| |
Main
Date: 04 Dec 2008 13:59:14
From: samsloan
Subject: New Lawsuit: CYBERCAFES, LLC vs. USCF
|
A new lawsuit has been filed against the USCF. This one was filed on
November 15, 2008 in Milford, Connecticut:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DispDetail.asp?DocNum=AAN-CV-08-4010781-S
As it was filed nearly three weeks ago, I am surprised that it has not
been reported.
I do not know what the case is about. However, Hanon Russell lives in
Milford Connecticut and his organizations, Chess Cafe and USCF Sales,
are located in Milford, Connecticut, so I suspect that they are behind
it.
Since last summer, Hanon Russell has been threatening to sue the USCF
if it goes through with the Goichberg so-called "New Plan" to make
Chess Life optional for USCF members. Since Hanon Russell and USCF
Sales advertise in Chess Life and have contracted to pay a minimum of
$150,000 per year to the USCF in return for the right to advertise, I
suspect that this lawsuit has something to do with that.
The new lawsuit demands an injunction. My best guess is that the
injunction that it is seeking is to stop the Goichberg "New Plan" from
going into effect, as the New Plan will reduce the circulation of
Chess Life and therefore will impact the revenues of Chess Cafe.
It is too bad that our USCF leadership will not keep us informed and
tell us what this is all about.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2008 13:43:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 7, 5:23=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > >>>> =A0 Wait a second. =A0 Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
> > >>>> amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
> > >>>> of fame. =A0 =A0Even those of us who are "on to him"
> > >>>> cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
> > >>>> privileges.
> > >>> Didn't he have his 15 minutes of fame when he posted his notorious
> > >>> "sharper than wit" threats of violence six years ago?
Please remind me-- whas this back when
Dr. IMnes was claiming to be five liometers
tall (an intimidating man, but easily stopped
by something smaller than a dime-- a virus).
> > >> I move to give him two extra 15 min. periods of fame. =A0Second?
Okay, what the heck. If Sam Sloan can be
famous for a decade or more, why not Phil
Innes for under an hour?
> Laugherty seems to intimate dire things in response to my statement
> that I respect the rule of law, and properly constituted evidence -
Ho, ho, ho! Stop that! No, really-- you're
making me laugh. Ho, ho, ho! This is the
same Phil Innes who was whooping and
hollering that the head honcho of the FIDE
should be convicted-by-accusation, sans
trial, of murder. Ho, ho, ho! What a funny
guy. A real stand-up comic.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2008 13:15:18
From:
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 5, 11:13=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 01:27:38 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >What Russell seems to be asking
> >for is money to compensate him for revenue he thinks he might lose as
> >a result of the change.
>
> I'm having trouble understanding how the business model works, but my
> guess is he must get a number of paper and phone orders from people
> reading the physical mag, and he doesn't want these folks reading the
> web version and then ordering electronically.
>
> BECAUSE, when one goes the electronic ordering route, checking Amazon
> gets to be a habit and the sad fact is that his prices, even factoring
> in the USCF member discount, usually seem much higher than Amazon's,
> to say nothing of prices on Amazon's used/discount book service.
>
> I always check the USCF / Chess Cafe site first and will buy there if
> it's close, but too often it isn't. =A0 He does seem to have negotiated
> exclusivity for some period of time on some items, so the USCF gets
> the sale from the impatient. =A0But I can't see how either Chess Cafe or
> the USCF can survive head-to-head with Amazon long term.
The big disincentive is a $7.50 shipping charge at USCF Sales.
David Ames
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2008 14:54:33
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:15:18 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>> I always check the USCF / Chess Cafe site first and will buy there if
>> it's close, but too often it isn't. � He does seem to have negotiated
>> exclusivity for some period of time on some items, so the USCF gets
>> the sale from the impatient. �But I can't see how either Chess Cafe or
>> the USCF can survive head-to-head with Amazon long term.
>The big disincentive is a $7.50 shipping charge at USCF Sales.
On the other hand, I have to pay sales tax at Amazon and not at USCF
Sales, so it about balances out.
But out-of-state bookstores participating in Amazon-used don't charge
sales tax (at least in my state), and they usually ship via USPS book
rate, so shipping is about four bucks?
And, used is way cheaper. Instead of a twenty-five dollar book with
7.50 shipping, you get an eight to twelve dollar book with around
four dollar shipping. For example,right now, Kasparov's Fischer
volume (forty dollars list, thirty-eight at USCF, twenty-six at
Amazon) is going for about sixteen bucks in very good condition on
Amazon-used.
>David Ames
|
| |
This is getting to be as absurd as Marcus Roberts ...
Jerry Spinrad
On Dec 9, 2:36=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 7, 1:47=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Historian wrote:
> > > On Dec 7, 10:28 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Dec 7, 9:30 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>> Right Phil boy. =A0Your sucking up to them and doing their bidding =
has not
> > >>> gone unnoticed or undocumented. =A0Stay tuned for your moment of fa=
me.
> > >> =A0 Wait a second. =A0 Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
> > >> amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
> > >> of fame. =A0 =A0Even those of us who are "on to him"
> > >> cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
> > >> privileges.
>
> > >> =A0 -- help bot
>
> > > Didn't he have his 15 minutes of fame when he posted his notorious
> > > "sharper than wit" threats of violence six years ago?
>
> > I move to give him two extra 15 min. periods of fame. =A0Second?- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I second that. But I more than seconded my bitch, Brennan's illusion,
> since he was no more aware or of "a writ is sharper than wit", than is
> our eagle-BRAIN, Laugherty, since I pushed it up his nose a dozen
> times already
>
> So how does he behave? Honestly, or to present in public, 'poor me'.
>
> Nevermind that. Even though I recommended the quote a dozen times to
> my personal bitch, whose name is Neil Brennan, better that he seem to
> be a poor incredibly dull fat! boy, and act as the victim rather than
> the perp.
>
> This is likely understandable by the BRAIN, but is the BRAIN entirely
> honest? Is the BRAIN turned on by such ideas? <gg>
>
> Why not appear as some Sloanist victim of something, when actually you
> are the sludge?
>
> That is the question which interests nobody. Since everyone knows
> which way the wind blows, and some winds blow very hard so that they
> whistle in the dark.
>
> How lovely though that such romances can still take place here on
> newsnet. Its poetically perfect, the public blow-hard and the person
> who sucks the wind out of any subject.
>
> ;)
>
> Merry Christmas to all, Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 12:36:24
From:
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 7, 1:47=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 10:28 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Dec 7, 9:30 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Right Phil boy. =A0Your sucking up to them and doing their bidding ha=
s not
> >>> gone unnoticed or undocumented. =A0Stay tuned for your moment of fame=
.
> >> =A0 Wait a second. =A0 Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
> >> amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
> >> of fame. =A0 =A0Even those of us who are "on to him"
> >> cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
> >> privileges.
>
> >> =A0 -- help bot
>
> > Didn't he have his 15 minutes of fame when he posted his notorious
> > "sharper than wit" threats of violence six years ago?
>
> I move to give him two extra 15 min. periods of fame. =A0Second?- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I second that. But I more than seconded my bitch, Brennan's illusion,
since he was no more aware or of "a writ is sharper than wit", than is
our eagle-BRAIN, Laugherty, since I pushed it up his nose a dozen
times already
So how does he behave? Honestly, or to present in public, 'poor me'.
Nevermind that. Even though I recommended the quote a dozen times to
my personal bitch, whose name is Neil Brennan, better that he seem to
be a poor incredibly dull fat! boy, and act as the victim rather than
the perp.
This is likely understandable by the BRAIN, but is the BRAIN entirely
honest? Is the BRAIN turned on by such ideas? <gg >
Why not appear as some Sloanist victim of something, when actually you
are the sludge?
That is the question which interests nobody. Since everyone knows
which way the wind blows, and some winds blow very hard so that they
whistle in the dark.
How lovely though that such romances can still take place here on
newsnet. Its poetically perfect, the public blow-hard and the person
who sucks the wind out of any subject.
;)
Merry Christmas to all, Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2008 11:38:34
From: None
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit: CYBERCAFES, LLC vs. USCF
|
On Dec 5, 7:50=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 4, 4:59=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > A new lawsuit has been filed against the USCF. This one was filed on
> > November 15, 2008 in Milford, Connecticut:
>
> >http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DispDetail.asp?DocNum=3DAAN-CV-08-4010781=
-S
>
> > As it was filed nearly three weeks ago, I am surprised that it has not
> > been reported.
>
> > I do not know what the case is about. However, Hanon Russell lives in
> > Milford Connecticut and his organizations, Chess Cafe and USCF Sales,
> > are located in Milford, Connecticut, so I suspect that they are behind
> > it.
>
> I reported the most recent fracas months ago. That issue as I
> understood it was to do with Chess Cafe's sense that using other
> vendors to sell goods was in conflict with the agreement USCF had made
> with Chess Cafe.
>
> In his letter Hanon Russell said then that he was consulting legal
> advice.
>
> > Since last summer, Hanon Russell has been threatening to sue the USCF
> > if it goes through with the Goichberg so-called "New Plan" to make
> > Chess Life optional for USCF members.
>
> The word 'threat' coming from the Sloan has the same flavor as his use
> of the term 'attack'. For example, he characterised a correction of
> detail of an event to the NY Times Blog as an attack on it.
>
> Seems to me that Russell is asking USCF to honor its agreement with
> Chess Cafe, much as any warrantee of service is insisted upon during
> the period of the warrantee - but presumably USCF either do not intend
> to honor their agreement, or have a different understanding of its
> terms and variable factors.
>
> > Since Hanon Russell and USCF
> > Sales advertise in Chess Life and have contracted to pay a minimum of
> > $150,000 per year to the USCF in return for the right to advertise, I
> > suspect that this lawsuit has something to do with that.
>
> Yes, I suspect that too - since that's what Russell's initial letter
> actually stated: to the effect; How can he perform his own role in
> sales, when the sales vehicle [Chess Life Magazine] has been changed?
>
> > The new lawsuit demands an injunction. My best guess is that the
> > injunction that it is seeking is to stop the Goichberg "New Plan" from
> > going into effect, as the New Plan will reduce the circulation of
> > Chess Life and therefore will impact the revenues of Chess Cafe.
>
> > It is too bad that our USCF leadership will not keep us informed and
> > tell us what this is all about.
>
> USCF leadership is not a coherent nor cogent body. As I have noted
> here and there recently, some agents on the board issue decisions
> without even informing other board members, nor reflecting that
> although they may have had a legal quorum to make their decision, the
> quorum does not indicate that circumstance, or that this is a majority
> decision, nor even offer dissenting agents on the board a chance to
> present their own view of things - and dissenting opinion.
>
> None of the above is a scoop - its a commercial squabble between
> USCF's remaining partner on the US chess scene - and as inevitable a
> process is now in place as is any simple tort, where one party fails
> its obligation to the other, or to the product.
>
> USCF have declined to answer questions about the board, or permit
> officers such as the executive director, to make his own commentary -
> this has been a policy, or at least the actual practice, for the past
> 6 months.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"USCF leadership is not a coherent nor cogent body." Nor is it coed or
have cojones but with the dumping of Chess Life it will be coercive.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 14:54:28
From:
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 7, 5:25=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 4:58 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The Historian wrote:
> >>> On Dec 7, 1:47 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> The Historian wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 7, 10:28 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Dec 7, 9:30 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Right Phil boy. =A0Your sucking up to them and doing their biddin=
g has not
> >>>>>>> gone unnoticed or undocumented. =A0Stay tuned for your moment of =
fame.
> >>>>>> =A0 Wait a second. =A0 Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
> >>>>>> amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
> >>>>>> of fame. =A0 =A0Even those of us who are "on to him"
> >>>>>> cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
> >>>>>> privileges.
> >>>>>> =A0 -- help bot
> >>>>> Didn't he have his 15 minutes of fame when he posted his notorious
> >>>>> "sharper than wit" threats of violence six years ago?
> >>>> I move to give him two extra 15 min. periods of fame. =A0Second?
> >>> If it comes with steel bracelets connected by a chain, then yes. But
> >>> perhaps a jacket with wrap-around sleeves would be best for him.
> >> Just make sure he has plenty of lube for when his "friends" f**k him o=
ver.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, I see here another item that might be recorded, for the record,
> > no less.
>
> > Laugherty seems to intimate dire things in response to my statement
> > that I respect the rule of law, and properly constituted evidence -
> > and also that I support people who actually support chess!
>
> > Polgar and Truong represent maybe 10% of my personal range of support
> > for those who conspicuously do so. Some of that is private, some
> > public.
>
> > I have entirely no idea of the wit of people who suggest homo-erotic
> > motives, vague threats, and varieties of shadenfreude in refererence
> > to those who support chess.
>
> > It hardly seems necessary to even reference them, not their
> > contributions to promotion of the game, short term or of 5 years
> > record.
>
> > How much wit does it take to diss anyone and their demonstrated
> > behavior? Is this even any conversation worth having? It seems to me
> > that there is a proven strategy by some people to put other people
> > down, them and their achievements.
>
> > This is not so much a matter for the courts as for psychology; and I
> > think the public perception of such psychology is already out - no
> > need to have a grey beard and come from Vienna to be able to tell
> > which way the wind blows.
>
> > There are some people, whiners exclusively, who would deliberately
> > misunderstand anything if it got them something. Dozens of times
> > Brennan has been appraised that a writ is sharper than wit. Yet, he
> > still pretends to think there is something here about which HE is the
> > victim.
>
> > How interesting! Since the anon abuser who followed his posts, and
> > only his posts, made far more vile comments about my family, my woman,
> > than ever did the FSS!
>
> > Let this record be renewed. Neil Brennan is the agitator of it - he
> > even suggested I wrote such vile material myself.
>
> > As for Laugherty - is he intending to repress comment by everyone on
> > himself and Sloan by intimidating others not to write about him and
> > Sloan? What do readers think? What is he suggesting is the issue or
> > cause for complaint?
>
> > I have consistently written that the right place for the resolution of
> > the FSS is a court. There, proper rules of evidence are required. That
> > is it - period!
>
> > I would think any real justice would say so too.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Thank you for sharing your thoughts, such as they are, Phil.- Hide quoted=
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for acknowledging my thoughts as my own, and such as they
are seem entirely mainstream to me, not based on an iota of
speculation, but of seasoned experience with people in the world.
My thoughts also reflect legal thought - that is to say - one is
innocent until proved guilty. Is that some exceptional idea to Brian
Laugherty, who is apparently some sort of legal professional or
adjunct?
My thoughts on Brennan and such net-trash as he, are evidenced by
their behaviors, in chess and elsewhere.
Slim pickinigs for any attack. But Laugherty seemed to wish to
intimidate me - is that so? Because, if so, that too is a matter of
record! And I see he is short and shy in his response here.
For Heaven's sake - can we not speak plain together? We would need to
select a topic to do so - how about what best benefits chess in the
USA?
The issues of the FSS are best resolved by properly constituted
evidence, in a court presidided upon by properly constituted justices
and jurys. I have never said other.
If saying so is in some way offensive, let my critics be as
straightforward as my own statements about supporting the rule of law
in the USA rather than newsnet kangaroo courts and MacCarthyist goings-
on.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 14:23:37
From:
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 7, 4:58=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 1:47 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The Historian wrote:
> >>> On Dec 7, 10:28 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 7, 9:30 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> Right Phil boy. =A0Your sucking up to them and doing their bidding =
has not
> >>>>> gone unnoticed or undocumented. =A0Stay tuned for your moment of fa=
me.
> >>>> =A0 Wait a second. =A0 Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
> >>>> amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
> >>>> of fame. =A0 =A0Even those of us who are "on to him"
> >>>> cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
> >>>> privileges.
> >>>> =A0 -- help bot
> >>> Didn't he have his 15 minutes of fame when he posted his notorious
> >>> "sharper than wit" threats of violence six years ago?
> >> I move to give him two extra 15 min. periods of fame. =A0Second?
>
> > If it comes with steel bracelets connected by a chain, then yes. But
> > perhaps a jacket with wrap-around sleeves would be best for him.
>
> Just make sure he has plenty of lube for when his "friends" f**k him over=
.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I see here another item that might be recorded, for the record,
no less.
Laugherty seems to intimate dire things in response to my statement
that I respect the rule of law, and properly constituted evidence -
and also that I support people who actually support chess!
Polgar and Truong represent maybe 10% of my personal range of support
for those who conspicuously do so. Some of that is private, some
public.
I have entirely no idea of the wit of people who suggest homo-erotic
motives, vague threats, and varieties of shadenfreude in refererence
to those who support chess.
It hardly seems necessary to even reference them, not their
contributions to promotion of the game, short term or of 5 years
record.
How much wit does it take to diss anyone and their demonstrated
behavior? Is this even any conversation worth having? It seems to me
that there is a proven strategy by some people to put other people
down, them and their achievements.
This is not so much a matter for the courts as for psychology; and I
think the public perception of such psychology is already out - no
need to have a grey beard and come from Vienna to be able to tell
which way the wind blows.
There are some people, whiners exclusively, who would deliberately
misunderstand anything if it got them something. Dozens of times
Brennan has been appraised that a writ is sharper than wit. Yet, he
still pretends to think there is something here about which HE is the
victim.
How interesting! Since the anon abuser who followed his posts, and
only his posts, made far more vile comments about my family, my woman,
than ever did the FSS!
Let this record be renewed. Neil Brennan is the agitator of it - he
even suggested I wrote such vile material myself.
As for Laugherty - is he intending to repress comment by everyone on
himself and Sloan by intimidating others not to write about him and
Sloan? What do readers think? What is he suggesting is the issue or
cause for complaint?
I have consistently written that the right place for the resolution of
the FSS is a court. There, proper rules of evidence are required. That
is it - period!
I would think any real justice would say so too.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 22:25:57
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 7, 4:58 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 1:47 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 7, 10:28 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 7, 9:30 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Right Phil boy. Your sucking up to them and doing their bidding has not
>>>>>>> gone unnoticed or undocumented. Stay tuned for your moment of fame.
>>>>>> Wait a second. Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
>>>>>> amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
>>>>>> of fame. Even those of us who are "on to him"
>>>>>> cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
>>>>>> privileges.
>>>>>> -- help bot
>>>>> Didn't he have his 15 minutes of fame when he posted his notorious
>>>>> "sharper than wit" threats of violence six years ago?
>>>> I move to give him two extra 15 min. periods of fame. Second?
>>> If it comes with steel bracelets connected by a chain, then yes. But
>>> perhaps a jacket with wrap-around sleeves would be best for him.
>> Just make sure he has plenty of lube for when his "friends" f**k him over.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, I see here another item that might be recorded, for the record,
> no less.
>
> Laugherty seems to intimate dire things in response to my statement
> that I respect the rule of law, and properly constituted evidence -
> and also that I support people who actually support chess!
>
> Polgar and Truong represent maybe 10% of my personal range of support
> for those who conspicuously do so. Some of that is private, some
> public.
>
> I have entirely no idea of the wit of people who suggest homo-erotic
> motives, vague threats, and varieties of shadenfreude in refererence
> to those who support chess.
>
> It hardly seems necessary to even reference them, not their
> contributions to promotion of the game, short term or of 5 years
> record.
>
> How much wit does it take to diss anyone and their demonstrated
> behavior? Is this even any conversation worth having? It seems to me
> that there is a proven strategy by some people to put other people
> down, them and their achievements.
>
> This is not so much a matter for the courts as for psychology; and I
> think the public perception of such psychology is already out - no
> need to have a grey beard and come from Vienna to be able to tell
> which way the wind blows.
>
> There are some people, whiners exclusively, who would deliberately
> misunderstand anything if it got them something. Dozens of times
> Brennan has been appraised that a writ is sharper than wit. Yet, he
> still pretends to think there is something here about which HE is the
> victim.
>
> How interesting! Since the anon abuser who followed his posts, and
> only his posts, made far more vile comments about my family, my woman,
> than ever did the FSS!
>
> Let this record be renewed. Neil Brennan is the agitator of it - he
> even suggested I wrote such vile material myself.
>
> As for Laugherty - is he intending to repress comment by everyone on
> himself and Sloan by intimidating others not to write about him and
> Sloan? What do readers think? What is he suggesting is the issue or
> cause for complaint?
>
> I have consistently written that the right place for the resolution of
> the FSS is a court. There, proper rules of evidence are required. That
> is it - period!
>
> I would think any real justice would say so too.
>
> Phil Innes
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, such as they are, Phil.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 10:54:05
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 7, 1:47=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 10:28 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Dec 7, 9:30 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Right Phil boy. =A0Your sucking up to them and doing their bidding ha=
s not
> >>> gone unnoticed or undocumented. =A0Stay tuned for your moment of fame=
.
> >> =A0 Wait a second. =A0 Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
> >> amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
> >> of fame. =A0 =A0Even those of us who are "on to him"
> >> cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
> >> privileges.
>
> >> =A0 -- help bot
>
> > Didn't he have his 15 minutes of fame when he posted his notorious
> > "sharper than wit" threats of violence six years ago?
>
> I move to give him two extra 15 min. periods of fame. =A0Second?
If it comes with steel bracelets connected by a chain, then yes. But
perhaps a jacket with wrap-around sleeves would be best for him.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 21:58:39
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
The Historian wrote:
> On Dec 7, 1:47 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 10:28 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 7, 9:30 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Right Phil boy. Your sucking up to them and doing their bidding has not
>>>>> gone unnoticed or undocumented. Stay tuned for your moment of fame.
>>>> Wait a second. Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
>>>> amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
>>>> of fame. Even those of us who are "on to him"
>>>> cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
>>>> privileges.
>>>> -- help bot
>>> Didn't he have his 15 minutes of fame when he posted his notorious
>>> "sharper than wit" threats of violence six years ago?
>> I move to give him two extra 15 min. periods of fame. Second?
>
> If it comes with steel bracelets connected by a chain, then yes. But
> perhaps a jacket with wrap-around sleeves would be best for him.
Just make sure he has plenty of lube for when his "friends" f**k him over.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 10:46:36
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 7, 10:28=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 7, 9:30=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Right Phil boy. =A0Your sucking up to them and doing their bidding has =
not
> > gone unnoticed or undocumented. =A0Stay tuned for your moment of fame.
>
> =A0 Wait a second. =A0 Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
> amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
> of fame. =A0 =A0Even those of us who are "on to him"
> cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
> privileges.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Didn't he have his 15 minutes of fame when he posted his notorious
"sharper than wit" threats of violence six years ago?
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 18:47:30
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
The Historian wrote:
> On Dec 7, 10:28 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 9:30 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Right Phil boy. Your sucking up to them and doing their bidding has not
>>> gone unnoticed or undocumented. Stay tuned for your moment of fame.
>> Wait a second. Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
>> amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
>> of fame. Even those of us who are "on to him"
>> cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
>> privileges.
>>
>> -- help bot
>
> Didn't he have his 15 minutes of fame when he posted his notorious
> "sharper than wit" threats of violence six years ago?
I move to give him two extra 15 min. periods of fame. Second?
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 07:28:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 7, 9:30=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Right Phil boy. =A0Your sucking up to them and doing their bidding has no=
t
> gone unnoticed or undocumented. =A0Stay tuned for your moment of fame.
Wait a second. Dr. IMnes is entitled to the set
amount agreed upon by all-- a full fifteen minutes
of fame. Even those of us who are "on to him"
cannot deny a man his legitimate rights and
privileges.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 06:40:40
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 7, 3:15=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 6, 5:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > When they say I support Polgar and Truong, they mean that I support
> > what benefits chess players. That's true.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Can you think of one thing that Polgar and Truong have ever done that
> benefits chess players but does not benefit themselves?
>
> Sam Sloan
That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 00:15:27
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 6, 5:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> When they say I support Polgar and Truong, they mean that I support
> what benefits chess players. That's true.
>
> Phil Innes
Can you think of one thing that Polgar and Truong have ever done that
benefits chess players but does not benefit themselves?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 14:30:53
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Dec 6, 5:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> When they say I support Polgar and Truong, they mean that I support
>> what benefits chess players. That's true.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> Can you think of one thing that Polgar and Truong have ever done that
> benefits chess players but does not benefit themselves?
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
Right Phil boy. Your sucking up to them and doing their bidding has not
gone unnoticed or undocumented. Stay tuned for your moment of fame.
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2008 19:04:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 6, 5:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > I am the one who broke the story...
> > =A0 It would seem that both Mr. Sloan and Mr. Parr
> > are utterly clueless, as in this case Dr. IMnes is
> > correct in that he reported on this /months ago/.
> >
> > =A0 As they say, the mind is one of the first things
> > to go in old age.
> Yet the Sloan and Co continue to report the issue as some triumph of
> journalism by the Sloan, who naturally lies in the open about his own
> precedence in reporting it, whereas several months ago when I reported
> it, there was opportunity to do something about it. Even my friend
> Kelp-bot acknowledges it.
Don't be too hard on these old fogies, for one
day you and I may be as feeble-minded as they
are now-- unable to recall things... trying to take
credit for "breaking news" that is really old news,
etc.
Even so, it is somewhat surprising that Mr.
Sloan can live in a dream world in which he is
Clark Kent, superhero-- a world-shaker who
routinely and single-handedly breaks important
news stories in rgc. What a loon. The /real
story/ is about a man who is obsessed with a
woman he wanted but could not have; but as
so often happens due to incompetence, they
buried the lead... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2008 14:05:08
From:
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 5, 9:39=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:23=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > I am the one who broke the story,
>
> > 'Broke'? At least 2 meaning for broke. You seem to have no detail at
> > all, and instead go after blaming someone - as in Chess Cafe for their
> > 'attack', then writing again with even knowing who voted for what, or
> > if they were even informed, to blame Polgar and Truong.
>
> > I quoted Russell's letter. You omit all detail, since you cannot do as
> > you do if you leave it in.
>
> > The real go-for-broke here is that USCF are now at legal odds with
> > their main trading agent. This is no straw to break the camel's back -
> > Chess Cafe for good or ill, carried a lot of weight for USCF.
>
> > While the issue is likely to end in tears for one or the other party -
> > what will be the result of USCF's further efforts to trade and
> > generate income? If Chess Cafe actually decline to act for USCF
> > further - who will jump in without a secure commercial contract? Since
> > the answer to that question is all to seek, the likes of Malcolm Pein
> > are likely to pick up the dropped market sector - and make it
> > increadingly difficult for USCF to fight its way back into the game -
> > besides, having no liquid capital to do it with.
>
> > Them's the issues. They have been for months. All that has happened is
> > the relatively pro-forma process has begun in a court since the
> > partners to the agreement have not come to an agreement or
> > accommodation in the interim.
>
> =A0 It would seem that both Mr. Sloan and Mr. Parr
> are utterly clueless, as in this case Dr. IMnes is
> correct in that he reported on this /months ago/.
>
> =A0 As they say, the mind is one of the first things
> to go in old age.
Yet the Sloan and Co continue to report the issue as some triumph of
journalism by the Sloan, who naturally lies in the open about his own
precedence in reporting it, whereas several months ago when I reported
it, there was opportunity to do something about it. Even my friend
Kelp-bot acknowledges it.
Naturally, this did not appeal to Sloan and Co who were too busy
blaming anyone, especially Polgar and Truong, to raise holy hell and
ask USCF what they were about? Yet as I posted earlier today, Polgar
and Truong were not even made aware of the current suit.
Naturally this is a finger up the nose to Sloan and the Brain [et co]
who haven't figured out how to spin that yet.
Instead we witness posturing:
Continuous flak from the usual goons, who would rather be heroic
journalists [even though they lie, I did report this /months/ ago]
than do anything which would benefit other chess players.
Kelp-bot is to be acknowledged for his notice of what goes on in this
instance.
No-one else is to be credited with anything! You read it, you did
nothing. Eventually, like Sloan and The Brain
*** [a sort of chessic Austin Powers duo, the little whining nerd and
the big bastard] ***
you only whined, threatened [vaguely], and did the usually personality
jazz to enhance your own standing.
These people and their supporters never did anything whatsoever that
conceivably could effect the chessic well being of other people.
When they say I support Polgar and Truong, they mean that I support
what benefits chess players. That's true.
Phil Innes
> =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2008 04:41:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit: CYBERCAFES, LLC vs. USCF
|
[quote="Tim Just"][quote="Mulfish"]Amazing that those lazy moderators
like to sleep at night.
Susan Polgar said on her site that she had only just become aware of
the suit. Draw your own conclusions, but it seems to me that all
board members ought to be made aware of a lawsuit against USCF
simultaneously and immediately. That should be the case even if some
members are considered "persona non grata".
Michael Mulford [/quote]
Please be aware that as a matter of legal procedure all court
documents are delivered to the Crossville office and/or the USCF
corporate registered agent (who passes the documents along to the USCF
office), not to any member(s) of the Board.
Tim Just [/quote]
Boy, I sure would like to know who that "USCF corporate registered
agent" is!
The bigger question now is: Did that mysterious "USCF corporate
registered agent" get served with the papers? If so, when? When did
the board find out about it? Did they find out about it through my
bulk e-mail that went out at 5:03 PM, the same time as my posting
here, which is how Susan Polgar found out about it, or had the
Executive Director and the USCF President known about it all along
from the time it was first filed three weeks earlier? Had the
Executive Director and the President decided not to let the other
board members and the general membership know about it?
Will the "USCF corporate registered agent" be so kind as to provide us
with answers to these pressing questions?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
On Dec 5, 5:52=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 12:23 am, Vance <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Dec 4, 7:00 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 4, 9:31 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> ANOTHER SCOOP
> >>>> Thanks, ONCE AGAIN and again and again (or so it seems) to Sam Sloan
> >>>> for breaking another important story about the USCF.
> >>>> Hanon Russell, who is the apparently avuncular, pipe-smoking uncle o=
f
> >>>> US Chess as in "Uncle Joe Stalin," is this time among the angels for
> >>>> trying to stop the plan to destroy Chess Life and the Federation alo=
ng
> >>>> with it. =A0Gawd, one hates to write that. =A0Gawd, one hates to ima=
gine
> >>>> that Hanon Russell as a key savior of the Federation. =A0But the fac=
ts
> >>>> seem to support it.
> >>>> Out of curiosity, where do Paul Truong and Susan Polgar stand on
> >>>> Goich's Chess Life plan?
> >> [Snipped]
>
> >>> In answer to your question, I am fairly certain that Paul Truong and
> >>> Susan Polgar voted in favor of the Goichberg Plan. They certainly did
> >>> not vote against it because Mike Goodall and I were two of the few wh=
o
> >>> voted against it.
> >> Sam, you are amazing. =A0The question was one of fact '...where do Pau=
l
> >> Truong and Susan Polgar stand on Goich's Chess Life plan?'
>
> >> You do not know, therefore surmise that they are for Goich's plan.
> >> Your surmise is not a matter of knowing that fact and therefore
> >> doesn't address the question. =A0To add to the amazing, you assert tha=
t
> >> they did not vote against it because you and Goodall were two who did
> >> vote against it. =A0That is a classic non-sequitor unless you establis=
h
> >> a warranted inferencial bridge between whatever the hell you did and
> >> what someone else has done. =A0Something like 'As one of the persons w=
ho
> >> voted against Goich's plan, I received a list of the others who voted
> >> against it, just like Goodall did. =A0Polgar and Truong weren't on the
> >> list and may support the plan.'
>
> >> It's a popular stereotype of Chess that it teaches you how to think,
> >> so it's a good thing that your thinking is relegated to the backwaters
> >> of Chess so its popular image isn't tarnished.
>
> >> Vance
>
> > There was no such list. This vote took place at a meeting in Dallas in
> > August.
>
> > When Goichberg said, "All in favor, put your hands up", a lot of hands
> > went up.
>
> > When Goichberg said, "All opposed", just a few hands went up. Those
> > few included myself and Mike Goodall. I did not see Paul or Susan
> > raise their hands.
>
> > Goichberg then said, "The ayes have it". There was no count of hands.
>
> > Thus, Chess Life was abolished for all but "Premium" members.
>
> > I immediately asked how the six members of the board had voted. They
> > refused to answer. I think Goichberg called me out of order or
> > something and said that it was time to move on.
>
> > I think the proper motion for me to make would have been "call to
> > divide" or something like that but I did not think of it in time.
>
> > At several other times during the same meeting I raised the issue that
> > Hanon Russell had threatened to sue the USCF over this. Each time,
> > Goichberg poo-pooed it, saying that this was not a serious concern.
> > When I tried to speak to this issue, Goichberg said "Times up". He
> > imposed a three-minute time limit on speakers and every speaker was
> > allowed to speak only once on any issue, but, during the meeting, he
> > only called time on me and someone named Allen, a newcomer, often
> > spoke two or three times at length on any issue.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Sam, the USCF Issues Forum is effectively dead due to
> moderation/censorship. =A0Don't waste your time and energy pissing and
> moaning about it. =A0RGCP is where the truth can be found. =A0Much is
> happening. =A0Stay tuned here folks.- Hide quoted text -
Brian,
You have been saying for quite some time that something much bigger is
coming along; we should just wait. How long will it be before your
truly big news comes out? Is there any upper bound on the waiting
time?
Jerry Spinrad
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 21:34:37
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 5, 5:52 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>>> On Dec 5, 12:23 am, Vance <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 4, 7:00 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 4, 9:31 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> ANOTHER SCOOP
>>>>>> Thanks, ONCE AGAIN and again and again (or so it seems) to Sam Sloan
>>>>>> for breaking another important story about the USCF.
>>>>>> Hanon Russell, who is the apparently avuncular, pipe-smoking uncle of
>>>>>> US Chess as in "Uncle Joe Stalin," is this time among the angels for
>>>>>> trying to stop the plan to destroy Chess Life and the Federation along
>>>>>> with it. Gawd, one hates to write that. Gawd, one hates to imagine
>>>>>> that Hanon Russell as a key savior of the Federation. But the facts
>>>>>> seem to support it.
>>>>>> Out of curiosity, where do Paul Truong and Susan Polgar stand on
>>>>>> Goich's Chess Life plan?
>>>> [Snipped]
>>>>> In answer to your question, I am fairly certain that Paul Truong and
>>>>> Susan Polgar voted in favor of the Goichberg Plan. They certainly did
>>>>> not vote against it because Mike Goodall and I were two of the few who
>>>>> voted against it.
>>>> Sam, you are amazing. The question was one of fact '...where do Paul
>>>> Truong and Susan Polgar stand on Goich's Chess Life plan?'
>>>> You do not know, therefore surmise that they are for Goich's plan.
>>>> Your surmise is not a matter of knowing that fact and therefore
>>>> doesn't address the question. To add to the amazing, you assert that
>>>> they did not vote against it because you and Goodall were two who did
>>>> vote against it. That is a classic non-sequitor unless you establish
>>>> a warranted inferencial bridge between whatever the hell you did and
>>>> what someone else has done. Something like 'As one of the persons who
>>>> voted against Goich's plan, I received a list of the others who voted
>>>> against it, just like Goodall did. Polgar and Truong weren't on the
>>>> list and may support the plan.'
>>>> It's a popular stereotype of Chess that it teaches you how to think,
>>>> so it's a good thing that your thinking is relegated to the backwaters
>>>> of Chess so its popular image isn't tarnished.
>>>> Vance
>>> There was no such list. This vote took place at a meeting in Dallas in
>>> August.
>>> When Goichberg said, "All in favor, put your hands up", a lot of hands
>>> went up.
>>> When Goichberg said, "All opposed", just a few hands went up. Those
>>> few included myself and Mike Goodall. I did not see Paul or Susan
>>> raise their hands.
>>> Goichberg then said, "The ayes have it". There was no count of hands.
>>> Thus, Chess Life was abolished for all but "Premium" members.
>>> I immediately asked how the six members of the board had voted. They
>>> refused to answer. I think Goichberg called me out of order or
>>> something and said that it was time to move on.
>>> I think the proper motion for me to make would have been "call to
>>> divide" or something like that but I did not think of it in time.
>>> At several other times during the same meeting I raised the issue that
>>> Hanon Russell had threatened to sue the USCF over this. Each time,
>>> Goichberg poo-pooed it, saying that this was not a serious concern.
>>> When I tried to speak to this issue, Goichberg said "Times up". He
>>> imposed a three-minute time limit on speakers and every speaker was
>>> allowed to speak only once on any issue, but, during the meeting, he
>>> only called time on me and someone named Allen, a newcomer, often
>>> spoke two or three times at length on any issue.
>>> Sam Sloan
>> Sam, the USCF Issues Forum is effectively dead due to
>> moderation/censorship. Don't waste your time and energy pissing and
>> moaning about it. RGCP is where the truth can be found. Much is
>> happening. Stay tuned here folks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Brian,
>
> You have been saying for quite some time that something much bigger is
> coming along; we should just wait. How long will it be before your
> truly big news comes out? Is there any upper bound on the waiting
> time?
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Patience is a virtue. Be patient. :-)
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 06:39:50
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 5, 9:23=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > I am the one who broke the story,
>
> 'Broke'? At least 2 meaning for broke. You seem to have no detail at
> all, and instead go after blaming someone - as in Chess Cafe for their
> 'attack', then writing again with even knowing who voted for what, or
> if they were even informed, to blame Polgar and Truong.
>
> I quoted Russell's letter. You omit all detail, since you cannot do as
> you do if you leave it in.
>
> The real go-for-broke here is that USCF are now at legal odds with
> their main trading agent. This is no straw to break the camel's back -
> Chess Cafe for good or ill, carried a lot of weight for USCF.
>
> While the issue is likely to end in tears for one or the other party -
> what will be the result of USCF's further efforts to trade and
> generate income? If Chess Cafe actually decline to act for USCF
> further - who will jump in without a secure commercial contract? Since
> the answer to that question is all to seek, the likes of Malcolm Pein
> are likely to pick up the dropped market sector - and make it
> increadingly difficult for USCF to fight its way back into the game -
> besides, having no liquid capital to do it with.
>
> Them's the issues. They have been for months. All that has happened is
> the relatively pro-forma process has begun in a court since the
> partners to the agreement have not come to an agreement or
> accommodation in the interim.
It would seem that both Mr. Sloan and Mr. Parr
are utterly clueless, as in this case Dr. IMnes is
correct in that he reported on this /months ago/.
As they say, the mind is one of the first things
to go in old age.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 06:23:23
From:
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 5, 7:56=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:244813fd-487f-450d-9aef-46ca9e20f14b@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I am the one who broke the story,
'Broke'? At least 2 meaning for broke. You seem to have no detail at
all, and instead go after blaming someone - as in Chess Cafe for their
'attack', then writing again with even knowing who voted for what, or
if they were even informed, to blame Polgar and Truong.
I quoted Russell's letter. You omit all detail, since you cannot do as
you do if you leave it in.
The real go-for-broke here is that USCF are now at legal odds with
their main trading agent. This is no straw to break the camel's back -
Chess Cafe for good or ill, carried a lot of weight for USCF.
While the issue is likely to end in tears for one or the other party -
what will be the result of USCF's further efforts to trade and
generate income? If Chess Cafe actually decline to act for USCF
further - who will jump in without a secure commercial contract? Since
the answer to that question is all to seek, the likes of Malcolm Pein
are likely to pick up the dropped market sector - and make it
increadingly difficult for USCF to fight its way back into the game -
besides, having no liquid capital to do it with.
Them's the issues. They have been for months. All that has happened is
the relatively pro-forma process has begun in a court since the
partners to the agreement have not come to an agreement or
accommodation in the interim.
Phil Innes
> It's like you're Jimmy Olsen, but with a severe head injury.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 04:50:23
From:
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit: CYBERCAFES, LLC vs. USCF
|
On Dec 4, 4:59=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> A new lawsuit has been filed against the USCF. This one was filed on
> November 15, 2008 in Milford, Connecticut:
>
> http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DispDetail.asp?DocNum=3DAAN-CV-08-4010781-=
S
>
> As it was filed nearly three weeks ago, I am surprised that it has not
> been reported.
>
> I do not know what the case is about. However, Hanon Russell lives in
> Milford Connecticut and his organizations, Chess Cafe and USCF Sales,
> are located in Milford, Connecticut, so I suspect that they are behind
> it.
I reported the most recent fracas months ago. That issue as I
understood it was to do with Chess Cafe's sense that using other
vendors to sell goods was in conflict with the agreement USCF had made
with Chess Cafe.
In his letter Hanon Russell said then that he was consulting legal
advice.
> Since last summer, Hanon Russell has been threatening to sue the USCF
> if it goes through with the Goichberg so-called "New Plan" to make
> Chess Life optional for USCF members.
The word 'threat' coming from the Sloan has the same flavor as his use
of the term 'attack'. For example, he characterised a correction of
detail of an event to the NY Times Blog as an attack on it.
Seems to me that Russell is asking USCF to honor its agreement with
Chess Cafe, much as any warrantee of service is insisted upon during
the period of the warrantee - but presumably USCF either do not intend
to honor their agreement, or have a different understanding of its
terms and variable factors.
> Since Hanon Russell and USCF
> Sales advertise in Chess Life and have contracted to pay a minimum of
> $150,000 per year to the USCF in return for the right to advertise, I
> suspect that this lawsuit has something to do with that.
Yes, I suspect that too - since that's what Russell's initial letter
actually stated: to the effect; How can he perform his own role in
sales, when the sales vehicle [Chess Life Magazine] has been changed?
> The new lawsuit demands an injunction. My best guess is that the
> injunction that it is seeking is to stop the Goichberg "New Plan" from
> going into effect, as the New Plan will reduce the circulation of
> Chess Life and therefore will impact the revenues of Chess Cafe.
>
> It is too bad that our USCF leadership will not keep us informed and
> tell us what this is all about.
USCF leadership is not a coherent nor cogent body. As I have noted
here and there recently, some agents on the board issue decisions
without even informing other board members, nor reflecting that
although they may have had a legal quorum to make their decision, the
quorum does not indicate that circumstance, or that this is a majority
decision, nor even offer dissenting agents on the board a chance to
present their own view of things - and dissenting opinion.
None of the above is a scoop - its a commercial squabble between
USCF's remaining partner on the US chess scene - and as inevitable a
process is now in place as is any simple tort, where one party fails
its obligation to the other, or to the product.
USCF have declined to answer questions about the board, or permit
officers such as the executive director, to make his own commentary -
this has been a policy, or at least the actual practice, for the past
6 months.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 01:42:05
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 5, 12:23=A0am, Vance <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 7:00=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 9:31=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > ANOTHER SCOOP
>
> > > Thanks, ONCE AGAIN and again and again (or so it seems) to Sam Sloan
> > > for breaking another important story about the USCF.
>
> > > Hanon Russell, who is the apparently avuncular, pipe-smoking uncle of
> > > US Chess as in "Uncle Joe Stalin," is this time among the angels for
> > > trying to stop the plan to destroy Chess Life and the Federation alon=
g
> > > with it. =A0Gawd, one hates to write that. =A0Gawd, one hates to imag=
ine
> > > that Hanon Russell as a key savior of the Federation. =A0But the fact=
s
> > > seem to support it.
>
> > > Out of curiosity, where do Paul Truong and Susan Polgar stand on
> > > Goich's Chess Life plan?
>
> [Snipped]
>
> > In answer to your question, I am fairly certain that Paul Truong and
> > Susan Polgar voted in favor of the Goichberg Plan. They certainly did
> > not vote against it because Mike Goodall and I were two of the few who
> > voted against it.
>
> Sam, you are amazing. =A0The question was one of fact '...where do Paul
> Truong and Susan Polgar stand on Goich's Chess Life plan?'
>
> You do not know, therefore surmise that they are for Goich's plan.
> Your surmise is not a matter of knowing that fact and therefore
> doesn't address the question. =A0To add to the amazing, you assert that
> they did not vote against it because you and Goodall were two who did
> vote against it. =A0That is a classic non-sequitor unless you establish
> a warranted inferencial bridge between whatever the hell you did and
> what someone else has done. =A0Something like 'As one of the persons who
> voted against Goich's plan, I received a list of the others who voted
> against it, just like Goodall did. =A0Polgar and Truong weren't on the
> list and may support the plan.'
>
> It's a popular stereotype of Chess that it teaches you how to think,
> so it's a good thing that your thinking is relegated to the backwaters
> of Chess so its popular image isn't tarnished.
>
> Vance
There was no such list. This vote took place at a meeting in Dallas in
August.
When Goichberg said, "All in favor, put your hands up", a lot of hands
went up.
When Goichberg said, "All opposed", just a few hands went up. Those
few included myself and Mike Goodall. I did not see Paul or Susan
raise their hands.
Goichberg then said, "The ayes have it". There was no count of hands.
Thus, Chess Life was abolished for all but "Premium" members.
I immediately asked how the six members of the board had voted. They
refused to answer. I think Goichberg called me out of order or
something and said that it was time to move on.
I think the proper motion for me to make would have been "call to
divide" or something like that but I did not think of it in time.
At several other times during the same meeting I raised the issue that
Hanon Russell had threatened to sue the USCF over this. Each time,
Goichberg poo-pooed it, saying that this was not a serious concern.
When I tried to speak to this issue, Goichberg said "Times up". He
imposed a three-minute time limit on speakers and every speaker was
allowed to speak only once on any issue, but, during the meeting, he
only called time on me and someone named Allen, a newcomer, often
spoke two or three times at length on any issue.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 11:52:36
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Dec 5, 12:23 am, Vance <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 7:00 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 4, 9:31 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> ANOTHER SCOOP
>>>> Thanks, ONCE AGAIN and again and again (or so it seems) to Sam Sloan
>>>> for breaking another important story about the USCF.
>>>> Hanon Russell, who is the apparently avuncular, pipe-smoking uncle of
>>>> US Chess as in "Uncle Joe Stalin," is this time among the angels for
>>>> trying to stop the plan to destroy Chess Life and the Federation along
>>>> with it. Gawd, one hates to write that. Gawd, one hates to imagine
>>>> that Hanon Russell as a key savior of the Federation. But the facts
>>>> seem to support it.
>>>> Out of curiosity, where do Paul Truong and Susan Polgar stand on
>>>> Goich's Chess Life plan?
>> [Snipped]
>>
>>> In answer to your question, I am fairly certain that Paul Truong and
>>> Susan Polgar voted in favor of the Goichberg Plan. They certainly did
>>> not vote against it because Mike Goodall and I were two of the few who
>>> voted against it.
>> Sam, you are amazing. The question was one of fact '...where do Paul
>> Truong and Susan Polgar stand on Goich's Chess Life plan?'
>>
>> You do not know, therefore surmise that they are for Goich's plan.
>> Your surmise is not a matter of knowing that fact and therefore
>> doesn't address the question. To add to the amazing, you assert that
>> they did not vote against it because you and Goodall were two who did
>> vote against it. That is a classic non-sequitor unless you establish
>> a warranted inferencial bridge between whatever the hell you did and
>> what someone else has done. Something like 'As one of the persons who
>> voted against Goich's plan, I received a list of the others who voted
>> against it, just like Goodall did. Polgar and Truong weren't on the
>> list and may support the plan.'
>>
>> It's a popular stereotype of Chess that it teaches you how to think,
>> so it's a good thing that your thinking is relegated to the backwaters
>> of Chess so its popular image isn't tarnished.
>>
>> Vance
>
> There was no such list. This vote took place at a meeting in Dallas in
> August.
>
> When Goichberg said, "All in favor, put your hands up", a lot of hands
> went up.
>
> When Goichberg said, "All opposed", just a few hands went up. Those
> few included myself and Mike Goodall. I did not see Paul or Susan
> raise their hands.
>
> Goichberg then said, "The ayes have it". There was no count of hands.
>
> Thus, Chess Life was abolished for all but "Premium" members.
>
> I immediately asked how the six members of the board had voted. They
> refused to answer. I think Goichberg called me out of order or
> something and said that it was time to move on.
>
> I think the proper motion for me to make would have been "call to
> divide" or something like that but I did not think of it in time.
>
> At several other times during the same meeting I raised the issue that
> Hanon Russell had threatened to sue the USCF over this. Each time,
> Goichberg poo-pooed it, saying that this was not a serious concern.
> When I tried to speak to this issue, Goichberg said "Times up". He
> imposed a three-minute time limit on speakers and every speaker was
> allowed to speak only once on any issue, but, during the meeting, he
> only called time on me and someone named Allen, a newcomer, often
> spoke two or three times at length on any issue.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam, the USCF Issues Forum is effectively dead due to
moderation/censorship. Don't waste your time and energy pissing and
moaning about it. RGCP is where the truth can be found. Much is
happening. Stay tuned here folks.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 01:27:38
From:
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
[email protected] wrote:
> ANOTHER SCOOP
>
>
> Hanon Russell, who is the apparently avuncular, pipe-smoking uncle of
> US Chess as in "Uncle Joe Stalin," is this time among the angels for
> trying to stop the plan to destroy Chess Life and the Federation along
> with it. Gawd, one hates to write that. Gawd, one hates to imagine
> that Hanon Russell as a key savior of the Federation. But the facts
> seem to support it.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
You're not being realistic, Larry, No matter what happens with this
suit, it's not going to "stop the plan to destroy Chess Life." (I'm
quoting, not endorsing your phrase.) What Russell seems to be asking
for is money to compensate him for revenue he thinks he might lose as
a result of the change. So, if adding a non-printed-magazine option is
Bad, why is shaking down the USCF for a settlement Good? Unless,
perhaps, you are really not interested in the good of the USCF, but
only in winning debating points.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 08:13:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 01:27:38 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>What Russell seems to be asking
>for is money to compensate him for revenue he thinks he might lose as
>a result of the change.
I'm having trouble understanding how the business model works, but my
guess is he must get a number of paper and phone orders from people
reading the physical mag, and he doesn't want these folks reading the
web version and then ordering electronically.
BECAUSE, when one goes the electronic ordering route, checking Amazon
gets to be a habit and the sad fact is that his prices, even factoring
in the USCF member discount, usually seem much higher than Amazon's,
to say nothing of prices on Amazon's used/discount book service.
I always check the USCF / Chess Cafe site first and will buy there if
it's close, but too often it isn't. He does seem to have negotiated
exclusivity for some period of time on some items, so the USCF gets
the sale from the impatient. But I can't see how either Chess Cafe or
the USCF can survive head-to-head with Amazon long term.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 21:23:17
From: Vance
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 4, 7:00=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 9:31=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ANOTHER SCOOP
>
> > Thanks, ONCE AGAIN and again and again (or so it seems) to Sam Sloan
> > for breaking another important story about the USCF.
>
> > Hanon Russell, who is the apparently avuncular, pipe-smoking uncle of
> > US Chess as in "Uncle Joe Stalin," is this time among the angels for
> > trying to stop the plan to destroy Chess Life and the Federation along
> > with it. =A0Gawd, one hates to write that. =A0Gawd, one hates to imagin=
e
> > that Hanon Russell as a key savior of the Federation. =A0But the facts
> > seem to support it.
>
> > Out of curiosity, where do Paul Truong and Susan Polgar stand on
> > Goich's Chess Life plan?
>
[Snipped]
> In answer to your question, I am fairly certain that Paul Truong and
> Susan Polgar voted in favor of the Goichberg Plan. They certainly did
> not vote against it because Mike Goodall and I were two of the few who
> voted against it.
>
Sam, you are amazing. The question was one of fact '...where do Paul
Truong and Susan Polgar stand on Goich's Chess Life plan?'
You do not know, therefore surmise that they are for Goich's plan.
Your surmise is not a matter of knowing that fact and therefore
doesn't address the question. To add to the amazing, you assert that
they did not vote against it because you and Goodall were two who did
vote against it. That is a classic non-sequitor unless you establish
a warranted inferencial bridge between whatever the hell you did and
what someone else has done. Something like 'As one of the persons who
voted against Goich's plan, I received a list of the others who voted
against it, just like Goodall did. Polgar and Truong weren't on the
list and may support the plan.'
It's a popular stereotype of Chess that it teaches you how to think,
so it's a good thing that your thinking is relegated to the backwaters
of Chess so its popular image isn't tarnished.
Vance
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 19:00:23
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
On Dec 4, 9:31=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> ANOTHER SCOOP
>
> Thanks, ONCE AGAIN and again and again (or so it seems) to Sam Sloan
> for breaking another important story about the USCF.
>
> Hanon Russell, who is the apparently avuncular, pipe-smoking uncle of
> US Chess as in "Uncle Joe Stalin," is this time among the angels for
> trying to stop the plan to destroy Chess Life and the Federation along
> with it. =A0Gawd, one hates to write that. =A0Gawd, one hates to imagine
> that Hanon Russell as a key savior of the Federation. =A0But the facts
> seem to support it.
>
> Out of curiosity, where do Paul Truong and Susan Polgar stand on
> Goich's Chess Life plan?
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
Thank you.
Although I am the one who broke the story, I still have not been
allowed to post this on the USCF Issues Forum, where I am on moderated
status. Sevan Muradian posted a question about it over there about a
half hour after I attempted to post mine there.
In answer to your question, I am fairly certain that Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar voted in favor of the Goichberg Plan. They certainly did
not vote against it because Mike Goodall and I were two of the few who
voted against it.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 12:56:42
From: foad
Subject: Re: Dear Paul and Sue
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:244813fd-487f-450d-9aef-46ca9e20f14b@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> I am the one who broke the story,
It's like you're Jimmy Olsen, but with a severe head injury.
|
| |
ANOTHER SCOOP
Thanks, ONCE AGAIN and again and again (or so it seems) to Sam Sloan
for breaking another important story about the USCF.
Hanon Russell, who is the apparently avuncular, pipe-smoking uncle of
US Chess as in "Uncle Joe Stalin," is this time among the angels for
trying to stop the plan to destroy Chess Life and the Federation along
with it. Gawd, one hates to write that. Gawd, one hates to imagine
that Hanon Russell as a key savior of the Federation. But the facts
seem to support it.
Out of curiosity, where do Paul Truong and Susan Polgar stand on
Goich's Chess Life plan?
Yours, Larry Parr
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Sue writes on chessdiscussion:
> by SusanPolgar on Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:50 pm
>
> Although this case was filed on November 13, the board majority (Bill
> Goichberg, Jim Berry, Randy Bauer, and Randy Hough) and the Executive
> Director (Bill Hall) did not inform the USCF members or the board
> minority. Even though I am a board member, I did not find out about it
> until today.
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Sue, the question you really want to ask is whether or not the USCF has
> been served with the court pleadings. If yes, when were they served.
> And if you're not in the loop, one simply can't imagine why. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 00:58:58
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit: CYBERCAFES, LLC vs. USCF
|
samsloan wrote:
> A new lawsuit has been filed against the USCF. This one was filed on
> November 15, 2008 in Milford, Connecticut:
>
> http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DispDetail.asp?DocNum=AAN-CV-08-4010781-S
>
> As it was filed nearly three weeks ago, I am surprised that it has not
> been reported.
>
> I do not know what the case is about. However, Hanon Russell lives in
> Milford Connecticut and his organizations, Chess Cafe and USCF Sales,
> are located in Milford, Connecticut, so I suspect that they are behind
> it.
>
> Since last summer, Hanon Russell has been threatening to sue the USCF
> if it goes through with the Goichberg so-called "New Plan" to make
> Chess Life optional for USCF members. Since Hanon Russell and USCF
> Sales advertise in Chess Life and have contracted to pay a minimum of
> $150,000 per year to the USCF in return for the right to advertise, I
> suspect that this lawsuit has something to do with that.
>
> The new lawsuit demands an injunction. My best guess is that the
> injunction that it is seeking is to stop the Goichberg "New Plan" from
> going into effect, as the New Plan will reduce the circulation of
> Chess Life and therefore will impact the revenues of Chess Cafe.
>
> It is too bad that our USCF leadership will not keep us informed and
> tell us what this is all about.
>
> Sam Sloan
From the Polgar Blog:
Just out of curiosity, what is this about? Why would a Cybercafes
company (presumably a business about internet caf�s) start a law suit
against a chess federation? I don't have enough phantasy to have an idea
what the reason could be.
Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:39:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...
I was in the chess bookstore at US Amateur East a couple years ago to
buy the new Kasparov book. All of a sudden, I heard Randy Bauer insulted
Mr. Russell's son who was working at the bookstore. Mr. Russell didn't
take this kindly. This can't be good when dealing with a company which
pays the USCF $150,000 a year.
Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:44:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...
Under the Bill Goichberg, Randy Bauer, Jim Berry, Randy Hough and Bill
Hall regime, they managed to cause one lawsuit after another while the
USCF lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Well done gentlemen! My
biggest mistake was voting for Bauer and Berry. Bauer was the one who
lost his reelection bid badly until Polgar endorsed him.
Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:47:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...
Dear Anon,
The issue of how much, if any, money is due and owing to USCF Sales and
the impact of the membership changes have been on the table for some
time now. Other than bitching and moaning, I haven't seen any leadership
on this issue from Susan or Paul.
Thursday, December 4, 2008 6:57:00 PM CST
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 01:48:22
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Dear Paul and Sue
|
Sue writes on chessdiscussion:
by SusanPolgar on Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:50 pm
Although this case was filed on November 13, the board majority (Bill
Goichberg, Jim Berry, Randy Bauer, and Randy Hough) and the Executive
Director (Bill Hall) did not inform the USCF members or the board
minority. Even though I am a board member, I did not find out about it
until today.
---------------------------------------
Sue, the question you really want to ask is whether or not the USCF has
been served with the court pleadings. If yes, when were they served.
And if you're not in the loop, one simply can't imagine why. ;-)
|
|
