| |
Main
Date: 22 Nov 2008 21:00:20
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: For Mark Nibb
|
From the USCF Issues Forum:
by marknibb on Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:36 pm #118377
I would be curious if anyone feels they have been threatened by PM
messages here on the forums or if they feel their PM account has been
hacked?
-------------------------------------
Mark, if you or anyone else feels that they have been threatened, by all
means do at least the following two things:
1. Post the PM here for all to see.
2. If the threat involves a possible crime, report it to the police.
Mark, if you feel that your PM or any other USCF account has been
hacked, please give the factual details to the USCF attorney, Karl
Kronenberger. The hacker may well be another John Doe for litigation
purposes.
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2008 12:10:01
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: For Mark Nibb
|
In news:[email protected] "B. Lafferty"
<[email protected] > wrote in rec.games.chess.misc:
(snip on material probably stolen by Lafferty)
>Mark, if you or anyone else feels that they have been threatened, by all
>means do at least the following two things:
>1. Post the PM here for all to see.
>2. If the threat involves a possible crime, report it to the police.
>
>Mark, if you feel that your PM or any other USCF account has been
>hacked, please give the factual details to the USCF attorney, Karl
>Kronenberger. The hacker may well be another John Doe for litigation
>purposes.
Yet more gratuitous, unlicensed practising of law from the jackass.
Plus what may well be unauthorized reproduction of copyright material.
Plus being a general busybody, spammer and nuisance.
Sincerely - fuck off, Brian. Is your bike too slow to chase ambulances?
Do you even know in what low esteem people like Mark and Karl hold you?
|
| | |
BILL BROCK'S CONFESSION
>No one more often demands that others stop writing and talking
about sex than Mr. Brock. > -- Larry Parr
<As far as rgcp goes, point conceded. But context matters.
Sex between consenting adults is perhaps the best thing we've got
going. But invading the private lives of others is wrong. > -- Bill
Brock
Bill Brock pointedly does not challenge this writer to
regurgitate a past posting in which he -- admittedly inadvertantly --
confessed to be a child molester. The poor man did not realize what he
was posting. We remain confident that Mr. Brock is NOT a child
molester.
We stand by our statement that no one writes more about sex in
our tiny world of chess than Mr. Brock. To be sure, Sam Sloan writes
more about sex beyond the confines of chess, but our claim is likely
true if one confines postings dealing with sex in the chess world.
Mr. Brock is our rgcp Weltmeister.
As matters currently stand, there is no proof that Sam Sloan
ever molested a child. There is proof -- albeit silly, misstated and
imbecilic truth -- that Bill Brock did so. For he confessed to such
in a statement he authored.
That is where we stand.
We firmly believe that neither Sam nor Big Bill ever molested a
waif, though we can't help guffawing every time Mr. Brock sticks a
syntactical toe up his nose. He didn't mean to confess. He just got
nervous, upset, outraged, empurpled in the face, pounding at his
keyboard without due care or any diligence whatsoever.
We would like to leave Mr. Brock to his own counsel if he were
simply to keep his own counsel. All the man has to do is to write
quite clearly, "I have no proof to offer that Sam Sloan ever molested
a girl or a boy, whereas there is silly junk I wrote without bothering
to check my own words that could constitute proof, if self-confession
counts. Having said the preceding, I am now going to attack Sam Sloan
for the following ...."
If Mr. Brock were to append such a comment to his long sexual
descriptions that invariably follow, this writer would have no comment
in reply.
Yours, Larry Parr
-
billbrock wrote:
> On Nov 24, 12:49?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > BILL BROCK'S HYPOCRISY
> >
> > < Even though my own comments on Sloan's sexual exploitation of
> > children
> > are empirically grounded, I would disqualify myself on similar
> > grounds. :-) -- Bill Brock
> >
> > ? No one writes more about sex in our little world of chess than Bill
> > Brock. ?
>
> I'm sure you can think of a friend of yours who just might have
> written a bit more.
>
> > No one more often demands that others stop writing and talking
> > about sex than Mr. Brock.
>
> As far as rgcp goes, point conceded. But context matters.
>
> Sex between consenting adults is perhaps the best thing we've got
> going. But invading the private lives of others is wrong.
>
> Molesting children is wrong.
>
> Some of us godless liberals are fond of the categorical imperative.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2008 16:01:05
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: For Mark Nibb
|
Larry, when Mr. Brock becomes upset, he has been known to go through an
information dump period that can be quite interesting--at least that's
what I've been told.
[email protected] wrote:
> BILL BROCK'S CONFESSION
>
>
>> No one more often demands that others stop writing and talking
> about sex than Mr. Brock.> -- Larry Parr
>
> <As far as rgcp goes, point conceded. But context matters.
> Sex between consenting adults is perhaps the best thing we've got
> going. But invading the private lives of others is wrong.> -- Bill
> Brock
>
> Bill Brock pointedly does not challenge this writer to
> regurgitate a past posting in which he -- admittedly inadvertantly --
> confessed to be a child molester. The poor man did not realize what he
> was posting. We remain confident that Mr. Brock is NOT a child
> molester.
>
> We stand by our statement that no one writes more about sex in
> our tiny world of chess than Mr. Brock. To be sure, Sam Sloan writes
> more about sex beyond the confines of chess, but our claim is likely
> true if one confines postings dealing with sex in the chess world.
> Mr. Brock is our rgcp Weltmeister.
>
> As matters currently stand, there is no proof that Sam Sloan
> ever molested a child. There is proof -- albeit silly, misstated and
> imbecilic truth -- that Bill Brock did so. For he confessed to such
> in a statement he authored.
>
> That is where we stand.
>
> We firmly believe that neither Sam nor Big Bill ever molested a
> waif, though we can't help guffawing every time Mr. Brock sticks a
> syntactical toe up his nose. He didn't mean to confess. He just got
> nervous, upset, outraged, empurpled in the face, pounding at his
> keyboard without due care or any diligence whatsoever.
>
> We would like to leave Mr. Brock to his own counsel if he were
> simply to keep his own counsel. All the man has to do is to write
> quite clearly, "I have no proof to offer that Sam Sloan ever molested
> a girl or a boy, whereas there is silly junk I wrote without bothering
> to check my own words that could constitute proof, if self-confession
> counts. Having said the preceding, I am now going to attack Sam Sloan
> for the following ...."
>
> If Mr. Brock were to append such a comment to his long sexual
> descriptions that invariably follow, this writer would have no comment
> in reply.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
> -
>
> billbrock wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 12:49?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> BILL BROCK'S HYPOCRISY
>>>
>>> < Even though my own comments on Sloan's sexual exploitation of
>>> children
>>> are empirically grounded, I would disqualify myself on similar
>>> grounds. :-) -- Bill Brock
>>>
>>> ? No one writes more about sex in our little world of chess than Bill
>>> Brock. ?
>> I'm sure you can think of a friend of yours who just might have
>> written a bit more.
>>
>>> No one more often demands that others stop writing and talking
>>> about sex than Mr. Brock.
>> As far as rgcp goes, point conceded. But context matters.
>>
>> Sex between consenting adults is perhaps the best thing we've got
>> going. But invading the private lives of others is wrong.
>>
>> Molesting children is wrong.
>>
>> Some of us godless liberals are fond of the categorical imperative.
|
| | |
BILL BROCK'S HYPOCRISY
< Even though my own comments on Sloan's sexual exploitation of
children
are empirically grounded, I would disqualify myself on similar
grounds. :-) -- Bill Brock
No one writes more about sex in our little world of chess than Bill
Brock. No one more often demands that others stop writing and talking
about sex than Mr. Brock.
There was a time when scarcely an hour went by without Mr. Brock
drooling across the bandwidth in indignation.
Indignation about what? Well, that's just it. We never found
it whether he was upset about imagined child molestation or fuming in
fear that others were having fun. We likely never will discover the
fountainhead of his geyser-like effusions.
There is irony.
Thus far, we have had one confession of child molestation on
this forum. It was written, albeit unwittingly, by Mr. Brock. We
always stipulate that when Mr. Brock confessed to being a child
molester right here , he did not know quite understand what he was
writing. Still, for the public record, his ill-formed sentences
remain the only proof of such action against anyone on this forum.
If Mr. Brock would care to dispute the point, we can retrieve
his work and dissect his sentences once again.
Yours, Larry Parr
billbrock wrote:
> On Nov 23, 11:34?am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > billbrock wrote:
>
> [context snipped for clarity; see upthread]
>
> >
> > > I agree with Mark that Mr. Mottershead could have handled this
> > > situation better. ?IMO, he violated his NDA. ?The unusual
> > > circumstances certainly mitigate.
> >
> > Do you have a copy of Mr. Motterhead's "NDA" that you can point to?
>
> Yes. I have agreed not to republish it. Mr. Mottershead & USCF could
> certainly make a copy available if they so chose. This is rgcp.
>
> > > IMO, there are sufficient reasons to find Polgar and Truong unfit
> > > fiduciaries even if one sets aside M's report. ?I believe that Mark &
> > > I currently disagree on this point. ?I understand the POV of Mark &
> > > Fred G & have great respect for them.
> >
> > Completely wrong as you will soon learn in detail. ?
>
> I am fond of facts. No problem when the time comes.
>
> > Are you still
> > interested in taking/over replacing the USCF as you were a couple of
> > years ago?
>
> It was quixotic then, more so now. I would like to see successful
> business folks (and who have no economic interests in chess) control
> the USCF. There are a couple on the board now; we need more.
>
> Having the owner of USCF's largest affiliate as President of USCF
> creates a fatal *appearance* of conflict of interest. I think that's
> one reason the HB Global was a one-off event.
>
>
> > > Of course Sloan remains a child molester, similarly unfit.
> >
> > That is defamatory tripe. ?I hope Sloan sues you for it.
>
> I believe he already has.
>
> Wish him luck on his appeal: there are an abundance of Federal
> questions ;-)
>
> > > And we still have a Board member who has previously deployed said
> > > child molester to advance his own purposes. ?That's a bigger problem
> > > from USCF's perspective.
> >
> > > Great organization.
> >
> > > And the current USCF President could use a better moral compass.
> >
> > Like you and your compass? ?If you think so, run for the EB. ?Oh wait,
> > you have [sic--whb] renewed your USCF membership yet.
>
> I have made my requirements for rejoining USCF known to the Board:
> they have to stop talking about each other's sex lives. Partial
> history, just from 2005-2008: Polgar/Truong re Lux, a sitting Board
> member re Sloan/Polgar in an email to me, Schultz re Marinello. And
> then we have Sloan, who even made discussions about his past sexual
> relations with a minor part of USCF business:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/4bf7f48078dd2ef6
> .
>
> I will be happy to rejoin when that low standard is met. Hard to
> attract good Board members when they know they're going to be dragged
> through the mud.
>
> Even though my own comments on Sloan's sexual exploitation of children
> are empirically grounded, I would disqualify myself on similar
> grounds. :-)
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2008 11:12:28
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: For Mark Nibb
|
On Nov 23, 10:56=A0am, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I agree with Mark that Mr. Mottershead could have handled this
> situation better. =A0IMO, he violated his NDA. =A0The unusual
> circumstances certainly mitigate.
>
> IMO, there are sufficient reasons to find Polgar and Truong unfit
> fiduciaries even if one sets aside M's report. =A0I believe that Mark &
> I currently disagree on this point. =A0I understand the POV of Mark &
> Fred G & have great respect for them.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill and others listening in - I also am of a belief that "Polgar and
Truong" should step down as EB members.
I am absolutely sure that I am not alone in believing that what has
occurred with the Mottershead report and its distribution most likely
is not in the best interst of the USCF - and some disagree with that
view. I do wish we could get to a point where this is all put behind
the organization and things can move ahead positively. To some that
appears to be a dream, and I admit sometimes I begin to feel it is
wishful thinking.
Sometimes just about when I feel that there is no hope with all the
lawsuits and what I consider selfish behaviour, my mind does wander to
thinking about what will US Chess do when everyone gives up on the
USCF. I sometimes think and even discuss what can be done and how I
might want to make things better. I usually come back to believing/
hoping that the USCF can figure it out and begin serving its purpose.
Today, I'm not so sure. I really do hope that others are not feeling
the sense of hopelessness toward the USCF and the many actors who play
a part in it. Sometimes I wonder if I am going to wake up and say as
Charleton Heston said "they blew it all up" (planet of the apes) Can
anybody turn this around?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2008 08:56:53
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: For Mark Nibb
|
On Nov 23, 9:15=A0am, marknibb <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 23, 5:10=A0am, Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Innews:[email protected]"B. Lafferty"
> > <[email protected]> wrote in rec.games.chess.misc:
>
> > (snip on material probably stolen by Lafferty)
>
> > >Mark, if you or anyone else feels that they have been threatened, by a=
ll
> > >means do at least the following two things:
> > >1. Post the PM here for all to see.
> > >2. If the threat involves a possible crime, report it to the police.
>
> > >Mark, if you feel that your PM or any other USCF account has been
> > >hacked, please give the factual details to the USCF attorney, Karl
> > >Kronenberger. =A0The hacker may well be another John Doe for litigatio=
n
> > >purposes.
>
> > Yet more gratuitous, unlicensed practising of law from the jackass.
> > Plus what may well be unauthorized reproduction of copyright material.
> > Plus being a general busybody, spammer and nuisance.
> > Sincerely - fuck off, Brian. Is your bike too slow to chase ambulances?
> > Do you even know in what low esteem people like Mark and Karl hold you?
>
> Brian and others, =A0I'm not nearly as upset with your post as this
> poster seems to be. =A0As a very infrequent poster to this forum, =A0I'm
> very hesitant to try and post here for fear it will be misconstrued as
> far more than I intend this post to say.
>
> I'll correct my post already, I'm not at all upset with your post
> Brian.
>
> When I posted on the USCF forum, =A0I was seeking to find out if others
> were as dissappointed with the way we seem to be treating each other
> in an organization that should be finding ways to get along. =A0I see
> the USCF as a NFP to promote the game and provide a benefit for
> others. =A0What I object to so often in this type of organization is the
> growing sense that what we are doing is no longer about doing what is
> good for the game and finding ways to grow and keep the peace within
> the organization.
>
> One of the things I have spoken about often is the release of the
> Mottershead report. =A0I do =A0hold a personal opinion that the USCF was
> not the proper venue to find out the FSS, =A0I have held the opinion
> what went on with FSS was not USCF business. =A0I may have been mistaken
> if it were proven USCF assets were involved in the activity of the
> FSS, but I still don't see that having taken place.
>
> With regard to the release of the report - well, I did not feel the
> USCF had sufficiently verified the information contained in the
> report. =A0As I read the two opinions of the report, even they seemed to
> back off of definative statements that the report was entirely true
> and fact. =A0Both reports raised suffiecient questions in my mind of
> being able to verify the data presented in the report as authentic and
> the possibility of a couple other somewhat less troublesome issues.
> Did the USCF sufficientl verify the information? =A0Still don't know.
> From my background is data processing, I still think the nail in the
> coffin is comparison of the data in the report with backup files,
>
> That last sentence is not intended to be an indightment of the creator
> of the report, but instead a best practice to be followed before a
> report of such a nature is released by anyone within the USCF to those
> outside the USCF. =A0The USCF holds the responsibility to make sure it
> is correct. =A0The creator of the opinions on the reports suggest that
> they can not be responsible for the accuracy of the report without
> verification of the underlying data. =A0Even with that having taken
> place, =A0I'm not sure it is in the best interest of the USCF be
> involved in activies that take place outside of the USCF or the public
> distribution of the report before internal organizational discipline
> take place..
>
> Back to the topic of today, =A0I was attempting to determine whether in
> the climate of adversity which is the USCF, whether others were
> receiving private messages which were warnings =A0"or" implied threats
> meant to intimidate others. =A0Unlike some others, =A0I have taken extrem=
e
> care not to disclose the content of this type of message or the
> creators of these messages beyond those within the organization who I
> believe are the correct avenue for review and who have authority to
> attempt to address such conduct.
>
> I personally would like to see the USCF get together to understand the
> way that we communicate with one another does impact the success of
> the organization. =A0Legal threats and public bickering don't make for
> a successful NFP and we need to get a good ethics policy in place and
> abide by it.
>
> More than enough for now.
>
> Mark
I agree with Mark that Mr. Mottershead could have handled this
situation better. IMO, he violated his NDA. The unusual
circumstances certainly mitigate.
IMO, there are sufficient reasons to find Polgar and Truong unfit
fiduciaries even if one sets aside M's report. I believe that Mark &
I currently disagree on this point. I understand the POV of Mark &
Fred G & have great respect for them.
Of course Sloan remains a child molester, similarly unfit.
And we still have a Board member who has previously deployed said
child molester to advance his own purposes. That's a bigger problem
from USCF's perspective.
Great organization.
And the current USCF President could use a better moral compass.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2008 17:34:25
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: For Mark Nibb
|
billbrock wrote:
> On Nov 23, 9:15 am, marknibb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 5:10 am, Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Innews:[email protected]"B. Lafferty"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in rec.games.chess.misc:
>>> (snip on material probably stolen by Lafferty)
>>>> Mark, if you or anyone else feels that they have been threatened, by all
>>>> means do at least the following two things:
>>>> 1. Post the PM here for all to see.
>>>> 2. If the threat involves a possible crime, report it to the police.
>>>> Mark, if you feel that your PM or any other USCF account has been
>>>> hacked, please give the factual details to the USCF attorney, Karl
>>>> Kronenberger. The hacker may well be another John Doe for litigation
>>>> purposes.
>>> Yet more gratuitous, unlicensed practising of law from the jackass.
>>> Plus what may well be unauthorized reproduction of copyright material.
>>> Plus being a general busybody, spammer and nuisance.
>>> Sincerely - fuck off, Brian. Is your bike too slow to chase ambulances?
>>> Do you even know in what low esteem people like Mark and Karl hold you?
>> Brian and others, I'm not nearly as upset with your post as this
>> poster seems to be. As a very infrequent poster to this forum, I'm
>> very hesitant to try and post here for fear it will be misconstrued as
>> far more than I intend this post to say.
>>
>> I'll correct my post already, I'm not at all upset with your post
>> Brian.
>>
>> When I posted on the USCF forum, I was seeking to find out if others
>> were as dissappointed with the way we seem to be treating each other
>> in an organization that should be finding ways to get along. I see
>> the USCF as a NFP to promote the game and provide a benefit for
>> others. What I object to so often in this type of organization is the
>> growing sense that what we are doing is no longer about doing what is
>> good for the game and finding ways to grow and keep the peace within
>> the organization.
>>
>> One of the things I have spoken about often is the release of the
>> Mottershead report. I do hold a personal opinion that the USCF was
>> not the proper venue to find out the FSS, I have held the opinion
>> what went on with FSS was not USCF business. I may have been mistaken
>> if it were proven USCF assets were involved in the activity of the
>> FSS, but I still don't see that having taken place.
>>
>> With regard to the release of the report - well, I did not feel the
>> USCF had sufficiently verified the information contained in the
>> report. As I read the two opinions of the report, even they seemed to
>> back off of definative statements that the report was entirely true
>> and fact. Both reports raised suffiecient questions in my mind of
>> being able to verify the data presented in the report as authentic and
>> the possibility of a couple other somewhat less troublesome issues.
>> Did the USCF sufficientl verify the information? Still don't know.
>> From my background is data processing, I still think the nail in the
>> coffin is comparison of the data in the report with backup files,
>>
>> That last sentence is not intended to be an indightment of the creator
>> of the report, but instead a best practice to be followed before a
>> report of such a nature is released by anyone within the USCF to those
>> outside the USCF. The USCF holds the responsibility to make sure it
>> is correct. The creator of the opinions on the reports suggest that
>> they can not be responsible for the accuracy of the report without
>> verification of the underlying data. Even with that having taken
>> place, I'm not sure it is in the best interest of the USCF be
>> involved in activies that take place outside of the USCF or the public
>> distribution of the report before internal organizational discipline
>> take place..
>>
>> Back to the topic of today, I was attempting to determine whether in
>> the climate of adversity which is the USCF, whether others were
>> receiving private messages which were warnings "or" implied threats
>> meant to intimidate others. Unlike some others, I have taken extreme
>> care not to disclose the content of this type of message or the
>> creators of these messages beyond those within the organization who I
>> believe are the correct avenue for review and who have authority to
>> attempt to address such conduct.
>>
>> I personally would like to see the USCF get together to understand the
>> way that we communicate with one another does impact the success of
>> the organization. Legal threats and public bickering don't make for
>> a successful NFP and we need to get a good ethics policy in place and
>> abide by it.
>>
>> More than enough for now.
>>
>> Mark
>
> I agree with Mark that Mr. Mottershead could have handled this
> situation better. IMO, he violated his NDA. The unusual
> circumstances certainly mitigate.
Do you have a copy of Mr. Motterhead's "NDA" that you can point to?
>
> IMO, there are sufficient reasons to find Polgar and Truong unfit
> fiduciaries even if one sets aside M's report. I believe that Mark &
> I currently disagree on this point. I understand the POV of Mark &
> Fred G & have great respect for them.
Completely wrong as you will soon learn in detail. Are you still
interested in taking/over replacing the USCF as you were a couple of
years ago?
>
> Of course Sloan remains a child molester, similarly unfit.
That is defamatory tripe. I hope Sloan sues you for it.
>
> And we still have a Board member who has previously deployed said
> child molester to advance his own purposes. That's a bigger problem
> from USCF's perspective.
>
> Great organization.
>
> And the current USCF President could use a better moral compass.
Like you and your compass? If you think so, run for the EB. Oh wait,
you have renewed your USCF membership yet.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2008 07:39:21
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: For Mark Nibb
|
On Nov 23, 9:00=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Please note that Mark Nibbelin, author of the above post, is the most
> rabid and argumentative supporter left of Polgar and Truong.
>
> Sam Sloan
Thanks Sam, I appreciate your support. Hope to work with you soon on
constructive and beneficial projects for the good of chess.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2008 07:00:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: For Mark Nibb
|
Please note that Mark Nibbelin, author of the above post, is the most
rabid and argumentative supporter left of Polgar and Truong.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2008 06:15:55
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: For Mark Nibb
|
On Nov 23, 5:10=A0am, Nomen Nescio <[email protected] > wrote:
> Innews:[email protected]"B. Lafferty"
> <[email protected]> wrote in rec.games.chess.misc:
>
> (snip on material probably stolen by Lafferty)
>
> >Mark, if you or anyone else feels that they have been threatened, by all
> >means do at least the following two things:
> >1. Post the PM here for all to see.
> >2. If the threat involves a possible crime, report it to the police.
>
> >Mark, if you feel that your PM or any other USCF account has been
> >hacked, please give the factual details to the USCF attorney, Karl
> >Kronenberger. =A0The hacker may well be another John Doe for litigation
> >purposes.
>
> Yet more gratuitous, unlicensed practising of law from the jackass.
> Plus what may well be unauthorized reproduction of copyright material.
> Plus being a general busybody, spammer and nuisance.
> Sincerely - fuck off, Brian. Is your bike too slow to chase ambulances?
> Do you even know in what low esteem people like Mark and Karl hold you?
Brian and others, I'm not nearly as upset with your post as this
poster seems to be. As a very infrequent poster to this forum, I'm
very hesitant to try and post here for fear it will be misconstrued as
far more than I intend this post to say.
I'll correct my post already, I'm not at all upset with your post
Brian.
When I posted on the USCF forum, I was seeking to find out if others
were as dissappointed with the way we seem to be treating each other
in an organization that should be finding ways to get along. I see
the USCF as a NFP to promote the game and provide a benefit for
others. What I object to so often in this type of organization is the
growing sense that what we are doing is no longer about doing what is
good for the game and finding ways to grow and keep the peace within
the organization.
One of the things I have spoken about often is the release of the
Mottershead report. I do hold a personal opinion that the USCF was
not the proper venue to find out the FSS, I have held the opinion
what went on with FSS was not USCF business. I may have been mistaken
if it were proven USCF assets were involved in the activity of the
FSS, but I still don't see that having taken place.
With regard to the release of the report - well, I did not feel the
USCF had sufficiently verified the information contained in the
report. As I read the two opinions of the report, even they seemed to
back off of definative statements that the report was entirely true
and fact. Both reports raised suffiecient questions in my mind of
being able to verify the data presented in the report as authentic and
the possibility of a couple other somewhat less troublesome issues.
Did the USCF sufficientl verify the information? Still don't know.
From my background is data processing, I still think the nail in the
coffin is comparison of the data in the report with backup files,
That last sentence is not intended to be an indightment of the creator
of the report, but instead a best practice to be followed before a
report of such a nature is released by anyone within the USCF to those
outside the USCF. The USCF holds the responsibility to make sure it
is correct. The creator of the opinions on the reports suggest that
they can not be responsible for the accuracy of the report without
verification of the underlying data. Even with that having taken
place, I'm not sure it is in the best interest of the USCF be
involved in activies that take place outside of the USCF or the public
distribution of the report before internal organizational discipline
take place..
Back to the topic of today, I was attempting to determine whether in
the climate of adversity which is the USCF, whether others were
receiving private messages which were warnings "or" implied threats
meant to intimidate others. Unlike some others, I have taken extreme
care not to disclose the content of this type of message or the
creators of these messages beyond those within the organization who I
believe are the correct avenue for review and who have authority to
attempt to address such conduct.
I personally would like to see the USCF get together to understand the
way that we communicate with one another does impact the success of
the organization. Legal threats and public bickering don't make for
a successful NFP and we need to get a good ethics policy in place and
abide by it.
More than enough for now.
Mark
|
|
