| The Historian 2005-08-30, 6:31 am |
|
politikalhack@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
> 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.
Agreed.
quote:
> ******
>
> 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....
An astonishing statement. I can't imagine any other "indifferent"
person who worked as hard to undermine the last Board or the move to
Crossville. And the claim to the 2450 rating is also about Innes's
credibility; do you want someone doing business with USCF who is so
obviously deceitful? He's campaigned for years to have USCF do business
with Shahcom. He was a good soldier for the current regime in the last
election. How long till he claims his reward?
quote:
> ******
>
> 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.
Don Schultz.
quote:
> 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.
Only if they operate for the common good. Things are different now
since USCF is in Crossville, but I expect ChessDon and Company to be
able to find the feeding trough soon enough.
quote:
> 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.
|