Can anyone point me towards a message board where the forthcoming elections are being discussed? It must be one without censorship!
I have been very disappointed with Susan Polgar's behaviour recently, although she is probably still the best candidate on the card. I do not trust her husband, Paul Truong and believe that he is behind many of the shabby things that have been done in Polgar's name recently.
At least you know what you are getting with Sam Sloan and can decide whether his good points outweigh the bad ones.
http://uschess.blogspot.com/search/label/Randy%20Bauer
Randy Bauer’s
http://uschess.blogspot.com/2007/03/sitting-board-member-censured.html
Susan Polgar’s
This disclaimer is on both sites…
“This blog has no connection with the USCF. It's a blog where I provide chess fans with general information about US Chess as well as the USCF. It's also a site where everyone can productively discuss or ask questions about various USCF issues! Your contributions and comments are welcome! PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL & RESPECT OTHERS! Enjoy! All posts that do not meet this guideline will be deleted.”
These are the only two I am aware of and they aren't very good. I'd be interested is there is a better one, too. I voted for Sam!
Originally posted by Fat LadyHave you considered starting your own?
Those two links are just part of one of Susan Polgar's blogs (uschess.blogspot.com). Her most popular site is susanpolgar.blogspot.com, but it has become very heavily moderated recently and I have stopped attempting to make comments.
Originally posted by Fat LadyI believe that I'm correct when I say that Truong is not Susan's husband. They are not married, and as far as I know, their relationship is only a business relationship. Where on earth did you get the idea that they're married?
I do not trust her husband, Paul Truong and believe that he is behind many of the shabby things that have been done in Polgar's name recently.
At least you know what you are getting with Sam Sloan and can decide whether his good points outweigh the bad ones.
And yes, I agree that at least you know what you are getting with Sam Sloan - IMHO, he's one of the worst things that's happened to the USCF in a long time, and I wouldn't vote for him even if someone offerred me a million dollars.
Yes, Susan may not be perfect, but I believe that she has the best interests of the USCF in mind, which is more than I can say for Sam.
Concerning Truong, probably the only criticism I have of him is that he sometimes says things in a too abrupt manner. But I also think that Truong has the best interests of the USCF in mind, and I also intend to vote for Truong.
Edit - Also, I think Sam's presence on the Executive Board has already frightened away sponsors of the USCF. If Sam were to get reelected to the EB, I'm afraid that the USCF would sink deeper into financial and credibility problems. I'd probably consider quitting the USCF with Sam's reelection.
Originally posted by Fat LadyYou post a UK flag. Are you even a USCF member?
Can anyone point me towards a message board where the forthcoming elections are being discussed? It must be one without censorship!
I have been very disappointed with Susan Polgar's behaviour recently, although she is probably still the best candidate on the card. I do not trust her husband, Paul Truong and believe that he is behind many of the shabby th ...[text shortened]... t you are getting with Sam Sloan and can decide whether his good points outweigh the bad ones.
Originally posted by Mad RookSee http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/ and search for " A special thank you to all".
I believe that I'm correct when I say that Truong is not Susan's husband. They are not married, and as far as I know, their relationship is only a business relationship. Where on earth did you get the idea that they're married?
Sam Sloan seems to think they got married in December 2006 and have kept it secret until now. A lot of what Sam reports turns out to be completely untrue, but I have to say he is actually correct a lot of the time too. He is a good source for information, but I never believe anything he writes until it's been confirmed by a more reliable source.
If it turns out that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have been married all this time then I think it was dishonest not to admit this since they are both standing for election to the USCF Executive Board.
Originally posted by Fat LadyHmm, that's interesting. I check Susan's blog almost on a daily basis, but I missed that "special thank you to all" post. Has it been verified who she married and when it occurred? (Her post doesn't mention who it is.)
See http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/ and search for " A special thank you to all".
Sam Sloan seems to think they got married in December 2006 and have kept it secret until now. A lot of what Sam reports turns out to be completely untrue, but I have to say he is actually correct a lot of the time too. He is a good source for information, but I never belie nest not to admit this since they are both standing for election to the USCF Executive Board.
Edit - And no, I wouldn't take Sloan's word for it. If Sam said the sky is blue, I'd immediately look up to the heavens. 😉
Originally posted by Fat LadyI agree with you on this point.
If it turns out that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have been married all this time then I think it was dishonest not to admit this since they are both standing for election to the USCF Executive Board.
Before you mentioned this marriage controversy, I was planning to vote for Susan and the other 3 in her campaign group. But having now read the USCF politics posts, it appears that both Susan and Paul refuse to give answers on whether they are married to each other. If Susan and Paul continue to refuse to answer this question, I'll interpret this as a serious breach of the values of honesty and integrity that Susan always complains is missing on the present EB. (I would consider this a serious case of Animal Farm hypocrisy.)
Unless Susan soon publicly reveals that she is not married to Paul Truong, my faith in her integrity will have been shattered. Also, based on what I've read in the USCF forums, apparently Randy Bauer isn't concerned that Susan and Paul are silent on this issue. My faith in Bauer is also rapidly slipping.
So, unless Susan quickly issues a statement that she is not married to Paul Truong, this is how I think I'm going to vote -
I still won't vote for Sloan, since he's probably the worst thing that's ever happened to the USCF. I won't vote for Susan Polgar or Paul Truong because of their hypocritical lack of transparency and honesty. I won't vote for Randy Bauer because of his lack of concern for Susan's lack of transparency. That will leave me to choose 4 candidates from the remaining 6. (I'm not sure who those 4 would be, but I've heard some good things about Jim Berry, so he'd probably be one of the 4.)
And one parting comment - I'm really getting sick of the USCF leadership. I think the USCF may be permantly broken and incapable of being fixed. I may still just let my USCF membership lapse. It's truly a sad situation.
Unfortunately most voters won't hear about this until well after the election. Polgar and Truong managed to keep it out of the printed media and that's where most members get their news and information from.
Everyone had such great hopes for Susan Polgar when she announced that she was going to shake up the USCF, but the lies and distortions have just got bigger and bigger.
What's that saying? Something along the lines of "anyone who wants to be a politician is exactly the type who shouldn't be allowed to become one".
Some of you should get your stories from more reliable people than Sam Sloan. The words sexual predator (by his own admission), and a convicted felon on Wikipedia nor his claims of what he allegedly did to Polgar who was a minor don't make exciting reading.
According to Sloan crafty cheated on the World Computer championship, only problem is that he brought these claims 10 years after the event. You are all better off leaving US chess politics alone, any of you with too much time on your hands can help in Thread 69010
Originally posted by z00tConcerning Sloan, at least with me, you're preaching to the choir, buddy. I never assume anything Sloan says is true, unless confirmed by at least 2 or 3 independent, reliable sources. Yes, Sam is like a stopped clock being right twice a day. He was correct in his research of Robert Tanner, and Tanner was forced to resign. But usually Sam's statements are either completely wrong or only contain a grain of truth to them.
Some of you should get your [b]stories from more reliable people than Sam Sloan. The words sexual predator (by his own admission), and a convicted felon on Wikipedia nor his claims of what he allegedly did to Polgar who was a minor don't make exciting reading.
According to Sloan crafty cheated on the World Computer championship, only problem is th ...[text shortened]... itics alone, any of you with too much time on your hands can help in Thread 69010[/b]
But in regard to Susan, it is a fact that she recently posted on her blog that she was recently married. She didn't say to whom or when it occurred. Also, apparently an article about Susan by LubbockOnline referred to Paul as "her husband, Paul Truong." I have no idea whether the reporter was mistaken or not. Also, most of the viewer blog comments on Susan's blog concerning her marriage are assuming, for whatever reason, that Paul is the husband. So there appears to be enough circumstantial evidence that might indicate that Sloan is right.
Because of the importance of the upcoming election and the need for transparency in the USCF leadership, it is important to me that Susan publicly address this issue very soon. If Susan and Paul are indeed married, potentially having a husband/wife team on the EB is information that the voters have a right to know about. And if they are married, the voters also have a right to know why this information wasn't promptly make public. Despite the fact that Susan might not relish releasing this personal information, it is information that's pertinent to the election, and Susan and Paul's silence on this issue is deafening.
Believe me, Sloan is not a person I like or even want to be around. I derive no satisfaction in the few cases when Sam is actually right, but in those few cases, we can't ignore the issue simply because Sam brought it up.
Originally posted by Fat LadyWhat behavior? Do share.
Can anyone point me towards a message board where the forthcoming elections are being discussed? It must be one without censorship!
I have been very disappointed with Susan Polgar's behaviour recently, although she is probably still the best candidate on the card. I do not trust her husband, Paul Truong and believe that he is behind many of the shabby th ...[text shortened]... t you are getting with Sam Sloan and can decide whether his good points outweigh the bad ones.
Truong is a known Internet Chess cheat, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was involved in other shady behavior.
As posted on USCF forum:
jerryhanken 10432766
Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 3
Post:46800 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:46 pm
Post subject: Is this "integrity," "honesty," and "professionalism"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Restore respectability, integrity, credibility and professionalism 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 scholarships 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 scholarships 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 membership 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 supporting 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