On May 5, 10:46 pm, jkh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> jkh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > Brian Lafferty wrote:
> > > jkh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > > samsloan wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
> > > >> <chesswo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > >> You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is
noth=
ing
> > > >> wrong with moderators discussing specific postings. It is
customary=
> > > >> not to mention the name of the poster, but I have never seen any
> > > >> rules. You just make this stuff up.
>
> > > >> Eric,
>
> > > >> I have never seen you post to the USCF Issues Forum and you
obvious=
ly
> > > >> know nothing about it.
>
> > > >> During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
> > > >> thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar
a=
nd
> > > >> Truong was deleted.
>
> > > >> We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of
t=
hem
> > > >> were pressured by the higher-ups especially Channing to become
more=
> > > >> active in deleting postings. As a result, Mike Aignar resigned in
> > > >> protest. Duncan Oxley, as you know, killed himself for reasons
> > > >> unknown.
>
> > > >> Their places were taken by several others who soon quit also
> > > >> complaining about pressures from above and finally Vaughn and
> > > >> Sawmiller were appointed.
>
> > > >> Also, during this time, there was the Forum Oversight Committee
or =
FOC
> > > >> that had the power to restore a posting that had been deleted by
th=
e
> > > >> moderators. The FOC was also stacked with anti-Sam Sloan and pro-
> > > >> Polgar posters. However, several of the FOC members finally saw
the=
> > > >> light and stopped sup****ting Polgar and stopped attacking me.
Notab=
le
> > > >> examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also,
Loui=
s
> > > >> Blair stopped attacking me as much as he had previously.
>
> > > >> This meant that even the Fanatical Polgaristas such as Gregory
> > > >> Alexander and Terry Winchester who had been appointed as
moderators=
> > > >> often had the posts they had deleted restored. To deal with this
> > > >> situation, the insiders Goichberg and Channing created a new
middle=
> > > >> tier. A new "Moderation Committee" consisting of the pro-Polgar
> > > >> moderators plus one or two others was created with authority over
t=
he
> > > >> moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of
the
> > > >> FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had
no=
t
> > > >> accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the
higher-u=
ps.
> > > >> So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they
took
> > > >> away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only
wit=
h
> > > >> the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.
>
> > > >> All this happened while the election campaign was going on.
Althoug=
h
> > > >> there were not that many regular members of the USCF Issues
Forum, =
all
> > > >> of them can and do vote in the election. Their votes are easily
eno=
ugh
> > > >> to swing the election.
>
> > > >> Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and
politica=
lly
> > > >> independent. Obviously, this was not happening. Bill Hall, the
> > > >> Executive Director, was doing everything he could to get Polgar
and=
> > > >> Truong elected and to stop Sam Sloan from being re-elected. I
belie=
ve
> > > >> that Bill Hall even allowed Polgar and Truong to run without
paying=
> > > >> the required $250 filing fee. He has never responded to questions
> > > >> about this.
>
> > > >> In short, due to this and other manipulations by the USCF
Insiders
> > > >> including especially Goichberg, Channing and Hall, it cannot be
sai=
d
> > > >> that this was a fairly conducted election.
>
> > > >> Sam Sloan
>
> > > > Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A:
Se=
e
> > > > above.
>
> > > > Sam, the voters had ample op****tunity to see you and hear you
bray.
> > > > They threw you in the trash bin where you belong. Democracy works.
>
> > > Well, John, if you say so it must be true. I'm still waiting for
the
> > > citation sup****ting your first amendment interpretation regarding
> > > harassment. When can I expect you to provide it? Thanks!
>
> > As soon as you bring an action under your theory regarding 47 USC 222.
> > Since you seem to be all mouth and no mettle, I don't expect to have
> > to exert myself any time soon.
>
> > BTW, which of my statements are you challenging? That democracy works?
> > Or that the Sloon was decisively rejected by the voters? If it's the
> > latter, you have an impaired reality test, and need a psychiatrist
> > rather than a lawyer.
>
> Sorry, should have been 223. Or perhaps I just wanted a chance to
> express my disdain for Brian and his pet Sloon a second time.
Interesting. Perhaps I could have brought suit under 47 USC =A7 223 (d)
which provides:
(d) Sending or displaying offensive material to persons under 18
Whoever=97
(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly=97
(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person
or persons under 18 years of age, or
(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner
available to a person under 18 years of age,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication that is obscene or child ****ography, regardless of
whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the
communication; or
(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such
person=92s control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph
(1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,
shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years,
or both.
|
