Chris Falter posted the following above:

"The idea that Sloan's election chances were diminished by the fake
postings is ludicrous. I read hundreds of comments by USCF members
both pro- and anti-Sloan during the election cycle, but not even one
comment considered the fake Usenet postings to be a reason to oppose
Sloan. In fact, the fake Usenet postings may have even helped Sloan's
election chances, because they evoked public expressions of sympathy
for Sloan from people like Jack LeMoine who usually disagreed with
him."

I need to point out that Chris Falter and Jack LeMoine were two of my
strongest opponents during the USCF election and were the two biggest
supporters of Susan Polgar. For Chris Falter to say that his vicious
attacks helped me is pure nonsense.

Chris Falter's postings were especially objectionable because he often
claimed that he knew things that he did not know. More importantly, he
quoted me on the USCF Issues Forums as writing that I "went all the
way" with Susan Polgar when she was 17 years old. This was a lie. I
have never written or stated any such thing. This false quotation
obviously made Susan Polgar angry and contributed to the problem.

Sam Sloan

On Oct 23, 11:29 am, samsloan wrote:
Chris Falter posted the following above:

"The idea that Sloan's election chances were diminished by the fake
postings is ludicrous. I read hundreds of comments by USCF members
both pro- and anti-Sloan during the election cycle, but not even one
comment considered the fake Usenet postings to be a reason to oppose
Sloan. In fact, the fake Usenet postings may have even helped Sloan's
election chances, because they evoked public expressions of sympathy
for Sloan from people like Jack LeMoine who usually disagreed with
him."

I need to point out that Chris Falter and Jack LeMoine were two of my
strongest opponents during the USCF election and were the two biggest
supporters of Susan Polgar. For Chris Falter to say that his vicious
attacks helped me is pure nonsense.

Chris Falter's postings were especially objectionable because he often
claimed that he knew things that he did not know. More importantly, he
quoted me on the USCF Issues Forums as writing that I "went all the
way" with Susan Polgar when she was 17 years old. This was a lie. I
have never written or stated any such thing. This false quotation
obviously made Susan Polgar angry and contributed to the problem.

Sam Sloan

**reposted from another thread**

One current USCF Board member made the following statement in an email
exchange with me on June 5, 2007:

Bill Brock wrote:

"Sloan claims to have had sexual relations with Polgar (while she was
a minor, while he claimed to be acting as a fiduciary, in the course
of USCF business). He made this claim twice. As fiduciary, you are
silent."

USCF Board member replied:

"I have seen no such claim. I believe he said she was his girlfriend
many years ago at an age which would make her a minor in the US but an
adult in Hungary. She has denied having relations with him and he has
told people they didn't really have relations but did have foreplay. I
don't know who to believe but think they did not have sexual
relations."

Incidentally, the Board member was mistaken: a 17-year-old in Hungary
is still a minor.

Some context:

http://direkickfeud.blogspot.com/200...in-praxis.html

On Oct 23, 11:29 am, samsloan wrote:
Chris Falter posted the following above:

"The idea that Sloan's election chances were diminished by the fake
postings is ludicrous. I read hundreds of comments by USCF members
both pro- and anti-Sloan during the election cycle, but not even one
comment considered the fake Usenet postings to be a reason to oppose
Sloan. In fact, the fake Usenet postings may have even helped Sloan's
election chances, because they evoked public expressions of sympathy
for Sloan from people like Jack LeMoine who usually disagreed with
him."

I need to point out that Chris Falter and Jack LeMoine were two of my
strongest opponents during the USCF election and were the two biggest
supporters of Susan Polgar. For Chris Falter to say that his vicious
attacks helped me is pure nonsense.

Chris Falter's postings were especially objectionable because he often
claimed that he knew things that he did not know. More importantly, he
quoted me on the USCF Issues Forums as writing that I "went all the
way" with Susan Polgar when she was 17 years old. This was a lie. I
have never written or stated any such thing. This false quotation
obviously made Susan Polgar angry and contributed to the problem.

Sam Sloan

What matters is that Sam Sloan name was used, thousands of time,
without his consent, during
an election. In most any state in the Union, the election would be
ANNULED. It doesn't matter
if Sam Sloan has a snowball's chance of hell in becoming an Executive
Board member, he
still gets another shot.

No house of congress would accept members elected in this fashion.

The example we set is corrupt.

I will not tolerate Paul Troung's death threats.

MArcus Roberts

On Oct 23, 6:22 pm, wrote:

What matters is that Sam Sloan name was used, thousands of time,
without his consent, during
an election. In most any state in the Union, the election would be
ANNULED.

You must be thinking of marriage, not elections.


It doesn't matter
if Sam Sloan has a snowball's chance of hell in becoming an Executive
Board member, he still gets another shot.

Sounds good in theory.


No house of congress would accept members elected in this fashion.

Um, do you know /anything/ at all about politics?


The example we set is corrupt.

Right. That /is/ politics, in the real world.


I will not tolerate Paul Troung's death threats.

That is not really related to the Fake Sloan issue, IMO.


Q: If they took all the corrupt politicians and threw them
out, there would be how many people left in the USCF?

Q: If they held another election to give SS a fair shot,
what happens if another person is not elected, though
he/she had nothing to do with the Fake Sloan fiasco?
For instance, let's say that Fat Albert gets more votes
this time than Joe Innocent; now we have Fat Albert on
the board, Sam Sloan loses again, but Joe Innocent is
cheated out of his spot because some voters changed
their whims over time. Now, Fat Albert is a close buddy
of Bill Goichberg and so the "takeover" is virtually
complete. A small modification to the constitution of
the USCF, and he can remain "in power" indefinitely.
Life is sweet (or, as Mel Brooks might put it: "it's good
to be the King").


-- help bot

On Oct 24, 5:44 am, wrote:

Now, you claim that I made an "equivalent statement in the BINFOs".
That is not true and the BINFOS are just for the board members, not
for you.

Phooey! Several posters here in rgc have been posting
materials they say are from the binfos, for years.


The non-confidential BINFOs are public record. You repeatedly used
them to posture during your term on the Board. When you were called to
account for using photographs on your web page likely in violation of
copyright and certainly in violation of your duty of loyalty to the
USCF, you attempted to avoid censure by telling your colleagues that,
if the matter were pursued, you would be "forced to reveal" (by whom?)
that your relationship with the (then underage) Susan Polgar had been
"not entirely Platonic." This is public record; you can't wriggle out
of it. Of course, you can claim now that you were lying then. I don't
suppose it could lower your credibility.


Trust me: it would be very difficult for Mr. Sloan to
lower his credibility here any further than he already
has. He would probably need to consult with IM Innes
and work out a game plan in order to do that. Imagine
what could perhaps be accomplished if these minds
were to "work" together... .


-- help bot