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


Wrong as always - I am not amember of the EB.


So what are your connections to the USCF ?


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

Wrong as always - I am not a candidate in this election.

Now wonder you like Sloan - you can't comprehend with basic facts.

Herr Bauer seems to be above the netiquette and he claims he has nth common
with chess politics. It is an outright lie and shortage of good manners by
him.

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


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 ?

Only the facts.

Manslaughter etc. ?

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.

I'm not running in this election, and the majority of the EB were my
opponents in the last election.

When you understand the stark reality - that your claims about me in
this election are totally baseless -- why don't you just shut up?

I claim that Sam is your political opponent and you want to defame him, Herr
Bauer together with your colleagues like moronic Bill Brock.

"Jerzy" wrote in message
...
Uzytkownik "Randy Bauer" napisal w wiadomosci
ups.com...


Wrong as always - I am not amember of the EB.


So what are your connections to the USCF ?


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

Wrong as always - I am not a candidate in this election.

Now wonder you like Sloan - you can't comprehend with basic facts.

Herr Bauer seems to be above the netiquette and he claims he has nth
common with chess politics. It is an outright lie and shortage of good
manners by him.

Whatever. Your comprehension of basic facts suggests you and Sam will be
very happy together. Why don't you send him some money to invest for you?
I'm sure his securities "background" will come in handy.

Randy Bauer

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
news:G_T5g.955189$xm3.4065@attbi_s21...

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?

Why you can't answer a straight question?

I ask if you personally brought the matter before the board and you answer
that Don Shultz pulled the article.

This avoids my question of your own part in it.

Instead your recent answer states "'Secretary' Don Shultz pulled the
article", as if to say that the Secretary did so since this was his role in
monitoring the election, or as the result of a board mandate..

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

No! Are you saying there was a chronology that you raised an issue before
the board after Don Shultz took an action in pulling the article? If the
board kept minutes, will this chronology be represented in them? Why did Don
Shultz remove Sloan's article if there was no motion to do so? Who allowed
your own article to appear, even though it too was in technical violation?
Was that Don Shultz, or the baord as a whole?

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.

Who RAISED the issue on which the Secretary took a decision?

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

But there must have been something discussed at board level for the
Secretary to be required to take action. Someone must have raised the issue.
Who raised your own issue - when you to were technically in error according
to the rules?

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.

Perhaps you are right - and I am quite witless? But since this is the third
try on your part to answer a simple question 'yes' or 'no', do I have to
interpret

"it was not excluded as a direct result of my action" ?

I am tending to think that could possibly mean 'yes'. Does it?


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 .

When you mention Don, you are seeming to go out of your way to obscure the
fact that he also has a role on the board in monitoring the election - ie,
he is the Secretary. When you refer to him you are not being at all clear if
he is acting as an individual board member on his own initiaitive, or as
board Secretary as result of issues raised at board level - which is a
function he must perform in relation to the election. whether he likes the
result or not.

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.

It would help if you could write whole sentences - like if you raised the
issue. When you wrote that the 'board' did not, but Don did - what does this
indicate?

I am asking what role you played in the entire affair, what actually
happened at board level, and if Don Shultz acted on the instructions of the
board, or independent of those instructions as election moderator,
neverthless having acted on matters raised at the board.
----------

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.

You now limit your list of 'associations' to a felony and securities
licence. Are you intending that these be related together?


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).


How many different sorts of felonies were there? If there was one subject,
by all means mention it - if you think it relevant to board membership, and
you could also say why.

But you go out of your way to make a list which seems to me to indicate that
there is a string of felonies across numerous topics.

I expect that you yourself have broken the law frequently, and among your
crimes are ignoring school bus warnings to stop, conspiring to overthrow
several foreign governments, several parking tickets, and eating Christian
babies with Saddam.

Do you note these smear-by-association techniques? Do I understand those?

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.

I will therefore end my own concern here.

Phil Innes

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

Chess One wrote:

Perhaps you are right - and I am quite witless?

The penny finally drops.....

This entire story by Tim Hanke, posted three years ago, was a complete
fabrication.

I had just finished changing Sandra's diaper five minutes earlier, in
the USCF's office in New Windson.

The diaper was not wet. When I came into the meeting room, Stan Booz,
who was sitting too far away to be able to notice, insisted that I
change the diaper, which I did even though it was not necessary.

I said nothing during the meeting until the time came for questions and
answers. When nobody else had any questions to ask, I asked for
permission to ask just one question, which was granted by Beatriz
Marinello.

The question I asked was for Tim Hanke which was to explain his posting
to this group about his grand plan for the future of the USCF. Hanke
started screaming and stormed out of the meeting. Several others
present followed him out. Then Beatriz said that there was no quorum so
the meeting was adjourned. Only Steve Shutt remained behind.

About 30 seconds later Don Schultz walked in. He said that he had only
gone to the restroom for two minutes. When he had left the room was
full. When he got back, only two or three people were left in the room.
He wondered what had happened.

This entire incident demonstrated why Tim Hanke was very unsuitable to
be sitting on the board. He should have been happy and overjoyed to be
given the opportunity to answer my question and explain his Grand Plan
for the future of the USCF. My question was softball, the kind an ally
would ask to give a politician an excuse to speak. Instead Hanke went
on a rampage.

Of course, we will never get to find out what his answer to the
question was because he later resigned without ever answering it.

By the way, in answer to the question posed in another thread, it was
Tim Hanke who had gotten elected to the board based upon qualifications
which were purely imaginary.

Sam Sloan

John J. wrote:
If that's true, it's very disturbing.
"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
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

wrote:
ENDLESS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

The technique of those fronting for the Executive
Board is to attack Sam with every possible smear in
the hope, likely a realistic one, that some mud will stick.

The truth tends to stick. Sam just doesn't have the character or
background to be made of teflon.

Randy Bauer offered us a particularly odious
example of the technique. He strung together two
claims as if they were related to each other. First,
he said correctly that Sam had been convicted of a
"felony" and that he had been involved in a securities
case. The natural presumption was that Sam had bilked
someone and had served time for securities fraud.

Whatever. I am happy to revise my statement if it will make the
Parr-Sloan camp happy:

Sam Sloan is a convicted felon who served prison time for kidnappying
his daughter. Unlike Parr, I happen to believe that there are plenty
of instances where child stealing -- even your own child -- is a crime
and those guilty of it should be locked up.

Sam Sloan also had his license to work in the securities industry
revoked for improper actions on his part.

Sam Sloan then moved to the taxi industry, but lost that license as
well.

Satisfied, Larry? He sure sounds like the kind of guy we want on the
Board.

Randy Bauer

Jerzy wrote:
Uzytkownik "Randy Bauer" napisal w wiadomosci
oups.com...


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

I'm not running in this election, and the majority of the EB were my
opponents in the last election.

When you understand the stark reality - that your claims about me in
this election are totally baseless -- why don't you just shut up?

I claim that Sam is your political opponent and you want to defame him, Herr
Bauer together with your colleagues like moronic Bill Brock.

I don't need to defame him - the facts do the job just fine.

Randy Bauer

wrote in message
oups.com...
ENDLESS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

Mr. Chess Freak, whose identity begins to suggest
itself, accuses Sam Sloan of having "sex with children."


Hmm, I could have sworn I read about his escapades involving
having sex with underage prostitutes overseas on his very own
website. I can't find the exact page, but **** like:
http://www.samsloan.com/maesai-y.htm do show what sort of
character Sloan is. No assassination required!

Not sure what you mean about identity - I'm just a chess freak
who plays chess on the internet and enjoys watching that
trainwreck called USCF.

U¿ytkownik "Randy Bauer" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:vs06g.929501$x96.802228@attbi_s72...

Wrong as always - I am not amember of the EB.


So what are your connections to the USCF ?


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

Wrong as always - I am not a candidate in this election.

Now wonder you like Sloan - you can't comprehend with basic facts.

Herr Bauer seems to be above the netiquette and he claims he has nth
common with chess politics. It is an outright lie and shortage of good
manners by him.

Whatever. Your comprehension of basic facts suggests you and Sam will be
very happy together. Why don't you send him some money to invest for you?
I'm sure his securities "background" will come in handy.

Herr Bauer, money is not the most important thing here. Honesty and decency
are much more important. And I can see all the time in chess newsgroups here
dirty "political" campaign playing by you and the likes.