| politikalhack@gmail.com 2005-08-30, 3:31 am |
| I am not denying that he may well have been master *strength* at one
point in his life. That is different that being recognized as a
master. (The context of the following remark is amusing--at the time,
I was unaware of his having played a game with Damiano's while rated
above 2000.)
Sloan wrote: <<[A]lthough it is true that right now I am rated as a
Class A player, I was a rated expert or master for 40 years and I
recently defeated Bill Brock, a rated expert and former master, in a
chess match with a $1000 stake. Thus, it is generally accepted as
correct to refer to me as a chess master even though my current rating
has fallen to Class A.>>
Bruce, would you also call upon Larry Parr to leave correspondence
master Taylor Kingston, a fellow with a published rating to back the
claim up, alone?
The issue is not Sloan's strength as a chessplayer; the evidence speaks
for itself. The issue is his credibility.
******
No, I don't believe Innes was quite as close to 2450 as he (doubtless
in good faith) believed; no, that doesn't bother me too much. So I
left him alone, more or less. Why the inconsistency? I'm not aware
any campaign by Innes (indifferent to USCF) to tear USCF apart and
split us into factions....
******
The larger context: Sloan had no qualms about telling us that "the Gays
lost the election," and he has implied that there are more homosexuals
in USCF leadership.
Recall the BellSouth anon ( http://tinyurl.com/dxqor ). Sloan is
laying the groundwork for the his anonymous ally to engage in more
smears.
I know that others--hi!--have found these McCarthyite smear tactics
convenient.
If others wish to turn that charge upon me, let them. I was willing to
back my words in court, and still am. As for court costs, I even
"arranged" (very much against my will) for Sloan to have $1,000 cash in
my presence. I thought a phrase like "k*****-f*****" might be
sufficient to precipitate a lawsuit, unless, of course.... Perhaps the
same party who financed Sloan's suit against USCF could finance the
suit against me.
*******
Ahab I'm not. As much as I dislike Sloan, I wish him a long, healthy,
and reasonably happy life. But I am tired of someone who "stirs up
still even more trouble" in USCF for sport. His Board--my Board! is
in; he (and we) should be supporting that Board for the common good.
The most important immediate goals of the Board may not be very
exciting; harmony is a big yawn.
When Sloan becomes irrelevant to USCF governance (and may that day come
soon), he becomes irrelevant to me.
|