Chess One wrote:
> "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
Phil Innes is but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets
his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by
an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
If only William had know you, Phil
|
