Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 28th 04, 09:46 PM
eapeau
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marinello and Hanke, please respond!

USCF President Beatriz Marinello and EB Member Tim Hanke should
respond to the accusations that they want to become full-time USCF
employees. They read and post to this site on a regular basis, are
obviously aware of the discussion, and it would be a simple matter for
them to post a statement that they will not be employed by the USCF
for at least one year from the date that they leave the board.

As elected USCF officials and being in the public eye, they should be
willing to make such a statement. If they are not willing to calm
these rumors, and choose to ignore them, then the membership has every
right to think the worst of them: that they will use their positions
of power to secure employment with the USCF.

After decades of the USCF and the EB Members acting in a manner that
is both unethical and not in the best interest of the membership, it
is time that board members are above reproach. It is time that the
USCF and its Board Members act in an ethical manner and appear to act
in an ethical manner. If the EB wants to restore the faith and trust
of the membership, the Board must take positive steps to redeem
itself.

President Marinello and Board Member Hanke cannot be, or appear to be,
involved in the hiring process for the positions of Executive Director
of the USCF and Editor of Chess Life AND be in contention for the
jobs; to do so would be a conflict of interest. If they are not
willing to make a statement that they will not seek or secure those
positions, then they should be willing to resign their positions on
the board; if they cannot act in the best interest of the USCF and its
membership, they should resign from the Board.

It is time for the USCF, the chess community, and the chess politicos
to move on and put these petty bickerings behind us. Marinello and
Hanke posting a statement of their intentions would settle this
argument and allow us to concentrate on other issues.
  #2   Report Post  
Old November 28th 04, 10:50 PM
Jürgen R.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(eapeau) wrote:

USCF President Beatriz Marinello and EB Member Tim Hanke should
respond to the accusations that they want to become full-time USCF
employees. They read and post to this site on a regular basis, are
obviously aware of the discussion, and it would be a simple matter for
them to post a statement that they will not be employed by the USCF
for at least one year from the date that they leave the board.


Why should they? Any acknowledgement of Sloan's rumormongering is a
mistake.


As elected USCF officials and being in the public eye, they should be
willing to make such a statement. If they are not willing to calm
these rumors, and choose to ignore them, then the membership has every
right to think the worst of them: that they will use their positions
of power to secure employment with the USCF.

After decades of the USCF and the EB Members acting in a manner that
is both unethical and not in the best interest of the membership, it
is time that board members are above reproach.


Nonsense. Just think about it a little: Why do people have an interest
in such positions, particularly in such a decrepit organization?

It is time that the
USCF and its Board Members act in an ethical manner and appear to act
in an ethical manner. If the EB wants to restore the faith and trust
of the membership, the Board must take positive steps to redeem
itself.

President Marinello and Board Member Hanke cannot be, or appear to be,
involved in the hiring process for the positions of Executive Director
of the USCF and Editor of Chess Life AND be in contention for the
jobs; to do so would be a conflict of interest. If they are not
willing to make a statement that they will not seek or secure those
positions, then they should be willing to resign their positions on
the board; if they cannot act in the best interest of the USCF and its
membership, they should resign from the Board.

It is time for the USCF, the chess community, and the chess politicos
to move on and put these petty bickerings behind us. Marinello and
Hanke posting a statement of their intentions would settle this
argument and allow us to concentrate on other issues.


  #3   Report Post  
Old November 29th 04, 03:33 AM
Rob Mitchell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Jürgen R.) wrote in message ...
(eapeau) wrote:

USCF President Beatriz Marinello and EB Member Tim Hanke should
respond to the accusations that they want to become full-time USCF
employees. They read and post to this site on a regular basis, are
obviously aware of the discussion, and it would be a simple matter for
them to post a statement that they will not be employed by the USCF
for at least one year from the date that they leave the board.


Why should they? Any acknowledgement of Sloan's rumormongering is a
mistake.


As elected USCF officials and being in the public eye, they should be
willing to make such a statement. If they are not willing to calm
these rumors, and choose to ignore them, then the membership has every
right to think the worst of them: that they will use their positions
of power to secure employment with the USCF.

After decades of the USCF and the EB Members acting in a manner that
is both unethical and not in the best interest of the membership, it
is time that board members are above reproach.



Whom amoung us is without sin? Let he cast the first stone.


Nonsense. Just think about it a little: Why do people have an interest
in such positions, particularly in such a decrepit organization?


Why would you say such a thing? Are you a USCF member?



It is time that the
USCF and its Board Members act in an ethical manner and appear to act
in an ethical manner. If the EB wants to restore the faith and trust
of the membership, the Board must take positive steps to redeem
itself.

President Marinello and Board Member Hanke cannot be, or appear to be,
involved in the hiring process for the positions of Executive Director
of the USCF and Editor of Chess Life AND be in contention for the
jobs; to do so would be a conflict of interest. If they are not
willing to make a statement that they will not seek or secure those
positions, then they should be willing to resign their positions on
the board; if they cannot act in the best interest of the USCF and its
membership, they should resign from the Board.

It is time for the USCF, the chess community, and the chess politicos
to move on and put these petty bickerings behind us. Marinello and
Hanke posting a statement of their intentions would settle this
argument and allow us to concentrate on other issues.


I do not believe this is a court. If they have done something illegal,
charge them with a crime. I think these boards would be better served
finding constructive methods of moving the organization forward. Are
you with me in this attempt?
Best Wishes,
Rob Mitchell
  #4   Report Post  
Old November 29th 04, 04:34 AM
sandirhodes
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rob Mitchell" wrote
Whom amoung us is without sin?


Sometimes the correct word is "who."

sandirhodes


  #5   Report Post  
Old November 29th 04, 06:07 AM
ASCACHESS
 
Posts: n/a
Default

the EB Members acting in a manner that
is both unethical and not in the best interest of the membership, it
is time that board members are above reproach.



Whom amoung us is without sin? Let he cast the first stone.


You should be a writer for the old guard.
This is a perfect example of deflection.
We ignore the issue and discuss who among us is without sin.

There are times that I really admire Larry for his laserlike focus on one tiny
area, especially when we are being deflected to Sam's hygiene or some other
smelly subject.

Rp


  #6   Report Post  
Old November 29th 04, 06:54 AM
ESchember
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard Peterson

How are things going in CA for ya??




  #7   Report Post  
Old November 29th 04, 02:49 PM
Rob Mitchell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sandi,
thanks for helping me out with that. I always had trouble knowing when
to use it and when not to use it. It just appears to me that the posts
being made have tended to be quite personal and derogatory in nature.
As human beings we are by nature imperfect. We will make mistakes.
Hopefully we will learn from our mistakes and move forward. As chess
players we record our games so we are able to review what errors we
made in an attempt to improve upon our play. Eventually we have to
play another game. To continue replaying the old games advances
nothing.

There is an amazing amount of talent within this organization. I do
not believe there is anything that this organization cannot overcome
if the talent within it would pull together to make it happen.

Rob Mitchell

"sandirhodes" wrote in message news:[email protected]
"Rob Mitchell" wrote
Whom amoung us is without sin?


Sometimes the correct word is "who."

sandirhodes

  #8   Report Post  
Old November 29th 04, 07:07 PM
sandirhodes
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Who" is subjective. "Whom" is dative or accusative (look 'em up).

sandirhodes

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message om...
Sandi,
thanks for helping me out with that. I always had trouble knowing when
to use it and when not to use it. It just appears to me that the posts
being made have tended to be quite personal and derogatory in nature.
As human beings we are by nature imperfect. We will make mistakes.
Hopefully we will learn from our mistakes and move forward. As chess
players we record our games so we are able to review what errors we
made in an attempt to improve upon our play. Eventually we have to
play another game. To continue replaying the old games advances
nothing.

There is an amazing amount of talent within this organization. I do
not believe there is anything that this organization cannot overcome
if the talent within it would pull together to make it happen.

Rob Mitchell

"sandirhodes" wrote in message news:[email protected]
"Rob Mitchell" wrote
Whom amoung us is without sin?


Sometimes the correct word is "who."

sandirhodes



  #9   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 04:47 AM
Rob Mitchell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Why?
I made my point.
Rob Mitchell

"sandirhodes" wrote in message news:[email protected]
"Who" is subjective. "Whom" is dative or accusative (look 'em up).

sandirhodes

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message om...
Sandi,
thanks for helping me out with that. I always had trouble knowing when
to use it and when not to use it. It just appears to me that the posts
being made have tended to be quite personal and derogatory in nature.
As human beings we are by nature imperfect. We will make mistakes.
Hopefully we will learn from our mistakes and move forward. As chess
players we record our games so we are able to review what errors we
made in an attempt to improve upon our play. Eventually we have to
play another game. To continue replaying the old games advances
nothing.

There is an amazing amount of talent within this organization. I do
not believe there is anything that this organization cannot overcome
if the talent within it would pull together to make it happen.

Rob Mitchell

"sandirhodes" wrote in message news:[email protected]
"Rob Mitchell" wrote
Whom amoung us is without sin?

Sometimes the correct word is "who."

sandirhodes

  #10   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 05:51 AM
Rob Mitchell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Who vs Whom:

"If I spoke perfect English, to whom would I speak it?"

I forget who said that, but I really like the sense of it.

When we speak, we almost always speak in informal situations, and we
therefore use an informal dialect.

In speaking most of those informal dialects we seldom worry about who
and whom.

"Who ya gonna take to da dance, huh, Frank, who?"

Or something like that is how most of us would ask Frank about his
dancing partner, most of the time.

But on formal occasions:

"Whom will you take to the dance, Franklin? Whom?"


This is all about the TONE of your message, not the MEANING of the
words.

And there will come times when you would like to use a tone in which
there is a difference between who and whom.

Here's the difference:

Use "who" when it is the subject of the sentence or a predicate noun.


Subject of the sentence:

Who goes there?

Oh, for heaven's sake, who did this to Henrietta?


Predicate noun:

Fenwick Fenstermeir is who!

He is who!


Use "whom" when it is the direct object, indirect object or object of
a preposition.

Direct Object:

Whom did you fire?

Helpful hint: since we tend to move words around when we ask a
question, changing the question into a statement might help you to
realize how a word in the front of the sentence ["whom"] is actually a
direct object which is usually found at the end of a sentence:

"You did fire whom?"


Indirect Object:

Whom will you give the prize?

"You" is the subject and "prize" is the direct object, and "whom" is
the indirect object.

You may think of indirect objects as objects of the preposition, "to"
or "for", only without the preposition:

You will give the prize to whom?

More Objects of a Preposition:

You threw your typewriter at whom?

Or, less excitedly:

At whom did you throw your typewriter?

"Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." wrote John
Donne.


So: "Who" as a subject or predicate pronoun. "Whom" as an object.
Pretty straight forward. Or it would be except for a couple of
problems.


Sometimes we use "who" in a way that tricks us into thinking it should
be an object.

The prize goes to him who survives.

In that sentence, you might think that "who" is an object of the
preposition "to"; only what it really does is act as the subject to
the verb "survives." (Thank you, Colin Brant for the correction)

Or he

I know who barfed on Ms Jingleplunker's shoe.

In this sentence, the whole clause, ". . .who barfed on Ms
Jinglephunker's shoe." is the direct object.

BUT, "who" is the subject of the clause so we want "who" instead of
"whom."



Rob Mitchell
;-)



"sandirhodes" wrote in message news:[email protected]
"Who" is subjective. "Whom" is dative or accusative (look 'em up).

sandirhodes

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message om...
Sandi,
thanks for helping me out with that. I always had trouble knowing when
to use it and when not to use it. It just appears to me that the posts
being made have tended to be quite personal and derogatory in nature.
As human beings we are by nature imperfect. We will make mistakes.
Hopefully we will learn from our mistakes and move forward. As chess
players we record our games so we are able to review what errors we
made in an attempt to improve upon our play. Eventually we have to
play another game. To continue replaying the old games advances
nothing.

There is an amazing amount of talent within this organization. I do
not believe there is anything that this organization cannot overcome
if the talent within it would pull together to make it happen.

Rob Mitchell

"sandirhodes" wrote in message news:[email protected]
"Rob Mitchell" wrote
Whom amoung us is without sin?

Sometimes the correct word is "who."

sandirhodes

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
Sam Sloan or Tim Hanke break up USCF "Open Meeting" Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 17 December 19th 04 04:20 PM
Sam Sloan or Tim Hanke break up USCF "Open Meeting" Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 13 December 19th 04 04:20 PM
Will Bauer replace Hanke as VP of Finance? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 30 July 29th 04 08:56 PM
In Favor Marinello, Shutt, Hanke, Camaratta and Schultz- Brady Absent ASCACHESS rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 December 27th 03 08:10 AM
Schultz, Hanke correct on EB motion Miriling rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 5 October 3rd 03 03:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47 AM.

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