SWEEPING DIRT UNDER THE RUG

I don't think that any of us expected Sam to be
as productive and disruptive an Executive Board member
as he has proved to be. He has produced document
after embarrassing document, and he has disrupted the
best efforts of the Old Boys to sweep dirt under the rug.

If anyone ever deserved to be reelected to the
Executive Board, it is Sam Sloan, a real ball-buster
and killer-diller.

But, realistically speaking, can Sam expect a
second term?

If Sam can scare up some money and run a
campaign, then he will quite likely win a second term,
which seemed a huge longshot six months back.
Otherwise, without some moolah, the race will be Sam's
successful and helpful nipping versus the Executive
Board money boys working at tucking him away with
several mass mailings. If such turns out to be the
respective orders of battle, then one can safely bet
against Sam winning reelection.

I have been told by a source that there will be a
mailing by a majority of the current Executive Board
to thousands of USCF members urging them to vote
against Sam. The mailing will be paid for by Joel
Channing and, possibly, Bill Goichberg.

A bit of good news is that Sam's candidate's
statement in Chess Life is fairly effective. One can
quibble with a couple of trivial matters, but in the
main, he evidenced considerable political savvy in
highlighting the two million dollars in losses. His
statement undoubtedly caught the eye of many USCF
members. They won't be able to ignore his expose, and
the board majority will have to respond.

All of us here have a fair idea about the nature
of the coming attacks against Sam. There will be no
mention of the rotten deals surrounding Crossville and
the insider looting of the USCF. Instead, the attack
will concentrate on Sam "kidnapping" his own daughter
in an affair of the heart. We will have the man depicted
as a dangerous criminal and the like, thereby confounding
violating a judicial order (over a matter that would never
have been in the courts two generations back) with criminality,
a noun that properly deals with normative, common law
understandings of attacks on property and persons.

The censored USCF Forum on the Internet is
already proving a weapon to be employed by the ruling
Executive Board majority -- as we all imagined it
would be. The majority found the right muchacho in
Mike Nolan, who is acting much as did Soviet censors
of old. Make no mistake: even those who are
benefitting from Nolanland censorship regard Mr. Nolan
as a malodorous functionary.

Sam will likely lose the battle for reelection
unless he also makes mailings, which require MONEY. I
have not discussed the matter with him, but the time
has clearly come to form a Reelect Sam Sloan Finance
Committee, if Sam approves of such a group.

I believe that a mass mailing dealing with the
worthless building and office in Cross-to-Bear to all
USCF affiliates and to members from selected states
would light a fire beneath the Board majority. That
alone might prove sufficient to reelect Sam.

My nominee for Finance Committee chairman would
be GM Larry Evans, if he is willing to serve. But I can't
imagine him dirtying his hands dealing with scoundrels.

Yours, Larry Parr

On Mar 5, 1:11 am, " wrote:
SWEEPING DIRT UNDER THE RUG

I don't think that any of us expected Sam to be
as productive and disruptive an Executive Board member
as he has proved to be.

Larry, on certain issues sometimes you're sort of half-right, but
it's amazing how on the subject of Sam Sloan you manage to be nearly
100% wrong all the time. Here you are wrong on both counts:

1. Nearly everyone expected Sloan to be disruptive, and he has been
disruptive.
2. Almost no one expected Sloan to be productive, and he has not
been productive.

So Sam has performed very much according to expectations.

On 5 Mar, 09:07, "Taylor Kingston" wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:11 am, " wrote:

SWEEPING DIRT UNDER THE RUG

* * I don't think that any of us expected Sam to be
as productive and disruptive an Executive Board member
as he has proved to be. *

* Larry, on certain issues sometimes you're sort of half-right, but
it's amazing how on the subject of Sam Sloan you manage to be nearly
100% wrong all the time. Here you are wrong on both counts:

* 1. Nearly everyone expected Sloan to be disruptive, and he has been
disruptive.
* 2. Almost no one expected Sloan to be productive, and he has not
been productive.

* So Sam has performed very much according to expectations.

Taylor Kingston is wrong as usual. I'm not disruptive. I just like to
destroy anyone who doesn't agree with me or stand in my way.

I'm clearly very productive. I succeeded in getting rid of Robert
Tanner and AF4C. Now I'm going after SP and her entire team. The USCF
doesn't need any stinking woman, foreigner or Jew to run the show.

Parr will support me because if I'm reelected, I'll make him the web
editor and get rid of Shahade.

Sam Sloan

VERY FUNNY

LOOK AT THE HEADER



This is of course the fake Sam.

samsloan wrote:
On 5 Mar, 09:07, "Taylor Kingston" wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:11 am, " wrote:

SWEEPING DIRT UNDER THE RUG

? ? I don't think that any of us expected Sam to be
as productive and disruptive an Executive Board member
as he has proved to be. ?

? Larry, on certain issues sometimes you're sort of half-right, but
it's amazing how on the subject of Sam Sloan you manage to be nearly
100% wrong all the time. Here you are wrong on both counts:

? 1. Nearly everyone expected Sloan to be disruptive, and he has been
disruptive.
? 2. Almost no one expected Sloan to be productive, and he has not
been productive.

? So Sam has performed very much according to expectations.

Taylor Kingston is wrong as usual. I'm not disruptive. I just like to
destroy anyone who doesn't agree with me or stand in my way.

I'm clearly very productive. I succeeded in getting rid of Robert
Tanner and AF4C. Now I'm going after SP and her entire team. The USCF
doesn't need any stinking woman, foreigner or Jew to run the show.

Parr will support me because if I'm reelected, I'll make him the web
editor and get rid of Shahade.

Sam Sloan

THE PARTY LINE

From Taylor Kingston you are getting the official
view of Sam Sloan. No bureaucrat would disagree.

The truth is that Sam has revealed numerous
documents, raising questions over the status of what
may be a worthless building in Cross-to-Bear; he
exposed a former Board member who was using some good
ol' boy connections to do himself some good; he has
raised questions about sweetheart contracts and the like.

Sam has been productive in letting us know what
goes on behind closed doors, and he has been
disruptive of desires by the good ol' boys to keep
their shenanigans quiet.

He has been a ball-buster and a killer-diller.

P.S. He also outed Mr. 2300+ Elo's true OTB rating.



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:11 am, " wrote:
SWEEPING DIRT UNDER THE RUG

I don't think that any of us expected Sam to be
as productive and disruptive an Executive Board member
as he has proved to be.

Larry, on certain issues sometimes you're sort of half-right, but
it's amazing how on the subject of Sam Sloan you manage to be nearly
100% wrong all the time. Here you are wrong on both counts:

1. Nearly everyone expected Sloan to be disruptive, and he has been
disruptive.
2. Almost no one expected Sloan to be productive, and he has not
been productive.

So Sam has performed very much according to expectations.

On 5 Mar, 21:48, " wrote:
THE PARTY LINE

*From Taylor Kingston you are getting the official
view of Sam Sloan. *No bureaucrat would disagree.

The truth is that Sam has revealed numerous
documents, raising questions over the status of what
may be a worthless building in Cross-to-Bear; he
exposed a former Board member who was using some good
ol' boy connections to do himself some good; he has
raised questions about sweetheart contracts and the like.

Sam has been productive in letting us know what
goes on behind closed doors, and he has been
disruptive of desires by the good ol' boys to keep
their shenanigans quiet.

He has been a ball-buster and a killer-diller.

P.S. He also outed Mr. 2300+ Elo's true OTB rating.



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:11 am, " wrote:
SWEEPING DIRT UNDER THE RUG

* * I don't think that any of us expected Sam to be
as productive and disruptive an Executive Board member
as he has proved to be.

* Larry, on certain issues sometimes you're sort of half-right, but
it's amazing how on the subject of Sam Sloan you manage to be nearly
100% wrong all the time. Here you are wrong on both counts:

* 1. Nearly everyone expected Sloan to be disruptive, and he has been
disruptive.
* 2. Almost no one expected Sloan to be productive, and he has not
been productive.

* So Sam has performed very much according to expectations.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And don't forget I'm the most honest person in the world! I've never
lied. I'm clean as a whistle!

Sam Sloan

Kind of like when Sam "swept under the rug" the fact that he claimed
to be former rated "Chess Master" and a current rated "Chess Expert"
during a political statement? Sam lies so naturally that it's hard
to tell when he does mistakenly tells the truth.

Sam Sloan is the biggest problem in the USCF. No doubt about it.


wrote in message
ps.com...
SWEEPING DIRT UNDER THE RUG

Yours, Larry Parr

wrote in message
ps.com...
THE PARTY LINE

From Taylor Kingston you are getting the official
view of Sam Sloan. No bureaucrat would disagree.

The truth is that Sam has revealed numerous
documents, raising questions over the status of what
may be a worthless building in Cross-to-Bear; he
exposed a former Board member who was using some good
ol' boy connections to do himself some good; he has
raised questions about sweetheart contracts and the like.

But a real problem with Sam Sloan, Mr. Parr, is that he has proved as
unresponsive to his own responsibilty as the rest of 'em. Just becausse he
appears in public 50 times per day doesn't reflect any particular care on
his part.

He is rather like an investigative journalist on the rampage - for certain
dirt - and it is there cloggin up the works - sure! But he ain't that. Here
and in his 'own' newsgroup he does not respond to what people say about the
issues he raises. That is a curiosity much noted.

He is also marked with certain filters to sense in obsessing over Susan
Polgar, which is, I suggest to you, as much a 'complexity' of issue as is
Bill Brock over Sloan!

Meanwhile boy-Sloan exhults over suggested misdeeds of the past, utterly
oblivious to the mass of red ink occuring during his own watch. As such, he
is as responsive as any other board member - nothing special about him in
this respect.

But what I want in any politico is diligence to what they /can be/
responsible for. I have yet to see the transition between outre reporter and
competent desk&committee-man. I think this is also a widely acknowledged
perception.

He has raised issues which never should have been secret in the first place
[shame on it!] but at the same time as indicriminately raising issue which
no candid attention could value as of the slightest importance.

Sam has been productive in letting us know what
goes on behind closed doors, and he has been
disruptive of desires by the good ol' boys to keep
their shenanigans quiet.

Yes. He has become an inside reporter. This, IMO, is not enough for
re-election.

He has been a ball-buster and a killer-diller.

P.S. He also outed Mr. 2300+ Elo's true OTB rating.

And others who bear him personal malice, such as Brock.

But this is simply to triumph for a season on the same basis that they have
had their way so long!

The question remains between us, if it is personality types which are
important at this time, or if what ails us is systemic? By this I mean an
excessive introversion unto secrecy, lack of forward sense, and short-term
and political expedient actions. Mereldy reporting their extent has been our
work awhile. Occupying a seat at the council requires rather more than that.

Sloan's work is currently to expose the shoddiness of others. This is
insufficient as foundation for the future - and either liking what Sloan
does, or disliking it, is also insufficient.

It must also be said that his sexual speculations are juvenile. To regard
women as /only/ sexual objects from the male point of view, is indeed an
adolescent perspective. I never saw him write otherwise without some
tittliating give-away phrase. This is a major problem to those concerned
with women and girls in chess - it cannot be glossed.

Since we 'never disagree' on anything, and I always follow your lead, as Rob
Mitchell does mine, according to the corn-fed bloke, apart from his delight
in viewing these differences, and indeed challenges, there remains something
much beyond pro or anti Sloan to consider, unless we are indeed content to
laugh at the MacDonald US Fisch-wich Open, or next year's inanity by those
who manage on our behalf what was once the Royal Game.

In summary: Seems to me that Sloan's own indifference to other's responses
cannot recommend him more than any other incumbent. He has not taken
responsiblity for his own watch, neither individually nor as a board-being,
and his sexual specualtions limit him and those about him.

Phil Innes



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:11 am, " wrote:
SWEEPING DIRT UNDER THE RUG

I don't think that any of us expected Sam to be
as productive and disruptive an Executive Board member
as he has proved to be.

Larry, on certain issues sometimes you're sort of half-right, but
it's amazing how on the subject of Sam Sloan you manage to be nearly
100% wrong all the time. Here you are wrong on both counts:

1. Nearly everyone expected Sloan to be disruptive, and he has been
disruptive.
2. Almost no one expected Sloan to be productive, and he has not
been productive.

So Sam has performed very much according to expectations.