From: <Chessoffice@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Improper Selection of Forum Moderators
From: <Chessoffice@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:50 AM
In a message dated 5/6/2008 7:29:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
samhsloan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
One of the high points of the election campaign came when Jerry Hanken
wrote an essay based on the famous speech by Mark Anthony in the
Shakespeare play "Julius Caesar".
Mark Anthony said, "Brutus is an Honorable Man. They are all honorable
men."
Based on the moderator's rule that nobody is allowed to make even a
mildly disparaging comment about Susan Polgar, Jerry Hanken wrote,
"Susan Polgar is an honorable woman".
Following is what Jerry actually wrote, which I posted at
www.checkmate.us.
I don't see "Susan Polgar is an honorable woman" included.
IS THIS "INTEGRITY," "HONESTY" AND "CREDIBILITY?"
by Jerry Hanken
"Restore respectability, integrity, credibility and professionalsm to
the USCF." - Polgar, April Chess Life
"Too little integrity, honesty, credibility and professionalism by
some board members." - Polgar May Chess Life
"Restore responsibility, integrity, credibility and professionalism to
the USCF." - Polgar, May Chess Life
"Too little integrity, honesty, credibility and professionalism by
some board members." Polgar, June Chess Life
"Restore responsibility, integrity, credibility and professionalism to
the USCF." - Polgar, June Chess Life
"...restore the much-needed integrity, credibility and professionalism
back to the USCF." - Truong, May Chess Life
"...restore credibility, integrity, efficiency and professionalism to
the USCF." - Truong, June Chess Life
Please note that the words integrity, credibility and honesty ring
through the campaigns of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. This reminds me
of two of my favorite Shakesperean characters. Throughout
Shakespeare's tragedy of betrayal and murder, Othello, the words used
to describe the consumate villain, Iago, by other characters, are
similar. "Honest Iago," "Honorable Iago," etc. echo throughout the
play. As we learn more about his true character, the words take on a
sharpened irony.
Also, Shakespeare's character, Mark Anthony, speaks over the body of
his friend Julius Caesar, and again and again he uses the word
"honorable" to describe Brutus and the other conspirators who murdered
his friend and patron Caesar. He takes great care in repeating this
word- "Brutus is an honorable man. So are they all honorable men." By
the end of the speech the aroused crowd sets out to destroy Brutus and
the conspirators.
The use of the words "integrity," "honesty" and "credibility" in the
campaigns of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have the same hollow ring as
do those Shakesperean ironies.
What kind of credibility does it show when these two, who we now know
have been legally married for about five months, have each announced
for the Executive Board and conveniently forgot to disclose that fact
to the voters?
On Feb. 16, 2007, Susan posted in response to an inquiry, "Paul is my
business manager and one of my best friends for more than 20 years...
Paul handles the media, publicity, PR and technical stuff for me, my
website, blogs, chess center and the SPF. He does not get paid for
what he does." How disengenuous. What else are they hiding?
When Paul Truong claims extensive executive business experience, but
refuses to provide specifics, how credible is that?
When Susan and Paul claim that the Susan Polgar Foundation awarded
$400,000 in scholar****ps and chess prizes in the last few years but
their 990 tax form filed with the IRS shows a vastly smaller number,
how credible is that? And how many of the offered scholar****ps were
actually declined by winners who preferred other schools?
When Susan and Paul claim that USCF is falling apart and only they can
save it, even though member****p is up strongly and we have had a
surplus of over $600,000 in the last four years, how credible is
that?
When they complain about "little attempt to positively promote chess
or USCF" or "too little focus on positive chess promotion" when our
publications and website have been improved and our rating system
dramatically updated, how credible is that?
When Susan's three Chess Life campaign statements all say, "End the
petty and destructive politics," what does she have in mind? If she
means that Sam Sloan should be defeated, I strongly agree, but I'm
afraid she plans much more if her slate gains control.
Have we ever seen an EB candidate attack "politics" while campaigning
for a political slate in every Chess Life statement?
Do we see a sample of what could be coming on her blog, where posts
not conforming to her party line are deleted faster than you can read
them? (Example: someone actually had the temerity to put up a post
sup****ting one but not the other. That was gone in a flash.)
Why are Susan and Paul the only EB candidates who refuse to interact
with the members on the USCF Issues Forum, preferring their own
controlled environment where anonymous poster after anonymous poster
sing their praises? How credible is that?
Those of you who recall my coverage of the 2006 National Open might
recall that I praised Susan Polgar quite highly for her effectiveness
as a role model for girls. However, her Executive Board campaign, like
that of her husband, has been disappointingly hollow and without
substance. I will not be voting for any member of the Polgar slate.
Jerry Hanken
Of course, the moderators saw through this and realizing that it was a
sarcastic remark, deleted it.
At the board meeting in Stillwater, Oklahoma, on May 19-20, 2007 the
board reviewed that particular posting and voted unanimously to
reinstate it.
The board has never voted on whether any post should be allowed or
reinstated. Why do you re****t a unanimous board vote when no motion
was even made?
Bill Goichberg
The posting clearly said nothing bad about Susan Polgar. To the
contrary, it said that she was an honorable woman. What could be wrong
with that?
The moderators did follow the board's directive and reinstated the
posting but a few weeks later locked that thread so that it could no
longer be cited.
Sam Sloan
|
