Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 11:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Saving Private Sloan

I changed the title of this header [re Brock] since the people who created
it, themselves abandoned the field. /PI
-------

Hanken makes his living writing articles for Chess Life. One cannot
imagine that he would come here and make a statement about this in a
public forum.

Sam Sloan

--

Loathe as everyone will be to depart from the fascinating subject of Sam
Sloan, contra-mundam - he is not exactly the first person to have his
material go unnoticed by USCF, or by its sales agent, Chesscafe, for reasons
unrelated to whatever its merit or it sales potential.

I do not quite understand USCF's policy in utilising a reporter such as
Jerry Hanken to review material without declaring his interests; so that for
example, when he reviewed Monroi material, he failed to state that he was or
had been a paid consultant to Monroi. Neither did CL make any declaration
about their reviewer.

I also do not understand what terms of reference the editor of CL has, since
even CL columnist Larry Evans couldn't get a straight answer out of him.

While there may be reasons to suppress any writer, even valid reasons [?] we
cannot assess what is fair or false for the same /old/ reasons - justice
must not only be done, but be seen to be done. This requires just normal
levels of transparency at USCF, nothing special, but USCF do not even notice
reports of unfair treatment, even so that they can make their own case.

Recently both Bill Hall and Randy Bauer have skipped any opportunity to
speak up for themselves on 3 issues of complaint - even though pre-election
they both thought speaking up was a rather good idea!

Larry Parr has been writing for years that the organisation needs to let the
sunshine in to function as natural disinfectant - and when things
continuously go wrong, we see the result of a failure to do that, with the
usual suggestions of surprised indignation attached.

Now that Super-Sloan has had this occur to himself, he is out of his pram
about it - but when in office he scarcely noticed the practice [if at
all?] - pfft!

Perhaps if he raised an issue about known problems that /all/ people have,
then it would not seem to be all about him, as usual.

Otherwise all these threads emerging in the middle of a virtual war-zone
seem to be about Saving Private Sloan, rather than aught to do with the rest
of us.

Phil Innes
Vermont


  #2   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 12:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Private Members Club


Sam Sloan writes: I hope that everyone here realizes that "Chess One" Phil
Innes is not
a USCF member, has not been a USCF member for 12 years and even then
was only a member briefly, and now says that he wants the USCF to go
out of business so that he can start his own rival organization.


**I say it says, says Sloan, who cannot say where I say it. Perhaps it is
his own paraphrase? Or maybe Super-Sam Sloan is employing a psychic? I
/have/ said that in other countries there is not even any need to be a
member of anything to play chess. But perhaps Sam Sloan has me confused with
Lex Luther? I seem to have limited my comments to asking what any national
chess federation should do - given that 3 nuns and a laptop can run the
ratings system... etc

Sam Sloan writes: In short, when Phil Innes is advocating the case of
Gregory Alexander
here as well as Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell, Paul Truong and other
ne'er-do-wells, he is not speaking for the best interests of the USCF
and its members.


**As a tautological statement about USCF's resentment of what others do to
further its own mission, that one is perfecto!

**Sam Sloan supported by Delegate Johnson, have been rubbishing G.
Alexander, for starting a collegiate league network which did not compete
with USCF, meanwhile gratuitously relegating the importance if the network
[and something neither of them have contributed to themselves - in fact the
Delegate declined helping promote chess when we engaged this subject some
time ago!] Meanwhile Delegate Johnson at ---extraordinary--- length admitted
last week that he didn't mind others promoting chess - but he liked USCF as
it was.

**Then Super-Sloan and Delegate Johnson describe G. Alexander's pioneering
efforts and orientation to chess in derogatory terms so as to dismiss what
he has to say while /engaged with/ USCF. USCF as this pair represent it, is
nothing more than a private ratings club, employing 23 people, 7 board
members, untold hordes of committee folk, and [is it?] 50 delegates, to do
so [O! I almost forgot 'contractors' since apparently even that squadron of
people ain't enough to do whatever it is they all do]. The beneficiary of
the club, they argue, is the private member group, alone.

**Now, these folks also argue 'hands off our organization!', and if USCF
truly was a Private Membership Club, that may be fair comment. But isn't
USCF a publicly supported 501 not-for-profit, whereby all tax payers
subsidise it, as worthy of contributing to its mission, which as it seems to
many, is rather different than a private members club? It is in this sense a
public concern, and the business of the public to observe how well it
functions in performing its mission on the public's behalf.

**When this issue about the very core function USCF has to exist is then
raised in newsgroups, this is termed an attack on the organisation - which I
suppose it is, in a technical sense, if what USCF formally says about itself
as its reason to exist is glaringly other than what it actually does - which
is to say, the attack is to point out a quintessentially hypocritical
stance, or falsity. When I or other ne'er-do-wells point this out, we are
put to the dogs.

**There must come a time when this treatment will result in more formal
questioning of USCF's 501 status, by looking at its performance - and
something not conducted by usenet rhetoric, or more talk, but by independent
investigation of what it does. Since USCF cannot engage any critic of its
behavior then at least I hope it doesn't whine that anyone 'did it to them'
should that circumstance occur.

Phil Innes
Vermont
--
Sam Sloan



  #3   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 01:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Saving Private Sloan


Nine o'clock and Monday morning, and Sam's daily dozen [blaming, rubbishing,
'questioning'] already stands at 7. Here we go with 8 and 9, Newton and
Hall:

---

Meanwhile, I am wondering if Janet Newton is a USCF Member. Her name
is not listed in the MSA. Possibly she is a parent member. She
certainly seems interested in chess. She has a blog about "Chess News
about Women". She donated a $300 brilliancy prize to the US Woman's
Championship, which eventually got paid after some mishaps and the
usual messups by Bill Hall, our Executive Director who somehow forgot
about the money. (He seems to have problems with things like that.)

**Presumably Jan Newton could afford to buy half a dozen years of membership
with that money, instead of acting as a sponsor - so what's the beef here?

I am remembering that when I first got involved with Susan Polgar in
Budapest Hungary in 1986, it seemed that she was constantly at war
with the entire Hungarian Chess Federation and had no friends and
allies and indeed she seemed to be at war with the entire country of
Hungary as well. At that time, I had only heard her side of the story
and she seemed to be in the right and I could not understand why so
many people seemed to have so much against her.

**Ah! Perhaps all women look alike? Would Sam Sloan prefer to read
[current!] anti-semitic screeds passed around Hungarian chess groups, in
English or Hungarian? We could all discuss The Protocols and the World Wide
Plot by Masons - there is even a new book...

I never really get to hear the other side of the story, but it seems
that history is repeating itself and again we have the situation of
Polgar vs. The Rest of the World (save a few remaining supporters like
Janet Newton).

**Can it be that Jan Newton, who is entirely adequate to represent her own
opinion, and I do not defend here, can have said her own opinion on what's
fair? She is, after all, a lawyer. She seems to have made the same /point/
as myself, redirecting inquiries into the current USCF mess to the rule of
law - and that subject is the one being 'defended'. The sparcity of people
who point this out in newsgroups may well be explained by the fact that most
people consider that normal and decent behavior. We are, after all, not
conducting a plebiscite on kangaroo trials on usenet, are we? Of course,
Newton's crime may also be her reflections on Sam Sloan's honor and
reputation?

Phil Innes
Vermont


  #4   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 03:06 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Saving Private Sloan




On Oct 29, 10:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I am commenting on the opinion people have about his behavior. He is

unable
to do that himself. When he was asked by Rob Mitchell if it was

quite right
that he should have such material as he has on his website, especially
considering USCF's membership is composed of mainly young folks, he

banned
Rob Mitchell from the Fide Yahoo group.


Phil Innes


As I have said many, many times I suspended Rob ("the Robber")
Mitchell from my Yahoo Group for one reason only, which is that he
refused to identify himself since my group has a publicly posted rule

**That is a lie. He did offer to identify himself directly to you, by e-mail
and telephone, besides /I/ identified him. I attested he was who he said he
was. How strange the issue should have arisen only when the subject
concerned your behavior! Why, just a month before the same person defended
Sam Sloan's writing against the 'action' by Louis Blair. What a fantastic
concoction Sloan creates about of his own actions - as would make even
Eeyore laugh out loud!

against anonymous or fake name posters. I gave him several warnings
before suspending him. Then he joined my group several more times
under other fake names and I had to ban those fake names as well.

Also, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell never complained about my website.

**Why don't you reinstate what I wrote, then answer that, instead of talking
to yourself?

He made inane but different complaints that I had violated HIPPA Laws
or some such nonsense. However, I never suspended him for that. If I
was going to suspend him for that I would certainly have suspended
Phil Innes as well.

**For what? You did speak of people's medical condition - people who were
employees at USCF, including specifics of their condition - and that is not
'inane'.

Some readers of this group may be surprised to learn that Phil Innes
is a member of my group and everything he posts here he also posts to
my FIDE-chess Yahoo Group. Thus, I have to respond to everything he
writes twice.

**ROFL - some people may be amazed to know?

I usually just copy and paste what I write here over to
there or visa-versa.

**Well, me too!

The point is, if I were going to suspend or ban
people for content (Polgar-style) the first person I would suspend
would be Phil Innes, but he has yet to be banned from my Yahoo Group.

**The Point? And 'yet' to be banned? ROFL!~

**The point is that Sam Sloan didn't like either the legal check
contra-HIPPA, nor the decency check about widespread public concern about
his own web-site. That's the reason Mitchell was banned. Phil Innes


Sam Sloan


  #5   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 04:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Saving Private Sloan

On Oct 29, 11:06 am, "Chess One" wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:



I am commenting on the opinion people have about his behavior. He is

unable
to do that himself. When he was asked by Rob Mitchell if it was

quite right
that he should have such material as he has on his website, especially
considering USCF's membership is composed of mainly young folks, he

banned
Rob Mitchell from the Fide Yahoo group.


Phil Innes


As I have said many, many times I suspended Rob ("the Robber")
Mitchell from my Yahoo Group for one reason only, which is that he
refused to identify himself since my group has a publicly posted rule

**That is a lie. He did offer to identify himself directly to you, by e-mail
and telephone, besides /I/ identified him. I attested he was who he said he
was. How strange the issue should have arisen only when the subject
concerned your behavior! Why, just a month before the same person defended
Sam Sloan's writing against the 'action' by Louis Blair. What a fantastic
concoction Sloan creates about of his own actions - as would make even
Eeyore laugh out loud!


Having you tell me who he is is meaningless as I do not know who you
are. It is true that I met you once at the USCF board meeting in March
1999 but that does not mean that I know who you are. Your name is not
listed in the phone book and I am beginning to doubt that your name is
Phil Innes.

In his case, I asked him for his USCF ID number. I now know that he
has one. When he refused to provide it I had no choice but to suspend
him, especially since other members of my group were complaining about
him.

This, of course, was long before his sordid background became known
and he earned the moniker Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell.

Sam Sloan



  #6   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 08:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Saving Private Sloan


"samsloan" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 29, 11:06 am, "Chess One" wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:



I am commenting on the opinion people have about his behavior. He is

unable
to do that himself. When he was asked by Rob Mitchell if it was

quite right
that he should have such material as he has on his website, especially
considering USCF's membership is composed of mainly young folks, he

banned
Rob Mitchell from the Fide Yahoo group.


Phil Innes


As I have said many, many times I suspended Rob ("the Robber")
Mitchell from my Yahoo Group for one reason only, which is that he
refused to identify himself since my group has a publicly posted rule

**That is a lie. He did offer to identify himself directly to you, by
e-mail
and telephone, besides /I/ identified him. I attested he was who he said
he
was. How strange the issue should have arisen only when the subject
concerned your behavior! Why, just a month before the same person
defended
Sam Sloan's writing against the 'action' by Louis Blair. What a fantastic
concoction Sloan creates about of his own actions - as would make even
Eeyore laugh out loud!


Having you tell me who he is is meaningless as I do not know who you
are.


Ha ha ha!

It is true that I met you once at the USCF board meeting in March
1999


ROFL!

but that does not mean that I know who you are.


What a paranoic day you are having, Sam! What else can you say?

Your name is not
listed in the phone book and I am beginning to doubt that your name is
Phil Innes.


ROFL!

In his case, I asked him for his USCF ID number. I now know that he
has one. When he refused to provide it I had no choice but to suspend
him, especially since other members of my group were complaining about
him.


You said that before. As far as I can see, the only contributors to 'your'
newsgroup are me, you, and a boy named Sue.

This, of course, was long before his sordid background became known
and he earned the moniker Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell.


That's very fair comment, even if you are the only person to use it, as
everyone no. But some Robbers named Rob are the like of Robin Hood.

Hey! 4:04 here. I see you still have 2 hours until the deadline
contribution to public decency challenge. Will Super-Sloan slip from under
his slipstream? Its as dramatic as the Sox victory over Denver, and of
course, the hopeless Yankee failures from NY.

How will you handle the challenge to address public decency in today's mood?
When I don't even have a listed telephone number is probably not enough of
an excuse, even for your moronic supporters - though I have appeared on TV
for 2 hours and in a chess program - and Mitchell is on NPR - under our
ficticious names - because we represent the Underground Really Frightening
Faction?

ROFL

What a great fool you are Sam Sloan! We should all be grate-fool for you,
since our own small comments are elevated thereby. it is a cheap comment,
though apt.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan



  #7   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 09:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Saving Private Sloan




What I have been wondering is, let us say for the sake of argument,
that not only does the supposedly forthcoming report from an as yet
unnamed "expert" find Truong guilty, but Truong is actually arrested,
tried, convicted and sentenced to prison, but still refuses to resign.
What then? How can we kick him out?


**I heartily recommend tried and tested methods of doing so, based on 100
commies in government, McCarthyesque 'doubts', especially as applied to
foreigners. It is proven to work for a long time, and people are so sleepy
about catching up with it. All you need to do is invoke the greater good and
what interests millions of people.

Mark Nibbelin, a defender of Truong, tries to compare his case to
mine. The cases are completely different. Millions of people know
about my case. The USCF voters certainly knew about it when they
elected me. My entire website is devoted to it. I have written and
sent thousands of emails about it. I displayed it prominently on the
new blog I started yesterday at http://samsloan.blogspot.com


**Not a bad point! Except that after raising it, doing nothing on any
consequence for a year except blame others, they then abandoned it -
millions of them! MILLIONS!

The 2006 Delegates meeting that voted to require me to publish a
statement about in Chess Life did not realize that I wanted to publish
a statement about it in Chess Life and therefore did not object to it.
Kind of like Burr Rabbit who says, "Please don't throw me into that
briar patch." The motion passed only because Grant Perks got Herbert
Rodney Vaughn, who posts as Tanstaafl, seated as a delegate from Ohio,
where he has never lived, just to try to overturn the election results
in which I had defeated Grant Perks for election. Vaughn spoke

**You haven't quite hit a dozen villains today, but I count 10 so far.

repeatedly on the motion, tying up the meeting and nobody knew who he
was. The motion passed by one vote, Vaughn's vote. In the two previous
years, 2004 and 2005, a similar motion had been made by Tim Redman and
had failed both times. In 2006, the maker of the original motion was
Howard Cohen (brother of Larry, the infamous arbiter) and he thought
that I had actually been convicted of Child Molestation. When he found
out that the real case against me was a child custody case, he was
appalled and said that he never would have made that motion and never
would have voted for it had he known that.


**How interesting that you continue to talk about you.

** Look - if that is all you do, and you do! Then what the **** is anyone
else doing at 'your' Yahoo group?

**Anyway... 4:58 here, and the Sloan challenge to public decency by 6:30 has
only an hour and a half to go. What drama! The Sloan has not yet admitted
such a challenge exists, which is enough to throw him off Survivor by his
fellow Islanders.

tick tick tick ... ... ...

Phil Innes

---

Sam Sloan


  #8   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 09:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Saving Private Sloan

On Oct 29, 11:18 am, samsloan wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:06 am, "Chess One" wrote:



On Oct 29, 10:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:


I am commenting on the opinion people have about his behavior. He is

unable
to do that himself. When he was asked by Rob Mitchell if it was

quite right
that he should have such material as he has on his website, especially
considering USCF's membership is composed of mainly young folks, he

banned
Rob Mitchell from the Fide Yahoo group.


Phil Innes


As I have said many, many times I suspended Rob ("the Robber")
Mitchell from my Yahoo Group for one reason only, which is that he
refused to identify himself since my group has a publicly posted rule


**That is a lie. He did offer to identify himself directly to you, by e-mail
and telephone, besides /I/ identified him. I attested he was who he said he
was. How strange the issue should have arisen only when the subject
concerned your behavior! Why, just a month before the same person defended
Sam Sloan's writing against the 'action' by Louis Blair. What a fantastic
concoction Sloan creates about of his own actions - as would make even
Eeyore laugh out loud!


Having you tell me who he is is meaningless as I do not know who you
are. It is true that I met you once at the USCF board meeting in March
1999 but that does not mean that I know who you are. Your name is not
listed in the phone book and I am beginning to doubt that your name is
Phil Innes.




In his case, I asked him for his USCF ID number. I now know that he
has one. When he refused to provide it I had no choice but to suspend
him, especially since other members of my group were complaining about
him.


If I didnt have a USCF id I would still have been banned as I didnt
have one. The ID proves nothing. You have my phone number,silly girl


This, of course, was long before his sordid background became known
and he earned the moniker Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell.

Sam Sloan



  #9   Report Post  
Old October 29th 07, 09:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Saving Private Sloan


"Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...


If I didnt have a USCF id I would still have been banned as I didnt
have one. The ID proves nothing. You have my phone number,silly girl


And he tolerates foreigners on 'his' group who definitely do not have a USCF
ID numbers - but this is to humor idiocy.

He has now continued to doubt me, though he has met me, though I have
appeared before the board in his presence, and ... &c

This person, if I may indulge readers here to consider a pyschological term,
which may be unusual to ordinary understanding, is, as we say, 'a nutcase'.

He is though, only apparently paranoid, cunning enough to pretend to be so,
as if it were anything real in him.

5:41 here, and still no response or even any notice to the public decency
standard - pertinent to any sober person having to do with children. He must
have read this half a dozen times already - but with 45 minutes to go, has
not deigned to say anything at all except as it fits his own image of
himself.

Don't judge such persons, it is not any enviable problem, not even for the
purposes of passing celebrity. Indeed, this person is being used as a
stalking horse by even more cynical people.

Cordially, Phil Innes



This, of course, was long before his sordid background became known
and he earned the moniker Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell.

Sam Sloan





  #10   Report Post  
Old October 30th 07, 11:15 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Saving Private Sloan


**That is a lie. He did offer to identify himself directly to you,

by e-mail
and telephone, besides /I/ identified him. I attested he was who he

said he
was. How strange the issue should have arisen only when the subject
concerned your behavior! Why, just a month before the same person

defended
Sam Sloan's writing against the 'action' by Louis Blair. What a

fantastic
concoction Sloan creates about of his own actions - as would make even
Eeyore laugh out loud!


Having you tell me who he is is meaningless as I do not know who you
are.

** I suppose by exactly the same logic I could say the same about you. But
should I do so I would rather fear people would think I was [email protected] Since, why
/should/ I not be who I say I am? Or you?

It is true that I met you once at the USCF board meeting in March
1999 but that does not mean that I know who you are. Your name is not
listed in the phone book and I am beginning to doubt that your name is
Phil Innes.


**There are 2 good reasons! Unlisted business number and despite showing up
with a big deal Russian at the invitation of the USCF Board /with/ an
invitation from the Russian Federation to DO something together, and despite
forwarding the Kirsan-grabbed games from Elista to Tom Dorsch [free for
USCF], after having bought them, it seems natural maybe, to doubt who I am.
Anyone would - not!


**But the plain reason you do this is because you are a very stupid man who
thinks anyone would believe these reasons [who actually does?] - and because
you wish to get rid of anyone who challenges you to anything about your own
behavior. You always rubbish those who do not agree with you, or even
/pretend/ you think they are imposters! You are a 60 year old with the
emotions of an someone aged 8

R
O

F


L



!


!


In his case, I asked him for his USCF ID number. I now know that he
has one. When he refused to provide it I had no choice but to suspend
him, especially since other members of my group were complaining about
him.


**I would have laughed in your face for responding to mock-paranoia about
him! Go to hell Sloan. You are a coward - I told you this before. You fool
only idiots, and you banned Mitchell because he asked you questions that
frighten you to answer.

This, of course, was long before his sordid background became known
and he had earned the moniker Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell.


**Have [another] nice law suit! Title your next book: The Complete Idiot.

Phil Innes
--


Sam Sloan


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.misc (Chess General) 0 May 17th 07 04:42 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 02:40 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