"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

No, Mr. Sloan, it appears that even IM Innes himself
has subsequently acknowledged that his claim to a 2450
rating was, to put it bluntly, a lie.

It is pointedly a lie. Repeating it is also to lie. I said I played at
2400
level.

Don't try to haggle; the number is and always will be
2450, per the Google archives. One cannot haggle
with facts (only with prices).

can you at least edge it upwards another 50 points? it may become the
highest claim i never made.

I admit I see a certain evasiveness is present in all these issues about
fakery - and those who agitate the most are those who generate most
abuse.

Pot and Kettle! IMO, Mr. Sloan is merely a gold-
digger; he likely wants the USCF to buy him an
island in the South Pacific and stock it with food,

would have been cheaper than defending the law suit, and i may have even
join up if there was some sort of guarantee it was an internet-free island

wine and /very young/ women. (Poor timing, if you
ask me; SS is so old that would be a horrible waste.)

that's why old people chose Leer jets, get it?

When it comes to discussion of normal standards in society, such people
consider those 'attacks' on their right to trash-as-usual.

Okay, if IM Innes is truly interested in the issue he
raises, then why is it that it only comes up in self-
defense? Why does it always show up when the
nearly-an-IM is under fire, and why is it never the
main subject of his attentions otherwise? This
smacks of more fakery.

I think I also 'smacked' for Lex Mitchell, Texas Sue, and Billy the Truong.
Historically I have smacked for bokks of Packers Evans and Keene, and
Schillers and Parrs, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Don't you miss Our Louis / - he could have googled these 'claims' and not
found them.

But anyway, he is an idea relating to this issue:
instead of trying to root out every "criminal" with a
prior record of child abuse, why not instead try to
set up scholastic tournaments such that the
opportunity for abuses are few and far between?

It is not necessary to cite anything criminal. A national social service
agency i've worked with rejects 50% of applicants wanting to work with
children because they are unsuitable. No applicants have criminal records.

If the law is a minimum standard, then background checks are something more
than a minimum. The plain fact of it is that American institutions have
found it /necessary/ to use these means to offset potential abuse and
offense to children. its a difficult subject to engage because it may be
overtaken by various hysterias, or have too narrow a base in any particular
instance. But in the nurturing professions it is absolutely not optional
these days.

Numbers of complaints of abuse are the same as they ever were, and its true
that more are now reported than then, but its also true that more are
obviated than before as a result of screening. The screening idea does not
prevent anything, but does identify by guestimation those more likely to act
in an ill way.

Let me give a somewhat related example: instead
of allowing a potential whacko to stay at your house,
make other arrangements so that your kids will be
safe whether he is a threat to them or not. It's a bit
like prophylaxis in chess; you "over protect" certain
points (like children, for instance), just in case of
danger.

Yes - that's right.

About 18 months ago I started talking here about such standards, [before Sam
Slaon was elected] and asked the USCF board if they had any? They didn't,
neither did they think it fit to act. Once again a lack of objective
standards in place at the organisation precipitates another scandal - since
instead of standard there are only the politics of personality, which though
acting in a very small organisation plays very rough. [see what Larry Parr
repeats here from Larry Evans' book]

---

I proposed the /basis/ of the standard to be from the perspective of those
abused. In this instance, it would be from the perspective of children, or
parents, guardians thereof.

The only official talk that has surfaced is about protecting the
organisation - which is to reject the /basis/ for action I suggested which
is the social norm.

Failure to act has brought about the current circumstances, where good and
bad reporting are mixed together - sometimes with nothing else evident in
them than personal pathologies and compulsions - and none of that has done
anything to secure children in chess. It is not even considered a serious
issue.

Granted, this playing style sucks, but then,
what do you want: to win in a pleasing style or to
not risk losing? In chess, it's okay to take crazy
chances if you like the odds, but with your kids, it's
better to just play it safe and boring.

Absolutely so. When its an idea, its about organisational abstracts and
statistics, when its your kids, you don't speculate on the odds, you vote
with your feet.

Good post!

Phil Innes


-- help bot

On Nov 1, 6:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Okay, if IM Innes is truly interested in the issue he
raises, then why is it that it only comes up in self-
defense? Why does it always show up when the
nearly-an-IM is under fire, and why is it never the
main subject of his attentions otherwise? This
smacks of more fakery.

I think I also 'smacked' for Lex Mitchell, Texas Sue, and Billy the Truong.
Historically I have smacked for bokks of Packers Evans and Keene, and
Schillers and Parrs, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Well then, let /that/ be the measure of your, um, standards.


Don't you miss Our Louis / - he could have googled these 'claims' and not
found them.

Of course, you have no quote of LB saying he ever goog'ed
and failed, ever. Without a quote saying so, it cannot be so,
or so LB might argue (though I have no quote to prove this).
Anyway, that's just my opinion; don't quote me.


It is not necessary to cite anything criminal. A national social service
agency i've worked with rejects 50% of applicants wanting to work with
children because they are unsuitable. No applicants have criminal records.

Ah, I see. So these comments relate mainly to people
who have applied to work with children at "chess camps"?

"Mr. Sloan, can you explain again why it is you feel
especially well-qualified to teach only the female students
between 15 and 17 -- of which there are very few?"

"Certainly. Much like Bobby Fischer, I am especially
....shall I say... *well-equipped*, to /handle/ these girls. Yes,
and what's more, I can teach them many things they don't.
already know... er, I mean like, say, Damiano's Defense
and several unique mating positions--- oops"


How about scholastic tournament directors and their
assistants? How about the folks who run the concession
stands? How about bus drivers who shuttle the kids?


If the law is a minimum standard, then background checks are something more
than a minimum. The plain fact of it is that American institutions have
found it /necessary/ to use these means to offset potential abuse and
offense to children. its a difficult subject to engage because it may be
overtaken by various hysterias, or have too narrow a base in any particular
instance. But in the nurturing professions it is absolutely not optional
these days.

Well, it seems to me that this subject always seems
to "crop up" in some attack on Mr. Sloan, and I wonder
just how many chess camps there could be for females
in that narrow age range. You will note that the alleged
abuses in the SS/SP case occurred /inside the home/,
which is beyond the jurisdiction discussed above.


Numbers of complaints of abuse are the same as they ever were, and its true
that more are now reported than then, but its also true that more are
obviated than before as a result of screening. The screening idea does not
prevent anything, but does identify by guestimation those more likely to act
in an ill way.

And it strongly discourages those who know they have
a criminal record from even applying (Bap!).



Let me give a somewhat related example: instead
of allowing a potential whacko to stay at your house,
make other arrangements so that your kids will be
safe whether he is a threat to them or not. It's a bit
like prophylaxis in chess; you "over protect" certain
points (like children, for instance), just in case of
danger.

Yes - that's right.

About 18 months ago I started talking here about such standards, [before Sam
Slaon was elected] and asked the USCF board if they had any? They didn't,

I detect a problem here, and it is the fact that in order
for some outside agency to do this kind of work, there
will of course be a bill, and somebody will have to pay
for it (uh-oh). Who will foot the bill? (It's always about
money. And when it's not about money, it's about sex.)


neither did they think it fit to act. Once again a lack of objective
standards in place at the organisation precipitates another scandal - since
instead of standard there are only the politics of personality, which though
acting in a very small organisation plays very rough. [see what Larry Parr
repeats here from Larry Evans' book]

I hate to break it to you, but the quotes of Lev Alburt
re-quoted again from GM Evans' new book have been
seen here before -- *many times*. This is nothing new.

I instantly noted that, like Sam Sloan, GM Alburt was
-- or seemed to be -- alone on the inside, with but a single
vote. He naturally ran up against the confederacy of
dunces which has always been in control, where one
person (like say Bill Goichberg for instance) has his
say on every issue, owning as he does several votes.

So you see, the real problem is not /necessarily/ that
there are leaks, that there is too much secrecy, or
whatever it was that LA found most objectionable; the
problem is that anyone who gets in will come to resent
the fact that he does not really have any say, on account
of being outnumbered. Mr. Sloan has recounted for us a
number of similar examples here, and by merely reading
quickly through just a few of them I gathered that BG
held the reins, did the steering and whipped the horses.

When one person holds sway over several others like
this, the voting process is corrupted; the format's intent,
checkmated. Bill Goichberg (or whoever) becomes, in
effect, a dictator surrounded by spineless yes-men and
perhaps, a powerless outsider or two.


I proposed the /basis/ of the standard to be from the perspective of those
abused. In this instance, it would be from the perspective of children, or
parents, guardians thereof.

The only official talk that has surfaced is about protecting the
organisation - which is to reject the /basis/ for action I suggested which
is the social norm.

Don't expect a "fair hearing" here in rgc; the fact is, you
have made a lot of enemies, and it is quite difficult for
most people to evaluate any of your ideas on their merits.
In fact, apart from myself (not to brag, but I am of course
superior to ordinary mortals) I know of no one who can
get past their emotional baggage and do this idea justice.
You would have to post it under an assumed name, like
Skip Repa does.


Failure to act has brought about the current circumstances, where good and
bad reporting are mixed together - sometimes with nothing else evident in
them than personal pathologies and compulsions - and none of that has done
anything to secure children in chess. It is not even considered a serious
issue.

Have you considered approaching BG -- the man who
controls things in the USCF? Let him present the idea
as his own, taking all the credit, building himself a
bronze statue for having thought of it, etc. If you can
convince him of the idea's merits (i.e. that it will somehow
benefit him personally), he will order his yes-men to vote
it in.



-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

Don't you miss Our Louis / - he could have googled these 'claims' and not
found them.

Of course, you have no quote of LB saying he ever goog'ed
and failed, ever.

I never said I have no quote of LB saying he ever goog'ed and failed, ever.

Without a quote saying so, it cannot be so,
or so LB might argue (though I have no quote to prove this).
Anyway, that's just my opinion; don't quote me.

Its a way of answering which (1) does not admit if he has a quote or not,
only a statement saying he never said if he has, and (2) while allowing him
to mention a subject by quoting /others/ on (3) possibly, he doesn't say,
the same subject

Now, while you and I are obviously motivated to write in jealous fashion of
this inability, it got him where he is now! Which is to ruminate on policy
for the USCF forum - and how apt!

What you did not get to read here was an hilarious 2 month appearance on the
Sam Sloan show, also known as 'my' newsgroup, where Lex Mitchell and I asked
him about his Wikipedia action that eliminated all Sloan contributions to
Wiki.

[you still there? it gets exciting!]

After the normal 30,000 word pre-amble we arrived back at the beginning,
where LB may or may not have forwarded material which may or may not have
been by the FSS, and may or may not have been identified as by the FSS.

Lex and I wrestled this information out of him, and wondered how such
impossible writing could warrant anyone to supervise that of others. 2
months later Lex turned nasty, by asking the real Sloan a question, and as
happens in Soviet show trials, had his identity erased, and was forcefully
exiled to rec.games.chess.siberia [here].

It is not necessary to cite anything criminal. A national social service
agency i've worked with rejects 50% of applicants wanting to work with
children because they are unsuitable. No applicants have criminal
records.

Ah, I see. So these comments relate mainly to people
who have applied to work with children at "chess camps"?

Anyone wanting to work with children anywhere, at any level, including
executive levels responsible for determing conditions for children.


"Mr. Sloan, can you explain again why it is you feel
especially well-qualified to teach only the female students
between 15 and 17 -- of which there are very few?"

You are confusing him with a past editor of Budapest Life, and they were
17-19.

----

How about scholastic tournament directors and their
assistants?

The thing about these discussions is that it depends who is asking. If its
parents about their own kids, then they certainly are interested in those
setting conditions, or who have temporary charge of their kids.


How about the folks who run the concession
stands? How about bus drivers who shuttle the kids?

Ask at your local high-school. Likelihood is that the bus driver also has to
be drug and alcohol screened! These are /normal/ measures is the point, but
in chess they are not observed since all arguments from people who discuss
the issue at all are about the organizations liability and not the welfare
of children.

[at USCF this is the same issue for adults, and for any topic!]

The test for parental readers of this note is not to say what you think, but
given a screened chess tutor, and an unscreened one, who do you choose?

If the law is a minimum standard, then background checks are something
more
than a minimum. The plain fact of it is that American institutions have
found it /necessary/ to use these means to offset potential abuse and
offense to children. its a difficult subject to engage because it may be
overtaken by various hysterias, or have too narrow a base in any
particular
instance. But in the nurturing professions it is absolutely not optional
these days.

Well, it seems to me that this subject always seems
to "crop up" in some attack on Mr. Sloan, and I wonder
just how many chess camps there could be for females
in that narrow age range. You will note that the alleged
abuses in the SS/SP case occurred /inside the home/,
which is beyond the jurisdiction discussed above.

This is no Sloan-alone issue, as I've written before, it applies to anyone,
not any narrow base or sample. What the measure can do is to restrict
offenses with others, outside the home. It can't eliminate them, but the
measure removes from contact those potential individuals likely to act
unwell. And after all, if society thinks this is a necessary measure, and
boy scouts throw out 175 adults per year for innappropriate behaviors
towards children, is there some reason why chess is exempt?

Numbers of complaints of abuse are the same as they ever were, and its
true
that more are now reported than then, but its also true that more are
obviated than before as a result of screening. The screening idea does
not
prevent anything, but does identify by guestimation those more likely to
act
in an ill way.

And it strongly discourages those who know they have
a criminal record from even applying (Bap!).

Well - the issue really compasses 3 types of people; opportunists who use a
little power over children to incidentally indulge their appetites; a new
type of e-stalker who is consciously predatorial; and those who confound sex
with violence [done to them].

This is not the right place to discuss these things since, unlike drug
testing, real medical evidence of misbehavior is called for - and besides,
in simply raising the subject it can attract those who would deny the
sociology of it all, for more subjective reasons. And sober discussion is
therefore hard to find.

I think it is worth some level of social discussion, otherwise we give up
the subject to either anti or pro factions who can tend to hysterics - again
the 'drug-scare' reaction is one decided upon by 'expert' testimony, albeit
the gent is a chiropractor, but sufficient to be acted on as the basis for a
medical commission, and actually directy into Fide policy.

Let me give a somewhat related example: instead
of allowing a potential whacko to stay at your house,
make other arrangements so that your kids will be
safe whether he is a threat to them or not. It's a bit
like prophylaxis in chess; you "over protect" certain
points (like children, for instance), just in case of
danger.

Yes - that's right.

About 18 months ago I started talking here about such standards, [before
Sam
Slaon was elected] and asked the USCF board if they had any? They didn't,

I detect a problem here, and it is the fact that in order
for some outside agency to do this kind of work, there
will of course be a bill, and somebody will have to pay
for it (uh-oh). Who will foot the bill? (It's always about
money. And when it's not about money, it's about sex.)

Testing is independent of the agency or individuals tested. When financial
questions are raised, the answer is 'who cares?', whoever cares pays.

neither did they think it fit to act. Once again a lack of objective
standards in place at the organisation precipitates another scandal -
since
instead of standard there are only the politics of personality, which
though
acting in a very small organisation plays very rough. [see what Larry
Parr
repeats here from Larry Evans' book]

I hate to break it to you, but the quotes of Lev Alburt
re-quoted again from GM Evans' new book have been
seen here before -- *many times*. This is nothing new.

They are literally re-collections. I'm glad he didn't make up new
'anecdotes'. Rather like [dangerous subject] Fischer anecdotes, its not so
much if they have been heard before, but if they are yet understood.

In Evans' citations of political machinations, then we evidentally don't
know enough to act on them, so our only acts are to be surprised and
outraged when things go wrong, again, again...

I instantly noted that, like Sam Sloan, GM Alburt was
-- or seemed to be -- alone on the inside, with but a single
vote. He naturally ran up against the confederacy of
dunces which has always been in control, where one
person (like say Bill Goichberg for instance) has his
say on every issue, owning as he does several votes.

With too many big personalities in a little USCF pond, amounts of
in-breeding are inevitable. The right context here is as Fide, that those
who make the decisions have too narrow a base, and act as a management class
only.

So you see, the real problem is not /necessarily/ that
there are leaks, that there is too much secrecy, or
whatever it was that LA found most objectionable; the
problem is that anyone who gets in will come to resent
the fact that he does not really have any say, on account
of being outnumbered.

Outindifferenced? The issue - I think we are in some agreement? - is not
free speech, but responsible speech about something which would actually
make a value difference to players, ie, content-based discussions,
disinterestedly approached.

Mr. Sloan has recounted for us a
number of similar examples here, and by merely reading
quickly through just a few of them I gathered that BG
held the reins, did the steering and whipped the horses.

When one person holds sway over several others like
this, the voting process is corrupted; the format's intent,
checkmated. Bill Goichberg (or whoever) becomes, in
effect, a dictator surrounded by spineless yes-men and
perhaps, a powerless outsider or two.

That is an unlikeable approximation, but essentially a true one. I can see
from BG's point of view that he thinks he can manage all better than anyone
else, which is [or has been] likely true. But this limits what can be
managed to his personal scope, and in effect renders the rest of the board
redundant.

The scene is unfortunately compounded by also heading up the main tournament
competitor to USCF - and while partnerships /can/ benefit both parties, the
question remains if they are disinterested benefits; to wit, are other
potential partners eliminated thereby? And of course this removes any
comparison to how well exisiting partnerships perform.

I proposed the /basis/ of the standard to be from the perspective of
those
abused. In this instance, it would be from the perspective of children,
or
parents, guardians thereof.

The only official talk that has surfaced is about protecting the
organisation - which is to reject the /basis/ for action I suggested
which
is the social norm.

Don't expect a "fair hearing" here in rgc; the fact is, you
have made a lot of enemies, and it is quite difficult for
most people to evaluate any of your ideas on their merits.

Just like playing chess!

In fact, apart from myself (not to brag, but I am of course
superior to ordinary mortals) I know of no one who can
get past their emotional baggage and do this idea justice.
You would have to post it under an assumed name, like
Skip Repa does.

You mean, personal resentments obviate the natural expression here of
adults, especially of parents for the well-being of young players? I would
think that many people here never gave anyone else's welfare any thought at
all.

Failure to act has brought about the current circumstances, where good
and
bad reporting are mixed together - sometimes with nothing else evident in
them than personal pathologies and compulsions - and none of that has
done
anything to secure children in chess. It is not even considered a serious
issue.

Have you considered approaching BG -- the man who
controls things in the USCF? Let him present the idea
as his own, taking all the credit, building himself a
bronze statue for having thought of it, etc.

Yes. As above, I wrote the board before the previous election. More recently
Bill Hall thought he would like to speak up himself on several issues,
including regular board interviews with any panel of questioners. Someone
squashed that initiative ! and Mr. Hall could only offer me the excuse
that he could not make regular communications as he had said he would,
because of the continuous crisis in USCF communications [mostly its forum].

But let's not ponder that irony - he didn't.

There is no point approaching anyone at all if they do not present any
interest, either about fixing a current pain, or declaring an aspiration for
the future.

I am probably the last person to even attempt to notice, who still writes on
the subject in a way that tries to engage politicos in something.

If you can
convince him of the idea's merits (i.e. that it will somehow
benefit him personally), he will order his yes-men to vote
it in.

The Federal education budget is quite substantial, and I already have
working partners who definitely /do/ care more than any pro-forma level of
interest. They think that is motivational, not only because of the amount of
money, but certainly because their Prime Motive is benefit to children,
given the right atmosphere, to obtain a full benefit from our game.

Cordially, Phil Innes



-- help bot