On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:59:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:46:09 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
suit.

But which party do you address, just one of them, Javert?

So you think it would be good trade for the USCF to drop the John Doe
suit in return for Polgar dropping her suit?

Since the Doe suit has merit and Polgar's has none, this would present
some, ah, ethical problems.

Kinda like trading a Rook for a backward and doubled Pawn?

J.D. Walker wrote:
..
I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the
frog in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about
to throw the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope
something positive comes from it.
--

Doubtless a delicious frog mousse - dear chap..

t.

On Aug 28, 5:46*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Javert" wrote in message

...
On Aug 28, 4:24 pm, "Chess One" wrote:



"J.D. Walker" wrote in message

...

I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the
frog
in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about to
throw
the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope something
positive
comes from it.

It is an offer. I suppose its detail will be publicly known sometime this
day, and what people speculate to its motive or effect - whether of
goodwill
or if that is, as it seems to be so often, merely conceived as weakness....
?

... the result of acceptance or refusal is to great effect on US chess as
we
know it. Without a settlement then one side must fail, and since the
stakes
are now so high, that failure will be catastophic to those who lose.

In the background of these events there is attempt to bring parties to the
table and shift the agenda to what best benefits chess in the USA. That is
a
difficult undertaking when one side is intransigent, though they lose not
place nor power by accepting that basis.

Instead we will in all liklihood witness a resolute and intransigent legal
pursuit to the very endgame against those who would not bend to any
degree.

That is the current tragedic scenario of official chess in the United
States
of America. It is consequent the behavior of USCF that Polgar gets in a
suit
before Russell does - but only to note an almost incidental hierarchy of
impending legal suits, all of which are serious to the degree that failure
is life-threatening.

What should engage chess players attention is that whether pro or con
USCF's
activities, here is another reason to not attempt its own mission, a sad
road not taken these past 30 years.

That is the tomorrow of our existance. Blind.

Phil Innes

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
suit.

But which party do you address, just one of them, Javert?

PI

The party of the first part.

On Aug 28, 3:24 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote in message

. ..

I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the frog
in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about to throw
the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope something positive
comes from it.

It is an offer. I suppose its detail will be publicly known sometime this
day, and what people speculate to its motive or effect - whether of goodwill
or if that is, as it seems to be so often, merely conceived as weakness... ?

... the result of acceptance or refusal is to great effect on US chess as we
know it. Without a settlement then one side must fail, and since the stakes
are now so high, that failure will be catastophic to those who lose.

It will be especially difficult for the Trolgars,. since he can't file
for bankruptcy again for a while.

In the background of these events there is attempt to bring parties to the
table and shift the agenda to what best benefits chess in the USA. That is a
difficult undertaking when one side is intransigent, though they lose not
place nor power by accepting that basis.

Instead we will in all liklihood witness a resolute and intransigent legal
pursuit to the very endgame against those who would not bend to any degree.

That is the current tragedic scenario of official chess in the United States
of America. It is consequent the behavior of USCF that Polgar gets in a suit
before Russell does - but only to note an almost incidental hierarchy of
impending legal suits, all of which are serious to the degree that failure
is life-threatening.

What should engage chess players attention is that whether pro or con USCF's
activities, here is another reason to not attempt its own mission, a sad
road not taken these past 30 years.

That is the tomorrow of our existance. Blind.

Phil Innes

Reverend Philsy's memorial sermon for USCF, preached regularly here at
rgcp for the past decade.

On Aug 28, 10:55*pm, The Historian
wrote:

It will be especially difficult for the Trolgars,. since he can't file
for bankruptcy again for a while.


A mere technicality, for perhaps it is
possible, bot under one of the FSS's /other/
names?


Fear not! For just as Uncle Sam eventually
"took care of" Alphonse Capone, he can take
care of others who dare to use intimidation
and scare tactics (a chess term you may not
understand), and who try to undermine the
smooth-as-silk inner workings of the USCF --
an organization (ahem) whose achievements
are unfathomable and multisplendiferous and
supercalifragilistic!


-- help bot



P.S.: About the delay in payment... I have
been having some, er, technical difficulties
in that I no longer win chess trophies. Back
in the day, I was a force to be reckoned
with. Now, they say, it is not a question of
/if/ I will blunder, but of /when/ and /how/.
What about a few issues of "Developments
in the Grob, 1963-1965" instead of trophies?

And yes, it's true that PI was assigned to
heckle TK for FY2008; his was the lowest
bid, and he (just barely) qualified. --hb

thumbody wrote:

J.D. Walker wrote:
.
I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the
frog in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about
to throw the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope
something positive comes from it.
--

Doubtless a delicious frog mousse - dear chap..

t.

Look. Yea'h all 'ad enoch time yah scum. Whit's wrang wiv use? Are ye
robots?. You'se all be a buncha humorless gits I'm telling y'all now.
Ferkin scum, make me fit to puke. Can't take a joke - well fuk it!! Ram
it up 'er johny-'n scam it roun' her itchy 'ole - soap-scud chess
knggggs... 'n fuk yu big-time - kuntzzz! ..

t.*

*Em. pls. tell that johny-come-lately fellow, that *priest* that *vicar*
that vampire of the mind - that *reverend* prick - that he's an
uninteresting turkey..

Thanks mate..

t.