"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 9:17 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Sam Sloan ignores 5 years of commitment to chess in the USA, and further
commitments, both as performed and as offered to USCF - and Sam Sloan's
idea
is to then abuse that person's record in public, because he 'doesn't
see'.

Sam Sloan sees what he wants, methinks, and he only sees Susan Polgar, so
if
Gregory Alexander had /not/ worked for Susan Polgar before the award, Sam
Sloan must now find something else to cavil about.

Phil Innes

Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all, that Gregory Alexander
was in any way involved with chess or with the USCF prior to mid-2006?

Yes. In fact I know the West Coast organisers of the college league too - an
Oregon academic got things going there, and Chessville reported the
initiative; eventually several East coast entities joined in.

Can you in any way substantiate his claim that he has been a volunteer
for 5 years?

A volunteer of what and to whom?

Records of the USCF show that Gregory Alexander first joined the USCF
in mid-2006. There is no record at all of his existence prior to that
date.

How would there be a record of him before he joined? And there are no
records pre-1990 in any case, since they were eliminated. The degree to
which records were actually digitised in the 1990s is as unknown as the
content of the USCF archive, which is not even indexed!

If he was using another name (as I suspect) I would like to know
what it was.

Except for one posting in mid-2006, his first posting to this forum
was in mid-2007 and was entitled "Forum Follies".

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...a?dmode=source

It is well worth reading because, in it, Gregory Alexander complains
about the same things that we are complaining about now.

"We"? "The same things?"

I don't think "we" are complaining about the same things at all - in fact
its hard to tell from the writing of Sam Sloan if there are any 'things',
instead there are just the international villains, Polgar and Truong, plus
the domestic one, 'Wild Bill Goichberg'.

What some people want instead is an impersonal approach to what benefits
chess players, centered on the welfare of the game and its players, and not
based on personality likes and dislikes.

What still others care about is decency in public expression. Its absolutely
not a matter of 'freedom of speech' - free from what? Freedom from decency,
openness, USCF's own mission?

Instead of freedom it is instead worth clamoring about what inhibits a real
dialog about the future of chess in this country: Inhibitions which included
virtual stalking, compulsive egoic behavior coupled with very unhealthy
fixations on others, plus the secret machinations of the good ol' boys.

The net effect of this campaign of activity is designed to ensure that USCF
will not be touched by any resulting changes resulting from a true national
dialog - a situation which benefits long-term incumbents who try to freeze
out newcomers. Exactly the situation has arisen in England where those who
elected to arrest the decline of chess there, all resigned their positions
because of the intractable organisation who, we must assume, prefer decline
as we know it, to 'risking' greater popularity.

The chess community will support viable changes to USCF's failed programs
and methods as they emerge from other quarters of the chess scene, and since
there are now so many of those, it is merely a matter of several of them
coalescing to create a real alternate basis for chess which addressed the
needs of the C21st., not the yawning void of dithering around in the
post-Fischer last quarter century.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan