wrote in message
ps.com...
THE PARTY LINE

From Taylor Kingston you are getting the official
view of Sam Sloan. No bureaucrat would disagree.

The truth is that Sam has revealed numerous
documents, raising questions over the status of what
may be a worthless building in Cross-to-Bear; he
exposed a former Board member who was using some good
ol' boy connections to do himself some good; he has
raised questions about sweetheart contracts and the like.

But a real problem with Sam Sloan, Mr. Parr, is that he has proved as
unresponsive to his own responsibilty as the rest of 'em. Just becausse he
appears in public 50 times per day doesn't reflect any particular care on
his part.

He is rather like an investigative journalist on the rampage - for certain
dirt - and it is there cloggin up the works - sure! But he ain't that. Here
and in his 'own' newsgroup he does not respond to what people say about the
issues he raises. That is a curiosity much noted.

He is also marked with certain filters to sense in obsessing over Susan
Polgar, which is, I suggest to you, as much a 'complexity' of issue as is
Bill Brock over Sloan!

Meanwhile boy-Sloan exhults over suggested misdeeds of the past, utterly
oblivious to the mass of red ink occuring during his own watch. As such, he
is as responsive as any other board member - nothing special about him in
this respect.

But what I want in any politico is diligence to what they /can be/
responsible for. I have yet to see the transition between outre reporter and
competent desk&committee-man. I think this is also a widely acknowledged
perception.

He has raised issues which never should have been secret in the first place
[shame on it!] but at the same time as indicriminately raising issue which
no candid attention could value as of the slightest importance.

Sam has been productive in letting us know what
goes on behind closed doors, and he has been
disruptive of desires by the good ol' boys to keep
their shenanigans quiet.

Yes. He has become an inside reporter. This, IMO, is not enough for
re-election.

He has been a ball-buster and a killer-diller.

P.S. He also outed Mr. 2300+ Elo's true OTB rating.

And others who bear him personal malice, such as Brock.

But this is simply to triumph for a season on the same basis that they have
had their way so long!

The question remains between us, if it is personality types which are
important at this time, or if what ails us is systemic? By this I mean an
excessive introversion unto secrecy, lack of forward sense, and short-term
and political expedient actions. Mereldy reporting their extent has been our
work awhile. Occupying a seat at the council requires rather more than that.

Sloan's work is currently to expose the shoddiness of others. This is
insufficient as foundation for the future - and either liking what Sloan
does, or disliking it, is also insufficient.

It must also be said that his sexual speculations are juvenile. To regard
women as /only/ sexual objects from the male point of view, is indeed an
adolescent perspective. I never saw him write otherwise without some
tittliating give-away phrase. This is a major problem to those concerned
with women and girls in chess - it cannot be glossed.

Since we 'never disagree' on anything, and I always follow your lead, as Rob
Mitchell does mine, according to the corn-fed bloke, apart from his delight
in viewing these differences, and indeed challenges, there remains something
much beyond pro or anti Sloan to consider, unless we are indeed content to
laugh at the MacDonald US Fisch-wich Open, or next year's inanity by those
who manage on our behalf what was once the Royal Game.

In summary: Seems to me that Sloan's own indifference to other's responses
cannot recommend him more than any other incumbent. He has not taken
responsiblity for his own watch, neither individually nor as a board-being,
and his sexual specualtions limit him and those about him.

Phil Innes



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:11 am, " wrote:
SWEEPING DIRT UNDER THE RUG

I don't think that any of us expected Sam to be
as productive and disruptive an Executive Board member
as he has proved to be.

Larry, on certain issues sometimes you're sort of half-right, but
it's amazing how on the subject of Sam Sloan you manage to be nearly
100% wrong all the time. Here you are wrong on both counts:

1. Nearly everyone expected Sloan to be disruptive, and he has been
disruptive.
2. Almost no one expected Sloan to be productive, and he has not
been productive.

So Sam has performed very much according to expectations.