On Mar 20, 12:26 am, help bot wrote:
On Mar 20, 12:21 am, samsloan wrote:

Not true. The USCF has had seven Executive Directors since 1999. Eight
if you could Mike Nolan who was in effect Acting Executive Director
for just a few days.

Okay, I admit I forgot; can you tell us (again)
who it is that appoints the Executive Director
of the USCF?

-- help bot

The board appoints the Executive Director. The current Executive
Director was appointed in 2005 at the time that the USCF was moving to
Crossville.

Most people who meet the current executive director think that he is a
good guy and I thought so too until he was caught in several lies in
early 2007.

The Executive Directors since 1999 have been Cavallo, Dullea, DeFeis,
Niro, Perks, Goichberg, Beatriz Marinello (acting) and Hall, plus
Nolan was acting executive director for about two weeks in 2003 after
Niro disappeared.

Tim Sawmiller in notification that I was suspended from posting states
that my post "obviously" referred to a specific ED. I am wondering
which one he thinks that this obviously referred to.

Sam Sloan

Tim Sawmiller in notification that I was suspended from posting states
that my post "obviously" referred to a specific ED. I am wondering
which one he thinks that this obviously referred to.

Sam Sloan

Since you called for him to be fired... you know the answer to that,
don't you? How can you fire someone from a position they do not hold?

On Mar 19, 3:58 am, samsloan wrote:
If you have an Executive Director who is utterly worthless, or who
does not tell the board what he is doing or who often lies about what
he has done, then you have a situation where the ED cannot be trusted
with such critical decisions as the hiring or firing of the Editor of
Chess Life.

The USCF has lost more than two million dollars since 1999 and is
losing $300,000 more so far this year. None of this is the fault of
the board or of the delegates because in every year the delegates have
passed a budget that calls for a surplus. This means that the
Executive Director did not follow the budget and made unauthorized
expenditures.

As long as this situation continues, the board cannot have a hands-off
attitude and cannot simply trust the ED to do the right thing. The
board needs to keep watching carefully as best it can.

Sam Sloan

Tim Sawmiller, in announcing that I have been suspended from posting
states:

"The USCF has lost more than two million dollars since 1999 and is
losing $300,000 more so far this year. None of this is the fault of
the board or of the delegates because in every year the delegates have
passed a budget that calls for a surplus. This means that the
Executive Director did not follow the budget and made unauthorized
expenditures."

This confirms that the author is speaking of this specific ED and
therefore is against the AUG.

I believe that this tells us more about what Mr. Sawmiller thinks than
what I think. There is an old saying, "if the shoe fits, wear it".
Which specific ED does Mr. Sawmiller feel the above statement best
applies to??

Sam Sloan

On Mar 20, 6:14 am, samsloan wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:58 am, samsloan wrote:



If you have an Executive Director who is utterly worthless, or who
does not tell the board what he is doing or who often lies about what
he has done, then you have a situation where the ED cannot be trusted
with such critical decisions as the hiring or firing of the Editor of
Chess Life.

The USCF has lost more than two million dollars since 1999 and is
losing $300,000 more so far this year. None of this is the fault of
the board or of the delegates because in every year the delegates have
passed a budget that calls for a surplus. This means that the
Executive Director did not follow the budget and made unauthorized
expenditures.

As long as this situation continues, the board cannot have a hands-off
attitude and cannot simply trust the ED to do the right thing. The
board needs to keep watching carefully as best it can.

Sam Sloan

Tim Sawmiller, in announcing that I have been suspended from posting
states:

"The USCF has lost more than two million dollars since 1999 and is
losing $300,000 more so far this year. None of this is the fault of
the board or of the delegates because in every year the delegates have
passed a budget that calls for a surplus. This means that the
Executive Director did not follow the budget and made unauthorized
expenditures."

This confirms that the author is speaking of this specific ED and
therefore is against the AUG.

I believe that this tells us more about what Mr. Sawmiller thinks than
what I think. There is an old saying, "if the shoe fits, wear it".
Which specific ED does Mr. Sawmiller feel the above statement best
applies to??

Sam Sloan

Since you called for him to be fired... you know the answer to that,
don't you? How can you fire someone from a position they do not hold?

Tim Sawmiller, in announcing that I have been suspended from posting
states:

"This confirms that the author is speaking of this specific ED and
therefore is against the AUG."

I believe that this tells us more about what Mr. Sawmiller thinks than
what I think. The executive directors since 1999 have been Cavallo,
Dullea, DeFeis, Niro, Perks, Goichberg, Beatriz Marinello (acting) and
Hall, plus Nolan was acting executive director for about two weeks in
2003 after Niro disappeared.

Tim Sawmiller in notification that I was suspended from posting states
that my post obviously referred to a specific ED. I am wondering which
one he thinks that this obviously referred to. I would like Mr.
Sawmiller to tell us to which specific ED my posting refers.

Is Mr. Sawmiller guilty of violating the AUG by suggesting that a
certain specific ED is guilty of the practices outlined above?

Sam Sloan

On Mar 20, 6:14*am, samsloan wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:58 am, samsloan wrote:





If you have an Executive Director who is utterly worthless, or who
does not tell the board what he is doing or who often lies about what
he has done, then you have a situation where the ED cannot be trusted
with such critical decisions as the hiring or firing of the Editor of
Chess Life.

The USCF has lost more than two million dollars since 1999 and is
losing $300,000 more so far this year. None of this is the fault of
the board or of the delegates because in every year the delegates have
passed a budget that calls for a surplus. This means that the
Executive Director did not follow the budget and made unauthorized
expenditures.

As long as this situation continues, the board cannot have a hands-off
attitude and cannot simply trust the ED to do the right thing. The
board needs to keep watching carefully as best it can.

Sam Sloan

Tim Sawmiller, in announcing that I have been suspended from posting
states:

"The USCF has lost more than two million dollars since 1999 and is
losing $300,000 more so far this year. None of this is the fault of
the board or of the delegates because in every year the delegates have
passed a budget that calls for a surplus. This means that the
Executive Director did not follow the budget and made unauthorized
expenditures."

This confirms that the author is speaking of this specific ED and
therefore is against the AUG.

I believe that this tells us more about what Mr. Sawmiller thinks than
what I think. There is an old saying, "if the shoe fits, wear it".
Which specific ED does Mr. Sawmiller feel the above statement best
applies to??

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since Sloan has been banned again from the USCF postings, how long
will his errant and inflamatory behaivor be tolerated? What are the
legal steps to restrict membership in the organization? WHat would he
do with his time if he should be refunded all of his dues for the last
30 years and banned from participation in the organization? Does
anyone know?

Rob wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:14�am, samsloan wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:58 am, samsloan wrote:





If you have an Executive Director who is utterly worthless, or who
does not tell the board what he is doing or who often lies about what
he has done, then you have a situation where the ED cannot be trusted
with such critical decisions as the hiring or firing of the Editor of
Chess Life.

The USCF has lost more than two million dollars since 1999 and is
losing $300,000 more so far this year. None of this is the fault of
the board or of the delegates because in every year the delegates have
passed a budget that calls for a surplus. This means that the
Executive Director did not follow the budget and made unauthorized
expenditures.

As long as this situation continues, the board cannot have a hands-off
attitude and cannot simply trust the ED to do the right thing. The
board needs to keep watching carefully as best it can.

Sam Sloan

Tim Sawmiller, in announcing that I have been suspended from posting
states:

"The USCF has lost more than two million dollars since 1999 and is
losing $300,000 more so far this year. None of this is the fault of
the board or of the delegates because in every year the delegates have
passed a budget that calls for a surplus. This means that the
Executive Director did not follow the budget and made unauthorized
expenditures."

This confirms that the author is speaking of this specific ED and
therefore is against the AUG.

I believe that this tells us more about what Mr. Sawmiller thinks than
what I think. There is an old saying, "if the shoe fits, wear it".
Which specific ED does Mr. Sawmiller feel the above statement best
applies to??

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since Sloan has been banned again from the USCF postings, how long
will his errant and inflamatory behaivor be tolerated? What are the
legal steps to restrict membership in the organization? WHat would he
do with his time if he should be refunded all of his dues for the last
30 years and banned from participation in the organization? Does
anyone know?


He hasn't been banned. He's been put in the "moderation
queue" (again). All that means is that his posts have to be approved
by a grown-up before they can appear. Sam doesn't like adult
oversight.

Thank you for explaining this. Yes, I wish to appeal. I am totally
mystified as to why this posting was considered a violation or AUG.

Is it a violation because I wrote that the USCF has lost $2 million
since 1999? Everybody agrees that this is true, except for
disagreement as to the amount. Mike Nolan said that the loss was only
$1.3 million up to 2005, for example.

My statement "if you have an executive director who lies" was clearly
hypothetical. We have had eight executive directors since 1999. Many
members have different opinions as to who was honest and who was
dishonest. For example some say that Cavallo was "utterly worthless"
but my opinion is that he was a good executive director.

I personally think that DeFeis lost most of the $2 million. Others
think is was Niro. And so on. It is a matter of opinion. As long as we
agree that $2 million was lost we should be allowed to debate who lost
it and why.

I am also mystified by the statement that if this sanction is reversed
there will still be two strikes against me, for two prior sanctions.
What were those two sanctions? Why am I not allowed to know about them
so that I can defend myself.

Tim Sawmiller, in announcing that I have been suspended from posting
states:

"This confirms that the author is speaking of this specific ED and
therefore is against the AUG."

I believe that this tells us more about what Mr. Sawmiller thinks than
what I think. The executive directors since 1999 have been Cavallo,
Dullea, DeFeis, Niro, Perks, Goichberg, Beatriz Marinello (acting) and
Hall, plus Nolan was acting executive director for about two weeks in
2003 after Niro disappeared.

Tim Sawmiller in notification that I was suspended from posting states
that my post obviously referred to a specific ED. I am wondering which
one he thinks that this obviously referred to. I would like Mr.
Sawmiller to tell us to which specific ED my posting refers.

Sam Sloan

On Mar 29, 7:53 pm, samsloan wrote:
Thank you for explaining this. Yes, I wish to appeal. I am totally
mystified as to why this posting was considered a violation or AUG.

Is it a violation because I wrote that the USCF has lost $2 million
since 1999? Everybody agrees that this is true, except for
disagreement as to the amount. Mike Nolan said that the loss was only
$1.3 million up to 2005, for example.

My statement "if you have an executive director who lies" was clearly
hypothetical. We have had eight executive directors since 1999. Many
members have different opinions as to who was honest and who was
dishonest. For example some say that Cavallo was "utterly worthless"
but my opinion is that he was a good executive director.

I personally think that DeFeis lost most of the $2 million. Others
think is was Niro. And so on. It is a matter of opinion. As long as we
agree that $2 million was lost we should be allowed to debate who lost
it and why.

I am also mystified by the statement that if this sanction is reversed
there will still be two strikes against me, for two prior sanctions.
What were those two sanctions? Why am I not allowed to know about them
so that I can defend myself.

Tim Sawmiller, in announcing that I have been suspended from posting
states:

"This confirms that the author is speaking of this specific ED and
therefore is against the AUG."

I believe that this tells us more about what Mr. Sawmiller thinks than
what I think. The executive directors since 1999 have been Cavallo,
Dullea, DeFeis, Niro, Perks, Goichberg, Beatriz Marinello (acting) and
Hall, plus Nolan was acting executive director for about two weeks in
2003 after Niro disappeared.

Tim Sawmiller in notification that I was suspended from posting states
that my post obviously referred to a specific ED. I am wondering which
one he thinks that this obviously referred to. I would like Mr.
Sawmiller to tell us to which specific ED my posting refers.

Sam Sloan

Probably the one you attacked publicly and broadcast his personal
medical information over the internet.