I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds,
including the following:

1. The moderation committee was newly formed and I was almost
instantly put on moderation. I was moderated retroactively for
postings I had made long before the moderation committee had been
informed. It is fundamentally unfair to give the new moderation
procedures retroactive application.

2. I was not adequately informed nor was I given a chance to defend
myself from the charges. For example, I am told that I violated the
Acceptable Use Guidelines for two postings under the title "Silence of
the Board" and one under a subject header about Meeting Link. However,
the issue of Silence of the Board which concerns the fact that the
Board no longer uses the BINFO System is one that needs to be
discussed. The Meeting Link issue also requires vetting by the members
as well. I can find nothing I posted in either of these two threads
that is in any way objectionable.

3. The new Moderation Committee includes two people with a long
history of opposition and indeed harassment of me, namely Herbert
Rodney Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaafl and Tim Sawmiller. It seems that they
were selected to be on the moderation committee just to silence me.
Tanstaafl filed a 400 page ethics complaint in color which tied up the
ethics committee for a year and I was finally forced to file a lawsuit
against him in federal court. Both Sawmiller and Vaughn should be
disqualified from making rulings regarding my postings on conflict of
interest grounds due to their overt hostility to me.

4. I am a former member of the Executive Board. Even though I was
voted out of office recently, my voice should be allowed to be heard.
Allowing hostile persons like Vaughn and Sawmiller to rule on whether
my postings should be allowed to see the light of day is highly
objectionable and should be reversed.

For all of these reasons, I ask to be taken off of moderated status.

Sam Sloan

On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan wrote:
I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds,
including the following:
snip

Please keep your private matters private.

On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan wrote:
I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds,
including the following:

1. The moderation committee was newly formed and I was almost
instantly put on moderation. I was moderated retroactively for
postings I had made long before the moderation committee had been
informed. It is fundamentally unfair to give the new moderation
procedures retroactive application.

2. I was not adequately informed nor was I given a chance to defend
myself from the charges. For example, I am told that I violated the
Acceptable Use Guidelines for two postings under the title "Silence of
the Board" and one under a subject header about Meeting Link. However,
the issue of Silence of the Board which concerns the fact that the
Board no longer uses the BINFO System is one that needs to be
discussed. The Meeting Link issue also requires vetting by the members
as well. I can find nothing I posted in either of these two threads
that is in any way objectionable.

3. The new Moderation Committee includes two people with a long
history of opposition and indeed harassment of me, namely Herbert
Rodney Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaafl and Tim Sawmiller. It seems that they
were selected to be on the moderation committee just to silence me.
Tanstaafl filed a 400 page ethics complaint in color which tied up the
ethics committee for a year and I was finally forced to file a lawsuit
against him in federal court. Both Sawmiller and Vaughn should be
disqualified from making rulings regarding my postings on conflict of
interest grounds due to their overt hostility to me.

4. I am a former member of the Executive Board. Even though I was
voted out of office recently, my voice should be allowed to be heard.
Allowing hostile persons like Vaughn and Sawmiller to rule on whether
my postings should be allowed to see the light of day is highly
objectionable and should be reversed.

For all of these reasons, I ask to be taken off of moderated status.

Sam Sloan

Who is Rufus Z and why does he keep hijacking my threads??

On Dec 13, 11:39 am, samsloan wrote:
On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan wrote:

Sam Sloan

Who is Rufus Z and why does he keep hijacking my threads??

He is an internet user who is tired of you using newsgroups as your
personal web page.

On Dec 13, 11:39 am, samsloan wrote:


Who is Rufus Z and why does he keep hijacking my threads??

You are being disingenuous Sam. You know why I am doing this. I could
not have been clearer:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...73cb57c5d2199a

On Dec 13, 10:20 am, samsloan wrote:
I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds,
including the following:

1. The moderation committee was newly formed and I was almost
instantly put on moderation. I was moderated retroactively for
postings I had made long before the moderation committee had been
informed. It is fundamentally unfair to give the new moderation
procedures retroactive application.

2. I was not adequately informed nor was I given a chance to defend
myself from the charges. For example, I am told that I violated the
Acceptable Use Guidelines for two postings under the title "Silence of
the Board" and one under a subject header about Meeting Link. However,
the issue of Silence of the Board which concerns the fact that the
Board no longer uses the BINFO System is one that needs to be
discussed. The Meeting Link issue also requires vetting by the members
as well. I can find nothing I posted in either of these two threads
that is in any way objectionable.

3. The new Moderation Committee includes two people with a long
history of opposition and indeed harassment of me, namely Herbert
Rodney Vaughn a/k/a Tanstaafl and Tim Sawmiller. It seems that they
were selected to be on the moderation committee just to silence me.
Tanstaafl filed a 400 page ethics complaint in color which tied up the
ethics committee for a year and I was finally forced to file a lawsuit
against him in federal court. Both Sawmiller and Vaughn should be
disqualified from making rulings regarding my postings on conflict of
interest grounds due to their overt hostility to me.

4. I am a former member of the Executive Board. Even though I was
voted out of office recently, my voice should be allowed to be heard.
Allowing hostile persons like Vaughn and Sawmiller to rule on whether
my postings should be allowed to see the light of day is highly
objectionable and should be reversed.

For all of these reasons, I ask to be taken off of moderated status.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan

You are a member of the Board of Director (Delegate) of the United
States Chess Federation, an Illinois Corporation. You have
Agenda rights with the Board of Delegates. Given the erratic nature of
your lawsuit, you probably don't even realize that you
Look like a fool when you fail to use your agenda rights to try to
correct this situation.

Your emotional need to be part of the "clique" drives your life. The
Delegates can fix this, the facts are the Delegates don't like
You. So, you rant here as a "former member" when you are, in fact,
liable to be SUED for your failure to act on other issues,
as a directors.

Your lack of education shows itself. You have the right to appeal, and
you are too stupid to exercize your right.


Marcus Roberts

Ironic how someone claimed to be the subject of a death threat which
he
himself had written and then implanted into someone else's computer
so
as to make that someone seem to be impersonating yet another person
who
would seem to be issuing the threat. Thought of writing a book,
Marcus?
You have a talent. With friends like you S sure does not need
enemies.
- Winston Smith (Non scrivetemi)

I'll have to e-mail my old professors at Georgia Tech. I must be a
genuis with computers
and don't know it. My gosh, I must be worth 1,000 dollars an hour as a
virus writer.
This is incredible! Damn I am smart! Why won't anyone believe me when
I claim to be
able to do this -but Winston Smith - my true admirer!

Marcus Roberts

On Dec 13, 8:31 am, RufusZ wrote:
On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan wrote: I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds,
including the following:

snip

Please keep your private matters private.

Sam's complain and appeal is not a private matter.
Your post is inappropriate.

Wlod

On Dec 14, 7:44 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:
On Dec 13, 8:31 am, RufusZ wrote:

On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan wrote: I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds,
including the following:

snip

Please keep your private matters private.

Sam's complain and appeal is not a private matter.
Your post is inappropriate.

Wlod

Yes it is a private matter between him and the USCF. It is not of
general interest. Posting reams of personal correspondence in a public
group is, and has always been, poor USNET manners.

Have a happy holiday, none-the-less.

On Dec 14, 7:40 pm, RufusZ wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:44 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"

wrote:
On Dec 13, 8:31 am, RufusZ wrote:

On Dec 13, 11:20 am, samsloan wrote: I hereby appeal from being put on Moderation, on several grounds,
including the following:

snip

Please keep your private matters private.

Sam's complain and appeal is not a private matter.
Your post is inappropriate.

Wlod

Yes it is a private matter between him and the USCF. It is not of
general interest. Posting reams of personal correspondence in a public
group is, and has always been, poor USNET manners.

Have a happy holiday, none-the-less.

The matter is public. What you mean is be quite and allow Susan Polgar
and her husband to threaten
to kill, or violate the rights, of whoever they wish. Poor usenet
manners? Who gives a ****. You have
a group of criminals that are about to be taught a lesson, and the
expense of your precious game
of chess.

Susan Poglar is an uneducated, unstable woman, who uses death threats
to try to get her way.

No matter how many children get molested, you keep on telling people
to SHUT UP.

Usenet manners? This is a joke...

Marcus Roberts