Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 15th 09, 11:54 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 782
Default John Hillery and "The Fake Sam Sloan"

On Dec 14, 1:59*pm, ChessFire wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:30*am, samsloan wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfeditor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Payne
Susan Polgar and Paul Troung
were, shall we say, "Less" than truthful about a multitude of issues.
Including how much money they raised and/or donated to Scholastic
Scholarships. Proven in the depositions.
* I would think more chess players know that fact (as well as Parents)
and perhaps, do care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfeditor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Payne

*As far as publicizing chess, Susan's contributions have been less
than positive of late. Unless one considers suing the National Chess
Organization (USCF) a positive.


This is a very interesting post by Sam Sloan, in an interesting
thread..

Oddly, being an identified Polgar supporter, rather then the here
accused John Hillery, I actually agree with Sam Sloan, that the effect
of Susan Polgar on American chess has been diminished.

This is not because of her incredible achievement of landing a
department at a large university in Texas, a situation which would
have come about even is she were not attached to USCF, and then
establishing tournaments there which superceded in class anything
previously deployed in the USA - no, that is not the problem.

The problem is that she has to drag along USCF as a kind of anchor to
initiative to her and to her husbands work, and this /is/ a problem. I
am privately a much greater critic of this than Sam Sloan has been
publicly.

But I do not characterize the issue as bad merely because it is
critical of USCF's orientation to chess in USA, as if to say, one
should never critisize the Pope on some sort of principal that the
Pope is infallible...

that apart then,

One interesting statement by Sam Sloan in this thread was to do with
the idea of criticizing yourself anonymously by the FSS - I think, as
far as I can tell by his method of writing or quoting people, that
this seemed to be his own opinion.

Therefore, unless we embrace extraordinary psychology, neither Polgar
nor Truong indecently impersonated themselves.

This is actually quite fundamental to the case, and one which I think
renders most of the legal bananas obsolete.

The implications of this impression can be pursued in subsequent
posts.

Besides that, there are *many persons
who have done so much more for Chess and it's players over the years,
Susan's contributions pale in comparison.


I think I will pass on these and other observations by Sam Sloan,
since they are [a] beside the main point raised above, [b] unexampled
complaints, and [c] contra-intuitive.

Phil Innes



*Was she the one time Women's World *Chess Champion, yes( refused to
defend). Has she promoted girls chess, yes. Did she have name
recognition yes.


But is she even one of the top "supporters" of chess, one of the top
"promoters" of chess, one of the top "money raisers" for chess, *a
resounding NO! is the answer.
*Is most of what she has done to promote "herself", a resounding yes!
*Is there something wrong with promoting one's self, no, but being
less than honest about it, is a horse of a different color, so to
speak.


Now those are "Facts". Has she done everything she could to cause the
demise of the USCF financially YES! Another "Fact" That is "not" just
my take on it


Harry Payne *


That's just silly. To name only a couple of items, how many others
have organized multiple GM round-robins of category 10+? Does anyone
else have a chess news blog even close to the quality of hers?
Attacking her character is one thing. Denigrating her accomplishments
-- which are light-years ahead of most of her critics -- just burns up
your credibility to no purpose.


John Hillery


The above, which was posted to the USCF Issues Forum, is a good
example of why John Hillery was never either impersonated or attacked
by the Fake Sam Sloan.


Hillery claims not to be an ally of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, but
the plethora of his pro-Polgar and pro-Truong postings proves
otherwise.


Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


I do not understand this post at all. Sam said that FSS did not
impersonate or attack Polgar, Truong and Hillery; you want to use this
as a key piece of evidence that FSS is not Truong? I think you must
have read Sam's statement incorrectly.

In any case, I think that who FSS attacked is not a very reliable
indicator (too many people might think it is amusing to attack Sloan,
Parker et al to make a good case on this); the Mottershead report, on
the other hand, certainly is. Since then, Truong's refusal to say that
he was not the FSS either to the USCF lawyers or to the court adds
much more to the debate in my opinion than anything in the posts
themselves.

Jerry Spinrad
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
John Hillery and "The Fake Sam Sloan" samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 20 December 22nd 09 02:39 AM
John Hillery and "The Fake Sam Sloan" [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 15th 09 11:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017