Chess politics - Breaking USCF News

Author

Breaking USCF News

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

THE OTHER SHOE HAS DROPPED

EB 06 - 022 - Goichberg: The Board approves the offers from Paul
Hoffman to
redesign Chess Life and the USCF website, and authorizes the ED to
agree to and
pay a $5000 initial expenditure for each, with the intention of a
$20,000 later
expenditure for each. PASSED 6-0-0.

Having read the minutes of the Novebmer 2005 meeting, we
can say that the other shoe has dropped.

We now know that Paul Hoffmann will be paid up to
50,000 sweet ones for redesigning Chess Life (Frank
Elley did a swell job about 25 years ago for a coupla
thousand) plus the USCF website.

FIFTY THOUSAND BUCKS! For an overhaul?

Key-reist.

We note Joel Channing's call to hire a First
Amendment attorney to curtail certain behavior, which
we may take to mean postings here on rgcp. The USCF
will be putting Nebraskan Mike Nolan in charge of a
moderated forum to attempt to take the sting out of
this website and perhaps a coupla others.

The idea is to launch SLAPP suits, I figure. It
won't work.

As for a moderated forum, it will be
Snoozeville. Anyone who wants to learn just how sweet
a deal the architect gets in Cross-to-Bear, Jennifer
Shahade gets at the USCF without a public tender, the
real cost of the building in Cross-to-Bear, the actual
behavior of our FIDE "team" -- anyone wanting to learn
these and other things will have to come here to rgcp.

The sweet insider deals will not get ventilated
at the USCF. Instead, you will hear that there was no
pressure, say, to hire Harry Sabine's son, who was --
ah, eh, etc. -- "fully qualified." You will read
official pronunciamentoes by the political eminentoes.

The issue of hiring a website content
editor has nothing whatsoever to do with Jennifer
Shahade. I have repeatedly stipulated that she may
prove to be the freshly-squeezed-orange-juice of
content editors. That is for the future to decide.
If her mind is quick, her pen fluent, her work ethic
developed and her knowledge outstanding, then she has
just the right qualifications. In fact, the only
relevant qualifications.

The issue is: WHY WAS THIS POSITION NOT PUT OUT
FOR PUBLIC TENDER? No one has provided a satisfactory
explanation. From the Board, there is silence.

What is the pay rate of Jennifer Shahade when
compared with the CL editor? Approximately the same
or does Shahade make more money?

Here is the problem: Jay Sabine walks into the
Federaton office and wants a job. He and others are
"qualified," and the manager has to decide whether to
say no to one of Harry's boys.

The business stinks to high heaven.

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

Larry Parr wrote (22 Feb 2006 19:06:48 -0800):

quote:

> WHY WAS THIS POSITION NOT PUT OUT FOR
> PUBLIC TENDER? No one has provided a
> satisfactory explanation. From the Board, there
> is silence.

_
"we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
(Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm)
_
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913

Ray Gordon

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

This is a big political payoff. I told you 3 weeks ago. Us chumps in PA
can smell shit pretty quickly.

joel@channingcorporation.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

Dear Larry,

Last week in Parsippany Paul Hoffman and his group showed the EB a
preview of concepts for the new magazine and the website that impressed
us very much. Paul's credentials and those of his associates are very
impressive. It was a campaign issue of mine that ChessLife should be
transformed into a modern magazine and I believe we've chosen the right
people to help accomplish that goal. I believe that we've committed
$25,000 of the total so far, and I think we're getting our money's
worth.

My recent musings about hiring a first amendment attorney to look into
the idea of having a code of conduct that would apply to directors and
members alike have, in the light of more experience, given way to the
idea of having a vigorous forum for debate within the USCF website.
The idea is try to exercise an absolute minimum of "moderation" (your
suggestion, in lieu of "censorship"). Even though I disagree with much
of what you say, your postings represent, to me, the limits of how
civil people should argue. Having such a forum in USCF would be
beneficial in two ways. First, serious, mature posters would not be
put off by the crude, childish language that now prevails, thus
enhancing the level of discourse. Second, the new forum should be a
far more effective venue for dissent, since it would probably have a
much larger audience.

Even though I feel strongly about these things, I pride myself on
having the grace to admit I was wrong if they flop.

The Clamp

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

WHERE YOUR DUES MONEY GOES

,Even though I feel strongly about these things, I pride myself on
having the grace to admit I was wrong if they flop.> -- Joel Channing

"Sam Sloan asked about Jennifer Shahade's function. Bill Hall
indicated she will work on the website and help with the magazine. Sam
Sloan questioned the need for her or Paul Hoffman on the website."

Unofficial Summary of the USCF Executive Board Meeting - Feb. 17-19,
2006 - Parsippany, NJ (see USCHESS.ORG).

joel@channingcorporation.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

Dear Larry,

I see that we're not communicating well. Maybe it was a mistake to
have taken you seriously.

Joel Channing

Ray Gordon

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

> Last week in Parsippany Paul Hoffman and his group showed the EB a

quote:

> preview of concepts for the new magazine and the website that impressed
> us very much. Paul's credentials and those of his associates are very
> impressive.

So everyone else is automatically chopped liver? Ever hear of a BIDDING
process?

quote:

> It was a campaign issue of mine that ChessLife should be
> transformed into a modern magazine and I believe we've chosen the right
> people to help accomplish that goal.

A belief so strong that the "wrong people" don't even need to bother showing
up?

quote:

>I believe that we've committed
> $25,000 of the total so far, and I think we're getting our money's
> worth.

What if there are angles that aren't being "thought" of that would come to
light in a fully public hiring process? So far all I see is cheerleading
about a few individuals by a process which by necessity gives the middle
finger to anyone else who thinks they might be able to do an equal or better
job, for less money.

quote:

> My recent musings about hiring a first amendment attorney to look into
> the idea of having a code of conduct that would apply to directors and
> members alike have, in the light of more experience, given way to the
> idea of having a vigorous forum for debate within the USCF website.
> The idea is try to exercise an absolute minimum of "moderation" (your
> suggestion, in lieu of "censorship"). Even though I disagree with much
> of what you say, your postings represent, to me, the limits of how
> civil people should argue. Having such a forum in USCF would be
> beneficial in two ways. First, serious, mature posters would not be
> put off by the crude, childish language that now prevails, thus
> enhancing the level of discourse. Second, the new forum should be a
> far more effective venue for dissent, since it would probably have a
> much larger audience.

Dissent and moderation rarely mix.

Mike Nolan

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

"parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com> writes:

quote:

>"Sam Sloan asked about Jennifer Shahade's function. Bill Hall
>indicated she will work on the website and help with the magazine. Sam
>Sloan questioned the need for her or Paul Hoffman on the website."

Sam Sloan is an expert on website design? LOL!

What I saw from Paul Hoffman and his business partner on the website
and magazine redesign a few weeks ago (a preview for staff of what was
to be presented in NJ) looked promising, but I had a lot of technical
questions about the reformulated website that they didn't have answers
for at that time, hopefully they do now or will soon.

I'm inclined to agree with Larry Parr that the hiring process was done
all wrong but that Jennifer could turn out to be an excellent hire.

I guess my biggest concern is if she doesn't work out, will Bill or Dan
feel they can fire her without fearing Board repercussions?
--
Mike Nolan

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

*I'm inclined to agree with Larry Parr that the hiring process was done

all wrong but that Jennifer could turn out to be an excellent hire. I
guess
my biggest concern is if she doesn't work out, will Bill or Dan
feel they can fire her without fearing Board repercussions?* Mike Nolan

I admire Channing but what Parr wrote was the truth. Many of us
share these concerns. What do we have to show for $25,000 of our
dues money for an outside consultant? With about 30 employees
already on the payroll, why can't this job be done in-house?

What reason is there not to take Parr seriously. Is this the kind of
testy reply we can expect on a "moderated" USCF forum?

samsloan

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> The sweet insider deals will not get ventilated
> at the USCF. Instead, you will hear that there was no
> pressure, say, to hire Harry Sabine's son, who was --
> ah, eh, etc. -- "fully qualified." You will read
> official pronunciamentoes by the political eminentoes.

Has Harry Sabine's son actually been hired for anything by the USCF?

Sam Sloan

Mike Nolan

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

"jr" <julrem7@aol.com> writes:

quote:

> I admire Channing but what Parr wrote was the truth. Many of us
>share these concerns. What do we have to show for $25,000 of our
>dues money for an outside consultant?

By this same logic, there are over a half dozen NFL teams who should
fire their newly hired head coaches before they have coached one game or
even conducted their first NFL draft!

quote:

>With about 30 employees
>already on the payroll, why can't this job be done in-house?

Who on staff would you have design the new website? Who has the time
or the expertise?

Who on staff would you have create a new look for the magazine? Who has
the time or the expertise?

I think the answers in both cases are: Nobody on staff has either the time
OR the expertise.

When major magazines and newspapers decide they need a new look, they usually
bring in outside design firms, the fees can run into the millions of dollars.
(I think the Wall Street Journal paid over $5 million for their last makeover,
for example, and it took close to a year before the first edition of the
revised paper hit the street or their website.)

I wasn't at the meeting in New Jersey, but presumably there was a public
presentation of what Paul and his partner have come up with so far. It
will take some time for them to finish their work and for it to get into
production, and it will take some time before Jennifer's work can be
judged too.
--
Mike Nolan

Mike Nolan

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> writes:

quote:

>Has Harry Sabine's son actually been hired for anything by the USCF?

Boy, Sam's really got a scoop on this one. Sam, have you looked at
the masthead of the magazine in the last 9 months?
--
Mike Nolan

irvin

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message >

quote:

>
> I'm inclined to agree with Larry Parr that the hiring process was done
> all wrong but that Jennifer could turn out to be an excellent hire.
>
> I guess my biggest concern is if she doesn't work out, will Bill or Dan
> feel they can fire her without fearing Board repercussions?
>

Well said, Mike.

That's a very fair outlook on the situation.

--
Irvin
-------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com

Sam Sloan

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

On 23 Feb 2006 17:58:13 GMT, nolan@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) wrote:

quote:

>"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>Boy, Sam's really got a scoop on this one. Sam, have you looked at
>the masthead of the magazine in the last 9 months?
>--
>Mike Nolan
>

It says "Membership Associates Jay Sabine"

You are right. I had not looked in a long time.

Sam Sloan

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (23 Feb 2006 08:52:38 -0800):

quote:

> What reason is there not to take Parr seriously.

_
Here is one recent example of Larry Parr behavior:
_
On Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm, this comment appeared
at http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913
in a discussion of why USCF did not advertise the
Jennifer Shahade position:
_
"we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
_
On 6 Feb 2006 16:41:27 -0800, the comment was
reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
_
On 6 Feb 2006 16:43:02 -0800, the comment was
again reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
_
On 22 Feb 2006 06:14:42 -0800, Larry Parr
(posting-host=207.200.116.66) wrote:
_
"NO NONE HAS EXPLAINED WHY THIS JOB
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED
PUBLICLY."
_
On 22 Feb 2006 06:25:19 -0800, the Don Schultz
comment was reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
_
On 22 Feb 2006 06:34:10 -0800, the comment was
again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
_
On 22 Feb 2006 18:37:13 -0800, the comment was
again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
_
On 22 Feb 2006 19:06:48 -0800, Larry Parr
(posting-host=207.200.116.66) wrote:
_
"WHY WAS THIS POSITION NOT PUT OUT
FOR PUBLIC TENDER? No one has provided
a satisfactory explanation. From the Board,
there is silence." - Larry Parr
_
A person is less likely to be taken seriously if he
comments on the silence of others while doing
such a good simulation of having his fingers in
his ears.

Ray Gordon

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

> at http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913

quote:

> in a discussion of why USCF did not advertise the
> Jennifer Shahade position:
> _
> "we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
> by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
> _
> On 6 Feb 2006 16:41:27 -0800, the comment was
> reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
> _
> On 6 Feb 2006 16:43:02 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
> _
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:14:42 -0800, Larry Parr
> (posting-host=207.200.116.66) wrote:
> _
> "NO NONE HAS EXPLAINED WHY THIS JOB
> COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED
> PUBLICLY."
> _
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:25:19 -0800, the Don Schultz
> comment was reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
> _
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:34:10 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
> _
> On 22 Feb 2006 18:37:13 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
> _
> On 22 Feb 2006 19:06:48 -0800, Larry Parr
> (posting-host=207.200.116.66) wrote:
> _
> "WHY WAS THIS POSITION NOT PUT OUT
> FOR PUBLIC TENDER? No one has provided
> a satisfactory explanation. From the Board,
> there is silence." - Larry Parr
> _
> A person is less likely to be taken seriously if he
> comments on the silence of others while doing
> such a good simulation of having his fingers in
> his ears.

The premise here is that "we did not want to lose her" is a satsifactory
explanation. Since when are employers so desperate?

Those who aren't "the chosen ones" get speech after speech about rigid
hiring protocols, where every applicant is seriously considered, and only
after extreme logic and analysis has been applied, the employer rationally
chooses the best-qualified candidate for the job.

Paul Rubin

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

joel@channingcorporation.com writes:

quote:

> civil people should argue. Having such a forum in USCF would be
> beneficial in two ways. First, serious, mature posters would not be
> put off by the crude, childish language that now prevails, thus
> enhancing the level of discourse.

Joel, you haven't been around Usenet that long; are you aware of
a feature of most newsreaders called a "killfile"? That makes
your newsreaders skip over posts on certain topics or from certain
people as you specify. Simply putting a handful of names into it
(you can easily guess which ones) does a great deal to make rgcp
seem a lot more civilized.

quote:

> Second, the new forum should be a far more effective venue for
> dissent, since it would probably have a much larger audience.

In the mid 1990's there was a survey called the Usenet Arbitron and it
estimated that rec.games.chess (it wasn't split into subgroups back
then) had around 58,000 readers:

http://www.tlsoft.com/arbitron/jul9...ron.summary.txt

Of course the usual reason for splitting a group is that it's gotten
too big, so the multiple splits meant rgc* must have gotten quite a
bit bigger than at the time of that survey. I guess I'd estimate
rgcp's share by looking at the total post count and the number of
people who post to multiple subgroups. I'm sure it's nothing to
sneeze at.

Usenet has grown too much and its propagation methods have changed too
much for the Arbitron's old methodology to work any more, so it hasn't
been done for a while. But it will surprise me if the USCF's forum's
audience is ever more than a fraction of rgcp's.

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (23 Feb 2006 08:52:38 -0800):

quote:

> What reason is there not to take Parr seriously.

_
I wrote (23 Feb 2006 12:50:49 -0800):

quote:

> Here is one recent example of Larry Parr behavior:
>_
> On Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm, this comment appeared
> at http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913
> in a discussion of why USCF did not advertise the
> Jennifer Shahade position:
>_
> "we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
> by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
>_
> On 6 Feb 2006 16:41:27 -0800, the comment was
> reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
>_
> On 6 Feb 2006 16:43:02 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:14:42 -0800, Larry Parr
> (posting-host=207.200.116.66) wrote:
>_
> "NO NONE HAS EXPLAINED WHY THIS JOB
> COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED
> PUBLICLY."
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:25:19 -0800, the Don Schultz
> comment was reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:34:10 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 18:37:13 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
>_
>On 22 Feb 2006 19:06:48 -0800, Larry Parr
> (posting-host=207.200.116.66) wrote:
>_
> "WHY WAS THIS POSITION NOT PUT OUT
> FOR PUBLIC TENDER? No one has provided
> a satisfactory explanation. From the Board,
> there is silence." - Larry Parr
>_
> A person is less likely to be taken seriously if he
> comments on the silence of others while doing
> such a good simulation of having his fingers in
> his ears.

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:01:16 GMT):

quote:

> The premise here is that "we did not want to lose
> her" is a satsifactory explanation.

_
Incorrect. I leave that up for discussion. As indicated
by my concluding paragraph, my point was that the
board has not been silent on the issue of advertising
the website content editor position, and, if Larry Parr
pretends that the board has been silent, he runs the
risk of adding to the reasons that he might not be
taken seriously.

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:01:16 GMT):

quote:

> Since when are employers so desperate?
>_
> Those who aren't "the chosen ones" get speech
> after speech about rigid hiring protocols, where
> every applicant is seriously considered, and only
> after extreme logic and analysis has been applied,
> the employer rationally chooses the best-qualified
> candidate for the job.

_
I think it is understandable if the degree to which the
USCF is "desperate" depends, in part, on the quality
of the person being considered for employment.

Paul Rubin

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

Date: 23 Feb 2006 13:28:37 -0800
Message-ID: <7xacchix2y.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Organization: Nightsong/Fort GNOX
Lines: 8
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com
X-Trace: news.spies.com 1140730117 64.62.206.2 (23 Feb 2006 13:28:37 -0800)
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!news.kjsl.com!news.spies.com!not-for-mail
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.chess.politics:286780

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

quote:

> Who on staff would you have create a new look for the magazine? Who has
> the time or the expertise?

Dan Lucas did a good job on Georgia Chess. How about leaving it to
him. Who needs a consultant-designed new look for CL when there are
other things to do with the $25K? Is the new look supposed to bring
in $25K more revenue?

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

"WHY WAS THIS POSITION NOT PUT OUT
FOR PUBLIC TENDER? No one has provided
a satisfactory explanation. From the Board,
there is silence." - Larry Parr

Thanks, Ray, for reproducing this quote from Blair and
demolishing Schultz's ridiculous "explanation."

Apparently Blair considers it satisfactory. I don't. I plonked
this troll because he repeats the same garbage endlessly.

Ray Gordon

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

>> Since when are employers so desperate?

quote:

>
> _
> I think it is understandable if the degree to which the
> USCF is "desperate" depends, in part, on the quality
> of the person being considered for employment.

Which raises the question of how they can know the quality without a
comparison of all candidates. This is not some entrepreneur funding USCF
out of his or her own pocket, but a nonprofit that receives federal tax
breaks. There are public-interest concerns here.

It also raises the question of what exactly is so special about Jennifer
Shahade that would make her so exceptional that no one else need even be
considered for the job offered to her. As for the salary, USCF is saying
that it's not $75,000, but they also are not saying what it is. When they
wanted a CL editor, they had no problems stating the salary, and that
position is likely on a "Parr" with the web editor.

Ray Gordon

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

> Usenet has grown too much and its propagation methods have changed too

quote:

> much for the Arbitron's old methodology to work any more, so it hasn't
> been done for a while. But it will surprise me if the USCF's forum's
> audience is ever more than a fraction of rgcp's.

Don't forget all the websites that archive newsgroups or broadcast them, and
wind up in Google's regular web archive, or when people just search on
"groups" instead.

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (23 Feb 2006 08:52:38 -0800):

quote:

> What reason is there not to take Parr seriously.

_
I wrote (23 Feb 2006 12:50:49 -0800):

quote:

> Here is one recent example of Larry Parr behavior:
>_
> On Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm, this comment appeared
> at http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913
> in a discussion of why USCF did not advertise the
> Jennifer Shahade position:
>_
> "we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
> by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
>_
> On 6 Feb 2006 16:41:27 -0800, the comment was
> reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
>_
> On 6 Feb 2006 16:43:02 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:14:42 -0800, Larry Parr
> (posting-host=207.200.116.66) wrote:
>_
> "NO NONE HAS EXPLAINED WHY THIS JOB
> COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED
> PUBLICLY."
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:25:19 -0800, the Don Schultz
> comment was reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:34:10 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 18:37:13 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
>_
>On 22 Feb 2006 19:06:48 -0800, Larry Parr
> (posting-host=207.200.116.66) wrote:
>_
> "WHY WAS THIS POSITION NOT PUT OUT
> FOR PUBLIC TENDER? No one has provided
> a satisfactory explanation. From the Board,
> there is silence." - Larry Parr
>_
> A person is less likely to be taken seriously if he
> comments on the silence of others while doing
> such a good simulation of having his fingers in
> his ears.

_
jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (23 Feb 2006 13:31:07 -0800):

quote:

> Apparently Blair considers [Schultz's ridiculous
> "explanation."] satisfactory.

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

"we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
(Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm)
_
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913
_
Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:01:16 GMT):

quote:

> Since when are employers so desperate?
>_
> Those who aren't "the chosen ones" get speech
> after speech about rigid hiring protocols, where
> every applicant is seriously considered, and only
> after extreme logic and analysis has been applied,
> the employer rationally chooses the best-qualified
> candidate for the job.

_
I wrote (23 Feb 2006 13:26:42 -0800):

quote:

> I think it is understandable if the degree to which the
> USCF is "desperate" depends, in part, on the quality
> of the person being considered for employment.

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:35:52 GMT):

quote:

> Which raises the question of how they can know
> the quality without a comparison of all candidates.

_
I can sometimes tell that a person is unusually tall
without having to conduct comparisons.

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:35:52 GMT):

quote:

> what exactly is so special about Jennifer Shahade
> that would make her so exceptional that no one else
> need even be considered for the job offered to her.

_
I am just an outsider and do not know all the details,
but, from what I have heard, she has an unusual
combination of chess and writing credentials and
accomplishments. Also, perhaps there is
something to the reference we have seen here to
"her connections in the chess world".
_
"My view is that if Jennifer Shahade knows
what interests her audience, then she will
do a fine job as web content editor." - Larry
Parr (21 Feb 2006 00:11:19 -0800), who
nevertheless expressed the view that "the
hiring process stinks to high heaven."

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:35:52 GMT):

quote:

> As for the salary, USCF is saying that it's not
> $75,000, but they also are not saying what it
> is. When they wanted a CL editor, they had
> no problems stating the salary,

_
"If the salary is a lot less than $75,000 and
if she is not in the upper-rung, then there is
justification for not revealing it." - Larry Parr
(20 Feb 2006 08:27:34 -0800)

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:35:52 GMT):

quote:

> [The CL editor] position is likely on a "Parr"
> with the web editor.

_
Why?

Ray Gordon

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

> "we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]

quote:

> by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
> (Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm)
> _
> http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913

That doesn't explain WHY they felt this incredible sense of urgency.

_

quote:

> _
> I wrote (23 Feb 2006 13:26:42 -0800):
>
> _
> Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:35:52 GMT):
>
>
> _
> I can sometimes tell that a person is unusually tall
> without having to conduct comparisons.

Which again doesn't answer the question: what is it about Jennifer Shahade
that stands out so much that USCF felt this incredible need to hire her and
not consider anyone else for the job?

quote:

> Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:35:52 GMT):
>
>
> _
> I am just an outsider and do not know all the details,

Thanks for playing.

quote:

> but, from what I have heard, she has an unusual
> combination of chess and writing credentials and
> accomplishments.

How nice for all of us who have played tournament chess and are also writers
to know that what we do is automatically dwarfed by what Ms. Shahade has
done, to the point where we don't even need an open application process.

quote:

> _
> "My view is that if Jennifer Shahade knows
> what interests her audience, then she will
> do a fine job as web content editor." - Larry
> Parr (21 Feb 2006 00:11:19 -0800), who
> nevertheless expressed the view that "the
> hiring process stinks to high heaven."

Without knowing the alternatives, we have no frame of reference to what
could be done on the job by others.

quote:

>
> _
> "If the salary is a lot less than $75,000 and
> if she is not in the upper-rung, then there is
> justification for not revealing it." - Larry Parr
> (20 Feb 2006 08:27:34 -0800)

Obviously USCF doesn't want this revealed. It doesn't inspire confidence in
squashing the rumor that they don't even give a range or any details about
the job.

quote:

> Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:35:52 GMT):
>
>
> _
> Why?

Because lots of people visit chess websites and they don't have to be USCF
members to get there. One could argue that makes this position *more*
important than the CL editor position.

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

HOW YOUR DUES ARE SPENT (continued)

Dear Joel,

I have no idea why you are so upset.

<I see that we're not communicating well. Maybe it was a mistake to
have taken you seriously.> -- Joel Channing

I have a fair idea what is involved in designing
a magazine or redesigning it; I do not have even a
poor idea of what is involved in designing or
redesigning a website.

The charge for redesigning Chess Life strikes me
as exorbitant; the charge for redesigning a website
may be just right, a bargain, too much. I don't know.

Once again, I have absolutely no quarrel with
Paul Hoffmann or Jennifer Shahade. None. If Don
Schultz's rehearsal of his resume is accurate, Mr.
Hoffmann does not need the USCF. Jennifer made, in
fact, need the USCF, but she may also be a bright kid.
Time will evidently tell. Members will be reading
her stuff and will decide for themselves.

<I think the Wall Street Journal paid over $5
million for their last makeover...> -- Mike Nolan

The USCF is not Dow Jones and the Wall Street
Journal. The Federation is what it IS.

The last truly major makeover of Chess Life was
done by Frank Elley for staff salary (he was also more
or less editing the magazine) at about $13,000 a year
back then. He did a pretty fair job. We assume that
Mr. Hoffmann will do -- or had better do -- a
scintillating and percolating job.

The CL question is apart from the website
question. I disagree with Mike Nolan about Jennifer:
readers will be able to judge after a few weeks
whether she is a good hire or not.

I mean to say: you sit at a typewriter or
keyboard and just pound out the stuff. If she can
hammer the anvil so as to instruct, amuse and provoke,
then she will be a fine hire. If she can't, that will
prove obvious soon enough.

Do I have any reservations about what Mr.
Hoffmann can do? Yes. Here it is: one wonders
whether the necessary conventions of chess publishing
(the format for chess notation; the format for
annotated games; the need for diagrams; the need for
lots of info; the dearth of good photographers) do not
constitute pressing limits on design creativity. We
will be finding out.

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION

Whether one asks for a "satsifactory"
explanation or simply for an explanation, we may
suspend disbelief to understand that in both
instances, the person asking the question is seeking
an explanation that is not impossibly weak, which is
no explanation at all.

Several posters here understood my point full
well: nnouncing that there was no search for a major
Federation job because the USCF did not wish to lose a
given applicant does not even begin to cut it.

Indeed, I don't consider that to be an
explanation at all. You have to explain why at some
given moment it must be and can only be Jennifer
Shahade. You have to build an impressive case to
justify short-circuiting the chess community.

NO ONE HAS YET EXPLAINED WHY THE JOB GIVEN TO
JENNIFER SHAHADE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED AND PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC
TENDER.

Why?

What we hear by way of defense is simply that
there was no written policy preventing the board from
acting as it did. That does not justify the act; it
merely states the board can defend itself in court.

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

quote:

> what exactly is so special about Jennifer Shahade
> that would make her so exceptional that no one else
> need even be considered for the job offered to her.
> ...
> [The CL editor] position is likely on a "Parr"
> with the web editor.

_
I wrote (23 Feb 2006 15:45:13 -0800):

quote:

> I am just an outsider and do not know all the
> details, but, from what I have heard, she has an
> unusual combination of chess and writing
> credentials and accomplishments. Also,
> perhaps there is something to the reference
> we have seen here to "her connections in the
> chess world".
>_
> "My view is that if Jennifer Shahade knows
> what interests her audience, then she will
> do a fine job as web content editor." - Larry
> Parr (21 Feb 2006 00:11:19 -0800), who
> nevertheless expressed the view that "the
> hiring process stinks to high heaven."
> ...
> Why [is it likely that the CL editor position is
> on a "Parr" with the web editor]?

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:35:42 GMT):

quote:

> Because lots of people visit chess websites and
> they don't have to be USCF members to get there.
> One could argue that makes this position *more*
> important than the CL editor position.

_
This argument does not strike me as conclusive.
We are trying to get people to PAY for Chess
Life.

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:35:42 GMT):

quote:

> [The Don Schultz quote] doesn't explain WHY
> they felt this incredible sense of urgency.

_
I thought it was clear enough that the "urgency"
that they felt was a result of concern over the
possibility of losing Jennifer Shahade and being
unable to find someone nearly as good for the
job.

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:35:42 GMT):

quote:

> How nice for all of us who have played tournament
> chess and are also writers to know that what we
> do is automatically dwarfed by what Ms. Shahade
> has done, to the point where we don't even need
> an open application process.

_
"I'm rated 1900 and haven't played a rated
game in fifteen years." - Ray Gordon (Thu,
23 Feb 2006 21:21:21 GMT)

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:35:42 GMT):

quote:

> Without knowing the alternatives, we have no
> frame of reference to what could be done on the
> job by others.

_
I would imagine that there was at least some frame
of reference from experience with other hiring
decisions (and looking for people to write stuff
for Chess Life).

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:35:42 GMT):

quote:

> It doesn't inspire confidence in squashing the rumor
> that they don't even give a range or any details about
> the job.

_
Has anyone submitted such a question at
http://www.uschess.org/forums/ ?

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

I wrote (23 Feb 2006 12:50:49 -0800):

quote:

> Here is one recent example of Larry Parr behavior:
>_
> On Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm, this comment appeared
> at http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913
> in a discussion of why USCF did not advertise the
> Jennifer Shahade position:
>_
> "we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
> by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
>_
> On 6 Feb 2006 16:41:27 -0800, the comment was
> reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
>_
> On 6 Feb 2006 16:43:02 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
> ...
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:25:19 -0800, the Don Schultz
> comment was reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:34:10 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 18:37:13 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 19:06:48 -0800, Larry Parr
> ... wrote:
>_
> "WHY WAS THIS POSITION NOT PUT OUT
> FOR PUBLIC TENDER? No one has provided
> a satisfactory explanation. From the Board,
> there is silence."
> ...
> A person is less likely to be taken seriously if he
> comments on the silence of others while doing
> such a good simulation of having his fingers in
> his ears.

_
Larry Parr wrote (23 Feb 2006 17:33:24 -0800):

quote:

> Whether one asks for a "satsifactory" explanation
> or simply for an explanation, we may suspend
> disbelief to understand that in both instances,
> the person asking the question is seeking an
> explanation that is not impossibly weak, which
> is no explanation at all.
>_
> Several posters here understood my point full
> well: nnouncing that there was no search for
> a major Federation job because the USCF did
> not wish to lose a given applicant does not even
> begin to cut it.
>_
> Indeed, I don't consider that to be an explanation
> at all.

_
Does Larry Parr actually think that this sort of
thing justifies his 22 Feb 2006 19:06:48 -0800
statement: "From the Board, there is silence"?
If so, I must say that, in my opinion, he is
spectacularly wrong. There is a big difference
between "silence" and providing an explanation
that, in the opinion of Larry Parr, is "impossibly
weak" and "does not even begin to cut it".
_
Responsible behavior would have been for
Larry Parr to have produced the supposedly
"impossibly weak" explanation and express
his evaluation.
_
Will Larry Parr be using his own peculiar
meaning for "silence" in the future? If so, it
would seem to be appropriate, on such
occasions for a warning to accompany such
usages (posted by others if Larry Parr refuses
to do it himself).

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

I wrote (23 Feb 2006 12:50:49 -0800):

quote:

> Here is one recent example of Larry Parr behavior:
>_
> On Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm, this comment appeared
> at http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913
> in a discussion of why USCF did not advertise the
> Jennifer Shahade position:
>_
> "we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
> by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
>_
> On 6 Feb 2006 16:41:27 -0800, the comment was
> reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
> On 6 Feb 2006 16:43:02 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note. ...
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:25:19 -0800, the Don Schultz
> comment was reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
> On 22 Feb 2006 06:34:10 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
> On 22 Feb 2006 18:37:13 -0800, the comment was
> again reproduced in a Louis Blair note.
>_
> On 22 Feb 2006 19:06:48 -0800, Larry Parr ... wrote:
>_
> "WHY WAS THIS POSITION NOT PUT OUT
> FOR PUBLIC TENDER? No one has provided
> a satisfactory explanation. From the Board,
> there is silence."
> ...
> A person is less likely to be taken seriously if he
> comments on the silence of others while doing
> such a good simulation of having his fingers in
> his ears.

_
Larry Parr wrote (23 Feb 2006 17:33:24 -0800):

quote:

> Whether one asks for a "satsifactory" explanation
> or simply for an explanation, we may suspend
> disbelief to understand that in both instances,
> the person asking the question is seeking an
> explanation that is not impossibly weak, which
> is no explanation at all.
>_
> Several posters here understood my point full
> well: nnouncing that there was no search for
> a major Federation job because the USCF did
> not wish to lose a given applicant does not even
> begin to cut it.
>_
> Indeed, I don't consider that to be an explanation
> at all.

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

"we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
(Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm)
_
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913

_
Larry Parr wrote (23 Feb 2006 17:33:24 -0800):

quote:

> You have to explain why at some given moment
> it must be and can only be Jennifer Shahade.
> You have to build an impressive case to justify
> short-circuiting the chess community.
>_
> NO ONE HAS YET EXPLAINED WHY THE JOB
> GIVEN TO JENNIFER SHAHADE COULD NOT
> HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED AND PUT OUT FOR
> PUBLIC TENDER.
>_
> Why?

_
As far as I know, it was NOT claimed that the
job "COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED".
Also, as far as I know, it was not claimed that
"it must be and can only be Jennifer Shahade".
Surely, Larry Parr is old enough to know that
certainty is rarely achieved in life. One makes
choices based on what seems to be the best
estimate of the situation. No course of action
is without risk. Doing the search would have
run the risk of losing Jennifer Shahade and
ending up with someone that was not as good
for the job. Evidently, the board considered
this to be likely in view of Jennifer Shahade's
accomplishments and credentials as a writer
and player. (And perhaps those "chess
connection" rumors have something to them
as well.) What more does Larry Parr need
to know? Specifically?

_
Larry Parr wrote (23 Feb 2006 17:33:24 -0800):

quote:

> What we hear by way of defense is simply
> that there was no written policy preventing
> the board from acting as it did.

_
This is simply false, and Larry Parr really ought
to stop writing it. What we have also heard is:
_
"we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
(Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm)
_
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913
_
This is not a comment on the absence of this
or that written policy. Whatever Larry Parr may
think of the comment, it WAS made, and Larry
Parr does little more than do further damage to
his own credibility if he indicates that such a
comment was not made.

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS

<I can sometimes tell that a person is unusually
tall without having to conduct comparisons.> -- Louie Blair

The Blairbot tells us in evident defense of
the hiring process involved with selecting Jennifer
Shahade, that one can sometimes tell that a person is
unusually tall without having to conduct comparisons.

Good grief. Where to begin?

I, too can "sometimes" tell that a person is a
Negroid or a Caucasoid or, for that matter,a
Polynesian without having to conduct comparisons. And
if I require a dwarf or an acromegalic specimen such
as "The Creeper" from 1940s films or a Negro or
Caucasian for a given job (without 50 other hiring
variables such as work experience, temperament,
knowledge, capacity for work, etc.) then mine eyes
will not deceive me when making the right hire.

"Now, look there," I might say. "Take that
tallish specimen. Just what we need as a website
content provider"

Or I might argue, "The USCF website requires a
dwarf. Mine eyes tell me that the Shaq won't do, but
there is an excellent double-amputee dwarf who is
bound to push us up to new heights. Hire him."

I warrant that most readers here understand that
having a feel for whom to hire to head up website
content involves many variables that are NOT visible
to the naked eye. I warrant that most readers reckon
Louie Blair's analogy to be weakminded -- as, indeed,
so many of his "innocent" questions have been.

You put up major jobs, if such this one happens
to be, for public tender in the chess community. The
purposes for doing so are: 1. To enlarge the
available pool of talent; 2. To complicate giving
employment gifts to dear and close political allies.

NO ONE HAS YET EXPLAINED WHY THIS JOB
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED TO THE
GENERAL CHESS COMMUNITY.

Finally, to stop all of the key-rap. This
argument is NOT about Jennifer Shahade. My hunch is
that she might indeed be the right person for the job.
I have never read anything she has written, but people
say she is a commercial writer and knows chess and
seems to have an inkling or news sense of what the
market wants. Those are the real qualifications.

We are talking about the process. One can
object to favoritism, if such it proves to be, even
when the outcome is not the accustomed disaster.

Ange1o DePa1ma

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote

quote:

> Sam Sloan is an expert on website design? LOL!

What do you mean? He holds the record for the world's longest single-page
HTML document.

quote:

> What I saw from Paul Hoffman and his business partner on the website
> and magazine redesign a few weeks ago (a preview for staff of what was
> to be presented in NJ) looked promising, but I had a lot of technical
> questions about the reformulated website that they didn't have answers
> for at that time, hopefully they do now or will soon.

$50,000 for redesigning the website and CL seems high to me. This is not my
area of expertise so I could be off here, but what are the deliverables?
Will he build us a functioning, functional site or just show some pretty
designs which we have to implement? And how long is the guy expected to work
on this project? If less than three months then we're over-paying. A good
artist should need about a day to prepare 5-6 different "looks" for CL, and
perhaps a week to work out the details for the one the EB chooses.

Web design is much more complex and mysterious to me, but the $$ still seems
like a lot for a bankrupt nonprofit organization to shell out for these
services. We are not the New Yorker, you know.

A nice looking website and magazine will probably have negligible impact on
member retention, unfortunately. USCF's site would have to improve beyond
anyone's wildest expectations for me to rely on it for anything but ratings.

We definitely needed web design help though.

Paul Rubin

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

Date: 23 Feb 2006 20:35:48 -0800
Message-ID: <7xwtflgyqj.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Organization: Nightsong/Fort GNOX
Lines: 17
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com
X-Trace: news.spies.com 1140755748 64.62.206.2 (23 Feb 2006 20:35:48 -0800)
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!statler.nntpserver.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed-3001.bay.webtv.net!news.spies.com!not-for-mail
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.chess.politics:286812

"parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com> writes:

quote:

> We are talking about the process. One can
> object to favoritism, if such it proves to be, even
> when the outcome is not the accustomed disaster.

There has never been a USCF policy for doing an EB-level search for
jobs other than Executive Director and CL Editor. Other hiring has
traditionally been at the ED's discretion. If you think that policy
is bad and there should be a different one, fine, but you're acting
like hiring this slot without a public search is some kind of
departure from decades of past practice. It is not.

There's some irregularity and potential conflict of interest in hiring
JS while her brother was very recently on the exec board. If you want
to rail against something, that's a better target. If it weren't for
GS's exec board service there would be nothing to complain about
regarding JS's hiring.

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

I wrote (23 Feb 2006 13:26:42 -0800):

quote:

> I think it is understandable if the degree to which the
> USCF is "desperate" depends, in part, on the quality
> of the person being considered for employment.

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:35:52 GMT):

quote:

> Which raises the question of how they can know
> the quality without a comparison of all candidates.

_
I wrote (23 Feb 2006 15:45:13 -0800):

quote:

> I can sometimes tell that a person is unusually tall
> without having to conduct comparisons.

_
Quoting only the last sentence above,
Larry Parr wrote (23 Feb 2006 19:53:11 -0800):

quote:

> The Blairbot tells us in evident defense of the hiring
> process involved with selecting Jennifer Shahade, ...

_
Extremely misleading. My comment was in response
to a specific Ray Gordon question (snipped by Larry
Parr) about how the quality of a person (being considered
for employment) can be known without a comparison
of all candidates.

_
Larry Parr wrote (23 Feb 2006 19:53:11 -0800):

quote:

> I warrant that most readers here understand that
> having a feel for whom to hire to head up website
> content involves many variables that are NOT
> visible to the naked eye.

_
I was not making any comment about what is
or is not visible to the naked eye. My point was
that there are situations where extremes can be
perceived without calling in lots of candidates.
(Height is just a familiar example to illustrate
this point.)

_
Larry Parr wrote (23 Feb 2006 19:53:11 -0800):

quote:

> You put up major jobs, if such this one happens
> to be, for public tender in the chess community.
> The purposes for doing so are: 1. To enlarge the
> available pool of talent; 2. To complicate giving
> employment gifts to dear and close political allies.

_
"if Jennifer Shahade is just manning the
equivalent, say, of one of the lesser
editorial positions within the publications
hierarchy below the director and editor,
then you can justify in some instances
not advertising the position to the general
chess community." - Larry Parr
(20 Feb 2006 08:27:34 -0800)

_
Larry Parr wrote (23 Feb 2006 19:53:11 -0800):

quote:

> NO ONE HAS YET EXPLAINED WHY THIS JOB
> COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED TO THE
> GENERAL CHESS COMMUNITY.

_
As far as I know, it was NOT claimed that the
job "COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED".
Surely, Larry Parr is old enough to know that
absolutes rarely arise in this sort of situation.
One makes choices based on what seems to
be the best estimate of the situation. No
course of action is without risk. Doing the
search would have run the risk of losing Jennifer
Shahade and ending up with someone that was
not as good for the job. Evidently, the board
considered this to be likely in view of Jennifer
Shahade's accomplishments and credentials
as a writer and player. (And perhaps those
"chess connection" rumors have something to
them as well.) What more does Larry Parr
need to know? Specifically?

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

*Has Harry Sabine's son actually been hired for anything by the USCF?
Boy, Sam's really got a scoop on this one. Sam, have you looked at
the masthead of the magazine in the last 9 months?* Mike Nolan

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
it's a political payoff.

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (24 Feb 2006 00:34:00 -0800):

quote:

> If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and
> quacks like a duck...

_
Would jr want people to apply this sort of thinking
to someone who looks like Larry Parr, walks like
Larry Parr, and quacks like Larry Parr?
_
"Dear jr, You have taken my side in most of
these disputes, ..." - Larry Parr (19 Oct 2005
20:32:35 -0700) (posting-host=207.200.116.66)

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

HARRY SABINE'S SON

I believe the discussion was about political payoffs.

Needless to say, the Blairbot always complains about being snipped, but
once again he conveniently snips the key line about Harry Sabine's son
being given a job with the USCF in Crossville as a political payoff.

As a refresher course, Harry Sabine was once mayor of Crossville and
was the prime mover behind the incredibly stupid move to swampland in
Cross-to-Bear..

Harry Sabine was the lawyer who vetted the local architect's contract
for $60,000 which the board kept under wrraps until I exposed the deal,
thus saving the USCF about $20,000.

Harry Sabine ran for USCF president in 1990 and was trounced by GM Max
Dlugy in a landslide.

Mike Nolan

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

"parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com> writes:

quote:

>As a refresher course, Harry Sabine was once mayor of Crossville and
>was the prime mover behind the incredibly stupid move to swampland in
>Cross-to-Bear..

Harry Sabine was never the Mayor of Crossville or of Cumberland County
though he is currently on the county board and his wife was formerly
on the school board.

People can wonder for themselves how many of your other 'facts' are
inaccurate.
--
Mike Nolan

Rob

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> HARRY SABINE'S SON
>
> I believe the discussion was about political payoffs.
>
> Needless to say, the Blairbot always complains about being snipped, but
> once again he conveniently snips the key line about Harry Sabine's son
> being given a job with the USCF in Crossville as a political payoff.

I do not pretend to know any inner workings of the USCF. I will tell
you that I have met Jay and he is a wonderful person. I know that he
loves chess. I know that he took a cut in pay to go to work for the
USCF because he wanted to work at something he loved.

quote:

> As a refresher course, Harry Sabine was once mayor of Crossville and
> was the prime mover behind the incredibly stupid move to swampland in
> Cross-to-Bear..

Harry is on the board of County Commissioners.

quote:

> Harry Sabine was the lawyer who vetted the local architect's contract
> for $60,000 which the board kept under wrraps until I exposed the deal,
> thus saving the USCF about $20,000.
>
> Harry Sabine ran for USCF president in 1990 and was trounced by GM Max
> Dlugy in a landslide.

While I will not pretend to know everything about all the deals going
on; I can say that in my opinion Harry Sabine and his son are very
honest and sincere people who I believe love chess very much and are
not involved for any personal gain.

Rob

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

Larry Parr wrote (24 Feb 2006 08:42:53 -0800):

quote:

> the Blairbot always complains about being snipped

_
A Google search for rgcp notes with the word,
"snipped", produces only five complaints about
snipping that were posted by me in the last
thirty days.

_
Larry Parr wrote (24 Feb 2006 08:42:53 -0800):

quote:

> once again [the Blairbot] conveniently snips
> the key line about Harry Sabine's son being
> given a job with the USCF in Crossville as a
> political payoff.

_
Larry Parr is living in fantasyland if he imagines
that there is anything inconvenient for me about
allegations with regard to Harry Sabine's son, a
person with whom I have no connection whatsoever.
_
I snipped that part of jr's note, because it had
nothing to do with my point which was that jr
might want to reconsider whether or not he wants
to encourage people to use walks-like-a-duck
thinking. What, for example, would people
conclude about jr and Larry Parr if they used
duck-thinking? The proper approach to any
public attack is a clear identification of the
evidence and a sensible presentation of whatever
specific conclusions are claimed to be justified.

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

*I do not pretend to know any inner workings of the USCF. I will tell
you that I have met Jay and he is a wonderful person. I know that he
loves chess. I know that he took a cut in pay to go to work for the
USCF because he wanted to work at something he loved.* Rob

Thanks for the information. Please tell us more.

What kind of steady job did Jay Sabine have before he went to
work for the USCF and how much of a pay cut did he take in order
"to work at something he loved?"

Spamscone@yahoo.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

Rob wrote:

quote:

>
> While I will not pretend to know everything about all the deals going
> on; I can say that in my opinion Harry Sabine and his son are very
> honest and sincere people who I believe love chess very much and are
> not involved for any personal gain.

Since Rob Mitchell has shown the world, or at least various self-help
newsgroups, his own sense of honesty in the past 24 hours, this praise
of Harry Sabine should be taken with a grain of salt. Or a Selmedica
herbal product, such as the ones Mitchell has been spamming recently.

Duncan Oxley

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

"Paul Rubin" wrote

quote:

> In the mid 1990's there was a survey called the Usenet Arbitron and it
> estimated that rec.games.chess (it wasn't split into subgroups back
> then) had around 58,000 readers:

Ah thanks. I remember that number but didn't know where it cam from.

quote:

> But it will surprise me if the USCF's forum's
> audience is ever more than a fraction of rgcp's.

Right. And this is only current readers. These posts are archived and looked
at later in searches also over the years.

People also tend to forget that this is not the USCF politics newsgroup.
There
is a whole wide world of people out there. And some of them are looking in
here

Duncan

Rob

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

jr wrote:

quote:

> *I do not pretend to know any inner workings of the USCF. I will tell
> you that I have met Jay and he is a wonderful person. I know that he
> loves chess. I know that he took a cut in pay to go to work for the
> USCF because he wanted to work at something he loved.* Rob
>
> Thanks for the information. Please tell us more.
>
> What kind of steady job did Jay Sabine have before he went to
> work for the USCF and how much of a pay cut did he take in order
> "to work at something he loved?"

I don't know the exact company. As best as I can remember it was for a
large company that regionally supplied wholesale grocery products to
retail stores. I do not know more than that.
Rob

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

*And working for an org. which is constantly under attack is not
exactly ideal,
even if the pay is good.* -- Help Bot

The pay is lousy and there is little security, as the wholesale firing
of
employees in New Windsor demonstrated before the idiotic move to
Crossville which was rushed through by Ms. Marinello even though
the newly elected board requested a delay.

The sale of the building in New Windsor to build one half the size in
Crossville was also unnecessary and extremely costly. Members were
promised when they donated money to pay off the mortgage that New
Windsor would remain the permanent headquarters of American chess.

The USCF runs on friendship patterns. Political payoffs and secret
deals are the order of the day. And our behavior in FIDE is scandalous.

Perhaps if the USCF were more professional and the board stopped
making
such arrogant decisions with our dues money it would not be under
attack.

It seems to me that Parr loves chess more than most of us. Why blame
the messenger for demanding accountability?

When all is said and done, I suspect that the $25,000 redesign of Chess
Life will turn out to be another waste of money. The USCF already is
teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and this job, if necessary, should
be
the domain of the new editor and his staff as part of their normal
duties.

*I don't know the exact company. As best as I can remember it was for a

large company that regionally supplied wholesale grocery products to
retail stores. I do not know more than that.* -- Rob

Thank you for answering my question. But if you do not know more than
that, how can you be sure that Jay Sabine took a pay cut by working for
the USCF? Intelligent people usually do what is in their own best
interest.

Vince Hart

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

jr wrote:

quote:

>
> It seems to me that Parr loves chess more than most of us. Why blame
> the messenger for demanding accountability?
>

ROTFLMAO!

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (25 Feb 2006 06:04:17 -0800):

quote:

> It seems to me that Parr loves chess more
> than most of us.

_
"so far as anonymice are concerned, I discount
their words unless they provide airtight evidence
on a disputed point." - Larry Parr (26 Dec 2004
12:01:42 GMT)
_
An alternative view of what Larry Parr loves:
_
"... nothing [Mr. Kennedy] has written for at least six months
can match my efforts at pettiness over the last two months.
_
My excuse is that I frequently lapse into senescent cackling
when responding to Mr. Blair. I am having good, dirty,
innocent fun which has to be the ultimate purpose of posting
on rgcp." - Larry Parr (2003-01-13 10:25:58 PST)

_
jr (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
wrote (25 Feb 2006 06:04:17 -0800):

quote:

> Why blame the messenger for demanding
> accountability?

_
A recent example of the sort of behavior for which
Larry Parr is blamed:
_
On Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:32 pm, this comment appeared
at http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913
in a discussion of why USCF did not advertise the
Jennifer Shahade position:
_
"we did not want to lose [Jennifer Shahade]
by causing a further delay." - Don Schultz
_
On 6 Feb 2006 16:41:27 -0800, the comment was
reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
On 6 Feb 2006 16:43:02 -0800, the comment was
again reproduced in a rgcp Ray Gordon note.
_
"The excuse-makers have merely argued that the
Executive Board could do what it did legally."
- Larry Parr (22 Feb 2006 06:14:42 -0800)
_
On 22 Feb 2006 06:25:19 -0800, the Don Schultz
comment was reproduced in one of my rgcp notes.
On 22 Feb 2006 06:34:10 -0800, the comment was
again reproduced in one of my rgcp notes.
On 22 Feb 2006 18:37:13 -0800, the comment was
again reproduced in one of my rgcp notes.
_
"WHY WAS THIS POSITION NOT PUT OUT
FOR PUBLIC TENDER? No one has provided
a satisfactory explanation. From the Board,
there is silence." - Larry Parr (22 Feb 2006
19:06:48 -0800) (posting-host=207.200.116.66)
_
On 22 Feb 2006 20:27:09 -0800, the Don Schultz
comment was again reproduced in one of my rgcp
notes.
_
"A person is less likely to be taken seriously
if he comments on the silence of others while
doing such a good simulation of having his
fingers in his ears." - Louis Blair (23 Feb 2006
12:50:49 -0800)
_
On 23 Feb 2006 13:26:42 -0800, the Don Schultz
comment was again reproduced in one of my rgcp
notes.
On 23 Feb 2006 14:41:37 -0800, the comment was
again reproduced in one of my rgcp notes.
On 23 Feb 2006 15:45:13 -0800, the comment was
again reproduced in one of my rgcp notes.
_
"What we hear by way of defense is simply
that there was no written policy preventing
the board from acting as it did." - Larry Parr
(23 Feb 2006 17:33:24 -0800)
_
_
"This is simply false, and Larry Parr really
ought to stop writing it. What we have also
heard is:
_
'we did not want to lose [Jennifer
Shahade] by causing a further
delay." - Don Schultz
...
This is not a comment on the absence of
this or that written policy. Whatever Larry
Parr may think of the comment, it WAS
made, and Larry Parr does little more
than do further damage to his own
credibility if he indicates that such a
comment was not made." - Louis Blair
(23 Feb 2006 19:09:20 -0800)
_
Along the way, Larry Parr did make one attempt
to defend his behavior:
_
"Whether one asks for a 'satsifactory'
explanation or simply for an explanation,
we may suspend disbelief to understand
that in both instances, the person asking
the question is seeking an explanation
that is not impossibly weak, which is no
explanation at all.
_
Several posters here understood my point
full well: nnouncing that there was no
search for a major Federation job because
the USCF did not wish to lose a given
applicant does not even begin to cut it.
_
Indeed, I don't consider that to be an
explanation at all. You have to explain why
at some given moment it must be and can
only be Jennifer Shahade. You have to build
an impressive case to justify short-circuiting
the chess community." - Larry Parr
(23 Feb 2006 17:33:24 -0800)
_
_
"Does Larry Parr actually think that this sort
of thing justifies his 22 Feb 2006
19:06:48 -0800 statement: 'From the Board,
there is silence'? If so, I must say that, in
my opinion, he is spectacularly wrong.
There is a big difference between 'silence'
and providing an explanation that, in the
opinion of Larry Parr, is 'impossibly weak'
and 'does not even begin to cut it'.
_
Responsible behavior would have been
for Larry Parr to have produced the
supposedly 'impossibly weak' explanation
and express his evaluation.
_
Will Larry Parr be using his own peculiar
meaning for 'silence' in the future?" - Louis
Blair (23 Feb 2006 18:40:57 -0800)
_
"as far as I know, it was not claimed that
'it must be and can only be Jennifer Shahade'.
Surely, Larry Parr is old enough to know that
certainty is rarely achieved in life. One
makes choices based on what seems to
be the best estimate of the situation. No
course of action is without risk. Doing the
search would have run the risk of losing
Jennifer Shahade and ending up with
someone that was not as good for the job.
Evidently, the board considered this to be
likely in view of Jennifer Shahade's
accomplishments and credentials as a
writer and player. (And perhaps those
'chess connection' rumors have
something to them as well.) What more
does Larry Parr need to know?
Specifically?" - Louis Blair (23 Feb 2006
19:09:20 -0800)

Rob

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

jr wrote:

quote:

> *And working for an org. which is constantly under attack is not
> exactly ideal,
> even if the pay is good.* -- Help Bot
>
> The pay is lousy and there is little security, as the wholesale firing
> of
> employees in New Windsor demonstrated before the idiotic move to
> Crossville which was rushed through by Ms. Marinello even though
> the newly elected board requested a delay.
>
> The sale of the building in New Windsor to build one half the size in
> Crossville was also unnecessary and extremely costly. Members were
> promised when they donated money to pay off the mortgage that New
> Windsor would remain the permanent headquarters of American chess.
>
> The USCF runs on friendship patterns. Political payoffs and secret
> deals are the order of the day. And our behavior in FIDE is scandalous.
>
> Perhaps if the USCF were more professional and the board stopped
> making
> such arrogant decisions with our dues money it would not be under
> attack.
>
> It seems to me that Parr loves chess more than most of us. Why blame
> the messenger for demanding accountability?
>
> When all is said and done, I suspect that the $25,000 redesign of Chess
> Life will turn out to be another waste of money. The USCF already is
> teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and this job, if necessary, should
> be
> the domain of the new editor and his staff as part of their normal
> duties.
>
> *I don't know the exact company. As best as I can remember it was for a
>
> large company that regionally supplied wholesale grocery products to
> retail stores. I do not know more than that.* -- Rob
>
> Thank you for answering my question. But if you do not know more than
> that, how can you be sure that Jay Sabine took a pay cut by working for
> the USCF? Intelligent people usually do what is in their own best
> interest.

Because he told me that. And after having spent a considerable amount
of time with him, I can tell you that I find him to be honest and
genuine. I have taken cuts in pay on more tha one occassion when
starting in a new career.

Rob

Say No To g4

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

Vinny,

you got a great sense of humor. Why don't you use it sometimes?

"Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140885914.544738.209050@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

>
> jr wrote:
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>

Spamscone@yahoo.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

Rob wrote:

quote:

> I have taken cuts in pay on more tha one occassion when
> starting in a new career.

Did you take one to sell 'not available in stores' herbal remedies over
the Internet?

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

FRACTURED LOGIC

quote:

>It seems to me the fuss here is really about somebody

getting an easy 75, and that somebody wasn't LP [Larry
Parr]. But the seventy-five grand is a fictitious amount.
Supposing the real figure is far less, where are the complainers
left but looking silly? And working for an org. which is constantly
under attack is not exactly ideal, even if the pay is good. Keyrap:
Maybe it's just another quick-and-easy attack on a favorite
target, the USCF. LP has a long history of such attacks, justified or
not. In view of this, it is hard to take such criticisms seriously,
since they are primarily the result of unthinking habit.> --help bot

The fractured logic of this anonymouse and the attitude suggest
Vinnie Hart, but who cares? Typical stuff by the defenders of the
status
quo reminiscent of the false posting months ago by Stan Booz that I was

applying for the job of Chess Life editor which he later admitted was a
joke.

To begin with, I never stated that Jennifer Shahade is receiving
$75,000, though I have suggested she might be coeval with the
Chess Life editor which would put her about $40,000, give or take.
If she is making about the same, the job she took should have been
advertised to the chess community. Period.

The only other stuff in the pseudonymous posting worth
mentioning is the attempt to dismiss the issue of awarding what
appears to be a key position without advertising it as either envy
on my part or as yet another valid or invalid criticism of the USCF.
Hence the tacit yawn, etc.

NO ONE HAS YET SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED
WHY THE POSITION OF WEBSITE CONTENT CREATOR
OR EDITOR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PUBLIC TENDER.

Spamscone@yahoo.com

2006-02-26, 7:33 pm

parrthenon@cs.com wrote:

quote:

> FRACTURED LOGIC
>
> getting an easy 75, and that somebody wasn't LP [Larry
> Parr]. But the seventy-five grand is a fictitious amount.
> Supposing the real figure is far less, where are the complainers
> left but looking silly? And working for an org. which is constantly
> under attack is not exactly ideal, even if the pay is good. Keyrap:
> Maybe it's just another quick-and-easy attack on a favorite
> target, the USCF. LP has a long history of such attacks, justified or
> not. In view of this, it is hard to take such criticisms seriously,
> since they are primarily the result of unthinking habit.> --help bot
>
> The fractured logic of this anonymouse and the attitude suggest
> Vinnie Hart, but who cares?

If you didn't care, why bring it up? But since you ask, I think "help
bot" ismore likely to be Greg "nomorechess" Kennedy.

WPraeder

2006-02-26, 11:30 pm

Louis Blair wrote:

quote:

> I wrote (26 Feb 2006 14:28:29 -0800):
>
> _
> Wayne Praeder wrote (26 Feb 2006 15:32:46 -0800):
>
>
> _
> The point isn't whether or not Larry Parr came close.
> The point is that Larry Parr did not want to write that
> he came close. He wanted to write that he "was
> correct." Note the absence, on 15 Mar 2005
> 05:05:41 -0800, of a reference to the "done deal"
> stuff.

Louis,

Sorry I missed your point. Perhaps it appeared a plan that had been
arranged, that Larry Parr had no doubt would happen if unexposed, was
adverted due to the behind the scenes efforts of other board members. I
could be wrong, but to me that hardly seems like something to chuckle
over.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 11:30 pm

I wrote (26 Feb 2006 14:28:29 -0800):

quote:

> Here is a little something to chuckle over:
>_
> "Here is what I believe is happening now and how events
> will proceed until this coming mid-year if the lawsuit to
> stop the move fails.
> ...
> 4. At the Board meeting this weekend, Beatriz's
> resignation will be accepted on a 6-0 vote, a kind of
> honorable discharge.
>_
> 5. At the Board meeting this weekend, Beatriz's hire
> as, most likely, acting or assistant executive director,
> will be approved by a 5-1 vote. ..." - Larry Parr
> (16 Dec 2004 05:48:40 GMT)
>_
>_
> "either both motions will pass within a few minutes
> or Beatriz Marinello won't submit her resignation."
> - Larry Parr (17 Dec 2004 19:38:18 GMT)
>_
>_
> "Way to go out there on a limb, Larry. 'Newsflash
> -- either it will or it won't happen, film at 11.'" - Randy
> Bauer (17 Dec 2004 12:33:48 -0800)
>_
>_
> "It's a done deal, Randy. Won't take long. One
> minute prez of the federation; next minute, probably
> its most highly paid employee. Just like that. 6-zip
> on the resignation and 5-1 on the hiring. Finished, lah."
> - Larry Parr (18 Dec 2004 02:17:05 GMT)
>_
> Three months later:
>_
> "I also predicted that Beatriz Marinello would NOT
> resign as president unless she were appointed
> executive director. That, too, was correct." - Larry
> Parr (15 Mar 2005 05:05:41 -0800)

_
Wayne Praeder wrote (26 Feb 2006 15:32:46 -0800):

quote:

> I believe we came closer to the prediction than
> some might realize. I understood that considerable
> effort was expended working behind the scenes
> to keep Beatriz as President and find alternate
> ways to carry off the move.

_
I wrote (26 Feb 2006 15:59:30 -0800):

quote:

> The point isn't whether or not Larry Parr came close.
> The point is that Larry Parr did not want to write that
> he came close. He wanted to write that he "was
> correct." Note the absence, on 15 Mar 2005
> 05:05:41 -0800, of a reference to the "done deal"
> stuff.

_
Wayne Praeder wrote (26 Feb 2006 16:46:16 -0800):

quote:

> Sorry I missed your point. Perhaps it appeared
> a plan that had been arranged, that Larry Parr
> had no doubt would happen if unexposed, was
> adverted due to the behind the scenes efforts
> of other board members.

_
The point is not the reasons that Larry Parr was
wrong or close or whatever. The point is that, on
15 Mar 2005 05:05:41 -0800, Larry Parr did not
want to write that he was close, and he did not
want to write that he was wrong for this or that
reason. He wanted to write that he "was correct"
and left out any reference to that "done deal" stuff.

_
Wayne Praeder wrote (26 Feb 2006 16:46:16 -0800):

quote:

> I could be wrong, but to me that hardly seems
> like something to chuckle over.

_
Humor is, in any case, a subjective business, but,
as long as Wayne Praedor keeps his attention
rigidly away from Larry Parr's 15 Mar 2005
05:05:41 -0800 description of his prediction, there
is not much hope that Wayne Praedor will
perceive any humor. I have to admit that, from
a certain point of view, it is not really very funny
to contemplate Larry Parr's habits when
describing the past.

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 11:30 pm

I wrote (26 Feb 2006 14:28:29 -0800):

quote:

> Here is a little something to chuckle over:
>_
> "Here is what I believe is happening now and how events
> will proceed until this coming mid-year if the lawsuit to
> stop the move fails.
> ...
> 4. At the Board meeting this weekend, Beatriz's
> resignation will be accepted on a 6-0 vote, a kind of
> honorable discharge.
>_
> 5. At the Board meeting this weekend, Beatriz's hire
> as, most likely, acting or assistant executive director,
> will be approved by a 5-1 vote. ..." - Larry Parr
> (16 Dec 2004 05:48:40 GMT)
>_
>_
> "either both motions will pass within a few minutes
> or Beatriz Marinello won't submit her resignation."
> - Larry Parr (17 Dec 2004 19:38:18 GMT)
>_
>_
> "Way to go out there on a limb, Larry. 'Newsflash
> -- either it will or it won't happen, film at 11.'" - Randy
> Bauer (17 Dec 2004 12:33:48 -0800)
>_
>_
> "It's a done deal, Randy. Won't take long. One
> minute prez of the federation; next minute, probably
> its most highly paid employee. Just like that. 6-zip
> on the resignation and 5-1 on the hiring. Finished, lah."
> - Larry Parr (18 Dec 2004 02:17:05 GMT)
>_
> Three months later:
>_
> "I also predicted that Beatriz Marinello would NOT
> resign as president unless she were appointed
> executive director. That, too, was correct." - Larry
> Parr (15 Mar 2005 05:05:41 -0800)

_
Wayne Praeder wrote (26 Feb 2006 15:32:46 -0800):

quote:

> I believe we came closer to the prediction than
> some might realize. I understood that considerable
> effort was expended working behind the scenes
> to keep Beatriz as President and find alternate
> ways to carry off the move.

_
I wrote (26 Feb 2006 15:59:30 -0800):

quote:

> The point isn't whether or not Larry Parr came close.
> The point is that Larry Parr did not want to write that
> he came close. He wanted to write that he "was
> correct." Note the absence, on 15 Mar 2005
> 05:05:41 -0800, of a reference to the "done deal"
> stuff.

_
Wayne Praeder wrote (26 Feb 2006 16:46:16 -0800):

quote:

> Sorry I missed your point. Perhaps it appeared
> a plan that had been arranged, that Larry Parr
> had no doubt would happen if unexposed, was
> adverted due to the behind the scenes efforts
> of other board members.

quote:

> I could be wrong, but to me that hardly seems
> like something to chuckle over.

Ray Gordon

2006-02-26, 11:30 pm

>> And perhaps those "chess connection" rumors

quote:

>
> _
> I think I now know the origin of this. Don Schultz
> referred to Jennifer Shahade's "extensive player
> conntacts" on Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:50 am.

Lots of people have extensive player contacts (many of our transplant
players have even more), and can easily develop them. Chessplayers love
media exposure.

quote:

> _
> http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913
> _
> Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that he said
> she "showed a true passion for doing a quality job."

As if someone else wouldn't? That's an insult to anyone who would have
applied for the job, as many people are devoted to chess.

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-02-26, 11:31 pm

HART IS TRUE TO FORM

quote:

>I hereby issue a $10,000 lie detector challenge to gutless Larry Parr!> -- Vince

Hart

A true Vinnie Hart posting: inane and angry.

Mr. Hart issues a challenge to a polygraph
match, but he provides no terms. What will be asked?
How do I win? How does he win?

Or was Mr. Hart trying to exercise his sense of humor
a la Lt. Hauk in "Good Morning, Vietnam"?

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-02-26, 11:31 pm

HART IS TRUE TO FORM

quote:

>I hereby issue a $10,000 lie detector challenge to gutless Larry Parr!> -- Vince

Louis Blair

2006-02-26, 11:31 pm

On 24 Feb 2006 21:42:51 -0800,
I referred to:

quote:

> Jennifer Shahade's accomplishments and
> credentials as a writer and player. (And
> perhaps those "chess connection" rumors
> have something to them as well.)

_
I wrote (26 Feb 2006 15:38:29 -0800):

quote:

> I think I now know the origin of [the "chess
> connection" rumors]. Don Schultz referred
> to Jennifer Shahade's "extensive player
> conntacts" on Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:50 am.
> ...
> Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that he said
> she "showed a true passion for doing a quality
> job."

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:48:42 GMT):

quote:

> As if someone else wouldn't?

_
I did not write anything to indicate that nobody
else would show a true passion for doing a quality
job. It seems that the board believed that a
search would be unlikely to produce someone
with THE COMBINATION OF DESIRED QUALITIES
to the same degree that Jennifer Shahade has
them. See both quotes at the beginning for some
indication of what I imagine were the sorts of things
that were considered by the board.

_
Ray Gordon wrote (Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:48:42 GMT):

quote:

> Lots of people have extensive player contacts (many
> of our transplant players have even more), and can
> easily develop them. Chessplayers love media
> exposure.

_
My 26 Feb 2006 15:38:29 -0800 note was not intended
to be a stand-alone description of the reasons that
Jennifer Shahade was chosen. It was just intended
to add a little bit more to what was mentioned in my
24 Feb 2006 21:42:51 -0800 note.

WPraeder

2006-02-26, 11:31 pm

Louis Blair wrote:

quote:

> I wrote (26 Feb 2006 14:28:29 -0800):
> _
> Wayne Praeder wrote (26 Feb 2006 15:32:46 -0800):
> _
> I wrote (26 Feb 2006 15:59:30 -0800):
>
> _
> Wayne Praeder wrote (26 Feb 2006 16:46:16 -0800):
>
>
> _
> The point is not the reasons that Larry Parr was
> wrong or close or whatever. The point is that, on
> 15 Mar 2005 05:05:41 -0800, Larry Parr did not
> want to write that he was close, and he did not
> want to write that he was wrong for this or that
> reason. He wanted to write that he "was correct"
> and left out any reference to that "done deal" stuff.
>
> _
> Wayne Praeder wrote (26 Feb 2006 16:46:16 -0800):
>
>
> _
> Humor is, in any case, a subjective business, but,
> as long as Wayne Praedor keeps his attention
> rigidly away from Larry Parr's 15 Mar 2005
> 05:05:41 -0800 description of his prediction, there
> is not much hope that Wayne Praedor will
> perceive any humor. I have to admit that, from
> a certain point of view, it is not really very funny
> to contemplate Larry Parr's habits when
> describing the past.

Louis,

Thank you for clarifying your point. It is probably just me but the
comments "either both motions will pass within a few minutes or Beatriz
Marinello won't submit her resignation" and "Beatriz Marinello would
not resign as president unless she were appointed executive director"
even though a bit confusing regarding the order of events seem, when
put in context, to have similar meanings and do appear to cover all the
bases. I'll leave the stylistic differences for you and Larry Parr to
discuss. It is good you can still find humor in all this. Best wishes,
and

Regards,
Wayne Praeder

parrthenon@cs.com

2006-02-26, 11:31 pm

THE NUTTY PROFESSOR

Louie Blair's point is to offer what he regards
as wrong predictions on my part in the hope that you
will forget that I reported, among other things, the
enormous increase in price of the small headquarters
buiding in Cross-to-Bear; the crooked $60,000 contract
to famished Phil Elmore in Cross-to-Bear; and the cash
crunch