8. For Sam Sloan:

Would be you be so kind as to explain why Bill Goichberg's motion gave
you "no real choice" but to reveal a "not entirely Platonic"
relationship with someone who was a minor at the time of the
relationship, given that the alleged relationship was two decades in
the past, and given that you had, by your own account, exercised
discretion in not disclosing said relationship for those two decades?
I have difficulty following the internal logic of your statement. Why
were you "effectively force[d] to reveal what really happened those
many years ago"?

9. For Sam Sloan:

Following up on 8: isn't it a general principle of common law that the
actions of a minor don't bind that minor after the age of majority?
(By your own account, she was escorted to the washroom--hardly an
emancipated minor.) Even if, in arguendo, one accepts all your
statements, why would any aspect of your private relationship with
Susan Polgar the minor be relevant to your public dealings with Susan
Polgar the adult?


Sam Sloan wrote:

I am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill [Goichberg],
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

10. Have you no shame?

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

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

Discuss what with whom?

I have been discussing ethical factors relating to women and children in
chess for the past year.

Bill Brock has not been discussing that subject with anyone, he has been
scapegoating one person out of some confused presentation of his own motives
in a strange agit-prop campaign, seeming to want to write about a little
porn more than the person he accuses

Mr. Brock has never said he agrees to any measure that is an objective one
for all people, and considering the strange-brew of his own past which he
has semi-hemi hinted and 'joked' about - its as if he wants to expunge that,
much more than attend to offenses to women and children.

As such, this is all about him.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

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

Discuss what with whom?

I have been discussing ethical factors relating to women and children in
chess for the past year.

Bill Brock has not been discussing that subject with anyone, he has been
scapegoating one person out of some confused presentation of his own motives
in a strange agit-prop campaign, seeming to want to write about a little
porn more than the person he accuses

Mr. Brock has never said he agrees to any measure that is an objective one
for all people, and considering the strange-brew of his own past which he
has semi-hemi hinted and 'joked' about - its as if he wants to expunge that,
much more than attend to offenses to women and children.

As such, this is all about him.

Phil Innes

Polgar publicly accuses Sloan of being morally unfit to serve as a
fiduciary, and claims that Sloan had sexually propositioned her when
she was sixteen years old. In response, Sloan publicly claims (in two
separate statements, both in the course of USCF matters) that his
relationship with the teenaged Susan Polgar was "not entirely Platonic"
and that certain details of this relationship are "seamy."

Innes's response? "As such, this is all about [Bill Brock]."

I am amused.

wrote in message
ps.com...
Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

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

Discuss what with whom?

I have been discussing ethical factors relating to women and children in
chess for the past year.

Bill Brock has not been discussing that subject with anyone, he has been
scapegoating one person out of some confused presentation of his own
motives
in a strange agit-prop campaign, seeming to want to write about a little
porn more than the person he accuses

Mr. Brock has never said he agrees to any measure that is an objective
one
for all people, and considering the strange-brew of his own past which he
has semi-hemi hinted and 'joked' about - its as if he wants to expunge
that,
much more than attend to offenses to women and children.

As such, this is all about him.

Phil Innes

Polgar publicly accuses Sloan of being morally unfit to serve as a
fiduciary, and claims that Sloan had sexually propositioned her when
she was sixteen years old. In response, Sloan publicly claims (in two
separate statements, both in the course of USCF matters) that his
relationship with the teenaged Susan Polgar was "not entirely Platonic"
and that certain details of this relationship are "seamy."

Innes's response? "As such, this is all about [Bill Brock]."

I am amused.

Brock is now stung is more like it, and continues to personally obsess and
intrigue /only/ about Sloan. He still denies any personal connection and
mentions only one other person!

But Brock will not talk about what or how it should be about everybody - and
that he did nothing about setting any standard at USCF long before Sloan was
a board-member! He thus ignored a slew of offensive issues about yet other
individuals.

This is very curious! He avoids my proposal of what would actually have an
effect that would implicate everyone - including Sloan! - since... maybe he
wouldn't qualify himself? And if so, it would no longer be able to act as
prosecutor, judge and jury all-in-one.

What is additionally curious is that he does not ask 'Parr and Innes' to
comment on his own behavior - as if it did not exist. While Sloan's
juvenilia certainly is not likeable, exaggerating, inventing, and
speculating upon what is unproved is the same kiting of issues that he
accuses Sloan thereof.

When I wrote that women and children should be heard - and should suggest
their own remedies, I do not receive any responses. But I consider that the
most mature view and in fact, a necessary one. Not receiving responses does
not imply agreement or disagreement - but lack of support for any impersonal
standard does imply a lack of real care to what would immediately alleviate
the situation.

What you read here is not any remedy to empower women and parent of children
to have their own say. The reader will make up their own mind on the
orientation of any 'alternative' suggestions.

Phil Innes

You skipped to question 4, without addressing questions 1 through 3.

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?

William Brock, you are as obsessed by Sloan, as Sloan is so obviously
obsessed of S. Polgar! The only thing you perpetuate here is personality
obsession - you blithely exhibit the same behavior as the thing you resent.

You are also an insufficient person to address these issues to other
people - as if you really wanted to know my opinion ROFL! - but continuously
snip it, proving to everyone but yourself that this is all about you )

Sam Sloan knows exactly what I think of his deportment about women as sex
objects. He is shy of meeting those points, which I absolutely made sure he
could fairly review by posting them in front on his nose in his own forum.

Why should I condemn Sloan as a villain, if, in my consideration, more
considerable villains exist? Especially less obvious and secret ones, who,
IMO, are more likely to act than people whose braggadocio is like 13 year
olds?

If you were at all genuinely concerned for women and children you would have
addressed my proposal to empower women and parents to conference and make
recommendations to whoever is interested in acting on them.

You have amply demonstrated that you are not such a person - and for this
reason! - neither should you audit other people's welfare.

Phil Innes


wrote in message
oups.com...
You skipped to question 4, without addressing questions 1 through 3.

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?

Chess One wrote:
William Brock, you are as obsessed by Sloan, as Sloan is so obviously
obsessed of S. Polgar! The only thing you perpetuate here is personality
obsession - you blithely exhibit the same behavior as the thing you resent.

[...]


Phil Innes

And as for S. Polgar & her publicly-stated opinion of Sloan? Please
speak plainly.

:-)





In a message dated 1/5/2007 11:36:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

Hello Susan

If you would be so kind as to consider a one-shot post on
rgcp...just affirming my quotation of your words.


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...bb63cf9?hl=en&

Best regards, Bill

Susan Polgar replied:

You are free to post my answer.

Dear Bill,

Sorry but I do not visit rec.games. However, my opinion about Mr. Sloan
has not changed. In fact, it has become worse. Mr. Sloan is absolutely
unfit to serve on the USCF Executive Board. He is not capable of
telling the truth. He is not capable of being civil. He is not capable
of being professional. For every one good thing he did, the damages
that he caused is many many times larger.

This is precisely the reason why I chose to run for the board this
year. I vowed to restore the respectability, honesty, integrity and
credibility back to the USCF and US Chess. That is why I also asked
some of the most qualified and honorable people to run as well to help
the USCF. We, as a federation, can do better. We must do better.

The same old status quo is no longer acceptable. The same old
destructive politics must go.

Happy New Year and I am looking forward to a much better 2007 and
beyond for chess.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgar.com
www.PolgarChess.com

wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:
William Brock, you are as obsessed by Sloan, as Sloan is so obviously
obsessed of S. Polgar! The only thing you perpetuate here is personality
obsession - you blithely exhibit the same behavior as the thing you
resent.

[...]


Phil Innes

And as for S. Polgar & her publicly-stated opinion of Sloan? Please
speak plainly.

:-)

Presumably you admit by your snip that you are the same - and therefore her
comments would apply to you too equally. Thank you for noticing my point and
demonstrating the difference between obsessions and cares.

Now - I am writing with people who are actually interested, and who intend
to do something about it, beyond raising examples of what they personally
don't like and ignoring the rest, as if they could get beyond that to
actually attend to other people's needs.

Phil Innes




In a message dated 1/5/2007 11:36:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

Hello Susan

If you would be so kind as to consider a one-shot post on
rgcp...just affirming my quotation of your words.


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...bb63cf9?hl=en&

Best regards, Bill

Susan Polgar replied:

You are free to post my answer.

Dear Bill,

Sorry but I do not visit rec.games. However, my opinion about Mr. Sloan
has not changed. In fact, it has become worse. Mr. Sloan is absolutely
unfit to serve on the USCF Executive Board. He is not capable of
telling the truth. He is not capable of being civil. He is not capable
of being professional. For every one good thing he did, the damages
that he caused is many many times larger.

This is precisely the reason why I chose to run for the board this
year. I vowed to restore the respectability, honesty, integrity and
credibility back to the USCF and US Chess. That is why I also asked
some of the most qualified and honorable people to run as well to help
the USCF. We, as a federation, can do better. We must do better.

The same old status quo is no longer acceptable. The same old
destructive politics must go.

Happy New Year and I am looking forward to a much better 2007 and
beyond for chess.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgar.com
www.PolgarChess.com

Let us once again :-) assume, in arguendo, that every ad hominem
statement Innes makes about Brock is true.

Susan Polgar writes that "Mr. Sloan is absolutely unfit to serve on the
USCF Executive Board." I believe that is not an unfair
characterization of Innes's *current* position, though not Parr's, and
though Innes might not go so far as to say "*absolutely* unfit."

Does Innes agree with Polgar that Sloan "is not capable of telling the
truth"?

That Sloan "is not capable of being civil"?

That Sloan "is not capable of being professional"?

Or, alternatively, when Polgar writes, "This [misconduct of Sloan] is
precisely the reason why I chose to run for the board this year," would
Innes ascribe Polgar's Sloan obsession to Brock?

Or when Joel Channing said in exasperation of Sloan on 1/16/07, "you
are good for nothing but demolition," would Innes ascribe Channing's
Sloan obsession to Brock?

http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewto...ighlight=sloan
(valid USCF login requred)

Just askin'....