jkh001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> jkh001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Eric Schiller
>>>> <chessworks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You live in your own universe with its own rules. There is
nothing
>>>> 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 obviously
>>>> know nothing about it.
>>>>
>>>> During the election campaign, the "moderators" deleted over one
>>>> thousand postings. Anything remotely pro-Sam Sloan or anti-Polgar and
>>>> Truong was deleted.
>>>>
>>>> We had two good moderators, Mike Aignar and Duncan Oxley. Both of
them
>>>> 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 the
>>>> 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. Notable
>>>> examples of this were Steve of Tennessee and Ron Suarez. Also, Louis
>>>> 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 the
>>>> moderators. By then, there were only four remaining members of the
>>>> FOC. All the others had quit, basically all saying that they had not
>>>> accepted this assignment only to be told what to do by the
higher-ups.
>>>> So, to effectively get rid of the remaining FOC members, they took
>>>> away their power to restore deleted postings, leaving them only with
>>>> the power to restore people who had been banned or suspended.
>>>>
>>>> All this happened while the election campaign was going on. Although
>>>> 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
enough
>>>> to swing the election.
>>>>
>>>> Remember that the Office is supposed to remain neutral and
politically
>>>> 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 believe
>>>> 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 said
>>>> that this was a fairly conducted election.
>>>>
>>>> Sam Sloan
>>>
>>> Q: How many lies can balance on the point of Sam Sloan's head? A: See
>>> 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.
"Brian, what I wrote was nearly a direct quote of Volokh's comments on
the subject. This is not your field of law, and your pretensions to
expertise based on a decades-old law degree are just making you look
silly. But you should be used to that."
Citation, please.
|
