Regarding the "Under the Table" incident at the board meeting in
Stamford Connecticut on November 17, 2006, Joel Channing has told a lie
when the truth would have served him better. This has caused me to
wonder how many other things Joel Channing says about himself are lies.

For example, Joel Channing claims that he is a member of Mensa.

Somebody has looked him up and says that he is not a member of Mensa.

Joel Channing claims that he is a graduate of MIT.

He does not seem to be the MIT type. I would like for somebody to look
him up ton see if he really did graduate from there.

Don Schultz claims that Channing is worth a $100 million and that he
has "That Midas Touch":

The fact that Channing is exceptionally tight with his own money does
not bother me, because many rich people got that way by not spending
it. However, the fact that he is very liberal with spending the USCF's
money does bother me.

I would like for somebody to check him out and see if anything Joel
Channing says about himself is true.

Sam Sloan

Ambassador wrote:
Sam

If Joel Channing were worth 100 million dollars, then he would be
sponsoring the US Championship, and be hailed as Emporer NERO! I doubt
that there are more than 20 millionares involved in chess poltiics, and
more than 2 or 3 active at any one given time.

Marcus Roberts

samsloan wrote:
Regarding the "Under the Table" incident at the board meeting in
Stamford Connecticut on November 17, 2006, Joel Channing has told a lie
when the truth would have served him better. This has caused me to
wonder how many other things Joel Channing says about himself are lies.

For example, Joel Channing claims that he is a member of Mensa.

Somebody has looked him up and says that he is not a member of Mensa.

Joel Channing claims that he is a graduate of MIT.

He does not seem to be the MIT type. I would like for somebody to look
him up ton see if he really did graduate from there.

Don Schultz claims that Channing is worth a $100 million and that he
has "That Midas Touch":

The fact that Channing is exceptionally tight with his own money does
not bother me, because many rich people got that way by not spending
it. However, the fact that he is very liberal with spending the USCF's
money does bother me.

I would like for somebody to check him out and see if anything Joel
Channing says about himself is true.

Sam Sloan

I wished that he would have put his hands on my lap. I was just jealous
that Beatriz got all the attention.

Sam Sloan

THE CALF OF IT

OR

PLAYING FOOTSIE

Finally, an issue into which we can sink our teeth.

The issue, precisely stated, is not whether
someone was playing footsie but whether someone was
playing leggie.

(One could argue that the foot is a portion of the
leg since it is attached but using that logic, so is
the hip, torso, and indeed, the nose. In the latter
case, Mr. Channing can be held culpable of being nosey
if he repeatedly disappeared beneath the meeting
table, his large body rolling around, crushing feet,
breaking calves, prompting several Board members to
seek unelective knee surgery.)

In a more modest era the leg was held to begin
with a "well-turned ankle." Although Joel Channing
claims to be in good physical shape, practicing an
insidious Oriental dismemberment art, I can't imagine
him being able to accost unnoticed Beatriz Marinello's
ankle with, say, his thigh. Certainly, the Board's
meeting table would have been bouncing about as Tigger
was held to do in Winnie-the-Pooh, no matter how
limber Mr. Channing may imagine himself to be.

If, then, a "well-turned ankle" were touched
(say, the superior extensor retinaculum or the
inferior extensor retinaculum),the feat could only
have been managed by Mr. Channing's toes, either
sheathed in a shoe or barefoot. If the former, then
we fail to see what erotic excitement either party
could have experienced. If the latter, are there
witnesses to Mr. Channing taking off his shoes during
EB meetings? Did anyone notice a foot odor that
unmistakably emanated from Mr. Channing? Did the EPA
or OSHA take air tests? Can Ms. Marinello produce
abrasions on her ankle from Mr. Channing's possibly
unclipped toenails? And are we not now talking about
footsie rather than the charge of leggie?

We believe that in the absence of toenail (likely
from the big toe) abrasions to the posited
"well-turned ankle" (have DNA samples been taken from,
say, the peroneus longus tendon or even from the
peroneus brevis tendon, not to mention the flexor
digitorum longus tendon?), a charge that Mr. Channing
incommoded either of Ms. Marinello's ankles lacks credibility.

Another portion of the leg is the area above the
knee. If Mr. Channing is held to have legged Ms.
Marinello's adductor magnus muscle, then Board members
would have noticed immediately, since such a feat
would have required Ms. Marinello's active
cooperation. Did Board members seek to restrain the
meeting table from bouncing up and down? Too, the
fasciae latae, iliopsoas, pectineus and sartorius
muscles all seem unlikely candidates, since their
discomfiture would attest to a supple perspective that
we find absent in Mr. Channing, though he may take
vigorous exception to our opinion of his general fitness.

Perhaps a case can be made that Mr. Channing
attacked the rectus femoris, biceps femoris or vastus
medialis muscles. Is there DNA or photographic
evidence demonstrating either Mr. Channing's contact
with or injury to these areas?

In the absence of such evidence, no case can be
made. Further, one notes the unlikelihood that the
upper leg was accosted without considerable tablular agitation.

There remains ... the calf, unless we are to
take seriously the possibility that Mr. Channing was
knocking knees with Ms. Marinello without Board
members hearing tell-tale knocks or clacking of bones.
Too, for Mr. Channing to have made contact with, say,
the plantaris muscle would have required considerable
cooperation on the part of Ms. Marinello. Board
members would have observed a levitated table on
several occasions. Did they?

Ah, but the calf!

Calves are inherently likely areas of
hypo-tablular activity. Indeed, the very existence of
calves and tables have been enough to convict many
males in the court of public opinion.

The ventral surface of Ms. Marinello's calf
appears unlikely to have received any alleged
attention from Mr. Channing, given that the accused,
unless possessing double-jointed knees, would have had
to reposition himself at the meeting table so as to
front Ms. Marinello, which in turn would have required
either pushing the table at least two feet to her
perpendicular or sawing a large semi-circle in the
portion of the table directly in front of Ms.
Marinello into which Mr. Channing would then have
intruded his capacious corpus. Either activity would
almost surely have been noticed by a voting majority
of the Executive Board and even by several spectators
with unimpeded eyesight.

Which leaves the dorsal surface of the calf. We
eliminate from serious consideration the gastrocnemius
muscles (both lateral and medial heads) because Ms.
Marinello would, once again, have had to cooperate
vigorously, raising her legs, banging the underside of
the meeting table and creating a palpable commotion.

(We concede the remote possibility that Ms.
Marinello could have raised her lower appendages to
leave a space between the dorsal calf and a chair leg,
whereupon Mr. Channing's calf could have extruded
itself between her dorsal calf and chair leg, creating
a painful pinching effect. Yet whether the posited
extrusion were accidental and innocent or a prepensed
and malicious manoeuvre by Mr. Channing to inflict
searing physical pain on Ms. Marinello's gastrocnemius
muscular region, there surely would have been a
plangent, indeed resonant and involuntary, verbal
paroxysm from Ms. Marinello. Such as, say, "Ouch!"
or, as is the habit of Malayan folk, "Adoy!" In the
absence of such a public display of distress from Ms.
Marinello, we may safely dismiss the possibility.)

Yet there remains the plantaris tendon, not to
mention the soleus muscle. For the record, we
consider claims of contact with the tibialis posterior
tendon perilously close to playing footsie, which is
not the precise charge against Mr. Channing, though
the example of Prosecutor Nifong and the Duke lacrosse
team offers leeway for amending the indictment.

But ... what about the plantaris tendon and the
soleus muscle? Is there any hope for Mr. Channing to
avoid, so to speak, leg irons? Or a verdict of
Hussein-drop in the court of public opinion? Or a
recreation in real life of the famous mob scene in
Alfred Hitchcock's film The Lodger?

To be sure, as Sam Sloan has noted and even Mr.
Channing has not confuted, the latter is male.
Further, said tendon and said muscle exist. Finally,
hypo-tablular space, though curved as is all space,
may be regarded as providing a straight-line opportunity.

Yet the soleus muscle and plantaris tendon are
relatively restricted areas of the leg, and we note
the high likelihood that Mr. Channing would have had
to probe obstrusively with his leg to have established
contact. Surely, Board members would have twigged to
such an act even as the meeting table jiggled for
minutes on end.

Our conclusion: in the absence of DNA or
photographic evidence, we find the physical
difficulties of playing leggie under the table to be
nearly insuperable.

We await an amended indictment charging the more
plausible socio-sexual failing of playing footsie.



samsloan wrote:
Regarding the "Under the Table" incident at the board meeting in
Stamford Connecticut on November 17, 2006, Joel Channing has told a lie
when the truth would have served him better. This has caused me to
wonder how many other things Joel Channing says about himself are lies.

For example, Joel Channing claims that he is a member of Mensa.

Somebody has looked him up and says that he is not a member of Mensa.

Joel Channing claims that he is a graduate of MIT.

He does not seem to be the MIT type. I would like for somebody to look
him up ton see if he really did graduate from there.

Don Schultz claims that Channing is worth a $100 million and that he
has "That Midas Touch":

The fact that Channing is exceptionally tight with his own money does
not bother me, because many rich people got that way by not spending
it. However, the fact that he is very liberal with spending the USCF's
money does bother me.

I would like for somebody to check him out and see if anything Joel
Channing says about himself is true.

Sam Sloan

Does St. Kitts have any stores that sell deodorant? No doubt you have the
Muslim camel jockey odor deep into your pores.

I have been thinking about this and it seems that virtually everything
that Mr. Channing says is on the order of "look at how great I am".

For example, he claims to be a karate expert. He also claims to be an
expert at taking over and saving failed companies and to have done so
many times and so on.

I have yet to see verification for any of the claims that Mr. Channing
makes about himself.

Anybody who would say that he is a member of Mensa when he is not a
member of Mensa has a real problem in intellectual insecurity. If I
were a member of Mensa I would certainly not tell anybody about it
because it is regarded as a society of people who want everybody to
think that they are smart.

Yesterday, Joel Channing got four complete political threads involving
a total of more than one hundred postings deleted from the USCF Forums,
merely because a few of those postings made remarks critical of Joel
Channing and Susan Polgar.

Meanwhile, Joel Channing has continued to attack Beatriz Marinello in
the private email group consisting only of USCF Executive Board
members.

Here is a posting yesterday by Joel Channing to the private email group
of board members:

"I don't think Beatriz is as naive as she would have us believe. I
believe she is playing a low form of politics - character
assassination.

"Joel Channing"

So, it seems that it is OK for Joel Channing to attack anybody for as
long as he wants.

However, as soon as somebody says anything negative about Joel
Channing, then entire threads are deleted.

Meanwhile, Herbert Rodney Vaughan a/k/a tanstaafl attacks Sam Sloan 10
times a day, every day, for the past year in lengthy postings and
nobody finds anything wrong or unusual about that.

Sam Sloan

I am annoyed that people change the topic of this and other threads so
that nobody can find them, so I am hereby changing the title back.

No problem, because in this case we have the proof that Joel Channing
lied, because he wrote:

"I was sitting across the table from Sam at both sessions and you were
sitting next to him. The table was wide and I don't think I could have
reached you if I wanted to."

Everybody who was at the meeting will know that this is a lie because
Joel Channing was sitting directly adjacent to Beatriz Marinello, so
close to her that it would have been difficult for him not to bump into
her under the table.

Sam Sloan

My, you certainly like to go on about relations between men and women,
especially when there's a "he said, she said" situation. In this case,
"he" says nothing at all happened; "she" says nothing of a sexual
nature happened.

Why won't you address my simple questions regarding a far more
interesting case, Sloan's implication that he'd had sexual relations
with the teenaged Susan Polgar? You have previously expressed your
approval of men (e.g., "Thai soldiers on leave") exploiting young
girls.

I realize that you have no moral compass. You work for Dato', who
wanted to do business with someone you consider a "murderous thug."
(This does not reflect poorly on Dato', who may simply have made a
different judgment.)

But have you no shame?

Here is the response by Joel Channing, before my questions and his
answers get deleted:

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: Questions about
Joel Channing Reply with quote
samsloan wrote:
Regarding the "Under the Table" incident at the board meeting in
Stamford Connecticut on November 17, 2006, Joel Channing has told a
falsehood when the truth would have served him better. This has caused
me to wonder how many other things Joel Channing says about himself are
not true.

First, you said I was improperly touching Beatriz. Beatriz then
modified it to say I touched her, but in a harmless, friendly way. I've
checked with 5 people who were there who all confirm that I wasn't
sitting next to her, I was sitting across from you and you were sitting
next to her, so I couldn't have touched her even in a friendly way.
Your behavior is sleazy, to say the least.
Quote:




For example, Joel Channing claims that he is a member of Mensa.

Somebody has looked him up and says that he is not a member of Mensa.


I was a member of mensa in the 60's while other people were frying
their brains on drugs, resulting in absurd, antisocial behavior.
Quote:



Joel Channing claims that he is a graduate of MIT.

I was in the graduate school of architecture while you were in an
Afghani jail.
Quote:



He does not seem to be the MIT type. I would like for somebody to look
him up to see if he really did graduate from there.

Don Schultz claims that Channing is worth a $100 million and that he
has "That Midas Touch".

I have never said anything about how much money I have and I don't
think Don has either - he doesn't know anyway.
Quote:


The fact that Channing is exceptionally tight with his own money does
not bother me, because many rich people got that way by not spending
it. However, the fact that he is very liberal with spending the USCF's
money does bother me.

I would like for somebody to check him out and see if anything Joel
Channing says about himself is true.

I have been thinking about this and it seems that virtually everything
that Mr. Channing says is on the order of "look at how great I am".

For example, he claims to be a karate expert. He also claims to be an
expert at taking over and saving failed companies and to have done so
many times and so on.

My company has taken over numerous failed real estate projects and
companies for General Electric, CitiBank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America,
SunBank, United Jersey Bank, Northwest National Bank of Minneapolis,
Barnett Bank and others
Quote:


I have yet to see verification for any of the claims that Mr. Channing
makes about himself.

Anybody who would say that he is a member of Mensa when he is not a
member of Mensa has a real problem in intellectual insecurity. If I
were a member of Mensa I would certainly not tell anybody about it
because it is regarded as a society of people who want everybody to
think that they are smart.


I'm not so smart. For one thing, I thought I could discourage your
abominable behavior. I had been advised to stay away from you, because
you are so vicious. Things would have been much simpler for me if I
did, but it's not my nature to suffer bullies.
Quote:


Yesterday, Joel Channing got four complete political threads involving
a total of more than one hundred postings deleted from the USCF Forums,
merely because a few of those postings made remarks critical of Joel
Channing and Susan Polgar.

Meanwhile, Joel Channing has continued to attack Beatriz Marinello in
the private email group consisting only of USCF Executive Board
members.

Here is a posting yesterday by Joel Channing to the private email group
of board members:

"I don't think Beatriz is as naive as she would have us believe. I
believe she is playing a low form of politics - character
assassination.

"Joel Channing"

So, it seems that it is OK for Joel Channing to attack anybody for as
long as he wants.

However, as soon as somebody says anything negative about Joel
Channing, then entire threads are deleted.

Meanwhile, Herbert Rodney Vaughan a/k/a tanstaafl attacks Sam Sloan 10
times a day, every day, for the past year in lengthy postings and
nobody finds anything wrong or unusual about that.

Sam Sloan

PS Everybody, please be sure to copy this posting, because it will be
deleted as soon as Joel Channing finds out about it.


Your post and my response should be deleted and you should be banned
from this forum. This organization is way behind the times and it will
never become a modern organization, in fact it cannot survive if the
members can't see you for what you are. You are good for nothing except
demolition.

Joel Channing

In spite of the impression you will get from reading this forum, we get
along with each other much better than probably any other board in
recent memory. I could give you a lot of examples of this but instead I
will simply summarize by saying that every other board for the past
twenty or more years have had their meetings characterized by yelling
and screaming and acrimony.

Of course, one reason why our meetings have gone smoothly is the fact
that five of the board members are polite and respectful of others.

For example, when Beatriz Marinello discovered that Joel Channing's
hand was on her leg, she did not scream, she did not hit him with her
purse, she did not slap him, she simply removed the hand from her leg
and went on as though nothing had happened.

Sam Sloan