|
| Petrel,
the idea behind my post is not to have Tom (or anyone else) agree with
everything I say! He's free to agree or disagree with the whole or part of
my post.
If my suggestions aren't good for the only reason that others are doing the
same, then nothing should ever be done! I mean, the USCF is producing a
printed magazine, which others are doing. It's calculating ratings, which
others are doing, etc.
In any case, those are just suggestions. Take them for whatever they're
worth. I'm not willing to spend any energy on convincing anyone of anything:
there's enough bickering going on already.
--
Irvin
-------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com
"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dOXzd.7051$by5.3454@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> "irvin" <noone@none.com> wrote in message
> news:g0Xzd.38099$ld2.15841613@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> Irvin, why do you believe the USCF should retain some of these functions?
>
>
> Why? There are other servers already. Do you think Tom Martinak will
> agree with you about this?
>
>
> Why? There are other websites already. Do you think Tom Martinak will
> agree with you about the extensive content that you apparently want to
> include? Someone will doubtless point out that websites can serve as a
> propaganda tool.
>
>
> Such things are on line already.
>
>
> Raising funds for what? Rating calculation? You've demonstrated that the
> costs for that will be minimal. Also, someone will doubtless point out
> that if funds are raised, it will give politicians an incentive to loot
> them.
>
> I think that a poll about "what core functions should the USCF retain"
> would turn up some interesting variation even among the minimalists.
> There may not be a majority of minimalists in favor of ANY functions other
> than ratings calculation and TD certification.
>
> petrel
>
>
>
|
|