Brian Lafferty wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 3:13 am, Gregory <greg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Apr 9, 1:00 am, p944dc <p94...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 8, 7:20 pm, Gregory <greg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> It is sad that you are so caught up in an emotional bandwagon
against
> >>>> a candidate that you are trying to remove that you can't see the
logic
> >>>> of this. It is also sad that you are deliberately framing this as
> >>>> something that was intentionally done by a certain party in order
to
> >>>> harass someone.
> >>> Was it done to simply harass a past political opponent? We don't
know
> >>> that. Were the salacious emails emanating from the same source
during
> >>> the 2007 EB election intentionally meant to defame, or not? How can
> >>> we know the mind of those who do such things? We can recognize
> >>> patterns of behavior, and whatever the reason, the acts are to be
> >>> condemned.
> >>> What is sad is that you have become so passionately partisan that
you
> >>> support, and in this instance participate in, these unethical acts.
> >>> If you were truthfully approaching this subject you would remember
> >>> that I did not support the recall UNTIL Truong refused to
participate
> >>> in the USCF defense. You would remember who it was, pretty much
> >>> alone, who supported your position in the fake BG post episode where
> >>> you were the one blamed last October. You would remember who it was
> >>> that supported you when you had difficulties in the last weeks of
your
> >>> time as moderator at the USCF forum. You would remember who it was
> >>> that faced the tip of the spear when Truong and Polgar were under
> >>> attack last May (not YOU, by the way). I try to approach these
> >>> matters not from the realm of personality worship, but by
> >>> dispassionately weighing the ACTS of those involved against the
> >>> standard of decent morality. You should try it sometime.
> >> Steve,
> >>
> >> Your false innuendo and blame sounds like a your beating of a drum to
> >> garnish further recall support. While you definately have a creative
> >> writing style, it is disconnected from reality. The post was a
> >> verbatim quote from the LA Times.
> >>
> >> You most definitely made this post to sound like it is the fault of
> >> Susan Polgar, or Paul Troung, whom you are presently trying to
> >> politically recall.
> >>
> >> Spare me from your hollow protests about decency. You are doing more
> >> to promulgate this story by adding fuel to the fire in your attempt
> >> to create false blame. If Susan or Paul that caused the death of an
> >> innocent individual, you-- and your friends, would not let it go and
> >> drum the beat for eternity. If you, or your friends, posted a factual
> >> article against Paul, or Susan, that occured 8 years ago and it was
> >> yanked by a moderator, you would all cry that we are not allowing
> >> free speech since we pulled a factual post about a chess personality.
> >>
> >> The double standards that are applied are sickening-- and I did not
> >> expect this from you.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Gregory
> >
> > Susan and Paul have pulled a lot of bogus scams which are rarely
> > mentioned on this group.
> >
> > What about the $50,000 which they claimed that both the USCF and the
> > Kasparov Chess Foundation each had to pay them for "training" the US
> > Woman's Chess Olympiad Team, when the "training" consisted Paul Truong
> > telling the woman chess players what to do during their menstrual
> > periods? (This is discussed in the books "King's Gambit" by Paul
> > Hoffman and "Chess Bitch" by Jennifer Shahade.)
> >
> > What about Susan Polgar charging $2 per person for simply appearing at
> > a national scholastic tournament (meaning that she got $4,000 for just
> > a one hour appearance) and claiming that Frank Niro had agreed to pay
> > this amount when Niro had disappeared and, as we now know, was hiding
> > in Polgar's house in Queens?
> >
> > There is a long list of scams pulled by Polgar and Truong before they
> > ran for the board. We knew about them but were not allowed to reveal
> > them because the moderators to the USCF Issues Forum which included
> > Gregory Alexander would not allow any negative comments or even
> > embarrassing questions about Polgar and Truong to be posted on the
> > USCF Issues Forum.
> >
> > What about the fact that a picture of Susan Polgar has appeared in
> > every issue of Chess Life from 2005 up to the present even though
> > Polgar has not played in a serious rated chess event since the 2004
> > Chess Olympiad? The first issue of Chess Life that did not contain a
> > big picture of Susan Polgar in more than two years is the current
> > April, 2008 issue of Chess Life.
> >
> > Had the general chess playing public been allowed to know about all
> > these scams by Polgar and Truong, they would never have been elected.
> > The public was not allowed to know the truth because of the Pro-Polgar
> > and Pro-Truong moderators that were appointed by Bill Hall and Bill
> > Goichberg to the USCF Issues Forum.
> >
> > Sam Sloan
>
> The following comment by USCF board member Randy Hough responding to Don
> Schultz is interesting:
>
> Well, maybe we should just let you make the decision, Don...oh, that's
> right, you ran for reelection and lost...badly. And maybe we should let
> Susan and Joel blackmail us into a bad business decision.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Randy H
>
> Chessdon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> In a message dated 4/4/2008 6:59:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> Chesstour writes:
> In a message dated 4/4/2008 2:55:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Chessdon
> writes:
> In a message dated 4/4/2008 12:28:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> Chessdon writes:
> I just read the Bill Goichberg/ Joel Channing letters over insurance and
> while I am not familiar with all the detail, allow me to offer some
> comments:
>
> I'm confused, if there is little risk and there are no cases of third
> party payouts of large amounts as stated by Bill - then why are the
> rates so high? There usually is at least some correlation between rates
> and risk, is there not?
> Many companies would find $13,000 per year not a high rate.
> Are you saying that most companies would opt for the insurance at
> $13,000 because it was worth the protection?
>
> I favor saving money by going for the largest deductible that minimizes
> maximum risk. USCF can afford small and medium size risks; but to put
> the organization's existence at risk (no matter how small a possibility)
> should not be decided by a simple Board majority vote.
>
> IMO, aborting catastrophic insurance is a matter that should go to the
> delegates. It is a decision that if taken, will have short term and
> long term consequences that will open a new dimension of Board and
> Delegate disharmony that is not needed at this time.
> This insurance was authorized by the board, and it would be odd to spend
> another $5000 waiting for delegate approval to cancel it. Most
> delegates would be surprised if the board was unwilling to act on what
> is clearly not a delegate matter.
> Yes the EB approved it but the stakes are now higher - the loss of an
> important Board member, who has opportunities in the oven and the fact
> that at least one Board member feels that the very existence of the USCF
> is at risk because of the potential magnitude of legal developments.
> Personally I agree with that assessment. Right or wrong, Susan's
> potential marketability is enormous and its destruction and counter
> action by Susan could destroy the USCF as well. 3 or 4 Board members
> should not, IMO unilaterally make this assessment no matter what the
> reasons were when the insurance was first purchased.
>
> Don Schultz
Brian, when you paste this way, all the formatting is lost, so there's
no way to tell who is speaking. (I know because I've read the
original, but presumably most people here have not.) If you want it to
be comprehensible, you really have to go through it and indicate
breaks and speakers before publishing it.
|
