Here is my response to what Sam Sloan posted elsewhere. Does he declare
himself redundant to any future for chess in the USA, much as he declares
other to be? I think so. I think he has not grown into the position and now
horror behaves like those he criticised for so long, an incumbent
politician, looking to his back, not forward to what he is elected to map
out and persecute.

Phil Innes

----
Sam Sloan,

You are not a journalist to interrogate these issues, when you write wearing
a board hat, for the very same reasons you were enabled to campaign to wear
it in the first place.

There is not the slightest doubt that USCF's board award themselves and
those they encourage vast privileges which have nothing to do with OMOV, and
all to do with political largesse.

Neither is there any doubt of the effectiveness of these policies - they are
a scandal, even within USCF, and have emerged at Nolanland to be expressly
suppressed by political order.

No chess politician, including yourself, has said dickey-boo about USCF's
own responsibility and negligence in the Tanner affair - nothing about
people who are PAID to invigilate ratings services, but whose competence is
not in question, it is entirely absent! There is not even the slightest
curiosity.

I have not read anything in these threads about USCF's responsibility in
awarding a bid of $10,000 to Dr. M. Korenman, nor of the much larger $50,000
award for the web makeover, which was also without bid and without
advertising and even without any performance criteria.

Nothing - no thing and not from any one.

Your own concentration on S. Polgar since the election cannot be seperated
from her rejection of you as someone fit to talk about women's chess in the
C21st, since it seems to me you cannot differentiate your opinions from that
of women-as-sex-objects as they seem to you. You even fail to understand
that this is resented!

Neither would your commentary be apt to address scholastic chess, for only
slightly different reasons.

During the election process I supported your application against false
charges on all sorts of grounds, and if people wished to elect a libertine
then they should do so; all charges against you being expressed as personal
preferences not as any matter of legally upheld speeech in the United
States. I even wrote USCF about exhibiting a standard by which board members
and committee chiefs could be asked to observe, and wrote long before the
elction - a neglected opportunity for those who do not like you! - though I
had other individuals in mind at the time, and in terms of sexual affront,
made specific complaints - btw, never even acknowledged!.

Here you merely behave as any politician, deprecating the chances of
potential competitors to your seat of power, rather than asking if what they
do is valuable compared with what you and the current board does.

It cannot be seen as any impartial reporting, or investigation, in fact you
are rather marked for your continuous antagonism, rather like a
foiled-suitor!

There are some people who can decently discuss these issues - they do not
include yourself. If you do not understand this, then no one will care for
your future, nothing good will come of such speculatory questions as you
propose, and your truly useful role as exposer of cheating-as-usual at USCF
will be ended.

The real questions here do not amount to 'not being able to withstand
criticism', but instead in resenting an affront to decency, to open process,
to those who would rather negatively speculate rather than contribute to
what forwards us.

In resenting an affront to legality, even unto the bye-laws of USCF which
are treated as political baubles by incumbents, and deployed as convenient
to their personal chances.

In resenting the honesty of such people who should write 'Trollgar' as if
they had any interest in forwarding chess, rather than forwarding their own
personal and very petty ambitions in it.

And in resenting truth.

Phil Innes




----- Original Message -----
From: "samhsloan"
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 4:21 PM
Subject: [fide-chess] Happiness in Nolanland: Another Polgar Thread has been
Deleted


I will give a few examples of the problem we have here. On February
22, 2006, Susan Polgar started a thread entitled "Polgar Letter to the
Board". In it, she attacked the board which had just APPROVED her
proposal made two days earlier. At that time, I was not yet a member
of the board, so her attack on the board had nothing to do with me.
Here is her first letter of attack:
This letter evoked more than 200 responses. Almost immediately, Polgar
started screaming that she was being attacked and started demanding
apologies (ignoring the fact that it was she who attacked first).
Finally, she said that she was quitting the forum and would not return
until she received apologies from all involved.

The result was that Mike Nolan deleted several of the postings,
including some of Susan's, and locked the thread so that it cannot be
restarted. His final words a

"This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies."

However, at least Mike Nolan did not delete the entire thread, as he
did here, so everybody can still go back and read it.

Similarly, on the fide-chess Yahoo Group, Polgar started threads which
attacked those who criticized her "Woman's Chess Olympiad Training
Program". She had one "Bob Bennett" who supported her. Her opponents
included IM Georgi Orlov and former US Woman's Champion WGM Elena
Akhmylovskaya. This online brawl led former US Woman's Champion
Anjelina Belakovskaia to remark, "You are acting more like girls in a
bordello fighting over a client, than a Woman's Olympiad Team
preparing to win a gold medal."

This remark led to Polgar demanding an apology from Anjelina and, when
no apology was forthcoming, she quit that forum as well.

Similarly, over on rec.games.chess.politics, the same pattern
followed. Polgar and Truong became known as "Trollgar" and they
demanded apologies and then both publicly quit that forum.

The real question now is, how can she become a candidate and run for
election, if she cannot withstand any criticism?

Sam Sloan

Chess One wrote:

Here is my response to what Sam Sloan posted elsewhere. Does he declare
himself redundant to any future for chess in the USA, much as he declares
other to be? I think so. I think he has not grown into the position and now
horror behaves like those he criticised for so long, an incumbent
politician, looking to his back, not forward to what he is elected to map
out and persecute.

Phil Innes


Heads-up, Phil... you're responding to a Sam Cloan. What's more, you're
starting a new thread. Why?

----
Sam Sloan,

You are not a journalist to interrogate these issues, when you write wearing
a board hat, for the very same reasons you were enabled to campaign to wear
it in the first place.


It's arguable that the opposite is true.

There is not the slightest doubt that USCF's board award themselves and
those they encourage vast privileges which have nothing to do with OMOV, and
all to do with political largesse.


Wrong. It's not all largesse. Some folks (messrs. Nolan and Bauer to
name but two) work really hard - partly to serve the board, partly the
members - and genuinely have the interests of chess in the USA in mind.

Neither is there any doubt of the effectiveness of these policies - they are
a scandal, even within USCF, and have emerged at Nolanland to be expressly
suppressed by political order.


The USCF's own policies have been "expressly supressed"? How so?

No chess politician, including yourself, has said dickey-boo about USCF's
own responsibility and negligence in the Tanner affair

Demonstrate that the USCF was negligent.

- nothing about
people who are PAID to invigilate ratings services, but whose competence is
not in question, it is entirely absent!

Could that be because their competence is not in question, mayhap?


There is not even the slightest
curiosity.


Elaborate upon why there should be. Be specific. That you think that
there should be is not sufficient, since you are an egregious and
deranged troll who has been banned from contributing to the USCF's
fora.

I have not read anything in these threads about USCF's responsibility in
awarding a bid of $10,000 to Dr. M. Korenman, nor of the much larger $50,000
award for the web makeover, which was also without bid and without
advertising and even without any performance criteria.


"Perhaps you should read more. And write less."
--Kenneth Sloan, 17 Dec 2006

Nothing - no thing and not from any one.

Your own concentration on S. Polgar since the election cannot be seperated
from her rejection of you as someone fit to talk about women's chess in the
C21st, since it seems to me you cannot differentiate your opinions from that
of women-as-sex-objects as they seem to you. You even fail to understand
that this is resented!


Perhaps it's *not* lost on the real Sam Sloan. Perhaps he uses it as a
weapon.

Neither would your commentary be apt to address scholastic chess, for only
slightly different reasons.

During the election process I supported your application against false
charges on all sorts of grounds, and if people wished to elect a libertine
then they should do so; all charges against you being expressed as personal
preferences not as any matter of legally upheld speeech in the United
States. I even wrote USCF about exhibiting a standard by which board members
and committee chiefs could be asked to observe, and wrote long before the
elction - a neglected opportunity for those who do not like you! - though I
had other individuals in mind at the time, and in terms of sexual affront,
made specific complaints - btw, never even acknowledged!.


That may be because you are a deranged troll.

Here you merely behave as any politician, deprecating the chances of
potential competitors to your seat of power, rather than asking if what they
do is valuable compared with what you and the current board does.

It cannot be seen as any impartial reporting, or investigation, in fact you
are rather marked for your continuous antagonism, rather like a
foiled-suitor!


No ****, Sherlock!

There are some people who can decently discuss these issues - they do not
include yourself.

On the contrary, the real Sam Sloan *may* be capable of decent
discussion. It may be that he simply chooses to act like a politician.

If you do not understand this, then no one will care for
your future, nothing good will come of such speculatory questions as you
propose, and your truly useful role as exposer of cheating-as-usual at USCF
will be ended.


That could be. Or not. Time will tell on that one.

The real questions here do not amount to 'not being able to withstand
criticism', but instead in resenting an affront to decency, to open process,
to those who would rather negatively speculate rather than contribute to
what forwards us.


What forwards us where? And by what means? What is forwards anyhoo?

In resenting an affront to legality, even unto the bye-laws of USCF which
are treated as political baubles by incumbents, and deployed as convenient
to their personal chances.


This is another incomplete sentence unique to your idiosyncratic style,
Phil.

"In resenting an affront to legality, even unto the bye-laws of USCF
which
are treated as political baubles by incumbents, and deployed as
convenient
to their personal chances...." ...what?

In resenting the honesty of such people who should write 'Trollgar' as if
they had any interest in forwarding chess, rather than forwarding their own
personal and very petty ambitions in it.


Same problem... ...what?

And in resenting truth.


The truth is that you have no clue how to operate. The truth is that
your posting *actively promotes* those you seek to hinder.

Go figure.

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes


snip

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

Chess One wrote:

Here is my response to what Sam Sloan posted elsewhere. Does he declare
himself redundant to any future for chess in the USA, much as he declares
other to be? I think so. I think he has not grown into the position and
now
horror behaves like those he criticised for so long, an incumbent
politician, looking to his back, not forward to what he is elected to map
out and persecute.

Phil Innes


Heads-up, Phil... you're responding to a Sam Cloan. What's more, you're
starting a new thread. Why?

Houlsby - you are an idiot.

This is from Sloan's own Fide group, and your questions are as vacant as
ever - if you have nothing to say, say nothing. 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.

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

PI.



----
Sam Sloan,

You are not a journalist to interrogate these issues, when you write
wearing
a board hat, for the very same reasons you were enabled to campaign to
wear
it in the first place.


It's arguable that the opposite is true.

There is not the slightest doubt that USCF's board award themselves and
those they encourage vast privileges which have nothing to do with OMOV,
and
all to do with political largesse.


Wrong. It's not all largesse. Some folks (messrs. Nolan and Bauer to
name but two) work really hard - partly to serve the board, partly the
members - and genuinely have the interests of chess in the USA in mind.

Neither is there any doubt of the effectiveness of these policies - they
are
a scandal, even within USCF, and have emerged at Nolanland to be
expressly
suppressed by political order.


The USCF's own policies have been "expressly supressed"? How so?

No chess politician, including yourself, has said dickey-boo about USCF's
own responsibility and negligence in the Tanner affair

Demonstrate that the USCF was negligent.

- nothing about
people who are PAID to invigilate ratings services, but whose competence
is
not in question, it is entirely absent!

Could that be because their competence is not in question, mayhap?


There is not even the slightest
curiosity.


Elaborate upon why there should be. Be specific. That you think that
there should be is not sufficient, since you are an egregious and
deranged troll who has been banned from contributing to the USCF's
fora.

I have not read anything in these threads about USCF's responsibility in
awarding a bid of $10,000 to Dr. M. Korenman, nor of the much larger
$50,000
award for the web makeover, which was also without bid and without
advertising and even without any performance criteria.


"Perhaps you should read more. And write less."
--Kenneth Sloan, 17 Dec 2006

Nothing - no thing and not from any one.

Your own concentration on S. Polgar since the election cannot be
seperated
from her rejection of you as someone fit to talk about women's chess in
the
C21st, since it seems to me you cannot differentiate your opinions from
that
of women-as-sex-objects as they seem to you. You even fail to understand
that this is resented!


Perhaps it's *not* lost on the real Sam Sloan. Perhaps he uses it as a
weapon.

Neither would your commentary be apt to address scholastic chess, for
only
slightly different reasons.

During the election process I supported your application against false
charges on all sorts of grounds, and if people wished to elect a
libertine
then they should do so; all charges against you being expressed as
personal
preferences not as any matter of legally upheld speeech in the United
States. I even wrote USCF about exhibiting a standard by which board
members
and committee chiefs could be asked to observe, and wrote long before the
elction - a neglected opportunity for those who do not like you! - though
I
had other individuals in mind at the time, and in terms of sexual
affront,
made specific complaints - btw, never even acknowledged!.


That may be because you are a deranged troll.

Here you merely behave as any politician, deprecating the chances of
potential competitors to your seat of power, rather than asking if what
they
do is valuable compared with what you and the current board does.

It cannot be seen as any impartial reporting, or investigation, in fact
you
are rather marked for your continuous antagonism, rather like a
foiled-suitor!


No ****, Sherlock!

There are some people who can decently discuss these issues - they do not
include yourself.

On the contrary, the real Sam Sloan *may* be capable of decent
discussion. It may be that he simply chooses to act like a politician.

If you do not understand this, then no one will care for
your future, nothing good will come of such speculatory questions as you
propose, and your truly useful role as exposer of cheating-as-usual at
USCF
will be ended.


That could be. Or not. Time will tell on that one.

The real questions here do not amount to 'not being able to withstand
criticism', but instead in resenting an affront to decency, to open
process,
to those who would rather negatively speculate rather than contribute to
what forwards us.


What forwards us where? And by what means? What is forwards anyhoo?

In resenting an affront to legality, even unto the bye-laws of USCF which
are treated as political baubles by incumbents, and deployed as
convenient
to their personal chances.


This is another incomplete sentence unique to your idiosyncratic style,
Phil.

"In resenting an affront to legality, even unto the bye-laws of USCF
which
are treated as political baubles by incumbents, and deployed as
convenient
to their personal chances...." ...what?

In resenting the honesty of such people who should write 'Trollgar' as if
they had any interest in forwarding chess, rather than forwarding their
own
personal and very petty ambitions in it.


Same problem... ...what?

And in resenting truth.


The truth is that you have no clue how to operate. The truth is that
your posting *actively promotes* those you seek to hinder.

Go figure.

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes


snip

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.

Otherwise, Phil Innes would have been mistaken earlier...and I would
find *that* hard to believe.


Alternatively (repositioning my tongue--no crude jokes, please)....


Isn't it possible that a man who has the capacity to adequately provide
for his children, but has not made a habit of doing so, *never was of
any use*? And that the ones who have truly outlived their usefulness
are those who knowingly used this gifted yet pathetic person to advance
their petty agendas....

Chess One wrote:

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

Chess One wrote:

Here is my response to what Sam Sloan posted elsewhere. Does he declare
himself redundant to any future for chess in the USA, much as he declares
other to be? I think so. I think he has not grown into the position and
now
horror behaves like those he criticised for so long, an incumbent
politician, looking to his back, not forward to what he is elected to map
out and persecute.

Phil Innes


Heads-up, Phil... you're responding to a Sam Cloan. What's more, you're
starting a new thread. Why?

Houlsby - you are an idiot.


That's a given. What's your point?

This is from Sloan's own Fide group, and your questions are as vacant as
ever - if you have nothing to say, say nothing.

Hmmm... I know someone else who might do well to heed this advice....

Why did you start a new thread, Phil?

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. 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.

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...

MH

PI.

"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/. 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.

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.

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

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.

Phil Innes

MH

PI.

wrote in message
ps.com...
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.

Otherwise, Phil Innes would have been mistaken earlier...and I would
find *that* hard to believe.

Like thieves to a gibbet!

Let me see; the false Sloan is hung up on heterosexuals, and people who
write about chess, however well, and writes about sexual topics like the 'Is
She a Goer?' character in the Monty Python sketch - who turns out to be
nothing other than an uncouth, but innocent twit.

Alternatively (repositioning my tongue--no crude jokes, please)....

What need?

Isn't it possible that a man who has the capacity to adequately provide
for his children, but has not made a habit of doing so, *never was of
any use*? And that the ones who have truly outlived their usefulness
are those who knowingly used this gifted yet pathetic person to advance
their petty agendas....

I am sure much better and much worse is possible.
I am unsure why speculating on this fascinates you any more than your
speculating on anything else.

But as far as I know you could be the anti-Christ. Judge 'em!

Nevermind this 'do not judge' stuff, judge often, and out loud, and in
public, as if you yourself were absolved from even the hint or shadow of the
deed by virtue of shopping someone else, and judge with as much gratuitous
spite and malice as you are capable!

Hate your neighbor! Never write about chess! Sacrifice your own place in the
world to hating and judging people! Make what you detest the standard above
which others should perform, and if they don't do what you want, do unto
them as you fear they may be able to do to you.

Fear features rather large in that scenario. I suggested you a long time ago
that other standards are possible, and I continue this invitation to
investigate it - though not from fear. Sorry, without intending an insult,
yet knowing you will not like me to say, I am not sure you are currently
able to do that.

Merry Christmas, Bill. Phil

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.

Yes, other standards are possible.

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 ***

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 ?