"Ralf Callenberg" wrote in message
...
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

I have been criticed elsewhere for not pointing out that Tom Dorsch
previously called Bill Goichberg a 'white collar criminal', for which he had
to apologise. This was written as an attempt to deflate the importance of
Dorsch's action [he had been 'wrong' before because of his manner] and to
negate the importance of noticing that USCF was 'bleeding out'.

That's the Disney version folks. Its true that Dorsch had to apologise to
Goichberg for his comment, but also true...

OTOH - I was at the board and delegates meeting in New Windsor where Dorsch
forced the issue onto the agenda, [that means there had been resistance to
publically airing it] and successions of delegates clearly in shock came out
of the meeting to the patio speaking to the air 'financial crisis, what
crisis?' then laughing to themselves like lunatics.

This took a bit of explaining to 3 guests with me the time [inc 2 Russians]
at least one of
whom thought I had taken them to a lunatic asylum by mistake.

I never met X there but Sam Sloan was in attendance. I have no [public]
knowledge of how accurate other matters were, since of course all other
issues
were publically suppressed -and do not insinuate that Tom Dorsch was correct
about them, just because he was correct about an at least $100,000 shortfall
in 6 months [not revenue shortfall, but P&L]

X says Tom Dorsch's insistent alarm in pointing out the boat was sinking
kept board members and the ED from reading their own P&L statements. Dorsch
was reporting to the board as Treasurer.

Of course it was Dorsch's fault that his own sense of alarm was not
expressed on one of the cuter Hallmark cards, as is apparently the typical
procedure, and the rest of the board had no responsibility for finances -
not even to the extent of reading the Treasurer's report. --Disney Version.

Dorsch's own expressions on the subject were more à point. --Spike Lee
version.



Phil Innes

Tom Dorsch is the most important chess person in America.

Sam Sloan

Help is desperately needed.

The vote is nearly 100% to delete my diography of Tom Dorsch on the
grounds that he is not a notable person. All of the voters are unknown
persons.

I need your help to keep this biography from being deleted altogether.

Please go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch

Click on "edit this page" at the top.

Then, go to the bottom of the page and write "KEEP" forrowed by
whatever reasons you have for feeling that this biography should be
kept.

Sam Sloan

Tom Dorsch is more famous than my dog and I don't even have a dog.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
Help is desperately needed.

The vote is nearly 100% to delete my diography of Tom Dorsch on the
grounds that he is not a notable person.

Not all hope is lost! You don't understand the process. This is not a
poll. At the end some administrator will have a look at what has been
said and make a decision. He is absolutely not bound to take the vote by
the majority.

All of the voters are unknown
persons.

There are many thousands of people participating in Wikipedia, of course
you don't know them all.

Then, go to the bottom of the page and write "KEEP" forrowed by
whatever reasons you have for feeling that this biography should be
kept.

It is explicitely described: opinions by anonymous users or those who
have registered solely for the vote are not as highly regarded. I doubt,
that this would make a big difference, but people can try it anyway of
course.

Greetings,
Ralf

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:11:24 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

Help is desperately needed.

The vote is nearly 100% to delete my diography of Tom Dorsch on the
grounds that he is not a notable person. All of the voters are unknown
persons.

I need your help to keep this biography from being deleted altogether.

Please go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch

Click on "edit this page" at the top.

Then, go to the bottom of the page and write "KEEP" forrowed by
whatever reasons you have for feeling that this biography should be
kept.

Sam Sloan

Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.

Jürgen R. wrote:


Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.

As you mainly gave an ad hominem attack, this was not very effective.

First, this is not about the author, but about the subject of this
article. Nobody denies, that the article itself is crap. The question is
just: complete rewrite or delete. You call the author "psychopath", so
how credential is you claim, that who he is writing about, is irrelevant?

That's usually the trick with bold and open ad hominem attacks: most of
the time they fire back on the originator, make their other statements
less convincing.

Greetings,
Ralf

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:21:31 +0100, Ralf Callenberg
wrote:

Jürgen R. wrote:


Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.

As you mainly gave an ad hominem attack, this was not very effective.

First, this is not about the author, but about the subject of this
article. Nobody denies, that the article itself is crap.

Nobody but you has said that the article is crap, and you do not know
Tom Dorsch.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:

First, this is not about the author, but about the subject of this
article. Nobody denies, that the article itself is crap.


Nobody but you has said that the article is crap,

Did you read the comments by the others in that discussion? Some quotes:

"I don't think it's nescessary to keep the article in it's old form for
a week longer,"

"POV junk and attacks" (by somebody who voted keep)

"I call for a delete and a complete rewrite after the delete has been done"

"I don't know why this one wasn't speedied as an attack. It seems to me,
an unsourced and unverifiable statement like "....If he won even more,
he would go to Tijuana, Mexico, where he would check out the whorehouses
and the strip clubs..." can only be construed as a personal attack"

"sorry state of the article"

and you do not know Tom Dorsch.

Yes indeed. But I do not have to know Tom Dorsch, I do not even have to
be a chess player in order to realize, that what you have written is
complete rubbish and absolutely inappropriate for an entry in an
encyclopedia. You still didn't get the point of the criticism against
this article, I am afraid you will never get. But this is your problem,
not mine.

Greetings,
Ralf

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:21:31 +0100, Ralf Callenberg
wrote:

Jürgen R. wrote:


Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.

As you mainly gave an ad hominem attack, this was not very effective.

First, this is not about the author, but about the subject of this
article. Nobody denies, that the article itself is crap.

Nobody but you has said that the article is crap, and you do not know
Tom Dorsch.

Sam Sloan

I know Tom Dorsch. The article is crap.

Randy Bauer