"Duncan Oxley" No@Thanks wrote in message
...

wrote

Right. I remember the old Chess Life surveys and the
hosannahs from the sticks for Soltis and Evans. That
is why the politicians call the survey a plebiscite. Those
rats want to make sure that this time around,they can
get rid of GM Larry Evans once and for all. He has been
a thorn in their side for lo these many years.

The new editor is just a pawn in this game.

ABOVE ALL ELSE, NO SURVEY!


I think if Chess Life wants to drop Evans then the ICC should pick him up.

I bet that would generate a lot of traffic to the ICC homepage.

Duncan


Evans' work already appears at WCN. Looking
at what has happened there would be a more
reliable gauge of his value than a USCF
survey.

OFFERS

I think if Chess Life wants to drop Evans then the ICC should pick him
up.
I bet that would generate a lot of traffic to the ICC homepage. --
Duncan Oxley

My understanding is that GM Evans has several offers pending to
pick up his Q&A column from prestigious European magazines. I'm
not sure what he wants to do, but I was told he delivered a blistering
lecture about USCF mismanagement at the recent Far West Open in Reno.
Wish I had been a fly on the wall there!

EVANS AT WCN

Evans' work already appears at WCN. Looking
at what has happened there would be a more
reliable gauge of his value than a USCF survey. -- David Kane

WCN (worldchessnetwork.com) must be extremely happy
because his column is widely read and gets more hits than
anything else appearing there on chess. His work began for
WCN began in 2002 and is still going strong. Check it out
for yourself.

This board is more interested in CONTROL than reader
satisfaction. The new Chess Life editor, as I said before, is
just a pawn in the game.

EVANS AT WCN

Evans' work already appears at WCN. Looking
at what has happened there would be a more
reliable gauge of his value than a USCF survey. -- David Kane

WCN (worldchessnetwork.com) must be extremely happy
because his column is widely read and gets more hits than
anything else appearing there on chess. His work began for
WCN began in 2002 and is still going strong. Check it out
for yourself.

This board is more interested in CONTROL than reader
satisfaction. The new Chess Life editor, as I said before, is
just a pawn in the game.

wrote in message
oups.com...
EVANS AT WCN

Evans' work already appears at WCN. Looking
at what has happened there would be a more
reliable gauge of his value than a USCF survey. -- David Kane

WCN (worldchessnetwork.com) must be extremely happy
because his column is widely read and gets more hits than
anything else appearing there on chess. His work began for
WCN began in 2002 and is still going strong. Check it out
for yourself.

The relevant question is what has Evans' work done
for WCN? Was there a huge jump in membership or
an increase in traffic when he joined? That's the
sort of evidence needed, not the "some members
like him" nonsense that can be used to justify
anything. Evans' column can be read on WCN without
a membership, suggesting a lack of potential to
directly attract paying membership.

This board is more interested in CONTROL than reader
satisfaction. The new Chess Life editor, as I said before, is
just a pawn in the game.

Didn't you just say

I was told he delivered a blistering lecture about USCF mismanagement
at the recent Far West Open in Reno

but you want him to keep his column? If Wolf Blitzer goes to Reno and
gives a blistering lecture about CNN mismanagement, do you think CNN
should keep him on the air?

SHOOTING THE MESSENGER

If Wolf Blitzer goes to Reno and gives a blistering lecture about CNN
mismanagement, do you think CNN should keep him on the air? -- Paul
Rubin

This happened AFTER the termination of Evans On Chess in Chess Life.

Didn't Bernie Goldfarb, AFTER he was fired by CBS, write a
best-selling book with a blistering account of what took place behind
closed doors at CBS news?

If people in the know say things about mismanagement that have
validity, shouldn't the problems be corrected instead of shooting the
messenger?

The Historian wrote:
WPraeder wrote:
Randy Bauer wrote:
As Wayne most likely recalls, I have written on numerous occasions
about the need to do a better job of learning what members want in
service from the USCF. I spoke about it while a member of the
Executive Board at several Board meetings as well. I still believe
the financial investment to do focus groups and other survey methods
would be worthwhile.

That said, I think every editor should have some latitude to make
changes. Today's Chess Life isn't all that different from when I first
started receiving it 30-plus years ago. The chess world has changed a
lot since then, and maybe it's time for Chess Life to do so as well.

Randy Bauer

Randy,

Yes I do recall your avocation for the need to do a better job of
learning what members want in service from the USCF. I agree with you
that the financial investment to do focus groups and other survey
methods would be worthwhile. I continue to await with anticipation the
surveying of what our members really want from the USCF.

If real change is what is wanted, rather than just a personalized
reshuffling by the current USCF leadership, we will also look forward
to a new Chess Life chock full of articles by world renowned
Grandmasters and US Champions who are part of the current scene.

(Ignoring Praeder's knee-jerk assumption that all changes to Chess Life
are politically motivated.)

How about including articles by leading chess historians? Or leading
problemists and correspondence players?


Neil,

Please consider the possibility that the only one that may be making an
inference as to the existence of a fact not certainly known could be
you. My response was exactly stated and it appears somehow there may
have been additional meaning added to what was written or not stated. I
certainly apologize if what I wrote was unclear. Note I was responding
to Randy Bauer's statements to me which also included:

"How about getting some "world renowned Grandmasters" who are part of
the
current scene? Evans, Byrne and Benko are probably eligible for Social
Security. Surely there are some U.S. Grandmasters available who have
actually played in the U.S. Championship in the past decade?"


My views are not undocumented and my opinions on improving Chess Life
can be found at http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/chesslife.htm . As an
example of my interest in asking members what they want, my opinions on
the regular adult membership can be found at
http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/adult.htm . And with a bit of adornment
my opinions regarding the old political culture of the USCF can be
found at http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/culture.htm .

Regarding the changes to Chess Life, Joel Channing has stated "Many
thoughts, consultations, interviews and presentations have brought us
to this point in time. And all of the foregoing has been presided over
by people elected by a majority of the voting members." As a writer
I'm sure you strive for accuracy and do not purposely distort or
misrepresent the comments of others. However, I may have made a mistake
so if anyone can find where I stated that all changes to Chess Life are
politically motivated, I will stand corrected. Otherwise we can just
chalk it up as a failure to communicate.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

*If Wolf Blitzer goes to Reno and gives a blistering lecture about CNN
mismanagement, do you think CNN should keep him on the air?* (Rubin)

Excuse me?

Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that all whistleblowers
should be fired.

jr wrote:
Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that all whistleblowers
should be fired.

Surely you can't be suggesting that a known perjurer, such as
yourself, should be taken at all seriously? Or perhaps you'd care to
explain how in January 2006 you knew all about something, then in April
2006 said it was "all new" to you?