On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:11:16 -0700, "David Kane"
wrote:

Logic
would suggest that if the faux Sloan postings damage
the chess community, then the USCF's mission would
*require* it to expose the wrongdoer.

I would say only if the evidence linked the wrongdoer to the operation
of the USCF in support of its mission, i.e., an employee or officer or
someone in charge of sanctioned or sponsored events.

A number of folks who are not Federation members have posted things
which arguably damaged the chess community, and I don't think these
are the concern of the Federation.

If a Federation *member* does something, I see this as a gray area.

Just my opinion.

"DUI is not a crime in the natural law, though what
one may do when driving drunk or sober may become
a crime."

That's not a crime either: f = ma

http://www.math.hmc.edu/calculus/tut...ectoranalysis/

Or it could be that your "natural law" is itself a social
construct....

On Oct 10, 3:11 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...



I believe I previously addressed this issue in heroic couplets.

Re the lawsuit: if one bothered to look, I believe I was among the few
objecting to faux Sloan postings. I thought then and now that even
Sloan didn't deserve such treatment.

Signing an NDA doesn't mean I have to keep a criminal act under my
hat. But I don't have a license to violate members' privacy by
looking for criminal acts, either. I don't think this is a difficult
principle....

I'm genuinely curious where the expectation that
the IP address from which you are posting remain
private comes from? Posting to USCF forums is
not supposed to be anonymous. Why would
the USCF have an obligation to facilitate or protect its
members' anonymous postings in another venue, especially
ones clearly intended to do harm?

I do not think your behavior now (raising a
technicality to excuse the perpetrator) is consistent
with your objection to faux Sloan postings. Logic
would suggest that if the faux Sloan postings damage
the chess community, then the USCF's mission would
*require* it to expose the wrongdoer.

Don't be blinded by the fact that the guilty party
is a Sloan enemy. There are principles
at stake.

No one should be blinded by animus towards Sloan...or Polgar/Truong.

If a certain nonprofit wants to block my IP because I'm an unbearable
PITA, my wife will understand. But if that nonprofit matches my IP
addresses to my travel itinerary ("aha! Bill Brock was in the Quad
Cities last weekend!") and to my posts elsewhere, then it's poking its
nose into my business.

There may be a legal way for the nonprofit to pursue such an inquiry,
when it can be argued that the nonprofit's vital interests are at
stake. But I would not expect a nonprofit to access its database of
MY PRIVATE INFORMATION for purposes other than advancing the nonprofit
mission (the witch hunt) w/out affording me DUE PROCESS PRIOR TO THE
WITCH HUNT. Or at least telling me beforehand that this is how the
nonprofit treats its members. (The little privacy slips you get with
your bank & brokerage stmts are not meaningless--if you don't like the
privacy policy, you go elsewhere.)

I would note that Sloan accused me on the USCF Forums of being a faux
Sloan (I wasn't), that the charge has to date never been withdrawn, &
that the In Very Important Title Case Report is AFAIK silent on
evidence tending to exculpate me. But if a USCF volunteer wants to
match up my IP addresses with dates I was in Chicago or the Quad
Cities, Manhattan or Shamokin, PA, then that volunteer is violating my
privacy.

Give me access to three or four private databases, and I could give
you a list of thousands of tax evaders (probability 95%) -- I could
discount the IRS sqealer's commission to 10% and split that with the
owners of the databases, and make serious $$. But would that
violation of privacy be ethical?

***

But the deed's been done.

When did I say that the evidence should be thrown out?

If a crime was committed, then prosecute away. Assuming that a person
on the board was the poseur, that person should certainly resign
immediately.

....AND...

If the NDA was violated, then boot the violators in the rear end and
terminate that relationship, too.

Due process is a good thing.

Good riddance to garbage is a good thing, too.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 3:11 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...



I believe I previously addressed this issue in heroic couplets.

Re the lawsuit: if one bothered to look, I believe I was among the few
objecting to faux Sloan postings. I thought then and now that even
Sloan didn't deserve such treatment.

Signing an NDA doesn't mean I have to keep a criminal act under my
hat. But I don't have a license to violate members' privacy by
looking for criminal acts, either. I don't think this is a difficult
principle....

I'm genuinely curious where the expectation that
the IP address from which you are posting remain
private comes from? Posting to USCF forums is
not supposed to be anonymous. Why would
the USCF have an obligation to facilitate or protect its
members' anonymous postings in another venue, especially
ones clearly intended to do harm?

I do not think your behavior now (raising a
technicality to excuse the perpetrator) is consistent
with your objection to faux Sloan postings. Logic
would suggest that if the faux Sloan postings damage
the chess community, then the USCF's mission would
*require* it to expose the wrongdoer.

Don't be blinded by the fact that the guilty party
is a Sloan enemy. There are principles
at stake.

No one should be blinded by animus towards Sloan...or Polgar/Truong.

If a certain nonprofit wants to block my IP because I'm an unbearable
PITA, my wife will understand. But if that nonprofit matches my IP
addresses to my travel itinerary ("aha! Bill Brock was in the Quad
Cities last weekend!") and to my posts elsewhere, then it's poking its
nose into my business.

This seems to be based on as assumption that your IP address is
private. Where does that come from? It's just part of your post that
most people don't even know is there.
It is *not* specific information collected by the USCF that should
require some kind of extraordinary disclosure. No doubt
I could learn something about you by analyzing your posts to rgcp
if I were so inclined, and vice versa. That's a reality we live with.

In the present case, the faux Sloan seems to be upset because
he wasn't aware of that fact. If I leave my fingerprints at the scene
of a crime, believing that I can't be detected because I'm wearing
a mask, that doesn't make me one whose "privacy" has been
violated - it makes me a stupid criminal.


There may be a legal way for the nonprofit to pursue such an inquiry,
when it can be argued that the nonprofit's vital interests are at
stake. But I would not expect a nonprofit to access its database of
MY PRIVATE INFORMATION for purposes other than advancing the nonprofit
mission (the witch hunt) w/out affording me DUE PROCESS PRIOR TO THE
WITCH HUNT. Or at least telling me beforehand that this is how the
nonprofit treats its members. (The little privacy slips you get with
your bank & brokerage stmts are not meaningless--if you don't like the
privacy policy, you go elsewhere.)


Again, what private information are you referring to? The very information
that you are revealing with your usenet posts?




I would note that Sloan accused me on the USCF Forums of being a faux
Sloan (I wasn't), that the charge has to date never been withdrawn, &
that the In Very Important Title Case Report is AFAIK silent on
evidence tending to exculpate me. But if a USCF volunteer wants to
match up my IP addresses with dates I was in Chicago or the Quad
Cities, Manhattan or Shamokin, PA, then that volunteer is violating my
privacy.

He, or I, or anyone, can already do that, since you are not anonymous.
Lack of anonymity is one of defining characteristics of the USCF
forums. Are you saying that the USCF has an implied
contract with its members to protect their anonymous misdeeds?
Maybe I am missing something, but I really don't grasp that argument,
especially here when the perpetrator is an official and the misdeeds
relate directly to chess. It is not as if some low profile USCF member
is posting anonymous filth in a knitting newsgroup.


Give me access to three or four private databases, and I could give
you a list of thousands of tax evaders (probability 95%) -- I could
discount the IRS sqealer's commission to 10% and split that with the
owners of the databases, and make serious $$. But would that
violation of privacy be ethical?

I suppose that would depend upon what information is in the database
and how it got there.

***

But the deed's been done.

When did I say that the evidence should be thrown out?

If a crime was committed, then prosecute away. Assuming that a person
on the board was the poseur, that person should certainly resign
immediately.

...AND...

If the NDA was violated, then boot the violators in the rear end and
terminate that relationship, too.

I guess I don't understand that mentality, or what terms of the NDA
they have supposedly violated. It's hard for me to see them as
anything but heros, whether or not their motives were pure.



Due process is a good thing.

Good riddance to garbage is a good thing, too.

On Oct 10, 7:06 pm, wrote:

I would note that Sloan accused me on the USCF Forums of being a faux
Sloan (I wasn't), that the charge has to date never been withdrawn, &
that the In Very Important Title Case Report is AFAIK silent on
evidence tending to exculpate me. But if a USCF volunteer wants to
match up my IP addresses with dates I was in Chicago or the Quad
Cities, Manhattan or Shamokin, PA, then that volunteer is violating my
privacy.

I do not recall ever accusing Bill Brock of being the Fake Sam Sloan.

Bill Brock has been on everybody else's list of being a possible Fake
Sam Sloan, but not on mine.

The reason I have never believed that Bill Brock is the Fake Sam Sloan
is that he has attacked me openly almost every day for at least the
last three years, so he would not have any time left to be the Fake
Sam Sloan.

So, now I demand that Bill Brock produce proof that I accused him of
being the Fake Sam Sloan (as opposed to merely listing him as one of
many suspected of being the Fake Sam Sloan) or apologize (not likely).

Sam Sloan

On Oct 10, 10:53 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

This seems to be based on as assumption that your IP address is
private. Where does that come from? It's just part of your post that
most people don't even know is there.
It is *not* specific information collected by the USCF that should
require some kind of extraordinary disclosure. No doubt
I could learn something about you by analyzing your posts to rgcp
if I were so inclined, and vice versa. That's a reality we live with.

In the present case, the faux Sloan seems to be upset because
he wasn't aware of that fact. If I leave my fingerprints at the scene
of a crime, believing that I can't be detected because I'm wearing
a mask, that doesn't make me one whose "privacy" has been
violated - it makes me a stupid criminal.

I am highlighting this one just to save it. I think this is an
especially good comment.

The Real Sam Sloan

On Oct 11, 5:40 am, samsloan wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:06 pm, wrote:

I would note that Sloan accused me on the USCF Forums of being a faux
Sloan (I wasn't), that the charge has to date never been withdrawn, &
that the In Very Important Title Case Report is AFAIK silent on
evidence tending to exculpate me. But if a USCF volunteer wants to
match up my IP addresses with dates I was in Chicago or the Quad
Cities, Manhattan or Shamokin, PA, then that volunteer is violating my
privacy.

I do not recall ever accusing Bill Brock of being the Fake Sam Sloan.

Bill Brock has been on everybody else's list of being a possible Fake
Sam Sloan, but not on mine.

The reason I have never believed that Bill Brock is the Fake Sam Sloan
is that he has attacked me openly almost every day for at least the
last three years, so he would not have any time left to be the Fake
Sam Sloan.

So, now I demand that Bill Brock produce proof that I accused him of
being the Fake Sam Sloan (as opposed to merely listing him as one of
many suspected of being the Fake Sam Sloan) or apologize (not likely).

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan's inability to remember what he writes is rivaled only by
his inability to analyze simple facts.

Sam, do you remember writing this on December 17, 2005?

"9. Bill Brock. Recently the Fake Sam Sloan has made several postings
which sound like Bill Brock. Previously, Bill Brock was never a
suspect. However, now Bill Brock has to be considered, especially
since this fake poster first started on exactly the evening when I
arrived in Chicago to play the grudge match against Bill Brock the
following morning.

Bill Brock has since sworn never to post here again and has not done
so, but how can he resist coming back under a fake name, so now he
has
to be high on the list."

How about this on July 8th of this year?

"Now that I am satisfied that my evidence does not prove that Randy
Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan, I revert to my previous belief that
either Paul Truong or Bill Brock is the Fake Sam Sloan."

There are others, but what's the point? You won't remember it by
tomorrow anyway.

Randy Bauer

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...

"Now that I am satisfied that my evidence does not prove that Randy
Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan, I revert to my previous belief that
either Paul Truong or Bill Brock is the Fake Sam Sloan."

There are others, but what's the point? You won't remember it by
tomorrow anyway.

How long is the list of people who strongly and publicly dislike Sam Sloan
[less than 30?]?
When is the earliest Sloan-fake post?
How many fake Sloan messages are there?

The trouble in making an open investigation about someone whose spin so
obscures the facts, is the considerable trouble a faker has to go to in
order to also fake the content! See the following illustration:-

cit; Article by Darren McClain on the New York Times website at
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007...ough/#more-115


---
After initiating a series of comments in the [unfortunate*] NY Times blog, I
was interested to read this exchange this morning:-

/`/An ex-USCF board member wrote: "From the above quote, it is apparent that
two USCF employees have been dismissed in retaliation for revealing that two
board members have been engaging in criminal activity." And this appeared in
the New York Times.

Another reader has pointed out the falsity of the statement.

-First, we were led to believe that two persons were asked to agree to
temporary suspensions. They were not dismissed as Sloan fabricates above.
-Second, we now know that they had not agreed to any such suspension at the
time Sloan fabricated the above, although the *volunteer* admin did last
night agree to step aside temporarily.
-Third, neither individual was an employee.

--

*I mean - what a farce and an embarrassment! Here is the NY Times apparently
unaware that Sloan is bringing a suit, who then repeat 3, what shall we call
them?, 'factual errors'? Let's say they innocently reported a non-baord
member without checking... even so...

I suppose if one were mean, it could be termed fabricating evidence - or
maybe its just crazy misguided enthusiasm for a bit of celebrity at any
cost? A mistake?

Phil Innes

Randy Bauer

On Oct 11, 8:16 am, Randy Bauer wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:40 am, samsloan wrote:





On Oct 10, 7:06 pm, wrote:

I would note that Sloan accused me on the USCF Forums of being a faux
Sloan (I wasn't), that the charge has to date never been withdrawn, &
that the In Very Important Title Case Report is AFAIK silent on
evidence tending to exculpate me. But if a USCF volunteer wants to
match up my IP addresses with dates I was in Chicago or the Quad
Cities, Manhattan or Shamokin, PA, then that volunteer is violating my
privacy.

I do not recall ever accusing Bill Brock of being the Fake Sam Sloan.

Bill Brock has been on everybody else's list of being a possible Fake
Sam Sloan, but not on mine.

The reason I have never believed that Bill Brock is the Fake Sam Sloan
is that he has attacked me openly almost every day for at least the
last three years, so he would not have any time left to be the Fake
Sam Sloan.

So, now I demand that Bill Brock produce proof that I accused him of
being the Fake Sam Sloan (as opposed to merely listing him as one of
many suspected of being the Fake Sam Sloan) or apologize (not likely).

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan's inability to remember what he writes is rivaled only by
his inability to analyze simple facts.

Sam, do you remember writing this on December 17, 2005?

"9. Bill Brock. Recently the Fake Sam Sloan has made several postings
which sound like Bill Brock. Previously, Bill Brock was never a
suspect. However, now Bill Brock has to be considered, especially
since this fake poster first started on exactly the evening when I
arrived in Chicago to play the grudge match against Bill Brock the
following morning.

Bill Brock has since sworn never to post here again and has not done
so, but how can he resist coming back under a fake name, so now he
has
to be high on the list."

How about this on July 8th of this year?

"Now that I am satisfied that my evidence does not prove that Randy
Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan, I revert to my previous belief that
either Paul Truong or Bill Brock is the Fake Sam Sloan."

There are others, but what's the point? You won't remember it by
tomorrow anyway.

Randy Bauer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well done Randy!

"samsloan" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 10:53 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

This seems to be based on as assumption that your IP address is
private. Where does that come from? It's just part of your post that
most people don't even know is there.
It is *not* specific information collected by the USCF that should
require some kind of extraordinary disclosure. No doubt
I could learn something about you by analyzing your posts to rgcp
if I were so inclined, and vice versa. That's a reality we live with.

In the present case, the faux Sloan seems to be upset because
he wasn't aware of that fact. If I leave my fingerprints at the scene
of a crime, believing that I can't be detected because I'm wearing
a mask, that doesn't make me one whose "privacy" has been
violated - it makes me a stupid criminal.

I am highlighting this one just to save it. I think this is an
especially good comment.

The Real Sam Sloan


For the record, I believe that those who refer to your
lawsuit as being "frivolous" are being very generous. Everything
that's not from Mottershead is utter crap. An embarrassment
to the human race, basically.