Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 8th 09, 08:47 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:44 AM, wrote:
Hello samsloan,

You are receiving this notification because your topic "Sizing up the
candidates" at "uschess.org" was disapproved by a moderator or
administrator.

The following reason was given for the disapproval:

The reported post is off topic.

This post contains speculations without added facts.

(Please note that it's not a moderator's duty to disprove allegations,
rather it's the poster's duty to supply facts supporting allegations).

Your topic post is being denied.

Regards,

Terry Winchester
Moderator


--
Thanks, The Management


What is going on here? This is outrageous.

How did Terry Winchester get brought back as a moderator?

Terry Winchester caused tremendous problems the last time he was a
moderator, which was doing the 2007 election campaign. He is the guy
who resigned as moderator three times and then each time took back his
resignation, claiming that it had not been "accepted". There were a
tremendous number of complaints about Terry Winchester. Finally, his
status was debated by the executive board during the May 17-18, 2007
Executive Board meeting in Stillwater Oklahoma. The debate concerning
the status of Terry Winchester lasted well over an hour. There were so
many complaints about Terry Winchester that the room became filled
with spectators when his item came up on the agenda and others called
in by telephone to participate, whereas at other times the meeting
room was empty except for the presence of the board members.

Because of all the controversies regarding Terry Winchester, the
executive board passed new rules to deal with his situation. As a
result, when Terry Winchester "resigned" the fourth time, his
resignation was immediately accepted and he was not let back in again.

To let Terry Winchester back in now at the height of the re-election
campaign is nothing less than a deliberate provocation to file another
lawsuit, especially when it comes right after appointing a notoriously
hostile person and a long-winded buffoon as well, Allen Priest, as
Chairman of the Forum Oversight Committee.

I am putting you on notice right now that unless you remove Terry
Winchester as moderator and unless you reinstate the two postings he
pulled, one entitled Sizing up the candidates" and the other, "
Announcing my intention to run for the USCF Board - Haring" that he
pulled, I shall file a complaint about this to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Crcuit. I am also CCing this to your counsel
Proskauer Rose, so that he will know that the board and the executive
director are again engaging in provocative acts leading to litigation.

I was considering dropping my appeal of the lawsuit which started this
entire matter and relying on my counter-claim in the Texas case, until
you provoked me by appointing Allen Priest, a 654 rated beginner at
chess, who is openly and notoriously hostile to me, as Chairman of the
FOC. Now, you have brought back Terry Winchester, knowing full well
all the terrible turmoil he caused the last time he was moderator. In
fact, two years ago, after Terry Winchester resigned the fourth time
and you would not let him back in, he dropped his USCF membership.
Only just recently did Terry Winchester rejoin the USCF and already
you have made him a moderator again.

Now, regarding the reasons he gives for not allowing my postings
entitled "Sizing Up the Candidates" and " Announcing my intention
to run for the USCF Board - Haring" to appear, Winchester states as to
the first, "The reported post is off topic".

This is obviously stupid, as my posting was the first in a thread. It
cannot be "off topic" because the initial posting defines the topics.

Secondly, Terry Winchester, writes, "This post contains speculations
without added facts."

Apparently Winchester is complaining that my posting revealed that
Candidate Ruth Haring allowed Bobby Fischer to stay in her house as a
guest for an extended of period of time while others were literally
"Searching for Bobby Fischer". Winchester considers this to be
"speculations". However, there is no rule against "speculations".
There is a rule against making accusations of "unethical conduct"
without "substantial proof". Apparently, Winchester considers the fact
that Ruth Haring had Bobby Fischer as a house guest to have been
"unethical". I disagree. I would have kept Bobby myself except that I
did not have a house at the time.

Terry Winchester also pulled another posting by me: "Post disapproved
- " Announcing my intention to run for the USCF Board - Haring"

Winchester wrote: "The reported post is off topic."

This is ridiculous. This posting also revealed that Ruth Haring had
Bobby Fischer as a house guest. I realize that a lot of people hated
Bobby Fischer, but I happen to admire Ruth Haring for doing this.
Terry Winchester must be one of the Bobby-haters out there, because
there was nothing else in the posting that Winchester pulled except
for my reporting that Bobby Fischer had stayed as a guest in Ruth's
house.

Again, Winchester makes a ridiculous ruling that "The reported post is
off topic.", especially since the topic itself had gone dead and there
had been no posts to it in over a month. Haring is the forgotten
candidate and my posting, if allowed, would have brought back some
interest in her candidacy.

There is no point in trying to "reason" will Bill Goichberg. Goichberg
is obviously manipulating the moderators to bring about his own re-
election. Of course, he has Hall to make the actual appointments so
that Goichberg cannot be blamed, just as Goichberg has a history of
writing letters and then having Hall sign and mail them,
so that Goichberg cannot be blamed when negative repercussions result.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old March 8th 09, 02:24 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 23
Default Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"


"samsloan" wrote in message
...

when it comes right after appointing a notoriously
hostile person and a long-winded buffoon as well


This is outrageous, especially since your entire campaign platform seems
based on the contention that notoriously long winded buffooons should be
elected, not appointed.


I am putting you on notice right now that unless you remove Terry
Winchester as moderator and unless you reinstate the two postings he
pulled, one entitled Sizing up the candidates" and the other, "
Announcing my intention to run for the USCF Board - Haring" that he
pulled, I shall file a complaint about this to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Crcuit.


You know you've reached the furthest boundary of stupid when even I can't
think of something sarcastic to say here.


I was considering dropping my appeal of the lawsuit which started this
entire matter and relying on my counter-claim in the Texas case, until
you provoked me by appointing Allen Priest,


This is a little confusing. Is the original claim the lawsuit that Judge
Chin dismissed on the ground that you were the most ridiculous and
incompetent pro se litigant who had managed to stumble into a courtroom in
the history of jurisprudence -- which is saying quite a bit, as that would
include Ray Parker -- that is, the one the judge described as "subjective
rantings and commentary about defendants and their alleged shortcomings . .
.. simply personal, vindictive, and nonsensical attacks that do not belong in
a pleading filed in a judicial proceeding." Or are you talking about the one
where the judge dismissed sua sponte an "incomprehensible" complaint
consisting of "convoluted and redundant narratives and far fetched legal
conclusions" and threatened to throw you in prison should you ever file a
similar pleading in his court room?


Terry Winchester
Terry Winchester
Terry Winchester
Haring
Terry Winchester
Terry Winchester
Haring
Ruth Haring
Bobby Fischer
Bobby Fischer
Winchester
Ruth Haring
Bobby Fischer
Terry Winchester
Haring
Winchester
Ruth Haring
Bobby Fischer
Bobby Fischer
Ruth Haring
Terry Winchester
Bobby
Winchester
Bobby Fischer
Ruth
Winchester
Haring
Bill Goichberg.
Goichberg
Goichberg
Goichberg
Goichberg


You don't say.


  #3   Report Post  
Old March 8th 09, 03:47 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 Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Timothy P. Redman
wrote:
On this matter, I am in sympathy with Sam Sloan. My position is well
known. I am a longstanding member of the ACLU. I am President of PEN
Texas and a Board member of PEN USA. PEN is the oldest international
human rights organization in the world, founded in 1922, and dedicated
to protecting the rights of writers' freedom of speech throughout the
world.

Freedom of speech on the USCF Forum should be the default position.
Only a truly egregious offense should cause censorship. On this matter,
Sam is right.

I have no idea who these people whom he mentions are and I have nothing
against them. From what I have seen, it appears that they are overeager
in their jobs.

My suggestion is that the Delegates appoint the moderators.

Cordially,

Tim Redman


I want to thank Two-Times Former USCF President Tim Redman not only
for being "in sympathy" with me, but also for making an excellent
suggestion that the delegates rather than the board or the executive
director should appoint the moderators.

Experience shows that the Board, the President and the Executive
Director simply cannot be trusted to make neutral or even handed
appointments. Every single appointment for over the last two years has
been politically motivated. Just take a look at the list of people who
have been appointed to these positions. Some, like Gregory Alexander,
did not even play chess and had other reasons for wanting to hold a
key position in the USCF.

The truly neutral and even-handed moderators such as Mike Aigner and
Wayne Praeder resigned after complaining of interference from above.
Duncan Oxley who along with Mike Aigner had been a moderator on ICC
for many years, committed suicide after complaining that he had been
threatened.

Bringing back Terry Winchester at the height of the election campaign
after all the terrible problems Winchester caused during the last
election campaign two years ago has to be the last straw. An audio of
the Winchester Debates can probably still be heard on the USCF
Governance website.

The two posts Winchester pulled, entitled "Sizing up the candidates"
and the other, " Announcing my intention to run for the USCF Board
- Haring" were obviously related to the election campaign now going
on. Pulling the postings by me, a candidate, about the candidacies of
the other candidates, is obviously an interference with the fair
election process.

I also want to say that not only does Tim Redman talk the talk, but he
also walks the walk. This is proven by the fact that in January 2001 I
wanted to send out a mailing of a Petition for Recall of Tim Redman as
USCF President. Under the rules of that time, such a mailing needed
the cooperation of the office to supply the mailing labels. The
Executive Director at the time, George DeFeis, blocked my mailing,
saying that he needed to receive a copy so that he could approve it.
Even after I sent him a copy, a long time passed and he was obviously
blocking it from going out. When I complained about this, Tim Redman
intervened and directed DeFeis to allow the mailing to go out, even
though Tim had already received it and knew that it contained my anti-
Redman diatribe.

A few weeks later, at the US Amateur Team East, George DeFeis
approached me and asked me how the recall campaign was going. He then
revealed that he had never even read my mailing (the same one that he
had blocked for weeks) and had no idea what it contained. This also
meant that he could not have corrected the problems that I complained
about in my letter, some of which were easily correctable. (This
conversation took place just a few minutes before George DeFeis had
his near-fatal car accident. Right after speaking to me, DeFeis got in
his car and drove away, only to be hit by another car.)

It is clear that if the current board had been in office then, my
letter would not have been allowed to be mailed.

Randy Bauer, a current board member, is no champion of Freedom of
Speech. It is to be recalled that when I ran for election back in
2005, my campaign statement did not appear in the April Chess Life.
Instead, a blank space appeared where my campaign statement was
supposed to have been. This was because Randy Bauer, who was on the
board at the time, directed the editor of Chess Life not to publish my
campaign statement.

Again, I want to thank Tim Redman, who often disagrees with me on
other subjects, for supporting me on this issue.

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old March 8th 09, 05:47 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: Dec 2008
Posts: 18
Default Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"

Sam Sloan said:

Some, like Gregory Alexander,
did not even play chess and had other reasons for wanting to hold a
key position in the USCF.


Yet another lie on Sam's part. Alexander played in two Seattle
Seafair tournaments. I admit that 6 games is not a lot of rated chess
but it does show Alexander does play. Many many people who are
members of the USCF do not play rated chess.

Russell Miller Camas WA
  #5   Report Post  
Old March 8th 09, 06:44 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 Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"

On Mar 8, 1:47*pm, wrote:
Sam Sloan said:

Some, like Gregory Alexander,
did not even play chess and had other reasons for wanting to hold a
key position in the USCF.

Yet another lie on Sam's part. *Alexander played in two Seattle
Seafair tournaments. I admit that 6 games is not a lot of rated chess
but it does show Alexander does play. *Many many people who are
members of the USCF do not play rated chess.

Russell Miller Camas WA


Gregory Alexander did not play in those tournaments until long after
he was appointed to those key positions first of FOC member and later
as Moderator and after I complained repeatedly about a person being
appointed to such sensitive positions who had never played a rated
game of chess.

His loss to a 1300 rated player in the second of those tournaments
shows that he is not much of a player.

Remember that Gregory Alexander was demanding that a link to his
website be placed prominently on the upper left hand corner of the
USCF's Home Page.

Sam Sloan


  #6   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 01:40 AM 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 Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"

On Mar 8, 6:59*pm, "Mike" wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:47 am, samsloan wrote:

Mike Aigner had been a moderator on ICC for many years, committed
suicide after complaining that he had been threatened.


Sam Sloan


As an example of how no reliance should /ever/ be placed on anything
one reads which has the name 'Sam Sloan' at the bottom, I have not,
as yet, been threatened, and probably have not yet committed suicide.


The above quote is a forgery. Here is what I actually wrote:

"Duncan Oxley who along with Mike Aigner had been a moderator on ICC
for many years, committed suicide after complaining that he had been
threatened."

I clearly stated that Duncan Oxley, not Mike Aigner, had committed
suicide. I hope that it is not Mike Aigner who deliberately altered my
quote.

Mike Aigner knows nothing about my relationship with Duncan Oxley.

It is very well known that Duncan Oxley committed suicide. What is not
known is the reason.

Duncan Oxley called several of his friends including me on the last
few days before he died. We later realized that, although he did not
tell us, he had already planned to commit suicide and he was saying
good-bye to us.

Sam
  #7   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 10:27 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"

What Randy Bauer claims happened is not what really happened. Bauer's
statements are untrue. (There is another word for this.)

What really happened is at the end of January 2005, I moved to a new
address. During the move, I had no telephone line and therefore no
internet connection for about two weeks.

During this break when I had no internet connection, the USCF sent an
email only giving the candidates a deadline of only three days to
submit their candidate's statement. I did not receive the email
because I did not have an Internet connection. (It was rumored that I
was dead during this period.)

When I went to the US Amateur Team East in Parsippany New Jersey both
Don Schultz and Glen Petersen informed me about this email and that my
candidates statement had not been received. Glen said that if I would
give him the candidates statement right then, he would publish it.
Accordingly I wrote out my candidates statement right then and there
and gave it to Glen. He read it for legibility and said that he would
publish it.

When the April 2005 Chess Life came out, there was a big blank empty
space where my candidates statement was supposed to be. It then came
out that my candidates had been typeset and put in the magazine,
However, after it had been put in the magazine, orders came from Randy
Bauer to remove it. The pretext for removing it was that at the US
Amateur Team East, George John had been handing out a flyer announcing
the formation of a "slate" of candidates which included George John
and Randy Bauer. Because I had access to this flyer, Bauer said that I
had an unfair advantage because I could see what the other candidates
were saying before I submitted my candidates statement.

So, in order to take away this "advantage",.Bauer, who was on the
board, ordered my candidates statement to be blanked out. This is the
reason the blank space appeared in Chess Life. Obviously if my
candidates statement had merely been late, the page would have been
formatted properly so that this unsightly blank spot of about a half
page of Chess Life would not have appeared.

You can check the archives of rgcp and see all the debates about this
issue from that time. This may have contributed to Bauer's defeat as
he was running for re-election at that time.

Sam Sloan

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Al Lawrence
wrote:
Sorry. I was really responding to Tim. I don't know the history of the Sam's
purloined campaign letter to CL. If SS missed the deadline badly enough to
prevent inclusion in the proper magazine, then there was no choice.
Regards, Al

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Randy Bauer
wrote:

Since Al seems to be responding to my post - freedom of speech is fine,
but sometimes you have to keep the buses running on time. Chess Life has
deadlines for submission, and candidates should not enjoy any more lattitude
than any other author - meet your deadline or, freedom of speech be damned,
your content will not be in the magazine.

For many years, I taught, coached and judged debate at the high school and
college level. In that activity, you have a specified amount of time to
prepare your speeches and a set amount of time to deliver them. If you go
over those time limits, you are not allowed to speak any longer. It, as
with Sam, is not a free speech issue.

Randy Bauer

--- On Sun, 3/8/09, Al Lawrence wrote:

From: Al Lawrence
Subject: Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"
Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 7:48 PM

I agree with Tim and admit to his leanings in regards to freedom of
speech. (In fact, I think freedom of speech and rule of law are the two
basic rights that make any society tolerable, not the type of leadership or
precise system of government.)
The best way to deal with people who make statements that you think are
crazy is to let them, within the limits of the law, say or write what they
want. If the statements are crazy, most people will see that, given time. If
you censor someone, the sympathies of some of us automatically go out to the
gagged writer.
It's the Skokie principle. Whenever I've had the patience and intelligence
to follow this principle, I've normally been satisfied with the result. (The
exception is when an organization or agency more powerful than you as an
individual runs a "party line" that consistently misstates the truth. USCF
of bygone days was an example in my case. There was nothing much I could do
about that except live through it and recall MLK's famous quote: "In the
end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our
friends." And, of course, JFK's "Forgive your enemies, but remember their
names." :-)
Being a bit tongue-in-cheek, Al
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Randy Bauer
wrote:

Sam Sloan's narcissistic and deluded recollection of events consistently
- even constantly - refuses to accept any personal responsibility for the
result of his actions/inactions. In the case of the candidate's statement,
Sam Sloan failed to provide it to the editor of Chess Life by the stated
deadline - a deadline that was provided in writing to all the candidates.
Every other candidate complied with this written requirement, and every
other candidate had his statement published. Sam also fails to note that
his statements that were received by the deadline were published in
subsequent issues of Chess Life.

Now, years later, Sam somehow makes this other people's failing, when in
fact it is his - and his only. That is so typical of Sam, who has never
erred and is always erred upon by others.

Randy Bauer


--- On Sun, 3/8/09, Sam Sloan wrote:


Randy Bauer, a current board member, is no champion of Freedom of
Speech. It is to be recalled that when I ran for election back in
2005, my campaign statement did not appear in the April Chess Life.
Instead, a blank space appeared where my campaign statement was
supposed to have been. This was because Randy Bauer, who was on the
board at the time, directed the editor of Chess Life not to publish my
campaign statement.

Again, I want to thank Tim Redman, who often disagrees with me on
other subjects, for supporting me on this issue.

Sam Sloan

  #8   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 12:14 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 23
Default Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"


"samsloan" wrote in message
...
What Randy Bauer claims happened is not what really happened. Bauer's
statements are untrue. (There is another word for this.)

What really happened is at the end of January 2005, I moved to a new
address. During the move, I had no telephone line and therefore no
internet connection for about two weeks.

During this break when I had no internet connection, the USCF sent an
email only giving the candidates a deadline of only three days to
submit their candidate's statement. I did not receive the email
because I did not have an Internet connection. (It was rumored that I
was dead during this period.)

When I went to the US Amateur Team East in Parsippany New Jersey both
Don Schultz and Glen Petersen informed me about this email and that my
candidates statement had not been received. Glen said that if I would
give him the candidates statement right then, he would publish it.
Accordingly I wrote out my candidates statement right then and there
and gave it to Glen. He read it for legibility and said that he would
publish it.

When the April 2005 Chess Life came out, there was a big blank empty
space where my candidates statement was supposed to be. It then came
out that my candidates had been typeset and put in the magazine,
However, after it had been put in the magazine, orders came from Randy
Bauer to remove it. The pretext for removing it was that at the US
Amateur Team East, George John had been handing out a flyer announcing
the formation of a "slate" of candidates which included George John
and Randy Bauer. Because I had access to this flyer, Bauer said that I
had an unfair advantage because I could see what the other candidates
were saying before I submitted my candidates statement.

So, in order to take away this "advantage",.Bauer, who was on the
board, ordered my candidates statement to be blanked out. This is the
reason the blank space appeared in Chess Life. Obviously if my
candidates statement had merely been late, the page would have been
formatted properly so that this unsightly blank spot of about a half
page of Chess Life would not have appeared.

You can check the archives of rgcp and see all the debates about this
issue from that time. This may have contributed to Bauer's defeat as
he was running for re-election at that time.



Instead of castigating Bauer you should be thanking him: that blank space
was the most coherent thought you've ever displayed.




Sam Sloan

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Al Lawrence
wrote:
Sorry. I was really responding to Tim. I don't know the history of the
Sam's
purloined campaign letter to CL. If SS missed the deadline badly enough
to
prevent inclusion in the proper magazine, then there was no choice.
Regards, Al

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Randy Bauer
wrote:

Since Al seems to be responding to my post - freedom of speech is fine,
but sometimes you have to keep the buses running on time. Chess Life
has
deadlines for submission, and candidates should not enjoy any more
lattitude
than any other author - meet your deadline or, freedom of speech be
damned,
your content will not be in the magazine.

For many years, I taught, coached and judged debate at the high school
and
college level. In that activity, you have a specified amount of time to
prepare your speeches and a set amount of time to deliver them. If you
go
over those time limits, you are not allowed to speak any longer. It, as
with Sam, is not a free speech issue.

Randy Bauer

--- On Sun, 3/8/09, Al Lawrence wrote:

From: Al Lawrence
Subject: Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"
Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 7:48 PM

I agree with Tim and admit to his leanings in regards to freedom of
speech. (In fact, I think freedom of speech and rule of law are the two
basic rights that make any society tolerable, not the type of leadership
or
precise system of government.)
The best way to deal with people who make statements that you think are
crazy is to let them, within the limits of the law, say or write what
they
want. If the statements are crazy, most people will see that, given
time. If
you censor someone, the sympathies of some of us automatically go out to
the
gagged writer.
It's the Skokie principle. Whenever I've had the patience and
intelligence
to follow this principle, I've normally been satisfied with the result.
(The
exception is when an organization or agency more powerful than you as an
individual runs a "party line" that consistently misstates the truth.
USCF
of bygone days was an example in my case. There was nothing much I could
do
about that except live through it and recall MLK's famous quote: "In the
end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of
our
friends." And, of course, JFK's "Forgive your enemies, but remember
their
names." :-)
Being a bit tongue-in-cheek, Al
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Randy Bauer
wrote:

Sam Sloan's narcissistic and deluded recollection of events
consistently
- even constantly - refuses to accept any personal responsibility for
the
result of his actions/inactions. In the case of the candidate's
statement,
Sam Sloan failed to provide it to the editor of Chess Life by the
stated
deadline - a deadline that was provided in writing to all the
candidates.
Every other candidate complied with this written requirement, and every
other candidate had his statement published. Sam also fails to note
that
his statements that were received by the deadline were published in
subsequent issues of Chess Life.

Now, years later, Sam somehow makes this other people's failing, when
in
fact it is his - and his only. That is so typical of Sam, who has
never
erred and is always erred upon by others.

Randy Bauer


--- On Sun, 3/8/09, Sam Sloan wrote:


Randy Bauer, a current board member, is no champion of Freedom of
Speech. It is to be recalled that when I ran for election back in
2005, my campaign statement did not appear in the April Chess Life.
Instead, a blank space appeared where my campaign statement was
supposed to have been. This was because Randy Bauer, who was on the
board at the time, directed the editor of Chess Life not to publish my
campaign statement.

Again, I want to thank Tim Redman, who often disagrees with me on
other subjects, for supporting me on this issue.

Sam Sloan


  #9   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 01:33 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Topic disapproved - "Sizing up the candidates"

On Mar 8, 3:47*am, samsloan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:44 AM, wrote:

Why is Sam obsessed with knowing the pant sizes of the new candidates?
I don't understand his need to constantly "size" things. Can Mr. Bot
explain,or is this a subject best kept under covers?

  #10   Report Post  
Old March 10th 09, 10:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Choosing between "Gump" Sloan and "Liar" Lafferty

On Mar 10, 6:10*am, Nomen Nescio wrote:

Tell me, Sam, is there anything you would like to tell tbe world about what
happened in Far Rockaway almost 19 years ago?


I have no idea.

What did happen in Far Rockaway almost 19 years ago?
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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 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