|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > October 2005 > Next Week at USCF
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Chess One 2005-10-23, 7:33 pm |
| "Well, I voted for Sam because I believe he would tell us what is going on
inside the USCF instead of keeping secrets as this and previous boards have
done."
And talking of secrets, I think I know the topic of conversation next week
at USCF and in these chess groups. It might even dominate the board meeting
5th and 6th November - but doesn't yet appear on the proposed agenda.
Later today www.chessville.com/ will publish a few current and closely held
secrets!
Phil Innes
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-23, 11:30 pm |
| Um, ok. So can we have a URL to the article?
The World Series is on, and it would be helpful if we could go right to the
pertinent "slam sheet" 
--
Tom Klem
"Perhaps you think I'm treating you unfairly. IT WOULD BE TOO BAD if I had
to leave a garrison here ..."
---Darth Vader (the only character in Star Wars who knew what he was about)
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:v9N6f.3263$c4.1750@trndny03...
quote:
> "Well, I voted for Sam because I believe he would tell us what is going on
> inside the USCF instead of keeping secrets as this and previous boards
have
quote:
> done."
>
> And talking of secrets, I think I know the topic of conversation next week
> at USCF and in these chess groups. It might even dominate the board
meeting
quote:
> 5th and 6th November - but doesn't yet appear on the proposed agenda.
>
> Later today www.chessville.com/ will publish a few current and closely
held
quote:
> secrets!
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
| |
| Joshua Houk 2005-10-23, 11:30 pm |
| "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nobibledebunkers.org> wrote in
news:fLV6f.57686$WR2.19898@fed1read03:
quote:
> Um, ok. So can we have a URL to the article?
Here it is, in all its glory:
http://www.chessville.com/Editorial...SR_USCF_B&E.htm
I'm wondering if it all ain't a bit of sour grapes, considering that in the
"report", Chessville is expressing righteous indignation that its business
partner's bid - from chess4less.com - wasn't accepted.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-23, 11:30 pm |
| Muchos gratias!
"Joshua Houk" <jlhouk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F8C2B7499ABjlhoukcomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
quote:
> "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nobibledebunkers.org> wrote in
> news:fLV6f.57686$WR2.19898@fed1read03:
>
>
> Here it is, in all its glory:
>
> http://www.chessville.com/Editorial...SR_USCF_B&E.htm
>
> I'm wondering if it all ain't a bit of sour grapes, considering that in
the
quote:
> "report", Chessville is expressing righteous indignation that its business
> partner's bid - from chess4less.com - wasn't accepted.
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
|
"Tom Klem" <thewiz@nobibledebunkers.org> wrote in message
news:fLV6f.57686$WR2.19898@fed1read03...
quote:
> Um, ok. So can we have a URL to the article?
The mailbag is interesting - first letter indicated they would buy their
books elsewhere in the future. Another letter indicated disbelief at 'the
source'. In other words, didn't actually believe that the article was true!
I read here that Chessville is promoting their own book selling fortunes -
this is presumably on the same lines as the previous writer's attempts to
prove that Chessville's coffers would increase if Chesscafe CARRIED a title.
These singular and surface issues apart, I sense there is quite serious
trouble brewing over this closed-door deal.
There appear to be 3 main issues
a) USCF did not take the best bid
b) The alternate bidder offered to secure the commission, whereas
obviously Chesscafe has not done so, since it owes USCF a quarter million
c) The strange position of Bill Goichberg, as Ex Dir, prime mover of the
original deal with Chesscafe, and now as President riding over my letter to
the current Ex Dir. to do the same.
In his response to me BG indicated several very strange aspects of the
affair:
e) please understand that we have resisted disclosing details of our
negotiations all along for a reason. Negotiations have not yet completely
concluded, and you may have been provided with misleading information.
f) But until the revised contract is signed, the chance still exists
that an issue will arise that will cause dispute among the parties, or even
eliminate the accord that apparently now exists.
The reader should consider both these peculiarly-worded statements in their
full context.
http://www.chessville.com/Editorial...SR_USCF_B&E.htm
It is not clear what 'misleading information' refers to, if it refers to my
presentation of the situation, or if it refers to the deal being already
closed or otherwise. It gets stranger and stranger when I read (f) as if the
light of day would squelsh the deal.
In light, if that term can be used, of all the above I think it is proper to
wonder if this manner of doing business by a public non-profit could survive
any light at all?
Phil Innes
25 October, 2005
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
| Phil,
Like it or not, we are simply going to have to accept the fact that Bill
Goichberg is running things at the USCF. Micromanagement _NEVER_ works.
There are some on this newsgroup who think that it does, and that they can
force change at the USCF by _YELLING_ here. That doesn't work either.
In my opinion, the jury is still out on this latest tenure by La Goich and
company. If they do a good job and the whole USCF doesn't collapse into
bankruptcy, then I will be one of the first to cheer.
I do not seriously believe that the USCF is currently in danger of going out
of existence. As members, and as long as we are not being victimized by
mindless hate mongers though false charges and phony retro fitted rules, we
are only entitled to what we paid for. We are _not_ part of the management
or the board of directors, though some may still be laboring under the view
that they are "voting" members (beyond just Regular Adult Membership).
As fully paid up members, we are entitled to professional, courteous service
for our tournaments and the filing of the associated paper work and all
associated maintenance of such records. We are entitled to a professionally
written magazine. And we are entitled to vote for anyone whom we believe
would do a good job in giving us our forty nine bucks worth each year with
respect to those items.
We are also entitled to due process and a fair and honest hearing when such
contructs be necessary.
I'm certain that running the USCF is no bed of roses, no matter what the
balance sheet says and that as in all endeavors where "you can't please all
of the people all of the time..." is the rule and not the exception, there
are going to be those times when Mr Goichberg and his associates will not
get a good nights sleep.
I read the "parrots" contribution. The phrase "so what" comes to mind.
The bottom line is, the membership has given the authority (or at least that
is the skewed perception of many) to the current board. They don't have to
listen or even respond to anything we say.
All we should care about with respect to this hobby of ours, is fairness ...
solvency ... and quality services and professional management of our group
assets.
As long as we are getting that, we have very little to complain about.
There are, however, many unredressed grievances which the USCF has committed
in the recent past. These activities have done nothing for chess, they have
not enhanced the bottom line, and they have driven people out of chess. This
is what should concern us. Not who runs the money losing B&E business. If
Hanon Russell wants to run it, then I say good riddance to bad garbage (a
money hemorraging affair to be sure).
Ahem indeed.
--
Tom Klem
THE ÜBERMENSCH of Chess, (hypocrit and Jack Bull, Bill Goichberg) has your
organization for himself. In the end, he too will know which order to put
the cart and the horse.
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uZo7f.7967$%A1.4316@trndny01...
quote:
>
> "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nobibledebunkers.org> wrote in message
> news:fLV6f.57686$WR2.19898@fed1read03...
>
> The mailbag is interesting - first letter indicated they would buy their
> books elsewhere in the future. Another letter indicated disbelief at 'the
> source'. In other words, didn't actually believe that the article was
true!
quote:
>
> I read here that Chessville is promoting their own book selling fortunes -
> this is presumably on the same lines as the previous writer's attempts to
> prove that Chessville's coffers would increase if Chesscafe CARRIED a
title.
quote:
>
> These singular and surface issues apart, I sense there is quite serious
> trouble brewing over this closed-door deal.
>
> There appear to be 3 main issues
> a) USCF did not take the best bid
> b) The alternate bidder offered to secure the commission, whereas
> obviously Chesscafe has not done so, since it owes USCF a quarter million
> c) The strange position of Bill Goichberg, as Ex Dir, prime mover of
the
quote:
> original deal with Chesscafe, and now as President riding over my letter
to
quote:
> the current Ex Dir. to do the same.
>
> In his response to me BG indicated several very strange aspects of the
> affair:
>
> e) please understand that we have resisted disclosing details of our
> negotiations all along for a reason. Negotiations have not yet completely
> concluded, and you may have been provided with misleading information.
>
> f) But until the revised contract is signed, the chance still exists
> that an issue will arise that will cause dispute among the parties, or
even
quote:
> eliminate the accord that apparently now exists.
>
> The reader should consider both these peculiarly-worded statements in
their
quote:
> full context.
>
> http://www.chessville.com/Editorial...SR_USCF_B&E.htm
>
> It is not clear what 'misleading information' refers to, if it refers to
my
quote:
> presentation of the situation, or if it refers to the deal being already
> closed or otherwise. It gets stranger and stranger when I read (f) as if
the
quote:
> light of day would squelsh the deal.
>
>
> In light, if that term can be used, of all the above I think it is proper
to
quote:
> wonder if this manner of doing business by a public non-profit could
survive
quote:
> any light at all?
>
> Phil Innes
> 25 October, 2005
>
>
>
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
|
"Tom Klem" <thewiz@nobibledebunkers.org> wrote in message
news:JAs7f.60318$WR2.52153@fed1read03...
quote:
> Phil,
>
> Like it or not, we are simply going to have to accept the fact that Bill
> Goichberg is running things at the USCF. Micromanagement _NEVER_ works.
I am unsure of what connection there is between those 2 statements Tom. When
Bill as Exec Dir he had a few battles with Beatriz on just this subject! On
those occassions he argued otherwise than you do now.
quote:
> There are some on this newsgroup who think that it does, and that they can
> force change at the USCF by _YELLING_ here. That doesn't work either.
quote:
> In my opinion, the jury is still out on this latest tenure by La Goich and
> company. If they do a good job and the whole USCF doesn't collapse into
> bankruptcy, then I will be one of the first to cheer.
And if they do collapse into bankruptcy especially after forgiving a
$100,000 of debt?
quote:
> I do not seriously believe that the USCF is currently in danger of going
> out
> of existence. As members, and as long as we are not being victimized by
> mindless hate mongers though false charges and phony retro fitted rules,
> we
> are only entitled to what we paid for. We are _not_ part of the management
> or the board of directors, though some may still be laboring under the
> view
> that they are "voting" members (beyond just Regular Adult Membership).
You are making the point that members vote for people, not on issues -
except of course by the negative 'vote' of not renewing their memberships.
Some 15,000 people did that over the past 2 years. Reports on the current
trends are forthcoming.... zzzz
quote:
> As fully paid up members, we are entitled to professional, courteous
> service
> for our tournaments and the filing of the associated paper work and all
> associated maintenance of such records. We are entitled to a
> professionally
> written magazine. And we are entitled to vote for anyone whom we believe
> would do a good job in giving us our forty nine bucks worth each year with
> respect to those items.
Okay.
quote:
> We are also entitled to due process and a fair and honest hearing when
> such
> contructs be necessary.
>
> I'm certain that running the USCF is no bed of roses, no matter what the
> balance sheet says and that as in all endeavors where "you can't please
> all
> of the people all of the time..." is the rule and not the exception, there
> are going to be those times when Mr Goichberg and his associates will not
> get a good nights sleep.
>
> I read the "parrots" contribution. The phrase "so what" comes to mind.
So a public non-profit forgives a private for-profit $100,000 [or more?]
dollars, then seeks to renew its relationship with that outfit, again with
no security - and eschews another commercial outfit who gauranteed security
for commissions, and also gauranteed payment on an additional $100,000 per
year.
Now - this is only the commercial aspect of things. You seem indifferent in
your writing to the purpose of USCF, which is promote chess into mainstream
culture - and this missing $100,000 is certainly not going to take any part
in that. You ask "So what?" These are the two answers which occur to me.
quote:
> The bottom line is, the membership has given the authority (or at least
> that
> is the skewed perception of many) to the current board. They don't have to
> listen or even respond to anything we say.
>
> All we should care about with respect to this hobby of ours, is fairness
> ...
> solvency ... and quality services and professional management of our group
> assets.
I wonder how fair a dozen disinterested individuals would think the
situation I have described actually is?
quote:
> As long as we are getting that, we have very little to complain about.
>
> There are, however, many unredressed grievances which the USCF has
> committed
> in the recent past. These activities have done nothing for chess, they
> have
> not enhanced the bottom line, and they have driven people out of chess.
> This
> is what should concern us. Not who runs the money losing B&E business.
Unless in fact there is a coincidence in the bottom line and the B&E
business - which there is in this case.
quote:
> If
> Hanon Russell wants to run it, then I say good riddance to bad garbage (a
> money hemorraging affair to be sure).
>
> Ahem indeed.
It seems to me that if USCF has so much money and so little care about
supporting its own mission, why should anyone care more than Tom Klem. He is
correct, these people were voted in and there is nothing that can be done
about what they do or want to do until long afterwards.
A prime cause of USCF's troubles with its memberships seems also to occur
with these very long contracts, and I groaned out loud when I read heard a
little birdie on the phone tell me that HR Enterprises /turned down/ the
first offer to extend the contract to 2008, and insisted on 4 more years -
and the board immediately caved in and agreed.
Phil Innes
quote:
> --
> Tom Klem
>
> THE ÜBERMENSCH of Chess, (hypocrit and Jack Bull, Bill Goichberg) has your
> organization for himself. In the end, he too will know which order to put
> the cart and the horse.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:uZo7f.7967$%A1.4316@trndny01...
> true!
> title.
> the
> to
> even
> their
> my
> the
> to
> survive
>
>
| |
| parker.rose@hotmail.com 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
| I have to say that I think Tom Klem's approach is fairly sensible. He
makes a number of good points.
Tom is also being, at the very least, kind, when he says: "I read the
"parrots" contribution. The phrase "so what" comes to mind."
First we are subjected to Innes' hype of this report: "This Sunday Oct
23rd www.chessville.com will publish a special report on USCF's
negotiations with CHESSCAFE for B&E sales. The report will raise more
than a few eyebrows!" Then we are offered - almost nothing. It looks
like a cheap trick to drive traffic to a website.
This "report" is a repeat of a post by Larry Parr, then a series of
"questions" with false premises, all laced through with a heavy dose of
speculation.
Ohmigawd! The Board supposedly suggested a 2008 end of B&E and it was
rejected! Scandal! Heresy!
What bullshit. If this even happened at all, there was almost certainly
more going on.
Innes, why don't you take your arrogant, affected writing style, mostly
devoid of substance, and stick where the sun doesn't shine. Not only is
"The Parrot" a disgrace, he apparently has no paper at the bottom of
his cage. So guess what he's doing all over Chessville!?
Oh, and all this by someone, Phil Innes, who, according to uschess.org,
has not been a member of the USCF for NINE YEARS.
Imagine that.
Parker Rose.
| |
| Niemand 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
|
Joshua Houk wrote:
quote:
> I'm wondering if it all ain't a bit of sour grapes, considering that in the
> "report", Chessville is expressing righteous indignation that its business
> partner's bid - from chess4less.com - wasn't accepted.
One would guess that might be a strong motive. To a large extent the
recent B&E controversy looks like a smear campaign, with some of those
doing the smearing hoping to pick up the spoils. Two minor smeary
examples from Chessville's "report":
"Chess Cafe's marketing is universally admitted to be not very
good," -- "Universally"? "Admitted" by whom? So Chessville polled every
marketing expert in the world? Suuure they did. And they all said the
same? Riiight. I'm not an expert on business marketing, but I am
immediately skeptical of glib blanket generalizations.
"and it seems to have blacklisted many popular authors," -- "Many"?
Hmmm. Note how casually Chessville makes such a blatant exaggeration.
First it was just Eric Schiller who supposedly was "blacklisted"
(though actually he never was), but now it's "many" and they're all
"popular"? Who are these "many authors," how "popular" are they really,
and what is the proof that they are "blacklisted"?
Chessville repeatedly calls for "transparency" in USCF's dealings,
yet the only thing transparent about the two claims above is their
self-serving deceptiveness.
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
| I see that a new poster
[lol]
has tried to resolve the issue by stating that I have not been a member of
USCF for 9 years.
otherwise, according to his wits, which were never well demonstrated here at
any time, he thinks nothing further. i would have to wonder what would wake
up such a person, except as tom klem says, the whole shebang going under,
phil innes
<parker.rose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130267124.982125.40380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>I have to say that I think Tom Klem's approach is fairly sensible. He
> makes a number of good points.
>
> Tom is also being, at the very least, kind, when he says: "I read the
> "parrots" contribution. The phrase "so what" comes to mind."
>
> First we are subjected to Innes' hype of this report: "This Sunday Oct
> 23rd www.chessville.com will publish a special report on USCF's
> negotiations with CHESSCAFE for B&E sales. The report will raise more
> than a few eyebrows!" Then we are offered - almost nothing. It looks
> like a cheap trick to drive traffic to a website.
>
> This "report" is a repeat of a post by Larry Parr, then a series of
> "questions" with false premises, all laced through with a heavy dose of
> speculation.
>
> Ohmigawd! The Board supposedly suggested a 2008 end of B&E and it was
> rejected! Scandal! Heresy!
>
> What bullshit. If this even happened at all, there was almost certainly
> more going on.
>
> Innes, why don't you take your arrogant, affected writing style, mostly
> devoid of substance, and stick where the sun doesn't shine. Not only is
> "The Parrot" a disgrace, he apparently has no paper at the bottom of
> his cage. So guess what he's doing all over Chessville!?
>
> Oh, and all this by someone, Phil Innes, who, according to uschess.org,
> has not been a member of the USCF for NINE YEARS.
>
> Imagine that.
>
> Parker Rose.
>
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
|
"Niemand" <niemand@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1130268647.172327.311090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Joshua Houk wrote:
>
> One would guess that might be a strong motive. To a large extent the
> recent B&E controversy looks like a smear campaign, with some of those
> doing the smearing hoping to pick up the spoils. Two minor smeary
> examples from Chessville's "report":
Mr anonymous suggests an impossibility - rather than invvestigating a
$100,000 give away from a non-profit to a for-profit, this sad soul
thinks...
quote:
> "Chess Cafe's marketing is universally admitted to be not very
> good," -- "Universally"? "Admitted" by whom?
eividently by uscf members. how come from a former $3m a year, Chesscafe now
have a deficit of $250,000 based on an unknown gross.
quote:
> So Chessville polled every
> marketing expert in the world? Suuure they did. And they all said the
> same? Riiight. I'm not an expert on business marketing, but I am
> immediately skeptical of glib blanket generalizations.
how interesting Mr. anon, [lol!]
but you are not sceptical enough to do your own homework, or actually think
about what these affairs could mean?
quote:
> "and it seems to have blacklisted many popular authors," -- "Many"?
> Hmmm. Note how casually Chessville makes such a blatant exaggeration.
> First it was just Eric Schiller who supposedly was "blacklisted"
> (though actually he never was), but now it's "many" and they're all
> "popular"? Who are these "many authors," how "popular" are they really,
> and what is the proof that they are "blacklisted"?
have you blacklisted your own name?
quote:
> Chessville repeatedly calls for "transparency" in USCF's dealings,
> yet the only thing transparent about the two claims above is their
> self-serving deceptiveness.
you remind me of someone who used to post here who was also not worth the
candle on this or any other subject
phil innes
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
| "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> writes:
quote:
>eividently by uscf members. how come from a former $3m a year, Chesscafe now
>have a deficit of $250,000 based on an unknown gross.
The last time the USCF grossed $3 million on B&E was in the 1999-2000 fiscal
year. In fact, since postage and handling charges were being added into
gross sales, it is quite possible that the USCF NEVER grossed $3 million
in actual merchandise sales.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| Niemand 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
>
> eividently by uscf members. how come from a former $3m a year, Chesscafe now
> have a deficit of $250,000 based on an unknown gross.
"Eividently" [sic]? So actually you have just made an assumption? You
have actually not spoken with any marketing experts? Isn't this what's
known as "begging the question," the fallacy of assuming the truth of
what you purport to prove?
To my knowledge, before assuming USCF's B&E biz, ChessCafe never
grossed any $3 million a year. And as Mike Nolan just pointed out:
"The last time the USCF grossed $3 million on B&E was in the
1999-2000 fiscal year. In fact, since postage and handling charges
were being added into gross sales, it is quite possible that the USCF
NEVER grossed $3 million in actual merchandise sales."
So it seems you are just making everything up on all fronts here,
Phil.
quote:
>
> have you blacklisted your own name?
You know very well it's me, Phil. "Niemand" is my way of wearing
gloves, when dealing with some of rgcp's more toxic substances. Now, in
the interests of the "transparency" you claim to prize, please tell us:
who are these "many, popular, blacklisted" authors?
quote:
> you remind me of someone who used to post here who was also not worth the
> candle on this or any other subject
I notice that, as usual, you wilt under direct questioning.
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
| Mike, thank you for your corrective detail. Do you happen to know what gross
sales Chesscafe has, that would occasion it to owe USCF $250,000 for the
past 8 [ish] months? Or is the amount due simply the minimum Chesscafe said
it would pay?
Phil Innes
PS: all sorts of people are calling me on the phone and e-mailing. I cannot
represent your point of view unless you are willing to own your comments in
a written statement. Every comment I have made at Chessville has a name to
it, known to myself and the publisher which is our policy. USCF has not
contested any single fact published thus far.
PPS: It is perhaps not difficult to work out that several unsigned messages
here come from the same person using different anonymous identities, and
these can be ignored, as usual.
"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:djm3ii$icj$1@gw.tssi.com...
quote:
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
> The last time the USCF grossed $3 million on B&E was in the 1999-2000
> fiscal
> year. In fact, since postage and handling charges were being added into
> gross sales, it is quite possible that the USCF NEVER grossed $3 million
> in actual merchandise sales.
> --
> Mike Nolan
| |
| Niemand 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
|
Hey, Phil, your "report" says "ChessCafe ... seems to have
blacklisted many popular authors." Yet I notice that my book "Heroic
Tales" is *not* offered at Chessville.com.
Shall one therefore conclude that you guys are blacklisting me? ;-D
Cordially, Taylor
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
|
"Niemand" <niemand@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1130272471.804401.205280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> "Eividently" [sic]? So actually you have just made an assumption?
Evidently, by reports made to me.
quote:
> You
And who are you?
quote:
> have actually not spoken with any marketing experts?
Evidently you have not read my report - which record my contact with Bill
Hall, who incidentally replied to me directly. His own message is superceded
by Bill Goichberg's.
quote:
> Isn't this what's
> known as "begging the question," the fallacy of assuming the truth of
> what you purport to prove?
You assume altogether too much.
quote:
> To my knowledge, before assuming USCF's B&E biz, ChessCafe never
> grossed any $3 million a year. And as Mike Nolan just pointed out:
>
> "The last time the USCF grossed $3 million on B&E was in the
> 1999-2000 fiscal year. In fact, since postage and handling charges
> were being added into gross sales, it is quite possible that the USCF
> NEVER grossed $3 million in actual merchandise sales."
>
> So it seems you are just making everything up on all fronts here,
> Phil.
Really? I am reporting what people have said to me who can write their own
names under their reports. Preposterously you complain about anonymous
inventions while excusing yourself from having to write your own name.
ROFL!
quote:
>
> You know very well it's me, Phil. "Niemand" is my way of wearing
> gloves, when dealing with some of rgcp's more toxic substances.
You except yourself from this toxicity, and have some standard for others
that you do not observe for yourself?
ROFL
quote:
> Now, in
> the interests of the "transparency" you claim to prize, please tell us:
> who are these "many, popular, blacklisted" authors?
>
>
> I notice that, as usual, you wilt under direct questioning.
Direct? You seem to be sceptical that what I say is true whereas USCF itself
denies nothing about what I have said. I offered them the specific
opportunity to do so.
You may continue to be sceptical and, by virtue of your own logic, ignored.
Phil Innes
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
| Here you have some guy can't speak his own truth and write his name to it.
He really cares a lot, not! Phil
"Niemand" <niemand@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1130273071.189860.67270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> Hey, Phil, your "report" says "ChessCafe ... seems to have
> blacklisted many popular authors." Yet I notice that my book "Heroic
> Tales" is *not* offered at Chessville.com.
> Shall one therefore conclude that you guys are blacklisting me? ;-D
>
> Cordially, Taylor
>
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
| "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> writes:
quote:
>Mike, thank you for your corrective detail. Do you happen to know what gross
>sales Chesscafe has, that would occasion it to owe USCF $250,000 for the
>past 8 [ish] months? Or is the amount due simply the minimum Chesscafe said
>it would pay?
I don't have detailed sales numbers for USCF Sales aka Chess Cafe.
I also don't know how the figure of $250,000 was derived or how accurate
it is.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
|
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vlu7f.6710$p_6.2194@trndny07...
quote:
>
> "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nobibledebunkers.org> wrote in message
> news:JAs7f.60318$WR2.52153@fed1read03...
>
> I am unsure of what connection there is between those 2 statements Tom.
When
quote:
> Bill as Exec Dir he had a few battles with Beatriz on just this subject!
On
quote:
> those occassions he argued otherwise than you do now.
>
can[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> And if they do collapse into bankruptcy especially after forgiving a
> $100,000 of debt?
>
You're kidding, right Phil?
Two million flushed down the toilet in just the last six years. What's
another 100K?
Trust me, they won't be going bankrupt. To many people are benefiting from
the "demise" of the USCF to let it die.
quote:
management[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You are making the point that members vote for people, not on issues -
I'm not sure about that. For one thing, what about the phony election and
then the real one? Think that was a setup?
quote:
> except of course by the negative 'vote' of not renewing their memberships.
> Some 15,000 people did that over the past 2 years. Reports on the current
> trends are forthcoming.... zzzz
>
with[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Okay.
>
there[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> So a public non-profit forgives a private for-profit $100,000 [or more?]
> dollars, then seeks to renew its relationship with that outfit, again with
> no security - and eschews another commercial outfit who gauranteed
security
quote:
> for commissions, and also gauranteed payment on an additional $100,000 per
> year.
>
Excuse me, but has the NYS Atty Gen ever responded to you? Where, exactly,
do you think this is going? Personally, I think nowhere.
quote:
> Now - this is only the commercial aspect of things. You seem indifferent
in
quote:
> your writing to the purpose of USCF, which is promote chess into
mainstream
quote:
> culture - and this missing $100,000 is certainly not going to take any
part
quote:
> in that. You ask "So what?" These are the two answers which occur to me.
>
So what? As long as the membership votes (assuming we accept the process and
the outcome) this entire discussion is a non starter.
quote:
to[vbcol=seagreen]
group[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I wonder how fair a dozen disinterested individuals would think the
> situation I have described actually is?
>
Fair? You want fair? Try soccer. Rugby. Boxing. Oh my goodness, the world is
a ghetto.
quote:
>
> Unless in fact there is a coincidence in the bottom line and the B&E
> business - which there is in this case.
>
Like I said, heard anything from Eliot?
quote:
(a[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> It seems to me that if USCF has so much money and so little care about
> supporting its own mission, why should anyone care more than Tom Klem. He
is
quote:
> correct, these people were voted in and there is nothing that can be done
> about what they do or want to do until long afterwards.
>
> A prime cause of USCF's troubles with its memberships seems also to occur
> with these very long contracts, and I groaned out loud when I read heard a
> little birdie on the phone tell me that HR Enterprises /turned down/ the
> first offer to extend the contract to 2008, and insisted on 4 more years -
> and the board immediately caved in and agreed.
>
> Phil Innes
>
You are making my point exactly. The fact that Chess Cafe would have the
temerity to make such a "counter offer" ought to tell you and everyone
reading these words, "the fix is in".
As long as Eliot has nothing to say, what can any of us do?
The 1934 Accountancy Laws, and professional ethics out the door, do you even
believe what you are reading in the published P&L? These folks have been
known to make things up as they go along. The State of New York don't care.
I don't think it's too hard to figure out exactly what's in play here.
Cordially,
Tom Klem
quote:
your[vbcol=seagreen]
put[vbcol=seagreen]
their[vbcol=seagreen]
'the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
million[vbcol=seagreen]
letter[vbcol=seagreen]
our[vbcol=seagreen]
exists[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
already[vbcol=seagreen]
if[vbcol=seagreen]
proper[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| Spamscone@yahoo.com 2005-10-25, 7:32 pm |
|
parker.rose@hotmail.com wrote:
quote:
> I have to say that I think Tom Klem's approach is fairly sensible. He
> makes a number of good points.
>
> Tom is also being, at the very least, kind, when he says: "I read the
> "parrots" contribution. The phrase "so what" comes to mind."
>
> First we are subjected to Innes' hype of this report: "This Sunday Oct
> 23rd www.chessville.com will publish a special report on USCF's
> negotiations with CHESSCAFE for B&E sales. The report will raise more
> than a few eyebrows!" Then we are offered - almost nothing. It looks
> like a cheap trick to drive traffic to a website.
>
> This "report" is a repeat of a post by Larry Parr, then a series of
> "questions" with false premises, all laced through with a heavy dose of
> speculation.
>
> Ohmigawd! The Board supposedly suggested a 2008 end of B&E and it was
> rejected! Scandal! Heresy!
>
> What bullshit. If this even happened at all, there was almost certainly
> more going on.
>
> Innes, why don't you take your arrogant, affected writing style, mostly
> devoid of substance, and stick where the sun doesn't shine. Not only is
> "The Parrot" a disgrace, he apparently has no paper at the bottom of
> his cage. So guess what he's doing all over Chessville!?
>
> Oh, and all this by someone, Phil Innes, who, according to uschess.org,
> has not been a member of the USCF for NINE YEARS.
>
> Imagine that.
>
> Parker Rose.
Mr. Rose, you must be new here. Innes has been pulling stunts like this
for years.
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-25, 11:31 pm |
|
"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:djmaip$kd1$1@gw.tssi.com...
quote:
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
> I don't have detailed sales numbers for USCF Sales aka Chess Cafe.
>
> I also don't know how the figure of $250,000 was derived or how accurate
> it is.
Its an estimated continuation from the previously owed amount - its
difficult to calculate exactly since USCF did not put Chesscafe in default
for several months. Phil.
quote:
> Mike Nolan
>
>
| |
| FiFiela 2005-10-26, 5:31 am |
| <<<We are entitled to a professionally written magazine.>>>
"Perchance to Dream...."
|
| |
|
|