Let us once again :-) assume, in arguendo, that every ad hominem
statement Innes makes about Brock is true.

Susan Polgar writes that "Mr. Sloan is absolutely unfit to serve on the
USCF Executive Board." I believe that is not an unfair
characterization of Innes's *current* position, though not Parr's, and
though Innes might not go so far as to say "*absolutely* unfit."

Does Innes agree with Polgar that Sloan "is not capable of telling the
truth"?

That Sloan "is not capable of being civil"?

That Sloan "is not capable of being professional"?

Or, alternatively, when Polgar writes, "This [misconduct of Sloan] is
precisely the reason why I chose to run for the board this year," would
Innes ascribe Polgar's Sloan obsession to Brock?

Or when Joel Channing said in exasperation of Sloan on 1/16/07, "you
are good for nothing but demolition," would Innes ascribe Channing's
Sloan obsession to Brock?

http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewto...ighlight=sloan
(valid USCF login requred)

Just askin'....