| |
Main
Date: 08 Apr 2008 03:51:43
From: samsloan
Subject: Joel Channing's Threats To Resign
|
Now, Joel Channing has posted to the USCF Issues Forum a statement
that he resigns effective immediately if the vote to cancel the
"Internet Insurance" passes. The problem with this is that at every
meeting while I was on the board, Channing said that he was
considering resigning. This is clearly part of his bullying tactics,
saying "If you don't do things my way, I am taking my ball and going
home".
Now, we are waiting to see if he is bluffing or if he really will
resign. As one wag has pointed out, he says that he wants his assets
protected, but he wants USCF Membership dues money used to protect his
assets. He should use his own money to protect his assets.
Here is what Channing has posted:
"I agree with your characterization of our potential liability as
probably a long shot. However, I'm surprised that you, as a horse
racing devotee, don't readily acknowledge that long shots tend to
produce big payoffs. As I've said before, my business is based on
minimizing risk in the pursuit of a big payoff, not a big payout! If
our actions or inactions were ever found by a jury to be the cause of
significant damage to the image and career of a high profile
personality, a jury award could easily be well into the millions. This
would mean that the financial health of the Federation itself, as well
as those of the directors, could be at risk. As I've also said before,
I could ignore the risk of loss if I were confident that any loss
would be a small one. In this case, however, I think you'd have to be
delusional not to acknowledge the possibility that a jury award might
be very big. Also, as we've seen, legal fees for high quality lawyers
can also scr*w up our budget.
"In short, I think it would be extremely imprudent to put my personal
assets, your assets and the assets of the Federation at risk of great
loss, no matter how small the potential for loss. I am in the business
of building, not losing, assets and that is what I came here to do. I
also think that before the board decides to accept the risk of going
"naked" with respect to cyber liability, the finance and LMA
committees should be consulted.
"As I told you last week, there'll be no hard feelings on my part if I
resign over this issue."
Third, my decision:
I hereby resign my seat on the USCF Board contingent on the Board's
passing a motion directing the Executive Director to cancel our
Internet Insurance.
Joel Channing
P.S.: If the motion carries and it turns out that the above statement
wasn't properly submitted, I'll simply resign unconditionally at that
time.
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2008 05:05:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Joel Channing's Threats To Resign
|
> Third, my decision:
>
> I hereby resign my seat on the USCF Board contingent on the Board's
> passing a motion directing the Executive Director to cancel our
> Internet Insurance.
>
> Joel Channing
>
> P.S.: If the motion carries and it turns out that the above statement
> wasn't properly submitted, I'll simply resign unconditionally at that
> time.
OK. The motion has now passed 4-1-2. Joel Channing says that he will
be resigning unconditionally. Several do-gooders are trying to talk
him out of resigning. I am hoping that he just goes away and does not
bother us any more.
Now, we will see whether he is a man of his word, or a mouse.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 08 Apr 2008 11:35:15
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Joel Channing's Threats To Resign
|
[quote="DACP"][quote="nolan"]It is not an accurate report of the
Delegates Meeting to say that the Delegates voted to keep the Forums
open.
A Delegate motion to mandate closing the Forums failed, but that
failed vote does not bind the USCF to keeping the Forums open, as the
Delegates have not mandated that.
However, I think the Forums serve a useful, though too frequently
abused, purpose.[/quote]
Okay, Mike, I will agree with your depiction of the vote. However, a
motion failing to close the forums would seem to be a clear indication
that the delegates intention was to keep the forums open. If these
forums are closed down, it will be determined by others as to whether
that interpretation is an accurate one.[/quote]
It is also significant that at the Delegate's Meeting in Cherry Hill
there were only one or two votes to close down the Forum, one of them
being Joel Channing. The vote to keep this forum open was virtually
unanimous.
He and SP seem to be the only ones now who want to close down the USCF
Issues Forum.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 08 Apr 2008 11:42:58
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Joel Channing's Threats To Resign
|
:::::waits patiently:::::::::
|
| |
Date: 08 Apr 2008 07:37:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Joel Channing's Threats To Resign
|
Ah! Well, this appears to be one vote of no confidence in our affaire
celebre!
"If our actions or inactions were ever found by a
jury to be the cause of significant damage to the
image and career of a high profile personality,
a jury award could easily be well into the millions."
I wonder who he can be thinking of?
And of course, not all confidence is equal, since very few people joke
around with their /own/ money, whereas of other people's money you might as
well be the awful NY Times ;(
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Now, Joel Channing has posted to the USCF Issues Forum a statement
> that he resigns effective immediately if the vote to cancel the
> "Internet Insurance" passes. The problem with this is that at every
> meeting while I was on the board, Channing said that he was
> considering resigning. This is clearly part of his bullying tactics,
> saying "If you don't do things my way, I am taking my ball and going
> home".
Clearly bullying? I read these sentences rather differently:-
"This would mean that the financial health of the Federation itself, as
well
as those of the directors, could be at risk."
Its that's 'bullying' then bully for him! At least Mr. Channing seems to
have an appreciation of the difference between 'free' speech and responsible
speech. As indeed do Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, who rather pointedly do
not take part in USCF's forum, and also seek to have it closed down. Mr.
Channing seems less bullying, more prudent.
> Now, we are waiting to see if he is bluffing or if he really will
> resign. As one wag has pointed out, he says that he wants his assets
> protected, but he wants USCF Membership dues money used to protect his
> assets. He should use his own money to protect his assets.
That 'wag' does not understand Mr. Canning's sense of his legal exposure,
nor of any other USCF officer or board member. If USCF business activities
are attached in a suit, then those who direct those activities can be
personally responsible. Surely we should allow Mr. Channing's business
experience to advise his activities of which way is up?
All in all, "deep rook's" report of the departure of Mr. Canning seems to be
true! I can see no compromise possible here; the options being during a
financial crisis like none before to continue to pay lots of insurance for
the inconsiderable and very troublesome forum, or shut it down. Those Who
Must Be Obeyed are not famous for accommodation to others, nor even to
objective sense, and if they cannot accommodate Canning's business
experience, then I think it is better for both parties to formally divorce
their relationship with each other.
The overall impact of Channing's statement seems to me to indicate
substantial doubt and a certain distancing of himself from USCF's current
'activities' in terms of legal responsibilities, [and by the way, while Rome
smolders] the impending financial crisis which I think will hit home [that
is, the homes of USCF's employees] at about Christmas time.
200 grand adrift is about 7 salaried postions.
Phil Innes
> Here is what Channing has posted:
>
>
> "I agree with your characterization of our potential liability as
> probably a long shot. However, I'm surprised that you, as a horse
> racing devotee, don't readily acknowledge that long shots tend to
> produce big payoffs. As I've said before, my business is based on
> minimizing risk in the pursuit of a big payoff, not a big payout! If
> our actions or inactions were ever found by a jury to be the cause of
> significant damage to the image and career of a high profile
> personality, a jury award could easily be well into the millions. This
> would mean that the financial health of the Federation itself, as well
> as those of the directors, could be at risk. As I've also said before,
> I could ignore the risk of loss if I were confident that any loss
> would be a small one. In this case, however, I think you'd have to be
> delusional not to acknowledge the possibility that a jury award might
> be very big. Also, as we've seen, legal fees for high quality lawyers
> can also scr*w up our budget.
>
> "In short, I think it would be extremely imprudent to put my personal
> assets, your assets and the assets of the Federation at risk of great
> loss, no matter how small the potential for loss. I am in the business
> of building, not losing, assets and that is what I came here to do. I
> also think that before the board decides to accept the risk of going
> "naked" with respect to cyber liability, the finance and LMA
> committees should be consulted.
>
> "As I told you last week, there'll be no hard feelings on my part if I
> resign over this issue."
>
>
> Third, my decision:
>
> I hereby resign my seat on the USCF Board contingent on the Board's
> passing a motion directing the Executive Director to cancel our
> Internet Insurance.
>
>
> Joel Channing
>
>
> P.S.: If the motion carries and it turns out that the above statement
> wasn't properly submitted, I'll simply resign unconditionally at that
> time.
>
|
| | |
Date: 08 Apr 2008 07:52:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Joel Channing's Threats To Resign
|
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:37:46 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>At least Mr. Channing seems to
>have an appreciation of the difference between 'free' speech and responsible
>speech.
The one advantage of a moderated forum such as the USCF Issues Forum
is that it's more difficult to post anonymously. So posters tend to
be more accountable, if not necessarily more responsible.
>As indeed do Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, who rather pointedly do
>not take part in USCF's forum, and also seek to have it closed down.
Heh, heh. It's pointed all right. The point caught the latter right
in the keister.
They especially don't take part in the USCF forum since Truong's posts
IN that forum were instrumental in the Mottershead Report nailing him
as the Fake Sam Sloan!!
You forgot to mention that, Phil.
These two entwined USCF directors now prefer the one-two-three punch
of (1) Running their own forum where they control all posts and
content and where mysterious anonymous personas contribute to their
hearts' content., (2) Funneling info to other online sites, bloggers,
and columnists with whom they have business or social relationships,
and (3) Trashing (uhh, make that "rubbishing") truly open Usenet
forums, such as we have here, as "cesspools".
A good publicity man controls information. Closing down the USCF
forum would be a fine step in that direction.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2008 17:34:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Joel Channing's Threats To Resign
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:37:46 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>At least Mr. Channing seems to
>>have an appreciation of the difference between 'free' speech and
>>responsible
>>speech.
>
> The one advantage of a moderated forum such as the USCF Issues Forum
> is that it's more difficult to post anonymously. So posters tend to
> be more accountable, if not necessarily more responsible.
Yes, that is a third factor - that of accountability, which is not
synonomous with responsibility.
>>As indeed do Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, who rather pointedly do
>>not take part in USCF's forum, and also seek to have it closed down.
>
> Heh, heh. It's pointed all right. The point caught the latter right
> in the keister.
In your opinion. In my opinion it is entirely otherwise - but that is
thereby a matter of opinion, however qualified ~ not anything you or I
actually know that permits either of us to unequivocally condemn anyone.
That is what court's do, again, however well, but is that not our minimum
standard in the West?
> They especially don't take part in the USCF forum since Truong's posts
> IN that forum were instrumental in the Mottershead Report nailing him
> as the Fake Sam Sloan!!
>
> You forgot to mention that, Phil.
I forgot nothing - instead you forget yourself in your passion. It ACCUSES,
and that is a little something you neglect to mention, Mr. Murray.
> These two entwined USCF directors now prefer the one-two-three punch
> of (1) Running their own forum where they control all posts and
> content and where mysterious anonymous personas contribute to their
> hearts' content.,
including abuseniks... who are not on board with them, and which they
publish
(2) Funneling info to other online sites, bloggers,
> and columnists with whom they have business or social relationships,
as always existed, before them and will do after them, since are these
people not entitled to their own networking? i would also add that they
network with disinterested people in terms of chess development, pro bono
caissa
> and (3) Trashing (uhh, make that "rubbishing") truly open Usenet
> forums, such as we have here, as "cesspools".
I myself read that as a qualified statement, so that for example the
kangaroo courts common on most newsgroups are simply schools for scandal ~ I
recently accused McClain of NY Times of running a similar business, but for
profit
> A good publicity man controls information. Closing down the USCF
> forum would be a fine step in that direction.
Since you are not interested in whoever is the FSS, but only act from your
partial knowledge which excites your energies, then you are excused wider
appreciations, and you, Mike, are not capable of assessing aught else. You
have not the slightest demonstrated interest in discovering who the FSS is,
if it is not Truong, and you are like one of those dumb movie cops out to
make his numbers.
Channing has resigned, to return to the subject, since he seems to lack
confidence in USCF's own activity, sensing that the Forum is a great
liability, and it is. You can't run what past-president Tim Redman has
called entirely political forum under the control of a politician, and
pretend it is otherwise, and the objective numbers demonstrate that Redman
is right:-
The most visited item this morning was "Notices of Disciplinary actions"
which recorded a whopping 8,666 views [!] and another titled Complaints
Department had recorded 1,616 views.
Any thread identifying chess itself as a topic was in the hundreds of view,
and many of those seemed abandoned, with no 2008 entries at all.
"A good publicity man controls information" you wrote above. In fact, 8,666
of them.
Phil Innes
|
|
