Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 6th 09, 01:57 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default THere is only ONE way to save US Chess

The solution is simple, yet obvious: our governing body should not be
a not-for-profit corporation. Either strip USCF of this status, have
a court do it, or disband USCF and replace it with a for-profit
concern like ICC or Dr. Moskow, who could run it as a patron if he
wanted.

Many problems USCF has now will not be solved due to its structure as
a nonprofit, and would not exist in a for-profit concern.

I personally recommend liquidating the USCF immediately, turning its
assets over to ICC, giving life membeships to ICC to all USCF life
members, and then moving on.

USCF makes good people do bad things, and bad people do worse things.
It has long outlived its purpose, and the chess world would be better
off without it.



  #2   Report Post  
Old January 6th 09, 02:17 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2009
Posts: 1
Default THere is only ONE way to save US Chess

On Jan 5, 7:57*pm, RayGordon wrote:
The solution is simple, yet obvious: our governing body should not be
a not-for-profit corporation. *Either strip USCF of this status, have
a court do it, or disband USCF and replace it with a for-profit
concern like ICC or Dr. Moskow, who could run it as a patron if he
wanted.


Business advice from a non-member: duly noted.

Many problems USCF has now will not be solved due to its structure as
a nonprofit, and would not exist in a for-profit concern.


Business advice from the guy who's never even been remotely connected
to a successful company: duly noted.

I personally recommend liquidating the USCF immediately, turning its
assets over to ICC, giving life membeships to ICC to all USCF life
members, and then moving on.


Financial advice from the guy who's annual income barely approaches
eight thousand dollars and who can't gather enough scratch together to
even pay the nominal fee required to join the organization he so
cluelessly tries to "help": duly noted.

USCF makes good people do bad things, and bad people do worse things.
It has long outlived its purpose, and the chess world would be better
off without it.


Gordon Roy Parker makes good people do bad things, and bad people do
worse things. He has long outlived his purpose, if indeed he ever had
one to begin with, and the chess world would be better off without him.
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 6th 09, 04:04 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 232
Default THere is only ONE way to save US Chess

RayGordon wrote:
The solution is simple, yet obvious: our governing body should not be
a not-for-profit corporation. Either strip USCF of this status, have
a court do it, or disband USCF and replace it with a for-profit
concern like ICC or Dr. Moskow, who could run it as a patron if he
wanted.

Many problems USCF has now will not be solved due to its structure as
a nonprofit, and would not exist in a for-profit concern.

I personally recommend liquidating the USCF immediately, turning its
assets over to ICC, giving life membeships to ICC to all USCF life
members, and then moving on.

USCF makes good people do bad things, and bad people do worse things.
It has long outlived its purpose, and the chess world would be better
off without it.




How does this change anything? You know, not-for-profit, doesn't mean
that it doesn't engage in profitable activities, right?

It means that it is given special tax status because of the benefits it
provides society in general.

Do you mean that it shouldn't be a membership organization? Or it
should be owned by a single entity? Or more likely it needs to have a
mandate that is clear and motivating?

The number one problem as I see it, is that it is run by chess players.
Good chess players. Historically, good chess has required to have a
heightened and unusual sense of paranoia to succeed. In the good ol
days there were patrons that actually ran things, and liked hanging out
with the smart guys. Life was good, they had money, ran things, and
weren't paranoid freaks.

Eventually life changed and the inmates started running the asylum.
They seemed to be motivated to do that. Chess players are so nuts that
Larry Parr even has a best selling book describing their antics. The
best movie about scholastic chess of all time (Searching for Bobby
Fischer) is a complete condemnation of the nut jobs that are chess players.

While I do think that it would be reasonable to have a professional
player representative to the USCF. I do think the chess world as a
whole would be better suited to an executive staff that never had a
rating above 1700. That they can see a clarity without the Paranoia.

As one who has had many very smart friends. The most successfully
manipulative, the ones that you had to be paranoid of, were also of this
same crowd.

Making for a profit isn't necessary. Getting rid of the chess freaks in
charge. That is what is necessary.

Maybe I am just having a bad day.
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 6th 09, 06:30 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default THere is only ONE way to save US Chess

On Jan 5, 11:04*pm, johnny_t wrote:
RayGordon wrote:
The solution is simple, yet obvious: our governing body should not be
a not-for-profit corporation. *Either strip USCF of this status, have
a court do it, or disband USCF and replace it with a for-profit
concern like ICC or Dr. Moskow, who could run it as a patron if he
wanted.


Many problems USCF has now will not be solved due to its structure as
a nonprofit, and would not exist in a for-profit concern.


I personally recommend liquidating the USCF immediately, turning its
assets over to ICC, giving life membeships to ICC to all USCF life
members, and then moving on.


USCF makes good people do bad things, and bad people do worse things.
It has long outlived its purpose, and the chess world would be better
off without it.


How does this change anything? *You know, not-for-profit, doesn't mean
that it doesn't engage in profitable activities, right?


They are restricted in what they can profit from, and generally have
to retain operating profits as an endowment. The entire “nonprofit”
concept is a sham, however, as anyone who sucks the nonprofit’s tit is
“profiting,” especially those who would otherwise have to get other,
regular jobs.

USCF has $3.2 million a year in revenue, and Emo freaks who leave it
six-figures in their will. It used to have guys like Fan Adams
propping up entire club structures, and let’s not forget the Church’s
Grand Prix (I still never ate there). Let’s also give some props to
Goichberg, who could have made a lot more money on the backstretch in
a cleaner environment (both horses and people), for the hours and
travel he puts in. Goichberg understands the chess market:
recreational players who don’t mind blowing $500 on a big weekend
swiss, with a chance at recovering their expenses. They are his
“patrons.”

What would change is that the for-profit company would not be
restrained by nonprofit laws which serve only to burden USCF. Had
this occurred on ICC, it would have been resolved in days, weeks, or
months at most, yet it would not have occurred, as ICC is not a
nonprofit with control of its revenue up for election every year or
two. USCF’s value is made evident by what people are willing to do to
get elected to run it.

What would NOT change is rated chess in America, and in fact it would
be much more accurate, as ICC could modernize the process, even allow
for “hybrid” play online, much as with the chess leagues and other
“verified” tournaments. ICC could sponsor all major tournaments, and
integrate them into its online environment, where most go to watch the
big games anyway.



It means that it is given special tax status because of the benefits it
provides society in general.


I could run a nonprofit restaurant and serve the public, while still
corrupting the restaurant. A for-profit restaurant that took over
would have no incentive to ignore or sustain any corruption, and would
be less vulnerable to it in the first place.

Do you mean that it shouldn't be a membership organization? * Or it
should be owned by a single entity? * Or more likely it needs to have a
mandate that is clear and motivating?


ICC is a member organization. The NFL, NBA, and MLB all are single,
for-profit entities which have managed to run their sports well, with
good salaries for the players, and all their rights (publicity,
copyright) defended. Chessplayers do not profit from their games;
they should. The moves of a game may not be protectable, but who made
the moves is: if I reel off 30 random moves, no one reads; if I say
it’s Kasparov-Topalov in the Best Game Ever Played By Humans (by far;
if you have to ask you aren’t a player), then the players are what
adds value to the book.

How much would Fischer have made if his permission were required to
attach his name to any of his game scores? Eric Schiller and Fred
Reinfeld are what you get when you do not have this protection.

The number one problem as I see it, is that it is run by chess players.


I have no problem with that.

* Good chess players. *


Or that.


Historically, good chess has required to have a
heightened and unusual sense of paranoia to succeed. *In the good ol
days there were patrons that actually ran things, and liked hanging out
with the smart guys. * Life was good, they had money, ran things, and
weren't paranoid freaks.


Actually, you need THREE things to become a championship player:

1. Talent
2. Fifteen years.
3. No life.

Crazy people just happen to have that a lot of the time, but so did
the commies.


Eventually life changed and the inmates started running the asylum.
They seemed to be motivated to do that. * Chess players are so nuts that
Larry Parr even has a best selling book describing their antics. * The
best movie about scholastic chess of all time (Searching for Bobby
Fischer) is a complete condemnation of the nut jobs that are chess players.


Ever wonder WHY? Patrons are too emotionally invested and have
economic power. They might as well just turn a profit and run the
federation that way.

That's if they aren't gay pedophiles, of course.


While I do think that it would be reasonable to have a professional
player representative to the USCF. *I do think the chess world as a
whole would be better suited to an executive staff that never had a
rating above 1700. *That they can see a clarity without the Paranoia.



Cronyism can occur just as easily with a patron.

1700 players also cannot relate to GMs so well. 2000 barely can.


As one who has had many very smart friends. *The most successfully
manipulative, the ones that you had to be paranoid of, were also of this
same crowd.


I lived through that movie, which was written by a chess parent with
hours to kill while his son was playing, a very productive use of his
time. Both father and son would be great for the board, as they do
not need the money, love the game, have benefited tremendously from
it, understand both high-level and low-level chess, and have played in
parks as well as tournament halls. Who better? None.

Making for a profit isn't necessary. *Getting rid of the chess freaks in
charge. *That is what is necessary.

Maybe I am just having a bad day.- Hide quoted text -


I could run USCF, but the loudmouths would make so much noise and then
blame any problems they create with the noise on me. I would have
applied to be Chess Life’s web editor had the job been circulated;
that it was not means they were not casting a wide net for talent for
that job, and took steps to make their hire that were not made for
other jobs (they said they “didn’t want to lose” the applicant).

What bugs me are the Fred-Flintstone types like Randy Bauer, who come
out with bombast against their political adversaries, at times making
irrelevant personal insults, and THEN posting (allegedly according to
a reposting) about how wrong they were in the past, as if their volume
were retroactively turned down, or the force of their insults somehow
lessened. To distance oneself from the Polgars at this stage is like
selling a $6.00 stock that one bought at $140.00. It also is an
admission that in the past, one was mistaken, yet not with the
restrained, repentant, logical tone of voice used to express the
regret, but with a hubris, arrogance, and intransigence that is still
present against today’s adversaries, and which will be omitted just as
forcefully from any of tomorrow’s recantations of support. It’s what
one does BEFORE it becomes obvious to the world, at the FIRST signs of
problems (often ignored as the targets are unpopular and selected for
that reason), that define one in this regard, particularly in their
ability to judge others.

Is there anyone left on this planet who disagrees with my original
assertion that Susan Polgar was a **** who could not choose men very
well? Oddly, had I never made that posting, none of this may ever
have been uncovered.






  #5   Report Post  
Old January 7th 09, 12:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 324
Default THere is only ONE way to save US Chess

On Jan 6, 12:30*am, RayGordon wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:04*pm, johnny_t wrote:





RayGordon wrote:


What bugs me are the Fred-Flintstone types likeRandy Bauer, who come
out with bombast against their political adversaries, at times making
irrelevant personal insults, and THEN posting (allegedly according to
a reposting) about how wrong they were in the past, as if their volume
were retroactively turned down, or the force of their insults somehow
lessened. *To distance oneself from the Polgars at this stage is like
selling a $6.00 stock that one bought at $140.00. *It also is an
admission that in the past, one was mistaken, yet not with the
restrained, repentant, logical tone of voice used to express the
regret, but with a hubris, arrogance, and intransigence that is still
present against today’s adversaries, and which will be omitted just as
forcefully from any of tomorrow’s recantations of support. *It’s what
one does BEFORE it becomes obvious to the world, at the FIRST signs of
problems (often ignored as the targets are unpopular and selected for
that reason), that define one in this regard, particularly in their
ability to judge others.

Is there anyone left on this planet who disagrees with my original
assertion that Susan Polgar was a **** who could not choose men very
well? *Oddly, had I never made that posting, none of this may ever
have been uncovered.


Being called a "Fred Flintstone type" by a loser like Gordo is like
being called ugly by a frog.

Randy Bauer



  #6   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 06:05 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default THere is only ONE way to save US Chess


Being called a "Fred Flintstone type" by a loser like Gordo is like
being called ugly by a frog.


Randy is all mouth and no man. He'd **** his pants before he could
ever run his mouth like that from anywhere but behind his monitor.

Just like thatt big-mouthed pussy Nemo. All talk. All mouth.

They are "verbally aggressive, as it's the only parts of their bodies
capable of aggression. A sad sight, really.

  #7   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 07:39 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 9
Default THere is only ONE way to save US Chess

RayGordon wrote:


How is it that you are here running your mouth and being an asshole, and fox news reports that you died in December?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477544,00.html


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
  #8   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 07:49 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default THere is only ONE way to save US Chess

On Jan 8, 2:39*pm, "TedEBear" wrote:
RayGordon wrote:

How is it that you are here running your mouth and being an asshole, and fox news reports that you died in December?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477544,00.html


Is this the same man that died on December 22, 2008

"Roy Parker, of Philadelphia, died of hypothermia and heart disease on
Dec. 22, the medical examiner's office said."
  #9   Report Post  
Old January 9th 09, 12:23 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 9
Default THere is only ONE way to save US Chess

Ya know, dead people don't file lawsuits, check it out
Ted

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 11th 09, 06:43 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,alt.seduction.fast
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 53
Default THere is only ONE way to save US Chess

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:05:03 -0800 (PST), RayGordon
wrote:


Being called a "Fred Flintstone type" by a loser like Gordo is like
being called ugly by a frog.


Randy is all mouth and no man. He'd **** his pants before he could
ever run his mouth like that from anywhere but behind his monitor.

Just like thatt big-mouthed pussy Nemo. All talk. All mouth.

They are "verbally aggressive, as it's the only parts of their bodies
capable of aggression. A sad sight, really.


You're still every bit the spineless coward you've been since you
first started stalking young children on AOL, Gordon Roy Parker. How
many times have you been called out to back up your ********, eh? A
dozen? More like a couple of hundred times, and every time what have
you done? Whine to the legal system, harass law enforcement, bitch
about it on usenet, but never, not once, have you had the 'nads to man
up and take it to somebody. Never.
And what has all your sicko, perverted, child obsessed, pretexting and
threatening the single mothers of young children gotten you over the
years, Parker? If anything, you have made yourself the most well known
internet and usenet child stalking asswipe in history, but did you
learn anything along the way? No, evidently not.
Now that your mother's gone and you can't hide behind her any longer,
it's sad that you still think you can do the same old things she saved
your ass from all those years. I don't think so.
I want the money the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals ordered you to
pay me. You DO have an active case before a court somewhere, do you
not? I want my money, you child stalking piece of ****.

Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com

Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-p...PA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.

Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.

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
Sound and Fury in Polgarland B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 December 15th 08 09:20 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 February 19th 06 05:44 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 18th 05 05:36 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 3rd 05 05:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 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