After an extremely divisive election campaign in which many feel was
the dirties campaign in USCF election history, Susan Polgar was
elected in a landslide and received probably the highest percentage of
votes in any contested USCF election.

In recognition of this, Susan was given the title of "Chairman of the
USCF" (a title that does not exist in the bylaws but that is another
issue).

Now, Joel Channing says that criticism of Susan should not be allowed
as that will drive away "sponsors and strategic partners".

The comments by Mike Atkins were just a mild, general ribbing. What
does Joel Channing find wrong with it?

When Susan ran for election she impliedly promised that if elected she
would bring in millions of dollars from these sponsors and strategic
partners who would give money if only she was at the helm.

By winning the election, Susan has become a public figure and
criticism of her is or should be allowed and indeed expected.

Does Joel Channing feel that because George W. Bush was elected
President of the United States, criticism of him should not be
allowed.

Sam Sloan

On Aug 18, 6:22 pm, samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by joelchanning This gratuitous baiting of the director who polled the most votes of any of the candidates in the last election is typical of the crap that is still allowed to be posted here. If we are to allow this when it is aimed at directors and staff (which has be the case for the last year), we'll have no basis for disallowing it when it's aimed at sponsors and strategic partners. It is why I have made it known that I am in favor of shutting down the Issues part of our Forum, which I estimate costs us between $20,000 and $30,000 a year ($11,000 for internet insurance alone, which we bought only so we could have a moderated Forum). Joel Channing

After an extremely divisive election campaign in which many feel was
the dirties campaign in USCF election history, Susan Polgar was
elected in a landslide and received probably the highest percentage of
votes in any contested USCF election.

In recognition of this, Susan was given the title of "Chairman of the
USCF" (a title that does not exist in the bylaws but that is another
issue).

Now, Joel Channing says that criticism of Susan should not be allowed
as that will drive away "sponsors and strategic partners".

The comments by Mike Atkins were just a mild, general ribbing. What
does Joel Channing find wrong with it?

When Susan ran for election she impliedly promised that if elected she
would bring in millions of dollars from these sponsors and strategic
partners who would give money if only she was at the helm.

By winning the election, Susan has become a public figure and
criticism of her is or should be allowed and indeed expected.

Does Joel Channing feel that because George W. Bush was elected
President of the United States, criticism of him should not be
allowed.

Sam Sloan

What the hell is "internet insurance" and why the hell does it cost
$11,000/year?

On Aug 18, 7:37 pm, Bruce wrote:

What the hell is "internet insurance" and why the hell does it cost
$11,000/year?

Good question and a question I have asked repeatedly.

I made a motion while on the board to cancel this Internet insurance
as a waste of money but my motion was voted down.

I asked for a copy of the insurance policy to see what was being
insured but like everything else I requested I never received it.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

Now, Joel Channing says that criticism of Susan should not be allowed
as that will drive away "sponsors and strategic partners".

By winning the election, Susan has become a public figure and
criticism of her is or should be allowed and indeed expected.

Does Joel Channing feel that because George W. Bush was elected
President of the United States, criticism of him should not be
allowed.

Does Sam Sloan feel that, unless it is posted on www.whitehouse.gov,
criticism of George W. Bush is not allowed?

Oh, and stop crossposting to soc.culture.magyar, asshole.

On Aug 19, 2:18 am, Bruce wrote:

That is asinine. The whole point of a moderator is to delete
defamatory and inappropriate posts. If you assume liability by
creating a moderated site and have to pay $11,000 a year to protect
yourself against lawsuits because of it, that is truly idiotic.

What is especially ironic is that the only person who has ever filed a
lawsuit over postings to this group is Joel Channing himself.

Take a look at http://tinyurl.com/y7ocl3

From Jose Lambiet's "Page Two" column in the Palm Beach Post
"Gardens plaintiff says he's not ex-pal's pawn" Friday, March 25,
2005

By taking out an "Internet insurance policy", Joel Channing has
assured himself that if he sues Sam Sloan over an Internet posting to
the USCF Forums and wins, he will not have to collect from Sam, whom
he keeps saying is judgment proof, because the Internet insurance
policy will pay off.

Pointing this out over on the USCF Forums got me suspended over there
another time.

Sam Sloan

There are actually some real issues in this post. The only shame is that Sam
Sloan should raise them, since when HE was a board member he acted as
claimant, prosecutor, judge and jury at his 'own' Fide forum in banning Rob
Mitchell on a pretext.

This is the same Rob Mitchell who defended Sloan's /writing/

[nb: writing, not personality]

from the attention of forum oversight merchant-to-be Louis Blair.

Of course the activities of Susan Polgar should be monitored in respect of
their effect on the chess public - though the USCF forum is the last place
that it can be done, by dint and design of the previous board. The problem
with that forum, as ex-president Redman has pointed out is that it is all
politics.

I got a laugh out of a senior staff member when I suggested that if board
members stopped posting there, with their spin spin spin, there would be no
problems {!} on USCF's chinny chin chin.

Phil Innes

I have restricted this post to chess newsgroups - posting to some Hungarian
ones seems to encourage even more anti-Semitic spam than usual.

"samsloan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Quote:

Originally Posted by joelchanning This gratuitous baiting of the director who polled the most votes of any of the candidates in the last election is typical of the crap that is still allowed to be posted here. If we are to allow this when it is aimed at directors and staff (which has be the case for the last year), we'll have no basis for disallowing it when it's aimed at sponsors and strategic partners. It is why I have made it known that I am in favor of shutting down the Issues part of our Forum, which I estimate costs us between $20,000 and $30,000 a year ($11,000 for internet insurance alone, which we bought only so we could have a moderated Forum). Joel Channing

After an extremely divisive election campaign in which many feel was
the dirties campaign in USCF election history, Susan Polgar was
elected in a landslide and received probably the highest percentage of
votes in any contested USCF election.

In recognition of this, Susan was given the title of "Chairman of the
USCF" (a title that does not exist in the bylaws but that is another
issue).

Now, Joel Channing says that criticism of Susan should not be allowed
as that will drive away "sponsors and strategic partners".

The comments by Mike Atkins were just a mild, general ribbing. What
does Joel Channing find wrong with it?

When Susan ran for election she impliedly promised that if elected she
would bring in millions of dollars from these sponsors and strategic
partners who would give money if only she was at the helm.

By winning the election, Susan has become a public figure and
criticism of her is or should be allowed and indeed expected.

Does Joel Channing feel that because George W. Bush was elected
President of the United States, criticism of him should not be
allowed.

Sam Sloan

"Bruce" wrote in message
ups.com...


Yes, staff is almost always a corporation's greatest expense. This
doesn't excuse spending $11K on an internet insurance policy for a
moderated chess discussion site.

If you need to be careful you need to put new posts into a delay
hopper until the moderator approves them. That is a far more
intelligent idea than creating your own entity to moderate nasty
comments and then having to spend money to protect yourself in case
someone doesn't like a nasty comment on the moderated board.

This had to be a lawyer's advice that led to this.

That's why they are not allowed on the teams. We had one who got caught
trying to sneak on by registering as an undertaker. Fortunately The Man in
White was onto him before an international incident took place, and St Kitts
and Nevis could send the gunboats.

---

The pre-amble to the USCF Forum took place in two other venues - (1) on Sam
Sloan's Fide Yahoo group, where Dr. Blair mysteriously showed up, and where
he seemed incapable of even recognizing what concerns others had about his
'Wiki-action', nevermind be able to defend that destruction. This did not
bode well...

And then (2) I talked with Bill Hall on the phone and /he/ brought it up,
said he wanted to be interviewed about it, make statements, and so on... and
then methinks he was shut-up )

One of my prepared questions to him was where he ended and the President
began?

---

As for the financials, [this was back in March], I knew the interim
financial report [Dec. 06] of the negative -$57k then. Nobody made a fuss
about it until the election fever hit, and now, when it is too late, there
is, er, action, or at least 'fuss', an acceptable substitute?

---

Recently I asked 2 board members if they wanted to talk more, as a 2-way
means of interaction, instead of Forum sound-bite spinning, or
ruling/communicating by proclamation? I also invited them to extend the
invitation to the whole board and a couple of named staffers.

I think they will need to get their feet under their respective desks before
much happens, since the general financial picture is miasmic.

---

Other issues of late are the Sloan-concern whether the Chairman will bring
in big funding. I hope not! First I hope the Veep of Finance can make
adequate bulkhead provision for securing it - then any monies received will
be literally 'accountable,' since they very certainly are not at the moment.

Phil Innes

FO from SCM, sloan!

On Aug 19, 5:41 am, samsloan wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:18 am, Bruce wrote:

That is asinine. The whole point of a moderator is to delete
defamatory and inappropriate posts. If you assume liability by
creating a moderated site and have to pay $11,000 a year to protect
yourself against lawsuits because of it, that is truly idiotic.

What is especially ironic is that the only person who has ever filed a
lawsuit over postings to this group is Joel Channing himself.

Take a look athttp://tinyurl.com/y7ocl3

From Jose Lambiet's "Page Two" column in the Palm Beach Post

"Gardens plaintiff says he's not ex-pal's pawn" Friday, March 25,
2005

By taking out an "Internet insurance policy", Joel Channing has
assured himself that if he sues Sam Sloan over an Internet posting to
the USCF Forums and wins, he will not have to collect from Sam, whom
he keeps saying is judgment proof, because the Internet insurance
policy will pay off.

Pointing this out over on the USCF Forums got me suspended over there
another time.

Sam Sloan

How come you and Bill Goichberg showed no hesitation about attacking
me when I was elected a director?

Why the double standard?

Sam Sloan

It is true that Joel waited a little bit longer than Bill Goichberg
who started attacking me almost as soon as the votes had been counted
and two weeks before I had even taken office on the board.

However, Joel also instructed the office not to give me expense money
for the trip to Chicago and not to provide a hotel room when I arrived
for the meetings, although he eventually backed down on the last
point.

Sam Sloan