On Nov 1, 6:01 pm, "
wrote:

We are starting to sound a bit overboard in anti-Sloan talk. Sloan has
identified some sleazy behavior which would not have come out without
his persistence.

He has also peddled fabrications and unsubstantiated nonsense, in
the process smearing people not deserving of such treatment. He also
raises innumerable false alarms, which if all were acted upon would
completely paralyze the USCF. As for "sleazy behavior," his own life
is full of it.

Sloan is like the boy who cried wolf.

There we agree completely.

Sometimes his suspicions point
in the wrong direction, but like the boy who cried wolf, they also
sometimes identify dangerous characters.

What would you say is his ratio of error to accuracy, Jerry? How
many "dangerous characters" have been exposed, compared to how many
innocent parties besmirched? Is his track record any better than, say,
Joe McCarthy's?

I do not consider myself to
be a supporter of Sloan, but I do pay attention to what he says, and
try to determine whether or not it is accurate.

And what have you determined, Jerry? Among the hundreds, or by now
more probably thousands, of allegations, accusations, conspiracy
theories, character assassinations, innuendoes and other noises Sloan
has made over the years, both on chess matters and other issues, how
many have proven accurate? What is his batting average? How much good
has he done, compared to how much harm? And how much has he
interfered, obstructed, and wasted time that could be put to better
use?
Just to give a few examples, and citing only some of the less
harmful, do you recall his notion that I was Edward Winter? His charge
that Hanon Russell "blacklisted" Eric Schiller? His claim that Peter
Leko was dead? His claim that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6
dxc6 5.Nxe5 Qd4 6.Nf3 Qxe4+ White's best move was 7.Be2? I suggest you
view his actions toward the USCF in that light.

Lord knows, the USCF has problems, and I will be the first to admit
it has not been run with anything like consistent competence and
honesty. But as I said earlier, promoting Sloan as cure for its ills
is like saying that leprosy cures acne. And touting Sloan as a
watchdog is like saying the Navy should use truffle-sniffing pigs on
submarines instead of sonar.

On Nov 1, 8:59 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Nov 1, 2:16 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

On Oct 31, 8:14 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess
regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception
of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in
improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself.
He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with
pornography, racism, and his various other interests.

Ok, thanks for the info. I popped into chess.misc out of getting
interested in chess again, and I see the swarm of Sloan posts on here,
so I was curious about who the heck Sloan is, and why Sloan matters.

Sloan does not matter. His election to the USCF Executive Board a
while back is just further proof of Abraham Lincoln's maxim that you
can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
some of the time. Basically, Sloan cries "Wolf!" at everything the
USCF does, posting here and elsewhere every suspicion and accusation
that enters his mind, whether it's backed by facts or not. If he is
occasionally right, it is not due to any competence, virtue, or real
investigative effort on his part; it's just that even a stopped clock
is right twice a day.
Basically, Sloan predicts every day that "It will rain here today."
When it does happen to rain, Larry Parr proclaims Sloan's clairvoyant
powers. Everyone else here just laughs, if they pay any heed at all.

I am also a bit confused what Sloan wants. Sloan just wants packback
or does Sloan want to become officer of U.S Chess Federation again?

Sloan wants to draw attention to Sloan. That's all. He tries to do
this in all manner of ways, ranging from running for USCF office to
posting the history of his sex life on the internet.

Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6
months or so until Sam gets bored.

That's not likely any time soon. I would recommend just ignoring Sam
and concentrating on the rgcm posts that interest you.