| |
Main
Date: 07 Jun 2008 02:28:32
From: samsloan
Subject: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
Under the motion passed by the board and submitted to the delegates
for their ratification and approval, Chess Life 4 Kids magazine will
be abolished.
Instead there will be a bulletin sent every four months.
The Motion by Bill Goichberg states:
"USCF shall originate a bulletin published every four months for
Scholastic members, at a cost of about $1 per year."
As present, Chess Life 4 Kids is received by 30,000 Scholastic
Members.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2008 14:04:44
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
[quote="Charles Aronowitz"]I'm beginning to think the powers that be
have it backwards. There's very little, if anything other than
portability, that Chess Life offers in print that can't be done more
efficiently on line. On the other hand the printed Chess Life 4 Kids
is great for its intended audience and it's a wonderful tool for USCF
promotion. They may be abolishing the wrong magazine. :cry:
Charles Aronowitz[/quote]
You have hit an important point.
The premise under which the Bill Goichberg "New Plan" is to, in
effect, abolish "Chess Life 4 Kids" whereas keeping Chess Life "for at
least two years" is that old decrepit people (like me) want a printed
magazine whereas kids prefer to read the Internet.
Please note that Bill Goichberg does not have any kids of his own, so
it seems doubtful that he knows what kids want or what parents want
for their kids.
The median age for all USCF members is ten-years-old. Many members are
much younger, like 5. Parents of young kids, like me, as I have a six-
year-old daughter, want something for our kids to read which is
educational and interesting. It will be many years before my daughter
will be browsing the Internet, trying to download the latest
discoveries in the Najdorf Sicilian.
I like the covers on Chess Life 4 Kids but I find the articles inside
to be too advanced. They seem like articles that were rejected for
Chess Life so they put them in Chess Life for Kids instead.
This is not a good reason to abolish the magazine. Rather, they should
make it better and more suitable for young children, some of whom are
just starting to learn to read. Under no circumstances should the
magazine be scuttled.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 11 Jun 2008 03:46:18
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
On Jun 10, 4:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:4397c399-1430-4db0-8358-58367032bb72@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 9, 3:26 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> This raises several questions, immediately what sort of journalism outfit
> >> CJA is to deny information about a public non-profit. [ROFL]
>
> > You do know the difference between an individual member of CJA and the
> > CJA itself, correct? Or are you so delusional you don't?
>
> You will have to read a forthcoming op ed at Chessville by an ex CJA officer
> to discern if you make a distinction with a difference.
Will it be literate? If it appears in Innes' Parrot, it will probably
be the usual word-salad.
> As it is, you make the usual on-topic avoidance of any subject matter to
> merely posture with a couple of typically cynical and insulting lines, so I
> assume you are actually a member of Hanken Inc.
The membership list of "Hanken Inc", presumably the CJA, is available
online. But fact-checking has never been your strong suit.
> Not only is the subject of CJA's effectiveness here not discussed, its
> stance in respect of what I wrote above about USCF's non-profit mission to
> chess is similarly avoided.
No, I addressed the only part in the post of interest. With the
multitude of errors in your 'prose', one can pick and choose.
> You can tell them by their cynicism! Non players, posturing in public,
> absent any address to any issue. This is not my opinion, it is demonstrated
> by their own wit.
>
> Very hard to think of anything dumber than USCF, but Eyeore here, scores!
>
> Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2008 16:16:52
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
On Jun 9, 3:26 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> This raises several questions, immediately what sort of journalism outfit
> CJA is to deny information about a public non-profit. [ROFL]
You do know the difference between an individual member of CJA and the
CJA itself, correct? Or are you so delusional you don't?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jun 2008 17:29:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4397c399-1430-4db0-8358-58367032bb72@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 9, 3:26 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This raises several questions, immediately what sort of journalism outfit
>> CJA is to deny information about a public non-profit. [ROFL]
>
> You do know the difference between an individual member of CJA and the
> CJA itself, correct? Or are you so delusional you don't?
You will have to read a forthcoming op ed at Chessville by an ex CJA officer
to discern if you make a distinction with a difference.
As it is, you make the usual on-topic avoidance of any subject matter to
merely posture with a couple of typically cynical and insulting lines, so I
assume you are actually a member of Hanken Inc.
Not only is the subject of CJA's effectiveness here not discussed, its
stance in respect of what I wrote above about USCF's non-profit mission to
chess is similarly avoided.
You can tell them by their cynicism! Non players, posturing in public,
absent any address to any issue. This is not my opinion, it is demonstrated
by their own wit.
Very hard to think of anything dumber than USCF, but Eyeore here, scores!
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2008 14:49:55
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jun 8, 7:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 10:17 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 7, 8:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 6:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did you come up
> > > > > > > > > with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely resembling it as a
> > > > > > > > > line item in any of the financial documents posted on the USCF web
> > > > > > > > > page. The only way you could possibly get to a number like that would
> > > > > > > > > be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance
> > > > > > > > > fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two years. For
> > > > > > > > > someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not very good at
> > > > > > > > > it.
> >
> > > > > > > > > John Hillery
> >
> > > > > > > > I did not want to mention any names because I do not want the readers
> > > > > > > > to think that I am out to get certain people, which I am not, but the
> > > > > > > > figure of more than $70,000 per year does not even include the
> > > > > > > > contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance fees, and the the
> > > > > > > > redesign contract.
> >
> > > > > > > > The figure of more than $70,000 represents just the salaries of
> > > > > > > > Jennifer Shahade for her online blog and Joel Benjamin for his "Ask GM
> > > > > > > > Joel" online column.
> >
> > > > > > > > I thought you already knew that.
> >
> > > > > > > > If you add to that the "contributors' fees, editorial fees,
> > > > > > > > maintenance fees, and the the redesign contract", I do not know what
> > > > > > > > the figure is but it is well over $100,000.
> >
> > > > > > > > Do you think that it is so important to keep these things that we need
> > > > > > > > to get rid of Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids magazines?
> >
> > > > > > > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > > > > > > Prove it, Sam. Provide some evidence. Here's your chance to show that
> > > > > > > you're not the lying sack of waste material most of use believe. I
> > > > > > > think that number is either a flat lie or a delusion of your diseased
> > > > > > > little mind, but, unlike you, I accept facts. Let's see some. I
> > > > > > > wouldn't advise anyone to hold his head under water while waiting.
> >
> > > > > > To clarify the above: I agree that _if_ the combined annual
> > > > > > compensation of Shahade and Benjamin were $70K, and Bill Goichberg had
> > > > > > kept this a secret from the other Board members, it would indeed be
> > > > > > scandalous. But there is no evidence for this beyond Sloan's
> > > > > > unsupported assertion, which means there is no evidence for it,
> > > > > > period. Sloan has zero credibility among sane people, and the numbers
> > > > > > would strain credibility no matter what the source. (Evans was getting
> > > > > > around $9K per year for doing more work.) If Sloan has convincing
> > > > > > evidence -- documentary proof, or testimony from a reliable source --
> > > > > > let him present it. If he can't or won't, he should (continue to) be
> > > > > > treated as a paranoid loon.
> >
> > > > > I never said that. Bill Goichberg did not keep this a secret from the
> > > > > board members. We knew about it. It was just that we could do nothing
> > > > > about it.
> >
> > > > > I was told repeatedly while I was on the board that Joel Benjamin and
> > > > > Jennifer Shahade are sacred cows who can not be touched. Even Bill
> > > > > Hall could not dare to fire them.
> >
> > > > > Will you agree that if it can be established that Jennifer Shahade and
> > > > > Joel Benjamin are costing the USCF more than $70,000 per year
> > > > > combined, including salary and benefits, they should be sacked in view
> > > > > of the financial crisis facing the USCF?
> >
> > > > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > > > 1) I've asked other Board members. Their recollection ... ah ... does
> > > > not match yours. Are we really to assume that you alone were in Bill
> > > > Goichberg's confidence?
> >
> > > > 2) _If_ you could prove that, then I would probably agree. But you
> > > > can't, since it isn't true. The problem is that when you fail to
> > > > provide evidence, you'll just walk away without paying any penalty for
> > > > your mendacity. _That's_ why I consider you so contemptible, Sam: You
> > > > defame, and others pay the price. The best we can do is hold you up to
> > > > public ridicule, but since you have no reputation to lose, that's cold
> > > > comfort.
> >
> > > OK. How much do you think that they are being paid?
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > If I knew, which I don't, it would be none of your business. You are
> > the one who made a definite claim. It's up to you to prove it. Is this
> > really too hard a concept for you to grasp?
>
> Is it too hard for you to grasp that I was on the board and I did, or
> should have, known about things like this?
>
> If it were not true, a refutation or denial would have been posted
> long ago.
>
> Sam Sloan
Are you really saying that we should take _your word_ for this? (Pause
for uncontrollable laughter.) An accusation with no evidence _from
you_ requires a "refutation or denial"? You can invent lies a lot
faster than anyone can refute them. After all, you don't need facts.
Shall I repeat the list of hallucinations you published during your
misbegotten term on the Board? (Records in landfill, Jay Sabine in New
Windsor, filing fees not paid, Polgar arrives at U.S. Open without
notice, et cetera, ad nauseam.)
Provide evidence or crawl back into your hole, Sammy. Since you have
now implicitly admitted that you have no documentary evidence, state
when, where and by whom you were told that the combined compensation
of Shahade and Benajmin was $70,000. BTW, no other Board member shares
your alleged recollection. But I suppose they're all conspiring
against you. What s doofus.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jun 2008 16:26:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> samsloan wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 7:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> > samsloan wrote:
>> > > On Jun 7, 10:17 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> > > > samsloan wrote:
>> > > > > On Jun 7, 8:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> > > > > > [email protected] wrote:
>> > > > > > > samsloan wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 6:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did
>> > > > > > > > > you come up
>> > > > > > > > > with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely
>> > > > > > > > > resembling it as a
>> > > > > > > > > line item in any of the financial documents posted on the
>> > > > > > > > > USCF web
>> > > > > > > > > page. The only way you could possibly get to a number
>> > > > > > > > > like that would
>> > > > > > > > > be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees,
>> > > > > > > > > maintenance
>> > > > > > > > > fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two
>> > > > > > > > > years. For
>> > > > > > > > > someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not
>> > > > > > > > > very good at
>> > > > > > > > > it.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > John Hillery
>> >
>> > > > > > > > I did not want to mention any names because I do not want
>> > > > > > > > the readers
>> > > > > > > > to think that I am out to get certain people, which I am
>> > > > > > > > not, but the
>> > > > > > > > figure of more than $70,000 per year does not even include
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance fees, and
>> > > > > > > > the the
>> > > > > > > > redesign contract.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > The figure of more than $70,000 represents just the
>> > > > > > > > salaries of
>> > > > > > > > Jennifer Shahade for her online blog and Joel Benjamin for
>> > > > > > > > his "Ask GM
>> > > > > > > > Joel" online column.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > I thought you already knew that.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > If you add to that the "contributors' fees, editorial fees,
>> > > > > > > > maintenance fees, and the the redesign contract", I do not
>> > > > > > > > know what
>> > > > > > > > the figure is but it is well over $100,000.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > Do you think that it is so important to keep these things
>> > > > > > > > that we need
>> > > > > > > > to get rid of Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids magazines?
>> >
>> > > > > > > > Sam Sloan
>> >
>> > > > > > > Prove it, Sam. Provide some evidence. Here's your chance to
>> > > > > > > show that
>> > > > > > > you're not the lying sack of waste material most of use
>> > > > > > > believe. I
>> > > > > > > think that number is either a flat lie or a delusion of your
>> > > > > > > diseased
>> > > > > > > little mind, but, unlike you, I accept facts. Let's see some.
>> > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > wouldn't advise anyone to hold his head under water while
>> > > > > > > waiting.
>> >
>> > > > > > To clarify the above: I agree that _if_ the combined annual
>> > > > > > compensation of Shahade and Benjamin were $70K, and Bill
>> > > > > > Goichberg had
>> > > > > > kept this a secret from the other Board members, it would
>> > > > > > indeed be
>> > > > > > scandalous. But there is no evidence for this beyond Sloan's
>> > > > > > unsupported assertion, which means there is no evidence for it,
>> > > > > > period. Sloan has zero credibility among sane people, and the
>> > > > > > numbers
>> > > > > > would strain credibility no matter what the source. (Evans was
>> > > > > > getting
>> > > > > > around $9K per year for doing more work.) If Sloan has
>> > > > > > convincing
>> > > > > > evidence -- documentary proof, or testimony from a reliable
>> > > > > > source --
>> > > > > > let him present it. If he can't or won't, he should (continue
>> > > > > > to) be
>> > > > > > treated as a paranoid loon.
>> >
>> > > > > I never said that. Bill Goichberg did not keep this a secret from
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > board members. We knew about it. It was just that we could do
>> > > > > nothing
>> > > > > about it.
>> >
>> > > > > I was told repeatedly while I was on the board that Joel Benjamin
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > Jennifer Shahade are sacred cows who can not be touched. Even
>> > > > > Bill
>> > > > > Hall could not dare to fire them.
>> >
>> > > > > Will you agree that if it can be established that Jennifer
>> > > > > Shahade and
>> > > > > Joel Benjamin are costing the USCF more than $70,000 per year
>> > > > > combined, including salary and benefits, they should be sacked in
>> > > > > view
>> > > > > of the financial crisis facing the USCF?
>> >
>> > > > > Sam Sloan
>> >
>> > > > 1) I've asked other Board members. Their recollection ... ah ...
>> > > > does
>> > > > not match yours. Are we really to assume that you alone were in
>> > > > Bill
>> > > > Goichberg's confidence?
>> >
>> > > > 2) _If_ you could prove that, then I would probably agree. But you
>> > > > can't, since it isn't true. The problem is that when you fail to
>> > > > provide evidence, you'll just walk away without paying any penalty
>> > > > for
>> > > > your mendacity. _That's_ why I consider you so contemptible, Sam:
>> > > > You
>> > > > defame, and others pay the price. The best we can do is hold you up
>> > > > to
>> > > > public ridicule, but since you have no reputation to lose, that's
>> > > > cold
>> > > > comfort.
>> >
>> > > OK. How much do you think that they are being paid?
>> >
>> > > Sam Sloan
>> >
>> > If I knew, which I don't, it would be none of your business. You are
>> > the one who made a definite claim. It's up to you to prove it. Is this
>> > really too hard a concept for you to grasp?
>>
>> Is it too hard for you to grasp that I was on the board and I did, or
>> should have, known about things like this?
>>
>> If it were not true, a refutation or denial would have been posted
>> long ago.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Are you really saying that we should take _your word_ for this? (Pause
> for uncontrollable laughter.) An accusation with no evidence _from
> you_ requires a "refutation or denial"? You can invent lies a lot
> faster than anyone can refute them. After all, you don't need facts.
> Shall I repeat the list of hallucinations you published during your
> misbegotten term on the Board? (Records in landfill, Jay Sabine in New
> Windsor, filing fees not paid, Polgar arrives at U.S. Open without
> notice, et cetera, ad nauseam.)
>
> Provide evidence or crawl back into your hole, Sammy. Since you have
> now implicitly admitted that you have no documentary evidence, state
> when, where and by whom you were told that the combined compensation
> of Shahade and Benajmin was $70,000. BTW, no other Board member shares
> your alleged recollection. But I suppose they're all conspiring
> against you. What s doofus.
While any of the above /may/ be true, John Hillery of the CJA says that
salaries at USCF are none of even an ex board member's business. In office
or out.
Writing in a public newsgroup he maintains it is secret from the public too.
That is, the public of a public non-profit.
This raises several questions, immediately what sort of journalism outfit
CJA is to deny information about a public non-profit. [ROFL]
Secondly, that perhaps the CJA is content to quote what it sees as Sloan's
corruptions, as excuse not to mention USCF's?
The issue of what J. Shahade and J. Benjamin are paid for their services
goes unanswered, and the CJA 'journalist' can only think to shoot the
questioner ~ and for other issues.
pfft!
What a bloody farce!
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2008 05:22:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
On Jun 8, 7:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 10:17 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > On Jun 7, 8:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jun 7, 6:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did you come up
> > > > > > > > with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely resembling it as a
> > > > > > > > line item in any of the financial documents posted on the USCF web
> > > > > > > > page. The only way you could possibly get to a number like that would
> > > > > > > > be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance
> > > > > > > > fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two years. For
> > > > > > > > someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not very good at
> > > > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > > > > John Hillery
>
> > > > > > > I did not want to mention any names because I do not want the readers
> > > > > > > to think that I am out to get certain people, which I am not, but the
> > > > > > > figure of more than $70,000 per year does not even include the
> > > > > > > contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance fees, and the the
> > > > > > > redesign contract.
>
> > > > > > > The figure of more than $70,000 represents just the salaries of
> > > > > > > Jennifer Shahade for her online blog and Joel Benjamin for his "Ask GM
> > > > > > > Joel" online column.
>
> > > > > > > I thought you already knew that.
>
> > > > > > > If you add to that the "contributors' fees, editorial fees,
> > > > > > > maintenance fees, and the the redesign contract", I do not know what
> > > > > > > the figure is but it is well over $100,000.
>
> > > > > > > Do you think that it is so important to keep these things that we need
> > > > > > > to get rid of Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids magazines?
>
> > > > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > > > Prove it, Sam. Provide some evidence. Here's your chance to show that
> > > > > > you're not the lying sack of waste material most of use believe. I
> > > > > > think that number is either a flat lie or a delusion of your diseased
> > > > > > little mind, but, unlike you, I accept facts. Let's see some. I
> > > > > > wouldn't advise anyone to hold his head under water while waiting.
>
> > > > > To clarify the above: I agree that _if_ the combined annual
> > > > > compensation of Shahade and Benjamin were $70K, and Bill Goichberg had
> > > > > kept this a secret from the other Board members, it would indeed be
> > > > > scandalous. But there is no evidence for this beyond Sloan's
> > > > > unsupported assertion, which means there is no evidence for it,
> > > > > period. Sloan has zero credibility among sane people, and the numbers
> > > > > would strain credibility no matter what the source. (Evans was getting
> > > > > around $9K per year for doing more work.) If Sloan has convincing
> > > > > evidence -- documentary proof, or testimony from a reliable source --
> > > > > let him present it. If he can't or won't, he should (continue to) be
> > > > > treated as a paranoid loon.
>
> > > > I never said that. Bill Goichberg did not keep this a secret from the
> > > > board members. We knew about it. It was just that we could do nothing
> > > > about it.
>
> > > > I was told repeatedly while I was on the board that Joel Benjamin and
> > > > Jennifer Shahade are sacred cows who can not be touched. Even Bill
> > > > Hall could not dare to fire them.
>
> > > > Will you agree that if it can be established that Jennifer Shahade and
> > > > Joel Benjamin are costing the USCF more than $70,000 per year
> > > > combined, including salary and benefits, they should be sacked in view
> > > > of the financial crisis facing the USCF?
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > 1) I've asked other Board members. Their recollection ... ah ... does
> > > not match yours. Are we really to assume that you alone were in Bill
> > > Goichberg's confidence?
>
> > > 2) _If_ you could prove that, then I would probably agree. But you
> > > can't, since it isn't true. The problem is that when you fail to
> > > provide evidence, you'll just walk away without paying any penalty for
> > > your mendacity. _That's_ why I consider you so contemptible, Sam: You
> > > defame, and others pay the price. The best we can do is hold you up to
> > > public ridicule, but since you have no reputation to lose, that's cold
> > > comfort.
>
> > OK. How much do you think that they are being paid?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> If I knew, which I don't, it would be none of your business. You are
> the one who made a definite claim. It's up to you to prove it. Is this
> really too hard a concept for you to grasp?
Is it too hard for you to grasp that I was on the board and I did, or
should have, known about things like this?
If it were not true, a refutation or denial would have been posted
long ago.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 08 Jun 2008 05:02:25
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jun 7, 10:17 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 8:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 7, 6:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did you come up
> > > > > > > with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely resembling it as a
> > > > > > > line item in any of the financial documents posted on the USCF web
> > > > > > > page. The only way you could possibly get to a number like that would
> > > > > > > be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance
> > > > > > > fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two years. For
> > > > > > > someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not very good at
> > > > > > > it.
> >
> > > > > > > John Hillery
> >
> > > > > > I did not want to mention any names because I do not want the readers
> > > > > > to think that I am out to get certain people, which I am not, but the
> > > > > > figure of more than $70,000 per year does not even include the
> > > > > > contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance fees, and the the
> > > > > > redesign contract.
> >
> > > > > > The figure of more than $70,000 represents just the salaries of
> > > > > > Jennifer Shahade for her online blog and Joel Benjamin for his "Ask GM
> > > > > > Joel" online column.
> >
> > > > > > I thought you already knew that.
> >
> > > > > > If you add to that the "contributors' fees, editorial fees,
> > > > > > maintenance fees, and the the redesign contract", I do not know what
> > > > > > the figure is but it is well over $100,000.
> >
> > > > > > Do you think that it is so important to keep these things that we need
> > > > > > to get rid of Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids magazines?
> >
> > > > > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > > > > Prove it, Sam. Provide some evidence. Here's your chance to show that
> > > > > you're not the lying sack of waste material most of use believe. I
> > > > > think that number is either a flat lie or a delusion of your diseased
> > > > > little mind, but, unlike you, I accept facts. Let's see some. I
> > > > > wouldn't advise anyone to hold his head under water while waiting.
> >
> > > > To clarify the above: I agree that _if_ the combined annual
> > > > compensation of Shahade and Benjamin were $70K, and Bill Goichberg had
> > > > kept this a secret from the other Board members, it would indeed be
> > > > scandalous. But there is no evidence for this beyond Sloan's
> > > > unsupported assertion, which means there is no evidence for it,
> > > > period. Sloan has zero credibility among sane people, and the numbers
> > > > would strain credibility no matter what the source. (Evans was getting
> > > > around $9K per year for doing more work.) If Sloan has convincing
> > > > evidence -- documentary proof, or testimony from a reliable source --
> > > > let him present it. If he can't or won't, he should (continue to) be
> > > > treated as a paranoid loon.
> >
> > > I never said that. Bill Goichberg did not keep this a secret from the
> > > board members. We knew about it. It was just that we could do nothing
> > > about it.
> >
> > > I was told repeatedly while I was on the board that Joel Benjamin and
> > > Jennifer Shahade are sacred cows who can not be touched. Even Bill
> > > Hall could not dare to fire them.
> >
> > > Will you agree that if it can be established that Jennifer Shahade and
> > > Joel Benjamin are costing the USCF more than $70,000 per year
> > > combined, including salary and benefits, they should be sacked in view
> > > of the financial crisis facing the USCF?
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > 1) I've asked other Board members. Their recollection ... ah ... does
> > not match yours. Are we really to assume that you alone were in Bill
> > Goichberg's confidence?
> >
> > 2) _If_ you could prove that, then I would probably agree. But you
> > can't, since it isn't true. The problem is that when you fail to
> > provide evidence, you'll just walk away without paying any penalty for
> > your mendacity. _That's_ why I consider you so contemptible, Sam: You
> > defame, and others pay the price. The best we can do is hold you up to
> > public ridicule, but since you have no reputation to lose, that's cold
> > comfort.
>
> OK. How much do you think that they are being paid?
>
> Sam Sloan
If I knew, which I don't, it would be none of your business. You are
the one who made a definite claim. It's up to you to prove it. Is this
really too hard a concept for you to grasp?
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 20:39:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
On Jun 7, 10:17 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 8:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 7, 6:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did you come up
> > > > > > with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely resembling it as a
> > > > > > line item in any of the financial documents posted on the USCF web
> > > > > > page. The only way you could possibly get to a number like that would
> > > > > > be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance
> > > > > > fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two years. For
> > > > > > someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not very good at
> > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > > John Hillery
>
> > > > > I did not want to mention any names because I do not want the readers
> > > > > to think that I am out to get certain people, which I am not, but the
> > > > > figure of more than $70,000 per year does not even include the
> > > > > contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance fees, and the the
> > > > > redesign contract.
>
> > > > > The figure of more than $70,000 represents just the salaries of
> > > > > Jennifer Shahade for her online blog and Joel Benjamin for his "Ask GM
> > > > > Joel" online column.
>
> > > > > I thought you already knew that.
>
> > > > > If you add to that the "contributors' fees, editorial fees,
> > > > > maintenance fees, and the the redesign contract", I do not know what
> > > > > the figure is but it is well over $100,000.
>
> > > > > Do you think that it is so important to keep these things that we need
> > > > > to get rid of Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids magazines?
>
> > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > Prove it, Sam. Provide some evidence. Here's your chance to show that
> > > > you're not the lying sack of waste material most of use believe. I
> > > > think that number is either a flat lie or a delusion of your diseased
> > > > little mind, but, unlike you, I accept facts. Let's see some. I
> > > > wouldn't advise anyone to hold his head under water while waiting.
>
> > > To clarify the above: I agree that _if_ the combined annual
> > > compensation of Shahade and Benjamin were $70K, and Bill Goichberg had
> > > kept this a secret from the other Board members, it would indeed be
> > > scandalous. But there is no evidence for this beyond Sloan's
> > > unsupported assertion, which means there is no evidence for it,
> > > period. Sloan has zero credibility among sane people, and the numbers
> > > would strain credibility no matter what the source. (Evans was getting
> > > around $9K per year for doing more work.) If Sloan has convincing
> > > evidence -- documentary proof, or testimony from a reliable source --
> > > let him present it. If he can't or won't, he should (continue to) be
> > > treated as a paranoid loon.
>
> > I never said that. Bill Goichberg did not keep this a secret from the
> > board members. We knew about it. It was just that we could do nothing
> > about it.
>
> > I was told repeatedly while I was on the board that Joel Benjamin and
> > Jennifer Shahade are sacred cows who can not be touched. Even Bill
> > Hall could not dare to fire them.
>
> > Will you agree that if it can be established that Jennifer Shahade and
> > Joel Benjamin are costing the USCF more than $70,000 per year
> > combined, including salary and benefits, they should be sacked in view
> > of the financial crisis facing the USCF?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> 1) I've asked other Board members. Their recollection ... ah ... does
> not match yours. Are we really to assume that you alone were in Bill
> Goichberg's confidence?
>
> 2) _If_ you could prove that, then I would probably agree. But you
> can't, since it isn't true. The problem is that when you fail to
> provide evidence, you'll just walk away without paying any penalty for
> your mendacity. _That's_ why I consider you so contemptible, Sam: You
> defame, and others pay the price. The best we can do is hold you up to
> public ridicule, but since you have no reputation to lose, that's cold
> comfort.
OK. How much do you think that they are being paid?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jun 2008 15:50:17
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> > Sam Sloan
>>
>> 1) I've asked other Board members. Their recollection ... ah ... does
>> not match yours. Are we really to assume that you alone were in Bill
>> Goichberg's confidence?
>>
>> 2) _If_ you could prove that, then I would probably agree. But you
>> can't, since it isn't true. The problem is that when you fail to
>> provide evidence, you'll just walk away without paying any penalty for
>> your mendacity. _That's_ why I consider you so contemptible, Sam: You
>> defame, and others pay the price. The best we can do is hold you up to
>> public ridicule, but since you have no reputation to lose, that's cold
>> comfort.
>
> OK. How much do you think that they are being paid?
I wrote what they were being paid a year ago. While in office this was no
issue to you - you failed to notice anyone's remarks unless it was about the
dreaded duo which completely occupied your interest - who have done so since
you were not cruelly dissapointed that /you/ did not become HER manage.
Now it is too late to do anything about money distributions at USCF, should
indeed theisalaries be considered too much or out of porportion to the
market.
You raised many good issues during your tenure, and you also raised many
more bad ones, so bad I personally equated you with a MacCarthy.
On either good or bad you were unable to gain substantive support among
other board members, chess journalists, or the chess public.
Its time to face up to the worth of your own continuous campaigning, lest
you seem to be only in it for the egoic charge obtained by association with
Greats.
I don't mean you should face it - you are entirely oblivious to anything
other than your own ambitions. I mean for other people who supported your
'efforts' to do more than than act like puppets to your emotional tuning of
their frustrations.
Of course, there are those who play you like a puppet too, on the inside and
on the dark-side, Mr. Sloan.
Phil Innes
The Hippocampus, Vermont
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 20:17:16
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > On Jun 7, 6:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > > > I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did you come up
> > > > > with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely resembling it as a
> > > > > line item in any of the financial documents posted on the USCF web
> > > > > page. The only way you could possibly get to a number like that would
> > > > > be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance
> > > > > fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two years. For
> > > > > someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not very good at
> > > > > it.
> >
> > > > > John Hillery
> >
> > > > I did not want to mention any names because I do not want the readers
> > > > to think that I am out to get certain people, which I am not, but the
> > > > figure of more than $70,000 per year does not even include the
> > > > contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance fees, and the the
> > > > redesign contract.
> >
> > > > The figure of more than $70,000 represents just the salaries of
> > > > Jennifer Shahade for her online blog and Joel Benjamin for his "Ask GM
> > > > Joel" online column.
> >
> > > > I thought you already knew that.
> >
> > > > If you add to that the "contributors' fees, editorial fees,
> > > > maintenance fees, and the the redesign contract", I do not know what
> > > > the figure is but it is well over $100,000.
> >
> > > > Do you think that it is so important to keep these things that we need
> > > > to get rid of Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids magazines?
> >
> > > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > > Prove it, Sam. Provide some evidence. Here's your chance to show that
> > > you're not the lying sack of waste material most of use believe. I
> > > think that number is either a flat lie or a delusion of your diseased
> > > little mind, but, unlike you, I accept facts. Let's see some. I
> > > wouldn't advise anyone to hold his head under water while waiting.
> >
> > To clarify the above: I agree that _if_ the combined annual
> > compensation of Shahade and Benjamin were $70K, and Bill Goichberg had
> > kept this a secret from the other Board members, it would indeed be
> > scandalous. But there is no evidence for this beyond Sloan's
> > unsupported assertion, which means there is no evidence for it,
> > period. Sloan has zero credibility among sane people, and the numbers
> > would strain credibility no matter what the source. (Evans was getting
> > around $9K per year for doing more work.) If Sloan has convincing
> > evidence -- documentary proof, or testimony from a reliable source --
> > let him present it. If he can't or won't, he should (continue to) be
> > treated as a paranoid loon.
>
> I never said that. Bill Goichberg did not keep this a secret from the
> board members. We knew about it. It was just that we could do nothing
> about it.
>
> I was told repeatedly while I was on the board that Joel Benjamin and
> Jennifer Shahade are sacred cows who can not be touched. Even Bill
> Hall could not dare to fire them.
>
> Will you agree that if it can be established that Jennifer Shahade and
> Joel Benjamin are costing the USCF more than $70,000 per year
> combined, including salary and benefits, they should be sacked in view
> of the financial crisis facing the USCF?
>
> Sam Sloan
1) I've asked other Board members. Their recollection ... ah ... does
not match yours. Are we really to assume that you alone were in Bill
Goichberg's confidence?
2) _If_ you could prove that, then I would probably agree. But you
can't, since it isn't true. The problem is that when you fail to
provide evidence, you'll just walk away without paying any penalty for
your mendacity. _That's_ why I consider you so contemptible, Sam: You
defame, and others pay the price. The best we can do is hold you up to
public ridicule, but since you have no reputation to lose, that's cold
comfort.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 19:26:15
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
On Jun 7, 8:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 6:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did you come up
> > > > with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely resembling it as a
> > > > line item in any of the financial documents posted on the USCF web
> > > > page. The only way you could possibly get to a number like that would
> > > > be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance
> > > > fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two years. For
> > > > someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not very good at
> > > > it.
>
> > > > John Hillery
>
> > > I did not want to mention any names because I do not want the readers
> > > to think that I am out to get certain people, which I am not, but the
> > > figure of more than $70,000 per year does not even include the
> > > contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance fees, and the the
> > > redesign contract.
>
> > > The figure of more than $70,000 represents just the salaries of
> > > Jennifer Shahade for her online blog and Joel Benjamin for his "Ask GM
> > > Joel" online column.
>
> > > I thought you already knew that.
>
> > > If you add to that the "contributors' fees, editorial fees,
> > > maintenance fees, and the the redesign contract", I do not know what
> > > the figure is but it is well over $100,000.
>
> > > Do you think that it is so important to keep these things that we need
> > > to get rid of Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids magazines?
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Prove it, Sam. Provide some evidence. Here's your chance to show that
> > you're not the lying sack of waste material most of use believe. I
> > think that number is either a flat lie or a delusion of your diseased
> > little mind, but, unlike you, I accept facts. Let's see some. I
> > wouldn't advise anyone to hold his head under water while waiting.
>
> To clarify the above: I agree that _if_ the combined annual
> compensation of Shahade and Benjamin were $70K, and Bill Goichberg had
> kept this a secret from the other Board members, it would indeed be
> scandalous. But there is no evidence for this beyond Sloan's
> unsupported assertion, which means there is no evidence for it,
> period. Sloan has zero credibility among sane people, and the numbers
> would strain credibility no matter what the source. (Evans was getting
> around $9K per year for doing more work.) If Sloan has convincing
> evidence -- documentary proof, or testimony from a reliable source --
> let him present it. If he can't or won't, he should (continue to) be
> treated as a paranoid loon.
I never said that. Bill Goichberg did not keep this a secret from the
board members. We knew about it. It was just that we could do nothing
about it.
I was told repeatedly while I was on the board that Joel Benjamin and
Jennifer Shahade are sacred cows who can not be touched. Even Bill
Hall could not dare to fire them.
Will you agree that if it can be established that Jennifer Shahade and
Joel Benjamin are costing the USCF more than $70,000 per year
combined, including salary and benefits, they should be sacked in view
of the financial crisis facing the USCF?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 18:01:01
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
[email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 6:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did you come up
> > > with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely resembling it as a
> > > line item in any of the financial documents posted on the USCF web
> > > page. The only way you could possibly get to a number like that would
> > > be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance
> > > fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two years. For
> > > someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not very good at
> > > it.
> > >
> > > John Hillery
> >
> > I did not want to mention any names because I do not want the readers
> > to think that I am out to get certain people, which I am not, but the
> > figure of more than $70,000 per year does not even include the
> > contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance fees, and the the
> > redesign contract.
> >
> > The figure of more than $70,000 represents just the salaries of
> > Jennifer Shahade for her online blog and Joel Benjamin for his "Ask GM
> > Joel" online column.
> >
> > I thought you already knew that.
> >
> > If you add to that the "contributors' fees, editorial fees,
> > maintenance fees, and the the redesign contract", I do not know what
> > the figure is but it is well over $100,000.
> >
> > Do you think that it is so important to keep these things that we need
> > to get rid of Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids magazines?
> >
> > Sam Sloan
>
>
> Prove it, Sam. Provide some evidence. Here's your chance to show that
> you're not the lying sack of waste material most of use believe. I
> think that number is either a flat lie or a delusion of your diseased
> little mind, but, unlike you, I accept facts. Let's see some. I
> wouldn't advise anyone to hold his head under water while waiting.
To clarify the above: I agree that _if_ the combined annual
compensation of Shahade and Benjamin were $70K, and Bill Goichberg had
kept this a secret from the other Board members, it would indeed be
scandalous. But there is no evidence for this beyond Sloan's
unsupported assertion, which means there is no evidence for it,
period. Sloan has zero credibility among sane people, and the numbers
would strain credibility no matter what the source. (Evans was getting
around $9K per year for doing more work.) If Sloan has convincing
evidence -- documentary proof, or testimony from a reliable source --
let him present it. If he can't or won't, he should (continue to) be
treated as a paranoid loon.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 14:28:21
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jun 7, 6:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did you come up
> > with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely resembling it as a
> > line item in any of the financial documents posted on the USCF web
> > page. The only way you could possibly get to a number like that would
> > be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance
> > fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two years. For
> > someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not very good at
> > it.
> >
> > John Hillery
>
> I did not want to mention any names because I do not want the readers
> to think that I am out to get certain people, which I am not, but the
> figure of more than $70,000 per year does not even include the
> contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance fees, and the the
> redesign contract.
>
> The figure of more than $70,000 represents just the salaries of
> Jennifer Shahade for her online blog and Joel Benjamin for his "Ask GM
> Joel" online column.
>
> I thought you already knew that.
>
> If you add to that the "contributors' fees, editorial fees,
> maintenance fees, and the the redesign contract", I do not know what
> the figure is but it is well over $100,000.
>
> Do you think that it is so important to keep these things that we need
> to get rid of Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids magazines?
>
> Sam Sloan
Prove it, Sam. Provide some evidence. Here's your chance to show that
you're not the lying sack of waste material most of use believe. I
think that number is either a flat lie or a delusion of your diseased
little mind, but, unlike you, I accept facts. Let's see some. I
wouldn't advise anyone to hold his head under water while waiting.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 14:22:55
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
samsloan wrote:
> If only about half of the scholastic members were willing to pay $3
> more to get Chess Life magazine, then almost none will be willing to
> pay $7 more to get Chess Life 4 Kids, especially since Chess Life at
> that time had 88 or 96 pages whereas Chess Life for Kids only has 16
> or 24 pages and the articles are of lower quality in my opinion.
>
> It is obvious that de-coupling the magazines from the memberships will
> almost immediately result in a stop of the printing of both magazines.
>
> The board's failure to inform the delegates of this probable
> consequence is misleading them.
>
> Sam Sloan
Since memberships last at least a year, and printing contracts last
even longer, this would not happen (even if all of your dubious
assumptions were correct) for at last two years. "Immediately" is
obviously false, but I suppose it would be visionary to expect you to
retract it. Lie and deny, that's the Sloan way.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 09:53:46
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 12:17 PM, <[email protected] > wrote:
> Under the previous system, there was a difference of only three
dollars.
> The no magazine membership cost $13 whereas the membership with
Chess Life
> magazine was $16 dollars.
>
> Obviously the option that included Chess Life for only $3 more
per year was
> a much better deal. The fact that about half of the scholastic
members took
> the $13 deal is remarkable.
>
> By contrast, under the Goichberg "New Plan" which has now taken
the form of
> BINFO 200803008 entitled "Board Motion on Memberships" and
which passed the
> board by 6-0, the "regular" scholastic membership without Chess
Life 4 Kids
> costs $22 whereas the membership with Chess Life 4 Kids will
cost $32.
One has to wonder if Sam Sloan has actually read the Board's
motion.
Scholastic memberships without CL4K would be $16, scholastic
memberships
with CL4K would be $23. In both cases there is a $3 affiliate
commission,
so the net to the USCF would be $13 and $20, respectively.
Youth/Young Adult memberships would be $32, but that includes 12
issues of
Chess Life, not CL4K. (Currently Young Adult members get 12
issues of
Chess Life, Youth members get 6 issues, these two categories are
being
merged.) Youth/Young Adult memberships without Chess Life would
be $22.
In both cases there is a $3 affiliate commission, so the net to
the USCF
would be $29 and $19, respectively.
--
Mike Nolan
Thank you for pointing out this error on my part. However, the
principle is the same.
If only about half of the scholastic members were willing to pay $3
more to get Chess Life magazine, then almost none will be willing to
pay $7 more to get Chess Life 4 Kids, especially since Chess Life at
that time had 88 or 96 pages whereas Chess Life for Kids only has 16
or 24 pages and the articles are of lower quality in my opinion.
It is obvious that de-coupling the magazines from the memberships will
almost immediately result in a stop of the printing of both magazines.
The board's failure to inform the delegates of this probable
consequence is misleading them.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 08:58:56
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 11:04 AM, <[email protected] > wrote:
There is no proposal to abolish Chess Life for Kids, and if anyone
submits such a proposal I will oppose it. The board's proposal offers
two Scholastic membership categories, one with hard copy Chess Life
for Kids and the other with a bulletin issued every four months and a
password to read online Chess Life for Kids.
In 2003-2006, we had two Scholastic categories, Scholastic with
magazine and Economy Scholastic without magazine. Slightly more than
half our Scholastic members chose to pay extra and receive the
magazine. I opposed creation of the Economy Scholastic category, and
supported its abolition, because of the poor renewal rates USCF has
long experienced with membership without a publication.
The proposed new Scholastic category without hard copy magazine is
quite different than Economy Scholastic, because of the bulletin and
the online Chess Life for Kids.
Bill Goichberg
There is a big difference between the two, that you failed to mention.
Under the previous system, there was a difference of only three
dollars. The no magazine membership cost $13 whereas the membership
with Chess Life magazine was $16 dollars.
Obviously the option that included Chess Life for only $3 more per
year was a much better deal. The fact that about half of the
scholastic members took the $13 deal is remarkable.
By contrast, under the Goichberg "New Plan" which has now taken the
form of BINFO 200803008 entitled "Board Motion on Memberships" and
which passed the board by 6-0, the "regular" scholastic membership
without Chess Life 4 Kids costs $22 whereas the membership with Chess
Life 4 Kids will cost $32.
If half of the scholastic members were unwilling to pay only $3 more
to get Chess Life, then almost none of them will pay $10 more to get
Chess Life for Kids, which is a much more modest publication.
Obviously, Chess Life 4 Kids will have so few subscribers that
publication will be stopped almost immediately.
Also, note that BINFO 200803008 nowhere states that the magazine to be
sent to the premium scholastic members will be Chess Life for Kids.
With such small number of premium memberships, it will be cheaper to
send the kids a few issues of Chess Life instead.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 05:01:08
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
On Jun 7, 6:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
> I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did you come up
> with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely resembling it as a
> line item in any of the financial documents posted on the USCF web
> page. The only way you could possibly get to a number like that would
> be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance
> fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two years. For
> someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not very good at
> it.
>
> John Hillery
I did not want to mention any names because I do not want the readers
to think that I am out to get certain people, which I am not, but the
figure of more than $70,000 per year does not even include the
contributors' fees, editorial fees, maintenance fees, and the the
redesign contract.
The figure of more than $70,000 represents just the salaries of
Jennifer Shahade for her online blog and Joel Benjamin for his "Ask GM
Joel" online column.
I thought you already knew that.
If you add to that the "contributors' fees, editorial fees,
maintenance fees, and the the redesign contract", I do not know what
the figure is but it is well over $100,000.
Do you think that it is so important to keep these things that we need
to get rid of Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids magazines?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 04:28:01
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jun 7, 5:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > Under the motion passed by the board and submitted to the delegates
> > > for their ratification and approval, Chess Life 4 Kids magazine will
> > > be abolished.
> >
> > > Instead there will be a bulletin sent every four months.
> >
> > > The Motion by Bill Goichberg states:
> >
> > > "USCF shall originate a bulletin published every four months for
> > > Scholastic members, at a cost of about $1 per year."
> >
> > > As present, Chess Life 4 Kids is received by 30,000 Scholastic
> > > Members.
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > No, Sam, that's not what it says. According to what you yourself
> > posted on the other thread, the motion reads:
> >
> > "3) Likewise, USCF shall originate a bulletin published every four
> > months for Scholastic members, at a cost of about $1 per year.
> >
> > "4) The Regular, Youth and Scholastic categories shall each offer two
> > dues options, one with lower dues and a bulletin and online magazine,
> > the other with higher dues and a hard copy magazine."
> >
> > You only quoted 3. In context with 4, it obviously means that they
> > intend to offer a bulletin as an _alternative_ to CL4K, just as for
> > CL. You can argue (with some plausibility) that this isn't a good
> > idea, but inventing things out of whole cloth will simply make you
> > look like an idiot and make Bill's proposal look good by comparison.
> >
> > John Hillery
>
> Nowhere in the lengthy motion which has already passed the board is
> there any mention of Chess Life 4 Kids.
>
> Also, the "Premium Youth" membership under the Goichberg motion will
> cost $32, which is more than the regular membership. It is obvious
> that nobody is going to pay $32 just to get Chess Life 4 Kids which is
> a rather dinky publication already. Thus, it is clear that under the
> Goichberg motion Chess Life 4 Kids will stop publication.
I see we're back to the usual melange of falsehoods, distortions and
misdirections. Neither CL nor CL4K would be "abolished" under the plan
as stated. What seems to be floating around in your pointy little head
is that _if_ a lot of members take the no-printed-magazine options,
then _eventually_ circulation might drop so much that one or both of
the magazines might have to be dropped. That's a rational objection to
the Goichberg plan. It is not, however, even remotely the same thing
as what you wrote.
Sam, if you really don't want the Goichberg plan to pass, the best
thing you could do would be to shut up and stop making all those who
oppose it look like liars or loonies.
> Also, remember that all these Draconian Cuts are being made just to
> save a few of Goichberg's sacred cows. The USCF is now spending more
> than $70,000 per year on "Web Content Providers" who provide content
> which the general public can read free of charge on the uschess.org
> website. It is obvious that these web content providers bring in no
> revenues to the USCF. It is those costs that should be eliminated,
> rather than tossing out our crown jewels, Chess Life and Chess Life 4
> Kids magazines.
I suppose I'm going to regret asking this, but where did you come up
with that absurd figure? There's nothing remotely resembling it as a
line item in any of the financial documents posted on the USCF web
page. The only way you could possibly get to a number like that would
be to lump together contributors' fees, editorial fees, mantenance
fees, and the the redesign contract -- for at least two years. For
someone who purports to have majored in math, you're not very good at
it.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 03:57:58
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
On Jun 7, 5:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > Under the motion passed by the board and submitted to the delegates
> > for their ratification and approval, Chess Life 4 Kids magazine will
> > be abolished.
>
> > Instead there will be a bulletin sent every four months.
>
> > The Motion by Bill Goichberg states:
>
> > "USCF shall originate a bulletin published every four months for
> > Scholastic members, at a cost of about $1 per year."
>
> > As present, Chess Life 4 Kids is received by 30,000 Scholastic
> > Members.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> No, Sam, that's not what it says. According to what you yourself
> posted on the other thread, the motion reads:
>
> "3) Likewise, USCF shall originate a bulletin published every four
> months for Scholastic members, at a cost of about $1 per year.
>
> "4) The Regular, Youth and Scholastic categories shall each offer two
> dues options, one with lower dues and a bulletin and online magazine,
> the other with higher dues and a hard copy magazine."
>
> You only quoted 3. In context with 4, it obviously means that they
> intend to offer a bulletin as an _alternative_ to CL4K, just as for
> CL. You can argue (with some plausibility) that this isn't a good
> idea, but inventing things out of whole cloth will simply make you
> look like an idiot and make Bill's proposal look good by comparison.
>
> John Hillery
Nowhere in the lengthy motion which has already passed the board is
there any mention of Chess Life 4 Kids.
Also, the "Premium Youth" membership under the Goichberg motion will
cost $32, which is more than the regular membership. It is obvious
that nobody is going to pay $32 just to get Chess Life 4 Kids which is
a rather dinky publication already. Thus, it is clear that under the
Goichberg motion Chess Life 4 Kids will stop publication.
Also, remember that all these Draconian Cuts are being made just to
save a few of Goichberg's sacred cows. The USCF is now spending more
than $70,000 per year on "Web Content Providers" who provide content
which the general public can read free of charge on the uschess.org
website. It is obvious that these web content providers bring in no
revenues to the USCF. It is those costs that should be eliminated,
rather than tossing out our crown jewels, Chess Life and Chess Life 4
Kids magazines.
Also, remember that the USCF has a history of getting rid of its crown
jewels with disastrous results. Our leading revenue producer in books
and equipment used to be Chess Informant, a twice yearly publication.
In 2002, George DeFeis wrote a letter to Chess Informant informing
them that the USCF will no longer be carrying their publication. Later
it was discovered that after stopping the sales of this plus several
other of our lines of books plus refusing a t of thousands of
marketable books from Inside Chess, the USCF was losing money. So,
instead of correcting these errors, the USCF decided just to close
down the books and equipment business which up until then had been
producing $3.5 million in annual revenues.
Until 1999, our annual revenues were consistently about $6.5 million.
After stopping the books and equipment business, they dropped to the
present $3.2 million. Now, Goichberg plans to stop Chess Life and
Chess Life 4 Kids magazines.
The result will be that there will be nothing left and no reason to
join the USCF, except to play in Goichberg rated tournaments.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2008 03:05:57
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Life 4 Kids magazine to be abolished
|
samsloan wrote:
> Under the motion passed by the board and submitted to the delegates
> for their ratification and approval, Chess Life 4 Kids magazine will
> be abolished.
>
> Instead there will be a bulletin sent every four months.
>
> The Motion by Bill Goichberg states:
>
> "USCF shall originate a bulletin published every four months for
> Scholastic members, at a cost of about $1 per year."
>
> As present, Chess Life 4 Kids is received by 30,000 Scholastic
> Members.
>
> Sam Sloan
No, Sam, that's not what it says. According to what you yourself
posted on the other thread, the motion reads:
"3) Likewise, USCF shall originate a bulletin published every four
months for Scholastic members, at a cost of about $1 per year.
"4) The Regular, Youth and Scholastic categories shall each offer two
dues options, one with lower dues and a bulletin and online magazine,
the other with higher dues and a hard copy magazine."
You only quoted 3. In context with 4, it obviously means that they
intend to offer a bulletin as an _alternative_ to CL4K, just as for
CL. You can argue (with some plausibility) that this isn't a good
idea, but inventing things out of whole cloth will simply make you
look like an idiot and make Bill's proposal look good by comparison.
|
|
