"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:


I do not recall ever receiving an email from you.

I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of
them.

1,000? is that really credible? I get about 200, and maybe 50 of those are
e-mail notification of correspondance moves.

Sam Sloan

I emailed and email address at ishipress.com, which might explain it.
It was the only email address I found related to you. Ok, that is
understandable. I am not going to post it here now.

Anyhow, I posted my question so maybe you could speak out for yourself
on why you want to smack down the U.S Chess Federation, Polger and so
on, and to what end. I am curious what your motives are and so on, as
your messages are dominating a newsgroup, and all it appears to be is
a ****ing contest by an irate individual to accomplish selfish ends to
me. I don't see how the cause of chess is advanced in any way here,
which is why I ask.

I see even Taylor Kingston uses my Joe MacCarthy description of such
'questions'. What happens is that, to take an example, Sam Sloan will exite
the issue 2 months before the election of Polgar and Truong taking over the
federation, getting their hands on the money, and spening it on some looney
marketing idea - 2 months after the election he is miffed that they seem to
have made no resolutions at all, especially not making a grab for 'the
money'.

As many say here, whether in respect of Sloan or others, what has this to do
with chess players rather than chess politicians? And maybe it has, though
on the evidence of what is presented, not clearly anything of value is even
suggested, which survives a post or two.

Politicos are often too proud to attend to any chess public's values - even
to the extent of being able to sensibly repeat them. Exceptions are those
who do engage in interactive forums, and those people are... as far as I can
see, Polgar, Truong and Sloan. If only Sloan didn't make it all about him,
then during his board tenure he may have actually have been able to do
something other than raise a rash of alarums on his own behalf, to which he
resolved none. Randy Bauer used to write here, but relied too much on
running on his record rather than asking open questions about what aids us
or sets us back.

To return to the center of this topic, what did Sam Sloan /do/ to improve
chess that warranted his seat on the board? Of course, this might equitably
be compared with what others achieved during the same period of tenure. To
wit: did he do more than what a non-board member could do, which is /only/
to raise issues, and was he, or others! able to identify which of these
issues was critical, sufficiently to remedy them or take advantage of some
erstwhile absent opportunity?

Phil Innes

- Rich