Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 4th 07, 06:13 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Highlights of the Sunday Board Meeting

They have discussed

1) Ways to get rid of Sam Sloan

2) Allowing rich people to buy their way on the board.

3) Why Paul cannot step across the California State Line.

Sam Sloan

  #2   Report Post  
Old November 4th 07, 06:46 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Highlights of the Sunday Board Meeting

The board has wasted a tremendous amount of time this morning
discussing ridiculous issues.

One was a Goichberg idea to allow rich people to buy seats on the
board for $50,000.

Marcus Roberts and Eric Moskow were cited as possible benificiaries of
this.

Sam Sloan

  #3   Report Post  
Old November 4th 07, 08:03 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Highlights of the Sunday Board Meeting

what i witnessed was a discussion on the forum. cited was this one, as some
wilderness of opinion, trashy etc, with no irony that uscf's own forum has
occassioned the biggest ruckus in years

paul truong's point in response to bauer and goichberg was that uscf
providing a forum for conversation is okay, except that - i use my own
words - these were not conversations as much as agit-propaganda, and just a
few people had made most of the noise

despite several reprimands and outrages, it still goes on, he said

bill hall appeared to find very much of this funny, and giggled a lot. the
camera moved around the table to apparent utter indifference

no one managed to positively state why the only subject that uscf could
really have for possessing a forum at all - to discuss chess politics or
chess management in the usa - was a taboo subject

instead the declining interest in the oversight committee would render the
forum impractical, said goichberg, with now only 2 active, and a need for
3...

then these laconic scenes from the meeting dissolved into an inaudible
continuation

zzzzzzzzzz

phil innes



  #4   Report Post  
Old November 4th 07, 08:24 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2007
Posts: 146
Default Highlights of the Sunday Board Meeting

On Nov 4, 10:13 am, samsloan wrote:
They have discussed

1) Ways to get rid of Sam Sloan

2) Allowing rich people to buy their way on the board.

3) Why Paul cannot step across the California State Line.

Sam Sloan


I admit I am curious about item three. Anyone have a clue? I tallied
up a short list of possiblities..

-- He is wanted for a crime in LA
-- He has many unpaid parking tickets
-- He has angry former business associates
-- Mrs Truong has difficulties with a former spouse, e.g. custody,
stalking, alimony etc.
-- Deportation proceedings
-- He antagonized an LA street gang that has vowed revenge.
-- He has a very weak constitution with respect to smog.
-- He has a phobia for earthquakes

I wonder what the real situation is??

Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

  #5   Report Post  
Old November 4th 07, 08:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 584
Default Highlights of the Sunday Board Meeting


Użytkownik "Chess One" napisał w wiadomości
news:[email protected]

no one managed to positively state why the only subject that uscf could
really have for possessing a forum at all - to discuss chess politics or
chess management in the usa - was a taboo subject


I was absent from this group a week or two ;-) but I have noticed that nth
has changed here. From my own experience I know that chess politicos do not
tolerate any serious discussion on chess politics and treat it as a danger
for their positions in politics :-)

On the other hand chess players are oftentimes actively involved in
exchanging their views on different kinds of chess forums.




  #6   Report Post  
Old November 4th 07, 10:14 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Highlights of the Sunday Board Meeting

The very last thing the board did before adjourning was form a
committee to investigate the Mottershead Report. The motion passed
5-0. Paul and Susan had already left the meeting but Bill Goichberg
said that if they had been there he was sure that they would have
abstained.

The committee consists of Bill, Bill, Randy, Randy and Joel.

What is remarkable is that the rest of us thought that an
investigation of the Mottershead Report was long since underway.

Sam Sloan

  #7   Report Post  
Old November 4th 07, 10:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Highlights of the Sunday Board Meeting

On Nov 4, 5:14 pm, samsloan wrote:
The very last thing the board did before adjourning was form a
committee to investigate the Mottershead Report. The motion passed
5-0. Paul and Susan had already left the meeting but Bill Goichberg
said that if they had been there he was sure that they would have
abstained.

The committee consists of Bill, Bill, Randy, Randy and Joel.

What is remarkable is that the rest of us thought that an
investigation of the Mottershead Report was long since underway.

Sam Sloan


Isn't it standard USCF practice to stall? Why does this surprise you?

  #8   Report Post  
Old November 5th 07, 11:18 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Highlights of the Sunday Board Meeting


"Jerzy" wrote in message
...

Użytkownik "Chess One" napisał w wiadomości
news:[email protected]

no one managed to positively state why the only subject that uscf could
really have for possessing a forum at all - to discuss chess politics or
chess management in the usa - was a taboo subject


I was absent from this group a week or two ;-) but I have noticed that nth
has changed here. From my own experience I know that chess politicos do
not tolerate any serious discussion on chess politics and treat it as a
danger for their positions in politics :-)


Yes - Russian political aphorism: Small issues are debated by large amounts
of people: Large issues are debated by very few people. Very Important
issues are not debated at all.

On the other hand chess players are oftentimes actively involved in
exchanging their views on different kinds of chess forums.


I have been reading in the Polgar/Truong newsgroup, and see that some posts
receive 800 viewers, with perhaps 50 contributions to the topic. There are
about 8 sections, often with a dozen topics each. At least this achieves an
awareness of what the active chess public are reading and thinking about. In
that group I started one subject on chess management, which was not
censored, and although a 'difficult' subject, has 155 viewers in about 5
days.

When management classes become divorced from the people they 'represent',
they can no longer lead.

Where there is no vision, the people perish
/Proverbs, 29:18

Cordially, Phil Innes


  #9   Report Post  
Old November 5th 07, 12:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Highlights of the Sunday Board Meeting

On Nov 5, 6:18 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Jerzy" wrote in message

...



Użytkownik "Chess One" napisał w wiadomości
news:[email protected]


no one managed to positively state why the only subject that uscf could
really have for possessing a forum at all - to discuss chess politics or
chess management in the usa - was a taboo subject


I was absent from this group a week or two ;-) but I have noticed that nth
has changed here. From my own experience I know that chess politicos do
not tolerate any serious discussion on chess politics and treat it as a
danger for their positions in politics :-)


Yes - Russian political aphorism: Small issues are debated by large amounts
of people: Large issues are debated by very few people. Very Important
issues are not debated at all.

On the other hand chess players are oftentimes actively involved in
exchanging their views on different kinds of chess forums.


I have been reading in the Polgar/Truong newsgroup, and see that some posts
receive 800 viewers, with perhaps 50 contributions to the topic.


How many "contributions" came from the same ISP address?

There are
about 8 sections, often with a dozen topics each. At least this achieves an
awareness of what the active chess public are reading and thinking about. In
that group I started one subject on chess management, which was not
censored, and although a 'difficult' subject, has 155 viewers in about 5
days.


No responses? What a surprise.

When management classes become divorced from the people they 'represent',
they can no longer lead.

Where there is no vision, the people perish
/Proverbs, 29:18

Cordially, Phil Innes



  #10   Report Post  
Old November 5th 07, 12:51 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Highlights of the Sunday Board Meeting


"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 5, 6:18 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Jerzy" wrote in message

...



Użytkownik "Chess One" napisał w wiadomości
news:[email protected]


no one managed to positively state why the only subject that uscf could
really have for possessing a forum at all - to discuss chess politics
or
chess management in the usa - was a taboo subject


I was absent from this group a week or two ;-) but I have noticed that
nth
has changed here. From my own experience I know that chess politicos do
not tolerate any serious discussion on chess politics and treat it as a
danger for their positions in politics :-)


Yes - Russian political aphorism: Small issues are debated by large
amounts
of people: Large issues are debated by very few people. Very Important
issues are not debated at all.

On the other hand chess players are oftentimes actively involved in
exchanging their views on different kinds of chess forums.


I have been reading in the Polgar/Truong newsgroup, and see that some
posts
receive 800 viewers, with perhaps 50 contributions to the topic.


How many "contributions" came from the same ISP address?

**Brennan shows up to ask a wan question. And since he always doubts
everthing but is too lazy to find stuff out for himself, and honestly report
that - there can never be answers to such non-questions. This is, in fact, a
Sloan-technique.

There are
about 8 sections, often with a dozen topics each. At least this achieves
an
awareness of what the active chess public are reading and thinking about.
In
that group I started one subject on chess management, which was not
censored, and although a 'difficult' subject, has 155 viewers in about 5
days.


No responses? What a surprise.

**And completely consistent with the above, and probably an explanation why
so many things are surprising to the comment's author, that that is all he
has written for some 5 years now.

Sort of outraged-virginal exclamations. Surely there must be a newsgroup
where those are on topic? This one is about chess management.

Phil Innes

When management classes become divorced from the people they 'represent',
they can no longer lead.

Where there is no vision, the people perish
/Proverbs, 29:18

Cordially, Phil Innes




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
USCF Issues Forum: "February Board Meeting" [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 10th 07 06:55 PM
Sam Sloan censured by Executive Board Duncan Oxley rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 30 December 8th 06 12:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017