Phil Innes has announced that Channing has resigned.

However, this is apparently not true. As usual, Innes has it all
wrong.

Here is what Innes wrote:

"And Goodbye Joel Channing. Breaking news this weekend is that a USCF
board member resigned April 4th, over apparent disputes with board
president Bill Goichberg. No official communiqué has yet been
uttered, and this news is via 'deep-rook', a spy at HQ."

As usual, Innes has got it wrong. Channing is expected to resign, but
has not resigned yet. Goichberg says that he is trying to talk
Channing out of resigning. I hope he does not try too hard.

If he really does resign, Channing will soon become known as the worst
board member in a long time, possibly the worst board member ever.
Many bad things that Channing has done have not become known to the
general membership yet.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:
Phil Innes has announced that Channing has resigned.

However, this is apparently not true. As usual, Innes has it all
wrong.

Here is what Innes wrote:

"And Goodbye Joel Channing. Breaking news this weekend is that a USCF
board member resigned April 4th, over apparent disputes with board
president Bill Goichberg. No official communiqué has yet been
uttered, and this news is via 'deep-rook', a spy at HQ."

As usual, Innes has got it wrong. Channing is expected to resign, but
has not resigned yet. Goichberg says that he is trying to talk
Channing out of resigning. I hope he does not try too hard.

If he really does resign, Channing will soon become known as the worst
board member in a long time, possibly the worst board member ever.
Many bad things that Channing has done have not become known to the
general membership yet.

Sam Sloan
Yawn. BB has not announced anything that has not been widely known for
days and still he hasn't quite got it right. Channing may well resign
over the internet insurance issue. Bye, bye.

On Apr 7, 12:53 am, samsloan wrote:
Phil Innes has announced that Channing has resigned.

However, this is apparently not true. As usual, Innes has it all
wrong.

Here is what Innes wrote:

"And Goodbye Joel Channing. Breaking news this weekend is that a USCF
board member resigned April 4th, over apparent disputes with board
president Bill Goichberg. No official communiqué has yet been
uttered, and this news is via 'deep-rook', a spy at HQ."

As usual, Innes has got it wrong. Channing is expected to resign, but
has not resigned yet. Goichberg says that he is trying to talk
Channing out of resigning. I hope he does not try too hard.

If he really does resign, Channing will soon become known as the worst
board member in a long time, possibly the worst board member ever.
Many bad things that Channing has done have not become known to the
general membership yet.

Sam Sloan

Naw. You still told the title of worst board member ever. You were the
accidental board member.

On Apr 7, 6:32 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:

Yawn. BB has not announced anything that has not been widely known for
days and still he hasn't quite got it right.

The mountains labored, and brought forth a silly little mouse. But
what else did we expect from P Innes?

The statement by Phil Innes that Joel Channing resigned on April 4 is
still on his blog, although it seems not to be true.

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
The statement by Phil Innes that Joel Channing resigned on April 4 is
still on his blog, although it seems not to be true.

Sam Sloan in 2 dozen words gets 3 things wrong. It is not a 'blog', neither
is it mine, nor is it unseemly. Neither does he state anything right in
order to support his own view, or how it 'seems' to him.

If Mr Channing has been induced to 'unresign', or 'not continue' with his
resignation, or other such jolly euphemisms which revert the situation, then
that will 'seem' as if was wrong.

Meanwhile Rome is not burning but definitely smoldering with a continuation
of ineffective financial plans - and that again is a difference between Mr.
Sloan and myself, since it really will not matter who resigned and who
stayed if the very board table sat around goes up in the smoke.

And there is plenty of smoke!

Phil Innes

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

Sam Sloan

Chess One wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message
...
The statement by Phil Innes that Joel Channing resigned on April 4 is
still on his blog, although it seems not to be true.

Sam Sloan in 2 dozen words gets 3 things wrong. It is not a 'blog', neither
is it mine, nor is it unseemly. Neither does he state anything right in
order to support his own view, or how it 'seems' to him.

If Mr Channing has been induced to 'unresign', or 'not continue' with his
resignation, or other such jolly euphemisms which revert the situation, then
that will 'seem' as if was wrong.

Meanwhile Rome is not burning but definitely smoldering with a continuation
of ineffective financial plans - and that again is a difference between Mr.
Sloan and myself, since it really will not matter who resigned and who
stayed if the very board table sat around goes up in the smoke.

And there is plenty of smoke!

Phil Innes

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

Sam Sloan


Looks like you're the butt of a late April Fools joke from Trolgar, your
puppeteers.

IS CHANNING FED UP?

If he really does resign, Channing will soon become known
as the worst board member in a long time, possibly the worst
board member ever. Many bad things that Channing has done
have not become known to the general membership yet. -- Sam Sloan

I take issue with some of Sam's points. First,
except for Sam himself, Joel Channing has likely been
the best Board member in recent memory. Secondly, if
Phil Innes' report is true -- and it would appear to
be so, if Goichberg is truly trying to talk Channing
out of resigning, suggesting he has resigned or
perhaps has submitted a written resignation that has
yet to arrive in Cross-to-Bear -- then that is called
a scoop. If his precise details are not on target, the
scoop still has value.

I hope that Channing does not resign for any
reason other than being completely fed up. If that is
his reason, then he is a wise man. One of Channing's
strongest points is an essential independence. He can
tell any of these guys to Go to Hell -- ranging from
Sam to Goichberg or, for that matter, to Susan Polgar
or Paul Truong -- without giving the matter a second
thought. To those who say that one ought to give
second thoughts to such statements, you are right.
One merely notes that Channing has no
financial-chessic reasons to toady.

One notes that Sam actually does have
financial-chessic reasons to toady, since he can
always use money. That he does NOT toady is a
testament to an independent character that can
support personal suffering.

Yours, Larry Parr




Brian Lafferty wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message
...
The statement by Phil Innes that Joel Channing resigned on April 4 is
still on his blog, although it seems not to be true.

Sam Sloan in 2 dozen words gets 3 things wrong. It is not a 'blog', neither
is it mine, nor is it unseemly. Neither does he state anything right in
order to support his own view, or how it 'seems' to him.

If Mr Channing has been induced to 'unresign', or 'not continue' with his
resignation, or other such jolly euphemisms which revert the situation, then
that will 'seem' as if was wrong.

Meanwhile Rome is not burning but definitely smoldering with a continuation
of ineffective financial plans - and that again is a difference between Mr.
Sloan and myself, since it really will not matter who resigned and who
stayed if the very board table sat around goes up in the smoke.

And there is plenty of smoke!

Phil Innes

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

Sam Sloan


Looks like you're the butt of a late April Fools joke from Trolgar, your
puppeteers.

But Harry, the party is already ready.

They will be kazoos blowing, music playing, people cheering, people
dancing in the streets, horns blowing, girls giving up their
virginity, the biggest all time celebration ever.

And here you are, trying to call off the party before it has even
started.

How can you do this?

Sam Sloan