Chess politics - Sloan A Liar??

Author

Sloan A Liar??

Don C. Aldrich

2005-04-27, 7:45 pm

Geez, I thought we put this issue to bed more than three years ago.
For those with shorter memories than Sam, here you go:

Don C. Aldrich wrote:

quote:

> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 00:26:02 GMT, s...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
> wrote:

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Boy, talk about shooting fish in a barrel. You still have never
> explained why you posted a sworn affidavit claiming you never drove
> your taxi in the year 2000, yet you posted many stories here, and on
> your own website, regaling us all with tales of you driving your cab,
> for hire, in the year 2000. Obviously, you either committed perjury,
> or lied to us all here.

quote:

> You complain about 'personal attacks,' but no one has attacked more
> people, without foundation, than you. You are always quick to call
> anyone who disagrees with you a liar, yet you not only are a liar, but
> a perjurer. We also know you are a thief as you post copyrighted
> materials on your website without permission.

quote:

> Some consider you colorful, or merely eccentric. I would too, except
> for your penchant to drag people through the mud at the drop of a hat.
> You have no shame, and no conscience. As long as you make these
> incredible challenges to prove you a liar, I will.

quote:

> To refresh your memory:

quote:

> On 6/4/01 Sloan wrote:

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> On 1/1/01 Sloan wrote:

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Lest the above only be considered a minor vagary, as it was New Years,
> and almost 2001, how about this, written 8/23/00:

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> And lordy, he even has it on his website:

[vbcol=seagreen]

Any questions?

==Dondo

Taylor Kingston

2005-04-27, 7:45 pm

Don C. Aldrich wrote:

quote:

> Geez, I thought we put this issue to bed more than three years ago.
> For those with shorter memories than Sam, here you go:

Can all this really be valid? Sam Sloan LIED, to us on this group, or
even COMMITTED PERJURY? How can this be? After, no less an authority
than Larry Parr recently said:

"I doubt that most readers here regard Sam as a liar ... He usually
issues immediate corrections and often thanks nasty correspondents for
information.they provide." In that same post, Parr endorsed a statement
that the "Sloan is a liar" notion is a myth.

Surely, Parr could not be mistaken about something this important?
And he would not try to deceive us, would he? I feel the earth
trembling, due to the force of shattered illusions.

quote:

> Don C. Aldrich wrote:
>
>
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
on[vbcol=seagreen]
cab,[vbcol=seagreen]
perjury,[vbcol=seagreen]
>
but[vbcol=seagreen]
>
except[vbcol=seagreen]
hat.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>
>
2000.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
I[vbcol=seagreen]
5:00 AM[vbcol=seagreen]
>
Years,[vbcol=seagreen]
>
20,[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
taxi.[vbcol=seagreen]
at[vbcol=seagreen]
Sunday, 23 July 2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
financial news[vbcol=seagreen]
27 July 2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
on Thursday, 27 July 2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
on Thursday, 27 July 2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
Sunday, 20 August 2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
Saturday, 2 September 2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
(rode in my[vbcol=seagreen]
September 2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
Mary"[vbcol=seagreen]
(rode in my taxi on Saturday, 7 October 2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
(rode in my taxi on Saturday, 7 October 2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
December 2000, and left me a $16 tip)[vbcol=seagreen]
December 29, 2000)[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Any questions?
>
> ==Dondo

Tom Klem

2005-04-27, 7:45 pm

The forces of regression and retrenchment are desparate. They are trying
their best to put a clean face on a wicked liar because they want to regain
their lost power. They will do just about anything to regain control of the
Federation, including making common cause with a person of ill repute.

To them, the end justifies the means, there is no justice and they cynically
think of the membership as cows grazing dumbly in 'their' pasture.

If you ever want the USCF to be great again, you will ignore these when it
comes to voting. Their motives are impure, and their leadership skills
tawdry (to put the kindest face upon it).

It is not going to take another "Fischer" (the eternal dream of the damned).
It will take hard work at the grass roots level with the coaches and team
players who want to see Chess in the USA achieve the heights.

Many people have talked about the "Soviet" system of Chess. Collective
cooperation was the real secret to it. The one for all philosophy,
accompanied by grass roots organization, the "needs of the many .." outlook,
and the ideal of contributing a small part to a larger whole for the greater
good not only produces success, but allows the many to bask in the glow of
organizational goals being met, victories being won, and the comraderie of
good clean fun at the Chess board, sometimes accompanied by brilliance which
shines forth at the least expected moment. This is what keeps them coming
back. This is what produces volunteers en masse, willing to setup the
tournament hall, tear down and stow away Chess sets, clocks, score pads,
books and equipment.

Like any country or world wide effort, it takes lots of little guys, willing
to cooperate with one another to chart and execute the course for the group.
It takes conferences, where discussions take place

The harm that leaders who lack ethics is obvious. The greater good is not
the goal, so the greater number of volunteers disappear, and suddenly there
is only one God of chess in whom we trust, but who unfortunately has feet of
clay.

When you elect popular people with no ethics, you harm the game and you harm
yourselves. It's really simple when you think about it.

The people who succeed in galvanizing the coaches into a cohesive,
cooperative, forward looking unit, are going to be the ones who do the most
good for Chess in the USA over the long term. Keep that in mind this month
as you consider your choices for the board which will either point us in the
direction of volunteerism or entropy.

Entropy favors those who wish to control and take advantage of our good
natures. It takes less effort to control a handful of sychophants than it
does a vital organization of volunteers. The more people that quit
organizing events, the better for those who want regression and retrenchment
(organizational entropy). That course of events makes room for them to take
over the weekends left available.

On the other hand, those who favor involving the very highest number of
people favors the organization and the promotion of its mission statement,
namely, to promote as ... culture, the game of Chess.

Those who favor entropy are playing a game of attrition. They think in terms
of "how long can we keep fooling them", or, "this may only last another few
years, so I better take what I can and get out...".

Don't let them succeed. Their success (the regressionists), means the
failure of Chess in the USA and the USCF itself.

Cordially,
Tom Klem

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1114625326.825073.146740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> Don C. Aldrich wrote:
>
> Can all this really be valid? Sam Sloan LIED, to us on this group, or
> even COMMITTED PERJURY? How can this be? After, no less an authority
> than Larry Parr recently said:
>
> "I doubt that most readers here regard Sam as a liar ... He usually
> issues immediate corrections and often thanks nasty correspondents for
> information.they provide." In that same post, Parr endorsed a statement
> that the "Sloan is a liar" notion is a myth.
>
> Surely, Parr could not be mistaken about something this important?
> And he would not try to deceive us, would he? I feel the earth
> trembling, due to the force of shattered illusions.
>
> which is
> on
> cab,
> perjury,
> but
> except
> hat.
> 2000.
> I
> 5:00 AM
> Years,
> 20,
> taxi.
> at
> Sunday, 23 July 2000)
> financial news
> 27 July 2000)
> on Thursday, 27 July 2000)
> on Thursday, 27 July 2000)
> Sunday, 20 August 2000)
> Saturday, 2 September 2000)
> (rode in my
> September 2000)
> Mary"
> (rode in my taxi on Saturday, 7 October 2000)
> (rode in my taxi on Saturday, 7 October 2000)
> December 2000, and left me a $16 tip)
> December 29, 2000)
>

jimeade

2005-04-27, 7:45 pm

Of course, there are something on the order of a gazillion examples,
but I'll confine myself to some of the lies Sloan told about me during
the Istanbul General Assembly in 2000.

First, he claimed that he "knew for a fact" that I had won prize money
in a blitz tournament. I had not. I so stated. Sloan never offered a
retraction.

He claimed I never spoke on the floor of the Assembly. I had. I so
stated. He never offered a retraction.

He also claimed that we'd been given watches. We had not. Again, no
retraction.

My favorite might be the time he took my picture after a long hot bus
ride to the meetings. They had only instant coffee at the site, so I
had a glass of coke in my hand, grimly trying to wake up. He gleefully
came by the next day and said that I looked drunk in the picture and he
was going to use it against me. He did.

The lies are not a result of sloppiness, as Goichberg and Brady would
have you believe. They are intentional and done with a purpose. These
guys are either complete fools, or are cynically using Sloan to further
there own ends. At what price?

At one point Parr told me he thought Sloan was evil. One must wonder,
what does that make Parr?

It is too sad to be too funny, but I do chuckle when someone writes
that they intend to vote for Sloan, because he'll tell you whats really
going on! He tell you all sorts of things, some of which will be true,
but you'll have no way of knowing which parts are, and which parts are
distortions and which part are pure fabrications.

quote:

>From 1996-1999, I told you what was going no to the best of my ability.

It certainly seems to me that Randy Baeur is doing that now. We can
all make the odd mistake here or there, but when Randy tells us
something I have a high degree of confidence that what he saying is the
truth.

If Parr, Sloan and Innes are attacking him, he's doing something right.

jimeade

2005-04-28, 12:30 am

I should add that I do not read what Parr and Sloan write, unless they
are quoted by someone I respect, and even then perhaps not. I keep
posting: if anyone wants to ask me about anything they write, just
e-mail me. I think it has happened once in all these years. I've also
asked people to e-mail me, if they disagree with any of my
characterizations in what Parr self-engrandishly refers to as a
"document." No one has.

I think they should be ignored, and that there should be a petition
signed by sane people posted every so often warning the newbies about
their dishonesty.