[quote="Ron Suarez"]Actually Brenan, you are mistaken in your claim
above.

Paul and Susan were not the originators of the anti-Sam Sloan
campaign.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's web site being a mar on the public
image of the USCF and Executive Board, that he was now a member of,
then.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's numerous statements that were
slanderous and unprofessional. Their complaints though were not the
first, the last or the worst.

So, it is certainly unfair to both Paul and Susan to make the claims
you have.

They are both chess professionals and now members of our Executive
Board. Their performance in these positions have nothing to do with
Sam Sloan. While you may personally disagree with the things you
perceive Paul and Susan have said or done, I think you might need to
reevaluate your assessment of how they acted in their campaigning.[/
quote]

I am wondering who you have in mind.

Yes, it is true that Grant Perks and Bill Goichberg started attacking
me very shortly after the votes were counted and I was elected, which
was three weeks before I took office, but I believe that Polgar and
Truong attacked me sooner and far more viciously than either of them.

Take a look at:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006...tect-uscf.html

Let me know if you can find an attack earlier than that.

Sam Sloan

Apart from other 'attacks' against Mr. Sloan, is it permissible to attack
the truth?

To take just one issue: Did Mr. Sloan declare he had no criminal record to
the board, [Question 20], and did he spend 1.5 years inside?

Perhaps that defines what an 'attack' is.

If both questions above can be answered 'yes', then it doesn't matter who
raises the issue, does it? Since it would be none other than Mr. Sloan
himself who had 'attacked' the truth.

---

The problem would not be for me that Mr. Sloan had been inside, since in
this instance the law seemed particularly harsh, and if there was any crime,
if was one of passion, very hard to judge!

The problem is that Mr. Sloan seemed to declare that it was not true, since
he disagreed with the verdict as 'meaningless'. That is an 'attack' against
ordinary language and indeed, logic. It is not truthful.

So when people use words in a deliberate way to obscure what is fact and
what not, they may indeed have been the victims of an injustice, or a
penalty out of proportion to their 'crime', but their current error is to
deceive others by a form of obscurantism to the effect that disagreement
with the disinterested judgment of others is to erase the event.

That is, personally speaking, a stronger indictment against anyone being on
any board than having been inside for a spell. And this instance is hardly
an isolated one, but a very confirmed pattern in Mr. Sloan's
self-representation, which has those *special* meanings attached to whatever
he says, while being entirely cloth-eared to the views of others.

Phil Innes

"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...
[quote="Ron Suarez"]Actually Brenan, you are mistaken in your claim
above.

Paul and Susan were not the originators of the anti-Sam Sloan
campaign.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's web site being a mar on the public
image of the USCF and Executive Board, that he was now a member of,
then.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's numerous statements that were
slanderous and unprofessional. Their complaints though were not the
first, the last or the worst.

So, it is certainly unfair to both Paul and Susan to make the claims
you have.

They are both chess professionals and now members of our Executive
Board. Their performance in these positions have nothing to do with
Sam Sloan. While you may personally disagree with the things you
perceive Paul and Susan have said or done, I think you might need to
reevaluate your assessment of how they acted in their campaigning.[/
quote]

I am wondering who you have in mind.

Yes, it is true that Grant Perks and Bill Goichberg started attacking
me very shortly after the votes were counted and I was elected, which
was three weeks before I took office, but I believe that Polgar and
Truong attacked me sooner and far more viciously than either of them.

Take a look at:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006...tect-uscf.html

Let me know if you can find an attack earlier than that.

Sam Sloan

On Aug 21, 10:33 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Apart from other 'attacks' against Mr. Sloan, is it permissible to attack
the truth?

To take just one issue: Did Mr. Sloan declare he had no criminal record to
the board, [Question 20], and did he spend 1.5 years inside?

Perhaps that defines what an 'attack' is.

If both questions above can be answered 'yes', then it doesn't matter who
raises the issue, does it? Since it would be none other than Mr. Sloan
himself who had 'attacked' the truth.

---

The problem would not be for me that Mr. Sloan had been inside, since in
this instance the law seemed particularly harsh, and if there was any crime,
if was one of passion, very hard to judge!

The problem is that Mr. Sloan seemed to declare that it was not true, since
he disagreed with the verdict as 'meaningless'. That is an 'attack' against
ordinary language and indeed, logic. It is not truthful.

So when people use words in a deliberate way to obscure what is fact and
what not, they may indeed have been the victims of an injustice, or a
penalty out of proportion to their 'crime', but their current error is to
deceive others by a form of obscurantism to the effect that disagreement
with the disinterested judgment of others is to erase the event.

That is, personally speaking, a stronger indictment against anyone being on
any board than having been inside for a spell. And this instance is hardly
an isolated one, but a very confirmed pattern in Mr. Sloan's
self-representation, which has those *special* meanings attached to whatever
he says, while being entirely cloth-eared to the views of others.

Phil Innes

"samsloan" wrote in message

oups.com...



[quote="Ron Suarez"]Actually Brenan, you are mistaken in your claim
above.

Paul and Susan were not the originators of the anti-Sam Sloan
campaign.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's web site being a mar on the public
image of the USCF and Executive Board, that he was now a member of,
then.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's numerous statements that were
slanderous and unprofessional. Their complaints though were not the
first, the last or the worst.

So, it is certainly unfair to both Paul and Susan to make the claims
you have.

They are both chess professionals and now members of our Executive
Board. Their performance in these positions have nothing to do with
Sam Sloan. While you may personally disagree with the things you
perceive Paul and Susan have said or done, I think you might need to
reevaluate your assessment of how they acted in their campaigning.[/
quote]

I am wondering who you have in mind.

Yes, it is true that Grant Perks and Bill Goichberg started attacking
me very shortly after the votes were counted and I was elected, which
was three weeks before I took office, but I believe that Polgar and
Truong attacked me sooner and far more viciously than either of them.

Take a look at:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006...tect-uscf.html

Let me know if you can find an attack earlier than that.

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like when he posted about driving his taxi into the 21st Century and
then later sued the New York Taxi Cab Authorities claiming he had
never driven a taxi?

On Aug 21, 10:38 am, Bruce wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:33 am, "Chess One" wrote:





Apart from other 'attacks' against Mr. Sloan, is it permissible to attack
the truth?

To take just one issue: Did Mr. Sloan declare he had no criminal record to
the board, [Question 20], and did he spend 1.5 years inside?

Perhaps that defines what an 'attack' is.

If both questions above can be answered 'yes', then it doesn't matter who
raises the issue, does it? Since it would be none other than Mr. Sloan
himself who had 'attacked' the truth.

---

The problem would not be for me that Mr. Sloan had been inside, since in
this instance the law seemed particularly harsh, and if there was any crime,
if was one of passion, very hard to judge!

The problem is that Mr. Sloan seemed to declare that it was not true, since
he disagreed with the verdict as 'meaningless'. That is an 'attack' against
ordinary language and indeed, logic. It is not truthful.

So when people use words in a deliberate way to obscure what is fact and
what not, they may indeed have been the victims of an injustice, or a
penalty out of proportion to their 'crime', but their current error is to
deceive others by a form of obscurantism to the effect that disagreement
with the disinterested judgment of others is to erase the event.

That is, personally speaking, a stronger indictment against anyone being on
any board than having been inside for a spell. And this instance is hardly
an isolated one, but a very confirmed pattern in Mr. Sloan's
self-representation, which has those *special* meanings attached to whatever
he says, while being entirely cloth-eared to the views of others.

Phil Innes

"samsloan" wrote in message

roups.com...

[quote="Ron Suarez"]Actually Brenan, you are mistaken in your claim
above.

Paul and Susan were not the originators of the anti-Sam Sloan
campaign.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's web site being a mar on the public
image of the USCF and Executive Board, that he was now a member of,
then.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's numerous statements that were
slanderous and unprofessional. Their complaints though were not the
first, the last or the worst.

So, it is certainly unfair to both Paul and Susan to make the claims
you have.

They are both chess professionals and now members of our Executive
Board. Their performance in these positions have nothing to do with
Sam Sloan. While you may personally disagree with the things you
perceive Paul and Susan have said or done, I think you might need to
reevaluate your assessment of how they acted in their campaigning.[/
quote]

I am wondering who you have in mind.

Yes, it is true that Grant Perks and Bill Goichberg started attacking
me very shortly after the votes were counted and I was elected, which
was three weeks before I took office, but I believe that Polgar and
Truong attacked me sooner and far more viciously than either of them.

Take a look at:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006...tect-uscf.html

Let me know if you can find an attack earlier than that.

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like when he posted about driving his taxi into the 21st Century and
then later sued the New York Taxi Cab Authorities claiming he had
never driven a taxi?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL
That was a classic. He probably ment that "Sam Sloan" never drove that
taxi. Since he "legally" changed his name to Mohamed Ismail Sloan. The
way he tries to manipulate and split hairs makes one wonder why he has
any hair left at all.

On Aug 21, 11:47 am, Rob wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:38 am, Bruce wrote:





On Aug 21, 10:33 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Apart from other 'attacks' against Mr. Sloan, is it permissible to attack
the truth?

To take just one issue: Did Mr. Sloan declare he had no criminal record to
the board, [Question 20], and did he spend 1.5 years inside?

Perhaps that defines what an 'attack' is.

If both questions above can be answered 'yes', then it doesn't matter who
raises the issue, does it? Since it would be none other than Mr. Sloan
himself who had 'attacked' the truth.

---

The problem would not be for me that Mr. Sloan had been inside, since in
this instance the law seemed particularly harsh, and if there was any crime,
if was one of passion, very hard to judge!

The problem is that Mr. Sloan seemed to declare that it was not true, since
he disagreed with the verdict as 'meaningless'. That is an 'attack' against
ordinary language and indeed, logic. It is not truthful.

So when people use words in a deliberate way to obscure what is fact and
what not, they may indeed have been the victims of an injustice, or a
penalty out of proportion to their 'crime', but their current error is to
deceive others by a form of obscurantism to the effect that disagreement
with the disinterested judgment of others is to erase the event.

That is, personally speaking, a stronger indictment against anyone being on
any board than having been inside for a spell. And this instance is hardly
an isolated one, but a very confirmed pattern in Mr. Sloan's
self-representation, which has those *special* meanings attached to whatever
he says, while being entirely cloth-eared to the views of others.

Phil Innes

"samsloan" wrote in message

roups.com...

[quote="Ron Suarez"]Actually Brenan, you are mistaken in your claim
above.

Paul and Susan were not the originators of the anti-Sam Sloan
campaign.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's web site being a mar on the public
image of the USCF and Executive Board, that he was now a member of,
then.

Yes, they did complain about Sam's numerous statements that were
slanderous and unprofessional. Their complaints though were not the
first, the last or the worst.

So, it is certainly unfair to both Paul and Susan to make the claims
you have.

They are both chess professionals and now members of our Executive
Board. Their performance in these positions have nothing to do with
Sam Sloan. While you may personally disagree with the things you
perceive Paul and Susan have said or done, I think you might need to
reevaluate your assessment of how they acted in their campaigning.[/
quote]

I am wondering who you have in mind.

Yes, it is true that Grant Perks and Bill Goichberg started attacking
me very shortly after the votes were counted and I was elected, which
was three weeks before I took office, but I believe that Polgar and
Truong attacked me sooner and far more viciously than either of them.

Take a look at:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006...tect-uscf.html

Let me know if you can find an attack earlier than that.

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like when he posted about driving his taxi into the 21st Century and
then later sued the New York Taxi Cab Authorities claiming he had
never driven a taxi?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL
That was a classic. He probably ment that "Sam Sloan" never drove that
taxi. Since he "legally" changed his name to Mohamed Ismail Sloan. The
way he tries to manipulate and split hairs makes one wonder why he has
any hair left at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No he later claimed that his taxi was not a taxi. It was a taxi that
he drove into the 21st century but not a taxi.

On Aug 21, 11:38 am, Bruce wrote:

Like when he posted about driving his taxi into the 21st Century and
then later sued the New York Taxi Cab Authorities claiming he had
never driven a taxi?

Bruce is back to his old tricks again, misquoting me, claiming I said
things I never said.

I said that I was not a taxi driver on the date in question. I had
been a taxi driver the previous year, however.

Sam Sloan

On Aug 21, 11:51 am, samsloan wrote:
On Aug 21, 11:38 am, Bruce wrote:

Like when he posted about driving his taxi into the 21st Century and
then later sued the New York Taxi Cab Authorities claiming he had
never driven a taxi?

Bruce is back to his old tricks again, misquoting me, claiming I said
things I never said.

I said that I was not a taxi driver on the date in question. I had
been a taxi driver the previous year, however.

Sam Sloan

Your sworn affidavit which you yourself posted here stated that you
had NEVER driven a taxi. You later when caught by Randy Bauer,
claimed that your vehicle was not technically a taxi and therefore you
were not lying even though you referred to it as a taxi in your post
about driving it into the 21st century.

On Aug 21, 11:57 am, Bruce wrote:
On Aug 21, 11:51 am, samsloan wrote:

On Aug 21, 11:38 am, Bruce wrote:

Like when he posted about driving his taxi into the 21st Century and
then later sued the New York Taxi Cab Authorities claiming he had
never driven a taxi?

Bruce is back to his old tricks again, misquoting me, claiming I said
things I never said.

I said that I was not a taxi driver on the date in question. I had
been a taxi driver the previous year, however.

Sam Sloan

Your sworn affidavit which you yourself posted here stated that you
had NEVER driven a taxi. You later when caught by Randy Bauer,
claimed that your vehicle was not technically a taxi and therefore you
were not lying even though you referred to it as a taxi in your post
about driving it into the 21st century.

Actually I apologize, it was Don Aldrich who pointed it out, not Randy
Bauer, although Bauer may have mentioned it too.

Here is the quote which was easily obtained merely by googling "cab
driving".


Don C. Aldrich wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 00:26:02 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
Now, can you find even one example where I reported something which is
demonstrably false which I did not correct later
Sam Sloan
Boy, talk about shooting fish in a barrel. You still have never
explained why you posted a sworn affidavit claiming you never drove
your taxi in the year 2000, yet you posted many stories here, and on
your own website, regaling us all with tales of you driving your cab,
for hire, in the year 2000. Obviously, you either committed perjury,
or lied to us all here.
You complain about 'personal attacks,' but no one has attacked more
people, without foundation, than you. You are always quick to call
anyone who disagrees with you a liar, yet you not only are a liar, but
a perjurer. We also know you are a thief as you post copyrighted
materials on your website without permission.
Some consider you colorful, or merely eccentric. I would too, except
for your penchant to drag people through the mud at the drop of a hat.
You have no shame, and no conscience. As long as you make these
incredible challenges to prove you a liar, I will.
To refresh your memory:
On 6/4/01 Sloan wrote:
I, Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, state under penalty of
perjury, that:
My defense to the underlying charge is that I was not a taxi
driver at the time of this summons or at any time in the year 2000.
On 1/1/01 Sloan wrote:
Therefore, I decided to drive my taxi on this New Year's as well. I
drove it for 73 hours from 4:00 AM on December 29, 2000 until 5:00 AM
on January 1, 2001.
Lest the above only be considered a minor vagary, as it was New Years,
and almost 2001, how about this, written 8/23/00:
I picked her up at Kennedy Airport in my taxi on Sunday, August 20,
2000. I promised to make her famous.
And lordy, he even has it on his website:
The true mark of a famous man is that he has ridden in Sam Sloan's taxi.
On Sunday, July 23, 2000 at 9:54 PM, Woody Allen missed his chance at
true fame when he passed up the opportunity to ride in my taxi.
Ashank Desai, Software Developer in India (rode in my taxi on Sunday, 23 July 2000)
Lauren Glassberg, WABC Channel 7 television newscaster - presents financial news
(rode in my taxi on Sunday, 23 July 2000)
Nancy P. Brogden, Package Designer (rode in my taxi on Thursday, 27 July 2000)
Pamela T. Church, attorney for Coudert Brothers (rode in my taxi on Thursday, 27 July 2000)
Fujio Nakagawa, President, Japanese travel club (rode in my taxi on Thursday, 27 July 2000)
Helen Hyun-Young Choi, Korean Opera Singer (rode in my taxi on Sunday, 20 August 2000)
Liqun Song, an organizer of the Falun Gong (rode in my taxi on Saturday, 2 September 2000)
Heather L. Ruth, President and CEO, The Bond Market Association (rode in my
taxi on Saturday, 23 September 2000)
Alberto Chiarlo, Italian wine maker (rode in my taxi on Sunday, 24 September 2000)
Peter Eicher, author of "The Elvis Sightings" and "Visions of Mary"
(rode in my taxi on Saturday, 30 September 2000)
Gary R. von Stange, litigation attorney, Dewey Ballantine LLP (rode in my taxi on Saturday, 7 October 2000)
Allison Bratina, investment banker, Allen & Co., Incorporated (rode in my taxi on Saturday, 7 October 2000)
J. Peterman, catalog publisher (rode in my taxi on Monday, 11 December 2000, and left me a $16 tip)
Marc Baschet, French movie producer (rode in my taxi on Saturday, December 29, 2000)


Any questions?

==Dondo

On Aug 21, 12:13 pm, Bruce wrote:
On Aug 21, 11:57 am, Bruce wrote:





On Aug 21, 11:51 am, samsloan wrote:

On Aug 21, 11:38 am, Bruce wrote:

Like when he posted about driving his taxi into the 21st Century and
then later sued the New York Taxi Cab Authorities claiming he had
never driven a taxi?

Bruce is back to his old tricks again, misquoting me, claiming I said
things I never said.

I said that I was not a taxi driver on the date in question. I had
been a taxi driver the previous year, however.

Sam Sloan

Your sworn affidavit which you yourself posted here stated that you
had NEVER driven a taxi. You later when caught by Randy Bauer,
claimed that your vehicle was not technically a taxi and therefore you
were not lying even though you referred to it as a taxi in your post
about driving it into the 21st century.

Actually I apologize, it was Don Aldrich who pointed it out, not Randy
Bauer, although Bauer may have mentioned it too.

Here is the quote which was easily obtained merely by googling "cab
driving".





Don C. Aldrich wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 00:26:02 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
Now, can you find even one example where I reported something which is
demonstrably false which I did not correct later
Sam Sloan
Boy, talk about shooting fish in a barrel. You still have never
explained why you posted a sworn affidavit claiming you never drove
your taxi in the year 2000, yet you posted many stories here, and on
your own website, regaling us all with tales of you driving your cab,
for hire, in the year 2000. Obviously, you either committed perjury,
or lied to us all here.
You complain about 'personal attacks,' but no one has attacked more
people, without foundation, than you. You are always quick to call
anyone who disagrees with you a liar, yet you not only are a liar, but
a perjurer. We also know you are a thief as you post copyrighted
materials on your website without permission.
Some consider you colorful, or merely eccentric. I would too, except
for your penchant to drag people through the mud at the drop of a hat.
You have no shame, and no conscience. As long as you make these
incredible challenges to prove you a liar, I will.
To refresh your memory:
On 6/4/01 Sloan wrote:
I, Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, state under penalty of
perjury, that:
My defense to the underlying charge is that I was not a taxi
driver at the time of this summons or at any time in the year 2000.
On 1/1/01 Sloan wrote:
Therefore, I decided to drive my taxi on this New Year's as well. I
drove it for 73 hours from 4:00 AM on December 29, 2000 until 5:00 AM
on January 1, 2001.
Lest the above only be considered a minor vagary, as it was New Years,
and almost 2001, how about this, written 8/23/00:
I picked her up at Kennedy Airport in my taxi on Sunday, August 20,
2000. I promised to make her famous.
And lordy, he even has it on his website:
The true mark of a famous man is that he has ridden in Sam Sloan's taxi.
On Sunday, July 23, 2000 at 9:54 PM, Woody Allen missed his chance at
true fame when he passed up the opportunity to ride in my taxi.
Ashank Desai, Software Developer in India (rode in my taxi on Sunday, 23 July 2000)
Lauren Glassberg, WABC Channel 7 television newscaster - presents financial news
(rode in my taxi on Sunday, 23 July 2000)
Nancy P. Brogden, Package Designer (rode in my taxi on Thursday, 27 July 2000)
Pamela T. Church, attorney for Coudert Brothers (rode in my taxi on Thursday, 27 July 2000)
Fujio Nakagawa, President, Japanese travel club (rode in my taxi on Thursday, 27 July 2000)
Helen Hyun-Young Choi, Korean Opera Singer (rode in my taxi on Sunday, 20 August 2000)
Liqun Song, an organizer of the Falun Gong (rode in my taxi on Saturday, 2 September 2000)
Heather L. Ruth, President and CEO, The Bond Market Association (rode in my
taxi on Saturday, 23 September 2000)
Alberto Chiarlo, Italian wine maker (rode in my taxi on Sunday, 24 September 2000)
Peter Eicher, author of "The Elvis Sightings" and "Visions of Mary"
(rode in my taxi on Saturday, 30 September 2000)
Gary R. von Stange, litigation attorney, Dewey Ballantine LLP (rode in my taxi on Saturday, 7 October 2000)
Allison Bratina, investment banker, Allen & Co., Incorporated (rode in my taxi on Saturday, 7 October 2000)
J. Peterman, catalog publisher (rode in my taxi on Monday, 11 December 2000, and left me a $16 tip)
Marc Baschet, French movie producer (rode in my taxi on Saturday, December 29, 2000)

Any questions?

==Dondo- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you now going to claim that you didn't file a sworn affidavit
saying that you had not driven a taxi in the year 2000?