Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 9th 04, 09:23 AM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Randy Bauer and the Gang-of-Four

I hope Larry Parr is listening, because this doesn't strike me as a very
nice
statement, wishing financial hardship on a Board member simply for her Board
actions. Sure sounds like "sheer personal animus" to me. -- Randy Bauer

Mr. Bauer refers to this statement from Sam Sloan about Elizabeth
Shaughnessy: "Let us hope they start a boycott of her chess camps as well, to
make sure that her destructive actions here hurt her financially out there."

I'm listening.

Although Miss Shaughnessy is an architect and presumably makes her main
income from her full-time job, I could not agree more that Sam's statement
evinces real personal animus.

I would argue that if Sam is indeed guilty of "sheer personal animus,"
which he is, then we may reach our own conclusions about the scatological
effusions and the heated sanctimonious umbrage in a couple of dozen messages
from Mr. Bauer by this point. If Sam has evinced animus and malice, then what
have we had from Mr. Bauer and Stan Booz?

What we have had is a waterfall of bemerding language and sheer
nastiness.

Yours, Larry Parr

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 12th 04, 03:39 PM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RANDY BAUER'S SELECTIVE OUTRAGE
Randy Bauer must believe that people cannot read. I state that Sam Sloan is
a gentlemen "in comparison with" him or Stan Booz, and Mr. Bauer responds with
the next bit of stupid dishonesty, "Larry Parr's 'gentleman' in one post,"
omitting my phrase "in comparison with."

I have already stated repeatedly that I have no doubt whatsoever that
Beatriz or Tim will not run off with Federation money, though given Harry
Sabine's heavy role in setting up the Federation move to Crossville, I find
Sam's claim that he engineered the move to be far from over the top. Who else
would get more discredit or, if you will, credit for this move to Crossville
than Harry Sabine?

Sam is indeed a gentlemen "IN COMPARISON WITH" a Mr. Bauer who in this
posting hit another low when turning the comparative into the absolute.

As for Harry Sabine being Mr. Bauer's ally, that is exactly hiow I read
it. I don't need to quote Mr. Bauer to that effect. The burst of obscenity and
the tone of endless sanctimony that figured in many of his postings directed at
Sam Sloan and his unwillingness to speak out against foulness of a Booz or the
shenanigans of Harry Sabine in banning Lev Alburt from the proposed USA-USSR
match last century speak volumes for Mr. Bauer's selective outrage.

Readers will judge for themselves whether a Sabine and the others are
allies of Mr. Bauer. I read the politics that way, whether Mr. Bauer offers
his testimony to that effect or not.

Yours, Larry Parr


Subject: Reply to Affidavit of Leroy Dubeck
From: "Randy Bauer"
Date: 12/11/2004 10:40 PM Pacific Standard Time

"Parrthenon" wrote

Randy Bauer now charges, very falsely indeed, that I am turning Sam Sloan into

a chess version of Mother Teresa.

Amazing junk. I have said repeatedly that Sam is badly flawed, but I have

also said that based on the exchanges on this forum, he is a
gentleman in comparison with Randy Bauer or Stan Booz.

Larry Parr's "gentleman" in one post:

Refers to respected former USCF President Dr. Leroy Dubeck as a "whacko" bent
on revenge who "wants [the USCF] to get into the building construction
business".

Refers to former Board member Harry Sabine as one who "cooked up this scheme to
move the USCF to Crossville." Alleges it is "widely known" that Sabine, an
attorney and county commissioner, "wants to become Executive Director of the
USCF."

Current President Beatriz Marinello is a "notorious lesbian" and she and
Vice President of Finance Tim Hanke are "unemployed with probably little
money." They have "questionable backgrounds" and we are "not sure" whether
they are "going to run off with the money." Tim and Beatriz running off
with the USCF money "could possibly happen."

Larry Parr's defense of Sloan -- and belief in him -- is bizarre. In an
earlier post, Parr took to attacking me with claims of ties to chess
political allies that he has not been able to back up with facts.

It's time for Parr to put up or shut up here as well. Parr, you've got a whole
Google archive to use as research, please find posts where I attacked a similar
number of respected chess figures to the despicable extent exhibited here by
Sam Sloan. If you cannot, I'll be waiting for a correction. Of course, I
won't hold my breath.

I realize it's too much to ask for an apology -- you've picked your bed, I
expect you to continue to lie in it.

Randy Bauer

  #3   Report Post  
Old December 12th 04, 10:32 PM
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Parr wrote:
I state that Sam Sloan is a gentlemen "in comparison
with" him or Stan Booz, and Mr. Bauer responds with
the next bit of stupid dishonesty, "Larry Parr's
'gentleman' in one post," omitting my phrase "in
comparison with." ... Sam is indeed a gentlemen "IN
COMPARISON WITH" a Mr. Bauer who in this posting hit
another low when turning the comparative into the
absolute.


_
Does this mean that Larry Parr would not classify
Sam Sloan as a gentleman in anything other than a
comparative sense?

  #4   Report Post  
Old December 12th 04, 11:05 PM
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Parr wrote (12 Dec 2004 15:39:28 GMT):

The burst of obscenity and the tone of endless
sanctimony that figured in many of his postings
directed at Sam Sloan and his unwillingness to
speak out against foulness of a Booz or the
shenanigans of Harry Sabine in banning Lev Alburt
from the proposed USA-USSR match last century
speak volumes for Mr. Bauer's selective outrage.


_
Two days ago, I asked Larry Parr if he thinks it
is appropriate to keep in mind Sam Sloan's past
record when Sam Sloan attacks people publicly.

Larry Parr replied that, "of course", one ought
to keep in mind what a person has said in the past
about others.

I followed up by asking:

_ "So, can we then conclude that it is appropriate
_ for Randy Bauer to discuss Sam Sloan's past
_ behavior?" - Louis Blair (10 Dec 2004 22:11:36
_ -0800)

Larry Parr then indicated that he would not be
answering this question. Since Larry Parr again
(above) takes up the subject of Randy Bauer and
Sam Sloan, it seems appropriate to me to ask the
question again and see if Larry Parr still refuses
to answer.

So, can we then conclude that it is appropriate
for Randy Bauer to discuss Sam Sloan's past behavior?"

  #5   Report Post  
Old December 13th 04, 05:17 AM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"So, can we then conclude that it is appropriate for Randy Bauer to discuss Sam
Sloan's past behavior?" -- Louis Blair

I don't think Louis Blair is fooling anyone -- either because his ploy is
so transparent. He doesn't really care about the answer but wants to spin a
long web of more "questions." Rgcp veterans are wise to him by now.

Once again, Mr. Blair began asking about Sam Sloan's "past record" and
changed that to his "past behavior." The idea here is to move from discussion
of issues and chess related postings (see below) to discussion of just
anything, such as Sam's armpits or changing a child's diaper inexpertly.

Won't do. The whole thing is too transparently dishonest -- indeed,
sloppily dishonest -- on Mr. Blair's part.

Now, then, if one wants to write: "Sam Sloan reported the death of
Peter Leko, and to my mind, when someone commits a boner like that, along with
a number of others, I will want to know a lot more about a given subject before
accepting an article by him at face value" -- now, if one wants to write that,
I won't disagree. I might argue that the error was spectacularly awful and
that Sam was deliberately going out on a limb to get the un-news out quickly.
I might argue that one feels sorry for anyone making such a gaffe. But I won't
argue that the gaffe did not happen or that it was a cosmic accident. It
happened because Sam was thoughtlessly impetuous, his greatest weakness.

On the other hand, if there are issues about the move to Crossville and
questions that won't be answered, and you have the Federation brokers talking
endlessly about the man changing diapers, then I don't consider that part of
the "past record," given the usual connotation of the phrase in policy
discussions, though it does come under "past behavior."

One really doesn't know what to make of Mr. Blair trying to change his
question because he found it inadequate. The cold, calculating dishonesty
gives one the shivers.

Yours, Larry Parr

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.


  #6   Report Post  
Old December 13th 04, 02:10 PM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Parrthenon
says...

"So, can we then conclude that it is appropriate for Randy Bauer to discuss Sam
Sloan's past behavior?" -- Louis Blair

I don't think Louis Blair is fooling anyone -- either because his ploy is
so transparent. He doesn't really care about the answer but wants to spin a
long web of more "questions." Rgcp veterans are wise to him by now.

Once again, Mr. Blair began asking about Sam Sloan's "past record" and
changed that to his "past behavior." The idea here is to move from discussion
of issues and chess related postings (see below) to discussion of just
anything, such as Sam's armpits or changing a child's diaper inexpertly.


Larry Parr appears to be the only one of late who mentions anything about dirty
diapers. It's becoming clear that "the diapers dialogue" is Parr's chosen
method for diverting discussion from Sloan's more serious recent lapses of late,
which include his concern that two members of the current Executive Board might
have criminal intent regarding use of the USCF's funds.

Won't do. The whole thing is too transparently dishonest -- indeed,
sloppily dishonest -- on Mr. Blair's part.


Won't do. The whole thing is too transparently dishonest -- indeed,
sloppily dishonest -- on Mr. Parr's part.

Now, then, if one wants to write: "Sam Sloan reported the death of
Peter Leko, and to my mind, when someone commits a boner like that, along with
a number of others, I will want to know a lot more about a given subject before
accepting an article by him at face value" -- now, if one wants to write that,
I won't disagree. I might argue that the error was spectacularly awful and
that Sam was deliberately going out on a limb to get the un-news out quickly.
I might argue that one feels sorry for anyone making such a gaffe. But I won't
argue that the gaffe did not happen or that it was a cosmic accident. It
happened because Sam was thoughtlessly impetuous, his greatest weakness.


Parr continues with his defense of our misunderstood Sam Sloan. He's really
quite a fine chap, you see, he just gets a little thoughtless, a little
impetuous at times. Such as, when in a sworn statement (you'd think that would
cause one to be thoughtful and less impetuous, wouldn't you, but I guess that
would require more understanding of the gravity of such a document than Sloan or
Parr can muster):

Refers to respected former USCF President Dr. Leroy Dubeck as a "whacko"
bent on revenge who "wants [the USCF] to get into the building construction
business".

Refers to former Board member Harry Sabine as one who "cooked up this scheme
to move the USCF to Crossville." Alleges it is "widely known" that Sabine,
an attorney and county commissioner, "wants to become Executive Director of
the USCF."

Current President Beatriz Marinello is a "notorious lesbian" and she and
Vice President of Finance Tim Hanke are "unemployed with probably little
money." They have "questionable backgrounds" and we are "not sure" whether
they are "going to run off with the money." Tim and Beatriz running off
with the USCF money "could possibly happen."


On the other hand, if there are issues about the move to Crossville and
questions that won't be answered, and you have the Federation brokers talking
endlessly about the man changing diapers, then I don't consider that part of
the "past record," given the usual connotation of the phrase in policy
discussions, though it does come under "past behavior."

One really doesn't know what to make of Mr. Blair trying to change his
question because he found it inadequate. The cold, calculating dishonesty
gives one the shivers.

Yours, Larry Parr


There isn't anything honest in the pack of scurrilous lies and distortions Sloan
concocts in his sworn statement. It's also hard not to feel the same about
Parr, who has been given several opportunities to comment directly on these
charges and has resorted again to the diaper defense. It's a fine deflection,
but sooner or later even Parr will have to own up to Sloan's mess.

Randy Bauer

  #7   Report Post  
Old December 13th 04, 08:59 PM
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Parr wrote (12 Dec 2004 15:39:28 GMT):
The burst of obscenity and the tone of endless
sanctimony that figured in many of his postings
directed at Sam Sloan and his unwillingness to
speak out against foulness of a Booz or the
shenanigans of Harry Sabine in banning Lev Alburt
from the proposed USA-USSR match last century
speak volumes for Mr. Bauer's selective outrage.


Three days ago, I asked Larry Parr if he thinks it
is appropriate to keep in mind Sam Sloan's past
record when Sam Sloan attacks people publicly.

Larry Parr replied that, "of course", one ought
to keep in mind what a person has said in the past
about others.

I followed up by asking (10 Dec 2004 22:11:36 -0800):
So, can we then conclude that it is appropriate
for Randy Bauer to discuss Sam Sloan's past
behavior?



Larry Parr now writes (13 Dec 2004 05:17:20 GMT):

I don't think Louis Blair is fooling anyone
-- either because his ploy is so transparent.
He doesn't really care about the answer but
wants to spin a long web of more "questions."
Rgcp veterans are wise to him by now.


_
I do not see how Larry Parr could imagine that
I have anything to gain by asking questions
without caring about the answers. For the
record, I do care about the answers, and Larry
Parr has nothing to indicate otherwise.


Larry Parr now writes (13 Dec 2004 05:17:20 GMT):

Once again, Mr. Blair began asking about Sam
Sloan's "past record" and changed that to his
"past behavior." The idea here is to move from
discussion of issues and chess related postings
(see below) to discussion of just anything, such
as Sam's armpits or changing a child's diaper
inexpertly.

Won't do. The whole thing is too transparently
dishonest -- indeed, sloppily dishonest -- on
Mr. Blair's part.


_
Nothing dishonest about it. I wanted to see if
Larry Parr feels that the distinction is
important. Apparently, he does.


Larry Parr now writes (13 Dec 2004 05:17:20 GMT):

Now, then, if one wants to write: "Sam Sloan
reported the death of Peter Leko, and to my mind,
when someone commits a boner like that, along with
a number of others, I will want to know a lot more
about a given subject before accepting an article
by him at face value" -- now, if one wants to write
that, I won't disagree. I might argue that the
error was spectacularly awful and that Sam was
deliberately going out on a limb to get the un-news
out quickly. I might argue that one feels sorry
for anyone making such a gaffe. But I won't
argue that the gaffe did not happen or that it was
a cosmic accident. It happened because Sam was
thoughtlessly impetuous, his greatest weakness.

On the other hand, if there are issues about the
move to Crossville and questions that won't be
answered, and you have the Federation brokers talking
endlessly about the man changing diapers, then I
don't consider that part of the "past record," given
the usual connotation of the phrase in policy
discussions, though it does come under "past behavior."


_
So, if I am following Larry Parr correctly, he considers
it acceptable if Randy Bauer brings up aspects of Sam
Sloan's past that have a baring on the degree to which
Sam Sloan claims can be trusted. Larry Parr's objection
is to the discussion of past incidents unrelated to
the degree to which Sam Sloan claims can be trusted.
Have I got that right?


Larry Parr now writes (13 Dec 2004 05:17:20 GMT):

One really doesn't know what to make of Mr. Blair
trying to change his question because he found it
inadequate. The cold, calculating dishonesty
gives one the shivers.


_
I did not "change" my question. I asked a new
question. Nothing dishonest about that.

  #8   Report Post  
Old December 13th 04, 09:30 PM
Sam Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 13 Dec 2004 12:59:32 -0800, "Louis Blair"
wrote:

Three days ago, I asked Larry Parr if he thinks it
is appropriate to keep in mind Sam Sloan's past
record when Sam Sloan attacks people publicly.


I certainly think so. I am proud of my record. I was the first to
publicly attack Tim Redman and the Redman Gang. Had people listened to
me then, perhaps Redman would have been thrown out of office and the
USCF would not have lost the one million dollars it lost while Redman
was USCF President.

I was the first to report of the evils of drug testing by FIDE. I did
so in my reports on the 1999 FIDE Presidential Board meeting in Las
Vegas and on the Medical Committee meetings in Istanbul in 2000.

My website was the first to publish that the CNN Nerve Gas Story was a
hoax. That hoax later brought down news reporter Peter Arnett.

My website was the first to report that the Montreal Bid for the World
Chess Championship was a hoax.

My website was the first to publish a picture of Monica Lewinsky.

Before there was a web, I reported to the FBI that terrorist groups
operating out of Pakistan were threatening to kill me and kidnap my
baby daughter Shamema. I provided to the FBI a list of names and
addresses of the terrorists involved. The FBI refused to investigate
them. Instead, it investigated me on the preposterous theory that I
had sent the death threats to myself. I was forced to go into hiding
for three years. Later, those terrorists were involved with the people
who blew up the World Trade Center. If the FBI had followed up on the
information I gave them, perhaps the World Trade Center would still be
standing.

In short, I am proud of my record.

Sam Sloan
  #9   Report Post  
Old December 14th 04, 12:11 AM
Spam Scone
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Sam Sloan wrote:
On 13 Dec 2004 12:59:32 -0800, "Louis Blair"
wrote:

Three days ago, I asked Larry Parr if he thinks it
is appropriate to keep in mind Sam Sloan's past
record when Sam Sloan attacks people publicly.


I certainly think so. I am proud of my record. I was the first to
publicly libel Tim Redman. I was the first to spread disinformation

for ChessDon. I was the first to announce Peter Leko's death. I was the
first to libel Beatriz. I was the first to attack George John's son. I
was the first to libel Igor Khmelnitsky. I was the first to lie to the
TLC about my employment as a cab-driver. And I will continue to be the
first to spread lies on rgcp.

In short, I am proud of my record.

Sam Sloan


I corrected Sloan's statement. See above.

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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:28 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