Main
Date: 28 Nov 2007 08:33:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Silence of the Board
How many have noticed that since the board meeting in Crossville on
November 3-4, 2007, there has been almost complete silence from the
board?

Actually, ever since the new board took over on August 5, 2007, the
board has been generally quiet. However, during the last three weeks,
I do not recall any postings by any member of the board.

Also, the BINFO system is dead. There have been no exchange of emails
by board members in weeks except for the post to add artichoke to the
main course of the Ratings Committee. That vote passed by 5-2, with
Polgar and Truong voting against.

Is there anything going on with the board, or are they just keeping
their activities secret?

Sam Sloan




 
Date: 30 Nov 2007 18:01:44
From: p944dc
Subject: Re: Thai fathers on leave
http://www.samsloan.com/pokeplot.htm

http://www.shamema.com/pokepoll.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/a-virgin.htm


 
Date: 30 Nov 2007 16:35:41
From:
Subject: Re: Thai fathers on leave
On Nov 30, 6:16 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 30, 5:19 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > [quote="bruce_leverett"]You are wrong to say, "no one seemed too upset
> > > by it". I was reading RGCP at the time the RSS was elected, and it
> > > was screaming bedlam, and that doesn't even include what was happening
> > > away from RGCP, such as at the Delegates' Meeting.[/quote]
>
> > > Have you noticed that all of the "Bedlam Screamers" one year ago are
> > > the same people who are defending Paul Truong now?
>
> > > The loudest screamers when I was elected one year ago were Herbert
> > > Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, Grant Perks, Bill Goichberg, Susan
> > > Polgar and Paul Truong. I cannot think of anybody else. These are the
> > > same people who are defending Truong and Polgar now.
>
> > > Also, my website contains no obscenities, none whatever, and no
> > > pornography, so I do not know what you are referring to.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> >http://www.shamema.com/pornplot.htm
>
> > Has your nose grown recently, Sam?
>
> http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm
>
> http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
>
> ***
>
> Sam Sloan is endorsed by Larry Parr.

http://www.samsloan.com/aminmina.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/donmoon.htm


 
Date: 30 Nov 2007 16:35:31
From:
Subject: Re: Thai fathers on leave
On Nov 30, 6:16 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 30, 5:19 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > [quote="bruce_leverett"]You are wrong to say, "no one seemed too upset
> > > by it". I was reading RGCP at the time the RSS was elected, and it
> > > was screaming bedlam, and that doesn't even include what was happening
> > > away from RGCP, such as at the Delegates' Meeting.[/quote]
>
> > > Have you noticed that all of the "Bedlam Screamers" one year ago are
> > > the same people who are defending Paul Truong now?
>
> > > The loudest screamers when I was elected one year ago were Herbert
> > > Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, Grant Perks, Bill Goichberg, Susan
> > > Polgar and Paul Truong. I cannot think of anybody else. These are the
> > > same people who are defending Truong and Polgar now.
>
> > > Also, my website contains no obscenities, none whatever, and no
> > > pornography, so I do not know what you are referring to.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> >http://www.shamema.com/pornplot.htm
>
> > Has your nose grown recently, Sam?
>
> http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm
>
> http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm
>
> ***
>
> Sam Sloan is endorsed by Larry Parr.

http://www.samsloan.com/aminmina.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/donmoon.htm


 
Date: 30 Nov 2007 16:16:23
From:
Subject: Thai fathers on leave
On Nov 30, 5:19 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > [quote="bruce_leverett"]You are wrong to say, "no one seemed too upset
> > by it". I was reading RGCP at the time the RSS was elected, and it
> > was screaming bedlam, and that doesn't even include what was happening
> > away from RGCP, such as at the Delegates' Meeting.[/quote]
>
> > Have you noticed that all of the "Bedlam Screamers" one year ago are
> > the same people who are defending Paul Truong now?
>
> > The loudest screamers when I was elected one year ago were Herbert
> > Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, Grant Perks, Bill Goichberg, Susan
> > Polgar and Paul Truong. I cannot think of anybody else. These are the
> > same people who are defending Truong and Polgar now.
>
> > Also, my website contains no obscenities, none whatever, and no
> > pornography, so I do not know what you are referring to.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> http://www.shamema.com/pornplot.htm
>
> Has your nose grown recently, Sam?


http://www.samsloan.com/forbiddendreams.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/ininlaw.htm

***

Sam Sloan is endorsed by Larry Parr.


 
Date: 30 Nov 2007 15:19:48
From:
Subject: Hunting thw wild Sloon


samsloan wrote:
> [quote="bruce_leverett"]You are wrong to say, "no one seemed too upset
> by it". I was reading RGCP at the time the RSS was elected, and it
> was screaming bedlam, and that doesn't even include what was happening
> away from RGCP, such as at the Delegates' Meeting.[/quote]
>
> Have you noticed that all of the "Bedlam Screamers" one year ago are
> the same people who are defending Paul Truong now?
>
> The loudest screamers when I was elected one year ago were Herbert
> Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, Grant Perks, Bill Goichberg, Susan
> Polgar and Paul Truong. I cannot think of anybody else. These are the
> same people who are defending Truong and Polgar now.
>
> Also, my website contains no obscenities, none whatever, and no
> pornography, so I do not know what you are referring to.
>
> Sam Sloan


http://www.shamema.com/pornplot.htm

Has your nose grown recently, Sam?


 
Date: 30 Nov 2007 06:49:33
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
On Nov 29, 6:40 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I did not say that if Paul Truong had not impersonated me, I would not
> have been elected.
>
> I simply said that he had not impersonated me, he would not have been
> elected.
>
> There were ten candidates for four positions.
>
> Sam Sloan

<<sigh >> surely even you can see that the same logic applies to this
situation as well?


 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 16:40:09
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
I did not say that if Paul Truong had not impersonated me, I would not
have been elected.

I simply said that he had not impersonated me, he would not have been
elected.

There were ten candidates for four positions.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 30 Nov 2007 07:11:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:65e13414-d3cd-4d21-9131-3f413f381e3f@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>I did not say that if Paul Truong had not impersonated me, I would not
> have been elected.
>
> I simply said that he had not impersonated me, he would not have been
> elected.

You missed the /if/ from your first phrase above;

Since we are doing if's, why not continue the logic until arriving at :: Who
was impersonating him "impersonating" you?

Apart from abuseniks who are strangers to the truth, anyone who writes here
with normal discrimination on other subjects, such as chess, has no
difficulty distinguishing one from the other, besides most of the other
writers of the newsgroup were pointing it out continuously.

As zradec writes, this would not seem to sway many, or even any voters.

As for voters who might read here, we must assume some moronic level of
comprehension on their part if they couldn't tell the false-Sloan from the
real one, and I think you cannot prosecute stupidity in a court of law, not
even in New York state.

Phil Innes

> There were ten candidates for four positions.
>
> Sam Sloan




 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 16:28:25
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
On Nov 29, 10:54 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 29, 11:39 am, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > ..."Polgar and Truong,
> > > who clearly got elected by impersonating me ..."
>
> > An utterly ridiculous contention, demonstrating very clearly that your
> > grandiosity has led you into delusion.
>
> > Jeers,
> > zdrakec (the "real" one)
>
> Why do you say that? Truong got elected to a 4-year term on a gin
> of 30 votes. If the voters had known that he had been impersonating me
> for the previous two years, he clearly would not have been elected.
>
> Sam Sloan

Okay, be careful here: what you are about to see is called "logic".
I'm not sure you would recognize it without it being pointed out to
you.

First, you say "he clearly got elected by impersonating you"... how is
this clear? The only way to make such a contention clear would be to
identify everyone who voted for him, but NOT for you, and ask them if
they based their vote on some posts they read on Usenet. How exactly
could this point be proven else? However, the ballot is secret, is it
not? Therefore, this point is simply not provable, and your contending
it does not remotely make it so.

But hey, just for the sake of argument, let's grant that indeed,
enough people chose to vote against you because of the specious posts,
that you lost the election therefore. Mind you, I reject that
contention, and I do NOT approve of the fake posts, but we'll grant
the point for a minute.
Everyone who voted has a perfect right to determine who they will vote
for. It is simply not the court's affair, or anyone else's for that
matter, as to how these voters made up their minds. Presumably, they
are able for themselves competently to determine who will get their
vote. Unless the ballot box was actually rigged, the results are
perfectly valid, whether the voters read Usenet to make up their minds
(a highly doubtful proposition), or merely tossed some dice.
Got it?

Scorn, and slight regard,
zdrakec


 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 15:41:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
[quote="bruce_leverett"]You are wrong to say, "no one seemed too upset
by it". I was reading RGCP at the time the RSS was elected, and it
was screaming bedlam, and that doesn't even include what was happening
away from RGCP, such as at the Delegates' Meeting.[/quote]

Have you noticed that all of the "Bedlam Screamers" one year ago are
the same people who are defending Paul Truong now?

The loudest screamers when I was elected one year ago were Herbert
Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, Grant Perks, Bill Goichberg, Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong. I cannot think of anybody else. These are the
same people who are defending Truong and Polgar now.

Also, my website contains no obscenities, none whatever, and no
pornography, so I do not know what you are referring to.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 13:11:28
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
On Nov 29, 10:54 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 29, 11:39 am, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > ..."Polgar and Truong,
> > > who clearly got elected by impersonating me ..."
>
> > An utterly ridiculous contention, demonstrating very clearly that your
> > grandiosity has led you into delusion.
>
> > Jeers,
> > zdrakec (the "real" one)
>
> Why do you say that? Truong got elected to a 4-year term on a gin
> of 30 votes. If the voters had known that he had been impersonating me
> for the previous two years, he clearly would not have been elected.
>
> Sam Sloan

Wrong on both counts


 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 08:54:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
On Nov 29, 11:39 am, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > ..."Polgar and Truong,
> > who clearly got elected by impersonating me ..."
>
> An utterly ridiculous contention, demonstrating very clearly that your
> grandiosity has led you into delusion.
>
> Jeers,
> zdrakec (the "real" one)

Why do you say that? Truong got elected to a 4-year term on a gin
of 30 votes. If the voters had known that he had been impersonating me
for the previous two years, he clearly would not have been elected.

Sam Sloan



 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 08:39:47
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
<snip >
> ..."Polgar and Truong,
> who clearly got elected by impersonating me ..."

An utterly ridiculous contention, demonstrating very clearly that your
grandiosity has led you into delusion.

Jeers,
zdrakec (the "real" one)



 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 08:25:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
On Nov 29, 10:49 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:

> Of course, my point was merely to show how
> ludicrous it was for Mr. Sloan to think he could
> dictate who stays and who goes, as if he were
> Bill Goichberg, or God.
>
> -- help bot

Of course, I cannot do that, but the court may do so. There are
certainly grounds for removing Bill Goichberg from the board, although
not nearly so strong as the grounds for removing Polgar and Truong,
who clearly got elected by impersonating me and making false
statements about themselves and their rivals.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 29 Nov 2007 17:39:41
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: WHERE'S BILL? (was: Re: Silence of the Board)
>> Of course, my point was merely to show how
>> ludicrous it was for Mr. Sloan to think he could
>> dictate who stays and who goes, as if he were
>> Bill Goichberg, or God.
>>
>> -- help bot
>
> Of course, I cannot do that, but the court may do so. There are
> certainly grounds for removing Bill Goichberg from the board, although
> not nearly so strong as the grounds for removing Polgar and Truong,

Wanna bet?

> who clearly got elected by impersonating me and making false
> statements about themselves and their rivals.

All I have to say is this:

WHERE'S BILL?? We have some unfinished legal business.

Let's just say I wouldn't recommend adding Mr. Goichberg to your fantasy
chess politician team.


--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy

Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.

Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187

Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?





 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 08:04:38
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
On Nov 29, 2:56 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 29, 3:26 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Do you recall all the sarcastic reks and jokes that were made by
> > board members about my lawsuit when it was first filed? They do not
> > seem to be joking about it any more, do they?
NOw they just say it to your face.


> Here, let me check: Stand still, Mr. Sloan! I need to get
> *behind your back* so I can hear what they are saying
> about you.
>
>
>
>


> > Even though the Fake Sam Sloan issue was the biggest and most
> > immediate issue that brought about my lawsuit, it was not the only
> > issue. There are about 50 small lawsuits in there.

The "shotgun" approach to legal matters is usually a reflection on the
cluttered mind that produced it and is nearly never successful.

> > For example, the continuing losses of over two million dollars, the
> > funny money accounting, the loss, misplacement or destruction of the
> > financial records, the pension/profit sharing irregularities, the
> > failure to post tapes or transcripts of the board meetings as required
> > by the by-laws, the exclusion of Bobby Fischer which is a violation of
> > the by-laws, the illegal sale of the building in New Windsor and the
> > refusal of the board to retain counsel and seek legal advice both
> > concening the sale of the building in New Windsor, the move to
> > Crossville and building a new building on land we do not really have
> > clear title to in Crossville, and the moderation of the USCF Issues
> > Forum where discussion of these important issues facing the federation
> > has often not been allowed.

ANd the cost of having to defend against a serial litigant as you are
doesn't help the bottom line either, does it?


> > These are just a few of the many issues that are raised by my lawsuit.


> Yes, well it sounds like you need a class action lawsuit,
> since you were hardly the only victim with regard to those
> charges.
Does MDP qualify someone for a class actions suit? DOes that me the
litigants would be "Me, Myself, and I"?

> > Many of these issues go back years and were raised by me repeatedly
> > during my election campaign and my one year on the board. No progress
> > was being made on any of these issues. It was all just being swept
> > under the rug. If some progress was being made I would not have found
> > it necessary to bring a lawsuit over this.

Like a spurned lover dragging raking through the ashes of of burnt
emotions to rehash issues long since dead or forgotten to maintain
contact with the suitor?


> Translation: the lawsuit is "payback", or retaliation.
>
> Were this turned around, your "employer" could get
> into big trouble for suggesting such behavior.



> > Several of the board members would be doing the membership a big favor
> > if they would just resign and not come here any more.

So why didn't you resign instead of running for office again? Can't
follow your own advice?

> Quick: let's fill in those vacancies by appointing
> IM Innes and Rob "da robber" Mitchell until a proper
> election can be held!

'Bot, I prefer "Which-Mitch or Lex Luthor" :-)

> > Our executive
> > director is utterly worthless. Bill is a terrible president. Channing
> > does nothing but talk about how great he is.

Seems you supported them before just as you sang Niro's praises until
he wouldn't let you manipulate him.

> What a waste! Let the peons all talk about how
> great he is, to free him up so he can go back to
> doing great things.


> > The only board members
> > who are not tainted in some way are Randy Bauer

You atacked him and now you praise him? Make up your mind.

> Mr. Bauer can't even think straight; he imagines,
> for instance, that he can take Larry Evans in a
> chess match -- without odds!


> > and Jim Berry. The rest of them should leave now.

WHy Jim?

> Who decided that Mr. Sloan gets to dictate who
> stays and who goes? I say it should be up to Rob
> "da robber" Mitchell and Sanny to decide.


Lex Luthor Mitchell
> -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  
Date: 29 Nov 2007 21:35:28
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
>> > For example, the continuing losses of over two million dollars, the
>> > funny money accounting, the loss, misplacement or destruction of the
>> > financial records, the pension/profit sharing irregularities, the
>> > failure to post tapes or transcripts of the board meetings as required
>> > by the by-laws, the exclusion of Bobby Fischer which is a violation of
>> > the by-laws, the illegal sale of the building in New Windsor and the
>> > refusal of the board to retain counsel and seek legal advice both
>> > concening the sale of the building in New Windsor, the move to
>> > Crossville and building a new building on land we do not really have
>> > clear title to in Crossville, and the moderation of the USCF Issues
>> > Forum where discussion of these important issues facing the federation
>> > has often not been allowed.
>
> ANd the cost of having to defend against a serial litigant as you are
> doesn't help the bottom line either, does it?

Perhaps the courts will realize that the real problem is those on the
internet who portray others as not having rights. Maybe the "serial
litigation" is necessary to show them what they're doing wrong.

When you have "serial offenders" you will have "serial litigation." The
reason is that on the internet, unlike offline, when someone gets sued for
something, they don't usually take steps to mitigate the conflict, instead
exacerbating it.

Don't forget, the Fake Sam Sloan was also the Fake Ray Gordon. My rights
were violated as well.


--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy

Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.

Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187

Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?





 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 07:49:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
On Nov 29, 4:29 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> >> Many of these issues go back years and were raised by me repeatedly
> >> during my election campaign and my one year on the board. No progress
> >> was being made on any of these issues. It was all just being swept
> >> under the rug. If some progress was being made I would not have found
> >> it necessary to bring a lawsuit over this.
>
> > Translation: the lawsuit is "payback", or retaliation.
>
> Actually, he's saying that his lawsuit is the only way this issue would be
> properly addressed.

So, you think a defamation-of-alleged-character lawsuit
is the proper way to address those issues, eh? Shrug.


> >> The only board members
> >> who are not tainted in some way are Randy Bauer
>
> > Mr. Bauer can't even think straight; he imagines,
> > for instance, that he can take Larry Evans in a
> > chess match -- without odds!
>
> I have every reason to beleive, that with six months to train, he'd demolish
> Larry in any time control over g/30. Larry likely wouldn't survive the
> openings, a part of the game he never, never learned how to play properly.

Alas, the book-monkey approach can only take
a player so far; once you leave the book theory
and get out on your own, it's a big world out there!

Having practiced a good deal against Sanny's
monstrosity of a chess program, I now feel more
comfortable than ever when out of the book lines;
but I notice a decided fear on my opponents' faces,
once they are forced to think for themselves. In
one such game, the opponent's moves came fast
and furiously, until I made the mistake of getting
my Queen trapped due to carelessness; no
problem for me, as this sort of thing happens all
the time, but my opponent went into shock when
I managed to grab a Rook, a Bishop, and two
pawns in return; apparently, his book had not
considered the Queen hang deeply enough. We
both drifted and then into time-pressure we went.


> >> and Jim Berry. The rest of them should leave now.
>
> > Who decided that Mr. Sloan gets to dictate who
> > stays and who goes? I say it should be up to Rob
> > "da robber" Mitchell and Sanny to decide.
>
> I suspect that when I check in with my side of this, there won't be much of
> a USCF left to argue over. I honestly don't care either way what happens to
> the federation at this point, as long as the wrongdoing is dealt with, but I
> just don't see anyone caring enough about this sinking ship to save it.
>
> I do believe all of the "usual suspects" will have almost identical
> positions in chess to what they are doing now, as well, because I doubt
> anyone cares enough to take their jobs, which is why they tend to have them
> in the first place. If Sloan getting on the board didn't prove that, I
> don't know what would.

A big part of the election process is what they call
name-recognition. For instance, an actor can easily
get elected regardless of qualifications due to his
overwhelming advantage in that realm. Perhaps SS
had a bit more name-recognition due to his vast
achievements in the realms of law, writing, and of
course, his many admirers here in rgc.

Of course, my point was merely to show how
ludicrous it was for Mr. Sloan to think he could
dictate who stays and who goes, as if he were
Bill Goichberg, or God.


-- help bot




  
Date: 29 Nov 2007 11:16:03
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
>> > Translation: the lawsuit is "payback", or retaliation.
>>
>> Actually, he's saying that his lawsuit is the only way this issue would
>> be
>> properly addressed.
>
> So, you think a defamation-of-alleged-character lawsuit
> is the proper way to address those issues, eh? Shrug.

A white supremacist group won a defamation lawsuit against the ADL for $10.5
million, against a far stronger and similar you-can't-rape-a-prostitute
argument.


>> I have every reason to beleive, that with six months to train, he'd
>> demolish
>> Larry in any time control over g/30. Larry likely wouldn't survive the
>> openings, a part of the game he never, never learned how to play
>> properly.
>
> Alas, the book-monkey approach can only take
> a player so far; once you leave the book theory
> and get out on your own, it's a big world out there!

Assuming you aren't -.1.27 to memorized variations when you get there.
Bauer is exceptionally fast out of the gate, and does fine thinking on his
own in the opening.

Not all early speed is cheap speed.



>> > Who decided that Mr. Sloan gets to dictate who
>> > stays and who goes? I say it should be up to Rob
>> > "da robber" Mitchell and Sanny to decide.
>>
>> I suspect that when I check in with my side of this, there won't be much
>> of
>> a USCF left to argue over. I honestly don't care either way what happens
>> to
>> the federation at this point, as long as the wrongdoing is dealt with,
>> but I
>> just don't see anyone caring enough about this sinking ship to save it.
>>
>> I do believe all of the "usual suspects" will have almost identical
>> positions in chess to what they are doing now, as well, because I doubt
>> anyone cares enough to take their jobs, which is why they tend to have
>> them
>> in the first place. If Sloan getting on the board didn't prove that, I
>> don't know what would.
>
> A big part of the election process is what they call
> name-recognition. For instance, an actor can easily
> get elected regardless of qualifications due to his
> overwhelming advantage in that realm. Perhaps SS
> had a bit more name-recognition due to his vast
> achievements in the realms of law, writing, and of
> course, his many admirers here in rgc.
>
> Of course, my point was merely to show how
> ludicrous it was for Mr. Sloan to think he could
> dictate who stays and who goes, as if he were
> Bill Goichberg, or God.

Well let's not get too far ahead of ouselves.

Speaking of which:

WHERE'S BILL??





 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 04:55:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
I have several questions about Jerry Hanken's statement but I want to
focus on this one:

--- In [email protected], [email protected] wrote:
>
>Problems are being dealt with in a timely manner,and ,in spite of some destructive elements on the board, the majority stays on top of things.

>Jerry Hanken

I sat through the first two meetings of the new board in Cherry Hill
on August 4-5 and then the two meetings of the board in Crossville on
November 3-4 which were broadcast online. In addition, I have read all
of the BINFOS.

In none of these four meetings was any substantive issue discussed or
decisions made. They seemed just like bull sessions where everybody
came unprepared and just sat around saying anything that crossed their
minds.

On the other hand, during the five meetings when I was on the board,
along with Don Schultz and Beatriz inello, at every meeting there
was a lot of discussion of the issues facing the federation and many
decisions were made. In addition, there was a daily exchange of email
BINFOS among the board members.

Can you kindly tell us exactly what "Problems are being dealt with in
a timely manner"?

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 00:56:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
On Nov 29, 3:26 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> Do you recall all the sarcastic reks and jokes that were made by
> board members about my lawsuit when it was first filed? They do not
> seem to be joking about it any more, do they?

Here, let me check: Stand still, Mr. Sloan! I need to get
*behind your back* so I can hear what they are saying
about you.


> Even though the Fake Sam Sloan issue was the biggest and most
> immediate issue that brought about my lawsuit, it was not the only
> issue. There are about 50 small lawsuits in there.
>
> For example, the continuing losses of over two million dollars, the
> funny money accounting, the loss, misplacement or destruction of the
> financial records, the pension/profit sharing irregularities, the
> failure to post tapes or transcripts of the board meetings as required
> by the by-laws, the exclusion of Bobby Fischer which is a violation of
> the by-laws, the illegal sale of the building in New Windsor and the
> refusal of the board to retain counsel and seek legal advice both
> concening the sale of the building in New Windsor, the move to
> Crossville and building a new building on land we do not really have
> clear title to in Crossville, and the moderation of the USCF Issues
> Forum where discussion of these important issues facing the federation
> has often not been allowed.
>
> These are just a few of the many issues that are raised by my lawsuit.

Yes, well it sounds like you need a class action lawsuit,
since you were hardly the only victim with regard to those
charges.


> Many of these issues go back years and were raised by me repeatedly
> during my election campaign and my one year on the board. No progress
> was being made on any of these issues. It was all just being swept
> under the rug. If some progress was being made I would not have found
> it necessary to bring a lawsuit over this.

Translation: the lawsuit is "payback", or retaliation.

Were this turned around, your "employer" could get
into big trouble for suggesting such behavior.


> Several of the board members would be doing the membership a big favor
> if they would just resign and not come here any more.

Quick: let's fill in those vacancies by appointing
IM Innes and Rob "da robber" Mitchell until a proper
election can be held!



> Our executive
> director is utterly worthless. Bill is a terrible president. Channing
> does nothing but talk about how great he is.

What a waste! Let the peons all talk about how
great he is, to free him up so he can go back to
doing great things.


> The only board members
> who are not tainted in some way are Randy Bauer

Mr. Bauer can't even think straight; he imagines,
for instance, that he can take Larry Evans in a
chess match -- without odds!


> and Jim Berry. The rest of them should leave now.

Who decided that Mr. Sloan gets to dictate who
stays and who goes? I say it should be up to Rob
"da robber" Mitchell and Sanny to decide.


-- help bot




  
Date: 29 Nov 2007 04:29:24
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
>> Many of these issues go back years and were raised by me repeatedly
>> during my election campaign and my one year on the board. No progress
>> was being made on any of these issues. It was all just being swept
>> under the rug. If some progress was being made I would not have found
>> it necessary to bring a lawsuit over this.
>
> Translation: the lawsuit is "payback", or retaliation.

Actually, he's saying that his lawsuit is the only way this issue would be
properly addressed.



>> The only board members
>> who are not tainted in some way are Randy Bauer
>
> Mr. Bauer can't even think straight; he imagines,
> for instance, that he can take Larry Evans in a
> chess match -- without odds!

I have every reason to beleive, that with six months to train, he'd demolish
Larry in any time control over g/30. Larry likely wouldn't survive the
openings, a part of the game he never, never learned how to play properly.


>> and Jim Berry. The rest of them should leave now.
>
> Who decided that Mr. Sloan gets to dictate who
> stays and who goes? I say it should be up to Rob
> "da robber" Mitchell and Sanny to decide.

I suspect that when I check in with my side of this, there won't be much of
a USCF left to argue over. I honestly don't care either way what happens to
the federation at this point, as long as the wrongdoing is dealt with, but I
just don't see anyone caring enough about this sinking ship to save it.

I do believe all of the "usual suspects" will have almost identical
positions in chess to what they are doing now, as well, because I doubt
anyone cares enough to take their jobs, which is why they tend to have them
in the first place. If Sloan getting on the board didn't prove that, I
don't know what would.


--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy

Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000

Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.

Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187

Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?





   
Date: 01 Dec 2007 17:20:55
From: Prostate Pete
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:


. > I do believe all of the "usual suspects" will have almost identical
> positions in chess to what they are doing now, as well, because I doubt
> anyone cares enough to take their jobs, which is why they tend to have them
> in the first place. If Sloan getting on the board didn't prove that, I
> don't know what would.

Excellent point Ray! I could slaver over a sarcastic riposte never
bothered with in this instance apropos: who the fuk gives a shit about
the yawnsome uscf? but the bores are in their element. Excellent point
nevertheless..


 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 00:40:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
On Nov 28, 11:33 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> How many have noticed that since the board meeting in Crossville on
> November 3-4, 2007, there has been almost complete silence from the
> board?
>
> Actually, ever since the new board took over on August 5, 2007, the
> board has been generally quiet. However, during the last three weeks,
> I do not recall any postings by any member of the board.
>
> Also, the BINFO system is dead. There have been no exchange of emails
> by board members in weeks except for the post to add artichoke to the
> main course of the Ratings Committee. That vote passed by 5-2, with
> Polgar and Truong voting against.
>
> Is there anything going on with the board, or are they just keeping
> their activities secret?


I think maybe the board is being kept busy with lawsuits,
and perhaps they have been advised to shut up until it is
all settled.

BTW, what the heck is "artichoke" in regards to the
ratings committee? I hope it's a plan to feed easy
points to those of us who for years have been starving
half to death. I can still recall the good old days when
if you lost to a ten-year-old whippersnapper, he might
get "bonus points", in which case his many victims
could then receive "feedback". Since then, countless
players seem to have dropped a hundred points or so.


-- help bot



 
Date: 29 Nov 2007 00:26:09
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
[quote="ueschessmom"]Artichoke: I don't know enough about the ins and
outs of the recall procedure. I don't think there is anything to
prevent members or delegates from starting a recall procedure. One
question I have is whether there is any point in that procedure where
the board (or individual board members) would be required to take a
position or make a statement that could be damaging to the USCF in the
pending litigation.[/quote]

Do you recall all the sarcastic reks and jokes that were made by
board members about my lawsuit when it was first filed? They do not
seem to be joking about it any more, do they?

Even though the Fake Sam Sloan issue was the biggest and most
immediate issue that brought about my lawsuit, it was not the only
issue. There are about 50 small lawsuits in there.

For example, the continuing losses of over two million dollars, the
funny money accounting, the loss, misplacement or destruction of the
financial records, the pension/profit sharing irregularities, the
failure to post tapes or transcripts of the board meetings as required
by the by-laws, the exclusion of Bobby Fischer which is a violation of
the by-laws, the illegal sale of the building in New Windsor and the
refusal of the board to retain counsel and seek legal advice both
concening the sale of the building in New Windsor, the move to
Crossville and building a new building on land we do not really have
clear title to in Crossville, and the moderation of the USCF Issues
Forum where discussion of these important issues facing the federation
has often not been allowed.

These are just a few of the many issues that are raised by my lawsuit.

Many of these issues go back years and were raised by me repeatedly
during my election campaign and my one year on the board. No progress
was being made on any of these issues. It was all just being swept
under the rug. If some progress was being made I would not have found
it necessary to bring a lawsuit over this.

Several of the board members would be doing the membership a big favor
if they would just resign and not come here any more. Our executive
director is utterly worthless. Bill is a terrible president. Channing
does nothing but talk about how great he is. The only board members
who are not tainted in some way are Randy Bauer and Jim Berry. The
rest of them should leave now.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 28 Nov 2007 19:32:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Silence of the Board
One curious fact is that before the 2006 US Open at Oak Brook,
Illinois, Diane Reese advised against holding the tournament at the
Doubletree Hotel, saying that the hotel was too small and the
facilities inadequate.

As it turned out, it was a huge hotel, the facilities were great, and
it was the best US Open in many years.

One wonders why Diane Reese was so negative on the Doubletree Hotel.

Is it possible that the reason was that they were not paying the usual
compensation to Meeting Link?

Sam Sloan