I played in my First USCF Rated Tournament, the North Carolina Open,
in 1956. As a tournament player for more than 50 years, just about
everybody in chess knows me or has heard my name.

The USCF has annual revenues of $3.2 million, down from $6.5 million
at its peak. $3.2 million is enough for us to live very well. Yet, the
USCF has lost money for 9 of the last 11 years. There is no excuse for
this!

Since I was elected to the board, I have been fulfilling a campaign
promise to examine the books and records in detail to find out how and
why we lost this money. I have exposed corruption and improper
payments. One board member was forced to resign because of my
discoveries.

I have opened doors to the inner sanctum, revealing secrets the
insiders did not want revealed. I have received an award for "Shining
Light on the United States Chess Federation 2007".

I have only one vote on the board. I have not been able to stop the
improper payments and the financial hemorrhaging. Optimists on the
board say we will lose ONLY $50,000 this year. I say unless immediate
measures are taken, we will lose AT LEAST $150,000 and possibly
considerably more.

In meetings with the board, I have consistently advocated specific
changes that must be made RIGHT NOW to stop losses by increasing
revenues and reducing expenses. Other board members say it is
POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE to make any changes now and this must wait
until after the election.

AFTER THE ELECTION will be too late!!

I am a man of action. Everybody who knows me will tell you I get
things done. Two things we need to do are expand scholastic chess and
elderly chess. As people age, they want to keep their minds active.
Tournament chess would be an ideal way to help them accomplish this.
The baby boomers are a vast pool of potential members.

You will have seen strident attacks by some of my election opponents
and their anonymous Internet trolls. You should ask yourself, "Why do
all these people keep attacking Sam Sloan? Is it because he really is
one of the worst people in the world, or is it because, since he was
elected last year, their gravy train has slowed?"

Most of the other candidates and continuing board members are
insiders, the same people who were there when the USCF lost $2
million. Are you going to keep them there or return them to power? Are
you going to believe they will bring prosperity to the USCF, when
their actual record is one of milking the membership funds for their
own benefit?

I have specific plans and programs which I believe will bring
prosperity back to the USCF. I am available by phone or email to
discuss this any time. Are you going to give the USCF a chance to
prove that it can be done? Are you going to return control of your
federation to the same crusty curmudgeons who lost the $2 million in
the first place?

The delegates have voted to give me 100 words to explain my case in
Virginia. I have eight children. One of them is Shamema, whom many of
you met when I brought her to international chess tournaments. When
Shamema was eight years old, she was kidnapped by persons unrelated to
us and taken to Virginia. When I came to Virginia to try to rescue my
kidnapped daughter, I was arrested, tried and convicted of attempted
abduction of my daughter and failure to appear for trial.

Sam Sloan

WHAT ARE SAM'S CHANCES?

My judgment is that Sam Sloan's candidate's statement is fairly
effective. His claim that the Federation has shrunk and has lost
money will be noted by many
readers. My advice to his opponents is to reckon that many members,
even those who do not care for Sam, will have their concentration
focussed on your record.

I still rate Sam's reelection chances as a mid-to long odds bets. The
issue will be
how great a toll has been exacted on his candidacy by the attacks,
both
anonymous (though we know that YOU and you and you are among the
anonymice) and otherwise.

Sam does have one piece of hope: I have been in contact with some of
you, and there are silent defectors who intend to support him. One of
them has even played the game of attacking Sam while silently
intending to support him with a vote. Indeed, Sam will pick up votes
from those who are too timid to defy the powers that be publicly.

I would rank Sam's performance on the board as an undeodorized breath
of fresh air. He is the unwanted paradox. More power to him.

The photos from the USCF leadership retreat in Florida were
depressing. Although I have been away from Federation affairs for 15
years or so, I knew nearly every graying visage who was there. Some of
those old battle tubs have been squatting on the Federation for 20,
30, 40 years or more.



samsloan wrote:
I played in my First USCF Rated Tournament, the North Carolina Open,
in 1956. As a tournament player for more than 50 years, just about
everybody in chess knows me or has heard my name.

The USCF has annual revenues of $3.2 million, down from $6.5 million
at its peak. $3.2 million is enough for us to live very well. Yet, the
USCF has lost money for 9 of the last 11 years. There is no excuse for
this!

Since I was elected to the board, I have been fulfilling a campaign
promise to examine the books and records in detail to find out how and
why we lost this money. I have exposed corruption and improper
payments. One board member was forced to resign because of my
discoveries.

I have opened doors to the inner sanctum, revealing secrets the
insiders did not want revealed. I have received an award for "Shining
Light on the United States Chess Federation 2007".

I have only one vote on the board. I have not been able to stop the
improper payments and the financial hemorrhaging. Optimists on the
board say we will lose ONLY $50,000 this year. I say unless immediate
measures are taken, we will lose AT LEAST $150,000 and possibly
considerably more.

In meetings with the board, I have consistently advocated specific
changes that must be made RIGHT NOW to stop losses by increasing
revenues and reducing expenses. Other board members say it is
POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE to make any changes now and this must wait
until after the election.

AFTER THE ELECTION will be too late!!

I am a man of action. Everybody who knows me will tell you I get
things done. Two things we need to do are expand scholastic chess and
elderly chess. As people age, they want to keep their minds active.
Tournament chess would be an ideal way to help them accomplish this.
The baby boomers are a vast pool of potential members.

You will have seen strident attacks by some of my election opponents
and their anonymous Internet trolls. You should ask yourself, "Why do
all these people keep attacking Sam Sloan? Is it because he really is
one of the worst people in the world, or is it because, since he was
elected last year, their gravy train has slowed?"

Most of the other candidates and continuing board members are
insiders, the same people who were there when the USCF lost $2
million. Are you going to keep them there or return them to power? Are
you going to believe they will bring prosperity to the USCF, when
their actual record is one of milking the membership funds for their
own benefit?

I have specific plans and programs which I believe will bring
prosperity back to the USCF. I am available by phone or email to
discuss this any time. Are you going to give the USCF a chance to
prove that it can be done? Are you going to return control of your
federation to the same crusty curmudgeons who lost the $2 million in
the first place?

The delegates have voted to give me 100 words to explain my case in
Virginia. I have eight children. One of them is Shamema, whom many of
you met when I brought her to international chess tournaments. When
Shamema was eight years old, she was kidnapped by persons unrelated to
us and taken to Virginia. When I came to Virginia to try to rescue my
kidnapped daughter, I was arrested, tried and convicted of attempted
abduction of my daughter and failure to appear for trial.

Sam Sloan

It's tax season; kindly allow me to estimate the question number. ;-)

16. (with respect to Sloan's claims to have had a fiduciary agency
relationship *and* a "not entirely Platonic" relationship with the 17-
year-old Susan Polgar--I had earlier stated "16-year-old", but now
follow Sloan's own revised chronology....)

Larry Parr is on record as having stated that he, Parr, neither knows
nor particularly cares what happened in a home in Budapest two decades
ago. However, Sloan has twice alleged such a prior relationship with
the teenaged Polgar **in the course of his USCF Board service**. One
grants that 17-year-olds are of the age of consent in New York (where
Sloan's revised chronology places the beginning of the relationship).
One also observes that 17-year-olds are minors, and that fiduciaries
owe the highest ethical responsibility to their principals.

Either Sloan is telling the truth in the course of his Board service,
or telling a falsehood in the course of his Board service. Which
possibility, in Parr's opinion, makes Sloan more fit for Board
service?

17. Could one draw a parallel between what Sloan claims to have done
to Polgar, in his asserted role of fiduciary, and what he is currently
doing to USCF in his fiduciary role? (One thinks of the general
partner in a real estate limited partnership.)

18. As part of her campaign for a seat on the same Board, Polgar has
rebutted Sloan's account. She is either telling the truth or speaking
a falsehood. The missteps of a hypothetical minor should, in the
general case, be considered irrelevant twenty years after the fact.
However, we should expect adults either to speak the truth or to hold
one's tongue when reputations are on the line. Would Parr find Polgar
more fit for Board service if she were telling the truth in the course
of her campaign, or telling a (perhaps understandable) falsehood in
the course of her campaign?

19. In his proposed Candidate's statement, Sloan indirectly accuses
the late Charles and Shelby Roberts of kidnapping (he has made the
charge explicitly elsewhere). Should Sloan publish this portion of
the statement as it stands?

20. If the answer to 18. is yes, should the USCF Board allow the
publication of Sloan's statement as written?

On Apr 4, 2:38 am, wrote:
It's tax season; kindly allow me to estimate the question number. ;-)

16. (with respect to Sloan's claims to have had a fiduciary agency
relationship *and* a "not entirely Platonic" relationship with the 17-
year-old Susan Polgar--I had earlier stated "16-year-old", but now
follow Sloan's own revised chronology....)

Larry Parr is on record as having stated that he, Parr, neither knows
nor particularly cares what happened in a home in Budapest two decades
ago. However, Sloan has twice alleged such a prior relationship with
the teenaged Polgar **in the course of his USCF Board service**. One
grants that 17-year-olds are of the age of consent in New York (where
Sloan's revised chronology places the beginning of the relationship).
One also observes that 17-year-olds are minors, and that fiduciaries
owe the highest ethical responsibility to their principals.

Either Sloan is telling the truth in the course of his Board service,
or telling a falsehood in the course of his Board service. Which
possibility, in Parr's opinion, makes Sloan more fit for Board
service?

17. Could one draw a parallel between what Sloan claims to have done
to Polgar, in his asserted role of fiduciary, and what he is currently
doing to USCF in his fiduciary role? (One thinks of the general
partner in a real estate limited partnership.)

18. As part of her campaign for a seat on the same Board, Polgar has
rebutted Sloan's account. She is either telling the truth or speaking
a falsehood. The missteps of a hypothetical minor should, in the
general case, be considered irrelevant twenty years after the fact.
However, we should expect adults either to speak the truth or to hold
one's tongue when reputations are on the line. Would Parr find Polgar
more fit for Board service if she were telling the truth in the course
of her campaign, or telling a (perhaps understandable) falsehood in
the course of her campaign?

19. In his proposed Candidate's statement, Sloan indirectly accuses
the late Charles and Shelby Roberts of kidnapping (he has made the
charge explicitly elsewhere). Should Sloan publish this portion of
the statement as it stands?

20. If the answer to 18. is yes, should the USCF Board allow the
publication of Sloan's statement as written?

Useful link:

http://www.billbrock.net/chess/Forum...wtopic.php.htm

On Apr 4, 3:58 am, wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:38 am, wrote:



It's tax season; kindly allow me to estimate the question number. ;-)

16. (with respect to Sloan's claims to have had a fiduciary agency
relationship *and* a "not entirely Platonic" relationship with the 17-
year-old Susan Polgar--I had earlier stated "16-year-old", but now
follow Sloan's own revised chronology....)

Larry Parr is on record as having stated that he, Parr, neither knows
nor particularly cares what happened in a home in Budapest two decades
ago. However, Sloan has twice alleged such a prior relationship with
the teenaged Polgar **in the course of his USCF Board service**. One
grants that 17-year-olds are of the age of consent in New York (where
Sloan's revised chronology places the beginning of the relationship).
One also observes that 17-year-olds are minors, and that fiduciaries
owe the highest ethical responsibility to their principals.

Either Sloan is telling the truth in the course of his Board service,
or telling a falsehood in the course of his Board service. Which
possibility, in Parr's opinion, makes Sloan more fit for Board
service?

17. Could one draw a parallel between what Sloan claims to have done
to Polgar, in his asserted role of fiduciary, and what he is currently
doing to USCF in his fiduciary role? (One thinks of the general
partner in a real estate limited partnership.)

18. As part of her campaign for a seat on the same Board, Polgar has
rebutted Sloan's account. She is either telling the truth or speaking
a falsehood. The missteps of a hypothetical minor should, in the
general case, be considered irrelevant twenty years after the fact.
However, we should expect adults either to speak the truth or to hold
one's tongue when reputations are on the line. Would Parr find Polgar
more fit for Board service if she were telling the truth in the course
of her campaign, or telling a (perhaps understandable) falsehood in
the course of her campaign?

19. In his proposed Candidate's statement, Sloan indirectly accuses
the late Charles and Shelby Roberts of kidnapping (he has made the
charge explicitly elsewhere). Should Sloan publish this portion of
the statement as it stands?

20. If the answer to 18. is yes, should the USCF Board allow the
publication of Sloan's statement as written?

Useful link:

http://www.billbrock.net/chess/Forum...wtopic.php.htm

What Bill Brock has done is take a false quote attributed to me by
"Chris Falter" and post that on Brock's own website and then put below
that Polgar's reply to what she must have believed was a real quote in
which she states "He absolutely lied!".

Of course, if I had said such a thing it would have been a lie,
because I have never said that. How ethical it is that Bill Brock
allows these false quotations attributed to me to remain on his own
website?

Sam Sloan

[quote="chrisfalter"] In addition, I have never attacked you.[/
quote]

You certainly have. On March 21, 2007 at 3:27 PM you quoted me as
saying something that I have never said or written.

Now Bill Brock has taken the false quote attributed to me by "Chris
Falter" and posted that on Brock's own website and then put below that
Polgar's reply to what she must have believed was a real quote in
which she states "He absolutely lied!".

Of course, if I had said such a thing it would have been a lie,
because I have never said that. How ethical it is that Bill Brock
allows these false quotations attributed to me to remain on his own
website? How ethical is that you a supposed Christian missionary puts
quotation marks around a statement that I have never made and then
does not object when Brock reposts it to his personal website?

The original statement by you was promptly deleted by the moderators.
(This is one of the few times when the moderators have acted properly
by deleting a posting.) However, it lives on on Brock's website and
will probably be referred to dozens if not hundreds of times in the
coming election campaign.

You only got a one-day suspension for that false quote (unless it was
for something else that they suspended you) but I feel that you should
have been blocked permanently for that false quotation.

Sam Sloan

[quote="chrisfalter"] In addition, I have never attacked you.[/
quote]

You certainly have. On Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:52 pm you quoted me as
saying something that I have never said or written.

Now, Bill Brock has taken the false quote attributed to me by "Chris
Falter" and posted that on Brock's own website and then put below that
Polgar's reply to what she must have believed was a real quote in
which she states "He absolutely lied!".

Of course, if I had said such a thing it would have been a lie,
because I have never said that. How ethical it is that Bill Brock
allows these false quotations attributed to me to remain on his own
website? How ethical is that you a supposed Christian missionary puts
quotation marks around a statement that I have never made and then
does not object when Brock reposts it to his personal website?

The original statement by you was promptly deleted by the moderators.
(This is one of the few times when the moderators have acted properly
by deleting a posting.) However, it lives on on Brock's website and
will probably be referred to dozens if not hundreds of times in the
coming election campaign.

You only got a one-day suspension for that false quote (unless it was
for something else that they suspended you) but I feel that you should
have been blocked permanently for that false quotation.

Sam Sloan

On Apr 4, 5:44 am, "samsloan" wrote:
[quote="chrisfalter"] In addition, I have never attacked you.[/
quote]

You certainly have. On Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:52 pm you quoted me as
saying something that I have never said or written.

Now, Bill Brock has taken the false quote attributed to me by "Chris
Falter" and posted that on Brock's own website and then put below that
Polgar's reply to what she must have believed was a real quote in
which she states "He absolutely lied!".

Of course, if I had said such a thing it would have been a lie,
because I have never said that. How ethical it is that Bill Brock
allows these false quotations attributed to me to remain on his own
website? How ethical is that you a supposed Christian missionary puts
quotation marks around a statement that I have never made and then
does not object when Brock reposts it to his personal website?

The original statement by you was promptly deleted by the moderators.
(This is one of the few times when the moderators have acted properly
by deleting a posting.) However, it lives on on Brock's website and
will probably be referred to dozens if not hundreds of times in the
coming election campaign.

You only got a one-day suspension for that false quote (unless it was
for something else that they suspended you) but I feel that you should
have been blocked permanently for that false quotation.

Sam Sloan

Interesting development is that Chris Falter's statement above "I have
never attacked you" and my reply have both instantly been deleted by
the moderator to the USCF Forums.

In reality, Chris Falter is the most persistent attacker of me on the
USCF forums.

It is against the rules of the USCF Forums for anybody to call Susan
Polgar a liar and any such statement will be promptly deleted, but she
is allowed to start a thread entitled "Another Fabrication by Mr.
Sloan" and it does not get deleted.

Sam Sloan

On Apr 4, 5:44 am, "samsloan" wrote:
[quote="chrisfalter"] In addition, I have never attacked you.[/
quote]

You certainly have. On Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:52 pm you quoted me as
saying something that I have never said or written.

Now, Bill Brock has taken the false quote attributed to me by "Chris
Falter" and posted that on Brock's own website and then put below that
Polgar's reply to what she must have believed was a real quote in
which she states "He absolutely lied!".

Of course, if I had said such a thing it would have been a lie,
because I have never said that. How ethical it is that Bill Brock
allows these false quotations attributed to me to remain on his own
website? How ethical is that you a supposed Christian missionary puts
quotation marks around a statement that I have never made and then
does not object when Brock reposts it to his personal website?

The original statement by you was promptly deleted by the moderators.
(This is one of the few times when the moderators have acted properly
by deleting a posting.) However, it lives on on Brock's website and
will probably be referred to dozens if not hundreds of times in the
coming election campaign.

You only got a one-day suspension for that false quote (unless it was
for something else that they suspended you) but I feel that you should
have been blocked permanently for that false quotation.

Sam Sloan

Interesting development is that Chris Falter's statement above "I have
never attacked you" and my reply have both instantly been deleted by
the moderator to the USCF Forums.

In reality, Chris Falter is the most persistent attacker of me on the
USCF forums.

It is against the rules of the USCF Forums for anybody to call Susan
Polgar a liar and any such statement will be promptly deleted, but she
is allowed to start a thread entitled "More Fabrications by Mr. Sam
Sloan" and it does not get deleted.

Sam Sloan

On Apr 4, 5:14 am, "samsloan" wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:44 am, "samsloan" wrote:





[quote="chrisfalter"] In addition, I have never attacked you.[/
quote]

You certainly have. On Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:52 pm you quoted me as
saying something that I have never said or written.

Now, Bill Brock has taken the false quote attributed to me by "Chris
Falter" and posted that on Brock's own website and then put below that
Polgar's reply to what she must have believed was a real quote in
which she states "He absolutely lied!".

Of course, if I had said such a thing it would have been a lie,
because I have never said that. How ethical it is that Bill Brock
allows these false quotations attributed to me to remain on his own
website? How ethical is that you a supposed Christian missionary puts
quotation marks around a statement that I have never made and then
does not object when Brock reposts it to his personal website?


Quotation marks are also used to signal a euphemism--here, "went all
the way."

You might explain to your profoundly moral supporters, Sloan, why you
found your professional and personal relationship with a minor
(someone with whom you claimed a fiduciary relationship) relevant to
current USCF business.