Main
Date: 06 Feb 2009 05:55:56
From: samsloan
Subject: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
Two of the candidates for the USCF Executive Board are involved in a
situation where they failed to pay the guaranteed prizes. This is
considered to be a very serious in the USCF and often results in
suspension of tournament directing or organizing privileges or
suspension of the right to advertise tournaments in Chess Life.

The tournament was the 2008 Miami Open. An exceptionally big prize
fund was advertised. Then the possibility developed that Hurricane Ike
might hit. As it turned out, Hurricane Ike did not hit Florida.

The question of whether to sanction Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht is before
the Executive Director now, but the Executive Director states that he
is not going to rule on this question now that the two organizers,
Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht, are candidates for the board.

There have been many, many times when Bill Goichberg has suffered big
financial losses at his tournaments due to bad weather and other
problems. Bill Goichberg has always paid the guaranteed prizes
regardless of how big his losses have been. He deserves credit for
that.

In the case of Mr. Blas Lugo and Mr. Eric Hecht, from what very little
I understand about this, there was a threatened hurricane but the
hurricane never hit. Also, the advance entries were low so the
tournament would have suffered a big loss even without the threat of a
hurricane. Mr. Lugo and Mr. Hecht only paid 50% of the guaranteed
prizes and now the players are complaining. Now Mr. Lugo and Mr. Hecht
are running for the board. The board normally decides what to do about
these situations. These are legitimate questions to be asking and
these candidates should address this issue.

Sam Sloan




 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 21:04:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Feb 12, 4:02 pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com > wrote:

>
> Did Sam's membership lapse?
>
> If so, when?
>
> Did he reapply?
>
> Was it reinstated?

To repeat:

Rob the Robber is not a USCF Member and has no legitimate interest in
this thread.

Somebody on the USCF Issues Forum stated he thought that my membership
had lapsed briefly in 2006. He was mistaken. It was the membership of
another Board member that lapsed for about two hours. When somebody
mentioned it on the forum, I called the person at 2:00 AM. This person
got up out of bed, renewed the membership online and went back to
sleep.

That other person was not a USCF member for about two hours, but
nobody realized it or made an issue over it.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 19:01:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
Non-member Rob the Robber invades a thread that does not concern him
at all to change the title and ask a stupid question:

On Feb 12, 4:02 pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Did Sam's membership lapse?
>
> If so, when?
>
> Did he reapply?
>
> Was it reinstated?

If Rob was a USCF member he would know that somebody on the USCF
Issues Forum had stated that my membership had lapsed briefly in 2006.
However, that person was mistaken. It was another board member whose
membership lapsed for about two hours. The person simply had forgotten
to renew but when reminded did so immediately. Because that person was
a non-member for only about two hours, nobody noticed or made an issue
over it.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 13:02:09
From: Rob
Subject: Sam SLoan Lapsed Membership:was Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric
On Feb 12, 4:45=A0am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> [quote=3D"rfeditor"][quote=3D"samsloan"]I hereby protest to the locking o=
f
> the thread entitled "First Questions for Blas Lugo".
>
> It is true that the discussion had turned into a discussion about me
> and whether my membership had lapsed or not.
>
> However, there are other ways of dealing with that, rather than
> locking the thread. Shutting down the thread makes it look like the
> moderators are protecting Blas Lugo from having to answer embarrassing
> questions.
>
> Sam Sloan[/quote]
>
> Now, that's just silly. Blas Lugo has never shown the slightest
> interest in answering any questions. Your complaint makes it look like
> you want the thread to continue maundering on irrelevantly about you.
> If you think it's worthwhile raising the same questions again, start
> another thread. Of course, no one has had anything new to say on the
> subject for some time.
>
> John Hillery =A0[/quote]
>
> On the subject of "disparaging remarks", John Hillery here attacks
> virtually everything I write. I can hardly remember a single posting
> by me either on the USCF Issues Forum or on rgcp that was not attacked
> by John Hillery. I am not complaining because I am in favor of Freedom
> of Speech, but there seems to be a double-standard where only the
> mildest criticism on anybody on the board majority is allowed but
> direct attacks on disfavored persons such as myself are permitted.
>
> The thread "meandered off" not because of anything I wrote but because
> somebody asked the question of whether my USCF membership has ever
> lapsed in the 53 years that I have been a USCF member since 1956. The
> moderators could have moved that line of questioning to another thread
> and I certainly would not have objected.
>
> The fact that Blas Lugo has not come here to answer questions about
> his candidacy for election to the USCF Board is something that the
> membership should know about in deciding whether to vote for him or
> not. Locking the thread simply covers-up this important information
> about this candidate.
>
> Sam Sloan

Did Sam's membership lapse?

If so, when?

Did he reapply?

Was it reinstated?


 
Date: 12 Feb 2009 02:45:40
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"]I hereby protest to the locking of
the thread entitled "First Questions for Blas Lugo".

It is true that the discussion had turned into a discussion about me
and whether my membership had lapsed or not.

However, there are other ways of dealing with that, rather than
locking the thread. Shutting down the thread makes it look like the
moderators are protecting Blas Lugo from having to answer embarrassing
questions.

Sam Sloan[/quote]


Now, that's just silly. Blas Lugo has never shown the slightest
interest in answering any questions. Your complaint makes it look like
you want the thread to continue maundering on irrelevantly about you.
If you think it's worthwhile raising the same questions again, start
another thread. Of course, no one has had anything new to say on the
subject for some time.

John Hillery [/quote]

On the subject of "disparaging remarks", John Hillery here attacks
virtually everything I write. I can hardly remember a single posting
by me either on the USCF Issues Forum or on rgcp that was not attacked
by John Hillery. I am not complaining because I am in favor of Freedom
of Speech, but there seems to be a double-standard where only the
mildest criticism on anybody on the board majority is allowed but
direct attacks on disfavored persons such as myself are permitted.

The thread "meandered off" not because of anything I wrote but because
somebody asked the question of whether my USCF membership has ever
lapsed in the 53 years that I have been a USCF member since 1956. The
moderators could have moved that line of questioning to another thread
and I certainly would not have objected.

The fact that Blas Lugo has not come here to answer questions about
his candidacy for election to the USCF Board is something that the
membership should know about in deciding whether to vote for him or
not. Locking the thread simply covers-up this important information
about this candidate.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 22:20:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
I hereby protest to the locking of the thread entitled "First
Questions for Blas Lugo" on the USCF Issues Forum.

It is true that the discussion had turned into a discussion about me
and whether my membership had lapsed or not.

However, there are other ways of dealing with that, rather than
locking the thread. Shutting down the thread makes it look like the
moderators are protecting Blas Lugo from having to answer embarrassing
questions about his failure to pay the guaranteed prizemoney at the
2008 Miami Open.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 18:56:29
From:
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht


samsloan wrote:
> [quote="MichaelAtkins"]The OMOV system also allows people who would
> NEVER be elected by delegates, for lots of reasons, to stand a chance
> in a general election.[/quote]
>
> Michael Atkins who as he proudly notes has received special
> recognition on my website is making a pointed reference to me (in case
> anybody here did not realize that).
>
> I disagree. He thinks that under the delegate system I would not have
> been elected. I think I would have been elected by a wider margin.
> Look at the candidates I defeated. They had hardly any support and
> would be advised not to run again.
>
> In the coming election, I think I would have a better chance under the
> old system. Most informed voters agree that it is time for a change,
> especially with the horrific losses the USCF has been suffering every
> year. I have promised to absolutely stop the losses by cutting costs
> to the extent necessary. However, the average voter does not realize
> how bad things really are and might re-elect the old guard on name
> recognition.
>
> It has been made clear that Michael Atkins is running as an anti-Sam
> Sloan candidate. It remains to be seen how successful this strategy
> will be.
>
> Sam Sloan


Pre-OMOV, in 1999 Sam received 19 votes. In 2001, he got 22. If he had
continued to improve at that rate, he would have had a serious chance
to get elected in only 78 more years.


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 07:19:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
Perhaps you missed the posting by Jon Jacobs. He wrote that Blas Lugo
ran a 3-minute tournament which cannot be rated under the rules, and
sent it in as a five-minute tournament which can be quick rated.

This is considered to be a very serious offense, although not as
serious as failing to pay the guaranteed prizes.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 06:58:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
[quote="MichaelAtkins"]The OMOV system also allows people who would
NEVER be elected by delegates, for lots of reasons, to stand a chance
in a general election.[/quote]

Michael Atkins who as he proudly notes has received special
recognition on my website is making a pointed reference to me (in case
anybody here did not realize that).

I disagree. He thinks that under the delegate system I would not have
been elected. I think I would have been elected by a wider margin.
Look at the candidates I defeated. They had hardly any support and
would be advised not to run again.

In the coming election, I think I would have a better chance under the
old system. Most informed voters agree that it is time for a change,
especially with the horrific losses the USCF has been suffering every
year. I have promised to absolutely stop the losses by cutting costs
to the extent necessary. However, the average voter does not realize
how bad things really are and might re-elect the old guard on name
recognition.

It has been made clear that Michael Atkins is running as an anti-Sam
Sloan candidate. It remains to be seen how successful this strategy
will be.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 23:45:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
I think what we are looking at is a serious problem here. Blas Lugo
has strong credentials as a candidate, as follows:

1. He is a well known chess organizer.

2. He is former President of the Florida Chess Association

3. He is the only Spanish Speaking candidate and there are a large
number of Spanish speaking members of the USCF who up until now have
not had a representative on the board.

4. He is on the Susan Polgar slate. Several people who have spoken to
Blas Lugo have confirmed that he has stated that he is running because
Susan Polgar called him and asked him to run. She has not started
plugging him on her blog but it is still early yet and she
demonstrated in the last election her ability to get candidates she
favors elected.

The negative is that we can see that he failed to pay the guaranteed
prizes in the 2008 Miami Open, he does not have a valid excuse, and he
has been involved in other scandals in the past. We in this group know
this, yet we can not easily go out and inform the outside world about
this.

I see this as the failure of the OMOV system. Before OMOV, all that
would have been necessary was to send a letter to the 125 delegates
(later increased to more than 500 but still a manageable number) and
he would not be elected. As it is, there seems to be no way that we
can stop the Juggernaut.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 01:27:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
[quote="nolan"]The barrier for new organizers can be pretty high,
especially those who want to run mega-events. (The calendar is pretty
crowded with them, especially the 'good' dates.)

Mike Nolan [/quote]

New organizers should not be running mega-events.

Usually, when a new organizer runs a mega-event, the result is a
financial disaster. Often the new organizer suffers a big financial
loss. Sometimes the players do not get paid. In a few notorious cases,
the new organizer has disappeared with the entry fees, never to be
seen nor heard from again.

The USCF may have to consider rules limiting the ability of new or
inexperienced organizers from advertising big money tournaments in
Chess Life. A good example is the one here. It is reported that the
organizers of the 2008 Miami Open spent $5,000 on ads in Chess Life
advertising the tournament. They advertised a prize fund of $100,000
"based on" 650 entries. They could not possibly get 650 entries
because there are not 650 active players in the Miami Area. The
organizers should have at least received a warning letter from the
office and perhaps the situation we have now could have been avoided.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 07 Feb 2009 20:57:48
From: rshaas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
> > I thought you were going to give us one of your "Florida spiders are
> > so big they eat the alligators" stories.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > The "USCF should use the Mensa model" is my favorite.
>
> Now you've done it!!! Do you realize what you just did?!
=========================
Don't worry, Sam. Some other time and place for the Mensa model for
chess.

( OldHaasie )





 
Date: 07 Feb 2009 07:05:56
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
[quote="fpawn"][quote="Bill Hall"]As a piont of information, I was
contacted by an individual on behalf of Mr. Lugo prior to the event in
Miami expressing concerns about the hurricane. As I recall, at the
time Miami was not out of the woods for landfall and the individual
that we had originally contracted to cover the event online had had
travel difficulty related to the hurricane and was unable to attend.
There is a rule in the rulebook that the ED can grant a waiver to the
guaranteed prize fund in [i]force majora[/i] circumstances. I was
aware that the hurricane was impacting attendance; however, the degree
to which is extremely difficult if not impossible to ascertain.

Bill Hall [/quote]

I believe the failure of the Miami Open was not at all due to the
hurricane. We can make an estimate of the impact, if any, by looking
at the 2007 Miami Open versus the 2008 tournament.

2007
336 total players
~40 out of state in class sections (out of 256)
~35 out of state in open section (out of 80)
overall: 22% of players from out of state

2008
212 total players
~45 out of state in class sections (out of 151)
~32 out of state in open section (out of 61)
overall: 36% of players from out of state

[b]The numbers clearly show that the reason the 2008 Miami Open failed
is because of a dramatic drop in support from local Florida players![/
b] Nearly half of the Floridians who played in 2007 did not come
back. Perhaps also a few out of state players decided not to attend
due to the hurricane, but the comparison to the previous year suggests
any out of state drop-off was small.

I make this distinction because most Florida players would likely
drive to the tournament, giving them far more flexibility to wait and
see what the hurricane does. With Ike moving on to Texas by Monday
before the tournament, the locals easily had time to determine that it
was safe to travel for the following weekend.

Michael Aigner[/quote]

The rule is the organizer must pay a minimum of 70% of the "Based on"
advertised prizes.

Thus in this case, the advertised prizes was $100,000 "based on" 650
entries.

That means that they had to pay at least $70,000 even if almost nobody
showed up.

I am thinking that there may be another reason why so few players
came. Perhaps Lugo and Hecht had a bad reputation from other
tournaments.

As Mike Aigner has shown above, the low turnout was not because the
out-of-state players did not play, because about as many out of state
players came this year as they did last year. It was because fewer
Florida players played this year. Also, another poster states that it
was known four days before the event that Hurricane Ike was not going
to hit the area, so the Florida players would not have been affected.

This indicates that inclement weather was not a valid reason for
failing to pay the prizes.

One must wonder why they suddenly decided to run for the board with
this cloud hanging over their heads.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 07 Feb 2009 06:16:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
[quote="Tim Just"][b]23A1. Obligation to pay guaranteed prizes[/b].
An affiliate that guarantees prize money but fails to pay it in full
may have its USCF affiliation revoked, and the individual(s)
responsible for that affiliate may be denied the right to affiliate
under a different name. See also 32, Prizes.

If extraordinary circumstances such as extreme weather conditions or
civil unrest prevent most potential entrants from playing in a
tournament, the organizer may appeal to the USCF executive director
for permission to limit the prizes to 100 percent of entry fees
collected.

Tim Just [/quote]

The correspondent who has been writing me complaining angrily about
this has the following to say:

"The payout was actually 49,950.
"I only saw the open section previously.
"Here is a breakdown
open 15,650
u2100 6,900
u1900 6,900
u1700 6,900
u1500 6,900
u1300 5,650
unrated 1,050
-------------------
total 49,950
===================
I counted 222 players.

"It is interesting to note that if 222 players paid 250 each, the
total is 55,500, a nice margin
"If they paid 225 each, the total would be 49,500 a zero margin.
"Players paid between $225 and $275 depending on when they registered.
"Except unrated paid either 100 or 125 dollars. There were 27 unrated
players.
"This is getting too confusing, I'd like to know if they made any
money or broke even?
"It is a shame that they guaranteed prizes and then went back on their
word. pretty unethical.
"How often does this happen? I remember it happened with Richard
verber and he was barred for a while.
"They should be on the list of "these people cannot direct tournaments
until further notice".

---------------------------------------------------------

From the figures above, it appears that they reduced the prizes
sufficiently to enable them to make the profit they expected to make.
If this is true, then they violated the rule that states "the
organizer may appeal to the USCF executive director for permission to
limit the prizes to 100 percent of entry fees collected."

Now, the Executive Director states that he is not going to rule on
this issue because the two organizers are both candidates for election
to the board, and therefore he will be accused of bias.

However, he will also be accused of bias in favor of them and against
the other candidates if he does not make a ruling in a clear case such
as this one.

Will this be a repeat of the 2007 election in which the Executive
Director was accused of many acts of bias for or against the various
candidates for election?

These two candidates should be told to pay the prize money owed to the
players or else!! (Or else what, I do not know.)

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 07 Feb 2009 03:40:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Feb 6, 11:16=A0pm, None <JoeSchm...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:45=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 7:28=A0pm, "rsh...@gmail.com" <rsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 212 actual vs 650 estimated is a typical "Florida Flop." =A0There hav=
e
> > > been many.
>
> > > (OldHaasie)
>
> > I thought you were going to give us one of your "Florida spiders are
> > so big they eat the alligators" stories.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> The "USCF should use the Mensa model" is my favorite.

Now you've done it!!! Do you realize what you just did?!


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 20:16:25
From: None
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Feb 6, 7:45=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:28=A0pm, "rsh...@gmail.com" <rsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 212 actual vs 650 estimated is a typical "Florida Flop." =A0There have
> > been many.
>
> > (OldHaasie)
>
> I thought you were going to give us one of your "Florida spiders are
> so big they eat the alligators" stories.
>
> Sam Sloan

The "USCF should use the Mensa model" is my favorite.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 16:45:18
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Feb 6, 7:28=A0pm, "rsh...@gmail.com" <rsh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> 212 actual vs 650 estimated is a typical "Florida Flop." =A0There have
> been many.
>
> (OldHaasie)

I thought you were going to give us one of your "Florida spiders are
so big they eat the alligators" stories.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 16:28:50
From: rshaas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
212 actual vs 650 estimated is a typical "Florida Flop." There have
been many.

(OldHaasie)


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 16:12:18
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
I have just received a private email from somebody who states the
advertised prize fund was $100,000 based on 650 entries and the actual
payout was 15,649.98.

They only got 212 players but the previous year they only got 336, so
their projection of 650 entries was ridiculous.

If this is true (and I hope that it is not true) they paid far less
than the 50% that was previously claimed and they lowered the payout
so much so as to guarantee themselves a profit.

If these figures are correct, the possibility of a hurricane is not a
valid excuse and I would say that they do not belong on the board.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 00:20:11
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Feb 8, 2:18=A0am, Dave U. Random <anonym...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net >
wrote:
> In article <acd0ebf24b9f9f5d132a4c2245a0f...@mixmaster.it>
>
> George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> > In article <300ad912044777c067cad62355588...@msgid.frell.theremailer.ne=
t >
> > "Voice of Reason" <conscie...@uscf-reborn.org> wrote:
>
> > > Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for running tournaments, but Sam
> > > himself has never run a tournament.
>
> > Who's the guy who likes having chess pieces stuffed up his ass while
> > receiving a blow job from a Bobby Fisher impersonator?
>
> I read an article claiming the people who organised chess matches were
> dominated by homosexual pedofiles. There were documented interviews
> with pre-pubescent boys who claimed they had to perform homosexual acts
> to be selected to compete with their peers.
>
> Disgusting!

Where did you read that?

There is no such article and also that is not true.

The interesting fact is just the opposite, that chess masters are
almost NEVER homosexual.

This fact is discussed and psychoanalyzed in the book "Bobby Fischer's
Conquest of the World Chess Championship" by Reuben Fine

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=3D092389147=
1

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 17:52:24
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Feb 7, 7:52=A0pm, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
> Voice of Reason wrote:
> > Sam anonymously criticizes Blas for being litigious because of the
> > lawsuit US Bioservices Corp. v. Lugo, No. 08-2342, 2008 WL 4747473
> > even though that Lugo was unconnected to Blas Lugo, while Sam is
> > a serial litigant whose name is often quoted in arguments for the
> > pressing need for tort reform and for the streamlining of having
> > conmen like him designated as vexatious.
>
> > Sam anonymously criticizes Blas for his chess help to the young
> > Eunice Rodr=3DEDguez (soon to be 18), but Sam lusts after teenagers,
> > including chess players, and admits to acting on his lusts.
>
> Sam could never do anything anonymously.

You are correct on this one. I have never made an anonymous posting.
Occasionally, I do not sign my name but everybody knows who it is.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 16:52:40
From:
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht


Voice of Reason wrote:
> Sam anonymously criticizes Blas for being litigious because of the
> lawsuit US Bioservices Corp. v. Lugo, No. 08-2342, 2008 WL 4747473
> even though that Lugo was unconnected to Blas Lugo, while Sam is
> a serial litigant whose name is often quoted in arguments for the
> pressing need for tort reform and for the streamlining of having
> conmen like him designated as vexatious.
>
> Sam anonymously criticizes Blas for his chess help to the young
> Eunice Rodr=EDguez (soon to be 18), but Sam lusts after teenagers,
> including chess players, and admits to acting on his lusts.


Sam could never do anything anonymously.


   
Date: 07 Feb 2009 23:46:31
From: Borked Pseudo Mailed
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, jkh001@aim.com wrote:
>Voice of Reason wrote:
>> Sam anonymously criticizes Blas for being litigious because of the
>> lawsuit US Bioservices Corp. v. Lugo, No. 08-2342, 2008 WL 4747473
>> even though that Lugo was unconnected to Blas Lugo, while Sam is
>> a serial litigant whose name is often quoted in arguments for the
>> pressing need for tort reform and for the streamlining of having
>> conmen like him designated as vexatious.
>>
>> Sam anonymously criticizes Blas for his chess help to the young
>> Eunice Rodr=EDguez (soon to be 18), but Sam lusts after teenagers,
>> including chess players, and admits to acting on his lusts.
>
>
>Sam could never do anything anonymously.

too bad. if he did, he might not have so much shit going on.

guess he's too stupid for that though isn't he?











  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 11:39:14
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Feb 7, 12:29=A0pm, "Voice of Reason" <conscie...@uscf-reborn.org >
wrote:


> Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for failing to pay guaranteed prizes
> but the plain truth is that the prize amounts were not guaranteed.
> Sam does not even pay his apartment rent.
>

This is just incorrect. The prize fund was 70% guaranteed. The
organizers paid out only 50%.

The organizers of the Miami Open failed to honor their guarantee.

The "voice of reason" has actually made Sam Sloan seem accurate in
comparison. Neat trick that.


   
Date: 08 Feb 2009 05:21:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
[quote="nolan"]Here's a list of 91 Grand Prix events since 1/1/2008
that offered 30 or more Grand Prix points. (All sections are
included, USCF IDs are counted only once, so re-entries and section
changes should be factored out.)

There aren't very many events where the percentage of 'local' players
(defined as living within 150 miles) is less than 44% (two of those
being in Bermuda), and for around a quarter of these events it was 90%
or higher:


[code]
tnmt_eventid tnmt_name state players within
150 Pct
------------ ----------------------------------- ----- -------
---------- -----

200809147431 2008 MIAMI OPEN FL 212
114 53.8

[/code][/quotte]You have 212 players in the Miami Open of which 114
came from 150 miles of Miami.

Is my understanding of the data correct?

This seems to support the view that an above average number of out-of-
state players played, which means that the possibility of a hurricane
was not a significant factor.

Sam Sloan


   
Date: 08 Feb 2009 04:02:59
From:
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht


Voice of Reason wrote:
> On Feb 7, 1:39 pm, Wick <Wick.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 12:29 pm, "Voice of Reason" <conscie...@uscf-reborn.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for failing to pay guaranteed prizes
> >> but the plain truth is that the prize amounts were not guaranteed.
> >> Sam does not even pay his apartment rent.
> >
> >This is just incorrect. The prize fund was 70% guaranteed. The
> >organizers paid out only 50%.
> >
> >The organizers of the Miami Open failed to honor their guarantee.
> >
> >The "voice of reason" has actually made Sam Sloan seem accurate in
> >comparison. Neat trick that.
>
> There is an Act of God clause within the agreement governing the
> size of the prize fund.
>
> God acted.
>
> End of discussion.
>
> It is to be so hoped that you are less negligent when advising your
> clients, Wick.
>
> Deer has actually made Parking Tickets judge Brian O'Laugherty seem
> accurate by comparison. Neat trick, that.
>
> (alt.privacy.anon-server removed from Newsgroups: list where Deer
> inconsiderately placed it, replaced with a newsgroup more suited to
> discussions about Sam Sloan)


Nonsense. There wasn't any hurricane preventing players from coming to
the tournament. The organizers argued that the _possibility_ of a
hurricane might have _discouraged_ players from coming. The real
reason they reneged on the prize fund was that they had a lousy
turnout. If a small organizer did that, he'd be stomped on. Letting
Lugo and his associates get away with it was disgraceful. This has
nothing to do with Sloan (he didn't originate most of the arguments he
made). It's a question of integrity.

It's not clear that the USCF can do much to get the prizes paid, but
at the very least Lugo (and perhaps Hecht, one of his backers, though
that's not so clear) should be held up to public contempt. So should
ignoramuses like you, who defend them.


   
Date: 08 Feb 2009 12:51:06
From: Voice of Reason
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Feb 7, 1:39 pm, Wick <Wick.D...@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Feb 7, 12:29 pm, "Voice of Reason" <conscie...@uscf-reborn.org>
>wrote:
>
>> Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for failing to pay guaranteed prizes
>> but the plain truth is that the prize amounts were not guaranteed.
>> Sam does not even pay his apartment rent.
>
>This is just incorrect. The prize fund was 70% guaranteed. The
>organizers paid out only 50%.
>
>The organizers of the Miami Open failed to honor their guarantee.
>
>The "voice of reason" has actually made Sam Sloan seem accurate in
>comparison. Neat trick that.

There is an Act of God clause within the agreement governing the
size of the prize fund.

God acted.

End of discussion.

It is to be so hoped that you are less negligent when advising your
clients, Wick.

Deer has actually made Parking Tickets judge Brian O'Laugherty seem
accurate by comparison. Neat trick, that.

(alt.privacy.anon-server removed from Newsgroups: list where Deer
inconsiderately placed it, replaced with a newsgroup more suited to
discussions about Sam Sloan)



  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 10:48:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Feb 7, 1:29=A0pm, "Voice of Reason" <conscie...@uscf-reborn.org >
wrote:

> Sam anonymously criticizes Blas for being litigious because of the
> lawsuit US Bioservices Corp. v. Lugo, No. 08-2342, 2008 WL 4747473
> even though that Lugo was unconnected to Blas Lugo, while Sam is
> a serial litigant whose name is often quoted in arguments for the
> pressing need for tort reform and for the streamlining of having
> conmen like him designated as vexatious.

Wait a second! What are these two things about? I have never heard of
either one of these things.


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 19:29:24
From: Voice of Reason
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for running tournaments, but Sam
himself has never run a tournament.

Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for not making enough money, but Sam
himself has never made money. Sam pays no taxes and lives off what
he's hornswoggled or gypped from others. And handouts and welfare.
The only reasons he hasn't been sued for the books of dead people
he has stolen and "published" on Amazon is that their heirs do not
know (yet) about it and Sam is judgement-proof.

Sam criticizes other candidates and board members for not being
strong players, but Susan Polgar is a Grandmaster and one of the
strongest players in the world and Blas is an International
Master, while Sam is rated about 1900.

Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for failing to pay guaranteed prizes
but the plain truth is that the prize amounts were not guaranteed.
Sam does not even pay his apartment rent.

Sam criticizes Blas for his associations, while by his own boasts
Sam is associated with Osama bin Laden and his right hand man.

Sam criticizes Eric for having money, but Eric pays what he owes,
while at least two of the owners of apartments rented by Sloan
were cheated of their rent by Sam who ran.

Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for seeking to destroy the USCF (a
huge lie), but Sam himself is the one whose lawsuit against the
USCF, after members refused to re-elect Sam, for $20 million is
a barefaced attempt to extort and to bankrupt it.

Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for any discussions they may have
had with Grandmaster Susan Polgar or her husband, but Sam himself
has had discussions with=20

Sam anonymously criticizes Blas for being litigious because of the
lawsuit US Bioservices Corp. v. Lugo, No. 08-2342, 2008 WL 4747473
even though that Lugo was unconnected to Blas Lugo, while Sam is
a serial litigant whose name is often quoted in arguments for the
pressing need for tort reform and for the streamlining of having
conmen like him designated as vexatious.

Sam anonymously criticizes Blas for his chess help to the young
Eunice Rodr=EDguez (soon to be 18), but Sam lusts after teenagers,
including chess players, and admits to acting on his lusts.

Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for their records, despite the fact
that their characters are untarnished and their reputations are
excellent, while Sam is a felon convicted of attempted kidnap and
nearly killing a law-enforcement worker, whose license to deal
in securities was canceled because of fraud against investors.
Sam appealed this, on some grounds all the way to SCOTUS, but the
appeals were denied.

samsloan <samhsloan@gmail.com > wrote...

>If

** Often, Sam's libelous speculations are started with "If"

> these figures are correct

** Yours never are

>I would say

** Sure you would

>they do not belong on the board.

** The board on which you belong is the WATERBOARD

>Sam Sloan

** "Charlie" (Those who say PT is posting recently are either not
aware that PT recently has not been in a position to post or liars)


From: Ari(c) <TheJooseIsLoose@gmail.com >
Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Very Important to trace 74.55.63.22.
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:52:49 -0500
Organization: The Joose Is On The Loose
Message-ID: <gmhtdh$dio$1@news.motzarella.org >
References: <0b3a56f81aea66eb2e0b2d77a7857961@pseudo.borked.net >
<1d10d75d09cdd1e82bb23226fa0e8452@pseudo.borked.net >
<mcidnZLKZ-1JaRTURVn_vwA@giganews.com >
Reply-To: TheJooseIsLoose@gmail.com
X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org U2FsdGVkX190D6EyYAUVHJV6+Z7jBLV+
Ee347x6gZ3G9hUFH1fuK2PJtQliNLqvAHJLunZMKS5KHF+SiYVw6zIjTPnLwK81QGJc6
Ico9faRPmiwlfw2hBYvbOxdfTRzyQUund3n7nhY=3D
X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to abuse@motzarella.org with full
headers
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:52:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+I+nBXLHOrl8CCmaIumaEVShpxoQYFf1zBudy1vhNKYg=3D=3D=

Cancel-Lock: sha1:6dTX3cHx8nRxOT2VKbAjE31T7gc=3D

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:04:35 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Here are some URLs with various opinions on this. The last URL
is my own analysis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/nyregion/08chess.html?&pagewanted=3Dprint=

http://www.chessusa.net/2008/01/expert-opinion-mottershead-report.html
http://craic.com/forensics/uscf_usenet_analysis/USCF_Usenet_Abuse_Report_20=

071206.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Truong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Truong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Polgar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Susan_Polgar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sloan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Sloan
http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1192490748.shtml
http://bradenbournival.com/chess-news/polgartruong-caught-red-handed/
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/2007/10/polgar-truong-and-others-sued-by-s=

loan.html
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/5a7ede8692bddfea?dm=

ode=3Dsource

Enjoyed reading your analysis. I have one question.
What colour is Bulgar's hair in reality?
--=20
Meet Ari! http://tr.im/1fa3
"To get concrete results, you have to be confrontational".



   
Date: 08 Feb 2009 06:23:09
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
In article <300ad912044777c067cad623555882b6@msgid.frell.theremailer.net >
"Voice of Reason" <conscience@uscf-reborn.org > wrote:
>
> Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for running tournaments, but Sam
> himself has never run a tournament.
>

Who's the guy who likes having chess pieces stuffed up his ass while
receiving a blow job from a Bobby Fisher impersonator?


Il mittente di questo messaggio


    
Date: 08 Feb 2009 03:48:51
From: Borked Pseudo Mailed
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it > wrote:
>In article <300ad912044777c067cad623555882b6@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
>"Voice of Reason" <conscience@uscf-reborn.org> wrote:
>>
>> Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for running tournaments, but Sam
>> himself has never run a tournament.
>>
>
>Who's the guy who likes having chess pieces stuffed up his ass while
>receiving a blow job from a Bobby Fisher impersonator?
>

That's GOTTA be eelbash









    
Date: 08 Feb 2009 08:18:34
From: Dave U. Random
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
In article <acd0ebf24b9f9f5d132a4c2245a0f34b@mixmaster.it >
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it > wrote:
>
> In article <300ad912044777c067cad623555882b6@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
> "Voice of Reason" <conscience@uscf-reborn.org> wrote:
> >
> > Sam criticizes Blas and Eric for running tournaments, but Sam
> > himself has never run a tournament.
> >
>
> Who's the guy who likes having chess pieces stuffed up his ass while
> receiving a blow job from a Bobby Fisher impersonator?

I read an article claiming the people who organised chess matches were
dominated by homosexual pedofiles. There were documented interviews
with pre-pubescent boys who claimed they had to perform homosexual acts
to be selected to compete with their peers.

Disgusting!



 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:17:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Questions for Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht
There is one point that nobody has mentioned yet:

Bill Goichberg has run thousands of tournaments over the past 44
years. He has always paid the guaranteed prizes. If he were to fail to
pay the prizes one time for a reason such as a hurricane warning, I
think that the office and everybody else would be more than willing to
forgive him.

However, Blas Lugo and Eric Hecht are new organizers. This was one of
their first tournaments. They apparently had unrealistic expectations
as to how many players would attend. There are reasons to believe that
Hurricane Ike was not the real reason why they did not get the
expected turnout and why they failed to pay the guaranteed prizes. The
advance entries were low even before the hurricane possibility.

Now, in the midst of this controversy, they have suddenly decided both
to run for the board.

This raises questions that they need to address and about which the
voters need to be informed.

Sam Sloan