Mutiny on the USCF
Richard Crespo
Ladies & Gentlemen:
"Beautiful things are about to happen" as stated in the flower ad on
the inside cover of the March issue of Chess Life magazine. Hunting
season is now open for the rare species - the USCF chess tournament.
Try to find one in your state. If you can't, then use what would have
been your tournament entry fee to order some flowers.
As President of the Louisiana AND Mississippi Chess Associations, if
the USCF continues on its present course, both organizations will NOT
renew affiliate memberships when they expire.
Regarding the scholastic state championships, after March, 2001, we
will no longer require players to be USCF rated. Since there will be
no fees for TLA's, ratings reports or USCF paperwork, we feel that
this will lower entry fees which will result in increased attendance.
We plan to implement our own state ratings system which will be free
to our players and will give immediate results at the end of each
tournament, thereby eliminating the time it takes for USCF to
calculate and post ratings.
Regarding the open (adult) state tournaments, these will also no
longer be USCF rated.
My reasons for this action are listed below:
1. Elimination of Affiliate Commissions and replacement with useless
incentive programs;
2. Enormous Increases in TLA Fees;
3 Slashing in half the state grant funds for state affiliates;
4. Mismanagement of USCF funds;
5. Affiliates and Chess Coaches newsletters have been non-existent for
the past couple of years;
6. Chess Life magazine consistently being sent late which, in turn,
hurts tournament organizers;
7. School Mates magazine cut to four times a year;
8. USCF employees (including many at the executive level) not
returning phone calls.
Most of the results of the above are already apparent. For instance,
the lateness of Chess Life was the cause of poor attendance at several
tournaments. The elimination of affiliate commissions provides no
incentive to go through the trouble of all of the paperwork to sign up
new members. The result of the increase in TLA fees is apparent by
looking at this month's Chess Life magazine where only 3-1/2 pages
contain tournament ads, representing a 55% decline in ads from the
same month last year.
USCF has lost sight of the fact that the most important people they
have working for them are the tournament organizers. These are the
people who are promoting the USCF, obtaining memberships and providing
tournaments throughout the country. The attitude that state and local
organizers do not matter is quite apparent due to the outrageous
policies that have been recently implemented. Without the support of
these organizers, the USCF is doomed.
I feel that the USCF's slogan of 2001 being the "Year of the OTB
Player" is a misquote. It should have read, "Year of the 'Missing' OTB
Player."
As we have no faith in the USCF Executive Board's and Executive
Director's decisions, our delegates will be signing Sam Sloan's recall
petition. We have voiced our opinions in the strongest way possible.
"WE NO LONGER SUPPORT OR ENDORSE USCF."
Sincerely, Richard L. Crespo
President, LOUISIANA CHESS ASSOCIATION
President, MISSISSIPPI CHESS ASSOCIATION
President, CAJUN CLASSICS CHESS,INC.
President, CAJUN KNIGHTS CHESS CLUB
President, LOUISIANA HIGH SCHOOL CHESS LEAGUE
Richard Crespo
I would be happy to talk to any of you if you have any
comments, questions, or suggestions to my previous
e-mail re Mutiny on the LCA. My cell phone number is
(504) 296-4888.
=====
Sergei Keres
>Ladies & Gentlemen --
>
>I would be happy to talk to any of you if you have any
>comments, questions, or suggestions to my previous
>e-mail re Mutiny on the LCA. My cell phone number is
I had my doubts this was Richard Crespo when he suddenly appeared on this
message board after someone doubted the existence of his quote.
Now, I know this person is bogus. No one in their right mind posts their
real
phone number (a cell phone, no less) on a USENET newsgroup.
And before you say, "Ha, he doesn't even post his real name", go back to
deja
(oops! I mean google) and search for my name (skeres) and see why I don't
post under a real name. I really do this mostly to facilitate a discussion
of
ideas, not name calling.
Now, if you are really the real Richard Crespo, I apologize, but...
Why would you put a phone number in a newsgoup?!!?!?!? Maybe you should
cancel that message.
SK
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Sloan
<ske...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>===== Original Message From richard...@yahoo.com (Richard Crespo) =====
>>Ladies & Gentlemen --
>>
>>I would be happy to talk to any of you if you have any
>>comments, questions, or suggestions to my previous
>>e-mail re Mutiny on the LCA. My cell phone number is
>> [phone number removed]
>
>I had my doubts this was Richard Crespo when he suddenly appeared on this
>message board after someone doubted the existence of his quote.
>
>Now, I know this person is bogus. No one in their right mind posts their
>real
>phone number (a cell phone, no less) on a USENET newsgroup.
>
>And before you say, "Ha, he doesn't even post his real name", go back to
>deja
>(oops! I mean google) and search for my name (skeres) and see why I don't
>post under a real name. I really do this mostly to facilitate a discussion
>of
>ideas, not name calling.
>
>Now, if you are really the real Richard Crespo, I apologize, but...
>
>Why would you put a phone number in a newsgoup?!!?!?!? Maybe you should
>cancel that message.
>
>SK
>
Perhaps because he is trying to lead a Mutiny on the SS USCF.
I do not know, but it is just possible that is the reason.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
wrote:
Just to let you know, I would never, ever, under any circumstances
post my own telephone number, which is 1-718-827-7422, on a newsgroup.
And you are not, of course, to reveal my phone number to anybody.
Sam Sloan
Kevin Bachler
richard...@yahoo.com (Richard Crespo) wrote:
>Mutiny on the USCF
>
>Ladies & Gentlemen:
>
>"Beautiful things are about to happen" as stated in the flower ad on
>the inside cover of the March issue of Chess Life magazine. Hunting
>season is now open for the rare species - the USCF chess tournament.
>Try to find one in your state. If you can't, then use what would have
>been your tournament entry fee to order some flowers.
>
>As President of the Louisiana AND Mississippi Chess Associations, if
>the USCF continues on its present course, both organizations will NOT
>renew affiliate memberships when they expire.
This will, of course, create an opportunity for a new state association to
be formed.
>Regarding the scholastic state championships, after March, 2001, we
>will no longer require players to be USCF rated.
Quite frankly, however, if you let your affiliation lapse, unless you have
some other recognized entity endorse/sponsor your tournaments, they won't
be recognized championships, either.
> Since there will be
>no fees for TLA's, ratings reports or USCF paperwork, we feel that
>this will lower entry fees which will result in increased attendance.
Possibly. That they will no longer be official championships may also hurt
attendance.
>We plan to implement our own state ratings system which will be free
>to our players and will give immediate results at the end of each
>tournament, thereby eliminating the time it takes for USCF to
>calculate and post ratings.
That's wonderful! There are other sites already available which do that
as well, you might consider those.
You will, however, lose the ability for these players to play in nationally
ranked events (unless they simply do so on their own), or to represent their
state in those events. For example, your organization will no longer be
able to name a Denker reprenstative. You will no longer have a state champion,
etc.
You will also lose a rating system which is balanced and administered nationally.
The difficulty in quick ratings turnaround for USCF is primarily due to the
need it has to check memberships and to cater to a broad range of organizers.
If, for example, USCF could require all organizers to verify memberships
and to submit tournaments online, tournaments could be rated instantly.
There is work underway to accomplish this in a cost-effective manner.
>Regarding the open (adult) state tournaments, these will also no
>longer be USCF rated.
If by state tournaments you mean state championships, they will also no longer
be state championships.
>My reasons for this action are listed below:
>
>1. Elimination of Affiliate Commissions and replacement with useless
>incentive programs;
The elimination of affiliate commissions was approved by a vote of the delegates
to USCF, not by the EB. Did your state(s) have delegates at the August meeting
to speak against this?
>2. Enormous Increases in TLA Fees;
The increases that went into effect were much less than proposed. I think
there needs to be additional consideration here. At the same time, organizers
and players need to understand that USCF cannot offer this service at a loss,
especially under current circumstances. The rate has been kept very low
for a long time. USCF does need to balance the need for cash against the
need for promotion, and in its current financial environment, it is hard
to push promotion without outside sponsorship.
>3 Slashing in half the state grant funds for state affiliates;
This was also approved by the state delegates. USCF did not randomly cut
back what you get.
>4. Mismanagement of USCF funds;
There would be doubt as to whether funds themselves were mismanged. Clearly,
there were programs mismanaged under the prior regime and ED that resulted
in significant losses to USCF which have resulted in the financial distress
that you refer to.
However, given that the budget is much tighter, staff has been cut, and attempts
are being made to turn things around so that the situation can be improved,
to now punish the new management for trying to correct a problem that was
not of their making seems foolhardy. I understand that you are angry --
I agree with your anger. But please, direct your anger at the right people.
>5. Affiliates and Chess Coaches newsletters have been non-existent for
>the past couple of years;
An issue. Have you tried contacting Tom Brownscombe directly about this?
I am certain he would be happy to hear from you.
>6. Chess Life magazine consistently being sent late which, in turn,
>hurts tournament organizers;
Also agreed. Many changes were being made, including editor. Hopefully,
that is behind us now, and the timing will be better.
>7. School Mates magazine cut to four times a year;
School Mates was not originally 6 times per year, and was not required to
be so. It was expanded to 6 for promotion and because the budget allowed
it. I would like it to be 6 again, but the budget does not allow it thanks
to the prior difficulties already discussed. You are, in effect, counting
this twice, AND again are blamining those who are trying to make this thing
work.
>8. USCF employees (including many at the executive level) not
>returning phone calls.
Please send a private e-mail to kbac...@cavemanchess.com, describing the
time, person and cirmcumstances. There have been problems because people
have been dealing with many urgencies. I will offer to be of assistance
in establishing your communication with USCF staff.
>Most of the results of the above are already apparent. For instance,
>the lateness of Chess Life was the cause of poor attendance at several
>tournaments.
Yes, this is an issue, and it appears to be corrected. If not, we need to
quickly make further corrections.
> The elimination of affiliate commissions provides no
>incentive to go through the trouble of all of the paperwork to sign up
>new members.
Here, I would disagree. A national federation is important for many reasons,
and right now it needs our support more than ever before.
Remember, it isn't just a service organization -- it is a member organizaiton,
like a museum, or zoo, or public tv for that matter. And we need our members
now more than ever.
If you want to change it Richard, the better approach is to establish communication
and to volunteer to help.
What will the result be if this organization fails? A less rich chess experience
for many, and less robust chess environment for all. Undoubtedly, work would
begin to start one or several new organizations.
The illogic of waste would indicate that we should try, at least, to salvage
and improve what we have.
> The result of the increase in TLA fees is apparent by
>looking at this month's Chess Life magazine where only 3-1/2 pages
>contain tournament ads, representing a 55% decline in ads from the
>same month last year.
I think that unlikely as the sole, or even primary culprit. TLA's were down
significantly last month as well, and the announcement of the increase CAME
AFTER the cut-off for TLA.
This does not mean that I am defending the situation (although I do believe
we need to recognize that USCF will need to increase price from time to time
for inflation at least).
What it means is that I believe there are even more "insidious" and serious
factors at work.
>USCF has lost sight of the fact that the most important people they
>have working for them are the tournament organizers.
Tournament organizers do not work for USCF. Tournament organizers work for
the players. The players are the customer, not USCF.
Organizers are primarily a customer to USCF, not an employee. Money flows
from players to organizers to USCF, not vice versa. (Customers pay for goods.
Employees receive money for producing goods.)
Organizers are (primarily) an employee of the players, not of USCF.
There are some ways in which USCF might be a customer to the organizer, and
that the organizer acts as an agent of USCF -- so that the players are direct
customers of USCF. This is necessary for the organizer to be an employee/agent.
All of this role needs to be better worked out and defined.
It is interesting that you are concerned about USCF not being able to provide
you a profit anymore, through affiliate commissions, yet you also want to
lower prices to players, also cutting the profit there.
The money has to come from somewhere, unfortunately! And right now there
aren't enough sponsors for it. Why do you think that USCF owes you a profit,
but that the players do not?
> These are the
>people who are promoting the USCF, obtaining memberships and providing
>tournaments throughout the country.
The first two are ways in which the organizer may act as an agent for USCF,
especially the first way -- ie that USCF is your customer. The third way
is the way in which the players are your customer, not USCF. You are expecting
payment from the wrong place, there.
Would you prefer a larger dues structure with more of a commission to affiliates?
>The attitude that state and local
>organizers do not matter is quite apparent due to the outrageous
>policies that have been recently implemented.
The policies that you are complaining about were in many cases voted on by
state and local organizers. TLA changes were not.
> Without the support of
>these organizers, the USCF is doomed.
Agreed. But you seem to be confused about where many of the changes came
from.
>I feel that the USCF's slogan of 2001 being the "Year of the OTB
>Player" is a misquote. It should have read, "Year of the 'Missing' OTB
>Player."
>
How can we change this? How can you help to change this?
>As we have no faith in the USCF Executive Board's and Executive
>Director's decisions, our delegates will be signing Sam Sloan's recall
>petition.
Since you have no faith in the EB, will you also extend your recall to the
other 3 members of the EB?
> We have voiced our opinions in the strongest way possible.
>"WE NO LONGER SUPPORT OR ENDORSE USCF."
Unfortunately, that is not the strongest way possible. In fact, it is rather
a cowardly way.
USCF IS its members and affiliates. If you want to change things, get into
it, volunteer and change it.
Hope you'll reconsider that decision, and talk to more of us out here about
your decisions. This organization needs more communication, not less.
>Sincerely, Richard L. Crespo
>
>President, LOUISIANA CHESS ASSOCIATION
>President, MISSISSIPPI CHESS ASSOCIATION
>President, CAJUN CLASSICS CHESS,INC.
>President, CAJUN KNIGHTS CHESS CLUB
>President, LOUISIANA HIGH SCHOOL CHESS LEAGUE
Kevin L. Bachler
The above opinions were personal Richard. However, for your reference, here
are some things I am involved in:
President, Illinois Chess Association
Chair, USCF Finance Committee
Member, USCF Master Affairs Committee
Member, USCF Scholastic Committee
Founder and former president, Cochess, Illinois K-8 Scholastic Chess Association
Member, Illinois Chess Coaches Association (HS)
Director, WisChess 2001
Former (Interim) Editor, USCJ
Chess author and writer
Former President Zion, IL Chess Club
Former President Waukegan Chess Club
Former President Central Lake County Chess Club
Richard, I hpe this helps you to better understand the bigger picture of
USCF Chess.
Kevin L. Bachler
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tom Martinak
> > The result of the increase in TLA fees is apparent by
> >looking at this month's Chess Life magazine where only 3-1/2 pages
> >contain tournament ads, representing a 55% decline in ads from the
> >same month last year.
>
> I think that unlikely as the sole, or even primary culprit. TLA's were
down
> significantly last month as well, and the announcement of the increase
CAME
> AFTER the cut-off for TLA.
The cutoff for the Jan-Feb issue was November 10th. The announcement of
increases to be effective with the Jan-Feb issue (which were slightly
reduced later) occurred on the USCF website in early October and appeared in
the October & November issues of Chess Life. So your timeline is incorrect.
There would appear to be a very clear correlation between the TLA price
increases and decreases in the number of TLAs.
- Tom Martinak
Kevin Bachler
Well, Tom, maybe I am wrong. I posted this about a month ago in response
to a comment from Bruce, and a couple of people confirmed it...but maybe
it was incorrect:
**************
Hi Bruce,
I haven't been following this thread, forgive me if I missed something.
The new TLA rates were finalized in October 17th. The TLA deadline for
January was Ocotber 10th, I think. I don't see how the new TLA policy
could have been responsible for the effects you are seeing. Maybe I'm
wrong.
Also, while the final TLA rates were not as favorable as I had hoped
for, the reaction I got from most organizers is that they were
livable. Again, due to timing, I don't think we are seeing TLA's
impacted by the revised rates.
I am concerned that the number of tournaments is down, but Bruce, I
think its for other reasons. I think that clubs are hurting, and so
tournaments are hurting, but I think its for reasons not addressed here.
Maybe the new TLA rates hurt too, but as I said, if so, I don't think
we are seeing that impact yet.
Is this wrong?
--
Kevin Bachler
Caveman
Tom Martinak
> I haven't been following this thread, forgive me if I missed something.
>
> The new TLA rates were finalized in October 17th. The TLA deadline for
> January was Ocotber 10th, I think. I don't see how the new TLA policy
> could have been responsible for the effects you are seeing. Maybe I'm
> wrong.
October 10 is the deadline for appearance in 2 issues (December & Jan-Feb).
The initial announcement ($20-$50-$95-$140) appeared on the USCF website
before then (because I pointed it out to our state scholastic coordinator
just before 10/10) and was in the October Chess Life (coming out +/- a few
days from 10/10). This interim higher fee also appeared in the Nov Chess
Life - it was only in the December Chess Life that the finalized TLA policy
actually appeared. The final deadline for Jan-Feb was actually November
10th. And at that point many organizers were probably still assuming the
even higher fees appearing in Chess Life were correct. In terms of
disappearance from Chess Life, it is precisely these smaller, non-GP events
which were likely to be normally sent in just before November 10th for 1
issue of Chess Life and which would not want to pay $50 for 5 lines.
- Tom Martinak
Chesspride
>This will, of course, create an opportunity for a new state association to
>be formed.
ROTFLMAO
Yes, technically this is true. But the states that Richard Crespo "represents"
(i.e., Louisiana and Mississippi) have very low levels of memberships and rated
activity.
So good luck finding another affiliate with the proper infrastructure.
>
>Quite frankly, however, if you let your affiliation lapse, unless you have
>some other recognized entity endorse/sponsor your tournaments, they won't
>be recognized championships, either.
Within USCF's world, that's true. Outside of it, the matter is up for grabs.
Kasparov and Short tried this maneuver in 1993, remember? They left FIDE...and
so within FIDE their actions left them with "no recognized championship" etc.
Some of us have argued long and hard about this sort of thing...yet the chess
criminals GK and NS got quite a bit of play out of their mutiny...fortunately,
the wheel is spinning back in FIDE's favor.
I *wish* you were correct, Kevin...but on the national level...if Mr. Crespo's
two groups leave USCF...I fear that locally...they will have quite a bit of
success.
>
>Possibly. That they will no longer be official championships may also hurt
>attendance.
Only if another well-organized group steps into the arena and does the
USCF-supported work.
Suppose a well-organized group like NYSCA left USCF? THAT would be a different
story entirely. Because a well-organized state group *could* carry on quite
effectively outside USCF.
Indeed, in the early days of USCF..many did. There were many years where USCF
did not have recognized state groups in all 52 states (CA split and DC added).
Louisiana and Mississippi are not so big and not so well organized. But, in
their favor, there is the fact that no other local affiliates are either.
>
>You will, however, lose the ability for these players to play in nationally
>ranked events (unless they simply do so on their own),
State federations are tiny compared to the mass of USCF members in their state,
anyway....which is further evidence that, in terms of USCF's general health,
state groups are not very vital.
Politically, yes. But in terms of the mass of USCF members? No. PA is a good
example.
>For example, your organization will no longer be
>able to name a Denker reprenstative. You will no longer have a state
>champion,
>etc.
They will lose sleep over that Denker matter, let me tell you!
As for not having a state champion...untrue!
They will have one within their own organization. Just not within USCF.
The sorry tale of the PCA comes to mind.
>
>You will also lose a rating system which is balanced and administered
>nationally.
Maybe they ain't so keen on the new formula.
>
>If by state tournaments you mean state championships, they will also no
>longer
>be state championships.
Only within USCF.
If the Illinois group left USCF...do you really think they would think they
were left without a state championship system?
>
>The elimination of affiliate commissions was approved by a vote of the
>delegates
>to USCF, not by the EB. Did your state(s) have delegates at the August
>meeting
>to speak against this?
Small federations often do not have delegates at the meeting(s).
He is responding to the action(s)...he does not care who or what group achieved
them.
If a majority of delegates took an action that his state really dislikes, that
can be a reason for leaving.
>
>>2. Enormous Increases in TLA Fees;
>The increases that went into effect were much less than proposed. I think
>there needs to be additional consideration here.
Here, the anger is not over the fees per se...but over the completely bogus
argument used for them (i.e., "we must reduce the number of TLA pages because
unnamed advertisers and sponsors don't like the looks of them").
Literally dozens of posters on this forum are upset about this action...which
will probably be reversed in August.
Price is not the issue...the issue is the apparent desire to remove TLAs from
the magazine.
THAT is what will be addressed by ADM. The office will be instructed to sell
as many TLAs as they can...and to print as many pages of TLAs as they can sell.
Price is not the issue...a willingness to prospect for and sell TLA space is
the issue.
>
>>5. Affiliates and Chess Coaches newsletters have been non-existent for
>>the past couple of years;
>
>An issue. Have you tried contacting Tom Brownscombe directly about this?
> I am certain he would be happy to hear from you.
USCF does not print these things due to 1) lack of staff time 2) lack of cash,
and 3) lack of organizational knowledge within the office...at this point,
given the turnover, I doubt that many in that office even know these
"publications" exist.
>
>>7. School Mates magazine cut to four times a year;
>
>School Mates was not originally 6 times per year, and was not required to
>be so. It was expanded to 6 for promotion and because the budget allowed
Right, but once you grow, you cannot shrink without having it look like a loss
of service.
No "argument" will correct the bad impression.
>>8. USCF employees (including many at the executive level) not
>>returning phone calls.
>
>Please send a private e-mail to kbac...@cavemanchess.com, describing the
>time, person and cirmcumstances.
Why on earth should he do that???
Do you really think that if the ED is not returning calls, people should tell
you???
>
>Remember, it isn't just a service organization -- it is a member
>organizaiton,
>like a museum, or zoo, or public tv for that matter. And we need our members
>now more than ever.
ROTFLMAO
>
>Richard, I hpe this helps you to better understand the bigger picture of
>USCF Chess.
>Kevin L. Bachler
Look, Kevin...I know you are trying your best to spin things in a pro-USCF way.
I applaud that, really...I do.
But you've reached way past the point of spin.
Mr. Crespo's "letter" reveals the problem. You are trying to "explain them
away" or "argue them away"...and when it comes to emotional issues, that cannot
be done.
Mars and Venus, remember?
These disgruntled folks expect to see ACTIONS. Not arguments.
Until they see actions that they like, they ain't gonna listen.
Eric C. Johnson
ASCACHESS
>attendance.
>
>If by state tournaments you mean state championships, they will also no
>longer
>be state championships.
Kevin,
Very funny. Here I thought you had lost your sense of humor.
For a moment, I thought you were serious.
This caricature of Eric is hilarious.
Richard Peterson
Stewart Q Sutton
<snip>
> If by state tournaments you mean state championships, they will also no
longer
> be state championships.
>
If a state championship was held before the birth of the USeLess Chess
Federation, was it really a state championship?
In Idaho, the USCF forever types don't want to recognize any state champion
who won before 1947 (even though there were newspaper records of such
tournaments) because they weren't "official."
And if the USeLess Chess Federation finally stumbles into its well deserved
grave, will state championships still be state championships?
StanB
Sergei Keres <ske...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> Why would you put a phone number in a newsgoup?!!?!?!? Maybe you should
> cancel that message.
What's the big deal? My number is 215.345.6651. I note that Tim Redman posts
his numbers.
StanB
StanB
Sam Sloan <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
>
> Just to let you know, I would never, ever, under any circumstances
> post my own telephone number, which is 1-718-827-7422, on a newsgroup.
I dialed that number and got the Virginia State Prison.
StanB
Sam Sloan
wrote:
No you did not. Nobody called me today.
Sometimes your jokes are not that funny.
Sam Sloan
li...@ork.net
Fascinating how the Virginia State Prison is located in New York City,
which is the 718 Area Code.
John & LaVerne McCumiskey
Richard Crespo wrote:
<quick snip>
Let me start by saying that I while I do not necessarily agree with what
you plan to do, it is your right to do so. I only wish to ask some
hopefully thought provoking questions.
> Mutiny on the USCF
<stuff snipped to save space>
> As President of the Louisiana AND Mississippi Chess Associations, if
> the USCF continues on its present course, both organizations will NOT
> renew affiliate memberships when they expire.
Hypotheticals: What happens if another organization in Mississippi or
Louisiana decide to pick up the USCF State Affiliate membership? Does
this increase or decrease any influence you might have?
<more space saving snips>
> USCF has lost sight of the fact that the most important people they
> have working for them are the tournament organizers. These are the
> people who are promoting the USCF, obtaining memberships and providing
> tournaments throughout the country. The attitude that state and local
> organizers do not matter is quite apparent due to the outrageous
> policies that have been recently implemented. Without the support of
> these organizers, the USCF is doomed.
I will admit I agree in concept with what you are saying here. Since it
appears that you are "detaching" your state organizations from the USCF,
what kind of replacement to the organization are you proposing (national
or regional)? Or will it be simply two separate state organizations doing
their own thing?
<more snips>
> As we have no faith in the USCF Executive Board's and Executive
> Director's decisions, our delegates will be signing Sam Sloan's recall
> petition. We have voiced our opinions in the strongest way possible.
> "WE NO LONGER SUPPORT OR ENDORSE USCF."
One final question: If the USCF is that bad off, what additional steps
are YOU going to do to influence change within the organization (other
than signing the recall peition and participating in the potential recall
vote -- as far as I'm concerned it is a completely separate topic)?
Many thanks for your consideration.
John McCumiskey
----------------------------------------------------------
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn
the world, but to save the world through Him. John 3:17
Sam Sloan
wrote:
Yes. But have you tried calling Tim Redman's number.
I know a person who tried many times and never got a human to answer.
Sam Sloan
Randy Pals
I see from your post that you are unhappy about the current state of affairs
in the USCF. So am I.
But may I ask you - where were you when the Schultz administration was
sowing, fertilizing, and watering the seeds of this current crisis? Where were
you when they were furiously and desperately trying to silence those who
had the audacity to point to looming severe financial problems, while at
the same time assuring the masses that all was well? Where were you when
the Smith administration spent a year at the helm in malignant neglect of the
financial walls tumbling about them?
In point of fact, if the current EB majority hadn't taken over, there would be no
USCF for Sam to play his petty and vindictive scorched-earth games with.
This is not to say that they have made all the right decisions. If you look back
in this group, you will find that I was a vocal opponent of the TLA changes,
for one thing. There is definitely some stuff that needs fixin' - and soon.
But to suddenly wake up now and look for offenders to execute is to saw
off the one skinny limb that is left on the tree - and it's the one we are all
sitting on. The time to mutiny was four years ago. If you want to execute
someone, go find Captain Bly - he was put off the ship a while back.
And yes, by all means, please speak up in constructive dissent about things
the EB is doing that hurt affiliates. There need to be some changes made
there. But don't vote to blow up the powder kegs that Sam is setting all around
the inside of the belly of the ship. He would get much more satisfaction out of
seeing a bunch of charred planks floating around on the water than to have
someone he and his handlers revile at the helm of the ship.
regards,
Randy
"Richard Crespo" <richard...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mutiny on the USCF
>
> Ladies & Gentlemen:
> [snip]
Chesspride
>Yes. But have you tried calling Tim Redman's number.
>
>I know a person who tried many times and never got a human to answer.
>
>Sam Sloan
Darn it, Sam...now the secret is out! Tim R. is not human!
Errr...inhuman.
Err....what did you say again?
Eric C. Johnson
The Masked Bishop
post under a real name. I really do this mostly to facilitate a discussion
of
ideas, not name calling.<
Careful! Anonymity is deemed dishonorable on this board. I've taken my hits
for it.
The Masked Bishop
ASCACHESS
>are YOU going to do to influence change within the organization (other
>than signing the recall peition and participating in the potential recall
>vote -- as far as I'm concerned it is a completely separate topic)?
>
>Many thanks for your
>consideration.
>
>John McCumiskey
John,
Change within the USCF is an oxymoron.
You could dance naked on the steps of New WIndsor and it would make no
difference at all.
You don't have the power to make a difference. I don't have the power to make
a difference and certainly our friend Richard does not have that power either.
It is set up that way and apparently nothing is going to change it.
My advice is to applaud Richard Crespo's moxy in doing without the continual
politics that surround USCF.
Richard Peterson
Bruce Draney
Mr. Crespo. I agree that a number of the cuts that he mentions are
basically doing or have already done damage to USCF tournament play.
I think before Mr. Crespo gives the current Board both barrels of the
double barrelled shot gun he has loaded up with rock salt, he might want
to take a brief stroll down memory lane. While some blame can certainly
be put on the shoulders of the current Board and ED, there is plenty of
stupidity to spread around here.
Let's return to the bad old days of 1995 for a moment. It is in August
of this year that the Board, the office and the Delegates push through a
33% increase in adult dues. Up to this point, adult membership numbers
had been steadily increasing. By July of 1995, membership for adults
reached its all time high of 32,900. Since the summer of that year, the
USCF has averaged a net loss of adult members of approximately 1,200 per
year. In the past whenever dues increases had occurred, there had
always been a predictable pattern of decline for a period of a few
months followed eventually by the establishment of a normal growth
pattern under the new dues. This pattern unfortunately never occurred.
Instead, the decline has been continuous and predictable to the tune of
1,200 per year to where we have now reached the lowest adult membership
totals in more than 20 years of record keeping. What is especially
frightening is that this trend shows no signs of ending.
1996-Don Schultz is elected USCF President. The day before he takes
over as leader, Al Lawrence long time ED, resigns. Everyone knows that
Al is leaving before Don and the rest of the Board force him out.
Shortly after Labor Day in 1996, the USCF Treasurer Tom Dorsch begins
posting to this newsgroup about the inner goings on in New Windsor and
within the Schultz board. For three months, a bitter war of words goes
on between Dorsch and Eade, both from northern California, and the rest
of the Board which we could most aptly describe as traditional USCF
Politicians who believe that airing dirty laundry and doling out info on
a newsgroup is tantamount to heresy.
December of 1996-In an historic move, the Board votes 5-2 to strip the
legally elected Treasurer of his duties and responsibilities. This
leads to all out war between the Treasurer, his friend Mr. Eade and the
rest of the Board for the next three years until all Board members leave
office (except for Garrett Scott) in 1999.
ED's-The departure of Lawrence leaves an Assistant ED in charge of USCF
until a permanent ED can be found. Charges continue to fly back and
forth between a warring Board and accusations are made that the
Assistant ED is not doing his job properly. In January of 1997, a new
permanent ED is hired. Fiscal year 1996-97 turns out to be the worst
financial year in USCF history up to that point. It will actually turn
out to be the second best year of the last 4 in terms of organizational
performance which probably says a great deal about just how bad things
have gotten.
The new ED faces many of the same exact difficulties that the current
ED does. How does the organization pay its bills, and increase its
membership? The ED takes the expense cut road, which works in the short
term but causes some long term problems. FY 1997-98 turns out to be the
best financial year of the last 4, although after all is said and done
the best we can manage despite all of our service cuts is a 20K
deficit. One of the most controversial decisions is to cut services to
affiliates and to charge directors a rating fee and a TLA fee both when
they wish to advertise in Chess Life. The plan brings in pittance of
money, but basically reduces printed TLA's to about 75% of their
previous level. Total pages in Chess Life is reduced from about 85-90
pages to about 65-70 pages to save money. We are no longer trimming
fat, we are cutting muscle and bone.
At the Delegates meeting in 1998, one of the stupidest and most
shortsighted decisions in history is made about dues. The ED goes in
proposing a $2.00 increase in the price of children's memberships. This
will raise those memberships from $10.00/year to $12.00/year, but
Scholastic Delegates threaten an embarrassing floor fight the day after
the modest increase is approved. The Board and the ED cave and agree to
offer a $5.00 commission on a $12.00 membership for any scholastic
player who has never been a USCF member. Since this amounts to about
70% of the new Scholastic members signed up each year, it will be
remembered as one of the lamest ideas ever considered.
In 1998-99-the USCF shows the highest loss in its history. A total
even after LMA earnings in a bull market are added in of over $200,000.
Allegations surface during a nasty election campaign that the ED has not
succeeded in implementing critical computer upgrades in his entire
tenure and the ED then files a lawsuit against an organizer who is
leading an effort to have the Delegates vote no-confidence in the ED
when the Delegates convene in Reno in August.
Throughout the election campaign of 1999, widespread denials are made
that USCF is having any financial problems. 1999-2000 proves that
records are made to be broken. The losses in computer software
write-offs, obsolete inventory, legal fees and continued declines in
member services and tournament activity make for the worst year in USCF
history a record setting -$303,000 even again after LMA earnings are
figured in.
In August of this year a new President takes over the Board. His views
are that USCF absolutely MUST show a profit, even if ONLY a small one by
year's end. This leads to the unpopular TLA policy and other cuts which
have prompted your protest and other people's outcries of enough is
enough.
Before we recall this Board, it was the Delegates that eliminated the
SASP money and it was the Delegates that eliminated the affiliate
commissions. It was not Tim Redman or any of the Board members. In
fact when these decisions were made Redman was not even Board
President. Bob Smith was President and John McCrary was Vice
President.
I believe Tim is trying to do what he thinks is right. I believe that
Tim's TLA policies are bad for chess. I believe that Tim's TLA policies
will be changed within the next 60 days. I believe that they will be
changed in spite of and not because of the recall effort. The SASP cuts
and the affiliate commission cuts are something else that can probably
be compromised upon and possibly restored at least in some fashion. All
of these problems are being addressed. What is ironic is that this
Board has shown a willingness to compromise, whereas in the past the
Board would not even admit there was a problem.
In perusing our financial figures, we find that several years ago the
ED borrowed $500,000 from a bank. Then the following year, the same ED
borrowed $300,000 from the LMA. In the past, borrowing was used to buy
inventory and then after the Christmas sales season, the loans were paid
down. Instead of doing this however, the loans were not paid down.
This has hampered the organization. The USCF is not an organization
with unlimited capital. It has LMA assets of 1.8M according to this
year's FY report. About $500K of that however is in the building and
land in New Windsor. It doesn't take a genius to see that we will not
last very long if we borrow an average of $400K per year just to keep
operating. If we paid off our $500K loan right now, this would leave
our total assets as $1.3M. Since $300K of that was already loaned to
operations this brings that figure down to $1M. If we take out the
$500K for the building this leaves only about $500K of the LMA left.
This of course ignores the fact that this LMA money is supposed to cover
the liability associated with providing Chess Life to all adult members
for the rest of their lives. Even the most optimistic/naive people
recognize the fact that an LMA funded with only about $500K is not going
to last very long, especially given the continued decline in attendance
at events, the continued decline in adult memberships and the continued
inability of the organization to operate profitably.
So while I agree with many of your objections to the way things are
going, I think you should vote to recall ALL of the Board if you're
going to recall any of them.
Best Regards,
Bruce
ASCACHESS
>off the one skinny limb that is left on the tree - and it's the one we are
>all
>sitting on. The time to mutiny was four years ago. If you want to execute
>someone, go find Captain Bly
Randy,
You got this all wrong.
While we only have one skinny limb left, let us do some permanent good and hang
Schultz.
It might not save USCF, but a lot of us would feel that justice was at last
being served.
Richard Peterson
John & LaVerne McCumiskey
ASCACHESS wrote:
<stuff snipped>
> John,
>
> Change within the USCF is an oxymoron.
Granted...but this is true with virtually any organization that does not value
change as a critical element of its being.
> You could dance naked on the steps of New WIndsor and it would make no
> difference at all.
>
> You don't have the power to make a difference. I don't have the power to make
> a difference and certainly our friend Richard does not have that power either.
> It is set up that way and apparently nothing is going to change it.
>
> My advice is to applaud Richard Crespo's moxy in doing without the continual
> politics that surround USCF.
I will admit that my comments to Mr. Crespo's letter are coming from myself
standing on a soap box. While only one person may not have the power to make a
difference, one person and/or their ideas can be the start of change. Choosing to
side-step issues will not resolve them.
I will be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers. I will also admit
that I do not have the time to right the listing ship USCF. I admire the people
who are willing to expose themselves to the wrath of anyone in forums such as this
and to everyone who doesn't like one, some, or all of the policies they implement
in the effort to fix problems. At least they have the time and are making the
effort instead of walking away from the problem.
The only way that change will occur is if enough people are:
A) Willing to work together to make change happen;
B) Willing to accept that they can't have everything they want and try to find as
much common ground as possible in areas of disagreement.
The only place I am aware of where this is impossible is the federal government,
but I may be proven wrong to some extent in the next few years (either way).
Am I again standing on a soap box when I say this? Very likely. I guess I was
trying to provoke a little honest thought rather than have two state organizations
under the direction of one person run away from the problems they don't like. It
would seem to me that if Mr. Crespo has ideas that are similar to others, he might
be able to create a coalition of some kind to try to influence the changes he
desires.
I am sure that my comments are going to be considered everything from wishful
thinking to what ever type of low-down disgust you might want to think of by the
all kinds of people. I can live with that.
AlforChess
>1996-Don Schultz is elected USCF President. The day before he takes
>over as leader, Al Lawrence long time ED, resigns. Everyone knows that
>Al is leaving before Don and the rest of the Board force him out.
Objectively, you may or may not be right about WBOAT's planning to force me
out. I don't think that Don could have jammed it through, but you could be
right.
But since your sentence speaks to my motives for leaving (by the way, are you
sure you want to adopt Sam's "everyone knows" rhetoric??), I can assure you
you're wrong. I did not leave because I feared WBOAT would force me out. I left
because I was definitely ready to go. I've said often I wish I had left about a
year earlier, but I got pig-headed about outlasting then President Barry, whom
I get along with fine now, but certainly didn't then.
No one should be condemned to more than a decade in that job--and I was at USCF
15 years. You'd want to leave too.
Just in case you're interested in the real deal.
Best regards to the Legend of Nebraska chess!
Al
cavema...@127.0.0.1
I don't see it as a matter of USCF forever. I do see it as a matter of establishing
a level of credibility, which in this case is provided in part by having
the backing of a recognized organization.
If USCF folds, Illinois will still have a recognized high school champion
team, because that is done by IHSA, but it would lose some credibility for
the individual because that is done via the Illinois Coaches Association,
which is granted authority by the Illinois Chess Association which is granted
authority by USCF.
If USCF folds and someone in Boise holds a state championship sponsored by
Boise Cascade and then Simplot decides to hold their own, are there 2 state
champs or none?
Credibility is the issue, not the organization. The org is just a means.
That's why ACA is an org, but still not credible.
cavema...@127.0.0.1
I don't see it as a matter of USCF forever. I do see it as a matter of establishing
a level of credibility, which in this case is provided in part by having
the backing of a recognized organization.
If USCF folds, Illinois will still have a recognized high school champion
team, because that is done by IHSA, but it would lose some credibility for
the individual because that is done via the Illinois Coaches Association,
which is granted authority by the Illinois Chess Association which is granted
authority by USCF.
If USCF folds and someone in Boise holds a state championship sponsored by
Boise Cascade and then Simplot decides to hold their own, are there 2 state
champs or none?
Credibility is the issue, not the organization. The org is just a means.
That's why ACA is an org, but still not credible.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>
Yes. But have you tried calling Tim Redman's number.
Tom Klem
<cavema...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:3a8b...@goliath.newsfeeds.com...
Kevin,
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the [democracy movement], are not
yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long
habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry
in defence (sic) of custom, But tumult soon subsides. Time
makes more converts than reason.
---shamelessly borrowed from another Tom, who was also a Paine.
Tom Klem
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>Dear Mr. Crespo:
>
>I see from your post that you are unhappy about the current state of affairs
>in the USCF. So am I.
>
>But may I ask you - where were you when the Schultz administration was
>sowing, fertilizing, and watering the seeds of this current crisis? Where were
>you when they were furiously and desperately trying to silence those who
>had the audacity to point to looming severe financial problems, while at
>the same time assuring the masses that all was well? Where were you when
>the Smith administration spent a year at the helm in malignant neglect of the
>financial walls tumbling about them?
Yes Richard, and:
Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you
understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a
measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone--
while the morning stars sang together and all the angels [1] shouted
for joy?
>In point of fact, if the current EB majority hadn't taken over, there would be no
>USCF for Sam to play his petty and vindictive scorched-earth games with.
>This is not to say that they have made all the right decisions. If you look back
>in this group, you will find that I was a vocal opponent of the TLA changes,
>for one thing. There is definitely some stuff that needs fixin' - and soon.
And remember that this Randy Pals is, according to that distinguished
authority Bruce Draney, one of only three people on this newsgroup who
really cares about chess.
>But to suddenly wake up now and look for offenders to execute is to saw
>off the one skinny limb that is left on the tree - and it's the one we are all
>sitting on. The time to mutiny was four years ago. If you want to execute
>someone, go find Captain Bly - he was put off the ship a while back.
>
>And yes, by all means, please speak up in constructive dissent about things
>the EB is doing that hurt affiliates. There need to be some changes made
>there. But don't vote to blow up the powder kegs that Sam is setting all around
>the inside of the belly of the ship. He would get much more satisfaction out of
>seeing a bunch of charred planks floating around on the water than to have
>someone he and his handlers revile at the helm of the ship.
This is certainly not true. I would get no satisfaction if the USCF
sinks. I tell everybody that the USCF will not sink. I have studied
the financial statements, something which almost nobody else seems to
have done, and the USCF is much better off financially than people
like Bruce Draney, who obviously has never studied the financial
statements, claims.
The people who would like to see the USCF sink include Richard
Peterson, Tom Klem and Stan Vaughan, plus I suspect that Tom Dorsch
and Bruce Draney would like to see that happen too. I am not sure
about Helen Warren.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
>>Fascinating how the Virginia State Prison is located in New York City,
>>which is the 718 Area Code.
>>
>
>Now you know why NO ONE has ever escaped the Dreaded Virginia State Prison...
The five Bryerly Brothers all escaped from a maximum security Virginia
State Prison. This was the first time that this had ever happened.
A girlfriend ratted on them and they were all captured in
Philadelphia. They were extradicted to Virginia and put to death in
the electric chair by Judge Lumpkin, the same judge who tried and
sentenced me for attempting to abduct my own daughter.
During my trial, Judge Lumpkin bragged about how he had put the five
Bryerly Brothers to death.
Sam Sloan
Bruce Draney
>
> Bruce wrote:
> >1996-Don Schultz is elected USCF President. The day before he takes
> >over as leader, Al Lawrence long time ED, resigns. Everyone knows that
> >Al is leaving before Don and the rest of the Board force him out.
>
> Objectively, you may or may not be right about WBOAT's planning to force me
> out. I don't think that Don could have jammed it through, but you could be
> right.
>
> But since your sentence speaks to my motives for leaving (by the way, are you
> sure you want to adopt Sam's "everyone knows" rhetoric??)
Good point with a sting there Al. I stand chastised. Please forgive.
, I can assure you
> you're wrong. I did not leave because I feared WBOAT would force me out. I left
> because I was definitely ready to go. I've said often I wish I had left about a
> year earlier, but I got pig-headed about outlasting then President Barry, whom
> I get along with fine now, but certainly didn't then.
Well, I know I've been through that feeling a couple times. Oftentimes
we stay longer than we should have for whatever reasons. No offense was
really meant towards you by my comments Al. I hope none was taken.
>
> No one should be condemned to more than a decade in that job--and I was at USCF
> 15 years. You'd want to leave too.
I stayed for over 20 years in the exact same place, doing the exact
same thing, so I can definitely agree with this last point.
>
> Just in case you're interested in the real deal.
Thanks for your point of view which is probably more accurate than mine
since you lived it and I was just attempting to briefly summarize it.
>
> Best regards to the Legend of Nebraska chess!
It that you or me? Perhaps both.
>
> Al
Best Regards,
Bruce
Warren Porter
> >
> >This will, of course, create an opportunity for a new state association to
> >be formed.
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> Yes, technically this is true. But the states that Richard Crespo "represents"
> (i.e., Louisiana and Mississippi) have very low levels of memberships and rated
> activity.
>
> So good luck finding another affiliate with the proper infrastructure.
Both states have excellent scholastic chess programs though. Mr. Crespo will be
trying to pull the plug on the USCF at a business meeting to be held at our
business meeting (Miss.) on Feb. 24. Note the related thread I started here and in
misc.
A few months ago the last in-state organizer burned out on holding open tournaments
and no one in the state wanted to run the Miss. Chess Assn. while only Crespo had
any interest in it. Nature abhors a vaccuum and Crespo was there to fill it.
> >For example, your organization will no longer be
> >able to name a Denker reprenstative. You will no longer have a state
> >champion,
> >etc.
>
> They will lose sleep over that Denker matter, let me tell you!
That IS a potential problem here. Our top scholastic player just broke 2000 and
has played in the Denker for the last two years (4.5-5.5) and won the right to play
in it this year. His parents are on the Scholastic Chess Organization board and I
don't think they are going to allow their kid to be sacked like a gambit pawn.
--
Warren Porter Remove digits
Sam Sloan
>> Best regards to the Legend of Nebraska chess!
>
> It that you or me? Perhaps both.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bruce
See how Bruce Draney just laps up compliments!
Sam Sloan
AlforChess
>No offense was
>really meant towards you by my comments Al. I hope none was taken. >>
None at all, Bruce. Never thought for a moment you were doing anything but
writing what you believed to be correct.
Regards, al
AlforChess
>
>Sam Sloan
Geez, Sam. This was gratuitous. Actually, Bruce demurred, as anyone can see.
I like Bruce and greatly admire what he's done for Nebraska chess. He has
accomplished real things that required giving considerably of his own time. He
deserves some compliments--that's all he'll ever get out of the work. He
certainly didn't profit from his work and didn't intend to. Why let all your
silly arguments with him detract from that?
And why am I bothering?.
Al
ASCACHESS
>has played in the Denker for the last two years (4.5-5.5) and won the right
>to play
>in it this year. His parents are on the Scholastic Chess Organization board
>and I
>don't think they are going to allow their kid to be sacked like a gambit
>pawn.
The goal of an alternative scholastic chess organization is not to put the USCF
out of business. Indeed, they are in business, but not for the specific
purpose of benefiting scholastic chess. It seems they are in business for the
purpose of keeping their sagging adult ship afloat.
If someone wants to hold a USCF only high school tournament to choose a Denker
representative, then more power to them. However, keeping state structures
USCF to benefit a tiny minority of kids will financially penalize the rest.
Richard Peterson
Tom Klem
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> pretending to be God wrote in message
> Yes Richard, and:
>
> Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you
> understand.
> Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a
> measuring line across it?
> On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone--
> while the morning stars sang together and all the angels [1] shouted
> for joy?
>
Got 'ligion, did yah? You did miss verse 4, by the way.
> The people who would like to see the USCF sink include Richard
> Peterson, Tom Klem and Stan Vaughan, plus I suspect that Tom Dorsch
> and Bruce Draney would like to see that happen too. I am not sure
> about Helen Warren.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
I suspect you know this already, but here goes anyway. IMHO, Stan Vaughan is
totally disinterested in Chess and is pursuing other career venues. He could
care less what blasphemies you come up with, or what antics you pull, or
what jail cells you occupy.
As far as I'm concerned, the USCF has to survive. And, I am doing everything
within my power to help keep them afloat. You see, Sam, the operative word
there is DOING. What have you done, lately for Chess? Ever?
The previously/continuously much maligned Richard Peterson, is an extremely
decent human being. One who you have continually lied about.
FYI. Lying was the first sin, and gardening the first occupation. Stop the
first, and try the second. You actually might enjoy your life.
Tom Klem
Bill Smythe
>That IS a potential problem here. Our top scholastic player just broke
2000 and
>has played in the Denker for the last two years (4.5-5.5) and won the right
to play
>in it this year.
______________
If the state association quits USCF, there will be no organization left to
name the Denker rep. I suspect that, in that case, USCF would find a way to
name the Denker rep from that state, rather than penalizing the kids for the
actions of the adults.
Bill Smythe
li...@ork.net
> I suspect you know this already, but here goes anyway. IMHO, Stan Vaughan is
> totally disinterested in Chess and is pursuing other career venues.
I think you meant to say "uninterested," not disinterested.
Tom Klem
<li...@ork.net> wrote in message news:FG_i6.5647$JG.7...@news.shore.net...
dis搏n暗er搪st搪d adj.
Free of bias and self-interest; impartial: "disinterested scientific opinion
on fluorides in the water supply" (Ellen R. Shell).
Not interested; indifferent: "supremely disinterested in all efforts to find
a peaceful solution" (C.L. Sulzberger).
Having lost interest.
Ok?
Tom Klem
StanB
<li...@ork.net> wrote in message
>
> Fascinating how the Virginia State Prison is located in New York City,
> which is the 718 Area Code.
Even more surprising is that NY does not have call forwarding.
StanB
Richard Crespo
wrote:
>Dear Mr. Crespo:
>
>I see from your post that you are unhappy about the current state of affairs
>in the USCF. So am I.
>
>But may I ask you - where were you when the Schultz administration was
>sowing, fertilizing, and watering the seeds of this current crisis? Where were
>you when they were furiously and desperately trying to silence those who
>had the audacity to point to looming severe financial problems, while at
>the same time assuring the masses that all was well?
Randy --
You wanted to know where I was during the Schultz
administration. I was playing in my very first USCF
tournament and getting my butt kicked (0-5).
Richard Crespo
=====
Richard Crespo
<jmc...@lanset.com> wrote:
>One final question: If the USCF is that bad off, what additional steps
>are YOU going to do to influence change within the organization (other
>than signing the recall peition and participating in the potential recall
>vote -- as far as I'm concerned it is a completely separate topic)?
>
>Many thanks for your consideration.
>
>John McCumiskey
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn
>the world, but to save the world through Him. John 3:17
John --
Other than signing the recall petitions and not
renewing Mississippi's and Louisiana's affiliate
memberhips, I am rewriting the petition to recall Tim
Redmann specifically for his disastrous TLA policies,
and am answering honestly the questions from the news
group about the reasons for my actions. My hope is
that I can at least sow the seeds to bring about
changes in the policies of the USCF and that I can
reach others of the same opinions who will also take
steps to help bring about these changes.
Phil Innes
<the...@nospamlvcm.com> wrote:
>
> <li...@ork.net> wrote in message news:FG_i6.5647$JG.7...@news.shore.net...
>> Tom Klem <the...@nospamlvcm.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I suspect you know this already, but here goes anyway. IMHO, Stan
> Vaughan is
>> > totally disinterested in Chess and is pursuing other career venues.
>>
>> I think you meant to say "uninterested," not disinterested.
>>
>
> dis·in·ter·est·ed adj.
>
> Free of bias and self-interest; impartial: "disinterested scientific opinion
> on fluorides in the water supply" (Ellen R. Shell).
>
> Not interested; indifferent: "supremely disinterested in all efforts to find
> a peaceful solution" (C.L. Sulzberger).
>
> Having lost interest.
>
> Ok?
>
> Tom Klem
tom - to a european disinterested means not having any finincial basis in
the result. uninterested means that the subject is not stimulating or
engaging. neither is right nor wrong as such (see below the sig.,) but your
sources are eccentric for modern usage thereof
phil
ps - the word has an interesting origin in anglo-sax
Interesse meant to 'implicate'
and Spenser uses the term 'Interdeal' which meant any traffic, intercourse,
or dealing between persons
Tom Klem
Current usage in America is about all I can stuff into my little head.
Tom Klem
"Phil Innes" <in...@together.net> wrote in message
news:WKuj6.1428$RH6.5...@nntp3.onemain.com...
ches...@mindspring.com
cavemanchess wrote in message ...
>I agree that they will have a limited success for a time. I would hope
that
>Mr. Crespo could see the opportunities he loses and that he would actually
>talk to some of us instead to share ideas.
But Kevin, why would he want to talk to people here? As soon as Crespo
announced his action someone posted false information regarding his failing
a TD exam in an attempt to discredit him.
Just as someone has previously posted false information that some master has
gotten state federation funds to teach one of his children.
Neil Brennen