jkh...@[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.
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.
|
