Board to Hold Next Meeting on the Internet

One more curious thing about my time
as a coach ... I held a parents meeting
at the start of each season and advised
the parents that if, at any point, they
thought they could do a better job then
I was I would petition the board to get
them qualified (background check and
required training), would use them as
a supervised assistant in the meantime
and would turn over the tem at the the
earliest opportunity. Never got a single
taker... go figure.

On Nov 8, 9:48 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

oups.com...

This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
defeats the very purpose of having these meetings.

Laugh - no, it just eliminates potential inclusion of member's
contributions.

In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:

"I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting. The
USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."

Which of course is quite true. Pretense you have no responsibility is
absurd. And How Absurd!

Here is the one place where USCF could take the responsibility already
granted to it, to act for the betterment of chess players - and it sticks
its head in the sand!! ROFL.

And on a more general note, without a timed agenda, if the President wants
to talk for an hour with no seconder for any clearly stated motion, or even
without a motion - and if even Sam Sloan thought Paul Truong spoke
consistently to a topical point, while others wavered in the wind... this
could only politely be termed discussion at all.

What is the name for a topic-less discussion?

Otherwise, the
meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.

Which they will be. Which has to be cheaper than flying everyone to
Crossville to discuss...? What exactly had anything at the past meeting of
import to chess players?

Phil Innes



Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Phil

The Pope would not agree with the USCF about the legal ramifications
of background checkes. The Cathlotic Chruch
has all kinds of legal rights (including diplomatic and soverign
immuntiy that they used a bunch) and they still paid
hundreds of millions, for lack of background checks on priests that
molested children.

The EB has admitted the gulit of Paul Troung. For them, it is easier
to meet in secret than be mocked in public.

I am making some telephone calls with my money people. I'll make these
mother ****ers meet in person.

Marcus Roberts
the rich dude who can't play chess due to a drug test for atenolol

good post, man! good witness about what's true - it's how it really is out
there, no? not some silly fantasy appreciation

cordially, phil innes

wrote in message
oups.com...
In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:

"I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting.
The
USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."

Phil Innes


Are the USCF leaders truely as ignorant as they appear? Frankly chess
knowledge and ability are actually far from being the most important
characteristics of a Coach! The best coaches are rarely those who have
been
top players whether we are talking about Chess, Athletics or anything
else.
On the other hand Character is of the utmost importance along with
protecting
children from predators.

I speak from experience having served as a volunteer wrestling coach
for some
8 years. I came into it with absolutely Zero knowledge of the sport,
just a
willingness to learn and a desire to help both my child and others
become
exposed to and hopefully enjoy being a part of this activity. Frankly
the vast
majority of volunteer youth sports coaches start this way. Each and
every year
I submitted to FBI background checks a nd for the last five of those I
did so
twice per year as I became a volunteer youth football coach as well.

It never occured to me to question the need for this, the requirement
was just
blatently obvious and while the legues would indeed have been exposing
themselves
to liability if they failed to do this, this angle was never even
discussed at the
board meetings. We simply focused on Protecting The Children and over
time
added training programs designed to both provide an enjoyable
experience for
all participants while still producing highly competitive teams. These
programs
were extremely effective.

These requirements also had the favorable side effect of disuading
many of those
who appeared to be participating out of a desire fore personal
aggrandizement.
Something that appears to be something of an issue with the USCF
governance.

On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, wrote:
On Nov 8, 9:48 am, "Chess One" wrote:





"samsloan" wrote in message

roups.com...

This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
defeats the very purpose of having these meetings.

Laugh - no, it just eliminates potential inclusion of member's
contributions.

In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:

"I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting. The
USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."

Which of course is quite true. Pretense you have no responsibility is
absurd. And How Absurd!

Here is the one place where USCF could take the responsibility already
granted to it, to act for the betterment of chess players - and it sticks
its head in the sand!! ROFL.

And on a more general note, without a timed agenda, if the President wants
to talk for an hour with no seconder for any clearly stated motion, or even
without a motion - and if even Sam Sloan thought Paul Truong spoke
consistently to a topical point, while others wavered in the wind... this
could only politely be termed discussion at all.

What is the name for a topic-less discussion?

Otherwise, the
meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.

Which they will be. Which has to be cheaper than flying everyone to
Crossville to discuss...? What exactly had anything at the past meeting of
import to chess players?

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Phil

The Pope would not agree with the USCF about the legal ramifications
of background checkes. The Cathlotic Chruch
has all kinds of legal rights (including diplomatic and soverign
immuntiy that they used a bunch) and they still paid
hundreds of millions, for lack of background checks on priests that
molested children.

The EB has admitted the gulit of Paul Troung. For them, it is easier
to meet in secret than be mocked in public.

I am making some telephone calls with my money people. I'll make these
mother ****ers meet in person.

Marcus Roberts
the rich dude who can't play chess due to a drug test for atenolol- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean, atenolol has caused you to forget how to set up the board
and pieces, and how they move? Or is it a physical impediment?

On Nov 8, 6:07 pm, zdrakec wrote:
On Nov 8, 4:03 pm, wrote:





On Nov 8, 9:48 am, "Chess One" wrote:

"samsloan" wrote in message

roups.com...

This has never been done before. Holding the meeting over the Internet
so that the general membership cannot be present and participate
defeats the very purpose of having these meetings.

Laugh - no, it just eliminates potential inclusion of member's
contributions.

In an interesting thread I began, Jack LeMoine volunteered this comment:

"I spoke to this issue at last weekend's USCF Executive Board Meeting. The
USCF is close to forming a program to certify chess coaches. It will only
certify to their chess knowledge, however. I asked the EB about criminal
background checks in connection with certification and they were quite
against it - and on legal grounds. Their position was that checks would
expose them to greater liability, not less. I don't understand this."

Which of course is quite true. Pretense you have no responsibility is
absurd. And How Absurd!

Here is the one place where USCF could take the responsibility already
granted to it, to act for the betterment of chess players - and it sticks
its head in the sand!! ROFL.

And on a more general note, without a timed agenda, if the President wants
to talk for an hour with no seconder for any clearly stated motion, or even
without a motion - and if even Sam Sloan thought Paul Truong spoke
consistently to a topical point, while others wavered in the wind... this
could only politely be termed discussion at all.

What is the name for a topic-less discussion?

Otherwise, the
meetings could just be held by telephone conference call.

Which they will be. Which has to be cheaper than flying everyone to
Crossville to discuss...? What exactly had anything at the past meeting of
import to chess players?

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Phil

The Pope would not agree with the USCF about the legal ramifications
of background checkes. The Cathlotic Chruch
has all kinds of legal rights (including diplomatic and soverign
immuntiy that they used a bunch) and they still paid
hundreds of millions, for lack of background checks on priests that
molested children.

The EB has admitted the gulit of Paul Troung. For them, it is easier
to meet in secret than be mocked in public.

I am making some telephone calls with my money people. I'll make these
mother ****ers meet in person.

Marcus Roberts
the rich dude who can't play chess due to a drug test for atenolol- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean, atenolol has caused you to forget how to set up the board
and pieces, and how they move? Or is it a physical impediment?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd say that the procedures of taking a drug test, and going through
my medical files
Represent a greater cost to FIDE than the cost of investigating my
criminal background
To deal with children. That is, we test for drugs, when we should be
looking out for child molesters.

But, many of our USCF Delegates and officers and FIDE officals are
felons, if not murderers. They like kiddy
Ass and you see that they are going to encourage and support the
molestation, While claiming a DRUG WAR.
Tim Redman and the FIDE medical committee has no right to drug test me
while they molest children, as did the Catholic Church!

So, who do you propose to make the decision about the Atelonel, a
murderer, or a child molester, or just a common criminal?

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegte of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE

On Nov 8, 4:01 pm, wrote:
One more curious thing about my time
as a coach ... I held a parents meeting
at the start of each season and advised
the parents that if, at any point, they
thought they could do a better job then
I was I would petition the board to get
them qualified (background check and
required training), would use them as
a supervised assistant in the meantime
and would turn over the tem at the the
earliest opportunity. Never got a single
taker... go figure.

Did you try offering them free food?
That always seems to work around here.
In fact, perhaps 10% of the shoppers in
Sam's Club are there just for the free
(food) samples.


-- hungry bot

On Nov 8, 5:03 pm, wrote:

The Pope would not agree with the USCF about the legal ramifications
of background checkes. The Cathlotic Chruch
has all kinds of legal rights (including diplomatic and soverign
immuntiy that they used a bunch) and they still paid
hundreds of millions, for lack of background checks on priests that
molested children.

Are you suggesting that all or most of those
priests had criminal records, and could have
been screened out with a simple background
check?


Marcus Roberts
the rich dude who can't play chess due to a drug test for atenolol

So much for the world championship, then.
You could move here, where there is no drug
testing, there is no real competition, and you
would also likely be the only rich player in
the whole tourney. (Or... you could just go
on whining.)


-- help bot

On Nov 8, 7:57 pm, wrote:


But, many of our USCF Delegates and officers and FIDE officals are
felons, if not murderers.

Is it any wonder then that the minions of rgcp
constantly fight to get on there? Maybe it is
only from there that one can rule the underworld,
bark out orders and collect tribute, ala my good
friend "Lucky".


They like kiddy
Ass and you see that they are going to encourage and support the
molestation, While claiming a DRUG WAR.
Tim Redman and the FIDE medical committee has no right to drug test me
while they molest children, as did the Catholic Church!

Did? Past tense? So, it's over with then, once and
for all? Very good.


So, who do you propose to make the decision about the Atelonel, a
murderer, or a child molester, or just a common criminal?

Okay, so I type that name into a Google search box
and what do you suppose I learn? Only that there is
apparently just *one* person, per Google, who takes
the drug. It's a good thing he is filthy rich, 'cause
the first user is always going to be the one to pay for
the R & D.


-- help bot