"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
oups.com...
All reasonable concerns. Let me pose another concern:

Do you really think that if, for example, the USCF were seeking a major
sponsor, say, a major corporation, and they did due diligence on the
USCF -- such as running basic searches on its Executive Board members
-- they would still want to work with the USCF after finding Sloan's
website, criminal record, and securities history?

What do you think of an article about Whoring in Budapest printed as a
feature in ChessLife?

More to the point, Phil, would be directing that question at Sloan.

Look, 'Randy'. You are writing to someone with a strong interest in
non-clinical psychology, especially group-behaviors and role playing, and
even particularly to creativity and social accpetance thereof.

If I think you and Brock have more in the closet, by virtue of mentioning
your obsessions non-stop in such a scandalising way, I figure you have more
in the closet than Sloan has out of it.

I'll maintain my own opinion, than you, not on what you purport to be your
attitude, but on observing your behavior.

AFAIK Sam Sloan had nothing to do with Whoring in Budapest - and one look at
commissioning editor Pehme's web site, which has a certain encouragement of
the topic by features young ladies in a specifric light, and only young
ladies [half his age], is an alternate comparison of quite the same type, to
which no one deems to notice.

I read some time ago of 'confusion' about publishing the Whoring in Budapest
material, and while everyone regretted it, no one at USCF regretted it
enough to actually take responsibility - certainly not enough to stop it
appearing in Chess Life.

In this message you 'father' the article onto Sam Sloan by another
remarkable association.

I have challenged all your previous ones - and you have now reduced them to
the felony itself - but you have not said why this unhappy personal
circumstance would prevent the person you protest so much about from being
on the board. In fact, as Larry Parr points out, you have not mentioned
chess at all.

I will not vote for Sam Sloan, since I am not a member of USCF. I am merely
interested in what, if anything, USCF has to do with promoting the game of
chess.

I have already posted on this forum on numerous occasions my dislike of
that article nad its appearance in Chess Life.

Do you think Sloan feels the same?

Do you mean - do I speculate if he does?

If you had a sincere question I am sure you could figure out how to ask him
directly. While you may have regretted Pehme's article, it was entirely
predictable that such a person would 'out' his interests publically in as
wide a scope as possible. LONG... before he did so, a board member noted to
me that it was going to be a problem... yet after all this concern, it was
still published midst these current crocodile tears.

You have the entirely quaint idea that you have time to mind other people's
business. When this issue of decency came up LONG before the article was
published - it was predicated! - no standards or guidelines, checks nor
balances, were put in place.

The mote is not just in your individual eye, but in your corporate one too.
Fix it or get off it. Exteriorising the issue by scapegoating is an absolute
guarantee, in my estimation that your, and Brock's, concerns are insincere.

Phil Innes



Randy Bauer