| |
Main
Date: 23 Oct 2007 09:29:46
From: samsloan
Subject: Sam Sloan replies to Chris Falter
|
Chris Falter posted the following above:
"The idea that Sloan's election chances were diminished by the fake
postings is ludicrous. I read hundreds of comments by USCF members
both pro- and anti-Sloan during the election cycle, but not even one
comment considered the fake Usenet postings to be a reason to oppose
Sloan. In fact, the fake Usenet postings may have even helped Sloan's
election chances, because they evoked public expressions of sympathy
for Sloan from people like Jack LeMoine who usually disagreed with
him."
I need to point out that Chris Falter and Jack LeMoine were two of my
strongest opponents during the USCF election and were the two biggest
supporters of Susan Polgar. For Chris Falter to say that his vicious
attacks helped me is pure nonsense.
Chris Falter's postings were especially objectionable because he often
claimed that he knew things that he did not know. More importantly, he
quoted me on the USCF Issues Forums as writing that I "went all the
way" with Susan Polgar when she was 17 years old. This was a lie. I
have never written or stated any such thing. This false quotation
obviously made Susan Polgar angry and contributed to the problem.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 14:21:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan replies to Chris Falter
|
On Oct 24, 5:44 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Now, you claim that I made an "equivalent statement in the BINFOs".
> > That is not true and the BINFOS are just for the board members, not
> > for you.
Phooey! Several posters here in rgc have been posting
materials they say are from the binfos, for years.
> The non-confidential BINFOs are public record. You repeatedly used
> them to posture during your term on the Board. When you were called to
> account for using photographs on your web page likely in violation of
> copyright and certainly in violation of your duty of loyalty to the
> USCF, you attempted to avoid censure by telling your colleagues that,
> if the matter were pursued, you would be "forced to reveal" (by whom?)
> that your relationship with the (then underage) Susan Polgar had been
> "not entirely Platonic." This is public record; you can't wriggle out
> of it. Of course, you can claim now that you were lying then. I don't
> suppose it could [i]lower[/i] your credibility.
Trust me: it would be very difficult for Mr. Sloan to
lower his credibility here any further than he already
has. He would probably need to consult with IM Innes
and work out a game plan in order to do that. Imagine
what could perhaps be accomplished if these minds
were to "work" together... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 14:11:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan replies to Chris Falter
|
On Oct 23, 6:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> What matters is that Sam Sloan name was used, thousands of time,
> without his consent, during
> an election. In most any state in the Union, the election would be
> ANNULED.
You must be thinking of riage, not elections.
> It doesn't matter
> if Sam Sloan has a snowball's chance of hell in becoming an Executive
> Board member, he still gets another shot.
Sounds good in theory.
> No house of congress would accept members elected in this fashion.
Um, do you know /anything/ at all about politics?
> The example we set is corrupt.
Right. That /is/ politics, in the real world.
> I will not tolerate Paul Troung's death threats.
That is not really related to the Fake Sloan issue, IMO.
Q: If they took all the corrupt politicians and threw them
out, there would be how many people left in the USCF?
Q: If they held another election to give SS a fair shot,
what happens if another person is not elected, though
he/she had nothing to do with the Fake Sloan fiasco?
For instance, let's say that Fat Albert gets more votes
this time than Joe Innocent; now we have Fat Albert on
the board, Sam Sloan loses again, but Joe Innocent is
cheated out of his spot because some voters changed
their whims over time. Now, Fat Albert is a close buddy
of Bill Goichberg and so the "takeover" is virtually
complete. A small modification to the constitution of
the USCF, and he can remain "in power" indefinitely.
Life is sweet (or, as Mel Brooks might put it: "it's good
to be the King").
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 03:44:11
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan replies to Chris Falter
|
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"]More importantly, he quoted me on
> the USCF Issues Forums as writing that I "went all the way" with Susan
> Polgar when she was 17 years old. This was a XXXX. I have never
> written or stated any such thing. This false quotation obviously made
> Susan Polgar angry and contributed to the problem.
>
> Sam Sloan[/quote]
>
> You made an equivalent statement in the BINFOs, which I will not
> repeat. You can't have it both ways.
>
> Even if you had received the same number of votes in 2007 as 2006, you
> would not have been elected. In fact, you got ~600 fewer. Are you
> really claiming that half the people who voted for you in 2006 were
> dimwits readily influenced by transparent fakery?[/quote]
>
> The issue right now is not the election.
>
> The issue is that 2463 fake posts were made in my name (and in the
> name of others including Ray Gordon and Andrew Zito).
>
> This is all detailed in the Mottershead Report at
> http://www.ishipress.com/mottershead.pdf
>
> Here Chris Falter, a supporter of Susan Polgar, posted to the USCF
> Issues Forum that I had written that I "went all the way" with Susan
> Polgar. He put my supposed words in quotation ks indicating that I
> had written exactly those words.
>
> That quote should still be on the forum unless the moderators have
> deleted it.
>
> Also, Chris Falter has never withdrawn that rek or apologized for
> it.
>
> Now, you claim that I made an "equivalent statement in the BINFOs".
> That is not true and the BINFOS are just for the board members, not
> for you. It was made in response to the so-called "Picturegate Affair"
> started by Goichberg and Channing. You and they are lucky that I did
> not write what really happened, as I almost did.
>
> Sam Sloan
>From the USCF Forums:
[quote="rfeditor"]
The non-confidential BINFOs are public record. You repeatedly used
them to posture during your term on the Board. When you were called to
account for using photographs on your web page likely in violation of
copyright and certainly in violation of your duty of loyalty to the
USCF, you attempted to avoid censure by telling your colleagues that,
if the matter were pursued, you would be "forced to reveal" (by whom?)
that your relationship with the (then underage) Susan Polgar had been
"not entirely Platonic." This is public record; you can't wriggle out
of it. Of course, you can claim now that you were lying then. I don't
suppose it could [i]lower[/i] your credibility.
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 16:57:13
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan replies to Chris Falter
|
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"]More importantly, he quoted me on
the USCF Issues Forums as writing that I "went all the way" with Susan
Polgar when she was 17 years old. This was a XXXX. I have never
written or stated any such thing. This false quotation obviously made
Susan Polgar angry and contributed to the problem.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
You made an equivalent statement in the BINFOs, which I will not
repeat. You can't have it both ways.
Even if you had received the same number of votes in 2007 as 2006, you
would not have been elected. In fact, you got ~600 fewer. Are you
really claiming that half the people who voted for you in 2006 were
dimwits readily influenced by transparent fakery?[/quote]
The issue right now is not the election.
The issue is that 2463 fake posts were made in my name (and in the
name of others including Ray Gordon and Andrew Zito).
This is all detailed in the Mottershead Report at
http://www.ishipress.com/mottershead.pdf
Here Chris Falter, a supporter of Susan Polgar, posted to the USCF
Issues Forum that I had written that I "went all the way" with Susan
Polgar. He put my supposed words in quotation ks indicating that I
had written exactly those words.
That quote should still be on the forum unless the moderators have
deleted it.
Also, Chris Falter has never withdrawn that rek or apologized for
it.
Now, you claim that I made an "equivalent statement in the BINFOs".
That is not true and the BINFOS are just for the board members, not
for you. It was made in response to the so-called "Picturegate Affair"
started by Goichberg and Channing. You and they are lucky that I did
not write what really happened, as I almost did.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 16:22:06
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan replies to Chris Falter
|
On Oct 23, 11:29 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chris Falter posted the following above:
>
> "The idea that Sloan's election chances were diminished by the fake
> postings is ludicrous. I read hundreds of comments by USCF members
> both pro- and anti-Sloan during the election cycle, but not even one
> comment considered the fake Usenet postings to be a reason to oppose
> Sloan. In fact, the fake Usenet postings may have even helped Sloan's
> election chances, because they evoked public expressions of sympathy
> for Sloan from people like Jack LeMoine who usually disagreed with
> him."
>
> I need to point out that Chris Falter and Jack LeMoine were two of my
> strongest opponents during the USCF election and were the two biggest
> supporters of Susan Polgar. For Chris Falter to say that his vicious
> attacks helped me is pure nonsense.
>
> Chris Falter's postings were especially objectionable because he often
> claimed that he knew things that he did not know. More importantly, he
> quoted me on the USCF Issues Forums as writing that I "went all the
> way" with Susan Polgar when she was 17 years old. This was a lie. I
> have never written or stated any such thing. This false quotation
> obviously made Susan Polgar angry and contributed to the problem.
>
> Sam Sloan
What matters is that Sam Sloan name was used, thousands of time,
without his consent, during
an election. In most any state in the Union, the election would be
ANNULED. It doesn't matter
if Sam Sloan has a snowball's chance of hell in becoming an Executive
Board member, he
still gets another shot.
No house of congress would accept members elected in this fashion.
The example we set is corrupt.
I will not tolerate Paul Troung's death threats.
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 18:46:07
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan replies to Chris Falter
|
On Oct 23, 11:29 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chris Falter posted the following above:
>
> "The idea that Sloan's election chances were diminished by the fake
> postings is ludicrous. I read hundreds of comments by USCF members
> both pro- and anti-Sloan during the election cycle, but not even one
> comment considered the fake Usenet postings to be a reason to oppose
> Sloan. In fact, the fake Usenet postings may have even helped Sloan's
> election chances, because they evoked public expressions of sympathy
> for Sloan from people like Jack LeMoine who usually disagreed with
> him."
>
> I need to point out that Chris Falter and Jack LeMoine were two of my
> strongest opponents during the USCF election and were the two biggest
> supporters of Susan Polgar. For Chris Falter to say that his vicious
> attacks helped me is pure nonsense.
>
> Chris Falter's postings were especially objectionable because he often
> claimed that he knew things that he did not know. More importantly, he
> quoted me on the USCF Issues Forums as writing that I "went all the
> way" with Susan Polgar when she was 17 years old. This was a lie. I
> have never written or stated any such thing. This false quotation
> obviously made Susan Polgar angry and contributed to the problem.
>
> Sam Sloan
**reposted from another thread**
One current USCF Board member made the following statement in an email
exchange with me on June 5, 2007:
Bill Brock wrote:
"Sloan claims to have had sexual relations with Polgar (while she was
a minor, while he claimed to be acting as a fiduciary, in the course
of USCF business). He made this claim twice. As fiduciary, you are
silent."
USCF Board member replied:
"I have seen no such claim. I believe he said she was his girlfriend
many years ago at an age which would make her a minor in the US but an
adult in Hungary. She has denied having relations with him and he has
told people they didn't really have relations but did have foreplay. I
don't know who to believe but think they did not have sexual
relations."
Incidentally, the Board member was mistaken: a 17-year-old in Hungary
is still a minor.
Some context:
http://direkickfeud.blogspot.com/2007/10/rights-of-minors-in-praxis.html
|
|
