Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 23rd 08, 02:20 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,soc.culture.usa,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.politics.democrats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Suppose there were a rule

Suppose there were a rule in the United States of America that one
could not say anything of a negative nature about the President of The
United States or any candidate favored by the president.

Suppose there were a rule that you could only say bad things and could
not say anything good about anybody who opposed the officially favored
candidate.

Suppose that in the recently concluded campaign for US Election one
was not allowed to say anything bad about John McCain nor could one
say anything good about Barak Obama.

Then of course McCain would have been elected. The election was
remarkably close anyway, considering the vast discrepancy in the
abilities of the two candidates.

Here, I want to mention something that is rarely said: The Obama
Campaign displayed remarkable restraint in never mentioning the
serious problems with McCain. Obama never brought up McCain's age of
72, nor the fact that McCain has been diagnosed with four different
types of cancer and is likely to die within the next four years. Obama
never brought up the circumstances of McCain's poor record as a pilot
eventually leading to him being shot down over Vietnam. Obama
consistently called McCain a "war hero" even though we all know that
McCain was not a hero at all. Obama even allowed the McCain Campaign
to pillage him with references to the anti-war hero and Great American
Patriot William Ayres, even though those claims had no basis.

In addition, Obama never brought up the fact that Sarah Palin is a
religious nut, that she probably did not really give birth to that
autistic baby she was seen carrying around all the time and that some
other lady is the mother of that child. There were several other
serious issues about Palin that Obama never raised.

Now, contrast this all with the 2007 USCF Election.

During the 2007 USCF Campaign, the Board Majority consisting of
Goichberg and Channing imposed rules for the USCF Issues Forum that
nobody was allowed to say anything of a negative nature about Polgar
and Truong. Nobody was allowed even to mention their names except in a
very positive light. As a result, they became known by various
euphemisms including "The Name that One Dare Not Speak".

To stop that, a rule was passed prohibiting the use of nicknames.

At the same time, nobody was allowed to say anything good about Sam
Sloan. Several posters were suspended for posting remarks favorable to
Sam Sloan. Their postings were deleted.

In order to enforce these rules prohibiting anybody from saying bad
things about Polgar and Truong or anything good about Sam Sloan,
Goichberg appointed as moderators several rabid supporters of Polgar
and Truong including Gregory Alexander, Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a
Tanstaafl, Terry Winchester and Tim Sawmiller. Several others were
appointed but then asked to leave after they had failed to enforce the
pro-Polgar and Truong and anti-Sloan rules.

In addition, the Goichberg and Channing controlled board passed rules
known as the AUG saying for example that if anyone lies on the forum
nobody is not allowed to call them a liar and that anything posted had
to be supported by "substantial proof". These rules had the effect of
prohibiting anyone from saying anything negative about Polgar and
Truong, especially since these rules were enforced by moderators who
were strong supporters of Polgar and Truong.

Because of these rules, the voting membership was not allowed to be
informed about the very serious problems caused by Polgar and Truong
ever since they became a couple in 2002. It was obvious from their
records that if they ever got elected they would wreck havoc on the
USCF. For example, the membership was not allowed to know that Polgar
and Truong had demanded to be paid $50,000 for training the 2004 US
Woman's Olympiad Team or that this ":training" consisted of Paul
Truong lecturing the woman chess grandmasters on what to do during
their menstrual periods. The members were not allowed to know that
some of the team members were so disgusted with this that they wanted
to quit the "training program" but could not do so if they wanted to
play on the US Team. The members were not allowed to know about the
repeated extortionist demands for money and the threats of lawsuits by
Polgar and Truong during the entire period 2002-2007.

Although the general membership was not allowed to know about these
things, Bill Goichberg certainly knew about them because he was on the
receiving end of these threats and extortionists demands as Executive
Director and later USCF President. Goichberg also knew that Polgar had
a history of bad relations with almost everybody, that she was for
practical purposes Persona non Grata in her own country of Hungary,
that she had refused to defend her Woman's World Championship title
and had made outrageous financial demands of FIDE and then had filed a
baseless and frivolous lawsuit against FIDE.

Goichberg knew all of these things and still he supported them for
election until just before the very end when they started attacking
him, because he felt that by getting Polgar and Truong elected he
would get rid of Sam Sloan.

So, now you see what has happened. As a member of the board, Polgar is
entitled to have her attorney's fees paid by the USCF's "Directors and
Officers" insurance policy and she has launched a $25 million lawsuit
against the other members of the board and against other USCF members
and against the USCF itself.

All of these consequences were a direct result of the actions of
Goichberg and Channing in prohibiting anybody from saying anything bad
about Polgar and Truong. If the members had been allowed to know the
truth about Polgar and Truong, Truong would never have been elected,
especially since he barely squeeked in by a 30 vote margin.

Thus, it can be seen that the terrible problems that the USCF now
faces with thus far six lawsuits in four different federal courts are
a direct result of the actions of Goichberg and Channing of
prohibiting the membership from having a full and fair discussion of
the positive and negative attributes of Polgar and Truong.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old November 23rd 08, 11:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,soc.culture.usa,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.politics.democrats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Suppose there were a rule



samsloan wrote:

During the 2007 USCF Campaign, the Board Majority consisting of
Goichberg and Channing imposed rules for the USCF Issues Forum that
nobody was allowed to say anything of a negative nature about Polgar
and Truong. Nobody was allowed even to mention their names except in a
very positive light. As a result, they became known by various
euphemisms including "The Name that One Dare Not Speak".

To stop that, a rule was passed prohibiting the use of nicknames.

At the same time, nobody was allowed to say anything good about Sam
Sloan. Several posters were suspended for posting remarks favorable to
Sam Sloan. Their postings were deleted.

In order to enforce these rules prohibiting anybody from saying bad
things about Polgar and Truong or anything good about Sam Sloan,
Goichberg appointed as moderators several rabid supporters of Polgar
and Truong including Gregory Alexander, Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a
Tanstaafl, Terry Winchester and Tim Sawmiller. Several others were
appointed but then asked to leave after they had failed to enforce the
pro-Polgar and Truong and anti-Sloan rules.

In addition, the Goichberg and Channing controlled board passed rules
known as the AUG saying for example that if anyone lies on the forum
nobody is not allowed to call them a liar and that anything posted had
to be supported by "substantial proof". These rules had the effect of
prohibiting anyone from saying anything negative about Polgar and
Truong, especially since these rules were enforced by moderators who
were strong supporters of Polgar and Truong.

Because of these rules, the voting membership was not allowed to be
informed about the very serious problems caused by Polgar and Truong
ever since they became a couple in 2002. It was obvious from their
records that if they ever got elected they would wreck havoc on the
USCF. For example, the membership was not allowed to know that Polgar
and Truong had demanded to be paid $50,000 for training the 2004 US
Woman's Olympiad Team or that this ":training" consisted of Paul
Truong lecturing the woman chess grandmasters on what to do during
their menstrual periods. The members were not allowed to know that
some of the team members were so disgusted with this that they wanted
to quit the "training program" but could not do so if they wanted to
play on the US Team. The members were not allowed to know about the
repeated extortionist demands for money and the threats of lawsuits by
Polgar and Truong during the entire period 2002-2007.

Although the general membership was not allowed to know about these
things, Bill Goichberg certainly knew about them because he was on the
receiving end of these threats and extortionists demands as Executive
Director and later USCF President. Goichberg also knew that Polgar had
a history of bad relations with almost everybody, that she was for
practical purposes Persona non Grata in her own country of Hungary,
that she had refused to defend her Woman's World Championship title
and had made outrageous financial demands of FIDE and then had filed a
baseless and frivolous lawsuit against FIDE.

Goichberg knew all of these things and still he supported them for
election until just before the very end when they started attacking
him, because he felt that by getting Polgar and Truong elected he
would get rid of Sam Sloan.

So, now you see what has happened. As a member of the board, Polgar is
entitled to have her attorney's fees paid by the USCF's "Directors and
Officers" insurance policy and she has launched a $25 million lawsuit
against the other members of the board and against other USCF members
and against the USCF itself.

All of these consequences were a direct result of the actions of
Goichberg and Channing in prohibiting anybody from saying anything bad
about Polgar and Truong. If the members had been allowed to know the
truth about Polgar and Truong, Truong would never have been elected,
especially since he barely squeeked in by a 30 vote margin.

Thus, it can be seen that the terrible problems that the USCF now
faces with thus far six lawsuits in four different federal courts are
a direct result of the actions of Goichberg and Channing of
prohibiting the membership from having a full and fair discussion of
the positive and negative attributes of Polgar and Truong.

Sam Sloan



Are you living in the same reality as the rest of us, Sam? 1)
Goichberg opposed Polgar throughout most of the campaign. All that
stuff is still posted on line, so even you can't claim ignorance.
(Illiteracy, maybe.) 2) A number of people criticized Polgar harshly
on the USCF Forums. 3) You repeated that blatant falsehood about the
$50,000 fee many times, so it was hardly a secret. Of course, the sane
people debunked it every time. 4) It's true that few had anything good
to say about you. Do you suppose there might be some reason for that?
5) I find it odd that someone who calls himself a Libertarian expects
a free ride. You were perfectly free to insult and defame Polgar and
Truong anyplace _except_ the USCF Forums. Come to think of it, you
did. Your demented ravings may helped gain Truong that extra 30
votes.

That this (s)loon got any votes at all is an embarrassment to all
chess players. _Whatever_ you think of Polgar and Truong.

  #3   Report Post  
Old November 24th 08, 08:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,soc.culture.usa,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.politics.democrats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 7
Default Suppose there were a rule

On Nov 23, 8:20*am, samsloan wrote:
Suppose there were a rule in the United States of America that one
could not say anything of a negative nature about the President of The
United States or any candidate favored by the president.

Suppose there were a rule that you could only say bad things and could
not say anything good about anybody who opposed the officially favored
candidate.

Suppose that in the recently concluded campaign for US Election one
was not allowed to say anything bad about John McCain nor could one
say anything good about Barak Obama.



That pretty much is the rule on right wing talk radio, Fox "News" and
certain publications.
  #4   Report Post  
Old November 24th 08, 09:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,soc.culture.usa,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.politics.democrats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Suppose there were a rule

Bill Goichberg posted the following in the BINFOS:

In a message dated 11/23/08 09:28:16 Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

Suppose there were a rule in the United States of America that one
could not say anything of a negative nature about the President of The
United States or any candidate favored by the president.

Suppose there were a rule that you could only say bad things and
could not say anything good about anybody who opposed the officially
favored candidate.

Suppose that in the recently concluded campaign for US Election
one was not allowed to say anything bad about John McCain nor could
one say anything good about Barak Obama.

Then of course McCain would have been elected. The election was
remarkably close anyway, considering the vast discrepancy in the
abilities of the two candidates.

Here, I want to mention something that is rarely said: The Obama
Campaign displayed remarkable restraint in never mentioning the
serious problems with McCain. Obama never brought up McCain's age of
72, nor the fact that McCain has been diagnosed with four different
types of cancer and is likely to die within the next four years. Obama
never brought up the circumstances of McCain's poor record as a pilot
eventually leading to him being shot down over Vietnam. Obama
consistently called McCain a "war hero" even though we all know that
McCain was not a hero at all. Obama even allowed the McCain Campaign
to pillage him with references to the anti-war hero and Great American
Patriot William Ayres, even though those claims had no basis.

In addition, Obama never brought up the fact that Sarah Palin is a
religious nut, that she probably did not really give birth to that
autistic baby she was seen carrying around all the time and that some
other lady is the mother of that child. There were several other
serious issues about Palin that Obama never raised.

Now, contrast this all with the 2007 USCF Election.

During the 2007 USCF Campaign, the Board Majority consisting of
Goichberg and Channing imposed rules for the USCF Issues Forum that
nobody was allowed to say anything of a negative nature about Polgar a
nd Truong. Nobody was allowed even to mention their names except in a
very positive light. As a result, they became known by various
euphemisms including "The Name that One Dare Not Speak".


No rules regarding Polgar and Truong, or any other individuals, were
ever passed.



To stop that, a rule was passed prohibiting the use of nicknames.


The AUG were revised and one of the new provisions was:

"If you refer to someone by name, use their actual name, not a made up
or sarcastic name."

So a nickname that the person used would be fine, for instance you
could call me Bill.

This revision of the AUG went into effect in October 2007. The
election ballots were counted in July 2007.



At the same time, nobody was allowed to say anything good about
Sam Sloan. Several posters were suspended for posting remarks
favorable to Sam Sloan. Their postings were deleted.

I believe they were suspended due to other remarks in their posts, not
because they said something good about Sam Sloan.




In order to enforce these rules prohibiting anybody from saying
bad things about Polgar and Truong or anything good about Sam Sloan,
Goichberg appointed as moderators several rabid supporters of Polgar
and Truong including Gregory Alexander, Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a
Tanstaafl, Terry Winchester and Tim Sawmiller. Several others were
appointed but then asked to leave after they had failed to enforce the
pro-Polgar and Truong and anti-Sloan rules.


I have never appointed a moderator. Bill Hall makes all such
appointments, and I have rarely been consulted on them. Winchester
was not a moderator. I believe that Vaughn and Sawmiller supported
Polgar in the election but not Truong. I don't think any moderators
were ever asked to leave.



In addition, the Goichberg and Channing controlled board passed
rules known as the AUG saying for example that if anyone lies on the
forum nobody is not allowed to call them a liar and that anything
posted had to be supported by "substantial proof". These rules had the
effect of prohibiting anyone from saying anything negative about
Polgar and Truong, especially since these rules were enforced by
moderators who were strong supporters of Polgar and Truong.


This AUG revision went into effect several months after the election.
And it doesn't stop anyone from saying negative things, it only means
that you should say that someone is mistaken rather than addressing
motives by calling them a liar. Why is it necessary to allege motives
in order to have a serious discussion of issues?



Because of these rules, the voting membership was not allowed to
be informed about the very serious problems caused by Polgar and
Truong ever since they became a couple in 2002. It was obvious from
their records that if they ever got elected they would wreck havoc on
the USCF. For example, the membership was not allowed to know that
Polgar and Truong had demanded to be paid $50,000 for training the
2004 US Woman's Olympiad Team or that this ":training" consisted of
Paul Truong lecturing the woman chess grandmasters on what to do
during their menstrual periods. The members were not allowed to know
that some of the team members were so disgusted with this that they
wanted to quit the "training program" but could not do so if they
wanted to play on the US Team. The members were not allowed to know
about the repeated extortionist demands for money and the threats of
lawsuits by Polgar and Truong during the entire period 2002-2007.


You brought up many of these subjects in posts some of which were
allowed, however your facts were often wrong. For example, you say
above that Polgar and Truong demanded to be paid $50,000 for Olympiad
training, but the money at issue was actually reimbursement for
trainer fees and travel, to both KCF and the Polgar organization.
Some of these funds did go to Susan for training the other women, but
most were to reimburse training by others including Kasparov and
Gulko, as well as for Olympiad player travel expense. The total
reimbursement paid was about $20,000. USCF's attorneys advised that
we did not owe the remaining $30,000 for the future, after which we
received no request to reimburse this money and it may not have been
spent.



Although the general membership was not allowed to know about
these things, Bill Goichberg certainly knew about them because he was
on the receiving end of these threats and extortionists demands as
Executive Director and later USCF President. Goichberg also knew that
Polgar had a history of bad relations with almost everybody, that she
was for practical purposes Persona non Grata in her own country of
Hungary, that she had refused to defend her Woman's World Championship
title and had made outrageous financial demands of FIDE and then had
filed a baseless and frivolous lawsuit against FIDE.

Goichberg knew all of these things and still he supported them for
election until just before the very end when they started attacking
him, because he felt that by getting Polgar and Truong elected he
would get rid of Sam Sloan.


I never supported Truong for election to the EB, not once, not even
for one day.

When Polgar announced her candidacy I made a post saying I would
support her, as I was hopeful that her celebrity would produce
sponsorship and good publicity for USCF. Subsequently I was very
disappointed in her campaign, which seemed to consist mainly of saying
negative and inappropriate things about USCF without providing
details. Several months before the election I wrote her saying that I
could not support her as intended because of the nature of her
campaign.



So, now you see what has happened. As a member of the board,
Polgar is entitled to have her attorney's fees paid by the USCF's
"Directors and Officers" insurance policy and she has launched a $25
million lawsuit against the other members of the board and against
other USCF members and against the USCF itself.

All of these consequences were a direct result of the actions of
Goichberg and Channing in prohibiting anybody from saying anything bad
about Polgar and Truong. If the members had been allowed to know the
truth about Polgar and Truong, Truong would never have been elected,
especially since he barely squeaked in by a 30 vote margin.


I campaigned strenuously against Truong with mailings and on my
website,
www.checkmate.us. The website is still posted, including the
following statement regarding Truong who I called a "very close
associate" of Polgar (this was written before the news broke that
these two EB candidates were married to each other, and had not
disclosed this fact to the voters).


Paul Truong is part of the Polgar slate, and a very close associate of
Polgar. His campaign statements are similar to Susan's and make
various attacks on USCF without providing evidence. Actually, Paul's
campaign as even worse than Susan's. While Susan complains without
giving examples of "bad decisions," Paul calls them "horrific." Never
in the history of USCF elections can I recall candidates who were so
emphatic about attacking what they did not like, while at the same
time not telling the readers of Chess Life what it is they are
attacking!

While Susan complains of "too little focus on positive chess promotion
in the United States," Paul goes further and says, "There was little
attempt to positively promote chess or the USCF." He is in effect
saying that an improved Chess Life, website, and Chess Life for Kids
do not even represent an ATTEMPT to promote chess or the USCF.
Incredible!

And to claim that those in USCF leadership have little sense of pride,
financial responsibility, professionalism... this is a totally
unwarranted attack on some hard working people, employees and
volunteers alike, who have brought the Federation back from the brink
of bankruptcy in 2003, improved our publications in 2006, and helped
bring about the membership boom of 9/06-3/07, the second strongest
seven month period in the entire history of USCF.

Susan and Paul both use the same phrase, "We're losing money year
after year." This is misleading as USCF lost money in the seven fiscal
years 1997-2003 but had a large surplus in 2004 and 2005, a loss in
2006 due only to prior period adjustments, and 2007 is still in
progress.

Paul seems to be well qualified at publicity and media relations,
however in reply to requests on the USCF Issues Forum to document his
"twenty years of leadership in senior management, marketing and PR,"
he has declined.




Thus, it can be seen that the terrible problems that the USCF now
faces with thus far six lawsuits in four different federal courts are
a direct result of the actions of Goichberg and Channing of
prohibiting the membership from having a full and fair discussion of
the positive and negative attributes of Polgar and Truong.

Sam Sloan



One of these lawsuits against USCF is a direct result of Sam Sloan
suing USCF, when he could have sued only the person he believed to be
the "fake Sam Sloan."

Bill Goichberg
  #5   Report Post  
Old November 24th 08, 11:14 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,soc.culture.usa,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.politics.democrats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2008
Posts: 102
Default Suppose there were a rule

"Christopher Helms" wrote in message
...
On Nov 23, 8:20 am, samsloan wrote:
Suppose that in the recently concluded campaign for US Election one
was not allowed to say anything bad about John McCain nor could one
say anything good about Barak Obama.


That pretty much is the rule on right wing talk radio, Fox "News" and
certain publications.


And if you switch the relative positions of McCain and Obama, you have the
rules for left wing talk radio, CNN "news" and the NYT "newspaper".

What is your point?






  #6   Report Post  
Old November 24th 08, 11:28 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,soc.culture.usa,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.politics.democrats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 7
Default Suppose there were a rule

On Nov 24, 5:14*pm, "Bob Campbell" wrote:
"Christopher Helms" wrote in message

...
On Nov 23, 8:20 am, samsloan wrote:

Suppose that in the recently concluded campaign for US Election one
was not allowed to say anything bad about John McCain nor could one
say anything good about Barak Obama.

That pretty much is the rule on right wing talk radio, Fox "News" and
certain publications.


And if you switch the relative positions of McCain and Obama, you have the
rules for left wing talk radio, CNN "news" and the NYT "newspaper".

What is your point?



Since when is the mainstream media leftwing? They've done nothing but
suck George Bush's dick for eight years now. There are thousand of
websites dedicated exclusively to exposing hideous things the Bush
administration has done that the "liberal" media consistently didn't
think were worth mentioning. A "leftwing" media would have at least
asked a question or two during the last eight years. Virtually none of
the mainstream US media ever did. The grilling the "liberal" media has
given Barack Obama over Ayres, Wright, ACORN and fist bumps over the
last 10 months beats the holy living **** out of anything they ever
gave Chimpy McFlightsuit over the previous 96.
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
Rule 11 Brian Lafferty rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 September 8th 08 06:07 PM
Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 14 August 2nd 08 02:02 PM
Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule samsloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 1 August 1st 08 02:51 AM
Touch-move rule question [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 4 April 23rd 07 05:08 PM
Real rule or fake rule? Harold Buck rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 7 June 29th 06 01:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:34 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