We assume that AF4C *was* the partner -- are you saying that they were
merely an intermediary (shell)?

That's disturbing on several levels.

Also, any group that backs out of a major event because of a few wacko
posts either 1) wanted to leave anyway and looked for an excuse or
2)realized they were not benefitting from their investment or 3) were a
group of individuals with very thin skins and little interest in the
activity itself.


When the whoring-in-Budapest issue of CL came out, I wrote that a woman
organiser said that she would no longer organise USCF tournaments in
Chicago. I don't think she was thin-skinned! When Larry Evans was ejected
from CL quite considerable people announced they would not renew their
subscriptions.

USCF cannot evolve and maintain a standard which people will generally
ascribe to as decent. That is the problem.

While it is common to scapegoat Sloan, enacting that will not solve anything
for more than a season, since quite obviously he had nothing to do with
'whoring in Budapest' which passed under two editors' noses without
demurrer. Removing an obvious symptom is but to cover the issue with a
prominent band-aid - and this is patently /not/ a sincere address to the
subject.

Last Spring the board refused to even acknowledge actual complaints about
people speaking on behalf of USCF, or discuss some suggested standards of
public behavior. Once again there is a systemic problem which people wish to
'fix' by removing the obvious symptom thereof.

No one acting in this way alone will convince me that they actually care
enough about affronted constituencies like women and children in chess to do
more than pose away in public.

Phil Innes

ECJ