From: "Matt Nemmers"
Date: 20/07/03 23:56 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: f6FSa.109584$H17.33950@sccrnsc02

(And no, pity-votes and jokes don't count. And if you were drunk when you
voted for him, that doesn't count either.)

Would anyone who *seriously* voted for Sloan thinking he was a *serious*
candidate like to hang a big matzah-ball out there and admit it on a public
forum? And if so, would you care to explain WHY you did so, in light of his
obvious character flaws and insanity?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Matt


Dear Mr. Nemmers,

At the risk of seeming to support the idiot Sloan (heaven forfend!) I begin to
see what Mr. Holsztinski meant.

Starting troll threads reduces you to Sloan's level, and Hanke's, come to
that...

Worse still, you crossposted this RGCP crap to RGCM.

Please don't.

Best
Mark

p.s. I didn't vote for anyone, since I'm British, and have absolutely no
interest in what you guys do or don't do (except when trolls like Hanke, StanB
and Briarroot attack me repeatedly for no reason).

OT p.p.s. I have friends in Des Moines, Zearing and Ames. Where you at?

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:56:11 GMT, "Matt Nemmers"
wrote:

(And no, pity-votes and jokes don't count. And if you were drunk when you
voted for him, that doesn't count either.)

Would anyone who *seriously* voted for Sloan thinking he was a *serious*
candidate like to hang a big matzah-ball out there and admit it on a public
forum? And if so, would you care to explain WHY you did so, in light of his
obvious character flaws and insanity?

Yes -- I voted for Sam. He is no surely worse than the rest of those
bunglers. At least I can count on Sam to be informed before he makes a
decision, and not just spout off random nonsense like 99% of this
newsgroup's participants.



-- mcf

From: Michael Ferguson
Date: 21/07/03 00:40 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:56:11 GMT, "Matt Nemmers"
wrote:

(And no, pity-votes and jokes don't count. And if you were drunk when you
voted for him, that doesn't count either.)

Would anyone who *seriously* voted for Sloan thinking he was a *serious*
candidate like to hang a big matzah-ball out there and admit it on a public
forum? And if so, would you care to explain WHY you did so, in light of his
obvious character flaws and insanity?

Yes -- I voted for Sam. He is no surely worse than the rest of those
bunglers. At least I can count on Sam to be informed before he makes a
decision, and not just spout off random nonsense like 99% of this
newsgroup's participants.



-- mcf


You're new here, aren't you? Welcome...

mh

From: "Matt Nemmers"
Date: 21/07/03 01:28 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: FsGSa.108044$ye4.80928@sccrnsc01

"Michael Ferguson" wrote in message
.. .

Yes -- I voted for Sam. He is no surely worse than the rest of those
bunglers. At least I can count on Sam to be informed before he makes a
decision, and not just spout off random nonsense like 99% of this
newsgroup's participants.



-- mcf


I guess you're new 'round these parts.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2E351555

Check that out before you start talking about Sloan being "informed before
he makes a decision" and how he doesn't "just spout off random nonsense."

Guess maybe YOU should've been a little more informed before you cast your
vote. (Not that you aren't entitled...)

Regards,

Matt


To be fair, Matt, that is about the only one for which Sloan apologised
(eventually, after having thrown away his PC because it had crashed [or so his
story went]).

Best
Mark

From: "Matt Nemmers"
Date: 21/07/03 03:00 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: tPHSa.110214$H17.34716@sccrnsc02

"Mhoulsby" -remove- wrote in message
...

Dear Mr. Nemmers,

At the risk of seeming to support the idiot Sloan (heaven forfend!) I
begin to
see what Mr. Holsztinski meant.

Starting troll threads reduces you to Sloan's level, and Hanke's, come to
that...

Worse still, you crossposted this RGCP crap to RGCM.

Please don't.

Best
Mark

p.s. I didn't vote for anyone, since I'm British, and have absolutely no
interest in what you guys do or don't do (except when trolls like Hanke,
StanB
and Briarroot attack me repeatedly for no reason).

OT p.p.s. I have friends in Des Moines, Zearing and Ames. Where you at?

Mark -

Usenet is Usenet -- I'm not here trying to impress anyone. Besides, without
mocking troll-threads like this, some people might actually start to believe
Sloan, and that's dangerous.

*Starting* troll threads is always a bad idea, IMO, since it gives *ammunition*
to *opponents* (e.g. Sloan) which *really is* dangerous (at least as much as
anything on usenet may be considered to be...)

(Not that I think I'm doing anyone any favors
or saving the world by pointing out Sloan's many shortcomings, I just think
it's fun.)


Yes, well I hope it doesn't backfire (most probably it won't).

You are, however, more than entitled to your opinion. I fail to see what
you're getting out of this little flame-war you and Nick have going with Tim
and Stan; but hey, to each his own.


That much is abundantly clear. So far, we're getting nothing out of it, which
is unfortunate. All we want is for Briarroot, StanB and Hanke to apologise for
their appalling behaviour, and to stick to the rules of these newsgroups.

Is Hanke's trolling acceptable? Do you believe that? Do you, on the other hand,
believe that it's *not* trolling?

Regards,

Matt

PS. I live in Rock Island, Illinois (across The River from Davenport,
Iowa), but I'm originally from Waterloo. I have many friends and
acquaintences from Des Moines and Ames, but I've never heard of Zearing.

Zearing is a half-horse town, so to speak. It's not surprising you haven't
heard of it.

(Now I'll get a bunch of complaints from the good folks in Zearing. All three
of 'em.)

I hope to visit again as soon as I can...

Best
Mark

I voted for Sam Sloan.
And you are very rude.

who is matt nemmers anyway?


"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message news:f6FSa.109584$H17.33950@sccrnsc02...
(And no, pity-votes and jokes don't count. And if you were drunk when you
voted for him, that doesn't count either.)

Would anyone who *seriously* voted for Sloan thinking he was a *serious*
candidate like to hang a big matzah-ball out there and admit it on a public
forum? And if so, would you care to explain WHY you did so, in light of his
obvious character flaws and insanity?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Matt

On 20 Jul 2003 23:06:13 GMT, -remove- (Mhoulsby)
wrote:

From: "Matt Nemmers"
Date: 20/07/03 23:56 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: f6FSa.109584$H17.33950@sccrnsc02

(And no, pity-votes and jokes don't count. And if you were drunk when you
voted for him, that doesn't count either.)

Would anyone who *seriously* voted for Sloan thinking he was a *serious*
candidate like to hang a big matzah-ball out there and admit it on a public
forum? And if so, would you care to explain WHY you did so, in light of his
obvious character flaws and insanity?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Matt


Dear Mr. Nemmers,

At the risk of seeming to support the idiot Sloan (heaven forfend!) I begin to
see what Mr. Holsztinski meant.

Starting troll threads reduces you to Sloan's level, and Hanke's, come to
that...

Worse still, you crossposted this RGCP crap to RGCM.

Please don't.

Best
Mark

p.s. I didn't vote for anyone, since I'm British, and have absolutely no
interest in what you guys do or don't do (except when trolls like Hanke, StanB
and Briarroot attack me repeatedly for no reason).

OT p.p.s. I have friends in Des Moines, Zearing and Ames. Where you at?

You may have noticed that I did not include Matt Nammers on my list of
chessplayers who campaigned against me.

This is because Matt Nammers is not a chess player. He is just
somebody who appeared on this newsgroup about one year ago and who
posts a lot. He has zero influence in the world of chess.

Sam Sloan

Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

From: "Matt Nemmers"

You are, however, more than entitled to your opinion. I fail to see what
you're getting out of this little flame-war you and Nick have going with Tim
and Stan; but hey, to each his own.


That much is abundantly clear. So far, we're getting nothing out of it, which
is unfortunate. All we want is for Briarroot, StanB and Hanke to apologise for
their appalling behaviour, and to stick to the rules of these newsgroups.

You *volunteered* for duty as Nick's apologist and ass-kisser;
you could have stayed on the sidelines. Your hero worship is
quite disgusting, but if you can't take the heat you should
have stayed out of the kitchen!

Rules of the newsgroup?? ROTFLMAO Does little man want his mama?


Is Hanke's trolling acceptable? Do you believe that? Do you, on the other hand,
believe that it's *not* trolling?

You habitually misuse the word: troll.

From: Briarroot
Date: 21/07/03 12:53 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

From: "Matt Nemmers"

You are, however, more than entitled to your opinion. I fail to see what
you're getting out of this little flame-war you and Nick have going with
Tim
and Stan; but hey, to each his own.


That much is abundantly clear. So far, we're getting nothing out of it,
which
is unfortunate. All we want is for Briarroot, StanB and Hanke to apologise
for
their appalling behaviour, and to stick to the rules of these newsgroups.

You *volunteered* for duty as Nick's apologist and ass-kisser;
you could have stayed on the sidelines. Your hero worship is
quite disgusting, but if you can't take the heat you should
have stayed out of the kitchen!

Rules of the newsgroup?? ROTFLMAO Does little man want his mama?


Is Hanke's trolling acceptable? Do you believe that? Do you, on the other
hand,
believe that it's *not* trolling?

You habitually misuse the word: troll.


Thanks for proving my point again.

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message news:f6FSa.109584$H17.33950@sccrnsc02...
(And no, pity-votes and jokes don't count. And if you were drunk when you
voted for him, that doesn't count either.)

Would anyone who *seriously* voted for Sloan thinking he was a *serious*
candidate like to hang a big matzah-ball out there and admit it on a public
forum? And if so, would you care to explain WHY you did so, in light of his
obvious character flaws and insanity?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Matt

Surely an organization of any decent size *needs* a gadfly somewhere.
Character flaws have nothing to do with ability. Insanity is
arguable: take it up with those qualified to diagnose it.

If you don't like the way that Sam Sloan remarks on USCF business,
then perhaps you might pretend he is acting as devil's advocate.

David Ames

David Ames