| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-03-13, 9:51 pm |
| AND SO IT GOES
<Larry Parr lies. And so it goes.> -- Randy Bauer
Here is the issue:
Randy Bauer called on voters to support "the incumbents,"
presumably NOT against this writer or others, but against rival
candidates, whom he labelled "Sloanistas." If he did not mean the
other candidates, then his smear was senseless.
Once again, let's look at this quotation from Mr. Bauer: "If you
want an honest, credible budget and a decent shot at maintaining budget
surpluses, stick with the incumbents, not the Sloanistas."
As soon as I read this. I thought to myself that the Palooka
made a tactical mistake by coming out swinging so early and so dirty.
Joel Channing, Greg Shahade, Bob Tanner and Bill Goichberg now know
what to expect and will not be unarmed.
Mr. Bauer told two lies, one of which he snipped in what he
writes:
1. He denied that he was lumping the opposing candidates (esp. Greg
Shahade) into a Sloanista category, when such was clearly his purpose
-- or his statement was meaningless.
2. He stated that by a "Sloanista" he meant Sam himself, which is the
same as saying that Castro is a Fidelista or Sandino a Sandinista,
whereas both we and, of course, Mr. Bauer understand that the"ista"
suffix refers to followers, admirers, and the like.
Once again, Mr. Bauer was speaking in an electoral context,
calling on voters to supports "the incumbents" -- of which he is one --
against ... "the Sloanistas," who can only be candidates -- or his
smear has no purpose. He speaks of one group of candidates, his
"incumbents," and he clearly labels a second group, his "Sloanistas."
In the plural: Tanner, Channing, Shahade, Goichberg. If Mr.
Bauer did not mean Shahade, or so he claims, then he must have meant
Tanner, Channing and/or Goichberg. No way around it.
I admit to enjoying Mr. Bauer's response because he compounds
his earlier lies by trying to deny his evident purpose. He is
confirming the analysis of his character which has, by now, been made
by quite a few people on this forum. Someone even called him "a
bullshit artist."
Mr. Bauer is in too deep at this point to issue an apology
because he has issued denials of his plain meaning and intent. He will
be forced to continue a line of lying that is arrogant because it is
both so stupid and so obvious.
STILL NO COST ESTIMATES
Randy Bauer and CPA Stan Booz have talked about the dirty diaper of
Sam Sloan's daugher; they have gone on about this writer not being a
USCF member; they have called several of us quite a few names.
Finally, Mr. Bauer labelled opposing candidates (or several
thereof) "Sloanistas."
However, what members of the Board majority have been unwilling
to do is to inform MEMBERS of the USCF about the supposedly detailed
cost estimates for the move to Cross-to-Bear. Weeks have now gone by,
and the Board majority has still been unable to hold a conference call
to agree on revealing the detailed estimates.
This writer broke the story that the Federation had a contract
to pay a Cross-to-Bear architect named Phil Elmore $60,000 for
designing a building estimated to cost $300,000 to $350,000. That
contract was renegotiated ONLY AFTER I blew the whistle.
Questions abound: 1. Is Harry Sabine a friend of Famished
Phil Elmore?; 2. Did Mr. Sabine know of the overcharges and keep his
trap tightlyzipped at the Federation's expense?; 3. Did Mr. Sabine
violate elementary legal ethics by reviewing a contract that rewards a
possible friend?; 4. If he reviewed the first contract (the $60,000
rip-off) without advising on the cost overrun to the benefit of a
possible friend, ought this matter to be referred to his State Bar
Association pronto?
But Board members will not supply USCF MEMBERS with he above
information. Mum's the word.
And so it goes.
|