"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
newscHNj.7341$HJ1.2689@trndny01...

YOU made the representation regarding state child welfare service. If you
won't provide verifiable specifics, one can only conclude that you are
bull****ting.

This is a matter about reporting in a decent manner especially of children
[that includes you and me, and all others]. At minimum, differentiating
charges or accusations from actual findings, and at least attempting an
impartial recording of events.

You surely can't think that those who have to do with auditing who gets near
our kids can ever fail to ask questions on people's orientation these days?
A national agency operating here in Vermont told me that after screening
their California agency rejects 50% of volunteers as 'unsuitable'. Sound
real to you?

The idea of you serving on any state board having to do with child
welfare is as frightening as it is sadly amusing.

On whose opinions should we attend in the matter of child welfare?

NO MORE THAN NORMAL

I even called 3 years ago, pre-Sloan on board, for background checks on all
USCF board members and Officers - to a perfunctory level at least
[high-school level screening]. I wonder how many people here would think
that necessary, to either (a) protect children, or (b) protect USCF.

The usual dismissal of the issue is that it would be too expensive - yet
methinks law suits more so.

That measure is now standard for other organisations to which children are
the prime market - Little League, Boy Scouts of America etc. Where it is
definitely not thought to be any sort of option - but it still is in chess
where extracting normative standards which accord with our society is like
finding hen's teeth.

In other messages recently I have asked if people would merely declare their
relationship with USCF if they receive any compensation from it - if they
also make public comments. That normal standard or reporting is also
seemingly very hard to understand. It is also entirely normal to resent
proxy representations in politics at large, even if we must suffer them as a
measn to avoid normal conditions of fair speech.

THE FATAL SHORE

When these two factors of children and decency in reporting combine,
incomprehension becomes complete, the wind shrieks louder through the
rigging and there is no avoiding the lee-shore, since it would have been
prudent to pursue another course some tides ago...

Phil Innes

On Apr 20, 4:07*am, wrote:
On Apr 20, 1:10*am, Rob wrote:





On Apr 19, 6:04*pm, wrote:

On Apr 18, 3:12*pm, wrote:

On Apr 18, 7:22*am, Rob wrote:

On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, wrote:

On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob wrote:

Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.

* Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written here,
and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
*_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??

* Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
confirm he

*http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/ar...Polgar%20on%20...

* Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
writer, has attacked herself?

* As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much
as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
* And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightest
with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
result.
* As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt
it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support
your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
any specifics at all.

* This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attacking
things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote
but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
all.

Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.

* Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns and
their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indicate
which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as you put
it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrated this
alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
even in the slightest with Chessville."
* Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if you
want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed
loonie:

Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
Over the Horizons by Stefan Bücker
Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
Novice Nook by Dan Heisman

ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
Endgame Corner by Karsten Müller
The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
El Café del Ajedrez en Español by Juan Santa
Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
The Wanderer by Mike Franett
A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabbé
Queen One by Susan Lalic
From the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
The Miles Report by Tony Miles
The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry

* So, Rob, I notice you have not replied here. And now after what
Jeremy Spinrad wrote above, it looks like you don't have even one
ChessCafe writer, whether or not he/she posts on rec.games.chess
newsgroups, who has any "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and
anyone associated even in the slightest with Chessville."
* To retain any shred of integrity, you must either prove your point,
or apologize. As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet ambassador, I am
prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer -- but I
seriously doubt you will ever give one.- Hide quoted text -

Sorry,
I have been busy ... I don't read Chess Cafe'.

* Then how could you possibly have any basis for this "collective
tendency" you claim to have observed among ChessCafe writers? How
could you even know who ChessCafe's writers are?

I do know
that You, Taylor have shown a hostility towards Truong and Polgar ...

* Rob, which are you -- an idiot, or a liar? I have never shown any
hostility to Truong or Polgar. I very seldom say anything about
either, and I have never said anything negative about them.

I did not know that Jerry wrote for Chess Cafe'.

* In that case, the number of candidates for your alleged "collective
tendency" just shrank from one to zero.

While Neil is not now or may never have been
a Chess Cafe writer, I would consider Chess Cafe's publishing of his
work to count.

* What works of Neil Brennen has ChessCafe published? Or is this
another thing about which you know nothing?

If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.

* Why does anyone have to "confess support"? To be neutral about and
uninterested in Polar and Truong is hardly the same as attacking
them.
* Rob, your error is blatant, and a public apology is your only decent
alternative.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then, If you say you do not oppose Polgar and Truong and those who
support them, I will admit my error. It's simple . No need to over
analyse. As for Neil, who cares. Being attacked by him is equal to
being attacked by Sloan. It's like getting the good housekeeping seal
of approval.

So, it's all pretty simple. Use simple,small words in concise
sentences that someone with my limited brain power can understand and
that leaves no area for backpeddling. Just say the words that you do
not oppose Susan,Paul or their supporters and I will retract my
statement as it applies to you. Fair enough?

I'll even make it easier," If Taylor Kingston says he supports and
does not oppose Polgar,Truong and their supporters I, Rob Mitchell,
admit I erred in saying he opposed and attacked them"

Rob

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:36:25 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


I even called 3 years ago, pre-Sloan on board, for background checks on all
USCF board members and Officers - to a perfunctory level at least
[high-school level screening]. I wonder how many people here would think
that necessary, to either (a) protect children, or (b) protect USCF.

Not a bad idea, but the dangers to children are likely to come at the
other end of the administrative chain: coaches, trainers, teachers,
etc., in whose charge the kids are directly placed. A non-trivial
problem, one which schools, churches and various service organizations
have been unable to solve.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:


Then, If you say you do not oppose Polgar and Truong and those who
support them, I will admit my error. It's simple . ...
I'll even make it easier," If Taylor Kingston says he supports and
does not oppose Polgar,Truong and their supporters I, Rob Mitchell,
admit I erred in saying he opposed and attacked them"

One can get too simple as well as overly complicated.

By ignoring context, your challenge confuses an unbiased critic with
an acolyte. "Supports" -- on which issues? "Their supporters" -- all
supporters at all times? And what constitutes a "supporter"? Somebody
like George over on the USCF forum? Somebody like Tennessee Vols, now
Zarathustra, over on chessdiscussion? That would go even further and
conflate an unbiased observer with an idiot.

On Apr 20, 10:25*am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

Then, If you say you do not oppose Polgar and Truong and those who
support them, I will admit my error. It's simple . ...
I'll even make it easier," If Taylor Kingston says he supports and
does not oppose Polgar,Truong and their supporters I, Rob Mitchell,
admit I erred in saying he opposed and attacked them"

One can get too simple as well as overly complicated.

By ignoring context, your challenge confuses an unbiased critic with
an acolyte. *"Supports" -- on which issues? *"Their supporters" -- all
supporters at all times? *And what constitutes a "supporter"? Somebody
like George over on the USCF forum? *Somebody like Tennessee Vols, now
Zarathustra, over on chessdiscussion? *That would go even further and
conflate an unbiased observer with an idiot.

Mike, One can get too simple. In this case I don't think that is the
case. By oversimpliying it in your example, over complicates it just
as I was trying to avoid. There are times for broad general statements
which rational people know to be true. Trying to make statements or
laws to cover the exceptions is never a good policy. Make a general
statement and then contest the exceptions.

So , does he "generally" support and not "oppose" Susan,and Paul?
Simple.
Rob

On Apr 20, 10:44*am, Rob wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:07*am, wrote:





On Apr 20, 1:10*am, Rob wrote:

On Apr 19, 6:04*pm, wrote:

On Apr 18, 3:12*pm, wrote:

On Apr 18, 7:22*am, Rob wrote:

On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, wrote:

On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob wrote:

Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.

* Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written here,
and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
*_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??

* Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
confirm he

*http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/ar...Polgar%20on%20...

* Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
writer, has attacked herself?

* As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much
as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
* And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightest
with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
result.
* As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt
it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support
your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
any specifics at all.

* This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attacking
things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote
but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
all.

Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.

* Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns and
their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indicate
which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as you put
it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrated this
alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
even in the slightest with Chessville."
* Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if you
want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed
loonie:

Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
Over the Horizons by Stefan Bücker
Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
Novice Nook by Dan Heisman

ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
Endgame Corner by Karsten Müller
The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
El Café del Ajedrez en Español by Juan Santa
Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
The Wanderer by Mike Franett
A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabbé
Queen One by Susan Lalic
From the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
The Miles Report by Tony Miles
The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry

* So, Rob, I notice you have not replied here. And now after what
Jeremy Spinrad wrote above, it looks like you don't have even one
ChessCafe writer, whether or not he/she posts on rec.games.chess
newsgroups, who has any "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and
anyone associated even in the slightest with Chessville."
* To retain any shred of integrity, you must either prove your point,
or apologize. As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet ambassador, I am
prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer -- but I
seriously doubt you will ever give one.- Hide quoted text -

Sorry,
I have been busy ... I don't read Chess Cafe'.

* Then how could you possibly have any basis for this "collective
tendency" you claim to have observed among ChessCafe writers? How
could you even know who ChessCafe's writers are?

I do know
that You, Taylor have shown a hostility towards Truong and Polgar ...

* Rob, which are you -- an idiot, or a liar? I have never shown any
hostility to Truong or Polgar. I very seldom say anything about
either, and I have never said anything negative about them.

I did not know that Jerry wrote for Chess Cafe'.

* In that case, the number of candidates for your alleged "collective
tendency" just shrank from one to zero.

While Neil is not now or may never have been
a Chess Cafe writer, I would consider Chess Cafe's publishing of his
work to count.

* What works of Neil Brennen has ChessCafe published? Or is this
another thing about which you know nothing?

If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.

* Why does anyone have to "confess support"? To be neutral about and
uninterested in Polar and Truong is hardly the same as attacking
them.
* Rob, your error is blatant, and a public apology is your only decent
alternative.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then, If you say you do not oppose Polgar and Truong

Rob, the only accurate way to phrase my attitude is this: I have no
interest in the activities of Polgar and/or Truong. I have no interest
in either attacks on them or defenses of them. I neither support nor
oppose them, just as, say, I neither support nor oppose the policies
of a country on another planet.

and those who support them,

Anyone who wants to support Polgar and Truong may feel free to do so
without argument from me. The same goes for anyone who wants to oppose
them, and for those who want to ignore them. It is a matter I care
nothing about.

I will admit my error.

Good. Please be sure to include these points in your admission:

1. That your statement that I "have shown a hostility towards Truong
and Polgar" was completely false.

2. That you had absolutely no basis for saying that "ChessCafe
writers have a collective tendency to attack Polgar and Truong."

3. Specify whether you were being extremely stupid, or were
deliberately lying, when you made those two statements.

It's simple .

Indeed it is.

On Apr 20, 10:31*am, wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:44*am, Rob wrote:





On Apr 20, 4:07*am, wrote:

On Apr 20, 1:10*am, Rob wrote:

On Apr 19, 6:04*pm, wrote:

On Apr 18, 3:12*pm, wrote:

On Apr 18, 7:22*am, Rob wrote:

On Apr 17, 1:40 pm, wrote:

On Apr 17, 10:45 am, Rob wrote:

Chess Cafe' writers have a collective tendency to
attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated even in the slightest
with Chessville.

* Rob, this is about the most absurd thing you have ever written here,
and that's saying a mouthful. Did you actually bother to check
*_anything_* at ChessCafe.com before posting this idiocy??

* Susan Polgar has written a monthly column for ChessCafe since
mid-2002 -- nearly six years -- as anyone with eyes and a brain can
confirm he

*http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/ar...Polgar%20on%20...

* Can you provide specific examples in which Susan, as a ChessCafe
writer, has attacked herself?

* As a regular contributor to ChessCafe (about 130 book reviews and
several historical articles 1998-2007), I never wrote anything so much
as disagreeing with Susan Polgar, let along "attacking her."
* And though I have definitely been "associated even in the slightest
with Chessville," having been interviewed by Phil Innes some years
ago, I don't recall ever being attacked by any ChessCafe writer as a
result.
* As for other ChessCafe columnists attacking Polgar, I rather doubt
it. Again, I would ask that you present specific examples that support
your claim. However, since you have obviously made your claim without
even bothering to find out who ChessCafe's columnists are, let alone
actually reading what they have written, I seriously doubt you have
any specifics at all.

* This group has seen many examples of people inventing and attacking
things they never read, e.g. Sam Sloan's false statements about my
Keres articles, and Larry Parr faulting me for something I never wrote
but Larry Evans did. But this may just be the most ridiculous case of
all.

Let me modify my statement. "Chess Cafe' writers who regularly post on
RGC". There. I think that pretty much narrows it down.

* Rob, below is a list of almost all regular ChessCafe columns and
their respective columnists, both past and present. Please indicate
which of these writers you believe "regularly post on RGC," as you put
it. Then, of that subset, please indicate which have demonstrated this
alleged "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and anyone associated
even in the slightest with Chessville."
* Specific quotes bearing out your claims would be helpful, if you
want to be believed, rather than just be branded a loose-mouthed
loonie:

Chess Mazes by Bruce Alberston
Over the Horizons by Stefan Bücker
Let's Take a Look by Nigel Davies
The Instructor by Mark Dvoretsky
An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen
Scholastic Chess by Steve Goldberg
Checkpoint by Carsten Hansen
The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
Novice Nook by Dan Heisman

ChessOK Cafe by Dadi Jonsson
Opening Lanes by Gary Lane
ChessBase Cafe by Steve Lopez
Endgame Corner by Karsten Müller
The Q & A Way by Bruce Pandolfini
Susan Polgar On Chess by Susan Polgar
Dutch Treat by Hans Ree
El Café del Ajedrez en Español by Juan Santa
Inside Chess by Yasser Seirawan
New Stories about Old Chess Players by Jeremy Spinrad
Hoisting the Hippopotamus by Alburt & Lawrence
View From Down Under by Chris Depasquale
The Wanderer by Mike Franett
A Chess Odyssey by Efstratios Grivas
Perspectives by Burt Hochberg
A Guided Tour of Chess by Tim Krabbé
Queen One by Susan Lalic
From the Sidelines by Hannes Langrock
The Miles Report by Tony Miles
The Gambit Cartel by Tim McGrew
Misha Interviews... by Misha Savinov
The Chess Coach by Sunil Weeramantry

* So, Rob, I notice you have not replied here. And now after what
Jeremy Spinrad wrote above, it looks like you don't have even one
ChessCafe writer, whether or not he/she posts on rec.games.chess
newsgroups, who has any "tendency to attack Polgar and Truong and
anyone associated even in the slightest with Chessville."
* To retain any shred of integrity, you must either prove your point,
or apologize. As Adlai Stevenson said to the Soviet ambassador, I am
prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer -- but I
seriously doubt you will ever give one.- Hide quoted text -

Sorry,
I have been busy ... I don't read Chess Cafe'.

* Then how could you possibly have any basis for this "collective
tendency" you claim to have observed among ChessCafe writers? How
could you even know who ChessCafe's writers are?

I do know
that You, Taylor have shown a hostility towards Truong and Polgar ....

* Rob, which are you -- an idiot, or a liar? I have never shown any
hostility to Truong or Polgar. I very seldom say anything about
either, and I have never said anything negative about them.

I did not know that Jerry wrote for Chess Cafe'.

* In that case, the number of candidates for your alleged "collective
tendency" just shrank from one to zero.

While Neil is not now or may never have been
a Chess Cafe writer, I would consider Chess Cafe's publishing of his
work to count.

* What works of Neil Brennen has ChessCafe published? Or is this
another thing about which you know nothing?

If I am wrong about anyones desire to attack Ms.
Polgar, Mr. Truong or Mr. Innes; then let them confess their support
publicly and I will withdraw my charges and admit my error.

* Why does anyone have to "confess support"? To be neutral about and
uninterested in Polar and Truong is hardly the same as attacking
them.
* Rob, your error is blatant, and a public apology is your only decent
alternative.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then, If you say you do not oppose Polgar and Truong

* Rob, the only accurate way to phrase my attitude is this: I have no
interest in the activities of Polgar and/or Truong. I have no interest
in either attacks on them or defenses of them. I neither support nor
oppose them, just as, say, I neither support nor oppose the policies
of a country on another planet.

*and those who support them,

* Anyone who wants to support Polgar and Truong may feel free to do so
without argument from me. The same goes for anyone who wants to oppose
them, and for those who want to ignore them. It is a matter I care
nothing about.

I will admit my error.

* Good. Please be sure to include these points in your admission:

* 1. That your statement that I "have shown a hostility towards Truong
and Polgar" was completely false.

* 2. That you had absolutely no basis for saying that *"ChessCafe
writers have a collective tendency to attack Polgar and Truong."

* 3. Specify whether you were being extremely stupid, or were
deliberately lying, when you made those two statements.

It's simple .

* Indeed it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good. Taylor Kingston says he does not oppose Susan and Paul. I was
wrong.
Rob Mitchell

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
newscHNj.7341$HJ1.2689@trndny01...

YOU made the representation regarding state child welfare service. If you
won't provide verifiable specifics, one can only conclude that you are
bull****ting.

This is a matter about reporting in a decent manner especially of children
[that includes you and me, and all others]. At minimum, differentiating
charges or accusations from actual findings, and at least attempting an
impartial recording of events.
Come on BB, tell us what state board dealing with child welfare you sat
on. Unless you were lying, in which case I understand your failing to
address the question.

I cannot understand Phil's latest nonsense. Here is his paragraph.

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

Now he seems to be saying that I am supposed to understand this as
relating to the fact that I am not publicly decent, because I am not
revealing the scandalous fact that I receive less than 1% of my family
income from Chess Cafe, which in turn has a financial relationship
with the USCF.

It doesn't wash. You asked me to tell everyone what the board received
recently, something in which I was named. The clear implication was
that I knew of this something, and was hiding it.

I know nothing about what the board received. Phil dislikes it when I
try to read into his illegible nonsense, but he seems at times to lump
me with people who have brought in Susan's children, when I have
consistently spoken against attempt to bring the children or any of
Susan's personal life into the issue.

So spit it out, Phil. You asked me to tell people what the board
received. Are you saying I know something and am hiding it? I flatly
deny this. YOU tell us what the board received, and then I will find
out with everybody else. It can't be that you want it secret since you
want me to reveal it; let us in on it.

Jerry Spinrad





On Apr 20, 9:01*am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 16, 7:48 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:17 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

**cutting to the point:-

Here is what Phil said

Come on! Tell everyone what the board has received recently - and as
well as
Hanken I named you, didn't I? Could you state if you had an interest
in what
happened? That is publicly decent, ain't it? And my personal mail
contains
one post from Hanken who naturally spat and flew, but other mail
Jerry! From
people who are disgusted.

I am, actually, very curious as to what this is talking about. I had
an interest in what happened? My interests are in common with Jerry
Hanken, who I have never met? Any clues?

I really cannot see my connection. Everything I have said about the
FSS has been on this newsgroup. I write a column on chess history at
chesscafe, for which I receive a small amount of money.

** And what I asked of Jerry Hanken, and indeed all people who comment on
USCF's politics, is if they will admit an interest - which is to say - if
they make money or receive other consideration. This is apparently what is
'so hard to understand'.

I have no idea what the board received recently. Maybe someone else
can tell me what the board received, or what my interest was?

** Since I wrote in //these newsgroups// about money and other
considerations being received by commentators does not make them
'dissinterested' parties to the issue, then the CONTEXT is established
clear. Perhaps JerrySpinradhas never heard the phrase, 'a disinterested
party'?

** I asked for fair and open declaration of the relationship of those who
receive any consideration whatever in connection with USCF activities. This
is what JerrySpinradprofesses so hard to understand, or even to
acknowledge is the question. If he does not think this is a fair request
then I presume he will reply to say so. When, as did Jerry Hanken, negative
and public speculations extend to the children of board members, I
personally think the public should know something about the speculator and
indeed the fulsomeness of their reporting.

**Certainly anyone pretending to journalism [CJA not excepted!] is obliged
by public and ethical standard to differentiate what is allegation from what
is found true. If matters have been investigated than does it not oblige the
candid reporter to also note the fact?

**Like many other people I would wish all to be in the open, including the
relationship of ALL those who would investige the issue in public or
private. And then I should wish for the chess public to make up their own
minds of 'who is telling the truth, and who is not.'

**JerrySpinradwill chose to aver that propostion or continue to find its
clauses and precepts incomprehensible to him.

Phil Innes
Vermont
---

JerrySpinrad

On Apr 20, 11:10 am, Rob wrote:

- Show quoted text -

Good. Taylor Kingston says he does not oppose Susan and Paul. I was
wrong.
Rob Mitchell

Taylor is a collective?