On Aug 21, 10:38 am, Bruce wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:33 am, "Chess One" wrote:





Apart from other 'attacks' against Mr. Sloan, is it permissible to attack
the truth?

To take just one issue: Did Mr. Sloan declare he had no criminal record to
the board, [Question 20], and did he spend 1.5 years inside?

Perhaps that defines what an 'attack' is.

If both questions above can be answered 'yes', then it doesn't matter who
raises the issue, does it? Since it would be none other than Mr. Sloan
himself who had 'attacked' the truth.

---

The problem would not be for me that Mr. Sloan had been inside, since in
this instance the law seemed particularly harsh, and if there was any crime,
if was one of passion, very hard to judge!

The problem is that Mr. Sloan seemed to declare that it was not true, since
he disagreed with the verdict as 'meaningless'. That is an 'attack' against
ordinary language and indeed, logic. It is not truthful.

So when people use words in a deliberate way to obscure what is fact and
what not, they may indeed have been the victims of an injustice, or a
penalty out of proportion to their 'crime', but their current error is to
deceive others by a form of obscurantism to the effect that disagreement
with the disinterested judgment of others is to erase the event.

That is, personally speaking, a stronger indictment against anyone being on
any board than having been inside for a spell. And this instance is hardly
an isolated one, but a very confirmed pattern in Mr. Sloan's
self-representation, which has those *special* meanings attached to whatever
he says, while being entirely cloth-eared to the views of others.

Phil Innes

"samsloan" wrote in message

roups.com...

[quote="Ron Suarez"]Actually Brenan, you are mistaken in your claim
above.

Paul and Susan were not the originators of the anti-Sam Sloan
campaign.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's web site being a mar on the public
image of the USCF and Executive Board, that he was now a member of,
then.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's numerous statements that were
slanderous and unprofessional. Their complaints though were not the
first, the last or the worst.

So, it is certainly unfair to both Paul and Susan to make the claims
you have.

They are both chess professionals and now members of our Executive
Board. Their performance in these positions have nothing to do with
Sam Sloan. While you may personally disagree with the things you
perceive Paul and Susan have said or done, I think you might need to
reevaluate your assessment of how they acted in their campaigning.[/
quote]

I am wondering who you have in mind.

Yes, it is true that Grant Perks and Bill Goichberg started attacking
me very shortly after the votes were counted and I was elected, which
was three weeks before I took office, but I believe that Polgar and
Truong attacked me sooner and far more viciously than either of them.

Take a look at:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006...tect-uscf.html

Let me know if you can find an attack earlier than that.

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like when he posted about driving his taxi into the 21st Century and
then later sued the New York Taxi Cab Authorities claiming he had
never driven a taxi?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL
That was a classic. He probably ment that "Sam Sloan" never drove that
taxi. Since he "legally" changed his name to Mohamed Ismail Sloan. The
way he tries to manipulate and split hairs makes one wonder why he has
any hair left at all.