While I haven't read all the recent responses to the nominal topic of more
USCF 'awards' by board members without any accounting, which was first
reported by Beatriz Marinello, then Sam Sloan was 'blamed' for, even by Bill
Goichberg whose own diversion was on Sloan's 'history' rather than his own
part in initiating the current 'history' - I haven't actually read any
interest declared by currrent writers in the subject matter.

I first reported these issues here from 75 messages at USCF's forum - I
should be interested in reading anyone who can actually address these
/subjects/ further.

Other responses to-date seem more than a little diversionary, and it is
difficult to understand why anyone writes at all without addressing the
issues; issues which are not contested to exist! but which writers do not
even state their interest in.

Since the only practical use of this forum is to air and discuss national
and international chess issues, if the subjects of unmeasured funding awards
for fund-raising [$10k], for putative unmeasured performance awards for
'make-overs' [$50k], and even unmeasured rating certification by people paid
to do so, are not viable topics - what can be?

One interesting factor about the USCF forum is that for the first time it
has come to life, and the issues I raise above are the same subjects that
members are now raising about best use of their membership monies.

What I have not understood is why this reporting as I repeat it, should be
so 'ignored' as to cause so many people to want to shut it up. But I do not
principally want to engage that subject, since the answer is relatively
obvious - they have no interest in chess management at all, since they are
unable to intelligently comprehend nor address the issues.

Meanwhile such nincompoops offensively demand more and more material about
these 'claims' without indicating their own interest in it - or in fact, why
their valuable opinion of the matter should be gained.

While I will make some individual responses elsewhere - since the incidental
subject of Sloan has been engaged, and two likely-Sloan impersonators [this
is actually a criminal activity in the US] are being watched for their
responses, these are merely the diversions from the main issues which are at
the top of this post.

It is often though heretical to report the news, though the news itself is
not contested. If writers wish to conduct themselves that way then I might
suggest going to NolanLand the USCF forum, and talking directly with those
who have objected to the above, and perhaps sharing their opinions with
those people.

Otherwise they might consider moving to Cuba, where they will like the
relationship between Official Actions and Its Reporting, better than they do
here in the Western democracies.

------
The issues again:

$50,000 awarded for makeover, with no bidding, and no performance criteria
$10,000 awarded for fundraising, with no public airing, and no performance
criteria
USCF's own role in supervising Tanner's ratings and awarding him a life
title
In the fund raising instance, blaming Sloan with the more than apparent
encouragement of Goichberg, for Marinello's revelations

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

While I haven't read all the recent responses to the nominal topic of more
USCF 'awards' by board members without any accounting, which was first
reported by Beatriz Marinello, then Sam Sloan was 'blamed' for, even by Bill
Goichberg whose own diversion was on Sloan's 'history' rather than his own
part in initiating the current 'history' - I haven't actually read any
interest declared by currrent writers in the subject matter.


Then you haven't read the responses. At least Dr. Blair and I have been
attempting to get to the bottom of your latest pet "scandal" (your
adjective).

I first reported these issues here from 75 messages at USCF's forum - I
should be interested in reading anyone who can actually address these
/subjects/ further.


You didn't report. Reporting involves divulging facts/sources. All we
have had from you is hysteria and hubris, as usual.


Other responses to-date seem more than a little diversionary, and it is
difficult to understand why anyone writes at all without addressing the
issues; issues which are not contested to exist! but which writers do not
even state their interest in.


Once again, you haven't told us what the issues are, dimwit.

Since the only practical use of this forum is to air and discuss national
and international chess issues, if the subjects of unmeasured funding awards
for fund-raising [$10k], for putative unmeasured performance awards for
'make-overs' [$50k], and even unmeasured rating certification by people paid
to do so, are not viable topics - what can be?


You?

One interesting factor about the USCF forum is that for the first time it
has come to life, and the issues I raise above are the same subjects that
members are now raising about best use of their membership monies.


That sounds good. So why should it not be confined to the USCF forum?
Is it because you wish these issues to be debated by a wider public?

What I have not understood is why this reporting as I repeat it, should be
so 'ignored' as to cause so many people to want to shut it up.

No, what you have not understood is that this reporting as you repeat
it is completely unintelligible. Far from wanting "to shut it up" we've
been trying to discover what the heck it is that you mean...this
process has so far taken:

http://masl.to/?O2976216E one

http://masl.to/?G6275126E two

http://masl.to/?W6472126E three

http://masl.to/?I3572126E four

http://masl.to/?S1671226E five

http://masl.to/?X5771426E six

http://masl.to/?V1876626E seven

http://masl.to/?W1975226E eight

http://masl.to/?O3AC2216E nine

http://masl.to/?P2582426E ten

http://masl.to/?M1781226E eleven

http://masl.to/?S2A81426E twelve

http://masl.to/?I1B82326E thirteen

http://masl.to/?A2274316E fourteen

http://masl.to/?Q2D85626E fifteen

http://masl.to/?P4E82126E sixteen

http://masl.to/?D2F81226E seventeen

http://masl.to/?C2091126E eighteen

http://masl.to/?I1192126E nineteen

http://masl.to/?E2291526E twenty

http://masl.to/?A3391226E twenty-one

http://masl.to/?P2491626E twenty-two

http://masl.to/?F2691226E twenty-three

http://masl.to/?J5791326E twenty-four

http://masl.to/?W4891126E twenty-five

http://masl.to/?Q1991326E twenty-six

http://masl.to/?M2B95426E twenty-seven

http://masl.to/?U1C92526E twenty-eight

http://masl.to/?Y2E94626E twenty-nine

http://masl.to/?N2F91226E thirty

http://masl.to/?O20A5326E thirty-one

http://masl.to/?I21A1226E thirty-two

http://masl.to/?T53A1226E thirty-three

http://masl.to/?C24A1226E thirty-four

http://masl.to/?E65A1226E thirty-five

http://masl.to/?E26A1626E thirty-six

http://masl.to/?C57A2126E thirty-seven

http://masl.to/?Y28A1226E thirty-eight

http://masl.to/?H2BA3416E thirty-nine

http://masl.to/?M29A1126E forty

http://masl.to/?A1AA3126E forty-one

http://masl.to/?N2BA3226E forty-two

http://masl.to/?Y4CA2526E forty-three

http://masl.to/?P2DA3226E forty-four

http://masl.to/?L6EA2326E forty-five

http://masl.to/?B20B1226E forty-six

http://masl.to/?R22B2326E forty-seven

....forty-seven messages. Still we are not appreciably closer to
reaching a conclusion. We're trying to figure out what you mean, Phil,
but...




But I do not
principally want to engage that subject, since the answer is relatively
obvious - they have no interest in chess management at all, since they are
unable to intelligently comprehend nor address the issues.


"...unable to intelligently comprehend nor address..."... Hmmm...

Meanwhile such nincompoops offensively demand more and more material about
these 'claims' without indicating their own interest in it - or in fact, why
their valuable opinion of the matter should be gained.


Which nincompoops? Why is it offensive that they should demand evidence
to support your accusations? Do you think that in a court of law
you could make accusations without supporting evidence?


While I will make some individual responses elsewhere - since the incidental
subject of Sloan has been engaged, and two likely-Sloan impersonators [this
is actually a criminal activity in the US] are being watched for their
responses, these are merely the diversions from the main issues which are at
the top of this post.


So... tell us what exactly it all means, Phil. Please.

It is often though heretical to report the news, though the news itself is
not contested. If writers wish to conduct themselves that way then I might
suggest going to NolanLand the USCF forum, and talking directly with those
who have objected to the above, and perhaps sharing their opinions with
those people.


Instead of importing the subject to rec.games.chess.* like you have,
you mean?

Are you suggesting that your having imported the subject here was a bad
move on your part?

If you are not suggesting that, what exactly is your justification for
your now suggesting
that in your view writers may be better served by "...going to
NolanLand the USCF forum," (which,
incidentally, is itself somewhat obscure...could you provide a link to
the forum, mayhap?)?


Otherwise they might consider moving to Cuba, where they will like the
relationship between Official Actions and Its Reporting, better than they do
here in the Western democracies.


What do you mean to imply by this? Do you mean to imply that certain
writers here are communist?

------
The issues again:

$50,000 awarded for makeover, with no bidding, and no performance criteria
$10,000 awarded for fundraising, with no public airing, and no performance
criteria
USCF's own role in supervising Tanner's ratings and awarding him a life
title
In the fund raising instance, blaming Sloan with the more than apparent
encouragement of Goichberg, for Marinello's revelations


Ok, this looks like a start... are you now going to address the issues
which you have outlined above,
constructing viable arguments with respect to whichever point or points
you wish to make?

Alternatively, do you intend to leave it at that?

Where's the beef, Phil?

Mark Houlsby

Chess One wrote:
While I haven't read all the recent responses to the nominal topic of more
USCF 'awards' by board members without any accounting, which was first
reported by Beatriz Marinello, then Sam Sloan was 'blamed' for, even by Bill
Goichberg whose own diversion was on Sloan's 'history' rather than his own
part in initiating the current 'history' - I haven't actually read any
interest declared by currrent writers in the subject matter.


So...you haven't read...because you haven't read?

Perhaps you should read more. And write less?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

pwned.


"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:
While I haven't read all the recent responses to the nominal topic of
more USCF 'awards' by board members without any accounting, which was
first reported by Beatriz Marinello, then Sam Sloan was 'blamed' for,
even by Bill Goichberg whose own diversion was on Sloan's 'history'
rather than his own part in initiating the current 'history' - I haven't
actually read any interest declared by currrent writers in the subject
matter.


So...you haven't read...because you haven't read?

Perhaps you should read more. And write less?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:44 GMT):

7 While I haven't read all the recent responses to the nominal
7 topic of more USCF 'awards' by board members without any
7 accounting, which was first reported by Beatriz Marinello,

_
Actually, before the Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:49 am Beatriz
Marinello "report", there had already been a Sat Dec 09, 2006
7:27 pm Joe Lux note that mentioned the USCF "spending
$10.000 ... for a fundraiser who generated no funds".
_
Here is how Beatriz Marinello described what happened with
the $10,000:
_
"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)
_
The rest of her note was related to her disapproval of a
letter, written by Mikhail Korenman asking for the
resignation of Beatriz Marinello. I do not see anything
there about the "'award" being done "without any
accounting".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:44 GMT):

7 then Sam Sloan was 'blamed' for, even by Bill Goichberg
7 whose own diversion was on Sloan's 'history' rather than
7 his own part in initiating the current 'history' ...

_
On Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:50 pm, Bill Goichberg wrote:
_
"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)
_
I do not see anything there or anywhere else in
the thread about blaming Sam Sloan for the "award".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:44 GMT):

7 ... One interesting factor about the USCF forum is
7 that for the first time it has come to life, and the
7 issues I raise above are the same subjects that
7 members are now raising about best use of their
7 membership monies. ...

_
I tried to find a recent reference to the $10,000 issue
In the Korenman-and-other-things-removed-from-Lux
-thread thread at the USCF forums. I found the matter
briefly (and indirectly) mentioned in a Thu Dec 14, 2006
4:04 pm Bill Goichberg note. The last note that I saw
in the thread was dated Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:37 pm.
(Something about "per diems".)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:44 GMT):

7 ... The issues again:
7 ...
7 In the fund raising instance, blaming Sloan with the
7 more than apparent encouragement of Goichberg,
7 for Marinello's revelations

_
I have already quoted the Bill Goichberg reaction to
the discussion of "Marinello's revelations". I do not
see any way in which it can be plausibly argued that
it enouraged blaming Sam Sloan for anything. Indeed,
Sam Sloan was not even mentioned in the note. Who
blamed Sam Sloan "for Marinello's revelations"?

Mark Houlsby wrote (17 Dec 2006 08:10:36 -0800):

7 ... the USCF forum," (which, incidentally, is itself somewhat
7 obscure...could you provide a link to the forum, mayhap?)? ...

_
Go to http://www.uschess.org/forums/
_
Click on "register". I believe that it will be necessary to
use the five digit PIN that is on the Chess Life address
label. Look at the line with the USCF ID number.

Louis Blair wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote (17 Dec 2006 08:10:36 -0800):

7 ... the USCF forum," (which, incidentally, is itself somewhat
7 obscure...could you provide a link to the forum, mayhap?)? ...

_
Go to http://www.uschess.org/forums/
_
Click on "register". I believe that it will be necessary to
use the five digit PIN that is on the Chess Life address
label. Look at the line with the USCF ID number.

Aha! Thank you Dr. Blair! That was easy...I wonder why Phil couldn't
provide that information?

Unfortunately, because I live in England, and don't subscribe to CL, my
attempting such a procedure may prove futile...

I wonder whether, as a Brit, it might be possible for me to join the
USCF *for the sole purpose of accessing the fora*?

Who should I contact?

Mark

Louis Blair wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote (17 Dec 2006 08:10:36 -0800):

7 ... the USCF forum," (which, incidentally, is itself somewhat
7 obscure...could you provide a link to the forum, mayhap?)? ...

_
Go to http://www.uschess.org/forums/
_
Click on "register". I believe that it will be necessary to
use the five digit PIN that is on the Chess Life address
label. Look at the line with the USCF ID number.

Ok, I registered, but I don't yet have a PIN, obviously.

"Mark Houlsby" writes:

Louis Blair wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote (17 Dec 2006 08:10:36 -0800):

7 ... the USCF forum," (which, incidentally, is itself somewhat
7 obscure...could you provide a link to the forum, mayhap?)? ...

_
Go to http://www.uschess.org/forums/
_
Click on "register". I believe that it will be necessary to
use the five digit PIN that is on the Chess Life address
label. Look at the line with the USCF ID number.

Ok, I registered, but I don't yet have a PIN, obviously.

No, you don't need your PIN to register for the current Forums, but
you do need it to register for access to the member only content on the
website, which includes the articles from Chess Life.

You do, however, need to be a current USCF member and will have to provide
your USCF ID and use the same email address that you have given the USCF
for your membership record, because that's the way the current Forums
keeps track of who everyone is, as required by the Executive Board.

A new set of Forums are being set up which will be tied to the member
login for the rest of the website, so when a member registers for
access to the member content portions of the website they will also
be registering for access to the new Forums.
--
Mike Nolan

Mike Nolan wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" writes:

Louis Blair wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote (17 Dec 2006 08:10:36 -0800):

7 ... the USCF forum," (which, incidentally, is itself somewhat
7 obscure...could you provide a link to the forum, mayhap?)? ...

_
Go to http://www.uschess.org/forums/
_
Click on "register". I believe that it will be necessary to
use the five digit PIN that is on the Chess Life address
label. Look at the line with the USCF ID number.

Ok, I registered, but I don't yet have a PIN, obviously.

No, you don't need your PIN to register for the current Forums, but
you do need it to register for access to the member only content on the
website, which includes the articles from Chess Life.

You do, however, need to be a current USCF member and will have to provide
your USCF ID and use the same email address that you have given the USCF
for your membership record, because that's the way the current Forums
keeps track of who everyone is, as required by the Executive Board.

A new set of Forums are being set up which will be tied to the member
login for the rest of the website, so when a member registers for
access to the member content portions of the website they will also
be registering for access to the new Forums.
--
Mike Nolan

Thanks Mike, Evidently the only thing I need to do now is to submit an
email address, then I should be good to go...

I appreciate your taking the trouble to write.

Mark Houlsby