Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 12th 09, 09:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Why was the Evidence against Paul and Susan Late in Coming Out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Suarez
Two years ago today, I was a staunch supporter of
Paul Truong and Susan Polgar as candidates for the Executive Board.
As the months ensued, evidence came out that showed they were not the
best candidates for the position. Many that saw this evidence changed
their minds on voting for them, myself included. The evidence was
late in coming out and many that voted were unaware of this negative
evidence regarding their candidacies until after they had voted. A
good number of people have expressed regret in voting for them once
they found this evidence.

Ron Suarez
Good points, thank you.

However, you have failed to explain why the "evidence was late in
coming out and many that voted were unaware of this negative
evidence".

The reason was that we who knew about them and their long and I must
say rather sordid history were prohibited from telling you and the
other members of the USCF Issues Forum what we knew about them.

Perhaps you have forgotten that both I and Beatriz Marinello were
suspended from posting to the USCF Issues Forum even though we were
members of the board.

Even when we were let back onto the USCF Issues Forum, we were very
limited in what we were allowed to say and most of our posts were
pulled. Indeed, the AUG was written for the specific purpose of
stopping members of the USCF Issues Forum from posting negative
information about Paul and Susan.

For example, members of the USCF Issues Forum asked many times whether
Paul and Susan were married to each other. That was a perfectly
legitimate question, and yet every time the question was asked, Paul
complained and the question was pulled.

Similarly, when Paul and Susan posted that they had 300,000 scholastic
students enrolled in their program and when they made a large number
of other dubious claims, such as Paul's claim that he had rescued and
saved many "multibillion dollar companies", members of the USCF Issues
Forum were not allowed to ask questions about these claims.

In short, if members of the USCF Issues Forum had been allowed freely
to discuss the issues concerning Paul and Susan, perhaps they would
not have been elected and the USCF would not be facing the problems it
now faces.

Sam Sloan
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
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 2 October 6th 08 02:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 PM.

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