Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 02:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 71
Default Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys

On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:09 pm, wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:


I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
the country..........priceless.


This will not work.


The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.


Sam Sloan


1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?


Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.


Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.


John,


I ask seriously what difference would it make? We have had
essentially the same result for years (not exclusively of course,
but enough that "Some of us have higher standards" hardly
applies). I had to leave the organization many years back
when it stripped the treasurer of his duties because he was
doing them (and out of favor with the in crowd). I had hoped to
return. Since then there has been no indication of any
significant shift in ability, mentality nor honorability (for the
organization as a whole). If your characterization of Brian
is accurate, he would be well placed on the board.


K


PS In other words, he's (one of the) least of USCF's core
problems.


I'm hardly the one to defend the USCF's current leadership. "Mostly
harmless" is the best I can say for them. But Brian L. doesn't even
reach that exalted level. In addition to being a vicious, backbiting
cur willing to abuse his law degree by harassing others with threats
of litigation, he's utterly ignorant of chess and utterly unqualified
to hold office. As far as I can see, his only _qualification_ is a
desire for power.


I'm not close enough to judge accurately I'm sure but when I
see exaggerations like "utterly ignorant of chess" it's hard
to give weight to your other characterizations.

BTW, I recall the incident with the Treasurer to which you refer. The
Treasurer in question was a foul-mouthed oaf interested chiefly in
pursuing personal grudges and paranoid fantasies. Of course, that


Again, my distance precludes vigorous opposition to your
statements but I can note that a decent chunk of the 'wrongdoings'
that he and the other in his camp discussed went well beyond
paranoid fantasies.

tends to support your general proposition that all recent Boards have
been lousy.


I can't argue your interpretation but that's not exactly where I'm
at. I don't think the organization has chess, chess players, or
even itself as primary beneficiaries of its actions. There is too
much "personal" benefit (if I'm allowed an expansive definition
of benefit). Wayne P has consistently offered examples of
best practices and ways to progress honorably. The lack of
response to those initiatives by the entire organization, and in
particular the delegates, allows (promotes) lousy performance.

K(irk)
  #2   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 10:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys



wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:09 pm, wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:


I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
the country..........priceless.


This will not work.


The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.


Sam Sloan


1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?


Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.


Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.


John,


I ask seriously what difference would it make? We have had
essentially the same result for years (not exclusively of course,
but enough that "Some of us have higher standards" hardly
applies). I had to leave the organization many years back
when it stripped the treasurer of his duties because he was
doing them (and out of favor with the in crowd). I had hoped to
return. Since then there has been no indication of any
significant shift in ability, mentality nor honorability (for the
organization as a whole). If your characterization of Brian
is accurate, he would be well placed on the board.


K


PS In other words, he's (one of the) least of USCF's core
problems.


I'm hardly the one to defend the USCF's current leadership. "Mostly
harmless" is the best I can say for them. But Brian L. doesn't even
reach that exalted level. In addition to being a vicious, backbiting
cur willing to abuse his law degree by harassing others with threats
of litigation, he's utterly ignorant of chess and utterly unqualified
to hold office. As far as I can see, his only _qualification_ is a
desire for power.


I'm not close enough to judge accurately I'm sure but when I
see exaggerations like "utterly ignorant of chess" it's hard
to give weight to your other characterizations.

BTW, I recall the incident with the Treasurer to which you refer. The
Treasurer in question was a foul-mouthed oaf interested chiefly in
pursuing personal grudges and paranoid fantasies. Of course, that


Again, my distance precludes vigorous opposition to your
statements but I can note that a decent chunk of the 'wrongdoings'
that he and the other in his camp discussed went well beyond
paranoid fantasies.

tends to support your general proposition that all recent Boards have
been lousy.


I can't argue your interpretation but that's not exactly where I'm
at. I don't think the organization has chess, chess players, or
even itself as primary beneficiaries of its actions. There is too
much "personal" benefit (if I'm allowed an expansive definition
of benefit). Wayne P has consistently offered examples of
best practices and ways to progress honorably. The lack of
response to those initiatives by the entire organization, and in
particular the delegates, allows (promotes) lousy performance.

K(irk)


Brian is a Class E player whose rating has dropped steadily since he
first joined the USCF -- two years ago. In that time he has played in
a grand total of 18 games in seven tournaments. He commented early in
his campaign that he "wasn't interested" in rated chess. I don't think
"utterly ignorant of chess" is at all an exaggeration. It's the
informed comment of an experienced master/NTD/IA. You can certainly
regard my _other_ statements about Lafferty (e.g. "vicious, backbiting
cur") as hyperbole in context, but the one you've chosen to contest is
poor ground on which to fight.
  #3   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 11:41 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 365
Default Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys

wrote:

wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:09 pm, wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
the country..........priceless.
This will not work.
The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
Sam Sloan
1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?
Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
John,
I ask seriously what difference would it make? We have had
essentially the same result for years (not exclusively of course,
but enough that "Some of us have higher standards" hardly
applies). I had to leave the organization many years back
when it stripped the treasurer of his duties because he was
doing them (and out of favor with the in crowd). I had hoped to
return. Since then there has been no indication of any
significant shift in ability, mentality nor honorability (for the
organization as a whole). If your characterization of Brian
is accurate, he would be well placed on the board.
K
PS In other words, he's (one of the) least of USCF's core
problems.
I'm hardly the one to defend the USCF's current leadership. "Mostly
harmless" is the best I can say for them. But Brian L. doesn't even
reach that exalted level. In addition to being a vicious, backbiting
cur willing to abuse his law degree by harassing others with threats
of litigation, he's utterly ignorant of chess and utterly unqualified
to hold office. As far as I can see, his only _qualification_ is a
desire for power.

I'm not close enough to judge accurately I'm sure but when I
see exaggerations like "utterly ignorant of chess" it's hard
to give weight to your other characterizations.
BTW, I recall the incident with the Treasurer to which you refer. The
Treasurer in question was a foul-mouthed oaf interested chiefly in
pursuing personal grudges and paranoid fantasies. Of course, that

Again, my distance precludes vigorous opposition to your
statements but I can note that a decent chunk of the 'wrongdoings'
that he and the other in his camp discussed went well beyond
paranoid fantasies.

tends to support your general proposition that all recent Boards have
been lousy.

I can't argue your interpretation but that's not exactly where I'm
at. I don't think the organization has chess, chess players, or
even itself as primary beneficiaries of its actions. There is too
much "personal" benefit (if I'm allowed an expansive definition
of benefit). Wayne P has consistently offered examples of
best practices and ways to progress honorably. The lack of
response to those initiatives by the entire organization, and in
particular the delegates, allows (promotes) lousy performance.

K(irk)


Brian is a Class E player whose rating has dropped steadily since he
first joined the USCF -- two years ago. In that time he has played in
a grand total of 18 games in seven tournaments.


Incorrect John. My regular rating went up 39 points after my last
tournament in July 08. My USCF correspondence rating is now 1803 and my
CCLA rating is 1254 and will go up slightly when my last game, a draw
against a 2113 rated player, is factored in.


He commented early in
his campaign that he "wasn't interested" in rated chess.


That is not an accurate quote. I did not say that I "wasn't interested"
in rated chess. Here is what I said, accurate and in context:

1. I play an average of about 2 or 3 G60+ games over the board every
week. These are not rated as the Andover Chess Club where I play does
not offer rated games at present. I have two friends from my old home
town of Longmeadow, MA with whom I play G60 over the board via FICS
nearly every week.

2. I have been playing in a Collins USCF correspondence tournament for
over a year. I think my rating in correspondence chess there is
something like 1700 or so. [see above] It's amazing how much better one
can play when one has a day plus to consider a move.

3. I am also playing in an email tournament with CCLA and have a rating
there of 1225, IIRC.[see above] I am also captaining a team in an
upcoming CCLA server tournament if I can sign on a 6th tam member. We
are the New England Blizzard. Want to join anyone?? [that team, The New
England Blizzard, is formed and entered]

4. Rated tournaments are something I usually play once or twice a year.
I enjoy getting away for one or two evenings by myself which is an
indulgence generously granted by wife and daughter. I will be playing in
the New England Class Championships in Sturbridge, MA in early March.
Ratings really don't interest me all that much. I have found that they
are often not indicative of the level of play that I have met in
tournaments at my level (this is probably more the situation in the
lower rating levels than the higher ones). In any event, it is the fun
and beauty of the game that are the joy for me in chess (it still hurts
to lose though ).



I don't think
"utterly ignorant of chess" is at all an exaggeration. It's the
informed comment of an experienced master/NTD/IA. You can certainly
regard my _other_ statements about Lafferty (e.g. "vicious, backbiting
cur") as hyperbole in context, but the one you've chosen to contest is
poor ground on which to fight.

  #4   Report Post  
Old February 25th 09, 02:03 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 Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys


Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:

wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:09 pm, wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
the country..........priceless.
This will not work.
The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
Sam Sloan
1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?
Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
John,
I ask seriously what difference would it make? We have had
essentially the same result for years (not exclusively of course,
but enough that "Some of us have higher standards" hardly
applies). I had to leave the organization many years back
when it stripped the treasurer of his duties because he was
doing them (and out of favor with the in crowd). I had hoped to
return. Since then there has been no indication of any
significant shift in ability, mentality nor honorability (for the
organization as a whole). If your characterization of Brian
is accurate, he would be well placed on the board.
K
PS In other words, he's (one of the) least of USCF's core
problems.
I'm hardly the one to defend the USCF's current leadership. "Mostly
harmless" is the best I can say for them. But Brian L. doesn't even
reach that exalted level. In addition to being a vicious, backbiting
cur willing to abuse his law degree by harassing others with threats
of litigation, he's utterly ignorant of chess and utterly unqualified
to hold office. As far as I can see, his only _qualification_ is a
desire for power.
I'm not close enough to judge accurately I'm sure but when I
see exaggerations like "utterly ignorant of chess" it's hard
to give weight to your other characterizations.
BTW, I recall the incident with the Treasurer to which you refer. The
Treasurer in question was a foul-mouthed oaf interested chiefly in
pursuing personal grudges and paranoid fantasies. Of course, that
Again, my distance precludes vigorous opposition to your
statements but I can note that a decent chunk of the 'wrongdoings'
that he and the other in his camp discussed went well beyond
paranoid fantasies.

tends to support your general proposition that all recent Boards have
been lousy.
I can't argue your interpretation but that's not exactly where I'm
at. I don't think the organization has chess, chess players, or
even itself as primary beneficiaries of its actions. There is too
much "personal" benefit (if I'm allowed an expansive definition
of benefit). Wayne P has consistently offered examples of
best practices and ways to progress honorably. The lack of
response to those initiatives by the entire organization, and in
particular the delegates, allows (promotes) lousy performance.

K(irk)


Brian is a Class E player whose rating has dropped steadily since he
first joined the USCF -- two years ago. In that time he has played in
a grand total of 18 games in seven tournaments.


Incorrect John. My regular rating went up 39 points after my last
tournament in July 08. My USCF correspondence rating is now 1803 and my
CCLA rating is 1254 and will go up slightly when my last game, a draw
against a 2113 rated player, is factored in.


He commented early in
his campaign that he "wasn't interested" in rated chess.


That is not an accurate quote. I did not say that I "wasn't interested"
in rated chess. Here is what I said, accurate and in context:

1. I play an average of about 2 or 3 G60+ games over the board every
week. These are not rated as the Andover Chess Club where I play does
not offer rated games at present. I have two friends from my old home
town of Longmeadow, MA with whom I play G60 over the board via FICS
nearly every week.

2. I have been playing in a Collins USCF correspondence tournament for
over a year. I think my rating in correspondence chess there is
something like 1700 or so. [see above] It's amazing how much better one
can play when one has a day plus to consider a move.

3. I am also playing in an email tournament with CCLA and have a rating
there of 1225, IIRC.[see above] I am also captaining a team in an
upcoming CCLA server tournament if I can sign on a 6th tam member. We
are the New England Blizzard. Want to join anyone?? [that team, The New
England Blizzard, is formed and entered]

4. Rated tournaments are something I usually play once or twice a year.
I enjoy getting away for one or two evenings by myself which is an
indulgence generously granted by wife and daughter. I will be playing in
the New England Class Championships in Sturbridge, MA in early March.
Ratings really don't interest me all that much. I have found that they
are often not indicative of the level of play that I have met in
tournaments at my level (this is probably more the situation in the
lower rating levels than the higher ones). In any event, it is the fun
and beauty of the game that are the joy for me in chess (it still hurts
to lose though ).



I don't think
"utterly ignorant of chess" is at all an exaggeration. It's the
informed comment of an experienced master/NTD/IA. You can certainly
regard my _other_ statements about Lafferty (e.g. "vicious, backbiting
cur") as hyperbole in context, but the one you've chosen to contest is
poor ground on which to fight.


On January 5, 2009, you wrote:

"I have said this numerous times in various places, rated games do not
interest me all that much."

You followed with a bunch of personal background stuff which others
may find interesting, though I did not. Those who do are welcome to
look it up on the USCF Forums. Meanwhile, that statement alone should
be enough to disqualify you from holding any position of
responsibility in the USCF. (Would the American Numismatic Society
elect an officer who said he didn't care about coin collecting?)

Note that this does not speak to your _character_. Playing strength
and personal worth are unrelated variables, and while I do have an
opinion about your character, it's not relevant to this discussion.
It goes to your fitness to hold office in the U.S. _Chess_ Federation.
Stick with it for ten or fifteen years, and your candidacy might be
taken seriously. Now? Not.
  #5   Report Post  
Old February 25th 09, 02:24 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 365
Default Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys

wrote:
Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:09 pm, wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
the country..........priceless.
This will not work.
The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
Sam Sloan
1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?
Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
John,
I ask seriously what difference would it make? We have had
essentially the same result for years (not exclusively of course,
but enough that "Some of us have higher standards" hardly
applies). I had to leave the organization many years back
when it stripped the treasurer of his duties because he was
doing them (and out of favor with the in crowd). I had hoped to
return. Since then there has been no indication of any
significant shift in ability, mentality nor honorability (for the
organization as a whole). If your characterization of Brian
is accurate, he would be well placed on the board.
K
PS In other words, he's (one of the) least of USCF's core
problems.
I'm hardly the one to defend the USCF's current leadership. "Mostly
harmless" is the best I can say for them. But Brian L. doesn't even
reach that exalted level. In addition to being a vicious, backbiting
cur willing to abuse his law degree by harassing others with threats
of litigation, he's utterly ignorant of chess and utterly unqualified
to hold office. As far as I can see, his only _qualification_ is a
desire for power.
I'm not close enough to judge accurately I'm sure but when I
see exaggerations like "utterly ignorant of chess" it's hard
to give weight to your other characterizations.
BTW, I recall the incident with the Treasurer to which you refer. The
Treasurer in question was a foul-mouthed oaf interested chiefly in
pursuing personal grudges and paranoid fantasies. Of course, that
Again, my distance precludes vigorous opposition to your
statements but I can note that a decent chunk of the 'wrongdoings'
that he and the other in his camp discussed went well beyond
paranoid fantasies.

tends to support your general proposition that all recent Boards have
been lousy.
I can't argue your interpretation but that's not exactly where I'm
at. I don't think the organization has chess, chess players, or
even itself as primary beneficiaries of its actions. There is too
much "personal" benefit (if I'm allowed an expansive definition
of benefit). Wayne P has consistently offered examples of
best practices and ways to progress honorably. The lack of
response to those initiatives by the entire organization, and in
particular the delegates, allows (promotes) lousy performance.

K(irk)
Brian is a Class E player whose rating has dropped steadily since he
first joined the USCF -- two years ago. In that time he has played in
a grand total of 18 games in seven tournaments.

Incorrect John. My regular rating went up 39 points after my last
tournament in July 08. My USCF correspondence rating is now 1803 and my
CCLA rating is 1254 and will go up slightly when my last game, a draw
against a 2113 rated player, is factored in.


He commented early in
his campaign that he "wasn't interested" in rated chess.

That is not an accurate quote. I did not say that I "wasn't interested"
in rated chess. Here is what I said, accurate and in context:

1. I play an average of about 2 or 3 G60+ games over the board every
week. These are not rated as the Andover Chess Club where I play does
not offer rated games at present. I have two friends from my old home
town of Longmeadow, MA with whom I play G60 over the board via FICS
nearly every week.

2. I have been playing in a Collins USCF correspondence tournament for
over a year. I think my rating in correspondence chess there is
something like 1700 or so. [see above] It's amazing how much better one
can play when one has a day plus to consider a move.

3. I am also playing in an email tournament with CCLA and have a rating
there of 1225, IIRC.[see above] I am also captaining a team in an
upcoming CCLA server tournament if I can sign on a 6th tam member. We
are the New England Blizzard. Want to join anyone?? [that team, The New
England Blizzard, is formed and entered]

4. Rated tournaments are something I usually play once or twice a year.
I enjoy getting away for one or two evenings by myself which is an
indulgence generously granted by wife and daughter. I will be playing in
the New England Class Championships in Sturbridge, MA in early March.
Ratings really don't interest me all that much. I have found that they
are often not indicative of the level of play that I have met in
tournaments at my level (this is probably more the situation in the
lower rating levels than the higher ones). In any event, it is the fun
and beauty of the game that are the joy for me in chess (it still hurts
to lose though ).



I don't think
"utterly ignorant of chess" is at all an exaggeration. It's the
informed comment of an experienced master/NTD/IA. You can certainly
regard my _other_ statements about Lafferty (e.g. "vicious, backbiting
cur") as hyperbole in context, but the one you've chosen to contest is
poor ground on which to fight.


On January 5, 2009, you wrote:

"I have said this numerous times in various places, rated games do not
interest me all that much."

You followed with a bunch of personal background stuff which others
may find interesting, though I did not. Those who do are welcome to
look it up on the USCF Forums. Meanwhile, that statement alone should
be enough to disqualify you from holding any position of
responsibility in the USCF. (Would the American Numismatic Society
elect an officer who said he didn't care about coin collecting?)


False analogy, unless your telling me that numismatics is a rated
activity. Saying that, rated games "really don't interest me all that
much" is not the same as saying that I'm "{not} interested" in rated
chess. If you think otherwise you are simply wrong and it appears you
are knowingly misrepresenting facts. You clearly were either negligent
in checking the facts as to my ratings in different types of rated play
or you were deliberately misrepresenting facts about me. IMO, that
makes you a disingenuous person not to be trusted.

I think my interest in chess in its many varieties has been amply
demonstrated. If you don't agree, don't vote for me. I have no problem
with that. I do have a problem with misrepresentation such as you have
engaged in. I'm politely asking you to stop.


Note that this does not speak to your _character_. Playing strength
and personal worth are unrelated variables, and while I do have an
opinion about your character, it's not relevant to this discussion.
It goes to your fitness to hold office in the U.S. _Chess_ Federation.
Stick with it for ten or fifteen years, and your candidacy might be
taken seriously. Now? Not.



  #6   Report Post  
Old February 25th 09, 02:41 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 Brian Lafferty's candidacy



Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:09 pm, wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
the country..........priceless.
This will not work.
The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
Sam Sloan
1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?
Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
John,
I ask seriously what difference would it make? We have had
essentially the same result for years (not exclusively of course,
but enough that "Some of us have higher standards" hardly
applies). I had to leave the organization many years back
when it stripped the treasurer of his duties because he was
doing them (and out of favor with the in crowd). I had hoped to
return. Since then there has been no indication of any
significant shift in ability, mentality nor honorability (for the
organization as a whole). If your characterization of Brian
is accurate, he would be well placed on the board.
K
PS In other words, he's (one of the) least of USCF's core
problems.
I'm hardly the one to defend the USCF's current leadership. "Mostly
harmless" is the best I can say for them. But Brian L. doesn't even
reach that exalted level. In addition to being a vicious, backbiting
cur willing to abuse his law degree by harassing others with threats
of litigation, he's utterly ignorant of chess and utterly unqualified
to hold office. As far as I can see, his only _qualification_ is a
desire for power.
I'm not close enough to judge accurately I'm sure but when I
see exaggerations like "utterly ignorant of chess" it's hard
to give weight to your other characterizations.
BTW, I recall the incident with the Treasurer to which you refer. The
Treasurer in question was a foul-mouthed oaf interested chiefly in
pursuing personal grudges and paranoid fantasies. Of course, that
Again, my distance precludes vigorous opposition to your
statements but I can note that a decent chunk of the 'wrongdoings'
that he and the other in his camp discussed went well beyond
paranoid fantasies.

tends to support your general proposition that all recent Boards have
been lousy.
I can't argue your interpretation but that's not exactly where I'm
at. I don't think the organization has chess, chess players, or
even itself as primary beneficiaries of its actions. There is too
much "personal" benefit (if I'm allowed an expansive definition
of benefit). Wayne P has consistently offered examples of
best practices and ways to progress honorably. The lack of
response to those initiatives by the entire organization, and in
particular the delegates, allows (promotes) lousy performance.

K(irk)
Brian is a Class E player whose rating has dropped steadily since he
first joined the USCF -- two years ago. In that time he has played in
a grand total of 18 games in seven tournaments.
Incorrect John. My regular rating went up 39 points after my last
tournament in July 08. My USCF correspondence rating is now 1803 and my
CCLA rating is 1254 and will go up slightly when my last game, a draw
against a 2113 rated player, is factored in.


He commented early in
his campaign that he "wasn't interested" in rated chess.
That is not an accurate quote. I did not say that I "wasn't interested"
in rated chess. Here is what I said, accurate and in context:

1. I play an average of about 2 or 3 G60+ games over the board every
week. These are not rated as the Andover Chess Club where I play does
not offer rated games at present. I have two friends from my old home
town of Longmeadow, MA with whom I play G60 over the board via FICS
nearly every week.

2. I have been playing in a Collins USCF correspondence tournament for
over a year. I think my rating in correspondence chess there is
something like 1700 or so. [see above] It's amazing how much better one
can play when one has a day plus to consider a move.

3. I am also playing in an email tournament with CCLA and have a rating
there of 1225, IIRC.[see above] I am also captaining a team in an
upcoming CCLA server tournament if I can sign on a 6th tam member. We
are the New England Blizzard. Want to join anyone?? [that team, The New
England Blizzard, is formed and entered]

4. Rated tournaments are something I usually play once or twice a year.
I enjoy getting away for one or two evenings by myself which is an
indulgence generously granted by wife and daughter. I will be playing in
the New England Class Championships in Sturbridge, MA in early March.
Ratings really don't interest me all that much. I have found that they
are often not indicative of the level of play that I have met in
tournaments at my level (this is probably more the situation in the
lower rating levels than the higher ones). In any event, it is the fun
and beauty of the game that are the joy for me in chess (it still hurts
to lose though ).



I don't think
"utterly ignorant of chess" is at all an exaggeration. It's the
informed comment of an experienced master/NTD/IA. You can certainly
regard my _other_ statements about Lafferty (e.g. "vicious, backbiting
cur") as hyperbole in context, but the one you've chosen to contest is
poor ground on which to fight.


On January 5, 2009, you wrote:

"I have said this numerous times in various places, rated games do not
interest me all that much."

You followed with a bunch of personal background stuff which others
may find interesting, though I did not. Those who do are welcome to
look it up on the USCF Forums. Meanwhile, that statement alone should
be enough to disqualify you from holding any position of
responsibility in the USCF. (Would the American Numismatic Society
elect an officer who said he didn't care about coin collecting?)


False analogy, unless your telling me that numismatics is a rated
activity. Saying that, rated games "really don't interest me all that
much" is not the same as saying that I'm "{not} interested" in rated
chess. If you think otherwise you are simply wrong and it appears you
are knowingly misrepresenting facts. You clearly were either negligent
in checking the facts as to my ratings in different types of rated play
or you were deliberately misrepresenting facts about me. IMO, that
makes you a disingenuous person not to be trusted.

I think my interest in chess in its many varieties has been amply
demonstrated. If you don't agree, don't vote for me. I have no problem
with that. I do have a problem with misrepresentation such as you have
engaged in. I'm politely asking you to stop.


Note that this does not speak to your _character_. Playing strength
and personal worth are unrelated variables, and while I do have an
opinion about your character, it's not relevant to this discussion.
It goes to your fitness to hold office in the U.S. _Chess_ Federation.
Stick with it for ten or fifteen years, and your candidacy might be
taken seriously. Now? Not.


1) Rated tournament chess is the single most significant activity of
the USCF. Not the only one, of course, but all the others are
fragmented among many small interest groups. If you're not interested
in rated tournament play, then you don't belong in USCF governance.

2) If you can't take criticism, you shouldn't run for office. You
showed no hesitation in attacking Polgar and Truong two years ago
(long before you had any, you know, _evidence_ against them). Live
with it or get out.

3) The real point, on which you continue to weasel, is that you have
_no chess achievements_. Of _any_ kind, not just over-the-board. All
you have is a desire for office. If you want the respect of the chess
community, do something to earn it. Squalling "gimme, gimme, gimme!"
isn't enough.
  #7   Report Post  
Old February 25th 09, 03:13 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Brian Lafferty's candidacy

On Feb 24, 9:41*pm, wrote:
Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:09 pm, wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. *I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. *Another eight or ten actions around
the country..........priceless.
This will not work.
The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
Sam Sloan
1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?
Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards..
John,
* I ask seriously what difference would it make? *We have had
essentially the same result for years (not exclusively of course,
but enough that "Some of us have higher standards" hardly
applies). *I had to leave the organization many years back
when it stripped the treasurer of his duties because he was
doing them (and out of favor with the in crowd). *I had hoped to
return. *Since then there has been no indication of any
significant shift in ability, mentality nor honorability (for the
organization as a whole). *If your characterization of Brian
is accurate, he would be well placed on the board.
K
PS *In other words, he's (one of the) least of USCF's core
problems.
I'm hardly the one to defend the USCF's current leadership. "Mostly
harmless" is the best I can say for them. But Brian L. doesn't even
reach that exalted level. In addition to being a vicious, backbiting
cur willing to abuse his law degree by harassing others with threats
of litigation, he's utterly ignorant of chess and utterly unqualified
to hold office. As far as I can see, his only _qualification_ is a
desire for power.
I'm not close enough to judge accurately I'm sure but when I
see exaggerations like "utterly ignorant of chess" it's hard
to give weight to your other characterizations.
BTW, I recall the incident with the Treasurer to which you refer. The
Treasurer in question was a foul-mouthed oaf interested chiefly in
pursuing personal grudges and paranoid fantasies. Of course, that
Again, my distance precludes vigorous opposition to your
statements but I can note that a decent chunk of the 'wrongdoings'
that he and the other in his camp discussed went well beyond
paranoid fantasies.


tends to support your general proposition that all recent Boards have
been lousy.
I can't argue your interpretation but that's not exactly where I'm
at. *I don't think the organization has chess, chess players, or
even itself as primary beneficiaries of its actions. *There is too
much "personal" benefit (if I'm allowed an expansive definition
of benefit). *Wayne P has consistently offered examples of
best practices and ways to progress honorably. *The lack of
response to those initiatives by the entire organization, and in
particular the delegates, allows (promotes) lousy performance.


K(irk)
Brian is a Class E player whose rating has dropped steadily since he
first joined the USCF -- two years ago. In that time he has played in
a grand total of 18 games in seven tournaments.
Incorrect John. *My regular rating went up 39 points after my last
tournament in July 08. *My USCF correspondence rating is now 1803 and my
CCLA rating is 1254 and will go up slightly when my last game, a draw
against a 2113 rated player, is factored in.


He commented early in
his campaign that he "wasn't interested" in rated chess.
That is not an accurate quote. *I did not say that I "wasn't interested"
in rated chess. *Here is what I said, accurate and in context:


1. I play an average of about 2 or 3 G60+ games over the board every
week. These are not rated as the Andover Chess Club where I play does
not offer rated games at present. I have two friends from my old home
town of Longmeadow, MA with whom I play G60 over the board via FICS
nearly every week.


2. I have been playing in a Collins USCF correspondence tournament for
over a year. I think my rating in correspondence chess there is
something like 1700 or so. [see above] It's amazing how much better one
can play when one has a day plus to consider a move.


3. I am also playing in an email tournament with CCLA and have a rating
there of 1225, IIRC.[see above] I am also captaining a team in an
upcoming CCLA server tournament if I can sign on a 6th tam member. We
are the New England Blizzard. Want to join anyone?? [that team, The New
England Blizzard, is formed and entered]


4. Rated tournaments are something I usually play once or twice a year.
I enjoy getting away for one or two evenings by myself which is an
indulgence generously granted by wife and daughter. I will be playing in
the New England Class Championships in Sturbridge, MA in early March..
Ratings really don't interest me all that much. I have found that they
are often not indicative of the level of play that I have met in
tournaments at my level (this is probably more the situation in the
lower rating levels than the higher ones). In any event, it is the fun
and beauty of the game that are the joy for me in chess (it still hurts
to lose though ).


I don't think
"utterly ignorant of chess" is at all an exaggeration. It's the
informed comment of an experienced master/NTD/IA. You can certainly
regard my _other_ statements about Lafferty (e.g. "vicious, backbiting
cur") as hyperbole in context, but the one you've chosen to contest is
poor ground on which to fight.


On January 5, 2009, you wrote:


"I have said this numerous times in various places, rated games do not
interest me all that much."


You followed with a bunch of personal background stuff which others
may find interesting, though I did not. Those who do are welcome to
look it up on the USCF Forums. Meanwhile, that statement alone should
be enough to disqualify you from holding any position of
responsibility in the USCF. (Would the American Numismatic Society
elect an officer who said he didn't care about coin collecting?)


False analogy, unless your telling me that numismatics is a rated
activity. *Saying that, rated games "really don't interest me all that
much" is not the same as saying that I'm "{not} interested" in rated
chess. *If you think otherwise you are simply wrong and it appears you
are knowingly misrepresenting facts. *You clearly were either negligent
in checking the facts as to my ratings in different types of rated play
or you were deliberately misrepresenting facts about me. *IMO, that
makes you a disingenuous person not to be trusted.


I think my interest in chess in its many varieties has been amply
demonstrated. *If you don't agree, don't vote for me. *I have no problem
with that. *I do have a problem with misrepresentation such as you have
engaged in. I'm politely asking you to stop.


Note that this does not speak to your _character_. Playing strength
and personal worth are unrelated variables, and while I do have an
opinion about your character, it's not relevant to this discussion.
It goes to your fitness to hold office in the U.S. _Chess_ Federation..
Stick with it for ten or fifteen years, and your candidacy might be
taken seriously. Now? Not.


1) Rated tournament chess is the single most significant activity of
the USCF. Not the only one, of course, but all the others are
fragmented among many small interest groups. If you're not interested
in rated tournament play, then you don't belong in USCF governance.

2) If you can't take criticism, you shouldn't run for office. You
showed no hesitation in attacking Polgar and Truong two years ago
(long before you had any, you know, _evidence_ against them). Live
with it or get out.

3) The real point, on which you continue to weasel, is that you have
_no chess achievements_. Of _any_ kind, not just over-the-board. All
you have is a desire for office. If you want the respect of the chess
community, do something to earn it. Squalling "gimme, gimme, gimme!"
isn't enough.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Number1 is an assumption. By you. Lots of people like chess but are
not obsessed with their rating. For example Sam Sloan has been playing
for 50 years and still plays even though he'll never break 2000 again.
No: ratings are for tourney directors and suckers.
  #8   Report Post  
Old February 25th 09, 03:23 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 Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys



Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:09 pm, wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
the country..........priceless.
This will not work.
The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
Sam Sloan
1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?
Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
John,
I ask seriously what difference would it make? We have had
essentially the same result for years (not exclusively of course,
but enough that "Some of us have higher standards" hardly
applies). I had to leave the organization many years back
when it stripped the treasurer of his duties because he was
doing them (and out of favor with the in crowd). I had hoped to
return. Since then there has been no indication of any
significant shift in ability, mentality nor honorability (for the
organization as a whole). If your characterization of Brian
is accurate, he would be well placed on the board.
K
PS In other words, he's (one of the) least of USCF's core
problems.
I'm hardly the one to defend the USCF's current leadership. "Mostly
harmless" is the best I can say for them. But Brian L. doesn't even
reach that exalted level. In addition to being a vicious, backbiting
cur willing to abuse his law degree by harassing others with threats
of litigation, he's utterly ignorant of chess and utterly unqualified
to hold office. As far as I can see, his only _qualification_ is a
desire for power.
I'm not close enough to judge accurately I'm sure but when I
see exaggerations like "utterly ignorant of chess" it's hard
to give weight to your other characterizations.
BTW, I recall the incident with the Treasurer to which you refer. The
Treasurer in question was a foul-mouthed oaf interested chiefly in
pursuing personal grudges and paranoid fantasies. Of course, that
Again, my distance precludes vigorous opposition to your
statements but I can note that a decent chunk of the 'wrongdoings'
that he and the other in his camp discussed went well beyond
paranoid fantasies.

tends to support your general proposition that all recent Boards have
been lousy.
I can't argue your interpretation but that's not exactly where I'm
at. I don't think the organization has chess, chess players, or
even itself as primary beneficiaries of its actions. There is too
much "personal" benefit (if I'm allowed an expansive definition
of benefit). Wayne P has consistently offered examples of
best practices and ways to progress honorably. The lack of
response to those initiatives by the entire organization, and in
particular the delegates, allows (promotes) lousy performance.

K(irk)
Brian is a Class E player whose rating has dropped steadily since he
first joined the USCF -- two years ago. In that time he has played in
a grand total of 18 games in seven tournaments.
Incorrect John. My regular rating went up 39 points after my last
tournament in July 08. My USCF correspondence rating is now 1803 and my
CCLA rating is 1254 and will go up slightly when my last game, a draw
against a 2113 rated player, is factored in.


He commented early in
his campaign that he "wasn't interested" in rated chess.
That is not an accurate quote. I did not say that I "wasn't interested"
in rated chess. Here is what I said, accurate and in context:

1. I play an average of about 2 or 3 G60+ games over the board every
week. These are not rated as the Andover Chess Club where I play does
not offer rated games at present. I have two friends from my old home
town of Longmeadow, MA with whom I play G60 over the board via FICS
nearly every week.

2. I have been playing in a Collins USCF correspondence tournament for
over a year. I think my rating in correspondence chess there is
something like 1700 or so. [see above] It's amazing how much better one
can play when one has a day plus to consider a move.

3. I am also playing in an email tournament with CCLA and have a rating
there of 1225, IIRC.[see above] I am also captaining a team in an
upcoming CCLA server tournament if I can sign on a 6th tam member. We
are the New England Blizzard. Want to join anyone?? [that team, The New
England Blizzard, is formed and entered]

4. Rated tournaments are something I usually play once or twice a year.
I enjoy getting away for one or two evenings by myself which is an
indulgence generously granted by wife and daughter. I will be playing in
the New England Class Championships in Sturbridge, MA in early March.
Ratings really don't interest me all that much. I have found that they
are often not indicative of the level of play that I have met in
tournaments at my level (this is probably more the situation in the
lower rating levels than the higher ones). In any event, it is the fun
and beauty of the game that are the joy for me in chess (it still hurts
to lose though ).



I don't think
"utterly ignorant of chess" is at all an exaggeration. It's the
informed comment of an experienced master/NTD/IA. You can certainly
regard my _other_ statements about Lafferty (e.g. "vicious, backbiting
cur") as hyperbole in context, but the one you've chosen to contest is
poor ground on which to fight.


On January 5, 2009, you wrote:

"I have said this numerous times in various places, rated games do not
interest me all that much."

You followed with a bunch of personal background stuff which others
may find interesting, though I did not. Those who do are welcome to
look it up on the USCF Forums. Meanwhile, that statement alone should
be enough to disqualify you from holding any position of
responsibility in the USCF. (Would the American Numismatic Society
elect an officer who said he didn't care about coin collecting?)


False analogy, unless your telling me that numismatics is a rated
activity. Saying that, rated games "really don't interest me all that
much" is not the same as saying that I'm "{not} interested" in rated
chess. If you think otherwise you are simply wrong and it appears you
are knowingly misrepresenting facts. You clearly were either negligent
in checking the facts as to my ratings in different types of rated play
or you were deliberately misrepresenting facts about me. IMO, that
makes you a disingenuous person not to be trusted.

I think my interest in chess in its many varieties has been amply
demonstrated. If you don't agree, don't vote for me. I have no problem
with that. I do have a problem with misrepresentation such as you have
engaged in. I'm politely asking you to stop.


Note that this does not speak to your _character_. Playing strength
and personal worth are unrelated variables, and while I do have an
opinion about your character, it's not relevant to this discussion.
It goes to your fitness to hold office in the U.S. _Chess_ Federation.
Stick with it for ten or fifteen years, and your candidacy might be
taken seriously. Now? Not.


"(K)nowingly misrepresenting facts"? Not to be petty about it, but
that 1803 postal rating you boasted of is (according to the USCF web
page -- see
http://main.uschess.org/datapage/cor...memid=13592564)
based on _one game_. You won a single game against a 1403 player and,
naturally, got a 1-game provisional 400 points above his. It's nothing
to be ashamed of, but the manner in which you presented it suggests
that either you are lacking in veracity or don't understand the
system. Didn't you jump on Truong for the same sort of weasel wording?
Or don't those rules apply to you?
  #9   Report Post  
Old February 25th 09, 11:18 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 365
Default Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys

wrote:

Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
Mr.Vidmar wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:09 pm, wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
the country..........priceless.
This will not work.
The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
Sam Sloan
1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?
Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
John,
I ask seriously what difference would it make? We have had
essentially the same result for years (not exclusively of course,
but enough that "Some of us have higher standards" hardly
applies). I had to leave the organization many years back
when it stripped the treasurer of his duties because he was
doing them (and out of favor with the in crowd). I had hoped to
return. Since then there has been no indication of any
significant shift in ability, mentality nor honorability (for the
organization as a whole). If your characterization of Brian
is accurate, he would be well placed on the board.
K
PS In other words, he's (one of the) least of USCF's core
problems.
I'm hardly the one to defend the USCF's current leadership. "Mostly
harmless" is the best I can say for them. But Brian L. doesn't even
reach that exalted level. In addition to being a vicious, backbiting
cur willing to abuse his law degree by harassing others with threats
of litigation, he's utterly ignorant of chess and utterly unqualified
to hold office. As far as I can see, his only _qualification_ is a
desire for power.
I'm not close enough to judge accurately I'm sure but when I
see exaggerations like "utterly ignorant of chess" it's hard
to give weight to your other characterizations.
BTW, I recall the incident with the Treasurer to which you refer. The
Treasurer in question was a foul-mouthed oaf interested chiefly in
pursuing personal grudges and paranoid fantasies. Of course, that
Again, my distance precludes vigorous opposition to your
statements but I can note that a decent chunk of the 'wrongdoings'
that he and the other in his camp discussed went well beyond
paranoid fantasies.

tends to support your general proposition that all recent Boards have
been lousy.
I can't argue your interpretation but that's not exactly where I'm
at. I don't think the organization has chess, chess players, or
even itself as primary beneficiaries of its actions. There is too
much "personal" benefit (if I'm allowed an expansive definition
of benefit). Wayne P has consistently offered examples of
best practices and ways to progress honorably. The lack of
response to those initiatives by the entire organization, and in
particular the delegates, allows (promotes) lousy performance.

K(irk)
Brian is a Class E player whose rating has dropped steadily since he
first joined the USCF -- two years ago. In that time he has played in
a grand total of 18 games in seven tournaments.
Incorrect John. My regular rating went up 39 points after my last
tournament in July 08. My USCF correspondence rating is now 1803 and my
CCLA rating is 1254 and will go up slightly when my last game, a draw
against a 2113 rated player, is factored in.


He commented early in
his campaign that he "wasn't interested" in rated chess.
That is not an accurate quote. I did not say that I "wasn't interested"
in rated chess. Here is what I said, accurate and in context:

1. I play an average of about 2 or 3 G60+ games over the board every
week. These are not rated as the Andover Chess Club where I play does
not offer rated games at present. I have two friends from my old home
town of Longmeadow, MA with whom I play G60 over the board via FICS
nearly every week.

2. I have been playing in a Collins USCF correspondence tournament for
over a year. I think my rating in correspondence chess there is
something like 1700 or so. [see above] It's amazing how much better one
can play when one has a day plus to consider a move.

3. I am also playing in an email tournament with CCLA and have a rating
there of 1225, IIRC.[see above] I am also captaining a team in an
upcoming CCLA server tournament if I can sign on a 6th tam member. We
are the New England Blizzard. Want to join anyone?? [that team, The New
England Blizzard, is formed and entered]

4. Rated tournaments are something I usually play once or twice a year.
I enjoy getting away for one or two evenings by myself which is an
indulgence generously granted by wife and daughter. I will be playing in
the New England Class Championships in Sturbridge, MA in early March.
Ratings really don't interest me all that much. I have found that they
are often not indicative of the level of play that I have met in
tournaments at my level (this is probably more the situation in the
lower rating levels than the higher ones). In any event, it is the fun
and beauty of the game that are the joy for me in chess (it still hurts
to lose though ).



I don't think
"utterly ignorant of chess" is at all an exaggeration. It's the
informed comment of an experienced master/NTD/IA. You can certainly
regard my _other_ statements about Lafferty (e.g. "vicious, backbiting
cur") as hyperbole in context, but the one you've chosen to contest is
poor ground on which to fight.
On January 5, 2009, you wrote:

"I have said this numerous times in various places, rated games do not
interest me all that much."

You followed with a bunch of personal background stuff which others
may find interesting, though I did not. Those who do are welcome to
look it up on the USCF Forums. Meanwhile, that statement alone should
be enough to disqualify you from holding any position of
responsibility in the USCF. (Would the American Numismatic Society
elect an officer who said he didn't care about coin collecting?)

False analogy, unless your telling me that numismatics is a rated
activity. Saying that, rated games "really don't interest me all that
much" is not the same as saying that I'm "{not} interested" in rated
chess. If you think otherwise you are simply wrong and it appears you
are knowingly misrepresenting facts. You clearly were either negligent
in checking the facts as to my ratings in different types of rated play
or you were deliberately misrepresenting facts about me. IMO, that
makes you a disingenuous person not to be trusted.

I think my interest in chess in its many varieties has been amply
demonstrated. If you don't agree, don't vote for me. I have no problem
with that. I do have a problem with misrepresentation such as you have
engaged in. I'm politely asking you to stop.

Note that this does not speak to your _character_. Playing strength
and personal worth are unrelated variables, and while I do have an
opinion about your character, it's not relevant to this discussion.
It goes to your fitness to hold office in the U.S. _Chess_ Federation.
Stick with it for ten or fifteen years, and your candidacy might be
taken seriously. Now? Not.


"(K)nowingly misrepresenting facts"? Not to be petty about it, but
that 1803 postal rating you boasted of is (according to the USCF web
page -- see
http://main.uschess.org/datapage/cor...memid=13592564)
based on _one game_. You won a single game against a 1403 player and,
naturally, got a 1-game provisional 400 points above his. It's nothing
to be ashamed of, but the manner in which you presented it suggests
that either you are lacking in veracity or don't understand the
system. Didn't you jump on Truong for the same sort of weasel wording?
Or don't those rules apply to you?


That's correct. And two other games in in my Collins section were
forfeited. So what. It is what it is. Deal with it.
  #10   Report Post  
Old February 25th 09, 01:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 71
Default Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys

On Feb 24, 5:45 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:06 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:09 pm, wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:


(snip)
Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.


John,


I ask seriously what difference would it make? We have had
essentially the same result for years (not exclusively of course,
but enough that "Some of us have higher standards" hardly
applies). I had to leave the organization many years back
when it stripped the treasurer of his duties because he was
doing them (and out of favor with the in crowd). I had hoped to
return. Since then there has been no indication of any
significant shift in ability, mentality nor honorability (for the
organization as a whole). If your characterization of Brian
is accurate, he would be well placed on the board.


K


PS In other words, he's (one of the) least of USCF's core
problems.


I'm hardly the one to defend the USCF's current leadership. "Mostly
harmless" is the best I can say for them. But Brian L. doesn't even
reach that exalted level. In addition to being a vicious, backbiting
cur willing to abuse his law degree by harassing others with threats
of litigation, he's utterly ignorant of chess and utterly unqualified
to hold office. As far as I can see, his only _qualification_ is a
desire for power.


I'm not close enough to judge accurately I'm sure but when I
see exaggerations like "utterly ignorant of chess" it's hard
to give weight to your other characterizations.


BTW, I recall the incident with the Treasurer to which you refer. The
Treasurer in question was a foul-mouthed oaf interested chiefly in
pursuing personal grudges and paranoid fantasies. Of course, that


Again, my distance precludes vigorous opposition to your
statements but I can note that a decent chunk of the 'wrongdoings'
that he and the other in his camp discussed went well beyond
paranoid fantasies.


tends to support your general proposition that all recent Boards have
been lousy.


I can't argue your interpretation but that's not exactly where I'm
at. I don't think the organization has chess, chess players, or
even itself as primary beneficiaries of its actions. There is too
much "personal" benefit (if I'm allowed an expansive definition
of benefit). Wayne P has consistently offered examples of
best practices and ways to progress honorably. The lack of
response to those initiatives by the entire organization, and in
particular the delegates, allows (promotes) lousy performance.


K(irk)


Brian is a Class E player whose rating has dropped steadily since he
first joined the USCF -- two years ago. In that time he has played in
a grand total of 18 games in seven tournaments. He commented early in
his campaign that he "wasn't interested" in rated chess. I don't think
"utterly ignorant of chess" is at all an exaggeration. It's the
informed comment of an experienced master/NTD/IA. You can certainly
regard my _other_ statements about Lafferty (e.g. "vicious, backbiting
cur") as hyperbole in context, but the one you've chosen to contest is
poor ground on which to fight.


I may be being picky but I don't think so. I thought I might not have
realized that 'utterly' was similar to 'virtually' (which is "in
effect" and
might not reflect the facts specifically) but oed uses such terms as
"without reserve", "sincerely", "truly", "plainly" for 'utterly'.
That he
has an E rating immediately makes your statement hyperbole; one
does not win games at that level being 'sincerely' "ignorant of
chess".
Furthermore, had it been "virtually", I probably still feel
comfortable
objecting to your characterization. Sure it's not the crime of the
century but using absolutes ("utterly") is hyperbolic (especially
in this case) and does cast doubt on your other characterizations.
That's all. Having seen Brian's defense below, your statement looks
even more exaggerated.

You can and do have valid objections to Brian's candicacy. Saying
that limited rated activity or even having little interest in rated
chess
(which seems to be a stretch as applied in this case) disqualifies
someone again seems disregardably hyperbolic. First off, we've
had discussions along the way about whether those with business
acumen from outside the community should be sought for board/
director. Secondly, the USCF's core mission is to advance
chess in the country, not rated chess. Surely one can debate the
vehicle (rated or not) but to say limited appreciation of rated chess
eliminates one from consideration again seems over the top. Lastly,
although I'm unable to offer examples, I believe (from watching the
goings on for years) that some in the political class have fallen into
the limited play category.

Anyway, you can and do make good arguments. They are more
effective if the hyperbole is limited.

K
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 Pension and Finance Problems and Slow Response From Board OdessaChess[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 September 24th 07 11:59 PM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 March 19th 07 09:09 PM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 1 March 19th 07 09:09 PM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 March 19th 07 07:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 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