wrote in message
ups.com...


Phil

Hi Marcus:

I have a number of things to say - the first is that while any of these
issues might be true, this is not the time to discuss them, since the person
is currently in no position to make a response, but (b) a greater point is
that without standards we only discuss personality issues - and USCF is
seemingly run /only/ on that basis. Therefore, I suggest to you that USCF or
any suceeding organisation, needs to (c) complement personality politics
with more than a little bit of science [of management].

In fact, it seems as though we do nothing but talk about the political level
of chess, and nothing of how this chess organisation is run by the people in
it - and it seems to me that the problem is not getting better people to do
the same thing, but in adjusting the balance so that the staff of the
organisation receive enough insulation from political meddling to be able to
deliver good services to the members.

I don't think this can be done without standards - which really means that
there are processes in place to channel directives from board or delegates,
which also have checks and balances built into them.

Constantly we read here about especially board members simple doing things
without reference to any standards whatever, or even to the knowledge of
other board members. This sosrt of rampant individualism has been
universally destructive, actually undermining all confidence in USCF to do
anything well.

They list of personality-crimes is huge! Whether its unwonted sponsors, poor
organisation of national events, in-the-pocket 'journalism', or the
ridiculous forum which is entirely politicized according to an ex USCF Pres.
[Reminds me of the bad days of the Soviet Union!]

When you read about any board member promoting a measure ensuring clear and
cogent process that the staff can sensibly undertake to member's benefit,
and without further interference from the board, then this will indicate the
route to recovery has begun.

But instead of fixing anything by grounding procedures in staff activity,
problems are attended to by blaming either outside parties or other chess
personalities. The obsession with this character-level orientation as the
sole means of governance is itself why USCF has declined in the chess
community's confidence. It now needs considerable balancing activity - and a
shift of power to the staff.

Consider this - if USCF were an actual small business, and had no board at
all, what would the difference be? In effect, would it be better or worse?
If USCF were an small incorporated business, then it would normally have a
quarterly board meeting composed mostly of people outside its own scope, but
with substantial business experience who can propose clear directions to
staff, and means to measure same. If USCF were a national non-profit,
pro-bono Caissa, it would actually perform a governance activity in setting
standards for chess, in spirit and in law, aimed at greater public
incorporation of the game - which certainly include normal community
standards for USCF's main market, scholastics.

All these things would allow us to rest our confidence [and out dollars!] in
it. Absense of these things make the issue of confidence more one of hopeful
expectation, and as for money - can the organisational structure actually
contain any?

Therefore, in the above I respectfully change the subject! When there are
sufficent standards in place, including checks and balances on
rogue-personalities, then the true role of personality can be contained, and
better channeled for the benefit of all. That, I submit, is the remedy, and
the gaping void of decent standards of behavior is ignored by those who
resent the constriction this will place on their own activities - even if
such constriction makes their contribution more useful to chess in the
country!

That criticism of personality politics applies to the entire board - and
perforce, by which I mean, necessarily - makes for 'dirty politics', since
that is the only means that warring egos can take to get their way - forgood
or for ill, but for sure!

Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont

Do you recall the USCF Delegates voted to pay 15,000 dollars of her
medical bills, after she attacked Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, President of
FIDE. In fact, she BACKSTABBED KIRSAN. She wrote an article attacking
Ilyumzhinov, and then DID THE SAME THINNG BY TAKING MONEY, except
Kirsan repaid FIDE, and Beatriz put the 15,000 dollars in her pocket.

Marcus Roberts

On Jul 11, 12:11 pm, samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ueschessmom First, I do agree that it was probably not a great idea to post Beatriz's cell phone number on Susan's blog (but I think posting it here put it in the public domain).

Not true. The USCF Forum is not a public forum. Access to the forum is
limited. One must apply. It is not easy to find the place and get in
here and members are few.

Known Troublemakers like Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell, Bill Brock, Larry
Parr and a host of others are not allowed access to the Forum.

Sam Sloan... you are hearby placed on notice that I consider the
characterization of me as a "know troublemaker" are both false and
malicious in nature. The "facts" are not as you describe. Love have
lied and twisted the facts. I do not post in the forum because I am
not an active member. SImple as that. You have lied. I demand a full
retraction immediatly be posted on your website, the USCF forum and on
RGCP,RGCM,ALT Chess,and SOC.CULTURE.MAGYAR.
If such is not done in 24 hours time I will proceed with formal legal
proceedings


Sam Sloan

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:54:55 -0700, Rob wrote:

On Jul 11, 12:11 pm, samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ueschessmom First, I do agree that it was probably not a great idea to post Beatriz's cell phone number on Susan's blog (but I think posting it here put it in the public domain).

Not true. The USCF Forum is not a public forum. Access to the forum is
limited. One must apply. It is not easy to find the place and get in
here and members are few.

Known Troublemakers like Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell, Bill Brock, Larry
Parr and a host of others are not allowed access to the Forum.

Sam Sloan... you are hearby placed on notice that I consider the
characterization of me as a "know troublemaker" are both false and
malicious in nature. The "facts" are not as you describe. Love have
lied and twisted the facts. I do not post in the forum because I am
not an active member. SImple as that. You have lied. I demand a full
retraction immediatly be posted on your website, the USCF forum and on
RGCP,RGCM,ALT Chess,and SOC.CULTURE.MAGYAR.
If such is not done in 24 hours time I will proceed with formal legal
proceedings

Ain't won much at poker, have ya, son?

"Rob Mitchell is a Known Troublemaker"

Rob Mitchell also cannot spell.

Rob Mitchell was expelled from my group only because he refused to
identify himself and for no other reason (although now in view of his
actions since I expelled him I am certainly glad that I did).

Do you really want me to retract all this and say what I really think
about "Rob Mitchell"?

Sam Sloan

On Jul 13, 11:29 am, samsloan wrote:
"Rob Mitchell is a Known Troublemaker"

Rob Mitchell also cannot spell.

Rob Mitchell was expelled from my group only because he refused to
identify himself and for no other reason (although now in view of his
actions since I expelled him I am certainly glad that I did).

Do you really want me to retract all this and say what I really think
about "Rob Mitchell"?

Sam Sloan

Clock Is ticking Sam. You have lied as to why I do not post in the
USCF Forums. You have catagorized me, Phill Innes and Larry Parr as
trouble makers. I will take action. ANd just so you know.. spelling
isn't my problem so much as is typing.

On Jul 13, 1:19 pm, Rob wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:29 am, samsloan wrote:

"Rob Mitchell is a Known Troublemaker"

Rob Mitchell also cannot spell.

Rob Mitchell was expelled from my group only because he refused to
identify himself and for no other reason (although now in view of his
actions since I expelled him I am certainly glad that I did).

Do you really want me to retract all this and say what I really think
about "Rob Mitchell"?

Sam Sloan

Clock Is ticking Sam. You have lied as to why I do not post in the
USCF Forums. You have catagorized me, Phill Innes and Larry Parr as
trouble makers. I will take action. ANd just so you know.. spelling
isn't my problem so much as is typing.

I am utterly terrified.

What do you think the judge will think about me writing "Rob Mitchell
is a known trouble maker" when Rob Mitchell proved himself to be a
trouble maker by bringing such a suit.

I would like to hear the hearty laugh that you will hear from any
lawyer you try to hire to bring this suit.

Sam Sloan

On Jul 13, 12:28 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:19 pm, Rob wrote:





On Jul 13, 11:29 am, samsloan wrote:

"Rob Mitchell is a Known Troublemaker"

Rob Mitchell also cannot spell.

Rob Mitchell was expelled from my group only because he refused to
identify himself and for no other reason (although now in view of his
actions since I expelled him I am certainly glad that I did).

Do you really want me to retract all this and say what I really think
about "Rob Mitchell"?

Sam Sloan

Clock Is ticking Sam. You have lied as to why I do not post in the
USCF Forums. You have catagorized me, Phill Innes and Larry Parr as
trouble makers. I will take action. ANd just so you know.. spelling
isn't my problem so much as is typing.

I am utterly terrified.

What do you think the judge will think about me writing "Rob Mitchell
is a known trouble maker" when Rob Mitchell proved himself to be a
trouble maker by bringing such a suit.

I would like to hear the hearty laugh that you will hear from any
lawyer you try to hire to bring this suit.

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sam,
Your implication is that I was banned from the USCF forums because of
abborhant behavior. It is false. The only group I have ever been
banned from is your google group because I caused you trouble and got
you censured on the USCF executive board because of your illegal
actions.

Why not throw another orgy and serve alchol to underaged youth?.

On Jul 13, 1:36 pm, Rob wrote:

Why not throw another orgy?

Frankly, I am not hiding the fact that I long for a return to the good
old days back in the 1960s when I could frolic with freely #######
females.

However, that was before we had AIDS. This behavior is no longer
politically correct.

I just want to make absolutely clear that I never allowed underaged
minors or drugs in my parties and I never even allowed alcohol
stronger than beer.

My doormen, whom I hired to keep people like that out, reported that
at every one of my parties there were a few under-age females usually
with fake IDs trying to get in but, as far as I know, none of them
ever got inside the door.

Sam Sloan

On Jul 13, 12:58 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:36 pm, Rob wrote:

Why not throw another orgy?

Frankly, I am not hiding the fact that I long for a return to the good
old days back in the 1960s when I could frolic with freely #######
females.

However, that was before we had AIDS. This behavior is no longer
politically correct.

I just want to make absolutely clear that I never allowed underaged
minors or drugs in my parties and I never even allowed alcohol
stronger than beer.

My doormen, whom I hired to keep people like that out, reported that
at every one of my parties there were a few under-age females usually
with fake IDs trying to get in but, as far as I know, none of them
ever got inside the door.

Sam Sloan

Is that why you were arrested, Sam? WHy sould you be believed. You
wanted to "frolic" with girls underaged. All of this information is
directly from your own website and your own boasting. Is the atraction
of underaged girls the reason you posted your Poke'mon Porn?

All the Sloan replies here are false - it is well known that the real Sloan
never responds to anything real.

The false Sloan only wishes to stir things up, and a careful reading of
'its' orientation will reveal that 'it' is not antithetical to Sloan at all!
but wink winks, and nod nods, to the naughty boys, who enjoy this stuff, but
who are just boys themselves, and can't put their adult names to their
juvenalia.

Rob Mitchell will not be able to bring a successful suit, since
'trouble-maker' is sufficiently vague to describe anything - and the trouble
which the real Sloan fears and avoids is the question of challenging these
McCarthy-like accusations, by comparing his attitutudes to what he himself
does.

This is no crime in the law, it simply would, if actually confronted,
disqualify him from even a high-school chess club, nevermind any national
position to do with children.

To allow any conversation about the natuion's future to resolve around the
character of Sam Sloan is futile. Its funny, sad whatever you like, but
useless.

Instead Sloan's increasingly tenditious protestations [in plain talk -
scandal-mongering] should be viewed by readers here as the very sort of
negating activity which would wreck any group associated with him, whether
they are good or bad.

Whatever next? Maybe the CJA Ethics committee should take a good look?

ROFL

Phil Innes