On Dec 15, 11:34 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in oglegroups.com...

On Dec 15, 10:05 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public announcements -

There are many posts and announcements on USCF's website. Looking
there does not tell us to which *_specific_* posts and/or announcements
you refer.

Actually, the thread was stopped, but another started in its place
Korenman and other things removed from Lux thread

At last viewing it was the top topic.

I just read the moderator's ex culpa, "EDIT: I just re-read this and it
seems that the tone is more negative than I really intended. I've made
harsher statements than were really called for, and I appologize. Please
take the above comments as a simple "disagreement" and not the
"condemnation" that they sound like."

Sloans comments are supported by Ron Suarez and also a USCF Delegate.
Another poster comments that the moderator now engages in 'a nice spin'.

But this moderator [who BTBW sent me an e-mail] is not quite catching the
drift as has replied to that comment, "Other than showing yourself to be
educationally impaired, what purpose does your post serve?"

and this is where the comemnt occurs: 'Nice. What a pleasant experience it
must be to have a conversation with you! I express a simple opinion, with a
little humor added, about what could be inferred from your remarks, and this
is your response. Serves me right I guess, for even thinking about
expressing an opinon on these bastions of free expression.'

Our Phil finally presents some specific quotes, after claiming he had
already done so. So Phil, is the above supposed to be the "rash and
offensive abuse of speech" you referred to? Sounds like a toned-down
version of a run-of-the-mill rgcp thread.

And Kingston - this is the wrong thread to write this in, since bastions.

Is that sentence supposed to make sense?

Now, that's just page one of 7 pages. Are you catching the drift? This
thread is now titled:

Korenman and other things removed from Lux thread

which might be evident to your diligent researches.

and stop
your abuse in place of a little diligence, Kingston.

Phil, I abuse you for your _lack_ of diligence. You make charges
without evidence.

You are using the word charges again - about what other people are writing.
But you can't figure out after looking [!] where the thread is?

Phil, if you are going to make claims here about a thread on the USCF
web-site, it is up to *_you_* to present *_here_* the parts of that
thread you consider relevant to your claims. It is not the
responsibility of others to establish your claims for you.

I am noticing what other people are saying; here is yet another voice: "I
think that you hate Sam Sloan so much, that anything that he does say must
be attacked."

Now Nolan has kicked in to ask about other disciplinary measures to be taken
against Sam Sloan.

Another poster is getting at Beatriz Marinello - who raised all the original
issues, referring to her Fide alliance.

On the next page the moderator has used outside type IN RED to shout at Sam
Sloan. This BIG RED is met by a new poster's comment
"The Tanstaafl comet is back; look at it going around the Sloan star, and
what a dysfunctional solar system we have."
Which obtains an apology for knee-jerk reactions and 'over-reations' from
the [ROFL] moderator

But then we have thread-drift, and Bill Goichberg plus other politicos
begine to talk about being reimbursed for expenses, and eventually fizzles
when someone called 'rfeditor' writes [in a moderated forum] "You must know
as well as I do what those line items were for. I'd really like to phrase
this more harshly (something on the order of "Are you really a moron or an
amazingly lifelike imitation?"), but that might be considered a personal
attack."

To which the Moderator [ROFL] says NOTHING.

If the above is supposed to establish our Phil's claim of "rash and
offensive abuse of speech," I am not terribly impressed, since it is
considerably less rash and offensive than what he himself habitually
writes here.
Furthermore, I see nothing in the above at all relevant to the claim
of "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner." Given our Phil's track
record as a journalist, such a charge from him is rather like Khruschev
calling someone a Communist.