New directives from the USCF Executive Board

tanstaafl wrote:
These new directions from the EB are not wise. They are simply
transparent attempts to silence dissent.

The PROBLEM posters have had no shame and have made their identities
widely known. The one repeat poster that DIDN'T make his identity known
was *ME*. Now you require my USCF ID # before I can post. Especially
chilling is that this comes just a couple of days after I hear about
on-line threats made against a better known "Sam Opponent" AND THAT
PERSON'S FAMILY. Is my name, address, phone number, etc. going to be
made available to Sam???

I am concerned about two things:

1. There was one person at the delegate's meeting who spoke repeatedly
and who voted on the issues who appears either to have been a
non-member or to have joined for the first time recently. How does a
non-member or a new member get to be a delegate at the USCF delegate's
meeting? If it turns out that he was not a properly certified delegate,
what happens to the motion he presented and to the motions he voted
upon? In particular, what happens to the motion that he spoke in favor
of repeatedly and that finally passed by only one vote?

2. It appears from his remarks that this person who may or may not have
been a properly certified delegate is the same person as a frequent
poster using the fake name of tanstaafl. Tanstaafl continues to post
here while still refusing to reveal his identity in defiance of the new
USCF rule requiring all posters to reveal their real name. Will the
moderator allow him to continue to post in spite of the new rule? If
tanstaafl contumaceously refuses to identify himself, will the
moderator reveal his identity anyway in view of the fact that he has
continued to post here while knowing about the new rule requiring him
to identify himself? If it turns out that tanstaafl is the same person
as a person who spoke at the delegates meeting without being a properly
certified delegate and who provided the one vote that enabled a
controversial motion to pass, what happens next? If he was not a member
and therefore his vote was invalid, did that motion still pass?

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" writes:
tanstaafl wrote:
These new directions from the EB are not wise. They are simply
transparent attempts to silence dissent.

That's the first supposed Sam Sloan post that I'ven noticed coming
from an AOL IP address, though I haven't generally kept a close eye on
such things.

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"Sam Sloan" writes:
tanstaafl wrote:
These new directions from the EB are not wise. They are simply
transparent attempts to silence dissent.

That's the first supposed Sam Sloan post that I'ven noticed coming
from an AOL IP address, though I haven't generally kept a close eye on
such things.

Most of the fakes are from google. Phil

"Chess One" writes:
That's the first supposed Sam Sloan post that I'ven noticed coming
from an AOL IP address, though I haven't generally kept a close eye on
such things.

Most of the fakes are from google. Phil

That one was from google, but the originating host was AOL.

Paul Rubin wrote:
"Chess One" writes:
That's the first supposed Sam Sloan post that I'ven noticed coming
from an AOL IP address, though I haven't generally kept a close eye on
such things.

Most of the fakes are from google. Phil

That one was from google, but the originating host was AOL.

How do you know wich one is fake and wich one is not?

And anyway, I can't understand who is against who here? I know that
there is Sam Sloan who is the President of the USCF, and there is the
one (don't know his name) who ran against him in the elections, and who
posted fake messages here.
To be honest the messages I do believe came from the real Sam Sloan
don't add respect to him. In my opinion a person that occupies shuch a
position should not write in public groups at all, and all matters
between him and other people should be solved privatly.
This group looks more like a circus rather a chess politics group.

"Alkhimey" writes:
That one was from google, but the originating host was AOL.
How do you know wich one is fake and wich one is not?

It can be complicated, and the forger(s) is(are) getting more devious.

And anyway, I can't understand who is against who here? I know that
there is Sam Sloan who is the President of the USCF, and there is the
one (don't know his name) who ran against him in the elections, and who
posted fake messages here.

That's completely confused, and sorry, I don't have time to catch you
up on the whole thing.

To be honest the messages I do believe came from the real Sam Sloan
don't add respect to him.


Shrug. A lot of people feel the same way. That's not terribly
relevant to the issue of which messages are real and which ones aren't.

In my opinion a person that occupies shuch a
position should not write in public groups at all, and all matters
between him and other people should be solved privatly.
This group looks more like a circus rather a chess politics group.

Politicians should not operate in secret. Sunshine is the best
disinfectant.

On 16 Aug 2006 10:32:48 -0700, "Alkhimey" wrote:

This group looks more like a circus rather a chess politics group.

No, there's more dignity at the circus. And, there, clowns remove
their grease-paint and costumes at the end of the day.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Sometimes it cause cancer too.


Paul Rubin пиÑ?ал(а):

"Alkhimey" writes:
That one was from google, but the originating host was AOL.
How do you know wich one is fake and wich one is not?

It can be complicated, and the forger(s) is(are) getting more devious.

And anyway, I can't understand who is against who here? I know that
there is Sam Sloan who is the President of the USCF, and there is the
one (don't know his name) who ran against him in the elections, and who
posted fake messages here.

That's completely confused, and sorry, I don't have time to catch you
up on the whole thing.

To be honest the messages I do believe came from the real Sam Sloan
don't add respect to him.


Shrug. A lot of people feel the same way. That's not terribly
relevant to the issue of which messages are real and which ones aren't.

In my opinion a person that occupies shuch a
position should not write in public groups at all, and all matters
between him and other people should be solved privatly.
This group looks more like a circus rather a chess politics group.

Politicians should not operate in secret. Sunshine is the best
disinfectant.

As a newcomer here, this place does look like a circus.

I fail to see what the fiction somebody writes has to do
with whether or not he will be an effective board member.


Mike Murray wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 10:32:48 -0700, "Alkhimey" wrote:

This group looks more like a circus rather a chess politics group.

No, there's more dignity at the circus. And, there, clowns remove
their grease-paint and costumes at the end of the day.

Why do you think it is fiction?


"mikey" wrote in message
ups.com...
As a newcomer here, this place does look like a circus.

I fail to see what the fiction somebody writes has to do
with whether or not he will be an effective board member.


Mike Murray wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 10:32:48 -0700, "Alkhimey" wrote:

This group looks more like a circus rather a chess politics group.

No, there's more dignity at the circus. And, there, clowns remove
their grease-paint and costumes at the end of the day.