on the phone at the World Open. Of course, as I later found out and
reported, you never spoke to Kutin. In fact, Kutin had spoken to Vasse, and
Vasse simply told you about it. In short, you repeatedly lied and made a
complete fool of yourself, pretending like you're in the know, when you simply
had a chat with someone who was in the know, and was kind enough to let you in
on the information.
Of course, that wasn't your most embarrassing moment during the meeting. As
Doyle was lacing into you, you keep guffawing, and pointing at Doyle, happy
with glee, bragging to your children that he was so angry because of you. I
have to admit I felt extremely sad for your kids at that moment.
Your finest moment? If you say so. Pity your other moments. I suspect a true
father would say their finest moment was the birth of their kids, or something
positive.
John Fernandez
ASCACHESS
>Vasse simply told you about it. In short, you repeatedly lied and made a
>complete fool of yourself, pretending like you're in the know, when you
>simply
>had a chat with someone who was in the know, and was kind enough to let you
>in on the information.
>John Fernandez
>
>
John, John, John,
You have to learn to think like a Sloan.
That Sam lied about everything is not relevant. Sam is right and you are
wrong.
The operative truth is that this WAS Sam's finest hour.
And that's as good as it gets.
Richard Peterson
Nick
news:<20031002113915...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> From: "StanB" stan...@comXXXcast.net
> Message-id: <sOWdnWyF88V...@comcast.com>
> > Is this the room where Louis Blair reads, in a monotone, the quotations of
> > Bwanna Nick?
>
> otherwise you will be providing yet more evidence of your being illiterate,
> and therefore incapable of understanding what he writes (which may be the
> problem, here).
Dear Mr Houlsby,
In the thread, "OT Core Values" (25 August 2003), Stan Booz wrote to me:
"You keep right on shaking the spear."
I have received some critical praise for my dramatic readings of Shakespeare.
I have not yet attempted, however, to read Shakespeare in an American accent.:-)
'Nature equips all creatures with what is most expedient for them.'
--Henry Fielding (Joseph Andrews)
--Nick
RMille9601
I also have learned a lot about the meeting that I rather would not have
learned.
Correcting Sam S. keeps people busy. Bet next time he runs there will be a lot
of negative words about him.
Russell Miller, Chelan WA
Miriling
>On 3 October 2003 rmill...@aol.com (RMille9601) wrote in
>Message-id: <20031003204851...@mb-m03.aol.com>
>
>Sam got information to come forward that I don't think would have come
>forward.
>I also have learned a lot about the meeting that I rather would not have
>learned.
>Correcting Sam S. keeps people busy.
-snipped-
>
>Russell Miller, Chelan WA
>
>
>I agree with Rusty. As long as Sloan is "on the scene," more and more
information, albeit sometimes erroneous, about what is going in the USCF seems
to come to light. It's more info than would naturally be made public by USCF
officials, who are very tight-lipped about what is going on up front and also
behind the scenes.
As a journalist, Sloan performs a valuable service to those who want to know
what's going on in the USCF. It must be admitted, however, that he at times
gets his facts wrong, i.e. confused or twisted, which is a disservice to those
who want to know. But all in all, he a good source of information about USCF
goings-on. He is following in the tradition of former USCF vice president Fred
Townsend of Connecticut, who provided members the goings-on of the federation
and the then-Policy Board several decades ago.
George Mirijanian
>
>
>
Tim Hanke
> >
> >I agree with Rusty. As long as Sloan is "on the scene," more and more
> information, albeit sometimes erroneous, about what is going in the USCF
seems
> to come to light.
"Sometimes erroneous"? You've got to be kidding, George.
> It's more info than would naturally be made public by USCF
> officials, who are very tight-lipped about what is going on up front and
also
> behind the scenes.
Huh? I've been called a lot of things on this newsgroup, but "tight-lipped"
is not one of them. I have posted here regularly, Chair of the Finance
Committee Stan Booz posts here regularly, COO Grant Perks has posted here
often. Apparently, rather than praise us for being forthcoming and providing
you and the other people here with valid information, you would rather
praise Sloan for spreading lies that make people look bad.
> As a journalist, Sloan performs a valuable service to those who want to
know
> what's going on in the USCF. It must be admitted, however, that he at
times
> gets his facts wrong, i.e. confused or twisted, which is a disservice to
those
> who want to know. But all in all, he a good source of information about
USCF
> goings-on.
George, your post has caused me to lose respect for your judgment. Sloan
performs the disreputable function of stirring up trouble where there is
none, and slandering people falsely. He has lied about me repeatedly, in
case you haven't noticed. A couple of weeks ago he announced here that I had
lost my job. Then he announced that I was attacking Susan Polgar because I
had made sexual advances on her in Los Angeles which she had rejected. This
is the gross liar you are praising.
I think you owe me an apology for conveniently overlooking Sloan's slanders
against me and praising him as a "journalist," and you owe everybody else on
this newsgroup an apology for encouraging Sloan to continue behaving the way
he does.
Tim Hanke
ASCACHESS
>information, albeit sometimes erroneous, about what is going in the USCF
>seems
>to come to light.
"sometimes erroneous"?
You have a way with words, unfortunately they don't apply to English :-)
John Fernandez
>>I agree with Rusty. As long as Sloan is "on the scene," more and more
>information, albeit sometimes erroneous, about what is going in the USCF
>seems
>to come to light. It's more info than would naturally be made public by USCF
>officials, who are very tight-lipped about what is going on up front and also
>behind the scenes.
Sam's not "on the scene" anymore. The old board used to leak to him repeatedly,
but fortunately they've stopped that nonsense, since Sam would report facts
through Sloan goggles. Now, we just get it right from various horses and their
mouths.
John Fernandez
Miriling
>On 3 October 2003 "Tim Hanke" timoth...@comcast.net reponded defensively in
>Message-id: <7Hpfb.673069$Ho3.142286@sccrnsc03>
>
>"Miriling" <miri...@aol.com> wrote ...
>> >
>> >I agree with Rusty. As long as Sloan is "on the scene," more and more
>> information, albeit sometimes erroneous, about what is going in the USCF
>seems
>> to come to light.
>
>"Sometimes erroneous"? You've got to be kidding, George.
WHAT? DO YOU THINK SLOAN LIES ALL THE TIME?
>
>> It's more info than would naturally be made public by USCF
>> officials, who are very tight-lipped about what is going on up front and
>also
>> behind the scenes.
>
>Huh? I've been called a lot of things on this newsgroup, but "tight-lipped"
>is not one of them. I have posted here regularly, Chair of the Finance
>Committee Stan Booz posts here regularly, COO Grant Perks has posted here
>often. Apparently, rather than praise us for being forthcoming and providing
>you and the other people here with valid information, you would rather
>praise Sloan for spreading lies that make people look bad.
THE "VALID INFORMATION' THAT YOU CLAIM YOU AND BOOZ ARE GIVING ME AND OTHER
PEOPLE IS, I SUSPECT, NOT COMPLETE. YOU ONLY PROVIDE US WHAT YOU WANT TO. IT'S
NOT ALL THE FACTS. I DO NOT TRUST EVERYTHING THAT BOOZ POSTS. I HAVE MORE FAITH
IN PERKS AND FIND HIS POSTINGS ON THE WHOLE INFORMATIVE AND NOT CRUDE, SUCH AS
BOOZ'S.
>
>> As a journalist, Sloan performs a valuable service to those who want to
>know
>> what's going on in the USCF. It must be admitted, however, that he at
>times
>> gets his facts wrong, i.e. confused or twisted, which is a disservice to
>those
>> who want to know. But all in all, he a good source of information about
>USCF
>> goings-on.
>
>George, your post has caused me to lose respect for your judgment. Sloan
>performs the disreputable function of stirring up trouble where there is
>none, and slandering people falsely. He has lied about me repeatedly, in
>case you haven't noticed. A couple of weeks ago he announced here that I had
>lost my job. Then he announced that I was attacking Susan Polgar because I
>had made sexual advances on her in Los Angeles which she had rejected. This
>is the gross liar you are praising.
I AM NOT PRAISING THE "GROSS LIAR" YOU SAY SLOAN IS. YOU ARE BECOMING TOO
SENSITIVE. BY THE WAY, I DID NOT LIKE HIS AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AGAINST YOU AND
OTHERS. BUT THAT MUST BE THE NATURE OF POLITICS, ESPECIALLY USCF POLITICS. DID
YOU NOT ALSO INDULGE IN AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AGAINST HIM AND OTHERS, E.G. AGAINST
L. BLAIR ET AL.?
>
>I think you owe me an apology for conveniently overlooking Sloan's slanders
>against me and praising him as a "journalist," and you owe everybody else on
>this newsgroup an apology for encouraging Sloan to continue behaving the way
>he does.
>
>Tim Hanke
>I AM NOT ENCOURAGING SLOAN TO CONTINUE BEHAVING THE WAY YOU SAY HE DOES. I
JUST WANT TO HIM TO REPORT THE FACTS ACCURATELY ON WHAT THE EXECUTIVE BOARD IS
DOING? WHEN HE LIES (AND YOU AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED THAT OUT WHEN HE DOES), I
WANT YOU TO REFUTE IT BY TELLING US THE TRUTH. WHEN HE TELLS THE TRUTH, I WANT
YOU TO CONFIRM IT. THAT'S All.
YOU PROBABLY DO NOT CONSIDER SLOAN A CHESS JOURNALIST, BUT HE IS - WHETHER YOU
LIKE IT OR NOT. HE MAKES MISTAKES - WE ALL DO. BUT HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN
CHESS AND WRITTEN MORE ABOUT CHESS LONGER THAN YOU HAVE. THAT CAN BE
DOCUMENTED. HE HAS A BROADER KNOWLEDGE OF U.S. CHESS AND USCF HISTORY THAN
ANYBODY NOW SERVING ON THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF
FRANK BRADY AND DON SCHULTZ. SLOAN WAS AROUND IN THE USCF WHEN BRADY WAS ITS
BUSINESS MANAGER AND JERRY SPANN WAS ITS PRESIDENT. MORE THAN 40 YEARS AGO. WHO
ON THE CURRENT EB, OTHER THAN BRADY AND SCHULTZ, CAN TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT
PEOPLE LIKE SPANN AND JOE REINHARDT? SLOAN CAN. I DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH
SLOAN'S VIEWS, BUT I FIND THAT HIS VIEWS ON USCF AFFAIRS AGREE WITH MINE A LOT
OF TIMES. HIS PERSONAL LIFE IS HIS OWN AND, WHILE I MAY NOT AGREE WITH HIS
BEHAVIOUR OUTSIDE OF CHESS, IT SHOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON HIS CHESS VIEWS.
IN SHORT, LIGHTEN UP, TIM. AS TRUMAN ONCE SAID, "IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT,
STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN."
>
>George Mirijanian
>
>
ASCACHESS
>WHEN HE LIES (AND YOU AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED THAT OUT WHEN HE DOES), I
>WANT YOU TO REFUTE IT BY TELLING US THE TRUTH. WHEN HE TELLS THE TRUTH, I WANT
>YOU TO CONFIRM IT. THAT'S All.
>YOU PROBABLY DO NOT CONSIDER SLOAN A CHESS JOURNALIST, BUT HE IS - WHETHER
>YOU
>LIKE IT OR NOT. HE MAKES MISTAKES - WE ALL DO.
He makes mistakes?
Yes.
But he lies with more frequency.
Did you ever hear the story about the little boy who cried wolf?
Pretty soon no one believed him.
In a pleasant segue, the boy got eaten by a wolf. Here on the RGCP, we can
only hope.
Sloan's postings should come with a disclaimer that he is veritas challenged
and a smear artist.
It is a free country and if you and Don Schultz want to pretend this man is a
journalist, more power to you. For my money, you are polishing shit.
Rp
AlforChess
know
> what's going on in the USCF >>
Even admittedly take out of its entire context, this remark ranks as one of the
most ridiculous statements ever made by a chess player.
Sorry, George. Perhaps you don't know the topic very well.
Regards, al
Spam Scone
> >Subject: Re: Crossville, TN
>
> >On 3 October 2003 "Tim Hanke" timoth...@comcast.net reponded defensively in
> >Message-id: <7Hpfb.673069$Ho3.142286@sccrnsc03>
> >
> >"Miriling" <miri...@aol.com> wrote ...
> >> >
> >> >I agree with Rusty. As long as Sloan is "on the scene," more and more
> >> information, albeit sometimes erroneous, about what is going in the USCF
> seems
> >> to come to light.
> >
> >"Sometimes erroneous"? You've got to be kidding, George.
>
> WHAT? DO YOU THINK SLOAN LIES ALL THE TIME?
This is as close to a truism as I've seen on here.
> >> It's more info than would naturally be made public by USCF
> >> officials, who are very tight-lipped about what is going on up front and
> also
> >> behind the scenes.
> >
> >Huh? I've been called a lot of things on this newsgroup, but "tight-lipped"
> >is not one of them. I have posted here regularly, Chair of the Finance
> >Committee Stan Booz posts here regularly, COO Grant Perks has posted here
> >often. Apparently, rather than praise us for being forthcoming and providing
> >you and the other people here with valid information, you would rather
> >praise Sloan for spreading lies that make people look bad.
>
> THE "VALID INFORMATION' THAT YOU CLAIM YOU AND BOOZ ARE GIVING ME AND OTHER
> PEOPLE IS, I SUSPECT, NOT COMPLETE. YOU ONLY PROVIDE US WHAT YOU WANT TO. IT'S
> NOT ALL THE FACTS. I DO NOT TRUST EVERYTHING THAT BOOZ POSTS. I HAVE MORE FAITH
> IN PERKS AND FIND HIS POSTINGS ON THE WHOLE INFORMATIVE AND NOT CRUDE, SUCH AS
> BOOZ'S.
You are free to distrust the posts of USCF officials if you like.
However, that doesn't mean that Sam Sloan's drivel is accurate, or
free of malicious falsehoods.
> >> As a journalist, Sloan performs a valuable service to those who want to
> know
> >> what's going on in the USCF. It must be admitted, however, that he at
> times
> >> gets his facts wrong, i.e. confused or twisted, which is a disservice to
> those
> >> who want to know. But all in all, he a good source of information about
> USCF
> >> goings-on.
> >
> >George, your post has caused me to lose respect for your judgment. Sloan
> >performs the disreputable function of stirring up trouble where there is
> >none, and slandering people falsely. He has lied about me repeatedly, in
> >case you haven't noticed. A couple of weeks ago he announced here that I had
> >lost my job. Then he announced that I was attacking Susan Polgar because I
> >had made sexual advances on her in Los Angeles which she had rejected. This
> >is the gross liar you are praising.
>
> I AM NOT PRAISING THE "GROSS LIAR" YOU SAY SLOAN IS.
You are. AND IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
YOU ARE BECOMING TOO
> SENSITIVE. BY THE WAY, I DID NOT LIKE HIS AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AGAINST YOU AND
> OTHERS. BUT THAT MUST BE THE NATURE OF POLITICS, ESPECIALLY USCF POLITICS. DID
> YOU NOT ALSO INDULGE IN AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AGAINST HIM AND OTHERS, E.G. AGAINST
> L. BLAIR ET AL.?
Tim has on occasion brought more heat than light to the political
arena, but even his lawn gnomes are worlds aways from Sam Sloan's
tactics.
> >I think you owe me an apology for conveniently overlooking Sloan's slanders
> >against me and praising him as a "journalist," and you owe everybody else on
> >this newsgroup an apology for encouraging Sloan to continue behaving the way
> >he does.
> >
> >Tim Hanke
>
> >I AM NOT ENCOURAGING SLOAN TO CONTINUE BEHAVING THE WAY YOU SAY HE DOES. I
> JUST WANT TO HIM TO REPORT THE FACTS ACCURATELY ON WHAT THE EXECUTIVE BOARD IS
> DOING? WHEN HE LIES (AND YOU AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED THAT OUT WHEN HE DOES), I
> WANT YOU TO REFUTE IT BY TELLING US THE TRUTH. WHEN HE TELLS THE TRUTH, I WANT
> YOU TO CONFIRM IT. THAT'S All.
> YOU PROBABLY DO NOT CONSIDER SLOAN A CHESS JOURNALIST, BUT HE IS - WHETHER YOU
> LIKE IT OR NOT.
Then chess journalism is the loser, George. It's hard to respect
people like you, Tamburro, Parr, and ChessDon, who think Sam Sloan is
a chess journalist.
>HE MAKES MISTAKES - WE ALL DO.
We don't all bury Peter Leko before his time.
BUT HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN
> CHESS AND WRITTEN MORE ABOUT CHESS LONGER THAN YOU HAVE. THAT CAN BE
> DOCUMENTED. HE HAS A BROADER KNOWLEDGE OF U.S. CHESS AND USCF HISTORY THAN
> ANYBODY NOW SERVING ON THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF
> FRANK BRADY AND DON SCHULTZ. SLOAN WAS AROUND IN THE USCF WHEN BRADY WAS ITS
> BUSINESS MANAGER AND JERRY SPANN WAS ITS PRESIDENT. MORE THAN 40 YEARS AGO. WHO
> ON THE CURRENT EB, OTHER THAN BRADY AND SCHULTZ, CAN TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT
> PEOPLE LIKE SPANN AND JOE REINHARDT? SLOAN CAN.
Sam Sloan has more personal experience with Norman Tweed Whitaker than
either John Hilbert or myself. Based on what you have written above,
are you claiming that Sloan's Whitaker drivel is more informative than
Shady Side, or my own modest contributions to Whitaker studies? Even
the error-ridden Denker and Parr chapter is leagues ahead of Sloan's
scrawlings. And I suspect that when someone writes the definitive
history of USCF, Sloan's contributions to our understanding will rate
one footnote, explaining why they were not used.
I DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH
> SLOAN'S VIEWS, BUT I FIND THAT HIS VIEWS ON USCF AFFAIRS AGREE WITH MINE A LOT
> OF TIMES. HIS PERSONAL LIFE IS HIS OWN AND, WHILE I MAY NOT AGREE WITH HIS
> BEHAVIOUR OUTSIDE OF CHESS, IT SHOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON HIS CHESS VIEWS.
> IN SHORT, LIGHTEN UP, TIM. AS TRUMAN ONCE SAID, "IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT,
> STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN."
> >George Mirijanian
George, I've noticed your recent RGCP career has consisted of trying
to play "Gotcha" with various posters. When you aren't playing that
game, you are going on witch hunts - and in one case a Deer hunt -
using inaccurate of false information as ammo. I realize that losing
your chess column was probably shocking to you, but must you dive into
dementia and Sloan-like behavior with such energy?
Spam Scone
> It is a free country and if you and Don Schultz want to pretend this man is a
> journalist, more power to you. For my money, you are polishing shit.
I agree Stan, err, Richard.
RSHaas
the
most ridiculous statements ever made by a chess player. Sorry, George. Perhaps
==============
Bruce Draney once ranked my Mensa model idea the second worst ever posted to
rgcp. With this new listing above, the Mensa model improves to third worst.
Thus I'm making a little progress.
RSHaas
Mark Houlsby
> "Miriling" <miri...@aol.com> wrote ...
> > >
> > >I agree with Rusty. As long as Sloan is "on the scene," more and more
> > information, albeit sometimes erroneous, about what is going in the USCF
> seems
> > to come to light.
>
> "Sometimes erroneous"? You've got to be kidding, George.
>
> > It's more info than would naturally be made public by USCF
> > officials, who are very tight-lipped about what is going on up front and
> also
> > behind the scenes.
>
> Huh? I've been called a lot of things on this newsgroup, but "tight-lipped"
> is not one of them. I have posted here regularly,
A considerable proportion of what you post here consists of lies and
trolling other people you've never met. Why are you surprised when
some folks don't believe you much of the time? Why should we believe
you at all?
Your credibility with many people is very low, and continues to
dwindle with respect to a growing number of people, owing to your
trolling activities. Crying: "unfair" won't cut it. Your doing these
things is *the* reason why "ace reporter" Sloan has more credibility
than he should.
I'll restate that, just to be abslutely clear: your trolling is *the*
reason why "ace reporter" Sloan has *more credibility* than he should.
Are you getting this, yet?
CEASING your trolling activities. CEASING posting lies. DISMANTLING
webpages lampooning your adversaries, APOLOGIZING for that nonsense
and undertaking NEVER TO DO IT AGAIN, might.
Meantime, watch your credibility continue to dwindle.
Have a nice day, now.
Jackass.
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby
Hear, Hear. Well said, George.
Timothy: stop lying, stop trolling, stop being "economical with the
truth" or get the heck out of Dodge.
Mark Houlsby
StanB
"ASCACHESS" <asca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031004011907...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> In one of the dumbest posts of all time, Miriling writes regarding Sam
Sloan
>
> >WHEN HE LIES (AND YOU AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED THAT OUT WHEN HE DOES), I
> >WANT YOU TO REFUTE IT BY TELLING US THE TRUTH. WHEN HE TELLS THE TRUTH, I
WANT
> >YOU TO CONFIRM IT. THAT'S All.
> >YOU PROBABLY DO NOT CONSIDER SLOAN A CHESS JOURNALIST, BUT HE IS -
WHETHER
> >YOU
> >LIKE IT OR NOT. HE MAKES MISTAKES - WE ALL DO.
>
> He makes mistakes?
> Yes.
> But he lies with more frequency.
Exactly. Sloan's mistakes are for the large part, intentional mistakes.
Hey George! Just what is it you do/did for a living?
StanB
Mark Houlsby
> miri...@aol.com (Miriling) wrote in message news:<20031003224547...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
> > >Subject: Re: Crossville, TN
>
> > >On 3 October 2003 "Tim Hanke" timoth...@comcast.net reponded defensively in
> > >Message-id: <7Hpfb.673069$Ho3.142286@sccrnsc03>
> > >
> > >"Miriling" <miri...@aol.com> wrote ...
> > >> >
> > >> >I agree with Rusty. As long as Sloan is "on the scene," more and more
> > >> information, albeit sometimes erroneous, about what is going in the USCF
> seems
> > >> to come to light.
> > >
> > >"Sometimes erroneous"? You've got to be kidding, George.
> >
> > WHAT? DO YOU THINK SLOAN LIES ALL THE TIME?
>
> This is as close to a truism as I've seen on here.
>
You're missing the point. The point is that HANKE'S lying, and being
economical with the truth, and trolling, gives "ace reporter" Sloan
more credibility than he deserves (he deserves ZERO credibility, but
has a lot more, because HANKE conducts his business in a manner which
is, to say the least, highly questionable). The reason that "ace
reporter" Sloan has so much credibility is that Hanke, Booz, et al.,
are, frankly, not much better than Sloan is.
> > >> It's more info than would naturally be made public by USCF
> > >> officials, who are very tight-lipped about what is going on up front and
> also
> > >> behind the scenes.
> > >
> > >Huh? I've been called a lot of things on this newsgroup, but "tight-lipped"
> > >is not one of them. I have posted here regularly, Chair of the Finance
> > >Committee Stan Booz posts here regularly, COO Grant Perks has posted here
> > >often. Apparently, rather than praise us for being forthcoming and providing
> > >you and the other people here with valid information, you would rather
> > >praise Sloan for spreading lies that make people look bad.
> >
> > THE "VALID INFORMATION' THAT YOU CLAIM YOU AND BOOZ ARE GIVING ME AND OTHER
> > PEOPLE IS, I SUSPECT, NOT COMPLETE. YOU ONLY PROVIDE US WHAT YOU WANT TO. IT'S
> > NOT ALL THE FACTS. I DO NOT TRUST EVERYTHING THAT BOOZ POSTS. I HAVE MORE FAITH
> > IN PERKS AND FIND HIS POSTINGS ON THE WHOLE INFORMATIVE AND NOT CRUDE, SUCH AS
> > BOOZ'S.
>
> You are free to distrust the posts of USCF officials if you like.
> However, that doesn't mean that Sam Sloan's drivel is accurate, or
> free of malicious falsehoods.
>
No, it doesn't, but the fact that Hanke and Booz *regularly* post
malicious falsehoods lends Sloan more credibility than he deserves (he
deserves ZERO). Are you getting this, yet?
> > >> As a journalist, Sloan performs a valuable service to those who want to
> know
> > >> what's going on in the USCF. It must be admitted, however, that he at
> times
> > >> gets his facts wrong, i.e. confused or twisted, which is a disservice to
> those
> > >> who want to know. But all in all, he a good source of information about
> USCF
> > >> goings-on.
> > >
> > >George, your post has caused me to lose respect for your judgment. Sloan
> > >performs the disreputable function of stirring up trouble where there is
> > >none, and slandering people falsely. He has lied about me repeatedly, in
> > >case you haven't noticed. A couple of weeks ago he announced here that I had
> > >lost my job. Then he announced that I was attacking Susan Polgar because I
> > >had made sexual advances on her in Los Angeles which she had rejected. This
> > >is the gross liar you are praising.
> >
> > I AM NOT PRAISING THE "GROSS LIAR" YOU SAY SLOAN IS.
>
> You are. AND IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
>
No, he's not. He's using different language to say what I'm saying. Do
learn to read....
> YOU ARE BECOMING TOO
> > SENSITIVE. BY THE WAY, I DID NOT LIKE HIS AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AGAINST YOU AND
> > OTHERS. BUT THAT MUST BE THE NATURE OF POLITICS, ESPECIALLY USCF POLITICS. DID
> > YOU NOT ALSO INDULGE IN AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AGAINST HIM AND OTHERS, E.G. AGAINST
> > L. BLAIR ET AL.?
>
> Tim has on occasion brought more heat than light to the political
> arena, but even his lawn gnomes are worlds aways from Sam Sloan's
> tactics.
>
Once again, you're missing the point. The *fact* that Hanke *employs*
such tactics means that Hanke's credibility is undermined, and "ace
reporter" Sloan's credibility is enhanced. Are you getting this, yet?
> > >I think you owe me an apology for conveniently overlooking Sloan's slanders
> > >against me and praising him as a "journalist," and you owe everybody else on
> > >this newsgroup an apology for encouraging Sloan to continue behaving the way
> > >he does.
> > >
> > >Tim Hanke
>
> > >I AM NOT ENCOURAGING SLOAN TO CONTINUE BEHAVING THE WAY YOU SAY HE DOES. I
> > JUST WANT TO HIM TO REPORT THE FACTS ACCURATELY ON WHAT THE EXECUTIVE BOARD IS
> > DOING? WHEN HE LIES (AND YOU AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED THAT OUT WHEN HE DOES), I
> > WANT YOU TO REFUTE IT BY TELLING US THE TRUTH. WHEN HE TELLS THE TRUTH, I WANT
> > YOU TO CONFIRM IT. THAT'S All.
> > YOU PROBABLY DO NOT CONSIDER SLOAN A CHESS JOURNALIST, BUT HE IS - WHETHER YOU
> > LIKE IT OR NOT.
>
> Then chess journalism is the loser, George. It's hard to respect
> people like you, Tamburro, Parr, and ChessDon, who think Sam Sloan is
> a chess journalist.
>
You're missing the point. If Hanke wasn't a liar and a troll, Sloan
still would be, and it would therefore be *much easier* to discredit
Sloan convincingly.
> >HE MAKES MISTAKES - WE ALL DO.
>
> We don't all bury Peter Leko before his time.
>
Sam Sloan apologized for that. Again, you're missing the point. Follow
the bouncing ball: Hanke's lying makes Sloan more credible than Sloan
ought to be - i.e. not credible *at all*.
> BUT HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN
> > CHESS AND WRITTEN MORE ABOUT CHESS LONGER THAN YOU HAVE. THAT CAN BE
> > DOCUMENTED. HE HAS A BROADER KNOWLEDGE OF U.S. CHESS AND USCF HISTORY THAN
> > ANYBODY NOW SERVING ON THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF
> > FRANK BRADY AND DON SCHULTZ. SLOAN WAS AROUND IN THE USCF WHEN BRADY WAS ITS
> > BUSINESS MANAGER AND JERRY SPANN WAS ITS PRESIDENT. MORE THAN 40 YEARS AGO. WHO
> > ON THE CURRENT EB, OTHER THAN BRADY AND SCHULTZ, CAN TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT
> > PEOPLE LIKE SPANN AND JOE REINHARDT? SLOAN CAN.
>
> Sam Sloan has more personal experience with Norman Tweed Whitaker than
> either John Hilbert or myself. Based on what you have written above,
> are you claiming that Sloan's Whitaker drivel is more informative than
> Shady Side, or my own modest contributions to Whitaker studies? Even
> the error-ridden Denker and Parr chapter is leagues ahead of Sloan's
> scrawlings. And I suspect that when someone writes the definitive
> history of USCF, Sloan's contributions to our understanding will rate
> one footnote, explaining why they were not used.
>
So, explain Sloan's credibility, then... (there are some clues above).
> I DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH
> > SLOAN'S VIEWS, BUT I FIND THAT HIS VIEWS ON USCF AFFAIRS AGREE WITH MINE A LOT
> > OF TIMES. HIS PERSONAL LIFE IS HIS OWN AND, WHILE I MAY NOT AGREE WITH HIS
> > BEHAVIOUR OUTSIDE OF CHESS, IT SHOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON HIS CHESS VIEWS.
> > IN SHORT, LIGHTEN UP, TIM. AS TRUMAN ONCE SAID, "IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT,
> > STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN."
> > >George Mirijanian
>
> George, I've noticed your recent RGCP career has consisted of trying
> to play "Gotcha" with various posters. When you aren't playing that
> game, you are going on witch hunts - and in one case a Deer hunt -
> using inaccurate of false information as ammo. I realize that losing
> your chess column was probably shocking to you, but must you dive into
> dementia and Sloan-like behavior with such energy?
Hanke does exactly the same thing to his adversaries. Why don't you
berate him, too, anonymouse?
Mark Houlsby
StanB
"Spam Scone" <tartak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76ba5964.03100...@posting.google.com...
> George, I've noticed your recent RGCP career has consisted of trying
> to play "Gotcha" with various posters. When you aren't playing that
> game, you are going on witch hunts - and in one case a Deer hunt -
> using inaccurate of false information as ammo. I realize that losing
> your chess column was probably shocking to you, but must you dive into
> dementia and Sloan-like behavior with such energy?
So! He was a reporter. That speaks volumes.
StanB
StanB
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:47ae7109.03100...@posting.google.com...
> You're missing the point. The point is that HANKE'S lying, and being
> economical with the truth, and trolling, gives "ace reporter" Sloan
> more credibility than he deserves (he deserves ZERO credibility, but
> has a lot more, because HANKE conducts his business in a manner which
> is, to say the least, highly questionable). The reason that "ace
> reporter" Sloan has so much credibility is that Hanke, Booz, et al.,
> are, frankly, not much better than Sloan is.
You are such a Neanderthal. Tell me, do you have hair growing on the palm of
your hand?
StanB
Kevin L. Bachler
says...
> In short, you repeatedly lied and made a
>complete fool of yourself, pretending like you're in the know, when you simply
>had a chat with someone who was in the know, and was kind enough to let you in
>on the information.
>
unfortunately, people let this stuff take on a life of their own.
Kevin L. Bachler
Nick
news:<20031002113915...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> From: "StanB" stan...@comXXXcast.net
> Message-id: <sOWdnWyF88V...@comcast.com>
> > Is this the room where Louis Blair reads, in a monotone, the quotations of
> > Bwanna Nick?
>
> If you're going to troll Nick Bourbaki, I suggest that you learn to spell,
> otherwise you will be providing yet more evidence of your being illiterate,
> and therefore incapable of understanding what he writes (which may be the
> problem, here).
Dear Mr Houlsby,
If Stan Booz had even a modicum of intelligence (not to mention literacy),
then he would stop trolling me and attend more to the USCF business.
Kevin L. Bachler
Remember: Hegel answered all the philosophical problems. Nietzsche just didn't
like the answers.
Kevin L. Bachler
Bruce Draney
Snipped>>
George, did your fingers accidently slip and hit your cap key, or are
you just furious at people?
Usually typing entirely in caps is a sign of anger and is considered
shouting at others.
Claiming that Sam is a valuable source of information is a poor
defense of the horrible tactics he uses in publishing rumors, half
truths and outright lies about people and carefully couching his
language so that he can deny he said it, when confronted and asked to
retract or apologize.
The few tiny mini-diamonds found in his rants, hardly justify the tons
of excrement which must be sorted through to sift them out.
Seems like something's been bothering you lately George. You used to
be one of the most reasonable and interesting posters to this forum.
It seems like lately, you've had too much time on your hands and have
been spending it sorting through people's trash cans to find something
bad about them.
Maybe this forum just tends to bring out the callous and cruel side in
people. I sometimes feel it can get pretty nasty and it's important
to step back, lighten up and even make a few jokes about things to cut
the tension. Better yet, sometimes it's better just to ignore someone
else's flames and move onto a different topic. It helps me to deal
with Kevin. Sometimes you just need to let someone else take their
shot and move onto something else, rather than engaging in, "I know
you are but what am I?" tactics.
I think this forum starts to warp people after a point. It is also a
poor substitute for actually meeting and talking with other posters
face to face, where you learn they are not ogres (or cavemen), even
though they seem to be such on RGCP. Stan Booz is a warm and fuzzy
guy in person who enjoys a good joke and a scrod dinner, served by a
cute Boston waitress.
Even Sam is different in person than he is on this forum. I met Sam
in Framingham, and he and I had a few conversations of an amicable
nature, although I often despise the kind of stuff he posts to this
forum.
I really enjoyed some of your chess historical postings from a few
months back and would encourage you to post some of interest and
relevance here. This digging up dirt on people seems beneath you.
No one, is a saint, and if you dig deep enough, I'm certain you could
find dirt of some kind on anyone. This is supposed to be a forum for
discussing chess politics not for personal vendettas and
investigations of posters who are participating.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Bruce Draney
The thing that bothers me, is that some sense of equivalency is
implied when Sam Sloan is considered an equally valid source of
reliable information as others who really are on the inside and really
do know what is happening and even try to tell people. Even by
mentioning Sam as a valid source of information places him much higher
on the food chain, than he deserves. It is like including a fourth
rate nobody candidate in the debate. Even by being invited, the
fourth rate nobody candidate, elevates his status, as being equally
deserving of being on the stage as the legitimate candidates.
Nominating Sloan for a CJA award, grants him an immediate equivalency
to credible journalists who write about chess, without embarrassing
themselves and others in the process. This doesn't even include the
dangers of what mockery would occur should someone like Sloan actually
win the award over a hard working legitimate journalist.
What happens is that people assume equal legitimacy between a Sloan
post and a post by Hanke, Eade, Booz or anyone else, when in fact very
few posters have such a blatant disregard for the truth or the facts
as Sam does.
Everyone makes mistakes, both in their posts to this forum and in
their lives. It appears that George M. now wants to transfer
legitimacy to the Sloans of the world by finding some personal life
peccadillo with other posters.
Recently George has tried to imply improprieties on the part of Wick,
Grant, Neil, Tim, and several others while defending the conduct of
Sloan who as recently as a few weeks ago, graphically described his
sexual activities with a woman and named her publicly on this forum,
which had absolutely nothing to do with chess. This person not only
doesn't apologize for such blatant crudities, he's actually proud of
them.
Sam is a useful tool. There are political "cowards" in this
organization who know they can shovel some filth to Sam, and he'll
post it here. They lack the guts or the courage to do it themselves
(they're also smart enough), but they know Sam is so desperate to have
someone listen to him or tell him he's a great chess journalist, that
they'll keep him on a string by feeding the troll every few weeks to
keep him happy.
George's recent conduct however seems mysterious. His attitude and
his posts have turned into vendetta like background searches of people
who have disagreed with him. That is unfortunate, as I always enjoyed
reading George's posts about chess politics until just a few weeks
ago. I'm wondering if something happened to him recently to embitter
him?
Best Regards,
Bruce
Wickdeer3
>George's recent conduct however seems mysterious. His attitude and
>his posts have turned into vendetta like background searches of people
>who have disagreed with him. That is unfortunate, as I always enjoyed
>reading George's posts about chess politics until just a few weeks
>ago. I'm wondering if something happened to him recently to embitter
>him?
As one of the recent -- uh -- objects of Mr. Mirijanian's affections, I was
rather puzzled by the viciousness of the attacks that I received for having the
audacity to disagree with him, but when I thought about the attacks, they made
sense.
Mr. Mirijanian obviously has serious self-esteem issues. He compensates for
his own self-esteem issues, by finding fault in others, in order to make
himself look good by comparison. Thus, when his criticisms are challenged, his
reaciton is stronger because the criticisms challenge the self-esteem he was
trying so desparately to bolster in the first place.
Frankly, I don't think this is going to last long, because he is firing at a
lot of targets who aren't likely to back down and are even more likely to fire
back.
Wick Deer
Mark Houlsby
Has the nickel dropped, yet, Spammie? Booz and Hanke *revel* in their
respective trolling activities and that's *why* "ace reporter" Sloan
has more - much more - credibility than the ZERO he deserves. Stan
really is dumb enough to have reinforced my point as immediately and
effectively as this.
Go figure.
The question which you now should ask yourself, Spammie, is whether
you're smarter than Stan, or as dumb as he is?
Let's face it, nobody could be dumber [well, perhaps "ace reporter"
Sloan, but nobody *else*].
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby
You see, Spammie? Stan's such a dumb and stupid troll that he can't
tell the difference between Mirijanian and "ace reporter" Sloan. This
lends *more credibility* to "ace" than the ZERO he deserves.
I wonder if Stan could tell the difference between, say, Ed Murrow and
"ace reporter" Sloan, or between Walter Cronkite and "ace", or between
Woodward & Bernstein and "ace", or between Dan Rather and "ace",
or........
Has the nickel dropped yet, anonymouse?
Mark Houlsby
Spam Scone
Allegedly a good columnist.
JimEade
I agree. How anyone could possibly consider a package of lies, hallucinations
and a smidgeon of facts a valuable service boggles the mind. It's a two
sheesher.
If you want to know what happened, call someone how knows, who also happens to
be a reliable source. Don't shift through the garbage looking for ... oh,
never mind.
James Eade
Remove the Sheesh to respond. Don't worry. Talk happy.
JimEade
>In one of the dumbest posts of all time, Miriling writes regarding Sam Sloan
>
>>WHEN HE LIES (AND YOU AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED THAT OUT WHEN HE DOES), I
>>WANT YOU TO REFUTE IT BY TELLING US THE TRUTH. WHEN HE TELLS THE TRUTH, I
>WANT
>>YOU TO CONFIRM IT. THAT'S All.
>>YOU PROBABLY DO NOT CONSIDER SLOAN A CHESS JOURNALIST, BUT HE IS - WHETHER
>>YOU
>>LIKE IT OR NOT. HE MAKES MISTAKES - WE ALL DO.
>
Yes, I was flabbergasted. I think Mr. M. needs to polish his reading glasses.
He is not simply making mistakes, he is making things up as he goes along and
doing so maliciously. Only in the chess world would that be tolerated even by
a few. In the real world it is considered a disgrace. Shame on you, George.
>He makes mistakes?
>Yes.
>But he lies with more frequency.
>
Perhaps George should reread John F.'s account of Sloan's performance at the
FIDE meeting at Cherry Hill. Sloan is a notorious liar. For you to speak of
him as a journalist is simply unforgivable. By the way, Steve Doyle did
misspeak. It was John F. who corrected him, and I immediately acknowledged
John's point.
>Did you ever hear the story about the little boy who cried wolf?
>Pretty soon no one believed him.
>In a pleasant segue, the boy got eaten by a wolf. Here on the RGCP, we can
>only hope.
>Sloan's postings should come with a disclaimer that he is veritas challenged
>and a smear artist.
>
>It is a free country and if you and Don Schultz want to pretend this man is a
>journalist, more power to you. For my money, you are polishing shit.
>
>Rp
>
It is even worse than that. People have an obligation to stand up to the
Parr/Sloan BS artists, even when it invites further attacks. These types lie
and mislead, they do NOT inform.
If George, or anyone else had questions about the EB meeting, they should've
picked up the phone and called Beatriz or someone else. Don't eat garbage,
because you're too lazy to go out to dinner. Sheesh.
Mark Houlsby
> "StanB" <stan...@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message news:<owudnQbXBez...@comcast.com>...
> > "Spam Scone" <tartak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:76ba5964.03100...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > George, I've noticed your recent RGCP career has consisted of trying
> > > to play "Gotcha" with various posters. When you aren't playing that
> > > game, you are going on witch hunts - and in one case a Deer hunt -
> > > using inaccurate of false information as ammo. I realize that losing
> > > your chess column was probably shocking to you, but must you dive into
> > > dementia and Sloan-like behavior with such energy?
> >
> > So! He was a reporter. That speaks volumes.
> >
> > StanB
>
> The thing that bothers me, is that some sense of equivalency is
> implied when Sam Sloan is considered an equally valid source of
> reliable information as others who really are on the inside and really
> do know what is happening and even try to tell people.
Yes, that occurred to me, too, Bruce. The problem, though, is that in
these groups, Timothy Hanke and Stan Booz both repeatedly *lie* and
*troll* and *revel* in the fact. In a troll thread started by "ace
reporter" Sloan (The New Gang Of Four), Hanke described his new gnomes
webpage as "harmless fun" and entreated me to "lighten up". My point,
which neither Hanke nor the idiot Booz has yet grasped is that
*clearly* it's *not* "harmless fun" BECAUSE it gives credibility to
"ace reporter" Sloan who deserves not only ZERO credibility, but
OPPROBRIUM as well.
Even by
> mentioning Sam as a valid source of information places him much higher
> on the food chain, than he deserves.
Yes. That's PRECISELY the point that Hanke fails to grasp. Not only
does he "mention Sam", he actually ERECTS a WEBPAGE lampooning the
guy. What an *incredibly stupid* and *counterproductive* move by
Hanke.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L59A21A16
It is like including a fourth
> rate nobody candidate in the debate.
Exactly. Are you getting this yet, Tim?
Even by being invited, the
> fourth rate nobody candidate, elevates his status, as being equally
> deserving of being on the stage as the legitimate candidates.
Right! Has the nickel dropped, yet, Tim?
> Nominating Sloan for a CJA award, grants him an immediate equivalency
> to credible journalists who write about chess, without embarrassing
> themselves and others in the process. This doesn't even include the
> dangers of what mockery would occur should someone like Sloan actually
> win the award over a hard working legitimate journalist.
>
> What happens is that people assume equal legitimacy between a Sloan
> post and a post by Hanke, Eade, Booz or anyone else, when in fact very
> few posters have such a blatant disregard for the truth or the facts
> as Sam does.
>
Yes. Yes. Yes.
> Everyone makes mistakes, both in their posts to this forum and in
> their lives. It appears that George M. now wants to transfer
> legitimacy to the Sloans of the world by finding some personal life
> peccadillo with other posters.
>
No. That's not what George wants to do. He has said so many times. He
wants HANKE et al to act RESPONSIBLY for a change, INSTEAD of *giving*
credibility to "ace reporter" Sloan, by acting like immature idiots.
That's the point.
Has the nickel dropped, yet, Tim?
> Recently George has tried to imply improprieties on the part of Wick,
> Grant, Neil, Tim, and several others while defending the conduct of
> Sloan who as recently as a few weeks ago, graphically described his
> sexual activities with a woman and named her publicly on this forum,
> which had absolutely nothing to do with chess. This person not only
> doesn't apologize for such blatant crudities, he's actually proud of
> them.
>
Unfortunately, Hanke's trolling activities cloud Sloan's dubious
proclivities.
> Sam is a useful tool. There are political "cowards" in this
> organization who know they can shovel some filth to Sam, and he'll
> post it here. They lack the guts or the courage to do it themselves
> (they're also smart enough), but they know Sam is so desperate to have
> someone listen to him or tell him he's a great chess journalist, that
> they'll keep him on a string by feeding the troll every few weeks to
> keep him happy.
>
Yes. Has the nickel dropped, yet, Tim?
> George's recent conduct however seems mysterious. His attitude and
> his posts have turned into vendetta like background searches of people
> who have disagreed with him. That is unfortunate, as I always enjoyed
> reading George's posts about chess politics until just a few weeks
> ago. I'm wondering if something happened to him recently to embitter
> him?
>
Perhaps he grew tired of the fact that *all* of the major USCF players
here are disingenuous trolling liars?
Best
Mark
JimEade
>Exactly. Sloan's mistakes are for the large part, intentional mistakes.
>
>Hey George! Just what is it you do/did for a living?
>
>StanB
>
Don't foget that there is also an element of delusion. Sloan obvious believes
some of his delusions. He cannot always seperate fact from fiction, most
likely due to mental illness. All the more reason that the term "journalist"
is so misplaced here.
We can understand why Parr defends Sloan, they share many of the same traits.
They take pleasure when do harm to others, for example. They may be described
as social deviants. Two peas in a pod. One can understand why Schultz
cultivated Sloan, because he was of some use attacking Schultz's perceived
enemies.
One must ask oneself why George M. writes as he does. Does he really believe
that Sloan is just making mistakes?
Fifiela
of excrement which must be sorted through to sift them out.>>>
Sez it all (and I was still a Sloan defender for a long time when I arrived
here.)
Spam Scone
Tell us about it again, Kevin. Lie down on the couch and tell us your feelings.
Spam Scone
> As one of the recent -- uh -- objects of Mr. Mirijanian's affections, I was
> rather puzzled by the viciousness of the attacks that I received for having the
> audacity to disagree with him, but when I thought about the attacks, they made
> sense.
>
> Mr. Mirijanian obviously has serious self-esteem issues. He compensates for
> his own self-esteem issues, by finding fault in others, in order to make
> himself look good by comparison. Thus, when his criticisms are challenged, his
> reaciton is stronger because the criticisms challenge the self-esteem he was
> trying so desparately to bolster in the first place.
>
> Frankly, I don't think this is going to last long, because he is firing at a
> lot of targets who aren't likely to back down and are even more likely to fire
> back.
>
> Wick Deer
Now George, I've been more than nice to you during your time here on
RGCP. There are some subjects I have refrained from discussing, out of
courtesy to you. For instance, I haven't discussed how your newspaper
dumped your chess column with the grace of Sandra Sloan filling a
diaper. So much for your journalism....
Now George, surely an over-the-hill has-been like yourself can be nice
to a journalist who is regularly published somewhere other than RGCP?
Jealousy is an ugly emotion, George. Resist it.
Spam Scone
> Don't foget that there is also an element of delusion. Sloan obvious believes
> some of his delusions. He cannot always seperate fact from fiction, most
> likely due to mental illness. All the more reason that the term "journalist"
> is so misplaced here.
>
> We can understand why Parr defends Sloan, they share many of the same traits.
> They take pleasure when do harm to others, for example. They may be described
> as social deviants. Two peas in a pod. One can understand why Schultz
> cultivated Sloan, because he was of some use attacking Schultz's perceived
> enemies.
>
> One must ask oneself why George M. writes as he does. Does he really believe
> that Sloan is just making mistakes?
> James Eade
> Remove the Sheesh to respond. Don't worry. Talk happy.
There's alway the theory that the outsiders stick together. George's
newspaper dumped his chess column with the grace of Sandra Sloan
filling a diaper. He has no outlet for his writing, and his reputation
is on the skids. Sound like Sloan to you?
Miriling
>On 5 October 2003 tartak...@hotmail.com (Spam Scone, aka Neil Brennen)
wrote in
>Message-id: <76ba5964.03100...@posting.google.com>
>
>jim...@aol.comSheesh (JimEade) wrote in message
>news:<20031004174044...@mb-m22.aol.com>...
-snipped-
>> One must ask oneself why George M. writes as he does. Does he really
>believe
>> that Sloan is just making mistakes?
>> James Eade
>> Remove the Sheesh to respond. Don't worry. Talk happy.
>Brennen replied:
>There's alway the theory that the outsiders stick together. George's
>newspaper dumped his chess column with the grace of Sandra Sloan
>filling a diaper. He has no outlet for his writing, and his reputation
>is on the skids. Sound like Sloan to you?
>
>
>The malevolent rantings of Spam Scone, aka Neil Brennen, are not endearing him
to those outside the chess world, as I have recently learned. Check out the Web
site http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html where Brennen is a frequent
poster and where he fancies himself an expert on the writer Christopher
Marlowe. Here is a sample of some of the responses to Brennen's postings on
that site:
"There's this guy who posts to the HLAS newsgroup, "Spam Scone" (Neil Brennen)
who is always making demeaning remarks about people, but doesn't offer any
evidence or information himself (that I have noticed...For Brennen, the HLAS
newsgroup is a place for his personal amusement at the expense of others."
"There's this obnoxious poster at HLAS, who goes by the screen name "Spam
Scone" (what a stupid pseudonym), who likes to throw insults from the sidelines
at insightful posters . . ."
The is the same "cordial" Neil Brennen who e-mailed yours truly on 28 September
2003 as follows:
Dear George,
A couple of months ago, you were kind enough to give me Stephen Dann's email
address so I could ask him about a game [Harlow] Daly played with Sydney Sharp
in 1934. I haven't gotten a response from Mr. Dann, so I would like to beg
another favor, and ask you to approach Mr. Dann for me. The game was played on
December 1, 1934, as part of a telephone match between Philadelphia and Boston
. . .
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
>
>Talk about Mr. Cordiality! think Mr. Brennen should grow up and stop reveling
in ad hominem attacks. This is not becoming of a chess journalist, which Mr.
Brennen claims to be. As the historian for the Pennsylvania State Chess
Federation, he should know better. I'm sure better-known Pennsylvania chess
personalities Ira Lee Riddle, Bobby Dudley and Bruce Leverett, among others,
would not approve of his tactics and his psychotic behaviour.
Sincerely,
George Mirijanian
>
Spam Scone
ask oneself why George M. writes as he does. Does he really
> believe
> >> that Sloan is just making mistakes?
> >> James Eade
> >> Remove the Sheesh to respond. Don't worry. Talk happy.
>
> >Brennen replied:
> >There's alway the theory that the outsiders stick together. George's
> >newspaper dumped his chess column with the grace of Sandra Sloan
> >filling a diaper. He has no outlet for his writing, and his reputation
> >is on the skids. Sound like Sloan to you?
> >
> >The malevolent rantings of Spam Scone, aka Neil Brennen, are not endearing him
> to those outside the chess world, as I have recently learned. Check out the Web
> site http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html where Brennen is a frequent
> poster
Sigh. George, I do not post to the site. Is this the work of a
journalist, that cannot even tell the difference between a "newsgroup"
and a "site"?
and where he fancies himself an expert on the writer Christopher
> Marlowe.
George, I realize you are jealous, and jealousy is blind, but can't
you even get the basic facts straight? I have never claimed to be an
"expert" on Marlowe, unless you consider reading his plays and poems
to be expertese. David More believes Marlowe wrote Shakespeare, so
he's insane to some degree.
Here is a sample of some of the responses to Brennen's postings on
> that site:
> "There's this guy who posts to the HLAS newsgroup, "Spam Scone" (Neil Brennen)
> who is always making demeaning remarks about people, but doesn't offer any
> evidence or information himself (that I have noticed...For Brennen, the HLAS
> newsgroup is a place for his personal amusement at the expense of others."
> "There's this obnoxious poster at HLAS, who goes by the screen name "Spam
> Scone" (what a stupid pseudonym), who likes to throw insults from the sidelines
> at insightful posters . . ."
I love it when trolls from one newsgroup quote trolls from another
newsgroup. Haven't you realized that not everything you read on
crackpot websites is true? Do you also subscribe to More's other
views, such as Marlowe wrote Shakespeare? And why aren't you writing
this in Rime Royal, since Mr. More has a fixation with it to the
degree that he claims to own a newsgroup thread?
> The is the same "cordial" Neil Brennen who e-mailed yours truly on 28 September
> 2003 as follows:
> Dear George,
> A couple of months ago, you were kind enough to give me Stephen Dann's email
> address so I could ask him about a game [Harlow] Daly played with Sydney Sharp
> in 1934. I haven't gotten a response from Mr. Dann, so I would like to beg
> another favor, and ask you to approach Mr. Dann for me. The game was played on
> December 1, 1934, as part of a telephone match between Philadelphia and Boston
> . . .
> Best wishes,
> Neil Brennen
George, it's considered rude to publish private correspondence. You
have slipped further into dementia. Also you are harming my reputation
as a curmudgeon by printing a nice email from me.
> >Talk about Mr. Cordiality! think Mr. Brennen should grow up and stop reveling
> in ad hominem attacks. This is not becoming of a chess journalist, which Mr.
> Brennen claims to be.
Mr. Pot, meat Mr. Kettle.
As the historian for the Pennsylvania State Chess
> Federation, he should know better. I'm sure better-known Pennsylvania chess
> personalities Ira Lee Riddle, Bobby Dudley and Bruce Leverett, among others,
> would not approve of his tactics and his psychotic behaviour.
Please contact them for us, George. Do let them know. I'm sure they
will be shocked to discover I am posting on rgcp.
Neil Brennen
Mark Houlsby
Given that you're Neil Brennen, why not *post* as Neil Brennen,
instead of "Spam Scone" which - intrinsically - lends more credibility
to "ace reporter" Sloan than the ZERO he deserves?
Are you an idiot?
> George's newspaper dumped his chess column with the grace of Sandra
> Sloan filling a diaper. He has no outlet for his writing, and his
> reputation is on the skids. Sound like Sloan to you?
Nope. It sounds like you're trolling Mirijanian. Especially
considering you chose your idiotic pseudonym to do it...
Stop trolling, Neil. It makes you seem like an idiot.
Are you an idiot?
Mark Houlsby
Sam Sloan
wrote:
What is remarkable is that this issue has been hashed out in hundreds
of newsgroup postings, perhaps more than a thousand in all.
Now, when the rest of us have forgotten about it, as it happened years
ago, Kevin McDuck (as Stan Vaughan calls him) raises it again.
For those who have forgotten or are new to this group, the issue arose
because in Illinois there is a charitable program under which chess
masters are paid about $50 per hour to give chess lessons to promising
junior players.
Under this program, Kevin was paid to give chess lessons to his own
son.
Kevin's defense is that he later donated the money he received to
another charity.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
<timoth...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Then he announced that I was attacking Susan Polgar because I
>had made sexual advances on her in Los Angeles which she had rejected. This
>is the gross liar you are praising.
Two different people who were present in Los Angeles have informed me
that Tim Hanke did make sexually suggestive remarks to Grandmaster
Susan Polgar both during the US Open and afterwards. Not only do I
trust my sources but anybody can search this newsgroup and find
numerous instances of sexually suggestive remarks by Tim Hanke
addressed to various women. For example, you posted here that you
wanted to go "mud wrestling" with Beatriz Marinello and you suggested
that Jim Eade was sleeping with his sister-in-law and you would like
to sleep with her too. Last month you reposted a comment another
player had made about the "big boobs" of several female chess players,
one of them being Jennifer Shahade. You also reposted here a sexualy
suggestive remarks about a 15-year-old girl chess player (whose name I
will not repeat).
Thus, there was certainly more than sufficient basis for my posting.
Sam Sloan
StanB
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3f804048....@ca.news.verio.net...
> Two different people who were present in Los Angeles have informed me
> that Tim Hanke did make sexually suggestive remarks to Grandmaster
> Susan Polgar both during the US Open and afterwards. Not only do I
> trust my sources but anybody can search this newsgroup and find
> numerous instances of sexually suggestive remarks by Tim Hanke
> addressed to various women. For example, you posted here that you
> wanted to go "mud wrestling" with Beatriz Marinello and you suggested
> that Jim Eade was sleeping with his sister-in-law and you would like
> to sleep with her too. Last month you reposted a comment another
> player had made about the "big boobs" of several female chess players,
> one of them being Jennifer Shahade. You also reposted here a sexualy
> suggestive remarks about a 15-year-old girl chess player (whose name I
> will not repeat).
More libelous statements from old "judgment proof" Sloan. It so happens that
four people told me that Sam exposed himself to several small children. Not
only do I trust my sources but anybody ... Right. If Sam trusts them they
must be right. Right.
StanB
Kevin L. Bachler
SNIP
>>> It's like the lie that Sloan told about me and my son's chess lessons, but
>>> unfortunately, people let this stuff take on a life of their own.
>>> Kevin L. Bachler
>>
SNIP
>
>What is remarkable is that this issue has been hashed out in hundreds
>of newsgroup postings, perhaps more than a thousand in all.
>
>Now, when the rest of us have forgotten about it, as it happened years
>ago, Kevin McDuck (as Stan Vaughan calls him) raises it again.
Stan Vaughan does not call me that.
>
>For those who have forgotten or are new to this group, the issue arose
>because in Illinois there is a charitable program under which chess
>masters are paid about $50 per hour to give chess lessons to promising
>junior players.
So far your facts are incorrect. But go on.
>
>Under this program, Kevin was paid to give chess lessons to his own
>son.
So far incorrect.
>
>Kevin's defense is that he later donated the money he received to
>another charity.
Still incorrect.
>
>Sam Sloan
0-3. You're out.
Kevin L. Bachler
John Fernandez
>From: sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
>Date: 10/5/2003 12:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f804048....@ca.news.verio.net>
Is THIS an Ethics violation?
John Fernandez
Sam Sloan
<timoth...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Then he announced that I was attacking Susan Polgar because I
>had made sexual advances on her in Los Angeles which she had rejected. This
>is the gross liar you are praising.
Two different people who were present in Los Angeles have informed me
that Tim Hanke did make sexually suggestive remarks to Grandmaster
Susan Polgar both during the US Open and afterwards. Not only do I
trust my sources but anybody can search this newsgroup and find
numerous instances of sexually suggestive remarks by Tim Hanke
addressed to various women. For example, Hanke posted here that he
wanted to go "mud wrestling" with Beatriz Marinello and he suggested
that Jim Eade was sleeping with his sister-in-law and he would like to
sleep with her too. Last month Hanke reposted a comment another player
had made about the "enormous, beautiful breasts" of several female
chess players. Hanke also made a sexualy suggestive remark about a
13-year-old girl chess player (whose name I will not repeat).
Sam Sloan
Fernandez) wrote:
>George Mirijanian wrote:
>
>>>I agree with Rusty. As long as Sloan is "on the scene," more and more
>>information, albeit sometimes erroneous, about what is going in the USCF
>>seems
>>to come to light. It's more info than would naturally be made public by USCF
>>officials, who are very tight-lipped about what is going on up front and also
>>behind the scenes.
>
>Sam's not "on the scene" anymore. The old board used to leak to him repeatedly,
>but fortunately they've stopped that nonsense, since Sam would report facts
>through Sloan goggles. Now, we just get it right from various horses and their
>mouths.
>
>John Fernandez
John Fernandez lies all the time and here he does it once again.
In fact, I am in contact with all the members of the board, with the
exception of Tim Hanke.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
<Kbac...@cavemanchessnospam.com> wrote:
>>Now, when the rest of us have forgotten about it, as it happened years
>>ago, Kevin McDuck (as Stan Vaughan calls him) raises it again.
>
>Stan Vaughan does not call me that.
Sorry. I meant to say "As Stan Booz calls him", not "as Stan Vaughan
calls him". I got my Stans mixed up.
Sam Sloan
Mark Houlsby
> Sam Sloan
You forgot your mantra, Sam.
Timothy, you might try reversing the names and rehearsing it, yourself.
PDFTT! That goes double for both of you.
Morons.
Mark