Mike Murray wrote:
On 29 Dec 2006 10:10:06 -0800, "LiamToo" wrote:

wrote:
But isn't it possible that one of the evil faux Sloans is reposting the
real Sloan's words on other fora, perhaps altering the verbiage
slightly, and that perhaps rgcp is one of these fora? Phil Innes could
then continue to trust in the real Sloan (who shares certain core
values with Innes), and only reject the words of Sloan's impersonators.

The real Sam Sloan is posting from Bronx, New York. The fake one is
posting from the suburbs of Stratford, Connecticut.

Any ideas as to the fake's identity ?

If I tell you, then I'll have to killfile you.

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

Don't ask more questions,
since you merely abuse people's attention, and you prove yourself
incapable
of writing to a topic without personal abuse.


Demonstrate this.

I have no need to demonstrate it /further/.

You /do/ need to demonstrate it, Phil. You /need/ to /demonstrate/ that
your /accusation/ that /every time/ I wriite about a topic, I am
abusive, is /true/. If you can't do that, then you will have been
caught, red-faced, yet again.

Since the challenge is to write
about chess, and the topic is Sloan's board tenancy, and you repond to a cue
to write about that by demanding that others explain to you further, there
is an ipso facto absolute failure to understand what a topic is.


More nonsense from Innes.

You have now placed an obligation upon yourself to
prove that
every single topic to which I contribute contains at least one example
of abuse.

Actually, it is you who place an obligation on me to prove something, but
you can't even demonstrate you know what on-topic, and off-topic means.
Therefore you ask for something which you yourself are unable to do.


Yet more nonsense.

You ACCUSE me of writing ABUSE /every time/ I post. If you can't
demonstrate that it's /true/ that I write abuse all the time, then you
look like an imbecile. Again.

Seek applause from those who like that, but not from adults.


Why do you insult children? Is it absolutely necessary? I've known
several three-year-olds who are much smarter than you...

Perhaps restrict yourself to conversing with them in future, if this
material is too hard?

Demonstrate that I write abuse in my every post, Phil.

Or try going back to the first thread and responding
to the topic.

When I respond to the topic, you fail to answer satisfactorily. When I
write aphoristically, you fail to answer. We have covered this ground
many times, but it never penetrates your thick skull. Many people have
noticed this tendency of yours, Phil. These people include:

Louis Blair, Engineer, Kenneth Sloan, Chess Freak, Guy Macon, Greg
Kennedy, Christopher Mattern, rexartu..., Taylor Kingston, Neil
Brennen, Steve Dowd, Mike Murray, James Rynd, Matt Nemmers, David
Richerby, Mark Wing, Henri H. Arsenault, vkarlamov, Wick Deer, Larry
Tapper, g4, Tom Martinak, Randy Bauer, Vince Hart, Don Schultz, Bill
Brock, David Kane, Joel Channing, parker.r..., sivad..., Stan Booz,...


Its a choice. Some people truly don't care for topics and all
they write about is why other people shouldn't write, like demented
commissars on a mission.


Now, you see, therein lies the problem you have set for yourself. You
must now demonstrate that I "truly don't care" for *any* of the thread
topics in which I make contributions. If you can't do that, you'll look
like an imbecile, yet again.

I think that's a challenge to you - which you need not accept, and by the
same measure I shall safely ignore all your future messages since our
interest differ to such extent they do not overlap.


Chessville, Phil? I write there. You write there. You make Chessville
look so **** that sometimes people feel constrained to write open
letters to the powers-that-be there, pleading for your removal. That is
bad. You are mentally ill. Go see a psychiatrist.

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Chess One wrote:


I'm not over. I'll take the USCF down with me if I'm not elected. I'm
not going to allow Goichberg, Channing and Schultz to cross me up.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Chess One wrote:


I'm not over. I'll take the USCF down with me if I'm not elected. I'm
not going to allow Goichberg, Channing and Schultz to cross me up.

Sam Sloan

Tell it to someone who cares. I don't give a **** about you, or your
ilk.

Mark Houlsby

wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes, other standards are possible.

Indeed, Bill, standards are independent of personality, which is to literal
degree why we name them such and why the flag flies over our heads rather
than we walk on it, & should you think of a standard bearer; this person who
subsumes their own personality in a trans-personal gesture which is for the
whole group/army/country.

They are instead impersonal measures, rather than reactionary ones to
individual features. The Founders recognised this, and made special measure
to ensure that not even government could persecute individuals, neithe could
Church. This was the basis of allowing individuals to carry arms - as
protection from unwonted coercian by government! Independence from singluar
official edict [which is fascism] is not as much encouraged in the USA as
mandated for citizens.

This was also a significant enough factor to break from the past, and
England's empire and authority - no light thing to undertake.

Should we agree with this, then there still remains the question of social
mandate for /minimum/ standards of public behavior, which is what we call
the Law of the Land.

I suggested in my first post that since this measure has proved insufficient
to protect women, and to much larger degree, children, then a higher
standard is necessary than obtains generally under the law. Offenses against
these two groups is not only up, but gaining momentum [ref: Christian
Science Monitor, 19 Dec /paper edition/], and what I wrote at the head of
this post is that such a standard should be deployed where women and
children are constituents, and that I do not see it present - and further,
certain individuals do not enjoy my confidence in this respect.

Even longer ago I wrote here to Vinny Hart that I thought the /basis/ of the
standard should be assessed from the perspective of those who suffer from
unwonted affronts by virtue of their gender or age.

While this means a deeper look than at individual cases, it also means that
women, and children's parents or guardians, should be primarily the policy
makers.

Phil Innes

The following was posted on the uschess.org website today:

*** BEGIN QTN ***

samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Bronx, New York

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

joelchanning wrote:

tanstaafl wrote:

The ONLY reason the USCF hasn't already been sued for Mr. Sloan's
statements is apparently that the people being attacked care more
about the USCF than Sam Sloan does. He damages the reputation of the
USCF as a whole with practically every statement he makes.

Amen. Joel Channing

It is interesting that Joel Channing supports both Tanstaafl, whose
real name is Herbert Rodney Vaughn, and The Fake Sam Sloan, who posts
obscene messages on rec.games.chess.politics

Tanstaafl has cost the USCF a lot of money by filing a 400 page ethics
complaint IN COLOR, requiring the USCF office to make at least 10 COLOR
COPIES of this 400 page complaint, at great cost to the USCf.

That alone has already cost the USCF about one thousand dollars.

Almost the entire ethics complaint by Tanstaalf a/k/a Vaughn has been
dismissed by the Ethics Committee as frivolous, although five of his
allegations remain. (Those five I will be able to refute easily).

Tanstaafl got admitted as a delegate to the meeting in Chicago due to a
mistake caused by inexperience by Pat Knight. (Had Rachel Lieberman,
who traditionally has handled the delegate certification process, been
on the job, Vaughn would never have been certified as a delegate.)

Having gotten in by mistake, Vaughn then tied up the meeting with
endless motions and speeches. He spoke more than any other delegate.
Two of his motions passed, one more was referred to a committee, and
all of this has cost the USCF money.

Tanstaafl a/k/as Vaughn ties up this group with an average of ten
attacks per day (please go count them) or more than one thousand thus
far, leading the casual reader who will not realize that it is just the
same seven people attacking me over and over again every day to believe
that there is widespread opposition to me.

I am not questioning that here, as this is all well known. What I am
questioning is that Joel Channing, a member of the board, who has thus
far done nothing since he got elected except spend our money
needlessly, supports him.

Sam Sloan

*** END QTN ***

One must use the "save" button when reading the USCF Issues Forum. One
never knows when Sloan's actionable comments will be deleted....

Reposted verbatim from
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewto...?p=25400#25400 (but no
longer there).

**************

samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 718
Location: Bronx, New York

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
In the first place, I have the contract that was signed in 2000 with
Erik Anderson. It is sitting right here on my desk. The reason I have
it is that I demanded to see it the first thing I did when I got on the
board in August, 2006. They told me that it had been lost but finally
in late-September (after I kept making a big stink about it including
postings to the forum) they found it.

Note that they publicly censured me over this issue.

The contract gives Erik Anderson the OPTION to organize the US
Championship, but he must pick up that option promptly. In February,
2006 at a meeting in Seattle, Bill Goichberg was informed that Erik
Anderson was not going to exercize his option for the year 2007.

I do not know the reason but it is certainly possible that two scandals
involving the 2006 US Championship were a factor. One was that a
1600-rated girl and a 1800-rated woman "qualified" to the US
Championship, making the event look ridiculous. The second more serious
problem was that a USCF official announced a prize fund of $20,000 more
than Erik Anderson was willing to pay. Nobody can agree on who made
this mistake and who is responsible, but everyone agrees that the
players did not get $20,000 that they thought that they were going to
get.

In any event, the bottom line is that Erik Anderson HAS NOT EXERCISED
HIS OPTION TO HOLD THE US CHAMPIONSHIP THIS YEAR.

Thus, I am making no complaint, none whatever, about Erik Anderson. He
has been up front, right from the beginning, that he is not going to be
doing it this year. My complaint is with Bill Goichberg, who keeps
running after Erik Anderson anyway, and who keeps advertising his own
tournaments as "qualifiers" to the US Championship.

Now, regarding the contract, although I have it right here in my hot
hands, I cannot show it to you because I am forbidden to do so by USCF
confidentiality rules, but I can tell you about it, just as Bill
Goichberg often does, adding his own interpretations.

Now, turning to the unfortunate little incident involving Larry Cohen
and Ben Finegold and the little mix-up about the pairings and the order
in which the games were played, I will tell you that I for one will
forget all about that, just as long as Larry Cohen comes up with the
one hundred thousand dollars to hold the tournament. LARRY COHEN IS THE
ONE GUY WHO CAN DO IT. We already have a bid from Chicago to hold the
US Woman's Championship there. Presumably, the organizer in Chicago who
bid on the US Woman's Championship did so because Bill Goichberg told
him that the US "Men's" Championship had already been taken.

So, all we have to do is shift that Chicago bid for the US Woman's
Championship over to become a bid for the 2007 US Championship and
presto, we have at least some of the money, we have the director, Larry
Cohen, and Ben Finegold gets to play, as he is one of the top rated
players in the country. He might even finally get the grandmaster title
in that tournament.

Now, of course, we will need a publicity agent, someone who will
generate publicity for the tournament. For this I hereby nominate by
dear friend Bill Brock, a Chicago accountant who has served me well by
providing me with publicity for the past two years, thereby helping me
get elected to the board. Bill Brock even provided me with one thousand
dollars when I was down-and-out in June 2005. Thank you again, Bill.

So, there we have the deal. The 2007 US Championship to be held in
Chicago with Larry Cohen the director, Ben Finegold and 15 other top
rated players the players, and Bill Brock the annountant and in charge
of public relations, and for this deal I will provide one vote and I
think I will be able to rustle up three more votes for this, although
Bill Goichberg will certainly vote against it.

There you have it, but remember this is just a proposal. It is up to
you Chicago guys to bring it to fruition.

Sam Sloan

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

Don't ask more questions,
since you merely abuse people's attention, and you prove yourself
incapable
of writing to a topic without personal abuse.


Demonstrate this.

I have no need to demonstrate it /further/.

You /do/ need to demonstrate it, Phil. You /need/ to /demonstrate/ that
your /accusation/ that /every time/ I wriite about a topic, I am
abusive, is /true/. If you can't do that, then you will have been
caught, red-faced, yet again.

Mark - you are such a dunce that you do not recognise that by again ignoring
the thread's context in preference to exclaiming why, in your exalted
opinion, other people owe your majesty something, you proclaim yourself no
more than the usual abuse nutter. I think you have failed to understand
this, since others of the same stripe support your repression of chess
topics, and you are so very dependent on the opinion of other people.

Since the challenge is to write
about chess, and the topic is Sloan's board tenancy, and you repond to a
cue
to write about that by demanding that others explain to you further,
there
is an ipso facto absolute failure to understand what a topic is.


More nonsense from Innes.

More 'refusal' from junior holesby who admits here he cannot write to any
topic, refuses the challenge, and is shown to be without need of further
response, as I said before.

PI


You have now placed an obligation upon yourself to
prove that
every single topic to which I contribute contains at least one example
of abuse.

Actually, it is you who place an obligation on me to prove something, but
you can't even demonstrate you know what on-topic, and off-topic means.
Therefore you ask for something which you yourself are unable to do.


Yet more nonsense.

You ACCUSE me of writing ABUSE /every time/ I post. If you can't
demonstrate that it's /true/ that I write abuse all the time, then you
look like an imbecile. Again.

Seek applause from those who like that, but not from adults.


Why do you insult children? Is it absolutely necessary? I've known
several three-year-olds who are much smarter than you...

Perhaps restrict yourself to conversing with them in future, if this
material is too hard?

Demonstrate that I write abuse in my every post, Phil.

Or try going back to the first thread and responding
to the topic.

When I respond to the topic, you fail to answer satisfactorily. When I
write aphoristically, you fail to answer. We have covered this ground
many times, but it never penetrates your thick skull. Many people have
noticed this tendency of yours, Phil. These people include:

Louis Blair, Engineer, Kenneth Sloan, Chess Freak, Guy Macon, Greg
Kennedy, Christopher Mattern, rexartu..., Taylor Kingston, Neil
Brennen, Steve Dowd, Mike Murray, James Rynd, Matt Nemmers, David
Richerby, Mark Wing, Henri H. Arsenault, vkarlamov, Wick Deer, Larry
Tapper, g4, Tom Martinak, Randy Bauer, Vince Hart, Don Schultz, Bill
Brock, David Kane, Joel Channing, parker.r..., sivad..., Stan Booz,...


Its a choice. Some people truly don't care for topics and all
they write about is why other people shouldn't write, like demented
commissars on a mission.


Now, you see, therein lies the problem you have set for yourself. You
must now demonstrate that I "truly don't care" for *any* of the thread
topics in which I make contributions. If you can't do that, you'll look
like an imbecile, yet again.

I think that's a challenge to you - which you need not accept, and by the
same measure I shall safely ignore all your future messages since our
interest differ to such extent they do not overlap.


Chessville, Phil? I write there. You write there. You make Chessville
look so **** that sometimes people feel constrained to write open
letters to the powers-that-be there, pleading for your removal. That is
bad. You are mentally ill. Go see a psychiatrist.

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

Don't ask more questions,
since you merely abuse people's attention, and you prove yourself
incapable
of writing to a topic without personal abuse.


Demonstrate this.

I have no need to demonstrate it /further/.

You /do/ need to demonstrate it, Phil. You /need/ to /demonstrate/ that
your /accusation/ that /every time/ I wriite about a topic, I am
abusive, is /true/. If you can't do that, then you will have been
caught, red-faced, yet again.

Mark - you are such a dunce that you do not recognise that by again ignoring
the thread's context in preference to exclaiming why, in your exalted
opinion, other people owe your majesty something, you proclaim yourself no
more than the usual abuse nutter. I think you have failed to understand
this, since others of the same stripe support your repression of chess
topics, and you are so very dependent on the opinion of other people.


How, exactly, have I effected the "repression of chess topics"? Where
have I done this? When? Why do you suppose that I am "so very
dependent" or, for that matter, at all dependent upon the opinions (not
opinion) of other people?

Since the challenge is to write
about chess, and the topic is Sloan's board tenancy, and you repond to a
cue
to write about that by demanding that others explain to you further,
there
is an ipso facto absolute failure to understand what a topic is.


More nonsense from Innes.

More 'refusal' from junior holesby who admits here he cannot write to any
topic, refuses the challenge, and is shown to be without need of further
response, as I said before.


Which is why you responded again. I still don't know what the challenge
is, Phil. As soon as you tell me what it is, I'm onto it.

PI


You have now placed an obligation upon yourself to
prove that
every single topic to which I contribute contains at least one example
of abuse.


What about addressing this obligation, Phil?

Actually, it is you who place an obligation on me to prove something, but
you can't even demonstrate you know what on-topic, and off-topic means.
Therefore you ask for something which you yourself are unable to do.


Yet more nonsense.

You ACCUSE me of writing ABUSE /every time/ I post. If you can't
demonstrate that it's /true/ that I write abuse all the time, then you
look like an imbecile. Again.

Seek applause from those who like that, but not from adults.


Why do you insult children? Is it absolutely necessary? I've known
several three-year-olds who are much smarter than you...

Perhaps restrict yourself to conversing with them in future, if this
material is too hard?

Demonstrate that I write abuse in my every post, Phil.


Any chance of your doing this, Phil?

Or try going back to the first thread and responding
to the topic.

When I respond to the topic, you fail to answer satisfactorily. When I
write aphoristically, you fail to answer. We have covered this ground
many times, but it never penetrates your thick skull. Many people have
noticed this tendency of yours, Phil. These people include:

Louis Blair, Engineer, Kenneth Sloan, Chess Freak, Guy Macon, Greg
Kennedy, Christopher Mattern, rexartu..., Taylor Kingston, Neil
Brennen, Steve Dowd, Mike Murray, James Rynd, Matt Nemmers, David
Richerby, Mark Wing, Henri H. Arsenault, vkarlamov, Wick Deer, Larry
Tapper, g4, Tom Martinak, Randy Bauer, Vince Hart, Don Schultz, Bill
Brock, David Kane, Joel Channing, parker.r..., sivad..., Stan Booz,...


Its a choice. Some people truly don't care for topics and all
they write about is why other people shouldn't write, like demented
commissars on a mission.


Now, you see, therein lies the problem you have set for yourself. You
must now demonstrate that I "truly don't care" for *any* of the thread
topics in which I make contributions. If you can't do that, you'll look
like an imbecile, yet again.

I think that's a challenge to you - which you need not accept, and by the
same measure I shall safely ignore all your future messages since our
interest differ to such extent they do not overlap.


Chessville, Phil? I write there. You write there. You make Chessville
look so **** that sometimes people feel constrained to write open
letters to the powers-that-be there, pleading for your removal. That is
bad. You are mentally ill. Go see a psychiatrist.


What about Chessville, Phil? Do you think that your posting like this
helps Chessville, or harms Chessville, or neither?

MH