| |
Main
Date: 29 Oct 2007 15:16:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
Bill Brock wrote on the New York Times website at at
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/polgar-responds-on-her-blog/
:
- Irony aside, given that Mr. Truong & Ms. Polgar ran a reformist
campaign ("clean up the USCF"), isn't the timing a bit suspicious?
You'd think this was a Teamsters or UMW election-I'm originally from
the anthracite region, so Jock Yablonski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Yablonski
comes to mind ;-)
Thank you Bill Brock (who is a defendant in my lawsuit and I have
rarely had occasion to thank him for anything) because the examples of
the United Mine Workers and the Teamsters Union are exactly what I had
in mind when I filed my lawsuit to overturn the election results.
Of course, our case is not so extreme as those cases, as us chess
players are not going to go around killing each other, but the legal
principles are the same or similar. Polgar and Truong ran for election
on a reformist campaign to "clean up the USCF" and "save the
children". They wanted to "save the children" from me, of all people.
(I have eight children.) Now it turns out that to win this election
they wrote 2463 obscene emails and newsgroup postings, all supposedly
signed by me. (By the way, Polgar would have been elected no matter
what but Truong squeaked in by a bare gin.) Not only did the USCF
members not know about this but the members did not even know that
they were ried to each other, a fact that was uncovered by their
election opponents just before the vote count. This organization has
86,000 members and represents the USA Internationally. I believe that
there is enough here for the Department of Justice to come in, to
overturn the election results, and to have a fair new election.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 18:27:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Nov 1, 6:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Okay, if IM Innes is truly interested in the issue he
> > raises, then why is it that it only comes up in self-
> > defense? Why does it always show up when the
> > nearly-an-IM is under fire, and why is it never the
> > main subject of his attentions otherwise? This
> > smacks of more fakery.
>
> I think I also 'smacked' for Lex Mitchell, Texas Sue, and Billy the Truong.
> Historically I have smacked for bokks of Packers Evans and Keene, and
> Schillers and Parrs, and a partridge in a pear tree.
Well then, let /that/ be the measure of your, um, standards.
> Don't you miss Our Louis / - he could have googled these 'claims' and not
> found them.
Of course, you have no quote of LB saying he ever goog'ed
and failed, ever. Without a quote saying so, it cannot be so,
or so LB might argue (though I have no quote to prove this).
Anyway, that's just my opinion; don't quote me.
> It is not necessary to cite anything criminal. A national social service
> agency i've worked with rejects 50% of applicants wanting to work with
> children because they are unsuitable. No applicants have criminal records.
Ah, I see. So these comments relate mainly to people
who have applied to work with children at "chess camps"?
"Mr. Sloan, can you explain again why it is you feel
especially well-qualified to teach only the female students
between 15 and 17 -- of which there are very few?"
"Certainly. Much like Bobby Fischer, I am especially
...shall I say... *well-equipped*, to /handle/ these girls. Yes,
and what's more, I can teach them many things they don't.
already know... er, I mean like, say, Damiano's Defense
and several unique mating positions--- oops"
How about scholastic tournament directors and their
assistants? How about the folks who run the concession
stands? How about bus drivers who shuttle the kids?
> If the law is a minimum standard, then background checks are something more
> than a minimum. The plain fact of it is that American institutions have
> found it /necessary/ to use these means to offset potential abuse and
> offense to children. its a difficult subject to engage because it may be
> overtaken by various hysterias, or have too narrow a base in any particular
> instance. But in the nurturing professions it is absolutely not optional
> these days.
Well, it seems to me that this subject always seems
to "crop up" in some attack on Mr. Sloan, and I wonder
just how many chess camps there could be for females
in that narrow age range. You will note that the alleged
abuses in the SS/SP case occurred /inside the home/,
which is beyond the jurisdiction discussed above.
> Numbers of complaints of abuse are the same as they ever were, and its true
> that more are now reported than then, but its also true that more are
> obviated than before as a result of screening. The screening idea does not
> prevent anything, but does identify by guestimation those more likely to act
> in an ill way.
And it strongly discourages those who know they have
a criminal record from even applying (Bap!).
> > Let me give a somewhat related example: instead
> > of allowing a potential whacko to stay at your house,
> > make other arrangements so that your kids will be
> > safe whether he is a threat to them or not. It's a bit
> > like prophylaxis in chess; you "over protect" certain
> > points (like children, for instance), just in case of
> > danger.
>
> Yes - that's right.
>
> About 18 months ago I started talking here about such standards, [before Sam
> Slaon was elected] and asked the USCF board if they had any? They didn't,
I detect a problem here, and it is the fact that in order
for some outside agency to do this kind of work, there
will of course be a bill, and somebody will have to pay
for it (uh-oh). Who will foot the bill? (It's always about
money. And when it's not about money, it's about sex.)
> neither did they think it fit to act. Once again a lack of objective
> standards in place at the organisation precipitates another scandal - since
> instead of standard there are only the politics of personality, which though
> acting in a very small organisation plays very rough. [see what Larry Parr
> repeats here from Larry Evans' book]
I hate to break it to you, but the quotes of Lev Alburt
re-quoted again from GM Evans' new book have been
seen here before -- *many times*. This is nothing new.
I instantly noted that, like Sam Sloan, GM Alburt was
-- or seemed to be -- alone on the inside, with but a single
vote. He naturally ran up against the confederacy of
dunces which has always been in control, where one
person (like say Bill Goichberg for instance) has his
say on every issue, owning as he does several votes.
So you see, the real problem is not /necessarily/ that
there are leaks, that there is too much secrecy, or
whatever it was that LA found most objectionable; the
problem is that anyone who gets in will come to resent
the fact that he does not really have any say, on account
of being outnumbered. Mr. Sloan has recounted for us a
number of similar examples here, and by merely reading
quickly through just a few of them I gathered that BG
held the reins, did the steering and whipped the horses.
When one person holds sway over several others like
this, the voting process is corrupted; the format's intent,
checkmated. Bill Goichberg (or whoever) becomes, in
effect, a dictator surrounded by spineless yes-men and
perhaps, a powerless outsider or two.
> I proposed the /basis/ of the standard to be from the perspective of those
> abused. In this instance, it would be from the perspective of children, or
> parents, guardians thereof.
>
> The only official talk that has surfaced is about protecting the
> organisation - which is to reject the /basis/ for action I suggested which
> is the social norm.
Don't expect a "fair hearing" here in rgc; the fact is, you
have made a lot of enemies, and it is quite difficult for
most people to evaluate any of your ideas on their merits.
In fact, apart from myself (not to brag, but I am of course
superior to ordinary mortals) I know of no one who can
get past their emotional baggage and do this idea justice.
You would have to post it under an assumed name, like
Skip Repa does.
> Failure to act has brought about the current circumstances, where good and
> bad reporting are mixed together - sometimes with nothing else evident in
> them than personal pathologies and compulsions - and none of that has done
> anything to secure children in chess. It is not even considered a serious
> issue.
Have you considered approaching BG -- the man who
controls things in the USCF? Let him present the idea
as his own, taking all the credit, building himself a
bronze statue for having thought of it, etc. If you can
convince him of the idea's merits (i.e. that it will somehow
benefit him personally), he will order his yes-men to vote
it in.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 11:11:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Don't you miss Our Louis / - he could have googled these 'claims' and not
>> found them.
>
> Of course, you have no quote of LB saying he ever goog'ed
> and failed, ever.
I never said I have no quote of LB saying he ever goog'ed and failed, ever.
> Without a quote saying so, it cannot be so,
> or so LB might argue (though I have no quote to prove this).
> Anyway, that's just my opinion; don't quote me.
Its a way of answering which (1) does not admit if he has a quote or not,
only a statement saying he never said if he has, and (2) while allowing him
to mention a subject by quoting /others/ on (3) possibly, he doesn't say,
the same subject
Now, while you and I are obviously motivated to write in jealous fashion of
this inability, it got him where he is now! Which is to ruminate on policy
for the USCF forum - and how apt!
What you did not get to read here was an hilarious 2 month appearance on the
Sam Sloan show, also known as 'my' newsgroup, where Lex Mitchell and I asked
him about his Wikipedia action that eliminated all Sloan contributions to
Wiki.
[you still there? it gets exciting!]
After the normal 30,000 word pre-amble we arrived back at the beginning,
where LB may or may not have forwarded material which may or may not have
been by the FSS, and may or may not have been identified as by the FSS.
Lex and I wrestled this information out of him, and wondered how such
impossible writing could warrant anyone to supervise that of others. 2
months later Lex turned nasty, by asking the real Sloan a question, and as
happens in Soviet show trials, had his identity erased, and was forcefully
exiled to rec.games.chess.siberia [here].
>> It is not necessary to cite anything criminal. A national social service
>> agency i've worked with rejects 50% of applicants wanting to work with
>> children because they are unsuitable. No applicants have criminal
>> records.
>
> Ah, I see. So these comments relate mainly to people
> who have applied to work with children at "chess camps"?
Anyone wanting to work with children anywhere, at any level, including
executive levels responsible for determing conditions for children.
> "Mr. Sloan, can you explain again why it is you feel
> especially well-qualified to teach only the female students
> between 15 and 17 -- of which there are very few?"
You are confusing him with a past editor of Budapest Life, and they were
17-19.
----
> How about scholastic tournament directors and their
> assistants?
The thing about these discussions is that it depends who is asking. If its
parents about their own kids, then they certainly are interested in those
setting conditions, or who have temporary charge of their kids.
> How about the folks who run the concession
> stands? How about bus drivers who shuttle the kids?
Ask at your local high-school. Likelihood is that the bus driver also has to
be drug and alcohol screened! These are /normal/ measures is the point, but
in chess they are not observed since all arguments from people who discuss
the issue at all are about the organizations liability and not the welfare
of children.
[at USCF this is the same issue for adults, and for any topic!]
The test for parental readers of this note is not to say what you think, but
given a screened chess tutor, and an unscreened one, who do you choose?
>> If the law is a minimum standard, then background checks are something
>> more
>> than a minimum. The plain fact of it is that American institutions have
>> found it /necessary/ to use these means to offset potential abuse and
>> offense to children. its a difficult subject to engage because it may be
>> overtaken by various hysterias, or have too narrow a base in any
>> particular
>> instance. But in the nurturing professions it is absolutely not optional
>> these days.
>
> Well, it seems to me that this subject always seems
> to "crop up" in some attack on Mr. Sloan, and I wonder
> just how many chess camps there could be for females
> in that narrow age range. You will note that the alleged
> abuses in the SS/SP case occurred /inside the home/,
> which is beyond the jurisdiction discussed above.
This is no Sloan-alone issue, as I've written before, it applies to anyone,
not any narrow base or sample. What the measure can do is to restrict
offenses with others, outside the home. It can't eliminate them, but the
measure removes from contact those potential individuals likely to act
unwell. And after all, if society thinks this is a necessary measure, and
boy scouts throw out 175 adults per year for innappropriate behaviors
towards children, is there some reason why chess is exempt?
>> Numbers of complaints of abuse are the same as they ever were, and its
>> true
>> that more are now reported than then, but its also true that more are
>> obviated than before as a result of screening. The screening idea does
>> not
>> prevent anything, but does identify by guestimation those more likely to
>> act
>> in an ill way.
>
> And it strongly discourages those who know they have
> a criminal record from even applying (Bap!).
Well - the issue really compasses 3 types of people; opportunists who use a
little power over children to incidentally indulge their appetites; a new
type of e-stalker who is consciously predatorial; and those who confound sex
with violence [done to them].
This is not the right place to discuss these things since, unlike drug
testing, real medical evidence of misbehavior is called for - and besides,
in simply raising the subject it can attract those who would deny the
sociology of it all, for more subjective reasons. And sober discussion is
therefore hard to find.
I think it is worth some level of social discussion, otherwise we give up
the subject to either anti or pro factions who can tend to hysterics - again
the 'drug-scare' reaction is one decided upon by 'expert' testimony, albeit
the gent is a chiropractor, but sufficient to be acted on as the basis for a
medical commission, and actually directy into Fide policy.
>> > Let me give a somewhat related example: instead
>> > of allowing a potential whacko to stay at your house,
>> > make other arrangements so that your kids will be
>> > safe whether he is a threat to them or not. It's a bit
>> > like prophylaxis in chess; you "over protect" certain
>> > points (like children, for instance), just in case of
>> > danger.
>>
>> Yes - that's right.
>>
>> About 18 months ago I started talking here about such standards, [before
>> Sam
>> Slaon was elected] and asked the USCF board if they had any? They didn't,
>
> I detect a problem here, and it is the fact that in order
> for some outside agency to do this kind of work, there
> will of course be a bill, and somebody will have to pay
> for it (uh-oh). Who will foot the bill? (It's always about
> money. And when it's not about money, it's about sex.)
Testing is independent of the agency or individuals tested. When financial
questions are raised, the answer is 'who cares?', whoever cares pays.
>> neither did they think it fit to act. Once again a lack of objective
>> standards in place at the organisation precipitates another scandal -
>> since
>> instead of standard there are only the politics of personality, which
>> though
>> acting in a very small organisation plays very rough. [see what Larry
>> Parr
>> repeats here from Larry Evans' book]
>
> I hate to break it to you, but the quotes of Lev Alburt
> re-quoted again from GM Evans' new book have been
> seen here before -- *many times*. This is nothing new.
They are literally re-collections. I'm glad he didn't make up new
'anecdotes'. Rather like [dangerous subject] Fischer anecdotes, its not so
much if they have been heard before, but if they are yet understood.
In Evans' citations of political machinations, then we evidentally don't
know enough to act on them, so our only acts are to be surprised and
outraged when things go wrong, again, again...
> I instantly noted that, like Sam Sloan, GM Alburt was
> -- or seemed to be -- alone on the inside, with but a single
> vote. He naturally ran up against the confederacy of
> dunces which has always been in control, where one
> person (like say Bill Goichberg for instance) has his
> say on every issue, owning as he does several votes.
With too many big personalities in a little USCF pond, amounts of
in-breeding are inevitable. The right context here is as Fide, that those
who make the decisions have too narrow a base, and act as a management class
only.
> So you see, the real problem is not /necessarily/ that
> there are leaks, that there is too much secrecy, or
> whatever it was that LA found most objectionable; the
> problem is that anyone who gets in will come to resent
> the fact that he does not really have any say, on account
> of being outnumbered.
Outindifferenced? The issue - I think we are in some agreement? - is not
free speech, but responsible speech about something which would actually
make a value difference to players, ie, content-based discussions,
disinterestedly approached.
> Mr. Sloan has recounted for us a
> number of similar examples here, and by merely reading
> quickly through just a few of them I gathered that BG
> held the reins, did the steering and whipped the horses.
>
> When one person holds sway over several others like
> this, the voting process is corrupted; the format's intent,
> checkmated. Bill Goichberg (or whoever) becomes, in
> effect, a dictator surrounded by spineless yes-men and
> perhaps, a powerless outsider or two.
That is an unlikeable approximation, but essentially a true one. I can see
from BG's point of view that he thinks he can manage all better than anyone
else, which is [or has been] likely true. But this limits what can be
managed to his personal scope, and in effect renders the rest of the board
redundant.
The scene is unfortunately compounded by also heading up the main tournament
competitor to USCF - and while partnerships /can/ benefit both parties, the
question remains if they are disinterested benefits; to wit, are other
potential partners eliminated thereby? And of course this removes any
comparison to how well exisiting partnerships perform.
>> I proposed the /basis/ of the standard to be from the perspective of
>> those
>> abused. In this instance, it would be from the perspective of children,
>> or
>> parents, guardians thereof.
>>
>> The only official talk that has surfaced is about protecting the
>> organisation - which is to reject the /basis/ for action I suggested
>> which
>> is the social norm.
>
> Don't expect a "fair hearing" here in rgc; the fact is, you
> have made a lot of enemies, and it is quite difficult for
> most people to evaluate any of your ideas on their merits.
Just like playing chess!
> In fact, apart from myself (not to brag, but I am of course
> superior to ordinary mortals) I know of no one who can
> get past their emotional baggage and do this idea justice.
> You would have to post it under an assumed name, like
> Skip Repa does.
You mean, personal resentments obviate the natural expression here of
adults, especially of parents for the well-being of young players? I would
think that many people here never gave anyone else's welfare any thought at
all.
>> Failure to act has brought about the current circumstances, where good
>> and
>> bad reporting are mixed together - sometimes with nothing else evident in
>> them than personal pathologies and compulsions - and none of that has
>> done
>> anything to secure children in chess. It is not even considered a serious
>> issue.
>
> Have you considered approaching BG -- the man who
> controls things in the USCF? Let him present the idea
> as his own, taking all the credit, building himself a
> bronze statue for having thought of it, etc.
Yes. As above, I wrote the board before the previous election. More recently
Bill Hall thought he would like to speak up himself on several issues,
including regular board interviews with any panel of questioners. Someone
squashed that initiative <! > and Mr. Hall could only offer me the excuse
that he could not make regular communications as he had said he would,
because of the continuous crisis in USCF communications [mostly its forum].
But let's not ponder that irony - he didn't.
There is no point approaching anyone at all if they do not present any
interest, either about fixing a current pain, or declaring an aspiration for
the future.
I am probably the last person to even attempt to notice, who still writes on
the subject in a way that tries to engage politicos in something.
> If you can
> convince him of the idea's merits (i.e. that it will somehow
> benefit him personally), he will order his yes-men to vote
> it in.
The Federal education budget is quite substantial, and I already have
working partners who definitely /do/ care more than any pro-forma level of
interest. They think that is motivational, not only because of the amount of
money, but certainly because their Prime Motive is benefit to children,
given the right atmosphere, to obtain a full benefit from our game.
Cordially, Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 18:19:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 31, 9:19 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Just to let you know we went through the background checks issue on my
> > FIDE-chess yahoo group at length and nobody agreed with Innes or his
> > sidekick Ron ("the Robber") Mitchell who want background checks for
> > everybody but themselves.
>
> Poor SIlly Sam... Can't even get my name right! LOL
Spelling aside, how can SS call RM "the Robber"
when according to his own version of the story, the
"robbery" failed? Doesn't that make RM a mere
wannabe-robber or something? I mean look: there
were Jesse James, Billy the Kid, and many others
who are more deserving of the title.
> > In sum, every public school does background checks on its employees
> > nowadays. However, the USCF should not get into the business of
> > background checks. We will not catch anybody. If it happens that
> > somebody slips through and gets arrested (like Robert Snyder for
> > example) we will be liable and get sued because we said he was OK.
> > Better to just let the schools take responsibility for that.
>
> There is no liability. That passes to the exam company. Next red
> herring please?
Can we get that confirmed by a real lawyer?
> oh oh! there is new legislation pending in congress
> that would put you in prison for the content on your website! Isnt
> that exciting!
Effective *retroactively*? That would make SS an
important criminal! On top of all his other accomplishments
(which are far too many to list here).
> > Innes seems to have directed this towards me. I have been finger
> > printed and I passed the background check that was required when I was
> > hired as a chess teacher in the New York City Public Schools.
Could this explain why the need for a move to
Crossville? With no decent players emerging in
the N.Y. area, perhaps they wanted to try their
luck elsewhere... . ; >D
> > On the other hand, I would really like to know what the background is
> > of Phil Innes, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell and Paul Truong. I suspect
> > that they all have several names. Why in there no record in England
> > for such a great player as "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes?
I think it is because the entire time he was there,
the press and the mass media were obsessing over
a fellow named Paul Morphy, who had come over
from one of the colonies to challenge Mr. Staunton.
In one offhand game, IM Innes effected a criss-cross
mate against Harrwitz using two Bishops and a neat
Queen sacrifice -- the first time this combination had
ever been seen; yet afterwards, the press mistakenly
attributed this idea to the victim himself! You just
can't trust those people. Of course, IM Innes never
won any recorded tournaments or matches, but this
was because he refused to play serious games, for
money. "I already have more money that I could
ever desire", said he, in a tone indicating his great
disgust for pecuniary concerns. "I play only for
honor", he muttered, again and again. All the top
players agreed that IM Innes was their equal -- if not
their vast superior -- but for his one big weakness:
alchohol. It was rare indeed to see him without a
flask of Irish whiskey in hand, even as he played
his most dangerous opponents. This also explained
his penchant for bizarre openings, such as the
Queen Bishop's pawn defense against P-K4, for
instance (what lunacy!), and fumbling around with
his Knight's pawns instead of standing his ground
in the center. Too much whiskey had fried his brain.
Yes, the poor fellow continually muttered to himself
that he cared nothing for money and would not play
a stakes game, yet he was dressed in rags and
always appeared to be half-starved. Yet others
could hardly keep themselves from betting on him,
even against the top players of the day, and this
ultimately drove him away; well, that and the fact
that he heard there was an unlimited supply of
corn whiskey in the American colony... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 17:44:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
Chess One wrote:
> > No, Mr. Sloan, it appears that even IM Innes himself
> > has subsequently acknowledged that his claim to a 2450
> > rating was, to put it bluntly, a lie.
>
> It is pointedly a lie. Repeating it is also to lie. I said I played at 2400
> level.
Don't try to haggle; the number is and always will be
2450, per the Google archives. One cannot haggle
with facts (only with prices).
Besides, if I had known you wanted to haggle, I of
course would have started off with a ridiculously
inflated number, like say, 2900+, and then you could
say you had claimed it was 1300+, and we go from
there.
> Currently I am managing 2285 on the same server where you managed
> 1300.
GetClub? But I was 1400+, as everyone knows!
In fact, I am now /ahead of/ T. Kingstonite with two
different identities, in spite of the dramatic ratings
deflation since he quit playing there. Top that, fella.
> Nevermind in Sanny-Land 1300 is considered near-genius level.
True. As the Master level is now somewhere
around 400-500, it requires a certain level of play,
or genius if you prefer, to get so high. Very few
have managed it, although admittedly, anyone with
a real chess program could.
> > After being outed, Mr.
> > Innes admitted that both his title and rating were fakes,
> > not unlike the impostors who posted their supposed
> > "satire" here.
>
> I admit I see a certain evasiveness is present in all these issues about
> fakery - and those who agitate the most are those who generate most abuse.
Pot and Kettle! IMO, Mr. Sloan is merely a gold-
digger; he likely wants the USCF to buy him an
island in the South Pacific and stock it with food,
wine and /very young/ women. (Poor timing, if you
ask me; SS is so old that would be a horrible waste.)
> When it comes to discussion of normal standards in society, such people
> consider those 'attacks' on their right to trash-as-usual.
Okay, if IM Innes is truly interested in the issue he
raises, then why is it that it only comes up in self-
defense? Why does it always show up when the
nearly-an-IM is under fire, and why is it never the
main subject of his attentions otherwise? This
smacks of more fakery.
But anyway, he is an idea relating to this issue:
instead of trying to root out every "criminal" with a
prior record of child abuse, why not instead try to
set up scholastic tournaments such that the
opportunity for abuses are few and far between?
Let me give a somewhat related example: instead
of allowing a potential whacko to stay at your house,
make other arrangements so that your kids will be
safe whether he is a threat to them or not. It's a bit
like prophylaxis in chess; you "over protect" certain
points (like children, for instance), just in case of
danger. Granted, this playing style sucks, but then,
what do you want: to win in a pleasing style or to
not risk losing? In chess, it's okay to take crazy
chances if you like the odds, but with your kids, it's
better to just play it safe and boring.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 11:55:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> > No, Mr. Sloan, it appears that even IM Innes himself
>> > has subsequently acknowledged that his claim to a 2450
>> > rating was, to put it bluntly, a lie.
>>
>> It is pointedly a lie. Repeating it is also to lie. I said I played at
>> 2400
>> level.
>
> Don't try to haggle; the number is and always will be
> 2450, per the Google archives. One cannot haggle
> with facts (only with prices).
can you at least edge it upwards another 50 points? it may become the
highest claim i never made.
>> I admit I see a certain evasiveness is present in all these issues about
>> fakery - and those who agitate the most are those who generate most
>> abuse.
>
> Pot and Kettle! IMO, Mr. Sloan is merely a gold-
> digger; he likely wants the USCF to buy him an
> island in the South Pacific and stock it with food,
would have been cheaper than defending the law suit, and i may have even
join up if there was some sort of guarantee it was an internet-free island
> wine and /very young/ women. (Poor timing, if you
> ask me; SS is so old that would be a horrible waste.)
that's why old people chose Leer jets, get it?
>> When it comes to discussion of normal standards in society, such people
>> consider those 'attacks' on their right to trash-as-usual.
>
> Okay, if IM Innes is truly interested in the issue he
> raises, then why is it that it only comes up in self-
> defense? Why does it always show up when the
> nearly-an-IM is under fire, and why is it never the
> main subject of his attentions otherwise? This
> smacks of more fakery.
I think I also 'smacked' for Lex Mitchell, Texas Sue, and Billy the Truong.
Historically I have smacked for bokks of Packers Evans and Keene, and
Schillers and Parrs, and a partridge in a pear tree.
Don't you miss Our Louis / - he could have googled these 'claims' and not
found them.
> But anyway, he is an idea relating to this issue:
> instead of trying to root out every "criminal" with a
> prior record of child abuse, why not instead try to
> set up scholastic tournaments such that the
> opportunity for abuses are few and far between?
It is not necessary to cite anything criminal. A national social service
agency i've worked with rejects 50% of applicants wanting to work with
children because they are unsuitable. No applicants have criminal records.
If the law is a minimum standard, then background checks are something more
than a minimum. The plain fact of it is that American institutions have
found it /necessary/ to use these means to offset potential abuse and
offense to children. its a difficult subject to engage because it may be
overtaken by various hysterias, or have too narrow a base in any particular
instance. But in the nurturing professions it is absolutely not optional
these days.
Numbers of complaints of abuse are the same as they ever were, and its true
that more are now reported than then, but its also true that more are
obviated than before as a result of screening. The screening idea does not
prevent anything, but does identify by guestimation those more likely to act
in an ill way.
> Let me give a somewhat related example: instead
> of allowing a potential whacko to stay at your house,
> make other arrangements so that your kids will be
> safe whether he is a threat to them or not. It's a bit
> like prophylaxis in chess; you "over protect" certain
> points (like children, for instance), just in case of
> danger.
Yes - that's right.
About 18 months ago I started talking here about such standards, [before Sam
Slaon was elected] and asked the USCF board if they had any? They didn't,
neither did they think it fit to act. Once again a lack of objective
standards in place at the organisation precipitates another scandal - since
instead of standard there are only the politics of personality, which though
acting in a very small organisation plays very rough. [see what Larry Parr
repeats here from Larry Evans' book]
---
I proposed the /basis/ of the standard to be from the perspective of those
abused. In this instance, it would be from the perspective of children, or
parents, guardians thereof.
The only official talk that has surfaced is about protecting the
organisation - which is to reject the /basis/ for action I suggested which
is the social norm.
Failure to act has brought about the current circumstances, where good and
bad reporting are mixed together - sometimes with nothing else evident in
them than personal pathologies and compulsions - and none of that has done
anything to secure children in chess. It is not even considered a serious
issue.
> Granted, this playing style sucks, but then,
> what do you want: to win in a pleasing style or to
> not risk losing? In chess, it's okay to take crazy
> chances if you like the odds, but with your kids, it's
> better to just play it safe and boring.
Absolutely so. When its an idea, its about organisational abstracts and
statistics, when its your kids, you don't speculate on the odds, you vote
with your feet.
Good post!
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 07:19:41
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 30, 2:24 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 30, 12:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Oct 30, 2:51 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Oct 29, 4:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > >> Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
> > >> > >> find you tedious....
>
> > >> > > There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely,
> > >> > > it's
> > >> > > not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
> > >> > > least one of these people?
>
> > >> > Well, we shall see!
>
> > >> > Since Brennan is a known stalker, if you complain, then this is in this
> > >> > country, invigilated by the FBI, who also flash their jurisdisdiction
> > >> > before
> > >> > every video or cd you rent.
>
> > >> > Brennan is a hate-merchant. If you don't understand that, look at any
> > >> > previous 100 posts he makes in any newsgroup. He suggests that this is
> > >> > some
> > >> > hysteric reaction to himself, while it is actually what happens.
>
> > >> > Brennan is such a character that the fellow who followed my reactions
> > >> > to his
> > >> > posts, and who talked of sucking and fucking my family members, was
> > >> > suggested by Brennan to be my own writing.
>
> > >> All this stalking of Neil Brennan by IM Innes is tedious and
> > >> boring. Surely the nearly-an-IM can find something to do
> > >> besides stalk NB. How about writing about chess, for a
> > >> change?
>
> > >> -- bored bot
>
> > > Oh, but he's amusing at times. I loved the comment about my
> > > "suggestion" that Innes is a hysteric, and Innes confirming "it' is
> > > actually what happens." QED.
>
> > Neil Brennan jokes about his own grossly indecent suggestion, about an
> > abuse-anon who only stalks those who contradict him.
>
> > Here he is trying to gloss the fact, while as usual ignoring all chess
> > content and rubbishing other people. Greg Kennedy also thinks its funny, so
> > reverses the relationship.
>
> > Neither of them have made any comment about an actual issue here = which has
> > to do with background checks for those who would have to do with our kids in
> > chess, which Sam Sloan is too busy to notice - right! And they are too busy
> > abusing to aver.
>
> > PI
>
> Just to let you know we went through the background checks issue on my
> FIDE-chess yahoo group at length and nobody agreed with Innes or his
> sidekick Ron ("the Robber") Mitchell who want background checks for
> everybody but themselves.
Poor SIlly Sam... Can't even get my name right! LOL
Ihave passed several background checks both with Kroll and through the
US Secret Service.
> In sum, every public school does background checks on its employees
> nowadays. However, the USCF should not get into the business of
> background checks. We will not catch anybody. If it happens that
> somebody slips through and gets arrested (like Robert Snyder for
> example) we will be liable and get sued because we said he was OK.
> Better to just let the schools take responsibility for that.
There is no liability. That passes to the exam company. Next red
herring please? oh oh! there is new legislation pending in congress
that would put you in prison for the content on your website! Isnt
that exciting!
> Innes seems to have directed this towards me. I have been finger
> printed and I passed the background check that was required when I was
> hired as a chess teacher in the New York City Public Schools.
Right. WHat name did you use? Did you use a fake SS number too? LOL
And NYC schools ? I doubt and challenge the validity of anything you
purport.
> On the other hand, I would really like to know what the background is
> of Phil Innes, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell and Paul Truong. I suspect
> that they all have several names. Why in there no record in England
> for such a great player as "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes?
What do you want to know that I have not already told you or I have
not posted myself on the internet? You have my resume already. What a
joke you are Sam.
> Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 14:36:43
From: Chess One
Subject: On Background Checks.
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There is no liability. That passes to the exam company. Next red
> herring please? oh oh! there is new legislation pending in congress
> that would put you in prison for the content on your website! Isnt
> that exciting!
Its just a mock debate, Rob. Means absolutely nothing when your
correspondent is as insincere as to illustrate his thinking with 'went
through' statements in his own little empire, and where dissenting views
were fired!
How much fairer could you get?
---
One interesting thing in recent surveys in chess groups is that when you ask
about this idea of background checks the majority of respondents will argue
by rational means about the security/liability of the organisation, citing
statistics and so on, as recently appeared in the WSJ article: whereas if
you ask how people /feel/, by inquiring about their own kids, you get
responses like, given chess camp A with background checks and chess camp B
without, the former, every time!
This is not a Sloan issue, except that he would be implicated. along with
everyone else. having to do with kids in chess.
It will be interesting to see what the ECF and the Dutch have to say about
their own countries, if they think the measure is electional, and if they
have implemented any measures how effective they think they are, both
objectively in preventing unwonted abuse and indecency, and also as above,
in encouraging a level of confidence with parents.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:07:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 30, 2:24 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Innes seems to have directed this towards me. I have been finger
> printed and I passed the background check that was required when I was
> hired as a chess teacher in the New York City Public Schools.
For gosh sakes -- did they not have computers back
then with which to link into the FBI's mainframe?
> On the other hand, I would really like to know what the background is
> of Phil Innes, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell and Paul Truong. I suspect
> that they all have several names. Why in there no record in England
> for such a great player as "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes?
I expect that way back then, the developers of chess
ratings systems considered Phil Innes to be an anomaly;
a FREAK outlier who could safely be ignored. Whoops...
I meant of course that his *results* would have been so
considered! Sorry about that.
No, Mr. Sloan, it appears that even IM Innes himself
has subsequently acknowledged that his claim to a 2450
rating was, to put it bluntly, a lie. After being outed, Mr.
Innes admitted that both his title and rating were fakes,
not unlike the impostors who posted their supposed
"satire" here.
Did they try the CIA? I mean, how could those Bozos
have misplaced your fingerprints... unless they were not
really mislaid, but *purloined*? A coverup, instigated at
the highest levels, obviously because Mr. Sloan has ties
with undercover operations relating to investigations of
prostitution rings... oops! My bad. Not another word
from me about this top sec...........
*******************
**********************************************
*********************************************
******************************************
** **** ***
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 12:48:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Greg Kennedy has defined himself as entirely trivial.
> No, Mr. Sloan, it appears that even IM Innes himself
> has subsequently acknowledged that his claim to a 2450
> rating was, to put it bluntly, a lie.
It is pointedly a lie. Repeating it is also to lie. I said I played at 2400
level. Currently I am managing 2285 on the same server where you managed
1300. Nevermind in Sanny-Land 1300 is considered near-genius level.
> After being outed, Mr.
> Innes admitted that both his title and rating were fakes,
> not unlike the impostors who posted their supposed
> "satire" here.
I admit I see a certain evasiveness is present in all these issues about
fakery - and those who agitate the most are those who generate most abuse.
When it comes to discussion of normal standards in society, such people
consider those 'attacks' on their right to trash-as-usual.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 18:46:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 30, 11:29 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> All this stalking of Neil Brennan by IM Innes is tedious and
> >> boring. Surely the nearly-an-IM can find something to do
> >> besides stalk NB. How about writing about chess, for a
> >> change?
>
> >> -- bored bot
>
> > Oh, but he's amusing at times. I loved the comment about my
> > "suggestion" that Innes is a hysteric, and Innes confirming "it' is
> > actually what happens." QED.
>
> Neil Brennan jokes about his own grossly indecent suggestion, about an
> abuse-anon who only stalks those who contradict him.
Nonsense; everyone knows who Chess One is, so
referring to him as an "anon" is ridiculous!
> Here he is trying to gloss the fact, while as usual ignoring all chess
> content and rubbishing other people. Greg Kennedy also thinks its funny, so
> reverses the relationship.
>
> Neither of them have made any comment about an actual issue here = which has
> to do with background checks for those who would have to do with our kids in
> chess, which Sam Sloan is too busy to notice - right! And they are too busy
> abusing to aver.
FYI: that was *not* the subject of discussion. (Check
the thread title for yourself.)
Somebody mentioned /en passant/ that IM Innes' posts
were boring, and I agreed, citing his never-ending stalking
of Neil Brennan as an case in point. At least critics like
Edward Winter and Larry Parr are *entertaining* when they
ad homize their victims; this IM Innes seems to have no
imagination, no style other than self-indulgence, poor
spelling and over-acting.
If he wrote about chess instead of just bashing other
posters, his dull stuff might be tolerable; as it is, it has
been observed and confirmed that his stuff is boring,
repetitive, and tedious. :<(
Lacking in ideas? How about this: write about why
the Evans ratpackers seem to be the only ones here
who have, quite mysteriously, not "seen" the reports
posted repeatedly by Sam Sloan, referred to as the
Motters, the Muppets, no... the Mottersbury...um, no.
Whatever they are called -- you know what I mean:
these are the reports you have seen but keep
pretending you have not. Write a nice article
explaining the ratpack's strategy, and how LP came
up with it and why the usual strategy of ad hominem
was rejected in favor of the hear-no-evil, see-no-evil
routine. Or maybe a nice article on the Benko
Gambit?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 18:25:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 30, 9:17 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:00:58 -0700, help bot <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 29, 5:48 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> pfft!
> > Lacks a vowel, no?
>
> He was quoting Otis' friend, Bill the Cat. Personal growth thing.
> He's trying to expand beyond Daffy Duck.
Okay, I admit it: I don't know Otis or Bill the Cat. But I am
familiar with Daffy Duck. Say, if IM Innes was quoting, then
why did he leave out the quotation ks on both ends, eh?
Looks suspicious to me... .
And "pfft" still lacks a vowel. I guess that means it is
spoken by passing air over the palate, without vibrating
the vocal chords. Hmmm. Ahhhh.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 19:32:29
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:25:39 -0700, help bot <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Okay, I admit it: I don't know Otis or Bill the Cat.
Partly my fault -- it was Opus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_the_cat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_(comic_strip)
See, with Usenet one can get a liberal education.
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 12:24:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 30, 12:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 2:51 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Oct 29, 4:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > >> Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
> >> > >> find you tedious....
>
> >> > > There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely,
> >> > > it's
> >> > > not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
> >> > > least one of these people?
>
> >> > Well, we shall see!
>
> >> > Since Brennan is a known stalker, if you complain, then this is in this
> >> > country, invigilated by the FBI, who also flash their jurisdisdiction
> >> > before
> >> > every video or cd you rent.
>
> >> > Brennan is a hate-merchant. If you don't understand that, look at any
> >> > previous 100 posts he makes in any newsgroup. He suggests that this is
> >> > some
> >> > hysteric reaction to himself, while it is actually what happens.
>
> >> > Brennan is such a character that the fellow who followed my reactions
> >> > to his
> >> > posts, and who talked of sucking and fucking my family members, was
> >> > suggested by Brennan to be my own writing.
>
> >> All this stalking of Neil Brennan by IM Innes is tedious and
> >> boring. Surely the nearly-an-IM can find something to do
> >> besides stalk NB. How about writing about chess, for a
> >> change?
>
> >> -- bored bot
>
> > Oh, but he's amusing at times. I loved the comment about my
> > "suggestion" that Innes is a hysteric, and Innes confirming "it' is
> > actually what happens." QED.
>
> Neil Brennan jokes about his own grossly indecent suggestion, about an
> abuse-anon who only stalks those who contradict him.
>
> Here he is trying to gloss the fact, while as usual ignoring all chess
> content and rubbishing other people. Greg Kennedy also thinks its funny, so
> reverses the relationship.
>
> Neither of them have made any comment about an actual issue here = which has
> to do with background checks for those who would have to do with our kids in
> chess, which Sam Sloan is too busy to notice - right! And they are too busy
> abusing to aver.
>
> PI
Just to let you know we went through the background checks issue on my
FIDE-chess yahoo group at length and nobody agreed with Innes or his
sidekick Ron ("the Robber") Mitchell who want background checks for
everybody but themselves.
In sum, every public school does background checks on its employees
nowadays. However, the USCF should not get into the business of
background checks. We will not catch anybody. If it happens that
somebody slips through and gets arrested (like Robert Snyder for
example) we will be liable and get sued because we said he was OK.
Better to just let the schools take responsibility for that.
Innes seems to have directed this towards me. I have been finger
printed and I passed the background check that was required when I was
hired as a chess teacher in the New York City Public Schools.
On the other hand, I would really like to know what the background is
of Phil Innes, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell and Paul Truong. I suspect
that they all have several names. Why in there no record in England
for such a great player as "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 12:11:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Background Chess - Sloan Speaks [with forked tongue?]
|
> Just to let you know we went through the background checks issue on my
> FIDE-chess yahoo group at length and nobody agreed with Innes or his
> sidekick Ron ("the Robber") Mitchell who want background checks for
> everybody but themselves.
First of all, 'went through' the issue of background checks means what? Will
Sam Sloan agree to take one or not? Does he think that it is an impersonal
measure, considered normal in all American institutions to do with
children - even the boyscouts and little league - or think chess should be
exempted?
His statement that 'Ron' Mitchell and I don't want ourselves checked is
without any evidence he presents - and is the REAL measure of his sincerity.
> In sum, every public school does background checks on its employees
> nowadays. However, the USCF should not get into the business of
> background checks. We will not catch anybody.
'We'??? USCF doesn't do the checking.
> If it happens that
> somebody slips through and gets arrested (like Robert Snyder for
> example) we will be liable and get sued because we said he was OK.
If, as other example, YOU got through, would USCF be sued? Independent
authority makes background checks.
> Better to just let the schools take responsibility for that.
This is to do with the security of children - and although same Sloan says
'his' group has 'went through' it, I wonder what that can possibly mean?
The issue is the same, in fact rather greater, with non-scholastic youth
activities, such as little league and boy scouts.
> Innes seems to have directed this towards me.
If Sloan thinks standards are 'directed' towards him, he is correct! But in
fact they are 'directed' at everyone having to do, actively or passivley,
with the wellfare of children.
> I have been finger
> printed and I passed the background check that was required when I was
> hired as a chess teacher in the New York City Public Schools.
So Sam Sloan would have no objection? Is that what is being said?
> On the other hand, I would really like to know what the background is
> of Phil Innes, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell and Paul Truong. I suspect
> that they all have several names. Why in there no record in England
> for such a great player as "Nearly an IM" Phil Innes?
I am just interviewing Michael Adams who I knew years ago - but I think if
even if the pope showed up, Sam Sloan would continue to have doubts - and of
course, these are not rational doubts, they are the preamble for firing me
from 'his' newsgroup, where the Sloanistas flock.
All tyrants need rational reasons to behave badly - there are hardly any
exceptions.
---
SUMY - Without any address to (a) why background checks are normal in
society [which has to do with kids, not organizational security], Sam Sloan
seems to be (b) arguing against it, but (c) not clearly so.
As an address to a serious issue that the entire population consider
important, I would say his responses are flippant and evasive.
Phil Innes
Vermont
> Sam Sloan
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 05:45:30
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 30, 2:51 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 29, 4:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
> > >> find you tedious....
>
> > > There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely, it's
> > > not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
> > > least one of these people?
>
> > Well, we shall see!
>
> > Since Brennan is a known stalker, if you complain, then this is in this
> > country, invigilated by the FBI, who also flash their jurisdisdiction before
> > every video or cd you rent.
>
> > Brennan is a hate-merchant. If you don't understand that, look at any
> > previous 100 posts he makes in any newsgroup. He suggests that this is some
> > hysteric reaction to himself, while it is actually what happens.
>
> > Brennan is such a character that the fellow who followed my reactions to his
> > posts, and who talked of sucking and fucking my family members, was
> > suggested by Brennan to be my own writing.
>
> All this stalking of Neil Brennan by IM Innes is tedious and
> boring. Surely the nearly-an-IM can find something to do
> besides stalk NB. How about writing about chess, for a
> change?
>
> -- bored bot
Oh, but he's amusing at times. I loved the comment about my
"suggestion" that Innes is a hysteric, and Innes confirming "it' is
actually what happens." QED.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 16:29:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 30, 2:51 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 4:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > >> Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
>> > >> find you tedious....
>>
>> > > There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely,
>> > > it's
>> > > not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
>> > > least one of these people?
>>
>> > Well, we shall see!
>>
>> > Since Brennan is a known stalker, if you complain, then this is in this
>> > country, invigilated by the FBI, who also flash their jurisdisdiction
>> > before
>> > every video or cd you rent.
>>
>> > Brennan is a hate-merchant. If you don't understand that, look at any
>> > previous 100 posts he makes in any newsgroup. He suggests that this is
>> > some
>> > hysteric reaction to himself, while it is actually what happens.
>>
>> > Brennan is such a character that the fellow who followed my reactions
>> > to his
>> > posts, and who talked of sucking and fucking my family members, was
>> > suggested by Brennan to be my own writing.
>>
>> All this stalking of Neil Brennan by IM Innes is tedious and
>> boring. Surely the nearly-an-IM can find something to do
>> besides stalk NB. How about writing about chess, for a
>> change?
>>
>> -- bored bot
>
> Oh, but he's amusing at times. I loved the comment about my
> "suggestion" that Innes is a hysteric, and Innes confirming "it' is
> actually what happens." QED.
Neil Brennan jokes about his own grossly indecent suggestion, about an
abuse-anon who only stalks those who contradict him.
Here he is trying to gloss the fact, while as usual ignoring all chess
content and rubbishing other people. Greg Kennedy also thinks its funny, so
reverses the relationship.
Neither of them have made any comment about an actual issue here = which has
to do with background checks for those who would have to do with our kids in
chess, which Sam Sloan is too busy to notice - right! And they are too busy
abusing to aver.
PI
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 05:41:35
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 30, 6:10 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely, it's
> >> not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
> >> least one of these people?
>
> > I was trying to underline the absurdity of Innes speaking on behalf
> > of the FBI.
>
> I was just taking a free hit at Innes.
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Salted Cat (TM): it's like a cat butwww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's covered in salt!
Sorry Dave, I was tired when I posted. I misread your post. My
apologies.
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 01:00:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 29, 5:48 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> personalities in by last minute attempts] - though he noticed others I put
> to him to such an extent he had to resort to a fabulous diversion on my
> identity.
>
> That is desperation tactics!
Wow. Finally, one rat has an epiphany regarding his pack's
situation: desperate.
> A check now normal and necessary in this country. I wonder since the issue
> is so pertinent in our society, that no-one can think of anything but 'poor
> Sam' he has been impersonated by satirists!
Interesting; IM Innes seems to believe that whatever
the Fake Sloan and other fakes were doing, amounted
to nothing more than /satire/. I have seen comments
here that these postings numbered in the hundreds, if
not thousands, and that some contained really bad
stuff, far beyond the realm of satire; but I do not know,
for I have read few of them myself; as such, I have a
decided tendency to doubt SS's claims.
> pfft!
Lacks a vowel, no?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 07:17:02
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:00:58 -0700, help bot <[email protected] >
wrote:
>On Oct 29, 5:48 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> pfft!
> Lacks a vowel, no?
He was quoting Otis' friend, Bill the Cat. Personal growth thing.
He's trying to expand beyond Daffy Duck.
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 00:51:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 29, 4:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
> >> find you tedious....
>
> > There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely, it's
> > not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
> > least one of these people?
>
> Well, we shall see!
>
> Since Brennan is a known stalker, if you complain, then this is in this
> country, invigilated by the FBI, who also flash their jurisdisdiction before
> every video or cd you rent.
>
> Brennan is a hate-merchant. If you don't understand that, look at any
> previous 100 posts he makes in any newsgroup. He suggests that this is some
> hysteric reaction to himself, while it is actually what happens.
>
> Brennan is such a character that the fellow who followed my reactions to his
> posts, and who talked of sucking and fucking my family members, was
> suggested by Brennan to be my own writing.
All this stalking of Neil Brennan by IM Innes is tedious and
boring. Surely the nearly-an-IM can find something to do
besides stalk NB. How about writing about chess, for a
change?
-- bored bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 00:45:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 29, 12:47 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Seriously, short of scrapping the entire orginization and starting
> over from scratch there seems little hope for chess in the US.
Here's a better idea: instead of scrapping the USCF -- which
would leave its minions free to pursue ideas of gaining control
of its replacement -- why not leave it in place to keep those
folks tied up (and busy suing one another)? That way, the new
organization can remain free of the political scum, which has
always plagued the USCF, for a while. In fact, a good strategy
would be to conceal the success of the new organization from
those people until after it was too late for them to get in. I say,
quarantine the scum /inside/ the USCF, and keep it alive so
they can continue what they do best: infighting, backstabbing,
etc.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 20:35:49
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 29, 12:44 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Says Deep-Sloan, reflecting on the fact that people's riages and
> >> personal details [except his own] are the subject matter of deep
> >> concern to Justice. Hmmmm
>
> > Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
> > find you tedious....
>
> There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely, it's
> not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
> least one of these people?
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Portable Strange Clock (TM): it'swww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a clock but it's totally weird
> and you can take it anywhere!
Hi Dave,
I was trying to underline the absurdity of Innes speaking on behalf of
the FBI. Generally if they are investigating something, they want it
kept quiet. I can't imagine they approved a net-loon as their
spokesman.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 11:10:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely, it's
>> not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
>> least one of these people?
>
> I was trying to underline the absurdity of Innes speaking on behalf
> of the FBI.
I was just taking a free hit at Innes.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Salted Cat (TM): it's like a cat but
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's covered in salt!
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 11:38:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:wyo*[email protected]...
> The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely, it's
>>> not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
>>> least one of these people?
>>
>> I was trying to underline the absurdity of Innes speaking on behalf
>> of the FBI.
>
> I was just taking a free hit at Innes.
Sure thing - after all why not chat with a known abusenik stalker instead of
talk about, say, the welfare of children in chess or public abuse of those
concerned with it. Some people find that 'boring', and I must suppose they
also find taking 'free hits' more exciting, or they just don't give a damn.
So when the subject of children's welfare is raised again, hopefully not by
any awful new circumstance, but electively so we can do whatever we can now
to limit abuse, we will know who prefered a 'free' opinion and did nothing
to contribute to the subject of adult or child abuse, when they could.
For entertainment value it is boring, especially if your tastes run to
shadenfreude. Those who don't like the game may prefer that, while those who
do care for it will continue to be as boring as adults!
"Boring for Britain", Phil Innes
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Salted Cat (TM): it's like a cat
> but
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's covered in salt!
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 10:47:12
From:
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 29, 11:43 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> We are unlikely to hear why Sam Sloan couldn't answer a question about
> whether he thinks anyone having to do with scholastic chess should be
> required to pass a normal high-school background check
1) I loath what has become of the USCF's leadership and am no longer a
member as a result, but had nothing to do with the current issues. The
leadership has been either corupt or incompetent as a whole for many
years. I left over issues with the positions taken by the USCF with
regard to the olympiad that was not boycotted when Israel was
excluded, support fior the criminal head of FIDE, the sudden holding
of a "Woman's Championship" with the sole purpose of excluding an
induividual because the celebrety coach did not want that individual
on the olympia team, insider deals and financial malfeasance and so
on.....
2) The treatment of many people - Sam Sloan, cus Roberts, Brain
Laferty, etc. but perople who are supposed to be representatives of an
orginization who's purpose is to support chess and avertise the joy
anad benefits thereof to the US pubolic and the world was at best
unprofessional and unethical and quite possibly criminal. The people
have made a mocery of the members, the vast majority of whom are good,
upstanding citizens who make above average contributions to their
communities. They have utterly failed in their mission and I fail to
see how the orginization can ever recover, someone with the will and
the means to build a replacement orginization is sorely needed.
3) While I wish the wronged individuals the best in obtaining whatever
remedies the law provides for I must say that I wouldn't feel
comfortable exposing my children to virtually any of them, that
despite the fact that I have had them trained in Jujitsu. They have no
more place in an orginization with such a degree of child membership
then the encombants, if I were an orginizer of children's events I
would do my best to obtain a restraining order against the lot of
them!
Seriously, short of scrapping the entire orginization and starting
over from scratch there seems little hope for chess in the US.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 22:48:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
Times up! its 6:30 and Sam Sloan couldn't find time to talk about STANDARDS
of DECENCY in public expression, since he was too busy trashing other people
the whole long day to even notice the question [getting his dozen trashed
personalities in by last minute attempts] - though he noticed others I put
to him to such an extent he had to resort to a fabulous diversion on my
identity.
That is desperation tactics! Tomorrow I will look at something other than
Sloan, but today it was worth challenging everything he said, since some
posters here find fucking young kids funny, something to joke about - and we
are at scarey levels here in the USA. I don't think it is the least bit
funny.
Supporters never asked Sloan this question about access to kids, and the
necessity of taking a normal high-school background check.
A check now normal and necessary in this country. I wonder since the issue
is so pertinent in our society, that no-one can think of anything but 'poor
Sam' he has been impersonated by satirists! Instead we get every other
opinion there is - save the one above.
OK. That is clear enough about the orientation of 'poor-Sloan' supporters.
OK with you cus? Don't you mouth off to me about concern for kids if its
just talk in public, you didn't challenge him.
You didn't say a damn word.
pfft!
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 10:05:32
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Oct 29, 11:43 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Says Deep-Sloan, reflecting on the fact that people's riages and personal
> details [except his own] are the subject matter of deep concern to Justice.
> Hmmmm
Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
find you tedious....
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 17:44:47
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Says Deep-Sloan, reflecting on the fact that people's riages and
>> personal details [except his own] are the subject matter of deep
>> concern to Justice. Hmmmm
>
> Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
> find you tedious....
There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely, it's
not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
least one of these people?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Portable Strange Clock (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a clock but it's totally weird
and you can take it anywhere!
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 21:17:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:lim*[email protected]...
> The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Says Deep-Sloan, reflecting on the fact that people's riages and
>>> personal details [except his own] are the subject matter of deep
>>> concern to Justice. Hmmmm
>>
>> Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
>> find you tedious....
>
> There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely, it's
> not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
> least one of these people?
Well, we shall see!
Since Brennan is a known stalker, if you complain, then this is in this
country, invigilated by the FBI, who also flash their jurisdisdiction before
every video or cd you rent.
Brennan is a hate-merchant. If you don't understand that, look at any
previous 100 posts he makes in any newsgroup. He suggests that this is some
hysteric reaction to himself, while it is actually what happens.
Brennan is such a character that the fellow who followed my reactions to his
posts, and who talked of sucking and fucking my family members, was
suggested by Brennan to be my own writing.
You still want to get into dirt, Dave? I doubt it! I expect you to be coy
and 'distanced'.
Gur fada leam nan Sasann thu,
Which comments on the English desease.
Phil Innes
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Portable Strange Clock (TM):
> it's
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a clock but it's totally
> weird
> and you can take it anywhere!
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 16:25:41
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
Chess One wrote:
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:lim*[email protected]...
>> The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Says Deep-Sloan, reflecting on the fact that people's riages and
>>>> personal details [except his own] are the subject matter of deep
>>>> concern to Justice. Hmmmm
>>> Well, in a world where the FBI is allegedly investigating people who
>>> find you tedious....
>> There are an awful lot of people who find Innes tedious. Surely, it's
>> not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FBI is investigating at
>> least one of these people?
>
> Well, we shall see!
>
> Since Brennan is a known stalker, if you complain, then this is in this
> country, invigilated by the FBI, who also flash their jurisdisdiction
What an image this conjures up!
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 14:38:37
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:25:41 -0500, Kenneth Sloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> then this is in this
>> country, invigilated by the FBI, who also flash their jurisdisdiction
>What an image this conjures up!
Stick 'em UP !
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 16:43:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Bill Brock cites the United Mine Workers
|
because the examples of
the United Mine Workers and the Teamsters Union are exactly what I had
in mind when I filed my lawsuit to overturn the election results.
Of course, our case is not so extreme as those cases, as us chess
players are not going to go around killing each other, but the
--
Deep-Sloan has a bash at an analogy, which survives 2 seconds in even his
own estimation. He has not thought to honor my own which others have; of
witch-hunting in a McCarthy era 'questioning'.
100% Almost.
It really amazes me when someone can write about 100% evidence, that on the
same day they still seem to be casting around for a hook to hang their suit
on. Perhaps, come supper time, enough synapses will have opened, done their
business, and closed again to absolutely convince himself?
As for "I believe that
there is enough here for the Department of Justice to come in, to
overturn the election results, and to have a fair new election."
Says Deep-Sloan, reflecting on the fact that people's riages and personal
details [except his own] are the subject matter of deep concern to Justice.
Hmmmm
The 6 Hour-Question
Hey! we got another 6 hours til supper - what other crimes will we hear
about between then and now?
We are unlikely to hear why Sam Sloan couldn't answer a question about
whether he thinks anyone having to do with scholastic chess should be
required to pass a normal high-school background check
Maybe Deep-Sloan even thinks the question is an 'attack', but since it
applies to everyone, then I hope it will be noted that that is another kind
of justice department, ie, not about Deep-Sloan alone, but is a simple,
clear, normal, standard, necessary, and publicly decent question.
tick tick tick ... ... ...
Phil Innes
Once more, I eliminated unwonted newsgroups from Sloan-distribution - not so
that fewer people will resent him, but because it brings opprobrium upon all
chess players.
|
|
