Chess One wrote:

Here is my response to what Sam Sloan posted elsewhere. Does he declare
himself redundant to any future for chess in the USA, much as he declares
other to be? I think so. I think he has not grown into the position and now
horror behaves like those he criticised for so long, an incumbent
politician, looking to his back, not forward to what he is elected to map
out and persecute.

Phil Innes


Heads-up, Phil... you're responding to a Sam Cloan. What's more, you're
starting a new thread. Why?

----
Sam Sloan,

You are not a journalist to interrogate these issues, when you write wearing
a board hat, for the very same reasons you were enabled to campaign to wear
it in the first place.


It's arguable that the opposite is true.

There is not the slightest doubt that USCF's board award themselves and
those they encourage vast privileges which have nothing to do with OMOV, and
all to do with political largesse.


Wrong. It's not all largesse. Some folks (messrs. Nolan and Bauer to
name but two) work really hard - partly to serve the board, partly the
members - and genuinely have the interests of chess in the USA in mind.

Neither is there any doubt of the effectiveness of these policies - they are
a scandal, even within USCF, and have emerged at Nolanland to be expressly
suppressed by political order.


The USCF's own policies have been "expressly supressed"? How so?

No chess politician, including yourself, has said dickey-boo about USCF's
own responsibility and negligence in the Tanner affair

Demonstrate that the USCF was negligent.

- nothing about
people who are PAID to invigilate ratings services, but whose competence is
not in question, it is entirely absent!

Could that be because their competence is not in question, mayhap?


There is not even the slightest
curiosity.


Elaborate upon why there should be. Be specific. That you think that
there should be is not sufficient, since you are an egregious and
deranged troll who has been banned from contributing to the USCF's
fora.

I have not read anything in these threads about USCF's responsibility in
awarding a bid of $10,000 to Dr. M. Korenman, nor of the much larger $50,000
award for the web makeover, which was also without bid and without
advertising and even without any performance criteria.


"Perhaps you should read more. And write less."
--Kenneth Sloan, 17 Dec 2006

Nothing - no thing and not from any one.

Your own concentration on S. Polgar since the election cannot be seperated
from her rejection of you as someone fit to talk about women's chess in the
C21st, since it seems to me you cannot differentiate your opinions from that
of women-as-sex-objects as they seem to you. You even fail to understand
that this is resented!


Perhaps it's *not* lost on the real Sam Sloan. Perhaps he uses it as a
weapon.

Neither would your commentary be apt to address scholastic chess, for only
slightly different reasons.

During the election process I supported your application against false
charges on all sorts of grounds, and if people wished to elect a libertine
then they should do so; all charges against you being expressed as personal
preferences not as any matter of legally upheld speeech in the United
States. I even wrote USCF about exhibiting a standard by which board members
and committee chiefs could be asked to observe, and wrote long before the
elction - a neglected opportunity for those who do not like you! - though I
had other individuals in mind at the time, and in terms of sexual affront,
made specific complaints - btw, never even acknowledged!.


That may be because you are a deranged troll.

Here you merely behave as any politician, deprecating the chances of
potential competitors to your seat of power, rather than asking if what they
do is valuable compared with what you and the current board does.

It cannot be seen as any impartial reporting, or investigation, in fact you
are rather marked for your continuous antagonism, rather like a
foiled-suitor!


No ****, Sherlock!

There are some people who can decently discuss these issues - they do not
include yourself.

On the contrary, the real Sam Sloan *may* be capable of decent
discussion. It may be that he simply chooses to act like a politician.

If you do not understand this, then no one will care for
your future, nothing good will come of such speculatory questions as you
propose, and your truly useful role as exposer of cheating-as-usual at USCF
will be ended.


That could be. Or not. Time will tell on that one.

The real questions here do not amount to 'not being able to withstand
criticism', but instead in resenting an affront to decency, to open process,
to those who would rather negatively speculate rather than contribute to
what forwards us.


What forwards us where? And by what means? What is forwards anyhoo?

In resenting an affront to legality, even unto the bye-laws of USCF which
are treated as political baubles by incumbents, and deployed as convenient
to their personal chances.


This is another incomplete sentence unique to your idiosyncratic style,
Phil.

"In resenting an affront to legality, even unto the bye-laws of USCF
which
are treated as political baubles by incumbents, and deployed as
convenient
to their personal chances...." ...what?

In resenting the honesty of such people who should write 'Trollgar' as if
they had any interest in forwarding chess, rather than forwarding their own
personal and very petty ambitions in it.


Same problem... ...what?

And in resenting truth.


The truth is that you have no clue how to operate. The truth is that
your posting *actively promotes* those you seek to hinder.

Go figure.

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes


snip