"George John" writes:
He has a right to defend himself, but not at the cost of the privacy of
those who neither asked to receive campaign messages from him, nor
given him permission to give their *personal* e-mail address to a large
number of people.

Bill made an error, but if he acknowledges it and says he won't do it
again, I wouldn't hold it against him. As a privacy buff and as a
security implementer I know that it's easy to make mistakes of this
type. The main thing is to not repeat them.

When I say it shouldn't have been sent to this list, I mean that even
without the email addresses visible for all to see. I strongly believe
that it's improper to have all the email addresses visible. I actually
never have cared about that, but at least two people complained to me
and were upset about it. If it upsets so many people, then it shouldn't
be done.

If it upsets so many people, then it shouldn't
be done.

Yes, that is a compelling argument.

Don

wrote in message
oups.com...
If it upsets so many people, then it shouldn't
be done.

Yes, that is a compelling argument.

Don

Don, help me out here. Are you agreeing with Greg, or are you speaking
tongue-in-cheek about Greg's quoting two individuals? Written
communication, with all of it's limitations, it's not clear where this is
coming from.

David
akb SHS as "You-Who-Have-No-Name"


--
without the block

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "quoting" two individuals?

"Greg Shahade" wrote in message
oups.com...

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "quoting" two individuals?


Greg, thanks for the response. "Quoting" may be a mis-characterizations,
and if so, I apologize. You said "at least two people have complained..."
and "If it upsets so many people...."

Don then quoted your post, excluding the portion citing "at least two
people..." and including the "..so many people..." portion. It was not
clear to me if Don was agreeing with you or being sarcastic about the fact
that you were acting on the weight of "at least two people..." I was asking
Don for clarification about his intention. I did not seek to misrepresent
you, if that was implied by my sloppy language.

Best of luck in your campaign. I think that there is a valid role on the
board for a representative of the skilled players within our community.

David
akb SHS as "You-Who-Have-No-Name"


--
without the block

Two people personally expressed dissatisfaction to me, however I've
received about a dozen emails to the entire list (of which everyone
else on the list probably also received) asking to be left off of it,
and some of them were clearly quite upset about being included in the
list.

"jimeade" wrote in message
oups.com...

I agree with Tim Hanke on all counts. I am especially tuned into his
dread of being subjected to Goichberg's droning monologues. Personal
purgatory aside, Goichberg was one of the chief architects of the
USCF's financial woes. He continuously argued that things were fine,
looking up, the other side is being political etc. during his last
board go-around. He was full of beans then and he is a danger to the
organization now. He is the most divisive person in USCF history.

Because he has professional standards and a track record of proven success?

Phil Innes
Vermont

He
should run his tournaments for profit and leave the USCF alone. He
does far more damage than good. Anyone who votes for him is part of
the problem.

wrote in message
oups.com...
George, your right to privacy is a good one. It is up against someone
else's right to defend himself. I have no doubt that Bill would have
thought twice about this if he wasn't so upset. It is my opinion that
those to whom I see have asked to unscribe are not people hiding their
name as a matter of course but rather folks that are overall disgusted
at the depths that we are descending.

That's also my sense Don.

We have seen people here run on a campaign of 'transparency' in governance
yet who are shy of having 'personal e-mail' - which I assume means things
they wrote personally about representing chess players, not the fact that
their dog is sick - exposed to the light of day.

If these are really USCF business communications by the group which forms
opinion then implements it as representatives of chess, why should these be
secret and restricted to a special club of people? Why restricted to what is
in effect a private lobby group?

Back to the top: People have resented the extremely low standard represented
in these communications, as perhaps the low standard that informs USCF
governance.

In continuing e-mails to this group, a certain character has been disputing
financial details presented by someone else, and in three tries spelled his
name differently, wrong on each occassion. Posting while drunk?

What sort of confidence is generated by the context of these messages which
do not address what is good for chess players in the future, but attempt to
re-write the past in a venial mode reminiscent of official Soviet historical
rewriting.

We all . . . you, me and everyone
here should reflect at the language and venom existig here, afterall
we are continuing to subscribe - is it worth it?.

If you want to win a little power over other people for a season or two, I
suspect it is de rigueur, just so you can know who's stabbing you in the
back today. But as a governance forum for chess development...?

The only good thing I've read in these e-mails was a piece of 'spam' from a
State organiser who provided an excellent study of chess benefits, well
researched and drawn from all over the world by sober and respectable
agents.

Phil Innes
Vermont

No, I was agreeing with Greg and then went to bed. I am leaving for the
Space City Open now, just for one day and will be back tomorow. Sorry
for not being clear. I didn't realize my reply could be interpreted
both ways but as I read it this morning, it sure can.

Guys, vote for Greg, he is smart and does make very telling arguments.
And he does it without insulting. The rest of us apparently insult even
when we don't mean to. We can learn alot from this fine young man!

Don