Sloan's use over?
Chess One
himself redundant to any future for chess in the USA, much as he declares
other to be? I think so. I think he has not grown into the position and now
<horror> behaves like those he criticised for so long, an incumbent
politician, looking to his back, not forward to what he is elected to map
out and persecute.
Phil Innes
----
Sam Sloan,
You are not a journalist to interrogate these issues, when you write wearing
a board hat, for the very same reasons you were enabled to campaign to wear
it in the first place.
There is not the slightest doubt that USCF's board award themselves and
those they encourage vast privileges which have nothing to do with OMOV, and
all to do with political largesse.
Neither is there any doubt of the effectiveness of these policies - they are
a scandal, even within USCF, and have emerged at Nolanland to be expressly
suppressed by political order.
No chess politician, including yourself, has said dickey-boo about USCF's
own responsibility and negligence in the Tanner affair - nothing about
people who are PAID to invigilate ratings services, but whose competence is
not in question, it is entirely absent! There is not even the slightest
curiosity.
I have not read anything in these threads about USCF's responsibility in
awarding a bid of $10,000 to Dr. M. Korenman, nor of the much larger $50,000
award for the web makeover, which was also without bid and without
advertising and even without any performance criteria.
Nothing - no thing and not from any one.
Your own concentration on S. Polgar since the election cannot be seperated
from her rejection of you as someone fit to talk about women's chess in the
C21st, since it seems to me you cannot differentiate your opinions from that
of women-as-sex-objects as they seem to you. You even fail to understand
that this is resented!
Neither would your commentary be apt to address scholastic chess, for only
slightly different reasons.
During the election process I supported your application against false
charges on all sorts of grounds, and if people wished to elect a libertine
then they should do so; all charges against you being expressed as personal
preferences not as any matter of legally upheld speeech in the United
States. I even wrote USCF about exhibiting a standard by which board members
and committee chiefs could be asked to observe, and wrote long before the
elction - a neglected opportunity for those who do not like you! - though I
had other individuals in mind at the time, and in terms of sexual affront,
made specific complaints - btw, never even acknowledged!.
Here you merely behave as any politician, deprecating the chances of
potential competitors to your seat of power, rather than asking if what they
do is valuable compared with what you and the current board does.
It cannot be seen as any impartial reporting, or investigation, in fact you
are rather marked for your continuous antagonism, rather like a
foiled-suitor!
There are some people who can decently discuss these issues - they do not
include yourself. If you do not understand this, then no one will care for
your future, nothing good will come of such speculatory questions as you
propose, and your truly useful role as exposer of cheating-as-usual at USCF
will be ended.
The real questions here do not amount to 'not being able to withstand
criticism', but instead in resenting an affront to decency, to open process,
to those who would rather negatively speculate rather than contribute to
what forwards us.
In resenting an affront to legality, even unto the bye-laws of USCF which
are treated as political baubles by incumbents, and deployed as convenient
to their personal chances.
In resenting the honesty of such people who should write 'Trollgar' as if
they had any interest in forwarding chess, rather than forwarding their own
personal and very petty ambitions in it.
And in resenting truth.
Phil Innes
----- Original Message -----
From: "samhsloan" <sl...@ishipress.com>
To: <fide-...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 4:21 PM
Subject: [fide-chess] Happiness in Nolanland: Another Polgar Thread has been
Deleted
I will give a few examples of the problem we have here. On February
22, 2006, Susan Polgar started a thread entitled "Polgar Letter to the
Board". In it, she attacked the board which had just APPROVED her
proposal made two days earlier. At that time, I was not yet a member
of the board, so her attack on the board had nothing to do with me.
Here is her first letter of attack:
[quote="SusanPolgar"]
SusanPolgar 12452240
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 57
Location: Forest Hills, NY
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:47 pm Post subject: Polgar Letter
to the Board
Mike,
I do not have a problem with board members analyzing it. I encourage
them to study it. They can call me if they wish. However, I do have a
problem with board members pushing their own personal and political
agenda publicly or misleading the members.
My letter stated very clearly that the Susan Polgar Foundation will
cover the costs. In no place I mentioned involving the USCF
financially. I want to do this with the USCF to reach out to the most
girls possible and to help the federation. If they have a question,
ask me. Don't pose the questions publicly without having the courtesy
to inform me FIRST. Did they expect me to have psychic power to know
their questions? At least give me the courtesy to respond to the
inquiries. I did not even see the questions until someone alerted me.
This is not a professional way of handling important matters.
I never talked about dumbing down any girl. The idea is to help raise
the girl's playing level so they can compete equally in open events
with their male counterpart in the near future. Not everything has to
be political. The program offered is as is, no more, no less.
Why does this program have to be debated by board members in this
forum before it's done while a secret deal was signed with the KCF in
2004 while the USCF had a legal contract with the SPF without any
public discussion or awareness? Isn't that a double standard?
Then there is the issue of getting more sponsorship. I need time to go
out and raise more money to perhaps cover housing and food expenses
for these players. I ran my girl's event last month and got 40
sponsors. The participants paid $28 advanced entry fees and received a
$65 goodie bag. I need to maintain the same level of professionalism
to attract serious sponsors. This is about the girls. This is not
about chess politicians.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgarFoundation.org
www.SusanPolgar.com
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com[/quote]
This letter evoked more than 200 responses. Almost immediately, Polgar
started screaming that she was being attacked and started demanding
apologies (ignoring the fact that it was she who attacked first).
Finally, she said that she was quitting the forum and would not return
until she received apologies from all involved.
The result was that Mike Nolan deleted several of the postings,
including some of Susan's, and locked the thread so that it cannot be
restarted. His final words are:
"This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies."
However, at least Mike Nolan did not delete the entire thread, as he
did here, so everybody can still go back and read it.
Similarly, on the fide-chess Yahoo Group, Polgar started threads which
attacked those who criticized her "Woman's Chess Olympiad Training
Program". She had one "Bob Bennett" who supported her. Her opponents
included IM Georgi Orlov and former US Woman's Champion WGM Elena
Akhmylovskaya. This online brawl led former US Woman's Champion
Anjelina Belakovskaia to remark, "You are acting more like girls in a
bordello fighting over a client, than a Woman's Olympiad Team
preparing to win a gold medal."
This remark led to Polgar demanding an apology from Anjelina and, when
no apology was forthcoming, she quit that forum as well.
Similarly, over on rec.games.chess.politics, the same pattern
followed. Polgar and Truong became known as "Trollgar" and they
demanded apologies and then both publicly quit that forum.
The real question now is, how can she become a candidate and run for
election, if she cannot withstand any criticism?
Sam Sloan
Mark Houlsby
Chess One wrote:
> Here is my response to what Sam Sloan posted elsewhere. Does he declare
> himself redundant to any future for chess in the USA, much as he declares
> other to be? I think so. I think he has not grown into the position and now
> <horror> behaves like those he criticised for so long, an incumbent
> politician, looking to his back, not forward to what he is elected to map
> out and persecute.
>
> Phil Innes
>
Heads-up, Phil... you're responding to a Sam Cloan. What's more, you're
starting a new thread. Why?
> ----
> Sam Sloan,
>
> You are not a journalist to interrogate these issues, when you write wearing
> a board hat, for the very same reasons you were enabled to campaign to wear
> it in the first place.
>
It's arguable that the opposite is true.
> There is not the slightest doubt that USCF's board award themselves and
> those they encourage vast privileges which have nothing to do with OMOV, and
> all to do with political largesse.
>
Wrong. It's not all largesse. Some folks (messrs. Nolan and Bauer to
name but two) work really hard - partly to serve the board, partly the
members - and genuinely have the interests of chess in the USA in mind.
> Neither is there any doubt of the effectiveness of these policies - they are
> a scandal, even within USCF, and have emerged at Nolanland to be expressly
> suppressed by political order.
>
The USCF's own policies have been "expressly supressed"? How so?
> No chess politician, including yourself, has said dickey-boo about USCF's
> own responsibility and negligence in the Tanner affair
Demonstrate that the USCF was negligent.
> - nothing about
> people who are PAID to invigilate ratings services, but whose competence is
> not in question, it is entirely absent!
Could that be because their competence is not in question, mayhap?
> There is not even the slightest
> curiosity.
>
Elaborate upon why there should be. Be specific. That you think that
there should be is not sufficient, since you are an egregious and
deranged troll who has been banned from contributing to the USCF's
fora.
> I have not read anything in these threads about USCF's responsibility in
> awarding a bid of $10,000 to Dr. M. Korenman, nor of the much larger $50,000
> award for the web makeover, which was also without bid and without
> advertising and even without any performance criteria.
>
"Perhaps you should read more. And write less."
--Kenneth Sloan, 17 Dec 2006
> Nothing - no thing and not from any one.
>
> Your own concentration on S. Polgar since the election cannot be seperated
> from her rejection of you as someone fit to talk about women's chess in the
> C21st, since it seems to me you cannot differentiate your opinions from that
> of women-as-sex-objects as they seem to you. You even fail to understand
> that this is resented!
>
Perhaps it's *not* lost on the real Sam Sloan. Perhaps he uses it as a
weapon.
> Neither would your commentary be apt to address scholastic chess, for only
> slightly different reasons.
>
> During the election process I supported your application against false
> charges on all sorts of grounds, and if people wished to elect a libertine
> then they should do so; all charges against you being expressed as personal
> preferences not as any matter of legally upheld speeech in the United
> States. I even wrote USCF about exhibiting a standard by which board members
> and committee chiefs could be asked to observe, and wrote long before the
> elction - a neglected opportunity for those who do not like you! - though I
> had other individuals in mind at the time, and in terms of sexual affront,
> made specific complaints - btw, never even acknowledged!.
>
That may be because you are a deranged troll.
> Here you merely behave as any politician, deprecating the chances of
> potential competitors to your seat of power, rather than asking if what they
> do is valuable compared with what you and the current board does.
>
> It cannot be seen as any impartial reporting, or investigation, in fact you
> are rather marked for your continuous antagonism, rather like a
> foiled-suitor!
>
No shit, Sherlock!
> There are some people who can decently discuss these issues - they do not
> include yourself.
On the contrary, the real Sam Sloan *may* be capable of decent
discussion. It may be that he simply chooses to act like a politician.
> If you do not understand this, then no one will care for
> your future, nothing good will come of such speculatory questions as you
> propose, and your truly useful role as exposer of cheating-as-usual at USCF
> will be ended.
>
That could be. Or not. Time will tell on that one.
> The real questions here do not amount to 'not being able to withstand
> criticism', but instead in resenting an affront to decency, to open process,
> to those who would rather negatively speculate rather than contribute to
> what forwards us.
>
What forwards us where? And by what means? What is forwards anyhoo?
> In resenting an affront to legality, even unto the bye-laws of USCF which
> are treated as political baubles by incumbents, and deployed as convenient
> to their personal chances.
>
This is another incomplete sentence unique to your idiosyncratic style,
Phil.
"In resenting an affront to legality, even unto the bye-laws of USCF
which
are treated as political baubles by incumbents, and deployed as
convenient
to their personal chances...." ...what?
> In resenting the honesty of such people who should write 'Trollgar' as if
> they had any interest in forwarding chess, rather than forwarding their own
> personal and very petty ambitions in it.
>
Same problem... ...what?
> And in resenting truth.
>
The truth is that you have no clue how to operate. The truth is that
your posting *actively promotes* those you seek to hinder.
Go figure.
Mark Houlsby
> Phil Innes
>
<snip>
Chess One
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1166915789.8...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> Here is my response to what Sam Sloan posted elsewhere. Does he declare
>> himself redundant to any future for chess in the USA, much as he declares
>> other to be? I think so. I think he has not grown into the position and
>> now
>> <horror> behaves like those he criticised for so long, an incumbent
>> politician, looking to his back, not forward to what he is elected to map
>> out and persecute.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>
> Heads-up, Phil... you're responding to a Sam Cloan. What's more, you're
> starting a new thread. Why?
Houlsby - you are an idiot.
This is from Sloan's own Fide group, and your questions are as vacant as
ever - if you have nothing to say, say nothing. Don't ask more questions,
since you merely abuse people's attention, and you prove yourself incapable
of writing to a topic without personal abuse.
Seek applause from those who like that, but not from adults.
PI.
politi...@gmail.com
real Sloan's words on other fora, perhaps altering the verbiage
slightly, and that perhaps rgcp is one of these fora? Phil Innes could
then continue to trust in the real Sloan (who shares certain core
values with Innes), and only reject the words of Sloan's impersonators.
Otherwise, Phil Innes would have been mistaken earlier...and I would
find *that* hard to believe.
Alternatively (repositioning my tongue--no crude jokes, please)....
Isn't it possible that a man who has the capacity to adequately provide
for his children, but has not made a habit of doing so, *never was of
any use*? And that the ones who have truly outlived their usefulness
are those who knowingly used this gifted yet pathetic person to advance
their petty agendas....
Mark Houlsby
Chess One wrote:
> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166915789.8...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >
> >> Here is my response to what Sam Sloan posted elsewhere. Does he declare
> >> himself redundant to any future for chess in the USA, much as he declares
> >> other to be? I think so. I think he has not grown into the position and
> >> now
> >> <horror> behaves like those he criticised for so long, an incumbent
> >> politician, looking to his back, not forward to what he is elected to map
> >> out and persecute.
> >>
> >> Phil Innes
> >>
> >
> > Heads-up, Phil... you're responding to a Sam Cloan. What's more, you're
> > starting a new thread. Why?
>
> Houlsby - you are an idiot.
>
That's a given. What's your point?
> This is from Sloan's own Fide group, and your questions are as vacant as
> ever - if you have nothing to say, say nothing.
Hmmm... I know someone else who might do well to heed this advice....
Why did you start a new thread, Phil?
> Don't ask more questions,
> since you merely abuse people's attention, and you prove yourself incapable
> of writing to a topic without personal abuse.
>
Demonstrate this. You have now placed an obligation upon yourself to
prove that
every single topic to which I contribute contains at least one example
of abuse.
> Seek applause from those who like that, but not from adults.
>
Why do you insult children? Is it absolutely necessary? I've known
several three-year-olds who are much smarter than you...
MH
> PI.
>
Chess One
>> Don't ask more questions,
>> since you merely abuse people's attention, and you prove yourself
>> incapable
>> of writing to a topic without personal abuse.
>>
>
> Demonstrate this.
I have no need to demonstrate it /further/. Since the challenge is to write
about chess, and the topic is Sloan's board tenancy, and you repond to a cue
to write about that by demanding that others explain to you further, there
is an ipso facto absolute failure to understand what a topic is.
> You have now placed an obligation upon yourself to
> prove that
> every single topic to which I contribute contains at least one example
> of abuse.
Actually, it is you who place an obligation on me to prove something, but
you can't even demonstrate you know what on-topic, and off-topic means.
Therefore you ask for something which you yourself are unable to do.
>> Seek applause from those who like that, but not from adults.
>>
>
> Why do you insult children? Is it absolutely necessary? I've known
> several three-year-olds who are much smarter than you...
Perhaps restrict yourself to conversing with them in future, if this
material is too hard? Or try going back to the first thread and responding
to the topic. Its a choice. Some people truly don't care for topics and all
they write about is why other people shouldn't write, like demented
commissars on a mission.
I think that's a challenge to you - which you need not accept, and by the
same measure I shall safely ignore all your future messages since our
interest differ to such extent they do not overlap.
Phil Innes
> MH
>
>> PI.
>>
>
Chess One
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166923623....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> But isn't it possible that one of the evil faux Sloans is reposting the
> real Sloan's words on other fora, perhaps altering the verbiage
> slightly, and that perhaps rgcp is one of these fora? Phil Innes could
> then continue to trust in the real Sloan (who shares certain core
> values with Innes), and only reject the words of Sloan's impersonators.
>
> Otherwise, Phil Innes would have been mistaken earlier...and I would
> find *that* hard to believe.
Like thieves to a gibbet!
Let me see; the false Sloan is hung up on heterosexuals, and people who
write about chess, however well, and writes about sexual topics like the 'Is
She a Goer?' character in the Monty Python sketch - who turns out to be
nothing other than an uncouth, but innocent twit.
> Alternatively (repositioning my tongue--no crude jokes, please)....
What need? ;)
> Isn't it possible that a man who has the capacity to adequately provide
> for his children, but has not made a habit of doing so, *never was of
> any use*? And that the ones who have truly outlived their usefulness
> are those who knowingly used this gifted yet pathetic person to advance
> their petty agendas....
I am sure much better and much worse is possible.
I am unsure why speculating on this fascinates you any more than your
speculating on anything else.
But as far as I know you could be the anti-Christ. Judge 'em!
Nevermind this 'do not judge' stuff, judge often, and out loud, and in
public, as if you yourself were absolved from even the hint or shadow of the
deed by virtue of shopping someone else, and judge with as much gratuitous
spite and malice as you are capable!
Hate your neighbor! Never write about chess! Sacrifice your own place in the
world to hating and judging people! Make what you detest the standard above
which others should perform, and if they don't do what you want, do unto
them as you fear they may be able to do to you.
Fear features rather large in that scenario. I suggested you a long time ago
that other standards are possible, and I continue this invitation to
investigate it - though not from fear. Sorry, without intending an insult,
yet knowing you will not like me to say, I am not sure you are currently
able to do that.
Merry Christmas, Bill. Phil
LiamToo
> But isn't it possible that one of the evil faux Sloans is reposting the
> real Sloan's words on other fora, perhaps altering the verbiage
> slightly, and that perhaps rgcp is one of these fora? Phil Innes could
> then continue to trust in the real Sloan (who shares certain core
> values with Innes), and only reject the words of Sloan's impersonators.
The real Sam Sloan is posting from Bronx, New York. The fake one is
posting from the suburbs of Stratford, Connecticut.
politi...@gmail.com
The following was posted on the uschess.org website today:
*** BEGIN QTN ***
samsloan 11115292
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Bronx, New York
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote
<<joelchanning wrote:
<tanstaafl wrote:
<The ONLY reason the USCF hasn't already been sued for Mr. Sloan's
statements is <apparently that the people being attacked care more
about the USCF than Sam Sloan <does. He damages the reputation of the
USCF as a whole with practically every statement <he makes.
<<Amen. Joel Channing
It is interesting that Joel Channing supports both Tanstaafl, whose
real name is Herbert Rodney Vaughn, and The Fake Sam Sloan, who posts
obscene messages on rec.games.chess.politics
Tanstaafl has cost the USCF a lot of money by filing a 400 page ethics
complaint IN COLOR, requiring the USCF office to make at least 10 COLOR
COPIES of this 400 page complaint, at great cost to the USCf.
That alone has already cost the USCF about one thousand dollars.
Almost the entire ethics complaint by Tanstaalf a/k/a Vaughn has been
dismissed by the Ethics Committee as frivolous, although five of his
allegations remain. (Those five I will be able to refute easily).
Tanstaafl got admitted as a delegate to the meeting in Chicago due to a
mistake caused by inexperience by Pat Knight. (Had Rachel Lieberman,
who traditionally has handled the delegate certification process, been
on the job, Vaughn would never have been certified as a delegate.)
Having gotten in by mistake, Vaughn then tied up the meeting with
endless motions and speeches. He spoke more than any other delegate.
Two of his motions passed, one more was referred to a committee, and
all of this has cost the USCF money.
Tanstaafl a/k/as Vaughn ties up this group with an average of ten
attacks per day (please go count them) or more than one thousand thus
far, leading the casual reader who will not realize that it is just the
same seven people attacking me over and over again every day to believe
that there is widespread opposition to me.
I am not questioning that here, as this is all well known. What I am
questioning is that Joel Channing, a member of the board, who has thus
far done nothing since he got elected except spend our money
needlessly, supports him.
Sam Sloan
*** END QTN ***
Mike Murray
Any ideas as to the fake's identity ?
LiamToo
If I tell you, then I'll have to killfile you.
Mark Houlsby
Chess One wrote:
> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166964812.1...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Don't ask more questions,
> >> since you merely abuse people's attention, and you prove yourself
> >> incapable
> >> of writing to a topic without personal abuse.
> >>
> >
> > Demonstrate this.
>
> I have no need to demonstrate it /further/.
You /do/ need to demonstrate it, Phil. You /need/ to /demonstrate/ that
your /accusation/ that /every time/ I wriite about a topic, I am
abusive, is /true/. If you can't do that, then you will have been
caught, red-faced, yet again.
> Since the challenge is to write
> about chess, and the topic is Sloan's board tenancy, and you repond to a cue
> to write about that by demanding that others explain to you further, there
> is an ipso facto absolute failure to understand what a topic is.
>
More nonsense from Innes.
> > You have now placed an obligation upon yourself to
> > prove that
> > every single topic to which I contribute contains at least one example
> > of abuse.
>
> Actually, it is you who place an obligation on me to prove something, but
> you can't even demonstrate you know what on-topic, and off-topic means.
> Therefore you ask for something which you yourself are unable to do.
>
Yet more nonsense.
You ACCUSE me of writing ABUSE /every time/ I post. If you can't
demonstrate that it's /true/ that I write abuse all the time, then you
look like an imbecile. Again.
> >> Seek applause from those who like that, but not from adults.
> >>
> >
> > Why do you insult children? Is it absolutely necessary? I've known
> > several three-year-olds who are much smarter than you...
>
> Perhaps restrict yourself to conversing with them in future, if this
> material is too hard?
Demonstrate that I write abuse in my every post, Phil.
> Or try going back to the first thread and responding
> to the topic.
When I respond to the topic, you fail to answer satisfactorily. When I
write aphoristically, you fail to answer. We have covered this ground
many times, but it never penetrates your thick skull. Many people have
noticed this tendency of yours, Phil. These people include:
Louis Blair, Engineer, Kenneth Sloan, Chess Freak, Guy Macon, Greg
Kennedy, Christopher Mattern, rexartu..., Taylor Kingston, Neil
Brennen, Steve Dowd, Mike Murray, James Rynd, Matt Nemmers, David
Richerby, Mark Wing, Henri H. Arsenault, vkarlamov, Wick Deer, Larry
Tapper, g4, Tom Martinak, Randy Bauer, Vince Hart, Don Schultz, Bill
Brock, David Kane, Joel Channing, parker.r..., sivad..., Stan Booz,...
>Its a choice. Some people truly don't care for topics and all
> they write about is why other people shouldn't write, like demented
> commissars on a mission.
>
Now, you see, therein lies the problem you have set for yourself. You
must now demonstrate that I "truly don't care" for *any* of the thread
topics in which I make contributions. If you can't do that, you'll look
like an imbecile, yet again.
> I think that's a challenge to you - which you need not accept, and by the
> same measure I shall safely ignore all your future messages since our
> interest differ to such extent they do not overlap.
>
Chessville, Phil? I write there. You write there. You make Chessville
look so shit that sometimes people feel constrained to write open
letters to the powers-that-be there, pleading for your removal. That is
bad. You are mentally ill. Go see a psychiatrist.
Mark Houlsby
> Phil Innes
>
samsloan
Mark Houlsby wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
I'm not over. I'll take the USCF down with me if I'm not elected. I'm
not going to allow Goichberg, Channing and Schultz to cross me up.
Sam Sloan
Mark Houlsby
samsloan wrote:
Tell it to someone who cares. I don't give a shit about you, or your
ilk.
Mark Houlsby
Chess One
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167420696....@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, other standards are possible.
Indeed, Bill, standards are independent of personality, which is to literal
degree why we name them such and why the flag flies over our heads rather
than we walk on it, & should you think of a standard bearer; this person who
subsumes their own personality in a trans-personal gesture which is for the
whole group/army/country.
They are instead impersonal measures, rather than reactionary ones to
individual features. The Founders recognised this, and made special measure
to ensure that not even government could persecute individuals, neithe could
Church. This was the basis of allowing individuals to carry arms - as
protection from unwonted coercian by government! Independence from singluar
official edict [which is fascism] is not as much encouraged in the USA as
mandated for citizens.
This was also a significant enough factor to break from the past, and
England's empire and authority - no light thing to undertake.
Should we agree with this, then there still remains the question of social
mandate for /minimum/ standards of public behavior, which is what we call
the Law of the Land.
I suggested in my first post that since this measure has proved insufficient
to protect women, and to much larger degree, children, then a higher
standard is necessary than obtains generally under the law. Offenses against
these two groups is not only up, but gaining momentum [ref: Christian
Science Monitor, 19 Dec /paper edition/], and what I wrote at the head of
this post is that such a standard should be deployed where women and
children are constituents, and that I do not see it present - and further,
certain individuals do not enjoy my confidence in this respect.
Even longer ago I wrote here to Vinny Hart that I thought the /basis/ of the
standard should be assessed from the perspective of those who suffer from
unwonted affronts by virtue of their gender or age.
While this means a deeper look than at individual cases, it also means that
women, and children's parents or guardians, should be primarily the policy
makers.
Phil Innes
politi...@gmail.com
never knows when Sloan's actionable comments will be deleted....
Reposted verbatim from
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=25400#25400 (but no
longer there).
**************
samsloan 11115292
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 718
Location: Bronx, New York
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
In the first place, I have the contract that was signed in 2000 with
Erik Anderson. It is sitting right here on my desk. The reason I have
it is that I demanded to see it the first thing I did when I got on the
board in August, 2006. They told me that it had been lost but finally
in late-September (after I kept making a big stink about it including
postings to the forum) they found it.
Note that they publicly censured me over this issue.
The contract gives Erik Anderson the OPTION to organize the US
Championship, but he must pick up that option promptly. In February,
2006 at a meeting in Seattle, Bill Goichberg was informed that Erik
Anderson was not going to exercize his option for the year 2007.
I do not know the reason but it is certainly possible that two scandals
involving the 2006 US Championship were a factor. One was that a
1600-rated girl and a 1800-rated woman "qualified" to the US
Championship, making the event look ridiculous. The second more serious
problem was that a USCF official announced a prize fund of $20,000 more
than Erik Anderson was willing to pay. Nobody can agree on who made
this mistake and who is responsible, but everyone agrees that the
players did not get $20,000 that they thought that they were going to
get.
In any event, the bottom line is that Erik Anderson HAS NOT EXERCISED
HIS OPTION TO HOLD THE US CHAMPIONSHIP THIS YEAR.
Thus, I am making no complaint, none whatever, about Erik Anderson. He
has been up front, right from the beginning, that he is not going to be
doing it this year. My complaint is with Bill Goichberg, who keeps
running after Erik Anderson anyway, and who keeps advertising his own
tournaments as "qualifiers" to the US Championship.
Now, regarding the contract, although I have it right here in my hot
hands, I cannot show it to you because I am forbidden to do so by USCF
confidentiality rules, but I can tell you about it, just as Bill
Goichberg often does, adding his own interpretations.
Now, turning to the unfortunate little incident involving Larry Cohen
and Ben Finegold and the little mix-up about the pairings and the order
in which the games were played, I will tell you that I for one will
forget all about that, just as long as Larry Cohen comes up with the
one hundred thousand dollars to hold the tournament. LARRY COHEN IS THE
ONE GUY WHO CAN DO IT. We already have a bid from Chicago to hold the
US Woman's Championship there. Presumably, the organizer in Chicago who
bid on the US Woman's Championship did so because Bill Goichberg told
him that the US "Men's" Championship had already been taken.
So, all we have to do is shift that Chicago bid for the US Woman's
Championship over to become a bid for the 2007 US Championship and
presto, we have at least some of the money, we have the director, Larry
Cohen, and Ben Finegold gets to play, as he is one of the top rated
players in the country. He might even finally get the grandmaster title
in that tournament.
Now, of course, we will need a publicity agent, someone who will
generate publicity for the tournament. For this I hereby nominate by
dear friend Bill Brock, a Chicago accountant who has served me well by
providing me with publicity for the past two years, thereby helping me
get elected to the board. Bill Brock even provided me with one thousand
dollars when I was down-and-out in June 2005. Thank you again, Bill.
So, there we have the deal. The 2007 US Championship to be held in
Chicago with Larry Cohen the director, Ben Finegold and 15 other top
rated players the players, and Bill Brock the annountant and in charge
of public relations, and for this deal I will provide one vote and I
think I will be able to rustle up three more votes for this, although
Bill Goichberg will certainly vote against it.
There you have it, but remember this is just a proposal. It is up to
you Chicago guys to bring it to fruition.
Sam Sloan
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166964812.1...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> Don't ask more questions,
>> >> since you merely abuse people's attention, and you prove yourself
>> >> incapable
>> >> of writing to a topic without personal abuse.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Demonstrate this.
>>
>> I have no need to demonstrate it /further/.
>
> You /do/ need to demonstrate it, Phil. You /need/ to /demonstrate/ that
> your /accusation/ that /every time/ I wriite about a topic, I am
> abusive, is /true/. If you can't do that, then you will have been
> caught, red-faced, yet again.
Mark - you are such a dunce that you do not recognise that by again ignoring
the thread's context in preference to exclaiming why, in your exalted
opinion, other people owe your majesty something, you proclaim yourself no
more than the usual abuse nutter. I think you have failed to understand
this, since others of the same stripe support your repression of chess
topics, and you are so very dependent on the opinion of other people.
>> Since the challenge is to write
>> about chess, and the topic is Sloan's board tenancy, and you repond to a
>> cue
>> to write about that by demanding that others explain to you further,
>> there
>> is an ipso facto absolute failure to understand what a topic is.
>>
>
> More nonsense from Innes.
More 'refusal' from junior holesby who admits here he cannot write to any
topic, refuses the challenge, and is shown to be without need of further
response, as I said before.
PI
Mark Houlsby
Chess One wrote:
> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167435416.5...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chess One wrote:
> >
> >> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1166964812.1...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> >> Don't ask more questions,
> >> >> since you merely abuse people's attention, and you prove yourself
> >> >> incapable
> >> >> of writing to a topic without personal abuse.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Demonstrate this.
> >>
> >> I have no need to demonstrate it /further/.
> >
> > You /do/ need to demonstrate it, Phil. You /need/ to /demonstrate/ that
> > your /accusation/ that /every time/ I wriite about a topic, I am
> > abusive, is /true/. If you can't do that, then you will have been
> > caught, red-faced, yet again.
>
> Mark - you are such a dunce that you do not recognise that by again ignoring
> the thread's context in preference to exclaiming why, in your exalted
> opinion, other people owe your majesty something, you proclaim yourself no
> more than the usual abuse nutter. I think you have failed to understand
> this, since others of the same stripe support your repression of chess
> topics, and you are so very dependent on the opinion of other people.
>
How, exactly, have I effected the "repression of chess topics"? Where
have I done this? When? Why do you suppose that I am "so very
dependent" or, for that matter, at all dependent upon the opinions (not
opinion) of other people?
> >> Since the challenge is to write
> >> about chess, and the topic is Sloan's board tenancy, and you repond to a
> >> cue
> >> to write about that by demanding that others explain to you further,
> >> there
> >> is an ipso facto absolute failure to understand what a topic is.
> >>
> >
> > More nonsense from Innes.
>
> More 'refusal' from junior holesby who admits here he cannot write to any
> topic, refuses the challenge, and is shown to be without need of further
> response, as I said before.
>
Which is why you responded again. I still don't know what the challenge
is, Phil. As soon as you tell me what it is, I'm onto it.
> PI
>
>
> >> > You have now placed an obligation upon yourself to
> >> > prove that
> >> > every single topic to which I contribute contains at least one example
> >> > of abuse.
> >>
What about addressing this obligation, Phil?
> >> Actually, it is you who place an obligation on me to prove something, but
> >> you can't even demonstrate you know what on-topic, and off-topic means.
> >> Therefore you ask for something which you yourself are unable to do.
> >>
> >
> > Yet more nonsense.
> >
> > You ACCUSE me of writing ABUSE /every time/ I post. If you can't
> > demonstrate that it's /true/ that I write abuse all the time, then you
> > look like an imbecile. Again.
> >
> >> >> Seek applause from those who like that, but not from adults.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Why do you insult children? Is it absolutely necessary? I've known
> >> > several three-year-olds who are much smarter than you...
> >>
> >> Perhaps restrict yourself to conversing with them in future, if this
> >> material is too hard?
> >
> > Demonstrate that I write abuse in my every post, Phil.
> >
Any chance of your doing this, Phil?
What about Chessville, Phil? Do you think that your posting like this
helps Chessville, or harms Chessville, or neither?
MH