Why I'm voting for Sam
jr
For decades the USCF has fostered a culture of secrecy.
I am voting for Sam Sloan despite his faults because he has
the instincts of an investigative journalist and can't keep secrets.
With him on the board, at least we won't be kept in the dark.
And when he's wrong about something, the other board members
will be forced to tell us why he's wrong.
Either way, we win.
Randy Bauer
The USCF doesn't "win" by electing ex-felons who have had their
securities license revoked because of their "conduct." The guy
couldn't even keep his cab license. Even the Libertarian Party is
smart enough to keep him off the ballot. There is nothing to be gained
by putting a flake of this magnitude in a position of responsibility.
Randy Bauer
Chess Freak
- CF
"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146515815....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Chess Freak
on the USCF Board!
<ron_suar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146518542.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Yep, Randy is right again.
>
> But then again, who wouldn't want an admitted sex addict, wacko on
> their national executive board?
>
> Ron Suarez
>
John J.
questionable decisions made by the board in the past few years and the way
they were made makes me think that electing Sam Sloan isn't such a bad idea
after all.
"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146515815....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
Chess Freak
SS?
"John J." <detec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ady5g.9946$d_4...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
John J.
issues without resorting to name calling. That's who.
"Chess Freak" <chess...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:_cednSX2cMAkXsvZ...@speakeasy.net...
Randy Bauer
John J. wrote:
> That may be true about the felonies. However, after seeing the number of
> questionable decisions made by the board in the past few years and the way
> they were made makes me think that electing Sam Sloan isn't such a bad idea
> after all.
I also recall that once upon a time, it was thought that bloodletting
was good medicine.
I know many competent CEOs and CFOs. I seriously doubt that any of
them would find the prospect of a Sam Sloan serving on the Board of
Directors as anything but a bad idea.
Randy Bauer
parrt...@cs.com
No surprise at the usual litany chanted against
Sam Sloan, this time by Randy Bauer who managed
to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life
during the last election.
.
Mr. Sloan, we are told, is an ex-felon (he was
involved in a family matter, taking his daughter
against court order). Mr. Sloan is a felon in the
same sense that someone arrested by the Soviet regime
is a felon arrested for, say, violating his residency
restrictions and seeking proximity to former family
members. Sam's "felony" would not have been a matter
for the courts or government a couple of generations back.
As for Sam failing to keep a cab license in New
York City of all places, that can be registered on his
side of the ledger. For a bureaucrat such as Mr.
Bauer, it is Sam who is to blame.
One should note that in spite of Mr. Bauer's
attempt at smear-by-proximity, Sam's "felony" had
nothing to do with securities (he won his court case
there). It had to do, as noted above, with taking his
own child against a court order.
Sam would be tonic on the USCF Executive Board,
which exudes secrecy, if such be possible. We need
transparency, and although the other Board members
would do their best to cut Sam out of deliberations, he
would have the law on his side in most instances. We
would learn a lot more about what is currently going on
because, as jr pointed out, Sam can't keep secrets.
See BEHIND CLOSED DOORS at WCN where GM
Lev Alburt tells about his experiences on the board.
http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=628
parrt...@cs.com
<The USCF doesn't "win" by electing ex-felons who have had their
securities license revoked because of their "conduct."> -- Randy Bauer
One should note that in spite of this smear, Sam's "felony"
was a domestic matter. It had nothing to do with the securities
charge when Sam owned a company dealing with stocks.
Sam, who is not a lawyer, argued his own case before the
Supreme Court AND WON. How many people have done that?
And so it goes.
Jerzy
news:1146514536.6...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
No doubt Sam Sloan is better than majority of his critics here. Several of
his critics are just morons who accuse him of felony, however they will
never go to the court because they only want to defame Sam and they know
that they would lose there.
John J.
Sam's election to the Board would be a bad idea?
Not very convincing, in my book. Sort of like the argument used to justify
the move, which is something I'm still confused about.
"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146543024.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Randy Bauer
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> SAM SLOAN'S "FELONY"
>
> No surprise at the usual litany chanted against
> Sam Sloan, this time by Randy Bauer who managed
> to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life
> during the last election.
When confronted with facts, Liarry's typical defense is go on the
offense with lies. It is a lie, perhaps libelous, to suggest that I
"managed to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life during the
last election."
As a single member of the Executive Board, I had no such authority.
Further, Don Schultz has explained, on numerous occasions -- including
on this newsgroup -- that he, in his position as Secretary, made the
decision to exclude Sloan's statement from Chess Life. The following
is from Don Schultz' post on April 12, 2005:
"I took the position and announced well in advance that a candidate's
statement would not be accepted after the 10th of the month unless it
did not interfere with the CL schedule or burden the staff with extra
work.
Glenn and I saw Sam at the Amateur Team East and told him that he was
already 10 or 11 days late and if he didn?t immediately get his
statement to Glenn, then it would not appear in the April issue.
Although Sam was late in getting his submission in based on the
arbitrary date I set, it still had a chance if it met the second
criteria of not causing a delay in the publishing of Chess Life or
putting a burden on staff. Sam did just that. He wrote the statement (I
believe in pen rather than on a computer) and gave it to Glenn. Later,
Glenn came to me and said that Sam had used in his statement an
argument against the team of four. The team of four had not been
announced until well after the announced cutoff date of the 10th and
Sam in effect would have gained an advantage by knowing about it and
using it simply because his submission missed the initial deadline.
Glenn pointed out that other candidates should have a right to answer
those points. I agreed with him. Since there was no question that any
attempt to get comments from other Board members would cause a delay in
publishing Chess Life and cause extra work by staff, I told Glenn not
to include Sam's statement."
Now, we can expect two things from our Liarry. First, he will write
pages and pages to obfuscate the issue -- even though my political
opponent, Don Schultz clearly and unequivocably states it was HIS
decision to not run Sloan's statement. Second, he will engage in
linguistic gymnastics that would make a Nadia or a Mary Lou proud.
Liarry is a gold medalist when it comes to contorted meaning that suits
his purpose.
Randy Bauer
Randy Bauer
> involved in a family matter, taking his daughter
> against court order). Mr. Sloan is a felon in the
> same sense that someone arrested by the Soviet regime
> is a felon arrested for, say, violating his residency
> restrictions and seeking proximity to former family
> members. Sam's "felony" would not have been a matter
> for the courts or government a couple of generations back.
Yes, child-stealing has a long and proud history in SloanParr land. I
suppose Sloan was whisking her away for a fun-filled weekend sleeping
under the tables in the playing hall of a chess tournament.
> One should note that in spite of Mr. Bauer's
> attempt at smear-by-proximity, Sam's "felony" had
> nothing to do with securities (he won his court case
> there). It had to do, as noted above, with taking his
> own child against a court order.
A typical Parr tactic - shift to some silly "smear-by-proximity"
defense. Parr prefers just the outright smear -- it's so much more
convenient.
Note Parr doesn't answer the charge -- did Sloan, whose "candidates
statement" professes a long and illustrious career in the securities
industry -- have his license yanked by the authorities?
Parr would have our Sam, known to sleep under tables at chess
tournaments and at homeless shelters, a convicted felon whose
securities license was yanked be a "tonic" for the USCF. Parr's
favorite drink must be hemlock and tonic.
Randy Bauer
Randy Bauer
Jerzy wrote:
>
> No doubt Sam Sloan is better than majority of his critics here. Several of
> his critics are just morons who accuse him of felony, however they will
> never go to the court because they only want to defame Sam and they know
> that they would lose there.
Exactly how do you "defame" someone by speaking the truth about them?
Sam Sloan was, indeed, convicted of a felony and served prison time.
Sam Sloan did, indeed, have his securities license yanked by the
authorities. We don't need to go to court, these things are already a
matter of public record.
Things must be done differently in your part of the world.
Randy Bauer
Randy Bauer
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> RANDY BAUER'S SMEAR CAMPAIGN
>
> <The USCF doesn't "win" by electing ex-felons who have had their
> securities license revoked because of their "conduct."> -- Randy Bauer
>
> One should note that in spite of this smear, Sam's "felony"
> was a domestic matter. It had nothing to do with the securities
> charge when Sam owned a company dealing with stocks.
One wonders if our resident apologist for Sloan would feel differently
if he were the person from whom the child was snatched.
Meanwhile, Parr conveniently evades the charge that Sloan had his
securities license yanked. I'm sure Parr will now tell us it was the
"bureaucrats" who took it away and that Sloan is a paragon of financial
virtue. How about it Parr, are you using Sloan for investing you book
royalties?
Randy Bauer
Jerzy
Calling Sam a child molester, accusing him of crimes he never committed
etc. is a moronish way of defaming Sam. On the other hand you are a bit
"smarter" than e.g. moronish Bill Brock. You only want to defame Sam by
accusing him of deeds that are no obstacle in any civilised country to be
elected to any chess federation. I bet that it`s no obstacle in the USA.
--
Używam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Chess One
>
> parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>> SAM SLOAN'S "FELONY"
>>
>> No surprise at the usual litany chanted against
>> Sam Sloan, this time by Randy Bauer who managed
>> to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life
>> during the last election.
>
> When confronted with facts, Liarry's typical defense is go on the
> offense with lies. It is a lie, perhaps libelous, to suggest that I
> "managed to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life during the
> last election."
I'll libel you too. Were you the individual who raised the issue before the
USCF Executive Board? Was the Sloan article excluded as a direct result of
that action?
> As a single member of the Executive Board, I had no such authority.
> Further, Don Schultz has explained, on numerous occasions -- including
> on this newsgroup -- that he, in his position as Secretary, made the
> decision to exclude Sloan's statement from Chess Life. The following
> is from Don Schultz' post on April 12, 2005:
Ah! So it wasn't you who did it - the board did as a result of your
recommendation? Is that a fair statement?
> "I took the position and announced well in advance that a candidate's
> statement would not be accepted after the 10th of the month unless it
> did not interfere with the CL schedule or burden the staff with extra
> work.
During THIS election, would you wish to make clear your own statement about
this felony issue? Again YOU have raised it, and associated a list of items
in connecting sentences? Did you wish to concur with Larry Parr on the
subject of the felony - or, since you discuss libel, are you accusing the
subject of being a felon for something else?
As you note below in your 'pages and pages' comment, there are those who
would obfusticate the issues.
Let us not do that - agree?
Phil Innes
jr
(Bauer)
If a single member of a seven-member board has such little
authority, why is the establishment pulling out all the stops to
keep little old Sam Sloan from getting elected?
Randy Bauer
Chess One wrote:
> "Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146573558.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> >> SAM SLOAN'S "FELONY"
> >>
> >> No surprise at the usual litany chanted against
> >> Sam Sloan, this time by Randy Bauer who managed
> >> to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life
> >> during the last election.
> >
> > When confronted with facts, Liarry's typical defense is go on the
> > offense with lies. It is a lie, perhaps libelous, to suggest that I
> > "managed to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life during the
> > last election."
>
> I'll libel you too. Were you the individual who raised the issue before the
> USCF Executive Board? Was the Sloan article excluded as a direct result of
> that action?
No, I did not. I raised the issue of how this issue IN THE FUTURE
should be decided. I sponsored a motion that established a framework
for THE BOARD AS A WHOLE, not the Secretary alone, to decide. It also
established a mechanism to allow somebody excluded to appeal that
decision.
>
> > As a single member of the Executive Board, I had no such authority.
> > Further, Don Schultz has explained, on numerous occasions -- including
> > on this newsgroup -- that he, in his position as Secretary, made the
> > decision to exclude Sloan's statement from Chess Life. The following
> > is from Don Schultz' post on April 12, 2005:
>
> Ah! So it wasn't you who did it - the board did as a result of your
> recommendation? Is that a fair statement?
No. Don Schultz decided -- can't you read? I quoted his post to this
newsgroup.
>
> > "I took the position and announced well in advance that a candidate's
> > statement would not be accepted after the 10th of the month unless it
> > did not interfere with the CL schedule or burden the staff with extra
> > work.
This was a direct quote from Don Schultz, for those who are actually
paying attention.
>
> During THIS election, would you wish to make clear your own statement about
> this felony issue? Again YOU have raised it, and associated a list of items
> in connecting sentences? Did you wish to concur with Larry Parr on the
> subject of the felony - or, since you discuss libel, are you accusing the
> subject of being a felon for something else?
What did I write that was inaccurate? Sloan is a convicted felon who
served prison time, Sloan had his securities license yanked, Sloan lost
his license to drive a cab. The one who doesn't tell the whole story
is Sloan, the securities wizard, who fails to mention he is no longer
able to work in that industry.
>
> As you note below in your 'pages and pages' comment, there are those who
> would obfusticate the issues.
>
> Let us not do that - agree?
I agree. My total word count to answer you was about 150.
Randy Bauer
Randy Bauer
I have been a life member of the USCF for over 30 years, and I am
raising these issues in that capacity. Each member of the Board has
some fiduciary responsibility, and I believe the voters should be aware
of Sloan's troubled history.
I am raising the same issues about Sloan as in past campaigns. My
views on him have not changed. He is not suited to serve on an
executive board of a national organization.
Rather than Sloan, people like Joel Channing are the type we need to
attract and elect to serve on the Executive Board. He has been a
successful businessman and is willing to dedicate his time, talent, and
money to the USCF. In short, he is everything that Sam Sloan is not.
Randy Bauer
jr
attract and elect to serve on the Executive Board. * (Bauer)
Dear Randy,
I agree with you that we need more Joel Channings, but I don't
see any Joel Channings among these five candidates.
I'm still hoping to see your match against Evans.
And I'm still voting for Sam. This board needs a maverick and
nobody can deny that he is knowledgeable about the issues.
BTW he goes back further than your paltry 30 years in the USCF.
Cheers.
Jerzy
news:1146576007.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> One wonders if our resident apologist for Sloan would feel differently
> if he were the person from whom the child was snatched.
No doubt that you are trying to be a prosecutor in not your own case.
It was a daugther of Sam not yours.
>
> Meanwhile, Parr conveniently evades the charge that Sloan had his
> securities license yanked. I'm sure Parr will now tell us it was the
> "bureaucrats" who took it away and that Sloan is a paragon of financial
> virtue. How about it Parr, are you using Sloan for investing you book
> royalties?
Another evidence that "political campaign" by Randy Bauer has begun.
I wonder how far can you go with your hypocrisy ? Maybe some day you will
catch up with moronish Bill Brock ?
Randy Bauer
jr wrote:
> * Rather than Sloan, people like Joel Channing are the type we need to
> attract and elect to serve on the Executive Board. * (Bauer)
>
> Dear Randy,
>
> I agree with you that we need more Joel Channings, but I don't
> see any Joel Channings among these five candidates.
Dear jr,
I would respectfully submit that we are less likely to attract the Joel
Channings when we elect something approaching their antithesis to the
Board. Sloan's background, at least if it is conveyed in its entirety,
will not impress them. It may also reduce their confidence in the USCF
voting membership.
>
> I'm still hoping to see your match against Evans.
I think it would be great fun, but I suspect that it just isn't
attracting the "grudge match" interest of Brock-Sloan.
Randy Bauer
Randy Bauer
Jerzy wrote:
> Dnia 02-05-2006 o 14:48:32 Randy Bauer <randyba...@yahoo.com> napisa³:
>
>
> >> No doubt Sam Sloan is better than majority of his critics here. Several
> >> of
> >> his critics are just morons who accuse him of felony, however they will
> >> never go to the court because they only want to defame Sam and they know
> >> that they would lose there.
> >
> > Exactly how do you "defame" someone by speaking the truth about them?
> > Sam Sloan was, indeed, convicted of a felony and served prison time.
> > Sam Sloan did, indeed, have his securities license yanked by the
> > authorities. We don't need to go to court, these things are already a
> > matter of public record.
> >
> > Things must be done differently in your part of the world.
> >
>
> Calling Sam a child molester, accusing him of crimes he never committed
> etc. is a moronish way of defaming Sam. On the other hand you are a bit
> "smarter" than e.g. moronish Bill Brock. You only want to defame Sam by
> accusing him of deeds that are no obstacle in any civilised country to be
> elected to any chess federation. I bet that it`s no obstacle in the USA.
I am not "accusing" Sloan of things, I am stating facts - he is a
convicted felon who served prison time, had his securities license
yanked, and no longer has a license to drive a taxi.
Personally, I'm not planning on voting for any candidates for the Board
who are convicted felons; I wouldn't care if it was felony theft,
vehicular manslaughter, kidnapping, or a domestic crime.
It is notable that Sloan has run for this and other offices on numerous
occasions. To date, he has lost in every election for the USCF
executive board and public offices. Perhaps you don't feel his "deeds
are no obstacle in any civilised country" but it appears the majority
of voters feel otherwise.
Randy Bauer
g4
"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146590360....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
< I am not "accusing" Sloan of things, I am stating facts - he is a
convicted felon who served prison time, had his securities license
yanked, and no longer has a license to drive a taxi. >
Randy, sometimes the truth hurts much more than a lie. The latter can
be dubunked, but the former ....
Sloan, Parr and their gang hate to deal with unpleasant facts ... that's why
they rant and retaliate with smears, obfuscations, and ad homs.
< is notable that Sloan has run for this and other offices on numerous
occasions. To date, he has lost in every election for the USCF
executive board and public offices. Perhaps you don't feel his "deeds
are no obstacle in any civilised country" but it appears the majority
of voters feel otherwise. >
The NY Mets had a pitcher circa 1992 named Anthony Young, whose
claim to fame is losing 29 consectutive games. Sound like a ton of losses,
until one realizes all the elections Sloan lost. If Sloan hasn't bested Young's
record, he ought to soon.
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146573558.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > parrt...@cs.com wrote:
>> >> SAM SLOAN'S "FELONY"
>> >>
>> >> No surprise at the usual litany chanted against
>> >> Sam Sloan, this time by Randy Bauer who managed
>> >> to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life
>> >> during the last election.
>> >
>> > When confronted with facts, Liarry's typical defense is go on the
>> > offense with lies. It is a lie, perhaps libelous, to suggest that I
>> > "managed to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life during the
>> > last election."
>>
>> I'll libel you too. Were you the individual who raised the issue before
>> the
>> USCF Executive Board? Was the Sloan article excluded as a direct result
>> of
>> that action?
>
> No, I did not. I raised the issue of how this issue IN THE FUTURE
> should be decided.
I am not yet understanding. You raised an issue concerning Sloan, which did
not result in current action against Sloan? ie, which would in the future?
> I sponsored a motion that established a framework
> for THE BOARD AS A WHOLE, not the Secretary alone, to decide. It also
> established a mechanism to allow somebody excluded to appeal that
> decision.
In direct language - are you answering my first question above "Were you the
individual who raised the issue before the
USCF Executive Board?" 'yes'?
and I couldn't follow your answer to the second questions: "Was the Sloan
article excluded as a direct result of that action? Are you answering yes or
no?
>> > As a single member of the Executive Board, I had no such authority.
>> > Further, Don Schultz has explained, on numerous occasions -- including
>> > on this newsgroup -- that he, in his position as Secretary, made the
>> > decision to exclude Sloan's statement from Chess Life. The following
>> > is from Don Schultz' post on April 12, 2005:
>>
>> Ah! So it wasn't you who did it - the board did as a result of your
>> recommendation? Is that a fair statement?
>
> No. Don Schultz decided -- can't you read? I quoted his post to this
> newsgroup.
I am asking if Don Shultz did it, or the Secretary did it as result of the
issue being raised at board level by yourself?
>> > "I took the position and announced well in advance that a candidate's
>> > statement would not be accepted after the 10th of the month unless it
>> > did not interfere with the CL schedule or burden the staff with extra
>> > work.
>
> This was a direct quote from Don Schultz, for those who are actually
> paying attention.
>>
>> During THIS election, would you wish to make clear your own statement
>> about
>> this felony issue? Again YOU have raised it, and associated a list of
>> items
>> in connecting sentences? Did you wish to concur with Larry Parr on the
>> subject of the felony - or, since you discuss libel, are you accusing the
>> subject of being a felon for something else?
>
> What did I write that was inaccurate? Sloan is a convicted felon who
> served prison time, Sloan had his securities license yanked,
Wait! You are reacting to what I wrote, rather than answering them as
questions. You wrote a list of things and associated the word felon with
them. Do you wish to restrict that to a precise matter, or spread it about
like dung?
Are you concerned if the securities licence was 'yanked' with any justice?
Or did a court decide there was none?
How about answering what I wrote above instead of repeating very insinuating
messages of wrong doing? Is that fair, or what do you think you are about?
> Sloan lost
> his license to drive a cab. The one who doesn't tell the whole story
> is Sloan, the securities wizard, who fails to mention he is no longer
> able to work in that industry.
>>
>> As you note below in your 'pages and pages' comment, there are those who
>> would obfusticate the issues.
>>
>> Let us not do that - agree?
>
> I agree. My total word count to answer you was about 150.
Okay - So lets accuse Sloan on his crimes. What do you understand they are
as decided by people competent to say so?
Having done that, did you have other comments to make on another basis?
Phil Innes
John J.
Why was his taxi license pulled?
Was it due to acts of dishonesty or merely administrative issues?
"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146590360....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jerzy wrote:
jr
your political opponent, was the person who made the final
decision not to publish Sam Sloan's statement in Chess Life.
What do you mean by "political opponent"?
When you both served on the same board together, what were
some of the issues on which you both disagreed?
What was the outcome on these issues when they came to a vote?
Although I differ with you on several matters, including the value
of having Sam on the board, I do want to commend you for being
one of the few board members who actually visited this forum
regularly in order to answer questions.
parrt...@cs.com
Joel Channing has a rightful place on the
Executive Board, given his talents. Sam's talents are
distinct from those of Mr. Channing. He thinks and
writes more than Joel; he is a voice and a conscience.
I did a certain amount along the way to rid the
Federation of Randy Bauer, who currently hangs on in
the committees. Mr. Bauer is now licking derrieres,
and we may see him back on the board one of these years.
Sam can be relied upon to tell us what is
actually happening within the power structure. He
complements the talents of a Channing.
Randy Bauer tosses up the usual strawman.
No one is arguing that Sam Sloan did not violate
a regulation with regard to his candidate's statement.
Under the letter of the law, which got applied to
Sam, his statement was barred from the magazine.
Mr. Bauer himself wrote here on this forum that
he was tired of bending rules and that regulations
AS WRITTEN had to be followed.
Ah ... except for himself.
Mr. Bauer's candidate's fee was NOT sent to the
secretary as provided under the WRITTEN rules. He
sent it to the office, which was deputized -- quite
reasonably so -- to act for the secretary. His fee
came to the secretary LATE.
We have no doubt that Mr. Bauer acted in good
faith; we equally have no doubt that he violated the
letter of the rules AS WRITTEN. So did Sam Sloan:
he, too, acted in good faith, and he mucked up the
rules AS WRITTEN.
One standard for Sam: the cruel but just rule of
law. One standard for our Mr. Bauer: reasoned
understanding of his good intentions when faithfully
following directions as published in Chess Life.
The hypocrisy wafts even in the e-ether.
Mr. Bauer has been deputized to be the creature
attacking Mr. Sloan in this election. Next election,
the powers that be will select another creature to
pass around the task of spreading the ordure.
g4
>
> If a single member of a seven-member board has such little
> authority, why is the establishment pulling out all the stops to
> keep little old Sam Sloan from getting elected?
>
Who says the establisment is "pulling out all the stops" to keep Sloan from
getting elected? What does "pulling out all the stops" in an election mean
to you?
Sloan comes here and slanders, smears, and tells outright lies resulting
in people correcting his slanders, smears and outright lies. Is that your
definition of "pulling out all the stops?" You know, if you quit talking
out of your asshole people on this forum might just take you seriously.
And btw, not only am I definitely not voting for Sloan, but I'm inclined
to vote for whoever he opposes the most. So put that in your pipe and
smoke it.
Randy Bauer
> Randy, in one your posts you say that Don Schultz, who was
> your political opponent, was the person who made the final
> decision not to publish Sam Sloan's statement in Chess Life.
>
> What do you mean by "political opponent"?
Don was supporting the slate of Goichberg-Channing-Tanner-Shahade, although
Shahade indicated that he was not part of a slate. In the end, that group
was elected. I was part of a mostly-incumbant slate including Shutt,
Shaughnessey and George John.
>
> When you both served on the same board together, what were
> some of the issues on which you both disagreed?
Actually, I think we agreed as much as we disagreed. We agreed, for
example, on a motion to delay a decision on the move of the headquarters to
Crossville, on reinstatement of the BINFO system, and on the choice for
Executive Director of the USCF. We disagreed on the implementation of the
move to Crossville; I believed that once the Board had made that decision,
we needed to move on and implement it as well as possible, and I supported
Beatriz stepping into the role of project manager for the move when there
seemed to be no other viable alternative. We also disagreed on the motion I
made to establish a written process and an exception policy involving the
Board as a whole rather than just the Secretary ruling on election issues.
>
> What was the outcome on these issues when they came to a vote?
We both lost on Crossville, both lost on the Executive Director (although I
think Bill Hall is doing a decent job under often trying circumstances).
I'm not sure the status of BINFO, I won on the Board as a whole setting
electoral policy (and, I would note, Harold Winston, who also supported the
other electoral slate and is an attorney, believed my motion to be within
the power of the Executive Board), and I won on Beatriz overseeing the move
to Crossville (which, by the way, did not bankrupt the USCF and was done way
under the claimed costs of others. I think Don even admitted that Beatriz
had done a very good job in that respect). Of course, Don won on the
election.
Please note that my motion had no impact on Sloan, and, in fact, there were
no situations where the Board had to rule on any exceptions issues in the
last election. I publicly stated that had any such issues come before the
Board, I would recuse myself.
>
> Although I differ with you on several matters, including the value
> of having Sam on the board, I do want to commend you for being
> one of the few board members who actually visited this forum
> regularly in order to answer questions.
Thank you. In the past and present, Bill Goichberg, Don Schultz, and Joel
Channing have also frequented this forum. While I understand that they may
prefer the USCF forum, there is a value to addressing issues here as well.
Randy Bauer
g4
>
>
> One standard for Sam: the cruel but just rule of
> law. One standard for our Mr. Bauer: reasoned
> understanding of his good intentions when faithfully
> following directions as published in Chess Life.
>
> The hypocrisy wafts even in the e-ether.
>
The preceding smear by "editor" Liarry has already been refuted and
debunked on this forum on more than one occasion. Yet, Parr keeps
repeating it as if it was fresh news. If the powers that be protest, then
"editor" Liarry will claim they protest too much. If they are silent, then
"editor" Liarry will claim the silence is deafening. So, it's heads I win, tails
you lose.
> Mr. Bauer has been deputized to be the creature
> attacking Mr. Sloan in this election. Next election,
> the powers that be will select another creature to
> pass around the task of spreading the ordure.
>
The reulars on rgcp know from experience that is is Sloan who
comes here with his unprooked attacks on whoever he hates for
the moment.. "Editor" Liarry's so-called deputies are people who
take the time to set the record straight. But "editor" Liarry won't
find anything amiss with Sloan's one man crusade.
Randy Bauer
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:o5Q5g.8788$Mn6.4551@trndny06...
Phil, there really isn't any point in answering you, because you just ignore
the answer. I quoted DIRECTLY from THE SECRETARY DON SHULTZ who SAID THAT
HE DECIDED TO NOT INCLUDE SAM'S STATEMENT.
What don't you get?
MY MOTION DEALT WITH EXCEPTIONS IN THE FUTURE.... I.E. AFTER THE SHULTZ
RULING ON SLOAN... IS IT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU YET?
>
>> I sponsored a motion that established a framework
>> for THE BOARD AS A WHOLE, not the Secretary alone, to decide. It also
>> established a mechanism to allow somebody excluded to appeal that
>> decision.
>
> In direct language - are you answering my first question above "Were you
> the individual who raised the issue before the
> USCF Executive Board?" 'yes'?
NO. DON SHULTZ MADE THAT DECISION. THERE WAS NO VOTE BY THE BOARD
RELATING TO WHETHER SLOAN'S FIRST SUBMISSION WOULD BE INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED.
>
> and I couldn't follow your answer to the second questions: "Was the Sloan
> article excluded as a direct result of that action? Are you answering yes
> or no?
FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST - READ THE SHULTZ QUOTE -- HE DECIDED. ERGO, IT WAS
NOT EXCLUDED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF MY ACTION. READ THE DAMN THING, PHIL -
DON EXPLAINS HIS RATIONALE AND NEVER MENTIONS ME AT ALL. KEEP IN MIND DON
AND I WERE POLITICAL OPPONANTS AT THE TIME .
>
>>> > As a single member of the Executive Board, I had no such authority.
>>> > Further, Don Schultz has explained, on numerous occasions -- including
>>> > on this newsgroup -- that he, in his position as Secretary, made the
>>> > decision to exclude Sloan's statement from Chess Life. The following
>>> > is from Don Schultz' post on April 12, 2005:
>>>
>>> Ah! So it wasn't you who did it - the board did as a result of your
>>> recommendation? Is that a fair statement?
NO! THE BOARD DID NOT!! DON SHULTZ DID!!! CAN YOU READ???? DON'S STATEMENT
WAS CLEARLY ATTTACHED TO MY POST. YOU ARE EITHER TOTALLY CLUELESS OR
TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS.
>>
>> No. Don Schultz decided -- can't you read? I quoted his post to this
>> newsgroup.
>
> I am asking if Don Shultz did it, or the Secretary did it as result of the
> issue being raised at board level by yourself?
READ THE POST BY SHULTZ.
>
>>> > "I took the position and announced well in advance that a candidate's
>>> > statement would not be accepted after the 10th of the month unless it
>>> > did not interfere with the CL schedule or burden the staff with extra
>>> > work.
>>
>> This was a direct quote from Don Schultz, for those who are actually
>> paying attention.
>>>
>>> During THIS election, would you wish to make clear your own statement
>>> about
>>> this felony issue? Again YOU have raised it, and associated a list of
>>> items
>>> in connecting sentences? Did you wish to concur with Larry Parr on the
>>> subject of the felony - or, since you discuss libel, are you accusing
>>> the
>>> subject of being a felon for something else?
Sam Sloan is a convicted felon, as I stated. Sam Sloan no longer possesses
a securities license, as I stated.
>>
>> What did I write that was inaccurate? Sloan is a convicted felon who
>> served prison time, Sloan had his securities license yanked,
>
> Wait! You are reacting to what I wrote, rather than answering them as
> questions. You wrote a list of things and associated the word felon with
> them. Do you wish to restrict that to a precise matter, or spread it about
> like dung?
No, I did not. Explain the association. Everything I wrote is factual and
part of a reasonable sentence structure (as if you would understand).
>
> Are you concerned if the securities licence was 'yanked' with any justice?
> Or did a court decide there was none?
I am not concerned in the least. In this country, if the license was
"yanked" without cause, Sloan had judicial remedies. He has certainly not
shown himself incapable of finding the Courthouse -- if he had a case, he
should have made it. My guess is he tried and failed.
>
> How about answering what I wrote above instead of repeating very
> insinuating messages of wrong doing? Is that fair, or what do you think
> you are about?
Insinuating? I stated it clearly and factually. Sloan is a convicted felon
who has served prison time. He no longer has a securities license. He no
longer has a license to drive a taxi. Since when is the truth unfair?
>
>> Sloan lost
>> his license to drive a cab. The one who doesn't tell the whole story
>> is Sloan, the securities wizard, who fails to mention he is no longer
>> able to work in that industry.
>>>
>>> As you note below in your 'pages and pages' comment, there are those who
>>> would obfusticate the issues.
>>>
>>> Let us not do that - agree?
>>
>> I agree. My total word count to answer you was about 150.
>
> Okay - So lets accuse Sloan on his crimes. What do you understand they are
> as decided by people competent to say so?
I do not know and do not care. He had his day in court. I assume a jury of
his peers (or a judge, if he chose that route) found him guilty of a felony
crime. That is enough for me.
Randy Bauer
g4
> The reulars [sic] on rgcp know from experience that is is Sloan who
> comes here with his unprooked [sic] attacks on whoever he hates for
> the moment.. "Editor" Liarry's so-called deputies are people who
> take the time to set the record straight. But "editor" Liarry won't
> find anything amiss with Sloan's one man crusade.
>
should be regulars and unprovoked
Randy Bauer
>
> Joel Channing has a rightful place on the
> Executive Board, given his talents. Sam's talents are
> distinct from those of Mr. Channing. He thinks and
> writes more than Joel; he is a voice and a conscience.
>
> I did a certain amount along the way to rid the
> Federation of Randy Bauer, who currently hangs on in
> the committees.
What a canard. Liarry had no part to play in the last election. The fact
is that the other slate spent a lot more money, a lot more effecitvely, and
got out their vote. Meanwhile, my "hanging out in the committees" consists
of being ASKED to serve as the Chair of the Finance Committee. I like to
think that I can assist the USCF in this role.
Mr. Bauer is now licking derrieres,
> and we may see him back on the board one of these years.
Unlike Parr, I tend to adopt a reasonable view about people, even so-called
political opponants. During the last campaign, I publicly stated that Bill
Goichberg did lots of good things as Executive Director and could work with
him on the Board, I also complimented Joel Channing for his help on the
Crossville building and construction loan (while we were both running for
the Board), and I have admitted that Don Shultz and I agreed on several
things on the Board. Parr, ever the guttersnipe, now claims this sort of
attitude is "licking derrieres" which tells us a lot more about his tastes
than mine.
(Snip Parr's typical habit of revisiting and lying about issues long since
settled... he always hopes the uninitiated around here have short memories)
Randy Bauer
politi...@gmail.com
in this election.>>
I'm the self-appointed creature, thank you. :-)
The fact remains that Parr endorses Sloan, who, *by his own account*,
had sexual intercourse with a girl of junior high school age; Sloan,
who, "by his own account," has had sexual relations with other "young
girl[s]"; Sloan, who, on his various web pages, exhibits an unusual
interest in the sexuality of children (an interest Parr et al. would
prefer to ascribe to me ;-) but can't seem to produce the relevant
evidence--by similar logic, Lt. Columbo must've been a murderer);
Sloan, who is an apologist for the convicted child molester Jefferson
Poland.
Parr disputes these facts (except for the Poland matter, on which Parr
has been completely silent) without examining the evidence. Perhaps,
per Parr, I am an individual far more dangerous than Sloan (heh
heh)--but I'm not running for the Board, am I? There are most likely
at least two candidates who don't have sexual relations with children
and don't advocate such acts. Given that well over 70% of our members
are minors....
I think that in his heart of hearts, Parr thinks as little of Sloan as
we do. (One could offer an alternative hypothesis, but I prefer to
give even Parr the benefit of the doubt on that one....) That's why
Parr won't respond to the facts on Sloan. He just wants to disrupt
USCF, and Sloan is a useful idiot for the purpose. Just as those who
use Parr consider him a useful idiot....
Jerzy
> > Calling Sam a child molester, accusing him of crimes he never committed
> > etc. is a moronish way of defaming Sam. On the other hand you are a bit
> > "smarter" than e.g. moronish Bill Brock. You only want to defame Sam by
> > accusing him of deeds that are no obstacle in any civilised country to be
> > elected to any chess federation. I bet that it`s no obstacle in the USA.
>
> I am not "accusing" Sloan of things, I am stating facts - he is a
> convicted felon who served prison time, had his securities license
> yanked, and no longer has a license to drive a taxi.
>
> Personally, I'm not planning on voting for any candidates for the Board
> who are convicted felons; I wouldn't care if it was felony theft,
> vehicular manslaughter, kidnapping, or a domestic crime.
Yeah, yeah, and what else will you accuse Sam of ?
>
> It is notable that Sloan has run for this and other offices on numerous
> occasions. To date, he has lost in every election for the USCF
> executive board and public offices. Perhaps you don't feel his "deeds
> are no obstacle in any civilised country" but it appears the majority
> of voters feel otherwise.
So why are you raging so much about Sam ? If you think that he won`t be
elected then your post is safe.
But I bet that GM Lev Alburt is right : you do care only about your
post as majority of EB members.
Louis Blair
wrote (2 May 2006 07:24:20 -0700):
> If a single member of a seven-member board has
> such little authority, why is the establishment
> pulling out all the stops to keep little old Sam
> Sloan from getting elected?
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Tim Hanke" <timoth...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: Crossville, TN
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:02:27 GMT
_
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
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Jerzy
Użytkownik "Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:G_T5g.955189$xm3.4065@attbi_s21...
> Phil, there really isn't any point in answering you, because you just
> ignore the answer. I quoted DIRECTLY from THE SECRETARY DON SHULTZ who
> SAID THAT HE DECIDED TO NOT INCLUDE SAM'S STATEMENT.
>
> What don't you get?
>
> MY MOTION DEALT WITH EXCEPTIONS IN THE FUTURE.... I.E. AFTER THE SHULTZ
> RULING ON SLOAN... IS IT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU YET?
>
> NO. DON SHULTZ MADE THAT DECISION. THERE WAS NO VOTE BY THE BOARD
> RELATING TO WHETHER SLOAN'S FIRST SUBMISSION WOULD BE INCLUDED OR
> EXCLUDED.
>
> FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST - READ THE SHULTZ QUOTE -- HE DECIDED. ERGO, IT
> WAS NOT EXCLUDED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF MY ACTION. READ THE DAMN THING,
> PHIL - DON EXPLAINS HIS RATIONALE AND NEVER MENTIONS ME AT ALL. KEEP IN
> MIND DON AND I WERE POLITICAL OPPONANTS AT THE TIME .
> NO! THE BOARD DID NOT!! DON SHULTZ DID!!! CAN YOU READ???? DON'S
> STATEMENT WAS CLEARLY ATTTACHED TO MY POST. YOU ARE EITHER TOTALLY
> CLUELESS OR TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS.
> READ THE POST BY SHULTZ.
Good heavens : a member of the EB of the USCF lacks good manners.
Do you think shouting will give you more votes in the next elections ?
>> Okay - So lets accuse Sloan on his crimes. What do you understand they
>> are as decided by people competent to say so?
>
> I do not know and do not care. He had his day in court. I assume a jury
> of his peers (or a judge, if he chose that route) found him guilty of a
> felony crime. That is enough for me.
>
> Randy Bauer
That`s enough for me to see that you are impertinent and that`s enough in a
civilized country not to vote for such a person.
Louis Blair
> Joel Channing has a rightful place on the Executive
> Board, given his talents. Sam's talents are distinct
> from those of Mr. Channing. He thinks and writes
> more than Joel; he is a voice and a conscience.
_
Would Larry Parr care to say something about the
activity of the Sam Sloan conscience in the Holiday
Quiz incident?
_
"Taylor Kingston is involved with USCF Sales
and is the perpetrator of the blacklist."
- Sam Sloan (Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:11:53 GMT)
_
"No one [at USCF Sales] consults me on what
to stock in the catalog. I have never 'perpetrated'
any 'blacklist' of chess authors, or of anyone else."
- Taylor Kingston (22 Dec 2005 12:32:53 -0800)
_
Sam Sloan's accusation continued to appear on a
Wikipedia discussion page.
_
"I have had no involvment ever with USCF Sales,
except for buying the occasional book." - Taylor
Kingston (28 Dec 2005 09:31:43 -0800)
_
"If that is the case, then kindly explain why when
I look at the chesscafe.com website I see the
words "Taylor Kingston & Hanon Russell"
prominently displayed at the top." - Sam Sloan
(Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:09:39 GMT)
_
"It's the 9th Annual ChessCafe Holiday Quiz. I
wrote most of it, Hanon Russell the rest. Been
doing that for eight years now. Has nothing to do
with USCF Sales." - Taylor Kingston (28 Dec 2005
10:29:37 -0800)
_
"I suggest looking at ... chesscafe ... and
seeing that what it actually says there is
"Holiday Quiz by Taylor Kingston & Hanon
Russell". - Louis Blair (29 Dec 2005
03:30:41 -0800)
Randy Bauer
Jerzy wrote:
> U¿ytkownik "Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> news:G_T5g.955189$xm3.4065@attbi_s21...
>
>
> Good heavens : a member of the EB of the USCF lacks good manners.
Wrong as always - I am not amember of the EB.
>
> Do you think shouting will give you more votes in the next elections ?
Wrong as always - I am not a candidate in this election.
Now wonder you like Sloan - you can't comprehend with basic facts.
Randy Bauer
politi...@gmail.com
Do you also have a problem with Sloan's apologia for child molestation
in his Wikipedia writings on the *convicted* and *confessed* child
molester Jefferson Poland?
Is it appropriate for an adult to have oral sex with an eight-year-old
girl, Jerzy?
Is it appropriate for Sloan to excuse such conduct, Jerzy?
You may of course dispute my characterization, Jerzy. The textual
evidence awaits you. Larry Parr must have already read this article:
you can borrow from his stirring defense of Sloan.
Randy Bauer
Jerzy wrote:
> Randy Bauer napisal(a):
>
> > > Calling Sam a child molester, accusing him of crimes he never committed
> > > etc. is a moronish way of defaming Sam. On the other hand you are a bit
> > > "smarter" than e.g. moronish Bill Brock. You only want to defame Sam by
> > > accusing him of deeds that are no obstacle in any civilised country to be
> > > elected to any chess federation. I bet that it`s no obstacle in the USA.
> >
> > I am not "accusing" Sloan of things, I am stating facts - he is a
> > convicted felon who served prison time, had his securities license
> > yanked, and no longer has a license to drive a taxi.
> >
> > Personally, I'm not planning on voting for any candidates for the Board
> > who are convicted felons; I wouldn't care if it was felony theft,
> > vehicular manslaughter, kidnapping, or a domestic crime.
>
> Yeah, yeah, and what else will you accuse Sam of ?
Only the facts.
>
> >
> > It is notable that Sloan has run for this and other offices on numerous
> > occasions. To date, he has lost in every election for the USCF
> > executive board and public offices. Perhaps you don't feel his "deeds
> > are no obstacle in any civilised country" but it appears the majority
> > of voters feel otherwise.
>
>
> So why are you raging so much about Sam ? If you think that he won`t be
> elected then your post is safe.
>
> But I bet that GM Lev Alburt is right : you do care only about your
> post as majority of EB members.
I'm not running in this election, and the majority of the EB were my
opponents in the last election.
When you understand the stark reality - that your claims about me in
this election are totally baseless -- why don't you just shut up?
Randy Bauer
politi...@gmail.com
You've seen my play; I freely admit to moronhood. Now put away the ad
hominem for a second and let's talk facts. You can do facts, can't
you?
In re Jefferson Poland: do you find's Sloan's public conduct defensible?
parrt...@cs.com
Mr. No Name claims the establishment ain't pulling out all
the stops to stop Sam.
Yeah, right.
If Sam had no chance, why do you think two members
of the finance committee (Bill Brock and chairman Randy Bauer)
are calling him every name under the sun?
They rightly fear that Sam's statements in Chess Life will appeal a
to the membership at large. Hence their pre-emptive strike.
Randy Bauer
I've said the same things in each of the past 3 elections. Given that
Sloan hasn't come anywhere close to being elected in either of the last
two, only a Sloan apologist like Parr could suggest that my statements
are based on a "fear that Sam's statements will appeal to the
membership at large."
The membership so far appears to be smarter than Parr and Sloan.
Randy Bauer
politi...@gmail.com
will appeal a
to the membership at large. Hence their pre-emptive strike. >>
Pedophiles comprise about 1% of the adult population; functional
schizophrenics, another 1 to 2%. I agree with Parr that Sloan will
have several hundred wildly enthusiastic supporters within USCF
membership.
Do get back to us on Sloan's profoundly moral defense of Jefferson
Poland's child molestation, Larry baby. And when you do, crosspost
THAT to rgcm.
:-)
John J.
"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1146624135.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
parrt...@cs.com
Mr. Chess Freak, whose identity begins to suggest
itself, accuses Sam Sloan of having "sex with children."
No matter how often the unproven charge is
repeated -- and it is repeated during the political
season several times a day -- we must keep in mind
that there is no proof that Sam Sloan has ever
molested, much less had sex, with a child. None.
The technique of those fronting for the Executive
Board is to attack Sam with every possible smear in
the hope, likely a realistic one, that some mud will stick.
Randy Bauer offered us a particularly odious
example of the technique. He strung together two
claims as if they were related to each other. First,
he said correctly that Sam had been convicted of a
"felony" and that he had been involved in a securities
case. The natural presumption was that Sam had bilked
someone and had served time for securities fraud.
Mr. Bauer intended that precisely this message would
be understood by those here and, perhaps, elsewhere.
The truth is that Sam went to jail for taking
custody of his own daughter against a court order.
His action would likely never have been in the court
system a couple of generations back, and Sam is no
more a criminal than many hundreds of thousands of
other parentss who have run afoul of a court system
meddling in affairs of the heart. Paul Craig Roberts,
an undersecretary of the treasury during the Reagan
years, has written movingly of a huge number of men
sitting in prisons, though having committed no crime
whatsoever under the natural law.
Mr. Bauer's technique is to respond with
sanctimonious piffle about never voting for anyone who
has been in jail, etc. He talks about Sam kidnapping
someone without mentioning that the person involved
was Sam's own daughter.
Mr. Bauer is the point man in the campaign
against Sam Sloan. That is his function this time
around. He is a tougher, more resilient personality
than his cohort Bill Brock and is ideally suited for
this type of character assassination.
Jerzy
news:1146625408....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Wrong as always - I am not amember of the EB.
So what are your connections to the USCF ?
> >
> > Do you think shouting will give you more votes in the next elections ?
> Wrong as always - I am not a candidate in this election.
> Now wonder you like Sloan - you can't comprehend with basic facts.
Herr Bauer seems to be above the netiquette and he claims he has nth common
with chess politics. It is an outright lie and shortage of good manners by
him.
Jerzy
>> > Personally, I'm not planning on voting for any candidates for the Board
>> > who are convicted felons; I wouldn't care if it was felony theft,
>> > vehicular manslaughter, kidnapping, or a domestic crime.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, and what else will you accuse Sam of ?
>
> Only the facts.
Manslaughter etc. ?
>> So why are you raging so much about Sam ? If you think that he won`t be
>> elected then your post is safe.
>>
>> But I bet that GM Lev Alburt is right : you do care only about your
>> post as majority of EB members.
>
> I'm not running in this election, and the majority of the EB were my
> opponents in the last election.
>
> When you understand the stark reality - that your claims about me in
> this election are totally baseless -- why don't you just shut up?
I claim that Sam is your political opponent and you want to defame him, Herr
Bauer together with your colleagues like moronic Bill Brock.
Randy Bauer
"Jerzy" <jci...@poczta.fm> wrote in message
news:e3a04d$bve$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
Whatever. Your comprehension of basic facts suggests you and Sam will be
very happy together. Why don't you send him some money to invest for you?
I'm sure his securities "background" will come in handy.
Randy Bauer
Chess One
Why you can't answer a straight question?
I ask if you personally brought the matter before the board and you answer
that Don Shultz pulled the article.
This avoids my question of your own part in it.
Instead your recent answer states "'Secretary' Don Shultz pulled the
article", as if to say that the Secretary did so since this was his role in
monitoring the election, or as the result of a board mandate..
> MY MOTION DEALT WITH EXCEPTIONS IN THE FUTURE.... I.E. AFTER THE SHULTZ
> RULING ON SLOAN... IS IT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU YET?
No! Are you saying there was a chronology that you raised an issue before
the board after Don Shultz took an action in pulling the article? If the
board kept minutes, will this chronology be represented in them? Why did Don
Shultz remove Sloan's article if there was no motion to do so? Who allowed
your own article to appear, even though it too was in technical violation?
Was that Don Shultz, or the baord as a whole?
>>> I sponsored a motion that established a framework
>>> for THE BOARD AS A WHOLE, not the Secretary alone, to decide. It also
>>> established a mechanism to allow somebody excluded to appeal that
>>> decision.
>>
>> In direct language - are you answering my first question above "Were you
>> the individual who raised the issue before the
>> USCF Executive Board?" 'yes'?
>
> NO. DON SHULTZ MADE THAT DECISION.
Who RAISED the issue on which the Secretary took a decision?
> THERE WAS NO VOTE BY THE BOARD RELATING TO WHETHER SLOAN'S FIRST
> SUBMISSION WOULD BE INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED.
But there must have been something discussed at board level for the
Secretary to be required to take action. Someone must have raised the issue.
Who raised your own issue - when you to were technically in error according
to the rules?
>> and I couldn't follow your answer to the second questions: "Was the Sloan
>> article excluded as a direct result of that action? Are you answering yes
>> or no?
>
> FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST - READ THE SHULTZ QUOTE -- HE DECIDED. ERGO, IT
> WAS NOT EXCLUDED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF MY ACTION.
Perhaps you are right - and I am quite witless? But since this is the third
try on your part to answer a simple question 'yes' or 'no', do I have to
interpret
"it was not excluded as a direct result of my action" ?
I am tending to think that could possibly mean 'yes'. Does it?
> READ THE DAMN THING, PHIL - DON EXPLAINS HIS RATIONALE AND NEVER MENTIONS
> ME AT ALL. KEEP IN MIND DON AND I WERE POLITICAL OPPONANTS AT THE TIME .
When you mention Don, you are seeming to go out of your way to obscure the
fact that he also has a role on the board in monitoring the election - ie,
he is the Secretary. When you refer to him you are not being at all clear if
he is acting as an individual board member on his own initiaitive, or as
board Secretary as result of issues raised at board level - which is a
function he must perform in relation to the election. whether he likes the
result or not.
>>>> > As a single member of the Executive Board, I had no such authority.
>>>> > Further, Don Schultz has explained, on numerous occasions --
>>>> > including
>>>> > on this newsgroup -- that he, in his position as Secretary, made the
>>>> > decision to exclude Sloan's statement from Chess Life. The following
>>>> > is from Don Schultz' post on April 12, 2005:
>>>>
>>>> Ah! So it wasn't you who did it - the board did as a result of your
>>>> recommendation? Is that a fair statement?
>
> NO! THE BOARD DID NOT!! DON SHULTZ DID!!! CAN YOU READ???? DON'S
> STATEMENT WAS CLEARLY ATTTACHED TO MY POST. YOU ARE EITHER TOTALLY
> CLUELESS OR TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS.
It would help if you could write whole sentences - like if you raised the
issue. When you wrote that the 'board' did not, but Don did - what does this
indicate?
I am asking what role you played in the entire affair, what actually
happened at board level, and if Don Shultz acted on the instructions of the
board, or independent of those instructions as election moderator,
neverthless having acted on matters raised at the board.
----------
>>>> During THIS election, would you wish to make clear your own statement
>>>> about
>>>> this felony issue? Again YOU have raised it, and associated a list of
>>>> items
>>>> in connecting sentences? Did you wish to concur with Larry Parr on the
>>>> subject of the felony - or, since you discuss libel, are you accusing
>>>> the
>>>> subject of being a felon for something else?
>
> Sam Sloan is a convicted felon, as I stated. Sam Sloan no longer
> possesses a securities license, as I stated.
You now limit your list of 'associations' to a felony and securities
licence. Are you intending that these be related together?
>>>
>>> What did I write that was inaccurate? Sloan is a convicted felon who
>>> served prison time, Sloan had his securities license yanked,
>>
>> Wait! You are reacting to what I wrote, rather than answering them as
>> questions. You wrote a list of things and associated the word felon with
>> them. Do you wish to restrict that to a precise matter, or spread it
>> about like dung?
>
> No, I did not. Explain the association. Everything I wrote is factual
> and part of a reasonable sentence structure (as if you would understand).
How many different sorts of felonies were there? If there was one subject,
by all means mention it - if you think it relevant to board membership, and
you could also say why.
But you go out of your way to make a list which seems to me to indicate that
there is a string of felonies across numerous topics.
I expect that you yourself have broken the law frequently, and among your
crimes are ignoring school bus warnings to stop, conspiring to overthrow
several foreign governments, several parking tickets, and eating Christian
babies with Saddam.
Do you note these smear-by-association techniques? Do I understand those?
>> Are you concerned if the securities licence was 'yanked' with any
>> justice? Or did a court decide there was none?
>
> I am not concerned in the least.
I will therefore end my own concern here.
Phil Innes
The Historian
Chess One wrote:
>
> Perhaps you are right - and I am quite witless?
The penny finally drops.....
samsloan
fabrication.
I had just finished changing Sandra's diaper five minutes earlier, in
the USCF's office in New Windson.
The diaper was not wet. When I came into the meeting room, Stan Booz,
who was sitting too far away to be able to notice, insisted that I
change the diaper, which I did even though it was not necessary.
I said nothing during the meeting until the time came for questions and
answers. When nobody else had any questions to ask, I asked for
permission to ask just one question, which was granted by Beatriz
Marinello.
The question I asked was for Tim Hanke which was to explain his posting
to this group about his grand plan for the future of the USCF. Hanke
started screaming and stormed out of the meeting. Several others
present followed him out. Then Beatriz said that there was no quorum so
the meeting was adjourned. Only Steve Shutt remained behind.
About 30 seconds later Don Schultz walked in. He said that he had only
gone to the restroom for two minutes. When he had left the room was
full. When he got back, only two or three people were left in the room.
He wondered what had happened.
This entire incident demonstrated why Tim Hanke was very unsuitable to
be sitting on the board. He should have been happy and overjoyed to be
given the opportunity to answer my question and explain his Grand Plan
for the future of the USCF. My question was softball, the kind an ally
would ask to give a politician an excuse to speak. Instead Hanke went
on a rampage.
Of course, we will never get to find out what his answer to the
question was because he later resigned without ever answering it.
By the way, in answer to the question posed in another thread, it was
Tim Hanke who had gotten elected to the board based upon qualifications
which were purely imaginary.
Sam Sloan
Randy Bauer
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> ENDLESS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION
>
> The technique of those fronting for the Executive
> Board is to attack Sam with every possible smear in
> the hope, likely a realistic one, that some mud will stick.
The truth tends to stick. Sam just doesn't have the character or
background to be made of teflon.
>
> Randy Bauer offered us a particularly odious
> example of the technique. He strung together two
> claims as if they were related to each other. First,
> he said correctly that Sam had been convicted of a
> "felony" and that he had been involved in a securities
> case. The natural presumption was that Sam had bilked
> someone and had served time for securities fraud.
Whatever. I am happy to revise my statement if it will make the
Parr-Sloan camp happy:
Sam Sloan is a convicted felon who served prison time for kidnappying
his daughter. Unlike Parr, I happen to believe that there are plenty
of instances where child stealing -- even your own child -- is a crime
and those guilty of it should be locked up.
Sam Sloan also had his license to work in the securities industry
revoked for improper actions on his part.
Sam Sloan then moved to the taxi industry, but lost that license as
well.
Satisfied, Larry? He sure sounds like the kind of guy we want on the
Board.
Randy Bauer
Randy Bauer
Jerzy wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:1146625606.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>
> >> post as majority of EB members.
> >
> > I'm not running in this election, and the majority of the EB were my
> > opponents in the last election.
> >
> > When you understand the stark reality - that your claims about me in
> > this election are totally baseless -- why don't you just shut up?
>
> I claim that Sam is your political opponent and you want to defame him, Herr
> Bauer together with your colleagues like moronic Bill Brock.
I don't need to defame him - the facts do the job just fine.
Randy Bauer
Chess Freak
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1146640397.1...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ENDLESS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION
>
> Mr. Chess Freak, whose identity begins to suggest
> itself, accuses Sam Sloan of having "sex with children."
>
Hmm, I could have sworn I read about his escapades involving
having sex with underage prostitutes overseas on his very own
website. I can't find the exact page, but shit like:
http://www.samsloan.com/maesai-y.htm do show what sort of
character Sloan is. No assassination required!
Not sure what you mean about identity - I'm just a chess freak
who plays chess on the internet and enjoys watching that
trainwreck called USCF.
Jerzy
>>> Wrong as always - I am not amember of the EB.
>>
>>
>> So what are your connections to the USCF ?
>>
>>> >
>>> > Do you think shouting will give you more votes in the next elections ?
>>
>>> Wrong as always - I am not a candidate in this election.
>>
>>> Now wonder you like Sloan - you can't comprehend with basic facts.
>>
>> Herr Bauer seems to be above the netiquette and he claims he has nth
>> common with chess politics. It is an outright lie and shortage of good
>> manners by him.
>
> Whatever. Your comprehension of basic facts suggests you and Sam will be
> very happy together. Why don't you send him some money to invest for you?
> I'm sure his securities "background" will come in handy.
Herr Bauer, money is not the most important thing here. Honesty and decency
are much more important. And I can see all the time in chess newsgroups here
dirty "political" campaign playing by you and the likes.
Louis Blair
Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:02:27 GMT Timothy Hanke note
describing an incident involving Sam Sloan, a diaper,
and a board meeting.
_
John J. wrote (Wed, 03 May 2006 05:44:12 GMT):
> If that's true, it's very disturbing.
_
By now, John J. is probably aware that Sam Sloan has
posted (3 May 2006 05:31:30 -0700) a claim that the
"entire story ... was a complete fabrication." Of course,
there is no way for John J. to find out for himself what
the smell was like, but he is in a position to note that
the Timothy Hanke and Sam Sloan accounts agree that
there was a complaint. Also, Sam Sloan does not
dispute that he did a change right there in the board
meeting.
_
John J. can also note that Sam Sloan is posting his
"fabrication" claim about fifteen months after Timothy
Hanke stopped posting here. I suggest that John J.
try looking for a similar claim in the notes that Sam
Sloan posted in early October of 2003 when Timothy
Hanke would have been around to respond. A google
search for "diaper" finds nothing in any Sam Sloan
2003 rgcp note.
_
Another consideration is the degree to which Sam
Sloan's own notes are consistant. Compare
_
"I asked for permission to ask just one
question, which was granted by Beatriz
Marinello. The question I asked was for
Tim Hanke which was to explain his
posting to this group about his grand plan
for the future of the USCF. ... My question
was softball, the kind an ally would ask to
give a politician an excuse to speak."
- Sam Sloan (3 May 2006 05:31:30 -0700)
_
with
_
"I said that I had something to say, but that
certain people in the room will find it
objectionable and will want to call the police
to have me thrown out, ... I said that ... I feel
that the board should be concerned about
some of the things that [Tim Hanke] has been
saying. ... since the Executive Board meeting
on August 11, 2003, Tim Hanke has made 204
postings to the Internet ... he has represented
himself as a person with authority in the USCF
and he has stated that he wants to close down
the books and equipment business and he
wants to ..." - Sam Sloan (Tue, 30 Sep 2003
19:00:47 GMT)
_
_
In the Holiday Quiz incident, all the relevant information
can be found with google. (The key note is reproduced
at the end of this note.)
_
I have not seen anything more on this matter from Sam
Sloan or Larry Parr, but, at one point, even Larry Parr
DID feel obliged to acknowledge:
_
"[Sam Sloan's] name-calling is deplorable."
- Larry Parr (10 Dec 2004 15:48:46 GMT)
_
I am not sure what exactly Larry Parr was reacting to,
but here is a sample of what Sam Sloan had been
posting:
_
"Tim Hanke was fired from his job just a
few weeks ago and now says that he
want to become Editor of Chess Life.
Beatriz Marinello is a notorious lesbian
who lives with a woman and has no
regular or known source of income and
no verifiable job. It seems strange that
two people of such questionable
backgrounds would be entrusted with
such a large amount of money." - Sam
Sloan (Fri, 10 Dec 2004 03:23:53 GMT)
_
_
Not too long ago, referring to some of his Wikipedia
contributions, Sam Sloan posted a challenge:
_
"Please provide a statement by me in
any of these articles that was not true
and cannot be verified" - Sam Sloan
(10 Apr 2006 04:11:27 -0700)
_
I promptly reminded Sam Sloan about one of his statements:
_
"For the past more than 30 years, every time a new
book by Keene has come out or a new article by
Keene has been published, Edward Winter has
written articles attacking it." - Sam Sloan
(Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:46:37 GMT)
_
Sam Sloan decided to post a revised version of his
challenge:
_
"Kindly provide to this group an example
of one statement which I posted on
Wikipedia and WHICH [RALF CALLENBERG]
DELETED which is: 1. Not true and
2. Cannot be verified" - Sam Sloan
(10 Apr 2006 08:05:17 -0700)
(Emphasis added.)
_
(Ralph Callenberg responded on 10 Apr 2006
08:53:23 -0700.)
_
_
At Wikipedia, one can find the record of several
experiences with Sam Sloan:
_
"I do object when [Ralph Callenberg], JoanneB
and Janeth, none of whom know anything
about chess, try to delete the entire article."
- Sam Sloan (16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
_
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch
(The result of the debate was delete. - howcheng
20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC))
_
"I am having a dispute with Howcheng and
I request the Arbitration Committee to
resolve it." - Sam Sloan
_
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
Sam Sloan against Howcheng regarding Tom Dorsch
(soundly rejected - Dmcdevit 06:23, 11 February 2006)
_
"The act by Howcheng to delete my Tom
Dorsch article was clearly wrong. ... I need
an order of protection telling Howcheng
to stay from my articles until he learns
something about chess." - Sam Sloan
(03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Tom Dorsch
(deletion endorsed - Splash 23:53, 10 March 2006)
_
"the arbitration committee should consider
this dispute [with Paul Rubin]." - Sam Sloan
(10:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
[Sam Sloan vs. Paul Rubin]
(rejected - Sam Korn 11:11, 25 March 2006)
_
"[Ralf Callenberg] ... should not be allowed
to delete or modify my postings." - Sam
Sloan (01:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
[Sam Sloan vs. Ralf Callenberg]
(rejected - Sam Korn 11:11, 25 March 2006)
_
"I am requesting that, if possible and
legally allowed, your chess federation
bring a proceeding to censure or
reprimand or otherwise punish Herr
Callenberg." - Sam Sloan (Fri,
07 Apr 2006 14:54:46 GMT)
_
"Re Wikipedia: Don't take Sam Sloan's
goofy complaint seriously." - jr
(16 Apr 2006 11:47:22 -0700)
_
_
Take a look at
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chess_Life
_
for an example of what it can be like to have a
dispute with Sam Sloan. Here is part of an
example that took place here:
_
"If you are right, then I can
think of 100 people who would
pay the $40 so that Fischer be
allowed to play chess again."
- Sam Sloan (Thu, 26 Sep 2002
21:10:30 GMT)
_
_
"Fischer has stated that he
does not wish to be a member
of USCF and does not wish to
play standard chess again. On
that basis alone, I would say
that the USCF would be justified
to reject any attempt by a third
party to pay for a Fischer
membership in the USCF." - Louis
Blair (Thu, 26 Sep 2002
18:20:10 -0500)
_
_
"Sam Sloan wrote: When did he
say this? I am not aware of such
a statement.
_
Put up or shut up, Mr. Blair. I
am fairly certain that you just
lost this dabate. Time to set up
the pieces and try again." - Sam
Sloan (Fri, 27 Sep 2002
05:52:01 GMT)
_
_
"Fischer indicated his desire to
have nothing to do with the USCF
in 1992. See Seirawan's book,
No Regrets. As for Fischer and
standard chess, listen to the
Jan 27, 2002 Fischer radio
interview." - Louis Blair (Fri,
27 Sep 2002 03:23:04 -0500)
_
_
"I have listened to the Jan 27,
2002 Fischer radio interview. I
have it in my computer. Fisdcher
said nothing about the USCF. Not
even one word. He said, 'I don't
play the old chess any more,
period'. However, he also said
that he has spent a lot of time
studying the games of Kasparov
and Kramnik.
_
... you have not answered the
question which started all this.
_
You wrote 'Fischer has stated
that he does not wish to be a
member of USCF'.
_
My question was: When did he say
this? I am not aware of such a
statement.
_
Now, answer the question or shut
up already." - Sam Sloan (Fri,
27 Sep 2002 18:54:59 GMT)
_
_
"I never claimed that Fischer
said anything about USCF in [the
radio] interview. ... I repeat:
See Seirawan's book, No Regrets."
- Louis Blair (Fri, 27 Sep 2002
18:31:55 -0500)
_
_
"Ok. I admit that I have not read
the book. However, it was
published in 1992, which is ten
years ago. Assuming that the book
really contains such a quote,
which I doubt, still that would
at best reflect Fischer's views
ten years ago. That might be
entirely different from what
Fischer's views are now, a decade
later." - Sam Sloan (Sat, 28 Sep
2002 01:51:07 GMT)
_
_
"One thing we know about how
Fischer has changed since then is
that he now says things like, 'I
don't play the old chess any more,
period'.
_
Sam Sloan wrote, 'I can think of
100 people who would pay the $40
so that Fischer be allowed to play
chess again.'
_
It seems to me that, under the
circumstances, USCF would be
justified to reject an attempt by
a third party to pay for a Fischer
membership in the USCF. There
would have to be word from Fischer
himself that he wanted a
membership. Otherwise, he could
(as he has in the past) attack the
USCF for claiming Fischer as a
member when Fischer did not
consider himself to be a member."
- Louis Blair (Fri, 27 Sep 2002
21:19:41 -0500)
_
_
"I doubt that Fischer ever made the
statement that you claim he made,
at least not in that context."
- Sam Sloan (Sun, 29 Sep 2002
03:40:52 GMT)
_
_
"Allow me to jump in for Dr. Blair:
_
Q. The US House of Representatives
in Congress recognized you as
World Champion. Doesn't it annoy
you that the US Chess Federation
does not?
_
A. (Snipped comments on US House
of Representatives) ....As far as
the US Chess Federation goes, I
have nothing to do with them, I
consider them to be a pro-Soviet,
criminal organization, terrible
people. I would like... I would
appreciate it if all of my fans
cancelled their subscriptions to
their horrible magazine Chess
Life - I call it Chess Lies - and
withdrew from the membership of
this organization. I haven't been
a member of this organization for,
I don't know, maybe for about 17
years or something. I have a
strict practice not to open Chess
Life, since 1976 I haven't looked,
haven't touched it. I see the
cover, that's it, I never open it.
Also, the US Chess Federation even
now, I told them I'm not a member
of the organization and I have
nothing to do with them. Until
recently, they were still using my
name, saying I'm a member, trying
to solicit memberships using my
name. This is the kind of people
they are.
_
--- From the transcript of the
third press conference, September
14, 1992, as printed on pages
88-89 of No Regrets." - Neil
Brennen (Sun, 29 Sep 2002
01:28:44 -0400)
_
_
"Do you believe everything you
read in a book? I do not." - Sam
Sloan (Sun, 29 Sep 2002
09:27:55 GMT)
_
Would we want to have this sort of thing going
on at every USCF board meeting?
_
_
The key note for the Holiday Quiz incident:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newspeer1.asbnva01.us.to.verio.net!129.250.35.102.MISMATCH!newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net.POSTED!8b18be56!not-for-mail
From: sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Innes on Sloan (was: Topalov accused of Cheating to Win
World Chess Championship)
Organization: Ishi Press
Reply-To: sl...@ishipress.com
Message-ID: <43b2d3ef....@ca.news.verio.net>
References: <43b1a619...@ca.news.verio.net>
<1135720845.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<vqjsf.1467$D43.1364@trndny06>
<1135724030.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<G_jsf.1608$L53.140@trndny07>
<1135726062.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<30vsf.6288$Wl3.5763@trndny04>
<1135777842....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<c3xsf.635$SW3.623@trndny08>
<1135780091.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<_Bxsf.1909$lv3.704@trndny03>
<1135782505....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<43b2b0a5...@ca.news.verio.net> <ZOysf.745$SW3.575@trndny08>
<1135791103.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 43
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:09:39 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net 1135793384 68.199.110.255
(Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:09:44 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:09:44 GMT
On 28 Dec 2005 09:31:43 -0800, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
>Chess One wrote:
>> I really wanted to point out that Frank made his corrective statement to
>> you, Sam Sloan ...
>
> Which you did by repeatedly claiming the statement came from Al
>Lawrence.
>
>> and you would include the correction as an update to the
>> entry, as an example of trying to be honest. That has been the general
>> contention here - to fairly represent a subject.
>
> Indeed it is. As an example of Sloan's fairness, honesty and factual
>correctness, I would submit his repeated allegations of a USCF Sales
>"blacklist" and his claim that "Taylor Kingston is involved with USCF
>Sales and is the perpetrator of the blacklist."
> As I have repeatedly pointed out to Sam:
>
> A) To my knowledge, no such blacklist exists,
> B) If it does, I have had no part in creating it, and
> C) I have had no involvment ever with USCF Sales, except for buying
>the occasional book.
>
>> What I didn't like is the assumption that this willingness to be corrected
>> is not the case ...
>
> So then, when may we expect Sam to justify your faith, and correct
>and/or retract any or all of his false statements above? When may we
>expect him to improve his seriously under-researched (a favorite term
>of yours, Phil) "article" on Hanon Russell, say, by actually contacting
>Russell himself?
If that is the case, then kindly explain why when I look at the
chesscafe.com website I see the words "Taylor Kingston & Hanon
Russell" prominently displayed at the top.
Is this a mistake, or is Hanon Russell deliberately slandering you by
publicly associating you with his blacklisting operation?
Sam Sloan
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Louis Blair
look at more of the Wikipedia stuff:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=39178616&oldid=39171201
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&diff=43217170&oldid=43215421
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=45444953&oldid=45399095
parrt...@cs.com
<You say you were going to vote for him anyway, so no
biggie. I tend to think there aren't a whole lot of votes to
be had among those reading RGCP anyway.> -- Randy Bauer
There are veteran insiders and parvenu insiders.
I disagree with Randy Bauer, if such were his
point, that there are not a large number of USCF
voters at rgcp. The issue is how many can be
influenced at this point.
>Character trumps platform any day.> -- Randy Bauer
I agree that character is important when assessing
a candidate, which is why I could never support Randy
Bauer, a tax-looter, for USCF office.
Sam Sloan's personal character may be spotty, but it
appears to me a whole lot cleaner than that of a Bauer
or that of an ego-poltroon such as Taylor Kingston.
Sam has issued an interesting platform, and he
consistently discusses issues rather than personality
in spite of the mudslinging by the Messrs. Bauer and
Brock. One stands in frank amazement at Sam's
restraint in the face of their daily attacks.
As in repeating a mantra, Mr. Bauer, who is the
lead attack dog for the Executive Board, once again
tells us that Sam was convicted of a felony, but he
will not say what the "crime" happened to be.
Then, he moves on to Sam losing a security license,
implying ex omissio that Sam was convicted of bilking someone.
Next he tries to turn Sam's loss of a taxi license into a crime of
some kind, whereas if one understands the corrupt nature of NYC
licensing, it is likely a virtue on Sam's part.
Finally, the man speaks of Sam writing tastelessly about
sexual exploits, declining to repeat the Brockian mantra
about Sam being a child molester -- an interesting omission,
though perhaps merely inadvertant.
ONCE AGAIN:
1. Sam's felony was to take his own daughter, disobeying a
court order.
This affair of the heart would not have been in our ever-more
encompassing court system two generations back. Any father
might have acted the same, including our Mr. Bauer, if God forbid,
circumstances ever so dictate -- at which point, we would have
Mr. Bauer sanctimoniously announcing that he could never bring
himself to vote for a felon such as himself.
2. Sam, who is not a lawyer, argued his securities case
before the U.S. Supreme Court AND WON by a 9-0 vote, but
to overturn the bureaucratic edict, he would have had to spend
many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal battles for
which he did not have the wherewithal.
3. Sam's losing a NYC taxi license is likely a
sign of honesty on his part.
4. As for sexual tastelessness, it is all a
matter of taste. Sam's revelations violate my sense
of the fitting, but so do the priggish harping of our
Mr. Bauer and the obsessional repetition of unproven
charges by Mr. Brock. If one had to choose between
Sam's lapses and the practices of Bauer-Brock, I
would take Sam's any day.
parrt...@cs.com
The Sam Sloan diaper episode was one of the
early attacks on Sam Sloan, conducted by Stan Booz
(Beatriz Marinello's right hand man) who was heading
up the smear campaign two elections back.
Then came Bill Brock. And now, for this
election, Randy Bauer is the point man for the
Executive Board. He hopes to get rewarded by the
insiders in case he decides to run again after losing
the last election.
The charge was that Sam did a poor job at
changing a dirty diaper. There may be a father
somewhere who does pristine work in this department.
I was not one of them, but perhaps Randy Bauer will
pronounce himself proficient.
politi...@gmail.com
<< As for sexual tastelessness, it is all a
matter of taste. Sam's revelations violate my sense
of the fitting, but so do the priggish harping of our
Mr. Bauer and the obsessional repetition of unproven
charges by Mr. Brock. If one had to choose between
Sam's lapses and the practices of Bauer-Brock, I
would take Sam's any day.>>
If I were to provide links to five separate collections of source
material (total citations not to exceed twenty-five; total links to
photos/illustrations hosted elsewhere not to exceed fifteen), and quote
them verbatim here [redacted for their relevance to my private
obsession ;-) & because life is short], would you agree to provide your
*textual* commentary on each collection in rgcp?
http://philosophons.free.fr/corriges/methode/explication.htm
No commentary from me in the presentation itself; just primary sources.
g4
> Sam has issued an interesting platform, and he
> consistently discusses issues rather than personality
Oh boy! Louis Blair is going to have a field day refuting that last
whopper. Pick a month ... any month ... and one can easily find
hundreds (if not thousands) of mud-slinging from sloan.
> in spite of the mudslinging by the Messrs. Bauer and
> Brock. One stands in frank amazement at Sam's
> restraint in the face of their daily attacks.
>
"Editor" liarry must have those funhouse mirrors in his home ... you
know, the ones which distorts all images ... where big looks small,
fat looks thin, etc. Right now his mirror has sloan showing restraint? LOL.
I'll bet that same mirror shows parr's head the size of a jelly bean.
parrt...@cs.com
<Oh boy! Louis Blair is going to have a field day refuting that last
whopper. Pick a month ... any month ... and one can easily find
hundreds (if not thousands) of mud-slinging from sloan.> Mr. No Name
And how many of those posts are from the fake Sam Sloan?
Speaking of our friend Louie, if he wants evidence of what Winter
wrote about Kasparov ghosting BCO why doesn't he accept GM
Keene's offer to mail or fax him the Winter material in full instead of
repeating the same rants over and over?
Louis Blair
> The charge was that Sam did a poor job at
> changing a dirty diaper.
_
I do not think that that accurately describes the charge.
I was not there and can not say whether or not the
charge is justified, but rec.games.chess.politics
readers got a chance to see what the charge was:
Louis Blair
> If one had to choose between Sam's lapses and
> the practices of Bauer-Brock, ...
_
"there are five certified candidates for the
two open slots on the USCF Executive
Board. They are: Mike Goodall, Randy
Hough, Grant Perks, Ernie Schlich, and
Sam Sloan." - Sam Sloan (Tue,
18 Apr 2006 05:16:22 GMT)
Louis Blair
> Speaking of our friend Louie, if he wants evidence of
> what Winter wrote about Kasparov ghosting BCO why
> doesn't he accept GM Keene's offer to mail or fax him
> the Winter material in full instead of repeating the same
> rants over and over?
_
The only GM Keene offer that I have seen was in a
paragraph that referred to "praising" of BCO. I have
no interest in seeing quotes of praising of BCO. If
GM Keene DID offer to send the recently posted
"role of kasparov", "my doubts", and "exaggerated
use" quotes, we could probably arrange for me to
examine them and express an opinion about whether
or not the omitted context makes a significant
difference with regard to the apparent meaning, but
it must be understood that that still would not settle
a central question.
_
"Does GM Keene contend that these
quotes can be fairly described as a
'claim' 'that kasparov's contribution to
bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted'?" - Louis Blair (27 Apr 2006
22:33:03 -0700)
_
GM Keene does not seem to want to answer.
For that matter, Larry Parr also does not seem to be
eager to say whether or not he thinks these latest
quotes can be fairly described as a "claim" "that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford chess openings
was ghosted".
Louis Blair
> Pick a month ... any month ... and one can easily
> find hundreds (if not thousands) of mud-slinging
> from sloan.
_
Larry Parr wrote (3 May 2006 19:40:39 -0700):
> And how many of those posts are from the fake
> Sam Sloan?
_
A google search for rgcp notes referring to a
"fake Sam Sloan" produces nothing before
16 May 2005 08:36:03 -0700. However, well
before that, Larry Parr felt that it was appropriate
to acknowledge:
_
"[Sam Sloan's] name-calling is deplorable."
- Larry Parr (10 Dec 2004 15:48:46 GMT)
_
I am not sure what exactly Larry Parr was reacting to,
but here is a sample of what we had been seeing:
_
"Tim Hanke was fired from his job just a
few weeks ago and now says that he
want to become Editor of Chess Life.
Beatriz Marinello is a notorious lesbian
who lives with a woman and has no
regular or known source of income and
no verifiable job. It seems strange that
two people of such questionable
backgrounds would be entrusted with
such a large amount of money." - Sam
Sloan (Fri, 10 Dec 2004 03:23:53 GMT)
(sl...@ishipress.com)
_
(The recent "$am $loan for USCF Executive Board"
note was also from sl...@ishipress.com.)
Jerzy
>> I claim that Sam is your political opponent and you want to defame him,
>> Herr
>> Bauer together with your colleagues like moronic Bill Brock.
>
> I don't need to defame him - the facts do the job just fine.
>
Of course you want to defame him by accusing him of crimes he did not
commit.
That`s your ill-will, Herr Bauer.
politi...@gmail.com
supporting the Sam Sloan allegations, Jerzy.
parrt...@cs.com
>Were one motivated, one could subpoena Blogger or
whomever. Most likely, the email address used to create
the blog is itself a cutout.> -- Bill Brock
Bill Brock appears to be saying that there is no
way to trace the origin of the third-party attack
containing traces of Randy Bauer's hidden hand.
I imagine that such is true if the party involved
set about to cover his tracks. But Randy Bauer may
have slipped up this time and his cohort on the Finance
Committee lacks the appetitite to investigate further.
.
If there are any among you who have computer expertise,
try to trace the origin of the attack. IF Mr. Bauer is the one,
which may be the case based on his four-letter advocacy
and his relentless smears against Sam Sloan, then we can
close out his USCF political career once and for all.
politi...@gmail.com
I'll provide a full accounting of the fees (nothing for myself or
related parties) and refund the difference.
Louis Blair
> IF Mr. Bauer is the one, ...
_
"OK, Larry - get out the tired lie
detector issue, because you and
anybody else can raise all the
money you want. I will take a test
anywhere, anytime asking whether
I created that sick content, and
whether I had any advance knowledge
of it. Think Jason would do the same?"
- Randy Bauer (Thu, 04 May 2006
10:49:11 GMT)
_
Does Larry Parr think that this offer settles the
matter? If not, why not?
politi...@gmail.com
this legally? In creating the blog, one has to provide an email
address, inaccessible AFAIK to anyone outside of blogspot.com.
<OccamsRazorFreeZone>
Who'd be more likely to use the spelling "favours," Randy Bauer or
Jason Repa? Most certainly Bauer, as he could have "pretended" to
slip, but then subsequently frame Repa for having carelessly used the
Canadian spelling.
Equally likely is George John, the only rgcp poster with English as
first language who has used the misspelling "collegue." Again, this is
probably John's clumsy attempt to pin the blog entry upon Repa (bearing
in mind that the French cognate is collègue, and that this English
misspelling is therefore more likely to be made by a Canadian than an
American). Transparent on George's part....
</OccamsRazorFreeZone>
Randy Bauer
anything other than a dirty trick by Jason Repa. It's almost sad to
see Parr either taken in by this chimpanzee masquerading as an ape or
willing to parrot his bull to serve a political purpose.
First, as Bill Brock notes, it is very easy to concoct this sort of
forgery, and Repa has cyber-stalked me and my family before. In fact,
the last time occurred during the last election, when once I showed
Parr the evidence of Repa's bad deeds, he rescinded support for a post
Repa had made against me.
Second, Repa suddenly reappears with a Gmail address and just a couple
days later, this revelation, from a mysterous Frank F -- never posted
here before -- with a Gmail address gives us his sleuthing evidence of
my supposed post of a fake blog of Susan Polgar.
Keep in mind, Susan Polgar is a friend, a person I admire and respect.
It is ludicrous to suggest that I would post a blog that makes her look
bad with the flimsy excuse that it contains a link to Sloan, which
might, to somebody (if they ever saw it), lead them to think badly of
Sloan.
Give me a break - what a house of cards. There is no reason to make
something up about Sloan -- his website alone and his many newsgroup
posts contain stuff more prurient than this blog I supposedly created
and masqueraded as him.
Meanwhile, Parr talks of relentless "smears" of Sam Sloan, which
consist of me noting his felony conviction, prison time, and loss of
both a securities and cab license. Quite a smear; somehow Parr equates
this as similar to the abuse of our boy, Jason Repa. Perhaps Parr --
and anybody else -- should Google Repa on RGCP over the last few years.
If Parr can honestly claim he is a credible source, I'll get out the
polygraph machine.
Randy Bauer
Randy Bauer
Very good, Bill - you are a much better sleuther than I. No doubt Parr
will ignore all this, he being linquistically challenged.
Randy Bauer
parrt...@cs.com
>Since Larry Parr is motivated, he'll forward $1,000
to me for costs. I'll provide a full accounting of the fees
(nothing for myself or related parties) and refund the
difference.> -- Bill Brock
Bill Brock can never see the point. He tries.
Gawd knows he tries. But....
Once again THE POINT: Randy Bauer's name was
left hanging in what he claims to be a forgery.
I say that Mr. Bauer would enjoy an overwhelming
presumption of innocence (in addition, to the usual
presumption we accord those accused, including Jason
Repa) if a thorough search of the message source leads
to a dead end. Why? Because if Mr. Bauer is really
behind the third-party assault that tried to implicate
Sam Sloan, he did NOT know how to hide himself as a
source, and a search will lead to him. If it leads to
a deadend, then we may assume with fair certainty that
someone else concocted the assault.
It is not up to me to pay for an investigation
that can clear Mr. Bauer's name. But if someone with
computer expertise who is not a louse or if someone
on the side of the angels knows how to do these things,
a search that leads to a deadend, given Mr. Bauer's
apparent relative computer illiteracy, will leave him
enjoying an overwhelming presumption of innocence.
ANYONE CAN SEE THAT.
On the other hand, if Mr. Bauer ... well, let's find out.
parrt...@cs.com
>Since Larry Parr is motivated, he'll forward $1,000
to me for costs. I'll provide a full accounting of the fees
(nothing for myself or related parties) and refund the
politi...@gmail.com
Bauer's name.>>
And it is not up to me to pay for an investiagion that proves that Sam
Sloan, contrary to the evidence presented ad nauseam by Sloan himself
(& re-presented ad nauseam by yours truly, if only because Sloan's
allies have a habit of ducking inconvenient questions), is neither a
child molester nor an apologist for child molestation.
That's why we need the close reading skills of Larry Parr to focus on
Sam Sloan's Wikipedia essays re Jefferson Poland.
***
***
***
In the following two excerpts, Sam Sloan appears to defend Jefferson
Poland, with whom Sloan co-authored the book _Sex Marchers_, against
allegations of molesting a girl. In the first passage excepted below,
Sloan accuses the child's parents of being "obviously complici[t]" in
the molestation. In the contradictory second passage, Sloan accuses the
child's parents of themselves "abusing the child."
Sloan presents no evidence for the parent's complicity in Poland's
molestation or for his claim that the parents themselves abused the
daughter. Poland's curious choice of surname (see below) would tend to
suggest otherwise.
Poland is indeed a registered sex offender in the state of California,
as one may ascertain via http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
To verify Poland's colorful aliases, see http://www.nsopr.gov/ & do a
national search (be sure to include CA)
LAST NAME "Poland"
FIRST NAME "Jefferson"
...then click on result (POLAND, JOHN JEFFERSON, AKA POLAND, JEFFERSON
[zip code 94109])
...then click on "Known Aliases." Here's the Federal Government's
results:
<<CLITLICK, JEFFERSON
CLITLICK, JOHN
FUCK, JEFFERSON
POLAND, JEFF
POLAND, JEFFERSON F
POLAND, JEFFERSON FUCK
POLAND, JEFFERSON JOHN >>
--WHB, revised 5/5/06
***
***
***
EXCERPT 1:
The author of the following passage from an earlier version of the
Wikipedia article on Jefferson Poland was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Poland&oldid=41759835
<<In the early 1980s, Poland was charged with child molestation.
Apparently, a nudist couple, including David Irving and his girlfriend,
had entrusted Poland with the care of their daughter while they were
nude sunbathing on Black's Beach in La Jolla, California near San
Diego. Some time later, the nudist couple accused Poland of having
performed cunnalingus [sic--WHB] on their daughter while they were nude
sunbathing. Poland fled the country rather than face these charges. He
lived for five years as a fugitive in Australia until 1988, when he was
extradited back to America. In view of the passage of time and the
obvious complicity of his accusers, Poland probably could have
successfully fought the charges. However, by that time he had changed
his name legally to "Clitlick" and he preferred to plead guilty to the
cunnalingus [sic--WHB] charge. He served about nine months in San Diego
County Jail. Upon his release, he returned to live in San Francisco. He
turned over his archives to the Bancroft Library of the University of
California at Berkeley, where they are now available for public viewing
by academic researchers. Poland now lives in San Francisco, where he is
monitored as a registered sex offender. >>
END EXCERPT 1
***
***
***
EXCERPT 2
On the Wikipedia talk page for the article on Jefferson Poland,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan (Sam Sloan)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jefferson_Poland&oldid=46335207
wrote:
<<I have not seen or spoken to Jefferson Poland since 1967. However,
based on what I have read, I strongly suspect that he was the victim of
a setup. In the years I knew him, I never saw him express any interest
in children. I never even saw him express much interest in adult woman,
except that he had a girlfriend, Holly Tannen, who followed him around
like a little puppy-dog everywhere he went.
Those were the glory days of sexual freedom. There was always a bevy of
naked hippie chicks laying around with their legs spread open waiting
for some guy to come along. I partook of these opportunities
frequently, but I never saw Jefferson have sex with a woman, although
there were plenty of available women around.
My guess is that the nudist couple were themselves abusing the child.
Then, they left the child briefly in the care of Jefferson, so that
they could come back and accuse him of what they had actually done. If
the San Diego prosecutor really had proof that Jefferson was guilty, he
would not have let him off with only nine months in jail. Sam Sloan
16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) >>
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jefferson_Poland"
END EXCERPT 2
***
***
***
The following article by Jefferson Poland himself offers an account at
odds with Sloan's:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Clitlick2.html
<<CONFESSIONS OF A NUDIST CHILD MOLESTER
(reprinted for educational purposes from Nude and Natural 10.1)
by Jeff Poland
[*Prefatory paragraph by web editor Nikki Craft*] What follows is
Clitlick's article published in Lee Baxandall's magazine. Baxandall
used the article to shift the connection from the naturists onto the
nudists, when -- in this case -- the nudists deserved to take none of
it. Clitlick was a long time naturist. He was a writer for Lee
Baxandall and he was a long time free beach and free love/sex advocate.
[*End prefatory paragraph by web editor Nikki Craft*--WHB]
I AM A RECOVERING PEDOPHILE. Every two weeks I receive injections
of a female hormone (medroxyprogesterone) designed to counteract my
testosterone, thus depressing my libido- a process known as "chemical
castration." I also attend weekly group psychotherapy sessions, in a
cognitive restructuring ("brainwash") program for sex offenders (mostly
incestuous fathers, step-fathers, and grandfathers).
My crime occurred in 1980 or earlier. Thru swinging, I had met a
ultra-liberal nudist family. The parents attended and hosted
adults-only orgies. The children went with them on nude camping trips
and visits to the nude beach. Although I was a self-described
pedophile, the parents allowed me to befriend their two children, a boy
and a girl, then around 7 and 8.
Most of my interaction with the kids consisted of innocent play,
usually nude. In addition, I fondled the girl's vulva and occasionally
performed cunnilingus on her. I never had erections in their presence,
nor did I ask them to perform any sexual acts on me.
I was romantically in love with my girl victim, although I
realized her feelings for me amounted merely to friendship. In my
fantasy I was her lover; in practice, her playmate.
My urge was driven by several factors: First, I genuinely enjoy
the company of children, more than most adults do. Second, I am unable
to maintain an erection with any partner (man, woman, girl, or boy)
which is a severe handicap in adult relationships; but no handicap with
children. Third, my ideal woman would be quite petite (like my mother,
who was only 5 ft. tall, and thin); so girls are attractive by being
short, and by having slender bodies and smooth skin. Fourth, I lack
attributes expected of an adult male (no job, no car, no dancing
ability, etc.); which makes it difficult to relate to adult women,
especially as I age; but kids don't care if you're old and poor; they
merely seek attention. Fifth, I am emotionally child-like and childish
myself.
I developed an elaborate rationalization ("stinkin' thinkin' ")
to justify my behavior. I believed that sexual pleasure was inherently
good, and that some (not all) types of erotic play were age-appropriate
for children, such as masturbation, fondling, and nudity. If sex were
basically good, then sexual learning would begin as soon as the child
showed interest.(Precocity in music is praised; but sexual ignorance is
considered virtue.) I believed that my needs suited me to be an erotic
mentor to an intelligent child.
I believed that such relationships, with the knowledge and
consent of the parents, could become acceptable in advanced societies
such as Denmark or the Netherlands. And among avant-garde life-stylers
here. But I failed to worry enough about the reaction of the straight
state.
I also failed to consider the extreme changeability of kids. One
can expect an adult to hold similar views from year to year. But the
views of children are continually changing-generally away from their
parents' views and toward those of their schoolmates. Thus nudist
children tend to become more prudish as they grow older, reflecting the
views of their non-nudist peers. A small child shares her parents' view
point, however unusual; while an older child or teen conforms to social
norms.
My victim's views have changed toward conventionality. The
problem of consent rearises: Will this activity be acceptable not only
today, but also next year when remembered?
My relationship ended around 1980, when my victim informed her
parents of our forbidden games. The police found out in 1983. I became
a fugitive until 1988, when the law finally caught me. In jail, quite
depressed, I attempted to cut off one of my testicles. Unfortunately I
failed.
I was charged with three counts of fondling and three counts of
cunnilingus. My victim was willing to testify against me. My lawyer
negotiated a plea-bargain under which I would serve a one-year county
jail sentence, and then be released on probation for 5 years. I pled
guilty to one count of fondling, and the other five counts were
dropped.
If I violate probation, I can be sent to state prison for a 5-yr
sentence. Probably I wouldn't survive prison, as "normal" prisoners
harass and try to kill pedophiles; this is one way in which an ordinary
criminal can redeem himself.
My problem now is to complete probation successfully. The
chemical castration and cognitive therapy are prescribed by court
order. To associate with children or to go where children congregate, I
would need a chaperone an adult who knows that I'm on probation for
fondling. I am also required to obey all laws (except traffic laws);
which means that I cannot go nude at the nude beach, where nudity is
unofficially tolerated but technically illegal. (I am avoiding the nude
beach anyway, as I expect my former friends there would reject me now
as a convicted child-molester.)
I realize now how futile it is to try to explain my experiences.
Most people-including educated, intelligent, sexually-tolerant
people-view the pedophile as an insane rapist, whose motives are not
worth examining. While the ignorant would kill the pedophile, the
educated would incarcerate him for life in hospital or prison. --Jeff
Poland >>
Also see the related article
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Clitlick.html
***
***
***
Jefferson Poland does not defend his conduct. Why does Sam Sloan
defend the conduct of the confessed child molester?
And why does Larry Parr champion the character of Sam Sloan, an
apologist for a convicted child molester?
parrt...@cs.com
Instead of pursuing the topic of Randy Bauer's possible
involvement in what he claims to be a forgery, his cohort
on the Finance Committee Bill Brock, changes not only the
subject and deletes the topic from rec.games.chess.misc
but also the changes the name of this thread as well.
From: Why I voted for Sam
To: Larry Parr examines Sloan's defense of J. Poland
Is this the kind of behavior expected from USCF officials?
And so it goes.
klg...@mailinator.com
> Only Parr posing as a politik could believe this ham-handed effort is
> anything other than a dirty trick by Jason Repa. It's almost sad to
> see Parr either taken in by this chimpanzee masquerading as an ape or
> willing to parrot his bull to serve a political purpose.
>
> First, as Bill Brock notes, it is very easy to concoct this sort of
> forgery, and Repa has cyber-stalked me and my family before. In fact,
> the last time occurred during the last election, when once I showed
> Parr the evidence of Repa's bad deeds, he rescinded support for a post
> Repa had made against me.
>
> Second, Repa suddenly reappears with a Gmail address and just a couple
> days later, this revelation, from a mysterous Frank F -- never posted
> here before -- with a Gmail address gives us his sleuthing evidence of
> my supposed post of a fake blog of Susan Polgar.
Randy,
You "left out" the part about the posting host of Frank F.
(205.200.3.190) tracing to mts.net, that www.mts.net is
MyManitoba.com with a home base of Winnipeg, and
this recent Repa quote (from the Sam Sloan - Jail? thread):
"...and committing suicide. I'll save you the phone call the Jack
Kavorkian, you can come to Winnipeg Manitoba and i'll provide
the service free of charge.
Jason Repa"
but I wouldn't expect this (certainly not conclusive) evidence to
silence Mr. Parr. Decent persons interested in honest, honorable
debate wouldn't have posted a conditional-laden attack on this
matter in the first place and I wouldn't expect him to take the decent
path at this point in the discussion, at least based on his recent
behavior in this forum.
Really Larry, you continue to debase yourself, each day, with your
disingenuous, 'just havin' a good time' style of distortion that you
present as legitimate argumentation. It continues to embarrass
to see one of your potential settle for such low self-standards,
left in the ether for posterity's viewing. Grow up.
Kirk
Louis Blair
> ... Instead of pursuing the topic of Randy Bauer's
> possible involvement in ...
politi...@gmail.com
involvement in what he claims to be a forgery, his cohort
on the Finance Committee Bill Brock, changes not only the
subject and deletes the topic from rec.games.chess.misc
but also the changes the name of this thread as well.>>
One of us tries to respect the difference between rgcp and rgcm; one of
us crossposts.
I've been willing to examine your virtually groundless accusations
against a good man. Now kindly examine the Jefferson Poland matter WRT
Sloan.
Pretend it's the Szen position: you're really good at analysis.
politi...@gmail.com
disingenuous, 'just havin' a good time' style of distortion that you
present as legitimate argumentation. It continues to embarrass
to see one of your potential settle for such low self-standards,
left in the ether for posterity's viewing. Grow up. >>
Jason Repa could not possibly be that careless: he's a brilliant man
(roughly USCF 2400).
I agree with Larry Parr: this is more evidence implicating Randy Bauer.
jr
Parr asked whodunit? If there is a way to find the truth,
why not pursue it?
If Randy Bauer played no hand in this deception (which I
tend to believe) then he should be the one loudly calling for
an investigation to clear his name -- not Parr.
Apart from accusing the grim Repa, however, I haven't seen
Randy eager to pursue this issue or prove it was a forgery.
I respectfully suggest that Randy's ally Bill Brock does his pal
no good trying to bury the problem by smearing Sam Sloan again and
again with matters unrelated to chess.
Randy Bauer
jr wrote:
> * I wouldn't expect this (certainly not conclusive) evidence to
> silence Mr. Parr.* (Kirk)
>
> Parr asked whodunit? If there is a way to find the truth,
> why not pursue it?
>
> If Randy Bauer played no hand in this deception (which I
> tend to believe) then he should be the one loudly calling for
> an investigation to clear his name -- not Parr.
The VERY FIRST thing I said in response to this crock, when first
raised, was along the lines of I hope somebody with better knowledge of
the workings of the Internet will investigate it. First, Bill pointed
out how easy it is to mess around with html code, then another pointed
out the fact that these posts raising the issue were all coming out of
Winnipeg, the home of our boy Jason Repa.
Exactly how would one go about investigating this further, and who
would do it? I'm confident that anybody who examines the posts to date
and examines Repa's past bad acts toward me and others will reach the
conclusion that the claims being made have no basis in logic or fact.
I am also more than willing to take a lie detector test on this.
>
> Apart from accusing the grim Repa, however, I haven't seen
> Randy eager to pursue this issue or prove it was a forgery.
How would you propose I "prove it was a forgery?" If you have some
reasonable suggestion, I'm all ears.
Randy Bauer
politi...@gmail.com
<< How would you propose I "prove it was a forgery?" If you have some
reasonable suggestion, I'm all ears. >>
Parr is anxious to contend that you may be a liar, Randy, as it gives
him an excuse to avoid talking about the fact that Mr. Thai Soldiers on
Leave has once again endorsed a child molester who is also an apologist
for child molestation. He likes to defame people without evidence (the
"I don't believe this but I'll repeat it" trick).
I'm willing to make a side bet with Parr (at odds of 100-1, maximum bet
$100 to win $10,000) that no evidence will be found that makes it
likely (more than 50% probability) that Bauer was the other party.
Specification: an email address of "randy...@xyz.com" is
unconvincing, as that could be easily created (email me at
randy...@billbrock.net if you don't believe me); OTOH, tracing to an
email address / URL commonly used by Bauer (as opposed to a spoof of
such address) probably would be. A knowledgable third party (or panel
of three such persons) acceptable to both Parr and me may be named to
adjudicate. Because Parr's word is worthless, his bet would need to be
placed in escrow beforehand.
Therefore, Parr should be happy to send me (or some other third party
you & Parr agree upon) the funds necessary to hire an atty to serve
blogspot.com & obtain the email address. IANAL, but I believe that
only someone with an immediate interest in this (you or one of the
individuals defamed in the blog) could do this. Personally, I would
not bother, as the email address is most likely a cutout. But if Parr
does so & wins the bet, I will also reimburse him for the cost of the
legal discovery on top of his winnings.
Of course, Parr won't put up. (It would involve opening his wallet.)
So let's return to Parr's failure to address "[his] man" Sam Sloan's
apologia for Jefferson Poland's child molestation.
Randy Bauer
Agreed; when you two decide on the bet and arrange the attorney, I will
be more than happy to participate as the injured party. Just to make
it worth Parr's while (or anybody else for that matter), I will place a
side bet with that person as well.
If this "level of proof" isn't sufficient for them, I will also place
another side bet on me passing a polygraph test that I had no knowledge
of and nothing to do with the blog posting.
Randy Bauer
Louis Blair
wrote (5 May 2006 07:55:43 -0700):
> Apart from accusing the grim Repa, however, I
> haven't seen Randy eager to pursue this issue
> or prove it was a forgery.
_
"OK, Larry - get out the tired lie
detector issue, because you and
anybody else can raise all the
money you want. I will take a test
anywhere, anytime asking whether
I created that sick content, and
whether I had any advance knowledge
of it." - Randy Bauer (Thu, 04 May 2006
10:49:11 GMT)
Nick
There's a potential 'RGCP Grudge Match' between
Randy Bauer (2304 USCF) and FM Jerzy Ciruk (2215 FIDE).
Randy Bauer
Works for me, but where does Jerzy live -- certainly not Jersey? I'm
not doing a trans-Atlantic trip for that purse.
Randy Bauer
politi...@gmail.com
kidnappying his daughter. >>
While it's true that Sloan kidnapped his daughter, he was not
*convicted* of kidnapping, but of two lesser felonies related to the
same incident. (I had previously made the same mistake.)
Similary, Sloan reports that his acquaintance Jefferson Poland was
convicted of having performed cunnilingus on an eight-year-old girl
(even as Sloan elsewhere excuses Poland's conduct); according to
Poland's own account, however, he was convicted of a lesser charge in a
plea bargain.
Jerzy
> Works for me, but where does Jerzy live -- certainly not Jersey? I'm
> not doing a trans-Atlantic trip for that purse.
>
We can play thru internet if you have enough courage. My nick is
"Jerzy64" on ICC.
John J.
Tidbit:
If it were not for 2 Polish military men in WW2, the outcome of the war
might have been quite different!
"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146869145....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jerzy
> I think he's in Poland.
Right John. J., I am right now in northern east of Poland in the city
named Suwalki.
> Tidbit:
>
> If it were not for 2 Polish military men in WW2, the outcome of the war
> might have been quite different!
Of course you forgot Pulaski and Kosciuszko who created the USA.
Tip : use simple rules of netiquette and discussion with you will be
more pleasant.
Kenneth Sloan
> I think he's in Poland.
>
> Tidbit:
>
> If it were not for 2 Polish military men in WW2, the outcome of the war
> might have been quite different!
Were those the two who fought back?
--
Kenneth Sloan sl...@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/