jr wrote:
* 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?

I have been a life member of the USCF for over 30 years, and I am
raising these issues in that capacity. Each member of the Board has
some fiduciary responsibility, and I believe the voters should be aware
of Sloan's troubled history.

I am raising the same issues about Sloan as in past campaigns. My
views on him have not changed. He is not suited to serve on an
executive board of a national organization.

Rather than Sloan, people like Joel Channing are the type we need to
attract and elect to serve on the Executive Board. He has been a
successful businessman and is willing to dedicate his time, talent, and
money to the USCF. In short, he is everything that Sam Sloan is not.

Randy Bauer

* Rather than Sloan, people like Joel Channing are the type we need to
attract and elect to serve on the Executive Board. * (Bauer)

Dear Randy,

I agree with you that we need more Joel Channings, but I don't
see any Joel Channings among these five candidates.

I'm still hoping to see your match against Evans.

And I'm still voting for Sam. This board needs a maverick and
nobody can deny that he is knowledgeable about the issues.
BTW he goes back further than your paltry 30 years in the USCF.

Cheers.

Uzytkownik "Randy Bauer" napisal w wiadomosci
oups.com...

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

No doubt that you are trying to be a prosecutor in not your own case.

It was a daugther of Sam not yours.



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?

Another evidence that "political campaign" by Randy Bauer has begun.

I wonder how far can you go with your hypocrisy ? Maybe some day you will
catch up with moronish Bill Brock ?

jr wrote:
* Rather than Sloan, people like Joel Channing are the type we need to
attract and elect to serve on the Executive Board. * (Bauer)

Dear Randy,

I agree with you that we need more Joel Channings, but I don't
see any Joel Channings among these five candidates.

Dear jr,

I would respectfully submit that we are less likely to attract the Joel
Channings when we elect something approaching their antithesis to the
Board. Sloan's background, at least if it is conveyed in its entirety,
will not impress them. It may also reduce their confidence in the USCF
voting membership.

I'm still hoping to see your match against Evans.

I think it would be great fun, but I suspect that it just isn't
attracting the "grudge match" interest of Brock-Sloan.

Randy Bauer

Jerzy wrote:
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.

I am not "accusing" Sloan of things, I am stating facts - he is a
convicted felon who served prison time, had his securities license
yanked, and no longer has a license to drive a taxi.

Personally, I'm not planning on voting for any candidates for the Board
who are convicted felons; I wouldn't care if it was felony theft,
vehicular manslaughter, kidnapping, or a domestic crime.

It is notable that Sloan has run for this and other offices on numerous
occasions. To date, he has lost in every election for the USCF
executive board and public offices. Perhaps you don't feel his "deeds
are no obstacle in any civilised country" but it appears the majority
of voters feel otherwise.

Randy Bauer

ANTHONY YOUNG, WHERE HAVE YOU GONE?


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

I am not "accusing" Sloan of things, I am stating facts - he is a
convicted felon who served prison time, had his securities license
yanked, and no longer has a license to drive a taxi.


Randy, sometimes the truth hurts much more than a lie. The latter can
be dubunked, but the former ....

Sloan, Parr and their gang hate to deal with unpleasant facts ... that's why
they rant and retaliate with smears, obfuscations, and ad homs.

is notable that Sloan has run for this and other offices on numerous
occasions. To date, he has lost in every election for the USCF
executive board and public offices. Perhaps you don't feel his "deeds
are no obstacle in any civilised country" but it appears the majority
of voters feel otherwise.


The NY Mets had a pitcher circa 1992 named Anthony Young, whose
claim to fame is losing 29 consectutive games. Sound like a ton of losses,
until one realizes all the elections Sloan lost. If Sloan hasn't bested Young's
record, he ought to soon.

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

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 am not yet understanding. You raised an issue concerning Sloan, which did
not result in current action against Sloan? ie, which would in the future?

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.

In direct language - are you answering my first question above "Were you the
individual who raised the issue before the
USCF Executive Board?" 'yes'?

and I couldn't follow your answer to the second questions: "Was the Sloan
article excluded as a direct result of that action? Are you answering yes or
no?

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 am asking if Don Shultz did it, or the Secretary did it as result of the
issue being raised at board level by yourself?

"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,

Wait! You are reacting to what I wrote, rather than answering them as
questions. You wrote a list of things and associated the word felon with
them. Do you wish to restrict that to a precise matter, or spread it about
like dung?

Are you concerned if the securities licence was 'yanked' with any justice?
Or did a court decide there was none?

How about answering what I wrote above instead of repeating very insinuating
messages of wrong doing? Is that fair, or what do you think you are about?

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.

Okay - So lets accuse Sloan on his crimes. What do you understand they are
as decided by people competent to say so?

Having done that, did you have other comments to make on another basis?

Phil Innes

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

I think I know why he went to jail. Why was his securitues licensed pulled?
Why was his taxi license pulled?

Was it due to acts of dishonesty or merely administrative issues?


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

Jerzy wrote:
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.

I am not "accusing" Sloan of things, I am stating facts - he is a
convicted felon who served prison time, had his securities license
yanked, and no longer has a license to drive a taxi.

Personally, I'm not planning on voting for any candidates for the Board
who are convicted felons; I wouldn't care if it was felony theft,
vehicular manslaughter, kidnapping, or a domestic crime.

It is notable that Sloan has run for this and other offices on numerous
occasions. To date, he has lost in every election for the USCF
executive board and public offices. Perhaps you don't feel his "deeds
are no obstacle in any civilised country" but it appears the majority
of voters feel otherwise.

Randy Bauer

Randy, in one your posts you say that Don Schultz, who was
your political opponent, was the person who made the final
decision not to publish Sam Sloan's statement in Chess Life.

What do you mean by "political opponent"?

When you both served on the same board together, what were
some of the issues on which you both disagreed?

What was the outcome on these issues when they came to a vote?

Although I differ with you on several matters, including the value
of having Sam on the board, I do want to commend you for being
one of the few board members who actually visited this forum
regularly in order to answer questions.

THE LETTER OF THE LAW

Joel Channing has a rightful place on the
Executive Board, given his talents. Sam's talents are
distinct from those of Mr. Channing. He thinks and
writes more than Joel; he is a voice and a conscience.

I did a certain amount along the way to rid the
Federation of Randy Bauer, who currently hangs on in
the committees. Mr. Bauer is now licking derrieres,
and we may see him back on the board one of these years.

Sam can be relied upon to tell us what is
actually happening within the power structure. He
complements the talents of a Channing.

Randy Bauer tosses up the usual strawman.

No one is arguing that Sam Sloan did not violate
a regulation with regard to his candidate's statement.
Under the letter of the law, which got applied to
Sam, his statement was barred from the magazine.

Mr. Bauer himself wrote here on this forum that
he was tired of bending rules and that regulations
AS WRITTEN had to be followed.

Ah ... except for himself.

Mr. Bauer's candidate's fee was NOT sent to the
secretary as provided under the WRITTEN rules. He
sent it to the office, which was deputized -- quite
reasonably so -- to act for the secretary. His fee
came to the secretary LATE.

We have no doubt that Mr. Bauer acted in good
faith; we equally have no doubt that he violated the
letter of the rules AS WRITTEN. So did Sam Sloan:
he, too, acted in good faith, and he mucked up the
rules AS WRITTEN.

One standard for Sam: the cruel but just rule of
law. One standard for our Mr. Bauer: reasoned
understanding of his good intentions when faithfully
following directions as published in Chess Life.

The hypocrisy wafts even in the e-ether.

Mr. Bauer has been deputized to be the creature
attacking Mr. Sloan in this election. Next election,
the powers that be will select another creature to
pass around the task of spreading the ordure.