| |
Main
Date: 19 Dec 2008 13:50:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
[quote="CHESSDON"]Fact is - "The Lawsuits - PRO and CON Polgar" are
what the coming EB election is all about. Unfortunately, it will be a
single issue election. The campaigning open and behind the scenes will
be enormous.
If the "PRO" Polgar side win in the election - the "USCF NEW Board"
will drop/reverse their positions on the lawsuits and issue a
statement highly favorable to the Polgars thus create a domino effect
causing the various lawsuits to whither away.
If the "CON" Polgar side wins the elections, the lawsuits will
continue until one side or the other becomes convinced they will lose
and a compromise will be reached that is highly favorable to the side
with the mostest.
Anyone seeking to run for the EB who does not openly support and and
have been endorsed either by the Polgars or the "USCF CURRENT Board",
IMO, stand little or no chance.
Don Schultz [/quote]
I am glad to see Don back, since he has been away for a while.
I disagree with Don on several points.
I am running. I am definitely not going to be endorsed by the Polgars,
nor will I be endorsed by the USCF Current Board. Still I think I have
a chance. I may well be the only truly independent candidate. "Vote
for Sam, the only one who is not somebody's sycophant!!"
My chances will greatly improve if there are only four candidates, I
admit.
Even if you discount my chances, it could happen that another truly
independent candidate will arise, a White Knight. Such a candidate
will be welcomed by the voters.
Next, it is not true that a victory by the Polgar Group will cause the
lawsuits to wither away. Polgar made a major blunder by suing the
lawyer, Karl Kronenberger. His reputation is now at stake and I doubt
that a takeover by the Polgar Group after the election would cause him
to drop the case. Similarly, I do not see any of the other non-insider
defendants dropping out just because Polgar wins the election. The
only case that the Polgar group would have the power to drop would be
USCF vs. Polgar, pending in the San Francisco Federal Court. That case
is moving along a fast track and I except a decisive result before
election-time anyway.
A Polgar victory would likely mean that Goichberg is voted out of
office. Knowing what is likely to happen to his chess business if
Polgar takes power, I would expect Goichberg to accelerate the
lawsuits, not shut them down.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Dec 2008 13:14:23
From: None
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 29, 3:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2:34=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Larry, shouldn't you get your facts straight before you start
> > pontificating? Everyone who paid for a magazine is still getting it.
> > It's true that the Delegates could vote to change that in the future
> > (though I doubt they will). So what? That's always been the case.
>
> > Larry never lets the facts stand in the way of the truth. Liarry's
> > truth.
>
> You can look it up. A magazine is made of sheets of paper, stapled
> together with words printed on them.
>
> The members will be receiving no such object.
>
> Instead, they will be allowed to view a free website.
>
> That is not the same thing as a magazine.
>
> Sam Sloan
A magazine made of sheets of paper, stapled
together with words printed on them arrived today. Theone Sam said I
would no longer get.
When God was passing out brains Sam thought he said rain and replied -
crap. Which is what God gave him for brains.
|
| |
Date: 30 Dec 2008 13:01:07
From: None
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 30, 1:04=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 2:34 pm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Larry, shouldn't you get your facts straight before you start
> > > pontificating? Everyone who paid for a magazine is still getting it.
> > > It's true that the Delegates could vote to change that in the future
> > > (though I doubt they will). So what? That's always been the case.
>
> > > Larry never lets the facts stand in the way of the truth. Liarry's
> > > truth.
>
> > You can look it up. A magazine is made of sheets of paper, stapled
> > together with words printed on them.
>
> > The members will be receiving no such object.
>
> > Instead, they will be allowed to view a free website.
>
> > That is not the same thing as a magazine.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Sam, let me try this again in small words. The people who already paid
> for a magazine will continue to get one. The people who pay for a
> magazine in the future will receive one. Sheesh. Is that really too
> hard a concept for you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There will be an economy membership that comes without sheets of
paper, stapled
together with words printed on them. For some reason it is being
marketed as a "regular" membership. I predict that the new economy
membership will increase adult memberships overall by 10 to 20 members
and save the organization about five bucks after deducting costs to
publish on the net.
|
| |
Date: 29 Dec 2008 22:29:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 29, 3:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Larry, shouldn't you get your facts straight before you start
> > pontificating? Everyone who paid for a magazine is still getting it.
> > It's true that the Delegates could vote to change that in the future
> > (though I doubt they will). So what? That's always been the case.
>
> > Larry never lets the facts stand in the way of the truth. Liarry's
> > truth.
> You can look it up. A magazine is made of sheets of paper, stapled
> together with words printed on them.
>
> The members will be receiving no such object.
>
> Instead, they will be allowed to view a free website.
>
> That is not the same thing as a magazine.
This is true. However, anyone who has a
computer and internet access at home, could
view the online magazine, select it, and then
print it on their printer (at considerable cost)
to create a hard copy.
Personally, I find it odd that everybody just
accepts the dictatorship of BG, allowing him
to do whatever he pleases. When Alexander
the Great tried this they protested; of course,
those men were swiftly put to the sword. In
the movie Once Upon a Time in the West,
folks who did not like what Henry Fonda's
evil character did protested; and they were
shot. Folks who did not like what dictator
Adolf Hitler was doing protested; they were
dealt with. But lest anyone get the silly
idea that these dictators are too powerful to
fight, just remember what Charles Bronson
did to Henry Fonda-- singlehandedly. (Of
course, that was just a movie; in real life,
you would likely be strangled by BG... .)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Dec 2008 22:04:06
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2:34=EF=BF=BDpm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Larry, shouldn't you get your facts straight before you start
> > pontificating? Everyone who paid for a magazine is still getting it.
> > It's true that the Delegates could vote to change that in the future
> > (though I doubt they will). So what? That's always been the case.
> >
> > Larry never lets the facts stand in the way of the truth. Liarry's
> > truth.
>
> You can look it up. A magazine is made of sheets of paper, stapled
> together with words printed on them.
>
> The members will be receiving no such object.
>
> Instead, they will be allowed to view a free website.
>
> That is not the same thing as a magazine.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam, let me try this again in small words. The people who already paid
for a magazine will continue to get one. The people who pay for a
magazine in the future will receive one. Sheesh. Is that really too
hard a concept for you?
|
| |
Date: 29 Dec 2008 21:43:00
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 29, 2:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2:34=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Larry, shouldn't you get your facts straight before you start
> > pontificating? Everyone who paid for a magazine is still getting it.
> > It's true that the Delegates could vote to change that in the future
> > (though I doubt they will). So what? That's always been the case.
>
> > Larry never lets the facts stand in the way of the truth. Liarry's
> > truth.
>
> You can look it up. A magazine is made of sheets of paper, stapled
> together with words printed on them.
>
> The members will be receiving no such object.
>
> Instead, they will be allowed to view a free website.
>
> That is not the same thing as a magazine.
>
> Sam Sloan
My wife has just come up with the perfect Samism.. After learning of
Sams sexual postings for juveniles, he will now be know as Sam "The
Slug" Sloan
|
| |
Date: 29 Dec 2008 12:24:56
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 29, 2:34=A0pm, None <[email protected] > wrote:
> Larry, shouldn't you get your facts straight before you start
> pontificating? Everyone who paid for a magazine is still getting it.
> It's true that the Delegates could vote to change that in the future
> (though I doubt they will). So what? That's always been the case.
>
> Larry never lets the facts stand in the way of the truth. Liarry's
> truth.
You can look it up. A magazine is made of sheets of paper, stapled
together with words printed on them.
The members will be receiving no such object.
Instead, they will be allowed to view a free website.
That is not the same thing as a magazine.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 29 Dec 2008 11:34:54
From: None
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 24, 7:48=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > WHERE'S THE BEEF?
>
> > Executive Board member Randy Bauer, a former Iowa budget director and
> > public trough perks-snarfer-upper, tells us that if some naive klutz
> > buys a life membership to get Chess Life, he will have to be happy to
> > get it online. =A0Hard copy, toilet reading-enjoyment material be
> > danged. =A0Forget about taking your Chess Life to tournaments and
> > browsing it over lunch or dinner or in your hotel room.
>
> > Richard Peterson asks about all of those who paid for a magazine and
> > do not own computers -- well, what do they get?
>
> > The evident answer: =A0the schnooks, schleps, schlumps, schmucks and
> > schnorrers get nuthin'. Nada. Zilch.
>
> > Well, they get defrauded by the Federation, and they also get excuses
> > for theft from long-time government-phlonkdooper, Randy Bauer.Some
> > work of art, ain't he?
>
> > =A0Yours, Larry Parr
>
> > Randy Bauer wrote:
> > > On Dec 19, 10:42?pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do=
you
> > > > > > write here at all?
>
> > > > > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Why would "WE" the paying members of the USCF care about the view=
s of
> > > > > non-members like you? If you care so much, buy a membership and
> > > > > participate in the USCF electoral process. There are USCF members=
in
> > > > > Vermont, no?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Ah yes, Phil. ?Check your logic at the door.
> > > > Why not buy a USCF life membership which used to guarantee you a
> > > > lifetime of Chess Life.
> > > > At least it did when my son and I bought ours.
>
> > > > This isn't an electoral process. ?It is more like competing economi=
c
> > > > interests ripping away the remains of the USCF.
> > > > Now they have decided the electors can only survive by screwing the
> > > > life members and the scholastic members. ?Such an organization to b=
e
> > > > proud of.
>
> > > > The more they grey, the more the members pay.
>
> > > > Sheesh.
> > > > Rp
>
> > > I'm a life member too, and I expect I will still receive my Chess Lif=
e
> > > for however many years I am still around - it may be delivered
> > > electronically, but it is still Chess Life. =A0Is the content or the
> > > paper what makes it Chess Life? =A0I would suggest the content.
>
> > > Randy Bauer
>
> Larry, shouldn't you get your facts straight before you start
> pontificating? Everyone who paid for a magazine is still getting it.
> It's true that the Delegates could vote to change that in the future
> (though I doubt they will). So what? That's always been the case.
>
> There was a time when you would have condemned =A0_suppressio veri_ =A0an=
d
> _suggestio falsi_ as methods worthy only of the Stalinists you
> despised. I guess Nietzsche was right about looking into that abyss.- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Larry, shouldn't you get your facts straight before you start
pontificating? Everyone who paid for a magazine is still getting it.
It's true that the Delegates could vote to change that in the future
(though I doubt they will). So what? That's always been the case.
Larry never lets the facts stand in the way of the truth. Liarry's
truth.
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2008 17:07:14
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 27, 6:27=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:59:59 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
> >But I have to abbreviate this celebration here because I am cooking a
> >duck - anyone here ever cook a duck? I'm doing Barbara Kafka's 2-stage
> >recipe of (1) poaching it, and (2) crisping it.
>
> So, we can definitely say Phil is host by his own canard.
At least I get it, Mike. So often the best jokes go under the bridge
unnoticed, eh?
though and still, if you like your French poet-seers;
Bourgeois, bug-eyed on their balconies
Shaking at the sound of breaking glass,
Can hear trees falling on the boulevards
And, far off, a shivering scarlet clash.
Like Eros, politicians hover overhead,
Their shadows withering the flowers:
Their bombs and fires paint our garden red:
Their beetle-faced forces trample ours...
O May! What bare-assed ecstacy!
Sevres, Meudon, Bagneux, Adsnieres,
Hear our Farmer Generals, busy
Planting in the empty air.
[after Arthur Rimbaud]
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2008 12:59:59
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 27, 2:10=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 5:44=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Who is this "we", white man?
>
> =A0 I've always pictured Dr. IMnes as being purple in
> color, with green spots. =A0 How does Mr. Sloan get
> "white"?
>
> > You have not been a USCF member since 1996.
>
> >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296
>
> =A0 This is the sort of idiocy we've come to expect
> from Mr. Sloan. =A0In an apparent effort to substantiate
> his claim that Dr. IMnes has not been a USCF
> member since 1996, Mr. Sloan provides a link to
> a crosstable... proving only that Dr. IMnes has not
> played USCF-rated chess since then. =A0 As we all
> know, one can easily be a member of the USCF
> without playing any rated games whatever.
>
> =A0 Poor chap... he just can't seem to think straight.
> Look at his chess openings, for instance: Grob, so-
> called Damiano's Defense-- the sort of stuff only
> weak players and weirdos rely upon. =A0 Compare
> and contrast to what Dr. IMnes plays: the Sicilian
> Defense, Ruy Lopez Marshall Gambit Zuccini
> variation with 29. K-d1!! +-, an occasional Orang-
> utan-- basically transposing to a reversed QID, etc.
> =A0 Just from these, one can easily see the vast
> difference between nutter Sloan and his nemesis,
> Dr. IMnes.
Thank you at least for this artistic appreciation of my own play and
that of the great *special* personage, the Sloan.
One should play defenses which are in season, no? Read my latest
book, Greening the Orang[e] u-tan, written on the Mexican peninsula of
the same name, where they still speak... well, that is another
subject.
As far as I can tell by these retrograde analyses of my own rating, it
is going up and up, since the lean years of 99, and only 2050-ish, to
friend Brennan's revelation that in 89 it was 2150, plus a win, which
would have made it, in scientific terms, 'a lot'.
But I have to abbreviate this celebration here because I am cooking a
duck - anyone here ever cook a duck? I'm doing Barbara Kafka's 2-stage
recipe of (1) poaching it, and (2) crisping it.
Only real duckists should reply.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 27 Dec 2008 15:27:08
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:59:59 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
>But I have to abbreviate this celebration here because I am cooking a
>duck - anyone here ever cook a duck? I'm doing Barbara Kafka's 2-stage
>recipe of (1) poaching it, and (2) crisping it.
So, we can definitely say Phil is host by his own canard.
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2008 11:10:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 19, 5:44=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Who is this "we", white man?
I've always pictured Dr. IMnes as being purple in
color, with green spots. How does Mr. Sloan get
"white"?
> You have not been a USCF member since 1996.
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296
This is the sort of idiocy we've come to expect
from Mr. Sloan. In an apparent effort to substantiate
his claim that Dr. IMnes has not been a USCF
member since 1996, Mr. Sloan provides a link to
a crosstable... proving only that Dr. IMnes has not
played USCF-rated chess since then. As we all
know, one can easily be a member of the USCF
without playing any rated games whatever.
Poor chap... he just can't seem to think straight.
Look at his chess openings, for instance: Grob, so-
called Damiano's Defense-- the sort of stuff only
weak players and weirdos rely upon. Compare
and contrast to what Dr. IMnes plays: the Sicilian
Defense, Ruy Lopez Marshall Gambit Zuccini
variation with 29. K-d1!! +-, an occasional Orang-
utan-- basically transposing to a reversed QID, etc.
Just from these, one can easily see the vast
difference between nutter Sloan and his nemesis,
Dr. IMnes.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2008 20:22:02
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 21, 8:21=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 8:25=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > ROFL
> > What a fool you are Sloan. I've played everyone in this newsgroup who
> > cared to. When you were invited by Rob Mitchell it was /you/ who were
> > shy of playing.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> I am not afraid to play against Rob the Robber. I do not play against
> beginners. Rob Mitchell is an 800 player.
Samantha has dodged me many many times. Actually , if you claim I am
an 800 rated player... prove it.
You find me a legitimate rating for me anywhere that says I am rated
800.
> By the way, I have offered to play you, Phil Innes, for one thousand
> dollars cash money on the table.
What not make it 10k? Why so little? 1k is fishing money. Samantha may
with to play "go fish"?
> If you are so great, why do not you take up the challenge?
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2008 14:02:22
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Dec 24, 11:44=EF=BF=BDam, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
> > FUTURE OF PRINTED CHESS LIFE
> >
> > Nearly everyone knows that members still get the magazine. I did not
> > send the posting to any group not similarly informed.
>
> Not true.
>
> According to statistics just supplied by Mike Nolan, 70% of new
> members who have joined since the new rules went into effect have
> joined as "regular members" and therefore will not be getting Chess
> Life magazine.
>
> Only the 30% who have joined as "premium members" are the only ones
> who will are getting the magazine.
>
> Sam Sloan
That would include, um, _all_ current members, Sam. If the two-week
stats hold up, that might change, but it's not going to happen soon.
In any case, this is completely irrelevant to the point Larry and I
were debating, which was whether members who had _paid_ for the
magazine would _get_ the magazine. If you want to repeat yourself
(again), start a new thread. You're good at that.
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2008 09:12:47
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 24, 11:44=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> FUTURE OF PRINTED CHESS LIFE
>
> Nearly everyone knows that members still get the magazine. I did not
> send the posting to any group not similarly informed.
Not true.
According to statistics just supplied by Mike Nolan, 70% of new
members who have joined since the new rules went into effect have
joined as "regular members" and therefore will not be getting Chess
Life magazine.
Only the 30% who have joined as "premium members" are the only ones
who will are getting the magazine.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2008 08:44:20
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
FUTURE OF PRINTED CHESS LIFE
John Hillery accuses me of suppressing truth and making a false
suggestion.
Now look, John. I was responding to an argument made by Phlonkdooper
Bauer that life members will still get CL online. The man had written
that the content of the magazine, not its format, was more important.
Richard Peterson responded by asking what happens to the schlumps,
schleps and schlemiels and eels that don't have computers. I responded
that the dufuses and dumb clucks get zilch.
Where is suppression of truth or even false suggestion? I made no
claim about the current situation, tenuous though it be. I was
addressing the insufferable arrogance of an argument made by an
insufferable governmental type named Randy Bauer who sits on the USCF
Executive Board.
Nearly everyone knows that members still get the magazine. I did not
send the posting to any group not similarly informed.
I did not like the assumption in Bauer's argument: the easy road to
welshing on promises made to life members. There is no suggestion it
has yet been done; the subject AS RAISED BY BAUER HIMSELF was about
why said welshing was really not such a big deal.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > WHERE'S THE BEEF?
> >
> > Executive Board member Randy Bauer, a former Iowa budget director and
> > public trough perks-snarfer-upper, tells us that if some naive klutz
> > buys a life membership to get Chess Life, he will have to be happy to
> > get it online. Hard copy, toilet reading-enjoyment material be
> > danged. Forget about taking your Chess Life to tournaments and
> > browsing it over lunch or dinner or in your hotel room.
> >
> > Richard Peterson asks about all of those who paid for a magazine and
> > do not own computers -- well, what do they get?
> >
> > The evident answer: the schnooks, schleps, schlumps, schmucks and
> > schnorrers get nuthin'. Nada. Zilch.
> >
> > Well, they get defrauded by the Federation, and they also get excuses
> > for theft from long-time government-phlonkdooper, Randy Bauer.Some
> > work of art, ain't he?
> >
> >
> > Yours, Larry Parr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Randy Bauer wrote:
> > > On Dec 19, 10:42?pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do you
> > > > > > write here at all?
> > > >
> > > > > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
> > > >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > >
> > > > > Why would "WE" the paying members of the USCF care about the views of
> > > > > non-members like you? If you care so much, buy a membership and
> > > > > participate in the USCF electoral process. There are USCF members in
> > > > > Vermont, no?- Hide quoted text -
> > > >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > >
> > > > Ah yes, Phil. ?Check your logic at the door.
> > > > Why not buy a USCF life membership which used to guarantee you a
> > > > lifetime of Chess Life.
> > > > At least it did when my son and I bought ours.
> > > >
> > > > This isn't an electoral process. ?It is more like competing economic
> > > > interests ripping away the remains of the USCF.
> > > > Now they have decided the electors can only survive by screwing the
> > > > life members and the scholastic members. ?Such an organization to be
> > > > proud of.
> > > >
> > > > The more they grey, the more the members pay.
> > > >
> > > > Sheesh.
> > > > Rp
> > >
> > > I'm a life member too, and I expect I will still receive my Chess Life
> > > for however many years I am still around - it may be delivered
> > > electronically, but it is still Chess Life. Is the content or the
> > > paper what makes it Chess Life? I would suggest the content.
> > >
> > > Randy Bauer
>
>
> Larry, shouldn't you get your facts straight before you start
> pontificating? Everyone who paid for a magazine is still getting it.
> It's true that the Delegates could vote to change that in the future
> (though I doubt they will). So what? That's always been the case.
>
> There was a time when you would have condemned _suppressio veri_ and
> _suggestio falsi_ as methods worthy only of the Stalinists you
> despised. I guess Nietzsche was right about looking into that abyss.
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2008 04:48:20
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
[email protected] wrote:
> WHERE'S THE BEEF?
>
> Executive Board member Randy Bauer, a former Iowa budget director and
> public trough perks-snarfer-upper, tells us that if some naive klutz
> buys a life membership to get Chess Life, he will have to be happy to
> get it online. Hard copy, toilet reading-enjoyment material be
> danged. Forget about taking your Chess Life to tournaments and
> browsing it over lunch or dinner or in your hotel room.
>
> Richard Peterson asks about all of those who paid for a magazine and
> do not own computers -- well, what do they get?
>
> The evident answer: the schnooks, schleps, schlumps, schmucks and
> schnorrers get nuthin'. Nada. Zilch.
>
> Well, they get defrauded by the Federation, and they also get excuses
> for theft from long-time government-phlonkdooper, Randy Bauer.Some
> work of art, ain't he?
>
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
>
> Randy Bauer wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 10:42?pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do you
> > > > > write here at all?
> > >
> > > > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > >
> > > > Why would "WE" the paying members of the USCF care about the views of
> > > > non-members like you? If you care so much, buy a membership and
> > > > participate in the USCF electoral process. There are USCF members in
> > > > Vermont, no?- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > >
> > > Ah yes, Phil. ?Check your logic at the door.
> > > Why not buy a USCF life membership which used to guarantee you a
> > > lifetime of Chess Life.
> > > At least it did when my son and I bought ours.
> > >
> > > This isn't an electoral process. ?It is more like competing economic
> > > interests ripping away the remains of the USCF.
> > > Now they have decided the electors can only survive by screwing the
> > > life members and the scholastic members. ?Such an organization to be
> > > proud of.
> > >
> > > The more they grey, the more the members pay.
> > >
> > > Sheesh.
> > > Rp
> >
> > I'm a life member too, and I expect I will still receive my Chess Life
> > for however many years I am still around - it may be delivered
> > electronically, but it is still Chess Life. Is the content or the
> > paper what makes it Chess Life? I would suggest the content.
> >
> > Randy Bauer
Larry, shouldn't you get your facts straight before you start
pontificating? Everyone who paid for a magazine is still getting it.
It's true that the Delegates could vote to change that in the future
(though I doubt they will). So what? That's always been the case.
There was a time when you would have condemned _suppressio veri_ and
_suggestio falsi_ as methods worthy only of the Stalinists you
despised. I guess Nietzsche was right about looking into that abyss.
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 23:21:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Executive Board member Randy Bauer, a former Iowa budget director and
public trough perks-snarfer-upper, tells us that if some naive klutz
buys a life membership to get Chess Life, he will have to be happy to
get it online. Hard copy, toilet reading-enjoyment material be
danged. Forget about taking your Chess Life to tournaments and
browsing it over lunch or dinner or in your hotel room.
Richard Peterson asks about all of those who paid for a magazine and
do not own computers -- well, what do they get?
The evident answer: the schnooks, schleps, schlumps, schmucks and
schnorrers get nuthin'. Nada. Zilch.
Well, they get defrauded by the Federation, and they also get excuses
for theft from long-time government-phlonkdooper, Randy Bauer.Some
work of art, ain't he?
Yours, Larry Parr
Randy Bauer wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:42?pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do you
> > > > write here at all?
> >
> > > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Why would "WE" the paying members of the USCF care about the views of
> > > non-members like you? If you care so much, buy a membership and
> > > participate in the USCF electoral process. There are USCF members in
> > > Vermont, no?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Ah yes, Phil. ?Check your logic at the door.
> > Why not buy a USCF life membership which used to guarantee you a
> > lifetime of Chess Life.
> > At least it did when my son and I bought ours.
> >
> > This isn't an electoral process. ?It is more like competing economic
> > interests ripping away the remains of the USCF.
> > Now they have decided the electors can only survive by screwing the
> > life members and the scholastic members. ?Such an organization to be
> > proud of.
> >
> > The more they grey, the more the members pay.
> >
> > Sheesh.
> > Rp
>
> I'm a life member too, and I expect I will still receive my Chess Life
> for however many years I am still around - it may be delivered
> electronoically, but it is still Chess Life. Is the content or the
> paper what makes it Chess Life? I would suggest the content.
>
> Randy Bauer
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 18:04:36
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 21, 8:46=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Ah yes, Phil. Check your logic at the door.
> > > Why not buy a USCF life membership which used to guarantee you a
> > > lifetime of Chess Life.
> > > At least it did when my son and I bought ours.
>
> > > This isn't an electoral process. It is more like competing economic
> > > interests ripping away the remains of the USCF.
> > > Now they have decided the electors can only survive by screwing the
> > > life members and the scholastic members. Such an organization to be
> > > proud of.
>
> > > The more they grey, the more the members pay.
>
> > > Sheesh.
> > > Rp
>
> > I'm a life member too, and I expect I will still receive my Chess Life
> > for however many years I am still around - it may be delivered
> > electronoically, but it is still Chess Life. Is the content or the
> > paper what makes it Chess Life? I would suggest the content.
>
> > Randy Bauer- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So it appears anyone of the life members who does not have the
> capability to receive Chess Life "electronically" will be entirely out
> of luck.
>
> The term "mail fraud" comes to mind. =A0Promise a service. =A0Take in
> millions of dollars. =A0Spend the money for purposes for which it was
> never intended and which benefits an insider class. =A0Then claim the
> services will be provided by other means.
>
> It is amazing to watch the cheaters squirm to get out from under their
> obligation to provide the services they contracted when we purchased
> our life memberships.
>
> Tell us about what "content" the thousands of life members who do not
> even own a computer will receive?
>
> Sheesh
> Rp
Hey. You are one sharp cookie!!
How did you figure it out so quickly?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 17:46:04
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
>
> > Ah yes, Phil. =EF=BF=BDCheck your logic at the door.
> > Why not buy a USCF life membership which used to guarantee you a
> > lifetime of Chess Life.
> > At least it did when my son and I bought ours.
>
> > This isn't an electoral process. =EF=BF=BDIt is more like competing eco=
nomic
> > interests ripping away the remains of the USCF.
> > Now they have decided the electors can only survive by screwing the
> > life members and the scholastic members. =EF=BF=BDSuch an organization =
to be
> > proud of.
>
> > The more they grey, the more the members pay.
>
> > Sheesh.
> > Rp
>
> I'm a life member too, and I expect I will still receive my Chess Life
> for however many years I am still around - it may be delivered
> electronoically, but it is still Chess Life. =EF=BF=BDIs the content or t=
he
> paper what makes it Chess Life? =EF=BF=BDI would suggest the content.
>
> Randy Bauer- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So it appears anyone of the life members who does not have the
capability to receive Chess Life "electronically" will be entirely out
of luck.
The term "mail fraud" comes to mind. Promise a service. Take in
millions of dollars. Spend the money for purposes for which it was
never intended and which benefits an insider class. Then claim the
services will be provided by other means.
It is amazing to watch the cheaters squirm to get out from under their
obligation to provide the services they contracted when we purchased
our life memberships.
Tell us about what "content" the thousands of life members who do not
even own a computer will receive?
Sheesh
Rp
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 10:20:42
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 21, 9:21=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 8:25=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > ROFL
> > What a fool you are Sloan. I've played everyone in this newsgroup who
> > cared to. When you were invited by Rob Mitchell it was /you/ who were
> > shy of playing.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> I am not afraid to play against Rob the Robber.
Afraid, womnder why you bring that up, I didn't. But as for your
characterization of Rob Mitchell, based on something proclaimed at
Gotchic Chess, by Ed Trice, I would think this of itself was
sufficient illustration of your mendacity so as to disqualify you from
holding a dog, never-mind a governance position in chess. Perhaps you /
really/ don't think you can do it and so behave badly - like the
emotional 13 year old you seem to model yourself after.
> I do not play against
> beginners. Rob Mitchell is an 800 player.
Beat a 1750 recently. But let us not celebrate facts - lets us note
that Sam Sloan goes out of his way to gratuitously trash people in
chess, their abilities and their worth. Naturally I do not ask for un-
presented evidence, since there ius none, and it would return the
issue to the Sloan - rather than whatever the Sloan is capable off for
other player's benefit.
Sine the Sloan has taken this opportunity to not reply to this issue,
let us assume that (a) Sam Sloan /is/ afraid to play others at chess,
and (b) he cant think of anything to say to recommend himself to
others, by resuming a political role at USCF.
Naturally, if he could have done either (a) shown up and played like a
normal person, or (b) thought of something he could actually achieve
to the benefit of chess USA, he would have done.
Alas... offered the opportunity, the Sloan spits abuse, like his
psychology in doing so isn't obvious even to newbies reading here.
> If Rob the Robber wants to pay for chess lessons, I will tell him my
> rates. He can hold up some liquor stores and get the money.
An actionable statement. Since you broke the news yourself, I
understand that you are commentating on a fellow USCF board aspirant.
> By the way, I have offered to play you, Phil Innes, for one thousand
> dollars cash money on the table.
>
> If you are so great, why do not you take up the challenge?
For both reasons mentioned before. Probably the main reason would be
the Tony Miles effect. Did you tell the people here why Tony knocked
you on your arse - some comment about his woman, wasn't it?
The terrible temptation would be to reach across the table and
throttle you - and unfortunately there wouldn't be much you could do
about that against me. Either on the chess board or metaphorically.
And I think, pace Miles, you like to unsettle people as your basis of
playing them.
And the second reason is that I have never gambled on chess - I just
like the game for itself - and why Sam Slosn has to have to have
*special* conditions about his own play is known best to his *special*
status. That is, Sam Sloan is a psycho-pomp of the first water.
Not a good recommendation for his liking of chess, is it? None of the
above is.
> Sam Sloan
One question Sam Sloan continuously ducks is if he thinks that board
members at USCF should be able to pass an ordinary high-school
background check?
Since Sam Sloan writes to me - let me say that if he prints an answer
in response I will consider that question 'on the record' and so
report it.
If Sam Sloan does not answer at all, then let all note the fact that
he does note - yet still runs for the board of a mainly scholastic
based membership!. I hardly need comment on what any evasion means to
our chess kids.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 06:21:13
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 21, 8:25=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> ROFL
> What a fool you are Sloan. I've played everyone in this newsgroup who
> cared to. When you were invited by Rob Mitchell it was /you/ who were
> shy of playing.
>
> Phil Innes
I am not afraid to play against Rob the Robber. I do not play against
beginners. Rob Mitchell is an 800 player.
If Rob the Robber wants to pay for chess lessons, I will tell him my
rates. He can hold up some liquor stores and get the money.
By the way, I have offered to play you, Phil Innes, for one thousand
dollars cash money on the table.
If you are so great, why do not you take up the challenge?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 05:30:19
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 21, 7:54=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 7:33=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 11:08=A0pm, Randy Bauer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 6:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 5:44=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 19, 5:33=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 19, 4:50=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > [quote=3D"CHESSDON"]Fact is - "The Lawsuits - PRO and CON Pol=
gar" are
> > > > > > > what the coming EB election is all about. Unfortunately, it w=
ill be a
> > > > > > > single issue election. The campaigning open and behind the sc=
enes will
> > > > > > > be enormous.
>
> > > > > > > If the "PRO" Polgar side win in the election - the "USCF NEW =
Board"
> > > > > > > will drop/reverse their positions on the lawsuits and issue a
> > > > > > > statement highly favorable to the Polgars thus create a domin=
o effect
> > > > > > > causing the various lawsuits to whither away.
>
> > > > > > > If the "CON" Polgar side wins the elections, the lawsuits wil=
l
> > > > > > > continue until one side or the other becomes convinced they w=
ill lose
> > > > > > > and a compromise will be reached that is highly favorable to =
the side
> > > > > > > with the mostest.
>
> > > > > > > Anyone seeking to run for the EB who does not openly support =
and and
> > > > > > > have been endorsed either by the Polgars or the "USCF CURRENT=
Board",
> > > > > > > IMO, stand little or no chance.
>
> > > > > > > Don Schultz [/quote]
>
> > > > > > > I am glad to see Don back, since he has been away for a while=
.
>
> > > > > > > I disagree with Don on several points.
>
> > > > > > > I am running. I am definitely not going to be endorsed by the=
Polgars,
> > > > > > > nor will I be endorsed by the USCF Current Board. Still I thi=
nk I have
> > > > > > > a chance. I may well be the only truly independent candidate.=
"Vote
> > > > > > > for Sam, the only one who is not somebody's sycophant!!"
>
> > > > > > > My chances will greatly improve if there are only four candid=
ates, I
> > > > > > > admit.
>
> > > > > > > Even if you discount my chances, it could happen that another=
truly
> > > > > > > independent candidate will arise, a White Knight. Such a cand=
idate
> > > > > > > will be welcomed by the voters.
>
> > > > > > > Next, it is not true that a victory by the Polgar Group will =
cause the
> > > > > > > lawsuits to wither away. Polgar made a major blunder by suing=
the
> > > > > > > lawyer, Karl Kronenberger. His reputation is now at stake and=
I doubt
> > > > > > > that a takeover by the Polgar Group after the election would =
cause him
> > > > > > > to drop the case. Similarly, I do not see any of the other no=
n-insider
> > > > > > > defendants dropping out just because Polgar wins the election=
. The
> > > > > > > only case that the Polgar group would have the power to drop =
would be
> > > > > > > USCF vs. Polgar, pending in the San Francisco Federal Court. =
That case
> > > > > > > is moving along a fast track and I except a decisive result b=
efore
> > > > > > > election-time anyway.
>
> > > > > > > A Polgar victory would likely mean that Goichberg is voted ou=
t of
> > > > > > > office. Knowing what is likely to happen to his chess busines=
s if
> > > > > > > Polgar takes power, I would expect Goichberg to accelerate th=
e
> > > > > > > lawsuits, not shut them down.
>
> > > > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > > > Not a single word about We, The Chessplayers, in this message. =
What is
> > > > > > the effect on us who actually pay for the organization?
>
> > > > > > For myself, just like the Presidency of the United States, I do=
n't
> > > > > > wish it on any candidate - the infrastructure being degraded to
> > > > > > catastrophic degree.
>
> > > > > > Though there are some more likely to act to promote chess than =
others;
> > > > > > and the same people would be more credible in doing so. Isn't t=
hat
> > > > > > USCF's mission statement?
>
> > > > > > If that doesn't matter, nothing at all matters about the USCF.
>
> > > > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > > > Who is this "we", white man?
>
> > > > > You have not been a USCF member since 1996.
>
> > > > >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296
>
> > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > What does being a USCF member have to do with playing chess? There =
are
> > > > more ICC members, alone. And what is this to do with rated chess, U=
SCF
> > > > being a somewhat expensive current option - did you not see the
> > > > current Express Chess rates?
>
> > > > And what sort of daft response is this, Sloan - have you ever talke=
d
> > > > about chess as it has to do with the majority of chess players, or
> > > > your own fortunes in it?
>
> > > > I think it is demonstrated by your own hand that which way you are.
>
> > > > What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do you
> > > > write here at all?
>
> > > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Why would "WE" the paying members of the USCF care about the views of
> > > non-members like you? =A0If you care so much, buy a membership and
> > > participate in the USCF electoral process. =A0There are USCF members =
in
> > > Vermont, no?
>
> > I can't answer Randy Bauer's question he poses to himself. Why should
> > the organization want currently active players like myself who used to
> > be members? Randy will no doubt ponder the answer to his own question.
>
> > Perhaps he will get around to wondering why members left in the first
> > place - and where they went when they left?
>
> > Playing chess on-line was certainly an inducement in my case, both 10
> > minute games and also correspondence. The magazine is no inducement
> > since as an active chess journalist I seem to have read all the news
> > about 2 months before CL ever arrived.
>
> > What I wrote above was a comment on the election process where the
> > writer only mentions himself and not chess players or chess playing
> > over which he would govern.
>
> > Here Randy Bauer weighs in to do the same thing - I should care about
> > the organization, he suggests, not if what the organization does for
> > chess is to my liking. In fact, I think my response is typical of ex-
> > members. We are active players, teachers, writers, and so on - and
> > found what we wanted to support our activity elsewhere - since USCF
> > seemed completely indifferent to our needs.
>
> > The idea of joining USCF to change it can only come from a chess
> > politician - as if we should join the Republican Party to make it more
> > liberal, rather than join the Liberal party.
>
> > Phil Ines
>
> I'm not sure which is the funniest statement in this post:
Bit you write anyway? Have you considered that you are not very
bright?
> 1. That P Innes is a "currently active player" - "active" meaning that
> he's rabbit-bashing on an online server.
Current opponents have been rated 2250 and 2450. But how would Brennen
know that? He too refused Rob Mitchell's invite to play on an RGCP
team - in fact I play on 3 teams.
> 2. That P Innes is a "active chess journalist" - the only places he
> gets published are newsgroups and a website that calls him Business
> Manager.
Doubling the unique circulation to become #1 US chess site with more
readers than even chess life has is of course an inconvenient fact.
> 3. That P Innes is using "we" when it's clear he only posts for
> himself.
My main Bitch does his usual thing - he whines and doubts and is
absurdly jealous.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 05:25:49
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 21, 7:52=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 21, 7:33=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I can't answer Randy Bauer's question he poses to himself. Why should
> > the organization want currently active players like myself who used to
> > be members? Randy will no doubt ponder the answer to his own question.
>
> > Phil Ines
>
> Where are you an active player?
ROFL
What a fool you are Sloan. I've played everyone in this newsgroup who
cared to. When you were invited by Rob Mitchell it was /you/ who were
shy of playing.
But let us not make it all about you - the question for you politicos
is what is NOT about you, or your 'opinions' of other people. My
challenge to Bauer and yourself is to think of something to say about
chess management...
> We know that you have not played a rated game of chess in more than
> ten years.
>
> Have you played a game of chess of any kind anywhere in the last ten
> years?
About 700 corres games last year. Untold amounts of Blitz.
> We know that you post a lot here to drive traffic to your website but
> do you do anything else with regard to chess?
Isn't 'driving' people to 'my' website to do with chess?
Apart from that I report on a few events around the world to the chess
players in the group - this being chess misc and all.
> Can you give the name of one person who has ever played a game of
> chess against you?
Stop being a facetious slut, Sloan. Who do you think you are,
McCarthy?
Either address the issue of what chess politicos can do for the rest
of us real players, or get out! Get out of everyone's face with your
ENORMOUS EGO.
This is not about you. Its about IF you and current USCF board members
care anything for chess in this country - specifically, what that
means for the future activity of chess management.
So far I would say that you politicos can't think of a reason to
exist.
When you can, or if you can, by all means let us know what you can do
for We, the Chess Players.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 04:54:44
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 21, 7:33=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 11:08=A0pm, Randy Bauer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 6:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 5:44=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 5:33=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 19, 4:50=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > [quote=3D"CHESSDON"]Fact is - "The Lawsuits - PRO and CON Polga=
r" are
> > > > > > what the coming EB election is all about. Unfortunately, it wil=
l be a
> > > > > > single issue election. The campaigning open and behind the scen=
es will
> > > > > > be enormous.
>
> > > > > > If the "PRO" Polgar side win in the election - the "USCF NEW Bo=
ard"
> > > > > > will drop/reverse their positions on the lawsuits and issue a
> > > > > > statement highly favorable to the Polgars thus create a domino =
effect
> > > > > > causing the various lawsuits to whither away.
>
> > > > > > If the "CON" Polgar side wins the elections, the lawsuits will
> > > > > > continue until one side or the other becomes convinced they wil=
l lose
> > > > > > and a compromise will be reached that is highly favorable to th=
e side
> > > > > > with the mostest.
>
> > > > > > Anyone seeking to run for the EB who does not openly support an=
d and
> > > > > > have been endorsed either by the Polgars or the "USCF CURRENT B=
oard",
> > > > > > IMO, stand little or no chance.
>
> > > > > > Don Schultz [/quote]
>
> > > > > > I am glad to see Don back, since he has been away for a while.
>
> > > > > > I disagree with Don on several points.
>
> > > > > > I am running. I am definitely not going to be endorsed by the P=
olgars,
> > > > > > nor will I be endorsed by the USCF Current Board. Still I think=
I have
> > > > > > a chance. I may well be the only truly independent candidate. "=
Vote
> > > > > > for Sam, the only one who is not somebody's sycophant!!"
>
> > > > > > My chances will greatly improve if there are only four candidat=
es, I
> > > > > > admit.
>
> > > > > > Even if you discount my chances, it could happen that another t=
ruly
> > > > > > independent candidate will arise, a White Knight. Such a candid=
ate
> > > > > > will be welcomed by the voters.
>
> > > > > > Next, it is not true that a victory by the Polgar Group will ca=
use the
> > > > > > lawsuits to wither away. Polgar made a major blunder by suing t=
he
> > > > > > lawyer, Karl Kronenberger. His reputation is now at stake and I=
doubt
> > > > > > that a takeover by the Polgar Group after the election would ca=
use him
> > > > > > to drop the case. Similarly, I do not see any of the other non-=
insider
> > > > > > defendants dropping out just because Polgar wins the election. =
The
> > > > > > only case that the Polgar group would have the power to drop wo=
uld be
> > > > > > USCF vs. Polgar, pending in the San Francisco Federal Court. Th=
at case
> > > > > > is moving along a fast track and I except a decisive result bef=
ore
> > > > > > election-time anyway.
>
> > > > > > A Polgar victory would likely mean that Goichberg is voted out =
of
> > > > > > office. Knowing what is likely to happen to his chess business =
if
> > > > > > Polgar takes power, I would expect Goichberg to accelerate the
> > > > > > lawsuits, not shut them down.
>
> > > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > > Not a single word about We, The Chessplayers, in this message. Wh=
at is
> > > > > the effect on us who actually pay for the organization?
>
> > > > > For myself, just like the Presidency of the United States, I don'=
t
> > > > > wish it on any candidate - the infrastructure being degraded to
> > > > > catastrophic degree.
>
> > > > > Though there are some more likely to act to promote chess than ot=
hers;
> > > > > and the same people would be more credible in doing so. Isn't tha=
t
> > > > > USCF's mission statement?
>
> > > > > If that doesn't matter, nothing at all matters about the USCF.
>
> > > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > > Who is this "we", white man?
>
> > > > You have not been a USCF member since 1996.
>
> > > >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > What does being a USCF member have to do with playing chess? There ar=
e
> > > more ICC members, alone. And what is this to do with rated chess, USC=
F
> > > being a somewhat expensive current option - did you not see the
> > > current Express Chess rates?
>
> > > And what sort of daft response is this, Sloan - have you ever talked
> > > about chess as it has to do with the majority of chess players, or
> > > your own fortunes in it?
>
> > > I think it is demonstrated by your own hand that which way you are.
>
> > > What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do you
> > > write here at all?
>
> > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Why would "WE" the paying members of the USCF care about the views of
> > non-members like you? =A0If you care so much, buy a membership and
> > participate in the USCF electoral process. =A0There are USCF members in
> > Vermont, no?
>
> I can't answer Randy Bauer's question he poses to himself. Why should
> the organization want currently active players like myself who used to
> be members? Randy will no doubt ponder the answer to his own question.
>
> Perhaps he will get around to wondering why members left in the first
> place - and where they went when they left?
>
> Playing chess on-line was certainly an inducement in my case, both 10
> minute games and also correspondence. The magazine is no inducement
> since as an active chess journalist I seem to have read all the news
> about 2 months before CL ever arrived.
>
> What I wrote above was a comment on the election process where the
> writer only mentions himself and not chess players or chess playing
> over which he would govern.
>
> Here Randy Bauer weighs in to do the same thing - I should care about
> the organization, he suggests, not if what the organization does for
> chess is to my liking. In fact, I think my response is typical of ex-
> members. We are active players, teachers, writers, and so on - and
> found what we wanted to support our activity elsewhere - since USCF
> seemed completely indifferent to our needs.
>
> The idea of joining USCF to change it can only come from a chess
> politician - as if we should join the Republican Party to make it more
> liberal, rather than join the Liberal party.
>
> Phil Ines
I'm not sure which is the funniest statement in this post:
1. That P Innes is a "currently active player" - "active" meaning that
he's rabbit-bashing on an online server.
2. That P Innes is a "active chess journalist" - the only places he
gets published are newsgroups and a website that calls him Business
Manager.
3. That P Innes is using "we" when it's clear he only posts for
himself.
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 04:52:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 21, 7:33=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> I can't answer Randy Bauer's question he poses to himself. Why should
> the organization want currently active players like myself who used to
> be members? Randy will no doubt ponder the answer to his own question.
>
> Phil Ines
Where are you an active player?
We know that you have not played a rated game of chess in more than
ten years.
Have you played a game of chess of any kind anywhere in the last ten
years?
We know that you post a lot here to drive traffic to your website but
do you do anything else with regard to chess?
Can you give the name of one person who has ever played a game of
chess against you?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 04:33:12
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 19, 11:08=A0pm, Randy Bauer <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 6:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 5:44=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 5:33=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 4:50=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > [quote=3D"CHESSDON"]Fact is - "The Lawsuits - PRO and CON Polgar"=
are
> > > > > what the coming EB election is all about. Unfortunately, it will =
be a
> > > > > single issue election. The campaigning open and behind the scenes=
will
> > > > > be enormous.
>
> > > > > If the "PRO" Polgar side win in the election - the "USCF NEW Boar=
d"
> > > > > will drop/reverse their positions on the lawsuits and issue a
> > > > > statement highly favorable to the Polgars thus create a domino ef=
fect
> > > > > causing the various lawsuits to whither away.
>
> > > > > If the "CON" Polgar side wins the elections, the lawsuits will
> > > > > continue until one side or the other becomes convinced they will =
lose
> > > > > and a compromise will be reached that is highly favorable to the =
side
> > > > > with the mostest.
>
> > > > > Anyone seeking to run for the EB who does not openly support and =
and
> > > > > have been endorsed either by the Polgars or the "USCF CURRENT Boa=
rd",
> > > > > IMO, stand little or no chance.
>
> > > > > Don Schultz [/quote]
>
> > > > > I am glad to see Don back, since he has been away for a while.
>
> > > > > I disagree with Don on several points.
>
> > > > > I am running. I am definitely not going to be endorsed by the Pol=
gars,
> > > > > nor will I be endorsed by the USCF Current Board. Still I think I=
have
> > > > > a chance. I may well be the only truly independent candidate. "Vo=
te
> > > > > for Sam, the only one who is not somebody's sycophant!!"
>
> > > > > My chances will greatly improve if there are only four candidates=
, I
> > > > > admit.
>
> > > > > Even if you discount my chances, it could happen that another tru=
ly
> > > > > independent candidate will arise, a White Knight. Such a candidat=
e
> > > > > will be welcomed by the voters.
>
> > > > > Next, it is not true that a victory by the Polgar Group will caus=
e the
> > > > > lawsuits to wither away. Polgar made a major blunder by suing the
> > > > > lawyer, Karl Kronenberger. His reputation is now at stake and I d=
oubt
> > > > > that a takeover by the Polgar Group after the election would caus=
e him
> > > > > to drop the case. Similarly, I do not see any of the other non-in=
sider
> > > > > defendants dropping out just because Polgar wins the election. Th=
e
> > > > > only case that the Polgar group would have the power to drop woul=
d be
> > > > > USCF vs. Polgar, pending in the San Francisco Federal Court. That=
case
> > > > > is moving along a fast track and I except a decisive result befor=
e
> > > > > election-time anyway.
>
> > > > > A Polgar victory would likely mean that Goichberg is voted out of
> > > > > office. Knowing what is likely to happen to his chess business if
> > > > > Polgar takes power, I would expect Goichberg to accelerate the
> > > > > lawsuits, not shut them down.
>
> > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > Not a single word about We, The Chessplayers, in this message. What=
is
> > > > the effect on us who actually pay for the organization?
>
> > > > For myself, just like the Presidency of the United States, I don't
> > > > wish it on any candidate - the infrastructure being degraded to
> > > > catastrophic degree.
>
> > > > Though there are some more likely to act to promote chess than othe=
rs;
> > > > and the same people would be more credible in doing so. Isn't that
> > > > USCF's mission statement?
>
> > > > If that doesn't matter, nothing at all matters about the USCF.
>
> > > > Phil Innes
>
> > > Who is this "we", white man?
>
> > > You have not been a USCF member since 1996.
>
> > >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > What does being a USCF member have to do with playing chess? There are
> > more ICC members, alone. And what is this to do with rated chess, USCF
> > being a somewhat expensive current option - did you not see the
> > current Express Chess rates?
>
> > And what sort of daft response is this, Sloan - have you ever talked
> > about chess as it has to do with the majority of chess players, or
> > your own fortunes in it?
>
> > I think it is demonstrated by your own hand that which way you are.
>
> > What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do you
> > write here at all?
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Why would "WE" the paying members of the USCF care about the views of
> non-members like you? =A0If you care so much, buy a membership and
> participate in the USCF electoral process. =A0There are USCF members in
> Vermont, no?
I can't answer Randy Bauer's question he poses to himself. Why should
the organization want currently active players like myself who used to
be members? Randy will no doubt ponder the answer to his own question.
Perhaps he will get around to wondering why members left in the first
place - and where they went when they left?
Playing chess on-line was certainly an inducement in my case, both 10
minute games and also correspondence. The magazine is no inducement
since as an active chess journalist I seem to have read all the news
about 2 months before CL ever arrived.
What I wrote above was a comment on the election process where the
writer only mentions himself and not chess players or chess playing
over which he would govern.
Here Randy Bauer weighs in to do the same thing - I should care about
the organization, he suggests, not if what the organization does for
chess is to my liking. In fact, I think my response is typical of ex-
members. We are active players, teachers, writers, and so on - and
found what we wanted to support our activity elsewhere - since USCF
seemed completely indifferent to our needs.
The idea of joining USCF to change it can only come from a chess
politician - as if we should join the Republican Party to make it more
liberal, rather than join the Liberal party.
Phil Ines
|
| |
Date: 20 Dec 2008 12:11:31
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 19, 10:42=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do you
> > > write here at all?
>
> > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Why would "WE" the paying members of the USCF care about the views of
> > non-members like you? If you care so much, buy a membership and
> > participate in the USCF electoral process. There are USCF members in
> > Vermont, no?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ah yes, Phil. =A0Check your logic at the door.
> Why not buy a USCF life membership which used to guarantee you a
> lifetime of Chess Life.
> At least it did when my son and I bought ours.
>
> This isn't an electoral process. =A0It is more like competing economic
> interests ripping away the remains of the USCF.
> Now they have decided the electors can only survive by screwing the
> life members and the scholastic members. =A0Such an organization to be
> proud of.
>
> The more they grey, the more the members pay.
>
> Sheesh.
> Rp
I'm a life member too, and I expect I will still receive my Chess Life
for however many years I am still around - it may be delivered
electronoically, but it is still Chess Life. Is the content or the
paper what makes it Chess Life? I would suggest the content.
Randy Bauer
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2008 20:42:21
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
>
> > What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do you
> > write here at all?
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Why would "WE" the paying members of the USCF care about the views of
> non-members like you? =EF=BF=BDIf you care so much, buy a membership and
> participate in the USCF electoral process. =EF=BF=BDThere are USCF member=
s in
> Vermont, no?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah yes, Phil. Check your logic at the door.
Why not buy a USCF life membership which used to guarantee you a
lifetime of Chess Life.
At least it did when my son and I bought ours.
This isn't an electoral process. It is more like competing economic
interests ripping away the remains of the USCF.
Now they have decided the electors can only survive by screwing the
life members and the scholastic members. Such an organization to be
proud of.
The more they grey, the more the members pay.
Sheesh.
Rp
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2008 20:08:24
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 19, 6:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 5:44=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 5:33=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 4:50=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > [quote=3D"CHESSDON"]Fact is - "The Lawsuits - PRO and CON Polgar" a=
re
> > > > what the coming EB election is all about. Unfortunately, it will be=
a
> > > > single issue election. The campaigning open and behind the scenes w=
ill
> > > > be enormous.
>
> > > > If the "PRO" Polgar side win in the election - the "USCF NEW Board"
> > > > will drop/reverse their positions on the lawsuits and issue a
> > > > statement highly favorable to the Polgars thus create a domino effe=
ct
> > > > causing the various lawsuits to whither away.
>
> > > > If the "CON" Polgar side wins the elections, the lawsuits will
> > > > continue until one side or the other becomes convinced they will lo=
se
> > > > and a compromise will be reached that is highly favorable to the si=
de
> > > > with the mostest.
>
> > > > Anyone seeking to run for the EB who does not openly support and an=
d
> > > > have been endorsed either by the Polgars or the "USCF CURRENT Board=
",
> > > > IMO, stand little or no chance.
>
> > > > Don Schultz [/quote]
>
> > > > I am glad to see Don back, since he has been away for a while.
>
> > > > I disagree with Don on several points.
>
> > > > I am running. I am definitely not going to be endorsed by the Polga=
rs,
> > > > nor will I be endorsed by the USCF Current Board. Still I think I h=
ave
> > > > a chance. I may well be the only truly independent candidate. "Vote
> > > > for Sam, the only one who is not somebody's sycophant!!"
>
> > > > My chances will greatly improve if there are only four candidates, =
I
> > > > admit.
>
> > > > Even if you discount my chances, it could happen that another truly
> > > > independent candidate will arise, a White Knight. Such a candidate
> > > > will be welcomed by the voters.
>
> > > > Next, it is not true that a victory by the Polgar Group will cause =
the
> > > > lawsuits to wither away. Polgar made a major blunder by suing the
> > > > lawyer, Karl Kronenberger. His reputation is now at stake and I dou=
bt
> > > > that a takeover by the Polgar Group after the election would cause =
him
> > > > to drop the case. Similarly, I do not see any of the other non-insi=
der
> > > > defendants dropping out just because Polgar wins the election. The
> > > > only case that the Polgar group would have the power to drop would =
be
> > > > USCF vs. Polgar, pending in the San Francisco Federal Court. That c=
ase
> > > > is moving along a fast track and I except a decisive result before
> > > > election-time anyway.
>
> > > > A Polgar victory would likely mean that Goichberg is voted out of
> > > > office. Knowing what is likely to happen to his chess business if
> > > > Polgar takes power, I would expect Goichberg to accelerate the
> > > > lawsuits, not shut them down.
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > Not a single word about We, The Chessplayers, in this message. What i=
s
> > > the effect on us who actually pay for the organization?
>
> > > For myself, just like the Presidency of the United States, I don't
> > > wish it on any candidate - the infrastructure being degraded to
> > > catastrophic degree.
>
> > > Though there are some more likely to act to promote chess than others=
;
> > > and the same people would be more credible in doing so. Isn't that
> > > USCF's mission statement?
>
> > > If that doesn't matter, nothing at all matters about the USCF.
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > Who is this "we", white man?
>
> > You have not been a USCF member since 1996.
>
> >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> What does being a USCF member have to do with playing chess? There are
> more ICC members, alone. And what is this to do with rated chess, USCF
> being a somewhat expensive current option - did you not see the
> current Express Chess rates?
>
> And what sort of daft response is this, Sloan - have you ever talked
> about chess as it has to do with the majority of chess players, or
> your own fortunes in it?
>
> I think it is demonstrated by your own hand that which way you are.
>
> What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do you
> write here at all?
>
> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why would "WE" the paying members of the USCF care about the views of
non-members like you? If you care so much, buy a membership and
participate in the USCF electoral process. There are USCF members in
Vermont, no?
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2008 16:21:33
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 19, 5:44=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 5:33=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 4:50=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > [quote=3D"CHESSDON"]Fact is - "The Lawsuits - PRO and CON Polgar" are
> > > what the coming EB election is all about. Unfortunately, it will be a
> > > single issue election. The campaigning open and behind the scenes wil=
l
> > > be enormous.
>
> > > If the "PRO" Polgar side win in the election - the "USCF NEW Board"
> > > will drop/reverse their positions on the lawsuits and issue a
> > > statement highly favorable to the Polgars thus create a domino effect
> > > causing the various lawsuits to whither away.
>
> > > If the "CON" Polgar side wins the elections, the lawsuits will
> > > continue until one side or the other becomes convinced they will lose
> > > and a compromise will be reached that is highly favorable to the side
> > > with the mostest.
>
> > > Anyone seeking to run for the EB who does not openly support and and
> > > have been endorsed either by the Polgars or the "USCF CURRENT Board",
> > > IMO, stand little or no chance.
>
> > > Don Schultz [/quote]
>
> > > I am glad to see Don back, since he has been away for a while.
>
> > > I disagree with Don on several points.
>
> > > I am running. I am definitely not going to be endorsed by the Polgars=
,
> > > nor will I be endorsed by the USCF Current Board. Still I think I hav=
e
> > > a chance. I may well be the only truly independent candidate. "Vote
> > > for Sam, the only one who is not somebody's sycophant!!"
>
> > > My chances will greatly improve if there are only four candidates, I
> > > admit.
>
> > > Even if you discount my chances, it could happen that another truly
> > > independent candidate will arise, a White Knight. Such a candidate
> > > will be welcomed by the voters.
>
> > > Next, it is not true that a victory by the Polgar Group will cause th=
e
> > > lawsuits to wither away. Polgar made a major blunder by suing the
> > > lawyer, Karl Kronenberger. His reputation is now at stake and I doubt
> > > that a takeover by the Polgar Group after the election would cause hi=
m
> > > to drop the case. Similarly, I do not see any of the other non-inside=
r
> > > defendants dropping out just because Polgar wins the election. The
> > > only case that the Polgar group would have the power to drop would be
> > > USCF vs. Polgar, pending in the San Francisco Federal Court. That cas=
e
> > > is moving along a fast track and I except a decisive result before
> > > election-time anyway.
>
> > > A Polgar victory would likely mean that Goichberg is voted out of
> > > office. Knowing what is likely to happen to his chess business if
> > > Polgar takes power, I would expect Goichberg to accelerate the
> > > lawsuits, not shut them down.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Not a single word about We, The Chessplayers, in this message. What is
> > the effect on us who actually pay for the organization?
>
> > For myself, just like the Presidency of the United States, I don't
> > wish it on any candidate - the infrastructure being degraded to
> > catastrophic degree.
>
> > Though there are some more likely to act to promote chess than others;
> > and the same people would be more credible in doing so. Isn't that
> > USCF's mission statement?
>
> > If that doesn't matter, nothing at all matters about the USCF.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Who is this "we", white man?
>
> You have not been a USCF member since 1996.
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296
>
> Sam Sloan
What does being a USCF member have to do with playing chess? There are
more ICC members, alone. And what is this to do with rated chess, USCF
being a somewhat expensive current option - did you not see the
current Express Chess rates?
And what sort of daft response is this, Sloan - have you ever talked
about chess as it has to do with the majority of chess players, or
your own fortunes in it?
I think it is demonstrated by your own hand that which way you are.
What you write has nothing to do with chess players - so why do you
write here at all?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2008 14:44:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 19, 5:33=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 19, 4:50=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [quote=3D"CHESSDON"]Fact is - "The Lawsuits - PRO and CON Polgar" are
> > what the coming EB election is all about. Unfortunately, it will be a
> > single issue election. The campaigning open and behind the scenes will
> > be enormous.
>
> > If the "PRO" Polgar side win in the election - the "USCF NEW Board"
> > will drop/reverse their positions on the lawsuits and issue a
> > statement highly favorable to the Polgars thus create a domino effect
> > causing the various lawsuits to whither away.
>
> > If the "CON" Polgar side wins the elections, the lawsuits will
> > continue until one side or the other becomes convinced they will lose
> > and a compromise will be reached that is highly favorable to the side
> > with the mostest.
>
> > Anyone seeking to run for the EB who does not openly support and and
> > have been endorsed either by the Polgars or the "USCF CURRENT Board",
> > IMO, stand little or no chance.
>
> > Don Schultz [/quote]
>
> > I am glad to see Don back, since he has been away for a while.
>
> > I disagree with Don on several points.
>
> > I am running. I am definitely not going to be endorsed by the Polgars,
> > nor will I be endorsed by the USCF Current Board. Still I think I have
> > a chance. I may well be the only truly independent candidate. "Vote
> > for Sam, the only one who is not somebody's sycophant!!"
>
> > My chances will greatly improve if there are only four candidates, I
> > admit.
>
> > Even if you discount my chances, it could happen that another truly
> > independent candidate will arise, a White Knight. Such a candidate
> > will be welcomed by the voters.
>
> > Next, it is not true that a victory by the Polgar Group will cause the
> > lawsuits to wither away. Polgar made a major blunder by suing the
> > lawyer, Karl Kronenberger. His reputation is now at stake and I doubt
> > that a takeover by the Polgar Group after the election would cause him
> > to drop the case. Similarly, I do not see any of the other non-insider
> > defendants dropping out just because Polgar wins the election. The
> > only case that the Polgar group would have the power to drop would be
> > USCF vs. Polgar, pending in the San Francisco Federal Court. That case
> > is moving along a fast track and I except a decisive result before
> > election-time anyway.
>
> > A Polgar victory would likely mean that Goichberg is voted out of
> > office. Knowing what is likely to happen to his chess business if
> > Polgar takes power, I would expect Goichberg to accelerate the
> > lawsuits, not shut them down.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Not a single word about We, The Chessplayers, in this message. What is
> the effect on us who actually pay for the organization?
>
> For myself, just like the Presidency of the United States, I don't
> wish it on any candidate - the infrastructure being degraded to
> catastrophic degree.
>
> Though there are some more likely to act to promote chess than others;
> and the same people would be more credible in doing so. Isn't that
> USCF's mission statement?
>
> If that doesn't matter, nothing at all matters about the USCF.
>
> Phil Innes
Who is this "we", white man?
You have not been a USCF member since 1996.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12529296
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2008 14:33:08
From:
Subject: Re: Chessdon on the Coming USCF Election
|
On Dec 19, 4:50=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote=3D"CHESSDON"]Fact is - "The Lawsuits - PRO and CON Polgar" are
> what the coming EB election is all about. Unfortunately, it will be a
> single issue election. The campaigning open and behind the scenes will
> be enormous.
>
> If the "PRO" Polgar side win in the election - the "USCF NEW Board"
> will drop/reverse their positions on the lawsuits and issue a
> statement highly favorable to the Polgars thus create a domino effect
> causing the various lawsuits to whither away.
>
> If the "CON" Polgar side wins the elections, the lawsuits will
> continue until one side or the other becomes convinced they will lose
> and a compromise will be reached that is highly favorable to the side
> with the mostest.
>
> Anyone seeking to run for the EB who does not openly support and and
> have been endorsed either by the Polgars or the "USCF CURRENT Board",
> IMO, stand little or no chance.
>
> Don Schultz [/quote]
>
> I am glad to see Don back, since he has been away for a while.
>
> I disagree with Don on several points.
>
> I am running. I am definitely not going to be endorsed by the Polgars,
> nor will I be endorsed by the USCF Current Board. Still I think I have
> a chance. I may well be the only truly independent candidate. "Vote
> for Sam, the only one who is not somebody's sycophant!!"
>
> My chances will greatly improve if there are only four candidates, I
> admit.
>
> Even if you discount my chances, it could happen that another truly
> independent candidate will arise, a White Knight. Such a candidate
> will be welcomed by the voters.
>
> Next, it is not true that a victory by the Polgar Group will cause the
> lawsuits to wither away. Polgar made a major blunder by suing the
> lawyer, Karl Kronenberger. His reputation is now at stake and I doubt
> that a takeover by the Polgar Group after the election would cause him
> to drop the case. Similarly, I do not see any of the other non-insider
> defendants dropping out just because Polgar wins the election. The
> only case that the Polgar group would have the power to drop would be
> USCF vs. Polgar, pending in the San Francisco Federal Court. That case
> is moving along a fast track and I except a decisive result before
> election-time anyway.
>
> A Polgar victory would likely mean that Goichberg is voted out of
> office. Knowing what is likely to happen to his chess business if
> Polgar takes power, I would expect Goichberg to accelerate the
> lawsuits, not shut them down.
>
> Sam Sloan
Not a single word about We, The Chessplayers, in this message. What is
the effect on us who actually pay for the organization?
For myself, just like the Presidency of the United States, I don't
wish it on any candidate - the infrastructure being degraded to
catastrophic degree.
Though there are some more likely to act to promote chess than others;
and the same people would be more credible in doing so. Isn't that
USCF's mission statement?
If that doesn't matter, nothing at all matters about the USCF.
Phil Innes
|
|
