|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > July 2005 > 2005 USCF Delegates Call
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
2005 USCF Delegates Call
|
|
|
|
| George John 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
| Wow, there is a lot of interesting reading in the Delegates Call.
The first interesting factoid is the legal fees associated with the
various Sam Sloan lawsuits against the USCF. It's a number between
$11,457.45 and $21,609.67. The reason for the spread is some of the
line items are lumped together.
Regardless, this is a significant amount, one which IMO could have been
put to much better uses.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| George John 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
| The list of Delegates and Alternate Delegates in the 2005 USCF
Delegates Call (page 24) appears to be out of date (2002-04 list) and
is incorrect. IMO, this list in the 2005 Delegates Call should be
disregarded.
A correct list (2004-06) can be found at
http://www.uschess.org/2004resultseb-del.pdf
Best regards,
George John
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
| Dear George,
The way for the USCF to avoid lawsuits is to follow the law. If the
law had been followed the USCF would not be in Crossville. That's what
Sam's lawsuit was all about. The Court never dealt with the merits of
Sam's suit. 21K is cheap when the law firm is expected to deal with a
situation in which the letter of the law was not followed. I thought
this matter was aired on this forum long before I started responding to
this drivel. If so everyone should ignore this post.
Best Regards, Mike
| |
| George John 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
|
mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
Mike,
Especially since you are a USCF Delegate, I'm going to revisit this
issue with you please.
[SNIP]
quote:
> The way for the USCF to avoid lawsuits is to follow the law.
What law or laws in *your* estimation were not followed? If there is a
post that expresses your opinion well, please refer me to it.
I have yet to read anything from anyone with a professional legal
background that leads me to think the USCF did not follow the law.
This is a serious charge. I expect some solid facts to back it up.
Citing the "facts" of Sam Sloan won't count. Please provide at least
one other credible source.
BTW, I believe his appeal to the NY Supreme Court was denied, a fact I
don't think I have seen reported in rgcp to date.
[SNIP]
Best regards,
George John
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
| Dear George,
My source is Sam Sloan. If you require another I can't help you. I
know how to read Sam. I can usually separate the wheat from the chaff.
Yes, he's frequently wrong about things. But there's usually a kernal
of truth to what he says. It seems that somewhere, somehow, and maybe
irrelevent, the law says that a 2/3 vote of the governing board is
required to move a not-for-profit out of state. I don't think Sam made
that up. Maybe somewhere else in the law this requirement is waived.
Maybe there are certain "understandings" involved, known only to legal
beagles. I have no idea why Sam opposed the move to Crossville, but he
has a right to expect that the letter of the law be followed.
Mike
| |
| George John 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
|
mike.good...@comcast.net wrote:
Dear Mike,
quote:
> Dear George,
>
> My source is Sam Sloan.
I'm very sorry to hear this.
quote:
> If you require another I can't help you.
Yes, I do. I'm sorry you couldn't help.
quote:
> I
> know how to read Sam.
Me, too.
quote:
> I can usually separate the wheat from the chaff.
I'm my case, it's all chaff until proven by an independent source to be
wheat.
quote:
> Yes, he's frequently wrong about things.
Agreed.
quote:
> But there's usually a kernal
> of truth to what he says.
Perhaps, but it doesn't matter to me. Life is too short to rely at all
on consistently unreliable sources of information.
quote:
> It seems that somewhere, somehow, and maybe
> irrelevent, the law says that a 2/3 vote of the governing board is
> required to move a not-for-profit out of state. I don't think Sam made
> that up.
Sorry, I can't comment on particulars. I will stress the point again
that anything Sam Sloan offers as a "fact", IMO, absolutely must be
checked against an independent, reliable source.
quote:
> Maybe somewhere else in the law this requirement is waived.
One issue is the fact the USCF is an Illinois corporation, and I
believe is considered a "foreign" corporation in New York.
quote:
> Maybe there are certain "understandings" involved, known only to legal
> beagles.
Yes, the law is complicated, and best left to professionals for advice.
quote:
> I have no idea why Sam opposed the move to Crossville,
I could speculate, but won't.
quote:
> but he
> has a right to expect that the letter of the law be followed.
We ALL have a right to expect that.
But again, this is a very serious charge. I strongly discourage
anyone, especially a USCF Delegate, from suggesting the USCF has not
followed the law based ONLY on the comments of Sam Sloan.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
| Dear George,
By saying you can't comment on particulars you're saying you don't know
what you're talking about. That's refreshing candor from a politician.
Sam gets a bad rap. He brings it on himself, of course. But you
remind me of the people at a chess tournament late in the round who are
all crowded around one board, not the GM game where a masterpiece is
being created, but the patzer game where one side is three pieces up.
You jump on the bandwagon denigrating Sam Sloan. Everybody talks about
how they hate Sam Sloan, that he's guilty of this, of that, and
everything vile and contemptable. Don't you idiots know that he craves
this attention? If you'd just stop talking about him he wouldn't be so
encouraged.
An Illinois corporation that has had a physical presence in New York
for 65 years may be subject to New York law. I don't think that was
the basis for rejecting the suit on technicalities. It could be that
the governing body referred to in the law meant the Delagates, not the
EB. The Delegates last visited this issue in Cherry Hill. I was
there. The vote was surely two thirds, but I don't remember a vote
count, if any.
Best Regards, Mike
| |
| George John 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
|
mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
Dear Mike,
quote:
> By saying you can't comment on particulars you're saying you don't know
> what you're talking about. That's refreshing candor from a politician.
Since this is a legal issue, and I'm not a lawyer, I would prefer not
to talk about the details, and instead hope that someone with the
necessary legal background will jump in (unless they have already done
so, and I missed it).
quote:
> Sam gets a bad rap.
I disagree. The think the "rap" is more than justified.
quote:
> He brings it on himself, of course.
I completely agree. He is easily "convicted" by his own words, over
and over.
quote:
> But you
> remind me of the people at a chess tournament late in the round who are
> all crowded around one board, not the GM game where a masterpiece is
> being created, but the patzer game where one side is three pieces up.
> You jump on the bandwagon denigrating Sam Sloan. Everybody talks about
> how they hate Sam Sloan, that he's guilty of this, of that, and
> everything vile and contemptable. Don't you idiots know that he craves
> this attention? If you'd just stop talking about him he wouldn't be so
> encouraged.
First, my opinion of Sam Sloan's credibility has not changed
substantially for many years now. I am jumping on no bandwagon.
Second, I would prefer that you not refer to me as an "idiot",
preferring that our discussion remain civil if possible please. Third,
I would be absolutely delighted if I never had to mention or discuss
Sam Sloan ever again. But, have you considered the possibility that by
your and others treating Sam Sloan as a credible source of information,
you are encouraging him, too?
I have read about personality types who perceive negative attention in
a way similar to positive, and this might fit here. If true, you may
be right that completely ignoring a person with this condition might be
the best strategy. But, it truly bothers me when people in leadership
positions, such a USCF Delegate, and even worse an ex-Executive Board
member, make positive statements about or accept as a credible source
someone who I find, IMO, so totally lacking in credibility, and
undeserving of positive comments.
quote:
> An Illinois corporation that has had a physical presence in New York
> for 65 years may be subject to New York law.
That is possibly true. But, this is speculation, yes? To resolve this
we need a statement from someone who has the necessary credibility,
expertise, and the knowledge of the relevant laws. I have not seen
such a statement.
quote:
> I don't think that was
> the basis for rejecting the suit on technicalities.
To be as fair as possible and maintain order, courts follow the rule of
law, and written procedures. Those who can't or won't follow the them,
are much less likely to succeed in court.
quote:
> It could be that
> the governing body referred to in the law meant the Delagates, not the
> EB. The Delegates last visited this issue in Cherry Hill. I was
> there. The vote was surely two thirds, but I don't remember a vote
> count, if any.
I was there, too. The minutes show that it passed, but no count is
shown. It would not surprise me in the least if the vote was at least
2/3.
Again, the point I'm trying to make is I think it ill-advised for
anyone to presume the USCF failed to follow the law based on comments
made by only Sam Sloan. YMMV.
The idea of the USCF moving to a different location, including to a
different state from New York, was considered by or could have been
considered by three different Board of Delegates. One (2002) affirmed
the sale of the building and relocating to a different city, including
those outside of New York state. Another (2003) ratified an Executive
Board (McCrary) decision to move to Crossville, and passed a Crossville
move budget. A third (2004) was silent on the issue, and, so far as
I'm concerned in this instance, silence implies consent.
What I see here is an individual acting on his own (I hope no one else
has been involved) to thwart the will of two Executive Boards (McCrary
& Marinello) and the 2002 and 2003 Board of Delegates, using an
argument that has not been supported by any legal authority, SFAIK, and
has cost the USCF membership somewhere between roughly $10,000 to
$20,000 in needless legal fees. I can't sit by and let this pass
unnoticed, and I'm definitely not going to let a fellow USCF Delegate
lend credibility to this action without sufficient justification.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
| George,
I rate Sam's and your chances of being elected about the same, so we'll
know in a few days whether the voters agree with you. You should know
that Sam did not finance his suit; it costs money to file a lawsuit.
Someone who works or worked for the USCF did finance it, because he/she
didn't want to move. So Sam is working for someone else on this,
though he agrees with it. Now I'm not going to continue defending Sam.
To be my friend there is no list of requirements and prohibitions,
like you seem to have for your friends. Sam was, is, and will continue
to be my friend, regardless of the impression he makes on others. I
just confirmed my friendship with Shaughnessy. You see, I can have
both.
Mike
| |
| Chess Politics 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
| How could you ever support a chap like Sloan?
James
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
| Sam has never lied to me, nor done me wrong. I abhor some of the
things he's done, but I don't sit in judgement of him. Sam never
sacrifices a good story for the lack of a few facts, but is he lying?
or just embroidering the truth?
I look upon chess politics as 'theater', and every theater must have a
Fool.
Mike
| |
| George John 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
|
mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
Mike,
quote:
> George,
>
> I rate Sam's and your chances of being elected about the same, so we'll
> know in a few days whether the voters agree with you.
Agree with me about what please? Many if not most USCF voting members
are inadequately informed about the candidates. I have yet to find a
single Voting Member who knew about the adult felony conviction, time
spent in jail, Pokemon Website, lawsuits against the USCF, etc. prior
to my discussing this with them.
This election is not a referendum on anyone's credibility; although, in
a more perfect world it would be. At least one highly qualified (IMO)
candidate has finished behind Sam Sloan in an election. While I fully
accept democratic rule, I am often distressed by the result of it, and
if Sam Sloan wins, I will be distressed and very disappointed with our
Voting Members. I do not believe this will happen, but OMOV is indeed
unpredictable.
quote:
> You should know
> that Sam did not finance his suit; it costs money to file a lawsuit.
> Someone who works or worked for the USCF did finance it, because he/she
> didn't want to move. So Sam is working for someone else on this,
> though he agrees with it.
If true, I am very sorry to hear this. Again, only if true, I most
certainly hope this person no longer works for the USCF. If they do
work for the USCF, and can be properly identified, if legally and
ethically possible, I hope their employment with the USCF will be
terminated as quickly as possible.
quote:
> Now I'm not going to continue defending Sam.
> To be my friend there is no list of requirements and prohibitions,
> like you seem to have for your friends. Sam was, is, and will continue
> to be my friend, regardless of the impression he makes on others. I
> just confirmed my friendship with Shaughnessy. You see, I can have
> both.
IMO, this has nothing to do with friendship, yours or mine. This has
to do with putting the organization first. To accuse it of not
following the law, based only on the word of someone who has a repeated
history of making incorrect and misleading statements, is simply not
acting in a responsible manner, IMHO.
To end on a positive note, I am glad to hear that you have mended
fences with Shaughnessy.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| George,
What do you know about Sam's felony conviction? Or time spent in jail?
Absolutely nothing, I'll wager. If you did know something about it
you wouldn't be running off at the mouth about it, if you are, indeed,
a decent fellow.
Mike
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
> George,
>
> What do you know about Sam's felony conviction? Or time spent in jail?
> Absolutely nothing, I'll wager. If you did know something about it
> you wouldn't be running off at the mouth about it, if you are, indeed,
> a decent fellow.
>
> Mike
Hmmmmm......
quote:
> Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
> g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: mike.good...@comcast.net
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: Shame on the politicians
> Date: 20 Jul 2005 18:45:04 -0700
>
> James Singh,
>
> How could the Brits keep Tony Blair in office? He's so stupid as to
> blindly follow Gearge Bush. Re the tragedy in London, to paraphrase
> Bobby Fischer on 9/11, you Brits had it coming.
>
> Mike
*Decent fellow,* indeed.
It's no wonder Shaughnessy kicked you off her squad, dumbass.
MN
| |
| Catalan 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
|
<mike.goodall@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1121902029.632070.296530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Sam has never lied to me, nor done me wrong. I abhor some of the
> things he's done, but I don't sit in judgement of him. Sam never
> sacrifices a good story for the lack of a few facts, but is he lying?
> or just embroidering the truth?
> I look upon chess politics as 'theater', and every theater must have a
> Fool.
When you're done, stop by the main tent to pick up your medal.
| |
| Grider 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| On 20 Jul 2005 10:03:47 -0700, mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
>Dear George,
>The way for the USCF to avoid lawsuits is to follow the law. If the
>law had been followed the USCF would not be in Crossville. That's what
>Sam's lawsuit was all about. The Court never dealt with the merits of
>Sam's suit. 21K is cheap when the law firm is expected to deal with a
>situation in which the letter of the law was not followed. I thought
>this matter was aired on this forum long before I started responding to
>this drivel. If so everyone should ignore this post.
>Best Regards, Mike
You are an idiot.
| |
| Grider 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| On 20 Jul 2005 15:28:33 -0700, mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
>George,
>
>I rate Sam's and your chances of being elected about the same, so we'll
>know in a few days whether the voters agree with you. You should know
>that Sam did not finance his suit; it costs money to file a lawsuit.
>Someone who works or worked for the USCF did finance it, because he/she
>didn't want to move. So Sam is working for someone else on this,
>though he agrees with it. Now I'm not going to continue defending Sam.
> To be my friend there is no list of requirements and prohibitions,
>like you seem to have for your friends. Sam was, is, and will continue
>to be my friend, regardless of the impression he makes on others. I
>just confirmed my friendship with Shaughnessy. You see, I can have
>both.
>
>Mike
You are an idiot.
| |
| Grider 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| On 20 Jul 2005 16:27:09 -0700, mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
>Sam has never lied to me, nor done me wrong. I abhor some of the
>things he's done, but I don't sit in judgement of him. Sam never
>sacrifices a good story for the lack of a few facts, but is he lying?
>or just embroidering the truth?
>I look upon chess politics as 'theater', and every theater must have a
>Fool.
>
>Mike
*Tosses confetti and claps for you.*
You are an idiot.
| |
| George John 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
> George,
>
> What do you know about Sam's felony conviction? Or time spent in jail?
> Absolutely nothing, I'll wager. If you did know something about it
> you wouldn't be running off at the mouth about it, if you are, indeed,
> a decent fellow.
>
> Mike
Mike,
I think it unlikely anything constructive will come from our continuing
this discussion, and it would be best to agree to disagree on this
issue.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| Matt,
Bobby Fischer meant nothing personal in his 9/11 remarks. From a
purely geopolitical standpoint, the US had it coming. A generation of
destructive US middle-Eastern policies cried out for, or mandated,
revenge. I'm sure Bobby meant no ill will toward the people who died,
any more than I do about the London tragedy. My heart goes out to the
victims and their families. But geopolitically, both the US and
Britain must learn the Iraqi lives are worth as much as American or
British lives, and as long as the US and Britain mess with Iraq, such
attacks that occurred in Britain can be expected to continue.
Mike
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2005-07-21, 3:32 am |
| mike.good...@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
> Matt,
>
> Bobby Fischer meant nothing personal in his 9/11 remarks.
LOL. And you know this....how? Surely even YOU can see how much love
Booby Fissure has for the U.S., and your statements indicate you have
just as much.
<SNIP>
quote:
> But geopolitically, both the US and
> Britain must learn the Iraqi lives are worth as much as American or
> British lives,
Yes, we should've left Saddam in power so he could continue the mass
extermination of those who thought for themselves. Answer this: Did
Saddam need to be deposed? If so, when do YOU think we should've done
something? After he ignored an *18th* resolution?
quote:
> and as long as the US and Britain mess with Iraq, such
> attacks that occurred in Britain can be expected to continue.
>
> Mike
Oh, we fully expect them to continue. The whole world does. And you
can see how much love the world has for the terrorists who carry out
their so-called "labor of love."
But with people like you in their corner cheering for them in enemy
territory, I'm sure they'll be encouraged to up the ante.
You're a pathetic weasel, Mike. A traitor lower than whale shit. I
had thought you a reasonable man with a valid gripe about Shaughnessy
so I actually considered your opinion before I VOTED FOR HER. Now,
however, I'm glad I wrote you off as just another goofy XXXX with a
chip on his shoulder that likes to play chess.
Condoning the attack on London makes you no better than those who
carried it out. Remember that, my fellow "American."
MN
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 3:32 am |
| George,
You're right. Continuing this discusion would only result in you
learning something, and we don't want that. My friendship with Sam has
cost me dearly over the years, in friendships that might have been.
Mike
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2005-07-21, 3:32 am |
| mike.good...@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
> Matt,
>
> Bobby Fischer meant nothing personal in his 9/11 remarks.
<SNIP>
A good friend of mine just pointed this out:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1214006
"[....] I say death to President Bush! I say death to the United
States! XXXX the United States! XXXX the Jews! The Jews are a criminal
people. They mutilate their children. They're murderous, criminal,
thieving, lying bastards. They made up the Holocaust. There's not a
word of truth to it. They are the worst liars and bastards. Now what
goes around comes around. They're getting it back, finally. Praise God
and, you know, hallelujah. This is a wonderful day. XXXX the United
States. Cry, you crybabies! Whine, you bastards! Now your time is
coming."
~ Bobby Fischer
"Nothing personal."
MN
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 3:32 am |
| I can't defend that, but remove the anti-semitism and you're left with
"XXXX the United States". There's a lot of people who agree with that
sentiment, thanks to George Bush. Note Fischer made these remarks long
before the death toll was known, even before the WTC collapsed. His
virulent anti-semitism shields what has become a widespread
geopolitical opinion. I consider Fischer a jerk, but he gets a bad rap
for only being right geopolitically, nothing personal.
Mike
| |
| George John 2005-07-21, 3:33 am |
|
mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
[SNIP]
quote:
> Note Fischer made these remarks long
> before the death toll was known, even before the WTC collapsed.
The North Tower was hit at 8:46 a.m.; the South at 9:03 a.m.
The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m.; the North at 10:28 a.m. LESS
THAN two hours before the initial attack.
Fischer's comments reportedly came a "few hours" after the attack. A
"few" is more than two. I think it likely Fischer knew of the collapse
of one or both buildings prior to making his comments.
[SNIP]
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2005-07-21, 3:33 am |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
> I can't defend that, but remove the anti-semitism and you're left with
> "XXXX the United States".
And cut off your penis and you'll be a woman.
The following is hardly innocent dissenting opinion:
"...the US has to be destroyed." ~ Bobby Fischer
"...I say death to the United States!" ~ Bobby Fischer
Just because you pour syrup on shit don't make 'em flapjacks.
quote:
> There's a lot of people who agree with that
> sentiment, thanks to George Bush.
I'm sure. Just ask Jerry Bibuld.
quote:
> Note Fischer made these remarks long
> before the death toll was known, even before the WTC collapsed.
*THIS* is your justification? *THIS* is your defense? Jesus Christ,
Mike! Why the hell does it matter?!?
quote:
> His
> virulent anti-semitism shields what has become a widespread
> geopolitical opinion. I consider Fischer a jerk, but he gets a bad rap
> for only being right geopolitically, nothing personal.
>
> Mike
"...only being right."
You're gone, Mike. Absolutely certifiable. Anyone who can defend
terrorism and qualify the racist, murderous, and treasonous remarks of
megalomaniac is beyond help. There isn't enough therapy in the world
to cure the world-class stupidity you suffer from.
Feel free to have the last word. As far as I'm concerned this
conversation is over.
MN
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-07-21, 3:33 am |
| "Matt Nemmers" <qcchess@mchsi.com> writes:
quote:
> The following is hardly innocent dissenting opinion:
>
> "...the US has to be destroyed." ~ Bobby Fischer
>
> "...I say death to the United States!" ~ Bobby Fischer
Fischer is a two year old potty mouth when it comes to this stuff.
What he says about Jews and destroying America has about as much to do
with actual Jews and actual destruction, as some whacko shouting "XXXX
XXXX shit" has to do with sexual intercourse and bowel movements.
Such statements are outrageous when they mean what they say. When
they come from someone in Fischer's condition, I just feel sorry for
the poor schmuck.
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 3:33 am |
| I was told Fischer's remarks occurred just after 9am Eastern time.
That's late at night in the Philippines. I think it was on live radio
there. If you're sure, I stand corrected. At any rate that was long
before the death toll was known. I remember Sam estimated it to be
over 30,000.
Mike
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 3:33 am |
| Actually you're right. I've been taking medication daily for 30 years
to treat paranoid schizophrenia. I'm certified, all right. I see a
shrink every three months. I sit in awe of Matt Nemers and other
sterling examples of sanity as I vainly try to defend the Bobby
Fischers and the Sam Sloans of the world. It's a losing battle.
Mike
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
| On 20 Jul 2005 22:12:53 -0700, "George John" <george@neosoft.com>
wrote:
quote:
>
>
>mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>
>The North Tower was hit at 8:46 a.m.; the South at 9:03 a.m.
>
>The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m.; the North at 10:28 a.m. LESS
>THAN two hours before the initial attack.
>
>Fischer's comments reportedly came a "few hours" after the attack. A
>"few" is more than two. I think it likely Fischer knew of the collapse
>of one or both buildings prior to making his comments.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
Exactly the point.
Japan is 14 hours ahead of the US. Therefore 9:59 AM New York time is
11:59 PM Japan time. Fischer's remarks were broadcast live from Japan
on 9-11. Therefore, unless the broadcast took place in the 60 seconds
between the collapse of the South Tower and the end of 9-11 Japan Time
Fischer could not have known that the South Tower was going to
collapse.
Fischer made no mention of the collapse of the World Trade Center
during his broadcast. In fact, he made no mention of the World Trade
Center at all. He did refer to airplanes being hijacked. He probably
knew that the World Trade Center had been hit by two airplance.
However, he almost certainly did not know just as almost everybody on
the ground at the time of these events did not know that the World
Trade Center was about to collapse with great loss of life.
Indeed, later in the same broadcast Fischer said "That's the danger"
that soimebody might be killed.
Fischer probably believed, as I did at that point of time, that the
towers had been hit by a pilotless drone. Nobody imagined at that time
that somebody would go through months of flight training school just
to learn how to fly one of those big airplanes so as to use it for a
suicide attack.
The full text of the Fischer broadcast has never been published or
posted. Only a few brief excerpts taken out of context have been
posted.
Throughout his broadcast, Fischer was talking about the holocost hoax,
the killings of Palestinians and similar topics. Nothing about the
World Trade Center. It is only in hindsight of the events of the
following days that writers conclude that Fischer over in Japan must
have known about the attack on the World Trade Center.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
| On 20 Jul 2005 19:45:20 -0700, "George John" <george@neosoft.com>
wrote:
quote:
>Mike,
>
>I think it unlikely anything constructive will come from our continuing
>this discussion, and it would be best to agree to disagree on this
>issue.
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
Right! George John runs his mouth endlessly, claiming to be an expert
on subjects he knows little about, but when somebody confronts him
with a few facts, he says " it unlikely anything constructive will
come from our continuing this discussion"
Sam Sloan
Who has been away for two days
I am in the process of moving to the Bronx. You will probably not be
hearing from me for a few days. Just because you do not hear from me,
that does not necessarily mean that I am dead. You will have to
postpone your celebration.
Sam Sloan
| |
| George John 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
| Sam Sloan wrote:
[SNIP]
quote:
> Right! George John runs his mouth endlessly, claiming to be an expert
> on subjects he knows little about, but when somebody confronts him
> with a few facts, he says " it unlikely anything constructive will
> come from our continuing this discussion"
If Mike would like to discuss his allegation that the USCF did not
follow the law using ANY credible source other than information he
received from Sam Sloan, I would more than glad to continue the
discussion with him.
I do not wish to discuss Sam Sloan with him any further. I think that
discussion would be unproductive. We should agree to disagree, and
move on.
Sam Sloan (allegedly funded by someone who works for or once worked for
the USCF) attempted to legally block the USCF move from New Windsor to
Crossville, a move which was supported explicitly by two different
Executive Boards and a Board of Delegates, and implicitly or partially
by two others. The alleged reason given is because they didn't want
the USCF to move.
IMO, allegedly two individuals have needlessly cost the USCF membership
somewhere around ten to twenty thousand dollars. We know who one of
them is. I'd love to find out who is the other. I have a guess, but I
think it's most likely wrong, and I very much hope it's wrong.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| George John 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
|
mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
Dear Mike,
quote:
> I was told Fischer's remarks occurred just after 9am Eastern time.
Who told you this please?
quote:
> That's late at night in the Philippines. I think it was on live radio
> there. If you're sure, I stand corrected. At any rate that was long
> before the death toll was known. I remember Sam estimated it to be
> over 30,000.
Please read the beginning of the item Matt provided a link to. I
quote:
"Within a few hours of the attacks on the United States"
I'm not certain of the timing, but I have never seen a refutation other
than from Sam Sloan.
I do agree the death toll was not known at the time; although, I don't
see how that is relevent to the discussion.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| George John 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
[SNIP]
quote:
> Fischer's remarks were broadcast live from Japan
> on 9-11.
False!
The Radio Bomba interview took place on September 12, 2004. Baguio and
Manila are in same time zone (GMT +8). NYC during daylight savings
time is GMT -4. The difference is 12 hours, not 14. Therefore, the
Fischer interview *had* to take place after 12 noon EDT 9/11/2001.
[SNIP]
Sincerely,
George John
| |
| Catalan 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
|
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:42dfa4ae.36016171@ca.news.verio.net...
quote:
> I am in the process of moving to the Bronx.
This is your fourth move this year. how come? I thought it took six months
to evict a deadbeat.
|
| |
|
|