On Apr 30, 7:09 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

...

...

However, most voters know little or nothing about this. Many voted
just on the basis of campaign statements published in Chess Life. They
would hardly be expected to know about the serious problems with
everything involving Susan Polgar going back for the past 23 years.

Or... even your own problems, which go back even further?

They would not know that the problems Polgar has been creating here
are almost identical to the problems she created back in Hungary
before she got here.

Pushing the limits of the game to involve more players, eliminating
gender-bias from the inside, by actually encouraging self esteem in young
women, as if they were people too?

Those sort of problems?

People are terrified that the precious balance of the status quo will be
upset, that new criteria will apply, and a necessary transparency in chess
governance will actually be carried out rather than suggested - that the
USCF will actually do something to justify its existence, rather than
continue to decline like a private member's club for the old boys.

Those factors are very serious problems only for those who like it the way
it is now. And those people talk about SPICE and KCF exploring their
individual paths forward as a 'rift', since it ain't a monolithic approach,
which in their opinion should run everything [down].

Phil Innes

Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and pornographic
messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
messages on her own blog at http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com ,
Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside". Do
you feel that her personal attacks on rival female chess grandmasters
has helped by "actually encouraging self esteem in young women"?

If you have such strong opinions on this subject, why do not you
actually come up with some money and join the USCF? Why is it that her
biggest supporters and our biggest critics are non-members such as
Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell and Taylor Kingston? If you are so interested
in the welfare of the USCF (instead of trying to destroy it which is
what you seem to be trying to do) why not join our organization?

Sam Sloan

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:GIZRj.317$1m3.130@trndny02...
Chess One wrote:

...

Those factors are very serious problems only for those who like it the
way it is now. And those people talk about SPICE and KCF exploring their
individual paths forward as a 'rift', since it ain't a monolithic
approach, which in their opinion should run everything [down].

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan

BB and Chessville have no journalistic credibility what-so-ever. BB's
buddy Kelly Atkins is chumming with Susie in Texas. From Susie's Blog with
a lovely photo of Susie and Kelly

Lookit! its...


... The BRAIN!

The BRAIN already announced several things in his intro, including the fact
that despite more readers at Chessville than of ChessLife, this form of
journalism is without 'credibility' in his world. The BRAIN is, methinks,
using words unusually!

Though, to be absolutely fair to the BRAIN, it is possible that he doesn't
know what an editor is, or simply dislikes what-so-ever they do? If the
BRAIN's heros are Hanken and Hough, then ho-hah! Say no more, all is
understood.

"This is Mr. Kelly Atkins, one of the editors and forum host at
chessville.com. He will be visiting SPICE and Texas Tech today to do an
exclusive behind the scene college chess report. Many people hear about
the incredible success of SPICE in a very short period of time. But how do
we do it? After this visit, Kelly will report the behind the scene secret
of success of SPICE and its plans in the future."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl...7813725104 51

Since Chessville is the first major chess site to report on SPICE and with
an on-site reporter spending several days in Lubbock, half a day of
interviews and photography, inclusive of meeting significant folks from the
University and the town, then I wonder exactly what 'real' journalists do in
the BRAIN's native state of New Hampshire?

Perhaps they don't go anywhere in NH, nor speak with others in more than a
cursory way, and in this way share their fascinating opinions with all who
still listen to them.

Unfortunately the BRAIN neglects to mention the extent of his own public, as
such, but I am sure there are those who find his style and opinions
congenial to their own 'orientation', and do not actually require anything
else.

Such folks are excused the rest of the class, and can do extra gym. [no pun
intended]

Phil Innes
The Hippocampus,
Vermont

On Apr 30, 7:38*am, samsloan wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:09 am, "Chess One" wrote:





"samsloan" wrote in message

...

...

However, most voters know little or nothing about this. Many voted
just on the basis of campaign statements published in Chess Life. They
would hardly be expected to know about the serious problems with
everything involving Susan Polgar going back for the past 23 years.

Or... even your own problems, which go back even further?

They would not know that the problems Polgar has been creating here
are almost identical to the problems she created back in Hungary
before she got here.

Pushing the limits of the game to involve more players, eliminating
gender-bias from the inside, by actually encouraging self esteem in young
women, as if they were people too?

Those sort of problems?

People are terrified that the precious balance of the status quo will be
upset, that new criteria will apply, and a necessary transparency in chess
governance will actually be carried out rather than suggested - *that the
USCF will actually do something to justify its existence, rather than
continue to decline like a private member's club for the old boys.

Those factors are very serious problems only for those who like it the way
it is now. And those people talk about SPICE and KCF exploring their
individual paths forward as a 'rift', since it ain't a monolithic approach,
which in their opinion should run everything [down].

Phil Innes

Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and pornographic
messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
messages on her own blog athttp://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com,
Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside". Do
you feel that her personal attacks on rival female chess grandmasters
has helped by "actually encouraging self esteem in young women"?

If you have such strong opinions on this subject, why do not you
actually come up with some money and join the USCF? Why is it that her
biggest supporters and our biggest critics are non-members such as
Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell and Taylor Kingston? If you are so interested
in the welfare of the USCF (instead of trying to destroy it which is
what you seem to be trying to do) why not join our organization?

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are attacking Taylor Kingston? What has he done to you?Are you
saying that anyone who says they are NOT against Susan must be against
you?(Because we all know it and everything in God's universe is all
about you!)

Actually her biggest supporters are USCF members. They are the same
ones who voted you out of office.LOL

On Apr 30, 8:38*am, samsloan wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:09 am, "Chess One" wrote:





"samsloan" wrote in message

...

...

However, most voters know little or nothing about this. Many voted
just on the basis of campaign statements published in Chess Life. They
would hardly be expected to know about the serious problems with
everything involving Susan Polgar going back for the past 23 years.

Or... even your own problems, which go back even further?

They would not know that the problems Polgar has been creating here
are almost identical to the problems she created back in Hungary
before she got here.

Pushing the limits of the game to involve more players, eliminating
gender-bias from the inside, by actually encouraging self esteem in young
women, as if they were people too?

Those sort of problems?

People are terrified that the precious balance of the status quo will be
upset, that new criteria will apply, and a necessary transparency in chess
governance will actually be carried out rather than suggested - *that the
USCF will actually do something to justify its existence, rather than
continue to decline like a private member's club for the old boys.

Those factors are very serious problems only for those who like it the way
it is now. And those people talk about SPICE and KCF exploring their
individual paths forward as a 'rift', since it ain't a monolithic approach,
which in their opinion should run everything [down].

Phil Innes

Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and pornographic
messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
messages on her own blog athttp://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com,
Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside". Do
you feel that her personal attacks on rival female chess grandmasters
has helped by "actually encouraging self esteem in young women"?

If you have such strong opinions on this subject, why do not you
actually come up with some money and join the USCF? Why is it that her
biggest supporters and our biggest critics are non-members such as
Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell and Taylor Kingston?

Sam, where do you get the idea that I'm a supporter of the USCF? I
am more or less neutral about and uninterested in the USCF. The only
sense in which I could be characterized as "supporting the USCF" is
that I have always opposed you being on their Board of Directors. But
then, I would oppose your election as a director of pretty much
anything.

BTW, I am sorry to hear of the rift between the Spice Girls and
Kentucky Fried Chicken.

samsloan wrote:
If you have such strong opinions on this subject, why do not you
actually come up with some money and join the USCF?

Where does this idea come from that the certainty of a person's
conviction depends somehow on the amount of money they are prepared to
give up in support of that conviction? It is utterly bogus.

In this case, it's even worse: the implication is that the certainty
of a person's conviction depends somehow on the amount of money they
are prepared to give up for some tangential purpose.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Portable Tool (TM): it's like a handy
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ household tool but you can take it
anywhere!

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 7:09 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

...

...

However, most voters know little or nothing about this. Many voted
just on the basis of campaign statements published in Chess Life. They
would hardly be expected to know about the serious problems with
everything involving Susan Polgar going back for the past 23 years.

Or... even your own problems, which go back even further?

Nothing on that issue?

They would not know that the problems Polgar has been creating here
are almost identical to the problems she created back in Hungary
before she got here.

Pushing the limits of the game to involve more players, eliminating
gender-bias from the inside, by actually encouraging self esteem in young
women, as if they were people too?

Those sort of problems?

No comment?

People are terrified that the precious balance of the status quo will be
upset, that new criteria will apply, and a necessary transparency in
chess
governance will actually be carried out rather than suggested - that the
USCF will actually do something to justify its existence, rather than
continue to decline like a private member's club for the old boys.

Those factors are very serious problems only for those who like it the
way
it is now. And those people talk about SPICE and KCF exploring their
individual paths forward as a 'rift', since it ain't a monolithic
approach,
which in their opinion should run everything [down].

Phil Innes

Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and pornographic
messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
messages on her own blog at http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com ,
Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside".

To parse that sentence, I first notice it is not an answer to anything I
wrote above, and then there is the usual Sloan-ism of relating 1,000s of
obsene messages from the FSS with 'those similar', according to Sloan
himself.

The comment then addresses gender bias, as if this can relate to either of
the items above.

Do
you feel that her personal attacks on rival female chess grandmasters
has helped by "actually encouraging self esteem in young women"?

What does Sam Sloan mean by 'attack'? If I state my opinion and it is not
the same as Larry Parr's, do I 'attack' him? Answer this question since
otherwise we have 4 unrelated but cobbled together factors within a very
short time, indicating either a short-hand version of what 'everybody knows'
[which is itself shorthand for, 'who knows?'] or an implicit yet unexplained
connection of all of them.

If you have such strong opinions on this subject,

Which of the 4 subjects?

why do not you
actually come up with some money and join the USCF?

ROFL: a 5th subject! All logically linked. Listen Sam, they make more sense
on Ward 6, even the Count of Montezuma discussing stuff with the Lord of
Mars, Jupiter and sundry moons, attempt more connectivity in their
observations.

Why is it that her
biggest supporters and our biggest critics are non-members such as
Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell and Taylor Kingston?

Biggest supporter? Quite apart from the 'members' who voted her into office,
the issue for myself [let other people say their own orientation] is not
chasing the pretty chess skirt, but in support of everyone who attempts to
promote chess out of the grave USCF has dug for it in America.

If you are so interested
in the welfare of the USCF

Did I say I was? I am interested in promoting chess, what has that to do
with the resolutely maintenance orineted USCF?

(instead of trying to destroy it which is
what you seem to be trying to do)

I only seem to be trying, or seem to be successful?

why not join our organization?

If I want to vote for Obama I should join the Republican Party?

USCF have nothing to do with promoting chess, have not ever done so, and
simply ridden the Fischer-boom to their current $300,000 deficit, by
favoring friends of family, who can glean a small income if they make no
trouble, raise no issues, and critique nothing at all.

If Sam Sloan want to support the maintenance activity of USCF, which is the
rating system, perhaps he could have [lol] while in office done something
about the obviously perverted award system for 'friends of family'.

But he did not do anything to correct the system which brought Tanner down.
He muyst have read another genuine US Master who wrote in the NY Times that
he was appalled he asked for a Master title and floor, and was simply given
one, without needing to sign anything, or even show any game records - and
USCF couldn't check them since they had thrown anything pre-1990 away.

If Sloan want to protect and preserve USCF, let him do it. Not talk about
it.

Let him not pretend to any stance that he can present the game to a broader
public, nor criticise those who can. Sloan's potential role is a relatively
modest [if a necessary] role. If he can't do that, then he might button up,
since mouthy New Yorkers are merely arrogant people who think because they
are accusstomed to bitch at extraordinary length, that is somehow
significant or impressive to other people in the country.

I don't think so.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan

On Apr 30, 10:52 am, David Richerby
wrote:
samsloan wrote:
If you have such strong opinions on this subject, why do not you
actually come up with some money and join the USCF?

Where does this idea come from that the certainty of a person's
conviction depends somehow on the amount of money they are prepared to
give up in support of that conviction? It is utterly bogus.

In this case, it's even worse: the implication is that the certainty
of a person's conviction depends somehow on the amount of money they
are prepared to give up for some tangential purpose.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Portable Tool (TM): it's like a handywww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ household tool but you can take it
anywhere!

Do you feel that a person who not a member of the USCF should have so
much to say as he has to say about the internal affairs of our
organization?

Sam Sloan

On May 1, 1:39*pm, samsloan wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:52 am, David Richerby
wrote:





samsloan wrote:
If you have such strong opinions on this subject, why do not you
actually come up with some money and join the USCF?

Where does this idea come from that the certainty of a person's
conviction depends somehow on the amount of money they are prepared to
give up in support of that conviction? *It is utterly bogus.

In this case, it's even worse: the implication is that the certainty
of a person's conviction depends somehow on the amount of money they
are prepared to give up for some tangential purpose.

Dave.

--
David Richerby * * * * * * * * * * * * * Portable Tool (TM): it's like a handywww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/* * household tool but you can take it
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *anywhere!

Do you feel that a person who not a member of the USCF should have so
much to say as he has to say about the internal affairs of our
organization?

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You seem to have an opinion on everything so you must support that
position. To deny it would deny yourself the ability to comment on
every topic under God's heaven.

On Apr 30, 8:09 am, "Chess One" wrote:

However, most voters know little or nothing about this. Many voted
just on the basis of campaign statements published in Chess Life. They
would hardly be expected to know about the serious problems with
everything involving Susan Polgar going back for the past 23 years.

Or... even your own problems, which go back even further?


That's age discrimination! Definitely not politically
correct.


They would not know that the problems Polgar has been creating here
are almost identical to the problems she created back in Hungary
before she got here.


Interesting... S. Polgar has learned nothing in all
those many years? Not even from Paul Truong?


Pushing the limits of the game to involve more players, eliminating
gender-bias from the inside, by actually encouraging self esteem in young
women, as if they were people too?


Ridiculous. You need to pick up a copy of
Cosmopolitan, and take a good, hard look at the
cover (any issue will do). The message is quite
clearly that women are merely sex objects... and
who is it that buys those magazines, anyway?
(Not me; I prefer GQ and The Economist.)


People are terrified that the precious balance of the status quo will be
upset, that new criteria will apply, and a necessary transparency


Guffaw! Ha ha, good one... Susan Polgar is a
"promoter of transparency", har har.

I think Mr. Sloan has some very serious issues
with Susan Polgar, if you know what I mean. PT
is a thorn-chick in his backside, and he seems
frustrated that he cannot use his apparata-chick
on Suzsa-chick. Maybe SS needs to just get
over it? Move on with his life... .


-- help bot

On Apr 30, 8:38 am, samsloan wrote:

Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and pornographic
messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan"


Formerly, Mr. Sloan "identified" Paul Truong as
the offender; now it seems he has changed his
mind on a whim.


and by posting similar obscene
messages on her own blog athttp://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com,
Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside". Do
you feel that her personal attacks on rival female chess grandmasters
has helped by "actually encouraging self esteem in young women"?


Mr. Sloan got something right: Susan Polgar
has a long history of attacking her rivals. I got
the impression that she's stuck on herself.


If you have such strong opinions on this subject, why do not you
actually come up with some money and join the USCF? Why is it that her
biggest supporters and our biggest critics are non-members such as
Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell and Taylor Kingston? If you are so interested
in the welfare of the USCF (instead of trying to destroy it which is
what you seem to be trying to do) why not join our organization?


Let me take a stab at answering this one: those
guys may not like the way the USCF publishes
"ridiculously deflated numbers" as if they were
supposed to reflect their real, peak strengths at
chess. For instance, they have Dr. IMnes down
as a mere Expert; and Taylor Kingston as what,
a Class A or B player? Worst of all, they don't
even have any rating at all for Rob "da robber"
Mitchell! Now, what sort of organization is it
that conspires to artificially skew the ratings of
such greats? If you really want them to join,
first you're gonna hafta "fix" that broken rating
system.


-- help bot