| |
Main
Date: 30 Jan 2008 23:47:15
From: Ray Johnstone
Subject: Larry Evans
|
Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess Life gone? It was always
first thing I read.
[email protected]
www.iinet.com.au/~ray
|
|
| |
FIDE GIVES AMERICA CHING ORDERS
Ray Johnstone wrote: "Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess
Life gone? It was always
first thing I read."
Simply put, Kirsan ordered USCF officials to cut Larry Evans On Chess
because it was too critical of FIDE.
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 163)
If you want the truth about this tyrant whose autobiography contains a
chapter heading like "It Only Takes Two Weeks to Have a Man Killed"
check out Planet Kirsan in the New Yorker (April 24, 2006). Kirsan
claims to have the ability to communicate with aliens after having
been aboard a U.F.O. and he is still a great admirer of Saddam
Hussein.
Kalev Pehme, the previous editor who lasted a year, recently posted an
open letter on the Net summing up his frustration with FIDE and USCF
officials:
"I frankly have found my run with the USCF to have done one thing
which I cannot forgive. I have come to despise chess even though,
throughout my entire life, I have loved the game. Part of the reason
that I learned to love the game were the books
and articles written by Larry Evans, which I read as a young teen when
I was president of my school's chess club and when we played against
other schools. My experience with USCF politicians have made me feel
pain every time I look at a chess board when I should be feeling the
joy that I felt when I first read Evans' books. For that, I can't
forgive the USCF."
Ray Johnstone wrote:
> Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess Life gone? It was always
> first thing I read.
> [email protected]
> www.iinet.com.au/~ray
|
| | |
Date: 03 Feb 2008 14:00:19
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Netloons on parade
|
On Feb 1, 7:59 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> To paraphrase; is it okay in a public non-profit to take editorial counsel
> from people you decline to identify....
Ask Larry Parr. He was Chess Life editor at one time. Did he list
every person who may have made a suggestion about an article or photo?
To this day we don't know who influenced Parr to use the cover shot of
an Asian model stacking chess pieces. Now there's a mystery for P
Innes to solve!
|
| | |
Date: 03 Feb 2008 13:53:02
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Netloons on parade
|
On Feb 1, 7:59 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> What happened to the content side of what I posted?
As usual, it never existed.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Feb 2008 20:14:34
From:
Subject: Re:Parr's Ethical Standards (= Undefined?)
|
[email protected] wrote:
> WHY SHOULD I BE BELIEVED?
>
> John Hillery did ask one question worth
> answering. See below.
>
> I reported at the time from a source(s) that
> Larry Evans' firing was for political reasons. I also
> noted that the stated reason by the editor was an
> evident lie.
>
> Pure and simple.
>
> The editor told GM Evans that the Q&A format no
> longer fitted into the new design. I wrote to all of
> you at the time that the Q&A would be restored after a
> decent interval. It was.
>
> The entire ploy was transparent from the
> beginning. I did not need to be told by the source(s)
> what was happening, but I was told.
>
> One knew that the editor told a fib to GM Evans,
> lacking the manhood to speak direct truth over the phone.
> The stated reason for cutting Larry Evans On Chess was
> proven a lie by the editor's own subsequent decisions.
>
> Now, then, here is the fair question from John
> Hillery: I cannot name my source(s), so why ought I
> to be believed?
>
> Two reasons: 1. Subsequent events showed that
> the stated excuse to GM Evans was a lie; and 2. My
> track record on this forum.
>
> You learned from me that the architect in
> Crossville was charging $60Gs for a small USCF
> building. I reported the fact, the politicos called me
> a liar, and later we were told that negotiations were
> underway to lower the architect's fee for the small,
> new bulding.
>
> You learned from me about eight weeks before the
> board officially announced that the new, small building
> was suddenly estimated to cost $650,000. I gave you
> right here that exact same number two months earlier
> and was called a liar by the political gaggle.
>
> GM Evans and I reported to you that Campomanes
> placed FIDE funds in HIS OWN NAME in a private building
> fund in Sheffield, England. Don Schultz issued a denial and
> our FIDE team screamed at me that I was a liar.
> .
> Later, my report was confirmed, and the same
> politicos who claimed I lied were requesting that
> Campo return the treasury to FIDE's name. At a Policy
> Board meeting, Harold Winston and other Board members
> were demanding the name of my source(s) and I absolutely
> refused to vouchsafe it.
>
> The politicians and their gaggle of camp
> followers are always trying to find out the names of
> sources. They want to GET them, if possible. Hence
> the Hillery attempt.
>
> So, then, I have reported many stories without
> revealing sources, and I have provided you with news
> sometimes weeks in advance of official acknowledgement
> by the crooks in FIDE and the sludges running the USCF.
>
> That, per se, does not prove my account about
> Evans' firing to be true. It is part of my track
> record. And, too, you also have the lie told by the
> current editor to GM Evans at the time of the
> firing. He was evidently covering up something.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > KNOWN FACTS?
> >
> > <I pointed that LP made a statement contrary to known facts.> -- John
> > Hillery (jkh)
> >
> > What are these so-called "known facts"?
> >
> > Did John get them from his old pal Jerry Hanken, who was allowed by
> > Hillery and Hough to raid the CJA treasury for $600 to attend a USCF
> > "retreat" in Florida in 2006?
> > These guys have been feeding from the USCF trough for years.
> >
> > Would John be so good as to list the "known facts" that contradict
> > anything I wrote here?
> >
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > Chess One wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > What a farce! What a disgusting way to proceed! But maybe John Hillery will
> > > > write his own comments here about what he thinks is decent, legal, honest
> > > > and truthful, and the above is but a volunteered parenthetical example of
> > > > what is wrong, absent, secretive and unethical.
> > > >
> > > > Phil Innes
> > >
> > >
> > > Is there some reason why I should care? I pointed that LP made a
> > > statement contrary to known facts. I offered him the chance to provide
> > > evidence. He refused. Perhaps Larry has joined the "fake but accurate"
> > > movement, but I still have an old-fashioned fondness for truth.
> > >
> > > If the rest of you want to hurl insults at one another, that's up to
> > > you, but this place might be less of a joke if the posters could stick
> > > to the subject once in a while.
Um, Larry, I think you're a little out of touch. There is no Q&A
column in Chess Life, and hasn't been since the Evans column was
discontinued. I assume you are referring to the Benjamin column, which
appears _only_ on the web page (Shahade's purview, not Lucas's). With
that claim debunked, you have no evidence that Lucas lied about
anything, and your whole argument reduces to character witness -- we
should believe you because we can trust you, and disbelieve the (many
more) people who say you are wrong because, well, they're _bad_.
That's not going to be a big seller.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 06:06:27
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
WHY SHOULD I BE BELIEVED?
John Hillery did ask one question worth
answering. See below.
I reported at the time from a source(s) that
Larry Evans' firing was for political reasons. I also
noted that the stated reason by the editor was an
evident lie.
Pure and simple.
The editor told GM Evans that the Q&A format no
longer fitted into the new design. I wrote to all of
you at the time that the Q&A would be restored after a
decent interval. It was.
The entire ploy was transparent from the
beginning. I did not need to be told by the source(s)
what was happening, but I was told.
One knew that the editor told a fib to GM Evans,
lacking the manhood to speak direct truth over the phone.
The stated reason for cutting Larry Evans On Chess was
proven a lie by the editor's own subsequent decisions.
Now, then, here is the fair question from John
Hillery: I cannot name my source(s), so why ought I
to be believed?
Two reasons: 1. Subsequent events showed that
the stated excuse to GM Evans was a lie; and 2. My
track record on this forum.
You learned from me that the architect in
Crossville was charging $60Gs for a small USCF
building. I reported the fact, the politicos called me
a liar, and later we were told that negotiations were
underway to lower the architect's fee for the small,
new bulding.
You learned from me about eight weeks before the
board officially announced that the new, small building
was suddenly estimated to cost $650,000. I gave you
right here that exact same number two months earlier
and was called a liar by the political gaggle.
GM Evans and I reported to you that Campomanes
placed FIDE funds in HIS OWN NAME in a private building
fund in Sheffield, England. Don Schultz issued a denial and
our FIDE team screamed at me that I was a liar.
.
Later, my report was confirmed, and the same
politicos who claimed I lied were requesting that
Campo return the treasury to FIDE's name. At a Policy
Board meeting, Harold Winston and other Board members
were demanding the name of my source(s) and I absolutely
refused to vouchsafe it.
The politicians and their gaggle of camp
followers are always trying to find out the names of
sources. They want to GET them, if possible. Hence
the Hillery attempt.
So, then, I have reported many stories without
revealing sources, and I have provided you with news
sometimes weeks in advance of official acknowledgement
by the crooks in FIDE and the sludges running the USCF.
That, per se, does not prove my account about
Evans' firing to be true. It is part of my track
record. And, too, you also have the lie told by the
current editor to GM Evans at the time of the
firing. He was evidently covering up something.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> KNOWN FACTS?
>
> <I pointed that LP made a statement contrary to known facts.> -- John
> Hillery (jkh)
>
> What are these so-called "known facts"?
>
> Did John get them from his old pal Jerry Hanken, who was allowed by
> Hillery and Hough to raid the CJA treasury for $600 to attend a USCF
> "retreat" in Florida in 2006?
> These guys have been feeding from the USCF trough for years.
>
> Would John be so good as to list the "known facts" that contradict
> anything I wrote here?
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Chess One wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > What a farce! What a disgusting way to proceed! But maybe John Hillery will
> > > write his own comments here about what he thinks is decent, legal, honest
> > > and truthful, and the above is but a volunteered parenthetical example of
> > > what is wrong, absent, secretive and unethical.
> > >
> > > Phil Innes
> >
> >
> > Is there some reason why I should care? I pointed that LP made a
> > statement contrary to known facts. I offered him the chance to provide
> > evidence. He refused. Perhaps Larry has joined the "fake but accurate"
> > movement, but I still have an old-fashioned fondness for truth.
> >
> > If the rest of you want to hurl insults at one another, that's up to
> > you, but this place might be less of a joke if the posters could stick
> > to the subject once in a while.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 07:04:11
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:06:27 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Later, my report was confirmed, and the same
>politicos who claimed I lied were requesting that
>Campo return the treasury to FIDE's name. At a Policy
>Board meeting, Harold Winston and other Board members
>were demanding the name of my source(s) and I absolutely
>refused to vouchsafe it.
> The politicians and their gaggle of camp
>followers are always trying to find out the names of
>sources. They want to GET them, if possible. Hence
>the Hillery attempt.
Interesting that k Nibbelin, one of the main Truong supporters over
in USCF forum land, has hammered incessantly on the need to expose
(and punish) the person who leaked the Mottershead Report to the New
York Times. Nibbelin has continuously ragged on Mottershead himself
for violating "organizational protocol", has hinted at dire Federation
consequences in terms of financial liability from members outraged
that their personal information (IP addresses fer-christs-sake) was
briefly exposed.
Seems like the chess politicos never change.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 06:01:16
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
On Jan 31, 11:59 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:e3d38ca4-d3ec-4c47-8492-f9af0bd28a10@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 11:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > Larry, what does any of this have to do with the question? Even if you
> >> > could prove that Hanken has horns and a tail, it wouldn't make your
> >> > allegation that "politicians" pressured Lucas into dropping Evans's
> >> > column and that everyone is lying about it any more plausible.
>
> >> That's a fair point!
>
> >> Another one is that Lucas said he took advice before his action, but
> >> could
> >> not, would not, say from whom.
>
> > I'm sure many people have given Dan Lucas advice. Including me. Should
> > he have listed everyone? Like credits at the end of a movie?
>
> WHAT!
> He asked ....
Dr. Ken Sloan has a rule that you don't need to bother reading a P
Innes post after the first error/lie. I'm going to follow it here.
Please note P Innes doesn't understand the difference between taking
advice and asking for advice.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 05:43:35
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
KNOWN FACTS?
<I pointed that LP made a statement contrary to known facts. > -- John
Hillery (jkh)
What are these so-called "known facts"?
Did John get them from his old pal Jerry Hanken, who was allowed by
Hillery and Hough to raid the CJA treasury for $600 to attend a USCF
"retreat" in Florida in 2006?
These guys have been feeding from the USCF trough for years.
Would John be so good as to list the "known facts" that contradict
anything I wrote here?
[email protected] wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > >
>
> > What a farce! What a disgusting way to proceed! But maybe John Hillery will
> > write his own comments here about what he thinks is decent, legal, honest
> > and truthful, and the above is but a volunteered parenthetical example of
> > what is wrong, absent, secretive and unethical.
> >
> > Phil Innes
>
>
> Is there some reason why I should care? I pointed that LP made a
> statement contrary to known facts. I offered him the chance to provide
> evidence. He refused. Perhaps Larry has joined the "fake but accurate"
> movement, but I still have an old-fashioned fondness for truth.
>
> If the rest of you want to hurl insults at one another, that's up to
> you, but this place might be less of a joke if the posters could stick
> to the subject once in a while.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 04:21:15
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
JOHN HILLERY'S DRECK
>To borrow a comment from Samuel Johnson, John is not only dull himself,
he is the cause of dullness in others. > -- Brian Lafferty
<Lucas dropped the Evans column because he didn't like it. He was
actually under pressure from the "politicians" to _keep_ it. > -- jkh
It was a political firing, a fact John Hillery labors to conceal. Don
Schultz, who was our FIDE delegate, once sued the five-time U.S.
champion unsuccessfully for $21 million, and our FIDE team hated his
truthful reports about their misdeeds. "We have FIDE representatives
in America instead of American representatives in FIDE," GM Evans was
fond of saying.
Only a hack like John Hillery, who never achieved his goal of becoming
editor of Chess Life by sucking up, could possibly swallow his own
story that a new editor could step in and BUCK THE HIGHER-UPS ON HIS
OWN by terminating the most famous and popular writer in the magazine
despite a mountain of protests from readers (which were squelched in
Letters to the Editor).
In fact, numerous readers -- like Ray Johnstone who started this
thread -- turned first to Larry Evans On Chess before reading anything
else in Chess Life.
The politicos who take their ching orders from FIDE (along with
gold rolex watches) were so anxious to banish GM Evans' reports in
Chess Life that they paid thousands of dollars for columns by him --
already submitted and accepted -- without using these columns! Later
he was rehired for What's The Best Move? to save face by keeping his
name in Chess Life.
MY PREDICTION
I placed this posting here as long ago as June 11, 2006.
From the first moment I heard the news that one of CL's two most
popular writers was being fired, I predicted that GM Benjamin would be
assuming the column after a certain interval. Watch. He will.
Dropping either Soltis or Evans made no editorial sense. Soltis
survived because his column does not deal with controversial material.
Such is not his purpose.
Larry Evans had to go because his was the last independent voice left
in the magazine. You will NOT be reading in the new Chess Life about
how FIDE
delegates were paid thousands in bribes, being required to click
handphone cameras to show the bribe givers how they ked their
ballot.
In a follow-up here on 12/4/06 ("After a decent interval...") my
prediction came true.
WHY GM EVANS HAD TO GO
When the editor cancelled Evans On Chess he said the reason was Chess
Life no longer needed a question and answer column. Lo and behold, the
December 2006 issue of Chess Life has a Q&A column conducted by GM
Joel Benjamin as I predicted here on June 11, 2006:
<I, for one, miss the question and answer format of Larry's column. If
Larry won't be doing it anymore, hopefully the column itself won't
die... someone else can simply fill his shoes. > -- Ed Collins
Ed Collins need have no fear. Joel Benjamin will be conducting a Q&A
column in the pages of Chess Life after a decent interval. Editor
Lucas stated that the format was tired which was why, he said, the
Evans column would not fit into the new magazine. The editor owed GM
Evans something better than this verbal dreck.
In reality, Q&A is never tired in hobbyist publications.
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 160)
Some editors waged lonely struggles on behalf of readers kept in the
dark as various USCF regimes buried mistakes and misdeeds in the pages
of what they regarded as their magazine. Too often editors were caught
in the middle, lacking support and independence, serving at the
pleasure of petty bureaucrats with agendas of their own.
A good example is what happened after Yasser Seirawan won the U.S.
Championship in 1986 and decided to run for USCF president. Editor
Larry Parr was ordered to remove Yasser's picture from the cover of
Chess Life. Parr told them to put the order in writing. They refused.
Parr ran the cover in February 1987, as planned. He was axed about a
year later but extracted a large settlement.
The job is a minefield. A rekable 10-page letter from Frank Elley
summed up his watch as editor before Parr from 1982 to 1985. His
testament was solicited but predictably omitted from a comprehensive
review of Chess Life in 1987 by a board member. Here's an excerpt from
Elley's suppressed report called THE HAPPY TALK COMMANDMENT....
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 02:25:54
From:
Subject: Netloons on parade
|
Chess One wrote:
> >
> What a farce! What a disgusting way to proceed! But maybe John Hillery will
> write his own comments here about what he thinks is decent, legal, honest
> and truthful, and the above is but a volunteered parenthetical example of
> what is wrong, absent, secretive and unethical.
>
> Phil Innes
Is there some reason why I should care? I pointed that LP made a
statement contrary to known facts. I offered him the chance to provide
evidence. He refused. Perhaps Larry has joined the "fake but accurate"
movement, but I still have an old-fashioned fondness for truth.
If the rest of you want to hurl insults at one another, that's up to
you, but this place might be less of a joke if the posters could stick
to the subject once in a while.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 07:59:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Netloons on parade
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> >
>
>> What a farce! What a disgusting way to proceed! But maybe John Hillery
>> will
>> write his own comments here about what he thinks is decent, legal, honest
>> and truthful, and the above is but a volunteered parenthetical example of
>> what is wrong, absent, secretive and unethical.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
>
> Is there some reason why I should care?
Why would you care about being decent, legal.. etc? Is that your question?
What happened to the content side of what I posted?
To paraphrase; is it okay in a public non-profit to take editorial counsel
from people you decline to identify - and why take any at all? As with
Evans' questions put directly to Mr. Lucas, mine to you receive no answer,
just 'response'. This then is characterised as by "netloons".
> I pointed that LP made a
> statement contrary to known facts. I offered him the chance to provide
> evidence. He refused. Perhaps Larry has joined the "fake but accurate"
> movement, but I still have an old-fashioned fondness for truth.
People do not always wish to reveal their sources, because the source feels
vulnerable to vindictive action. In these circumstances, especially so. So
what can anyone do but ask open questions about issues which should not be
secret anyway?
The consistent lack of open response is strongly indicative of what Parr
says being true - since it would be so easy to refute his perspective by
simply opening up!
Not only is nothing revealed here, but another case for secrecy has come
into play.
> If the rest of you want to hurl insults at one another, that's up to
> you, but this place might be less of a joke if the posters could stick
> to the subject once in a while.
I am sticking to it. Are you?
If you feel that influences on an editor should not be known and kept
secret, by all means say so. It is not my opinion, but this subject /is/ the
topic. Can you address the systemic question about a public non-profit of
why editorial influence should be secret? Otherwise you see, you engage in a
secondary activity which is to comment on Parr's comment - not address
Parr's systemic question about the need for any secrecy at all.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 12:05:32
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Netloons on parade
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> What a farce! What a disgusting way to proceed! But maybe John Hillery will
>> write his own comments here about what he thinks is decent, legal, honest
>> and truthful, and the above is but a volunteered parenthetical example of
>> what is wrong, absent, secretive and unethical.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
>
> Is there some reason why I should care? I pointed that LP made a
> statement contrary to known facts. I offered him the chance to provide
> evidence. He refused. Perhaps Larry has joined the "fake but accurate"
> movement, but I still have an old-fashioned fondness for truth.
>
> If the rest of you want to hurl insults at one another, that's up to
> you, but this place might be less of a joke if the posters could stick
> to the subject once in a while.
To borrow a comment from Samuel Johnson, John is not only dull himself,
he is the cause of dullness in others.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 01:56:24
From:
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
On Jan 31, 10:59=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:e3d38ca4-d3ec-4c47-8492-f9af0bd28a10@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 11:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...=
>
> >> > Larry, what does any of this have to do with the question? Even if yo=
u
> >> > could prove that Hanken has horns and a tail, it wouldn't make your
> >> > allegation that "politicians" pressured Lucas into dropping Evans's
> >> > column and that everyone is lying about it any more plausible.
>
> >> That's a fair point!
>
> >> Another one is that Lucas said he took advice before his action, but
> >> could
> >> not, would not, say from whom.
>
> > I'm sure many people have given Dan Lucas advice. Including me. Should
> > he have listed everyone? Like credits at the end of a movie?
>
> WHAT!
> He asked a serial newsgroup abusenik whose lifetimes output has less chess=
> readership than read of Evans in a day.
>
> But - let us say he /is/ that kind of guy. On being asked, why should he
> avoid an answer? Shame? The fact is that Lucas 'listed' no one at all.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Is it worse then, to have politicians accused, or to act as if what you=
> >> do
> >> was secret and conspiratorial - in fact, isn't that playing politics?
>
> >> > Certainly you can protect your sources if you like. If you do, though=
,
> >> > there is no reason why anyone should believe they exist. The fact tha=
t
> >> > you refuse to defend your position -- instead =A0emitting the verbal
> >> > equivalent of a cloud of ink -- makes it pretty clear that they don't=
> >> > and you can't.
>
> >> > You were wrong, Larry. You made a defamatory statement which you can'=
t
> >> > prove, or even offer evidence for. Show some class. Admit it and move=
> >> > on.
>
> >> What any journalist has to do is to ask questions, and not be content
> >> with
> >> 'responses' instead of answers.
>
> > This is coming from the 'journalist' who can't even come up with his
> > own questions. "Hey, this is Phil, I'm gonna interview someone, please
> > email me questions so I know what to ask."
>
> Pardon me?
>
> What a nutter! Brennan can't believe having gained an interview with a
> Taimanov or an Adams, that I would find that interviewee the most
> interesting questions possible from those who might ask the deepest and mo=
st
> informed ones - by virtue of also 'being there'. Maybe its all about ego f=
or
> Brennan, who can't imagine this activity.
>
> Who in their right minds would take in the views of such as himself - exce=
pt
> of course a USCF who are capable of taking on honest-Louis as a moderator!=
>
> What a farce! What a disgusting way to proceed! But maybe John Hillery wil=
l
> write his own comments here about what he thinks is decent, legal, honest
> and truthful, and the above is but a volunteered parenthetical example of
> what is wrong, absent, secretive and unethical.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> >> The same thing happened to me last year on the Fide-Yahoo group when I
> >> asked
> >> Don Shultz about his views on further popularizing chess, and he
> >> responded
> >> with 'Jackets', how he had introduced them, who had received them so fa=
r,
> >> further plans for jackets, several hundred words. When I then reported
> >> this
> >> as his answer - being rather doubtful that chess players really wanted =
to
> >> look like boy-scouts - he took umbrage.
>
> > And this surprised you? You obviously know little about ChessDon.
>
> >> And yet that was his entire response to the question. In the instance o=
f
> >> Mr.
> >> Lucas, he fails to say who he asked or took advice from. He even did no=
t
> >> offer Larry Evans a direct answer, but 'responded' to him. Now - these
> >> 'responses' are the work of politics as usual, and if Mr. Lucas wanted =
to
> >> differentiate himself from that, perhaps he should not have behaved lik=
e
> >> that?
>
> > I wish people would let the Chess Life editor be an editor.
>
> >> USCF is, after all, a public trust. Almost all its ills can be fathered=
> >> upon
> >> official secrecy, its lack of candid reks about what goes on, and BT=
W,
> >> just in passing, did you never read the president's advisory group
> >> e-mails?
> >> I received one by accident once.....
>
> > Probably the only way you'd ever receive such an email.
>
> > , and many recipients seem not to be elected,
> >> or even USCF members... and they certainly are no part of any public
> >> record.
>
> >> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have evidence that Evans was cut out in part, by FIDE officials. It
wasn't the entire reason, but USCF
is quite afraid of Ilyumzhinov and FIDE ratings. I will not give my
evidence to you when the US
Congress can use it to shut down this illegal operation.
I don't, however, think FIDE, is the entire reason. It was done to win
FAVOR with Ilyumzhinov.
Think of a evil King who needs an annual scarifice. Evans firing
bought time, and favor, with FIDE.
Remember, FIDE is a cult. Everything is Kirsan says. If Kirsan says
FIRE EVANS, then EVANS better
have some strong allies, which he doesn't. Larry is too old.
cus Roberts
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 08:38:16
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
On Jan 31, 11:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Larry, what does any of this have to do with the question? Even if you
> > could prove that Hanken has horns and a tail, it wouldn't make your
> > allegation that "politicians" pressured Lucas into dropping Evans's
> > column and that everyone is lying about it any more plausible.
>
> That's a fair point!
>
> Another one is that Lucas said he took advice before his action, but could
> not, would not, say from whom.
I'm sure many people have given Dan Lucas advice. Including me. Should
he have listed everyone? Like credits at the end of a movie?
> Is it worse then, to have politicians accused, or to act as if what you do
> was secret and conspiratorial - in fact, isn't that playing politics?
>
> > Certainly you can protect your sources if you like. If you do, though,
> > there is no reason why anyone should believe they exist. The fact that
> > you refuse to defend your position -- instead emitting the verbal
> > equivalent of a cloud of ink -- makes it pretty clear that they don't
> > and you can't.
>
> > You were wrong, Larry. You made a defamatory statement which you can't
> > prove, or even offer evidence for. Show some class. Admit it and move
> > on.
>
> What any journalist has to do is to ask questions, and not be content with
> 'responses' instead of answers.
This is coming from the 'journalist' who can't even come up with his
own questions. "Hey, this is Phil, I'm gonna interview someone, please
email me questions so I know what to ask."
> The same thing happened to me last year on the Fide-Yahoo group when I asked
> Don Shultz about his views on further popularizing chess, and he responded
> with 'Jackets', how he had introduced them, who had received them so far,
> further plans for jackets, several hundred words. When I then reported this
> as his answer - being rather doubtful that chess players really wanted to
> look like boy-scouts - he took umbrage.
And this surprised you? You obviously know little about ChessDon.
> And yet that was his entire response to the question. In the instance of Mr.
> Lucas, he fails to say who he asked or took advice from. He even did not
> offer Larry Evans a direct answer, but 'responded' to him. Now - these
> 'responses' are the work of politics as usual, and if Mr. Lucas wanted to
> differentiate himself from that, perhaps he should not have behaved like
> that?
I wish people would let the Chess Life editor be an editor.
> USCF is, after all, a public trust. Almost all its ills can be fathered upon
> official secrecy, its lack of candid reks about what goes on, and BTW,
> just in passing, did you never read the president's advisory group e-mails?
> I received one by accident once.....
Probably the only way you'd ever receive such an email.
, and many recipients seem not to be elected,
> or even USCF members... and they certainly are no part of any public record.
>
> Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 11:59:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e3d38ca4-d3ec-4c47-8492-f9af0bd28a10@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 31, 11:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > Larry, what does any of this have to do with the question? Even if you
>> > could prove that Hanken has horns and a tail, it wouldn't make your
>> > allegation that "politicians" pressured Lucas into dropping Evans's
>> > column and that everyone is lying about it any more plausible.
>>
>> That's a fair point!
>>
>> Another one is that Lucas said he took advice before his action, but
>> could
>> not, would not, say from whom.
>
> I'm sure many people have given Dan Lucas advice. Including me. Should
> he have listed everyone? Like credits at the end of a movie?
WHAT!
He asked a serial newsgroup abusenik whose lifetimes output has less chess
readership than read of Evans in a day.
But - let us say he /is/ that kind of guy. On being asked, why should he
avoid an answer? Shame? The fact is that Lucas 'listed' no one at all.
>> Is it worse then, to have politicians accused, or to act as if what you
>> do
>> was secret and conspiratorial - in fact, isn't that playing politics?
>>
>> > Certainly you can protect your sources if you like. If you do, though,
>> > there is no reason why anyone should believe they exist. The fact that
>> > you refuse to defend your position -- instead emitting the verbal
>> > equivalent of a cloud of ink -- makes it pretty clear that they don't
>> > and you can't.
>>
>> > You were wrong, Larry. You made a defamatory statement which you can't
>> > prove, or even offer evidence for. Show some class. Admit it and move
>> > on.
>>
>> What any journalist has to do is to ask questions, and not be content
>> with
>> 'responses' instead of answers.
>
> This is coming from the 'journalist' who can't even come up with his
> own questions. "Hey, this is Phil, I'm gonna interview someone, please
> email me questions so I know what to ask."
Pardon me?
What a nutter! Brennan can't believe having gained an interview with a
Taimanov or an Adams, that I would find that interviewee the most
interesting questions possible from those who might ask the deepest and most
informed ones - by virtue of also 'being there'. Maybe its all about ego for
Brennan, who can't imagine this activity.
Who in their right minds would take in the views of such as himself - except
of course a USCF who are capable of taking on honest-Louis as a moderator!
What a farce! What a disgusting way to proceed! But maybe John Hillery will
write his own comments here about what he thinks is decent, legal, honest
and truthful, and the above is but a volunteered parenthetical example of
what is wrong, absent, secretive and unethical.
Phil Innes
>> The same thing happened to me last year on the Fide-Yahoo group when I
>> asked
>> Don Shultz about his views on further popularizing chess, and he
>> responded
>> with 'Jackets', how he had introduced them, who had received them so far,
>> further plans for jackets, several hundred words. When I then reported
>> this
>> as his answer - being rather doubtful that chess players really wanted to
>> look like boy-scouts - he took umbrage.
>
> And this surprised you? You obviously know little about ChessDon.
>
>> And yet that was his entire response to the question. In the instance of
>> Mr.
>> Lucas, he fails to say who he asked or took advice from. He even did not
>> offer Larry Evans a direct answer, but 'responded' to him. Now - these
>> 'responses' are the work of politics as usual, and if Mr. Lucas wanted to
>> differentiate himself from that, perhaps he should not have behaved like
>> that?
>
> I wish people would let the Chess Life editor be an editor.
>
>> USCF is, after all, a public trust. Almost all its ills can be fathered
>> upon
>> official secrecy, its lack of candid reks about what goes on, and BTW,
>> just in passing, did you never read the president's advisory group
>> e-mails?
>> I received one by accident once.....
>
> Probably the only way you'd ever receive such an email.
>
> , and many recipients seem not to be elected,
>> or even USCF members... and they certainly are no part of any public
>> record.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 02:58:18
From:
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
[email protected] wrote:
> FEEDING AT THE TROUGH
>
> >Are you really arguing that we should accept your claim (essentially, that everyone except you is lying) without any evidence, solely on the basis of your sterling character? You're going to find that a hard sell.> -- John Hillery (jkh) who edits The Chess Journalist, apparently never heard of journalists protecting sources.
>
> The CJA is run by the 3H club of Hillery, Hanken and Hough who
> authorized $600 of membership funds for Jerry Hanken to attend a USCF
> junket in Florida.
>
> WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND
>
> By Darren Dillinger
>
> Threats and violence are part of the real life pattern of ethical
> problems in some chess groups, especially the CJA.
>
> The poster boy for such behavior is CJA President Jerry Hanken, with
> perhaps the longest enemies list of anyone in organized chess.
>
> For Hanken Kill threats and motion passed at USCF Executive Board
> meeting to censure and reprimand Jerry Hanken, also co-staring Randy
> Hough -- See: http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/hanken.htm
>
> For Hanken threats to beat up GM Larry Evans, four letter curse words
> from transcript of audio recording (starts about half way down the
> website page). See:
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread/thread/511fbe7294663214/d5b922cda9cda53f?q=archive&rnum=1#d5b922cda9cda53f
>
> Motion of official condemnation of Jerry Hanken, made at CJA annual
> business meeting by former CL editor Larry Parr. See:
>
> http://www.chessjournalism.org/min_1992.htm
>
> And for Hanken getting motion for $1,000 in USCF funds for secret
> surveillance and private detectives from Pinkertons to check out GM
> Larry Evans. Again Co-starring Randy Hough. Was Hough the one who
> mailed an anonymous threatening hit letter? It was mailed from the
> same area and time frame as where Hough was traveling in Northern
> California.
>
> Plus Hanken having his pants pulled down while screaming at a USCF
> Board meeting,
>
> Throwing chairs! And at Another USCF Board meeting in Seattle, Hanken
> pounding his fist on the table, screaming more four letter cuss words.
Larry, what does any of this have to do with the question? Even if you
could prove that Hanken has horns and a tail, it wouldn't make your
allegation that "politicians" pressured Lucas into dropping Evans's
column and that everyone is lying about it any more plausible.
Certainly you can protect your sources if you like. If you do, though,
there is no reason why anyone should believe they exist. The fact that
you refuse to defend your position -- instead emitting the verbal
equivalent of a cloud of ink -- makes it pretty clear that they don't
and you can't.
You were wrong, Larry. You made a defamatory statement which you can't
prove, or even offer evidence for. Show some class. Admit it and move
on.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 11:27:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry, what does any of this have to do with the question? Even if you
> could prove that Hanken has horns and a tail, it wouldn't make your
> allegation that "politicians" pressured Lucas into dropping Evans's
> column and that everyone is lying about it any more plausible.
That's a fair point!
Another one is that Lucas said he took advice before his action, but could
not, would not, say from whom.
Is it worse then, to have politicians accused, or to act as if what you do
was secret and conspiratorial - in fact, isn't that playing politics?
> Certainly you can protect your sources if you like. If you do, though,
> there is no reason why anyone should believe they exist. The fact that
> you refuse to defend your position -- instead emitting the verbal
> equivalent of a cloud of ink -- makes it pretty clear that they don't
> and you can't.
>
> You were wrong, Larry. You made a defamatory statement which you can't
> prove, or even offer evidence for. Show some class. Admit it and move
> on.
What any journalist has to do is to ask questions, and not be content with
'responses' instead of answers.
The same thing happened to me last year on the Fide-Yahoo group when I asked
Don Shultz about his views on further popularizing chess, and he responded
with 'Jackets', how he had introduced them, who had received them so far,
further plans for jackets, several hundred words. When I then reported this
as his answer - being rather doubtful that chess players really wanted to
look like boy-scouts - he took umbrage.
And yet that was his entire response to the question. In the instance of Mr.
Lucas, he fails to say who he asked or took advice from. He even did not
offer Larry Evans a direct answer, but 'responded' to him. Now - these
'responses' are the work of politics as usual, and if Mr. Lucas wanted to
differentiate himself from that, perhaps he should not have behaved like
that?
USCF is, after all, a public trust. Almost all its ills can be fathered upon
official secrecy, its lack of candid reks about what goes on, and BTW,
just in passing, did you never read the president's advisory group e-mails?
I received one by accident once, and many recipients seem not to be elected,
or even USCF members... and they certainly are no part of any public record.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 00:47:20
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hillery's Ethical Standards
|
FEEDING AT THE TROUGH
>Are you really arguing that we should accept your claim (essentially, that everyone except you is lying) without any evidence, solely on the basis of your sterling character? You're going to find that a hard sell.> -- John Hillery (jkh) who edits The Chess Journalist, apparently never heard of journalists protecting sources.
The CJA is run by the 3H club of Hillery, Hanken and Hough who
authorized $600 of membership funds for Jerry Hanken to attend a USCF
junket in Florida.
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND
By Darren Dillinger
Threats and violence are part of the real life pattern of ethical
problems in some chess groups, especially the CJA.
The poster boy for such behavior is CJA President Jerry Hanken, with
perhaps the longest enemies list of anyone in organized chess.
For Hanken Kill threats and motion passed at USCF Executive Board
meeting to censure and reprimand Jerry Hanken, also co-staring Randy
Hough -- See: http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/hanken.htm
For Hanken threats to beat up GM Larry Evans, four letter curse words
from transcript of audio recording (starts about half way down the
website page). See:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread/thread/511fbe7294663214/d5b922cda9cda53f?q=archive&rnum=1#d5b922cda9cda53f
Motion of official condemnation of Jerry Hanken, made at CJA annual
business meeting by former CL editor Larry Parr. See:
http://www.chessjournalism.org/min_1992.htm
And for Hanken getting motion for $1,000 in USCF funds for secret
surveillance and private detectives from Pinkertons to check out GM
Larry Evans. Again Co-starring Randy Hough. Was Hough the one who
mailed an anonymous threatening hit letter? It was mailed from the
same area and time frame as where Hough was traveling in Northern
California.
Plus Hanken having his pants pulled down while screaming at a USCF
Board meeting,
Throwing chairs! And at Another USCF Board meeting in Seattle, Hanken
pounding his fist on the table, screaming more four letter cuss words.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 23:50:41
From:
Subject: Re: Larry Evans
|
[email protected] wrote:
> HILLERY'S SPIN AND KANE'S MALICE
>
> <Lucas dropped the Evans column because he
> didn't like it. He was actually under pressure from
> the "politicians" to _keep_ it. If you can provide
> some evidence for your claim, fine. Otherwise, you can
> can join the "narrative was correct but the facts were
> wrong" crowd.> -- John Hillery (jkh)
>
> The evidence can't be provided without revealing
> confidential sources and putting some good people
> at risk of retaliation.
>
> The politicians pushed the current Chess Life
> editor to get rid of Evans. A number of other
> politicians later argued that he should be brought
> back after evident reader dissatisfaction.
>
> How David Kane hates the fact that in every
> reader survey ever conducted Larry Evans was rated at
> at or near the top. Giving readers what they want
> means feeding at the trough -- that's how Kane
> describes the career of a world class grandmaster
> and best-selling chess author whose syndicated
> newspaper column, according to Ed Edmondson,
> brought more new members to the USCF except
> for the Fischer boom.
>
> If anyone is feeding off the trough of the USCF, it is
> not a millionaire but Hillery's old pal Jerry Hanken.
>
> The current editor lied to Evans over the phone about
> the reason for his dismissal. It was a no-class affair.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > FIDE GIVES AMERICA CHING ORDERS
> > >
> > > Ray Johnstone wrote: "Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess
> > > Life gone? It was always
> > > first thing I read."
> > >
> > > Simply put, Kirsan ordered USCF officials to cut Larry Evans On Chess
> > > because it was too critical of FIDE.
> > >
> > > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 163)
> > >
> > > If you want the truth about this tyrant whose autobiography contains a
> > > chapter heading like "It Only Takes Two Weeks to Have a Man Killed"
> > > check out Planet Kirsan in the New Yorker (April 24, 2006). Kirsan
> > > claims to have the ability to communicate with aliens after having
> > > been aboard a U.F.O. and he is still a great admirer of Saddam
> > > Hussein.
> > >
> > > Kalev Pehme, the previous editor who lasted a year, recently posted an
> > > open letter on the Net summing up his frustration with FIDE and USCF
> > > officials:
> > >
> > > "I frankly have found my run with the USCF to have done one thing
> > > which I cannot forgive. I have come to despise chess even though,
> > > throughout my entire life, I have loved the game. Part of the reason
> > > that I learned to love the game were the books
> > > and articles written by Larry Evans, which I read as a young teen when
> > > I was president of my school's chess club and when we played against
> > > other schools. My experience with USCF politicians have made me feel
> > > pain every time I look at a chess board when I should be feeling the
> > > joy that I felt when I first read Evans' books. For that, I can't
> > > forgive the USCF."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ray Johnstone wrote:
> > > > Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess Life gone? It was always
> > > > first thing I read.
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > www.iinet.com.au/~ray
> >
> >
> > Is this parranoia? Evans does not make that claim. (Yes, I've read the
> > book.) Lucas dropped the Evans column because he didn't like it. He
> > was actually under pressure from the "politicians" to _keep_ it. If
> > you can provide some evidence for your claim, fine. Otherwise, you can
> > join the "narrative was correct but the facts were wrong" crowd.
Larry, this is really kind of pitiful. You strongly objected to this
sort of thing when the commies did it (unnamed sources, unsupported
innuendo, _suggestio falsi_, _ignoratio elenchi_). Now you're doing it
yourself. Are you really arguing that we should accept your claim
(essentially, that everyone except you is lying) without any evidence,
solely on the basis of your sterling character? You're going to find
that a hard sell.
|
| | |
HILLERY'S SPIN AND KANE'S MALICE
<Lucas dropped the Evans column because he
didn't like it. He was actually under pressure from
the "politicians" to _keep_ it. If you can provide
some evidence for your claim, fine. Otherwise, you can
can join the "narrative was correct but the facts were
wrong" crowd. > -- John Hillery (jkh)
The evidence can't be provided without revealing
confidential sources and putting some good people
at risk of retaliation.
The politicians pushed the current Chess Life
editor to get rid of Evans. A number of other
politicians later argued that he should be brought
back after evident reader dissatisfaction.
How David Kane hates the fact that in every
reader survey ever conducted Larry Evans was rated at
at or near the top. Giving readers what they want
means feeding at the trough -- that's how Kane
describes the career of a world class grandmaster
and best-selling chess author whose syndicated
newspaper column, according to Ed Edmondson,
brought more new members to the USCF except
for the Fischer boom.
If anyone is feeding off the trough of the USCF, it is
not a millionaire but Hillery's old pal Jerry Hanken.
The current editor lied to Evans over the phone about
the reason for his dismissal. It was a no-class affair.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > FIDE GIVES AMERICA CHING ORDERS
> >
> > Ray Johnstone wrote: "Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess
> > Life gone? It was always
> > first thing I read."
> >
> > Simply put, Kirsan ordered USCF officials to cut Larry Evans On Chess
> > because it was too critical of FIDE.
> >
> > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 163)
> >
> > If you want the truth about this tyrant whose autobiography contains a
> > chapter heading like "It Only Takes Two Weeks to Have a Man Killed"
> > check out Planet Kirsan in the New Yorker (April 24, 2006). Kirsan
> > claims to have the ability to communicate with aliens after having
> > been aboard a U.F.O. and he is still a great admirer of Saddam
> > Hussein.
> >
> > Kalev Pehme, the previous editor who lasted a year, recently posted an
> > open letter on the Net summing up his frustration with FIDE and USCF
> > officials:
> >
> > "I frankly have found my run with the USCF to have done one thing
> > which I cannot forgive. I have come to despise chess even though,
> > throughout my entire life, I have loved the game. Part of the reason
> > that I learned to love the game were the books
> > and articles written by Larry Evans, which I read as a young teen when
> > I was president of my school's chess club and when we played against
> > other schools. My experience with USCF politicians have made me feel
> > pain every time I look at a chess board when I should be feeling the
> > joy that I felt when I first read Evans' books. For that, I can't
> > forgive the USCF."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ray Johnstone wrote:
> > > Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess Life gone? It was always
> > > first thing I read.
> > > [email protected]
> > > www.iinet.com.au/~ray
>
>
> Is this parranoia? Evans does not make that claim. (Yes, I've read the
> book.) Lucas dropped the Evans column because he didn't like it. He
> was actually under pressure from the "politicians" to _keep_ it. If
> you can provide some evidence for your claim, fine. Otherwise, you can
> join the "narrative was correct but the facts were wrong" crowd.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 16:01:36
From:
Subject: Re: Larry Evans
|
[email protected] wrote:
> FIDE GIVES AMERICA CHING ORDERS
>
> Ray Johnstone wrote: "Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess
> Life gone? It was always
> first thing I read."
>
> Simply put, Kirsan ordered USCF officials to cut Larry Evans On Chess
> because it was too critical of FIDE.
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 163)
>
> If you want the truth about this tyrant whose autobiography contains a
> chapter heading like "It Only Takes Two Weeks to Have a Man Killed"
> check out Planet Kirsan in the New Yorker (April 24, 2006). Kirsan
> claims to have the ability to communicate with aliens after having
> been aboard a U.F.O. and he is still a great admirer of Saddam
> Hussein.
>
> Kalev Pehme, the previous editor who lasted a year, recently posted an
> open letter on the Net summing up his frustration with FIDE and USCF
> officials:
>
> "I frankly have found my run with the USCF to have done one thing
> which I cannot forgive. I have come to despise chess even though,
> throughout my entire life, I have loved the game. Part of the reason
> that I learned to love the game were the books
> and articles written by Larry Evans, which I read as a young teen when
> I was president of my school's chess club and when we played against
> other schools. My experience with USCF politicians have made me feel
> pain every time I look at a chess board when I should be feeling the
> joy that I felt when I first read Evans' books. For that, I can't
> forgive the USCF."
>
>
>
>
> Ray Johnstone wrote:
> > Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess Life gone? It was always
> > first thing I read.
> > [email protected]
> > www.iinet.com.au/~ray
Is this parranoia? Evans does not make that claim. (Yes, I've read the
book.) Lucas dropped the Evans column because he didn't like it. He
was actually under pressure from the "politicians" to _keep_ it. If
you can provide some evidence for your claim, fine. Otherwise, you can
join the "narrative was correct but the facts were wrong" crowd.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 09:50:03
From:
Subject: Re: Larry Evans
|
On Jan 30, 11:23=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> FIDE GIVES AMERICA CHING ORDERS
>
> Ray Johnstone wrote: "Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess
>
> Life gone? It was always
> first thing I read."
>
> Simply put, Kirsan ordered USCF officials to cut Larry Evans On Chess
> because it was too critical of FIDE.
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 163)
>
> If you want the truth about this tyrant whose autobiography contains a
> chapter heading like "It Only Takes Two Weeks to Have a Man Killed"
> check out Planet Kirsan in the New Yorker (April 24, 2006). Kirsan
> claims to have the ability to communicate with aliens after having
> been aboard a U.F.O. and he is still a great admirer of Saddam
> Hussein.
>
> Kalev Pehme, the previous editor who lasted a year, recently posted an
> open letter on the Net summing up his frustration with FIDE and USCF
> officials:
>
> "I frankly have found my run with the USCF to have done one thing
> which I cannot forgive. I have come to despise chess even though,
> throughout my entire life, I have loved the game. Part of the reason
> that I learned to love the game were the books
> and articles written by Larry Evans, which I read as a young teen when
> I was president of my school's chess club and when we played against
> other schools. My experience with USCF politicians have made me feel
> pain every time I look at a chess board when I should be feeling the
> joy that I felt when I first read Evans' books. For that, I can't
> forgive the USCF."
>
>
>
> Ray Johnstone wrote:
> > Old news, but why has Evans' column in Chess Life gone? It was always
> > first thing I read.
> > [email protected]
> >www.iinet.com.au/~ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am wanted for arrest in Russia. I will go to prison in Russia. I
only can go to Russia with help of the President
Of the United States. Ilyumzhinov says I threatened his life, when has
made more serious threats himself daily.
Antichrist does not care, it is about Ilyumzhinov. His chapter 8 title
in his book makes death threats daily business
In the criminal world of one of the poorest regions of Russia.
Ilyumzhinov is not elected, Antichrist can't be fired
As Governor for fear of Revolution. Kirsan is even feared by the
President of Russia!
The United States has a national security interest in punishing Kirsan
for his criminal use of chess nations
To attack sovereign nations and fund revolution. The murderer
Ilyumzhinov should be brought to justice!
cus Roberts
Candidate, US Congress (R-FLA)
|
|
