Goichberg and Channing are stacking the deck against Sloan. They are
putting their people in the Forums Oversight Committee to suspend Sam
Sloan from posting. They will ban Sam Sloan from the USCF next. Vote
for Don Schultz, the only man with integrity.

On Mar 16, 7:15 pm, wrote:
Goichberg and Channing are stacking the deck against Sloan. They are
putting their people in the Forums Oversight Committee to suspend Sam
Sloan from posting. They will ban Sam Sloan from the USCF next. Vote
for Don Schultz, the only man with integrity.

I have no idea who is but he is right.

It is obvious that Bill Goichberg has stacked the USCF Forums with his
own hand-picked people. The Board Members were not allowed to object
to any one member of the committee. They had to either vote for the
entire committee selected by Goichberg or vote not to have a committee
at all.

The first thing the committee did was suspend me from posting. Here is
the notice:

From: SysAdmin sysadmin
To: samsloan
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:11 am
Subject: Notification of Disciplinary Action Quote message
NOTIFICATION OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION

Date: March 16, 2007
To: Sam Sloan

Your post to the USCF Forums on Tue Mar 13, 2007, Subject: "The Polgar
Gang", in the USCF Issues Forum was in violation of the Acceptable
Usage Guidelines for the USCF Forum.

This is a 1st level sanction.

Accordingly, you have been suspended from posting to the USCF Forums
for a period of 24 hours.

This sanction was imposed by order of the Forums Oversight Committee.

Mike Nolan, serving as the Forums Technical Administrator

Please note that Don Schultz also objected to the high-handed way Bill
Goichberg forced his selections down the throats of the other board
members.

Here is what Don wrote:

Bill, maybe its semantics but for the future, when I agree to having a
committee submit names or other recommendations to the Board for
approval I expect them to send it to the entire Board for comments
rather than the first time I see the names, to have it be in the form
of a motion, which means acceptance or pubic rejection of someone you
don't think suitable. Those mentioned in the motion whom I know are ok
but I would have chosen one or two others instead. I never heard of
some of them and would like to have heard something about them before
voting to put them on this committee.

Don

I have found out that anybody who tends to agree with me on the
overall issues has also been suspended from posting to the USCF Issues
Forum.

This includes Attorney Brian Lafferty who is always very careful not
to write anything that might be construed as a personal attack on
anybody.

There is nobody left to get the issues out. The only people still
allowed to post are Pro-Polgar people and Goichberg Sycophants.

Sam Sloan

STACKING THE DECK

Sam Sloan asks what is basically a rhetorical
question. Bill Goichberg appointed interested parties
such as Grant Perks and Louie Blair because... the
elections are on and because ... these people want to
keep control of the message going to USCF members.

Logical enough. Low, of course. And to be expected.

In the case of Louie Blair, Goichberg has selected a
real doozie. His specialty is searching old messages
in the e-graveyard and ignoring those that he wishes
to ignore while posing as an honest broker.

The long term project here is to replace Mike
Nolan who lacks the intellectual sophistication for
seamless censorship. Louie is not a bad start from
the viewpoint of the powers that be, and were it not
for the drug testing issue that prevents me from
rejoining the USCF I would dearly love to post at
the USCF Forum as a member and have my
postings routinely censored.

It would be fun.



samsloan wrote:
I have found out that anybody who tends to agree with me on the
overall issues has also been suspended from posting to the USCF Issues
Forum.

This includes Attorney Brian Lafferty who is always very careful not
to write anything that might be construed as a personal attack on
anybody.

There is nobody left to get the issues out. The only people still
allowed to post are Pro-Polgar people and Goichberg Sycophants.

Sam Sloan

SWEETHEART DEALS

There would be no need for such secrecy on the USCF forums if the
federation weren't so horribly mismanaged.

See HAPPY TALK IS HERE AGAIN in Evans On Chess

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....rder=0&thold=0


wrote:
STACKING THE DECK

Sam Sloan asks what is basically a rhetorical
question. Bill Goichberg appointed interested parties
such as Grant Perks and Louie Blair because... the
elections are on and because ... these people want to
keep control of the message going to USCF members.

Logical enough. Low, of course. And to be expected.

In the case of Louie Blair, Goichberg has selected a
real doozie. His specialty is searching old messages
in the e-graveyard and ignoring those that he wishes
to ignore while posing as an honest broker.

The long term project here is to replace Mike
Nolan who lacks the intellectual sophistication for
seamless censorship. Louie is not a bad start from
the viewpoint of the powers that be, and were it not
for the drug testing issue that prevents me from
rejoining the USCF I would dearly love to post at
the USCF Forum as a member and have my
postings routinely censored.

It would be fun.



samsloan wrote:
I have found out that anybody who tends to agree with me on the
overall issues has also been suspended from posting to the USCF Issues
Forum.

This includes Attorney Brian Lafferty who is always very careful not
to write anything that might be construed as a personal attack on
anybody.

There is nobody left to get the issues out. The only people still
allowed to post are Pro-Polgar people and Goichberg Sycophants.

Sam Sloan

At 09:45 AM 3/17/2007 EDT, wrote:

The motion to appoint the committee was made by Bill Hall. Any Board member was free to object to any member of the committee, and Sam Sloan did object to one of the members. Any Board member was free to move to amend the motion by removing or replacing one or more of the members, and no one did so. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0 with Sloan abstaining.

Bill Goichberg

Stop this lying nonsense. It is perfectly obvious that this motion was
by Bill Goichberg. The moderation committee was hand-picked by Bill
Goichberg. The decision to allow rank beginners to buy into the US
Championship for $50,000 was also made by Bill Goichberg. All of these
decisions and motions that you say were made by Bill Hall even on days
when Bill Hall was out "sick" were all made by Bill Goichberg.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

Sam Sloan

Larry Parr wrote (17 Mar 2007 06:29:25 -0700):

7 ... [LouieBlair's] specialty is searching old messages
7 in the e-graveyard and ignoring those that he wishes
7 to ignore while posing as an honest broker. ...

_
Larry Parr, of course, gives no examples of me "posing
as an honest broker". I do not even know what he means
by such an expression. Until Larry Parr explains himself
on this point, I will content myself with denying posing
as something that I am not.

BLAIR DENIES

Larry Parr wrote (17 Mar 2007 06:29:25 -0700):
[LouieBlair's] specialty is searching old messages
in the e-graveyard and ignoring those that he
wishes to ignore while posing as an honest broker....

Larry Parr, of course, gives no examples of me
"posing as an honest broker". I do not even know
what he means by such an expression. Until Larry
Parr explains himself on this point, I will content
myself with denying posing as something that I am not."

Louie Blair claims to know not the meaning of
"honest broker," though adding a mincing qualifier.
On the other hand, he denies being what he knows not,
though he is certain that he is not.

Such is our Louie. Screwy? He denies it until
he knows what may be meant by the word.




Louis Blair wrote:
Larry Parr wrote (17 Mar 2007 06:29:25 -0700):

7 ... [LouieBlair's] specialty is searching old messages
7 in the e-graveyard and ignoring those that he wishes
7 to ignore while posing as an honest broker. ...

_
Larry Parr, of course, gives no examples of me "posing
as an honest broker". I do not even know what he means
by such an expression. Until Larry Parr explains himself
on this point, I will content myself with denying posing
as something that I am not.

wrote in message
ups.com...
BLAIR DENIES

Larry Parr wrote (17 Mar 2007 06:29:25 -0700):
[LouieBlair's] specialty is searching old messages
in the e-graveyard and ignoring those that he
wishes to ignore while posing as an honest broker....

ON PRE-DENIAL THEORY

Larry Parr, of course, gives no examples of me
"posing as an honest broker". I do not even know
what he means by such an expression. Until Larry
Parr explains himself on this point, I will content
myself with denying posing as something that I am not."


Its not denial yet, Larry Parr; as you can see from the following
excruciating dialog, its more to do with an absolute willingness not to
understand the expressions of others, as you note above. Pre-denial is the
preferred term of not-yet discriminating netocrats..

Dr. Blairs own terminology, is "no reason to see", and I think its fair to
take him at his word on this.

In a text which Dr. Blair thought fit to remove from the record below is his
own remarkable statement [this is after a good 20,000 words already!] and
follows Dr. B's statement that it was neither subjective nor objective
reaction to the content of the Wiki material, promting my question:-

***"it was not a critique of the biographies at all" SO WHAT WAS IT?
_
Consequently, my "help" was not an attempt to
address content, and did not pretend to address
content.

What a perfect stance for a moderator! Meanwhile 'content' as such, is
continuously addressed below as 'nonsense', no matter who says it.

The funny bit is that Sloan and Blair are equally stubborn, being both
all-or-nothing types, impervious to other's commentary, yet while Sloan is
censored at USCF forum, Blair 'explains' why he has no reason, &c at Sloan's
Fide group ))

//Phil Innes

-------
--- In ,
chesspride@... (Eric C. Johnson) wrote
(Thu March 15, 2007 8:06 pm):
7 ...
7 It is not very convincing.
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:42 am):
7 It is not really my problem if the fantasy
7 of Eric C. Johnson is not very convincing.
7 ...
_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (March 16, 2007
7:21 am):
7 Like Eric, it has convinced /every/ other
7 reader so far, here and in rgcp, and
7 readers who do not frequently agree with
7 each other. I think Dr. B is in denial,
7 and the only person not convinced is
7 himself. ...
_
I wrote (Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:24 pm)
7 It seems to me that, in his excitement, Phil
7 Innes has failed to clearly identify what all
7 these "readers" have been convinced to believe.
7 ...
_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (Sat March 17, 2007
12:46 pm):
7 The same 'fantasy' as is the topic we here
7 address - which is the degree of obfustification
7 on any subjct whatever to which Dr. Blair lends
7 his attention. Has Dr. Blair forgotten the topic
7 he now denies? Or is he just confused? ...
_
I wrote (Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:53 pm):
7 A number of assertions have been made by Phil
7 Innes and/or Eric C. Johnson and/or Sam Sloan in
7 this discussion. I am not sure which one or ones
7 (if any) Phil Innes has in mind when he refers to
7 some sort of supposed general agreement. ...

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 A number of observations have been made by
7 more than just those noticed above. Dr.
7 Blair continues to state that he 'is not
7 sure' what they are about.

_
No, I stated that I am not sure which assertion
or assertions (if any) Phil Innes has in mind
when he refers to some sort of supposed general
agreement.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 Whereas, the subject is the level of candid
7 reporting that Dr. Blair himself conducts

_
So, if I am following Phil Innes correctly, he
is not now claiming any general agreement about
something that is specific to the Wikipedia
incident. That is probably wise.

_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (Sat March 17, 2007
12:46 pm):
7 ... Dr. Blair will also not remember his
7 correspondance with Greg Kennedy [again 10%
7 agreeing with me] who also pointed out how
7 selective such 'objective' references actually
7 are ...
_
I wrote (Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:53 pm):
7 ... I assume that Phil Innes is referring to
7 some "help bot" notes that were posted awhile
7 ago, and, if so, I do indeed remember them and
7 Phil Innes fails in his attempt at prediction.
7 I see no justification for regarding those notes
7 as agreement with the Phil Innes, Eric C.
7 Johnson, or Sam Sloan comments about my
7 Wikipedia activity. ...

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 Ah! Well, I wonder if Dr. Blair remembers what
7 he himself wrote yesterday? That it was me alone
7 who thought his productions 'sophisticated'.

_
Actually, I do not remember writing such a
thing and Phil Innes does not seem to be very
eager to produce specific details about what
was written and where.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 How could Dr. Blair 'see' any justification
7 at all? - Johnson's writing is dismissed as
7 'fantasy',

_
Eric C. Johnson wrote about some speech of
an imaginary character, denying an intention
to tattle. Although the speech incorporated
some of my phrases, it was nevertheless a
fantasy, as I had not written anything about
the "tattletale" accusation. (In response, to
the Eric C. Johnson note, I DID address the
issue so that he could see the difference
between reality and the product of his
imagination.)

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 and help-bot/Kennedy is forgot, until
7 reminded of

_
Nonsense. All along, I have remembered the
"help bot" notes. I simply see no justification
for regarding those notes as agreement with the
Phil Innes, Eric C. Johnson, or Sam Sloan
comments about my Wikipedia activity.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 - Dr. Blair casts his own actions in terms
7 of what he choses 'to see'. Which is not much,
7 evidently. To the point was that Dr. Blair
7 took part in the 'Wikipedia-Action' but is
7 shy of any frank assessment of what he did as
7 others saw it.

_
Nonsense. I have quoted the assessments of Sam
Sloan, Eric C. Johnson, and Phil Innes many
times.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 As a moderator, he is an absolutist!

_
Nonsense. Phil Innes has no examples of me
acting as a moderator.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 - has shown not the slightest attempt to
7 even acknowledge other peoples comments to
7 moderate his own behavior. ROFL -

_
Nonsense. I have quoted the comments of Sam
Sloan, Eric C. Johnson, and Phil Innes many
times.

_
I wrote (Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:53 pm):
7 ...
7 ___"... My only contribution was the note
7 ___(sent to a number of Wikipedia
7 ___participants) that Sam Sloan himself
7 ___quoted on Tue March 13, 2007 3:06 pm.
7 ___It advocated no course of action."
7 ___- Louis Blair (Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:34 pm)
7
7 ___"... I think that it is appropriate to try
7 ___to help Wikipedia to be aware of what is
7 ___going on, ..." - Louis Blair (Thu
7 ___Mar 15, 2007 2:19 am)
7
7 For details on who acted to do what after
7 that point, I suggest that Phil Innes
7 consult Wikipedia records. He might start
7 with:
7
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
7 title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
7 &oldid=115765976#Chess_biographies

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 The essential honesty of the [above quotes]
7 has already received a comment by Eric Johnson
7 - [bit of a sober one about AF].

_
Previously, I posted:
_
___"Aren't there easily-located Sam Sloan
___contributions at Wikipedia right now?
___How can that be true if they have had a
___prior policy of automatically deleting
___Sam Sloan contributions? ..." - Louis
___Blair (Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:10 am)
_
I invite Phil Innes to attempt to answer these
questions himself.

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 Dr. Blair denies his actions were not a form
7 of advocacy.

_
My words should not be rewritten by Phil Innes.

_
--- In , "Chess One"
innes8@... (Phil Innes) wrote (Sat March 17, 2007
12:46 pm):
7 ... You are saying that Wikipedia
7 adminsitrators would not have removed
7 Sloan's material unless you 'helped' and
7 they remove all the material as some
7 matter of policy? ...
_
I wrote (Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:53 pm):
7 No. I am not saying those things. If Phil
7 Innes wants to claim that those things are
7 true, it is up to him to provide the
7 justification. ...

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 I do not 'want to say them', I have said
7 them! Dr. Blair said in his own words said
7 he 'helped',

_
The phrase was: "try to help".

_
--- In ,
"Chess One" (Phil Innes) innes8@... wrote
(Sun March 18, 2007 8:33 am):

7 so what do people think he 'helped' to do?
7 If you help, you make a contribution to
7 something, no? Dr. Blair now wants me to
7 prove 'my claim' that this is so [?!] This
7 is mighty peculiar understanding from a
7 Moderator. ...

_
An attempt to help does not necessarily make
a difference. It could be that the Wikipedia
people would have found out Sam Sloan's
"reinstat"ing activities in some other way.
_
By the way, notice that Phil Innes quietly
forgets the other part of his question:
"they remove all the material as some matter
of policy". See above.



-----------...-----------

Louie Blair claims to know not the meaning of
"honest broker," though adding a mincing qualifier.
On the other hand, he denies being what he knows not,
though he is certain that he is not.

Such is our Louie. Screwy? He denies it until
he knows what may be meant by the word.




Louis Blair wrote:
Larry Parr wrote (17 Mar 2007 06:29:25 -0700):

7 ... [LouieBlair's] specialty is searching old messages
7 in the e-graveyard and ignoring those that he wishes
7 to ignore while posing as an honest broker. ...

_
Larry Parr, of course, gives no examples of me "posing
as an honest broker". I do not even know what he means
by such an expression. Until Larry Parr explains himself
on this point, I will content myself with denying posing
as something that I am not.