| Bruce Leverett 2005-08-30, 8:31 pm |
|
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?
I guess you're wondering why I would complain about you and not about
various other contributors to RGCP who are much crazier. That's easy:
I expect better from you.
quote:
>
> 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.
In your dreams. I guess people who are active in RGCP sometimes get
delusions of grandeur. Happens to all of us.
quote:
>
> *******
>
> 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.
I think you have spent a lot more bandwidth on Sloan than would be
warranted by his actual importance in USCF politics. Consider focusing
more on people who are actually doing things: organizers, teachers,
strong players, volunteers, donors, and so on.
Bruce
|