A: Last post from me for a while
B: joelchanning 12560070
C: 67341
D: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:33 am
E:
Post:67341 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: Last
post from me for a while


Dear Steve,

You can't win them all, and you shouldn't get discouraged by one bad
experience (or a small number of them). In my opinion, you've
consistently been one of the better contributors. If this experiment
in civil discourse (let's say we call it the "Lord of the Flies
Project") is to succeed, the good guys will have to be tougher,
because the bad guys seem to have boundless energy (stemming from
childhood trauma, I'm sure).

Joel Channing

==========================

This posting is outrageous because the postings by SteveTN are
predominantly attacks on Sam Sloan. Thus, by writing "the bad guys
seem to have boundless energy (stemming from childhood trauma, I'm
sure)" Joel Channing is saying that Sam Sloan is a "bad guy" who has
suffered from "childhood trauma".

I wish to point out that Joel Channing has, more than any other
regular on the USCF Forums, made personal attacks and sexist and
abusive remarks on numerous posters. By attacking almost everybody
with whom he disagrees and accusing them of a lack of "civility" plus
constantly threatening to have the USCF Forums closed down altogether,
he has terrorized the entire group.

I realize that the FOC will be reluctant to sanction Mr. Channing
because of his position on the board that will make them afraid to do
do, but this post where he calls me a "bad guy" and states that I must
be suffering from "childhood trauma" far exceeds any common standards
of decency.

According I demand at a very minimum a Level 2 sanction against Mr.
Channing (a one week suspension). In fact, I feel that this posting so
far exceeds any reasonable level of propriety that Mr. Channing should
be PERMANENTLY BANNED from posting to the USCF forums.

Are you men or are you mice? Will you take the appropriate action
against Mr. Channing, or will you cower in fear of what he might do to
you in retaliation?

Sam Sloan

On Sep 7, 8:54 am, samsloan wrote:
A: Last post from me for a while
B: joelchanning 12560070
C: 67341
D: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:33 am
E:
Post:67341 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: Last
post from me for a while

Dear Steve,

You can't win them all, and you shouldn't get discouraged by one bad
experience (or a small number of them). In my opinion, you've
consistently been one of the better contributors. If this experiment
in civil discourse (let's say we call it the "Lord of the Flies
Project") is to succeed, the good guys will have to be tougher,
because the bad guys seem to have boundless energy (stemming from
childhood trauma, I'm sure).

Joel Channing

==========================

This posting is outrageous because the postings by SteveTN are
predominantly attacks on Sam Sloan. Thus, by writing "the bad guys
seem to have boundless energy (stemming from childhood trauma, I'm
sure)" Joel Channing is saying that Sam Sloan is a "bad guy" who has
suffered from "childhood trauma".

I wish to point out that Joel Channing has, more than any other
regular on the USCF Forums, made personal attacks and sexist and
abusive remarks on numerous posters. By attacking almost everybody
with whom he disagrees and accusing them of a lack of "civility" plus
constantly threatening to have the USCF Forums closed down altogether,
he has terrorized the entire group.

I realize that the FOC will be reluctant to sanction Mr. Channing
because of his position on the board that will make them afraid to do
do, but this post where he calls me a "bad guy" and states that I must
be suffering from "childhood trauma" far exceeds any common standards
of decency.

According I demand at a very minimum a Level 2 sanction against Mr.
Channing (a one week suspension). In fact, I feel that this posting so
far exceeds any reasonable level of propriety that Mr. Channing should
be PERMANENTLY BANNED from posting to the USCF forums.

Are you men or are you mice? Will you take the appropriate action
against Mr. Channing, or will you cower in fear of what he might do to
you in retaliation?

Sam Sloan

Little thin skinned aren't you Mo?

CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

And here I must disagree a bit with Sam Sloan.
The worst thing about what Joel Channing has written
is his giving rhetorical cover to the False Sams and
the others within his political grouping who have
tossed out the worst kinds of sexual junk and, not to
mention, outright lies and false identities. This
last business -- false identities -- is the
stock-in-trade of the USCF ingroup political class.

I think that the precise point Sam is making,
though accurate enough, does not merit a penalty.

Yours, Larry Parr

Rob wrote:
On Sep 7, 8:54 am, samsloan wrote:
A: Last post from me for a while
B: joelchanning 12560070
C: 67341
D: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:33 am
E:
Post:67341 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: Last
post from me for a while

Dear Steve,

You can't win them all, and you shouldn't get discouraged by one bad
experience (or a small number of them). In my opinion, you've
consistently been one of the better contributors. If this experiment
in civil discourse (let's say we call it the "Lord of the Flies
Project") is to succeed, the good guys will have to be tougher,
because the bad guys seem to have boundless energy (stemming from
childhood trauma, I'm sure).

Joel Channing

==========================

This posting is outrageous because the postings by SteveTN are
predominantly attacks on Sam Sloan. Thus, by writing "the bad guys
seem to have boundless energy (stemming from childhood trauma, I'm
sure)" Joel Channing is saying that Sam Sloan is a "bad guy" who has
suffered from "childhood trauma".

I wish to point out that Joel Channing has, more than any other
regular on the USCF Forums, made personal attacks and sexist and
abusive remarks on numerous posters. By attacking almost everybody
with whom he disagrees and accusing them of a lack of "civility" plus
constantly threatening to have the USCF Forums closed down altogether,
he has terrorized the entire group.

I realize that the FOC will be reluctant to sanction Mr. Channing
because of his position on the board that will make them afraid to do
do, but this post where he calls me a "bad guy" and states that I must
be suffering from "childhood trauma" far exceeds any common standards
of decency.

According I demand at a very minimum a Level 2 sanction against Mr.
Channing (a one week suspension). In fact, I feel that this posting so
far exceeds any reasonable level of propriety that Mr. Channing should
be PERMANENTLY BANNED from posting to the USCF forums.

Are you men or are you mice? Will you take the appropriate action
against Mr. Channing, or will you cower in fear of what he might do to
you in retaliation?

Sam Sloan

Little thin skinned aren't you Mo?

Since none of you are a member of the USCF Forum, you do not
understand the issue.

Numerous posters have had their postings deleted from the forums and
have had themselves suspended for the most trivial comments. What is
really going on is that anybody who deviates too far from the official
insider party line gets booted.

Here, Joel Channing has committed a far more serious offense than
anyone who has ever been banished from the forum.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander and if Joel Channing
does not get sanctioned for this offense there is a serious problem.

Sam Sloan

samsloan writes:
Since none of you are a member of the USCF Forum, you do not
understand the issue.

Some of us understand the issue perfectly. The USCF forum is
controlled by Orwellian hacks who make sure that its content reflects
the party line. It was obvious from the moment the USCF forum was
announced that it would be like that. Imagine the White House running
a forum for political discussion. It would look awfully friendly to
the Bush admin, I'm sure.

The whole purpose of the USCF forum was to shut down rgcp so that the
USCF hacks could control the discussion. I guess it somewhat worked
for a while, but I hope by now that the failure is obvious. Remember
that one of the selling points was that it was open to everyone (not
only USCF members)? I guess that didn't last long.

Good point. Susan was also suspended for misconduct:

Post:38452 Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject: Reply
with quote
NOTIFICATION OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION

Date: April 3, 2007
To: Susan Polgar

Your Post to the USCF Forums, 35167 (Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:31 pm, "A
Follow Up Financial Question for Ms Polgar") was in violation of the
Acceptable Usage Guidelines for the USCF Forum.

"Name calling, insults, 'flaming' and attacks are not appropriate and
will
not be tolerated." - Mike Nolan (Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:18 pm)
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=702

"Among the post features we consider inappropriate a ... Most use
of 'liar,' 'lying' or 'lie,' or words to that effect, especially when
characterizing another poster." (Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:07 am)
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=702

This is a 1st level sanction.

Accordingly, you have been suspended from posting to the USCF Forums
for a period of 24 hours.

This sanction was imposed by order of the Forums Oversight Committee.

Terry Winchester,
Committee Chair

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
samsloan writes:
Since none of you are a member of the USCF Forum, you do not
understand the issue.

Some of us understand the issue perfectly. The USCF forum is
controlled by Orwellian hacks who make sure that its content reflects
the party line. It was obvious from the moment the USCF forum was
announced that it would be like that. Imagine the White House running
a forum for political discussion. It would look awfully friendly to
the Bush admin, I'm sure.

The whole purpose of the USCF forum was to shut down rgcp so that the
USCF hacks could control the discussion. I guess it somewhat worked
for a while, but I hope by now that the failure is obvious. Remember
that one of the selling points was that it was open to everyone (not
only USCF members)? I guess that didn't last long.

Yep - that is an unfortunately honest record and chronology. Now the policy
has boomeranged, and USCF as the governance organisation for chess in the
USA is the only place on the net where you can NOT discuss governance and
organisation of chess.

When USCF held its $10,000 'meet-the-critics' party in Florida, it invited
the tamest 'critics' in the country. [So used is the organisation to not
engaging anything but its own existence!]

Mr. Rubin understand the issues perfectly.

For myself I am waiting to see what goes with the new board. At least the
Chairman of USCF said a few days ago that if you want to talk chess politics
you can do so right here in rgcp. And maybe considering the hash USCF made
of its forum, with massively indulgent me!-me!-me! posts, that is a good
idea?

Which leaves the USCF Forum with no song to sing, no? What will people write
about, how to organise an 8-player Swiss? Questions about Bobby Fischer?
Most non-political commentary at the forums could be dealt with by a few
FAQs, or, as a Russian GM told us 3 weeks ago, go to Chessville!

Phil Innes