Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 4th 07, 10:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Recall Petition

I think that under the circumstances there is a good chance that we
could get the 96 signatures needed to start a recall of Mr. Truong.

However, then there would be articles in Chess Life from both sides
and finally a vote. Truong might easily defeat the effort to oust him.

Right now the best chance is through my court case. The judge has
given them until November 20 to answer. The judge has the authority to
oust them. If that fails, we can try other approaches.

Sam Sloan

  #2   Report Post  
Old November 5th 07, 04:20 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Recall Petition


wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:42 pm, samsloan wrote:
I think that under the circumstances there is a good chance that we
could get the 96 signatures needed to start a recall of Mr. Truong.

However, then there would be articles in Chess Life from both sides
and finally a vote. Truong might easily defeat the effort to oust him.

Right now the best chance is through my court case. The judge has
given them until November 20 to answer. The judge has the authority to
oust them. If that fails, we can try other approaches.

Sam Sloan


If all that is needed is 96 signatures, then I'll sign the petition,
but I don't agree
that your court case has any chance of removing Paul. You need an
Illnois
court to do that, and Judge Lafferty has a similar opinion.

You need to file in Chicago, IL, and then you can oust Paul Troung.

What I suspect is that you want to have is another hearing before the
Supreme
Court, over some minor issue, just to say you won twice.

Marcus Roberts



That's 96 signatures of Delegates (out of ~125). You're not a
Delegate. You are, sadly, a Voting Member, but it would take the
signatures of about 3500 of those to initiate a recall.

  #3   Report Post  
Old November 5th 07, 08:15 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,576
Default Recall Petition

On Nov 4, 10:20 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:42 pm, samsloan wrote:
I think that under the circumstances there is a good chance that we
could get the 96 signatures needed to start a recall of Mr. Truong.


However, then there would be articles in Chess Life from both sides
and finally a vote. Truong might easily defeat the effort to oust him.


Right now the best chance is through my court case. The judge has
given them until November 20 to answer. The judge has the authority to
oust them. If that fails, we can try other approaches.


Sam Sloan


If all that is needed is 96 signatures, then I'll sign the petition,
but I don't agree
that your court case has any chance of removing Paul. You need an
Illnois
court to do that, and Judge Lafferty has a similar opinion.


You need to file in Chicago, IL, and then you can oust Paul Troung.


What I suspect is that you want to have is another hearing before the
Supreme
Court, over some minor issue, just to say you won twice.


Marcus Roberts


That's 96 signatures of Delegates (out of ~125). You're not a
Delegate. You are, sadly, a Voting Member, but it would take the
signatures of about 3500 of those to initiate a recall.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Nor am I chairman of the Galactic empire, or head of the FIDE Space
Defense Force.
I do not run Star Fleet, the US Air Force, or FIDE. I am just a
farmer, with cows, and I play chess.
You, clearly, no a little about the USCF bylaws, and are a USCF
member.

Marcus Roberts

  #4   Report Post  
Old November 6th 07, 11:13 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Recall Petition


wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 4, 10:20 pm, wrote:
wrote:


Nor am I chairman of the Galactic empire, or head of the FIDE Space
Defense Force.
I do not run Star Fleet, the US Air Force, or FIDE. I am just a
farmer, with cows, and I play chess.


Me to. I play cows at chess, and besides being slow moooooo vers they're not
very good at the game, I win 2 out of every 3.

You, clearly, no a little about the USCF bylaws, and are a USCF
member.

Marcus Roberts


Phil Innes
US Cow non-Federation
"where no cow has gone before..."


  #5   Report Post  
Old November 6th 07, 11:20 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Recall Petition


wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:20 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:42 pm, samsloan wrote:
I think that under the circumstances there is a good chance that we
could get the 96 signatures needed to start a recall of Mr. Truong.


However, then there would be articles in Chess Life from both sides
and finally a vote. Truong might easily defeat the effort to oust him.


Right now the best chance is through my court case. The judge has
given them until November 20 to answer. The judge has the authority to
oust them. If that fails, we can try other approaches.


Sam Sloan


If all that is needed is 96 signatures, then I'll sign the petition,
but I don't agree
that your court case has any chance of removing Paul. You need an
Illnois
court to do that, and Judge Lafferty has a similar opinion.


You need to file in Chicago, IL, and then you can oust Paul Troung.


What I suspect is that you want to have is another hearing before the
Supreme
Court, over some minor issue, just to say you won twice.


Marcus Roberts


That's 96 signatures of Delegates (out of ~125). You're not a
Delegate. You are, sadly, a Voting Member, but it would take the
signatures of about 3500 of those to initiate a recall.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Nor am I chairman of the Galactic empire, or head of the FIDE Space
Defense Force.
I do not run Star Fleet, the US Air Force, or FIDE. I am just a
farmer, with cows, and I play chess.
You, clearly, no a little about the USCF bylaws, and are a USCF
member.

Marcus Roberts



Don't they have civil commitment laws in Florida for the mentally
disabled? I'm not sure if Roberts is really a danger to others, but
he's clearly too disturbed to function in society.



  #6   Report Post  
Old November 6th 07, 11:36 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Recall Petition

On Nov 6, 6:13 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Nor am I chairman of the Galactic empire, or head of the FIDE Space
Defense Force.
I do not run Star Fleet, the US Air Force, or FIDE. I am just a
farmer, with cows, and I play chess.


Me to. I play cows at chess, and besides being slow moooooo vers they're not
very good at the game, I win 2 out of every 3.


That's because cows are plant eaters. Since they don't
eat meat, they are lacking in certain important vitamins,
minerals or proteins which are much more abundant in
predators and which aid in the development of higher
thinking skills needed for chess.

Unlike cannabis or alcohol (listed by GM Evans as
examples of prohibited drugs), eating meat protein,
along with consumption of coffee with mucho sugar
during tournaments, has been shown efficacious up
to a certain point (perhaps 2300+, after which you
must switch to more potent stuff like codeine.)

I double-dog-dare Mr. Roberts to try and declare
war on the USA again. Last time we sent down an
eighteen footer, armed with a water cannon and
manned by just two Marines. The war lasted only
two days before Nevis and Kit both surrendered
simultaneously, and were then released on their
own recognizance. reportedly, no cows were
injured.


-- help bot


P.S.: I of course know it is not codeine; that was
to trick my future opponents, like when I suggested
to IM John Watson the move ...h6 in the French,
about which he later wrote an entire book! LOL









  #7   Report Post  
Old November 7th 07, 10:58 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Recall Petition


"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

Me to. I play cows at chess, and besides being slow moooooo vers they're
not
very good at the game, I win 2 out of every 3.


That's because cows are plant eaters. Since they don't
eat meat, they are lacking in certain important vitamins,
minerals or proteins which are much more abundant in
predators and which aid in the development of higher
thinking skills needed for chess.


Has Fide banned BGH?

Unlike cannabis or alcohol (listed by GM Evans as
examples of prohibited drugs), eating meat protein,
along with consumption of coffee with mucho sugar
during tournaments, has been shown efficacious up
to a certain point (perhaps 2300+, after which you
must switch to more potent stuff like codeine.)


This is to use the argument of the testers themselves. When it comes down to
the /reason/ Olympians ban drugs, it is because in sports it provides
/unfair/ advantage over opponent. In chess I would be quit happy if people
loaded themselves with uppers and downers - since I don't feel they have any
advantage, in fact the opposite.

The IOC is not concerned with the player's health, but unfair competitive
conditions. Drug testing in chess is a response to a problem which doesn't
exist - but - does introduce problems!

Why test for these substances, after all, if they provide no competitive
advantage? And while we sensible netizens can admit the very obvious truth
of that, as well as all the hypothesising about potential this and that [but
not from any real medical consensus] young players are not even as wise as
we!

I double-dog-dare Mr. Roberts to try and declare
war on the USA again. Last time we sent down an
eighteen footer, armed with a water cannon and
manned by just two Marines. The war lasted only
two days before Nevis and Kit both surrendered
simultaneously, and were then released on their
own recognizance. reportedly, no cows were
injured.


What I don't know about Mr. Roberts is if he will pursue either of the ideas
recently presented to him - since he is concerned with standards and
activities which may afront children, if he will ask Mr. Sloan about that
subject - and in these instances, if there is something to be said for
campaigning on the basis that chess is a drug-free activity!

Evidently, it won't matter at all if a recall petition turns over the USCF
board, which is in any case deadlocked, and will unlikely make any coherent
policy decisions before Christmas - and what I recall about a certain
ex-board members, is that they never achieved any policy item which could be
said to effect actual chess players.

But both standard of public decency and drug-free environment would
certainly effect all juniors playing the game.

Phil Innes


-- help bot


P.S.: I of course know it is not codeine; that was
to trick my future opponents, like when I suggested
to IM John Watson the move ...h6 in the French,
about which he later wrote an entire book! LOL











  #8   Report Post  
Old November 7th 07, 12:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Recall Petition

On Nov 7, 5:58 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Has Fide banned BGH?


I wouldn't know, as "reporters" seem to have
overlooked or rather /ignored/ such drugs.


Unlike cannabis or alcohol (listed by GM Evans as
examples of prohibited drugs), eating meat protein,
along with consumption of coffee with mucho sugar
during tournaments, has been shown efficacious up
to a certain point (perhaps 2300+, after which you
must switch to more potent stuff like codeine.)


This is to use the argument of the testers themselves.


Ad hom. stuff; it makes no difference to me if even the
loony vegetarians endorse an argument, since I am not
an ad hominist. The argument either stands or falls *on
its own merits*. (That's logic 101, my good boy!)



When it comes down to
the /reason/ Olympians ban drugs, it is because in sports it provides
/unfair/ advantage over opponent. In chess I would be quit happy if people
loaded themselves with uppers and downers - since I don't feel they have any
advantage, in fact the opposite.


Indeed, if they loaded up with equal amounts of uppers
and downers, I suppose you could expect to win on
time while they are in the bathroom dealing with untold
side-effects. LOL


The IOC is not concerned with the player's health, but unfair competitive
conditions. Drug testing in chess is a response to a problem which doesn't
exist - but - does introduce problems!


Assertions like that one express mere opinions; what
matters here is what are the /facts/.

/Show us/ that it is, as you say, a response. (Or better
still, admit that you swiped that comment whole from
another writer, sans any attribution.)


Why test for these substances, after all, if they provide no competitive
advantage?


Good question. Supposing crack(ed) reporter LE's
comments to be correct, that drugs like cannabis
and alcohol are forbidden, there is obviously a lapse
between what might be beneficial (i.e. unfair) in
certain sports, and what might be beneficial in chess.

IMO, the top of the list should be the main focus:
what about where one player is on amphetamines
(aka "uppers") while his s-l-o-w-e-r opponents are
not? I would expect a time advantage, but also
that the druggie would wear down rather quickly.
In a blitz or rapid event, the wearing down might
not really matter, but as we saw with K vs K, the
use of drugs over an extended time frame can not
only wear one down, but eventually become life-
threatening, under certain conditions.


What I don't know about Mr. Roberts is if he will pursue either of the ideas
recently presented to him - since he is concerned with standards and
activities which may afront children, if he will ask Mr. Sloan about that
subject - and in these instances, if there is something to be said for
campaigning on the basis that chess is a drug-free activity!


I think he is far too preoccupied with lawsuits and his
"wars" to worry about such things. Who can single-
handedly tackle every issue whilst fighting dragons
and bragging of vast wealth to boost one's own ego?
It's too much to ask.


Evidently, it won't matter at all if a recall petition turns over the USCF
board, which is in any case deadlocked, and will unlikely make any coherent
policy decisions before Christmas - and what I recall about a certain
ex-board members, is that they never achieved any policy item which could be
said to effect actual chess players.


The primary focus seems to be on the spending of
the money. In fact, it almost seems that the one
thing which draws all these people to the board is
a frothing at the mouth over money. Even critics
like LP appear to complain when /someone else/
gets money spent on their behalf, and Mr. Sloan
fits this mold to a Tee. The term "junkets" leaps
to mind.


But both standard of public decency and drug-free environment would
certainly effect all juniors playing the game.


I read on one Web site that the government has
statistics showing that illegal drug use maxes out in
the 12th grade.* My guess is that drugs are not the
main issue with chess tournaments; rather, it is
merely a tool of convenience for those who wish to
lash away at FIDE and its evil minions. It is also a
thorn in the side for those who fear that their own
/completely irrelevant/ use of drugs like cannabis
could cause problems down the road.

Don't worry: it's just a matter of time before FIDE
does something new, something they can rip snort
about instead of rehashing this old stuff. Organizers
are not going to allow drug-testing on any scale here
in the USA, /because that would take money out of
their own pockets/. I'd sooner worry about a ban of
the Sicilian Defense.


-- help bot


(Gawd, what would that leave me... the Pirc?)

  #9   Report Post  
Old November 7th 07, 06:21 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Recall Petition


"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 7, 5:58 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Has Fide banned BGH?


I wouldn't know, as "reporters" seem to have
overlooked or rather /ignored/ such drugs.


It is not entirely facetious to suggest it as a cause for 'large persons' in
society. That, combined with lack of exercise. Anyway - at least we agree
that by shovelling in some BGH there is no immediate effect on chess
playing.

Unlike cannabis or alcohol (listed by GM Evans as
examples of prohibited drugs), eating meat protein,
along with consumption of coffee with mucho sugar
during tournaments, has been shown efficacious up
to a certain point (perhaps 2300+, after which you
must switch to more potent stuff like codeine.)


This is to use the argument of the testers themselves.


Ad hom. stuff; it makes no difference to me if even the
loony vegetarians endorse an argument, since I am not
an ad hominist. The argument either stands or falls *on
its own merits*. (That's logic 101, my good boy!)


No sir, the logic of the argument is defined by its own limits or framework,
is the sense of my phrase, and nothing to do with ad hominem statement. It
does not argue from any medical basis that unfair advantage is gained by
ingesting anything. It may suggest that non-medical opinion supposes so...
but with that logic, you can get all Paris in a bottle.

When it comes down to
the /reason/ Olympians ban drugs, it is because in sports it provides
/unfair/ advantage over opponent. In chess I would be quit happy if
people
loaded themselves with uppers and downers - since I don't feel they have
any
advantage, in fact the opposite.


Indeed, if they loaded up with equal amounts of uppers
and downers, I suppose you could expect to win on
time while they are in the bathroom dealing with untold
side-effects. LOL


Might make good television, taking several random pills whose effects are
unknown to you. But serious conversation on this subject is equally absurd.

The IOC is not concerned with the player's health, but unfair competitive
conditions. Drug testing in chess is a response to a problem which
doesn't
exist - but - does introduce problems!


Assertions like that one express mere opinions; what
matters here is what are the /facts/.


Didn't I say a fellow ref was on an IOC committee?

/Show us/ that it is, as you say, a response. (Or better
still, admit that you swiped that comment whole from
another writer, sans any attribution.)


What? The problem introduced is the //suggestion// that drugs are banned
because they //would// give you an advantage!


Why test for these substances, after all, if they provide no competitive
advantage?


Good question. Supposing crack(ed) reporter LE's
comments to be correct, that drugs like cannabis
and alcohol are forbidden, there is obviously a lapse
between what might be beneficial (i.e. unfair) in
certain sports, and what might be beneficial in chess.


The gentleman given airtime at Chessville to explain the reason for drug
test at Fide also skipped this medical point - but then again, he is a
chiropractor not a neurosurgeon.

IMO, the top of the list should be the main focus:
what about where one player is on amphetamines
(aka "uppers") while his s-l-o-w-e-r opponents are
not? I would expect a time advantage, but also
that the druggie would wear down rather quickly.
In a blitz or rapid event, the wearing down might
not really matter, but as we saw with K vs K, the
use of drugs over an extended time frame can not
only wear one down, but eventually become life-
threatening, under certain conditions.


But that's their business to conduct their lives as they will - nothing to
do with unfair advantage gained.

What I don't know about Mr. Roberts is if he will pursue either of the
ideas
recently presented to him - since he is concerned with standards and
activities which may afront children, if he will ask Mr. Sloan about that
subject - and in these instances, if there is something to be said for
campaigning on the basis that chess is a drug-free activity!


I think he is far too preoccupied with lawsuits and his
"wars" to worry about such things. Who can single-
handedly tackle every issue whilst fighting dragons
and bragging of vast wealth to boost one's own ego?
It's too much to ask.


Not every issue - just 2 of them. As an ego-boost, I imagine some success at
either would really help! And who doesn't need a 'surge' sometimes? You just
have to come down off it by natural means instead of trying to maintain the
high.

Evidently, it won't matter at all if a recall petition turns over the
USCF
board, which is in any case deadlocked, and will unlikely make any
coherent
policy decisions before Christmas - and what I recall about a certain
ex-board members, is that they never achieved any policy item which could
be
said to effect actual chess players.


The primary focus seems to be on the spending of
the money. In fact, it almost seems that the one
thing which draws all these people to the board is
a frothing at the mouth over money.


There's a point. Though the irony is that money comes to people who have
vision and pay attention to what money can do, that is to say, who become
likely conduits for it.

Even critics
like LP appear to complain when /someone else/
gets money spent on their behalf, and Mr. Sloan
fits this mold to a Tee. The term "junkets" leaps
to mind.


I am not cynical of Sam Sloan's attitude about money. I don't think its
greed, or any duplicity. I actually think he genuinely would do as well as
anyone else on the previous board in expending it towards his chosen goal. I
just don't think he is good enough to warrant spending millions of other
people's money, since he doesn't notice very much what happens around him -
and those who do not test and measure and adjust are poor conduits of
energy/money.

But both standard of public decency and drug-free environment would
certainly effect all juniors playing the game.


I read on one Web site that the government has
statistics showing that illegal drug use maxes out in
the 12th grade.* My guess is that drugs are not the
main issue with chess tournaments; rather, it is
merely a tool of convenience for those who wish to
lash away at FIDE and its evil minions.


Who neverthless represent chessplayers. Otherwise you get to revert the
Constitution and go back to distance rule a la George III.

It is also a
thorn in the side for those who fear that their own
/completely irrelevant/ use of drugs like cannabis
could cause problems down the road.


The 2 unfortunates in the test banning might not agree. Currently there is
merely a stalled situation as result of previous actions by ACP. This will
not avert testing junior players attempting FIDE ratings [anyone 1200 and
up].


Don't worry: it's just a matter of time before FIDE
does something new, something they can rip snort
about instead of rehashing this old stuff. Organizers
are not going to allow drug-testing on any scale here
in the USA, /because that would take money out of
their own pockets/. I'd sooner worry about a ban of
the Sicilian Defense.


Organisers will do whatever they want - and Fide works by fiefdom.
Essentially we got England circa 1200-1500 here, and all the mercies of the
Feudal system to serve chess in the C21st.

If that's okay with everyone, nothing will happen. And, overall, it has been
okay.

Phil Innes


-- help bot


(Gawd, what would that leave me... the Pirc?)



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
Petition for Recall Bylaws [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 October 13th 07 05:19 PM
"half-truths, unsupported rumors and paranoid fantasies" samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 June 23rd 07 02:06 AM
"half-truths, unsupported rumors and paranoid fantasies" samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 9 June 23rd 07 02:06 AM
"half-truths, unsupported rumors and paranoid fantasies" samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 8 June 22nd 07 02:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 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