| |
Main
Date: 20 Oct 2007 00:43:22
From: samsloan
Subject: USCF is not ready to die
|
I would not favor the Erik Anderson proposal to turn control of the
USCF over to a bunch of money-men. This proposal has been made many
times in the past and has always been rejected.
Changing the USCF from a 501c4 to a 501c3 has been on the agenda of
numerous boards. I do not know the reasons but it has been found
impossible to do.
Also, remember that there are a bunch of people and groups who have
been circling around overhead like vultures waiting to dive down and
eat up the pieces as soon as we die.
We should not be quick to give up on the USCF. It still has 86,000
members, $3.2 million in annual revenues and until 1999 it had $2
million cash and equivalent in the LMA. We have recently suffered from
bad management and bad boards but prior to that we had 60 good years.
We are still stronger and better off than any comparable organization
that I know of.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 09:50:15
From: Rob
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
On Oct 22, 9:01 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> You thought USCF annual revenues can make Anderson and Moskow [to name
> >> but 2?] You think it would run interesting events - heck, lets have
> >> another Lone Pine or Cambridge Springs -the world used to show up here
> >> for those. And that I think would produce revenue from expenditure.
>
> > You think those events *made* money? LOL.
>
> > Yes, let's piss more money away on prize checks to a few dozen
> > players...and spend nothing on organizational infrastructure, advertising
> > or long-term financial health.
>
> > Wait...didn't Mr. Anderson just piss away $1million-plus doing just
> > that --
> > flashy events not related to his organization's needs or goals?
>
> Yes - as ani ful no - people with lots of money are fools with it! That's
> how they got their money, and that's how they get rid of it - folly!
>
> What Eric suggests above as 'pissing away' is the right presentation of
> America's top chess talent to the rest of the country. He objects to this
> because his own analogy of USCF is like a 'self-sustaining' pizza store.
>
> How shameful people like Anderson get to have all the money, while true USCF
> geniuses and visionaries of this calibre are allowed to go moldy on the
> shelf ;((
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > Yeah.
>
> > ECJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://forums.delphiforums.com/chessville/messages
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 05:32:54
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
On Oct 22, 7:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> That is not my beef - it is yours! Your orientation is only to USCF, even if
> USCF can't do something. Mine is to include those areas where USCF have
> failed and given up trying to perform, as well as things it never attempted.
Then do something other than spout off on newsgroups about it.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 13:49:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 22, 7:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That is not my beef - it is yours! Your orientation is only to USCF, even
>> if
>> USCF can't do something. Mine is to include those areas where USCF have
>> failed and given up trying to perform, as well as things it never
>> attempted.
>
> Then do something other than spout off on newsgroups about it.
Talking about something real on usenet is really to some people's interest -
and after all, what I wrote above on chess management could not appear on
the US chess management forum.
Why don't you do something other than bitch at people who do something?
Dickens, so Jane Smiley says, walked 20 to 30 miles day, and at the rate of
about a mile every 15 minutes. Try that, and lose another 300 lbs?
The benefit, she said, is that he was then able to create such a prolificate
range of characters, and to describe the life of his times, better than
anyone before him, and indeed, he was for her, the first modern novelist.
The point, you see, is that he did not live vicariously, but sought out his
own experiences and deep responses to them, rather than received knowledge
from within institutions.
What 'everyone knew' was very little, and they could express even less. That
is the dumbed-down stale arena which is still, we are asked to notice, 'not
ready to die'.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 12:51:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
>> What I completely fail to understand is why you object to anyone else
>> doing things that USCF does not do, and which technically it cannot well
>> perform with its current structure.
>>
>
> I don't have any such objection --
O!
> but I do object when folks drag the USCF into their enterprises (even if
> USCF has told them "no" repeatedly). I also object over spurious mission
> statement claims by such folks -- when it is clear that USCF fulfills its
> mission statement through its narrow (and should be even narrower) course
> of action.
What I am saying is that if USCF fulfills its mission as it currently does,
are you objecting to people fulfilling a similar mission in other ways?
> Start a new group with an impossibly broad mission if you wish, but stop
I am not asking for your idea of what is possible! I am also not asking for
permission. I am just clarifying that doing something USCF does not
currently do is NOT an attack on USCF.
> attacking a 60+ year group with a successful program....just because you
> 1) want that program expanded, or 2) wish to exert influence over that
> program.
Just to be absolutely clear - you don't mind then if there is an attack of
expanding the mission beyond wherever USCF has taken it these past 60 years?
Since it seems to me that you have previously thought that an attack and a
threat, too.
> That goes for you and others, Phil. When you attack "USCF" you are really
> attacking all 90,000 members and 1,500 affiliated clubs and
> organizers....who willingly join and participate.
" I don't have any such objection --" Eric Johnson. See above.
So in fact you /do/ feel attacked by changing the status quo in chess, by
anyone else doing what USCF doesn't currently do. It doesn't make sense, but
I am simply trying to understand what the word 'attack' means, as used by
yourself and Sam Sloan - and since your message is a direct address to that
subject, it includes resenting everything that other people do, whether it
involves USCF or not.
Phil Innes
ps: 82,000 members, 1,100 affiliates [welcome to the C21st]
> ECJ
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 15:56:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
> I respectfully submit that if he didn't think he pissed it away, he'd
> still
> be doing it.
>
> keting types like to run events -- because they don't have to worry
> about infrastructure. Fortunately, other parts of a business tend to
> restrain keting spending.
>
> "Sponsors" want value for money spent. Is that particular foundation a
> "sponsor" - if so, they would expect value. I assume it 1) thought that
> running the event would generate even more donations to the foundation, 2)
> allow it to fulfill its necessary spending pledges -- as foundations must
> spend x amount each year on their purpose.
>
> One can only assume that # 1 is the rub -- the additional torrent of money
> did not flow in after givng a few dozen folks a paycheck.
>
> This lesson is repeated every 5-10 years with a new crowd.
This is a bit like Republicans saying government doesn't work, because
their's doesn't.
What you have to do with any Sponsor is ask them straight what they expect?
Say if you can or cannot do it, tell em straight. But USCF gave up on their
own responsibility in allowing a false expectation to survive. That is
amateur business practice.
It should not be a guide for serious praxis.
> Mr. Innes is correct, however, that USCF folks tend not to raise enough
> money from the membership. He is incorrect that somehow by spending money
> on tourneys and prizes that anyone -- USCF included -- would be building
> infrastructure.
Since those are not my sentiments, I am not correct! I said that because
USCF had failed to achieve expanding their own infrastructure over some 35
years, this is no indication that the task can't be done, albeit not by
committees of well-meaning folk, but by ordinary business practices.
> Infrastructure is built by running sustainable programs and events -- NOT
> million-dollar one-shots (GM Ashley's event comes to mind -- boy, that
> really built up chess in the US, right?).
Yes, there are endless reasons why it is not possible for most people to
succeed in much - though we have to think here what is being attempted -
what is the 'it' in my sentence?
By previous argument 'it' is not the self-sustaining chess club, which works
like a pizza joint.
I have suggested both mainstream education and mainstream media as other
'its'.
And I really don't mind if other people don't want to do that, but why they
should so continuously feel threatened by 'it' is entirely obscure.
Phil Innes
> ECJ
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 14:17:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
>> Just to be absolutely clear - you don't mind then if there is an attack
>> of expanding the mission beyond wherever USCF has taken it these past 60
>> years? Since it seems to me that you have previously thought that an
>> attack and a threat, too.
>>
>
> Expanding USCF's mision -- in other words, bullying USCF to do things
> beyond
ROFL. Delegate Johnson continues to argue against a proposition he can't
understand. He has yet to say he understands what the mission /is/ or even
if he knows what it is. So I ask him if he minds if /others/ have a go at
what USCF has not achieved in 60 years, and the reader will assess for
themselves if the self-sustaining small-tent member-supported like-a-pizza
joint outfit - does in fact object.
> its means? Yes, I object to that. I object to anyone (e.g. Innes) who
> publishes screeds saying that USCF is not doing its mission because it
> fails to do this or that...when it is clear that USCF fulfills its mission
> by the many things it *does* do.
If it is a comment on asking /how well/ USCF supports its own mission
statement? then it is true.
So the delegate not only regrets that others should do things USCF should
not, he also permits no questions of how well USCF performs what they
actually do.
> It does not (and cannot) do everything (but -- and this is important --
> most chess groups can and should join USCF as affiliated groups in support
> of the things USCF has *chosen* to do).
>
> I have no objection to the hundreds of chess groups who pursue
> chess-related missions without trying to force USCF to do their work for
> them.
Force! And 'their work for them'? A couple of odd things to volunteer. Who
has raised this subject? Not I.
I specifically said if others try to do what USCF does not - is that an
attack?
> So, I object to your years-long attacks on USCF, yes...in part, because
> you seem to do nothing else.
At least we now defined the term attack is what shrinks call
'passive-aggressive'. So we can return to the point. Remember the point!
PRIVATE MEMBER'S CLUB?
Eric Johnson argues, rightly, that no-one has any business telling others if
they can buy a pizza, or how to make the things. That is a matter of ket
forces, and like any private member's club of people who like pizza,
collective pizza concerns can charge whatever rate they can get away with,
and serve up whatever quality of pizza it wants if it achieves a public
health minimum. Fine!
But that is /not/ the USCF mission as a non-profit - which is /not/ a
private member club oriented to the benefit of private members! Or is it? Is
it a public mission supported by all people offering it tax-relief by way of
501?
When any issue of assessing /to what degree/ USCF contributes to its own
mission, and is compared with others who do the same, or who elect to try to
expand that mission beyond any plans USCF have, and with abilities greater
than USCF has - then this is resented.
But the resentment is as if someone says 'don't meddle with my business' -
when the enterprise is actually publicly supported by its 501 status - and
/is/ public business.
And that is the discussion at the root of much trouble with USCF, today and
in years past. I have said before it is not a necessary conflict of
interests, nor the actions of other entities in chess unsympathetic or
unsupportive to USCF. Indeed, if USCF unmixed its own blend of activities,
and became a true umbrella organisation for chess in USA, then
more power to it!
Yet USCF seem to continuously make itself inert and uncombined with any
other entity except short-term exigencies, usually from those who add money
to it. And we all win or lose, thereby.
That, at least, is the big job on the board, if the delegates actually
support that vision of USCF. Otherwise it will ever feel itself attacked,
even by those who do /not/ duplicate its own services.
ENTER ENTROPY
The rule of nature is; adapt or die. The state of the art today is that
Entropy Rules - and insiders do not wish to upset the delegate-delicate
balance in case the whole things goes under faster than what is strictly
inevitable according to nature.
USCF is three pawns down, but with opposite colored-lawyers, hopes to make a
draw zzzzzzzzzz
Phil Innes
> ECJ
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 14:46:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
>> By previous argument 'it' is not the self-sustaining chess club, which
>> works like a pizza joint.
>>
>> I have suggested both mainstream education and mainstream media as other
>> 'its'.
>>
>
> Sure, you are free to try to capture those sources of revenue.
Well, thank you, but no buts!
> But do it with your own resources, Phil...NOT the limited resources of an
> organization I've been part of for 27 years (and one which you are *not* a
> member).
Hooray!
The delegate has almost understood what I wrote in the first place, and
except for his but, this would be a straightforward answer. I hope he will
extend the same consideration to all others who 'try to capture' and even
those who try to engage.
Phil Innes
PS: The delegate continues to argue that USCF is a private-member group.
That is /his/ insistence. And since he has written it in newsgroups for
years and without contradiction from anyone, is it?
> ECJ
>
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 14:01:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
>> You thought USCF annual revenues can make Anderson and Moskow [to name
>> but 2?] You think it would run interesting events - heck, lets have
>> another Lone Pine or Cambridge Springs -the world used to show up here
>> for those. And that I think would produce revenue from expenditure.
>>
>>
>
> You think those events *made* money? LOL.
>
> Yes, let's piss more money away on prize checks to a few dozen
> players...and spend nothing on organizational infrastructure, advertising
> or long-term financial health.
>
> Wait...didn't Mr. Anderson just piss away $1million-plus doing just
> that --
> flashy events not related to his organization's needs or goals?
Yes - as ani ful no - people with lots of money are fools with it! That's
how they got their money, and that's how they get rid of it - folly!
What Eric suggests above as 'pissing away' is the right presentation of
America's top chess talent to the rest of the country. He objects to this
because his own analogy of USCF is like a 'self-sustaining' pizza store.
How shameful people like Anderson get to have all the money, while true USCF
geniuses and visionaries of this calibre are allowed to go moldy on the
shelf ;((
Phil Innes
> Yeah.
>
> ECJ
>
|
| |
Date: 21 Oct 2007 22:52:44
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
Please stop crossposting material to rec.games.chess.computer that
has nothing to do with chess computers.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | |
Date: 21 Oct 2007 19:08:47
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
Guy Macon wrote:
> Please stop crossposting material to rec.games.chess.computer that
> has nothing to do with chess computers.
>
Lead by example.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| |
Date: 21 Oct 2007 12:49:36
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
THE ARTICHOKE DEFENSE
<How was FSS [fake Sam Sloan] the business of the EB while Sam was a
member?
What USCF did to help with the FSS situation was to run its own Forum
which consumed a lot of time and effort, to provide a better
alternative to RGCP which was then useless. Disclaimer: I'm a member
of the FOC. I won't evaluate the relative merits of Forum vs. RGCP
now, since each has its dedicated audience of readers and writers with
only partial crossover, but RGCP is still vulnerable to FSS-like
attacks. > -- Artichoke
This possibly will be the official line of defense: the USCF had no
control or responsibility about what happened on newsgroups outside of
its jurisdiction.
artichoke wrote:
> On Oct 20, 4:59 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I think that everybody else but George recognizes that I am trying to
> > > save the USCF, not destroy it.
> > > The Fake Sam Sloan was elected to a four year term in August. If the
> > > Fake Sam Sloan is allowed to sit on the board sending out dozens of
> > > obscene and personal attacks on USCF members, every day for the next
> > > four years, do you think the USCF will survive?
> >
> > The REAL Samuel H. Sloan was on the baord while the fake was harming me.
> > Please let me know just how much was done to try to stop that.
> >
> > --
> > Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
>
> How was FSS the business of the EB while Sam was a member?
>
> What USCF did to help with the FSS situation was to run its own Forum
> which consumed a lot of time and effort, to provide a better
> alternative to RGCP which was then useless. Disclaimer: I'm a member
> of the FOC.
>
> I won't evaluate the relative merits of Forum vs. RGCP now, since each
> has its dedicated audience of readers and writers with only partial
> crossover, but RGCP is still vulnerable to FSS-like attacks.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Oct 2007 16:18:03
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
> This possibly will be the official line of defense: the USCF had no
> control or responsibility about what happened on newsgroups outside of
> its jurisdiction.
Unfortunatley, USCF has a precedent of using postings from this group in its
decisionmaking process (I have an email that shows this which will be
introduced into my evidence).
Further, on September 19, 2007, who was on the board? That's when the
"Suddenlink" posting was made.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| |
Date: 21 Oct 2007 15:39:37
From: artichoke
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
On Oct 20, 4:59 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > I think that everybody else but George recognizes that I am trying to
> > save the USCF, not destroy it.
> > The Fake Sam Sloan was elected to a four year term in August. If the
> > Fake Sam Sloan is allowed to sit on the board sending out dozens of
> > obscene and personal attacks on USCF members, every day for the next
> > four years, do you think the USCF will survive?
>
> The REAL Samuel H. Sloan was on the baord while the fake was harming me.
> Please let me know just how much was done to try to stop that.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
How was FSS the business of the EB while Sam was a member?
What USCF did to help with the FSS situation was to run its own Forum
which consumed a lot of time and effort, to provide a better
alternative to RGCP which was then useless. Disclaimer: I'm a member
of the FOC.
I won't evaluate the relative merits of Forum vs. RGCP now, since each
has its dedicated audience of readers and writers with only partial
crossover, but RGCP is still vulnerable to FSS-like attacks.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Oct 2007 16:16:58
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
>I'm a member
> of the FOC.
got a name?
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2007 19:08:09
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>> I'm a member
>> of the FOC.
>
> got a name?
>
>
You first.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 08:13:53
From:
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
On Oct 20, 3:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> We should not be quick to give up on the USCF. It still has 86,000
> members, $3.2 million in annual revenues and until 1999 it had $2
> million cash and equivalent in the LMA. We have recently suffered from
> bad management and bad boards but prior to that we had 60 good years.
> We are still stronger and better off than any comparable organization
> that I know of.
>
> Sam Sloan
> ---
> what are you doing posting in the middle of the night - you crazy?
>
> OTOH, uscf has had no major sponsors for a long time, nor seems capable of
> financially containing one [which might be Anderson's point] and as above,
> is now very reduced in ready assets and influence. Moskow seems to think the
> same.
>
> According to Horowitz in 1968 [?] uscf was in greenwich village and had less
> than 10,000 members. the 'boom' was entirely fischer-effect, which boosted
> it to 50,000+ by mid-late 70s. the past 40 years have added about 30,000
> members, and the main increment is from the high turn-over scholastic scene,
> which in terms of membership is simply a ratings-ket requirement
>
> a failing therefore, is that in the 60 years cited above [more pertinently
> the past 35 years] uscf has failed to be more than that outfit in greenwich
> village, a devoted amateur level organisation
>
> whether this means that another outfit is necessary to cogently contain and
> process another level of chess, enabling it to escape its annual rotations
> of members, without significant increase in numbers, all seem to be the
> point these chess entrepreneurs are addressing
>
> and indeed, that is the chat on 'the other circuit' to which uscf-only folks
> are deaf, blind and dumb. it is not a raid on uscf resources as much as a
> resource of necessity
>
> phil innes
> vermont
Phil
You wrote
"what are you doing posting in the middle of the night - you crazy? "
The status of Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE means
that I sometimes need to post in the middle of the night. If you look
at a globle, you will see
that the sun is always UP in some part of the world. I freqently send
e-mails to ASIA and EUROPE. So, if I post in the middle of the night,
please excuse me. If you
deal with FIDE, you will be up all night more than one night, reading
e-mails from all over the world.
There is going to be a FIDE Ethics investigation if St Kitts and Nevis
gets admitted. We went to WAR over Paul Troung.
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 07:06:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
[quote="George"][quote="samsloan"]
Also, remember that there are a bunch of people and groups who have
been circling around overhead like vultures waiting to dive down and
eat up the pieces as soon as we die.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
Sam
are you trying to destroy the USCF with your constant law suits?
Why do you act like you have the interest of the uscf when your
actions show the opposite.[/quote]
I think that everybody else but George recognizes that I am trying to
save the USCF, not destroy it.
The Fake Sam Sloan was elected to a four year term in August. If the
Fake Sam Sloan is allowed to sit on the board sending out dozens of
obscene and personal attacks on USCF members, every day for the next
four years, do you think the USCF will survive?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 16:59:16
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
> I think that everybody else but George recognizes that I am trying to
> save the USCF, not destroy it.
> The Fake Sam Sloan was elected to a four year term in August. If the
> Fake Sam Sloan is allowed to sit on the board sending out dozens of
> obscene and personal attacks on USCF members, every day for the next
> four years, do you think the USCF will survive?
The REAL Samuel H. Sloan was on the baord while the fake was harming me.
Please let me know just how much was done to try to stop that.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 06:19:03
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
On Oct 20, 8:04 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
...[They] are two examples of those who think that if the
> USCF fails the former members will flock to join their organization.
> They have as much said so in their postings to the New York Times
> Gambit Chess Blog. However, I somehow do not see anybody flocking to
> join them, no matter what happens.
>
> Sam Sloan
As I've pointed out before, the fact they don't have an organization
for people to flock to is a small flaw in their hopes. These
individuals don't have a clue about building one.
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 06:04:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
On Oct 20, 4:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> whether this means that another outfit is necessary to cogently contain and
> process another level of chess, enabling it to escape its annual rotations
> of members, without significant increase in numbers, all seem to be the
> point these chess entrepreneurs are addressing
>
> and indeed, that is the chat on 'the other circuit' to which uscf-only folks
> are deaf, blind and dumb. it is not a raid on uscf resources as much as a
> resource of necessity
>
> phil innes
> vermont
Of course, Innes and his side-kick, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell, are
just two examples of those "people and groups who have been circling
around overhead like vultures waiting to dive down and eat up the
pieces as soon as we die".
Innes and Mitchell are two examples of those who think that if the
USCF fails the former members will flock to join their organization.
They have as much said so in their postings to the New York Times
Gambit Chess Blog. However, I somehow do not see anybody flocking to
join them, no matter what happens.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 17:34:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
> whether this means that another outfit is necessary to cogently
contain and
> process another level of chess, enabling it to escape its annual
rotations
> of members, without significant increase in numbers, all seem to be the
> point these chess entrepreneurs are addressing
> and indeed, that is the chat on 'the other circuit' to which
uscf-only folks
> are deaf, blind and dumb. it is not a raid on uscf resources as much
as a
> resource of necessity
> phil innes
> vermont
Of course, Innes and his side-kick, Rob ("the Robber") Mitchell, are
just two examples of those "people and groups who have been circling
around overhead like vultures waiting to dive down and eat up the
pieces as soon as we die".
**Pieces of what? Vultures want to know. Will we know you from the pieces?
BTW, Mitchell prefers to be called Lex, as in Luther.
Innes and Mitchell are two examples of those who think
**We thank you for noticing, someone has to do it
if the USCF fails the former members will flock to join their organization.
**What organisation? True, we go to Super-Heroes Anonymous, [mostly to be
able to get into the old tights again, and do a bit of chest beating with a
couple rare steaks] but those are public meetings and anyone can fly in,
free of charge
They have as much said so in their postings to the New York Times
**As much? But I didn't know Lex had been posting there - now I'm good and
angry - he was supposed to be taking over a small central American country
this weekend - according to Plan #7.
Gambit Chess Blog. However, I somehow do not see anybody flocking to
join them, no matter what happens.
**Eagles don't flock? Since this latest [hilarious] reporting by Sam Sloan
on our attempt to take over the known chess world [no quotes of course] I
think it is entirely justified to ask Mr. Sloan to flock off.
**Sincerely, Phil Innes,
Fortress of Solicitude,
Vermont
---
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 18:31:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
>> OTOH, uscf has had no major sponsors for a long time, nor seems capable
>> of financially containing one [which might be Anderson's point] and as
>> above, is now very reduced in ready assets and influence. Moskow seems to
>> think the same.
>
>
> *** My local pizza store has no sponsors -- it does just fine on a "pays
> its own way" basis.
Well that is very nice Eric. But does it get on national tv, into mainstream
education, or 'push-pizzas' for their no doubt efficacious merit, to the
nation? You see, that is the function of a non-profit organisation for chess
[not for pizzas]. And while being a private member's club is very well,
would you mind if anyone else had a bash at the Mission Statement?
> *** My local club has no sponsors, yet has done fine for 17+ years on a
> "pays its own way" basis.
Just like a pizza joint!
> *** The single largest source of fund-raising for a membership
> organization is...the membership!
But if the pizza-hut or chess-hut is self sustaining, what fund-raising
needs are there? In fact, why have a central Chess-hut at all, since
pizza/chess is fine all by its own?
> *** Why are there no fund-raising campaigns -- in a time of financial
> need --
> asking the members to contribute?
Because surely the members have no idea what any money has been spent on
since there are no published financials. But that isn't the main reason!
When I was the publisher at the World Learning Institute we had lots to do
with Save The Children [administering, supporting or otherwise coordinating
some of their programs, etc] and SAVE had a countribution to overhead of
29%. That was the lowest of all major NGOs in the US and in the world.
People gave to the kids, often disaster related, but no one ever made a
grant to the organisation itself. The 29% was the most compelling factor in
chosing an NGO [Catholic Relief, BTW, are also very good].
USCF's C-to-A must be in the 90th percentile.
That's why people don't give to organisations - and what major donors and
foundations look at when they make their decisions of disbursement of
grants.
> Not a passive advertisement in the magazine, not a "buy a brick" for the
> building" but a real "we need you now" financial campaign. Burn up th
> phone lines and call the members and the affiliates. Rebuild the LMA by
> RENAMING it the USCF endowment fund. 100,000 members each sending $10 is
> $1 million.
The beneficiaries of the LMA are? We seem to have departed from our
pizza-hut analogy, which was self sustaining by direct user support. Now - I
do not disagree with you that major funding would help chess in the USA,
funding for which is flat. But just like venture capital, people do not give
to ideas - they give to amplify an idea that is already proved to work, so
that it can work at a greater level.
No such organisation feature now exists to so sustain any major grant of
money, nor any general fund contribution from members. As I understand him,
this is what Mr. Anderson indicated with his references to type of 501
structure.
Secondarily, post Fischer boom, 35 years is a bit sleepy-headed to get that
together, no?
>> According to Horowitz in 1968 [?] uscf was in greenwich village and had
>> less than 10,000 members. the 'boom' was entirely fischer-effect, which
>> boosted it to 50,000+ by mid-late 70s. the past 40 years have added about
>> 30,000 members, and the main increment is from the high turn-over
>> scholastic scene, which in terms of membership is simply a ratings-ket
>> requirement
>
>
> **** Which tells me that people need to adjust their notions of "success"
> and "failure" accordingly.
according to... ? who actually thinks that 3 nice ladies, almost anywhere
couldn't run the ratings system with a couple of computers and an 8 ball?
>> a failing therefore, is that in the 60 years cited above [more
>> pertinently the past 35 years] uscf has failed to be more than that
>> outfit in greenwich village, a devoted amateur level organisation
>>
>> whether this means that another outfit is necessary to cogently contain
>> and process another level of chess, enabling it to escape its annual
>> rotations of members, without significant increase in numbers, all seem
>> to be the point these chess entrepreneurs are addressing
>
>
> ""How can I join Phil Innes' organization?
What implication does 'join' have in your sentence? Do you mean you agree
with the goals stated above, and take your own advice and send in a cheque?
Or do you mean you would use the services resulting from this organisation.
After all, one 'uses' pizza-hut, one doesn't join it.
> How many members does it have?
You mean, like, don't go into an empty restaurant - there is a reason its
empty?
But if we posit a new organisation for the specific purposes stated above
[which are incidentally similar to USCF's own mission, but suitably
structured to execute that mission] wouldn't it need users more than
members? In other words, starving children are not 'members' of Save the
Children, they are beneficiaries of it
> What events does it run? What are its annual revenues? Hmmmm I thought
> so.
You thought USCF annual revenues can make Anderson and Moskow [to name but
2?] You think it would run interesting events - heck, lets have another Lone
Pine or Cambridge Springs -the world used to show up here for those. And
that I think would produce revenue from expenditure.
>> and indeed, that is the chat on 'the other circuit' to which uscf-only
>> folks are deaf, blind and dumb. it is not a raid on uscf resources as
>> much as a resource of necessity
>>
>> phil innes
>> vermont
>>
>>
>
> **** There is no "necessity" to raid a membership organization's assets.
I personally don't want a penny of USCF's money, I want to get after its
mission - which it has abandoned - very largely because it would rather piss
about with boy-wonder here, Sam Sloan the Hero, and his tragic attraction to
you know who :))))
> If there is such a need, go raid the National Geographic Society
Thank you. But there is no necessity to continue business as usual, and let
us have some light and air, and even ethics too!
Phil Innes
>
> ECJ
>
>>
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 12:20:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
>> >*** My local pizza store has no sponsors -- it does just fine on a "pays
>> >its
>> >own way" basis.
>>
>> Well that is very nice Eric. But does it get on national tv, into
>> mainstream education, or 'push-pizzas' for their no doubt efficacious
>> merit, to the nation? You see, that is the function of a non-profit
>> organisation for chess [not for pizzas]. And while being a private
>> member's club is very well, would you mind if anyone else had a bash at
>> the Mission Statement?
>>
>
> You have an odd idea of USCF's mission statement. It says nothing about
> "going on TV" or "pushing chess" or anything about the actual mechanics of
> how it promotes chess as part of American culture.
Neither do /you/ say anything about the mission statement! - of course what
I suggest are the /means/ by which it can fulfill its mission, and what you
write below are your ideas on the same subject.
What I completely fail to understand is why you object to anyone else doing
things that USCF does not do, and which technically it cannot well perform
with its current structure.
> It fulfills its mission by publishing a magazine, running a rating system,
> holding a national championship, holding a major open tournament, and
> related activities. It fulfills its mission by *being* a national
> membership organization -- just as National Geographic sells "memberships"
> and publishes a magazine and does good deeds to fulfill its mission.
>
> Your beef is that USCF doesn't do things *you* want it to do. What it
> *does do* is quite sufficient to satisfy its mission.
That is not my beef - it is yours! Your orientation is only to USCF, even if
USCF can't do something. Mine is to include those areas where USCF have
failed and given up trying to perform, as well as things it never attempted.
What I want to know is why you constantly object to anyone doing more than
what you personally are happy with - either within USCF or outside it?
Period.
Because you can't address that subject honestly, and the board can
[literally] address nothing in a cogent way, other people are simply
pointing this out in a National newspaper - including Moskow and Anderson -
who, so it seems to me - would both be happy to fund something that is not
currently happening. If you are not interested in that, why object to other
people doing it?
In Sloan-parlance, what I write is to 'attack' USCF, which is the attitude
you yourself adopt. But the attack is not so much for what it does, but for
what is not happening in chess in the USA. And there need be no necessary
conflict here - since obviously USCF can hardly object that anything is
being taken away from it, since there is nothing to take from it in the
potential areas of investment.
Phil Innes
> ECJ
>
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 08:28:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
We should not be quick to give up on the USCF. It still has 86,000
members, $3.2 million in annual revenues and until 1999 it had $2
million cash and equivalent in the LMA. We have recently suffered from
bad management and bad boards but prior to that we had 60 good years.
We are still stronger and better off than any comparable organization
that I know of.
Sam Sloan
---
what are you doing posting in the middle of the night - you crazy?
OTOH, uscf has had no major sponsors for a long time, nor seems capable of
financially containing one [which might be Anderson's point] and as above,
is now very reduced in ready assets and influence. Moskow seems to think the
same.
According to Horowitz in 1968 [?] uscf was in greenwich village and had less
than 10,000 members. the 'boom' was entirely fischer-effect, which boosted
it to 50,000+ by mid-late 70s. the past 40 years have added about 30,000
members, and the main increment is from the high turn-over scholastic scene,
which in terms of membership is simply a ratings-ket requirement
a failing therefore, is that in the 60 years cited above [more pertinently
the past 35 years] uscf has failed to be more than that outfit in greenwich
village, a devoted amateur level organisation
whether this means that another outfit is necessary to cogently contain and
process another level of chess, enabling it to escape its annual rotations
of members, without significant increase in numbers, all seem to be the
point these chess entrepreneurs are addressing
and indeed, that is the chat on 'the other circuit' to which uscf-only folks
are deaf, blind and dumb. it is not a raid on uscf resources as much as a
resource of necessity
phil innes
vermont
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 03:48:20
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: USCF is not ready to die
|
>I would not favor the Erik Anderson proposal to turn control of the
> USCF over to a bunch of money-men. This proposal has been made many
> times in the past and has always been rejected.
>
> Changing the USCF from a 501c4 to a 501c3 has been on the agenda of
> numerous boards. I do not know the reasons but it has been found
> impossible to do.
Becaue the USCF strays from its mission, for profit, way too often. To
become a 501(c)(3) they would have to function more as a charity and less as
a chess commerce engine.
> Also, remember that there are a bunch of people and groups who have
> been circling around overhead like vultures waiting to dive down and
> eat up the pieces as soon as we die.
Hi!!!
> We should not be quick to give up on the USCF. It still has 86,000
> members, $3.2 million in annual revenues and until 1999 it had $2
> million cash and equivalent in the LMA.
Um, as someone who was targeted by an IMPOSTER who apparently is on the USCF
board, I disagree.
>We have recently suffered from
> bad management and bad boards but prior to that we had 60 good years.
> We are still stronger and better off than any comparable organization
> that I know of.
Stronger and better off because of the impending legal armageddon? The one
that ran roughshod over my rights while the previous poster, one Samuel H.
Sloan, was on its board?
USCF has vowed to fight this in court. I admire their resolve. They're
going to need every ounce of it.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
|
