While I seem to have received 25 messages by e-mail overnight on who should
speak, I note that the subject of what is said is completely neglected.

I also noticed that in the recent candidate board member interviews Susan
Polgar replied most directly to the set question on standards.

"The USCF should set ethical standards for its many programs. I do
think that we should get feedback from our members to set better standards."

Randy Bauer was not shy of saying:

"The USCF needs regular membership growth - without it, we will always
be careening from one financial crisis to the next. In many respects, we
are still a makeshift operation with a lot of questionable business
processes."

And to follow the same theme, Paul Truong contributed:

"We are wasting so many opportunities to make chess and the USCF more
viable which in turn will bring more absolutely needed revenues. I plan to
propose to create a strong chess marketing and promotion committee and I
plan to work closely with this committee to give the USCF something it never
had before..."

And Dr. Korenman availed himself of learning from elsewhere, and added a
long term perspective:

"I still remember how chess programs were generated and supported in
former USSR and in Russia. I hope that some of those ideas might help to
generate some new life and enthusiasm in the US chess community..."

---
These are all extracts from the interview on topical subjects which address
chess health in the USA. These seem very different from the internal
squabbling of /who/ should speak, and address what they should speak about!
Perhaps if we managed to speak about chess issues, rather than incessant
personality fixations as reason why we /do not/ speak of chess issues, then,
even as an experiment, we could observe the result?

Certainly, I suggest that those who would be or are leaders in the chess
community not be let off the hook to dissemble on personalities, but whoever
they are, receive the attention of the serious end of the chess press and
even mainstream press, which relate to the overall health of chess in this
country.

I find this approach eminently satisfactory, and cannot find any resistance
in myself to joining up. I contrast this with spending money on 'who should
speak', where my reaction is to say 'the back of my hand, to that!'.

Phil Innes
Vermont

7 The adult form of "tattletale" is "snitch"
7 ...and neither one is very attractive.

_
Calling me names is not likely to change my
opinion on this point:


***I see that no one who contested the actual content of the Wiki-entries
received these e-mails! I certainly suggested /several amendments/ to what
was posted - along with many other netizens. Mr. Brock had written some
several hundred e-mails which did not address the content of the Wiki
articles, instead Mr Brock contented himself by referring almost entirely to
what he called [rightly or wrongly] porn sites that he supposed Sloan
encouraged or sponsored.

***Sam Sloan does not have sufficient respect for women, in my opinion - I
would resist his attentions to Scholastic chess on the same basis; that his
attentions will not be perceived to be sufficiently mature. [I, BTW, extend
my serious reservations to several other people active in these writings as
contributors and subjects thereof].

***And those /are/ issues to confront Sam Slaon with - but where are they?

***Instead we review these coy half-truths and half-lies, by
passive-aggressive personalities who cannot own their OWN actions sufficient
to engender any general trust afforded to them to act with decency. This is,
and it must be said, very psychologically dubious behavior!

***What Bill Brock has to do with writing chess histories or assessing those
of others, is unknown from his daily contributions in chess newsgroups.

***I have offered to interview any current board members seeking re-election
with the very same questions put to the candidate-board members. One
question specifically tackles head-on this, now major, issue of standards.
It is an open challenge or opportunity to anyone who bothers to show up and
Answer.

Phil Innes
Vermont
March 18, 2007

Evidence of everything that happened above. That you wanted to get
Sam's posts deleted from Wiki.

I don't know if his posts had value or not. But whatever they may or
may not have been does not lessen your conspircy and participation.

You "got him" Louis. Own it. Brag about it! Don't run from it.
Rob


----

And I think neither Rob Mitchell nor I admire Mr. Sloan's overall
orientation nor frankness, Dr. Blair! But we perhaps admire fairness more
than we dislike his behaviors.

You are a victim yourself, and will play a role which is already not
respected, since without any supporter at all to your 'actions', and
indifferent to every other point of view, you nevertheless get to moderate
actions of others.

Are you not being set up as some sort of McCarthy-figure?

There are two issues which Mr. Sloan needs to address (1) his own management
role and responsibilities at USCF during his own watch, and (2) his jejeune
attitude to females. He shirks both.

But both have real impact on the chess scene, and both have been ducked. To
be fair to him, item (1) is also ducked by all other board members.

While what you have prosecuted by way of your 'help' explanations at Wiki,
is in fact a display that does nothing other than really helping Sam Sloan
to be seen as the evident victim of a form of political or personality-based
hooliganism.

What genius set this nonsense up deserves these attentions, not you!

For in some ways you play the role of patsy before them. Truly, are you
really indifferent to /all/ these different voices who suggest that, in
their opinion, there is something amiss in your behavior at Wiki, and do you
really not understand the context that this is important as a USCF
moderator?

Phil Innes

The real issue now is that in full knowledge of this history of Louis
Blair, Bill Goichberg has appointed Blair as a member of the
moderation committee of the USCF Forums. The obvious purpose to this
appointment is to put Blair in the position where he can delete all my
postings to the forums and ultimately suspend or ban me from posting
there.

Sam Sloan

---

And who will care? The real issues Mr. Sloan are as I just wrote Dr. Blair -
which has less to do with free speech than with responsible speech. Of
course, you are victimised, though your own victims are not allowed to be
examined, no?

And where is any responsibility for being a board member of a national
non-profit to promote chess in all this?

If you can't face the music and address real questions from people who ask
the same things of all USCF board members and candidates, then you are not
any more responsible than any other current board member. Playing victim
will only score you votes where people do not read this!

You have ducked being interviewed and concentrated on the ills of others. If
people want that they will vote for you again, but I think they not only do
not want that from you, or any other current board member, they are looking
for something substantially different - and it would seem, 'radical'
measures are called for, including this dread-word acting 'responsibly'.

You understand the consequences of this issue no more than does Dr. Blair,
and are as equally indifferent to your own actions. Whatever you or he may
win, is not the same as what the chess community wins.

Phil Innes

Dear Louis

You have taken again to producing partial sound-bite chunks of sentences
then issuing essays 'in response', which are all denials that there is
ANYTHING people think amiss about your 'actions'.

You have 'refuted' every other point of view in absolute ways which satisfy
only you, no one else who has asked or commented seems to be assured by your
answers [though maybe I missed someone?] - as if what members of the chess
community observed about your actions at Wikipedia are //completely//
invalid - and with no irony at all in respect of the current context.

And that is a position which empowers you to audit the works of others - but
of yourself, you demonstrate here that you can't even understand by way of
acknowledgement [nevermind be able to discuss!] what others are saying - not
to the slightest degree.

I'll write that again - you don't know what they are saying to the degree
that you can intellectually repeat their question to their satisfaction -
but immediately denounce it as 'Nonsense!".

I am sure that what goes on at the Forum will be as elucidating as the issue
at Wikipedia, and you admitted to me that it was

*** to be neither subjective nor objective evaluations of Sloan's /work/
***

Dr. Blair can't even /acknowledge/ what others say about what he does,
without immediately stating 'nonsense'! He will 'moderate'
affairs at the USCF forum, adding a new and absolute sense to that word,
which used to mean something else.

Phil Innes

----- Original Message -----
From: "samhsloan"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:31 AM
Subject: [fide-chess] Another Unauthorized Deal by Bill Hall with Susan
Polgar


After searching the BINFOS Donna has found that the board never agreed
to this. The last BINFO on this subject is 200601292

Here is what Joel Channing, the maker of the motion passed by the

board, wrote:

Dear board members:

I thought that when we voted on the proposed Susan Polgar event we
were voting on a concept that was to be run past a couple of
committees and then negotiated by Bill Hall and then brought back to
us in the form of a proposed contract for us to vote on - and that
until we were able to review the details and voted there was to be no
publicity regarding the proposed deal. I also know that, in response
to some comments, the proposed deal was simplified. But as far as I
know, nothing has happened that would supersede my understanding as
described in the first sentence above.

My question is: am I correct?

Thank you,

Joel Channing

In short, Bill Hall disobeyed a direct order from the board not to
make any deals with Polgar and Truong without running it through a
couple of committees and presenting it to the board for a vote.


*1**What Channing says above is that 'he thought' a process was in place to
examine the 'concept'. He follows that with interim knowledge of the process
which was taking place, since he knows the 'deal was simplified.' He then
makes reference to his first sentence which again, had to do with the
concept, even though quite evidently 'the proposed deal was simplified'. But
who proposed the deal, not the concept, and who simplified it? And if Mr.
Channing knew about the deal being simplified, then, this removes 'the
proposed deal' from Bill Hall's secret closet, no? Mr. Channing's first
sentence is at odds with the rest of that message.

Bill Hall violated two USCF rules that were made when Frank Niro
signed a similar secret deal with Polgar that the Executive Director
is not empowered to sign a deal without board approval with a value of
more than $10,000 or a termination date of more than one year. The
deal Bill Hall made with Polgar and Truong has no termination date and
the value is infinite.

Every board member I have spoken to says that we cannot do anything
about this now because elections are only four months away.


*2**Incorrect. When two board members wrote about this issue re Frank Niro -
I asked them both, AND received assurances that if there was any unclarity
in the contractual role of the Ex Dir, they would attend to the procedure.
These board members were Don Shultz and Beatriz Marinello. If in fact they
did nothing, as it appears, then how clear are Bill Hall's current
directives?

*3**Can he do this or that or does it rest on Mr. Channing's 'understanding'
of the 'concept' followed by some board action of the 'details' ? I rather
suspect that Bill Hall's directives are as clear as mud in respect of his
contracting ability, and while it seems from this writing he is enabled to
conduct discussions about /potential/ contracts, he cannot in fact contract
with others, according to Mr. Channing, since the board would want to
'review details'. What does that mean? To change the details or to vote up
or down on a /proposed/ contract. Surely this then does not allow the
contractee to negotiate with Mr. Hall at all?

*4**Therefore :: is the problem with the board or with the Ex Dir? What are
the terms and conditions in Mr. Hall's job description? Specifically, re
Shultz and Marinello above, to contracting? Is the board superceding what is
written by 'what is understood'?

I say that if we do not do anything about this now, there might not
even be a United States Chess Federation four months from now and the
issue will be moot.


*5**Whether any future United States Chess Federation will have the
slightest impact on chess in the country depends on clear procedures, on
objective standards of operations, and specifically not on ad hoc
understandings based pro or con personalities, by people who will not own
their own role in affairs, and who continue to act as if only brilliant
personalities are sufficient guide.

*6**Roll Over Mr. Paine, all Common Sense is forgot, and we would instead
install princes and Kings, like in the old country. These personality
measures do absolutely nothing to effect the health of the chess community
nor USCF either - and are instead the disease it has suffered these past 20
years.

Phil Innes
Vermont
--------

This is the problem we have with weak minded but, as Mike Goodall puts
it, "always polite" members of the Executive Board.

Sam Sloan

The Nutty Professor Tells More, well 'not' exactly ... ;(

7 And that is a position which empowers you
7 to audit the works of others - but of
7 yourself, you demonstrate here that you
7 can't even understand by way of
7 acknowledgement [nevermind be able to
7 discuss!] what others are saying - not
7 to the slightest degree.

_
I am acknowledging a Phil Innes note right
now, just as I have acknowledged many others
in this discussion.

**Dr Blair does not /acknowledge/ any criticism of what he did, not to the
the slightest degree, and his idea of 'noting' a subject it is to cite the
message, rather than address the issue it contains [!] ROFL!

**Which he continues to call 'nothing'. Truly, Dr. Blair not only has his
own agenda, he is demonstrably not capable of understanding, in any normal
sense of that word, what other people are saying.

**In case ANYONE should be confused about Dr. Blair's WIKI perspective he
thoughtfully amplifies his previous statement by saying it was also not an
'evaluation'.

_
___"My 'help' was neither an 'objective' nor
___a 'subjective' 'critique" of Sam Sloan's
___'biographies'. It was not a 'critique' of
___the 'biographies' at all." - Louis Blair
___(Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:53 pm)
_
It was not an "evaluation" either.

**Which seems to rule out the content of Sloan's expression. Let's STOP here
and just think what it actually was, therefore? Since my prediction of /not
not not/ in this header is the actual refuge Dr. Blair has taken. He doesn't
like any characterisation of what he does [BTW: not what he says he says],
and will tell you more about his nots:-

(a) he never said it himself, or
(b) he states he is unable to understand others, and disagrees with all
comment they make [ie, as 'nonsense']

His 'Action' to 'help' was related to 'the rules' of Wikipedia. tp 'make
Wiki aware' of something which he admits is not to do with content while his
action had the effect of eliminating that content.

While Dr. Blair has great difficulty in talking responsibility for his own
actions, his responses immediately justify what he did, rather than a civil
ability to even say that others have a problem with it. Other people's
observations he continuously declares to be 'nonsense'.

There is a certain psycho-pathology where people cannot seperate their
actions from being right or wrong to the extent that objections cannot even
be noted [!] and their views are dismissed out of hand. I would have thought
that a 'moderator' would have developed quite another sense of things, and
be able to distinguish a topic [whether agreeing with it or not] from
personality issues of who wrote the topic, and any immediate judgement of
that topic by some, in this case arcane, sequence of 'understanding' which
reduces all to 'nonsense'.

7 Dr. Blair can't even /acknowledge/ what
7 others say about what he does, without
7 immediately stating 'nonsense'!

_
I have acknowledged many things, written by
others, without "immediately stating
'nonsense'". Unfortuanately, there has been
a lot of nonsense written in this discussion,
so it is natural for the word to come up
repeatedly.

**Dr. Blair uses the word acknowledge to mean not-acknowledge in this case.
He /responds/ to the words of other people, but not what the words mean [!],
as if the words had no meaning to him at all, and because he didn't write
them, has no obligation to acknowledge they have meaning to others.

7 He will 'moderate' affairs at the USCF
7 forum, adding a new and absolute sense to
7 that word, which used to mean something
7 else.

_
A prediction that has not come true.

**An observation /demonstrated/ to be true right here and now. Dr. Blair's
actions are rather like the Clintonian, "I did not have sex....". Dr. Blair
completely dismisses other views than his own while simultaneously not
demonstrating he understand the content of those messages, and shows himself
unable to discuss what they say with other people.

Phil Innes