wrote:
"If someone lies aboutme, I'd like to no (sic) whom he lied to so I
can
correct it."

And do you know whom he might have lied to merely by looking at the
cc
list? For all I know, Goichberg might have cc'ed a few hundred
addresses and bcc'ed a few thousand more. Through CCA, he certainly
has the opportunity to have a list numbering in the thousands.

"The third alternative to let your adversary off the hook by keeping
silent could cost you the election."

I respect Goichberg's right to defend himself against what he
perceives
as false accusations. I respect his opponents' right to rebut.
However, I certainly am not interested in a back and forth email
exchange that is sent to hundreds of potential voters. And I doubt
such exchanges will increase the number of voters this summer. In
fact, I don't think I can find four candidates to vote for!

"I see the points made about the value of bcc - like most issues
here,
there are no black and whites just grays."

I can't disagree with you more. Privacy should be a black and white
issue to anyone running a large organization like USCF. Certainly
those of us in northern California who had to read Richard Peterson's
many spam emails this winter and spring know a thing or two about
privacy gone amock. Fortunately, that's over now!

Goichberg lost my vote and if anyone ever cares for why, I'm not shy
to
tell them.

Michael Aigner

Sorry, Michael, I plead guilty to not understanding internet etiquette
as well as many posters here. Didn't think I was revealing private
addresses when the address was already online. In your case, your
email address showed up in a google search.

Obviously, it was foolish to cc so many people and it's not something
I'll consider doing in the future.

Bill Goichberg

Thank you Mr. Goichberg for your apology. At least you have the
decency to admit a mistake. That counts for something to me.

I'll surely see you again sometime at one of your tournaments in Las
Vegas or Los Angeles.

Michael Aigner

Bill,

So kindly remove the confidential e-mails between the Executive Board
and the Executive Director from your website.

Suddenly, now we do not know if e-mail communications between Executive
Board members and office's representatives will be used for political's
gains.

Do you think that if you get elected to the Executive Board, we will
trust you with confidential e-mail exchanges??

I am for transparency, but you just make questionable the best way how
the Executive Board members communicate between meetings.

Unethical..Rings the bell?

Beatriz Marinello
Member of the Executive Board for the next two years.




May 6, 4:33 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 May 2005 13:33:05 -0700
Local: Fri,May 6 2005 4:33 pm
Subject: Misuse of Chess Life for Political Purposes
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
May 6, 4:33 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 May 2005 13:33:05 -0700
Local: Fri,May 6 2005 4:33 pm
Subject: Misuse of Chess Life for Political Purposes
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse





- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

wrote:
"If someone lies aboutme, I'd like to no (sic) whom he lied to so I
can
correct it."

And do you know whom he might have lied to merely by looking at the
cc
list? For all I know, Goichberg might have cc'ed a few hundred
addresses and bcc'ed a few thousand more. Through CCA, he certainly
has the opportunity to have a list numbering in the thousands.


"The third alternative to let your adversary off the hook by keeping
silent could cost you the election."


I respect Goichberg's right to defend himself against what he
perceives
as false accusations. I respect his opponents' right to rebut.
However, I certainly am not interested in a back and forth email
exchange that is sent to hundreds of potential voters. And I doubt
such exchanges will increase the number of voters this summer. In
fact, I don't think I can find four candidates to vote for!


"I see the points made about the value of bcc - like most issues
here,
there are no black and whites just grays."


I can't disagree with you more. Privacy should be a black and white
issue to anyone running a large organization like USCF. Certainly
those of us in northern California who had to read Richard Peterson's

many spam emails this winter and spring know a thing or two about
privacy gone amock. Fortunately, that's over now!


Goichberg lost my vote and if anyone ever cares for why, I'm not shy
to
tell them.


Michael Aigner



Sorry, Michael, I plead guilty to not understanding internet etiquette
as well as many posters here. Didn't think I was revealing private
addresses when the address was already online. In your case, your
email address showed up in a google search.

Obviously, it was foolish to cc so many people and it's not something
I'll consider doing in the future.


Bill Goichberg

StanB wrote:
"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message

news
Stan you continue to disappoint. 500 well-thought out words, many
good
points, and you respond to the most inconsequential one.

Frankly, I haven't got my issue yet so i don't know what actually was

published. As to Bill's whining that this was political and shouldn't
have
been published, what about his editorial in the Feb issue?

Stan,

I just received my copy of the May issue of Chess Life and also went
back and reread the February Chess Life. In my opinion the February
Farewell article could be viewed as a campaign statement and the May
Finance Report could be read like a rebuttal. One could argue that what
is good for the goose is also good for the gander, but I suggest we are
better served saving these type of commentaries for our Corporate
Annual Report.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

beatchess wrote:
So kindly remove the confidential e-mails between the Executive Board
and the Executive Director from your website.

Question: Who declared these emails confidential, and when?

Bill Smythe

In article , Bill Smythe says...

beatchess wrote:
So kindly remove the confidential e-mails between the Executive Board
and the Executive Director from your website.

Question: Who declared these emails confidential, and when?

Bill Smythe

Bill Smythe May 6, 10:53 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: "Bill Smythe" - Find messages by
this author
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 21:53:34 -0500
Local: Fri,May 6 2005 10:53 pm
Subject: Confidentiality of emails
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



beatchess wrote:
So kindly remove the confidential e-mails between the Executive Board

and the Executive Director from your website.


Question: Who declared these emails confidential, and when?

Bill Smythe

Hi Bill,

I guess it might be different for different boards, but I always felt
that it was clear when a board member was writing in confidence and
when they were not. The correspondence was binfo'd when it wasn't.
The breakdown of that system may have resulted in a lack of clarity,
and an assumption of confidentially that is no longer shared. I'm
merely speculating the current board. I don't know what their
shared understanding is.

Having said that, I do know that an ED, or the like, who participated
in sensitive discussions, who subsequently ran for the EB, and then
published materials pertinent to those discussions, would earn my
undying emnity. I don't know, if that is the case here. I'm just
expressing my own opinion.

Louis Blair May 6, 11:31 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: Louis Blair - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 15:31:31 GMT
Local: Fri,May 6 2005 11:31 am
Subject: Misuse of Chess Life for Political Purposes
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



I wrote:
Does Timothy Hanke have anything to
say on the issue of whether or not
it is appropriate to use Chess Life
to attack a candidate during an
election without giving him a chance
to respond?


_


Jim Eade wrote:
Wouldn't you agree that the article
was, at least in part, a response
to claims previously published?


_
What specifically does Jim Eade have
in mind?

I'm sorry, I do not yet understand this interface. I hope what I've
quoted is fair and makes sense.

I was referring to Bill's exit message in Chess Life. When I read it
it, I knew that it couldn't possibly be true. Keep in mind that Bill
has consistently overstated the positives and understated the negtives.
He's done this year, after year. When are people going to catch on?
The Booz/Dubeck article debunked Bill's claims, and to my way of
thinking, was not only appropriate, but necessary.

I'm OK, if you want to move Bill's message, and subsequent responses,
to another media, but I think you're a flaming hypocrite, if you think
Bill's was OK, and the Booz/Dubeck artcile wasn't.

Chess One May 6, 6:06 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: "Chess One" - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 10:06:24 GMT
Local: Fri,May 6 2005 6:06 am
Subject: Misuse of Chess Life for Political Purposes
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



"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

NO.

In article , Bill Smythe says...

beatchess wrote:
So kindly remove the confidential e-mails between the Executive Board
and the Executive Director from your website.

Question: Who declared these emails confidential, and when?

Bill Smythe

This is a good question, and I don't know the answer.

Generally, I don't have a problem with these emails being public -- Don Schultz
and I agree on having most emails among Board members part of the BINFO system.

However, this is a somewhat different situation, don't you think? Nobody knew
that these were subject to posting elsewhere, let alone a website for somebody
running for office against some of the people authoring these emails. Might we
wonder about selective choosing of which emails to post? I think that is a real
concern.

Bottom line, I think the posting of these emails was a sort of insider trading
that shouldn't be condoned. Other candidates, say a Greg Shahade or Joel
Channing, didn't have the opportunity to editorialize on these issues. You also
must question whether there is selective reporting going on here -- much better
for all relavent emails to be available to all, not just the guy who used to get
them as the Executive Director.

Randy Bauer