![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: otoh |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chess One wrote: You're more than welcome to discuss this at _www.uschess.blogspot.com_ (http://www.uschess.blogspot.com) . It is a blog to discuss USCF issues and especially about the upcoming USCF election. USCF memberships not required. After reading this at the website: I apologize for asking this question again. What is your official policy regarding deliberate lies, deceit, misinformation and personal attacks? As I said, I will not respond to these outrageous, malicious and false charges and I will not participate in any discussion in this forum until serious actions are taken against such individual(s). How many chances does one get before losing the privilege to post on the OFFICIAL USCF forum? Important issues are being drowned out because of the same nonsense daily. Are we an organization of 83,000 members or just a few unethical and unprofessional people? We are supposed to be a professional organization. For the sake of the USCF and US Chess, can something be done please? Thank you! Susan Polgar Here was the President of USCF's direct response: My understanding is that the official policy is that such posts are not allowed, and that they may be removed, and the poster ultimately banned from posting on the forum. However, in my opinion this policy has been insufficiently enforced. There is an ongoing Board discussion and vote relative to this matter and I hope that things will be different before too long. Bill Goichberg -- And there you have it! - a call to unity rejected, a call for honesty and decency rejected, and even a willingness to ban such views from the public gaze. For some time I have personally watched all sorts of people attempt 'reform', both at Fide and at USCF, and if I may publicly criticise Susan Polgar, I would say that some of her attitudes are naive; that is, she seems to be addressing other people who she assumes care for chess as a primary activity, even if not quite as much as she does herself, but this is a fantasy. It is not pleasant to come to this conclusion, yet any other assumptions are more problematic. In a book by James Clavell, 'Shogun' we have the English 'Anjin-San' confronting a powerful Japanese Daimyo, and who does not agree that one should always respect one's master, and there is one circumstance which justifies revolt. "What is that?" asks an angry Toronaga-Sama "When you win" replies our Anjin-san. Whereas Toronaga laugh out loud. This indeed seems to be the choice facing GM Polgar, both a t Fide and with USCF: to be a reformer, or to start anew. After interviewing for Chessville her business manager and VP of SP Foundation, Mr. Paul Truong, I sought advice and reaction from seasoned Fide watchers. One said, 'start now', and the other said 'start over,' [meaning to establish a new organisation]. These would appear to be the available opportunities - neither of which include carrying so much ancient dead and even rotten wood. I think people should understand that this is a very pregnant moment in the life and times of chess in the USA which had a fantastic start, and has now lapsed into an obscure hobby, whereas other countries seem not to be experiencing this problem, on the contrary, chess is booming! But increasingly clear is a status quo whose activity and ambition represent very moderate chess thinking in the USA and who are more than seemingly content with the way things are. It seems preferable to negate the chances of other board candidates rather than propose anything much which interests players - even the continuous national fiasco of the national championship could be described this way. Therefore Susan Polgar has to assess if she can engroup a majority on any future USCF board, and if even that is worthwhile when dragging the joint anchors of a minority opposition plus existing corporate culture; anchors indeed which stir up the mud of the past, and make steering the ship uncertain when steerage is most necessary. Current leadership has clearly spoken to the acceptance of these ideas, as above - and even that that cannot be voiced to members, and to be fair to the current president, he seems not much different than any other incumbent these past 15 years. Phil Innes Vermont, January 12, 2007 Goichberg and Channing should resign. Polger won't be elected. The USCF rejected Seirawan and they'll reject her too. I predict Leroy Dubeck will regain power with Marinello and me. Sam Sloan |
| Ads |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|