Inconnux wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

a direct copy of what

Rob wrote:

earlier

Why did you do that, troll?


why are these questions a troll. Questions look
rather valid to me.

I wish someone would at leat try to answer the questions. At least that
would advance the discussion a bit. :-)
Rob

Inconnux wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

a direct copy of what

Rob wrote:

earlier

Why did you do that, troll?

why are these questions a troll. Questions look
rather valid to me.

The questions are valid. The point, which, evidently, you completely
missed, was that Rob posted them he

http://tinyurl.com/y6unl3

....then posted them AGAIN here (two posts down the subthread):

http://tinyurl.com/y4v259

The *only* post separating the two *identical* posts listed above, was
this one:

http://tinyurl.com/v8dck

....which contains a suggestion, from me, that a better forum to discuss
these questions might be:

http://www.uschess.org/forums/ where, in point of fact, a discussion of
these very questions is well underway.

Reposting the same questions in reply to a reply is considered rude, is
considered trolling.

Recently, Rob Mitchell has involved himself with "The RGC Challenge"
tournament. His doing this is somewhat encouraging.

Besides "The RGC Challenge", nearly every message that Rob Mitchell has
posted in these groups *since his arrival*, has been a troll.

Get with the program!

As a start: perhaps you need to learn some basic NG definitions?

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Inconnux wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

a direct copy of what

Rob wrote:

earlier

Why did you do that, troll?

why are these questions a troll. Questions look
rather valid to me.


Generally, when posting to a topic one has something to contribute to
the topic.
Why not answer the questions or do something else Mark H?

Rob Mitchell wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Inconnux wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Rob wrote:

a direct copy of what

Rob wrote:

earlier

Why did you do that, troll?

why are these questions a troll. Questions look
rather valid to me.


Generally, when posting to a topic one has something to contribute to
the topic.
Why not answer the questions or do something else Mark H?

See what I mean, Inconnux?

Since the question is being covered up by Houl-troll, I will repete
them.

Okay....
Item # 1

A 50k unbid disbursement was made to redesign a website


Item # 2


A 10k unbid disbursement was made for "fundraising"


Question:


What is the official policy of the USCF for conducting business with
and entering into contractual arrangements with outside parties?


Are there guidelines?


If so, were the guidelines followed?


If there are no guidelines, then why are there none?


How many new memberships does 60k represent?


Direct questions requiring direct answers.


Rob

Rob wrote:

Since the question is being covered up by Houl-troll, I will repete

"...repete..." ROFLMAO!

them.


It's not NECESSARY for you to repeat them, ****WIT.

Anybody who considers me to be trolling YOU can ignore my post and go
straight to the top of this little subthread.

Jeez, but you're a ****ING MORON.

Okay....
Item # 1

A 50k unbid disbursement was made to redesign a website


Item # 2


A 10k unbid disbursement was made for "fundraising"


Question:


What is the official policy of the USCF for conducting business with
and entering into contractual arrangements with outside parties?


Are there guidelines?


If so, were the guidelines followed?


If there are no guidelines, then why are there none?


How many new memberships does 60k represent?


Direct questions requiring direct answers.


Rob

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rob wrote:

Since the question is being covered up by Houl-troll, I will repete

"...repete..." ROFLMAO!

them.


It's not NECESSARY for you to repeat them, ****WIT.

Anybody who considers me to be trolling YOU can ignore my post and go
straight to the top of this little subthread.

Jeez, but you're a ****ING MORON.

I rather doubt that that is any general opinion of Rob Mitchell, who besides
any personality fascinations returned the questioner to a consideration of
what is written below - I should say that it IS particularly necessary for
these items to be repeated, otherwise we are left with only resentment that
anyone should write anything at all about chess in chess threads.

Personally I would criticize Rob Mitchell for something I do myself [the
best criticism!] which is to assume that anyone understands the question in
the first place, and sufficiently to answer them. But Jeez! does this need
explanation to anyone except our new colleague ... 'Dimiti'?

PI
---


Okay....
Item # 1

A 50k unbid disbursement was made to redesign a website


Item # 2


A 10k unbid disbursement was made for "fundraising"


Question:


What is the official policy of the USCF for conducting business with
and entering into contractual arrangements with outside parties?


Are there guidelines?


If so, were the guidelines followed?


If there are no guidelines, then why are there none?


How many new memberships does 60k represent?


Direct questions requiring direct answers.

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rob wrote:

Since the question is being covered up by Houl-troll, I will repete

"...repete..." ROFLMAO!

them.


It's not NECESSARY for you to repeat them, ****WIT.

Anybody who considers me to be trolling YOU can ignore my post and go
straight to the top of this little subthread.

Jeez, but you're a ****ING MORON.

I rather doubt that that is any general opinion of Rob Mitchell,

There's a lot of facts that you rather doubt, Phil.

Ask anyone. Except Rob.

So you'll know that what he's doing is trolling, then.

If he really bothers you, perhaps YOU should filter him out?
just some basic NG advice...

I don't have a filter. I post via Google.

Then use a common sense filter... if you see his name
don't read his posts.