|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > August 2006 > Five Candidates Run for USCF Executive Board
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 |
Five Candidates Run for USCF Executive Board
|
|
| Sam Sloan 2006-08-02, 10:29 pm |
| Five Candidates Run for USCF Executive Board
The deadline has now passed and there are five certified candidates
for the two open slots on the USCF Executive Board. They are: Mike
Goodall, Randy Hough, Grant Perks, Ernie Schlich, and Sam Sloan.
I am happy with this lineup, and not for the reasons you imagine. I am
happy because all of the candidates are very long-time chess
personalities, who have been around forever. All of them are devoted
to the betterment of chess. None of them would want anything bad to
happen to the USCF. None of them are members of slates or are fronts
of unnamed persons with hidden agendas.
For the past 30 years in almost every election there has been a
Goichberg Slate opposed by a Dubeck Slate. This has made it almost
impossible for third party candidates to be successful. However, this
year, Goichberg and Dubeck have apparently decided to sit it out. I do
not think that any of the candidates are in the pocket of or beholden
to either of them, or anybody else for that matter.
One thing that is unusual is that of the five candidates, three are
former employees of the USCF. Randy Hough, Grant Perks and Ernie
Schlich are all former employees. Ernie Schlich still works for the
USCF but on a volunteer basis only. Previously, he was Technical
Director. Grant Perks is a former Executive Director and also a former
CFO. Randy Hough was in charge of the USCF Rating System back in the
mid-1980s.
I have absolutely no objection to this. Former employees know the
federation better than almost anybody else and have much to
contribute. Moreover, none of them were fired or unceremoniously
thrown out or left under a cloud, as far as I am aware.
Frankly, if I had known how strong the field was going to be, I
probably would not have run. I just looked up Randy Hough, Grant Perks
and Ernie Schlich and I found that each of them have played in or
directed more than six hundred tournaments in the last ten years, an
amazing record.
I do not think I have much of a chance. I do hope that the big power
brokers stay out of the race this time. I hope that they let the best
man win for a change.
Sam Sloan
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:29 pm |
| A WINNING PLANK
I'll wager that the candidate who pledges to try and restore
Larry Evans On Chess to Chess Life will get the most votes.
| |
| chasmad 2006-08-02, 10:29 pm |
| parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> A WINNING PLANK
>
> I'll wager that the candidate who pledges to try and restore
> Larry Evans On Chess to Chess Life will get the most votes.
This is genuinely funny. You have a future in the world of comedy.
Thanks for the laugh, Larry.
Charles
| |
|
| I doubt that Evans would have anything more to do with
those dullards on the boad who just wasted $50,000 on
a no-bid resdesign of Chess Life and its website,
but I could easily round ujp hundreds of votes for such
a candidate in my area alone.
That's no joke.
| |
|
| Bullshit. I doubt there are any other Malaysians who would vote
in a USCF election.
"jr" <julrem7@aol.com> wrote in message news:1145352501.789728.146520@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> I doubt that Evans would have anything more to do with
> those dullards on the boad who just wasted $50,000 on
> a no-bid resdesign of Chess Life and its website,
> but I could easily round ujp hundreds of votes for such
> a candidate in my area alone.
>
> That's no joke.
>
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:29 pm |
| A WINNING PLANK (continued)
For the record, my understanding is that three of the
candidates the Federation by being fired or forced out.
As always, Sam Sloan is my main man, followed
probably by Mike Goodall, though the ideal member
is Grant Perks who will then be able to grant perks.
Given the history of this board and the one before it, the
Perks should get elected based on his name alone. Randy
Hough might make a better Board member, but could he
ever grant perks with a clear conscience? Too huffy.
In the case of Randy Hough, he was forced out
by Harry Sabine. He became my assistant editor at
Chess Life and was then given a zero percent raise one
year. Randy knows that I went to bat for him at the
time even though he was initially being groomed as my
successor. Whereupon, he got the hint and resigned.
Grant Perks had to go, too. Ernie Schlich -- I
am not so sure about, though someone said he got a
semi-boot a la Randy Hough.
The single thing I remember about Randy's time
at Chess Life was our playing through 200 or so games
from the Open section at the World Open for a two-page
spread of the best in Swiss system chess, which is
seldom done. We found a fascinating ending in which
Shipman lost, if memory serves, to Hjartarsson.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| A WINNING PLANK (continued)
For the record, my understanding is that three of the
candidates the Federation by being fired or forced out.
As always, Sam Sloan is my main man, followed
probably by Mike Goodall, though the ideal member
is Grant Perks who will then be able to grant perks.
Given the history of this board and the one before it, the
Perks should get elected based on his name alone. Randy
Hough might make a better Board member, but could he
ever grant perks with a clear conscience? Too huffy.
In the case of Randy Hough, he was forced out
by Harry Sabine. He became my assistant editor at
Chess Life and was then given a zero percent raise one
year. Randy knows that I went to bat for him at the
time even though he was initially being groomed as my
successor. Whereupon, he got the hint and resigned.
Grant Perks had to go, too. Ernie Schlich -- I
am not so sure about, though someone said he got a
semi-boot a la Randy Hough.
The single thing I remember about Randy's time
at Chess Life was our playing through 200 or so games
from the Open section at the World Open for a two-page
spread of the best in Swiss system chess, which is
seldom done. We found a fascinating ending in which
Shipman lost, if memory serves, to Hjartarsson.
| |
|
| *Bullshit. I doubt there are any other Malaysians who would vote
in a USCF election. * (g4)
I don't live in Malaysia.
The pack of jackals who post here underestimate the power
of the silent majority. I would agree that the candidate
who adopts the plank suggested by Parr would win one of
the two seats on the boards.
| |
| jamesrynd@aol.com 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| >I would agree that the candidate
quote:
>who adopts the plank suggested by Parr would win one of
>the two seats on the boards.
Wow! You agree with Parr? What news!
| |
| Chess Freak 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message news:1145360859.456808.43610@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| A WINNING PLANK (continued)
|
| For the record, my understanding is that three of the
| candidates the Federation by being fired or forced out.
|
| As always, Sam Sloan is my main man
|
With that single statement you just lost all creditability with
me, parrthenon.
- CF
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| THE USUAL SUSPECTS
<Wow! You agree with Parr? What news! > -- Rynd-Dowd to jr
These stinkers change their names as often as they change
their socks (which may not be that often).
It's also no surprise that we seldom see Dr. Dowd disagreeing
with either Blair, Kingston, or the other ratpackers.
| |
| RSHaas@aol.com 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| I'd favor those candidates who would work toward the installation of
the Mensa model for chess .. where a good portion of the national dues
was sent down to the Metro District orgs thus capitalizing the basic
market for organized chess.
Old Haasie
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| DON'T WORRY
'
<With that single statement you just lost all creditability with
me, parrthenon.> -- Ches Freak
You don't have to worry because I don't belong to the USCF
and can't vote.
However, if Sam Sloan is the ONLY candidate who comes out
in favor of restoring Evans On Chess, don't be surprised if he
finally gets elected to the board.
Your worst fear might then come true.
| |
| Hal Terrie 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| On 18 Apr 2006 04:46:41 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
wrote:
[snip]
quote:
>... though the ideal member
>is Grant Perks who will then be able to grant perks.
[snip]
He he. "grant perks" Larry, this is truly hilarious. It's the best
joke I've seen on this newsgroup since Paul Rubin's post of April 1,
2005, skewering Sam Sloan. The prospect of a few such jems as this
will be sure to keep me wading through your lengthy (and usually
tiresome) posts.
Regards, Hal Terrie
| |
| samsloan 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| RSHaas@aol.com wrote:
quote:
> I'd favor those candidates who would work toward the installation of
> the Mensa model for chess .. where a good portion of the national dues
> was sent down to the Metro District orgs thus capitalizing the basic
> market for organized chess.
>
> Old Haasie
Good! Then you can vote for two of the other guys, because I'm again
it.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Grant Perks 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| Hal Terrie wrote:
quote:
> On 18 Apr 2006 04:46:41 -0700, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
> He he. "grant perks" Larry, this is truly hilarious. It's the best
> joke I've seen on this newsgroup since Paul Rubin's post of April 1,
> 2005, skewering Sam Sloan. The prospect of a few such jems as this
> will be sure to keep me wading through your lengthy (and usually
> tiresome) posts.
>
> Regards, Hal Terrie
I thought it was "below Parr" for him to recycle that old joke.
Grant S. Perks
| |
|
| * I'll wager that the candidate who pledges to try and restore
Larry Evans On Chess to Chess Life will get the most votes.* (Parr)
Too bad Evans himself is not running He would win hands down
(causing apoplexy for a chosen few).
| |
|
|
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message news:1145383175.897206.300900@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> You don't have to worry because I don't belong to the USCF
> and can't vote.
>
How ironic that the man who fought the hardest for OMOV cannot vote.
Life can throw some nasty curves every now and then.
quote:
> However, if Sam Sloan is the ONLY candidate who comes out
> in favor of restoring Evans On Chess, don't be surprised if he
> finally gets elected to the board.
>
I don't think so.
See comments below. Credit Louis Blair for providing the info.
Some comments that people sent to Sam
Sloan's talk page:
_
"Engaging in an edit war is not the correct
way to resolve a dispute. ...
"Your statements at WP:DRV, and some
of your comments on Talk pages of various
chess articles, are incivil and could justifiably
be interpreted as personal attacks. ....
You are behaving in an adversarial
manner (understandably given your past),
but that is not how Wikipedia works, we have
a collaborative, not an adversarial method.
_
You seriously need to calm down and take a
less aggressive approach to subjects on
which you clearly have strong feelings. If you
continue as you are you will end up in trouble,
and will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia,
which will ensure that your point of view gets
less coverage, not more. State your case
neutrally and with proper citations, and above
all stop personalising things. Nobody disputes
that you know a lot, but neither do you dispute
that you have very strong views, and those
views are not necessarily neutral. We have to
be especially careful in the case of living people."
_
"You are personalising things on Wikipedia (I
don't dispute that they are personal outside WP).
Why should Howcheng care one way or the other?
Howcheng is here only to make sure that people
play by the rules, and although there is much
beef about 'rouge admins' (sic) I have yet to see
any evidence that the average sysop is doing
anything other than refereeing in these situations.
Put simply, I trust Howcheng. Your biggest
problem to my mind is that you often seem to
state things in combative language, which makes
it hard to see past the bluster and find the core
of fact. If you state things in a calm and neutral
manner, and above all do not edit-war, you will
achieve results with less friction. It is an
unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia
works that simply knowing somethign to be true
is not enough, you have to show that reliable
secondary sources have reported it as such.
We are not supposed to weight he relative truth
of different versions, we are not supposed to
have analytical and research skills, we are
supposed to collect and document that which
is verifiable from reliable secondary sources in
a neutral way. A dispute exists? Dosument
both sides. Describe the evidence they have.
And if someone removes that evidence, discuss
it with them on the Talk page and see what their
issues are. Discussion by edit summary simply
does not work. It's fine to have storng opinions,
and its cool to state them on the Talk page (in
terms which do not offend). But when they go
into an article, care is needed, and balance
must be struck. I think you know this. You are
known as being disputatious and as having
deep-rooted views about certain people (who
may or may not be obnoxious charlatans). I
really think you need to amke it easier for
disinterested parties to discount that."
| |
|
| Then I guess you're abstaining this election. 
<RSHaas@aol.com> wrote in message news:1145383156.390768.8980@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> I'd favor those candidates who would work toward the installation of
> the Mensa model for chess .. where a good portion of the national dues
> was sent down to the Metro District orgs thus capitalizing the basic
> market for organized chess.
>
> Old Haasie
>
| |
|
| ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:16 AM
Subject: Five Candidates Run for USCF Executive Board
quote:
> I am happy with this lineup, and not for the reasons you imagine. I am
> happy because all of the candidates are very long-time chess
> personalities, who have been around forever. All of them are devoted
> to the betterment of chess. None of them would want anything bad to
> happen to the USCF.
[ This morning a series of Tornados hit Central Tennessee. More than 80
buildings have been destroyed and at least 19 people are dead.
Was our building hit? Is Bill Hall still alive?
Most importantly, do we have insurance?
If we do, I hope the tornado hits, assuming of course that nobody is
injured.
That way, we can get back the $650,000 we have sunk into that
worthless building and move the USCF out of the mountains and into a
city somewhere. ]
Sam Sloan NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:31:31 GMT
Would Larry Parr, who claims he has a virtual monopoly on accuracy,
verifiability, and truthfulness, care to attack this howler with the same ferocity
he attacks Taylor Kingston's claim of a 2350 postal chess rating?
| |
|
| <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message news:1145360859.456808.43610@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> A WINNING PLANK (continued)
>
> The single thing I remember about Randy's time
> at Chess Life was our playing through 200 or so games
> from the Open section at the World Open for a two-page
> spread of the best in Swiss system chess, which is
> seldom done. We found a fascinating ending in which
> Shipman lost, if memory serves, to Hjartarsson.
>
That's all you remember about Hough at USCF? My how quickly you forget.
From: Larry Parr
Date: Sun, Apr 26 1998 12:00 am
Email: Larry Parr <75227.3...@CompuServe.COM>
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics
[ The following mailing was made to all USCF voters by Nigel Eddis, treasurer of
Friends of the USCF, on April 22, 1993:
CAMARATTA REPORT ALTERED
(Key Paragraph is Deleteted After Report was Signed and Released)
What Hanken, Hough and Sperling Did Not Want
You to Read in the Policy Board Newsletter
Attached is a signed, dated and publicly released copy of USCF Vice President
Frank Camaratta's "Executive Summary" of his lengthy report concerning the
letter signed by the mythical 'Fred Prentice' and mailed from San Luis Obispo
during the campaign of 1992 between Donald Schultz and Nigel Eddis.
This "Executive Summary" was to have been included in the Policy Board
Newsletter (PBN. Instead, an altered version has appeared in which virtually
the entire fourth paragraph, which outlines Grandmaster Larry Evans' views
concerning the roles of Jerry Hanken, Randy Hough and William Goichberg, has
been deleted.
What PB members Hanken, Hough and Gary Sperling wanted to suppress from the
already highly politicized minutes is on the enclosed page. VP Camaratta
agreed to delete the paragraph after pressure from these 3 politicians.
In the altered "Executive Summary," Camaratta still clears GM Evans. He
writes that the "hypothesis attempting to link GM Larry Evans with the
fraudulent mailings has been DISPROVED. This "hypothesis" was actually the
invention of Mr. Goichberg. What is wrong with the altered version is not what
it contains, but what has been deleted.
The Policy Board politicians do not want you to know that Secretary Hough was
WHERE the letters were mailed (in terms of postmark area) WHEN they were
mailed. (According to a US Post Office official, letters mailed along the I-5
route in California travelled by Mr. Hough would have had the same postmarks
as the 'Prentice' letter.)
This coincidence does not, of course, prove anything. The circumstantial
evidence against Mr. Hanken and Mr. Hough might not stand up in court. And I
completely oppose wasting our money investigating these two men, just as I
opposed setting Pinkerton detectives on the trail of GM Larry Evans. ]
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| To Mr. No Name
quote:
>Bullshit. I doubt there are any other Malaysians who would vote
in a USCF election.> -- g4 (formerly Say No To g4)
There used to be and probably still are several
Malaysians who received Chess Life. But can they vote?
Will the Malaysian electoral tsunami sweep Sam
Sloan into office?
Contrary to what Sam wrote here yesterday about
the good field, I think he is needed more than ever. The
secrecy, the sheer lack of transparency, has never
been more opaque. The $50,000 redesign report has
still not been made public despite repeated requests.
More anon.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:30 pm |
| MORE JUNK FROM MR. NO NAME
<That's all you remember about Hough at USCF?
My how quickly you forget.> -- g4
More silly junk. I was speaking about Randy Hough's
time working in the Chess Life office. He worked at Chess Life
for only one or two months, if memory serves. He
was not working there when the hit letters were mailed.
Still, the knives are now out for Randy Hough.
Past essays from the Friends of the USCF, including
one of my own, have been included in political
mailings over the years by others running for office.
I had a talk with Randy Hough after the episode
of the Prentice letter. He gave me his sworn word --
he is a serious Christian -- that he did not mail those letters
which were postmarked on the same day that he was driving
from Los Angeles to San Francisco to attend a friend's wedding.
.. I remember well the circumstances of the mailing
and the odd coincidence, but I accepted Randy's word
because he does not lie when making direct avowals.
GM Evans presented evidence that Jerry Hanken wrote
those hit letters, the second one came from Philadelphia
while Jerry was attending the World Open. Needless to say,
the board ignored this evidence and dropped the witch hunt
when they couldn't nail GM Evans.
| |
| Melton 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| "g4" <> Would Larry Parr, who claims he has a virtual monopoly on accuracy,
quote:
> verifiability, and truthfulness, care to attack this howler with the same
ferocity
quote:
> he attacks Taylor Kingston's claim of a 2350 postal chess rating?
>
Any guy that always takes one of his nineteen children and twelve wives to
every Chess Tournament can't be all bad.
Sam Sloan may not be Presidential timbre, but he is a good person in his own
warped way. You all need to appreciate the poor guy a lot more.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| SAM SLOAN VS. TAYLOR KINGSTON
quote:
>Would Larry Parr, who claims he has a virtual
monopoly on accuracy, verifiability, and truthfulness,
care to attack this howler with the same ferocity
he attacks Taylor Kingston's claim of a 2350 postal
chess rating?> -- g4 (formerly Say No To g4)
Now, now, Mr. No Name. I did not attack NM Taylor
Kingston for having once had a 2300+ Elo postal
rating. I attacked him for claiming without elaboration
or any irony that he was 2300+ ELO, implying it was
an over-the-board rating. His actual OTB rating is 1800.
Thus he inflated it by 500 points (not 50 as Greg
Kennedy, who can't get anything right, falsely claims).
We also still wait for NM Kingston to answer
these questions: have you posted under the bogus
names of Xylothist and Paulie Graf? In using these
pseudonyms, did you praise yourself and attack
your enemies? Did you invent false identities to give
the impression you had support that was not there?
Is such a practice in accord with the "standards" that
you claim to have?
Heh, heh, heh. The guy ain't gonna answer.
I'm lovin' it.
As for Sam Sloan, I do not vouch for his character
beyond stating that, based on the materials to appear
on these forums, he is more honest and certainly far less
hypocritical than NM Kingston.
Sam's faults are those of the heart and of a
warm and intense nature. NM Kingston's ego
deformities are the icicles of his arch, cold
contumely. He is the soul brother, if you will, of
Louie Blair.
| |
| Kenneth Sloan 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com> writes:
quote:
> DON'T WORRY
> '
> <With that single statement you just lost all creditability with
> me, parrthenon.> -- Ches Freak
>
> You don't have to worry because I don't belong to the USCF
> and can't vote.
>
> However, if Sam Sloan is the ONLY candidate who comes out
> in favor of restoring Evans On Chess, don't be surprised if he
> finally gets elected to the board.
>
> Your worst fear might then come true.
You mean my fear that Evans On Chess might be restored to Chess Life?
quote:
>
--
Kenneth Sloan sloan@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
| |
| Alan OBrien 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| Five bald people fighting over a comb.
| |
|
|
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message news:1145414048.106512.75340@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> MORE JUNK FROM MR. NO NAME
>
That's Mr. "g4" to you.
The silly junk you refer to represents your post, your words. Ergo, it's
YOUR junk ... YOUR knife ... and YOU stuck it into Randy Hough.
I presented your post because I was taken aback that you claim to remember
only one thing about Hough. I remembered your post, even though the subject
is a lot more dear to you than to me.
But I have nothing against Hough. If you are willing to forgive and forget Hough's
duplicity in the Pinkerton matter, then dropping the subject is fine by me.
quote:
>
> More silly junk. I was speaking about Randy Hough's
> time working in the Chess Life office. He worked at Chess Life
> for only one or two months, if memory serves. He
> was not working there when the hit letters were mailed.
>
> Still, the knives are now out for Randy Hough.
> Past essays from the Friends of the USCF, including
> one of my own, have been included in political
> mailings over the years by others running for office.
>
> I had a talk with Randy Hough after the episode
> of the Prentice letter. He gave me his sworn word --
> he is a serious Christian -- that he did not mail those letters
> which were postmarked on the same day that he was driving
> from Los Angeles to San Francisco to attend a friend's wedding.
>
> . I remember well the circumstances of the mailing
> and the odd coincidence, but I accepted Randy's word
> because he does not lie when making direct avowals.
>
> GM Evans presented evidence that Jerry Hanken wrote
> those hit letters, the second one came from Philadelphia
> while Jerry was attending the World Open. Needless to say,
> the board ignored this evidence and dropped the witch hunt
> when they couldn't nail GM Evans.
>
| |
| Melton 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| "Alan OBrien" <> Five bald people fighting over a comb.
quote:
>
Five fags fighting over Beatriz' lezbo pussy.
| |
| Larry Tapper 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| A WINNING PLANK
Larry Parr> I'll wager that the candidate who pledges to try and
restore
Larry Evans On Chess to Chess Life will get the most votes.
All right, I'll take you up on that. Feel free to e-mail me with terms
of the wager.
Larry T.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| THAT'S MR. g4 TO YOU
<That's Mr. "g4" to you.> -- Mr. No Name
This anon spills bilge and demands respect!
Mr. g4 took my reference, which was what I
remembered about Randy Hough's time working for me at
Chess Life, and got into the entire period that he was
at the USCF, not to mention the incident AFTER he was
no longer working for the USCF.
I stated that the single thing I recollect -- at
least right now -- of his time as assistant editor was
our slaving away together on the games scores from the
Open Section of the 1986 or 1987 World Open. That is
accurate as of this writing.
Concering Hough's "duplicity" in the Prentice
matter, I forgive nothing if he were not involved as
he swore to me. I believed him.
For the record, Larry Evans didn't believe him
and still doesn't. He believes that Randy mailed one
of the hit letters written by Hanken from two cities on
the very day they were postmarked along the route he
drove from Los Angeles to San Francisco. At the time
Jerry Hanken was on the board and Randy was his
closest colleague in chess. The second hit letter was
mailed from Philadelphia while Hanken attended the
World Open during that election. Some of the phrases
used in the letter were identical to things that Hanken
had said.
After GM Evans was exonerated by the Pinkertons
the board decided to drop the matter and were so
ashamed that they paid the bill out of their own pocket.
It was one of the lowest points in USCF history.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:31 pm |
| WILL DO
<All right, I'll take you up on that. Feel free to e-mail me with terms
of the wager.> -- Larry Tapper
The wager can only occur, of course, if one of more of the five
candidates includes such a pledge in his plank.
We can arrange the details via e-mail.
-- Larry Parr
| |
|
|
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message news:1145459441.256350.20760@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> THAT'S MR. g4 TO YOU
>
> <That's Mr. "g4" to you.> -- Mr. No Name
>
> This anon spills bilge and demands respect!
>
Would Larry Parr have the same type of respect for jr, who also is a no name
and has spilled plenty of bilge in this forum? For example, how could jr know all
about Richard Laurie in January and then deny having any knowledge of him in
March?
Will Larry Parr, a man of supposedly self-professed high standards, apply
the same standard to both jr and myself?
And why did LP not refer to me as Mr. No Name when I supported his position?
Am I Mr. No Name simply because I won't toe the PARR-ty line?
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
| Is "g4" another name for the person who
posted as SayNoTog4?
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
| YES OR NO?
<Is "g4" another name for the person who
posted as SayNoTog4?> -- Louis Blair
Instead of his usual boilerplate, the nutty professor
finally asks a simple question that can be
answered with a single word.
| |
|
| > YES OR NO?
quote:
>
> <Is "g4" another name for the person who
> posted as SayNoTog4?> -- Louis Blair
>
> Instead of his usual boilerplate, the nutty professor
> finally asks a simple question that can be
> answered with a single word.
>
Larry Parr ignores klgore's recommendation to take the high road and
instead levels an unprovoked ad hominem on Louis Blair. Funny how
LP responds to Blair when the question does not pertain to him, but ducks
responding to questions aimed at him. That from a man who claims stands
behind his words.
| |
|
| ----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Five Candidates Run for USCF Executive Board
quote:
> Is "g4" another name for the person who
> posted as SayNoTog4?
>
Yes, Dr. Blair - I've decided to shorten my anonymous handle.
And while I have your attention, let me say that I may have treated
you unfairly on rgcp. I realize now that you do not engage in ad
hominem attacks like your adversary Larry Parr. And though
your posts may be at times tedious to read through, I believe ... in
the main ... they accurately reflect what is said on this forum.
(Larry Parr - see how easy it is to admit one's mistake? I feel secure
enough to admit when I'm wrong and move on. You should try it too,
rather than lash out with personal attacks ala Sam Sloan. You might
find it cleansing.)
You often ask Parr some tough questions and demand answers, which
is not unlike what Parr does to many a hapless victim on rgcp. Parr often
repeats himself (nauseatingly so) hoping for either an admission or a
repudiation from his adversary. But Parr abhors the same being done
to him. People usually hate the taste of their own medicine.
Parr must really loathe someone like you ... someone who shines a
spotlight on Parr's inconsistencies, contradictions, and double standards.
And what does LP do? He avoids answering you ... at first. But when you
doggedly persist for an answer .. ala Parr ... he lashes out at you with name
calling. And do you reciprocate in kind? As far as I can see ... no.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-02, 10:35 pm |
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Is "g4" another name for the person who
> posted as SayNoTog4?
A Google search indicates that they are one and the same. That is to
say, clicking on "find messages by this author" gives a list of posts
under both names.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:35 pm |
| Thanks to g4 for his comments.
| |
| marcus@stkittsnevischess.org 2006-08-02, 10:36 pm |
| > However, if Sam Sloan is the ONLY candidate who comes out
quote:
> in favor of restoring Evans On Chess, don't be surprised if he
> finally gets elected to the board
Dear Larry,
I think that you might be right about Sloan finally having a chance to
get elected to the Policy Board. However, I think that Sloan will one
day get elected because the apathy among voting USCF Chess players
about voting is SO GREAT. A candidate like Sloan will eventually win
where most players believe themselves ABOVE voting (until, of course,
they have to pull down their pants and take a FIDE drug test in front
Bill Goichberg.) Most USCF players do not want to vote or deal with
politics, do why not elect Sam Sloan?
Sloan's election to the USCF Executive Committee might cause a great
disturbance in FIDE. I think that members of the USCF are so upset with
their LAZY national delegates (who frequently don't even go to the
USCF annual meeting to vote and use the title of USCF Delegate to make
up for a non master chess rating) that the general USCF membership
would like to see a convicted felon on the Executive Board just to send
some snobs a message of anger.
I realize my view is rather insignificant. My view represents just the
view of a US citizen and former regional officer of the USCF Chess
Federation. I am a "chess" citizen of St Kitts and Nevis now. We
only let life members vote so we don't have this problem of apathy
that the Americans seem to have with Sam Sloan www.samsloan.com
One vote in FIDE rarely matters...
Sincerely
Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
P.S. I now legally own a condo on St Kitts. I can use the title of FIDE
Delegate because I own a HOUSE.
| |
| samsloan 2006-08-02, 10:36 pm |
| marcus@stkittsnevischess.org wrote:
quote:
> I realize my view is rather insignificant. My view represents just the
> view of a US citizen and former regional officer of the USCF Chess
> Federation. I am a "chess" citizen of St Kitts and Nevis now. We
> only let life members vote so we don't have this problem of apathy
> that the Americans seem to have with Sam Sloan www.samsloan.com
>
> One vote in FIDE rarely matters...
>
> Sincerely
>
> Marcus Roberts
> Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE
>
> P.S. I now legally own a condo on St Kitts. I can use the title of FIDE
> Delegate because I own a HOUSE.
Wrong. You can only use the title of FIDE Delegate if the FIDE Congress
approves you as a delegate. Since you now admit that you are a US
Citizen, that means that you are not really a citizen of St. Kitts and
Nevis and you are almost certainly not carrying a passport from St.
Kitts and Nevis. Someone from St. Kitts and Nevis wrote a letter
applying for membership in FIDE back in the 1980s. This matter was
given serious consideration until it was discovered that the
letter-writer was just a school boy. I doubt that the FIDE Congress in
Turin next month is going to give you any recognition at all. They
might not even let you in the room.
Sam Sloan
| |
|
| <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message news:1145431976.094389.53500@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> SAM SLOAN VS. TAYLOR KINGSTON
>
> monopoly on accuracy, verifiability, and truthfulness,
> care to attack this howler with the same ferocity
> he attacks Taylor Kingston's claim of a 2350 postal
> chess rating?> -- g4 (formerly Say No To g4)
>
> Now, now, Mr. No Name. I did not attack NM Taylor
[ blah, blah, blah snipped ]
Parr gives the long answer to my question. The short answer (and to the point)
is, "No, Larry Parr does not attack Sloan's lies (mistakes, failings of the heart, etc)
with the same fervor that he attacks the same by Taylor Kingston.
As you recall, Sloan claimed that none of the candidates would want anything
bad to happen to the USCF. Yet, just a few days prior, Sloan (who is one
of the candidates) wished the tornado would hit the USCF building in Crossville
and hopefully sustain damage beyond repair. A normal person would consider
that something bad. But not Larry, our Literary Lollapalooza. Like a magician
that uses deflection so the audience doesn't see what's before them, Parr
deflects our attention from Sloan to Kingston .. he wants us to focus on the
splinter in Taylor's finger while ignoring the log under Sam's arm.
But ... you know, no matter how many magnifying lens and candlelights Parr
applies, a splinter is still a splinter ... and a log is still a log. Let's keep things
here in perspective.
|
| |
|
|