"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Steven B Dowd (aka ) wrote:
Nick wrote:

Steven B Dowd has snipped nearly
the complete context of my post.

Recently, Steven B Dowd has evidently made it
clear enough that he has no respect whatsoever
for Zsuzsa Polgar 'as a person'.

"Any respect I had for her (Zsuzsa Polgar) as a person
is out the window; subventing (sic) the democratic process
is not exactly something we should encourage."
--Steven B Dowd (1 August 2006, writing as
' in RGCP)

I regret that my earlier quotation of Steven B Dowd's
statement had a typing error that resulted in the
accidental omission of the word 'something'.

That is a true statement. I cannot have respect for
individuals who advocate subventing the democratic
process.

*Again* Steven B Dowd has used the verb 'subventing'
(sic) rather than 'subverting', so I shall assume that he
has used it intentionally rather than as the consequence
of a typing error.

According to Dictionary.com, to subvent
means 'to guarantee financial support of'.

SUBVENT: also means in an American dictionary, the Government coming to the
aid of.

Essentially you are correct, and he intends to write subvert. If he had used
SUBVENE there may have been a better sense, since it can have the meaning of
coming to the aid of, as preventive measure, as in the sense of to cause to
have relief.

It seems though he confused the transitive subvert with the intransitive
subvene.

So, assuming that Steven B Dowd knew the meaning
of his verb 'subventing', Steven B Dowd's statement
(above) means: "I cannot have respect for individuals
who advocate (guaranteeing financial support of)
the democratic process". Does that make any sense?

Or would it make more sense to infer that
Steven B Dowd was ignorant of the meaning of
'subventing' and confused it with 'subverting'?

One is a much more 'clever' word than the other, and therefore...

Sam won, whether she likes it or not.
Her blog is one big whine over Sloan winning and how
we have to make sure he doesn't make it into office.

I did *not* write any comment about Zsuzsa
Polgar's criticisms of Sam Sloan.

Anyone interested can read Susan Polgar's blog
and decide to what extent it's fair and accurate for
Steven B Dowd to describe it as 'one big whine over
(Sam) Sloan winning...'

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/

While I haven't made any personal comment on this issue, it is not a simple
one, and I hope people will comment on it. 2 things are very certain - that
5 major sponsors for chess have already turned down any current
'opportunities' in Chicago, precisely because Sam Sloan is on board.

The second thing to note is that this is pretty much the same as any other
year.

What I hope any continuation of this discussion would invoke is the sense of
the stalking-horse [Sloan] being now sacrificed as the scapegoat for lack of
financial investment in chess.


While I snipped the rest of this interaction, it seemed to rest mostly on
the understanding of the two writers - what will have any long term effect
will be to differentiate what might be objectionable about Sloan from what
has been long-term objectionable about USCF.

Otherwise we will have 12 months of 'personality' discussion which will
resolve nothing at all to the benefit of the future. When I wrote USCF about
standards it was way before the election, and they did nothing. No one here
did anything either, and people wrote that 'they just didn't understand' why
a basis of ethical behavior was even necessary, and when it was pushed up
the nose of the major whiners about Sloan, they were unable to make a
contribution about everyone.

The major absence of comment was for genuine concern about our children.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
Dear Steven, while we [plural!] hold you in our affections, what you write
is a continuous demonstration of what I say, which is of your effections.

Perhaps it is because I am such a pragmatist that I typically think, "if he
could, he would," but you evidently can't address whatever was in the Polgar
column, since it is your preference to write in hissy fits.

Love and Kisses, Phil.


Um, you can keep the kisses, and I will accept the loving in the most
generic of ways, but I do not see what I failed to address. My view is
simple on what she wrote in the column and her blog: I disagree totally
with her rants on Sam. He won, and it would seem to me that a person
with the power to do so many positive things for chess (and who has
done many positive things for chess) should stay away from this sort of
thing, and her recommending that we find some way to prevent him from
assuming office is wrong. Not only wrong, but it sends a signal
(however false) that she is the one who wants to have her way through
"hissy fits."

Does her association with Truong bother me? No, it is up to her to
decide, but by your standards, Truong really is someone who "can't be
bothered to sign his name" and in fact floods many discussion groups
with anonymous postings, and is an accused Internet chess cheater. As
an opportunist, he has done well for her but I can't help thinking he
will also be her undoing.

And of course this is a form of armchair quarterbacking I am engaged in
when I discuss these matters, as are 99% of the posts here. It is sheer
speculation. If you want real news on Polgar, I suggest sources like
chesscafe, where her column appeared. It does an excellent job of
covering topical material in an informative manner. It has the best
writers on chess of any site I have seen.

I fail to see how that or anything else I wrote is anything more of a
hissy fit than what you write here on a regular basis. When attacked,
you defend, as do I. Why is your defense supposedly superior to mine?

I consider myself a pragmatist as well, and in fact my master's work
was in part on Dewey and his philosophy of education; his "learning
lab" (learning through experimentation) ideas would fit well for chess
study if someone took up the notion.

However, I still think "on-topic" to you means "what I want (or is that
what we want?) to discuss." In fact, I always find it funny when you
accuse others of not discussing chess because your posts are often
without any relevant chess content whatsoever. In fact. except for
mentioning the name "Polgar," what does your post above have to do with
chess? Very little. It has more to do with me; and your accusations
that I don't post on chess and suffer from some sort of self-obsession,
well, here we go again: Pot, kettle, black.

Chess One wrote:

While I haven't made any personal comment on this issue, it is not a simple
one, and I hope people will comment on it. 2 things are very certain - that
5 major sponsors for chess have already turned down any current
'opportunities' in Chicago, precisely because Sam Sloan is on board.

One trouble is that we have heard this sort of thing before - not about
Sam, but about chessplayers in general. That somehow we do not present
ourselves as something sponsors would want to get involved in.

Again, without any firsthand evidence (who were the sponsors? what were
the stated reasons? why is Sam an issue to them?), this is a difficult
topic to discuss. We have only your word (and probably that is all you
can give in such circumstances) that these sponsors dropped out. But
certainly we cannot evaluate this simply based on your statement, we
need more evidence, which we may never get.

In a sense, I don't care. The level of commercialism I see in other
activities with sponsors is repugnant, in my view - "Well, here at the
Cellular Three field we now have the McDonald's halftime report, brough
to you by McDonald's etc."

Perhaps chess should be self-supporting and only engage in activities
it has the resources to accomplish on its own? Why do we have to be
like everyone else and beg for money?

WWMD*


* What would Morphy do?

Nick wrote:

I was simply expressing my interpretation of
what Kenneth Sloan's statement meant.

And I simply expressed mine. However uncomfortable it makes you that
someone is willing to challenge your nonsense is not my problem, Nick.
You might be better off dealing with that on your own time.

wrote in message
ups.com...


In a sense, I don't care. The level of commercialism I see in other
activities with sponsors is repugnant, in my view - "Well, here at the
Cellular Three field we now have the McDonald's halftime report, brough
to you by McDonald's etc."

Perhaps chess should be self-supporting and only engage in activities
it has the resources to accomplish on its own? Why do we have to be
like everyone else and beg for money?


There seems to be a misunderstanding of what sponsorship is.
Sponsors act on the belief that the sponsorship benefits
the sponsor. It's an issue of self-interest.

"Begging" is the usual fund-raising method employed
by non-profits. It appeals to charitable impulses.

The USCF attracts neither sponsors nor charity
because it is constructed along the "membership"
model - i.e. become a "member" and receive the "benefits"
of "membership". But of course 99.6% of chessplayers
don't need or want it. And since there are so few members,
there are no sponsors. But as the organization is structured
to function as a "benefit supplier" for the 0.4%, it's an
unsuitable donee for anyone charitably inclined
towards chess.

This is *not* the norm. Many national organizations
have a truly national purpose, and have both sponsors
and donors.

The fear that chess will be overcommercialized
seems a tad premature.

Steven B Dowd (aka ) wrote:
Nick wrote:

Again the context was snipped by Steven B Dowd.

I was simply expressing my interpretation of
what Kenneth Sloan's statement meant.

And I simply expressed mine. However uncomfortable it makes you that
someone is willing to challenge your nonsense is not my problem, Nick.
You might be better off dealing with that on your own time.

Anyone who's interested in reading this complete thread
should be able to find the evidence of Steven B Dowd's
dishonest distortions and other abusive comments.

Steven B Dowd has declared in public that he has no
respect whatsoever for Zsuzsa Polgar 'as a person'.
Steven B Dowd evidently regards his comments
about Zsuzsa Polgar's personal life as being a
part of USCF politics.

--Nick

Thanks David, that was very informative. I guess then I would ask what
the sponsorship opportunities were that we supposedly lost.

I remember the Church's Fried Chicken Years where they were sponsoring
chess - for example, Larry Christiansen made a trip to my then hometown
of Champaign-Urbana in the (70s?) for a simul just so I could beat him
(we have to make this "all about me" just so Philsy won't be
disappointed!).

I also suppose there are many types of sponsorship opportunities -
supporting a tournament, a GM, a school program or programs. It seems
that institutions like Banks sponsor tournaments in Europe; there must
be some "value-added" for them or else they wouldn't do it.

I don't pretend to know much about the subject but you seemed to be
asserting that there will continue to be few opportunities for
sponsorship. Again, I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing, at
least from my perspective. Why can't chess "sponsor" itself?

I understand your analogy re the 99.6 and the 0.4%, but I wonder if the
numbers aren't pretty much the same in most activities - a lot of
people play tennis at the local court, but few are a member of any sort
of tennis organization.

Anyway, thanks for that piece of education....it beats the usual
trumpeting noise we see here....

Chess One wrote:

(,,)


SUBVENT: also means in an American dictionary, the Government coming to the
aid of.

Essentially you are correct, and he intends to write subvert. If he had used
SUBVENE there may have been a better sense, since it can have the meaning of
coming to the aid of, as preventive measure, as in the sense of to cause to
have relief.

It seems though he confused the transitive subvert with the intransitive
subvene.

SUBVENT: also, pls. see plumbers guide to underwater boats (1) and (2);
vent beneath the upper (vent) as in 'louvres' - thks..




fin..

Anyone who's interested in reading this complete thread should be able
to find the evidence of Nick's dishonest distortions and other abusive
comments. This is unfortunately nowhere near the rambling profanity he
sends Steven B. Dowd each and every day by email. Luckily, he has set
his spam filter so that messages from Nick (yesterday's count: 30) are
automatically deleted.

Such documents are best served in the appropriate court of law.

Nick has declared in public that he has utter disdain for Steven B.
Dowd. Nick evidently regards his comments about him as being relevant
to this forum.

Please excuse any further commentary by Nick on this matter; SBD will
remain silent on the matter while the appropriate legal preparations
are being made to stop this abuse..

Chess One wrote:

(,,)

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/

While I haven't made any personal comment on this issue, it is not a simple
one, and I hope people will comment on it. 2 things are very certain - that
5 major sponsors for chess have already turned down any current
'opportunities' in Chicago, precisely because Sam Sloan is on board.

Eee, by goum! - it should be clear even to a blind pig that uscf is a
dead hulk floating there waiting & waiting the depleted u torpedo of net
savvy young'uns. A sad fact only to the porkers habitually conditioned
to gorge members dollars & a fitting sinecure for 60yr old Sloan.
Henceforward I forsee uscf becoming this unimportant boutique concern.
Other orgs. will easily absorb their 'heritage' & probably attract the
customary ungenerous & stingy corps. who deign to patronise chess, Sloan
or no Sloan, Parr or no Parr - etc. Yawwwn..












The second thing to note is that this is pretty much the same as any other
year.

What I hope any continuation of this discussion would invoke is the sense of
the stalking-horse [Sloan] being now sacrificed as the scapegoat for lack of
financial investment in chess.

While I snipped the rest of this interaction, it seemed to rest mostly on
the understanding of the two writers - what will have any long term effect
will be to differentiate what might be objectionable about Sloan from what
has been long-term objectionable about USCF.

Otherwise we will have 12 months of 'personality' discussion which will
resolve nothing at all to the benefit of the future. When I wrote USCF about
standards it was way before the election, and they did nothing. No one here
did anything either, and people wrote that 'they just didn't understand' why
a basis of ethical behavior was even necessary, and when it was pushed up
the nose of the major whiners about Sloan, they were unable to make a
contribution about everyone.

The major absence of comment was for genuine concern about our children.

Phil Innes