"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote in message news:023534e0-c93d-4e97-bbbc-1fa37dea1cd9@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
<...>
However, most voters know little or nothing about this. Many voted
just on the basis of campaign statements published in Chess Life. They
would hardly be expected to know about the serious problems with
everything involving Susan Polgar going back for the past 23 years.
Or... even your own problems, which go back even further?
They would not know that the problems Polgar has been creating here
are almost identical to the problems she created back in Hungary
before she got here.
Pushing 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?
Those sort of problems?
People are terrified that the precious balance of the status quo will be upset, that new criteria will apply, and a necessary transparency in chess governance will actually be carried out rather than suggested - that the USCF will actually do something to justify its existence, rather than continue to decline like a private member's club for the old boys.
Those factors are very serious problems only for those who like it the way it is now. And those people talk about SPICE and KCF exploring their individual paths forward as a 'rift', since it ain't a monolithic approach, which in their opinion should run everything [down].
Brian Lafferty 28 April 2008 04:17:09 [ permanent link ]
The Polgar Blog covered the Lubbock Open this weekend in Lubbock, Texas. No mention on her blog at all about the National Girls Championship taking place in Dallas this weekend. Is Ms. Polgar too busy to note another Texas event on her blog or is there a strained relationship here. Inquiring minds would like to know.
Brian Lafferty 28 April 2008 21:03:00 [ permanent link ]
From the USCF Issues Forum today (awaiting posting of my reply below):
[quote="Smith"]Can we rename this forum to the USCF gossip and speculation forum? How is Ms. Polgar not mentioning something on her blog a USCF issue?[/quote] ----------------------------------------------------------
Because out EB member Polgar apparently does not get on well with the folks at the Kasparov Chess Foundation. It appears Truong burned the bridge over KCF not hiring Polgar to coach a woman's Olympiad team. And now a question for you. How much money does KCF bring into scholastic chess compared with the Susan Polgar Foundation? Answer later.
USCF issue--do we need such bridge burners on our EB?
However, most voters know little or nothing about this. Many voted
just on the basis of campaign statements published in Chess Life. They
would hardly be expected to know about the serious problems with
everything involving Susan Polgar going back for the past 23 years.
Or... even your own problems, which go back even further?
They would not know that the problems Polgar has been creating here
are almost identical to the problems she created back in Hungary
before she got here.
Pushing 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?
Those sort of problems?
People are terrified that the precious balance of the status quo will be
upset, that new criteria will apply, and a necessary transparency in chess
governance will actually be carried out rather than suggested - that the
USCF will actually do something to justify its existence, rather than
continue to decline like a private member's club for the old boys.
Those factors are very serious problems only for those who like it the way
it is now. And those people talk about SPICE and KCF exploring their
individual paths forward as a 'rift', since it ain't a monolithic approach,
which in their opinion should run everything [down].
Phil Innes
Sam Sloan
BB and Chessville have no journalistic credibility what-so-ever. BB's buddy Kelly Atkins is chumming with Susie in Texas. From Susie's Blog with a lovely photo of Susie and Kelly
"This is Mr. Kelly Atkins, one of the editors and forum host at chessville.com. He will be visiting SPICE and Texas Tech today to do an exclusive behind the scene college chess report. Many people hear about the incredible success of SPICE in a very short period of time. But how do we do it? After this visit, Kelly will report the behind the scene secret of success of SPICE and its plans in the future." https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13118012&postID=1090820781372510451
"Brian Lafferty" <blafferty@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:GIZRj.317$1m3.130@trndny02...
Chess One wrote:
<...>
Those factors are very serious problems only for those who like it the
way it is now. And those people talk about SPICE and KCF exploring their
individual paths forward as a 'rift', since it ain't a monolithic
approach, which in their opinion should run everything [down].
Phil Innes
Sam Sloan
BB and Chessville have no journalistic credibility what-so-ever. BB's
buddy Kelly Atkins is chumming with Susie in Texas. From Susie's Blog with
a lovely photo of Susie and Kelly
Lookit! its...
... The BRAIN!
The BRAIN already announced several things in his intro, including the fact that despite more readers at Chessville than of ChessLife, this form of journalism is without 'credibility' in his world. The BRAIN is, methinks, using words unusually!
Though, to be absolutely fair to the BRAIN, it is possible that he doesn't know what an editor is, or simply dislikes what-so-ever they do? If the BRAIN's heros are Hanken and Hough, then ho-hah! Say no more, all is understood.
"This is Mr. Kelly Atkins, one of the editors and forum host at
chessville.com. He will be visiting SPICE and Texas Tech today to do an
exclusive behind the scene college chess report. Many people hear about
the incredible success of SPICE in a very short period of time. But how do
we do it? After this visit, Kelly will report the behind the scene secret
Since Chessville is the first major chess site to report on SPICE and with an on-site reporter spending several days in Lubbock, half a day of interviews and photography, inclusive of meeting significant folks from the University and the town, then I wonder exactly what 'real' journalists do in the BRAIN's native state of New Hampshire?
Perhaps they don't go anywhere in NH, nor speak with others in more than a cursory way, and in this way share their fascinating opinions with all who still listen to them.
Unfortunately the BRAIN neglects to mention the extent of his own public, as such, but I am sure there are those who find his style and opinions congenial to their own 'orientation', and do not actually require anything else.
Such folks are excused the rest of the class, and can do extra gym. [no pun intended]
David Richerby 30 April 2008 18:52:09 [ permanent link ]
samsloan <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote:
If you have such strong opinions on this subject, why do not you
actually come up with some money and join the USCF?
Where does this idea come from that the certainty of a person's conviction depends somehow on the amount of money they are prepared to give up in support of that conviction? It is utterly bogus.
In this case, it's even worse: the implication is that the certainty of a person's conviction depends somehow on the amount of money they are prepared to give up for some tangential purpose.
"Brian Lafferty" <blafferty@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:GIZRj.317$1m3.130@trndny02...
Chess One wrote:
<...>
Those factors are very serious problems only for those who like it the
way it is now. And those people talk about SPICE and KCF exploring their
individual paths forward as a 'rift', since it ain't a monolithic
approach, which in their opinion should run everything [down].
Phil Innes
Sam Sloan
BB and Chessville have no journalistic credibility what-so-ever. BB's
buddy Kelly Atkins is chumming with Susie in Texas. From Susie's Blog with
a lovely photo of Susie and Kelly
Lookit! its...
... The BRAIN!
The BRAIN already announced several things in his intro, including the fact
that despite more readers at Chessville than of ChessLife, this form of
journalism is without 'credibility' in his world. The BRAIN is, methinks,
using words unusually!
Though, to be absolutely fair to the BRAIN, it is possible that he doesn't
know what an editor is, or simply dislikes what-so-ever they do? If the
BRAIN's heros are Hanken and Hough, then ho-hah! Say no more, all is
understood.
Bowl Boy, you are truly clueless. Please don't tell us who my heroes are. You're typing through you bung hole again. Wrong. I don't have heroes. There are people whom I have deep respect for. It's a short list that you'll never be on.
"This is Mr. Kelly Atkins, one of the editors and forum host at
chessville.com. He will be visiting SPICE and Texas Tech today to do an
exclusive behind the scene college chess report. Many people hear about
the incredible success of SPICE in a very short period of time. But how do
we do it? After this visit, Kelly will report the behind the scene secret
Since Chessville is the first major chess site to report on SPICE and with
an on-site reporter spending several days in Lubbock, half a day of
interviews and photography, inclusive of meeting significant folks from the
University and the town, then I wonder exactly what 'real' journalists do in
the BRAIN's native state of New Hampshire?
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Chessville a major chess site??!! That's funny. Once again you display total ignorance. My home state is New Hampshire??!! I've never been a resident of New Hampshire, Bowel Boy.
Perhaps they don't go anywhere in NH, nor speak with others in more than a
cursory way, and in this way share their fascinating opinions with all who
still listen to them.
LOL!
Unfortunately the BRAIN neglects to mention the extent of his own public, as
such, but I am sure there are those who find his style and opinions
congenial to their own 'orientation', and do not actually require anything
else.
No doubt you were trying to say something here. Can someone run this through a universal alien language translator?
Such folks are excused the rest of the class, and can do extra gym. [no pun
David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you have such strong opinions on this subject, why do not you
actually come up with some money and join the USCF?
Where does this idea come from that the certainty of a person's
conviction depends somehow on the amount of money they are prepared
to give up in support of that conviction? It is utterly bogus.
Do you feel that a person who not a member of the USCF should have
so much to say as he has to say about the internal affairs of our
organization?
Why not? Is it wrong for people people who are not Burmese citizens to criticize the way the Burmese government runs that country? Is it not legitimate to say, `I refuse to join this organization until it sorts out problems X, Y and Z'?
And now you're saying that money has nothing to do with it? Why did you bring up money in the first place?
Dave.
-- David Richerby Enormous Miniature Spoon (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a piece of cutlery but you can hold in it your hand and it's huge!
"Brian Lafferty" <blafferty@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:0duSj.10901$Zs1.3071@trndny07...
Chess One wrote:
Lookit! its...
... The BRAIN!
The BRAIN already announced several things in his intro, including the
fact that despite more readers at Chessville than of ChessLife, this form
of journalism is without 'credibility' in his world. The BRAIN is,
methinks, using words unusually!
Though, to be absolutely fair to the BRAIN, it is possible that he
doesn't know what an editor is, or simply dislikes what-so-ever they do?
If the BRAIN's heros are Hanken and Hough, then ho-hah! Say no more, all
is understood.
Bowl Boy, you are truly clueless. Please don't tell us who my heroes are.
More BRAIN! Less speed
I thought the BRAIN, or 'us' if it prefers, was all for openness? For revelations! I had wondered what makes for chess journalism in that BRAIN?
You're typing through you bung hole again. Wrong. I don't have heroes.
There are people whom I have deep respect for. It's a short list that
you'll never be on.
Since this is the BRAIN's issue, [remember?] journalism, I must continue to refer the BRAIN to its own enthusiasm, which it seems is not journalism at all, but journalists!
As such, I would like to make clear than I am not making any big application to any short list. And that the BRAIN has changed the subject.
"This is Mr. Kelly Atkins, one of the editors and forum host at
chessville.com. He will be visiting SPICE and Texas Tech today to do an
exclusive behind the scene college chess report. Many people hear about
the incredible success of SPICE in a very short period of time. But how
do we do it? After this visit, Kelly will report the behind the scene
secret of success of SPICE and its plans in the future."
Since Chessville is the first major chess site to report on SPICE and
with an on-site reporter spending several days in Lubbock, half a day of
interviews and photography, inclusive of meeting significant folks from
the University and the town, then I wonder exactly what 'real'
journalists do in the BRAIN's native state of New Hampshire?
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Chessville a major chess site??!! That's funny. Once again
you display total ignorance. My home state is New Hampshire??!! I've
never been a resident of New Hampshire, Bowel Boy.
Given two sticks to bite on, the BRAIN gnashes down, but not on his own subject, which is whatever journalism is wherever he is. I'm sure it must lie somewhere along the yellow brick road, I can just about hear the tune...
If I only had a ...
or is that the wind blowing round the old belfry?
Perhaps they don't go anywhere in NH, nor speak with others in more than
a cursory way, and in this way share their fascinating opinions with all
who still listen to them.
LOL!
Unfortunately the BRAIN neglects to mention the extent of his own public,
as such, but I am sure there are those who find his style and opinions
congenial to their own 'orientation', and do not actually require
anything else.
No doubt you were trying to say something here. Can someone run this
through a universal alien language translator?
The BRAIN raised a topic, which it then argued about but failed to say what it actually valued, becoming overwhelmed in the process by a need to tell others what their values aughta be,
then changed the subject from journalism to journalists <--bad BRAIN!
being equally vague on that subject too.
But I /do/ understand better what standards of journalism the BRAIN now enjoys from his own example. Forms of anal referencing vagueries in a generally abusive mode of other people's perceived shortcomings off-topic from the nominal one, and where it gets 'lost in thought.'
One might thank the BRAIN for demonstrating its predelictions on this and other subjects, but excuse it further exercise on the subject of journalism, since it is became confused and fraught during 'thinking' about chess promotion at SPICE and KCF, and is now totally befuddled.
And of course, this is not the BRAIN's own fault, O no! That /is/ entirely clear. ;)
As they say in the Granite State, have a gneiss day!
Phil Innes
Such folks are excused the rest of the class, and can do extra gym. [no
Thank you for that staggeringly erudite contribution. Next time, would you care to trim the quoted text and leave out the huge blanks so that we might more easily find your `writing'?
Dave.
-- David Richerby Unholy Crystal Gnome (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a smiling garden ornament but it's completely transparent and also a crime against nature!
"Brian Lafferty" <blafferty@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:1ZHSj.6$JF1.5@trndny06...
I hope this is more to your liking. It was probably too erudite for Phil.
Let's face it BRAIN, you were not hiding your lights under a cloak of erudition, you were whining about other people as usual, and cannot seem to do otherwise, no matter what the topic is.
When asked the simplest thing about yourself and what was journalism was to your mind, you decided you couldn't understand English.
While saying nothing of substance to any topic you have become rightly famous for vacuity, so that here on usenet is the only place you may utter your sweet nothings.
While you amuse yourself and certain other misanthropic speculators by spewing forth such nihilistic tripe, you merely succeed in identifying your own melancholic condition, and those who are like you. From this platform you then pronounce upon other people, as if you were not the same species as those commented upon.
[[[Should you like to know the clinical name of your condition? [Write publicly or in priviate.] I no longer do a lot of free consulting, but there is no shame in a conversation, no?]]]
There are several ideas around this condition I diagnose in you, at home and abroad there is very great consensus among psychologists that such behavior as your own can fairly be described as being nutz@.
Though some people prefer net-nutz@, since the phenomena only works when one cloaks oneself in anonym, much like an alien cannog admit any human condition, in fact, who does not understand how earth-people are, nor can say how they themselves are.
We have departed from any nominal thread topic to the only one you care for, and while this is itself a pathology,
<right?>
even people who don't like me are wondering about the BRIAN's orientation and reason for writing anything at all.
You may, by all means, respond in your usual like, which is to enthusiasticly volunteer referernces to other men's bottoms, and this in itself is no /necessary/ good-old-American homosexual repressed approach, though... there is very great consensus among psychologists ...
Cordially, Phil Innes
The Hippocampus, Vermont
David Richerby wrote:
Brian Lafferty <blafferty@nowhere.com> wrote:
[105 lines of quoted text]
[36 blank lines]
Thank you for that staggeringly erudite contribution. Next time,
would you care to trim the quoted text and leave out the huge blanks
BRAIN, you offer up your wit, and your borrowed cynicism in another's words lacking even your own phrasing, except those anal references truly your own which you now snip away as if you could escape their implication!
R
O
F
L
!
The BRIAN say's nothing to any issue it raises beyond its own invective. That means the BRAIN is bust, even in its last stand, a public newsgroup. And that is pathetic!
Since the BRAIN is/are a sort of leader of a pack, and what it professes is magnificently unable to make any response thereon, it is maybe the last element to appreciate its own plight.
Everyone here can witness your vacuity and your ill will, your completely debauched and illogical obsessional postings on one topic, which you are unable to discuss with any other human being whomever, who has even the slightest demurrer. The BRAIN continues to protest its special understanding of things as autodidact to those who like that sort of stuff.
I already made my case, 3 times on 3 issues, to which you responded nothing of substance. That means you are bust, BRAIN, it means you are as a Numbskull, an unresponsive ranter on this, and every forum - and your appreciation of things is rejected by every contact you have made.
It cannot recommend you to broader subjects, nor any /assignatus utitur jure actoris/ which you will understand, but I translate for others to mean that you represent not the slightest principal of law. And law, I remind you, is the /lowest/ social denominator in any culture.
Language too hard to understand, Judge?
That you neglect to mention these things is merely that you may continue to protest to whom? Who actually rides forth with the BRAIN?
Nihil ex nihilo, quod non opus est, asse carum est.
Phil Innes
"Brian Lafferty" <blafferty@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:qpKSj.12$JF1.6@trndny06...
Chess One wrote:
--and since you ain't subtle, that means I am not interested, darling--
;)
Geddit?
Phil Innes
Not interested. Interesting. Is that why you respond with so much sound
Really? [Though that is still only 8 unrelated items.]
It is clear that the The Fake Sam
Sloan has written them all,
And number #9! A statement of what is clear to... ? Or how it is clear...?
that the Fake Sam Sloan is Paul Truong and
that Susan Polgar allows Paul Truong to post obscene, pornographic or
objectionable postings to her own blogspot.
Nice finish with #10.
Now NONE of that is what I addressed. I didn't ask for yet another litany of accusations, I wrote that the first 5 accusations you made had no connection among them that I could detect to justify linking them together.
Now - you cut that out AS IF another point was made, and to justify adding 5 more 'points' which I tell you, are blunt.
That is the level of your own address to the issue. You speak as if you weren't there! That these factors you speak of are somehow independent of you, rather than entirely the result of your own intellectual comprehension.
You completely make my point for me by cutting the reference to yourself, and then continuing to suppose and assert things AS IF there existed any objective linkage.
