Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 13th 08, 05:26 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Polgar is right for once

Polgar is right for once

As everybody knows, I have been extremely critical of Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar. However, a posting by Polgar that became public today is
so obviously correct that I need to point that out.

In an online debate with Bill Goichberg, in a message dated 5/6/2008
10:05:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, SusanPolgar writes:

"You on your own made a number of decisions shortly after that
without consulting other board members. This clearly contributed to
the current problems. It is not too late to fix things but being
defensive about your records will not help alleviate these serious
problems."

"I am not interested in arguing with you. The USCF is in serious
trouble and it should no longer be the Bill Goichberg show. You need
to listen and take the advice from others in areas you have no
expertise in. If you continue the attitude that Bill Goichberg does
not lose any debate / argument, the USCF is doomed."

During my one year on the board there were constant problems with
this. Bill Goichberg would use his position as USCF President to do
things without even telling the other board members. It started right
after I was elected but before I took office when Bill Goichberg wrote
five letters without board approval to the USCFs litigation lawyer
asking for ways to stop Sam Sloan from taking office. The legal bill
that the USCF had to pay just for responding to these five letters was
$4800.

Later, Bill Goichberg did other things like deciding on his own
without asking the board that there should be four women players in
the US Championship and when only two women with reasonably high
ratings accepted Goichberg when down the list as token woman after
token women declined until finally two women were accepted who were
rated below 2200.

Worse than that, Bill Goichberg decided on his own to make the
formerly prestigious US Championship into an open Swiss tournament
where anybody could play. The entry fee for a rank beginner was
$20,000. Although no rank beginners accepted, this got many people
upset as it demeaned the prestige of the US Championship.

These are just a few examples of the long list of things that Bill
Goichberg did without even telling the board about it.

Worse yet, when anything went wrong, Bill Goichberg would blame me,
Sam Sloan, for it, when I had nothing to do with it.

After this kept happening, I became so desperate to somehow get Bill
Goichberg removed as president that I even offered the USCF presidency
through an intermediary to Joel Channing, who I thought was a terrible
person. Channing declined apparently thinking he would become
president after the next election, which was not to be.

Now, after I was defeated and lost my seat on the board, Goichberg is
doing the same thing again. Susan Polgar writes, “You on your own made
a number of decisions shortly after that without consulting other
board members.”

This is exactly what is wrong with Bill Goichberg. He seems simply to
be incapable of understanding that he might be wrong about something.
Since he is never wrong, there is never any need for him to consult
other members of the board before making a decision.

Goichberg's so-called New Plan is to make Chess Life magazine
optional. This will cause Chess Life to lose so many readers that
before long the print version of the magazine will be stopped
completely. If you read his proposal, you will see that he recognizes
this.

The reason Goichberg gives for this drastic measure is that we are
losing big money again this year. He thinks that since he along with
only the Pope is infallible it must be the "Internet" that is causing
these huge financial losses every year.

However, during the eight years that Al Lawrence was executive
director the USCF enjoyed a big surplus every year on much smaller
revenues than the USCF receives. Al Lawrence got along on about $1.7
million. The USCF now gets $3.2 million but under Goichberg still
loses money every year.

So the real problem causing all these losses is Bill Goichberg and
Bill Hall. To stop the losses the USCF keeps suffering it is not
necessary to stop publishing Chess Life. It is only necessary to
remove Bill Goichberg from the position of USCF President.

I am calling on the board to vote Bill Goichberg out of office right
now. The only suitable candidates to replace him are Randy Bauer and
Jim Berry or possibly Randy Hough. Take your pick but at all cost
remove Bill Goichberg now. It will be a disaster if he goes to the
Delegates Meeting in Dallas as USCF President with his plan to stop
the publication of Chess Life. This disastrous plan must be nipped in
the bud now.

Truong and Polgar will vote this. Hough is always afraid to vote
against Goichberg but in view of the desperate nature of the situation
even he might vote to remove Goichberg.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old May 13th 08, 07:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Polgar is right for once

--- wrote:

looks like DD the Mad Hatter
Jerry


Thanks for the plug.

Might I remind you that I have a book out about that too.

Alice and Wonderland Made Simple for Kids

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891919

I took the original complex story of Alice in Wonderland and re-wrote
it so that a girl aged 5-8 like my daughter can read it plus I kept
all of the original 42 drawings.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old May 14th 08, 12:31 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Sloan is wrong as usual



samsloan wrote:

During my one year on the board there were constant problems with
this. Bill Goichberg would use his position as USCF President to do
things without even telling the other board members. It started right
after I was elected but before I took office when Bill Goichberg wrote
five letters without board approval to the USCFs litigation lawyer
asking for ways to stop Sam Sloan from taking office. The legal bill
that the USCF had to pay just for responding to these five letters was
$4800.


False. They asked for a legal opinion on what would happen if the
Delegates tried to block you from being seated. Sloan 1 - Truth 0


Later, Bill Goichberg did other things like deciding on his own
without asking the board that there should be four women players in
the US Championship and when only two women with reasonably high
ratings accepted Goichberg when down the list as token woman after
token women declined until finally two women were accepted who were
rated below 2200.


No one on the Board except you objected. If they had, four members
could have voted it down. Of course, it would be hard to find three
people who could stand the shame of voting with you. Sloan 2 - Truth 0


Worse than that, Bill Goichberg decided on his own to make the
formerly prestigious US Championship into an open Swiss tournament
where anybody could play. The entry fee for a rank beginner was
$20,000. Although no rank beginners accepted, this got many people
upset as it demeaned the prestige of the US Championship.


Since AF4C ran it as a Swiss for the last decade, I assume your
complaint is _only_ about allowing players to buy in. Since the
result was a modest increase in the prize fund, I doubt any of the
players would agree with you. I don't recall you making any
counterproposals to fund the tournament. As I recall, _your_
suggestion was that the USCF turn down the $50K donation and run it as
a round-robin in New York with a prize fund of $14K (which the USCF
did not have). Sloan 3 - Truth 0.


After this kept happening, I became so desperate to somehow get Bill
Goichberg removed as president that I even offered the USCF presidency
through an intermediary to Joel Channing, who I thought was a terrible
person.


Since Channing regarded you as a lower life form, I doubt you got much
of a response.


I am calling on the board to vote Bill Goichberg out of office right
now.


And I'm sure this will have just as much effect as Mad Marcus's calls
to the State Department. Face it, Sam. Nobody cares. (Well, you're
nobody, and you care.)

There are a lot of things on which I disagree with Goichberg, and I'm
not convinced by his new proposal, but he does have one major asset.
You. As long as you're his opposition, Bill looks awfully good.
  #4   Report Post  
Old May 14th 08, 02:48 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Sloan is wrong as usual

On May 13, 7:31 pm, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
During my one year on the board there were constant problems with
this. Bill Goichberg would use his position as USCF President to do
things without even telling the other board members. It started right
after I was elected but before I took office when Bill Goichberg wrote
five letters without board approval to the USCFs litigation lawyer
asking for ways to stop Sam Sloan from taking office. The legal bill
that the USCF had to pay just for responding to these five letters was
$4800.


False. They asked for a legal opinion on what would happen if the
Delegates tried to block you from being seated. Sloan 1 - Truth 0


Anybody who has actually seen the five letters written by Bill
Goichberg to Mike Matsler, the attorney who represents the USCF in
cases in court, has found it obvious that there letters were written
not because Goichberg was afraid that some other group would try to
stop me from taking office but because Goichberg himself wanted to
stop me from taking office.

If Goichberg had simply wanted an advisory opinion, he could have
consulted one of the many lawyers who are USCF members who would have
offered opinions for free, such as for example, Harold Dondis, Stephen
Jones, Harold Winston and many others. Goichberg asked Matsler about
this obviously because Matsler would have been the one to go to court
and file or fight the case to keep me out.

Later, Bill Goichberg did other things like deciding on his own
without asking the board that there should be four women players in
the US Championship and when only two women with reasonably high
ratings accepted Goichberg when down the list as token woman after
token women declined until finally two women were accepted who were
rated below 2200.


No one on the Board except you objected. If they had, four members
could have voted it down. Of course, it would be hard to find three
people who could stand the shame of voting with you. Sloan 2 - Truth 0


A lot of people objected. Did you read Joel Benjamin's article in New
in Chess? I should have explained that while Goichberg was letting in
two girls rated under 2200 he was excluding strong players rated over
2600 like Ben Finegold for example. Allowing two girls to play in the
US Championship whose only qualifications were that they were
attractive girls was ridiculous.

Worse than that, Bill Goichberg decided on his own to make the
formerly prestigious US Championship into an open Swiss tournament
where anybody could play. The entry fee for a rank beginner was
$20,000. Although no rank beginners accepted, this got many people
upset as it demeaned the prestige of the US Championship.


Since AF4C ran it as a Swiss for the last decade, I assume your
complaint is _only_ about allowing players to buy in. Since the
result was a modest increase in the prize fund, I doubt any of the
players would agree with you. I don't recall you making any
counter proposals to fund the tournament. As I recall, _your_
suggestion was that the USCF turn down the $50K donation and run it as
a round-robin in New York with a prize fund of $14K (which the USCF
did not have). Sloan 3 - Truth 0.


AF4C never let in anybody just because they were willing to pay a big
entry fee. Eric Moskow told me that he offered to pay $200,000 to Erik
Anderson so that he could play in the 2006 US Championship but was
turned down. However, by 2007 Moskow was only willing to pay $10,000
and he wanted to play online over the Internet which was not
acceptable.

As to there being no objection by the other players, Joel Benjamin
wrote in the 4/2007 issue of New In Chess magazine that he refused to
play in the 2007 US Championship, the first time in 23 years that he
had not played, for exactly that reason.

After this kept happening, I became so desperate to somehow get Bill
Goichberg removed as president that I even offered the USCF presidency
through an intermediary to Joel Channing, who I thought was a terrible
person.


Since Channing regarded you as a lower life form, I doubt you got much
of a response.


Apparently Channing believed that the 2007 election would result in a
deadlocked board and he as the man in the middle could become
president.

I am calling on the board to vote Bill Goichberg out of office right
now.


And I'm sure this will have just as much effect as Mad Marcus's calls
to the State Department. Face it, Sam. Nobody cares. (Well, you're
nobody, and you care.)

There are a lot of things on which I disagree with Goichberg, and I'm
not convinced by his new proposal, but he does have one major asset.
You. As long as you're his opposition, Bill looks awfully good.


The fiscal year ends on May 31 and when the results are out you will
see that the USCF will have lost another $300,000. Bill Goichberg will
have been USCF President for three consecutive years and every year
has shown a 6-digit loss. (The reported surplus of $3,000 last year
was fake. The real loss was about $150,000.)

If the board does not throw out Bill Goichberg as President and also
throw out Bill Hall as Executive Director after another loss of
$300,000, then every USCF member will blame all of the board members
for these horrific loses.

Sam Sloan
  #5   Report Post  
Old May 14th 08, 04:14 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Hillery is wrong as usual


JOHN HILLERY VS. SAM SLOAN

In the exchange below between Sam and John
Hillery, we have the essence of the struggle between
status quo guys like Hillery and Sam.

Sam wrote that the USCF paid a ludicrous legal
bill of $4,800 for some legal letters about ways to
stop Sam from taking office after his election to the
Executive Board.

Hillery's response: the USCF paid a ludicrous
legal bill of $4,800 to find out what would happen if
the Delegates tried to stop Sam from taking office.

Hillery: 48 to the 12th power; Truth: zeeee-ro.

We now have confirmation that what Sam told us
was the essential truth, and let's have the legal
opinion made public, shall we? I reckon that Sam's
account is closer to the truth even in the area of the
legal opinion.

NEXT TIME AROUND AFTER SAM GETS ELECTED AT SOME
SOME POINT IN THE FUTU Sam writes that the politicians
spent $11,486.42 of USCF money on a ludicrous legal bill to prevent
him from taking office. Hillery responds: "The figure was
$11,468.24.
Dyslexic Sam can get nothing right. And, moreover, the money was
spent not to 'prevent' him from taking office, but to 'stop' him from
taking
office. Sam 1, Truth 0."

I admit that when Sam first got elected that I
worried about him being coopted and I wrote exactly
that. As matters turned out, Sam proved a very
pleasant surprise. For the first time in many years,
we had a Board member who constantly exposed the inner
games and crookedness. Sam's report on the status of
the USCF building in Cross-to-Bear has brought to
light what none of us would otherwise know. His
minatory statements about the cost of the move, while
called lies earlier by the same types as Hillery,
proved to be UNDERESTIMATIONS.

How these politicians hate Sam!

Yours, Larry Parr



wrote:
samsloan wrote:

During my one year on the board there were constant problems with
this. Bill Goichberg would use his position as USCF President to do
things without even telling the other board members. It started right
after I was elected but before I took office when Bill Goichberg wrote
five letters without board approval to the USCFs litigation lawyer
asking for ways to stop Sam Sloan from taking office. The legal bill
that the USCF had to pay just for responding to these five letters was
$4800.


False. They asked for a legal opinion on what would happen if the
Delegates tried to block you from being seated. Sloan 1 - Truth 0


Later, Bill Goichberg did other things like deciding on his own
without asking the board that there should be four women players in
the US Championship and when only two women with reasonably high
ratings accepted Goichberg when down the list as token woman after
token women declined until finally two women were accepted who were
rated below 2200.


No one on the Board except you objected. If they had, four members
could have voted it down. Of course, it would be hard to find three
people who could stand the shame of voting with you. Sloan 2 - Truth 0


Worse than that, Bill Goichberg decided on his own to make the
formerly prestigious US Championship into an open Swiss tournament
where anybody could play. The entry fee for a rank beginner was
$20,000. Although no rank beginners accepted, this got many people
upset as it demeaned the prestige of the US Championship.


Since AF4C ran it as a Swiss for the last decade, I assume your
complaint is _only_ about allowing players to buy in. Since the
result was a modest increase in the prize fund, I doubt any of the
players would agree with you. I don't recall you making any
counterproposals to fund the tournament. As I recall, _your_
suggestion was that the USCF turn down the $50K donation and run it as
a round-robin in New York with a prize fund of $14K (which the USCF
did not have). Sloan 3 - Truth 0.


After this kept happening, I became so desperate to somehow get Bill
Goichberg removed as president that I even offered the USCF presidency
through an intermediary to Joel Channing, who I thought was a terrible
person.


Since Channing regarded you as a lower life form, I doubt you got much
of a response.


I am calling on the board to vote Bill Goichberg out of office right
now.


And I'm sure this will have just as much effect as Mad Marcus's calls
to the State Department. Face it, Sam. Nobody cares. (Well, you're
nobody, and you care.)

There are a lot of things on which I disagree with Goichberg, and I'm
not convinced by his new proposal, but he does have one major asset.
You. As long as you're his opposition, Bill looks awfully good.



  #6   Report Post  
Old May 14th 08, 04:52 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Hillery is wrong as usual



wrote:
JOHN HILLERY VS. SAM SLOAN

In the exchange below between Sam and John
Hillery, we have the essence of the struggle between
status quo guys like Hillery and Sam.

Sam wrote that the USCF paid a ludicrous legal
bill of $4,800 for some legal letters about ways to
stop Sam from taking office after his election to the
Executive Board.

Hillery's response: the USCF paid a ludicrous
legal bill of $4,800 to find out what would happen if
the Delegates tried to stop Sam from taking office.

Hillery: 48 to the 12th power; Truth: zeeee-ro.

We now have confirmation that what Sam told us
was the essential truth, and let's have the legal
opinion made public, shall we? I reckon that Sam's
account is closer to the truth even in the area of the
legal opinion.

NEXT TIME AROUND AFTER SAM GETS ELECTED AT SOME
SOME POINT IN THE FUTU Sam writes that the politicians
spent $11,486.42 of USCF money on a ludicrous legal bill to prevent
him from taking office. Hillery responds: "The figure was
$11,468.24.
Dyslexic Sam can get nothing right. And, moreover, the money was
spent not to 'prevent' him from taking office, but to 'stop' him from
taking
office. Sam 1, Truth 0."

I admit that when Sam first got elected that I
worried about him being coopted and I wrote exactly
that. As matters turned out, Sam proved a very
pleasant surprise. For the first time in many years,
we had a Board member who constantly exposed the inner
games and crookedness. Sam's report on the status of
the USCF building in Cross-to-Bear has brought to
light what none of us would otherwise know. His
minatory statements about the cost of the move, while
called lies earlier by the same types as Hillery,
proved to be UNDERESTIMATIONS.

How these politicians hate Sam!

Yours, Larry Parr



wrote:
samsloan wrote:

During my one year on the board there were constant problems with
this. Bill Goichberg would use his position as USCF President to do
things without even telling the other board members. It started right
after I was elected but before I took office when Bill Goichberg wrote
five letters without board approval to the USCFs litigation lawyer
asking for ways to stop Sam Sloan from taking office. The legal bill
that the USCF had to pay just for responding to these five letters was
$4800.


False. They asked for a legal opinion on what would happen if the
Delegates tried to block you from being seated. Sloan 1 - Truth 0


Later, Bill Goichberg did other things like deciding on his own
without asking the board that there should be four women players in
the US Championship and when only two women with reasonably high
ratings accepted Goichberg when down the list as token woman after
token women declined until finally two women were accepted who were
rated below 2200.


No one on the Board except you objected. If they had, four members
could have voted it down. Of course, it would be hard to find three
people who could stand the shame of voting with you. Sloan 2 - Truth 0


Worse than that, Bill Goichberg decided on his own to make the
formerly prestigious US Championship into an open Swiss tournament
where anybody could play. The entry fee for a rank beginner was
$20,000. Although no rank beginners accepted, this got many people
upset as it demeaned the prestige of the US Championship.


Since AF4C ran it as a Swiss for the last decade, I assume your
complaint is _only_ about allowing players to buy in. Since the
result was a modest increase in the prize fund, I doubt any of the
players would agree with you. I don't recall you making any
counterproposals to fund the tournament. As I recall, _your_
suggestion was that the USCF turn down the $50K donation and run it as
a round-robin in New York with a prize fund of $14K (which the USCF
did not have). Sloan 3 - Truth 0.


After this kept happening, I became so desperate to somehow get Bill
Goichberg removed as president that I even offered the USCF presidency
through an intermediary to Joel Channing, who I thought was a terrible
person.


Since Channing regarded you as a lower life form, I doubt you got much
of a response.


I am calling on the board to vote Bill Goichberg out of office right
now.


And I'm sure this will have just as much effect as Mad Marcus's calls
to the State Department. Face it, Sam. Nobody cares. (Well, you're
nobody, and you care.)

There are a lot of things on which I disagree with Goichberg, and I'm
not convinced by his new proposal, but he does have one major asset.
You. As long as you're his opposition, Bill looks awfully good.



Larry, haven't you learned yet to keep your mouth shut when you are
ignorant of the subject? Sloan's description of the events of August
2006 is a ludicrous distortion. I don't believe I ever made any
statements about the cost of the move to Crossville or the
construction of the building. (When I don't know about a subject, I
refrain from self-important posturing. A lesson to be learned.) I
certainly criticized the cost of Sloan's idiotic lawsuit, and his
fairy story of all records being dumped in a landfill, and ... but the
list is too long to repeat.

Once upon a time you were a journalist, Larry. The first duty of a
journalist is to report the truth. "1984" was supposed to be a
warning, not an instruction manual.
  #7   Report Post  
Old May 14th 08, 07:36 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Another anonymous nothing / Sloan is wrong as usual

On May 13, 4:31 pm, wrote:


There are a lot of things on which I disagree with [...]


You are just an anonymous Internet coward
who even didn't sign itself. Nobody
cares whether or not you "agree" or
"disagree", or what about, and with whom.
You're zero, you're nothing.

Wlod
  #8   Report Post  
Old May 14th 08, 07:44 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Hillery is wrong as usual

On May 13, 8:52 pm, wrote:

wrote:
JOHN HILLERY VS. SAM SLOAN



Thank you Larry. Now we know that the
anonymous nothing has a name after all
(not much of a name though).


Larry, haven't you learned
yet to keep your mouth shut [...]


Oho-ho, our coward is rude and primitive.
But then what's new?

Wlod
  #9   Report Post  
Old May 17th 08, 12:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Polgar is right for once

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bauer
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
In BINFO 200802923 Bill
Goichberg states:

"If costs would rise more than I expect, we might add a little bit on
to the Premium dues.

"Bill Goichberg"

Bill just does not get it. The question asked was: If Chess Life
magazine becomes optional and there are not enough subscribers to
support the editorial costs, what will the USCF do?

Goichberg's answer is simple: Simply raise the dues that the Premium
Members, those being the members who receive Chess Life, have to
pay !!??!!

That will really solve the problem.

Sam Sloan
In reality, it is Sam Sloan who doesn't "get it." There is a reason
that the business sector with the worst longterm credit outlook is
print media - that is not the way that many - if not most - people
wish to receive their news any more. It's fine to chant the rant
about the need to continue to impose a fossilized business model upon
your customers, but ultimately it is better to adjust.

A large part of the USCF target audience doesn't fully appreciate the
value of Chess Life. They want other choices. Bill's proposal, while
not perfect, is the first major proposal to provide what many have
been asking for, here and in other forums - real CHOICE about the
content members receive and the price they pay for it.

Sam Sloan wishes to claim that we need to focus on cutting costs, but
he is squeezing a very small part of the operation that is already
doing so - during this fiscal year, the actual expense for personnel
is below the budgeted amount. In fact, we need to focus on larger
expenses, such as preparing, printing and mailing Chess Life - often
to an audience that doesn't really care that much about that method of
contact.

As the father of teenagers, I fully believe that lots will choose a
lower overall membership cost with access to information through the
Web. Ultimately, this will reduce our costs more than the reduction
in dues - a win win.

If that means that others might ultimately have to more fully support
the services that they value - such as Chess Life - that is
economically efficient, right? Isn't that what we, as officers of a
member-driven organization, should be seeking to accomplish? I think
so.

Randy Bauer
Sorry, but it is you, Randy Bauer, who does not get it. Yes, it is
true that the publishing and magazine business has gone way down and
people are getting their news and content over the Internet.

However, the point that evades you is that people who read the
Internet want their content for free. Nobody is going to pay anything
at all for an online magazine.

So, you have a choice, providing a paper print magazine for $41 per
year or giving them an online Chess Life free of charge. Which will
they prefer? Of course, the online free one. Which one do you suppose
is better for the USCF?

I know because I am now a book publisher. I sell several printed books
every day online. I also sell ebooks. However, sales of ebooks are few
and far between. I am lucky to sell one a month, even though many
buyers are overseas and the additional cost of shipping printed books
is considerable.

It is to be recalled that it was you, Randy Bauer, who said on this
forum that the USCF would save $90,000 per year in costs by moving to
Crossville. We can see how that turned out. Now you are leading us to
another disaster.

Sam Sloan
  #10   Report Post  
Old May 17th 08, 08:31 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Polgar is right for once

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bauer
Sam Sloan, who is an expert on every topic,
should stop by the Wall Street Journal's website sometime and read the
daily news - he will then encounter a pay site that will not let its
readers read every thing for free. Even less prominent publishers
keep some of their daily content off their free site - pick up a copy
of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune sometime and compare it to their free
Internet site.

Randy Bauer
Have you bothered to find out how many subscribers actually pay to
read the Wall Street Journal Online? They just lowered their rates to
$40 per year for a daily newspaper, plus you can get a two week trial
subscription for free. http://www.wsj.com I subscribe to the New York
Times online because I get printouts from their archives going back to
1851. Those who play the stock market need to be able to read the Wall
Street Journal instantly. They cannot afford to wait for it to arrive
in the mail. Chess Life hardly compares with this. You are comparing
apples with oranges. You are planning to make a disastrous decision
without proper research of stopping the publication of the print
version of Chess Life, assuming that the members will pay to read it
online.

Sam Sloan
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
Polgar Opening Secrets agreement samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 11 April 4th 07 12:47 PM
Polgar Opening Secrets agreement samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 11 April 4th 07 12:47 PM
Polgar Opening Secrets agreement samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 8 April 3rd 07 03:17 PM
Polgar Opening Secrets agreement samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 7 April 3rd 07 12:20 PM
Larry Parr visits Sam Sloan's websites to learn about Pokémon [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 57 January 30th 07 02:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:25 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