 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics ChessKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Chess Forum / General Topics / July 2010Strange Results in the USCF Election
The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates. The results were as follows: Mike Nietman 1517 Gary Walters 1472 Sam Sloan 693 The results of the voting were very strange and even suspicious. The way the numbers add up it appears that there were two kinds of voters: 1. Those who voted bullet voted for me and for nobody else. 2. Those who voted for Walters and Nietman and did not vote for me. The question is: How did this happen? Walters is unknown and new in the world of chess whereas Nietman is fairly well known and has been around for a long time. Walters did not campaign at all except for posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman? The heavy hand of Bill Goichberg seems present here. Goichberg is known to have controlled or influenced the election process in almost every USCF election except for the one in which I was elected. Yet, this year Goichberg did not send out his traditional 17,000 postcards telling his minions whom to vote for. How did Goichberg get the word out instructing his followers how to mark their ballots? Is it possible that Goichberg sent out a bulk mailing telling voters to vote for Walters and Nietman that we do not know about? Perhaps it was not a general mailing but only went to those whom he knew would follow his orders. Why was Goichberg so confident that Walters and Nietman would be elected that he appeared to be sitting out the campaign this year? Strange behavior. It almost seems that Goichberg knew well in advance how the vote count would turn out. Sam Sloan > The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive > Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The results of the voting were very strange and even suspicious. They're not suspicious, you deranged fuckwit. People know that you're a deranged fuckwit, only ignorami would vote for you. So you came last. > The > way the numbers add up it appears that there were two kinds of voters: > > 1. Those who voted bullet voted for me and for nobody else. > 2. Those who voted for Walters and Nietman and did not vote for me. Nope. Being allowed to vote twice, but not being compelled so to do, produces results like those *without* the necessity for deranged explanations such as yours. People know that you're a deranged piece of sh.t. So you lost. > The question is: How did this happen? People know that you're a deranged piece of sh.t. So you lost. > Walters is unknown and new in > the world of chess whereas Nietman is fairly well known and has been > around for a long time. Walters did not campaign at all except for > posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would > Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman? The alternative was voting for you. People know that you're a deranged piece of sh.t. So you lost. > The heavy hand of Bill Goichberg seems present here. Unlikely. More likely is: People know that you're a deranged piece of sh.t. So you lost. > Goichberg is > known to have controlled or influenced the election process in almost > every USCF election except for the one in which I was elected. Yet, > this year Goichberg did not send out his traditional 17,000 postcards > telling his minions whom to vote for. How did Goichberg get the word > out instructing his followers how to mark their ballots? It's just possible that he didn't. People know that you're a deranged piece of sh.t. So you lost. > Is it possible that Goichberg sent out a bulk mailing telling voters > to vote for Walters and Nietman that we do not know about? Certainly it's *possible*. It's not at all likely though. People know that you're a deranged piece of sh.t. So you lost. > Perhaps it > was not a general mailing but only went to those whom he knew would > follow his orders. Perhaps it was. Seems unlikely though. More likely is: People know that you're a deranged piece of sh.t. So you lost. > Why was Goichberg so confident that Walters and Nietman would be > elected that he appeared to be sitting out the campaign this year? Only Mr. Goichberg can answer this. What is clear is that: People know that you're a deranged piece of sh.t. So you lost. > Strange behavior. It almost seems that Goichberg knew well in advance > how the vote count would turn out. Seems unlikely. Much more lilely is: People know that you're a deranged piece of sh.t. So you lost. > Sam Sloan Mark Houlsby > The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive > Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would > Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman? Anti-incumbent voting? After years of Truong/Polgar/Schultz/Sloan and the like, perhaps people have become tired of chess politicians feeding at and on the USCF. > The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive > Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 1. Those who voted bullet voted for me and for nobody else. > 2. Those who voted for Walters and Nietman and did not vote for me. It is not obvious to me that the numbers add up that way. If there were 3682 votes cast and 2035 ballots, then 1647 voters, 4 out of 5, exercised their option of voting for two candidates. At least that part seems unremarkable. Why conclude that the 1 in 5 voters who only marked one candidate all voted for Sam Sloan? I cannot at the moment see a reason to believe that, but if there is such a reason could not that reason alone account for the total result better than, say, a surreptitious campaign by Bill Goichberg? > The question is: How did this happen? Walters is unknown and new in > the world of chess whereas Nietman is fairly well known and has been > around for a long time. Walters did not campaign at all except for > posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would > Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman? Maybe people were voting for a new face. That doesn't seem terribly surprising to me, but then again I'm from the state that nominated Alvin Greene for the U.S. Senate. > Why was Goichberg so confident that Walters and Nietman would be > elected that he appeared to be sitting out the campaign this year? > Strange behavior. It almost seems that Goichberg knew well in advance > how the vote count would turn out. Perhaps it was a post-fiasco lack of confidence by Goichberg that his endorsement would still carry weight. > The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive > Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Sam Sloan Sam it's a combination of both 1 & 2. As to Walters, he is known from the forum and from his Chess Life Statements. The reality is that by suing the USCF you pissed off vast numbers of the membership. Your expiration date in USCF politics is now past. Welcome to the masses. BTW, I think your campaign picture alone lost you a least 1,000 votes. > Sam it's a combination of both 1 & 2. As to Walters, he is known from > the forum and from his Chess Life Statements. The reality is that by > suing the USCF you pissed off vast numbers of the membership. Your > expiration date in USCF politics is now past. Welcome to the masses. > > BTW, I think your campaign picture alone lost you a least 1,000 votes.- An awful picture... his neck made him look like a turkey. I voted for the other two just as a vote against Sam. > The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive > Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Gary Walters 1472 > Sam Sloan 693 The down side to you posting all of your off topic spam, and all of your personal lawsuits on the group is that a lot of people object to that. Then when you have to ask those same people for their votes, you don't get them. Can you not see that? Let me go very slow so you don't miss anything Piss people off = lose election This is not your personal space to sell your books This is not your personal space to post about your trips to places most people have never heard about and could care less This is not your personal space to post off topic lawsuits that so not concern members of this group This is not your personal space to post about the libterian party of NY THIS IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL SPACE Just because you CAN post these things, does not mean you SHOULD > > Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was > > allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Just because you CAN post these things, does not mean you SHOULD It's not his personal space, but since he is a longtime USCF political figure, it seems reasonable to me for him to post here on assorted topics. That his eclectic postings caused him to lose the recent election is debatable. How many in this rather small group even voted? But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are generally much livelier than those of his critics. > > "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are > generally much livelier than those of his critics. I voted and not for Sam. Russell Miller now Vancouver WA > > "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > figure, it seems reasonable to me for him to post here on assorted > topics. So you're a f.cking moron, then. Interesting. > That his eclectic postings caused him to lose the recent > election is debatable. How many in this rather small group even voted? Not just his eclectic postings. His generally deranged behaviour, which he insists upon making as public as he possibly can. > But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are > generally much livelier than those of his critics. Yup, you really are a f.cking moron. > > But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are > > generally much livelier than those of his critics. > Yup, you really are a f.cking moron. "Livelier" is a strange criterion, especially in the context of Sloan. Sure, a subway exhibitionist hopped up on goof balls will probably be "livelier" than the average reference librarian, but for a position of leadership in a serious organization, I think the librarian has the edge. SBD > > > But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are > > > generally much livelier than those of his critics. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > SBD Sam's interesting and spirited posts would do a reference librarian credit. Clearly you're misguided. You compare a good writer to "a subway exhibitionist hopped up on goof balls" just after quoting and failing to repudiate one of this group's newly resident open sewers. > > > > But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are > > > > generally much livelier than those of his critics. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > subway exhibitionist hopped up on goof balls" just after quoting and > failing to repudiate one of this group's newly resident open sewers. A reference librarian is constrained by fact. Sam has the advantage of being oblivious to facts and indifferent to truth. Now, if you want to praise him as a deranged but creative spinner of conspiracy theories (on the order of David Ickes), you might have an argument, though the fact that he's a perverted, innumerate boor would militate against it. I'd like to think that no one with an IQ over 80 could honestly voice respect for the Sloon, but almost 700 people voted for him. Of course, many of them were just casting a "safe" protest vote. The jury is out on you. Are you just a troll, or are you a sincere idiot? It's hard to come up with a third choice. > > > > > But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are > > > > > generally much livelier than those of his critics. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > on you. Are you just a troll, or are you a sincere idiot? It's hard to > come up with a third choice. Seems to me that "sincere idiot" is rather too kind, but I'd go with that. Only an ignoramus or a moron could vote for Sloan. If there is an intelligent Sloan voter out there...show yourself, and explain your reasons for voting for him.... > > > > > > But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are > > > > > > generally much livelier than those of his critics. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > If there is an intelligent Sloan voter out there...show yourself, and > explain your reasons for voting for him.... How about "The other Sloan" [ a poke at "the other white meat"] ?? Can you imagine that USCF has TWO Sloans?!? Maybe some of the people who voted for Sam thought they were voting for "The other Sloan" hehehehe. > > > > > > > But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are > > > > > > > generally much livelier than those of his critics. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > you imagine that USCF has TWO Sloans?!? Maybe some of the people who > voted for Sam thought they were voting for "The other Sloan" hehehehe. Dr. Ken Sloan? > > > > > But of that number I suspect he did well. His postings, after all, are > > > > > generally much livelier than those of his critics. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You call him a boor, but his writing is generally well-mannered, much more so than yours. You call him perverted, but you are the guy who has repeatedly expressed a desire to eat his flesh. You call him innumerate, but he was a math major at Berkeley. Maybe it's you who needs a bit of factual restraint. > You call him a boor, but his writing is generally well-mannered, much > more so than yours. You call him perverted, but you are the guy who > has repeatedly expressed a desire to eat his flesh. Where was this? You call him > innumerate, but he was a math major at Berkeley. Maybe it's you who > needs a bit of factual restraint. > > You call him a boor, but his writing is generally well-mannered, much > > more so than yours. You call him perverted, but you are the guy who [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > innumerate, but he was a math major at Berkeley. Maybe it's you who > > needs a bit of factual restraint. He's thinking (if we can use that verb) of a page I once made to ridicule the Sloon's self-written Wikipedia bio. I didn't publish it; Sam found it through his tireless pursuit of mentions of his own name. And, by the way, I would never poison myself with Sloan's gamy carcass. I did suggest that _Sloan_ might eat human flesh, but that, however plausible, was obviously intended as humor. (Well, obvious to those with a three-digit IQ.) If Danny wants to look up to Sam Sloan, who am I to object? No matter how low a creature may be on the evolutionary scale, there's always something lower. > > > You call him a boor, but his writing is generally well-mannered, much > > > more so than yours. You call him perverted, but you are the guy who [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > who am I to object? No matter how low a creature may be on the > evolutionary scale, there's always something lower. Oh yes, I know about your page, which has a certain heavy-handed charm. I was calling DannyPurvis on his claim you would turn cannibal. I agree it's BS. . >> He's thinking (if we can use that verb) of a page I once made to >> ridicule the Sloon's self-written Wikipedia bio. I didn't publish it; >> Sam found it through his tireless pursuit of mentions of his own name. >> And, by the way, I would never poison myself with Sloan's gamy >> carcass. ... >Oh yes, I know about your page, which has a certain heavy-handed >charm. I was calling DannyPurvis on his claim you would turn cannibal. >I agree it's BS. I agree, imputing ghoulish behavior on John's part is outlandish, but has anybody seen him in a mirror recently ? > I agree, imputing ghoulish behavior on John's part is outlandish, but > has anybody seen him in a mirror recently ? One mirror doesn't due him justice. Now two or three side-by-side might work. > > I agree, imputing ghoulish behavior on John's part is outlandish, but > > has anybody seen him in a mirror recently ? > > One mirror doesn't due him justice. Now two or three side-by-side > might work. I do not drink ... wine. > > I agree, imputing ghoulish behavior on John's part is outlandish, but > > has anybody seen him in a mirror recently ? > > One mirror doesn't due him justice. Now two or three side-by-side > might work. Is this the Boozer again? Since we've never met, and you were consigned to the trash heap of chess a decade ago, I'm curious as to the basis for your opinion. > > One mirror doesn't due him justice. Now two or three side-by-side > > might work. > > Is this the Boozer again? Since we've never met, and you were > consigned to the trash heap of chess a decade ago, I'm curious as to > the basis for your opinion. He was? Wasn't he the finance director in 2004-05? Don't you still have a fat a.s? When I saw you in LA you were Mr. 5x5 > > > > You call him a boor, but his writing is generally well-mannered, much > > > > more so than yours. You call him perverted, but you are the guy who [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > charm. I was calling DannyPurvis on his claim you would turn cannibal. > I agree it's BS. BTW, I later replaced that page with a simplified version: http://www.westernchess.com/hold/Sam%20Sloan.html > > Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was > > allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Just because you CAN post these things, does not mean you SHOULD Heck, it's not just what you've listed, but all the stuff Sam has posted about his sex life, racial prejudices, family problems and other things best kept to himself. He hasn't just ticked people off, he has disgusted them. Frankly, I'm amazed he got anything close to 693 votes. I guess it validates Lincoln's dictum that "you can fool some of the people all of the time." Your suspicions would be wrong, I think. Certainly my votes did not go to Sam. I'm willing to tolerate him; but place him in a position of leadership? What an unmitigated disaster that would be. SBD > Your suspicions would be wrong, I think. Certainly my votes did not go > to Sam. We would need a larger sample to draw conclusions. > I'm willing to tolerate him; but place him in a position of > leadership? What an unmitigated disaster that would be. > > SBD He already has been in a position of leadership and he acquited himself well. On Jul 23, 5:56 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: > > "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Isn't it wonderful how easy it is to accuse a person of racism? > Isn't it wonderful how easy it is to accuse a person of racism? Isn't it wonderful how easy it is to ignore the facts and support a deranged fuckwit? > On Jul 23, 5:56 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Isn't it wonderful how easy it is to accuse a person of racism? I wouldn't call Sloan's racial slurs wonderful, but they are indeed easy to find. Some examples: http://tinyurl.com/bqczh http://tinyurl.com/bj2rp http://tinyurl.com/aosmw On Jul 24, 1:33 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Jul 23, 5:56 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > http://tinyurl.com/bj2rp > http://tinyurl.com/aosmw My apologies. I was not aware of those appalling passages. I don't suppose that could be the fake Sam Sloan? > On Jul 24, 1:33 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > My apologies. I was not aware of those appalling passages. I don't > suppose that could be the fake Sam Sloan? Of course it isn't. Get with the program. Sam Sloan needs to be permanently detained in a secure psychiatric facility. Only an ignoramus, a moron or a lunatic could vote for the guy with a clear conscience. Your apology is appreciated. Please accept my sincere apology for insulting you earlier. Regards, Mark > On Jul 24, 1:33 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > My apologies. I was not aware of those appalling passages. I don't > suppose that could be the fake Sam Sloan? They are the genuine Sam, as far as I know, though it's not the same user-ID he uses now. If you click on "view profile" you can see other messages he posted under that ID, enough to see that it's the real Sam. Even his most ardent booster, Larry Parr, never disputed that those were real Sloan posts. Here's another thread under that same ID, in which Sam repeats one of his weird fantasies, that I am chess historian Edward Winter: http://tinyurl.com/2bhxzhh To my knowledge the fake Sam Sloan never entertained this absurd notion; only the real Sam did. > My apologies. I was not aware of those appalling passages. I don't > suppose that could be the fake Sam Sloan? It appears you don't know Sloan the way we do. Perhaps withdrawing that statement calling me misguided would be appropriate at this point. SBD > The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive > Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Sam Sloan Now that you have LOST this election Sam, do you plan to **SUE** the USCF?!? [Again] Enquiring minds want to know! > Now that you have LOST this election Sam, do you plan to **SUE** the > USCF?!? [Again] Enquiring minds want to know!- Shhhhh > The question is: How did this happen? Walters is unknown and new in > the world of chess whereas Nietman is fairly well known and has been > around for a long time. Walters did not campaign at all except for > posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would > Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman? May I put forth a hypothesis?!? Whereas Walters is an UNKNOWN, Sam Sloan is WELL KNOWN!!! Unfortunately for you not in a good sense. The choice came down to voting for an UNKNOWN --vs -- someone who has sued the USCF at least twice and who many view of being. shall we say, of questionable moral character?!? In a two horse race UNKNOWN wins hands down!!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.