Accoona Securities Scandal
samsloan
I am wondering what this is all about.
This company, touted on Susan's website only a few days ago, is now in
trouble with the SEC and the public offering has been withdrawn.
I am wondering if Susan is involved in some way with these people.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Accoona is NOT involved in a securities scandal. Although the
underwriter of the Accoona IPO has withdrawn, the securities of
Accoona are still in registration and are awaiting a letter of comment
from the SEC.
Meanwhile, Accoona is in contact with two other prospective
underwriters.
My initial posting was based primarily on a news report in the New
York Times. However, the New York Times has since issued an official
correction of its erroneous news report.
Also, Susan Polgar is in no way involved in the management of Accoona.
Susan probably featured Accoona on her website because the CEO of
Accoona has sponsored several top-level matches involving Woman's
World Chess Champions.
Incidently, Susan is right now attending a Chess in the Schools and
Communities International Conference in Aberdeen, Scotland.
I regret the error.
Sam Sloan
Paul Thomas, CPA
You guys need a hobby - like checkers.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Chess One
Incidently, Susan is right now attending a Chess in the Schools and
Communities International Conference in Aberdeen, Scotland.
** Alekhine's Parrot at www.chessville.com lists the main papers plus
additional panel discussions at Cisscom. I am pleased to say that I have
been aiding the first ever attempted PhD in Chess who has presented 3
papers. I also told Bill Hall about the conference 7 months ago, and then
talked with Jerry Nash on the phone for an hour - unsure if that pair has
gone to Aberdeen. The conference is a very interesting one, with, I believe
1,100 mainstream educators attending an entire conference on chess.
I regret the error.
** Enough said.
Sam Sloan
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:TOCBi.24441$7e6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> You guys need a hobby - like checkers.
**Look Paul, just because we parade our ignorance before you accountants,
you should realise that it is often just our ignerunts.
**Somewhere some rash CPA [laugh] is causing havoc in a Creationist
newsgroup during the current full-moon, by citing IRS rules going back 8,500
years. I know that's a poor joke, but its short.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote
> **Look Paul, just because we parade our ignorance
> before you accountants, you should realise that it
> is often just our ignerunts.
>
> **Somewhere some rash CPA [laugh] is causing
> havoc in a Creationist newsgroup during the current
> full-moon, by citing IRS rules going back 8,500 years. I know that's a
> poor joke, but its short.
I work with several non-profits, and those groups tend to have people who
don't understand financial issues, basic accounting, budgeting, cash flow
and the like. It seems the more ignorant those members are, the more vocal
they get about things they know nothing about, and they tend to be among
those bitching and whining about the financial statements. They also tend
to be the ones who'll study the floor with clasped hands when the call goes
out for volunteers to keep the books, be the treasurer, etc. It's more
"fun" for them to bitch ~at~ someone than be the one bitched ~at~.
Without more details, no one can competently discuss any of the audit
adjustments. By the way, how much do you pay the auditors anyway?
It just seems to me that if you guys are in such a tizzy about the books,
enough of you would bail out and form your own "club" and be done with it.
Ever thought of forming the ACA? Or the USCA? Or the NACF? Or any other
combination of alphabets?
Chess One
>
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote
>> **Look Paul, just because we parade our ignorance
>> before you accountants, you should realise that it
>> is often just our ignerunts.
>>
>> **Somewhere some rash CPA [laugh] is causing
>> havoc in a Creationist newsgroup during the current
>> full-moon, by citing IRS rules going back 8,500 years. I know that's a
>> poor joke, but its short.
>
>
>
>
> I work with several non-profits, and those groups tend to have people who
> don't understand financial issues, basic accounting, budgeting, cash flow
> and the like. It seems the more ignorant those members are, the more
> vocal they get about things they know nothing about, and they tend to be
> among those bitching and whining about the financial statements. They
> also tend to be the ones who'll study the floor with clasped hands when
> the call goes out for volunteers to keep the books, be the treasurer, etc.
> It's more "fun" for them to bitch ~at~ someone than be the one bitched
> ~at~.
:)
but aren't you going to comment about my 'rash CPA's'? surely there are
some! i mean the guys who wear colored shirts, eg
as you can see from the recent act here, its just a Gilbert and Sullivan
production around an election, and G&S couldn't stand each other.
> Without more details, no one can competently discuss any of the audit
> adjustments. By the way, how much do you pay the auditors anyway?
We're sorry, financial matters are secret, except if you ask the auditors.
Names of the auditors are secret and so is their report except to the board
of the 'membership organisation' ;(
> It just seems to me that if you guys are in such a tizzy about the books,
> enough of you would bail out and form your own "club" and be done with it.
>
> Ever thought of forming the ACA? Or the USCA? Or the NACF? Or any other
> combination of alphabets?
Um- yes. There are a few alternates, and some states don't take part. If
this election hadn't gone this way there would have been a new USA chess org
with 'adequate funding'.
Overall, these conversations represent disagreement about a small membership
group representing about 1% of chess players. It is the relatively serious
end, though not financially as serious as some alternates. It doesn't really
matter how much corruption goes on, since the organisation itself has never
mattered, and is negotiated rather than invested in.
It would matter if it grew into something vaguely remembling what chess
players wanted in the C21st, but that subject, you may be amused to learn,
is banned at its own forum, where no criticism of chess management can take
place. Therefore no questions arise about what any public wants, or in their
perceived short-falling of the current crowd. This is ensured by hiring a
half dozen rather strange people, some of whom are certainly strangers to
the truth as we know it, and insured for $11,000, in case anyone actually
says anything.
Isn't that boring?
But lookee here! Since you are a CPA and possibly gullible enough to give
free advice, what is the precedent for a non-profit forgiving a for-profit
its debt without any security or recovery of that debt? Let's say the amount
is about $150,000 and the non-profit in a monopoly situation.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote
> but aren't you going to comment about my
> 'rash CPA's'? surely there are some!
> i mean the guys who wear colored shirts, eg
Who, like me?
I haven't worn a tie in over a dozen years, 'cept to funerals and weddings.
>> Without more details, no one can competently discuss any of the audit
>> adjustments. By the way, how much do you pay the auditors anyway?
>
> We're sorry, financial matters are secret,
Actually they shouldn't be, and there may be a legal and statutory
obligation to disclose to the members at a minimum, if not at the "open to
the public" level. Not that that means drill-down details and all, but
there should be reasonable access to the records. Not that, as I fear, all
who ask will understand what they see.
Like I said, I've dealt with enough non-profits to know how it works.
> except if you ask the auditors.
Well, they'd not be obligated to disclose, and most likely wouldn't, except
to the audit committee or the board of directors. You really don't want the
auditors fielding questions from the members as the billings for that time
could break the bank.
> Names of the auditors are secret and so is their report
> except to the board of the 'membership organisation' ;(
Their name should be known to the members.
> But lookee here! Since you are a CPA and possibly gullible enough to give
> free advice, what is the precedent for a non-profit forgiving a for-profit
> its debt without any security or recovery of that debt? Let's say the
> amount is about $150,000 and the non-profit in a monopoly situation.
The NFP would be required to issue a 1099-C for the cancellation of the
debt.
The FP entity would have taxable income in most cases.
Then the board would have a fiduciary responsibility to not do business with
that entity in the future.
The board members know they are at risk for their decisions, both
financially and legally, right?
They can be sued for mismanagement, and even charged with criminal activity
if that's the case. That's why you do all you can when it comes to "full
disclosure", in the light of protecting certain details on personnel and the
like.
Y'all need to find a geeky attorney to join the board.
Rob
wrote:
Way to go Paul! You volunteering to be the treasurer/accountant/
auditor in residence for a new organization :-)
Rob(which-Mitch)
Chess One
>
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote
>> but aren't you going to comment about my
>> 'rash CPA's'? surely there are some!
>> i mean the guys who wear colored shirts, eg
>
>
>
> Who, like me?
A radical! your are obviously in the private sector.
> I haven't worn a tie in over a dozen years, 'cept to funerals and
> weddings.
Same tie, or do you have two? I used to have very many, including wild
italian silks ones. Now I work from home, and except for weddings funerals
and interviewing royalty, pfft! I'm just like you.
>>> Without more details, no one can competently discuss any of the audit
>>> adjustments. By the way, how much do you pay the auditors anyway?
>>
>> We're sorry, financial matters are secret,
>
>
>
> Actually they shouldn't be, and there may be a legal and statutory
> obligation to disclose to the members at a minimum, if not at the "open to
> the public" level. Not that that means drill-down details and all, but
> there should be reasonable access to the records. Not that, as I fear,
> all who ask will understand what they see.
True, and of course, there will be at length resonable excuses produced for
reasonable delays, especially since it was election season, when everything
is so reasonable! Really, people are reasonable to the max, as they still
say in mendocino county.
> Like I said, I've dealt with enough non-profits to know how it works.
That's a wink then, say no more squire, say no more.
>> except if you ask the auditors.
>
>
> Well, they'd not be obligated to disclose, and most likely wouldn't,
> except to the audit committee or the board of directors. You really don't
> want the auditors fielding questions from the members as the billings for
> that time could break the bank.
You actually know stuff, don't you. You can't hide it from me. Though I do
understand your point, except I didn't make mine very well, and whatever the
auditors disclosed is yet undisclosed. The people who have copies of the
auditors report pretend they don't understand they are being asked to share
it, or have the slightest obligation to, therefore, nobody knows nothin'*
*officially
>> Names of the auditors are secret and so is their report
>> except to the board of the 'membership organisation' ;(
> Their name should be known to the members.
They were last year. But they change every year, and /who/ should make them
known to the members? Not that, as you say, this will reveal anything, since
they themselves are not obliged to disclose de nada baby!
>> But lookee here! Since you are a CPA and possibly gullible enough to give
>> free advice, what is the precedent for a non-profit forgiving a
>> for-profit its debt without any security or recovery of that debt? Let's
>> say the amount is about $150,000 and the non-profit in a monopoly
>> situation.
>
>
>
>
> The NFP would be required to issue a 1099-C for the cancellation of the
> debt.
Good grief! But what does that mean?
> The FP entity would have taxable income in most cases.
>
> Then the board would have a fiduciary responsibility to not do business
> with that entity in the future.
AH! In this instance it insisted on continuing business with that entity,
initially upon an unsecured basis, until I [as ace journalist] voiced the
comment that another entity would secure the amount due, whereas there was
another round of negotaition, and the first [defaulting] outfit amazingly
got the contract, for another 5 years!
> The board members know they are at risk for their decisions, both
> financially and legally, right?
The board members do not talk 'with' anyone, they talk 'to' us. Thereby your
question could never be put to them, since questions as such are not
tolerated.
> They can be sued for mismanagement, and even charged with criminal
> activity if that's the case. That's why you do all you can when it comes
> to "full disclosure", in the light of protecting certain details on
> personnel and the like.
Your opinion is very interesting. 3 publishing houses are interested in this
topic, plus several authors, as well as the members themselves, who
subsidize this for-profit, so to speak. Their difficulty you see, is that
they are not allowed to write about it in their own forum, since it
conctitutes criticism, and they were never presented the plain facts in the
first place.
> Y'all need to find a geeky attorney to join the board.
Hey - don't you boys down there go n "y'all" a yankee, a vermont yankee too,
which is wurse n'all v'all damn yankees. specially a foreign yankee vermont
yankee which is wurst of all damnj yankees
y'all keep yer flatlander talk down there wur it belong, boy! this dogg'll
hunt ye good, you good dissin us now
and thanks mate! ;)
Phil Innes
samsloan
> On Aug 30, 1:19 pm, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
> > Ever thought of forming the ACA? Or the USCA? Or the NACF? Or any other
> > combination of alphabets?
>
> > --
> > Paul A. Thomas, CPA
> > Athens, Georgia
>
> Way to go Paul! You volunteering to be the treasurer/accountant/
> auditor in residence for a new organization :-)
> Rob(which-Mitch)
There have been many, many plans and efforts to start a rival
organization to the USCF. All have failed.
Rob(which-Mitch) is a non-chess-player who dreams of starting another
rival organization, and thus he bothers us with nonsense-postings
every day.
He is safely ignored.
Sam Sloan
Paul Rubin
> > > Ever thought of forming the ACA? Or the USCA? Or the NACF?
> organization to the USCF. All have failed.
There is in fact a reasonably successful rival organization to the
USCF, called the ICC. Its annual dues are higher than the USCF's, but
those dues effectively include the rating and entry fees for an
unlimited number of events. And so I believe it has more members than
the USCF has. I'm just about certain that it rates more games per
year than the USCF does, for more minutes of rated play.
The ACA was kind of interesting, but not really up to the job
for reasons that I think are addressible.
David Kane has mentioned a Seattle-area organization that rates
scholastic games for free. I don't see a compelling reason something
like that couldn't be national and open to everyone.
What are/were the USCA and NACF?
Chess One
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188520020.2...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> The board members know they are at risk for their decisions, both
>> financially and legally, right?
>>
>> They can be sued for mismanagement, and even charged with criminal
>> activity
>> if that's the case. That's why you do all you can when it comes to "full
>> disclosure", in the light of protecting certain details on personnel and
>> the
>> like.
>>
>> Y'all need to find a geeky attorney to join the board.
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Thomas, CPA
>> Athens, Georgia
>
> Are you sure about this, because you have just put your finger on the
> button?
**Sam Sloan wakes up after a year at the helm, to question what was an open
scandal just two years ago. He is still two hops behind current activities
<wink> but here he is, too late, taking it over when he no longer can do
anything about it.
Pity cloth-ears doesn't actually listen to anyone, since asking 20 questions
per day is only useful if you listen to the answers - but i think that was
never his plan. I see in another post he has just woken up to Cisscom in
Scotland, but I'll deal with that in its own thread. Phil Innes
---------
> Chess Cafe bought the USCF's books and equipment business in 2004, by
> making by far the best bid and guaranteeing to pay a minimum of
> $250,000 per year.
>
> By mid-2005, they were far behind in their payments and refusing to
> pay unless the USCF agreed to re-negotiate.
>
> Finally, the USCF Executive Board agreed to forgive the indebitedness
> of $150,000 and signed a new deal under which Chess Cafe guaranteed to
> pay only $100,000 per year.
>
> Naturally, the companies that were outbid by Chess Cafe are angry
> because they were prepared to pay more than Chess Cafe ultimately paid
> under the final renegotiated contract.
>
> This all happened in the year BEFORE I was elected to the USCF
> Executive Board.
>
> So, now you are saying that the USCF Board could be sued for mis-
> management and even charged with criminal activity.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> Sam Sloan
>
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote
>>> But lookee here! Since you are a CPA and possibly gullible enough to
>>> give free advice, what is the precedent for a non-profit forgiving a
>>> for-profit its debt without any security or recovery of that debt? Let's
>>> say the amount is about $150,000 and the non-profit in a monopoly
>>> situation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The NFP would be required to issue a 1099-C for the cancellation of the
>> debt.
>
> Good grief! But what does that mean?
That means, if done properly, the IRS will know that the for-profit entity
received a sum of money (or goods or services) that they didn't have to pay
back, and that's income to the for-profit entity in most cases.
The same thing is looming for most of the folks that let their homes get
foreclosed on. I'll bet there will be tons of folks who get bitch slapped
with taxes on their foreclosure this year.
>> The FP entity would have taxable income in most cases.
>>
>> Then the board would have a fiduciary responsibility to not do business
>> with that entity in the future.
>
> AH! In this instance it insisted on continuing business with that entity,
Really now, would a reasonable person do such a thing? And that IS the
standard the Board members could be held accountable to. "Would a
reasonable person do what they did?" That's what the jury would be
deciding.
> Hey - don't you boys down there go n "y'all" a yankee,
We "y'all" everybody, and proudly tell redneck jokes about ourselves. It's
how we get-r-done down here.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote
> Are you sure about this, because you have just put your finger on the
> button?
>
> making by far the best bid and guaranteeing to pay a minimum of
> $250,000 per year.
>
> By mid-2005, they were far behind in their payments and refusing to
> pay unless the USCF agreed to re-negotiate.
>
> Finally, the USCF Executive Board agreed to forgive the indebitedness
> of $150,000 and signed a new deal under which Chess Cafe guaranteed to
> pay only $100,000 per year.
>
> Naturally, the companies that were outbid by Chess Cafe are angry
> because they were prepared to pay more than Chess Cafe ultimately paid
> under the final renegotiated contract.
>
> This all happened in the year BEFORE I was elected to the USCF
> Executive Board.
>
> So, now you are saying that the USCF Board could be sued for mis-
>
> Is that correct?
Anything is possible. You should have known that decisions made by the
board are subject to scrutiny. The board minutes should reveal the thought
processes made in the decision to continue the contract with that entity.
Someone defaults on a contractual agreement, and what they bought should
have been repossessed at a minimum, and/or legal actions taken against them
to collect on that contract.
There has to be absolutely solid reasons to renegotiate under such
circumstances, and, there has to be absolutely solid reasons as to why the
Board went with that entity in the first place and why the Board continues
to do business with that entity after such behavior - and - given the fact
that there are other competing entities that are willing to do what should
be the same thing at a much more favorable financial benefit to the
Organization. The minutes should reveal why the Board rejected those other
proposals.
THAT is your fiduciary duty to the members - to act in their (not your) best
interest.
If the members decide that they were "damaged" by those decisions and
actions (or lack of actions) the Board members, Officers, and key employees
are at risk of being sued.
If you are - or were - one of those people, consider seeking legal advice.
Part of that legal advice may be to quit airing things in a public forum, as
they might be used against you in court.
Chess is a game - being on the Board is not.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote
> What are/were the USCA and NACF?
Made up entities.....
United States Chess Association
North American Chess Federation
Feel free to create more.
WCC = World Chess Council
GCG = Global Chess Group
NACP = Native American Chess Players
or my fav
NAACP = North American Armature Chess Phederation
of course, you might attract a different class of "playa".
Chess One
>> >>give
>> >>free advice, what is the precedent for a non-profit forgiving a
>> >>for-profit its debt without any security or recovery of that debt?
>> >>Let's
>> >>say the amount is about $150,000 and the non-profit in a monopoly
>> >>situation.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >The NFP would be required to issue a 1099-C for the cancellation of the
>> >debt.
>>
>> Good grief! But what does that mean?
>>
>>
>
> would be a taxable item for Chess Cafe. That would only be true if it
> were truly "forgiven" and not simply written off as unlikely to be
> collected.
Why does the delegate talk hypothetically, with 'would be true'. It is
forgiven, no? Or does it actually exist as a lean against Chesscafe's
business - for which tax was paid? What do the current financials say?
WHOOPS! Of course, there are no current financials. Phil Innes
> ECJ
>
Chess One
>>> The NFP would be required to issue a 1099-C for the cancellation of the
>>> debt.
>>
>> Good grief! But what does that mean?
>
>
>
> That means, if done properly, the IRS will know that the for-profit entity
> received a sum of money (or goods or services) that they didn't have to
> pay back, and that's income to the for-profit entity in most cases.
>
> The same thing is looming for most of the folks that let their homes get
> foreclosed on. I'll bet there will be tons of folks who get bitch slapped
> with taxes on their foreclosure this year.
yes - they are still allowed to advertise services on tv too, even when the
entire industry is going into, do you say, 'Savings&Loan'?
>>> The FP entity would have taxable income in most cases.
>>>
>>> Then the board would have a fiduciary responsibility to not do business
>>> with that entity in the future.
>>
>> AH! In this instance it insisted on continuing business with that entity,
>
>
>
> Really now, would a reasonable person do such a thing? And that IS the
> standard the Board members could be held accountable to. "Would a
> reasonable person do what they did?" That's what the jury would be
> deciding.
I have raised the issue with 2 new board members, and when they get their
feet under the table we will learn more. At least this allows them not to be
enveloped or ambushed in something not their making, but which may achieve
the status of an IRS audit, nevermind private suits [but that has to do with
associated business between the same parties.]
>> Hey - don't you boys down there go n "y'all" a yankee,
>
>
>
> We "y'all" everybody, and proudly tell redneck jokes about ourselves.
> It's how we get-r-done down here.
I do like y'all girl, Natalie Merchant, and her House Carpenter album. [she
actually recorded it here in Vt just up the road in the Windham Hill
studios.]
Phil Innes
Chess One
> NAACP = North American Armature Chess Phederation
>
>
> of course, you might attract a different class of "playa".
How come, if you are a /real/ CPA, you make jokes? If I knew you could,
maybe I would have signed up young for the US Accounting Corps [pronounced
'u-ask']. Is it as much fun as you make it seem? As we
sales-tycoons-turned-moose-psychologists used to say:
Q. How many CPA's does it take to change a lighbulb?
A. One. And its not funny.
Even though you don't wear ties, I bet you got a decent haircut - in the
sales world we used to refer to accountants as 'pencil-necks'. You may not
have heard that term, and you also may not be aware that chessplayers wear
one or two t-shirts at a time, with an old sweatshirt over the top, above
dirty jeans and busted sneakers, on top of all that is a wig with a
miniature communication device woven in*, and that's just the grandmasters!
Just because we play chess doesn't mean we can spit far, without, by all
evidence, dribbling a lot of it down our fronts.
Phil Innes, STTMP
The Hippocampus, Vt.
*long story
samsloan
> Q. How many CPA's does it take to change a lighbulb?
> A. One. And its not funny.
>
> Even though you don't wear ties, I bet you got a decent haircut - in the
> sales world we used to refer to accountants as 'pencil-necks'. You may not
> have heard that term, and you also may not be aware that chessplayers wear
> one or two t-shirts at a time, with an old sweatshirt over the top, above
> dirty jeans and busted sneakers, on top of all that is a wig with a
> miniature communication device woven in*, and that's just the grandmasters!
>
> Just because we play chess doesn't mean we can spit far, without, by all
> evidence, dribbling a lot of it down our fronts.
>
> Phil Innes, STTMP
> The Hippocampus, Vt.
>
> *long story
Phil Innes makes CPA jokes and ridicules chess players.
I just want to let you know that Phil Innes last appeared at a rated
chess tournament in 1995, which is 12 years ago, and his competence
and abilities at the game of chess is unknown.
I have offered to play Phil Innes a chess match for one thousand
dollars cash money and he has declined, even though I am not even a
rated master and he claims to be "nearly an IM".
Sam Sloan
The Historian
> On Aug 31, 9:08 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Q. How many CPA's does it take to change a lighbulb?
> > A. One. And its not funny.
>
> > Even though you don't wear ties, I bet you got a decent haircut - in the
> > sales world we used to refer to accountants as 'pencil-necks'. You may not
> > have heard that term, and you also may not be aware that chessplayers wear
> > one or two t-shirts at a time, with an old sweatshirt over the top, above
> > dirty jeans and busted sneakers, on top of all that is a wig with a
> > miniature communication device woven in*, and that's just the grandmasters!
>
> > Just because we play chess doesn't mean we can spit far, without, by all
> > evidence, dribbling a lot of it down our fronts.
>
> > Phil Innes, STTMP
> > The Hippocampus, Vt.
>
> > *long story
>
> Phil Innes makes CPA jokes and ridicules chess players.
>
> I just want to let you know that Phil Innes last appeared at a rated
> chess tournament in 1995, which is 12 years ago, and his competence
> and abilities at the game of chess is unknown.
ARE unknown.
However, there are hints. Innes once posted some poor analysis of one
of your games. When it was refuted here he claimed his analytical work
was done without sight of the board.
Chess One
> On Aug 31, 9:08 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Q. How many CPA's does it take to change a lighbulb?
>> A. One. And its not funny.
>>
>> Even though you don't wear ties, I bet you got a decent haircut - in the
>> sales world we used to refer to accountants as 'pencil-necks'. You may
>> not
>> have heard that term, and you also may not be aware that chessplayers
>> wear
>> one or two t-shirts at a time, with an old sweatshirt over the top, above
>> dirty jeans and busted sneakers, on top of all that is a wig with a
>> miniature communication device woven in*, and that's just the
>> grandmasters!
>>
>> Just because we play chess doesn't mean we can spit far, without, by all
>> evidence, dribbling a lot of it down our fronts.
>>
>> Phil Innes, STTMP
>> The Hippocampus, Vt.
>>
>> *long story
>
> Phil Innes makes CPA jokes and ridicules chess players.
This CPA hs a sense of humor, and was good enough to actually talk was plain
sense on his own nickel, and I very much doubt that he will not like the
joke.
> I just want to let you know that Phil Innes last appeared at a rated
> chess tournament in 1995, which is 12 years ago, and his competence
> and abilities at the game of chess is unknown.
Sam Sloan is a known negative speculator on the worth of others, and if he
actually listened to anything he would know that rgcp have a chess team,
that we play each other, and indeed - he also just stated that our current
captain Rob Mitchell doesn't play chess. In fact another team is starting
up, and chess is a show me game, not a tell me game.
We will certainly challenge the USCF board to a match next month and frantic
recruitment efforts are underway to find a board 1 to match theirs.
> I have offered to play Phil Innes a chess match for one thousand
> dollars cash money and he has declined, even though I am not even a
> rated master and he claims to be "nearly an IM".
I rather fear Mr. Sloan presence in me would invoke the 'Miles-effect' when
the first words out of Sloan's mouth caused Tony to floor him. Tony never
did that to anyone else! Indeed, I think that is not an unusual response to
Mr. Sloan's mouth, which is bigger than his ELO.
Not that Mr. Sloan has ELO-envy, that common disease. I am not an IM, but
almost 30 years ago when I gave up serious chess, in mainland Europe, I had
a few good seasons.
Mr. Sloan, it seems to me to have an altogether different sort of envy, and
if I have to be an 'almost-IM' then surely he will consent to be called an
'almost-WIM'?
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
>
The Historian
> Phil Innes makes CPA jokes and ridicules chess players.
>
> I just want to let you know that Phil Innes last appeared at a rated
> chess tournament in 1995, which is 12 years ago, and his competence
> and abilities at the game of chess is unknown.
Here's how a Nearly An IM 2450 analyzes:
>> [Event "World Open Championship"]
>> [Site "Philadelphia, PA"]
>> [Date "2005.07.02"]
>> [Round "03"]
>> [White "Magarshak, Gregory"]
>> [Black "Sloan, Sam"]
>> [Result "1-0"]
>> [ECO "C40"]
>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5
>> 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.f4 h6 9.f5+ Kh7 10.Bf7 Nf6 11.Qg3 g5 12.fxg6+ Kg7
>> 13.d3 Nc6 14.e5 Qe7 15.O-O Qxe5 16.Bf4 Qxb2 17.Nd2 Nd4 18.Rae1
>> Nf5 19.Be5 Bc5+ 20.Rf2 Nxg3 21.Bxb2 Bxf2+ 22.Kxf2 Ngh5 23.h3 Rd8
> Rd8!?
> What about something like this instead:-
> 23... Bf5
> 24 g4 Bxg6
> 25 Bc4 Rae8
> 26 Rxe8 Rxe8
> 27 gxh5 Bf7!
> 28 Bd4 a6
> 29 Bb3 Bxb3
> 30 ab Kf7
> 31 Bxf6 Kxf6
> 32 Ne4+ Ke5
> 33 Nc5 Kd4
> 34 Nxb7 Rb8
> 35 Na5 Kc3
> 36 Nc6 Rb6
> 37 Nc5 Kxc2
> With a won end-game for black.
> Cordially, Phil Innes
Chess One
one has proved less than useful to other than the politicians who run it.
Recently the Sam Sloan impersonator has dissapeared, and we have also chased
off most other abusers by simply asking them to write on topic, any topic to
do with chess, rather than speculate about other posters as their constant
diet. Its okay to say your opinion without agreeing with others, but
negating what others say, when this is known not to be true, is plain and
simple abuse - and its going to get called
--
I have seen a few examples recently of people saying Rob Mitchell here is no
chess player - though for sure, he plays more than almost anyone else.
Certainly some dozen people now understand that since we all play in the
same team.
Neither is it respectful, and I'm going to name the reprobates, to say that
someone's game is bad when they post it here then mock them.
Neil Brennan, Taylor Kingston and Greg Kennedy 'bot' all did this to a
posted game, meanwhile neglecting to notice a 2-mover which actually &
entirely changed the course fo the game. Obviously they lack any substance
in their perceptions of chess to /mock/ other people's chess. Its okay not
to see or understand what is happening in any game, but that is not their
intention!
Sam Sloan might get off it too - since he likes to declare that people don't
play chess, while declining to notice that they actually challenge him to
join in like a regular human being and play like anyone else here. We are
not *special* people. If he can't do that, take a hike!
Greg Kennedy has, at least to his credit, now joined in the same waters as
the rest of us in terms of actually playing chess in the same place. I hope
this will moderate his opinions in /chessic terms/ since otherwise, what
sort of *special* status do such people have to voice any opinion?
--
I make no direct link between the Sloan-imitators and the re-appearance of
the recent spate of hateful deniers of other people's lives. I simply say
that this is as nihilistic as the former manifestation.
--
When very strong players have shown up here, the same sets of abusers have
driven them off, with constant nonsense, name-callings, and so on, as if
they themselves actually had either experience of playing GM chess, or could
even understand the games. Their knowledge by virtue of their experience is
rejected as 'elitism' or something - which is simply to admit that what is
best is not worth note.
If we want some chess here, then lets discuss /chess/ here, and not actively
whine that other people are talking chess.
And if its chess management [aka politics], let us proceed along the same
lines - no poster has any business rubbishing another instead of the other
person's ideas. And nobody at all is right every day of the week. Usually,
the big benefit of a group process is that collectively people can take an
interesting idea and improve it.
[which is to say - there is something wrong with it that can actively be
addressed - and it is /not/ to say that by having some idea the person
representing it should be trashed - that is an admission of what the trasher
can contribute.]
--
The usual villains will take over every thread and issue their usually vague
abuse in them [which is entirely ad hominem], but cannot actually address
any topic to better inform it, or inform themselves by exploring it.
Phil Innes
samsloan
> Sam Sloan might get off it too - since he likes to declare that people don't
> play chess, while declining to notice that they actually challenge him to
> join in like a regular human being and play like anyone else here. We are
> not *special* people. If he can't do that, take a hike!
>
> Phil Innes
For those who are new here you should be made aware of the fact what
Phil Innes refers to as playing "like anyone else here" means playing
online on the Internet where Phil Innes can consult computers,
friends, books and databases.
I have challenged Phil Innes to a match for one thousand dollars CASH
MONEY ON THE TABLE.
I propose for the match to be refereed by that distinguished
International Arbiter Larry Cohen.
Here I am a very lowly, lowest of the low 1923 rated chess player,
challenging that highest of the high, mightiest of the mighty "Nearly
an IM" Phil Innes to a match for money, and he refuses to play me.
Has this man no honor, no pride?
Sam Sloan
Chess One
----- Original Message -----
From: "samhsloan" <sl...@ishipress.com>
To: <fide-...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: [fide-chess] Re: Accoona Securities Scandal
On Aug 31, 12:17 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Sam Sloan might get off it too - since he likes to declare that
people don't
> play chess, while declining to notice that they actually challenge
him to
> join in like a regular human being and play like anyone else here.
We are
> not *special* people. If he can't do that, take a hike!
>
> Phil Innes
For those who are new here you should be made aware of the fact what
Phil Innes refers to as playing "like anyone else here" means playing
online on the Internet where Phil Innes can consult computers,
friends, books and databases.
**you see how carefully friend Sloan makes his SLY statements, 'where I can'
he says! He naturally stops short of making that a direct accusation, since
if he did it in person then surely the Miles-effect would uh, kick in?
**what goes for EVERYONE else, is not good enough for El Sloan, who wants
*special* stuatus and puts it in writing! I challenged Sloan to be normal,
and he can't do that. He would rather be - what? sly or is it paranoid?
I have challenged Phil Innes to a match for one thousand dollars CASH
MONEY ON THE TABLE.
**I would probably knock Sam Sloan on his arse like Miles did and for
similar provocations, and why should I play a patzer, anyway - what is so
special about Sloan's status? ;)
I propose for the match to be refereed by that distinguished
International Arbiter Larry Cohen.
Here I am a very lowly, lowest of the low 1923 rated chess player,
challenging that highest of the high, mightiest of the mighty "Nearly
an IM" Phil Innes to a match for money, and he refuses to play me.
Has this man no honor, no pride?
**If you want *special* status, then that is something entirely to do with
you, Sloan. That you think you are *special* is nothing to me, you are just
an enormous mouth who utters nonsense all day and night in public in order
to put other people down - you distort the context of all conversation, and
you and Louis Blair deserve each other as honest reporters! Have you ever
written anything at all which does not blame someone else, and make Sloan
the [patheticly juvenile] chapmion of whatever-it-is?
**If what everyone else does is not good enough for you, then you truly are
in a league of your own. Stay there if you want.
**But don't be such a big mouth to think you could possibly make such
suggestions to me in person! You would shit yourself before anything bad
happened to you.
**Understand that, Wormtongue.
Phil Innes
---
Sam Sloan
samsloan
meaning that he has only played 24 games or less, and the highest
rated player he has ever defeated in his life was rated 2060, and he
has a slew of losses to Class B rated players:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12529296
Sam Sloan
samsloan
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12529296
For me to bet one thousand dollars that I can beat him would be a very
safe bet, like money in the bank.
Sam Sloan
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Recently the Sam Sloan impersonator has dissapeared, and we have also chased
>off most other abusers by simply asking them to write on topic, any topic to
>do with chess, rather than speculate about other posters as their constant
>diet.
I doubt anybody chased them off.
I think they've gone because there's nothing much going on at the
moment, or perhaps they feel they've already realized their agenda.
Chess One
Please notice that Phil Innes has only a provisional USCF rating,
meaning that he has only played 24 games or less, and the highest
rated player he has ever defeated in his life was rated 2060,
***actually 2199! if you want to play chess sloan just show up and stop
making such a *special* person of yourself! if you insult or provoke me or
my family i will smack you in your mouth very hard indeed. that is normal
here, as it is anywhere. just because you do this at a distance persuades
you that what you do is tolerable in person. it ain't - and if you provoke
it, pfft! is that fair to your mind?
if you want to play chess then we could play chess. i don't usually play
chess with abuseniks, so maybe it is YOU who are declining the opportunity
to play me - rather than talking big, as usual? how about them bananas?
in person i do assure you what you write at a distance is not ok or normal
here, and is considered provocative, and you /are/ a massive poseur at
other's expense, after all! - like someone really wanting to fight instead
of playing chess. but only wanting it at a distance. make up your own mind
which that is -since you picked the wrong person to pretend with - so come
on over or shut it. i am now calling you! okay?
if you ever dare to show up i'll let the people know that perhaps you
decided to play chess instead of playing your mouth organ.
i hope you notice that this is not really an invitation, and even if you
came i might not decide you are worth spending 10 minutes with, since you
are not *special* to me - it is a response to abuse which you offer at the
safe distance of some several hundred miles.
and remember miles!
stop pretending you want to play me at chess, since who actually would want
to voluntarily spend time with you, on these usual terms of engagement? i
can play stronger people anytime at all, and make no bones about losing to
them, opr triumphs either. whatever your game is is something else entirely,
nr. wormtongue
phil innes
non chess newsgroups excised
Rob
> On Aug 30, 4:36 pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 30, 1:19 pm, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
> > > Ever thought of forming the ACA? Or the USCA? Or the NACF? Or any other
> > > combination of alphabets?
>
> > > --
> > > Paul A. Thomas, CPA
> > > Athens, Georgia
>
> > Way to go Paul! You volunteering to be the treasurer/accountant/
> > auditor in residence for a new organization :-)
> > Rob(which-Mitch)
>
> There have been many, many plans and efforts to start a rival
> organization to the USCF. All have failed.
> Rob(which-Mitch) is a non-chess-player
Really Sam? In the last six months I have played more rated games of
chess than you have in the last two years. They are simply NOT USCF
rated. SO ... hear you LIE and are wrong..
>who dreams of starting another
> rival organization,
I dont know why you would presume to know what I think of or about
anything? You sure as heck have no idea what I dream about.
Basically, you are a cownard. You are so into yourself that you can't
imagine that someone might be honest in playing online chess because
your dishonesty would compel you to cheat... so you project your inner
failings onto others.
You have been invited to chessworld.com to play. You have been and
acted as a coward and backed out. You who refuse to play should be
ashamed.
Mr. Bot is playing and is on the verge of getting a tournament
norm(congrats Mr. Bot)!
So play or don't. I will continue to give you that option. What you
will find is that all of the RGCP and RGCM team members do not cheat
as we love the game. You SLoan can love nothing but your own ego. You
are a huge waste of genetic material and should be recycled
immediatly.
Rob (Which- Mitch)
samsloan
I think he left because he got elected to the board.
Sam Sloan
Chess One
you are a poor psychologist, sam sloan, the fake is posting here right now
;)
there are some clues to the fake; he doesn't like women and he can't comment
on chess - the fake is a deep repressive who would like to comment on both
[!], or at least see what that is actually like, so he temporises here,
rather than doin either ;)
but is scared to 'come out' since the fake is also deeply conservative,
inhibited, and afraid of life - you, definitely are not! ROFL, though you
oughta be! ROFL.
but this is NOT about you, or the fake, its about something else, its about
chess playing, not chess egos. or if you like, chess management as a
systemic practice and not chess egos, take your pick.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
>
Rob
Sloan said:
>There have been many, many plans and efforts to start a rival
> organization to the USCF. All have failed.
> Rob(which-Mitch) is a non-chess-player
Really Sam? In the last six months I have played more rated games
of
chess than you have in the last two years. They are simply NOT USCF
rated. SO ... hear you LIE and are wrong..
>who dreams of starting another
> rival organization,
I dont know why you would presume to know what I think of or about
anything? You sure as heck have no idea what I dream about.
Basically, you are a cownard. You are so into yourself that you can't
imagine that someone might be honest in playing online chess because
your dishonesty would compel you to cheat... so you project your
inner
failings onto others.
You have been invited to chessworld.com to play. You have been and
acted as a coward and backed out. You who refuse to play should be
ashamed.
Mr. Bot is playing and is on the verge of getting a tournament
norm(congrats Mr. Bot)!
So play or don't. I will continue to give you that option. What you
will find is that all of the RGCP and RGCM team members do not cheat
as we love the game. You Sloan can love nothing but your own ego. You
are a huge waste of genetic material and should be recycled
immediatly.
He won't play Phil Innes and he won't play me. He is a coward and a
joke.
Rob (Which- Mitch)
Chess One
"Rob" <robm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188587028.9...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Really Sam? In the last six months I have played more rated games of
> chess than you have in the last two years. They are simply NOT USCF
> rated. SO ... hear you LIE and are wrong..
you can't spell worth a shirt! Its lye, L Y E
as ani ful no
>>who dreams of starting another
>> rival organization,
>
> I dont know why you would presume to know what I think of or about
> anything? You sure as heck have no idea what I dream about.
strong words, 'heck', but at least Sam is returning to ground, our some
closwe hover over it, since he would now like to have a go at us ordinary
hobbits who pointed out enough stuff about his tenure to cause him not to
get re-elected
right?
why else should sam sloan dein to notice, we the people? we the players?
> Basically, you are a cownard. You are so into yourself that you can't
> imagine that someone might be honest in playing online chess because
> your dishonesty would compel you to cheat... so you project your inner
> failings onto others.
>
> You have been invited to chessworld.com to play. You have been and
> acted as a coward and backed out. You who refuse to play should be
> ashamed.
>
> Mr. Bot is playing and is on the verge of getting a tournament
> norm(congrats Mr. Bot)!
and i laud him for it [fancy northern word, meaning, like lard? no? that
can't be it - but whatever, its better than before]
> So play or don't. I will continue to give you that option. What you
> will find is that all of the RGCP and RGCM team members do not cheat
> as we love the game.
yes - say it loud! i have looked over ever game of our team [secretly] won
or lost, and i can't find the slightest trace of computer 'enhancement' not
even for our opponents!
> You SLoan can love nothing but your own ego. You
> are a huge waste of genetic material and should be recycled
> immediatly.
hey - that's not fair. you are talking to Saul here, who...
he was distracted, Fischer-polarized
Polgarixed
damn! she hasn't written me a word since I called her 'Polgarhontas'
and i have to write to her husband
i maybe need to explain to em both that the gal brought two tribes together,
etc
> Rob (Which- Mitch)
>
> and thus he bothers us with nonsense-postings
>> every day.
>>
>> He is safely ignored.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan has made an entire chess carear out of ignoring some things, while
suggestively writing of his connections - no matter how rebuffed they
actually turn out to be
But we here should welcome him back to ordinary chess life, if he dares,
since Sloan is really no different than anyone else, we all got effected by
contact with greats, and survived that to whatever extent - though all knew
its force. Sam is still a bit bewildered by Fischr and Polgar.
Sign the guy up! - and he can maybe get board 5 here after trying out a bit
? Then we can all be human together, not ignored! Rob.
Although I absolutely understand your sentiment [ROFL] since Sam Slaon does
actually love chess. That is his saving grace.
If we make a new team it should be called the Hobbits, or something,
something about we the people, we the players. Just us in all our frailty
and humanness.
Heuch! What a Sassenach dominated nonsence, that which proceeds by force
rather than intelligence!
Ach roimhe sin daione ag arach duinealachd...
Before this, says the old text in that language
people nurtured humanity:
they were warm-hearted,
determined,
and unshakable in supporting their friends;
were the shield of shelter
of the feeble;
high spirited, headstrong and hardy
in conquering their enemies.
Heuch! What is become of us? Is what we encounter the slightest shade of
what we Americans destroyed? Though nothing is lost, since so many
contributed here, and it is resilient of all our hope, deeper than these
shades, ay.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Rob
> "Rob" <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
shoot Phil, u right purty words. I kniw Sloan is ah liar cause he
ain't no lyre. know why? cause a lyre plays but a liar dont! :-)
Rob"Sam Wise" Mitchell