On Sep 2, 9:46 pm, none wrote:
On Sep 2, 12:38 pm, Bruce wrote:

Ken missed his calling in stand up He got scrod just like Booz
did

More of Daney's drivel? Anyway, I thought you left these here parts.

I think that this was Stan Booz posting.

If true, this means that almost all of the old gang has come back
since the election.

Richard Peterson, Neal Brennen, Bruce Draney and now Stan Booz have
all returned.

I don't like it. I hope that Tom Dorsch and Tim Hanke don't come back
soon.

Sam Sloan

On Sep 2, 9:19 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:46 pm, none wrote:

On Sep 2, 12:38 pm, Bruce wrote:

Ken missed his calling in stand up He got scrod just like Booz
did

More of Daney's drivel? Anyway, I thought you left these here parts.

I think that this was Stan Booz posting.

If true, this means that almost all of the old gang has come back
since the election.

Richard Peterson, Neal Brennen, Bruce Draney and now Stan Booz have
all returned.

I don't like it. I hope that Tom Dorsch and Tim Hanke don't come back
soon.

Sam Sloan

Who is "Neal Brennen?" Is he related to the "Neil Brennan" that Phil
Innes sees everywhere? And where are Time Redman and My Nolan?

On Sep 2, 8:46 pm, none wrote:
On Sep 2, 12:38 pm, Bruce wrote:

Ken missed his calling in stand up He got scrod just like Booz
did

More of Daney's drivel? Anyway, I thought you left these here parts.

Who the heck is "Daney"?
I am Bruce Trainee

On Sep 2, 10:19 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:46 pm, none wrote:

On Sep 2, 12:38 pm, Bruce wrote:

Ken missed his calling in stand up He got scrod just like Booz
did

More of Daney's drivel? Anyway, I thought you left these here parts.

I think that this was Stan Booz posting.

If true, this means that almost all of the old gang has come back
since the election.

Richard Peterson, Neal Brennen, Bruce Draney and now Stan Booz have
all returned.

I don't like it. I hope that Tom Dorsch and Tim Hanke don't come back
soon.

Sam Sloan

No worries. I am just slumming this weekend.

On Sep 3, 12:33 am, Bruce wrote:
On Sep 2, 8:46 pm, none wrote:

On Sep 2, 12:38 pm, Bruce wrote:

Ken missed his calling in stand up He got scrod just like Booz
did

More of Daney's drivel? Anyway, I thought you left these here parts.

Who the heck is "Daney"?
I am Bruce Trainee

I owe you an "r". Otherwise eat scrod and die.

On Sep 3, 9:46 am, none wrote:
On Sep 3, 12:33 am, Bruce wrote:

On Sep 2, 8:46 pm, none wrote:

On Sep 2, 12:38 pm, Bruce wrote:

Ken missed his calling in stand up He got scrod just like Booz
did

More of Daney's drivel? Anyway, I thought you left these here parts.

Who the heck is "Daney"?
I am Bruce Trainee

I owe you an "r". Otherwise eat scrod and die.

hahaha nice to see you are still the same jolly self Booz

none wrote:
On Sep 2, 10:19 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:46 pm, none wrote:

On Sep 2, 12:38 pm, Bruce wrote:
Ken missed his calling in stand up He got scrod just like Booz
did
More of Daney's drivel? Anyway, I thought you left these here parts.
I think that this was Stan Booz posting.

If true, this means that almost all of the old gang has come back
since the election.

Richard Peterson, Neal Brennen, Bruce Draney and now Stan Booz have
all returned.

I don't like it. I hope that Tom Dorsch and Tim Hanke don't come back
soon.

Sam Sloan

No worries. I am just slumming this weekend.


Du tickst ja nicht richtig!

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Joel Channing likes SteveTN's postings because almost all of SteveTN's
postings are attacks on Sam Sloan.

Sam Sloan

Since taking office more than one month ago on August 5, 2007, the
newly elected board members have done NOTHING other than debate
whether to shut down the USCF Forums and whether to ban Sam Sloan from
posting there.

Right now, Joel Channing, Paul Truong and Susan Polgar are all in
favor of shutting down the forum and/or banning Sam Sloan from
posting. On the other hand, Randy Bauer has come out in favor of
truth, justice and the American Way, meaning that he favors keeping
the forums open and he points out that anybody who does not want to be
criticized should not have run for the board.

Here is a posting by Joel Channing on this subject, followed by
postings by Truong, Bauer and Susan Polgar:

Joel Channing writes:


In a message dated 9/2/2007 8:47:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
CHESSJOEL writes:

I respectfully disagree, Bill. I think that posting charges
without proof should be a major violation. You're putting the onus on
the party that is presumed innocent. Someone like Sam fires a
constant barrage of unsubstantiated attacks. Scrambling to refute
such a devastating attack is enough to wear a good person down. Joel

Paul Truong writes:

I fully agree with Joel. Some of us are busy doing positive things for
chess. We do not have the time to track down every fabrication by
someone like Sloan. Again, the question is how many times before he
gets a permanent ban? 10, 20, 100, 1,000? Even if we just follow the
AUG, he should have been banned long ago.

But Randy Bauer writes:

Somebody has to disprove the claims, and if/when that happens, I am
happy to go along with sanctions as appropriate. Still, I'm wondering
about people's general approach on this matter.

I spent many, many, many hours responding to Sam's attacks and claims
when I was on the Board last time, mostly on RGCP. It's often a long,
boring, and even painful process, but it is my belief that it is a
necessary part of the governing process of a democratic organization.
Did any of you not think you would be subject to scrutiny or criticism
on the USCF Forum or other forums as a member of the Executive Board?
If so, welcome to the world of a popularly elected governing board.

And Susan Polgar writes:

First of all, as I stated several times, people are entitled to their
opinions. This is not an issue and it never was. However, the USCF
should not officially sanction a forum where people can purposely and
maliciously lie, insult, abuse and attack USCF employees, members,
volunteers, supporters and sponsors. We are not talking about the
entire membership. We are talking about a handful of people who have a
long history of disrespecting the laws, rules or the AUG. These people
are free to go to the RGCP if they wish but not the USCF forums.

Secondly, when I ran for the board, I clearly stated my vision for a
better USCF as well as my platforms for the election. They include
raising the level of professionalism and rebuilding the image of this
federation, building a strong relationship and partnership with other
chess organizations, members, volunteers, supporters and companies.
This kind of willful violation of the AUG costs us a number of
volunteers, supporters and sponsors already and it is time to put an
end to the abusers.

I am following what I campaigned for. I care a lot more for the
health, image and reputation of chess and the USCF than a handful of
abusers.

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