| |
Main
Date: 29 Jun 2008 08:26:23
From: samsloan
Subject: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
Re: Even more legal problems for the USCF
by SusanPolgar on Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:36 pm
Zarathustra wrote:This is Goichberg problem, is the senior citizen
Goichberg ( 67 years of age on November 11) that is in retirement age
is too poor to retire or too power happy to give up power?
To me, age is not an issue. The issue is vision and expertise to lead
the USCF out of the legal and financial mess which was created by a
small group of people. I believe the legal fees so far is $35,000 not
counting representation provided by the insurance company. This is not
counting additional legal fees (and potential financial damages) for
2-3 other serious legal matters which USCF board members publicly
challenged the other side to: "put up or shut up" and "go ahead and
sue". How professional!
In a few months, the USCF has to put up $35,000 minimum for the
Olympiad. If Mr. Frank K. Berry does not sponsor the US and US Women's
Championship in 2009, the USCF would have to come up with the money
for that as well.
I am very busy now but I will post a few items (of dozens and dozens)
of leaks by the board to Jerry Hanken (now that I have a written
consent by the other side) and others as soon as I have a chance. Then
all USCF members will see the pattern of conduct by the board
majority.
This is just a sample:
The board knows full well that I have been promoting and sponsoring
military chess for over 2 years. I am in constant contact with many
people in military chess. In fact, I was asked by members of the
military chess committee to be their liaison and no other board member
is involved in military chess at all since Mr. Channing step down. A
few weeks ago, Bill Goichberg brought up the issue about finding a new
liaison to the military chess committee. I said I would be happy to do
it because I am currently working with them anyway while no one else
really cares about it. This should be a no brainer.
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as it seems. This is what took
place behind the scene. The item below will show the conduct of Bill
Goichberg and other board members (this was copied / sent / forwarded
to other USCF insiders and it floated around and even landed on one of
the public forums and finally it got back to me). There was no
discussion or debate, just an under the table deal instigated by the
President himself.
"What should we do about military liaison? ...I see no evidence that
she has done any work for USCF as a board member; she seems motivated
entirely by self interest....
...Probably just as well, as if she did speak to him it's not likely
she would have been working in the interests of USCF.
...I wish we could remove her as Scholastic liaison, but don't know
who could replace her. At least, one of you should become military
liaison. If you could discuss this with each other and one of you make
a motion that the other be the liaison, that would be very good."
The next day, Randy Hough made a motion to have Jim Berry take over
the military chess liaison just as stated / suggested by Bill
Goichberg. Then Jim Berry accepted the nomination and others voted yes
immediately. I have no problem if Jim Berry takes over this committee.
He is a veteran and he is loves chess. I would be happy if he wants to
help military chess.
The problem is how it was done behind the scene. This was the same way
how things work for the Presidency back in last August. There was no
discussion. There was no thinking about the best interest of chess,
USCF members, or the USCF. Instead of doing what is good for our
members, one person wanted to fulfill he personal dream and he
convinced his friends to go along with it. How much money has the USCF
lost since last August?
I wonder how Mr. Goichberg will justify his conduct and behavior. I
personally asked him in the past to step down from subcommittees or
recuse himself due to conflict of interest. He refused. Perhaps he
would like to publicly deny this the same way his friend Jerry Hanken
did of wrong doing knowing that the evidence is there and I can prove
it. Tons of it are located within the confidential binfo which the
board wants to hide it from all the members. They do not want the
members to know the truth. I would challenge Mr. Goichberg and the
board majority to open everything up for all USCF members to see. But
of course there is no chance they would accept.
I also wonder how Mr. Goichberg will explain to 84,000 members about
other unethical behind the scene / under the table conduct and
agreements to get what he wants. I said that I would run for the board
to clean up the dirty and destructive politics. I will not back off to
these people. They have gone too far to harm me and my family on many
levels and everything will come out.
I asked for have peace and harmony among board members for the best
interest of the USCF. Of course the other side would reject that. It
is not enough that Mr. Goichberg got his life long dream of becoming
the USCF President. He wants more. He wants others who oppose him out
of the USCF.
If Bill Goichberg truly believes that I have done nothing for chess or
the USCF and all I want to do is to promote myself then back it up. I
would challenge Bill Goichberg to have a poll on the USCF website so
ALL 84,000 USCF members can vote to see which board member has done
the most to benefit chess in this country. I offered to help many
times but the USCF is basically a one man show to control the
federation. Even when the USCF is losing over $100,000 and desperately
needs help, my offer was rejected. The idea is to block others to
maintain power and the status quo.
For something as silly as a committee liaison, board members behave
like this behind the scene. What would they do with issues far more
important, including serious legal issues? This is the same pattern as
countless other issues.
As I said, dozens and dozens of confidential and legal documents and
info were leaked out to Jerry Hanken and other USCF insiders the same
way. Then these people go out and use this confidential info to attack
and harm people who are against them. I told Mr. Goichberg and other
board members that I know what took place and I have full proof to
present in court.
My lawyer asked for three things to save the USCF from further legal
problems for what they have done to me on a personal and
professionally level. The other side basically insulted my lawyer and
told me to go ahead and sue. Welcome to the USCF. More will come out
soon.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
User avatar
SusanPolgar
MOD
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Re: Even more legal problems for the USCF
Postby Zarathustra on Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:40 pm
SusanPolgar wrote:
Zarathustra wrote:This is Goichberg problem, is the senior
citizen Goichberg ( 67 years of age on November 11) that is in
retirement age is too poor to retire or too power happy to give up
power?
To me, age is not an issue. The issue is vision and expertise to
lead the USCF out of the legal and financial mess which was created by
a small group of people.
Re: Even more legal problems for the USCF
Postby SusanPolgar on Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:22 pm
Another thing I would like to add is if Bill Goichberg wants to spend
thousands of dollars for a private lawyer to go after his political
opponents, he should pay for it from his own pocket or from CCA, not
the pockets of the USCF and USCF members.
The USCF used to organize and run the prestigious US and US Women's
Championships. How is it that the USCF still continue to lose money
when the AF4C and Mr. Frank K. Berry took over the US Championships
for the past number of years?
Where does the money which we saved from the annual championships go?
Who is responsible for the massive losses? I want to know the answer
and I am sure so do many USCF members. This is why the board is not
interested in my idea of creating a "quality control" system to
pinpoint the problems. It is much easier to cover up bad decisions,
corruption and dirty politics without it.
I asked for a full investigation of leaks of confidential and legal
information to Jerry Hanken, Sam Sloan and other USCF insiders. This
is a very serious issue because the info is then being used to harm
their opponents personally and professionally. This is the same
pattern described by GM Lev Alburt, GM Larry Evans and many others
over the years.
I also asked for a full investigation of blatant violations of the
NDAs. Everything can be proven by opening up the confidential binfo.
But the wrong doers are being protected by some members of the board
majority. The board majority refused to investigate or go after their
own people. They continued to protect the wrongdoers because the
outcome would clearly implicate their own wrong doings because the
leaks CLEARLY came from them.
Instead of working to help or fix the many problems of the USCF, they
choose to play chess politics. Now they are asking for donations to
help the US Olympiad teams. Why? The answer is because money for this
and other important areas was frivolously spent elsewhere for
political reasons.
Until the board majority apologize and end this pattern of unethical
and illegal conduct, I will continue to speak out to ALL USCF members
and let them know what these people are doing. If they continue down
this path, there will no longer be a USCF. More and more people will
continue to walk away from the USCF in disgust.
Our assets and revenues are shrinking. We already cut 8 pages of Chess
Life. The federation will probably lose more than $100,000 this year.
How far will this continue? The USCF simply cannot survive unless
drastic changes are made to fix and improve this federation.
Welcome to the "real" USCF!
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 09:01:15
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
help bot wrote:
.
> If only the Nearly were
> not so afraid of everyone-- of Mr. Sloan, of Mr.
> Kingston, perhaps even of his own shadow.
> Perhaps he could go and see the Wizard of
> Oz, to obtain some courage?
Yeah, or maybe cut back on the maple home-brew?..
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 19:55:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jul 1, 2:48 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Gee, when did I become a columnist for CL? I sense another Innes/
> > Mitchell blunder, one almost on the scale of Innes' claim Paul Hoffman
> > was editor of Chess Life!
> Neil, have you written something for CL ? Have you been published by
> them more than once? I don't know the answer to that question since I
> do not the or read that publication.
Good question. Instead of mindlessly relying
upon assertions by "ace reporter" Innes, go
straight to the source. ( I wish I had done that.)
I don't recall the Paul Hoffman affair, but I do
know that Dr. IMnes frequently complains
about "others" doing what he did in another
newsgroup-- posting lies and what he likes to
call "hate speech", directed at NB. His excuse?
No one was supposed to notice (i.e. catch him
in the lie), because they weren't serious chess
players. Well, that about sums up our nearly-
an-IM, in a nutshell. Squirrels adore him.
I hate seeing claims such as "I can lick you
in a Rook-odds match" slip by. While Mr.
Sloan eagerly awaits his next "payday", the
rest of us long for variety, for fresh blood, like
vampire bats at dusk. If only the Nearly were
not so afraid of everyone-- of Mr. Sloan, of Mr.
Kingston, perhaps even of his own shadow.
Perhaps he could go and see the Wizard of
Oz, to obtain some courage?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 11:48:07
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 30, 10:54=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jun 30, 10:52 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rob wrote:
> > > I find it hard to believe that the USCF will pay columnists who refer
> > > to board members and prominent members of the chess community in such
> > > derogatory terms.
>
> > =A0 The trick, it seems, is to not actually name
> > them. =A0As we've seen with so many of SP's
> > attacks, we all know who she is targeting but
> > by not actually naming them, she feels
> > immune. =A0One "fave" is Bill Goichberg-- the
> > very same fellow that Mr. Sloan has
> > complained about, although he, too, seems
> > almost /afraid/ to say what's what regarding
> > the all-powerful BG.
>
> > =A0 Anyway, if the USCF were going to target
> > columnists for their politics, they might just
> > as well start with Larry Evans-- bring back
> > the Pinkertons for a second try. =A0Mr. Evans
> > has virtually made a career of smearing
> > "prominent members of the chess
> > community" with his rabid Cold War
> > propaganda. =A0Certainly, he deserves priority
> > over the likes of NB. =A0That is, if you really
> > believe that it's right to do such a thing-- to
> > cut off such columnists, to target them for
> > their derogatory comments.
>
> > =A0 -- help bot
>
> Gee, when did I become a columnist for CL? I sense another Innes/
> Mitchell blunder, one almost on the scale of Innes' claim Paul Hoffman
> was editor of Chess Life!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil, have you written something for CL ? Have you been published by
them more than once? I don't know the answer to that question since I
do not the or read that publication.
Rob
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 06:25:21
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
SPOOKIER AND SPOOKIER
"You hard-on for me gets spookier and spookier Larry."
-- Rynd/Dowd (aka SBD)
Thus begins Rynd/Dowd's latest eruption.
Two consecutive posts from our geyser which spews
out sexual allusions, constitute the initial rumblings.
We need not install seismic emotional sensors.
Nor is he dangerous. The man has yet to explode .
He eventually implodes like a minus value on the
the rgcp-Richter scale or like Old Faithful in Yellowstone
equipped with a gigantic vacuum attachment that
instantaneously recalls all of the water and steam
just emitted.
And then he is led away for a period.
And then he returns ... for a period.
No fork lines in the tablecloth. No frayed edges.
A place for every Rynd; a Dowd for every place.
Yours, Larry Parr
SBD wrote:
> On Jun 30, 10:59 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Unlike some others here, I think it's the first
> > sane thing Rynd/Dowd has done since he first popped
> > up, then popped out of sight -- our Federation
> > Dowd-in-the-Box.
>
> Your hard-on for me gets spookier and spookier Larry. Especially since
> you seem to always post - despite time differences - within minutes to
> hours of my posts. When you got your computer fixed, did you get a
> "Dowd/Rynd" post alert installed?
>
> Jeesh.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 23:17:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 30, 11:54 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Gee, when did I become a columnist for CL? I sense another Innes/
> Mitchell blunder, one almost on the scale of Innes' claim Paul Hoffman
> was editor of Chess Life!
Oh, didn't they inform you? you've been selected
to take over the old ABCs of Chess column. Just
try to focus on the basics-- none of your amazing
tactical wizardry, or grandmasterly maneuvering.
For instance, you could write about how to mate
with K & R vs. K for your first column. Start from
the worst possible position (just imagine having
to *live with* nearly-IMnes) and demonstrate how
to make progress. Okay, scratch that. Start with
KRR vs. K then. No, you have to make progress
or else the opponent will claim a fifty moves draw.
Uh, try K&Q vs. K, where you already have him
pinned against one side then. That's better. ( I
tried to warn them it was a bad idea... .)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 20:54:47
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 30, 10:52 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > I find it hard to believe that the USCF will pay columnists who refer
> > to board members and prominent members of the chess community in such
> > derogatory terms.
>
> The trick, it seems, is to not actually name
> them. As we've seen with so many of SP's
> attacks, we all know who she is targeting but
> by not actually naming them, she feels
> immune. One "fave" is Bill Goichberg-- the
> very same fellow that Mr. Sloan has
> complained about, although he, too, seems
> almost /afraid/ to say what's what regarding
> the all-powerful BG.
>
> Anyway, if the USCF were going to target
> columnists for their politics, they might just
> as well start with Larry Evans-- bring back
> the Pinkertons for a second try. Mr. Evans
> has virtually made a career of smearing
> "prominent members of the chess
> community" with his rabid Cold War
> propaganda. Certainly, he deserves priority
> over the likes of NB. That is, if you really
> believe that it's right to do such a thing-- to
> cut off such columnists, to target them for
> their derogatory comments.
>
> -- help bot
Gee, when did I become a columnist for CL? I sense another Innes/
Mitchell blunder, one almost on the scale of Innes' claim Paul Hoffman
was editor of Chess Life!
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 20:52:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
Rob wrote:
> I find it hard to believe that the USCF will pay columnists who refer
> to board members and prominent members of the chess community in such
> derogatory terms.
The trick, it seems, is to not actually name
them. As we've seen with so many of SP's
attacks, we all know who she is targeting but
by not actually naming them, she feels
immune. One "fave" is Bill Goichberg-- the
very same fellow that Mr. Sloan has
complained about, although he, too, seems
almost /afraid/ to say what's what regarding
the all-powerful BG.
Anyway, if the USCF were going to target
columnists for their politics, they might just
as well start with Larry Evans-- bring back
the Pinkertons for a second try. Mr. Evans
has virtually made a career of smearing
"prominent members of the chess
community" with his rabid Cold War
propaganda. Certainly, he deserves priority
over the likes of NB. That is, if you really
believe that it's right to do such a thing-- to
cut off such columnists, to target them for
their derogatory comments.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 09:48:49
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 30, 10:49 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:35 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 8:47 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I find it hard to believe that the USCF will pay columnists who refer
> > > to board members and prominent members of the chess community in such
> > > derogatory terms.
>
> > I don't know if they do or not. I am not a paid columnist for USCF, so
> > my comments can't be linked like that. Or were they expected to
> > travel forward in time and see if I would have ever said anything
> > "derogatory" about Trollgar before I did the column?
>
> > I am simply a USCF member, with the right to say what I wish about the
> > ridiculous behavior exhibited by board members who are working - in my
> > opinion of course - to bleed the USCF coffers dry in their own self
> > promotion. If I said the same thing about Goichberg you would be
> > applauding. The things Polgar says about Hanken are derogatory ( a
> > former board member and also a very prominent member of the chess
> > community) also,but she has the right to say them - whether she was a
> > 2800+ GM or a 800 rated Anypatzer. But wait - she DOES have an
> > official capacity for the USCF..... so should she? hmm.....
>
> > But to link me to the USCF in some sort of official capacity - it's
> > just ridiculous, but typical for the Dunderhead twins RobPhil.
>
> Stephen,
>
> In light of full disclosure I will say that I am a friend of the
> Truongs as well as Phil Innes. I consider myself to be on friendly
> terms with you as well. The individual who coined the tern "Trollgar"
> was not you. I would find it offensive if some made unkind remarks to
> any of my friends. When friends quarrel amoung themselves one
> generally stays out of the fray and one would only hope that they keep
> the disagreements civil and intellectually based on the merits of
> their arguments and not resort to petty name calling and personal
> attacks. That is very "Repa-like" to me.
>
> Anyone has a right to critique the performance of an elected official.
> Honesty in pointing out that one of the biggest obsticals to change is
> an outdated governing structure.
>
> Again, I wish you no ill will and only the best of health.
> Rob
I know Rob. I don't have any real beef with you except that you seem
to function as a toady for Innes. Surely you can do better.
As to the petty name calling, Bob Bennett aka well you know, sort of
has us all beat. Your choice of friends is a rather poor one, in my
opinion, but you, as an adult, have the right to make wrong decisions.
But don't expect me to gloss over it all.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 09:43:39
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 30, 10:59 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Unlike some others here, I think it's the first
> sane thing Rynd/Dowd has done since he first popped
> up, then popped out of sight -- our Federation
> Dowd-in-the-Box.
Your hard-on for me gets spookier and spookier Larry. Especially since
you seem to always post - despite time differences - within minutes to
hours of my posts. When you got your computer fixed, did you get a
"Dowd/Rynd" post alert installed?
Jeesh.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 08:59:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
DOWD-IN-A-BOX POPS UP
>Then the next illustrative thing is that a CL On-line hack shows up and
pretends to be objective in an evaluation - but mentions "Trollgar" as
if
that were some decent term. [laugh, this guy does not even sign his
own
posts! and has a couple names!] > -- Phil Innes
Rynd/Dowd, our defender of the Executive Board
faith, is now appearing as an online Chess Life columnist.
Coo!
Unlike some others here, I think it's the first
sane thing Rynd/Dowd has done since he first popped
up, then popped out of sight -- our Federation
Dowd-in-the-Box.
I congratulate the man with so many names on finding
a real job. Perhaps he will finally make it as a USCF apologist.
And so it goes.
Yours, Larry Parr
SBD wrote:
> On Jun 30, 8:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Then the next illustrative thing is that a CL On-line hack shows up and
> > pretends to be objective in an evaluation - but mentions "Trollgar" as if
> > that were some decent term. [laugh, this guy does not even sign his own
> > posts! and has a couple names!]
>
> What a jackass. Bob Bennett has quite a few names too.
>
> >who to exclude from that group
>
> Yes, that would be the right thing - a "national" chess organization
> focused on "promoting chess" that excluded members. It's an odd
> fantasy world you live in.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 08:52:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 30, 8:18=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 29, 12:09 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 10:26 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >The USCF simply cannot survive unless
> > > drastic changes are made to fix and improve this federation.
>
> > The first step for change should be to remove Trollgar from the board.
>
> > If that was the extent of her "behind the scenes" revelation, then she
> > looks like nothing more than a poor sport. Lose with dignity, indeed.
> I agree. Oh, and by the way, I write for Chess Life. (I just through
> that in to feed P Innes and his meatpuppet.)
I knew you wrote for them ,Neil. Thank you for a display of your fine
form of intellectual debate. Name calling stopped winning arguments in
about the thrid grade.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 13:24:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e1ab3afd-bad5-476b-86e6-f0b2708dd86d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 8:18 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> I agree. Oh, and by the way, I write for Chess Life. (I just through
> that in to feed P Innes and his meatpuppet.)
I knew you wrote for them ,Neil. Thank you for a display of your fine
form of intellectual debate. Name calling stopped winning arguments in
about the thrid grade.
---
Mr. Mitchell here addresses someone for whom the 'irony' of decent public
behavior always amazes him. All this guy is missing are the armbands.
Then there are the latest vituperations from Rynd/Dowd, who, as Larry Parr
points out, has now found his place defending the indefensible and we are to
believe, pro-bono! or rather, pretending no defense is necessary.
At least our LA writer has signed off for a week, while the ace journalist
checks if the president of what he defends, the CJA, and a current US Board
member, 'have influence' by virtue of their past and current presence on the
USCF board. I fully expect to be interrogated on what I mean by
'influence' - a not-politically correct term among those who hiss rather too
much.
Last week's private mail brought more denial - directly from those shoved in
front of the bus to explain the world's dismay at the finale of the US
Women's championship - accusations published at the presumably neutral
German site Chessbase, and even brought by TDs!; they used language such as
'demeaning', 'degrading' as well as those who opined that the American
championship decider was not even chess as they know it. The answers from
the proxies were to wonder if such reprobation even existed? Besides, why
was I being personal about it. Personal, I asked?
To report what genuinely seem like widespread dismay is to make the matter,
so I am to understand from officials, a personal issue - and no form of
journalism they ever encountered! This will not surprise USCF watchers, who
note extensively in private and even sometimes in public, that all is
personal there. Perhaps any other form of the art is indeed strange?
The point of all [as Bill Clinton much said] is that it ain't! US Chess is
not a 'brand' as we see recently argued by a delegate, it is a trust. What
is entrusted to USCF is engaged by many parties to the point of its
effectiveness - as it should be, as all public trusts should be if those who
grant them that trust are to play their own part of citizens..
Now - that questioning does not challenge USCF's right to pursue what it
does with our trust. Not normally. But these very acts of denial and shear
arrogant posturings of would-be superior insiders, allowing others to speak
in proxy form for them, and in frequently ad hominem and disgusting forms by
unavowed proxy insiders; those do bring about the necessary conversation
which needs address when things go wrong, and keep going wrong.
"Polgar's latest screeds" as someone named this thread, are to do with who
benefits from any action - and benefits more than before? It is not certain
the Denker is better placed in Texas than in Jersey City, but it is a viable
question to raise, especially since it ostensibly is a million dollars
better off in Texas for off-set colleague tuition.
When that question, and such others as the recent Mil-Chess one are not
discussed in public, but by intra-board contest, so that USCF would want to
destructively compete with other chess promoters already engaged in
Mil-chess - this orientation is not to any public benefit.
That raises a much bigger questions about USCF's role in chess in the USA.
I personally am pleased to encounter every view point - no real chess fan
should be excluded - but people who have a greater love of abusing others
than chess; of abusing those who vigorously promote chess while their own
efforts seem very faint indeed; of dissing women, and of very uncertain
character to have anything to do with our children, in chess [to be
specific? those who seem unlikely to even pass a high-school level
back-ground check], the people should not attain to the serious discussions
possible here.
These regretable but real voices are merely really loud and invested ones.
Their volume seeks to drown out others with the result that anything less
than brute-force grunts and doo-dad plans conceived in some cave, do not get
heard in a complex society where more subtle stratagems are necessary to
negotiate the best health of chess in the culture.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 08:49:49
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 30, 7:35=A0am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 29, 8:47 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I find it hard to believe that the USCF will pay columnists who refer
> > to board members and prominent members of the chess community in such
> > derogatory terms.
>
> I don't know if they do or not. I am not a paid columnist for USCF, so
> my comments can't be linked like that. Or were =A0they expected to
> travel forward in time and see if I would have ever said anything
> "derogatory" about Trollgar before I did the column?
>
> I am simply a USCF member, with the right to say what I wish about the
> ridiculous behavior exhibited by board members who are working - in my
> opinion of course - to bleed the USCF coffers dry in their own self
> promotion. If I said the same thing about Goichberg you would be
> applauding. The things Polgar says about Hanken are derogatory ( a
> former board member and also a very prominent member of the chess
> community) also,but she has the right to say them - whether she was a
> 2800+ GM or a 800 rated Anypatzer. But wait - she DOES have an
> official capacity for the USCF..... so should she? hmm.....
>
> But to link me to the USCF in some sort of official capacity - it's
> just ridiculous, but typical for the Dunderhead twins RobPhil.
Stephen,
In light of full disclosure I will say that I am a friend of the
Truongs as well as Phil Innes. I consider myself to be on friendly
terms with you as well. The individual who coined the tern "Trollgar"
was not you. I would find it offensive if some made unkind remarks to
any of my friends. When friends quarrel amoung themselves one
generally stays out of the fray and one would only hope that they keep
the disagreements civil and intellectually based on the merits of
their arguments and not resort to petty name calling and personal
attacks. That is very "Repa-like" to me.
Anyone has a right to critique the performance of an elected official.
Honesty in pointing out that one of the biggest obsticals to change is
an outdated governing structure.
Again, I wish you no ill will and only the best of health.
Rob
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 07:05:10
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 30, 8:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Then the next illustrative thing is that a CL On-line hack shows up ....
The irony almost defies belief.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 06:51:24
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 30, 8:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Then the next illustrative thing is that a CL On-line hack shows up and
> pretends to be objective in an evaluation - but mentions "Trollgar" as if
> that were some decent term. [laugh, this guy does not even sign his own
> posts! and has a couple names!]
What a jackass. Bob Bennett has quite a few names too.
>who to exclude from that group
Yes, that would be the right thing - a "national" chess organization
focused on "promoting chess" that excluded members. It's an odd
fantasy world you live in.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 06:18:54
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 29, 12:09 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 29, 10:26 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The USCF simply cannot survive unless
> > drastic changes are made to fix and improve this federation.
>
> The first step for change should be to remove Trollgar from the board.
>
> If that was the extent of her "behind the scenes" revelation, then she
> looks like nothing more than a poor sport. Lose with dignity, indeed.
I agree. Oh, and by the way, I write for Chess Life. (I just through
that in to feed P Innes and his meatpuppet.)
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 05:35:18
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 29, 8:47 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> I find it hard to believe that the USCF will pay columnists who refer
> to board members and prominent members of the chess community in such
> derogatory terms.
I don't know if they do or not. I am not a paid columnist for USCF, so
my comments can't be linked like that. Or were they expected to
travel forward in time and see if I would have ever said anything
"derogatory" about Trollgar before I did the column?
I am simply a USCF member, with the right to say what I wish about the
ridiculous behavior exhibited by board members who are working - in my
opinion of course - to bleed the USCF coffers dry in their own self
promotion. If I said the same thing about Goichberg you would be
applauding. The things Polgar says about Hanken are derogatory ( a
former board member and also a very prominent member of the chess
community) also,but she has the right to say them - whether she was a
2800+ GM or a 800 rated Anypatzer. But wait - she DOES have an
official capacity for the USCF..... so should she? hmm.....
But to link me to the USCF in some sort of official capacity - it's
just ridiculous, but typical for the Dunderhead twins RobPhil.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 18:47:03
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 29, 3:05 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5c072e1f-285f-475c-8830-9d1dee422fcb@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 29, 10:26 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>The USCF simply cannot survive unless
> >> drastic changes are made to fix and improve this federation.
>
> > The first step for change should be to remove Trollgar from the board.
>
> > If that was the extent of her "behind the scenes" revelation, then she
> > looks like nothing more than a poor sport. Lose with dignity, indeed.
>
> And the truth is that Susan Polgar has been working with top levels of
> military chess for this year's joint military championship and that she also
> reported it extensively, USCF didn't - I know because I worked with them
> too, even getting them their own Chessville column. I also know there was no
> independent USCF presence. I also know she would have done a simul for them
> if she didn't have a date conflict.
>
> What USCF-as-it-is people think they are about by wanting to take over what
> other people already do well is as unclear as their scholastic policy.
>
> It is not even likely that USCF will have 2 cents to rub together come next
> year, nevermind lurch into another new thing for them, and as usual, getting
> in the way of people who are already working at such things.
>
> Instead here is the usual resentment of people getting on with it, by people
> who conspire in paranoid manner about their lost chances [after 45 years of
> trying.]
>
> What amateurs - but paid ones!
>
> Phil Innes
I find it hard to believe that the USCF will pay columnists who refer
to board members and prominent members of the chess community in such
derogatory terms.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 09:40:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4ac0c70c-1045-48f5-a1ab-625371247d3d@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 29, 3:05 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5c072e1f-285f-475c-8830-9d1dee422fcb@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 29, 10:26 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>The USCF simply cannot survive unless
>> >> drastic changes are made to fix and improve this federation.
>>
>> > The first step for change should be to remove Trollgar from the board.
>>
>> > If that was the extent of her "behind the scenes" revelation, then she
>> > looks like nothing more than a poor sport. Lose with dignity, indeed.
>>
>> And the truth is that Susan Polgar has been working with top levels of
>> military chess for this year's joint military championship and that she
>> also
>> reported it extensively, USCF didn't - I know because I worked with them
>> too, even getting them their own Chessville column. I also know there was
>> no
>> independent USCF presence. I also know she would have done a simul for
>> them
>> if she didn't have a date conflict.
>>
>> What USCF-as-it-is people think they are about by wanting to take over
>> what
>> other people already do well is as unclear as their scholastic policy.
>>
>> It is not even likely that USCF will have 2 cents to rub together come
>> next
>> year, nevermind lurch into another new thing for them, and as usual,
>> getting
>> in the way of people who are already working at such things.
>>
>> Instead here is the usual resentment of people getting on with it, by
>> people
>> who conspire in paranoid manner about their lost chances [after 45 years
>> of
>> trying.]
>>
>> What amateurs - but paid ones!
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> I find it hard to believe that the USCF will pay columnists who refer
> to board members and prominent members of the chess community in such
> derogatory terms.
Do you, Mr. Mitchell? :)
The original complaint was that USCF wanted to take over Mil-Chess
connections. SP had already been working with them - certainly not costing
USCF a penny - and if you read the board memoranda, you can see that it was
not 'join in' with Mil-chess, it was indeed 'take-over'.
And this issue is very illustrative to the way USCF [mis]behaves - what
these boad people do is destructively competitive in promotion of chess. It
is couched in entirely personal terms about 'her'.
Then the next illustrative thing is that a CL On-line hack shows up and
pretends to be objective in an evaluation - but mentions "Trollgar" as if
that were some decent term. [laugh, this guy does not even sign his own
posts! and has a couple names!]
Then - there is the suggestion or accusation of being after USCF's money!
But this activity has not, is not, costing USCF anything!
And finally, there is the usual contrast of what people say with how they
behave.
Now - back to the top - this is normal behavior of USCF, and people are
noting it, and who indulges in it - not indeed to save USCF, but let's say
there were to be a serious effort to put matters onto the right footing -
who to exclude from that group.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 21:52:12
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
> I find it hard to believe that the USCF will pay columnists who refer
> to board members and prominent members of the chess community in such
> derogatory terms.
They hired a woman who calls herself the "chess bitch."
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 10:09:02
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
On Jun 29, 10:26 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>The USCF simply cannot survive unless
> drastic changes are made to fix and improve this federation.
The first step for change should be to remove Trollgar from the board.
If that was the extent of her "behind the scenes" revelation, then she
looks like nothing more than a poor sport. Lose with dignity, indeed.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jun 2008 16:05:40
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Polgar's Latest Screeds
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5c072e1f-285f-475c-8830-9d1dee422fcb@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 29, 10:26 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The USCF simply cannot survive unless
>> drastic changes are made to fix and improve this federation.
>
> The first step for change should be to remove Trollgar from the board.
>
> If that was the extent of her "behind the scenes" revelation, then she
> looks like nothing more than a poor sport. Lose with dignity, indeed.
And the truth is that Susan Polgar has been working with top levels of
military chess for this year's joint military championship and that she also
reported it extensively, USCF didn't - I know because I worked with them
too, even getting them their own Chessville column. I also know there was no
independent USCF presence. I also know she would have done a simul for them
if she didn't have a date conflict.
What USCF-as-it-is people think they are about by wanting to take over what
other people already do well is as unclear as their scholastic policy.
It is not even likely that USCF will have 2 cents to rub together come next
year, nevermind lurch into another new thing for them, and as usual, getting
in the way of people who are already working at such things.
Instead here is the usual resentment of people getting on with it, by people
who conspire in paranoid manner about their lost chances [after 45 years of
trying.]
What amateurs - but paid ones!
Phil Innes
|
|
