That ignores a few facts the most important of which is that although
I was not elected several times, I was several times the next one down
in number of votes so that in a race where the top two were elected I
finished third.

Also, Bill Goichberg campaigned against me in every election. Had
Goichberg merely stayed neutral and been neither for nor against me, I
would have been elected several of those times.

The time I won I got about the same number of votes as the previous
election in which I lost, but I was elected anyway because the total
number of voters were fewer.

When I finally won it was probably because Goichberg was less active
in campaigning against me plus the two official house candidates did
no campaigning at all. Goichberg himself has stated many times that
the reason I was elected in 2006 was that he did not campaign so
actively against me that year.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulfish Fact: Sloan has run for EB several times Fact: Until the 2006 election, he had always lost. Fact: His first election victory occurred after the FSS started posting. Gee, it looks like the FSS actually helped Sam to his only win. :twisted: More seriously, it does weaken his assertion that the result was impacted.

That ignores a few facts the most important of which is that although
I was not elected several times, I was several times the next one down
in number of votes so that in a race where the top two were elected I
finished third.

Also, Bill Goichberg campaigned against me in every election. Had
Goichberg merely stayed neutral and been neither for nor against me, I
would have been elected several of those times.

The time I won I got about the same number of votes as the previous
election in which I lost, but I was elected anyway because the total
number of voters were fewer.

When I finally won it was probably because Goichberg was less active
in campaigning against me plus the two official house candidates did
no campaigning at all. Goichberg himself has stated many times that
the reason I was elected in 2006 was that he did not campaign so
actively against me that year.

Sam Sloan

That turns out not to be the case. In 2001, Sloan finished 12th out of
12 (four elected). In 2003, he was 5th out of 7 (three elected). In
2004 (a special election), he finished 3rd out of 6 (two elected).
Well, he got one right. In 2005, he was 8th out of 9 (four elected). I
haven't looked up the pre-OMOV numbers, but as I recall, his 22 votes
in 2001 was considered surprisingly high.

No one bothered to campaign against Sam Sloan prior to 2007, since he
was considered a joke candidate. (How much time did Bush and Gore
spend campaigning against Ralph Nader?) If Sloan really believes
otherwise, it suggests that he's well, nuts.

On Oct 13, 2:48 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulfish Fact: Sloan has run for EB several times Fact: Until the 2006 election, he had always lost. Fact: His first election victory occurred after the FSS started posting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulfish Gee, it looks like the FSS actually helped Sam to his only win. :twisted: More seriously, it does weaken his assertion that the result was impacted.

That ignores a few facts the most important of which is that although
I was not elected several times, I was several times the next one down
in number of votes so that in a race where the top two were elected I
finished third.

Also, Bill Goichberg campaigned against me in every election. Had
Goichberg merely stayed neutral and been neither for nor against me, I
would have been elected several of those times.

The time I won I got about the same number of votes as the previous
election in which I lost, but I was elected anyway because the total
number of voters were fewer.

When I finally won it was probably because Goichberg was less active
in campaigning against me plus the two official house candidates did
no campaigning at all. Goichberg himself has stated many times that
the reason I was elected in 2006 was that he did not campaign so
actively against me that year.

Sam Sloan

That turns out not to be the case. In 2001, Sloan finished 12th out of
12 (four elected). In 2003, he was 5th out of 7 (three elected). In
2004 (a special election), he finished 3rd out of 6 (two elected).
Well, he got one right. In 2005, he was 8th out of 9 (four elected). I
haven't looked up the pre-OMOV numbers, but as I recall, his 22 votes
in 2001 was considered surprisingly high.

No one bothered to campaign against Sam Sloan prior to 2007, since he
was considered a joke candidate. (How much time did Bush and Gore
spend campaigning against Ralph Nader?) If Sloan really believes
otherwise, it suggests that he's well, nuts.

These numbers are misleading too. For example, it is stated above " In
2005, he was 8th out of 9 (four elected)." However, he does not
mention that in 2005 there were two slates of four running and I was
the odd man with no slate. That was the most heavily financed campaign
in USCF history with more than 50,000 pieces mailed. Figuring one
dollar per piece mailed (the true number is actually higher) $50,000
was spent on that election campaign. Joel Channing alone is said to
have spent $30,000 on that campaign. Meanwhile, I spent zero. I did no
mailings, made no calls.

At the end, I beat the most heavily financed candidate (which is why I
finished 8th out of 9) and came close to beating several of the other
losers.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:
On Oct 13, 2:48 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulfish Fact: Sloan has run for EB several times Fact: Until the 2006 election, he had always lost. Fact: His first election victory occurred after the FSS started posting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulfish Gee, it looks like the FSS actually helped Sam to his only win. :twisted: More seriously, it does weaken his assertion that the result was impacted.

That ignores a few facts the most important of which is that although
I was not elected several times, I was several times the next one down
in number of votes so that in a race where the top two were elected I
finished third.

Also, Bill Goichberg campaigned against me in every election. Had
Goichberg merely stayed neutral and been neither for nor against me, I
would have been elected several of those times.

The time I won I got about the same number of votes as the previous
election in which I lost, but I was elected anyway because the total
number of voters were fewer.

When I finally won it was probably because Goichberg was less active
in campaigning against me plus the two official house candidates did
no campaigning at all. Goichberg himself has stated many times that
the reason I was elected in 2006 was that he did not campaign so
actively against me that year.

Sam Sloan

That turns out not to be the case. In 2001, Sloan finished 12th out of
12 (four elected). In 2003, he was 5th out of 7 (three elected). In
2004 (a special election), he finished 3rd out of 6 (two elected).
Well, he got one right. In 2005, he was 8th out of 9 (four elected). I
haven't looked up the pre-OMOV numbers, but as I recall, his 22 votes
in 2001 was considered surprisingly high.

No one bothered to campaign against Sam Sloan prior to 2007, since he
was considered a joke candidate. (How much time did Bush and Gore
spend campaigning against Ralph Nader?) If Sloan really believes
otherwise, it suggests that he's well, nuts.

These numbers are misleading too. For example, it is stated above " In
2005, he was 8th out of 9 (four elected)." However, he does not
mention that in 2005 there were two slates of four running and I was
the odd man with no slate. That was the most heavily financed campaign
in USCF history with more than 50,000 pieces mailed. Figuring one
dollar per piece mailed (the true number is actually higher) $50,000
was spent on that election campaign. Joel Channing alone is said to
have spent $30,000 on that campaign. Meanwhile, I spent zero. I did no
mailings, made no calls.

At the end, I beat the most heavily financed candidate (which is why I
finished 8th out of 9) and came close to beating several of the other
losers.

Sam Sloan

"To argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of
reason is as futile as to administer medicine to the dead." -- Thomas
Paine

samsloan wrote:


At the end, I beat the most heavily financed candidate (which is why I
finished 8th out of 9) and came close to beating several of the other
losers.

Sam Sloan

The last-place finisher in 2005 was George John. I take it this means
Sam thinks he was "more heavily financed" than Joel Channing. If you
believe that, you'll believe anything. Come to think of it, Sam
probably does. Let's take up a collection to send him some tinfoil
hats.