samsloan writes:
We have several thousand prison members including some mass murderers,
all dues paying members of the USCF.

If they are members, why not let in Fischer who has not been convicted
of anything.

The prison members want to be members, so we accomodate them. Fischer
does not want to be a member. That is the difference.

On Aug 23, 3:53 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
samsloan writes:
We have several thousand prison members including some mass murderers,
all dues paying members of the USCF.

If they are members, why not let in Fischer who has not been convicted
of anything.

The prison members want to be members, so we accomodate them. Fischer
does not want to be a member. That is the difference.

Paul,
Do you now how much money the prison members contribute every year as
a group? Sloan said their memberships were suplimented with funds from
outside? I am curious if the cost associated with their membership
actually makes or costs the USCF maney?
thanks,
Rob (which-mitch) Earl of Mustard

On Aug 23, 11:13 am, Rob wrote:

My comment still stands. In that case, the interviewer must be
amazingly ignorant of how most Americans would view Fischer's rabidly
racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American views. Not to mention
Fischer's lifelong preference for being an isolated loner, rather than
a group leader. There is no possibility of Fischer ever becoming any
sort of leader of any substantial political movement in the USA.

I agree with Taylor on this one. Fischer could never lead. Loan wolves
never lead a pack, they just antagonize it.


I thought they were called loan "sharks"?


On the subject of Fischer-obsessing, I am reading
the August 2007 issue of Chess Life, and have not
yet run across any references to him; this strikes
me as odd, since in the old days just about every
writer in CL seemed to be obsessed with the man,
in spite of his long retirement from active play. It is
refreshing to see the rational discussion of chess
and chess players, without the mandatory obsessing
over BF of old.

Even so, some of the annotated games are not
very good, and writers seem to be straining to find
*something* worthy of praise to fawn over. In BF's
heyday, this was not a problem, as he routinely
produced (when he played) masterpieces filled with
brilliant moves. Ah, but I am obsessing... . :D


-- help bot

samsloan wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:37 pm, Rob wrote:
On Aug 23, 11:28 am, samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunderchicken I don't think any of the front runners would care. If Hillary or whoever said this I'm sure the media would have a hay day with it. But I guess as long as we're bringing politics in this, this would be good to point out if and when Sam runs next year.

Yes. Please bring it up because, if you do not, I intend to.
It has been reported that the reason Bill Goichberg does not want to
let Fischer back into the USCF is because Fischer is anti-Semitic.
It has also been reported that Goichberg objected to allowing Boris
Spassky to give a simultaneous chess exhibition in New Jersey because
Spassky is anti-Semitic.
However, I feel, and I think that most chess players agree, that a
chess player's political or social views should have no bearing on
whether they should be allowed to play chess.
Sam Sloan
Anyone can play.. however membership to an organization could and
should have some limitations. If it didn't you would have murderers
and child pronography pedophiles infiltrating the membership ranks. So
the question isn't if Fischer should be permitted to play chess( a
game he has abandoned) but rather should good people foot his bill to
belong to an organization for free?

In fact we have many such persons.

We have several thousand prison members including some mass murderers,
all dues paying members of the USCF.

If they are members, why not let in Fischer who has not been convicted
of anything.

Sam Sloan

Because he blasphemes the sacred cow.

On Aug 23, 3:29 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Fischer's crime, as the government see it, is a complex of non-tax payments
for income it claims he owes it following the 'war-zone' playing of the
second Spassky match, combined with, as I understand it, risibly and
contentious comments on terroritst actions. The last of these are less
explicit, but post 9/11 it is not exactly a 'nothing' consideration today.

Fischer has expressed no desire to be affiliated with USCF as el Sloan
proposes, nor to return to the US. What el Sloan thinks he is up to is
thereby naught to do with Fischer, but a last-grandstand by el Sloan while
he still has the public eye.


I think we should listen to what IM Innes has to
say. After all, if anyone knows about grandstanding,
it's him.

-- help bot

That is correct. When the EB suspended GM Fischer, I volunteered to read the
very same transcript and be suspended too.

USCF should only suspend folks over their chess acts -- if they cheat at
chess, cheat at the ratings, fail to submit reports or dues, etc. Even
Michael Vick should be allowed to join USCF, if he wishes. His non-chess
behavior really shouldn't matter at all.

No more Pachmans, please!

ECJ
----------

What if they served 30 years for killing another chessplayer during a rated
game? --asked corplawyer--

---
**Was it a Sicilian?

**The very strange thing is that Rob Mitchell offered to reproduce Sam
Sloan's Wikipedia profiles - after normal editing, at Chessville. //With
edits//, it was a very useful resource for chessplayers, but cloth-ears here
preferred to be the victim than deign to listen to Debil-chil' Mitchell.

**If anyone wants to profile chess players in potted biographies, Chessville
is a place where that work cannot be destroyed - though of course it can
ammended, after a /sensible/ process has taken place.

**Similarly, if anyone wants to hold a benefit it is /normal/ to give them a
free plug at Chessville, I do that every week, whether I like the sons of
bitches or not makes no difference.

Phil Innes

On 2007-08-23 08:26 samsloan wrote:
On Aug 23, 4:34 am, Eustace wrote:
From an interview of Senator Gravel's spokesperson Shawn Alexander
Colvin to the the newspaper Pravda.ru.

(http://english.pravda.ru/world/ameri...0-senator_mike...)

Second question from the bottom:

===================
PRAVDA.RU: Can you imagine the former chess champion Bobby Fisher as the
leader of an opposition movement in the USA? Please substantiate your
answer.

COLVIN: Bobby Fischer would be pardoned. He deserves an apology for the
way he has been treated by the Bush administration.
===================

"would be pardoned" doesn't really make sense. I think he rather said or
meant to say "should be pardoned". I wish more senators would raise the
issue.

Eustace


This is really great news, long overdue.

Too bad that even the Executive Board of the United States Chess
Federation refuses to support Fischer.

Sam Sloan

Actually, I think Senator Gravel has provided us with a great tactical
possibility: If only it were possible to have someone attending a
Democratic Presidential candidates debate get up and ask something along
these lines:

"This issue is not, of course, as important as Iraq or the Health Care
system, however it is of interest for a great many chess players -
American citizens who feel that a great injustice has been - and still
is - perpetrated. I am aware that Senator Mike Gravel has expressed the
opinion that the persecuted and currently forced into exile in Iceland
World Chess Champion Bobby Fisher 'deserves an apology for the way he
has been treated by the Bush administration' and that 'he should be
pardoned'. I would like to know the opinion of the rest of the
candidates on this issue."

Eustace

--
It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
http://www.geocities.com/itaintme_babe/itaintme.html

On Aug 24, 9:10 am, Eustace wrote:

Actually, I think Senator Gravel has provided us with a great tactical
possibility: If only it were possible to have someone attending a
Democratic Presidential candidates debate get up and ask something along
these lines:

"This issue is not, of course, as important as Iraq or the Health Care
system, however it is of interest for a great many chess players -
American citizens who feel that a great injustice has been - and still
is - perpetrated. I am aware that Senator Mike Gravel has expressed the
opinion that the persecuted and currently forced into exile in Iceland
World Chess Champion Bobby Fisher 'deserves an apology for the way he
has been treated by the Bush administration' and that 'he should be
pardoned'. I would like to know the opinion of the rest of the
candidates on this issue."


Who cares about Iraq or about health care? What
really matters in life is our obsession with Bobby
Fischer! This is what distinguishes us chess players
from all those idiots who try to live in the real world.
They just don't get it.


-- help bot

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:13:22 -0700, Rob wrote:

On Aug 23, 11:02 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Aug 23, 11:50 am, samsloan wrote:





On Aug 23, 11:25 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Aug 23, 8:26 am, samsloan wrote:

On Aug 23, 4:34 am, Eustace wrote:

From an interview of Senator Gravel's spokesperson Shawn Alexander
Colvin to the the newspaper Pravda.ru.

(http://english.pravda.ru/world/ameri...0-senator_mike...)

Second question from the bottom:

PRAVDA.RU: Can you imagine the former chess champion Bobby Fisher as the
leader of an opposition movement in the USA? Please substantiate your
answer.

The interviewer must be amazingly ignorant of Fischer's political
and social opinions, or those of most Americans, to ask such an absurd
question.

I disagree. The interviewer seems quite aware of Fischer's views.

My comment still stands. In that case, the interviewer must be
amazingly ignorant of how most Americans would view Fischer's rabidly
racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American views. Not to mention
Fischer's lifelong preference for being an isolated loner, rather than
a group leader. There is no possibility of Fischer ever becoming any
sort of leader of any substantial political movement in the USA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with Taylor on this one. Fischer could never lead. Loan wolves
never lead a pack, they just antagonize it. Fischer and Mohaned Slaon
are cut from similar cloth in that regard.
Rob

I suspect the interviewer's intended point was that Kasparov has no
more political credibility in Russia than Fischer does in the USA, so
why does the Western press insist on giving Kasparov so much political
coverage?

Personally, I find Kasparov to be reasonable (in contrast to Fischer),
but as a foreigner my views don't count.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

On Aug 24, 12:47 pm, Hugo S. Cunningham
wrote:
(http://english.pravda.ru/world/ameri...0-senator_mike...)

Second question from the bottom:

PRAVDA.RU: Can you imagine the former chess champion Bobby Fisher as the
leader of an opposition movement in the USA? Please substantiate your
answer.

The interviewer must be amazingly ignorant of Fischer's political
and social opinions, or those of most Americans, to ask such an absurd
question.

I disagree. The interviewer seems quite aware of Fischer's views.

My comment still stands. In that case, the interviewer must be
amazingly ignorant of how most Americans would view Fischer's rabidly
racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American views. Not to mention
Fischer's lifelong preference for being an isolated loner, rather than
a group leader. There is no possibility of Fischer ever becoming any
sort of leader of any substantial political movement in the USA.- Hide quoted text -

I suspect the interviewer's intended point was that Kasparov has no
more political credibility in Russia than Fischer does in the USA, so
why does the Western press insist on giving Kasparov so much political
coverage?

That is a plausible interpretation of the question. Frankly I don't
know whether Kasparov's political ambitions are taken very seriously
in Russia. Can any of our Russian and/or European readers here shed
some light?

Personally, I find Kasparov to be reasonable (in contrast to Fischer),
but as a foreigner my views don't count.

It's not hard to find people more reasonable than Fischer, who among
other things has said that Jews kill Christian children and use their
blood to make matzoh bread. Kasparov, to my knowledge, has never said
anything at all so offensive, but he does entertain a few strange
views (e.g. on history). In chess politics, the main kind he's been
involved with until recently, his record has not been very impressive,
IMO. He has started up various organizations (the GMA, PCA, WCC, etc.)
that seem to start strong, but quickly fizzle when he loses interest.
I would think more persistence will be required of anyone serious
about opposing Putin.