On Oct 13, 2:05 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 10, 6:04 am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Oct 10, 2:55 am, Mike Murray wrote:

(11) The person suspected is a good person and has done a lot for
chess,
so knock it off.

I think this more accurately reflects the zealots' stance:

11) Susan and Paul are Beyond Reproach and anyone who
suggests otherwise must be silenced immediately, and any
forum which permits such criticism must be abolished.

No - I certainly don't think so, in fact, let's open this one up,
'completely'. Ready?

What's your name?
Are you a party to this issue?
Have you ever met these people?
Are you aware of their reputation around the country in promoting chess?
Selected material, gathered by one party, is not evidence in law,
although,
you may agree [?] it /could/ be.

If you can't answer all these questions, I suggest the rest of this is
not
for you.

++++++++++++

How about other 11s ?

11a) regardless of who is being accused, no witch-hunts against any
individual can be pursued on a forum [a forum which ex-President Tim
Redman
recently termed 'entirely political' and also BTW one in which PT and SP
do
not contribute]

or do you like something more sarcastic;-

11b) seeking the identity of malicious posters is a subject which must be
silenced immediately, except if its the people you don't like

And finally

In place of ALL 1-26)

USCF needs an independent invigilator, normally called an ombudsman, to
settle such issues as this, and indeed, other contentious issues, such as
the performance of the rating system for correspondence players, which
was
inoperable for 9 months in the past FY, and which an NM suggested was
necessary to retain the confidence of all corres players.

I would say that USCF fails to act all the time since it simply ignores
the
problem, then when it erupts again with a will, it is of dimensions which
cannot be managed [typical non-profit behavior when board is stacked with
enthusiasts].

This last item is an interesting one. During pre-election interviews
Randy
Bauer could not agree with it. But to his credit, he made reasonable
objections. I wonder if he would shade more with my point of view, now?

I suggested that the Ombudsman needed to make suggestions for policy and
operation which were practical - and as such, if they were actually
doable,
the board should be bound by them.

--

The fight here is simply the political one to neutralise agents of
change.
Period.

The surface factors of impersonations are of natural concern to those
impersonated, but absurd in terms of the characters of those accused. In
short, its a attempt to render the current board dysfunctional in terms
of
necessary remedies to current problems, and to future orientations.
Whatever
is the status quo is the thing being defended.

Phil Innes

Summary:

No! No summary from you. That was my invitation, as above. Since if you
can't answer these straightforward open honest questions, but can you
possibly be about?

I don't need a grey beard, and to come from Vienna, to have asked. You
didn;t just pass on being honest, you passed on the rule of law.

Phil Innes

Well, gee Phil, thanks for informing me that "you write the rules of
posting here." You quoted Mike, and he responded to you. Later, I
contended that entries into this impartial list, per Mike's thread
rule--he created the thread, this is his idea, his de facto
intellectual property--must stand on their own merit and thus are best
made anonymously. Mike agreed. If you wish to make a new thread, of
any subject to your choosing, I wish you the best. This is now a dead
issue.

Make up rules and pseudo-law to your heart's content.