"samsloan" <samhsloan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:60cba423-a2b1-4b55-a692-9b472ea94194@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 30, 7:09 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "samsloan" <samhsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:023534e0-c93d-4e97-bbbc-1fa37dea1cd9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> > However, most voters know little or nothing about this. Many voted
>> > just on the basis of campaign statements published in Chess Life.
They
>> > would hardly be expected to know about the serious problems with
>> > everything involving Susan Polgar going back for the past 23 years.
>>
>> Or... even your own problems, which go back even further?
Nothing on that issue?
>> > They would not know that the problems Polgar has been creating here
>> > are almost identical to the problems she created back in Hungary
>> > before she got here.
>>
>> Pu****ng the limits of the game to involve more players, eliminating
>> gender-bias from the inside, by actually encouraging self esteem in
young
>> women, as if they were people too?
>>
>> Those sort of problems?
No comment?
>> People are terrified that the precious balance of the status quo will
be
>> upset, that new criteria will apply, and a necessary transparency in
>> chess
>> governance will actually be carried out rather than suggested - that
the
>> USCF will actually do something to justify its existence, rather than
>> continue to decline like a private member's club for the old boys.
>>
>> Those factors are very serious problems only for those who like it the
>> way
>> it is now. And those people talk about SPICE and KCF exploring their
>> individual paths forward as a 'rift', since it ain't a monolithic
>> approach,
>> which in their opinion should run everything [down].
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> Do you feel that by posting thousands of obscene and ****ographic
> messages from "The Fake Sam Sloan" and by posting similar obscene
> messages on her own blog at http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com
,
> Susan Polgar has been "eliminating gender-bias from the inside".
To parse that sentence, I first notice it is not an answer to anything I
wrote above, and then there is the usual Sloan-ism of relating 1,000s of
obsene messages from the FSS with 'those similar', according to Sloan
himself.
The comment then addresses gender bias, as if this can relate to either of
the items above.
> Do
> you feel that her personal attacks on rival female chess grandmasters
> has helped by "actually encouraging self esteem in young women"?
What does Sam Sloan mean by 'attack'? If I state my opinion and it is not
the same as Larry Parr's, do I 'attack' him? Answer this question since
otherwise we have 4 unrelated but cobbled together factors within a very
short time, indicating either a short-hand version of what 'everybody
knows'
[which is itself shorthand for, 'who knows?'] or an implicit yet
unexplained
connection of all of them.
> If you have such strong opinions on this subject,
Which of the 4 subjects?
> why do not you
> actually come up with some money and join the USCF?
ROFL: a 5th subject! All logically linked. Listen Sam, they make more
sense
on Ward 6, even the Count of Montezuma discussing stuff with the Lord of
Mars, Jupiter and sundry moons, attempt more connectivity in their
observations.
> Why is it that her
> biggest sup****ters and our biggest critics are non-members such as
> Phil Innes, Rob Mitchell and Taylor Kingston?
Biggest sup****ter? Quite apart from the 'members' who voted her into
office,
the issue for myself [let other people say their own orientation] is not
chasing the pretty chess skirt, but in sup****t of everyone who attempts to
promote chess out of the grave USCF has dug for it in America.
> If you are so interested
> in the welfare of the USCF
Did I say I was? I am interested in promoting chess, what has that to do
with the resolutely maintenance orineted USCF?
> (instead of trying to destroy it which is
> what you seem to be trying to do)
I only seem to be trying, or seem to be successful?
> why not join our organization?
If I want to vote for Obama I should join the Republican Party?
USCF have nothing to do with promoting chess, have not ever done so, and
simply ridden the Fischer-boom to their current $300,000 deficit, by
favoring friends of family, who can glean a small income if they make no
trouble, raise no issues, and critique nothing at all.
If Sam Sloan want to sup****t the maintenance activity of USCF, which is
the
rating system, perhaps he could have [lol] while in office done something
about the obviously perverted award system for 'friends of family'.
But he did not do anything to correct the system which brought Tanner
down.
He muyst have read another genuine US Master who wrote in the NY Times
that
he was appalled he asked for a Master title and floor, and was simply
given
one, without needing to sign anything, or even show any game records - and
USCF couldn't check them since they had thrown anything pre-1990 away.
If Sloan want to protect and preserve USCF, let him do it. Not talk about
it.
Let him not pretend to any stance that he can present the game to a
broader
public, nor criticise those who can. Sloan's potential role is a
relatively
modest [if a necessary] role. If he can't do that, then he might button
up,
since mouthy New Yorkers are merely arrogant people who think because they
are accusstomed to ***** at extraordinary length, that is somehow
significant or impressive to other people in the country.
I don't think so.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
