| |
Main
Date: 31 Dec 2008 23:39:54
From: [email protected]
Subject: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
TRANSPARENCY
Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. That's easy
to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
the old boy network.
Mr. Lafferty: the devil is in the details. What will be told
the membership and what will be withheld?
About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
keeping bids sealed or private until opened.
What does that tell all of us?
Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
from the membership.
Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
Polgar.)
Do you REALLY mean transparency? Are you prepared to release
all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
date? Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
the standard established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?
Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
mandates -- in our Federation? Once again, specifics. ADM-64 calls
for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
meeting. They never do so. Should they now be fired immediately for
failing to have done so?
If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
law within the Federation? Why, sir?
Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
publicly demand his immediate firing. If not, why not? And if you
tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?
If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
real questions.
Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
believes in transparency. Prove me wrong, and I will support you. As
for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
higher authority than the PB or the EB. What say you about him? Will
you call for the firing of our FIDE team?
Yours, Larry Parr
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Jan 2009 14:06:41
From: madams
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
help bot wrote:
.
> > to contribute to the universality of chess..
>
> Perhaps there should be a sub-group just for
> discussion relating to the USCF, since this may
> be of no interest to folks from all those "other"
> countries (except the peculiar Mr. Parr).
Quite so! - it's not hard to conceive more edifying material than say
the annual minutes of the fca (filipino chess assoc.) the doings thereof
of the 'personalities' involved & by extension one assumes the same
criteria would pertain to the uscf. Bot this sort of tack could
seemingly go on for ever & ever & assuredly men of goodwill will aver
this purpose nugatory..
> As for Mr. Sloan, if he had his own group, then
> nobody but him would ever see his malarkey, so
> that doesn't quite work; the whole point would
> be defeated, you see.
Well, yes & no. mr. sloan has clearly been toilet-trained to love his
emissions (I believe his mother was a psychiatrist or somesuch) so in a
way he's remarkably self-regarding or vain as the case may be..
> Several posters have suggested a group for
> "Sanny", our resident computer chess expert,
Yes! - somebody even suggested he become a swami & pedal the mystic
which would net him all the bugattis, heidis & nuggets of platinum his
heart desires..
> but it may be that no one would read his posts
> if they were separated out, like sick hogs from
> the well ones.
Regarding these ill pigs - you being a farmboy 'n all - bot, do they get
butchered 'n pickled 'n smoked thereby neutralising the cholera & in
preparation for the coming yuletide?..
> Considering the volume of fluff, I expect that it
> is none other than the nearly-an-IM 2450-rated
> Dr. IMnes who deserves first consideration for
> his own group.
Yes, I've heard tell of this fabled usenet identity. Originally from a
small fishing village on the Atlantic coastline - the people thereof
well known for their skepticism, suspicion, disdain for the authorities
& high-minded moralistic overview..
Bot reading ahead it's patent that niche gruppens already exist dealing
with uscf affairs & sloan's pet projects so clearly rgc holds some
attraction-fatale for these pathetic grossers..
> This group -- call it rec.games.
> chess.nutters.PI -- could further be separated
> into two sub-groups: flotsum and jetsam, to
> make it more manageable.
>
> On a different note, do you need any help in
> translating all these "American English" posts
> into whatever language it is that you speak?
No, not that I know of bot thks. anyway..
> Or perhaps in just /identifying/ your own native
> tongue? It seems clearly related to some sort
> of English
Dost thou thinketh so lad? - dunno really, could be englisch I suppose
bot time hastens..
-- perhaps influenced by Andean or
> Olde English, but with a dash of sheep herder
> thrown in.
Aha! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh..
m.
> Enough about that; I am no expert
> on languages... let the great Dr. IMnes have a
> go... .
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2009 11:37:29
From:
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 4, 10:13=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 8:47=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 7:19=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 As for Mr. Sloan, if he had his own group, then
> > > nobody but him would ever see his malarkey, so
> > > that doesn't quite work; the whole point would
> > > be defeated, you see.
>
> > > =A0 -- help bot
>
> Mr. Bot hit the spot. I was banned from Sloans group because I kept
> asking him about the poke'mon pictures on his website as well as his
> advocating having relations with teenagers under the age of 16 with
> his advocacy of scholastic chess. He never responded but did decide to
> ban me from his group because I refused to give him my inactive USCF
> ID number.( Something never requested of anyone in his group before or
> since)
Just as well Sam Sloan isn't running for office - since GUFFAW-type
laws of this sort would certainly disqualify any confidence he could
tell the time to the nearest 12 hours.
'Most active group' was never more than 10 people per week from a
total pool over time of 300. Chessville gets 60,000 unique hits a
month!
This is some level of conceit, no?
Rob Mitchell defended the Sloan against Louis Blair's 'action' [his
own words] at Wikipedia, as being petty and wantonly destructive -
rather than any real attempt to edit the Wiki entries.
Two month's later the Sloan was questioned about his 'orientations',
by Rob Mitchell, and was consequently banned for it.
Phil Innes
> > Actually, I do have my own group, several in fact. The main one is:
>
> >http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide_chess/
> > There is no censorship. Nothing ever gets deleted. Even Phil Innes
> > used to post there regularly.
> > It was at one time an active chess email group on the Internet.
> > Nowadays, there is very little activity but there are still 325
> > members so everything posted there gets read by me.
> > There is only one person who is banned from this group. His name is
> > "Rob the Robber".
>
> > Samantha Sloan
>
> Sorry,
> But there was never anything of value discussed there. That is why
> onone other than you and possibly 2 other people ever bother to post
> there. Your "FIDE" group rarely ever discussed "FIDE" issues and most
> of the 300 names listed to your account are outdated and inactive or
> are just dummy accounts.
>
> Rob" The Mitch"
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2009 11:32:07
From:
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 4, 9:47=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 3, 7:19=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > =A0 As for Mr. Sloan, if he had his own group, then
> > nobody but him would ever see his malarkey, so
> > that doesn't quite work; the whole point would
> > be defeated, you see.
>
> > =A0 -- help bot
>
> Actually, I do have my own group, several in fact. The main one is:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/
>
> There is no censorship.
ROFL! You banned Rob Mitchell because he asked you some questions
about your decency, wasn't it?
> Nothing ever gets deleted. Even Phil Innes
> used to post there regularly.
As far as I can see - Sam Sloan had a fide-chess group attracting as
many as 10 different posters per week.
> It was at one time the most active chess email group on the Internet.
Right.
> Nowadays, there is very little activity but there are still 325
> readers so everything posted there gets read.
You got more than 10 posters these days? And are the 325 readers the
size of the membership in total - or actual attendance record? 325
readers per... month?
> There is only one person who is banned from this group. His name is
> "Rob the Robber".
I banned myself since I could not appreciate the ethical postures of
the moderator distinctly from his own prejudices.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2009 07:54:45
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 4, 9:44=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 10:13=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 8:47=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 3, 7:19=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > =A0 As for Mr. Sloan, if he had his own group, then
> > > > nobody but him would ever see his malarkey, so
> > > > that doesn't quite work; the whole point would
> > > > be defeated, you see.
>
> > > > =A0 -- help bot
>
> > Mr. Bot hit the spot. I was banned from Sloans group because I kept
> > asking him about the poke'mon pictures on his website as well as his
> > advocating having relations with teenagers under the age of 16 with
> > his advocacy of scholastic chess. He never responded but did decide to
> > ban me from his group because I refused to give him my inactive USCF
> > ID number.( Something never requested of anyone in his group before or
> > since)
>
> > > Actually, I do have my own group, several in fact. The main one is:
>
> > >http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide_chess/
> > > There is no censorship. Nothing ever gets deleted. Even Phil Innes
> > > used to post there regularly.
> > > It was at one time an active chess email group on the Internet.
> > > Nowadays, there is very little activity but there are still 325
> > > members so everything posted there gets read by me.
> > > There is only one person who is banned from this group. His name is
> > > "Rob the Robber".
>
> > > Samantha Sloan
>
> > Sorry,
> > But there was never anything of value discussed there. That is why
> > onone other than you and possibly 2 other people ever bother to post
> > there. Your "FIDE" group rarely ever discussed "FIDE" issues and most
> > of the 300 names listed to your account are outdated and inactive or
> > are just dummy accounts.
>
> > Rob" The Mitch"
>
> This is not true and if you will go back and search when this issue
> was discussed several years ago you will see why it is not true.
>
> My group has only one rule: You must use your real name and identify
> yourself. We do not allow fake name or anonymous posters.
>
> That rule is posted on the Home Page of my group so everyone who
> enters my group knows it.
>
> Rob refused to comply with this rule. He refused to identify himself.
> In fact he openly stated that he would not identify himself. That left
> me no choice but to suspend him from the group. This suspension turned
> into a ban after we caught him sneaking into the group several times
> under fake names.
>
> I never suspended him for asking questions he did not like. His ally
> (or Partner in Crime if you will) Phil Innes relayed the same
> questions that Rob was asking and I never banned Innes. He can still
> post there.
>
> This is one of the many reasons why Rob got the name "Rob the Robber".
>
> Samantha Sloan
Samantha,
Saying it's so does not make it so.
I reluctantly complied, even though you knew who I was and had all my
contact information already. We all know that you only wanted a USCF
ID number to look up my information with the USCF. If I had NEVER been
a USCF member, how would I have been able to comply? I would not
have.Your reasoning is so transparent that it cost your group
credibility. That is why no one posts there anymore. You demonstrated
the most petty form of censorship and have paid the price for it.
Anyone looking at you group now sees you having conversations with
yourself.
I hold you no personal ill will. You should however realize that it
the bigger man who can admit to the truth. The truth being, you were
looking to find a way to prevent me from asking sensitive questions.
When will you answer those questions?
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2009 07:44:35
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 4, 10:13=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 8:47=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 7:19=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 As for Mr. Sloan, if he had his own group, then
> > > nobody but him would ever see his malarkey, so
> > > that doesn't quite work; the whole point would
> > > be defeated, you see.
>
> > > =A0 -- help bot
>
> Mr. Bot hit the spot. I was banned from Sloans group because I kept
> asking him about the poke'mon pictures on his website as well as his
> advocating having relations with teenagers under the age of 16 with
> his advocacy of scholastic chess. He never responded but did decide to
> ban me from his group because I refused to give him my inactive USCF
> ID number.( Something never requested of anyone in his group before or
> since)
>
> > Actually, I do have my own group, several in fact. The main one is:
>
> >http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide_chess/
> > There is no censorship. Nothing ever gets deleted. Even Phil Innes
> > used to post there regularly.
> > It was at one time an active chess email group on the Internet.
> > Nowadays, there is very little activity but there are still 325
> > members so everything posted there gets read by me.
> > There is only one person who is banned from this group. His name is
> > "Rob the Robber".
>
> > Samantha Sloan
>
> Sorry,
> But there was never anything of value discussed there. That is why
> onone other than you and possibly 2 other people ever bother to post
> there. Your "FIDE" group rarely ever discussed "FIDE" issues and most
> of the 300 names listed to your account are outdated and inactive or
> are just dummy accounts.
>
> Rob" The Mitch"
This is not true and if you will go back and search when this issue
was discussed several years ago you will see why it is not true.
My group has only one rule: You must use your real name and identify
yourself. We do not allow fake name or anonymous posters.
That rule is posted on the Home Page of my group so everyone who
enters my group knows it.
Rob refused to comply with this rule. He refused to identify himself.
In fact he openly stated that he would not identify himself. That left
me no choice but to suspend him from the group. This suspension turned
into a ban after we caught him sneaking into the group several times
under fake names.
I never suspended him for asking questions he did not like. His ally
(or Partner in Crime if you will) Phil Innes relayed the same
questions that Rob was asking and I never banned Innes. He can still
post there.
This is one of the many reasons why Rob got the name "Rob the Robber".
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2009 07:13:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 4, 8:47=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 3, 7:19=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > =A0 As for Mr. Sloan, if he had his own group, then
> > nobody but him would ever see his malarkey, so
> > that doesn't quite work; the whole point would
> > be defeated, you see.
>
> > =A0 -- help bot
Mr. Bot hit the spot. I was banned from Sloans group because I kept
asking him about the poke'mon pictures on his website as well as his
advocating having relations with teenagers under the age of 16 with
his advocacy of scholastic chess. He never responded but did decide to
ban me from his group because I refused to give him my inactive USCF
ID number.( Something never requested of anyone in his group before or
since)
> Actually, I do have my own group, several in fact. The main one is:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide_chess/
> There is no censorship. Nothing ever gets deleted. Even Phil Innes
> used to post there regularly.
> It was at one time an active chess email group on the Internet.
> Nowadays, there is very little activity but there are still 325
> members so everything posted there gets read by me.
> There is only one person who is banned from this group. His name is
> "Rob the Robber".
>
> Samantha Sloan
Sorry,
But there was never anything of value discussed there. That is why
onone other than you and possibly 2 other people ever bother to post
there. Your "FIDE" group rarely ever discussed "FIDE" issues and most
of the 300 names listed to your account are outdated and inactive or
are just dummy accounts.
Rob" The Mitch"
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2009 06:47:23
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 3, 7:19=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 As for Mr. Sloan, if he had his own group, then
> nobody but him would ever see his malarkey, so
> that doesn't quite work; the whole point would
> be defeated, you see.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Actually, I do have my own group, several in fact. The main one is:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/
There is no censorship. Nothing ever gets deleted. Even Phil Innes
used to post there regularly.
It was at one time the most active chess email group on the Internet.
Nowadays, there is very little activity but there are still 325
readers so everything posted there gets read.
There is only one person who is banned from this group. His name is
"Rob the Robber".
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2009 05:36:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 3, 6:19=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 3, 5:00=A0am, madams <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mostly, my friendly little series3 Net./Nav. newsreader displays an
> > unhealthy plethora of chocolate droppings to do with one brain britan
> > brian lafferty - clearly a need can be discerned for a new rgc gruppen
> > wherein the sloan can upload his customary reams of legalistic jargon
> > for admiration, approval & ultimate sanction by the brotherhood..
>
> > Next up is something by chessdon which I've yet to peruse but which
> > seems to have excited all the usual suspects & which (yawn) boasts the
> > uscf in its header..
>
> > Then there's a real choc. log to do with a mr. redman a 350.000 dollar
> > bequest & a hand on the heart supplication to do that which is right
> > with this munification in the land of the free & blah blah blah - more
> > uscf minutiae & dastardly detail & boredom..
>
> > The scumbags who propogate this woeful bumpf - ie, everything you never
> > needed to or wanted to know about the uscf are surely recognised as
> > empty vaseline tubs, bereft of anything meaningful, fructious or juicy
> > to contribute to the universality of chess..
>
> =A0 Perhaps there should be a sub-group just for
> discussion relating to the USCF, since this may
> be of no interest to folks from all those "other"
> countries (except the peculiar Mr. Parr).
>
> =A0 As for Mr. Sloan, if he had his own group, then
> nobody but him would ever see his malarkey, so
> that doesn't quite work; the whole point would
> be defeated, you see.
>
> =A0 Several posters have suggested a group for
> "Sanny", our resident computer chess expert,
> but it may be that no one would read his posts
> if they were separated out, like sick hogs from
> the well ones.
>
> =A0 Considering the volume of fluff, I expect that it
> is none other than the nearly-an-IM 2450-rated
> Dr. IMnes who deserves first consideration for
> his own group. =A0 This group -- call it rec.games.
> chess.nutters.PI -- could further be separated
> into two sub-groups: flotsum and jetsam, to
> make it more manageable.
>
> =A0 On a different note, do you need any help in
> translating all these "American English" posts
> into whatever language it is that you speak?
> =A0 Or perhaps in just /identifying/ your own native
> tongue? =A0 It seems clearly related to some sort
> of English-- perhaps influenced by Andean or
> Olde English, but with a dash of sheep herder
> thrown in. =A0Enough about that; I am no expert
> on languages... let the great Dr. IMnes have a
> go... .
>
> =A0 -- help bot
there is such a group to deal with only uscf issues. It is uscf-
[email protected]
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2009 16:19:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 3, 5:00=A0am, madams <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mostly, my friendly little series3 Net./Nav. newsreader displays an
> unhealthy plethora of chocolate droppings to do with one brain britan
> brian lafferty - clearly a need can be discerned for a new rgc gruppen
> wherein the sloan can upload his customary reams of legalistic jargon
> for admiration, approval & ultimate sanction by the brotherhood..
>
> Next up is something by chessdon which I've yet to peruse but which
> seems to have excited all the usual suspects & which (yawn) boasts the
> uscf in its header..
>
> Then there's a real choc. log to do with a mr. redman a 350.000 dollar
> bequest & a hand on the heart supplication to do that which is right
> with this munification in the land of the free & blah blah blah - more
> uscf minutiae & dastardly detail & boredom..
>
> The scumbags who propogate this woeful bumpf - ie, everything you never
> needed to or wanted to know about the uscf are surely recognised as
> empty vaseline tubs, bereft of anything meaningful, fructious or juicy
> to contribute to the universality of chess..
Perhaps there should be a sub-group just for
discussion relating to the USCF, since this may
be of no interest to folks from all those "other"
countries (except the peculiar Mr. Parr).
As for Mr. Sloan, if he had his own group, then
nobody but him would ever see his malarkey, so
that doesn't quite work; the whole point would
be defeated, you see.
Several posters have suggested a group for
"Sanny", our resident computer chess expert,
but it may be that no one would read his posts
if they were separated out, like sick hogs from
the well ones.
Considering the volume of fluff, I expect that it
is none other than the nearly-an-IM 2450-rated
Dr. IMnes who deserves first consideration for
his own group. This group -- call it rec.games.
chess.nutters.PI -- could further be separated
into two sub-groups: flotsum and jetsam, to
make it more manageable.
On a different note, do you need any help in
translating all these "American English" posts
into whatever language it is that you speak?
Or perhaps in just /identifying/ your own native
tongue? It seems clearly related to some sort
of English-- perhaps influenced by Andean or
Olde English, but with a dash of sheep herder
thrown in. Enough about that; I am no expert
on languages... let the great Dr. IMnes have a
go... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2009 21:00:54
From: madams
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
madams wrote:
>
> help bot wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 1, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Dr. IMnes-- your jabberings regarding "the rule of law"
> > and so forth seem to have overlooked a few small
> > details.
> >
> > For one thing, Mr. Parr was /against/ the rule of law
snippo -- snippo -- snippo..
> > That is... unless all you ever want to do is
> > whine and complain about how bad things
> > are inside the USCF.
> >
> > -- help bot
>
> testy..
Ah! - my new monika has come through wonderfully..
Mostly, my friendly little series3 Net./Nav. newsreader displays an
unhealthy plethora of chocolate droppings to do with one brain britan
brian lafferty - clearly a need can be discerned for a new rgc gruppen
wherein the sloan can upload his customary reams of legalistic jargon
for admiration, approval & ultimate sanction by the brotherhood..
Next up is something by chessdon which I've yet to peruse but which
seems to have excited all the usual suspects & which (yawn) boasts the
uscf in its header..
Then there's a real choc. log to do with a mr. redman a 350.000 dollar
bequest & a hand on the heart supplication to do that which is right
with this munification in the land of the free & blah blah blah - more
uscf minutiae & dastardly detail & boredom..
The scumbags who propogate this woeful bumpf - ie, everything you never
needed to or wanted to know about the uscf are surely recognised as
empty vaseline tubs, bereft of anything meaningful, fructious or juicy
to contribute to the universality of chess..
m.
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 20:43:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 2, 10:22=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I haven't been following this thread (and don't plan to), but yes, I
> was the one who disputed Larry's talking points ("sliced and diced" is
> a little strong, since I did offer him a chance to support his claims)
> back at the top, and I am not the same person as John Hilbert. -- jkh- Hi=
de quoted text -
Here it is again, for those who (like jkh himself)
seem to have difficulties in recalling the facts:
---------------------------
"Try again, Larry. Guilt by association went out of fashion with the
McCarthy brothers, Charley and Joe. I'm not endorsing any of the
current EB members; in fact, I've criticized all of them, as you
could
easily have discovered had you bothered to look. (Weren't you a
journalist once?) I said only that Brian Lafferty had no
qualifications whatsoever for the job. If he had been a USCF member
for more than two years, if he had ever organized or directed a
tournament, if he had ever written a chess article -- if he had _any_
qualifications beyond a loud voice and a desire for power -- I might
have come to a different conclusion."
--------------------
A little later on in this very same post, Mr. Parr
was compared to a "9/11 Troofer", and the word
"bunkum" was pasted onto Mr. Parr's forehead.
Right smack in the middle of this rant, jkh
asked if Mr. Parr had not been a journalist, once
upon a time. Ouch. But the comparison of LP
to the McCarthy brothers is perhaps the lowest
blow.
True, Mr. Parr was "given a chance" to provide
some sort of substantiation for one of his many
lies... but that is like shooting a man in the gut,
and then offering him a smoke.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 20:21:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 2, 10:22=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I haven't been following this thread (and don't plan to), but yes, I
> was the one who disputed Larry's talking points ("sliced and diced" is
> a little strong, since I did offer him a chance to support his claims)
> back at the top, and I am not the same person as John Hilbert.
Once again, Mr. Parr gets it wrong.
Whoever wrote the post to which I refered, the
"jkh" chap, is apparently not LP's "John Hilbert",
but someone else.
As for slicing and dicing, we have recently
seen comments to the effect that Mr. Parr
should "get his facts straight", /before/
pontificating, and the like. Two other rgc
posters leaped at the chance to add their two
cents worth, soon after the dicing was done;
they chimed in with an ad hominist style
nickname, "Liarry Peanut", and dismissed LP
as a nutter. Now, if somebody wants to do
a little back-pedaling and say he did not slice
or dice, but merely offered a chance for LP to
support his claims, that's okay by me. Such
offers may be in vain, but they offer a welcome
change to the ad hominist style of a Larry
Parr, or the juvenile name-calling of a few of
his hecklers. But isn't it funny how, when I
mentioned slicing and dicing, everybody
seemed to "know" the exact post I meant.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 19:22:02
From:
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
help bot wrote:
> On Jan 2, 3:16=EF=BF=BDam, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <Speaking of getting things wrong, who is this "Mr. Hilbert" who
> > allegedly 'slices and dices' the newsgroup postings of Larry Parr? I
> > know a fellow named Hilbert, and he doesn't post here. I suspect "help
> > bot", aiming for P Innes and Larry Parr, shot himself in the foot
> > instead by confusing Mr. Taylor Kingston and Dr. John Hilbert.> -- The
> > Historian
> >
> > I suspect Greg Kennedy meant John Hillery rather than either Kingston
> > or John Hilbert. =EF=BF=BDThe man can never quite get anything just rig=
ht. =EF=BF=BDHe
> > tries. =EF=BF=BDOh, how he tries.
>
>
> The imbecile Larry Parr gets his facts wrong,
> as usual.
>
> It was /Mr. Murray/ who introduced Mr.
> Kingston into this, for reasons known only to
> him.
>
> As for me, I was refering to a posting in which
> Mr. Parr's talking-points were neatly sliced and
> diced, by a poster whose monniker is "jkh", I
> believe. That post can be found earlier in this
> same thread and I am surprised that there is
> any confusion about this, since nobody else
> even bothered over Mr. Parr's fluff, choosing
> instead to mock him with such nicknames as
> "Liarry Peanut", the nutter, and so on.
>
>
> -- help bot
I haven't been following this thread (and don't plan to), but yes, I
was the one who disputed Larry's talking points ("sliced and diced" is
a little strong, since I did offer him a chance to support his claims)
back at the top, and I am not the same person as John Hilbert. -- jkh
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 19:09:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 2, 3:16=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <Speaking of getting things wrong, who is this "Mr. Hilbert" who
> allegedly 'slices and dices' the newsgroup postings of Larry Parr? I
> know a fellow named Hilbert, and he doesn't post here. I suspect "help
> bot", aiming for P Innes and Larry Parr, shot himself in the foot
> instead by confusing Mr. Taylor Kingston and Dr. John Hilbert.> -- The
> Historian
>
> I suspect Greg Kennedy meant John Hillery rather than either Kingston
> or John Hilbert. =A0The man can never quite get anything just right. =A0H=
e
> tries. =A0Oh, how he tries.
The imbecile Larry Parr gets his facts wrong,
as usual.
It was /Mr. Murray/ who introduced Mr.
Kingston into this, for reasons known only to
him.
As for me, I was refering to a posting in which
Mr. Parr's talking-points were neatly sliced and
diced, by a poster whose monniker is "jkh", I
believe. That post can be found earlier in this
same thread and I am surprised that there is
any confusion about this, since nobody else
even bothered over Mr. Parr's fluff, choosing
instead to mock him with such nicknames as
"Liarry Peanut", the nutter, and so on.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 20:00:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:09:20 -0800 (PST), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
> It was /Mr. Murray/ who introduced Mr.
>Kingston into this, for reasons known only to
>him.
What? Have I been sleep-posting again? What did I say? (I may want
to argue with myself).
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2009 09:50:03
From: madams
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
help bot wrote:
>
> On Jan 1, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Dr. IMnes-- your jabberings regarding "the rule of law"
> and so forth seem to have overlooked a few small
> details.
>
> For one thing, Mr. Parr was /against/ the rule of law
> not so long ago; he argued that even though no court
> would convict Mr. Kirsan of murder, "we", the people
> of chess ought to hang him in our own minds and do
> whatever Mr. Parr or his cronies desired, mob justice,
> if you will.
>
> So please forgive readers of rgc if they are not very
> impressed by mere talk; by the occasional, when-
> convenient adoption of rule-of-law argumentation by
> the flip-flopping ratpack.
>
> I cringed when I read one comment in the Evans
> interview with Mr. Alburt. Taken out of context, or
> perhaps just in context, it said that according to
> Mr. Alburt's thinking, the board could go into a
> closed session to badmouth people, on a whim.
> The idea of being against this sort of thing /on
> principle/ was thrown right out the window! One
> can hardly take the man seriously after reading
> this sort of thing. His complaints seemed to
> amount to a lack of due respect for grandmasters,
> and I got the feeling he thought he was somehow
> above the others, because of his vastly superior
> chess-playing skill-- no contest, but how is this in
> any way relevant to the business end of things?
>
> Mr. Hilbert, a total idiot on some matters, had
> no trouble whatever in slicing and dicing one of
> Larry Parr's typical rants, showing how easily
> LP gets things all wrong. I picture the poor
> chap as a sort of special interest, looking to
> secure safety for those who like both drug-use
> AND chess competition, more or less at the
> same time. But why on Earth is he already
> pestering J. Lafferty for his support, when the
> fellow has not even been elected (yet)?
>
> Let me finish up by once again noting how
> several posters here have complained of not
> being able to get anything done while on the
> USCF board, with their tiny, single vote.
> You ratpackers need to get organized; put
> in several viable candidates at the same time,
> and try to get more than one elected--
> preferably more than two, at the same time.
>
> That is... unless all you ever want to do is
> whine and complain about how bad things
> are inside the USCF.
>
> -- help bot
testy..
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 05:51:33
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 2, 3:16=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> GREG KENNEDY SHOOTS HIMSELF IN THE FOOT AGAIN
>
> <Speaking of getting things wrong, who is this "Mr. Hilbert" who
> allegedly 'slices and dices' the newsgroup postings of Larry Parr? I
> know a fellow named Hilbert, and he doesn't post here. I suspect "help
> bot", aiming for P Innes and Larry Parr, shot himself in the foot
> instead by confusing Mr. Taylor Kingston and Dr. John Hilbert.> -- The
> Historian
>
> I suspect Greg Kennedy meant John Hillery rather than either Kingston
> or John Hilbert. =A0The man can never quite get anything just right. =A0H=
e
> tries. =A0Oh, how he tries.
>
> =A0Yours, Larry Parr
Your hunch is better than mine, Larry. It was probably Mr. Hillery
that hapless-bot had in mind.
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 00:16:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
GREG KENNEDY SHOOTS HIMSELF IN THE FOOT AGAIN
<Speaking of getting things wrong, who is this "Mr. Hilbert" who
allegedly 'slices and dices' the newsgroup postings of Larry Parr? I
know a fellow named Hilbert, and he doesn't post here. I suspect "help
bot", aiming for P Innes and Larry Parr, shot himself in the foot
instead by confusing Mr. Taylor Kingston and Dr. John Hilbert. > -- The
Historian
I suspect Greg Kennedy meant John Hillery rather than either Kingston
or John Hilbert. The man can never quite get anything just right. He
tries. Oh, how he tries.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:24?pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > ? Mr. Hilbert, a total idiot on some matters, had
> > > no trouble whatever in slicing and dicing one of
> > > Larry Parr's typical rants, showing how easily
> > > LP gets things all wrong. ?
>
> > Speaking of getting things wrong, who is this "Mr. Hilbert" who
> > allegedly 'slices and dices' the newsgroup postings of Larry Parr? I
> > know a fellow named Hilbert, and he doesn't post here.
>
>
> I meant Dilbert-- the odd-looking cartoon
> guy, who is obsessed with office cubicles!
>
>
> > I suspect "help bot", aiming for P Innes and Larry Parr, shot himself
> > in the foot instead by confusing Mr. Taylor Kingston and Dr. John
> > Hilbert.
>
>
> Speaking of shooting oneself in the foot--
> where on Earth do you get TK in all this? I
> was talking about the post in which a re-
> sponse was made to Mr. Parr, and which
> took his talking-points apart, one by one.
>
> Sorry, but I expected everyone except
> maybe Dr. IMnes to know immediately which
> posting I meant, from memory. I think it was
> the same guy who, like TK, was utterly
> incapable of sussing out the Tigran Petrosian
> commentary regarding his match with BF.
> But maybe not; maybe it was somebody else,
> and my surprise at his dramatic "change" was
> unwarranted. Anyway, debunking Mr. Parr is
> no challenge; I prefer to simply "remind" those
> toad-eaters when they have done another of
> their famous flip-flops, as with their rule of law
> spiel. To tell you the truth, I'm embarassed
> for them when they forget thier own previous
> spiels, and reverse course like this; if a ratpack
> could be described as "senile", this one would
> take the cake.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 22:04:28
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 11:53=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 12:03=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I relished the humiliation by you. Really, Looking back on some of the
> > games I can see the subtle beauty behind your moves. You did a great
> > job. I heartily enjoyed the play.
> > A well played game is a beauty to be apart of even if one is on the
> > wrng end of the victory.
> > I am prepared to play again anytime, my my Jedediah
>
> =A0 And all this time, I believed the hype that it
> required a really strong player to understand
> the subtleties of chess! =A0 Well, I have to admit,
> I was fooled at first; but then computers came
> along and weak players began to write in,
> pointing out errors even they could understand
> --with help from their calculating machines.
>
> =A0 My latest experience was in looking through
> some old Chess Life magazines, in which I
> occasionally punch in a position or a game
> to check things out. =A0 In the position I have in
> mind -- from game 17 of a famous match in
> 1972, I believe -- a reader writes in to Larry
> Evans, asking if BS did not overlook the
> defense "Rxe4!", and LE agreed with him. =A0I
> too was impressed by this idea, although
> not so quick to judge Mr. Spassky as not
> defending properly. =A0I punched this in to see
> what Rybka thought about this tactical shot,
> expecting her to display "of course Rxd3, you
> fish!", but instead I was surprised when she
> stubbornly clung to a two point edge for the
> wrong side!
>
> =A0 I let her ponder this a good long while, to
> see if maybe the problem of Mr. Spassky
> getting connected passed pawns would
> finally "register", but to no avail. =A0 I then
> carefully checked each move suggested by
> the reader who wrote in, and followed his
> line as best I could, and still Rybka insisted
> that Mr. Spassky was two pawns down. =A0In
> fact, I am still a bit puzzled, but it seems
> that Rybka is /almost/ never wrong about
> these things-- except in certain Rook
> endings, where advancing a pawn too far
> is actually disadvantageous (this also
> catches many grandmasters).
>
> =A0 Just as when Bobby Fischer wrote in to
> critique Mr. Evans for his shallow analysis,
> Rybka seems to think LE got this one
> wrong as well. =A0 She likes Mr. Spassky's
> move... so maybe he went astray a bit
> later on.
>
> =A0 One thing I recall about our games, Mr.
> Mitchell, is that you at some point
> repeated an error in the opening you had
> made -- and lost because of -- in an
> earlier game. =A0 I'm not talking about a
> theoretically inferior move here, but an
> outright blunder! =A0 This is not supposed to
> happen; you are supposed to learn not to
> lose exactly the same way, and thereby
> narrow down the ways in which you can
> be beaten, to perhaps a few billion or so.
> :>D
>
> =A0 -- help bot
>
> =A0 -- help bot
You are indeed correct Mr. Bot. I did repeat the same moves. At the
time we were playing I was also playin maybe 25 concurrent games. I
tkae no longer than 20 seconds to review each move and then I advance
to the next game.
I do not use computers nor do I curently use books to review
positions. What I rely on is playing several games in similar moves
and then try to determine which ones were screwed up where at a later
date.
Some of the moves I made I clearly say now when I look at them, "What
was I thinking". and I have to laugh. Then I see how you would let
slip some horrible blunder in order to give me an opportunity to
recover.( Very sportsman like!)
My biggest regret in our matches was that I was not giving you too
much fun. But, then I figured you were playing against the Sanny-bot,
and I didn't feel too badly. :-)
The Mitch-bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 21:53:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 2, 12:03=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> I relished the humiliation by you. Really, Looking back on some of the
> games I can see the subtle beauty behind your moves. You did a great
> job. I heartily enjoyed the play.
> A well played game is a beauty to be apart of even if one is on the
> wrng end of the victory.
> I am prepared to play again anytime, my my Jedediah
And all this time, I believed the hype that it
required a really strong player to understand
the subtleties of chess! Well, I have to admit,
I was fooled at first; but then computers came
along and weak players began to write in,
pointing out errors even they could understand
--with help from their calculating machines.
My latest experience was in looking through
some old Chess Life magazines, in which I
occasionally punch in a position or a game
to check things out. In the position I have in
mind -- from game 17 of a famous match in
1972, I believe -- a reader writes in to Larry
Evans, asking if BS did not overlook the
defense "Rxe4!", and LE agreed with him. I
too was impressed by this idea, although
not so quick to judge Mr. Spassky as not
defending properly. I punched this in to see
what Rybka thought about this tactical shot,
expecting her to display "of course Rxd3, you
fish!", but instead I was surprised when she
stubbornly clung to a two point edge for the
wrong side!
I let her ponder this a good long while, to
see if maybe the problem of Mr. Spassky
getting connected passed pawns would
finally "register", but to no avail. I then
carefully checked each move suggested by
the reader who wrote in, and followed his
line as best I could, and still Rybka insisted
that Mr. Spassky was two pawns down. In
fact, I am still a bit puzzled, but it seems
that Rybka is /almost/ never wrong about
these things-- except in certain Rook
endings, where advancing a pawn too far
is actually disadvantageous (this also
catches many grandmasters).
Just as when Bobby Fischer wrote in to
critique Mr. Evans for his shallow analysis,
Rybka seems to think LE got this one
wrong as well. She likes Mr. Spassky's
move... so maybe he went astray a bit
later on.
One thing I recall about our games, Mr.
Mitchell, is that you at some point
repeated an error in the opening you had
made -- and lost because of -- in an
earlier game. I'm not talking about a
theoretically inferior move here, but an
outright blunder! This is not supposed to
happen; you are supposed to learn not to
lose exactly the same way, and thereby
narrow down the ways in which you can
be beaten, to perhaps a few billion or so.
: >D
-- help bot
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 21:03:46
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 8:01=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:14=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Dr. IMnes-- your jabberings regarding "the rule of law"
> > > and so forth seem to have overlooked a few small
> > > details.
> > Coward Kenned, who cannot own his own name.
>
> =A0 =A0Desperate desire to change the subject,
> duly noted.
>
> > It matters not to me that you understand the degree to which I hold
> > your personal brave announcements about others in disdain, yet surely
> > you must be aware that your obsession with me is neurotic.
>
> =A0 =A0My "obsession" with Dr. IMnes amounts to
> nothing more than the fact that, like Mr. Sloan,
> the good doctor posts here a lot, and I in turn,
> respond. =A0 =A0 Once our patient is cured of his
> many ills, PI will find that it is his own actions
> which bring upon him a plague of criticism--
> not some inexplicable conspiracy of people
> who are "out to get him".
>
> > Shut up and play dude. You were offered opportuni9ty to play where I
> > did, and you ducked a challenge, even though my moves are not coy wit
> > Fritz, as says anothger opponent.
>
> =A0 As I recall, I explained my reason to Mr.
> Mitchell-- who was quite eager to see me
> slaughtered by Ryb--er, I mean by Dr. IMnes.
>
> =A0 As I said then, my rating as a newcomer to
> that Web site was so low, that win, lose or
> draw, it would "victimize" the poor opponent,
> who would be treated as having played a
> complete patzer. =A0(For the record, I am more
> like an incomplete patzer-- competent in
> some positions, but not others.) =A0 =A0Correct me
> if I'm wrong, but I started out at something
> like 1200 or so... well below my real strength.
>
> =A0 Anyway, those players I faced were all
> victimized by this ridiculous rule of arbitrarily
> assigning a rating to new players; I am just
> glad that only Mr. Mitchell and people I did
> not know were victimized. =A0 No way would I
> want to harm my old pal, Dr. IMnes the 2450,
> whose ego can be quite delicate in such
> matters! =A0 Trust me, I'm looking out for you.
>
> =A0 The rating you really want a crack at is my
> old Walther Brown Chess Association blitz
> rating, which is fairly high, despite the fact
> that I am now as slow as an ox. =A0 The locals
> are lining up to have a whack at my OTB
> rating, seeing pictures of sugar plums
> dancing in their heads. =A0 "Isn't that the guy
> who lost to whatshisname, the 1600?", they
> wonder.
>
> > That is emotionally juvenile.
>
> =A0 =A0Indeed, your responses I've seen to Mr.
> Murray's well-reasoned points are exactly
> that. =A0 The question remains-- who do you
> think you're fooling, Whodoo? =A0 Most of us
> have been on to you for a long time now.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
I relished the humiliation by you. Really, Looking back on some of the
games I can see the subtle beauty behind your moves. You did a great
job. I heartily enjoyed the play.
A well played game is a beauty to be apart of even if one is on the
wrng end of the victory.
I am prepared to play again anytime, my my Jedediah.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 18:19:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 6:24=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0 Mr. Hilbert, a total idiot on some matters, had
> > no trouble whatever in slicing and dicing one of
> > Larry Parr's typical rants, showing how easily
> > LP gets things all wrong. =A0
> Speaking of getting things wrong, who is this "Mr. Hilbert" who
> allegedly 'slices and dices' the newsgroup postings of Larry Parr? I
> know a fellow named Hilbert, and he doesn't post here.
I meant Dilbert-- the odd-looking cartoon
guy, who is obsessed with office cubicles!
> I suspect "help bot", aiming for P Innes and Larry Parr, shot himself
> in the foot instead by confusing Mr. Taylor Kingston and Dr. John
> Hilbert.
Speaking of shooting oneself in the foot--
where on Earth do you get TK in all this? I
was talking about the post in which a re-
sponse was made to Mr. Parr, and which
took his talking-points apart, one by one.
Sorry, but I expected everyone except
maybe Dr. IMnes to know immediately which
posting I meant, from memory. I think it was
the same guy who, like TK, was utterly
incapable of sussing out the Tigran Petrosian
commentary regarding his match with BF.
But maybe not; maybe it was somebody else,
and my surprise at his dramatic "change" was
unwarranted. Anyway, debunking Mr. Parr is
no challenge; I prefer to simply "remind" those
toad-eaters when they have done another of
their famous flip-flops, as with their rule of law
spiel. To tell you the truth, I'm embarassed
for them when they forget thier own previous
spiels, and reverse course like this; if a ratpack
could be described as "senile", this one would
take the cake.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 18:01:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 6:14=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 Dr. IMnes-- your jabberings regarding "the rule of law"
> > and so forth seem to have overlooked a few small
> > details.
> Coward Kenned, who cannot own his own name.
Desperate desire to change the subject,
duly noted.
> It matters not to me that you understand the degree to which I hold
> your personal brave announcements about others in disdain, yet surely
> you must be aware that your obsession with me is neurotic.
My "obsession" with Dr. IMnes amounts to
nothing more than the fact that, like Mr. Sloan,
the good doctor posts here a lot, and I in turn,
respond. Once our patient is cured of his
many ills, PI will find that it is his own actions
which bring upon him a plague of criticism--
not some inexplicable conspiracy of people
who are "out to get him".
> Shut up and play dude. You were offered opportuni9ty to play where I
> did, and you ducked a challenge, even though my moves are not coy wit
> Fritz, as says anothger opponent.
As I recall, I explained my reason to Mr.
Mitchell-- who was quite eager to see me
slaughtered by Ryb--er, I mean by Dr. IMnes.
As I said then, my rating as a newcomer to
that Web site was so low, that win, lose or
draw, it would "victimize" the poor opponent,
who would be treated as having played a
complete patzer. (For the record, I am more
like an incomplete patzer-- competent in
some positions, but not others.) Correct me
if I'm wrong, but I started out at something
like 1200 or so... well below my real strength.
Anyway, those players I faced were all
victimized by this ridiculous rule of arbitrarily
assigning a rating to new players; I am just
glad that only Mr. Mitchell and people I did
not know were victimized. No way would I
want to harm my old pal, Dr. IMnes the 2450,
whose ego can be quite delicate in such
matters! Trust me, I'm looking out for you.
The rating you really want a crack at is my
old Walther Brown Chess Association blitz
rating, which is fairly high, despite the fact
that I am now as slow as an ox. The locals
are lining up to have a whack at my OTB
rating, seeing pictures of sugar plums
dancing in their heads. "Isn't that the guy
who lost to whatshisname, the 1600?", they
wonder.
> That is emotionally juvenile.
Indeed, your responses I've seen to Mr.
Murray's well-reasoned points are exactly
that. The question remains-- who do you
think you're fooling, Whodoo? Most of us
have been on to you for a long time now.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:24:13
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 5:18=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 Mr. Hilbert, a total idiot on some matters, had
> no trouble whatever in slicing and dicing one of
> Larry Parr's typical rants, showing how easily
> LP gets things all wrong. =A0
Speaking of getting things wrong, who is this "Mr. Hilbert" who
allegedly 'slices and dices' the newsgroup postings of Larry Parr? I
know a fellow named Hilbert, and he doesn't post here.
I suspect "help bot", aiming for P Innes and Larry Parr, shot himself
in the foot instead by confusing Mr. Taylor Kingston and Dr. John
Hilbert.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:14:30
From:
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 5:18=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:45=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> =A0 Dr. IMnes-- your jabberings regarding "the rule of law"
> and so forth seem to have overlooked a few small
> details.
Coward Kenned, who cannot own his own name. You are voting here
against the rule law of your own country as pertains to lawsuits.
Bugger me no more with your sad Dr Imnes shit, when you are personally
such a coward as not to admit your own name.
It matters not to me that you understand the degree to which I hold
your personal brave announcements about others in disdain, yet surely
you must be aware that your obsession with me is neurotic.
Shut up and play dude. You were offered opportuni9ty to play where I
did, and you ducked a challenge, even though my moves are not coy wit
Fritz, as says anothger opponent.
Instead you prefer to mouth off rather than speak from chess
experience. This, as I have said before, is nothing to me.
You take it from here, and explain tot he people in your own jaundiced
words, why other people are shit.
You are a sort of American coward; you do not say your own experience,
and you comapare those who can do so with some fantasy about yourself.
That is emotionally juvenile.
Phil Innes
> =A0 For one thing, Mr. Parr was /against/ the rule of law
> not so long ago; he argued that even though no court
> would convict Mr. Kirsan of murder, "we", the people
> of chess ought to hang him in our own minds and do
> whatever Mr. Parr or his cronies desired, mob justice,
> if you will.
>
> =A0 So please forgive readers of rgc if they are not very
> impressed by mere talk; by the occasional, when-
> convenient adoption of rule-of-law argumentation by
> the flip-flopping ratpack.
>
> =A0 I cringed when I read one comment in the Evans
> interview with Mr. Alburt. =A0 Taken out of context, or
> perhaps just in context, it said that according to
> Mr. Alburt's thinking, the board could go into a
> closed session to badmouth people, on a whim.
> =A0 The idea of being against this sort of thing /on
> principle/ was thrown right out the window! =A0 One
> can hardly take the man seriously after reading
> this sort of thing. =A0 =A0His complaints seemed to
> amount to a lack of due respect for grandmasters,
> and I got the feeling he thought he was somehow
> above the others, because of his vastly superior
> chess-playing skill-- no contest, but how is this in
> any way relevant to the business end of things?
>
> =A0 Mr. Hilbert, a total idiot on some matters, had
> no trouble whatever in slicing and dicing one of
> Larry Parr's typical rants, showing how easily
> LP gets things all wrong. =A0 I picture the poor
> chap as a sort of special interest, looking to
> secure safety for those who like both drug-use
> AND chess competition, more or less at the
> same time. =A0But why on Earth is he already
> pestering J. Lafferty for his support, when the
> fellow has not even been elected (yet)?
>
> =A0 Let me finish up by once again noting how
> several posters here have complained of not
> being able to get anything done while on the
> USCF board, with their tiny, single vote.
> =A0 You ratpackers need to get organized; put
> in several viable candidates at the same time,
> and try to get more than one elected--
> preferably more than two, at the same time.
>
> =A0 That is... unless all you ever want to do is
> whine and complain about how bad things
> are inside the USCF.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 14:18:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 9:45=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
Dr. IMnes-- your jabberings regarding "the rule of law"
and so forth seem to have overlooked a few small
details.
For one thing, Mr. Parr was /against/ the rule of law
not so long ago; he argued that even though no court
would convict Mr. Kirsan of murder, "we", the people
of chess ought to hang him in our own minds and do
whatever Mr. Parr or his cronies desired, mob justice,
if you will.
So please forgive readers of rgc if they are not very
impressed by mere talk; by the occasional, when-
convenient adoption of rule-of-law argumentation by
the flip-flopping ratpack.
I cringed when I read one comment in the Evans
interview with Mr. Alburt. Taken out of context, or
perhaps just in context, it said that according to
Mr. Alburt's thinking, the board could go into a
closed session to badmouth people, on a whim.
The idea of being against this sort of thing /on
principle/ was thrown right out the window! One
can hardly take the man seriously after reading
this sort of thing. His complaints seemed to
amount to a lack of due respect for grandmasters,
and I got the feeling he thought he was somehow
above the others, because of his vastly superior
chess-playing skill-- no contest, but how is this in
any way relevant to the business end of things?
Mr. Hilbert, a total idiot on some matters, had
no trouble whatever in slicing and dicing one of
Larry Parr's typical rants, showing how easily
LP gets things all wrong. I picture the poor
chap as a sort of special interest, looking to
secure safety for those who like both drug-use
AND chess competition, more or less at the
same time. But why on Earth is he already
pestering J. Lafferty for his support, when the
fellow has not even been elected (yet)?
Let me finish up by once again noting how
several posters here have complained of not
being able to get anything done while on the
USCF board, with their tiny, single vote.
You ratpackers need to get organized; put
in several viable candidates at the same time,
and try to get more than one elected--
preferably more than two, at the same time.
That is... unless all you ever want to do is
whine and complain about how bad things
are inside the USCF.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 23:36:29
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
BOT SQUEALS SO DELIGHTFULLY
<Try again, Larry. Guilt by association went out of fashion with the
McCarthy brothers, Charley and Joe. I'm not endorsing any of the
current EB members; in fact, I've criticized all of them, as you could
easily have discovered had you bothered to look. (Weren't you a
journalist once?) I said only that Brian Lafferty had no
qualifications whatsoever for the job. If he had been a USCF member
for more than two years, if he had ever organized or directed a
tournament, if he had ever written a chess article -- if he had _any_
qualifications beyond a loud voice and a desire for power -- I might
have come to a different conclusion." -- John Hillery
Greg Kennedy confused the name of John Hillery, who wrote a post
attacking this writer, with John Hilbert, who writes chess history.
The error was a lapsus. That's all. Still, we could not resist
offering Greg yet another opportunity to bleed across the bandwidth by
observing that he never gets anything quite right. He tries. Oh, how
he tries. And then came a cascade of Greg's postings displaying the
stigmata revealing that our haemophiliac of egos injures as easily as
the Tsarevich.
Greg Kennedy is likely unaware that the McCarthy references are,
first, to a dummy named Charlie McCarthy, operated by Edgar Bergen,
and Sen. Joe McCarthy, the subject of Arthur Herman's recent largely
admiring biography that has challenged the conventional wisdom.
Greg's problem is that he is unable to compose a message that gets
everything
just so. He always lets himself down.
, John Hillery's simply tossed in the McCarthys for spice, along with
his refrain, which has become a mantra, that this writer was once a
journalist. My view on candidate Lafferty is that he must show me
real seriousness about transparency before I will support him.
One enjoys penning these little messages about our Bot because he
squeals so delightfully. The poor guyis still suffering and, yes,
still in want of reading.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> On Jan 3, 12:22?am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I think it was the Historian who said that. ?
>
>
> The Historian, really? I've been reading a lot
> about Him lately, in the catalogs they sent me
> by mail. What was his name-- Hero Dotus or
> was it Thucy Dides? No matter... history is
> bunk.
>
>
> > My first involvement in
> > this thread was to point out that I was not involved in this thread,
> > which, of course, then became untrue since I had just involved myself.
>
>
> Hey-- you're a sharp one, you are.
>
>
> > Hmmm. ?Want to take that move back? ?Want to take that move back? Want
> > to take that move back? ?Claim forfeit on disconnect. ?Want to take
> > that move back? ?Do you resign yet?
>
>
> My flag fell! I was two pieces up, and you
> played right into a prepared trap. I click and
> click, but the move, or post, is still there,
> dammit!
>
>
> > > ?Then I replied that Mr. Kingston was not any
> > >part of my confusion-- the initials don't even
> > >match! ? So then, it was Mr. Murray himself
> > >who dragged an unwelcome TK to the party,
>
>
> I ought to have known better. Mr. Murray is
> a sensible sort, while that other guy, The
> Historian, is always pecking away at the great
> Dr. IMnes, /while at the same time/ claiming
> he gave up that job to somebody else.
>
> So then, you deny being one and the same
> poster as The Historian? ;>D
>
> One thing I can't stand is having to read all
> the way back through a thread -- especially
> one which involves Dr. IMnes -- in order to
> find exactly what was said earlier. Here, I
> messed up on exactly who-said-what, but I
> think you will find that it /was/ jfk who sliced
> and diced Mr. Parr. Er, make that j-
> something-h, the crazy guy who can't recall
> or find anything, except when he wants to.
>
>
> -- elf bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 23:24:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 3, 12:22=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think it was the Historian who said that. =A0
The Historian, really? I've been reading a lot
about Him lately, in the catalogs they sent me
by mail. What was his name-- Hero Dotus or
was it Thucy Dides? No matter... history is
bunk.
> My first involvement in
> this thread was to point out that I was not involved in this thread,
> which, of course, then became untrue since I had just involved myself.
Hey-- you're a sharp one, you are.
> Hmmm. =A0Want to take that move back? =A0Want to take that move back? Wan=
t
> to take that move back? =A0Claim forfeit on disconnect. =A0Want to take
> that move back? =A0Do you resign yet?
My flag fell! I was two pieces up, and you
played right into a prepared trap. I click and
click, but the move, or post, is still there,
dammit!
> > =A0Then I replied that Mr. Kingston was not any
> >part of my confusion-- the initials don't even
> >match! =A0 So then, it was Mr. Murray himself
> >who dragged an unwelcome TK to the party,
I ought to have known better. Mr. Murray is
a sensible sort, while that other guy, The
Historian, is always pecking away at the great
Dr. IMnes, /while at the same time/ claiming
he gave up that job to somebody else.
So then, you deny being one and the same
poster as The Historian? ; >D
One thing I can't stand is having to read all
the way back through a thread -- especially
one which involves Dr. IMnes -- in order to
find exactly what was said earlier. Here, I
messed up on exactly who-said-what, but I
think you will find that it /was/ jfk who sliced
and diced Mr. Parr. Er, make that j-
something-h, the crazy guy who can't recall
or find anything, except when he wants to.
-- elf bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 13:29:35
From:
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 3:29=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:43:29 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >Is there some requirement to do so?
> >Perhaps you do not like the idea, but how come you didn't act before
> >the fact rather than after it?
>
> Ya =A0know, Phil, it's customary to quote something before replying --
> context and all, especially when the post to which you are replying is
> quite long.
Since you prefer vaguery, and issue your vague aspersions evading
direct inquiry, I see you respond vaguely.
> >> Calls for transparency on the part of one who failed to reveal, until
> >> it was too late to matter, the key fact that she was married to
> >> another EB candidate? =A0
> >Is there some requirement to do so?
>
> Uhh, that would be transparency.
Is there requirement to do so for all candidates about their partners.
Don't Uhh , Murray, like you pretend you don't understand the issue,
let's hear from you on what you are actually proposing, rather than
UHH comments.
> >Perhaps you do not like the idea, but how come you didn't act before
> >the fact rather than after it?
>
> You mean, act before I knew about it?
Before you knew about the possibility? You pass again on a direct
question. Instead you insist on retrospective acts. That is a matter
of your own wit.
> =A0That would have been
> irresponsible, no?
>
> > And since you now resent relationships
> >among board members,
>
> Resent? =A0Where did I say that?
You cannot remember what the topic of your own previous paragraph was?
Clue: You resent non-disclosure of relationships of board members.
> =A0I remember complaining about being
> informed.
Insensible comment
> >should you not instead of making a plaint here
> >not be writing to USCF demanding full disclosure of partners?
>
> Disclosure of *relevant* partnerships or associations which may
> indicate a conflict of interest is a standard requirement of most
> boards of directors, corporation executive employment, etc.
So write to USCF and explain yourself - or tell us what is *relevant*
in your opinion that someone else should do for you so that this can
retrospectively be some issue - that your point?
What actually is it?
> Anybody involved in management knows that. =A0
>
> >Married
> >or not, gay or not, since then this would become a standard, if
> >adopted, rather than post hoc whining partisanship?
>
> See, this is why I (and most others here, I dare say) consider you a
> dissembling jackass, Phil. =A0I was referring to business conflicts of
> interest, not private sexual behavior.
"Private sexual behavior"? Mike Murray thinks that its not okay to
disclose if you are married, but if you are not married but engaging
in 'private sexual behavior' it is okay.
His context is 'business conflicts'.
If his context was really business contexts then why attack marital
status of people?
> =A0And you're not that dumb. =A0You
> knew that. =A0Well, probably.
You can't talk straight Murray, and this is other people's fault since
they can't follow you. Then, rather than ever seek to clarify
something about what they say, or your understanding of it, you are
hot to call them 'dumb' and so on.
And you are a hot-headed leader of the pack, no? You neither
understand much nor are able to express your views without reviling
others, and you seem to think that you impress anyone other than half-
dozen misanthropic bent and utterly insignificant people in this
newsgroup.
> >When I have suggested transparency issues here - eg background checks,
> >then people have objected to it on the grounds of privacy. Can Mike
> >Muray trouble his brain to propose and act upon something which would
> >apply to all baord members?
>
> Why sure, Phil, how's this: =A0All candidates for the EB or executive
> office should disclose whether they're married to, =A0or a close
> relative of, or have any other relationship which may conflict with
> independent judgment, other board members or USCF executives. =A0If this
> situation changes after election, they should reveal this change.
>
> This is just standard business, Phil. =A0Nothing new here.
So propose it to USCF as a pre-requisite for whatever position you
think it is applicable. Don't whine to me.
> >EG: which is more important, that you have a relationship with someone
> >in chess, or that you are a convicted felon?
>
> Another reason for considering you a dissembling jackass attempting
Ah! NO answer from Murray. He pretends he is concerned with
standards, which considering his posting record are the things that
some other people should do, not himself nor his favorites.
> cheap tricks of sophism, Phil.
Fucking over kids is not a cheap trick of sophism, Murray. That is a
primary purpose of background checks. You just voted your indifference
to that subject.
But I see you prefer not to answer, and so we are done - meanwhile I
see what you avoid, and such as you avoid, and how you seem to
actually delight in the avoidance of standards elsewhere considered
ordinary in our society.
Your mockery and cheap badinage, making light of serious things exempt
your opinions, Mike Murray, from further consideration of serious
issues among adults. Write to me no more.
Phil Innes
> =A0If the convicted felon has disclosed
> this and has done his time, let the membership decide. =A0Nobody claimed
> the relationship was improper. =A0It was the concealing of it that we
> didn't like.
>
> >Be specific Mike, and share with us your own standards.
>
> For you, Phil, I dole it out a little at a time. =A0It's all you can
> handle.
>
>
>
> >Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 14:09:00
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:29:35 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>> > And since you now resent relationships
>> >among board members,
>> Resent? �Where did I say that?
>You cannot remember what the topic of your own previous paragraph was?
>Clue: You resent non-disclosure of relationships of board members.
Resenting non-disclosure of a relationship is NOT resenting the
relationship. Even you should be able to get a grasp of that concept.
>> Disclosure of *relevant* partnerships or associations which may
>> indicate a conflict of interest is a standard requirement of most
>> boards of directors, corporation executive employment, etc.
>So write to USCF and explain yourself - or tell us what is *relevant*
>in your opinion that someone else should do for you so that this can
>retrospectively be some issue - that your point?
Long ago, I posted to that effect on the USCF forums. Don't you read
them? Oh, you're not a member are you? Maybe you should join and
read the forums -- you'd be (slightly) less likely to post such
ill-informed drivel.
>> See, this is why I (and most others here, I dare say) consider you a
>> dissembling jackass, Phil. �I was referring to business conflicts of
>> interest, not private sexual behavior.
>"Private sexual behavior"? Mike Murray thinks that its not okay to
>disclose if you are married, but if you are not married but engaging
>in 'private sexual behavior' it is okay.
If the private sexual behavior (and, before you start prattling that
I'm in favor if pederasty, let me add "between consenting adults")
involves no business conflict of interest, then the behavior is none
of our concern.
That was pretty obvious from what I said. Phil, you keep up these
cheap tricks that would be old hat in a high school debate. Anybody
dumb enough to fall for them probably shares your opinions already, so
why bother?
>His context is 'business conflicts'.
>If his context was really business contexts then why attack marital
>status of people?
Obviously, in this case, marital status was a potential business
conflict of interest and should have been disclosed in time for the
electorate to evaluate.
>> �And you're not that dumb. �You
>> knew that. �Well, probably.
>You can't talk straight Murray, and this is other people's fault since
>they can't follow you. Then, rather than ever seek to clarify
>something about what they say, or your understanding of it, you are
>hot to call them 'dumb' and so on.
You're not trying to clarify, Phil. You're trotting out cheap
debating tricks that don't work. Doesn't fool anyone. In fact, what
I find offensive is not your direct insults, but that you think these
cheapos might actually work.
>> Why sure, Phil, how's this: �All candidates for the EB or executive
>> office should disclose whether they're married to, �or a close
>> relative of, or have any other relationship which may conflict with
>> independent judgment, other board members or USCF executives. �If this
>> situation changes after election, they should reveal this change.
>> This is just standard business, Phil. �Nothing new here.
>So propose it to USCF as a pre-requisite for whatever position you
>think it is applicable. Don't whine to me.
With a couple of notable exceptions, most people over there seem to
understand this. You seem to be the one needing correction.
>Your mockery and cheap badinage, making light of serious things exempt
>your opinions, Mike Murray, from further consideration of serious
>issues among adults. Write to me no more.
Uhhh, you don't get to set the rules here, Phil. But, of course, if
you wish to yourself refrain from posting, it would be hard for me to
reply.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 12:24:34
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 12:42=A0pm, marknibb <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 12:27=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:08:42 -0800 (PST), marknibb <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Mike, I'm going to suggest - most of what Susan is charged with is not
> > >yet proven, although it =A0doesn't look good. =A0
>
> > IMO, a more accurate way to put this would be something like,
> > "evidence offered in support of the USCF's charges have not yet been
> > accepted by the courts". =A0
>
> > This is not a trivial distinction. =A0
>
> > =A0Most of the decisions we make in business and in life itself have no=
t
> > been directly sustained by courts of law. =A0We make decisions on who t=
o
> > promote, who to hire and fire, where to invest, what schools to send
> > our children, etc., based on our own review of evidence that's out
> > there in the world.
>
> > Until courts have ruled, we have no right to employ the force of the
> > state on behalf of our decisions. =A0But we review, =A0evaluate and mak=
e
> > decisions based upon our own interpretation of evidence all the time.
> > Life would be impossible otherwise.
>
> > I've looked at what's out there and come to my own conclusions,
> > subject to modification if something new turns up. =A0Probably, so have
> > you.
>
> > >Based on what may have
> > >been "stolen", it doesn't all look good for the other side either,
> > >does it? =A0
>
> > I'm not quite sure what you mean here, and I'm not just being
> > sarcastic when I say that. =A0 Do you mean, based on the evidence the
> > USCF claims Polgar, Alexander and 10 John Does stole or something
> > else?
>
> > >How about an assumption that no ones hands are "clean" and
> > >we need to get this settled somehow.
>
> > There's a matter of proportionality and scale. =A0 You seem to imply th=
e
> > fault is equal on both sides. =A0I don't see it that way. =A0To me, it'=
s
> > like somebody chased a hit and run, and the perp tried to excuse
> > himself because the pursuer exceeded the speed limit. =A0Other analogie=
s
> > are possible, I suppose.
>
> > > Please don't attack saying I'm a
> > >Polgar backer or Polgarista - I most certainly am not. =A0I'm point to
> > >what sounds like 20 years of USCF politics that look like what is
> > >taking place now isn't anything new - well not much anyway.- Hide quot=
ed text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Mike, you are correct, =A0that what has been released and which we know
> about does show Ms. Polgar in a bad light. =A0On the other hand (and I
> have not reviewed the contents lately) some of what was posted some
> time ago seemed to indicate at least some "plotting" that lets just
> say might not be appropriate. =A0Also, only what we have read, and not
> witnessed personally seems to indicate that people did mount a
> somewhat coordinated attack on reputation, employment, and future
> opportunities, =A0wouldn't you at least agree with that observation?
>
> The reason I'm not willing to make judgement is that much of this all
> seems to have just flowed from pre election rhetoric into post
> election activity - and most of the role players have remained the
> same. =A0Yes, the USCF may have played the public relations card much
> better than Ms. Polgar, but I don't think we still know most of what
> has gone on, =A0unless of course you are in the "inner circle" of
> communications that seems to exist as evidenced by what some seem to
> know and what the rest of us know.
>
> Anyway, =A0all of this makes some of us just want radical change...
PLease post your responses to [email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 12:31:04
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>PLease post your responses to [email protected]
why?
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 11:43:29
From:
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
Is there some requirement to do so?
Perhaps you do not like the idea, but how come you didn't act before
the fact rather than after it?
> Calls for transparency on the part of one who failed to reveal, until
> it was too late to matter, the key fact that she was married to
> another EB candidate? =A0
Is there some requirement to do so?
Perhaps you do not like the idea, but how come you didn't act before
the fact rather than after it? And since you now resent relationships
among board members, should you not instead of making a plaint here
not be writing to USCF demanding full disclosure of partners? Married
or not, gay or not, since then this would become a standard, if
adopted, rather than post hoc whining partisanship?
When I have suggested transparency issues here - eg background checks,
then people have objected to it on the grounds of privacy. Can Mike
Muray trouble his brain to propose and act upon something which would
apply to all baord members?
EG: which is more important, that you have a relationship with someone
in chess, or that you are a convicted felon?
Be specific Mike, and share with us your own standards.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 12:29:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:43:29 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>Is there some requirement to do so?
>Perhaps you do not like the idea, but how come you didn't act before
>the fact rather than after it?
Ya know, Phil, it's customary to quote something before replying --
context and all, especially when the post to which you are replying is
quite long.
>> Calls for transparency on the part of one who failed to reveal, until
>> it was too late to matter, the key fact that she was married to
>> another EB candidate? �
>Is there some requirement to do so?
Uhh, that would be transparency.
>Perhaps you do not like the idea, but how come you didn't act before
>the fact rather than after it?
You mean, act before I knew about it? That would have been
irresponsible, no?
> And since you now resent relationships
>among board members,
Resent? Where did I say that? I remember complaining about being
informed.
>should you not instead of making a plaint here
>not be writing to USCF demanding full disclosure of partners?
Disclosure of *relevant* partnerships or associations which may
indicate a conflict of interest is a standard requirement of most
boards of directors, corporation executive employment, etc.
Anybody involved in management knows that.
>Married
>or not, gay or not, since then this would become a standard, if
>adopted, rather than post hoc whining partisanship?
See, this is why I (and most others here, I dare say) consider you a
dissembling jackass, Phil. I was referring to business conflicts of
interest, not private sexual behavior. And you're not that dumb. You
knew that. Well, probably.
>When I have suggested transparency issues here - eg background checks,
>then people have objected to it on the grounds of privacy. Can Mike
>Muray trouble his brain to propose and act upon something which would
>apply to all baord members?
Why sure, Phil, how's this: All candidates for the EB or executive
office should disclose whether they're married to, or a close
relative of, or have any other relationship which may conflict with
independent judgment, other board members or USCF executives. If this
situation changes after election, they should reveal this change.
This is just standard business, Phil. Nothing new here.
>EG: which is more important, that you have a relationship with someone
>in chess, or that you are a convicted felon?
Another reason for considering you a dissembling jackass attempting
cheap tricks of sophism, Phil. If the convicted felon has disclosed
this and has done his time, let the membership decide. Nobody claimed
the relationship was improper. It was the concealing of it that we
didn't like.
>Be specific Mike, and share with us your own standards.
For you, Phil, I dole it out a little at a time. It's all you can
handle.
>
>Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 11:36:57
From:
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 12:34=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 12:10=A0pm, marknibb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely, =A0and Susan should drop her lawsuit against the federation
> > and anyone else who has not harmed her. =A0I was most certainly
> > referencing the similarity between Brian's promise of transparency and
> > Susan's call for release of documents which she says show the improper
> > actions of those involved in the USCF current mess. =A0Both are
> > significant calls for transparency. =A0 On this particular topic I woul=
d
> > agree with both Brian and Susan.
>
> Wait a second. That is not what is meant by transparency.
>
> Susan wants all the private emails that board members have exchanged
> with each other, so that she can find out what the other board members
> are saying about her and then sue them for saying whatever it was they
> said
You mean, if they unfairly conspired together, then let the law take
its course?
> She is also demanding in the BINFOS all documents exchanged with
> attorney Karl Kronenberger, the attorney who is suing her.
>
> That is not a call for transparency.
Yes it is - it is exactly a call for transparency in chess
governance.
It is even an acid-test of those who talk about transparency to
support or not. After all, if its the principle of the thing, it is
applicable to all parties, no? If governance at USCF is seen to
conspire to libel, confound and diminish other governance agents -
then is this not exactly why we now wish for such activities to be
visible?
Perhaps Sam Sloan thinks otherwise about the /need/ for transparency
no matter who speaks of whom?
When asked about his own position of back-ground testing, he punted.
He said USCF couldn't afford it, rather than whether this standard of
decency was desirable for those who set policy for young players.
Laughably, USCF spends a hundred thousand dollars on legal fees so far
this FY, but don't spend a nickel on averting the very conditions
occasioning legal action.
Poor management practice?
> Sam Sloan
>
> PS For those of you who do not know, Mark Nibbelin, who posted above,
> is the most devoted, the most rabid and the most angry of the last of
> the devoted Polgaristas and Polgarites.
He must be rabid-dog of the Month [ Jan through - ? ], according to
the Sloan calendar, I seem to have been rabid-dog pin-up boy for June-
November. May he enjoy his celebrity, etc.
Seriously, I note the Sloan becoming alarmed that we all might have an
adult conversation here based on objective standards applicable to
everyone, whether the subject is transparency or any other topic - and
he has resorted as usual to make believe that objective standards are
partisan issues.
How odd! Will he himself run for office under such a banner?
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 10:42:12
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 12:27=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:08:42 -0800 (PST), marknibb <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Mike, I'm going to suggest - most of what Susan is charged with is not
> >yet proven, although it =A0doesn't look good. =A0
>
> IMO, a more accurate way to put this would be something like,
> "evidence offered in support of the USCF's charges have not yet been
> accepted by the courts". =A0
>
> This is not a trivial distinction. =A0
>
> =A0Most of the decisions we make in business and in life itself have not
> been directly sustained by courts of law. =A0We make decisions on who to
> promote, who to hire and fire, where to invest, what schools to send
> our children, etc., based on our own review of evidence that's out
> there in the world.
>
> Until courts have ruled, we have no right to employ the force of the
> state on behalf of our decisions. =A0But we review, =A0evaluate and make
> decisions based upon our own interpretation of evidence all the time.
> Life would be impossible otherwise.
>
> I've looked at what's out there and come to my own conclusions,
> subject to modification if something new turns up. =A0Probably, so have
> you.
>
> >Based on what may have
> >been "stolen", it doesn't all look good for the other side either,
> >does it? =A0
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here, and I'm not just being
> sarcastic when I say that. =A0 Do you mean, based on the evidence the
> USCF claims Polgar, Alexander and 10 John Does stole or something
> else?
>
> >How about an assumption that no ones hands are "clean" and
> >we need to get this settled somehow.
>
> There's a matter of proportionality and scale. =A0 You seem to imply the
> fault is equal on both sides. =A0I don't see it that way. =A0To me, it's
> like somebody chased a hit and run, and the perp tried to excuse
> himself because the pursuer exceeded the speed limit. =A0Other analogies
> are possible, I suppose.
>
>
>
> > Please don't attack saying I'm a
> >Polgar backer or Polgarista - I most certainly am not. =A0I'm point to
> >what sounds like 20 years of USCF politics that look like what is
> >taking place now isn't anything new - well not much anyway.- Hide quoted=
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike, you are correct, that what has been released and which we know
about does show Ms. Polgar in a bad light. On the other hand (and I
have not reviewed the contents lately) some of what was posted some
time ago seemed to indicate at least some "plotting" that lets just
say might not be appropriate. Also, only what we have read, and not
witnessed personally seems to indicate that people did mount a
somewhat coordinated attack on reputation, employment, and future
opportunities, wouldn't you at least agree with that observation?
The reason I'm not willing to make judgement is that much of this all
seems to have just flowed from pre election rhetoric into post
election activity - and most of the role players have remained the
same. Yes, the USCF may have played the public relations card much
better than Ms. Polgar, but I don't think we still know most of what
has gone on, unless of course you are in the "inner circle" of
communications that seems to exist as evidenced by what some seem to
know and what the rest of us know.
Anyway, all of this makes some of us just want radical change...
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 11:20:28
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:42:12 -0800 (PST), marknibb <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Mike, you are correct, that what has been released and which we know
>about does show Ms. Polgar in a bad light. On the other hand (and I
>have not reviewed the contents lately) some of what was posted some
>time ago seemed to indicate at least some "plotting" that lets just
>say might not be appropriate.
The "plotting" was what? Private e-mails or phone calls or talk over
drinks? Did the lack of appropriateness extend to misfeasance or
illegal acts?
>Also, only what we have read, and not
>witnessed personally seems to indicate that people did mount a
>somewhat coordinated attack on reputation, employment, and future
>opportunities, wouldn't you at least agree with that observation?
There's a big difference between things happening in the same time
frame and a coordinated campaign. Nothing I've read indicates formal
coordination. There was much information published; a number of
people became concerned and started discussing it. Polgar claims
people contacted her employer, but the only ones who have admitted
doing this are Sloan (as part of his suit) and Marcus.
>The reason I'm not willing to make judgement is that much of this all
>seems to have just flowed from pre election rhetoric into post
>election activity - and most of the role players have remained the
>same. Yes, the USCF may have played the public relations card much
>better than Ms. Polgar,
Absolutely to the contrary, IMO! Her PR has been far more extensive
than the USCF. She's beat the drum on her blogs and columns and
discussion group. Many of us have complained on the USCF forum about
the lack of information presented in "Chess Life".
>but I don't think we still know most of what
>has gone on, unless of course you are in the "inner circle" of
>communications that seems to exist as evidenced by what some seem to
>know and what the rest of us know.
>Anyway, all of this makes some of us just want radical change...
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 10:10:37
From: WPraeder
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 12:10=A0pm, marknibb <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 11:01=A0am, WPraeder <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:37=A0am, marknibb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 1, 9:46=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > TRANSPARENCY
>
> > > > The spirit of transparency requires that everything that can possib=
ly be
> > > > open to the membership be kept open. I hope this answers your quest=
ions.
> > > > =A0 If not, ask a clarifying question(s) and I will attempt to answ=
er.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > On this issue, =A0it would appear that Mr. Lafferty is running on the
> > > Ms. Polgar slate.
>
> > Mark,
>
> > Note some candidates for the board show their disdain for
> > accountability by making no campaign promises. Others just make claims
> > as a way to get elected believing that the rules which apply to the
> > rest of us do not apply to them. =A0When selecting a candidate to vote
> > for I suggest you look carefully at what they currently are doing,
> > what conflicts of interest exist, their game plan, and what skills
> > they will bring to bear on your behalf. The real issue is not what you
> > have done for chess in the past but what you will do for the USCF
> > membership in the future. All candidates and board members should be
> > held accountable for doing what they say they will as well as their
> > current behavior. No excuses.
>
> > Regards,
> > Wayne Praeder
>
> Absolutely, =A0and Susan should drop her lawsuit against the federation
> and anyone else who has not harmed her. =A0I was most certainly
> referencing the similarity between Brian's promise of transparency and
> Susan's call for release of documents which she says show the improper
> actions of those involved in the USCF current mess. =A0Both are
> significant calls for transparency. =A0 On this particular topic I would
> agree with both Brian and Susan.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark,
Duly noted as we all understand that having similar views does not
make one part of a slate. We can agree that transparency in governance
matters should be equally important as confidentiality for
corresponding legal, bid, and personnel concerns. In my opinion, Mr.
Lafferty=92s views to date have been consistent in this regard. It will
continue to be useful to measure if poor performing Officers are not
reelected; if more outsiders, women, and people of color are elected;
if elections are less predictable; and if more members vote than had
in the past.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://www.betteruscf.org/sunshine.htm
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 10:08:42
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 11:51=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 09:10:05 -0800 (PST), marknibb <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >...Susan should drop her lawsuit against the federation
> >and anyone else who has not harmed her.
>
> To me, the suit seems devoid of actual content and was *designed* to
> be dropped at some point, in return for various concessions. =A0Her
> coterie of hero-worshiping sycophants and toadies trumpet her "offer"
> to drop the suit against the USCF, not mentioning it includes the
> Federation admitting fault (which, gee, would get her off the hook on
> everything else, wouldn't it?).
>
> If the charges (which, in contrast to Polgar's suit, are highly
> specific and backed up by evidence) brought in the Illinois and
> California suits are sustained. Polgar's lawsuit represents but one
> small aspect of her lack of fitness to serve on the EB.
>
> > I was most certainly
> >referencing the similarity between Brian's promise of transparency and
> >Susan's call for release of documents which she says show the improper
> >actions of those involved in the USCF current mess. =A0Both are
> >significant calls for transparency. =A0 On this particular topic I would
> >agree with both Brian and Susan.
>
> Again, assuming the accuracy of the charges brought by the Illinois
> and California suits, Polgar's call for transparency is a joke.
>
> Transparency advocated by one participating in breaking into a private
> e-mail account to obtain and distribute confidential attorney-client
> information? =A0
>
> Transparency on the part of one either involved in or in covering up a
> massive identity theft/slander campaign against other principals in
> USCF governance? =A0
>
> Calls for transparency on the part of one who failed to reveal, until
> it was too late to matter, the key fact that she was married to
> another EB candidate? =A0
>
> Transparency, on the part of one who stood silent while her husband,
> another candidate for the EB, presented himself as a financial
> success, one who would deploy his expertise on the part of the
> Federation, at the very time he was filing his second bankruptcy?
>
> Transparency on the part of one whose discussion group engages in the
> most aggressive pruning of contrary viewpoints, even those presented
> in an even-handed and factual manner?
>
> Seems obvious to me that her calls for "transparency" are just
> diversions, a way to delay the accounting for the improper activities
> in which she and Truong have engaged.
Mike, I'm going to suggest - most of what Susan is charged with is not
yet proven, although it doesn't look good. Based on what may have
been "stolen", it doesn't all look good for the other side either,
does it? How about an assumption that no ones hands are "clean" and
we need to get this settled somehow. Please don't attack saying I'm a
Polgar backer or Polgarista - I most certainly am not. I'm point to
what sounds like 20 years of USCF politics that look like what is
taking place now isn't anything new - well not much anyway.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 18:34:05
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 7:54=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I loathe is back biting and malice composed of a huge amount of self
> > promotion.
>
> I looked up "self-promotion" in the dictionary and found Susan
> Polgar's photo.
I looked it up in an online dictionary and got
a link to the SP Web site; however, it is still
unclear who, exactly, is directly responsible
for that atrocity. Even so, it seems not
unreasonable to hold SP accountable, as it
is her site.
Maybe we should ask the world's foremost
expert on chess and mindsports-- he might
know something about self-promotion.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 16:54:44
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 7:36=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
What
> I loathe is back biting and malice composed of a huge amount of self
> promotion.
I looked up "self-promotion" in the dictionary and found Susan
Polgar's photo.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 16:36:25
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 6:04=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:20:29 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 1, 5:18=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:16:24 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jan 1, 2:31=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >PLease post your responses to [email protected]
> >> >> why?
> >> >It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>
> >> So does this one. =A0Why add one more to the mix??
>
> >one can be moderated to reduce the noise to message level.
>
> To often, they end up like ChessDisscussion, reducing the level of
> critical thought to flattery.
>
> Sorry, Rob. =A0I don't see the need for another forum and think it would
> be counter-productive.
I can understand that Mike. I do not oppose discussion or debate. What
I loathe is back biting and malice composed of a huge amount of self
promotion.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 17:03:13
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:36:25 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>
>> >> >> >PLease post your responses to [email protected]
>> >> >> why?
>> >> >It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>> >> So does this one. �Why add one more to the mix??
>> >one can be moderated to reduce the noise to message level.
>> To often, they end up like ChessDisscussion, reducing the level of
>> critical thought to flattery.
>> Sorry, Rob. �I don't see the need for another forum and think it would
>> be counter-productive.
>I can understand that Mike. I do not oppose discussion or debate. What
>I loathe is back biting and malice composed of a huge amount of self
>promotion.
One man's back-biting is another man's reasoned critique. One man's
self-promotion is another man's information. I really don't trust
anyone to filter information for me, although I wouldn't have much of
a problem with forbidding anonymous posts.
I have a bigger problem with the various forums that require one to
access them with a browser. Using a browser to read a text newsgroup
invites endless instances of clumsy and ugly. Google is great for
searching newsgroups when you know what to look for -- it's really
bad, IMO, for reading them and participating actively. And you get
this crap where people can set their posts to expire, or delete them.
Anyway, adding a group where some people post there some of the time
-- naaa -- it just means you have to look in both places. Spend the
effort crafting well reasoned posts to this forum -- use the kill-file
if some people get on your nerves.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 10:27:22
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:08:42 -0800 (PST), marknibb <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Mike, I'm going to suggest - most of what Susan is charged with is not
>yet proven, although it doesn't look good.
IMO, a more accurate way to put this would be something like,
"evidence offered in support of the USCF's charges have not yet been
accepted by the courts".
This is not a trivial distinction.
Most of the decisions we make in business and in life itself have not
been directly sustained by courts of law. We make decisions on who to
promote, who to hire and fire, where to invest, what schools to send
our children, etc., based on our own review of evidence that's out
there in the world.
Until courts have ruled, we have no right to employ the force of the
state on behalf of our decisions. But we review, evaluate and make
decisions based upon our own interpretation of evidence all the time.
Life would be impossible otherwise.
I've looked at what's out there and come to my own conclusions,
subject to modification if something new turns up. Probably, so have
you.
>Based on what may have
>been "stolen", it doesn't all look good for the other side either,
>does it?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, and I'm not just being
sarcastic when I say that. Do you mean, based on the evidence the
USCF claims Polgar, Alexander and 10 John Does stole or something
else?
>How about an assumption that no ones hands are "clean" and
>we need to get this settled somehow.
There's a matter of proportionality and scale. You seem to imply the
fault is equal on both sides. I don't see it that way. To me, it's
like somebody chased a hit and run, and the perp tried to excuse
himself because the pursuer exceeded the speed limit. Other analogies
are possible, I suppose.
> Please don't attack saying I'm a
>Polgar backer or Polgarista - I most certainly am not. I'm point to
>what sounds like 20 years of USCF politics that look like what is
>taking place now isn't anything new - well not much anyway.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:48:01
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 11:34=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 12:10=A0pm, marknibb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely, =A0and Susan should drop her lawsuit against the federation
> > and anyone else who has not harmed her. =A0I was most certainly
> > referencing the similarity between Brian's promise of transparency and
> > Susan's call for release of documents which she says show the improper
> > actions of those involved in the USCF current mess. =A0Both are
> > significant calls for transparency. =A0 On this particular topic I woul=
d
> > agree with both Brian and Susan.
>
> Wait a second. That is not what is meant by transparency.
>
> Susan wants all the private emails that board members have exchanged
> with each other, so that she can find out what the other board members
> are saying about her and then sue them for saying whatever it was they
> said
>
> She is also demanding in the BINFOS all documents exchanged with
> attorney Karl Kronenberger, the attorney who is suing her.
>
> That is not a call for transparency.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> PS For those of you who do not know, Mark Nibbelin, who posted above,
> is the most devoted, the most rabid and the most angry of the last of
> the devoted Polgaristas and Polgarites.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam, it should be absolutely clear to you that I have stopped
supporting Ms. Polgar when she sued the federation. So, quit calling
me the most rabid and most angry of the last of the devoted
Polgaristas and Polgarites. And yes, it would be transparency to have
the emails attacking another EB member released so that we could all
see if what is charged is true. I suggested long ago when the charge
was first made, to possibly select an "independent" committee to
review the documents and release only those which supported the charge
of attacking her. I still believe that would be a workable solution -
of course the EB would be free to release any of the documents.
BTW.... yes I am angry that USCF politics is destoying the
organization. When will we ever get it right.
Also BTW..... I don't know you personally - but when you ran for the
last election, what I was able to gather of your potential as a USCF
board member from the internet and other sources made it clear you
were not qualified to lead the organization. That does not mean you
are not qualified to serve the organiztion.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:34:01
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 12:10=A0pm, marknibb <[email protected] > wrote:
> Absolutely, =A0and Susan should drop her lawsuit against the federation
> and anyone else who has not harmed her. =A0I was most certainly
> referencing the similarity between Brian's promise of transparency and
> Susan's call for release of documents which she says show the improper
> actions of those involved in the USCF current mess. =A0Both are
> significant calls for transparency. =A0 On this particular topic I would
> agree with both Brian and Susan.
Wait a second. That is not what is meant by transparency.
Susan wants all the private emails that board members have exchanged
with each other, so that she can find out what the other board members
are saying about her and then sue them for saying whatever it was they
said
She is also demanding in the BINFOS all documents exchanged with
attorney Karl Kronenberger, the attorney who is suing her.
That is not a call for transparency.
Sam Sloan
PS For those of you who do not know, Mark Nibbelin, who posted above,
is the most devoted, the most rabid and the most angry of the last of
the devoted Polgaristas and Polgarites.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:28:21
From:
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 12:10=A0pm, marknibb <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 11:01=A0am, WPraeder <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:37=A0am, marknibb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 1, 9:46=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > TRANSPARENCY
>
> > > > The spirit of transparency requires that everything that can possib=
ly be
> > > > open to the membership be kept open. I hope this answers your quest=
ions.
> > > > =A0 If not, ask a clarifying question(s) and I will attempt to answ=
er.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > On this issue, =A0it would appear that Mr. Lafferty is running on the
> > > Ms. Polgar slate.
>
> > Mark,
>
> > Note some candidates for the board show their disdain for
> > accountability by making no campaign promises. Others just make claims
> > as a way to get elected believing that the rules which apply to the
> > rest of us do not apply to them. =A0When selecting a candidate to vote
> > for I suggest you look carefully at what they currently are doing,
> > what conflicts of interest exist, their game plan, and what skills
> > they will bring to bear on your behalf. The real issue is not what you
> > have done for chess in the past but what you will do for the USCF
> > membership in the future. All candidates and board members should be
> > held accountable for doing what they say they will as well as their
> > current behavior. No excuses.
>
> > Regards,
> > Wayne Praeder
>
> Absolutely, =A0and Susan should drop her lawsuit against the federation
> and anyone else who has not harmed her. =A0I was most certainly
> referencing the similarity between Brian's promise of transparency and
> Susan's call for release of documents which she says show the improper
> actions of those involved in the USCF current mess. =A0Both are
> significant calls for transparency. =A0 On this particular topic I would
> agree with both Brian and Susan.
I too agree with both Mark and Wayne in respect of Susan and Brian's
stance. Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:10:05
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 11:01=A0am, WPraeder <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 11:37=A0am, marknibb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 9:46=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > TRANSPARENCY
>
> > > The spirit of transparency requires that everything that can possibly=
be
> > > open to the membership be kept open. I hope this answers your questio=
ns.
> > > =A0 If not, ask a clarifying question(s) and I will attempt to answer=
.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > On this issue, =A0it would appear that Mr. Lafferty is running on the
> > Ms. Polgar slate.
>
> Mark,
>
> Note some candidates for the board show their disdain for
> accountability by making no campaign promises. Others just make claims
> as a way to get elected believing that the rules which apply to the
> rest of us do not apply to them. =A0When selecting a candidate to vote
> for I suggest you look carefully at what they currently are doing,
> what conflicts of interest exist, their game plan, and what skills
> they will bring to bear on your behalf. The real issue is not what you
> have done for chess in the past but what you will do for the USCF
> membership in the future. All candidates and board members should be
> held accountable for doing what they say they will as well as their
> current behavior. No excuses.
>
> Regards,
> Wayne Praeder
Absolutely, and Susan should drop her lawsuit against the federation
and anyone else who has not harmed her. I was most certainly
referencing the similarity between Brian's promise of transparency and
Susan's call for release of documents which she says show the improper
actions of those involved in the USCF current mess. Both are
significant calls for transparency. On this particular topic I would
agree with both Brian and Susan.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:20:29
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 5:18=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:16:24 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 1, 2:31=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >PLease post your responses to [email protected]
> >> why?
> >It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>
> So does this one. =A0Why add one more to the mix??
one can be moderated to reduce the noise to message level.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 16:04:45
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:20:29 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 5:18�pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:16:24 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 1, 2:31�pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >PLease post your responses to [email protected]
>> >> why?
>> >It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>>
>> So does this one. �Why add one more to the mix??
>
>one can be moderated to reduce the noise to message level.
To often, they end up like ChessDisscussion, reducing the level of
critical thought to flattery.
Sorry, Rob. I don't see the need for another forum and think it would
be counter-productive.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:51:18
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 09:10:05 -0800 (PST), marknibb <[email protected] >
wrote:
>...Susan should drop her lawsuit against the federation
>and anyone else who has not harmed her.
To me, the suit seems devoid of actual content and was *designed* to
be dropped at some point, in return for various concessions. Her
coterie of hero-worshiping sycophants and toadies trumpet her "offer"
to drop the suit against the USCF, not mentioning it includes the
Federation admitting fault (which, gee, would get her off the hook on
everything else, wouldn't it?).
If the charges (which, in contrast to Polgar's suit, are highly
specific and backed up by evidence) brought in the Illinois and
California suits are sustained. Polgar's lawsuit represents but one
small aspect of her lack of fitness to serve on the EB.
> I was most certainly
>referencing the similarity between Brian's promise of transparency and
>Susan's call for release of documents which she says show the improper
>actions of those involved in the USCF current mess. Both are
>significant calls for transparency. On this particular topic I would
>agree with both Brian and Susan.
Again, assuming the accuracy of the charges brought by the Illinois
and California suits, Polgar's call for transparency is a joke.
Transparency advocated by one participating in breaking into a private
e-mail account to obtain and distribute confidential attorney-client
information?
Transparency on the part of one either involved in or in covering up a
massive identity theft/slander campaign against other principals in
USCF governance?
Calls for transparency on the part of one who failed to reveal, until
it was too late to matter, the key fact that she was married to
another EB candidate?
Transparency, on the part of one who stood silent while her husband,
another candidate for the EB, presented himself as a financial
success, one who would deploy his expertise on the part of the
Federation, at the very time he was filing his second bankruptcy?
Transparency on the part of one whose discussion group engages in the
most aggressive pruning of contrary viewpoints, even those presented
in an even-handed and factual manner?
Seems obvious to me that her calls for "transparency" are just
diversions, a way to delay the accounting for the improper activities
in which she and Truong have engaged.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:01:55
From: WPraeder
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 11:37=A0am, marknibb <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:46=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > TRANSPARENCY
>
> > The spirit of transparency requires that everything that can possibly b=
e
> > open to the membership be kept open. I hope this answers your questions=
.
> > =A0 If not, ask a clarifying question(s) and I will attempt to answer.-=
Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> On this issue, =A0it would appear that Mr. Lafferty is running on the
> Ms. Polgar slate.
Mark,
Note some candidates for the board show their disdain for
accountability by making no campaign promises. Others just make claims
as a way to get elected believing that the rules which apply to the
rest of us do not apply to them. When selecting a candidate to vote
for I suggest you look carefully at what they currently are doing,
what conflicts of interest exist, their game plan, and what skills
they will bring to bear on your behalf. The real issue is not what you
have done for chess in the past but what you will do for the USCF
membership in the future. All candidates and board members should be
held accountable for doing what they say they will as well as their
current behavior. No excuses.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 04:16:30
From:
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 2, 1:09=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 12:06=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ah,
> > but the bot/moderator of this group is the Gandhi-bot variety. Very
> > selfless and of high moral character. It does have one motive..freedom
> > from Imperial Britain. But then again, it's is not the "perfect" HAL
> > 9000" bot variety
>
> =A0 Hmm... you must be talking about some
> other forum-- not anything controlled by the
> evil minions at the USCF.
>
> =A0 I just remembered that Dr. IMnes, although
> frequently bashing folks in his usual, negative
> way for "not playing chess", has *himself*
> claimed that he has played me! =A0 Now, I don't
> recall playing him, but then, he may have
> been playing under one of those fake names
> -- you know how delicate some people are
> when it comes to losing at chess.
O dear - for the new year we got lie-bot. What attention queens some
people are!
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 22:20:00
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 2, 12:09=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 12:06=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ah,
> > but the bot/moderator of this group is the Gandhi-bot variety. Very
> > selfless and of high moral character. It does have one motive..freedom
> > from Imperial Britain. But then again, it's is not the "perfect" HAL
> > 9000" bot variety
>
> =A0 Hmm... you must be talking about some
> other forum-- not anything controlled by the
> evil minions at the USCF.
>
> =A0 I just remembered that Dr. IMnes, although
> frequently bashing folks in his usual, negative
> way for "not playing chess", has *himself*
> claimed that he has played me! =A0 Now, I don't
> recall playing him, but then, he may have
> been playing under one of those fake names
> -- you know how delicate some people are
> when it comes to losing at chess.
>
> =A0 This game was allegedly played on the
> GetClub server, so there might even be a
> record of the moves-- who knows? =A0 All he
> would have to do is own up to his alter ego--
> his fake identity or whatever you want to
> call it. =A0 However, that would mean owning
> up to playing anonymously, as well as
> admitting he lost (his claim, not mine).
>
> =A0 Just some friendly advice: if you want to
> have fun, then by all means, play your
> heart out. =A0 But if you truly wish to improve,
> you must focus more on the study of good
> chess, such as by reading Mr. Alekhine's
> Best Games of Chess tome or one of
> those "...Explained, Move by Move" books.
>
> =A0 I used to play /a lot/, but unless my
> opponents were much better than I was,
> this merely gave me practice at playing
> poorly. =A0Once I began to play the stronger
> players in the club, I also began to learn
> what I was doing wrong, and eventually, I
> made it tougher for them to thump me. =A0 A
> bit tougher... a little bit tougher... and then,
> one day I woke up and I was getting the
> occasional draw, or even a win if they still
> took me as lightly as before.
>
> =A0 You're lucky you are still young. =A0Old farts
> like Larry Parr, Sam Sloan and Dr. IMnes
> are, well... let's just say you can't teach an
> old dog new tricks.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
LOL
Well, I have slowed down my games quite a bit. I try not to engage in
more than 10 at a time now. ANd I try plaing with something other than
black too.
You are right, playing with the use of books does improve ones paly if
you take the time to learn. Years ago in high school I loved my old
Reinfeld books. They were just deep enough for beginners. But they
gave me no help with understanding the 1972 championship games at
all.lol
Maybe someday you will feel generous and will allow me to scratch off
a few moves with you over the board.
Make sure you oil all your squeeky part.. can't let you rust.
Mitch bot
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 22:09:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 2, 12:06=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ah,
> but the bot/moderator of this group is the Gandhi-bot variety. Very
> selfless and of high moral character. It does have one motive..freedom
> from Imperial Britain. But then again, it's is not the "perfect" HAL
> 9000" bot variety
Hmm... you must be talking about some
other forum-- not anything controlled by the
evil minions at the USCF.
I just remembered that Dr. IMnes, although
frequently bashing folks in his usual, negative
way for "not playing chess", has *himself*
claimed that he has played me! Now, I don't
recall playing him, but then, he may have
been playing under one of those fake names
-- you know how delicate some people are
when it comes to losing at chess.
This game was allegedly played on the
GetClub server, so there might even be a
record of the moves-- who knows? All he
would have to do is own up to his alter ego--
his fake identity or whatever you want to
call it. However, that would mean owning
up to playing anonymously, as well as
admitting he lost (his claim, not mine).
Just some friendly advice: if you want to
have fun, then by all means, play your
heart out. But if you truly wish to improve,
you must focus more on the study of good
chess, such as by reading Mr. Alekhine's
Best Games of Chess tome or one of
those "...Explained, Move by Move" books.
I used to play /a lot/, but unless my
opponents were much better than I was,
this merely gave me practice at playing
poorly. Once I began to play the stronger
players in the club, I also began to learn
what I was doing wrong, and eventually, I
made it tougher for them to thump me. A
bit tougher... a little bit tougher... and then,
one day I woke up and I was getting the
occasional draw, or even a win if they still
took me as lightly as before.
You're lucky you are still young. Old farts
like Larry Parr, Sam Sloan and Dr. IMnes
are, well... let's just say you can't teach an
old dog new tricks.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 21:06:53
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 8:26=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:27=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > No. That is incorrect. That site was not set up by anyone currently of
> > formerly on the board of the USCF. Just as your blog distribute
> > information you wish to have out there without comment; this groups
> > allows for comment and discussion BUT makes sure comments are on topic
> > and kept professional.- Hide quoted text -
>
> =A0 Mr. Mitchell, I personally have known
> Professional bot for many years, and he
> does not now, nor has he ever worked for
> the USCF, in any capacity.
>
> =A0 What they seem to do on those forums
> is generally known as "censorship". =A0 Now,
> there may be some cases where censorship
> overlaps with professionalization, but rest
> assured, these are few and far between. =A0It's
> the people-- they are *appointed*, and not
> on the sole basis of merit. =A0 Some of those
> folks doing the appointing have an agenda,
> shall I say; not unlike that little guy in the
> movie, The Spy Who Shagged Me; these
> are evil, sinister men, who are out to
> control the world. =A0Okay, maybe that last
> part was over the top.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Ah,
but the bot/moderator of this group is the Gandhi-bot variety. Very
selfless and of high moral character. It does have one motive..freedom
from Imperial Britain. But then again, it's is not the "perfect" HAL
9000" bot variety.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 18:26:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 6:27=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> No. That is incorrect. That site was not set up by anyone currently of
> formerly on the board of the USCF. Just as your blog distribute
> information you wish to have out there without comment; this groups
> allows for comment and discussion BUT makes sure comments are on topic
> and kept professional.- Hide quoted text -
Mr. Mitchell, I personally have known
Professional bot for many years, and he
does not now, nor has he ever worked for
the USCF, in any capacity.
What they seem to do on those forums
is generally known as "censorship". Now,
there may be some cases where censorship
overlaps with professionalization, but rest
assured, these are few and far between. It's
the people-- they are *appointed*, and not
on the sole basis of merit. Some of those
folks doing the appointing have an agenda,
shall I say; not unlike that little guy in the
movie, The Spy Who Shagged Me; these
are evil, sinister men, who are out to
control the world. Okay, maybe that last
part was over the top.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 16:39:09
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 5:41=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:22=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Rob wrote:
> > > On Jan 1, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> PLease post your responses to [email protected]
> > >> why?
>
> > > It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>
> > This is an appropriate forum where there are no issues of censorship
> > affecting discourse. =A0The site you link to above is a site set up by
> > board members involved in litigation with the USCF and several
> > candidates. =A0
I undrestand your feelings. I disagree, but I do understand your
prejudices.
> That in itself makes the above site, IMO, inappropriate to
>
> > use as a medium for discussion of USCF election issues. It is my
> > position that democracy functions best in an unfettered, open
> > environment. =A0That's what we have here at rgcp.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 16:35:03
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 6:17=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 6:22 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Rob wrote:
> >>> On Jan 1, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> PLease post your responses to [email protected]
> >>>> why?
> >>> It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
> >> This is an appropriate forum where there are no issues of censorship
> >> affecting discourse. =A0The site you link to above is a site set up by
> >> board members involved in litigation with the USCF and several
> >> candidates. =A0
>
> > It's also run by a fellow from Nashville who has worked with the
> > Trolgars.
>
> > That in itself makes the above site, IMO, inappropriate to
> >> use as a medium for discussion of USCF election issues. It is my
> >> position that democracy functions best in an unfettered, open
> >> environment. =A0That's what we have here at rgcp.
>
> =A0From the header to the web page:
> US Chess Discussion
> Welcome! This blog has no connection with the USCF. It's a blog where I
> provide chess fans with general information about US Chess as well as
> the USCF. It's also a site where everyone can productively discuss or
> ask questions about various USCF issues! Your contributions and comments
> are welcome! PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL & RESPECT OTHERS! Enjoy! All posts
> that do not meet this guideline will be deleted -- WIN WITH GRACE, LOSE
> WITH DIGNITY!(TM) --- 2006 Susan Polgar=A9
This has nothing to do with USCF Chess at Google groups
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 00:51:22
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
Rob wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:17 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The Historian wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 6:22 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Rob wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 1, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> PLease post your responses to [email protected]
>>>>>> why?
>>>>> It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>>>> This is an appropriate forum where there are no issues of censorship
>>>> affecting discourse. The site you link to above is a site set up by
>>>> board members involved in litigation with the USCF and several
>>>> candidates.
>>> It's also run by a fellow from Nashville who has worked with the
>>> Trolgars.
>>> That in itself makes the above site, IMO, inappropriate to
>>>> use as a medium for discussion of USCF election issues. It is my
>>>> position that democracy functions best in an unfettered, open
>>>> environment. That's what we have here at rgcp.
>> From the header to the web page:
>> US Chess Discussion
>> Welcome! This blog has no connection with the USCF. It's a blog where I
>> provide chess fans with general information about US Chess as well as
>> the USCF. It's also a site where everyone can productively discuss or
>> ask questions about various USCF issues! Your contributions and comments
>> are welcome! PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL & RESPECT OTHERS! Enjoy! All posts
>> that do not meet this guideline will be deleted -- WIN WITH GRACE, LOSE
>> WITH DIGNITY!(TM) --- 2006 Susan Polgar�
>
> This has nothing to do with USCF Chess at Google groups
My error. I'll state my positions here and on my blog.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 16:34:13
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 6:07=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:41=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 6:22=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Rob wrote:
> > > > On Jan 1, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> > > >> wrote:
>
> > > >>> PLease post your responses to [email protected]
> > > >> why?
>
> > > > It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>
> > > This is an appropriate forum where there are no issues of censorship
> > > affecting discourse. =A0The site you link to above is a site set up b=
y
> > > board members involved in litigation with the USCF and several
> > > candidates. =A0
>
> > It's also run by a fellow from Nashville who has worked with the
> > Trolgars.
>
> > That in itself makes the above site, IMO, inappropriate to
>
> > > use as a medium for discussion of USCF election issues. It is my
> > > position that democracy functions best in an unfettered, open
> > > environment. =A0That's what we have here at rgcp.
>
> The website and email group [email protected] was set up by
> Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell as an imitation of my own email group fide-
> [email protected]
>
> It is a clear imitation. For example, I have a picture of Kirsan
> Ilyumzhinov on my home page and he also has a picture of Kirsan
> Ilyumzhinov on his home page.
This is wrong and is a clear lie. USCF Chess has been operational
since 2004. Mr Sloan has been a member of this group since 2004. There
are no photos on this site of Kirsan. I request an immediate
retraction of this obvious lie.
> He made me a member although I never asked to join. He is constantly
> begging people to join his group. Last time I looked it had only ten
> members and no activity.
You subscribed in dec. 2004.
I never begged you to join this group.
> I advise you not to post there because if you do people will think
> that Rob the Robber endorses your candidacy which will not be good for
> you.
If you do exactly the opposite of Sloan you would have better luck.
> Sam Sloan
This is wrong and is a clear lie. USCF Chess has been operational
since 2004. Mr Sloan has been a member of this group since 2004. There
are no photos on this site of Kirsan. I request an immediate
retraction of this obvious lie.
This site does contain the full and un abridged position papers of Mr.
Sloan.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 16:07:18
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 6:41=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:22=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Rob wrote:
> > > On Jan 1, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> PLease post your responses to [email protected]
> > >> why?
>
> > > It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>
> > This is an appropriate forum where there are no issues of censorship
> > affecting discourse. =A0The site you link to above is a site set up by
> > board members involved in litigation with the USCF and several
> > candidates. =A0
>
> It's also run by a fellow from Nashville who has worked with the
> Trolgars.
>
> That in itself makes the above site, IMO, inappropriate to
>
> > use as a medium for discussion of USCF election issues. It is my
> > position that democracy functions best in an unfettered, open
> > environment. =A0That's what we have here at rgcp.
The website and email group [email protected] was set up by
Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell as an imitation of my own email group fide-
[email protected]
It is a clear imitation. For example, I have a picture of Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov on my home page and he also has a picture of Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov on his home page.
He made me a member although I never asked to join. He is constantly
begging people to join his group. Last time I looked it had only ten
members and no activity.
I advise you not to post there because if you do people will think
that Rob the Robber endorses your candidacy which will not be good for
you.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:41:15
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 6:22=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> PLease post your responses to [email protected]
> >> why?
>
> > It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>
> This is an appropriate forum where there are no issues of censorship
> affecting discourse. =A0The site you link to above is a site set up by
> board members involved in litigation with the USCF and several
> candidates. =A0
It's also run by a fellow from Nashville who has worked with the
Trolgars.
That in itself makes the above site, IMO, inappropriate to
> use as a medium for discussion of USCF election issues. It is my
> position that democracy functions best in an unfettered, open
> environment. =A0That's what we have here at rgcp.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 00:17:12
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:22 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> PLease post your responses to [email protected]
>>>> why?
>>> It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>> This is an appropriate forum where there are no issues of censorship
>> affecting discourse. The site you link to above is a site set up by
>> board members involved in litigation with the USCF and several
>> candidates.
>
> It's also run by a fellow from Nashville who has worked with the
> Trolgars.
>
> That in itself makes the above site, IMO, inappropriate to
>> use as a medium for discussion of USCF election issues. It is my
>> position that democracy functions best in an unfettered, open
>> environment. That's what we have here at rgcp.
>
From the header to the web page:
US Chess Discussion
Welcome! This blog has no connection with the USCF. It's a blog where I
provide chess fans with general information about US Chess as well as
the USCF. It's also a site where everyone can productively discuss or
ask questions about various USCF issues! Your contributions and comments
are welcome! PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL & RESPECT OTHERS! Enjoy! All posts
that do not meet this guideline will be deleted -- WIN WITH GRACE, LOSE
WITH DIGNITY!(TM) --- 2006 Susan Polgar�
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:27:55
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 5:22=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> PLease post your responses to [email protected]
> >> why?
>
> > It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>
> This is an appropriate forum where there are no issues of censorship
> affecting discourse. =A0The site you link to above is a site set up by
> board members involved in litigation with the USCF and several
> candidates. =A0That in itself makes the above site, IMO, inappropriate to
> use as a medium for discussion of USCF election issues. It is my
> position that democracy functions best in an unfettered, open
> environment. =A0That's what we have here at rgcp.
No. That is incorrect. That site was not set up by anyone currently of
formerly on the board of the USCF. Just as your blog distribute
information you wish to have out there without comment; this groups
allows for comment and discussion BUT makes sure comments are on topic
and kept professional.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 00:19:40
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
Rob wrote:
> On Jan 1, 5:22 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> PLease post your responses to [email protected]
>>>> why?
>>> It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
>> This is an appropriate forum where there are no issues of censorship
>> affecting discourse. The site you link to above is a site set up by
>> board members involved in litigation with the USCF and several
>> candidates. That in itself makes the above site, IMO, inappropriate to
>> use as a medium for discussion of USCF election issues. It is my
>> position that democracy functions best in an unfettered, open
>> environment. That's what we have here at rgcp.
>
> No. That is incorrect. That site was not set up by anyone currently of
> formerly on the board of the USCF. Just as your blog distribute
> information you wish to have out there without comment; this groups
> allows for comment and discussion BUT makes sure comments are on topic
> and kept professional.
From the header of that site:
US Chess Discussion
Welcome! This blog has no connection with the USCF. It's a blog where I
provide chess fans with general information about US Chess as well as
the USCF. It's also a site where everyone can productively discuss or
ask questions about various USCF issues! Your contributions and comments
are welcome! PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL & RESPECT OTHERS! Enjoy! All posts
that do not meet this guideline will be deleted -- WIN WITH GRACE, LOSE
WITH DIGNITY!(TM) --- 2006 Susan Polgar�
*******************************************
My position(s) will be clearly stated as my positions on my blog.
Anyone posting here will do so with no possibility of moderation, aka
censorship. That's how it will be for me. What other candidates do is
their business.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:16:24
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 2:31=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >PLease post your responses to [email protected]
>
> why?
It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 23:22:59
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
Rob wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2:31 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> PLease post your responses to [email protected]
>> why?
>
> It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
This is an appropriate forum where there are no issues of censorship
affecting discourse. The site you link to above is a site set up by
board members involved in litigation with the USCF and several
candidates. That in itself makes the above site, IMO, inappropriate to
use as a medium for discussion of USCF election issues. It is my
position that democracy functions best in an unfettered, open
environment. That's what we have here at rgcp.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:18:55
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:16:24 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 2:31�pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:24:34 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >PLease post your responses to [email protected]
>> why?
>It's an appropriate forum as it deals with USCF issues
So does this one. Why add one more to the mix??
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 08:48:24
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 11:37=A0am, marknibb <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:46=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > TRANSPARENCY
>
> > The spirit of transparency requires that everything that can possibly b=
e
> > open to the membership be kept open. I hope this answers your questions=
.
> > =A0 If not, ask a clarifying question(s) and I will attempt to answer.-=
Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> On this issue, =A0it would appear that Mr. Lafferty is running on the
> Ms. Polgar slate.
A good point and very funny.
Go back and take a look at her campaign statements and at what she
said that she was going to do if elected when she ran for the board.
Now, look at what she has actually done.
She has not done a single one of the things that she said that she was
going to do.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 08:37:06
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 9:46=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > TRANSPARENCY
>
>
> The spirit of transparency requires that everything that can possibly be
> open to the membership be kept open. I hope this answers your questions.
> =A0 If not, ask a clarifying question(s) and I will attempt to answer.- H=
ide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
On this issue, it would appear that Mr. Lafferty is running on the
Ms. Polgar slate.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 16:03:02
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 2:20 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> Polgar claims
> people contacted her employer, but the only ones who have admitted
> doing this are Sloan (as part of his suit) and Marcus.
When did I admit this$B!)(B
I have never contacted Texas Tech, for any reason.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 16:06:44
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:03:02 -0800 (PST), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jan 1, 2:20 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Polgar claims
>> people contacted her employer, but the only ones who have admitted
>> doing this are Sloan (as part of his suit) and Marcus.
>
>When did I admit this?
>
>I have never contacted Texas Tech, for any reason.
>
>Sam Sloan
Sorry, Sam. Evidently my memory failed me. Consider my statement
retracted.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:05:16
From:
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 5:09=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:29:35 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >> > And since you now resent relationships
> >> >among board members,
> >> Resent? =A0Where did I say that?
> >You cannot remember what the topic of your own previous paragraph was?
> >Clue: You resent non-disclosure of relationships of board members.
>
> Resenting non-disclosure of a relationship is NOT resenting the
> relationship. =A0Even you should be able to get a grasp of that concept.
You raise a strawman in order to argue against it? What an inventor is
Mike Murray. Murray is such a character as does not need addressing
personally, sine this is the level of his aversion to truth.
> >> Disclosure of *relevant* partnerships or associations which may
> >> indicate a conflict of interest is a standard requirement of most
> >> boards of directors, corporation executive employment, etc.
> >So write to USCF and explain yourself - or tell us what is *relevant*
> >in your opinion that someone else should do for you so that this can
> >retrospectively be some issue - that your point?
>
> Long ago, I posted to that effect on the USCF forums. =A0Don't you read
> them? =A0Oh, you're not a member are you? =A0Maybe you should join and
> read the forums -- you'd be (slightly) less likely to post such
> ill-informed drivel.
I have no idea what Murray is on about here - I say represent your
oipinions to the board, and he says I am not a currengt member, as if
that was an answer, instead of more whining about what he once did in
a forum. ROFL
> >> See, this is why I (and most others here, I dare say) consider you a
> >> dissembling jackass, Phil. =A0I was referring to business conflicts of
> >> interest, not private sexual behavior.
> >"Private sexual behavior"? Mike Murray thinks that its not okay to
> >disclose if you are married, but if you are not married but engaging
> >in 'private sexual behavior' it is okay.
>
> If the private sexual behavior (and, before you start prattling that
> I'm in favor if pederasty, let me add "between consenting adults")
> involves no business conflict of interest, then the behavior is none
> of our concern.
Privacy does not extend to marriage says Murray.
> That was pretty obvious from what I said. =A0Phil, you keep up these
> cheap tricks that would be old hat in a high school debate. =A0Anybody
> dumb enough to fall for them probably shares your opinions already, so
> why bother?
Murray asks why people should bother to engage him at all, since he
writes the same shit to anyone not opining as he does. Other people
therefore are not engageable in frank conversation
Yet I notice that Murray has no other correspondent s whatever - can
this be connected with the FACT that he formally rubbished all others
in his partisan treatment of the current law-suits. I think so.
I think Mike Murray is a believer. Whatever he believes is not
negotiable, neither has he indicated the slihghtest tolerance of other
opinions, nor been able to engage even one contrary opinion without
trashing it.
That is how 'reasonable' Mike Murray is.
In short, a fanatical partisan, and true beleiver, etc. A
fundamentalist, lacking the character or wit to carry any but similar
orientation to his own.
This has been a typical pattern here since the onset. Even though I
say his opinions are literally unengeagable, he still wants, needs, to
fight me, since without real or invented opponents his opinion would
literally not exist.
I did not offer to engage this dishonesty conversationalist further -
I only state why any conversation with persons of such stripe are
useless - they ask you to present something, never stating the basis
of their own determination, nor what would result from actual
resolutiom opfr the issues they themselves raise.
They are net trolls, and this is typical of a type, doesn't matter
what newsgroup nor topic.
They always want to subvert any topic, and always are faint in courage
in stating their own peace.
Its sad, given our opportunity here to only engage such indifferent
and pale souls. I do not continue to do so with them, since it is only
what I say, or others do, that give them any appearance of life at
all.
In truth, they are like the south Bronx, neither living nor dead.
Phil Innes
> >His context is 'business conflicts'.
> >If his context was really business contexts then why attack marital
> >status of people?
>
> Obviously, in this case, marital status was a potential business
> conflict of interest and should have been disclosed in time for the
> electorate to evaluate.
>
> >> =A0And you're not that dumb. =A0You
> >> knew that. =A0Well, probably.
> >You can't talk straight Murray, and this is other people's fault since
> >they can't follow you. Then, rather than ever seek to clarify
> >something about what they say, or your understanding of it, you are
> >hot to call them 'dumb' and so on.
>
> You're not trying to clarify, Phil. =A0You're trotting out cheap
> debating tricks that don't work. =A0Doesn't fool anyone. =A0In fact, what
> I find offensive is not your direct insults, but that you think these
> cheapos might actually work.
>
> >> Why sure, Phil, how's this: =A0All candidates for the EB or executive
> >> office should disclose whether they're married to, =A0or a close
> >> relative of, or have any other relationship which may conflict with
> >> independent judgment, other board members or USCF executives. =A0If th=
is
> >> situation changes after election, they should reveal this change.
> >> This is just standard business, Phil. =A0Nothing new here.
> >So propose it to USCF as a pre-requisite for whatever position you
> >think it is applicable. Don't whine to me.
>
> With a couple of notable exceptions, most people over there seem to
> understand this. =A0You seem to be the one needing correction.
>
> >Your mockery and cheap badinage, making light of serious things exempt
> >your opinions, Mike Murray, from further consideration of serious
> >issues among adults. Write to me no more.
>
> Uhhh, you don't get to set the rules here, Phil. =A0But, of course, if
> you wish to yourself refrain from posting, it would be hard for me to
> reply.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:17:02
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:05:16 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>On Jan 1, 5:09�pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Mike Murray thinks that its not okay to
>> >disclose if you are married, but if you are not married but engaging
>> >in 'private sexual behavior' it is okay.
>> If the private sexual behavior (and, before you start prattling that
>> I'm in favor if pederasty, let me add "between consenting adults")
>> involves no business conflict of interest, then the behavior is none
>> of our concern.
>Privacy does not extend to marriage says Murray.
Marriage is a legal contract, one which constrains certain legal
actions on the part of the partners, and it has direct relevance to
one's ability to perform one's fiduciary responsibilities..
Before you continue to parade your business ignorance before the
world, Phil, ask any attorney about this. Ask somebody from a
corporate HR department. This has been discussed more than once in
this very forum.
Most companies require disclosure if you work in the same department,
to say nothing of on the board of directors.
The rest of your rant is typical of your behavior when you've been
bested, and merits no response.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:46:48
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
[email protected] wrote:
> TRANSPARENCY
>
> Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. That's easy
> to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
> the old boy network.
>
> Mr. Lafferty: the devil is in the details. What will be told
> the membership and what will be withheld?
>
> About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
> passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
> be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
> employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
> keeping bids sealed or private until opened.
>
> What does that tell all of us?
>
> Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
> Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
> that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
> from the membership.
>
> Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
> headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
> on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
> funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
> representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
> opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
> conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
> of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
> including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
> Polgar.)
>
> Do you REALLY mean transparency? Are you prepared to release
> all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
> info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
> date? Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
> you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
> the standard established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
> every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?
>
> Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
> mandates -- in our Federation? Once again, specifics. ADM-64 calls
> for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
> meeting. They never do so. Should they now be fired immediately for
> failing to have done so?
>
> If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
> though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
> why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
> law within the Federation? Why, sir?
>
> Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
> the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
> publicly demand his immediate firing. If not, why not? And if you
> tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
> rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?
>
> If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
> real questions.
>
> Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
> longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
> believes in transparency. Prove me wrong, and I will support you. As
> for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
> Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
> higher authority than the PB or the EB. What say you about him? Will
> you call for the firing of our FIDE team?
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
Transparency. I abhor closed meetings. There are some personnel
matters that must be considered in closed meetings as any human resource
professional knows. Financial matters should be an open book to the
membership. They should be discussed in open meetings of the board.
Financial records of the corporation should be readily and regularly
made available to the membership.
Litigation matters may not be appropriate for open meetings, at least
not initially, where privileged matters with counsel and/or legal
strategy is being discussed. In all closed meetings, detailed minutes
must be kept and made available to the membership as soon a practicable.
I am very much interested in looking at the status of the USCF building
as part of a financial appraisal of the organization's current situation.
Delegate resolutions are binding on the board within the bounds of law
and by laws. That means that they must be followed unless there is a
reason at law (eg. illegality) or completely changed circumstances that
make it proper for the EB to do otherwise with a complete, open
explanation to the membership on the record (in the BINFO). The FIDE
team should and must do as directed by the EB and delegate resolutions
or face action, including removal if necessary. As to immediately firing
them, I can't and won't express an opinion on that now. I would want to
hear all sides on a specific issue, as in our FIDE representative's
action or inaction. If the matter is correctable and overall not
removing a person is preferable that should be the course; if not,
removal may well be appropriate. I would look to the future and make it
clear that board and delegate mandates must be followed.
The spirit of transparency requires that everything that can possibly be
open to the membership be kept open. I hope this answers your questions.
If not, ask a clarifying question(s) and I will attempt to answer.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 07:30:03
From:
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 9:14=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > TRANSPARENCY
>
> > Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. =A0That's easy
> > to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
> > the old boy network.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Mr. Lafferty: =A0the devil is in the details. =A0What will =
be told
> > the membership and what will be withheld?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delega=
tes
> > passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
> > be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
> > employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
> > keeping bids sealed or private until opened.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 What does that tell all of us?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted b=
y John
> > Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
> > that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
> > from the membership.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Some specifics. =A0The status of the USCF's small, new
> > headquarters building: =A0can it be sold; who really holds title; and s=
o
> > on. =A0What was the real cost of this building? =A0What happened to the
> > funds in the LMA? =A0Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
> > representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
> > opposing drug testing? =A0What has been the private content of legal
> > conversations among our Board members? =A0(This one could cut in favor
> > of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
> > including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
> > Polgar.)
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Do you REALLY mean transparency? =A0Are you prepared to =
release
> > all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
> > info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
> > date? =A0Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
> > you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
> > the standard =A0established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated a=
t
> > every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Deleg=
ate
> > mandates -- in our Federation? =A0Once again, specifics. =A0ADM-64 call=
s
> > for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
> > meeting. =A0They never do so. =A0Should they now be fired immediately f=
or
> > failing to have done so?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwi=
th,
> > though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
> > why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
> > law within the Federation? =A0Why, sir?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, =
look at
> > the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
> > publicly demand his immediate firing. =A0If not, why not? =A0And if you
> > tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
> > rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to a=
nswer
> > real questions.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I=
no
> > longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
> > believes in transparency. =A0Prove me wrong, and I will support you. =
=A0As
> > for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
> > Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
> > higher authority than the PB or the EB. =A0What say you about him? =A0W=
ill
> > you call for the firing of our FIDE team?
>
> > =A0Yours, Larry Parr
>
> Good and legitimate questions. =A0I will answer them here and on my blog
> once I've had a cup or two or three of coffee. =A0Happy New Year to all!-=
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Judge Lafferty
Are you really prepared for dealing with child molesters? You told me
I could
have gotten into "big trouble" and I was acquitted by diplomatic
immunity.
Are you ready to be told that you are going to be a consiprator as a
child
molester EB member with respect to the Mann Act?
Are you really ready for being elected and being called a child
molester
as a public figure, where you can't sue me and win?
KEEP THE GOD DAMN CHESS PLAYERS OUT OF THE SCHOOLS!
Happy New Year! I am amazed I stayed out of jail myself!
Marcus Roberts
Ambassador of St Kitts and Nevis
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 15:14:10
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
[email protected] wrote:
> TRANSPARENCY
>
> Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. That's easy
> to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
> the old boy network.
>
> Mr. Lafferty: the devil is in the details. What will be told
> the membership and what will be withheld?
>
> About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
> passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
> be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
> employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
> keeping bids sealed or private until opened.
>
> What does that tell all of us?
>
> Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
> Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
> that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
> from the membership.
>
> Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
> headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
> on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
> funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
> representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
> opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
> conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
> of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
> including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
> Polgar.)
>
> Do you REALLY mean transparency? Are you prepared to release
> all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
> info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
> date? Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
> you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
> the standard established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
> every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?
>
> Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
> mandates -- in our Federation? Once again, specifics. ADM-64 calls
> for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
> meeting. They never do so. Should they now be fired immediately for
> failing to have done so?
>
> If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
> though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
> why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
> law within the Federation? Why, sir?
>
> Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
> the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
> publicly demand his immediate firing. If not, why not? And if you
> tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
> rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?
>
> If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
> real questions.
>
> Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
> longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
> believes in transparency. Prove me wrong, and I will support you. As
> for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
> Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
> higher authority than the PB or the EB. What say you about him? Will
> you call for the firing of our FIDE team?
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
Good and legitimate questions. I will answer them here and on my blog
once I've had a cup or two or three of coffee. Happy New Year to all!
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 06:45:25
From:
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 5:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > TRANSPARENCY
>
> > Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. =A0That's easy
> > to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
> > the old boy network.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Mr. Lafferty: =A0the devil is in the details. =A0What will =
be told
> > the membership and what will be withheld?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delega=
tes
> > passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
> > be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
> > employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
> > keeping bids sealed or private until opened.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 What does that tell all of us?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted b=
y John
> > Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
> > that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
> > from the membership.
I do not comment on current cases - legal ones - but I note in passing
that in the past year, is it 2 meetings that kept 'board' resolutions
away from other board members?!!
The other members were not even permitted to express a minority
opinion since apparently a quorum had decided an issue and proceeded
with it. Then came the dissent of 2 minority members who thought they
could not be associated with that decision - but who were then
censured by the rest of the board for even stating what the [secret]
issue actually was!
This is so very Soviet, no?
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Some specifics. =A0The status of the USCF's small, new
> > headquarters building: =A0can it be sold; who really holds title; and s=
o
> > on. =A0What was the real cost of this building? =A0What happened to the
> > funds in the LMA? =A0Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
> > representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
> > opposing drug testing? =A0What has been the private content of legal
> > conversations among our Board members? =A0(This one could cut in favor
> > of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
> > including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
> > Polgar.)
There is a tide-mark! Very few people writing here will agree with
Larry Parr since while they like 'transparency' in some abstract or
intellectualized sense, it all very much depends on who should be
transparent. IE - since the beginning of the lawsuits Susan Polgar has
asked for transparency, challenged the rest of the board on
transparency.
They have simply not acted transparently.
Neither is their any ground-swell in this newsgroup to support
transparency. But there is elsewhere - Chessville's Christmas card
went to 10x as many people as write here in chess.misc and
chess.politics, and many of these people are active journalists chess
teachers and so on. They, I would say almost all of them, would
support such ideas as Larry Parr proposes - even further, even unto
the means by which such transparency should be achieved being not the
determination of the executive board!
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Do you REALLY mean transparency? =A0Are you prepared to =
release
> > all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
> > info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
> > date? =A0Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
> > you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
> > the standard =A0established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated a=
t
> > every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?
These comments will be critized as naive - but OTOH, the /results/ of
such lack of transparency and comportment with delegate wishes is USCF
today. It is not an active conspiracy, it is a passive one based on
executive arrogance that they need not accord, nor share what they do.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Deleg=
ate
> > mandates -- in our Federation? =A0Once again, specifics. =A0ADM-64 call=
s
> > for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
> > meeting. =A0They never do so. =A0Should they now be fired immediately f=
or
> > failing to have done so?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwi=
th,
> > though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
> > why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
> > law within the Federation? =A0Why, sir?
Again, I doubt Larry Parr will receive support for rule of law issues
from these newsgroups. People have trouble admitting that even
lawsuits should be decided in court here.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, =
look at
> > the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
> > publicly demand his immediate firing. =A0If not, why not? =A0And if you
> > tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
> > rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to a=
nswer
> > real questions.
I have interviewed more wannabe and actual board members than anyone
ever has, and at far greater length than others have. I certainly
agree with Larry Parr that real questions need answering, and not
position statements and other such proclamations broadcast tot he air.
What is interesting in such interviews is to note what candidates
skip, or answer elusively.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I=
no
> > longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
> > believes in transparency. =A0Prove me wrong, and I will support you. =
=A0As
> > for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
> > Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
> > higher authority than the PB or the EB. =A0What say you about him? =A0W=
ill
> > you call for the firing of our FIDE team?
>
> > =A0Yours, Larry Parr
>
> Try again, Larry. Guilt by association went out of fashion with the
> McCarthy brothers, Charley and Joe. I'm not endorsing any of the
> current EB members; in fact, I've criticized all of them, as you could
> easily have discovered had you bothered to look. (Weren't you a
> journalist once?)
Clarify that comment a bit John, beyond the reaction to what Larry
Parr said. When I read your comment above about no endorsement I
immediately thought that this may not be a commentary on any
individual - are you making a systemic criticism? Is it the corporate
culture which is the matter, one in which no possible candidate can be
imagined to be of much more use than any other candidate?
> I said only that Brian Lafferty had no
> qualifications whatsoever for the job. If he had been a USCF member
> for more than two years, if he had ever organized or directed a
> tournament, if he had ever written a chess article -- if he had _any_
> qualifications beyond a loud voice and a desire for power -- I might
> have come to a different conclusion.
In will seem massively paradoxical to Brian Lafferty himself, that I
would offer you a contrary view - and actually to support non-chess
permeated people being on the board of USCF. Most national NFA's
deliberately seek people outside their own realm to further their
scope. While of course this is not an endorsement of Mr. Lafferty,
neither is it an inhibition to his candidacy that would sway my
opinion very much. Other things might, but we have not yet discussed
what those are - and to honor this thread, largely about transparency,
which is to say, about official secrets, even lying, let us reserve
our conversation on what c haracter we seek in candidate board
members, as well as nominating the vital functions they should
perform, for another thread.
> As for closed-session meetings: That's a legitimate point. However,
> I'd like to see some documentation from you that "Ninety percent or
> more of closed PB meetings ... are attempts to keep facts that ought
> by Federation law to be released to the membership, away from the
> membership."
Surely that is a clear request, but just as surely an ironical one?
How can, except by word of mouth, records of secrets be quantified,
since the secret items are not available to ordinary review?
> If this is true, it's clearly bad, but your unsourced
> claim is hardly sufficient. Considering that, at present, the two
> factions on the Board hate each other like rat poison, I find it a
> little far-fetched that _anything_ is being kept secret. One side or
> the other is bound to leak it for factional advantage.
Likely a truism, but I think this is but the minor key in which this
issue is written. The dominant cord is the fact of secrecy and
'parties' themselves, and both these are raised to higher level than
content! That content, BTW, being the matter USCF is created to
pursue. Therefore such as in the old SU, everything becomes
propaganda, and no /objective/ reporting by non-insiders relieves the
situation.
Since you, Larry Parr and I, all hack; and since we each obtain a
disinterested relationship with USCF [no financial or other tangible
benefits] and since no others such as we even bother to attend on USCF
[apart from MIG] then how should any unspun reporting be achieved?
When things have to be leaked to you, then how should the necessity to
leak be reported?
The relationship of USCF with any independent parties is unhealthy,
and predominantly because of the massive secrecy surrounding it, its
committees, officers, board members, and resolutions.
As I responded to Randy Bauer earlier today, USCF actively shuns any
view contrary or critical to its own, including asking it if they fell
anything about the whole world condemning them for their policies [see
Armageddon example]. USCF in 5000 words or response [which I didn't
publish] both denied that such criticism was 'real' and simply
justified themselves while dismissing the views of others.
The issue for reporters is not therefore one of liking any matter or
not - since USCF do not like any reporting that is not some sort of
Press Release propaganda - it is one of being a conduit between one's
readers and the chess public.
We 3 at least should take this aspect seriously, since this is
naturally our own role in association with USCF, and one which others
cannot share - they have no public to correspond with.
You admit some similar orientation to what I have written above?
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Some specifics. =A0The status of the USCF's small, new
> > headquarters building: =A0can it be sold; who really holds title; and s=
o
> > on. =A0What was the real cost of this building? =A0What happened to the
> > funds in the LMA? =A0Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
> > representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
> > opposing drug testing? =A0What has been the private content of legal
> > conversations among our Board members? =A0(This one could cut in favor
> > of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
> > including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
> > Polgar.)
>
> Bunkum. The status of the building has been discussed ad nauseam on
> the USCF Forum. There aren't any secrets about it. The LMA money was
> spent on operating expenses, as you can easily see from the annual
> financials. Bad management, but hardly a conspiracy.
Well - strictly speaking John Hillery is correct in terms of active
conspiracy. Yet I think there is a tad more to the issue than that,
and one must consider the passive stance which resulted in such a
situation coming about. After all, the fairies didn't do it, and
'management' is there to actually steer the ship. If it neglects to
look at the compass... and finds itself in ice, then the Titanic level
of potential disaster can't really be shuffled off, can it?
In that sense the bad management is to tacitly allow things to go on
which collectively conspire to disaster.
> Drug testing:
> Well, I actually agree with you about that, but how does this relate
> to "secret meetings"? I doubt the Board has even thought about this
> recently, except perhaps when Sloan was making a pest of himself. And
> the issue with the e-mails was not the content, it was the _means_
> (quite likely illegal) by which they were obtained.
What actually can be legitimately secret in an NFA which has public
benefit in its mission statement? If we abandon USCF as an NFA, and
throw away the mission statement, then it could act as it wishes, and
then the means of communication can be protected.
If the content of the message is disreputable in terms of individuals
conspiring against others, is it actually honorable to uphold the
means by which that is achieved? But that is merely another issue
resulting from secrecy. The issue does not work in favor of one party
or another - but is a systemic one - and in a closed and habitually
secret culture, is a massive and seemingly bottomless can of worms.
> You raise some legitimate issues, Larry, but sounding like a 9/11
> Troofer is just going to lead to your being dismissed as a nut. Not
> everything is a conspiracy, however much you'd like it to be.
Well, there are such things as conspiracies of silence, as well as
more active machinations. But your dismissal of the issue John, though
I sense it is intended to be cautionary of too sweeping an attitude,
is somewhat over the top, since quite legitimate conspiracies, active
and passive, should not be overlooked.
What any board candidate should be asked at this point is not if they
are for transparency, but how they will achieve it? If, as in recent
cases, the leaking of a board resolution results in a lawsuit against
the leaking board member - how will any means of being transparent
realistically come about?
What if you doubt the ethical nature of a quorum of board members?
What will you do? Should you speak?
Can USCF employ its own lawyers to get after you if you do?
I am not looking for theoretical answers here; these issues have
already arisen this past year. They are likely unanswerable questions
by any candidate board member, since the overwhelming factor is the
current corporate culture which will not even openly declare a
discussion on its own modus operandi - which is a mighty strange and
suspicious may to go on.
It is unlikely thereby that any candidate makes much difference from a
personality level while such massive inhibition is the norm.
Phil Innes
Vermont
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 06:41:51
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Brian Lafferty's candidacy
|
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 130)
>As for closed-session meetings: That's a legitimate point. However,
I'd like to see some documentation from you that "Ninety percent or
more of closed PB meetings ... are attempts to keep facts that ought
by Federation law to be released to the membership, away from the
membership." If this is true, it's clearly bad, but your unsourced
claim is hardly sufficient. > -- John Hillery, editor of the Chess
Journalists of America newsletter
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: SECRECY AND CLOSED SESSIONS
EVANS: Let me ask you about some of your frustrations. For example,
during president Steven Doyle=92s administration you were denied access
to certain documents when you tried to procure expense records or
phone bills of fellow board members.
ALBURT: It is part of this overall hysteria over secrecy. They try to
keep a tight lid on things while pretending everything is open and
above board. They feel insecure when people criticize their policies.
Before the Renaissance Group there were no real critics, just
different cliques like themselves fighting for power. But nobody ever
challenged the system the way the Friends of the USCF did by pushing
for one-member-one-vote. In the past chess politicians attacked each
other for trivial things, not fundamental changes. The board senses
that they lack real legitimacy because the 350 or so voters are to a
great extent handpicked by their cronies in various states. [Today
regular members can vote for candidates who run for office and
publish statements in Chess Life.]
EVANS: But isn=92t such secrecy extraordinary in a not-for-profit, tax-
exempt organization charged with promoting chess in America?
ALBURT: The board certainly keeps a lot of things secret that they
shouldn=92t. I was denied access to many documents. And when president
Harold Winston came in, he tightened the secrecy despite his pledge to
run an open administration. He regarded critics as enemies and tried
to hide things from them.
EVANS: The board voted to ban tape recorders from open sessions but
had to back down when Friends of the USCF blasted them in its
newsletter. Isn=92t the board spending more and more time in closed
session anyway?
ALBURT: They discuss a lot of things in private which to my mind don=92t
belong in closed session. They often use these sessions as an excuse
to say nasty things they would not dare to repeat in public. Sometimes
they knock people I respect and I challenge them to produce evidence
or shut up.
EVANS: So didn=92t they become more careful around you?
ALBURT: To some extent I think I spoiled the good feeling they shared
together=97the feeling that the less anyone outside knows, the better.
When someone new was elected to the board, they immediately closed
ranks and deeloped a bond. Even reform candidates wanted to become one
of the oys as soon as they were elected.
EVANS: Can you give an example?
ALBURT: The change in David Saponara was dramatic. At first he
strongly opposed the board=92s austerity budget. But after they talked
to him in Boston [1988] he did an abrupt about face. What the board
did was, in my opinion, technically wrong. They called an unofficial
session from which I was excluded where they made deals and persuaded
Saponara to change his mind.
EVANS: There=92s an old saying in politics that to get along you have to
go along. Weren=92t you tempted to do this?
ALBURT: I felt a great temptation to be more conciliatory. You see,
after all, they are not evil people. Personally many of them are very
nice. When you=92re in the same room and spend a lot of time together,
exchange jokes and try to solve problems, you develop a sort of
camaraderie. It=92s natural. But I had to remind myself that although we
were friendly, the things they were doing in secret were plainly
wrong. The system which existed, a system of secrecy, could be easily
abused. It certainly invited corruption.
EVANS: Board member Harry Sabine said all that the reformers would
accomplish by trying to open things up is to force the board into
doing more things behind closed doors.
ALBURT: Okay. It just shows their type of mentality. A siege
mentality.
EVANS: I was under the impression that the board only had the right to
go into closed session to discuss things like sealed bids or legal and
personnel matters.
ALBURT: They do many other things that should be discussed openly. For
instance, they went into closed session to discuss candidates to
replace Don Schultz as FIDE delegate. They argued it was necessary
because otherwise they could not say nasty things about other
candidates in public, like so-and-so is a drunk. My position was that
if someone wanted to say something derogatory, they could stop briefly
to go into closed session.
EVANS: But doesn=92t much of this information get out anyway?
ALBURT: Of course. They leak information all the time to their
friends. For instance, when executive director Gerard Dullea was given
authority to fire Larry Parr as editor in closed session, it was
supposed to be a deep dark secret. But when I came out of the meeting
I was met by Jerry Hanken who told me how sorry he was, that if only
he had been elected instead of Sabine such a dreadful thing never
would have happened. Probably some board member broke the news to him
on the way to the bathroom.
EVANS: Why should there be such a need to classify information? Chess
is not the Pentagon.
ALBURT: The board is playing with its power. I can hardly ever recall
when any justification was given for going into closed session. Often
they just wanted to bad-mouth people not being considered for jobs.
Especially people who were my friends, but even some I didn=92t know.
When I challenged them and asked for proof, they said they were merely
speaking their piece and giving their opinion.
EVANS: But, Lev, you say these are decent people. Decent people don=92t
do these things.
ALBURT: I agree. But people are not all black and white. I think the
problem is they created an artificial environment. It creates a
bankrupt mentality. It creates a sense of belonging to an exclusive
club. They feel they can do almost anything, and that others are
beneath them=97even grandmasters. But when Ed Labate sued them, they
immediately retreated. So what I am saying is that they are not evil
people, they are not bad people. But the system is so bad that even
normal people are encouraged to act wrongly.
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > TRANSPARENCY
> >
> > Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. That's easy
> > to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
> > the old boy network.
> >
> > Mr. Lafferty: the devil is in the details. What will be told
> > the membership and what will be withheld?
> >
> > About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
> > passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
> > be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
> > employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
> > keeping bids sealed or private until opened.
> >
> > What does that tell all of us?
> >
> > Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
> > Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
> > that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
> > from the membership.
> >
> > Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
> > headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
> > on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
> > funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
> > representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
> > opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
> > conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
> > of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
> > including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
> > Polgar.)
> >
> > Do you REALLY mean transparency? Are you prepared to release
> > all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
> > info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
> > date? Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
> > you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
> > the standard established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
> > every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?
> >
> > Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
> > mandates -- in our Federation? Once again, specifics. ADM-64 calls
> > for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
> > meeting. They never do so. Should they now be fired immediately for
> > failing to have done so?
> >
> > If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
> > though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
> > why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
> > law within the Federation? Why, sir?
> >
> > Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
> > the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
> > publicly demand his immediate firing. If not, why not? And if you
> > tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
> > rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?
> >
> > If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
> > real questions.
> >
> > Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
> > longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
> > believes in transparency. Prove me wrong, and I will support you. As
> > for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
> > Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
> > higher authority than the PB or the EB. What say you about him? Will
> > you call for the firing of our FIDE team?
> >
> > Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
> Try again, Larry. Guilt by association went out of fashion with the
> McCarthy brothers, Charley and Joe. I'm not endorsing any of the
> current EB members; in fact, I've criticized all of them, as you could
> easily have discovered had you bothered to look. (Weren't you a
> journalist once?) I said only that Brian Lafferty had no
> qualifications whatsoever for the job. If he had been a USCF member
> for more than two years, if he had ever organized or directed a
> tournament, if he had ever written a chess article -- if he had _any_
> qualifications beyond a loud voice and a desire for power -- I might
> have come to a different conclusion.
>
> As for closed-session meetings: That's a legitimate point. However,
> I'd like to see some documentation from you that "Ninety percent or
> more of closed PB meetings ... are attempts to keep facts that ought
> by Federation law to be released to the membership, away from the
> membership." If this is true, it's clearly bad, but your unsourced
> claim is hardly sufficient. Considering that, at present, the two
> factions on the Board hate each other like rat poison, I find it a
> little far-fetched that _anything_ is being kept secret. One side or
> the other is bound to leak it for factional advantage.
>
> > Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
> > headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
> > on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
> > funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
> > representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
> > opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
> > conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
> > of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
> > including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
> > Polgar.)
>
> Bunkum. The status of the building has been discussed ad nauseam on
> the USCF Forum. There aren't any secrets about it. The LMA money was
> spent on operating expenses, as you can easily see from the annual
> financials. Bad management, but hardly a conspiracy. Drug testing:
> Well, I actually agree with you about that, but how does this relate
> to "secret meetings"? I doubt the Board has even thought about this
> recently, except perhaps when Sloan was making a pest of himself. And
> the issue with the e-mails was not the content, it was the _means_
> (quite likely illegal) by which they were obtained.
>
> You raise some legitimate issues, Larry, but sounding like a 9/11
> Troofer is just going to lead to your being dismissed as a nut. Not
> everything is a conspiracy, however much you'd like it to be.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 05:57:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 5:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> Bunkum. The status of the building has been discussed ad nauseam on
> the USCF Forum.
That is not the answer to the question. This question came up at every
meeting of the board that I attended and no conclusive answer was ever
provided.
At the Stillwater Meeting on May 17-18, 2007, Bill Hall reported that
he had met with the Mayor of Crossville, J, H. Graham, in response to
our demand at the previous meeting that he do exactly that, and that
the mayor would not agree for us to sell the building. However, he
said that we could "burn it out" over the next 15 years. In other
words, provided that we stayed in Crossville for 15 years, he would
agree to let us sell "our" building.
As I was not satisfied with that answer, I made a motion that I had
also made at other meetings and that I had also said I would do when I
campaigned for election that the USCF retain counsel in Nashville (not
in Crossville) to make a determination and advise us as to our rights
to sell the building should we choose to do so. The other board
members refused to agree because attorneys cost money. Finally Joel
Channing agreed, provided that the attorney would cost no more than
$500. I said OK in that I case I move that the board retain counsel at
a cost of no more than $500. At first Joel Channing seemed to agree
but then he changed his mind and said that $500 was too much to spend
to see what our rights were with respect to a building supposedly
worth $650,000.
So, my motion was voted down 6-1.
So, we still do not know what our rights are with respect to the
building.
> There aren't any secrets about it. The LMA money was
> spent on operating expenses, as you can easily see from the annual
> financials. Bad management, but hardly a conspiracy.
Not so fast. For example, I discovered an unauthorized payment of
$13,356.36 to Susan Polgar made in November 2003 while Bill Goichberg
was executive director that neither the president nor the 2003 board
had known about or would have agreed with had they known about it.
There was then and still are no documents supporting this payment of
$13,358.36. Bill Goichberg still blames this on a low level clerk
named Linda even though Goichberg signed the check. That was the
biggest single check Goichberg ever signed while he was Executive
Director, so he certainly should have noticed it.
Any documentation supporting that payment would have been on the
laptop computer that Paul and Susan stole from the USCF''s offices on
August 20, 2003. Goichberg still has not taken appropriate measures to
get that laptop computer back.
This is only a small part of a much bigger problem. In every year for
the years 1999-2003 which was when most of the $2 million was lost,
the delegates passed a budget calling for a surplus. Also, the
financial statements for the end of each of those years showed a minor
but affordable loss.
Nevertheless, by the end of 2003 it was discovered that the $2 million
1999 that had been in the Oberweiss Fund according to the 1999
financial statements was completely gone and missing by 2003, only
four years later.
Saying that it was due to "operating losses" does not answer the
question. What operating losses, when, where and why?
Why cannot we find out the answer to these questions?
We have recently learned that Frank Niro had the bad habit of playing
in extremely high stakes poker games in Foxwoods Casino where, he
reports on his website, a player lost $37,000 in a single hand of
poker in a game in which Frank Niro was playing. Was any of the USCF's
$2 million lost in high stakes poker games? We would like to know.
>Drug testing:
> Well, I actually agree with you about that, but how does this relate
> to "secret meetings"? I doubt the Board has even thought about this
> recently, except perhaps when Sloan was making a pest of himself.
When John Hillary said that I was "making a pest of himself", he
refers to the fact that when I was on the board for one year I
regularly reported to the outside world what had happened in the
closed sessions, even though they had been closed.
In fact, during my one year on the board there was never a discussion
in closed session of either of the two issues that are legitimate
closed session items, namely litigation and personnel issues.
Litigation never came up because there was no litigation involving the
USCF while I was on the board.
Personnel costs and issues never came up because we never were able to
get even a list of all the people working for the USCF and what their
job duties were. Bill Hall refused to provide that information even
though I persistently asked for it, which is one of the reasons why
John Hillery says that I was "making a pest of myself".
To this day we still do not know how many people are working for the
USCF and how many consultants there are. Saying "look it up in Chess
Life" is not the answer, because Chess Life does not answer this
question.
So, perhaps the board can answer the questions now: How many employees
and contractors does the USCF have? Do you know the answer to this
question? (I doubt that the board knows, even today.) If you do know,
why cannot you tell us, the dues paying members?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 05:56:06
From: WPraeder
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 2:39=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> TRANSPARENCY
>
> Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. =A0That's easy
> to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
> the old boy network.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Mr. Lafferty: =A0the devil is in the details. =A0What will be=
told
> the membership and what will be withheld?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegate=
s
> passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
> be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
> employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
> keeping bids sealed or private until opened.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 What does that tell all of us?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by =
John
> Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
> that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
> from the membership.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Some specifics. =A0The status of the USCF's small, new
> headquarters building: =A0can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
> on. =A0What was the real cost of this building? =A0What happened to the
> funds in the LMA? =A0Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
> representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
> opposing drug testing? =A0What has been the private content of legal
> conversations among our Board members? =A0(This one could cut in favor
> of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
> including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
> Polgar.)
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Do you REALLY mean transparency? =A0Are you prepared to re=
lease
> all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
> info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
> date? =A0Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
> you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
> the standard =A0established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
> every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegat=
e
> mandates -- in our Federation? =A0Once again, specifics. =A0ADM-64 calls
> for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
> meeting. =A0They never do so. =A0Should they now be fired immediately for
> failing to have done so?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith=
,
> though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
> why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
> law within the Federation? =A0Why, sir?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, lo=
ok at
> the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
> publicly demand his immediate firing. =A0If not, why not? =A0And if you
> tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
> rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to ans=
wer
> real questions.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I n=
o
> longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
> believes in transparency. =A0Prove me wrong, and I will support you. =A0A=
s
> for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
> Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
> higher authority than the PB or the EB. =A0What say you about him? =A0Wil=
l
> you call for the firing of our FIDE team?
>
> =A0Yours, Larry Parr
Larry,
You may find the following of interest to help you measure what
candidates support - http://www.mncn.org/info_principles6.htm .
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 05:37:32
From:
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 8:09=A0am, Randy Bauer <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 4:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > You raise some legitimate issues, Larry, but sounding like a 9/11
> > Troofer is just going to lead to your being dismissed as a nut. Not
> > everything is a conspiracy, however much you'd like it to be.-
>
> If it looks like a nut and sounds like a nut . . . meet Liarry Peanut.
>
> Randy Bauer
I should just like to make the brief comment that what you see above /
is/ the current management style. The ire is merely directed at a
current critic [all critique is assumed to be negative], but the Eye
of Mordor takes in all it views at a personality level, and disparages
them.
Even when the entire world seemed to be aghast at adoption of Fide
Armageddon rules for important finals - and I engaged USCF organizers
and board members on the subject [their replies amounted to 5,000
words], they were still in denial that especially European organisers
writing at Chessbase had described these finishes as demeaning and
degrading to chess.
Therefore, you are left with these personality cliques who are unable
to discuss anything objectively, since it is their policy rather than
their inability to do so.
Now... if this actually worked, if USCF were in any way healthy, and
if such management style was acclaimed to be what members actually
wanted, that would be one thing. But it ain't. This is not the place
to discuss that, since my correspondent has expressed no interest in
doing so, being indifferent to all opinion.
Better to address issues by joining the previous post by John Hillery
who, at least, and to his credit, is prepared to mention a few actual
topics of what would forward us.
Phil Innes
Vermont
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 05:09:35
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 4:03=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> You raise some legitimate issues, Larry, but sounding like a 9/11
> Troofer is just going to lead to your being dismissed as a nut. Not
> everything is a conspiracy, however much you'd like it to be.-
If it looks like a nut and sounds like a nut . . . meet Liarry Peanut.
Randy Bauer
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 02:03:14
From:
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
[email protected] wrote:
> TRANSPARENCY
>
> Brian Lafferty is running on a platform of transparency. That's easy
> to say. Many "reform" candidates were elected and then became part of
> the old boy network.
>
> Mr. Lafferty: the devil is in the details. What will be told
> the membership and what will be withheld?
>
> About 15 years ago the Policy Board and possibly the Delegates
> passed a resolution stating that content of closed Board meetings must
> be limited to legal and personnel matters involving lower-level
> employees (the CEO and CL editor were regarded as fair game) and to
> keeping bids sealed or private until opened.
>
> What does that tell all of us?
>
> Ninety percent or more of closed PB meetings,conducted by John
> Hillery's experienced and capable pals, are attempts to keep facts
> that ought by Federation law to be released to the membership, away
> from the membership.
>
> Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
> headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
> on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
> funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
> representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
> opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
> conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
> of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
> including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
> Polgar.)
>
> Do you REALLY mean transparency? Are you prepared to release
> all information except for personnel info on lower-level employees and
> info on bids not yet opened or to be made public only on a certain
> date? Do we have the right -- uncontested and, indeed, seconded by
> you -- to call you a bloody, frigging liar if you fail to live up to
> the standard established by OFFICIAL RESOLUTION, and then violated at
> every PB and EB meeting since the early 1990s?
>
> Where do you stand on the rule of law -- following Delegate
> mandates -- in our Federation? Once again, specifics. ADM-64 calls
> for our FIDE representatives to attack drug testing at every FIDE
> meeting. They never do so. Should they now be fired immediately for
> failing to have done so?
>
> If you do not favor firing these representatives forthwith,
> though they have knowingly violated a Delegates' mandate for years,
> why should we believe any assurances that you believe in the rule of
> law within the Federation? Why, sir?
>
> Please, then, read ADM-64, encompass its clear meaning, look at
> the record of, say, a Kelleher, and let us know whether you will
> publicly demand his immediate firing. If not, why not? And if you
> tell us why not, will your reason be something other than letting the
> rule of law within the Federation slip, slide away?
>
> If you are going to be a candidate, now is the time to answer
> real questions.
>
> Sorry about the tone of this message, but to be honest I no
> longer believe that anyone running for Federation office really
> believes in transparency. Prove me wrong, and I will support you. As
> for the rule of law within the Federation, you have the case of Bill
> Kelleher and his record of defying clear orders from the Delegates, a
> higher authority than the PB or the EB. What say you about him? Will
> you call for the firing of our FIDE team?
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
Try again, Larry. Guilt by association went out of fashion with the
McCarthy brothers, Charley and Joe. I'm not endorsing any of the
current EB members; in fact, I've criticized all of them, as you could
easily have discovered had you bothered to look. (Weren't you a
journalist once?) I said only that Brian Lafferty had no
qualifications whatsoever for the job. If he had been a USCF member
for more than two years, if he had ever organized or directed a
tournament, if he had ever written a chess article -- if he had _any_
qualifications beyond a loud voice and a desire for power -- I might
have come to a different conclusion.
As for closed-session meetings: That's a legitimate point. However,
I'd like to see some documentation from you that "Ninety percent or
more of closed PB meetings ... are attempts to keep facts that ought
by Federation law to be released to the membership, away from the
membership." If this is true, it's clearly bad, but your unsourced
claim is hardly sufficient. Considering that, at present, the two
factions on the Board hate each other like rat poison, I find it a
little far-fetched that _anything_ is being kept secret. One side or
the other is bound to leak it for factional advantage.
> Some specifics. The status of the USCF's small, new
> headquarters building: can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
> on. What was the real cost of this building? What happened to the
> funds in the LMA? Why has no action been taken against our FIDE
> representatives for repeatedly violating ADM-64 about vigorously
> opposing drug testing? What has been the private content of legal
> conversations among our Board members? (This one could cut in favor
> of Truong and Polgar, but I am in favor of releasing all info
> including what may embarrass a Hough or a Bauer or, yes, a Truong or a
> Polgar.)
Bunkum. The status of the building has been discussed ad nauseam on
the USCF Forum. There aren't any secrets about it. The LMA money was
spent on operating expenses, as you can easily see from the annual
financials. Bad management, but hardly a conspiracy. Drug testing:
Well, I actually agree with you about that, but how does this relate
to "secret meetings"? I doubt the Board has even thought about this
recently, except perhaps when Sloan was making a pest of himself. And
the issue with the e-mails was not the content, it was the _means_
(quite likely illegal) by which they were obtained.
You raise some legitimate issues, Larry, but sounding like a 9/11
Troofer is just going to lead to your being dismissed as a nut. Not
everything is a conspiracy, however much you'd like it to be.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 20:33:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 2, 11:00=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0It was /Mr. Murray/ who introduced Mr.
> >Kingston into this, for reasons known only to
> >him.
> What? =A0Have I been sleep-posting again? =A0What did I say? (I may want
> to argue with myself).
Well, this is how I remember the story...
I commented on a posting by Dilbert [or jkh], in
which the villain -- here, Larry Parr -- was sliced
and diced like carrots.
Next, MM leaped to point out that I had got Mr.
Hilbert (or Dilbert) mixed up with Taylor Kingston
or a Mr. Hillary or Hilbert.
Then I replied that Mr. Kingston was not any
part of my confusion-- the initials don't even
match! So then, it was Mr. Murray himself
who dragged an unwelcome TK to the party,
not I.
Next, Dilbert showed up, claiming he had
merely been talking things over calmly with
Mr. Parr, not slicing him up.
Finally, the chap who is in fact responsible
for dragging Taylor Kingston into this mess,
Mike Murray himself, claimed he knew
nothing whatsoever. (Why am I reminded of
the old Mission Impossible TV series, in
which Mr. Graves is repeatedly warned that
if he or any of his MI crew are caught, the
Secretary will disavow any knowledge of
their actions?)
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 21:22:47
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 20:33:04 -0800 (PST), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jan 2, 11:00�pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > �It was /Mr. Murray/ who introduced Mr.
>> >Kingston into this, for reasons known only to
>> >him.
>
>> What? �Have I been sleep-posting again? �What did I say? (I may want
>> to argue with myself).
>
>
> Well, this is how I remember the story...
>
> I commented on a posting by Dilbert [or jkh], in
>which the villain -- here, Larry Parr -- was sliced
>and diced like carrots.
>
> Next, MM leaped to point out that I had got Mr.
>Hilbert (or Dilbert) mixed up with Taylor Kingston
>or a Mr. Hillary or Hilbert.
I think it was the Historian who said that. My first involvement in
this thread was to point out that I was not involved in this thread,
which, of course, then became untrue since I had just involved myself.
Hmmm. Want to take that move back? Want to take that move back? Want
to take that move back? Claim forfeit on disconnect. Want to take
that move back? Do you resign yet?
> Then I replied that Mr. Kingston was not any
>part of my confusion-- the initials don't even
>match! So then, it was Mr. Murray himself
>who dragged an unwelcome TK to the party,
>not I.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 00:03:02
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Britan Lafferty's candidacy
|
On Jan 1, 2:39=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Some specifics. =A0The status of the USCF's small, new
> headquarters building: =A0can it be sold; who really holds title; and so
> on. =A0What was the real cost of this building? =A0What happened to the
> funds in the LMA? =A0
On these items I raised these issues at every meeting of the board I
attended in both open and closed session and was never able to get any
answers, except that I found that a lot of money in the LMA, at least
$50,000, went to Miss Polgar.
Having transcripts of the closed sessions will not help you. Having
transcripts of the open sessions would help except that they refuse to
have the transcripts made.
>What has been the private content of legal
> conversations among our Board members?
Even Larry Parr should know that private conversations about legal
strategy in pending lawsuits should not be made public.
Sam Sloan
|
|
