GRACEFULNESS OR DISGRACEFULNESS?

By Larry Parr

Tim Hanke takes issue with some of what Sam Sloan wrote about the
recent Policy Board meeting.

Specifically, Mr. Sloan claimed that visitors from Crossville,
Tennessee, got snubbed by the Executive Board and left with their noses out of
joint.

Mr. Hanke responded that Mr. Sloan misidentified some of the
Crossvilleans and that the visitors were given not only a hearing but also
attended what we may take to have been a lengthy dinner accompanied by vino,
camraderie and serious talk.

One is certain that Sam got everything reversed on the snubbing
score. However, one would like to know whether the Tennessee lads left in a
semi-huff or whether the outcome was amicable. We still don't know if the USCF
is moving to Crossville.

Enter Jim Eade.

Mr. Eade asks whether Mr. Hanke recollects being on the other side and
according Mr. Sloan the "benefit of the doubt" until the latter began to lie
about Mr. Hanke. Mr Eade then writes of Mr. Hanke, "You are part of the
problem. Sheesh."

Sheesh, indeed.

Continues Mr. Eade to Mr. Hanke, "Yes but this prolific liar [Mr. Sloan]
was given the benefit of the doubt by you. Why should anybody believe you
now?"

Concludes Mr. Eade to Mr. Hanke, "There is nothing you or I can do about
Scammie [Mr. Sloan]. There might be something you can do about you. Think
about it."

Two comments: 1. Readers will have to decide for themselves whether Mr.
Eade's response is aglow with gracefulness or reeks with disgracefulness; and
2. I don't think most readers Mr. Sloan was lying when getting it all wrong
about whether the Executive Board met with the Tennessee folks. People
frequently turn facts on their head, and they are not lying. They are -- well,
they are turning facts on their head.

Was Mr. Eade lying when he claimed on this forum that I had "two
daughters" or was he just getting his facts wrong? I think he was just getting
his facts wrong.