Chess One wrote:
Why do you ask questions then ignore the answer Brock?

So who do you believe, Sloan or Polgar?

Acceptable answers:

"Sloan"

"Polgar"

"neither"

No essays.

On Jan 19, 12:50 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

What is not 'transparent' is what I wrote here a few hours ago,
since that /was/ my statement which hides behind nothing at all.

So who do you believe, Sloan or Polgar?

Acceptable answers:

"Sloan";

"Polgar";

"neither."

wrote:
wrote:
So who do you believe, Sloan or S. Polgar?

Polgar claims that, while a minor, Sloan sexually propositioned her.

WRT Polgar, I do not claim that Sloan's proposition was illegal. As
Sloan has shown, the age of consent in Hungary is 14. Sloan has twice
intimated that a sexual relationship was in fact consummated. (Both
intimations were made in the course of conducting USCF business--rather
strange.) One might infer that both parties agree that a proposition
was made.

Adults should not sexually proposition minors. How's that for a
standard, kiddo?

***

I realize that Parr and Innes are transparent in their desire to
destroy USCF. But they should not feel wedded to Sloan: they can find
a more ethical agent of destruction.

Sam Sloan has yet to demonstrate an ability to "destroy" anything
other than his own credibility, here.

----------

I find the above back-and-forth peculiarly dependent upon the precise
definition of a single term: minor. X claims that Y did action Z when
X
was a "minor"; Y claims that X was not a "minor" by Hungarian law.
W pops in, stating that a "minor" ought not to be Z'ed by an "adult".
Note how X and Y differ as to whether or not X was a "minor" at the
time of action Z. This sort of drags things down to the level of a
mere
technicality, so it seems.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:


I find the above back-and-forth peculiarly dependent upon the precise
definition of a single term: minor. X claims that Y did action Z when
X
was a "minor"; Y claims that X was not a "minor" by Hungarian law.
W pops in, stating that a "minor" ought not to be Z'ed by an "adult".
Note how X and Y differ as to whether or not X was a "minor" at the
time of action Z. This sort of drags things down to the level of a
mere
technicality, so it seems.

-- help bot

Fiduciary duties (e.g., Sloan's duty to USCF) should meet higher
standards. At the moment, I wish to discuss one (rather low)
standard--that members of the Board should not have a history of sexual
relations with minors. Or we could go even lower: if they do, they
should keep it to themselves and not advertise said fact in the course
of conducting USCF business.

In the case of Polgar:

Polgar says she was propositioned by Sloan circa age 16 & that she
rebuffed Sloan.

Sloan claims to have had a "not entirely Platonic" and "seamy"
relationship with Polgar circa 1986, when she was 17. Were this true,
it would be charitable fot us to infer a prior proposition.

So I once again ask Parr and Innes to answer the question: who do you
believe, Sloan or Polgar?

Acceptable answers:

"Sloan";

"Polgar";

"neither."

Pardon the illiteracy in the first sentence....

Day 553

wrote:
Day 551 and counting...kid-friendly porn courtesy of Sam Sloan, who is
endorsed by Star Trek Boy and Larry Parr!

***

But before Parr visits Sloan's site, he first visits the official
Pokémon website (Crass & cheesy? Yup! Kid-safe? You bet! Passé?
Probably....)

http://www.pokemon.com/flash.htm

...and the Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokemon

Having learned all he knows about Pokémon from Sam Sloan's websites,
Parr naturally thought, circa June 2005, that Pokémon was some sort of
soft porn cartoon. Hilarious--kindly let me know how much pornography
you find on pokemon.com, Larry baby! (Or anyone else, for that matter:
post [nonexistent] salacious links below....)

To find Pokémon porn mixed with kid-friendly links, one needs to visit
Sam Sloan's website....

http://www.samsloan.com/pokeplot.htm

(How old is Misty, Larry baby? The answer is on the page)

http://www.shamema.com/pokepoll.htm

(What thought experiment involves Misty, Larry baby?)

Does the ephebophile Sloan seem to be fixated on sexualizing the barely
pubescent (here, admittedly, barely pubescent cartoon characters, but
he's reported his adventures with barely pubescent humans elsewhere)?

http://tinyurl.com/78g8t

(you'll find three pages linked from this message)

wrote:

Fiduciary duties (e.g., Sloan's duty to USCF) should meet higher
standards. At the moment, I wish to discuss one (rather low)
standard--that members of the Board should not have a history of sexual
relations with minors. Or we could go even lower: if they do, they
should keep it to themselves and not advertise said fact in the course
of conducting USCF business.

In the case of Polgar:

Polgar says she was propositioned by Sloan circa age 16 & that she
rebuffed Sloan.

Sloan claims to have had a "not entirely Platonic" and "seamy"
relationship with Polgar circa 1986, when she was 17. Were this true,
it would be charitable fot us to infer a prior proposition.

So I once again ask Parr and Innes to answer the question: who do you
believe, Sloan or Polgar?

Acceptable answers:

"Sloan";

"Polgar";

"neither."


I don't see any choice whereby a dyed-in-the-wool ad hominist like
Mr. Parr could:

a) duck the question,

b) turn things around to a personal attack on the one asking a
question,

and c) not give a straightforward answer, since that would, for him, be
sacrilege.

Surely, the fault lies in the test itself, for not allowing a "more
flexible"
answer here.

-----

As for IM Innes, he is in a bit of a rough spot here, for he wants to
both
support Ms. Polgar, and yet not offend Mr. Parr, since a toady does not
do
such things without incurring risk of demotion to "victim". [For
details on how
this bully/toady/victim system works in practice, see "A Christmas
Story".]

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

As for IM Innes, he is in a bit of a rough spot here, for he wants to
both
support Ms. Polgar, and yet not offend Mr. Parr, since a toady does not
do
such things without incurring risk of demotion to "victim".

NIL DICIT - 'he says nothing to the point, nothing to any defence,
nothing to effect'

My recommendation was for the people most offended to set the standard, that
is, for women and children [parents, guardians and themselves] to do so. I
do not see that comment being accepted as a reasonable one, or even being
acknowledged and allowed to stand. That is a strange fact in itself! While
there is ostensible care about offending others, those offended should not
be listened to!

Instead we receive recommendations from experts on popular soft-porn stars
known to themselves [not by Mr. Parr nor myself] by people who, are content
to continue to personalize issues - presumably since they don't want to
really listen to the voices of women and children at all! They would hate
that! Since it would give up a measure of their own control [itself very
psychologically suspect]

- and place it where it needs to be.

An empire of laws, not of men! //John Adams.

That Adams' comment is a foundation stone of the Constitution - and is
pointedly setting a higher standard than partisanship or personal
preferences, or the rule of oligarchs. Standards, such are ethical factors,
are /im/personal measures, and apply to all equally.

That is what is needed, and the factor that will actually obtain a long-term
beneficial effect - 'in corporare sano' requires 'in custodia legis'.

Instead cheap solutions heavy with suppositions are presented, impatient of
due process, and surrender of decision making process to women and children
is resisted.

Immature measures addressing a serious subject are not any marks of
sincerity. I would be pleased instead to propose the basis of these
standards with anyone here advocating other views, including Mr. Parr.

Phil Innes

[For
details on how
this bully/toady/victim system works in practice, see "A Christmas
Story".]

-- help bot

1. Did Susan Polgar make Statement A, dated July 27, 2006, and quoted
in full below?

2. Did Sam Sloan make Statement B below in USCF BINFO 200603590, dated
September 26, 2006, and quoted in full (with email address redactions)
below?

3. Did Sloan make Statement C below on January 5, 2007, as his full
response to Count 13 of a USCF ethics complaint?


*******
STATEMENT A

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006...05360583375300

On July 27, 2006, Susan Polgar wrote:

BEGIN STMT A, part 1 (blog post) QTN

If you are just as outraged as I am about the recent USCF Executive
Board Election, you can do something about it! You can call or write to
your state delegates and let them know the truth about Mr. Sam Sloan.
If your state delegates do not attend the US Open then anyone can be
nominated to be a delegate. The most important thing is vote.

In order for Mr. Sloan to take office, he has to be certified by the
delegates of the USCF. I strongly believe that a sexual predator (by
his own admission) and a convicted felon should not be allowed to serve
on the Executive Board of a non-profit organization with tens and
thousands of young members.

Mr. Sloan lied about his criminal record. He told the members of the
USCF that he has no criminal record while the chess community clearly
knows that he spent a considerable amount of time in jail. Mr. Sloan
also publicly admitted that he had inappropriate sexual relations with
minors. He also publicly admitted to other illegal and criminal
conducts.

He lied about me. He lied and attacked people who are associated with
me and the Susan Polgar Foundation. He lied and attacked other members,
sponsors, supporters and partners of the USCF. He spares no one.

I know first hand what Mr. Sloan is capable of. I will post the letter
I wrote on the official USCF forum in the comment section of this post.
Please feel free to look at it.

As a group, we must protect the young members of this federation. We
must protect all members. We must protect the integrity of the United
States Chess Federation. Together, we can stop this monster! Please
contact your state delegates and let them know what you think. Thank
you!
Posted by Picasa

posted by SusanPolgar at 7/27/2006 10:09:00 PM

END STMT A, part 1 (blog post) QTN

BEGIN STMT A, part 2 (blog comment) QTN
25 Comments:

SusanPolgar said...

I would like to make a few points about Mr. Sloan in response to
Mr. Sloan's comments. This is what Mr. Sloan stated:

Quote from Mr Sam Sloan:
....it is significant that in 1986 I gave Susan Polgar an expensive
computer and I lived in her apartment in Budapest for several months
when Susan was 16 years old and her sisters Sophia and Judit were 10
and 9. In the 20 years that have since passed, Susan Polgar has never
made any such claim. Frankly, as a result of living with them, I know a
lot of family secrets of the Polgar Family, which would be highly
embarrassing to Susan if I revealed them, but I will not go that route.

First of all, my family has hosted countless chess players and
personalities from around the world in our apartment in Budapest over
the years. This is a very common occurrence in the European culture. At
that time, Mr. Sloan seemed to be normal.

Secondly, Mr. Sloan stayed at my family's apartment for a very
short period of time and not several months as he claimed. In addition,
Mr. Sloan was never my manager as he falsely stated.

Thirdly, during his stay, he made a number of completely
inappropriate solicitation to me, a minor at that time, and he was
promptly and firmly told no. To his credit, he did not try it again.
But he tried with others. Since that time, I tried to be polite to Mr.
Sloan in public but I tried to avoid him as much as I could. I am not
surprised about the inappropriate sexual conducts that he claimed in
the past. He believes that it is OK.

Over the years, his behavior and conduct became much worst. I
believe that he is capable of anything and I hope that the USCF
delegates can understand this very serious situation. By me speaking
up, he already started to imply about trying to embarrass me with my
family secret. There are no secrets unless he plans to fabricate them.
He is using this tactic to try to avoid the real issues about him.

This is why I am very adamant about my position. As I stated
before, the Susan Polgar Foundation cannot accept Mr. Sloan or work
with someone like Mr. Sloan. The mission of the Susan Polgar Foundation
is to promote chess for young people, especially girls, with integrity
and high morals. Mr. Sloan is a danger to himself, the USCF and young
members of this federation. I believe that this federation MUST protect
our young members. Mr. Sloan's conduct is not appropriate for a
national organization with tens and thousands of young people.

I hope that you can understand my position. This is not a situation
that any woman want to be in. I did not bring this out before because
Mr. Sloan was not an elected official of the USCF. Now that he is, I
must speak up to protect other young players. Thank you for your
understanding.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgarFoundation.org
www.SusanPolgar.com

END STMT A, part 2 (blog comment) QTN

*******

STATEMENT B

In BINFO 200603590, dated September 26, 2006, Sam Sloan wrote:

BEGIN STMT B QTN

BINFO 200603590
Date 2006-09-25

From samsloan

Status Standard Release
Release Date 2006-10-03
Subject Resolution of the Executive Board

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Subject: Resolution of the Executive Board
From: Sam Sloan samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:47:41 -0400
Cc: Joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Beatchess@xxxxxxx, Rtannerae@xxxxxxx,
randallhough@xxxxxxxxx, samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx, CHESSJOEL@xxxxxxx,
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, Chessdon@xxxxxxx, pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx,
queencapa@xxxxxxx , USCF BINFO System, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
In-reply-to: 3.0.6.32.20060925110012.01f13280@xxxxxxxxxxxx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 11:00 AM 9/25/2006 -0400, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx wrote:I move in open
session that the Board approve the following resolutionwritten by our
attorney, Mike Matsler. I vote yes.

Bill GoichbergI am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill, acting like a bull in a china shop, has brought this into the public forum by making a public motion and posting it to USCF BINFO System, as a result of which this

matter will disseminated and the entire world will know about it in due
course.The fact is that my relationship with Zsuzsa Polgar (who now
calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic. I have been discrete
and have not revealed to anyone other than a few close friends the true
nature of
our prior relationship, until now. Now, Bill's public motion
effectively forces me to reveal what really happened those many years
ago. This will do no good either to me, Zsuzsa,
Bill or the USCF, but it appears that now I will have no real choice
but to tell the whole story. Sam Sloan

END STMT B QTN


*******

STATEMENT C

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...7eb3c90?hl=en&

In "Response to Ethics Complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn," dated
January 5, 2007, Sam Sloan
wrote:

BEGIN STMT C QTN

Response to Ethics Complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn

Herbert Rodney Vaughn has filed a 400 page ethics complaint against me.
I think the length of the complaint speaks for itself. For reasons
unknown to me, Mr. Vaughn has been obsessed with me for some time. He
has been attacking me on the USCF Forum at
http://www.uschess.org/forums under the fake name of tanstaafl for the
last one year, with around one thousand personal attacks on me. He has
also filled up Susan Polgar's Blog at
http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com with attacks on me. He got himself
certified as a delegate from Ohio (improperly in my opinion) and tied
up the delegate's meetings in Chicago held on August 12-13, 2006 with
attacks on me. I have no idea why he does this. I had never met the man
prior to the meetings in Chicago and I have never in my life had any
dealings with him.

The ethics complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn is entirely frivolous and
can be refuted without much difficulty. Fortunately, the Ethics
Committee has made my job easier by already dismissing 11 of the
sixteen counts of his complaint, even before it got to me. I will now
deal with the remaining five.

The counts over which the Ethics Committee accepted jurisdiction were
1A, 3, 4, 5, and 13.

Here are my responses:

[RESPONSES TO COUNTS 1A, 3, 4, AND 5 OMITTED--WHB 1/20/2007]

Count 13
Personal Attacks on Susan Polgar in the BINFO System, Standards

It is unfortunate that Mr. Vaughn has made an issue over this,
following the fact that Mr. Bill Goichberg previously made an issue
over this, because neither of them are aware of what they are getting
into or that they are acting like a Bull in a China Shop. I was for
practical purposes the boyfriend of Zsuzsa Polgar, to the extent that
she had a boyfriend, for six months in 1986. I traveled with her,
played in chess tournaments with her and stayed in her home in Budapest
during this period. This relationship started in April, 1986 and
extended through October, 1986. There was never a break in relations.
What ended this aspect of our relationship was that my brother,
Creighton, started litigation with my mother, which left us stranded in
Rio Gallegos Argentina after the conclusion of the World Under-16 Chess
Championship, in which Sophia and Judit Polgar had played. Because my
mother and I temporarily could not leave Argentina, we had to say
goodbye to the Polgars and, although she wrote me a few letters, my
relationship with Zsuzsa never resumed after that.

Our relationship started immediately on or after her 17th birthday. The
dates are important but are easy to remember and verify because of the
many chess tournaments in which we played together during those months.
Our relationship started right after the 1986 New York Open, which was
held March 30 to April 7, 1986. The relationship started due to a
coincidence caused by a flight delay.

The 1986 New York Open was the first time that Laszlo Polgar, Susan's
father, had ever reached America. Previously, Mr. Polgar had not been
able to obtain a US visa, for the same reasons that most Hungarians
were not able to get a visa, which was that they feared that he would
overstay.

When the US Embassy was finally convinced that Mr. Polgar really was a
legitimate tourist, they gave him a visa. Prior to that time, Susan had
visited the United States accompanied only by her mother. I had first
met Susan at an invitational Goichberg tournament at the Manhattan
Chess Club in November, 1985. She lost to Mark Ginzberg in a Lucena
position on the first day that I met her. The next time I came to see
her, she lost a long game to Yehuda Gruenfeld. As a result, Susan
disliked me at first, because every time I came to see her, she lost
her chess game.

Her mother, Klara, however, liked me. We next met at the 1986 National
Open in Las Vegas. I told them that I worked in computers. Klara told
me that her husband was very interested in computers and would be very
anxious to meet me when he was finally able to come to the US.

That turned out to be the 1986 New York Open. Laszlo Polgar told me
there that he was very interested in buying what he called the "Rare
Computer". I told him not to waste his money on unusual off-brands. He
should buy IBM PC compatibles or else Apple MacIntosh. Nevertheless,
Laszlo doggedly insisted that he must have the Rare Computer and
nothing else.

I had never heard of the Rare Computer, but after several days of
discussions about this, Laszlo Polgar refused to budge. He absolutely
must have the Rare Computer. I was later to learn that this is a
characteristic of Laszlo Polgar. He will not listen to reason. Once he
makes up his mind about something, he will never change it.

Finally, out of frustration, trying to deal with this bull dog of a
man, I just decided to buy him a computer with my own money. I called a
computer company in Texas, ordered a $2000 computer with my credit
card, and they agreed to ship it to the address of the Polgars in
Hungary. Laszlo Polgar was very happy, because he is always willing to
take anything offered for free.

After the New York Open, Susan told me that they were scheduled to fly
to Los Angeles, where Hal Bogner had scheduled for Susan to give a
simultaneous exhibition. I agreed to meet them when they came back and
to help them get to the airport, as I had a car.

When they returned a week later I was shocked to learn that they had
never made it to Los Angeles. Just after I had last spoken to them at
the New York Penta Hotel, they had been approached by a man named
Shiloh Quinn, who had told them that he would bring them millions of
dollars in sponsorship money if they would accompany him to Montreal.
As a result, they had called Hal Bogner and told him to cancel the
simultaneous exhibition, because they could not come to Los Angeles.

In Montreal, Shiloh Quinn has gotten them to agree to give him Sophia
Polgar, who was 11 years old at the time. Actually, Shiloh Quinn had
wanted Zsuzsa. However, they were not willing to give up Zsuzsa, but
they were willing to give up Sophia, so they had left Sophia with
Shiloh Quinn, and had returned to New York without her. Laszlo Polgar
said that this was OK, because Shiloh Quinn had a Hungarian wife.

At JFK Airport, they were scheduled to take different flights back to
Budapest. The reason for this was that Jose Cuxchi, the organizer of
the New York Open, had given Zsuzsa Polgar, her mother, Klara, and the
two sisters, Sophia and Judit, free tickets from Budapest to New York
on Iberia Airlines, with a stop-over in Madrid, Spain. However, he had
not given a free ticket to Laszlo Polgar. Therefore, Laszlo Polgar had
bought his own ticket on Malev, the Hungarian Airline.

However, Laszlo Polgar had never been to Spain before and he wanted to
go there. Therefore, in New York, he had made a deal with the airlines
to switch tickets with Zsuzsa. She would fly back directly to Budapest
on Malev, and he along with Klara and Judit would fly back to Budapest
in Iberia Airlines, with a stopover in Spain.

This was especially convenient because the Malev flight was scheduled
to leave JFK Asirport two hours before the Iberia Airlines flight, so
they would be with Susan until she caught her flight.

A serious problem, however, arose when the Malev flight was delayed due
to mechanical problems.

This meant that Laszlo, Klara and Judit Polgar had to leave on a flight
before Zsuzsa left. They had no choice in the matter. The tickets were
non-refundable promotional tickets provided by Jose Cuchi. They could
not afford to stay behind in New York, and it was too late to change
the tickets back to the way that they originally were, with Lazslo
flying on Malev and Zsuzsa flying on Iberia Airlines.

Therefore, when flight time came, they had no choice in the matter, but
to leave. Laszlo, Klara and Judit bordered the Iberia Airlines flight
to Spain, leaving Zsuzsa alone in JFK Airport with me, Sam Sloan.

It so happened that this was exactly Zsuzsa's 17th birthday. Zsuzsa
Polgar was born on April 19, 1969. The New York Open concluded on April
8, 1986. After that, they flew to Montreal, stayed for a week and flew
back to New York. So, this was exactly Susan's 17th birthday, or else
was the day after, I cannot remember which. I mention this because I
have been accused of getting involved with Susan when she was 16 years
old, but actually she was 17 at the time.

Shortly after Laszlo, Klara and Judit had departed on Iberia Airlines,
the representative of Malev Airlines came by. He said that, as the
flight had been delayed, he was offering a courtesy hotel room at
airline expense. I did not yet know Susan well, and she did not speak
much English, so I do not believe that I even asked her. I just asked
the airline representative when the flight was expected to leave. He
said that it would be only a few hours longer. So, without thinking or
asking Susan, I said that we would just wait in the airport, because a
few hours was no big deal.

What I did not yet realize was that Zsuzsa was the most protected girl
in the world. She was so protected that she could not even go to the
woman's restroom alone. Her mother would have to accompany her. Her
parents were terrified that she would meet a boy somewhere and fall in
love. As her parents did not work, Susan was the bread winner of the
family, supporting the family through her chess tournament winnings.
There was no way that they were going to allow her to go anywhere or to
be anywhere alone.

Suddenly, due to the delayed flight, for the first time in her entire
life, Zsuzsa was alone with a man, namely me.

Two months later, I went to Hungary. On my arrival in Budapest, I was
immediately invited to stay as a guest in the Polgar home. I was
shocked to learn that the computer I had purchased for them to be
shipped from Texas was still in the customs warehouse in Budapest.
Laszlo Polgar and I went to the customs warehouse. I paid some small
fees and the customs people released the computer to us. We took the
computer to the Polgar apartment.

I spent the next two days setting up the computer, organizing it and
putting files on it. It was unlike computers nowadays where everything
comes pre-installed. I was working on developing a computer chess
program called Rex Chess which I had entered into the World Computer
Chess Championship to be played the following month in Cologne,
Germany.

I was shocked when, two days after the computer had arrived, Laszlo
Polgar brought two men to the apartment to buy it. They said that they
had wanted the "Rare Computer" and were not entirely happy with this
other type of computer that Laszlo Polgar had. I then learned that the
Rare Computer was a brand name of a computer, and they had ordered it
from Laszlo. I have never been able to find a computer with that brand
name, however.

Finally, they agreed to buy the computer for $7,000. I was not happy. I
had bought the computer for the three Polgar Sisters. I had imagined
them to be geniuses, not the chess playing autonomons that they
actually turned out to be. I had dreams of them learning computer
programming and making a positive contribution to society. That is the
reason I had bought them the computer. I had not realized that the plan
all along had been to sell it for profit.

However, it would have been pointless for me to protest. If I had
stopped them from selling it while I was there, they would just wait
until I was not there, and then sell it. So, I said nothing about it.

After they got the $7,000 from selling the computer, they invited me to
accompany them to an International Chess Tournament in Albena,
Bulgaria. Zsuzsa won the tournament and I had one of the best results
of my life. I then accompanied Susan and her family over the next
several months to chess tournaments in Copenhagen, Denmark, San Juan,
Puerto Rico and Rio Gallegos, Argentina. I personally arranged the
tickets for the five of them and me to fly to Argentina.

I will leave out the details, some of which are seamy, except that I
will say that my remark about which Herbert Rodney Vaughn now files his
ethics complaint is entirely accurate.

I must add, however, that my remark was in response to a motion to
censure me made by Bill Goichberg. That motion by Goichberg consisted
of five parts, all of which had to do with my relationship with Susan
Polgar. Bill probably did not even know that I had ever had a
relationship with Susan Polgar. That is why I said that, in making his
motion, Bill was acting like a bull in a China Shop. All these past
twenty-one years, I have avoided publicly revealing the facts that I
have just set forth above.

Goichberg implied that this was a motion made by the USCF Attorney,
Michael Matsler. This is misleading. After the election votes were
counted and I had won the election on July 20, 2006, Bill Goichberg
wrote five letters to Michael Matsler, basically asking how he could
get rid of Sam Sloan, either by preventing me from taking office or by
removing me from office. Bill Goichberg also wrote a strongly worded
board motion attacking me over the Polgar Affair. Michael Matsler wrote
back with a much milder motion than the one written by Goichberg. Even
the relatively mildly worded motion by Matsler required me to respond.
I was thinking of making a much stronger response, but finally I
decided to make the delicately worded one-sentence response that I did,
which is the subject of this ethics complaint.

Obviously, you can figure out that I have just started to tell the full
story about what happened between me and Susan Polgar in 1986. If
Goichberg, Vaughn and Susan herself do not stop attacking me almost
daily over this, I may eventually have to tell the whole story and
write a book about it, but I am avoiding doing that for the time being.

Thus, I have answered all five of the remaining counts of the Ethics
Complaint filed by Herbert Rodney Vaughn. I believe that I have
satisfactorily addressed all these issues and that indeed I have
demonstrated that the ethics complaint is entirely frivolous. Again, I
request that the Ethics Committee obtain a tape or a transcript of the
Executive Board meeting on August 14, 2006. After reviewing that tape
or transcript, you will be able to see that everything I have written
on that subject is correct and accurate.

I realize that Bill Goichberg and perhaps some other members of the
board will try to prevent the Ethics Committee from obtaining that tape
or transcript, but I feel that you should insist on obtaining it due to
the circumstances of this case.

In compliance with the request of the Ethics Committee, I am not
responding to the other 11 counts which have already been dismissed,
although otherwise I would have a lot to say about them as well.

Dated: Bronx, New York
January 5, 2007
Respectfully
Submitted,

Sam Sloan

Sworn to before me this 5th
Day of January, 2007

_______________________
NOTARY PUBLIC


END STMT C QTN

wrote:
1. Did Susan Polgar make Statement A, dated July 27, 2006, and quoted
in full [upthread]?

2. Did Sam Sloan make Statement B below in USCF BINFO 200603590, dated
September 26, 2006, and quoted in full (with email address redactions)
[upthread]?

3. Did Sloan make Statement C [upthread] on January 5, 2007, as his full
response to Count 13 of a USCF ethics complaint?


4. Do you find these three statements equally credible? Discuss.

5. Assume, in arguendo, that Polgar's Statement A is substantially true
and that Sloan's Statement B and Statement C were substantially untrue.
What conclusions would you reach about Sloan's character? About
Polgar's character?

6. Assume, in arguendo, that Polgar's Statement A is substantially
untrue and that Sloan's Statement B and Statement C were substantially
true. What conclusions would you reach about Sloan's character? About
Polgar's character?

7. Assume, in arguendo, that Polgar's Statement A, Sloan's Statement B,
and Sloan's Statement C are all substantially untrue. What conclusions
would you reach about Sloan's character? About Polgar's character?