Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 6th 06, 02:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
chessdon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Phil Innis

i have answered Phil Innis' latest questions on the USCF website.

Go to USchess.org and proceed to forums and the uscf issues.

You don't have to be a member to use the USCF Board.

Don Schultz

  #2   Report Post  
Old February 6th 06, 03:28 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Andrew Zito
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Phil Innis

You still have not answered anywhere about why these positions were not
opened to the public. How come only your friends and political buddies
who have no such experience were interviewed and given the job? Shahade
and Hoffman do not have chess web or chess content development
experience. There are many who are way more qualified than they are.
This is a non-profit organization, not the Don Schultz friends and
buddies club.

You can duck these questions but you can't hide. The best thing to do
is reverse this process and have a nationwide search for at least a
month.

  #3   Report Post  
Old February 6th 06, 09:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Phil Innis

Dear Don Shultz, reply here or not at all. I have no rights of speech on
your forum, and frankly you abuse this one - why couldn't you have written
your response here where I wrote my question instead or requiring me and
every other reader to go and find it? BTW if you want to direct people to
the USCF web site write it like this, http://www.uschess.org/ so that they
could click on it as a hyperlink.

This is what Don wrote:-

---------
Phil Innis asked on another forum:

Isn't normal board behavior to simply declare an interest and not take part
in commentary or voting on the issue of the interest? Since the post in
question is essentially a non-governance one which has more to do with
content than with any governance issue, I don't understand why this
situation should be different than in other cases.

My Answer:

It is different because it is explicitly spelled out in spades in the USCF
Standards of Conduct for the Executive Board Members. Greg either had to
resign or the USCF could not consider Jennifer for a staff job. Go to page
27 of the Delegates call and you will find the statement regarding immediate
members of a Board members family being offered jobs on staff.

Phil also asked:

When we heard that Bill G's friend was to be awarded what amounts to a
$15million contract, there was no recusing of himself, in fact, if he had
not argued the case on the board it sounds like another decision would have
been the result.

My answer:

I disagree. I fought with all my might against the Chess Cafe contract for
reasons given in the report. But the prevailing opinion of the Board was
that all things considered - signing on to that contract was in the best
interests of the USCF. They may be right - I simply could not bring myself
to give in to a threat.

Don

------

Don seems to avoid 2 issues; that Bill Goichberg had a friendship for which
he did not recuse himself, and which avoided my point that far more was at
stake in that situation - in fact $15 million more.

Should Don Shultz choose to hide away like the rest of the board from
discussing chess issues in a public forum by offering proclamation from
USCF's site, I do not wish him to transport my comments there, and pretend
that we were having a discussion, rather than challenging the very basis of
USCF's current management practices.

My previous and formal questions as a journalist were not answered by USCF,
and I do not see any reason to continue to ask it formal questions, when
this farce of a process is in place.

As I see it, there was no need for G. Shahade to resign, except that a
delegates mandate had decided it because of the prospect of undue
influence - though ridiculously, this would not prevent anyone from getting
a job at USCF since the unpaid board position would be vacated. But there
was great influence brought to bear on the board by Bill Goichberg to
forcefully insist upon the Chesscafe deal, even though the same issues of
friendship and undue influence exist.

What Don Shultz can mean by having fought the issue all the way and still
claiming that it was in the best interests of USCF is a profoundly strange
statement only equaled by fellow board member Joel Channing who disagreed
with me that the difference in bids was $100,000, but was unable or
unwilling to say more about his own analysis.

Bill Goichberg himself challenged my letter to Mr. Hall by suggesting that
it contained uncertain information - but in the event, after the secret
process of determining the future had been completed - no information that I
inquired about was in fact uncertain!

Phil Innes


"chessdon" wrote in message
oups.com...
i have answered Phil Innis' latest questions on the USCF website.

Go to USchess.org and proceed to forums and the uscf issues.

You don't have to be a member to use the USCF Board.

Don Schultz



  #4   Report Post  
Old February 7th 06, 01:55 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Phil Innis

Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:53:53 GMT):

Joel Channing ... disagreed with me that the difference
in bids was $100,000, but was unable or unwilling to
say more about his own analysis.


_
Some of what actually happened:
_
"the money difference wasn't great (hardly any
difference at current sales levels), and Malcolm
was going to continue to operate B & E
businesses that compete with USCF." - Bill
Goichberg (17 Jan 2006 00:17:32 -0800)
_
"I know what Malcom told me, that his offer was
not a minor improvement - and was in fact
$100,000 better. Maybe it was a bad phone line,
or that amount 'wasn't great' as Bill Goichberg
writes above.?" - Phil Innes (Tue, 17 Jan 2006
13:19:31 GMT)
_
"perhaps you would care to submit a clear and
detailed comparison of the two offers demonstrating,
while taking all factors into account (including
withheld funds), how we would have done so
much better with Malcolm." - Joel Channing
(17 Jan 2006 06:22:16 -0800)
_
"I thank you for the invitation, but this would add
insult to injury now that the stable door is locked
again for another 6 years." - Phil Innes (Tue,
17 Jan 2006 15:08:46 GMT)
_
"It's up to Phil to back up his allegation with facts."
- Joel Channing (17 Jan 2006 11:03:48 -0800)
_
"How come you asked me for Pein's bid?" - Phil
Innes (Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:26:32 GMT)
_
"My interpretation of his request (which
Mr. Channing is free to correct) is: ... He knows
both bids. ... He would like to see your analysis
showing that the Chess4Less bid was $100,000
better" - Tom Martinak (18 Jan 2006 15:36:30 -0800)
_
"what more is there to understand about a
'guarantee' of $100,000 over another bid?" - Phil
Innes (Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:08:24 GMT)
_
"Do I now understand you to claim that Malcolm's
bid was 'guaranteed' to be $100,000 better than
Hanon's?" - Joel Channing (19 Jan 2006
05:39:37 -0800)
_
"if I write something to which you respond, include
what I wrote - or what specific thing you wish
clarified." - Phil Innes (Thu, 19 Jan 2006
14:15:14 GMT)

  #5   Report Post  
Old February 7th 06, 03:09 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Phil Innis

Dear Louis Blair,

Thank you for having the energy to cull through all those postings in
order to present the true thread of all that dialogue. Mr. Innes is
truly a difficult person with whom to have a coherent discussion.

Joel Channing



  #6   Report Post  
Old February 7th 06, 03:17 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Phil Innis

There you go again, Louis. A pedantic, boring mantra. We can almost
hear the faint humming in the background.

You have some nerve. Are you suggesting:

1) Don Schultz invited Phil Anus to engage in an exchange but P.A.
declined?

2) Joel Channing (who was privy to the full details of all bids and in
fact voted against ChessCafe) asked Phil Anus to explain why P.A. keeps
asserting Pain's bid was better, but P.A. declined?

3) Phil Anus has failed to produce anything except nonsensical
non-sequitors in a convoluted style that would be laughed out of most
high school lit magazines?

4) That Phil Anus is really full of **** unable to produce any facts to
support the smoke he is blowing up everyone's ass?

C'mon P.A. Let Louis have it. Don't take this unprovoked and
unwarranted shoving of these facts up your bowels. Talk to that
paradigm of business ethics bringing in millions for you and the barons
at Chessvile. Yeah. Why don't you do that. You lying piece of ****.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................

Regards, Parker

  #7   Report Post  
Old February 7th 06, 03:23 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Vince Hart
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Phil Innis


Chess One wrote:
Dear Don Shultz, reply here or not at all.



I vote for not at all.

  #9   Report Post  
Old February 7th 06, 02:41 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Phil Innis

As usual, I have no idea what Louis Blair's point is, or even assume he has
one, since his meaning is lost in his words.

If it was about the fact of there being $100,000 difference between the
initial bids, I note that Don Shultz also acknowledges it as a fact in his
message I posted here today; in his own words

"As for the 100K, that number did come up in at least one of the
comparisons. "

Now, Don refers to the first bid comparison, not the fourth one. Joel
Channing is entirely welcome to contradict Don, myself and Malcolm Pein with
his own data, and also to which Chesscafe bid he refers - rather than
suggest that things are otherwise than I, Don and Malcolm have said.

Phil Innes

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:53:53 GMT):

Joel Channing ... disagreed with me that the difference
in bids was $100,000, but was unable or unwilling to
say more about his own analysis.


_
Some of what actually happened:
_
"the money difference wasn't great (hardly any
difference at current sales levels), and Malcolm
was going to continue to operate B & E
businesses that compete with USCF." - Bill
Goichberg (17 Jan 2006 00:17:32 -0800)
_
"I know what Malcom told me, that his offer was
not a minor improvement - and was in fact
$100,000 better. Maybe it was a bad phone line,
or that amount 'wasn't great' as Bill Goichberg
writes above.?" - Phil Innes (Tue, 17 Jan 2006
13:19:31 GMT)
_
"perhaps you would care to submit a clear and
detailed comparison of the two offers demonstrating,
while taking all factors into account (including
withheld funds), how we would have done so
much better with Malcolm." - Joel Channing
(17 Jan 2006 06:22:16 -0800)
_
"I thank you for the invitation, but this would add
insult to injury now that the stable door is locked
again for another 6 years." - Phil Innes (Tue,
17 Jan 2006 15:08:46 GMT)
_
"It's up to Phil to back up his allegation with facts."
- Joel Channing (17 Jan 2006 11:03:48 -0800)
_
"How come you asked me for Pein's bid?" - Phil
Innes (Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:26:32 GMT)
_
"My interpretation of his request (which
Mr. Channing is free to correct) is: ... He knows
both bids. ... He would like to see your analysis
showing that the Chess4Less bid was $100,000
better" - Tom Martinak (18 Jan 2006 15:36:30 -0800)
_
"what more is there to understand about a
'guarantee' of $100,000 over another bid?" - Phil
Innes (Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:08:24 GMT)
_
"Do I now understand you to claim that Malcolm's
bid was 'guaranteed' to be $100,000 better than
Hanon's?" - Joel Channing (19 Jan 2006
05:39:37 -0800)
_
"if I write something to which you respond, include
what I wrote - or what specific thing you wish
clarified." - Phil Innes (Thu, 19 Jan 2006
14:15:14 GMT)



  #10   Report Post  
Old February 7th 06, 03:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Phil Innis

Chess One wrote:
As usual, I have no idea what Louis Blair's point is, or even assume he has
one, since his meaning is lost in his words.


More bull**** from Phil Anus.

Let me make it clear for you. I will type slowly so perhaps even you
can grasp it, you double-talking lying unethical piece of ****:

You have not produced a scintilla of evidence to support any claim. Not
a single shred.

So put up or shut the **** up.

Parker

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
The Challenge to Phil Innes Chess One rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 15 January 18th 06 03:23 PM
Phil Innes, Prosecuting Barrister Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 January 18th 06 02:41 PM
Another Schiller Gaffe Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 168 October 26th 05 08:47 PM
Another Schiller Gaffe Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 156 October 26th 05 08:47 PM
Question about holding onto the World Title The Man Behind The Curtain rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 101 October 15th 05 08:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 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