| |
Main
Date: 13 Jul 2008 03:45:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each
|
During their campaign to be elected to the USCF Executive Board,
Polgar and Truong concealed the fact that they were married to each
other.
Here is one example from the USCF Forums in January 2007:
http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27774#27774
[quote="chrisfalter"]My, how easily threads can get side-tracked!
Truong's views on corporate governance should be known and discussed -
but please, not on this thread! If you want Paul to give those views,
please start a new thread. Also, the question about whether Paul and
Susan are married is not only off-topic for this thread, it is
entirely out-of-bounds for any thread. They have stated that they are
excellent friends and collaborate closely. A marriage is a legally
recognized relationship that they clearly do not have. And anyone who
disagrees with my Paul/Susan view: please take it to another thread!
Let's (pretty please with sugar on top) not hijack this thread for
other purposes, and let Paul give us some details on his business
career. And after he responds, we can discuss his business bio.
Thanks to all readers,
Chris Falter [/quote]
This thread is very interesting in view of what has happened in the
year and a half since then.
Here, Chris Falter, who was at that time one of their strongest
supporters, writes: "marriage is a legally recognized relationship
that they clearly do not have". Yet, we now know that they really were
married. This was revealed by a newspaper reporter in Lubbock, Texas
several months later.
Truong, posting immediately below this, said nothing to contradict
this. Other times during the election campaign, Truong complained to
the moderators and got all questions asking whether he was married to
Polgar or not deleted from the forums.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2008 08:32:49
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each
|
On Jul 13, 9:48 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 13, 6:45 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > During their campaign to be elected to the USCF Executive Board,
> > Polgar and Truong concealed the fact that they were married to each
> > other.
>
> > Here is one example from the USCF Forums in January 2007:
>
> >http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27774#27774
>
> > [quote="chrisfalter"]My, how easily threads can get side-tracked!
> > Truong's views on corporate governance should be known and discussed -
> > but please, not on this thread! If you want Paul to give those views,
> > please start a new thread. Also, the question about whether Paul and
> > Susan are married is not only off-topic for this thread, it is
> > entirely out-of-bounds for any thread. They have stated that they are
> > excellent friends and collaborate closely. A marriage is a legally
> > recognized relationship that they clearly do not have. And anyone who
> > disagrees with my Paul/Susan view: please take it to another thread!
> > Let's (pretty please with sugar on top) not hijack this thread for
> > other purposes, and let Paul give us some details on his business
> > career. And after he responds, we can discuss his business bio.
>
> > Thanks to all readers,
>
> > Chris Falter [/quote]
>
> > This thread is very interesting in view of what has happened in the
> > year and a half since then.
>
> > Here, Chris Falter, who was at that time one of their strongestsupporters, writes: "marriage is a legally recognized relationship
>
> > that they clearly do not have". Yet, we now know that they really were
> > married. This was revealed by a newspaper reporter in Lubbock, Texas
> > several months later.
>
> > Truong, posting immediately below this, said nothing to contradict
> > this. Other times during the election campaign, Truong complained to
> > the moderators and got all questions asking whether he was married to
> > Polgar or not deleted from the forums.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Heck, it's even worse than you think, Sam. I heard they even
> concealed their marriage *_from_* each other!
Bruceski.
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2008 07:48:31
From:
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each
|
On Jul 13, 6:45=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> During their campaign to be elected to the USCF Executive Board,
> Polgar and Truong concealed the fact that they were married to each
> other.
>
> Here is one example from the USCF Forums in January 2007:
>
> http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3D27774#27774
>
> [quote=3D"chrisfalter"]My, how easily threads can get side-tracked!
> Truong's views on corporate governance should be known and discussed -
> but please, not on this thread! =A0If you want Paul to give those views,
> please start a new thread. =A0Also, the question about whether Paul and
> Susan are married is not only off-topic for this thread, it is
> entirely out-of-bounds for any thread. =A0They have stated that they are
> excellent friends and collaborate closely. =A0 A marriage is a legally
> recognized relationship that they clearly do not have. =A0And anyone who
> disagrees with my Paul/Susan view: please take it to another thread!
> Let's (pretty please with sugar on top) not hijack this thread for
> other purposes, and let Paul give us some details on his business
> career. =A0And after he responds, we can discuss his business bio.
>
> Thanks to all readers,
>
> Chris Falter [/quote]
>
> This thread is very interesting in view of what has happened in the
> year and a half since then.
>
> Here, Chris Falter, who was at that time one of their strongestsupporters=
, writes: =A0"marriage is a legally recognized relationship
>
> that they clearly do not have". Yet, we now know that they really were
> married. This was revealed by a newspaper reporter in Lubbock, Texas
> several months later.
>
> Truong, posting immediately below this, said nothing to contradict
> this. Other times during the election campaign, Truong complained to
> the moderators and got all questions asking whether he was married to
> Polgar or not deleted from the forums.
>
> Sam Sloan
Heck, it's even worse than you think, Sam. I heard they even
concealed their marriage *_from_* each other!
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jul 2008 12:04:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each other
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 13, 6:45 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> During their campaign to be elected to the USCF Executive Board,
> Polgar and Truong concealed the fact that they were married to each
> other.
Heck, it's even worse than you think, Sam. I heard they even
concealed their marriage *_from_* each other!
--
I knew about it, was about to announce that Paul had turned Mormon, and
married all three Polgar sisters, when the news broke.
The issue here is the same as Sloans' maligning of G. Alexander - that he
had no rating, completely ignoring that Carol Jarecki also had no rating.
Therefore - there is no principle involved - it is only personality
politics.
Once again here is an instance of Sam Sloan's disappointed infatuation with
personalised intriguing about one person only.
The Liebermann's are married, no? Did the sky fall down?
Obviously in the middle of the FSS fracas if you wanted to protect your
/family/ and especially your children, from further intrigue by others,
however honest they are to their actions, then you tell those with hostile
inquiries to mind their own business.
Sam Sloan once again obsesses about other people's family life since he
can't think of anything else this week other than rubbishing a USCF
volunteer - and DIRECTLY citing the Polgar connection, EVEN THOUGH he had
none at the time of his USCF work.
But USCF could have sorted this situation out a long time before even Sam
Sloan was elected. I asked the board if they actually had any principles?
Did they background check even executive staff and board members having to
do with children?
As usual, USCF pretended it wasn't a problem, did nothing, since at least
one board member found Sloan's speculations useful. The result is that is
that it will kill the federation, the only question is if it can survive
past next Spring's money shortage.
To shift the orientation of chess from these feuding personality obssessives
to a more executive-enabled system is the current issue - and as with Fide -
the rot is so deep that it would in fact be better to start over.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Jul 2008 17:02:53
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each
|
Chess One wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 13, 6:45 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> During their campaign to be elected to the USCF Executive Board,
>> Polgar and Truong concealed the fact that they were married to each
>> other.
>
>
> Heck, it's even worse than you think, Sam. I heard they even
> concealed their marriage *_from_* each other!
>
> --
>
> I knew about it, was about to announce that Paul had turned Mormon, and
> married all three Polgar sisters, when the news broke.
>
> The issue here is the same as Sloans' maligning of G. Alexander - that he
> had no rating, completely ignoring that Carol Jarecki also had no rating.
> Therefore - there is no principle involved - it is only personality
> politics.
>
> Once again here is an instance of Sam Sloan's disappointed infatuation with
> personalised intriguing about one person only.
>
> The Liebermann's are married, no? Did the sky fall down?
>
> Obviously in the middle of the FSS fracas if you wanted to protect your
> /family/ and especially your children, from further intrigue by others,
> however honest they are to their actions, then you tell those with hostile
> inquiries to mind their own business.
>
> Sam Sloan once again obsesses about other people's family life since he
> can't think of anything else this week other than rubbishing a USCF
> volunteer - and DIRECTLY citing the Polgar connection, EVEN THOUGH he had
> none at the time of his USCF work.
>
> But USCF could have sorted this situation out a long time before even Sam
> Sloan was elected. I asked the board if they actually had any principles?
> Did they background check even executive staff and board members having to
> do with children?
>
> As usual, USCF pretended it wasn't a problem, did nothing, since at least
> one board member found Sloan's speculations useful. The result is that is
> that it will kill the federation, the only question is if it can survive
> past next Spring's money shortage.
>
> To shift the orientation of chess from these feuding personality obssessives
> to a more executive-enabled system is the current issue - and as with Fide -
> the rot is so deep that it would in fact be better to start over.
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, stupid and inane best describe your latest missive. But, I don't
hate you at all. You're too amusing to hate.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Jul 2008 16:19:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each other
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1zqek.130$6O4.64@trnddc06...
> Chess One wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jul 13, 6:45 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> During their campaign to be elected to the USCF Executive Board,
>>> Polgar and Truong concealed the fact that they were married to each
>>> other.
>>
>>
>> Heck, it's even worse than you think, Sam. I heard they even
>> concealed their marriage *_from_* each other!
>>
>> --
>>
>> I knew about it, was about to announce that Paul had turned Mormon, and
>> married all three Polgar sisters, when the news broke.
>>
>> The issue here is the same as Sloans' maligning of G. Alexander - that he
>> had no rating, completely ignoring that Carol Jarecki also had no rating.
>> Therefore - there is no principle involved - it is only personality
>> politics.
>>
>> Once again here is an instance of Sam Sloan's disappointed infatuation
>> with personalised intriguing about one person only.
>>
>> The Liebermann's are married, no? Did the sky fall down?
>>
>> Obviously in the middle of the FSS fracas if you wanted to protect your
>> /family/ and especially your children, from further intrigue by others,
>> however honest they are to their actions, then you tell those with
>> hostile inquiries to mind their own business.
>>
>> Sam Sloan once again obsesses about other people's family life since he
>> can't think of anything else this week other than rubbishing a USCF
>> volunteer - and DIRECTLY citing the Polgar connection, EVEN THOUGH he had
>> none at the time of his USCF work.
>>
>> But USCF could have sorted this situation out a long time before even Sam
>> Sloan was elected. I asked the board if they actually had any principles?
>> Did they background check even executive staff and board members having
>> to do with children?
>>
>> As usual, USCF pretended it wasn't a problem, did nothing, since at least
>> one board member found Sloan's speculations useful. The result is that is
>> that it will kill the federation, the only question is if it can survive
>> past next Spring's money shortage.
>>
>> To shift the orientation of chess from these feuding personality
>> obssessives to a more executive-enabled system is the current issue - and
>> as with Fide - the rot is so deep that it would in fact be better to
>> start over.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> Phil, stupid and inane best describe your latest missive. But, I don't
> hate you at all. You're too amusing to hate.
Brian, I think you are already exposed for your lack of wit, sensitivity,
genuine desire to discuss aught, plus your basic honesty on anything other
than a single purpose in writing here. Why you should think you are winning
is, as above, a matter of the extent of your wit.
You cannot engage the comments I wrote, period! Instead - more 'amused'
abuse, which appears to suit you well enough.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Jul 2008 20:50:02
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1zqek.130$6O4.64@trnddc06...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Jul 13, 6:45 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> During their campaign to be elected to the USCF Executive Board,
>>>> Polgar and Truong concealed the fact that they were married to each
>>>> other.
>>>
>>> Heck, it's even worse than you think, Sam. I heard they even
>>> concealed their marriage *_from_* each other!
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> I knew about it, was about to announce that Paul had turned Mormon, and
>>> married all three Polgar sisters, when the news broke.
>>>
>>> The issue here is the same as Sloans' maligning of G. Alexander - that he
>>> had no rating, completely ignoring that Carol Jarecki also had no rating.
>>> Therefore - there is no principle involved - it is only personality
>>> politics.
>>>
>>> Once again here is an instance of Sam Sloan's disappointed infatuation
>>> with personalised intriguing about one person only.
>>>
>>> The Liebermann's are married, no? Did the sky fall down?
>>>
>>> Obviously in the middle of the FSS fracas if you wanted to protect your
>>> /family/ and especially your children, from further intrigue by others,
>>> however honest they are to their actions, then you tell those with
>>> hostile inquiries to mind their own business.
>>>
>>> Sam Sloan once again obsesses about other people's family life since he
>>> can't think of anything else this week other than rubbishing a USCF
>>> volunteer - and DIRECTLY citing the Polgar connection, EVEN THOUGH he had
>>> none at the time of his USCF work.
>>>
>>> But USCF could have sorted this situation out a long time before even Sam
>>> Sloan was elected. I asked the board if they actually had any principles?
>>> Did they background check even executive staff and board members having
>>> to do with children?
>>>
>>> As usual, USCF pretended it wasn't a problem, did nothing, since at least
>>> one board member found Sloan's speculations useful. The result is that is
>>> that it will kill the federation, the only question is if it can survive
>>> past next Spring's money shortage.
>>>
>>> To shift the orientation of chess from these feuding personality
>>> obssessives to a more executive-enabled system is the current issue - and
>>> as with Fide - the rot is so deep that it would in fact be better to
>>> start over.
>>>
>>> Phil Innes
>> Phil, stupid and inane best describe your latest missive. But, I don't
>> hate you at all. You're too amusing to hate.
>
> Brian, I think you are already exposed for your lack of wit, sensitivity,
> genuine desire to discuss aught, plus your basic honesty on anything other
> than a single purpose in writing here. Why you should think you are winning
> is, as above, a matter of the extent of your wit.
>
> You cannot engage the comments I wrote, period! Instead - more 'amused'
> abuse, which appears to suit you well enough.
>
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
I thought you were no longer responding to my posts, Phil. Regarding
this post of yours, I reject your self-serving assertions.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jul 2008 19:39:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each other
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:_Ttek.161$gH4.72@trnddc05...
> Chess One wrote:
>> You cannot engage the comments I wrote, period! Instead - more 'amused'
>> abuse, which appears to suit you well enough.
>>
>>
>> Phil Innes
> I thought you were no longer responding to my posts, Phil. Regarding this
> post of yours, I reject your self-serving assertions.
As above - so you agree!
And that is all I ever proposed. Your comments on other's behavior are not
exactly significant, for someone who cannot observe his own.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2008 06:55:22
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each
|
On Jul 13, 7:42 am, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > [quote="lblair"][quote="samsloan"]... Certain questions could not be
> > asked of certain candidates, such as whether they were married to each
> > other or not. ...[/quote]
> > A note that any member can look up:[quote="samsloan"]samsloan 11115292
> > Post:27774
> > Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:27 pm
> > Thread: A Request to Paul Truong for Further Documentation
> > ...
> > ... Why does he refuse to answer simple questions such as, is he
> > married to Susan Polgar or not?
> > ...[/quote]http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27774#27774[/quote]
>
> > Thank you Louis Blair for pointing out this very interesting thread,
> > especially in view of what has happened since then.
>
> > Unfortunately the records are sealed but those who remember will know
> > that starting in December 2006 they were asked many times on the USCF
> > Issues Forum whether they were married to each other or not.
>
> > Each time, they complained to the forum moderators and got the
> > question pulled so that we can no longer see the questions and their
> > non-answers.
>
> > This is a good example of the Moderator Bias that Steve Owens now
> > claims did not exist.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> This is insane. You claim that the question could not be asked on the
> USCF Forum, while quoting a post (still visible) in which you asked
> the question. You just proved yourself a liar. Did I say this was
> insane? No, anyone who takes you seriously is insane.
Not true. There were more than a dozen times on the USCF Issues Forum
when Paul Truong or Susan Polgar were directly asked the question "Are
you married to each other?" These questions started being asked in mid-
December 2006 when rumors started circulating that they were married.
In each case, the censors snipped the question so you cannot read them
now.
In this one case, pointed out by Louis Blair, I did not ask the
question directly. Instead, I wrote, "Why does he refuse to answer
simple questions such as, is he married to Susan Polgar or not?" Paul
Truong, in spite to answering seven more times in that thread, signing
under the User ID "ChessPromotion", each time ignored the question
about his marriage.
Unfortunately, non-USCF members and those who are not registered for
access to the USCF Issues Forum cannot see the link at
http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27774#27774
which is under the subject heading, "A Request to Paul Truong for
Further Documentation".
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2008 05:42:56
From:
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each
|
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="lblair"][quote="samsloan"]... Certain questions could not be
> asked of certain candidates, such as whether they were married to each
> other or not. ...[/quote]
> A note that any member can look up:[quote="samsloan"]samsloan 11115292
> Post:27774
> Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:27 pm
> Thread: A Request to Paul Truong for Further Documentation
> ...
> ... Why does he refuse to answer simple questions such as, is he
> married to Susan Polgar or not?
> ...[/quote] http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27774#27774[/quote]
>
> Thank you Louis Blair for pointing out this very interesting thread,
> especially in view of what has happened since then.
>
> Unfortunately the records are sealed but those who remember will know
> that starting in December 2006 they were asked many times on the USCF
> Issues Forum whether they were married to each other or not.
>
> Each time, they complained to the forum moderators and got the
> question pulled so that we can no longer see the questions and their
> non-answers.
>
> This is a good example of the Moderator Bias that Steve Owens now
> claims did not exist.
>
> Sam Sloan
This is insane. You claim that the question could not be asked on the
USCF Forum, while quoting a post (still visible) in which you asked
the question. You just proved yourself a liar. Did I say this was
insane? No, anyone who takes you seriously is insane.
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2008 04:00:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each
|
[quote="lblair"][quote="samsloan"]... Certain questions could not be
asked of certain candidates, such as whether they were married to each
other or not. ...[/quote]
A note that any member can look up:[quote="samsloan"]samsloan 11115292
Post:27774
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:27 pm
Thread: A Request to Paul Truong for Further Documentation
...
... Why does he refuse to answer simple questions such as, is he
married to Susan Polgar or not?
...[/quote] http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27774#27774[/quote]
Thank you Louis Blair for pointing out this very interesting thread,
especially in view of what has happened since then.
Unfortunately the records are sealed but those who remember will know
that starting in December 2006 they were asked many times on the USCF
Issues Forum whether they were married to each other or not.
Each time, they complained to the forum moderators and got the
question pulled so that we can no longer see the questions and their
non-answers.
This is a good example of the Moderator Bias that Steve Owens now
claims did not exist.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jul 2008 16:37:48
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Looking Back: Truong and Polgar concealed their marriage to each other
|
[...]
>
> Unfortunately the records are sealed but those who remember will know
> that starting in December 2006 they were asked many times on the USCF
> Issues Forum whether they were married to each other or not.
>
> Each time, they complained to the forum moderators and got the
> question pulled so that we can no longer see the questions and their
> non-answers.
Completely appropriate - or do you think that it is
appropriate to keep asking you why you married a gaggle
of illiterate mailorder brides?
>
> This is a good example of the Moderator Bias that Steve Owens now
> claims did not exist.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
|
