Yes folks, it's just about time to choose a name for the upcoming chess
season, so here goes:

2003-04, the Year of Unfathomable Befuddlement
2003-04, the Last Year of the LMA
2003-04, the Year of the Cold Hard Cinder
2003-04, the Year of the Goich
2003-04, the Year of the Child
2003-04, the Year of the Vendor
2003-04, the Year of the Trailer
2003-04, the Year of the High Staff Morale
2003-04, the Year of Grant Perks'
Quitting..er..Firing..er...Quitting..er...
2003-04, the Year of Our Seventh 6 figure loss in 8 years
2003-04, the Year of the Expired Member
2003-04, the Year of Mensa
2003-04, the Year We ALL Gave only 75%
2003-04, Mike Nolan's Most Electrifying Year
2003-04, the Year of the RGCP Smartass
2003-04, the Year of the IBM 386
2003-04, the Year of the Eternal Software Upgrade
2003-04, the Year of the Dismantlement
2003-04, the Year of Book and Equipment Sales
2003-04, the Year of Adult Over the Board Chess
2003-04, the Year of the Bloodsucker
2003-04, the Year of a Thousand Leeches
2003-04, the Year of the Pain Cave
2003-04, the Year of Crossville..er..New Windsor..er...Crossville..er
New Windsor...er...
2003-04, the Year of the Outstanding Contract
2003-04, the Year of Revealing Private Medical Information
2003-04, the Year USCF returned to '64 for Answers to Problems
2003-04, the Year of Tiny Tim Hanke, God Bless us all, each and every
one.
2003-04, the Year of Unprecedented Door/Ass Strikings
2003-04, the Year of High Quality and Timely Chess Life
2003-04, the Year of Outstanding Customer Service
2003-04, the Year of the Unanswered Telephone
2003-04, the Year of the Unfilled Order
2003-04, the Year of Really Cheap and Reasonable Adult Dues
2003-04, the Year of the USCF Lackey or Crony
2003-04, the Year of the Unchanged Diaper
2003-04, the Year of the Bathing Chessplayer
Feel free to add your own, collect the whole set, trade them with your
friends.

Best Regards,

Bruce

How 'bout 2003-04 The Year to Forget

RSHaas

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...

2003-04, the Year of Revealing Private Medical Information

2003-04, the Year When Bruce Admitted a Mistake (hey, there's still time.)


--
without the block

David wrote:

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...

2003-04, the Year of Revealing Private Medical Information

2003-04, the Year When Bruce Admitted a Mistake (hey, there's still time.)

--
without the block

I have not yet acknowledged that I have made a mistake. When Beatriz
gets back, we shall find out if she REALLY gave Don permission to tell
the world on his website about her private health matters.

I know Beatriz and cannot imagine that this is what she intended even
if she did tell Don about it. I've already said that if I find that
Beatriz was completely happy with what Don did I will apologize to Don.

This is not really a trivial matter in the U.S. where people are
discriminated against and denied healthcare coverage because of a
pre-existing condition. Don is free to reveal his own personal health
care issues if he pleases, but I still believe he crossed the line by
posting Beatriz' private health issues on his website. If you disagree
then that's your privilege. I have reason to doubt that Don had
permission from Beatriz to fully disclose all sorts of personal
information about her condition.


Best Regards,

Bruce

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
David wrote:

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...

2003-04, the Year of Revealing Private Medical Information

2003-04, the Year When Bruce Admitted a Mistake (hey, there's still
time.)

--
without the block

I have not yet acknowledged that I have made a mistake. When Beatriz
gets back, we shall find out if she REALLY gave Don permission to tell
the world on his website about her private health matters.

How about acknowledging that Stan's post does not exist or was
misunderstood?

How about letting it rest until you get your confirmation from Beatriz
instead of constantly undermining Don's role as a board member?


I know Beatriz and cannot imagine that this is what she intended even
if she did tell Don about it. I've already said that if I find that
Beatriz was completely happy with what Don did I will apologize to Don.


You may be right, Bruce. Maybe Beatriz gave Don no permission. Don said
she did. You have provided no information to the contrary other than your
personal disbelief. Maybe she didn't expect that Don would put it on a web
page. Maybe she thought Don would not put it on the website, but would have
some other way of counteracting Sam's journalistic prowess.

In the meantime, you take repeated shots at Don, despite the fact that he
has answered your charge. You sought to add credibility to your concerns by
mis-citing Stan's post in support of your position.

This is not really a trivial matter in the U.S. where people are
discriminated against and denied healthcare coverage because of a
pre-existing condition. Don is free to reveal his own personal health
care issues if he pleases, but I still believe he crossed the line by
posting Beatriz' private health issues on his website. If you disagree
then that's your privilege. I have reason to doubt that Don had
permission from Beatriz to fully disclose all sorts of personal
information about her condition.

I agree it is not trivial. I also believe that when people enter public
life, a part of their private life becomes of interest to the public. It's
not a question of disagreement, it is a question of repeatedly hammering on
someone without actually having more to say.

You say you have "reason to believe.." Great. That could be actual
knowledge received in confidence, misunderstood posts from Stan, conclusions
reached from suppositions, or just about anything. But, apparently, it is
sufficient to continue to berate someone by simply saying the same thing
repeatedly.

Bruce, I generally enjoy reading your opinion about things. I think you
have an exceptional sense of humor. I think that you bring a unique view to
the problems at USCF. I think that is the fact that this appears to be
overdone than causes me to be somewhat riled about it.



Best Regards,

Bruce

Best Regards to you as well.

David


--
without the block

David,

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I went back
and found Don's post about supposedly getting permission from Beatriz
and actually he never mentions getting her permission. He mentions
discussing it and her agreeing that some people should be told.

When asked why he did it in fact, he does not say he as ASKED to do it
by Beatriz, he says he did it to prevent rumors from running rampant and
nipping them in the bud. He then suggests that I move on, which is a
bit of an odd comment.

Putting that together with what Stan said about her telling a few
people with the intent that they keep it confidential, makes me feel
even more certain that my take on the situation is right.

Reasonable people like you however are free to disagree. I will note
also that my post that was made in jest mentioned no one's name. If you
feel the posts are out of line however, you should probably just not
respond to them and let them die which is what almost always happens if
people don't like the subject or the poster.

Best Regards,

Bruce

--
without the block
"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
David,

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I went back
and found Don's post about supposedly getting permission from Beatriz
and actually he never mentions getting her permission. He mentions
discussing it and her agreeing that some people should be told.

It well may be that we'll have to disagree on it.

As far as what Don said about permission from Beatriz, he said, "I
recommended to Beatriz she let folks know of her illness, we discussed it
and she agreed with me."

Where do you get the limit of "some people" from that?


When asked why he did it in fact, he does not say he as ASKED to do it
by Beatriz, he says he did it to prevent rumors from running rampant and
nipping them in the bud. He then suggests that I move on, which is a
bit of an odd comment.

Yes, he had a reason for seeking her permission. The difference between
being asked and "..we discussed it and she agreed.." is a question of who
initiated the conversation only.


Putting that together with what Stan said about her telling a few
people with the intent that they keep it confidential, makes me feel
even more certain that my take on the situation is right.

Stan has already confirmed that that conversation predated Sam's release.
The situation changed once the cat was out of the bag, thus Don's subsequent
discussion with Beatriz.


Reasonable people like you however are free to disagree. I will note
also that my post that was made in jest mentioned no one's name. If you
feel the posts are out of line however, you should probably just not
respond to them and let them die which is what almost always happens if
people don't like the subject or the poster.

Thanks for the advice.


Best Regards,

Bruce

BR,

David

Bruce Draney wrote (2003-12-21 09:04:16 PST):
Don Schultz ... publicly described the specific
health conditions of the Board President

David wrote (2003-12-21 10:16:23 PST):
Don said that Madam Pres. gave him permission
to disclose her condition.

Bruce Draney wrote (2003-12-21 11:11:06 PST):
Perhaps you missed a post by Stan recently that
said that Beatriz did NOT in fact want Don to do
this.

David wrote (2003-12-21 17:48:45 PST):
Stan ... Do you have knowledge that Beatriz
wanted Don to keep silent, subsequent to the
point that Sam had posted that she was having
health problems?

StanB wrote (2003-12-21 20:17:27 PST):
No.


Bruce Draney now writes (2003-12-23 12:25:50 PST):

I went back and found Don's post about supposedly
getting permission from Beatriz and actually he
never mentions getting her permission. He mentions
discussing it and her agreeing that some people
should be told.

_
"I recommended to Beatriz she let folks know
of her illness, we discussed it and she agreed
with me." - Don Schultz (2003-12-11 18:03:29 PST)


Does Bruce Draney feel that it is reasonable to use
"some people" as a substitute for "folks" in a
description of what Don Schultz wrote?


Bruce Draney now writes (2003-12-23 12:25:50 PST):

When asked why he did it in fact, he does not say
he as ASKED to do it by Beatriz, he says he did it
to prevent rumors from running rampant and nipping
them in the bud. He then suggests that I move on,
which is a bit of an odd comment.

Putting that together with what Stan said about her
telling a few people with the intent that they keep
it confidential, makes me feel even more certain
that my take on the situation is right.

_
It is all very well to make general comments about
Bruce Draney's "take on the situation", but what about
the more specific issue of using misleading descriptions
of the notes of others in order to publicly promote
that "take"? Does Bruce Draney maintain that he
described the notes of Don Schultz and StanB fairly?
Is this the quality that we can usually expect
when Bruce Draney describes a note without quoting
it?

"She confided in several people and asked them
to keep it confidential. Someone leaked it to
Scam. Shame on that person." - StanB (2003-12-12
14:59:54 PST)

Does anyone other than Bruce Draney think that the
authentic quotes above suggest that Don Schultz
acted against the wishes of Beatriz? Would it be
too much to ask that Bruce Draney provide the actual
quotes in his own notes if he wants to bring up this
subject again?