On Apr 13, 2:22 pm, Possible Future Board Member
wrote:
How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway? If the price
is right, perhaps someone with a bit of organizational experience
and no skeletons in the closet could win a seat, and then start
representing the average chessplayer for a change. Also, are
there any residency requirements? Where and how often do they meet?
--Possible Future Board Member ;=)

We get paid a wonderful amount.

This would be a great career move for you.

Possible Future Board Member wrote:
How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway?
Unknown

Brian Lafferty wrote:
Possible Future Board Member wrote:
How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway?
Unknown


Nothing. Read the Bylaws. They get airfare and hotel rooms reimbursed
for Board meetings, but no meal money. (Sloan really squealed about
that.)

wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
Possible Future Board Member wrote:
How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway?
Unknown


Nothing. Read the Bylaws. They get airfare and hotel rooms reimbursed
for Board meetings, but no meal money. (Sloan really squealed about
that.)

John, be creative. How much can an executive in any corporation get as
compensation?---whatever he can not get caught taking. Old joke amongst
the corporate types in NYC.

On Apr 13, 6:02 pm, wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:
Possible Future Board Member wrote:
How much does being a USCF boardmember pay, anyway?
Unknown

Nothing. Read the Bylaws. They get airfare and hotel rooms reimbursed
for Board meetings, but no meal money. (Sloan really squealed about
that.)

They were trying to starve me out as a way to stop me from taking
office or to shorten my term.

Fortunately, there was usually a McDonald's nearby and I was able to
spring for that.

Sam Sloan

Wrong. *The election was not fair given the FSS posts. *

This contention is devoid of rationality, as has been explained
before. Sheesh. And you were a judge?

Scorn, and slight regard,
zdrakec

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
legal &c.

Care to list any particulars ?

Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
anything -... Like the
fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more suspicious!

Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
about your various credentials, it tends to make me "more suspicious".
There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
about your credentials.

Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
authority, you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.

Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!

It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
board.

Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
of children" -- a reform school, for example).

Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
litem might do, and we called you on it.

In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.

Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
bluffer. We want to see the cards.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:20:32 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
sake of argument,

'for the sake of argument' continues Murray, discussing people's children -
and ignoring the *fact* that the issue was investigated - but Murray doesn't
like the terms I use, so blathers on...

From what I've read about the context of the guardian ad litem's
report, the terms you used are improper or misleading.

Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
expertise?

You cannot admit your own understanding of the material, therefore you
describe those who do look at direct evidence by the term 'nut'.

The term 'nut' seems relatively fitting to describe someone
unqualified to analyze the "direct evidence" but who prattles
endlessly about the results of his analysis. Maybe 'crank' or
'crackpot' would be slightly better.

You're not qualified to do armchair textual analysis of deliberately
forged material, Phil, and neither am I.

If you can't get Polgar, get Truong, and if you can't get either, get the
kids?

Another lie, so typical of Phil's lack of respect for truth and
history.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:31:18 -0400, EZoto
wrote:

What do you know of it. Paul and Susan won the election fair and
square and all you losers are upset over it. Now your trying to take
him out of office because your not the bosses anymore. Wait till next
election and then you and the people can vote him out of office.

The question is not whether the election itself was fair, but that one
of the successful candidates has been accused of trying to influence
the election through unfair means, i.e., identity theft and is
therefor unfit to hold office. The argument that he would have won
anyway is not relevant.

Something Sam sloan doesn't understand. But then in this country you
have a right to sue to I suppose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit.

Sam's lawsuit isn't the only issue.

EZoto

Mike Murray wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:20:13 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

I was on a state board which has to do with the welfare of children, the
state's preparedness over the next 10 years, and especially those in
trouble ho actually require temporary shelter of all kinds, physical, diversion,
legal &c.

Care to list any particulars ?

Murray, as elsewhere, you neglect to say what depends on your knowing
anything -... Like the
fatuous Kennedy, more information makes you more confused, more suspicious!

Well, certainly in your case, Phil, when you supply "more information"
about your various credentials, it tends to make me "more suspicious".
There's a reason for this, Phil, and that reason is you've tend to lie
about your credentials.

Therefore, when you tend to cite your past experiences, honors,
credentials, triumphs, whatever, in order to lend your opinions some
authority, you'd better be ready to mention particulars. Otherwise,
we tend to put your brags and boasts in the same category as your
well-known claim to be almost an IM with a rating of 2450.

Try and life your own life, man! Get out of everyone else's!

It was you, Phil, who brought up your supposed service on a state
board.

Now, I'm not saying that you didn't serve on some state board. But
you didn't mention the facets of your service that might be relevant.
For example, when (forty years ago?), in what capacity (addressing
envelopes? janitor?), where (in this country? what state?), what this
state board actually DID (lots of things have "to do with the welfare
of children" -- a reform school, for example).

Earlier, you made some rather ignorant statements which led some of us
to conclude you had little or no understanding of what a guardian ad
litem might do, and we called you on it.

In response, you strutted out a claim about past service on some state
board "concerned with the welfare of children", as if this should
demonstrate the absurdity of questioning your lack of knowledge.

Sorry, Phil, it just don't cut it. Not with your reputation as a
bluffer. We want to see the cards.



Almost sounds like the rap on Phil's friend Paul Truong. We're still
waiting to see Truong's business cards from all those companies he
turned around and the Fortune 500 companies he allegedly worked for.

Birds of a feather do flock together.