Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 03:04 PM 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 PM From Sam Sloan to Terry Winchester

Dear Mr. Winchester,

I have received two emails from you disallowing two of my postings,
but I did not receive the PM that you are required to send so that the
other moderators will be aware of what you did.

The two disallowed postings were entitled "Sizing Up the Candidates"
and " Announcing my intention to run for the USCF Board - Haring".

As to the first, you stated "The reported post is off topic".

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

As to the second, you wrote, "This post contains speculations without
added facts."

There is no rule in the AUG against speculations.

Your removal of these two postings was obviously intended to influence
the outcome of the ongoing election campaign since both postings dealt
with the candidates currently running for election.

Accordingly I demand that you reinstate the two postings forthwith.

I have also notified the board that I strenuously object to your
recent re-appointment as moderator, especially since you resigned four
times back in 2007 and caused tremendous turmoil during your previous
stints as Chairman of the Forum Oversight Committee.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 04:42 PM 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 PM From Sam Sloan to Terry Winchester

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Winchester
Dear Mr. Sloan,

The post in which I stated was "off topic", entitled "Sizing Up the
Candidates", was not actually off-topic, but I needed to list it that
way, because we have limited options to select from for the "Reason",
and no other option was available to me. This is why I added to the
message, that your statements were made without supporting evidence,
and that this was the reason for disallowing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Sloan
As to the second, you wrote, "This post contains
speculations without added facts."

There is no rule in the AUG against speculations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AUG
Do not make personal attacks or defamatory or disparaging
comments about anyone in the chess world. Factually oriented posts
critical of a person, group or company are generally permitted, at
moderator discretion. Criticism of those outside the chess world, if
relevant to the discussion, may be permitted without supporting
evidence.

Do not post suggestions, without specifically identified substantial
proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or criminal act.

Do not post allegations without checking your facts first. If your
post is about USCF, the governance section of uschess.org is a good
source to consult, and you may also ask the USCF office or an EB or
committee member for information. Search engines can also be valuable.
If facts you post are challenged, address this before making further
Forum posts.
Your posts did not follow any of the above AUG-quoted terms of use,
and were, in fact, violations of those terms.

You made several unsupported allegations about Mrs. Haring and for
that reason, I disallowed them.

As to the rest of your message to me, I will not dignify your
assertions of my attempt to influence the outcome of the election with
an answer.

In addition, Sir, you must do as you think best as to my service as a
moderator.

Sincerely,

Terry Winchester
Moderator
Dear Mr. Winchester,

You state above that you cited "off topic" "because we have limited
options to select from".

However, there is a good reason why you have limited options to select
from, because censorship of the forum, which is what you are doing,
should have a sound factual basis and not be just based on your whims
or personal preferences.

Now, you explain that you have blocked both postings because I
revealed the fact, not known to most forum members, that Candidate
Ruth Haring had for a time Bobby Fischer living in her house.

I happen to know for a fact that this was true because I was a close
friend of Bobby Fischer. In addition, I greatly admire Ruth Haring for
granting him sanctuary, so how was this a disparaging comment?

You apparently believe that Ruth Haring allowing Bobby Fischer a
refuge was a bad thing, but I think it was a good thing.

Once again I demand that you reinstate my two postings. In addition,
since you have previously resigned four times, I call upon you now to
resign a fifth time.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 06:23 PM 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 PM From Sam Sloan to Terry Winchester

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Randy Bauer
wrote:
Since you choose to post private messages, let me ask you about another of
your annoying recent choices:

When Ruth Haring first decided to run for the Executive Board, you promised
that you would not reveal a secret of hers - yes, you PROMISED. As I
recall, Ms. Haring even responded to that PROMISE with a request that you
not reveal that secret.

A few weeks later, you broke your promise and revealed her secret.

Just how low is that?

I mean, I don't expect much of you, nor do judges, given their recent public
writing about your 'lawsuits' (probably better called 'kook suits' or 'loon
suits'). That said, didn't your parents ever explain to you the meaning of
'a promise is a promise?'

Randy Bauer


Dear Randy,

I asked Ruth Haring about this at the US Amateur Team East and she
said that what I referred to as "her secret" is not really a secret
since enough people know about it that it is bound to come out, so I
might as well reveal it.

I told her that I was concerned that certain board members including
especially Bill Goichberg were vehemently anti-Bobby Fischer and I was
concerned that it might hurt her election chances (although on balance
I think it might help her; it certainly wins my vote).

She said that she was not concerned about it, as it was the truth.

By the way, I have known Ruth Haring for more than 30 years.

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 06:40 PM 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 PM From Sam Sloan to Terry Winchester

The first of the two postings, entitled "Sizing Up the Candidates",
has now been resubmitted, approved and is up.

Tim Sawmiller has explained that Terry Winchester, being a new
moderator, did not know the procedures and simply deleted my postings
rather than preserve them. Tim asked me to resubmit them and he would
review them, which I did.

After some minor modifications Tim has approved the first posting. I
anticipate that he will approve the second one soon too.

I was mistaken when I wrote that Terry Winchester had previously been
a moderator. Terry Winchester had previously been Chairman of the
Forum Oversight Committee and he had resigned from that position four
times. He had never previously been a moderator.

Sam Sloan
  #5   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 07:56 PM 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 PM From Sam Sloan to Terry Winchester

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLafferty
Please document that I have
ever said the USCF "should" file for bankruptcy. If you can not, I
expect a retraction and apology. Moderators, if Mr. Sloan can not do
this and does not retract, I ask that this post be pulled.

Please provide an attribution for "Life Membership Problem."

Dear Mr. Lafferty,

I am sorry to inform you that you have been caught making an ingenuous
statement. Here is a direct quote:

by Brian Lafferty on Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:22 am #90338

While the USCF is using its credit line to make payroll, not
collecting on roughly $100,000 in accounts receivable and talking
about going to the LMA for operating funds, I find it amazing that the
EB can decide to "help" Kamsky with free advertising in CL and online.
Free advertising isn't free to the USCF. Free advertising when cost
constraints have forced the cutting of eight pages from CL (hat
doesn't even address the issue of eliminating CL all together)? Free
advertising for Kamsky, or anyone else, is simply giving away money
that the USCF does not have. Instead of thinking about helping Kamsky,
how about helping the USCF?!

At this point, IMMHO, bankruptcy would be the best medicine this
organization could ever be given. Get a Trustee in Bankruptcy in and
the EB out; freeze the assets; restructure the organization.
So many chess sets; so little time.

Brian Lafferty


  #6   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 08:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default PM From Sam Sloan to Terry Winchester

On Mar 9, 3:56*pm, samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLafferty
Please document that I have
ever said the USCF "should" file for bankruptcy. *If you can not, I
expect a retraction and apology. Moderators, if Mr. Sloan can not do
this and does not retract, I ask that this post be pulled.

Please provide an attribution for "Life Membership Problem."


Dear Mr. Lafferty,

I am sorry to inform you that you have been caught making an ingenuous
statement. Here is a direct quote:

by Brian Lafferty on Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:22 am #90338

While the USCF is using its credit line to make payroll, not
collecting on roughly $100,000 in accounts receivable and talking
about going to the LMA for operating funds, I find it amazing that the
EB can decide to "help" Kamsky with free advertising in CL and online.
Free advertising isn't free to the USCF. Free advertising when cost
constraints have forced the cutting of eight pages from CL (hat
doesn't even address the issue of eliminating CL all together)? Free
advertising for Kamsky, or anyone else, is simply giving away money
that the USCF does not have. Instead of thinking about helping Kamsky,
how about helping the USCF?!

At this point, IMMHO, bankruptcy would be the best medicine this
organization could ever be given. Get a Trustee in Bankruptcy in and
the EB out; freeze the assets; restructure the organization.
So many chess sets; so little time.

Brian Lafferty


He doesn't say they "should" file for bankruptcy. I read it as a
scarcastic remark.
  #7   Report Post  
Old March 9th 09, 10:15 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 365
Default PM From Sam Sloan to Terry Winchester

None wrote:
On Mar 9, 3:56 pm, samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLafferty
Please document that I have
ever said the USCF "should" file for bankruptcy. If you can not, I
expect a retraction and apology. Moderators, if Mr. Sloan can not do
this and does not retract, I ask that this post be pulled.

Please provide an attribution for "Life Membership Problem."


Dear Mr. Lafferty,

I am sorry to inform you that you have been caught making an ingenuous
statement. Here is a direct quote:

by Brian Lafferty on Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:22 am #90338

While the USCF is using its credit line to make payroll, not
collecting on roughly $100,000 in accounts receivable and talking
about going to the LMA for operating funds, I find it amazing that the
EB can decide to "help" Kamsky with free advertising in CL and online.
Free advertising isn't free to the USCF. Free advertising when cost
constraints have forced the cutting of eight pages from CL (hat
doesn't even address the issue of eliminating CL all together)? Free
advertising for Kamsky, or anyone else, is simply giving away money
that the USCF does not have. Instead of thinking about helping Kamsky,
how about helping the USCF?!

At this point, IMMHO, bankruptcy would be the best medicine this
organization could ever be given. Get a Trustee in Bankruptcy in and
the EB out; freeze the assets; restructure the organization.
So many chess sets; so little time.

Brian Lafferty


He doesn't say they "should" file for bankruptcy. I read it as a
scarcastic remark.


Here is part of my reply to Sammy on the USCF issues forum.

There was one point in time when I did note that given what I viewed as
the the financial mismanagement of the organization, including the idea
of giving Kamsky free advertising in CL and online while carrying
$100,000 in receivables, I suggested that bankruptcy would be the best
medicine from the standpoint of removing the EB from its duties and
having a trustee right the ship if management did not change its ways,
and think of the USCF's rather than Kamsky's well being. Management did
change its ways and the USCF has moved away from the bankruptcy precipice.

This is a far cry from saying that the USCF "should" file for bankruptcy.

That said, I have also stated that bankruptcy is not the dreaded monster
that many consider it to be. As an attorney, I know that corporations
use bankruptcy as a necessary tool in the world of business. I for one
attach no stigma per se to such filings if they are openly and honestly
done. Given that, it is then up to creditors and others who would do
business with the discharged bankrupt to decide whether or not to
continue doing business with that entity or another formed by the same
or similar people.
  #8   Report Post  
Old March 10th 09, 12:25 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: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default PM From Sam Sloan to Terry Winchester

On Mar 9, 6:15*pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
None wrote:
On Mar 9, 3:56 pm, samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLafferty
Please document that I have
ever said the USCF "should" file for bankruptcy. *If you can not, I
expect a retraction and apology. Moderators, if Mr. Sloan can not do
this and does not retract, I ask that this post be pulled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLafferty


Please provide an attribution for "Life Membership Problem."



Dear Mr. Lafferty,


I am sorry to inform you that you have been caught making an ingenuous
statement. Here is a direct quote:


by Brian Lafferty on Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:22 am #90338


While the USCF is using its credit line to make payroll, not
collecting on roughly $100,000 in accounts receivable and talking
about going to the LMA for operating funds, I find it amazing that the
EB can decide to "help" Kamsky with free advertising in CL and online.
Free advertising isn't free to the USCF. Free advertising when cost
constraints have forced the cutting of eight pages from CL (hat
doesn't even address the issue of eliminating CL all together)? Free
advertising for Kamsky, or anyone else, is simply giving away money
that the USCF does not have. Instead of thinking about helping Kamsky,
how about helping the USCF?!


At this point, IMMHO, bankruptcy would be the best medicine this
organization could ever be given. Get a Trustee in Bankruptcy in and
the EB out; freeze the assets; restructure the organization.
So many chess sets; so little time.


Brian Lafferty


He doesn't say they "should" file for bankruptcy. I read it as a
scarcastic remark.


Here is part of my reply to Sammy on the USCF issues forum.

There was one point in time when I did note that given what I viewed as
the the financial mismanagement of the organization, including the idea
of giving Kamsky free advertising in CL and online while carrying
$100,000 in receivables, I suggested that bankruptcy would be the best
medicine from the standpoint of removing the EB from its duties and
having a trustee right the ship if management did not change its ways,
and think of the USCF's rather than Kamsky's well being. Management did
change its ways and the USCF has moved away from the bankruptcy precipice..

This is a far cry from saying that the USCF "should" file for bankruptcy.

That said, I have also stated that bankruptcy is not the dreaded monster
that many consider it to be. As an attorney, I know that corporations
use bankruptcy as a necessary tool in the world of business. I for one
attach no stigma per se to such filings if they are openly and honestly
done. Given that, it is then up to creditors and others who would do
business with the discharged bankrupt to decide whether or not to
continue doing business with that entity or another formed by the same
or similar people.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


loan me 50,000 would you?
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
USCF Issues Forum: "Five Sam Sloan Fabrications in a Single Post! (New record?)" [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 10th 07 06:59 PM
Request for Arbitration of Paul Rubin vs. Sam Sloan Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 45 March 27th 06 04:38 AM
Request for Arbitration of Paul Rubin vs. Sam Sloan Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 45 March 27th 06 04:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 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