| |
Main
Date: 10 Dec 2007 03:51:22
From: samsloan
Subject: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
But at least he says something, unlike the other board members who
have stopped communicating with the general membership altogether:
by Randy Bauer on Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:01 am #82854
DACP (Donna Alarie) wrote:
Perhaps you can then explain what Ms. Polgar meant by this in her
post on her open forum last Saturday:
SusanPolgar said...
I can't give you those answers because I do not have them. Perhaps
you should ask the other 5 board members or the ED because we have
been isolated from their activities.
We were instructed to address questions and communications through
their lawyer.
Now that I see first hand how the USCF functions, I understand why
this federation has had severe financial difficulties for many years.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.ChessDiscussion.com
So, are all 7 Board members talking to each other and conducting
business as usual? Is Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong isolated from the
other 5 Board members activities?
Why haven't there been any BINFO's for a few weeks? Nothing to
discuss?
Then on December 2, Ms. Polgar said:
I have made an official proposal to the board which will save the
USCF tens and thousands and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of
dollars in legal fees.
So, USCF will be spending perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars
in legal fees? What is the result of the "official proposal". And sind
it is an "official proposal" made by the Chairman, why is it not in
the BINFO's?
Also, perhaps there's an answer to the follow up question to the
official statement made by USCF at the beginning of October as to
being in the process of hiring a forensic expert. Whatever happened to
that?
As far as being patient and waiting, USCF members have been
waiting since the end of September for a resolution to this issue.
It's been over two months. How much longer would you like USCF members
to wait? Any ballpark answer would be fine...last we heard, the
official statement said a matter of weeks not months...
It's really hard to follow your posts when you don't stick to the
forum convention which involves statements and indents.
My basic answers:
Ms. Alarie has not posted anything that disputes my belief that there
is not "Board Paralysis." We continue to conduct necessary business.
The USCF continues to function. I talk all the time with Board members
on issues of importance.
I've already answered Ms. Alarie's questions about hiring a forensic
expert.
I seem to have seen a BINFO about the monthlyl membership numbers. I
don't view their presence or absence as indicative of anything. When I
followed them on the last Board, they were usually based on the latest
claim by Sam Sloan.
I have also previously answered the issue about length of time to
resolution about the issue at hand - it's not an 'on demand' world
except in IBM commercials. Some of those who are quick to rush in
should take more chess lessons. Hedgehog, anyone?
The other issues, if I could pick them out of that garbled blue and
black, are mostly about legal threats or claims that I'll leave to
lawyers without an exe to grind to answer.
Randy Bauer
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2007 20:22:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
CRACKING THE OLD BOY NETWORK
<I have read your articles in 'chess canada' and have enjoyed them. If
my post was
taken as an insult towards yourself, I do apologize. Yes this was an
attack on Mr. Sloans Character. I believe that character is very
important when chosing a leader no matter what position the person is
running for. > -- J. Lohner
Dear Mr.Lohner,
Sorry, if I misunderstood the animus of your
attack. Merry Xmas and a clear thinking New Year.
First, I have also attacked Sam in the past over
issues of propriety. I agree that he can be a loose
cannon in a china shop. Social considerations mean
nearly nothing to him.
Secondly, we disagree over the man's performance
as a Board member. Sam and I, virtually alone, spent
a year telling the Federation not to move to the
Trojan Horse that is Crossville, Tennessee. Sam was
accused of offering baseless charges when noting that
the cost of moving to Cross-to-Bear would be three
quarters of a mil.
And you know what: he was wrong. It was MORE
than that. When I reported some two months before the
Executive Board 'fessed up that the new, small
building would cost at least $650,000, I was called a
liar. Later, the board released the exact same figure,
and it has since gone still higher.
Sam is a troublemaker and that is, alas,
precisely what the USCF needs. The old boy network
and the sweetheart deals and rigged bidding -- these
things need to become part of the past if the USCF is
to survive as something more than a small office
offering certifications and the like.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> BILL BROCK'S VOYEURISM
>
> >These stories may not be a 'sexual crime' but I would seriously question any man who has a daughter and could get any enjoyment out of these stories.> -- J. Lohner
>
> We have another poster attacking Sam Sloan,
> first and foremost, and this writer secondarily.
>
> I have no interest in reviewing sexually related
> materials on Sam Sloan's site or other outlets. My
> popcult entertainment involves listening to MP3 disks
> with old-time radio programs such as The Great
> Gildersleeve, Fibber McGee and Molly, Paul Temple (the
> all-time great radio detective program, produced by the
> BBC) and to be sure, Suspense, the ultimate OTR program.
>
> I find it fascinating that the censorious types
> such as our Bill Brock, first and foremost, apparently
> are very well read indeed in sexual materials, whereas
> many of us find such voyeurism not so much immoral,
> though certainly hypocritical, as downright boring. Give
> me instead an old program of Information Please with
> with Alexander Woollcott, Dorothy Parker, Franklin P.
> Adams and, say, Robert Benchley any day.
>
> Voyeurism, which is explicit in so much current
> entertainment, bores.
>
> Secondly, I don't consider what people post on
> the Internet to be in itself determinative, though
> suggestive and occasionally predictive. So far as I
> have been able to determine, Sam Sloan went to jail
> on one occasion over an affair of the heart involving his
> daughter. Many fathers, especially in these pc times,
> would have acted as he did. I might have, if I were in
> the same predicament. Any father here who says
> otherwise is knowingly lying.
>
> Thirdly, since the discussion is about chess,
> the truly relevant subject matter is whether Sam has
> been a positive influence in USCF affairs. The
> evident answer is a clear and resounding YES!
>
> Several of the attackers here are in de facto
> league with the USCF Executive Board. You all have
> witnessed the dishonest spinmeister Randy Bauer doing
> a song-and-dance recently on this forum. He came, he
> bellowed, he slunk away -- until given his next spin
> assignment here. I find such behavior more
> reprehensible than anything proven or, in several
> instances, even alleged against Sam Sloan.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
> -
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > DAY 5
> >
> > >Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan. 2000 words, chop chop.
> > Day 5.> -- Bill Brock, who lost a match to Sam Sloan in Chicago
> >
> > With all due respect to those a bit potty and,
> > indeed, who are outright crackpots, one has to say
> > that Bill Brock is a psychoceramic himself. Once
> > again, we note that Mr. Brock has presented no proof
> > that Sam Sloan has committed any sexual crimes.
> >
> > Just more smears aimed at misdirecting the focus
> > away from board member Randy Bauer.
> >
> > Yours, Larry Parr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 9:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm
> > > >
> > > > http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
> > > >
> > > > Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan.
> > > >
> > > > 2000 words, chop chop.
> > >
> > > Day 5.
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2007 00:11:29
From:
Subject: Re: Fibber McGee continues to evade
|
On Dec 19, 1:53 am, [email protected] wrote:
> http://direkickfeud.blogspot.com/2007/12/fibber-mcgee-continues-to-ev...
>
> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, indeed.
Day 7.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2007 23:53:41
From:
Subject: Fibber McGee continues to evade
|
http://direkickfeud.blogspot.com/2007/12/fibber-mcgee-continues-to-evade.html
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, indeed.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2007 22:10:40
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
BILL BROCK'S VOYEURISM
>These stories may not be a 'sexual crime' but I would seriously question any man who has a daughter and could get any enjoyment out of these stories.> -- J. Lohner
We have another poster attacking Sam Sloan,
first and foremost, and this writer secondarily.
I have no interest in reviewing sexually related
materials on Sam Sloan's site or other outlets. My
popcult entertainment involves listening to MP3 disks
with old-time radio programs such as The Great
Gildersleeve, Fibber McGee and Molly, Paul Temple (the
all-time great radio detective program, produced by the
BBC) and to be sure, Suspense, the ultimate OTR program.
I find it fascinating that the censorious types
such as our Bill Brock, first and foremost, apparently
are very well read indeed in sexual materials, whereas
many of us find such voyeurism not so much immoral,
though certainly hypocritical, as downright boring. Give
me instead an old program of Information Please with
with Alexander Woollcott, Dorothy Parker, Franklin P.
Adams and, say, Robert Benchley any day.
Voyeurism, which is explicit in so much current
entertainment, bores.
Secondly, I don't consider what people post on
the Internet to be in itself determinative, though
suggestive and occasionally predictive. So far as I
have been able to determine, Sam Sloan went to jail
on one occasion over an affair of the heart involving his
daughter. Many fathers, especially in these pc times,
would have acted as he did. I might have, if I were in
the same predicament. Any father here who says
otherwise is knowingly lying.
Thirdly, since the discussion is about chess,
the truly relevant subject matter is whether Sam has
been a positive influence in USCF affairs. The
evident answer is a clear and resounding YES!
Several of the attackers here are in de facto
league with the USCF Executive Board. You all have
witnessed the dishonest spinmeister Randy Bauer doing
a song-and-dance recently on this forum. He came, he
bellowed, he slunk away -- until given his next spin
assignment here. I find such behavior more
reprehensible than anything proven or, in several
instances, even alleged against Sam Sloan.
Yours, Larry Parr
-
[email protected] wrote:
> DAY 5
>
> >Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan. 2000 words, chop chop.
> Day 5.> -- Bill Brock, who lost a match to Sam Sloan in Chicago
>
> With all due respect to those a bit potty and,
> indeed, who are outright crackpots, one has to say
> that Bill Brock is a psychoceramic himself. Once
> again, we note that Mr. Brock has presented no proof
> that Sam Sloan has committed any sexual crimes.
>
> Just more smears aimed at misdirecting the focus
> away from board member Randy Bauer.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 9:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
> > >
> > > Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan.
> > >
> > > 2000 words, chop chop.
> >
> > Day 5.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Dec 2007 20:49:55
From:
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:10:40 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>BILL BROCK'S VOYEURISM
>
>>These stories may not be a 'sexual crime' but I would seriously question any man who has a daughter and could get any enjoyment out of these stories.> -- J. Lohner
>
> We have another poster attacking Sam Sloan,
>first and foremost, and this writer secondarily.
>
This was in no way an attack on you. I have read your articles in
'chess canada' and have enjoyed them. If my post was taken as an
insult towards yourself, I do apologize.
Yes this was an attack on Mr. Sloans Character. I believe that
character is very important when chosing a leader no matter what
position the person is running for.
> I find it fascinating that the censorious types
>such as our Bill Brock, first and foremost, apparently
>are very well read indeed in sexual materials, whereas
>many of us find such voyeurism not so much immoral,
>though certainly hypocritical, as downright boring.
Certainly most people would not care if Mr sloan was posting
'average' sexual materials, but when the posts include subjects like
incest I would strongly object to this person holding any position in
any political body.
> Thirdly, since the discussion is about chess,
>the truly relevant subject matter is whether Sam has
>been a positive influence in USCF affairs. The
>evident answer is a clear and resounding YES!
This is where I would say that it is a resounding NO!
If Sam Sloan won a position on the Canadian Chess Federation board, I
would not renew my membership. Im sure many others that I know would
do the same. Mr Sloan seems to enjoy 'stirring the pot' without
researching his facts. This can't be positive.
Mr. Sloan is also very annoying. His constant spamming of unrelated
newsgroups with his political 'news' shows that he has no manners or
common sense. Im sure I am not the only one who has added his name
to their 'twit filter'. Of all the annoying spammers in this
newsgroup (and other related chess groups) Mr. Sloan was the FIRST
name I filtered out. There are several people here who strongly
disagree on various subjects, but are willing to debate with civility.
Mr Sloan is not one of them. I can't see how his spamming is 'good
for chess'.
J.Lohner
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Dec 2007 05:04:42
From: Non scrivetemi
Subject: Incest? Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
"J.Lohner" <[email protected] > wrote on 12/20/2007 in
rec.games.chess.misc...
> Yes this was an attack on Mr. Sloans Character.
And what "character" could that be?
> Certainly most people would not care if Mr sloan was posting
> 'average' sexual materials, but when the posts include subjects like
> incest I would strongly object to this person holding any position
Retrieved on 12/20/2007 from http://www.ishipress.com/wongtran.htm
Read it carefully or you may miss (among all the examples of the court's
inexcusable rudeness to Mr. Sloan) what Mr. Vladimir Cadet reported.
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
CITY OF NEW YORK, QUEENS COUNTY
In the matters of:
Docket # V-11657/05
SAMUEL SLOAN, Petitioner,
against
DAYAWATHIE RANKOTH, Respondent.
Docket # O-18182/05
DAYAWATHIE RANKOTH, Petitioner,
against
SAMUEL SLOAN, Respondent.
HELD: October 6, 2005
//snip//
BEFORE: DOUGLAS S. WONG, Judge
APPEARANCES:
Dayawathie Rankoth
Sanctuary for Families
67 Wall Street, New York, New York 10005
BY: ALEXANDER KARAM, ESQ.
Law Guardian for the Child [Anusha Rankoth]
VLADIMIR CADET, ESQ.
Assigned pursuant to 18-b
//snip//
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, I need
COURT OFFICER: Sir, be quiet. Stand up.
//snip//
THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, I just want to warn you, you're in a courtroom in a
court of law, and you're going to act in an appropriate manner in terms of
listening to court officers' directions and not arguing. If there is a
problem with you, then, I can sanction you, which means putting you in
jail. So, there better not be any problems
with you in this courtroom.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I be heard?
THE COURT: No.
//snip//
MR. SLOAN: .. I want to speak to the issue.
THE COURT: I'm not dealing with the issue now. I want to know
MR. SLOAN: I'm trying to move to disqualify this attorney because I have
had conflicts with his law firm for fourteen years.
THE COURT: Any motion has to be in writing.
//snip//
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, she has two methyl amphetamine addicts living in her
home.
THE COURT: Okay, sir. I just warned you about interrupting me, and I'm not
going to warn you again.
//snip//
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I be heard?
THE COURT: No.
//snip//
MR. KARAM: There are five children living in the home.
//snip//
MR. CADET: Yes, Judge. I did have an opportunity to speak with my client.
She denied all of the allegations in Mr. Sloan's custody petition alleging
drug use in the home. She indicated there is no problem in the home. She
also indicated she wanted no contact with her father. I asked her why. She
expressed to me concerns that her older sibling had told her when she was
younger Mr. Sloan would often walk into the bathroom when she was bathing,
just open the door. She's afraid about that, and also that she was aware
that allegedly in the past, Mr. Sloan had abducted two of her siblings and
went to California.
MR. SLOAN: May I address this, your Honor?
THE COURT: No.
//snip//
MR. SLOAN: I would like to address
COURT OFFICER: Quiet.
THE COURT: Sir, I'm not going to warn you again about interrupting me and
talking out of turn. If you do that again, you're going to be held in
contempt of court and you're going to be incarcerated.
//snip//
THE COURT: .. I will be granting your client, on her petition, the order of
protection.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I address that?
THE COURT: Mr. Sloan is not to commit any criminal offense against her, and
this includes the children; not to assault, harass, threaten or menace her
or the children. He has to stay away from her and the children at all
times.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, I need to speak.
THE COURT: If you violate the order of protection, after being served with
the order, then, you'll be arrested for violating the order of protection.
Also, there will be no communication or have anybody else contact her on
your behalf.
MR. SLOAN: I need to address the Court on this.
THE COURT: Part 9, November 28, for the hearing. Thank you. Just wait
outside.
MR. SLOAN: I'm making a complaint against you. You did not allow me to
speak.
THE COURT: Step out, sir.
COURT OFFICER: Let's go, sir. Step out. (Whereupon, the matter was
adjourned.)
Certified to be a true and accurate transcript.
STEPHEN E. GENDEL, Official Court Reporter
> This is where I would say that it is a resounding NO!
> If Sam Sloan won a position on the Canadian Chess Federation board, I
> would not renew my membership. Im sure many others that I know would
> do the same. Mr Sloan seems to enjoy 'stirring the pot' without
> researching his facts. This can't be positive.
Stirring the pot? What have you been smoking?
> Mr. Sloan is also very annoying. His constant spamming of unrelated
> newsgroups with his political 'news' shows that he has no manners or
> common sense.
Lohner, you are not fitted to walk the same planet as Mr. Sloan.
Johnny Reb
-----------------------------------------------
MR. CADET: Yes, Judge. I did have an opportunity to speak with my client.
She denied all of the allegations in Mr. Sloan's custody petition alleging
drug use in the home. She indicated there is no problem in the home. She
also indicated she wanted no contact with her father. I asked her why. She
expressed to me concerns that her older sibling had told her when she was
younger Mr. Sloan would often walk into the bathroom when she was bathing,
just open the door. She's afraid about that, and also that she was aware
that allegedly in the past, Mr. Sloan had abducted two of her siblings and
went to California.
::
Posted via https://www.cotse.net/cgi-bin/mixnews.cgi
Free. Secure. Fast. And almost anonymous.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2007 22:28:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Incest? Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
On Dec 20, 11:04 pm, "Non scrivetemi"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> //snip//
What exactly has been snipped? How can we
know if it was relevant or not?
> MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, I need
> COURT OFFICER: Sir, be quiet. Stand up.
In the movies and on TV, a courtroom "case"
usually begins by everybody standing up while
an arrogant Judge enters the room and seats
him or her self. Nobody talks except the big
honcho and his/her clerk, until spoken to.
> //snip//
>
> THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, I just want to warn you, you're in a courtroom in a
> court of law, and you're going to act in an appropriate manner in terms of
> listening to court officers' directions and not arguing. If there is a
> problem with you, then, I can sanction you, which means putting you in
> jail. So, there better not be any problems
> with you in this courtroom.
Apparently, an empty threat.
> MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I be heard?
> THE COURT: No.
> //snip//
>
> MR. SLOAN: .. I want to speak to the issue.
> THE COURT: I'm not dealing with the issue now. I want to know
[Missing text... ??]
> MR. SLOAN: I'm trying to move to disqualify this attorney because I have
> had conflicts with his law firm for fourteen years.
> THE COURT: Any motion has to be in writing.
Sheesh. I can't tell you how many times I have
read *that*, right here in rgc. Can it be possible
that the Great Sam Sloan was so ignorant?
> //snip//
>
> MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, she has two methyl amphetamine addicts living in her
> home.
Hmm. It appears that Mr. Sloan was in need of
"free" room and board, courtesy of the state.
> THE COURT: Okay, sir. I just warned you about interrupting me, and I'm not
> going to warn you again.
Bah. You can't take this guy seriously; he
barks out threats, but has no real bite. How
many of these "warnings" is he going to spit
out before taking real action?
> //snip//
>
> MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I be heard?
> THE COURT: No.
>
> //snip//
>
> MR. KARAM: There are five children living in the home.
>
> //snip//
>
> MR. CADET: Yes, Judge. I did have an opportunity to speak with my client.
> She denied all of the allegations in Mr. Sloan's custody petition alleging
> drug use in the home. She indicated there is no problem in the home. She
> also indicated she wanted no contact with her father. I asked her why. She
> expressed to me concerns that her older sibling had told her when she was
> younger Mr. Sloan would often walk into the bathroom when she was bathing,
> just open the door.
Locks. Invented a very long time ago, so I've
heard. Spooky.
> She's afraid about that, and also that she was aware
> that allegedly in the past, Mr. Sloan had abducted two of her siblings and
> went to California.
There are worse places.
> MR. SLOAN: May I address this, your Honor?
> THE COURT: No.
>
> //snip//
>
> MR. SLOAN: I would like to address
> COURT OFFICER: Quiet.
> THE COURT: Sir, I'm not going to warn you again
Yadda, yadda, yadda. One empty "threat"
after another. The boy who cried "wolf!" was
scarier than this guy.
> about interrupting me and
> talking out of turn. If you do that again, you're going to be held in
> contempt of court and you're going to be incarcerated.
So what? Mr. Sloan has sat in a car before.
> //snip//
>
> THE COURT: .. I will be granting your client, on her petition, the order of
> protection.
> MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I address that?
> THE COURT: Mr. Sloan is not to commit any criminal offense against her, and
> this includes the children; not to assault, harass, threaten or menace her
> or the children. He has to stay away from her and the children at all
> times.
> MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, I need to speak.
> THE COURT: If you violate the order of protection, after being served with
> the order, then, you'll be arrested for violating the order of protection.
> Also, there will be no communication or have anybody else contact her on
> your behalf.
> MR. SLOAN: I need to address the Court on this.
> THE COURT: Part 9, November 28, for the hearing. Thank you. Just wait
> outside.
> MR. SLOAN: I'm making a complaint against you. You did not allow me to
> speak.
The poor man was tired of sleeping in his cab.
Please-- stop ignoring his cries for help (i.e.: free
room and board in the Big House) already!
> THE COURT: Step out, sir.
> COURT OFFICER: Let's go, sir. Step out. (Whereupon, the matter was
> adjourned.)
What-- no fistfight with the judge? :<(
> Certified to be a true and accurate transcript.
> STEPHEN E. GENDEL, Official Court Reporter
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2007 14:52:39
From:
Subject: Re: point of clarification
|
Day 6.
On Dec 18, 9:27 am, [email protected] wrote:
> I understand your position re Bauer.
>
> Re Sloan: is it fair to say that you find the web links below
> unproblematic, and that you continue to find him qualified to serve on
> the board of a national nonprofit organization with more than 40,000
> junior members?
>
> On Dec 18, 6:46 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > DAY 5
>
> > >Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan. 2000 words, chop chop.
>
> > Day 5.> -- Bill Brock, who lost a match to Sam Sloan in Chicago
>
> > With all due respect to those a bit potty and,
> > indeed, who are outright crackpots, one has to say
> > that Bill Brock is a psychoceramic himself. Once
> > again, we note that Mr. Brock has presented no proof
> > that Sam Sloan has committed any sexual crimes.
>
> > Just more smears aimed at misdirecting the focus
> > away from board member Randy Bauer.
>
> > Yours, Larry Parr
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 9:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > >http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm
>
> > > >http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
>
> > > > Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan.
>
> > > > 2000 words, chop chop.
>
> > > Day 5.
Day 6. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2007 07:27:37
From:
Subject: point of clarification
|
I understand your position re Bauer.
Re Sloan: is it fair to say that you find the web links below
unproblematic, and that you continue to find him qualified to serve on
the board of a national nonprofit organization with more than 40,000
junior members?
On Dec 18, 6:46 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> DAY 5
>
> >Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan. 2000 words, chop chop.
>
> Day 5.> -- Bill Brock, who lost a match to Sam Sloan in Chicago
>
> With all due respect to those a bit potty and,
> indeed, who are outright crackpots, one has to say
> that Bill Brock is a psychoceramic himself. Once
> again, we note that Mr. Brock has presented no proof
> that Sam Sloan has committed any sexual crimes.
>
> Just more smears aimed at misdirecting the focus
> away from board member Randy Bauer.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 9:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > >http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm
>
> > >http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
>
> > > Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan.
>
> > > 2000 words, chop chop.
>
> > Day 5.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2007 04:46:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
DAY 5
>Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan. 2000 words, chop chop.
Day 5. > -- Bill Brock, who lost a match to Sam Sloan in Chicago
With all due respect to those a bit potty and,
indeed, who are outright crackpots, one has to say
that Bill Brock is a psychoceramic himself. Once
again, we note that Mr. Brock has presented no proof
that Sam Sloan has committed any sexual crimes.
Just more smears aimed at misdirecting the focus
away from board member Randy Bauer.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm
> >
> > http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
> >
> > Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan.
> >
> > 2000 words, chop chop.
>
> Day 5.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2007 02:47:05
From:
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:46:00 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>DAY 5
>
>>Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan. 2000 words, chop chop.
>Day 5.> -- Bill Brock, who lost a match to Sam Sloan in Chicago
>
> With all due respect to those a bit potty and,
>indeed, who are outright crackpots, one has to say
>that Bill Brock is a psychoceramic himself. Once
>again, we note that Mr. Brock has presented no proof
>that Sam Sloan has committed any sexual crimes.
>
>Just more smears aimed at misdirecting the focus
>away from board member Randy Bauer.
>
>Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
What it does show is that sam sloan has no moral compass.
Anyone who would put these stories on his web page shows that he total
lacks any common sense. I know its not politically correct to talk
about moral values but sometimes the obvious has to be noted. The
emperor has no cloths...
These stories may not be a 'sexual crime' but I would seriously
question any man who has a daughter and could get any enjoyment out of
these stories. Does that not send a warning flag to you??? I wouldnt
let him within 100' of my daughter...
you are right they aren't criminal, but to 99%of the population, they
are completely immoral.
J.Lohner
>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 9:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> > http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm
>> >
>> > http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
>> >
>> > Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan.
>> >
>> > 2000 words, chop chop.
>>
>> Day 5.
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2007 15:43:19
From:
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
On Dec 13, 8:19 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> LEANING TOWER OF BAUER
>
> >By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead Report? -- J.D. Walker
>
> One does not have to believe that Paul Truong
> is guilty of anything to realize the USCF is once
> again engaged in some silly cover-up that in the
> long run will end up condemning Truong.
>
> Our fearless leaders are all keeping their traps shut.
> Randy Bauer is their spin guy. He appears here to
> attempt explanations and then disappears.
>
> That's his job.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> > > On Dec 12, 5:35 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Not only that. He continues to show his character for what it is, to
> > >> wit, a
> > >> sarcastic little man who has ego issues.
>
> > > Where is the promised confirmation of the Mottershead Report?
>
> > We're waiting for it. When we have word we'll let everyone know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Randy Bauer is a PUSSY. He raised taxes in IOWA, and he threatens to
sue people in Florida who critize him.
He is involved in a COVERUP and has voted USCF legal funds to pay Paul
Truong's legal bill, which the USCF has a
claim against Paul Truong and Susan Polgar, personally. This isn't
IOWA Randy Bauer, and you can't have Paul
make death threats for your clique and have the USCF pay your legal
defense.
I reported the crime. That is public record. Now, you pay the legal
bill, like you are running IOWA!
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 07:34:28
From:
Subject: Larry Parr continues to evade
|
http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
Need Parr's celebration of incest in defense of Sloan.
2000 words, chop chop.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2007 06:19:03
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
LEANING TOWER OF BAUER
>By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead Report? -- J.D. Walker
One does not have to believe that Paul Truong
is guilty of anything to realize the USCF is once
again engaged in some silly cover-up that in the
long run will end up condemning Truong.
Our fearless leaders are all keeping their traps shut.
Randy Bauer is their spin guy. He appears here to
attempt explanations and then disappears.
That's his job.
Yours, Larry Parr
B. Lafferty wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Dec 12, 5:35 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Not only that. He continues to show his character for what it is, to
> >> wit, a
> >> sarcastic little man who has ego issues.
> >
> > Where is the promised confirmation of the Mottershead Report?
>
> We're waiting for it. When we have word we'll let everyone know.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 06:04:12
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
On Dec 12, 5:35 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Not only that. He continues to show his character for what it is, to wit, a
> sarcastic little man who has ego issues.
Where is the promised confirmation of the Mottershead Report?
|
| | |
Date: 21 Dec 2007 10:47:14
From:
Subject: Re: Peace on earth continues to evade
|
Merry Christmas!
Happy New Year!
|
| | |
Date: 21 Dec 2007 10:43:51
From:
Subject: Re: Martin Buber continues to be relevant
|
On Dec 21, 12:41 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2:49 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:10:40 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >BILLBROCK'SVOYEURISM
>
> > >>These stories may not be a 'sexual crime' but I would seriously question any man who has a daughter and could get any enjoyment out of these stories.> -- J. Lohner
>
> > > We have another poster attacking Sam Sloan,
> > >first and foremost, and this writer secondarily.
>
> > This was in no way an attack on you. I have read your articles in
> > 'chess canada' and have enjoyed them. If my post was taken as an
> > insult towards yourself, I do apologize.
>
> > Yes this was an attack on Mr. Sloans Character. I believe that
> > character is very important when chosing a leader no matter what
> > position the person is running for.
>
> > > I find it fascinating that the censorious types
> > >such as our BillBrock, first and foremost, apparently
> > >are very well read indeed in sexual materials, whereas
> > >many of us find such voyeurism not so much immoral,
> > >though certainly hypocritical, as downright boring.
>
> > Certainly most people would not care if Mr sloan was posting
> > 'average' sexual materials, but when the posts include subjects like
> > incest I would strongly object to this person holding any position in
> > any political body.
>
> [...]
>
> Human sexuality is a wonderful thing, and I don't necessarily find
> explicit sexual material problematic in itself.
>
> But we should strive to treat other people as people, as fellow
> subjects. Not as chattel, not as objects for use. Without getting
> into details here, there are certain choices that an adult is
> competent to make, but that a child simply cannot.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou(recommended by one postmodern
> atheist)
Hmm, the sumy of _I and Thou_ in WP is terrible. There's a much
better sumy in the article on Buber:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tin_Buber#Philosophy
|
| | |
Date: 21 Dec 2007 10:41:27
From:
Subject: Martin Buber continues to be relevant
|
On Dec 20, 2:49 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:10:40 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >BILLBROCK'SVOYEURISM
>
> >>These stories may not be a 'sexual crime' but I would seriously question any man who has a daughter and could get any enjoyment out of these stories.> -- J. Lohner
>
> > We have another poster attacking Sam Sloan,
> >first and foremost, and this writer secondarily.
>
> This was in no way an attack on you. I have read your articles in
> 'chess canada' and have enjoyed them. If my post was taken as an
> insult towards yourself, I do apologize.
>
> Yes this was an attack on Mr. Sloans Character. I believe that
> character is very important when chosing a leader no matter what
> position the person is running for.
>
> > I find it fascinating that the censorious types
> >such as our BillBrock, first and foremost, apparently
> >are very well read indeed in sexual materials, whereas
> >many of us find such voyeurism not so much immoral,
> >though certainly hypocritical, as downright boring.
>
> Certainly most people would not care if Mr sloan was posting
> 'average' sexual materials, but when the posts include subjects like
> incest I would strongly object to this person holding any position in
> any political body.
>
[...]
Human sexuality is a wonderful thing, and I don't necessarily find
explicit sexual material problematic in itself.
But we should strive to treat other people as people, as fellow
subjects. Not as chattel, not as objects for use. Without getting
into details here, there are certain choices that an adult is
competent to make, but that a child simply cannot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou (recommended by one postmodern
atheist)
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 16:51:44
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 12, 5:35 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Not only that. He continues to show his character for what it is, to
>> wit, a
>> sarcastic little man who has ego issues.
>
> Where is the promised confirmation of the Mottershead Report?
We're waiting for it. When we have word we'll let everyone know.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 06:13:30
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
The Historian wrote:
> On Dec 12, 5:35 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Not only that. He continues to show his character for what it is, to wit, a
>> sarcastic little man who has ego issues.
>
> Where is the promised confirmation of the Mottershead Report?
I would settle for some independent analysis. I thought we were going
to see something by now. I can't imagine what has happened to it. Has
someone swept it under the carpet and looked the other way?
--
Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2007 18:06:45
From:
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
On Dec 10, 5:51 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> But at least he says something, unlike the other board members who
> have stopped communicating with the general membership altogether:
>
> by Randy Bauer on Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:01 am #82854
>
> DACP (Donna Alarie) wrote:
>
> Perhaps you can then explain what Ms. Polgar meant by this in her
> post on her open forum last Saturday:
>
> SusanPolgar said...
> I can't give you those answers because I do not have them. Perhaps
> you should ask the other 5 board members or the ED because we have
> been isolated from their activities.
>
> We were instructed to address questions and communications through
> their lawyer.
>
> Now that I see first hand how the USCF functions, I understand why
> this federation has had severe financial difficulties for many years.
>
> Best wishes,
> Susan Polgar
> http://www.ChessDiscussion.com
>
> So, are all 7 Board members talking to each other and conducting
> business as usual? Is Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong isolated from the
> other 5 Board members activities?
>
> Why haven't there been any BINFO's for a few weeks? Nothing to
> discuss?
>
> Then on December 2, Ms. Polgar said:
>
> I have made an official proposal to the board which will save the
> USCF tens and thousands and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of
> dollars in legal fees.
> So, USCF will be spending perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars
> in legal fees? What is the result of the "official proposal". And sind
> it is an "official proposal" made by the Chairman, why is it not in
> the BINFO's?
>
> Also, perhaps there's an answer to the follow up question to the
> official statement made by USCF at the beginning of October as to
> being in the process of hiring a forensic expert. Whatever happened to
> that?
>
> As far as being patient and waiting, USCF members have been
> waiting since the end of September for a resolution to this issue.
> It's been over two months. How much longer would you like USCF members
> to wait? Any ballpark answer would be fine...last we heard, the
> official statement said a matter of weeks not months...
>
> It's really hard to follow your posts when you don't stick to the
> forum convention which involves statements and indents.
>
> My basic answers:
>
> Ms. Alarie has not posted anything that disputes my belief that there
> is not "Board Paralysis." We continue to conduct necessary business.
> The USCF continues to function. I talk all the time with Board members
> on issues of importance.
>
> I've already answered Ms. Alarie's questions about hiring a forensic
> expert.
>
> I seem to have seen a BINFO about the monthlyl membership numbers. I
> don't view their presence or absence as indicative of anything. When I
> followed them on the last Board, they were usually based on the latest
> claim by Sam Sloan.
>
> I have also previously answered the issue about length of time to
> resolution about the issue at hand - it's not an 'on demand' world
> except in IBM commercials. Some of those who are quick to rush in
> should take more chess lessons. Hedgehog, anyone?
>
> The other issues, if I could pick them out of that garbled blue and
> black, are mostly about legal threats or claims that I'll leave to
> lawyers without an exe to grind to answer.
>
> Randy Bauer
Radny Bauer is a PUSSY. He won't sue me, like he threatened to. SUE
ME, Randy Bauer, you PUSSY, and I'll depose
you and all of your friends.
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2007 08:39:28
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
On Dec 10, 6:51 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> But at least he says something, unlike the other board members who
> have stopped communicating with the general membership altogether:
>
> by Randy Bauer on Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:01 am #82854
>
> DACP (Donna Alarie) wrote:
>
> Perhaps you can then explain what Ms. Polgar meant by this in her
> post on her open forum last Saturday:
>
> SusanPolgar said...
> I can't give you those answers because I do not have them. Perhaps
> you should ask the other 5 board members or the ED because we have
> been isolated from their activities.
>
> We were instructed to address questions and communications through
> their lawyer.
>
> Now that I see first hand how the USCF functions, I understand why
> this federation has had severe financial difficulties for many years.
>
> Best wishes,
> Susan Polgar
> http://www.ChessDiscussion.com
>
> So, are all 7 Board members talking to each other and conducting
> business as usual? Is Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong isolated from the
> other 5 Board members activities?
>
> Why haven't there been any BINFO's for a few weeks? Nothing to
> discuss?
>
> Then on December 2, Ms. Polgar said:
>
> I have made an official proposal to the board which will save the
> USCF tens and thousands and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of
> dollars in legal fees.
> So, USCF will be spending perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars
> in legal fees? What is the result of the "official proposal". And sind
> it is an "official proposal" made by the Chairman, why is it not in
> the BINFO's?
>
> Also, perhaps there's an answer to the follow up question to the
> official statement made by USCF at the beginning of October as to
> being in the process of hiring a forensic expert. Whatever happened to
> that?
>
> As far as being patient and waiting, USCF members have been
> waiting since the end of September for a resolution to this issue.
> It's been over two months. How much longer would you like USCF members
> to wait? Any ballpark answer would be fine...last we heard, the
> official statement said a matter of weeks not months...
>
> It's really hard to follow your posts when you don't stick to the
> forum convention which involves statements and indents.
>
> My basic answers:
>
> Ms. Alarie has not posted anything that disputes my belief that there
> is not "Board Paralysis." We continue to conduct necessary business.
> The USCF continues to function. I talk all the time with Board members
> on issues of importance.
>
> I've already answered Ms. Alarie's questions about hiring a forensic
> expert.
>
> I seem to have seen a BINFO about the monthlyl membership numbers. I
> don't view their presence or absence as indicative of anything. When I
> followed them on the last Board, they were usually based on the latest
> claim by Sam Sloan.
>
> I have also previously answered the issue about length of time to
> resolution about the issue at hand - it's not an 'on demand' world
> except in IBM commercials. Some of those who are quick to rush in
> should take more chess lessons. Hedgehog, anyone?
>
> The other issues, if I could pick them out of that garbled blue and
> black, are mostly about legal threats or claims that I'll leave to
> lawyers without an exe to grind to answer.
>
> Randy Bauer
Typical chess politician stuff.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2007 10:35:04
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Randy Bauer continues to evade
|
Not only that. He continues to show his character for what it is, to wit, a
sarcastic little man who has ego issues.
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 10, 6:51 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But at least he says something, unlike the other board members who
>> have stopped communicating with the general membership altogether:
>>
>> by Randy Bauer on Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:01 am #82854
>>
>> DACP (Donna Alarie) wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps you can then explain what Ms. Polgar meant by this in her
>> post on her open forum last Saturday:
>>
>> SusanPolgar said...
>> I can't give you those answers because I do not have them. Perhaps
>> you should ask the other 5 board members or the ED because we have
>> been isolated from their activities.
>>
>> We were instructed to address questions and communications through
>> their lawyer.
>>
>> Now that I see first hand how the USCF functions, I understand why
>> this federation has had severe financial difficulties for many years.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Susan Polgar
>> http://www.ChessDiscussion.com
>>
>> So, are all 7 Board members talking to each other and conducting
>> business as usual? Is Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong isolated from the
>> other 5 Board members activities?
>>
>> Why haven't there been any BINFO's for a few weeks? Nothing to
>> discuss?
>>
>> Then on December 2, Ms. Polgar said:
>>
>> I have made an official proposal to the board which will save the
>> USCF tens and thousands and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of
>> dollars in legal fees.
>> So, USCF will be spending perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars
>> in legal fees? What is the result of the "official proposal". And sind
>> it is an "official proposal" made by the Chairman, why is it not in
>> the BINFO's?
>>
>> Also, perhaps there's an answer to the follow up question to the
>> official statement made by USCF at the beginning of October as to
>> being in the process of hiring a forensic expert. Whatever happened to
>> that?
>>
>> As far as being patient and waiting, USCF members have been
>> waiting since the end of September for a resolution to this issue.
>> It's been over two months. How much longer would you like USCF members
>> to wait? Any ballpark answer would be fine...last we heard, the
>> official statement said a matter of weeks not months...
>>
>> It's really hard to follow your posts when you don't stick to the
>> forum convention which involves statements and indents.
>>
>> My basic answers:
>>
>> Ms. Alarie has not posted anything that disputes my belief that there
>> is not "Board Paralysis." We continue to conduct necessary business.
>> The USCF continues to function. I talk all the time with Board members
>> on issues of importance.
>>
>> I've already answered Ms. Alarie's questions about hiring a forensic
>> expert.
>>
>> I seem to have seen a BINFO about the monthlyl membership numbers. I
>> don't view their presence or absence as indicative of anything. When I
>> followed them on the last Board, they were usually based on the latest
>> claim by Sam Sloan.
>>
>> I have also previously answered the issue about length of time to
>> resolution about the issue at hand - it's not an 'on demand' world
>> except in IBM commercials. Some of those who are quick to rush in
>> should take more chess lessons. Hedgehog, anyone?
>>
>> The other issues, if I could pick them out of that garbled blue and
>> black, are mostly about legal threats or claims that I'll leave to
>> lawyers without an exe to grind to answer.
>>
>> Randy Bauer
>
> Typical chess politician stuff.
|
|
