"help bot" <nomorechess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:01d30986-12ca-4d8e-b1e3-92fa6b55257d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 30, 8:09 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Pu****ng the limits of the game to involve more players, eliminating
>> gender-bias from the inside, by actually encouraging self esteem in
young
>> women, as if they were people too?
>
>
> Ridiculous. You need to pick up a copy of
> Cosmopolitan, and take a good, hard look at the
> cover (any issue will do). The message is quite
> clearly that women are merely *** objects... and
> who is it that buys those magazines, anyway?
ha ha! you tripped yourself up! If you don't get it, then how do you know?
Besides, no waif-like creatures buy Cosmo any more, since it must weigh
about 10 pounds and they can't even pick 'em up! never mind lug em around.
>> People are terrified that the precious balance of the status quo will
be
>> upset, that new criteria will apply, and a necessary transparency
> Guffaw! Ha ha, good one... Susan Polgar is a
> "promoter of transparency", har har.
I only speak from evidence of her actions. I note detractors from this
idea
hold the completely contradictory ideas that (a) they too want to know
everthing, and (b) that they favor USCF's Official Secrets Policy. What I
find credible to /sincere/ opinion is to hold both (a) and (b)
orientations
simultaneously.
> I think Mr. Sloan has some very serious issues
> with Susan Polgar, if you know what I mean.
He would rather actually be a woman?
> PT
> is a thorn-chick in his backside, and he seems
> frustrated that he cannot use his apparata-chick
> on Suzsa-chick. Maybe SS needs to just get
> over it? Move on with his life... .
Play some chess or take up interior decoratoring? In short, get into his
own
life instead of inhabiting everyone else's?
I suppose he could run for "King of Queens", with the slogan, 'every pawn
a
Queen!' and introduce chess to the m***** that way.
LET'S TALK TURKEY (BEFORE THANKSGIVING)
But no... the difference between real chess promoters and chess
politicians
is that the both say the same stuff. <laugh> Its not really about what is
said, is it? Returning to the top, and 'transparency', its not about
saying
what you do, its about doing what you say. And there are those who don't
want transparency since <gasp> there might be nothing much to look at ;(
This week in chess also saw more than a rift in English chess politics,
with
3 or 4 people resigning from its board who had been elected to get on with
it, but met with intractible burocratic entrenchment. I rather doubt these
enterprising people will give up the ghost, and instead attempt their own
version of SPICE or Kentucky Fried Kasparov.
After all, people who like to dance don't often volunteer at the funeral
home.
But let me close with a refutation of Larry Parr on Kasparov - I think
that
20 year old quote is no longer true:
"The small minded leaders of the Unites States Chess
Federation try to keep it an amateur game and must
be purged like entrenched Communist
Bureaucrats." -- Garry Kasparov
GK re-*****sed his opinion of USCF in 1999, "dead" he said.
Karpov OTOH merely opined, "frozen."
----------
IN MY OPINION
Since I am viewed as a Truong and Polgar booster, I must make a difference
between my own stance and theirs - that I have no idea why they accepted
board seats at USCF, other than that people voted them in as agents of
change, and this must have been encouraging to them at the time.
But a candid *****sment of what USCF is capable of other than maintenance
activities which it cannot well perform, plus the crew of entrenched
Goichbergists, cannot jive well with what they are both good at, which is
promoting the game.
The only argument we have witnessed here over the past 18 months is that
USCF should attempt both. Those who do not like Polgar and Truong don't
think so. They think it should stick to the knitting in Eric Johnson's
small
tent, to almost mix a metaphor. And while that is not the public view, it
is
the view of the entrenched G's.
I understand that point of view, and even agree with it to the extent that
I
don't think USCF can even adequately take care of the ratings system, or
publish an intelligent chess mag, nevermind attempt the much more
difficult
task of promotion of chess to mass media.
USCF is literally incapable of maintaining technical chess standards, good
relations with players, other standards of normal public discussion and
behavior, and cannot credibly join with those mainstream institutions
which
/insist/ on those standards.
My view is that Susan and Paul should do the same as Joel has. After
trying
however well to re-orient the entity to enable its growth, they should
admit
that as a whole it lacks still any sufficient intergrity and will to do
so,
and they themselves should act accordingly - just as the enterprising
people
at the English Federation have just done.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
>
|
