Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 25th 07, 02:13 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.play-by-email,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Audio Files for May 19-20, 2007 Executive Board meeting have been posted

The audio files for the open session portions of the May 19-20, 2007
Executive Board meeting are now available on the USCF website.

http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/section_107.php

The first 2-hour segment on Sunday was all FOC. And the FOC stuff
still isn't finished at the end of it.

I have been playing these and they are quite good. I hope that many of
the regular posters here will play them, to find out what your board
is doing with YOUR money.

They will be even better and streaming mp3 soon.

Sam Sloan

  #2   Report Post  
Old May 25th 07, 03:49 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.play-by-email,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,980
Default Topic NOT discussed at the EB meeting!

On May 25, 8:13 am, samsloan wrote:
The audio files for the open session portions of the May 19-20, 2007
Executive Board meeting are now available on the USCF website.

http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/section_107.php

The first 2-hour segment on Sunday was all FOC. And the FOC stuff
still isn't finished at the end of it.

I have been playing these and they are quite good. I hope that many of
the regular posters here will play them, to find out what your board
is doing with YOUR money.

They will be even better and streaming mp3 soon.

Sam Sloan


Was this discussed at an EB meeting?

This is taken from the website of a USCF Board member, Sam Sloan:
http://www.samsloan.com/pokeplot.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/aminmina.htm


http://www.samsloan.com/donmoon.htm


http://www.samsloan.com/sailormoon.htm


Above are images and descriptions taken from Sam Sloan's website.
He also claims there being there in no way impares his ability to
project a positive moral image to children and women. Is this the
type
of leadership that will save the USCF?
Rob



  #3   Report Post  
Old May 26th 07, 07:37 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.play-by-email,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default INDIVIDUALS WITHIN USCF LINKED TO ORGANIZED CRIME (was: Topic NOT discussed at the EB meeting!)

On May 25, 10:55 pm, Rob wrote:

These attacks on Sloan's personal life are lame, however, and if everyone
wants to get personal, he wouldn't fare so poorly by comparison to many.
This is not an endorsement of what he does, but more a recognitition of its
irrelevance.


Character counts. It is a direct reflection of a persons soul. It is
from this soul that our directions of right and wrong are derived. We
color and mold our children by presenting them with role models in
ourselves. They reflect this back and thus our character shapes and
molds theirs.


This is precisely why I never do silly things like
going to some other newsgroup and make some
dishonest claim about my rating or claim to a
chess title. It's not merely a question of getting
caught; it's like you said: "character counts".

Even if I believed for some reason that nobody
would ever be the wiser, I myself would know that I
had lied, and that is sufficient deterrent. For some
people apparently, winning an argument is an
opportunity to make up lies or to distort facts to suit
the whim of the hour, but a man of character does
not easily bow to such whims, but instead, stands
on principle, believing his moral character to be of
greater import than "winning".

I recall a team chess game from years ago in which
one fellow falsely claimed great skills or titles and
having done so, duped the other players on my own
team into following his move recommendations. But
no sooner than he took over the controls, "we" fell
into a losing position. As quickly as he had appeared,
he went away, leaving others to deal with the fallout of
his ineptitude. Amusingly, the other team had played
a key role in backing his (empty) claims to greatness,
and it was they who gained therefrom.


However, the issue here was the USCF policy board
and its members. Is Sam Sloan really any worse or
any better than other members of the board? Is it not
the case that each new round of personal attacks we
see here is the direct result of jealousy, envy, or a
recent vote not going the way someone wished?

IMO, the primary critics -- if that is quite the word --
of the board here are those who are willing to attack or
support particular members on a whim. If say, LP
wants a vote to go against drug testing but it goes the
other way, he will invariably attack all those who didn't
do precisely what he wanted, regardless. And by the
same token, he will lend his precarious "support" to
anyone who causes trouble for the gang of four, or
whatever he decides -- again, on a whim -- to call the
folks who caused things not to go his way.

It's really quite comical, viewed from the outside;
from a position of neutrality where the result hardly
matters one way or another. I'm no longer a USCF
member and I no longer read their magazine, so
when I read here that they are squandering many
thousands of dollars, I tend to -- calmly -- question
the validity of the attack. Clearly, their revenues will
be spent on something, so is it really "squander", or
is it just being spent in a way that does not benefit
the jealous complainer?

Many of the attacks on scholastic spending are
of course, curmudgeonly old men. Or should I say
cranky old men? Whatever. The point is, there's a
lot of dough not coming their way. But unless they
have a clearly better way to spend the money (or
perhaps, to not spend it), it comes across as petty
jealousy.

I recall an incident back when they were making a
movie about the Masters of Disaster, a team of
elementary school children. Nearly all the strong
local players were brought in to help out with the
coaching, as funding was not an issue. When a
player which I'll refer to as MDW showed up for
the very first time, he had no clue what the other
coaches were being paid -- dollars or donuts. So
the head honcho asks him point-blank how much
he wants, and he says, firmly: "more than what
THEY'RE getting". The point was, he thought
himself to be the strongest player there, so even if
the rest were getting chump change, all that
mattered was that his ego be stroked and that he
make "something" for his time. LOL

-- help bot






  #4   Report Post  
Old May 26th 07, 01:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.play-by-email,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default INDIVIDUALS WITHIN USCF LINKED TO ORGANIZED CRIME (was: Topic NOT discussed at the EB meeting!)


"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 25, 10:55 pm, Rob wrote:

These attacks on Sloan's personal life are lame, however, and if
everyone
wants to get personal, he wouldn't fare so poorly by comparison to
many.
This is not an endorsement of what he does, but more a recognitition of
its
irrelevance.


Character counts. It is a direct reflection of a persons soul. It is
from this soul that our directions of right and wrong are derived. We
color and mold our children by presenting them with role models in
ourselves. They reflect this back and thus our character shapes and
molds theirs.


This is precisely why I never do silly things like
going to some other newsgroup and make some
dishonest claim about my rating or claim to a
chess title. It's not merely a question of getting
caught; it's like you said: "character counts".


I resemble that remark!
To add fuel to the flames, I just scored my first correspondance GM norm!

Even if I believed for some reason that nobody
would ever be the wiser, I myself would know that I
had lied, and that is sufficient deterrent. For some
people apparently, winning an argument is an
opportunity to make up lies or to distort facts to suit
the whim of the hour, but a man of character does
not easily bow to such whims, but instead, stands
on principle, believing his moral character to be of
greater import than "winning".


Fair points - but to be more concrete, if what is actually permitted speech
under the constitution would proscribe you from getting on the school board,
or passing a High School background test as an after-school chess teacher -
then is this not a problem?


...

However, the issue here was the USCF policy board
and its members. Is Sam Sloan really any worse or
any better than other members of the board?


I think Larry Parr has made very fair points about unfair attacks on Sloan -
some of which are vicious, cowardly, and distorting. Even so, even if Sloan
is no insider, and resents the clubby good-old-boy mutual back-scratching
culture which has not obviously done anyone elese any good, and even if he
resents people milking the organisation for a little bit of money or
inflence - is this quite enough to recommend him?

It seems to me that Sam Sloan is neither better nor worse, but differently
corrupt.

His own gyrations to avoid his own percieved faults are infamous evasions to
the extent that he now plays the victim of it all, while continuing to raise
17 problems a week which are always combined with blaming.

You don't need to be a grey-beard from Vienna to figure this out

Is it not
the case that each new round of personal attacks we
see here is the direct result of jealousy, envy, or a
recent vote not going the way someone wished?


Switching to a white-haired guy from Long Island, Einstein said that you
can't resolve a problem at the level it was created, so merely being a
contra-personality is not to resolve the issue - which is indeed that of
personality politics, rather than anything more elevated, like issues to do
with public standards and welfare for everyone in chess.

Sam Sloan is equally evasive about his own record as the good ol' boys.

IMO, the primary critics -- if that is quite the word --
of the board here are those who are willing to attack or
support particular members on a whim. If say, LP
wants a vote to go against drug testing but it goes the
other way, he will invariably attack all those who didn't
do precisely what he wanted, regardless. And by the
same token, he will lend his precarious "support" to
anyone who causes trouble for the gang of four, or
whatever he decides -- again, on a whim -- to call the
folks who caused things not to go his way.


The way any issue is determined by adults in society is by advocacy. And as
in a court, it does not pretend to be a blance of all factors, impartially
considered. It is usually a redress to some excess, or an absent factor, and
necessarily must contend with advocates for other courses of action.

Now, the difference is whether an advocate contends for the issue at hand,
or the personality of other advocates alone. To some degree personality must
be taken in to account, since it -we all agree- can be a distorting factor.
But the balance of fair comment must be on the basis of the issue.

It's really quite comical, viewed from the outside;
from a position of neutrality where the result hardly
matters one way or another. I'm no longer a USCF
member and I no longer read their magazine, so
when I read here that they are squandering many
thousands of dollars, I tend to -- calmly -- question
the validity of the attack. Clearly, their revenues will
be spent on something, so is it really "squander", or
is it just being spent in a way that does not benefit
the jealous complainer?


To be concrete once more - complaints are not necessarily jealous ones. And
USCF exists to serve its mission, and that I suggest is the right basis for
critical remarks - and there must be criticism, otherwise how is anyone to
say whether they serve it at all? Or to what degree and expense they go
about doing so, with other people's money? I think this has a direct
relationship with USCF's income, from membership and from sponsors.

Many of the attacks on scholastic spending are
of course, curmudgeonly old men. Or should I say
cranky old men? Whatever. The point is, there's a
lot of dough not coming their way. But unless they
have a clearly better way to spend the money (or
perhaps, to not spend it), it comes across as petty
jealousy.


And yet if you try to raise the topic with USCF delegates eg, then they do
not refer to how well money is spent from the perspective of the recipient
of the service the money funds - they spend 5,000 words completely ignoring
the putative benefit for chess players, and talking only of the benefit to
institutions, and their need to control management of affairs.

This is worth stressing, since I merely repeat what is as true in USA as it
is in Russian Chess Federation, where chess burocrats have discussions with
each other, mostly of their own fortunes, and without any semblance of
'representing' actual chess players at all.

What you get is a sort of chess-communism, and empowered commissars to tell
people, and get 'em in line. Communism is not everyone's idea of how things
are best run, and besides, it doesn't care what you think.

I recall an incident back when they were making a
movie about the Masters of Disaster, a team of
elementary school children. Nearly all the strong
local players were brought in to help out with the
coaching, as funding was not an issue. When a
player which I'll refer to as MDW showed up for
the very first time, he had no clue what the other
coaches were being paid -- dollars or donuts. So
the head honcho asks him point-blank how much
he wants, and he says, firmly: "more than what
THEY'RE getting". The point was, he thought
himself to be the strongest player there, so even if
the rest were getting chump change, all that
mattered was that his ego be stroked and that he
make "something" for his time. LOL


Poor fella! Maybe someone should have told him the truth, that you get 5 bob
and a bag of donuts, just like everyone else. Then the person need not be
viewed as an egomaniac by asking for wages for work?

Phil Innes

-- help bot








Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
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: "February Board Meeting" [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 10th 07 06:55 PM
Marinello Case: Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause [email protected] alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 6 March 4th 05 04:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017