Will Joel Channing Convert to Polgarism?

A lot of people are asking this question because Polgar ran a slate of
four, with the obvious plan to take control of the USCF.

However, she must have known from the flip-flops of Randy Bauer when
he was on the board during 2004-2005 that Bauer had an independent
streak in him and could not be relied upon always to follow orders.

So, she must have planned to get her fourth vote somewhere else.

For the past year that I have been on the board, Joel Channing has
been a loyal supplicant to Bill Goichberg. Whenever there was a split
between Goichberg and Schultz, which happened most of the time,
Channing has voted with Goichberg and against Schultz. This is
surprising since it was Schultz who brought his friend Channing into
the board.

I have believed all along that Channing is lying in stealth, waiting
for the right moment to revolt against Goichbergian Rule.

If there is a right moment, it is now.

For Polgar to take control she will probably need Channing's vote. But
what will Channing demand in return?

The world is waiting to learn the answer to that one?

Sam Sloan

What a dickhead! Hit the road Sam!

[quote="Mulfish"]Not that obvious and certainly viewing it differently
doesn't warrant name calling. Nevertheless, it does make more sense
to conclude he was talking about Paul (a target worth attacking) than
to me (relatively insignificant notwithstanding Jack's kind defense).[/
quote]

Just to quibble, by telling Paul Truong to start signing his own name
to posts, which is what he used to do but stopped doing in about 2004,
I am not attacking him.

I am just saying that now that he has been elected he should own up to
his posts so that the general membership will know what he is saying
and so that I and others can quote him.

He has been using euphemisms such as "ChessPromotions"
"ChessMarketing" "Chess Inquisitions" and the like for the past four
years so as to make it difficult for outsiders to identify which words
are his.

Sam Sloan

On Jul 28, 1:34?pm, samsloan wrote:
Will Joel Channing Convert to Polgarism?

A lot of people are asking this question because Polgar ran a slate of
four, with the obvious plan to take control of the USCF.

However, she must have known from the flip-flops of Randy Bauer when
he was on the board during 2004-2005 that Bauer had an independent
streak in him and could not be relied upon always to follow orders.

So, she must have planned to get her fourth vote somewhere else.

For the past year that I have been on the board, Joel Channing has
been a loyal supplicant to Bill Goichberg. Whenever there was a split
between Goichberg and Schultz, which happened most of the time,
Channing has voted with Goichberg and against Schultz. This is
surprising since it was Schultz who brought his friend Channing into
the board.

I have believed all along that Channing is lying in stealth, waiting
for the right moment to revolt against Goichbergian Rule.

If there is a right moment, it is now.

For Polgar to take control she will probably need Channing's vote. But
what will Channing demand in return?

The world is waiting to learn the answer to that one?

Sam Sloan

===========
I have read this post several times and believe it was written by
Larry Parr and sent to Sam Sloan for his signature.

Old Haasie

On Jul 28, 4:06 pm, samsloan wrote:
[quote="Mulfish"]Not that obvious and certainly viewing it differently
doesn't warrant name calling. Nevertheless, it does make more sense
to conclude he was talking about Paul (a target worth attacking) than
to me (relatively insignificant notwithstanding Jack's kind defense).[/
quote]

Just to quibble, by telling Paul Truong to start signing his own name
to posts, which is what he used to do but stopped doing in about 2004,
I am not attacking him.

I am just saying that now that he has been elected he should own up to
his posts so that the general membership will know what he is saying
and so that I and others can quote him.

He has been using euphemisms such as "ChessPromotions"
"ChessMarketing" "Chess Inquisitions" and the like for the past four
years so as to make it difficult for outsiders to identify which words
are his.

Sam Sloan

Just as you have been posing as the real and fake Sam Sloans? WHen we
all know you are legally Ismail Mohamed Sloan? Oh, I don't think you
can "legally" swear out a court deposition or file a brief swearing
your "legal" name is Samuel H SLoan. Thats just a minor technical
point that could get you filings dismissed.

On Jul 29, 7:57 am, Rob wrote:

Purger:

One who, or that which, purges or cleanses; especially, a cathartic
medicine.

????

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 06:25:08 -0700, SBD wrote:

On Jul 29, 7:57 am, Rob wrote:

Purger:

One who, or that which, purges or cleanses; especially, a cathartic
medicine.

????

Perhaps accidentally appropriate. Who can doubt some of Sam's posts
were cathartic.

On Jul 29, 8:25 am, SBD wrote:
On Jul 29, 7:57 am, Rob wrote:

Purger:

One who, or that which, purges or cleanses; especially, a cathartic
medicine.

????

I thought both Robtroll and Sam Sloan were more emetics and purgers.

On Jul 29, 3:59 pm, The Historian wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:25 am, SBD wrote:

On Jul 29, 7:57 am, Rob wrote:

Purger:

One who, or that which, purges or cleanses; especially, a cathartic
medicine.

????

I thought both Robtroll and Sam Sloan were more emetics and purgers.

The Hystrollian knows a great deal on enemas. I suppose his
"perjury" and his "purging" might be expected as he demonstrates his
desire to prove he is a " 'roid ".

On Jul 30, 9:53 am, Rob wrote:

Purger:

One who, or that which, purges or cleanses; especially, a cathartic
medicine.


It only makes sense that some traits are passed on
from parent to child, like say, red hair or baldness.

But this strange passing of traits between supposedly
unrelated posters, this mis-spelling gene, is a real
oddity indeed. No doubt scientists would love to do
a study on how such a trait could possibly gravitate
across the internet, from one poster to another. In
fact, at first blush, scientists would probably dismiss
this as a mere anomaly; but on closer inspection,
there appear to be other genetic similarities between
IM Innes and Rob Mitchell. One theory might be that
RM was IM Innes' son, posting in the same threads
and always defending his dad, but this fails to account
for mandatory schooling, which *should* override the
genetic spelling problem, given sufficient time. I'll
leave it to the real scientists to figure out, the ones
who study ISP addresses and know the ins and outs
of syntax studies and whatnot.


-- help bot