Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 26th 04, 04:39 AM
Angelo DePalma
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Hanke/Nolan


"Tim Hanke" wrote

Of course the business is inherently profitable. But USCF wasn't capable

of
managing it well. Why is anybody surprised that a nonprofit organization

is
not good at running a for-profit business?


Mike Nolan wrote:

If the Board had been able to provide sufficient working capital
and if they had been able to hire someone who knew how to run a
catalog operation, I don't think they would have had to outsource B&E.


Why wasn't a professional catalog merchant/manager in charge BEFORE the ****
hit the fan, when the funds were there? Was it because certain individuals
were afraid of having a professional manager on board, someone who might
actually be honest and ethical, and who might blow the whistle? Someone who
might not go along with the nonsense that seems to have been USCF's standard
way of doing "business"? That is, monky business.

The layers on layers on layers of apparent ineptitude, negligence, lack of
oversight, and utter disregard for good business practices, taken together
over a period of years could hardly be explained as a chance event. Too much
money was flying around, too many products going out the door, too many
employees, too many officers who looked the other way. In short, too much
**** passed under that bridge for it to have been an accident and for no-one
to have noticed before it reached the crisis point.

To my knowledge nobody has yet explained who was in charge of this mess, and
who was in charge of them.

Anyone with a marginal interest in chess who hands over $49 to USCF has to
have their head examined. It's not the money, it's the principle. Reasonable
people will over-spend for fun but nobody likes to be robbed. That's exactly
what USCF did to me and to tens of thousands of other suckers.

Angelo


  #2   Report Post  
Old May 26th 04, 04:40 AM
Angelo DePalma
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Hanke/Nolan


That is, "monkey".

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

"Tim Hanke" wrote

Of course the business is inherently profitable. But USCF wasn't capable

of
managing it well. Why is anybody surprised that a nonprofit organization

is
not good at running a for-profit business?


Mike Nolan wrote:

If the Board had been able to provide sufficient working capital
and if they had been able to hire someone who knew how to run a
catalog operation, I don't think they would have had to outsource B&E.


Why wasn't a professional catalog merchant/manager in charge BEFORE the

****
hit the fan, when the funds were there? Was it because certain individuals
were afraid of having a professional manager on board, someone who might
actually be honest and ethical, and who might blow the whistle? Someone

who
might not go along with the nonsense that seems to have been USCF's

standard
way of doing "business"? That is, monky business.

The layers on layers on layers of apparent ineptitude, negligence, lack of
oversight, and utter disregard for good business practices, taken together
over a period of years could hardly be explained as a chance event. Too

much
money was flying around, too many products going out the door, too many
employees, too many officers who looked the other way. In short, too much
**** passed under that bridge for it to have been an accident and for

no-one
to have noticed before it reached the crisis point.

To my knowledge nobody has yet explained who was in charge of this mess,

and
who was in charge of them.

Anyone with a marginal interest in chess who hands over $49 to USCF has to
have their head examined. It's not the money, it's the principle.

Reasonable
people will over-spend for fun but nobody likes to be robbed. That's

exactly
what USCF did to me and to tens of thousands of other suckers.

Angelo




  #3   Report Post  
Old May 26th 04, 06:00 AM
ASCACHESS
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Hanke/Nolan

Was it because certain individuals
were afraid of having a professional manager on board, someone who might
actually be honest and ethical, and who might blow the whistle? Someone who
might not go along with the nonsense that seems to have been
USCF's standard
way of doing "business"? That is, monkey business.
The layers on layers on layers of apparent ineptitude, negligence, lack of
oversight, and utter disregard for good business practices, taken together
over a period of years could hardly be explained as a chance event.



Angelo,
I think you are hitting upon something.
Have you noticed that even the denials are non-denial, denials.
They say, 'we found incompetence'.
I say "duh".

Incompetence was the best friend of those who would loot the USCF assets and
servitude lived next door.
We are famous for those who go along to get along.
Just look at the example of the Hall of Fame polo shirts.
Goichberg said that even the staff gaffed at that purchase, yet no one is even
looking to see who cheated.
What was it Santayana said? Those who do not remember history are condemned to
repeat it.
USCF's mantra has always been, let's put this behind us, which is similar to
Churchill who said, I have read your report and it is in front of me. Soon it
will be behind me.

If we don't know who cheated us, how will we know not to do business with them
again?

Rp
  #4   Report Post  
Old May 26th 04, 07:52 AM
Jane Adams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Hanke/Nolan

Isn't it time (now that we are profitable---choke) for an ADM to hire a
professional board? Let's just get rid of the idiot politicians (what was it
that they do anyway?) and run the USCF as the Standards and National Chess
Organization which it should be. I would even be in favor of keeping
Goichberg on board until an honest, no conflict of interest board could be
seated.

It doesn't cost that much to pay honest non profit board members. There are
retired judges, school teachers, businessmen and women, all over the nation
that take a small fee to sit on non profit boards and see to the needs of
the voting class (all of us).

Jane

"ASCACHESS" wrote in message
...
Was it because certain individuals
were afraid of having a professional manager on board, someone who might
actually be honest and ethical, and who might blow the whistle? Someone

who
might not go along with the nonsense that seems to have been
USCF's standard
way of doing "business"? That is, monkey business.
The layers on layers on layers of apparent ineptitude, negligence, lack

of
oversight, and utter disregard for good business practices, taken

together
over a period of years could hardly be explained as a chance event.



Angelo,
I think you are hitting upon something.
Have you noticed that even the denials are non-denial, denials.
They say, 'we found incompetence'.
I say "duh".

Incompetence was the best friend of those who would loot the USCF assets

and
servitude lived next door.
We are famous for those who go along to get along.
Just look at the example of the Hall of Fame polo shirts.
Goichberg said that even the staff gaffed at that purchase, yet no one is

even
looking to see who cheated.
What was it Santayana said? Those who do not remember history are

condemned to
repeat it.
USCF's mantra has always been, let's put this behind us, which is similar

to
Churchill who said, I have read your report and it is in front of me.

Soon it
will be behind me.

If we don't know who cheated us, how will we know not to do business with

them
again?

Rp



  #5   Report Post  
Old May 26th 04, 02:25 PM
Tim Hanke
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Hanke/Nolan

"Jane Adams" wrote ...
Isn't it time (now that we are profitable---choke) for an ADM to hire a
professional board? Let's just get rid of the idiot politicians (what was it
that they do anyway?) and run the USCF as the Standards and National Chess
Organization which it should be. I would even be in favor of keeping
Goichberg on board until an honest, no conflict of interest board could be
seated.

It doesn't cost that much to pay honest non profit board members. There are
retired judges, school teachers, businessmen and women, all over the nation
that take a small fee to sit on non profit boards and see to the needs of
the voting class (all of us).


Tom,

You could be right.

However, there is a different, more obvious lesson to be learned.
Consider:

USCF held its first-ever OMOV ("One Member, One Vote") election in
2003. The board members elected were Marinello, Hanke, and Schultz.
These three board members immediately formed an alliance with Frank
Brady to create an effective board majority. Decisive and drastic
actions were taken to shed staff, cut costs, and outsource the books &
equipment business. Although the first OMOV board took office in the
midst of perhaps the USCF's worst-ever financial crisis, it seems to
have taken only one year to turn around the organization (pending
audited financials).

Maybe OMOV was the solution to our governance problem?

Tim Hanke


  #6   Report Post  
Old May 26th 04, 03:32 PM
Angelo DePalma
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Hanke/Nolan


Tim,

Clearly nobody on board today was directly responsible for the B&E fiasco.
Everyone understands that you and your colleagues played the hand you were
dealt when you came onboard.

What's unclear is how so much questionable activity could have taken place
over such a long time period without anyone noticing or taking action. We're
talking at least three years, more likely five, during which a major USCF
operation went from comfortably profitable to horrifyingly unprofitable.

None of the economic, market, managerial, or personnel variables cited by
you, Mike, or Bill come close to explaining this dramatic decline. If I were
a suspicious person I would wonder if the quick dispatch of B&E to a
contractor was perhaps carried out to "save the federation" from a huge
scandal -- the lesser of two evils (the other being for USCF simply to cease
operations).

In my many defenses in this newsgroup of USCF, its dues structure and quirky
way of doing business, I have always assumed honesty and above all good
intentions. If something goes wrong, even terribly wrong, and you're doing
the right thing then so be it. I'm a forgiving person and most USCF members
probably feel the same way vis-a-vis honest USCF mistakes. Nobody wants to
hang someone for slipping, falling, and breaking a $500 vase.

What we're discussing here are not honest accidents but an unsavory stew of
profiteering and dishonesty, in full view of management, for several years,
apparently followed by a cover-up which continues to this day.

It's time for a full, independent audit of B&E transactions beginning in
1999.

Angelo DePalma

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
om...
"Jane Adams" wrote ...
Isn't it time (now that we are profitable---choke) for an ADM to hire a
professional board? Let's just get rid of the idiot politicians (what

was it
that they do anyway?) and run the USCF as the Standards and National

Chess
Organization which it should be. I would even be in favor of keeping
Goichberg on board until an honest, no conflict of interest board could

be
seated.

It doesn't cost that much to pay honest non profit board members. There

are
retired judges, school teachers, businessmen and women, all over the

nation
that take a small fee to sit on non profit boards and see to the needs

of
the voting class (all of us).


Tom,

You could be right.

However, there is a different, more obvious lesson to be learned.
Consider:

USCF held its first-ever OMOV ("One Member, One Vote") election in
2003. The board members elected were Marinello, Hanke, and Schultz.
These three board members immediately formed an alliance with Frank
Brady to create an effective board majority. Decisive and drastic
actions were taken to shed staff, cut costs, and outsource the books &
equipment business. Although the first OMOV board took office in the
midst of perhaps the USCF's worst-ever financial crisis, it seems to
have taken only one year to turn around the organization (pending
audited financials).

Maybe OMOV was the solution to our governance problem?

Tim Hanke



  #7   Report Post  
Old May 26th 04, 06:36 PM
Tim Hanke
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Hanke/Nolan

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message ...
Tim,

Clearly nobody on board today was directly responsible for the B&E fiasco.
Everyone understands that you and your colleagues played the hand you were
dealt when you came onboard.

What's unclear is how so much questionable activity could have taken place
over such a long time period without anyone noticing or taking action. We're
talking at least three years, more likely five, during which a major USCF
operation went from comfortably profitable to horrifyingly unprofitable.


Angelo,

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse in this discussion.

Let me suggest that you and I probably agree on most of the facts, but
we disagree on what the facts mean and what we should do about them.

When I visited New Windsor for a week in August 2003 with Beatriz
Marinello (Don Schultz was also there part of the time), we were
appalled by our review of the finances and some of the managerial
decisions. (I want to stress this was a top-down management
problem--not the fault of most employees who are hardworking and
honest and competent.)

One of the first things I did as the new VP of Finance was to appoint
Stan Booz Chair of the Finance Committee. Stan calls 'em as he sees
'em and we needed that kind of honesty.

In the office that week in August 2003, I said to Stan, "I think we
need to hire a forensic accountant to look at these books." Stan said,
"Yes, but you can't afford one." He was right, of course--we were
unable even to meet payroll at that time, without outside help; we had
immediate problems to solve. (I will be eternally grateful to the N.J.
State Chess Federation for advancing some large payments to us, to
help us pay our most pressing bills.)

Maybe today in May 2004 we could afford to hire a forensic accountant,
but it would cost many thousands of dollars, and in the end, I doubt
we would end up with any legally actionable information. A few
vengeful individuals on this newsgroup might feel better if we hung
out a basketful of USCF's dirty laundry, but nothing practical is
likely to be accomplished.

None of the economic, market, managerial, or personnel variables cited by
you, Mike, or Bill come close to explaining this dramatic decline.


I disagree. I think incompetence can explain a lot.

If I were
a suspicious person I would wonder if the quick dispatch of B&E to a
contractor was perhaps carried out to "save the federation" from a huge
scandal -- the lesser of two evils (the other being for USCF simply to cease
operations).


This "conspiracy theory" is maybe not ridiculous, but I assure you
it's false. In the summer and fall of 2003, the USCF board was mainly
concerned with stopping the bleeding, not covering up anything.

In my many defenses in this newsgroup of USCF, its dues structure and quirky
way of doing business, I have always assumed honesty and above all good
intentions. If something goes wrong, even terribly wrong, and you're doing
the right thing then so be it. I'm a forgiving person and most USCF members
probably feel the same way vis-a-vis honest USCF mistakes. Nobody wants to
hang someone for slipping, falling, and breaking a $500 vase.

What we're discussing here are not honest accidents but an unsavory stew of
profiteering and dishonesty, in full view of management, for several years,
apparently followed by a cover-up which continues to this day.


I would agree with the "unsavory stew of profiteering" and maybe even
the dishonesty part--certainly we had a board member with a huge
conflict of interest--but I don't see any actionable material coming
to light.

It's time for a full, independent audit of B&E transactions beginning in
1999.


See my comments above.

Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance

Angelo DePalma

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
om...
"Jane Adams" wrote ...
Isn't it time (now that we are profitable---choke) for an ADM to hire a
professional board? Let's just get rid of the idiot politicians (what

was it
that they do anyway?) and run the USCF as the Standards and National

Chess
Organization which it should be. I would even be in favor of keeping
Goichberg on board until an honest, no conflict of interest board could

be
seated.

It doesn't cost that much to pay honest non profit board members. There

are
retired judges, school teachers, businessmen and women, all over the

nation
that take a small fee to sit on non profit boards and see to the needs

of
the voting class (all of us).


Tom,

You could be right.

However, there is a different, more obvious lesson to be learned.
Consider:

USCF held its first-ever OMOV ("One Member, One Vote") election in
2003. The board members elected were Marinello, Hanke, and Schultz.
These three board members immediately formed an alliance with Frank
Brady to create an effective board majority. Decisive and drastic
actions were taken to shed staff, cut costs, and outsource the books &
equipment business. Although the first OMOV board took office in the
midst of perhaps the USCF's worst-ever financial crisis, it seems to
have taken only one year to turn around the organization (pending
audited financials).

Maybe OMOV was the solution to our governance problem?

Tim Hanke

  #8   Report Post  
Old May 26th 04, 07:24 PM
Angelo DePalma
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Hanke/Nolan


Tim,

I trust you, Stan and Beatriz. Rest assured none of this is directed towards
any of you. I'm not suggesting any of you made a conscious effort to cover
anything up (although I did imply that -- sorry).

If you decided that the activity we're talking about here, ongoing for
years, is not "actionable" then I have to ask whether by "actionable" you
mean "cause for initiating legal or law enforcement proceedings" or "likely
to result in some benefit to USCF."

If, as I must assume, you mean the more traditional definition (no crime was
committed) then I must ask you: If you were not in the office during the
years this chicanery was going on, how do you know someone wasn't stealing?
You're not going to see a memo lying around with the subject, "Fred Jones
made $853 buying pencils for USCF." Unless you look into it you won't ever
know if Fred's mother died that week and he was too distraught to source
pencils, or if Fred bought the pencils from his uncle, if his bank account
was credited with $853, or if Fred was just a stupid asshole who was also
bad at math.

You don't need a $50,000 investigation to get to the bottom of this. All you
need to do is follow one thread, perhaps the most egregious, and see it
through. Courageously.

Angelo








"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
om...
"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message

...
Tim,

Clearly nobody on board today was directly responsible for the B&E

fiasco.
Everyone understands that you and your colleagues played the hand you

were
dealt when you came onboard.

What's unclear is how so much questionable activity could have taken

place
over such a long time period without anyone noticing or taking action.

We're
talking at least three years, more likely five, during which a major

USCF
operation went from comfortably profitable to horrifyingly unprofitable.


Angelo,

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse in this discussion.

Let me suggest that you and I probably agree on most of the facts, but
we disagree on what the facts mean and what we should do about them.

When I visited New Windsor for a week in August 2003 with Beatriz
Marinello (Don Schultz was also there part of the time), we were
appalled by our review of the finances and some of the managerial
decisions. (I want to stress this was a top-down management
problem--not the fault of most employees who are hardworking and
honest and competent.)

One of the first things I did as the new VP of Finance was to appoint
Stan Booz Chair of the Finance Committee. Stan calls 'em as he sees
'em and we needed that kind of honesty.

In the office that week in August 2003, I said to Stan, "I think we
need to hire a forensic accountant to look at these books." Stan said,
"Yes, but you can't afford one." He was right, of course--we were
unable even to meet payroll at that time, without outside help; we had
immediate problems to solve. (I will be eternally grateful to the N.J.
State Chess Federation for advancing some large payments to us, to
help us pay our most pressing bills.)

Maybe today in May 2004 we could afford to hire a forensic accountant,
but it would cost many thousands of dollars, and in the end, I doubt
we would end up with any legally actionable information. A few
vengeful individuals on this newsgroup might feel better if we hung
out a basketful of USCF's dirty laundry, but nothing practical is
likely to be accomplished.

None of the economic, market, managerial, or personnel variables cited

by
you, Mike, or Bill come close to explaining this dramatic decline.


I disagree. I think incompetence can explain a lot.

If I were
a suspicious person I would wonder if the quick dispatch of B&E to a
contractor was perhaps carried out to "save the federation" from a huge
scandal -- the lesser of two evils (the other being for USCF simply to

cease
operations).


This "conspiracy theory" is maybe not ridiculous, but I assure you
it's false. In the summer and fall of 2003, the USCF board was mainly
concerned with stopping the bleeding, not covering up anything.

In my many defenses in this newsgroup of USCF, its dues structure and

quirky
way of doing business, I have always assumed honesty and above all good
intentions. If something goes wrong, even terribly wrong, and you're

doing
the right thing then so be it. I'm a forgiving person and most USCF

members
probably feel the same way vis-a-vis honest USCF mistakes. Nobody wants

to
hang someone for slipping, falling, and breaking a $500 vase.

What we're discussing here are not honest accidents but an unsavory stew

of
profiteering and dishonesty, in full view of management, for several

years,
apparently followed by a cover-up which continues to this day.


I would agree with the "unsavory stew of profiteering" and maybe even
the dishonesty part--certainly we had a board member with a huge
conflict of interest--but I don't see any actionable material coming
to light.

It's time for a full, independent audit of B&E transactions beginning in
1999.


See my comments above.

Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance

Angelo DePalma

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
om...
"Jane Adams" wrote ...
Isn't it time (now that we are profitable---choke) for an ADM to

hire a
professional board? Let's just get rid of the idiot politicians

(what
was it
that they do anyway?) and run the USCF as the Standards and National

Chess
Organization which it should be. I would even be in favor of keeping
Goichberg on board until an honest, no conflict of interest board

could
be
seated.

It doesn't cost that much to pay honest non profit board members.

There
are
retired judges, school teachers, businessmen and women, all over the

nation
that take a small fee to sit on non profit boards and see to the

needs
of
the voting class (all of us).

Tom,

You could be right.

However, there is a different, more obvious lesson to be learned.
Consider:

USCF held its first-ever OMOV ("One Member, One Vote") election in
2003. The board members elected were Marinello, Hanke, and Schultz.
These three board members immediately formed an alliance with Frank
Brady to create an effective board majority. Decisive and drastic
actions were taken to shed staff, cut costs, and outsource the books &
equipment business. Although the first OMOV board took office in the
midst of perhaps the USCF's worst-ever financial crisis, it seems to
have taken only one year to turn around the organization (pending
audited financials).

Maybe OMOV was the solution to our governance problem?

Tim Hanke



  #9   Report Post  
Old May 26th 04, 07:44 PM
Jane Adams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Hanke/Nolan

The baby has cloved hooves.

Throw it out with the bathwater, and get professional management in place.

I do agree that you are refreshing, (if not anal at times), but the point
here really is accountability.

What's to stop the politicians from just going back to business as usual,
after the prevailing mess subsides. I can't tell you how disappointing it is
to hear "we're doing great", from people like Goichberg, and Schutz, who
created this mess in the first place.

I suppose most people won't give a damn, if USCF stays solvent, as long as
they get their magazine.

Jane

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
om...
"Jane Adams" wrote ...
Isn't it time (now that we are profitable---choke) for an ADM to hire a
professional board? Let's just get rid of the idiot politicians (what

was it
that they do anyway?) and run the USCF as the Standards and National

Chess
Organization which it should be. I would even be in favor of keeping
Goichberg on board until an honest, no conflict of interest board could

be
seated.

It doesn't cost that much to pay honest non profit board members. There

are
retired judges, school teachers, businessmen and women, all over the

nation
that take a small fee to sit on non profit boards and see to the needs

of
the voting class (all of us).


Tom,

You could be right.

However, there is a different, more obvious lesson to be learned.
Consider:

USCF held its first-ever OMOV ("One Member, One Vote") election in
2003. The board members elected were Marinello, Hanke, and Schultz.
These three board members immediately formed an alliance with Frank
Brady to create an effective board majority. Decisive and drastic
actions were taken to shed staff, cut costs, and outsource the books &
equipment business. Although the first OMOV board took office in the
midst of perhaps the USCF's worst-ever financial crisis, it seems to
have taken only one year to turn around the organization (pending
audited financials).

Maybe OMOV was the solution to our governance problem?

Tim Hanke



  #10   Report Post  
Old May 26th 04, 07:55 PM
Jane Adams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Response to Hanke/Nolan


"Tim Hanke" wrote in message


A few
vengeful individuals on this newsgroup might feel better if we hung
out a basketful of USCF's dirty laundry, but nothing practical is
likely to be accomplished.


Deterence is the basis of most punishments. Surely you understand this.
Vengence, is not sweet. Living well is sweet, and the perps are living well
on membership money to this day. Take it back, hurt them where they live (in
their inflated view of the lifestyles of the rich and famous).


None of the economic, market, managerial, or personnel variables cited

by
you, Mike, or Bill come close to explaining this dramatic decline.


I disagree. I think incompetence can explain a lot.


Incompetence is the hiding place of many criminals. New York even had a
mafia kingpin, that walked around NYC in his pajamas, and claimed to be a
few bricks short of a load.

If I were
a suspicious person I would wonder if the quick dispatch of B&E to a
contractor was perhaps carried out to "save the federation" from a huge
scandal -- the lesser of two evils (the other being for USCF simply to

cease
operations).


This "conspiracy theory" is maybe not ridiculous, but I assure you
it's false. In the summer and fall of 2003, the USCF board was mainly
concerned with stopping the bleeding, not covering up anything.


I'm sure that you could tell us these perps are incapable of being both
concerned about losing the golden goose, and losing their freedom for
criminality. What evidence do you have that the USCF board was not
protecting prior boards? Cite your personal experience if you will, but I
guarantee that you will not be able to tell us for a fact that protecting
ones old friends is not in play here.

In my many defenses in this newsgroup of USCF, its dues structure and

quirky
way of doing business, I have always assumed honesty and above all good
intentions.


Now I understand why you swallowed, hook line and sinker, the lies told
about Nevada. You didn't bother to look into the documentation, and you
didn't dig deep enough. In this case ASS U ME is the correct spelling for
what you did. You can't assume anything with criminals and still be
protecting the USCF membership.


If something goes wrong, even terribly wrong, and you're doing
the right thing then so be it. I'm a forgiving person and most USCF

members
probably feel the same way vis-a-vis honest USCF mistakes. Nobody wants

to
hang someone for slipping, falling, and breaking a $500 vase.

What we're discussing here are not honest accidents but an unsavory stew

of
profiteering and dishonesty, in full view of management, for several

years,
apparently followed by a cover-up which continues to this day.


I would agree with the "unsavory stew of profiteering" and maybe even
the dishonesty part--certainly we had a board member with a huge
conflict of interest--but I don't see any actionable material coming
to light.


Perhaps the reasons "[you] don't see any actionable material coming to
light" is that you are only a volunteer. This is where a professional board,
would serve us well. Taking out the trash, splatters all "volunteers", or at
least that is the argument that the criminals have made to you.



It's time for a full, independent audit of B&E transactions beginning in
1999.


See my comments above.

Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance


With all that money we are getting from our new unconflicted B&E partner
(sic), perhaps you could afford a forensic accountant, to take the bad guys
to court and get our money back.

Jane


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
Response to Bruce Draney Chessdon rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 133 December 20th 05 06:28 AM
Chess openings for kids - especially black response to 1. e4 Kenneth Sloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 15 September 4th 04 06:08 AM
Response to Richard Peterson Spam Scone rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 December 20th 03 09:26 AM
Aladdin Content Security Response Team - Virus Alert floris rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 7 September 20th 03 11:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:48 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