Haring is Running for the Board

Main

Date: 13 Jan 2009 03:55:23
From: samsloan
Subject: Haring is Running for the Board

I agree that Ruth Haring has excellent, fantastic qualifications to be
a member of the board. She is one of the best qualified candidates
ever.

In addition, I happen to know that Ruth Haring was a personal witness
to one of the significant events in chess history, an event that is
still being talked about today, although she does not mention it here.

No, I will not tell you what it was. I will let her tell you if she
chooses to do so.

However, one question that must be asked of you straight out:

The rumor has been circulating for several days that Ruth Haring is on
the "Bill Goichberg State" of candidates for election and that Bill
recruited you to run and helped you collect signatures to get on the
ballot.

There is nothing illegal, immoral or wrong about being on the Bill
Goichberg slate, but I feel that you should disclose whether you are
on his slate or not.

Since I know you from years ago, I am absolutely confident that you
will never become Bill Goichberg's sycophant. Still I must ask you the
question that the voters asked of McCain about his relationship with
George W. Bush:

Can you think of one thing, just one thing, that Bill Goichberg has
done that you disagree with?

So far in this election, we have one certified Goichberg sycophant:
Mike Atkins.

Try as he might, Mike Atkins has not been able to think of even one
thing that Goichberg has done wrong.

See if you can think of one thing that Goichberg has done wrong (it
also has to be something that Goichberg still insists was done
correctly).

If you cannot think of anything that Goichberg has done incorrectly,
then some voters will have to chalk you off as being one of "Goichberg
and his three sycophants".

Sam Sloan

Date: 14 Jan 2009 08:42:56
From: None
Subject: Re: candtitates

On Jan 13, 11:34=A0pm, Tariq Aziz <[email protected] > wrote:
> You jerk, Sloan, you are the one who has no standards. It is convenient
> for you today to support the Hough attack against Susan and Greg, about
> which the rumor has been circulating for several weeks that it is a big
> frame - because either Hough had consented to access (so his colleagues
> could silently monitor progression of Kronenberger's investigation) by
> allowing his yahoo! password to become known, or by Goichberg brokering
> the arrangement or to a minimum encouraging testing of a known password
> to Hough's e-mail. I comment Parr for honesty in recalling Hough's roll
> in the previous obscene framing of GM Larry Evans for anonymous writing
> which I too had forgotten. Goichberg made his most clever move, younger
> Greg fell into a trap. But it won't be enough. All judges can see there
> are only two sides to the dispute. One side finds something disturbing
> in these websites, may be it overreacts a littlehttp://www.samsloan.com/s=
ailormoon.htmhttp://www.samsloan.com/aminmina.htmhttp://www.samsloan.com/do=
nmoon.htm
> The other side does not find anything so very wrong.
> We can see which side the judge takes when overviewing administration
> of a $3 million organization involved with tens of thousands of kids.
>
>
>
> [email protected] (samsloan) wrote:
> > Mike Atkins
> > Jim Berry
> > Bill Goichberg
> > Ruth Haring
> > Eric Hecht
> > Mikhail Korenman
> > Brian Lafferty
> > Blas Lugo
> > Brian Mottershead
> > Mike Nietman
> > Sam Sloan
> > No, I will not tell you what it was
> > The rumor has been circulating for several days that Ruth
> > There is nothing illegal, immoral or wrong about
> > then some voters will have to chalk you off as- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Good to see you back Charlie.

Date: 14 Jan 2009 05:05:47
From: Wick
Subject: Re: candtitates

On Jan 14, 5:15=A0am, Non-Person <[email protected] > wrote:
> Tariq Aziz wrote:

Snip

> > which the rumor has been circulating for several weeks that it is a big
> > frame - because either Hough had consented to access (so his colleagues
> > could silently monitor progression of Kronenberger's investigation) by
> > allowing his yahoo! password to become known, or by Goichberg brokering
> > the arrangement or to a minimum encouraging testing of a known password
> > to Hough's e-mail.

Snip

>
> The stench of desperation fills the morning air.
>

No kidding.

First we have the malicious hacker who has magical access to PT's
computer, and now we have the Machiavellian types making Hough's
password available. What innocent person could possibly resist the
temptation of accessing an email account to which they have the
password? Pathetic.

Only slightly less pathetic than the earlier claim it is Hough's fault
for using the same password on multiple sites. What webmaster could
possibly resist the temptation of trying that password on a private
email account. Classic rationalization by blaming the victim.

I missed the part, however, where these poor tempted souls were forced
to post confidential communications on the net.

Date: 14 Jan 2009 04:07:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Haring is Running for the Board

[quote="ueschessmom"]Again, stop with your "Goichberg slates" and
"Polgar recruited candidates" and your statements of opinion that you
post as fact. "It has been confirmed . . . " What about the book that
I suggested that you write about your friendship with Bobby Fischer?
If you put your mind to it and stopped wasting time on this forum and
rgcp, you might have a manuscript to peddle.

Frustrated Chess Mom [/quote]

No sooner said than done.

The book is coming out next week.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=0923891412
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891412

Thank you for providing me with a way to get around the rule that
prohibits me from mentioning my books on the USCF Issues Forum.

Sam Sloan

Date: 14 Jan 2009 05:34:12
From: Tariq Aziz
Subject: Re: candtitates

You jerk, Sloan, you are the one who has no standards. It is convenient
for you today to support the Hough attack against Susan and Greg, about
which the rumor has been circulating for several weeks that it is a big
frame - because either Hough had consented to access (so his colleagues
could silently monitor progression of Kronenberger's investigation) by
allowing his yahoo! password to become known, or by Goichberg brokering
the arrangement or to a minimum encouraging testing of a known password
to Hough's e-mail. I comment Parr for honesty in recalling Hough's roll
in the previous obscene framing of GM Larry Evans for anonymous writing
which I too had forgotten. Goichberg made his most clever move, younger
Greg fell into a trap. But it won't be enough. All judges can see there
are only two sides to the dispute. One side finds something disturbing
in these websites, may be it overreacts a little
http://www.samsloan.com/sailormoon.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/aminmina.htm
http://www.samsloan.com/donmoon.htm
The other side does not find anything so very wrong.
We can see which side the judge takes when overviewing administration
of a $3 million organization involved with tens of thousands of kids.

[email protected] (samsloan) wrote:
> Mike Atkins
> Jim Berry
> Bill Goichberg
> Ruth Haring
> Eric Hecht
> Mikhail Korenman
> Brian Lafferty
> Blas Lugo
> Brian Mottershead
> Mike Nietman
> Sam Sloan
> No, I will not tell you what it was
> The rumor has been circulating for several days that Ruth
> There is nothing illegal, immoral or wrong about
> then some voters will have to chalk you off as

Date: 14 Jan 2009 11:15:23
From: Non-Person
Subject: Re: candtitates

Tariq Aziz wrote:
> You jerk, Sloan, you are the one who has no standards. It is convenient
> for you today to support the Hough attack against Susan and Greg, about
> which the rumor has been circulating for several weeks that it is a big
> frame - because either Hough had consented to access (so his colleagues
> could silently monitor progression of Kronenberger's investigation) by
> allowing his yahoo! password to become known, or by Goichberg brokering
> the arrangement or to a minimum encouraging testing of a known password
> to Hough's e-mail. I comment Parr for honesty in recalling Hough's roll
> in the previous obscene framing of GM Larry Evans for anonymous writing
> which I too had forgotten. Goichberg made his most clever move, younger
> Greg fell into a trap. But it won't be enough. All judges can see there
> are only two sides to the dispute. One side finds something disturbing
> in these websites, may be it overreacts a little
> http://www.samsloan.com/sailormoon.htm
> http://www.samsloan.com/aminmina.htm
> http://www.samsloan.com/donmoon.htm
> The other side does not find anything so very wrong.
> We can see which side the judge takes when overviewing administration
> of a $3 million organization involved with tens of thousands of kids.

The stench of desperation fills the morning air.
>
> [email protected] (samsloan) wrote:
>> Mike Atkins
>> Jim Berry
>> Bill Goichberg
>> Ruth Haring
>> Eric Hecht
>> Mikhail Korenman
>> Brian Lafferty
>> Blas Lugo
>> Brian Mottershead
>> Mike Nietman
>> Sam Sloan
>> No, I will not tell you what it was
>> The rumor has been circulating for several days that Ruth
>> There is nothing illegal, immoral or wrong about
>> then some voters will have to chalk you off as
>

Date: 13 Jan 2009 20:17:20
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Haring is Running for the Board

On Jan 13, 8:25=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote=3D"WickDeer"]Nonetheless, as an outside observer, I think a
> settlement of a majority of the litigation could be achieved on a
> pretty simple basis.
>
> 1. =A0Polgar and Truong agree to resign from the board, and never run
> for USCF office again.
> 2. =A0Polgar agrees to dismiss the Lubbock lawsuit against all
> defendants.
> 3. =A0USCF agrees to dismiss the California and Illinois lawsuits.
> 4. =A0Sloan agrees to drop his appeal.
> 5. =A0No party admits any wrongdoing.
> 6. =A0Everybody pays their own attorneys fees.
> 7. =A0All parties agree to release all other parties to the litigation.
> 8. =A0Everyone agrees to keep the terms of the settlement confidential.[/
> quote]
>
> Sure. If you could get to first base, the rest will follow easily.
>
> But how are you going to get to first base?
>
> It has been confirmed that two of the candidates in the coming
> election are Polgar candidates, who were recruited by Polgar to run.
>
> If both win, then Polgar will have taken over the USCF.
>
> So, it seems clear that she has no intention of resigning.
>
> Sam Sloan

such paranoia!

Date: 13 Jan 2009 18:25:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Haring is Running for the Board

[quote="WickDeer"]Nonetheless, as an outside observer, I think a
settlement of a majority of the litigation could be achieved on a
pretty simple basis.

1. Polgar and Truong agree to resign from the board, and never run
for USCF office again.
2. Polgar agrees to dismiss the Lubbock lawsuit against all
defendants.
3. USCF agrees to dismiss the California and Illinois lawsuits.
4. Sloan agrees to drop his appeal.
5. No party admits any wrongdoing.
6. Everybody pays their own attorneys fees.
7. All parties agree to release all other parties to the litigation.
8. Everyone agrees to keep the terms of the settlement confidential.[/
quote]

Sure. If you could get to first base, the rest will follow easily.

But how are you going to get to first base?

It has been confirmed that two of the candidates in the coming
election are Polgar candidates, who were recruited by Polgar to run.

If both win, then Polgar will have taken over the USCF.

So, it seems clear that she has no intention of resigning.

Sam Sloan

Date: 13 Jan 2009 11:34:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Haring is Running for the Board

[quote="Hal Terrie"][quote="samsloan"]Dear Candidate Haring,

Since you are now an official candidate for election, I would like to
hear your opinion on an issue of pressing importance:

Since you have just posted to the USCF Issues Forum for the first time
in your life today, you are probably not aware of the fact that two of
your rival certified candidates for election are on "moderated
status". This means that we cannot post anything without prior
approval of the three moderators.

In addition, those three moderators were chosen by management and by
the USCF President and were chosen specifically because they are known
to be strongly opposed to certain candidates for election, especially
to me.

[color=#0000FF][b]This of course is false but I'll leave it to those
involved to post specific denials.[/b][/color]
[/quote]

I am still waiting for those specific denials. It is perfectly obvious
that one of the moderators was chosen because he was vehemently
opposed to me.

Also, have you forgotten that Gregory Alexander was both a moderator
and an FOC member during the election period?

[quote]
So that you can understand the seriousness of the problem, during the
last election cycle, more than one thousand postings were pulled from
the USCF Issues Forum by the moderators.

[color=#0000FF][b]I'm sure this a vast exaggeration. Maybe it was more
like 20 posts. The moderators can probably provide a more exact figure
but I'm betting it won't be any where near 1,000. [/b][/color]
[/quote]
Not an exaggeration at all. Mike Aigner posted that he alone pulled 20
posts. A former moderator reliable informs me that there are one
thousand postings in the "graveyard" of pulled postings.
[quote]

None of these postings involved obscene language, because all dirty
words are screened out by the software. The one thousand postings that
were pulled were almost all those that favored certain candidates who
were disfavored by management or those that disfavored candidates that
were favored at that time by management.

[color=#0000FF][b]Most of the posts pulled (at least yours) contained
charges unsupported by any evidence or claims outright contradicted by
the facts, including actual documents available on the USCF web site.
[/b][/color]
[/quote]
In the first place, this is a discussion forum. By definition, on any
forum, people are supposed to be allowed to post their opinions. Yet,
even though I have been a member of the USCF for 52 years, and was at
that time a member of the board and a candidate for re-election, I was
not allowed to post my opinions.

Secondly, there are few if any "actual documents" on the USCF website.
I challenge you to find even one statement I have made anywhere that
is refuted by any document on the website.

In fact, I challenge you to provide an example of even one statement I
have made on this forum or anywhere else for that matter that is not a
valid expression of opinion and is refuted by any evidence,
documentary or otherwise.

[quote]
The pulling of these one thousand postings during the last election
cycle almost without doubt impacted the results of the last election
and allowed two candidates to be elected who very likely would not
have been elected had a free and open debate been allowed on this
forum.

[color=#0000FF][b]This is doubtful. I don't think enough USCF members
visit the Forum to have changed the outcome. The two candidates in
question were among those receiving the highest vote totals, while you
on the other hand finished dead last. [/b][/color]
[/quote]
You have forgotten that Paul Truong was elected to the board for a
four year term my a margin of only 30 votes. Had we been allowed to
reveal the truth about Mr. Truong he would have, without doubt,
received more than 30 votes less and we would not be faced with the
problems we have now.
[quote]
For example, one of those three moderators was and still is so
vehemently opposed to me that he was allowed for one week to use the
office facilities of the USCF Office in Crossville Tennessee to
compose and compile a 400 page ethics complaint against me, using a
color copier.

[color=#0000FF][b]At best, this is worded in such a way as to be
completely misleading. You imply that a USCF copier was used, which is
false. As I explained here long ago, the individual in question
brought his own printer and paper to the USCF offices to make the
copies. The only reason he did it at the USCF office was so that a
USCF representative could see that he was making complete and accurate
copies of the original complaint, not leaving out any pages.[/b][/
color]
[/quote]
Regardless of whether the USCF copier was used or he bought his own
copier as he has explained, the fact is that he used the USCF office
facilities, the USCF chair, the USCF table, he took time away from the
USCF staff and, since you were chairman of the USCF Ethics Committee,
you allowed him to do this and get away with it.

I know of no other instance in which the office staff got involved in
taking sides on an ethics complaint. Since you were involved in this,
it was YOUR conduct that was unethical.
[quote]
Do you think it is proper to have such a person here as a moderator,
who has the power to decide what I am allowed to post to the USCF
Issues Forum and what the membership is allowed to read?

We are not talking about obscene language or dirty words here, as
neither I nor the other candidate on "moderated status" ever uses such
words. We are talking about not being allowed to say things that are
disagreeable to management and to the president.

[color=#0000FF][b]You mean, being allowed to make statements that are
provably false, as you have done repeatedly over the years. That is
why you are on moderated status now.[/b][/color]
[/quote]
Again, you need to provide an example of this. So far, you have not
provided one.
[quote]
For example, within the past week, I was not allowed to post an
article stating that certain statements made by the president were
"untrue". The moderators said that by writing that certain statements
made by the president were "untrue", I am implying that he is a
"liar", which is not allowed.

Yet, our president is constantly making statements that what I write
is untrue, and he is allowed to say that. In other words, the
president is allowed to attack me on this forum, but I am not allowed
to respond.

[color=#0000FF][b]He is constantly making such statements because he
is right and has provided the proof - over and over again as you keep
making the same false claims.[/b][/color]
[/quote]
Unfortunately, the rules of this forum prohibit me from giving an
appropriate response to this statement, because I am not allowed to
say here that certain statements made by a certain other person are
"untrue".
[quote]

My questions to you, Candidate Haring, are the following:

[color=#0000FF][b]My advice to candidate Haring is to ignore questions
from Sam Sloan. In any case, it's not up to the candidates, the
moderators, the ED or even the EB how to handle moderation during the
campaign. The USCF Delegates passed a specific motion last summer
requiring that EB candidates be treated exactly the same as other
posters, receiving no special privileges or posting rights.

-- Hal Terrie[/b][/color]
[/quote]
The motion was worded in such a way as to virtually guarantee a
certain answer. Also, we were not given sufficient time to tell the
delegates what this was all about.

Very few of the "delegates" in Dallas (many of whom were ringers) had
ever been on the USCF Issues Forum and knew what this was all about.

Your advice to Miss Haring not to respond to questions likely to
embarrass the management is duly noted.

Sam Sloan

Date: 13 Jan 2009 09:09:05
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Haring is Running for the Board

Ruth has secret information about an important chess personality.

I am one of the handful of people who know her secret.

No, it is not a bad thing. It is a good thing.

No, I will not tell anybody, not even you, Joe.

I can keep a secret. It is up to Ruth to reveal it, if she chooses to
do so.

Sam Sloan

Date: 13 Jan 2009 08:03:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Haring is Running for the Board

Dear Candidate Haring,

Since you are now an official candidate for election, I would like to
hear your opinion on an issue of pressing importance:

Since you have just posted to the USCF Issues Forum for the first time
in your life today, you are probably not aware of the fact that two of
your rival certified candidates for election are on "moderated
status". This means that we cannot post anything without prior
approval of the three moderators.

In addition, those three moderators were chosen by management and by
the USCF President and were chosen specifically because they are known
to be strongly opposed to certain candidates for election, especially
to me.

So that you can understand the seriousness of the problem, during the
last election cycle, more than one thousand postings were pulled from
the USCF Issues Forum by the moderators. None of these postings
involved obscene language, because all dirty words are screened out by
the software. The one thousand postings that were pulled were almost
all those that favored certain candidates who were disfavored by
management or those that disfavored candidates that were favored at
that time by management.

The pulling of these one thousand postings during the last election
cycle almost without doubt impacted the results of the last election
and allowed two candidates to be elected who very likely would not
have been elected had a free and open debate been allowed on this
forum.

For example, one of those three moderators was and still is so
vehemently opposed to me that he was allowed for one week to use the
office facilities of the USCF Office in Crossville Tennessee to
compose and compile a 400 page ethics complaint against me, using a
color copier.

Do you think it is proper to have such a person here as a moderator,
who has the power to decide what I am allowed to post to the USCF
Issues Forum and what the membership is allowed to read?

We are not talking about obscene language or dirty words here, as
neither I nor the other candidate on "moderated status" ever uses such
words. We are talking about not being allowed to say things that are
disagreeable to management and to the president.

For example, within the past week, I was not allowed to post an
article stating that certain statements made by the president were
"untrue". The moderators said that by writing that certain statements
made by the president were "untrue", I am implying that he is a
"liar", which is not allowed.

Yet, our president is constantly making statements that what I write
is untrue, and he is allowed to say that. In other words, the
president is allowed to attack me on this forum, but I am not allowed
to respond.

My questions to you, Candidate Haring, are the following:

1. Do you favor the current situation where two of the candidates
running against you for election are moderated and cannot post
anything without prior approval of the moderators, or do you feel that
all certified candidates should be treated equally and have an equal
right to post to the USCF Issues Forum?

2. Do you agree with the president that the membership needs to be
protected from learning the views of two of your rival candidates for
election?

3. If you feel that all candidates should have the equal right to post
to the USCF Issues Forum, will you contact both the current USCF
President and the current USCF Executive Director and ask or demand
that all candidates be taken off of moderated status and be given
equal rights to post to the USCF Issues Forum?

I look forward to hearing your response to these three questions.

Sam Sloan

Date: 15 Jan 2009 07:40:06
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Haring is Running for the Board

samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dear Candidate
>
> For example, within the past week, I was not allowed to post an
Sam, you should have joined Brian Non-person in his one year ban.
One of the moderating team leaned far to generously in your favor.
The others have a message for you. Clearest to be viewed in type
courier or other fixed with, monospaced font.
> _
> /'_/)
> ,/ /
> ,/ /
> ,/_ /
> / /
> /'_'/' '/'__'7,
> /'/ / / /" /_\
> ('( /' ')
> \ /
> '\' _.7'
> \_ (
> \ \
> \ \
> \ \
> \ \
> \ \
> \ \

Date: 15 Jan 2009 01:00:07
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Haring is Running for the Board