| |
Main
Date: 28 Oct 2007 12:18:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Settlement Proposals
|
[quote="rfeditor"]Since I already proved it with specific citations in
post #75595 , and since it would be impermissible to accuse you of
deliberately making false statements, I can only conclude that you
have, shall we say, an impaired reality test. I suppose that means you
should be an object of pity rather than scorn. I can't quite manage
it, though.[/quote]
Post #75595 refers to my statement, "I think you guys are really
stupid", which was in response to the motion that was one vote away
from passing that the US Championship tournament be canceled and
replaced with a match between the champion and a challenger.
That was not a false statement. It was a true statement. They were
stupid. The USCF was formed in 1939 for the purpose of holding a US
Championship tournament, as opposed to the previous practice of
determining the championship by a match between the champion and a
challenger.
Abolishing the US Championship tournament would probably have required
a change in the charter. Doing this without a vote by the membership
or the delegates would have caused tremendous outrage. By the way,
Goichberg voted for the motion to abolish the US Championship
tournament, which shows that Goichberg does not have good judgment at
times.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 02:42:00
From:
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
> Question: in the Sam Sloan fantasy wherein Paul Truong
>is sent to prison, what exactly is the charge which would
>warrant a prison sentence (i.e. attempted murder of MR)?
Repeat threats to kill are a federal crime. However, this is the
internet, and given the
Crazy nature of all chess players, probation seems to be a more
appropriate punishment.
If Paul were banned from the internet, as a condition of his
probation, that would
Do more good than sending him to jail. In context, Paul crossed the
line
With the death threats, but I think that if he cooperates with
prosecutors,
If he is a first time offender, prison is unlikely.
Now, if he rejects a plea, and is found guilty after an expensive
trial that wastes
Everyone's time, a little bit of time in the pokey is possible,
indeed.
Remember, Sam Sloan went to prison for running to Guam and thumbing
His nose at the prosecutors. Had Sloan said he was SORRY, instead of
running
Away acting like a jackass, jail might have been off the table. My
sense is that
Paul won't run away like Sam, but might make the government spend more
time
Than it needs to.
Threats to kill are the serious crime. Harassment can be charged as a
felony (I think), but my guess is that it is so
Commonplace, it is less likely to be pressed as a federal crime. But,
you never know, all crime
Is pretty hard to predict who gets charged and who gets away.
The real problem is that Paul has no remorse for his crime. He does
not care
who he hurts, or injures. In Paul's mind, this is normal, and
everything is going
to be ok if people would just leave him alone.
The real punsihment is to ban him from the internet. If he were forced
to post in his real name, no crime would have taken place. He has
abused
the web, and everyone, for his on insanse reasons, as he reads this
now, he
is thinking about what he is going to say to the police.
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 01:51:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
On Oct 30, 6:06 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Sam, the members resoundingly rejected you in the last election. You
> received about half as many votes as in the previous election, despite
> a larger turnout. Are you really arguing with a straight face that
> some scurrilous postings on rgcp -- read by a mere handful, many of
> them not USCF members -- accounted for the difference? If anything,
> those posts got you a few sympathy votes. You were rejected by the
> voters because of your disastrous performance on the Board.
That argument makes no sense; why is SS being singled
out for "disastrous performance"? Have not most members
had the same kind of performance? All Mr. Sloan did was
annoy and irritate the entrenched board members; is that
a crime? With but one vote, you can't expect miracles, you
know. I say we put him back in, and this time give SS ten
votes -- then you can judge the results. ; >D
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 17:28:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
Settlement negotiations are off for the time being, as real attorneys
have just appeared in the case.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 16:06:20
From:
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="Harry Payne"]Sam,
> Being very serious for a minute. I am sure you realize that
> the USCF is 86,000(roughly) members, it is not an office in Tenn. nor
> is it the EB volunteers. I am hoping you will see the need to drop the
> USCF from your lawsuit. If Brian M's facts are correct, you have a
> good suit there, collect what you can fom those that caused you the
> biggest problem. It was not me, nor was it the majority of the other
> 85,999(roughly) members but it will hurt those members the most. As a
> member I thank you.[/quote]
>
> There is about zero chance that will happen. I am trying to save the
> USCF, not destroy it. I have received a tremendous outpouring of
> support. I have received letters and telephone calls from all over the
> country supporting me. Not one letter or phone call has arrived
> disagreeing with what I have come.
>
> The members are fed up. This has been going on for years. The USCF
> just keeps sinking lower and lower, getting worse and worse and it is
> time somebody tried to do something about it.
>
> You are a new member of the USCF and do not know this history.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam, the members resoundingly rejected you in the last election. You
received about half as many votes as in the previous election, despite
a larger turnout. Are you really arguing with a straight face that
some scurrilous postings on rgcp -- read by a mere handful, many of
them not USCF members -- accounted for the difference? If anything,
those posts got you a few sympathy votes. You were rejected by the
voters because of your disastrous performance on the Board.
"Not one letter or phone call has arrived disagreeing with what I have
come (sic)." Why would the vast majority, who long ago gave up on you
as a litigious loon, bother calling you? You're obviously a lost
cause. Only your tens of followers would waste time speaking to you.
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 13:29:18
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
[quote="Harry Payne"]Sam,
Being very serious for a minute. I am sure you realize that
the USCF is 86,000(roughly) members, it is not an office in Tenn. nor
is it the EB volunteers. I am hoping you will see the need to drop the
USCF from your lawsuit. If Brian M's facts are correct, you have a
good suit there, collect what you can fom those that caused you the
biggest problem. It was not me, nor was it the majority of the other
85,999(roughly) members but it will hurt those members the most. As a
member I thank you.[/quote]
There is about zero chance that will happen. I am trying to save the
USCF, not destroy it. I have received a tremendous outpouring of
support. I have received letters and telephone calls from all over the
country supporting me. Not one letter or phone call has arrived
disagreeing with what I have come.
The members are fed up. This has been going on for years. The USCF
just keeps sinking lower and lower, getting worse and worse and it is
time somebody tried to do something about it.
You are a new member of the USCF and do not know this history.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2007 00:26:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
On Oct 29, 2:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> What I have been wondering is, let us say for the sake of argument,
> that not only does the supposedly forthcoming report from an as yet
> unnamed "expert" find Truong guilty, but Truong is actually arrested,
> tried, convicted and sentenced to prison, but still refuses to resign.
> What then? How can we kick him out?
Question: in the Sam Sloan fantasy wherein Paul Truong
is sent to prison, what exactly is the charge which would
warrant a prison sentence (i.e. attempted murder of MR)?
> k Nibbelin, a defender of Truong, tries to compare his case to
> mine. The cases are completely different. Millions of people know
> about my case. The USCF voters certainly knew about it when they
> elected me. My entire website is devoted to it. I have written and
> sent thousands of emails about it. I displayed it prominently on the
> new blog I started yesterday athttp://samsloan.blogspot.com
Mr. Sloan is famous the world over. Everyone knows about
him and is concerned with the ups and downs of his latest, um,
activities. (The only reason he has yet to appear on the cover
of Time magazine is that they don;t want to make prior cover
stories look bad in comparison.)
> The 2006 Delegates meeting that voted to require me to publish a
> statement about in Chess Life did not realize that I wanted to publish
> a statement about it in Chess Life and therefore did not object to it.
> Kind of like Burr Rabbit who says, "Please don't throw me into that
> briar patch."
That was Brer Rabbit. He consistently outsted the
likes of Brer Bear, much like Bugs Bunny outsted
Porky Pig, the Roadrunner outsted Wile E. Coyote
and I have outwitted Sanny's GetClub program (with a
few exceptions).
> The motion passed only because Grant Perks got Herbert
> Rodney Vaughn, who posts here as Tanstaafl, seated as a delegate from
> Ohio, where he has never lived, just to try to overturn the election
> results in which I had defeated Grant Perks for election. Vaughn spoke
> repeatedly on the motion, tying up the meeting and nobody knew who he
> was. The motion passed by one vote, Vaughn's vote. In the two previous
> years, 2004 and 2005, a similar motion had been made by Tim Redman and
> had failed both times. In 2006, the maker of the original motion was
> Howard Cohen (brother of Larry, the infamous arbiter) and he thought
> that I had actually been convicted of Child Molestation. When he found
> out that the real case against me was a child custody case, he was
> appalled and said that he never would have made that motion and never
> would have voted for it had he known that.
It looks like the voters in the USCF don't have a clue.
Maybe someone should make a motion to prevent them
from voting on anything ever again.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 20:40:20
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
On Oct 29, 3:02 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 29, 3:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Kind of like Burr Rabbit who says, "Please don't throw me into that
> > briar patch."
>
> Is "Burr Rabbit" related to Aaron, Raymond, or Eddie?
Isn't that a children's book by Gore Vidal?
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 13:02:59
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
On Oct 29, 3:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Kind of like Burr Rabbit who says, "Please don't throw me into that
> briar patch."
Is "Burr Rabbit" related to Aaron, Raymond, or Eddie?
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 19:59:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
What I have been wondering is, let us say for the sake of argument,
that not only does the supposedly forthcoming report from an as yet
unnamed "expert" find Truong guilty, but Truong is actually arrested,
tried, convicted and sentenced to prison, but still refuses to resign.
What then? How can we kick him out?
k Nibbelin, a defender of Truong, tries to compare his case to
mine. The cases are completely different. Millions of people know
about my case. The USCF voters certainly knew about it when they
elected me. My entire website is devoted to it. I have written and
sent thousands of emails about it. I displayed it prominently on the
new blog I started yesterday at http://samsloan.blogspot.com
The 2006 Delegates meeting that voted to require me to publish a
statement about in Chess Life did not realize that I wanted to publish
a statement about it in Chess Life and therefore did not object to it.
Kind of like Burr Rabbit who says, "Please don't throw me into that
briar patch." The motion passed only because Grant Perks got Herbert
Rodney Vaughn, who posts here as Tanstaafl, seated as a delegate from
Ohio, where he has never lived, just to try to overturn the election
results in which I had defeated Grant Perks for election. Vaughn spoke
repeatedly on the motion, tying up the meeting and nobody knew who he
was. The motion passed by one vote, Vaughn's vote. In the two previous
years, 2004 and 2005, a similar motion had been made by Tim Redman and
had failed both times. In 2006, the maker of the original motion was
Howard Cohen (brother of Larry, the infamous arbiter) and he thought
that I had actually been convicted of Child Molestation. When he found
out that the real case against me was a child custody case, he was
appalled and said that he never would have made that motion and never
would have voted for it had he known that.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 14:33:30
From:
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
On Oct 29, 8:35 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The chances of Paul being innocent are so close to zero as to be
> infinitesimal. My wife is now taking a course in calculus in college
> and is studying limit theory, so I have had to brush up. The line gets
> closer and closer to the limit but never quite reaches there.
>
> However, we have to be practical. I am well aware of the risks of
> litigation. Judges often do crazy, irrational things, especially when
> pro se litigants are involved. Thus, if counsel for the USCF
> approaches me with something reasonable, I will certainly consider it.
> Meanwhile, I have an idea in my mind of a reasonable offer. However,
> so far nobody has contacted me and I doubt that will happen soon.
>
> Sam Sloan
How about a night with a 13-year old virgin?
http://tinyurl.com/3dk5r5
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 13:35:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
The chances of Paul being innocent are so close to zero as to be
infinitesimal. My wife is now taking a course in calculus in college
and is studying limit theory, so I have had to brush up. The line gets
closer and closer to the limit but never quite reaches there.
However, we have to be practical. I am well aware of the risks of
litigation. Judges often do crazy, irrational things, especially when
pro se litigants are involved. Thus, if counsel for the USCF
approaches me with something reasonable, I will certainly consider it.
Meanwhile, I have an idea in my mind of a reasonable offer. However,
so far nobody has contacted me and I doubt that will happen soon.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2007 06:32:00
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Settlement Proposals
|
On Oct 28, 11:06 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> SAM'S FIDELITY TO HIS MISSION
>
> My view is that Sam Sloan will once again succeed
> in clawing his way through election back onto the Executive
> Board. I could not have been more wrong in doubting
> Sam's fidelity to a mission.
And the rest of us have never been more right in continuing to doubt
Parr's judgement and/or sanity. Promoting Sloan as a remedy for the
USCF's problems is like saying leprosy is a cure for acne.
|
| |
SAM'S FIDELITY TO HIS MISSION
Some of you will recollect that while I was
delighted when Sam Sloan won election to the USCF
Executive Board, I worried a bit that Sam had a secret
weakness. I feared he might be coopted by those
whispering sweet-nothings into his ear.
A lot of nothings have certainly been shouted by
the insiders, but none of them have been so sweet.
And if there were some sweet-nothings that got
whispered into Sam's aural cavity, they completely
failed in their purpose.
Sam Sloan and either Tom Dorsch or Jim Eade have
been the finest Board members during the years I have
followed USCF events. Lev Alburt was likely the most
well-meaning in program and personal motivation, but
he was a totally isolated voice who would not bang
heads to create schisms as Sam has done.
Max Dlugy, elected president in 1990, could have been the
greatest (we had grand plans), but Jerry Hanken's election in
1991 by a mere 18 votes over David Mehler rallied the Old Guard.
Our ideas to decisively empower the executive director, to
implement total transparency and democratic governance, and to
change course in FIDE 180 degrees suffered a series of one-
and two-vote defeats.
And, well, that was that.
Jim Eade deserves every credit for fully
understanding the importance of the Interent era. I
well remember a conversation with him --- when we were
still on speaking terms (I thought they were quite
friendly, but he says they were never of the sort) ---
in which he outlined the Internet chess future. He
begged and implored the politicos to get the USCF to
move with the times. He failed.
Sam Sloan has criticized Jim Eade for not doing
more, but the status quo jerks had the votes.
And that, too, was that.
To be sure, Jim was also allied with Tom Dorsch
in a battle against insiders to warn the Federation
about financial meltdown. This struggle necessarily
distracted attention from trying to move the USCF into
the Internet era.
My view is that Sam Sloan will once again succeed
in clawing his way through election back onto the Executive
Board. I could not have been more wrong in doubting
Sam's fidelity to a mission.
Yours, Larry Parr
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="rfeditor"]Since I already proved it with specific citations in
> post #75595 , and since it would be impermissible to accuse you of
> deliberately making false statements, I can only conclude that you
> have, shall we say, an impaired reality test. I suppose that means you
> should be an object of pity rather than scorn. I can't quite manage
> it, though.[/quote]
>
> Post #75595 refers to my statement, "I think you guys are really
> stupid", which was in response to the motion that was one vote away
> from passing that the US Championship tournament be canceled and
> replaced with a match between the champion and a challenger.
>
> That was not a false statement. It was a true statement. They were
> stupid. The USCF was formed in 1939 for the purpose of holding a US
> Championship tournament, as opposed to the previous practice of
> determining the championship by a match between the champion and a
> challenger.
>
> Abolishing the US Championship tournament would probably have required
> a change in the charter. Doing this without a vote by the membership
> or the delegates would have caused tremendous outrage. By the way,
> Goichberg voted for the motion to abolish the US Championship
> tournament, which shows that Goichberg does not have good judgment at
> times.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
|
