Chess politics - One word: flabbergasted

Author

One word: flabbergasted

MR RIBBY

2004-10-27, 12:46 am

The people running USCF must not be chess players because there doesn't seem to
be a great deal of thinking going on.
Case in point : I am about to run a large event which will likely bring in 50
to 60 uscf members. So today I call the USCF office to ask for membership
forms because I am all out. They said they had none. I asked them when they
expected them in.....after ten minutes on hold the person at the USCF said "WE
HAVE NO IDEA WHEN MEMBERSHIP FORMS WILL BE AVAILABLE" . I asked if I should
call back in a few weeks for an update...they said "if you want to". Then the
guy suggested I try the online form under forms and brochures. Well, first
off...for 60 members I need to print off 180 forms so I can give a copy to the
customer, a copy to the uscf and a copy to the affiliate and I have to get all
180 forms filled out so I am not thrilled with their solution. Then I cant
even find the membership forms under forms and brochures. I did find something
to print off under the join/renew button, but it is wrong as it doesnt list
info about affiliate discounts on it.
How can an organization whose membership is evaporating NOT HAVE MEMBERSHIP
FORMS AND NOT HAVE A CLUE WHEN THEY WILL HAVE THEM !! I cant imagine
leadership that would get the organization to this point.

Brian from Minnesota

David

2004-10-27, 12:46 am

I just went to the forms and brochures site, and did not find the membership
form either. If it's there and we both missed it, then it needs a new
title. I found this after poking around for a while:
http://www.uschess.org/2004mem_rates.php

I understand your frustration, and hope that the above link helps in some
small measure.

David

--
CaissaWas__SPAMHater__INTP@adelphia__ANTIV__.net without the block
"MR RIBBY" <mrribby@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041026214411.13201.00002650@mb-m11.aol.com...

quote:

> The people running USCF must not be chess players because there doesn't
> seem to
> be a great deal of thinking going on.
> Case in point : I am about to run a large event which will likely bring
> in 50
> to 60 uscf members. So today I call the USCF office to ask for membership
> forms because I am all out. They said they had none. I asked them when
> they
> expected them in.....after ten minutes on hold the person at the USCF said
> "WE
> HAVE NO IDEA WHEN MEMBERSHIP FORMS WILL BE AVAILABLE" . I asked if I
> should
> call back in a few weeks for an update...they said "if you want to". Then
> the
> guy suggested I try the online form under forms and brochures. Well,
> first
> off...for 60 members I need to print off 180 forms so I can give a copy to
> the
> customer, a copy to the uscf and a copy to the affiliate and I have to get
> all
> 180 forms filled out so I am not thrilled with their solution. Then I
> cant
> even find the membership forms under forms and brochures. I did find
> something
> to print off under the join/renew button, but it is wrong as it doesnt
> list
> info about affiliate discounts on it.
> How can an organization whose membership is evaporating NOT HAVE
> MEMBERSHIP
> FORMS AND NOT HAVE A CLUE WHEN THEY WILL HAVE THEM !! I cant imagine
> leadership that would get the organization to this point.
>
> Brian from Minnesota

The Masked Bishop

2004-10-27, 9:45 am

Mr. Ribby:

Welcome to the USCF. But you've missed the point of our organization. The
point is NOT to server amateur chess. That, as Hannibal Lector once said, is
incidental.

The point is for a handful of individuals, called our Board and our Staff,
to empire-build, argue with each other, and play political games. Some are
here since they find it a diverting escape from the doldrums of retirement.
Others are looking to make buck on the side through business connections.
One likes to interview and write about cute female chess players. Some just
want medical insurance. There are many reasons, but none of them have to do
with serving you, the amateur chess player.

In case you were wondering, while your story was detailed, no-one from the
USCF cares. Don't bother phoning or calling them about it...they won't
change anything. Their services are sold "as is," and if you don't like it,
leave. They have no competition, except maybe the ICC (which is killing them
off slowly), so they don't care.

That's what the USCF is all about.

TMB

ChipsChap

2004-10-27, 5:46 pm

I rejoined USCF after about a 35 year absence and found only that it
costs more, not that it has changed for the better. The only reason I
joined is that it seems to be a requirement for just about all
tournament play.

I found that I still have to have Chess Life whether I want it or not.
I wonder how much cheaper the membership would be if I didn't have to
subscribe to this very poor publication?

The politics are no better either. This whole controversy over moving
to Nowhereville USA is mind-boggling.

As I stated elsewhere, I would be happy if USCF were staffed by 3 people
(one of whom had access to membership forms, at least), in a two-room
office, and Chess Life were to go away forever. (Ratings and
announcements on the Web are more than good enough.)

Randy Bauer

2004-10-27, 5:46 pm

mrribby@aol.com (MR RIBBY) wrote in message news:<20041026214411.13201.00002650@mb-m11.aol.com>...

quote:

> The people running USCF must not be chess players because there doesn't seem to
> be a great deal of thinking going on.
> Case in point : I am about to run a large event which will likely bring in 50
> to 60 uscf members. So today I call the USCF office to ask for membership
> forms because I am all out. They said they had none. I asked them when they
> expected them in.....after ten minutes on hold the person at the USCF said "WE
> HAVE NO IDEA WHEN MEMBERSHIP FORMS WILL BE AVAILABLE" . I asked if I should
> call back in a few weeks for an update...they said "if you want to". Then the
> guy suggested I try the online form under forms and brochures. Well, first
> off...for 60 members I need to print off 180 forms so I can give a copy to the
> customer, a copy to the uscf and a copy to the affiliate and I have to get all
> 180 forms filled out so I am not thrilled with their solution. Then I cant
> even find the membership forms under forms and brochures. I did find something
> to print off under the join/renew button, but it is wrong as it doesnt list
> info about affiliate discounts on it.
> How can an organization whose membership is evaporating NOT HAVE MEMBERSHIP
> FORMS AND NOT HAVE A CLUE WHEN THEY WILL HAVE THEM !! I cant imagine
> leadership that would get the organization to this point.
>
> Brian from Minnesota

Obviously, this should not happen, and I apologize for the poor
customer service. I sent your message to Bill Goichberg at the USCF
office, and this was his response:

"Thanks for pointing this out, Randy. We are working on having new
affiliate forms printed- still have many of the old ones, but some of
the info on them has become obsolete now that all affiliate
commissions are $2, some dues have been lowered, family memberships
changed, etc. I was not aware that we told anyone "no forms
available," what we should have done is made manual corrections to the
old forms and sent them. I will try to have the forms sent to Brian
today."

I appreciate all you do, Brian, for chess and hope that this will
resolve your problem. If not, please contact me at any time.

Randy Bauer
USCF Executive Board

Recmate

2004-10-27, 5:46 pm

>Subject: Re: One word: flabbergasted

quote:

>From: randybauer2300@yahoo.com (Randy Bauer)
>Date: 10/27/2004 12:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <625d11e3.0410270815.46f21cb8@posting.google.com>
>
>mrribby@aol.com (MR RIBBY) wrote in message
>news:<20041026214411.13201.00002650@mb-m11.aol.com>...
>seem to
>50
>they
>"WE
>should
>the
>the
>all
>something
>
>Obviously, this should not happen, and I apologize for the poor
>customer service. I sent your message to Bill Goichberg at the USCF
>office, and this was his response:
>
>"Thanks for pointing this out, Randy. We are working on having new
>affiliate forms printed- still have many of the old ones, but some of
>the info on them has become obsolete now that all affiliate
>commissions are $2, some dues have been lowered, family memberships
>changed, etc. I was not aware that we told anyone "no forms
>available," what we should have done is made manual corrections to the
>old forms and sent them. I will try to have the forms sent to Brian
>today."
>
>I appreciate all you do, Brian, for chess and hope that this will
>resolve your problem. If not, please contact me at any time.
>
>Randy Bauer
>USCF Executive Board
>

Sorry you were misinformed, Brian. Let me also point out that even though we
are sending the forms, you can save $120 ($2 per membership) on Regular, Youth,
Scholastic and Senior memberships by registering for the TD/affiliate area and
submitting them online.

Bill Goichberg

Tim Hanke

2004-10-27, 5:46 pm

ChipsChap <bnewell@linux.chungkuo.org> wrote ...

quote:

> I rejoined USCF after about a 35 year absence and found only that it
> costs more, not that it has changed for the better. The only reason I
> joined is that it seems to be a requirement for just about all
> tournament play.
>
> I found that I still have to have Chess Life whether I want it or not.
> I wonder how much cheaper the membership would be if I didn't have to
> subscribe to this very poor publication?
>
> The politics are no better either. This whole controversy over moving
> to Nowhereville USA is mind-boggling.
>
> As I stated elsewhere, I would be happy if USCF were staffed by 3 people
> (one of whom had access to membership forms, at least), in a two-room
> office, and Chess Life were to go away forever. (Ratings and
> announcements on the Web are more than good enough.)

Some of us feel your pain. :-)

When I ran for the Board, I advocated making "Chess Life" an optional
member benefit. I still do.

When I ran for the Board, I advocated lower membership dues. I still
do.

Our Finance Committee Chairman is currently working on a new
membership model, that would cut membership fees, make the magazine
subscription optional, and raise ratings fees--in effect, making USCF
membership an a la carte, a pay-as-you-go proposition, with your
payments based on the services you use.

Whether the full Board will support this new membership model is
anybody's guess.

Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance

Louis Blair

2004-10-28, 12:46 am

Tim Hanke wrote:

quote:

> When I ran for the Board, I advocated making
> "Chess Life" an optional member benefit. I
> still do.

_
Back then, Timothy Hanke also acknowledged:

"If we make the magazine optional as I propose, and
don't significantly improve the magazine, that would
not be good for our revenue." - Timothy Hanke
(2003-05-07 12:52:56 PST)

Does Timothy Hanke maintain that the magazine has
now been improved so much that we can now make it
optional without doing damage to USCF revenue?

Does Timothy Hanke think that the USCF should now
make the magazine optional regardless of whatever
damage is done to USCF revenue?

ChipsChap

2004-10-28, 12:46 am

On 2004-10-27, Tim Hanke <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote:

quote:

> Our Finance Committee Chairman is currently working on a new
> membership model, that would cut membership fees, make the magazine
> subscription optional, and raise ratings fees--in effect, making USCF
> membership an a la carte, a pay-as-you-go proposition, with your
> payments based on the services you use.

This makes eminent sense; I hope it works out. Paying a more nominal
membership fee and then perhaps a few dollars extra at each tournament
would be just the right thing. Chess tournament entry fees are
generally pretty reasonable and an additional "rating fee" amount would
be quite palatable.

StanB

2004-10-28, 12:46 am

"Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b2a11a50.0410271257.68ecec5f@posting.google.com...

quote:

> When I ran for the Board, I advocated lower membership dues. I still
> do.

Did you get an interest free loan of $5,000? I hear there is some precedent
for that sort of loan to board members.

quote:

> Our Finance Committee Chairman is currently working on a new
> membership model, that would cut membership fees, make the magazine
> subscription optional, and raise ratings fees--in effect, making USCF
> membership an a la carte, a pay-as-you-go proposition, with your
> payments based on the services you use.

I can't wait to see what Jon comes up with. Oops, I ended a sentence with a
preposition. I better fix that. I can't wait to see what Jon comes up with
XXXXXXX.

The Masked Bishop

2004-10-28, 12:46 am

Stan's talking about body parts again. Someone get that man a copy of
Playgirl.

"StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
news:Bqqdna7cyv7Asx3cRVn-og@comcast.com...

quote:

>
> "Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:b2a11a50.0410271257.68ecec5f@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Did you get an interest free loan of $5,000? I hear there is some

precedent

quote:

> for that sort of loan to board members.
>
>
> I can't wait to see what Jon comes up with. Oops, I ended a sentence with

quote:

> preposition. I better fix that. I can't wait to see what Jon comes up with
> XXXXXXX.
>
>
>
>

GrantPerks

2004-10-28, 12:46 am

quote:

>Did you get an interest free loan of $5,000? I hear there is some precedent
>for that sort of loan to board members.

Sheesh. Here we go again.

Mike Nolan

2004-10-28, 6:45 am

"David" <caissaintp@adelphia.net> writes:

quote:

>I just went to the forms and brochures site, and did not find the membership
>form either. If it's there and we both missed it, then it needs a new
>title. I found this after poking around for a while:
>http://www.uschess.org/2004mem_rates.php

quote:

>I understand your frustration, and hope that the above link helps in some
>small measure.

The old forms were removed because they were out of date due to the
changes that were made in the dues structure by the Delegates, the changes
that were made in the affiliate commission, the introduction of online
discounts and the need to update the USCF's address.

New forms are being worked on, I don't know why it's taking so long.
--
Mike Nolan

GrantPerks

2004-10-28, 6:45 am

StanB wrote:

quote:

>Did you get an interest free loan of $5,000? I hear there is some precedent
>for that sort of loan to board members.

Stan, wouldn't such a tranaction require three parties to be involved, i.e.,
the board member requesting said loan, the ED or another board member approving
the loan, and the CFO signing the draft? All volunteer positions I might ad.

Giving the benefit of doubt to the integrity of the parties involved, I am
assuming this was more of a cash advance for USCF travel. Perhaps this relates
to the bomb shell you dropped a week ago regarding the payment on the board
member's credit card ?

Grant P

StanB

2004-10-28, 9:45 am

"GrantPerks" <gperks2@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20041028064130.07554.00002586@mb-m18.aol.com...

quote:

> StanB wrote:
>
> Stan, wouldn't such a tranaction require three parties to be involved,
> i.e.,
> the board member requesting said loan, the ED or another board member
> approving
> the loan, and the CFO signing the draft? All volunteer positions I might
> ad.
>
> Giving the benefit of doubt to the integrity of the parties involved, I am
> assuming this was more of a cash advance for USCF travel.

My sources say this was a no obligation loan unrelated to expense
reimbursements.

quote:

> Perhaps this relates
> to the bomb shell you dropped a week ago regarding the payment on the
> board
> member's credit card ?

Not at all. Nor was it an elected board member. Perhaps Bill could add
clarification on both issues.

StanB

2004-10-28, 9:45 am

"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:clo6ut$koe$1@gw.tssi.com...

quote:

> New forms are being worked on, I don't know why it's taking so long.

Maybe Bill is preoccupied with CCA business. Does the bylaws touch on EDs
devoting their time to other interests?

2004-10-28, 9:45 am

lblai@blackburn.edu (Louis Blair) wrote in message news:<f8f5e7b4.0410271420.28b83238@posting.google.com>...

quote:

> Tim Hanke wrote:
>
>
> _
> Back then, Timothy Hanke also acknowledged:
>
> "If we make the magazine optional as I propose, and
> don't significantly improve the magazine, that would
> not be good for our revenue." - Timothy Hanke
> (2003-05-07 12:52:56 PST)
>
> Does Timothy Hanke maintain that the magazine has
> now been improved so much that we can now make it
> optional without doing damage to USCF revenue?
>
> Does Timothy Hanke think that the USCF should now
> make the magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue?

Does Louis Blair maintain that reiterating support
for a position previously presented as conditional
somehow negates the restrictions placed on that support?

Does Louis Blair maintain that Timothy Hanke supported
making the "magazine optional regardless of whatever
damage is done to USCF revenue" previously? He clearly
implies it by suggesting that Hanke's message which
describes an unchanged point of view advocates for such
a thing.

K

Kenneth Sloan

2004-10-28, 9:45 am

nolan@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) writes:

quote:

> "David" <caissaintp@adelphia.net> writes:
>
>
>
> The old forms were removed because they were out of date due to the
> changes that were made in the dues structure by the Delegates, the changes
> that were made in the affiliate commission, the introduction of online
> discounts and the need to update the USCF's address.
>
> New forms are being worked on, I don't know why it's taking so long.
> --
> Mike Nolan

This is the worst possible form of malfeasance. If the Office is
supposed to do *anything* it must be to sign up new members.
Re-designing the forms, and putting them up on the website, should have
been done *before* removing the old forms.

--
Kenneth Sloan sloan@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Sam Sloan

2004-10-28, 5:46 pm

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:06:05 -0400, "StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net>
wrote:

quote:

>
>"GrantPerks" <gperks2@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20041028064130.07554.00002586@mb-m18.aol.com...
>
>
>My sources say this was a no obligation loan unrelated to expense
>reimbursements.
>
>
>Not at all. Nor was it an elected board member. Perhaps Bill could add
>clarification on both issues.

We certainly would like to know if there is something at the bottom of
this.

Why don't you name the name of the Board Member involved?

The only two board members who do not have much money and therefore
might be asking for a loan are Beatriz and Hanke. I think that the
others are fairly well fixed, but I might be mistaken. If I am
mistaken, I would be shocked.

Sam Sloan

Angelo DePalma

2004-10-28, 5:46 pm

Stan,

Even William F. Buckley ends sentences with prepositions. In fact he seems
to go out of his way to do so.

adp

"StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
news:Bqqdna7cyv7Asx3cRVn-og@comcast.com...

quote:

>
> "Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:b2a11a50.0410271257.68ecec5f@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Did you get an interest free loan of $5,000? I hear there is some
> precedent for that sort of loan to board members.
>
>
> I can't wait to see what Jon comes up with. Oops, I ended a sentence with
> a preposition. I better fix that. I can't wait to see what Jon comes up
> with XXXXXXX.
>
>
>
>

Louis Blair

2004-10-28, 5:46 pm

Tim Hanke wrote:

quote:

> When I ran for the Board, I advocated making
> "Chess Life" an optional member benefit. I
> still do.

I wrote:

quote:

> Back then, Timothy Hanke also acknowledged:
>
> "If we make the magazine optional as I propose, and
> don't significantly improve the magazine, that would
> not be good for our revenue." - Timothy Hanke
> (2003-05-07 12:52:56 PST)
>
> Does Timothy Hanke maintain that the magazine has
> now been improved so much that we can now make it
> optional without doing damage to USCF revenue?
>
> Does Timothy Hanke think that the USCF should now
> make the magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue?

kg writes:

quote:

> Does Louis Blair maintain that reiterating support
> for a position previously presented as conditional
> somehow negates the restrictions placed on that support?

_
No, I would say that it creates a situation where it
is not clear whether or not Timothy Hanke still feels
that the condition (stated more than a year ago) still
applies.

kg writes:

quote:

> Does Louis Blair maintain that Timothy Hanke supported
> making the "magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue" previously?

_
No, it seemed to me that the recent Timothy Hanke note
was not clear about the specifics of what he supports.
That is why I asked my questions.

kg writes:

quote:

> He clearly implies it ...

_
I see no such clear implication, and, in any event, I
have no hesitation about clarifying the matter for kg
and anyone else who may want such a clarification. How
long will we have to wait for a clarification of the
current Timothy Hanke position?

kg writes:

quote:

> ... by suggesting that Hanke's message which describes
> an unchanged point of view advocates for such a thing.

_
I am not "suggesting that Hanke's message ... advocates
for such a thing". I am ASKING about what he currently
thinks.

StanB

2004-10-28, 5:46 pm

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:41810a41.82291890@ca.news.verio.net...

quote:

>
> We certainly would like to know if there is something at the bottom of
> this.

We? Are you pregnant.

quote:

> Why don't you name the name of the Board Member involved?

I'm not judgement proof.

quote:

> The only two board members who do not have much money and therefore
> might be asking for a loan are Beatriz and Hanke. I think that the
> others are fairly well fixed, but I might be mistaken. If I am
> mistaken, I would be shocked.

Wrong on both counts.

Sam Sloan

2004-10-28, 5:46 pm

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:11:47 -0400, "StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net>
wrote:

quote:

>
>"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
>news:41810a41.82291890@ca.news.verio.net...
>
>
>We? Are you pregnant.
>
>
>I'm not judgement proof.
>
>
>Wrong on both counts.

OK. Lets play a guessing game.

As I understand it, you are saying that a Board Member asked for and
received a loan from the USCF Office of $5,000.

Who could it be?

Frank Brady is a Univesity Professor and the Chairman of the Largest
Department in his university, so it could not be him.

Randy Bauer is Budget Director of the State of Iowa, so he must have
money, so it could not be him.

Don Schultz is retired from IBM. I imagine he has retirement pay and I
feel certain that he would not ask for a loan plus he went to Spain,
so it is probably not him.

Elizabeth Shaughnessy and Steve Shutt both make their living teaching
chess so, if you have eliminated Beatriz and Hanke, it must be one of
them.

I just noticed something. The three who are preseumably financially
secure voted against the move to Crossville, but the four who perhaps
have little or no money voted in favor.

Sam Sloan

StanB

2004-10-28, 5:46 pm

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:41816277.19017312@ca.news.verio.net...

quote:

> As I understand it, you are saying that a Board Member asked for and
> received a loan from the USCF Office of $5,000.

No, I said there was a precedent for it.

quote:

> Who could it be?
>
> Frank Brady is a Univesity Professor and the Chairman of the Largest
> Department in his university, so it could not be him.
>
> Randy Bauer is Budget Director of the State of Iowa, so he must have
> money, so it could not be him.
>
> Don Schultz is retired from IBM. I imagine he has retirement pay and I
> feel certain that he would not ask for a loan plus he went to Spain,
> so it is probably not him.
>
> Elizabeth Shaughnessy and Steve Shutt both make their living teaching
> chess so, if you have eliminated Beatriz and Hanke, it must be one of
> them.

Why do you assume it is a sitting board member?

Sam Sloan

2004-10-29, 12:45 am

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:44:56 -0400, "StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net>
wrote:

quote:

>
>"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
>news:41816277.19017312@ca.news.verio.net...
>
>
>No, I said there was a precedent for it.
>
>
>Why do you assume it is a sitting board member?

OK. In that case there is no need for alarm. I guess you were asking a
trick question.

Sam Sloan

StanB

2004-10-29, 12:45 am

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:418169ad.20862812@ca.news.verio.net...

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> OK. In that case there is no need for alarm. I guess you were asking a
> trick question.

But I asked no question. Rhetorical or otherwise.

2004-10-29, 9:45 am

lblai@blackburn.edu (Louis Blair) wrote in message news:<f8f5e7b4.0410280924.6ffc9c2f@posting.google.com>...

quote:

> Tim Hanke wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
>
> kg writes:
>
>
> _
> No, I would say that it creates a situation where it
> is not clear whether or not Timothy Hanke still feels
> that the condition (stated more than a year ago) still
> applies.

Hardly. There is NOTHING in Hanke's quote to suggest any
change AT ALL in his position. If your concern is his lack
of re-mentioning the condition, I'm sure he has said other
things on this topic as well. For you to have no doubts, must
he restate everything he has said everytime? You have created
the lack of clarity for yourself.

(Hanke's statement:
"When I ran for the Board, I advocated making
"Chess Life" an optional member benefit. I still do.")

quote:

>
>
> kg writes:
>
>
> _
> No, it seemed to me that the recent Timothy Hanke note
> was not clear about the specifics of what he supports.
> That is why I asked my questions.

It seems to me that Hanke's note gave no reason to suspect a
change in his position, regardless of its lack of details. To
expect details in a summary post on a separate topic is unreasonable
and does not justify an assessment of "unclear".

Your history of postings about Hanke suggest more likely alternatives
as to why you asked your questions.

quote:

>
>
> kg writes:
>
>
> _
> I see no such clear implication, and, in any event, I

As you have no reason for assessing his statement as unclear
or for thinking his position has changed in any way, you
appear to be implying that he originally held that position.

quote:

> have no hesitation about clarifying the matter for kg
> and anyone else who may want such a clarification. How
> long will we have to wait for a clarification of the
> current Timothy Hanke position?

Your clarifications seem disingenuous given your history of
posts and logical stretches.

quote:

>
>
> kg writes:
>
>
> _
> I am not "suggesting that Hanke's message ... advocates
> for such a thing". I am ASKING about what he currently
> thinks.

He already told you:
"When I ran for the Board, I advocated making "Chess Life"
an optional member benefit. I still do."

If one wanted further clarification about what that meant,
one would reasonably go to his statements at the time of his
board run (which you evidently did). If one harbored suspicions
that his position had changed (which you apparently did since
nothing he said could reasonably give you that impression),
a more appropriate way to ask the question would have been
directly, like "Has your position changed in any of its details
from the time of your board run?" as opposed to your rhetorical
"attack":
[vbcol=seagreen]

No reasonable person without an agenda would suspect that Timothy
Hanke would take actions "regardless of whatever damage is done
to USCF revenue".

Again, there is nothing in his statement to suggest his position
has changed at all. Yet, there is adequate evidence in your
history of postings to suggest motivations beyond
inquisitiveness/clarification.

K(irk)

Louis Blair

2004-10-30, 12:45 am

Tim Hanke wrote (2004-10-27 13:57:28 PST):

quote:

> When I ran for the Board, I advocated making
> "Chess Life" an optional member benefit. I
> still do.

I wrote (2004-10-27 15:20:51 PST):

quote:

> Back then, Timothy Hanke also acknowledged:
>
> "If we make the magazine optional as I propose, and
> don't significantly improve the magazine, that would
> not be good for our revenue." - Timothy Hanke
> (2003-05-07 12:52:56 PST)
>
> Does Timothy Hanke maintain that the magazine has
> now been improved so much that we can now make it
> optional without doing damage to USCF revenue?
>
> Does Timothy Hanke think that the USCF should now
> make the magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue?

kg wrote (2004-10-28 05:26:32 PST):

quote:

> Does Louis Blair maintain that reiterating support
> for a position previously presented as conditional
> somehow negates the restrictions placed on that support?

I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):

quote:

> No, I would say that it creates a situation where it
> is not clear whether or not Timothy Hanke still feels
> that the condition (stated more than a year ago) still
> applies.

kg now writes:

quote:

> Hardly. There is NOTHING in Hanke's quote to suggest
> any change AT ALL in his position.

_
kg writes, "Hardly," but his next sentence does not
contradict what I wrote. The quote does not say anything
about conditions, and, consequently, it does not indicate
whether or not the conditions have changed.

kg now writes:

quote:

> If your concern is his lack of re-mentioning the
> condition, I'm sure he has said other things on
> this topic as well.

_
kg apparently had no reason for being sure that he
wished to share with us. I have seen nothing recently
from Timothy Hanke about the condition for making
the magazine optional, and I do not see anyone
claiming to have recently seen something here from
Timothy Hanke on the subject.

kg now writes:

quote:

> For you to have no doubts, must he restate everything
> he has said everytime.

_
I am not talking about "everything". I am talking
about one specific detail - a detail that strikes
me as very important. There is a big difference
between:

"USCF should do blah-blah now,"

and

"USCF should do blah-blah after thus-and-such
has been accomplished."

It seems completely appropriate to me to ask about
this distinction.

Furthermore, the use by kg of "everytime" is
inappropriate. I would be satisfied with a recent
explanation of the conditions. I have not seen
one.

kg now writes:

quote:

> You have created the lack of clarity for yourself.
>
> (Hanke's statement:
> "When I ran for the Board, I advocated making
> "Chess Life" an optional member benefit. I
> still do."

_
I do not see how kg can fail to perceive that
the note does not indicate Timothy Hanke's
opinion about what conditions currently
need to be satisfied before Chess Life can
become optional. Maybe Timothy Hanke thinks
Chess Life has been improved enough. Maybe
he doesn't. Maybe he thinks USCF can now
handle whatever loss to revenue there is.
Maybe he doesn't. I see no way to know from
what Timothy Hanke posted.

kg wrote (2004-10-28 05:26:32 PST):

quote:

> Does Louis Blair maintain that Timothy Hanke supported
> making the "magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue" previously?

I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):

quote:

> No, it seemed to me that the recent Timothy Hanke note
> was not clear about the specifics of what he supports.
> That is why I asked my questions.

kg now writes:

quote:

> It seems to me that Hanke's note gave no reason to
> suspect a change in his position, regardless of its
> lack of details.

_
This does not contradict what I wrote. The note does
not say anything about conditions, and, consequently,
it does not indicate whether or not the conditions
have changed.

kg now writes:

quote:

> To expect details in a summary post on a separate
> topic is unreasonable ...

_
I did not say what should have been expected in
Hanke's post. I noticed that an important (in
my opinion) detail was not mentioned and asked
about it.

kg now writes:

quote:

> ... and does not justify an assessment of
> "unclear".

_
I did not "assess" the post as "unclear". I said
that the post did not clarify the matter of the
conditions.

kg now writes:

quote:

> Your history of postings about Hanke suggest
> more likely alternatives as to why you asked
> your questions.

_
Apparently, it has come home to kg that his
accusations can not be justified by the record
of what happened in this particular incident.
Even invoking vaguely my past history, he
feels obliged to qualify his unspecified
"alternatives" with a "more likely". We can
only guess about what may have biased the
judgment of kg with regard to what is "more
likely".

kg wrote (2004-10-28 05:26:32 PST):

quote:

> He clearly implies it ...

I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):

quote:

> I see no such clear implication, and, in any event, I
> have no hesitation about clarifying the matter for kg
> and anyone else who may want such a clarification. How
> long will we have to wait for a clarification of the
> current Timothy Hanke position?

kg now writes:

quote:

> As you have no reason for assessing his statement as
> unclear ...

_
I did not "assess" the statement as "unclear". I said
that the statement did not clarify the matter of the
conditions, and I stand by that.

kg now writes:

quote:

> ... or for thinking his position has changed in any
> way, you appear to be implying that he originally
> held that position.

_
My note does not imply what Timothy Hanke is currently
thinking. It asks about what Timothy Hanke is currently
thinking. kg shrinks from claiming to know that Timothy
Hanke's conditions have not changed. He apparently does
not know. I do not know and do not pretend to know. In
view of these things, it makes no sense to claim that
I implied that Timothy Hanke's original position was
anything other than what I quoted from more than a year
ago.

kg now writes:

quote:

> Your clarifications seem disingenuous given your
> history of posts and logical stretches.

_
Apparently, it has come home to kg that his
accusations can not be justified by the record
of what happened in this particular incident.
Even invoking vaguely my past history, he
feels obliged to qualify his claims by using
"seem". We can only guess about what may have
biased the judgment of kg with regard to what
"seem"s to be.

kg wrote (2004-10-28 05:26:32 PST):

quote:

> ... by suggesting that Hanke's message which describes
> an unchanged point of view advocates for such a thing.

I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):

quote:

> I am not "suggesting that Hanke's message ... advocates
> for such a thing". I am ASKING about what he currently
> thinks.

kg now writes:

quote:

> He already told you:
> "When I ran for the Board, I advocated making "Chess
> Life" an optional member benefit. I still do."
>
> If one wanted further clarification about what that
> meant, one would reasonably go to his statements at
> the time of his board run (which you evidently did).
> If one harbored suspicions that his position had
> changed (which you apparently did since nothing he
> said could reasonably give you that impression),
> a more appropriate way to ask the question would
> have been directly, like "Has your position changed
> in any of its details from the time of your board
> run?" as opposed to your rhetorical "attack":

_
Thanks to kg for his suggested revision. Perhaps I
did not phrase my note in the best possible way. This
nevertheless does not justify his accusations.

Starting with a quote of me,
kg now writes:

quote:

>
> No reasonable person without an agenda would suspect
> that Timothy Hanke would take actions "regardless of
> whatever damage is done to USCF revenue".

_
It has to be noted that, at this point, kg has changed
his charge to the vague one of having an unspecified
"agenda".

Also, we are not discussing Timothy Hanke TAKING action.
We are discussing Timothy Hanke TALKING about an action
here at rec.games.chess.politics. kg may call me
unreasonable if he likes, but I certainly consider it
to be possible that Timothy Hanke could talk about
something without giving it appropriate thought. My
note was intended to encourage what I consider to be
appropriate thought about important aspects of what
was being discussed.

kg now writes:

quote:

> Again, there is nothing in his statement to suggest
> his position has changed at all.

_
This does not contradict what I wrote. The note does
not say anything about conditions, and, consequently,
it does not indicate whether or not the conditions
have changed.

kg now writes:

quote:

> Yet, there is adequate evidence in your history of
> postings to suggest motivations beyond
> inquisitiveness/clarification.

_
Apparently, it has come home to kg that his
accusations can not be justified by the record
of what happened in this particular incident.
Even invoking vaguely my past history, he
feels obliged to qualify his claims by using
"suggest". We can only guess about what may have
biased the judgment of kg with regard to what
is "suggest"ed.

And, again, the charge changes. Now it is
unspecified "motivations beyond inquisitiveness
/clarification".

RMille9601

2004-10-30, 5:45 pm

I think it is important to have chess information come into a chess players
home every month. CHESS LIFE does that.
That is one of reasons why over the last 30 years or so I have worked to keep
NORTHWEST CHESS MAGAZINE a monthly publication covering chess in Washington and
Oregon.
What website does Tim H. read for his chess news? I look at a lot of them but
I don't read any several page articles such as appear in CL on Internet.
I have never gotten an answer to my question about how Conn. is doing with
their online only chess publication. I notice Northern Calif is putting their
whole publication online, atleast the April 2004 issue appears to be there.

Russell Miller Chelan WA

The Masked Bishop

2004-10-31, 6:46 am

Randy Bauer

2004-10-31, 6:46 am

mrribby@aol.com (MR RIBBY) wrote in message news:<20041026214411.13201.00002650@mb-m11.aol.com>...

quote:

> The people running USCF must not be chess players because there doesn't seem to
> be a great deal of thinking going on.
> Case in point : I am about to run a large event which will likely bring in 50
> to 60 uscf members. So today I call the USCF office to ask for membership
> forms because I am all out. They said they had none. I asked them when they
> expected them in.....after ten minutes on hold the person at the USCF said "WE
> HAVE NO IDEA WHEN MEMBERSHIP FORMS WILL BE AVAILABLE" . I asked if I should
> call back in a few weeks for an update...they said "if you want to". Then the
> guy suggested I try the online form under forms and brochures. Well, first
> off...for 60 members I need to print off 180 forms so I can give a copy to the
> customer, a copy to the uscf and a copy to the affiliate and I have to get all
> 180 forms filled out so I am not thrilled with their solution. Then I cant
> even find the membership forms under forms and brochures. I did find something
> to print off under the join/renew button, but it is wrong as it doesnt list
> info about affiliate discounts on it.
> How can an organization whose membership is evaporating NOT HAVE MEMBERSHIP
> FORMS AND NOT HAVE A CLUE WHEN THEY WILL HAVE THEM !! I cant imagine
> leadership that would get the organization to this point.
>
> Brian from Minnesota

Recmate

2004-10-31, 6:46 am

>Subject: Re: One word: flabbergasted

quote:

>From: randybauer2300@yahoo.com (Randy Bauer)
>Date: 10/27/2004 12:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <625d11e3.0410270815.46f21cb8@posting.google.com>
>
>mrribby@aol.com (MR RIBBY) wrote in message
>news:<20041026214411.13201.00002650@mb-m11.aol.com>...
>seem to
>50
>they
>"WE
>should
>the
>the
>all
>something
>
>Obviously, this should not happen, and I apologize for the poor
>customer service. I sent your message to Bill Goichberg at the USCF
>office, and this was his response:
>
>"Thanks for pointing this out, Randy. We are working on having new
>affiliate forms printed- still have many of the old ones, but some of
>the info on them has become obsolete now that all affiliate
>commissions are $2, some dues have been lowered, family memberships
>changed, etc. I was not aware that we told anyone "no forms
>available," what we should have done is made manual corrections to the
>old forms and sent them. I will try to have the forms sent to Brian
>today."
>
>I appreciate all you do, Brian, for chess and hope that this will
>resolve your problem. If not, please contact me at any time.
>
>Randy Bauer
>USCF Executive Board
>

Tim Hanke

2004-10-31, 6:46 am

ChipsChap <bnewell@linux.chungkuo.org> wrote ...

quote:

> I rejoined USCF after about a 35 year absence and found only that it
> costs more, not that it has changed for the better. The only reason I
> joined is that it seems to be a requirement for just about all
> tournament play.
>
> I found that I still have to have Chess Life whether I want it or not.
> I wonder how much cheaper the membership would be if I didn't have to
> subscribe to this very poor publication?
>
> The politics are no better either. This whole controversy over moving
> to Nowhereville USA is mind-boggling.
>
> As I stated elsewhere, I would be happy if USCF were staffed by 3 people
> (one of whom had access to membership forms, at least), in a two-room
> office, and Chess Life were to go away forever. (Ratings and
> announcements on the Web are more than good enough.)

StanB

2004-10-31, 6:46 am

"Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b2a11a50.0410271257.68ecec5f@posting.google.com...

quote:

> When I ran for the Board, I advocated lower membership dues. I still
> do.

Did you get an interest free loan of $5,000? I hear there is some precedent
for that sort of loan to board members.

quote:

> Our Finance Committee Chairman is currently working on a new
> membership model, that would cut membership fees, make the magazine
> subscription optional, and raise ratings fees--in effect, making USCF
> membership an a la carte, a pay-as-you-go proposition, with your
> payments based on the services you use.

I can't wait to see what Jon comes up with. Oops, I ended a sentence with a
preposition. I better fix that. I can't wait to see what Jon comes up with
XXXXXXX.

Mike Nolan

2004-10-31, 6:46 am

"David" <caissaintp@adelphia.net> writes:

quote:

>I just went to the forms and brochures site, and did not find the membership
>form either. If it's there and we both missed it, then it needs a new
>title. I found this after poking around for a while:
>http://www.uschess.org/2004mem_rates.php

quote:

>I understand your frustration, and hope that the above link helps in some
>small measure.

Chess One

2004-10-31, 9:45 am

"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:f8f5e7b4.0410301406.740a5ee@posting.google.com...

quote:

> Tim Hanke wrote:
>
>
> _
> My impression is that this is not completely true.
> Previously, Timothy Hanke wrote, "If USCF follows my
> advice, they will make the no-magazine membership
> cheaper than the current $39 (I suggest $25), and at
> the same time they will improve the magazine so
> dramatically you won't even recognize it anymore."
> Now, my impression is that Timothy Hanke has dropped
> the at-the-same-time idea and wants to proceed with
> making Chess Life optional now even though it is not
> "dramatically" improved. Are my impressions correct?

As a strategic element in any plan, CL will also cost USCF some 2,000 sq
feet of space, right? Or some $200,000 of new building. Tim Hanke also
suggested dropping the magazine in favor of an e-zine - I understand that
the board do not want to do this and this subject of an e-zine no longer
appears on any agenda.

Whether uncoupling CL from memberships, or re-visioning it as an e-zine, it
still constitutes a large proportion of on-going expenditure. Do you
understand Louis, the basis of any decision about its future? On the face of
it USCF is about to commit half of its last financial asset to maintaining
it 'as is'.

There has been no real debate on this subject, although any reader here will
be familiar with the trend of people's comments on CL, and with its current
editor, a fellow Tim Hanke suggested for the appointment.

Rather than argue about the editor as a personality, does it make sense to
discuss the future role of CL as part of USCF's package of services?

Phil Innes

Louis Blair

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

In a note that quoted my note and addressed me
repeatedly, Phil Innes wrote:

quote:

> ... Rather than argue about the editor as a
> personality, does it make sense to discuss
> the future role of CL as part of USCF's
> package of services.

_
I do not see why Phil Innes apparently directs
this question to me. I am not arguing about
the editor as a personality. I am trying to
find out some specific details about the course
of action that Timothy Hanke is supporting.

Kenneth Sloan

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

lblai@blackburn.edu (Louis Blair) writes:

quote:

> In a note that quoted my note and addressed me
> repeatedly, Phil Innes wrote:
>
>
> _
> I do not see why Phil Innes apparently directs
> this question to me. I am not arguing about
> the editor as a personality. I am trying to
> find out some specific details about the course
> of action that Timothy Hanke is supporting.

No, you are not.

--
Kenneth Sloan sloan@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Louis Blair

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

Phil Innes wrote:

quote:

> any reader here will be familiar with the trend
> of people's comments on CL, and with its current
> editor, a fellow Tim Hanke suggested for the
> appointment.

Tim Hanke wrote:

quote:

> WRONG. I never heard of Kalev Pehme till shortly
> before he was appointed.

_
Does the statement of Timothy Hanke contradict the
statement of Phil Innes?

"After two long conversations with Kalev, I
feel Kalev is the man we need for the job."
- Timothy Hanke (2003-08-30 10:33:15 PST)

Louis Blair

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

I wrote:

quote:

> I am trying to find out some specific details
> about the course of action that Timothy Hanke
> is supporting.

Kenneth Sloan wrote:

quote:

> No, you are not.

_
Of course, Kenneth Sloan had no logical thought
process that he wished to present in order to
justify his claim.

Kenneth Sloan

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

lblai@blackburn.edu (Louis Blair) writes:

quote:

> I wrote:
>
>
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
>
> _
> Of course, Kenneth Sloan had no logical thought
> process that he wished to present in order to
> justify his claim.

Does so.

--
Kenneth Sloan sloan@uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Louis Blair

2004-10-31, 5:46 pm

I wrote:

quote:

> I am trying to find out some specific details
> about the course of action that Timothy Hanke
> is supporting.

Kenneth Sloan wrote:

quote:

> No, you are not.

I wrote:

quote:

> Of course, Kenneth Sloan had no logical thought
> process that he wished to present in order to
> justify his claim.

Kenneth Sloan now writes:

quote:

> Does so.

_
Then, where is it?

Louis Blair

2004-11-01, 6:45 am

Tim Hanke wrote (2004-10-27 13:57:28 PST):

quote:

> When I ran for the Board, I advocated making
> "Chess Life" an optional member benefit. I
> still do.

I wrote (2004-10-27 15:20:51 PST):

quote:

> Back then, Timothy Hanke also acknowledged:
>
> "If we make the magazine optional as I propose, and
> don't significantly improve the magazine, that would
> not be good for our revenue." - Timothy Hanke
> (2003-05-07 12:52:56 PST)
>
> Does Timothy Hanke maintain that the magazine has
> now been improved so much that we can now make it
> optional without doing damage to USCF revenue?
>
> Does Timothy Hanke think that the USCF should now
> make the magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue?

kg wrote (2004-10-28 05:26:32 PST):

quote:

> Does Louis Blair maintain that reiterating support
> for a position previously presented as conditional
> somehow negates the restrictions placed on that support?

I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):

quote:

> No, I would say that it creates a situation where it
> is not clear whether or not Timothy Hanke still feels
> that the condition (stated more than a year ago) still
> applies.

kg now writes:

quote:

> Hardly. There is NOTHING in Hanke's quote to suggest
> any change AT ALL in his position.

quote:

> If your concern is his lack of re-mentioning the
> condition, I'm sure he has said other things on
> this topic as well.

quote:

> For you to have no doubts, must he restate everything
> he has said everytime.

quote:

> You have created the lack of clarity for yourself.
>
> (Hanke's statement:
> "When I ran for the Board, I advocated making
> "Chess Life" an optional member benefit. I
> still do."

quote:

> Does Louis Blair maintain that Timothy Hanke supported
> making the "magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue" previously?

I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):

quote:

> No, it seemed to me that the recent Timothy Hanke note
> was not clear about the specifics of what he supports.
> That is why I asked my questions.

kg now writes:

quote:

> It seems to me that Hanke's note gave no reason to
> suspect a change in his position, regardless of its
> lack of details.

_
This does not contradict what I wrote. The note does
not say anything about conditions, and, consequently,
it does not indicate whether or not the conditions
have changed.

kg now writes:

quote:

> To expect details in a summary post on a separate
> topic is unreasonable ...

_
I did not say what should have been expected in
Hanke's post. I noticed that an important (in
my opinion) detail was not mentioned and asked
about it.

kg now writes:

quote:

> ... and does not justify an assessment of
> "unclear".

_
I did not "assess" the post as "unclear". I said
that the post did not clarify the matter of the
conditions.

kg now writes:

quote:

> Your history of postings about Hanke suggest
> more likely alternatives as to why you asked
> your questions.

quote:

> He clearly implies it ...

I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):

quote:

> I see no such clear implication, and, in any event, I
> have no hesitation about clarifying the matter for kg
> and anyone else who may want such a clarification. How
> long will we have to wait for a clarification of the
> current Timothy Hanke position?

kg now writes:

quote:

> As you have no reason for assessing his statement as
> unclear ...

_
I did not "assess" the statement as "unclear". I said
that the statement did not clarify the matter of the
conditions, and I stand by that.

kg now writes:

quote:

> ... or for thinking his position has changed in any
> way, you appear to be implying that he originally
> held that position.

quote:

> Your clarifications seem disingenuous given your
> history of posts and logical stretches.

_
Apparently, it has come home to kg that his
accusations can not be justified by the record
of what happened in this particular incident.
Even invoking vaguely my past history, he
feels obliged to qualify his claims by using
"seem". We can only guess about what may have
biased the judgment of kg with regard to what
"seem"s to be.

kg wrote (2004-10-28 05:26:32 PST):

quote:

> ... by suggesting that Hanke's message which describes
> an unchanged point of view advocates for such a thing.

I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):

quote:

> I am not "suggesting that Hanke's message ... advocates
> for such a thing". I am ASKING about what he currently
> thinks.

kg now writes:

quote:

> He already told you:
> "When I ran for the Board, I advocated making "Chess
> Life" an optional member benefit. I still do."
>
> If one wanted further clarification about what that
> meant, one would reasonably go to his statements at
> the time of his board run (which you evidently did).
> If one harbored suspicions that his position had
> changed (which you apparently did since nothing he
> said could reasonably give you that impression),
> a more appropriate way to ask the question would
> have been directly, like "Has your position changed
> in any of its details from the time of your board
> run?" as opposed to your rhetorical "attack":

_
Thanks to kg for his suggested revision. Perhaps I
did not phrase my note in the best possible way. This
nevertheless does not justify his accusations.

Starting with a quote of me,
kg now writes:

quote:

>
> No reasonable person without an agenda would suspect
> that Timothy Hanke would take actions "regardless of
> whatever damage is done to USCF revenue".

quote:

> Again, there is nothing in his statement to suggest
> his position has changed at all.

_
This does not contradict what I wrote. The note does
not say anything about conditions, and, consequently,
it does not indicate whether or not the conditions
have changed.

kg now writes:

quote:

> Yet, there is adequate evidence in your history of
> postings to suggest motivations beyond
> inquisitiveness/clarification.

_
Apparently, it has come home to kg that his
accusations can not be justified by the record
of what happened in this particular incident.
Even invoking vaguely my past history, he
feels obliged to qualify his claims by using
"suggest". We can only guess about what may have
biased the judgment of kg with regard to what
is "suggest"ed.

And, again, the charge changes. Now it is
unspecified "motivations beyond inquisitiveness
/clarification".

2004-11-01, 5:46 pm

While dueling quotes can be fun for a spell, I already
feel like we're drifting in kb territory. I will
summarize my position and let you address it directly
if you wish.

You started with:

lblai@blackburn.edu (Louis Blair) wrote in message news:<f8f5e7b4.0410291356.37fb2568@posting.google.com>...

quote:

> Tim Hanke wrote (2004-10-27 13:57:28 PST):
>
> I wrote (2004-10-27 15:20:51 PST):

In this post you provided two quotes from two different time
periods. Following those quotes you ask two questions. I
feel it is a fair reading to say that the form of the post,
as well as the use of "now" in the questions, both indicate
that the quotes were supposed to provide the justification for
the questions.

I don't believe that the quotes offer justification for the
questions. The more current quote was made in an unrelated
thread and was one of a few statements given by Mr. Hanke to
generally say he supports what he has said he supported in the
past. As such, the general sense of the statements, to me,
was that his positions haven't changed.

Apparently, you give significant weight to the unstated, probing
unmentioned details. From below:
"[vbcol=seagreen]
> The quote does not say anything
> about conditions, and, consequently, it does not indicate
> whether or not the conditions have changed.

"
I agree fully with your characterization here but do not see it as
creating any doubt as to his position. I think the fair reading of
Hanke's comments is that he hasn't changed positions. If Hanke's answer
had been in response to a question like "What is your position on
requiring the magazine for the membership?" or if he had expounded in
great length on a separate, similarly peripheral topic but not on that
specific one, I might agree with your position. As it is, I don't
agree with your claim that (from separate later posts):

"My impression from Timothy Hanke's latest note is
that he now thinks that the USCF should forge ahead
right now with making the magazine optional and
accept the damage to USCF revenue while hoping that
things will work out well in the long run."

There is nothing on the record to suggest that. This is an impression
you created for yourself.

You also note:
"

quote:

> I have seen nothing recently
> from Timothy Hanke about the condition for making
> the magazine optional, and I do not see anyone
> claiming to have recently seen something here from
> Timothy Hanke on the subject.

"
and that's my point! You really have no new information on
which to make the impression _you_, not Hanke's message, have
created. It is unreasonable to have expected Hanke to
discuss the details of his plans when mentioning them in the
context they were mentioned.

Furthermore, a question phrased like:

quote:

doesn't even pass the smell test. "regardless of whatever
damage" suggests a level of irresponsibility that is insulting
to Mr. Hanke, and unjustified, especially since the justification
for the question just isn't there.

You have a history of challenging Mr. Hanke in this fashion (quote
A, quote B, B!=A), sometimes on target, other times adrift. This
time I thought your premise was weak and the evidence offered even
weaker. I called you on it.

Your protestations to be "just asking a question" seem incredibly
disingenuous because of the form of the question (insulting) and
lack of justification for its asking. If you had asked the question(s)
in a neutral manner, acknowledging the liklihood that his position
hadn't changed, I would not have posted.

Obviously, you disagree.

K

[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> kg wrote (2004-10-28 05:26:32 PST):
>
> I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> kg writes, "Hardly," but his next sentence does not
> contradict what I wrote. The quote does not say anything
> about conditions, and, consequently, it does not indicate
> whether or not the conditions have changed.
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> kg apparently had no reason for being sure that he
> wished to share with us. I have seen nothing recently
> from Timothy Hanke about the condition for making
> the magazine optional, and I do not see anyone
> claiming to have recently seen something here from
> Timothy Hanke on the subject.
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> I am not talking about "everything". I am talking
> about one specific detail - a detail that strikes
> me as very important. There is a big difference
> between:
>
> "USCF should do blah-blah now,"
>
> and
>
> "USCF should do blah-blah after thus-and-such
> has been accomplished."
>
> It seems completely appropriate to me to ask about
> this distinction.
>
> Furthermore, the use by kg of "everytime" is
> inappropriate. I would be satisfied with a recent
> explanation of the conditions. I have not seen
> one.
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> I do not see how kg can fail to perceive that
> the note does not indicate Timothy Hanke's
> opinion about what conditions currently
> need to be satisfied before Chess Life can
> become optional. Maybe Timothy Hanke thinks
> Chess Life has been improved enough. Maybe
> he doesn't. Maybe he thinks USCF can now
> handle whatever loss to revenue there is.
> Maybe he doesn't. I see no way to know from
> what Timothy Hanke posted.
>
>
> kg wrote (2004-10-28 05:26:32 PST):
>
> I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> This does not contradict what I wrote. The note does
> not say anything about conditions, and, consequently,
> it does not indicate whether or not the conditions
> have changed.
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> I did not say what should have been expected in
> Hanke's post. I noticed that an important (in
> my opinion) detail was not mentioned and asked
> about it.
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> I did not "assess" the post as "unclear". I said
> that the post did not clarify the matter of the
> conditions.
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> Apparently, it has come home to kg that his
> accusations can not be justified by the record
> of what happened in this particular incident.
> Even invoking vaguely my past history, he
> feels obliged to qualify his unspecified
> "alternatives" with a "more likely". We can
> only guess about what may have biased the
> judgment of kg with regard to what is "more
> likely".
>
>
> kg wrote (2004-10-28 05:26:32 PST):
>
> I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> I did not "assess" the statement as "unclear". I said
> that the statement did not clarify the matter of the
> conditions, and I stand by that.
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> My note does not imply what Timothy Hanke is currently
> thinking. It asks about what Timothy Hanke is currently
> thinking. kg shrinks from claiming to know that Timothy
> Hanke's conditions have not changed. He apparently does
> not know. I do not know and do not pretend to know. In
> view of these things, it makes no sense to claim that
> I implied that Timothy Hanke's original position was
> anything other than what I quoted from more than a year
> ago.
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> Apparently, it has come home to kg that his
> accusations can not be justified by the record
> of what happened in this particular incident.
> Even invoking vaguely my past history, he
> feels obliged to qualify his claims by using
> "seem". We can only guess about what may have
> biased the judgment of kg with regard to what
> "seem"s to be.
>
>
> kg wrote (2004-10-28 05:26:32 PST):
>
> I wrote (2004-10-28 10:24:39 PST):
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> Thanks to kg for his suggested revision. Perhaps I
> did not phrase my note in the best possible way. This
> nevertheless does not justify his accusations.
>
>
> Starting with a quote of me,
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> It has to be noted that, at this point, kg has changed
> his charge to the vague one of having an unspecified
> "agenda".
>
> Also, we are not discussing Timothy Hanke TAKING action.
> We are discussing Timothy Hanke TALKING about an action
> here at rec.games.chess.politics. kg may call me
> unreasonable if he likes, but I certainly consider it
> to be possible that Timothy Hanke could talk about
> something without giving it appropriate thought. My
> note was intended to encourage what I consider to be
> appropriate thought about important aspects of what
> was being discussed.
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> This does not contradict what I wrote. The note does
> not say anything about conditions, and, consequently,
> it does not indicate whether or not the conditions
> have changed.
>
>
> kg now writes:
>
>
> _
> Apparently, it has come home to kg that his
> accusations can not be justified by the record
> of what happened in this particular incident.
> Even invoking vaguely my past history, he
> feels obliged to qualify his claims by using
> "suggest". We can only guess about what may have
> biased the judgment of kg with regard to what
> is "suggest"ed.
>
> And, again, the charge changes. Now it is
> unspecified "motivations beyond inquisitiveness
> /clarification".

StanB

2004-11-01, 5:46 pm

"kg" <klgore@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:db6eb0c9.0411011204.4b055adc@posting.google.com...

quote:

> While dueling quotes can be fun for a spell, I already
> feel like we're drifting in kb territory. I will
> summarize my position and let you address it directly
> if you wish.
>
> You started with:
>
> lblai@blackburn.edu (Louis Blair) wrote in message
> news:<f8f5e7b4.0410291356.37fb2568@posting.google.com>...
>
> In this post you provided two quotes from two different time
> periods. Following those quotes you ask two questions. I
> feel it is a fair reading to say that the form of the post,
> as well as the use of "now" in the questions, both indicate
> that the quotes were supposed to provide the justification for
> the questions.

Blair's questions always sound like a statement. His posts add a new aura of
excitement to the old pastime of watching paint dry.

RMille9601

2004-11-02, 12:46 am

Louis Blair

2004-11-02, 6:46 am

Tim Hanke wrote:

quote:

> When I ran for the Board, I advocated making
> "Chess Life" an optional member benefit. I
> still do.

I wrote:

quote:

> Back then, Timothy Hanke also acknowledged:
>
> "If we make the magazine optional as I propose, and
> don't significantly improve the magazine, that would
> not be good for our revenue." - Timothy Hanke
> (2003-05-07 12:52:56 PST)
>
> Does Timothy Hanke maintain that the magazine has
> now been improved so much that we can now make it
> optional without doing damage to USCF revenue?
>
> Does Timothy Hanke think that the USCF should now
> make the magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue?

Tim Hanke now writes:

quote:

> Timothy Hanke thinks making the magazine optional is
> a good idea for several reasons ...

_
I was not asking about WHY Timothy Hanke supports
what he supports. I was asking about the specifics
of WHAT he supports. Does Timothy Hanke maintain
that the USCF should NOW make the magazine optional
or is this contingent on the USCF accomplishing
other things that are not currently accomplished?

Does Timothy Hanke still think that making the
magazine optional without significantly improving
the magazine would not be good for our revenue?

My impression from Timothy Hanke's latest note is
that he now thinks that the USCF should forge ahead
right now with making the magazine optional and
accept the damage to USCF revenue while hoping that
things will work out well in the long run. Is this
impression correct?

Tim Hanke now writes:

quote:

> I try to be fair to [Bill Goichberg], even when I
> disagree with him ...

_
It seems to me that one way to be fairer would be
to stick to the issues and refrain from public
attacks (with no evidence presented) on his
motivations.

Another thing that would help would be to comment
on misinformation posted in opposition to his ideas
instead of commenting only on misinformation
posted in support of his ideas.

Louis Blair

2004-11-02, 6:46 am

Tim Hanke wrote:

quote:

> [my views on Chess Life have] stayed the same since
> stayed the same since I was a candidate.

_
My impression is that this is not completely true.
Previously, Timothy Hanke wrote, "If USCF follows my
advice, they will make the no-magazine membership
cheaper than the current $39 (I suggest $25), and at
the same time they will improve the magazine so
dramatically you won't even recognize it anymore."
Now, my impression is that Timothy Hanke has dropped
the at-the-same-time idea and wants to proceed with
making Chess Life optional now even though it is not
"dramatically" improved. Are my impressions correct?

StanB

2004-11-02, 9:46 am

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:41810a41.82291890@ca.news.verio.net...

quote:

>
> We certainly would like to know if there is something at the bottom of
> this.

We? Are you pregnant.

quote:

> Why don't you name the name of the Board Member involved?

I'm not judgement proof.

quote:

> The only two board members who do not have much money and therefore
> might be asking for a loan are Beatriz and Hanke. I think that the
> others are fairly well fixed, but I might be mistaken. If I am
> mistaken, I would be shocked.

Wrong on both counts.

Sam Sloan

2004-11-02, 9:46 am

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:44:56 -0400, "StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net>
wrote:

quote:

>
>"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
>news:41816277.19017312@ca.news.verio.net...
>
>
>No, I said there was a precedent for it.
>
>
>Why do you assume it is a sitting board member?

OK. In that case there is no need for alarm. I guess you were asking a
trick question.

Sam Sloan

Louis Blair

2004-11-02, 9:46 am

In a note that quoted my note and addressed me
repeatedly, Phil Innes wrote:

quote:

> ... Rather than argue about the editor as a
> personality, does it make sense to discuss
> the future role of CL as part of USCF's
> package of services.

Kenneth Sloan

2004-11-02, 9:46 am

lblai@blackburn.edu (Louis Blair) writes:

quote:

> I wrote:
>
>
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
>
> _
> Of course, Kenneth Sloan had no logical thought
> process that he wished to present in order to
> justify his claim.

Louis Blair

2004-11-02, 9:46 am

I wrote:

quote:

> I am trying to find out some specific details
> about the course of action that Timothy Hanke
> is supporting.

Kenneth Sloan wrote:

quote:

> No, you are not.

I wrote:

quote:

> Of course, Kenneth Sloan had no logical thought
> process that he wished to present in order to
> justify his claim.

Kenneth Sloan now writes:

quote:

> Does so.

_
Then, where is it?

Louis Blair

2004-11-02, 5:46 pm

Tim Hanke wrote (2004-10-27 13:57:28 PST):

quote:

> When I ran for the Board, I advocated making
> "Chess Life" an optional member benefit. I
> still do.

I wrote (2004-10-27 15:20:51 PST):

quote:

> Back then, Timothy Hanke also acknowledged:
>
> "If we make the magazine optional as I propose, and
> don't significantly improve the magazine, that would
> not be good for our revenue." - Timothy Hanke
> (2003-05-07 12:52:56 PST)
>
> Does Timothy Hanke maintain that the magazine has
> now been improved so much that we can now make it
> optional without doing damage to USCF revenue?
>
> Does Timothy Hanke think that the USCF should now
> make the magazine optional regardless of whatever
> damage is done to USCF revenue?

kg now writes:

quote:

> ... I will summarize my position and let you
> address it directly if you wish.
> ...
> In this post you provided two quotes from two
> different time periods. Following those quotes
> you ask two questions. I feel it is a fair
> reading to say that the form of the post,
> as well as the use of "now" in the questions,
> both indicate that the quotes were supposed to
> provide the justification for the questions.

_
Already, kg is seriously off the track. I have
no idea what kg means by "justification for"
questions, and he has no business assuming that
I operate under his "justification" rules. If
he wants to clearly state what he thinks those
rules should be and argue that I should adopt
them, it is possible that I would agree with
him, but that still would be no reason to
conclude that I was using or pretending to use
his rules when I posted my 2004-10-27 15:20:51
PST note.

kg now writes:

quote:

> I don't believe that the quotes offer
> justification for the questions.

_
The quotes were not intended to satisfy kg's
justification rules, whatever they are, and
nothing in my note indicates that I was trying
to satisfy kg's justification rules. The
quotes were intended to give an indication of
what INSPIRED me to ask my questions.

kg now writes:

quote:

> The more current quote was made in an unrelated
> thread and was one of a few statements given by
> Mr. Hanke to generally say he supports what he
> has said he supported in the past. As such, the
> general sense of the statements, to me, was that
> his positions haven't changed.

_
kg produces no quote from the 2004-10-27 13:57:28
PST Timothy Hanke note to back up these claims.
I see NOTHING in that note that can be legitimately
taken as "generally" saying he supports what he
has said he supported in the past. He wrote that
he still advocated making Chess Life an optional
member benefit and that he still advocated lower
membership dues. He wrote nothing that I can see
to indicate that those two statements should be
taken as an indication of something "general".

In a previous discussion, Timothy Hanke told us,
"the world is constantly changing, fresh data is
constantly flooding in". Timothy Hanke said that
some "previous statements" of his "were based on
old information". (2003-08-28 16:19:58 PST) I
see NOTHING in the 2004-10-27 13:57:28 PST Timothy
Hanke note to indicate that there has been no
change in his 2003-05-07 conditions for making
Chess Life optional.

kg now writes:

quote:

> Apparently, you give significant weight to the
> unstated, probing unmentioned details. From
> below:
> "
> "
> I agree fully with your characterization here
> but do not see it as creating any doubt as to his
> position.

_
Doubt is a natural result of the conditions having
been stated more than a year ago, with, as Timothy
Hanke has written, "fresh data ... constantly
flooding in".

kg now writes:

quote:

> I think the fair reading of Hanke's comments
> is that he hasn't changed positions.

_
kg doesn't seem to be very eager to identify
any specific quote from the 2004-10-27 13:57:28
PST Timothy Hanke note that can be "fair"ly
read that way.

kg now writes:

quote:

> If Hanke's answer had been in response to a
> question like "What is your position on
> requiring the magazine for the membership?"
> or if he had expounded in great length on a
> separate, similarly peripheral topic but not
> on that specific one, I might agree with your
> position.

_
kg does not seem to be doing a very good job
of correctly identifying my position.

kg now writes:

quote:

> As it is, I don't agree with your claim that
> (from separate later posts):
>
> "My impression from Timothy Hanke's latest note is
> that he now thinks that the USCF should forge ahead
> right now with making the magazine optional and
> accept the damage to USCF revenue while hoping that
> things will work out well in the long run."
>
> There is nothing on the record to suggest that.
> This is an impression you created for yourself.

_
kg chooses not to identify the specific Timothy
Hanke note that I was responding to. (It was
Timothy Hanke's 2004-10-30 08:54:34 PST note.)
Did kg even read it before deciding that I had
created an impression for myself?

The Timothy Hanke note started by quoting my
2004-10-27 15:20:51 PST note - a note that kg
himself has recognized as discussing Timothy
Hanke's conditions for making the magazine
optional. Timothy Hanke proceeded to respond
to my note by arguing that making the magazine
optional was a good idea without writing a
single word about conditions that would have
to be satisfied before making the magazine
optional. He also referred to the possibility
that Chess Life would "improve its quality"
AFTER it became optional.

In view of this it seemed quite reasonable to
me to TENTATIVELY refer to my impression that
Timothy Hanke no longer wanted to wait until
Chess Life was "dramatically" improved. I
indicated that my impression was tentative by
asking about it: "Is this impression correct?"
Thus, I clearly indicated that I did not consider
it appropriate to take my impression as correct
without checking. kg chose to snip that sentence
in his quote above.

kg now writes:

quote:

> You also note:
> "
> "
> and that's my point! You really have no new
> information on which to make the impression _you_,
> not Hanke's message, have created.

_
Again, Timothy Hanke replied to my specific note
about conditions by advocating optional Chess
Life without any indication of pre-conditions
and specifically referring to a former condition
(improving Chess Life) as taking place AFTER
the magazine became optional. I think that
created the impression I described. It might
have been an unintentional impression. That
is why I ASKED about it. I encouraged nobody
to believe the impression. In the part of my
note that kg snipped, I indicated that the
impression was something that lacked
confirmation.

kg now writes:

quote:

> It is unreasonable to have expected Hanke to
> discuss the details of his plans when mentioning
> them in the cont