Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 15th 09, 09:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Long Term Critics are starting to talk about voting for Sloan

Quote:
Originally Posted by ueschessmom
Similarly, some of spoken admiringly of Sam Sloan
for asking the tough questions and taking on the board. But Sam's
method can be best summed up as scattershot. Sure, sometimes he hits
a bulls eye but think about all the conjecture and fantasy that so
many people have had to wade through in order to get to that one
nugget.

Upper East Side Chess Mom
I realize that you and many others think that my methods have
generally been "shattershot" and only occasionally have hit the
bullseye, but in fact I am always on point and the reason you think
differently is you do not have access to complete information.

Take for example my statement that "almost all financial records from
the New Windsor office have been lost or destroyed" and that many of
them have wound up "in the landfill".

This statement has been characterized quite recently by Bill Goichberg
as being "crazy" and "insane". (Bill Goichberg is allowed to make such
statements. Anybody else who made such a statement would have been
sanctioned or suspended.)

However, the fact is that the above statement by me is a direct quote
of Bill Hall of a statement he made in Closed Session of the USCF
Executive Board meeting on August 14, 2006, my first meeting of the
board. Bill Goichberg, in violation of the bylaws, has refused to have
a transcript made of this meeting or have the tape recording made
available. That is the reason why you do not realize that my statement
is true.

To remove all doubt, Bill Hall made much the same statement at the
first meeting of the next board in August 2007 about vital documents
being "in the landfill". This time, the statement was made in open
session and I was one of the few spectators there. Again the tape
which exists has not been made available, so you do not realize that I
am telling the truth.

Perhaps you have noticed that a number of my long term critics are
starting to talk of voting for me. The holdouts are people like Harry
Payne who are new members and do not know the history. Might I remind
you of a real quote posted by one of my strongest critics over on
rec.games.chess.politics:

"Sam Sloan is nearly always right; the trouble is that his insights
are so deep, and so far ahead of the time, that they appear incredible
to the educated layman. I myself have occasionally made the mistake of
thinking that Sam Sloan had made an error. Invariably, sometimes a
year or more later, I had to admit my mistake.

"Jurgen R."
  #2   Report Post  
Old March 15th 09, 09:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2004
Posts: 668
Default Long Term Critics are starting to talk about voting for Sloan

samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ueschessmom
Similarly, some of spoken admiringly of Sam Sloan
for asking the tough questions and taking on the board. But Sam's
method can be best summed up as scattershot. Sure, sometimes he hits
a bulls eye but think about all the conjecture and fantasy that so
many people have had to wade through in order to get to that one
nugget.

Upper East Side Chess Mom

I realize that you and many others think that my methods have
generally been "shattershot" and only occasionally have hit the
bullseye, but in fact I am always on point and the reason you think
differently is you do not have access to complete information.

Take for example my statement that "almost all financial records from
the New Windsor office have been lost or destroyed" and that many of
them have wound up "in the landfill".

This statement has been characterized quite recently by Bill Goichberg
as being "crazy" and "insane". (Bill Goichberg is allowed to make such
statements. Anybody else who made such a statement would have been
sanctioned or suspended.)

However, the fact is that the above statement by me is a direct quote
of Bill Hall of a statement he made in Closed Session of the USCF
Executive Board meeting on August 14, 2006, my first meeting of the
board. Bill Goichberg, in violation of the bylaws, has refused to have
a transcript made of this meeting or have the tape recording made
available. That is the reason why you do not realize that my statement
is true.

To remove all doubt, Bill Hall made much the same statement at the
first meeting of the next board in August 2007 about vital documents
being "in the landfill". This time, the statement was made in open
session and I was one of the few spectators there. Again the tape
which exists has not been made available, so you do not realize that I
am telling the truth.

Perhaps you have noticed that a number of my long term critics are
starting to talk of voting for me. The holdouts are people like Harry
Payne who are new members and do not know the history. Might I remind
you of a real quote posted by one of my strongest critics over on
rec.games.chess.politics:

"Sam Sloan is nearly always right; the trouble is that his insights
are so deep, and so far ahead of the time, that they appear incredible
to the educated layman. I myself have occasionally made the mistake of
thinking that Sam Sloan had made an error. Invariably, sometimes a
year or more later, I had to admit my mistake.

"Jurgen R."


Sloan has no sense of humor whatsoever,
no sense of irony and - more relevant here - no inhibitions at all.
He is totally dishonest and seems often to be unable to distinguish
truth from falsehood.

Consider the above quote, which is taken out of context, but is
literally accurate.

It may be that Sloan is simply too stupid to realize that the statement was
meant
ironically. To a person of normal intelligence this would have been clear
in the context.

It may be that Sloan is so dishonest that he will quote the statement
out of context, knowing that it will appear to say the exact opposite
of what he knows it was intended to mean.

Whoever is tempted to vote for the dung beetle Sloan is advised
to take a look at his website
http://www.anusha.com/
That should be enough to dissuade almost anybody.

  #3   Report Post  
Old March 16th 09, 07:32 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Long Term Critics are starting to talk about voting for Sloan


samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ueschessmom
Similarly, some of spoken admiringly of Sam Sloan
for asking the tough questions and taking on the board. But Sam's
method can be best summed up as scattershot. Sure, sometimes he hits
a bulls eye but think about all the conjecture and fantasy that so
many people have had to wade through in order to get to that one
nugget.

Upper East Side Chess Mom

I realize that you and many others think that my methods have
generally been "shattershot" and only occasionally have hit the
bullseye, but in fact I am always on point and the reason you think
differently is you do not have access to complete information.

Take for example my statement that "almost all financial records from
the New Windsor office have been lost or destroyed" and that many of
them have wound up "in the landfill".

This statement has been characterized quite recently by Bill Goichberg
as being "crazy" and "insane". (Bill Goichberg is allowed to make such
statements. Anybody else who made such a statement would have been
sanctioned or suspended.)

However, the fact is that the above statement by me is a direct quote
of Bill Hall of a statement he made in Closed Session of the USCF
Executive Board meeting on August 14, 2006, my first meeting of the
board. Bill Goichberg, in violation of the bylaws, has refused to have
a transcript made of this meeting or have the tape recording made
available. That is the reason why you do not realize that my statement
is true.

To remove all doubt, Bill Hall made much the same statement at the
first meeting of the next board in August 2007 about vital documents
being "in the landfill". This time, the statement was made in open
session and I was one of the few spectators there. Again the tape
which exists has not been made available, so you do not realize that I
am telling the truth.


"Dot not realize" is inaccurate. "Do not believe" is correct. How many
times does this doofus have to be proven deluded/dishonest/demented
before he's consigned to the trash heap where he belongs? What's
really depressing is that the Sloon only _marginally_ the worst
candidate this year.
  #4   Report Post  
Old March 26th 09, 07:18 AM
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan View Post
I realize that you and many others think that my methods have
generally been "shattershot" and only occasionally have hit the
bullseye, but in fact I am always on point and the reason you think
differently is you do not have access to complete information.

Take for example my statement that "almost all financial records from
the New Windsor office have been lost or destroyed" and that many of
them have wound up "in the landfill".

This statement has been characterized quite recently by Bill Goichberg
as being "crazy" and "insane". (Bill Goichberg is allowed to make such
statements. Anybody else who made such a statement would have been
sanctioned or suspended.)

However, the fact is that the above statement by me is a direct quote
of Bill Hall of a statement he made in Closed Session of the USCF
Executive Board meeting on August 14, 2006, my first meeting of the
board. Bill Goichberg, in violation of the bylaws, has refused to have
a transcript made of this meeting or have the tape recording made
available. That is the reason why you do not realize that my statement
is true.

To remove all doubt, Bill Hall made much the same statement at the
first meeting of the next board in August 2007 about vital documents
being "in the landfill". This time, the statement was made in open
session and I was one of the few spectators there. Again the tape
which exists has not been made available, so you do not realize that I
am telling the truth.

Perhaps you have noticed that a number of my long term critics are
starting to talk of voting for me. The holdouts are people like Harry
Payne who are new members and do not know the history. Might I remind
you of a real quote posted by one of my strongest critics over on
rec.games.chess.politics:

"Sam Sloan is nearly always right; the trouble is that his insights
are so deep, and so far ahead of the time, that they appear incredible
to the educated layman. I myself have occasionally made the mistake of
thinking that Sam Sloan had made an error. Invariably, sometimes a
year or more later, I had to admit my mistake.

"Jurgen R."
Thanks for the info
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
Long term strategic planning [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 October 7th 08 07:22 AM
It's Not the Power of Speech, Just the Power To Talk Brian Lafferty rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 April 19th 08 08:43 PM
by laws for St Kitts and Nevis Chess Federation [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 April 12th 06 06:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 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