wrote in message
ps.com...
Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
4. Do you find these three statements equally credible? Discuss.
Discuss what with whom?
I have been discussing ethical factors relating to women and children in
chess for the past year.
Bill Brock has not been discussing that subject with anyone, he has been
scapegoating one person out of some confused presentation of his own
motives
in a strange agit-prop campaign, seeming to want to write about a little
porn more than the person he accuses 
Mr. Brock has never said he agrees to any measure that is an objective
one
for all people, and considering the strange-brew of his own past which he
has semi-hemi hinted and 'joked' about - its as if he wants to expunge
that,
much more than attend to offenses to women and children.
As such, this is all about him.
Phil Innes
Polgar publicly accuses Sloan of being morally unfit to serve as a
fiduciary, and claims that Sloan had sexually propositioned her when
she was sixteen years old. In response, Sloan publicly claims (in two
separate statements, both in the course of USCF matters) that his
relationship with the teenaged Susan Polgar was "not entirely Platonic"
and that certain details of this relationship are "seamy."
Innes's response? "As such, this is all about [Bill Brock]."
I am amused.
Brock is now stung is more like it, and continues to personally obsess and
intrigue /only/ about Sloan. He still denies any personal connection and
mentions only one other person!
But Brock will not talk about what or how it should be about everybody - and
that he did nothing about setting any standard at USCF long before Sloan was
a board-member! He thus ignored a slew of offensive issues about yet other
individuals.
This is very curious! He avoids my proposal of what would actually have an
effect that would implicate everyone - including Sloan! - since... maybe he
wouldn't qualify himself? And if so, it would no longer be able to act as
prosecutor, judge and jury all-in-one.
What is additionally curious is that he does not ask 'Parr and Innes' to
comment on his own behavior - as if it did not exist. While Sloan's
juvenilia certainly is not likeable, exaggerating, inventing, and
speculating upon what is unproved is the same kiting of issues that he
accuses Sloan thereof.
When I wrote that women and children should be heard - and should suggest
their own remedies, I do not receive any responses. But I consider that the
most mature view and in fact, a necessary one. Not receiving responses does
not imply agreement or disagreement - but lack of support for any impersonal
standard does imply a lack of real care to what would immediately alleviate
the situation.
What you read here is not any remedy to empower women and parent of children
to have their own say. The reader will make up their own mind on the
orientation of any 'alternative' suggestions.
Phil Innes