Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 28th 07, 04:33 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 Silence of the Board

How many have noticed that since the board meeting in Crossville on
November 3-4, 2007, there has been almost complete silence from the
board?

Actually, ever since the new board took over on August 5, 2007, the
board has been generally quiet. However, during the last three weeks,
I do not recall any postings by any member of the board.

Also, the BINFO system is dead. There have been no exchange of emails
by board members in weeks except for the post to add artichoke to the
main course of the Ratings Committee. That vote passed by 5-2, with
Polgar and Truong voting against.

Is there anything going on with the board, or are they just keeping
their activities secret?

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old November 29th 07, 03:32 AM 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 Silence of the Board

One curious fact is that before the 2006 US Open at Oak Brook,
Illinois, Diane Reese advised against holding the tournament at the
Doubletree Hotel, saying that the hotel was too small and the
facilities inadequate.

As it turned out, it was a huge hotel, the facilities were great, and
it was the best US Open in many years.

One wonders why Diane Reese was so negative on the Doubletree Hotel.

Is it possible that the reason was that they were not paying the usual
compensation to Meeting Link?

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old November 29th 07, 08:26 AM 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 Silence of the Board

Quote:
Originally Posted by ueschessmom
Artichoke: I don't know enough about the ins and
outs of the recall procedure. I don't think there is anything to
prevent members or delegates from starting a recall procedure. One
question I have is whether there is any point in that procedure where
the board (or individual board members) would be required to take a
position or make a statement that could be damaging to the USCF in the
pending litigation.
Do you recall all the sarcastic remarks and jokes that were made by
board members about my lawsuit when it was first filed? They do not
seem to be joking about it any more, do they?

Even though the Fake Sam Sloan issue was the biggest and most
immediate issue that brought about my lawsuit, it was not the only
issue. There are about 50 small lawsuits in there.

For example, the continuing losses of over two million dollars, the
funny money accounting, the loss, misplacement or destruction of the
financial records, the pension/profit sharing irregularities, the
failure to post tapes or transcripts of the board meetings as required
by the by-laws, the exclusion of Bobby Fischer which is a violation of
the by-laws, the illegal sale of the building in New Windsor and the
refusal of the board to retain counsel and seek legal advice both
concening the sale of the building in New Windsor, the move to
Crossville and building a new building on land we do not really have
clear title to in Crossville, and the moderation of the USCF Issues
Forum where discussion of these important issues facing the federation
has often not been allowed.

These are just a few of the many issues that are raised by my lawsuit.

Many of these issues go back years and were raised by me repeatedly
during my election campaign and my one year on the board. No progress
was being made on any of these issues. It was all just being swept
under the rug. If some progress was being made I would not have found
it necessary to bring a lawsuit over this.

Several of the board members would be doing the membership a big favor
if they would just resign and not come here any more. Our executive
director is utterly worthless. Bill is a terrible president. Channing
does nothing but talk about how great he is. The only board members
who are not tainted in some way are Randy Bauer and Jim Berry. The
rest of them should leave now.

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old November 29th 07, 08:40 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc, alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Silence of the Board

On Nov 28, 11:33 am, samsloan wrote:

How many have noticed that since the board meeting in Crossville on
November 3-4, 2007, there has been almost complete silence from the
board?

Actually, ever since the new board took over on August 5, 2007, the
board has been generally quiet. However, during the last three weeks,
I do not recall any postings by any member of the board.

Also, the BINFO system is dead. There have been no exchange of emails
by board members in weeks except for the post to add artichoke to the
main course of the Ratings Committee. That vote passed by 5-2, with
Polgar and Truong voting against.

Is there anything going on with the board, or are they just keeping
their activities secret?



I think maybe the board is being kept busy with lawsuits,
and perhaps they have been advised to shut up until it is
all settled.

BTW, what the heck is "artichoke" in regards to the
ratings committee? I hope it's a plan to feed easy
points to those of us who for years have been starving
half to death. I can still recall the good old days when
if you lost to a ten-year-old whippersnapper, he might
get "bonus points", in which case his many victims
could then receive "feedback". Since then, countless
players seem to have dropped a hundred points or so.


-- help bot

  #5   Report Post  
Old November 29th 07, 08:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc, alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Silence of the Board

On Nov 29, 3:26 am, samsloan wrote:

Do you recall all the sarcastic remarks and jokes that were made by
board members about my lawsuit when it was first filed? They do not
seem to be joking about it any more, do they?


Here, let me check: Stand still, Mr. Sloan! I need to get
*behind your back* so I can hear what they are saying
about you.


Even though the Fake Sam Sloan issue was the biggest and most
immediate issue that brought about my lawsuit, it was not the only
issue. There are about 50 small lawsuits in there.

For example, the continuing losses of over two million dollars, the
funny money accounting, the loss, misplacement or destruction of the
financial records, the pension/profit sharing irregularities, the
failure to post tapes or transcripts of the board meetings as required
by the by-laws, the exclusion of Bobby Fischer which is a violation of
the by-laws, the illegal sale of the building in New Windsor and the
refusal of the board to retain counsel and seek legal advice both
concening the sale of the building in New Windsor, the move to
Crossville and building a new building on land we do not really have
clear title to in Crossville, and the moderation of the USCF Issues
Forum where discussion of these important issues facing the federation
has often not been allowed.

These are just a few of the many issues that are raised by my lawsuit.


Yes, well it sounds like you need a class action lawsuit,
since you were hardly the only victim with regard to those
charges.


Many of these issues go back years and were raised by me repeatedly
during my election campaign and my one year on the board. No progress
was being made on any of these issues. It was all just being swept
under the rug. If some progress was being made I would not have found
it necessary to bring a lawsuit over this.


Translation: the lawsuit is "payback", or retaliation.

Were this turned around, your "employer" could get
into big trouble for suggesting such behavior.


Several of the board members would be doing the membership a big favor
if they would just resign and not come here any more.


Quick: let's fill in those vacancies by appointing
IM Innes and Rob "da robber" Mitchell until a proper
election can be held!



Our executive
director is utterly worthless. Bill is a terrible president. Channing
does nothing but talk about how great he is.


What a waste! Let the peons all talk about how
great he is, to free him up so he can go back to
doing great things.


The only board members
who are not tainted in some way are Randy Bauer


Mr. Bauer can't even think straight; he imagines,
for instance, that he can take Larry Evans in a
chess match -- without odds!


and Jim Berry. The rest of them should leave now.


Who decided that Mr. Sloan gets to dictate who
stays and who goes? I say it should be up to Rob
"da robber" Mitchell and Sanny to decide.


-- help bot




  #7   Report Post  
Old November 29th 07, 04:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc, alt.chess
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Silence of the Board

On Nov 29, 2:56 am, help bot wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:26 am, samsloan wrote:

Do you recall all the sarcastic remarks and jokes that were made by
board members about my lawsuit when it was first filed? They do not
seem to be joking about it any more, do they?

NOw they just say it to your face.


Here, let me check: Stand still, Mr. Sloan! I need to get
*behind your back* so I can hear what they are saying
about you.






Even though the Fake Sam Sloan issue was the biggest and most
immediate issue that brought about my lawsuit, it was not the only
issue. There are about 50 small lawsuits in there.


The "shotgun" approach to legal matters is usually a reflection on the
cluttered mind that produced it and is nearly never successful.

For example, the continuing losses of over two million dollars, the
funny money accounting, the loss, misplacement or destruction of the
financial records, the pension/profit sharing irregularities, the
failure to post tapes or transcripts of the board meetings as required
by the by-laws, the exclusion of Bobby Fischer which is a violation of
the by-laws, the illegal sale of the building in New Windsor and the
refusal of the board to retain counsel and seek legal advice both
concening the sale of the building in New Windsor, the move to
Crossville and building a new building on land we do not really have
clear title to in Crossville, and the moderation of the USCF Issues
Forum where discussion of these important issues facing the federation
has often not been allowed.


ANd the cost of having to defend against a serial litigant as you are
doesn't help the bottom line either, does it?


These are just a few of the many issues that are raised by my lawsuit.



Yes, well it sounds like you need a class action lawsuit,
since you were hardly the only victim with regard to those
charges.

Does MDP qualify someone for a class actions suit? DOes that me the
litigants would be "Me, Myself, and I"?

Many of these issues go back years and were raised by me repeatedly
during my election campaign and my one year on the board. No progress
was being made on any of these issues. It was all just being swept
under the rug. If some progress was being made I would not have found
it necessary to bring a lawsuit over this.


Like a spurned lover dragging raking through the ashes of of burnt
emotions to rehash issues long since dead or forgotten to maintain
contact with the suitor?


Translation: the lawsuit is "payback", or retaliation.

Were this turned around, your "employer" could get
into big trouble for suggesting such behavior.




Several of the board members would be doing the membership a big favor
if they would just resign and not come here any more.


So why didn't you resign instead of running for office again? Can't
follow your own advice?

Quick: let's fill in those vacancies by appointing
IM Innes and Rob "da robber" Mitchell until a proper
election can be held!


'Bot, I prefer "Which-Mitch or Lex Luthor" :-)

Our executive
director is utterly worthless. Bill is a terrible president. Channing
does nothing but talk about how great he is.


Seems you supported them before just as you sang Niro's praises until
he wouldn't let you manipulate him.

What a waste! Let the peons all talk about how
great he is, to free him up so he can go back to
doing great things.



The only board members
who are not tainted in some way are Randy Bauer


You atacked him and now you praise him? Make up your mind.

Mr. Bauer can't even think straight; he imagines,
for instance, that he can take Larry Evans in a
chess match -- without odds!



and Jim Berry. The rest of them should leave now.


WHy Jim?

Who decided that Mr. Sloan gets to dictate who
stays and who goes? I say it should be up to Rob
"da robber" Mitchell and Sanny to decide.



Lex Luthor Mitchell
-- help bot- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


  #8   Report Post  
Old November 29th 07, 04:25 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 Silence of the Board

On Nov 29, 10:49 am, help bot wrote:

Of course, my point was merely to show how
ludicrous it was for Mr. Sloan to think he could
dictate who stays and who goes, as if he were
Bill Goichberg, or God.

-- help bot


Of course, I cannot do that, but the court may do so. There are
certainly grounds for removing Bill Goichberg from the board, although
not nearly so strong as the grounds for removing Polgar and Truong,
who clearly got elected by impersonating me and making false
statements about themselves and their rivals.

Sam Sloan
  #9   Report Post  
Old November 29th 07, 04:39 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc, alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 248
Default Silence of the Board

snip
..."Polgar and Truong,
who clearly got elected by impersonating me ..."


An utterly ridiculous contention, demonstrating very clearly that your
grandiosity has led you into delusion.

Jeers,
zdrakec (the "real" one)

  #10   Report Post  
Old November 29th 07, 04:54 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 Silence of the Board

On Nov 29, 11:39 am, zdrakec wrote:
snip

..."Polgar and Truong,
who clearly got elected by impersonating me ..."


An utterly ridiculous contention, demonstrating very clearly that your
grandiosity has led you into delusion.

Jeers,
zdrakec (the "real" one)


Why do you say that? Truong got elected to a 4-year term on a margin
of 30 votes. If the voters had known that he had been impersonating me
for the previous two years, he clearly would not have been elected.

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
Sam Sloan censured by Executive Board Duncan Oxley rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 30 December 8th 06 12:22 PM
$am $loan for USCF Executive Board Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 10 May 2nd 06 02:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:27 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