SAM'S BOARD SERVICE

There is no proof that Sam has ever put the USCF
at risk of a lawsuit or scared away sponsors. This
kind of stuff from the Old Guard (in this instance,
the semi-retired Bruce Draney) is typical enough.

Sam ensured transparency during his period as a
Board member. The Old Guard will never forgive him
or, for that matter, myself for pointing out the lies
about the move to Cross-to-Bear, the cost overruns and
the like. And, of course, Sam brought down a cheat
and apologist for FIDE among the Board majority and
forced a resignation. For that, too, he will never be forgiven.


Bruce wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:35 pm, wrote:
As much as I think that Sam Sloan is morally bankrupt in his personal
life as the fact that he seems to create more implausible conspiracy
theories then the Branch Davidians, in all honesty he did seem to
serve a useful purpose on the USCF board.

1) He was not controlled by any of the self serving members of the
USCF's "leadership"
2) He did bring some things that I would classify as "shady dealings"
to light that would have remained hidden.
3) His posts here often provided some much needed comic relief.

The thing is, despite all of his failings as a human being and I
aknowledge they are many, he was still the board member I would have
trusted to do the right thing with regards to the membership, assuming
he was able to recognize what that would be, as opposed to soley
serving his own self interest.

That said, what ever became of people like: Kenneth Harkness, George
Koltanowski, Fan Adams, Arthur Bisguier, etc... people who did it for
the love of the game instead of as a means of picking the last shreads
of flesh from the orginizations corpse or in some ill considered and
hopeless attempt at becomming a US version of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

It should be mentioned that Tom Dorsch and James Eade accomplished a
lot more of the above than Sam Sloan did and they did it without
putting USCF assets at risk for lawsuits or driving away mainstream
sponsors and supporters.

I always said Sam would get elected eventually if he kept trying. But
only once because once he got in, people would never re-elect him. So
far that appears to be true, although who knows perhaps if he waits a
few years and enough people get annoyed they might elect him again
just to punish USCF.

I don't believe that he'll ever get re-elected as long as Bill is
still alive. Bill used to consider Sam an occasionally useful ally
when Sam opposed Bill's political opponents, but once Sam became an
insider Bill realized Sam the board member is a much bigger problem
than Sam the harmless occasional ally.

Bill will spend thousands in the future to keep Sam from ever getting
re-elected again. Bill has too much at stake in USCF to risk Sam
undermining the organization or wrecking its reputation.

Just my two cents worth.

On Jul 30, 11:56 pm, " wrote:
SAM'S BOARD SERVICE

There is no proof that Sam has ever put the USCF
at risk of a lawsuit or scared away sponsors. This
kind of stuff from the Old Guard (in this instance,
the semi-retired Bruce Draney) is typical enough.

Sam ensured transparency during his period as a
Board member. The Old Guard will never forgive him
or, for that matter, myself for pointing out the lies
about the move to Cross-to-Bear, the cost overruns and
the like. And, of course, Sam brought down a cheat
and apologist for FIDE among the Board majority and
forced a resignation. For that, too, he will never be forgiven.



Bruce wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:35 pm, wrote:
As much as I think that Sam Sloan is morally bankrupt in his personal
life as the fact that he seems to create more implausible conspiracy
theories then the Branch Davidians, in all honesty he did seem to
serve a useful purpose on the USCF board.

1) He was not controlled by any of the self serving members of the
USCF's "leadership"
2) He did bring some things that I would classify as "shady dealings"
to light that would have remained hidden.
3) His posts here often provided some much needed comic relief.

The thing is, despite all of his failings as a human being and I
aknowledge they are many, he was still the board member I would have
trusted to do the right thing with regards to the membership, assuming
he was able to recognize what that would be, as opposed to soley
serving his own self interest.

That said, what ever became of people like: Kenneth Harkness, George
Koltanowski, Fan Adams, Arthur Bisguier, etc... people who did it for
the love of the game instead of as a means of picking the last shreads
of flesh from the orginizations corpse or in some ill considered and
hopeless attempt at becomming a US version of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

It should be mentioned that Tom Dorsch and James Eade accomplished a
lot more of the above than Sam Sloan did and they did it without
putting USCF assets at risk for lawsuits or driving away mainstream
sponsors and supporters.

I always said Sam would get elected eventually if he kept trying. But
only once because once he got in, people would never re-elect him. So
far that appears to be true, although who knows perhaps if he waits a
few years and enough people get annoyed they might elect him again
just to punish USCF.

I don't believe that he'll ever get re-elected as long as Bill is
still alive. Bill used to consider Sam an occasionally useful ally
when Sam opposed Bill's political opponents, but once Sam became an
insider Bill realized Sam the board member is a much bigger problem
than Sam the harmless occasional ally.

Bill will spend thousands in the future to keep Sam from ever getting
re-elected again. Bill has too much at stake in USCF to risk Sam
undermining the organization or wrecking its reputation.

Just my two cents worth.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Typical Parr stuff. Some things never change. If you reread the post
you will notice I said that Eade and Dorsch accomplished much more in
making USCF dealings transparent than Sam ever did. They exposed a
lot of the back room dealings right here on RGCP. It is my belief
that USCF started a moderated chess politics forum so that people
would avoid coming here and would post only in a place where they
could control the topics and the responses. I can't see Eade or
Dorsch being able to post the goings on in New Windsor on a USCF
moderated forum, but here on usenet they could.

Sam's main problem is not his willingness to expose things, it's his
willingness to get the facts straight a la Peter Leko is still dead.
It is not my job, nor is it my duty to prove whether people shied away
from sponsoring USCF events because a board member is a founder and
card carrying member of the sexual freedom league and openly brags on
his website about his sexual exploits. One can never prove the
negative.

What kind of proof would be sufficient to demonstrate that sponsors
might be scared off by that and that Sam tends to spook a few people
out if they don't know him that well? Bill says he did. Sam says he
didn't. Who has more credibility? In this case I'd say Bill does
given Sam's penchant to express the outrageous whenever he gets the
chance. Business people tend to be very conservative and touchy.
Give them half a reason to back away from sponsoring an organization
and they will take it. Give them a few hours around Sam Sloan and
almost certainly they will be a bit nervous about associating their
name and their product with him or an organization he has been elected
to represent.

Mr. Parr has always liked Sam and so I will leave it to him to explain
his last place finish in the latest election under his beloved OMOV
that he claims is so great. If OMOV is manna from heaven then Mr.
Parr should eat it and enjoy because his boy finished dead last and it
was the members sending him the message not the "old guard" as he
calls anyone who disagrees with him.

Bruce writes:
If OMOV is manna from heaven then Mr.
Parr should eat it and enjoy because his boy finished dead last and it
was the members sending him the message not the "old guard" as he
calls anyone who disagrees with him.

Well, they also put in Polgar, whose general desires for the USCF
really do seem at odds with the old-school politicians. Whether she
has concrete ideas to implement the general desires remains to be
seen. But it's her federation now, and it will be interesting to see
what she does with it.

On Jul 31, 2:39 am, Bruce wrote:

Typical Parr stuff. Some things never change. If you reread the post
you will notice I said that Eade and Dorsch accomplished much more in
making USCF dealings transparent than Sam ever did. They exposed a
lot of the back room dealings right here on RGCP. It is my belief
that USCF started a moderated chess politics forum so that people
would avoid coming here and would post only in a place where they
could control the topics and the responses. I can't see Eade or
Dorsch being able to post the goings on in New Windsor on a USCF
moderated forum, but here on usenet they could.

Sam's main problem is not his willingness to expose things, it's his
willingness to get the facts straight a la Peter Leko is still dead.

Ah, yes. How well we remember Bruce Draney, who was here every day and
posted thousands of long screeds, using fake names when people got
tired of reading his stuff.

Those why remember will recall that Bruce worshipped the ground that
Tom Dorsch walked on and everything posted by Dorsch would be reposed
by Draney one hundred times over.

Unfortunately, everything posted by Dorsch was ultimately proven
false, and Draney lost all credibility.

For example, the "Leko is Dead" mentioned above. Five years ago, I
merely stated that Leko was reported dead, which was true, he was
reported dead, and only nine hours later when he was found at home
alive I corrected the error and apologized.

Also, you fail to mention that Susan Polgar who, like Leko, is
Hungarian, also reported him dead. Of course, that was because Susan
and I were close friends at the time and in regular contact and I told
her.

I do agree that they started the USCF Forums to keep the debates off
of this public forum. Goichberg appoints the moderators and makes the
rules there and thus there have been limitations as to how much truth
can be reported. However, in the last month or so, all the
Goichbergian moderators have quit and limited freedom of speech is
allowed now, unlike before.

However, the main reason the serious debates left this group is the
Fake Sam Sloan posted here sometimes more than one hundreds times per
day, so it became difficult to determine which posts were real and
which posts were false. By the way, the Fake Sam Sloan is almost
certainly Paul Truong who just got elected to the USCF Board.

Now he have a new problem with "Rob" the Robber who attacks me every
day somehow believing that if he keeps on attacking me I will be
forced to allow him to rejoin my FIDE-chess Yahoo Group.

Look for Susan Polgar to shut down the USCF Forums once she takes
power next week, which will chase all the posters there back over to
here.

Sam Sloan

On Jul 31, 4:49 am, samsloan wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:39 am, Bruce wrote:

Typical Parr stuff. Some things never change. If you reread the post
you will notice I said that Eade and Dorsch accomplished much more in
making USCF dealings transparent than Sam ever did. They exposed a
lot of the back room dealings right here on RGCP. It is my belief
that USCF started a moderated chess politics forum so that people
would avoid coming here and would post only in a place where they
could control the topics and the responses. I can't see Eade or
Dorsch being able to post the goings on in New Windsor on a USCF
moderated forum, but here on usenet they could.

Sam's main problem is not his willingness to expose things, it's his
willingness to get the facts straight a la Peter Leko is still dead.

Ah, yes. How well we remember Bruce Draney, who was here every day and
posted thousands of long screeds, using fake names when people got
tired of reading his stuff.

Those why remember will recall that Bruce worshipped the ground that
Tom Dorsch walked on and everything posted by Dorsch would be reposed
by Draney one hundred times over.

Unfortunately, everything posted by Dorsch was ultimately proven
false, and Draney lost all credibility.

For example, the "Leko is Dead" mentioned above. Five years ago, I
merely stated that Leko was reported dead, which was true, he was
reported dead, and only nine hours later when he was found at home
alive I corrected the error and apologized.

Also, you fail to mention that Susan Polgar who, like Leko, is
Hungarian, also reported him dead. Of course, that was because Susan
and I were close friends at the time and in regular contact and I told
her.

I do agree that they started the USCF Forums to keep the debates off
of this public forum. Goichberg appoints the moderators and makes the
rules there and thus there have been limitations as to how much truth
can be reported. However, in the last month or so, all the
Goichbergian moderators have quit and limited freedom of speech is
allowed now, unlike before.

However, the main reason the serious debates left this group is the
Fake Sam Sloan posted here sometimes more than one hundreds times per
day, so it became difficult to determine which posts were real and
which posts were false. By the way, the Fake Sam Sloan is almost
certainly Paul Truong who just got elected to the USCF Board.

Now he have a new problem with "Rob" the Robber who attacks me every
day somehow believing that if he keeps on attacking me I will be
forced to allow him to rejoin my FIDE-chess Yahoo Group.

Look for Susan Polgar to shut down the USCF Forums once she takes
power next week, which will chase all the posters there back over to
here.

Sam Sloan

Note for the record that no one has more posts to RGCP than Sam
Sloan. Isn't it interesting that Bill now considers you an even
bigger danger to him and the organization than he considered Tom
Dorsch and James Eade to be?

So let's hear your explanation for your pathetic last place electoral
performance Sam? Have you figured out who to blame other than
yourself?

For example, the "Leko is Dead" mentioned above. Five years ago, I
merely stated that Leko was reported dead, which was true, he was
reported dead, and only nine hours later when he was found at home
alive I corrected the error and apologized.


just to do a small fact check here I have the original post that you
made about it:

Sam Sloan View profile
More options Dec 1 2002, 10:46 pm

Newsgroups: soc.culture.magyar, rec.games.chess.politics,
rec.games.chess.misc
From: (Sam Sloan)
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 03:48:21 GMT
Local: Sun, Dec 1 2002 10:48 pm
Subject: Peter Leko killed in car accident
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Peter Leko was killed in a car accident today in Budapest.

It has been reported that Leko died in a car crash while analyzing a
game he had played against Shirov on a pocket set. Shirov is in Spain
now and was not in the accident.


Leko, 23, recently won a qualification tournament and was scheduled
to
play a match for the World Chess Championship. He was once the
world's
youngest grandmaster and has consistently been rated in the top ten
players in the world."


Sam Sloan

Your first line is saying he died. Not he may have died, or Susan
Polgar has reported he has died.

Only after you state he is dead do you say it is reported that he
died. Then you don't say who reported it, which basically means you
heard it from someone and you don't care to tell us who it was, only
later blaming it on Susan Polgar. What you really wanted I suspect
was to get credit for reporting it if was true and to shed blame if as
it turned out it was untrue.

If you were a journalist you would be fired for this but since you are
not it all just provided us with many years of good natured fun.

Use of the term, "it is reported" or "I have heard" are just playing
the Mission Impossible card in case what you report is erroneous you
can later deny that you stated it as fact, which as it turns out is
exactly what you dead.

That was exactly my point. You quite frequently report things as if
they were facts, and when you are found to be in error or mistaken
instead of apologizing for having been incorrect you play the blame
game and merely say that it was told or reported by someone else to
you. A person who repeats erroneous information, even if it was given
to them by someone else is still wrong for repeating erroneous
information without checking their facts.

And one more thing, you never really apologized. You blamed the
person that told you he was dead and said you weren't at fault for
posting his death erroneously. All you really had to say was "I am
sorry. I made a mistake" But I never heard "sorry" or "mistake" in
any of your posts. Maybe I missed it, can you find it? If so I will
apologize and admit I made a mistake for saying you never said you
were sorry and made a mistake.

On Jul 31, 12:56 am, " wrote:

There is no proof that Sam has ever put the USCF
at risk of a lawsuit or scared away sponsors.

Proof: a word often used by apologists when defending
their own, but curiously, avoided like the plague when
attacking those they don't happen to like.


This kind of stuff from the Old Guard

Old Guard: a fairly large group of individuals who share
nothing in common except that they are all, for various
reasons, strongly disliked by the Evans ratpack.


(in this instance,
the semi-retired Bruce Draney) is typical enough.

Read: Mr. Parr doesn't happen to like Bruce Draney
for some reason or other.


Sam ensured transparency during his period as a
Board member. The Old Guard will never forgive him
or, for that matter, myself for pointing out the lies
about the move to Cross-to-Bear, the cost overruns and
the like.

Readers who didn't just fall off a turnip truck yesterday
will note that Mr. Parr and Mr. Sloan were doing this
"transparency thing" of theirs long before Mr. Sloan was
elected to office. In fact, they will probably keep on doing
it, now that Mr. Sloan is off the board.


And, of course, Sam brought down a cheat
and apologist for FIDE among the Board majority and
forced a resignation. For that, too, he will never be forgiven.

All well and good, but not everyone here has any
clue who Mr. Parr is referring to here; normally, one
can expect him to name names, and then go on to
ad hominize, demonize, etc.

------

It should be mentioned that Tom Dorsch and James Eade accomplished a
lot more of the above than Sam Sloan did and they did it without
putting USCF assets at risk for lawsuits or driving away mainstream
sponsors and supporters.

Mr. Sloan has attempted to refute these charges,
but as far as I know, has been largely ignored. It
seems as though proof-by-accusation is the level
of things in this forum, and this is hardly the first
time that low level has been achieved. Witness
postings by Mr. Parr of Evans ratpack fame, who
himself seems to prefer this low level when it suits
his fancy. Me? I like the high-proof stuff, like
vodka, gin, or even DNA evidence, not the watered-
down proof-by-accusations of "he said, she said"
fluff.


I always said Sam would get elected eventually if he kept trying. But
only once because once he got in, people would never re-elect him. So
far that appears to be true

LOL! The test has been passed, after only a single
election (as if that means anything).


although who knows perhaps if he waits a
few years and enough people get annoyed they might elect him again
just to punish USCF.

People have short memories. The ones with the
longish memories, the ones you seem to think are
going to be casting the votes, are *elephants*.


I don't believe that he'll ever get re-elected as long as Bill is
still alive.

Directive: Kill Bill.


Bill will spend thousands in the future to keep Sam from ever getting
re-elected again.

Money down the drain. Two years after this "Bill"
character has been sanctioned, Mr. Sloan can run
again. As one famous quote has it: you can fool
a lot of the people, much of the time.


-- help bot

On Jul 31, 2:39 am, Bruce wrote:

It is not my job, nor is it my duty to prove whether people shied away
from sponsoring USCF events because a board member is a founder and
card carrying member of the sexual freedom league and openly brags on
his website about his sexual exploits. One can never prove the
negative.

That is not a negative, dufus. The charge that Mr. Sloan
frightened away specific alleged sponsors has been
challenged, and unless it can be substantiated, those
who issued these allegations appear to have invented
their "facts".

Now, let me give you an example of proving a negative:
I say that no cow on earth has ever jumped over the moon.
I can't prove it, and my assertion is posed in the negative,
and I have no way of proving it other than the use of logic
(which for many people, amounts to incomprehensible
stuff).

But this hardly equates to the charges against Mr.
Sloan. As far as I have seen in this newsgroup, nobody
said that in their opinion, Mr. Sloan may possibly have
frightened away a potential sponsor or two. On the
contrary, a positive assertion was made that he in fact
scared off at least one specific sponsor, and this has
been challenged; the gauntlet has been thrown down.
It's High Noon, and we are eagerly waiting to see who
will show up with loaded pistols, and who will cower
and hide behind their mother's skirts. I predict a no-
contest win for Mr. Sloan (a quick draw but with very
poor aim); time will tell.


-- bad bart bot

On Jul 31, 4:42 pm, help bot wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:39 am, Bruce wrote:

It is not my job, nor is it my duty to prove whether people shied away
from sponsoring USCF events because a board member is a founder and
card carrying member of the sexual freedom league and openly brags on
his website about his sexual exploits. One can never prove the
negative.

That is not a negative, dufus. The charge that Mr. Sloan
frightened away specific alleged sponsors has been
challenged, and unless it can be substantiated, those
who issued these allegations appear to have invented
their "facts".

Now, let me give you an example of proving a negative:
I say that no cow on earth has ever jumped over the moon.
I can't prove it, and my assertion is posed in the negative,
and I have no way of proving it other than the use of logic
(which for many people, amounts to incomprehensible
stuff).

But this hardly equates to the charges against Mr.
Sloan. As far as I have seen in this newsgroup, nobody
said that in their opinion, Mr. Sloan may possibly have
frightened away a potential sponsor or two. On the
contrary, a positive assertion was made that he in fact
scared off at least one specific sponsor, and this has
been challenged; the gauntlet has been thrown down.
It's High Noon, and we are eagerly waiting to see who
will show up with loaded pistols, and who will cower
and hide behind their mother's skirts. I predict a no-
contest win for Mr. Sloan (a quick draw but with very
poor aim); time will tell.

-- bad bart bot

Well name calling is certainly a major part of scoring points in a
debate. Not that I mind because I was here for 6 years and saw plenty
of name calling.

I mean that I cannot prove that something didn't happen because of
Sam, anymore than I can prove that I didn't get hired because I
belched and farted at my final interview.

I can't prove that a businessman or potential sponsor might not have
offered to sponsor an event because of being offended by Sam either in
what he wrote, what he said or his lack of personal hygiene upon
meeting him. Does that clarify what I was trying to say?

On Jul 31, 12:10 pm, Bruce wrote:

Note for the record that no one has more posts to RGCP than Sam
Sloan. Isn't it interesting that Bill now considers you an even
bigger danger to him and the organization than he considered Tom
Dorsch and James Eade to be?

So let's hear your explanation for your pathetic last place electoral
performance Sam? Have you figured out who to blame other than
yourself?


For the record, Mr. Sloan already stated that Susan
Polgar's attacks on her blog were largely responsible
for his defeat. It seems he has a thing for her, his
*obsession* being quite pronounced.


-- help bot