|
Main
Date: 13 Dec 2007 08:20:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Appeal from being put on Moderated Status
|
I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds, including the following: 1. The moderation committee was newly formed and I was almost instantly put on moderation. I was moderated retroactively for postings I had made long before the moderation committee had been informed. It is fundamentally unfair to give the new moderation procedures retroactive application. 2. I was not adequately informed nor was I given a chance to defend myself from the charges. For example, I am told that I violated the Acceptable Use Guidelines for two postings under the title "Silence of the Board" and one under a subject header about Meeting Link. However, the issue of Silence of the Board which concerns the fact that the Board no longer uses the BINFO System is one that needs to be discussed. The Meeting Link issue also requires vetting by the members as well. I can find nothing I posted in either of these two threads that is in any way objectionable. 3. The new Moderation Committee includes two people with a long history of opposition and indeed harassment of me, namely Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaafl and Tim Sawmiller. It seems that they were selected to be on the moderation committee just to silence me. Tanstaafl filed a 400 page ethics complaint in color which tied up the ethics committee for a year and I was finally forced to file a lawsuit against him in federal court. Both Sawmiller and Vaughn should be disqualified from making rulings regarding my postings on conflict of interest grounds due to their overt hostility to me. 4. I am a former member of the Executive Board. Even though I was voted out of office recently, my voice should be allowed to be heard. Allowing hostile persons like Vaughn and Sawmiller to rule on whether my postings should be allowed to see the light of day is highly objectionable and should be reversed. For all of these reasons, I ask to be taken off of moderated status. Sam Sloan
|
|
|
Date: 14 Dec 2007 19:12:08
From:
Subject: Re: SPAM
|
On Dec 14, 7:40 pm, RufusZ <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 14, 7:44 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 13, 8:31 am, RufusZ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:> I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds, > > > > including the following: > > > > snip > > > > Please keep your private matters private. > > > Sam's complain and appeal is not a private matter. > > Your post is inappropriate. > > > Wlod > > Yes it is a private matter between him and the USCF. It is not of > general interest. Posting reams of personal correspondence in a public > group is, and has always been, poor USNET manners. > > Have a happy holiday, none-the-less. The matter is public. What you mean is be quite and allow Susan Polgar and her husband to threaten to kill, or violate the rights, of whoever they wish. Poor usenet manners? Who gives a shit. You have a group of criminals that are about to be taught a lesson, and the expense of your precious game of chess. Susan Poglar is an uneducated, unstable woman, who uses death threats to try to get her way. No matter how many children get molested, you keep on telling people to SHUT UP. Usenet manners? This is a joke... cus Roberts
|
|
Date: 14 Dec 2007 17:40:21
From: RufusZ
Subject: Re: SPAM
|
On Dec 14, 7:44 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 13, 8:31 am, RufusZ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:> I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds, > > > including the following: > > > snip > > > Please keep your private matters private. > > Sam's complain and appeal is not a private matter. > Your post is inappropriate. > > Wlod Yes it is a private matter between him and the USCF. It is not of general interest. Posting reams of personal correspondence in a public group is, and has always been, poor USNET manners. Have a happy holiday, none-the-less.
|
|
Date: 14 Dec 2007 16:44:08
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: SPAM
|
On Dec 13, 8:31 am, RufusZ <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:> I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds, > > including the following: > > snip > > Please keep your private matters private. Sam's complain and appeal is not a private matter. Your post is inappropriate. Wlod
|
|
Date: 13 Dec 2007 16:16:32
From:
Subject: Re: Appeal from being put on Moderated Status
|
On Dec 13, 10:20 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds, > including the following: > > 1. The moderation committee was newly formed and I was almost > instantly put on moderation. I was moderated retroactively for > postings I had made long before the moderation committee had been > informed. It is fundamentally unfair to give the new moderation > procedures retroactive application. > > 2. I was not adequately informed nor was I given a chance to defend > myself from the charges. For example, I am told that I violated the > Acceptable Use Guidelines for two postings under the title "Silence of > the Board" and one under a subject header about Meeting Link. However, > the issue of Silence of the Board which concerns the fact that the > Board no longer uses the BINFO System is one that needs to be > discussed. The Meeting Link issue also requires vetting by the members > as well. I can find nothing I posted in either of these two threads > that is in any way objectionable. > > 3. The new Moderation Committee includes two people with a long > history of opposition and indeed harassment of me, namely Herbert > Rodney Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaafl and Tim Sawmiller. It seems that they > were selected to be on the moderation committee just to silence me. > Tanstaafl filed a 400 page ethics complaint in color which tied up the > ethics committee for a year and I was finally forced to file a lawsuit > against him in federal court. Both Sawmiller and Vaughn should be > disqualified from making rulings regarding my postings on conflict of > interest grounds due to their overt hostility to me. > > 4. I am a former member of the Executive Board. Even though I was > voted out of office recently, my voice should be allowed to be heard. > Allowing hostile persons like Vaughn and Sawmiller to rule on whether > my postings should be allowed to see the light of day is highly > objectionable and should be reversed. > > For all of these reasons, I ask to be taken off of moderated status. > > Sam Sloan Sam Sloan You are a member of the Board of Director (Delegate) of the United States Chess Federation, an Illinois Corporation. You have Agenda rights with the Board of Delegates. Given the erratic nature of your lawsuit, you probably don't even realize that you Look like a fool when you fail to use your agenda rights to try to correct this situation. Your emotional need to be part of the "clique" drives your life. The Delegates can fix this, the facts are the Delegates don't like You. So, you rant here as a "former member" when you are, in fact, liable to be SUED for your failure to act on other issues, as a directors. Your lack of education shows itself. You have the right to appeal, and you are too stupid to exercize your right. cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2007 16:35:07
From:
Subject: Re: Appeal from being put into asylum
|
Ironic how someone claimed to be the subject of a death threat which he himself had written and then implanted into someone else's computer so as to make that someone seem to be impersonating yet another person who would seem to be issuing the threat. Thought of writing a book, cus? You have a talent. With friends like you S sure does not need enemies. - Winston Smith (Non scrivetemi) I'll have to e-mail my old professors at Georgia Tech. I must be a genuis with computers and don't know it. My gosh, I must be worth 1,000 dollars an hour as a virus writer. This is incredible! Damn I am st! Why won't anyone believe me when I claim to be able to do this -but Winston Smith - my true admirer! cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2007 16:10:08
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Appeal from being put into asylum
|
Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl! feeder5.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!68.142.88.75.MISMATCH! hwmnpeer01.ams!news.highwinds-media.com!feed.xsnews.nl! border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com! news.mixmin.net!news.bananasplit.info!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2! mail2news From: "Non scrivetemi" <[email protected] > Message: This is a Type II anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith Project Pboxmix mixmaster server at pboxmix.winstonsmith.info. If you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact [email protected]. Subject: Re: Appeal from being put into asylum Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess References: <093d0a3a-77bd-4fa3- [email protected] > X-No-Archive: yes Organization: Slam Stoan, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. Message-ID: <[email protected] > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:20:39 +0100 (CET) X-Abuse-Contact: [email protected] Lines: 123 On Dec 14, 5:20 pm, "Non scrivetemi" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 13 2007, [email protected] wrote: > > > > >On Dec 13, 10:20 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds, > >> including the following: > > >> 1. The moderation committee was newly formed and I was almost > >> instantly put on moderation. I was moderated retroactively for > >> postings I had made long before the moderation committee had been > >> informed. It is fundamentally unfair to give the new moderation > >> procedures retroactive application. > > >> 2. I was not adequately informed nor was I given a chance to defend > >> myself from the charges. For example, I am told that I violated the > >> Acceptable Use Guidelines for two postings under the title "Silence of > >> the Board" and one under a subject header about Meeting Link. However, > >> the issue of Silence of the Board which concerns the fact that the > >> Board no longer uses the BINFO System is one that needs to be > >> discussed. The Meeting Link issue also requires vetting by the members > >> as well. I can find nothing I posted in either of these two threads > >> that is in any way objectionable. > > >> 3. The new Moderation Committee includes two people with a long > >> history of opposition and indeed harassment of me, namely Herbert > >> Rodney Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaafl and Tim Sawmiller. It seems that they > >> were selected to be on the moderation committee just to silence me. > >> Tanstaafl filed a 400 page ethics complaint in color which tied up the > >> ethics committee for a year and I was finally forced to file a lawsuit > >> against him in federal court. Both Sawmiller and Vaughn should be > >> disqualified from making rulings regarding my postings on conflict of > >> interest grounds due to their overt hostility to me. > > >> 4. I am a former member of the Executive Board. Even though I was > >> voted out of office recently, my voice should be allowed to be heard. > >> Allowing hostile persons like Vaughn and Sawmiller to rule on whether > >> my postings should be allowed to see the light of day is highly > >> objectionable and should be reversed. > > >> For all of these reasons, I ask to be taken off of moderated status. > > >> Sam Sloan > > >You are a member of the Board of Director (Delegate) of the United > >States Chess Federation, an Illinois Corporation. You have > >Agenda rights with the Board of Delegates. > > Right. > > > Given the erratic nature of > >your lawsuit > > Right. > > > you probably don't even realize that you > >Look like a fool > > Right. > > > when you fail to use your agenda rights to try to > >correct this situation. > > Right. > > >Your emotional need to be part of the "clique" drives your life. > > Right. > > >The > >Delegates can fix this, the facts are the Delegates don't like > >You. > > Right. > > > So, you rant here as a "former member" when you are, in fact, > >liable to be SUED for your failure to act on other issues, > >as a directors. > > Right. > > >Your lack of education shows itself. > > Right. > > >You have the right to appeal, and you are too stupid to exercize your right. > > Right. > > >cus Roberts > > What a sensible, balanced, intelligent, comprehensive comprehensible post. > You let the loon mask slip once again, cus. Hard to keep the act up? > Like before when you revealed you are very familiar with encryption/P.G.P. > Like another time you admitted you are very familiar with viruses/trojans. > Like the time you crowed about teaching someone who didn't get a firewall > a damn fine lesson (unclear whether you hired or did it yourself)? > > cus, we worked out most everything else. For example, we made data re > IP traffic from Florida to P's computer. We have some fragments of code in > file slack space and one in the MFT reserved area on P's C: drive. Motive > is quite obvious. So is opportunity. So are resources. So is knowledge. So > is agenda. Probably not too far-fetched to get Denny to see a conspiracy. > Once that stage is reached, even if it was 50:50 on the trojan, P will be > seen as having been incited and provoked. Sufficient cause. No need to > select a jury, it won't survive the pretrial scrutiny. > > One thing we have not yet fully understood. How was it exactly managed to > infect P's computer with black orifice to impersonate P impersonating S? > > In which semester in your > Bachelor of Science in Information and Computer Science, with honor > Georgia Institute of Technology, June 1991, 3.2 GPA > were such subjects covered? > > Gotta take my hat off to you, though. You had us beat momentarily. Now > go back to your abusing ways-- you have been so helpful that if you had > asked nicely we might have even paid you a retainer, much larger than > the welfare checks to which you may be more accustomed. Thanks though. > > Ironic how someone claimed to be the subject of a death threat which he > himself had written and then implanted into someone else's computer so > as to make that someone seem to be impersonating yet another person who > would seem to be issuing the threat. Thought of writing a book, cus? > You have a talent. With friends like you S sure does not need enemies. > - Winston Smith (Non scrivetemi) Again, I am replying just to preserve this posting, to find out who wrote it.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2007 23:20:39
From: Non scrivetemi
Subject: Re: Appeal from being put into asylum
|
On Dec 13 2007, [email protected] wrote: >On Dec 13, 10:20 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: >> I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds, >> including the following: >> >> 1. The moderation committee was newly formed and I was almost >> instantly put on moderation. I was moderated retroactively for >> postings I had made long before the moderation committee had been >> informed. It is fundamentally unfair to give the new moderation >> procedures retroactive application. >> >> 2. I was not adequately informed nor was I given a chance to defend >> myself from the charges. For example, I am told that I violated the >> Acceptable Use Guidelines for two postings under the title "Silence of >> the Board" and one under a subject header about Meeting Link. However, >> the issue of Silence of the Board which concerns the fact that the >> Board no longer uses the BINFO System is one that needs to be >> discussed. The Meeting Link issue also requires vetting by the members >> as well. I can find nothing I posted in either of these two threads >> that is in any way objectionable. >> >> 3. The new Moderation Committee includes two people with a long >> history of opposition and indeed harassment of me, namely Herbert >> Rodney Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaafl and Tim Sawmiller. It seems that they >> were selected to be on the moderation committee just to silence me. >> Tanstaafl filed a 400 page ethics complaint in color which tied up the >> ethics committee for a year and I was finally forced to file a lawsuit >> against him in federal court. Both Sawmiller and Vaughn should be >> disqualified from making rulings regarding my postings on conflict of >> interest grounds due to their overt hostility to me. >> >> 4. I am a former member of the Executive Board. Even though I was >> voted out of office recently, my voice should be allowed to be heard. >> Allowing hostile persons like Vaughn and Sawmiller to rule on whether >> my postings should be allowed to see the light of day is highly >> objectionable and should be reversed. >> >> For all of these reasons, I ask to be taken off of moderated status. >> >> Sam Sloan > >You are a member of the Board of Director (Delegate) of the United >States Chess Federation, an Illinois Corporation. You have >Agenda rights with the Board of Delegates. Right. > Given the erratic nature of >your lawsuit Right. > you probably don't even realize that you >Look like a fool Right. > when you fail to use your agenda rights to try to >correct this situation. Right. >Your emotional need to be part of the "clique" drives your life. Right. >The >Delegates can fix this, the facts are the Delegates don't like >You. Right. > So, you rant here as a "former member" when you are, in fact, >liable to be SUED for your failure to act on other issues, >as a directors. Right. >Your lack of education shows itself. Right. >You have the right to appeal, and you are too stupid to exercize your right. Right. >cus Roberts What a sensible, balanced, intelligent, comprehensive comprehensible post. You let the loon mask slip once again, cus. Hard to keep the act up? Like before when you revealed you are very familiar with encryption/P.G.P. Like another time you admitted you are very familiar with viruses/trojans. Like the time you crowed about teaching someone who didn't get a firewall a damn fine lesson (unclear whether you hired or did it yourself)? cus, we worked out most everything else. For example, we made data re IP traffic from Florida to P's computer. We have some fragments of code in file slack space and one in the MFT reserved area on P's C: drive. Motive is quite obvious. So is opportunity. So are resources. So is knowledge. So is agenda. Probably not too far-fetched to get Denny to see a conspiracy. Once that stage is reached, even if it was 50:50 on the trojan, P will be seen as having been incited and provoked. Sufficient cause. No need to select a jury, it won't survive the pretrial scrutiny. One thing we have not yet fully understood. How was it exactly managed to infect P's computer with black orifice to impersonate P impersonating S? In which semester in your Bachelor of Science in Information and Computer Science, with honor Georgia Institute of Technology, June 1991, 3.2 GPA were such subjects covered? Gotta take my hat off to you, though. You had us beat momentarily. Now go back to your abusing ways-- you have been so helpful that if you had asked nicely we might have even paid you a retainer, much larger than the welfare checks to which you may be more accustomed. Thanks though. Ironic how someone claimed to be the subject of a death threat which he himself had written and then implanted into someone else's computer so as to make that someone seem to be impersonating yet another person who would seem to be issuing the threat. Thought of writing a book, cus? You have a talent. With friends like you S sure does not need enemies. - Winston Smith (Non scrivetemi)
|
|
Date: 13 Dec 2007 09:31:45
From: RufusZ
Subject: Re: SPAM
|
On Dec 13, 11:39 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > > Who is Rufus Z and why does he keep hijacking my threads?? You are being disingenuous Sam. You know why I am doing this. I could not have been clearer: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/d973cb57c5d2199a
|
|
Date: 13 Dec 2007 09:23:43
From: Paul
Subject: Re: SAM SPAM
|
On Dec 13, 11:39 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sam Sloan > > Who is Rufus Z and why does he keep hijacking my threads?? He is an internet user who is tired of you using newsgroups as your personal web page.
|
|
Date: 13 Dec 2007 08:39:56
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Appeal from being put on Moderated Status
|
On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds, > including the following: > > 1. The moderation committee was newly formed and I was almost > instantly put on moderation. I was moderated retroactively for > postings I had made long before the moderation committee had been > informed. It is fundamentally unfair to give the new moderation > procedures retroactive application. > > 2. I was not adequately informed nor was I given a chance to defend > myself from the charges. For example, I am told that I violated the > Acceptable Use Guidelines for two postings under the title "Silence of > the Board" and one under a subject header about Meeting Link. However, > the issue of Silence of the Board which concerns the fact that the > Board no longer uses the BINFO System is one that needs to be > discussed. The Meeting Link issue also requires vetting by the members > as well. I can find nothing I posted in either of these two threads > that is in any way objectionable. > > 3. The new Moderation Committee includes two people with a long > history of opposition and indeed harassment of me, namely Herbert > Rodney Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaafl and Tim Sawmiller. It seems that they > were selected to be on the moderation committee just to silence me. > Tanstaafl filed a 400 page ethics complaint in color which tied up the > ethics committee for a year and I was finally forced to file a lawsuit > against him in federal court. Both Sawmiller and Vaughn should be > disqualified from making rulings regarding my postings on conflict of > interest grounds due to their overt hostility to me. > > 4. I am a former member of the Executive Board. Even though I was > voted out of office recently, my voice should be allowed to be heard. > Allowing hostile persons like Vaughn and Sawmiller to rule on whether > my postings should be allowed to see the light of day is highly > objectionable and should be reversed. > > For all of these reasons, I ask to be taken off of moderated status. > > Sam Sloan Who is Rufus Z and why does he keep hijacking my threads??
|
|
Date: 13 Dec 2007 08:31:38
From: RufusZ
Subject: Re: SPAM
|
On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds, > including the following: snip Please keep your private matters private.
|
|