wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
Am I not allowed to express a preference for *informed* discussion?

Doing so by calling other discussants ignorant will lead to the
opposite effect. That is, unless you think only your own views qualify
as "informed" discussion. However, I again was mistaken. I thought
newsgroups were not for the experts or the informed, necessarily, but
for everyone to come in and join a discussion in which they might have
interest and want to learn something.

No one is denying you the right to speak. But from where does your
expectation that your uninformed or misinformed opinions will
not be identified as such come? I certainly have no such
expectation.

As far as your alleged interest in having various scholastic issues
discussed, nobody is stopping you. Your first post proposed
"dissolving scholastic chess" in response to a post about mechanisms to
reduce risk to young chessplayers. Excuse me if to me your belated
interest in the issues (6 posts in) seems to be lacking a little credibility.

But make no mistake I am all in favor of informed discussion.

wrote:

But again, you have shown the way. Only the wise may speak, and you
have deemed me unwise, unfit for the discussion, and a danger to
scholastic chess, along with hordes of unnamed USCF members. I suppose
since your chorus of one says so, it must be true.

He's said the same about me, and I had been active in scholastic chess
for seven years.

David Kane wrote:
Excuse me if to me your belated
interest in the issues (6 posts in) seems to be lacking a little credibility.


Six posts in? It started from the first. If it took you six posts to
get it, then we know who the ignorant one is, don't we? Or at least who
the one was who didn't take the time for informed discussion, but
simply used name-calling to make some sort of point - although all I
could tell from it was that you are a bully.

Good way to foster discussion. If you have anything to do with
scholastic chess, all you have suceeded in doing is confirm any
prejudices I have had.

David Kane wrote:
Your first post proposed
"dissolving scholastic chess" in response to a post about mechanisms to
reduce risk to young chessplayers.

That is a serious misquotation. He actually wrote "Dissolve the
profit-driven scholastic chess movement". Possibly you are assuming
that all scholastic chess is driven by volunteers interested in chess
and the players. He said nothing about them. His comment only spoke
about those whose motivation is to make a profit from the scholastics.
Or alternatively are you confessing to us that the "profit-driven" are
exactly and only what scholastic chess is? That doesn't seem true to
me.

- Tom Martinak

"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
ups.com...
David Kane wrote:
Your first post proposed
"dissolving scholastic chess" in response to a post about mechanisms to
reduce risk to young chessplayers.

That is a serious misquotation. He actually wrote "Dissolve the
profit-driven scholastic chess movement". Possibly you are assuming
that all scholastic chess is driven by volunteers interested in chess
and the players. He said nothing about them. His comment only spoke
about those whose motivation is to make a profit from the scholastics.
Or alternatively are you confessing to us that the "profit-driven" are
exactly and only what scholastic chess is? That doesn't seem true to
me.

I've quoted it fully several times. I hardly think it's reasonable
to assume that I'm trying to deliberate mislead anybody about
Mr. Rynd's views. The point being that this statement is not
consistent with an alleged interested in discussing any issues.

He certainly has not explain the connection between profit
and child molestation, and it is not obvious to me. Combined
with him seeing sin in the selling of water, and having some
unarticulated theory that soccer moms are being financially
exploited, his distrust of profit seems to go well beyond
anything to do with chess.

wrote in message
oups.com...


Good way to foster discussion. If you have anything to do with
scholastic chess, all you have suceeded in doing is confirm any
prejudices I have had.


Your situation is akin to a bigot telling a racially
offensive joke in what he thinks is a room full
of like-minded bigots. But someone has called him
on his behavior instead of laughing along.

I don't expect that to make me popular nor, frankly,
dissolve your prejudices. Yet, I'm happy in that
role.

David Kane wrote:

He certainly has not explain the connection between profit
and child molestation, and it is not obvious to me. Combined
with him seeing sin in the selling of water, and having some
unarticulated theory that soccer moms are being financially
exploited, his distrust of profit seems to go well beyond
anything to do with chess.

I don't distrust profit at all in the proper context. You evidently
don't know enough about the Peterson selling of water story to
understand it; I suggest you educate yourself first before shooting
your mouth off. Or if you do, then, yes, in this case, the profit
motive was one of pure greed.

You don't represent yourself very well, and you continually attribute
statements and thoughts to me that I don't have. And yes, you are
trying to misrepresent my views. But it isn't working, in my opinion.
Every post you make is another attempt to backpedal or blur the lines.
I would give up, but I imagine you are fool enough to continue in your
illogical delusions.

Perhaps actual discussion of the topic would be superior to this, but
your capabilities for doing so seem to be zero.

wrote in message
ups.com...


Perhaps actual discussion of the topic would be superior to this, but
your capabilities for doing so seem to be zero.


This is USENET. You are perfectly free to discuss any topic
you wish, and I am free to enter or not as I wish.

Your professing an interest in serious discussion while not
engaging in it yourself is very Phil Innes, I must say. But it hardly
makes it wrong for me to have called you on the statements
you did make.

And I will say that in general you do come across to me
as a person who *is* capable adding to a serious discussion -
if only you were willing to face your prejudices.

David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


Perhaps actual discussion of the topic would be superior to this, but
your capabilities for doing so seem to be zero.


This is USENET. You are perfectly free to discuss any topic
you wish, and I am free to enter or not as I wish.

Your professing an interest in serious discussion while not
engaging in it yourself is very Phil Innes, I must say. But it hardly
makes it wrong for me to have called you on the statements
you did make.

And I will say that in general you do come across to me
as a person who *is* capable adding to a serious discussion -
if only you were willing to face your prejudices.

Can we agree that there is a risk?
Can we agree that there is currently no organized method to screen
volunteers or coaches?

Now, what are the suggestion if there is a problem?

"Rob" wrote in message


Can we agree that there is a risk?
Can we agree that there is currently no organized method to screen
volunteers or coaches?

Now, what are the suggestion if there is a problem?


You've provided no indication what the
problem is or why a solution is needed.

Offhand, I wouldn't see any reason why
the risk would be any greater for chess
than it is for other youth activities, such
as soccer or baseball, or why the steps
similar to those taken in other activities
do not also work for chess. The notion
that there is no screening is simply
wrong. If chess is organized as a school
activity, the protection methods employed
by the school, which themselves are likely
mandated by law, will be used. In
my state, all school volunteers are
legally required to undergo a check.

An article in my soccer association
newsletter has a discussion of the
process for soccer coaches and
mentions that the average cost to
do a background check in most
states is $10 per clearance (a
clearance is valid for 2 years here).

I certainly don't feel that any of these
activities have a reputation for being
unsafe, nor have I ever heard any
grass roots clamor for more regulation.
So from my inexpert perspective we
already have in place simple,
unburdensome, low cost systems
that seem to be working.

I can see no rationale for having the
USCF (which is essentially a magazine
publisher with a ratings division) involved.
It makes about as much sense as
putting Runner's World magazine in
charge of protecting youth on high
school track teams. Of course, the
USCF should take steps to ensure
the safety of its own events, but
no one has provided evidence that
they are not already doing so.

Unless of course you are referring
to the danger of being able to
purchase bottled beverages ....