On 21 Mar 2005 21:33:46 -0800, "George John"
wrote:


Sam Sloan wrote:

[SNIP]

Then kindly explain why you feel that the USCF Board should not at a
minimum write a letter to Stan Booz admonishing him not to do this
any
more.

I have addressed this in a different message, so I will be brief.

I think writing a private letter or making a phone call might have been
more appropriate. What I think is inappropriate is resorting to this
public motion that singles out a committee chair by name in such a
negative light. IMO, this matter should have been handled privately.

I feel and many others feel that Stan Booz should have immediately
been removed from his positions. Kindly explain why you feel
otherwise.

I have previously stated in the FIDE-Chess Yahoo group that I would not
tolerate uncivil behavior from an EB advisory committee chair. If
after having been asked to refrain from such behavior, should any
individual continue to act in an unacceptable manner, I would find a
replacement. But, the key point remains, I would handle this
privately. Only the vote naming the new chair (or chairs) would be
public.

Sincerely,

George John

A simple Google search will produce dozens of times that Stan Booz has
used the f-word,the a-word and other obscenities on this newsgroup.

Obviously, the time when a simple request would be sufficient has long
since passed.

Also, this matter cannot be handled privately because Beatriz
Marinello and Tim Hanke support Stan Booz and the foul language he
constantly uses. That is why a board motion was necessary.

Do you still fell that Stan Booz should retain his important committee
chairmanship. Yes or No?

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

A simple Google search will produce dozens of times that Stan Booz has
used the f-word,the a-word and other obscenities on this newsgroup.

There is one four letter word we can never accuse Sam of making use of:
Work.