"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...
Geez, Phil, it's been a long time since I found myself in agreement
with many of the things you write -- maybe I'm mellowing with age.
Please note responses below.

sssh, people will suspect i am brown-nosing, in hope of fure preference -
whereas you know i am a son of a bitch and i don't like anyone i like -
that is to say, if one couldn't disagree, what is agreement worth?

-------

I also noticed the less-than-honest reporting about Tanner, which had no
mention at all about an ethics scandal, and its far better
psychologically
to pre-empt criticism by admitting a problem, especially since this was
yet
another 'award' to insiders.

...

I'm not sure that I would describe spending $10,000 on fundraising as a
'scandal' although I think it's very fair to question whether any value
came from that expenditure. I do think that is an area where the Board
should be held accountable for it, but sometimes you do take risks that
don't pan out.

Sure, and its other people's [members] money anyway and who has been
counting or measuring anything before? Might as well do 10 grand as 1. Who,
after all, is accountable - apparently and as usual, no one.

---------

Yes, I think 'a lot' is correct. In fact last year 50 mainstream media
mentions compared with 2 for USCF. That, as my wife says, 'is not
nothing.'

Agreed.

Including one of two films now.

You know, the thing with S. Polgar is that she loves the game. She is
devoted to it, mand needs no other qualifications at all! Whereas the rest
of the candidates need to state their cases, et ca. People admit this of
Polgar since she demonstrates it beyond any personal intriguing or benefit.
It has been something missing from American chess, a sort of
immigrant-purity factor, that simply loves the game regardless of how others
behave - and this, by all accounts, is completely winning.

You, OTOH, must work at it, like all the other candidates. And to you must,
Randy, ask more pointedly about these 'awards' of big chunks of cash,
without bid, and without measure, scandals if conducted with govt. money
[though common as muck!] if you want to hold what any marketeer can garner
for you.

This, I suggest, is your metier.

------


the 'old fashioned' sense of 'marketing' was purely analytical, and was
indifferent to result - that is, it was not prescriptive, and the entire
goal was to find where people were spening their money and where people
would spend their money

Yes, but I think a member organization has to be held to a slightly
different standard. That was why I opposed the Natrol marketing, for
example.

You should perhaps think think of member organisation only as a potential
sort of entity, whereas the truth of it is that board influence supercedes
any member influence. That is the rough truth of it.

I'm not sure I buy your claim of only 2 US GMs - off the top of my head
(maybe the years are wrong) wasn't there Rogoff, Tarjan, Soltis,
Fedorowicz, Benjamin, DeFirmian, Christiansen, Rohde, Henley, Ashley,
Sherzer, Tisdall. Plus, Seirwan, while not born in the US, was clearly
a product of US chess -- in some respects so was Browne. I probably
missed a few also.

their are 11 of 'em
but not quite synchronous with the period cited above, which as mentioned
would have produced 80 from the UK system

-----

Which is to say, you will need to convince people not that you have a
will
to do it, but a means to do it.

That's entirely correct and a fair point. That is why I've pledged to
support any other reasonable candidates with the background,
temperment, and ability to work collectively for change. I'm not
interested in serving on another board that is sharply divided. I
think that I can work with Bill, Joel, Don, etc. and I pledge to do so
if I'm elected.

Bad idea!

What you must do, is serve the constituency of players for whom Bill, Joel
and Don are merrily innocent, since these are the folks who have never
conducted a survey of US members on anything significant matter, and can
arrange a meet the critics meeting with critics who can't say dickey-boo.

You need your own plank - and you don't get it yet. You need to be a right
******* about spending money in accountable ways, and your experience allows
you to do that, and you have no competition whatsoever!

As someone who is indifferent to liking or not liking you, this is my
opinion. Ask 'uncle Larry' who is much the same, and although he actively
doesn't like you, he can still overcome his own liking or disliking to offer
disinterested and very practiced advice.

But I shove my opinionis at you too hard, and you will have to tolerate me,
perhaps because I will not be insistent that you do these things, but that
someone, for gawd's sake! does.

Phil Innes



Cordially, Phil Innes


Randy Bauer