wrote:
On Mar 23, 8:29 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
By asking a question of this nature, you suggest that there are a list
of such organizations in the back of your mind that you do not approve
of and that you want to make an issue of when possible. What other
organizations might they be Rich?

I am much more comfortable with the concept of regulation by law and the
criminal justice system than by this sort of informal blacklisting.

It isn't me. It is the chess community as a whole. Sam Sloan is
basing his entire lawsuit, which he intends to take down the U.S Chess
Federation upon, based upon comments that Polgar and so on slander him
over the Internet and that cost him the election. If he has a
checkered background that can show more than that, then what is the
legs of his lawsuit?

1. Have you surveyed the "chess community?" If so, give us the details.
2. Mr. Sloan or anyone else, such as myself, treated to fraudulent
harassment has nothing to do with anyone's past actions of any kind.
What Truong did was illegal and may well have affected the election--not
just for Sloan but for other candidates. And then we have the hypocrisy
of Truong/Polgar claiming the high road in the election when they are
really two of the dirtiest chess politicians who have ever lived.


As for who is acceptable and who isn't, when I discussed the prospects
of doing a chess-poker hybrid tournament on television, in order to
get chess on TV, I had people telling me the reputation of the U.S
Chess Federation, and their attempt to deal with minors, would make
that not a good idea.

It seems to me that the USCF has been and is promoting scholastic events
all the time. Give us the specifics of who told you it "would not be a
good idea."


- Rich