The Historian wrote:

The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
your [abstract] ****-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
you well.

I wait your response.

Would Mr. or Ms. Holsby, whoever you are, please translate this? It's a
complete nonsense.

I have no idea who this "Holsby" person is, but I have already asked
the nearly an IM to put into plain English what the "HOUSLBY CHALLENGE"
actually is....

Mark Houlsby wrote:
The Historian wrote:


The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
your [abstract] ****-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
you well.

I wait your response.


Would Mr. or Ms. Holsby, whoever you are, please translate this? It's a
complete nonsense.


I have no idea who this "Holsby" person is, but I have already asked
the nearly an IM to put into plain English what the "HOUSLBY CHALLENGE"
actually is....

The inferrance by "?" was that Mr. Innes was inventing a scandle. Mr.
Innes responded that he was merely using the language of the poster
from the USCF forum and that if "?" doubted the validity he should
verify that himself before making scurllious remarks. To which "?"
declined saying he didn't need to prove anything to anyone. He simply
wanted to blindly castigate his percieved enemies in a vain attempt at
ego inflation.

Very sad ending to "?" 's reputation, I think.
Oh, I forgot, "?"'s reputation could only improve if it ended.... LOL
my-bad!
Rob

I wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:19:22 -0800):
7 ... I am seeking identification of specific examples of
7 the moderator behavior to which Phil Innes objects. I
7 am also seeking a specific identification of the supposed
7 "less-than-honest reporting about Tanner".
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (14 Dec 2006 13:32:46 -0800):
7 Louis, you know this is an exercise in futility. Phil just
7 equivocates for several posts, never providing any specific
7 answers, then finally claims he supplied specific
7 information long ago but you somehow deleted it.
7 Fortunately readers here have seen this often enough
7 that Phil is no longer taken seriously, except by himself.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:05:00 GMT):
7 Look at USCF's website Forum, and also their public
7 announcements - and stop your abuse in place of a little
7 diligence, Kingston. Both these are very marked in your
7 case. I already wrote these references and Blair cut
7 them. ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (15 Dec 2006 07:26:50 -0800):
7 There are many posts and announcements on USCF's
7 website. Looking there does not tell us to which *_specific_*
7 posts and/or announcements you refer.
7 ...
7 Phil, I abuse you for your _lack_ of diligence. You make
7 charges without evidence.
7
7 I already wrote these references ...
7
7 You did no such thing. You have never specified what
7 you are referring to. You have not said what you
7 considered "rash and offensive abuse of speech," nor
7 what you considered "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner."
7
7 and Blair cut them.
7
7 Nonsense. Blair cannot cut what was never there. He
7 cannot even cut what _is_ there, because your original
7 posts are still there, exactly as you wrote them. And
7 they contain none of the information you claim they do.
7 Your continual whining about "cutting" and "snipping"
7 is one of your most frequent, and most childish and
7 inept excuses. It is so pathetically transparent that it
7 has made you a laughingstock, Phil. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:09:20 GMT):

7 I just came across this post.
7 Somehow Taylor Kingston can't even find the 75 messages
7 about this subject, though he says he has looked. But this
7 is my fault! He can't find them, he says, therefore there is
7 no 'evidence'

_
Reading "the 75 messages" would not, by itself, have
revealed that Phil Innes was referring to Herbert Vaughn as
the moderator. After all, Herbert Vaughn is not the moderator.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:09:20 GMT):

7 You did no such thing. You have never specified what
7 you are referring to. You have not said what you
7 considered "rash and offensive abuse of speech," nor
7 what you considered "less-than-honest reporting about
7 Tanner."
7
7 Yes I have! But maybe you can't find those either?
7 Therefore... its not your fault, therefore the issue does
7 not exist. How pathetic!

_
It was on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:34:04 GMT (AFTER the above
Taylor Kingston quotes) that Phil Innes identified specific
Herbert Vaughn quotes, referring to them as coming from
the moderator. It was on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:14 GMT
that Phil Innes acknowledged that Herbert Vaughn was not
(in the words of Phil Innes himself) "the real moderator".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:09:20 GMT):

7 your original posts are still there, exactly as you wrote
7 them. And they contain none of the information you
7 claim they do.
7
7 What information? Be specific otherwise you are merely
7 Vaguer-than-thou! If you can't find this material at USCF's
7 forum, jovially known as Nolanland, then I say you are
7 not looking very hard. Lots of other people found it, so
7 you must consider that it is you, not me. ...

_
Who specifically knew what supposed moderator
misbehavior Phil Innes was referring to, before Phil Innes
revealed that he was referring to Herbert Vaughn (who is
not the moderator) as the moderator? Who, even now,
knows what supposedly "less-than-honest reporting about
Tanner" was being mentioned by Phil Innes?
_
About two weeks ago, I wrote:
_
"... I have seen an 'announcements' page
that contained a link for details about the
recent resignation. Is that where the
supposedly 'less-than-honest reporting
about Tanner' can be accessed? (The
'report' begins: 'On Dec. 4, 2006, USCF
Executive Board Secretary Robert B.
Tanner resigned. ...')
_
Would Phil Innes care to be specific about
which previous Phil Innes note supposedly
referred to 'their public announcements'? ..."
- Louis Blair (15 Dec 2006 10:44:37 -0800)
_
I still have not seen Phil Innes answer those questions.

Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
The Historian wrote:


The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
your [abstract] ****-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
you well.

I wait your response.


Would Mr. or Ms. Holsby, whoever you are, please translate this? It's a
complete nonsense.


I have no idea who this "Holsby" person is, but I have already asked
the nearly an IM to put into plain English what the "HOUSLBY CHALLENGE"
actually is....

The inferrance by "?" was that Mr. Innes was inventing a scandle.

Yes. That would be because he had produced no evidence suggesting
scandal (or scandle, for that matter).

Mr.
Innes responded that he was merely using the language of the poster
from the USCF forum and that if "?" doubted the validity he should
verify that himself before making scurllious remarks. To which "?"
declined saying he didn't need to prove anything to anyone.

That is a bald-faced lie by Rob Mitchell. I tried, several times (as
did Dr. Blair) to elicit such information from Phil Innes, but no such
information was forthcoming.

You now owe me an apology, Rob Mitchell.

He simply
wanted to blindly castigate his percieved enemies in a vain attempt at
ego inflation.


Another lie. I require evidence in support of a scandal, is all. Two
apolgies you owe me.

Very sad ending to "?" 's reputation, I think.
Oh, I forgot, "?"'s reputation could only improve if it ended.... LOL
my-bad!

Well, there are those who would disagree with that assessment of my
assessment of Phil Innes' posting record:

Louis Blair, Engineer, Kenneth Sloan, Chess Freak, Guy Macon, Greg
Kennedy, Christopher Mattern, rexartu..., Taylor Kingston, Neil
Brennen, Steve Dowd, Mike Murray, James Rynd, Matt Nemmers, David
Richerby, Mark Wing, Henri H. Arsenault, vkarlamov, Wick Deer, Larry
Tapper, g4, Tom Martinak, Randy Bauer, Vince Hart, Don Schultz, Bill
Brock, David Kane, Joel Channing, parker.r..., sivad..., Stan Booz,...

Get with the program, or go away, TROLL.

Mark Houlsby

Rob

Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
The Historian wrote:


The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
your [abstract] ****-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
you well.

I wait your response.


Would Mr. or Ms. Holsby, whoever you are, please translate this? It's a
complete nonsense.


I have no idea who this "Holsby" person is, but I have already asked
the nearly an IM to put into plain English what the "HOUSLBY CHALLENGE"
actually is....

The inferrance by "?" was that Mr. Innes was inventing a scandle.

Yes. That would be because he had produced no evidence suggesting
scandal (or scandle, for that matter).

Mr.
Innes responded that he was merely using the language of the poster
from the USCF forum and that if "?" doubted the validity he should
verify that himself before making scurllious remarks. To which "?"
declined saying he didn't need to prove anything to anyone.

That is a bald-faced lie by Rob Mitchell. I tried, several times (as
did Dr. Blair) to elicit such information from Phil Innes, but no such
information was forthcoming.

You now owe me an apology, Rob Mitchell.

He simply
wanted to blindly castigate his percieved enemies in a vain attempt at
ego inflation.


Another lie. I require evidence in support of a scandal, is all. Two
apolgies you owe me.

Very sad ending to "?" 's reputation, I think.
Oh, I forgot, "?"'s reputation could only improve if it ended.... LOL
my-bad!

Well, there are those who would disagree with that assessment of my
assessment of Phil Innes' posting record:

Louis Blair, Engineer, Kenneth Sloan, Chess Freak, Guy Macon, Greg
Kennedy, Christopher Mattern, rexartu..., Taylor Kingston, Neil
Brennen, Steve Dowd, Mike Murray, James Rynd, Matt Nemmers, David
Richerby, Mark Wing, Henri H. Arsenault, vkarlamov, Wick Deer, Larry
Tapper, g4, Tom Martinak, Randy Bauer, Vince Hart, Don Schultz, Bill
Brock, David Kane, Joel Channing, parker.r..., sivad..., Stan Booz,...

Get with the program, or go away, TROLL.

Mark Houlsby

Rob

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
The Historian wrote:


The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
your [abstract] ****-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
you well.

I wait your response.


Would Mr. or Ms. Holsby, whoever you are, please translate this? It's a
complete nonsense.


I have no idea who this "Holsby" person is, but I have already asked
the nearly an IM to put into plain English what the "HOUSLBY CHALLENGE"
actually is....

The inferrance by "?" was that Mr. Innes was inventing a scandle.


Yes. That would be because he had produced no evidence suggesting
scandal (or scandle, for that matter).

Did he not comment that he was reporting on what was being decried a
scandal on the USCF forum?( caution: this may actually require doing
your own legwork and reading)

Mr.
Innes responded that he was merely using the language of the poster
from the USCF forum and that if "?" doubted the validity he should
verify that himself before making scurllious remarks. To which "?"
declined saying he didn't need to prove anything to anyone.

That is a bald-faced lie by Rob Mitchell. I tried, several times (as
did Dr. Blair) to elicit such information from Phil Innes, but no such
information was forthcoming.

That is not a lie. Show me where you didn't say that? ( That should
keep you busy chasing your tail till New Years!)

You now owe me an apology, Rob Mitchell.

Just subtract it from the dozen or so you owe me, "?".

He simply
wanted to blindly castigate his percieved enemies in a vain attempt at
ego inflation.


Another lie. I require evidence in support of a scandal, is all. Two
apolgies you owe me.


On this one I do not as I will not say that I am sorry for the opinion
I hold of you due to your actions.

Very sad ending to "?" 's reputation, I think.
Oh, I forgot, "?"'s reputation could only improve if it ended.... LOL
my-bad!


Well, there are those who would disagree with that assessment of my
assessment of Phil Innes' posting record:

There were alsoscore who argued that Copernicus was wrong about the
Earth revolving about the Sun.

Louis Blair, Engineer, Kenneth Sloan, Chess Freak, Guy Macon, Greg
Kennedy, Christopher Mattern, rexartu..., Taylor Kingston, Neil
Brennen, Steve Dowd, Mike Murray, James Rynd, Matt Nemmers, David
Richerby, Mark Wing, Henri H. Arsenault, vkarlamov, Wick Deer, Larry
Tapper, g4, Tom Martinak, Randy Bauer, Vince Hart, Don Schultz, Bill
Brock, David Kane, Joel Channing, parker.r..., sivad..., Stan Booz,...

Get with the program, or go away, TROLL.

I would confirm your list first "?" , some of those you placed in your
"list" are actually would not concur with being on your list. I suggest
you find them and then post their responses on this newsgroup anong
with the affirmative posts from the others you listed. Put up or shut
up, oh "Queen of trolls".
Mark Houlsby

Rob

Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
The Historian wrote:


The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
your [abstract] ****-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
you well.

I wait your response.


Would Mr. or Ms. Holsby, whoever you are, please translate this? It's a
complete nonsense.


I have no idea who this "Holsby" person is, but I have already asked
the nearly an IM to put into plain English what the "HOUSLBY CHALLENGE"
actually is....

The inferrance by "?" was that Mr. Innes was inventing a scandle.


Yes. That would be because he had produced no evidence suggesting
scandal (or scandle, for that matter).

Did he not comment that he was reporting on what was being decried a
scandal on the USCF forum?( caution: this may actually require doing
your own legwork and reading)


He did comment to that effect, but, as has been stated many, many times
TROLL... he is the ONLY person who sees EVIDENCE of a scandal.

Mr.
Innes responded that he was merely using the language of the poster
from the USCF forum and that if "?" doubted the validity he should
verify that himself before making scurllious remarks. To which "?"
declined saying he didn't need to prove anything to anyone.

That is a bald-faced lie by Rob Mitchell. I tried, several times (as
did Dr. Blair) to elicit such information from Phil Innes, but no such
information was forthcoming.

That is not a lie. Show me where you didn't say that? ( That should
keep you busy chasing your tail till New Years!)


Ok TROLL, there are lots of places where I didn't say it. The easiest
way to answer this TROLLING request is to indicate where I *did* write
(rather than say) it:

http://tinyurl.com/ycftsf

If you look anywhere else, you're liable to be disappointed. Is it New
Year's yet? Guess not.

You now owe me an apology, Rob Mitchell.

Just subtract it from the dozen or so you owe me, "?".


Give me an example, and I shall apologise immediately. One thing which
frequent posters note about me is that I am frequently in the wrong.
Whenever I am in the wrong, and notice that I am, I write *something*
to the effect: "Mea culpa". Whenever I fail to notice, I am always
pleased if someone is kind enough to point out that what I have written
deserves a "Mea culpa" or an apology. So, where did I slight you?

He simply
wanted to blindly castigate his percieved enemies in a vain attempt at
ego inflation.


Another lie. I require evidence in support of a scandal, is all. Two
apolgies you owe me.


On this one I do not as I will not say that I am sorry for the opinion
I hold of you due to your actions.


So you admit to your being a troll then. Interesting.

Very sad ending to "?" 's reputation, I think.
Oh, I forgot, "?"'s reputation could only improve if it ended.... LOL
my-bad!


Well, there are those who would disagree with that assessment of my
assessment of Phil Innes' posting record:

There were alsoscore who argued that Copernicus was wrong about the
Earth revolving about the Sun.


This is true. Evidence proved Copernicus right. Evidence proves that
Phil and you are in the minority.

Louis Blair, Engineer, Kenneth Sloan, Chess Freak, Guy Macon, Greg
Kennedy, Christopher Mattern, rexartu..., Taylor Kingston, Neil
Brennen, Steve Dowd, Mike Murray, James Rynd, Matt Nemmers, David
Richerby, Mark Wing, Henri H. Arsenault, vkarlamov, Wick Deer, Larry
Tapper, g4, Tom Martinak, Randy Bauer, Vince Hart, Don Schultz, Bill
Brock, David Kane, Joel Channing, parker.r..., sivad..., Stan Booz,...

Get with the program, or go away, TROLL.

I would confirm your list first "?" , some of those you placed in your
"list" are actually would not concur with being on your list. I suggest
you find them and then post their responses on this newsgroup anong
with the affirmative posts from the others you listed. Put up or shut
up, oh "Queen of trolls".

Ok. Here are the specific posts to which I refer:

http://tinyurl.com/ye57fq Louis Blair


http://tinyurl.com/y9g48u Engineer


http://tinyurl.com/yg7k7h Kenneth Sloan


http://tinyurl.com/ykccnw Chess Freak


http://tinyurl.com/yjrrga Guy Macon


http://tinyurl.com/yg4lec Greg Kennedy


http://tinyurl.com/yzamhw Christopher Mattern


http://tinyurl.com/yjp37d rexartu...


http://tinyurl.com/ylyycx Taylor Kingston


http://tinyurl.com/ym4gvq Neil Brennen


http://tinyurl.com/y5yzay Steve Dowd --- pay particular attention to
this one.


http://tinyurl.com/y4r8j9 Mike Murray


http://tinyurl.com/y6d7nz James Rynd ---pay particular attention to
this one.


http://tinyurl.com/y6tlbx Matt Nemmers


http://tinyurl.com/v5za4 David Richerby


http://tinyurl.com/vt8lb Mark Wing, a.k.a. "Nick Bourbaki"


http://tinyurl.com/v3o46 Henri H. Arsenault


http://tinyurl.com/y3rfou vkarlamov


http://tinyurl.com/vqhce Wick Deer


http://tinyurl.com/yzkjax Larry Tapper


http://tinyurl.com/y2txlf g4


http://tinyurl.com/y9eqzx Tom Martinak


http://tinyurl.com/yd42gw Randy Bauer


http://tinyurl.com/yn6y5x Vince Hart


http://tinyurl.com/yzccg9 Don Schultz


http://tinyurl.com/ya2rgc Bill Brock


http://tinyurl.com/y7w2k6 David Kane


http://tinyurl.com/y4wjtf Joel Channing


http://tinyurl.com/wwzjv parker.r... (whose vernacular prose style
seems Houlsbyesque)


http://tinyurl.com/y67kv3 sivad...


http://tinyurl.com/yfrcev Stan Booz

Now, I already posted that list to you. If you *still* don't accept its
accuracy, it's up to *you* to go through it and take issue with
*everyone* in the list.

Put up or shut up, self-confessed TROLL.

Is it New Year's yet?

Mark Houlsby

Mark Houlsby

Rob

_
"... Certainly spending $10.000 of limited USCF
funds for a fundraiser who generated no funds
shows some disappointing results on some
decisions: attempts at a band-aid approach to
generate funds. ..." - Joe Lux (Sat Dec 09, 2006
7:27 pm)
_
_
"... Without naming names, Joe raises above an
issue about one declared candidate who recently
received an estimated $10,000 from the USCF
and has produced little or nothing to show for it.
This raises important issues which the members
need to learn more about before voting." - Sam
Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:29 am)
_
_
"Who did we give this money to, what were we
expecting to receive, and who decided to spend
the money? ..." - Herbert Vaughn (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 8:26 am)
_
_
"The exact details about this transaction need
to come from Mr. Goichberg or Mr. Hall (the two
Bills). Let us hope that they clarify this matter
soon.
_
Will they tell us, or will this be just another
cover-up of a wasteful expenditure by the USCF?
..." - Sam Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:47 am)
_
_
"... Mikhail Koreman ... was paid $10,000 to do
fundraising over the summer and produced no
positive results.
_
Mr. Koreman was moving to Chicago and had
no job when the EB approved these funding for
him. A $2000 per month plus $500 per month in
expenses. A total of $10,000. ..." - Beatriz
Marinello (Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:49 am)
_
_
"I voted in favor of giving the money to Mikhail
because I was so impressed with what he had
achieved in Kansas. In retrospect I believe I
made a mistake, but that does not take away
from his proven brilliance as a chess promoter
and organizer." - Joel Channing (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm)
_
_
"As a delegate, I, too, would like more
information on why Mr. Korenman was selected
to do this fundraising. I recall reading about it at
the time and honestly, this is the type of
decision making that bothered me then and
bothers me now.
_
Why was he selected to do the fundraising? Did
the USCF put out an open bid to its membership
or publish in Chess Life that it was soliciting bids
for fundraising? Did USCF ask for and receive a
resume detailing his experience as a fundraiser?
Did the USCF establish a contract with
benchmarks for results and dates by which to
achieve them in order to determine whether the
fundraising contract was successful? If so, has
the fundraising met those objectives?
_
When the USCF begins to function more as an
independent business with open bidding,
contracts, and goals with measureable results,
then it will have a chance of becoming a
successful organization.
_
All of the questions above are no reflection on
Mr. Korenman. I know nothing about him and
have no political agenda in this regard. They
are simply questions that the general
membership has a right to know the answers
on especially in light of Beatriz's last post."
- Donna Alarie (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm)
_
_
"Benchmarks for results and review dates? It's
not the USCF way. It's why USCF buys
snake-oil over and over and over again.
...
The $10K in moving expenses to somone's
buddy is your USCF dues hard at work." - Allan
Fifield (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:43 pm)
_
_
"Korenman was selected because he made a
proposal to USCF regarding a four month
period when he would be available. Because
his fundraising results in the past have been
spectacular, I supported this proposal.
_
This arrangement involved work other than
fund raising, and it is possible that
sponsorship will still result from his efforts, but
I am disappointed that no definite sponsorship
has resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm)
_
_
"[1]
... 'Fundraising' is obviously a gamble. One
cannot force a successful outcome. ...
_
[2]
A.Karpov was not mentioned in the earlier
posts. Yet it is natural to wonder how much
of Mr. Korenman's success in Lindsborg KA
was due in part to A.Karpov's fame and
involvement. Is it accurate to say Karpov
deserves some of the credit?
_
[3]
I wish the E.B. would modify its perspective
away from 'fundraising' and toward 'marketing'.
Fundraising has a place, but it sounds like
asking for charity. Fundraising is not a growth
channel, it is not even self-sustaining.
_
In contrast, 'marketing' searches for 'win-win'
situations for both the sponsor and chess or
the USCF. Marketing aims at increasing the
appeal of chess to the untapped public."
- Gene Milener (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:36 pm)
_
_
"... You are quite correct here. I believe the
appropriate avenue for the USCF is to cease
the fundraising aspect and engage actively in
searching for marketing / advertising
sponsorships.
_
For the past 2 years I have been actively
working on securing marketing/advertising
sponsorships and I can say it is not an
simple job but significantly a larger pool than
the fundraising/charity angle.
_
Corporate foundations are very specific in
what they will provide donations to and while
chess has the educational aspect to it many
corporate foundations will not entertain chess
as a viable educational outlet. Additionally
these foundations are limited - remember
these foundations are tax shelters also for
the corporation but the tax shelter is limited
so the funds do run out (and relatively quickly).
_
Marketing / Advertising dollars are quite
different. First they are controlled in two steps
generally - national/international budgets and
local/regional budgets. While the national
budget may not have any opportunities,
local/regional may and generally its easier to
go that route. Secondly - the sponsorship is
no longer only about doing good to the
community - it's about how you can help
them reach new markets and generate sales.
It's not a charity pitch - it's a sales pitch.
Finally - marketing/advertising dollars can be
replenished at various times of the year, not
just at the beginning when budgets become
fresh - foundation dollars are stuck where
they are at year round.
_
So marketing/advertising sponsorship is the
way to go, not corporate foundations. Of
course that is my opinion." - Sevan Muradian
(Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:02 pm)
_
_
"Out of curiosity, what were [Mr. Korenman's]
spectacular fund raising results?" - Kevin
Bachler (Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:16 am)
_
_
"I'm sure there were others, but one area where
he was successful was getting grant funding
from the State of Kansas, I believe through
their department of economic development.
This was different than other chess grant
funding efforts through government, which
generally rely on chess' educational value. In
this instance, he went with the approach that
'chess tournaments appeal to people as being
intellectual and full of smart people, and with
strong national publicity, Kansas will benefit
from being associated with them.' I think he
also tied in the Karpov angle, again giving the
City and State a 'worldly' image.
_
He did get a lot of publicity for some high
impact events, including national coverage. I
had some professional curiosity about the
State actually providing this kind of funding
and spoke with some colleagues in Kansas
about it, and my general recollection is that
the State was satisfied with the outcomes."
- Randy Bauer (Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:10 pm)
_
_
"National evening/nightly news coverage as I
recall. My wife called me out of my office to
see it because one of the networks was
interviewing him." - David Hood (Tue
Dec 12, 2006 2:19 pm)
_
_
"I was curious in part, because, from some
of the press articles I read about when he left,
it sounded more like a failing business than
successful fundraising.
_
Someone made a comment about being on
national news. But really all that would take is
us spending time on PR. Heck, our our 5th
grade chess team was on CNN a few years
ago, and that was just a matter of performing
well.
_
I'm not trying to downplay what he might have
accomplished, but so far, I haven't seen $$
amounts, programs completed, etc. so that
right now I don't know that he accomplished
anything other than promoting himself. And
what he has done in Illinois certainly has been
controversial at best (apparently helping to
increase the expenses of this year's state
championship with no real benefit)...so that
right now my skepticism is up. My suggestion
would be that if he is a real candidate and a
good candidate is that he needs to get some
hard information out soon." - Kevin Bachler
(Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:35 pm)
_
_
"Here's an article that ran in National
Geographic on Korenman and chess in
Kansas.
_
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0605/feature6/
_
Reading this, it would seem that Korenman
has gotten some good PR for chess in the
mainstream press and has been a successful
organizer. This explains why the USCF board
was willing to back him." - Maret Thorpe (Wed
Dec 13, 2006 1:28 pm)
_
_
"... Anyone that has tried fundraising can tell
you that it is a rare occurance when you can
walk into a meeting with a proposal, and walk
out with a large check. Quite often, a proposal
has to be put into the budget and will be given
out the following fiscal year. So it is premature
to call his efforts a failure.
_
Korenman has previously received a 250K grant.
He has generated quite a bit of publicity in both
print and television media. He has organized
master events and scholastics. He has served
on the scholastic council. I would rather see
someone get elected or not based on their
merits and actions. Based on Mr. Korenman's
actions, I think he makes a fine candidate."
- Glenn Panner (Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:31 pm)

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
The Historian wrote:


The HOUSLBY CHALLENGE: Specifically let me turn this on you - and if you
wish to state that the material exists, then presumably you will retract
your [abstract] ****-talk and calm down, otherwise the term net-nazi suits
you well.

I wait your response.


Would Mr. or Ms. Holsby, whoever you are, please translate this? It's a
complete nonsense.


I have no idea who this "Holsby" person is, but I have already asked
the nearly an IM to put into plain English what the "HOUSLBY CHALLENGE"
actually is....

The inferrance by "?" was that Mr. Innes was inventing a scandle.


Yes. That would be because he had produced no evidence suggesting
scandal (or scandle, for that matter).

Did he not comment that he was reporting on what was being decried a
scandal on the USCF forum?( caution: this may actually require doing
your own legwork and reading)


He did comment to that effect, but, as has been stated many, many times
TROLL... he is the ONLY person who sees EVIDENCE of a scandal.

Dear "?" you are projecting your "trollier than thow " attitude
everywhere. I will not play your "troll games"

Mr.
Innes responded that he was merely using the language of the poster
from the USCF forum and that if "?" doubted the validity he should
verify that himself before making scurllious remarks. To which "?"
declined saying he didn't need to prove anything to anyone.

That is a bald-faced lie by Rob Mitchell. I tried, several times (as
did Dr. Blair) to elicit such information from Phil Innes, but no such
information was forthcoming.

That is not a lie. Show me where you didn't say that? ( That should
keep you busy chasing your tail till New Years!)



Ok Rob, there are lots of places where I didn't say it. The easiest
way to answer this Rob's request is to indicate where I *did* write
(rather than say) it:

http://tinyurl.com/yctfsf

oh, give me a break! The ability to hyper link a failed argument is in
no way proof of anything except you still have no idea about what is
going on. LOL

If you look anywhere else, you're liable to be disappointed. Is it New
Year's yet? Guess not.

Check... you still have provided nothing of value to this argument "?".
You still have time.

You now owe me an apology, Rob Mitchell.

Just subtract it from the dozen or so you owe me, "?".



Give me an example, and I shall apologise immediately. One thing which
frequent posters note about me is that I am frequently in the wrong.
Whenever I am in the wrong, and notice that I am, I write *something*
to the effect: "Mea culpa". Whenever I fail to notice, I am always
pleased if someone is kind enough to point out that what I have written
deserves a "Mea culpa" or an apology. So, where did I slight you?

You are so full of yourself. Show me Proof that you aren't. I will be
judge and jury of that proof. Now, I will also point out you are often
time the first person to shout "troll" in any argument you are losing.
Just remember "?" it is the guilty dog that barks first and loudest.

He simply
wanted to blindly castigate his percieved enemies in a vain attempt at
ego inflation.


Another lie. I require evidence in support of a scandal, is all. Two
apolgies you owe me.


On this one I do not as I will not say that I am sorry for the opinion
I hold of you due to your actions.



So you admit to your being a troll then. Interesting.

There you go again! You request for an answer and when it isnt the one
you want you yell "troll" LOL What a childish exercise. I can see
you arguing with children over playing video games! Are you really
Jason Repa?

Very sad ending to "?" 's reputation, I think.
Oh, I forgot, "?"'s reputation could only improve if it ended.... LOL
my-bad!


Well, there are those who would disagree with that assessment of my
assessment of Phil Innes' posting record:

There were alsoscore who argued that Copernicus was wrong about the
Earth revolving about the Sun.


This is true. Evidence proved Copernicus right. Evidence proves that
Phil and you are in the minority.

Louis Blair, Engineer, Kenneth Sloan, Chess Freak, Guy Macon, Greg
Kennedy, Christopher Mattern, rexartu..., Taylor Kingston, Neil
Brennen, Steve Dowd, Mike Murray, James Rynd, Matt Nemmers, David
Richerby, Mark Wing, Henri H. Arsenault, vkarlamov, Wick Deer, Larry
Tapper, g4, Tom Martinak, Randy Bauer, Vince Hart, Don Schultz, Bill
Brock, David Kane, Joel Channing, parker.r..., sivad..., Stan Booz,...

Get with the program, or go away, TROLL.

I would confirm your list first "?" , some of those you placed in your
"list" are actually would not concur with being on your list. I suggest
you find them and then post their responses on this newsgroup anong
with the affirmative posts from the others you listed. Put up or shut
up, oh "Queen of trolls".


Ok. Here are the specific posts to which I refer:

http://tinyurl.com/ye57fq Louis Blair


http://tinyurl.com/y9g48u Engineer


http://tinyurl.com/yg7k7h Kenneth Sloan


http://tinyurl.com/ykccnw Chess Freak


http://tinyurl.com/yjrrga Guy Macon


http://tinyurl.com/yg4lec Greg Kennedy


http://tinyurl.com/yzamhw Christopher Mattern


http://tinyurl.com/yjp37d rexartu...


http://tinyurl.com/ylyycx Taylor Kingston


http://tinyurl.com/ym4gvq Neil Brennen


http://tinyurl.com/y5yzay Steve Dowd --- pay particular attention to
this one.


http://tinyurl.com/y4r8j9 Mike Murray


http://tinyurl.com/y6d7nz James Rynd ---pay particular attention to
this one.


http://tinyurl.com/y6tlbx Matt Nemmers


http://tinyurl.com/v5za4 David Richerby


http://tinyurl.com/vt8lb Mark Wing, a.k.a. "Nick Bourbaki"


http://tinyurl.com/v3o46 Henri H. Arsenault


http://tinyurl.com/y3rfou vkarlamov


http://tinyurl.com/vqhce Wick Deer


http://tinyurl.com/yzkjax Larry Tapper


http://tinyurl.com/y2txlf g4


http://tinyurl.com/y9eqzx Tom Martinak


http://tinyurl.com/yd42gw Randy Bauer


http://tinyurl.com/yn6y5x Vince Hart


http://tinyurl.com/yzccg9 Don Schultz


http://tinyurl.com/ya2rgc Bill Brock


http://tinyurl.com/y7w2k6 David Kane


http://tinyurl.com/y4wjtf Joel Channing


http://tinyurl.com/wwzjv parker.r... (whose vernacular prose style
seems Houlsbyesque)


http://tinyurl.com/y67kv3 sivad...


http://tinyurl.com/yfrcev Stan Booz

Now, I already posted that list to you. If you *still* don't accept its
accuracy, it's up to *you* to go through it and take issue with
*everyone* in the list.



Look . Unless you have a direct affirmation of their feelings and an
un-cut and unedited confirmation from each of those affirming their
agreement with you on Mr. Inneses honesty, then go away ! You are
putting words in their mouths. Should anyone have the inclination they
too could construct a false impression of your undying love of Adolph
Hitler.

Put up or shut up, self-confessed TROLL.

There you go again "?".. guilty dog barking!



Rob

Is it New Year's yet?

Mark Houlsby

Mark Houlsby

Rob

Louis Blair wrote:

_
"... Certainly spending $10.000 of limited USCF
funds for a fundraiser who generated no funds
shows some disappointing results on some
decisions: attempts at a band-aid approach to
generate funds. ..." - Joe Lux (Sat Dec 09, 2006
7:27 pm)
_
_
"... Without naming names, Joe raises above an
issue about one declared candidate who recently
received an estimated $10,000 from the USCF
and has produced little or nothing to show for it.
This raises important issues which the members
need to learn more about before voting." - Sam
Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:29 am)
_
_
"Who did we give this money to, what were we
expecting to receive, and who decided to spend
the money? ..." - Herbert Vaughn (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 8:26 am)
_
_
"The exact details about this transaction need
to come from Mr. Goichberg or Mr. Hall (the two
Bills). Let us hope that they clarify this matter
soon.
_
Will they tell us, or will this be just another
cover-up of a wasteful expenditure by the USCF?
..." - Sam Sloan (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:47 am)
_
_
"... Mikhail Koreman ... was paid $10,000 to do
fundraising over the summer and produced no
positive results.
_
Mr. Koreman was moving to Chicago and had
no job when the EB approved these funding for
him. A $2000 per month plus $500 per month in
expenses. A total of $10,000. ..." - Beatriz
Marinello (Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:49 am)
_
_
"I voted in favor of giving the money to Mikhail
because I was so impressed with what he had
achieved in Kansas. In retrospect I believe I
made a mistake, but that does not take away
from his proven brilliance as a chess promoter
and organizer." - Joel Channing (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 12:03 pm)
_
_
"As a delegate, I, too, would like more
information on why Mr. Korenman was selected
to do this fundraising. I recall reading about it at
the time and honestly, this is the type of
decision making that bothered me then and
bothers me now.
_
Why was he selected to do the fundraising? Did
the USCF put out an open bid to its membership
or publish in Chess Life that it was soliciting bids
for fundraising? Did USCF ask for and receive a
resume detailing his experience as a fundraiser?
Did the USCF establish a contract with
benchmarks for results and dates by which to
achieve them in order to determine whether the
fundraising contract was successful? If so, has
the fundraising met those objectives?
_
When the USCF begins to function more as an
independent business with open bidding,
contracts, and goals with measureable results,
then it will have a chance of becoming a
successful organization.
_
All of the questions above are no reflection on
Mr. Korenman. I know nothing about him and
have no political agenda in this regard. They
are simply questions that the general
membership has a right to know the answers
on especially in light of Beatriz's last post."
- Donna Alarie (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 pm)
_
_
"Benchmarks for results and review dates? It's
not the USCF way. It's why USCF buys
snake-oil over and over and over again.
...
The $10K in moving expenses to somone's
buddy is your USCF dues hard at work." - Allan
Fifield (Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:43 pm)
_
_
"Korenman was selected because he made a
proposal to USCF regarding a four month
period when he would be available. Because
his fundraising results in the past have been
spectacular, I supported this proposal.
_
This arrangement involved work other than
fund raising, and it is possible that
sponsorship will still result from his efforts, but
I am disappointed that no definite sponsorship
has resulted so far." - Bill Goichberg (Sun
Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm)
_
_
"[1]
... 'Fundraising' is obviously a gamble. One
cannot force a successful outcome. ...
_
[2]
A.Karpov was not mentioned in the earlier
posts. Yet it is natural to wonder how much
of Mr. Korenman's success in Lindsborg KA
was due in part to A.Karpov's fame and
involvement. Is it accurate to say Karpov
deserves some of the credit?
_
[3]
I wish the E.B. would modify its perspective
away from 'fundraising' and toward 'marketing'.
Fundraising has a place, but it sounds like
asking for charity. Fundraising is not a growth
channel, it is not even self-sustaining.
_
In contrast, 'marketing' searches for 'win-win'
situations for both the sponsor and chess or
the USCF. Marketing aims at increasing the
appeal of chess to the untapped public."
- Gene Milener (Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:36 pm)
_
_
"... You are quite correct here. I believe the
appropriate avenue for the USCF is to cease
the fundraising aspect and engage actively in
searching for marketing / advertising
sponsorships.
_
For the past 2 years I have been actively
working on securing marketing/advertising
sponsorships and I can say it is not an
simple job but significantly a larger pool than
the fundraising/charity angle.
_
Corporate foundations are very specific in
what they will provide donations to and while
chess has the educational aspect to it many
corporate foundations will not entertain chess
as a viable educational outlet. Additionally
these foundations are limited - remember
these foundations are tax shelters also for
the corporation but the tax shelter is limited
so the funds do run out (and relatively quickly).
_
Marketing / Advertising dollars are quite
different. First they are controlled in two steps
generally - national/international budgets and
local/regional budgets. While the national
budget may not have any opportunities,
local/regional may and generally its easier to
go that route. Secondly - the sponsorship is
no longer only about doing good to the
community - it's about how you can help
them reach new markets and generate sales.
It's not a charity pitch - it's a sales pitch.
Finally - marketing/advertising dollars can be
replenished at various times of the year, not
just at the beginning when budgets become
fresh - foundation dollars are stuck where
they are at year round.
_
So marketing/advertising sponsorship is the
way to go, not corporate foundations. Of
course that is my opinion." - Sevan Muradian
(Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:02 pm)
_
_
"Out of curiosity, what were [Mr. Korenman's]
spectacular fund raising results?" - Kevin
Bachler (Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:16 am)
_
_
"I'm sure there were others, but one area where
he was successful was getting grant funding
from the State of Kansas, I believe through
their department of economic development.
This was different than other chess grant
funding efforts through government, which
generally rely on chess' educational value. In
this instance, he went with the approach that
'chess tournaments appeal to people as being
intellectual and full of smart people, and with
strong national publicity, Kansas will benefit
from being associated with them.' I think he
also tied in the Karpov angle, again giving the
City and State a 'worldly' image.
_
He did get a lot of publicity for some high
impact events, including national coverage. I
had some professional curiosity about the
State actually providing this kind of funding
and spoke with some colleagues in Kansas
about it, and my general recollection is that
the State was satisfied with the outcomes."
- Randy Bauer (Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:10 pm)
_
_
"National evening/nightly news coverage as I
recall. My wife called me out of my office to
see it because one of the networks was
interviewing him." - David Hood (Tue
Dec 12, 2006 2:19 pm)
_
_
"I was curious in part, because, from some
of the press articles I read about when he left,
it sounded more like a failing business than
successful fundraising.
_
Someone made a comment about being on
national news. But really all that would take is
us spending time on PR. Heck, our our 5th
grade chess team was on CNN a few years
ago, and that was just a matter of performing
well.
_
I'm not trying to downplay what he might have
accomplished, but so far, I haven't seen $$
amounts, programs completed, etc. so that
right now I don't know that he accomplished
anything other than promoting himself. And
what he has done in Illinois certainly has been
controversial at best (apparently helping to
increase the expenses of this year's state
championship with no real benefit)...so that
right now my skepticism is up. My suggestion
would be that if he is a real candidate and a
good candidate is that he needs to get some
hard information out soon." - Kevin Bachler
(Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:35 pm)
_
_
"Here's an article that ran in National
Geographic on Korenman and chess in
Kansas.
_
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0605/feature6/
_
Reading this, it would seem that Korenman
has gotten some good PR for chess in the
mainstream press and has been a successful
organizer. This explains why the USCF board
was willing to back him." - Maret Thorpe (Wed
Dec 13, 2006 1:28 pm)
_
_
"... Anyone that has tried fundraising can tell
you that it is a rare occurance when you can
walk into a meeting with a proposal, and walk
out with a large check. Quite often, a proposal
has to be put into the budget and will be given
out the following fiscal year. So it is premature
to call his efforts a failure.
_
Korenman has previously received a 250K grant.
He has generated quite a bit of publicity in both
print and television media. He has organized
master events and scholastics. He has served
on the scholastic council. I would rather see
someone get elected or not based on their
merits and actions. Based on Mr. Korenman's
actions, I think he makes a fine candidate."
- Glenn Panner (Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:31 pm)

I'm sorry, Louis... what was the point of your posting this?

All the best,

Mark