Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 12th 07, 10:54 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Impact of the Fake Sam Sloan Questioned

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulfish
Fact: Sloan has run for EB several times
Fact: Until the 2006 election, he had always lost.
Fact: His first election victory occurred after the FSS started
posting.

Gee, it looks like the FSS actually helped Sam to his only
win. :twisted: More seriously, it does weaken his assertion that the
result was impacted.
That ignores a few facts the most important of which is that although
I was not elected several times, I was several times the next one down
in number of votes so that in a race where the top two were elected I
finished third.

Also, Bill Goichberg campaigned against me in every election. Had
Goichberg merely stayed neutral and been neither for nor against me, I
would have been elected several of those times.

The time I won I got about the same number of votes as the previous
election in which I lost, but I was elected anyway because the total
number of voters were fewer.

When I finally won it was probably because Goichberg was less active
in campaigning against me plus the two official house candidates did
no campaigning at all. Goichberg himself has stated many times that
the reason I was elected in 2006 was that he did not campaign so
actively against me that year.

Sam Sloan

  #2   Report Post  
Old October 13th 07, 07:48 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Impact of the Fake Sam Sloan Questioned


samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulfish
Fact: Sloan has run for EB several times
Fact: Until the 2006 election, he had always lost.
Fact: His first election victory occurred after the FSS started
posting.

Gee, it looks like the FSS actually helped Sam to his only
win. :twisted: More seriously, it does weaken his assertion that the
result was impacted.

That ignores a few facts the most important of which is that although
I was not elected several times, I was several times the next one down
in number of votes so that in a race where the top two were elected I
finished third.

Also, Bill Goichberg campaigned against me in every election. Had
Goichberg merely stayed neutral and been neither for nor against me, I
would have been elected several of those times.

The time I won I got about the same number of votes as the previous
election in which I lost, but I was elected anyway because the total
number of voters were fewer.

When I finally won it was probably because Goichberg was less active
in campaigning against me plus the two official house candidates did
no campaigning at all. Goichberg himself has stated many times that
the reason I was elected in 2006 was that he did not campaign so
actively against me that year.

Sam Sloan


That turns out not to be the case. In 2001, Sloan finished 12th out of
12 (four elected). In 2003, he was 5th out of 7 (three elected). In
2004 (a special election), he finished 3rd out of 6 (two elected).
Well, he got one right. In 2005, he was 8th out of 9 (four elected). I
haven't looked up the pre-OMOV numbers, but as I recall, his 22 votes
in 2001 was considered surprisingly high.

No one bothered to campaign against Sam Sloan prior to 2007, since he
was considered a joke candidate. (How much time did Bush and Gore
spend campaigning against Ralph Nader?) If Sloan really believes
otherwise, it suggests that he's well, nuts.

  #3   Report Post  
Old October 13th 07, 12:49 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Impact of the Fake Sam Sloan Questioned

On Oct 13, 2:48 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulfish
Fact: Sloan has run for EB several times
Fact: Until the 2006 election, he had always lost.
Fact: His first election victory occurred after the FSS started
posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulfish

Gee, it looks like the FSS actually helped Sam to his only
win. :twisted: More seriously, it does weaken his assertion that the
result was impacted.


That ignores a few facts the most important of which is that although
I was not elected several times, I was several times the next one down
in number of votes so that in a race where the top two were elected I
finished third.


Also, Bill Goichberg campaigned against me in every election. Had
Goichberg merely stayed neutral and been neither for nor against me, I
would have been elected several of those times.


The time I won I got about the same number of votes as the previous
election in which I lost, but I was elected anyway because the total
number of voters were fewer.


When I finally won it was probably because Goichberg was less active
in campaigning against me plus the two official house candidates did
no campaigning at all. Goichberg himself has stated many times that
the reason I was elected in 2006 was that he did not campaign so
actively against me that year.


Sam Sloan


That turns out not to be the case. In 2001, Sloan finished 12th out of
12 (four elected). In 2003, he was 5th out of 7 (three elected). In
2004 (a special election), he finished 3rd out of 6 (two elected).
Well, he got one right. In 2005, he was 8th out of 9 (four elected). I
haven't looked up the pre-OMOV numbers, but as I recall, his 22 votes
in 2001 was considered surprisingly high.

No one bothered to campaign against Sam Sloan prior to 2007, since he
was considered a joke candidate. (How much time did Bush and Gore
spend campaigning against Ralph Nader?) If Sloan really believes
otherwise, it suggests that he's well, nuts.


These numbers are misleading too. For example, it is stated above " In
2005, he was 8th out of 9 (four elected)." However, he does not
mention that in 2005 there were two slates of four running and I was
the odd man with no slate. That was the most heavily financed campaign
in USCF history with more than 50,000 pieces mailed. Figuring one
dollar per piece mailed (the true number is actually higher) $50,000
was spent on that election campaign. Joel Channing alone is said to
have spent $30,000 on that campaign. Meanwhile, I spent zero. I did no
mailings, made no calls.

At the end, I beat the most heavily financed candidate (which is why I
finished 8th out of 9) and came close to beating several of the other
losers.

Sam Sloan

  #4   Report Post  
Old October 13th 07, 10:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Impact of the Fake Sam Sloan Questioned


samsloan wrote:
On Oct 13, 2:48 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulfish
Fact: Sloan has run for EB several times
Fact: Until the 2006 election, he had always lost.
Fact: His first election victory occurred after the FSS started
posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulfish

Gee, it looks like the FSS actually helped Sam to his only
win. :twisted: More seriously, it does weaken his assertion that the
result was impacted.


That ignores a few facts the most important of which is that although
I was not elected several times, I was several times the next one down
in number of votes so that in a race where the top two were elected I
finished third.


Also, Bill Goichberg campaigned against me in every election. Had
Goichberg merely stayed neutral and been neither for nor against me, I
would have been elected several of those times.


The time I won I got about the same number of votes as the previous
election in which I lost, but I was elected anyway because the total
number of voters were fewer.


When I finally won it was probably because Goichberg was less active
in campaigning against me plus the two official house candidates did
no campaigning at all. Goichberg himself has stated many times that
the reason I was elected in 2006 was that he did not campaign so
actively against me that year.


Sam Sloan


That turns out not to be the case. In 2001, Sloan finished 12th out of
12 (four elected). In 2003, he was 5th out of 7 (three elected). In
2004 (a special election), he finished 3rd out of 6 (two elected).
Well, he got one right. In 2005, he was 8th out of 9 (four elected). I
haven't looked up the pre-OMOV numbers, but as I recall, his 22 votes
in 2001 was considered surprisingly high.

No one bothered to campaign against Sam Sloan prior to 2007, since he
was considered a joke candidate. (How much time did Bush and Gore
spend campaigning against Ralph Nader?) If Sloan really believes
otherwise, it suggests that he's well, nuts.


These numbers are misleading too. For example, it is stated above " In
2005, he was 8th out of 9 (four elected)." However, he does not
mention that in 2005 there were two slates of four running and I was
the odd man with no slate. That was the most heavily financed campaign
in USCF history with more than 50,000 pieces mailed. Figuring one
dollar per piece mailed (the true number is actually higher) $50,000
was spent on that election campaign. Joel Channing alone is said to
have spent $30,000 on that campaign. Meanwhile, I spent zero. I did no
mailings, made no calls.

At the end, I beat the most heavily financed candidate (which is why I
finished 8th out of 9) and came close to beating several of the other
losers.

Sam Sloan


"To argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of
reason is as futile as to administer medicine to the dead." -- Thomas
Paine

  #5   Report Post  
Old October 14th 07, 12:44 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Impact of the Fake Sam Sloan Questioned


samsloan wrote:


At the end, I beat the most heavily financed candidate (which is why I
finished 8th out of 9) and came close to beating several of the other
losers.

Sam Sloan


The last-place finisher in 2005 was George John. I take it this means
Sam thinks he was "more heavily financed" than Joel Channing. If you
believe that, you'll believe anything. Come to think of it, Sam
probably does. Let's take up a collection to send him some tinfoil
hats.

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
Introduction to The Model Architect by Sam Sloan samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 May 19th 07 07:39 AM
Introduction to The Model Architect by Sam Sloan samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 3 May 18th 07 02:49 AM
Introduction to The Model Architect by Sam Sloan samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 3 May 18th 07 01:41 AM
Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan BarbaraVilliers rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 August 1st 06 12:33 PM
Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan BarbaraVilliers rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 August 1st 06 12:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:05 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