"jr" wrote in message ups.com...

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?


Who says the establisment is "pulling out all the stops" to keep Sloan from
getting elected? What does "pulling out all the stops" in an election mean
to you?

Sloan comes here and slanders, smears, and tells outright lies resulting
in people correcting his slanders, smears and outright lies. Is that your
definition of "pulling out all the stops?" You know, if you quit talking
out of your asshole people on this forum might just take you seriously.

And btw, not only am I definitely not voting for Sloan, but I'm inclined
to vote for whoever he opposes the most. So put that in your pipe and
smoke it.

"jr" wrote in message
oups.com...
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"?

Don was supporting the slate of Goichberg-Channing-Tanner-Shahade, although
Shahade indicated that he was not part of a slate. In the end, that group
was elected. I was part of a mostly-incumbant slate including Shutt,
Shaughnessey and George John.

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

Actually, I think we agreed as much as we disagreed. We agreed, for
example, on a motion to delay a decision on the move of the headquarters to
Crossville, on reinstatement of the BINFO system, and on the choice for
Executive Director of the USCF. We disagreed on the implementation of the
move to Crossville; I believed that once the Board had made that decision,
we needed to move on and implement it as well as possible, and I supported
Beatriz stepping into the role of project manager for the move when there
seemed to be no other viable alternative. We also disagreed on the motion I
made to establish a written process and an exception policy involving the
Board as a whole rather than just the Secretary ruling on election issues.

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

We both lost on Crossville, both lost on the Executive Director (although I
think Bill Hall is doing a decent job under often trying circumstances).
I'm not sure the status of BINFO, I won on the Board as a whole setting
electoral policy (and, I would note, Harold Winston, who also supported the
other electoral slate and is an attorney, believed my motion to be within
the power of the Executive Board), and I won on Beatriz overseeing the move
to Crossville (which, by the way, did not bankrupt the USCF and was done way
under the claimed costs of others. I think Don even admitted that Beatriz
had done a very good job in that respect). Of course, Don won on the
election.

Please note that my motion had no impact on Sloan, and, in fact, there were
no situations where the Board had to rule on any exceptions issues in the
last election. I publicly stated that had any such issues come before the
Board, I would recuse myself.

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.

Thank you. In the past and present, Bill Goichberg, Don Schultz, and Joel
Channing have also frequented this forum. While I understand that they may
prefer the USCF forum, there is a value to addressing issues here as well.

Randy Bauer

wrote in message oups.com...


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.


The preceding smear by "editor" Liarry has already been refuted and
debunked on this forum on more than one occasion. Yet, Parr keeps
repeating it as if it was fresh news. If the powers that be protest, then
"editor" Liarry will claim they protest too much. If they are silent, then
"editor" Liarry will claim the silence is deafening. So, it's heads I win, tails
you lose.


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.


The reulars on rgcp know from experience that is is Sloan who
comes here with his unprooked attacks on whoever he hates for
the moment.. "Editor" Liarry's so-called deputies are people who
take the time to set the record straight. But "editor" Liarry won't
find anything amiss with Sloan's one man crusade.

"Chess One" wrote in message
news5Q5g.8788$Mn6.4551@trndny06...

"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?

Phil, there really isn't any point in answering you, because you just ignore
the answer. I quoted DIRECTLY from THE SECRETARY DON SHULTZ who SAID THAT
HE DECIDED TO NOT INCLUDE SAM'S STATEMENT.

What don't you get?

MY MOTION DEALT WITH EXCEPTIONS IN THE FUTURE.... I.E. AFTER THE SHULTZ
RULING ON SLOAN... IS IT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU YET?

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'?

NO. DON SHULTZ MADE THAT DECISION. THERE WAS NO VOTE BY THE BOARD
RELATING TO WHETHER SLOAN'S FIRST SUBMISSION WOULD BE INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED.

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?

FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST - READ THE SHULTZ QUOTE -- HE DECIDED. ERGO, IT WAS
NOT EXCLUDED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF MY ACTION. READ THE DAMN THING, PHIL -
DON EXPLAINS HIS RATIONALE AND NEVER MENTIONS ME AT ALL. KEEP IN MIND DON
AND I WERE POLITICAL OPPONANTS AT THE TIME .

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! THE BOARD DID NOT!! DON SHULTZ DID!!! CAN YOU READ???? DON'S STATEMENT
WAS CLEARLY ATTTACHED TO MY POST. YOU ARE EITHER TOTALLY CLUELESS OR
TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS.

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?

READ THE POST BY SHULTZ.

"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?

Sam Sloan is a convicted felon, as I stated. Sam Sloan no longer possesses
a securities license, as I stated.


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?

No, I did not. Explain the association. Everything I wrote is factual and
part of a reasonable sentence structure (as if you would understand).

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

I am not concerned in the least. In this country, if the license was
"yanked" without cause, Sloan had judicial remedies. He has certainly not
shown himself incapable of finding the Courthouse -- if he had a case, he
should have made it. My guess is he tried and failed.

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?

Insinuating? I stated it clearly and factually. Sloan is a convicted felon
who has served prison time. He no longer has a securities license. He no
longer has a license to drive a taxi. Since when is the truth unfair?

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?

I do not know and do not care. He had his day in court. I assume a jury of
his peers (or a judge, if he chose that route) found him guilty of a felony
crime. That is enough for me.

Randy Bauer

The reulars [sic] on rgcp know from experience that is is Sloan who
comes here with his unprooked [sic] attacks on whoever he hates for
the moment.. "Editor" Liarry's so-called deputies are people who
take the time to set the record straight. But "editor" Liarry won't
find anything amiss with Sloan's one man crusade.


should be regulars and unprovoked

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

What a canard. Liarry had no part to play in the last election. The fact
is that the other slate spent a lot more money, a lot more effecitvely, and
got out their vote. Meanwhile, my "hanging out in the committees" consists
of being ASKED to serve as the Chair of the Finance Committee. I like to
think that I can assist the USCF in this role.

Mr. Bauer is now licking derrieres,
and we may see him back on the board one of these years.

Unlike Parr, I tend to adopt a reasonable view about people, even so-called
political opponants. During the last campaign, I publicly stated that Bill
Goichberg did lots of good things as Executive Director and could work with
him on the Board, I also complimented Joel Channing for his help on the
Crossville building and construction loan (while we were both running for
the Board), and I have admitted that Don Shultz and I agreed on several
things on the Board. Parr, ever the guttersnipe, now claims this sort of
attitude is "licking derrieres" which tells us a lot more about his tastes
than mine.

(Snip Parr's typical habit of revisiting and lying about issues long since
settled... he always hopes the uninitiated around here have short memories)

Randy Bauer

Mr. Bauer has been deputized to be the creature attacking Mr. Sloan
in this election.

I'm the self-appointed creature, thank you. :-)

The fact remains that Parr endorses Sloan, who, *by his own account*,
had sexual intercourse with a girl of junior high school age; Sloan,
who, "by his own account," has had sexual relations with other "young
girl[s]"; Sloan, who, on his various web pages, exhibits an unusual
interest in the sexuality of children (an interest Parr et al. would
prefer to ascribe to me ;-) but can't seem to produce the relevant
evidence--by similar logic, Lt. Columbo must've been a murderer);
Sloan, who is an apologist for the convicted child molester Jefferson
Poland.

Parr disputes these facts (except for the Poland matter, on which Parr
has been completely silent) without examining the evidence. Perhaps,
per Parr, I am an individual far more dangerous than Sloan (heh
heh)--but I'm not running for the Board, am I? There are most likely
at least two candidates who don't have sexual relations with children
and don't advocate such acts. Given that well over 70% of our members
are minors....

I think that in his heart of hearts, Parr thinks as little of Sloan as
we do. (One could offer an alternative hypothesis, but I prefer to
give even Parr the benefit of the doubt on that one....) That's why
Parr won't respond to the facts on Sloan. He just wants to disrupt
USCF, and Sloan is a useful idiot for the purpose. Just as those who
use Parr consider him a useful idiot....

Randy Bauer napisal(a):

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.

Yeah, yeah, and what else will you accuse Sam of ?


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.


So why are you raging so much about Sam ? If you think that he won`t be
elected then your post is safe.

But I bet that GM Lev Alburt is right : you do care only about your
post as majority of EB members.

jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (2 May 2006 07:24:20 -0700):

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?

_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Tim Hanke"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Crossville, TN
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:02:27 GMT
_
Jim,
_
When Sam Sloan was lying about other people, I couldn't
always know what was true.
_
When Sloan started lying about me, it became obvious to
me that he was lying, because I had personal knowledge of
the truth.
_
This is why he is so dangerous: Sloan lies about everything,
usually to try to make other people look bad, but in each
case, only a few people will actually know he is lying.
Everybody else in the audience will have to guess.
_
After Sloan caused an embarrassing scene at this past
weekend's board meeting, the board members discussed
what we should do in cases like this. We decided we
wouldn't allow this kind of outrageous behavior in the future.
At future board meetings and delegates meetings, if Sloan
shows up and starts spouting off with his personal attacks
as he did this past weekend, we will just cut him off, and if
necessary have him removed from the room. There is no
place for inappropriate behavior like that at our meetings.
_
Personally I felt bad for the audience. This past weekend
we were in a very small room, and Sloan's daughter had a
very full diaper. Sloan of course didn't care, but everyone in
the audience had to put up with the smell. When our COO
Grant Perks tried to pick her up, she actually peed on his
hand and Grant had to go to the bathroom to wash up.
_
Even after Sloan was publicly asked to change his daughter's
smelly diaper, he stood around with a vacant look on his
face for several minutes, doing nothing. Possibly he was
rehearsing his crazy rant in his mind, which fortunately for
everyone he did not get the opportunity to deliver in full.
_
Finally he changed his daughter's diaper, but rather than
taking her into the bathroom or somewhere more private,
he changed her diaper in the midst of the tightly packed
audience, so they had to watch and smell the proceedings.
Then he put the dirty diaper in the wastebasket in our small
meeting room, rather than taking it into the bathroom.
_
Sloan then stood there with his unwashed hands for the
rest of the meeting, and probably proceeded to shake hands
with people afterward. Now that I have a good idea of his
personal hygiene, I will be sure never to shake his hand.
_
Tim Hanke
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

U¿ytkownik "Randy Bauer" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:G_T5g.955189$xm3.4065@attbi_s21...

Phil, there really isn't any point in answering you, because you just
ignore the answer. I quoted DIRECTLY from THE SECRETARY DON SHULTZ who
SAID THAT HE DECIDED TO NOT INCLUDE SAM'S STATEMENT.

What don't you get?

MY MOTION DEALT WITH EXCEPTIONS IN THE FUTURE.... I.E. AFTER THE SHULTZ
RULING ON SLOAN... IS IT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU YET?


NO. DON SHULTZ MADE THAT DECISION. THERE WAS NO VOTE BY THE BOARD
RELATING TO WHETHER SLOAN'S FIRST SUBMISSION WOULD BE INCLUDED OR
EXCLUDED.


FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST - READ THE SHULTZ QUOTE -- HE DECIDED. ERGO, IT
WAS NOT EXCLUDED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF MY ACTION. READ THE DAMN THING,
PHIL - DON EXPLAINS HIS RATIONALE AND NEVER MENTIONS ME AT ALL. KEEP IN
MIND DON AND I WERE POLITICAL OPPONANTS AT THE TIME .


NO! THE BOARD DID NOT!! DON SHULTZ DID!!! CAN YOU READ???? DON'S
STATEMENT WAS CLEARLY ATTTACHED TO MY POST. YOU ARE EITHER TOTALLY
CLUELESS OR TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS.


READ THE POST BY SHULTZ.


Good heavens : a member of the EB of the USCF lacks good manners.

Do you think shouting will give you more votes in the next elections ?


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

I do not know and do not care. He had his day in court. I assume a jury
of his peers (or a judge, if he chose that route) found him guilty of a
felony crime. That is enough for me.

Randy Bauer

That`s enough for me to see that you are impertinent and that`s enough in a
civilized country not to vote for such a person.