Uzytkownik "jr" napisal w wiadomosci
oups.com...

For decades the USCF has fostered a culture of secrecy.

I am voting for Sam Sloan despite his faults because he has
the instincts of an investigative journalist and can't keep secrets.

With him on the board, at least we won't be kept in the dark.
And when he's wrong about something, the other board members
will be forced to tell us why he's wrong.

Either way, we win.


No doubt Sam Sloan is better than majority of his critics here. Several of
his critics are just morons who accuse him of felony, however they will
never go to the court because they only want to defame Sam and they know
that they would lose there.

So your argument is that you know some qualified people who would think that
Sam's election to the Board would be a bad idea?

Not very convincing, in my book. Sort of like the argument used to justify
the move, which is something I'm still confused about.

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
oups.com...

John J. wrote:
That may be true about the felonies. However, after seeing the number of
questionable decisions made by the board in the past few years and the
way
they were made makes me think that electing Sam Sloan isn't such a bad
idea
after all.

I also recall that once upon a time, it was thought that bloodletting
was good medicine.

I know many competent CEOs and CFOs. I seriously doubt that any of
them would find the prospect of a Sam Sloan serving on the Board of
Directors as anything but a bad idea.

Randy Bauer





"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...

jr wrote:
For decades the USCF has fostered a culture of secrecy.

I am voting for Sam Sloan despite his faults because he has
the instincts of an investigative journalist and can't keep secrets.

With him on the board, at least we won't be kept in the dark.
And when he's wrong about something, the other board members
will be forced to tell us why he's wrong.

Either way, we win.

The USCF doesn't "win" by electing ex-felons who have had their
securities license revoked because of their "conduct." The guy
couldn't even keep his cab license. Even the Libertarian Party is
smart enough to keep him off the ballot. There is nothing to be gained
by putting a flake of this magnitude in a position of responsibility.

Randy Bauer

wrote:
SAM SLOAN'S "FELONY"

No surprise at the usual litany chanted against
Sam Sloan, this time by Randy Bauer who managed
to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life
during the last election.

When confronted with facts, Liarry's typical defense is go on the
offense with lies. It is a lie, perhaps libelous, to suggest that I
"managed to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life during the
last election."

As a single member of the Executive Board, I had no such authority.
Further, Don Schultz has explained, on numerous occasions -- including
on this newsgroup -- that he, in his position as Secretary, made the
decision to exclude Sloan's statement from Chess Life. The following
is from Don Schultz' post on April 12, 2005:

"I took the position and announced well in advance that a candidate's
statement would not be accepted after the 10th of the month unless it
did not interfere with the CL schedule or burden the staff with extra
work.

Glenn and I saw Sam at the Amateur Team East and told him that he was
already 10 or 11 days late and if he didn?t immediately get his
statement to Glenn, then it would not appear in the April issue.
Although Sam was late in getting his submission in based on the
arbitrary date I set, it still had a chance if it met the second
criteria of not causing a delay in the publishing of Chess Life or
putting a burden on staff. Sam did just that. He wrote the statement (I

believe in pen rather than on a computer) and gave it to Glenn. Later,
Glenn came to me and said that Sam had used in his statement an
argument against the team of four. The team of four had not been
announced until well after the announced cutoff date of the 10th and
Sam in effect would have gained an advantage by knowing about it and
using it simply because his submission missed the initial deadline.

Glenn pointed out that other candidates should have a right to answer
those points. I agreed with him. Since there was no question that any
attempt to get comments from other Board members would cause a delay in

publishing Chess Life and cause extra work by staff, I told Glenn not
to include Sam's statement."

Now, we can expect two things from our Liarry. First, he will write
pages and pages to obfuscate the issue -- even though my political
opponent, Don Schultz clearly and unequivocably states it was HIS
decision to not run Sloan's statement. Second, he will engage in
linguistic gymnastics that would make a Nadia or a Mary Lou proud.
Liarry is a gold medalist when it comes to contorted meaning that suits
his purpose.

Randy Bauer

wrote:
SAM SLOAN'S "FELONY"

Mr. Sloan, we are told, is an ex-felon (he was
involved in a family matter, taking his daughter
against court order). Mr. Sloan is a felon in the
same sense that someone arrested by the Soviet regime
is a felon arrested for, say, violating his residency
restrictions and seeking proximity to former family
members. Sam's "felony" would not have been a matter
for the courts or government a couple of generations back.

Yes, child-stealing has a long and proud history in SloanParr land. I
suppose Sloan was whisking her away for a fun-filled weekend sleeping
under the tables in the playing hall of a chess tournament.

One should note that in spite of Mr. Bauer's
attempt at smear-by-proximity, Sam's "felony" had
nothing to do with securities (he won his court case
there). It had to do, as noted above, with taking his
own child against a court order.

A typical Parr tactic - shift to some silly "smear-by-proximity"
defense. Parr prefers just the outright smear -- it's so much more
convenient.

Note Parr doesn't answer the charge -- did Sloan, whose "candidates
statement" professes a long and illustrious career in the securities
industry -- have his license yanked by the authorities?

Parr would have our Sam, known to sleep under tables at chess
tournaments and at homeless shelters, a convicted felon whose
securities license was yanked be a "tonic" for the USCF. Parr's
favorite drink must be hemlock and tonic.

Randy Bauer

Jerzy wrote:

No doubt Sam Sloan is better than majority of his critics here. Several of
his critics are just morons who accuse him of felony, however they will
never go to the court because they only want to defame Sam and they know
that they would lose there.

Exactly how do you "defame" someone by speaking the truth about them?
Sam Sloan was, indeed, convicted of a felony and served prison time.
Sam Sloan did, indeed, have his securities license yanked by the
authorities. We don't need to go to court, these things are already a
matter of public record.

Things must be done differently in your part of the world.

Randy Bauer

wrote:
RANDY BAUER'S SMEAR CAMPAIGN

The USCF doesn't "win" by electing ex-felons who have had their
securities license revoked because of their "conduct." -- Randy Bauer

One should note that in spite of this smear, Sam's "felony"
was a domestic matter. It had nothing to do with the securities
charge when Sam owned a company dealing with stocks.

One wonders if our resident apologist for Sloan would feel differently
if he were the person from whom the child was snatched.

Meanwhile, Parr conveniently evades the charge that Sloan had his
securities license yanked. I'm sure Parr will now tell us it was the
"bureaucrats" who took it away and that Sloan is a paragon of financial
virtue. How about it Parr, are you using Sloan for investing you book
royalties?

Randy Bauer

Dnia 02-05-2006 o 14:48:32 Randy Bauer napisa³:


No doubt Sam Sloan is better than majority of his critics here. Several
of
his critics are just morons who accuse him of felony, however they will
never go to the court because they only want to defame Sam and they know
that they would lose there.

Exactly how do you "defame" someone by speaking the truth about them?
Sam Sloan was, indeed, convicted of a felony and served prison time.
Sam Sloan did, indeed, have his securities license yanked by the
authorities. We don't need to go to court, these things are already a
matter of public record.

Things must be done differently in your part of the world.


Calling Sam a child molester, accusing him of crimes he never committed
etc. is a moronish way of defaming Sam. On the other hand you are a bit
"smarter" than e.g. moronish Bill Brock. You only want to defame Sam by
accusing him of deeds that are no obstacle in any civilised country to be
elected to any chess federation. I bet that it`s no obstacle in the USA.

--
U¿ywam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
SAM SLOAN'S "FELONY"

No surprise at the usual litany chanted against
Sam Sloan, this time by Randy Bauer who managed
to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life
during the last election.

When confronted with facts, Liarry's typical defense is go on the
offense with lies. It is a lie, perhaps libelous, to suggest that I
"managed to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life during the
last election."

I'll libel you too. Were you the individual who raised the issue before the
USCF Executive Board? Was the Sloan article excluded as a direct result of
that action?

As a single member of the Executive Board, I had no such authority.
Further, Don Schultz has explained, on numerous occasions -- including
on this newsgroup -- that he, in his position as Secretary, made the
decision to exclude Sloan's statement from Chess Life. The following
is from Don Schultz' post on April 12, 2005:

Ah! So it wasn't you who did it - the board did as a result of your
recommendation? Is that a fair statement?

"I took the position and announced well in advance that a candidate's
statement would not be accepted after the 10th of the month unless it
did not interfere with the CL schedule or burden the staff with extra
work.

During THIS election, would you wish to make clear your own statement about
this felony issue? Again YOU have raised it, and associated a list of items
in connecting sentences? Did you wish to concur with Larry Parr on the
subject of the felony - or, since you discuss libel, are you accusing the
subject of being a felon for something else?

As you note below in your 'pages and pages' comment, there are those who
would obfusticate the issues.

Let us not do that - agree?

Phil Innes

Glenn and I saw Sam at the Amateur Team East and told him that he was
already 10 or 11 days late and if he didn?t immediately get his
statement to Glenn, then it would not appear in the April issue.
Although Sam was late in getting his submission in based on the
arbitrary date I set, it still had a chance if it met the second
criteria of not causing a delay in the publishing of Chess Life or
putting a burden on staff. Sam did just that. He wrote the statement (I

believe in pen rather than on a computer) and gave it to Glenn. Later,
Glenn came to me and said that Sam had used in his statement an
argument against the team of four. The team of four had not been
announced until well after the announced cutoff date of the 10th and
Sam in effect would have gained an advantage by knowing about it and
using it simply because his submission missed the initial deadline.

Glenn pointed out that other candidates should have a right to answer
those points. I agreed with him. Since there was no question that any
attempt to get comments from other Board members would cause a delay in

publishing Chess Life and cause extra work by staff, I told Glenn not
to include Sam's statement."

Now, we can expect two things from our Liarry. First, he will write
pages and pages to obfuscate the issue -- even though my political
opponent, Don Schultz clearly and unequivocably states it was HIS
decision to not run Sloan's statement. Second, he will engage in
linguistic gymnastics that would make a Nadia or a Mary Lou proud.
Liarry is a gold medalist when it comes to contorted meaning that suits
his purpose.

Randy Bauer

* As a single member of the Executive Board, I had no such authority. *
(Bauer)

If a single member of a seven-member board has such little
authority, why is the establishment pulling out all the stops to
keep little old Sam Sloan from getting elected?

Chess One wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
SAM SLOAN'S "FELONY"

No surprise at the usual litany chanted against
Sam Sloan, this time by Randy Bauer who managed
to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life
during the last election.

When confronted with facts, Liarry's typical defense is go on the
offense with lies. It is a lie, perhaps libelous, to suggest that I
"managed to exclude one of Sam's statements from Chess Life during the
last election."

I'll libel you too. Were you the individual who raised the issue before the
USCF Executive Board? Was the Sloan article excluded as a direct result of
that action?

No, I did not. I raised the issue of how this issue IN THE FUTURE
should be decided. I sponsored a motion that established a framework
for THE BOARD AS A WHOLE, not the Secretary alone, to decide. It also
established a mechanism to allow somebody excluded to appeal that
decision.

As a single member of the Executive Board, I had no such authority.
Further, Don Schultz has explained, on numerous occasions -- including
on this newsgroup -- that he, in his position as Secretary, made the
decision to exclude Sloan's statement from Chess Life. The following
is from Don Schultz' post on April 12, 2005:

Ah! So it wasn't you who did it - the board did as a result of your
recommendation? Is that a fair statement?

No. Don Schultz decided -- can't you read? I quoted his post to this
newsgroup.

"I took the position and announced well in advance that a candidate's
statement would not be accepted after the 10th of the month unless it
did not interfere with the CL schedule or burden the staff with extra
work.

This was a direct quote from Don Schultz, for those who are actually
paying attention.

During THIS election, would you wish to make clear your own statement about
this felony issue? Again YOU have raised it, and associated a list of items
in connecting sentences? Did you wish to concur with Larry Parr on the
subject of the felony - or, since you discuss libel, are you accusing the
subject of being a felon for something else?

What did I write that was inaccurate? Sloan is a convicted felon who
served prison time, Sloan had his securities license yanked, Sloan lost
his license to drive a cab. The one who doesn't tell the whole story
is Sloan, the securities wizard, who fails to mention he is no longer
able to work in that industry.

As you note below in your 'pages and pages' comment, there are those who
would obfusticate the issues.

Let us not do that - agree?

I agree. My total word count to answer you was about 150.

Randy Bauer

Phil Innes

Glenn and I saw Sam at the Amateur Team East and told him that he was
already 10 or 11 days late and if he didn?t immediately get his
statement to Glenn, then it would not appear in the April issue.
Although Sam was late in getting his submission in based on the
arbitrary date I set, it still had a chance if it met the second
criteria of not causing a delay in the publishing of Chess Life or
putting a burden on staff. Sam did just that. He wrote the statement (I

believe in pen rather than on a computer) and gave it to Glenn. Later,
Glenn came to me and said that Sam had used in his statement an
argument against the team of four. The team of four had not been
announced until well after the announced cutoff date of the 10th and
Sam in effect would have gained an advantage by knowing about it and
using it simply because his submission missed the initial deadline.

Glenn pointed out that other candidates should have a right to answer
those points. I agreed with him. Since there was no question that any
attempt to get comments from other Board members would cause a delay in

publishing Chess Life and cause extra work by staff, I told Glenn not
to include Sam's statement."

Now, we can expect two things from our Liarry. First, he will write
pages and pages to obfuscate the issue -- even though my political
opponent, Don Schultz clearly and unequivocably states it was HIS
decision to not run Sloan's statement. Second, he will engage in
linguistic gymnastics that would make a Nadia or a Mary Lou proud.
Liarry is a gold medalist when it comes to contorted meaning that suits
his purpose.

Randy Bauer