In the good old days of high-Fide, at a World Championship event in
Kalmykia, Sri Krishna Kirsan, the Buddhist dictator of that country and of
Fide, decided that Fide owned the game scores. This was news to the legal
world, the delegates, and the players, and since Ronald Reagan wasn't
President at the time the US couldn't send the gunboats since that would
require porting them overland some considerable distance - and there weren't
enough gunboats anyway, all the money having been spent on a missile defence
system...

So my Russian friend /bought/ the game scores, and sent them to me. I
forwarded them to Tom Dorsch with a note which donated them to USCF to use
freely.

This effectively brought Kirsan's caper to an end.

At that time Tom [who frequently wrote in this forum] wore a camel-coloured
coat jacket, and refused to notice my
jokes about it for the next 3 years.

What is missing from Sam's bio-blog is the essential set of circumstances
that USCF would have been dead as a doornail 7 years ago if Tom Dorsch had
not been obnoxious!

He, more than somewhat acerbically, insisted that the institution was
financially bleeding to death. Even his political opponents agreed that he
would have been the next USCF president if he had not campaigned on the very
strange finances at that time [just as strange, dear viewer, as the current
finances], and his actions forced the attention of the board and delegates
on the imminent collapse of the whole shebang.

He was a USCF politician who was at the same time a strong fiscal
conservative, and also someone who thought the institution needed a radical
overall before it 'went south' and was reduced to some mumchance shadow of
itself, useless to one and all.

In other words, he was a heretic and a successful prophet of Doom.

His buddy Eade was a political ally on the board, but philosophically not on
the same page. Dorsch for example was all for conferencing with top players
on 'what furthers us' but Eade, charged with a Fide role, fought the
players, to the extent of telling Seirawan to '**** off' over the issue of
drug testing. He also ignored the East coast by 'answering' GM Benjamin's
concerns in CL with a 'Leave it to Beaver, you really don't know what you're
talking about' printed piece.

This situation brought about the remarkable situation of the
'representative' of USCF at Fide being at odds with the delegates [who had
clearly said 'no' to drug testing] /and/ with the players, who, as above,
were not encouraged to air their 'silly' views either. This situation was
perhaps the last straw which broke the trust of any top players wishing to
be 'represented' by USCF. After this, USCF politics became increasingly
estranged from any constituency's representation.

Dorsch did not support any of these actions by Eade, and instead blew the
whistle on very strange financial goings on, old-boyism, and a form of
pork-barrel politics. Dorsch and I didn't agree on everything, but he had a
fine analytical mind and despised political cronyism.

Phil Innes
20th December, 2005

Sam Sloan wrote:

You may not agree with my biography, but I think you will agree that
Dorsch is worthy of a biography.

My objection to your article is mainly, that it is complete crap. Other
people from Wikipedia, who have no relation to you, had no bias against
or in favour of you, only read this article, came to the same
conclusion. Even those, who didn't vote for deletion make it very
clear, that they regard your contributions as mostly unusable.
Currently there are 9 opinions. They fall into two groups: delete this
junk or rewrite the article completely. Nobody came up with the
statement, that the original article posted by you was by any means
appropriate for the Wikipedia.

I think, if there would be an article about Tom Dorsch it should be
completely re-written by somebody else. So if somebody regards Tom
Dorsch as worth mentioning in Wikipedia and cares about it, he indeed
should create this article from scratch.

Greetings,
Ralf

Major Cat wrote:
Ralf Callenberg wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote:

You may not agree with my biography, but I think you will agree that
Dorsch is worthy of a biography.

My objection to your article is mainly, that it is complete crap.

I would like to introject something that
could be viewed as tangential to the focus
of this thread. For obvious reasons, you
are familiar with a culture that has
produced quite a few notable philosophers
of history, social thinkers and critics.

Societal democratization and its attendant
egalitarian massification are pillars of
contemporary Western (and globalist) Zeit-
geist. Fifty years ago, a statement like
"well, Mr. President, _my_ personal soap
opera is as important as _yours_" would
have sounded almost crazy. These days, it
would not raise that many eyebrows...

In academic life, including the discipline
of history, ever increasing specialization
and unrelenting focusing on minutia seems to
be the rule. Is it any wonder that contemporary
society cannot get enough of trivia?

A frequent contributor to these newsgroups
has come up with the "1/x rule". If I may be
permitted, I had the temerity to generalize
it. Thus, If one is to "remember" _one_ opening
move, well, let it be 1. e4. What is a bit bet-
ter may be, say, 1. e4 c5 and so on. Deep opening
lines these days may run 60-ply deep...

By analogy, once upon a time, one or two aspects
of Capablanca's or Alekhine's personal lives _may_
have received _passing_ attention. These days the
"audience" craves baroque...narratives. By
comparison, deep opening lines are beautiful
in the sense of Plato... 8)

Excuse the intrusion.

Other
people from Wikipedia, who have no relation to you, had no bias against
or in favour of you, only read this article, came to the same
conclusion. Even those, who didn't vote for deletion make it very
clear, that they regard your contributions as mostly unusable.
Currently there are 9 opinions. They fall into two groups: delete this
junk or rewrite the article completely. Nobody came up with the
statement, that the original article posted by you was by any means
appropriate for the Wikipedia.

I think, if there would be an article about Tom Dorsch it should be
completely re-written by somebody else. So if somebody regards Tom
Dorsch as worth mentioning in Wikipedia and cares about it, he indeed
should create this article from scratch.

Greetings,
Ralf

Regards,

Major Cat

My name is Sam Sloan. I'm a ****ing moron. I like to alienate people. I
like to insult people. I like to lie. I like to **** minors and
virgins. I'm a total loser. Most of the time, I'm homeless. My wife
refuses to **** me unless I pay her $1,000 each time. I'm sorry for
being a pain in your asses.

Sam Sloan

I understand it is not your intention, however I still applaud your
decision(s). Keep up the good work! Actually this is the first I've
heard of Wikipedia, and shall be making a donation to it shortly.

- CF


"Ralf Callenberg" wrote in message ups.com...
| Hello,
|
| Thanks for smacking down Sam Sloan,
|
| it's not my intention to smack this man, it's more a collateral damage.
| I am just annoyed that this sort of stuff gets into Wikipedia. It would
| be another example of the poor quality of articles - and it ridicules
| chess players as strange fellows, who are more interested in the
| personal curiosities of functionaries than in the game itself, or at
| least the players. (Could you imagine a somebody calling himsel a
| basketball expert, who regards a College-League referee as more popular
| than Kobe Bryant, and writes a Wikipedia entry about this referee twice
| the size of the star's entry?)
|
| But I admit, now I am very curious where all this will lead to.
|
| Greetings,
| Ralf
|

Ralf Callenberg wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote:

You may not agree with my biography, but I think you will agree that
Dorsch is worthy of a biography.

My objection to your article is mainly, that it is complete crap.

I would like to introject something that
could be viewed as tangential to the focus
of this thread. For obvious reasons, you
are familiar with a culture that has
produced quite a few notable philosophers
of history, social thinkers and critics.

Societal democratization and its attendant
egalitarian massification are pillars of
contemporary Western (and globalist) Zeit-
geist. Fifty years ago, a statement like
"well, Mr. President, _my_ personal soap
opera is as important as _yours_" would
have sounded almost crazy. These days, it
would not raise that many eyebrows...

In academic life, including the discipline
of history, ever increasing specialization
and unrelenting focusing on minutia seems to
be the rule. Is it any wonder that contemporary
society cannot get enough of trivia?

A frequent contributor to these newsgroups
has come up with the "1/x rule". If I may be
permitted, I had the temerity to generalize
it. Thus, If one is to "remember" _one_ opening
move, well, let it be 1. e4. What is a bit bet-
ter may be, say, 1. e4 c5 and so on. Deep opening
lines these days may run 60-ply deep...

By analogy, once upon a time, one or two aspects
of Capablanca's or Alekhine's personal lives _may_
have received _passing_ attention. These days the
"audience" craves baroque...narratives. By
comparison, deep opening lines are beautiful
in the sense of Plato... 8)

Excuse the intrusion.

Other
people from Wikipedia, who have no relation to you, had no bias against
or in favour of you, only read this article, came to the same
conclusion. Even those, who didn't vote for deletion make it very
clear, that they regard your contributions as mostly unusable.
Currently there are 9 opinions. They fall into two groups: delete this
junk or rewrite the article completely. Nobody came up with the
statement, that the original article posted by you was by any means
appropriate for the Wikipedia.

I think, if there would be an article about Tom Dorsch it should be
completely re-written by somebody else. So if somebody regards Tom
Dorsch as worth mentioning in Wikipedia and cares about it, he indeed
should create this article from scratch.

Greetings,
Ralf

Regards,

Major Cat

This "biography" is filled with personal attacks! It is not a very
objective peice of work and filled with speculation. More like a
work of fiction rather than a biography. You should be ashamed, Mr.
Sloan.

i agree. That profile is nothing but garbage.

Sam Sloan wrote:

My name is Sam Sloan.

It does not really matter. Say you are
John Q. Public...

I'm a ****ing moron.

This may be the entertainment of choice
when it comes to the "audience"!

I like to alienate people.

They are already alienated to the maximum
possible degree. No harm done...

I like to insult people.

John Q. Public _is_ the "people". One
insulting himself may be viewed as
somewhat humorous!

I like to lie.

It is called generalized relativism...

I like to **** minors and virgins.

Generalized paedophilia seems to be
an integral part of the Zeitgeist!

I'm a total loser.

And a total _winner_. John Q. Public
_rules_ the societal roost almost by
definition.

Most of the time, I'm homeless.

John Q. Public does not need a home.
The entire world is his...oyster! 8)

My wife
refuses to **** me unless I pay her $1,000 each time.

It is no different from most other
_exchange transactions_ in modernity!

I'm sorry for
being a pain in your asses.

Please do not be. It is self-
inflicted and, consequently, lots
of fun...


Sam Sloan

Thank you for persevering!

Major Cat

P.S. As a feline, I have to say that
human psychology and sociology are
_so_ fascinating to me...

On 20 Dec 2005 10:53:32 -0800, wrote:


This "biography" is filled with personal attacks! It is not a very
objective peice of work and filled with speculation. More like a
work of fiction rather than a biography. You should be ashamed, Mr.
Sloan.

i agree. That profile is nothing but garbage.

Where did you get the name Pinnochio from?

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:37:04 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

In the good old days of high-Fide, at a World Championship event in
Kalmykia, Sri Krishna Kirsan, the Buddhist dictator of that country and of
Fide, decided that Fide owned the game scores. This was news to the legal
world, the delegates, and the players, and since Ronald Reagan wasn't
President at the time the US couldn't send the gunboats since that would
require porting them overland some considerable distance - and there weren't
enough gunboats anyway, all the money having been spent on a missile defence
system...

So my Russian friend /bought/ the game scores, and sent them to me. I
forwarded them to Tom Dorsch with a note which donated them to USCF to use
freely.

This effectively brought Kirsan's caper to an end.

At that time Tom [who frequently wrote in this forum] wore a camel-coloured
coat jacket, and refused to notice my
jokes about it for the next 3 years.

What is missing from Sam's bio-blog is the essential set of circumstances
that USCF would have been dead as a doornail 7 years ago if Tom Dorsch had
not been obnoxious!

He, more than somewhat acerbically, insisted that the institution was
financially bleeding to death. Even his political opponents agreed that he
would have been the next USCF president if he had not campaigned on the very
strange finances at that time [just as strange, dear viewer, as the current
finances], and his actions forced the attention of the board and delegates
on the imminent collapse of the whole shebang.

He was a USCF politician who was at the same time a strong fiscal
conservative, and also someone who thought the institution needed a radical
overall before it 'went south' and was reduced to some mumchance shadow of
itself, useless to one and all.

In other words, he was a heretic and a successful prophet of Doom.

His buddy Eade was a political ally on the board, but philosophically not on
the same page. Dorsch for example was all for conferencing with top players
on 'what furthers us' but Eade, charged with a Fide role, fought the
players, to the extent of telling Seirawan to '**** off' over the issue of
drug testing. He also ignored the East coast by 'answering' GM Benjamin's
concerns in CL with a 'Leave it to Beaver, you really don't know what you're
talking about' printed piece.

This situation brought about the remarkable situation of the
'representative' of USCF at Fide being at odds with the delegates [who had
clearly said 'no' to drug testing] /and/ with the players, who, as above,
were not encouraged to air their 'silly' views either. This situation was
perhaps the last straw which broke the trust of any top players wishing to
be 'represented' by USCF. After this, USCF politics became increasingly
estranged from any constituency's representation.

Dorsch did not support any of these actions by Eade, and instead blew the
whistle on very strange financial goings on, old-boyism, and a form of
pork-barrel politics. Dorsch and I didn't agree on everything, but he had a
fine analytical mind and despised political cronyism.

Phil Innes
20th December, 2005

This is a very good article. Excellent. One of the best I have ever
seen.

I especially liked the part about how Ronald Reagan did not have a
enough gunboats to get those game scored from Kalmykia, so you had to
call in Tom Dorsch instead.

You would perform a great service if you would drop your entire
article into the Tom Dorsch Wikipedia page.

Just go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Dorsch

Then click on "edit this page" at the top.

Then just paste this article in somewhere and save.

I cannot do this myself, so I would be most thankful if you would do
it.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:

This is a very good article.
[...]
You would perform a great service if you would drop your entire
article into the Tom Dorsch Wikipedia page.

It's indeed a nice read, but not very specific about Tom Dorsch, so it
wouldn't fit there, even when the satiristic parts are removed. But I
assume Phil is aware of this.

Greetings,
Ralf