| |
Main
Date: 06 Nov 2008 01:26:44
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Mark Nibben Asks a Question on Behalf of Trolgar
|
It is becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Nibblen is the new Phil
Innes, which is to say, then new flack, chief floater of trial balloons
and blower of smoke. Here is what he posted today on the USCF Issues Forum:
by marknibb on Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:28 pm #117458
Just a question - in the situation where KARL S. KRONENBERGER and his
firm, and the USCF are all being sued in the same action, is it
appropriate that the USCF continue with representation by Mr. Kronenberger?
I can see where in one respect, all have a common interest in defense of
the suit (a good thing), but I could also see where a second,
independent opinion might be of value. Just would like to know if it is
in the best interest of the USCF to continue on the path we are on.
For example, not knowing who stole what, but what if stolen evidence is
admissible and that some of the evidence would implicate Mr.
Kronenberger and his firm in some kind of wrong doing? Is it possible
the USCF might be better off with a different attorney for defending
this case?
I am certainly not claiming this is the case or in any way attempting to
suggest Mr. Kronenberger isn't doing a good job or the right thing, I'm
just wondering if this kind of thing happens often (where lawyer and
organization are both being sued) and if it does, is there a possible
conflict of interest that should be avoided. Is it ever a situation that
a separate law firm is employed to defend the second case?
This is really not an attack on Mr. Kronenberger or his firm. Thus far,
they have done a great job, right!!! Sloan Lawsuit thrown out of
court!!! I'm just wondering if we shouldn't step back and think a second.
It seems we have several "legal eagles" out there. Any opinion of a
general nature?
Please remember, I think I was one of the first to ask Susan to drop her
lawsuit. She and Paul have lost me as a supporter with this action. As a
delegate, I'm asking the questions in the best interest of our organization.
****************The short answer Mark is that there is no conflict; no
representational problem. If your masters Sue and Hoainhan think there
is, let them make a motion to have Kronenberger disqualified as counsel
in the John Doe action. Of course Mark, you know that Mr. Kronenberger
and his firm are not counsel for any of the defendants in the Texas
action.
A word of caution Mark. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Fair warning given. *********************
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2008 17:52:05
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Mark Nibben Asks a Question on Behalf of Trolgar
|
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:26:44 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>It is becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Nibblen is the new Phil
>Innes,
Innes's rating is over a thousand points higher than Mark's.
Mark Nibbelin: 945 regular / 996 quick
Phil Innes 2044 regular / 2005 quick
Raising one's rating a thousand points while simultaneously working on
convoluted syntax, learning to misspell words, and master strange
formatting is a lot to ask of someone with adult responsibilities.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2008 13:13:21
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mark Nibben Asks a Question on Behalf of Trolgar
|
On Nov 6, 12:11=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 8:52=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:26:44 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >It is becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Nibblen is the new Phil
> > >Innes,
> > Raising one's rating a thousand points while simultaneously working on
> > convoluted syntax, learning to misspell words, and master strange
> > formatting is a lot to ask of someone with adult responsibilities.
>
> =A0 It is becoming more and more apparent that a few
> of our regulars here in rgc "dearly miss" nearly IMnes.
They dearly missed you too dear, it is after all, a convocation fish
wives, with Sam Sloan as chief slut, and Our Taylor bringing up the
rear [no you know, intended]
> =A0 Yet I find it strange that the main objections are to
> his syntax and spelling; surely, this misses the mark
> --by a country mile. =A0Dr. IMnes was more than just a
> spelling-challenged, stylistic blunderer. =A0It was the
> *substance* of his postings which defined the man--
> or rather, the lack thereof.
Exactly so! The content! The content speaks volumes, no? Especially
compared with fish-wives for whom content is optional at all times,
and - well, they are just bitch-men as they themselves insist. Welcome
to America,
> =A0 After all, anyone can replace a poor speller-- even
> Sanny, or Rob Mitchell. =A0But who among us can fill
> the giant shoes of a man who was nearly an IM, as
> well as close associate of anyone who might be rich
> or famous? =A0And who here can ever dream of repla-
> cing the hypocrisy of the great IMnes?
Apparently, my admirers are endless in this respect, and you are out
of the loop - indeed, a tad jealous methinks.
> =A0No, I say it
> is a great loss... and not merely of strangeness in
> formatting or in the field of convolusion; we have lost
> a true great. =A0Dr. IMnes' death --or at least departure
> --has touched us, one and all. =A0He will long be re-
> membered as one of the all-time greats of rgc. =A0May
> he rest in peace.
May he? Another pathetic projection for those who are entirely
negligible? We see who signs up, and they are a bitch to man, so to
speak, caring nothing for chess, least of all the Sloan-ego in his
current manifestation as head bitch man to his clan of those; nil
conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa. Which Horace if he had been
around would translate to the Murkan as 'wankers'
> =A0 -- help bot
Thank you though for your notice, and like Larry Parr once was, I
stand accused of saying things about chess which are not
understandable by those who say things only about those who say things
about chess.
Phil Innes
"A hundred patzers are usually wrong" - said the Firebird.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2008 04:01:21
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Mark Nibben Asks a Question on Behalf of Trolgar
|
Comparing PInnes with Mark Nibbelin is absurd. Despite Nibbelin's
unfortunate devotion to P/T, he is a scholastic organizer of note and
a USCF delegate. As far as I can tell, PInnes still refuses to
actually belong to the USCF, much less constructively participate in
governance. Also, equating ratings with a person's value as a chess
volunteer is quite foolhardy. Some of the best organizers and
volunteers have NO rating, much less high ratings.
Get a grip, folks.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2008 21:11:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Mark Nibben Asks a Question on Behalf of Trolgar
|
On Nov 5, 8:52=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:26:44 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >It is becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Nibblen is the new Phil
> >Innes,
> Raising one's rating a thousand points while simultaneously working on
> convoluted syntax, learning to misspell words, and master strange
> formatting is a lot to ask of someone with adult responsibilities.
It is becoming more and more apparent that a few
of our regulars here in rgc "dearly miss" nearly IMnes.
Yet I find it strange that the main objections are to
his syntax and spelling; surely, this misses the mark
--by a country mile. Dr. IMnes was more than just a
spelling-challenged, stylistic blunderer. It was the
*substance* of his postings which defined the man--
or rather, the lack thereof.
After all, anyone can replace a poor speller-- even
Sanny, or Rob Mitchell. But who among us can fill
the giant shoes of a man who was nearly an IM, as
well as close associate of anyone who might be rich
or famous? And who here can ever dream of repla-
cing the hypocrisy of the great IMnes? No, I say it
is a great loss... and not merely of strangeness in
formatting or in the field of convolusion; we have lost
a true great. Dr. IMnes' death --or at least departure
--has touched us, one and all. He will long be re-
membered as one of the all-time greats of rgc. May
he rest in peace.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2008 02:17:02
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Mark Nibben Asks a Question on Behalf of Trolgar
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:26:44 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> It is becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Nibblen is the new Phil
>> Innes,
>
> Innes's rating is over a thousand points higher than Mark's.
>
> Mark Nibbelin: 945 regular / 996 quick
> Phil Innes 2044 regular / 2005 quick
>
> Raising one's rating a thousand points while simultaneously working on
> convoluted syntax, learning to misspell words, and master strange
> formatting is a lot to ask of someone with adult responsibilities.
:-)
|
|
