wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes, other standards are possible.

Indeed, Bill, standards are independent of personality, which is to literal
degree why we name them such and why the flag flies over our heads rather
than we walk on it, & should you think of a standard bearer; this person who
subsumes their own personality in a trans-personal gesture which is for the
whole group/army/country.

They are instead impersonal measures, rather than reactionary ones to
individual features. The Founders recognised this, and made special measure
to ensure that not even government could persecute individuals, neithe could
Church. This was the basis of allowing individuals to carry arms - as
protection from unwonted coercian by government! Independence from singluar
official edict [which is fascism] is not as much encouraged in the USA as
mandated for citizens.

This was also a significant enough factor to break from the past, and
England's empire and authority - no light thing to undertake.

Should we agree with this, then there still remains the question of social
mandate for /minimum/ standards of public behavior, which is what we call
the Law of the Land.

I suggested in my first post that since this measure has proved insufficient
to protect women, and to much larger degree, children, then a higher
standard is necessary than obtains generally under the law. Offenses against
these two groups is not only up, but gaining momentum [ref: Christian
Science Monitor, 19 Dec /paper edition/], and what I wrote at the head of
this post is that such a standard should be deployed where women and
children are constituents, and that I do not see it present - and further,
certain individuals do not enjoy my confidence in this respect.

Even longer ago I wrote here to Vinny Hart that I thought the /basis/ of the
standard should be assessed from the perspective of those who suffer from
unwonted affronts by virtue of their gender or age.

While this means a deeper look than at individual cases, it also means that
women, and children's parents or guardians, should be primarily the policy
makers.

Phil Innes

The following was posted on the uschess.org website today:

*** BEGIN QTN ***

samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Bronx, New York

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

joelchanning wrote:

tanstaafl wrote:

The ONLY reason the USCF hasn't already been sued for Mr. Sloan's
statements is apparently that the people being attacked care more
about the USCF than Sam Sloan does. He damages the reputation of the
USCF as a whole with practically every statement he makes.

Amen. Joel Channing

It is interesting that Joel Channing supports both Tanstaafl, whose
real name is Herbert Rodney Vaughn, and The Fake Sam Sloan, who posts
obscene messages on rec.games.chess.politics

Tanstaafl has cost the USCF a lot of money by filing a 400 page ethics
complaint IN COLOR, requiring the USCF office to make at least 10 COLOR
COPIES of this 400 page complaint, at great cost to the USCf.

That alone has already cost the USCF about one thousand dollars.

Almost the entire ethics complaint by Tanstaalf a/k/a Vaughn has been
dismissed by the Ethics Committee as frivolous, although five of his
allegations remain. (Those five I will be able to refute easily).

Tanstaafl got admitted as a delegate to the meeting in Chicago due to a
mistake caused by inexperience by Pat Knight. (Had Rachel Lieberman,
who traditionally has handled the delegate certification process, been
on the job, Vaughn would never have been certified as a delegate.)

Having gotten in by mistake, Vaughn then tied up the meeting with
endless motions and speeches. He spoke more than any other delegate.
Two of his motions passed, one more was referred to a committee, and
all of this has cost the USCF money.

Tanstaafl a/k/as Vaughn ties up this group with an average of ten
attacks per day (please go count them) or more than one thousand thus
far, leading the casual reader who will not realize that it is just the
same seven people attacking me over and over again every day to believe
that there is widespread opposition to me.

I am not questioning that here, as this is all well known. What I am
questioning is that Joel Channing, a member of the board, who has thus
far done nothing since he got elected except spend our money
needlessly, supports him.

Sam Sloan

*** END QTN ***