| |
Main
Date: 04 Nov 2007 14:42:25
From: samsloan
Subject: 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
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Nov 2007 14:33:24
From:
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot wrote:
> > I am "bullying" him, as you put it (odd, I'm not the one to rant about
> > lawsuits, calls to the FBI, or imaginary death threats), because he's
> > an embarrassment to all chess players. (Well, maybe not to you.) That
> > so obviously disturbed an individual should purport to speak for
> > organized chess brings disgrace to all of us.
>
> I didn't give an opinion of his politics, only the impropriety of attempting
> to play internet psychologist because you happen not to like what he says.
>
> Lots of individuals in the chess world are "odd." It's the one place that's
> not supposed to be much of a factor. As far as the validity of his ideas
> is, it's not.
So the fact that someone froths at the mouth and babbles inanities has
no bearing on the validity of his _other_ ideas? If you really believe
that, then I'm afraid your mental disease or defect is not in
remission after all.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 00:31:18
From:
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot wrote:
> >> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods
> >> which
> >> have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It
> >> really
> >> is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
> >> stole their ideas from others!
> >>
> >> http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
> >> The Official Ray Gordon Blog
> >
> >
> > And you would be the one who boasted of suffering from bipolar
> > disorder,
> >and lost a court case by refusing to take a psych test? You
> > at least seem lucid,
>
> I always am. Bipolar conditions range from mild to severe. I also could
> just have Major Depressive Disorder or something like that. Not only that,
> but new research shows bipolar conditions can resolve after a few years.
> Mental health is very subjected and the second it's attached to political
> agendas, it's useless.
>
> Penn recently tried for a psych exam in my second lawsuit against them, and
> was denied. The first time they got it because I had listed "emotional
> distress" as a damage. ANYONE who does that can get a psych exam ordered
> against them, to measure the alleged damages. Has nothing to do with one's
> condition. I just happened to have that. I had argued "perceived
> disability" and not "actual disability."
>
> >but deinstitutionalizing the drooling psychos we
> > see on streetcorners -- a group to which Roberts shows every sign of
> > belonging -- was clearly an unsuccessful experiment.
>
> Roberts is not a "drooling psycho." Even if he has any condition, that just
> changes how he expresses himself more than who he is politically.
>
> We do no favors to the truly ill when we try to serve political agendas by
> lumping those we don't like in with those who truly are sick. The first
> thing any psychologist would tell you is that they aren't even allowed to
> diagnose those they initially meet in nonclinical settings. It's done, but
> only if the meeting is not "charged." A USENET flame war would disqualify
> that.
>
> Another thing is that any set of behavior can be indicative of many
> conditions, and has to be viewed in the context of a detailed medical
> history rather than what you might see outwardly. If Roberts is obeying our
> laws, and apparently he is, we should default to the opinon that he is
> engaging in what some consider an odd expression of his freedom.
>
> If he really were as dysfunctional as you claim I doubt you'd be bullying
> him.
I am "bullying" him, as you put it (odd, I'm not the one to rant about
lawsuits, calls to the FBI, or imaginary death threats), because he's
an embarrassment to all chess players. (Well, maybe not to you.) That
so obviously disturbed an individual should purport to speak for
organized chess brings disgrace to all of us.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 17:14:12
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
> I am "bullying" him, as you put it (odd, I'm not the one to rant about
> lawsuits, calls to the FBI, or imaginary death threats), because he's
> an embarrassment to all chess players. (Well, maybe not to you.) That
> so obviously disturbed an individual should purport to speak for
> organized chess brings disgrace to all of us.
I didn't give an opinion of his politics, only the impropriety of attempting
to play internet psychologist because you happen not to like what he says.
Lots of individuals in the chess world are "odd." It's the one place that's
not supposed to be much of a factor. As far as the validity of his ideas
is, it's not.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 04:45:35
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
On Nov 7, 5:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > 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 priy 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?)
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 18:21:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 7, 5:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> 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 priy 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?)
>
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 13:53:09
From:
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Actually I'd be quicker to say that about you, given your penchant for
> making threats to people's freedom, anonymously.
>
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
>
> Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
>
> This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
> creator of the PIVOT!
>
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
> have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
> is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
> stole their ideas from others!
>
> http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
> The Official Ray Gordon Blog
And you would be the one who boasted of suffering from bipolar
disorder, and lost a court case by refusing to take a psych test? You
at least seem lucid, but deinstitutionalizing the drooling psychos we
see on streetcorners -- a group to which Roberts shows every sign of
belonging -- was clearly an unsuccessful experiment.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:18:22
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
>> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods
>> which
>> have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It
>> really
>> is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
>> stole their ideas from others!
>>
>> http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
>> The Official Ray Gordon Blog
>
>
> And you would be the one who boasted of suffering from bipolar
> disorder,
>and lost a court case by refusing to take a psych test? You
> at least seem lucid,
I always am. Bipolar conditions range from mild to severe. I also could
just have Major Depressive Disorder or something like that. Not only that,
but new research shows bipolar conditions can resolve after a few years.
Mental health is very subjected and the second it's attached to political
agendas, it's useless.
Penn recently tried for a psych exam in my second lawsuit against them, and
was denied. The first time they got it because I had listed "emotional
distress" as a damage. ANYONE who does that can get a psych exam ordered
against them, to measure the alleged damages. Has nothing to do with one's
condition. I just happened to have that. I had argued "perceived
disability" and not "actual disability."
>but deinstitutionalizing the drooling psychos we
> see on streetcorners -- a group to which Roberts shows every sign of
> belonging -- was clearly an unsuccessful experiment.
Roberts is not a "drooling psycho." Even if he has any condition, that just
changes how he expresses himself more than who he is politically.
We do no favors to the truly ill when we try to serve political agendas by
lumping those we don't like in with those who truly are sick. The first
thing any psychologist would tell you is that they aren't even allowed to
diagnose those they initially meet in nonclinical settings. It's done, but
only if the meeting is not "charged." A USENET flame war would disqualify
that.
Another thing is that any set of behavior can be indicative of many
conditions, and has to be viewed in the context of a detailed medical
history rather than what you might see outwardly. If Roberts is obeying our
laws, and apparently he is, we should default to the opinon that he is
engaging in what some consider an odd expression of his freedom.
If he really were as dysfunctional as you claim I doubt you'd be bullying
him.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2007 15:58:53
From: fake-name
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
"Ray Gordon" wrote:
>> And you would be the one who boasted of suffering from bipolar
>> disorder,
>> and lost a court case by refusing to take a psych test? You
>> at least seem lucid,
>
> I always am. Bipolar conditions range from mild to severe. I also could
> just have Major Depressive Disorder or something like that. Not only that,
> but new research shows bipolar conditions can resolve after a few years.
I am always interested by research that overturns long-established
medical opinion.
Can you post a link to that research ?
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 03:36:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
On Nov 6, 6:13 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > 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 ines. 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
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 10:58:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> 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 ines. 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 03:20:48
From:
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 4, 10:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 4:42 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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.
> >
> > > cus 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.
>
> cus 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.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 06:54:48
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
> 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.
Actually I'd be quicker to say that about you, given your penchant for
making threats to people's freedom, anonymously.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 00:15:33
From:
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
On Nov 4, 10:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 4:42 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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.
>
> > cus 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.
cus Roberts
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 11:13:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 4, 10:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> [email protected] 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.
>
> cus Roberts
Phil Innes
US Cow non-Federation
"where no cow has gone before..."
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:02:10
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: 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.
That presumes there will still be a USCF from which to recall him.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 20:20:44
From:
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 4, 4:42 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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.
>
> cus 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.
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:04:58
From:
Subject: Re: Recall Petition
|
On Nov 4, 4:42 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > 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.
cus Roberts
|
|
