Highlights of the USCF Board Meeting May 19-20, 2007

Originally Posted by SteveTN

You failed to address this point.

Sam Sloan first brought up the post, expressing the opinion that it
should not have been removed.

You didn't see any ethical problems with an opponent of Truong/Polgar
bringing up the topic of this post that was extremely negative toward
Sloan's opponents? Is that correct?

And you did not see any problems with a political member of a
political body discussing the disposition of a post negative to the
opponents of at least two members running for re-election and that
post's disposition by a non-political body?

Your point is invalid because I have consistently advocated that ALL
posts should be restored and none should be removed, other than ads
for Viagra and other purely commercial postings.

I used Jerry Hanken's posting as an example because he is a political
opponent and is campaigning actively against me, so I could not
possibly be biased.

Otherwise, I would have brought up Harry Payne's thread which is
perhaps a better example of the problem and still has not been
restored.

Also, as proof that I am not in favor of censorship, you, as SteveTN,
have posted hundreds of attacks on me on my FIDE-chess Yahoo Group and
I have removed or moderated none of them. Phil Innes is attacking me
today and almost every day recently and I am not moderating him. Even
Paul Truong has often posted there under various names and I have
never moderated him either.

Over the past five years since 2002 no posting has ever been removed
from my group except for commercial spam and postings by the one
banned user.

Sam Sloan

Also, as proof that I am not in favor of censorship, you, as SteveTN,
have posted hundreds of attacks on me on my FIDE-chess Yahoo Group and
I have removed or moderated none of them. Phil Innes is attacking me
today and almost every day recently and I am not moderating him. Even
Paul Truong has often posted here under various names and I have never
moderated him either.


**Sam Sloan continues to talk about himself, except of course, not with
anyone else - he is talking about himself with himself. He views questions
from other people about his own behavior as 'attacks', while, without any
irony, continues to pose questions about other people with such supposition
:: fact ratio, as would make an 8 year old fall down in helpless laughter.

**What is attacked, if that must be the term, is the level of interrogation
Sam Sloan offers to any subject that is not entirely his own, and which is
often so daft on its face as to be wince-making.

**Just to maintain some semblance of coherence in Sam Sloan's ever changing
attention, in this instance, it is not WHO should speak, as a matter of
'free-speech', but HOW any speech is conducted, which is instead a matter of
'responsible' speech.

**It is not possible to actually discuss this matter with Sam Sloan, since
he is by his behavior incapable of figuring out the difference, and such
heady adult stuff for him has to be deposed here as an attack, or banned
outright. Neither does Sam Sloan agree with the rest of the board that this
is any issue for USCF, and he ignores them too, voting the other way.

Over the past five years since 2002 no posting has ever been removed
from my group except for commercial spam and postings by the one
banned user.


**Being of course, Rob Mitchell, who impartially defended Sam Sloan's
Wikipedia contributions, but a month later when the subject matter was not
convenient to Sam Sloan [questions about Sam Sloan's behavior!] was excised
from this group by Sam Sloan; whose idea of fair play is hereby demonstrated
to be like this:-

a) Sam Sloan raised the objection himself
b) He prosecuted the subject himself, using as his case such fatuous logic
that he didn't know which Mitchell was writing here - and also denying that
the same Mitchell had called him and e-mailed him
c) He judged the process of interrogation himself asking not one other
opinion from any poster
d) He acted as Jury too, and he voted the result all by himself
e) As Judge again, he then condemned said Mitchell to exile from Fide Chess

Mr. Sloan needs to understand that rhetoric is advocacy for whatever point
you wish to draw other's attention to, but philosophy is really a study of
not what you say, but what you do. Mr. Sloan does not even deny the (a)
through (e) above is what he did. He simply ignores the fact that /he/ did
so, since what is wrong about it? What he thinks will impress anyone else
after that little routine is between him and Santa.

Phil Innes
Vermont
--------


Sam Sloan