On Feb 6, 8:52 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Sam Sloan" wrote in message

...

SAM TAKES ON

6. As to why I in particular would be the target of most of these
impersonations, the best way to explain it is that I am the equivalent
of the "Jack Anderson" of chess. Jack Anderson as you will recall was
a newspaper columnists reporting on J. Edgar Hoover's apparent ties to
the Mafia, Watergate, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the Nixon
Administration, the Savings and Loan scandal, the CIA plans to
assassinate Fidel Castro, the Iran-Contra affair and so on.

AIRS

He was a
crusader against corruption. Henry Kissinger called Jack Anderson "the
most dangerous man in America". The USCF Insiders such as Bill
Goichberg have the same view of me as Richard Nixon had of Jack
Anderson.

UNDER-WEIGHT CHESS SETS?

I am sure Sam Sloan is in the right of it - that a certain petty corruption
exists, as among any burocratic class of people who maybe even perforce
wheel and deal with each other. But citing the mob, Watergate and Hoover
seems a tad extravagant in terms of the national importance of USCF, and one
wonders if Sam doesn't have the same sort of inflated opinion of himself as
Our Bill?

The real crime of USCF is that it is so small. With adjustments for
population growth it is hardly incremented since the 72 Fischer boom
membership. And it is small because it is petty, personality based rather
than systemicly managed, and it is small because all its activities are
essentially clerical ones to do with maintenance of a system serving the
current fold.

Whereas its mission statement, in its first substantive clause declares that
its function as 501 non-profit is to popularise chess to a general public.

7. Because I have a wide readership,

When I left Sam Sloan's Fide-Yahoo group a few months ago, the main
correspondent was Sam Sloan himself, who made proclamations rather than
interactions - then Eric J and I would then disagree on them. We 2 seemed to
be actually the readership. Of course, now and again someone would pop out
of the woodwork to make a point or to say goodbye.

Does P Innes understand that a readership isn't the same thing as
participating in a discussion? I guess not.

Sam Sloan may indeed have a wide readership, though not by any evidence a
readership on chess topics.

anybody wanting to bring down the
USCF leadership might decide to impersonate me.

I rather wonder if the wide readership think so? Or in fact, who at all
thinks that? I would say that from everything I read Sam Sloan did not have
much of any chance of re-election.

Paul Truong is a
complete nobody in the world of chess. When he started impersonating
me, nobody would have bothered to read anything written by him.

Interesting comment. There certainly are other opinions on that - the last
time I counted the quantity of articles in 2006 the 'complete nobody'
managed to get Susan Polgar about 50 mentions in mainstream press in the
same year that USCF managed 2.

Okay - I think that's enough. I am aware that this is a massive
cross-posting,

Then remove some groups.

but rather than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all
readers that what I have written seems more evidently true to me, and the
chess public about the relative importance of chess, Sam Sloan and Paul
Troung - and suggest it is another view - and a view based on what I do,
which is chess journalism.

This is today's giggle. P Innes is about as much of a journalist as my
pet turtle.

In the event, I am now interviewing Mr. Truong, which I am sure will elicit
further excitements!

Slow pitch softball....

To those of you who thought chess was boring - I hope I now confirm your
opinion

I also hope I faithfully reflect the general opinion on these matters of
65,000 chess readers every month.

You have 65K people post in reply to your self-described 'journalism?'

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:52 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Sam Sloan" wrote in message

...

SAM TAKES ON

6. As to why I in particular would be the target of most of these
impersonations, the best way to explain it is that I am the equivalent
of the "Jack Anderson" of chess. Jack Anderson as you will recall was
a newspaper columnists reporting on J. Edgar Hoover's apparent ties to
the Mafia, Watergate, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the Nixon
Administration, the Savings and Loan scandal, the CIA plans to
assassinate Fidel Castro, the Iran-Contra affair and so on.

AIRS

He was a
crusader against corruption. Henry Kissinger called Jack Anderson "the
most dangerous man in America". The USCF Insiders such as Bill
Goichberg have the same view of me as Richard Nixon had of Jack
Anderson.

UNDER-WEIGHT CHESS SETS?

I am sure Sam Sloan is in the right of it - that a certain petty
corruption
exists, as among any burocratic class of people who maybe even perforce
wheel and deal with each other. But citing the mob, Watergate and Hoover
seems a tad extravagant in terms of the national importance of USCF, and
one
wonders if Sam doesn't have the same sort of inflated opinion of himself
as
Our Bill?

The real crime of USCF is that it is so small. With adjustments for
population growth it is hardly incremented since the 72 Fischer boom
membership. And it is small because it is petty, personality based rather
than systemicly managed, and it is small because all its activities are
essentially clerical ones to do with maintenance of a system serving the
current fold.

Whereas its mission statement, in its first substantive clause declares
that
its function as 501 non-profit is to popularise chess to a general
public.

7. Because I have a wide readership,

When I left Sam Sloan's Fide-Yahoo group a few months ago, the main
correspondent was Sam Sloan himself, who made proclamations rather than
interactions - then Eric J and I would then disagree on them. We 2 seemed
to
be actually the readership. Of course, now and again someone would pop
out
of the woodwork to make a point or to say goodbye.

Does P Innes understand that a readership isn't the same thing as
participating in a discussion? I guess not.

Why would anyone guess? Because they know not!

If there are fewer than half a dozen active writers then conceivably there
could be several hundred readers - but Sloan presents himself above as if he
forever giving the Gettysburg Address to the fascianted [Chess] Nation on
matters of great importance.

He is a psycopomp, whereas, Brennan is merely a twit, a lying twit, even a
net-twit - but a malicious one having that tendency to have very limited
comprehension of any subject, a love of none, and like Slaon a...

but wait a minute - am I not addressing the longest Sloan and Truong and
Polgar basher here? What do they all have in common? Ain't it curious how
incurious some people are!

I think Brennan should get back to discussing other men's bottoms with the
Reverend and the Laughing Line Judge. Kane has gone off in a huff after
broadcasting his stuff here, and sometimes other peoples opinions which he
invents, and doesn't like others broadcasting their stuff anywhere.

Rentier-historian Jerry Spinrad is shy of saying he wants to hear all - one
side is enough for him! no wonder Chesscafe give the guy some air! - and the
Hysterian Himself with annual readership of 174 people, wants to tell
everyone what a journalist is.

What a rag-bag of inconsequential opinion by people content to rubbish
others in public and constantly drown out the faint chess signal in this
country by those who try to actually promote it, by their constant noise - I
hope that is plain enough for all to read.

If I missed you, dear reader, and you too are a son of a bitch, please take
it personally.

Phil Innes


Sam Sloan may indeed have a wide readership, though not by any evidence a
readership on chess topics.

anybody wanting to bring down the
USCF leadership might decide to impersonate me.

I rather wonder if the wide readership think so? Or in fact, who at all
thinks that? I would say that from everything I read Sam Sloan did not
have
much of any chance of re-election.

Paul Truong is a
complete nobody in the world of chess. When he started impersonating
me, nobody would have bothered to read anything written by him.

Interesting comment. There certainly are other opinions on that - the
last
time I counted the quantity of articles in 2006 the 'complete nobody'
managed to get Susan Polgar about 50 mentions in mainstream press in the
same year that USCF managed 2.

Okay - I think that's enough. I am aware that this is a massive
cross-posting,

Then remove some groups.

but rather than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all
readers that what I have written seems more evidently true to me, and the
chess public about the relative importance of chess, Sam Sloan and Paul
Troung - and suggest it is another view - and a view based on what I do,
which is chess journalism.

This is today's giggle. P Innes is about as much of a journalist as my
pet turtle.

In the event, I am now interviewing Mr. Truong, which I am sure will
elicit
further excitements!

Slow pitch softball....

To those of you who thought chess was boring - I hope I now confirm your
opinion

I also hope I faithfully reflect the general opinion on these matters of
65,000 chess readers every month.

You have 65K people post in reply to your self-described 'journalism?'

Chess One wrote:

What a rag-bag of inconsequential opinion by people content to rubbish
others in public and constantly drown out the faint chess signal in this
country by those who try to actually promote it, by their constant noise - I
hope that is plain enough for all to read.

If I missed you, dear reader, and you too are a son of a bitch, please take
it personally.

Phil Innes


And so it goes with the many minds of one P Innes, self described as "we
the chess public..."
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

J.D. Walker wrote:
Chess One wrote:

What a rag-bag of inconsequential opinion by people content to rubbish
others in public and constantly drown out the faint chess signal in
this country by those who try to actually promote it, by their
constant noise - I hope that is plain enough for all to read.

If I missed you, dear reader, and you too are a son of a bitch, please
take it personally.

Phil Innes


And so it goes with the many minds of one P Innes, self described as "we
the chess public..."

HOT OFF THE PRESS!

"Warrants for the arrests of President Bush and Vice President
Cheney..." in Brattleboro, Vermont.

(http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila..._02062008.html)

A small excerpt,

"Brattleboro's town offices have been flooded with 7,000 e-mails since
its selectboard voted Jan. 25 to include the item on its Town Meeting
Day agenda.

Some of the earliest messages received were so full of vitriol that town
officials said they were worried for their safety. Some writers called
Brattleboro a bastion of "liberal appeaser wimps" and "wackjobs" for
even considering the warrants."

Is our own P Innes, AKA "we the chess public," involved in this? Could
he have sent an email that said, "If I missed you, dear reader, and you
too are a son of a bitch, please take it personally...."

Openness requires an answer!
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.