Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 5th 04, 01:04 PM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default Beyond Question

Tim Hanke has reduced the Crossville discussion to the apparent complexities
of getting the office trucked down there. He apparently sees no need to
address any questions whatever to do with why USCF is moving to that site at
this time. He doesn't welcome questions, and doesn't appear to want to
reduce himself to anything as silly as thinking or having discussions of any
points that have been raised.

Nevertheless just a few years ago he was completely against moving to
Crossville. He was also completely for hiring the present CL editor, a point
he now disputes despite his printed statement on the subject recently
reproduced here, yet now he is completely set against his previous position.

That's fine! Sure, intelligently negotiating a course means tackling
situations as they really are, rather than as they seemed to be.

However, just pointing out these changes in his p.o.v. have resulted in his
calling me a 'liar' over Pehme, and in place of any thinking why these
earlier decisions on his own part have now been reversed, or why similar
board decisions over the past 10 years have nigh-on bankrupted the
organisation...

....and in place of a public discussion about a membership organisation
occupying a monopoly role in US chess life, Tim has pointed to "friends and
allies: Larry Parr, Bill Goichberg, Don Schultz, and Sam Sloan" as
sufficient reason not to bother.

I will merely point out that I have not exchanged a single private message
with any of those people on this issue, and must presume that we have all
gone loco independently of each other.

Tim hasn't thought fit to even notice that the call from a much wider group
of people has been to check what appears to be an impetuous move, a move
occurring outside any strategic plan [is there one?], or by a process of
fair comparison with other potential sites.

Tim has mischaracterized my concern with investment of USCF's last asset -
one that is being used to secure the loan, and maintain cash-flow, by simply
stating that the mortgage is a no-cash down event - as if the mortgage could
have been secured without a financial reserve resulting from the sale of New
Windsor and to guarantee a positive cash flow at USCF to meet all other
commitments.

Tim has ignored his own previous stance of getting rid of CL as a print mag!
He ignores current options for tele-commuting for the magazine, and the
concomitant space issues at HQ needed for it. In an informative gush he
contradicted my '50% of office space for CL' comment, by saying, 'untrue'.

This is almost as good as Hal Terrie telling us if he was concerned about
the Ex Directors practical management reservations about the board's
decision to move, by answering "no".

There has been no indication of thinking on the main alternate Liberty site
either,which couldn't wait two weeks to be considered as a fair comparison.
There has not even been a reason offered for not waiting.

No concern that the board was split down the middle on this particular
decision. The Ex Dir not liking it for whatever reason - and we can't know
what those reasons are since the views of the person who must actually
operate USCF are no longer apparently welcome as significant factors in any
move.

No - and other's shouldn't be concerned with any of this either. Discussion
is not encouraged. Making a long-term strategic move utilising the last
major asset is no cause for concern.

Meanwhile by conference-calls and other exciting means of communication the
difficult question of boxing up New Windsor and somehow gettin' it all down
there to Crossville and the power turned on down there will entirely occupy
the minds of people who are for it from having to make additional comments
here, to any questions at all.

Why worry?

As Tim correctly points out I haven't been a member of USCF since 1996, and
this therefore should assure everyone here that what he is doing is Beyond
Question.

Not Right or Wrong based on the objectively considered merits of every
option resulting from broad discussion, as might be expected from people
truly confident in their decision.

But Beyond Question.

Phil Innes




  #2   Report Post  
Old November 5th 04, 09:07 PM
Kenneth Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chess One" writes:

Tim Hanke has reduced the Crossville discussion to the apparent complexities
of getting the office trucked down there. He apparently sees no need to
address any questions whatever to do with why USCF is moving to that site at
this time.


And, in my opinion, Tim Hanke is to be praised for this.

The USCF has a mission. "Debate Society" does not factor into that
mission.

Phil Innes may have the time to re-re-re-revisit questions that were
debated for over 2 years - but the rest of us would prefer to move on.



--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
  #3   Report Post  
Old November 5th 04, 10:35 PM
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The USCF has a mission. "Debate Society" does not factor into that
mission.


Ken, the USCF is almost completely bankrupt one mistake away from
extinction, and bankrupt of money and of goodwill, or partners or influence,
as a result of business as usual, and non-public debates.

Phil Innes may have the time to re-re-re-revisit questions that were
debated for over 2 years - but the rest of us would prefer to move on.


Not the rest of you, in fact you are moving by a split decision of the
board, prmpted by two people who ran for office against Crissville, and
without the goodwill of the Ex Dir. If you can't be bothered to say it fair
and square, just move and don't bother to talk! You now have the power to do
so, but you have no business pretending that it is the result of anything
but an anxious back-room putch.

Tim Hanke now seems to think that USCf is the be-all and end-all of US chess
and non members have no business even having an opinion of how it performs.
The reality is that USCF no longer does either thing it was created to
perform; to fund and manage a national championship, and to fund and run US
representation in chess overseas.

That is now done elsewhere, and done by chess developers who make most
things in chess happen in the US.

I am just surprised that after so many years of screwing up, USCF is still
proudly plowing ahead without a plan, utterly in the dark.

If you succeed in the move by becoming a stable business entity then no
doubt you can engage the actions of others and benefit from by them. If you
don't we will have to make a new organisation that will manage a few basic
functions - like running the ratings system - which will be a drag, but not
impossible.

Go for it.

Phil Innes

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/



  #4   Report Post  
Old November 5th 04, 11:24 PM
Tim Hanke
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Phil,

Please stop lying. All the questions you have raised have been discussed.
You just don't like the answers.

Tim Hanke

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Tim Hanke has reduced the Crossville discussion to the apparent
complexities of getting the office trucked down there. He apparently sees
no need to address any questions whatever to do with why USCF is moving to
that site at this time. He doesn't welcome questions, and doesn't appear
to want to reduce himself to anything as silly as thinking or having
discussions of any points that have been raised.

Nevertheless just a few years ago he was completely against moving to
Crossville. He was also completely for hiring the present CL editor, a
point he now disputes despite his printed statement on the subject
recently reproduced here, yet now he is completely set against his
previous position.

That's fine! Sure, intelligently negotiating a course means tackling
situations as they really are, rather than as they seemed to be.

However, just pointing out these changes in his p.o.v. have resulted in
his calling me a 'liar' over Pehme, and in place of any thinking why these
earlier decisions on his own part have now been reversed, or why similar
board decisions over the past 10 years have nigh-on bankrupted the
organisation...

...and in place of a public discussion about a membership organisation
occupying a monopoly role in US chess life, Tim has pointed to "friends
and allies: Larry Parr, Bill Goichberg, Don Schultz, and Sam Sloan" as
sufficient reason not to bother.

I will merely point out that I have not exchanged a single private message
with any of those people on this issue, and must presume that we have all
gone loco independently of each other.

Tim hasn't thought fit to even notice that the call from a much wider
group of people has been to check what appears to be an impetuous move, a
move occurring outside any strategic plan [is there one?], or by a process
of fair comparison with other potential sites.

Tim has mischaracterized my concern with investment of USCF's last asset -
one that is being used to secure the loan, and maintain cash-flow, by
simply stating that the mortgage is a no-cash down event - as if the
mortgage could have been secured without a financial reserve resulting
from the sale of New Windsor and to guarantee a positive cash flow at USCF
to meet all other commitments.

Tim has ignored his own previous stance of getting rid of CL as a print
mag! He ignores current options for tele-commuting for the magazine, and
the concomitant space issues at HQ needed for it. In an informative gush
he contradicted my '50% of office space for CL' comment, by saying,
'untrue'.

This is almost as good as Hal Terrie telling us if he was concerned about
the Ex Directors practical management reservations about the board's
decision to move, by answering "no".

There has been no indication of thinking on the main alternate Liberty
site either,which couldn't wait two weeks to be considered as a fair
comparison. There has not even been a reason offered for not waiting.

No concern that the board was split down the middle on this particular
decision. The Ex Dir not liking it for whatever reason - and we can't know
what those reasons are since the views of the person who must actually
operate USCF are no longer apparently welcome as significant factors in
any move.

No - and other's shouldn't be concerned with any of this either.
Discussion is not encouraged. Making a long-term strategic move utilising
the last major asset is no cause for concern.

Meanwhile by conference-calls and other exciting means of communication
the difficult question of boxing up New Windsor and somehow gettin' it all
down there to Crossville and the power turned on down there will entirely
occupy the minds of people who are for it from having to make additional
comments here, to any questions at all.

Why worry?

As Tim correctly points out I haven't been a member of USCF since 1996,
and this therefore should assure everyone here that what he is doing is
Beyond Question.

Not Right or Wrong based on the objectively considered merits of every
option resulting from broad discussion, as might be expected from people
truly confident in their decision.

But Beyond Question.

Phil Innes






  #5   Report Post  
Old November 6th 04, 01:04 AM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chess One" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

The USCF has a mission. "Debate Society" does not factor into that
mission.


Ken, the USCF is almost completely bankrupt one mistake away from
extinction, and bankrupt of money and of goodwill, or partners or
influence, as a result of business as usual, and non-public debates.


Phil, I think you're stuck in a time warp. This was the state of the USCF
before Beatriz (and Tim) stepped up to the plate and got staffing costs back
in line with revenues. This was before a whole host of cost saving measures
were adopted by the Board and the Office. This was before the USCF
completed the sale of its building and banked the proceeds from the sale.
This was before the USCF finished the first/worst quarter of the fiscal year
with a minor shortfall, which bodes well for the rest of the year.

In short, the USCF is not "almost completely bankrupt." If it is one
mistake away from extinction, it would have to be a fairly sizeable one.

I still believe that the USCF missed an opportunity to pursue a fiscal
course that might have further improved its bottom line, but the sky isn't
falling.

Randy Bauer




  #6   Report Post  
Old November 6th 04, 02:07 AM
ASCACHESS
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In short, the USCF is not "almost completely bankrupt." If it is one
mistake away from extinction, it would have to be a fairly sizeable one.


Come now.
You underestimate the old guard and their ability to line their own pockets
while claiming to be helping the USCF.

Remember Don Schultz $50K party in Las Vegas?
  #7   Report Post  
Old November 6th 04, 02:17 AM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ASCACHESS" wrote in message
...
In short, the USCF is not "almost completely bankrupt." If it is one
mistake away from extinction, it would have to be a fairly sizeable one.


Come now.
You underestimate the old guard and their ability to line their own
pockets
while claiming to be helping the USCF.

Remember Don Schultz $50K party in Las Vegas?


Nope, doesn't ring a bell, but I'm sure you'll refresh my memory.

Things must be changing -- Don's last "event" was a dinner at the Olympiad
for representatives from other countries who might favor change in the FIDE
leadership, and I think we went way out on a limb to the tune of $2,000 for
that one. To put your mind at ease, I'm positive we didn't eliminate any
scholastic members' Chess Life subscriptions to pay for it.

Randy Bauer


  #8   Report Post  
Old November 6th 04, 02:25 AM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stuff it.


"Chess One" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Tim Hanke has reduced the Crossville discussion to the apparent
complexities of getting the office trucked down there. He apparently sees
no need to address any questions whatever to do with why USCF is moving to
that site at this time. He doesn't welcome questions, and doesn't appear
to want to reduce himself to anything as silly as thinking or having
discussions of any points that have been raised.

Nevertheless just a few years ago he was completely against moving to
Crossville. He was also completely for hiring the present CL editor, a
point he now disputes despite his printed statement on the subject
recently reproduced here, yet now he is completely set against his
previous position.

That's fine! Sure, intelligently negotiating a course means tackling
situations as they really are, rather than as they seemed to be.

However, just pointing out these changes in his p.o.v. have resulted in
his calling me a 'liar' over Pehme, and in place of any thinking why these
earlier decisions on his own part have now been reversed, or why similar
board decisions over the past 10 years have nigh-on bankrupted the
organisation...

...and in place of a public discussion about a membership organisation
occupying a monopoly role in US chess life, Tim has pointed to "friends
and allies: Larry Parr, Bill Goichberg, Don Schultz, and Sam Sloan" as
sufficient reason not to bother.

I will merely point out that I have not exchanged a single private message
with any of those people on this issue, and must presume that we have all
gone loco independently of each other.

Tim hasn't thought fit to even notice that the call from a much wider
group of people has been to check what appears to be an impetuous move, a
move occurring outside any strategic plan [is there one?], or by a process
of fair comparison with other potential sites.

Tim has mischaracterized my concern with investment of USCF's last asset -
one that is being used to secure the loan, and maintain cash-flow, by
simply stating that the mortgage is a no-cash down event - as if the
mortgage could have been secured without a financial reserve resulting
from the sale of New Windsor and to guarantee a positive cash flow at USCF
to meet all other commitments.

Tim has ignored his own previous stance of getting rid of CL as a print
mag! He ignores current options for tele-commuting for the magazine, and
the concomitant space issues at HQ needed for it. In an informative gush
he contradicted my '50% of office space for CL' comment, by saying,
'untrue'.

This is almost as good as Hal Terrie telling us if he was concerned about
the Ex Directors practical management reservations about the board's
decision to move, by answering "no".

There has been no indication of thinking on the main alternate Liberty
site either,which couldn't wait two weeks to be considered as a fair
comparison. There has not even been a reason offered for not waiting.

No concern that the board was split down the middle on this particular
decision. The Ex Dir not liking it for whatever reason - and we can't know
what those reasons are since the views of the person who must actually
operate USCF are no longer apparently welcome as significant factors in
any move.

No - and other's shouldn't be concerned with any of this either.
Discussion is not encouraged. Making a long-term strategic move utilising
the last major asset is no cause for concern.

Meanwhile by conference-calls and other exciting means of communication
the difficult question of boxing up New Windsor and somehow gettin' it all
down there to Crossville and the power turned on down there will entirely
occupy the minds of people who are for it from having to make additional
comments here, to any questions at all.

Why worry?

As Tim correctly points out I haven't been a member of USCF since 1996,
and this therefore should assure everyone here that what he is doing is
Beyond Question.

Not Right or Wrong based on the objectively considered merits of every
option resulting from broad discussion, as might be expected from people
truly confident in their decision.

But Beyond Question.

Phil Innes






  #9   Report Post  
Old November 6th 04, 07:08 AM
HAASpittle
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Come now. You underestimate the old guard and their ability to line their own
pockets while claiming to be helping the USCF. Remember Don Schultz $50K party
in Las Vegas?" (Rp)
=============
A $50K party!! What was that all about? $50K is enough to operate ten Metro
Districts the size of Houston.

Old Haasie
  #10   Report Post  
Old November 6th 04, 08:33 AM
Spam Scone
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chess One" wrote in message news:[email protected]
The USCF has a mission. "Debate Society" does not factor into that
mission.


Ken, the USCF is almost completely bankrupt one mistake away from
extinction, and bankrupt of money and of goodwill, or partners or influence,
as a result of business as usual, and non-public debates.


In other words, USCF business as usual.

Phil Innes may have the time to re-re-re-revisit questions that were
debated for over 2 years - but the rest of us would prefer to move on.


Not the rest of you, in fact you are moving by a split decision of the
board, prmpted by two people who ran for office against Crissville, and
without the goodwill of the Ex Dir. If you can't be bothered to say it fair
and square, just move and don't bother to talk! You now have the power to do
so, but you have no business pretending that it is the result of anything
but an anxious back-room putch.


And you are a angst-filled backroom putz.

Tim Hanke now seems to think that USCf is the be-all and end-all of US chess
and non members have no business even having an opinion of how it performs.


I don't recall seeing this statement from Tim. Perhaps its another of
your 'Orwell "quotations"', Phil.

The reality is that USCF no longer does either thing it was created to
perform; to fund and manage a national championship, and to fund and run US
representation in chess overseas.


I'd ask you for a source for this claim, but since you don't believe
in giving them, I won't.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ratings question; need input Eric Mark rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 5 July 15th 04 06:48 PM
Question on analysis Ralph Jones rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 4 March 17th 04 06:46 PM
Drug Testing Poll Isidor Gunsberg rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 5 December 2nd 03 03:22 AM
TD or not TD? That is the question. Miriling rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 14 October 8th 03 11:50 PM
Rules Question: pairing twice? (was: Rules Question) Dr Fossil rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 September 8th 03 12:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017