| |
Main
Date: 30 Jun 2008 05:35:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
[quote="chessoffice"]During the past few years, I have supported
reducing staff more than has the average board member, and we have had
some reductions and may have more, but I see no basis for the idea
than we can get rid of more than half of our staff and still provide
acceptable service. When you have over 80,000 members, including and
professional players, plus many affiliates and TDs, they continually
have questions and problems.
Bill Goichberg [/quote]
I am not saying that you should get rid of half of the staff. All you
have to do is cut staff by three or four people and you will save more
than you will "save" by your Draconian cuts in the magazines.
The first thing you need to cut is your highly paid "web content
providers". Nobody reads them and they bring in no new members. By the
way, Joel Benjamin just posted another one of his lame "Ask GM Joel"
answers. Somebody asked him why the Caro-Kann Defense is in decline. I
would expect some grandmasterly analysis. After all, why do you have a
GM writing this column if he cannot provide some analysis? Instead, GM
Joel just made a one-paragraph generalized statement. Although the
only thing I know about the Caro-Kann Defense is the first two moves,
I could have written just as good an answer as "Ask GM Joel" wrote.
At least I would have spent five minutes pulling down some ChessBase
statistics to support my points. Five minutes is probably more than GM
Joel spent to write his answer. I would have charged the USCF only $5
and would have written a better and more useful answer than "GM Joel"
wrote.
[quote="chessoffice"] I was not a supporter of the move to Crossville
and would have preferred a major metro area. However, we do not have
a half-empty building, and of 23 full time employees, 18 work at the
Crossville office.
Bill Goichberg[/quote]
Finally, we get an answer. While I was on the board I repeatedly asked
our distinguished executive director how many employees the USCF had.
I never got an answer. By the way, is 23 the actual number you got
from the office or did you just copy that number from me, as that is
the number I often use?
Now that you have opened up about how many employees the USCF has,
kindly explain why we had exactly the same number of employees in
September 2003, after Beatriz Marinello infamously fired 17 staff
members on August 20, 2003 (the same day that the USCF laptop computer
went missing). Now, you are claiming to have made staff cuts. Since
the staff today has exactly the same number as it did in 2003, where
have the cuts been? However, in 2003 the USCF was still operating the
books and equipment business and still employed clerk-typists to enter
all the ratings and membership information by hand.
In 2003 the USCF still had $6 million in revenues. Now it has $3.2
million. Do not you think that some staff cuts are in order? Why do
you insist on turning Chess Life into an online Internet publication,
when virtually every other commentator, outside of your fellow board
members, has expressed opposition to your "New Plan".
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 07:24:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
On Jul 1, 6:10 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> As I've said about others, I consider your posts to be secondary damages
> directly attributable to the FSS.
>
> Your argument that the target of the FSS is somehow not valid or legitima=
te
> only reveals you to be the one not willing to engage in any type of matur=
e
> discussion, but rather a defamation-laced flame war.
>
> Your words are far more likely to exacerbate any dispute I have with USCF=
.
>
> Actually, I have e-mails from various USCF types which cited the postings=
and one which said they'd "never hire anyone" who made them.
Exactly right. Joel Channing wrote to you that they would never hire
you after you called Susan Polgar a "DC" on this group. Now, you are
suing Channing for writing that.
> And when USCF made similar remarks, it set a policy precedent, and admitt=
ed
> to factoring in this newsgroup into its decision-making process, which wo=
und
> up being the catalyst for the lawsuit.
>
> That's where the negligence claim comes in as well: they appear to monito=
r
> this group when it suits them, and pretend it doesn't exist when it also
> suits them.
>
> They can't have it both ways. Anyone who injects this group or personal
> websites into the debate would have to apply the same standard to the FSS=
.
Joel Channing wrote to you "never write me again" after he saw that
you had called Susan Polgar a "DC" on this newsgroup. (To find out
what a "DC" is, look to another thread.)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/cf685fbc9960813=
2?dmode=3Dsource
How can you seriously claim that you using bad language like that
would not disqualify you from obtaining employment from the USCF?
By the way, Susan Polgar cited your statements on her blog when she
was attacking the USCF.
In an article on her blog entitled "Stating the Facts", which was
cited in an article on the New York Times website, Susan wrote: "I
have been publicly called by 4-letter words, female body parts, and
more."
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/10/stating-facts.html
The only person who ever called Susan Polgar a "female body part" was
you, Ray Gordon. However, you are not a USCF member. Thus, Susan was
blaming the entire USCF for something you did.
> Btw, I will be asking USCF to stop its members from retaliating against m=
e
> (to the extent it can sanction them) for filing suit, and will sue them
> again if it doesn't stop. Defamation is not free speech.
>
> My position is that USCF has a legal duty to protect me from retaliation
> from its members.
Your claim is obviously utterly frivolous. How can the USCF "stop its
members from retaliating against" you by making wisecracks about you
here? By the way, most of the people saying bad things about you here
are not USCF members or chess players at all. They come here from
places like alt.seduction.fast and alt.hypnosis to ridicule your
claims of being a seduction guru.
> Your words are helping to ensure that any case I have against them will g=
o
> the distance. Is that your goal?
You are writing here to J=FCrgen R. who is not now nor has ever been a
member of the USCF. How does your claim that the "USCF has a legal
duty to protect [you] from retaliation from its members" stop J=FCrgen
R., who is nothing more than an Internet gadfly, from making
wisecracks about you?
> The job was given to a female without any males being interviewed.
The job was given to a female chess grandmaster and published author.
How do you have in any way comparable job qualifications?
Nothing would please me more than for you to come up with a valid and
legally cognizable claim related to the "Fake Sam Sloan" postings by
Polgar and Truong, because I too was a victim of them. However, the
claims you are presenting here are just ridiculous.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 12:54:04
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
>Exactly right. Joel Channing
>wrote to you that they would
>never hire
>you after you called Susan
>Polgar a "DC" on this group.
Not so clear, plus there were others who had reacted to the imposter and
disparaged me publicly.
Besides, as they judge me (allegedly), they still have to apply the standard
equally, such as to the FSS, and to literally everyone who works there. If
you bring private conduct into the mix, that opens a whole new can of worms
that goes way beyond me, such as hiring someone whose family is in organized
crime, for example.
The EEOC is well aware of "pretext" in reasons given for not hiring somenoe.
Still, this is a retaliation claim, so whether or not they would hire me is
not even relevant to that.
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 18:12:01
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
[...]
>You are writing here to J�rgen R. who is not now nor has ever been a
>member of the USCF.
You have a serious form of prevarication disease. You cannot possibly
know whether I have ever been a member, but that doesn't keep you
from making claims. The fact is that I was a member for many years in the
80's
and 90's. My name is actually still on the rating list.
> How does your claim that the "USCF has a legal
>duty to protect [you] from retaliation from its members" stop J�rgen
>R., who is nothing more than an Internet gadfly, from making
>wisecracks about you?
Obviously I am a willing tool of Bill Goichberg and that other Bill, the
lush that is the ED. They tell me exactly what to do.
[...]
> However, the
>claims you are presenting here are just ridiculous.
Very true - and possibly even more ridiculous than the claims Sloan
is making, but not by much.
>Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 20:07:35
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
Since you are not a member of the USCF, I fail to understand how you
believe that the USCF owed a duty to you to uncover the identity of
the Fake Sam Sloan. Please explain.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 23:17:29
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
> Since you are not a member of the USCF, I fail to understand how you
> believe that the USCF owed a duty to you to uncover the identity of
> the Fake Sam Sloan. Please explain.
Member or not, I was being targeted, and as I had filed a complaint with the
EEOC, my protections as a whistleblower run quite deep.
Even without that, however, I can argue, and have, that had the board stuck
to federation business instead of the pissing contest orgy that we all saw,
I wouldn't have been harmed.
Did they have a DUTY to protect me? That will be the key question on the
negligence claim, assuming we get past the conspiracy claim, which I won't
outline because I only argued it based on a preponderance of the evidence,
and have never said I had direct evidence of a conspiracy, only that the
evidence I had suggested one.
To the readers, please understand that we are adversaries in this case, so
for a neutral opinion, read the pleadings and so forth.
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 19:07:11
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
On Jun 30, 9:51 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> >> Sloan had the means to uncover this imposter days after the first
> >> posting.
> >> He didn't. He did, however, file another suit that was far more complex
> >> down the road.
>
> > What were those means that I had?
>
> John Doe lawsuit and a subpoena to AOL.
>
> --
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
So, you are suing me for failing to file a (frivolous) lawsuit. Is
that correct?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 22:46:19
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
> So, you are suing me for failing to file a (frivolous) lawsuit. Is
> that correct?
Is Sam saying that an attempt to uncover the FSS would have been frivolous?
I didn't do it due to lack of resources though I did have a claim against
USCF that would have uncovered it. Days after I chose not to pursue that,
Mottershead did his report.
The negligence claim is based on my assertion that the board got so
distracted from the USCF mission through infighting that it was negligent,
and as a result, my rights were violated by the FSS when, in the absence of
the infighting, this would not have occurred.
To examine that claim, ALL conduct of the board members during the time in
controversy would have to be examined, and that is way beyond the scope of a
USENET potings.
Note this is a best-case scenario for the board members, as this count does
not allege conspiracy.
I think it's better to resolve these things in court and then get on with
our lives rather than going in circles online.
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 19:04:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
On Jun 30, 9:54 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> NOTE: had Sloan not filed his other lawsuit, it'd be more understandable
> that he neglected to file the John Doe suit
>
> In my case, I'm arguing that the board was so preoccupied with hating on
> each other that they were negligent in not uncovering the imposter. Even if
> Sloan is the "good-guy" he claims to be, things like "picturegate" and the
> supposedly 'forced" revelations from him are not something I view as
> terribly consistent with the USCF's mission.
>
> --
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
The "PictureGate Affair" was where in 2003 Susan Polgar asked me to
pose for a picture with her and then, four years later, demanded that
I remove the picture from my website.
Bill Goichberg wrote three letters to USCF Litigation Attorney Michael
Matsler asking what could be done to force me to remove the pictures
of myself with Susan Polgar from my website. Matsler charged the USCF
nearly $3,000 to respond to these letters, which basically said that
nothing could be done.
Since you have brought this issue up, what is your view on this, Mr.
Parker?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 22:12:32
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
> The "PictureGate Affair" was where in 2003 Susan Polgar asked me to
> pose for a picture with her and then, four years later, demanded that
> I remove the picture from my website.
> Bill Goichberg wrote three letters to USCF Litigation Attorney Michael
> Matsler asking what could be done to force me to remove the pictures
> of myself with Susan Polgar from my website. Matsler charged the USCF
> nearly $3,000 to respond to these letters, which basically said that
> nothing could be done.
>
> Since you have brought this issue up, what is your view on this, Mr.
> Parker?
That the entire board should have been working to uncover the imposter
before anything like this, or the discussions which resulted.
Assuming you got the mail someone signed for that was sent to you with the
complaint, you'll notice a claim for gross negligence that covers all the
stuff I believe the board got tied down with while my rights were being
laughed at. Negligence doesn't require a conspiracy; it's alternative to
the RICO claim. The tremendous infighting and resulting conduct is hardly
what I'd consider central to the USCF's mission, at least not at the level
to which the board of that day took it.
My other position is that if the FSS was such a horrible thing, the RSS
could have filed a Doe lawsuit and put it out of business very quickly. I
was attacking it through Google and the search engines, but after that was
settled, I've shifted my focus.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone privileged enough to sit on the USCF board
should be exceptionally mindful to avoid the type of behavior on all sides
(regardless of the court's final world) that played out on the internet from
2005-2007 etc.
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 08:44:01
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
>
> That the entire board should have been working to uncover the imposter
> before anything like this, or the discussions which resulted.
So you think that the USCF has the duty to follow
a whole bunch of crazy newsgroups; and whenever the nuts who post there
write under false names, the USCF has to launch an investigation immediately
to determine whether a board member or an employee of the USCF
might be behind the impersonation.
Did I understand this correctly?
And you actually believe that a judge will be able to follow this subtle
argument?
How much do you think the USCF should budget for its newsgroup
surveillance division?
>
> Assuming you got the mail someone signed for that was sent to you with the
> complaint, you'll notice a claim for gross negligence that covers all the
> stuff I believe the board got tied down with while my rights were being
> laughed at. Negligence doesn't require a conspiracy; it's alternative to
> the RICO claim. The tremendous infighting and resulting conduct is hardly
> what I'd consider central to the USCF's mission, at least not at the level
> to which the board of that day took it.
>
> My other position is that if the FSS was such a horrible thing, the RSS
> could have filed a Doe lawsuit and put it out of business very quickly. I
> was attacking it through Google and the search engines, but after that was
> settled, I've shifted my focus.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, anyone privileged enough to sit on the USCF board
> should be exceptionally mindful to avoid the type of behavior on all sides
> (regardless of the court's final world) that played out on the internet
> from 2005-2007 etc.
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 04:26:48
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
> So you think that the USCF has the duty to follow
> a whole bunch of crazy newsgroups;
That's for a court to ultimately decide, but yes, I've argued that there was
a duty to uncover the imposter, though not for the simplistic reasons you
cited.
That presumes that the conspiracy charge failed first, as it was pled in the
alternative
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 18:49:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
On Jun 30, 9:37 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Sloan had the means to uncover this imposter days after the first posting.
> He didn't. He did, however, file another suit that was far more complex
> down the road.
What were those means that I had?
I am trying to figure out why you made me a defendant in your suit,
and even made me the lead defendant.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 21:54:16
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
NOTE: had Sloan not filed his other lawsuit, it'd be more understandable
that he neglected to file the John Doe suit
In my case, I'm arguing that the board was so preoccupied with hating on
each other that they were negligent in not uncovering the imposter. Even if
Sloan is the "good-guy" he claims to be, things like "picturegate" and the
supposedly 'forced" revelations from him are not something I view as
terribly consistent with the USCF's mission.
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 21:51:50
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
>> Sloan had the means to uncover this imposter days after the first
>> posting.
>> He didn't. He did, however, file another suit that was far more complex
>> down the road.
>
> What were those means that I had?
John Doe lawsuit and a subpoena to AOL.
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 13:29:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
[quote="DACP"]Maybe I'm one of those volunteers who is shooting USCF
in the foot by your account as well Ron.
Let's evaluate what the President's response was when he was informed
of the FSS issue by Mr. Mottershead - to take it to the Ethics
Committee. Well, the Ethics Committee received a complaint and did
nothing with it. That's right. Nothing.
I don't believe there is another organization which can take what was
presented and ignore it as a serious matter as this one originally
did. It would be the same reaction to the way the retirement plan
matter has been handled for the past ten years.
As far as the question as to why a USCF employee didn't do the same
research as Mr. Mottershead, what IS the answer to that question? It
was a USCF election after all and it was a person who was running for
USCF office and obviously, it was feasible to do so. Had the same
attacks appeared pertaining to other current members of the board at
that time, perhaps the answer would be different.
Donna Alarie [/quote]
All excellent points.
If instead of a Fake Sam Sloan there had been a Fake Joel Channing or
a Fake Bill Goichberg, things would have started happening. The FBI,
the CIA, the KGB and all the local sheriffs officers would have been
contacted. An intensive investigation would have been done on all
Internet posters.
However, because the target of the Fake Sam Sloan was a political
outsider, me, he was allowed to flourish and continue his attacks.
Note that the Fake Sam Sloan never mentioned the names of Paul Truong,
Susan Polgar or Joel Channing. Joel Channing even wrote that he found
the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan to be "amusing". That provided a
strong clue as to who the Fake Sam Sloan was.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 23:05:04
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:291b9662-b712-400b-a695-5a3f6fbd089a@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> [quote="DACP"]Maybe I'm one of those volunteers who is shooting USCF
> in the foot by your account as well Ron.
>
> Let's evaluate what the President's response was when he was informed
> of the FSS issue by Mr. Mottershead - to take it to the Ethics
> Committee. Well, the Ethics Committee received a complaint and did
> nothing with it. That's right. Nothing.
>
> I don't believe there is another organization which can take what was
> presented and ignore it as a serious matter as this one originally
> did. It would be the same reaction to the way the retirement plan
> matter has been handled for the past ten years.
>
> As far as the question as to why a USCF employee didn't do the same
> research as Mr. Mottershead, what IS the answer to that question? It
> was a USCF election after all and it was a person who was running for
> USCF office and obviously, it was feasible to do so. Had the same
> attacks appeared pertaining to other current members of the board at
> that time, perhaps the answer would be different.
>
> Donna Alarie [/quote]
>
> All excellent points.
>
> If instead of a Fake Sam Sloan there had been a Fake Joel Channing or
> a Fake Bill Goichberg, things would have started happening. The FBI,
> the CIA, the KGB and all the local sheriffs officers would have been
> contacted. An intensive investigation would have been done on all
> Internet posters.
You are missing one important aspect of the situation and this is the
aspect that will cause your suit to be thrown out: The venue of the
impersonation, namely this totally irrelevant newsgroup.
Of the 9 or 10 people who read this newsgroup nobody was fooled by
the FSS and probably nobody cares whether you or somebody else
wrote a particular post. Nobody here, with the possible exception of
Parr, when it suits his purpose, takes you the least bit seriously.
No impersonator can damage your reputation: You have no reputation
that can be ruined, certainly not since you exposed yourself on your
obscene website.
>
> However, because the target of the Fake Sam Sloan was a political
> outsider, me, he was allowed to flourish and continue his attacks.
>
> Note that the Fake Sam Sloan never mentioned the names of Paul Truong,
> Susan Polgar or Joel Channing. Joel Channing even wrote that he found
> the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan to be "amusing". That provided a
> strong clue as to who the Fake Sam Sloan was.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 21:37:06
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
> Of the 9 or 10 people who read this newsgroup
It's more than nine or ten.
>nobody was fooled by
> the FSS
The problem is that Google archives this group, and people do search for
others by name. I do business on the internet so every search of my name
would turn up that vitrol, with the imposter even copying my signature and
"creator of the pivot."
The imposter also targeted two or more female employees of USCF, who would
likely have a case no matter what name the "FSS" used. Indeed, the EEOC can
initiate actions on its own in cases like that. I just got back from them
today, so a complaint was filed over the Mottershead Report within 300 days.
>and probably nobody cares whether you or somebody else
> wrote a particular post.
Actually, I hve e-mails from variosu USCF types which cited the postings and
one which said they'd "never hire anyone" who made them
In my case, the goal was to portray me in a false light, and I was only
targeted after I raised the concerns that led to my first EEOC complaint.
Unlike Sloan, I'm covered under Title VII, whose retaliation provision has
teeth.
>Nobody here, with the possible exception of
> Parr, when it suits his purpose, takes you the least bit seriously.
Don't know about that, but I don't take seriously anyone who claims to speak
for an entire audience.
> No impersonator can damage your reputation: You have no reputation
The old "you can't rape a prostitute" argument. The FSS was targeting two
female employees of USCF as well. Do those women have rights?
How can an organization which claims to need more women in chess tolerate
what the imposter did to its female targets?
Fortunately, I notified the EEOC of all of this today, and a new charge
filed by me is in process. Part of my cause of action is that the imposter
made the harassing remarks in my name.
> that can be ruined, certainly not since you exposed yourself on your
> obscene website.
If you argue that Sloan's personal website is relevant, then the imposter's
postings have to be equally relevant.
>> However, because the target of the Fake Sam Sloan was a political
>> outsider, me, he was allowed to flourish and continue his attacks.
Sloan had the means to uncover this imposter days after the first posting.
He didn't. He did, however, file another suit that was far more complex
down the road.
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 09:09:31
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:[email protected]...
>> Of the 9 or 10 people who read this newsgroup
>
> It's more than nine or ten.
OK: maybe 11 or 12. The point is that this is not 'the public'.
>
>>nobody was fooled by
>> the FSS
>
> The problem is that Google archives this group, and people do search for
> others by name. I do business on the internet so every search of my name
> would turn up that vitrol, with the imposter even copying my signature and
> "creator of the pivot."
What you have is an obvious scam, not a legitimaate business.
>
>>and probably nobody cares whether you or somebody else
>> wrote a particular post.
>
> Actually, I hve e-mails from variosu USCF types which cited the postings
> and one which said they'd "never hire anyone" who made them
Sure - and nobody would hire either you or Sloan after taking
a cursory glance at your real postings or Sloan's real website.
In fact, nobody did hire you before the dreadful FSS incident, right?
>
> In my case, the goal was to portray me in a false light, and I was only
> targeted after I raised the concerns that led to my first EEOC complaint.
Which was what? That you had a right to be hired as the ED of the USCF
because you are no crazier than Bill Hall? So if they hired you then
Bill Hall could certainly sue.
>
> Unlike Sloan, I'm covered under Title VII, whose retaliation provision has
> teeth.
Why is that?
>
>> No impersonator can damage your reputation: You have no reputation
>
> The old "you can't rape a prostitute" argument.
False parallel: You have no way to prove damages - the prostitute does.
> The FSS was targeting two female employees of USCF as well. Do those
> women have rights?
Yes, they have 'rights' but you are not their protector.
>
> How can an organization which claims to need more women in chess tolerate
> what the imposter did to its female targets?
Easily: Neither the targets nor the USCF will necessarily even become aware
of this drivel. Usenet is full of slime and nobody is obliged to touch any
of it.
>
> Fortunately, I notified the EEOC of all of this today, and a new charge
> filed by me is in process. Part of my cause of action is that the
> imposter made the harassing remarks in my name.
>
>> that can be ruined, certainly not since you exposed yourself on your
>> obscene website.
>
> If you argue that Sloan's personal website is relevant, then the
> imposter's postings have to be equally relevant.
Right: Sloan's website characterizes Sloan as a dung beetle.
The imposter's drivel characterizes the imposter as slimy pulmonate
gastropod.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 06:10:27
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
>>> Of the 9 or 10 people who read this newsgroup
>>
>> It's more than nine or ten.
>
> OK: maybe 11 or 12. The point is that this is not 'the public'.
It's more than that too, and includes a lot of the public.
>>>nobody was fooled by
>>> the FSS
>>
>> The problem is that Google archives this group, and people do search for
>> others by name. I do business on the internet so every search of my name
>> would turn up that vitrol, with the imposter even copying my signature
>> and "creator of the pivot."
>
> What you have is <snip>
What we have is another coward from another country (or appearing to be)
convinced he's immune from defamation actions.
As I've said about others, I consider your posts to be secondary damages
directly attributable to the FSS.
Your argument that the target of the FSS is somehow not valid or legitimate
only reveals you to be the one not willing to engage in any type of mature
discussion, but rather a defamation-laced flame war.
Your words are far more likely to exacerbate any dispute I have with USCF.
>>>and probably nobody cares whether you or somebody else
>>> wrote a particular post.
>>
>> Actually, I hve e-mails from variosu USCF types which cited the postings
>> and one which said they'd "never hire anyone" who made them
>
> Sure - and nobody would hire either you or Sloan after taking
> a cursory glance at your real postings or Sloan's real website.
And when USCF made similar remarks, it set a policy precedent, and admitted
to factoring in this newsgroup into its decision-making process, which wound
up being the catalyst for the lawsuit.
That's where the negligence claim comes in as well: they appear to monitor
this group when it suits them, and pretend it doesn't exist when it also
suits them.
They can't have it both ways. Anyone who injects this group or personal
websites into the debate would have to apply the same standard to the FSS.
Btw, I will be asking USCF to stop its members from retaliating against me
(to the extent it can sanction them) for filing suit, and will sue them
again if it doesn't stop. Defamation is not free speech.
My position is that USCF has a legal duty to protect me from retaliation
from its members.
Your words are helping to ensure that any case I have against them will go
the distance. Is that your goal? Is it worth the 90 seconds of noise
you're making now to create bad will that might get in the way of a
resolution?: The more I am made to waste time and resources to fix damages
which never should have occurred in the first place, the less likely I'll be
willing to "move forward."
You may not like me, but I'm more than strong enough that I can inform you
that acting out on that belief won't get you anywhere, so you'll just have
to deal.
> In fact, nobody did hire you before the dreadful FSS incident, right?
The job was given to a female without any males being interviewed. I had
claimed this constituted gender bias. After I complained, however, the FSS
began targeting me, and under Title VII law, even if the original claim
fails, a retaliation claim might not.
The retaliation claim was initiated by me at the EEOC office yesterday.
If USCF members continue to retaliate against me, and USCF does not take
action against them, a third charge will be filed about 295 days from now.
If you want to act like a drunk in a bar who just HAS to pick a fight with
the bouncer (metaphorically speaking), I'll be happy to do whatever it takes
to educate you with regard to my rights.
>> In my case, the goal was to portray me in a false light, and I was only
>> targeted after I raised the concerns that led to my first EEOC complaint.
>
> Which was what? That you had a right to be hired as the ED of the USCF
> because you are no crazier than Bill Hall?
How brave their mouths get when they don't have to show their face...tsk.
>So if they hired you then
> Bill Hall could certainly sue.
This was for the web content editor job, not the ED job.
I've published on the internet for more than ten years and know how to
create revenue from scratch. With a 90,000-strong mailing list, lots of
money could be generated. That, plus my chess skill, made me qualified for
the job, which was never circulated to the public.
>> Unlike Sloan, I'm covered under Title VII, whose retaliation provision
>> has teeth.
>
> Why is that?
I filed an EEOC complaint in the past. Retaliation against people who
exercise those rights is also illegal and grounds for a separate suit.
>>> No impersonator can damage your reputation: You have no reputation
>>
>> The old "you can't rape a prostitute" argument.
>
> False parallel:
Not at all.
>You have no way to prove damages - the prostitute does.
For libel per se (this qualifies), damages are presumed with publication.
Does the previous poster realize that two female employees of USCF were
targeted by this imposter? I have asked the EEOC to look into that as well
(patterns and practices).
The EEOC could very easily initiate a complaint on behalf of the two women,
or on its own based on what happened to them.
I was damaged because the FSS attempted to portray me as a sexual harasser,
and made threats against others with the hope of provoking them into
attacking me. One of the people the FSS attempted to provoke was a known
organized crime figure
>> The FSS was targeting two female employees of USCF as well. Do those
>> women have rights?
>
> Yes, they have 'rights' but you are not their protector.
Ah yes, one of the Big Three: "none of your business." Right up there with
"prove it" for most common anti-whistleblower utterances
Did I say I was their protector? I find those who defend the FSS by
attacking Sloan or me forget that there were other targets.
Does it bother you that no matter how much noise you make, you have no
impact on my case?
>> How can an organization which claims to need more women in chess tolerate
>> what the imposter did to its female targets?
>
> Easily: Neither the targets nor the USCF will necessarily even become
> aware
> of this drivel.
The EEOC, however, has. Still, that doesn't change what the FSS did to
them.
>Usenet is full of slime and nobody is obliged to touch any
> of it.
The anti-Sloan forces made USENET the centerpiece of their attacks on him,
establishing it as part of their calculus. They can't suddenly bury their
heads in the sand now that they don't like what turned up. It wasn't
"drivel" when they were using it to flame Sloan.
Why would anyone look the other way when two women are sexually harassed
like that?
>> Fortunately, I notified the EEOC of all of this today, and a new charge
>> filed by me is in process. Part of my cause of action is that the
>> imposter made the harassing remarks in my name.
>>
>>> that can be ruined, certainly not since you exposed yourself on your
>>> obscene website.
>>
>> If you argue that Sloan's personal website is relevant, then the
>> imposter's postings have to be equally relevant.
>
> Right: Sloan's website characterizes Sloan as a dung beetle.
> The imposter's drivel characterizes the imposter as slimy pulmonate
> gastropod.
Actually, the imposter's postings violated a host of state and federal
harassment and cyberstalking laws.
Once the civil cases are done, the criminal complaints can be filed. Cops
don't like to function as civil discovery units, so it's customary to wait.
The FSS made a fatal miscalculation when it would post to USENET and then,
on the same IP, to the USCF forum, which linked the IP to the username and
member name.
The FSS also would have been wise to stick with AOL as its ISP, as tracking
a John Doe must be done in 90 days, whereas with a small ISP like
Suddenlink, it can be done at a much more deliberate pace. Suddenlink also
has been notified to preserve evidence anyway.
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 08:36:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
[quote="Grant Perks"]It wasn't just a swipe at you, but the bulk of
those additional expenses do relate to your volunteer activity.
Upon discovery of the same issues a non-volunteer would likely have
consulted with the office for the recommended course of action. These
issues could then have been discussed with legal counsel in advance of
any public disclosure of the findings.
Grant Perks [/quote]
Grant Perks is claiming here that the two lawsuits currently pending
were caused by the volunteer activity of Brian Mottershead.
I agree that if a paid employee had discovered the identity of the
FSS, he would have first informed Bill Goichberg before going public.
However, Brian Mottershead did exactly that. He informed Bill
Goichberg of his findings on September 20, 2007.
Only after one week had passed and Goichberg had done nothing and was
obviously going to do nothing, did Brian Mottershead make his findings
public.
So, what Grant Perks is really contenting here is that a paid employee
would have kept this matter secret indefinitely, as indeed Mike Nolan
did.
I fail to see how the USCF would have been better off keeping the
identity of the Fake Sam Sloan secret. I do not really understand why
Grant Perks keeps claiming that this entire matter should have been
kept confidential.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 06:32:27
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
|
[quote="Brian Mottershead"][quote="Grant Perks"]If it wasn't for the
twinkle-toes accounting for FY 2007, the microscopic surplus would
have been a greater surplus. The adjustment that was posted lowered
the surplus for the year by about $20,000.
Grant Perks [/quote]
How do you figure this? The preliminary report showed a loss. After
you and the auditors tossed some pixie dust, there was a small
surplus.
Brian Mottershead
[quote="Grant Perks"]The loss for FY 2008 would have likely have been
another small surplus if it wasn't for the expenses related to the
actions of "volunteers".
Grant Perks [/quote]
This is a swipe at me. What I did was to report that the USCF had on
its Executive Board a person who had been impersonating another USCF
Executive Board member and anonymously attacking the USCF, its
members, offices, employees, and volunteers, on the Internet. Using
language that was obscene, vulgar, racist, and misogynist. The person
in question had not stopped this activity when he was elected to the
Board, either. Two experts on Internet forensics supported my
conclusions, not to mention many others who privately advised the USCF
that I was right. When exposed, that person did not resign, but dug in
his heels and simply denied all the evidence, without producing any
exculpatory evidence whatsoever. He also threatened lawsuits, causing
the Executive Board to hire a lawyer and hide.
And now, you are blaming the USCF financial problems not on that
person's offenses and his defiance when exposed, but on the person who
exposed him. For crying out loud.
Brian Mottershead [/quote]
Grant Perks blames Mottershead rather than Truong for the USCFs legal
problems.
It is now obvious that Goichberg knew all along who the FSS was. It is
true that the Mottershead Report brought on the first of possibly many
lawsuits. (There are reports that many are waiting in the wings to see
how the first two lawsuits turn out before filing their own.)
However, if Mottershead had not made his report, the FSS would have
continued posting his defamatory attacks every day on the USCF. In
fact, the distaff half of the FSS attacks the USCF every day now but
at least does not use a pseudonym.
Is that better?
Sam Sloan
|
|
