| |
Main
Date: 20 Feb 2009 10:32:57
From: samsloan
Subject: USCF Forum Moderators Announce Suspension of Sam Sloan from Posting
|
On Feb 14, 10:37 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote="chessoffice"]Nobody is perfect, but I think if you compare
> Bill Hall to most past USCF Executive Directors, he looks quite
> good.
>
> Bill Goichberg[/quote]
>
> This is hardly the standard. During the period 1999-2003 the USCF had
> the two worst EDs imaginable. One was a liar, an idiot or both, the
> other probably a thief.
>
> It was during that four year period that the USCF lost two million
> dollars. We know this happened, because the LMA went from having two
> million in it in 1999 to having zero in it in 2003.
>
> Now, Bill Goichberg is saying that the current ED is good, because he
> is better than those two.
>
> Sam Sloan
I have been notified that by a vote of 3-0 I have been suspended from
posting for one week on the USCF Issues Forum for making the above
statement. However, the suspension has not gone into effect while I
appeal.
I am appealing on several grounds.
DeFeis and Niro are not members of the "chess community" and nobody
knows what happened to either one of them. The rules say that you are
not supposed to say anything bad about anybody in "the chess world".
DeFeis and Niro are not in the Chess World.
Also, this posting never appeared. It has been demonstrated that
between the two of them they lost over one million dollars in large
part due to fraud. They both posted profits when actually they were
losing money big time.
Neither George DeFeis nor Frank Niro are in the "chess world". DeFeis
was never in the chess community. The Executive Board decided to hire
a non-chess player and that proved to be the disaster that was DeFeis.
Frank Niro disappeared (with the USCF's money) six years ago in 2003.
Nobody knows where he is.
In addition, I have "substantial proof" that my statements are true. I
think that even Bill Goichberg, who usually disagrees with me, will
agree with me on this one.
George DeFeis and Frank Niro are the primary villains with regard to
the USCF. When DeFeis was appointed Executive Director of the USCF in
2000, the USCF had $2 million in the LMA. When Niro disappeared in
August, 2003 the LMA had zero balance. It is obvious that Niro went
into hiding to avoid criminal charges. We still do not really know
where he is.
Nobody can say who really lost the money between the two of them.
However, both of them were reporting big profits when they were in
office. The numbers that they provided proved to be fake.
I think that Goichberg and most of us who were active back then will
agree that there is more than sufficient "substantial proof" that my
statements were accurate.
I do not see how anybody can discuss the current financial problems of
the USCF without an explanation of how we got to where we are now.
I know of nobody who was active during the period 2000-2003 when
DeFeis and Niro were the executive directors who disagrees with my
characterization of them. How many FOC and MOC members were active
during the 2000-2003 period?
Sam Sloan
[quote="tsawmiller"]LEVEL TWO SANCTION
By a vote of three in favor, none opposed, the Moderation Committee is
imposing a level two sanction on user SAMSLOAN (Sam Sloan) 11115292 as
a result of the post on Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:31 pm #127996 in the
thread Financial Issues Summary in the USCF Issues Forum.
The Moderation Committee considers this action to be appropriate
because this post violates the AUG as follows:
[b]Do not make personal attacks or defamatory or disparaging comments
about anyone in the chess world.
Do not post suggestions, without specifically identified substantial
proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or criminal act.
No name calling.
Do not accuse anyone of lying, telling a lie, or being a liar. This is
considered a personal attack, even if true. [/b]
Accordingly, user SAMSLOAN (Sam Sloan) 11115292 has been suspended
from posting to the USCF Forums for a period of 7 days.
The timing of the start of the suspension is dependent upon Mr.
Nolan's availability to initiate it.
Tim Sawmiller [/quote]
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2009 04:40:14
From: madams
Subject: Re: USCF Forum Moderators Announce Suspension of Sam Sloan from
|
help bot wrote:
.
> "International" is code for irrelevant; didn't
> you get the memo? President Bush went
> up before the whole world at the United
> Nations and set the record straight: get on
> board or get the hell out of the way!
Nope didn't see that 'memo' bot a lot of stuff is sort-of 'filtered'
down here on the Pacific-rim where the sharks are biting, Navy-bloke
ended up losing his leg btw, bot - be-jeezus! the 'shrub' said
"that"...what a road-hog, pity he didn't hit a brick wall..
Anyway he's gawn now bot we're stuck with the mad-eyed Mother Hubbard &
I've gorn off that Nancy Pelosi sheila, used to like her then I found
out she's uber rich & the face-lifts started getting to me..
> > > One last thing: why is it that Mr. Sloan and
> > > others so frequently question the accounting of
> > > the USCF?
>
> > Could it be that Mr. Sloan, & Mr. Mitchell for that matter, who are
> > known to have a background in accountancy just cannot help themselves &
> > are a bit like the proverbial dog, drawn ineluctably back to its er,
> > vomit..
>
> I believe Mr. Sloan's background is in the
> area of stock broker, with a double-major in
> what he called sexual "freedom". In fact, Mr.
> Sloan's *failure* in the realm of accounting is
> what seems to have led to the demise of his
> stock broker career.
>
> As for Mr. Mitchell, he may be an insurance
> salesman, in addition to his part time job as
> Dr. IMnes' one and only admirer (not an easy
> job, but /somebody/ has to do it).
.
> Try to understand that to a typical 'Murican,
> whether the Russian, Vladimirovsky, wins or
> loses to another Russian, Topalovarikov, is
> of only minor interest. These days the top
> players all weigh in at around 2700-2799,
> all except Mr. Anand come from Russian
> speaking countries, and as if that weren't
> bad enough, they all seem to play the very
> same openings, like say, the Sicilian. It's
> deja vu all over again... like when the top
> players all started playing the QGD
> orthodox variation, just because nobody
> could seem to beat it.
>
> In some cases, even my own games
> can be far more interesting...
Yes! - I've convinced myself this is often the case with my own play
too, sadly there's never anyone around to award 'brilliancies'..
> in one case,
> I was shocked to read at the bottom of my
> computer screen that Rybka thought I
> was playing an opening I had never even
> heard of before. Analyzing the entire
> game backwards, she put something
> like "Nimzo-Larsen Benko Tribecka line
> of the hyper-accelerated and quite
> unorthodox Owen's Defense Reversed";
Interesting - recently TK cited some tome that boasted 1,250 (or
somesuch) recorded openings. In the bad old days when I'd glue myself to
the 'puter playing on ICC I noted something similar in 'my games
log'...unheard of name after name for all these arcane openings with a
very occasional 'irregular' for when even it didn't know..
m.
> who knew?
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2009 23:58:50
From: help bot
Subject: Re: USCF Forum Moderators Announce Suspension of Sam Sloan from
|
On Feb 21, 12:29=A0am, madams <[email protected] > wrote:
> Well, you really can speak for yourself here & if the uscf crowd had any
> decency or standards they'd properly confine their incessant whining &
> backbiting to the political gruppe.
As most of these threads are started by the
attention-whore, Mr. Sloan, it should come as
no surprise when numerous irrelevant and
inappropriate groups are deliberately added
to rec.games.chess.politics by him.
> I mean it's not as if there were'nt
> a couple of important chess tourneys going on
Hold on there! Mr. Fischer is dead, so no
such "important" events can ever take place,
at least not until a generation of Cold Warriors
have finally died off.
> in Sofia & Linares @ the
> moment or anything & the notion that these uscf dolts need to learn a
> sort of uscf-speak in order to have their say is just so parochial &
> podunk to us more internationalist types..
"International" is code for irrelevant; didn't
you get the memo? President Bush went
up before the whole world at the United
Nations and set the record straight: get on
board or get the hell out of the way!
> > =A0 One last thing: why is it that Mr. Sloan and
> > others so frequently question the accounting of
> > the USCF?
> Could it be that Mr. Sloan, & Mr. Mitchell for that matter, who are
> known to have a background in accountancy just cannot help themselves &
> are a bit like the proverbial dog, drawn ineluctably back to its er,
> vomit..
I believe Mr. Sloan's background is in the
area of stock broker, with a double-major in
what he called sexual "freedom". In fact, Mr.
Sloan's *failure* in the realm of accounting is
what seems to have led to the demise of his
stock broker career.
As for Mr. Mitchell, he may be an insurance
salesman, in addition to his part time job as
Dr. IMnes' one and only admirer (not an easy
job, but /somebody/ has to do it).
Face it: there are no notable accountants
in chess. We have lawyers, politicians,
crooks, actors, low-lifes, ah, but I repeat
myself. If any one profession stands out in
the way of being over-represented in chess,
it is probably mathematicians (or math
teachers). In the realm of correspondence
chess, one notes how the field of computer
programmers/operators is grossly over-
represented-- for obvious reasons.
Try to understand that to a typical 'Murican,
whether the Russian, Vladimirovsky, wins or
loses to another Russian, Topalovarikov, is
of only minor interest. These days the top
players all weigh in at around 2700-2799,
all except Mr. Anand come from Russian
speaking countries, and as if that weren't
bad enough, they all seem to play the very
same openings, like say, the Sicilian. It's
deja vu all over again... like when the top
players all started playing the QGD
orthodox variation, just because nobody
could seem to beat it.
In some cases, even my own games
can be far more interesting... in one case,
I was shocked to read at the bottom of my
computer screen that Rybka thought I
was playing an opening I had never even
heard of before. Analyzing the entire
game backwards, she put something
like "Nimzo-Larsen Benko Tribecka line
of the hyper-accelerated and quite
unorthodox Owen's Defense Reversed";
who knew?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2009 17:26:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: USCF Forum Moderators Announce Suspension of Sam Sloan from
|
On Feb 20, 1:32=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have been notified that by a vote of 3-0 I have been suspended from
> posting for one week on the USCF Issues Forum for making the above
> statement. However, the suspension has not gone into effect while I
> appeal.
>
> I am appealing on several grounds.
If the goal was to get attention, like a spoiled child,
it looks like Mr. Sloan has (again) struck paydirt.
But if, by chance, the goal is to discuss matters
relating to the USCF in an intelligent manner, the
USCF Issues forum is simply not the place; their
censorship and preposterous regulations, in which
a turnip must never be called a vegetable, preclude
any such discussion... almost.
The truth is, through clever coding all those
vegetables can be alluded to, just never in any
specific way; one requires the vaguery of a Dr.
IMnes, combined with the inabilities of a Mr.
Kingston. In several of the snippets posted here
in rgc by Mr. Parr, the commentary of Mr. Evans
managed to discuss -- in deliberately vague
terms mind you -- such issues, without naming
names.
Of course, this leaves readers wanting, feeling
short-changed, but it probably serves the writer
well enough, by side-stepping numerous
potential lawsuits and giving him carte blanch
to flail away at will , without presenting any
substantiating evidence whatever.
For instance, Mr. Sloan might discuss the
/apparent disappearance/ of two million dollars,
circa 2000-2003, not naming anyone specifically.
And SS might sugest that BG's comment was
exceedingly vague, leaving wide open the
/possibility/ of truth, yet presenting nothing more
than an unsupported personal opinion.
One last thing: why is it that Mr. Sloan and
others so frequently question the accounting of
the USCF? Is it really possible that the mis-
organization cannot afford decent auditors, to
guarantee that there is no hanky-panky going
on? Why is it that the USCF can afford
lawyers, but not decent accountants?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2009 16:29:05
From: madams
Subject: Re: USCF Forum Moderators Announce Suspension of Sam Sloan from
|
help bot wrote:
>
> On Feb 20, 1:32 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have been notified that by a vote of 3-0 I have been suspended from
> > posting for one week on the USCF Issues Forum...
Oh dear - this means rgc will be swamped with more Sloan trivia than
usual. A whole week's worth mark me words..
> If the goal was to get attention, like a spoiled child,
> it looks like Mr. Sloan has (again) struck paydirt.
>
> But if, by chance, the goal is to discuss matters
> relating to the USCF in an intelligent manner, the
> USCF Issues forum is simply not the place; their
> censorship and preposterous regulations, in which
> a turnip must never be called a vegetable, preclude
> any such discussion... almost.
>
> The truth is, through clever coding all those
> vegetables can be alluded to, just never in any
> specific way; one requires the vaguery of a Dr.
> IMnes, combined with the inabilities of a Mr.
> Kingston. In several of the snippets posted here
> in rgc by Mr. Parr, the commentary of Mr. Evans
> managed to discuss -- in deliberately vague
> terms mind you -- such issues, without naming
> names.
>
> Of course, this leaves readers wanting, feeling
> short-changed,
Well, you really can speak for yourself here & if the uscf crowd had any
decency or standards they'd properly confine their incessant whining &
backbiting to the political gruppe. I mean it's not as if there were'nt
a couple of important chess tourneys going on in Sofia & Linares @ the
moment or anything & the notion that these uscf dolts need to learn a
sort of uscf-speak in order to have their say is just so parochial &
podunk to us more internationalist types..
> but it probably serves the writer
> well enough, by side-stepping numerous
> potential lawsuits and giving him carte blanch
> to flail away at will , without presenting any
> substantiating evidence whatever.
>
> For instance, Mr. Sloan might discuss the
> /apparent disappearance/ of two million dollars,
> circa 2000-2003, not naming anyone specifically.
> And SS might sugest that BG's comment was
> exceedingly vague, leaving wide open the
> /possibility/ of truth, yet presenting nothing more
> than an unsupported personal opinion.
>
> One last thing: why is it that Mr. Sloan and
> others so frequently question the accounting of
> the USCF?
Could it be that Mr. Sloan, & Mr. Mitchell for that matter, who are
known to have a background in accountancy just cannot help themselves &
are a bit like the proverbial dog, drawn ineluctably back to its er,
vomit..
m.
> Is it really possible that the mis-
> organization cannot afford decent auditors, to
> guarantee that there is no hanky-panky going
> on? Why is it that the USCF can afford
> lawyers, but not decent accountants?
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2009 11:24:33
From: Rob Mitchell
Subject: Re: USCF Forum Moderators Announce Suspension of Sam Sloan from
|
On Feb 20, 12:32=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 14, 10:37 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [quote=3D"chessoffice"]Nobody is perfect, but I think if you compare
> > Bill Hall to most past USCF Executive Directors, he looks quite
> > good.
>
> > Bill Goichberg[/quote]
>
> > This is hardly the standard. During the period 1999-2003 the USCF had
> > the two worst EDs imaginable. One was a liar, an idiot or both, the
> > other probably a thief.
>
> > It was during that four year period that the USCF lost two million
> > dollars. We know this happened, because the LMA went from having two
> > million in it in 1999 to having zero in it in 2003.
>
> > Now, Bill Goichberg is saying that the current ED is good, because he
> > is better than those two.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> I have been notified that by a vote of 3-0 I have been suspended from
> posting for one week on the USCF Issues Forum for making the above
> statement. However, the suspension has not gone into effect while I
> appeal.
>
> I am appealing on several grounds.
>
> DeFeis and Niro are not members of the "chess community" and nobody
> knows what happened to either one of them. The rules say that you are
> not supposed to say anything bad about anybody in "the chess world".
> DeFeis and Niro are not in the Chess World.
>
> Also, this posting never appeared. It has been demonstrated that
> between the two of them they lost over one million dollars in large
> part due to fraud. They both posted profits when actually they were
> losing money big time.
>
> Neither George DeFeis nor Frank Niro are in the "chess world". DeFeis
> was never in the chess community. The Executive Board decided to hire
> a non-chess player and that proved to be the disaster that was DeFeis.
> Frank Niro disappeared (with the USCF's money) six years ago in 2003.
> Nobody knows where he is.
>
> In addition, I have "substantial proof" that my statements are true. I
> think that even Bill Goichberg, who usually disagrees with me, will
> agree with me on this one.
>
> George DeFeis and Frank Niro are the primary villains with regard to
> the USCF. When DeFeis was appointed Executive Director of the USCF in
> 2000, the USCF had $2 million in the LMA. When Niro disappeared in
> August, 2003 the LMA had zero balance. It is obvious that Niro went
> into hiding to avoid criminal charges. We still do not really know
> where he is.
>
> Nobody can say who really lost the money between the two of them.
> However, both of them were reporting big profits when they were in
> office. The numbers that they provided proved to be fake.
>
> I think that Goichberg and most of us who were active back then will
> agree that there is more than sufficient "substantial proof" that my
> statements were accurate.
>
> I do not see how anybody can discuss the current financial problems of
> the USCF without an explanation of how we got to where we are now.
>
> I know of nobody who was active during the period 2000-2003 when
> DeFeis and Niro were the executive directors who disagrees with my
> characterization of them. How many FOC and MOC members were active
> during the 2000-2003 period?
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> [quote=3D"tsawmiller"]LEVEL TWO SANCTION
>
> By a vote of three in favor, none opposed, the Moderation Committee is
> imposing a level two sanction on user SAMSLOAN (Sam Sloan) 11115292 as
> a result of the post on Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:31 pm #127996 in the
> thread Financial Issues Summary in the USCF Issues Forum.
>
> The Moderation Committee considers this action to be appropriate
> because this post violates the AUG as follows:
>
> [b]Do not make personal attacks or defamatory or disparaging comments
> about anyone in the chess world.
>
> Do not post suggestions, without specifically identified substantial
> proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or criminal act.
>
> No name calling.
>
> Do not accuse anyone of lying, telling a lie, or being a liar. This is
> considered a personal attack, even if true. [/b]
>
> Accordingly, user SAMSLOAN (Sam Sloan) 11115292 has been suspended
> from posting to the USCF Forums for a period of 7 days.
>
> The timing of the start of the suspension is dependent upon Mr.
> Nolan's availability to initiate it.
>
> Tim Sawmiller =A0[/quote]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
How much money has the USCF lost since Mr. Goichberg served on the
Executive board? How much has it lost since you joined the USCF?
Are you saying that Mr. Goichberg believes DeFeis and Niro took money
from the USCF? Are you saying these two gentlemen looted the USCF?
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2009 10:39:01
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: USCF Forum Moderators Announce Suspension of Sam Sloan from
|
Bill Goichberg has sent me this as a Private Message. However, I do
not believe that he objects to me posting this publicly:
[quote="chessoffice"][quote="samsloan"]I agree that I should not have
written this.
However, George DeFeis and Frank Niro are the primary villains with
regard to the USCF. When DeFeis was appointed Executive Director of
the USCF in 2000, the USCF had $2 million in the LMA. When Niro
disappeared in August, 2003 the LMA had zero balance.[/quote]
This is pretty close to the truth (I think it was a bit earlier than
2000 that the LMA had $2 million, though).
[quote]It is obvious that Niro went into hiding to avoid criminal
charges. We still do not really know where he is.[/quote]
It's not obvious at all. No criminal charges were filed against him
and the authorities don't usually refrain from filing such charges
just because the person may be hard to find. He is a life member and
USCF probably has his address. Since leaving as ED, he has played in
8 tournaments, in 2003-06 and this year. In 2004 he played in the
World Open, so apparently wasn't afraid of being seen by people. The
only years he didn't play were 2007-08.
[quote]Nobody can say who really lost the money between the two of
them. However, both of them were reporting big profits when they were
in office. The numbers that they provided proved to be fake.[/quote]
There were false numbers reported under both, but neither reported big
profits, rather they reported at times that USCF was approximately
breaking even when actually large losses were occurring.
[quote]I think that Goichberg and most of us who were active back then
will agree that there is more than sufficient "substantial proof" that
my statements were accurate.
I do not see how anybody can discuss the current financial problems of
the USCF without an explanation of how we got to where we are now.[/
quote]
You can explain that they did a bad job without calling them crooks,
idiots or liars.
Bill
[quote]I know of nobody who was active during the period 2000-2003
when DeFeis and Niro were the executive directors who disagrees with
my characterization of them. How many FOC and MOC members were active
during the 2000-2003 period?
Sam Sloan
[quote="tsawmiller"]You picked the inappropriate time to violate the
AUG with this post:
[quote="samsloan"][quote="chessoffice"]Nobody is perfect, but I think
if you compare Bill Hall to most past USCF Executive Directors, he
looks quite good.
Bill Goichberg[/quote]
This is hardly the standard. During the period 1999-2003 the USCF had
the two worst EDs imaginable. One was a liar, an idiot or both, the
other probably a thief.
It was during that four year period that the USCF lost two million
dollars. We know this happened, because the LMA went from having two
million in it in 1999 to having zero in it in 2003.
Now, Bill Goichberg is saying that the current ED is good, because he
is better than those two.
Sam Sloan[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
|
|
